Wait, hold on ... so you're saying since no single person has witnessed evolution taking place, then it must be just fantasy, and creationism is a more plausible answer? But no single person has ever seen Creation, either. So I don't see how this analogy is at all valid.
you should be a sage....you speak wisdom and make the foolishness of the world look stupid and pathetic....thank you for your insightful wisdom. Peace to you and love.
w8 in evolution isn't it they also say that we have bacterial ancestors? uhh single celled organisms whatever.... so does that mean we are somehow to connected to bacteria? wtf? so if i use anti bacterial soap i'm killing my ancestors? i'm so CONFUSED!
@MrFkin123 "w8 in evolution isn't it they also say that we have bacterial ancestors?" I don't think that's right. Have you looked it up? "uhh single celled organisms whatever...." Well yes, this is most likely true. "so does that mean we are somehow to connected to bacteria?" As an extraordinarily distant cousin, yes. "wtf?" wtf in regards to what? "so if i use anti bacterial soap i'm killing my ancestors?" Nope. "i'm so CONFUSED!" Yep. Consider learning about how evolution works.
@BailiffQuimby haha im learning it right now in biology class... and yea i learned that those single celled organisms the uhh prokaryotypes i think or maybe the karyotypes idk i wasn't listening... but think about this... how did a single celled organism turned into a human? like i know you'll say over millions and millions of years blah blah blah but have you witnesses it yourself? I would want to see this for you to prove it.... and also tell me how did evolution started?
@MrFkin123 heck how did the bigbang started? did it just popped out of nowhere? how did everything started without something starting it... i believe there's a source of intelligence out there that made this all start, not by just natural cause
I'm less familiar with the details of cosmology. I've read and learned about the abundance of evidence proving that the big bang happened. But the big bang theory itself does not attempt to explain what happened before t=0. It only says that the matter and energy of the universe has a common singularity source.
@MrFkin123 "i believe there's a source of intelligence out there that made this all start, not by just natural cause"
While this is possible, there's no way to prove or disprove it with the current lack of evidence. All we know for sure is that evolution happened and the big bang happened. It may or may not be that these events were jump-started by a god. But without evidence either way, I will assume not.
@BailiffQuimby No it's not possible. A cause requires time and space to exist. It is a function of time and space. If you remove time and space leaving only matter and energy (eternal) there can be no cause. Physical Laws and logic break down. If we are made in God's image he must obey the laws of logic.
@Luigi84289 "No it's not possible. A cause requires time and space to exist. It is a function of time and space."
With our current understanding of physics, you are right. But the physics at the start of the universe was rather... wonky. And I don't understand it well enough - I don't think physicists understand it well enough to be absolutely sure either. That having been said, it still makes no sense to believe in a particular cause, much less a cause, without evidence.
@Luigi84289 "If we are made in God's image he must obey the laws of logic. "
Playing devil's advocate, "made in god's image," doesn't necessarily mean "every aspect of god and every aspect of man are corresponding." Very few theists will give that line the same meaning. Some just think it means "spiritually" or in terms of our moral compass or something like that. The better argument against god breaking the laws of logic is that it is a fallacy of special pleading.
@BailiffQuimby No it's not playing Devils advocate if he does not obey the laws of logic than he can in no way be human or related our minds at all. If he cannot even strings things together the foundation of logic and reason than we are above him. Common sense. He can either think or he can't. To say that's playing Devil's advocate is just being silly.
@Luigi84289 No, I was saying that *I* was playing devil's advocate, by arguing the theist side. I'm a staunch atheist. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't use the specific arguments you are using, nor would I argue that it is justified to claim knowledge that there is no god. I'll settle for disbelief on the grounds of total lack of evidence in favor of god.
@BailiffQuimby I have knowledge that there is no God. The Judeo Christian God can be debunked with basic logic. Thereby proving there is no God. You can use many other methods of doing this but just not believing solely because of a lack of evidence makes you a weak Atheist. Either what the bible says is true or is not. Christians try to put their own person interpretations on God but that kind of God is subjective to the individual Christian. It is created by their minds. Only the Universe=God
@Luigi84289 "I have knowledge that there is no God"
That is not logically possible. Speaking as a fellow atheist, that is an arrogant claim to make, and you have no method of demonstrating it to be true.
"The Judeo Christian God can be debunked with basic logic"
Well of course. The concept of Yahweh is accompanied by several other claims which are demonstrably false. But it doesn't logically follow that there is no such thing as any kind of god anywhere in existence.
@Luigi84289 "just not believing solely because of a lack of evidence makes you a weak Atheist."
Not believing because of lack of evidence makes me an honest atheist. It's the same reason most people don't believe in bigfoot, alien abductions, and leprechauns. The primary reason for not believing in something is that there's no evidence for it.
"Either what the bible says is true or is not. "
And while I agree that it is not, that only assesses the efficacy of the bible's version of god.
@BailiffQuimby God can be debunked by looking at his own attributes thereby disproving him with his own book. Philosophical thought will also ultimately lead to the conclusion that you cannot have 2 coexisting infinite realities outside one another. That would contradict what Infinity means and make Infinity into things. Infinity = everything. No evidence for a god can be presented. He's just a bunch of contradicting concepts thought up by bronze age ignorant man.
@MrFkin123 "how did a single celled organism turned into a human?"
I would imagine that single-celled organisms reproduced until, by some mutation, one organism had two cells, and it fared well enough that it survived to have more two-celled descendants. This basic idea repeated to three or four cells, then eight, then 20, then 50, until you get to proper multicellular life-forms. Then proto-fish, then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, birds, mammals, primates, and finally humans.
@MrFkin123 "like i know you'll say over millions and millions of years blah blah blah but have you witnesses it yourself?"
No, but we have a plethora of evidence indicating that this is how it happened. Did you personally watch World War I? No, but you know it happened because of all the evidence left behind. The only difference is that this is natural and not man-made evidence. ... tbc
@MrFkin123 Such evidence includes thousands of transitional fossils, geographic distribution of species, geological strata, comparative physiology, comparative genetics, the entire field of modern medicine rests on the premise that evolution is real - if it weren't, then vaccines wouldn't work, which of course they do. And of course evolution has been witnessed first hand (not by me, but by published scientists) both in laboratories and in the wild. That's how we know evolution to be true.
@MrFkin123 "I would want to see this for you to prove it...."
The amount of evidence that exists (which I already summarized) is enough to convince most rational people that evolution happened. The only alternative I can think of that would explain all this evidence is that a god of some sort created the universe and deliberately invented all this evidence to trick us into thinking evolution happened. But that's a bit to conspiracy-theory for my tastes.
@MrFkin123 "and also tell me how did evolution started?"
This is a lot harder to study. There's evidence suggesting abiogenesis, but not nearly as much as there is proving evolution to be true. The common theory based on available evidence is that in the early years of earth, the atmosphere was very different, and without oxygen. The oceans were pools of chemicals which, as was proven in the 1950s, can spontaneously generate the basic building blocks of life in certain circumstances.
@MrFkin123 Other theories include panspermia, which suggests that an asteroid hit earth carrying some super-basic life forms which eventually evolved into the rest of us (which of course would require that abiogenesis have happened elsewhere in the universe) or else some sort of god kick-started life with the first proto-RNA molecule. This last hypothesis, while intriguing, is not supported by any evidence.
@MrFkin123 Be specific. How can what happen by chance? I have different answers, depending on whether you're talking about the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, or something else. Just one topic at a time, okay?
@MrFkin123 Chance has absolutely nothing to do with it. Survival of the fittest over millions of years is a long, gradual, process of selection of traits that offer the best chance for survival.
@MrFkin123 don't worry, thats an easy mistake to make. firstly, all animals that exist have a common ancestor: the first forms of bacteria. i can't go into too much detail about their evolution, but feel free to watch videos in the origins series by cdk007, they'll help. yes, we are connected to bacteria, as we share the same common ancestor. we just share it on a different level to other animals. for instance, we're more closely related to monkeys than pigs, but we still have genetic relations.
@MrFkin123 no, you're not killing your ancestors by using bacterial soap, the first bacteria were different from todays, and evolved on a split path; eventually evolving into the seperate animals of you and modern bacteria.
Do anyone know where i can find the great video on the topic of macro/micro where a childs first one or two years is shown, and then the first and last picture is displayed again, i cant find it anymore.
the of an imaginary sky pixy poofing things into existance makes so much less sense than something small growing into something big over an extended period of time.
What stupidity. It truly is unscientific to believe that new moephologies arise from extant morphologies because they have faith it happens. No wonder you are afraid to debate me cdk007. With such moronic arguments as this you would not stand a chance against a well informed 12 yr old in debate. I've said that I've seen the stupidest arguments possible from an evo, but now that standard has changed.
@NephilimFree Yeah because he is afraid of your evidence aninst new morphologies arising, wich is you say it can't happen and therefore it can't happen, even if scientific peer reviewed papers mention new morphologies arising ( which usually are the same scientific paper, you quotemine in order to support your Statement
@NephilimFree Way to post on a video almost 3.5 years old. cdk007 isn't active, you stupid moron. And if you're such a good debater, why aren't there any companies, especially creationist organizations, hiring you to professionally debate?
Truly, a man with your credentials... you know, high school dropout... taking on anyone. Everyone's so scared, they're laughing at you.
@NephilimFree Speciation is a result of evolutionary change. Morphology is not required for evolutionary change. This was explained to you by many people.
Many people = people others turn to for their knowledge
You = leeching off a disabled woman because he has no job.
Perhaps it's better you stop spouting off on subjects you have no knowledge about? Just a thought.
@NephilimFree Speciation is the result of morphological and/or behavioral changes that evolve between subpopulations when their respective environmental conditions differ and those subpopulations have little to no contact.
There have been many studies on this subject, my university proffessor finished one just 2 years ago on ravens, and there are countless others. You are stating things that are opposit of reality. From your sentence, it is also obvious that you reason backwards
@N3CR1S What a bafoon. There is no moprphological change within "speciation". Variety withing the kinds does not result in change to morphology. Morphological change to species, not deformities of the individual, has not been observed. You just stated something as false as claiming we have observed blocks become round. Go get informed so you don't make yourself look stupid.
@NephilimFree the definition of evolutions as it is in Webster doesn't mention morpological change, but you know that already, what yu do not know is that it is your destiny to keep failing
@NephilimFree No schools are calling to get you to teach? No journals want you to edit? No magazines want to publish your insight? How odd. Oh, and there are morphological changes to be had when a population speciates sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't. That's the point: you are setting up goals that aren't necessary in reality.
Nephy, you're the only one looking stupid here. You don't know biology at all. Give it up and go provide for Sharon, rather than the other way around.
@NephilimFree If you didnt understand what i wrote you could have just said so. Personaly, i thibk i keept a low and easy-to-read level on my comment.
How did you missinterpret it so badly that you thought i was saying that there is "moprphological change within "speciation". " Please re-read what i said.
I dont understand how you also missunderstood the second part. I never said anything about "Morphological change to species" or "deformities of the individual", or observations of such.
@N3CR1S Again, speciation provides no support for evolutionism because it does not produce any kind of change that can promote the idea that body plans, morphologies, and homologies can arise from extant examples. If we see no change to these things, we cannot say any kind of evolution has occurred. If you point to two varieties within a kind, such as 2 horses within the genus, you are not pointing to any difference that is morphological, or evidence of evolution.
Also, you need to stop talking about "kinds". Evolution deals with groups of animals capable of having fertile offspring with eachother. Can all male animals in your "kind" have fertile offspring with all femal animals in your "kind"? If they can, then please change the word you are using to species, if they can not then you need to switch to species. Species is the only logical grouping of animals when talking about evolution.
@N3CR1S The word "kinds" should not bug you since evolutionists speak of genus, family, and species. There is no evolutionary change to be had from speciation since it does not cause change to morphology. You cannot get amphibian tetrapods from fish by any number of changes to size, shape, color, or pattern. Give that some thought and maybe what you are being told will turn on a light bulb in your mind, eventually. Take care. Bye.
@NephilimFree yes you do. Once again, your failed defintion of evolution doesnt fly bozo. Evolution works virtually exclusively through changing and adapting existing structures. Fins-->legs, air bladder-->lungs etc...So let me ask you this: Which structure in ancient tetrapods cannot be explained as an adaptation of previous existing structures? Take into account that duplication or deletion of structures does not count, as youve said yourself many times...give it a go!
@NephilimFree It is not, as you have missunderstood, speciation that causes "evolutionary change" via morpological changes. Instead, evolution might give rise to morphological and/or behavioural changes in different subpopulations which might cause them to be unable to produce offspring. If that takes place, then a speciation even has taken place.
Do you see the difference in reasoning? If you are trying to dissagree, then atleast know to what you are dissagreeing.
1a : a branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and plants
Morphology is form AND structure. Not just form, not just structure, but both.
Wikipedia: Morphology:
In biology, morphology is a branch of bioscience dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features.
@NephilimFree now can you provide us with adictionary that defines morphological change as you do? in youyr world if we have series of animals say from a-k and between a and g only a change in form happend then from h-k only the structure changes, then you would still say it is not evolution because only one part changed each time
btw in your list of sources to enly one that does not include both is the only academic source
@NephilimFree And... what's the definition of evolution from those same dictionaries, Sporty?
TFD: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
PU: the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms
@NephilimFree YDdc: the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny
You know, none of those definitions from those very dictionaries dictate that morphological change is required for evolution. So when you use those dictionaries to support your claim, you must acknowledge they don't support your definition of evolution.
You were schooled on this on the 12 hour call already. You fail at life, Sporty
@NephilimFree according to your logic a morpholical change also has to be both in flora and fauna
funny how you only apply this logic when going against evolution
a christian is a person who believes there is a god and that jezus is god, hwew you will immidiatly say someone isn't a christian if he does not do both So dispite the AND you still think it is a change if only one changes
@N3CR1S So show us this imaginary change to the morphology of species. The inability to produce offspring has no power to cause fish to evolve into amphibian tetrapods, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into mammals or any other imaginary evolution process. It simply means 2 populations can no longer reproduce. That's a genetic difference, a biochemical one, and does not support evolutionism. Learning?
So show us the morphological change to species that would support evolution's claim.
My previous comment was to teach you what you are actualy dissagreeing with. Do you not agree that in order to have a valid objection to something, then you atleast need to know what you are objecting? I dont see you stating anywhere in your comment that you have understood yet?
The fact that the two populations no longer can reproduce is crucial! That you dissmiss it in the way you do shows how little knowledge you have about its implications.
@N3CR1S You have not provided the evidence of morphological change to species you claimed is observed. Your failure to do so is because you lied, since we both know there is no such thing. Another evo FAIL. Thanks for playing. CYA
@NephilimFree I told you that i would not provid any at this time, as it would be pointless since you dont know the topic well enough. Why do you feel the need to point that out? If you wanted me to provide any, then you could have done what i asked of you. you are clearly not interested in this at all.
@NephilimFree Ok neph morphology of creatures. How about the horse and the donkey. See they came from a comon ancestor and now can no longer interbreed becuase of genetic difference (Yeah the mule numnuts, but the mule can not breed. If god created the horse and the donkey WHY)
I can do such things, as showing you a couple of examples of morphological traits that alter the fitness of the individual, and some behavioural examples aswell, AFTER you have learned some of the basics. It would be pointless otherwise. I dont demand that you understand it all, nor that you agree with any of it, but atleast KNOW what you are dissagreeing with. judging from your confused statements so far, i doubt your grasp of the subject is adequate.
@N3CR1S His grasp of any subject is inadequate. He claims that all geologists agree with him on his lunar bukkake idea, except the idiots and geologists who only say they're geologists. He can't provide the math for the physics of his idea, nor can he explain how the laws of physics get disregarded for his proposals, but argues science backs him up.
He's a complete moron. But if you check out TheAnniepies account, you can see how pathetic NephilimFree really is.
@NephilimFree Still spouting nonsense, Sporty? Scientists use the real jargon of their fields so everyone knows what they're talking about. "Kinds" is a made up word to try to argue that the Bible is true. It has no scientific meaning because it has no scientific definition. Morphological change _IS NOT REQUIRED_ for speciation to occur. This has been explained to you numerous times.
How can I put this any clearer, Sporty? People don't hate you. But people see you as an idiot. Who's hiring you?
@NephilimFree When someone comes around to pay you for your knowledge or skills in sciences, let us know. Until then, keep shining that glorious stupidity you love to spew forth. You've giving everyone an idea to how ridiculously moronic creationists truly are.
@NephilimFree WOOHOO, Neph, seems you are still able to come with posts other than "Tell em more"...you made me happy....but than again, your obsession with morphology surfaces again...why is that? Speciation simply is part of, or rather a consequence of, evolution. Changes in morphology and physiology are as well. Now, speciation has been observed many times, as well as changes to physiology, all evidence, or confirmation of, evolution...
@NephilimFree Morphological change has also been observed. However, YOUR definition of morphology is flawed. Secondly, your definition of evolution is flawed, when you define it nothing but macro changes to morphology. A high school textbook on evolution will tell you that the kind of changes in morphology you want to observe in a life-time, occur vastly slower! So with these flawed definitions, you're only arguing against a strawman of the modern evolutionary synthesis, not to be taken serious
@jzuidema No morphological change to species (not the deformity of the individual) has ever been observed. But since you claim it has, I challenge you to provide this imaginary morphological change to species. Show us! Let's see it.
@NephilimFree You're just a fucking idiot. Morphological change is observed. Many people have SHOWN you the papers on this.
Seriously, get professional help. We understand that you're almost fifty and leeching off a disabled woman, and have nothing to show for your life. But get off YouTube and DO SOMETHING POSITIVE for a change.
No one cares about what you think about science. No one's paying you for your insights or your ability to debate. Take the hint, Sporty. Get on with your life.
@NephilimFree That would be why you still post on my videos?
Nephy, sit down time. I don't give one rat's ass about you. But Sharon deserves better than someone who will mooch off her, be a complete moron online, and be too lazy and stupid to go out to help provide for her.
If you're drinking, you're putting her life in jeopardy if you're her caretaker. Plus her money shouldn't be spent on alcohol for you.
I don't care about you. But Sharon deserves better. Get it through your head.
@NephilimFree What he says though has some insights. God has not blessed your ministry here on YouTube, you should move on and repent of your false prophecies. You ask them to tell you of their hate, but you seem to be full of hate. A tree will be known by the fruit it bares. Your tree bares hatred and sexual iniquities and lecherous deeds. With each misstep you take your God seethes with anger that you do so in HIS name. Repent false prophet, or face annihilation of your spirit.
@NephilimFree Show you change of morphological change? Easy, by science's definition of morphological change that is. However you're crooked understanding of morphology and evolution as a whole would make this a pointless excercise. But lets try anyway: dogs! Different dog sub-species vary greatly in length, hair length, behavior, size, shape (especially in the skulls), so evolution is definitely shown in dog breeding, but let me raise the defense to your answer to this as well: (cont)
@NephilimFree (cont) you will probably argue that they are still dogs/no new structures/loss of info blablabla. So dont go there, but instead asnwer this question: If all dogs are the same kind with no morphological change, than why are chimps and humans different?
We share the same kind of differences as dog-subspecies, primarily altered bones, less hair (info loss according to you), different shaped skull (like dogs) and are genetically more similar than a tiger to a lion, which can interbreed
@NephilimFree (cont 3) The most prominent difference between us is the size of our brains, which again is an alteration of existing material/structures....Now Ive seen you raise objections like "chimps have a different number of vertebrae", but this isnt true, as human and chimp vertebrae RANGES OVERLAP. So the question again: On what basis are dogs the same kind and human and chimps different???? Please try to answer that...thx
@NephilimFree And thats the big irony about your whole game here on YT. You claim to profess this incredible proof to refute evolution, but you're only attacking strawmans. Evolution does not dictate that organisms change in morphology over short spans of time.
And why do you think that evolution is only morphology? Morphology is just such a small part of an organisms. Think of all the biochemical pathways and physiological processes going on in your body....
@NephilimFree do they not define an organisms as equally as morphology? Using your definition, a creature going from no immune system or blood clotting cascade, to a fully developed system and cascade would not have undergone evolution, as the morphology didnt change...and if you dont agree here, please explain then why you refuse to accept nylonase as evolution? You cant have it both ways :) tell you more?
@NephilimFree Finally discovering that your "Tell us more" replies, especially on posts weeks or months old, are showing how devoid of intellect you are? Good thing you deleted it, though people already knew you were an idiot. :thumbsup:
the retiredness of this video is unbelievable, yes, trees can grow. wile true that no one single person has seen a tree grow into a giant, family's have. your great great great grandparent plants a tree, and your great great grandchildren will see it as a giant tree. it is retards like this and Fred Phelps that make me embarrassed to claim to believe in god
@dragonnutds Did you not understand? Do you not see the similarities between the arguments and situations in this video and the arguments and situations in a debate between a creationist and one that understands evolution?
how can we see that it is a macroevolution?? and how thermodyanamics affects the biology since it is part of physics im' only asking question can you give me about it second zeroth law of thermodyanamics...... because many now are believing with non-logic scientist remember :"science without religion is lame religion without science it is blind..." Einstien said
This absolutely pitiful attempt at an analogy is hilarious. For an analogy to be logical there must be a similarity between the items on which a comparison can be made. The growth of a tree from a seed to a full grown tree is in no way whatsoever analogous to descent from a common ancestor. The tree starts out as a tree (in seed form) & continues to be a tree. It never changes to something else. Changes in size are not analogous to transitional species. This is so stupid as to be mind numbing.
@leighgridley "I hope you are being sarcastic." Not one bit. The analogy simply is wrong. If you plant a seed for a cedar tree, you will get a cedar. You will not get something that 'changes' into a cedar over time, it already IS a cedar. Nothing else will grow from that seed, ever. How is that analogous with starting with a wolf & getting to a chihuahua? Both of which are canines by the way.
@wallyjude3 sorry, maybe i should have said great ape.
Humans are Apes. according to the taxology made by Lineas (a creationist BTW) Humans are Apes. He is the famous biologist who said: God created, Lineas ordens (maybe my translation is wrong, forgive me about my inadequate translation if that's the case)
@Tutterkop "Taxology made by Lineas..." Categorization by its nature is somewhat arbitrary. Whether man is or is not an ape is not determined by Lineas. Apes have 48 chromosomes, man only has 46. That alone separates man from apes. And please, let's not even bother going down the 'fusion' road.
@wallyjude3 Nope, it doesn't. sorry. I'll explain it so you can understand.
a knife and a fork are both kitchenware. just like Chimpansee and Humans are both (great) Apes. just like a labarador and a chiuaua are both dogs.
you classifiy things based on commen features and the more common they are, the more closely you can refer to them even though they have distinct differences (like the fused chromosone). example Whales and Humans are both Mammals. that's closer than Humans and snails cont.
@Tutterkop "Nope, it doesn't." Yep, it does. You're trying to argue similarity points to common descent, it doesn't. It only points to common design features for common needs. Dogs come about by common descent, that can be seen. Apes & man do not as their respective chromosomal structures prove. This difference makes the argument for common descent based on similarity totally moot. Next you're going to tell me knives & forks both descended from spoons.
@wallyjude3 no it really doesn't. First of The chromosomal structures problem has been solved because they found that there has been a fusion of 2 chromosones. But even so, the chromosones have ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with the taxological tree wich inserted man as a subclass of Apes. There are other animals in this superclass, like Gorilla, Chimpansee, ... And if you don't like that fact, that's you're problem, but the fact still stands.
@wallyjude3 cont like knives & forks. so To make the analogy clear to you because you clearly do not understand: knives represent humans and forks represent Chimpansee, spoons represent [insert any Ape you like] AND kitchenware represents APES!
Also just to be clear, the fact that there is a fusion, and that all other chromosones are the same with apes, while they are more different with mice or other animals, just brings more proof to say they have a common ancestor.
@wallyjude3 re: your "knives & forks both descended from spoons" analogy. You misunderstand entirely. Evolution does NOT states that humans descended from monkeys. What it does show is that humans and monkeys (chimpanzees) descended from a common ancestor. Just think ALL the way through it man, and just CONSIDER that the bible might not be genius - and you'll find it's very easy to understand.
@leighgridley "You misunderstand..." No. I do not. You ask me to think it through. I have & that is why I have taken the position I have. You can't demonstrate this common ancestor you claim led to man & chimps, no one can. It's existence is simply assumed because its existence is necessary to the hypothesis. There's no proof for common descent outside of presupposition. The existence of such a creature results in evidence being interpreted as if the creature did exist.
@wallyjude3 Continue... That's closer than humans and snails wich are just two animals. In the same sense Humans and chimpansee are more of the same(/closer) then Humans and Whales. because they are both APES. That's why we have A LOT of common features. like Smiling when you want to express joy (although you can interpret it as "I'm not a treat to u" if you don't believe animals have emotions, because that's a different discussion i'm not going into)
You just supplied your own answer! Both wolves and chihuahuas are canines with a common ancestor. Over many generations since the ancestor, with some offspring variations surviving better and replicating more than others, hundreds of years later we see a more varied canine population. When streams of the population become different enough, they are labelled two distinct species. Extend over 4bil years since life was first dated...this is evolution. It's not that hard.
@leighgridley "You just supplied your own answer!" You just supplied your own assumption! The existence of a common ancestor does not logically lead to a common ancestor for ALL living things. We can observe dogs varying in size, colouring, etc. It's not logical or possible to extrapolate this observable event into the unobservable descent of all life from a common ancestor. Simply adding billions of yrs to the equation does not make it a fact. It's all assumption, nothing more.
@leighgridley Regards my earlier replies, I realized I made a couple of typing errors. "The existence of a common ancestor does not logically lead to a common ancestor for ALL living things." This should read as 'the existence of a common ancestor for canines does not logically lead...' "The existence of such a creature results in evidence being interpreted..." This should read as 'the assumed existence of such a creature results in evidence being interpreted...'
@wallyjude3 I appreciate your corrections - thank you. With regards "There's no proof for common descent outside of presupposition" though, you are DEFINITELY wrong. The fossil record supported common ancestors, DNA sequencing, carbon dating and human/chimpanzee genome project all supported it further. It would only take one contrary piece of evidence to contradict the theory - evangelicals have been looking but still nothing has been found so far. If they do, I'll convert - but nothing yet!!
@leighgridley "You are DEFINITELY wrong." Provide examples of fossils which support descent from a common ancestor. Human/chimp genome project is actually finding more & more differences as it progresses. The 98% has dropped to approximately 92% & is expected to drop further. Lots of the evidence contradicts evolution. Evidence is subject to interpretation based on an individuals presuppositions. Everyone uses he same evidence, it's the interpretation which varies.
@wallyjude3 ME provide examples? I'm a teacher, not an academic biologist. But you know what the academic biologists have found throughout peer-reviewed analyses? That evolution is WITHOUT DOUBT. Am I to understand you believe micro- but not macro-evolution? Care to tell me what length of time you "believe" constitutes the difference between the two?
@wallyjude3 there's interpretation and then there's lack of reason, and THEN there's denial. Evolution can be logically inferred from a very basic set of axioms which are: 1. everything dies 2. life reproduces with variation 3. organisms less suitable to their environment are more likely to die, 4. the earth is a lot older than 10,000 years.
Well, no. I just say that so that they realize how big of a thing it would be for a creationist to find just one piece of evidence against evolution - and therefor how confident we can be in evolution.
haha! wow. let me explain this way. you know that sapling will growing into a giant. so it started from one leaf (one species) and grew two branches (2 species) and those grew two branches so now there is 8 species..... you get the idea. micro evolution and macro evolution are the same thing people!!!!!
cdk007, I thought that I had found a 'great' channel when I found Thunderf00t, but, no offense to Thunderf00t, your channel has some of the greatest individual videos I have encountered yet on YouTube. How I wish I had a god to whom to pray to have you keep up your great work. I guess, in light of my last sentence, I will simply have to ask you to keep making exceptionally enlightening videos.
cdk007, I thought that I had found a 'great' channel when I found Thunderf00t, but, no offense to Thunderf00t, your channel has some of the greatest individual videos I have encountered yet on YouTube. How I wish I had a god to whom to pray to have you keep up your great work. I guess, in light of my last sentence, I will simply have to ask you to keep making exceptionally enlightening videos.
is this video a joke? so the argument is just because we dont see a seed grow into a big tree it must have been created? so have you ever seen god? no? well tuff shit he is not real. thank you for giving us atheists just one more thing to shoot down you dumbass theorys with. honestly who thinks of this shit? Darwin forever
@snoman99991 This proves nothing..and it's a bad analogy. Macro-evolution's definition(and I cite this from one of his vids) is a trans-species change the tree did not become something totally different as this defintion suggests. Micro-evolution on the other hand is all around us.
That's the problem though. The evidence exists, both in lab settings and otherwise. What he's doing here is illustrating that it's more than just common sense that macroevolution is real. Moreover, you'd have to be denying very well demonstrated principles in order to deny evolution. The analogy is perfectly fine because it's focus is on the denial, not on the actual particulars of macroevolution itself.
@snoman99991 Please tell me what plant/animal that has evolved trans- species, I did not deny evolution just macro. And yes it is a bad analogy because he's just saying anyone that disagree's with his opinion(and that is what this video is all about) is a flaming moron and that generalization is ignorant from the outset.
@Ih8stupidhumans Google search "observed instances of speciation". He made an analogy, and you failed to criticize that analogy. What makes his analogy a bad one? He never said anyone is a moron, but he linked the claim about micro vs. macroevolution with a new one about micro vs. macrogrowth, a claim which you find moronic. So, show why the analogy is poor, and why his "opinion" that the two claims are analogous is not rational.
@airandfingers I 've read up on speciation which as far as I can tell is driven by adaptation not evolution.....macro-growth and macro-evolution are different Dawkins has inadvertently admitted this by defining macro-evolution as tran-species. Macro-growth is explained many times by sequoias but a 3 foot sequoia is still a sequoia its not a yellow pine it's the same tree at 3 foot as it is at 100 feet.
1) Tell me, what do you think adaptation is? By any definition I can find, adaptation falls under the definition of an evolutionary process - it involves changes in expressed traits over successive generations. Let me know if you're referring to a type of adaptation that doesn't involve changing genes over time... Also, speciation has been shown to occur due to genetic drift as well as adaptation.
@airandfingers I see what you're getting at and you make a good point until now I did'nt really look at it from that perspective. But yes I can see how that is cohesive with micro-evolution but I'm still struggling with trans-species. I would like to let you know I have very much enjoyed this debate as I can see you're a very thoughtful and intelligent person thank you for not getting bent out of shape or demeaning.
@Ih8stupidhumans I'm glad you understand, and happy to help :) What exactly about the analogy are you struggling with? To change what I wrote in an earlier comment, macrogrowth could be defined as something like "a change in size of 20 feet or more". This would be analogous to a trans-species change, which can be described as "a change in genes and genetic code significant enough to make interbreeding between the initial and final form impossible."
@airandfingers Well for one it seems there's very few instances that support these huge changes I guess what I'm trying to say is I think these terms that have been linked to what we are discussing have too many other meanings which waters it down somewhat therefore leaving too much to interpretation.
2) You still misunderstand the analogy cdk007 has made; he's not saying that macro-growth and macro-evolution are the same. He's saying they're analogous.. Let me know if you don't understand analogies; I can teach you. You failed to address both my questions - "What makes his analogy a bad one?" and the follow-up question "Why do you think that a trans-species change qualifies as a tree 'becoming something totally different,' while a change in tree size does not?"
@airandfingers Well I understand where he/she is coming from but in the same way you could use the growth cycle of a human and puberty we go through a change but our genes stay the same we just get hormones we didn't have access to before. This would be less drastic in a flora example wouldn't it?
@airandfingers I guess beacuse that's how it's been defined to me trans-species means to change from one species to another and while I do know there are many species in a "family" this does not mean they are compatiable genentically.
@airandfingers Nylonaise is another one I see alot but think for a second everything man-made has it's roots in raw,natural resource therefore it's easy for me to see that it could have already had this ability or adapted.
@Ih8stupidhumans The analogous definition of macro-growth would be something like "a change in size of 500% or more."
You seem to think that a trans-species change is "becoming something totally different," while a change in tree size is not. Why do you think this, when a trans-species change is just a certain level of disparity between the genetic code of two organisms?
@Ih8stupidhumans The analogous definition of macro-growth would be something like "a change in size of 500% or more."
You seem to think that a trans-species change is "becoming something totally different," while a change in tree size is not. Why do you think this, when a trans-species change is just a certain level of disparity between the genetic code of two organisms?
The funny thing is, even if we could show them, I mean, give them THE ultimate proof, so obvious that even a complete moron would understand, creationist would keep saying it is wrong since it contradict the bible...
We're not in a class room.. secondly English isn't my first language.. and finally, I'm lazy so I don't correct my English even when I make mistake... lol
This is fucking genius.
retrosyk 3 weeks ago
I love the song, LOL
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
Wait, hold on ... so you're saying since no single person has witnessed evolution taking place, then it must be just fantasy, and creationism is a more plausible answer? But no single person has ever seen Creation, either. So I don't see how this analogy is at all valid.
roothdragon 3 months ago
you should be a sage....you speak wisdom and make the foolishness of the world look stupid and pathetic....thank you for your insightful wisdom. Peace to you and love.
mynameiszaccallaghan 4 months ago
My Favorite Video from cdk007
xXLogicalArgumentsXx 5 months ago
@cdk007 you're doing it wrong ! Creationists are immune to logic ! lol,
awesome video anyway
ThinkerResearcher 5 months ago
w8 in evolution isn't it they also say that we have bacterial ancestors? uhh single celled organisms whatever.... so does that mean we are somehow to connected to bacteria? wtf? so if i use anti bacterial soap i'm killing my ancestors? i'm so CONFUSED!
MrFkin123 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BailiffQuimby 8 months ago
@BailiffQuimby haha im learning it right now in biology class... and yea i learned that those single celled organisms the uhh prokaryotypes i think or maybe the karyotypes idk i wasn't listening... but think about this... how did a single celled organism turned into a human? like i know you'll say over millions and millions of years blah blah blah but have you witnesses it yourself? I would want to see this for you to prove it.... and also tell me how did evolution started?
MrFkin123 8 months ago
@MrFkin123 heck how did the bigbang started? did it just popped out of nowhere? how did everything started without something starting it... i believe there's a source of intelligence out there that made this all start, not by just natural cause
MrFkin123 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrFkin123 "heck how did the bigbang started?"
I'm less familiar with the details of cosmology. I've read and learned about the abundance of evidence proving that the big bang happened. But the big bang theory itself does not attempt to explain what happened before t=0. It only says that the matter and energy of the universe has a common singularity source.
BailiffQuimby 8 months ago
@MrFkin123 "i believe there's a source of intelligence out there that made this all start, not by just natural cause"
While this is possible, there's no way to prove or disprove it with the current lack of evidence. All we know for sure is that evolution happened and the big bang happened. It may or may not be that these events were jump-started by a god. But without evidence either way, I will assume not.
BailiffQuimby 8 months ago
@BailiffQuimby No it's not possible. A cause requires time and space to exist. It is a function of time and space. If you remove time and space leaving only matter and energy (eternal) there can be no cause. Physical Laws and logic break down. If we are made in God's image he must obey the laws of logic.
Luigi84289 2 months ago
@Luigi84289 "No it's not possible. A cause requires time and space to exist. It is a function of time and space."
With our current understanding of physics, you are right. But the physics at the start of the universe was rather... wonky. And I don't understand it well enough - I don't think physicists understand it well enough to be absolutely sure either. That having been said, it still makes no sense to believe in a particular cause, much less a cause, without evidence.
BailiffQuimby 2 months ago
@Luigi84289 "If we are made in God's image he must obey the laws of logic. "
Playing devil's advocate, "made in god's image," doesn't necessarily mean "every aspect of god and every aspect of man are corresponding." Very few theists will give that line the same meaning. Some just think it means "spiritually" or in terms of our moral compass or something like that. The better argument against god breaking the laws of logic is that it is a fallacy of special pleading.
BailiffQuimby 2 months ago
@BailiffQuimby No it's not playing Devils advocate if he does not obey the laws of logic than he can in no way be human or related our minds at all. If he cannot even strings things together the foundation of logic and reason than we are above him. Common sense. He can either think or he can't. To say that's playing Devil's advocate is just being silly.
Luigi84289 2 months ago
@Luigi84289 No, I was saying that *I* was playing devil's advocate, by arguing the theist side. I'm a staunch atheist. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't use the specific arguments you are using, nor would I argue that it is justified to claim knowledge that there is no god. I'll settle for disbelief on the grounds of total lack of evidence in favor of god.
BailiffQuimby 2 months ago
@BailiffQuimby I have knowledge that there is no God. The Judeo Christian God can be debunked with basic logic. Thereby proving there is no God. You can use many other methods of doing this but just not believing solely because of a lack of evidence makes you a weak Atheist. Either what the bible says is true or is not. Christians try to put their own person interpretations on God but that kind of God is subjective to the individual Christian. It is created by their minds. Only the Universe=God
Luigi84289 2 months ago
@Luigi84289 "I have knowledge that there is no God"
That is not logically possible. Speaking as a fellow atheist, that is an arrogant claim to make, and you have no method of demonstrating it to be true.
"The Judeo Christian God can be debunked with basic logic"
Well of course. The concept of Yahweh is accompanied by several other claims which are demonstrably false. But it doesn't logically follow that there is no such thing as any kind of god anywhere in existence.
BailiffQuimby 2 months ago
@Luigi84289 "just not believing solely because of a lack of evidence makes you a weak Atheist."
Not believing because of lack of evidence makes me an honest atheist. It's the same reason most people don't believe in bigfoot, alien abductions, and leprechauns. The primary reason for not believing in something is that there's no evidence for it.
"Either what the bible says is true or is not. "
And while I agree that it is not, that only assesses the efficacy of the bible's version of god.
BailiffQuimby 2 months ago
@BailiffQuimby God can be debunked by looking at his own attributes thereby disproving him with his own book. Philosophical thought will also ultimately lead to the conclusion that you cannot have 2 coexisting infinite realities outside one another. That would contradict what Infinity means and make Infinity into things. Infinity = everything. No evidence for a god can be presented. He's just a bunch of contradicting concepts thought up by bronze age ignorant man.
Luigi84289 2 months ago
@Luigi84289 "God can be debunked by looking at his own attributes"
That can only work on a specific definition of a specific model of god, and not on every god-concept out there.
BailiffQuimby 2 months ago
@MrFkin123 "how did a single celled organism turned into a human?"
I would imagine that single-celled organisms reproduced until, by some mutation, one organism had two cells, and it fared well enough that it survived to have more two-celled descendants. This basic idea repeated to three or four cells, then eight, then 20, then 50, until you get to proper multicellular life-forms. Then proto-fish, then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, birds, mammals, primates, and finally humans.
BailiffQuimby 8 months ago
@MrFkin123 "like i know you'll say over millions and millions of years blah blah blah but have you witnesses it yourself?"
No, but we have a plethora of evidence indicating that this is how it happened. Did you personally watch World War I? No, but you know it happened because of all the evidence left behind. The only difference is that this is natural and not man-made evidence. ... tbc
BailiffQuimby 8 months ago
@MrFkin123 Such evidence includes thousands of transitional fossils, geographic distribution of species, geological strata, comparative physiology, comparative genetics, the entire field of modern medicine rests on the premise that evolution is real - if it weren't, then vaccines wouldn't work, which of course they do. And of course evolution has been witnessed first hand (not by me, but by published scientists) both in laboratories and in the wild. That's how we know evolution to be true.
BailiffQuimby 8 months ago
@MrFkin123 "I would want to see this for you to prove it...."
The amount of evidence that exists (which I already summarized) is enough to convince most rational people that evolution happened. The only alternative I can think of that would explain all this evidence is that a god of some sort created the universe and deliberately invented all this evidence to trick us into thinking evolution happened. But that's a bit to conspiracy-theory for my tastes.
BailiffQuimby 8 months ago
@MrFkin123 "and also tell me how did evolution started?"
This is a lot harder to study. There's evidence suggesting abiogenesis, but not nearly as much as there is proving evolution to be true. The common theory based on available evidence is that in the early years of earth, the atmosphere was very different, and without oxygen. The oceans were pools of chemicals which, as was proven in the 1950s, can spontaneously generate the basic building blocks of life in certain circumstances.
BailiffQuimby 8 months ago
@MrFkin123 Other theories include panspermia, which suggests that an asteroid hit earth carrying some super-basic life forms which eventually evolved into the rest of us (which of course would require that abiogenesis have happened elsewhere in the universe) or else some sort of god kick-started life with the first proto-RNA molecule. This last hypothesis, while intriguing, is not supported by any evidence.
BailiffQuimby 8 months ago
@BailiffQuimby those things do makes sense, so then tell me how can all this happen by chance?
MrFkin123 8 months ago
@MrFkin123 Be specific. How can what happen by chance? I have different answers, depending on whether you're talking about the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, or something else. Just one topic at a time, okay?
BailiffQuimby 8 months ago
@MrFkin123 Chance has absolutely nothing to do with it. Survival of the fittest over millions of years is a long, gradual, process of selection of traits that offer the best chance for survival.
xchrisk 7 months ago
@MrFkin123 don't worry, thats an easy mistake to make. firstly, all animals that exist have a common ancestor: the first forms of bacteria. i can't go into too much detail about their evolution, but feel free to watch videos in the origins series by cdk007, they'll help. yes, we are connected to bacteria, as we share the same common ancestor. we just share it on a different level to other animals. for instance, we're more closely related to monkeys than pigs, but we still have genetic relations.
Mr12345EGGNOG 8 months ago
@Mr12345EGGNOG hmm that's cool
MrFkin123 8 months ago
@MrFkin123 no, you're not killing your ancestors by using bacterial soap, the first bacteria were different from todays, and evolved on a split path; eventually evolving into the seperate animals of you and modern bacteria.
Mr12345EGGNOG 8 months ago
i'm so lost
chopseh 9 months ago
@chopseh :why :D
uyenst 5 months ago
Do anyone know where i can find the great video on the topic of macro/micro where a childs first one or two years is shown, and then the first and last picture is displayed again, i cant find it anymore.
N3CR1S 11 months ago
uh......wow.
i have never seen so much stupid in one video.
things grow. that is a fact.
the of an imaginary sky pixy poofing things into existance makes so much less sense than something small growing into something big over an extended period of time.
need proof? look at everything that lives.
everything grows. period.
BloodFoxTK 1 year ago
@cdk997 either u're really smart or really stupid i'd give you that :D
TheHeavyWalker 1 year ago
What stupidity. It truly is unscientific to believe that new moephologies arise from extant morphologies because they have faith it happens. No wonder you are afraid to debate me cdk007. With such moronic arguments as this you would not stand a chance against a well informed 12 yr old in debate. I've said that I've seen the stupidest arguments possible from an evo, but now that standard has changed.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Yeah because he is afraid of your evidence aninst new morphologies arising, wich is you say it can't happen and therefore it can't happen, even if scientific peer reviewed papers mention new morphologies arising ( which usually are the same scientific paper, you quotemine in order to support your Statement
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Way to post on a video almost 3.5 years old. cdk007 isn't active, you stupid moron. And if you're such a good debater, why aren't there any companies, especially creationist organizations, hiring you to professionally debate?
Truly, a man with your credentials... you know, high school dropout... taking on anyone. Everyone's so scared, they're laughing at you.
Get a job, you lazy, pathetic bum.
csbair 1 year ago
@csbair well said m8
fintryfritzl 1 year ago
Comment removed
NephilimFree 11 months ago
@NephilimFree Stupidest arguments possible? This coming from the geocentrist?
tarrin4ever 1 year ago
@NephilimFree
you're quite insane
NefariousVirtuoso88 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Speciation has been observed. So, what are you talking about?
N3CR1S 11 months ago
@N3CR1S Speciation is not evolutionary change. It has no effect on morphology. It's not evidence of evolution and does not support evolutionism. CYA
NephilimFree 11 months ago
@NephilimFree Speciation is a result of evolutionary change. Morphology is not required for evolutionary change. This was explained to you by many people.
Many people = people others turn to for their knowledge
You = leeching off a disabled woman because he has no job.
Perhaps it's better you stop spouting off on subjects you have no knowledge about? Just a thought.
Oh, and get a job.
csbair 11 months ago
@NephilimFree tell us more
Toudiyama 11 months ago
@NephilimFree Speciation is the result of morphological and/or behavioral changes that evolve between subpopulations when their respective environmental conditions differ and those subpopulations have little to no contact.
There have been many studies on this subject, my university proffessor finished one just 2 years ago on ravens, and there are countless others. You are stating things that are opposit of reality. From your sentence, it is also obvious that you reason backwards
N3CR1S 11 months ago
@N3CR1S What a bafoon. There is no moprphological change within "speciation". Variety withing the kinds does not result in change to morphology. Morphological change to species, not deformities of the individual, has not been observed. You just stated something as false as claiming we have observed blocks become round. Go get informed so you don't make yourself look stupid.
NephilimFree 11 months ago
@NephilimFree the definition of evolutions as it is in Webster doesn't mention morpological change, but you know that already, what yu do not know is that it is your destiny to keep failing
Toudiyama 11 months ago
@NephilimFree No schools are calling to get you to teach? No journals want you to edit? No magazines want to publish your insight? How odd. Oh, and there are morphological changes to be had when a population speciates sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't. That's the point: you are setting up goals that aren't necessary in reality.
Nephy, you're the only one looking stupid here. You don't know biology at all. Give it up and go provide for Sharon, rather than the other way around.
csbair 11 months ago
@NephilimFree If you didnt understand what i wrote you could have just said so. Personaly, i thibk i keept a low and easy-to-read level on my comment.
How did you missinterpret it so badly that you thought i was saying that there is "moprphological change within "speciation". " Please re-read what i said.
I dont understand how you also missunderstood the second part. I never said anything about "Morphological change to species" or "deformities of the individual", or observations of such.
N3CR1S 11 months ago
@N3CR1S Again, speciation provides no support for evolutionism because it does not produce any kind of change that can promote the idea that body plans, morphologies, and homologies can arise from extant examples. If we see no change to these things, we cannot say any kind of evolution has occurred. If you point to two varieties within a kind, such as 2 horses within the genus, you are not pointing to any difference that is morphological, or evidence of evolution.
NephilimFree 11 months ago
@NephilimFree 2nd
Also, you need to stop talking about "kinds". Evolution deals with groups of animals capable of having fertile offspring with eachother. Can all male animals in your "kind" have fertile offspring with all femal animals in your "kind"? If they can, then please change the word you are using to species, if they can not then you need to switch to species. Species is the only logical grouping of animals when talking about evolution.
N3CR1S 11 months ago
@N3CR1S The word "kinds" should not bug you since evolutionists speak of genus, family, and species. There is no evolutionary change to be had from speciation since it does not cause change to morphology. You cannot get amphibian tetrapods from fish by any number of changes to size, shape, color, or pattern. Give that some thought and maybe what you are being told will turn on a light bulb in your mind, eventually. Take care. Bye.
NephilimFree 11 months ago
@NephilimFree yes you do. Once again, your failed defintion of evolution doesnt fly bozo. Evolution works virtually exclusively through changing and adapting existing structures. Fins-->legs, air bladder-->lungs etc...So let me ask you this: Which structure in ancient tetrapods cannot be explained as an adaptation of previous existing structures? Take into account that duplication or deletion of structures does not count, as youve said yourself many times...give it a go!
jzuidema 11 months ago
@NephilimFree It is not, as you have missunderstood, speciation that causes "evolutionary change" via morpological changes. Instead, evolution might give rise to morphological and/or behavioural changes in different subpopulations which might cause them to be unable to produce offspring. If that takes place, then a speciation even has taken place.
Do you see the difference in reasoning? If you are trying to dissagree, then atleast know to what you are dissagreeing.
N3CR1S 11 months ago
@N3CR1S Websters Medical Dictionary: MORPHOLOGY
1a : a branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and plants
Morphology is form AND structure. Not just form, not just structure, but both.
Wikipedia: Morphology:
In biology, morphology is a branch of bioscience dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features.
NephilimFree 11 months ago
@NephilimFree now can you provide us with adictionary that defines morphological change as you do? in youyr world if we have series of animals say from a-k and between a and g only a change in form happend then from h-k only the structure changes, then you would still say it is not evolution because only one part changed each time
btw in your list of sources to enly one that does not include both is the only academic source
Toudiyama 11 months ago
@N3CR1S Free Dictionary: Morphology:
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) the branch of biology concerned with the form and structure of organisms
Princeton University Dictionary: Morphology:
the branch of biology that deals with the structure of animals and plants
yourdictionary dot c o m: Morphology:
1.the branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and plants
NephilimFree 11 months ago
@NephilimFree And... what's the definition of evolution from those same dictionaries, Sporty?
TFD: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
PU: the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms
(con't) (1/2)
csbair 11 months ago
@NephilimFree YDdc: the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny
You know, none of those definitions from those very dictionaries dictate that morphological change is required for evolution. So when you use those dictionaries to support your claim, you must acknowledge they don't support your definition of evolution.
You were schooled on this on the 12 hour call already. You fail at life, Sporty
csbair 11 months ago
@NephilimFree according to your logic a morpholical change also has to be both in flora and fauna
funny how you only apply this logic when going against evolution
a christian is a person who believes there is a god and that jezus is god, hwew you will immidiatly say someone isn't a christian if he does not do both So dispite the AND you still think it is a change if only one changes
Vit inconsistent if one would ask me
Toudiyama 11 months ago
@N3CR1S So show us this imaginary change to the morphology of species. The inability to produce offspring has no power to cause fish to evolve into amphibian tetrapods, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into mammals or any other imaginary evolution process. It simply means 2 populations can no longer reproduce. That's a genetic difference, a biochemical one, and does not support evolutionism. Learning?
So show us the morphological change to species that would support evolution's claim.
NephilimFree 11 months ago
@NephilimFree 1:
My previous comment was to teach you what you are actualy dissagreeing with. Do you not agree that in order to have a valid objection to something, then you atleast need to know what you are objecting? I dont see you stating anywhere in your comment that you have understood yet?
The fact that the two populations no longer can reproduce is crucial! That you dissmiss it in the way you do shows how little knowledge you have about its implications.
N3CR1S 11 months ago
@N3CR1S You have not provided the evidence of morphological change to species you claimed is observed. Your failure to do so is because you lied, since we both know there is no such thing. Another evo FAIL. Thanks for playing. CYA
NephilimFree 11 months ago
@NephilimFree I told you that i would not provid any at this time, as it would be pointless since you dont know the topic well enough. Why do you feel the need to point that out? If you wanted me to provide any, then you could have done what i asked of you. you are clearly not interested in this at all.
N3CR1S 11 months ago
@NephilimFree Ok neph morphology of creatures. How about the horse and the donkey. See they came from a comon ancestor and now can no longer interbreed becuase of genetic difference (Yeah the mule numnuts, but the mule can not breed. If god created the horse and the donkey WHY)
ebilly99 11 months ago
@NephilimFree 2:
I can do such things, as showing you a couple of examples of morphological traits that alter the fitness of the individual, and some behavioural examples aswell, AFTER you have learned some of the basics. It would be pointless otherwise. I dont demand that you understand it all, nor that you agree with any of it, but atleast KNOW what you are dissagreeing with. judging from your confused statements so far, i doubt your grasp of the subject is adequate.
N3CR1S 11 months ago
@N3CR1S His grasp of any subject is inadequate. He claims that all geologists agree with him on his lunar bukkake idea, except the idiots and geologists who only say they're geologists. He can't provide the math for the physics of his idea, nor can he explain how the laws of physics get disregarded for his proposals, but argues science backs him up.
He's a complete moron. But if you check out TheAnniepies account, you can see how pathetic NephilimFree really is.
csbair 11 months ago
@csbair I will do, thanks.
N3CR1S 11 months ago
@NephilimFree Still spouting nonsense, Sporty? Scientists use the real jargon of their fields so everyone knows what they're talking about. "Kinds" is a made up word to try to argue that the Bible is true. It has no scientific meaning because it has no scientific definition. Morphological change _IS NOT REQUIRED_ for speciation to occur. This has been explained to you numerous times.
How can I put this any clearer, Sporty? People don't hate you. But people see you as an idiot. Who's hiring you?
csbair 11 months ago
@NephilimFree When someone comes around to pay you for your knowledge or skills in sciences, let us know. Until then, keep shining that glorious stupidity you love to spew forth. You've giving everyone an idea to how ridiculously moronic creationists truly are.
csbair 11 months ago
@NephilimFree WOOHOO, Neph, seems you are still able to come with posts other than "Tell em more"...you made me happy....but than again, your obsession with morphology surfaces again...why is that? Speciation simply is part of, or rather a consequence of, evolution. Changes in morphology and physiology are as well. Now, speciation has been observed many times, as well as changes to physiology, all evidence, or confirmation of, evolution...
jzuidema 11 months ago
@NephilimFree Morphological change has also been observed. However, YOUR definition of morphology is flawed. Secondly, your definition of evolution is flawed, when you define it nothing but macro changes to morphology. A high school textbook on evolution will tell you that the kind of changes in morphology you want to observe in a life-time, occur vastly slower! So with these flawed definitions, you're only arguing against a strawman of the modern evolutionary synthesis, not to be taken serious
jzuidema 11 months ago
@jzuidema No morphological change to species (not the deformity of the individual) has ever been observed. But since you claim it has, I challenge you to provide this imaginary morphological change to species. Show us! Let's see it.
NephilimFree 11 months ago
@NephilimFree You're just a fucking idiot. Morphological change is observed. Many people have SHOWN you the papers on this.
Seriously, get professional help. We understand that you're almost fifty and leeching off a disabled woman, and have nothing to show for your life. But get off YouTube and DO SOMETHING POSITIVE for a change.
No one cares about what you think about science. No one's paying you for your insights or your ability to debate. Take the hint, Sporty. Get on with your life.
csbair 11 months ago
@csbair You should know by now that I don't a crap about anything you say. lol
NephilimFree 11 months ago
@NephilimFree That would be why you still post on my videos?
Nephy, sit down time. I don't give one rat's ass about you. But Sharon deserves better than someone who will mooch off her, be a complete moron online, and be too lazy and stupid to go out to help provide for her.
If you're drinking, you're putting her life in jeopardy if you're her caretaker. Plus her money shouldn't be spent on alcohol for you.
I don't care about you. But Sharon deserves better. Get it through your head.
csbair 11 months ago
@NephilimFree What he says though has some insights. God has not blessed your ministry here on YouTube, you should move on and repent of your false prophecies. You ask them to tell you of their hate, but you seem to be full of hate. A tree will be known by the fruit it bares. Your tree bares hatred and sexual iniquities and lecherous deeds. With each misstep you take your God seethes with anger that you do so in HIS name. Repent false prophet, or face annihilation of your spirit.
TheMathLife 11 months ago
@NephilimFree Show you change of morphological change? Easy, by science's definition of morphological change that is. However you're crooked understanding of morphology and evolution as a whole would make this a pointless excercise. But lets try anyway: dogs! Different dog sub-species vary greatly in length, hair length, behavior, size, shape (especially in the skulls), so evolution is definitely shown in dog breeding, but let me raise the defense to your answer to this as well: (cont)
jzuidema 11 months ago
@NephilimFree (cont) you will probably argue that they are still dogs/no new structures/loss of info blablabla. So dont go there, but instead asnwer this question: If all dogs are the same kind with no morphological change, than why are chimps and humans different?
We share the same kind of differences as dog-subspecies, primarily altered bones, less hair (info loss according to you), different shaped skull (like dogs) and are genetically more similar than a tiger to a lion, which can interbreed
jzuidema 11 months ago
@NephilimFree (cont 3) The most prominent difference between us is the size of our brains, which again is an alteration of existing material/structures....Now Ive seen you raise objections like "chimps have a different number of vertebrae", but this isnt true, as human and chimp vertebrae RANGES OVERLAP. So the question again: On what basis are dogs the same kind and human and chimps different???? Please try to answer that...thx
jzuidema 11 months ago
@NephilimFree And thats the big irony about your whole game here on YT. You claim to profess this incredible proof to refute evolution, but you're only attacking strawmans. Evolution does not dictate that organisms change in morphology over short spans of time.
And why do you think that evolution is only morphology? Morphology is just such a small part of an organisms. Think of all the biochemical pathways and physiological processes going on in your body....
jzuidema 11 months ago
@jzuidema Show me the money sonny. Where's this morphological change you speak of?
NephilimFree 11 months ago
@NephilimFree do they not define an organisms as equally as morphology? Using your definition, a creature going from no immune system or blood clotting cascade, to a fully developed system and cascade would not have undergone evolution, as the morphology didnt change...and if you dont agree here, please explain then why you refuse to accept nylonase as evolution? You cant have it both ways :) tell you more?
jzuidema 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NephilimFree Speciation is a change in allele frequencies, it's evolution.
It has no effect on morphology'
So are you still denying that morphological change takes place?
sciencedaily(.)com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
and of course there's the 50,000+ results at pubmed(.)gov for morphological change(s)
So it really is only by way of pure and utter ignorance that anyone could possibly claim that morphological change doesn't occur.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@NephilimFree Finally discovering that your "Tell us more" replies, especially on posts weeks or months old, are showing how devoid of intellect you are? Good thing you deleted it, though people already knew you were an idiot. :thumbsup:
csbair 11 months ago
the retiredness of this video is unbelievable, yes, trees can grow. wile true that no one single person has seen a tree grow into a giant, family's have. your great great great grandparent plants a tree, and your great great grandchildren will see it as a giant tree. it is retards like this and Fred Phelps that make me embarrassed to claim to believe in god
dragonnutds 1 year ago
@dragonnutds This is satire, the maker is probably an atheist. Turn up your sense of humor...
I wish more christians would speak up on horridly illogical theist videos (as you mistook this one to be).
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
Comment removed
N3CR1S 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dragonnutds Did you not understand? Do you not see the similarities between the arguments and situations in this video and the arguments and situations in a debate between a creationist and one that understands evolution?
N3CR1S 11 months ago
them creationist must have sad lives XD
Flem1337 1 year ago
All hail God Tree!
MrFreakHeavy 1 year ago
i gonna be a macro-growth believer .... tree god sounds really logical!! ;O
CriticatorsXD 1 year ago
how can we see that it is a macroevolution?? and how thermodyanamics affects the biology since it is part of physics im' only asking question can you give me about it second zeroth law of thermodyanamics...... because many now are believing with non-logic scientist remember :"science without religion is lame religion without science it is blind..." Einstien said
senjeki 1 year ago
A little confusing, but I think I get it now. Clever.
Shame to those who can't figure this is twisting creationist logic! Satire!
Clymaxx 1 year ago
This absolutely pitiful attempt at an analogy is hilarious. For an analogy to be logical there must be a similarity between the items on which a comparison can be made. The growth of a tree from a seed to a full grown tree is in no way whatsoever analogous to descent from a common ancestor. The tree starts out as a tree (in seed form) & continues to be a tree. It never changes to something else. Changes in size are not analogous to transitional species. This is so stupid as to be mind numbing.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3 I hope you are being sarcastic. The tree analogy works fine:
Sapling-Tree: trunk size changes, bark forms, sap develops etc. (good combinations reproduce most)
AncestorApe-Human&ModernChimp: brain size changes, limb shape changes, hair level changes etc. (good combinations reproduce most)
Wolf-DomesticDog: Snout length changes, hormones for aggression change, Ear 'floppiness' changes etc. (good combinations reproduce most)
It's not that hard. Just drop the bible and read a real book.
leighgridley 1 year ago
@leighgridley "I hope you are being sarcastic." Not one bit. The analogy simply is wrong. If you plant a seed for a cedar tree, you will get a cedar. You will not get something that 'changes' into a cedar over time, it already IS a cedar. Nothing else will grow from that seed, ever. How is that analogous with starting with a wolf & getting to a chihuahua? Both of which are canines by the way.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3 wait, let me get this straight.
you said: wolfs and chihuahua are subsets of Canines and that's why there are the same, right? (okay not completely the same, but they are related)
what are Gorilla's and chimpansees subsets of? What are humans and chimpansees subsets of?
So in the same logic as before, you can see Humans are the same as gorilla's. they are all apes :D
Tutterkop 1 year ago
@Tutterkop"They are all apes." This I am sure will result in much bluster on your part, but here we go anyway. Man is not an ape.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3 sorry, maybe i should have said great ape.
Humans are Apes. according to the taxology made by Lineas (a creationist BTW) Humans are Apes. He is the famous biologist who said: God created, Lineas ordens (maybe my translation is wrong, forgive me about my inadequate translation if that's the case)
Tutterkop 1 year ago
@Tutterkop "Taxology made by Lineas..." Categorization by its nature is somewhat arbitrary. Whether man is or is not an ape is not determined by Lineas. Apes have 48 chromosomes, man only has 46. That alone separates man from apes. And please, let's not even bother going down the 'fusion' road.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3 Nope, it doesn't. sorry. I'll explain it so you can understand.
a knife and a fork are both kitchenware. just like Chimpansee and Humans are both (great) Apes. just like a labarador and a chiuaua are both dogs.
you classifiy things based on commen features and the more common they are, the more closely you can refer to them even though they have distinct differences (like the fused chromosone). example Whales and Humans are both Mammals. that's closer than Humans and snails cont.
Tutterkop 1 year ago
@Tutterkop "Nope, it doesn't." Yep, it does. You're trying to argue similarity points to common descent, it doesn't. It only points to common design features for common needs. Dogs come about by common descent, that can be seen. Apes & man do not as their respective chromosomal structures prove. This difference makes the argument for common descent based on similarity totally moot. Next you're going to tell me knives & forks both descended from spoons.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3 no it really doesn't. First of The chromosomal structures problem has been solved because they found that there has been a fusion of 2 chromosones. But even so, the chromosones have ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with the taxological tree wich inserted man as a subclass of Apes. There are other animals in this superclass, like Gorilla, Chimpansee, ... And if you don't like that fact, that's you're problem, but the fact still stands.
also Spoons are also kitchenware like knives cont
Tutterkop 1 year ago
@wallyjude3 cont like knives & forks. so To make the analogy clear to you because you clearly do not understand: knives represent humans and forks represent Chimpansee, spoons represent [insert any Ape you like] AND kitchenware represents APES!
Also just to be clear, the fact that there is a fusion, and that all other chromosones are the same with apes, while they are more different with mice or other animals, just brings more proof to say they have a common ancestor.
Tutterkop 1 year ago
@wallyjude3 re: your "knives & forks both descended from spoons" analogy. You misunderstand entirely. Evolution does NOT states that humans descended from monkeys. What it does show is that humans and monkeys (chimpanzees) descended from a common ancestor. Just think ALL the way through it man, and just CONSIDER that the bible might not be genius - and you'll find it's very easy to understand.
leighgridley 1 year ago
@leighgridley "You misunderstand..." No. I do not. You ask me to think it through. I have & that is why I have taken the position I have. You can't demonstrate this common ancestor you claim led to man & chimps, no one can. It's existence is simply assumed because its existence is necessary to the hypothesis. There's no proof for common descent outside of presupposition. The existence of such a creature results in evidence being interpreted as if the creature did exist.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3 Continue... That's closer than humans and snails wich are just two animals. In the same sense Humans and chimpansee are more of the same(/closer) then Humans and Whales. because they are both APES. That's why we have A LOT of common features. like Smiling when you want to express joy (although you can interpret it as "I'm not a treat to u" if you don't believe animals have emotions, because that's a different discussion i'm not going into)
Tutterkop 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
You just supplied your own answer! Both wolves and chihuahuas are canines with a common ancestor. Over many generations since the ancestor, with some offspring variations surviving better and replicating more than others, hundreds of years later we see a more varied canine population. When streams of the population become different enough, they are labelled two distinct species. Extend over 4bil years since life was first dated...this is evolution. It's not that hard.
leighgridley 1 year ago
@leighgridley "You just supplied your own answer!" You just supplied your own assumption! The existence of a common ancestor does not logically lead to a common ancestor for ALL living things. We can observe dogs varying in size, colouring, etc. It's not logical or possible to extrapolate this observable event into the unobservable descent of all life from a common ancestor. Simply adding billions of yrs to the equation does not make it a fact. It's all assumption, nothing more.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@leighgridley Regards my earlier replies, I realized I made a couple of typing errors. "The existence of a common ancestor does not logically lead to a common ancestor for ALL living things." This should read as 'the existence of a common ancestor for canines does not logically lead...' "The existence of such a creature results in evidence being interpreted..." This should read as 'the assumed existence of such a creature results in evidence being interpreted...'
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3 I appreciate your corrections - thank you. With regards "There's no proof for common descent outside of presupposition" though, you are DEFINITELY wrong. The fossil record supported common ancestors, DNA sequencing, carbon dating and human/chimpanzee genome project all supported it further. It would only take one contrary piece of evidence to contradict the theory - evangelicals have been looking but still nothing has been found so far. If they do, I'll convert - but nothing yet!!
leighgridley 1 year ago
@leighgridley "You are DEFINITELY wrong." Provide examples of fossils which support descent from a common ancestor. Human/chimp genome project is actually finding more & more differences as it progresses. The 98% has dropped to approximately 92% & is expected to drop further. Lots of the evidence contradicts evolution. Evidence is subject to interpretation based on an individuals presuppositions. Everyone uses he same evidence, it's the interpretation which varies.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3 ME provide examples? I'm a teacher, not an academic biologist. But you know what the academic biologists have found throughout peer-reviewed analyses? That evolution is WITHOUT DOUBT. Am I to understand you believe micro- but not macro-evolution? Care to tell me what length of time you "believe" constitutes the difference between the two?
leighgridley 1 year ago
@wallyjude3 there's interpretation and then there's lack of reason, and THEN there's denial. Evolution can be logically inferred from a very basic set of axioms which are: 1. everything dies 2. life reproduces with variation 3. organisms less suitable to their environment are more likely to die, 4. the earth is a lot older than 10,000 years.
PCGamerPortal 1 year ago
@wallyjude3 All the fossils support descent from a common ancestor. Look at the big picture.
The 98% same DNA [not counting repeats] is still true. 96% the same counting repeats. Chimps are closer to humans than they are to gorillas.
Creationists don' t use the same evidence, they don't study the fossils they look for gaps.
Scientists all have different 'presuppositions'', bible packers only have one.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@leighgridley if evluton is proven wrong you'll convert to christianity? lol.
PCGamerPortal 1 year ago
@PCGamerPortal
Well, no. I just say that so that they realize how big of a thing it would be for a creationist to find just one piece of evidence against evolution - and therefor how confident we can be in evolution.
leighgridley 1 year ago
haha! wow. let me explain this way. you know that sapling will growing into a giant. so it started from one leaf (one species) and grew two branches (2 species) and those grew two branches so now there is 8 species..... you get the idea. micro evolution and macro evolution are the same thing people!!!!!
bigchurp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
cdk007, I thought that I had found a 'great' channel when I found Thunderf00t, but, no offense to Thunderf00t, your channel has some of the greatest individual videos I have encountered yet on YouTube. How I wish I had a god to whom to pray to have you keep up your great work. I guess, in light of my last sentence, I will simply have to ask you to keep making exceptionally enlightening videos.
Bezshai 1 year ago
cdk007, I thought that I had found a 'great' channel when I found Thunderf00t, but, no offense to Thunderf00t, your channel has some of the greatest individual videos I have encountered yet on YouTube. How I wish I had a god to whom to pray to have you keep up your great work. I guess, in light of my last sentence, I will simply have to ask you to keep making exceptionally enlightening videos.
Bezshai 1 year ago
Great video.
I'm with stupid^ lol
ManicEightBall 1 year ago
Haha all the IDers 5*'d because this supports their point
theneonfire 2 years ago
haha, great vid !! good analogy.
bttsstewart 2 years ago
is this satire if not u just made a total ass of yourself
patrickledford420 2 years ago
Comment removed
NathanWubs 2 years ago
Nice music choice.
Zephanus 2 years ago
ok good i thought i was going to stroke out waching this vid
Dmachado1989 2 years ago
is this video a joke? so the argument is just because we dont see a seed grow into a big tree it must have been created? so have you ever seen god? no? well tuff shit he is not real. thank you for giving us atheists just one more thing to shoot down you dumbass theorys with. honestly who thinks of this shit? Darwin forever
Dmachado1989 2 years ago
Buddy, this video is satire to creationist logic. He nearly literally took the creationist critique of macroevolution and changed the nouns.
But at least you see the bad logic, and you can show Creationists you debate why they are just so plainly wrong.
snoman99991 2 years ago
yea i know now lol.
Dmachado1989 2 years ago
Oops you already got 2 replies. :)
justforflag2 2 years ago
@snoman99991 This proves nothing..and it's a bad analogy. Macro-evolution's definition(and I cite this from one of his vids) is a trans-species change the tree did not become something totally different as this defintion suggests. Micro-evolution on the other hand is all around us.
Ih8stupidhumans 1 year ago
@Ih8stupidhumans
That's the problem though. The evidence exists, both in lab settings and otherwise. What he's doing here is illustrating that it's more than just common sense that macroevolution is real. Moreover, you'd have to be denying very well demonstrated principles in order to deny evolution. The analogy is perfectly fine because it's focus is on the denial, not on the actual particulars of macroevolution itself.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991 Please tell me what plant/animal that has evolved trans- species, I did not deny evolution just macro. And yes it is a bad analogy because he's just saying anyone that disagree's with his opinion(and that is what this video is all about) is a flaming moron and that generalization is ignorant from the outset.
Ih8stupidhumans 1 year ago
@Ih8stupidhumans Google search "observed instances of speciation". He made an analogy, and you failed to criticize that analogy. What makes his analogy a bad one? He never said anyone is a moron, but he linked the claim about micro vs. macroevolution with a new one about micro vs. macrogrowth, a claim which you find moronic. So, show why the analogy is poor, and why his "opinion" that the two claims are analogous is not rational.
airandfingers 1 year ago
@airandfingers I 've read up on speciation which as far as I can tell is driven by adaptation not evolution.....macro-growth and macro-evolution are different Dawkins has inadvertently admitted this by defining macro-evolution as tran-species. Macro-growth is explained many times by sequoias but a 3 foot sequoia is still a sequoia its not a yellow pine it's the same tree at 3 foot as it is at 100 feet.
Ih8stupidhumans 1 year ago
@Ih8stupidhumans
1) Tell me, what do you think adaptation is? By any definition I can find, adaptation falls under the definition of an evolutionary process - it involves changes in expressed traits over successive generations. Let me know if you're referring to a type of adaptation that doesn't involve changing genes over time... Also, speciation has been shown to occur due to genetic drift as well as adaptation.
airandfingers 1 year ago
@airandfingers I see what you're getting at and you make a good point until now I did'nt really look at it from that perspective. But yes I can see how that is cohesive with micro-evolution but I'm still struggling with trans-species. I would like to let you know I have very much enjoyed this debate as I can see you're a very thoughtful and intelligent person thank you for not getting bent out of shape or demeaning.
Ih8stupidhumans 1 year ago
@Ih8stupidhumans I'm glad you understand, and happy to help :) What exactly about the analogy are you struggling with? To change what I wrote in an earlier comment, macrogrowth could be defined as something like "a change in size of 20 feet or more". This would be analogous to a trans-species change, which can be described as "a change in genes and genetic code significant enough to make interbreeding between the initial and final form impossible."
airandfingers 1 year ago
@airandfingers Well for one it seems there's very few instances that support these huge changes I guess what I'm trying to say is I think these terms that have been linked to what we are discussing have too many other meanings which waters it down somewhat therefore leaving too much to interpretation.
Ih8stupidhumans 1 year ago
@Ih8stupidhumans
2) You still misunderstand the analogy cdk007 has made; he's not saying that macro-growth and macro-evolution are the same. He's saying they're analogous.. Let me know if you don't understand analogies; I can teach you. You failed to address both my questions - "What makes his analogy a bad one?" and the follow-up question "Why do you think that a trans-species change qualifies as a tree 'becoming something totally different,' while a change in tree size does not?"
airandfingers 1 year ago
@airandfingers Well I understand where he/she is coming from but in the same way you could use the growth cycle of a human and puberty we go through a change but our genes stay the same we just get hormones we didn't have access to before. This would be less drastic in a flora example wouldn't it?
Ih8stupidhumans 1 year ago
@airandfingers I guess beacuse that's how it's been defined to me trans-species means to change from one species to another and while I do know there are many species in a "family" this does not mean they are compatiable genentically.
Ih8stupidhumans 1 year ago
@Ih8stupidhumans
Macro-evolution is by definition, speciation (or greater).
The point of the video is it's an analogy.
The growth from one "kind" of tree to another (tiny to small, moderate to large) is analogous to the transition between species.
The arbitrary line we draw between small and large trees is the same as the line we draw between species.
Speciation is not a single event, it's a smooth transition.
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@airandfingers Nylonaise is another one I see alot but think for a second everything man-made has it's roots in raw,natural resource therefore it's easy for me to see that it could have already had this ability or adapted.
Ih8stupidhumans 1 year ago
@Ih8stupidhumans The analogous definition of macro-growth would be something like "a change in size of 500% or more."
You seem to think that a trans-species change is "becoming something totally different," while a change in tree size is not. Why do you think this, when a trans-species change is just a certain level of disparity between the genetic code of two organisms?
airandfingers 1 year ago
@Ih8stupidhumans The analogous definition of macro-growth would be something like "a change in size of 500% or more."
You seem to think that a trans-species change is "becoming something totally different," while a change in tree size is not. Why do you think this, when a trans-species change is just a certain level of disparity between the genetic code of two organisms?
airandfingers 1 year ago
It's satire. It is what creationists think and he shows it to them so they put it in their minds.
justforflag2 2 years ago
Lol thanks. This guy is great tho
Dmachado1989 2 years ago
Awesome analogy, It's amazing to me how some people just don't get it.....
anderstc47 2 years ago
awesome.
ngarbo00 2 years ago
Fracking Awesome. And it makes so much fracking sense. I wish that this could be satire, but alas. I have heard this too many times.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
L.O.L. Let's get retarded, indeed.
TheLastCoolName 2 years ago
This video is going straight in my favorite list.
Awesome
vava54own 2 years ago
The funny thing is, even if we could show them, I mean, give them THE ultimate proof, so obvious that even a complete moron would understand, creationist would keep saying it is wrong since it contradict the bible...
vava54own 2 years ago
What is it with people who disagree with an "ist" view non pluralizing it when it should be pluralized?
TheLastCoolName 2 years ago
We're not in a class room.. secondly English isn't my first language.. and finally, I'm lazy so I don't correct my English even when I make mistake... lol
vava54own 2 years ago
I disagree. Life is a Classroom. The biggest Classroom and Lab of all times. Experiment.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
hahaha! geat video. I find it to be a very fitting analogy
simsi1616 2 years ago
I really hope, one day, the overwhelming tide of evidence will change people's minds.
Until that happens, the song is fitting.
thisnameisuniq 2 years ago
The last 1 or 2 minutes of the video were just amazingly funny to me.
Flypig777 2 years ago