compare this with a 4-dimensional model of evolving life. here, all living matter is a single connected entity. we don't know where it came from and we don't know where its going, and it's hard to get perspective because we exist as pieces of it, perceiving our "self" from a lower dimension in space. but topological homology may suggest it really did come from nothing, and will end that way too.
well that kind of structural sameness is more suited by the word "homeomorphic." a more interesting interpretation, i think, is that in homology theory there is a sense of exploring how a shape changes as an iterated operation moves through space one dimension at a time. the most accessible concept of this would be the (very related) cohomology associated with differentiation. we have diagrams showing how things start with a 0, then develop some structure, then ultimately return back to zero.
look at all those comments. everybody's an expert. anyway i stumbled on this because i was looking for videos about homology theory from algebraic topology. i had no idea the word was used in biology. i've been studying the math version for less than a year so i have a lot yet to learn but i wonder what the reason is for the same name. most likely there isn't much of one. but in case ya didn't know, in math, homology sequences usually have a zero at either end. we probably do too.
@yn30s maybe, because in both cases, homology concerned about the fundamental underlying structure, more than with the concrete measures and shapes of things. In biology it probably is nr. of bones and how they are interconnected whereas in math it's probably more a thing like the "number of k-dimensional holes in some topological space"... In both cases it's about defining a kind of "being the same" which goes beyond a being the same in the trivial sense...
Here is a paper which shows that natural selection does JACK SH!T, in a lab environment where the selection pressure was greater than in nature and was held at a constant for 35 years.. rather than constantly changing like what actually occurs in nature, which reduces the selection effect.. Hence this experiment was set up for evolution to succeed.. it didn't!
@Gilbertus1986 man i read your paper, and i doubt you did. It show clear evidence of selection causing changes in the population.
"Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult ~20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations"
"we identify several dozen genomic regions that show strong allele frequency differentiation between a pooled sample of five replicate populations selected for accelerated development and pooled controls"
I'll ask you to provide substance to your claim that goosebumps are evidence of evolution... (I hope you aren't assuming that because they are called goosebumps that we evolved from a goose-like-ancestor lol)
.we have 46 and the chimps have 48, by looking at our chromosomes and the chimps the missing chromosomes were actually fused which indicate that they once were there, but got fused. and for the goosebumps, we once had fur, and just like any other animals when we're scare cold etc.. the fur or hair stands up that's what i was trying to indicate. plus you can look at similarities between a human baby and a chimp baby you'd be surprised. same amount of body hair and many more
@simw7 You do know what EMPIRICAL is do you? (look it up in the dictonary).. Now without empirical proof, anyone can say anything and call it fact. This is the power of science, to observe reality and see what actually occurs. Now where is the empirical verification of your claims. Or in otherwords, what PROOF do you have?
you don't have to oberve anything in order to know that it occurred. For example the big bang, we know that it happened, we have evidence to support it, but now one really know for sure what happened and how it happened. As for evolution it's a fact that things change overtime. We've seen rapid evolution, but we can't fully observe an animal changing into a new one, i mean really? but we have evidence in Genetics, we got some fossil record although some animals don't fossilize (cont)
@simw7 You do realise that the Big Bang defies the laws of Thermodynamics, (thus it defies reality)...
You genetics "evidence" is assumption-based. You are assuming evolution from it. Hence it isn't evidence it is just your opinion.
The fossil record shows jumps between forms, it defies the evolution model. Are you claiming that every single one of the TRILLIONS of transitional forms that are supposedly caused by evolution just-so-happened to not fossilise correctly?
@Gilbertus1986 which law of thermadynamics does the big bang defies? plus how the hell did big bang defies the the law of thermonamics when it says that that big bag created the universe and all the laws in it. We have fossil records for a lot of animals I.e dinosaurs, ancient mamouth and many animals in the animal kingdom. go to the natural museum you'll see them. Also, for the goosebumps argument I mean do you have a cat? or dog? what happens when they get scared, or cold? (cont)
@simw7 Big Bang.. From nothing became everything.. Matter is chemical energy, naturalistically energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Energy is eternal. Also where did the energy come from for the Big Bang?
In nature you don't get something for nothing, there is ALWAYS a cost.
Entropy, the default perogative of nature is to wither and "die", (chaos). Rust, decay, rot and death all of these are the law of entropy at work. So if this is what nature does if left to its own devices, then how was order, "created" at the begining of the universe. Entropy can NEVER decrease it always increases. So I'll state again, if nature always increases entropy, why not just start out with 100% entropy?
first of all the big bang states of a very low anthropy and has continue to increase as the universe ages. .The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies along any axis within the block universe. As such it is, statistically speaking, more probable that your half-melted ice cube came from a glass of warm water, rather than a fully formed ice cube. Of course, we know that half-melted ice generally starts as fully formed ice, but this is due to the Big Bang the initial state of low entropy.
@simw7 I never said anything about ice cubes. You are promugulating lies and strawmen.
You still haven't addressed the issue, instead you'd posted a long pile of #### that says NOTHING in terms of what was being talked about. IF you intend to dissuade the topic by your babble then you are sorely wrong. Entropy is evidence that nature unchecked is a destructive force, how can anything be created via a destructive force.
@simw7 Yes we do have fossils. However by saying, we have fossils we win, is a stupid concept really.
There are leaps and bounds in the fossil record that do not fit with the evolutionary model. There is no transitional fossils of the emergence of these things, this is not the whole list
multi-cellular life
the divide between plants and animals
the divide between vertibrates and invertibrates
insects- particularly the exoskeleton
feathers
lungs + legs + hips + backbone reformation in fish
@Gilbertus1986 i was saying we do have fossils, but some but not all of them, like I said it's hard to find fossil since some of these animals hard fossilized since they died of a longtime ago and some barely left anything behind.. Fossils aren't even the most important thing anymore, even if we didn't find any fossil today, Genetics itself is more than enough to prove evolution." From what you've said you have no idea what is needed as scientific evidence" i gave you genetics evidence, cont_
@simw7 And I asked you before SO THE TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS of transitional forms, in all species, that evolution predicts, just-so-happen to be the ones we cannot find... Seems like you take the fossil "evidence" on faith. Since Darwin himself says there MUST be a progression of traits in the fossil record... Saying we haven't found them YET is an arguement based on hope, NOT SCIENCE.
@Gilbertus1986 saying that cause we don't have all fossil record, it means that evolution is wrong...that's an argument from ignorance, we do have some fossil record, what makes you think we won't discover more?
@simw7 No.. You are arguing from faith. YOU HOPE there are more fossils out there that will validate your claims. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.
SCIENCE only deals with the facts that happen NOW. If new evidence comes to light later, so be it, HOWEVER it is not scientific to have a theory that is based on evidence that may, (or May not) come.
I am not arguing from ignorance, I am saying that the current evidence doesn't support your claims. THIS IS SCIENTIFIC.
@simw7 If you claim that we do not need empirical facts for science then I can claim that I can fly as a scientific fact. (do not laugh as this is how ridiculous your arguement is).. In support of this I can just claim, (like you did), that the evidence will come about later.
So there you have it, using your logic, scientifically I can fly :D
@Gilbertus1986 ooh yeah so the logic ur using is that if we haven't observe it empirically it's not science. Well let me give you an example. the ex planet Pluto takes about 247 or so years to orbit the sun. we've known it for no longer than 80 years now, we haven't observe it empirically orbiting the sun, but we know that it does orbit the sun. Also, I gave you the Forensic scientists who don't observe the murder occurring then why do we accept how the solve murders? i mean it's not imperical
@simw7 Yes, because a scientific theory needs empirical validity!!
Ah ha the pluto arguement! Was wondering when this would come up. I'll put this simply, so you can understand. PLUTO WAS BE OBSERVED!!! You can read about the discovery here wDOTplanetaryDOTorg/explore/topics/pluto/plutodiscovery4.html
@Gilbertus1986 and As for the fusing chromosome, what kind of deceptive creator would make an animal looking so closely related. make them with so much similar DNA, make their chromosomes look as tho they had been fused instead of just making them different. I don't get it. seriously dude, we can observe evolution on a smaller level, we've seen the fused chromosome. I mean what's so hard about understanding it? damn ur dumb
@simw7 AND I TOLD YOU THAT WHATEVER OCCURS IN A COURT OF LAW IS NOT SCIENTIFIC!! IT DOESN"T NEED TO BE EMPIRICAL, I HAVE TOLD YOU THIS THREE TIMES ALREADY!!
WHY DO YOU KEEP ON REPEATING THE SAME DEBUNKED CRAP?
Admit you are wrong and move on, this is how people LEARN things.
ooh please? say what? whatever happens in court doesn't need to be scientifically imperical? hahaha that's funny and who said that? It's scientific, thats why they call it Forensic Science fool DNA evidence is that law not science?. and Nobody has observed Pluto making a full orbit of the sun fool we assum that it would complete the full orbit of the sun. Evolution is fact fool. If you take any genetic make up of any animals for put them together compare amphibians, birds, mamals, (cont)
@simw7 Seriously, you are the one that looks like a fool.
Forensic science is science yes, however you said about being empirical, not about being science. Hence you are changing the goal posts. YOU said it is not empirical, and I told you it doesn't matter that it isn't. Thats it.
The DNA evidence is used in the LAW court hence since LAW doesn't care about empirical viability then it doesn't matter.
@simw7 Seriously, you are the one that looks like a fool.
HOWEVER WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A "SCIENTIFIC" THEORY THEN YOU NEED EMPIRICAL VIABILITY. ASK ANY SCIENTIST, (I am going to be one soon), AND THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A HYPOTHESIS, (let alone a theory), YOU NEED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR IT. GO ASK THEM!!
@Gilbertus1986 I am a astrophysics major also and I know all about evidence and scientific logic. Seriously let me ask you a question, when the forensics scientists come to collect evidence, is that science or not?
@simw7 It is science. HOWEVER (and I was given this warning by my lecturers), you must take things with "a grain of salt", and realise when something is assumed and when something is proven by the evidence. Scientists can make an assumption, (which is a prediction), however if they intend to pass this off as a new "fact" then this is where the empirical viability comes in. Empirical viability separates science from philosophy.
@Gilbertus1986 I know all about these things. Sometimes science makes assumption on things, that's why most theories get updated, when new evidence come over. Forexample, when astronomers claim about super-massive blackholes in the middle of gallaxies I mean that's a scientific theory. you say that evolution doesn't make predictions. For example Darwin predicted that based on African apes, human species arose in Africa, this prediction has been supported by genetics, and fossil records
@simw7 Forensic scientists can repeat their DNA tests, they are just looking for a match, that is repeatable and observable, they then conclude that a person blood was or was not found on the scene. Evo scientists can do this too, HOWEVER they conclude that because of apparant similarities life must have "evolved", however this cannot be taken from the evidence it is an assumption from the evidence as being similar doesn't mean evolution. What evos conclude is an assumption off the "evidence"
@Gilbertus1986 If evos said that life is similar, then thats fine, that is shown by the evidence. However they take it one step further and claim that evolution was the cause of the similarities... THIS is the assumption. As you cannot find what the cause was based on similarites alone. There needs to be a mechanism, unfortuanatly for you they are still trying to work out what the mechanism is, (Even Dawkins doesn't know lol )
@Gilbertus1986 Mechanism for evolution? haha wow do you even understand evolution? Mutation in Genes, Natural Selection, Migration, heritable and passed on to the next generation. all these are mechanism and agent for evolution. We've observed some animals changing color etc.. i've said this a longtime ago dude, but you won't accept it. I mean I don't see you debunking what astronomers are doing which is looking at stars and making conclusion. or Anthropologis, or paleontologists. seriously
@simw7 PM sent about mutation as it is 2000 words long..
Actually I have debunked some- Big Bang Theory defies the laws of Thermodynamics. (this is a physicists theory). Also the dating techniques for carbon / radiometric dating is based on assumptions, hence why they don't bother with it now, this is palentology.
Animals changing colour is not becoming a new species PERIOD... Arguementum ad nauseum.
@Gilbertus1986 the big bang defies what laws of Thermodynamics, you're telling me that u've debunked things, that u haven't haha that's why i'm keepin on repeating myself cuz you don't wanna listen. The big bang doesn't defies any laws. YOU don't know anything about the theory itself, if you're talking about. it's not fucking assumption fool. Goddamn, i'm gettin sick of you. you say that when Forensic scientist compare DNA and finger print it's ok. But when Evolutionary biologists compare cont)
@simw7 The 1st Law of ThermoD states that energy cannot be created.. Matter is chemical energy.. Hence you can't have nothing blow up to create everything.
Furthermore where was the energy for the explosion?
2nd Law states that anything left in nature will go towards CHAOS, break-down, decay, die, (entropy). Hence if this is the perogative of the natural world then how did ORDER come about, ie- how were things created when all nature does is slowly destroy. Entropy, (chaos) NEVER decreases
the first law implies energy must, as you quote, "come from somewhere". That's the real issue. However, a universe is defined as a complete space-time continuum plus its contents. "come" implies an external time and "where" implies an external space. An entire universe therefore, by definition, cannot "come from somewhere", The first law, therefore, can only be applied to objects within it. A universal feature of all physics problems is the requirement for initial conditions (continue)
@simw7 How do you know that the big bang had a low entropy.. Entropy is chaos / randomness... Generally the nature of an explosion, (and its energy), is very random. Hence you are just SAYING it is so, without actual proof of that claim. I just showed you a paper that disproves natural selection, did you forget about it? Yes it was published in nature.. (if you just read the link you would have seen that...)
boy ain"t u deluded lol a paper a published from nature Journal that disprove Natural Selection? if natural selection was disproved then evolution would be disprove fool thats how science works. if one observation had contradicted evolution, that theory would be cast out of the window,wow you cretards haha wow. Plus the Big ban theory is the current theory, it's not finished yet. Physicists are still working on what came b4 the big bang. it could be multiple universes, string theory cud b rite
@simw7 Furthermore you still haven't shown me how the big bang "created" matter from nothing.. All you did was a "Gish Gallop", attempting to confuse the situation with CR@P
@simw7 Furthermore you still haven't shown me how the big bang "created" matter from nothing.. All you did was a "Gish Gallop", attempting to confuse the situation with CR@P
I didn't say, "come from somewhere", I said this, "Hence you can't have nothing blow up to create everything"
@Gilbertus1986 Plus no one ever said that the big bang created matter from nothing, the theory says that there was a singularity, or all matter in the universe resided in that singularity. Further more the second law of Therm states that entropy it's not about randomness of the particles, it's about possibilities, and lucky for us the laws of the universe (gravity) went to work and formed what we have to day. some have hypothesis about other universe that exist and prolly are in chaos
@Gilbertus1986 bones, genetics, Chromosomes, fossils, etc.. you say ain't not right wtf are you dumb? seriously dude. Idk,...if you think evolution is wrong, go a head and refute it, if you can then you'll be a famous scientist. many Theories have been desproved before, so why hasn't evolution? it's been 150 years, and many scientists have wrked hard to disprove it, but none, even one single observation has actually disprove it. go write a paper and find what's wrong with evolution go away
@simw7 Actually there are many papers that show results that go against what the evolution model predicts, however these are "explained away" with priori statements and just-so-stories..
Yes its been here for 150yrs and yet in all this time there is STILL NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE... Talk about flogging a dead horse!!!
The Big Bang is a state of a extremely low entropy. Since the Big Bang, entropy has of course continually increased. But the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not only apply on the positive direction of the time axis within the block universe. the papers written to disprove evolution have they been peer-reviewed scientifically? for the love of fucking god, we do have Evidence for evolution you even say it we've seen mutation is bacteria and virus. seriously write a paper to disprove evolution
@Gilbertus1986 dude so what's testable for you, let me say you want scientists to go in a lab and produce a dog out of cat in a lab? haha that would disprove evolution dude. haha wow idk what else. I mean, I gave you genetics what scientist do is look at other animals genes and just compare them one by one and it show a family tree and how they all evolved.
@simw7 You said this, "it show a family tree and how they all evolved"
As I said before, showing similarities is not showing HOW they "evolved", showing HOW would be to show the mechanism, ie- what mutation does what to bring about this new function which leads to this new body plan, which would be able to bring about a new species. No modern scientist can definitively explain the actual mechanism, as I said before, your prophet Dawkins deosn't know either.
@simw7 It seems to me that you just keep on repeating the same stuff over and over in the hope that the more times you say it, will make it true. Arguementum ad nauseum. I have already shown you, (in detail), how your claim is wrong. Similarities do not show that evolution is true, evolution is extrapolated from the similarities, and extrapolation is NOT empirical evidence, since it is an assumption. Please UNDERSTAND this, I am sick and tired of repeating the facts to you.
@Gilbertus1986 it doesn't really make alot of prediction as you might a true science should, then why don't you say the same thing about Astronomy and archaeology? they collect evidences, and see where they fit into their theory, they don't make predictions like physics, chemistry would do. Even the forensic science, they don't make predictions or do collect evidences just like what evolutionary biologist do
@simw7 Assumption based logic has NO credability for supporting a SCIENTIFIC theory. This is where EMPIRICAL evidence is needed. Otherwise if you don't need empirical evidence then people can claim anything as scientific fact.. I can say God is a scientific fact using YOUR logic.
Respond to this video...you compare their genetics, according to what evolution predict they genetic code make something like a family tree, which is the tree of life, which evolution has always say
Its not about understanding it. Its about the level of evidence, and what kind of evidence is NEEDED for a theory. What you have jsut said was 100% Assumption... Assumption based logic has NO credability for supporting a SCIENTIFIC theory. This is where EMPIRICAL evidence is needed. Otherwise if you don't need empirical evidence then people can claim anything as scientific fact.. I can say God is a scientific fact using YOUR logic.
@Gilbertus1986 I gave you evidence from Chromosomes and how the 2 chromosomes got fused which indicates that we have 48 and now 46. The human and the Chimps genetic codes, Physiological evidence, psychological evidence, but yet you still think that I haven't given you any scientific evidence, you sir u are as delusional as any creation
@simw7 And as I said before, (do you ever listen to me?? OR is it you just don't understand??), HAVING SIMILARITIES DOESN'T TELL YOU WHAT CAUSED THOSE SIMILARITIES. YOU NEED A MECHANISM, otherwise you are just assuming evolution is the cause. (I have said this 3 times, please understand).
Its like saying the Sun and a ball are both round so they MUST have been created the same way... Knowing that they are both round gives you NO information as to HOW they were created.
@Gilbertus1986 I gave you the chromosomes evidence for mechanism, r you fucking listening. how we homosapians have 46 and chimps have 48, and the 2 chromosomes missing were fused which indicate that we had 48 and 2 had been fused. Also genetics how our genes are 98 percent similar to the chimps, they're only mising few of genes that only make us unique and different from other apes. for example genes for speech, and just a few things dude are you listening? and for the fossil records ( cont)
@simw7 Dude you don't realise that what you said IS NOT EVIDENCE of the mechanism!!!!
Have you observed the chromosomes fusing? Can you empirically PROVE that they fused? Can you show the mechanism that caused them to fuse? Can you repeat this in the lab?
NO... ALL you are doing is ASSUMING that it has occured, and then claiming YOUR ASSUMPTION as evidence... What I am asking for is WHAT caused it, how was it caused, this is the mechanism. Showing similarities doesn't tell me WHAT happene
they're fur stand up, humans since we don't have fur, we have the goosebumps on our body. refute the chromosomes argument that I brought up. refute chimps genetic code argument that I brought up. look at similarities between us and chimps. they go to war just like us, they make tools just like us, they have sex for not just for perpetuation but for fun just like us, they way of parenting is just like us, their affectionate, live in a community just like us, develop friendship, they even kiss
@simw7 From what you have just said you have no idea of what is needed for SCIENTIFIC evidence.
Yes they may have similarities HOWEVER similarities doesn't give you the mechanism that made those similarities. HENCE you are just ASSUMING EVOLUTION.
Its like saying the Sun and a ball are both round so they MUST have been created the same way... Knowing that they are both round gives you NO information as to HOW they became round.
@simw7 You do realise that the Big Bang defies the laws of Thermodynamics, (thus it defies reality)...
You genetics "evidence" is assumption-based. You are assuming evolution from it. Hence it isn't evidence it is just your opinion.
The fossil record shows jumps between forms, it defies the evolution model. Are you claiming that every single one of the TRILLIONS of transitional forms that are supposedly caused by evolution just-so-happened to not fossilise correctly?
How does goosebumps show evolution, (this is going to be fun). As far as anyone knows it is a mechanism for keeping body heat in when it is cold outside, (much like how we sweat to cool off when it is too hot outside).
Removing an appendix is not critical to a person health, however it is still a useful part of the digestive system. Hence it has a purpose and is not vestigial, I ALREADY TOLD YOU THIS BEFORE.. Stubborn much??
did you know that nothing in biology makes sense without evolution? seriously, have you ever looked at Genetics and just a few sequences in our Genetic codes that actually separate us from them. some genes for speech, etc.. Also our chromosomes we have 46 and they have 48 which the 2 human chromosomes were fused, it indicates that we were once related to each other, and then we evolved differently. one question is why would a designed make a specie's chromosomes look as though (cont)
@simw7 Biology got on just fine without evolution. ANd you do realise that, that quote is a FAITH STATEMENT.
Mendel, (the father of GENETICS), was against evolution. In fact evolution defies his FIrst Law.
Fused chromosomes isn't EMPIRICAL PROOF. Can you repeat it? Did you observe it? Can it be tested or measured? All you are doing is ASSUMING evolution from it. It doesn't prove anything.
it seems like the designer is so deceptive for making things look like they were fused. Also, if we see the small changes in animals for example diet, we've seen same specie of an animal but with different colors, or bird with different size beak, so you accept that animals were not created they way they were because they have to adapt to their new environment?
@simw7 Yes we do see small changes in animals to adapt to their enviroment.
"Darwin's" finches changed the ratio of beak shapes due to a drought. However when the drought ended the ratio went back to what it was before, hence no NET evolution / change... Thus variation is oscilating and not leading to new features. It also shows how weak selection pressure is for evolution, since in nature the environment is always changing, thus there will never be a sonsistant selection pressure for evo.
lol DNA, you keep on talking about DNA, we share 98 percent of DNA with chimps, and about 70 percent of DNA with a rats, 50 with other organism, why it's because we share an ancestry at one point on the tree of life. but what counts more is the Genetic. they've mapped the Chimp's genetic code, and like they look at our genes compare to theirs is that most of the genes that we have is what separate us from them, for example genes that enable us to talk, etc.. Also our chromosome (cont)
@simw7 You do realise there is much more to a cell than DNA. There are about 10,000 proteins used in a cell, yet scientists found only 30,000 genes capable of producing proteins, hence there is some other mechansism that is creating different proteins from the same gene, (or something like that). Suffice to say, scientists are only scratching the surface to the complexity of life
@simw7 I told you last time, we share 50% of our DNA with bananas..... Hence the 96% (yes it is only 96), for chimps doesn't amount to that much.
Your goosebumps is much like the rest of your "evidence", an ASSUMED conclusion with no empirical backing. Start solving science with science, stop using assumption-based logic and extrapolations to facade as science.
You keep on bringing the goose bumps argument, i've explained to you what i meant by it, and i don't have to say it again, you can read my old post. I gave you evidence from genetics, physiology human brains, and other animals brains and how they evolve. See science like evolution is like a puzzle and you have to put the puzzle together, that's what they've done, there's no way in hell you can speed up evolution, and change one animal into an other, that would contradict the theory itself
@simw7 I was just showing how your "gossebumps evidence", is merely an assumption based conclusion. Hence it isn't evidence. Which means either, you were lying about it being evidence, or you don't actually know what REAL scientific evidence is....
SCIENTIFIC evidence is EMPIRICAL. PERIOD.
And just like the goosebumps, the rest of your so-called evidence was assumption based, merely an INTERPRETATION of the evidence rather than a conclusion from the evidence itself.
Assumptions are NOT SCIENCE nor are they useable as actual evidence.
Science is like a puzzle.. HOWEVER it is all starts with observations in reality and is investigated with experimentation, (which is empirical). Assuming the conclusion, isn;t scientific, nor is it logical
@simw7 However the changes we see is always within the limits of the DNA of the organism. For example I can't breed a pig as big as a house, this is because there are limits to what the body can do. Furthermore, these changes have never been observed to bring an organism outside of its species classification. Until that happens evolution is EXTRAPOLATED off of the back of variation within species.
However DNA evidence for evolution isn't the same as this, (as it isn't just matching the same DNA together) . Evolutionists DNA evidence is about looking at the similarities and then say that "evolution did it"... However with no definable mechanism for this they are unable to quantify their claims, hence it is assumption based.
Fun fact- did you know we share 75% of our DNA with worms, how about over 50% with bananas... Kinda makes the 96% for chimps seem a bit "meh"...
Obviously since they have diverged they have diverged in the way that the gut develops (which cells it develops from). But this in no way invalidates homology. It is only to be expected that species which shared a common ancestor so far in the past have evolved such different ways of development. It doesn't matter whether the genes responsible for the guts of these three species are radically different. In fact it is to be expected given what we know of evolution.
One of the people at the start of the video claims that homology is similarity. Homology is similarity due to common descent. Convergence is similarity due to coincidence (broadly defined). Evolution is a branching of forms, so we would need to trace the ancestors of the sharks, lampreys and frogs back in time. If we did we would see that their guts all developed from the same cells because their ancestors were of the same species.
Their argument in simple words: Trees are green, snakes are green. Trees and snakes aren't related, THEREFORE evolution is wrong.
Homology DOES point to common ancestry, but does not proove common ancestry, because homology can also point to: same environmental pressure AND random chance.
It's quite obvious that no scientist will say "because flowers are blue, and your eyes are blue, therefore, your mother was half flower half human. That's retarded
@De4sher Microbiologist Denton writes, “structures as obviously homologous as the vertebrate alimentary canal are formed from quite different embryological sites in different vertebrate classes. The alimentary canal is formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity in the sharks,
---
…from the floor in the lamprey,from roof&floor in frogs,&from the lower layer of the embryonic disc,the blastoderm,in birds&reptiles.” This directly contradicts what evolution theory
If by 'Australian Wolf' Berlinski means 'Tazmanian Devil', he should be ashamed of himself. The overwhelming differences between this wolf and the North American Timber Wolf were actually brought up in the Dover trial to showcase the dishonesty and deliberate anti-science of the Intelligent Design textbook.
Christopher Hitchens compares the US to the horror and oppression of N. Korea because he's "forced" to listen to religious music every year around Christmas. And yet for decades a theory so full of holes that after 150+ years it's nowhere near to being law is shoved down our throats. Oh, and if you're a prof and mention God you get kicked out. Whose being oppressive?
@boledle Your statement is that out of ignorance. Evolution from common decent by the means of natural selection is a fact, and its proven without God. The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.
Because it's filled with misrepresentations, lies and misguidance. It's not based on science but on faked science. The critique of the theory of evolution isn't solid, since it's based on bad understandning of the theory. The "schools" that you talk about are probably at the degree that lies would only confuse students with a relativly low education.
Really? Can you point out "misrepresentation, lies and misguidance" then? You say it's "filled" with them, shouldn't be a problem to name a few examples right?.
It's not simply becase they look alike that we can draw the conclusion about organisms relationship. It's more about HOW they look alike.
Both Wells and the narrator say "Darwinists", a term that really shouldn't be used since it means absolutely nothing.
I'm not in any way an expert on gut development, but frogs, sharks and lamprey are seperated by millions and millions of years. Nothing in evolutionary biology says the development can't change.
But where is this even mentioned? This video is regarding two totally separate species with similar looking parts, and this coming about through completely different genes, and darwinists (completely common usage) insisting on this as proof of ToL with NOTHING to back it up for decades.
Common doesn't mean right. "Darwinists" is a wrongly used term (since it shouldn't be used at all).
Remember that NOTHING in science is proof. We only have data (+ counterdata/no data). Homology is consistant with the theory of evolution, and data backs it up.
Homology itself isn't a scientific word, it's used in several ways in biology. The first words of the video address precisely the context of homology here. There's nothing ambiguous in this video. Point me to the exact point in the video which is at all in anyway ambiguous.
I think the problem here is that they are confusing homologous structures with analogous structures. For instance, birds and bats did not inherit wings from a common ancestor.
you know how it is. the more videos these creationists update on youtube, the more shit they have to show, and the more people they get to fool that they're real scientists.
Quite smart actually. I don't really believe these people really mean it.
@De4sher There are millions of creationists including many top notch and award winning scientists who think the evidence points FAR better to creation than it does to anything else. I'm a professor myself and at present, I'd estimate the evidence for the Bible's view is about 80% evidence and 20% faith. Atheism/abiogenesis is about 99% faith if not more. Evolution is about 20% speculative evidence (MUCH stolen from creation science) and about 80% faith.
@adkinsjr Evolutionists&atheists are confusing a HOST of things (mostly due to being completely uninformed about the problems and rivals to education. Ex:
The act of creation and evolution aren't rivals. They deal with different questions. The true rivals are:
1) abiogenes vs. creation. Biogenesis is fully on the side of creation.
2) creationist natural selection from species to family levels vs. Darwin's idea of speciation going from family to kingdom levels. Creation easily wins here too.
@dotoree how the fuck does creation wins if you have demostrate things were created? lol hahaha you're a full,..seriously show me evidence for creation,..don't just assert that things look created therefore they were created. plus how do you differentiate life that was created vs life that started naturally?
if you cannot find a mechanism or process that accounts for the specificity and complexity of life via an undirected process, (ie- random natural processes), then evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Having a creator IS the default position, as life exists, if there is no process for evolution to follow logicaly.
Furthermore the creationist version of speciation IS what is observed in reality, evolutionists take reality one step further with macro-evolution
Seriously change overtime is a fact. I've observed it through animals. I mean for example humans took cattles and unknowingly had the mate, they selected the healthiest cows and bulls and had them mate, and now we have new breeds, if you compare those cows and the one natural produced by nature, they're different. so evolution by natural selection happens overtime, 1000 thousands of generations, thats when a specie might change. the one that have to adapt to their environment
@simw7 Of course change occurs over time, that is variation, (ie- micor evolution). However it has NEVER been observed or proven that such variations WITHIN the species can be extrapolated to lead to large changes to change one species into another. This is what is assumed by evolutionists, I hope I don't need to tell you that assumptions are NOT scientific :p
how can macro-evolution be proven. Micro evolution and macro evolution is the same. I mean small changes over a short time, vs a big change over a longtime. It's impossible to prove the Big change over a Longtime cuz we haven't been around to see it. Though we can follow the evidence that show the common ancestry, Genetics we can actually see our DNA compare it to our closet ancestor on the tree of life. We can look at embryology, Also the reptilian brain that we share with other mammals etc.
Its obvious you haven't even bothered to watch and comprehend this video, as it disputes the homology evidence. Watch it, comprehend it, you'll see that evolution scientists are JUST making assumptions... (Which isn't science)
DNA "evidence" is moot as we share 75% of our DNA with worms and over 50% of our DNA with bananas... (So we eat our "half"-brothers lol)
Embrology is moot too, due to the falacy of haekles pictures. The ones he drew from his assumptions NOT from reality
@Gilbertus1986 hahaha what? we share that much DNA with other animals, it's not that we're brothers but us with all living things are cousins. Embryology what? we can observe it, we have the technology to see the embryo in an egg shell, or a womb and see it development. what about our reptilian brain, the brain that you can find in reptilians, which is our primitive part of the brain. Also when I pointed out to select breeding, I mean it's not just an assumption, it's something logical think
@simw7 Just because you or some other person says so doesn't make it so. What is the EVIDENCE. Furthermore you may want to watch this video about embrology, perhaps you will OBSERVE how illogical and false it it.
w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=ictZJln3Vj4&feature=related
@simw7 Selective breeding is change WITHIN a species, no evolution is observed, as dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats, pigs remain pigs... How can you assume that all life evolved from bacteria from such "evidence", if things stay the same, (as Mendel predicted, and what reality shows) this falsifies evolution.
@Gilbertus1986 there wee go again, do stay dog and cat stay cats, but guess what evolution doesn't happen overnight, dumbo,..seriously you can only observe a small changes overtime. I don't know why you can't accept the idea that micro-evolution and macro-evolution is the same thing. It's like saying it's possible to walk a distance from Boston to NYC, but it's impossible to walk From Boston to LA. I mean small changes over millions over years will result to big changes.
As you admitted you cannot observe it, hence you cannot say your claims are empirical. As they are extrapolated... This is all what evolution is, and extrapolation. Where is the EMPIRICAL, (scientific), evidence?
You are using the "argumentum ad futuris" logical fallacy... Arguement from the future. You are basing your beliefs on the HOPE that it took millions of years, despite having no concrete empirical evidence that claims as much. You are assuming evolution is true and then claim that we can't see it because it takes too long. Much like belief in God since we can't see him because he's supernatural.
Do you know what a bell curve is? In mathematics there are always outliers, as such we should see some outliers in evolution, (ie some animals that are in a transition stage from the rest of its species), yet as you said there are no observed transitions. Hence you have just falsified evolution all by yourself, congratulations!
for fuck sake, all fossils animals are transitional, god damn, every fossil record we've got is transitional. We just can't observe macro-evolution a species changing into a new specie because it takes a millions of years. but we have genetics, fossil records etc.. what do you mean i just falsified evolution? we've observed micro-evolution which is the same as macro-evolution look it up dummy. small changes overtime lead to bigger changes isn't that even something of a common sense?
@simw7 Micro-evo is NOT Macro-evo I have shown you (in detail), how they are different. Yet you stubbornly refuse to accept reality. I have made no faith statements, I have based all my conclusions on empirical science validated by the real world. It is YOU who is making fanciful claims, and using the logical fallacy of 'argumentum ad futuris' as your cover.
Show me how micro-evolution, (Change WITHIN a species), can lead to Macro, (change to BECOME a NEW species). Where does the NEW info come
@simw7 Furthermore define what a "species" is, as I have heard scientists at my Uni talk about different species, yet were able to inter-breed.... Which in itself empirically shows that they are NOT new species, just variants (breeds) of the same species.
@Gilbertus1986 Godamn you stupid creationists i gave you an analogy example, micro evolution is a small change with a gene pool, when a specie change for example it coloring or size, diet etc...but is it hard for you to comprehend that small changes in a specie over a long period of time, given evolution takes about 5 million at minimum for a specie evolve into a different specie, you're either studid or just retarded to not see how many small changes can result into big change overtime
@simw7 So how do "small changes over time" constitute a NEW species when there is no input of NEW information. Also what is the MECHANISM of the CREATION of NEW INFORMATION? Even Richard Dawkins has no clue to this, yet it is an integral part to evolution.
How do you KNOW evolution takes 5 million years? Or do you ASSUME this.
dude stay a creatard all you want, hell even the pope himself accept evolution, don't say argument from authority. I'm not an evolutionary biologist really, and i have a life I can't spend it on arguing about it w u. But one thing is Evolution is a fact. it's not an assumption. The language analogy was just to show you that many changes overtime constituent a big change over a long period of time. Evolution is observed slowly, it's observable, i think anybody with a mind can see understand it
@simw7 Wow yet another ad hominem why am I not surprised :D
You do realise people only turn turn to ad hominems when they have no way to prove their point. Attacking the man not the evidence. Bad Form!
"Evolution is a fact", why? because you say so? You have given NO empirical (reality based) evidence thus you have no credability
You do realise that nothing in science is actually a "fact" as it doesn't deal with absolutes, (as any theory can and has change/d with the coming of new evidence).
evolution is not imagined, we look at evidence, just like a crime it's not observed, but we use science to solve them, we look at evidence of that's present and solve the murder fool. I guess you're saying that it's science only if you're directly observing it. Keep on dreaming about tur imaginary friend Jesus or w/e the hell ur pray to. Evolution is a fact whether you like it or not. Everything change overtime. we don't need to directly observe them evolving, but the evidence is there fool
@simw7 Again you use unscientific principles in a scientific debate!! First language now crime scenes..
Crime scenes have NOTHING to do with EMPIRICAL VALIDITY, hence it has nothing to do with evolution. Why do you continually get your arguements from UNSCIENTIFIC means? Do you WANT to look like noob?
@Gilbertus1986 let me ask you a question, what evidence for macro-evolution do yo need, I mean macro-evolution is a big change over a long amount of time, so sir How do we observe that empirically? since you don't accept the fact that small changes overtime a short amount leads to a bigger change over a long period of time? I was saying the jesus stuff because I know that ur a creationist who can't see reason really. So what evidence do you want for macro-evolution.
@simw7 Observable, repeateable and measurable evidence showing the mechanism of the creation of NEW information.
If scientists can't cough up the empirical evidence to support a hypotheis, let alone a theory, then that idea SHOULD be treated with caution, as it has no empirical evidence from reality. It is up to the evolutionist to provide the evidence BEFORE touting evolution as a fact. Not say it is a fact and then look for the evidence later, as this is a position of FAITH not of science
observable, testable evidence and measurable evolution that we can see is for example the how bacteria and viruses evolve, and become stronger and becomes immune to an antibiotics. That genetically. I know you would say something like but it still a bacteria not a dog. or w/e. Also we've also seen fast evolution into some lizards were shipped to an island, just a few decade later, they changed their diet, their jaws became different, they adapt to their new environment.
Bacteria ARE STILL bacteria, Lizards ARE STILL lizards.
Speciation only occurs when it becomes a NEW species, and that only occurs (in most cases), when they are no longer able to breed together to form a viable offspring.
Hence you are EXTRAPOLATING evolution from your examples as speciation doesn't occur in them, just a change WITHIN the species limits. Therefore, your evidence isn't empirical evidence of evolution. (it is empirical evidence for variation within a species, to create new breeds of a species)... YET they are the same species, (for example the breeds of dogs are all still dogs despite their differences)
then you don't understand evolution goddamnn you creationists. lol wow it's a change win in a specie? yes it's dog are still dogs, but how long have we been around to see dog evolving? or any other animals? Yes, I admit that it's impossible to see animals evolving into a new specie, but if you say that it's a religon not science then the forensic scientist are a religions too because they can't observe the murderer. Evolution is observed, you can't observe a specie changin into a new on foo
@simw7 Seriously it is YOU who do not understand. Your response was FULL of self defeating statements and contradictions, such as...
"Evolution is observed, you can't observe a specie changin into a new on " - if you can't observe speciation, then you can't observe evolution PERIOD.
"Yes, I admit that it's impossible to see animals evolving into a new specie"
Hence you are (unknowingly) admitting to ASSUMING evolution occurs.
Back to micro-evo... Do you admit that since you cannot see the small changes becoming large ones that you are assuming evolution based on faith... (argumentum futuris... or "it will take millions of years thats why we can't see it" )
Furthermore for Macro evolution to be even considered there needs to be a mechanism for NEW genetic data. (As a fish doesn't have legs / hips / shoulders / lungs to begin with).
First of all we don't evolve from chimps, we're closely related to chimps, we share a close ancestor. we are also related to every living thing on earth that's why it's called the tree of life. Second of all we can't see the small changes becoming big changes because it's impossible, nobody can live for 5 or 20 million years. when I told you that animals must adapt to a new environment, and it's a fact that environment change all the time, and mutation accure all the time in animals
@simw7 So since you cannot observe it you are assuming it, yes...
All of what you said is yet MORE assumptions!!!! Without a mechanism you have NOTHING! I have asked you if you have the mechanism for NEW genetic data, since this is essential for macro to be even considered. Even Dawkins has failed to show this. Or are you attempting for more dodging?
Where is the EMPIRICAL evidence for your claims, all I have heard is fanciful ponderings, but no substance to your arguements. (Are you going to refer to more debunked evidence?).
Here is another. If bacteria is so good at survivng, what was the enviromental pressures for it to "evolve" into a multicelular organism. Also do we have ANY fossils of this alledged transition?
Or is this stage forgotten about, just because monkeys look similar.. Bacteria "must" have evolved
@Gilbertus1986 imperical evidence for the reptillian brain? ttp://hubpages.com/hub/Evolution-of-the-human-brain-and-emotional-intelligence. the damn damn appandix isn't necessairy because we end up loosing it anyways. plus you didn't debunk the goose bumps, why do we have goose bumps? evolution explains that. and yeah the brain is complex so what? it evolved just like any other animal's brain
Hence none of these are redundant features and serves a purpose.
Your "reptilian brain" arguement... Where is your empirical evidence for this. Did you bother to read the article I sent last time you used this showing that each neuron is a microprocessor (computer), which indicates complexity to the xenth degree. It said we have more connections that comps on the internet
@Gilbertus1986 is that hard for ur brain to process? I mean seriously, Also Genetically we can look at the chimps' chromosomes and human chromosomes which indicate that we're closely related to each other. we can look at our human brain, and how it literally evolved it has all layers from the reptillian, mammalian, and primate brain, which correspond with the way animals evolved from reptilians, to mammals then to primates, seriously. plus our tailbone, goose bumps, the damn appandix
@simw7 I remember you used this line of "evidence" before and I already debunked it, why do you still believe in debunked evidence??? Unless you are taking it on the basis of FAITH, rather than the evidence itself... (just like religion...hmmm)
@simw7 Observable, repeateable and measurable evidence showing the mechanism of the creation of NEW information, new DNA codes, new promoter proteins specific to the new DNA codes, new signal pathways specific to the new promoter protein.
This would be a good start in the area of Micro- Biology where Evolution is SERIOUSLY lacking!
@simw7 Evolution isn't observed... ALL scientists admit this, you are claiming faith statements again.
Change WITHIN a species doesn't constitute change to BECOME A NEW species, no matter how hard you try or how much you believe with as much faith as you can muster THIS is a fact and you cannot escape from it by stubbornly refusing it and returning to your belief in Imagination-land
@Gilbertus1986 evolution is observed but on smaller level such as bacteria, viruses. it is, and it's not an imaginary thing you fool lol we have genetics, which seems to explains evolution, we have some fossil record, even though it's hard to really get them because it's hard to collect them. keep on thinking that magic man created animals and put a magical curse on them and said that they can't evolve at all. to me that's an imaginary land.
@simw7 Dude, we observe small changes in bacteria yes... HOWEVER THEY ARE STILL BACTERIA!
No evolution is observed as they haven't changed species, it is EXTRAPOLATED, (assumed)... This is the sad truth of evolution. Unless you have EMPIRICAL evidence, rather than just saying it is so... (Like as if you saying it enough times will make it true... argumentum ad nauseam)
@simw7 You said "we don't need to directly observe them evolving"
Errr YES you DO.. If you want to have EMPIRICAL validity, then observation (as well as experimentation, measurability and falsifification) is (are) VITAL. SCIENCE IS EMPIRICAL.. Without it all you have is assumption and imagination. (Which is why you continue to dodge answering my questions)
@simw7 Your Jesus wisecrack is a strawman as I have never said anything about Jesus. (As I have said before I am agnostic, hence you are using misrepresentation and lies to create an ad hominem. Bad form!
You STILL continue to dodge my scientific questions... If evolution really was a fact and was upheld by all tenets of science then why do you continue to run from inquiry? Isn't inquiry NEEDED to weed out bad theories from good?
@Gilbertus1986 dude almost everything evolve overtime, look at something as simple as language don't you see how many languages evolved from latin? French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian. Over a long period of time, these languages also called Romantic Language came from a same ancestor Latin, which has gone exctinct.. latin evolved into a new different species, same as for animals small changes overtime become bigger changes over a long period of time dummy
Its obvious you haven't even bothered to watch and comprehend this video, as it disputes the homology evidence. Watch it, comprehend it, you'll see that evolution scientists are JUST making assumptions... (Which isn't science)
DNA "evidence" is moot as we share 75% of our DNA with worms and over 50% of our DNA with bananas... (So we eat our "half"-brothers lol)
Embrology is moot too, due to the falacy of haekles pictures. The ones he drew from his assumptions NOT from reality.
Lots of little changes don't automatically come together to create a big change. This is your assumption, and you have admited to it not being able to be proven. Hence how can this be "scientific", if it cannot be proven let alone be empirical.
Macro evolution deals with more than just variations to an already existing plan. Its about the emergence of NEW data, and new systems. ie- legs for fish.
Considering that each mutatiion would be small, and for each step to be selected for it would need to result in a benefit for the organism... how useful will half leg stumps be?
In fish, for load bearing legs, (like lizards) to be possible they'd need
a) shoulder supports and hips
b) the spine will need to move towards the top of the body- thus unbalancing the fish for swimming
c) even when it has legs it will need to develop lungs in order to breathe
If they would name two extremely close sharks for example (remember that relations were define long before Darwin), we would expect the gut development to be extremely close aswell. And it is. The further apart two lifeforms are the bigger differences we'd expect to find, also in internal organs. And we do.
"Shark and lamprey" Its not a 'very different way, these genes were not expressed in the central nervous systems, somites, or fin buds/folds but were expressed in a restricted cell population surrounding the hindgut. Homology completely and and doubly confirmed by everything found in embryology genetics and the fossil record.
compare this with a 4-dimensional model of evolving life. here, all living matter is a single connected entity. we don't know where it came from and we don't know where its going, and it's hard to get perspective because we exist as pieces of it, perceiving our "self" from a lower dimension in space. but topological homology may suggest it really did come from nothing, and will end that way too.
yn30s 6 months ago
well that kind of structural sameness is more suited by the word "homeomorphic." a more interesting interpretation, i think, is that in homology theory there is a sense of exploring how a shape changes as an iterated operation moves through space one dimension at a time. the most accessible concept of this would be the (very related) cohomology associated with differentiation. we have diagrams showing how things start with a 0, then develop some structure, then ultimately return back to zero.
yn30s 6 months ago
look at all those comments. everybody's an expert. anyway i stumbled on this because i was looking for videos about homology theory from algebraic topology. i had no idea the word was used in biology. i've been studying the math version for less than a year so i have a lot yet to learn but i wonder what the reason is for the same name. most likely there isn't much of one. but in case ya didn't know, in math, homology sequences usually have a zero at either end. we probably do too.
yn30s 9 months ago
@yn30s maybe, because in both cases, homology concerned about the fundamental underlying structure, more than with the concrete measures and shapes of things. In biology it probably is nr. of bones and how they are interconnected whereas in math it's probably more a thing like the "number of k-dimensional holes in some topological space"... In both cases it's about defining a kind of "being the same" which goes beyond a being the same in the trivial sense...
dingalapadum 8 months ago
SING WITH ME!!! Homoplasy isn't homology! Homoplasy isn't homology! Homoplasy isn't homology... 123... homoplasy isn't homology!... yay yay yay homoplasy isn't homology... homoplasy 123... homoplasy isn't homology!... Homoplasy isn't homology! Homoplasy isn't homology! Homoplasy isn't homology... 123... homoplasy isn't homology!... yay yay yay homoplasy isn't homology... homoplasy 123... homoplasy isn't homology!... 123... sing with me.. homoplasy isn't homology!
f0xfree 1 year ago
There are plenty of paper that show the glaring holes of evolution.... IF you bother to look for them.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Here is a paper which shows that natural selection does JACK SH!T, in a lab environment where the selection pressure was greater than in nature and was held at a constant for 35 years.. rather than constantly changing like what actually occurs in nature, which reduces the selection effect.. Hence this experiment was set up for evolution to succeed.. it didn't!
wDOTnatureDOTcom/nature/journal/v467/n7315/full/nature09352.html
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 man i read your paper, and i doubt you did. It show clear evidence of selection causing changes in the population.
"Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult ~20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations"
"we identify several dozen genomic regions that show strong allele frequency differentiation between a pooled sample of five replicate populations selected for accelerated development and pooled controls"
I reccomend u read and understand in future
haz020190 9 months ago
I'll ask you to provide substance to your claim that goosebumps are evidence of evolution... (I hope you aren't assuming that because they are called goosebumps that we evolved from a goose-like-ancestor lol)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Comment removed
simw7 1 year ago
.we have 46 and the chimps have 48, by looking at our chromosomes and the chimps the missing chromosomes were actually fused which indicate that they once were there, but got fused. and for the goosebumps, we once had fur, and just like any other animals when we're scare cold etc.. the fur or hair stands up that's what i was trying to indicate. plus you can look at similarities between a human baby and a chimp baby you'd be surprised. same amount of body hair and many more
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 You do know what EMPIRICAL is do you? (look it up in the dictonary).. Now without empirical proof, anyone can say anything and call it fact. This is the power of science, to observe reality and see what actually occurs. Now where is the empirical verification of your claims. Or in otherwords, what PROOF do you have?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
you don't have to oberve anything in order to know that it occurred. For example the big bang, we know that it happened, we have evidence to support it, but now one really know for sure what happened and how it happened. As for evolution it's a fact that things change overtime. We've seen rapid evolution, but we can't fully observe an animal changing into a new one, i mean really? but we have evidence in Genetics, we got some fossil record although some animals don't fossilize (cont)
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 You do realise that the Big Bang defies the laws of Thermodynamics, (thus it defies reality)...
You genetics "evidence" is assumption-based. You are assuming evolution from it. Hence it isn't evidence it is just your opinion.
The fossil record shows jumps between forms, it defies the evolution model. Are you claiming that every single one of the TRILLIONS of transitional forms that are supposedly caused by evolution just-so-happened to not fossilise correctly?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 which law of thermadynamics does the big bang defies? plus how the hell did big bang defies the the law of thermonamics when it says that that big bag created the universe and all the laws in it. We have fossil records for a lot of animals I.e dinosaurs, ancient mamouth and many animals in the animal kingdom. go to the natural museum you'll see them. Also, for the goosebumps argument I mean do you have a cat? or dog? what happens when they get scared, or cold? (cont)
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Big Bang.. From nothing became everything.. Matter is chemical energy, naturalistically energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Energy is eternal. Also where did the energy come from for the Big Bang?
In nature you don't get something for nothing, there is ALWAYS a cost.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7
Entropy, the default perogative of nature is to wither and "die", (chaos). Rust, decay, rot and death all of these are the law of entropy at work. So if this is what nature does if left to its own devices, then how was order, "created" at the begining of the universe. Entropy can NEVER decrease it always increases. So I'll state again, if nature always increases entropy, why not just start out with 100% entropy?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
first of all the big bang states of a very low anthropy and has continue to increase as the universe ages. .The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies along any axis within the block universe. As such it is, statistically speaking, more probable that your half-melted ice cube came from a glass of warm water, rather than a fully formed ice cube. Of course, we know that half-melted ice generally starts as fully formed ice, but this is due to the Big Bang the initial state of low entropy.
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 I never said anything about ice cubes. You are promugulating lies and strawmen.
You still haven't addressed the issue, instead you'd posted a long pile of #### that says NOTHING in terms of what was being talked about. IF you intend to dissuade the topic by your babble then you are sorely wrong. Entropy is evidence that nature unchecked is a destructive force, how can anything be created via a destructive force.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7 Yes we do have fossils. However by saying, we have fossils we win, is a stupid concept really.
There are leaps and bounds in the fossil record that do not fit with the evolutionary model. There is no transitional fossils of the emergence of these things, this is not the whole list
multi-cellular life
the divide between plants and animals
the divide between vertibrates and invertibrates
insects- particularly the exoskeleton
feathers
lungs + legs + hips + backbone reformation in fish
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 i was saying we do have fossils, but some but not all of them, like I said it's hard to find fossil since some of these animals hard fossilized since they died of a longtime ago and some barely left anything behind.. Fossils aren't even the most important thing anymore, even if we didn't find any fossil today, Genetics itself is more than enough to prove evolution." From what you've said you have no idea what is needed as scientific evidence" i gave you genetics evidence, cont_
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 And I asked you before SO THE TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS of transitional forms, in all species, that evolution predicts, just-so-happen to be the ones we cannot find... Seems like you take the fossil "evidence" on faith. Since Darwin himself says there MUST be a progression of traits in the fossil record... Saying we haven't found them YET is an arguement based on hope, NOT SCIENCE.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 saying that cause we don't have all fossil record, it means that evolution is wrong...that's an argument from ignorance, we do have some fossil record, what makes you think we won't discover more?
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 No.. You are arguing from faith. YOU HOPE there are more fossils out there that will validate your claims. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.
SCIENCE only deals with the facts that happen NOW. If new evidence comes to light later, so be it, HOWEVER it is not scientific to have a theory that is based on evidence that may, (or May not) come.
I am not arguing from ignorance, I am saying that the current evidence doesn't support your claims. THIS IS SCIENTIFIC.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7 If you claim that we do not need empirical facts for science then I can claim that I can fly as a scientific fact. (do not laugh as this is how ridiculous your arguement is).. In support of this I can just claim, (like you did), that the evidence will come about later.
So there you have it, using your logic, scientifically I can fly :D
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 ooh yeah so the logic ur using is that if we haven't observe it empirically it's not science. Well let me give you an example. the ex planet Pluto takes about 247 or so years to orbit the sun. we've known it for no longer than 80 years now, we haven't observe it empirically orbiting the sun, but we know that it does orbit the sun. Also, I gave you the Forensic scientists who don't observe the murder occurring then why do we accept how the solve murders? i mean it's not imperical
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Yes, because a scientific theory needs empirical validity!!
Ah ha the pluto arguement! Was wondering when this would come up. I'll put this simply, so you can understand. PLUTO WAS BE OBSERVED!!! You can read about the discovery here wDOTplanetaryDOTorg/explore/topics/pluto/plutodiscovery4.html
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 and As for the fusing chromosome, what kind of deceptive creator would make an animal looking so closely related. make them with so much similar DNA, make their chromosomes look as tho they had been fused instead of just making them different. I don't get it. seriously dude, we can observe evolution on a smaller level, we've seen the fused chromosome. I mean what's so hard about understanding it? damn ur dumb
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 AND I TOLD YOU THAT WHATEVER OCCURS IN A COURT OF LAW IS NOT SCIENTIFIC!! IT DOESN"T NEED TO BE EMPIRICAL, I HAVE TOLD YOU THIS THREE TIMES ALREADY!!
WHY DO YOU KEEP ON REPEATING THE SAME DEBUNKED CRAP?
Admit you are wrong and move on, this is how people LEARN things.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
ooh please? say what? whatever happens in court doesn't need to be scientifically imperical? hahaha that's funny and who said that? It's scientific, thats why they call it Forensic Science fool DNA evidence is that law not science?. and Nobody has observed Pluto making a full orbit of the sun fool we assum that it would complete the full orbit of the sun. Evolution is fact fool. If you take any genetic make up of any animals for put them together compare amphibians, birds, mamals, (cont)
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Seriously, you are the one that looks like a fool.
Forensic science is science yes, however you said about being empirical, not about being science. Hence you are changing the goal posts. YOU said it is not empirical, and I told you it doesn't matter that it isn't. Thats it.
The DNA evidence is used in the LAW court hence since LAW doesn't care about empirical viability then it doesn't matter.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7 Seriously, you are the one that looks like a fool.
HOWEVER WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A "SCIENTIFIC" THEORY THEN YOU NEED EMPIRICAL VIABILITY. ASK ANY SCIENTIST, (I am going to be one soon), AND THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A HYPOTHESIS, (let alone a theory), YOU NEED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR IT. GO ASK THEM!!
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I am a astrophysics major also and I know all about evidence and scientific logic. Seriously let me ask you a question, when the forensics scientists come to collect evidence, is that science or not?
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 It is science. HOWEVER (and I was given this warning by my lecturers), you must take things with "a grain of salt", and realise when something is assumed and when something is proven by the evidence. Scientists can make an assumption, (which is a prediction), however if they intend to pass this off as a new "fact" then this is where the empirical viability comes in. Empirical viability separates science from philosophy.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I know all about these things. Sometimes science makes assumption on things, that's why most theories get updated, when new evidence come over. Forexample, when astronomers claim about super-massive blackholes in the middle of gallaxies I mean that's a scientific theory. you say that evolution doesn't make predictions. For example Darwin predicted that based on African apes, human species arose in Africa, this prediction has been supported by genetics, and fossil records
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Forensic scientists can repeat their DNA tests, they are just looking for a match, that is repeatable and observable, they then conclude that a person blood was or was not found on the scene. Evo scientists can do this too, HOWEVER they conclude that because of apparant similarities life must have "evolved", however this cannot be taken from the evidence it is an assumption from the evidence as being similar doesn't mean evolution. What evos conclude is an assumption off the "evidence"
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 If evos said that life is similar, then thats fine, that is shown by the evidence. However they take it one step further and claim that evolution was the cause of the similarities... THIS is the assumption. As you cannot find what the cause was based on similarites alone. There needs to be a mechanism, unfortuanatly for you they are still trying to work out what the mechanism is, (Even Dawkins doesn't know lol )
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Mechanism for evolution? haha wow do you even understand evolution? Mutation in Genes, Natural Selection, Migration, heritable and passed on to the next generation. all these are mechanism and agent for evolution. We've observed some animals changing color etc.. i've said this a longtime ago dude, but you won't accept it. I mean I don't see you debunking what astronomers are doing which is looking at stars and making conclusion. or Anthropologis, or paleontologists. seriously
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 PM sent about mutation as it is 2000 words long..
Actually I have debunked some- Big Bang Theory defies the laws of Thermodynamics. (this is a physicists theory). Also the dating techniques for carbon / radiometric dating is based on assumptions, hence why they don't bother with it now, this is palentology.
Animals changing colour is not becoming a new species PERIOD... Arguementum ad nauseum.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 the big bang defies what laws of Thermodynamics, you're telling me that u've debunked things, that u haven't haha that's why i'm keepin on repeating myself cuz you don't wanna listen. The big bang doesn't defies any laws. YOU don't know anything about the theory itself, if you're talking about. it's not fucking assumption fool. Goddamn, i'm gettin sick of you. you say that when Forensic scientist compare DNA and finger print it's ok. But when Evolutionary biologists compare cont)
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 The 1st Law of ThermoD states that energy cannot be created.. Matter is chemical energy.. Hence you can't have nothing blow up to create everything.
Furthermore where was the energy for the explosion?
2nd Law states that anything left in nature will go towards CHAOS, break-down, decay, die, (entropy). Hence if this is the perogative of the natural world then how did ORDER come about, ie- how were things created when all nature does is slowly destroy. Entropy, (chaos) NEVER decreases
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
the first law implies energy must, as you quote, "come from somewhere". That's the real issue. However, a universe is defined as a complete space-time continuum plus its contents. "come" implies an external time and "where" implies an external space. An entire universe therefore, by definition, cannot "come from somewhere", The first law, therefore, can only be applied to objects within it. A universal feature of all physics problems is the requirement for initial conditions (continue)
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 How do you know that the big bang had a low entropy.. Entropy is chaos / randomness... Generally the nature of an explosion, (and its energy), is very random. Hence you are just SAYING it is so, without actual proof of that claim. I just showed you a paper that disproves natural selection, did you forget about it? Yes it was published in nature.. (if you just read the link you would have seen that...)
wDOTnatureDOTcom/nature/journal/v467/n7315/full/nature09352.html
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
boy ain"t u deluded lol a paper a published from nature Journal that disprove Natural Selection? if natural selection was disproved then evolution would be disprove fool thats how science works. if one observation had contradicted evolution, that theory would be cast out of the window,wow you cretards haha wow. Plus the Big ban theory is the current theory, it's not finished yet. Physicists are still working on what came b4 the big bang. it could be multiple universes, string theory cud b rite
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Furthermore you still haven't shown me how the big bang "created" matter from nothing.. All you did was a "Gish Gallop", attempting to confuse the situation with CR@P
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7 Furthermore you still haven't shown me how the big bang "created" matter from nothing.. All you did was a "Gish Gallop", attempting to confuse the situation with CR@P
I didn't say, "come from somewhere", I said this, "Hence you can't have nothing blow up to create everything"
Quote me correctly or don't quote me at all!!
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Plus no one ever said that the big bang created matter from nothing, the theory says that there was a singularity, or all matter in the universe resided in that singularity. Further more the second law of Therm states that entropy it's not about randomness of the particles, it's about possibilities, and lucky for us the laws of the universe (gravity) went to work and formed what we have to day. some have hypothesis about other universe that exist and prolly are in chaos
simw7 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 bones, genetics, Chromosomes, fossils, etc.. you say ain't not right wtf are you dumb? seriously dude. Idk,...if you think evolution is wrong, go a head and refute it, if you can then you'll be a famous scientist. many Theories have been desproved before, so why hasn't evolution? it's been 150 years, and many scientists have wrked hard to disprove it, but none, even one single observation has actually disprove it. go write a paper and find what's wrong with evolution go away
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Actually there are many papers that show results that go against what the evolution model predicts, however these are "explained away" with priori statements and just-so-stories..
Yes its been here for 150yrs and yet in all this time there is STILL NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE... Talk about flogging a dead horse!!!
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
The Big Bang is a state of a extremely low entropy. Since the Big Bang, entropy has of course continually increased. But the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not only apply on the positive direction of the time axis within the block universe. the papers written to disprove evolution have they been peer-reviewed scientifically? for the love of fucking god, we do have Evidence for evolution you even say it we've seen mutation is bacteria and virus. seriously write a paper to disprove evolution
simw7 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 dude so what's testable for you, let me say you want scientists to go in a lab and produce a dog out of cat in a lab? haha that would disprove evolution dude. haha wow idk what else. I mean, I gave you genetics what scientist do is look at other animals genes and just compare them one by one and it show a family tree and how they all evolved.
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 You said this, "it show a family tree and how they all evolved"
As I said before, showing similarities is not showing HOW they "evolved", showing HOW would be to show the mechanism, ie- what mutation does what to bring about this new function which leads to this new body plan, which would be able to bring about a new species. No modern scientist can definitively explain the actual mechanism, as I said before, your prophet Dawkins deosn't know either.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7 It seems to me that you just keep on repeating the same stuff over and over in the hope that the more times you say it, will make it true. Arguementum ad nauseum. I have already shown you, (in detail), how your claim is wrong. Similarities do not show that evolution is true, evolution is extrapolated from the similarities, and extrapolation is NOT empirical evidence, since it is an assumption. Please UNDERSTAND this, I am sick and tired of repeating the facts to you.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 it doesn't really make alot of prediction as you might a true science should, then why don't you say the same thing about Astronomy and archaeology? they collect evidences, and see where they fit into their theory, they don't make predictions like physics, chemistry would do. Even the forensic science, they don't make predictions or do collect evidences just like what evolutionary biologist do
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Assumption based logic has NO credability for supporting a SCIENTIFIC theory. This is where EMPIRICAL evidence is needed. Otherwise if you don't need empirical evidence then people can claim anything as scientific fact.. I can say God is a scientific fact using YOUR logic.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Comment removed
simw7 1 year ago
Respond to this video...you compare their genetics, according to what evolution predict they genetic code make something like a family tree, which is the tree of life, which evolution has always say
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7
Its not about understanding it. Its about the level of evidence, and what kind of evidence is NEEDED for a theory. What you have jsut said was 100% Assumption... Assumption based logic has NO credability for supporting a SCIENTIFIC theory. This is where EMPIRICAL evidence is needed. Otherwise if you don't need empirical evidence then people can claim anything as scientific fact.. I can say God is a scientific fact using YOUR logic.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I gave you evidence from Chromosomes and how the 2 chromosomes got fused which indicates that we have 48 and now 46. The human and the Chimps genetic codes, Physiological evidence, psychological evidence, but yet you still think that I haven't given you any scientific evidence, you sir u are as delusional as any creation
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 And as I said before, (do you ever listen to me?? OR is it you just don't understand??), HAVING SIMILARITIES DOESN'T TELL YOU WHAT CAUSED THOSE SIMILARITIES. YOU NEED A MECHANISM, otherwise you are just assuming evolution is the cause. (I have said this 3 times, please understand).
Its like saying the Sun and a ball are both round so they MUST have been created the same way... Knowing that they are both round gives you NO information as to HOW they were created.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I gave you the chromosomes evidence for mechanism, r you fucking listening. how we homosapians have 46 and chimps have 48, and the 2 chromosomes missing were fused which indicate that we had 48 and 2 had been fused. Also genetics how our genes are 98 percent similar to the chimps, they're only mising few of genes that only make us unique and different from other apes. for example genes for speech, and just a few things dude are you listening? and for the fossil records ( cont)
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Dude you don't realise that what you said IS NOT EVIDENCE of the mechanism!!!!
Have you observed the chromosomes fusing? Can you empirically PROVE that they fused? Can you show the mechanism that caused them to fuse? Can you repeat this in the lab?
NO... ALL you are doing is ASSUMING that it has occured, and then claiming YOUR ASSUMPTION as evidence... What I am asking for is WHAT caused it, how was it caused, this is the mechanism. Showing similarities doesn't tell me WHAT happene
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
they're fur stand up, humans since we don't have fur, we have the goosebumps on our body. refute the chromosomes argument that I brought up. refute chimps genetic code argument that I brought up. look at similarities between us and chimps. they go to war just like us, they make tools just like us, they have sex for not just for perpetuation but for fun just like us, they way of parenting is just like us, their affectionate, live in a community just like us, develop friendship, they even kiss
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 From what you have just said you have no idea of what is needed for SCIENTIFIC evidence.
Yes they may have similarities HOWEVER similarities doesn't give you the mechanism that made those similarities. HENCE you are just ASSUMING EVOLUTION.
Its like saying the Sun and a ball are both round so they MUST have been created the same way... Knowing that they are both round gives you NO information as to HOW they became round.
Do you understand this?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@simw7 You do realise that the Big Bang defies the laws of Thermodynamics, (thus it defies reality)...
You genetics "evidence" is assumption-based. You are assuming evolution from it. Hence it isn't evidence it is just your opinion.
The fossil record shows jumps between forms, it defies the evolution model. Are you claiming that every single one of the TRILLIONS of transitional forms that are supposedly caused by evolution just-so-happened to not fossilise correctly?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Firstly your link didn't work. Send another.
How does goosebumps show evolution, (this is going to be fun). As far as anyone knows it is a mechanism for keeping body heat in when it is cold outside, (much like how we sweat to cool off when it is too hot outside).
Removing an appendix is not critical to a person health, however it is still a useful part of the digestive system. Hence it has a purpose and is not vestigial, I ALREADY TOLD YOU THIS BEFORE.. Stubborn much??
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
did you know that nothing in biology makes sense without evolution? seriously, have you ever looked at Genetics and just a few sequences in our Genetic codes that actually separate us from them. some genes for speech, etc.. Also our chromosomes we have 46 and they have 48 which the 2 human chromosomes were fused, it indicates that we were once related to each other, and then we evolved differently. one question is why would a designed make a specie's chromosomes look as though (cont)
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Biology got on just fine without evolution. ANd you do realise that, that quote is a FAITH STATEMENT.
Mendel, (the father of GENETICS), was against evolution. In fact evolution defies his FIrst Law.
Fused chromosomes isn't EMPIRICAL PROOF. Can you repeat it? Did you observe it? Can it be tested or measured? All you are doing is ASSUMING evolution from it. It doesn't prove anything.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
it seems like the designer is so deceptive for making things look like they were fused. Also, if we see the small changes in animals for example diet, we've seen same specie of an animal but with different colors, or bird with different size beak, so you accept that animals were not created they way they were because they have to adapt to their new environment?
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Yes we do see small changes in animals to adapt to their enviroment.
"Darwin's" finches changed the ratio of beak shapes due to a drought. However when the drought ended the ratio went back to what it was before, hence no NET evolution / change... Thus variation is oscilating and not leading to new features. It also shows how weak selection pressure is for evolution, since in nature the environment is always changing, thus there will never be a sonsistant selection pressure for evo.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
lol DNA, you keep on talking about DNA, we share 98 percent of DNA with chimps, and about 70 percent of DNA with a rats, 50 with other organism, why it's because we share an ancestry at one point on the tree of life. but what counts more is the Genetic. they've mapped the Chimp's genetic code, and like they look at our genes compare to theirs is that most of the genes that we have is what separate us from them, for example genes that enable us to talk, etc.. Also our chromosome (cont)
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 You do realise there is much more to a cell than DNA. There are about 10,000 proteins used in a cell, yet scientists found only 30,000 genes capable of producing proteins, hence there is some other mechansism that is creating different proteins from the same gene, (or something like that). Suffice to say, scientists are only scratching the surface to the complexity of life
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7 I told you last time, we share 50% of our DNA with bananas..... Hence the 96% (yes it is only 96), for chimps doesn't amount to that much.
Your goosebumps is much like the rest of your "evidence", an ASSUMED conclusion with no empirical backing. Start solving science with science, stop using assumption-based logic and extrapolations to facade as science.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
You keep on bringing the goose bumps argument, i've explained to you what i meant by it, and i don't have to say it again, you can read my old post. I gave you evidence from genetics, physiology human brains, and other animals brains and how they evolve. See science like evolution is like a puzzle and you have to put the puzzle together, that's what they've done, there's no way in hell you can speed up evolution, and change one animal into an other, that would contradict the theory itself
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 I was just showing how your "gossebumps evidence", is merely an assumption based conclusion. Hence it isn't evidence. Which means either, you were lying about it being evidence, or you don't actually know what REAL scientific evidence is....
SCIENTIFIC evidence is EMPIRICAL. PERIOD.
And just like the goosebumps, the rest of your so-called evidence was assumption based, merely an INTERPRETATION of the evidence rather than a conclusion from the evidence itself.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7 I'm getting tired of telling you this.
Assumptions are NOT SCIENCE nor are they useable as actual evidence.
Science is like a puzzle.. HOWEVER it is all starts with observations in reality and is investigated with experimentation, (which is empirical). Assuming the conclusion, isn;t scientific, nor is it logical
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7 However the changes we see is always within the limits of the DNA of the organism. For example I can't breed a pig as big as a house, this is because there are limits to what the body can do. Furthermore, these changes have never been observed to bring an organism outside of its species classification. Until that happens evolution is EXTRAPOLATED off of the back of variation within species.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
However DNA evidence for evolution isn't the same as this, (as it isn't just matching the same DNA together) . Evolutionists DNA evidence is about looking at the similarities and then say that "evolution did it"... However with no definable mechanism for this they are unable to quantify their claims, hence it is assumption based.
Fun fact- did you know we share 75% of our DNA with worms, how about over 50% with bananas... Kinda makes the 96% for chimps seem a bit "meh"...
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Obviously since they have diverged they have diverged in the way that the gut develops (which cells it develops from). But this in no way invalidates homology. It is only to be expected that species which shared a common ancestor so far in the past have evolved such different ways of development. It doesn't matter whether the genes responsible for the guts of these three species are radically different. In fact it is to be expected given what we know of evolution.
Surroundx 1 year ago
One of the people at the start of the video claims that homology is similarity. Homology is similarity due to common descent. Convergence is similarity due to coincidence (broadly defined). Evolution is a branching of forms, so we would need to trace the ancestors of the sharks, lampreys and frogs back in time. If we did we would see that their guts all developed from the same cells because their ancestors were of the same species.
Surroundx 1 year ago
Their argument in simple words: Trees are green, snakes are green. Trees and snakes aren't related, THEREFORE evolution is wrong.
Homology DOES point to common ancestry, but does not proove common ancestry, because homology can also point to: same environmental pressure AND random chance.
It's quite obvious that no scientist will say "because flowers are blue, and your eyes are blue, therefore, your mother was half flower half human. That's retarded
De4sher 1 year ago
@De4sher Microbiologist Denton writes, “structures as obviously homologous as the vertebrate alimentary canal are formed from quite different embryological sites in different vertebrate classes. The alimentary canal is formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity in the sharks,
---
…from the floor in the lamprey,from roof&floor in frogs,&from the lower layer of the embryonic disc,the blastoderm,in birds&reptiles.” This directly contradicts what evolution theory
dotoree 1 year ago
Once aghain, Berlinski demonstrates his complete and utter lack of understanding of basic terms.
kshackleton 1 year ago
This video here is so full of crap that even young earth christians should be ashamed of the propaganda these pseudo scientists promotes.
They deal with absolutes, lies and ignorance.
sigudian 1 year ago
crap.
8DX 1 year ago
If by 'Australian Wolf' Berlinski means 'Tazmanian Devil', he should be ashamed of himself. The overwhelming differences between this wolf and the North American Timber Wolf were actually brought up in the Dover trial to showcase the dishonesty and deliberate anti-science of the Intelligent Design textbook.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
@FiverBeyond I think he was referring to the thylacine or 'tasmanian tiger' not the 'tasmanian devil'.
davejones1900 1 year ago
Christopher Hitchens compares the US to the horror and oppression of N. Korea because he's "forced" to listen to religious music every year around Christmas. And yet for decades a theory so full of holes that after 150+ years it's nowhere near to being law is shoved down our throats. Oh, and if you're a prof and mention God you get kicked out. Whose being oppressive?
boledle 2 years ago
@boledle Your statement is that out of ignorance. Evolution from common decent by the means of natural selection is a fact, and its proven without God. The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.
sigudian 1 year ago
This video is illegal to show in many US schools. Anyone know why?
JLKAJFLKDFKSDKJF 2 years ago
Because it's filled with misrepresentations, lies and misguidance. It's not based on science but on faked science. The critique of the theory of evolution isn't solid, since it's based on bad understandning of the theory. The "schools" that you talk about are probably at the degree that lies would only confuse students with a relativly low education.
I hope that answers your question.
ErikeRKK 2 years ago
Really? Can you point out "misrepresentation, lies and misguidance" then? You say it's "filled" with them, shouldn't be a problem to name a few examples right?.
Otherwise you'd be guilty of the same thing.
JLKAJFLKDFKSDKJF 2 years ago
Since you ask so kindly...
It's not simply becase they look alike that we can draw the conclusion about organisms relationship. It's more about HOW they look alike.
Both Wells and the narrator say "Darwinists", a term that really shouldn't be used since it means absolutely nothing.
I'm not in any way an expert on gut development, but frogs, sharks and lamprey are seperated by millions and millions of years. Nothing in evolutionary biology says the development can't change.
ErikeRKK 2 years ago
But where is this even mentioned? This video is regarding two totally separate species with similar looking parts, and this coming about through completely different genes, and darwinists (completely common usage) insisting on this as proof of ToL with NOTHING to back it up for decades.
JLKAJFLKDFKSDKJF 2 years ago
Where is what mentioned?
Common doesn't mean right. "Darwinists" is a wrongly used term (since it shouldn't be used at all).
Remember that NOTHING in science is proof. We only have data (+ counterdata/no data). Homology is consistant with the theory of evolution, and data backs it up.
ErikeRKK 2 years ago
WHAT homology is consistent? Does ID through this video correct Neodarwinism? on it's false assumptions regarding homology or not?
JLKAJFLKDFKSDKJF 2 years ago
No, it does not. If you would be so kind to read again what I wrote in my first post: "it's filled with misrepresentations, lies and misguidance."
They misrepresent how homology is understood in science and they misguide you to believe that it is what they think it is.
ErikeRKK 2 years ago
Homology itself isn't a scientific word, it's used in several ways in biology. The first words of the video address precisely the context of homology here. There's nothing ambiguous in this video. Point me to the exact point in the video which is at all in anyway ambiguous.
JLKAJFLKDFKSDKJF 2 years ago
@JLKAJFLKDFKSDKJF
I think the problem here is that they are confusing homologous structures with analogous structures. For instance, birds and bats did not inherit wings from a common ancestor.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@adkinsjr
you know how it is. the more videos these creationists update on youtube, the more shit they have to show, and the more people they get to fool that they're real scientists.
Quite smart actually. I don't really believe these people really mean it.
De4sher 1 year ago
@De4sher There are millions of creationists including many top notch and award winning scientists who think the evidence points FAR better to creation than it does to anything else. I'm a professor myself and at present, I'd estimate the evidence for the Bible's view is about 80% evidence and 20% faith. Atheism/abiogenesis is about 99% faith if not more. Evolution is about 20% speculative evidence (MUCH stolen from creation science) and about 80% faith.
dotoree 1 year ago
@adkinsjr Evolutionists&atheists are confusing a HOST of things (mostly due to being completely uninformed about the problems and rivals to education. Ex:
The act of creation and evolution aren't rivals. They deal with different questions. The true rivals are:
1) abiogenes vs. creation. Biogenesis is fully on the side of creation.
2) creationist natural selection from species to family levels vs. Darwin's idea of speciation going from family to kingdom levels. Creation easily wins here too.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree how the fuck does creation wins if you have demostrate things were created? lol hahaha you're a full,..seriously show me evidence for creation,..don't just assert that things look created therefore they were created. plus how do you differentiate life that was created vs life that started naturally?
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7
if you cannot find a mechanism or process that accounts for the specificity and complexity of life via an undirected process, (ie- random natural processes), then evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Having a creator IS the default position, as life exists, if there is no process for evolution to follow logicaly.
Furthermore the creationist version of speciation IS what is observed in reality, evolutionists take reality one step further with macro-evolution
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Seriously change overtime is a fact. I've observed it through animals. I mean for example humans took cattles and unknowingly had the mate, they selected the healthiest cows and bulls and had them mate, and now we have new breeds, if you compare those cows and the one natural produced by nature, they're different. so evolution by natural selection happens overtime, 1000 thousands of generations, thats when a specie might change. the one that have to adapt to their environment
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Of course change occurs over time, that is variation, (ie- micor evolution). However it has NEVER been observed or proven that such variations WITHIN the species can be extrapolated to lead to large changes to change one species into another. This is what is assumed by evolutionists, I hope I don't need to tell you that assumptions are NOT scientific :p
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
how can macro-evolution be proven. Micro evolution and macro evolution is the same. I mean small changes over a short time, vs a big change over a longtime. It's impossible to prove the Big change over a Longtime cuz we haven't been around to see it. Though we can follow the evidence that show the common ancestry, Genetics we can actually see our DNA compare it to our closet ancestor on the tree of life. We can look at embryology, Also the reptilian brain that we share with other mammals etc.
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7
Its obvious you haven't even bothered to watch and comprehend this video, as it disputes the homology evidence. Watch it, comprehend it, you'll see that evolution scientists are JUST making assumptions... (Which isn't science)
DNA "evidence" is moot as we share 75% of our DNA with worms and over 50% of our DNA with bananas... (So we eat our "half"-brothers lol)
Embrology is moot too, due to the falacy of haekles pictures. The ones he drew from his assumptions NOT from reality
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 hahaha what? we share that much DNA with other animals, it's not that we're brothers but us with all living things are cousins. Embryology what? we can observe it, we have the technology to see the embryo in an egg shell, or a womb and see it development. what about our reptilian brain, the brain that you can find in reptilians, which is our primitive part of the brain. Also when I pointed out to select breeding, I mean it's not just an assumption, it's something logical think
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Just because you or some other person says so doesn't make it so. What is the EVIDENCE. Furthermore you may want to watch this video about embrology, perhaps you will OBSERVE how illogical and false it it.
w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=ictZJln3Vj4&feature=related
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7 Selective breeding is change WITHIN a species, no evolution is observed, as dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats, pigs remain pigs... How can you assume that all life evolved from bacteria from such "evidence", if things stay the same, (as Mendel predicted, and what reality shows) this falsifies evolution.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 there wee go again, do stay dog and cat stay cats, but guess what evolution doesn't happen overnight, dumbo,..seriously you can only observe a small changes overtime. I don't know why you can't accept the idea that micro-evolution and macro-evolution is the same thing. It's like saying it's possible to walk a distance from Boston to NYC, but it's impossible to walk From Boston to LA. I mean small changes over millions over years will result to big changes.
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 And as I told you before, you cannot claim that!!! Changes WITHIN a species is NOT evidence for changes to become a NEW species.
Because changes to become a NEW species requires NEW genetic information.. ie- fish growing legs
Just like how they got rats to grow human ears and stuff, that required NEW genetic information.
Changes within a species, is only variants of the SAME information, no NEW information is created
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7
As you admitted you cannot observe it, hence you cannot say your claims are empirical. As they are extrapolated... This is all what evolution is, and extrapolation. Where is the EMPIRICAL, (scientific), evidence?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7
You are using the "argumentum ad futuris" logical fallacy... Arguement from the future. You are basing your beliefs on the HOPE that it took millions of years, despite having no concrete empirical evidence that claims as much. You are assuming evolution is true and then claim that we can't see it because it takes too long. Much like belief in God since we can't see him because he's supernatural.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7
Do you know what a bell curve is? In mathematics there are always outliers, as such we should see some outliers in evolution, (ie some animals that are in a transition stage from the rest of its species), yet as you said there are no observed transitions. Hence you have just falsified evolution all by yourself, congratulations!
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
for fuck sake, all fossils animals are transitional, god damn, every fossil record we've got is transitional. We just can't observe macro-evolution a species changing into a new specie because it takes a millions of years. but we have genetics, fossil records etc.. what do you mean i just falsified evolution? we've observed micro-evolution which is the same as macro-evolution look it up dummy. small changes overtime lead to bigger changes isn't that even something of a common sense?
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Micro-evo is NOT Macro-evo I have shown you (in detail), how they are different. Yet you stubbornly refuse to accept reality. I have made no faith statements, I have based all my conclusions on empirical science validated by the real world. It is YOU who is making fanciful claims, and using the logical fallacy of 'argumentum ad futuris' as your cover.
Show me how micro-evolution, (Change WITHIN a species), can lead to Macro, (change to BECOME a NEW species). Where does the NEW info come
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7 Furthermore define what a "species" is, as I have heard scientists at my Uni talk about different species, yet were able to inter-breed.... Which in itself empirically shows that they are NOT new species, just variants (breeds) of the same species.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Godamn you stupid creationists i gave you an analogy example, micro evolution is a small change with a gene pool, when a specie change for example it coloring or size, diet etc...but is it hard for you to comprehend that small changes in a specie over a long period of time, given evolution takes about 5 million at minimum for a specie evolve into a different specie, you're either studid or just retarded to not see how many small changes can result into big change overtime
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 So how do "small changes over time" constitute a NEW species when there is no input of NEW information. Also what is the MECHANISM of the CREATION of NEW INFORMATION? Even Richard Dawkins has no clue to this, yet it is an integral part to evolution.
How do you KNOW evolution takes 5 million years? Or do you ASSUME this.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
dude stay a creatard all you want, hell even the pope himself accept evolution, don't say argument from authority. I'm not an evolutionary biologist really, and i have a life I can't spend it on arguing about it w u. But one thing is Evolution is a fact. it's not an assumption. The language analogy was just to show you that many changes overtime constituent a big change over a long period of time. Evolution is observed slowly, it's observable, i think anybody with a mind can see understand it
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Wow yet another ad hominem why am I not surprised :D
You do realise people only turn turn to ad hominems when they have no way to prove their point. Attacking the man not the evidence. Bad Form!
"Evolution is a fact", why? because you say so? You have given NO empirical (reality based) evidence thus you have no credability
You do realise that nothing in science is actually a "fact" as it doesn't deal with absolutes, (as any theory can and has change/d with the coming of new evidence).
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7 Are you running from my questions I asked?
So how do "small changes over time" constitute a NEW species when there is no input of NEW information.
Also what is the MECHANISM of the CREATION of NEW INFORMATION? Even Richard Dawkins has no clue to this, yet it is an integral part to evolution.
How do you KNOW evolution takes 5 million years? Or do you ASSUME this.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
evolution is not imagined, we look at evidence, just like a crime it's not observed, but we use science to solve them, we look at evidence of that's present and solve the murder fool. I guess you're saying that it's science only if you're directly observing it. Keep on dreaming about tur imaginary friend Jesus or w/e the hell ur pray to. Evolution is a fact whether you like it or not. Everything change overtime. we don't need to directly observe them evolving, but the evidence is there fool
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Again you use unscientific principles in a scientific debate!! First language now crime scenes..
Crime scenes have NOTHING to do with EMPIRICAL VALIDITY, hence it has nothing to do with evolution. Why do you continually get your arguements from UNSCIENTIFIC means? Do you WANT to look like noob?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 let me ask you a question, what evidence for macro-evolution do yo need, I mean macro-evolution is a big change over a long amount of time, so sir How do we observe that empirically? since you don't accept the fact that small changes overtime a short amount leads to a bigger change over a long period of time? I was saying the jesus stuff because I know that ur a creationist who can't see reason really. So what evidence do you want for macro-evolution.
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Observable, repeateable and measurable evidence showing the mechanism of the creation of NEW information.
If scientists can't cough up the empirical evidence to support a hypotheis, let alone a theory, then that idea SHOULD be treated with caution, as it has no empirical evidence from reality. It is up to the evolutionist to provide the evidence BEFORE touting evolution as a fact. Not say it is a fact and then look for the evidence later, as this is a position of FAITH not of science
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
observable, testable evidence and measurable evolution that we can see is for example the how bacteria and viruses evolve, and become stronger and becomes immune to an antibiotics. That genetically. I know you would say something like but it still a bacteria not a dog. or w/e. Also we've also seen fast evolution into some lizards were shipped to an island, just a few decade later, they changed their diet, their jaws became different, they adapt to their new environment.
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Wrong!
Bacteria ARE STILL bacteria, Lizards ARE STILL lizards.
Speciation only occurs when it becomes a NEW species, and that only occurs (in most cases), when they are no longer able to breed together to form a viable offspring.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7 Wrong!
Hence you are EXTRAPOLATING evolution from your examples as speciation doesn't occur in them, just a change WITHIN the species limits. Therefore, your evidence isn't empirical evidence of evolution. (it is empirical evidence for variation within a species, to create new breeds of a species)... YET they are the same species, (for example the breeds of dogs are all still dogs despite their differences)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
then you don't understand evolution goddamnn you creationists. lol wow it's a change win in a specie? yes it's dog are still dogs, but how long have we been around to see dog evolving? or any other animals? Yes, I admit that it's impossible to see animals evolving into a new specie, but if you say that it's a religon not science then the forensic scientist are a religions too because they can't observe the murderer. Evolution is observed, you can't observe a specie changin into a new on foo
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Seriously it is YOU who do not understand. Your response was FULL of self defeating statements and contradictions, such as...
"Evolution is observed, you can't observe a specie changin into a new on " - if you can't observe speciation, then you can't observe evolution PERIOD.
"Yes, I admit that it's impossible to see animals evolving into a new specie"
Hence you are (unknowingly) admitting to ASSUMING evolution occurs.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7 Dogmatic BELIEF in evolution IS a religion. Since it is a system of belief on origins and other meta-physical ideals.
Forensic science has nothing to do with a delief system, hence your logic is flawwed.
Forensic science uses DNA testing to potentially MATCH with the accused. This IS testable and repeatable hence it is empirical.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7
Back to micro-evo... Do you admit that since you cannot see the small changes becoming large ones that you are assuming evolution based on faith... (argumentum futuris... or "it will take millions of years thats why we can't see it" )
Furthermore for Macro evolution to be even considered there needs to be a mechanism for NEW genetic data. (As a fish doesn't have legs / hips / shoulders / lungs to begin with).
Even Dawkins cannot show this, can you?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
First of all we don't evolve from chimps, we're closely related to chimps, we share a close ancestor. we are also related to every living thing on earth that's why it's called the tree of life. Second of all we can't see the small changes becoming big changes because it's impossible, nobody can live for 5 or 20 million years. when I told you that animals must adapt to a new environment, and it's a fact that environment change all the time, and mutation accure all the time in animals
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 So since you cannot observe it you are assuming it, yes...
All of what you said is yet MORE assumptions!!!! Without a mechanism you have NOTHING! I have asked you if you have the mechanism for NEW genetic data, since this is essential for macro to be even considered. Even Dawkins has failed to show this. Or are you attempting for more dodging?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7
Where is the EMPIRICAL evidence for your claims, all I have heard is fanciful ponderings, but no substance to your arguements. (Are you going to refer to more debunked evidence?).
Here is another. If bacteria is so good at survivng, what was the enviromental pressures for it to "evolve" into a multicelular organism. Also do we have ANY fossils of this alledged transition?
Or is this stage forgotten about, just because monkeys look similar.. Bacteria "must" have evolved
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 imperical evidence for the reptillian brain? ttp://hubpages.com/hub/Evolution-of-the-human-brain-and-emotional-intelligence. the damn damn appandix isn't necessairy because we end up loosing it anyways. plus you didn't debunk the goose bumps, why do we have goose bumps? evolution explains that. and yeah the brain is complex so what? it evolved just like any other animal's brain
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7
Goose-bumps WTF!
Appendix is used as storage for good bacteria
Tail bone is essential for comfort when sitting
Hence none of these are redundant features and serves a purpose.
Your "reptilian brain" arguement... Where is your empirical evidence for this. Did you bother to read the article I sent last time you used this showing that each neuron is a microprocessor (computer), which indicates complexity to the xenth degree. It said we have more connections that comps on the internet
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 is that hard for ur brain to process? I mean seriously, Also Genetically we can look at the chimps' chromosomes and human chromosomes which indicate that we're closely related to each other. we can look at our human brain, and how it literally evolved it has all layers from the reptillian, mammalian, and primate brain, which correspond with the way animals evolved from reptilians, to mammals then to primates, seriously. plus our tailbone, goose bumps, the damn appandix
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 I remember you used this line of "evidence" before and I already debunked it, why do you still believe in debunked evidence??? Unless you are taking it on the basis of FAITH, rather than the evidence itself... (just like religion...hmmm)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7 Observable, repeateable and measurable evidence showing the mechanism of the creation of NEW information, new DNA codes, new promoter proteins specific to the new DNA codes, new signal pathways specific to the new promoter protein.
This would be a good start in the area of Micro- Biology where Evolution is SERIOUSLY lacking!
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 let me ask you a question, what happens to a specie when their environment changes?
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Answer mine first, before you deviate and dodge away!!!
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7 Evolution isn't observed... ALL scientists admit this, you are claiming faith statements again.
Change WITHIN a species doesn't constitute change to BECOME A NEW species, no matter how hard you try or how much you believe with as much faith as you can muster THIS is a fact and you cannot escape from it by stubbornly refusing it and returning to your belief in Imagination-land
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 evolution is observed but on smaller level such as bacteria, viruses. it is, and it's not an imaginary thing you fool lol we have genetics, which seems to explains evolution, we have some fossil record, even though it's hard to really get them because it's hard to collect them. keep on thinking that magic man created animals and put a magical curse on them and said that they can't evolve at all. to me that's an imaginary land.
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 Dude, we observe small changes in bacteria yes... HOWEVER THEY ARE STILL BACTERIA!
No evolution is observed as they haven't changed species, it is EXTRAPOLATED, (assumed)... This is the sad truth of evolution. Unless you have EMPIRICAL evidence, rather than just saying it is so... (Like as if you saying it enough times will make it true... argumentum ad nauseam)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7 You said "we don't need to directly observe them evolving"
Errr YES you DO.. If you want to have EMPIRICAL validity, then observation (as well as experimentation, measurability and falsifification) is (are) VITAL. SCIENCE IS EMPIRICAL.. Without it all you have is assumption and imagination. (Which is why you continue to dodge answering my questions)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7 Your Jesus wisecrack is a strawman as I have never said anything about Jesus. (As I have said before I am agnostic, hence you are using misrepresentation and lies to create an ad hominem. Bad form!
You STILL continue to dodge my scientific questions... If evolution really was a fact and was upheld by all tenets of science then why do you continue to run from inquiry? Isn't inquiry NEEDED to weed out bad theories from good?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 dude almost everything evolve overtime, look at something as simple as language don't you see how many languages evolved from latin? French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian. Over a long period of time, these languages also called Romantic Language came from a same ancestor Latin, which has gone exctinct.. latin evolved into a new different species, same as for animals small changes overtime become bigger changes over a long period of time dummy
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 FAIL!!!!!!
Language cannot be used as EMPIRICAL evidence for BIOLOGY.
You do realise this is SCIENCE we are talking about not some whimsical idea of philosophy??
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@simw7
Its obvious you haven't even bothered to watch and comprehend this video, as it disputes the homology evidence. Watch it, comprehend it, you'll see that evolution scientists are JUST making assumptions... (Which isn't science)
DNA "evidence" is moot as we share 75% of our DNA with worms and over 50% of our DNA with bananas... (So we eat our "half"-brothers lol)
Embrology is moot too, due to the falacy of haekles pictures. The ones he drew from his assumptions NOT from reality.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7
Lots of little changes don't automatically come together to create a big change. This is your assumption, and you have admited to it not being able to be proven. Hence how can this be "scientific", if it cannot be proven let alone be empirical.
Macro evolution deals with more than just variations to an already existing plan. Its about the emergence of NEW data, and new systems. ie- legs for fish.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@simw7
Considering that each mutatiion would be small, and for each step to be selected for it would need to result in a benefit for the organism... how useful will half leg stumps be?
In fish, for load bearing legs, (like lizards) to be possible they'd need
a) shoulder supports and hips
b) the spine will need to move towards the top of the body- thus unbalancing the fish for swimming
c) even when it has legs it will need to develop lungs in order to breathe
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
If they would name two extremely close sharks for example (remember that relations were define long before Darwin), we would expect the gut development to be extremely close aswell. And it is. The further apart two lifeforms are the bigger differences we'd expect to find, also in internal organs. And we do.
ErikeRKK 2 years ago
i wonder what Dawkins would say about this video
BorgHub 2 years ago
"Shark and lamprey" Its not a 'very different way, these genes were not expressed in the central nervous systems, somites, or fin buds/folds but were expressed in a restricted cell population surrounding the hindgut. Homology completely and and doubly confirmed by everything found in embryology genetics and the fossil record.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago