man, why is this guy starting trouble with evolution is wrong? Ant doesn't need to evolve if they are already are "survival of the fittest" and they are already a "natural selection". And why not mention wasps, bees, and hornets? They are related to ants. I assume they are evolve form from ants.
I don't see a shred of irrefutable evidence against evolution in this video. And one mistake in this video, evolution doesn't say that everything came about by blind coincidence. It's a matter of changing adaptations to fit natural selection.
If AB is irreducible complex, and can not have evolved via A->AB or B->AB, there is the possibility AC->ABC->AB.
In this path, the last step was to loose C.
Example:
The Venus flytrap might have evolved from the sundew this way. The Venus flytrap has sensitive leaves with hooks at the edge that can close, and it needs all these features in order to catch flies. But if it had a sticky surface, too, the other features could evolve slowly.
as for fossilized ants, its similiar to crocodiles. If your species is successful, then natural selection becomes hampered and so your species doesnt change (atleast to a dramatic scale) Why would a mutation spread if no one without it is dieing? hence because ants were successful, they still exist even today.
why cant a society with ants of different functions evolve? How about if they started all doing all functions equally and gradually became more specific? So what if the first "ants" actually shared all jobs, sometimes they built walls or gathered food. Kind of like what humans do now? huh go figure. This is just another creationist propaganda but it doesnt convince anyone with a basic education seeing as I can do it and im only in my first year.
proof of what? I just used logical reasoning to show why his statement (that ants are irreducibly complex) is false. I never said that this is the guaranteed way that it happened, I just offered one possibility which is all it takes to destroy this videos conclusion that ants couldnt have evolved. I just gave one possibility as to how they could, even if my way isnt the correct one, it shows that ants could evolve.
this video clearly demonstrates it could not have evolved, because if one component is missing, whole wouldn't fucntion, soo all must have come into existance all at once. a better example of irreducible complex system is the eye, the simply could not have evolved. It must have all come into existance all at once.
again the eye has been postulated and disproven as well as an example for your case. Just read richard dawkins example on how the eye could have evolved. As for ants you didnt really make an argument you just said, they are irreducible so there despite the fact that i just showed you a way they could evolve their colony behavior.
this video clearly demonstrates it could not have evolved, because if one component is missing, whole wouldn't fucntion, soo all must have come into existance all at once. a better example of irreducible complex system is the eye, the simply could not have evolved. It must have all come into existance all at once.
"evolutions says things came from blind coiencidences?" wow this author knows a lot about no knowing anything. Ever heard of natural selection? its not chance. And yes things always are in a state of struggle seeing as their is not enough food and mates for everyone out there, otherwise the world would be buried in organisims by next week. Also yes evolution can account for the gradual building up of ant society.
Irreducibly complex argument has great value in defence of theism, but its value is much better elaborated when describing some of more minute mechanism and structures, on molecular level, since you can show mathematically that some of those structures could not have evolved in a given period! There was an evolutionist turned theist who demonstrated such a thing! Don't remeber his name! Jazakumllah!
@ovaisreza The name you're trying to find is Antony Flew, and he was so senile he couldn't remember the names of his colleges.
Irreducable Complexity is a result of evolution, and IC structures are to be expected in evolved systems. This was shown as early as 1918 by HJ Muller.
again dutchman, you and yahya(i assume thats who made the video) are missing one crucial point that totally shatters your arguement. evolution dosn't plan ahead. ants weren't ants at the beginning of life, so to assume the class structure makes them "un-evolvable" is totaly false.
"so what?" so to assume that ants couldn't evolve into a class structure is false because you are assuming that ants ALWAYS needed the classes to survive, instead of evolving that way after the classes were in their infancy.
why not do your own research for once? and your question rings of an arguement from ignorance "you don't know how ants could have evolved so they didnt" as i have said before "what you don't know is just that, what you don't know, it is not what you do know, so stop acting like it is and claiming ants couldn't have evolved because you lack the imagination to think about it.
there are two methods used to determine how a creature will act, instinct derieved from genetics and learned behavior. ants didn't learn the class system they evolved it(it's instinct), and once a certain aspect of their life is protected, say the soldiers take care of physical protection, energy is wasted being a strong thick skinned worker(which has to consume more food to maintain the body).
thats what i was getting at with the food consumption in my previous post. mutations that cause worker ants to have weaker bodies, but consume less food, are favoriable to the colony as a whole because they don't require as much food, sense soldier class provides protection the workers can get so weak that soldiers are vital to the survival of the colony, therefore modern ants need the soldiers to survive while "ancient ants" don't
So you say the ant has not changed over a very long period;so evolution is not real. well (1. the ant has not evolved because it does not need to;it has evolved so much it is perfect.(like a crocodile, they havent changed much apart from size and worms, they dont need to.) and (2. how come other creatures have changed, like humans we were cave people and we have EVOLVED to what we are today.
man, why is this guy starting trouble with evolution is wrong? Ant doesn't need to evolve if they are already are "survival of the fittest" and they are already a "natural selection". And why not mention wasps, bees, and hornets? They are related to ants. I assume they are evolve form from ants.
killerboyfoolz 1 year ago
I don't see a shred of irrefutable evidence against evolution in this video. And one mistake in this video, evolution doesn't say that everything came about by blind coincidence. It's a matter of changing adaptations to fit natural selection.
Inbasul 3 years ago 3
Irreducible complexity can evolve.
If AB is irreducible complex, and can not have evolved via A->AB or B->AB, there is the possibility AC->ABC->AB.
In this path, the last step was to loose C.
Example:
The Venus flytrap might have evolved from the sundew this way. The Venus flytrap has sensitive leaves with hooks at the edge that can close, and it needs all these features in order to catch flies. But if it had a sticky surface, too, the other features could evolve slowly.
kereng5 3 years ago 3
why dont you stop_?
just stop!
and stay silent just for an hour
see maybe you will start hearing a "voice"
you know that voice?
HighFlyingDutchman 3 years ago
I believe you may have schizophrenia if you hear voices in your head...
Inbasul 3 years ago 5
Not a single demonstration of irreducible complexity in this video. I'm extremely dissapointed.
Kayin79 3 years ago
go to wikipedia and search "evolution of the eye" for a diagram and step by step breakdown of the eyes evolution
boorens18 3 years ago
I see my comment still isnt posted. Damn
boorens18 3 years ago
Evrim ile ilgi kitap oku, dini kitaplar değil.
darkhorni 4 years ago
as for fossilized ants, its similiar to crocodiles. If your species is successful, then natural selection becomes hampered and so your species doesnt change (atleast to a dramatic scale) Why would a mutation spread if no one without it is dieing? hence because ants were successful, they still exist even today.
boorens18 4 years ago
why cant a society with ants of different functions evolve? How about if they started all doing all functions equally and gradually became more specific? So what if the first "ants" actually shared all jobs, sometimes they built walls or gathered food. Kind of like what humans do now? huh go figure. This is just another creationist propaganda but it doesnt convince anyone with a basic education seeing as I can do it and im only in my first year.
boorens18 4 years ago 2
wheres your proof?
KU106 3 years ago
proof of what? I just used logical reasoning to show why his statement (that ants are irreducibly complex) is false. I never said that this is the guaranteed way that it happened, I just offered one possibility which is all it takes to destroy this videos conclusion that ants couldnt have evolved. I just gave one possibility as to how they could, even if my way isnt the correct one, it shows that ants could evolve.
boorens18 3 years ago
this video clearly demonstrates it could not have evolved, because if one component is missing, whole wouldn't fucntion, soo all must have come into existance all at once. a better example of irreducible complex system is the eye, the simply could not have evolved. It must have all come into existance all at once.
KU106 3 years ago
again the eye has been postulated and disproven as well as an example for your case. Just read richard dawkins example on how the eye could have evolved. As for ants you didnt really make an argument you just said, they are irreducible so there despite the fact that i just showed you a way they could evolve their colony behavior.
boorens18 3 years ago
why dont you proove me wrong here then, bring dawkins argument here, and let me rip it into pieces if front you.
KU106 3 years ago
this video clearly demonstrates it could not have evolved, because if one component is missing, whole wouldn't fucntion, soo all must have come into existance all at once. a better example of irreducible complex system is the eye, the simply could not have evolved. It must have all come into existance all at once.
KU106 3 years ago
"evolutions says things came from blind coiencidences?" wow this author knows a lot about no knowing anything. Ever heard of natural selection? its not chance. And yes things always are in a state of struggle seeing as their is not enough food and mates for everyone out there, otherwise the world would be buried in organisims by next week. Also yes evolution can account for the gradual building up of ant society.
boorens18 4 years ago
Irreducibly complex argument has great value in defence of theism, but its value is much better elaborated when describing some of more minute mechanism and structures, on molecular level, since you can show mathematically that some of those structures could not have evolved in a given period! There was an evolutionist turned theist who demonstrated such a thing! Don't remeber his name! Jazakumllah!
ovaisreza 4 years ago
@ovaisreza The name you're trying to find is Antony Flew, and he was so senile he couldn't remember the names of his colleges.
Irreducable Complexity is a result of evolution, and IC structures are to be expected in evolved systems. This was shown as early as 1918 by HJ Muller.
gamesbok 4 months ago
This video certainly is full of "The evolution misconception".
NermalsChannel 4 years ago
And namely?
ovaisreza 4 years ago
All of it.
NermalsChannel 4 years ago
again dutchman, you and yahya(i assume thats who made the video) are missing one crucial point that totally shatters your arguement. evolution dosn't plan ahead. ants weren't ants at the beginning of life, so to assume the class structure makes them "un-evolvable" is totaly false.
evirus 4 years ago
ants weren't ants at the beginning of life, so to assume the class structure makes them "un-evolvable" is totaly false. "
so what?
video is talking about the things they do
and they are indeed irreducible
i added a link
please think more carefully
you have nothing to loose
peace and thanks
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
"so what?" so to assume that ants couldn't evolve into a class structure is false because you are assuming that ants ALWAYS needed the classes to survive, instead of evolving that way after the classes were in their infancy.
evirus 4 years ago
OK,but what kind of a series of mutations may have taught them a complete plan,which would NOT work if all the steps didn't exist?
regards
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
why not do your own research for once? and your question rings of an arguement from ignorance "you don't know how ants could have evolved so they didnt" as i have said before "what you don't know is just that, what you don't know, it is not what you do know, so stop acting like it is and claiming ants couldn't have evolved because you lack the imagination to think about it.
evirus 4 years ago
so,why don't you bring a short story?
such as
you:
"they first learned to do it..then it...
after all the things they learned(btw,how the hell do they learn them?)the system started to work
but no matter,we can imagine it,as u see"
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
there are two methods used to determine how a creature will act, instinct derieved from genetics and learned behavior. ants didn't learn the class system they evolved it(it's instinct), and once a certain aspect of their life is protected, say the soldiers take care of physical protection, energy is wasted being a strong thick skinned worker(which has to consume more food to maintain the body).
evirus 4 years ago
OK,we agree
instincts and by DNAs
so how did the blind mutations give them an irreducible complex plan?
peace
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
thats what i was getting at with the food consumption in my previous post. mutations that cause worker ants to have weaker bodies, but consume less food, are favoriable to the colony as a whole because they don't require as much food, sense soldier class provides protection the workers can get so weak that soldiers are vital to the survival of the colony, therefore modern ants need the soldiers to survive while "ancient ants" don't
evirus 4 years ago
So you say the ant has not changed over a very long period;so evolution is not real. well (1. the ant has not evolved because it does not need to;it has evolved so much it is perfect.(like a crocodile, they havent changed much apart from size and worms, they dont need to.) and (2. how come other creatures have changed, like humans we were cave people and we have EVOLVED to what we are today.
;)
G3org3Master 4 years ago
we were cave people and evolved doesn't say anything about evolution
if we leave you in a cave,fully ignorant,you will survive somehow,luckily
but you will not find computer just because your parents did
it is called scientific knowledge,not evolution
maybe evolution of science
peace
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago