This is, without a doubt, one of the stupidest presentations on the subject of evolution I have ever seen. Apparently, in your church, one does not have to have an understanding of the subject at all before speaking on it. (P.S. A "species" is not defined by color, but by the inability to breed outside of its own clade.)
Are you sure you dont want to stick to guitar. I do not believe evolution is true, but Charles Darwin did define speciation this way. Are you saying all moths of different colors cannot breed outside of thier color? Can you give me proof that all moths of the thousands of different so caled species in evolution taxonomy cannot breed together? Are you saying you do not believe in interelational theory? Lets see how stupid I am about evolution if you would like to procceed.
Since the 1950's, air pollution controls have significantly reduced the amount of heavy particulate air pollutants reaching the trees, buildings, and other objects in the environment. As a result, lichen has grown back, making trees lighter in color. In addition, once blackened buildings were cleaned making them lighter in color. Now, natural selection favors lighter moth varieties so they have become the most common.
@GraceBibleFN Let's start with your statement around 1:38, (which ties into your question about moths). A "species" is defined as being seperate when they can no longer produce viable offspring with other groups. People of all colors, physical traits, etc can produce offspring- we (homo sapiens) AREN'T a different species from one another.
You dont understand I do not believe humans are different specieces, I am saying in the light of arguments by Darwin and others historically that they have argued moths changing colors become different speceis. I am the moderator, you will need to answer my questions first.
@GraceBibleFN I am answering you questions (you are obviously afraid to follow the logical, organized method i proposed. It would expose your lack of knowledge) But, I have no desire to embarrass anyone- i want this subject understood. As for the people that argued that color defined a species (if they did), we know that is not the case.
@GraceBibleFN I do, indeed, wish to proceed, and will happily educate you on the subject. You obviously need it. (you didn't even understand my statement that color DOES NOT define a species!) And speciation IS a result of evolution.
OK- so, where do you want to begin? I think it best to first define evolution, and then to show examples of it being observed. Then, predictions based upon evolution that have been verified. Fair enough?
Are you saying all moths of different colors cannot breed outside of thier color? Can you give me proof that all moths of the thousands of different so caled species in evolution taxonomy cannot breed together? Are you saying you do not believe in interelational theory?
@GraceBibleFN I am saying color has nothing to do with whether an organism is a seperate species or not! And I have never heard of "interelational theory". I am afraid they don't teach this in biology or physical anth courses. LOL! (Perhaps you mispelled it ?- try again) Ya know, here on youtube, you should actuallu look up people who can explain this to you. I suggest Spencer Wells or Nina Jablonski to start.
You come here saying I am stupid yet you do not know what interelational theory even is? Dont start throwing out other peoples names as your authority. Are you saying you are ignorant and you cant defend this on your own merits? How then do you dare come here calling me names. Friend I have studied this topic for a long time. Answer my questions or dont waist my time please.
@GraceBibleFN LOL! I am trying to help you! You haven't studied this subject at all- it's painfully obvious! Why lie? You are quote mining from apologists with a religious agenda : ) Anyway, ask whatever questions you like. Especially about humans (that was part of my BA degree- physical anth) So, I will gladly help you understand. And sorry- in the college, no one ever mentioned "interelational theory". I even googled it just now- nada.
I havent studied at all? You are going to have to recant your disrespect. But I understand this is typical atheism. OK so you admit then that as my video argues that evolutionists have argued moths of different color are claimed transitional forms. Can you demonstrate one such kind and prove that they, without a doubt cannot populate with moths of other colors or variations. But stick to moths for now since this is your original objection. So you are a Google specialist.
@GraceBibleFN If a moth has simply changed color, then it is only a small adaptation. They can still breed with different colored moths. This is basic genetics that was first understood by Mendel. It is simply statistics, and the more successful moths will pass thier genes through population genetics. So, what's your point?
So give me an example of evidence of a moth species that has gone beyond adaptation to a new species. And in the evidence prove they cannot populate with other moths anymore. I am not running from anything it would be your population genetics. Stick to moths. It's time you back up your theory. Dont run from it.
@GraceBibleFN Did a quick search (since I am more familiar with human evolution- which you are afraid to talk about) , and it seems that there are over 150k species of moths (Atlas moth, Grease moth, etc). An example of speciation- (other than what I just named!) would be butterflies. It seems they evolved from moths. Couldn't you just look this stuff up yourself??
This is laughable. I am embarrassed for you. Out of your admitted 150 thousand different so called species, that by your own argument you should be able to prove in a laboratory one example of moths that cannot populate, yet you cannot site one example and move to an entire different taxonomy and you mention butterflies and lizards?
And yes I do understand with this ridiculous and again embarrassing comment you would want to move on to lizards that you probably just Goggled and we will in the future dismiss, but first you MUST show the data of ONE of the moths evolving and cannot interrelate or populate before I will dismiss you as another arrogant and uninformed evolutionist. Really, you should stick to guitar.
@GraceBibleFN Here's a Fun Fact: Human being have the genes for making fully functional tails. Inculding you : ) Sometimes, sadly, the gene is turned on and a human being is indeed born with a tail. Now..if we did not "evolve" from an ancestor that had a tail, why would we have these genes?? Was God being silly? Was it a good idea to confuse everyone and give people these genes, making us think there was a connection with other primates?
Of course I m not afraid of your lizards. You cannot even handle moths. You will want to change everytime I call you out on your psudo sciences. So you are conceding that you have no knowledge or evedince of speciation and post mortality mechanism in alleles in moths? If you dont im sure you wont have anything on any other microbiological taxonomy. Please stop this laughable argumentation.
Please provide some scientific data. Your Google knowledge is adolecent. You have not studies these scientifically. You are merely a poor propogandist that has not studied the data as it is obvious you cannot for a scientific argument. Whats next? Cats and dogs? If you cannot prove the moths you cannot prove anything else.
@GraceBibleFN I doubt you even understand the words you typed. A change in allele frequency IS evolution! It is simply descent with modification. For example, the New Mexico Whip Tail Lizard. They must have sex to reproduce, but there are no males of the species. (are they are going to hell for being lesbians?) Now, either Noah forgot the male lizards..or it is simply an evolutionary hold-over from thier prior instincts when males lived
@chuckfaststrat In this case, natural selection does not apply. They produce replicas- BUT, evolution STILL occurs and we STILL get differences, but only through mutation! This is basic biology, man : )
Your asexual argument is merely an adaptation within species. This is still an adaptation and nevertheless at the end of the day, still a lizard. This is a horizontal variation and no evidence of speciation of new kingdoms of kinds. Are you then saying homosexuals are different species since they cannot populate? You have established this as your scientific evidence for new species.
@GraceBibleFN Wait a minute- the New Mexico Whip Tail Lizard is NOT asexual. They MUST engage in sex to reproduce. They are simply a different species that Cannot breed with other male lizards of any other species. They have "speciated", and only breed within thier group.
They are still lizards!.. This is adaptation. This is a variation. Mutations are caused by misinformation in gene transfer or as a result of introducing mutagens. These are harmful gene variants. Lizards changing into lizards is no evedince for new kingdoms of inds and this has never been done in a labratory. Your argument is a strawman to jump by fiath of this being evedince of any new kingdom of kinds.
@GraceBibleFN Of course they're lizards! What do you expect them to be? And Humans are STILL primates...we are STILL apes...we are just a different species of ape. Mutations are also caused by external factors (for example, UV rays, which stimulate folate & produces melanin in the skin). And there has to be a long, long time for a new kingdom to arise. Lots of transitions. I say respectfully, your perspective needs more depth.
I am not an ape! Im sorry you feel that way about yourself. I am a completely diffent genetic species. You have no emperical evedince to prove that humans are apes. This is faith an anecdotal. This type of deprevecation is sad. You are so desparate to reject a theistic cosmology that you will make yourself no more than an ape. And with no emperical evedince, just theoretic dogma.
@GraceBibleFN LOL! C'mon man, open your eyes! Yes, we are apes! and Yes- we are a different species than the other apes! It took about 4-5 million years to happen. And we changed in our bodies before our brains. We finally "evolved" the FoxP2 gene, and that helped a lot. That's how gradual evolution is when dealing with primates. (to your credit, you have not blocked me up to now. A rare thing for a creationist)
I have not blocked you because you have provided no emperical evedince. I am surprised you have not quit. Another strawman is to make your so called science 4-5 million years, you have made something you cannot prove. I have studidied the same evedince you claim proves evolution. Your reasoning is circular at best. You have proven nothing. You have faith in a million year theory. Statistical probability demands we would be able to see this type of Kingdoms of kinds.
@GraceBibleFN You have blown my mind...LOL! So, let me get this straight...tail genes...98% gene similarity with chimps...Chromosome #2..but I have given "no empirical evidence"! LOL! Do you even know what empirical evidence means? It means falsifiable..observable..you know, the same kinda stuff that could get you convicted in a court of law... : ) You are just bound by your faith to reject anything that doesn't fit your comfortable world view. Sad, really..
Come now my ape friend. 98% is called reasonable doubt. This would be thrown out in a court of law. Yes until it can proven by evedince that has literally been seen, it is not emperical but anecdotal evedince only. You have proven nothing. You have jumped all over the place. You still cannot name any species that have switched to new kingdom of kinds. A chimp is still a chimp and as much as you want to make yourself a chimp, you will not make a monkey out of me.
@GraceBibleFN No, 98% leaves a 2% differential explained by evolution. This is taught in universities around the world- I realize that you just don't care, and seek to squirm around any evidence that threatens your religious pressupositions and emotional security. As for transitional species, there are lots of them. I'll name two- Dimetrodon and Frogamander. Look them up (and of course, you won't)
No! this is not evedince. This is faith. 2% is not explained scientifically but theorized. Give me one scientific experiment where we have seen this new species occur in primates to hominoids. How can you call yourself a mere ape? Dont you know that you not being white and evolution if it is true makes you less evolved than me. You would be more closeley related to the chimpanzee than I would be? Since your features and color are more closely related to the primate.
@GraceBibleFN ...did you just say primates to hominids? REALLY?? How about dogs to german shepards...the question makes just as much sense. GS are dogs and hominds ARE primates. We never STOPPED being primates in the same way we never stopped being mammals or apes! And considering how obtuse your understanding, I wish I WAS more related to a chimp than to you! LOL! You're embarassing my species! Alas, no. Even chimps today are not "less eveolved" than we are.
@chuckfaststrat Now you have finally introduced something we can prove scientifically. I can get dogs to be German shepherds as I can populate dogs with other dogs and in the laboratory study the evidence. Please show me in the same scientific environment that a ape can be populated into a hominoid. You cannot. Until you can your reasoning is circular and you have never in our discussion provided anything other than species populating according to their own kind.
@GraceBibleFN Ape into a hominid?? Hominids ARE apes. Do you not understand that? Of course you don't. You've never taken a science course in your life, have you... As for your claim that I haven't shown you "evidence" of transitional forms, did you look up Dimetrodon and Frogamander? (of course you didn't). As for things speciating RIGHT NOW, look up salamanders in California. NOW- look this stuff up...otherwise, your denials are getting tiresome.
Anything you have brought up is either species populating according to their kind which we can study in the lab, or the other is species that you postulate have mutated to new kinds where you have no scientific data in a lab we can study the data. So if evolution is true and you are a primate, you would concede then that you with features and colors similar to the ape, you are closer to the ape than I am as a white hominoid.
@GraceBibleFN Actually, genius, i have a little suprise for you. You are not a pure Homo Sapien. Yup, it's true. You (and I) are also about 1-4% Neanderthal. In other words, we are hybrids : ) So, I regret to inform you that your existence is not due to Adam & Eve 6000 years ago. You also came from a couple of cavemen- a seperate "breed" of hominid : ) So, our true "human" lineage starts about 500k years ago with Neanderthals, and 200k years ago with modern Homo Sapien Sapien : )
I thought you were going to present the science and I the faith based side. Since by your silence in not defending your laboratory data, proves to me you have a much greater leap of faith than I. You have no data that ape primates can populate with Homo sapiens, so you are silent and postulate the Neanderthal myth that has no lab evidence but only visual observation. So you end up with the logical conclusion you are closer to the ape than I by said observation.
@GraceBibleFN "Neanderthal myth" LOL! Coming from a guy who thinks stories in his bible aren't myths : ) How does your ignorance not embarass you? Well, here's a little evidence for the Neanderthal genome:
watch?v=z2mErfQi1mA (And P.S.- we cannot cross with other species of ape. We seperated around 4-5 million years ago. Kinda like how dogs came from wolves, and they can't go back to being wolves now)
I am not saying Neanderthal did not exist, I am saying your reasoning is circular since you cannot see this change from “anything” to Homo Sapiens in the lab, you must theorize 4-5 million years so it becomes impossible to prove your theory in the lab. As I said your evidence is through analogous observations, visually. So what is embarrassing would you believing in the anecdotal evidence that logically puts your picture right between Neanderthal and white Homo Sapiens.
@GraceBibleFN "White Homo Sapiens"??!! Um..Homo Sapiens started out BLACK, man! They were in Africa..for someone claiming to understand this, your ignorance truly floors me. Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Erectus. Kinda hard to put a Homo Erectus in a lab now and watch them change! LOL! But then, you do not understand the amount of time it takes to witness it. It happens so gradually, you wouldn't even notice. We don't evolve as fast as,say, a virus.
Well it would be a phenomena? It is without laboratorial, irrefutable evidence, thus anecdotal at best. Color does drive evolution. You can’t see it because you are the proverbial monkey in the room. And from your vantage point it is but an observation from a form that is closer to the unintelligent primates so you must miss the obvious slap in the face that evolution is to people of color. Sorry to be the one to have to bring this to your attention.
@GraceBibleFN (sigh)..let me explain skin color to your little mind. See, skin is an organ. It happens to be exposed to the sun, which emits Ultra Violet Radiation. These UV Rays stimulate folate in the skin, which prodices melanin. The more melanin, the darker the skin. UV Rays also change DNA on a molecular level, so you pass the mutation on to your offspring. Get it now?
Oh so now you are going to try to bring some science to the discussion. Why we have skin color is not relevant. It is what color were we when we were closest to the ape. This places you closer to the ape. And your “small minded”, racist comment about blacks being closer than you is my point. At the end of the day you make great reasons we have seen eugenics and you have not proven your speciation but to be anecdotal.
@GraceBibleFN "closest to the apes"- we are still apes, you dimwitt. And the point about skin color is that it is merely an environmental adaptation. Anyway, you are a religious parrot. Your "lessons on evolution" are moronic. Do yourself a favor and look up some of the things I have posted. It means you may have to put your bible down and read a hard book, but the actual knowledge you may gain could be a big pay-off. Just sayin'.
@GraceBibleFN So you resort to lying to try to prove a point? Doesn't suprise me.
I said we that we are 2% different than chimps. (Genetically speaking). Chimps and humans are both apes, but different species of ape.
And by the way, "I" don't say these things. This is the findings by biologists and geneticists, who are experts in the subject. Understanding these difficulties is part of thier work. Unlike you, who understands nothing except how to parrot apologetics.
GAP is an international movement that aims to defend the rights of the non-human great primates - chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos, our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. The main rights are: the right to life, the protection of individual liberty and the prohibition of torture.
So if as you admit they started out black. Then it logically follows that you would fall in the middle of black to white. Therefore you would be less evolved than whites. Come on now Stevie Wonder could see this. Please stop demeaning yourself this way.
@GraceBibleFN The great thing about being black when you are close to the equator is that it acts as a sunscreen, so you don't get skin cancer. As you migrate away and toward the poles, there is less UV. So folate is not stimulated as much. Being dark skinned could prevent vitamin D absorbtion, so skin lightens up. And, of course, there is variation of tone along the spectrum (very dark to very light) Do you understand now?
@GraceBibleFN By the way, you seem a bit fixated on color for some reason. So, please, tell me- how do you explain the diversity of color amongst human beings? How do you assert this happened, why, and what is your evidence for said hypothesis?
(I'm preparing myself for a laugh when you give me either a "Noah's Sons" story or the "Tower of Babel" story : )
The color question presupposes that my reasoning is sound, and you have no explanation but to demean yourself to merely a piece of an Arian propaganda. I wonder why so many evolutionists are white? You are a victim and so caught up in these admitted theories that you will place yourself on the lower end of evolving away from apes. Color drives evolution. Just read Darwin.
@GraceBibleFN "Color drives Evolution" LOL! That is idiotic : ) Evolution is a biological phenomenon. Environment and gene selection, man. Those are the keys.
@GraceBibleFN Trying to reason with people whose religious identity permeates all else is like trying to nail jello to a wall! LOL! Be honest, man. You really do not care what the evidence is. You won't look at it, you won't try to understand it- You just want to believe you are Special, and God will rock you in His arms in Heaven. And for some reason, the biological phenomenon of evolution causes you too much cognitive dissonance. Why not just admit this?
Why don’t you just admit you have provided no scientific evidence and if you could I would follow it. I was an atheist and since there is no evidence but giant leaps of faith on your part is merely the dogma of humanism and not scientific empirical proof, but is faith based theory.
@GraceBibleFN I have provided several bits of evidence. I hold you to your own words- follow it. Start with Humans having the genes for making fully functional tails. Explain that. Because it makes no sense, unless you consider evolution. Look, you admit adaptation- well, small adaptations build up and compound over time. Eventually, the differences become significant. And, in a nutshell, that is all evolution really is.
humans dont have tails they have a coxyx which is not vesigal but neccesary. Just because a mutation has produced what looks like a tail before, is not evolution since if it were the offspring would have passed on this gene variant but it has not. It has been fixed by genetic encodation. Another strawman. Most organs which have been considered vstigal have been found to be neccessary. Have you ever fallen on your tail bone? then you know it is neccesary and not a tail.
@GraceBibleFN I'll say it again- look it up- humans have the genes for making a tail. It just happens to have been shut off. Geneteically, we are about 98% similar with chimps. The apparent difference is that two genes fused (a mutation) in our Chromosome #2. We have the same teeth alignment as other apes. Same number of fingers & toes. We can still somewhat brachiate (badly), and other apes can do some bipedal locomotion (badly). I'm not lying to you- look this up
@chuckfaststrat AND...as far as we know...the only two creatures on the planet that have culture, are humans and chimps! Coincidence? (keep an eye on those dolphins, though...they may be suprising us soon!)
@GraceBibleFN BUT, I will give you an example of an animal that has "gone beyond adaptation to a new species" that we have actually observed. Look up "Italian Wall Lizards" We had the parent species, isolated them on an island, and years later the "new" species developed a cecal valve, and a harder bite! So...riddle me that...
@GraceBibleFN and by the way, no- the moths were not my original objection. it was your claim at 1:38 that made my jaw drop. And don't think it didn't pass my notice that you are running from "interelational theory"- it's a probably a term some apologist made up. But anyway, do go on. I just answered your question- i think it's time you backed up and defined evolution, so we have a working definition to go on.
#7 (6:30) I would agree that athourity needs to be questioned. That is how science works!!! It is the reason why evolution is the best and most correct model that we have. Evolution is being tested all the time and is validated the more it’s tested. To say that there is no evidence for evolution or that it’s just a belief would be a lie.
#6 When smug covered the light colored trees it got hard for the lighter color moths to survive while the darker moths got more chance to reproduce. After a while there were almost no light colored moths, meaning that peppered moths in this area adapted through natural selection to bland in to the darker environment. (5:10) Again, creationism is not a better model if there is no evidence to support it and it’s not even science if you cannot test it.
@GraceBibleFN My race is irrelevant… It is a total lie that there is no scientific evidence for evolution. The big problem you are having is with macro evolution… Do you not understand you have to take steps to walk a mile? Evolution does not skip steps and gives you miles. A lot of little mutations over time add up!!! You don’t get new “kinds” from on mutation. If you want examples of macro evolution you can go here: htt(p:/)/ww(w.t)alkorigin(s.o)rg/faqs/comdesc/ remove all the ()!!!
We have learned as my video argues that in fact evolution has played a great part in racism and whether you will admit it or not it still plays a part. Your race is paramount to the discussion. You must go to a particular race from a particular analogous life form. To which race and from which species did we evolve?
I don’t see any true rebuttals on my comments but posting links to other sites. If you cannot argue for yourself why did you not tell me originally? I can post a host of links myself. Don’t you have some facts you can argue on your own?
@GraceBibleFN Lol, like I said I am not an expert on racism and the impact that Darwin had on it. I will take your criticism on posting link on that point. It’s a cheap shot on your part to attack Darwin on one of his points of view (poisoning the well) and saying the theory is wrong. Only because he may have something wrong doesn’t mean that the process we call evolution doesn’t exist.
I am not poisoning anything. I am cross examining someone who claims I know nothing and have no facts. In claiming I have no facts it would presuppose that you had some facts in rebuttal. What we learned thus far is all of your evidence is anecdotal at best.
You say we cannot know the migration. You say we cannot see as it would take 100,000 thousands of years. This is your evidence? I suggest you have faith at Biblical proportions. So we can safely conclude you are just theorizing.
As for race and since you have no empirical evidence we can conclude you are merely making observations from looking at what you, would seem in your eyes, to be most primitive. For example you must be claiming in your mind’s eye (as did Darwin and many other evolutionists) that since you find that Africans or Aborigines’ look like the chimpanzee we must go down the road that they are most likely transitional forms.
This would be the logical scientific method of observing analogous kinds in a evolutionary look in regression since species had to have come from slight changes over long periods of time.
Or am I wrong and we went straight from chimpanzees to white hominoids? So the question is fair, my anonymous you tube friend, are you white?
@GraceBibleFN Who is jumping to conclusions here? Like I have said earlier, we have proven the different races are not transitional and through genes there is more variation with in the race than between races.
@GraceBibleFN We do know the migrations. What I’m saying is that we didn’t leave Africa as black and then evolved into white. Also the population that stayed in Africa didn’t look like they do today.
@GraceBibleFN Anecdotal would be like me saying "I have seen bigfoot!" and then had no evidence for it. The examples I gave you are well documented by the scientific community. If there was theory that disproved evolution than that person would get a Nobel Prize. Fact is that you are just a denialist because evolution does not fit your preconceived beliefs. Here’s a thought, maybe you can be the one to prove that evolution is wrong and get a Nobel Prize.
It’s not that the sciences you posted are not real; it is your conclusion of them that are fallacious. You have and will only demonstrate hybridization, adaptation and HGT’s at best. Then you take radical unscientific, bias, giant, leaps of faith that just aren’t there in the data. Therefore your evidence is but anecdotal.
I am not a denialist as I was an atheist but then followed the evidence to theism, because of the faulty explanations such as you have demonstrated here.
I am amazed how people can come to the conclusions you do from the enormous gaps and absence of evidence that you then fill in to come up with nothing but a theory called evolution. You have admitted that you cannot produce the evidence as you said in order to do that it would take your unproven theory hundreds of thousands of years. So you have no more evidence than “Bigfoot”.
In reality the statistical probability demands that we should have, when considering the amount of different kinds, to have seen the changes in kingdoms of kinds within our time if your theory were true. So is it really me here the one that doesn’t have their facts straight? No.
@GraceBibleFN You really need to look somewhere else for your arguments because Discovery Institute is not the place. Scientists looked at fossil record of the estimated time of separation of species, nucleotide differences between species, and the observed rates of mutation in modern species. Guess what, all of these three are entirely consistent with each other. Yes, you still don’t have facts straight.
@GraceBibleFN Yes, there are gaps and that’s why new discoveries come up all the time. Time and time again the theory of evolution is proven to be correct. There are also gaps in the theory of gravity and we have not cured cancer. But I don’t think that you would say that gravity doesn’t exist or that we know nothing about cancer.
@GraceBibleFN Atheism is disbelieving in a god. It does not tell me anything about you because I know plenty of atheists who believe in odd things and a lot who are rational. You being an ex-atheist has nothing to do with your denialism. I am sorry but there is no evidence for creationism.
@GraceBibleFN The date is all over. You can even look at whale ancestor (Sinonyx) that lived on land. “Hybridization, adaptation, and horizontal gene transfer” I would remove adaptation from the list because in some cases it is the end product of these other things. That’s why I called you a denialist… You believe in evolution but you water it down and keep what doesn’t conflict with your preconceived believes.
Microbiology does not make for new kingdoms of kinds. Ecoli is still ecoli, there is no evidence for changes in kingdoms of kinds as you have conceded. You use adaptation in conjunction with mutation. Mutations are harmful or misinformation in the genes. Misinformation and mutagens cause mutations. Any beneficial gene variant is an adaptation, hybridization or HGT.
Modern science knows that they must try to morph the terms in order to attempt to prove evolution. But this remains a strawman since we have no evidence that you can site in the laboratory for a vertical evolution. HGT does not make new kingdoms of kinds. Those are the facts. The rest is theory. This is not emperical evedince at all.
@GraceBibleFN You mean like creationists morph the word micro to horizontal and macro to vertical? I agree one useful mutation doesn’t mean new species. You like equations so let’s do this one:
Horizontal x (however many mutations are required to satisfy taxonomy) = Vertical
Yes, the rest is theory (a model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, mainly one that has been tested and set as a universal principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.)
@GraceBibleFN So you admit that there is such a thing as evolution? But you just don't believe that single cell organisms can become multi cell organism such as animals, fungi, plants etc.? Yes, mutation is misinformation in the gene. All misinformation is not bed when it comes to genetics. By the way, you keep forgetting to add gene duplication.
@GraceBibleFN I have not seen ALL your videos. Only because you cherry pick few quotes does not mean that is what actually happened. No, race still does not matter. Where ever you want to draw a line and say this is a Homo sapien (which is hazy even with scientists), when a population migrated north we did not look like we do today. It was just not long enough for the races to split into different species.
Why are you calling me a liar? You have provided no imperical evedince. Who then is being dishonest. Are you saying science is quote" "you have to take steps to walk a mile" and "alot of little mutations ad up", is your emperical evidence? And I am the one you say "has no idea"? Please.
@GraceBibleFN To say you didn’t see any true rebuttals but only posted links would also be a cheap shot. I have clearly given you examples that you choose to ignore. We are not debating on your interpretation of evolution but the actual theory of evolution. So taking my quote and saying “this is your evidence?” is missing the point. What you call adaptation is still part of the actual theory of evolution. Mutation is what explained the adaptations.
#5 (3:00) The claim that we are created in the image of god is a biblical/religious claim not scientific. (4:10) Mutation does not mean change from one species to another… Mutation is a change in a gene allele that could be negative, neutral, or positive and can be caused by different things. Adaptation is just a process or trait by which a population becomes better suited for its environment. For example, in the Industrial Age England there were peppered moths, some dark some light colored.
So when has mutaion had a posative cause and prove that this change over time has caused evolution of new kinds. I agree we see adaptation occur but there is no science of new advanced kinds from Genetic recombination.
@GraceBibleFN I don’t really understand why you gave me the statistics on the number of moths and butterfly when I was just talking about on specific species of moth (end of #5 - start of #6 in my comments). It’s not always gene recombination… There is other ways to get new genes or extra genes like gene duplication and viruses. So when mutations happen it doesn’t always change something that is detrimental to your body.
@GraceBibleFN We have plenty of examples of beneficial mutations. Evolved E. coli in the lab got the ability to breakdown citrate which they couldn’t do before. In humans you can look up lactose intolerance. You may call that adaptation I’m sure but that adaptation came from mutations in the genes. I will comment on your “kinds” point in your reply to #6.
Note you said in the lab. This is called the teleological argument. Yes ecloi are exactly adaptations. I understand the use of mutation is necessary to support evolution but these are merely adaptations and absolutely a strawman argument and a prostelization of religious pseudo intellectualism and misuse of the term mutation. So we see the dogma of your evolutionary faith based argumentation.
@GraceBibleFN Note in your reply on comment #6 you asked for a lab example. It was a loaded question anyways which shows your misunderstanding. You wanted to see a huge jump in evolution which in nature would take 100 of thousands of years. The example of E. coli is different. Scientists put E. colie in an environment they would have a hard time in. They gained the ability to breakdown citrate on their own.
This is merely bacterial conjugation and is a Horizontal Gene Transfer, absolutely no proof of new kingdoms of kinds that would be necessary to have your facts straight.
Butterflies and moths are found on all continents except Antarctica, and scientists estimate that there are approximately 12-15,000 species of butterflies and 150-250,000 species of moths. In the United States and Canada, more than 750 species of butterflies and 11,000 species of moths have been recorded. Many species of moths and a few kinds of butterflies are still being discovered. There is much to be learned!
#4 . Evolution does not say or shows that blacks are transitional form from chimpanzee to white person. Who ever gave you that idea also doesn’t understand evolution and I would have to wonder how extreme of a racist that person is. (2:25) So “THEY” if you mean people who understand evolution are NOT making that argument. Creationism is not science…
many scientists had questioned whether blacks were of the same species as whites, but they had no scientific basis for that notion. Things changed once Darwin presented his racist evolutionary schema. Darwin stated that African-Americans could not survive competition with their white near-relations, let alone being able to compete with the white race. According to Darwin, the African was inferior because he represented the missing-link" between ape and Teuton. (Burham 1972:506)."
@GraceBibleFN I am not an expert on racism and what impact evolution had on it at that time. I did come on to something interesting that rebuttal your arguments on Darwin’s racism. It will take me a little bit to read it but I would like to give you a link: ht(tp:)//rationalrevolution(.n)et/articles/darwin_nazism(.h)tm just remove all the ()
#3 Evolution explains how organisms change over time and is a cornerstone of biology. Biological classification is a method by which biologists group and categorizes organisms by biological type (life, domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species). ). (1:35) Scientists also found through genetics that there is more variation in genes within a race than there is between races. So your whole rant about white people and black people is just not based on any scientific fact.
Benjamin Wiker said that according to Darwin, the European race, following the inevitable laws of natural selection, will emerge as the distinct species, human being, and all the transitional forms—such as the gorilla, chimpanzee, Negro, Australian aborigine and so on—will be extinct (Wiker 2002:250).
@GraceBibleFN That would be highly speculative to say that white Europeans would come out ahead. If all races were segregated for long enough time and no interbreeding accrued, we would be different species. That is not what is actually going on in the world today. Yes, Darwin’s prediction was wrong but that in no way make evolution wrong.
#2 (0:35) From that misconception you go on to build a straw man argument saying that evolution says that different races are actually different species. While also saying that because biologists use biological classification they are promoting racism (slippery slope argument) without knowing that biological classification is different from evolution.
Charles Darwin quotes from the Decent Of Man, Page - 162,163
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes,.........(cont.)
Darwin (cont)........as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla
@GraceBibleFN Darwin was wrong about many things (inheritance, the speed of evolution, the appendix, act.). He did not have the information we have today. Darwin went to the Galapagos Islands and got specimens of birds that he categorized totally wrong. It wasn’t until he had experts see the birds that he realized all the birds were different types of finches. I don’t know how many geneticists where around at the time to tell him that he was wrong about the “Negro”.
@GraceBibleFN Evolution is not a religion, Decent of Man is not the Holy Scripture , and Darwin is not a God. This is the part where you don’t understand scientific consent and/or science. Only because Darwin lived in Europe and held some racist beliefs doesn’t make evolution racist theory.
#1 Okay… (0:00) You claim that because there are different color and size moths on different islands evolution says its different species. Wrong, species is a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. What you are referring to is subspecies within species which is applied in some cases to further classify something…
This is, without a doubt, one of the stupidest presentations on the subject of evolution I have ever seen. Apparently, in your church, one does not have to have an understanding of the subject at all before speaking on it. (P.S. A "species" is not defined by color, but by the inability to breed outside of its own clade.)
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
Are you sure you dont want to stick to guitar. I do not believe evolution is true, but Charles Darwin did define speciation this way. Are you saying all moths of different colors cannot breed outside of thier color? Can you give me proof that all moths of the thousands of different so caled species in evolution taxonomy cannot breed together? Are you saying you do not believe in interelational theory? Lets see how stupid I am about evolution if you would like to procceed.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
How about the Peppered moth?
Since the 1950's, air pollution controls have significantly reduced the amount of heavy particulate air pollutants reaching the trees, buildings, and other objects in the environment. As a result, lichen has grown back, making trees lighter in color. In addition, once blackened buildings were cleaned making them lighter in color. Now, natural selection favors lighter moth varieties so they have become the most common.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN Let's start with your statement around 1:38, (which ties into your question about moths). A "species" is defined as being seperate when they can no longer produce viable offspring with other groups. People of all colors, physical traits, etc can produce offspring- we (homo sapiens) AREN'T a different species from one another.
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
You dont understand I do not believe humans are different specieces, I am saying in the light of arguments by Darwin and others historically that they have argued moths changing colors become different speceis. I am the moderator, you will need to answer my questions first.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN I am answering you questions (you are obviously afraid to follow the logical, organized method i proposed. It would expose your lack of knowledge) But, I have no desire to embarrass anyone- i want this subject understood. As for the people that argued that color defined a species (if they did), we know that is not the case.
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN I do, indeed, wish to proceed, and will happily educate you on the subject. You obviously need it. (you didn't even understand my statement that color DOES NOT define a species!) And speciation IS a result of evolution.
OK- so, where do you want to begin? I think it best to first define evolution, and then to show examples of it being observed. Then, predictions based upon evolution that have been verified. Fair enough?
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
No. You first answer my questions.
Are you saying all moths of different colors cannot breed outside of thier color? Can you give me proof that all moths of the thousands of different so caled species in evolution taxonomy cannot breed together? Are you saying you do not believe in interelational theory?
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN I am saying color has nothing to do with whether an organism is a seperate species or not! And I have never heard of "interelational theory". I am afraid they don't teach this in biology or physical anth courses. LOL! (Perhaps you mispelled it ?- try again) Ya know, here on youtube, you should actuallu look up people who can explain this to you. I suggest Spencer Wells or Nina Jablonski to start.
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
You come here saying I am stupid yet you do not know what interelational theory even is? Dont start throwing out other peoples names as your authority. Are you saying you are ignorant and you cant defend this on your own merits? How then do you dare come here calling me names. Friend I have studied this topic for a long time. Answer my questions or dont waist my time please.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN LOL! I am trying to help you! You haven't studied this subject at all- it's painfully obvious! Why lie? You are quote mining from apologists with a religious agenda : ) Anyway, ask whatever questions you like. Especially about humans (that was part of my BA degree- physical anth) So, I will gladly help you understand. And sorry- in the college, no one ever mentioned "interelational theory". I even googled it just now- nada.
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
I havent studied at all? You are going to have to recant your disrespect. But I understand this is typical atheism. OK so you admit then that as my video argues that evolutionists have argued moths of different color are claimed transitional forms. Can you demonstrate one such kind and prove that they, without a doubt cannot populate with moths of other colors or variations. But stick to moths for now since this is your original objection. So you are a Google specialist.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN If a moth has simply changed color, then it is only a small adaptation. They can still breed with different colored moths. This is basic genetics that was first understood by Mendel. It is simply statistics, and the more successful moths will pass thier genes through population genetics. So, what's your point?
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
So give me an example of evidence of a moth species that has gone beyond adaptation to a new species. And in the evidence prove they cannot populate with other moths anymore. I am not running from anything it would be your population genetics. Stick to moths. It's time you back up your theory. Dont run from it.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN Did a quick search (since I am more familiar with human evolution- which you are afraid to talk about) , and it seems that there are over 150k species of moths (Atlas moth, Grease moth, etc). An example of speciation- (other than what I just named!) would be butterflies. It seems they evolved from moths. Couldn't you just look this stuff up yourself??
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
This is laughable. I am embarrassed for you. Out of your admitted 150 thousand different so called species, that by your own argument you should be able to prove in a laboratory one example of moths that cannot populate, yet you cannot site one example and move to an entire different taxonomy and you mention butterflies and lizards?
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
And yes I do understand with this ridiculous and again embarrassing comment you would want to move on to lizards that you probably just Goggled and we will in the future dismiss, but first you MUST show the data of ONE of the moths evolving and cannot interrelate or populate before I will dismiss you as another arrogant and uninformed evolutionist. Really, you should stick to guitar.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN Here's a Fun Fact: Human being have the genes for making fully functional tails. Inculding you : ) Sometimes, sadly, the gene is turned on and a human being is indeed born with a tail. Now..if we did not "evolve" from an ancestor that had a tail, why would we have these genes?? Was God being silly? Was it a good idea to confuse everyone and give people these genes, making us think there was a connection with other primates?
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN are you afraid to talk about the lizards? Does it not do what you want it to?
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
Of course I m not afraid of your lizards. You cannot even handle moths. You will want to change everytime I call you out on your psudo sciences. So you are conceding that you have no knowledge or evedince of speciation and post mortality mechanism in alleles in moths? If you dont im sure you wont have anything on any other microbiological taxonomy. Please stop this laughable argumentation.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
Please provide some scientific data. Your Google knowledge is adolecent. You have not studies these scientifically. You are merely a poor propogandist that has not studied the data as it is obvious you cannot for a scientific argument. Whats next? Cats and dogs? If you cannot prove the moths you cannot prove anything else.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN I doubt you even understand the words you typed. A change in allele frequency IS evolution! It is simply descent with modification. For example, the New Mexico Whip Tail Lizard. They must have sex to reproduce, but there are no males of the species. (are they are going to hell for being lesbians?) Now, either Noah forgot the male lizards..or it is simply an evolutionary hold-over from thier prior instincts when males lived
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat In this case, natural selection does not apply. They produce replicas- BUT, evolution STILL occurs and we STILL get differences, but only through mutation! This is basic biology, man : )
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
Your asexual argument is merely an adaptation within species. This is still an adaptation and nevertheless at the end of the day, still a lizard. This is a horizontal variation and no evidence of speciation of new kingdoms of kinds. Are you then saying homosexuals are different species since they cannot populate? You have established this as your scientific evidence for new species.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN Wait a minute- the New Mexico Whip Tail Lizard is NOT asexual. They MUST engage in sex to reproduce. They are simply a different species that Cannot breed with other male lizards of any other species. They have "speciated", and only breed within thier group.
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
They are still lizards!.. This is adaptation. This is a variation. Mutations are caused by misinformation in gene transfer or as a result of introducing mutagens. These are harmful gene variants. Lizards changing into lizards is no evedince for new kingdoms of inds and this has never been done in a labratory. Your argument is a strawman to jump by fiath of this being evedince of any new kingdom of kinds.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN Of course they're lizards! What do you expect them to be? And Humans are STILL primates...we are STILL apes...we are just a different species of ape. Mutations are also caused by external factors (for example, UV rays, which stimulate folate & produces melanin in the skin). And there has to be a long, long time for a new kingdom to arise. Lots of transitions. I say respectfully, your perspective needs more depth.
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
I am not an ape! Im sorry you feel that way about yourself. I am a completely diffent genetic species. You have no emperical evedince to prove that humans are apes. This is faith an anecdotal. This type of deprevecation is sad. You are so desparate to reject a theistic cosmology that you will make yourself no more than an ape. And with no emperical evedince, just theoretic dogma.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN LOL! C'mon man, open your eyes! Yes, we are apes! and Yes- we are a different species than the other apes! It took about 4-5 million years to happen. And we changed in our bodies before our brains. We finally "evolved" the FoxP2 gene, and that helped a lot. That's how gradual evolution is when dealing with primates. (to your credit, you have not blocked me up to now. A rare thing for a creationist)
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
I have not blocked you because you have provided no emperical evedince. I am surprised you have not quit. Another strawman is to make your so called science 4-5 million years, you have made something you cannot prove. I have studidied the same evedince you claim proves evolution. Your reasoning is circular at best. You have proven nothing. You have faith in a million year theory. Statistical probability demands we would be able to see this type of Kingdoms of kinds.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN You have blown my mind...LOL! So, let me get this straight...tail genes...98% gene similarity with chimps...Chromosome #2..but I have given "no empirical evidence"! LOL! Do you even know what empirical evidence means? It means falsifiable..observable..you know, the same kinda stuff that could get you convicted in a court of law... : ) You are just bound by your faith to reject anything that doesn't fit your comfortable world view. Sad, really..
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
Come now my ape friend. 98% is called reasonable doubt. This would be thrown out in a court of law. Yes until it can proven by evedince that has literally been seen, it is not emperical but anecdotal evedince only. You have proven nothing. You have jumped all over the place. You still cannot name any species that have switched to new kingdom of kinds. A chimp is still a chimp and as much as you want to make yourself a chimp, you will not make a monkey out of me.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN No, 98% leaves a 2% differential explained by evolution. This is taught in universities around the world- I realize that you just don't care, and seek to squirm around any evidence that threatens your religious pressupositions and emotional security. As for transitional species, there are lots of them. I'll name two- Dimetrodon and Frogamander. Look them up (and of course, you won't)
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
No! this is not evedince. This is faith. 2% is not explained scientifically but theorized. Give me one scientific experiment where we have seen this new species occur in primates to hominoids. How can you call yourself a mere ape? Dont you know that you not being white and evolution if it is true makes you less evolved than me. You would be more closeley related to the chimpanzee than I would be? Since your features and color are more closely related to the primate.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN ...did you just say primates to hominids? REALLY?? How about dogs to german shepards...the question makes just as much sense. GS are dogs and hominds ARE primates. We never STOPPED being primates in the same way we never stopped being mammals or apes! And considering how obtuse your understanding, I wish I WAS more related to a chimp than to you! LOL! You're embarassing my species! Alas, no. Even chimps today are not "less eveolved" than we are.
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat Now you have finally introduced something we can prove scientifically. I can get dogs to be German shepherds as I can populate dogs with other dogs and in the laboratory study the evidence. Please show me in the same scientific environment that a ape can be populated into a hominoid. You cannot. Until you can your reasoning is circular and you have never in our discussion provided anything other than species populating according to their own kind.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN Ape into a hominid?? Hominids ARE apes. Do you not understand that? Of course you don't. You've never taken a science course in your life, have you... As for your claim that I haven't shown you "evidence" of transitional forms, did you look up Dimetrodon and Frogamander? (of course you didn't). As for things speciating RIGHT NOW, look up salamanders in California. NOW- look this stuff up...otherwise, your denials are getting tiresome.
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
Anything you have brought up is either species populating according to their kind which we can study in the lab, or the other is species that you postulate have mutated to new kinds where you have no scientific data in a lab we can study the data. So if evolution is true and you are a primate, you would concede then that you with features and colors similar to the ape, you are closer to the ape than I am as a white hominoid.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN Actually, genius, i have a little suprise for you. You are not a pure Homo Sapien. Yup, it's true. You (and I) are also about 1-4% Neanderthal. In other words, we are hybrids : ) So, I regret to inform you that your existence is not due to Adam & Eve 6000 years ago. You also came from a couple of cavemen- a seperate "breed" of hominid : ) So, our true "human" lineage starts about 500k years ago with Neanderthals, and 200k years ago with modern Homo Sapien Sapien : )
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
I thought you were going to present the science and I the faith based side. Since by your silence in not defending your laboratory data, proves to me you have a much greater leap of faith than I. You have no data that ape primates can populate with Homo sapiens, so you are silent and postulate the Neanderthal myth that has no lab evidence but only visual observation. So you end up with the logical conclusion you are closer to the ape than I by said observation.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN "Neanderthal myth" LOL! Coming from a guy who thinks stories in his bible aren't myths : ) How does your ignorance not embarass you? Well, here's a little evidence for the Neanderthal genome:
watch?v=z2mErfQi1mA (And P.S.- we cannot cross with other species of ape. We seperated around 4-5 million years ago. Kinda like how dogs came from wolves, and they can't go back to being wolves now)
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
I am not saying Neanderthal did not exist, I am saying your reasoning is circular since you cannot see this change from “anything” to Homo Sapiens in the lab, you must theorize 4-5 million years so it becomes impossible to prove your theory in the lab. As I said your evidence is through analogous observations, visually. So what is embarrassing would you believing in the anecdotal evidence that logically puts your picture right between Neanderthal and white Homo Sapiens.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN "White Homo Sapiens"??!! Um..Homo Sapiens started out BLACK, man! They were in Africa..for someone claiming to understand this, your ignorance truly floors me. Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Erectus. Kinda hard to put a Homo Erectus in a lab now and watch them change! LOL! But then, you do not understand the amount of time it takes to witness it. It happens so gradually, you wouldn't even notice. We don't evolve as fast as,say, a virus.
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
@chuckfaststrat
Well it would be a phenomena? It is without laboratorial, irrefutable evidence, thus anecdotal at best. Color does drive evolution. You can’t see it because you are the proverbial monkey in the room. And from your vantage point it is but an observation from a form that is closer to the unintelligent primates so you must miss the obvious slap in the face that evolution is to people of color. Sorry to be the one to have to bring this to your attention.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN (sigh)..let me explain skin color to your little mind. See, skin is an organ. It happens to be exposed to the sun, which emits Ultra Violet Radiation. These UV Rays stimulate folate in the skin, which prodices melanin. The more melanin, the darker the skin. UV Rays also change DNA on a molecular level, so you pass the mutation on to your offspring. Get it now?
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
Oh so now you are going to try to bring some science to the discussion. Why we have skin color is not relevant. It is what color were we when we were closest to the ape. This places you closer to the ape. And your “small minded”, racist comment about blacks being closer than you is my point. At the end of the day you make great reasons we have seen eugenics and you have not proven your speciation but to be anecdotal.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN "closest to the apes"- we are still apes, you dimwitt. And the point about skin color is that it is merely an environmental adaptation. Anyway, you are a religious parrot. Your "lessons on evolution" are moronic. Do yourself a favor and look up some of the things I have posted. It means you may have to put your bible down and read a hard book, but the actual knowledge you may gain could be a big pay-off. Just sayin'.
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
You said:
a) We are 2 % different than apes
Then you said:
b) We are apes
This is reductio absurdum
This is science? Sad.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN So you resort to lying to try to prove a point? Doesn't suprise me.
I said we that we are 2% different than chimps. (Genetically speaking). Chimps and humans are both apes, but different species of ape.
And by the way, "I" don't say these things. This is the findings by biologists and geneticists, who are experts in the subject. Understanding these difficulties is part of thier work. Unlike you, who understands nothing except how to parrot apologetics.
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
GAP Project (from thier website)
GAP is an international movement that aims to defend the rights of the non-human great primates - chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos, our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. The main rights are: the right to life, the protection of individual liberty and the prohibition of torture.
GraceBibleFN 7 months ago
@GraceBibleFN So what? This has nothing to with our talk of the biological phenomenon of evolution.
chuckfaststrat 7 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
So if as you admit they started out black. Then it logically follows that you would fall in the middle of black to white. Therefore you would be less evolved than whites. Come on now Stevie Wonder could see this. Please stop demeaning yourself this way.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN The great thing about being black when you are close to the equator is that it acts as a sunscreen, so you don't get skin cancer. As you migrate away and toward the poles, there is less UV. So folate is not stimulated as much. Being dark skinned could prevent vitamin D absorbtion, so skin lightens up. And, of course, there is variation of tone along the spectrum (very dark to very light) Do you understand now?
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN By the way, you seem a bit fixated on color for some reason. So, please, tell me- how do you explain the diversity of color amongst human beings? How do you assert this happened, why, and what is your evidence for said hypothesis?
(I'm preparing myself for a laugh when you give me either a "Noah's Sons" story or the "Tower of Babel" story : )
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
The color question presupposes that my reasoning is sound, and you have no explanation but to demean yourself to merely a piece of an Arian propaganda. I wonder why so many evolutionists are white? You are a victim and so caught up in these admitted theories that you will place yourself on the lower end of evolving away from apes. Color drives evolution. Just read Darwin.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN "Color drives Evolution" LOL! That is idiotic : ) Evolution is a biological phenomenon. Environment and gene selection, man. Those are the keys.
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN Trying to reason with people whose religious identity permeates all else is like trying to nail jello to a wall! LOL! Be honest, man. You really do not care what the evidence is. You won't look at it, you won't try to understand it- You just want to believe you are Special, and God will rock you in His arms in Heaven. And for some reason, the biological phenomenon of evolution causes you too much cognitive dissonance. Why not just admit this?
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
Why don’t you just admit you have provided no scientific evidence and if you could I would follow it. I was an atheist and since there is no evidence but giant leaps of faith on your part is merely the dogma of humanism and not scientific empirical proof, but is faith based theory.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN I have provided several bits of evidence. I hold you to your own words- follow it. Start with Humans having the genes for making fully functional tails. Explain that. Because it makes no sense, unless you consider evolution. Look, you admit adaptation- well, small adaptations build up and compound over time. Eventually, the differences become significant. And, in a nutshell, that is all evolution really is.
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat
humans dont have tails they have a coxyx which is not vesigal but neccesary. Just because a mutation has produced what looks like a tail before, is not evolution since if it were the offspring would have passed on this gene variant but it has not. It has been fixed by genetic encodation. Another strawman. Most organs which have been considered vstigal have been found to be neccessary. Have you ever fallen on your tail bone? then you know it is neccesary and not a tail.
GraceBibleFN 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN I'll say it again- look it up- humans have the genes for making a tail. It just happens to have been shut off. Geneteically, we are about 98% similar with chimps. The apparent difference is that two genes fused (a mutation) in our Chromosome #2. We have the same teeth alignment as other apes. Same number of fingers & toes. We can still somewhat brachiate (badly), and other apes can do some bipedal locomotion (badly). I'm not lying to you- look this up
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@chuckfaststrat AND...as far as we know...the only two creatures on the planet that have culture, are humans and chimps! Coincidence? (keep an eye on those dolphins, though...they may be suprising us soon!)
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN BUT, I will give you an example of an animal that has "gone beyond adaptation to a new species" that we have actually observed. Look up "Italian Wall Lizards" We had the parent species, isolated them on an island, and years later the "new" species developed a cecal valve, and a harder bite! So...riddle me that...
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
@GraceBibleFN and by the way, no- the moths were not my original objection. it was your claim at 1:38 that made my jaw drop. And don't think it didn't pass my notice that you are running from "interelational theory"- it's a probably a term some apologist made up. But anyway, do go on. I just answered your question- i think it's time you backed up and defined evolution, so we have a working definition to go on.
chuckfaststrat 8 months ago
#7 (6:30) I would agree that athourity needs to be questioned. That is how science works!!! It is the reason why evolution is the best and most correct model that we have. Evolution is being tested all the time and is validated the more it’s tested. To say that there is no evidence for evolution or that it’s just a belief would be a lie.
emandriy88 9 months ago
#6 When smug covered the light colored trees it got hard for the lighter color moths to survive while the darker moths got more chance to reproduce. After a while there were almost no light colored moths, meaning that peppered moths in this area adapted through natural selection to bland in to the darker environment. (5:10) Again, creationism is not a better model if there is no evidence to support it and it’s not even science if you cannot test it.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@emandriy88
I would bet you are white?
Evolution is not a better model as there is no scientific evedince of the changes of kindom of kinds that have ever been done in a labratory.
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN My race is irrelevant… It is a total lie that there is no scientific evidence for evolution. The big problem you are having is with macro evolution… Do you not understand you have to take steps to walk a mile? Evolution does not skip steps and gives you miles. A lot of little mutations over time add up!!! You don’t get new “kinds” from on mutation. If you want examples of macro evolution you can go here: htt(p:/)/ww(w.t)alkorigin(s.o)rg/faqs/comdesc/ remove all the ()!!!
emandriy88 9 months ago
@emandriy88
We have learned as my video argues that in fact evolution has played a great part in racism and whether you will admit it or not it still plays a part. Your race is paramount to the discussion. You must go to a particular race from a particular analogous life form. To which race and from which species did we evolve?
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@emandriy88
I don’t see any true rebuttals on my comments but posting links to other sites. If you cannot argue for yourself why did you not tell me originally? I can post a host of links myself. Don’t you have some facts you can argue on your own?
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN Lol, like I said I am not an expert on racism and the impact that Darwin had on it. I will take your criticism on posting link on that point. It’s a cheap shot on your part to attack Darwin on one of his points of view (poisoning the well) and saying the theory is wrong. Only because he may have something wrong doesn’t mean that the process we call evolution doesn’t exist.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@emandriy88
I am not poisoning anything. I am cross examining someone who claims I know nothing and have no facts. In claiming I have no facts it would presuppose that you had some facts in rebuttal. What we learned thus far is all of your evidence is anecdotal at best.
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@emandriy88
You say we cannot know the migration. You say we cannot see as it would take 100,000 thousands of years. This is your evidence? I suggest you have faith at Biblical proportions. So we can safely conclude you are just theorizing.
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@emandriy88
As for race and since you have no empirical evidence we can conclude you are merely making observations from looking at what you, would seem in your eyes, to be most primitive. For example you must be claiming in your mind’s eye (as did Darwin and many other evolutionists) that since you find that Africans or Aborigines’ look like the chimpanzee we must go down the road that they are most likely transitional forms.
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@emanriiy88
This would be the logical scientific method of observing analogous kinds in a evolutionary look in regression since species had to have come from slight changes over long periods of time.
Or am I wrong and we went straight from chimpanzees to white hominoids? So the question is fair, my anonymous you tube friend, are you white?
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN Who is jumping to conclusions here? Like I have said earlier, we have proven the different races are not transitional and through genes there is more variation with in the race than between races.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN We do know the migrations. What I’m saying is that we didn’t leave Africa as black and then evolved into white. Also the population that stayed in Africa didn’t look like they do today.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN Anecdotal would be like me saying "I have seen bigfoot!" and then had no evidence for it. The examples I gave you are well documented by the scientific community. If there was theory that disproved evolution than that person would get a Nobel Prize. Fact is that you are just a denialist because evolution does not fit your preconceived beliefs. Here’s a thought, maybe you can be the one to prove that evolution is wrong and get a Nobel Prize.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@emandriy88
It’s not that the sciences you posted are not real; it is your conclusion of them that are fallacious. You have and will only demonstrate hybridization, adaptation and HGT’s at best. Then you take radical unscientific, bias, giant, leaps of faith that just aren’t there in the data. Therefore your evidence is but anecdotal.
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@emandriy88
I am not a denialist as I was an atheist but then followed the evidence to theism, because of the faulty explanations such as you have demonstrated here.
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@emandriy88
I am amazed how people can come to the conclusions you do from the enormous gaps and absence of evidence that you then fill in to come up with nothing but a theory called evolution. You have admitted that you cannot produce the evidence as you said in order to do that it would take your unproven theory hundreds of thousands of years. So you have no more evidence than “Bigfoot”.
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@emandriy88
In reality the statistical probability demands that we should have, when considering the amount of different kinds, to have seen the changes in kingdoms of kinds within our time if your theory were true. So is it really me here the one that doesn’t have their facts straight? No.
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN You really need to look somewhere else for your arguments because Discovery Institute is not the place. Scientists looked at fossil record of the estimated time of separation of species, nucleotide differences between species, and the observed rates of mutation in modern species. Guess what, all of these three are entirely consistent with each other. Yes, you still don’t have facts straight.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN Yes, there are gaps and that’s why new discoveries come up all the time. Time and time again the theory of evolution is proven to be correct. There are also gaps in the theory of gravity and we have not cured cancer. But I don’t think that you would say that gravity doesn’t exist or that we know nothing about cancer.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN Atheism is disbelieving in a god. It does not tell me anything about you because I know plenty of atheists who believe in odd things and a lot who are rational. You being an ex-atheist has nothing to do with your denialism. I am sorry but there is no evidence for creationism.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN The date is all over. You can even look at whale ancestor (Sinonyx) that lived on land. “Hybridization, adaptation, and horizontal gene transfer” I would remove adaptation from the list because in some cases it is the end product of these other things. That’s why I called you a denialist… You believe in evolution but you water it down and keep what doesn’t conflict with your preconceived believes.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@emandriy88
Microbiology does not make for new kingdoms of kinds. Ecoli is still ecoli, there is no evidence for changes in kingdoms of kinds as you have conceded. You use adaptation in conjunction with mutation. Mutations are harmful or misinformation in the genes. Misinformation and mutagens cause mutations. Any beneficial gene variant is an adaptation, hybridization or HGT.
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@emandriy88
Modern science knows that they must try to morph the terms in order to attempt to prove evolution. But this remains a strawman since we have no evidence that you can site in the laboratory for a vertical evolution. HGT does not make new kingdoms of kinds. Those are the facts. The rest is theory. This is not emperical evedince at all.
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
Comment removed
emandriy88 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN You mean like creationists morph the word micro to horizontal and macro to vertical? I agree one useful mutation doesn’t mean new species. You like equations so let’s do this one:
Horizontal x (however many mutations are required to satisfy taxonomy) = Vertical
Yes, the rest is theory (a model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, mainly one that has been tested and set as a universal principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.)
emandriy88 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN So you admit that there is such a thing as evolution? But you just don't believe that single cell organisms can become multi cell organism such as animals, fungi, plants etc.? Yes, mutation is misinformation in the gene. All misinformation is not bed when it comes to genetics. By the way, you keep forgetting to add gene duplication.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN I have not seen ALL your videos. Only because you cherry pick few quotes does not mean that is what actually happened. No, race still does not matter. Where ever you want to draw a line and say this is a Homo sapien (which is hazy even with scientists), when a population migrated north we did not look like we do today. It was just not long enough for the races to split into different species.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@emandriy88
Why are you calling me a liar? You have provided no imperical evedince. Who then is being dishonest. Are you saying science is quote" "you have to take steps to walk a mile" and "alot of little mutations ad up", is your emperical evidence? And I am the one you say "has no idea"? Please.
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN To say you didn’t see any true rebuttals but only posted links would also be a cheap shot. I have clearly given you examples that you choose to ignore. We are not debating on your interpretation of evolution but the actual theory of evolution. So taking my quote and saying “this is your evidence?” is missing the point. What you call adaptation is still part of the actual theory of evolution. Mutation is what explained the adaptations.
emandriy88 9 months ago
#5 (3:00) The claim that we are created in the image of god is a biblical/religious claim not scientific. (4:10) Mutation does not mean change from one species to another… Mutation is a change in a gene allele that could be negative, neutral, or positive and can be caused by different things. Adaptation is just a process or trait by which a population becomes better suited for its environment. For example, in the Industrial Age England there were peppered moths, some dark some light colored.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@emandriy88
So when has mutaion had a posative cause and prove that this change over time has caused evolution of new kinds. I agree we see adaptation occur but there is no science of new advanced kinds from Genetic recombination.
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN I don’t really understand why you gave me the statistics on the number of moths and butterfly when I was just talking about on specific species of moth (end of #5 - start of #6 in my comments). It’s not always gene recombination… There is other ways to get new genes or extra genes like gene duplication and viruses. So when mutations happen it doesn’t always change something that is detrimental to your body.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN We have plenty of examples of beneficial mutations. Evolved E. coli in the lab got the ability to breakdown citrate which they couldn’t do before. In humans you can look up lactose intolerance. You may call that adaptation I’m sure but that adaptation came from mutations in the genes. I will comment on your “kinds” point in your reply to #6.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@emandriy88
Note you said in the lab. This is called the teleological argument. Yes ecloi are exactly adaptations. I understand the use of mutation is necessary to support evolution but these are merely adaptations and absolutely a strawman argument and a prostelization of religious pseudo intellectualism and misuse of the term mutation. So we see the dogma of your evolutionary faith based argumentation.
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN Note in your reply on comment #6 you asked for a lab example. It was a loaded question anyways which shows your misunderstanding. You wanted to see a huge jump in evolution which in nature would take 100 of thousands of years. The example of E. coli is different. Scientists put E. colie in an environment they would have a hard time in. They gained the ability to breakdown citrate on their own.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@emandriy88
This is merely bacterial conjugation and is a Horizontal Gene Transfer, absolutely no proof of new kingdoms of kinds that would be necessary to have your facts straight.
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN What exectly are you talking about? The breaking down of citrate?
emandriy88 9 months ago
@emandriy88
Butterflies and moths are found on all continents except Antarctica, and scientists estimate that there are approximately 12-15,000 species of butterflies and 150-250,000 species of moths. In the United States and Canada, more than 750 species of butterflies and 11,000 species of moths have been recorded. Many species of moths and a few kinds of butterflies are still being discovered. There is much to be learned!
GBFNorwalk 9 months ago
#4 . Evolution does not say or shows that blacks are transitional form from chimpanzee to white person. Who ever gave you that idea also doesn’t understand evolution and I would have to wonder how extreme of a racist that person is. (2:25) So “THEY” if you mean people who understand evolution are NOT making that argument. Creationism is not science…
emandriy88 9 months ago
@emandriy88
many scientists had questioned whether blacks were of the same species as whites, but they had no scientific basis for that notion. Things changed once Darwin presented his racist evolutionary schema. Darwin stated that African-Americans could not survive competition with their white near-relations, let alone being able to compete with the white race. According to Darwin, the African was inferior because he represented the missing-link" between ape and Teuton. (Burham 1972:506)."
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN I am not an expert on racism and what impact evolution had on it at that time. I did come on to something interesting that rebuttal your arguments on Darwin’s racism. It will take me a little bit to read it but I would like to give you a link: ht(tp:)//rationalrevolution(.n)et/articles/darwin_nazism(.h)tm just remove all the ()
emandriy88 9 months ago
#3 Evolution explains how organisms change over time and is a cornerstone of biology. Biological classification is a method by which biologists group and categorizes organisms by biological type (life, domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species). ). (1:35) Scientists also found through genetics that there is more variation in genes within a race than there is between races. So your whole rant about white people and black people is just not based on any scientific fact.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@emandriy88
Benjamin Wiker said that according to Darwin, the European race, following the inevitable laws of natural selection, will emerge as the distinct species, human being, and all the transitional forms—such as the gorilla, chimpanzee, Negro, Australian aborigine and so on—will be extinct (Wiker 2002:250).
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN That would be highly speculative to say that white Europeans would come out ahead. If all races were segregated for long enough time and no interbreeding accrued, we would be different species. That is not what is actually going on in the world today. Yes, Darwin’s prediction was wrong but that in no way make evolution wrong.
emandriy88 9 months ago
#2 (0:35) From that misconception you go on to build a straw man argument saying that evolution says that different races are actually different species. While also saying that because biologists use biological classification they are promoting racism (slippery slope argument) without knowing that biological classification is different from evolution.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@emandriy88
Charles Darwin quotes from the Decent Of Man, Page - 162,163
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes,.........(cont.)
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@emandriy88
Darwin (cont)........as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla
GraceBibleFN 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN Darwin was wrong about many things (inheritance, the speed of evolution, the appendix, act.). He did not have the information we have today. Darwin went to the Galapagos Islands and got specimens of birds that he categorized totally wrong. It wasn’t until he had experts see the birds that he realized all the birds were different types of finches. I don’t know how many geneticists where around at the time to tell him that he was wrong about the “Negro”.
emandriy88 9 months ago
@GraceBibleFN Evolution is not a religion, Decent of Man is not the Holy Scripture , and Darwin is not a God. This is the part where you don’t understand scientific consent and/or science. Only because Darwin lived in Europe and held some racist beliefs doesn’t make evolution racist theory.
emandriy88 9 months ago
#1 Okay… (0:00) You claim that because there are different color and size moths on different islands evolution says its different species. Wrong, species is a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. What you are referring to is subspecies within species which is applied in some cases to further classify something…
emandriy88 9 months ago
Comment removed
emandriy88 9 months ago