I really dont care who is right or who wrong, but I remember being taught in school that the big bang was a part of evolution. so... if you look past the fact that the big bang is not biology and evolution is, then what is the problem? schools teach them as if theyre part of the same theory and thats what Kent Hovind is talking about. so why is he being made a target here? shouldnt you just be using your time correcting the real problem? however useless your efforts would be. just wondering...
If you were taught that in school, your school sucked. However, Hovind has been told that he is wrong on this topic dozens of times and does not correct it. That means he is lying
They do fit the definition of "evolution" by the definitions provided. He never claimed that the first 4 were biological in nature. This is what is called a straw man. The maker of this video is so deluded into this theory that he has to make a string of logical fallacies to defend it.
Kent Hovinds son is a wormy little moron as well, he picked up daddies Christian business after he got locked up. It's funny how they turn their nonsense into a family business that can be passed down like a liquor store. What actually makes me very sad , is that people are really dumb enough to support these lying morons. I mean how dumb would someone have to be, to support some idiot with phony degrees and absolutely no understanding of the topics he's refuting, so shameful.
I'm glad I live in Britain where only 7% of the population go to church regularly. We Brits generally just don't give a shit and now I'm glad about that.
"One professor said 'Hovind you're so stupid.....'" Fucking douchebag can't even get that fact right. I'm pretty sure THOUSANDS have said that.Kent. How many gullible minds has this CONman knowingly warped with his creationist Bullshit.
But there is a BIG, no, an ENORMOUS grammar mistake at around 0:45, you just can't say "absurd hovindism" as that is a obvious case of pleonasm, AKA redundancy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The major leaders of Christian or Creation apologetics basically agree with what Hovind is saying. He is not the ONLY one who says what he says most of the other creation scientists have done the same research he has done, so would you PLEASE stop calling it "Hovindism", because he is not starting an abusive cult like Islam or Communism, but he's only trying to win your heart to the Lord.
Actually most Creationists think Hovind is an embarrasment to Christianity. Answers in Genesis (YECs) called him a "false professional". A section on their website entitled "Arguments we think creationists should not use" contains many of Hovind's claims.
Dr. Hugh Ross and the Old-Earth creationists seriously disagree with Hovind. Apologeticist William Lane Craig calls Special (YEC) Creationism "magic" and "not plausible."
"Win your heart?" He's trying to brainwash kids & take your money.
I find endogenous retroviral insertions to be absolutely compelling for common descent. I have never had any creationist offer any compelling explanation because
1. the odds of it randomly occurring are less than 1 in the number of atoms in the universe.
2. there is no good reason for a creator to just randomly place broken pieces of viral dna junk in matching places in different species. Unless the creator's intent is deception. If so, he's an evil bastard.
Every living thing has a common ancestor to another, therefore the banana TREE had a common ancestor with the lion, and the lion and tiger certainly did have a common ancestor.
A common ancestor isn't only a direct link between two animals, if we take, for example a lion and a banana tree we would have to follow the phylogenetic tree back to where the split between both ancestors occured, and that would be the common ancestor. We may not have example for the common ancestor of a banana tree and lion, but that's fine.
I'm not following this debate but I would like to correct you on point 1.
1) Mutations are almost always NEUTRAL, not harmful which is a huge common misconception by creationists. You have a dozen mutations that make you different from your parents, and many more that make you different from your grandparents. You may be aware of very little of them, but there are many you absolutely had no idea of since they are neutral.
2) The point was that "macroevolution" is just "microevolution" over long periods of time. To believe in one and not the other is irrational.
3)It demonstrates that a homogenous subject can split over time into two distinct subjects without any guidance or design AND without any breaks in continuity.
1) Do you agree with the definition of evolution as assigned to it by Charles Darwin?
2) What evidence can you provide to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a line and a apple had a common ancestor?
3) How can you explain the increasing complexity and clear evidence of design, without a designer? Where did the information to build the complex systems that we see today come from?
Darwin's key assertion from "Origin of the Species" is that by the process of Natural selection all the living things that we see have been produced. ie ALL living things have a common ancestor.
ie: Dirt + Natural Selection + "billions" of years = the complex living things that we see today.
« Darwin's key assertion from "Origin of the Species" is that »
Two things:
1. I wouldn't call it a mere assertion: he *concludes* this, based on the evidence he lists in "Origin". It is a logical consequence of the model he details in this book.
2. I wouldn't call it a *key* conclusion either: it's *a* conclusion, certainly, but there are others in the book that are just as fascinating.
« Dirt + Natural Selection + "billions" of years »
That's a simplistic misrepresentation, and you know it. If you're going to comment on science, then comment on the science, and not on the lies other people tell about it.
« What evidence can you provide to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a line and a apple had a common ancestor? »
Phylogenetic trees based on any sequence in their respective genomes will time and again confirm their location in the tree of life, showing their shared ancestry.
The fossil record certainly supports the model that explains and predicts the relation between apple and lion. But so do phylogenetic trees, and scores of other observations.
Phew. Best get some background info into you first. Start reading here: wiki/Phylogenetics. Basically its a molecular analysis resulting into an overview of the nested hierarchies including the species being tested. The tree allows you to see which species have had a more recent and which a more distant common ancestor.
Yes. You can obviously not envision the way that complexity can emerge from simple systems. I encourage you to study the concept of emergence through the 'Game of Life', specifically 'Langston's Ant', and also you might benefit from studying the various applications of the genetic algorithm, in both research and engineering.
I am an electrical engineer. And I KNOW that system do NOT make themselves. Information does NOT materialise out of thin air. If we don't spend time and effort designing and building our systems they will NEVER build themselves.
It is wishful thinking that you can have a design without a designer no mater how you dress it up in fanciful words.
If we found 1 bold and nut on Mars - we would conclude there was intelligent life there.
Well, they do make themselves if you model a solution space and apply an evolutionary algorithm (GA, which I told you to study). Yes, you have to provide the initial parameters yourself, but then evolutionary theory does not comment on the origin of life either; only the origin of species.
If you're an electrical engineer, then I'm assuming you know the merits a computer simulation can provide. Ask yourself this, then. Would it not be possible to set up a simulation in which an "organism" can respond to its "environment", according to the rules of evolution? Not only is this possible, it is actually quite easy to do. Now, if you see these "organisms" evolving in front of your eyes, are they not acquiring "information" on their own accord?
With all due respect. I do not understand what you are trying to say. It seems that you are asserting that because we can create computer programs which simulate some systems; that this "proves evolution." This is NOT CORRECT.
The programs/simulation we design and build can be designed to do anything the programmer wants. Note that the programmer needs to build the program. IT DOES NOT BUILD ITSELF.
« The programs/simulation we design and build can be designed to do anything the programmer wants »
The programmed genetic algorithms do no more than initialise the process of reproductive variation and provide selection parameters. They do not front-load the design for a solution, even if a solution is requested by the system. In other words, while the initial conditions are provided by the programmer, the end result DOES build itself: it EVOLVES.
Hey mr engineer ever heard of evolutionary computing? evolution is being used to develop better more strudy computer programs. I suggest you destroy your computer and build one yourself from scratch cause the one you're using is based on wishful thinking and is an evil computer.
Electrical engineer.... pfft i bet if i asked you to solve a circuit you wouldn't even be able to.
One more aside; I think part of the difficulty you are having in imagining the process of evolution is in that you are imagining systems WE build for a specific purpose. Granted, evolution would likely never produce a complex system that is exactly like one you might design. This is because the evolutionary path a species may take is completely unpredictable, as chaos theory shows. However, that is not to say that the entire PROCESS is random; merely the result.
computers are not alive they do not die they do not reproduce with a variation, you analogy is faulty.
You're an electrical engineer? can i ask you help with nyquist stability then? I need to give an exam on system stability i forgot wether one had to use the open loop function or the closed loop function. And while you're at it tell me what function to use in bode diagrams as well mr electrical engineer. (i don't believe for a second you're one)
I can assure you that I am a qualified Electrical engineer and also a legally qualified teacher. But this is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue is that Evolution is being taught as a "fact" when it is really a religion. There is some evidence to support it; but the evidence is definitely not conclusive and requires a giant leap of faith.
It takes less faith to believe Genesis when it states "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
incorrect. religions appeal to the supernatural for explanations of unknown phenomena and asks philosophical "why's". evolution (and modern science altogether) makes no comment on the supernatural, and is more concerned with "how's."
"requires a giant leap of faith"
there is no "belief" in science because there's no "faith" in science; every claim requires *evidence*. the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming; even Pope John Paul II admitted this.
Dodgin' the question... dodgin the question.... hey how about i send you a pic of a circuit trough pm and you tell me what that circuit does? I'm just asking you for proof so let me test your claims ^^
you know we tend not to believe claims unless proof is given ^^ hovind also claimed having a Ph.D and having taught high school for years, altough he would fail high school science class, and when he went and faced his accusations they put him in jail XD
« how come we cannot reproduce these systems when we apply all our technology to this task? »
But we can replicate evolution. We see new traits develop through evolution in nature; we can reproduce the circumstances and the results in the lab; we can simulate evolution on a larger timescale using computers. All these observations confirm the accuracy of the model.
« Where did the information to build the complex systems that we see today come from? »
Evolution encodes environmental information into the genome. Can't be sure that that's the kind of information you mean, but if not, then please explain what you *do* mean by "information".
If I through a bucket of balls on the floor, the result is a random mess. If you came to a room and saw the balls organised in the shape of Australia. What would you conclude? That someONE used their intelligence to place the balls in the order which conveys design.
We observed things naturally decreasing in order (2nd law of thermodynamics). From order to disorder. Evolution asserts the opposite. That from disorder we have increasing order and complexity.
You are utterly unaware of what you are talking about. EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM! Given replication with modification the organisms most suited to the environment will reproduce more than those less suited thereby producing more surviving offspring with those advantageous traits while others without them die. This will result in the appearance of this organism being designed to fit the ecological niche it currently resides in.
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system entropy must increase. What you do not understand is that with the application of energy to an open system (earth) entropy can be reduced in that open system while total entropy of the closed system (the universe) still increases. This is a phenomenon know as emergence or emergent complexity. If this where not true how could ordered solids like crystals and snowflakes form?
I cannot comment on the correctness or otherwise of what you are saying.
What is obvious and observable is that systems go from order to disorder, not the other way around. Dressing it up in "fancy dancy" scientific jargon does not change that fact
It is obvious that some systems go from disorder to order.
If that were not so how could you be alive? The various atoms and molecules that make up your body were once disordered in your digestive tract but the chemical processes of your cells utilized these to create vital proteins and new cells with great order and complexity. If order could only decrease, even in an open system, then you could not possibly be alive.
let me ask you something xgra...if things always move towards disorder...How exactly do you have children?...thats an example of making order from non-order...you clearly dont understand that the 2nd law says "IN A CLOSED SYSTEM...." so in other words, if no energy is added, this move to disorder....but hey guess what....there is a giant ball of energy pumping its goodness to the earth 24/7
Exactly the point I made in a previous comment. If evolution is impossible, then any kind of growth is impossible. So even if the fact that we can OBSERVE evolution is not enough; simply consult the laws of physics, and you'll see why creationists should go back to school.
The second law of thermodynamics has absolutely nothing to do with complexity. If I grow up from a small child to a young adult and all of a sudden I can run faster than I could, doesn't this destroy your version of the second law of thermodynamics? If your definition of the second law of thermodynamics is wrong, examples of it would be wrong too.
I don't know what you are getting so upset about. If you are so obsessed with EVIDENCE. What evidence can you provide that a lion had the same ancestor as flee, which is what Darwinian evolution asserts. Evolutionists are the ones doing the "believing".
I agree with Kent that evolution is the great deception of the 20th century.
The definition of "Evolution" is vague and differs from one publication/person to another. The effective definition that I was taught in school was what some call Darwinian evolution. The core tennant of Darwinian evolution is that ALL living things had a common ancestor.
I have looked but could not find credible scientific evidence to support Darwinian evolution. It seems that Evolutionist think they can hide behind big sounding scientific words. I am not buying it
the scientific definition of evolution is anything but vague and it only differs amongst the laymen. the scientific definition of evolution is a very exact. evolution happens it's a fact it's the mechanism behind it that's theory. If you haven't found anything your not looking you're looking and ignoring.
1. I will use evolutionism until evolutionism goes away. If u don't like it like I say before don't respond or move on.
2. Whoever is all these persons accept evolutionism(stupidism), they do it because they have to live outside of reality in order not to get emotional. Evolutionism never can not, will not happen is impossible, so either you don't know what your talking about(more Likely) or you do and don't care(lying).
It's not here to begin with. It doesn't mean anything, and you haven't defined it. You're using it alternatingly to describe biological sciences, acceptance of scientific findings, and atheism. Define the term, or stop using it.
"is impossible"
Evolution happens; it is observed. Evolutionary theory exists: it was formulated to describe and explain evolution.
Evolutionism equals stupidity, an animal turning to another(never ever observed, imagine yes, could it happen not in this lifetime, but imagine yes), a kind(genus) changing from species to species while remaining the same kind and not changing morphologically.
"Evolution happens; it is observed. Evolutionary theory exists: it was formulated to describe and explain evolution. "
You are not fooling anyone with that comment I've heard that with nothing to back it up except
Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385.
Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942.
Lang, D. et al., 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
You must be happy for all I know you were searching for the papers, anyway your not the only one who reads the claims put forth by evolutionism. Here is a list of folks that reject Evolutionisms the list is long but it should tell you what I've been telling you we don't buy this anymore.
Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.
Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery, 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
Ohta, T., 2003. Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins. Genetica 118(2-3): 209-216.
Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin and C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471.
Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
Schneider, T. D., 2000. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Research 28(14): 2794-2799.
"Inomata 2005, Evolution of amylase in Drosophila"
What they don't tell you sucker boy is that is still the same kind of bacteria, except the information inside helps it adapt to its environment thus proving our side it remains the same kind of micro thing. Why do sucker fools believe that bacteria is the way to go and better than humans beats me well it was fun emotional wreck it was fun.
Genetics ha how about the Hox gene could you explain to me why the Hox gene on humans and apes are in different chromosomes and in different places in the chromosomes. How just a few years ago we go form 98 to 95 percent similarities, or how about the fact that that humans possesses 200,000 proteins 80% are not found in apes.
Every so call assertions made by evolutionism is mainly shoot down by evos mouth and other real scientists. You got a lot of study to do swallower.
Except for the HOX D genes, residing on C#13 in apes, they're actually in the same locations as in humans. And it has been confirmed that somewhere between 5 million years ago and now, C#2 and C#13 merged to form the human C#2, explaining why the HOX D sequences are both different in location and in composition.
Right your right that chimps and humans share similarities by 2 chromosome difference, heck even gorillas have 48 chromosomes as chimps, but so does the potato and tobacco, are you about to suggests we are related to the potato and tobacco, or how about canis familiaris has 78 chromosomes and the Gallus gallus has 78 chromosomes, one is a bird the other a dog are they the same too.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that even a yoghurt-brain like you would think that our genetic traits are determined by the number of chromosomes we have. Are you sure you don't want to remove your comment, and show people that you've either slept through your entire highschool biology course or simply didn't finish highschool at all?
That's not what I say x-man and you know it what did I say? why don't you write the entire comment? I said "are you about to suggests we are related to the potato and tobacco". Sorry to break it to you but all hox genes are in separate places, because the hox gene those are the genes that determine morphology, guess what genetics verify thats fatal, and when it happens to an human embryo he dies when hes born, it cant happen, so no you swallow and don't study a whole lot, go back to class.
For some reason, you brought up the potato, based on its chromosome count. Why on Earth you would think this relevant, I can't fathom, but you did, so I thought I'd just take a quick snipe at you.
Now, you may either explain for what reason you brought up the potato, or you can continue responding to my comment about our HOX genes having essentially the same locations as in the other apes, except for where C#2 and C#13 got fused.
there are genetic disorders when it happens to people it shows after they become an adult such a genetic mistake it causes growth deformity in people that are dysfunctional. Now Natural Selection will weed such organisms out of the gene pool they will die because they are dysfunctional and unfit to survive. So you see natural selection argues against the idea of Macro-Evolutionism because the HOX gene of apes and Humans are in different locations this is empirical evidence, continue.
« natural selection argues against the idea of Macro »
No, while many mutations are detrimental to the chances of an organism reproducing successfully, most mutations are indeed neutral, and a very few even beneficial to the organism. That they are few is no problem, as they are selected for by the environment. But you know this, because you already accept micro-evolution - which is evolution over shorter periods.
"No, while many mutations are detrimental to the chances of an organism reproducing successfully, most mutations are indeed neutral"
Boy you are non thinker aren't you, you just stated many are detrimental and in the next you say most mutations are indeed neutral. Check this out once the mutations is noticed by one or two generations is gone, because of the design of the creature, so no mutations advenced nothing none. it correct itself, think think.
Yes; in fact I said: many mutations are detrimental to the chances of an organism reproducing successfully, most mutations are indeed neutral, and a very few even beneficial to the organism. Which is observable in nature, and thus fact. What is your problem? The English language perhaps?
I don't disagree that mutations happen of course to all of us it happens. But mutations are not information or part of the genome. The Hox gene which deals Morphology , which is form and structure, not pattern, size or color. Mutations are not part of the genome, once the organism gets a mutation it will correct it by one or several generations. You've been studying a lot of voodoo science, most mutations, causes weakness, sickness or death. I already told you I am not doing your homework.
« But mutations are not information or part of the genome »
Wrong on two counts:
1. Mutations happen in the genome, so of course they're part of the genome. Don't be silly.
2. If a mutation gets selected for by environmental pressures, and as a result becomes fixed in the population, then it does convey information. Mind you, it isn't the mutation itself that adds the information to the genome: it's the selection.
Mutations mainly happen as the result of the sun rays, so random mutations happen to us all. Hahaha you think DNA is simple boy you most of lost all your mind. DNA is the most complex thing known to man, and we barely have scratch the surface. You know what is the most complex thing devised by man, is the code to Microsoft Windows, but that doesn't even come close to DNA. DNA is comprised of information from one end to the other, Information is a product only of intelligence, not nothing. Evos
Mutations happen because nature is not a precision mechanism. Replication of DNA is a chemical process, and the motions of atoms are not mechanically determined, but more browsian. So accidents happen extreme frequency. In fact, each new human carries an average 160 mutations that are part of neither parent's genome. So that's 160 new mutations in the species genome per new human, multiplied by 6 billion for every 20 years. That's a lot of variation.
Wolf-Hirsch horn syndrome was first documented in 1961: a child with mid line fusion defects. Subsequent cytogenetic studies revealed a chromosomal deletion of the short arm of chromosome 4. Clinical features include mental retardation, seizures, distinct facial appearance, and mid line closure defects. The former Pitt-Rogers-Danks syndromes, caused by overlapping 4p deletions, now are considered as a part of Wolf-Hirsch horn syndrome.
DNA's supporting systems use algorithms to store information. This is empirical evidence of supernatural design because algorithms and information are products only of intelligence and cannot be produced by nature. Therefore, "evolution" could not be the origin of DNA. This is proof, empirical evidence, that DNA has a SUPER natural origin.
If you believe otherwise and you continue rejecting it you have a serious problem.
« This is empirical evidence of supernatural design »
That is a contradictio in terminis. There can be no scientific evidence for the supernatural, as science cannot and does not comment on the supernatural. The supernatural is PER DEFINITION that which cannot be tested, verified or falsified, ie. that for which there is NO EVIDENCE.
No, rather it is you who has a simplistic view of DNA, replication and variation, in thinking that there is some magical repair mechanism that prevents copying errors from forming, and suppresses them ultimately when they do form. While in fact repair mechanisms exist in the DNA, and they're quite good, they themselves are part of the large chemical engine that is the cell, and therefore prone to errors. Simply put: DNA replication is not perfect, and never can be.
We can examine a bacterial flagellum and know it could only exist fully-formed. We know DNA is a product of design because of it's properties! We know all structures in the cell (and in the entire organism) are code-based! The info to produce them exists in the DNA . But DNA cannot be reproduced by a cell which is not fully-functional. This is a chicken-and-egg problem that proves both had to exist as is in the beginning. They are dependent upon each other! That's a little of what we know.
« We can examine a bacterial flagellum and know it could only exist fully-formed »
Wrong. It has been examined, and reduced to its components, which can exist independently from the flagellum, performing other functions. Id est, the flagellum is not irreducibly complex, period.
DNA is an information medium of stupefying complexity stored with algorithms which contains sequences of information stored in the most complex and compact manner possible which defines the structure and function of the features and biochemistry of an organism. Man can build a string of nucleotides. Man cannot create DNA
Creating something and duplicating a small string of nucleotides is not the same thing.
You have a lot to study and definitely you need to stop swallowing.
The human genome has deteriorated over time, as have those of all life. The fossil record supports this. In the past, organisms were giant compared to their modern examples. Mutations since the flood have deteriorated the genetics of all forms of life.
You believe otherwise because it helps you support your worldview of whatever, evolutionists don't even know what to believe but evolutionism is dead you hang to it.
So, in order to maintain your cognitive dissonance you are now allowing yourself to believe that size equals complexity, right? Boy, you have problems. Your religious beliefs are making you insane.
The fossil records shows us many examples of living fossils that were huge, now they are small. I see you are scrambling for anything to say but unfortunately you don't. DNA is not just chemicals put together by random chance as I explained that's impossible times impossible, boy what a fantasy you live in. Here is Richard Dawkins
False! The majority of mutations are deleterious, which is damage. Single nucleotide deleterious mutations are the most dangerous, and often fatal. Relatively few mutations are harmless. It's a good thing God put 3 levels of error correction into DNA's supporting systems (an intelligent process evolution could never produce and which by itself discredits evolutionism), otherwise, there would be no life surviving on the earth!
But death is another hero of evolutionism is the way to get ahead.
False. Read up on the material. The large majority of mutations is neutral. Let's call it 95%. Then there's some 4.5% deleterious or otherwise detrimental mutations, the majority of which cause so little harm that it's not even noticable. Then there's some 0.5% of beneficial mutations, the majority of which benefit us so little it's not even noticable. A minority of a minority does convey a noticable benefit to us.
Mathematics has verified that the odds of a single smaller protien arising by random molecular interaction is 10^950 - that's 1 to a number greater than everyt particle of matter in the known universe. According to the precepts of science, this is impossible times impossible times impossible.
Everything we know about mutation from the millions of experiments that have been performed and are performed every day in universities around the world, demonstrates to us that they cause weakness, deformity, and death, but never new structures or increased health. Our genome is deteriorating, as are those of all life forms on the Earth.
In the past, roaches were 18" long. This kind of change has occurred to all life. The fossils prove it. There has been no evolution, only degradation.
« demonstrates to us that they cause weakness, deformity, and death, but never new structures »
And that is simply a lie. Whether you came up with this lie yourself or simply copy/pasted it from some creationist website is irrelevant, as YOU posted it here, and YOU had the responsibility to make the claims YOU post as accurate as you could make them. If you can't be bothered to do that, then piss off.
Change to DNA does not constitute evolution. There is no known example of new information becoming part of the DNA. Even Richard Dawkins was asked to cite an example, but could not. DNA changes because of mutation, but mutation is damage to the code, always deleterious of the information therein.
As explained before, the change in allelle frequencies within populations from one generation to the next is the DEFINITION of evolution.
« Even Richard Dawkins was asked to? cite an example, but could not »
I find that rather hard to believe, since every lifeform continuously evolves and this is easily demonstrable even without a scientific background. Must be another example of dishonest creationist copy/pasting.
« once the organism gets a mutation it will correct it by one or several generations »
Ehr, now you're just making stuff up. Listen, I'm okay with you not accepting this stuff, but if the only way you can do that is by making stuff up or lying about stuff, then you'd better simply get off the internet altogether.
You know what your problem is I know you've seen the evidence that shreds your assumptions, and assertions backed by only assertions. The problem is that the real evidence you've seen already destroys your worldview of evolutionism, and it threatens it. So maybe you need to stop using the internet no wait use it, it may help stop that denialism, because is deep in the toilet of evolutionism, and stupidity.
That's the problem right there, no no is not true I refuse to see the evidence, too bad x-man even evo scientists admit mutations are bad, and not part of the genome, stop being emotional. Furthermore you are from the netherlands right ok you bet square yourself because you are about to be over run by muslims. These people will have your head if you don't convert be careful.
"LOLMAO". The 'Ehr' I put in front of my reaction should have told you that I thought you said a silly thing. You are correct in assuming I deny silly things.
No, mutations do not peter out within a generation or two. Usually, when it's not selected against, it's there to stay, save for accidents, disasters, etc.
I don't believe our narrator is reaching his target audience here... He is trying to talk to creationists that are largely low grade high school graduates that did not pay attention in biology class... You cannot talk to these people on a college level when they are unable to understand on a high school level...
The people that believe the bible can not be reasoned with.They will distort the truth, out right lie as convicted felon Mr. Hovind is famous for.This to them is ok because when science and the word of god conflict, the word of god allways wins.
if creationists want 'fairness', then science classrooms should teach not only judaeo-christian creation myths but ALL the thousands of creation myths from different religions and cultures!
that way, we let the children see ALL sides of the story and LET THEM CHOOSE WHAT TO BELIEVE.
Hi, fellow masochist (I'm assuming you must be since you are asking for Hovind's videos).
Hovind recycles his material (hum... maybe recycle is not the right word, since it doesn't stop being trash), but one of the videos containing this material is "100 reasons why evolution is stupid".
Be warned about the rather silly and childish sense of humor (essentially repeating the word stupid every 5 seconds).
This has been flagged as spam show
Is that VenomFangX at 7:56???
SlashDotDash121 1 week ago
I really dont care who is right or who wrong, but I remember being taught in school that the big bang was a part of evolution. so... if you look past the fact that the big bang is not biology and evolution is, then what is the problem? schools teach them as if theyre part of the same theory and thats what Kent Hovind is talking about. so why is he being made a target here? shouldnt you just be using your time correcting the real problem? however useless your efforts would be. just wondering...
Wittykipz 1 month ago
@Wittykipz
If you were taught that in school, your school sucked. However, Hovind has been told that he is wrong on this topic dozens of times and does not correct it. That means he is lying
Ruudsosalsa 2 weeks ago
They do fit the definition of "evolution" by the definitions provided. He never claimed that the first 4 were biological in nature. This is what is called a straw man. The maker of this video is so deluded into this theory that he has to make a string of logical fallacies to defend it.
NewVinland 6 months ago
Kent Hovinds son is a wormy little moron as well, he picked up daddies Christian business after he got locked up. It's funny how they turn their nonsense into a family business that can be passed down like a liquor store. What actually makes me very sad , is that people are really dumb enough to support these lying morons. I mean how dumb would someone have to be, to support some idiot with phony degrees and absolutely no understanding of the topics he's refuting, so shameful.
ThePuzzler81 8 months ago 2
The long lost ancestor of wolves is actually dolphins- and the long lost ancestor of a hippo is a killer whale
EgadsNo 10 months ago
hmm. big bang theory is described by evolution. that twat must walk around all day with his fingers in his ears LALALAlLA
spaceghost1313 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
naneedj.infoI am very easygoing and I like nature
surangiable 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
naneedj.info I am looking for a man with good values
MrSabeetha 1 year ago
I'm glad I live in Britain where only 7% of the population go to church regularly. We Brits generally just don't give a shit and now I'm glad about that.
MrReasonFTW 1 year ago
7:59
An ancient, primitive, genocided people just kicked Hovind's ass at science, doesn't that say something?
MrReasonFTW 1 year ago
Really well made video. Great information and research done.
Samuelwhatshisface 1 year ago
anybody ever feel like smacking creationist, especially hovind?
patrickledford420 1 year ago 2
looks like Kent's definitions came back to bite ya in the ass because the Big Bang theory is a bust... have a nice day evolutionists! lmao
novastrike81 1 year ago
@novastrike81 >"Big Bang theory is a bust"
Too bad, that you forgot to mention any sources for that claim... :D
smarthandsomeguy 1 year ago
"One professor said 'Hovind you're so stupid.....'" Fucking douchebag can't even get that fact right. I'm pretty sure THOUSANDS have said that.Kent. How many gullible minds has this CONman knowingly warped with his creationist Bullshit.
1961mojo 1 year ago
Excellent video guys, as usual.
But there is a BIG, no, an ENORMOUS grammar mistake at around 0:45, you just can't say "absurd hovindism" as that is a obvious case of pleonasm, AKA redundancy.
Just wanted to point that out, lol
tommytalks77 2 years ago 2
Excellent thanks
gordonthegopher666 2 years ago 2
At the rate of one Hovindism a week, Kent will be out of prison before you finish this series.
tctheunbeliever 2 years ago 5
@tctheunbeliever hahahahahaha...
kusalaviro 1 year ago
Hopefully Mr. Hovind is studying up on Biology while he's in prison. Give him something to do.
razieldumas 2 years ago 17
@razieldumas
haha, I the the other inmates will bet too busy "studying" his "biology".
ionz75 2 years ago 2
@razieldumas I doubt he is...
kusalaviro 1 year ago
@razieldumas If by biology you mean getting fucked by a guy name Molly, yeah studying biology.
MrReasonFTW 1 year ago
@razieldumas he is an expert now on male biology
playadominical 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The major leaders of Christian or Creation apologetics basically agree with what Hovind is saying. He is not the ONLY one who says what he says most of the other creation scientists have done the same research he has done, so would you PLEASE stop calling it "Hovindism", because he is not starting an abusive cult like Islam or Communism, but he's only trying to win your heart to the Lord.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Actually most Creationists think Hovind is an embarrasment to Christianity. Answers in Genesis (YECs) called him a "false professional". A section on their website entitled "Arguments we think creationists should not use" contains many of Hovind's claims.
Dr. Hugh Ross and the Old-Earth creationists seriously disagree with Hovind. Apologeticist William Lane Craig calls Special (YEC) Creationism "magic" and "not plausible."
"Win your heart?" He's trying to brainwash kids & take your money.
gmn545 2 years ago 5
Comment removed
manhunt48 2 years ago
Ignorant Christians: "Oh i believe that, why? because i can
Smart Christians: "I believe that because the evidence shows this *shows good evidence*
DarkZerkerX 2 years ago
what was the red herring reference?
CrowServo3000 2 years ago
A red herring is bringing something up that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, if that is what you are asking.
CENSOREDFORSEX 2 years ago
Just something fishy, I think.
But then again, I'm Swedish, so I might not understand every weird reference.
floppaboppa 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
just because you find "facts" in a book, or libray will not make it true...
JESUSFreeck 2 years ago
You know it's funny you should say that--we find our facts in books backed up with evidence.... You find your "facts" in a book with none.
eicebleu 2 years ago 20
... don't you get your facts from the bible. FAIL!
1Gaumer 2 years ago
@JESUSFreeck - This is true. The bible is a prime example.
Crake777 2 years ago
I find endogenous retroviral insertions to be absolutely compelling for common descent. I have never had any creationist offer any compelling explanation because
1. the odds of it randomly occurring are less than 1 in the number of atoms in the universe.
2. there is no good reason for a creator to just randomly place broken pieces of viral dna junk in matching places in different species. Unless the creator's intent is deception. If so, he's an evil bastard.
N4mddissent 2 years ago 3
Kent does NOT have internet or email access in prison.
theot58 2 years ago
he should. he would then be able to enlighten the world with his advanced scientific discoveries and perhaps cure AIDS and Cancer.
rastarigate 2 years ago
As usual, another sarcastic and arrogant attempt at a rebuttal. This video rebuttal fails on so many levels.
RodneyVoelker 2 years ago
Evidence that a lion and an apple had a common ancestor? Their DNA is made of the same 4 molecules.
Clear evidence of design? There is none.
1) Do you doubt that mutations occur and environmental forces act upon them when they are expressed in the phenotype?
2) Do you believe that it is possible to walk 10 feet but impossible to walk 100 miles?
3) Do you believe someone intentionally guided our current English from Anglo Saxon?
N4mddissent 2 years ago
Refering to your numbered points:
1) Mutations are almost always destructive. Mutations do not provide compelling "proof" of Macro evolution.
2) This is a silly analogy. Because I can walk 10 feet does not mean I can walk 100,000 miles. What you trying to say?
3) Just because the English languages changes over time does NOT provide compelling evidence that a banana and lion had a common ancestor.
Again I ask, What is the compelling scientific evidence supporting Darwinian Evolution?
theot58 2 years ago
Mutations occour all the time.
Mutation + Natural Selection = Increase of Information.
Macro Evolution is the compliment of micro evolution.
Incase you can walk 10 feet you can walk 100,000 miles, you just need time.
The banana and the lion did not have a common ancestor.
The Human and the chimp however did.
The Lion and the Tiger probably had, I'm not sure on this though.
You want proof? Search for it, there is millions of legimate articles supporting evolution with proof and evidence.
Deadandlivin 2 years ago
Every living thing has a common ancestor to another, therefore the banana TREE had a common ancestor with the lion, and the lion and tiger certainly did have a common ancestor.
MusicHypno 2 years ago
It depends on our definition of a common ancestor.
A common ancestor is the creature from which you micro evolved from. Humankind and Chimpans had a common ancestor as both were born from it.
A banana tree and a lion did not share a direct common ancestor as a common ancestor could not have given birth a tree and a lion.
All forms of biological life however do share a first relative ancestor created through the means of abiogenesis.
Deadandlivin 2 years ago
A common ancestor isn't only a direct link between two animals, if we take, for example a lion and a banana tree we would have to follow the phylogenetic tree back to where the split between both ancestors occured, and that would be the common ancestor. We may not have example for the common ancestor of a banana tree and lion, but that's fine.
MusicHypno 2 years ago
I'm not following this debate but I would like to correct you on point 1.
1) Mutations are almost always NEUTRAL, not harmful which is a huge common misconception by creationists. You have a dozen mutations that make you different from your parents, and many more that make you different from your grandparents. You may be aware of very little of them, but there are many you absolutely had no idea of since they are neutral.
MusicHypno 2 years ago
Here's how it relatest.
1) Mutations are usually neutral. You're wrong.
2) The point was that "macroevolution" is just "microevolution" over long periods of time. To believe in one and not the other is irrational.
3)It demonstrates that a homogenous subject can split over time into two distinct subjects without any guidance or design AND without any breaks in continuity.
N4mddissent 2 years ago
Watch "This is Why Every Scientist Accepts Evolution" by DonExodus2.
kommissarw 2 years ago
1) Do you agree with the definition of evolution as assigned to it by Charles Darwin?
2) What evidence can you provide to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a line and a apple had a common ancestor?
3) How can you explain the increasing complexity and clear evidence of design, without a designer? Where did the information to build the complex systems that we see today come from?
Please explain
theot58 2 years ago
« Do you agree with the definition of evolution as assigned to it by Charles Darwin? »
Being?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Darwin's key assertion from "Origin of the Species" is that by the process of Natural selection all the living things that we see have been produced. ie ALL living things have a common ancestor.
ie: Dirt + Natural Selection + "billions" of years = the complex living things that we see today.
theot58 2 years ago
« Darwin's key assertion from "Origin of the Species" is that »
Two things:
1. I wouldn't call it a mere assertion: he *concludes* this, based on the evidence he lists in "Origin". It is a logical consequence of the model he details in this book.
2. I wouldn't call it a *key* conclusion either: it's *a* conclusion, certainly, but there are others in the book that are just as fascinating.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« Dirt + Natural Selection + "billions" of years »
That's a simplistic misrepresentation, and you know it. If you're going to comment on science, then comment on the science, and not on the lies other people tell about it.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« What evidence can you provide to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a line and a apple had a common ancestor? »
Phylogenetic trees based on any sequence in their respective genomes will time and again confirm their location in the tree of life, showing their shared ancestry.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
It is interesting that the "fossil record" was not your answer as has been the usual response in the past.
Can you explain your answer or point as to where your answer is explained as stringing together a group of scientific sounding words proves nothing.
theot58 2 years ago
« "fossil record" was not your answer »
The fossil record certainly supports the model that explains and predicts the relation between apple and lion. But so do phylogenetic trees, and scores of other observations.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« explain »
Phew. Best get some background info into you first. Start reading here: wiki/Phylogenetics. Basically its a molecular analysis resulting into an overview of the nested hierarchies including the species being tested. The tree allows you to see which species have had a more recent and which a more distant common ancestor.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« How can you explain the increasing complexity »
Evolution.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« and clear evidence of design »
Interesting. I'd say there is indeed a design. Just as there is a design in cumulus clouds: a design based on the simple operation of natural laws.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Can you as an intelligent being suggest that something as complicated as the human eye, of the nervous system, or the brain. All "made themselves".
Has this been observed and documented?
If it happened all by itself; how come we cannot reproduce these systems when we apply all our technology to this task?
Your statement is one of faith, not science.
theot58 2 years ago
« All "made themselves" »
Yes. You can obviously not envision the way that complexity can emerge from simple systems. I encourage you to study the concept of emergence through the 'Game of Life', specifically 'Langston's Ant', and also you might benefit from studying the various applications of the genetic algorithm, in both research and engineering.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
I am an electrical engineer. And I KNOW that system do NOT make themselves. Information does NOT materialise out of thin air. If we don't spend time and effort designing and building our systems they will NEVER build themselves.
It is wishful thinking that you can have a design without a designer no mater how you dress it up in fanciful words.
If we found 1 bold and nut on Mars - we would conclude there was intelligent life there.
theot58 2 years ago
« And I KNOW that system do NOT make themselves »
O gosh, an electrical engineer!
Well, they do make themselves if you model a solution space and apply an evolutionary algorithm (GA, which I told you to study). Yes, you have to provide the initial parameters yourself, but then evolutionary theory does not comment on the origin of life either; only the origin of species.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
If you're an electrical engineer, then I'm assuming you know the merits a computer simulation can provide. Ask yourself this, then. Would it not be possible to set up a simulation in which an "organism" can respond to its "environment", according to the rules of evolution? Not only is this possible, it is actually quite easy to do. Now, if you see these "organisms" evolving in front of your eyes, are they not acquiring "information" on their own accord?
burchdc 2 years ago
With all due respect. I do not understand what you are trying to say. It seems that you are asserting that because we can create computer programs which simulate some systems; that this "proves evolution." This is NOT CORRECT.
The programs/simulation we design and build can be designed to do anything the programmer wants. Note that the programmer needs to build the program. IT DOES NOT BUILD ITSELF.
theot58 2 years ago
« It seems that you are asserting that because we can create computer programs which simulate some systems; that this "proves evolution." »
No, what it proves is that through variation and selection, complex structures CAN and WILL evolve.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« The programs/simulation we design and build can be designed to do anything the programmer wants »
The programmed genetic algorithms do no more than initialise the process of reproductive variation and provide selection parameters. They do not front-load the design for a solution, even if a solution is requested by the system. In other words, while the initial conditions are provided by the programmer, the end result DOES build itself: it EVOLVES.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Hey mr engineer ever heard of evolutionary computing? evolution is being used to develop better more strudy computer programs. I suggest you destroy your computer and build one yourself from scratch cause the one you're using is based on wishful thinking and is an evil computer.
Electrical engineer.... pfft i bet if i asked you to solve a circuit you wouldn't even be able to.
kyagh 2 years ago
One more aside; I think part of the difficulty you are having in imagining the process of evolution is in that you are imagining systems WE build for a specific purpose. Granted, evolution would likely never produce a complex system that is exactly like one you might design. This is because the evolutionary path a species may take is completely unpredictable, as chaos theory shows. However, that is not to say that the entire PROCESS is random; merely the result.
burchdc 2 years ago
theot.
computers are not alive they do not die they do not reproduce with a variation, you analogy is faulty.
You're an electrical engineer? can i ask you help with nyquist stability then? I need to give an exam on system stability i forgot wether one had to use the open loop function or the closed loop function. And while you're at it tell me what function to use in bode diagrams as well mr electrical engineer. (i don't believe for a second you're one)
kyagh 2 years ago
Dear kyagh
I love you too!!
I can assure you that I am a qualified Electrical engineer and also a legally qualified teacher. But this is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue is that Evolution is being taught as a "fact" when it is really a religion. There is some evidence to support it; but the evidence is definitely not conclusive and requires a giant leap of faith.
It takes less faith to believe Genesis when it states "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
theot58 2 years ago
"when it is really a religion"
incorrect. religions appeal to the supernatural for explanations of unknown phenomena and asks philosophical "why's". evolution (and modern science altogether) makes no comment on the supernatural, and is more concerned with "how's."
"requires a giant leap of faith"
there is no "belief" in science because there's no "faith" in science; every claim requires *evidence*. the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming; even Pope John Paul II admitted this.
gmn545 2 years ago
Dodgin' the question... dodgin the question.... hey how about i send you a pic of a circuit trough pm and you tell me what that circuit does? I'm just asking you for proof so let me test your claims ^^
you know we tend not to believe claims unless proof is given ^^ hovind also claimed having a Ph.D and having taught high school for years, altough he would fail high school science class, and when he went and faced his accusations they put him in jail XD
kyagh 2 years ago
« how come we cannot reproduce these systems when we apply all our technology to this task? »
But we can replicate evolution. We see new traits develop through evolution in nature; we can reproduce the circumstances and the results in the lab; we can simulate evolution on a larger timescale using computers. All these observations confirm the accuracy of the model.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« Where did the information to build the complex systems that we see today come from? »
Evolution encodes environmental information into the genome. Can't be sure that that's the kind of information you mean, but if not, then please explain what you *do* mean by "information".
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
If I through a bucket of balls on the floor, the result is a random mess. If you came to a room and saw the balls organised in the shape of Australia. What would you conclude? That someONE used their intelligence to place the balls in the order which conveys design.
We observed things naturally decreasing in order (2nd law of thermodynamics). From order to disorder. Evolution asserts the opposite. That from disorder we have increasing order and complexity.
theot58 2 years ago
You are utterly unaware of what you are talking about. EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM! Given replication with modification the organisms most suited to the environment will reproduce more than those less suited thereby producing more surviving offspring with those advantageous traits while others without them die. This will result in the appearance of this organism being designed to fit the ecological niche it currently resides in.
Whoever1224 2 years ago
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system entropy must increase. What you do not understand is that with the application of energy to an open system (earth) entropy can be reduced in that open system while total entropy of the closed system (the universe) still increases. This is a phenomenon know as emergence or emergent complexity. If this where not true how could ordered solids like crystals and snowflakes form?
You don't need god to explain anything.
Whoever1224 2 years ago
I cannot comment on the correctness or otherwise of what you are saying.
What is obvious and observable is that systems go from order to disorder, not the other way around. Dressing it up in "fancy dancy" scientific jargon does not change that fact
theot58 2 years ago
It is obvious that some systems go from disorder to order.
If that were not so how could you be alive? The various atoms and molecules that make up your body were once disordered in your digestive tract but the chemical processes of your cells utilized these to create vital proteins and new cells with great order and complexity. If order could only decrease, even in an open system, then you could not possibly be alive.
Whoever1224 2 years ago
« If I through a bucket of balls on the floor, the result is a random mess »
And you are comparing the astrophysical and geological processes we know about to throwing a bucket of balls of the floor? No wonder you're confused.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago 2
« We observed things naturally decreasing in order »
And INCREASING in order (also 2nd law of thermodynamics).
XGralgrathor 2 years ago 2
let me ask you something xgra...if things always move towards disorder...How exactly do you have children?...thats an example of making order from non-order...you clearly dont understand that the 2nd law says "IN A CLOSED SYSTEM...." so in other words, if no energy is added, this move to disorder....but hey guess what....there is a giant ball of energy pumping its goodness to the earth 24/7
boorens18 2 years ago
Exactly the point I made in a previous comment. If evolution is impossible, then any kind of growth is impossible. So even if the fact that we can OBSERVE evolution is not enough; simply consult the laws of physics, and you'll see why creationists should go back to school.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
The second law of thermodynamics has absolutely nothing to do with complexity. If I grow up from a small child to a young adult and all of a sudden I can run faster than I could, doesn't this destroy your version of the second law of thermodynamics? If your definition of the second law of thermodynamics is wrong, examples of it would be wrong too.
MusicHypno 2 years ago
Thank you for demonstrating you're ignorance.
martiallaw09 2 years ago
I don't know what you are getting so upset about. If you are so obsessed with EVIDENCE. What evidence can you provide that a lion had the same ancestor as flee, which is what Darwinian evolution asserts. Evolutionists are the ones doing the "believing".
I agree with Kent that evolution is the great deception of the 20th century.
theot58 2 years ago
The definition of "Evolution" is vague and differs from one publication/person to another. The effective definition that I was taught in school was what some call Darwinian evolution. The core tennant of Darwinian evolution is that ALL living things had a common ancestor.
I have looked but could not find credible scientific evidence to support Darwinian evolution. It seems that Evolutionist think they can hide behind big sounding scientific words. I am not buying it
theot58 2 years ago
the scientific definition of evolution is anything but vague and it only differs amongst the laymen. the scientific definition of evolution is a very exact. evolution happens it's a fact it's the mechanism behind it that's theory. If you haven't found anything your not looking you're looking and ignoring.
TrueMetis 2 years ago
YOU'RE BRILLIANT! this slippery wordsmith needs to be brought into the light. (no pun intended)
THCannabis420 2 years ago
1. I will use evolutionism until evolutionism goes away. If u don't like it like I say before don't respond or move on.
2. Whoever is all these persons accept evolutionism(stupidism), they do it because they have to live outside of reality in order not to get emotional. Evolutionism never can not, will not happen is impossible, so either you don't know what your talking about(more Likely) or you do and don't care(lying).
younhol00 2 years ago
"until evolutionism goes away"
It's not here to begin with. It doesn't mean anything, and you haven't defined it. You're using it alternatingly to describe biological sciences, acceptance of scientific findings, and atheism. Define the term, or stop using it.
"is impossible"
Evolution happens; it is observed. Evolutionary theory exists: it was formulated to describe and explain evolution.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Evolutionism equals stupidity, an animal turning to another(never ever observed, imagine yes, could it happen not in this lifetime, but imagine yes), a kind(genus) changing from species to species while remaining the same kind and not changing morphologically.
"Evolution happens; it is observed. Evolutionary theory exists: it was formulated to describe and explain evolution. "
You are not fooling anyone with that comment I've heard that with nothing to back it up except
smoke.
younhol00 2 years ago
"animal turning to another"
WRONG! Learn what evolution is and what evolutionary theory says before commenting on them, you yoghurt-brain!
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"WRONG! Learn what evolution is and what evolutionary theory says before commenting on them, you yoghurt-brain!"
Oh I know you didn't say that, whales evolved to land dwelling animals, Lucy evolved into us, that wasn't said are you sure about that
younhol00 2 years ago
"nothing to back it up except"
Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385.
Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"nothing to back it up except"
Hughes, A. L. and R. Friedman, 2003. Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Research 13(5): 794-799.
Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"nothing to back it up except"
Lang, D. et al., 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
You must be happy for all I know you were searching for the papers, anyway your not the only one who reads the claims put forth by evolutionism. Here is a list of folks that reject Evolutionisms the list is long but it should tell you what I've been telling you we don't buy this anymore.
ht tp : // w3 . discovery . org / scripts / viewDB / filesDB - download . php ? command = download & id = 660
Scientists in droves are moving away from stupidism(evolutionism) darwinism or what ever it is.
younhol00 2 years ago
"nothing to back it up except"
Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.
Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery, 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"nothing to back it up except"
Ohta, T., 2003. Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins. Genetica 118(2-3): 209-216.
Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin and C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"nothing to back it up except"
Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
Schneider, T. D., 2000. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Research 28(14): 2794-2799.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"nothing to back it up except"
Hutchinson et al. 1991, Quantitative Genetics of Postponed Aging in Drosophila melanogaster. I. Analysis of Outbred Populations
Fos et al. 1990, Mitochondrial DNA evolution in experimental populations of Drosophila subobscura
Rose et al. 2005, The Effects of Evolution are Local: Evidence from Experimental Evolution in Drosophila
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"nothing to back it up except"
Yadav et al. 2007, Evolutionary genetics of Drosophila ananassae : evidence for trade-offs among several fitness traits
Carson 1982, Evolution of drosophila on the newer hawaiian volcanoes
Borash et al. 1999, Evolution of ammonia and urea tolerance in Drosophila melanogaster: resistance and cross-tolerance
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"nothing to back it up except"
Inomata 2005, Evolution of amylase in Drosophila
Takahiro 2005, Genetic variation in susceptibility to organophosphate insecticides within a natural population of Drosophila melanogaster
And thousands of other documented and verified observations. Go suck on that for a while, Bible-boy.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"Inomata 2005, Evolution of amylase in Drosophila"
What they don't tell you sucker boy is that is still the same kind of bacteria, except the information inside helps it adapt to its environment thus proving our side it remains the same kind of micro thing. Why do sucker fools believe that bacteria is the way to go and better than humans beats me well it was fun emotional wreck it was fun.
younhol00 2 years ago
"still the same kind of bacteria"
Good gods. No, I'm not even going to try to explain or correct you anymore. Wallow in your ignorance. Be glad of it.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Genetics ha how about the Hox gene could you explain to me why the Hox gene on humans and apes are in different chromosomes and in different places in the chromosomes. How just a few years ago we go form 98 to 95 percent similarities, or how about the fact that that humans possesses 200,000 proteins 80% are not found in apes.
Every so call assertions made by evolutionism is mainly shoot down by evos mouth and other real scientists. You got a lot of study to do swallower.
younhol00 2 years ago
Except for the HOX D genes, residing on C#13 in apes, they're actually in the same locations as in humans. And it has been confirmed that somewhere between 5 million years ago and now, C#2 and C#13 merged to form the human C#2, explaining why the HOX D sequences are both different in location and in composition.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Right your right that chimps and humans share similarities by 2 chromosome difference, heck even gorillas have 48 chromosomes as chimps, but so does the potato and tobacco, are you about to suggests we are related to the potato and tobacco, or how about canis familiaris has 78 chromosomes and the Gallus gallus has 78 chromosomes, one is a bird the other a dog are they the same too.
younhol00 2 years ago
"we are related to the potato and tobacco"
I find it incredibly hard to believe that even a yoghurt-brain like you would think that our genetic traits are determined by the number of chromosomes we have. Are you sure you don't want to remove your comment, and show people that you've either slept through your entire highschool biology course or simply didn't finish highschool at all?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
That's not what I say x-man and you know it what did I say? why don't you write the entire comment? I said "are you about to suggests we are related to the potato and tobacco". Sorry to break it to you but all hox genes are in separate places, because the hox gene those are the genes that determine morphology, guess what genetics verify thats fatal, and when it happens to an human embryo he dies when hes born, it cant happen, so no you swallow and don't study a whole lot, go back to class.
younhol00 2 years ago
« what did I say? »
For some reason, you brought up the potato, based on its chromosome count. Why on Earth you would think this relevant, I can't fathom, but you did, so I thought I'd just take a quick snipe at you.
Now, you may either explain for what reason you brought up the potato, or you can continue responding to my comment about our HOX genes having essentially the same locations as in the other apes, except for where C#2 and C#13 got fused.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
there are genetic disorders when it happens to people it shows after they become an adult such a genetic mistake it causes growth deformity in people that are dysfunctional. Now Natural Selection will weed such organisms out of the gene pool they will die because they are dysfunctional and unfit to survive. So you see natural selection argues against the idea of Macro-Evolutionism because the HOX gene of apes and Humans are in different locations this is empirical evidence, continue.
younhol00 2 years ago
« natural selection argues against the idea of Macro »
No, while many mutations are detrimental to the chances of an organism reproducing successfully, most mutations are indeed neutral, and a very few even beneficial to the organism. That they are few is no problem, as they are selected for by the environment. But you know this, because you already accept micro-evolution - which is evolution over shorter periods.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"No, while many mutations are detrimental to the chances of an organism reproducing successfully, most mutations are indeed neutral"
Boy you are non thinker aren't you, you just stated many are detrimental and in the next you say most mutations are indeed neutral. Check this out once the mutations is noticed by one or two generations is gone, because of the design of the creature, so no mutations advenced nothing none. it correct itself, think think.
younhol00 2 years ago
« you just stated »
Yes; in fact I said: many mutations are detrimental to the chances of an organism reproducing successfully, most mutations are indeed neutral, and a very few even beneficial to the organism. Which is observable in nature, and thus fact. What is your problem? The English language perhaps?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« by one or two generations is gone »
Ehr, no, it isn't. But I'd be curious as to what citation you're going to provide for this curious claim.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
I don't disagree that mutations happen of course to all of us it happens. But mutations are not information or part of the genome. The Hox gene which deals Morphology , which is form and structure, not pattern, size or color. Mutations are not part of the genome, once the organism gets a mutation it will correct it by one or several generations. You've been studying a lot of voodoo science, most mutations, causes weakness, sickness or death. I already told you I am not doing your homework.
younhol00 2 years ago
« But mutations are not information or part of the genome »
Wrong on two counts:
1. Mutations happen in the genome, so of course they're part of the genome. Don't be silly.
2. If a mutation gets selected for by environmental pressures, and as a result becomes fixed in the population, then it does convey information. Mind you, it isn't the mutation itself that adds the information to the genome: it's the selection.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Mutations mainly happen as the result of the sun rays, so random mutations happen to us all. Hahaha you think DNA is simple boy you most of lost all your mind. DNA is the most complex thing known to man, and we barely have scratch the surface. You know what is the most complex thing devised by man, is the code to Microsoft Windows, but that doesn't even come close to DNA. DNA is comprised of information from one end to the other, Information is a product only of intelligence, not nothing. Evos
younhol00 2 years ago
« as the result of the sun rays »
Mutations happen because nature is not a precision mechanism. Replication of DNA is a chemical process, and the motions of atoms are not mechanically determined, but more browsian. So accidents happen extreme frequency. In fact, each new human carries an average 160 mutations that are part of neither parent's genome. So that's 160 new mutations in the species genome per new human, multiplied by 6 billion for every 20 years. That's a lot of variation.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Wolf-Hirsch horn syndrome was first documented in 1961: a child with mid line fusion defects. Subsequent cytogenetic studies revealed a chromosomal deletion of the short arm of chromosome 4. Clinical features include mental retardation, seizures, distinct facial appearance, and mid line closure defects. The former Pitt-Rogers-Danks syndromes, caused by overlapping 4p deletions, now are considered as a part of Wolf-Hirsch horn syndrome.
younhol00 2 years ago
« Wolf-Hirsch horn syndrome »
Relevance?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
DNA's supporting systems use algorithms to store information. This is empirical evidence of supernatural design because algorithms and information are products only of intelligence and cannot be produced by nature. Therefore, "evolution" could not be the origin of DNA. This is proof, empirical evidence, that DNA has a SUPER natural origin.
If you believe otherwise and you continue rejecting it you have a serious problem.
younhol00 2 years ago
« This is empirical evidence of supernatural design »
That is a contradictio in terminis. There can be no scientific evidence for the supernatural, as science cannot and does not comment on the supernatural. The supernatural is PER DEFINITION that which cannot be tested, verified or falsified, ie. that for which there is NO EVIDENCE.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« you think DNA is simple »
No, rather it is you who has a simplistic view of DNA, replication and variation, in thinking that there is some magical repair mechanism that prevents copying errors from forming, and suppresses them ultimately when they do form. While in fact repair mechanisms exist in the DNA, and they're quite good, they themselves are part of the large chemical engine that is the cell, and therefore prone to errors. Simply put: DNA replication is not perfect, and never can be.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
We can examine a bacterial flagellum and know it could only exist fully-formed. We know DNA is a product of design because of it's properties! We know all structures in the cell (and in the entire organism) are code-based! The info to produce them exists in the DNA . But DNA cannot be reproduced by a cell which is not fully-functional. This is a chicken-and-egg problem that proves both had to exist as is in the beginning. They are dependent upon each other! That's a little of what we know.
younhol00 2 years ago
« We can examine a bacterial flagellum and know it could only exist fully-formed »
Wrong. It has been examined, and reduced to its components, which can exist independently from the flagellum, performing other functions. Id est, the flagellum is not irreducibly complex, period.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"It has been examined, and reduced to its components"
Your insane that's impossible, but I bet you swallowed what a lying evolutionists told you.
younhol00 2 years ago
ht tp : // w3 . youtube . com / watch?v = WPR0W - IHAOU & feature = c hannel _ page
younhol00 2 years ago
DNA is an information medium of stupefying complexity stored with algorithms which contains sequences of information stored in the most complex and compact manner possible which defines the structure and function of the features and biochemistry of an organism. Man can build a string of nucleotides. Man cannot create DNA
Creating something and duplicating a small string of nucleotides is not the same thing.
You have a lot to study and definitely you need to stop swallowing.
younhol00 2 years ago
The human genome has deteriorated over time, as have those of all life. The fossil record supports this. In the past, organisms were giant compared to their modern examples. Mutations since the flood have deteriorated the genetics of all forms of life.
You believe otherwise because it helps you support your worldview of whatever, evolutionists don't even know what to believe but evolutionism is dead you hang to it.
younhol00 2 years ago
« The fossil record supports this »
So, in order to maintain your cognitive dissonance you are now allowing yourself to believe that size equals complexity, right? Boy, you have problems. Your religious beliefs are making you insane.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
The fossil records shows us many examples of living fossils that were huge, now they are small. I see you are scrambling for anything to say but unfortunately you don't. DNA is not just chemicals put together by random chance as I explained that's impossible times impossible, boy what a fantasy you live in. Here is Richard Dawkins
ht tp : // w3 . youtube . com / watch?v = zaKryi3605g&feature = channel_page
younhol00 2 years ago
False! The majority of mutations are deleterious, which is damage. Single nucleotide deleterious mutations are the most dangerous, and often fatal. Relatively few mutations are harmless. It's a good thing God put 3 levels of error correction into DNA's supporting systems (an intelligent process evolution could never produce and which by itself discredits evolutionism), otherwise, there would be no life surviving on the earth!
But death is another hero of evolutionism is the way to get ahead.
younhol00 2 years ago
« The majority of mutations are deleterious »
False. Read up on the material. The large majority of mutations is neutral. Let's call it 95%. Then there's some 4.5% deleterious or otherwise detrimental mutations, the majority of which cause so little harm that it's not even noticable. Then there's some 0.5% of beneficial mutations, the majority of which benefit us so little it's not even noticable. A minority of a minority does convey a noticable benefit to us.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Mathematics has verified that the odds of a single smaller protien arising by random molecular interaction is 10^950 - that's 1 to a number greater than everyt particle of matter in the known universe. According to the precepts of science, this is impossible times impossible times impossible.
younhol00 2 years ago
« random molecular interaction »
So, relevance?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Everything we know about mutation from the millions of experiments that have been performed and are performed every day in universities around the world, demonstrates to us that they cause weakness, deformity, and death, but never new structures or increased health. Our genome is deteriorating, as are those of all life forms on the Earth.
In the past, roaches were 18" long. This kind of change has occurred to all life. The fossils prove it. There has been no evolution, only degradation.
younhol00 2 years ago
« demonstrates to us that they cause weakness, deformity, and death, but never new structures »
And that is simply a lie. Whether you came up with this lie yourself or simply copy/pasted it from some creationist website is irrelevant, as YOU posted it here, and YOU had the responsibility to make the claims YOU post as accurate as you could make them. If you can't be bothered to do that, then piss off.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"And that is simply a lie"
Show me an example, otherwise don't state is a lie, by the way it has to be an example that is easy to access.
younhol00 2 years ago
« The fossils prove it. There has been no evolution, only degradation »
And now I know that YOU KNOW you're lying.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"And now I know that YOU KNOW you're lying."
No I am not and you know it. You know why because you are unable to bring forth an example of changes in morphological features of any creature.
younhol00 2 years ago
Change to DNA does not constitute evolution. There is no known example of new information becoming part of the DNA. Even Richard Dawkins was asked to cite an example, but could not. DNA changes because of mutation, but mutation is damage to the code, always deleterious of the information therein.
younhol00 2 years ago
« Change to DNA does not constitute evolution »
As explained before, the change in allelle frequencies within populations from one generation to the next is the DEFINITION of evolution.
« Even Richard Dawkins was asked to? cite an example, but could not »
I find that rather hard to believe, since every lifeform continuously evolves and this is easily demonstrable even without a scientific background. Must be another example of dishonest creationist copy/pasting.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« once the organism gets a mutation it will correct it by one or several generations »
Ehr, now you're just making stuff up. Listen, I'm okay with you not accepting this stuff, but if the only way you can do that is by making stuff up or lying about stuff, then you'd better simply get off the internet altogether.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
You know what your problem is I know you've seen the evidence that shreds your assumptions, and assertions backed by only assertions. The problem is that the real evidence you've seen already destroys your worldview of evolutionism, and it threatens it. So maybe you need to stop using the internet no wait use it, it may help stop that denialism, because is deep in the toilet of evolutionism, and stupidity.
younhol00 2 years ago
"Ehr, no, it isn't"
That's the problem right there, no no is not true I refuse to see the evidence, too bad x-man even evo scientists admit mutations are bad, and not part of the genome, stop being emotional. Furthermore you are from the netherlands right ok you bet square yourself because you are about to be over run by muslims. These people will have your head if you don't convert be careful.
younhol00 2 years ago
« That's the problem right there »
"LOLMAO". The 'Ehr' I put in front of my reaction should have told you that I thought you said a silly thing. You are correct in assuming I deny silly things.
No, mutations do not peter out within a generation or two. Usually, when it's not selected against, it's there to stay, save for accidents, disasters, etc.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
that men genes didnt come from any ape, chimp, monkey, or hominid like creature is impossible.
younhol00 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"how about the fact that that"
Citation?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
where in evlolution does it say any livivng thing came from a rock?
thats more his religion sense man came from dirt.
rubixxcube 2 years ago
I don't believe our narrator is reaching his target audience here... He is trying to talk to creationists that are largely low grade high school graduates that did not pay attention in biology class... You cannot talk to these people on a college level when they are unable to understand on a high school level...
^..^
TheWildAssCopyCat 2 years ago
The people that believe the bible can not be reasoned with.They will distort the truth, out right lie as convicted felon Mr. Hovind is famous for.This to them is ok because when science and the word of god conflict, the word of god allways wins.
drServitus 2 years ago
PLEASE WATCH THE PRIVILEGED PLANET
Jesuslovesmiamry01 2 years ago
if creationists want 'fairness', then science classrooms should teach not only judaeo-christian creation myths but ALL the thousands of creation myths from different religions and cultures!
that way, we let the children see ALL sides of the story and LET THEM CHOOSE WHAT TO BELIEVE.
nightoftherobots 2 years ago 2
I remember that was the point of the Pastafarians when they wrote their letter to the Kansas School Board.
AtheistRocketMan 2 years ago
Does anyone know which Hovind lecture this is from?
UppruniTegundanna 2 years ago
Hi, fellow masochist (I'm assuming you must be since you are asking for Hovind's videos).
Hovind recycles his material (hum... maybe recycle is not the right word, since it doesn't stop being trash), but one of the videos containing this material is "100 reasons why evolution is stupid".
Be warned about the rather silly and childish sense of humor (essentially repeating the word stupid every 5 seconds).
uvauva2 2 years ago
Ha ha! Thanks! I'll see if I can endure it. Maybe make a drinking game out of it.
UppruniTegundanna 2 years ago
Hum. A positive outlook. You'll need it :p
uvauva2 2 years ago
Yeah, well there's one part in particular that I want to address in a video and I wanted the long form version of it.
UppruniTegundanna 2 years ago