Hey creationists, here's something for you to ponder: If you deny that God is powerful enough to have created a world 2000 years ago THAT WAS ALREADY 4 BILLION YEARS OLD at the moment of creation, then you are denying that he is omnipotent and therefor you are denying your own faith.
What about convergence evolution, what a joke that is. Take something like an eye which an evo can't even imagine incremental steps leading up to an eye, let alone happening again and again and again all over the place. This would present a problem, so what do the evo guys do. Well we need a new term, what about convergence evolution. What a crock.
The discovery of DNA since Darwin wrote his book, has blown evolution away. The most sophisticated code know to man, did not come about by chance chemical reactions. Abiogenesis still eludes the evo camp. And the fossils don't back up evolution either. Evolution is pseudoscience.
Is this guy really that stupid or is just pulling our chain!! The more educated scientist think they are the more ignorant they sound! There is No evidence. You'll get your proof, the problem is it might be to late for morons like this!
Thirdly, the 'missing link' doesnt make sence because we evolve through small personal improvements of instance a faster gazelle or bigger horns or better brains. there was no ONE link there was only everything that led us to this point, and we have found an abundance of our very close cousins or even some direct ancestors. The closest thing to a 'missing link' in reality have been found.
@bassmanco WRONG , FREAKS THAT WERE A BETTER TWIST ON LIFE. CAUSED ALL ENTITIES , AN ENTITY THAT WAS MORE CAPABLE TO SURVIVE , DID .
OTHERWISE THE D. N. A. KEEPS RE- COPY'ING THE SAME ENTITIES , YOU FOOLS , I'M NOT CREATIONIST, OR EVOLUTIONIST, JUST A BIT MORE CAPABLE OF SEEING THE MECHANICS INVOLVED , SO READ YOUR BOOKS AND TELL US HOW IT HAPPENED , YOU.
Disappointing i'm enjoying this. Have you ever seen DNA copy the 'same entities' before, excluding identical twins then?
Lets keep the name calling to a minimum. If you are not an "EVOLUTIONIST" then you don't understand the subject well enough. Fact is, it is the reality. it works through varying degrees of mutation and DNA reshaping, BIG changes usually mean that the offspring is un-viable, and regularly....
@bassmanco TWINS STILL REGENERATE THE SAME DNA. YOUR SMALL CORRECTIONS HAVE NO BEARING ON A SPECIES . BY THE WAY CALLING ME A TROLL, IS LIKE CALLING A DOG A FISH, I'M TELLING NOT ASKING .
@9493760 Im calling you a troll because honestly i have alot of trouble discerning weather you are faking this for the lols or not.
"TWINS STILL REGENERATE THE SAME DNA" what point are you making?
Why do my "SMALL CORRECTIONS HAVE NO BEARING ON A SPECIES"? That is literally it as far as evolution goes. Give it a lot of time and it will diversify as environments change.
You are telling? Stating that you know better than scientists?
This is why i think you are a troll. Seriously, that book.
@bassmanco And caps lock doesn't give your opinions weight either. And what did this mean "TRULY SIR ,DO YOU SEE MY GENETIC ANOMOLY, SHORTENING EXISTANCE, OF A SPECIES?". your way of talking isn't all that clear to me.
"WRONG , FREAKS THAT WERE A BETTER TWIST ON LIFE. CAUSED ALL ENTITIES , AN ENTITY THAT WAS MORE CAPABLE TO SURVIVE , DID ." could you please perhaps quote my specific comments you are replying to? Really grasping what you are driving at is eluding me :S
@9493760 I was finished, but this is fun... sort of.
You haven't made any point regarding twins, you have just stated TWINS. Pouches are well documented throughout evolutionary study. Thats just the way it goes, in an early mammal one day it evolved an extra orifice for its newborn. Probably one which had small offspring. try looking it up, marsupials are WAY weirder than just a pouch. Look it up.
And i think you are either a troll or have a limited understanding of the english language.
@bassmanco TWINS ARE STILL NOT USUALLY GOING TO MATE, BUT IN THEIR REPLICATION THEY WILL STILL PRODUCE THE SAME PATTERN THAT THEY HAVE, THE ONLY ONE THEY HAVE. OK SWEETY.
AND YOUR RIGHT I AM VERY STUPID AND IGNORANT, AND AM TROLLING FOR HUMOR FROM SORTS LIKE YOU.
@9493760 I still cant quite grasp what your twin mating statements are supposed to do as far as this argument. I mentioned nothing of twins mating. I was just saying that identical twins have the same DNA.
errr k.
we finished now? the fun to boredom ratio is shifting. But regardless, check out Dawkins Greatest show on earth. its quality.
@9493760 for all intents and purposes, yes they do, but absolute knowledge is impossible. so we leave headroom. We know to the point where disagreement is essentially absurd that EVOLUTION HAPPENED. FACTS as far as the layman term (undeniable ones) are impossible in science because there will always be the tiny gap in which it is possible that nature could turn on its head. Facts really are impossible in reality beyond 'i think therefore i am' but this isn't philosophy.
@bassmanco If you are arrogant enough to think that you have it better than science then you are delusional, there is little more i can do but inform you that you are incorrect, and perhaps some honest research might get you somewhere.
@bassmanco TWINS OF COURSE, NOW AS YOU FADE YOU'VE TURNED TO, REPEATING MY WORDS, WHAT POINT ARE YOU MAKING? SCIENCE IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS ," A LANGUAGE TO DESCRIBE THE NEW OR STAND FAST DISCOVERIES " NOT THE LAST WORD. A WORD THAT GOES TO SAY, A KANGAROO NEEDED TO CARRY IT'S CHILD, SO EVOLUTION SLOWLY DEVELOPED A PERFECT CARRING POUCH, CAN YOU FATHOM THIS STATEMENT ? PLEASE?
@9493760 Oh not you again. I refuse to talk to you until you stop using capitals, and stop signing and dating your comments. Perhaps you could try making a profile that has some form of relevance to who you are...? - Please don't reply if you don't plan on my doing either of my two proposals, as i'm going to ignore them.
@bassmanco I APOLOGIZE bassmanco , but i think that if you have the honor of posting or writing on the internet , you shouldn't hide behind a fake name . Everyone should be responsible for their words. The caps thing is mainly due to my typing abilities, i'm using one finger on my onscreen keyboard , also my vision sees the letters better , i have to use I E . thanks . Fronz
@9493760 "...you shouldn't hide behind a fake name" Do you realize how ridiculous that statement is? Are you saying that your parents named you 9493760?
@9493760 Wow, that's just...stupid. I have to disagree with bassmanco that you're a troll just faking it; I think you might really be this ignorant about evolution, and posibly even science in general.
"...NOT THE LAST WORD" Just because there is a possibility that some future discovery might show that what we currently know isn't absolutely right doesn't mean that its completely, unreliably wrong. You should check out this essay by Aasimov: watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0
@ArcanaKnight WHY IS IT STUPID? IF YOU KNEW ME YOU WOULD KNOW I HAVE LITTLE TO FEAR. PLUS ASIMOV WAS A SCIENCE FICTION WRITER , I AM A CREATOR AND REPAIRMAN OF THINGS THAT DON'T ALREADY EXIST.
@9493760 "ASIMOV WAS A SCIENCE FICTION WRITER" He was also a professor of biochemistry, and arguably one of the best popular science (that's explaining science to the general public) writers ever. You didn't even bother watching the video, did you?
@9493760 Ok. Cool, Now why has it been months since our last exchange on here, and all of a sudden you are back, and have left a very similar comment about 5 times? Its cool, DW, i wouldn't take something personally anyway :/ dont think i got that impression, you can caps lock if you like ^^
@bassmanco I DIDN'T KNOW OF PREVIOS EXCHANGES, I JUST WATCH WHAT INTERESTS ME AND REPLY , MAYBE I DOUBLE REPLIES, I'M KIND OF ABSENT TO ORGANIZATION AND RECALL.
THE REASON FOR THE MULTIPLE POSTING IS THAT I'VE GOT BROWSER PROBLEMS AND HAVE TO WATCH IN AN I. E. FRAME WHICH CRASHES AND GOES WHITE ON ME , IT WASN'T SHOWING THE ENTRY SO I REPEATED CLICKING ON POST TAB AND THE SCREEN CRASHED. BUT I SEE IT POSTED REPETIVE REPLIES. I APOLOGIZE .
@9493760 ...when there ARE big changes, the next few hundred generations spend thier time slowly evolving in ways to minimise all the cock ups that the mutation has caused, for instance the nerve that connects to our larynx goes via the heart for NO reason, and the Testis tubes take a detour around your bladder. Those are the two examples from dawkins book, 'greatest show on earth" which explains evolution exquisitely and keeps creationist bashing....limited. Highly recommended.
Secondly Yes, (as i see it is as soon as 22000 years ago) other humonids DID live along side us. They were a different species, we are NOT Neanderthal 2.0 or the new and improved monkey, we are simply different. They took other evolutionary paths. Don't be so arogent to think that we are any improved version of something else, we are just the result of improve survival under specific conditions. A bi-prodcuct of that is our intelligence.
@ndrthrdr1 REASONING HASN'T DONE MUCH FOR MOST OF THE MOST ENIGMATIC ARGUMENTS . IF ONLY REASON WAS USED ALL THE BELT BUCKLES THAT BOUNCED OF YOUR HEAD WOULD MAKE YOU A GENIUS .
HELLO, I AGREE, EXCEPT,THE NATURE OF SCIENCE DOESN'T EVER CLOSE A THEORY, IT WOULDN'T BE A SCIENCE IF IT WASN'T WORKABLE. SO YOU SAY SCIENCE IS A ROGUE , LOOKING FOR FAME BY UPSET. I CAN VISION THIS ,BUT, DOESN'T THIS MAKE EVOLUTION MORE SHAKY ?
NO I THINK SCIENCE CAN ONLY WORK BY ROCK SOLID FACTS. MY ARGUMENT IS THE TIME SEQUENCES , THERE SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH TIME, IN THE HUMAN OR HOMINIDS , TO EVOLVE, SOMETHING REVOLUTIONARY OR SUDDEN HAPPENED .
YOU DON'T GET SAPIENS THAT EASY. GIANFRANCO FRONZI
@9493760 According the recent radiometric dating they've discovered that the earth (and perhaps this entire solar system) is about 4.54 billion years old. If the early hominids, our ancestors, were living around 15000 years ago, that still means it took over 4 billion years for it to happen, yes?
@9493760 you can "THINK" all you want in anyway shape or form, but that doesn't mean you opinion has any weight scientifically. If you don't understand how humans evolved, then you haven't tried hard enough, looked hard enough, or are just unwilling to accept something quite simple. I would recommend spending more time watching videos explaining evolution if your intentions are honest.
@bassmanco you can " THINK" all you want in anyway shape or form, but that doesn't mean you opinion has any weight scientifically . if you haven't seen the biological mistakes that have overnight, become the good mistake .
don't look for fossils , there isn't any missing link.
@9493760 ...Err what? Are you saying that the missing link has not been found? it does not exists? Seriously, im not sure exactly what you are trying to say. and are you refering to micro-evolution as mistakes...? Plz Explain. And appologies if i came across as an arrogant tool, i wasn't trying to state my sicentific understanding as supirior to yours, i was suggesting that science and scientists can explain perfectly, so go have a look.
@9493760 On second thought, fuck that im a busy man.
First Science can never say something is definite, it can only say for we are almost certain because IT IS HONEST. That is the nature of science and the nature of all we think we know. But there comes a point when we have so much evdnce on smething tht any real chnge to that theory is just unrealistic. Evolution is one such theory. People who cling onto this 'gap' in science(and reality) are being dishonest or stupid.
@FindingTruthToday If I have this figured out then you will get this message even though you blocked me. I think you are a very weak-minded person to block someone just because you can't answer what they say. On your channel I see where you block people all the time. You never answer any questions people ask you either, you just weasel out of the conversation. You are rude and I am not upset that I laughed at you. The Human Genome Project does not "confirm" the bible. LOL LOL.
If I have this figured out then you will get this message even though you blocked me. I think you are a very weak-minded person to block someone just because you can't answer what they say. On your channel I see where you block people all the time. You never answer any questions people ask you either, you just weasel out of the conversation. You are rude and I am not upset that I laughed at you. The Human Genome Project does not "confirm" the bible. LOL LOL.
Everyone knows that if you see facts on TV news, then they're OBVIOUSLY true!
But if you REALLY want to make those facts true, write them into a book, say that God wrote it, and sell it for a huge profit. (But don't forget to add a scapegoat so readers can blame someone.)
Chromosome number means little. Very different species can have the same number of chromosomes, and very similar species can have different numbers of chromosomes, and even a single species can have great variation in the number of chromosomes.
"THAT 85.3 % of DNA that we share w/ a mouse is over half of the human DNA! "
No, not quite. The 85.3% identity with mice is based on genes, and as I pointed out, genes make up only a small part of the human genome. For example, the nucleotides that are protein coding in our genes make up only about 1% of our genome.
Once there was a magician who breathed into the dust, coughing, and -- poof! A man named Adam was created, fully formed. This man had blood, a brain, bones, guts -- all made from dust.
Adam was boring, so the magician gave him a woman to fight with. The magician reached into the man's chest and -- yank! -- pulled out a rib to make Eve. Adam screamed; blood spewed in every direction. "Blame it on her," the magician said. So Adam learned to blame everything on Eve.
Our genetic similarity with mice is less than our genetic similarity with non-human primates.
Even when looking only at genes (which make up only a small percentage of mammalian genomes, but are also generally the most highly conserved regions), the similarity between humans and mice is "only" 85.3%.
Source: Lineage-Specific Biology Revealed by a Finished Genome Assembly of the Mouse, Deanna M. Church, et al., PLoS Biol. 2009 May; 7
Our genetic similarity with mice is less than our genetic similarity with non-human primates.
Even when looking only at genes (which make up only a small percentage of mammalian genomes, but are also generally the most highly conserved regions), the similarity between humans and mice is "only" 85.3%.
Source: Lineage-Specific Biology Revealed by a Finished Genome Assembly of the Mouse, Deanna M. Church, et al., PLoS Biol. 2009 May; 7(5): e1000112
So if we were created by a higher being then we are flawed to the point of lazyness. Surely you would create something which doesn't have problems with sight, hearing, limbs, disabilities etc etc, need I go on???
@CrossAlliance To some extent, biology can be studied without evolution, but it would be biology with no context or understanding. It would be like describing a painting with its colors alone.
@CrossAlliance No biologist has assumed evolution is rigg from the 'get go'. That would be the creationists, and biologists have ceased to listen to your rabble because it is merely repeated and stale lies hat have been refuted since the 50s.
@pat5168 'and stale lies hat have been refuted since the 50s.'
such as? I am aware that not everything Creationists have ever said has been true, but that goes the same for evolutionists. Don't just search 'mistakes made by Creationists' because of course there have been mistakes. Explain to me what we have done to be shunned from the scientific community if the evolution theory is so bullet proof?
@CrossAlliance Oh no they aren't mistakes, just blatant lies. Such as monkeys shouldn't be here if we evolved from them, any missing intermediate fossil disproves evolution, macroevolution is not possible, there is no evidence, many scientists reject evolution, evolution is a failing theory, genes cannot be created, there is too much diversity, humans are too far advanced, there should be animals in the process of evolving and not entire species of the same. Now tell me the lies evolution makes.
@pat5168 first I would like to address the ones you've listed. I for one, do not claim that monkey shouldn't be here. That is a commonly misunderstood part of the theory. I know that the theory does not claim we came from monkeys but that monkeys and us had a common ancestor. Or so I currently understand it, but it seems everyone I debate has a different definition of what evolution is and how it happens.
"everyone I debate has a different definition of what evolution is..."
Evolution (microevolution) is a change in allele and/or genotype frequencies in a population across one or more generations. Microevolution occurs at the population level, which is below the species level. Macroevolution is evolution (at or) above the species level. In general, macroevolution is the result of the accumulation, over long periods of time, of many microevolutionary changes.
@pat5168 intermediate fossils don't technically "disprove" evolution, however they are not very strong evidence for evolution. For instance, Lucy, the strongest evidence of her being a "missing link" was her knee and elbow joints, but after closer examination her knee joints showed to be as ape. Also her brain case was an unusually large for a "man-ape" and her legs were surprisingly short. The fossils that are claimed to be the BEST evidence aren't even complete only fragments of the creature.
@CrossAlliance Fossil records aren't the best evidence for evolution, but they do support it other than the few far fetched gatherings of bone that you like to reference to even though they do not represent the majority of all fossils. Experiments and observations gathered in genetics is the best evidence for evolution in my opinion.
@pat5168 'few far fetched gatherings of bone that you like to reference to even though they do not represent the majority of all fossils'
well if evolution was true, how would these far fetched gatherings ever happen? Also genetics is a bit confusing to me I will admit, I am taking a class now to help me to better understand it. Dr. Georgia Purdom has done some good research on that topic.
@pat5168 It's not so much that macroevolution is not possible as it is improbable. Natural selection has been observed to do nothing but keep the species fit and not alter the species into anything other than what it already was. I would say that natural selection and microevolution explains the origin of races, but macroevolution and natural selection has not explained the origin of species because of lack of observation and evidence.
@CrossAlliance Macroevolution is known to be quite possible because of the many duplications of genomes. Microevolution + accumulation over time = Macroevolution. Genes are known widely in biology in that they are able to duplicate themselves, second copies of genes are often free of selective pressure which causes the accumulation of beneficial genes to be rapid. In fact, entire genomes are not uncommon to be duplicated. Insertions of genes or even entire genomes is rare but does happen.
@pat5168 Although the vast majority of scientists do accept evolution, there are still quite a few Creationist scientists. Such as: Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology and Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist just to name a few.
@pat5168 ....biology. Even without evolution there's a lot of great biology. Cell life, DNA, RNA, proteins, ect. there's a ton of good science in biology, anatomy, zoology, Earth space and physical science, without evolution. Creationist biologists are just scientists that study biology and disagree with evolution. Does that answer your quesetion?
"Even without evolution there's a lot of great biology"
Without evolution you have a myriad disconnected independent facts with little overall meaning. Add evolution and all those disparate are pulled together into a single unified whole, with explanatory power.
Speaking of anatomy, what explanation is there for the forelimbs of a human, bat, whale, cat, chicken, and frog to all have the same general bones in the same relative positions? And why are the same "master" genes used in the development of all of them? And why are those same "master" genes also used in the development of the pectoral fins of fish, and why do we have transitional fossils showing the evolution of limbs from fins? Homology, genetics, and fossil evidence.
Dr. Carter is not a scientist anymore. He gave up his professional scientific career and became a Creationist : sad to see someone's outdated religious beliefs ruin their mind and their scientific reputation and career.
@pat5168 I am currently unaware of any genes being created by man at this time, not saying that there never will be, but even so that would prove we would need a designer, how could nature do something by chance that would take YEARS to develop in lab with some of the smartest people in the world.
@pat5168 Humans are EXTREMELY advanced and I'm sure you would not question that, and at the rate we witness things "evolving today" it would take WAY more than 3 billion years to develop humans out of a single celled living organism in the middle of an ocean of organic soup, which by the way is impossible, which I can and will explain if you would like me to. All we witness is the development of races and nothing more is observable or proven.
@CrossAlliance 3 Billion years is quite a long time, and humans are not as advanced genetic wise as some microscopic organisms. All that makes humans advanced are our highly developed brains, many other animals have more advanced body parts than we do. The noses of canines and eyes of owls are two more advanced as examples. We have dexterity and an advanced brain, and that does not take longer than 3 billion years. Sorry to disappoint any ego but we are not the best of the best.
@pat5168 I was using humans as an example. There are obviously more advanced animals, although they are not quite as smart as we are, they too would have taken quite a long time to evolve. Even longer than we would have.
@pat5168 The lies made by evolutionists are obvious, Heckels' embrios were finally pulled from the text books 10 years ago, it only took over 100 years... Horse evolution was proven wrong but was still taught in text books for decades after, and possibly now I'm not sure. The geologic column is nothing but circular reasoning. peppered moths was a lie and nothing more than a population shift. I could go on and on, the point is the lies exist.
@CrossAlliance Haeckel's embryos were discredited 100 years ago; their inclusion by textbook authors since then without also including commenting on its inaccuracies or how it was used to support a falsified theory is ridiculous, but it has nothing to do with the current evidence supporting evolution. Horse evolution has not been "proven wrong". "The geologic column is nothing but circular reasoning" Wrong again. You've clearly just uncritically accepted Wells's claims in Icons of Evolution.
@CrossAlliance Peppered moths? Scientists in biology only use that as a reference to natural selection. Microevolution and Macroevolution are not divisions in nature, their only differences is in the way they are studied. Haeckels' Embryos were actually stopped being credited a hundred years ago, and the horse evolution was never disproven. Blow shit out of your ass more.
@pat5168 I am a firm believer in Christ. I would appreciate it if you kept the terms used in a debate appropriate. And for circular reasoning in the geologic column, of course that's true if they date fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils that is practically the definition of circular reasoning! If you have evidence against that, please bring it forward.
« And for circular reasoning in the geologic column, of course that's true if they date fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils »
But you've already been told that strata are *also* dated *independently*, using *other* methods (eg. radiometric dating, anual chronology, and so on). Guide fossils are only used to provide a provisional first estimate, subject to later refinement through other methods of dating.
@CrossAlliance "radiometric dating is inaccurate" No its not. Its proven itself to be accurate, that's why it was used as a dating method to begin with. If we didn't understand the age of the earth, then we wouldn't understand how atoms operate, therefore we would never have been able to develop atomic power.
@ArcanaKnight well i have to respect you for being one of the most resourceful and tolerant evolutionist I've debated. Aside from that one cuss word, you've kept this debate mature, thanks for that. One thing I really don't understand about evolution however, is blood. Blood needs veins, which need the heart, which needs other organs. What evolved first, why, when did we become dependent on blood, what was the first creature with blood, ect? Can u help me out with that?
"What evolved first, why, when did we become dependent on blood, what was the first creature with blood, ect? Can u help me out with that?"
"The first animals to have a true circulatory system were the annelids (earthworms). They possess a simple dorsal and ventral blood vessel connected by 5 aortic arches. "
That is just the start, dude, do a search of "evolution of Circulatory system" on any search engine, it is so cool. It starts out so primative and changes. Look it up!
You're arguing "irreducible complexity". But *every* example of "IC" that has ever been brought forth has already been dismantled. Including the "blood needs veins" variant. Consider what blood is: a mechanism to transport oxygen and foodstuffs to cells. Do organisms need blood in order to oxygenate tissues? No: nematode worms have no blood to speak of, and no vascular system.
With regards to blood and the vascular system, they probably evolved from primitive digestive tracts. As organisms became bigger, the need for food distribution would increase, leading first to extension of the digestive tract, the development of peristaltic muscles (some of which may be the precursor to the heart), and then a branching of the digestive tract, from which a separated digestive tract and vascular system developed.
No it isn't. It consistently yields results that match up with results from independent radiometric measurements, using different methods, as well as other observations in the fields of physics, astronomy, geology, palaeontology and annual chronology. Lying about stuff in such an obvious manner isn't helping your credibility, boy.
« please give me your personal definition for chronology. »
I am using the term 'annual chronology' to indicate the collection of dating methods that use periodically returning phenomena, such as treering dating, icecore dating, and so on.
"radiometric dating is inaccurate and has been wrong many times"
Nope. Stop believing the anti-science, religious extremist, lying sacs of shit called Creationists, who distort, misrepresent, and tell half truths about radiometric dating and other science.
The facts is that modern radiometric dating methods - such as isochrons, which have internal self checks - produce consistent, reliable results.
"I am a firm believer in Christ. I would appreciate it if you kept the terms used in a debate appropriate. "
I am not a believer of christ, I would appreciate it if you would keep the termes used appropriate to the debate, no hypotheses based on superstition, and no repeating lies over and over even when presented with the truth.
@CrossAlliance "that's true if they date fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils" Rocks aren't dated by fossils, I would appreciate it if you would maturely ask us what you don't understand about Evolution or particularly how they estimate the age of fossils instead of only finding out enough to question but not enough to actually find the already given answers. If you have evidence for any given example of when they have mutually dated fossils by rocks and likewise, please bring it forward.
"they date fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils that is practically the definition of circular reasoning! If you have evidence against that, please bring it forward."
Yep, radiometric dating. That is an independent method that relies on nothing (which fossils are found in the layer, for example) but the physics of radioactive decay.
And how was Neil Shubin able to use the evolutionary timelines and geology to successfully predict ahead of time where to find a "fish-a-pod"?
"Heckels' embrios were finally pulled from the text books 10 years ago, it only took over 100 years"
But there is fact expressed by his hand drawings, even if they were fudged. Mammalian (and to lesser extent, other vertebrate) embryos DO stronly resemble each other at a particular stage. I have collected a set of PHOTOS from various embryology sites that shows this: see ww w.myspace.c om/dnaunion#%7B%22ImageId%22%3A1635459%7D
"Information is lost from generation to generation, not gained" Except that we have observed the evolution of increases in genetic variety in a population, genetic material, novel genetic material, and novel genetically-regulated abilities, so by any reasonable definition of the term, increases in information have been observed to evolve.
@DNAunion Will you say you don't have a temper? The very usage of the (by the way nonsensical and meaningless and obscene) word 'fucktard' is a strong indication that you do have a temper. You 'defend' your opinions with asserting that you're right and some swear words to spice your speech up. You are an extremely aggressive man. I can understand his fear. I'd bet one of your hobbies is humilitating people who you think are weaker than you.
Natural selection can do more than just "destroy weak genes", as you so stupidly put it.
Natural selection can also retain, and spread, beneficial mutations through a population.
And when combined with mutation, operating cumulatively over billions of years, natural selection can accomplishy quite a lot. Just look at the fossil record!
If there was no contraversy, there would be no reason to make this video saying there is no controversy. See, I told you evolution has never been proven.
I also proved Creation is true. Only God's word is true.
Evolution is trash not science.
Yes, evolution is disproven. Mutations do not get together to order any functions. It loses the test truthfulness and viability.
The mere ordered function of the elements proves there is a Maker. Order and function require a maker.
This video is all fraud. In real life, mutations are what kill us.
How do you expect unrelated random mutations to work together to order anything? It is not even logical.
In real life it does not happen. It has already been proven that mutations do *not* accumulate. They can't get evolution to happen even with their intent and design.
There are a number of mutations all of which can be corrected in the following generations by the function that genome already has.
"It has already been proven that mutations do *not* accumulate."
1 of 2
1. A gene duplication produced a second copy of an opsin gene.
2. A point mutation in the copy changed the wavelength of light the copy's protein product maximally absorbed, but not enough to make much of a difference.
3. Another point mutation occurred in the copy that shifted the wavelength its protein maximally absorbs
4. Another point mutation occurred in the copy. With the accumulated affect of 3 point mutations, the wavelength maximally absorbed by the encoded protein was shifted was sufficiently from that of the original opsin gene that a thrird wavelength of light could be detected ... there were then 3 opsin genes instead of 2.
Evolution is an absolute fraud. Look at it like this. Since mutations are random, none of the mutations ever work together to order anything and they can't know what to order and mutations that do occur are corrected for the sake of the viability of the species. So mutations do not accumulate. They only destroy existing information Variations that do occur are uniform and the product of the limited information in the genome. It is not like one random mutation is able to make a new organ.
@DNAunion I asked for a specific type of endosymbiosis. Not just any type. The example I'm asking for is the kind that would have created the first life. That has never been observed in human history.
@DNAunion your point about Archaeopteryx is pointless and designed to sound intelligent but it's not! What difference does it make if it was the only bird with lizard like features! The Platypus has webbed feet a bill and lays eggs but it's a mammal that doesn't mean it used to be a duck! Most of your post are smoke screens at best.
@DNAunion (eukaryotic organelles originating from free-living bacteria that were ingested by cells and living inside the cell as endosymbionts) has this ever been witnessed in human history? YES or NO? Answer the question here FOR EVERYONE TO SEE! Don't answer anything but YES OR NO! If you say yes your a dirty stinking lier! ANSWER!! Most of what you post is misdirecting crap. ANSWER!!! YES OR NO?!!!! DONT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT EVIDENCE AND THEORY!!!
For those of you sending me private messages stating that evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true in a court of law please post the name of the case and when it occurred. As I can't seem to find any such thing. All I can find are court cases on weather or not it can legally be taught in schools. The Bible is taught in school as well but does that make it true? At least there were witnesses stating Jesus was seen resurrected.
The current 'evidence' for the theory of evolution would not stand up in a court of law while undergoing judicial scrutiny. There would be indications that biased interpretation of data had occurred, as alternative theories could be presented to account for observed and tested facts.The theory of evolution needs its facade of scientific immutability lifted, and exposed for what it really is - an unproven scientific theory.
@DNAunion evolutionary change from one species to another is not possible and has never been witnessed in human history. At it's core evolution theory is based on endosymbiosis theory and neither has been witnessed or observed. Sure things adapt, viruses adapt. But a lizard has never been witnessed turning into a chicken. The idea is absurd and ridiculous.
Hundreds of green algae can enter a single paramecium thereby gaining shelter from organisms that would otherwise consume them. In return, the algae photosynthesize and provide some of the organic products to their host. If these paramecia are then grown in the dark, they lose their algal endosymbionts: if light is restored, the endosymbiosis is reformed.
So we can watch simple endosymiotic relationships form and reform in the lab.
Algae within heart cockles have radically changed their morphology: they have come to be partially adapted to life within their host by losing their flagella and some other structures. When these endosymbionts are removed from the host and grown separately, they eventually regrow flagella and otherwise return to their prior, free-living form.
So here we have the next step: endosymbionts that have partially adapted to their host.
This is a two-parter because it is too long. But it is very impressive, so be sure to read it.
Kwang Jeon has studied an example of this type of endosymbiosis which resulted from bacterial infection of a laboratory strain of amoebas. Most of the amoebas were killed, but a few survived. Over time, the progeny of the survivors came to be able to tolerate the bacteria quite well.
Eventually, the prokaryotes became indispensable to their host because the endosymbionts came to alter the expression of at least two genes of the amoebas. If the endosymbionts are removed, then the amoeba die.
They can reinfect new amoebas with the bacteria and the endosymbiotic relationship forms anew, and becomes REQUIRED for the host.
The unicellular, photoautotrophic algae Cyanophora paradoxa contains bacterial endosymbionts. The bacteria, which still retain a peptidoglycan layer between their two cell membranes (a trait that is characteristic of prokaryotes, not eukaryotes) have become so modified that they are considered to be plastids, and are called cyanelles (essentially, “cyanobacterial organelles”). Both the host and the endosymbiont require the other in order to survive.
@DNAunion Fossils of modern humans, Homo erectus and Neanderthals have been found together, at the same level, in the same fossil sites. It is therefore scientifically improper to state that modern humans evolved from Neandertals, and that Neandertals evolved from Homo erectus.
@DNAunion The theory of evolution is a valid scientific hypothesis, but the facts are that it has not been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. To be proven valid, the theory of evolution must undergo the scrutiny and rigors of the scientific method. This, however, cannot be accomplished because the millions of years required for experimental testing are beyond the reasonable limit of human observation.
@DNAunion Archaeopteryx is not a missing link it's simply a species that has died out. No more no less. We lose an average of 120 species everyday to extinction. I wonder if some wacko will dig one up 5,000 years from now claiming they have found a missing links.
Missing link? That's an outdated term based on a flawed view of evolution. Scientists now only use it sometimes, and as a non-scientific term, when speaking to the general public.
No modern bird has all othese features that Archaeopteryx had:
1. teeth
2. claws on front limbs
3. long bony tail
4. neck that attaches to back of head
But essentially all modern reptiles have all four of those.
« from what we observe, it doesn't work that way »
From *ALL* available observations, it looks like it works that way.
« They still reproduce »
You missed the part where we - repeatedly - explained that selection is a stochastic process. The law of *averages* applies here, and handicapped people like those with inherent mental retardation simply *do* *not* *reproduce* as often as more favored variants.
@DNAunion You egomaniac, can you EVER stop swearing? Why is it necessary that all your comments contain profanities? Can't you express yourself in a civilised manner?
It's your bad luck that I know the background behind your posts. I know you're so uncivilised and aggressive because you're trying to hide your obvious undereducation and lack of arguments. In fact, you lost the debate at the first profanity, as using them is an obvious sign of being defeated and angry over it.
@DNAunion Yes. That's the most convenient, isn't it?
'Shut up, asswipe. You are a lowlife sac of shit douche. I am right. Point taken.'
Bad luck for you, science does not go like that. Seems like you're stuck in the medieval ages where the person who was stronger and more aggressive was 'right'. You know, in our age, people try to use rational arguments to convince each other. Maybe you should try to learn that, as with this behaviour, nowhere will you be accepted.
@DNAunion After refusing to answer my question which was necessary to crush your 'arguments', I think you were the one cowering in fear and knowing that you have been defeated.
However, I've told you. Bacteria are the most primitive forms of life that can live on their own; therefore abiogenesis must suggest that they were the first.
'You're a fucking asshole.'
No, I am not fucking and I am not an asshole. You, however, are an egomaniac, pathetic, primitive yokel. Swearing is your life.
@DNAunion Uncivilised, lacking any substance. As I've told you, swearing is your life. You should find a forum designed specifically for this, and not flood this section with your curses.
@DNAunion Childish? And you tell me childish and lacking any substance when all your comments are like 'shut up asshole, I'm right, you're wrong because I say so'?
Hey creationists, here's something for you to ponder: If you deny that God is powerful enough to have created a world 2000 years ago THAT WAS ALREADY 4 BILLION YEARS OLD at the moment of creation, then you are denying that he is omnipotent and therefor you are denying your own faith.
Becvar80 6 days ago
What about convergence evolution, what a joke that is. Take something like an eye which an evo can't even imagine incremental steps leading up to an eye, let alone happening again and again and again all over the place. This would present a problem, so what do the evo guys do. Well we need a new term, what about convergence evolution. What a crock.
ian9toes 1 week ago
The discovery of DNA since Darwin wrote his book, has blown evolution away. The most sophisticated code know to man, did not come about by chance chemical reactions. Abiogenesis still eludes the evo camp. And the fossils don't back up evolution either. Evolution is pseudoscience.
ian9toes 1 week ago
Is this guy really that stupid or is just pulling our chain!! The more educated scientist think they are the more ignorant they sound! There is No evidence. You'll get your proof, the problem is it might be to late for morons like this!
mustangpassurchevy 2 months ago
@mustangpassurchevy WATCH . [BACTERIUM FLAGELLUM MOTOR ].THEN CALL ME STUPID .
GIANFRANCO FRONZI. DEC. 16 / 11
9493760 1 month ago
@9493760 STUPID
mustangpassurchevy 1 month ago
@mustangpassurchevy YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T WATCH IT.
9493760 1 month ago
Thirdly, the 'missing link' doesnt make sence because we evolve through small personal improvements of instance a faster gazelle or bigger horns or better brains. there was no ONE link there was only everything that led us to this point, and we have found an abundance of our very close cousins or even some direct ancestors. The closest thing to a 'missing link' in reality have been found.
bassmanco 3 months ago
@bassmanco WRONG , FREAKS THAT WERE A BETTER TWIST ON LIFE. CAUSED ALL ENTITIES , AN ENTITY THAT WAS MORE CAPABLE TO SURVIVE , DID .
OTHERWISE THE D. N. A. KEEPS RE- COPY'ING THE SAME ENTITIES , YOU FOOLS , I'M NOT CREATIONIST, OR EVOLUTIONIST, JUST A BIT MORE CAPABLE OF SEEING THE MECHANICS INVOLVED , SO READ YOUR BOOKS AND TELL US HOW IT HAPPENED , YOU.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI .OCT./ 29/2011
9493760 3 months ago
@9493760 You are a troll aren't you?
Disappointing i'm enjoying this. Have you ever seen DNA copy the 'same entities' before, excluding identical twins then?
Lets keep the name calling to a minimum. If you are not an "EVOLUTIONIST" then you don't understand the subject well enough. Fact is, it is the reality. it works through varying degrees of mutation and DNA reshaping, BIG changes usually mean that the offspring is un-viable, and regularly....
bassmanco 3 months ago
@bassmanco TWINS STILL REGENERATE THE SAME DNA. YOUR SMALL CORRECTIONS HAVE NO BEARING ON A SPECIES . BY THE WAY CALLING ME A TROLL, IS LIKE CALLING A DOG A FISH, I'M TELLING NOT ASKING .
GIANFRANCO FRONZI
9493760 3 months ago
@9493760 Im calling you a troll because honestly i have alot of trouble discerning weather you are faking this for the lols or not.
"TWINS STILL REGENERATE THE SAME DNA" what point are you making?
Why do my "SMALL CORRECTIONS HAVE NO BEARING ON A SPECIES"? That is literally it as far as evolution goes. Give it a lot of time and it will diversify as environments change.
You are telling? Stating that you know better than scientists?
This is why i think you are a troll. Seriously, that book.
bassmanco 3 months ago
@bassmanco And caps lock doesn't give your opinions weight either. And what did this mean "TRULY SIR ,DO YOU SEE MY GENETIC ANOMOLY, SHORTENING EXISTANCE, OF A SPECIES?". your way of talking isn't all that clear to me.
"WRONG , FREAKS THAT WERE A BETTER TWIST ON LIFE. CAUSED ALL ENTITIES , AN ENTITY THAT WAS MORE CAPABLE TO SURVIVE , DID ." could you please perhaps quote my specific comments you are replying to? Really grasping what you are driving at is eluding me :S
bassmanco 3 months ago
@bassmanco SIR PLEASE DON'T TROLL ME, BECAUSE MOST OF HUMANITY I'M SURE CAN GET WHAT I'VE NOT ONLY DRIVEN TO BUT PARKED.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI
9493760 3 months ago
@9493760 I was finished, but this is fun... sort of.
You haven't made any point regarding twins, you have just stated TWINS. Pouches are well documented throughout evolutionary study. Thats just the way it goes, in an early mammal one day it evolved an extra orifice for its newborn. Probably one which had small offspring. try looking it up, marsupials are WAY weirder than just a pouch. Look it up.
And i think you are either a troll or have a limited understanding of the english language.
bassmanco 3 months ago
@bassmanco TWINS ARE STILL NOT USUALLY GOING TO MATE, BUT IN THEIR REPLICATION THEY WILL STILL PRODUCE THE SAME PATTERN THAT THEY HAVE, THE ONLY ONE THEY HAVE. OK SWEETY.
AND YOUR RIGHT I AM VERY STUPID AND IGNORANT, AND AM TROLLING FOR HUMOR FROM SORTS LIKE YOU.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI
9493760 3 months ago
@9493760 I still cant quite grasp what your twin mating statements are supposed to do as far as this argument. I mentioned nothing of twins mating. I was just saying that identical twins have the same DNA.
errr k.
we finished now? the fun to boredom ratio is shifting. But regardless, check out Dawkins Greatest show on earth. its quality.
bassmanco 3 months ago
@9493760 fail troll is fail
stony990 1 month ago
@bassmanco THE SCIENTISTS DON'T EVEN KNOW, THIS IS WHY YOU CAN SHUCK YOUR BOOKS.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI
9493760 3 months ago
@9493760 for all intents and purposes, yes they do, but absolute knowledge is impossible. so we leave headroom. We know to the point where disagreement is essentially absurd that EVOLUTION HAPPENED. FACTS as far as the layman term (undeniable ones) are impossible in science because there will always be the tiny gap in which it is possible that nature could turn on its head. Facts really are impossible in reality beyond 'i think therefore i am' but this isn't philosophy.
bassmanco 3 months ago
@bassmanco If you are arrogant enough to think that you have it better than science then you are delusional, there is little more i can do but inform you that you are incorrect, and perhaps some honest research might get you somewhere.
But i won't be holding my breath.
I am done.
bassmanco 3 months ago
@bassmanco TWINS OF COURSE, NOW AS YOU FADE YOU'VE TURNED TO, REPEATING MY WORDS, WHAT POINT ARE YOU MAKING? SCIENCE IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS ," A LANGUAGE TO DESCRIBE THE NEW OR STAND FAST DISCOVERIES " NOT THE LAST WORD. A WORD THAT GOES TO SAY, A KANGAROO NEEDED TO CARRY IT'S CHILD, SO EVOLUTION SLOWLY DEVELOPED A PERFECT CARRING POUCH, CAN YOU FATHOM THIS STATEMENT ? PLEASE?
GIANFRANCO FRONZI
9493760 3 months ago
@bassmanco I'M NOT NAME CALLING, WHAT I MEANT BY FREAKS IS DIFFERENT MISTAKES IN GENETIC CODES CAUSED WHAT WE ARE TODAY. GIANFRANCO FRONZI DEC.16/11
9493760 1 month ago
@bassmanco I AM NOT NAME CALLING, FREAKS I MEAN GENETIC MISTAKES, I APOLOGIZE FOR CONTEXT .
GIANFRANCO FRONZI. DEC. 16 / 11
9493760 1 month ago
@bassmanco BY FREAKS I'M SAYING GENETIC MISTAKES , NOT CALLING ANY NAMES.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI. DEC 16/11
9493760 1 month ago
@9493760 Oh not you again. I refuse to talk to you until you stop using capitals, and stop signing and dating your comments. Perhaps you could try making a profile that has some form of relevance to who you are...? - Please don't reply if you don't plan on my doing either of my two proposals, as i'm going to ignore them.
bassmanco 1 month ago
@bassmanco I APOLOGIZE bassmanco , but i think that if you have the honor of posting or writing on the internet , you shouldn't hide behind a fake name . Everyone should be responsible for their words. The caps thing is mainly due to my typing abilities, i'm using one finger on my onscreen keyboard , also my vision sees the letters better , i have to use I E . thanks . Fronz
9493760 1 month ago
@9493760 "...you shouldn't hide behind a fake name" Do you realize how ridiculous that statement is? Are you saying that your parents named you 9493760?
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight No better than that it's my phone number.
Gianfranco Fronzi. Dec. 17 / 11
9493760 1 month ago
@9493760 Wow, that's just...stupid. I have to disagree with bassmanco that you're a troll just faking it; I think you might really be this ignorant about evolution, and posibly even science in general.
"...NOT THE LAST WORD" Just because there is a possibility that some future discovery might show that what we currently know isn't absolutely right doesn't mean that its completely, unreliably wrong. You should check out this essay by Aasimov: watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight WHY IS IT STUPID? IF YOU KNEW ME YOU WOULD KNOW I HAVE LITTLE TO FEAR. PLUS ASIMOV WAS A SCIENCE FICTION WRITER , I AM A CREATOR AND REPAIRMAN OF THINGS THAT DON'T ALREADY EXIST.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI. DEC. 17 /11
9493760 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@9493760 "ASIMOV WAS A SCIENCE FICTION WRITER" He was also a professor of biochemistry, and arguably one of the best popular science (that's explaining science to the general public) writers ever. You didn't even bother watching the video, did you?
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight NO. GIANFRANCO FRONZI
9493760 1 month ago
@9493760 Ok. Cool, Now why has it been months since our last exchange on here, and all of a sudden you are back, and have left a very similar comment about 5 times? Its cool, DW, i wouldn't take something personally anyway :/ dont think i got that impression, you can caps lock if you like ^^
bassmanco 1 month ago
@bassmanco I DIDN'T KNOW OF PREVIOS EXCHANGES, I JUST WATCH WHAT INTERESTS ME AND REPLY , MAYBE I DOUBLE REPLIES, I'M KIND OF ABSENT TO ORGANIZATION AND RECALL.
THE REASON FOR THE MULTIPLE POSTING IS THAT I'VE GOT BROWSER PROBLEMS AND HAVE TO WATCH IN AN I. E. FRAME WHICH CRASHES AND GOES WHITE ON ME , IT WASN'T SHOWING THE ENTRY SO I REPEATED CLICKING ON POST TAB AND THE SCREEN CRASHED. BUT I SEE IT POSTED REPETIVE REPLIES. I APOLOGIZE .
GIANFRANCO FRONZI. . 12 / 111
9493760 1 month ago
@bassmanco I MENT FREAKS OF GENETIC NOT NAME CALLING. GIANFRANCO FRONZI
9493760 1 month ago
@bassmanco FREAKS OF GENETICS NOT YOU.
9493760 1 month ago
@9493760 ...when there ARE big changes, the next few hundred generations spend thier time slowly evolving in ways to minimise all the cock ups that the mutation has caused, for instance the nerve that connects to our larynx goes via the heart for NO reason, and the Testis tubes take a detour around your bladder. Those are the two examples from dawkins book, 'greatest show on earth" which explains evolution exquisitely and keeps creationist bashing....limited. Highly recommended.
bassmanco 3 months ago
Secondly Yes, (as i see it is as soon as 22000 years ago) other humonids DID live along side us. They were a different species, we are NOT Neanderthal 2.0 or the new and improved monkey, we are simply different. They took other evolutionary paths. Don't be so arogent to think that we are any improved version of something else, we are just the result of improve survival under specific conditions. A bi-prodcuct of that is our intelligence.
bassmanco 3 months ago
Reasoning with a with a creationist isn't possible.
If they understood reasoning, they would not be creationists.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago 4
@ndrthrdr1 REASONING HASN'T DONE MUCH FOR MOST OF THE MOST ENIGMATIC ARGUMENTS . IF ONLY REASON WAS USED ALL THE BELT BUCKLES THAT BOUNCED OF YOUR HEAD WOULD MAKE YOU A GENIUS .
GIANFRANCO FRONZI
9493760 3 months ago
HELLO, I AGREE, EXCEPT,THE NATURE OF SCIENCE DOESN'T EVER CLOSE A THEORY, IT WOULDN'T BE A SCIENCE IF IT WASN'T WORKABLE. SO YOU SAY SCIENCE IS A ROGUE , LOOKING FOR FAME BY UPSET. I CAN VISION THIS ,BUT, DOESN'T THIS MAKE EVOLUTION MORE SHAKY ?
NO I THINK SCIENCE CAN ONLY WORK BY ROCK SOLID FACTS. MY ARGUMENT IS THE TIME SEQUENCES , THERE SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH TIME, IN THE HUMAN OR HOMINIDS , TO EVOLVE, SOMETHING REVOLUTIONARY OR SUDDEN HAPPENED .
YOU DON'T GET SAPIENS THAT EASY. GIANFRANCO FRONZI
9493760 3 months ago
@9493760 Four and a half billion years seems like enough time to me.
ccsmiley2 3 months ago
@ccsmiley2 ACCORDING TO TIMELINE OTHER HOMINIDS LIVED 15000 YEARS AGO.
ALONG WITH US?
GIANFRANCO FRONZI
9493760 3 months ago
Comment removed
bassmanco 3 months ago
@9493760 According the recent radiometric dating they've discovered that the earth (and perhaps this entire solar system) is about 4.54 billion years old. If the early hominids, our ancestors, were living around 15000 years ago, that still means it took over 4 billion years for it to happen, yes?
ccsmiley2 3 months ago
@9493760 you can "THINK" all you want in anyway shape or form, but that doesn't mean you opinion has any weight scientifically. If you don't understand how humans evolved, then you haven't tried hard enough, looked hard enough, or are just unwilling to accept something quite simple. I would recommend spending more time watching videos explaining evolution if your intentions are honest.
bassmanco 3 months ago
@bassmanco you can " THINK" all you want in anyway shape or form, but that doesn't mean you opinion has any weight scientifically . if you haven't seen the biological mistakes that have overnight, become the good mistake .
don't look for fossils , there isn't any missing link.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI
9493760 3 months ago
@9493760 ...Err what? Are you saying that the missing link has not been found? it does not exists? Seriously, im not sure exactly what you are trying to say. and are you refering to micro-evolution as mistakes...? Plz Explain. And appologies if i came across as an arrogant tool, i wasn't trying to state my sicentific understanding as supirior to yours, i was suggesting that science and scientists can explain perfectly, so go have a look.
bassmanco 3 months ago
@9493760 On second thought, fuck that im a busy man.
First Science can never say something is definite, it can only say for we are almost certain because IT IS HONEST. That is the nature of science and the nature of all we think we know. But there comes a point when we have so much evdnce on smething tht any real chnge to that theory is just unrealistic. Evolution is one such theory. People who cling onto this 'gap' in science(and reality) are being dishonest or stupid.
bassmanco 3 months ago
@bassmanco YOUR RIGHT SIR WERE BUSY MEN . THINK YOU TUBE GIVING PRIZES WOULD KEEP US GIBBERING.
TRULY SIR ,DO YOU SEE MY GENETIC ANOMOLY, SHORTENING EXISTANCE, OF A SPECIES?
9493760 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FindingTruthToday If I have this figured out then you will get this message even though you blocked me. I think you are a very weak-minded person to block someone just because you can't answer what they say. On your channel I see where you block people all the time. You never answer any questions people ask you either, you just weasel out of the conversation. You are rude and I am not upset that I laughed at you. The Human Genome Project does not "confirm" the bible. LOL LOL.
hydrofriend123 4 months ago
@FindingTruthToday
If I have this figured out then you will get this message even though you blocked me. I think you are a very weak-minded person to block someone just because you can't answer what they say. On your channel I see where you block people all the time. You never answer any questions people ask you either, you just weasel out of the conversation. You are rude and I am not upset that I laughed at you. The Human Genome Project does not "confirm" the bible. LOL LOL.
hydrofriend123 4 months ago
HOW TO CREATE STRAW FROM GOLD
1. Acquire one gold brick (large)
2. Place it into the Fact-O-Meter
3. Type in facts of your choice to be created
4. Push the button/kick the machine
5. Watch your newly created facts appear on TV
Everyone knows that if you see facts on TV news, then they're OBVIOUSLY true!
But if you REALLY want to make those facts true, write them into a book, say that God wrote it, and sell it for a huge profit. (But don't forget to add a scapegoat so readers can blame someone.)
eastariel 4 months ago
is it possible that chimpanzee evolves into a cigar since they have identical chromosomes ?
ikawpipa 4 months ago
@ikawpipa
Chromosome number means little. Very different species can have the same number of chromosomes, and very similar species can have different numbers of chromosomes, and even a single species can have great variation in the number of chromosomes.
DNAunion 4 months ago
@fasteddiesgarage10
"What if the ape evovled from the mouse? "
Mice are species existing today; apes did not evolve from any species alive today.
DNAunion 4 months ago
@fasteddiesgarage10
"THAT 85.3 % of DNA that we share w/ a mouse is over half of the human DNA! "
No, not quite. The 85.3% identity with mice is based on genes, and as I pointed out, genes make up only a small part of the human genome. For example, the nucleotides that are protein coding in our genes make up only about 1% of our genome.
DNAunion 4 months ago
Once there was a magician who breathed into the dust, coughing, and -- poof! A man named Adam was created, fully formed. This man had blood, a brain, bones, guts -- all made from dust.
Adam was boring, so the magician gave him a woman to fight with. The magician reached into the man's chest and -- yank! -- pulled out a rib to make Eve. Adam screamed; blood spewed in every direction. "Blame it on her," the magician said. So Adam learned to blame everything on Eve.
Can we teach this in schools?
eastariel 4 months ago
@eastariel LOL
joestfrancois 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fasteddiesgarage10
"[National Geographic claims] that we all share Neanderthal DNA. As well, They say we are a result of crossbreading Crowmagnon with Neanderthals "
Sorry, haven't read that article or followed much about Neanderthals and Cromagnon; anything I said would be uninformed, personal speculation.
DNAunion 4 months ago
@fasteddiesgarage10
"[Neanderthals] prefered living in Caves/holes in the ground and not in trees like an ape would."
Humans are apes, and we do not live in trees.
Gorillas are apes and they do not live in trees.
Chimps are apes and although they spend a lot of time in trees, they don't live in them.
DNAunion 4 months ago
@fasteddiesgarage10
Our genetic similarity with mice is less than our genetic similarity with non-human primates.
Even when looking only at genes (which make up only a small percentage of mammalian genomes, but are also generally the most highly conserved regions), the similarity between humans and mice is "only" 85.3%.
Source: Lineage-Specific Biology Revealed by a Finished Genome Assembly of the Mouse, Deanna M. Church, et al., PLoS Biol. 2009 May; 7
DNAunion 4 months ago
@fasteddiesgarage10
Our genetic similarity with mice is less than our genetic similarity with non-human primates.
Even when looking only at genes (which make up only a small percentage of mammalian genomes, but are also generally the most highly conserved regions), the similarity between humans and mice is "only" 85.3%.
Source: Lineage-Specific Biology Revealed by a Finished Genome Assembly of the Mouse, Deanna M. Church, et al., PLoS Biol. 2009 May; 7(5): e1000112
DNAunion 4 months ago
So if we were created by a higher being then we are flawed to the point of lazyness. Surely you would create something which doesn't have problems with sight, hearing, limbs, disabilities etc etc, need I go on???
vitterpup 4 months ago
@CrossAlliance To some extent, biology can be studied without evolution, but it would be biology with no context or understanding. It would be like describing a painting with its colors alone.
pat5168 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance No biologist has assumed evolution is rigg from the 'get go'. That would be the creationists, and biologists have ceased to listen to your rabble because it is merely repeated and stale lies hat have been refuted since the 50s.
pat5168 5 months ago
@pat5168 'and stale lies hat have been refuted since the 50s.'
such as? I am aware that not everything Creationists have ever said has been true, but that goes the same for evolutionists. Don't just search 'mistakes made by Creationists' because of course there have been mistakes. Explain to me what we have done to be shunned from the scientific community if the evolution theory is so bullet proof?
CrossAlliance 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance Oh no they aren't mistakes, just blatant lies. Such as monkeys shouldn't be here if we evolved from them, any missing intermediate fossil disproves evolution, macroevolution is not possible, there is no evidence, many scientists reject evolution, evolution is a failing theory, genes cannot be created, there is too much diversity, humans are too far advanced, there should be animals in the process of evolving and not entire species of the same. Now tell me the lies evolution makes.
pat5168 5 months ago
@pat5168 first I would like to address the ones you've listed. I for one, do not claim that monkey shouldn't be here. That is a commonly misunderstood part of the theory. I know that the theory does not claim we came from monkeys but that monkeys and us had a common ancestor. Or so I currently understand it, but it seems everyone I debate has a different definition of what evolution is and how it happens.
CrossAlliance 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance
"everyone I debate has a different definition of what evolution is..."
Evolution (microevolution) is a change in allele and/or genotype frequencies in a population across one or more generations. Microevolution occurs at the population level, which is below the species level. Macroevolution is evolution (at or) above the species level. In general, macroevolution is the result of the accumulation, over long periods of time, of many microevolutionary changes.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@pat5168 intermediate fossils don't technically "disprove" evolution, however they are not very strong evidence for evolution. For instance, Lucy, the strongest evidence of her being a "missing link" was her knee and elbow joints, but after closer examination her knee joints showed to be as ape. Also her brain case was an unusually large for a "man-ape" and her legs were surprisingly short. The fossils that are claimed to be the BEST evidence aren't even complete only fragments of the creature.
CrossAlliance 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance Fossil records aren't the best evidence for evolution, but they do support it other than the few far fetched gatherings of bone that you like to reference to even though they do not represent the majority of all fossils. Experiments and observations gathered in genetics is the best evidence for evolution in my opinion.
pat5168 5 months ago
@pat5168 'few far fetched gatherings of bone that you like to reference to even though they do not represent the majority of all fossils'
well if evolution was true, how would these far fetched gatherings ever happen? Also genetics is a bit confusing to me I will admit, I am taking a class now to help me to better understand it. Dr. Georgia Purdom has done some good research on that topic.
CrossAlliance 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance
Please explain these similiarities when using whole-genome, unique, gap-free alignments:
Human vs. Chimp: 99.0% identical
Human vs. Gorilla: 98.4% identical
Human vs. Orangutans: 97.4% identical
Human vs. Gibbon: 97.1% identical
Human vs. Macaque: 94.9% identical
DNAunion 5 months ago
@pat5168 It's not so much that macroevolution is not possible as it is improbable. Natural selection has been observed to do nothing but keep the species fit and not alter the species into anything other than what it already was. I would say that natural selection and microevolution explains the origin of races, but macroevolution and natural selection has not explained the origin of species because of lack of observation and evidence.
CrossAlliance 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance Macroevolution is known to be quite possible because of the many duplications of genomes. Microevolution + accumulation over time = Macroevolution. Genes are known widely in biology in that they are able to duplicate themselves, second copies of genes are often free of selective pressure which causes the accumulation of beneficial genes to be rapid. In fact, entire genomes are not uncommon to be duplicated. Insertions of genes or even entire genomes is rare but does happen.
pat5168 5 months ago
CrossAlliance 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance I have a question for you, what exactly do creationist biologists study?
pat5168 5 months ago
@pat5168 ....biology. Even without evolution there's a lot of great biology. Cell life, DNA, RNA, proteins, ect. there's a ton of good science in biology, anatomy, zoology, Earth space and physical science, without evolution. Creationist biologists are just scientists that study biology and disagree with evolution. Does that answer your quesetion?
CrossAlliance 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance
"Even without evolution there's a lot of great biology"
Without evolution you have a myriad disconnected independent facts with little overall meaning. Add evolution and all those disparate are pulled together into a single unified whole, with explanatory power.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance
Speaking of anatomy, what explanation is there for the forelimbs of a human, bat, whale, cat, chicken, and frog to all have the same general bones in the same relative positions? And why are the same "master" genes used in the development of all of them? And why are those same "master" genes also used in the development of the pectoral fins of fish, and why do we have transitional fossils showing the evolution of limbs from fins? Homology, genetics, and fossil evidence.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance
A survey of 480,000 scientists in the earth and life sciences found that only 0.15% even considered Creation to be a theory.
And I guarantee that those few who did were influenced by religious beliefs and not science.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance
"Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology "
Dr. Carter is not a scientist anymore. He gave up his professional scientific career and became a Creationist : sad to see someone's outdated religious beliefs ruin their mind and their scientific reputation and career.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@pat5168 I am currently unaware of any genes being created by man at this time, not saying that there never will be, but even so that would prove we would need a designer, how could nature do something by chance that would take YEARS to develop in lab with some of the smartest people in the world.
CrossAlliance 5 months ago
@pat5168 Humans are EXTREMELY advanced and I'm sure you would not question that, and at the rate we witness things "evolving today" it would take WAY more than 3 billion years to develop humans out of a single celled living organism in the middle of an ocean of organic soup, which by the way is impossible, which I can and will explain if you would like me to. All we witness is the development of races and nothing more is observable or proven.
CrossAlliance 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance 3 Billion years is quite a long time, and humans are not as advanced genetic wise as some microscopic organisms. All that makes humans advanced are our highly developed brains, many other animals have more advanced body parts than we do. The noses of canines and eyes of owls are two more advanced as examples. We have dexterity and an advanced brain, and that does not take longer than 3 billion years. Sorry to disappoint any ego but we are not the best of the best.
pat5168 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pat5168 I was using humans as an example. There are obviously more advanced animals, although they are not quite as smart as we are, they too would have taken quite a long time to evolve. Even longer than we would have.
CrossAlliance 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance
You underestimate 3.5 BILLION.
Tell you what, start counting by ones as fast as you can and when you reach 3.5 billion come back and tell us.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@pat5168 The lies made by evolutionists are obvious, Heckels' embrios were finally pulled from the text books 10 years ago, it only took over 100 years... Horse evolution was proven wrong but was still taught in text books for decades after, and possibly now I'm not sure. The geologic column is nothing but circular reasoning. peppered moths was a lie and nothing more than a population shift. I could go on and on, the point is the lies exist.
CrossAlliance 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance
"I could go on and on, the point is the lies exist."
And are being weeded out, per the scientific method, unlike the same old creationist lies. You are repeating lies. That makes you a what?
joestfrancois 5 months ago 2
@CrossAlliance Haeckel's embryos were discredited 100 years ago; their inclusion by textbook authors since then without also including commenting on its inaccuracies or how it was used to support a falsified theory is ridiculous, but it has nothing to do with the current evidence supporting evolution. Horse evolution has not been "proven wrong". "The geologic column is nothing but circular reasoning" Wrong again. You've clearly just uncritically accepted Wells's claims in Icons of Evolution.
ArcanaKnight 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance Peppered moths? Scientists in biology only use that as a reference to natural selection. Microevolution and Macroevolution are not divisions in nature, their only differences is in the way they are studied. Haeckels' Embryos were actually stopped being credited a hundred years ago, and the horse evolution was never disproven. Blow shit out of your ass more.
pat5168 5 months ago
@pat5168 I am a firm believer in Christ. I would appreciate it if you kept the terms used in a debate appropriate. And for circular reasoning in the geologic column, of course that's true if they date fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils that is practically the definition of circular reasoning! If you have evidence against that, please bring it forward.
CrossAlliance 5 months ago
« And for circular reasoning in the geologic column, of course that's true if they date fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils »
But you've already been told that strata are *also* dated *independently*, using *other* methods (eg. radiometric dating, anual chronology, and so on). Guide fossils are only used to provide a provisional first estimate, subject to later refinement through other methods of dating.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
@XGralgrathor '(eg. radiometric dating, anual chronology, and so on)'
radiometric dating is inaccurate and has been wrong many times. please give me your personal definition for chronology.
CrossAlliance 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance "radiometric dating is inaccurate" No its not. Its proven itself to be accurate, that's why it was used as a dating method to begin with. If we didn't understand the age of the earth, then we wouldn't understand how atoms operate, therefore we would never have been able to develop atomic power.
watch?v=7XDn5SqE9jc
ArcanaKnight 5 months ago
@ArcanaKnight well i have to respect you for being one of the most resourceful and tolerant evolutionist I've debated. Aside from that one cuss word, you've kept this debate mature, thanks for that. One thing I really don't understand about evolution however, is blood. Blood needs veins, which need the heart, which needs other organs. What evolved first, why, when did we become dependent on blood, what was the first creature with blood, ect? Can u help me out with that?
CrossAlliance 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance
"What evolved first, why, when did we become dependent on blood, what was the first creature with blood, ect? Can u help me out with that?"
"The first animals to have a true circulatory system were the annelids (earthworms). They possess a simple dorsal and ventral blood vessel connected by 5 aortic arches. "
That is just the start, dude, do a search of "evolution of Circulatory system" on any search engine, it is so cool. It starts out so primative and changes. Look it up!
joestfrancois 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« Blood needs veins »
You're arguing "irreducible complexity". But *every* example of "IC" that has ever been brought forth has already been dismantled. Including the "blood needs veins" variant. Consider what blood is: a mechanism to transport oxygen and foodstuffs to cells. Do organisms need blood in order to oxygenate tissues? No: nematode worms have no blood to speak of, and no vascular system.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« What evolved first »
With regards to blood and the vascular system, they probably evolved from primitive digestive tracts. As organisms became bigger, the need for food distribution would increase, leading first to extension of the digestive tract, the development of peristaltic muscles (some of which may be the precursor to the heart), and then a branching of the digestive tract, from which a separated digestive tract and vascular system developed.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance
"Blood needs veins, which need the heart, which needs other organs. What evolved first"
Amphioxus has blood but no heart; instead, it has a peristaltic ventral aorta, plus a few other contractile vessels.
There is some play in the term "blood"; for example, do tunicates have blood? Maybe, but it is often referred to as hemolymph instead.
Veins in the sense of what humans have (in a close circulatory system) are not required; many animals have open circulatory systems.
DNAunion 5 months ago
« radiometric dating is inaccurate »
No it isn't. It consistently yields results that match up with results from independent radiometric measurements, using different methods, as well as other observations in the fields of physics, astronomy, geology, palaeontology and annual chronology. Lying about stuff in such an obvious manner isn't helping your credibility, boy.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
« please give me your personal definition for chronology. »
I am using the term 'annual chronology' to indicate the collection of dating methods that use periodically returning phenomena, such as treering dating, icecore dating, and so on.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrossAlliance
"radiometric dating is inaccurate and has been wrong many times"
Nope. Stop believing the anti-science, religious extremist, lying sacs of shit called Creationists, who distort, misrepresent, and tell half truths about radiometric dating and other science.
The facts is that modern radiometric dating methods - such as isochrons, which have internal self checks - produce consistent, reliable results.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance
"I am a firm believer in Christ. I would appreciate it if you kept the terms used in a debate appropriate. "
I am not a believer of christ, I would appreciate it if you would keep the termes used appropriate to the debate, no hypotheses based on superstition, and no repeating lies over and over even when presented with the truth.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance "that's true if they date fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils" Rocks aren't dated by fossils, I would appreciate it if you would maturely ask us what you don't understand about Evolution or particularly how they estimate the age of fossils instead of only finding out enough to question but not enough to actually find the already given answers. If you have evidence for any given example of when they have mutually dated fossils by rocks and likewise, please bring it forward.
pat5168 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrossAlliance
"I am a firm believer in Christ."
Jesus - if he even existed - was nothing more than a failed Jewish apolcalyptic prophet.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance
"they date fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils that is practically the definition of circular reasoning! If you have evidence against that, please bring it forward."
Yep, radiometric dating. That is an independent method that relies on nothing (which fossils are found in the layer, for example) but the physics of radioactive decay.
And how was Neil Shubin able to use the evolutionary timelines and geology to successfully predict ahead of time where to find a "fish-a-pod"?
DNAunion 5 months ago
@CrossAlliance
"Heckels' embrios were finally pulled from the text books 10 years ago, it only took over 100 years"
But there is fact expressed by his hand drawings, even if they were fudged. Mammalian (and to lesser extent, other vertebrate) embryos DO stronly resemble each other at a particular stage. I have collected a set of PHOTOS from various embryology sites that shows this: see ww w.myspace.c om/dnaunion#%7B%22ImageId%22%3A1635459%7D
DNAunion 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrossAlliance
"Explain to me what we [Creationists] have done to be shunned from the scientific community if the evolution theory is so bullet proof?"
1) Creation isn't science, it's religion. Some leading Creationists have said so, virtually all scientists agree, and so do the courts of law.
2) Creationists (Hovind, Baugh, etc.) are well known for lying, distorting, telling half truths, quoting scientists out of context, etc.
DNAunion 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Information is lost from generation to generation, not gained" Except that we have observed the evolution of increases in genetic variety in a population, genetic material, novel genetic material, and novel genetically-regulated abilities, so by any reasonable definition of the term, increases in information have been observed to evolve.
ArcanaKnight 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
"You still haven't defended "
Um, dumbfuck, you are the one who made the claim! It is you who has to defend your claim. Go ahead ... support it.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
So I see you refuse to debate me in public.
Must suck to know you are stupid and would made to look like a fool. Tell me what that feels like.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
Temper? LOL!!!
Because I point out that you are a fucktard, you assume I have a temper???
Stop being stupid.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@DNAunion Will you say you don't have a temper? The very usage of the (by the way nonsensical and meaningless and obscene) word 'fucktard' is a strong indication that you do have a temper. You 'defend' your opinions with asserting that you're right and some swear words to spice your speech up. You are an extremely aggressive man. I can understand his fear. I'd bet one of your hobbies is humilitating people who you think are weaker than you.
Feketefarkas 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
If you are so confident, why don't you debate me on evolution in public, in front of a live audience?
I'd love to make you look like an ass in front of hundreds.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
Run away, loser.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
And for 80 pages you've been spewing anti-science, religious extremist bullshit.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
"almost every "intermediate" fossil ever found was just a like bit or chunk or piece. "
Bullshit.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@transtlantic Everything evolves. But that does not prove common descent.
'Dover trial proved evolution is proven.'
So a trial decides what's proven and what isn't. Very realistic. I guess you'd reject the Dover trial if its result wasn't what you want to hear.
'you are JUST full of shit'
Yes, and all atheists are so terribly civilised, I must see.
@DNAunion Natural selection can't create anything, only destroy the weak genes.
'Unbelievable arrogance.'
Feketefarkas 5 months ago
@Feketefarkas
Natural selection can do more than just "destroy weak genes", as you so stupidly put it.
Natural selection can also retain, and spread, beneficial mutations through a population.
And when combined with mutation, operating cumulatively over billions of years, natural selection can accomplishy quite a lot. Just look at the fossil record!
DNAunion 5 months ago
If there was no contraversy, there would be no reason to make this video saying there is no controversy. See, I told you evolution has never been proven.
I also proved Creation is true. Only God's word is true.
Evolution is trash not science.
Yes, evolution is disproven. Mutations do not get together to order any functions. It loses the test truthfulness and viability.
The mere ordered function of the elements proves there is a Maker. Order and function require a maker.
watch?v=lEledPONpkQ
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
There is no controversy. this video exists to teach cretards like you.
Dover trial proved evolution is proven.
You haven't proven creation. you are JUST full of shit.
Why you can't explain Plant speciation without using evolution theory.
watch?v=jJ0a-HuI55E
transtlantic 5 months ago
This video is all fraud. In real life, mutations are what kill us.
How do you expect unrelated random mutations to work together to order anything? It is not even logical.
In real life it does not happen. It has already been proven that mutations do *not* accumulate. They can't get evolution to happen even with their intent and design.
There are a number of mutations all of which can be corrected in the following generations by the function that genome already has.
Evolution has no basis.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon
"It has already been proven that mutations do *not* accumulate."
1 of 2
1. A gene duplication produced a second copy of an opsin gene.
2. A point mutation in the copy changed the wavelength of light the copy's protein product maximally absorbed, but not enough to make much of a difference.
3. Another point mutation occurred in the copy that shifted the wavelength its protein maximally absorbs
slightly more.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
2 of 2
4. Another point mutation occurred in the copy. With the accumulated affect of 3 point mutations, the wavelength maximally absorbed by the encoded protein was shifted was sufficiently from that of the original opsin gene that a thrird wavelength of light could be detected ... there were then 3 opsin genes instead of 2.
DNAunion 5 months ago
Evolution is an absolute fraud. Look at it like this. Since mutations are random, none of the mutations ever work together to order anything and they can't know what to order and mutations that do occur are corrected for the sake of the viability of the species. So mutations do not accumulate. They only destroy existing information Variations that do occur are uniform and the product of the limited information in the genome. It is not like one random mutation is able to make a new organ.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
"none of the mutations ever work together to order anything "
We've "seen" mutations arise in the lab that allowed E. coli to import citrate.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
"mutations that do occur are corrected for the sake of the viability of the species."
Not all mutations get corrected.
It has been estimated that the average human is born with about 175 new mutations ... mutations that were not present in either parent.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
"Variations that do occur are uniform "
Huh? Unless you explain, the first and the last word have about opposite meanings.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@DNAunion I asked for a specific type of endosymbiosis. Not just any type. The example I'm asking for is the kind that would have created the first life. That has never been observed in human history.
chestveeg 5 months ago
@DNAunion your point about Archaeopteryx is pointless and designed to sound intelligent but it's not! What difference does it make if it was the only bird with lizard like features! The Platypus has webbed feet a bill and lays eggs but it's a mammal that doesn't mean it used to be a duck! Most of your post are smoke screens at best.
chestveeg 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chestveeg
"What difference does it make if it was the only bird with lizard like features! "
It's not!
Millions of years ago there were other birds with features of modern reptiles ... AND ... reptiles with features of modern birds.
As we go back in time, birds and reptiles become more similar until we reach a point we have animals that are both bird and reptile.
PS: To biologists, birds ARE reptiles ... because birds evolved from reptiles.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@DNAunion (eukaryotic organelles originating from free-living bacteria that were ingested by cells and living inside the cell as endosymbionts) has this ever been witnessed in human history? YES or NO? Answer the question here FOR EVERYONE TO SEE! Don't answer anything but YES OR NO! If you say yes your a dirty stinking lier! ANSWER!! Most of what you post is misdirecting crap. ANSWER!!! YES OR NO?!!!! DONT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT EVIDENCE AND THEORY!!!
chestveeg 5 months ago
@chestveeg
I gave you lots of information on endosymbiosis, from termporary examples to required ones, which formed right in front of scientists eyes.
As usual, you people ignore the evidence and choose to bury your heads in the sand.
DNAunion 5 months ago
For those of you sending me private messages stating that evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true in a court of law please post the name of the case and when it occurred. As I can't seem to find any such thing. All I can find are court cases on weather or not it can legally be taught in schools. The Bible is taught in school as well but does that make it true? At least there were witnesses stating Jesus was seen resurrected.
chestveeg 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ The wise man says it to the world.”
-- Troy Witte
DNAunion 5 months ago
The current 'evidence' for the theory of evolution would not stand up in a court of law while undergoing judicial scrutiny. There would be indications that biased interpretation of data had occurred, as alternative theories could be presented to account for observed and tested facts.The theory of evolution needs its facade of scientific immutability lifted, and exposed for what it really is - an unproven scientific theory.
chestveeg 5 months ago
@chestveeg
"The current 'evidence' for the theory of evolution would not stand up in a court of law while undergoing judicial scrutiny"
It already has, dumbfuck.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@DNAunion evolutionary change from one species to another is not possible and has never been witnessed in human history. At it's core evolution theory is based on endosymbiosis theory and neither has been witnessed or observed. Sure things adapt, viruses adapt. But a lizard has never been witnessed turning into a chicken. The idea is absurd and ridiculous.
chestveeg 5 months ago
@chestveeg
"evolutionary change from one species to another is not possible "
Because .....?
DNAunion 5 months ago
@chestveeg
"At it's core evolution theory is based on endosymbiosis theory and neither has been witnessed or observed"
1 of x
Actually, the formation of endosymbiosis, including resulting in required relationships, has been observed (but not for mitochondria or chloroplasts).
DNAunion 5 months ago
@chestveeg
2 of x
Hundreds of green algae can enter a single paramecium thereby gaining shelter from organisms that would otherwise consume them. In return, the algae photosynthesize and provide some of the organic products to their host. If these paramecia are then grown in the dark, they lose their algal endosymbionts: if light is restored, the endosymbiosis is reformed.
So we can watch simple endosymiotic relationships form and reform in the lab.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@chestveeg
Algae within heart cockles have radically changed their morphology: they have come to be partially adapted to life within their host by losing their flagella and some other structures. When these endosymbionts are removed from the host and grown separately, they eventually regrow flagella and otherwise return to their prior, free-living form.
So here we have the next step: endosymbionts that have partially adapted to their host.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@chestveeg
4 of x
This is a two-parter because it is too long. But it is very impressive, so be sure to read it.
Kwang Jeon has studied an example of this type of endosymbiosis which resulted from bacterial infection of a laboratory strain of amoebas. Most of the amoebas were killed, but a few survived. Over time, the progeny of the survivors came to be able to tolerate the bacteria quite well.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@chestveeg
5 of x
Eventually, the prokaryotes became indispensable to their host because the endosymbionts came to alter the expression of at least two genes of the amoebas. If the endosymbionts are removed, then the amoeba die.
They can reinfect new amoebas with the bacteria and the endosymbiotic relationship forms anew, and becomes REQUIRED for the host.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@chestveeg
6 of x
The unicellular, photoautotrophic algae Cyanophora paradoxa contains bacterial endosymbionts. The bacteria, which still retain a peptidoglycan layer between their two cell membranes (a trait that is characteristic of prokaryotes, not eukaryotes) have become so modified that they are considered to be plastids, and are called cyanelles (essentially, “cyanobacterial organelles”). Both the host and the endosymbiont require the other in order to survive.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@DNAunion Fossils of modern humans, Homo erectus and Neanderthals have been found together, at the same level, in the same fossil sites. It is therefore scientifically improper to state that modern humans evolved from Neandertals, and that Neandertals evolved from Homo erectus.
chestveeg 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chestveeg
"It is therefore scientifically improper to state that modern humans evolved from Neandertals, and that Neandertals evolved from Homo erectus."
And I didn't say either. So what's your point?
DNAunion 5 months ago
@DNAunion The theory of evolution is a valid scientific hypothesis, but the facts are that it has not been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. To be proven valid, the theory of evolution must undergo the scrutiny and rigors of the scientific method. This, however, cannot be accomplished because the millions of years required for experimental testing are beyond the reasonable limit of human observation.
chestveeg 5 months ago
@DNAunion Archaeopteryx is not a missing link it's simply a species that has died out. No more no less. We lose an average of 120 species everyday to extinction. I wonder if some wacko will dig one up 5,000 years from now claiming they have found a missing links.
chestveeg 5 months ago
@chestveeg
"Archaeopteryx is not a missing link "
Missing link? That's an outdated term based on a flawed view of evolution. Scientists now only use it sometimes, and as a non-scientific term, when speaking to the general public.
No modern bird has all othese features that Archaeopteryx had:
1. teeth
2. claws on front limbs
3. long bony tail
4. neck that attaches to back of head
But essentially all modern reptiles have all four of those.
DNAunion 5 months ago
« from what we observe, it doesn't work that way »
From *ALL* available observations, it looks like it works that way.
« They still reproduce »
You missed the part where we - repeatedly - explained that selection is a stochastic process. The law of *averages* applies here, and handicapped people like those with inherent mental retardation simply *do* *not* *reproduce* as often as more favored variants.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
« tell me how natural selection decides what is beneficial »
Again: differential reproductive success - which is basically what natural selection means.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
« I would like the citations for those »
1) Camperio-Ciani et al, 2004, Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality...
2) Wellems et al, 2009, The impact of malaria parasitism...
3) Ohno, 1984, Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame...
4) Herrel et al, 2008, Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance...
5) Rolshausen, 2009, Contemporary Evolution of Reproductive Isolation and Phenotypic Divergence...
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
Shut up and go back to ass fucking your God ... you don't want to learn ... you are an asshole.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@DNAunion You egomaniac, can you EVER stop swearing? Why is it necessary that all your comments contain profanities? Can't you express yourself in a civilised manner?
It's your bad luck that I know the background behind your posts. I know you're so uncivilised and aggressive because you're trying to hide your obvious undereducation and lack of arguments. In fact, you lost the debate at the first profanity, as using them is an obvious sign of being defeated and angry over it.
Feketefarkas 5 months ago
@Feketefarkas
"Why is it necessary that all your comments contain profanities?"
Shut up, asswipe.
You are the biggest load of shit on here, so don't be pointing the finger at me.
Is it worse to point out that you're a lowlife sac of shit douche, or for you to be a lowlife sac of shit douche???? The latter.
So stop being a lowlife sac of shit douche.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@DNAunion Yes. That's the most convenient, isn't it?
'Shut up, asswipe. You are a lowlife sac of shit douche. I am right. Point taken.'
Bad luck for you, science does not go like that. Seems like you're stuck in the medieval ages where the person who was stronger and more aggressive was 'right'. You know, in our age, people try to use rational arguments to convince each other. Maybe you should try to learn that, as with this behaviour, nowhere will you be accepted.
Feketefarkas 5 months ago
@Feketefarkas
Science also doesn't use Hoyle's fallacy, because it is completely invalid
Are you going to defend it today, or admit defeat? Those are you only two options.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@DNAunion After refusing to answer my question which was necessary to crush your 'arguments', I think you were the one cowering in fear and knowing that you have been defeated.
However, I've told you. Bacteria are the most primitive forms of life that can live on their own; therefore abiogenesis must suggest that they were the first.
'You're a fucking asshole.'
No, I am not fucking and I am not an asshole. You, however, are an egomaniac, pathetic, primitive yokel. Swearing is your life.
Feketefarkas 5 months ago
@Feketefarkas
"I think you were the one cowering in fear "
And you wonder why everyone says you are a fucking asshole.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@DNAunion Uncivilised, lacking any substance. As I've told you, swearing is your life. You should find a forum designed specifically for this, and not flood this section with your curses.
SPAM!
Feketefarkas 5 months ago
@Feketefarkas
Dishonest, lying, irrational, childish, and lacking any substance. As I and others have told you, you're a douche.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@DNAunion Childish? And you tell me childish and lacking any substance when all your comments are like 'shut up asshole, I'm right, you're wrong because I say so'?
You are pathetic. A dishon