This is a pointless agruement ive seen both sides of the spectrum (creationist and evolution) both have completely legit proofs for there beliefs (no offense but all evidence that craetionists do have is undenyable.
and since there is no God and we just make up quaint ideas like 'good' or 'evil' or 'i love you mom' we can just do what the fuck ever we want. you know like it says in the bible, about people who deny God. it's so brutally obvious... it's really sad when you think that most people will end up burning because they like to get off. we make it so easy for them.
what you mean is YOU belive there is no god, i personally dont belvie in any of the pre packed deities of an scripturter, but too assume, as you have, that there is no greater creative intellignvce in the univese, is simply silly and infcat there is copiuos evidence of such intelligences
from my perspective it boils down to which philosophy reinforces human nature. atheism or christianity (we won't bother with those other religions i mean who cares right? you're really only after them damn jesus freaks anyway). atheism says to fuck like bandits, better to burn out than fade away. christianity the total polar opposite... you know the rest, so fuck, kill, steal, eat til your hearts content, you'll be dead soon so who cares, right?
where did all of the original unmutated DNA come from? more importantly where did the natural process by which this DNA formed itself come from? where did the materials that this DNA was made out of come from? why did this natural process cause the DNA to organize in such a way as to cause the cells in your eye to interact with light after millions of mutations?
"Harmful mutations are removed from the gene pool via natural selection; beneficial mutations stay in the gene pool via natural selection." Where is ur source for this claim? How do u know that every harmful effect is removed, & every beneficial effect is perpetuated? Why do u fallaciously assume that a negative but non-debilitating gene won't stay in it? Just because a certain mutation is beneficial does not mean that all animals with that mutation will procreate more than non-mutated animals.
It's probably reasonable to say that the average atheist is more intelligent than the average Christian because as a group they value the intellect more than most people do.
When it comes to having an awareness of God they're at a disadvantage because of their total focus on that one aspect of what it means to be human. Intuiting something isn't really their forte.
Check out my channel for rant-free Atheist/Christian discussion.
@LaingGod Can u cite a beneficial mutation 4 an organism that isn't microscopic? Preferably a human. Please let me know if this beneficial mutation occurs without the person losing a positive trait or gaining a negative trait. Any case where a mutation helped a person & didn't cost them anything valuable in the process. It seems when people cite beneficial mutations it's only microscopic organisms that were in a lab environment & had outside intelligent influence assisting them.
@steviej321 There is no evidence at all that shows that our brains r a mutation. When evolutionists make the claim that all life here on Earth is just a bunch of mutations I think it sounds completely ridiculous. Believing this also takes faith since theres no evidence to support such a claim, none. Micro evolution is a proven fact but macro evolution is a false religion. It takes faith to believe that its true b/c there isn't any solid evidence. Theres also big problems w/ evolution
@uppercutter21 How about Fossil Records, Genetic matches, Embryology, and Biochemistry? Chimpanzee DNA is around a 98% match with ours and thus a lot of our proteins are commonly shared, it's a pretty big coincidence to say that it is not related to us at all. Of course since your creationist in a (thankfully) free country, you can hold onto your illogical and in my opinion idiotic belefs.
A very well sustained argument, with more truth than anything these ridiculous creationists can find. I agree with you, mutations are what makes the life on earth so diverse and we should be thankful for it.
I believe there are millions of different mutations because I research it a lot because I find them very interesting. I find it extremely hard to believe though that mutations form entirely different species. And also, a very small percent of these "ridiculous creationists" try to disclaim mutation.
over an extremely long time, an animal will change enough to be declared a different species. tapir and horses are very closely related, as are apes and us, it doesnt take a huge stretch of imagination to connect different species.
@zenithar6666 yes well people usually have no choice but to believe what they are taught. i mean your not a biologist are you? so you must believe what the white coated lab tech says, i mean they gave him a biology degree for studying other people's ideas... not you. also what exactly do we know about this universe...? what we can absorb through our senses thats what. more importantly what we can process of that absorbption... not everyone is smart enough to go to heaven.
I had to mute this video to watch it, but good presentation all around I suppose. I actually took a note down or two hahah :) Also I read an article a while back that claims blonde hair and blue eyes to be mutations, which only adds to the argument that mutations are neither rare nor always harmful.
Good job. Wish we had more videos like this on youtube to educate the masses.
Interesting point to make. At 2:00 you mention harmful mutations being filtered out through natural selection. The only problem with the human race is that we have changed our environment to the degree that natural selection is no longer viable.
Close to every other species on this planet progresses and evolves, but humans have eradicated the only reason for evolution: To get the upper hand on survival.
Good video. Just one observation- the use of the term "lower organisms" is dangerously misleading, suggesting a heirarchical ladder of life, instead of the branching tree of life we know it to be today. Other than that, nice job and thanks for the info.
Got an additional reference for you to use for this video: Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli
Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland, and Richard E. Lenski* This shows the mutation and permanent inclusion of a citrate-metabolizing gene to E. coli. The experiment was conducted over a 20 year period and is very well documented. PS: Different music please. My old ears are bleeding.
pretty good; however, some of your sources are getting up there in age. Especially being in the field of science, with how quickly science advancing, you should try to stay away from sources that are over 10 years old. Other than that, pretty good, and I loved that you added your sources at the end. There are too many videos on here that preach and lecture, but in the end they don't even tell you where the information comes from. Kudos to you.
Brainwashed. You can't even explain the existence of a single cell, where did it come from? by chance? from primordeal soup? LOL. Randam molecules joined together by "accident" to create beautifully sophisticated creatures with self awareness and morality. Explain the Cambrian period? There are no half species. Birds came from dinasaurs? LOL look at the physical characteristics and lungs and metabolism differences between a land animal and a bird? Evolution Myth.
I watched those video's and I laughed until my sides hurt. Great assumptions, great speech, well presented, nice! But that was it, all assumptions and rhetoric. Give me facts. Make a cell in the lab, by the process explained in the video and then make a video of it and let's talk. Nothing but conjecture and falsehoods.
so you have explain which of the events are impossible? no, not that I've seen. All I've seen you do is LOL and ridicule like a child. Where is your rebutal? Where is your science that show which of those steps is impossible? Make a star or a planet in a lab before we beleive in gravity?
"make a star or planet? LOL hahaahah. Mathematics have proven that. Do you know anything about space-time thereoms? LOL. I am laughing because you blindly argue your point. and you take evolution as a given, not a theory. Explain the explosion of living beings during the Cambrian period? There were no "precusors" , but I know you will continue to give rhetoric. Non theist evolutionist say this theory is now dead! Given the fossil records. Most gaps in the fossil record are closed.
how do you define a precursor for the cambrian explosion? There are plenty of trace fossils if this is what youre asking for...do you know about geology or is this some retarded creationist arguement?
Life cannot arise from nothingness. It is called logic. The burden of proof is upon you evolutionist who claim that this theory is correct and true. How can you claim atheism when Darwin was agnostic? Maybe you haven't read "origin of the species by natural selection" LOL. Darwin would laugh at you to for claiming something true that isn't.
Darwin didnt know of the whole field if genetics...why should anyone base their understanding off of his? Thats like asking a muslim to accept what a christian says just because the christian believes it to be true.
commonsenseguy, your just another brainwashed evolutionist. you say dawkins answered as he should have? lol The question was is has there been any documented cases wherey by mutations or by evolutionary process, information has been added to the genome? He didn't utter s single word about genetics, but goes into a lame explanation of existing in the past..yadada. Great logic. This is your daddy athiest, very smart huh?
transitional isn't intelligent. It is the basis of the theory, "gradual changes" are you kidding. Have you even read "origin of the species by natural selection?". Im not sure what you claim or don't claim but your arguments seem to support evolution, so I assume your an evolutionist. Maybe your believe and god and evolution? I dunno. But "transitional is absolutely at the heart of the theory!" Why can't you answer?
Explain the explosion of living beings during the Cambrian period? All fully formed species with complex organs. No primitive ancestors are known since that is the oldest strata of the earth. Please explain, we are all waiting to hear your expert explanation.
the cambrian is not the oldest strata on Earth...honestly, that alone shows your ignorance on the subject...also, what do you want to know about tranitionals? They are what they are named. The cambrian explosion could very well have occured for a multitude of reasons, increase in biodiversity due to rifting of Rodinia, the end of snowball Earth allowing for mass reproduction without predation, increased oxygen levels etc, and there are fossils found in strata older than the cambrian
Ok notsocommonsenseguy, tell us why the organisms in the cambrian period had fully functioning eyes? What is your answer to that. Nothing but more conjecture and "could've" "therefore" and BS. Give a mechanism an example or the transition of when and how that eye came into existence? LOl this should be interesting?
why did he switch forums? Also, why is he quote mining? Does he not understand the material for himself? Funny, a man who has a phd in genetics doesnt even know the first thing about geology or evolution...or even genetics for that matter.
ok, im done, this guy has shown himself to be a dumbass time and time again, he believes the cambrian is the oldest strata, he lies about his credencials, he cant explain ERVs, and he quote mines more than HTBK on steriods...pittyful
any change to the DNA that results in a germline difference in the potential outputs of an organism. It may be a change to a coding region for a protein hence making an altered versions. It may be change to a promoter region or an inhibitor region thus altering the genetic logic.
There are also neutral mutations that occur in unused portions of DNA.
I asked the question, because you don't know what it means. I want you to do the research. 'any change to the DNA' means a copy error. How does this ADD information to make species more sophisticated? Any ERROR in an ordered system produces calamity and the net effect is a disaster for the species. Why do you think Dawkins was stumped when he could answer the question morons. O it was a fake video? LOL hahahahha
i believe donexodus2 has made an entire ten minute video refutting this arguement...i believe several websites with peer reviewed material also refute this arguement.
a family in Connecticut who've been identified as having hyperdense, virtually unbreakable bones. A team of doctors at Yale traced the mutation to a gene that was the subject of an earlier study. In that study researchers showed that low bone density could be caused by a mutation that disrupts the function of a gene called LRP5. This clued them that a different mutation increased LRP5 function, leading to an opposite phenotype, that is, high bone density.
"So is your conclusion that hyperdense bones is beneficial to humans?"
'Benefitial' does not exist in a vacuum. It depends entirely on environment. And remember as species adapt to new environments their neighbors have to adapt to them changing too. It makes for an ever escallating oneupmanship
I note you avoid the vitaminC question and the village with the HDL gene and the mutant mice as well. BTW, your ignorant email re the mice was such a terrific example of disingenuous self deception I just had to laugh.
kinfolk in the village of Limone Sul Garda in northern Italy have a mutation which gives them better tolerance of HDL serum cholesterol. Consequently this family has no history of heart attacks despite their high-risk dietary habits. This mutation was traced to a single common ancestor living in the 1700's
the changes in the DNA create changes in traits, these traits may lead to a higher survival rate for natural selection....and i believe the video youre referring to was a hoax...do you have footage of the entire interview?
"I believe the video was a hoax" That was one great hoax, because it sure looked real to me. Ask your daddy dawkins if he was tricked. Dawkins is quiet as squirrel about it. He would have bashed that in a second if it was a hoax.
what do you mean, what about it. Its a museum of fossils, see how species have remained the SAME over 100's of millions of years old. The same species are alive today. Why didn't they undergo evolution? HMMM what happened to evolution, does it select which species it wants to magically transform? wow its magic, what a myth.
i honestly wonder about you...youd think after as many people as you talk to, youd figure it out...it depends on the environment...honestly, quite embarrasing yourself and go to school
"how species have remained the SAME over 100's of millions of years old." what about the creatures that didnt stay the same. like dinos and apes and whales.
"does it select which species it wants to magically transform?" no. if you got something that works why change it?
Great scientific reply, I can't believe you keep coming back in here? LOL how do you know apes evolved? show me the evidence. Your whole confusion is on what transitional means? You obviously haven't read orgin of the species by natural selection.
"how do you know apes evolved?" fossils pretty clearly show it. but the best evidence is the one you have yet to refute. endogenous retroviruses pretty much prove common ancestry with the other great apes.
Also, evidence has shown that animals that are confinded to an island tend to evolve and become smaller to adapt to the space restriction; the opposite has also been found to be true, that in large spaces animals will evolve and become larger to better protect themselves and to better adapt with the environment...saw that on the nature channel ^,^
"what about the creatures that didnt stay the same. like dinos and apes and whales"
That is your stupid assumption. Produce your proof through the fossil record if you speak the truth. Show me the exact transition of apes, all transitions should be exactly clear.
Archaeopteryx is not transitional. How can a dinosaur or theropod, have such a drastic genetic mutation to create wings? and feathers? Evolution must be really smart to do that? Shouldn't there be something between Archaeopteryx and Theropods, or creatures that had "half wings/half limbs?" See you are an idiot, because that transition isn't clear at all. So there should thousands of species between the Archaeopteryx and theropods that show a gradual transition. where is it?
"How can a dinosaur or theropod, have such a drastic genetic mutation to create wings?" are you an idiot? your not being able to comprehend how its wings could change does not change the fact that it is a transitional.
hold on, lets do this, you say evolution must be smart to gain a mutation of feathers in an attempt to disprove it, but why do you find something like feathers drastically rediculous when we have observed something like bone structures change and the introduction of internal structures in other animals?
« How can a dinosaur or theropod, have such a drastic genetic mutation to create wings? and feathers? »
You yourself answered this question: it couldn't. Not all in one go from an organism that had neither. Like archaeopteryx is an intermediary form between earlier dinosaur and later birds, so too must there have been intermediary forms between earlier dinosaur and archaeopteryx, archaeopteryx and later birds.
"if you got something that works why change it?" hahahahahah hahahahah OMG your logic and understanding of evolution is so flawed. Evolution is a continuous process that effects all species. Why do you keep changing the definition to fit your view? This is how your personal affects everything in science that you learn, you make it fit what you want. Shit you aren't even worth a second to discuss any of this with. I'm done with your stupid logic.
"Why do you keep changing the definition to fit your view?" i havent your just stupid. evolution works by making an organism more fit to its environment. once its got something that is as near perfect as it needs it isnt going to change very much if at all.
Except that the environment usually changes over time, so evolution continues. Evolution is about adaptability, if the environment changes, species are forced to adapt to the changes.
Your boy Dawkins is wising up.... Look at what he says:
". . . Such devices could not have been put together by chance. And of course, no sensible scientist ever said they could." (From "Richard Dawkins Explains His Latest Book,"
htt p : / /richarddawkins . net / mainPage . php ? bodyPage = article _ body . php& id =170)
indeed, of anything else! Fortunately, nobody has ever suggested that it IS a good explanation. The correct explanation -- and it is indeed an excellently satisfying one -- is Darwinian natural selection. Darwinian natural selection is emphatically NOT the same thing as random mutation. Although random mutation does play a role in the theory, natural selection itself is the most important ingredient, and natural selection is the exact OPPOSITE of random.
. . Such devices could not have been put together by chance. And of course, no sensible scientist ever said they could. (From "Richard Dawkins Explains His Latest Book,"
htt p : / / richarddawkins . net / main Page . p h p ? bodyPage = article_ body . php & id =170)
You rightly say that random mutation is NOT a good explanation for the evolution of giraffes' necks or, indeed, of anything else! (From "Richard Dawkins: Frequently Asked Questions," htt p : / / w ww . simonyi . ox . ac . uk / dawkins / FAQs . s h tml)
what kind of stupid fool are you arrogantv? Have you fallen so low in rebuttal space that even though it's been pointed out to you that quoteming is the worst form of argument that providing a link to the original quote that you've mined makes you use of it a most laughable proclaimation of you stupidity. I only say this to suggest that you could refrain from further embarrasing yourself.
Umm actually, haven't you heard of the dodo bird? And species haven't stayed the same. I won't go completely one way or the other because that is just pure ignorance; however, I will agree that evolution is a prevalent factor, and I will agree that the big bang doesn't make since, because even scientists can agree on where the atom came from and that as one of the laws of matter, "matter cannot be created nor distoryed" under normal circumstances... yeah that's all I have to say
Drat, go back to school. If you think the Big Bang is not real. There is no need to even discuss anything further with you. Your understanding of science is embarrasing.
IDIOT: given the many examples I've just presented only an IDIOT such as yourself could be DUPED into falling for that hoax. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.
"Any ERROR in an ordered system produces calamity and the net effect is a disaster for the species."
Typical Behe disiple bullcrap. Let's take a look at just one exception ok? VitaminC is a required compound for animal life(mayby plants too, IDK) All humans have a broken gene that's used for making VC. We are not all dead. OOPS. Second: given the current situation a mutation that provided repair of that gene would be a benefitial mutation.OOPS.
damianpoirier, why are u getting frustrated when dawkins is attacked shown to be nothing but a liar. Did you see how he answered the question? LOL maybe that was editing too? LOL wow he must be your daddy, the big daddy of all atheist.
Richard Dawkins was "stumped" when asked whether there exists any evolutionary process or mutations that can increase information in the genome. He is much more advanced in knowledge than you. Why was he stumped and couldn't give these amazing answers that you give? I'm sure one would have popped into his head. Maybe we should forward him this video and you can be his professor.
Richard Dawkins was "stumped" when asked whether there exists any evolutionary process or mutations that can increase information in the genome. He is much more advanced in knowledge than you. Why was he stumped and couldn't give these amazing answers that you give? I'm sure one would have popped into his head. Maybe we should forward him this video and you can be his professor.
you knucklehead. Try again. this time put two and two together. A) This question is a no brainer. So do you think Dawkins was stumped? Maybe you enjoy reading into that situation something that justifies your own ignorance. Sorry you fail so miserably.
ROUND ASS, FIRM BOOBS, PRETTY LEGS, NICE FACE, TIGHT HOLES, SWEET PUSSY JUICY....ZOOM, DIGITALCAM, TOYS, SOUND, IM NOT SHY. Why You Should See My CAM!: BECAUSE I WANT SHOW YOU WHAT YOU NEVER SEEN BEFORE NOWHERE .............MEEEEEEEEEEE so what you waiting for! come visit me at FriendlyFlirts * COM my user-id there is Sophia-pbuu chat soon on cam :) xqsatzhhgabr
When has there ever been evidence of one species involving into a new species though...sure species have mutations...if that didn't happen the entire planet would be an incestuous melting pot....we would all be deformed without mutation...but that doesn't prove evolution exists...no ape has ever evolved into a human...there aren't wild humans roaming about that have evolved from apes or chimps in the jungle. It's disproven.Sure we can't prove creationism, but who could if it were true??? No one.
There is no evidence for evolution. Those on the ground who do the digging and the finding out of facts to support the theory, are guilty of rearranging evidence into sequences that fit with their preposition that the theory is true. That is not good science.
really? do you do any computer programming? I've been desprate to find a creationist who programs. Do you know of one willing to take on a great challenge?
Aladon1965: Religion has no qualms with any scientific theory, gravity, electro-magnetism you name it. It`s only when it apparently contradicts a story written by camel herders 3.ooo years ago, then the problem arises. Makes one think !!!
Aladon1965:You are just pathetic. Do you think there are no christians(scientists included) , who believe in evolution. Why ? When it obviously contradicts Genesis ? Because the truth is the truth, no matter how hard to swallow.
Apparently you judge yourself smarter than the great majority of scientists, smarter than the Vatican, smarter than 14.000 clergymen in the US, who found it necessary to subscribe a declaration supporting evolution.Doesn`t that make you think ?
I look at creation this way. Creator uses tools: atoms, molecules, proteins, etc to create life. Then sets it in motion letting natural law take effect. Who is to say he didn't use evolution method to get the results of all the various species on earth? A very advanced mind, understanding DNA, etc and animal husbandry, breeding, etc could use evolution to create humans as well as chimps using the same basic building blocks and template?
It's a laudable theory if only the Bible didn't exist. But it does exist and the story of creation is there for all to see.
DNA is a very large polymer which contains more than a billion molecules. 333+ million of those being the programming molecules, there are more than 123 x 10 to the 32nd power possible different combinations in just one chromosome.
Something of that complexity cannot be left to 'nature' I would have thought.
If so then why are there many creatures which have not changed at all? Why would some simple sea creatures evolve into people (eventually) and some have remained as simple sea creatures?
"" Something of that complexity cannot be left to 'nature' I would have thought. ""
That is the remarkable thing about 'nature'. It is so wonderfully capable of evolving complexity, it APPEARS TO BE as a very convincing imitation of SUPER-natural power... so convincing, in fact, that mankind was fooled for many thousands of years.
Unfortunately, some people still ARE acting pretty foolish... But [shrugs] What can you do, except try to bring get them up to speed, eh?
Creationists get ridiculed for saying when things are hard to explain - 'God did it!' (which they dont by the way)
Yet, evolutionists who cannot be bothered to try or really don't have clue what the answer is, just say, 'it had billions of years so thats how it happened.'
I'll let you into a secret, If you put some bacteria on a pristine (besides food for bacteria) but habitable planet and went back there in 450Billion years, (if possible)guess what you'd find?
Neither has anyone. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha..... a ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha .... ha a ha ha
no but seriously though, you don't have 'real' numbers as you claim, only estimates. And those estimates change every time evolutionaries need to 'make things fit'. Trouble is - nothing fits. It's voodoo science.
And a fairy waving her wand at dust to make man is a better solution than the continuous improvement of scientific discovery? Next time you eat a big mac thank evolution theory for it's contribution to the food industry in providing higher yield crops and farm animals.
"Do you think being insulting about God is clever?"
GreenDragon wasn't being "insulting" about God or religion. He was just stating the biological facts of the matter. It was YOU who's suddenly accused him of bringing God into it, when he did no such thing.
"Have you ever actually considered any of the science provided by creationists"
Considered it? I used to tout this brainwashing you call science, that is until I realized that all this information is testable, and tested it for myself.
"Next time troubled in your soul or you need help who are you going to call?"
My wife, and myself. Who else would I need?
"God listens."
When was the last time God "spoke" to YOU? Perhaps no one is listening but your own subconscious.
I'm a creationist and i don't make any of the claims you have said creationists claim. To make such a blanket statement would imply that the creator is making sure no living thing changes or has variation. Someone who has the old testament should at least acknowledge that humans evolve even according to scripture. The life spans from Adam to 10 generations later dropped drastically. From Adam (presumeably a white skinned person?) we get all variation we see today.
"" From Adam (presumably a white skinned person?)..... "
White skinned? What the hell are you talking about?
The first human we know about for sure was actually a woman, called "Mitochondrial Eve" by geneticists. We know from our own inherited DNA that she lived in the Great Rift Valley of East Africa about 160 thousand years ago. The colour of her skin we can't be sure of, but it was probably a pretty dark brown. Also, it may've been obscured by longish hair covering most of her body.
This is a pointless agruement ive seen both sides of the spectrum (creationist and evolution) both have completely legit proofs for there beliefs (no offense but all evidence that craetionists do have is undenyable.
DarkNinjaCrede 1 week ago
The information is useful, but the opinion sucks. U say all creationists- and tht is not true.
But thnx for the info. It actually strengthens my belief in God. Mutations that help against HIV, thank u God :)
shiney94 2 months ago
and since there is no God and we just make up quaint ideas like 'good' or 'evil' or 'i love you mom' we can just do what the fuck ever we want. you know like it says in the bible, about people who deny God. it's so brutally obvious... it's really sad when you think that most people will end up burning because they like to get off. we make it so easy for them.
cwross1976 3 months ago
what you mean is YOU belive there is no god, i personally dont belvie in any of the pre packed deities of an scripturter, but too assume, as you have, that there is no greater creative intellignvce in the univese, is simply silly and infcat there is copiuos evidence of such intelligences
zenithar6666 3 months ago
@zenithar6666 Please get a web browser with spell check.
ladefreakndah 2 weeks ago
from my perspective it boils down to which philosophy reinforces human nature. atheism or christianity (we won't bother with those other religions i mean who cares right? you're really only after them damn jesus freaks anyway). atheism says to fuck like bandits, better to burn out than fade away. christianity the total polar opposite... you know the rest, so fuck, kill, steal, eat til your hearts content, you'll be dead soon so who cares, right?
cwross1976 3 months ago
where did all of the original unmutated DNA come from? more importantly where did the natural process by which this DNA formed itself come from? where did the materials that this DNA was made out of come from? why did this natural process cause the DNA to organize in such a way as to cause the cells in your eye to interact with light after millions of mutations?
cwross1976 3 months ago
Music isn't the best...
brento1138 4 months ago
"Harmful mutations are removed from the gene pool via natural selection; beneficial mutations stay in the gene pool via natural selection." Where is ur source for this claim? How do u know that every harmful effect is removed, & every beneficial effect is perpetuated? Why do u fallaciously assume that a negative but non-debilitating gene won't stay in it? Just because a certain mutation is beneficial does not mean that all animals with that mutation will procreate more than non-mutated animals.
theantihero420 8 months ago
dude couldnt get passed the first minute, fucking music sucks!!!
viego215 1 year ago
Informative vid. But it would have been nicer with some "Hard" rock.
judoyodan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's probably reasonable to say that the average atheist is more intelligent than the average Christian because as a group they value the intellect more than most people do.
When it comes to having an awareness of God they're at a disadvantage because of their total focus on that one aspect of what it means to be human. Intuiting something isn't really their forte.
Check out my channel for rant-free Atheist/Christian discussion.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
nuetral mutations--- grenn eyes and blonde hair..... dude this makes me feel smart lol umm yeah examples would be nice smarty guy
kdgandsebiaf 2 years ago
you didnt give a single example of benifical mutations????????
MrSaladin1984 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrSaladin1984
"you didnt give a single example of benifical mutations????????"
I counted 5 examples between 3:10 and 3:50.
kandtell 2 years ago
A beneficial mutation would be bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance. it's not beneficial for us but beneficial for the bacteria.
LaingGod 2 years ago 3
@LaingGod Can u cite a beneficial mutation 4 an organism that isn't microscopic? Preferably a human. Please let me know if this beneficial mutation occurs without the person losing a positive trait or gaining a negative trait. Any case where a mutation helped a person & didn't cost them anything valuable in the process. It seems when people cite beneficial mutations it's only microscopic organisms that were in a lab environment & had outside intelligent influence assisting them.
uppercutter21 2 months ago
@uppercutter21 "Can u cite a beneficial mutation 4 an organism that isn't microscopic? Preferably a human"
Easy. Humans developing large, powerful brains.
steviej321 3 weeks ago
@steviej321 There is no evidence at all that shows that our brains r a mutation. When evolutionists make the claim that all life here on Earth is just a bunch of mutations I think it sounds completely ridiculous. Believing this also takes faith since theres no evidence to support such a claim, none. Micro evolution is a proven fact but macro evolution is a false religion. It takes faith to believe that its true b/c there isn't any solid evidence. Theres also big problems w/ evolution
uppercutter21 3 weeks ago
@uppercutter21 How about Fossil Records, Genetic matches, Embryology, and Biochemistry? Chimpanzee DNA is around a 98% match with ours and thus a lot of our proteins are commonly shared, it's a pretty big coincidence to say that it is not related to us at all. Of course since your creationist in a (thankfully) free country, you can hold onto your illogical and in my opinion idiotic belefs.
Jefferyxu45 5 days ago
mutations yes ! evolution no!!! think about it or we would have wings by now ! as they would say ! ?
sergiorambolt 2 years ago
A very well sustained argument, with more truth than anything these ridiculous creationists can find. I agree with you, mutations are what makes the life on earth so diverse and we should be thankful for it.
Entity4two 2 years ago
I believe there are millions of different mutations because I research it a lot because I find them very interesting. I find it extremely hard to believe though that mutations form entirely different species. And also, a very small percent of these "ridiculous creationists" try to disclaim mutation.
music4life712 2 years ago
over an extremely long time, an animal will change enough to be declared a different species. tapir and horses are very closely related, as are apes and us, it doesnt take a huge stretch of imagination to connect different species.
abassett22 2 years ago
NO BUT IT DOES TAKE IMAGINATION
zenithar6666 1 year ago
yes acept what your told liek a sheep, and contineue, of course it might be wrong but nah too much work
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@zenithar6666 yes well people usually have no choice but to believe what they are taught. i mean your not a biologist are you? so you must believe what the white coated lab tech says, i mean they gave him a biology degree for studying other people's ideas... not you. also what exactly do we know about this universe...? what we can absorb through our senses thats what. more importantly what we can process of that absorbption... not everyone is smart enough to go to heaven.
cwross1976 3 months ago
i completely agree with you but its hard to take you seirously with that music
hoboinator 3 years ago
eero mäntyranta used hormones
Hitsi1991 3 years ago
I had to mute this video to watch it, but good presentation all around I suppose. I actually took a note down or two hahah :) Also I read an article a while back that claims blonde hair and blue eyes to be mutations, which only adds to the argument that mutations are neither rare nor always harmful.
Good job. Wish we had more videos like this on youtube to educate the masses.
RubberSoul89 3 years ago
Interesting point to make. At 2:00 you mention harmful mutations being filtered out through natural selection. The only problem with the human race is that we have changed our environment to the degree that natural selection is no longer viable.
Close to every other species on this planet progresses and evolves, but humans have eradicated the only reason for evolution: To get the upper hand on survival.
The problem is this: We care to much.
I suggest reading Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.
pklomaxbj 3 years ago
good point. I would suggest this in itself is very harmful. But what can we do...simply stop using medicines and discontinue technology?
spiritconsumer 2 years ago
Good video. Just one observation- the use of the term "lower organisms" is dangerously misleading, suggesting a heirarchical ladder of life, instead of the branching tree of life we know it to be today. Other than that, nice job and thanks for the info.
NoFaithHere 3 years ago
Did Chance design legs for fish or did the fish just realize that they needed to grow legs?
WileNot 3 years ago
Neither, the ancient fish that evolved into amphibians had thick and bony fins, which gradually evolved into limb-like appendages.
danytibi 3 years ago
I love metal, and I love bashing creationist retarded crap. But I couldn't watch this. It's like mixing sex and family or something...doesn't work.
DogBoots77 3 years ago
Message lost in thrash metal
Minttzz 3 years ago
Got an additional reference for you to use for this video: Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli
Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland, and Richard E. Lenski* This shows the mutation and permanent inclusion of a citrate-metabolizing gene to E. coli. The experiment was conducted over a 20 year period and is very well documented. PS: Different music please. My old ears are bleeding.
magick205 3 years ago
PLEASE lose the dreadful music!
AltaMirage 3 years ago
People able to appreciate this "dreadful music" have suffered beneficial mutations that will enrich the gene pool :P
athelia4444 3 years ago
terrible song, nice arguement
mistermuffin420 3 years ago 5
We need more videos like this!
5/5
Anarkokommunist 3 years ago
pretty good; however, some of your sources are getting up there in age. Especially being in the field of science, with how quickly science advancing, you should try to stay away from sources that are over 10 years old. Other than that, pretty good, and I loved that you added your sources at the end. There are too many videos on here that preach and lecture, but in the end they don't even tell you where the information comes from. Kudos to you.
Dratonia 3 years ago
Brainwashed. You can't even explain the existence of a single cell, where did it come from? by chance? from primordeal soup? LOL. Randam molecules joined together by "accident" to create beautifully sophisticated creatures with self awareness and morality. Explain the Cambrian period? There are no half species. Birds came from dinasaurs? LOL look at the physical characteristics and lungs and metabolism differences between a land animal and a bird? Evolution Myth.
arrogantv 3 years ago
The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis
/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
The Origin of Life made easy
/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4
How Abiogenesis Works
/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo
damianpoirier 3 years ago
I watched those video's and I laughed until my sides hurt. Great assumptions, great speech, well presented, nice! But that was it, all assumptions and rhetoric. Give me facts. Make a cell in the lab, by the process explained in the video and then make a video of it and let's talk. Nothing but conjecture and falsehoods.
arrogantv 3 years ago
so you have explain which of the events are impossible? no, not that I've seen. All I've seen you do is LOL and ridicule like a child. Where is your rebutal? Where is your science that show which of those steps is impossible? Make a star or a planet in a lab before we beleive in gravity?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
"make a star or planet? LOL hahaahah. Mathematics have proven that. Do you know anything about space-time thereoms? LOL. I am laughing because you blindly argue your point. and you take evolution as a given, not a theory. Explain the explosion of living beings during the Cambrian period? There were no "precusors" , but I know you will continue to give rhetoric. Non theist evolutionist say this theory is now dead! Given the fossil records. Most gaps in the fossil record are closed.
arrogantv 3 years ago
how do you define a precursor for the cambrian explosion? There are plenty of trace fossils if this is what youre asking for...do you know about geology or is this some retarded creationist arguement?
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
"make a star or planet? LOL hahaahah. Mathematics have proven that"
Mathematics has proven that gravity is not real?
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
Life cannot arise from nothingness. It is called logic. The burden of proof is upon you evolutionist who claim that this theory is correct and true. How can you claim atheism when Darwin was agnostic? Maybe you haven't read "origin of the species by natural selection" LOL. Darwin would laugh at you to for claiming something true that isn't.
arrogantv 3 years ago
evolution and abiogenesis are two different subjects, why do so many creationists mix them up?
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
Darwin didnt know of the whole field if genetics...why should anyone base their understanding off of his? Thats like asking a muslim to accept what a christian says just because the christian believes it to be true.
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
commonsenseguy, your just another brainwashed evolutionist. you say dawkins answered as he should have? lol The question was is has there been any documented cases wherey by mutations or by evolutionary process, information has been added to the genome? He didn't utter s single word about genetics, but goes into a lame explanation of existing in the past..yadada. Great logic. This is your daddy athiest, very smart huh?
arrogantv 3 years ago
ohh please, dont call me an evolutionist either...do you have any intelligent arguement to make other than, "they arent transitional"?
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
transitional isn't intelligent. It is the basis of the theory, "gradual changes" are you kidding. Have you even read "origin of the species by natural selection?". Im not sure what you claim or don't claim but your arguments seem to support evolution, so I assume your an evolutionist. Maybe your believe and god and evolution? I dunno. But "transitional is absolutely at the heart of the theory!" Why can't you answer?
arrogantv 3 years ago
Explain the explosion of living beings during the Cambrian period? All fully formed species with complex organs. No primitive ancestors are known since that is the oldest strata of the earth. Please explain, we are all waiting to hear your expert explanation.
arrogantv 3 years ago
the cambrian is not the oldest strata on Earth...honestly, that alone shows your ignorance on the subject...also, what do you want to know about tranitionals? They are what they are named. The cambrian explosion could very well have occured for a multitude of reasons, increase in biodiversity due to rifting of Rodinia, the end of snowball Earth allowing for mass reproduction without predation, increased oxygen levels etc, and there are fossils found in strata older than the cambrian
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
Ok notsocommonsenseguy, tell us why the organisms in the cambrian period had fully functioning eyes? What is your answer to that. Nothing but more conjecture and "could've" "therefore" and BS. Give a mechanism an example or the transition of when and how that eye came into existence? LOl this should be interesting?
arrogantv 3 years ago
soft shelled predocesors had more than enough time to develope eyes themselves
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
hey why did you jump forums? Are you going to answer the question of genetics professuer?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
why did he switch forums? Also, why is he quote mining? Does he not understand the material for himself? Funny, a man who has a phd in genetics doesnt even know the first thing about geology or evolution...or even genetics for that matter.
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
ok, im done, this guy has shown himself to be a dumbass time and time again, he believes the cambrian is the oldest strata, he lies about his credencials, he cant explain ERVs, and he quote mines more than HTBK on steriods...pittyful
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
If darwin knew the field of genetics, he would have scrapped half of his theory. Genetics disproves evolution even more so.
arrogantv 3 years ago
how does the field of genetics disprove evolution?
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
"how does the field of genetics disprove evolution? "
I can't wait for his answer on this one. As a ph.D in genetics his answer sould blow us away. right?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Define mutation for us. What exactly happens when there is a mutation to the DNA? Please enlighten the audience, notsocommonsensegirl.
arrogantv 3 years ago
any change to the DNA that results in a germline difference in the potential outputs of an organism. It may be a change to a coding region for a protein hence making an altered versions. It may be change to a promoter region or an inhibitor region thus altering the genetic logic.
There are also neutral mutations that occur in unused portions of DNA.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
did you seriously just ask me what a mutation is? For someone who claims to have a PhD in genetics, you sure make it obvious you do not.
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
I asked the question, because you don't know what it means. I want you to do the research. 'any change to the DNA' means a copy error. How does this ADD information to make species more sophisticated? Any ERROR in an ordered system produces calamity and the net effect is a disaster for the species. Why do you think Dawkins was stumped when he could answer the question morons. O it was a fake video? LOL hahahahha
arrogantv 3 years ago
I want anyone to answer the same question that was posed to Dawkins! Go ahead, please enlighten us.
arrogantv 3 years ago
Give us an example of documented case whereby a mutation or evolutionary process has increased information within a species' genome!
arrogantv 3 years ago
all beneficial mutations add information to the genome...didnt we already go through this?
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
i believe donexodus2 has made an entire ten minute video refutting this arguement...i believe several websites with peer reviewed material also refute this arguement.
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
a family in Connecticut who've been identified as having hyperdense, virtually unbreakable bones. A team of doctors at Yale traced the mutation to a gene that was the subject of an earlier study. In that study researchers showed that low bone density could be caused by a mutation that disrupts the function of a gene called LRP5. This clued them that a different mutation increased LRP5 function, leading to an opposite phenotype, that is, high bone density.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
So is your conclusion that hyperdense bones is beneficial to humans?
arrogantv 3 years ago
"So is your conclusion that hyperdense bones is beneficial to humans?"
'Benefitial' does not exist in a vacuum. It depends entirely on environment. And remember as species adapt to new environments their neighbors have to adapt to them changing too. It makes for an ever escallating oneupmanship
damianpoirier 3 years ago
I note you avoid the vitaminC question and the village with the HDL gene and the mutant mice as well. BTW, your ignorant email re the mice was such a terrific example of disingenuous self deception I just had to laugh.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
kinfolk in the village of Limone Sul Garda in northern Italy have a mutation which gives them better tolerance of HDL serum cholesterol. Consequently this family has no history of heart attacks despite their high-risk dietary habits. This mutation was traced to a single common ancestor living in the 1700's
damianpoirier 3 years ago
the changes in the DNA create changes in traits, these traits may lead to a higher survival rate for natural selection....and i believe the video youre referring to was a hoax...do you have footage of the entire interview?
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
"I believe the video was a hoax" That was one great hoax, because it sure looked real to me. Ask your daddy dawkins if he was tricked. Dawkins is quiet as squirrel about it. He would have bashed that in a second if it was a hoax.
arrogantv 3 years ago
but the question that followed my statement was "do you have footage of the entire video?"
you really are good at making assertions without any material to back what you say
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
check this out htt p: / / w w w.f ossil-muse um. c om /
arrogantv 3 years ago
what in particular there. I don't care to spend all day looking over that huge site. Plus parts of it look very commercial.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
what about it?
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
what do you mean, what about it. Its a museum of fossils, see how species have remained the SAME over 100's of millions of years old. The same species are alive today. Why didn't they undergo evolution? HMMM what happened to evolution, does it select which species it wants to magically transform? wow its magic, what a myth.
arrogantv 3 years ago
i honestly wonder about you...youd think after as many people as you talk to, youd figure it out...it depends on the environment...honestly, quite embarrasing yourself and go to school
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
I wonder the same thing about you. You are so brainwashed, to accept this is fact!
arrogantv 3 years ago
ya know, maybe youre right, maybe the all of humanity is creating this conspiracy to destroy religion
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
"how species have remained the SAME over 100's of millions of years old." what about the creatures that didnt stay the same. like dinos and apes and whales.
"does it select which species it wants to magically transform?" no. if you got something that works why change it?
jtyranus 3 years ago
Great scientific reply, I can't believe you keep coming back in here? LOL how do you know apes evolved? show me the evidence. Your whole confusion is on what transitional means? You obviously haven't read orgin of the species by natural selection.
arrogantv 3 years ago
chromosome 2, ERVs, the fossil record, DNA...common sense
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
"how do you know apes evolved?" fossils pretty clearly show it. but the best evidence is the one you have yet to refute. endogenous retroviruses pretty much prove common ancestry with the other great apes.
jtyranus 3 years ago
Also, evidence has shown that animals that are confinded to an island tend to evolve and become smaller to adapt to the space restriction; the opposite has also been found to be true, that in large spaces animals will evolve and become larger to better protect themselves and to better adapt with the environment...saw that on the nature channel ^,^
Dratonia 3 years ago
"what about the creatures that didnt stay the same. like dinos and apes and whales"
That is your stupid assumption. Produce your proof through the fossil record if you speak the truth. Show me the exact transition of apes, all transitions should be exactly clear.
arrogantv 3 years ago
"Produce your proof through the fossil record if you speak the truth." archaeopteryx is transitional.
"all transitions should be exactly clear." yeah like archaeopteryx. it clearly has theropod traits and bird traits.
jtyranus 3 years ago
Archaeopteryx is not transitional. How can a dinosaur or theropod, have such a drastic genetic mutation to create wings? and feathers? Evolution must be really smart to do that? Shouldn't there be something between Archaeopteryx and Theropods, or creatures that had "half wings/half limbs?" See you are an idiot, because that transition isn't clear at all. So there should thousands of species between the Archaeopteryx and theropods that show a gradual transition. where is it?
arrogantv 3 years ago
"How can a dinosaur or theropod, have such a drastic genetic mutation to create wings?" are you an idiot? your not being able to comprehend how its wings could change does not change the fact that it is a transitional.
jtyranus 3 years ago
arrogant, have you ever watched the show evolve on the history channel?
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
hold on, lets do this, you say evolution must be smart to gain a mutation of feathers in an attempt to disprove it, but why do you find something like feathers drastically rediculous when we have observed something like bone structures change and the introduction of internal structures in other animals?
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
« How can a dinosaur or theropod, have such a drastic genetic mutation to create wings? and feathers? »
You yourself answered this question: it couldn't. Not all in one go from an organism that had neither. Like archaeopteryx is an intermediary form between earlier dinosaur and later birds, so too must there have been intermediary forms between earlier dinosaur and archaeopteryx, archaeopteryx and later birds.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
« creatures that had "half wings/half limbs?" »
You have been told a thousand times before that this is not what a transitional form is. All life is fully formed.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
"if you got something that works why change it?" hahahahahah hahahahah OMG your logic and understanding of evolution is so flawed. Evolution is a continuous process that effects all species. Why do you keep changing the definition to fit your view? This is how your personal affects everything in science that you learn, you make it fit what you want. Shit you aren't even worth a second to discuss any of this with. I'm done with your stupid logic.
arrogantv 3 years ago
"Why do you keep changing the definition to fit your view?" i havent your just stupid. evolution works by making an organism more fit to its environment. once its got something that is as near perfect as it needs it isnt going to change very much if at all.
jtyranus 3 years ago
Except that the environment usually changes over time, so evolution continues. Evolution is about adaptability, if the environment changes, species are forced to adapt to the changes.
danytibi 3 years ago
Oh, wait... you're not a creationist... I completely misunderstood what you were saying... so sorry about that... -__-'
danytibi 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your boy Dawkins is wising up.... Look at what he says:
". . . Such devices could not have been put together by chance. And of course, no sensible scientist ever said they could." (From "Richard Dawkins Explains His Latest Book,"
htt p : / /richarddawkins . net / mainPage . php ? bodyPage = article _ body . php& id =170)
arrogantv 3 years ago
indeed, of anything else! Fortunately, nobody has ever suggested that it IS a good explanation. The correct explanation -- and it is indeed an excellently satisfying one -- is Darwinian natural selection. Darwinian natural selection is emphatically NOT the same thing as random mutation. Although random mutation does play a role in the theory, natural selection itself is the most important ingredient, and natural selection is the exact OPPOSITE of random.
Spamming Quote mines is an evil sin.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
This theory is dead!
. . Such devices could not have been put together by chance. And of course, no sensible scientist ever said they could. (From "Richard Dawkins Explains His Latest Book,"
htt p : / / richarddawkins . net / main Page . p h p ? bodyPage = article_ body . php & id =170)
arrogantv 3 years ago
You rightly say that random mutation is NOT a good explanation for the evolution of giraffes' necks or, indeed, of anything else! (From "Richard Dawkins: Frequently Asked Questions," htt p : / / w ww . simonyi . ox . ac . uk / dawkins / FAQs . s h tml)
arrogantv 3 years ago
what kind of stupid fool are you arrogantv? Have you fallen so low in rebuttal space that even though it's been pointed out to you that quoteming is the worst form of argument that providing a link to the original quote that you've mined makes you use of it a most laughable proclaimation of you stupidity. I only say this to suggest that you could refrain from further embarrasing yourself.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Umm actually, haven't you heard of the dodo bird? And species haven't stayed the same. I won't go completely one way or the other because that is just pure ignorance; however, I will agree that evolution is a prevalent factor, and I will agree that the big bang doesn't make since, because even scientists can agree on where the atom came from and that as one of the laws of matter, "matter cannot be created nor distoryed" under normal circumstances... yeah that's all I have to say
Dratonia 3 years ago
Drat, go back to school. If you think the Big Bang is not real. There is no need to even discuss anything further with you. Your understanding of science is embarrasing.
arrogantv 3 years ago
IDIOT: given the many examples I've just presented only an IDIOT such as yourself could be DUPED into falling for that hoax. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
"Any ERROR in an ordered system produces calamity and the net effect is a disaster for the species."
Typical Behe disiple bullcrap. Let's take a look at just one exception ok? VitaminC is a required compound for animal life(mayby plants too, IDK) All humans have a broken gene that's used for making VC. We are not all dead. OOPS. Second: given the current situation a mutation that provided repair of that gene would be a benefitial mutation.OOPS.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
"I asked the question, because you don't know what it means."
arrogant asshole is more like it.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
damianpoirier, why are u getting frustrated when dawkins is attacked shown to be nothing but a liar. Did you see how he answered the question? LOL maybe that was editing too? LOL wow he must be your daddy, the big daddy of all atheist.
arrogantv 3 years ago
Dawkins answerred the question as it should have been...also, please dont ignore me.
how do you define a precursor for the cambrian explosion? Do you know about geology or is this some retarded creationist arguement?
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
Richard Dawkins was "stumped" when asked whether there exists any evolutionary process or mutations that can increase information in the genome. He is much more advanced in knowledge than you. Why was he stumped and couldn't give these amazing answers that you give? I'm sure one would have popped into his head. Maybe we should forward him this video and you can be his professor.
arrogantv 3 years ago
Richard Dawkins was "stumped" when asked whether there exists any evolutionary process or mutations that can increase information in the genome. He is much more advanced in knowledge than you. Why was he stumped and couldn't give these amazing answers that you give? I'm sure one would have popped into his head. Maybe we should forward him this video and you can be his professor.
arrogantv 3 years ago
you knucklehead. Try again. this time put two and two together. A) This question is a no brainer. So do you think Dawkins was stumped? Maybe you enjoy reading into that situation something that justifies your own ignorance. Sorry you fail so miserably.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice Video lolz, my names Katherine, im feelin n0rty and h0rn3y if any guyz wana chat im usually on
___ FriendlyFlirts..dot..COM ___ my username there is Katherine-bovhnjhddbt chat soon ;)
shadowkiss 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ROUND ASS, FIRM BOOBS, PRETTY LEGS, NICE FACE, TIGHT HOLES, SWEET PUSSY JUICY....ZOOM, DIGITALCAM, TOYS, SOUND, IM NOT SHY. Why You Should See My CAM!: BECAUSE I WANT SHOW YOU WHAT YOU NEVER SEEN BEFORE NOWHERE .............MEEEEEEEEEEE so what you waiting for! come visit me at FriendlyFlirts * COM my user-id there is Sophia-pbuu chat soon on cam :) xqsatzhhgabr
vinark 3 years ago
There are virtually none. Among biologists there are less than 0.1 percent who believe in creationism.
winterstellar 3 years ago
that's evolving, not involving...haha.
harperamandaj 3 years ago
When has there ever been evidence of one species involving into a new species though...sure species have mutations...if that didn't happen the entire planet would be an incestuous melting pot....we would all be deformed without mutation...but that doesn't prove evolution exists...no ape has ever evolved into a human...there aren't wild humans roaming about that have evolved from apes or chimps in the jungle. It's disproven.Sure we can't prove creationism, but who could if it were true??? No one.
harperamandaj 3 years ago
".there aren't wild humans roaming about that have evolved from apes or chimps in the jungle"
we killed them off remember?
your blanket claims the evolution is disproven are histerical.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
There is no evidence for evolution. Those on the ground who do the digging and the finding out of facts to support the theory, are guilty of rearranging evidence into sequences that fit with their preposition that the theory is true. That is not good science.
aladon1965 3 years ago
oh they're all liars are they?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Mistaken some of them, others are liars yes.
aladon1965 3 years ago
really? do you do any computer programming? I've been desprate to find a creationist who programs. Do you know of one willing to take on a great challenge?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
TREE OF LIFE PROJECT ....has all the evidence you can want online......with references and additional info about the organisms involved
professional site for life scientists uses scientific terminology...humans are listed under SYNAPSIDA
dancingnature 3 years ago
Aladon1965: Religion has no qualms with any scientific theory, gravity, electro-magnetism you name it. It`s only when it apparently contradicts a story written by camel herders 3.ooo years ago, then the problem arises. Makes one think !!!
Philos2006 3 years ago
You are just pathetic actually.
Do you think there are no scientists who believe in creation?
aladon1965 3 years ago
Aladon1965:You are just pathetic. Do you think there are no christians(scientists included) , who believe in evolution. Why ? When it obviously contradicts Genesis ? Because the truth is the truth, no matter how hard to swallow.
Philos2006 3 years ago
If they do believe in evolution should I jump the popular atheist bandwagon with them when it's an absolute joke that no one should accept?
Dare to be different!
aladon1965 3 years ago
it's not a joke, you are just too dumb to understand the simplest concept on earth.
survivors get to breed.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
You are so thick it's not worth attempting a reply.
aladon1965 3 years ago
"You are so thick it's not worth attempting a reply."
yup, that would be what Jesus would do.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
It was an observation. Obviously I've tried to enlighten him but he just keeps replying with stupidity.
aladon1965 3 years ago
Aladon1965: The reasonable thing to do, is to study the theory of evolution. It`s all about REASON.
Philos2006 3 years ago
Ditto
aladon1965 3 years ago
Apparently you judge yourself smarter than the great majority of scientists, smarter than the Vatican, smarter than 14.000 clergymen in the US, who found it necessary to subscribe a declaration supporting evolution.Doesn`t that make you think ?
Philos2006 3 years ago
Makes me think they're all nutcases.
aladon1965 3 years ago
Nope, try again :) hehe
watch?v=JVlTtPaor0I
Enjoy! and.......
GOD BLESS YOU! :)
Mystwicca 3 years ago
I look at creation this way. Creator uses tools: atoms, molecules, proteins, etc to create life. Then sets it in motion letting natural law take effect. Who is to say he didn't use evolution method to get the results of all the various species on earth? A very advanced mind, understanding DNA, etc and animal husbandry, breeding, etc could use evolution to create humans as well as chimps using the same basic building blocks and template?
musiciansguild 3 years ago
It's a laudable theory if only the Bible didn't exist. But it does exist and the story of creation is there for all to see.
DNA is a very large polymer which contains more than a billion molecules. 333+ million of those being the programming molecules, there are more than 123 x 10 to the 32nd power possible different combinations in just one chromosome.
Something of that complexity cannot be left to 'nature' I would have thought.
aladon1965 3 years ago
true but it has had billions of years to build up to what it is.
kebin311 3 years ago 2
If so then why are there many creatures which have not changed at all? Why would some simple sea creatures evolve into people (eventually) and some have remained as simple sea creatures?
aladon1965 3 years ago
There is a perfectly good living to be had as a simple sea creature.
It's not that they "haven't changed at all", just not since they became what they are.
hilbert54 3 years ago
That is not true, there are many fossils that have ancestors today, that are the same.
aladon1965 3 years ago
"" Something of that complexity cannot be left to 'nature' I would have thought. ""
That is the remarkable thing about 'nature'. It is so wonderfully capable of evolving complexity, it APPEARS TO BE as a very convincing imitation of SUPER-natural power... so convincing, in fact, that mankind was fooled for many thousands of years.
Unfortunately, some people still ARE acting pretty foolish... But [shrugs] What can you do, except try to bring get them up to speed, eh?
effyleven 3 years ago
What is funny? I'll tell you.
Creationists get ridiculed for saying when things are hard to explain - 'God did it!' (which they dont by the way)
Yet, evolutionists who cannot be bothered to try or really don't have clue what the answer is, just say, 'it had billions of years so thats how it happened.'
I'll let you into a secret, If you put some bacteria on a pristine (besides food for bacteria) but habitable planet and went back there in 450Billion years, (if possible)guess what you'd find?
aladon1965 3 years ago
A complex society with people and horses and bananas and ducks and cars and spaceships and diseases and homosexuals and priests and carrots?
No,you'd find a lot more bacteria than you left behind.
aladon1965 3 years ago
450 BILLION years? WTF!
You really haven't got the first clue about time scales have you? Good gracious! The whole Universe has only been there for 13.5 Billion!
Hey! Don't tell me... but did your grandfather refer to all numbers greater than 4 as "a heap"!! Ha ha!
effyleven 3 years ago
You are laughing at yourself. I picked that number out of thin air just like you do with your impossible and already unproven evolution theory.
You're a puppet.
aladon1965 3 years ago
Out of thin air?.. so you admit it. You haven't got a clue about the real numbers.
And if I am a puppet, then you are a religious loony.... so daft you could be mistaken for a Yank!
effyleven 3 years ago
Neither has anyone. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha..... a ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha .... ha a ha ha
no but seriously though, you don't have 'real' numbers as you claim, only estimates. And those estimates change every time evolutionaries need to 'make things fit'. Trouble is - nothing fits. It's voodoo science.
aladon1965 3 years ago
And a fairy waving her wand at dust to make man is a better solution than the continuous improvement of scientific discovery? Next time you eat a big mac thank evolution theory for it's contribution to the food industry in providing higher yield crops and farm animals.
michamus 3 years ago
Do you think being insulting about God is clever?
Next time troubled in your soul or you need help who are you going to call? An Apelike ancestor?
God listens.
Have you ever actually considered any of the science provided by creationists. I think you'd be surprised, unless your dishonest.
aladon1965 3 years ago
"Do you think being insulting about God is clever?"
GreenDragon wasn't being "insulting" about God or religion. He was just stating the biological facts of the matter. It was YOU who's suddenly accused him of bringing God into it, when he did no such thing.
furbearingbrick 3 years ago
Yes he did, he was implying the work of creation was done by a fairy. Silly boy. (or girl)
aladon1965 3 years ago
"Have you ever actually considered any of the science provided by creationists"
Considered it? I used to tout this brainwashing you call science, that is until I realized that all this information is testable, and tested it for myself.
"Next time troubled in your soul or you need help who are you going to call?"
My wife, and myself. Who else would I need?
"God listens."
When was the last time God "spoke" to YOU? Perhaps no one is listening but your own subconscious.
michamus 3 years ago
God talking to me? All the time.
aladon1965 3 years ago
"Next time troubled in your soul or you need help who are you going to call? An Apelike ancestor?"
you do realize that humans ARE apes?
all living apes are CURRENTLY classified as hominids as are humans (family Hominidae)
apelike ancestor?
well, it's odd to think of my mom like that but, yeah, why not
dancingnature 3 years ago
you might be an ape, but I'm not. Get some band aids for your knuckles
aladon1965 3 years ago
Aladon1965: judging from your intelligence level, I think you are much closer to the ape then you realize.
Philos2006 3 years ago
What would you know of my intelligence level?
You obviously think anyone who believes as you do is intellectual. That makes you no better than a nazi.
aladon1965 3 years ago
"you might be an ape, but I'm not. Get some band aids for your knuckles"
We are the same species. ROFL
"God talking to me? All the time."
There are some excellent meds that will take care of that disorder.
"Yes he did, he was implying the work of creation was done by a fairy. Silly boy. (or girl)"
Gen 2:7 - 'And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,'
michamus 3 years ago
"you might be an ape, but I'm not. Get some band aids for your knuckles"
all human-apes are fully bipedal upright walkers ....or cant you tell the difference?
dancingnature 3 years ago
Does it mention any of that in the bible?
hilbert54 3 years ago
any of what?
aladon1965 3 years ago
wow, yeah, mute that music.
I'm a creationist and i don't make any of the claims you have said creationists claim. To make such a blanket statement would imply that the creator is making sure no living thing changes or has variation. Someone who has the old testament should at least acknowledge that humans evolve even according to scripture. The life spans from Adam to 10 generations later dropped drastically. From Adam (presumeably a white skinned person?) we get all variation we see today.
musiciansguild 3 years ago
God must've done a pretty horrible job making Adam then.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
"" From Adam (presumably a white skinned person?)..... "
White skinned? What the hell are you talking about?
The first human we know about for sure was actually a woman, called "Mitochondrial Eve" by geneticists. We know from our own inherited DNA that she lived in the Great Rift Valley of East Africa about 160 thousand years ago. The colour of her skin we can't be sure of, but it was probably a pretty dark brown. Also, it may've been obscured by longish hair covering most of her body.
effyleven 3 years ago