This video gave me shivers. I am blown away by the beauty of evolution. I too am a programmer and I study neural networks specializing in evolutionary learning algorithms. Every time I see the results of these types of simulations I am blown away at how awesome and beautiful evolution really is. It's been a while since I've coded anything and your video has inspired me to get back on that. Thank you. Amazing video!
I'm just going to say it. I fucking hate creationism and I see it as an ideological plague on mankind. I don't think of a creationist as someone to debate on equal terms: I see a creationist as espousing a completely uneducated opinion.
Let's presume for a second that we have no idea at all how sexually reproducing organisms evolved. Why would our ignorance of this process provide proof of a god, and of all the possible gods - why your own personal god?
So you're telling me that i can give you 100000 pieces of some puzzle, then tell you to not touch ANYTHING, and you believe that somehow these pieces will assemble themselves together? there HAS to be some intervention to have any order.
@datpinoiboi A puzzle isn't an organism with a genome. You need to at least attempt to learn more about the subject if you hope to debate it effectively.
@RobW0071 Evolution disproves the biblical god, adam and eve for example, not god in general. If you asked an atheist that wasn't an idiot then you'd probably get the answer "Where is the proof that God is real that means i should believe?", say god exists, so what? Why believe? We don't have enough proof and it doesn't effect us in the least. Although there is proof that the bible is wrong all over the place. Might as well believe in the norse creation, its just as likely.
@rhubis Your response is a bit confused. Microevolution is supported by the Bible, Genesis 30:41ff. It is macroevolution, or, the climbing up the ladder that is not supported in the Bible. Macroevolution has never been proved to be true. So, then, how can it be used to "disprove" the Bible. Since science requires observation, and it takes "millions of years" for macroevolution to occur, then it follows that macroevolution is simply a philosophy and not the facts themselves.
@RobW0071 Common misconception, science does not require observation for proof in all cases. Some things cannot be directly observed but you can look at what is there to draw conclusions. There is plenty of evidence to support macro evolution much much more than is indicated in the bible. Genetics and common sense show that noah's ark is bullshit, also Adam and Eve, unless they came from apes this also flies in the face of the evidence.
The nested hierarchies of biology, and the matching diverging progressions of traits in palaeontology, the numerous morphological intermediates in the fossil record, numerous atavisms, ERV distribution patterns, human chromosome #2, and so on.
The nested hierarchies of biology, and the matching diverging progressions of traits in palaeontology, the numerous morphological intermediates in the fossil record, numerous atavisms, ERV distribution patterns, human chromosome #2, and so on.
@RobW0071 So you didn't read my last post? You can have evidence outside of directly observing things. The fossil record corroborates the proposed ideas of evolution, the genetic markers in humans that show our link to apes, the fact that micro evolution and macro are still and have always been the same thing in the eyes of scientists. Evolution fits with all the evidence. There is currently no better answer.
@rhubis Can you show me one example in science of "evidence outside of directly observing things?" The fossil record can be interpreted in many different ways. Evolutionist Dr. W.J. Gould argued against the slow accumulation of mutations in the fossil record (Darwin's idea) for what he called punctuated equilibrium. In essence the fossil record does not prove evolution. According to evolutionists men and apes are not linked together, but supposedly have a common ancestor. What is it?
@RobW0071 The earths core is iron this has been discovered via vibrations not digging to it (plenty of other examples, you can have enough evidence that something is probable without direct observation). The fossil record corroborates evolution since nothing in it goes against evolution. And men and other apes are linked via a common ancestor, we can see this because of genetic markers in humans from a joined chromosome. I have no idea what the common ancestor is.
@RobW0071 to back up the fossil record statement, evolution made predictions of what we'd expect to find in the fossil record and what we most certainly wouldn't find. The fossil record gives us what we'd expect (using evolution) time after time, and never gives us anything that doesn't fit with evolution.
@rhubis That is not accurate. Dr. Gould had to modify the evolutionist take on the fossil record because the fossils did not fit with the gradual theory of Darwin. Whoever taught you evolution was clearly biased.
@RobW0071 Umm... so what? Evolution was modified So now its more accurate? Now all fossils fit? Now its correct? So what? We modify our science to fit what we find to make it correct. Saying it was once flawed so it must now be flawed because its been changed is stupid. After the change the rest of our new discoverys fit. Its still the best answer.
@rhubis First you tell me that evolution fits the fossil record. When paleontologists pointed out that Darwinism did not fit the fossil record the theory of evolution was modified in order to fit the fossil record. But even punctuated equilibrium is in dispute among evolutionists, and it does not accurately fit the fossil record as Dr. Gould even admitted. What you have with the fossil record is an interpretation by people biased toward evolution. Such does not disprove God.
@RobW0071 Also the arguments you mention are still contested the species in the fossil record show species with gradual changes in order with the passing of time. Either they changed with the generations or they were all species that lived along side modern animals or species come out of nowhere. Any other options?
@RobW0071 When picking between the God and evolution, evolution wins by a mile. The DNA evidence, the observed "micro" evolution (even though most scientists say its the same as macro evolution) and the fossil record. As far as i'm aware there is nothing that refutes evolution, while the bible is laughable and God has no proof at all (feel free to prove me wrong).
@fingleur1 Sure. According to the ladder (or tree) of evolution: at the very bottom are single celled asexually reproducing "animals." Show me, without recourse to generalizations, exactly how asexually reproducing animals formed sexually reproducing animals without the benefits of a Designer or a thinking and reasoning process. Sexual reproduction is proof of God. Remember that the next time you have sex, and thank God for it! :-)
LOL. So where did all the millions of fossils of different animals over the last 500 million years come from? and how is it they show a gradual progression in form towards what we see today! No not a philosophy - Evolution is a substantial theory based on evidence and supported by all the facts.
@RobW0071 "Because Evolution disproves God." No actually it does not. It disproves the genesis story made up by people who said this was how their 'god did it' for which of course they have no evidence. Evolution is the only theory of how life came to be that fits the evidence. Do YOU have another theory that fits the evidence?
@pjpopper Are you concerned about bacteria adapting to modern antibiotics and the resulting threat of super bugs? Because first of all you should be, secondly the threat stems from their ability as a life form to evolve over short observable periods of time. Secondly if you dispute evolution in the face of this and other evidence, which bit don't you believe? You must believe in changes in our DNA from one generation to the next, so what would prevent a species changing beyond recognition?
Dude, you are a fucking champ. I have sent so many idiot creationists over here and not a single one has been able to come back with any sort of refute that is not "faith."
@pjpopper I do t give a shit about what you believe. Plant speciation is An. Undeniable fact. Thus i ask how do you explAin plant speciation w/out using evo theory??
Biogenesis 1) The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material. So therefore evolution did not happen and there is no such thing as abiogenesis.
They can't both exist at the same time. Abiogensis is just denying scientific law
Nature itself is not a watchmaker. What you propose is not seen in nature. Dead matter has never been observed to think. The only thing that thinks, or has consciousness is life. The only life that creates anything is mankind. Humans come from Humans only -observed science; This is a Logical parodox in reality. It can only be answered by introducing the creative force - God-is spirit- and beyond nature
@SuperMrAtheist I just don't see how I can have a discussion with someone who would truly believe that. That has never, ever, ever, not been observed to be the case. It's frightening that this is even up for debate. Your evolution doesn't believe in the supernatural or science. Most evolutionist see the world with foggy glasses from a naturalist point of view, not observing the data. You are just blind.
@transtlantic Well since evolution is 100 percent not true, and biogenesis is true. Life itself is a closed loop that the law's of nature or (space-time) itself can not account for.
So accounting for life, and creation itself, is the great conundrum of existence. I know evolution isn't true. And that the only logical explanation is God. I have logical reasons and spiritual reasons to believe the King James Bible is God's word.
By definition evolution is not scientific. Science requires observation. Since it takes "millions of years" for a living organism to supposedly evolve, then it follows that no scientist has ever observed evolution happening. Evolution then is a philosophy - it is an interpretation of the data, and not the data itself. Consequently, evolution is subject to logical criticism.
@RobW0071 but scientist can observe evolution in bacteria in matter of years.Care to explain antibiotic resistant bacterias,nylon eating bacterias etc 7?.Google E. coli long-term evolution
@sorowihn nylon eating bacterias just activated a recessive genes the DNA in th ebacteria itself did not gain information. Bacteria are the fastest reproducing organisms, but left on their own for years they remain bacteria. In order for DNA to have formed naturally. Non organic matter would have to have the ability to think. Or nature itself is thinking. But this is not the case. Science has proven that nature doesn't think! Sadly, many people today think nature is an alive mythycal force.
@pjpopper so you are saying bacteria had a recessive gene for a material that created in ww2 ?in my reply i was answering scientists never observed any kind of evolution.Yes this might be small changes but this happened in 60-70 years with enough time like milllion years this changes will accumulate into creating species today we have both fossil and dna evidences to track this changes .No one says nature is alive force but is a test field for this changes bad ones will be eliminated
@sorowihn Did the bacteria turn into a fish? The bacteria remained bacteria. What you have to prove is the creation of a brand new and different species from the bacteria.
@sorowihn What you have to prove is the upward climb on the evolutionary ladder. Bacteria remain bacteria. What you assume is that over "millions of years" these slight changes will result one day in a new and entirely different species. Evolution is an assumption not the actual data.
@RobW0071 Geneticist Dr. John McDonald, "The results of the last 20 years of research on the genetic basis of adaptation has led us to a great Darwinian paradox. Those genes that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those genes that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many, if not most, major adaptive changes apparently are not variable within natural populations"The Molecular Basis of Adaptation"
@RobW0071 in my reply i was answering that scientists never observed you cant expect turning to a fish in 30 years it took billions of year to get there but it never became a fish because if it adapted well in conditions .according to your reply i assume you accept microevolution.Yeah in million years one spicy can experience millions of mutations for example because of the error in dna replication each human has 30-50 mutations in his dna.
@sorowihn I accept microevolution because it is observable in nature. As a scientist I reject the evolutionary ladder because there is no observed evidence that proves it. In fact, the genetic evidence is against the evolutionary ladder - read the McDonald quote posted earlier.
@RobW0071 sorry i missed the quote you posted.Can you send me the whole article or just the title so i can find it because in it there is just a conclusion without showing clear reason and when i came across so called fall of evolution from scientists there is usually some things nit picked or taken out of context from the article.Is it from this guy
@StandardPerson1 Could you say any specific examples from that book? Besides the, according to evolution, first cell on Earth, when has there ever been a species or organism that has no competitor? "These 'big parts of flesh' do 'reduce their competitiveness' but that's irrelevant if there is no competitor to drive them to extinction (StandardPerson1)"
The book is actually a collection of Gould's essays. Many of these essays use the presence of shoddy "design" in the natural world to argue for evolution over ID, since bad "design" is problematic for ID, but not for evolution - a process rooted in chance and historical contingency.
Note that you should leave out all the spaces, including the ones in the author's name. (I'm not sure why YouTube has such savage URL censorship software.)
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7: regarding animals with big, seemingly superfluous hunks of flesh and my (glib) comment about competitors, I'll retract it: the limit on message length makes it hard to be precise and nuanced.
Such animals do exist. Some birds of paradise, just 20-30 cm long, have tails that are an additional metre in length. (Not superfluous flesh, admittedly, but still a drag.)
The evolutionary explanation is intraspecific competition - what Darwin called sexual selection.
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7: "How does having a disease like sickle cell anemia [SCA] relate to evolution?"
Earlier you wrote that "If you run an experiment like [the one in the video] where 'organisms' with severe flaws can still survive, of course you will achieve an outcome just like evolution, except that's not how it works in real life."
Someone with SCA is an example of an "[organism] with severe flaws [that] can still survive."
@StandardPerson1 I'm saying that ordinary people should become more informed and listen to arguments on both sides. Do you really think an evolutionist scientist will want to try to get evidence for creationism? Most evolutionist scientists already know evolution is correct, before doing any personal experimentation or investigation. Although science really is supposed to be completely unbiased, because of human nature, it isn't. And how can you think science is only about disproving things?
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7 "[why do] you think science is only about disproving things?"
Because that's essentially how "science" is defined.
No theory about the physical world can ever be proven (i.e. "physical induction" is logically false), but theories can be disproved. Karl Popper noticed this and defined "scientific" theories as theories that can, in principle, be disproved but never proved.
Given this definition, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, but intelligent design is not.
@Ja2so4 I think evolutionists are the ones that need to think independently. Most people just listen to scientists and mainstream media for their conclusions. Might I add that most scientists who produce findings that support evolution have already come to the conclusion of evolution before they even do their experiments.
You're suggesting that laymen evolutionists & creationists should investigate the latest ideas in evolution and (so-called) creation science themselves? Where would they get the time and funding?
No scientist wastes their time trying to generate "findings that support" a theory.
Science isn't about doing experiments to "verify" existing theories. It's about designing and completing experiments that might *disprove* orthodox ideas. Science is skeptical; creation "science" is not. Big difference
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7 If a scientist already concludes that evolution happens, why would they even bother to undertake experiments to test whether or not evolution happens?
@fingleur1 Scientists would rarely bother testing evolution via the neo-Darwinian synthesis; but that doesn't mean that it's not being experimentally tested!
For example, recent experiments to test the heritability of various traits have produced the remarkable result that some epigenetic inheritance, bordering on the Larmarckian inheritance theory of the 1800s, in fact occurs in mammals.
Thus, in the last decade, the neo-Dawinian synthesis has been challenged, found wanting & been modified.
Congratulations, awesome video. The only thing you have missed the audience. People are too stupid to think independently, and therefore there is religion. It simply removes the need for a healthy mind by saying "It is God who created." I'm glad to see that there are still people who are able to think and try to show others, but it was in vain. At least no more Inquisition to us burned at the stake.
@Ja2so4 You are right , you are in the same boat , you are too stupid to think for yourself , just because somebody claims to be a scientists you follow him blindly ! Piltdown man remember , missing links , and fish flying catching insects are not proofs , are crazy fairys that no sane person will believe !
If you run an experiment like that where "organisms" with severe flaws can still survive, of course you will achieve an outcome just like evolution, except that's not how it works in real life.
For example, the genetic mutation that causes sickle cell anaemia shortens the life-span of sufferers to less than fifty years, but the the mutation still remains in malaria-prone regions. This is because the same genetic mutation that causes sickle-cell anaemia also confers a degree of immunity to malaria on those who suffer from it.
(cont.) In short, while this simulation may seem complex, it is nothing to the amazing complexity of an organism. And unlike in the simulation, organisms need food to live. Without the right "parts" to get it, they die, all of them, not just one per "generation". Also they don't do well with big parts of flesh that hang off of them that do nothing, it reduces their competitiveness. These two things make the transitional phases a little harder to cross.
Read "The Panda's Thumb" by S.J. Gould - a book that gives examples of organisms that are so shoddily "designed" that it's impossible to imagine any competant "designer" producing them.
While animals don't do as well as possible "with big parts of flesh that hang off of them that do nothing" they do well enough to perpetuate the species. These "big parts of flesh" do "reduce their competitiveness" but that's irrelevant if there is no competitor to drive them to extinction
While this video, and the effort (good job), are very impressive, there are a few problems with your argument. If you know about biology, you know that proteins are made of thousands of amino acids (each representing one nucleotide). And most chemical reactions in a cell use hundreds or thousands of proteins and other structures. And cells have thousands of chemical reactions, and the body has thousands of different specialized cells. I'm probably underestimating the complexity of all this.
we just found evidence of people that grow horns out of their heads to disprove evolution. and the discovery channel did a documentary of it because of a scientific cover up... Merry Christmas !
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
@daogdaog Ardipithecus ramidus is the oldest known direct human ancestor, at 4.4 million years old. Australopithecus afarensis, aka "Lucy" is about 3.2 million years old. It's not like there is only the one set of A. afarensis or A. ramidus bones either - many sets of fossils have been discovered, including both male and females of the species.
Given A. ramidis's features, it's likely the common ancestor between chimps and humans looked very little like either.
Devolution is taking place, not evolution. People started off perfect. Some mixed with apes, then some mixed with those descendants, and so forth. It's called DEvolution. In the end, the pure untouched will be the chosen few. That is pure, as in pure white! People who believe in evolution have been deluded by Satan the Great Deluder himself.
"Sex is something of an embarrassment ot evolutiuonary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret" K. McAuliffe, "Why We Have Sex", OMNI, Dec. 1983. pg 18.
There is no evidence showing a specie that turned into entirely new specie in fine incremental steps. So some biologists proposed alternative speculative theory of evolution called punctuated equilibrium to salvage a problematic neo darwinian theory.
Whole-genome analyses of speciation events in pathogenic Brucellae.
fuck... you'll have to rethink your denialist claims....
I know...darn those scientists with their facts.
punctuated equilibrium is not an alternative, it's a model that explains certain instances of evolution. like with the Darwinian evolution of plants by Polyploidy.
@transtlantic just give me one scientist, just one, who can show me a fossil or an mtDNA extracted from a common chimp-human ancestor. So far mtDNA showed that humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. So it is highly likely that humans did not evolve from an speculative apelike common ancestor.
mtDNA? lolol that's less than 0,01% of our genetic heritage. LOLOL
DNA clearly shows that humans did evolve from a common ancestor with chimps,
neanderthals WERE human, and that gorillas or orangutans, ALL of them share a common ancestor with us. It's not "evolve from"; but with what we share a common ancestor with, but any highschool student can teach you this fact. all I observe is you running from my challenge:
How do you explain Plant speciation w/out using evo theory?
@transtlantic a relation between brothers has nothing to do with a speculative human and chimp common ancestry which is based on not fully understood rate of mtDNA mutation.
I think it's quite obvious that you don't have a flying fucking clue about what is mtDNA...
A relation? I am talking about common ancestry, which has all to do with humans and chimps. As people who share genes, share a common ancestor, basic Genetics.
How is this "not fully understood"? lolol
rate of mtDNA has nothing to do with rate of DNA mutations. You clearly are way out of your league you ignorant uneducated fuck up.
You mean the human and chimp common ancestor? plenty of them at the Natural history museum, why don't you visit one?
Now...where's the explanation for Plant speciation w/out using evolution theory?
How come you hate evolution so much and yet you keep failing to use your retarded religious creationism in order to explain such directly observed phenomena that exemplifies speciation?
@fingleur1 So show me your tangible human-chimp common ancestor and let biologists test for real whether it is a common ancestor. Dont kept on imagining that there was a common ancestor based on rate of mtDNA mutation. A fruitfly DNA has been manipulated millions of times in labs all over the world by cutting and splicing to mimic millions of years of evolution yet fruitfly remained a fruitfly.
@daogdaog Hominid evolution was mosaic for millions of years - the chances are we'll never know exactly which of the many candidates to name as true common ancestor.
Like transatlantic suggests - why don't you improve your knowledge by visiting a decent museum and see the evidence for yourself?
Go along, ask to speak to a curator, let them show you the facts and evidence. Ask questions and then research the answers you get.
@fingleur1 You still dont get it. A fruitfly DNA has been manipulated millions of times in labs all over the world by cutting and splicing to mimic millions of years of evolution yet a fruitfly remained a fruitfly. You have that twisted view of evolution since you relied on your visits to decent museums that exhibited LUCY having human feet.
@swisscheesepotatochi "A fruitfly DNA has been manipulated millions of times in labs all over the world by cutting and splicing to mimic millions of years of evolution yet a fruitfly remained a fruitfly." Hopefully, as i would like to get to know where you are coming from, that that citation will explain how the DNA has been manipulated to mimic millions of years and the definition of a fruit fly still remaining a fruit fly.
@swisscheesepotatochi There's a good resource here that debunks all of the Creationist fruit fly lies in one place: hartnell.edu/faculty/jhodin/superfly
I don't think that all atheists personify or deify evolution mate. I've got no problem with someone saying there is a God who calls the shots, just with the notion that evolution and a God can't exist together, or that one disproves the other. I can see there are irreconcilable differences between literal 7 day 5000 or so year ago creation and science, but for anyone else who believes God by whatever name calls the shots, how awesome does evolution make them look?
The road is narrow, and not many will see the hidden truths! it's true, "young earth" creationist does not equal creationist, and how does a broken watch , or evolution dis-prove intelligent design? please explain.
@SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 It has to deal with Occam's Razor. Evolution is perfectly capable of explaining living organisms. So either you have the natural processes of evolution, or some supernatural force that violates known physics creating everything. Occam's Razor says if all things are equal, the less complicated answer is probably the truth. Evolution is this less complicated, much better explained, solution. So that is why Evolution is in direct conflict with ID.
@onslaught147 , Never said Evolution wasn't "capable of explaining living organisms". I said "young earth creationist does not equal creationist" and how would we know if a supernatural force violated known physics? Occam's Razor says if all things are equal, the less complicated answer is probably the truth, Evolution is very complicated/Complex. wouldn't "a word" be less complicated by that logic? one word/one bang. I don't agree with "young earth" because is incorrect according to the bible
@SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 Evolution is perfectly explainable by current laws. God is infinitely more complex than this. By very definition, supernatural is outside of natural. So for supernatural things to exist, they would violate, or require a complete reworking of all our knowledge of physics. Extremely complex. While, as I said, evolution is already explainable. Young Earth Creationist is actually correct according to the Bible, but at that point you are comparing fairy tales.
@onslaught147 , actually young earth creationist are wrong. according to the Bible, research Genesis. LoL not many will see the hidden truths! why do you keep telling me Evolution is perfectly explainable? I've never said it wasn't! again! as I've already said,. b.t.w. it's funny I found this little tid bit with supernatural help
Excellent video. This is an amazing representation of evolution in an easy to understand way. As to EvolutionStinks1, you clearly misunderstood the context of the video and the concept of natural selection. I can see you do not believe in evolution, but the real question I have for you is this: Do you understand evolution? I will CC this in a message to ensure that it is not lost in the flurry of comments that this video attracts.
and every one should be excited because eventually through natural selection we will all be perfect one day.(sarcasm) No one will die, we will be immune to all diseases , we will not even have to eat because we will evolve to the world we are destroying. And apparently aika says we can evolve almost instantly. Tomorrow i think i will grow some wings and fly to work so i can save on these insane gas prices lol is it me or is evolution working backwards?so many genetic disorders these days.
@EvolutionStinks1 "every1 should be excited because eventually through natural selection we will all be perfect one day. No one will die, we will be immune to all diseases" => this would be true if bacteria and virus are not evolving. But sadly, they are. We throw a drug at bacteria, it gains resistance. HIV mutates so fast no therapy really works. and who created bacteria according to you? GOD! We throw billions of dollars in medicine to combat his creation, how nice of him...
@EvolutionStinks1 "And apparently aika says we can evolve almost instantly. " => who the fuck is aika lol. If you think quoting from some person on youtube makes your point, that's sad. Of course we don't evolve instantly. I bet you are misquoting him/her. Evolution precisely states things progress in small steps, stretched out over long periods of time.
and the extent of manipulation performed in lab settings will never occur in nature. To constantly strain and filter out small cells over 40 thousand generations and claim you witnessed evolution because the cells are starting to regenerate larger. If we were to kill all people and leave only blacks we cannot say we witnessed evolution because all kids were being born black. lol
@EvolutionStinks1 "To constantly strain and filter out small cells over 40 thousand generations and claim you witnessed evolution" => 40,000 generations? No way dude. Do you even know how tissue culture is performed?
I think the THEORY of evolution can explain how life started. I mean based on Evolution we can find some facts that help us to understand origin of life, can't we?
@chetes15 "I think the THEORY of evolution can explain how life started" => explaining how life originated is really a different field called abiogenesis. Some people like to group abiogenesis and evolution together, but frankly, i see them as 2 separate issues. Evolution is strictly focuses only on how life evolves after first life form is "created" (God, Zeus, abiogenesis...take ur pick).
Neither natural selection nor mutations introduce any new genetic data into the organism's DNA. Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a population. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs and thus cannot make anything evolve. FACT!!
@EvolutionStinks1 categorically untrue and micro-evolution has been demonstrated within a laboratory. This video demonstrates how micro-evolution, done many many times, can cause macro-evolution, and that these changes between species will be ridiculously quick and that's why transitional fossils are so rare.
@aika092 so tomorrow or lets say in the next 100 years my dog may very well be able to fly? before evolution took millions of years and was almost impossible to see and now evolution is saying it can happen so fast you cannot find transitional fossils? why does the theory change so much?
@aika092 a qoute from my friends site "All Chihuahuas are different but not one will ever evolve to a cat or a raccoon or anything else. So too "macroevolution" as an extension of microevolution is a fraudulent misrepresentation that has never been seen because it is an inverted fantasy like grass eating a cow.
No lasting stable society is or has been able to establish itself unless it practices the moral laws. This proves that if it was wrong 10,000 years ago, it is still wrong. Atheism has never been able to succeed as a basis for any society. Atheism is actually a non-contributor. There are no houses of charity, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, hospitals or much of anything set up by atheists. They cannot even open a house of prostitution and have it function for very long.
im sure he mentioned it in the beginning but what are the prerequisites that determine the stronger clocks from the weaker clocks and how was that programmed?
@BelieveandtrustJesus "I think that's harsh but fair punishment" So would you be happy to give your child up for a horrific, prolonged, agonising death by stoning? People like you are the reason I speak up about religious stupidity in the first place. It would be a dark day for us if people like you actually had the power to make stoning an acceptable method of execution and dictated the crimes that warranted it.
@ptango101 Hey dummass, tell us how many Christians have stoned their children here in the U.S.? Oh NONE? I didn't think so. You fucking atheists are so full of shit. You need to just STFU and keep your tyrannical religion to yourself. OK asshole?
@ptango101 "society is keeping you morons in check" That's funny since our society keeps you creeps in check as well. Our society is based on Christian principles.
@Maxi What principles like mass murder is ok if some guy tells you god said to do it? A girl is stoned to death if she can't prove she is a virgin and it's fine to own slaves? You haven't put that much thought into this have you?
@ptango101 Nobody told me to do such a thing. I don't think we have stoned any girls lately. Where does it say I can own slaves? I don't think YOU have put any thought into this.
@Maxi The bible tells you to moron. You must know that or you wouldn't be pissing and moaning about us not reading your stupid book. What is wrong with you retarded little butt monkey? Have you even read the bible? You even announced your own PWNage! LMFAO. You have got to be a poe. No one is this fucking stupid.
@ptango101 The Bible tells me too? YOU are a liar. Where's it tell me that? Since you're so smart and know so much more about the Bible than me. BTW the Christian religion is the ONLY entity in the history of the world that did away with slavery. So that's just one more count against you for lying.
@Maxi No maxipad you said it so wear it. calling it sarcasm because you now know what a moronic statement it is is just your way of pussing out. Like your hero ray comfort and his banana. You are a gutless toad with no idea what you are talking about. I don't think I have ever seen you make one constructive comment. You are just a dumb wanker with one of the worst cases of dunning kruger I have ever seen. You are dismissed fool.
@ptango101 HAR HAR HAR "you are dismissed fool" HAR HAR HAR You're funny! Grasping for straws and getting nothing then saying "you are dismissed fool" HAR HAR HAR HAR You can't explain evolution but you can sure play the word games. I caught you lying and now you're just jumping all over to dodge the bullet. When you blaimed Christianity for slavery you lost the argument.
@ptango101 For every kid beat to death by Christian parents there is at least 10 beat to death by atheist parents. They dont' tell the new that they are atheists.
@MaximusArurealius Oh well that makes it ok then. Do you think the "well they were doing it more than us" defence will stand up in court? What's wrong with you?
@ptango101 "Do you think the "well they were doing it more than us" defence will stand up in court? What's wrong with you?" har har har THAT'S HILARIOUS Do you usually try to turn things around in a debate so that you opponent is accused justifying a certain behavior as your defense of atheists who murder their children? HAR HAR HAR HAR great try but no banana.
@Krissy19731 If you are referring to MaximusArurealius then I would have to agree with you. He is a troll of the highest order and has even admitted to me that he has nothing to offer any of the debates he sabotages.
@ptango101 Sorry I had accidentally replied to you. I was referring to the so-called Christian guy who beat his child. I am also sorry that such impostors exist. I don't know anything about this Max guy though. Rather aggressive.
@Krissy19731 No problem. I've done that once or twice myself as well. Take it from me however, not knowing about max is a good thing. He is a particularly puerile little individual that calls himself a christian but a lot of us find that very difficult to believe.
I want this video on my Tattoo phone.
rafaelsalinas58 21 minutes ago
This video gave me shivers. I am blown away by the beauty of evolution. I too am a programmer and I study neural networks specializing in evolutionary learning algorithms. Every time I see the results of these types of simulations I am blown away at how awesome and beautiful evolution really is. It's been a while since I've coded anything and your video has inspired me to get back on that. Thank you. Amazing video!
thesourceofx 1 week ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
I'm just going to say it. I fucking hate creationism and I see it as an ideological plague on mankind. I don't think of a creationist as someone to debate on equal terms: I see a creationist as espousing a completely uneducated opinion.
Creationism is fucking stupid.
hellomate639 2 weeks ago
@RobWoo71 As for the evolution of sexual reproduction there are a few possibilities. I won't list them as you can easily look them up.
fingleur1 2 weeks ago
Let's presume for a second that we have no idea at all how sexually reproducing organisms evolved. Why would our ignorance of this process provide proof of a god, and of all the possible gods - why your own personal god?
fingleur1 2 weeks ago
test
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 weeks ago
So you're telling me that i can give you 100000 pieces of some puzzle, then tell you to not touch ANYTHING, and you believe that somehow these pieces will assemble themselves together? there HAS to be some intervention to have any order.
datpinoiboi 2 weeks ago
@datpinoiboi A puzzle isn't an organism with a genome. You need to at least attempt to learn more about the subject if you hope to debate it effectively.
Salafrance 2 weeks ago
A conversation: Me: Are you an Atheist?
Atheist: Yes
Me: Why?
Atheist: Because Evolution disproves God.
Me: Oh? So how did life begin then?
Atheist: Evolution does not address the question of beginnings.
Me: If Evolution does not address the question of beginnings, then how does it disprove God?
Atheist: I don't know.
RobW0071 2 weeks ago
@RobW0071 Evolution disproves the biblical god, adam and eve for example, not god in general. If you asked an atheist that wasn't an idiot then you'd probably get the answer "Where is the proof that God is real that means i should believe?", say god exists, so what? Why believe? We don't have enough proof and it doesn't effect us in the least. Although there is proof that the bible is wrong all over the place. Might as well believe in the norse creation, its just as likely.
rhubis 2 weeks ago
@rhubis Your response is a bit confused. Microevolution is supported by the Bible, Genesis 30:41ff. It is macroevolution, or, the climbing up the ladder that is not supported in the Bible. Macroevolution has never been proved to be true. So, then, how can it be used to "disprove" the Bible. Since science requires observation, and it takes "millions of years" for macroevolution to occur, then it follows that macroevolution is simply a philosophy and not the facts themselves.
RobW0071 2 weeks ago
@RobW0071 Common misconception, science does not require observation for proof in all cases. Some things cannot be directly observed but you can look at what is there to draw conclusions. There is plenty of evidence to support macro evolution much much more than is indicated in the bible. Genetics and common sense show that noah's ark is bullshit, also Adam and Eve, unless they came from apes this also flies in the face of the evidence.
rhubis 2 weeks ago
@rhubis There is no observed evidence for macroevolution. Where is it?
RobW0071 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RobW0071
« Where is it? »
The nested hierarchies of biology, and the matching diverging progressions of traits in palaeontology, the numerous morphological intermediates in the fossil record, numerous atavisms, ERV distribution patterns, human chromosome #2, and so on.
MrGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RobW0071
« Where is it? »
The nested hierarchies of biology, and the matching diverging progressions of traits in palaeontology, the numerous morphological intermediates in the fossil record, numerous atavisms, ERV distribution patterns, human chromosome #2, and so on.
MrGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RobW0071
« Where is it? »
Well, actually, all of that is evidence for common descent. The evidence for macro-evolution is much more direct: observed instances of speciation.
MrGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
@RobW0071 So you didn't read my last post? You can have evidence outside of directly observing things. The fossil record corroborates the proposed ideas of evolution, the genetic markers in humans that show our link to apes, the fact that micro evolution and macro are still and have always been the same thing in the eyes of scientists. Evolution fits with all the evidence. There is currently no better answer.
rhubis 2 weeks ago
@rhubis Can you show me one example in science of "evidence outside of directly observing things?" The fossil record can be interpreted in many different ways. Evolutionist Dr. W.J. Gould argued against the slow accumulation of mutations in the fossil record (Darwin's idea) for what he called punctuated equilibrium. In essence the fossil record does not prove evolution. According to evolutionists men and apes are not linked together, but supposedly have a common ancestor. What is it?
RobW0071 2 weeks ago
@RobW0071 The earths core is iron this has been discovered via vibrations not digging to it (plenty of other examples, you can have enough evidence that something is probable without direct observation). The fossil record corroborates evolution since nothing in it goes against evolution. And men and other apes are linked via a common ancestor, we can see this because of genetic markers in humans from a joined chromosome. I have no idea what the common ancestor is.
rhubis 2 weeks ago
@RobW0071 to back up the fossil record statement, evolution made predictions of what we'd expect to find in the fossil record and what we most certainly wouldn't find. The fossil record gives us what we'd expect (using evolution) time after time, and never gives us anything that doesn't fit with evolution.
rhubis 2 weeks ago
@rhubis That is not accurate. Dr. Gould had to modify the evolutionist take on the fossil record because the fossils did not fit with the gradual theory of Darwin. Whoever taught you evolution was clearly biased.
RobW0071 2 weeks ago
@RobW0071 Umm... so what? Evolution was modified So now its more accurate? Now all fossils fit? Now its correct? So what? We modify our science to fit what we find to make it correct. Saying it was once flawed so it must now be flawed because its been changed is stupid. After the change the rest of our new discoverys fit. Its still the best answer.
rhubis 2 weeks ago
@rhubis First you tell me that evolution fits the fossil record. When paleontologists pointed out that Darwinism did not fit the fossil record the theory of evolution was modified in order to fit the fossil record. But even punctuated equilibrium is in dispute among evolutionists, and it does not accurately fit the fossil record as Dr. Gould even admitted. What you have with the fossil record is an interpretation by people biased toward evolution. Such does not disprove God.
RobW0071 2 weeks ago
@RobW0071 Ok give me one other explanation for the species we have in the fossil record and the species alive now without using evolution.
rhubis 2 weeks ago
@RobW0071 Also the arguments you mention are still contested the species in the fossil record show species with gradual changes in order with the passing of time. Either they changed with the generations or they were all species that lived along side modern animals or species come out of nowhere. Any other options?
rhubis 2 weeks ago
@RobW0071 When picking between the God and evolution, evolution wins by a mile. The DNA evidence, the observed "micro" evolution (even though most scientists say its the same as macro evolution) and the fossil record. As far as i'm aware there is nothing that refutes evolution, while the bible is laughable and God has no proof at all (feel free to prove me wrong).
rhubis 2 weeks ago
@RobW0071 Can you define what you would accept as an example of 'macroevolution'?
fingleur1 2 weeks ago
@fingleur1 Sure. According to the ladder (or tree) of evolution: at the very bottom are single celled asexually reproducing "animals." Show me, without recourse to generalizations, exactly how asexually reproducing animals formed sexually reproducing animals without the benefits of a Designer or a thinking and reasoning process. Sexual reproduction is proof of God. Remember that the next time you have sex, and thank God for it! :-)
RobW0071 2 weeks ago
@RobW0071 "macroevolution is simply a philosophy"
LOL. So where did all the millions of fossils of different animals over the last 500 million years come from? and how is it they show a gradual progression in form towards what we see today! No not a philosophy - Evolution is a substantial theory based on evidence and supported by all the facts.
mtbee9 2 weeks ago
@RobW0071 "Because Evolution disproves God." No actually it does not. It disproves the genesis story made up by people who said this was how their 'god did it' for which of course they have no evidence. Evolution is the only theory of how life came to be that fits the evidence. Do YOU have another theory that fits the evidence?
mtbee9 2 weeks ago
@RobW0071 Who's 'Atheist'?
Salafrance 2 weeks ago
I just reached that incredibly awkward moment in my life where I realise the name of the song and how it relates to the video.
iwantmyisland 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@pjpopper Are you concerned about bacteria adapting to modern antibiotics and the resulting threat of super bugs? Because first of all you should be, secondly the threat stems from their ability as a life form to evolve over short observable periods of time. Secondly if you dispute evolution in the face of this and other evidence, which bit don't you believe? You must believe in changes in our DNA from one generation to the next, so what would prevent a species changing beyond recognition?
carloskies 2 weeks ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
Dude, you are a fucking champ. I have sent so many idiot creationists over here and not a single one has been able to come back with any sort of refute that is not "faith."
cavemantiger 2 weeks ago
@pjpopper I do t give a shit about what you believe. Plant speciation is An. Undeniable fact. Thus i ask how do you explAin plant speciation w/out using evo theory??
transtlantic 3 weeks ago
Biogenesis 1) The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material. So therefore evolution did not happen and there is no such thing as abiogenesis.
They can't both exist at the same time. Abiogensis is just denying scientific law
pjpopper 3 weeks ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
Nature itself is not a watchmaker. What you propose is not seen in nature. Dead matter has never been observed to think. The only thing that thinks, or has consciousness is life. The only life that creates anything is mankind. Humans come from Humans only -observed science; This is a Logical parodox in reality. It can only be answered by introducing the creative force - God-is spirit- and beyond nature
pjpopper 3 weeks ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@pjpopper Humans come from Humans only? That's incorrect.
SuperMrAtheist 3 weeks ago
@SuperMrAtheist I just don't see how I can have a discussion with someone who would truly believe that. That has never, ever, ever, not been observed to be the case. It's frightening that this is even up for debate. Your evolution doesn't believe in the supernatural or science. Most evolutionist see the world with foggy glasses from a naturalist point of view, not observing the data. You are just blind.
pjpopper 3 weeks ago
@pjpopper
uhm....so how do you explain Speciation w/out using evolution theory?
transtlantic 3 weeks ago
@transtlantic Well since evolution is 100 percent not true, and biogenesis is true. Life itself is a closed loop that the law's of nature or (space-time) itself can not account for.
So accounting for life, and creation itself, is the great conundrum of existence. I know evolution isn't true. And that the only logical explanation is God. I have logical reasons and spiritual reasons to believe the King James Bible is God's word.
pjpopper 3 weeks ago
@pjpopper Evolution is actually 100% true. It has been proven. Hundreds of times. Go to school.
cavemantiger 2 weeks ago
@pjpopper What logical reasons do you have? Can you mention the best one?
justoch 2 weeks ago
@pjpopper /watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw
cavemantiger 2 weeks ago
@sorowihn There is a big difference between micro and macrovolution. What you just described is microevolution, or variances within a species.
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 3 weeks ago
By definition evolution is not scientific. Science requires observation. Since it takes "millions of years" for a living organism to supposedly evolve, then it follows that no scientist has ever observed evolution happening. Evolution then is a philosophy - it is an interpretation of the data, and not the data itself. Consequently, evolution is subject to logical criticism.
RobW0071 3 weeks ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@RobW0071 but scientist can observe evolution in bacteria in matter of years.Care to explain antibiotic resistant bacterias,nylon eating bacterias etc 7?.Google E. coli long-term evolution
sorowihn 3 weeks ago
@sorowihn nylon eating bacterias just activated a recessive genes the DNA in th ebacteria itself did not gain information. Bacteria are the fastest reproducing organisms, but left on their own for years they remain bacteria. In order for DNA to have formed naturally. Non organic matter would have to have the ability to think. Or nature itself is thinking. But this is not the case. Science has proven that nature doesn't think! Sadly, many people today think nature is an alive mythycal force.
pjpopper 3 weeks ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@pjpopper so you are saying bacteria had a recessive gene for a material that created in ww2 ?in my reply i was answering scientists never observed any kind of evolution.Yes this might be small changes but this happened in 60-70 years with enough time like milllion years this changes will accumulate into creating species today we have both fossil and dna evidences to track this changes .No one says nature is alive force but is a test field for this changes bad ones will be eliminated
sorowihn 3 weeks ago
@sorowihn Did the bacteria turn into a fish? The bacteria remained bacteria. What you have to prove is the creation of a brand new and different species from the bacteria.
RobW0071 3 weeks ago
@sorowihn What you have to prove is the upward climb on the evolutionary ladder. Bacteria remain bacteria. What you assume is that over "millions of years" these slight changes will result one day in a new and entirely different species. Evolution is an assumption not the actual data.
RobW0071 3 weeks ago
@RobW0071 Geneticist Dr. John McDonald, "The results of the last 20 years of research on the genetic basis of adaptation has led us to a great Darwinian paradox. Those genes that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those genes that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many, if not most, major adaptive changes apparently are not variable within natural populations"The Molecular Basis of Adaptation"
RobW0071 3 weeks ago
@RobW0071 in my reply i was answering that scientists never observed you cant expect turning to a fish in 30 years it took billions of year to get there but it never became a fish because if it adapted well in conditions .according to your reply i assume you accept microevolution.Yeah in million years one spicy can experience millions of mutations for example because of the error in dna replication each human has 30-50 mutations in his dna.
sorowihn 3 weeks ago
@sorowihn I accept microevolution because it is observable in nature. As a scientist I reject the evolutionary ladder because there is no observed evidence that proves it. In fact, the genetic evidence is against the evolutionary ladder - read the McDonald quote posted earlier.
RobW0071 3 weeks ago
@RobW0071 sorry i missed the quote you posted.Can you send me the whole article or just the title so i can find it because in it there is just a conclusion without showing clear reason and when i came across so called fall of evolution from scientists there is usually some things nit picked or taken out of context from the article.Is it from this guy
sorowihn 3 weeks ago
@sorowihn udel(dot)edu/~mcdonald/
sorowihn 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
sorowihn 3 weeks ago
@fingleur1 Simple, to convince other people and to make their own conclusion look more educated.
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 3 weeks ago
@StandardPerson1 Could you say any specific examples from that book? Besides the, according to evolution, first cell on Earth, when has there ever been a species or organism that has no competitor? "These 'big parts of flesh' do 'reduce their competitiveness' but that's irrelevant if there is no competitor to drive them to extinction (StandardPerson1)"
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 3 weeks ago
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7 "Could you say any specific examples from that book?"
The book is actually a collection of Gould's essays. Many of these essays use the presence of shoddy "design" in the natural world to argue for evolution over ID, since bad "design" is problematic for ID, but not for evolution - a process rooted in chance and historical contingency.
You can read the titular essay for free at:
StandardPerson1 1 week ago
dub-dub-dub dot stephen jay gould dot org
slash library slash
gould_panda's-thumb dot html
Note that you should leave out all the spaces, including the ones in the author's name. (I'm not sure why YouTube has such savage URL censorship software.)
StandardPerson1 1 week ago
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7: regarding animals with big, seemingly superfluous hunks of flesh and my (glib) comment about competitors, I'll retract it: the limit on message length makes it hard to be precise and nuanced.
Such animals do exist. Some birds of paradise, just 20-30 cm long, have tails that are an additional metre in length. (Not superfluous flesh, admittedly, but still a drag.)
The evolutionary explanation is intraspecific competition - what Darwin called sexual selection.
StandardPerson1 1 week ago
@StandardPerson1 How does having a disease like sickle cell anemia relate to evolution (which is good mutation)?
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7: "How does having a disease like sickle cell anemia [SCA] relate to evolution?"
Earlier you wrote that "If you run an experiment like [the one in the video] where 'organisms' with severe flaws can still survive, of course you will achieve an outcome just like evolution, except that's not how it works in real life."
Someone with SCA is an example of an "[organism] with severe flaws [that] can still survive."
Real life is like the video, including evolution.
StandardPerson1 1 week ago
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7 The video shows this, clocks had mutations that caused them to cease being clocks, they were just bound broken clocks.
rianth1 1 week ago
@StandardPerson1 I'm saying that ordinary people should become more informed and listen to arguments on both sides. Do you really think an evolutionist scientist will want to try to get evidence for creationism? Most evolutionist scientists already know evolution is correct, before doing any personal experimentation or investigation. Although science really is supposed to be completely unbiased, because of human nature, it isn't. And how can you think science is only about disproving things?
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 3 weeks ago
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7 "[why do] you think science is only about disproving things?"
Because that's essentially how "science" is defined.
No theory about the physical world can ever be proven (i.e. "physical induction" is logically false), but theories can be disproved. Karl Popper noticed this and defined "scientific" theories as theories that can, in principle, be disproved but never proved.
Given this definition, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, but intelligent design is not.
StandardPerson1 1 week ago
@Ja2so4 I think evolutionists are the ones that need to think independently. Most people just listen to scientists and mainstream media for their conclusions. Might I add that most scientists who produce findings that support evolution have already come to the conclusion of evolution before they even do their experiments.
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 3 weeks ago
You're suggesting that laymen evolutionists & creationists should investigate the latest ideas in evolution and (so-called) creation science themselves? Where would they get the time and funding?
No scientist wastes their time trying to generate "findings that support" a theory.
Science isn't about doing experiments to "verify" existing theories. It's about designing and completing experiments that might *disprove* orthodox ideas. Science is skeptical; creation "science" is not. Big difference
StandardPerson1 3 weeks ago
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7 If a scientist already concludes that evolution happens, why would they even bother to undertake experiments to test whether or not evolution happens?
fingleur1 3 weeks ago
@fingleur1 Scientists would rarely bother testing evolution via the neo-Darwinian synthesis; but that doesn't mean that it's not being experimentally tested!
For example, recent experiments to test the heritability of various traits have produced the remarkable result that some epigenetic inheritance, bordering on the Larmarckian inheritance theory of the 1800s, in fact occurs in mammals.
Thus, in the last decade, the neo-Dawinian synthesis has been challenged, found wanting & been modified.
StandardPerson1 3 weeks ago
Congratulations, awesome video. The only thing you have missed the audience. People are too stupid to think independently, and therefore there is religion. It simply removes the need for a healthy mind by saying "It is God who created." I'm glad to see that there are still people who are able to think and try to show others, but it was in vain. At least no more Inquisition to us burned at the stake.
Ja2so4 3 weeks ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ja2so4 You are right , you are in the same boat , you are too stupid to think for yourself , just because somebody claims to be a scientists you follow him blindly ! Piltdown man remember , missing links , and fish flying catching insects are not proofs , are crazy fairys that no sane person will believe !
MrCobra811 3 weeks ago
@sydtocreation I would say I disagree.
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 3 weeks ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
If you run an experiment like that where "organisms" with severe flaws can still survive, of course you will achieve an outcome just like evolution, except that's not how it works in real life.
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 3 weeks ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7: That is exactly "how it works in real life."
For example, the genetic mutation that causes sickle cell anaemia shortens the life-span of sufferers to less than fifty years, but the the mutation still remains in malaria-prone regions. This is because the same genetic mutation that causes sickle-cell anaemia also confers a degree of immunity to malaria on those who suffer from it.
StandardPerson1 3 weeks ago
(cont.) In short, while this simulation may seem complex, it is nothing to the amazing complexity of an organism. And unlike in the simulation, organisms need food to live. Without the right "parts" to get it, they die, all of them, not just one per "generation". Also they don't do well with big parts of flesh that hang off of them that do nothing, it reduces their competitiveness. These two things make the transitional phases a little harder to cross.
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 3 weeks ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7
Read "The Panda's Thumb" by S.J. Gould - a book that gives examples of organisms that are so shoddily "designed" that it's impossible to imagine any competant "designer" producing them.
While animals don't do as well as possible "with big parts of flesh that hang off of them that do nothing" they do well enough to perpetuate the species. These "big parts of flesh" do "reduce their competitiveness" but that's irrelevant if there is no competitor to drive them to extinction
StandardPerson1 3 weeks ago
While this video, and the effort (good job), are very impressive, there are a few problems with your argument. If you know about biology, you know that proteins are made of thousands of amino acids (each representing one nucleotide). And most chemical reactions in a cell use hundreds or thousands of proteins and other structures. And cells have thousands of chemical reactions, and the body has thousands of different specialized cells. I'm probably underestimating the complexity of all this.
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 3 weeks ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
we just found evidence of people that grow horns out of their heads to disprove evolution. and the discovery channel did a documentary of it because of a scientific cover up... Merry Christmas !
watch?v=mCMWRu_fL44&feature=related
watch?v=inzyQgReyr0&feature=related
watch?v=1P42j9Xltyg
Gods0n1 3 weeks ago
Brilliant video.
MrRobotoToo 4 weeks ago
You jesus freaks are all going exstinct.Bye-Bye ignorant fools.
sydtocreation 4 weeks ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
"youtube.com/watch?v=INH-lNUQQZg"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 4 weeks ago
@daogdaog Ardipithecus ramidus is the oldest known direct human ancestor, at 4.4 million years old. Australopithecus afarensis, aka "Lucy" is about 3.2 million years old. It's not like there is only the one set of A. afarensis or A. ramidus bones either - many sets of fossils have been discovered, including both male and females of the species.
Given A. ramidis's features, it's likely the common ancestor between chimps and humans looked very little like either.
dipstickewew 1 month ago
Devolution is taking place, not evolution. People started off perfect. Some mixed with apes, then some mixed with those descendants, and so forth. It's called DEvolution. In the end, the pure untouched will be the chosen few. That is pure, as in pure white! People who believe in evolution have been deluded by Satan the Great Deluder himself.
Jim777ism 1 month ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@Jim777ism
There is no such thing as devolution, dimwit.
"People started off perfect. Some mixed with apes,.."
Dumbass.
odinata 1 month ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@odinata There is no such thing as evolution. You are the dumbass who can't think for himself.
Jim777ism 4 weeks ago
@Jim777ism wow, what a nice religion!
julqw2 1 month ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@julqw2 Devolution is also science. They don't teach that in public schools.
Jim777ism 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jim777ism
So you don't think ducks are related to chickens?
Why doesn't science agree with you?
odinata 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jim777ism
You don't know what science is, Jimmy.
Your hot tubs suck and your music is shit.
odinata 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Sex is something of an embarrassment ot evolutiuonary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret" K. McAuliffe, "Why We Have Sex", OMNI, Dec. 1983. pg 18.
j919or 1 month ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
There is no evidence showing a specie that turned into entirely new specie in fine incremental steps. So some biologists proposed alternative speculative theory of evolution called punctuated equilibrium to salvage a problematic neo darwinian theory.
daogdaog 1 month ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@daogdaog Wrong and wrong.
Google "observed instances of speciation" to find examples the thing you say there is no evidence of!
fingleur1 1 month ago
@daogdaog
Infect Immun. 2005 Dec;73(12):8353-61.
Whole-genome analyses of speciation events in pathogenic Brucellae.
fuck... you'll have to rethink your denialist claims....
I know...darn those scientists with their facts.
punctuated equilibrium is not an alternative, it's a model that explains certain instances of evolution. like with the Darwinian evolution of plants by Polyploidy.
better luck next time....
transtlantic 1 month ago
@transtlantic just give me one scientist, just one, who can show me a fossil or an mtDNA extracted from a common chimp-human ancestor. So far mtDNA showed that humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. So it is highly likely that humans did not evolve from an speculative apelike common ancestor.
daogdaog 1 month ago
@daogdaog
mtDNA? lolol that's less than 0,01% of our genetic heritage. LOLOL
DNA clearly shows that humans did evolve from a common ancestor with chimps,
neanderthals WERE human, and that gorillas or orangutans, ALL of them share a common ancestor with us. It's not "evolve from"; but with what we share a common ancestor with, but any highschool student can teach you this fact. all I observe is you running from my challenge:
How do you explain Plant speciation w/out using evo theory?
transtlantic 1 month ago
@transtlantic you are just speculating. where is that common ancestor? show me something tangible ...
daogdaog 1 month ago
@daogdaog
Where is? you mean...physically where we hold the evidence for common ancestry?
well...two brothers share a set of common ancestors, for example. Natural history museums also have hundreds of thousands of examples.
Try visit one.
Or... you can read the more than 500,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers present at PUBMED for the public.
Nature. 2004 Sep 30;431(7008):562-6.
Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans.
like this one, for example.
transtlantic 1 month ago
@transtlantic a relation between brothers has nothing to do with a speculative human and chimp common ancestry which is based on not fully understood rate of mtDNA mutation.
daogdaog 1 month ago
@daogdaog
I think it's quite obvious that you don't have a flying fucking clue about what is mtDNA...
A relation? I am talking about common ancestry, which has all to do with humans and chimps. As people who share genes, share a common ancestor, basic Genetics.
How is this "not fully understood"? lolol
rate of mtDNA has nothing to do with rate of DNA mutations. You clearly are way out of your league you ignorant uneducated fuck up.
now fuck off or try answer to my challenge.
transtlantic 1 month ago
@transtlantic show me the chimp and human common ancestor? where is it? Does it have a name?
daogdaog 1 month ago
@daogdaog
You mean the human and chimp common ancestor? plenty of them at the Natural history museum, why don't you visit one?
Now...where's the explanation for Plant speciation w/out using evolution theory?
How come you hate evolution so much and yet you keep failing to use your retarded religious creationism in order to explain such directly observed phenomena that exemplifies speciation?
now...let's see... Orrorin tugenensis ; Ardipithecus kadabba ; Sahelanthropus tchadensis
for example
transtlantic 1 month ago
@daogdaog "So far mtDNA showed that humans did not evolve from chimps"
No shit Sherlock. If it did then the whole of the theory of evolution as we know it would go up in smoke!
fingleur1 1 month ago
@fingleur1 So show me your tangible human-chimp common ancestor and let biologists test for real whether it is a common ancestor. Dont kept on imagining that there was a common ancestor based on rate of mtDNA mutation. A fruitfly DNA has been manipulated millions of times in labs all over the world by cutting and splicing to mimic millions of years of evolution yet fruitfly remained a fruitfly.
daogdaog 1 month ago
@daogdaog Hominid evolution was mosaic for millions of years - the chances are we'll never know exactly which of the many candidates to name as true common ancestor.
Like transatlantic suggests - why don't you improve your knowledge by visiting a decent museum and see the evidence for yourself?
Go along, ask to speak to a curator, let them show you the facts and evidence. Ask questions and then research the answers you get.
What are you afraid of? Bones don't bite.
fingleur1 1 month ago
@fingleur1 You still dont get it. A fruitfly DNA has been manipulated millions of times in labs all over the world by cutting and splicing to mimic millions of years of evolution yet a fruitfly remained a fruitfly. You have that twisted view of evolution since you relied on your visits to decent museums that exhibited LUCY having human feet.
daogdaog 1 month ago
@daogdaog museums "exhibited LUCY having human feet"? Fact me.
fingleur1 1 month ago
@daogdaog Do you have some kind of source that states that?
swisscheesepotatochi 1 month ago
@swisscheesepotatochi which one?
daogdaog 1 month ago
@swisscheesepotatochi "A fruitfly DNA has been manipulated millions of times in labs all over the world by cutting and splicing to mimic millions of years of evolution yet a fruitfly remained a fruitfly." Hopefully, as i would like to get to know where you are coming from, that that citation will explain how the DNA has been manipulated to mimic millions of years and the definition of a fruit fly still remaining a fruit fly.
swisscheesepotatochi 1 month ago
@swisscheesepotatochi There's a good resource here that debunks all of the Creationist fruit fly lies in one place: hartnell.edu/faculty/jhodin/superfly
fingleur1 1 month ago
@BelieveandtrustJesus
I don't think that all atheists personify or deify evolution mate. I've got no problem with someone saying there is a God who calls the shots, just with the notion that evolution and a God can't exist together, or that one disproves the other. I can see there are irreconcilable differences between literal 7 day 5000 or so year ago creation and science, but for anyone else who believes God by whatever name calls the shots, how awesome does evolution make them look?
muddydave01 1 month ago
The road is narrow, and not many will see the hidden truths! it's true, "young earth" creationist does not equal creationist, and how does a broken watch , or evolution dis-prove intelligent design? please explain.
SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 1 month ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 It has to deal with Occam's Razor. Evolution is perfectly capable of explaining living organisms. So either you have the natural processes of evolution, or some supernatural force that violates known physics creating everything. Occam's Razor says if all things are equal, the less complicated answer is probably the truth. Evolution is this less complicated, much better explained, solution. So that is why Evolution is in direct conflict with ID.
onslaught147 1 month ago
@onslaught147 , Never said Evolution wasn't "capable of explaining living organisms". I said "young earth creationist does not equal creationist" and how would we know if a supernatural force violated known physics? Occam's Razor says if all things are equal, the less complicated answer is probably the truth, Evolution is very complicated/Complex. wouldn't "a word" be less complicated by that logic? one word/one bang. I don't agree with "young earth" because is incorrect according to the bible
SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 1 month ago
@SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 Evolution is perfectly explainable by current laws. God is infinitely more complex than this. By very definition, supernatural is outside of natural. So for supernatural things to exist, they would violate, or require a complete reworking of all our knowledge of physics. Extremely complex. While, as I said, evolution is already explainable. Young Earth Creationist is actually correct according to the Bible, but at that point you are comparing fairy tales.
onslaught147 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@onslaught147 , actually young earth creationist are wrong. according to the Bible, research Genesis. LoL not many will see the hidden truths! why do you keep telling me Evolution is perfectly explainable? I've never said it wasn't! again! as I've already said,. b.t.w. it's funny I found this little tid bit with supernatural help
SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 1 month ago
If you put the clock outside at the enviroment, it will change overtime as well.
kenzaonsa 1 month ago
sorry the program doesn't work
RECKOGNING1 1 month ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
Next evolution step, singularity and transhumanism !!
MatrixPrisoner 1 month ago
@MatrixPrisoner And what exactly are those?
TheVKfan1 1 month ago
o.o
Shingler4596 1 month ago
Excellent video. This is an amazing representation of evolution in an easy to understand way. As to EvolutionStinks1, you clearly misunderstood the context of the video and the concept of natural selection. I can see you do not believe in evolution, but the real question I have for you is this: Do you understand evolution? I will CC this in a message to ensure that it is not lost in the flurry of comments that this video attracts.
Castello5 1 month ago
and every one should be excited because eventually through natural selection we will all be perfect one day.(sarcasm) No one will die, we will be immune to all diseases , we will not even have to eat because we will evolve to the world we are destroying. And apparently aika says we can evolve almost instantly. Tomorrow i think i will grow some wings and fly to work so i can save on these insane gas prices lol is it me or is evolution working backwards?so many genetic disorders these days.
EvolutionStinks1 1 month ago
@EvolutionStinks1 You're doing a very good job of demonstrating that you know nothing about the theory of evolution. Keep up the good work.
fingleur1 1 month ago
@EvolutionStinks1 "every1 should be excited because eventually through natural selection we will all be perfect one day. No one will die, we will be immune to all diseases" => this would be true if bacteria and virus are not evolving. But sadly, they are. We throw a drug at bacteria, it gains resistance. HIV mutates so fast no therapy really works. and who created bacteria according to you? GOD! We throw billions of dollars in medicine to combat his creation, how nice of him...
Casshyr 1 month ago
@EvolutionStinks1 "And apparently aika says we can evolve almost instantly. " => who the fuck is aika lol. If you think quoting from some person on youtube makes your point, that's sad. Of course we don't evolve instantly. I bet you are misquoting him/her. Evolution precisely states things progress in small steps, stretched out over long periods of time.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@EvolutionStinks1 It's been a while since I've seen a huge pile of retardation as big as yourself.
Damn dude.
imthecoffeecup 1 month ago
and the extent of manipulation performed in lab settings will never occur in nature. To constantly strain and filter out small cells over 40 thousand generations and claim you witnessed evolution because the cells are starting to regenerate larger. If we were to kill all people and leave only blacks we cannot say we witnessed evolution because all kids were being born black. lol
EvolutionStinks1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvolutionStinks1 this is true. however he did not manipulate the clocks.
shadowstrider0 1 month ago
@EvolutionStinks1 "To constantly strain and filter out small cells over 40 thousand generations and claim you witnessed evolution" => 40,000 generations? No way dude. Do you even know how tissue culture is performed?
Casshyr 1 month ago
I think the THEORY of evolution can explain how life started. I mean based on Evolution we can find some facts that help us to understand origin of life, can't we?
chetes15 1 month ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
@chetes15 "I think the THEORY of evolution can explain how life started" => explaining how life originated is really a different field called abiogenesis. Some people like to group abiogenesis and evolution together, but frankly, i see them as 2 separate issues. Evolution is strictly focuses only on how life evolves after first life form is "created" (God, Zeus, abiogenesis...take ur pick).
Casshyr 1 month ago
Neither natural selection nor mutations introduce any new genetic data into the organism's DNA. Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a population. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs and thus cannot make anything evolve. FACT!!
EvolutionStinks1 2 months ago
@EvolutionStinks1 You do accept that mutations introduce changes to the phenotype of individuals, yes?
fingleur1 1 month ago
@EvolutionStinks1 categorically untrue and micro-evolution has been demonstrated within a laboratory. This video demonstrates how micro-evolution, done many many times, can cause macro-evolution, and that these changes between species will be ridiculously quick and that's why transitional fossils are so rare.
aika092 1 month ago
@aika092 so tomorrow or lets say in the next 100 years my dog may very well be able to fly? before evolution took millions of years and was almost impossible to see and now evolution is saying it can happen so fast you cannot find transitional fossils? why does the theory change so much?
EvolutionStinks1 1 month ago
@aika092 a qoute from my friends site "All Chihuahuas are different but not one will ever evolve to a cat or a raccoon or anything else. So too "macroevolution" as an extension of microevolution is a fraudulent misrepresentation that has never been seen because it is an inverted fantasy like grass eating a cow.
EvolutionStinks1 1 month ago
Clocks keep time. You can't explain that.
SelectHawk 2 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
Then again...who is alive but the one that knows he is dead?
eternalsoulmate 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No lasting stable society is or has been able to establish itself unless it practices the moral laws. This proves that if it was wrong 10,000 years ago, it is still wrong. Atheism has never been able to succeed as a basis for any society. Atheism is actually a non-contributor. There are no houses of charity, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, hospitals or much of anything set up by atheists. They cannot even open a house of prostitution and have it function for very long.
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
@ptango no point, its just the most important variable in the experiment, it wasnt covered in enough detail.
turen1234 2 months ago
im sure he mentioned it in the beginning but what are the prerequisites that determine the stronger clocks from the weaker clocks and how was that programmed?
turen1234 2 months ago
@turen1234 What are you getting at? What's your point?
ptango101 2 months ago
@BelieveandtrustJesus "I think that's harsh but fair punishment" So would you be happy to give your child up for a horrific, prolonged, agonising death by stoning? People like you are the reason I speak up about religious stupidity in the first place. It would be a dark day for us if people like you actually had the power to make stoning an acceptable method of execution and dictated the crimes that warranted it.
ptango101 2 months ago
@ptango101 Hey dummass, tell us how many Christians have stoned their children here in the U.S.? Oh NONE? I didn't think so. You fucking atheists are so full of shit. You need to just STFU and keep your tyrannical religion to yourself. OK asshole?
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
@Maxi That's because civilised society is keeping you morons in check you idiot.
ptango101 2 months ago
@ptango101 "society is keeping you morons in check" That's funny since our society keeps you creeps in check as well. Our society is based on Christian principles.
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
@Maxi What principles like mass murder is ok if some guy tells you god said to do it? A girl is stoned to death if she can't prove she is a virgin and it's fine to own slaves? You haven't put that much thought into this have you?
ptango101 2 months ago
@ptango101 Nobody told me to do such a thing. I don't think we have stoned any girls lately. Where does it say I can own slaves? I don't think YOU have put any thought into this.
PWNED
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
@Maxi The bible tells you to moron. You must know that or you wouldn't be pissing and moaning about us not reading your stupid book. What is wrong with you retarded little butt monkey? Have you even read the bible? You even announced your own PWNage! LMFAO. You have got to be a poe. No one is this fucking stupid.
ptango101 2 months ago
@ptango101 The Bible tells me too? YOU are a liar. Where's it tell me that? Since you're so smart and know so much more about the Bible than me. BTW the Christian religion is the ONLY entity in the history of the world that did away with slavery. So that's just one more count against you for lying.
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Wow they are right. The stupid really does burn. BOOya tosser. now piss off.
ptango101 2 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
Why are you so wrong all of the time?
odinata 2 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@Maxi "I don't think we have stoned any girls lately" LATELY???? BAHhhahahhahahaaaa. oh this is great maxipad. Comedy gold.
ptango101 2 months ago
@ptango101 "oh this is great maxipad. Comedy gold" That's because you're a fucking moron and don't grasp sarcasm.
OWNED
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
@Maxi No maxipad you said it so wear it. calling it sarcasm because you now know what a moronic statement it is is just your way of pussing out. Like your hero ray comfort and his banana. You are a gutless toad with no idea what you are talking about. I don't think I have ever seen you make one constructive comment. You are just a dumb wanker with one of the worst cases of dunning kruger I have ever seen. You are dismissed fool.
ptango101 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ptango101 HAR HAR HAR "you are dismissed fool" HAR HAR HAR You're funny! Grasping for straws and getting nothing then saying "you are dismissed fool" HAR HAR HAR HAR You can't explain evolution but you can sure play the word games. I caught you lying and now you're just jumping all over to dodge the bullet. When you blaimed Christianity for slavery you lost the argument.
EPIC FAIL
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
@Maxi it seems christians today just like to beat their kids to death . as recent news has shown us
ptango101 2 months ago
@ptango101 For every kid beat to death by Christian parents there is at least 10 beat to death by atheist parents. They dont' tell the new that they are atheists.
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Oh well that makes it ok then. Do you think the "well they were doing it more than us" defence will stand up in court? What's wrong with you?
ptango101 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ptango101 "Do you think the "well they were doing it more than us" defence will stand up in court? What's wrong with you?" har har har THAT'S HILARIOUS Do you usually try to turn things around in a debate so that you opponent is accused justifying a certain behavior as your defense of atheists who murder their children? HAR HAR HAR HAR great try but no banana.
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
@ptango101 That guy wasn't a Christian, even if he said he was.
Krissy19731 2 weeks ago
@Krissy19731 If you are referring to MaximusArurealius then I would have to agree with you. He is a troll of the highest order and has even admitted to me that he has nothing to offer any of the debates he sabotages.
ptango101 2 weeks ago
@ptango101 Sorry I had accidentally replied to you. I was referring to the so-called Christian guy who beat his child. I am also sorry that such impostors exist. I don't know anything about this Max guy though. Rather aggressive.
Krissy19731 2 weeks ago
@Krissy19731 No problem. I've done that once or twice myself as well. Take it from me however, not knowing about max is a good thing. He is a particularly puerile little individual that calls himself a christian but a lot of us find that very difficult to believe.
ptango101 2 weeks ago
@BelieveandtrustJesus "The children execution as a penalty issue would take quite a while to explain "
Also a wonderful example of how the evil of religion can be used to justify murder at any cost. Yo