You may be interested to read the front cover of a very important book, you can check this online and consider (for yourself) the implications of the exact words used.
"On the origin of species by means of natural selection, on the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" By Charles Darwin, M.A.
@Solitarious2011 Darwin is referring to races as the archaic use of the word "species", but even if he weren't and you'd demonstrated that Darwin was a racist and IF that was the basis for his writings, how do you account for the ~150 years of peer-reviewed research that backs up the evolutionary model?
@MeBeMat cont.... mutations mostly deleterious and are limited and unable to produce novelty. Our understanding of biology is far more advanced than the early 20th century. If anything, the last thirty years have destroyed the model of the current modern synthesis. Your reading from an out dated mantra. Right now as we speak there are many evolutionary development biologist that are challenging the limitations of the modern synthesis and its central dogmas and babe been for years.
@MeBeMat cont,,,, are critical in gene regulation and expression as well as embryology. Neo Darwinist told us the ERV'S were ancient parasites and useless remnants of our past. We now know that they are so vital that we could not exist without them, and that they are not Junk. C value enigma has shown us that there is know way to determine an orgasms complexity on a genetic level which destroys the simple to complex paradigm. We now know that random ......
@MeBeMat cont.... model of natural selection which explains variation but not macro evolution. All one hundred organs that were listed by Darwinist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 as being useless & vestigial have proven to have function and are anything but useless. For years ID theorist refuted the JUNK DNA paradigm which was once the poster child for evolution, (even wikipedia states that this false notion set us back) because we now know that these non protien coding regions of our genome
@MeBeMat "150 years of peer-reviewed research that backs up the evolutionary model?"
It was the creationist Gregor Mendel (a man who we ignored for fifty years) who model gave us the law of inheritance, while it was Darwin's theory of Pangenenis that failed. That set us back fifty years alone. It was the creationist Edward Blythe that gave us the.....
@benthemiester I didn't say that Darwin's original proposal hasn't undergone modification as new data and research has come out, simply that the 150 years of research has been generally, but not perfectly, consistent with Darwin's original proposal.
@MeBeMat I'm not speaking of classical Darwinism which is a joke. That goes without saying. I am speaking of the neo Darwinian synthesis, or whats referred to to as the Modern Synthesis of Evolution. First it was the creationist who were challenged this axiom, then the ID theorist, & now you even have evo devo biologist like Stuart Newman or others like Mueller, James Shapiro, Scott Minnich, Phillip Skell and the "Dissent from Darwin" list that is almost a thousand strong and growing.
why would you go to a creationist museum? if your an athiest? are you trying to get a kick out it? I get a laugh when i open a science textbook talking about big bang. I find it funny because there is no science to back it up. silly athiests. you will never learn.
@stormrider777 I find it funny that you would publically admit your lack of knowledge and your general ignorance on the subject that you clearly know nothing about. Congratulations.
@stormrider777 Yup, because your magical sky-man has so much more of a scientific basis, all us "evolutionists" just love to sin so we ignore God and all his lack of evidence. Do you seriously not see your double-standard here?
@BabeReport No, You're absolutely right, there's a MASSIVE flaw in that argument. Ask an I.D. proponent to name something that ISN'T designed. He can only have two responses 1. Everything is designed. or 2. This (some specific item) is not. Either way, ask him how he can tell. Without a clear cut way to establish non-design, how can you establish design? It's a dichotomy, right? Sorry, there is no certain way to establish design every time ... None whatsoever.
I've got a feeling they'd say that everything is designed. I wish they'd pick a rock up and say to a kid, "Do you think this is a natural formation or do you think someone made it?", I'm pretty sure most kids above the age of 5 would set them straight.
Most telling is that after 78 years of trying, in proper labs in tax free institutes with real scientists, creationists haven't published a single paper that supports any kind of creation story.
@BabeReport So when they say, "everything is designed" I just ask, if everything is designed then, without a standard to compare it to, how do you know? Then of course they start into their "design detection" bullshit but as you've observed ... That's not science.
Evolution is a fact. Those who attempt to deny it often use deceitful arguments and false, pseudo-science (irreducable complexity in biology is the latest favourite....it's nonsense. Every atom in the universe could be said to be irreducably complex by that same argument. Organic or not).
I spend more time laughing at creationists than trying to educated them. A few are science-trained split-brain types desperately seeking scientific support for their superstitions.
You surely don't know my blind friends. They don't believe there are stars in the sky at night, and one sun during the day. They laugh at me when I tell them I see stars in the skies. They don't belive me because they cannnot the stars or touch them. Tell me what to do!!!!
If you read your bible sir you would find out that it states there will be many false prophets in this world. Therefore that being said should tell you that not all churches are scams. There are churches in this world that are true to there faith and do not exspect people to give offerings. Sounds like you don't know your bible or even read it or study it. so until you do don't give an opinion that has nothing to do with God or the bible or its followers.
The creation museum is not a forum for bad behavior which Meyers is known for instigating. If you think going in bus loads to ridicule staff and family members is a scientific endeavor, then I hate to tell you, your not a person of science, but your really a political activist. Nobody owns or speaks for science. Any preacher who tells you, if your against me your against God, is a liar. Any one including a scientist that tells you, if your against him, your against science, is a fool.
I went to the creation museum so I could laugh at their stupid fucking exhibits and I wore a t-shirt that said there is NO god. It was fucking hilarious
Here is what I hear from you. Chirp- chirp - chirp- look at me, look at me I'm an atheist! I did believe in God, but I went to college and became enlightened and progressive! (how original). Dinosaurs really existed, so that's proof that God doesn't! I mean like all these smart people here can't be wrong. They just can't! Scientific theories are 100% correct if you really have faith in them!
You really are quite likable in a godless infidel sort of way:)
@1LoneDesperado I guess you believe in the christian god... All the Roman, Greek, Norse, Egyptian, Native American gods, etc you don't believe in, why is that? Their stories can be equally found in books, just like the bible, which is just a book. Dinosaurs are not the immediate reason that anyone places on not believing... Side note about the pipsqueak thing... Insults are not how you make your point valid.
Since, paraphrased, what she actually said was "I'm going to the creation museum with PZ Myers. I encourage others to check it too.", your comment perfectly illustrates how some people will hear whatever they want regardless of what is actually said.
Nonetheless, I'm sure that you really are quite likable in a self-righteous closed-minded sort of way.
Newsflash, fellow mortal sinner. Evolution isn't even legitimate science. An example of science is something that can actually be shown in physics. Evolution isn't only a pseudo-science, it is a religion. There is absolutely no difference between evolution and Wicca witchcraft.
It's called Biology. You're comparing Biology with witchcraft. I'm sorry if you feel threatened by science. You should read books that are more recent than ~2000 years.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yet another newsflash:
Allow me to teach you a little science. Biology doesn't support the idea that man "decided" to morph from an ape or fish. That is to say, the unadulterated science of biology is, in no way shape or form, "proof" that the theology of evolution is actual fact. I suggest you learn the difference between actual science, such as the proven aspects of astrophysics for example, and the pseudo-science that is your theory and religion (evolution).
You are talking nonsense. Evolution is essential part of modern Biology. Nowadays denying that man and monkeys share a common ancestor is as stupid as stating the earth is flat. I feel sorry for you that you've had such a poor education.
Of course biology does not support the idea that humans decided to morph from an ape or fish. That just seems like a straw man that creationists ignorant of biology and evolution would say.
I wonder if you would be able to define evolution in a biological context? Because it seems apparent that you do not know the first thing about biology or evolution.
Hey dickless, notice how a single sperm cell which looks like a tadpole merges with an egg, and through a rapid state of evolution between those two items, a human being is formed. All the birthing process is, is a modified evolution which now takes 9 months instead of millions, actually billions of years. You appear two stupid to notice, so you probably believe that sperm is actually the dirt god used to make man, right, and when a woman is born, the sperm cell is actually a rib.
@stratoleft You're right! Next time you get sick, I trust you will not take antibiotics, most of which have been developed over the years to combat the various evolving bacteria on Earth.
If you're not a scientist, please don't make assertions as to the validity of evolutionary science.
A great video for you to investigate on YouTube would be National Geographic's first of the year " Killer Asteroid" as it may help you learn to understand facts instead of fantasy.
@DragMeToHellLuc Christians of all denominations have no answers at all, all they have is empty statements, ludicrous stories and all based on a dead bronze age myth designed to control people... the very control you are under by posting such a stupid comment.
evolution already has been proven, as all facts show that they are matching the theory perfectly.
there are just a couple of insane creationists who still doubt that and started to pick on small issues that they think is disprove. allthough it isn't
thats the bad thing about creationism. Scientific theories can be proven wrong by giving one example that isn't according to the theory. creationism doesn't give any verifyable theory, therefor not disprovable.
you actually believe that? WOW thats sad. why dont you just end your life it really wouldnt matter acording to what you "believe" lol. i cant believe that there are people sos messed up out there that they actually back you up. hahahahahahahahaha WOW
If it was as simple as that, everyone would believe. But because sin is real, and all us have a sinful nature, its a battle of Will. Between good and evil. Those who play it off and deny it and think greatly of themselves do so because they don't want to admit they are sinful and deserve death. If stubbornness is keeping you from your Creator you should be pitied more than all people.
Whats with the arguments. Evolution, or changes in living things, takes place. What does that have to do with not believing in God? How do people say, "I love science and nature and I want to study them, because there are so many things, like biology, physics, energy, elements, and living creatures. Oh, but they were all the product of nothing."
mwarrior, the issue that people have with evolution is what it implies for man's place in the universe. If evolution occurs and man has evolved then we were not created in God's image as stated in the Bible.
The philosophy that you are proposing is that of Deism, i.e. you believe that the universe was created as a single supernatural act but that all subsequent actions are the result of natural, physical actions whose laws can be inferred through science.
The idea of us evolving from monkeys is put out there, but has no evidence to back up, and since the Bible is reliable, its pretty much a confirmation its false. I agree the possibility for a "deity" existing is great. And the possibility of spawning from nothing is obsolete. But the absolute truth is what matters, not a possibilities.
So the belief that changes occur implies nothing caused them? And that Nothing created all things? Rather, the fact that evolution occurs implies there is one causing change. And it is more possible for a man to turn into a car because people and cars exist, while nothing doesn't.
Evolution does not require that there is a supernatural being who is directing the change. Change occurs as a direct result of genetic variation & natural selection.
Your man into car analogy has as much scientific merit as a crocoduck.
I find it very vague that you say evolution require nothing to change. That pretty much goes against all logic. the change you describe is something that exists. Its not something that has is a Being with intelligence to cause change. Your nothing to something analogy has less chance than a crocoduck.
Sorry for the grammar. What I meant was genetic variation & natural selection aren't beings who are able to cause change based on their will, if they were, I'd believe they caused evolution. But genetic variation & natural selection are terms used to describe the change, therefore your claim has no merit.
None of evolution, genetic variation or natural selection have any form of will. This idea of a goal or a deliberate striving to perfection is a common misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.
Genetic variation is observed and natural selection is the name given to the action of the environment on the population to determine which individuals will generate the most off-spring and pass on there traits. It's very simple.
Exactly. Evolution, genetic variation and natural selection are all the proccess of said change. That have no mind of their own and they are not self aware.
I wonder, then, why creatures evolve in a way that supports their life based upon their environment which is external. And yet you suppose "nothing" is the reason for this change. Or that "the improbable is inevitable." Such claims have no merit. I know a car will never pop up from nothing, yet their are people in this world that believe the very thing happened to matter, energy, elements, gasses, water, organic material, and ultimately life.
How would creatures survice but in a way that maximises their chances of survival in their current environment?
You are confusing the improbable with the impossible. The only thing that needs to appear from 'nothing' is energy, the rest of matter is merely the condensation of this energy. The formation of atoms, elements, molecules from energy is already well understood and the origin of self-replicating structures from these basic elements is being studied.
Ah. I get it. The only thing that needs to appear from nothing is energy. Actually no I don't. Could you explain how this energy came from nothing or am I asking the impossible.
Ah. Ok. According to that philosophy. You saying you saying "well done skippy' makes you sound like your 5. But since I'm not judging I won't mention it nor my age. Nor will I ask you.
Really Gregutz? Could you explain to me how science, or "Something", proves the Creator is "Nothing"? But yes. I'm sure the existance of matter proves us who believe in the living God to be liars.
If the the improbable is inevitable, all things are possible. So I wonder why you don't think crocoducks or rather my favorite, car-man, is possible. Or if I told you I'm flying while using my mind to type on my computer at home whether you'd believe me or not. According to you. You would. No disrespect, but your own words.
I'm sure it may appear at first glance to be evidence supporting evolution... but then so were vestigial organs.
Much research is still to be done in this area and we are far from the pinnacle of complete knowledge.
One proposition I did read was that these ERV's could also be functional, as opposed to inherited junk DNA.
Either way, ERV's are not definitive self-serving proof of evolution. Interpereting evidence using a presupposed idea does not prove the presupposition.
Vestigial organs are still great evidence for evolution. The word vestigial does not mean that the organ is useless just that it no longer provides the complex funtional that it was original adapted for. E.g Ostrich wings are useless for flight but they now provide other functions such as balance, cooling etc.
It would be easy to verify if ERV's are functional such by looking at their gene sequencing. Have you any evidence to back up your assertion?
Using the words vestigal and evolution in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Vestiges suggest (assuming you knew the original state of the "vestige") a loss of information. Evolution is a process of alleged naturalistic development.
How do you know the ostrich wings weren't created for balance and cooling and not for flying? Have they found fossils of the original flying ostrich, or primitive video footage from millions of years ago?
The fossil record for the evolution of the Palaeognathae (the order which includes Ostrich) is pretty comprehensive. The fossil record shows how the relative size of the wings decrease rapidly once the ostrich was endigenous to Australia and free from mammalian predators.
Whales doe have vestigial legs and a pelvis although typically the vetsigial legs are no longer connected to the pelvis. Occasionally an atavism is observed when a whale or dolphin is born with intact hind legs.
Yes, evolutionist proponents do tell you the fossil record is complete and comprehensive, while suppressing the evidence that is contradictory to their presuppositions.
I think you'll find upon closer inspection that these whale "vestigial legs" likely have other functions, such as reproduction.
I couldn't find any photo's of whales with a complete pair of legs.
Again, like in the case of the ostrich (or the emu in Australia) alleged "vestiges" would be evidence of devolution.
Junk DNA? What the hell are you talking about... ERV's are not junk DNA, they are leftovers from INFECTIONS.
ERV is no presupposed idea... An ERV (endogenous retro virus) is a VIRUS. It can insert itself in the genome in a random spot AND can be inherited by off spring. This is observed, tested, repeated, proven fact. Please learn about stuff before spouting nonsense please.
"Much research is still to be done in this area and we are far from the pinnacle of complete knowledge" While we know a LOT more then you realise (or want to admit), there is for example a LOT we don't know about gravity, quantum mechanics, nuclear theory etc... Shall we now discard atomic theory, gravitational theory etc and say "god done it" because we don't know/understand EVERYTHING (yet)? Listen to yourself man... if you don't know something, just say "i dunno", not "god done it"
What's with the rant? Did I say, "because we don't know the answers we should stop looking"?
Creationism does not deny or condemn operational science. Evolution confuses operation science with origin science.
Evolution relies on incomplete data to support the theory.
You're clutching at straws as a means to cling to the dogma of evolution. You claim that ERV's are evidence of evolution without a complete knowledge of their function or purpose.
"0 peer reviewed publications point to evidence not in support of evolution? I take it you're joking on that one?"
I'm really, really not. If you have knowledge of such papers, point me to them. And by pointing me to them, I mean..; cite the author, the publication date, the title of the article/paper, the scientific journal title and issue number.
/taps foot
Maybe also mention why this fictional author didn't get a nobel price for his groundbreaking, biology shattering work.
Why would a journal which is entitled "Nature: Evolution and Ecology" ever publish anything not in support of evolution?
BTW why would a panel of evolutionists ever nominate someone who disproved evolution for the nobel prize. It completely discredits anything they've done (the panel) in their academic/professional careers.
Why? Because it would advance human knowledge and that is all science is about. Evidence is evidence. If tomorrow evolution is proven incorrect and if tomorrow evidence of a creator is presented, then that is exactly the direction science would take. Like I said, scientist actually love nothing more then groundbreaking evidence. Nothing is as boring as a study that only confirms old views.
I think you're mistaken on this. Scientific academics are motivated by making a name for themselves in the community and obtaining tenure. It is very political. More often then not, they will go with the flow.
You are correct about one thing: they are motivated to making a name for themselves. They however DON'T make a name by being part of the flock and going with the flow... Who are the scientists everybody knows by merrits? Einstein, Newton, Hubble, Hawkins, Darwin, ... All of these men made name by turning science upside down. NOT by agreeing with those before them or their peers. Debunking evolution would mean instant tripple nobel price and fame for at least a thousand years.
I have a different opinion, going with the flow actually builds collaboration with other scientists minimizing the amount competing research groups putting even more pressure on researchers.
And who exactly is looking to debunk evolution? As an evolutionary scientist, why would you ever present data that contradicts your hypothesis?
First of all, evolution is a Theory (capital T), not a hypothesis. Second, if I would have credible data contradicting evolution, if I would have credible evidence to show that evolution is false, I'ld be instantly famous, receive a couple nobel prizes and be published in just about EVERY magazine in the world. Yes, I would VERY VERY much present that data to the world. Only thing is: that data seems to be unexistnat.
Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson, CRS Quarterly, Volume 41, June 2004
Genetic Entropy (Sanford)
I've said before, evolutionists don't like the possibility of there being a God, it means they're accountable. That is why they believe in evo in the first place. They also wreck the career of anyone who is bold enough to say evo might be wrong... which obviously means it is difficult to get published, promoted etc if your views are known.
Eum no.... the reason this "paper" about Genetic Entropy wasn't accepted by the scientific community is because it basicly raped Thermodynamics in every possible way (well that's one of the reasons anyway).
There are very few biologists (<0.01%) who do not accept evolution. Heck their are more physicists that don't accept Quantum Mechanics.
Most of the scientists on the lists published by AiG etc are not biologists. It's easy to an electrical/mechanical engineer who doesn't believe in evolution but their opinion is hardly important.
Harrub & Thompson's paper is complete nonsense and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding (deliberate or not) of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If their assertion was true then not animal or plant would be able to grow because that would also be in violation of the 2nd Law.
Given this glaring flaw it's hardly any wonder that their 'scientific' finding received less than favourable coverage.
I was just giving you an example of a published paper. He wasn't an example of someone who has been mistreated by those claiming to represent science.
Maybe we should have mentioned that it needed to be published in a respected peer reviewed scientific journal... not in some bible belt corner tabloid. My mistake, I thought that was obvious.
I just go where data leads me. And I don't care much for fossiles when it comes to evolution. They certainly are usefull, but evolution theory is shown in the lab. Your genome is all the proof you need. Fossiles are usefull for evolutionary history, not so much for evolution theory itself (wich is about biology, not archeology)
Paasting bones together???? Backing up their bullshit?????
Questioning the current status quo, finding evidence, coming to a conclusion, debating and destruction testing that conclusion ... sounds like common sense to me.
Following some fucktard religious leader in total subservience because he has a 1600 year old piece of text that talks of sky daddies and unicorns, accepting bullshit answers like 'god dunnit' stinks of a fear of reality, loneliness and mild schizophrenia.
At what point did I say I know everything. Admittedly I'm educated but I don't claim to know everything. I wont write about something I'm clueless on though. Religion claims to have all the answers not science. I admnit to not feeling the urge to shout "magicman dunnit" when I don't know something, not unless there is overwhelming evidence of magicman doing it. Nice attack though, even though it was kinda telegraphed.
@SonofSolom0n It's not a matter of knowing everything. It's a matter of knowing what you know, and knowing what you don't know. Evolution, for example, does not know where life came from. That's abiogenesis, which is not a mature science. However, it is without any reasonable doubt that evolution by natural selection is how we have diversity of life. The problem with religion is you just "know" the answer to all of these questions without proof. It's the oft quoted and fallacious "goddidit".
/sigh...... the corect term is speciation. the terms macro and micro evolution has not been used within the scientific community for decades after new evidence in genetics arose showing that they are pretty much the same exact thing. these two terms only recently been resurfaced by creationist with the whole intelligent design thing. and if your wondering, yes speciation has been observed.
ah, my apologies! I read your comment on the front page, so i didnt know it was a reply (yay youtube comments). In fairness i should have hit the button to view all the comments before replying (i usually do; not sure why i didnt that day).
I think your comment must have confused me a little since i read it out of context (as it did mercenary and T1carus), reading it now in context it makes waaay more sense.
Sorry about that, and i should say that i now agree with what you were saying :)
There's a lot of complete morrons in threads like this and I do agree that half sarcastic posts out of context can give you the wrong idea. Indeed, when dealing with creationists, you don't stop being amazed at the level of stupidity. Search video series "why do people laugh at creationists?" here on youtube. It's a GREAT series :)
Sure am glad you rushed off and got so many people to go to the Creation Museum so you could feel all Superior to them. Don't you feel smarter now after you rustled up so many people to go mock the Museum? Also, since science seems to be your religion, I was wondering how you feel about the "evolving" science of Global Warming?How do you feel about the top scientist at the first Earth Day who were scaring people about Global Cooling just 30 years ago or the fact it hasn't gotten hotter in 10 yrs
I know the difference. Theory is still theory, not fact, if it was proved it would be fact, not theory.
Not really. All that proves is that similar creatures have similar DNA... hardly a surprise.
Checked out ring species... again similar creatures can mate with each other where as dissimlar species cannot. That is just common sense, not evidence for evo.
"Theory is still theory, not fact, if it was proved it would be fact, not theory."
You give the impresion that you think a scientific theory is only a guess, and it so you're very mistaken.
Facts are just observations, evincendes of natural phenomena but they don't explain anything by themselves, for that you need theories, that link known facts togheter into an explanation.
that's why in science theories have more value, in terms of knowledge, than facts have.
futhermore, theories makes predictions whereas facts don't, and the more predictions a theory makes the easier it can be falsefied, hence the stronger the theory gets.
Natual Selection makes a lot of predictions that could very easely be disproven, thats why the theory is so strong.
Natual selection is the explanation (theory) of the fact of evolution.
So in rather crude way you could say evolution is both a fact and theory.
Wrong, a scientific theory has a lot more value than a scientific fact. It provides a testable framework which allows scientists to make predictions about the natural world.
The theory of evolution has allowed us to make predictions of what we should expect to see in both the fossil & the genetic records. All of these predictions have been verified many times over the evidence is much stronger than you are admitting.
See tiktaalik discovery for a great example of it's predictive power.
Really? A testable framework... sure and in one millions years we'll know... oh wait... I'll be dead and before God by that point, bit late to know for sure!
Tiktaalik... I looked it up.
Lets take this from a different perspective.
If frogs were extinct then they would be considered ideal 'missing links'. If Chimps were extinct, they'd be the missing link. The fact is anything can be called a missing link... except similar things are alive today. They are just part of the natural diversity.
Evolution has been tested for 150 years now and it has been verified by the evidence in the natural world.
The discovery of DNA & hence genetics has uncovered detailed proof that Darwin could only have dreamt of. We don't need millions of years as the evidence is already there if you are prepared to look at it.
Dawkins used the word 'selfish' to try and explain that evolution works at the gene level and that the goal of each gene is to survive & multiply. Sometimes a gene does this at the expense of other competing genes, othertimes it's survival is improved by co-operating in a symbiotic relationship with other genes.
Personally, I am not total convinced by Dawkins arguments in this particular book. I think he explains the concept better in 'The Extended Phenotype' which came out later.
Frogs & even Chimps would not be called a missing link even if they were found in the fossil record instead of being alive today.
Paleontologists actually look for transitional features rather than transitional fossils. Although chimps have several features which are similar to homo-sapiens they would not be considered to be transitional.
Tiktaalik is important because it does display these transitional features and appears at the geological age predicted by evolutionary theory.
If frogs had been wiped out before living memory/records began and someone found a frog fossil, evolutionists would be having a field day, saying how amazing it is that they have found the transitional organism between water and land.
Tikaalik is the same, it is just designed to inhabit a niche between water and land, like a frog. But one cares about frogs because they are still around.
You have a fundamental misconception about how paleontology works. Paleontologists are much more interested in the evolution of specific features than the whole organism. Evolution allowed Neil Shubin to predict specific features (e.g wrist joints, spiracles, & neck) which he expected to find on a fossil of a specific age.
The sudden appearance of a frog at the wrong age in the fossil record on which novel features suddenly appeared would actually be evidence against evolution.
Nonsense, the whole point of the Tiktaalik story is that Neil Shubin identified a 'gap' in the fossil record and the spent 5 years searching sediments of the right age to see if he could find a fossil with the predicted features.
Shubin had identified which node & branch the fossil was on before he started his search.
FINE!!!!!!!!!!!
blkswimmer 10 months ago
You may be interested to read the front cover of a very important book, you can check this online and consider (for yourself) the implications of the exact words used.
"On the origin of species by means of natural selection, on the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" By Charles Darwin, M.A.
Solitarious2011 10 months ago
@Solitarious2011 Darwin is referring to races as the archaic use of the word "species", but even if he weren't and you'd demonstrated that Darwin was a racist and IF that was the basis for his writings, how do you account for the ~150 years of peer-reviewed research that backs up the evolutionary model?
MeBeMat 7 months ago
@MeBeMat cont.... mutations mostly deleterious and are limited and unable to produce novelty. Our understanding of biology is far more advanced than the early 20th century. If anything, the last thirty years have destroyed the model of the current modern synthesis. Your reading from an out dated mantra. Right now as we speak there are many evolutionary development biologist that are challenging the limitations of the modern synthesis and its central dogmas and babe been for years.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@MeBeMat cont,,,, are critical in gene regulation and expression as well as embryology. Neo Darwinist told us the ERV'S were ancient parasites and useless remnants of our past. We now know that they are so vital that we could not exist without them, and that they are not Junk. C value enigma has shown us that there is know way to determine an orgasms complexity on a genetic level which destroys the simple to complex paradigm. We now know that random ......
benthemiester 6 months ago
@MeBeMat cont.... model of natural selection which explains variation but not macro evolution. All one hundred organs that were listed by Darwinist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 as being useless & vestigial have proven to have function and are anything but useless. For years ID theorist refuted the JUNK DNA paradigm which was once the poster child for evolution, (even wikipedia states that this false notion set us back) because we now know that these non protien coding regions of our genome
benthemiester 6 months ago
@MeBeMat "150 years of peer-reviewed research that backs up the evolutionary model?"
It was the creationist Gregor Mendel (a man who we ignored for fifty years) who model gave us the law of inheritance, while it was Darwin's theory of Pangenenis that failed. That set us back fifty years alone. It was the creationist Edward Blythe that gave us the.....
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester I didn't say that Darwin's original proposal hasn't undergone modification as new data and research has come out, simply that the 150 years of research has been generally, but not perfectly, consistent with Darwin's original proposal.
MeBeMat 6 months ago
@MeBeMat I'm not speaking of classical Darwinism which is a joke. That goes without saying. I am speaking of the neo Darwinian synthesis, or whats referred to to as the Modern Synthesis of Evolution. First it was the creationist who were challenged this axiom, then the ID theorist, & now you even have evo devo biologist like Stuart Newman or others like Mueller, James Shapiro, Scott Minnich, Phillip Skell and the "Dissent from Darwin" list that is almost a thousand strong and growing.
benthemiester 6 months ago
why would you go to a creationist museum? if your an athiest? are you trying to get a kick out it? I get a laugh when i open a science textbook talking about big bang. I find it funny because there is no science to back it up. silly athiests. you will never learn.
stormrider777 11 months ago
@stormrider777 I find it funny that you would publically admit your lack of knowledge and your general ignorance on the subject that you clearly know nothing about. Congratulations.
Haizum74 8 months ago
@stormrider777 Yup, because your magical sky-man has so much more of a scientific basis, all us "evolutionists" just love to sin so we ignore God and all his lack of evidence. Do you seriously not see your double-standard here?
MeBeMat 7 months ago
HERE IS THE MUSEUM OF CREATION: FOSSIL-MUSEUM.C OM
roel128 1 year ago
Creationists were created. Evolutionists evolve.
blackestjake 1 year ago
How do you meet these interesting people?
Also, is there another trip to the Creation Museum planned?
sol3a1 1 year ago
"Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool." Mark Twain
fctchk 1 year ago 14
@fctchk Really? Who was the first atheist.?
mrtadreamer 1 month ago
this chick is hot. thumbs up if you agree.
Prolific85 1 year ago 10
@Prolific85 y so desperate?
Moppy1988 1 month ago
Ooh, she rides a bike huh? ;)
TomMSTie 1 year ago
Why must these ID ( I want to call them people) ( I'll settle for human) try and enter every arena of everyone's life?
So there is a god that refuses to show any presence, refuses to show favor to those that do believe and wants eternal worship?
OH and some of your money also. Complete fail!!
Hope it was in interesting trip though, the guy that runs that place had the cheese fall off his cracker long ago.
pumpstations 1 year ago
ID proponent: this is a watch, it's obviously designed, nobody has ever designed anything as complex as a leaf, therefore leaves are designed...
is it just me being stupid or is there a blatant flaw in that argument?
BabeReport 1 year ago
@BabeReport No, You're absolutely right, there's a MASSIVE flaw in that argument. Ask an I.D. proponent to name something that ISN'T designed. He can only have two responses 1. Everything is designed. or 2. This (some specific item) is not. Either way, ask him how he can tell. Without a clear cut way to establish non-design, how can you establish design? It's a dichotomy, right? Sorry, there is no certain way to establish design every time ... None whatsoever.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone
I've got a feeling they'd say that everything is designed. I wish they'd pick a rock up and say to a kid, "Do you think this is a natural formation or do you think someone made it?", I'm pretty sure most kids above the age of 5 would set them straight.
Most telling is that after 78 years of trying, in proper labs in tax free institutes with real scientists, creationists haven't published a single paper that supports any kind of creation story.
BabeReport 1 year ago
@BabeReport So when they say, "everything is designed" I just ask, if everything is designed then, without a standard to compare it to, how do you know? Then of course they start into their "design detection" bullshit but as you've observed ... That's not science.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone
Of course, they have a collection of bastardised ancient texts as proof, and you can't see the proof unless you have faith that it's true...
I'm going to print Bible verses on toilet paper, only wish I'd got it out in time for people to buy as Christmas presents.
BabeReport 1 year ago
Evolution is a fact. Those who attempt to deny it often use deceitful arguments and false, pseudo-science (irreducable complexity in biology is the latest favourite....it's nonsense. Every atom in the universe could be said to be irreducably complex by that same argument. Organic or not).
I spend more time laughing at creationists than trying to educated them. A few are science-trained split-brain types desperately seeking scientific support for their superstitions.
Lala land is a comfort.
exchangeisno 1 year ago 7
@exchangeisno fact huh? lol prove it.
stormrider777 8 months ago
Shocked. Anyone who disagrees with this person is a "very very dumb" person. Atheism - the last bastion of supreme intelligence.
CoachEgg 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And you have herpes on your lips.
CutClip 1 year ago
you're not as cool as you pretend.
CutClip 1 year ago
It's comedy.
Aresftfun 1 year ago
Why do you give this museum money???
psyclistic 1 year ago 2
You should definitely go into the Creation Museum. Let us know how you liked it :-)
GreenSlugg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for all atheists: So if I kill as many atheists as I can, I will not go to hell?
Airlightf 1 year ago
Bloody Hell.
I'd love to go.
Unfortunately I live in Denmark.
jxvwp 1 year ago
the creation museum is funny but completely debile
megistotherium1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You surely don't know my blind friends. They don't believe there are stars in the sky at night, and one sun during the day. They laugh at me when I tell them I see stars in the skies. They don't belive me because they cannnot the stars or touch them. Tell me what to do!!!!
Airlightf 1 year ago
Wasn't it you who flirted with Richard Dawkins ?
Dam I have to become a famous Atheist
Radicalindifference 1 year ago
If you read your bible sir you would find out that it states there will be many false prophets in this world. Therefore that being said should tell you that not all churches are scams. There are churches in this world that are true to there faith and do not exspect people to give offerings. Sounds like you don't know your bible or even read it or study it. so until you do don't give an opinion that has nothing to do with God or the bible or its followers.
777blazinguitar 1 year ago
Don't give them the money, ever if the museum is good entertainment.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Please go and find these titles in you-tube, to see some mirecles never you hear about it in any other book in the earth!
- English translation of the Quran chapter Al-Mulk (The Dominion) recitation by Mahir al Muaiqly
- Quran recitation with English translation chapter 1 from 124-141
- The Qur'an | Mary | Beginning of Chapter 19
- Holland Girl Convert To Islam Very Emotional
LeaderFather100 1 year ago
Strange. While watching this, an ad popped up "become a pastor online." Deevine intervention? Oh Gawd.
toneemontaigne 1 year ago
Your skepticism ends at the theory of evolution, doesn't it?
pebi86 1 year ago
The creation museum is not a forum for bad behavior which Meyers is known for instigating. If you think going in bus loads to ridicule staff and family members is a scientific endeavor, then I hate to tell you, your not a person of science, but your really a political activist. Nobody owns or speaks for science. Any preacher who tells you, if your against me your against God, is a liar. Any one including a scientist that tells you, if your against him, your against science, is a fool.
benthemiester 1 year ago
I went to the creation museum so I could laugh at their stupid fucking exhibits and I wore a t-shirt that said there is NO god. It was fucking hilarious
tophrocks1212 1 year ago
I'm so glad there are people like you on youtube. Smart lady!
youwantthey 1 year ago
Comment removed
thisshirtisblacknot 2 years ago
v nutcase alert below v
ScrewAttackChina 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My dear little pointy-headed pipsqueak.
Here is what I hear from you. Chirp- chirp - chirp- look at me, look at me I'm an atheist! I did believe in God, but I went to college and became enlightened and progressive! (how original). Dinosaurs really existed, so that's proof that God doesn't! I mean like all these smart people here can't be wrong. They just can't! Scientific theories are 100% correct if you really have faith in them!
You really are quite likable in a godless infidel sort of way:)
1LoneDesperado 2 years ago
@1LoneDesperado I guess you believe in the christian god... All the Roman, Greek, Norse, Egyptian, Native American gods, etc you don't believe in, why is that? Their stories can be equally found in books, just like the bible, which is just a book. Dinosaurs are not the immediate reason that anyone places on not believing... Side note about the pipsqueak thing... Insults are not how you make your point valid.
werty3535 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
thisshirtisblacknot 2 years ago
1LoneDesperado,
Re: "Here is what I hear from you..."
Since, paraphrased, what she actually said was "I'm going to the creation museum with PZ Myers. I encourage others to check it too.", your comment perfectly illustrates how some people will hear whatever they want regardless of what is actually said.
Nonetheless, I'm sure that you really are quite likable in a self-righteous closed-minded sort of way.
PraktikoolSinik 2 years ago 3
Obvious troll is obvious.
justforflag2 1 year ago
Newsflash, fellow mortal sinner. Evolution isn't even legitimate science. An example of science is something that can actually be shown in physics. Evolution isn't only a pseudo-science, it is a religion. There is absolutely no difference between evolution and Wicca witchcraft.
stratoleft 2 years ago
It's called Biology. You're comparing Biology with witchcraft. I'm sorry if you feel threatened by science. You should read books that are more recent than ~2000 years.
lainet 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yet another newsflash:
Allow me to teach you a little science. Biology doesn't support the idea that man "decided" to morph from an ape or fish. That is to say, the unadulterated science of biology is, in no way shape or form, "proof" that the theology of evolution is actual fact. I suggest you learn the difference between actual science, such as the proven aspects of astrophysics for example, and the pseudo-science that is your theory and religion (evolution).
stratoleft 2 years ago
You are talking nonsense. Evolution is essential part of modern Biology. Nowadays denying that man and monkeys share a common ancestor is as stupid as stating the earth is flat. I feel sorry for you that you've had such a poor education.
lainet 2 years ago 3
Of course biology does not support the idea that humans decided to morph from an ape or fish. That just seems like a straw man that creationists ignorant of biology and evolution would say.
I wonder if you would be able to define evolution in a biological context? Because it seems apparent that you do not know the first thing about biology or evolution.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
You should become a science teacher, your insights are profound.
dichotomyofone 2 years ago
@stratoleft
Hey dickless, notice how a single sperm cell which looks like a tadpole merges with an egg, and through a rapid state of evolution between those two items, a human being is formed. All the birthing process is, is a modified evolution which now takes 9 months instead of millions, actually billions of years. You appear two stupid to notice, so you probably believe that sperm is actually the dirt god used to make man, right, and when a woman is born, the sperm cell is actually a rib.
19nisey69 1 year ago
@stratoleft You're right! Next time you get sick, I trust you will not take antibiotics, most of which have been developed over the years to combat the various evolving bacteria on Earth.
If you're not a scientist, please don't make assertions as to the validity of evolutionary science.
hungsolow123 2 years ago
A great video for you to investigate on YouTube would be National Geographic's first of the year " Killer Asteroid" as it may help you learn to understand facts instead of fantasy.
captainstrangelife 2 years ago
Thanks for sticking up for science :)
ASTCify 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey, atheists, don't say that nobody warned you about the bodily resurrection. I'll see you all there!
ajpreus 2 years ago
sorry, you won't ...
sieg5 2 years ago 5
You're funny.
falcoperegrinus82 2 years ago
@ajpreus You believe in resurrection? It's 2010 for goodness sake!
hungsolow123 2 years ago
Frankly, I would rather contribute double or even more to the construction of mental asylums to house those delusional freaks.
fsxmantra 2 years ago 42
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@fsxmantra you are a freak, good Christians have the right answers. Praise God.
DragMeToHellLuc 1 year ago
@DragMeToHellLuc Christians of all denominations have no answers at all, all they have is empty statements, ludicrous stories and all based on a dead bronze age myth designed to control people... the very control you are under by posting such a stupid comment.
Drweavil 1 year ago
evolution already has been proven, as all facts show that they are matching the theory perfectly.
there are just a couple of insane creationists who still doubt that and started to pick on small issues that they think is disprove. allthough it isn't
thats the bad thing about creationism. Scientific theories can be proven wrong by giving one example that isn't according to the theory. creationism doesn't give any verifyable theory, therefor not disprovable.
liquidminds 2 years ago 3
Didn't he get denied a Communion wafer?
FSMDudeFan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
secular student alliance UNITE! *puts fist in air*
we believe in the non-belief of God and we waste our lives on ridiculing Theists even though it's a waste to do! YEAH!
there is no ultimate purpose to our lives!!!! YEAH! *puts fist in air*
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
you actually believe that? WOW thats sad. why dont you just end your life it really wouldnt matter acording to what you "believe" lol. i cant believe that there are people sos messed up out there that they actually back you up. hahahahahahahahaha WOW
justinvanniejenhuis 2 years ago
^ *sux gods imaginary cock*
TOMisNOTfunny 2 years ago
It's not even really a museum. Museums have artifacts. All the creation "museum" has is models.
PluralOfEverything 2 years ago
Its more like a church but I think it was you that commented that somewere else.
poomanonfire 2 years ago
Yeah, I said that in response to the video about the kids getting kicked out of the creationism display church.
PluralOfEverything 2 years ago
the evolutionary process has done well for this girl.
my ladtop is melting
thesparitan 2 years ago
If it was as simple as that, everyone would believe. But because sin is real, and all us have a sinful nature, its a battle of Will. Between good and evil. Those who play it off and deny it and think greatly of themselves do so because they don't want to admit they are sinful and deserve death. If stubbornness is keeping you from your Creator you should be pitied more than all people.
mwarrior17 2 years ago
So anyone who doesn't follow your particular brand of religion is sinful and deserves death?
What a compassionate faith you have.
hexkid 2 years ago
All men are sinful. You and me. No exception. Anyone who doesn't believe will forfeit the salvation God has given us freely through Jesus.
mwarrior17 2 years ago
can i go to hell, thats where are the cool interesting people are
and yes i am sinful and i try to be more sinful but i cant be a sinner all the time. some days i have to sleep
thesparitan 2 years ago
Whats with the arguments. Evolution, or changes in living things, takes place. What does that have to do with not believing in God? How do people say, "I love science and nature and I want to study them, because there are so many things, like biology, physics, energy, elements, and living creatures. Oh, but they were all the product of nothing."
mwarrior17 2 years ago
mwarrior, the issue that people have with evolution is what it implies for man's place in the universe. If evolution occurs and man has evolved then we were not created in God's image as stated in the Bible.
The philosophy that you are proposing is that of Deism, i.e. you believe that the universe was created as a single supernatural act but that all subsequent actions are the result of natural, physical actions whose laws can be inferred through science.
hexkid 2 years ago
I'm not proposing that. And how and why does evolution disprove God?
mwarrior17 2 years ago
I never said that evolution disproved God. Merely that if man has evolved then it disproves the literal interpretation of Genesis.
There is still room for a Deity who initially created the universe and potentially the laws of nature which exist in that universe.
hexkid 2 years ago
The idea of us evolving from monkeys is put out there, but has no evidence to back up, and since the Bible is reliable, its pretty much a confirmation its false. I agree the possibility for a "deity" existing is great. And the possibility of spawning from nothing is obsolete. But the absolute truth is what matters, not a possibilities.
mwarrior17 2 years ago
So the belief that changes occur implies nothing caused them? And that Nothing created all things? Rather, the fact that evolution occurs implies there is one causing change. And it is more possible for a man to turn into a car because people and cars exist, while nothing doesn't.
mwarrior17 2 years ago
Evolution does not require that there is a supernatural being who is directing the change. Change occurs as a direct result of genetic variation & natural selection.
Your man into car analogy has as much scientific merit as a crocoduck.
hexkid 2 years ago
I find it very vague that you say evolution require nothing to change. That pretty much goes against all logic. the change you describe is something that exists. Its not something that has is a Being with intelligence to cause change. Your nothing to something analogy has less chance than a crocoduck.
mwarrior17 2 years ago
Re-read my previous statement. I did not say that evolution requires nothing to promote variation, it just does not need supernatural intervention.
The grammar in your next couple of sentences hides any meaning you are attempting to convey.
In an infinite universe, the improbable is inevitable.
hexkid 2 years ago
Sorry for the grammar. What I meant was genetic variation & natural selection aren't beings who are able to cause change based on their will, if they were, I'd believe they caused evolution. But genetic variation & natural selection are terms used to describe the change, therefore your claim has no merit.
mwarrior17 2 years ago
None of evolution, genetic variation or natural selection have any form of will. This idea of a goal or a deliberate striving to perfection is a common misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.
Genetic variation is observed and natural selection is the name given to the action of the environment on the population to determine which individuals will generate the most off-spring and pass on there traits. It's very simple.
hexkid 2 years ago
Exactly. Evolution, genetic variation and natural selection are all the proccess of said change. That have no mind of their own and they are not self aware.
mwarrior17 2 years ago
I wonder, then, why creatures evolve in a way that supports their life based upon their environment which is external. And yet you suppose "nothing" is the reason for this change. Or that "the improbable is inevitable." Such claims have no merit. I know a car will never pop up from nothing, yet their are people in this world that believe the very thing happened to matter, energy, elements, gasses, water, organic material, and ultimately life.
mwarrior17 2 years ago
How would creatures survice but in a way that maximises their chances of survival in their current environment?
You are confusing the improbable with the impossible. The only thing that needs to appear from 'nothing' is energy, the rest of matter is merely the condensation of this energy. The formation of atoms, elements, molecules from energy is already well understood and the origin of self-replicating structures from these basic elements is being studied.
hexkid 2 years ago
Ah. I get it. The only thing that needs to appear from nothing is energy. Actually no I don't. Could you explain how this energy came from nothing or am I asking the impossible.
mwarrior17 2 years ago
yeah nyour asking the impossible.
so lets just make something up now to help explain all of the unknown. it makes no sense at all to keep searching for the answers.
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago
You have already done that. Its called Atheism.
mwarrior17 2 years ago
WOW. so tell me... do you have to concentrate in order for your heart to keep beating? how about blinking and breathing too. much of an issue there?
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago
No. What does that has to do with what we're talking about?
mwarrior17 2 years ago
lmao. well done skippy!
when you get it let me know.
hint: sarcasm
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago
hey sorry buddy. i didn't realize how young you are. dont worry about the joke it's kinda rude. i assumed you were older.
why the hell aren't you playing vids and getting baked??
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago
You don't know how old I am and your giving up. Thank you for your time though.
mwarrior17 2 years ago
your page gives great hints towards your age. that aswel as the "your giving up" comment. it's you're by the way but thats not why:)
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago
Ah. Ok. According to that philosophy. You saying you saying "well done skippy' makes you sound like your 5. But since I'm not judging I won't mention it nor my age. Nor will I ask you.
mwarrior17 2 years ago
are you a creationist?
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago
I believe in the living God. I'm not a "creationist" who uses science to prove His existance.
mwarrior17 2 years ago
creationists have no ally in science.
dude your logic is severely flawed.
aside from all that you've got some great anime on your channel!
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago
Sorry, I don't feel like debating. If you want to pretend the world and everything in it and outside it is meaningless then go ahead.
mwarrior17 2 years ago
we didn't even debate anything, but sure.
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago
Creationist can't use science or they prove themselves wrong. LOL
gregrutz 2 years ago
Really Gregutz? Could you explain to me how science, or "Something", proves the Creator is "Nothing"? But yes. I'm sure the existance of matter proves us who believe in the living God to be liars.
mwarrior17 2 years ago
Evolution proves creationist are wrong.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Thank you for that detailed explanation. I'm going to leave now. Thanks for your time.
mwarrior17 2 years ago
If the the improbable is inevitable, all things are possible. So I wonder why you don't think crocoducks or rather my favorite, car-man, is possible. Or if I told you I'm flying while using my mind to type on my computer at home whether you'd believe me or not. According to you. You would. No disrespect, but your own words.
mwarrior17 2 years ago
dxrocker69:
I'm sure it may appear at first glance to be evidence supporting evolution... but then so were vestigial organs.
Much research is still to be done in this area and we are far from the pinnacle of complete knowledge.
One proposition I did read was that these ERV's could also be functional, as opposed to inherited junk DNA.
Either way, ERV's are not definitive self-serving proof of evolution. Interpereting evidence using a presupposed idea does not prove the presupposition.
kartune85 2 years ago
Vestigial organs are still great evidence for evolution. The word vestigial does not mean that the organ is useless just that it no longer provides the complex funtional that it was original adapted for. E.g Ostrich wings are useless for flight but they now provide other functions such as balance, cooling etc.
It would be easy to verify if ERV's are functional such by looking at their gene sequencing. Have you any evidence to back up your assertion?
hexkid 2 years ago
hexkid:
Using the words vestigal and evolution in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Vestiges suggest (assuming you knew the original state of the "vestige") a loss of information. Evolution is a process of alleged naturalistic development.
How do you know the ostrich wings weren't created for balance and cooling and not for flying? Have they found fossils of the original flying ostrich, or primitive video footage from millions of years ago?
They also claimed whales have vestigial legs.
kartune85 2 years ago
The fossil record for the evolution of the Palaeognathae (the order which includes Ostrich) is pretty comprehensive. The fossil record shows how the relative size of the wings decrease rapidly once the ostrich was endigenous to Australia and free from mammalian predators.
Whales doe have vestigial legs and a pelvis although typically the vetsigial legs are no longer connected to the pelvis. Occasionally an atavism is observed when a whale or dolphin is born with intact hind legs.
hexkid 2 years ago
There is plenty of photographic evidence of these vestigial features such do a search.
A good written testimony including photos can be found by searching for 'Case of External Hind Limbs in a Humback Whale by Roy Chapman Andrews'
hexkid 2 years ago
hexkid:
Yes, evolutionist proponents do tell you the fossil record is complete and comprehensive, while suppressing the evidence that is contradictory to their presuppositions.
I think you'll find upon closer inspection that these whale "vestigial legs" likely have other functions, such as reproduction.
I couldn't find any photo's of whales with a complete pair of legs.
Again, like in the case of the ostrich (or the emu in Australia) alleged "vestiges" would be evidence of devolution.
kartune85 2 years ago
Junk DNA? What the hell are you talking about... ERV's are not junk DNA, they are leftovers from INFECTIONS.
ERV is no presupposed idea... An ERV (endogenous retro virus) is a VIRUS. It can insert itself in the genome in a random spot AND can be inherited by off spring. This is observed, tested, repeated, proven fact. Please learn about stuff before spouting nonsense please.
dxrocker69 2 years ago
"Much research is still to be done in this area and we are far from the pinnacle of complete knowledge" While we know a LOT more then you realise (or want to admit), there is for example a LOT we don't know about gravity, quantum mechanics, nuclear theory etc... Shall we now discard atomic theory, gravitational theory etc and say "god done it" because we don't know/understand EVERYTHING (yet)? Listen to yourself man... if you don't know something, just say "i dunno", not "god done it"
dxrocker69 2 years ago
dxrocker69:
What's with the rant? Did I say, "because we don't know the answers we should stop looking"?
Creationism does not deny or condemn operational science. Evolution confuses operation science with origin science.
Evolution relies on incomplete data to support the theory.
You're clutching at straws as a means to cling to the dogma of evolution. You claim that ERV's are evidence of evolution without a complete knowledge of their function or purpose.
kartune85 2 years ago
I think it's funny how you ignore ERV's when given the actual correct explanation.
dxrocker69 2 years ago
Your pretty...to bad you have an adams apple
rok30 2 years ago
"0 peer reviewed publications point to evidence not in support of evolution? I take it you're joking on that one?"
I'm really, really not. If you have knowledge of such papers, point me to them. And by pointing me to them, I mean..; cite the author, the publication date, the title of the article/paper, the scientific journal title and issue number.
/taps foot
Maybe also mention why this fictional author didn't get a nobel price for his groundbreaking, biology shattering work.
dxrocker69 2 years ago
Why would a journal which is entitled "Nature: Evolution and Ecology" ever publish anything not in support of evolution?
BTW why would a panel of evolutionists ever nominate someone who disproved evolution for the nobel prize. It completely discredits anything they've done (the panel) in their academic/professional careers.
Sage1217 2 years ago
Why? Because it would advance human knowledge and that is all science is about. Evidence is evidence. If tomorrow evolution is proven incorrect and if tomorrow evidence of a creator is presented, then that is exactly the direction science would take. Like I said, scientist actually love nothing more then groundbreaking evidence. Nothing is as boring as a study that only confirms old views.
dxrocker69 2 years ago
I think you're mistaken on this. Scientific academics are motivated by making a name for themselves in the community and obtaining tenure. It is very political. More often then not, they will go with the flow.
Sage1217 2 years ago
You are correct about one thing: they are motivated to making a name for themselves. They however DON'T make a name by being part of the flock and going with the flow... Who are the scientists everybody knows by merrits? Einstein, Newton, Hubble, Hawkins, Darwin, ... All of these men made name by turning science upside down. NOT by agreeing with those before them or their peers. Debunking evolution would mean instant tripple nobel price and fame for at least a thousand years.
dxrocker69 2 years ago
I have a different opinion, going with the flow actually builds collaboration with other scientists minimizing the amount competing research groups putting even more pressure on researchers.
And who exactly is looking to debunk evolution? As an evolutionary scientist, why would you ever present data that contradicts your hypothesis?
Sage1217 2 years ago
First of all, evolution is a Theory (capital T), not a hypothesis. Second, if I would have credible data contradicting evolution, if I would have credible evidence to show that evolution is false, I'ld be instantly famous, receive a couple nobel prizes and be published in just about EVERY magazine in the world. Yes, I would VERY VERY much present that data to the world. Only thing is: that data seems to be unexistnat.
dxrocker69 2 years ago
Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson, CRS Quarterly, Volume 41, June 2004
Genetic Entropy (Sanford)
I've said before, evolutionists don't like the possibility of there being a God, it means they're accountable. That is why they believe in evo in the first place. They also wreck the career of anyone who is bold enough to say evo might be wrong... which obviously means it is difficult to get published, promoted etc if your views are known.
perfacetus 2 years ago
Eum no.... the reason this "paper" about Genetic Entropy wasn't accepted by the scientific community is because it basicly raped Thermodynamics in every possible way (well that's one of the reasons anyway).
dxrocker69 2 years ago
The point is that there are real scientists who don't buy evo... but it isn't something you'd admit for fear of upsetting the 'faith'.
perfacetus 2 years ago
There are very few biologists (<0.01%) who do not accept evolution. Heck their are more physicists that don't accept Quantum Mechanics.
Most of the scientists on the lists published by AiG etc are not biologists. It's easy to an electrical/mechanical engineer who doesn't believe in evolution but their opinion is hardly important.
hexkid 2 years ago
Harrub & Thompson's paper is complete nonsense and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding (deliberate or not) of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If their assertion was true then not animal or plant would be able to grow because that would also be in violation of the 2nd Law.
Given this glaring flaw it's hardly any wonder that their 'scientific' finding received less than favourable coverage.
hexkid 2 years ago 3
I was just giving you an example of a published paper. He wasn't an example of someone who has been mistreated by those claiming to represent science.
perfacetus 2 years ago
Maybe we should have mentioned that it needed to be published in a respected peer reviewed scientific journal... not in some bible belt corner tabloid. My mistake, I thought that was obvious.
dxrocker69 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cant find the original comment i made cause I dont give a fuck to find it.
Those scientist that YOU worship like a little cult follower .....cant even agree on how much water I should drink.
You've got the blinders on. Everyone is following something or someone.
You follow people you have to paste bones together to back up their bullshit.
SonofSolom0n 2 years ago
I worship nobody.
I just go where data leads me. And I don't care much for fossiles when it comes to evolution. They certainly are usefull, but evolution theory is shown in the lab. Your genome is all the proof you need. Fossiles are usefull for evolutionary history, not so much for evolution theory itself (wich is about biology, not archeology)
dxrocker69 2 years ago 4
Paasting bones together???? Backing up their bullshit?????
Questioning the current status quo, finding evidence, coming to a conclusion, debating and destruction testing that conclusion ... sounds like common sense to me.
Following some fucktard religious leader in total subservience because he has a 1600 year old piece of text that talks of sky daddies and unicorns, accepting bullshit answers like 'god dunnit' stinks of a fear of reality, loneliness and mild schizophrenia.
aikifan77 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
well you know everything dont you? finally someone with all the answers! can I please follow you?
SonofSolom0n 2 years ago
At what point did I say I know everything. Admittedly I'm educated but I don't claim to know everything. I wont write about something I'm clueless on though. Religion claims to have all the answers not science. I admnit to not feeling the urge to shout "magicman dunnit" when I don't know something, not unless there is overwhelming evidence of magicman doing it. Nice attack though, even though it was kinda telegraphed.
aikifan77 2 years ago
No, that's what the religious do.
falcoperegrinus82 2 years ago
@SonofSolom0n It's not a matter of knowing everything. It's a matter of knowing what you know, and knowing what you don't know. Evolution, for example, does not know where life came from. That's abiogenesis, which is not a mature science. However, it is without any reasonable doubt that evolution by natural selection is how we have diversity of life. The problem with religion is you just "know" the answer to all of these questions without proof. It's the oft quoted and fallacious "goddidit".
hungsolow123 2 years ago
Heh, nice one. The ones you're following believe a man lived inside a fish, so shut the fuck up.
Irbubble 2 years ago 4
Define "macro" evolution.
dxrocker69 2 years ago
Macroevolution (n): Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.
coreva 2 years ago
/sigh...... the corect term is speciation. the terms macro and micro evolution has not been used within the scientific community for decades after new evidence in genetics arose showing that they are pretty much the same exact thing. these two terms only recently been resurfaced by creationist with the whole intelligent design thing. and if your wondering, yes speciation has been observed.
adafuns 2 years ago
ah, my apologies! I read your comment on the front page, so i didnt know it was a reply (yay youtube comments). In fairness i should have hit the button to view all the comments before replying (i usually do; not sure why i didnt that day).
I think your comment must have confused me a little since i read it out of context (as it did mercenary and T1carus), reading it now in context it makes waaay more sense.
Sorry about that, and i should say that i now agree with what you were saying :)
Isanion 2 years ago
No problem :)
There's a lot of complete morrons in threads like this and I do agree that half sarcastic posts out of context can give you the wrong idea. Indeed, when dealing with creationists, you don't stop being amazed at the level of stupidity. Search video series "why do people laugh at creationists?" here on youtube. It's a GREAT series :)
dxrocker69 2 years ago
10 bucks to see cave-children play with tomato eating dinosaurs?
Hell yes!!! If only I lived in good-ol USA :(
7omnia7 2 years ago 3
Sure am glad you rushed off and got so many people to go to the Creation Museum so you could feel all Superior to them. Don't you feel smarter now after you rustled up so many people to go mock the Museum? Also, since science seems to be your religion, I was wondering how you feel about the "evolving" science of Global Warming?How do you feel about the top scientist at the first Earth Day who were scaring people about Global Cooling just 30 years ago or the fact it hasn't gotten hotter in 10 yrs
jeffbatt2000 2 years ago
I know the difference. Theory is still theory, not fact, if it was proved it would be fact, not theory.
Not really. All that proves is that similar creatures have similar DNA... hardly a surprise.
Checked out ring species... again similar creatures can mate with each other where as dissimlar species cannot. That is just common sense, not evidence for evo.
perfacetus 2 years ago
perfacetus wrote:
"Theory is still theory, not fact, if it was proved it would be fact, not theory."
You give the impresion that you think a scientific theory is only a guess, and it so you're very mistaken.
Facts are just observations, evincendes of natural phenomena but they don't explain anything by themselves, for that you need theories, that link known facts togheter into an explanation.
that's why in science theories have more value, in terms of knowledge, than facts have.
magua73 2 years ago
futhermore, theories makes predictions whereas facts don't, and the more predictions a theory makes the easier it can be falsefied, hence the stronger the theory gets.
Natual Selection makes a lot of predictions that could very easely be disproven, thats why the theory is so strong.
Natual selection is the explanation (theory) of the fact of evolution.
So in rather crude way you could say evolution is both a fact and theory.
btw, do you think science is about common sense?
magua73 2 years ago
No, theory is not a guess, if anything a hypothesis would be closer to that description. I was making the point that a theory... is just that.
A theory does not have more value than a fact. Something factual can be observed and known, a theory can still be wrong.
perfacetus 2 years ago
Wrong, a scientific theory has a lot more value than a scientific fact. It provides a testable framework which allows scientists to make predictions about the natural world.
The theory of evolution has allowed us to make predictions of what we should expect to see in both the fossil & the genetic records. All of these predictions have been verified many times over the evidence is much stronger than you are admitting.
See tiktaalik discovery for a great example of it's predictive power.
hexkid 2 years ago
Really? A testable framework... sure and in one millions years we'll know... oh wait... I'll be dead and before God by that point, bit late to know for sure!
Tiktaalik... I looked it up.
Lets take this from a different perspective.
If frogs were extinct then they would be considered ideal 'missing links'. If Chimps were extinct, they'd be the missing link. The fact is anything can be called a missing link... except similar things are alive today. They are just part of the natural diversity.
perfacetus 2 years ago
Evolution has been tested for 150 years now and it has been verified by the evidence in the natural world.
The discovery of DNA & hence genetics has uncovered detailed proof that Darwin could only have dreamt of. We don't need millions of years as the evidence is already there if you are prepared to look at it.
hexkid 2 years ago
Such as?
perfacetus 2 years ago
Dawkins used the word 'selfish' to try and explain that evolution works at the gene level and that the goal of each gene is to survive & multiply. Sometimes a gene does this at the expense of other competing genes, othertimes it's survival is improved by co-operating in a symbiotic relationship with other genes.
Personally, I am not total convinced by Dawkins arguments in this particular book. I think he explains the concept better in 'The Extended Phenotype' which came out later.
hexkid 2 years ago
Frogs & even Chimps would not be called a missing link even if they were found in the fossil record instead of being alive today.
Paleontologists actually look for transitional features rather than transitional fossils. Although chimps have several features which are similar to homo-sapiens they would not be considered to be transitional.
Tiktaalik is important because it does display these transitional features and appears at the geological age predicted by evolutionary theory.
hexkid 2 years ago
If frogs had been wiped out before living memory/records began and someone found a frog fossil, evolutionists would be having a field day, saying how amazing it is that they have found the transitional organism between water and land.
Tikaalik is the same, it is just designed to inhabit a niche between water and land, like a frog. But one cares about frogs because they are still around.
perfacetus 2 years ago
You have a fundamental misconception about how paleontology works. Paleontologists are much more interested in the evolution of specific features than the whole organism. Evolution allowed Neil Shubin to predict specific features (e.g wrist joints, spiracles, & neck) which he expected to find on a fossil of a specific age.
The sudden appearance of a frog at the wrong age in the fossil record on which novel features suddenly appeared would actually be evidence against evolution.
hexkid 2 years ago
Are you kidding me?! The minute Tikaalik came out there was an orgasm of explanations trying to place its niche in the "evolutionary tree".
Sage1217 2 years ago
Nonsense, the whole point of the Tiktaalik story is that Neil Shubin identified a 'gap' in the fossil record and the spent 5 years searching sediments of the right age to see if he could find a fossil with the predicted features.
Shubin had identified which node & branch the fossil was on before he started his search.
hexkid 2 years ago