this kid sucks.... shut down the channel... give us a break.... your pseudo intellectualism is quite phony... it doesn't stand, it breaks down quite easily
How sad. I can understand if you buy the metaphysics of Christianity and see it as under siege, then you might "lose interest" in evolution and spend all of your time on Christianity. However, I feel it is deeply upsetting that I have seen you change from a bright, intelligent, sensitive boy into an increasingly stultified young man. I say this not because our views on Christianity are different - for they always have been - but because I see your mind has dulled due to religion. How sad.
Good for you! You did an awesome job here! I'm glad you studied, and came to the right conclusions. We are fearully and wonderfully made! And the evidence is there. Peace & Love, Micki
I assume you have dialogued with Muslims then? lol, you guys love to pretend to know what you are talking about. I've actually debated Muslims. And no, just no. Muslim arguments are the joke of the century. And before you go "lol well xian arg00ments r just as bad lol" please actually read an Islamic website. Thank you for your cooperation.
You know the difference between a Republican arguing that their party should be in power and a Democrat arguing that their party should be in power? There is no difference. Do you know the difference between a 9/11 truther arguing that 9/11 was an inside job and a member of Popular Mechanics arguing that it was in fact Islamic terrorists who did it? There is no difference.
What? How on earth do you get that from my comment? I was pointing out the silliness of asserting that there is no difference between a Muslim and a Christian arguing for their positions. You have to examine the claims of both before you can say the two have equal validity.. I would have thought it would be obvious what I was trying to say.
Yes their claim the religion they where brain washed into as a child is true is just as valid as when you claim the religion you where brainwashed into is true.
Anyone who is not in the religion can easily see yours and theirs is a load of crap.
Yes, well you still totally missed my point which is what I should have expected. Before someone can say that Christianity or Islam have more validity that the other, or whether they are equally as valid (or invalid) they need to do an examination of both of their claims. That was the only point I was making. You know, Gorilla199 is as crazy as can be but I am starting to think that I would actually get morel rational replies from him than I do from you.
What the hell man? Your videos were brilliant and your concise arguments made guys like venomfang scratch their heads. Oh well, good luck with your new found friend god...I'll just be tending to my old friend, logic.
This young man represents a modern tragedy. I have no clue how he can reconcile his bronze age beliefs with science and in particular with evolutionary biology. He is obviously a bright young man and that is precisely why I find it tragic.
Perhaps gorilla needs to watch more videos on this channel. Had you watched a single one of my videos, you would have realized that I was actually defending evolution from the creationist nonsense. I've been a theistic-evolutionist.
The bible is unreliable even if you lie and deny that.
Xtians cant even agree what an xtian is, so the bible fails terribly.
Without even needing to mention the creation myth has been proven wrong and most xtians accept that fact. Thats why even many of your xtian friends on here pretend the creation myth is compatable with evolution. LOL
Im not if that your beliefs more absurd than theirs or the other way around.
You said that Kabane admitted that the Bible is unreliable when he said no such thing. Also the Bible is not "a source" but a collection of sources. Don't Americas argue over how to interpret the U.S Constitution or the founding fathers of America? Does it follow that the U.S Constitution and the founding fathers all "failed terribly"?
Please listen to my video series responding to AndrewKinghorn15 and demonstrate how I am wrong in my interpretation.
No your bible is fail, because xtians cant even agree on what an xtian is.
Then theres people like you who lie and claim the world flood myth was local, because you can see its crap at the same time you think the majority of xtians are wrong because they accept the fact man evolved.
Even if your story book was written by a god.
Its the god of poligamy, rape, incest, slavery, peodfilia, murder of men, women children babies and the unborn babies!
And a lot of Americans can't agree over how to interpret parts of the U.S Constitution or the what the founding fathers of America. I guess they are fail too according to your reasoning.
You haven't even attempted to respond to my arguments regarding the extent of the flood. Also I recognize appeals to majority to be logical fallacies.
Appeals to outrage are also logical fallacies. God is perfectly just to carry out judgements upon sinful humanity.
As I said if you are stating your god didnt do a better job than the people who wrote the con, then you are admitting your god is a failure at getting his message across.
The us con is alot clearer than the bible. It doesnt outrightly contradict itself as the bible does, so actually your god did a far worse job. Thats to be expected since the bible was written by ignorant god hearders thousands of years ago.
Is it really? Do you even know what the word bigotry means?
Fundies faking videos? What are you talking about?
9/11 was carried out by Islamic terrorists working for Al Qaeda. All of the various conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 are complete nonsense on the same level as holocaust denial and flat earthism.
Well now I guess I have to use you as an example of people that can believe in evidence and rationality and yet still believe in ridiculous superstitious stories at the same time.
When you get older date a Buddhist or atheist or something and you'll be surprised how fast your faith falls apart when you have a real reason to examine it critically and honestly. Until then you're just repeating ad-hoc apologetics for beliefs you hold on emotional grounds. And you probably know it.
These kind of comments are really stupid. Here we go...
You're just an atheist because you don't want to be held accountable to your creator. I'm sure that one day you will realize that your belief is only based on a desire for moral anarchy and abandon it.
When you speak to Christians about evolution you're speaking from experience and knowledge that they don't have. My comment to you was the same thing only about something you have little experience with. Grow up, marry someone from another religion or have some other life experience to force you to examine your beliefs critically. It's only then you discover how poor the entire basis for Christianity is.
I'm sure. As I said I already said you probably already know everything there is to know to leave Christianity. You're a smart kid. But like I said you have no pressure to examine skeptically and honestly (and you might never have that). There's a big difference between reading an apologetic looking for confirmation of what you believe (which is trival), and reading it looking for what is **really most likely to be true**.
Kabane I really wish and will keep praying that "Christians" care as much as you do. I myself am continually studying my belief and am trying to share God in ways that I believe most Christians skip over, that includes the connection of Evolution and the Bible except more theologically in-line because the literary portion does not need to be reduced as much as even some Christian-Evolutionists quite expect!
You probably already know everything there is to know to leave Christianity behind. But you have no reason to actually take that step. You're perfectly happy to believe ancient unsupported hogwash because it fits your life. We'll see what happens when you grow up a bit more. Best regards.
I absolutely love reading comments like this. It was a bit disturbing that the atheists were more allied with me than Christians were for a bit there.
If you actually read the articles, you'd know it's only speculation:
"It is thought to be derived from apocrine-like skin glands of synapsids, which probably served as a source of moisture for the parchment-shelled eggs and as a source of nutrients for the hatchlings."
But of course, evolutionist's thoughts are facts to you, aren't they?
But, suppose that there were some lizards with sweat glands that are now extinct. Sweat glands produce sweat in response to temperature. Mammary glands produce milk in response to hormonal changes that occur at the end of pregnancy. What would make a gland produce a different kind of fluid in response to a different kind of stimulus?
Suppose, however, that some reptiles evolved high metabolism and sweat glands at the same time. Then, millions of years later, some of these reptiles adapted their sweat glands to secrete milk instead. Isnt it reasonable to think that some of the reptiles that didnt evolve mammary glands might still be alive today? Why arent there some reptiles that have evolved sweat glands but not mammary glands?
Reptiles dont need this capability. So, the first question one might ponder is, Why would reptiles evolve a cooling mechanism they dont need as a step toward evolving milk glands?
One might argue that they evolved a warm-blooded metabolism first, and consequently needed sweat glands to cool themselves off. But both of these miracles would have to evolve at the same time because a reptile that evolved warm-bloodedness before evolving sweat glands would overheat and die.
So much for your arument. Let's call it strike one. I'll give you two more strikes to hit me with the best you got. After that, it's over. I'll strike you with more facts and you lose!
Interesting though, I wonder how evolutionists calculate these percentages of dna sharing. I should look into this.
But seriously, is this your best piece of evidence? Wow, that is so much better than gaps that cannot be overcome, lol.
Look at all different types computer viruses. They share great deal of programming code among one another.
We can explain this fact without claiming that all computer viruses are changed copies of one ancient computer virus, and same explanation goes for dna
If you want more facts, just ask for it. I got tons of it.
Genetics, populations, apes, whales, fossils, you name it.
Also I can review all of your evolutionist fabricated evidence. And crush all of it. The theory can only fall apart when facts and data enter.
But let me give you a fair chance to defend your precious theory. Throw me your best piece of evidence from any field of science which is evidence to you, that animal life or all life - if you want - evolved from a common ancestor.
You've managed to wipe the floor with cretards like hovind and other non-scienific creationists, but your line of victory stops here. In every case I can show you that predictions made bu the theory of evolution do not fit he data and the facts and observations.
You name it, nested hierarhy, atavism, chromosome fusion, ERVs, fossils?
I chalenge all of you evolutionists. It's time your theory faces up to the real facts!
You've heard dawkins. Have you also seen Miller. How do thy respond to these facts? They don't. They haven' even thought about it or considered it. Because they've been following mainstream scientific literature, and never really thought it all through or really quenstioned the theory of evolution. And that's why the error remains.
But I challenge ALL evolutionists, including dawkins and his companions.
Show me one genetic fact that is evidence for evolution. ONE!
Now how is sharing dna evidence for your theory of evolution? Tell me!
We share lots of things. We share bone structure, we share proteins in food, we share, and on and on the list goes. Any retard can predict that this similarity is reflected in the genes.
Besides, a small diffence in dna code often results in completely different function.
Nice observation, and yes, this is what we'd expect if we all evolved from one common ancestor. But this is also expected i we did not evolve.
And of course all mammals with strong babies went into extinction. How convenient?
I can give you many more facts which all dsprove the evolution of mammals from a reptile clade.
I rather believe in scientific facts than in made up concepts and theories of evolution. And the facts disprove the evolution of evolution. Not just one fact, but many many facts.
And what evidence do we have to support the theory of evolution? Only concept and models that will fall apart, if we take a closer look.
Really the more you talk the more you prove without a doubt your entire argument is based on gaps in knowledge. You do realize that is a logical fallacy?
Tell me then, how does getting weaker make a species better adapted???
This is not a gap of knowledge, mate. This is a critical part of the theory of evolution. All of it will fall apart if mammals did not evolve from reptile ancestors. And none of you evolutionists can even come up with anything plausable that can fill up this gap even a bit.
I'm not saying god did it. It's upto you what you believe outside of science scope.
I have presented only a few of the many many facts that disprove ...
Hahaha, that's so typical. You evolutionists revert to gravitational theory, every time you are in trouble.
But one theory in science can be true while another one can be false, so another theory being correct or not, is totally irrelevant.
I've already showed that evolution does not explain nor predict nor fit the different number of chromosome pairs in mammal species in particular. Especially the pattern, which shows no individuals of any species having halve chromosones or half a pair.
So now you pose a theory that he first mammals did not need milk, but evolved it anyway, to their advantage. After that evolution decided to make them dependent on it and let all mammals who do not follow this decision - but survived for many many generations over time, time needed to gradually evolve all of that - go extinct. Very nice! Any other bright ideas?
Ah, reptile to mammal evolution is a gap, but you make all people on the world believe it is proven beyond doubt, and you start calling those who do not comply, stupid theistic retards.
Now that is a very scientific approach. You do not know, but I have to believe you???
You are discrediting the real science with this theory of yours, which does not rely on proper scientific facts at all.
I am glad I came to reread what discussion on this video or I would have never seen that you are still posting. I thought you actually started to do some research. I also see you still think simply stating something makes it data, this is laughable at best. But here is some real data for you: The mammary gland and its origin during synapsid evolution, The origin of lactation as a water source for parchment-shelled eggs, and the origin s of lactation and the evolution of milk.
This took me about a minute of research on Google scholar, I suggest you do the same and stop acting so foolish. Also, now that I know you do not reply to my comments, I think I will check about on this video every week or so to see what else you have said without doing any research.
Try again? You asked for data and I proved it to you. Just because you wish to close your eye and pretend it does not exists does not me I failed to do what you asked. Why are the ideas in the articles I proved wrong, they simply could not be wrong just because you say so? Please, for once, provide some evidence AKA data for any of the claims you have made in this exchange. Again, simply stating something does not make it data, come with some sources.
Reptilian sweat glands could not possibly have evolved into mammary glands because reptiles dont have sweat glands.
Reptiles are cold-blooded animals. They regulate their body temperatures primarily by moving in and out of the sun. They can get away with this because they can survive with a larger body temperature range than warm-blooded mammals. Mammals need sweat glands to cool them off, so they dont overheat.
So you have read the articles I have posted. You are trying to address a point made in one of them. Please tell me which article was it that you read? Where is your data to support your claim?
Also, we are talking about synapsids which by the time they become synapsids they probably would not be classified as reptiles. Those life forms would not have nursed their young, but they would have had hair on their body, which could mean they were warm blooded.
The claims you are making to disprove the articles I have provide. I was simply asking questions. That is why they had questions marks after them.
All mammals are synapsids, but not all synapsids are mammals. There are number of creatures that were alive during the Permian and Carboniferous that would be classified as synapsids but would not be mammals. This is simply cladistics.
You see, mammal offspring wouldn't survive childhood, let alone many generations over time, for mammary glands to evolve and give milk.
Now I wonder what concept evolutionists will come up with to solve this. Probably they'll say: perhaps the first mammals gave birth to strong baby mammals who didn't need mother's milk to survive but sucked on some nipples anyways, and after milk finally coming out of it, mammal babies became weaker and weaker over time.
We can not define evolution as change of allel frequencies over time, simply because many speciation events - supposed that it happened - require more than allel mutations.
Those require chromosomes to fuse or split or duplicate or silenced or whatever concept you evolutionists come up with.
It is true that evolutionists can come up with a concept of changing allels that can possibly lead to speciation (new species in most common biological sence). So new species could arise this way.
Now after this, dumb scientists draw wrong conclusions, like:
Allel mutations caused all speciation events and therefor allel frequency change is the definition of evolution.
Can't you evolutionists see how and why this is not true???
And it is not necessary for a mutated and new allel to become more frequent, though it does increase chances of one of the offspring having more allel mutations.
Evolutionists believe that an accumulation of such mutiations leads to macro-evolution over long long time.
All your evolutionists talk about frequencies and populations (isolated or not) is bull.
You look at ring species and then fabricate a concept and without thinking, you implicate it is like that for evolution of all life.
mercher, you decide for yourself who you listen to. And frankly, I don't care what you decide.
Fact remains that none of your har working biologists have managed to give a plausible way of chromosome increase.
Neither has any of you evolutionist retards have been able to think through reptile to mammal evolution and whale evolution.
Funny you dare talk to me about intelligence. I'm sure you don't belong to the top one percent of most intelligent people, do you? So better listen to me.
Mecher, you probably only speak english, not as many languages as me. So you notice this is not my native language. Tell you what, I'll try to be more careful in spelling and typing from my mobile device.
Anyway, most evolutionists are stupid and so proud to have a theory that needs no reliion, that they do not care how rotten the science is behind it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm in big favor of good science. Just not the ones that say suck on some glands and over time, milk will come out of it.
Actually, we've been isolating allels for many many years in dog breeding to get pure races. And we got many pure breeds. Allel frequencies are totally different between different pure breed races. But they are he exact same dog species (also with exact same number of chromosomes containing the genes). Think about this.
So tell me, mate. What am I missing here? Didn't you know that this allel frequency concepts was made up before modern genetic times?Amazingly,evolutionists never updated it.
A population of all blonde allels and blue eye allels with zero black hair frequency and zero brown eye allel frequency is as much human as a population with all black hair allels and brown eye allels with zero blond allel frequency and zero blue eye frequency.
It obviously does not seems not to matter what the allel frequency of hair color or eye color is. It's always human population. Why?Because they are allels of the same genes:hair and eye genes (same structure),therefor can 'interbreed'.
But let for the arguments sake asume that all life did evolve the way you say by allel mutations.
Each individual is same species as one of his parents, obviously. And his parent is same species as his grandparent and so on. Then what do we get? Us being one ring species formed by all of our ancestors! Then in an infinite world without death, where all ancestors are still alive, all species would be ring species of each other???
Interestin, isn't it. Think about it. What is a species now?
What then does your theory of evolution predict? Yes, among the millions of living species, we must find at least a few with silenced duplicate chromosome pairs. Or chromosomes that can be missed without being fatal. Well then, what does the data show us??? None of the many animal species we geneticly studied, shows such case.
But why would an evolutionist bother about this? All you need is allel alterations, don't you? Hah, idiots!
You are an embarrasment to science.Evolution is disproofed
And then you evolutionists continue to fabricate a concept where a duplicate chromosome pair is silenced (what the? how do all genes on a whole chromosome gets silenced???), and then mutates and gets unsilenced??? Such that missing the extra chromosome is fatal!!!
Well I surely do not believe in such fairy tales. If you do, then I have no problem showing you how it is contradicted obviously by the data we see.
Because of all millions of species - still evolving, as your theory of evolution ...
Give me any data, and I will show you that it does not fit the theory of evolution, although evolutionis scientists have managed to present it as if it woulf fit evolution predictions and only evolution predictions.
I challenge you. What can you come up with? Nested hierarchy? ERVs? Fusion? Fossils? Atavism? Rudiments?
There is absolutely no evidence that proofs that life evolved out of common ancestors.
Stop this pseudo-science of evolution. Data disproofs it.
I think this channel would be put to better use if you used it as practice for your debates. I greatly enjoyed the video you posted of you practicing for your debate. I think it will give you a chance to get real feel back.
It would be a shame to let channel like this go to waste.
I think it shows maturity to acknowledge when the time on something is up - we all have interests, they change with time. A lot of the things I invested a hell of a lot of time on online 6 or 7 years ago I neither have the time nor interest to pursue, I've taken on new things which matter to me now. Good luck with your future ventures - your existing videos do a great service to us and I'm glad you're leaving them up. God bless.
I'm proud of you for signing off of the evolution debate on youtube (though I'm sure it will continue some in class...) Even if I never agreed with you, you were still an excellent debater. I'll be looking forward to your pwning attacks on atheism. Keep up the good work of logically defending Christianity!
Best wishes Kabane. Thanks for sharing your views on evolution and christianity and all the time and effort it took to make your vids. It was a good run while it lasted, but all thing eventually end. Good luck on your classes and studies. I'll see you on your other channel.
It's really funny you made this vid Kabane, in all honesty, atheism on youtube only got big b/c of VFX and the fundies. Now with most of them accepting evolution, some gone etc. They have nothing to attack, and must face the intellectual arguments put forth, we may be outnumbered---but in no way are we losing. The philosophy put forth by Christians on youtube is far deeper than the atheistic side.
I'm glad you closed your account, in that there is no debate in evolution, but moreso in Truth.
Christianity does not have even 1/1000 of the factual evidence that underpins the theory of evolution. Defending Christianity is both a waste of your intellect and is in the end bad for the planet in general. Enjoy your losing battle though ! & thanks for all your fine videos on this channel :-)
In your world view, yes, then there is no dichomotomy.
But basicly, an animal - no matter how exemplary, selected, improved, and perfected in form and instinct, and, if your wish, even in mental formation - will always be an animal.
And this not compatible with true christian belief, that we man have spirit that distinguishes us from beasts.
I hate to burst your bubble but humans are animals. And that has been known since before Darwin. Carolus Linnaeus first placed humans into the kingdom animalia. This is the same classification system that places us in the phylum chordate and the class mammalian.
Wow, you are such a moron. So some idiot places you among animals, you go ahead and blindly follow. You take a beast as your paternity, and kill the spirit, and therefor degrade yourself to the level of a beast. Such pity!
So you are standing against science and provable fact and calling me the moron. The irony. Next you will say that humans are not vertebrates.
Who says I am blindly following? I am a biological anthropology major; I deal with stuff like this every day. Your statement shows that you seem really vain about your existents. So just because you were not specially created you will spit in the eye of science? What is so degrading about sharing a common ancestor with every living thing on this planet?
Take a biology class. I am using the proper definition of an animal. By definition humans are animals as well, just like we are mammals. Get over your vanity. While we are on definitions could you define evolution in a scientific context?
I know I did not burst your bubble because you would rather believe lies than accept facts and theory. What data disproves evolution (this should be a riot)?
Nice straw man. Evolution is not mutations of alleles produced all species. Every single species is in the process of evolving, if you knew the actual definition of evolution you would know that (please define it). There are been hundreds of exponents done in labs that show speciation. Also, look up nylon eating bacteria and Italian wall lizards; those are two observed speciation events happening in nature.
I suggest you spend some time researching before making such ignorant statements.
Yes mutations happen. But that is a small part of what evolution is. Mutations are no the driving force for evolution, natural selection is. Mutations can only add new alleles for natural selection to act on. I will answer you questions as soon as you define what evolution is.
Irrelevant? Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution, which is why biologists are always talking about it. I wonder, do you even know the definition of natural selection?
Alright then. If you insist that natural selectio is relevant, tell me then, how does natural selection increase the amount of chromosome pairs after allel mutation fails to do the job.
Your natural selection is no help here. On the contrary: when erroreous chromosome duplications do occur in offspring, it's being getten rid off by natural selection. But of course you ignore that - you are so good at ignoring as
That is why I asked you to define evolution in a scientific context. The only reason I did not answer the second part of your questions was that I think it is rude to ask someone else a question when you yourself have not answered questions ask of them. There is such thing has common ancestry, evidence as atavism, transitional fossil, and ERV show that.
As for the data thing, just because you say something does not make it so. If you want some real source for what I am saying here they are: the effect of mutations and natural selection on codon bias in the genes of Drosophila, Natural selection shaped regional mtDNA variation in humans, and Steriod 21-hydroxylase deficiency: three additional mutated alleles and establishment of phenotype-genotype relationships of common muations.
Of course, who told you that? Yes, evolution says that all animal species, all life on this planet for that matter, have different numbers of chromosomes. I do not know why you are so hung up on chromosomes, evolution acts on alleles, which are in the chromosomes, they do not have to be created or destroyed for evolution to happen.
There is some data that could help you out: A new chromosome anomaly in acute lymphoblast leukemia (all).
Just admit that you have no answer to the question.
Unless all animals have same number of chromosome pairs, then yes, allel mutations could have been sufficient. But that is not the case, is it? So it's amazing how ignorant you continue to say that chromosome increase is not necessary for evolution. Well, it certainly is necessary for the 'evolved' - as you claim - life around us. Why do you ignore data??? Just to defend your theory of evolution of random mutation and natural selection. Sad!!
No answer? Did you not read the article I cited? That was the answer to your question. Why do they need the to have chromosomes? Because you say so? Ignore what data? The only one citing data is I. As I said earlier, just because you say something does not make it data. That is not the definition of evolution; it is the change in allelic frequency over time. I knew you did not know the first thing about evolution.
Go read your articles yourself and then come back and answer to me. You evolutionists are good at hiding behind such articles.
Are you implying now that a significant part of the variety of chromosome numbers we see in todays mammals, evolved be means of leukemia anomalies??? Tell me!
Show me data that supports this idea of new animal species arising through such leukemia mechanism, if you can!
Being a biology anthropolist scientist is not enough to impress me, mate.
Alright, tell me now, how does leukemia or any particy answer my question on how a mammal species can get extra chomosome pairs? Shouldn't be too hard a question with all evolutionists articles available to you.
Come on then, I challenge you!
Yes we find species with different allels than other similar species. Now congratulations, you've managed to form a theory for explaining that. Too bad for you we also find species with a whole other dna structure, whih no allel alteration can accomplish!
patricy I mean allo- or para- or sym- they only say things about parent species living at the same time as offspring species or not or something like that. Now how does this answer my question??? Try again, mate.
definitions of species cannot help you out here (see my previous reponse). Your allel alteration thesis can not explain the different dna structures of mammal species, and even if you can fabricate a concept, you have no data to back it up and I can easily disproof it.
It does not answer your question because you are forming questions based off a straw man idea of what evolution is. Why would I want to answer questions about something that I do not support? I am telling you about biology, since anyone can tell from reading the exchange that you are lacking in this area.
Why does the change in allelic frequency over time not account for different DNA in different species? I think your argument here is internally inconsistent.
Did you read the article? Could you tell me why the process that worked for the Leukemia cannot work for mammals (From this statement, I am inferring that you accept that humans are mammals, I could be wrong)?
We find species with a whole other DNA structure. Really, which species are those? Can you please site a source for that statement? Again, simply because you state something does not make it data.
Really, are you such a retard that you cannot see an understand that, if all species evolved, thy must have changed a lot more than just allel frequencies along the way. This is not because I state it. This is the obvious fact.
Come on, go ahead and Tell me if you think that all that happened from the moment of first life on earth, was chancing of allels. Then I will crush his thought/belief of yours with such an abundance of data.
Evolution is simply the change in allelic frequency over time. That is biological evolution is and that is all biological evolution will allow.
Since this is so obvious to you, I would like to know why you think this. What qualifications do you have to be making all these bold statements? I mean you have not presented any data, even though you keep talking as if you did.
Do you even know what an allel is? F.i. for eye color genes, we got allel for blue eyes (recessive), and allel for brown eyes (dominant) and some others. Now there's been populations of people where frequency of blue eye allels has been like close to 100% in scandinavian countries before immigration and there's populations of asian people with all brown eye allels.
It doesn't matter if you seperate these two populations and you cannot change eye color allels frequency more than this.
Alleles are pairs of different genes that make us up. Therefore, an individuals genotype is made up of alleles. In addition, the genotype is what expressed the phenotype.
Close to 100% in Scandinavian, really? Could you please cite a source for this claim?
By the way, what does any of this have to do with the change in allelic frequency over time? In addition, you never answered by questions for what your qualifications are for this matter. Is that question to hard for you to answer?
Alright, tell me, what part of my story is not true then???
Let me spell it out for you: every individual has a different set of combination of allels. Tell
me now, how does allels being more or less frequent in the population around you determine what species you are. It doesn't matter how frequent allels occur. It's irrelevent.
It's better to say that mutation can form a new allel for a certain gene. Now evolutionists would say one new allel does not make a new species...
Straw man. I do not intend to defend your straw man. Species are populations of an organism that can interbreed naturally and produce viable offspring.
Very true, one new allele does not make a new species, species are population of organism that can interbreed naturally and produce viable offspring.
This is also basic biology. Now I will ask again, what field of biology do you study that makes you so confident that evolution is wrong? I also asked you to cite a source for you data.
Do I have to teach you how to read and understand? Each Individual have a unique set of gene allels, mate. But individuals of same species all have their genes arranged in he same structure and same number of chromosome pairs. This can be different for plants mostly.
All that evolutionists can come up with, are chromosome disorders such as leukemia and down.
Such morons, having three or more of one chromosome is of no benefit =>natural selection? Besides, we see each pair is unique not copies
It would be easier to read and understand if you spelled things correctly and used coherent sentence structure in your comments. In fact, can you please restate the statements you made in this comment, I am afraid I do not know what you are asking exactly.
I am saying that the variety of chromosomes numbers came about through simple allelic change through time. Nor am I saying that speciation happens through leukemia mechanism, you do like to put words in my mouth. Speciation happens through allopatric, parapatric, and sympatric.
Wow, you really are a moron of a scientist. Let's tes your definition of evolution. Change of allel frequenties over time??? Hahaha. That's one of the worst definitions I have heard! But I will give you a chance to defend this definition of yours. Look at a horse and a spider and then tell me! What makes them different species? Different allel frequency???
Even with todays knowledge of genetics, you come ere and pick such definition of evolution? I'm amazed of your stupidity, really!
The biological definition of species is a population of interbreeding organism that are not geologically isolated and can produce fertile offspring. So no, horses and spiders could not the same species.
I did not pick this definition, which is the definition of evolution that is used in biology. Have you not taken a basic biology class? It would seem like that with your limited knowledge of evolution and specie station.
Tell me now, if allel for blue eyes becomes more frequent in human race, do we have a new human species in the making then? Wow, how interesting. We can breed new human species now. Just isolate a population and change allel frequencies, pick the onces with allels of blue eyes and let them produce many offspring.
A population of pure blue eyed allels is still as much human as a population of pure brown eyes. Because both are allels of the eye color.
They, however, are intertwined. If evolution is correct then Adam and Eve never actually existed... they never "turned away" from God... there is no original sin... there is no need for Jesus to save anyone from original sin.
Or rather if the Genesis story is not literal and true the entire foundation of Christianity is a lie, and therefore very suspect.
BOO YAH :) Christianity, FTW ;) Evolution is a lie.....
patkaybites 6 months ago
this kid sucks.... shut down the channel... give us a break.... your pseudo intellectualism is quite phony... it doesn't stand, it breaks down quite easily
JuanAndreful 9 months ago
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
trotterontour 1 year ago
!!!!!! MATT DILLAHUNTY OWNED YOU BITCH ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡
y2kaneoblivion 1 year ago 2
Okay, he lost me here. I thought he was headed toward some form of atheism but he took a u-turn. Disappointing.
ratluvr 1 year ago
How sad. I can understand if you buy the metaphysics of Christianity and see it as under siege, then you might "lose interest" in evolution and spend all of your time on Christianity. However, I feel it is deeply upsetting that I have seen you change from a bright, intelligent, sensitive boy into an increasingly stultified young man. I say this not because our views on Christianity are different - for they always have been - but because I see your mind has dulled due to religion. How sad.
BryanAJParry 1 year ago 2
xian filth heheehhehe
Gravepandaman 1 year ago
good get your fat ass off youtube get a job you bum
bmr461 2 years ago 4
Good for you! You did an awesome job here! I'm glad you studied, and came to the right conclusions. We are fearully and wonderfully made! And the evidence is there. Peace & Love, Micki
mickindanny 2 years ago
do you know the difference between some guy in pakistan defending islam as the only true religion ...and you defending christianity?
there is no difference.
dennj2 2 years ago 8
@dennj2
I assume you have dialogued with Muslims then? lol, you guys love to pretend to know what you are talking about. I've actually debated Muslims. And no, just no. Muslim arguments are the joke of the century. And before you go "lol well xian arg00ments r just as bad lol" please actually read an Islamic website. Thank you for your cooperation.
KabaneTheChristian 1 year ago
@dennj2
I appreciate the assertion. Perhaps you could qualify that with some reasoning?
KabaneTheChristian 1 year ago
@dennj2
You know the difference between a Republican arguing that their party should be in power and a Democrat arguing that their party should be in power? There is no difference. Do you know the difference between a 9/11 truther arguing that 9/11 was an inside job and a member of Popular Mechanics arguing that it was in fact Islamic terrorists who did it? There is no difference.
Do you see how silly your comment is now?
ukchristian28 1 year ago
@ukchristian28
WOW so you are a paranoid conspiracist aswell.
Why do you think it was an inside job? This should be funny.
gorilla199uncensored 1 year ago
@gorilla199uncensored
What? How on earth do you get that from my comment? I was pointing out the silliness of asserting that there is no difference between a Muslim and a Christian arguing for their positions. You have to examine the claims of both before you can say the two have equal validity.. I would have thought it would be obvious what I was trying to say.
ukchristian28 1 year ago
@ukchristian28
"the two have equal validity"
Yes their claim the religion they where brain washed into as a child is true is just as valid as when you claim the religion you where brainwashed into is true.
Anyone who is not in the religion can easily see yours and theirs is a load of crap.
gorilla199uncensored 1 year ago
@gorilla199uncensored
Yes, well you still totally missed my point which is what I should have expected. Before someone can say that Christianity or Islam have more validity that the other, or whether they are equally as valid (or invalid) they need to do an examination of both of their claims. That was the only point I was making. You know, Gorilla199 is as crazy as can be but I am starting to think that I would actually get morel rational replies from him than I do from you.
ukchristian28 1 year ago
@ukchristian28
"morel rational replies "
As in they agree with your dellusion! LOL thats not rational.
So why doesnt your god answer prayers?
Why is there no burning bushes or other showings of him any more?
How does stealing make the top 10 and rape and even child rape dont make it?
How can he approve of slavery, rape, pedofilia, murder of men women and children (But keep the virgin girls for raping!)
But killing people who work saturdays is moral! Your religion is sick!
gorilla199uncensored 1 year ago
@dennj2 The guy in Pakistan has to interrupt his video production five times a day?
0gods 6 months ago
What the hell man? Your videos were brilliant and your concise arguments made guys like venomfang scratch their heads. Oh well, good luck with your new found friend god...I'll just be tending to my old friend, logic.
*UNSUBSCRIBED*
gargarensi 2 years ago
@gargarensi
Kabane was a Christian for whole time he made these videos (apart from a brief crisis of faith part way through).
ukchristian28 1 year ago
atheist lmao.. just remember kid. The bilbe is true
heaton916 2 years ago
I left a video response to "Message to all Creationist" before I saw this. Much respect, Good decision.
SimplexSweet22 2 years ago
Miss you!
ltzaharias 2 years ago
This young man represents a modern tragedy. I have no clue how he can reconcile his bronze age beliefs with science and in particular with evolutionary biology. He is obviously a bright young man and that is precisely why I find it tragic.
nontheistdavid 2 years ago 11
@nontheistdavid
Newsflash- the New Testament wasn't written in the "bronze age." You guys do give me a chuckle.
KabaneTheChristian 1 year ago
Does not want to waste his time defending creation any more?
Maybe hes realised science wins out over the 6000 year old, flat earth at the centre of the universe the bible claims and its stupid ark fairy tale!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Perhaps gorilla needs to watch more videos on this channel. Had you watched a single one of my videos, you would have realized that I was actually defending evolution from the creationist nonsense. I've been a theistic-evolutionist.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago 3
Yes science still wins out over story book.
the fact you accept alot of reality and dont deny the bible is fully of lies/ignorance and fairy tales just asks the question
Why do you rpetend the rest of it correct knowing its a faulty and unreliable source for information (Which you admit)
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
@gorilla199uncensored
"... unreliable source for information (Which you admit)"
What? Kabane admitted no such thing! Honestly, do you make any effort to understand what people believe?
ukchristian28 1 year ago
@ukchristian28
The bible is unreliable even if you lie and deny that.
Xtians cant even agree what an xtian is, so the bible fails terribly.
Without even needing to mention the creation myth has been proven wrong and most xtians accept that fact. Thats why even many of your xtian friends on here pretend the creation myth is compatable with evolution. LOL
Im not if that your beliefs more absurd than theirs or the other way around.
gorilla199uncensored 1 year ago
@gorilla199uncensored
You said that Kabane admitted that the Bible is unreliable when he said no such thing. Also the Bible is not "a source" but a collection of sources. Don't Americas argue over how to interpret the U.S Constitution or the founding fathers of America? Does it follow that the U.S Constitution and the founding fathers all "failed terribly"?
Please listen to my video series responding to AndrewKinghorn15 and demonstrate how I am wrong in my interpretation.
ukchristian28 1 year ago
@ukchristian28
No your bible is fail, because xtians cant even agree on what an xtian is.
Then theres people like you who lie and claim the world flood myth was local, because you can see its crap at the same time you think the majority of xtians are wrong because they accept the fact man evolved.
Even if your story book was written by a god.
Its the god of poligamy, rape, incest, slavery, peodfilia, murder of men, women children babies and the unborn babies!
Moral even you wont defend
gorilla199uncensored 1 year ago
@gorilla199uncensored
And a lot of Americans can't agree over how to interpret parts of the U.S Constitution or the what the founding fathers of America. I guess they are fail too according to your reasoning.
You haven't even attempted to respond to my arguments regarding the extent of the flood. Also I recognize appeals to majority to be logical fallacies.
Appeals to outrage are also logical fallacies. God is perfectly just to carry out judgements upon sinful humanity.
ukchristian28 1 year ago
@ukchristian28
As I said if you are stating your god didnt do a better job than the people who wrote the con, then you are admitting your god is a failure at getting his message across.
The us con is alot clearer than the bible. It doesnt outrightly contradict itself as the bible does, so actually your god did a far worse job. Thats to be expected since the bible was written by ignorant god hearders thousands of years ago.
gorilla199uncensored 1 year ago
@ukchristian28
IS YOUR GOD ABLE TO GET A MESSAGE ACROSS IF HE WANTED TOO?
YES or NO?
This is one you will avoid :)
gorilla199uncensored 1 year ago
@ukchristian28
Good to see you dont expect your god to do any better a job than man, which is correct since it was man not any imaginary god that created the bible.
gorilla199uncensored 1 year ago
@gorilla199uncensored
This is good isn't it:)
watch?v=9kASiOSxgAU
ukchristian28 1 year ago
@ukchristian28
Bigotry, thats another moral of your god. Dont know some fundies feel so threatened by the truth they have to fake videos.
BTW YOU AVOIDED the question.
Who caused 911?
gorilla199uncensored 1 year ago
€€orilla199uncensored
Is it really? Do you even know what the word bigotry means?
Fundies faking videos? What are you talking about?
9/11 was carried out by Islamic terrorists working for Al Qaeda. All of the various conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 are complete nonsense on the same level as holocaust denial and flat earthism.
ukchristian28 1 year ago
@ukchristian28
"All of the various conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 are complete nonsense on the same level as holocaust denial and flat earthism."
Yet theres plenty of people who claim each is correct, you have your god dellusion so you are similar to them.
gorilla199uncensored 1 year ago
@ukchristian28
I put a couple of cretaion questions on your page.
I dont expect any evidence or reasoning (Snicker)
Just excuses for why your god did it.
BTW you ever notice EVERY religion
Never supplies any evidence
Only rewards you after you die (Perfect scam set up)
gorilla199uncensored 1 year ago
Well now I guess I have to use you as an example of people that can believe in evidence and rationality and yet still believe in ridiculous superstitious stories at the same time.
When you get older date a Buddhist or atheist or something and you'll be surprised how fast your faith falls apart when you have a real reason to examine it critically and honestly. Until then you're just repeating ad-hoc apologetics for beliefs you hold on emotional grounds. And you probably know it.
MystryBox 2 years ago
These kind of comments are really stupid. Here we go...
You're just an atheist because you don't want to be held accountable to your creator. I'm sure that one day you will realize that your belief is only based on a desire for moral anarchy and abandon it.
See? I can play games just as well.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
When you speak to Christians about evolution you're speaking from experience and knowledge that they don't have. My comment to you was the same thing only about something you have little experience with. Grow up, marry someone from another religion or have some other life experience to force you to examine your beliefs critically. It's only then you discover how poor the entire basis for Christianity is.
MystryBox 2 years ago 2
Dude, I examined my beliefs VERY critically awhile ago and I continue to read books written by people from the other side. Please don't assume.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
I'm sure. As I said I already said you probably already know everything there is to know to leave Christianity. You're a smart kid. But like I said you have no pressure to examine skeptically and honestly (and you might never have that). There's a big difference between reading an apologetic looking for confirmation of what you believe (which is trival), and reading it looking for what is **really most likely to be true**.
MystryBox 2 years ago 2
Kabane I really wish and will keep praying that "Christians" care as much as you do. I myself am continually studying my belief and am trying to share God in ways that I believe most Christians skip over, that includes the connection of Evolution and the Bible except more theologically in-line because the literary portion does not need to be reduced as much as even some Christian-Evolutionists quite expect!
MonstersNightmare 2 years ago
You probably already know everything there is to know to leave Christianity behind. But you have no reason to actually take that step. You're perfectly happy to believe ancient unsupported hogwash because it fits your life. We'll see what happens when you grow up a bit more. Best regards.
MystryBox 2 years ago 3
What did they do to you?
gowron97 2 years ago
@gowron97
I absolutely love reading comments like this. It was a bit disturbing that the atheists were more allied with me than Christians were for a bit there.
KabaneTheChristian 1 year ago
take the george bush pic down man it makes you look tacky
siwooot 2 years ago
olololololol debunking evolution lololololol
Debunk this!
YOU ARE A REJTAWRD.
Jegermeister0 2 years ago
Debunking evolution? Huh? Um...did you even watch any of the videos on this channel?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
maybe, maybe not, maybe go fuck yourself :)=
Jegermeister0 2 years ago
FAIL, you got worked and couldn't take it. typical
mtsac1 2 years ago
So you're a creationist?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Yeah, I was actually defending evolution on this channel. lolz.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
why do you have an image of a white jesus on your other page?
show us where there is a historical image of your god-man
i will continue to report it
oh and you comb your hair with a pork chop
nyarltep 2 years ago
If you actually read the articles, you'd know it's only speculation:
"It is thought to be derived from apocrine-like skin glands of synapsids, which probably served as a source of moisture for the parchment-shelled eggs and as a source of nutrients for the hatchlings."
But of course, evolutionist's thoughts are facts to you, aren't they?
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Now what facts do you have to support that mammary glands evolved from fluid glands?
Only an article that is pure speculation???
Of course this is what you evolutionists call science. But I rather believe in facts rather than evolution nonsence.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
But, suppose that there were some lizards with sweat glands that are now extinct. Sweat glands produce sweat in response to temperature. Mammary glands produce milk in response to hormonal changes that occur at the end of pregnancy. What would make a gland produce a different kind of fluid in response to a different kind of stimulus?
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Suppose, however, that some reptiles evolved high metabolism and sweat glands at the same time. Then, millions of years later, some of these reptiles adapted their sweat glands to secrete milk instead. Isnt it reasonable to think that some of the reptiles that didnt evolve mammary glands might still be alive today? Why arent there some reptiles that have evolved sweat glands but not mammary glands?
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Reptiles dont need this capability. So, the first question one might ponder is, Why would reptiles evolve a cooling mechanism they dont need as a step toward evolving milk glands?
One might argue that they evolved a warm-blooded metabolism first, and consequently needed sweat glands to cool themselves off. But both of these miracles would have to evolve at the same time because a reptile that evolved warm-bloodedness before evolving sweat glands would overheat and die.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
So much for your arument. Let's call it strike one. I'll give you two more strikes to hit me with the best you got. After that, it's over. I'll strike you with more facts and you lose!
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Interesting though, I wonder how evolutionists calculate these percentages of dna sharing. I should look into this.
But seriously, is this your best piece of evidence? Wow, that is so much better than gaps that cannot be overcome, lol.
Look at all different types computer viruses. They share great deal of programming code among one another.
We can explain this fact without claiming that all computer viruses are changed copies of one ancient computer virus, and same explanation goes for dna
phicomingatya 2 years ago
If you want more facts, just ask for it. I got tons of it.
Genetics, populations, apes, whales, fossils, you name it.
Also I can review all of your evolutionist fabricated evidence. And crush all of it. The theory can only fall apart when facts and data enter.
But let me give you a fair chance to defend your precious theory. Throw me your best piece of evidence from any field of science which is evidence to you, that animal life or all life - if you want - evolved from a common ancestor.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
You've managed to wipe the floor with cretards like hovind and other non-scienific creationists, but your line of victory stops here. In every case I can show you that predictions made bu the theory of evolution do not fit he data and the facts and observations.
You name it, nested hierarhy, atavism, chromosome fusion, ERVs, fossils?
I chalenge all of you evolutionists. It's time your theory faces up to the real facts!
phicomingatya 2 years ago
"I chalenge all of you evolutionists. It's time your theory faces up to the real facts! "
Yes challenge people on youtube, yea for someone claiming to be able to so easily disprove evolution you sure are a pussy.
Why do try your drivel on people like Francis Collins, Richard Dawkins, and other people who are experts on evolutionary biology or genetics?
The theory of evolution is always being faced up to "real facts" and yet it still holds and gets even more support.
mecher3k 2 years ago
You've heard dawkins. Have you also seen Miller. How do thy respond to these facts? They don't. They haven' even thought about it or considered it. Because they've been following mainstream scientific literature, and never really thought it all through or really quenstioned the theory of evolution. And that's why the error remains.
But I challenge ALL evolutionists, including dawkins and his companions.
Show me one genetic fact that is evidence for evolution. ONE!
phicomingatya 2 years ago
"Show me one genetic fact that is evidence for evolution. ONE! "
How about the one you were suppose to learn in what, the first science class you learn DNA in.
The fact that we share over anyway from 96% to 99% of our DNA with other primates. We even share around 60% with bananas.
Those two facts is evidence of common ancestry.
Yea I'm sure Collins never thought about evolution despite being a evangelical Christian.
You live in one weird world you made in that brain of yours.
mecher3k 2 years ago
Now how is sharing dna evidence for your theory of evolution? Tell me!
We share lots of things. We share bone structure, we share proteins in food, we share, and on and on the list goes. Any retard can predict that this similarity is reflected in the genes.
Besides, a small diffence in dna code often results in completely different function.
Nice observation, and yes, this is what we'd expect if we all evolved from one common ancestor. But this is also expected i we did not evolve.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
And of course all mammals with strong babies went into extinction. How convenient?
I can give you many more facts which all dsprove the evolution of mammals from a reptile clade.
I rather believe in scientific facts than in made up concepts and theories of evolution. And the facts disprove the evolution of evolution. Not just one fact, but many many facts.
And what evidence do we have to support the theory of evolution? Only concept and models that will fall apart, if we take a closer look.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
lol, evolution of evolution. You know tha i mean, haha :p
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Really the more you talk the more you prove without a doubt your entire argument is based on gaps in knowledge. You do realize that is a logical fallacy?
mecher3k 2 years ago
"And of course all mammals with strong babies went into extinction."
If they weren't adopted to the environment then yes a species WILL go extinct. Doesn't matter how "strong" their offspring is.
Yea if you're in the top 1% of intelligent people, I'm god himself.
You're a idiot who knows nothing of science.
mecher3k 2 years ago
Tell me then, how does getting weaker make a species better adapted???
This is not a gap of knowledge, mate. This is a critical part of the theory of evolution. All of it will fall apart if mammals did not evolve from reptile ancestors. And none of you evolutionists can even come up with anything plausable that can fill up this gap even a bit.
I'm not saying god did it. It's upto you what you believe outside of science scope.
I have presented only a few of the many many facts that disprove ...
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Your "theory" in how mammal's needing milk is not a critical part of evolution, you are committing the strawman fallacy now.
You are debunking your OWN "theory" and acting like it's actually part of the theory of evolution when it's obviously not.
You just using gaps in our knowledge and trying to disprove something.
Doesn't work like that. Otherwise the theory of gravity would be just thrown out because it can't explain the rotational speeds of galaxies correctly.
mecher3k 2 years ago
Hahaha, that's so typical. You evolutionists revert to gravitational theory, every time you are in trouble.
But one theory in science can be true while another one can be false, so another theory being correct or not, is totally irrelevant.
I've already showed that evolution does not explain nor predict nor fit the different number of chromosome pairs in mammal species in particular. Especially the pattern, which shows no individuals of any species having halve chromosones or half a pair.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
So now you pose a theory that he first mammals did not need milk, but evolved it anyway, to their advantage. After that evolution decided to make them dependent on it and let all mammals who do not follow this decision - but survived for many many generations over time, time needed to gradually evolve all of that - go extinct. Very nice! Any other bright ideas?
phicomingatya 2 years ago
"So now you pose a theory that he first mammals did not need milk, but evolved it anyway, to their advantage."
Right... I think you need to stop listening the voices in your head because I NEVER said that.
Again, you just using gaps in our knowledge to try to disprove evolution. And once again, it doesn't work like that.
mecher3k 2 years ago
Ah, reptile to mammal evolution is a gap, but you make all people on the world believe it is proven beyond doubt, and you start calling those who do not comply, stupid theistic retards.
Now that is a very scientific approach. You do not know, but I have to believe you???
You are discrediting the real science with this theory of yours, which does not rely on proper scientific facts at all.
But at least you admit that you do not know.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
I cannot assume that the first mammals did need milk. Neither can i assume that they did not need milk.
But neither way is leading to a plausible theory.
So I do not even need to assume anyhing. This is evidence against the theory of evolution, either way.
And what is a gap that cannot be filled?
No problem for evolutionist scientists of course. They simply ignore it, because it does not fit their precious theory. How convenient for them?
phicomingatya 2 years ago
I am glad I came to reread what discussion on this video or I would have never seen that you are still posting. I thought you actually started to do some research. I also see you still think simply stating something makes it data, this is laughable at best. But here is some real data for you: The mammary gland and its origin during synapsid evolution, The origin of lactation as a water source for parchment-shelled eggs, and the origin s of lactation and the evolution of milk.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
This took me about a minute of research on Google scholar, I suggest you do the same and stop acting so foolish. Also, now that I know you do not reply to my comments, I think I will check about on this video every week or so to see what else you have said without doing any research.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Hahhaaha, it's a miracle. Evolution can turn water into milk!
You prove to be a real idiot. You just believe every concept any evolutionists posts in an article, don't you.
Try again, mate.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Try again? You asked for data and I proved it to you. Just because you wish to close your eye and pretend it does not exists does not me I failed to do what you asked. Why are the ideas in the articles I proved wrong, they simply could not be wrong just because you say so? Please, for once, provide some evidence AKA data for any of the claims you have made in this exchange. Again, simply stating something does not make it data, come with some sources.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Reptilian sweat glands could not possibly have evolved into mammary glands because reptiles dont have sweat glands.
Reptiles are cold-blooded animals. They regulate their body temperatures primarily by moving in and out of the sun. They can get away with this because they can survive with a larger body temperature range than warm-blooded mammals. Mammals need sweat glands to cool them off, so they dont overheat.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
So you have read the articles I have posted. You are trying to address a point made in one of them. Please tell me which article was it that you read? Where is your data to support your claim?
Also, we are talking about synapsids which by the time they become synapsids they probably would not be classified as reptiles. Those life forms would not have nursed their young, but they would have had hair on their body, which could mean they were warm blooded.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Which claim?
Also, synapsids are mammals. So bad news for you!
phicomingatya 2 years ago
The claims you are making to disprove the articles I have provide. I was simply asking questions. That is why they had questions marks after them.
All mammals are synapsids, but not all synapsids are mammals. There are number of creatures that were alive during the Permian and Carboniferous that would be classified as synapsids but would not be mammals. This is simply cladistics.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
You see, mammal offspring wouldn't survive childhood, let alone many generations over time, for mammary glands to evolve and give milk.
Now I wonder what concept evolutionists will come up with to solve this. Probably they'll say: perhaps the first mammals gave birth to strong baby mammals who didn't need mother's milk to survive but sucked on some nipples anyways, and after milk finally coming out of it, mammal babies became weaker and weaker over time.
And of course all mammals with strong...
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Fuck Jesus! Hail Satan!
swordofisis 2 years ago
(Good luck with your puberty)
RoseSkye 2 years ago
Don't blame you, reality doesn't need your defense nearly as much as your fantasy
loveisallneed 2 years ago
Is that George Bush on the wall in the back? lol
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We can not define evolution as change of allel frequencies over time, simply because many speciation events - supposed that it happened - require more than allel mutations.
Those require chromosomes to fuse or split or duplicate or silenced or whatever concept you evolutionists come up with.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Comment removed
phicomingatya 2 years ago
It is true that evolutionists can come up with a concept of changing allels that can possibly lead to speciation (new species in most common biological sence). So new species could arise this way.
Now after this, dumb scientists draw wrong conclusions, like:
Allel mutations caused all speciation events and therefor allel frequency change is the definition of evolution.
Can't you evolutionists see how and why this is not true???
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Are you seriously asking for my qualifications? As if one needs more than high school level of biology to understan allels.
Straw man? Tell me, what makes my argument straw man?
It's your stupidity that fails to understand the simple concept of allels. How many allel mutations do you need to win an extra chromosome, mate?
Only reason you're avoiding this question, is because you cannot answer it. That and no other reason.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Do you at least agree that many different animal species have different chromosome numbers???
And do you then agree that these different number of chromosome pairs must have evolved somehow?
Or are you gonna tell me chromosomes just magicly appeared without evolution???
Look, I'm not gonna wait for your brains to evolve for you to be able to grasp some basic logic.
So stop hiding behind definitions and authority, cause if you think one needs any science degree for this, you are total retard!!!
phicomingatya 2 years ago
And it is not necessary for a mutated and new allel to become more frequent, though it does increase chances of one of the offspring having more allel mutations.
Evolutionists believe that an accumulation of such mutiations leads to macro-evolution over long long time.
All your evolutionists talk about frequencies and populations (isolated or not) is bull.
You look at ring species and then fabricate a concept and without thinking, you implicate it is like that for evolution of all life.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Having such scientists as you, who can not think for themselves, is exactly the reason why such error (theory of evolution) can remain in science!
It has been embarassing for long enough. Evolution is disproofed and science people should reject it.
I can continue showing data that disproofs evolution, it's not that hard actually. You lost, mate!
phicomingatya 2 years ago
"Evolution is disproofed"
LOL! You can't spell and you are trying to tell others evolution is wrong?
Then again, the Intelligence of creationists are never shown to be above a 6th graders.
Who should I listen to, people who spend their entire lives studying biology, or some random cretard on the internet.
Shouldn't be too hard to realize the correct answer to that.
mecher3k 2 years ago
mercher, you decide for yourself who you listen to. And frankly, I don't care what you decide.
Fact remains that none of your har working biologists have managed to give a plausible way of chromosome increase.
Neither has any of you evolutionist retards have been able to think through reptile to mammal evolution and whale evolution.
Funny you dare talk to me about intelligence. I'm sure you don't belong to the top one percent of most intelligent people, do you? So better listen to me.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
"Fact remains that none of your har working biologists have managed to give a plausible way of chromosome increase."
And your point would be? The only point is there is a gap of knowledge, so god did it.
That is your ENTIRE argument when stripped to the basics.
"Anyway, most evolutionists are stupid"
Right so over 99% of life and earth SCIENTISTS are stupid? Right...
Evolution is real, sucks to be you.
Evolution is built on facts, creationism is built on being a retard.
mecher3k 2 years ago
Mecher, you probably only speak english, not as many languages as me. So you notice this is not my native language. Tell you what, I'll try to be more careful in spelling and typing from my mobile device.
Anyway, most evolutionists are stupid and so proud to have a theory that needs no reliion, that they do not care how rotten the science is behind it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm in big favor of good science. Just not the ones that say suck on some glands and over time, milk will come out of it.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Actually, we've been isolating allels for many many years in dog breeding to get pure races. And we got many pure breeds. Allel frequencies are totally different between different pure breed races. But they are he exact same dog species (also with exact same number of chromosomes containing the genes). Think about this.
So tell me, mate. What am I missing here? Didn't you know that this allel frequency concepts was made up before modern genetic times?Amazingly,evolutionists never updated it.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
A population of all blonde allels and blue eye allels with zero black hair frequency and zero brown eye allel frequency is as much human as a population with all black hair allels and brown eye allels with zero blond allel frequency and zero blue eye frequency.
It obviously does not seems not to matter what the allel frequency of hair color or eye color is. It's always human population. Why?Because they are allels of the same genes:hair and eye genes (same structure),therefor can 'interbreed'.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
But let for the arguments sake asume that all life did evolve the way you say by allel mutations.
Each individual is same species as one of his parents, obviously. And his parent is same species as his grandparent and so on. Then what do we get? Us being one ring species formed by all of our ancestors! Then in an infinite world without death, where all ancestors are still alive, all species would be ring species of each other???
Interestin, isn't it. Think about it. What is a species now?
phicomingatya 2 years ago
What then does your theory of evolution predict? Yes, among the millions of living species, we must find at least a few with silenced duplicate chromosome pairs. Or chromosomes that can be missed without being fatal. Well then, what does the data show us??? None of the many animal species we geneticly studied, shows such case.
But why would an evolutionist bother about this? All you need is allel alterations, don't you? Hah, idiots!
You are an embarrasment to science.Evolution is disproofed
phicomingatya 2 years ago
And then you evolutionists continue to fabricate a concept where a duplicate chromosome pair is silenced (what the? how do all genes on a whole chromosome gets silenced???), and then mutates and gets unsilenced??? Such that missing the extra chromosome is fatal!!!
Well I surely do not believe in such fairy tales. If you do, then I have no problem showing you how it is contradicted obviously by the data we see.
Because of all millions of species - still evolving, as your theory of evolution ...
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Give me any data, and I will show you that it does not fit the theory of evolution, although evolutionis scientists have managed to present it as if it woulf fit evolution predictions and only evolution predictions.
I challenge you. What can you come up with? Nested hierarchy? ERVs? Fusion? Fossils? Atavism? Rudiments?
There is absolutely no evidence that proofs that life evolved out of common ancestors.
Stop this pseudo-science of evolution. Data disproofs it.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
I think this channel would be put to better use if you used it as practice for your debates. I greatly enjoyed the video you posted of you practicing for your debate. I think it will give you a chance to get real feel back.
It would be a shame to let channel like this go to waste.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
YAY! YOUR GONE!
Mississippi1313 2 years ago
Well it was fun while it lasted, some great memories, good to see you keeping your priorities straight anyways. Peace out.
UnionKid15 2 years ago
I think it shows maturity to acknowledge when the time on something is up - we all have interests, they change with time. A lot of the things I invested a hell of a lot of time on online 6 or 7 years ago I neither have the time nor interest to pursue, I've taken on new things which matter to me now. Good luck with your future ventures - your existing videos do a great service to us and I'm glad you're leaving them up. God bless.
orderinchaos 2 years ago
Sad, really.
You were good at evolution.
Maybe you shouldn't give it up?
Just concentrate more on the other account.
Well, keep doing what you think is right.
Adios.
expandedpupil 2 years ago
I'm proud of you for signing off of the evolution debate on youtube (though I'm sure it will continue some in class...) Even if I never agreed with you, you were still an excellent debater. I'll be looking forward to your pwning attacks on atheism. Keep up the good work of logically defending Christianity!
1Elbereth1 2 years ago
I hoped it will end the other way around.
madeye0 2 years ago
sorry to hear that...I hope you change your mind.
(This should come as no surprise) I think you do a far better job of defending evolution than Christianity.
Either way, take care.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
goodbye
TheLovePizza 2 years ago
Best wishes Kabane. Thanks for sharing your views on evolution and christianity and all the time and effort it took to make your vids. It was a good run while it lasted, but all thing eventually end. Good luck on your classes and studies. I'll see you on your other channel.
cerebulon 2 years ago
COOL!
DavidWalters7 2 years ago
It's really funny you made this vid Kabane, in all honesty, atheism on youtube only got big b/c of VFX and the fundies. Now with most of them accepting evolution, some gone etc. They have nothing to attack, and must face the intellectual arguments put forth, we may be outnumbered---but in no way are we losing. The philosophy put forth by Christians on youtube is far deeper than the atheistic side.
I'm glad you closed your account, in that there is no debate in evolution, but moreso in Truth.
TheIrrationalAtheist 2 years ago
Kabane, you're a beast, I thank God for your life.
TheIrrationalAtheist 2 years ago
Christianity does not have even 1/1000 of the factual evidence that underpins the theory of evolution. Defending Christianity is both a waste of your intellect and is in the end bad for the planet in general. Enjoy your losing battle though ! & thanks for all your fine videos on this channel :-)
REALITY2point0 2 years ago
That's what you think. Christianity will prevail and evolution loses big time
phicomingatya 2 years ago
There is not a dichotomy of christianity and evolution. They are not mutually excusive ideas.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
In your world view, yes, then there is no dichomotomy.
But basicly, an animal - no matter how exemplary, selected, improved, and perfected in form and instinct, and, if your wish, even in mental formation - will always be an animal.
And this not compatible with true christian belief, that we man have spirit that distinguishes us from beasts.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
I hate to burst your bubble but humans are animals. And that has been known since before Darwin. Carolus Linnaeus first placed humans into the kingdom animalia. This is the same classification system that places us in the phylum chordate and the class mammalian.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Wow, you are such a moron. So some idiot places you among animals, you go ahead and blindly follow. You take a beast as your paternity, and kill the spirit, and therefor degrade yourself to the level of a beast. Such pity!
phicomingatya 2 years ago
So you are standing against science and provable fact and calling me the moron. The irony. Next you will say that humans are not vertebrates.
Who says I am blindly following? I am a biological anthropology major; I deal with stuff like this every day. Your statement shows that you seem really vain about your existents. So just because you were not specially created you will spit in the eye of science? What is so degrading about sharing a common ancestor with every living thing on this planet?
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Comment removed
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Take a biology class. I am using the proper definition of an animal. By definition humans are animals as well, just like we are mammals. Get over your vanity. While we are on definitions could you define evolution in a scientific context?
I know I did not burst your bubble because you would rather believe lies than accept facts and theory. What data disproves evolution (this should be a riot)?
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Oops, I accidently removed my comment.
Scientific data: different species have different chromosome structure
Theory of evolution: mutation of allels produced all species
Contradiction: allels don't change structure of dna
Reply of evolutionists: other kinds of mutations occur
Contradiction with data: Millions of animal species are extant. Not one single species is in the proces of evolving an extra chromosome pairs
Reply? happens suddenly? New centromers magicly form? Duplicate/silencing?
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Nice straw man. Evolution is not mutations of alleles produced all species. Every single species is in the process of evolving, if you knew the actual definition of evolution you would know that (please define it). There are been hundreds of exponents done in labs that show speciation. Also, look up nylon eating bacteria and Italian wall lizards; those are two observed speciation events happening in nature.
I suggest you spend some time researching before making such ignorant statements.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Oh so allels mutations did not happen? What are you saying, mate? No species have evolved yet, but are evolving? What the ..?
Answer me: what mechanism causes animals to evolve new chromosome pairs, and what data do you have to back it up?
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Yes mutations happen. But that is a small part of what evolution is. Mutations are no the driving force for evolution, natural selection is. Mutations can only add new alleles for natural selection to act on. I will answer you questions as soon as you define what evolution is.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
So? What's your point? Natural selection can only select what is already mutated.
Why are all evolutionists such natural selection guru's. You always have to talk about it, even if it's totally irrelevant.
Talking about straw man: you only answer to parts that are easy to you (though irrelevant).
There's no such thing as common ancestory of all life. No definition of evolution will change that.
Besides, words can mean different things in different contexts. You should know that.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Irrelevant? Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution, which is why biologists are always talking about it. I wonder, do you even know the definition of natural selection?
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Alright then. If you insist that natural selectio is relevant, tell me then, how does natural selection increase the amount of chromosome pairs after allel mutation fails to do the job.
Your natural selection is no help here. On the contrary: when erroreous chromosome duplications do occur in offspring, it's being getten rid off by natural selection. But of course you ignore that - you are so good at ignoring as
it doesn't suit your thesis.
Atavism, fossils and ERV don't support evolution!
phicomingatya 2 years ago
As I said, read the article I cited. All will be answered.
In addition, as I stated before, just because you state something does not make it so.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
That is why I asked you to define evolution in a scientific context. The only reason I did not answer the second part of your questions was that I think it is rude to ask someone else a question when you yourself have not answered questions ask of them. There is such thing has common ancestry, evidence as atavism, transitional fossil, and ERV show that.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
As for the data thing, just because you say something does not make it so. If you want some real source for what I am saying here they are: the effect of mutations and natural selection on codon bias in the genes of Drosophila, Natural selection shaped regional mtDNA variation in humans, and Steriod 21-hydroxylase deficiency: three additional mutated alleles and establishment of phenotype-genotype relationships of common muations.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Adding allels does not give you extra chromosome pairs.
So, tell me, what mutation or mechanism does?
It does not matter what drives it. It has to happen before it can be selected. So your precious natural selection can not help you out here, mate.
Or does the theory of evolution not say that all animal species - having different numbers of chromosomes - have a common ancestor species???
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Of course, who told you that? Yes, evolution says that all animal species, all life on this planet for that matter, have different numbers of chromosomes. I do not know why you are so hung up on chromosomes, evolution acts on alleles, which are in the chromosomes, they do not have to be created or destroyed for evolution to happen.
There is some data that could help you out: A new chromosome anomaly in acute lymphoblast leukemia (all).
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Just admit that you have no answer to the question.
Unless all animals have same number of chromosome pairs, then yes, allel mutations could have been sufficient. But that is not the case, is it? So it's amazing how ignorant you continue to say that chromosome increase is not necessary for evolution. Well, it certainly is necessary for the 'evolved' - as you claim - life around us. Why do you ignore data??? Just to defend your theory of evolution of random mutation and natural selection. Sad!!
phicomingatya 2 years ago
No answer? Did you not read the article I cited? That was the answer to your question. Why do they need the to have chromosomes? Because you say so? Ignore what data? The only one citing data is I. As I said earlier, just because you say something does not make it data. That is not the definition of evolution; it is the change in allelic frequency over time. I knew you did not know the first thing about evolution.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Go read your articles yourself and then come back and answer to me. You evolutionists are good at hiding behind such articles.
Are you implying now that a significant part of the variety of chromosome numbers we see in todays mammals, evolved be means of leukemia anomalies??? Tell me!
Show me data that supports this idea of new animal species arising through such leukemia mechanism, if you can!
Being a biology anthropolist scientist is not enough to impress me, mate.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Hiding behind an article? You asked for data, I gave you data. What do you think data is? The article goes over an example of chromosome creation.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Alright, tell me now, how does leukemia or any particy answer my question on how a mammal species can get extra chomosome pairs? Shouldn't be too hard a question with all evolutionists articles available to you.
Come on then, I challenge you!
Yes we find species with different allels than other similar species. Now congratulations, you've managed to form a theory for explaining that. Too bad for you we also find species with a whole other dna structure, whih no allel alteration can accomplish!
phicomingatya 2 years ago
patricy I mean allo- or para- or sym- they only say things about parent species living at the same time as offspring species or not or something like that. Now how does this answer my question??? Try again, mate.
definitions of species cannot help you out here (see my previous reponse). Your allel alteration thesis can not explain the different dna structures of mammal species, and even if you can fabricate a concept, you have no data to back it up and I can easily disproof it.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
It does not answer your question because you are forming questions based off a straw man idea of what evolution is. Why would I want to answer questions about something that I do not support? I am telling you about biology, since anyone can tell from reading the exchange that you are lacking in this area.
Why does the change in allelic frequency over time not account for different DNA in different species? I think your argument here is internally inconsistent.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Did you read the article? Could you tell me why the process that worked for the Leukemia cannot work for mammals (From this statement, I am inferring that you accept that humans are mammals, I could be wrong)?
We find species with a whole other DNA structure. Really, which species are those? Can you please site a source for that statement? Again, simply because you state something does not make it data.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Really, are you such a retard that you cannot see an understand that, if all species evolved, thy must have changed a lot more than just allel frequencies along the way. This is not because I state it. This is the obvious fact.
Come on, go ahead and Tell me if you think that all that happened from the moment of first life on earth, was chancing of allels. Then I will crush his thought/belief of yours with such an abundance of data.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Evolution is simply the change in allelic frequency over time. That is biological evolution is and that is all biological evolution will allow.
Since this is so obvious to you, I would like to know why you think this. What qualifications do you have to be making all these bold statements? I mean you have not presented any data, even though you keep talking as if you did.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Do you even know what an allel is? F.i. for eye color genes, we got allel for blue eyes (recessive), and allel for brown eyes (dominant) and some others. Now there's been populations of people where frequency of blue eye allels has been like close to 100% in scandinavian countries before immigration and there's populations of asian people with all brown eye allels.
It doesn't matter if you seperate these two populations and you cannot change eye color allels frequency more than this.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Alleles are pairs of different genes that make us up. Therefore, an individuals genotype is made up of alleles. In addition, the genotype is what expressed the phenotype.
Close to 100% in Scandinavian, really? Could you please cite a source for this claim?
By the way, what does any of this have to do with the change in allelic frequency over time? In addition, you never answered by questions for what your qualifications are for this matter. Is that question to hard for you to answer?
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Alright, tell me, what part of my story is not true then???
Let me spell it out for you: every individual has a different set of combination of allels. Tell
me now, how does allels being more or less frequent in the population around you determine what species you are. It doesn't matter how frequent allels occur. It's irrelevent.
It's better to say that mutation can form a new allel for a certain gene. Now evolutionists would say one new allel does not make a new species...
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Straw man. I do not intend to defend your straw man. Species are populations of an organism that can interbreed naturally and produce viable offspring.
Very true, one new allele does not make a new species, species are population of organism that can interbreed naturally and produce viable offspring.
This is also basic biology. Now I will ask again, what field of biology do you study that makes you so confident that evolution is wrong? I also asked you to cite a source for you data.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Do I have to teach you how to read and understand? Each Individual have a unique set of gene allels, mate. But individuals of same species all have their genes arranged in he same structure and same number of chromosome pairs. This can be different for plants mostly.
All that evolutionists can come up with, are chromosome disorders such as leukemia and down.
Such morons, having three or more of one chromosome is of no benefit =>natural selection? Besides, we see each pair is unique not copies
phicomingatya 2 years ago
It would be easier to read and understand if you spelled things correctly and used coherent sentence structure in your comments. In fact, can you please restate the statements you made in this comment, I am afraid I do not know what you are asking exactly.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
I am saying that the variety of chromosomes numbers came about through simple allelic change through time. Nor am I saying that speciation happens through leukemia mechanism, you do like to put words in my mouth. Speciation happens through allopatric, parapatric, and sympatric.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Wow, you really are a moron of a scientist. Let's tes your definition of evolution. Change of allel frequenties over time??? Hahaha. That's one of the worst definitions I have heard! But I will give you a chance to defend this definition of yours. Look at a horse and a spider and then tell me! What makes them different species? Different allel frequency???
Even with todays knowledge of genetics, you come ere and pick such definition of evolution? I'm amazed of your stupidity, really!
phicomingatya 2 years ago
The biological definition of species is a population of interbreeding organism that are not geologically isolated and can produce fertile offspring. So no, horses and spiders could not the same species.
I did not pick this definition, which is the definition of evolution that is used in biology. Have you not taken a basic biology class? It would seem like that with your limited knowledge of evolution and specie station.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Tell me now, if allel for blue eyes becomes more frequent in human race, do we have a new human species in the making then? Wow, how interesting. We can breed new human species now. Just isolate a population and change allel frequencies, pick the onces with allels of blue eyes and let them produce many offspring.
A population of pure blue eyed allels is still as much human as a population of pure brown eyes. Because both are allels of the eye color.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
As long as there is gene flow, there is no way to isolate a simple group of people to create a new race of people.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
"They are not mutually excusive ideas."
They, however, are intertwined. If evolution is correct then Adam and Eve never actually existed... they never "turned away" from God... there is no original sin... there is no need for Jesus to save anyone from original sin.
Or rather if the Genesis story is not literal and true the entire foundation of Christianity is a lie, and therefore very suspect.
paleosmoker 2 years ago