Thing about these fossils. Is they only show relatability. They dont show the transformation to one form to another taking place. If evolution is slow process then there should be some evidence of a slow transformation taking place.Im not saying evolution isn't true and I'm not a creationist. Just someone that wants to think for my self and not get my self wrap up in Darwinism.
We can't see and observe atoms either. But yet there is no controversy over that. Because evidence build up. Evolution exactly the same thing. Only difference is atoms don't contradict the bible, evolution does. Creationists just cherry pick what suits their belief and what doesn't. Scientists build their understanding on evidence. Take a picture of yourself now and another one 20 years from now. I'll say its just relatability, its doesn't show you aged from younger to an older man.
@Tuber77 our confidence in evolution is not just relying on fossils, we have other evidence in other forms that all tell the same story. These include: homologs/paralogs, conserved regulatory DNA elements, conserved RNA or protein structures, shared ErV insertion sites, pseudogenes + remnant transposon sequences, ring species, observed instances of speciation, radiometric dating, physiological similarity...etc. All these, when analyzed independently, all tell the same story.
@Tuber77 Your argumentation is just "moving the goalpost" "That change isn't small enough" "there are still gaps therefor it isn't valid" Sometimes evolution is quite rapid and takes place over maybe 500-5000 generations wich might equal a time period of 50000 years. At the same time the chance of fossilisation might be very slim and the fossils are hard to find. The lack of fossils doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The comments here are filtered and people have been banned for not agreeing with Darwinism. Anyone who stoops to attempt to argue against this video is by default viewed with contempt. Not because their arguments are false, but because self-hating Darwinists have brought you down to their level.
If you want to get technical, Snakes with legs were "predicted" before that which you say. In Genesis, the snake was cursed and had to crawl on it's stomach.
If the nocturnal bat didn't have the ability to use echo location, how was it able to search for it's food at night? if it took millions of years for this bat to evolve wouldn't bats be extincted?
@knittingkninja early bats didn't necessarily need to be nocturnal. Flying foxes don't have echolocation. they often use a keen sense of smell, hearing and eye sight to get around. Some bats might be more Crepuscular (dawn/dusk) than truly nocturnal. Bats are neat creatures. Bats are the second most numerous type of mammal after rodents.
@finderfinder100 thanks for the info. and for not being a dogmatic jerk about it, lol. Not that YouTube should be my source of research here but I also wondered about the birds of the Galapogos. Didn't we see them transform within a reasonable amount of time? and not over millions of years? I could be wrong, but other than carbon dating (that is found questionable in some cases) Is there really a legitiment reason to say that just like these birds, these other species mutate...
@knittingkninja ...(continued) within a few generations as well? is there evidence against such a thing? If we saw the birds do it, why can't any other species do it. Extinction doesn't have to happen over millions of years because we've seen that, nor does this mutation. right? please inform me if I'm off on one of these points. I'm trying to learn, not be a wiener.
@knittingkninja They can measure the rate of some mutations that mutate at a fairly constant rate using them as a molecular clock. This can help give a rough date of a common ancestor that might have landed on the islands. Another method that they can use is how well the DNA hybridizes( they unzip two species DNA and see how well they zip back together ) More closely related species have more DNA that zips together. Speciation can be fairly rapid given the number of generations, free niches
@finderfinder100 ...in the environment, competition between other species. Birds can breed quickly and at a young age. Birds in subtropical and tropical setting can have several broods a year. Carbon dating only works on fossils and sub fossils that are younger than 62,000 years. Small birds are very hard to fossilize. a given fossil would only show how long that fossil had been on the island not how long the species has been around. Wiki has these topics if you want a more info.
@knittingkninja AS far as mutation goes that's actually calculated... in other words we can take your dna...and that of both your parents... and your grandparents and from that work out what DNA all those other people have that is different in you!
Depending on whaere you live, the circumstance of your gestation etc. it will vary.
mutation is also different for every species and also depends on the environment, and even the age your father / grandfathers were when they became reproduced.
@finderfinder100 is there any indication that bats weren't nocturnal before? I mean, sure it would make sense for them to not have it earlier if they weren't nocturnal, but as far as we can tell they always have been.
@knittingkninja our understanding of bat and their evolution is limited since they are small creatures who are really hard to fossilize. But there has been a few studies that show that their change from non-flight to flight may have been rapid do the change of one gene (BMP2 gene) and that rapid change may have also happened for echolocation (FOXP2 gene). Scientists studying one of the most primitive bats Onychonycteris finneyi stated that it might have been diurnal and that birds may have
@finderfinder100 driven the bats towards nocturnal living. So Bats may have not had to wait for slow gradual change to have working flight or echolocation. I do have sources for this info if needed. Bats are still just as fascinating as ever in my book.
@finderfinder100 the real question is how the F did a shrew evolve wings, n crawl up the wall of a cave and decide to hang upside down..? they sleep upside down.. do u know the number of "random" chance mutations to make that happen? which all have to be selected for and have an overwhelming reproductive advantage..? this is where evo is clearly wrong.. the "hows" n "whys"..
@hooseyadaddy Shrews and Bats share a common ancestor. Bats most likely followed a tree climbing gliding down model. This is still a point of debate in the evolution of bats since we don't really have a lot to work with. "Random Mutations" only plays part of Evolution the more important part is Non-Random Natural Selection. Its not guided to bring about anything. Nature does not say" Lets make a bat" Bats may have been able to exploit any unfilled niche with a few mutations that nature actedon
@finderfinder100 its easy to say that isnt it?.. make evo all nice and cushy..it aint so.. think logically how its possible to evolve hangin upside down and sleeping? when a bat hangs its feet muscles are relaxed, it takes effort to let go.. and 99% of bats cant take off from the ground, they gotta drop into flight. SO there goes the gliding down thing... use your brain and logic, dont follow mindless "couldve" "most likely" theories..
@hooseyadaddy oh my your are so right you have shown me the light. Evolution is so wrong. I now see the wonder and glory of your logic. Since i am sure you have a sound logical explanation for the diversity of life would please explain it to us
@finderfinder100 thats it, use sarcasim to fill in your lack of knowledge.. and to your above point, fox bats, like all megabats, dont echolocate primarily because their food source isnt fast moving bugs.. Its fruit. but go ahead, try and give me a logical step by step explanation to evolve hanging and sleeping from ceilings.. If evolution is true, than the given factors driving it ie natural selection/mutations doesnt work in evolution. look at angler fish or whale evolution(they dont sleep)
@hooseyadaddy There are gaps in our knowledge of how or why but it doesn't invalidate evolution in any shape or form. Its just the next part of the puzzle. there is a great video on Evolution of Flight and Echolocation in Bats by RoyalTyrrellMuseum that explains the earliest known bat and does a better job than i could do explaining. This bat had longer hind limbs and claws on each digit that would most likely help in climbing trees but it also lacked echolocation hanging from a branch may ...
@finderfinder100 saved it from having to push off with greater force. this may have led to a reduction in leg length as flight became more developed and as the leg shorted the need to drop into flight may have become greater. The moving into caves and other hiding places most like had to do with competition with birds and predation. out of sight out of mind. But it seems you have made up your mind against evolution so there is nothing i could say that is going to change it so.
@finderfinder100 sure it invalidates it.. its wrong.. scientists act like they know how and why and that its random natural processes when theres no evidence for things evlolving like they claim they do. All it is is fancy story telling in a simplistic manner so its believable. Everything sounds simple, but at a cellular level it is not. hangin upside down and sleep can not come from step by step random mutations. Be real.. Nor can whales and not sleeping. or the anglerfish's sexual parisitism
so our understaning of evolution and how it occurs must be wrong.. but no one challenges it..why? cause they wont get funding. Most mutations are negative the rest are neutral. But mutations are THE driving force for evo. That said, it would take much much longer for species to evolve than they did. And every new trait to be selected must provide a reproductive advantage, which any thinking will prove to you that is impossible. Like in this video, the turtle shell development..
@hooseyadaddy then what is your explanation for these things? Just because we don't understand how some of those thing work doesn't mean that we won't in future. Several adaptations can evolute at the same time. Evolution takes steps forwards and backwards. It is the best natural explanation we have for things. You may want to check out talkorgins. org it has a lot of great info. So according to you the whole of biology is wrong.
@finderfinder100 "It is the best natural explanation" exactly my point.. whatever explanation there is it must be "natural" is in not needing a god... therefor whatever evidence there is will be interpreted as such.. and when all else fails to provide and answer when there never will be one.. just know that it wasnt a creator.. there had to have been more than one original life form, and common design characteristics doesnt mean common decent.. but with a predisposition to that its "evidence"
@finderfinder100 "It is the best natural explanation" exactly my point.. whatever explanation there is it must be "natural" is in not needing a god... therefor whatever evidence there is will be interpreted as such.. and when all else fails to provide and answer when there never will be one.. just know that it wasnt a creator.. there had to have been more than one original life form, and common design characteristics doesnt mean common decent.. but with a predisposition to that its "evidence"
scientists realize the huge gaps in the theory and same as you have suggested, there can be multiple traits evolved at the same time in a short time span.. It has to have for the theory to still have cred. but this would suggest guidance not natural random mutations all lining up together.. that doesnt happen in reality and its never been observed. i think God continually molds our planet.. whales, metomorphosis, anglerfish, etc etc all contradict Darwinian Evolution yet it still prevails..
@hooseyadaddy If you feel that way i suggest maybe you starting a research endowment--where you can dictate how and what the money is spent on. Groups like the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Center for Scientific Creation share similar God based science that would gladly have your support. They gladly question evolution and i am sure they could pull some funding together to do some peer-reviewable research. AIG can pull together 32 mil for a Museum
@finderfinder100 ...they can get some money for research. There are several Religious Colleges and Universities that would most likely gladly do research.
@hooseyadaddy erm... nope those gaps exist alright...as they do in all fields of research...
However the largest gaps here aren't in the theory... but in your knowledge of it!
This might have escaped your attention... but we do have artificial selection..practiced a long time before we understood genetics... it seems to have been pretty effective in selecting... despite your insistence it isn't... maybe cows, chickens, pigs, sheep and the entire worlds crops are in my imagination..
@MumblingMickey "but we do have artificial selection.." true.. But man has theoretically sped dog evo. by millions of years, guess what.. Still a fucking dog! Lenski also quite clearly demonstrated that a single celled asexual organisim will NEVER evolve into a higher taxa! Do explain how the fuck a caterpillar could build 3/4 of a cacoon.. or undergo metamophosis bit by bit in gradual mutations..? Or how a single circulatory 2 chamber heart evolveds into 3 chamber double circ..Doesnt happen!
@hooseyadaddy Yeah we tried the explanation that fits all 'God did it' ... it didn't explain anything at all... and invariably someone came along later and explained how god didn't do it....
The problem with God did it... is that it just halts discovery from that point onward... if we all went with god did it you wouldn't have your computer right now! In fact we'd be still banging fucking rocks together to make fire... and no doubt god would be responsible for that too!
@finderfinder100 I'd be careful...or at the very least explain what you mean by 'not slow and gradual'
For a creationists 'not slow and gradual' translates into 'their lifetime or less'... to you and me its a few thousand generations but no more that 100k generations.
They have as problem getting their heads above any figure that is not matched by the content of their current account... unless they are a wealthy tv evangelist... (who clearly are not as stupid as they profess)
@MumblingMickey I am not sure where i said "not slow and gradual" but this thread is a mess. You do raise a good point but its hard t fit all the info in the limit of these posts. In some regards i am thankful for the the character limit which keeps individual posts from being large and unruly.
@knittingkninja The answer is in your question there...what give you the idea bats were always nocturnal?
Next echo location (sonar) was not selected for because bats are nocturnal... there are lots of nocturnal animals and very few solve the problem of sight by dispensing with sight and selecting for a new sense.
Bats are nocturnal because they spend all of their time not in a 'low light' environment' but a NO light environment even during the day! This was not always the case.
@knittingkninja You are right about one thing. All the bats who couldn't find enough food did in fact have a hard time. But that just makes life more difficult and reproduction lower.and offspring not as plentiful. It won't make them all die off suddenly.
In fact a detrimental environment acts like an accelerator for evolution. Which is why bacteria built up resistance to every antibiotic we have in under 100 years. Yet plodded along with no such resistance for millions of years.
@knittingkninja You are right about one thing. All the bats who couldn't find enough food did in fact have a hard time. But that just makes life more difficult and reproduction lower.and offspring not as plentiful. It won't make them all die off suddenly.
In fact a detrimental environment acts like an accelerator for evolution. Which is why bacteria built up resistance to every antibiotic we have in under 100 years. Yet plodded along with no such resistance for millions of years.
Y'know, if all species transitioned from other species, in turn, in turn, etc., then there would not only be millions of transitional fossils, but there would be innumerable "in-between" species existing today, but there aren't.
Also, the Americans (US) are often criticized by other countries for not being overwhelming pro-evolution, which I think is a testament to our ability to be independent thinkers.
@Bildad1976 Not really. All special transitioned from a common ancestor, so there should be tremendously fewer transitional species than the number of species today. Furthermore, who is to say that the species today aren't transitional species? We just don't have the ability to travel millions of years to see whether they change.
Often, it's not the independence that causes rejection of theory, just a lack thereof. It's similar to saying that gravity doesn't exist out of "independent" thinking.
@Bildad1976 " but there would be innumerable "in-between" species existing today, but there aren't."
Animals of a single species breed with one another... when they do that they average out their DNA and spread it through the population... Which is how we can trace someone genetic lineage...
Only when a population of members of a species become isolated from others of the same species...and cannot reproduce with them any longer do they begin to diverge.
@Bildad1976 Clearly your independent thinking didn't stretch far enough for you to answer your own question by looking at how living things reproduce...
But hey, if you actually want to know how that DNA averaging works with selection... then there mathematical principles that will calculate it for you... However since I doubt you have any interest, understanding of the subject or care in the world for what evolution theory is actually used for then I'll leave you and your independent thoughts!
It is very obvious thart you know "little" or "nothing" on the following:
1. BIOLOGY. (amino acids / cells / replicating life forms)
2. DNA. (structure and replication)
3. MUTATIONS. (accidental or deliberate / beneficial or detrimental)
4. NATURAL SELECTION. (climatory or pedatory)
.....etc.
Until you climb out of your little book and learn about the real world around you, I am getting tired of wasting my time with your BLIND faith. Get youself educated beyond 1 book, and THEN we'll talk!
With all the plate shifting and subducting over millenia, with sea level rising and falling, with cataclysmic events that wipe away large swatches of "everything" during their happening it ONLY stands to reason you will never find ALL the parts. But to shroud yourself in "religious belief" and disregard OVERWHELMING and UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE confirmed by science is just overwhelmingly ignorant.
That's your choice, I won't argue with it, but I won't be joining you in you dillusion of denial.
@IRunnaZoo let me ask you this.. Has science ever been wrong?.. Yes! Through out history it was wrong more than it was right.. So y do we now, assume everything a scientist says as truth and correct.. Real science is looking for discoveries that can disprove current theories and recognizing things we can answer.. Which "science" today no longer seems to do..
@ResiusOnline Science has been "wrong" many times before.. What we think is truth now may be wrong.. In fact more questions have been raised by evolution than have been answered. Logically most things in evolution are illogical. Theoretically most are impossible according to the current theory. I say the theory is off.. If we are to agree evolution is true, than something else must be guiding it other than purely natural selection or variation in reproduction. ie the questions i posed..
@hooseyadaddy Y'know in mechanical engineering there are more questions now than there were 100 years ago... thousands of times more questions... which clearly means its all untrue and therefore building a computer is impossible.
Now the next question is whats that thing you are using to read this comment called?
@MumblingMickey youve already demonstrated to me that you are HORRIBLE with metaphors and drawing comparisons.. guess what? Youve done it again.. So congrats... You'd think that someone as "smart" as you would be better at this but youre not.. No one questions that computers have been built or how to do it.. We have PROOF its been done.. What the equivalent would be is finding a computer in the desert and questioning whether it RANDOMLY formed or it was CREATED when we have yet to see one built.
@hooseyadaddy YEah its really unfortunate you accept a computer as prrof that mechanical engineering is valid... but don't seem to accept a flu shot as evidence evolution is valid... it wasn't an analogy...since they are precisely the same thing.
Anyway... tell you what I'll just plod along accepting prices explanation.. and since you wouldn't have the first fucking clue how that works you can sit there and twiddle your thumbs.
Besides tPNA demonstrates life arises naturally...tough luck
@MumblingMickey a flu shot proves single to double circulatory 2 to 3 chamber heart random mutation is possible.. ? Dude ur delusional.. tPNA? really? So science has randomly created a fully completed living cell in the lab using random processes? yeah right... would be all over the news..
@hooseyadaddy tPNA is a synthetic self assembling polymer it'll be self replicating soon too. The research shows self replication and self assembly do not require organic chemistry.
For data concerning how well biologists can design living things using software then create them by printing out the genome see the Minimal genome project.
It WAS all over the news!
Why are you arguing against biology? I thought you weren't a biblical creationist? So the bible just got that wrong ...right?
CON T> but hey, as a non creationist thats no big deal right? god didn't make talking snakes, rainbows, gardens of eden... floods or the life you see around you.
we know how all those things did, or did not come about now... so as someone who is NOT a creationist you'll clearly have no problem investigating the science involved in tPNA and Genomics do you?
[Rolls eyes!]
Careful not to make a point that will be demonstrated ass grease in 6 months, cos I'll be back to point it out to you!
@MumblingMickey "how well biologists can DESIGN living things.."ah thank you for using that word designing cause thats exactly what they are doing. Its like, the worlds biggest lottery with odds 10^46:1 you then get the answers ahead of time, specifically select THOSE numbers and play them. Then when u win you get all excited as if you really won! lmao just cause u got the #s in advance doesnt mean u couldve randomly picked them. Knowin whats neccessary for life doesnt mean it can come randomly
@hooseyadaddy this from someone that can't grasp the concept of what design is, and what it is not... snowflakes are designed... by the process of crystallization..... thats the way the predominantly fractal and random process of crystallization works... they are still designed... (at least after the fact by observation)
Life is not designed by someone...its designed (as is observed) by some thing....
@hooseyadaddy Ever seen a computer reproduce? No? Guess what! Animals do and even a quite simple molecule like RNA can self-replicate outside a cell in the right environment. Thats why the computer analogy is irrelevant.
@aakesson1 i only used that cause someone else brought it up.. Ever seen a cell randomly form? Nope.. Never will actually. Ever seen or have proof of an organism evolving into a higher taxa? Nope.. re Lenski's experiments. Have proof 2 to 3 chamber heart, single to double circulatory systems randomly evolved? Nope.. never will. Have proof metamorphosis is possible by step by step mutations? Nope.. Cause these things arent possible. Some of evo is right, most is wrong..
@hooseyadaddy I'm just going to comment on one of these things since it is wrong by definition: higher taxa = higher taxonomic rank. By definition ALL families are at the same rank. All species are at the same rank. A species that branched from another are at the same taxonomic rank as it's anscestors. The main ranks are domain, kingdom, phylum (division), class, order, family, genus and species.
@aakesson1 sure.. only the 1 u think u can argue somewhat against.. what i mean by "higher" taxa is a more advanced life form ranking higher on the "tree of life".. ie single celled to multi-celled.. etc.. and y should i believe what they say about any animal being a "transitional" form when they were wrong about the Coelacanth? also, since mutations are random at some point it shouldve changed somewhat in appearance over 400M years!
How were they wrong about the coelacanth? The fact they thought it extinct means nothing. sure mutations are random but you also need a experimental force to select for said mutations. The coelacanths environment has changed so little that there hasn't been any genetic pressure to change.
This doesn't have any weight against evolution its actually expected.
@RedlineMMA How? dude they hailed the Coelacanth as a transitional form from sea to land! So if they thought this "fossil" was transitional and it shows up unchanged in 400M years what else are they wrong about!? Archeoptryx..? Tiktalik? Science has lost all credibility cause its no longer a true science...
@RedlineMMA 'The coelacanth' is a creationist red herring btw... coelacanth are not a species of fish... they are an entire family... the ones that are extinct are still extinct... only their progeny survive...and they are ALL a different family of species.
Part of the 'our creationists will never scratch deeper than the surface we present' idea...it works amazingly well too!
They do however have very little evolutionary pressure, they are in equilibrium with their environment.
"The coelacanth' is a creationist red herring btw... coelacanth are not a species of fish... they are an entire family."
I'm well aware of this they are members of the lobed fin family.
Hooseyadaddy...... is nothing but a fundamentalist troll....He willingly chooses to ignore scientific facts. I'm afraid addressing him only feeds his trolling behavior. You can educate someone who is open to new ideas & evidence but you can't fix willful stupidity.
@hooseyadaddy as you probably know I can only use 486 signs in a reply to you therefore it is impossible to answer more than one thing at a time. What was wrong about the Coelacanth? You mean that it's still here? Evolution is a "branching event". When a tree grows a new branch the trunk doesn't automatically disappear. And if the Coelocanth isn't subjected to a high evolutionary pressure it will not change that much. Natural Selection, you know...
@aakesson1 no.. the fact that "scientists" hailed it as a "transitional" form from sea to land.. when much to their chagrin it showed up unchanged in 400M years! So what else are they wrong about? Tiktalik too maybe? They have no cred now when they say something is "transitional" And, anything subject to "high" pressures will die.. they always have cause they cant mutate fast enough to cope with the changes.. something else is driving evo.. not "natural selection"
@hooseyadaddy "anything subject to "high" pressures will die.." Then how do you explain how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? That is an example of an organism subjected to high evolutionary pressure. The AIG answer: "antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action but rather variation within a bacterial kind".
Natural selection is caused by just that: variation within a population. And the variation changes over time through mutations.
@aakesson1 that isnt true evolution.. if u read that article from AIG you'd know.. "What is interesting is that bacterial cultures from bodies frozen 140 years ago were found to be resistant to antibiotics that were developed 100 years later. Thus the specific chemical needed for resistance was inherent in the bacteria”..
"These bacteria did not mutate to become resistant to antibiotics. Furthermore, the non-resistant varieties did not become resistant due to mutations."
bacteria have never nor will ever become anything but bacteria! This is an example of horizontal(microevo/adaptation) evolution.. Not verticle as in creating a new, higher species.. it doesnt happen.. And antibiotic resistance is a far cry from formation of circulatory systems and 2 to 3 chamber hearts.. metamorphosis etc... how you can link those from this example is astounding.. try getting a 2 to 3 chamber, single to double circ system in steps w/o killing the organism...
@hooseyadaddy But bacterias can evolve into procaryot cells by "horizontal" evolution. And cells can form colonies, and the ones near the limit will have different functions than the ones inside. This is "horizontal" evolution. Then, this colony will evolve to have specialized cells. This is "horizontal" evolution too. But you will have a multicellular organism.
There is no no such thing like "horizontal" or "vertical" evolution. Just evolution.
@faeleris more complete Evo BS and story telling.. BTW a bacteria is a prokaryote.. uh huh and how will they assign different tasks to these "outer" cells? Have a little chat? lol and what would they be?.. And how will this new "colony" reproduce? THat means the genetic makeup of the entire thing would have to magically combine into one and then reproduce.. an increase in the genetic code is verticle evo.. as in, it is a more complex organism than the previous..
@hooseyadaddy My mistake, I meant Eukaryote cells. Anyway, I am not a specialist, but your arguments are purely : "because I can't imagine how it happened, it just didn't happened". And because you don't want research it by yourself.
In the early stages, when it is just a cells colony, it just had to split.
Then, as it began to complexify, it continued to split, by the same way, and extern cells would progressivly cover weaker outer cells.
@faeleris no.. my argument is that is all BS story telling and has never nor will ever be proven nor has it ever been observed. your argument is, "we have no fucking clue so we'll just make this shit up and make it sound simple so laymans will buy it and we have no idea how it happened but believe us when we say it happened this way". U see, u have no idea what all that stuff entails yet u buy into it. Why? U have no proof of the crap you spout so y should i believe u? think logically for once..
@hooseyadaddy If it has a nucleus its a eukaryote... if not its a prokaryote ... ergo humans are composed of eukaryotes... with the exception of red blood cells which \re erythrocytes... manufactured non nucleic cells...with no DNA.
I think I've conversed with you before...and what you know of biology I could write with a thick black felt tip pen on a fucking ants arse, I'd still have room for a full stop too!
"bacteria have never nor will ever become anything but bacteria!"
well bacteria that work together in a colony certainly ARE something more than bacteria... bacteria that use other bacteria in that colony are more... and bacteria that use other bacteria's DNA as part of themselves more so again... that certainly does happen!
In fact your entire cell makeup can be traced back to just that....
@aakesson1 facts are facts.. i could easily say that about something from Talkorigins but i dont.. I actually took the time to go to the reference at the bottom of the page from AIG and went to the original source.. those r qoutes from the scientists themselves..R u biased much?.. true evolution is the addition of NEW genetic code thus increasing the genome.. problem is you Evos have no proof of this EVER happening.. now forget drug resistant bact. lets try 2 to 3 chamber heart.. metamorphosis..
@hooseyadaddy From where did you get your definition of evolution? I have defined evolution in my previous comment. You don't agree with that definition?
@aakesson1 I just defeated every one of your arguments with facts and basic logic and all you have is the definition of evo left..? lmao well to answer.. it is quite clear that without the addition of NEW genetic code you will never get a new organism... this is quite obvious and it is ESSENTIAL to the theory of evolution.. a basic bacterium has less than 500 genes while a human has over 22 thousand. So to get to humans from bacteria NEW genes need to be added. That is true or (macro)evolution.
@hooseyadaddy now, that means 21,500 NEW genes need to be added to make a human. So, with a very fast evolutionary period of 100,000yrs it would take 2,150,000,000 years to make a human! The addition of new genes at this rate is just not evident in nature.. In fact, it contradicts evolution because evolution takes "millions of years" to see any changes.. The fact of the matter remains, that mutations and gene addition DO NOT occur at the rates in nature that the theory demands.. It just doesnt..
@hooseyadaddy "now, that means 21,500 NEW genes need to be added to make a human. "
But there are only 22k genes in humans... less than there are in a grape vine.... what on earth would make you think the numerical value of genes would define a more complex organism?
@hooseyadaddy HOW did you defeat my arguments? By NOT posting sources? And your definition of evolution is simply wrong. And you've still not posted any sources that no population of organisms have survived high evolutionary pressure.
New genetic code is due to mutations such as duplications, insertions, translocation and amplification.
And Gain-of-function-mutations are called neomorphic and have been observed. (by Nobel Prize winner Hermann J Muller) This have been known for over 65 years...
@aakesson1 told you where the sources were... go look em up yourself. NO organism has mutated some completely NEW gene in response to evolutionary pressures. This is essential for evolution. Duplication has been largely discredited as the source for new genes. because of their rarity, usually harmful, even rarer is a benefit. It just takes too long and doesnt coincide with the timetable of evolution. Anyways forget IF they can happen. Say they do, how can u get a 2 to 3 chamber heart in steps?
@hooseyadaddy And still you can't say wich of the sources you used... Strange...
And once again your basic understanding of evolution is flawed: Mutations has nothing to do with evolutionary pressure. Mutations are just as common with low as with hight pressure. "Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations".
2 to 3 chambers? In the heart of lungfish, the septum extends part-way into the ventricle.
@aakesson1 do i have to spoon feed you evos? Go to the damn source yourself.. Its referenced right on the bottom of AIG! Holy crap... And thank you for walking right into my point.. Mutations should occur all the time with no rhyme or reason yet this DOESNT happen..at some point.animals should mutate light sensitive patches on their body for no reason. Then natural selection should see if this mutation is beneficial or not.. But this doesnt happen.. Why? I could use an eye in the back of my head
@hooseyadaddy which is also why the coelacanth shouldve mutated somewhat from its original form. Evo should constantly be testing new features on organisms but it doesnt... Why? Why havent whales since their fast evo explosion, not changed one damn bit? It shouldve atleast mutated some new features and retained them if they werent harmful to then be built upon.. as for the heart, thats not it, when u get 3 chamber double circulation, the seperation of Oxygenated n deoxygenated blood...
@hooseyadaddy You are so off in so many of your statements that I don't even care about it. As for the lung fish... WHY is that not it? Ever heard of moving the goalpost? Ok... The African Lungfish have a half separated ventricle AND separated aorta...Left part goes to the "lungs" and back, right to the rest of the body.
@aakesson1 no.. all my first statements are completely valid and hold true to the theory. Evo should constantly be mutating and testing features for no rhyme or reason.. yet it doesnt happen. The speed at which evo can naturally be observed will not produce all of the creatures we have or had at the rate of mutations.. A little math will prove that.. Anyways, what im saying is 2 to 3 chamber.. 1atrium,1vent. single circ. no pulmonary circuit. To 2atrium,2vent. double circ. w/ pulmonary circuit.
@hooseyadaddy "Evo should constantly be mutating and testing features for no rhyme or reason."
it does... and the populations derived least suited to their environment die off. That might be a very large population that managed to survive a very long time or it might be a relatively small population that didn't survive pissing time!
like for example the cheetah running its way to extinction. It'll leave no fossil evidence of its existence.
@aakesson1 The problem with Evos and most scientists is that similarity need not reflect some
phylogenetic relationship.. In other words, many creatures look the same and have similar or identical systems but are not even related phylogenically.. This is a huge problem that scientists have.. Yet when they see something that "looks" to fit the "theory" they just claim it does.. ie Coelacanth.. maybe tiktalik is wrong too? And yes even lungfish, if they were extinct they would be "transitional"
@hooseyadaddy but obviously they arent because they havent changed one damn bit! lol eventhough theyve been "poised" to transition onto land for 300M years, why havent they? oh thats right, theres no "pressures" to.. but wait, isnt evo random so shouldnt they have mutated somewhat to then test that mutation? Problem is, scientists look to fossils and fill in the gaps without needing to provide one shred of evidence because it "fits" their model...
@hooseyadaddy Why does a species have to be extinct for it to be the origin of another? Why do we still have ferns when we have flowering plants? According to you they too wouldn't exist, but still they do... Why do we still have fish when landliving animals came from fish? If you don't knkow the scientific answer; sorry wonät help you with that...
@aakesson1 ur making the preconcieved evo indoctrinated assumption that flowering plants did come from ferns or land animals came from fish. let me ask u this, if there was nothing on land, what the hell were they going up there for? How could that benefit them? Then how did the fishes egg magically transform into a watertight reptillian one? Did it do it a little at a time? Part in water part out? The bottom 1/4 of the egg transform first? Then 1/2 to whole? theres no advantage at each stage!
@hooseyadaddy if the fern was pressured into changing form, then why has it survived hundreds of millions of years in its original form? Obviously, its already a pretty effective plant design and had no need to change. Back to my original point, similar features DOESNT mean theyre RELATED! Yet, if these modern creatures with similar features were all extinct, scientists would no doubt lump them together based solely on the "look" of the organism! You can take that to the bank..
@hooseyadaddy " Back to my original point, similar features DOESNT mean theyre RELATED!"
No having similar feature doesn't its a very good benchmark though...
But at the moment DNA says whats related to what...and the ones most genetically similar all just magically happen somehow to be physically similar for some unknown reason...
seriously...are you on this planet just to entertain? Any chance you might write a book of this supreme comedy
@aakesson1 on the flip side.. if all dogs were extinct and we knew nothing about them. Scientists would undoubtedly say a chihuahua is a different species than a great dane or wolf. But being able to observe them, we know this is not true. this is a HUGE reason as to why you shouldnt trust this whole classification/transitional assumptions that "scientists" do when they look at fossils. Because they do it to fit their model view of evolution. Sorry but that is not science..
@hooseyadaddy The difference is that Great Dane and Chihuahua are MAN-made and not the result of natural selection. Name one NATURAL species that shows the same variation in both apperence and size.
We don't expect to find the same varitaion in the wild. AND paeleontologists often doesn't specify the species of fossils since it sometimes is hard to determin.
@aakesson1 sure it is! we selected them for specific traits precisely how "natural selection" does.. THe fact we did it makes no nevermind.. ever heard of sexual dimorphisim? Its when the male and female of the same species look different like the angler fish... Scientists dont specify species of fossils cause its hard to determine, yet they can specify which are "transitional"? lmao Anyways, to get a new organism u need a huge change in genetic code, even greater than the difference in dogs...
@aakesson1 i propose an experimental challenge to all scientists..breed me a human from a chimp.. we are only 2% different right? So it should be easy. Just select the traits from chimps that can drive us towards humans. Consider it, accelerated/guided evolution. Because we r now guiding it, it should be much easier to get what we want... Do u think this could succeed or not? I think not, because in all the zoos, all our observations, no animal appears to be randomly mutating like evo suggests..
@hooseyadaddy Ehm... Natural Selection isn't the same as guided selection... Anyone acquainted with evolution knows this. Sexual dimorphisim is a phenotypical difference. Phenotypical differences is due to genotype, environment and the interaction of these two factors. Male and female bodys are two different invironments. Anyone acquainted with biology knows this... Read a real book. Maybe one that really deals with theese subjects... Untill you get something wright: Have a nice 2011-2012
@aakesson1 do tell what the difference is? Traits r being selected based on their usefulness. Whether nature did it or we did makes no difference now does it? Thanks, i know about dimorphisim. i was pointing out the fact that if the male n female of the SAME species can look so different then y cant others? If the species was extinct and we knew NOTHING about them.. The male and female of the SAME species would undoubtedly be classified as seperate. Thats my point.. Damn u evos dont think...
@hooseyadaddy aakesson1 you're wasting your time. This guy must believe that endogenous retroviruses and chromosomal fusion is just gods way of tricking us into believing in biological evidence of common ancestry. If you're desperate enough, you can believe that all the species existed at the same time in their present form, and the reason you dont find rabbit fossils in the Jurassic layer because of the great flood.
@Johnf85 first i am not a literal bible creationist.. i am simply arguing that our current theory and understanding of evolution is completely WRONG. If we are to agree that it happened.. its pretty obvious that it didnt occur according to our understanding.. mutations/natural selection CAN NOT account for it.. thats obvious cause no where in nature are mutations occurring rapid enough to produce all the creatures we have...and have had...
@hooseyadaddy Nope! Sorry! It didn't! "mutations/natural selection CAN NOT account for it.. thats obvious cause no where in nature are mutations occurring rapid enough to produce all the creatures we have...and have had..." What we have here is only a problem with you, about your notion of time.... You don't have, and neither I to be right, any idea what 3,5 billion years mean!
@hooseyadaddy "first i am not a literal bible creationist."
then you re a totally uneducated idiot who knows nothing about evolution, hasn't taken the time to learn anything about it...yet seems to think they have all the answers.
well after you actually learn what evolution is, what it actually states... (not what AIG told you)
until then suggesting it should be possible according to evolution to evolve humans from chimps is clearly evidence enough you are a total fucking plank!
CONT. But then again we can't really blame you... you are still getting the information you 'think' is all about evolution from fucking AIG. Its no wonder you're confused.
Lets put it this wayAIG is to science what the steam engine is to the fucking television.
So my first piece of advice to you would be forget absolutely everything you know about evolution...At the moment you sound like a reindeer expert who learned everything from reading books on Santa!
@hooseyadaddy If by a layman like you, indeed! But to a man like Buffon, I sincerely doubt. Here a serie you must see. I think, all must see. The serie is divided in six episodes, each one with one hour of duration. The episodes, each one is divided in six parts with 10 minutes duration. The link for the first part of first episode. There is a reproduction list on description bellow the video. I guarantee you, you'll like. /watch?v=lEmJUpGCSfw&list=PL494A254CF188AEAC
@hooseyadaddy See the episodes in sequence. It's important to do that, due logic reasons. But your answer is in serie 3. "How did we get here?" . And don't worry. Throughout the episode there are less than 5 minutes dedicated to "Darwin". See the final third of the video to get a sense of how our world changes with time. Good session!
@hooseyadaddy "Whether nature did it or we did makes no difference now does it? "
yes and we humans...we put the classification on these animals... if dog breeders decided tomorrow to classify all breeds of dog as separate species... then your 'its still a dog' would go out the fucking window in a simple bureaucratic decision.
Scientists on the other hand would shrug and just reclassify all canids from that point onward into sub species... then you'd have to say...'but its still a canid'
yeah...how much better to take an idea such as 'a magical mystical being from somewhere outside the universe put all the animals here as they are... despite the fact some have appeared since a mystical bronze age book told you so!'
yeah thats fine fucking logic right there! Magical men... in the sky... making animals? are you fucking kidding me?
And you consider that what? thinking? Tell you what....you can keep that sort of thinking....
@aakesson1 Ok, so y would the male n female of the same species mutate to be so different? As u know, u inherit the traits of your mother and father but whats up with these weird critters? An exception to the rule? What r the pressures? Maybe you should read a book thats not filled with evo indoctrinated fallacies but one based on real observable and testable science..? I have pointed out logical and scientifically verifiable rebuttles to everyone of your points yet i need to be educated? lmao
@hooseyadaddy Have you studied animals for millions of years? Why does everyone think that speciation is a dog giving birth to a cat? The idea of breeding a human from a chimp is ridiculous what are you trying to prove?
@hooseyadaddy That's where you're wrong, evolution doesn't mean you can breed another species into your own. It's ridiculous because Humans and chimps have been two separate species for more than 6 million years, we will never be one species again.
@Pottan23 youre wrong.. We r only 2% off right? We know what that two percent is.. Ergo we can make a human from chimp.. its just chemicals.. Theoretically any animal can turn into any other type cause thats what the theory says! Maybe not an "exact" human but a human nonetheless.. with language, music, art, science, math etc..Another creature like us that we can communicate with...
@Pottan23 and i would call evolution random genetic engineering.. now we have the knowledge to select certain traits and mutations to get a human.. so whats stopping us from "evolving" new creatures in a lab? Maybe the simple fact that "mutations" that are needed to create that change DO NOT occur RANDOMLY naturally.. it just is not evident in nature..
@hooseyadaddy Guy! You really have no idea of what natural world is made or how natural world works, isn't it? Believer... Even seeing them, it is impossible to believe they exist! Ass.: a physic.
Guy! You really have no idea of what natural world is made of, or idea of how natural world works, isn't it? Believers... Even seeing them, it is impossible to believe they exist! Ass.: a physicist." I've tried to improve it. Sorry for my English. It's not my mother language. But apparently, you understood very well what I meant. Sugestions about my english are welcome, but this does not change the content. Bye...
@hooseyadaddy "Just select the traits from chimps that can drive us towards humans. "
Even if that were possible [and its not] humans did not descend from chimps anyway. You might as well be asking to breed a chihuahua into a Great Dane... it can't be done since both of those are descended from another animal entirely. One which we do currently have a DNA sequence for!
I realise why you have an issue with evolution...you know fuck all about it! Or much else as far as I can work out.
@aakesson1 Mah... I think we can safely agree that a chihuahua is indeed a sperate species of canid to a wolf....
Regardless of how it came about it would be classed as a different species. with domestic animals we refer to this as 'breeds' because we are doing the selecting... but its the same thing as far as the process is concerned...
So chihuahua and grey wolves are indeed a separate species...
In fact most dogs are less similar genetically to wolves than wolves are to coyotes.
@MumblingMickey "...it would be classed as a different species."
No. a different sub-species.
"In fact most dogs are less similar genetically to wolves than wolves are to coyotes."
MOST dogs?...and yet Canin lupus baileyi can interbreed with Canin lupus familiaris without fertility problems while they can't do the same with Canin latrans ...wich makes me question your statement... Source?
Lots of animals can interbreed and are classified as a separate species... Wolves and Coyotes are... yet their progeny from crossbreeding in the wild led to the Red wolf...
Tiger and lions can breed... they just don't since they live on different continents. They are a breeding hybrid. Most certainly a different species.
A chihuahua in the wild would be a different species than a wolf, and probably most often the wolf would class it as lunch!
CONT. Half the plant kingdom can produce fertile hydrids... from within their class or family.
This is not a black and white issue. The more genetically dissimilar an organism is, the less likely it can produce fertile offspring. In addition the fact they are speciated to begin with most often means they never see one another.
But it does beg the question how it is at all possible they can breed at all... I thought they could only breed 'after their kind'... are you insisting that's wrong?
Yes most dogs. We call dogs breeds, within the species canis familiaris. Wolves are a paraspecies, they weren't until we started to domesticate them.
You want a source for the definition of species? Okay since you insist I'll attach resources to back up what I'm saying. Or you could look it up!
I think your problem here is you are asserting black and white when in fact because animals might be closely related or not there is a scale of reproductive ability.
From a genetic perspective Ken Weiss & Anne Buchanan also discuss this very point under understanding biological complexity in their book Genetics : the logic of evolution unsure of the page number I just remember the point.
But the bottom line here is that a chihuahua has more or less the same genetic difference with regard to breeding with a wolf....as an ox has to a zebu... and I'm sure you are not going to try to inform me that Oxen and Zebu are the same species.
@hooseyadaddy "Scientists would undoubtedly say a chihuahua is a different species than a great dane or wolf."
If they lived in the wild they would be classed as different species.
It'd be unlikely wolves and chihuahua would ever meet in anything other than a predator and prey context. Therefore unlikely they would mate, although this does happen (see red wolf) Hence if chihuahua were not domestic animals they would be classed as a separate species.
CONT. And as it turns out chihuahua and other toy breeds of dog are more genetically different to a wolf than a wolf is to a coyote... so technically they are indeed separate species.
They are referred to as a sub species... a bit like Caucasian homo sapiens... which are a sub species (essentially) of homo sapiens....
But hey... if you want to spout crap without a frame of reference as to what you are talking about...don't let me get in your way. As far as I'm concerned you are just comedy.
@hooseyadaddy YEs indeed... all the biologists are wrong...and you seem to be amazingly right all the time...despite your total lack of understanding, reason or knowledge of the subject.
Yes indeed all those deluded scientists...spending silly amounts of time getting a POhd in biology...sometime up to a decade if they do a post grad...
well they are ALL WRONG... and somehow... magically, you are right! And you are right because contemplating being wrong is not somewhere you want to be!
CONT. Coelacanth are in envoironmental equilibrium with their envoironment... if it changes suddenly one of two things will happen...
1. They will adapt and survive
2. They will go extinct.
odds are they would become extinct... its the most likely of scenarios since sudden changes with a small population would result in few surviving and fewer still mating.
Whales have changed very rapidly. There are dozens of species of porpoises which are all descended from one population of mammals.
They are certainly all related, DNA tells us that. They are also all related to land walking animals which share a common ancestor with them. We call those animals Hippopotamus.
but hey... just as you have no problem accepting a blue whale is clearly just a diversification of a minke whale.
What say you of animals MORE alike...lets say humans and neanderthals?
cont. Unless of course you think that a bottlenose dolphin is not in any way different from an orca?
Oddly that wouldn't surprise me as a creationist argument.
anyway...a bottlenose dolphin is certainly just a little bit different to a sperm whale...don't you think?
just a little bit more than "not changed one damn bit""
[insistence they are both basically the same genetically and morphologically will have me pull out a picture of a human and a bonobo and ask you to repeat that]
@hooseyadaddy Mutations do happen all the time...in every single organism for no reason... obviously its more prevalent if the environment supports genetic damage, in highly radioactive areas, mating at a late age... all sorts of reasons.
One of the reasons you shouldn't father a child into your 40's or be the mother of a child in your late 30's to 40's... its just asking for trouble.
Hopefully creationists (LIKE YOU) will ignore that advice and march headlong into genetic stochastic heredity!
I think we should let biologist define what is and what is not evolution.... not you...or AIG...which seems to get shit totally wrong on a daily basis and never seems to correct itself.
Clearly AIG is taking a leaf from the bible in that regard... Mr. 'I'm not a biblical literalist'
Evolution is defined in this context as changes to a population of organisms that distinguish it from others.... simple as that.
Do some research you are clearly ignoring the evidence.
1). Ever seen a cell randomly form?
Nope we never will because cells don't randomly form. They evolved from much simpler life. Self replicating molecules gave rise to RNA then DNA. cells are already complex so your question is nonsense.
@RedlineMMA your answer is nonsense..RNA itself is not life.. in order to have life you have to have a complete living and selfreplicating cell...It "evolve" from "simpler" life.. There is no simpler life.. Have you studied abiogenesis at all? How could RNA in a lipid layer somehow mutate and incorporate the makeup of the lipid into its own chemical makeup and then somehow divide itself? But wait, once theres a cell wall u need nutrient intake and waste removal systems.. so how did that happen?
@hooseyadaddy You asked him if he had ever seen a cell randomly form, and he told you that's impossible.
Since he, an I and also you agree they can't and since we still understand how evolution works then you gotta ask yourself. WHY does we still accept evolution? What do we know that you don't?
The answer to that is we read what evolution is, you didn't. Yet you disagree with something you haven't a clue about.
How do you expect to have your opinion heard if its totally uninformed?
2) Ever seen or have proof of an organism evolving into a higher taxa? Animals don't jump from one group to another. No animal ever gives birth to a different species. evolution is gradual & there is abundant evidence that micro evolutionary changes over large time spans lead to macro evolutionary changes. Its the exact same process Seeing large jumps from one taxa to another would acually be evidence against evolution.
If we all EVOLVED then the BIBLE EVOLVED! Wonder whats gonna be written next??
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 3 days ago
This is total SHIT LOOL
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 3 days ago
Watch the vid I'm going to share
giftbasketer2 1 month ago
transitional beings have never existed neither in the past nor in the present
lahoucine66 1 month ago
Thing about these fossils. Is they only show relatability. They dont show the transformation to one form to another taking place. If evolution is slow process then there should be some evidence of a slow transformation taking place.Im not saying evolution isn't true and I'm not a creationist. Just someone that wants to think for my self and not get my self wrap up in Darwinism.
Tuber77 3 months ago
@Tuber77
We can't see and observe atoms either. But yet there is no controversy over that. Because evidence build up. Evolution exactly the same thing. Only difference is atoms don't contradict the bible, evolution does. Creationists just cherry pick what suits their belief and what doesn't. Scientists build their understanding on evidence. Take a picture of yourself now and another one 20 years from now. I'll say its just relatability, its doesn't show you aged from younger to an older man.
OptimalElement 3 months ago
@Tuber77 our confidence in evolution is not just relying on fossils, we have other evidence in other forms that all tell the same story. These include: homologs/paralogs, conserved regulatory DNA elements, conserved RNA or protein structures, shared ErV insertion sites, pseudogenes + remnant transposon sequences, ring species, observed instances of speciation, radiometric dating, physiological similarity...etc. All these, when analyzed independently, all tell the same story.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Tuber77 Your argumentation is just "moving the goalpost" "That change isn't small enough" "there are still gaps therefor it isn't valid" Sometimes evolution is quite rapid and takes place over maybe 500-5000 generations wich might equal a time period of 50000 years. At the same time the chance of fossilisation might be very slim and the fossils are hard to find. The lack of fossils doesn't mean it didn't happen.
aakesson1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The comments here are filtered and people have been banned for not agreeing with Darwinism. Anyone who stoops to attempt to argue against this video is by default viewed with contempt. Not because their arguments are false, but because self-hating Darwinists have brought you down to their level.
Entropy56 3 months ago
Project Steve NCSE
If you think that evolution is controversial among scientists, Google that and weep. Evolution happened. Adam and Eve did not.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
If you want to get technical, Snakes with legs were "predicted" before that which you say. In Genesis, the snake was cursed and had to crawl on it's stomach.
micahclayrussell 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
impossible task,lol, With God, all things are possible.
swandike 4 months ago
If the nocturnal bat didn't have the ability to use echo location, how was it able to search for it's food at night? if it took millions of years for this bat to evolve wouldn't bats be extincted?
knittingkninja 5 months ago
@knittingkninja early bats didn't necessarily need to be nocturnal. Flying foxes don't have echolocation. they often use a keen sense of smell, hearing and eye sight to get around. Some bats might be more Crepuscular (dawn/dusk) than truly nocturnal. Bats are neat creatures. Bats are the second most numerous type of mammal after rodents.
finderfinder100 5 months ago
@finderfinder100 thanks for the info. and for not being a dogmatic jerk about it, lol. Not that YouTube should be my source of research here but I also wondered about the birds of the Galapogos. Didn't we see them transform within a reasonable amount of time? and not over millions of years? I could be wrong, but other than carbon dating (that is found questionable in some cases) Is there really a legitiment reason to say that just like these birds, these other species mutate...
knittingkninja 5 months ago
@knittingkninja ...(continued) within a few generations as well? is there evidence against such a thing? If we saw the birds do it, why can't any other species do it. Extinction doesn't have to happen over millions of years because we've seen that, nor does this mutation. right? please inform me if I'm off on one of these points. I'm trying to learn, not be a wiener.
knittingkninja 5 months ago
@knittingkninja They can measure the rate of some mutations that mutate at a fairly constant rate using them as a molecular clock. This can help give a rough date of a common ancestor that might have landed on the islands. Another method that they can use is how well the DNA hybridizes( they unzip two species DNA and see how well they zip back together ) More closely related species have more DNA that zips together. Speciation can be fairly rapid given the number of generations, free niches
finderfinder100 5 months ago
@finderfinder100 ...in the environment, competition between other species. Birds can breed quickly and at a young age. Birds in subtropical and tropical setting can have several broods a year. Carbon dating only works on fossils and sub fossils that are younger than 62,000 years. Small birds are very hard to fossilize. a given fossil would only show how long that fossil had been on the island not how long the species has been around. Wiki has these topics if you want a more info.
finderfinder100 5 months ago
@knittingkninja AS far as mutation goes that's actually calculated... in other words we can take your dna...and that of both your parents... and your grandparents and from that work out what DNA all those other people have that is different in you!
Depending on whaere you live, the circumstance of your gestation etc. it will vary.
mutation is also different for every species and also depends on the environment, and even the age your father / grandfathers were when they became reproduced.
MumblingMickey 5 months ago
@finderfinder100 is there any indication that bats weren't nocturnal before? I mean, sure it would make sense for them to not have it earlier if they weren't nocturnal, but as far as we can tell they always have been.
knittingkninja 5 months ago
@knittingkninja our understanding of bat and their evolution is limited since they are small creatures who are really hard to fossilize. But there has been a few studies that show that their change from non-flight to flight may have been rapid do the change of one gene (BMP2 gene) and that rapid change may have also happened for echolocation (FOXP2 gene). Scientists studying one of the most primitive bats Onychonycteris finneyi stated that it might have been diurnal and that birds may have
finderfinder100 5 months ago
@finderfinder100 driven the bats towards nocturnal living. So Bats may have not had to wait for slow gradual change to have working flight or echolocation. I do have sources for this info if needed. Bats are still just as fascinating as ever in my book.
finderfinder100 5 months ago
@finderfinder100 the real question is how the F did a shrew evolve wings, n crawl up the wall of a cave and decide to hang upside down..? they sleep upside down.. do u know the number of "random" chance mutations to make that happen? which all have to be selected for and have an overwhelming reproductive advantage..? this is where evo is clearly wrong.. the "hows" n "whys"..
hooseyadaddy 4 months ago
@hooseyadaddy Shrews and Bats share a common ancestor. Bats most likely followed a tree climbing gliding down model. This is still a point of debate in the evolution of bats since we don't really have a lot to work with. "Random Mutations" only plays part of Evolution the more important part is Non-Random Natural Selection. Its not guided to bring about anything. Nature does not say" Lets make a bat" Bats may have been able to exploit any unfilled niche with a few mutations that nature actedon
finderfinder100 4 months ago
@finderfinder100 its easy to say that isnt it?.. make evo all nice and cushy..it aint so.. think logically how its possible to evolve hangin upside down and sleeping? when a bat hangs its feet muscles are relaxed, it takes effort to let go.. and 99% of bats cant take off from the ground, they gotta drop into flight. SO there goes the gliding down thing... use your brain and logic, dont follow mindless "couldve" "most likely" theories..
hooseyadaddy 4 months ago
@hooseyadaddy oh my your are so right you have shown me the light. Evolution is so wrong. I now see the wonder and glory of your logic. Since i am sure you have a sound logical explanation for the diversity of life would please explain it to us
finderfinder100 4 months ago
@finderfinder100 thats it, use sarcasim to fill in your lack of knowledge.. and to your above point, fox bats, like all megabats, dont echolocate primarily because their food source isnt fast moving bugs.. Its fruit. but go ahead, try and give me a logical step by step explanation to evolve hanging and sleeping from ceilings.. If evolution is true, than the given factors driving it ie natural selection/mutations doesnt work in evolution. look at angler fish or whale evolution(they dont sleep)
hooseyadaddy 4 months ago
@hooseyadaddy There are gaps in our knowledge of how or why but it doesn't invalidate evolution in any shape or form. Its just the next part of the puzzle. there is a great video on Evolution of Flight and Echolocation in Bats by RoyalTyrrellMuseum that explains the earliest known bat and does a better job than i could do explaining. This bat had longer hind limbs and claws on each digit that would most likely help in climbing trees but it also lacked echolocation hanging from a branch may ...
finderfinder100 4 months ago
@finderfinder100 saved it from having to push off with greater force. this may have led to a reduction in leg length as flight became more developed and as the leg shorted the need to drop into flight may have become greater. The moving into caves and other hiding places most like had to do with competition with birds and predation. out of sight out of mind. But it seems you have made up your mind against evolution so there is nothing i could say that is going to change it so.
finderfinder100 4 months ago
@finderfinder100 sure it invalidates it.. its wrong.. scientists act like they know how and why and that its random natural processes when theres no evidence for things evlolving like they claim they do. All it is is fancy story telling in a simplistic manner so its believable. Everything sounds simple, but at a cellular level it is not. hangin upside down and sleep can not come from step by step random mutations. Be real.. Nor can whales and not sleeping. or the anglerfish's sexual parisitism
hooseyadaddy 4 months ago
so our understaning of evolution and how it occurs must be wrong.. but no one challenges it..why? cause they wont get funding. Most mutations are negative the rest are neutral. But mutations are THE driving force for evo. That said, it would take much much longer for species to evolve than they did. And every new trait to be selected must provide a reproductive advantage, which any thinking will prove to you that is impossible. Like in this video, the turtle shell development..
hooseyadaddy 4 months ago
@hooseyadaddy then what is your explanation for these things? Just because we don't understand how some of those thing work doesn't mean that we won't in future. Several adaptations can evolute at the same time. Evolution takes steps forwards and backwards. It is the best natural explanation we have for things. You may want to check out talkorgins. org it has a lot of great info. So according to you the whole of biology is wrong.
finderfinder100 4 months ago
@finderfinder100 "It is the best natural explanation" exactly my point.. whatever explanation there is it must be "natural" is in not needing a god... therefor whatever evidence there is will be interpreted as such.. and when all else fails to provide and answer when there never will be one.. just know that it wasnt a creator.. there had to have been more than one original life form, and common design characteristics doesnt mean common decent.. but with a predisposition to that its "evidence"
hooseyadaddy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@finderfinder100 "It is the best natural explanation" exactly my point.. whatever explanation there is it must be "natural" is in not needing a god... therefor whatever evidence there is will be interpreted as such.. and when all else fails to provide and answer when there never will be one.. just know that it wasnt a creator.. there had to have been more than one original life form, and common design characteristics doesnt mean common decent.. but with a predisposition to that its "evidence"
hooseyadaddy 4 months ago
scientists realize the huge gaps in the theory and same as you have suggested, there can be multiple traits evolved at the same time in a short time span.. It has to have for the theory to still have cred. but this would suggest guidance not natural random mutations all lining up together.. that doesnt happen in reality and its never been observed. i think God continually molds our planet.. whales, metomorphosis, anglerfish, etc etc all contradict Darwinian Evolution yet it still prevails..
hooseyadaddy 4 months ago
@hooseyadaddy If you feel that way i suggest maybe you starting a research endowment--where you can dictate how and what the money is spent on. Groups like the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Center for Scientific Creation share similar God based science that would gladly have your support. They gladly question evolution and i am sure they could pull some funding together to do some peer-reviewable research. AIG can pull together 32 mil for a Museum
finderfinder100 4 months ago
@finderfinder100 ...they can get some money for research. There are several Religious Colleges and Universities that would most likely gladly do research.
finderfinder100 4 months ago
@hooseyadaddy erm... nope those gaps exist alright...as they do in all fields of research...
However the largest gaps here aren't in the theory... but in your knowledge of it!
This might have escaped your attention... but we do have artificial selection..practiced a long time before we understood genetics... it seems to have been pretty effective in selecting... despite your insistence it isn't... maybe cows, chickens, pigs, sheep and the entire worlds crops are in my imagination..
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MumblingMickey "but we do have artificial selection.." true.. But man has theoretically sped dog evo. by millions of years, guess what.. Still a fucking dog! Lenski also quite clearly demonstrated that a single celled asexual organisim will NEVER evolve into a higher taxa! Do explain how the fuck a caterpillar could build 3/4 of a cacoon.. or undergo metamophosis bit by bit in gradual mutations..? Or how a single circulatory 2 chamber heart evolveds into 3 chamber double circ..Doesnt happen!
hooseyadaddy 3 months ago
@hooseyadaddy
" Still a fucking dog! "
which is precisely why you'll now explain to everyone why a horse and a rhino are still the same creature...yes?
I don't need to explain jack shit...you can run all that stuff through Prices theorem (see price equation) and answer it for yourself.
MumblingMickey 3 months ago
@hooseyadaddy Yeah we tried the explanation that fits all 'God did it' ... it didn't explain anything at all... and invariably someone came along later and explained how god didn't do it....
The problem with God did it... is that it just halts discovery from that point onward... if we all went with god did it you wouldn't have your computer right now! In fact we'd be still banging fucking rocks together to make fire... and no doubt god would be responsible for that too!
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@finderfinder100 I'd be careful...or at the very least explain what you mean by 'not slow and gradual'
For a creationists 'not slow and gradual' translates into 'their lifetime or less'... to you and me its a few thousand generations but no more that 100k generations.
They have as problem getting their heads above any figure that is not matched by the content of their current account... unless they are a wealthy tv evangelist... (who clearly are not as stupid as they profess)
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MumblingMickey I am not sure where i said "not slow and gradual" but this thread is a mess. You do raise a good point but its hard t fit all the info in the limit of these posts. In some regards i am thankful for the the character limit which keeps individual posts from being large and unruly.
finderfinder100 4 months ago
@knittingkninja The answer is in your question there...what give you the idea bats were always nocturnal?
Next echo location (sonar) was not selected for because bats are nocturnal... there are lots of nocturnal animals and very few solve the problem of sight by dispensing with sight and selecting for a new sense.
Bats are nocturnal because they spend all of their time not in a 'low light' environment' but a NO light environment even during the day! This was not always the case.
MumblingMickey 5 months ago
@knittingkninja You are right about one thing. All the bats who couldn't find enough food did in fact have a hard time. But that just makes life more difficult and reproduction lower.and offspring not as plentiful. It won't make them all die off suddenly.
In fact a detrimental environment acts like an accelerator for evolution. Which is why bacteria built up resistance to every antibiotic we have in under 100 years. Yet plodded along with no such resistance for millions of years.
MumblingMickey 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@knittingkninja You are right about one thing. All the bats who couldn't find enough food did in fact have a hard time. But that just makes life more difficult and reproduction lower.and offspring not as plentiful. It won't make them all die off suddenly.
In fact a detrimental environment acts like an accelerator for evolution. Which is why bacteria built up resistance to every antibiotic we have in under 100 years. Yet plodded along with no such resistance for millions of years.
MumblingMickey 5 months ago
@knittingkninja You cannot just assume that it was so with out any indication whatsoever. unless we do know for a fact...lemme know
knittingkninja 5 months ago
Y'know, if all species transitioned from other species, in turn, in turn, etc., then there would not only be millions of transitional fossils, but there would be innumerable "in-between" species existing today, but there aren't.
Also, the Americans (US) are often criticized by other countries for not being overwhelming pro-evolution, which I think is a testament to our ability to be independent thinkers.
Bildad1976 5 months ago
@Bildad1976 Not really. All special transitioned from a common ancestor, so there should be tremendously fewer transitional species than the number of species today. Furthermore, who is to say that the species today aren't transitional species? We just don't have the ability to travel millions of years to see whether they change.
Often, it's not the independence that causes rejection of theory, just a lack thereof. It's similar to saying that gravity doesn't exist out of "independent" thinking.
FarazR2 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bildad1976 " but there would be innumerable "in-between" species existing today, but there aren't."
Animals of a single species breed with one another... when they do that they average out their DNA and spread it through the population... Which is how we can trace someone genetic lineage...
Only when a population of members of a species become isolated from others of the same species...and cannot reproduce with them any longer do they begin to diverge.
MumblingMickey 5 months ago
@Bildad1976 Clearly your independent thinking didn't stretch far enough for you to answer your own question by looking at how living things reproduce...
But hey, if you actually want to know how that DNA averaging works with selection... then there mathematical principles that will calculate it for you... However since I doubt you have any interest, understanding of the subject or care in the world for what evolution theory is actually used for then I'll leave you and your independent thoughts!
MumblingMickey 5 months ago
Incredible video, I applaud you good sir.
Pugbert 6 months ago
It is very obvious thart you know "little" or "nothing" on the following:
1. BIOLOGY. (amino acids / cells / replicating life forms)
2. DNA. (structure and replication)
3. MUTATIONS. (accidental or deliberate / beneficial or detrimental)
4. NATURAL SELECTION. (climatory or pedatory)
.....etc.
Until you climb out of your little book and learn about the real world around you, I am getting tired of wasting my time with your BLIND faith. Get youself educated beyond 1 book, and THEN we'll talk!
IRunnaZoo 8 months ago
With all the plate shifting and subducting over millenia, with sea level rising and falling, with cataclysmic events that wipe away large swatches of "everything" during their happening it ONLY stands to reason you will never find ALL the parts. But to shroud yourself in "religious belief" and disregard OVERWHELMING and UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE confirmed by science is just overwhelmingly ignorant.
That's your choice, I won't argue with it, but I won't be joining you in you dillusion of denial.
IRunnaZoo 8 months ago
@IRunnaZoo let me ask you this.. Has science ever been wrong?.. Yes! Through out history it was wrong more than it was right.. So y do we now, assume everything a scientist says as truth and correct.. Real science is looking for discoveries that can disprove current theories and recognizing things we can answer.. Which "science" today no longer seems to do..
hooseyadaddy 7 months ago
@hooseyadaddy
"Science" isn't a person- it's not just "wrong".
People have said things that are wrong, but evolutionary biology has SO much evidence now that it would take a HUGE revolution to disprove it...
I mean evolution itself is a FACT. Natural selection is a well-proven theory.
ResiusOnline 7 months ago
@ResiusOnline Science has been "wrong" many times before.. What we think is truth now may be wrong.. In fact more questions have been raised by evolution than have been answered. Logically most things in evolution are illogical. Theoretically most are impossible according to the current theory. I say the theory is off.. If we are to agree evolution is true, than something else must be guiding it other than purely natural selection or variation in reproduction. ie the questions i posed..
hooseyadaddy 7 months ago
@hooseyadaddy "Science has been "wrong" many times before.. What we think is truth now may be wrong"
Perspectives pal, flat Earthers thought of themselves as a form of science [fiction]. Advancements take place, which has left you in the pews.
ISamuelII 7 months ago
@hooseyadaddy Y'know in mechanical engineering there are more questions now than there were 100 years ago... thousands of times more questions... which clearly means its all untrue and therefore building a computer is impossible.
Now the next question is whats that thing you are using to read this comment called?
MumblingMickey 3 months ago
@MumblingMickey youve already demonstrated to me that you are HORRIBLE with metaphors and drawing comparisons.. guess what? Youve done it again.. So congrats... You'd think that someone as "smart" as you would be better at this but youre not.. No one questions that computers have been built or how to do it.. We have PROOF its been done.. What the equivalent would be is finding a computer in the desert and questioning whether it RANDOMLY formed or it was CREATED when we have yet to see one built.
hooseyadaddy 3 months ago
@hooseyadaddy YEah its really unfortunate you accept a computer as prrof that mechanical engineering is valid... but don't seem to accept a flu shot as evidence evolution is valid... it wasn't an analogy...since they are precisely the same thing.
Anyway... tell you what I'll just plod along accepting prices explanation.. and since you wouldn't have the first fucking clue how that works you can sit there and twiddle your thumbs.
Besides tPNA demonstrates life arises naturally...tough luck
MumblingMickey 3 months ago
@MumblingMickey a flu shot proves single to double circulatory 2 to 3 chamber heart random mutation is possible.. ? Dude ur delusional.. tPNA? really? So science has randomly created a fully completed living cell in the lab using random processes? yeah right... would be all over the news..
hooseyadaddy 3 months ago
@hooseyadaddy tPNA is a synthetic self assembling polymer it'll be self replicating soon too. The research shows self replication and self assembly do not require organic chemistry.
For data concerning how well biologists can design living things using software then create them by printing out the genome see the Minimal genome project.
It WAS all over the news!
Why are you arguing against biology? I thought you weren't a biblical creationist? So the bible just got that wrong ...right?
MumblingMickey 2 months ago
CON T> but hey, as a non creationist thats no big deal right? god didn't make talking snakes, rainbows, gardens of eden... floods or the life you see around you.
we know how all those things did, or did not come about now... so as someone who is NOT a creationist you'll clearly have no problem investigating the science involved in tPNA and Genomics do you?
[Rolls eyes!]
Careful not to make a point that will be demonstrated ass grease in 6 months, cos I'll be back to point it out to you!
MumblingMickey 2 months ago
@MumblingMickey "how well biologists can DESIGN living things.."ah thank you for using that word designing cause thats exactly what they are doing. Its like, the worlds biggest lottery with odds 10^46:1 you then get the answers ahead of time, specifically select THOSE numbers and play them. Then when u win you get all excited as if you really won! lmao just cause u got the #s in advance doesnt mean u couldve randomly picked them. Knowin whats neccessary for life doesnt mean it can come randomly
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy this from someone that can't grasp the concept of what design is, and what it is not... snowflakes are designed... by the process of crystallization..... thats the way the predominantly fractal and random process of crystallization works... they are still designed... (at least after the fact by observation)
Life is not designed by someone...its designed (as is observed) by some thing....
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@hooseyadaddy Ever seen a computer reproduce? No? Guess what! Animals do and even a quite simple molecule like RNA can self-replicate outside a cell in the right environment. Thats why the computer analogy is irrelevant.
aakesson1 2 months ago
@aakesson1 i only used that cause someone else brought it up.. Ever seen a cell randomly form? Nope.. Never will actually. Ever seen or have proof of an organism evolving into a higher taxa? Nope.. re Lenski's experiments. Have proof 2 to 3 chamber heart, single to double circulatory systems randomly evolved? Nope.. never will. Have proof metamorphosis is possible by step by step mutations? Nope.. Cause these things arent possible. Some of evo is right, most is wrong..
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy I'm just going to comment on one of these things since it is wrong by definition: higher taxa = higher taxonomic rank. By definition ALL families are at the same rank. All species are at the same rank. A species that branched from another are at the same taxonomic rank as it's anscestors. The main ranks are domain, kingdom, phylum (division), class, order, family, genus and species.
aakesson1 2 months ago
@aakesson1 sure.. only the 1 u think u can argue somewhat against.. what i mean by "higher" taxa is a more advanced life form ranking higher on the "tree of life".. ie single celled to multi-celled.. etc.. and y should i believe what they say about any animal being a "transitional" form when they were wrong about the Coelacanth? also, since mutations are random at some point it shouldve changed somewhat in appearance over 400M years!
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy
How were they wrong about the coelacanth? The fact they thought it extinct means nothing. sure mutations are random but you also need a experimental force to select for said mutations. The coelacanths environment has changed so little that there hasn't been any genetic pressure to change.
This doesn't have any weight against evolution its actually expected.
RedlineMMA 2 months ago
@RedlineMMA How? dude they hailed the Coelacanth as a transitional form from sea to land! So if they thought this "fossil" was transitional and it shows up unchanged in 400M years what else are they wrong about!? Archeoptryx..? Tiktalik? Science has lost all credibility cause its no longer a true science...
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy nobody presented the coelacanth family of fish as a potential ancestor of land animals... what are you on?
Coelacanth have changed... quiet a lot too.
they are not a single species... they are an entire family of different species fish...
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@RedlineMMA 'The coelacanth' is a creationist red herring btw... coelacanth are not a species of fish... they are an entire family... the ones that are extinct are still extinct... only their progeny survive...and they are ALL a different family of species.
Part of the 'our creationists will never scratch deeper than the surface we present' idea...it works amazingly well too!
They do however have very little evolutionary pressure, they are in equilibrium with their environment.
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@MumblingMickey
"The coelacanth' is a creationist red herring btw... coelacanth are not a species of fish... they are an entire family."
I'm well aware of this they are members of the lobed fin family.
Hooseyadaddy...... is nothing but a fundamentalist troll....He willingly chooses to ignore scientific facts. I'm afraid addressing him only feeds his trolling behavior. You can educate someone who is open to new ideas & evidence but you can't fix willful stupidity.
RedlineMMA 4 weeks ago
@hooseyadaddy as you probably know I can only use 486 signs in a reply to you therefore it is impossible to answer more than one thing at a time. What was wrong about the Coelacanth? You mean that it's still here? Evolution is a "branching event". When a tree grows a new branch the trunk doesn't automatically disappear. And if the Coelocanth isn't subjected to a high evolutionary pressure it will not change that much. Natural Selection, you know...
aakesson1 2 months ago
@aakesson1 no.. the fact that "scientists" hailed it as a "transitional" form from sea to land.. when much to their chagrin it showed up unchanged in 400M years! So what else are they wrong about? Tiktalik too maybe? They have no cred now when they say something is "transitional" And, anything subject to "high" pressures will die.. they always have cause they cant mutate fast enough to cope with the changes.. something else is driving evo.. not "natural selection"
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy "anything subject to "high" pressures will die.." Then how do you explain how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? That is an example of an organism subjected to high evolutionary pressure. The AIG answer: "antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action but rather variation within a bacterial kind".
Natural selection is caused by just that: variation within a population. And the variation changes over time through mutations.
aakesson1 2 months ago
@aakesson1 that isnt true evolution.. if u read that article from AIG you'd know.. "What is interesting is that bacterial cultures from bodies frozen 140 years ago were found to be resistant to antibiotics that were developed 100 years later. Thus the specific chemical needed for resistance was inherent in the bacteria”..
"These bacteria did not mutate to become resistant to antibiotics. Furthermore, the non-resistant varieties did not become resistant due to mutations."
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
bacteria have never nor will ever become anything but bacteria! This is an example of horizontal(microevo/adaptation) evolution.. Not verticle as in creating a new, higher species.. it doesnt happen.. And antibiotic resistance is a far cry from formation of circulatory systems and 2 to 3 chamber hearts.. metamorphosis etc... how you can link those from this example is astounding.. try getting a 2 to 3 chamber, single to double circ system in steps w/o killing the organism...
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy But bacterias can evolve into procaryot cells by "horizontal" evolution. And cells can form colonies, and the ones near the limit will have different functions than the ones inside. This is "horizontal" evolution. Then, this colony will evolve to have specialized cells. This is "horizontal" evolution too. But you will have a multicellular organism.
There is no no such thing like "horizontal" or "vertical" evolution. Just evolution.
faeleris 2 months ago
@faeleris more complete Evo BS and story telling.. BTW a bacteria is a prokaryote.. uh huh and how will they assign different tasks to these "outer" cells? Have a little chat? lol and what would they be?.. And how will this new "colony" reproduce? THat means the genetic makeup of the entire thing would have to magically combine into one and then reproduce.. an increase in the genetic code is verticle evo.. as in, it is a more complex organism than the previous..
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy My mistake, I meant Eukaryote cells. Anyway, I am not a specialist, but your arguments are purely : "because I can't imagine how it happened, it just didn't happened". And because you don't want research it by yourself.
In the early stages, when it is just a cells colony, it just had to split.
Then, as it began to complexify, it continued to split, by the same way, and extern cells would progressivly cover weaker outer cells.
faeleris 2 months ago
@faeleris no.. my argument is that is all BS story telling and has never nor will ever be proven nor has it ever been observed. your argument is, "we have no fucking clue so we'll just make this shit up and make it sound simple so laymans will buy it and we have no idea how it happened but believe us when we say it happened this way". U see, u have no idea what all that stuff entails yet u buy into it. Why? U have no proof of the crap you spout so y should i believe u? think logically for once..
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy "and has never nor will ever be proven "
wake up... its 2011, almost 2012... there isn't a single theory in any field of science with more evidence.
certainly a lot more evidence than your crazy fuck witted idea of 'a magic man that lives in the sky done it'
If you truly want to rely on evidence... then how can you swallow that nonsense?
Talk about thinking logically! Seriously? I mean seriously? magic men... in the sky... making things using magic? are you for fucking real?
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@hooseyadaddy If it has a nucleus its a eukaryote... if not its a prokaryote ... ergo humans are composed of eukaryotes... with the exception of red blood cells which \re erythrocytes... manufactured non nucleic cells...with no DNA.
I think I've conversed with you before...and what you know of biology I could write with a thick black felt tip pen on a fucking ants arse, I'd still have room for a full stop too!
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hooseyadaddy
"bacteria have never nor will ever become anything but bacteria!"
well bacteria that work together in a colony certainly ARE something more than bacteria... bacteria that use other bacteria in that colony are more... and bacteria that use other bacteria's DNA as part of themselves more so again... that certainly does happen!
In fact your entire cell makeup can be traced back to just that....
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@hooseyadaddy "Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations" Hallgrimsson 2008.
What is your definition of evolution?
And you actually quote "Answers In Genesis" and try passing it as facts??? Shit... I thought you knew better....
aakesson1 2 months ago
@aakesson1 facts are facts.. i could easily say that about something from Talkorigins but i dont.. I actually took the time to go to the reference at the bottom of the page from AIG and went to the original source.. those r qoutes from the scientists themselves..R u biased much?.. true evolution is the addition of NEW genetic code thus increasing the genome.. problem is you Evos have no proof of this EVER happening.. now forget drug resistant bact. lets try 2 to 3 chamber heart.. metamorphosis..
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy From where did you get your definition of evolution? I have defined evolution in my previous comment. You don't agree with that definition?
aakesson1 2 months ago
@aakesson1 I just defeated every one of your arguments with facts and basic logic and all you have is the definition of evo left..? lmao well to answer.. it is quite clear that without the addition of NEW genetic code you will never get a new organism... this is quite obvious and it is ESSENTIAL to the theory of evolution.. a basic bacterium has less than 500 genes while a human has over 22 thousand. So to get to humans from bacteria NEW genes need to be added. That is true or (macro)evolution.
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy now, that means 21,500 NEW genes need to be added to make a human. So, with a very fast evolutionary period of 100,000yrs it would take 2,150,000,000 years to make a human! The addition of new genes at this rate is just not evident in nature.. In fact, it contradicts evolution because evolution takes "millions of years" to see any changes.. The fact of the matter remains, that mutations and gene addition DO NOT occur at the rates in nature that the theory demands.. It just doesnt..
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy "now, that means 21,500 NEW genes need to be added to make a human. "
But there are only 22k genes in humans... less than there are in a grape vine.... what on earth would make you think the numerical value of genes would define a more complex organism?
By your logic bananas don't exist at all!
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@hooseyadaddy HOW did you defeat my arguments? By NOT posting sources? And your definition of evolution is simply wrong. And you've still not posted any sources that no population of organisms have survived high evolutionary pressure.
New genetic code is due to mutations such as duplications, insertions, translocation and amplification.
And Gain-of-function-mutations are called neomorphic and have been observed. (by Nobel Prize winner Hermann J Muller) This have been known for over 65 years...
aakesson1 2 months ago
@aakesson1 told you where the sources were... go look em up yourself. NO organism has mutated some completely NEW gene in response to evolutionary pressures. This is essential for evolution. Duplication has been largely discredited as the source for new genes. because of their rarity, usually harmful, even rarer is a benefit. It just takes too long and doesnt coincide with the timetable of evolution. Anyways forget IF they can happen. Say they do, how can u get a 2 to 3 chamber heart in steps?
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy And still you can't say wich of the sources you used... Strange...
And once again your basic understanding of evolution is flawed: Mutations has nothing to do with evolutionary pressure. Mutations are just as common with low as with hight pressure. "Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations".
2 to 3 chambers? In the heart of lungfish, the septum extends part-way into the ventricle.
aakesson1 2 months ago
@aakesson1 do i have to spoon feed you evos? Go to the damn source yourself.. Its referenced right on the bottom of AIG! Holy crap... And thank you for walking right into my point.. Mutations should occur all the time with no rhyme or reason yet this DOESNT happen..at some point.animals should mutate light sensitive patches on their body for no reason. Then natural selection should see if this mutation is beneficial or not.. But this doesnt happen.. Why? I could use an eye in the back of my head
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy which is also why the coelacanth shouldve mutated somewhat from its original form. Evo should constantly be testing new features on organisms but it doesnt... Why? Why havent whales since their fast evo explosion, not changed one damn bit? It shouldve atleast mutated some new features and retained them if they werent harmful to then be built upon.. as for the heart, thats not it, when u get 3 chamber double circulation, the seperation of Oxygenated n deoxygenated blood...
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy You are so off in so many of your statements that I don't even care about it. As for the lung fish... WHY is that not it? Ever heard of moving the goalpost? Ok... The African Lungfish have a half separated ventricle AND separated aorta...Left part goes to the "lungs" and back, right to the rest of the body.
aakesson1 2 months ago
@aakesson1 no.. all my first statements are completely valid and hold true to the theory. Evo should constantly be mutating and testing features for no rhyme or reason.. yet it doesnt happen. The speed at which evo can naturally be observed will not produce all of the creatures we have or had at the rate of mutations.. A little math will prove that.. Anyways, what im saying is 2 to 3 chamber.. 1atrium,1vent. single circ. no pulmonary circuit. To 2atrium,2vent. double circ. w/ pulmonary circuit.
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy "Evo should constantly be mutating and testing features for no rhyme or reason."
it does... and the populations derived least suited to their environment die off. That might be a very large population that managed to survive a very long time or it might be a relatively small population that didn't survive pissing time!
like for example the cheetah running its way to extinction. It'll leave no fossil evidence of its existence.
Or humans, on the edge of extinction.
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@aakesson1 The problem with Evos and most scientists is that similarity need not reflect some
phylogenetic relationship.. In other words, many creatures look the same and have similar or identical systems but are not even related phylogenically.. This is a huge problem that scientists have.. Yet when they see something that "looks" to fit the "theory" they just claim it does.. ie Coelacanth.. maybe tiktalik is wrong too? And yes even lungfish, if they were extinct they would be "transitional"
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy but obviously they arent because they havent changed one damn bit! lol eventhough theyve been "poised" to transition onto land for 300M years, why havent they? oh thats right, theres no "pressures" to.. but wait, isnt evo random so shouldnt they have mutated somewhat to then test that mutation? Problem is, scientists look to fossils and fill in the gaps without needing to provide one shred of evidence because it "fits" their model...
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy Why does a species have to be extinct for it to be the origin of another? Why do we still have ferns when we have flowering plants? According to you they too wouldn't exist, but still they do... Why do we still have fish when landliving animals came from fish? If you don't knkow the scientific answer; sorry wonät help you with that...
aakesson1 2 months ago
@aakesson1 ur making the preconcieved evo indoctrinated assumption that flowering plants did come from ferns or land animals came from fish. let me ask u this, if there was nothing on land, what the hell were they going up there for? How could that benefit them? Then how did the fishes egg magically transform into a watertight reptillian one? Did it do it a little at a time? Part in water part out? The bottom 1/4 of the egg transform first? Then 1/2 to whole? theres no advantage at each stage!
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy if the fern was pressured into changing form, then why has it survived hundreds of millions of years in its original form? Obviously, its already a pretty effective plant design and had no need to change. Back to my original point, similar features DOESNT mean theyre RELATED! Yet, if these modern creatures with similar features were all extinct, scientists would no doubt lump them together based solely on the "look" of the organism! You can take that to the bank..
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy " Back to my original point, similar features DOESNT mean theyre RELATED!"
No having similar feature doesn't its a very good benchmark though...
But at the moment DNA says whats related to what...and the ones most genetically similar all just magically happen somehow to be physically similar for some unknown reason...
seriously...are you on this planet just to entertain? Any chance you might write a book of this supreme comedy
Please , write a book full of this nonsense
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@aakesson1 on the flip side.. if all dogs were extinct and we knew nothing about them. Scientists would undoubtedly say a chihuahua is a different species than a great dane or wolf. But being able to observe them, we know this is not true. this is a HUGE reason as to why you shouldnt trust this whole classification/transitional assumptions that "scientists" do when they look at fossils. Because they do it to fit their model view of evolution. Sorry but that is not science..
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy The difference is that Great Dane and Chihuahua are MAN-made and not the result of natural selection. Name one NATURAL species that shows the same variation in both apperence and size.
We don't expect to find the same varitaion in the wild. AND paeleontologists often doesn't specify the species of fossils since it sometimes is hard to determin.
aakesson1 2 months ago
@aakesson1 sure it is! we selected them for specific traits precisely how "natural selection" does.. THe fact we did it makes no nevermind.. ever heard of sexual dimorphisim? Its when the male and female of the same species look different like the angler fish... Scientists dont specify species of fossils cause its hard to determine, yet they can specify which are "transitional"? lmao Anyways, to get a new organism u need a huge change in genetic code, even greater than the difference in dogs...
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy " Scientists dont specify species of fossils "
yes they do.
"yet they can specify which are "transitional"?"
yeah you say that... and claim a chihuahua is 'still a dog' until the point of course that the chihuahua exhibits traits that no other dog has.
Scientists just reclassify it.
Creationists move up the classification tree and say, yeah but its still a canid...
Heres one for you.... penguins are not evolving...they are still dinosaurs! And they are too!
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@aakesson1 i propose an experimental challenge to all scientists..breed me a human from a chimp.. we are only 2% different right? So it should be easy. Just select the traits from chimps that can drive us towards humans. Consider it, accelerated/guided evolution. Because we r now guiding it, it should be much easier to get what we want... Do u think this could succeed or not? I think not, because in all the zoos, all our observations, no animal appears to be randomly mutating like evo suggests..
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy Ehm... Natural Selection isn't the same as guided selection... Anyone acquainted with evolution knows this. Sexual dimorphisim is a phenotypical difference. Phenotypical differences is due to genotype, environment and the interaction of these two factors. Male and female bodys are two different invironments. Anyone acquainted with biology knows this... Read a real book. Maybe one that really deals with theese subjects... Untill you get something wright: Have a nice 2011-2012
aakesson1 2 months ago
@aakesson1 do tell what the difference is? Traits r being selected based on their usefulness. Whether nature did it or we did makes no difference now does it? Thanks, i know about dimorphisim. i was pointing out the fact that if the male n female of the SAME species can look so different then y cant others? If the species was extinct and we knew NOTHING about them.. The male and female of the SAME species would undoubtedly be classified as seperate. Thats my point.. Damn u evos dont think...
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy aakesson1 you're wasting your time. This guy must believe that endogenous retroviruses and chromosomal fusion is just gods way of tricking us into believing in biological evidence of common ancestry. If you're desperate enough, you can believe that all the species existed at the same time in their present form, and the reason you dont find rabbit fossils in the Jurassic layer because of the great flood.
Johnf85 2 months ago
@Johnf85 first i am not a literal bible creationist.. i am simply arguing that our current theory and understanding of evolution is completely WRONG. If we are to agree that it happened.. its pretty obvious that it didnt occur according to our understanding.. mutations/natural selection CAN NOT account for it.. thats obvious cause no where in nature are mutations occurring rapid enough to produce all the creatures we have...and have had...
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy Nope! Sorry! It didn't! "mutations/natural selection CAN NOT account for it.. thats obvious cause no where in nature are mutations occurring rapid enough to produce all the creatures we have...and have had..." What we have here is only a problem with you, about your notion of time.... You don't have, and neither I to be right, any idea what 3,5 billion years mean!
anonimoculto 1 month ago
@hooseyadaddy "first i am not a literal bible creationist."
then you re a totally uneducated idiot who knows nothing about evolution, hasn't taken the time to learn anything about it...yet seems to think they have all the answers.
well after you actually learn what evolution is, what it actually states... (not what AIG told you)
until then suggesting it should be possible according to evolution to evolve humans from chimps is clearly evidence enough you are a total fucking plank!
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
CONT. But then again we can't really blame you... you are still getting the information you 'think' is all about evolution from fucking AIG. Its no wonder you're confused.
Lets put it this wayAIG is to science what the steam engine is to the fucking television.
So my first piece of advice to you would be forget absolutely everything you know about evolution...At the moment you sound like a reindeer expert who learned everything from reading books on Santa!
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@hooseyadaddy If by a layman like you, indeed! But to a man like Buffon, I sincerely doubt. Here a serie you must see. I think, all must see. The serie is divided in six episodes, each one with one hour of duration. The episodes, each one is divided in six parts with 10 minutes duration. The link for the first part of first episode. There is a reproduction list on description bellow the video. I guarantee you, you'll like. /watch?v=lEmJUpGCSfw&list=PL494A254CF188AEAC
anonimoculto 1 month ago
@hooseyadaddy See the episodes in sequence. It's important to do that, due logic reasons. But your answer is in serie 3. "How did we get here?" . And don't worry. Throughout the episode there are less than 5 minutes dedicated to "Darwin". See the final third of the video to get a sense of how our world changes with time. Good session!
anonimoculto 1 month ago
@hooseyadaddy "Whether nature did it or we did makes no difference now does it? "
yes and we humans...we put the classification on these animals... if dog breeders decided tomorrow to classify all breeds of dog as separate species... then your 'its still a dog' would go out the fucking window in a simple bureaucratic decision.
Scientists on the other hand would shrug and just reclassify all canids from that point onward into sub species... then you'd have to say...'but its still a canid'
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
CONT 'Thats my point.. Damn u evos dont think...'
yeah...how much better to take an idea such as 'a magical mystical being from somewhere outside the universe put all the animals here as they are... despite the fact some have appeared since a mystical bronze age book told you so!'
yeah thats fine fucking logic right there! Magical men... in the sky... making animals? are you fucking kidding me?
And you consider that what? thinking? Tell you what....you can keep that sort of thinking....
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@aakesson1 Ok, so y would the male n female of the same species mutate to be so different? As u know, u inherit the traits of your mother and father but whats up with these weird critters? An exception to the rule? What r the pressures? Maybe you should read a book thats not filled with evo indoctrinated fallacies but one based on real observable and testable science..? I have pointed out logical and scientifically verifiable rebuttles to everyone of your points yet i need to be educated? lmao
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy Have you studied animals for millions of years? Why does everyone think that speciation is a dog giving birth to a cat? The idea of breeding a human from a chimp is ridiculous what are you trying to prove?
Pottan23 2 months ago
@Pottan23 y is it rediculous? And what am i trying to prove? Evolution of course.. It should be able to be done according to the theory..
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy That's where you're wrong, evolution doesn't mean you can breed another species into your own. It's ridiculous because Humans and chimps have been two separate species for more than 6 million years, we will never be one species again.
Pottan23 1 month ago
@Pottan23 youre wrong.. We r only 2% off right? We know what that two percent is.. Ergo we can make a human from chimp.. its just chemicals.. Theoretically any animal can turn into any other type cause thats what the theory says! Maybe not an "exact" human but a human nonetheless.. with language, music, art, science, math etc..Another creature like us that we can communicate with...
hooseyadaddy 1 month ago
@hooseyadaddy That's genetic engineering and I wouldn't call that ''evolving a human from a chimp''.
Pottan23 1 month ago
@Pottan23 and i would call evolution random genetic engineering.. now we have the knowledge to select certain traits and mutations to get a human.. so whats stopping us from "evolving" new creatures in a lab? Maybe the simple fact that "mutations" that are needed to create that change DO NOT occur RANDOMLY naturally.. it just is not evident in nature..
hooseyadaddy 1 month ago
@hooseyadaddy Guy! You really have no idea of what natural world is made or how natural world works, isn't it? Believer... Even seeing them, it is impossible to believe they exist! Ass.: a physic.
anonimoculto 1 month ago
@anonimoculto Guy.. you have no idea how to even make a complete and coherent sentence.. So don't talk to me until you can figure that out...
hooseyadaddy 1 month ago
Comment removed
anonimoculto 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Guy! You really have no idea of what natural world is made of, or idea of how natural world works, isn't it? Believers... Even seeing them, it is impossible to believe they exist! Ass.: a physicist." I've tried to improve it. Sorry for my English. It's not my mother language. But apparently, you understood very well what I meant. Sugestions about my english are welcome, but this does not change the content. Bye...
anonimoculto 1 month ago
@hooseyadaddy About the coelacanth:
watch?v=rMa9icQlP-o.
shadowknigth95 1 month ago
@hooseyadaddy it's more like 5% but whatever.
luke666808g 1 month ago in playlist Intermediate forms
@hooseyadaddy "Just select the traits from chimps that can drive us towards humans. "
Even if that were possible [and its not] humans did not descend from chimps anyway. You might as well be asking to breed a chihuahua into a Great Dane... it can't be done since both of those are descended from another animal entirely. One which we do currently have a DNA sequence for!
I realise why you have an issue with evolution...you know fuck all about it! Or much else as far as I can work out.
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@aakesson1 Mah... I think we can safely agree that a chihuahua is indeed a sperate species of canid to a wolf....
Regardless of how it came about it would be classed as a different species. with domestic animals we refer to this as 'breeds' because we are doing the selecting... but its the same thing as far as the process is concerned...
So chihuahua and grey wolves are indeed a separate species...
In fact most dogs are less similar genetically to wolves than wolves are to coyotes.
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@MumblingMickey "...it would be classed as a different species."
No. a different sub-species.
"In fact most dogs are less similar genetically to wolves than wolves are to coyotes."
MOST dogs?...and yet Canin lupus baileyi can interbreed with Canin lupus familiaris without fertility problems while they can't do the same with Canin latrans ...wich makes me question your statement... Source?
aakesson1 3 weeks ago
@aakesson1 Nope, different species....
Lots of animals can interbreed and are classified as a separate species... Wolves and Coyotes are... yet their progeny from crossbreeding in the wild led to the Red wolf...
Tiger and lions can breed... they just don't since they live on different continents. They are a breeding hybrid. Most certainly a different species.
A chihuahua in the wild would be a different species than a wolf, and probably most often the wolf would class it as lunch!
MumblingMickey 2 days ago
CONT. Half the plant kingdom can produce fertile hydrids... from within their class or family.
This is not a black and white issue. The more genetically dissimilar an organism is, the less likely it can produce fertile offspring. In addition the fact they are speciated to begin with most often means they never see one another.
But it does beg the question how it is at all possible they can breed at all... I thought they could only breed 'after their kind'... are you insisting that's wrong?
MumblingMickey 2 days ago
@aakesson1
"MOST dogs?..."
Yes most dogs. We call dogs breeds, within the species canis familiaris. Wolves are a paraspecies, they weren't until we started to domesticate them.
You want a source for the definition of species? Okay since you insist I'll attach resources to back up what I'm saying. Or you could look it up!
I think your problem here is you are asserting black and white when in fact because animals might be closely related or not there is a scale of reproductive ability.
MumblingMickey 2 days ago
SOURCES :
Definitions of species.
1. Alan R Templeton. The meaning of species and speciation. (1989).
Discusses species from a genetic perspective with and without reference to breeding and geography.
2. John S. Wilkins, How to be a chaste species pluralist-realist: 2003.
3. Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species (Kevin de Queiroz 2005)
(I think it on pubmed, thats what was stamped on my copy)
4. Species: a history of the idea, species and systematics. UC Berkeley (2009)
MumblingMickey 1 day ago
SOURCES.
From a genetic perspective Ken Weiss & Anne Buchanan also discuss this very point under understanding biological complexity in their book Genetics : the logic of evolution unsure of the page number I just remember the point.
But the bottom line here is that a chihuahua has more or less the same genetic difference with regard to breeding with a wolf....as an ox has to a zebu... and I'm sure you are not going to try to inform me that Oxen and Zebu are the same species.
MumblingMickey 1 day ago
@hooseyadaddy "Scientists would undoubtedly say a chihuahua is a different species than a great dane or wolf."
If they lived in the wild they would be classed as different species.
It'd be unlikely wolves and chihuahua would ever meet in anything other than a predator and prey context. Therefore unlikely they would mate, although this does happen (see red wolf) Hence if chihuahua were not domestic animals they would be classed as a separate species.
Probably Canis Lupus and Canis familiaris
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
CONT. And as it turns out chihuahua and other toy breeds of dog are more genetically different to a wolf than a wolf is to a coyote... so technically they are indeed separate species.
They are referred to as a sub species... a bit like Caucasian homo sapiens... which are a sub species (essentially) of homo sapiens....
But hey... if you want to spout crap without a frame of reference as to what you are talking about...don't let me get in your way. As far as I'm concerned you are just comedy.
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@hooseyadaddy YEs indeed... all the biologists are wrong...and you seem to be amazingly right all the time...despite your total lack of understanding, reason or knowledge of the subject.
Yes indeed all those deluded scientists...spending silly amounts of time getting a POhd in biology...sometime up to a decade if they do a post grad...
well they are ALL WRONG... and somehow... magically, you are right! And you are right because contemplating being wrong is not somewhere you want to be!
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@hooseyadaddy "NO organism has mutated some completely NEW gene in response to evolutionary pressures"
it did
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
CONT.
"which is also why the coelacanth shouldve mutated somewhat from its original form."
They did!
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
"Why havent whales since their fast evo explosion, not changed one damn bit"
They did.... so much so we have dozens of different species of coelacanth...all different from the fossil examples.
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
CONT. Coelacanth are in envoironmental equilibrium with their envoironment... if it changes suddenly one of two things will happen...
1. They will adapt and survive
2. They will go extinct.
odds are they would become extinct... its the most likely of scenarios since sudden changes with a small population would result in few surviving and fewer still mating.
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
Whales have changed very rapidly. There are dozens of species of porpoises which are all descended from one population of mammals.
They are certainly all related, DNA tells us that. They are also all related to land walking animals which share a common ancestor with them. We call those animals Hippopotamus.
but hey... just as you have no problem accepting a blue whale is clearly just a diversification of a minke whale.
What say you of animals MORE alike...lets say humans and neanderthals?
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
cont. Unless of course you think that a bottlenose dolphin is not in any way different from an orca?
Oddly that wouldn't surprise me as a creationist argument.
anyway...a bottlenose dolphin is certainly just a little bit different to a sperm whale...don't you think?
just a little bit more than "not changed one damn bit""
[insistence they are both basically the same genetically and morphologically will have me pull out a picture of a human and a bonobo and ask you to repeat that]
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@hooseyadaddy Mutations do happen all the time...in every single organism for no reason... obviously its more prevalent if the environment supports genetic damage, in highly radioactive areas, mating at a late age... all sorts of reasons.
One of the reasons you shouldn't father a child into your 40's or be the mother of a child in your late 30's to 40's... its just asking for trouble.
Hopefully creationists (LIKE YOU) will ignore that advice and march headlong into genetic stochastic heredity!
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@hooseyadaddy "NO organism has mutated some completely NEW gene in response to evolutionary pressures"
Hmmmm... now that might explain why all organisms from a dandelion to you have the same core functionality in DNA!
However as is demonstrated... and overwhelmingly repeated...to the point of programming new living things, you are very wrong.
in fact even in our species the addition of a full chromosome (let alone a single genetic marker) even has a name...we call it downs syndrome.
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@hooseyadaddy
"that isnt true evolution"
I think we should let biologist define what is and what is not evolution.... not you...or AIG...which seems to get shit totally wrong on a daily basis and never seems to correct itself.
Clearly AIG is taking a leaf from the bible in that regard... Mr. 'I'm not a biblical literalist'
Evolution is defined in this context as changes to a population of organisms that distinguish it from others.... simple as that.
MumblingMickey 4 weeks ago
@hooseyadaddy
Do some research you are clearly ignoring the evidence.
1). Ever seen a cell randomly form?
Nope we never will because cells don't randomly form. They evolved from much simpler life. Self replicating molecules gave rise to RNA then DNA. cells are already complex so your question is nonsense.
RedlineMMA 2 months ago
@RedlineMMA your answer is nonsense..RNA itself is not life.. in order to have life you have to have a complete living and selfreplicating cell...It "evolve" from "simpler" life.. There is no simpler life.. Have you studied abiogenesis at all? How could RNA in a lipid layer somehow mutate and incorporate the makeup of the lipid into its own chemical makeup and then somehow divide itself? But wait, once theres a cell wall u need nutrient intake and waste removal systems.. so how did that happen?
hooseyadaddy 2 months ago
@hooseyadaddy You asked him if he had ever seen a cell randomly form, and he told you that's impossible.
Since he, an I and also you agree they can't and since we still understand how evolution works then you gotta ask yourself. WHY does we still accept evolution? What do we know that you don't?
The answer to that is we read what evolution is, you didn't. Yet you disagree with something you haven't a clue about.
How do you expect to have your opinion heard if its totally uninformed?
MumblingMickey 1 day ago
Comment removed
anonimoculto 1 month ago
@hooseyadaddy
2) Ever seen or have proof of an organism evolving into a higher taxa? Animals don't jump from one group to another. No animal ever gives birth to a different species. evolution is gradual & there is abundant evidence that micro evolutionary changes over large time spans lead to macro evolutionary changes. Its the exact same process Seeing large jumps from one taxa to another would acually be evidence against evolution.
Both arguments are completely false.
RedlineMMA 2 months ago 2