i like this video, you have a good arguments against the ass-hole commenters ,,,,,they suck big time and i have noticed through my own experience (of the evolution on you tube comments) that most folk who make bad comments have no videos of their own....discuss
Evolution is based on OBSERVATIONAL evidence, not EXPERIMENTAL evidence (same as astronomy, geology, etc.). Evolution could be falsified by new observations that are contrary to the theory (clearly wrong fossils in clearly wrong strata, etc.).
The FACT of evolution (that current species have DIFFERENT species as ancestors) is one of the very STRONGEST and BEST SUPPORTED facts science has ever declared.
Hmmm, seems like you don't really know a lot about how fossil strata are identified. It's usually by content. Sure they can date them, but they usually don't.
Hmmm, yourself, izatright. A "wrong" fossil would be one that does not BELONG with others. Like (the example often given), a rabbit fossil found in the same strata as Cambrian fossils.
I seem to recall these facts from previous research: 1) There are wrong fossils mixed together, 2) They have found incorrect sequences, 3) The fossil record doesn't OBSERVATIONALLY support Evolution because speciation is identified biologically and not morphologically. Fossils are thus interpreted/subsumed, not observationally supportive. Obviously your falsification standard is wrong. Also, I find physics better supported than Evolution. Perhaps you were being hyperbolic?
I'm thinkin'....you might try a glance at some information that DOESN'T come from "answers in genesis," or the like. Have a look at the "talk origins" site.
The "facts" you pretend to cite have not come from any "research" I've ever heard of. Perhaps you'd like to tell us your sources for such "research."
BTW, I'm an evolutionist. I can't recall 1 and 2 offhand, but I shouldn't have to do all your research anyway. #3 is just obvious. A new species is formed when it becomes sexually isolated and genetically incapable of interbreeding with another population. This cannot be told morphologically (fossils don't fuck). The whole identification process of fossils is guess-work based on this definition. The framework which directs this interpretation is Evolution, not unbiased observation.
So...first you "seem to recall" "facts," and then you "can't recall them offhand."
At best then, you're a rather CONFUSED "evolutionist."
I'm not going to waste a lot of time with...helping you to manifest your pretense. But I'll restate for you that the OBVIOUS interpretation of the differences seen in fossils of different strata is MODIFICATION of earlier species. This was generally agreed long before Darwin.
Getmethere: Insinuating I'm not an Evolutionist is pretty low. Look, I'm sorry I haven't studied geology and paleontology in 10 years and can't quote sources off the top of my head.
And the OBVIOUS interpretation is a philosophical commitment to a framework of interpretation called Evolution. Look, this isn't hard. Two morphologically similar species may have relatively little in common, and two dissimilar ones may be the same species. Deciding this based on shape alone is a guess.
Find a rabbit who lived in the Cambrian period, or a bird or mammal that lived in the Devonian period, 360 million years ago. Or find a mammal with the genes for making feathers, or a bird with the genes present for making nipples. There are MANY ways to falsify evolution.
It's very simple. Falsify evolution by finding a human fossil from the Jurassic period. Or any fossil of any species outside its evolutionary history. that means, a pre-cambrian dinosaur, etc. Look at a philo-genetic tree, take an animal, and find it before its ancestors in the fossil record :) Very simple to falsify and in 150+ years, it hasn't been done.
That's not true. Actually, DNA showed a level of complexity that largely defied Darwin's Uniformatarian assumptions. In essence, between every meaningful sequence of DNA is a devastating chasm of meaninglessness. Somehow evolution would have to jump from one platform to the next by mutations. The Neo-Darwinian Synthesis attempted to address this issue, I think by proposing "macroevolutionary" mechanics to account for relatively fast, large-scale change.
When it comes to scientific evidence, creationists are really good at closing their eyes, putting their hands over their ears and shouting "Lalalalalalalalala."
Creationists were misguided, sure, but every theory needs its detractors. Supporters tend to gloss over errors for the sake of a theory, whereas detractors tend to ignore the coherence and strength of the theory for its errors. I think the Creationist probably helped in the creative process of sealing the philosophical cracks of Evolutionary theory better than if no one had dissented at all.
Evolution, in and of itself, can't be falsified because it has already been proven with modern day observed instances of speciation and/or morphological change.
However, there are ways to falsify current evolutionary theory (a different thing entirely).
Find a rabbit in precambrian strata.
Find ERVs that are shared between Gorillas and Chimps, but not with Humans.
Oh, come, come. Creationist have contributed some significant scientific research over the centuries. Think Louis Agassiz and Georges Cuvier, or even, to a lesser extent, Walter Lammerts.
Indeed, if evolution is not true science and is not testable, then what's wrong with the Pope that he believes in it? Not to mention the two previous popes.
for every niche, there will be an organism to exploit that niche. Darwin found an orchid with an exceptionally long spur. The prediction was that there had to be a creature with an exceptionally long tongue that could drink it's nectar. Darwin never found the Hawk moth that does drink the nectar from the 11 inch or so long orchid spur, but it does exist, just like Darwin predicted.
By contrast, let's see Intelligent Design which doesn't even have a hypothesis, make similar predictions.
The theory of evolution is falsifiable because we can set a condition in which it's possible for the theory of evolution to be proved incorrect. We would not expect to see a fossil of a squirrel or a bunny rabbit in the Cambrian era. That is falsifiable.
Theories that work, exactly as you have said in your video, make predictions. Having a population of squirrels moved in some way to Death Valley, through environmental pressures would change to better survive the hotter conditions.
I feel the same way Nadia. That Darwin quote you put up. Is one of the main ones that gets quote mined by creationists. Few years ago I questioned Evolution, when it came up at a function. So I researched it for a few months. Then realized how wrong i was about the subject. I have to say that was a very enlightening experience.
Current species are so similar that a relation between them is undeniable.
Why is the brain consistently located in the head of most creatures, when it would be more protected inside the body? The location of a brain is completely irrelevant to what the brain does, so this would be an amazing coincidence if we didn't have common ancestors.
Good vid. Nice touch with the English professor accent. You could do a whole series titled 'answers for christards' in that accent. I've asked several creationists why the hell they are looking for high school science answers on message boards. Of course we all know they are just pushing theist spam.
excellent argument in response to a idiotic question. The truth is evolution is a widly accepted theory. I say theory because the how is still uncertain not so much as that it occurred. In your final part are you talking about extremophobes?
I can prove ebbalution ain't real becuz I have 2 cats and they are different colors. They do not look like a monkey at all. And, they are less than 6,000 years old-which means the world can't be much older then the cats. So there.....
The creationists will say and do anything to "debunk" the nylon bug. Mostly you get something along the lines of "the information was already in the DNA, so no evolution occurred".
Which is a complete lie of course. The nylon bug has been extensively studied and gnome mapped. We know exact what and where the mutation was and the effects on the proteins that are created.
yeah nice try but nylon-digesting microbes aren't good enough, after all, its still a microbe! yuk yuk
These morons are looking for radishes turning into camels overnight and shit like that (which ironically would actually DISprove evolution). Most of them are just flat out retarded and don't get it or don't want to get it so pretend not to. Just point and laugh.
LOL, Read a book! If any of them have ever read a book, other than the dreck shoveled out of the likes of the Institute for Creation Research, I'd be surprised.
Thank you for putting up the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution at the end, there.
I don't know how many people still need to be told this (maybe the number of those who think I'm haunted in my sleep by tropical fruit), but "scientific theory" is NOT the same as "random, dumbass guess."
The "Theory of Evolution" doesn't mean, "Gee, we THINK animals MAY HAVE evolved."
It means, "Well, obviously animals HAVE evolved. The tests seem to indicate that this is WHY they have."
This wouldn't really falsify the theory as a whole. Anomalies already exist in the fossil record. What we read in textbooks is the ideal, theorized version, not what exists in the natural world. See, what happens is when you collect data you have to interpret them based on some framework. This what we like to call science. I'm not sure off hand what would constitute a falsification of evolution, but fossil anomalies aren't it.
Falsifying TOE isn't hard find nipples on reptiles, scales on mammals anything that breaks or is outside of the nested hierarchy system that would be a serious challenge to the TOE
This is kind of silly to say. All of your examples are within the ability of Evolution to create as the theory is popularly defined. As such, you really can't falsify evolution unless you exit its framework of interpretation.
Bullshit! As I commented elsewhere, find a fossil rabbit certifiably embedded in a Cambrian strata, and you've falsified evolution within its own framework of interpretation.
I suggest that YOU google it, and spend some little time on the non-religious links you'll find. One such site is talkorigins. On that site you will find a full discussion of the issue, explaining that such tracks do NOT IN ANY CASE support the idea that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time.
People will see what they want. I looked at talkorigins and paleo. Who knows what truth bending is happening on either side. Every person will view the world through what he/she already believes. None of this argument really matters anyway. What it all boils down to is that it is in our sinful human nature to deny God. Man will always try to disprove his power and existence and that is the ultimate aim of evolution.
"Who knows what truth bending is happening on either side??"
So, fine, you simply ignore professional opinion because...."who knows?"
The thing about science is, if it's really IMPORTANT TO YOU TO KNOW, you can study and indeed GO LOOK FOR YOURSELF, using the tools for observation and understanding that science can supply.
But it's much easier to just say "Who knows?"
You can do what you wish--but don't try to pretend you have an open mind about it.
Yes, I say truth bending because it happens on both sides. I would write a creationist ex. here but I have not the space. On August 12, 1989 evidence was presented that both human and dinosaur tracks existed in the taylor trail. The evidence was presented by Dr. Patton. Two evolutionists were present at Dr. Patton's presentation. The next morning they flew down to TX and were seen with an iron bar reshaping the footprints.
Oh, right, I forgot: it's all a big scientific conspiracy, caused by scientist's fear of losing their control of the world to redneck fundie xians. Sorry. I just temporarily forgot about that.
True story. The cross section has even be examined to reveal it was pressed in and not carved out like evolutionists say. Do you have any facts to support otherwise? Or are you just going to assume that I am an un-educated redneck? (its a stereo type that rednecks are dumb btw, im just saying that for their defense lol)
"true" story? Are you going to give evidence for THAT! If it were "true" I'm QUITE SURE it would have gotten major coverage. There HAVE been scientists who have perpetrated scientific fraud. Every time it was found it was aired out for everyone to see--scientists are people, too.
I know many top level scientists, because I worked for my doctorate at a top level university. The idea of destroying geologic/paleontological evidence is POISON to any scientist I've ever known.
Of course it did'nt get major coverage. The majority of the scientific community wants God to not exist. As I said before, that's what It boils down to. I wrote my last response in a rush this morning. The cross section peice that I was reading about was of a large cat footprint that was found in that area. Not the human prints. I noticed you didn't respond to it and I was wondering what your thoughts were on that.
People with not much education seem to believe science is an "opinion" (like "there is no god") that is then defended with evidence. That is not correct.
Scientists observe phenomena and then attempt to theorize a mechanism behind the phenomena--and add experiments to test their theories.
Scientists DO NOT conduct their work based on "wanting god to not exist." There are significant numbers of scientists who believe in god AND evolution (although I'm not one of them).
Or how about arriving at false conclusions, trying to piece something together without God there because you ignore Him altogether. You still havn't answered my question about the cat footprint though. I really am curious what your take on it is.
If you are concerned about false conclusions you should do what I suggested before: learn enough about the techniques of geology and paleontology and go there and examine for yourself.
I'm personally not interested in the details. My doctorate is in molecular and cell biology--not paleontology. The biological sciences comprise a COLOSSAL amount of information; it's almost impossible to really keep up with even one area of research.
Is any evolutionist interested in that specific detail? Although geology and paleontology are far from my career or official education I have been educating myself on these topics. I will see for myself this summer since I have to drive by that way as it is.
You're looking especially pretty today Nadia! Loving the voice too hahah! As for how to falsify evolution, bunnies in the Cambrian, or DNA evidence that shows reptiles are closer related to us that primates.
Ok then ...
Little hearts are popping out of my head and gently floating away ... typical reaction when I watch a nadiateeze video.
msginca 2 years ago
Can you please cover your shoulders and the stuff between them you are giving people swelling and all sorts of redness. It's not healthy.
tiptiptapable 2 years ago
Perhaps we could kiss. Or perhaps just talk. Talk, then kiss. Kiss then talk.
Or maybe just kiss.
hairyreasoner 2 years ago
+she is pretty adorable.
clotheapple 2 years ago
HAhaha... who is this girl. she is quite funny and wise to some extent.
good one
cjunk351 3 years ago
i love you
sillydillydokieo 3 years ago
If you're ever single again ... maybe I have a shot!?
msginca 3 years ago
Rabbit in the Cambian period!
ILYIAB 3 years ago
i like this video, you have a good arguments against the ass-hole commenters ,,,,,they suck big time and i have noticed through my own experience (of the evolution on you tube comments) that most folk who make bad comments have no videos of their own....discuss
nordrecords 3 years ago
i like it when u talk dirty
MrTodolorosso 3 years ago
Evolution is based on OBSERVATIONAL evidence, not EXPERIMENTAL evidence (same as astronomy, geology, etc.). Evolution could be falsified by new observations that are contrary to the theory (clearly wrong fossils in clearly wrong strata, etc.).
The FACT of evolution (that current species have DIFFERENT species as ancestors) is one of the very STRONGEST and BEST SUPPORTED facts science has ever declared.
GetMeThere1 3 years ago
Hmmm, seems like you don't really know a lot about how fossil strata are identified. It's usually by content. Sure they can date them, but they usually don't.
izatright 3 years ago
Hmmm, yourself, izatright. A "wrong" fossil would be one that does not BELONG with others. Like (the example often given), a rabbit fossil found in the same strata as Cambrian fossils.
You're a bit of a moron.
GetMeThere1 3 years ago
I seem to recall these facts from previous research: 1) There are wrong fossils mixed together, 2) They have found incorrect sequences, 3) The fossil record doesn't OBSERVATIONALLY support Evolution because speciation is identified biologically and not morphologically. Fossils are thus interpreted/subsumed, not observationally supportive. Obviously your falsification standard is wrong. Also, I find physics better supported than Evolution. Perhaps you were being hyperbolic?
izatright 3 years ago
I'm thinkin'....you might try a glance at some information that DOESN'T come from "answers in genesis," or the like. Have a look at the "talk origins" site.
The "facts" you pretend to cite have not come from any "research" I've ever heard of. Perhaps you'd like to tell us your sources for such "research."
GetMeThere1 3 years ago
BTW, I'm an evolutionist. I can't recall 1 and 2 offhand, but I shouldn't have to do all your research anyway. #3 is just obvious. A new species is formed when it becomes sexually isolated and genetically incapable of interbreeding with another population. This cannot be told morphologically (fossils don't fuck). The whole identification process of fossils is guess-work based on this definition. The framework which directs this interpretation is Evolution, not unbiased observation.
izatright 3 years ago
It's lovely that you're an "evolutionist."
So...first you "seem to recall" "facts," and then you "can't recall them offhand."
At best then, you're a rather CONFUSED "evolutionist."
I'm not going to waste a lot of time with...helping you to manifest your pretense. But I'll restate for you that the OBVIOUS interpretation of the differences seen in fossils of different strata is MODIFICATION of earlier species. This was generally agreed long before Darwin.
GetMeThere1 3 years ago
Getmethere: Insinuating I'm not an Evolutionist is pretty low. Look, I'm sorry I haven't studied geology and paleontology in 10 years and can't quote sources off the top of my head.
And the OBVIOUS interpretation is a philosophical commitment to a framework of interpretation called Evolution. Look, this isn't hard. Two morphologically similar species may have relatively little in common, and two dissimilar ones may be the same species. Deciding this based on shape alone is a guess.
izatright 3 years ago
You aver as facts things CONTRARY to most people's understanding of evolution, and then claim it's "low" to be asked for support of those facts?
Philosophical commitment? So you say. Another of your unsupportable...."facts?"
GetMeThere1 3 years ago
5*s I'm glad to have found you.
michaelispan 3 years ago
I haven't seen you for awhile....you are definitely at the top of your game.
I really love it every time you say the word "fuck"! Makes me feel tingly...
Keep enlightening us.
TurpisHaereticum 3 years ago
Find a rabbit who lived in the Cambrian period, or a bird or mammal that lived in the Devonian period, 360 million years ago. Or find a mammal with the genes for making feathers, or a bird with the genes present for making nipples. There are MANY ways to falsify evolution.
Cyraside 3 years ago
The accents are hilarious, but the points you're making are indisputable
rozeboosje 3 years ago
It's very simple. Falsify evolution by finding a human fossil from the Jurassic period. Or any fossil of any species outside its evolutionary history. that means, a pre-cambrian dinosaur, etc. Look at a philo-genetic tree, take an animal, and find it before its ancestors in the fossil record :) Very simple to falsify and in 150+ years, it hasn't been done.
Neeboopsh 3 years ago
good points!
RantingGuru 3 years ago
btw that accent cracks me up
can ya do cockney?
KleaVizion 3 years ago
God sets Creation in motion..
Evolution advances man..
Man creates religion..
Religion forewarns against reason..
Man puts the yoke on his neck..
God wonders what the fuck he was thinking.
God wonders what he was
KleaVizion 3 years ago
nadiaTeeze, I think you are asking too much of a Creationist when you ask them to read.
InfinityAlarm 3 years ago
Darwin knew nothing about DNA. It's discovery could have falsified the hell out of his theory.
Instead, it 100% supported and strengthened it to the point that only the fucktards question it.
samsroomie 3 years ago
That's not true. Actually, DNA showed a level of complexity that largely defied Darwin's Uniformatarian assumptions. In essence, between every meaningful sequence of DNA is a devastating chasm of meaninglessness. Somehow evolution would have to jump from one platform to the next by mutations. The Neo-Darwinian Synthesis attempted to address this issue, I think by proposing "macroevolutionary" mechanics to account for relatively fast, large-scale change.
izatright 3 years ago
Nadia: YOU are one of my favorite examples of evolution!!
middlekk 3 years ago
When it comes to scientific evidence, creationists are really good at closing their eyes, putting their hands over their ears and shouting "Lalalalalalalalala."
klangsteiner 3 years ago
Creationists were misguided, sure, but every theory needs its detractors. Supporters tend to gloss over errors for the sake of a theory, whereas detractors tend to ignore the coherence and strength of the theory for its errors. I think the Creationist probably helped in the creative process of sealing the philosophical cracks of Evolutionary theory better than if no one had dissented at all.
izatright 3 years ago
Sounds like you are ready to place that stubborn little creationist a solid taste of good old English discipline! lol!
jonthebaptist666 3 years ago
Evolution, in and of itself, can't be falsified because it has already been proven with modern day observed instances of speciation and/or morphological change.
However, there are ways to falsify current evolutionary theory (a different thing entirely).
Find a rabbit in precambrian strata.
Find ERVs that are shared between Gorillas and Chimps, but not with Humans.
Find a mammal that can spin a web.
Find an australopithecus in America.
Find a crocoduck.
qabala 3 years ago
"Find ERVs that are shared between Gorillas and Chimps, but not with Humans." - we do...
Elcristoph 3 years ago
Daniel Lavesque has already had his ass handed to him on this subject.
To be fair, I should have been more specific, so I'll revise:
Find ERVs that are shared between Gorillas and Chimps in the same insertion point, but not with Humans.
That sound about right?
qabala 3 years ago
Yes... or find a fish with nipples.. Like a mermaid.
RosieDesire 3 years ago
If only....
qabala 3 years ago
LOL
And a scientific day to you too!
These people only read one book, and it supposedly has all the answers... Too bad so many of them are plain wrong...
Atheistblindchick 3 years ago
Oh, come, come. Creationist have contributed some significant scientific research over the centuries. Think Louis Agassiz and Georges Cuvier, or even, to a lesser extent, Walter Lammerts.
izatright 3 years ago
lovely as usual and with an exquisite British accent
condaryt 3 years ago
Indeed, if evolution is not true science and is not testable, then what's wrong with the Pope that he believes in it? Not to mention the two previous popes.
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
Lorfing aut laud!
Love the Mary Poppins accent!
A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, eh?
riversonthemoon 3 years ago
for every niche, there will be an organism to exploit that niche. Darwin found an orchid with an exceptionally long spur. The prediction was that there had to be a creature with an exceptionally long tongue that could drink it's nectar. Darwin never found the Hawk moth that does drink the nectar from the 11 inch or so long orchid spur, but it does exist, just like Darwin predicted.
By contrast, let's see Intelligent Design which doesn't even have a hypothesis, make similar predictions.
Eldrave20 3 years ago
The theory of evolution is falsifiable because we can set a condition in which it's possible for the theory of evolution to be proved incorrect. We would not expect to see a fossil of a squirrel or a bunny rabbit in the Cambrian era. That is falsifiable.
Theories that work, exactly as you have said in your video, make predictions. Having a population of squirrels moved in some way to Death Valley, through environmental pressures would change to better survive the hotter conditions.
Eldrave20 3 years ago
Haha! The Glenn intro. was funny.
itsaboutglenn 3 years ago
I feel the same way Nadia. That Darwin quote you put up. Is one of the main ones that gets quote mined by creationists. Few years ago I questioned Evolution, when it came up at a function. So I researched it for a few months. Then realized how wrong i was about the subject. I have to say that was a very enlightening experience.
svaught32 3 years ago
Current species are so similar that a relation between them is undeniable.
Why is the brain consistently located in the head of most creatures, when it would be more protected inside the body? The location of a brain is completely irrelevant to what the brain does, so this would be an amazing coincidence if we didn't have common ancestors.
pburto 3 years ago
Good one. These people are highly ignorant. They refuse to learn, so a slap in the face might wake them up. If not, slap harder...
farvision 3 years ago
Find a lot lizard (not a lot lizard) with nipples and you falsified evolution Right their. but sorry none can be found.
LittleTruckingBozo 3 years ago
you're awesome
Trenholmes 3 years ago
"If you would just read the fucking book..." I loved that!
Cherri59 3 years ago
Good vid. Nice touch with the English professor accent. You could do a whole series titled 'answers for christards' in that accent. I've asked several creationists why the hell they are looking for high school science answers on message boards. Of course we all know they are just pushing theist spam.
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
excellent argument in response to a idiotic question. The truth is evolution is a widly accepted theory. I say theory because the how is still uncertain not so much as that it occurred. In your final part are you talking about extremophobes?
bpscool 3 years ago
excuse me by wildly accepted i meant that its universally accepted at least if you want to be a scientist.
bpscool 3 years ago
You're cute when you get all scientific and talk dirty. Blisteringly insightful, informative and provocative as always. :)
simplydaft 3 years ago
"It's not reptile enough, they say, or it's not enough like a bird. Fuck that." LOL.
TheGiggler1 3 years ago
Rabbit fossils in the Cambrian.
Eldxale 3 years ago
Awesome vid. 5/5
pchannell 3 years ago
I can prove ebbalution ain't real becuz I have 2 cats and they are different colors. They do not look like a monkey at all. And, they are less than 6,000 years old-which means the world can't be much older then the cats. So there.....
NEWSTOGOD 3 years ago
That sounded like a desertphile sigh :)
Draklems 3 years ago
can I give you a hug
ghazzter 3 years ago
a01011399 was pretty much crushed by h8uall66 on the topic of the legged snake, and I have debated him as well.
ow and btw he has made some videos about the nylonbacteria
Knowntje 3 years ago
I like your snooty intellectual voice. You're the most intelligent stripper I know (in the non-Biblical sense).
CadicusTheDamned 3 years ago
Nice...nice (in the tone of the Park County police in SOUTH PARK)
That was Blitzkrieg!
A lot of people have been looking for a fast, deadly, waterproof approach to this debate for a while, and I think you may have found it.
And since there isn't yet a single creationist comment here, I'd say: Checkmate
Brandt761 3 years ago
Brilliant as always.
Hope your having a scientific day as well!
takotheoktopus 3 years ago
The creationists will say and do anything to "debunk" the nylon bug. Mostly you get something along the lines of "the information was already in the DNA, so no evolution occurred".
Which is a complete lie of course. The nylon bug has been extensively studied and gnome mapped. We know exact what and where the mutation was and the effects on the proteins that are created.
2nd best evidence: chromosome #2.
sorienor 3 years ago
yeah nice try but nylon-digesting microbes aren't good enough, after all, its still a microbe! yuk yuk
These morons are looking for radishes turning into camels overnight and shit like that (which ironically would actually DISprove evolution). Most of them are just flat out retarded and don't get it or don't want to get it so pretend not to. Just point and laugh.
cantaloupe42 3 years ago
LOL, Read a book! If any of them have ever read a book, other than the dreck shoveled out of the likes of the Institute for Creation Research, I'd be surprised.
atheistliberty 3 years ago
Oh my goodness! I thought i was watching the Queen's speech for a moment. lol. You rock girlie. What a princess. *curties*
5*
Zaharah28 3 years ago
Perchance you may have been a little harsh on A0 considering evolution has been unkind to A0 in the first place.
fullmontycarlo 3 years ago 2
I love your presentation here.
rowsdowersavesus 3 years ago
Thank you for putting up the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution at the end, there.
I don't know how many people still need to be told this (maybe the number of those who think I'm haunted in my sleep by tropical fruit), but "scientific theory" is NOT the same as "random, dumbass guess."
The "Theory of Evolution" doesn't mean, "Gee, we THINK animals MAY HAVE evolved."
It means, "Well, obviously animals HAVE evolved. The tests seem to indicate that this is WHY they have."
jakebreaker 3 years ago
I'll falsify YOU!
I am a transitional species.
and I've also been known to eat nylon on occasion
iamjackscolin 3 years ago 2
Nice!
SSanf 3 years ago
lol great vid
achampag 3 years ago
This video would be oh so much more fascinating if you had a riding crop in you hands....
Desertphile 3 years ago
"... reality is not a god damn election." ROTFL!
Evolutionary theory is not only testable, but also falsifiable: find mammal fossils in the Cambrian or pre-cambrian. Golly, that was easy!
Desertphile 3 years ago 2
This wouldn't really falsify the theory as a whole. Anomalies already exist in the fossil record. What we read in textbooks is the ideal, theorized version, not what exists in the natural world. See, what happens is when you collect data you have to interpret them based on some framework. This what we like to call science. I'm not sure off hand what would constitute a falsification of evolution, but fossil anomalies aren't it.
izatright 3 years ago
I thought the video and accent was great, I have plans for my southern states preacher accent soon!! lol!
Darwinsgift 3 years ago
I can't wait to see that.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
This is a cute video. Combining the f-bomb with a "snobby scientist" accent is great. Good stuff, and nice content as well.
jetmanisme 3 years ago
Falsifying TOE isn't hard find nipples on reptiles, scales on mammals anything that breaks or is outside of the nested hierarchy system that would be a serious challenge to the TOE
Ender1zero1 3 years ago
Not if they're themselves transitional between phylums.
Brandt761 3 years ago
This is kind of silly to say. All of your examples are within the ability of Evolution to create as the theory is popularly defined. As such, you really can't falsify evolution unless you exit its framework of interpretation.
izatright 3 years ago
Bullshit! As I commented elsewhere, find a fossil rabbit certifiably embedded in a Cambrian strata, and you've falsified evolution within its own framework of interpretation.
GetMeThere1 3 years ago
What about finding human footprints alongside dinosaur tracks. Google that and have a "scientific day".
cslighty 3 years ago
I suggest that YOU google it, and spend some little time on the non-religious links you'll find. One such site is talkorigins. On that site you will find a full discussion of the issue, explaining that such tracks do NOT IN ANY CASE support the idea that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time.
GetMeThere1 3 years ago
People will see what they want. I looked at talkorigins and paleo. Who knows what truth bending is happening on either side. Every person will view the world through what he/she already believes. None of this argument really matters anyway. What it all boils down to is that it is in our sinful human nature to deny God. Man will always try to disprove his power and existence and that is the ultimate aim of evolution.
cslighty 3 years ago
"Who knows what truth bending is happening on either side??"
So, fine, you simply ignore professional opinion because...."who knows?"
The thing about science is, if it's really IMPORTANT TO YOU TO KNOW, you can study and indeed GO LOOK FOR YOURSELF, using the tools for observation and understanding that science can supply.
But it's much easier to just say "Who knows?"
You can do what you wish--but don't try to pretend you have an open mind about it.
GetMeThere1 3 years ago
Yes, I say truth bending because it happens on both sides. I would write a creationist ex. here but I have not the space. On August 12, 1989 evidence was presented that both human and dinosaur tracks existed in the taylor trail. The evidence was presented by Dr. Patton. Two evolutionists were present at Dr. Patton's presentation. The next morning they flew down to TX and were seen with an iron bar reshaping the footprints.
cslighty 3 years ago
Oh, right, I forgot: it's all a big scientific conspiracy, caused by scientist's fear of losing their control of the world to redneck fundie xians. Sorry. I just temporarily forgot about that.
GetMeThere1 3 years ago
True story. The cross section has even be examined to reveal it was pressed in and not carved out like evolutionists say. Do you have any facts to support otherwise? Or are you just going to assume that I am an un-educated redneck? (its a stereo type that rednecks are dumb btw, im just saying that for their defense lol)
cslighty 3 years ago
"true" story? Are you going to give evidence for THAT! If it were "true" I'm QUITE SURE it would have gotten major coverage. There HAVE been scientists who have perpetrated scientific fraud. Every time it was found it was aired out for everyone to see--scientists are people, too.
I know many top level scientists, because I worked for my doctorate at a top level university. The idea of destroying geologic/paleontological evidence is POISON to any scientist I've ever known.
GetMeThere1 3 years ago
Of course it did'nt get major coverage. The majority of the scientific community wants God to not exist. As I said before, that's what It boils down to. I wrote my last response in a rush this morning. The cross section peice that I was reading about was of a large cat footprint that was found in that area. Not the human prints. I noticed you didn't respond to it and I was wondering what your thoughts were on that.
cslighty 3 years ago
People with not much education seem to believe science is an "opinion" (like "there is no god") that is then defended with evidence. That is not correct.
Scientists observe phenomena and then attempt to theorize a mechanism behind the phenomena--and add experiments to test their theories.
Scientists DO NOT conduct their work based on "wanting god to not exist." There are significant numbers of scientists who believe in god AND evolution (although I'm not one of them).
GetMeThere1 3 years ago
Or how about arriving at false conclusions, trying to piece something together without God there because you ignore Him altogether. You still havn't answered my question about the cat footprint though. I really am curious what your take on it is.
cslighty 3 years ago
If you are concerned about false conclusions you should do what I suggested before: learn enough about the techniques of geology and paleontology and go there and examine for yourself.
I'm personally not interested in the details. My doctorate is in molecular and cell biology--not paleontology. The biological sciences comprise a COLOSSAL amount of information; it's almost impossible to really keep up with even one area of research.
GetMeThere1 3 years ago
Is any evolutionist interested in that specific detail? Although geology and paleontology are far from my career or official education I have been educating myself on these topics. I will see for myself this summer since I have to drive by that way as it is.
cslighty 3 years ago
what's the the funn english accent. there aren't many english who speak like that left in the world btw
goldenirish 3 years ago
H Nadia. I always love your videos. Hope you're happy.
nicanicabad 3 years ago
How can she be happy since Gary blocked her?
;-P
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
You just can't make a comment that isn't funny. I lov ethem all!
nicanicabad 3 years ago
great video!
cozmikzen 3 years ago
Fossil rabbits in the pre-cambrian!
WizardJim 3 years ago
You're looking especially pretty today Nadia! Loving the voice too hahah! As for how to falsify evolution, bunnies in the Cambrian, or DNA evidence that shows reptiles are closer related to us that primates.
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
<3 the voice :)
DarkofTwilight 3 years ago