You people are fools. There's nothing about the theory of evolution that says life HAS to change. It only changes when the environment demands it. If a life form is well suited to its environment, it won't change very much, if at all. The environment dictates evolution. You don't even understand a fundamental aspect of evolution like natural selection, and here you are claiming to disprove it! How can you disprove something you don't even understand!?
You evolutionists cant understand basic observed science, the fossil record, the DNA code barrier, and reality.
Your "evo-faith" is strong.
I suggest you read some literature from some REAL Biologists like Dr. Gordon C. Mills, Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Ian Macreadie, Dr. Paul Nelson, Dr. Rick Oliver, and Dr. Michael Denton.
Those men are PHD Biologists that say macroevolution is nonsense.
You're an idiot. Historical science IS unobservable. There are any things that happened long ago that we can't observe. We rely on collecting data to piece it all together. Does that mean it isn't science? Of course not! It's called investigatory science!
"You evolutionists cant understand the DNA code barrier"
Well, explain to me what magical barrier stops new genetic information..
As for Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals supporting ID, there are many. In fact I have a link to the majority of them on my channel (LINK number 10).
Dr. Gordon C. Mills has written some, Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Michael Denton, and Dr. Stephen Meyer to name a few. Ouch, that evo-religion is getting schooled today!
@DisprovingEvolution lol. Don't avoid the question. Please provide any peer reviewed scientific paper which demonstrates the creationists DNA code barrier.
And thankyou for demonstrating ignorance on the definition of macroevolution.
Ring Species only demonstrates variations within a species. They remain salamanders and have not magically morphed into an entirely new organism. Understand evo-boy?
Do you consider the different races of Homo Sapiens (black, white, indian, middle eastern, latino, and asian) to be different species?
NO, they are all still Homo Sapiens. Just as all these salamanders are STILL salamanders. Facts hurt huh.
@evoTARDSareINSANE You said "Ring Species only demonstrates variations within a species." Your problem here is that they are not the same species. Your misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of what ring species are and why they are significant is obvious.
@evoTARDSareINSANE Non-interbreeding marks seperate species, as in these ring species shown here. You don't have to have turn into a snake for it to be a new species. Why are you so dishonest?
No wonder this video has so many dislikes. Its totally factually INaccurate.
Ring Species is another evo straw man argument used by the UNeducated evolutionist. Its simply an example of micro-adaptation. The salamanders are STILL salamanders.
This is as dumb as saying that the different races of Homo Sapiens are different species!!.
Thanks for uploading this. Its such a treat to listen to this ridiculously stupid argument comming from Dawkins own mouth. If evolosers can't understand why this is not proof for evolution than there is no hope. The foundations of science are crumbling and this time the atheists are leading the charge.
Ev-LIE-utionists would have us all believe that single-celled organisms magically transitioned into plant life, then insect life, then land mammalian life, and finally us Homo Sapiens. What a FAIRYTALE!!!
Homo Sapiens 1st appeared 200,000 years ago and we are still Homo Sapiens!
Many fossils (called living fossils) of species that exist today have NOT changed in hundreds of MILLIONS of years (horseshoe crab is a prime example)
"Many fossils (called living fossils) of species that exist today have NOT changed in hundreds of MILLIONS of years (horseshoe crab is a prime example)"
and your point is? Evolution predicts this, in the case that no changes are necessary for survival. This in no way refutes that many species have changed.
Number 1......examples of variations within a species due to DNA recombination in reproduction and neutral mutations in NO WAY demonstrates how radical macroevolutionary change is remotely possible.
Macroevolution is consistently debunked by what evo-tards refer to as "microevolution"
The DNA code barrier prevents large amounts of new information (which would induce macroevolutionary change) from being possible
@buffboynick This is awesome! Not only do you have no understanding of evolution or the evidence for it but a look at your channel indicates that you accept that there is a global conspiracy of alien reptilian shape shifters. ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!
Micro adaptations have NEVER been observed to cause the MYTH of "macroevolution". That's nothing more than erroneous speculation and is not remotely "scientific" at all.
Science is about OBSERVATION not speculation.
Bats, the Platypus, and the FACT us Homo Sapiens have existed for 200,000 years (are still Homo Sapiens today) and were proven to NOT have originated from Neanderthals (the closest to us in DNA) proves macro is BULL. PWNED
And in the video below......scientist Michio Kaku states that mankind has STOPPED evolving.
/watch?v=UkuCtIko798
I think I will take the word of a scientist with a PHD over another brainwashed ape-man believing evotard. LOL
You clowns are RIDICULOUS!!! You "believe" in UNFOUND, mythical "ape men" that spawned both Chimpanzees and early humans, and then caused both to magically "evolve" in polar opposite (and contradictory) directions!!! What a fairytale load of mentally ill dogma!
@buffboynick yeah retard............. that pretty much proves that yahweh created the universe 5000 years ago, right?........ Don't you feel ashamed speaking like a scientist when you don't know as much biology as a high school student.
Please learn your science from science text books....... get them from europe or japan where you don't have politicians debating over what is to be taught in schools.
@vamshiinhell wrong, universe was created 6000yrs ago.
Its good to know that your educations doesn't go further than high school. Evolutionist or creationist, I can't imagine anyone with a degree in any science would ever endorse the conclusion made in the above video as it is obviously flawed. Either ring species will be the downfall of evolution or the world is about to get a whole lot dumber
@utubedetective72 Its good to know that your educations doesn't go further than high school? Judging by all the grammar and spelling errors in that sentence, I'd say you didn't even make it to high school.
MANY tiny changes over a LONG time results in LARGE scale change. Genes have been replicating since the first self replicating molecule formed. Every time there was a replication error, the genetic template deviated from the original a little more. It's the same thing with music. Rock came from jazz. Now we have rock such as heavy metal. Metal is radically different than it's ancestor jazz, but heavy metal came to be via many tiny changes to jazz over a long time.
Microevolution (which isnt even true "evolution") NEVER has been OBSERVED produce a dramatic increase of information to the genome causing an entirely new type of organism. That is a FACT
Both current observation, the fossil record, and the DNA code barrier prevent Macroevolution. Living Fossils and animals like Bats and the Platypus show that truly new species just suddenly emerge with no evolutionary explanation
"Microevolution (which isnt even true "evolution") NEVER has been OBSERVED produce a dramatic increase of information to the genome causing an entirely new type of organism."
I look drastically different than when I was a baby. Yet, no one actually observed it. It happened too gradually. Every day someone saw me I looked the same as I did the day before, and I looked the same the day after. Yet, look how much I changed!
For one to believe in the UNobserved delusion of macroevolution you must ignore a lot of observable facts we see today in nature and the fossil record
Homo Sapiens stay Homo Sapiens (200,000 years and counting), Horseshoe Crabs stay Horseshoe Crabs (450 MILLION years and counting). Nothing is turning into a totally different organism. DNA prevents that from occurring
During the Cambrian explosion, tons of new forms of life just appeared here on Earth. The fossil record shows us
You're a fool. You CAN'T observe evolution in real time. I changed from a baby to an adult over 24 years. Did anyone observe it? People seen me everyday, but were they observing me changing from a baby to an adult? NO! yet, here I am. An adult. It happens too slow to observe. But, that doesn't mean there isn't loads of clues and evidence pointing to the fact that life evolves. It's really no different than a murder investigation.
DNA code programming causes you to develop at certain stages. Infant, childhood, puberty, adulthood. Your NON argument in favor of evolution is a straw man.
You never become an entirely NEW species because you do not have the genetic information for that to occur. Understand?
DNA prevents macroevolution and the Fossil record, living fossils, and the Cambrian Explosion reinforce that fact.
Not sure why that reality is so hard for you evolutionists to comprehend?
"You never become an entirely NEW species because you do not have the genetic information for that to occur. Understand?"
That'd be true if DNA replication couldn't result in new information. Which if YOU knew anything about genetics, you'd know that it CAN. Every part of your body is formed due to the order of nucleotide pairs in your DNA. If a mutation occurs causing a new sequence, a new trait will emerge, ADDING information to the genetic template
Mutations never add large amounts of NEW information to the genome. Most mutations are neutral or negative
And once again, the fossil record of organisms like Bats, the Platypus, and all the life that emerged during the Cambrian explosion show that there is no evolutionary explanation for such complex and diverse life. They just appear
Time plus mutations isnt a magic wand for the evolutionist. Understand?
You have successfully been evo-indoctrinated though that's clear
"Mutations never add large amounts of NEW information to the genome. Most mutations are neutral or negative"
Holy shit you're making a fool of yourself. One mutation doesn't HAVE to add large amounts of new information. All it takes is a tiny new change here and there and over billions of years they will add up to large scale change. It's like adding a tiny red drop of food coloring to a jug of clear water every day for a year. mutations add up.
You're right for once. And since most mutations aren't beneficial, that's why 99% of all the species to ever exist have went extinct. It only takes those small amounts of beneficial mutations to drive evolution. That's why such a small percentage of species stay around. BECAUSE beneficial mutations are so rare! YOU DUMB ASS.
"Homo Sapiens stay Homo Sapiens (200,000 years and counting) Horseshoe Crabs stay Horseshoe Crabs"
Drastic change only happens if it's demanded by the environment. Horse shoe crabs for the most part have been well suited to their environment, so, they don't change much from population to population. You don't even understand how natural selection works.
Drastic change never occurs (as seen in Living Fossils, which are fossils of organisms that exist today and have not changed for HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of years)
There is no observed evidence for macroevolution.
In fact.....a species would have to defy DNA and genetic entropy to macroevolve into an entirely new type of organism.
Macroevolution is more RELIGION than science. Also, science proved we did NOT come from Neanderthals__FACT.
"Drastic change never occurs (as seen in Living Fossils, which are fossils of organisms that exist today and have not changed for HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of years)"
That's because individual organisms don't evolve you idiot, populations do. Evolution is not linear. It's a branching out process. One species splits into multiple species, which branch out into more, all while the original population stays the same. It's the same way music evolves.
"as seen in Living Fossils, which are fossils of organisms that exist today and have not changed for HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of years"
Heavy metal ultimately came from jazz, yet jazz is still jazz..It hasn't changed. This is a perfect analogy to how life evolves. It branches out, and whatever it branches from, remains the same..You're basically using the "if we evolved from monkey's why are there still monkey's" argument. You're a clueless fool.
You're asking for observation of a process that can't be observed. It happens far too slowly to actually be observed. But, we don't need to directly observe it you idiot! We rely on clues and evidence. The same way crime scene investigators rely on evidence to piece together a murder without actually witnessing it. Stop being a moron. Many small changes over a long period of time, lead to drastic change. That's common sense! Get your head out of your ass!
Macroevolution has already been DISPROVEN. It NEVER will be observed.
The Cambrian Explosion, Living Fossils, the Origin of Bats, and the DNA code Barrier all prevent macroevolution from occurring. Species never magically turn into another very different form, not even over the course of hundreds of Millions of years (as seen by Living Fossils such as the Horseshoe Crab which has remained the same for 450 Million years)
@buffboynick "Increase" of information......you just sunk right there. Try talking about something you actually know something about. Try, let's just say, twisted, inaccurate theism.
@ExperienceTheJesus I know that, but what's the chance other species could've become smart like us, too? Were the ONLY out of millions of species that can talk and be smart.
@sk4t3rdude3111 There are other intelligent animals, chimpanzees are incredibly intelligent, they are just not as intelligent as we are, but so what? our intelligence was our tool that we used to survive and so that developed quickly with us but that doesn't mean intelligence is inherently better then any other tool, cheetahs are faster then any other animal, does that mean god is a cheetah?
Not knowing all the facts yet doesn't mean evolution is wrong. It just means there's more to learn. As long as there are people who don't just think everything they don't understand was done by the big guy upstairs we will keep finding more information about the world around us. I'm pretty sure they deserve encouragement, rather than abuse. They're only trying to find out how the world works. Surely that can't be a bad thing?
You're basically embodying the very point of the second half of this video. Because there are no living intermediates between humans and other apes, it is easy to view ourselves as separated by a wide margin.
We are not very different from other apes, though, and the fossils of the species in between very clearly illustrate the gradual process by which we became what we are.
The thing I don't get about evolution is, if we've been around for one of the smallest amounts of time, how come were the smartest? How come other animals are not.? Were like totally separated from all the other animals. I'm pretty sure natural selection couldn't have done this.
@kbawesome101 Our brains are more sophisticated than most animals. Why? We don't know yet. Why do animals have more "instinct" than us? We don't know either. However, It would be foolish to claim that a "God" did it.
We are MUCH smarter than we were even 400 years ago. People 400 years ago were smarter than people 1000 years ago and so on. We were shorter and head diameters were smaller years ago as well. We have slowly evolved physically and intellectually.
@ExperienceTheJesus I agree with most of what you say, just odd that usually evolution of a species is a slow process, yet in humans the time frame is very quick. The technology we developed probably has something to do with that especially within just the last 200 years, but still its an anomaly in the animal kingdom. Do you mean "god" as in the god of our religions, or god as in a some other life form?
I can't clarify my comment about a god since I don't believe in one. However, I feel that the human evolution may be a little faster than other species since we are always changing our diet and our environment that we live in. Humankind will probably never have the "complete" answer and religion is a piss poor way to try to explain it. IMO
@Deathyman- Uh, nope. Your analogy seems backwards though. If you're trying to explain why in the short timeframes of observance we only see small changes, then my analogy is closer.
@HomicidalPuppy So in other words, give it enough time and it will happen. Micro evolution isn't evolution at all. Macro evolution would be fish evolving into amphibian tetrapods, so please explain how micro contributes to that process that you claim occured long ago and far away. Micro is nothing but variation causes by changes in allele frequency. This does not change the structural design of the organism, it can't. Changing the frequency in which already exising genes are expressed isn't evo.
@micah1116 Micro evolution as my professor explained it was the slight changes in the genotype and phenotype through a few generations. For example if the environment an animal lives in favors a certain fur color, perhaps for camouflage, over another then within a few generations that trait will be most apparent in the population. Mutations are a factor in micro evolution and evolution as a whole but they are not the only factor by far and anyone who thinks it is doesn't fully understand evo.
@justdidthistocommen1 micro evolution is nothing but gene expression. And if you know what happens to the genome when variations occur, it results in a loss of information. Micro evolution is the totally opposite of macro evolution, so how can micro lead to macro? Please explain how changes in allele frequency which constitute a loss of genetic informaiton, can cause new structures to arise? Evolution states lobbed finned fish evolved into amphibian tetrapods, there's no biological mechanism.
Very intersting video. As a christan I agree with on video some extent that non-human animals are sentient beings. I would not consider meat murder but, why go on bring harm to other sentient life if we can avoid it.
Hey if there is one thing the majority of animals have in common is that we eat other animals or plants. I'm having steak for dinner, bloody, preferable grass feed.
A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things: 1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and 2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
Now the REAL question is... Do you know WHY Creationism is NOT a theory?
You know what I find funny, being a believer in both God and evolution? Its funny that many religious folks are willing to believe in God, without ever having a hope of concrete evidence in Him, but will attempt to argue against evolution based on a lack of evidence to support the theory (even though there is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the theory).
Evolution does not occur at an individual level but at a population level. There is no genetic limit. You could have a single insertion or deletion mutation which causes a cascade of frameshifts resulting in variation in an organism. You could have a thousand mutations in non coding regions of the genome which have zero net effect. It comes down to reproduction. Initially a segment of the population will have difficulty breeding with another segment. Then cannot. Speciation has occurred.
What we have here is a smoke screen of meaningless jargon that produces ZERO testable hypothesis. Really djarm67, I know this sort of sophistry whows the average Joe, and sadly it is what passes as "Science" these days. But take a deep breath and try to be intellectually honest. Why so many words just to say "we don't know the parameters and can not predict speciation."? Toe knows all --but can demonstrate nothing. Ho hum.
Micro evolution --- we are talking Gregor Mendel stuff. Macro evolution ---we are talking speciation. For instance. Can anyone say exactly WHAT IS THE GENETIC LIMITS of a species? What exactly are the genetic milestones that must be reached for populations to lose their mutual reproduction abilities(speciation)? Why are TOE biologist not interested in defining the target? But are happy to leave it murky? Are they afraid? This is why I say we should wait and see before declaring victory for TOE.
"But wait! I once watch as David Attenborough film in which he claimed a change in BEHAVIOR was "proof" of Evolution."
He could be right depending on the situation. Any kind of behavior that would create reproductive isolation (either pre-zygotic or post-zygotic) would likely lead to the population splitting and eventually diverging genetically - that IS evolution (and speciation as a result of this HAS been observed more than once).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this is a horrible video. All it demonstrates is micro-evolution, which is virtually acceptable to everyone. But to to abortion clinics and chimpanzies is just completely unrelated. Plus, killing a human is a sin and a moral decay.
It's not microevolution, which is a term coined by creationists and not a scientific term btw, because it blatantly shows the evolution between one species as another. IE: Macroevolution. The ends of the ring cannot mate and produce fertile offspring. It's a geographic example that serves as a metaphor for the chronological speciation. You missed the point. I also find it hilarious that you're too uneducated to understand what the word theory means in a scientific context. Theory != Hypothesis.
"a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena "(Webster) I would say that I am right on my thoughts of what a theory is, so before you go and call people ignorant and attacking people rather than ideas, you might want to get your own ideas and definitions in order. Creationism and Evolution come down to philosophy over origins, not science. micro evo. could be a part of macro, but then again, where's the evidence to support
"He could be right depending on the situation." Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! You mean depending whether or not enough jargon can be thrown up to create a sufficiant smoke screen.
But really, I was referring to what kind behavior he was talking about. I'm not an expert on the subject so I'm only familiar with sexual selection and reproductive isolation in this area. There may be other forms of behavioral isolation that promote evolution and speciation, but I can't say myself.
If he were talking about the divergence of mating rituals of a certain species, then yes - that would definitely be promoting evolution (and possibly speciation).
Here is the problem I have wtih TOE believers. We don't know enough about how genotype expresses into phenotype, and DNA in general to start stating "TOE is Fact" it just isn't. There are too many unanswered questions that require patience. In the mean time stop trying to vilify people who want to explore othe possibilities.
1.) Simply because our understanding isn't perfect does not mean that the evolutionary model is inaccurate. It explains the evidence better than anything else so far, and if any changes need to be made based on new evidence (as they have in the past), then they will be. Science works in a self-correcting fashion, after all.
Your arguement is very revealing about your thinking. First you exclude all other theories from the debate. Then you claim your theory is best from the one and only one option. Give me a break. It took the none scientific forces of The Allied Powers to correct The Science of Eugenics. Please know that the weight of Philosophic arguement against TOE combined with the real and important demonstration of evidence lacking in TOE merit skepticism of it. TOE has become an Inquisition.
Firstly, you have yet to even mention another "theory", or better yet, what your definition of "theory" is. Five bucks says it's not the scientific one...
Secondly, why is it that you're up in arms about evolution being the "one and only option" when every other scientific discipline has single theories at their core? i.e. theory of gravity, atomic theory, cell theory, plate tectonics, etc.
Even more troubling is the fact that scientists only using one model to explain life's diversity is somehow a bad thing in your eyes. You do realize that the theory has been modified since 1859, right?
Great. When you can show me a video of speciation be sure to get back with me. Can you really not see how disingenuously the term Evolution is used? There was the sense it was used in talking about "The Descent of Man" and now the retreating definiton you just gave. But wait! I once watch as David Attenborough film in which he claimed a change in BEHAVIOR was "proof" of Evolution. Until you can decide on a clear definition of "E"volution. Perhaps it would be best to not use the capital letter.
You're going to use the eugenics/HItler argument? If that's the case it only makes it clearer that you don't understand the difference between it and evolutionary theory at all - let alone the theory itself. Any scientist will tell you that eugenics was not science, but pseudoscience. Every aspect of it was wholly contingent upon subjective concepts of what traits were "desirable" as well as whether or not certain traits were inherited. After all, Genetics had barely started in the early 1900s.
We didn't know what genes were made of, where they were located, how they were made, etc. We didn't know that they were on DNA until the 40s. The eugenics proponents simply did not understand that they were crossing into uncharted territory and violating the scientific process.
Furthermore, HItler was not truly a eugenicist. He used it as an excuse for his goal of an ultimate Aryan race, but it was not the starting point for him.
What is this philosophical argument? I've heard several myself, but they all seem to fail under their own weight (i.e. Boeing 777, teleological argument, etc.).
What is the "real and lacking evidence" you speak of? If there is any merit to criticisms of the theory then they should rightfully be given due time to consider.
An Inquisition? Really? I've never heard of scientists torturing and killing people for not agreeing with them. Probably because science isn't based on dogmatic thought, but rather on reason and evidence.
I'm sure you think this because science doesn't allow comments on the supernatural. Strange, considering it is based on methodlogical materialism (inherently unable to talk about that which is beyond the natural world).
You may be wondering why. In order for science to be reliable, self-correcting, unbiased, objective, and accurate it must limit itself to that which can be demostrated, tested, manifest itself, and observed. Its ideas must also be falsifiable in order to prevent scientific "monopolies" from occurring. EVERY scientific discipline and theory is subject to the same level of scrutiny and study, and evolutionary theory is no different.
You'd be surprised by how much it has changed since 1859.
2.) What are these "other possiblities" you refer to? If intelligent design is one, you should know that not only is it nothing more than re-branded creationism, but it is also NOT science despite many of its advocates continuing to pretend to the contrary.
We create things, don't we? So why is it so hard for you to accept that the Almighty, all wise God created our world?
It was done as a 'miraculous event' not as a 'scientific process' . God defies science, he is above science, science must conform to God and not God to science.
However science can explain things that are created but science is not the authority that must approve or reject what God does because science is man-made.
"We create things, don't we? So why is it so hard for you to accept that the Almighty, all wise God created our world?"
It's not. I believe in God.
"It was done as a 'miraculous event' not as a 'scientific process' "
How do you know?
"However science can explain things that are created but science is not the authority that must approve or reject what God does because science is man-made."
Why pretend to have a scientific position when your whole argument boils down to "No. God did it?"
To demonstrat Evolution you must show how: population "A" gives rise to population "B", where populations A and B can NOT produce offspring with each other.
"To demonstrat Evolution you must show how: population "A" gives rise to population "B", where populations A and B can NOT produce offspring with each other."
Why? Where in the theory of evolution does it say this? What about when populations A and C cannot produce offspring with each other?
Great. You can have as many intermediaries as you want. But there must be strict proof of lineage. As well as strict proof that A and C.....XYZ Can not produce offspring. The point I am making: Fossil "intermediaries" can not be proven in terms of lineage. And so called examples on "Evolution" occuring now don't demonstrate the non offspring break that "Evolution" says must happen eventually. The two claims must be SIMULTANEOUSLY demonstrated.
"As well as strict proof that A and C.....XYZ Can not produce offspring."
What would constitute strict proof for you?
"Fossil "intermediaries" can not be proven in terms of lineage."
So "transitional forms" like tiktaalik and archaeopteryx just happen to fit in the correct timeline in the fossil record? Where do atavistic limbs and vestigial organs come from?
Strict proof would start with putting them in a cozy romantic cage together."just happen to fit "----fit what? The magical thinking of evolutionists? "Fossil timeline doesn't prove lineage" is a FACT statement. Oh don't get me started on "vestigial organs". By and by all these organs are shown to have legitimate and active functions. "Vestigial organs" is another hoax term that springs forth from cloudy thinking.
Fit in the proper layers of rock. Why don't tiktaalik fossils lie next to T-rex and sabre-toothed tiger fossils?
"By and by all these organs are shown to have legitimate and active functions."
Why do blind cave salamanders have tiny, useless eyes? What are wisdom teeth for? Why have dolphins been found with atavistic limbs? What about chicken embryos with atavistic teeth?
Blind salmanders-cogenital disease. Wisdom teeth to replace-- missing teeth. Hen's teeth. Some chickens have teeth, so? I am sure you think platypus is "all wrong " too LOL.
That's why entire species of subterranean salamanders are blind?
"Wisdom teeth to replace-- missing teeth."
I want to thank all those that came before us and had to deal with painful wisdom teeth before modern dentistry so that those of us here today could have some spare parts.
"Hen's teeth. Some chickens have teeth, so?"
Some chicken embryos have atavistic teeth. Why does this genetic information exist?
@hadtohappen evolution is not a linear progression, thats larmarkism. Plus since there are plenty of examples of species that clearly cannot produce viable offspring despite being related then I don't see where you are going with this?
Next... look this is a stupid argument. You went over arguments demolished in the 1870's since then evolution has been demonstrated..experimentally, physically, even mathematically there are products based on it!
YEAH...You know that trick, because this is what all evolutionists do. You believe and support something that is based on speculation and hope that you eventually find enough fossils to prove it.
You have great reason to be biased for evolution....You don't want to believe GOD.
I have scientific reason to deny evolution...it is a THEORY because it cannot be proven and validated by science. These youtube vids are pathetic attempts to fool shallow people.
"You have great reason to be biased for evolution....You don't want to believe GOD."
I believe in God, actually.
"I have scientific reason to deny evolution...it is a THEORY because it cannot be proven and validated by science."
It's still a theory all these years after being proposed because no one has been able to disprove it. Do you know what "theory" means in science? Gravity is a theory.
It is a law of gravity that if you drop an object here, it will fall to the ground, but it is Gravitational Theory that explains how and why this occurs.
Where is the Law of evolution??
"It's still a theory all these years after being proposed because no one has been able to disprove it."
AND BECAUSE STUPID PEOPLE LIKE YOU CONTINUE TO REPRESENT IT EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT.
Creationists demand "100% proof positive" for the theory of evolution, while they don't have a shred of proof for creation. Gaps in science don't automatically mean Biblical creation by default.
There are mountains of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. I'm asking you to present some evidence for a 6 day creation and a 6000 year old earth.
First of all, the presence of 'creatures and a creation' is proof that there is a creator... All patterns show that NOTHING CAN COME FROM NOTHING' . A program must have a programmer, a painting must have a painter. an offspring must have a parent...The question is therefore...Who or what created creation?
Evidence all show that creation happened as an event (the inter-dependence of all things etc)...God who created said He did it so we need not look elsewhere.
"All patterns show that NOTHING CAN COME FROM NOTHING"
The theory of evolution is not an attempt to refute the existence of God. It is simply the explanation for how life changes over time. Therefore, I wasn't asking you to prove God's existence. I was asking for evidence of a 6 day creation and a 6000 year old earth.
"YOU ARE LIVING ON IT NOW....what more evidence do you want?"
The fact that the earth exists doesn't show that it's only 6000 years old or that it was created in 6 days. It's funny that you demand so much proof from evolutionists, yet you have none to back up your own claims.
"The fact that the earth exists doesn't show that it's only 6000 years old or that it was created in 6 days. It's funny that you demand so much proof from evolutionists, yet you have none to back up your own claims."
YOU ARE THE ONE DENYING THIS...NOT ME.
The onus is on you to disprove this since you claim otherwise.
How long did they take to build the ancient pyramids of Egypt? Can you prove that?
"Scientists in numerous fields have presented mountains of evidence. Where's yours?"
You evolutionists keep claiming this yet we know that evolution is only a theory that cannot be used by science to produce anything. Evolution has no evidence to prove it...that is why you cannot state that evidence but keep referring elsewhere. Is this video your evidence of evolution?
"You evolutionists keep claiming this yet we know that evolution is only a theory."
You don't seem to understand what "theory" means in science.
"Evolution has no evidence to prove it..."
Atavisms (such as limbs on dolphins and teeth in chicken embryos,) Tiktaalik fitting in the exact strata where a fish-amphibian link was expected to be found, cane toads in Australia growing longer legs to travel in a land dryer than their native homeland... just a few examples.
Theory means speculation or idea..it is not fact until it is proven, then it is made law...there is no law of evolution, thus the process cannot be used in science as a principle for anything....mutation or adaptation can be proven, but evolution cannot.
Atavism does not explain how limbs got on dolphins else scientists would have been able to put limbs on snakes if they wanted.
No. "Theory" in everyday language might mean a guess or speculation, but not in science. A theory is an explanation for scientific observations that is based on well-documented, well-substantiated evidence.
"there is no law of evolution"
A law is not higher than a theory. A law describes something observed in nature. A theory explains it. There is no law of gravity. There is no germ law of disease.
The video does not demostrate evolution whatsoever. They finally admit that the two "species" can and do mate. In case of the birds they admit it at the very beginnning. So we are given two examples of breeds of animals. This tells us NOTHING about evolution. We are promised examples of Evolution but only given examples of breeding. With these silly lies how can we take evolution seriously?
Why is the Bible so wrong about science, such as genetics, you cannot show stripped patters to cows so their children can be stripped. Or why does Jesus the supposed son of gave say that the smallest side is the mustard seed (Mark 4.31) when in fact he is wrong, dont you think the son of god would have known that?
I'm not sure what passage you're reffering to when you talk about the stripped cows, but i do have an answer for you on the matter of the mustard seed. Jesus was not comparing the mustard seed to all other seeds in the world, but to seeds that a local, Palestinian farmer might have "sowed in his field," i.e., a key qualifying phrase in verse 31. And it's absolutely true that the black mustard seed was the smallest seed ever sown by a first-century farmer in that part of the world.
there is a passage in genesis that I think checkme92705 was referring to, but in that passage it was goats. Abraham was told by god to show the goats stripped sticks while they were drinking and their childred would have stripes, thanks to modern genetics, we know this couldn't happen. And I think you do have a point on the fact that he could have said the literal smallest seed (in theory, i don't believe he was the son of god) but that he had to use something local.
Jesus could have reffered to the seeds of epiphytic orchids(which have the smallest seeds in the world) instead of the mustard seed in his parrable, but it would have been foolish. He would have simply confused his audience and the meaning of the parable would have been lost.
If we are all equal to god why were the Disciples giving more evidence that god exist than we are today, they saw miracles and people raising from the dead and yet all we get if have faith? How can any intelligent being be so dishonest?
love the video really good
shellybirdy 1 week ago
How can you take seriously someone who can't tell the difference between tail and tale?
boosskat 3 weeks ago
Utubedectective72 made and excellent video debunking the evo-believer argument of "Ring Species"
These Salamanders remain salamanders.
Ring Species has got to be poorest argument against the FACT of creation yet.
DisprovingEvolution 3 weeks ago 2
@DisprovingEvolution
You people are fools. There's nothing about the theory of evolution that says life HAS to change. It only changes when the environment demands it. If a life form is well suited to its environment, it won't change very much, if at all. The environment dictates evolution. You don't even understand a fundamental aspect of evolution like natural selection, and here you are claiming to disprove it! How can you disprove something you don't even understand!?
itzahazylife 3 weeks ago 2
@itzahazylife
The only "fool" here is you.
You evolutionists cant understand basic observed science, the fossil record, the DNA code barrier, and reality.
Your "evo-faith" is strong.
I suggest you read some literature from some REAL Biologists like Dr. Gordon C. Mills, Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Ian Macreadie, Dr. Paul Nelson, Dr. Rick Oliver, and Dr. Michael Denton.
Those men are PHD Biologists that say macroevolution is nonsense.
DisprovingEvolution 3 weeks ago 2
@DisprovingEvolution
"You evolutionists cant understand basic observed science"
You're an idiot. Historical science IS unobservable. There are any things that happened long ago that we can't observe. We rely on collecting data to piece it all together. Does that mean it isn't science? Of course not! It's called investigatory science!
"You evolutionists cant understand the DNA code barrier"
Well, explain to me what magical barrier stops new genetic information..
itzahazylife 3 weeks ago
@DisprovingEvolution lol. Please provide any peer reviewed scientific paper which demonstrates the creationists DNA code barrier.
djarm67 3 weeks ago
@djarm67
The DNA code barrier is seen in current observation of nature.
Bacteria stays bacteria, Plants stay plants, Bats stay Bats, Crabs stay Crabs, and Humans stay Humans.
As for Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals supporting ID, there are many. In fact I have a link to the majority of them on my channel (LINK number 10).
Dr. Gordon C. Mills has written some, Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Michael Denton, and Dr. Stephen Meyer to name a few. Ouch, that evo-religion is getting schooled today!
DisprovingEvolution 3 weeks ago 2
@DisprovingEvolution lol. Don't avoid the question. Please provide any peer reviewed scientific paper which demonstrates the creationists DNA code barrier.
djarm67 3 weeks ago
@DisprovingEvolution Thanks for your demonstration of ignorance on nested hierarchical phylogenetic distribution.
djarm67 3 weeks ago
@djarm67
And thankyou for demonstrating ignorance on the definition of macroevolution.
Ring Species only demonstrates variations within a species. They remain salamanders and have not magically morphed into an entirely new organism. Understand evo-boy?
Do you consider the different races of Homo Sapiens (black, white, indian, middle eastern, latino, and asian) to be different species?
NO, they are all still Homo Sapiens. Just as all these salamanders are STILL salamanders. Facts hurt huh.
evoTARDSareINSANE 3 weeks ago 2
@evoTARDSareINSANE You said "Ring Species only demonstrates variations within a species." Your problem here is that they are not the same species. Your misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of what ring species are and why they are significant is obvious.
djarm67 3 weeks ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE Non-interbreeding marks seperate species, as in these ring species shown here. You don't have to have turn into a snake for it to be a new species. Why are you so dishonest?
gvman3670 3 weeks ago
No wonder this video has so many dislikes. Its totally factually INaccurate.
Ring Species is another evo straw man argument used by the UNeducated evolutionist. Its simply an example of micro-adaptation. The salamanders are STILL salamanders.
This is as dumb as saying that the different races of Homo Sapiens are different species!!.
Ring Species = evo straw man argument. Next!!
evoTARDSareINSANE 3 weeks ago
What a crock of crap this video is.
giovanone 2 months ago
Thanks for uploading this. Its such a treat to listen to this ridiculously stupid argument comming from Dawkins own mouth. If evolosers can't understand why this is not proof for evolution than there is no hope. The foundations of science are crumbling and this time the atheists are leading the charge.
utubedetective72 5 months ago
No wonder this video received so many DISLIKES lol
Its a travesty of real science.
buffboynick 6 months ago
Time plus micro adaptations never equals magic.
Ev-LIE-utionists would have us all believe that single-celled organisms magically transitioned into plant life, then insect life, then land mammalian life, and finally us Homo Sapiens. What a FAIRYTALE!!!
Homo Sapiens 1st appeared 200,000 years ago and we are still Homo Sapiens!
Many fossils (called living fossils) of species that exist today have NOT changed in hundreds of MILLIONS of years (horseshoe crab is a prime example)
buffboynick 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick "Homo Sapiens 1st appeared 200,000 years ago and we are still Homo Sapiens"
and yet there are already many different attributes which us homo sapiens have developed. e.g. skin colour.
TheDcac 5 months ago
"Many fossils (called living fossils) of species that exist today have NOT changed in hundreds of MILLIONS of years (horseshoe crab is a prime example)"
and your point is? Evolution predicts this, in the case that no changes are necessary for survival. This in no way refutes that many species have changed.
TheDcac 5 months ago
what a LOAD of crap this video is
Number 1......examples of variations within a species due to DNA recombination in reproduction and neutral mutations in NO WAY demonstrates how radical macroevolutionary change is remotely possible.
Macroevolution is consistently debunked by what evo-tards refer to as "microevolution"
The DNA code barrier prevents large amounts of new information (which would induce macroevolutionary change) from being possible
Not one example of that has EVER been observed
buffboynick 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick This is awesome! Not only do you have no understanding of evolution or the evidence for it but a look at your channel indicates that you accept that there is a global conspiracy of alien reptilian shape shifters. ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!
djarm67 6 months ago 5
@djarm67
What a load of brainwashed evo-religious DOGMA.
Micro adaptations have NEVER been observed to cause the MYTH of "macroevolution". That's nothing more than erroneous speculation and is not remotely "scientific" at all.
Science is about OBSERVATION not speculation.
Bats, the Platypus, and the FACT us Homo Sapiens have existed for 200,000 years (are still Homo Sapiens today) and were proven to NOT have originated from Neanderthals (the closest to us in DNA) proves macro is BULL. PWNED
buffboynick 3 weeks ago 6
@djarm67
And in the video below......scientist Michio Kaku states that mankind has STOPPED evolving.
/watch?v=UkuCtIko798
I think I will take the word of a scientist with a PHD over another brainwashed ape-man believing evotard. LOL
You clowns are RIDICULOUS!!! You "believe" in UNFOUND, mythical "ape men" that spawned both Chimpanzees and early humans, and then caused both to magically "evolve" in polar opposite (and contradictory) directions!!! What a fairytale load of mentally ill dogma!
buffboynick 3 weeks ago 5
@buffboynick yeah retard............. that pretty much proves that yahweh created the universe 5000 years ago, right?........ Don't you feel ashamed speaking like a scientist when you don't know as much biology as a high school student.
Please learn your science from science text books....... get them from europe or japan where you don't have politicians debating over what is to be taught in schools.
vamshiinhell 4 months ago
@vamshiinhell wrong, universe was created 6000yrs ago.
Its good to know that your educations doesn't go further than high school. Evolutionist or creationist, I can't imagine anyone with a degree in any science would ever endorse the conclusion made in the above video as it is obviously flawed. Either ring species will be the downfall of evolution or the world is about to get a whole lot dumber
utubedetective72 3 months ago
@utubedetective72 Its good to know that your educations doesn't go further than high school? Judging by all the grammar and spelling errors in that sentence, I'd say you didn't even make it to high school.
SCROGY 1 month ago
@buffboynick
MANY tiny changes over a LONG time results in LARGE scale change. Genes have been replicating since the first self replicating molecule formed. Every time there was a replication error, the genetic template deviated from the original a little more. It's the same thing with music. Rock came from jazz. Now we have rock such as heavy metal. Metal is radically different than it's ancestor jazz, but heavy metal came to be via many tiny changes to jazz over a long time.
itzahazylife 3 weeks ago
@itzahazylife
That's total bullshit
Microevolution (which isnt even true "evolution") NEVER has been OBSERVED produce a dramatic increase of information to the genome causing an entirely new type of organism. That is a FACT
Both current observation, the fossil record, and the DNA code barrier prevent Macroevolution. Living Fossils and animals like Bats and the Platypus show that truly new species just suddenly emerge with no evolutionary explanation
Its an evo-FAIRYTALE. Never been observed
buffboynick 3 weeks ago 7
@buffboynick
"Microevolution (which isnt even true "evolution") NEVER has been OBSERVED produce a dramatic increase of information to the genome causing an entirely new type of organism."
I look drastically different than when I was a baby. Yet, no one actually observed it. It happened too gradually. Every day someone saw me I looked the same as I did the day before, and I looked the same the day after. Yet, look how much I changed!
itzahazylife 3 weeks ago
@itzahazylife
For one to believe in the UNobserved delusion of macroevolution you must ignore a lot of observable facts we see today in nature and the fossil record
Homo Sapiens stay Homo Sapiens (200,000 years and counting), Horseshoe Crabs stay Horseshoe Crabs (450 MILLION years and counting). Nothing is turning into a totally different organism. DNA prevents that from occurring
During the Cambrian explosion, tons of new forms of life just appeared here on Earth. The fossil record shows us
evoTARDSareINSANE 3 weeks ago 7
@evoTARDSareINSANE
You're a fool. You CAN'T observe evolution in real time. I changed from a baby to an adult over 24 years. Did anyone observe it? People seen me everyday, but were they observing me changing from a baby to an adult? NO! yet, here I am. An adult. It happens too slow to observe. But, that doesn't mean there isn't loads of clues and evidence pointing to the fact that life evolves. It's really no different than a murder investigation.
itzahazylife 3 weeks ago
@itzahazylife
DNA code programming causes you to develop at certain stages. Infant, childhood, puberty, adulthood. Your NON argument in favor of evolution is a straw man.
You never become an entirely NEW species because you do not have the genetic information for that to occur. Understand?
DNA prevents macroevolution and the Fossil record, living fossils, and the Cambrian Explosion reinforce that fact.
Not sure why that reality is so hard for you evolutionists to comprehend?
DisprovingEvolution 3 weeks ago
@DisprovingEvolution
"You never become an entirely NEW species because you do not have the genetic information for that to occur. Understand?"
That'd be true if DNA replication couldn't result in new information. Which if YOU knew anything about genetics, you'd know that it CAN. Every part of your body is formed due to the order of nucleotide pairs in your DNA. If a mutation occurs causing a new sequence, a new trait will emerge, ADDING information to the genetic template
itzahazylife 3 weeks ago
@itzahazylife
FALSE
Mutations never add large amounts of NEW information to the genome. Most mutations are neutral or negative
And once again, the fossil record of organisms like Bats, the Platypus, and all the life that emerged during the Cambrian explosion show that there is no evolutionary explanation for such complex and diverse life. They just appear
Time plus mutations isnt a magic wand for the evolutionist. Understand?
You have successfully been evo-indoctrinated though that's clear
DisprovingEvolution 3 weeks ago 5
@DisprovingEvolution
"Mutations never add large amounts of NEW information to the genome. Most mutations are neutral or negative"
Holy shit you're making a fool of yourself. One mutation doesn't HAVE to add large amounts of new information. All it takes is a tiny new change here and there and over billions of years they will add up to large scale change. It's like adding a tiny red drop of food coloring to a jug of clear water every day for a year. mutations add up.
itzahazylife 3 weeks ago
@DisprovingEvolution
"Most mutations are neutral or negative."
You're right for once. And since most mutations aren't beneficial, that's why 99% of all the species to ever exist have went extinct. It only takes those small amounts of beneficial mutations to drive evolution. That's why such a small percentage of species stay around. BECAUSE beneficial mutations are so rare! YOU DUMB ASS.
itzahazylife 3 weeks ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE
"Homo Sapiens stay Homo Sapiens (200,000 years and counting) Horseshoe Crabs stay Horseshoe Crabs"
Drastic change only happens if it's demanded by the environment. Horse shoe crabs for the most part have been well suited to their environment, so, they don't change much from population to population. You don't even understand how natural selection works.
itzahazylife 3 weeks ago
@itzahazylife
No junior.
Drastic change never occurs (as seen in Living Fossils, which are fossils of organisms that exist today and have not changed for HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of years)
There is no observed evidence for macroevolution.
In fact.....a species would have to defy DNA and genetic entropy to macroevolve into an entirely new type of organism.
Macroevolution is more RELIGION than science. Also, science proved we did NOT come from Neanderthals__FACT.
DisprovingEvolution 3 weeks ago 7
@DisprovingEvolution
"Drastic change never occurs (as seen in Living Fossils, which are fossils of organisms that exist today and have not changed for HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of years)"
That's because individual organisms don't evolve you idiot, populations do. Evolution is not linear. It's a branching out process. One species splits into multiple species, which branch out into more, all while the original population stays the same. It's the same way music evolves.
itzahazylife 3 weeks ago
@DisprovingEvolution
"as seen in Living Fossils, which are fossils of organisms that exist today and have not changed for HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of years"
Heavy metal ultimately came from jazz, yet jazz is still jazz..It hasn't changed. This is a perfect analogy to how life evolves. It branches out, and whatever it branches from, remains the same..You're basically using the "if we evolved from monkey's why are there still monkey's" argument. You're a clueless fool.
itzahazylife 3 weeks ago
@buffboynick
You're asking for observation of a process that can't be observed. It happens far too slowly to actually be observed. But, we don't need to directly observe it you idiot! We rely on clues and evidence. The same way crime scene investigators rely on evidence to piece together a murder without actually witnessing it. Stop being a moron. Many small changes over a long period of time, lead to drastic change. That's common sense! Get your head out of your ass!
itzahazylife 3 weeks ago
@itzahazylife
Are you joking?
Macroevolution has already been DISPROVEN. It NEVER will be observed.
The Cambrian Explosion, Living Fossils, the Origin of Bats, and the DNA code Barrier all prevent macroevolution from occurring. Species never magically turn into another very different form, not even over the course of hundreds of Millions of years (as seen by Living Fossils such as the Horseshoe Crab which has remained the same for 450 Million years)
Macro is not science.
evoTARDSareINSANE 3 weeks ago 3
@buffboynick "Increase" of information......you just sunk right there. Try talking about something you actually know something about. Try, let's just say, twisted, inaccurate theism.
gvman3670 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@guineapiggyman When did I ever say that...
sk4t3rdude3111 7 months ago
@yunged Since when do people think God is a cheetah??
sk4t3rdude3111 7 months ago
@sk4t3rdude3111 well, why do you believe god is a man????
guineapiggyman 7 months ago
@ExperienceTheJesus I know that, but what's the chance other species could've become smart like us, too? Were the ONLY out of millions of species that can talk and be smart.
sk4t3rdude3111 7 months ago
@sk4t3rdude3111 There are other intelligent animals, chimpanzees are incredibly intelligent, they are just not as intelligent as we are, but so what? our intelligence was our tool that we used to survive and so that developed quickly with us but that doesn't mean intelligence is inherently better then any other tool, cheetahs are faster then any other animal, does that mean god is a cheetah?
yunged 7 months ago
Not knowing all the facts yet doesn't mean evolution is wrong. It just means there's more to learn. As long as there are people who don't just think everything they don't understand was done by the big guy upstairs we will keep finding more information about the world around us. I'm pretty sure they deserve encouragement, rather than abuse. They're only trying to find out how the world works. Surely that can't be a bad thing?
richie959 9 months ago
Haaa'adaptation! - excuse me!...sorry, agreed! - good example of evolution that!
TREACLE97 9 months ago
@kbawesome101
You're basically embodying the very point of the second half of this video. Because there are no living intermediates between humans and other apes, it is easy to view ourselves as separated by a wide margin.
We are not very different from other apes, though, and the fossils of the species in between very clearly illustrate the gradual process by which we became what we are.
taicleis 11 months ago
The thing I don't get about evolution is, if we've been around for one of the smallest amounts of time, how come were the smartest? How come other animals are not.? Were like totally separated from all the other animals. I'm pretty sure natural selection couldn't have done this.
kbawesome101 11 months ago
@kbawesome101 Our brains are more sophisticated than most animals. Why? We don't know yet. Why do animals have more "instinct" than us? We don't know either. However, It would be foolish to claim that a "God" did it.
We are MUCH smarter than we were even 400 years ago. People 400 years ago were smarter than people 1000 years ago and so on. We were shorter and head diameters were smaller years ago as well. We have slowly evolved physically and intellectually.
ExperienceTheJesus 7 months ago 3
@ExperienceTheJesus I agree with most of what you say, just odd that usually evolution of a species is a slow process, yet in humans the time frame is very quick. The technology we developed probably has something to do with that especially within just the last 200 years, but still its an anomaly in the animal kingdom. Do you mean "god" as in the god of our religions, or god as in a some other life form?
Doughost26 7 months ago
@Doughost26
I can't clarify my comment about a god since I don't believe in one. However, I feel that the human evolution may be a little faster than other species since we are always changing our diet and our environment that we live in. Humankind will probably never have the "complete" answer and religion is a piss poor way to try to explain it. IMO
ExperienceTheJesus 7 months ago
@Deathyman- Uh, nope. Your analogy seems backwards though. If you're trying to explain why in the short timeframes of observance we only see small changes, then my analogy is closer.
progressthruscience 1 year ago
I love this fucking book <3<3<3 Dawkins, my hero :D
dbigoodboyatdbkfdcls 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To all those who think micro-evolution and macro-evolution are different things, they are not.
MACRO-evolution is simply LOTS of MICRO-evolution.
Micro-evolution becomes macro-evolution given enough time.
HomicidalPuppy 2 years ago 18
If one can walk one foot, what's to say you can't walk one mile?
Deathyman 1 year ago
@Deathyman
Did you mean to say "How can you walk a mile without first walking a foot?"
progressthruscience 1 year ago
@progressthruscience So you deny Micro Evolution?
Deathyman 1 year ago
@HomicidalPuppy So in other words, give it enough time and it will happen. Micro evolution isn't evolution at all. Macro evolution would be fish evolving into amphibian tetrapods, so please explain how micro contributes to that process that you claim occured long ago and far away. Micro is nothing but variation causes by changes in allele frequency. This does not change the structural design of the organism, it can't. Changing the frequency in which already exising genes are expressed isn't evo.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 '' Micro evolution isn't evolution at all'' And Micro Gravity isn't Gravity at all. And Micro heat isn't heat at all.
Dogs make Dogs.
Apes make Apes.
That is why humans are still Apes, still primates, still tetropods.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@micah1116 '' Micro evolution isn't evolution at all'' So.... Micro Gravity isn't Gravity at all. Micro heat isn't heat at all.
Dogs make Dogs.
Apes make Apes.
That is why humans are still Apes, still primates, still tetropods.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@micah1116 Micro evolution as my professor explained it was the slight changes in the genotype and phenotype through a few generations. For example if the environment an animal lives in favors a certain fur color, perhaps for camouflage, over another then within a few generations that trait will be most apparent in the population. Mutations are a factor in micro evolution and evolution as a whole but they are not the only factor by far and anyone who thinks it is doesn't fully understand evo.
justdidthistocommen1 11 months ago
@justdidthistocommen1 micro evolution is nothing but gene expression. And if you know what happens to the genome when variations occur, it results in a loss of information. Micro evolution is the totally opposite of macro evolution, so how can micro lead to macro? Please explain how changes in allele frequency which constitute a loss of genetic informaiton, can cause new structures to arise? Evolution states lobbed finned fish evolved into amphibian tetrapods, there's no biological mechanism.
micah1116 11 months ago
@micah1116
Yes there is, it's called EVOLUTION.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
Very intersting video. As a christan I agree with on video some extent that non-human animals are sentient beings. I would not consider meat murder but, why go on bring harm to other sentient life if we can avoid it.
thewolverineanalyzer 2 years ago
Hey if there is one thing the majority of animals have in common is that we eat other animals or plants. I'm having steak for dinner, bloody, preferable grass feed.
-Goooooooo Cambrian explosion!
ec59783 2 years ago
Well good for you.
thewolverineanalyzer 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things: 1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and 2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
Now the REAL question is... Do you know WHY Creationism is NOT a theory?
Nihm420 2 years ago 8
Can we say boring and ridiculous!!
RebeccaBeers1381 2 years ago
we could, or we could just realise that it's beyond your understanding
dooivid 2 years ago
You know what I find funny, being a believer in both God and evolution? Its funny that many religious folks are willing to believe in God, without ever having a hope of concrete evidence in Him, but will attempt to argue against evolution based on a lack of evidence to support the theory (even though there is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the theory).
Icarusdecending82 2 years ago
why only 3 stars? votebots?
gottspieler 2 years ago
Obviously.
PacifistShotgun 2 years ago
Evolution does not occur at an individual level but at a population level. There is no genetic limit. You could have a single insertion or deletion mutation which causes a cascade of frameshifts resulting in variation in an organism. You could have a thousand mutations in non coding regions of the genome which have zero net effect. It comes down to reproduction. Initially a segment of the population will have difficulty breeding with another segment. Then cannot. Speciation has occurred.
djarm67 2 years ago 9
Exactly.
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
What we have here is a smoke screen of meaningless jargon that produces ZERO testable hypothesis. Really djarm67, I know this sort of sophistry whows the average Joe, and sadly it is what passes as "Science" these days. But take a deep breath and try to be intellectually honest. Why so many words just to say "we don't know the parameters and can not predict speciation."? Toe knows all --but can demonstrate nothing. Ho hum.
hadtohappen 2 years ago
Micro evolution --- we are talking Gregor Mendel stuff. Macro evolution ---we are talking speciation. For instance. Can anyone say exactly WHAT IS THE GENETIC LIMITS of a species? What exactly are the genetic milestones that must be reached for populations to lose their mutual reproduction abilities(speciation)? Why are TOE biologist not interested in defining the target? But are happy to leave it murky? Are they afraid? This is why I say we should wait and see before declaring victory for TOE.
hadtohappen 2 years ago
true.
benitez1231 2 years ago
"But wait! I once watch as David Attenborough film in which he claimed a change in BEHAVIOR was "proof" of Evolution."
He could be right depending on the situation. Any kind of behavior that would create reproductive isolation (either pre-zygotic or post-zygotic) would likely lead to the population splitting and eventually diverging genetically - that IS evolution (and speciation as a result of this HAS been observed more than once).
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
Technically, "proof" isn't an accurate wrd in science - most people would equate it to meaning "evidence", so it's mostly a semantics argument.
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
I love it how TOE supporters think they own the language and can manipulate definitions for their convenience.
hadtohappen 2 years ago
You're making shit up now.
Scientific definitions are a result of observation and experimentation - they are NOT contingent upon popular usage.
DEAL with it.
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
However, I have noticed that opponents of evolution DO make their definitions up as they go along.
Seems to me you're digging yourself a grave.
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
so do evolutionist. its all a theory
aeroguitar04 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is a horrible video. All it demonstrates is micro-evolution, which is virtually acceptable to everyone. But to to abortion clinics and chimpanzies is just completely unrelated. Plus, killing a human is a sin and a moral decay.
aeroguitar04 2 years ago
It's not microevolution, which is a term coined by creationists and not a scientific term btw, because it blatantly shows the evolution between one species as another. IE: Macroevolution. The ends of the ring cannot mate and produce fertile offspring. It's a geographic example that serves as a metaphor for the chronological speciation. You missed the point. I also find it hilarious that you're too uneducated to understand what the word theory means in a scientific context. Theory != Hypothesis.
phrakk 2 years ago
microevolution is a scientific term by the way. but it's true creationists have latched onto it and are now conceding it is possible.
dooivid 2 years ago
Aeroguitar04
Alas....
The only difference between Macro and Micro evolution is time.
Macro evolution is just another way of saying "lots and lots of micro evolution."
And saying that evolution is "just" a theory just shows how ignorant you are about science.
(Hint: try looking up the scientific definition of theory.)
Nihm420 2 years ago
"a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena "(Webster) I would say that I am right on my thoughts of what a theory is, so before you go and call people ignorant and attacking people rather than ideas, you might want to get your own ideas and definitions in order. Creationism and Evolution come down to philosophy over origins, not science. micro evo. could be a part of macro, but then again, where's the evidence to support
aeroguitar04 2 years ago
didn't think so...:)
Nihm420 2 years ago
Fantastic, so please do list these observed cases of speciation.
hadtohappen 2 years ago
"He could be right depending on the situation." Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! You mean depending whether or not enough jargon can be thrown up to create a sufficiant smoke screen.
hadtohappen 2 years ago
Cute.
But really, I was referring to what kind behavior he was talking about. I'm not an expert on the subject so I'm only familiar with sexual selection and reproductive isolation in this area. There may be other forms of behavioral isolation that promote evolution and speciation, but I can't say myself.
If he were talking about the divergence of mating rituals of a certain species, then yes - that would definitely be promoting evolution (and possibly speciation).
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
I'm so glad ignorant zealots like you are around to destroy over a hundred year's worth of peer reviewed RESEARCH with your weak denials.
glassbrain 2 years ago
Here is the problem I have wtih TOE believers. We don't know enough about how genotype expresses into phenotype, and DNA in general to start stating "TOE is Fact" it just isn't. There are too many unanswered questions that require patience. In the mean time stop trying to vilify people who want to explore othe possibilities.
hadtohappen 2 years ago
Two things:
1.) Simply because our understanding isn't perfect does not mean that the evolutionary model is inaccurate. It explains the evidence better than anything else so far, and if any changes need to be made based on new evidence (as they have in the past), then they will be. Science works in a self-correcting fashion, after all.
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
Your arguement is very revealing about your thinking. First you exclude all other theories from the debate. Then you claim your theory is best from the one and only one option. Give me a break. It took the none scientific forces of The Allied Powers to correct The Science of Eugenics. Please know that the weight of Philosophic arguement against TOE combined with the real and important demonstration of evidence lacking in TOE merit skepticism of it. TOE has become an Inquisition.
hadtohappen 2 years ago
Firstly, you have yet to even mention another "theory", or better yet, what your definition of "theory" is. Five bucks says it's not the scientific one...
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
Secondly, why is it that you're up in arms about evolution being the "one and only option" when every other scientific discipline has single theories at their core? i.e. theory of gravity, atomic theory, cell theory, plate tectonics, etc.
Even more troubling is the fact that scientists only using one model to explain life's diversity is somehow a bad thing in your eyes. You do realize that the theory has been modified since 1859, right?
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
First of all. The title of this video is a LIE. Do you concede that point?
hadtohappen 2 years ago
Evolution = the change in allelic (or gene, depending on the textbook) frequencies in a population over time.
In other words, it is certainly NOT a lie.
You're thinking of speciation, which is actually a result of evolution.
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
Great. When you can show me a video of speciation be sure to get back with me. Can you really not see how disingenuously the term Evolution is used? There was the sense it was used in talking about "The Descent of Man" and now the retreating definiton you just gave. But wait! I once watch as David Attenborough film in which he claimed a change in BEHAVIOR was "proof" of Evolution. Until you can decide on a clear definition of "E"volution. Perhaps it would be best to not use the capital letter.
hadtohappen 2 years ago
"Great. When you can show me a video of speciation be sure to get back with me."
Do I need to show you a video of Pluto orbiting the sun (which takes over 200 years) in order for you to agree that it actually does so?
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
"There was the sense it was used in talking about "The Descent of Man" and now the retreating definiton you just gave."
You're confusing the fact with the model; one is an observation while the other is explanation of the observation and the evidence thereof.
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
Your are confusing a fact of micro evolution as a proof of macro evolution.
hadtohappen 2 years ago
Please give me your definitions of both.
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
"Until you can decide on a clear definition of "E"volution. Perhaps it would be best to not use the capital letter."
Clear definitions HAVE been given. You can continue to ignore that fact all you want, but it's not going to do any good.
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
Do you always have trouble following a conversation?
hadtohappen 2 years ago
For some reason many of my comments aren't categorized as replies despite the fact that I comment by using the "Reply" button.
I blame YouTube.
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
You're going to use the eugenics/HItler argument? If that's the case it only makes it clearer that you don't understand the difference between it and evolutionary theory at all - let alone the theory itself. Any scientist will tell you that eugenics was not science, but pseudoscience. Every aspect of it was wholly contingent upon subjective concepts of what traits were "desirable" as well as whether or not certain traits were inherited. After all, Genetics had barely started in the early 1900s.
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
We didn't know what genes were made of, where they were located, how they were made, etc. We didn't know that they were on DNA until the 40s. The eugenics proponents simply did not understand that they were crossing into uncharted territory and violating the scientific process.
Furthermore, HItler was not truly a eugenicist. He used it as an excuse for his goal of an ultimate Aryan race, but it was not the starting point for him.
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
What is this philosophical argument? I've heard several myself, but they all seem to fail under their own weight (i.e. Boeing 777, teleological argument, etc.).
What is the "real and lacking evidence" you speak of? If there is any merit to criticisms of the theory then they should rightfully be given due time to consider.
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
An Inquisition? Really? I've never heard of scientists torturing and killing people for not agreeing with them. Probably because science isn't based on dogmatic thought, but rather on reason and evidence.
I'm sure you think this because science doesn't allow comments on the supernatural. Strange, considering it is based on methodlogical materialism (inherently unable to talk about that which is beyond the natural world).
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
You may be wondering why. In order for science to be reliable, self-correcting, unbiased, objective, and accurate it must limit itself to that which can be demostrated, tested, manifest itself, and observed. Its ideas must also be falsifiable in order to prevent scientific "monopolies" from occurring. EVERY scientific discipline and theory is subject to the same level of scrutiny and study, and evolutionary theory is no different.
You'd be surprised by how much it has changed since 1859.
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
2.) What are these "other possiblities" you refer to? If intelligent design is one, you should know that not only is it nothing more than re-branded creationism, but it is also NOT science despite many of its advocates continuing to pretend to the contrary.
DohsOfReality 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Leehofooks...
I see that hadtohappen has done an excellent job at that already....What do you want again.
6468lee 2 years ago
ok Leehofooks...
We create things, don't we? So why is it so hard for you to accept that the Almighty, all wise God created our world?
It was done as a 'miraculous event' not as a 'scientific process' . God defies science, he is above science, science must conform to God and not God to science.
However science can explain things that are created but science is not the authority that must approve or reject what God does because science is man-made.
6468lee 2 years ago
"We create things, don't we? So why is it so hard for you to accept that the Almighty, all wise God created our world?"
It's not. I believe in God.
"It was done as a 'miraculous event' not as a 'scientific process' "
How do you know?
"However science can explain things that are created but science is not the authority that must approve or reject what God does because science is man-made."
Why pretend to have a scientific position when your whole argument boils down to "No. God did it?"
Leehofooks 2 years ago
"It's not. I believe in God"
...the demons also believe ... and tremble...
You cannot believe God if you deny what he says in his word... "God created the heaven and the earth" God said "Let there be.....and there was"
How can you deny that and say you believe in God?
6468lee 2 years ago
"How can you deny that and say you believe in God?"
So only people with your narrow viewpoint on God are believers?
Leehofooks 2 years ago
To demonstrat Evolution you must show how: population "A" gives rise to population "B", where populations A and B can NOT produce offspring with each other.
hadtohappen 2 years ago
"To demonstrat Evolution you must show how: population "A" gives rise to population "B", where populations A and B can NOT produce offspring with each other."
Why? Where in the theory of evolution does it say this? What about when populations A and C cannot produce offspring with each other?
Leehofooks 2 years ago
Great. You can have as many intermediaries as you want. But there must be strict proof of lineage. As well as strict proof that A and C.....XYZ Can not produce offspring. The point I am making: Fossil "intermediaries" can not be proven in terms of lineage. And so called examples on "Evolution" occuring now don't demonstrate the non offspring break that "Evolution" says must happen eventually. The two claims must be SIMULTANEOUSLY demonstrated.
hadtohappen 2 years ago
"As well as strict proof that A and C.....XYZ Can not produce offspring."
What would constitute strict proof for you?
"Fossil "intermediaries" can not be proven in terms of lineage."
So "transitional forms" like tiktaalik and archaeopteryx just happen to fit in the correct timeline in the fossil record? Where do atavistic limbs and vestigial organs come from?
Leehofooks 2 years ago
Strict proof would start with putting them in a cozy romantic cage together."just happen to fit "----fit what? The magical thinking of evolutionists? "Fossil timeline doesn't prove lineage" is a FACT statement. Oh don't get me started on "vestigial organs". By and by all these organs are shown to have legitimate and active functions. "Vestigial organs" is another hoax term that springs forth from cloudy thinking.
hadtohappen 2 years ago
"fit what?"
Fit in the proper layers of rock. Why don't tiktaalik fossils lie next to T-rex and sabre-toothed tiger fossils?
"By and by all these organs are shown to have legitimate and active functions."
Why do blind cave salamanders have tiny, useless eyes? What are wisdom teeth for? Why have dolphins been found with atavistic limbs? What about chicken embryos with atavistic teeth?
Leehofooks 2 years ago
Blind salmanders-cogenital disease. Wisdom teeth to replace-- missing teeth. Hen's teeth. Some chickens have teeth, so? I am sure you think platypus is "all wrong " too LOL.
hadtohappen 2 years ago
"Blind salmanders-cogenital disease"
That's why entire species of subterranean salamanders are blind?
"Wisdom teeth to replace-- missing teeth."
I want to thank all those that came before us and had to deal with painful wisdom teeth before modern dentistry so that those of us here today could have some spare parts.
"Hen's teeth. Some chickens have teeth, so?"
Some chicken embryos have atavistic teeth. Why does this genetic information exist?
Leehofooks 2 years ago
"I am sure you think platypus is "all wrong " too LOL."
Who said anything was all wrong?
Leehofooks 2 years ago
@hadtohappen evolution is not a linear progression, thats larmarkism. Plus since there are plenty of examples of species that clearly cannot produce viable offspring despite being related then I don't see where you are going with this?
Next... look this is a stupid argument. You went over arguments demolished in the 1870's since then evolution has been demonstrated..experimentally, physically, even mathematically there are products based on it!
You may as well argue powered flight is invalid.
MumblingMickey 3 months ago
SPECULATION....evolution is a lie!
6468lee 2 years ago
"SPECULATION....evolution is a lie!"
You would say that to any amount of evidence placed in front of you.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
YEAH...You know that trick, because this is what all evolutionists do. You believe and support something that is based on speculation and hope that you eventually find enough fossils to prove it.
EVOLUTION IS LIE!
6468lee 2 years ago
Why would I hope that evolution is true? I have no reason to be biased for evolution. You, however, have a perceived religious reason to deny it.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
You have great reason to be biased for evolution....You don't want to believe GOD.
I have scientific reason to deny evolution...it is a THEORY because it cannot be proven and validated by science. These youtube vids are pathetic attempts to fool shallow people.
6468lee 2 years ago
"You have great reason to be biased for evolution....You don't want to believe GOD."
I believe in God, actually.
"I have scientific reason to deny evolution...it is a THEORY because it cannot be proven and validated by science."
It's still a theory all these years after being proposed because no one has been able to disprove it. Do you know what "theory" means in science? Gravity is a theory.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
It is a law of gravity that if you drop an object here, it will fall to the ground, but it is Gravitational Theory that explains how and why this occurs.
Where is the Law of evolution??
"It's still a theory all these years after being proposed because no one has been able to disprove it."
AND BECAUSE STUPID PEOPLE LIKE YOU CONTINUE TO REPRESENT IT EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT.
6468lee 2 years ago
Ok, 6468lee. Prove the alternative.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
I see that hadtohappen has done an excellent job at that already....What do you want again.
6468lee 2 years ago
Creationists demand "100% proof positive" for the theory of evolution, while they don't have a shred of proof for creation. Gaps in science don't automatically mean Biblical creation by default.
There are mountains of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. I'm asking you to present some evidence for a 6 day creation and a 6000 year old earth.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
ok Leehofooks...
First of all, the presence of 'creatures and a creation' is proof that there is a creator... All patterns show that NOTHING CAN COME FROM NOTHING' . A program must have a programmer, a painting must have a painter. an offspring must have a parent...The question is therefore...Who or what created creation?
Evidence all show that creation happened as an event (the inter-dependence of all things etc)...God who created said He did it so we need not look elsewhere.
6468lee 2 years ago
"All patterns show that NOTHING CAN COME FROM NOTHING"
The theory of evolution is not an attempt to refute the existence of God. It is simply the explanation for how life changes over time. Therefore, I wasn't asking you to prove God's existence. I was asking for evidence of a 6 day creation and a 6000 year old earth.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
"I was asking for evidence of a 6 day creation and a 6000 year old earth. "
YOU ARE LIVING ON IT NOW....what more evidence do you want? You want God to create another earth and show you how he did it?
6468lee 2 years ago
"YOU ARE LIVING ON IT NOW....what more evidence do you want?"
The fact that the earth exists doesn't show that it's only 6000 years old or that it was created in 6 days. It's funny that you demand so much proof from evolutionists, yet you have none to back up your own claims.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
"The fact that the earth exists doesn't show that it's only 6000 years old or that it was created in 6 days. It's funny that you demand so much proof from evolutionists, yet you have none to back up your own claims."
YOU ARE THE ONE DENYING THIS...NOT ME.
The onus is on you to disprove this since you claim otherwise.
How long did they take to build the ancient pyramids of Egypt? Can you prove that?
evolution is lie....
6468lee 2 years ago
"YOU ARE THE ONE DENYING THIS...NOT ME.
The onus is on you to disprove this since you claim otherwise."
Scientists in numerous fields have presented mountains of evidence. Where's yours?
"How long did they take to build the ancient pyramids of Egypt? Can you prove that?"
I don't know much about the subject. I could look it up, I guess. But why? What's your point?
"evolution is lie...."
Very scientific.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
"Scientists in numerous fields have presented mountains of evidence. Where's yours?"
You evolutionists keep claiming this yet we know that evolution is only a theory that cannot be used by science to produce anything. Evolution has no evidence to prove it...that is why you cannot state that evidence but keep referring elsewhere. Is this video your evidence of evolution?
6468lee 2 years ago
"You evolutionists keep claiming this yet we know that evolution is only a theory."
You don't seem to understand what "theory" means in science.
"Evolution has no evidence to prove it..."
Atavisms (such as limbs on dolphins and teeth in chicken embryos,) Tiktaalik fitting in the exact strata where a fish-amphibian link was expected to be found, cane toads in Australia growing longer legs to travel in a land dryer than their native homeland... just a few examples.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
Theory means speculation or idea..it is not fact until it is proven, then it is made law...there is no law of evolution, thus the process cannot be used in science as a principle for anything....mutation or adaptation can be proven, but evolution cannot.
Atavism does not explain how limbs got on dolphins else scientists would have been able to put limbs on snakes if they wanted.
6468lee 2 years ago
"Theory means speculation or idea.."
No. "Theory" in everyday language might mean a guess or speculation, but not in science. A theory is an explanation for scientific observations that is based on well-documented, well-substantiated evidence.
"there is no law of evolution"
A law is not higher than a theory. A law describes something observed in nature. A theory explains it. There is no law of gravity. There is no germ law of disease.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
"Atavism does not explain how limbs got on dolphins else scientists would have been able to put limbs on snakes if they wanted."
I've never heard of any attempt to give snakes legs, but they've been able to trigger atavisms in chicken embryos to give them teeth.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
The video does not demostrate evolution whatsoever. They finally admit that the two "species" can and do mate. In case of the birds they admit it at the very beginnning. So we are given two examples of breeds of animals. This tells us NOTHING about evolution. We are promised examples of Evolution but only given examples of breeding. With these silly lies how can we take evolution seriously?
hadtohappen 2 years ago
"The video does not demostrate evolution whatsoever."
Did you even watch the video? What do you call the changes in the salamanders separated by geography?
Leehofooks 2 years ago
breeding.
hadtohappen 2 years ago
I call it breeding. Did you even read my post?
hadtohappen 2 years ago
"I call it breeding. Did you even read my post?"
How is this not evolution?
Leehofooks 2 years ago
Great video:
1) Easy to understand.
2) Relevant.
3) Two examples! TWO!
And Robair12 is funny. He could become a stage comedian that everyone laughs at. Not with. AT. Hahahaha!
big1buddy 2 years ago 6
Two examples of breeding. Where is the Evolution?
hadtohappen 2 years ago
Great video! Thanks a lot for posting.
andyzohoury 2 years ago
Why is the Bible so wrong about science, such as genetics, you cannot show stripped patters to cows so their children can be stripped. Or why does Jesus the supposed son of gave say that the smallest side is the mustard seed (Mark 4.31) when in fact he is wrong, dont you think the son of god would have known that?
checkme92705 3 years ago
I'm not sure what passage you're reffering to when you talk about the stripped cows, but i do have an answer for you on the matter of the mustard seed. Jesus was not comparing the mustard seed to all other seeds in the world, but to seeds that a local, Palestinian farmer might have "sowed in his field," i.e., a key qualifying phrase in verse 31. And it's absolutely true that the black mustard seed was the smallest seed ever sown by a first-century farmer in that part of the world.
Robair12 2 years ago
there is a passage in genesis that I think checkme92705 was referring to, but in that passage it was goats. Abraham was told by god to show the goats stripped sticks while they were drinking and their childred would have stripes, thanks to modern genetics, we know this couldn't happen. And I think you do have a point on the fact that he could have said the literal smallest seed (in theory, i don't believe he was the son of god) but that he had to use something local.
satanisthetruegod666 2 years ago
Jesus could have reffered to the seeds of epiphytic orchids(which have the smallest seeds in the world) instead of the mustard seed in his parrable, but it would have been foolish. He would have simply confused his audience and the meaning of the parable would have been lost.
Robair12 2 years ago
If we are all equal to god why were the Disciples giving more evidence that god exist than we are today, they saw miracles and people raising from the dead and yet all we get if have faith? How can any intelligent being be so dishonest?
checkme92705 3 years ago
This comm