@jordie0bogart, um like lol. There is evidence of a creator. And that's beside the point. No, as I said it only makes it more improbable that blind luck could produce the necessary mutations not once but in multiple lines.
@cmottes 'No, as I said it only makes it more improbable that blind luck could produce the necessary mutations not once but in multiple lines.'
The necessary mutations are much less rare than you might imagine. For example, in a species of lizard that lives in the desert (I forget its name), a mutation is required for it to change colour. This mutation is rare, but when you do the maths, you find that, on average, it crops up 1400 times in a period of a few thousand years.
There isn't. There are patterns that are misconstrued as signals of design, but upon closer scrutiny, we've come to understand how these patterns are brought about by natural processes.
Why must each stage of evolution be an improvement? What the fuhhk is an improvement in a world of inanimate know-nothing molecules "evolving"? How does anything know anything?
@ClassicalFitness You moron! It's not a conscious effort on the part of 'molecules', it's called NATURAL SELECTION! There is something called mutation! If something mutates and it turns out to be beneficial then that organism gets to keep breeding and eventually out does others. Ie, Bacteria that resists anti-biotics. Look up the TB epidemic. It's a perfect example.SO, Keep your fucking mouth shut until you know a thing or two about science!
@ClassicalFitness Evolution is a tinkerer, not an engineer. Not every step is a step for the better. "how does anything know anything?" Can't help you there, not quite sure what you're asking. Animals have brains, maybe? natural selection is incredibly slow, something I don't think many people realize. For example: our bodies today are perfectly evolved for the living conditions humans were going through 12,000 years ago, around the time of the agricultural revolution.
It doesn't have to. This is a classic mistake made by people when they look at nature: they think that somehow, the interacting parts need to 'know' (in some conscious sense) what they're doing. It just isn't the case. You have millions of chemical processes going on in your body, and you're not aware of most of them. In nature, the interacting organisms need not have even a smidgen of understanding of why they do what they do.
Doesn't cut it for evolution at all. The most fundamental problem is utterly ignored. The sheer "luck" of "random" mutations in fact is made far more difficult to explain by the fact it happens in multiple "pathways.". The eye is still designed.
@cmottes Um, no it's not. You would have to be demonstrably stupid to think that it is. You know seeing as there is no evidence of a creator. Listen to this video! David Attenborough explains it quite eloquently!
@cmottes 'The sheer "luck" of "random" mutations in fact is made far more difficult to explain by the fact it happens in multiple "pathways."'
No, you're speaking from pure ignorance here. Mutations happen all the time, and there are different types of mutations (point mutations, deletions, duplications, frame shifts).
'The eye is still designed.'
Stupidly designed: it has to keep twitching to focus on anything, the light receptors are backwards, and a kick to the head can dislodge it.
@cmottes Also, which eye are you talking about? Did you know that the eyes of vertebrates (including fish) have their light receptors pointing away from the light, so that the light has to pass through extra stuff before activating a response? Cephalopod eyes aren't 'designed' this way, however. So tell us: why didn't God create even ONE vertebrate with forward facing receptors, not even among the aquatic ones? This is easily explained by evo: all the vertebrates inherited this configuration.
A mind is a complex combination of mechanisms- memory, emotion, imagination, etc- all working according to specific rules. So which came first, God's mind or the rules that make God's mind work?
There is one and only one reason for people to strive so diligently against the fact of evolution, and it's not reason. (Although it does start with an "R")
Just look at the evolution of a Clock, from understanding time based on Suns location in the sky to, sun dials to , mechanical clocks to digital clocks to atomic clocks... its an evolution driven by need for knowing time more accurately, its driven by a process just like evolution.The process and need for accuracy made it a better clock. Same with computers. peace
@IlGreven The argument here is about the process, evolution doesnt give birth to evolution, because processes arent living biological entities.An eye doesnt give birth to an eye either.
@IlGreven 'But do you see a clock giving birth to another clock?'
By that reasoning, cars are self-replicating because they share features (complexity and interacting components) with organisms. Of course, we observe that they're not. Complexity is not any sort of proof of design, except perhaps in entities that could only be arranged by deliberate manipulations of matter (computers, clocks, cars).
@sushanalone Precisely. Evolution is a behavior inherent only in human progress, humans then attribute evolution to nature and become idolators and go to Hell. Pull your head out of your ass and stop worshiping creation and putting man into the creation instead of God.
@ClassicalFitness "Evolution is a behavior inherent only in human progress" and I am the one with my head in my ass?Have you been living below a rock or did you drop out of school b4 biology classes were introduced?Explain your claim and amuse me with your imbecility!
@ClassicalFitness God is man made. Hate to brake it to ya. As an archaeologist I can assure you that we have made many many gods in our past. One of which is the judeo-christian god.
@ClassicalFitness 'Evolution is a behavior inherent only in human progress, humans then attribute evolution to nature and become idolators and go to Hell.'
No, you got it backwards there. Conscious design is a behaviour inherent in human progress, and humans then attribute conscious design to nature and invented religion.
Never seen a mommy and daddy watch give rise to a baby watch that ate to become bigger and bigger. All of which would of course (as everything in the universe) be a consequence of the laws of nature.
lol.... the eye only ended up that way by chance, we know who invented the pocket watch so we know who "designed" it, if we were "designed" to rule over all life we would be born with perfect night-vision, ability to inject lethal venom into animals, immunity to all deseases, poisons and venoms, the weight-to-strength ratio of an ant, sonar, vision of all wavelengths of light, greater swimming ability than most fish, scales for protection and a lot more.
Do you want to know an interesting thing ... Humans don't have the best vision anyways ... We see around 100 MegaPixels (speakign in photograpic terms) while the eagle has somewhere around 5000 MegaPixels
I'm not very knowledgeable on science. but my only question is how do intelligent lifeforms know that they "need" to improve overtime or is this even matter of "need" or just a "accident" that fit in with the design of the lifeform, or does environment have a play on this?
Again i'm sorry if i offend anybody who thinks this is rather inane, but i'm just a dumb kid. :P
@Jamsessionroom1337 It is not a matter of them knowing they need to improve, it is exactly how evolution works. For example, the life forms of that type that can see better are the ones who survive better, and then they live to reproduce. So the trait of "seeing better" gets passed along to the next generation more than does the trait of "not seeing as well". And on and on and on. They don't need to know it or think about it, it is survival of the fittest for every species.
@Jamsessionroom1337 You shouldn't deride yourself because you don't know something. Realising you don't know something is actually a good thing, it means you can learn.
Animals don't have to be intelligent to evolve, and intelligent animals don't know that they need to evolve. The animals that have more offspring will be more common in the next generation. Evolution isn't a conscious decision. Elephants with shorter tusks in Africa get shot less frequently, and so they survive to breeding age.
@Jamsessionroom1337 Every trait that you have is passed partly on to your offspring by DNA via reproduction. Thus all the traits that are advantage in survival and having an offspring are passed on and thus in time, enhanced more and more starkly in future generations (if the environment does not change). If the environment changes, so change the traits that are needed for survival and getting the next generation. This is the simplest way of describing the natural selection.
I love it when creationists use the eye as an example of irreducible complexity because we have so many of those transitional forms still living that show how it's evolved. And we now how much they love transitional forms!
It's funny there hasn't been a good argument since the early 20th century. looks like all of the philosophical theists have come and gone now its all about makin that money, no thoughts.
Oooh, ooh, do some research on optical illusions. They are fascinating and you can get your non-science enthusiast friends interested as well (you know, those muggles).
@jordie0bogart, um like lol. There is evidence of a creator. And that's beside the point. No, as I said it only makes it more improbable that blind luck could produce the necessary mutations not once but in multiple lines.
cmottes 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmottes 'No, as I said it only makes it more improbable that blind luck could produce the necessary mutations not once but in multiple lines.'
The necessary mutations are much less rare than you might imagine. For example, in a species of lizard that lives in the desert (I forget its name), a mutation is required for it to change colour. This mutation is rare, but when you do the maths, you find that, on average, it crops up 1400 times in a period of a few thousand years.
cayetanoluis2 1 day ago
@cmottes 'There is evidence of a creator.'
There isn't. There are patterns that are misconstrued as signals of design, but upon closer scrutiny, we've come to understand how these patterns are brought about by natural processes.
cayetanoluis2 1 day ago
Why must each stage of evolution be an improvement? What the fuhhk is an improvement in a world of inanimate know-nothing molecules "evolving"? How does anything know anything?
Oops ... Evolution fail!
ClassicalFitness 2 months ago
@ClassicalFitness You moron! It's not a conscious effort on the part of 'molecules', it's called NATURAL SELECTION! There is something called mutation! If something mutates and it turns out to be beneficial then that organism gets to keep breeding and eventually out does others. Ie, Bacteria that resists anti-biotics. Look up the TB epidemic. It's a perfect example.SO, Keep your fucking mouth shut until you know a thing or two about science!
jordie0bogart 2 months ago
@ClassicalFitness More like creatard fail!!!!!!!!!!!
jordie0bogart 2 months ago
@ClassicalFitness Ummm....Conciousness? Creatard fail!
Alphacaliber 1 month ago
@ClassicalFitness Evolution is a tinkerer, not an engineer. Not every step is a step for the better. "how does anything know anything?" Can't help you there, not quite sure what you're asking. Animals have brains, maybe? natural selection is incredibly slow, something I don't think many people realize. For example: our bodies today are perfectly evolved for the living conditions humans were going through 12,000 years ago, around the time of the agricultural revolution.
ColbyFoote 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColbyFoote 'natural selection is incredibly slow'
Often, but not always. Some systems evolve incredibly quickly - viruses, bacteria and plants and animals with short generation times.
cayetanoluis2 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ClassicalFitness 'How does anything know anything?'
It doesn't have to. This is a classic mistake made by people when they look at nature: they think that somehow, the interacting parts need to 'know' (in some conscious sense) what they're doing. It just isn't the case. You have millions of chemical processes going on in your body, and you're not aware of most of them. In nature, the interacting organisms need not have even a smidgen of understanding of why they do what they do.
cayetanoluis2 1 day ago
Doesn't cut it for evolution at all. The most fundamental problem is utterly ignored. The sheer "luck" of "random" mutations in fact is made far more difficult to explain by the fact it happens in multiple "pathways.". The eye is still designed.
cmottes 2 months ago
@cmottes Um, no it's not. You would have to be demonstrably stupid to think that it is. You know seeing as there is no evidence of a creator. Listen to this video! David Attenborough explains it quite eloquently!
jordie0bogart 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmottes 'The sheer "luck" of "random" mutations in fact is made far more difficult to explain by the fact it happens in multiple "pathways."'
No, you're speaking from pure ignorance here. Mutations happen all the time, and there are different types of mutations (point mutations, deletions, duplications, frame shifts).
'The eye is still designed.'
Stupidly designed: it has to keep twitching to focus on anything, the light receptors are backwards, and a kick to the head can dislodge it.
cayetanoluis2 1 day ago
@cmottes Also, which eye are you talking about? Did you know that the eyes of vertebrates (including fish) have their light receptors pointing away from the light, so that the light has to pass through extra stuff before activating a response? Cephalopod eyes aren't 'designed' this way, however. So tell us: why didn't God create even ONE vertebrate with forward facing receptors, not even among the aquatic ones? This is easily explained by evo: all the vertebrates inherited this configuration.
cayetanoluis2 1 day ago
thanks Attinborough
markeybizz 3 months ago
A mind is a complex combination of mechanisms- memory, emotion, imagination, etc- all working according to specific rules. So which came first, God's mind or the rules that make God's mind work?
VerumAdNauseam 3 months ago
There is one and only one reason for people to strive so diligently against the fact of evolution, and it's not reason. (Although it does start with an "R")
HellRehab 3 months ago
Just look at the evolution of a Clock, from understanding time based on Suns location in the sky to, sun dials to , mechanical clocks to digital clocks to atomic clocks... its an evolution driven by need for knowing time more accurately, its driven by a process just like evolution.The process and need for accuracy made it a better clock. Same with computers. peace
sushanalone 3 months ago 4
@sushanalone Sure. But do you see a clock giving birth to another clock?
IlGreven 3 months ago
@IlGreven The argument here is about the process, evolution doesnt give birth to evolution, because processes arent living biological entities.An eye doesnt give birth to an eye either.
sushanalone 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IlGreven 'But do you see a clock giving birth to another clock?'
By that reasoning, cars are self-replicating because they share features (complexity and interacting components) with organisms. Of course, we observe that they're not. Complexity is not any sort of proof of design, except perhaps in entities that could only be arranged by deliberate manipulations of matter (computers, clocks, cars).
cayetanoluis2 1 day ago
@sushanalone Precisely. Evolution is a behavior inherent only in human progress, humans then attribute evolution to nature and become idolators and go to Hell. Pull your head out of your ass and stop worshiping creation and putting man into the creation instead of God.
ClassicalFitness 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ClassicalFitness "Evolution is a behavior inherent only in human progress" and I am the one with my head in my ass?Have you been living below a rock or did you drop out of school b4 biology classes were introduced?Explain your claim and amuse me with your imbecility!
sushanalone 2 months ago
@ClassicalFitness God is man made. Hate to brake it to ya. As an archaeologist I can assure you that we have made many many gods in our past. One of which is the judeo-christian god.
jordie0bogart 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ClassicalFitness 'Evolution is a behavior inherent only in human progress, humans then attribute evolution to nature and become idolators and go to Hell.'
No, you got it backwards there. Conscious design is a behaviour inherent in human progress, and humans then attribute conscious design to nature and invented religion.
cayetanoluis2 1 day ago
explaining science...like a boss!
rxbandit21 3 months ago 12
Never seen a mommy and daddy watch give rise to a baby watch that ate to become bigger and bigger. All of which would of course (as everything in the universe) be a consequence of the laws of nature.
drandersw 3 months ago
lol.... the eye only ended up that way by chance, we know who invented the pocket watch so we know who "designed" it, if we were "designed" to rule over all life we would be born with perfect night-vision, ability to inject lethal venom into animals, immunity to all deseases, poisons and venoms, the weight-to-strength ratio of an ant, sonar, vision of all wavelengths of light, greater swimming ability than most fish, scales for protection and a lot more.
doombybbr 3 months ago 6
if god made the eye why is the eagle got the best vision are they the chosen race of god
mocktheweekfan92 3 months ago
All the information we atheist give you theist is for quiet meditation alone, do introspection and try to balance things out. Take the RED pill.
pigin007 3 months ago 6
Pure blasphemy !! :D:D :D :D
Do you want to know an interesting thing ... Humans don't have the best vision anyways ... We see around 100 MegaPixels (speakign in photograpic terms) while the eagle has somewhere around 5000 MegaPixels
zizikelizike 3 months ago
@zizikelizike im jealous the eagle watches in HD
TheZachary86 3 months ago 5
spencer sent me here
iflyplane 3 months ago
This guy could read a dictionary and I would find it fascinating.
M3rc1fu7Mast3r 3 months ago 8
If you have a british accent, youre always right. simple as that.
AxeHomeless 3 months ago 12
@AxeHomeless It's an English accent. As to a "British accent", there is no such thing.
SpaceMarineUltra 3 months ago
@SpaceMarineUltra Of course there is, it is just not a very specific term, as it includes every accent in Great Britain.
gubban2 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science is just ever so much better than blind belief in things that have no evidence at all to back them up :)
hantejudy 3 months ago 4
I'm not very knowledgeable on science. but my only question is how do intelligent lifeforms know that they "need" to improve overtime or is this even matter of "need" or just a "accident" that fit in with the design of the lifeform, or does environment have a play on this?
Again i'm sorry if i offend anybody who thinks this is rather inane, but i'm just a dumb kid. :P
Jamsessionroom1337 3 months ago
@Jamsessionroom1337 It is not a matter of them knowing they need to improve, it is exactly how evolution works. For example, the life forms of that type that can see better are the ones who survive better, and then they live to reproduce. So the trait of "seeing better" gets passed along to the next generation more than does the trait of "not seeing as well". And on and on and on. They don't need to know it or think about it, it is survival of the fittest for every species.
hantejudy 3 months ago 2
@hantejudy Thanks.
:)
Jamsessionroom1337 3 months ago
@Jamsessionroom1337 You shouldn't deride yourself because you don't know something. Realising you don't know something is actually a good thing, it means you can learn.
Animals don't have to be intelligent to evolve, and intelligent animals don't know that they need to evolve. The animals that have more offspring will be more common in the next generation. Evolution isn't a conscious decision. Elephants with shorter tusks in Africa get shot less frequently, and so they survive to breeding age.
daemonowner 3 months ago
@Jamsessionroom1337 Every trait that you have is passed partly on to your offspring by DNA via reproduction. Thus all the traits that are advantage in survival and having an offspring are passed on and thus in time, enhanced more and more starkly in future generations (if the environment does not change). If the environment changes, so change the traits that are needed for survival and getting the next generation. This is the simplest way of describing the natural selection.
Mtaalas 3 months ago
Logically, anything who shall imporve would evolve.
timothyjesus 3 months ago
I love it when creationists use the eye as an example of irreducible complexity because we have so many of those transitional forms still living that show how it's evolved. And we now how much they love transitional forms!
maskofsan1ty 3 months ago
It's funny there hasn't been a good argument since the early 20th century. looks like all of the philosophical theists have come and gone now its all about makin that money, no thoughts.
jeremiah4448 3 months ago
nice explanation, sir ;D
freiheitsalv 3 months ago
And yet, the fuckers are STILL going to use this argument...
KeshnerfFilms 3 months ago 3
Seth sent me here
pigin007 3 months ago 41
@pigin007 Me too...
funkyzx 3 months ago
this vid has peaked my interest in the human eye. i will do some research. nice upload btw.
lancevancedance 3 months ago 7
@lancevancedance
Oooh, ooh, do some research on optical illusions. They are fascinating and you can get your non-science enthusiast friends interested as well (you know, those muggles).
d3st88 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Every christian should see this.
Nachovidal3600 4 months ago 2
Teleological arguments are such failures.
Microtardz 8 months ago 27