Just wondering, in the origin of life how could the transcription factors be there to transcribe for protein translation if they are proteins themselves, and had to have been synthesized by translation? I am studying to be a biologist and this confuses me, someone please help!
Well that's a nice theory. I hope one day it can explain in any scientifically accepable detail the fossil record, the evolution of the genetic code, the evolution of the hawks eye, how a giraffe's neck developed valves in it's neck to keep the brain from hemmoraging, the evolution of the flagellum at the cellular level etc. without using "maybe" "probably" "it could be" etc. Richard Dawkins explanation of the eyes development sounds like a speculative just so story. Is this science??!!
@alsdyall are you really pulling the retarded irreducible complexity argument out? That shit has been refuted countless times, and the fact that one can speculate a step by step process to build an eye with functional intermediates SHOWS that it is possible, his particular version may not reflect exactly what happened, but it is nonetheless a refutation.
@kotoroshinoto No, I'm asking you to explain it. Now, clearly; without using all this probably, maybe, could have or give us more time BS. Either your so-called scientific mechanism can explain reality or it can't. It's 2011, the veil has been lifted. Show and prove.
And no I'm not pulling the irreducible complexity argument out. Ken Miller debunked that argument, which says these organisms couldn't have evolved because all parts are needed to function. Miller suggested that "it is possible" that the parts "may have" been used for other functions, thus refuting the argument - -theoretically and logically. He admitted however that this is not evidence!! So what I'm asking is for you to show how evolution did it. Period.
@alsdyall do i have to provide evidence for the sun coalescing from the remnants of the supernova of a larger older star too, or do the observed phenomena and chemical signatures suffice? you have no idea how science works do you?
@kotoroshinoto No. I have no idea how random mutation and natural selection accounts for the phenomena I mentioned below.(Such as the development of DNA) And you have no idea either because you can't explain it rationally and in any detail and you can't refer me to any sources that can either because they don't exist. How childish it is to insult someone who clears through all your bs and asks you a straight question.
@alsdyall development of dna in the first place may or may not be relevant to evolution, it depends on which group under bio-genesis hypotheses you ascribe to. If you believe in an RNA/protein world that transitioned to using DNA as a genomic molecule, then there are potential evolutionary explanations, but we can't really demonstrate fossils of life from billions of years ago, even if we had fossilized organisms from that far back, the cell components wouldn't be preserved.
Come on dude, I have a computer and I can look up how the scientific method works. But I can't look up how "evolution" explains crucial phenomena such as of how the first single cell became a multi-cell, or how the sexes originated.
@kotoroshinoto Let's agree that It is scientific fact that there can be small incremental changes over time within a certain population or kind or type of living thing due to environmental and genetic changes. Ok? Let's leave it there.
@alsdyall sometimes it isn't all that small and incremental, especially in cases of disaster or predation on small populations. Genetic drift can be quite extreme.
@alsdyall but the lack of evidence for a particular transition doesn't disprove it happened, it only means we cannot say for sure what the intermediate stages were.
@kotoroshinoto That's what I'm saying. For the most part evolution works as long as it stays within it's limitations which basically amount to explaining how the traits of different species vary within their kind. And that's it. It doesn't need to go into origins of life or even the origin of distinct species, DNA the sexes etc. because that's beyond it's scope. I get it. That way it stays within the realm of science and away from wild speculaltion, myth and misleading wordplay. I gotcha.
@kotoroshinoto Oh I didn't mean anything particular by kind, any different than the term species. I'm glad you overcame your reticence to try and correct me though. As far as the earth, from what I know about 4.5 billion years old.
Well that's the whole problem. According to evolutionary theory overall you would start with one form of life and then it spilts into constantly increasing diversity creating distinct species with the phyla (or larger categories) appearring last. The visible evidence shows however the broad range of diversity of phyla already existing and then the variation appears later within the phyla.
@alsdyall there are fossils of bacterial colonies from way back before multicellular life existed, in more recently formed fossils you begin to see more advanced things such as archaea and simple eukaryotes. It isn't until eukaryotes had been around for a while that you see evidence any kind of multicellular lifeforms. We're talking about the evolution of KINGDOMS not just phyla or genera.
@kotoroshinoto I have a question for you, since you brought up the idea of "kinds", I've only really seen that in connection to young-earth creationism so far. (Though I know the idea is NOT tethered to that belief-set) How old do YOU believe the planet is.
I didn't read any of these longass comments. I'm just here to say to Don Exodus- Thank you. I've been needing to get some clear, concise sources that serve as as proof for evolution. You, sir, have made a fan.
i actually didn't know this: amino acids can be basic? I'm curious about why amino acids were originally named as such if they aren't necessarily acidic
Question for the board. Secretariat had a mutant heart, 22 lbs. vs. avg. 8 lb. heart for a thoroughbred horse. His heart allowed him to run faster than any horse in known history. Arguably his mutation was good. None of his offspring had extra large hearts. Why was the mutation for an extra large heart not selected and passed to his offspring? That is how natural selection is supposed to work, right?
« Why was the mutation for an extra large heart not selected and passed to his offspring? »
You misunderstood selection. Selection is not about what traits present in the parent are passed on to its offspring: that is a matter of genetics. Selection occurs AFTER the offspring has already been produced: it is the difference in reproductive success between two offspring carrying rival alleles for some trait.
Mutations are deleterious to the human genome. That is why we have to correct near sightedness and crooked teeth. The genome deteriorates over time. Mutations have the opposite impact that the theory says they should have. Diabetes, leukemia, sickle cell anemia, lupus, etc. "DNA is constantly subject to mutations, accidental changes in its code. Mutations can lead to missing or malformed proteins, and that can lead to disease." - Understanding Genetics
@coltharpnicholas having 2 copies of the gene is highly deleterious and often fatal, being heterozygous for it makes you highly resistant to malaria parasites, but only minimally affects your health. (something about the altered hemoglobin makes it harder for them to replicate in your red blood cells.) Also, there apparently are some foods that are protective.
there are two selective forces at work. In populations without significant malaria presence, the gene would begin to disappear.
@kotoroshinoto regarding the foods, I can't quite recall what they were, but there are supposedly some chemicals in the diets of native african tribes that help mitigate the degree to which red blood cells assume sickle shapes, making the impact of the gene less severe. This is a relatively new area of research though.
@coltharpnicholas it's easy to refute the guesswork of an ancient philosopher. The real question my friend is how mutation could possibly have brought about the over 90 million distinct complex species that we see today; all functional self sustaining systems made up of complex blood, respiratory, genetic, nerve, immune, skeletal, endocrine and digestive systems.That's an unfathomable amount of information much more than the .2 % of beneficial mutations observed in nature.
@alsdyall Not at all. This process has been going on for billions of years, and there are multiple offspring per generation. I'm not sure where you get ".2%" from, but if that figure is correct, it's completely reasonable that the human body could have evolved within billions of years.
that sounds great except the fossil record - the Cambrian explosion in particular- belies all of that. The vast array of organisms we see today arose at a rate which defies any explanation that random mutation working with natural selection can provide.
@alsdyall Not really. The Cambrian explosion may have been "rapid" on a geological scale, but "rapid" here means "millions of years." Also, please point to a species which developed during the Cambrain which is still around.
Incidentally, some think that the Cambrian explosion represents the development of bones. There wouldn't be many fossils before it because soft tissue doesn't fossilize well.
@coltharpnicholas This gives a shorter period of time for these structures such as bones to form...randomly. I get obvious conclusion that all the life forms we see are related and naturally from the same material. But it's also an obvious conclusion that complex systems such as the nervous, skeletal, reproductive, digestive, respiratory, muscular, endocrine, circulatory and the immune systems aren't random phenomena. Not to mention DNA the origin of which Darwinism wisely avoids.
@alsdyall one thing to note, real scientists don't call evolution by natural selection Darwinism anymore, SOMETIMES they might call it Darwinian evolution but even that is rare. The theory has been modified by modern findings and doesn't quite fit exactly into the box that darwin originally placed it in. Additionally, you aren't understanding the power of selection, nobody claimed the features are random, they aren't.
@kotoroshinoto Whatever it's called - are you saying that the build up of complex organs didn't come about by the random, purposeless force of mutation (copying errors) sifted and preserved by natural selection?Just so I can understand - Is there a contemporary or coherent statement of the current definition of the mechanism?
@alsdyall yes, but just because the source of change is random does not mean the resulting structure is built by pure random chance, the power of selection for maintaining a working organism is very powerful at selecting traits that aid survival and rejecting changes that harm survival. This filter is what enables the randomness to do anything, otherwise life would have gone extinct from genomic information decay.
@alsdyall also, Evolution's job as a theory is to explain the process by which organisms were able to change over time. We KNOW that organisms changed, the theory attempts to explain how. Thus, it makes NO sense to insinuate weakness in the theory due it its not explaining origins of life. It makes no attempt because that is NOT relevant to what the theory is attempting to explain in the first place.
@alsdyall You keep using the word "random". Why? Evolution is not a "random" process. Yes, mutations are effectively random. However, mutations happen at the level of the individual; evolution is a large-scale phenomenon. There is nothing random about the fact that helpful mutations accumulate, while detrimental mutations generally do not.
"Darwinism" (which is not a thing) does not "avoid" the origin of DNA any more than physics does. It is simply outside of its scope.
@coltharpnicholas What do you mean, 'outside of it's scope"? Is it not interested? or it doesn't know? or is that for the field of abiogenesis? Does abiogenesis say anything useful?
@alsdyall If "it" is the theory of evolution, then "it" is not interested, because "it" is an abstract concept incapable of feeling. "We" -- human beings -- certainly are interested.
Here is what I mean: evolution is a model for how life changes over time. The origin of life is a completely unrelated concept from a theoretical point of view. Imagine if someone criticized the theory of relativity for not explaining how the laws of physics arose.
@alsdyall You'd have to clarify what you mean by "useful." I don't know if any practical applications have come from the study of abiogenesis, but on a theoretical level, scientists have developed a pretty strong framework for how life could have arisen. DonExodus2 has another good video on it.
@coltharpnicholas These are forms of reductionism I don't wish to take part of. You can't take a part of something (life, organisms) in fragments and expect it to make any sense in the whole. You can't tell me that DNA mutation and natural selection is the basis of Biology if you can't explain how the life and the DNA came about in the first place. It's like being an "expert" on elephants trunk and having no concept of Elephants on the whole. That's what's going on here. Admit you don't know.
@alsdyall Think about rolling a die. Each individual roll is essentially random and impossible to predict. But over a large number of rolls, we can predict that each number will come up roughly the same number of times. Large-scale patterns frequently emerge from small-scale events which are essentially random.
Mutations are random; the fact that beneficial mutations tend to survive is not random.
@coltharpnicholas Keep this in mind also for example- An ape could, theoretically, mutate into a man by changing just one percent of his DNA. One must remember, though, that all mutations have to be in exactly the same order as a human person’s genome. It is estimated that one million mutations are required for every one percent difference. It would take 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances to get five mutations in the exact order.
@alsdyall you underestimate the power of large amounts of time. Also you misunderstand that evolution is NOT directed TOWARD being human, or toward anything in particular at all except for traits that benefit reproduction and survival. We became human because that particular collection of traits suited our ancestral population's survival, not because that particular set of mutations is intrinsically desirable.
@kotoroshinoto It's irrefutable that humans evolved into what we are over time. I mean, any unnatural or supernatural explanation is patently implausible simply because man is natural and made of the same natural elements found throughout creation...er...the universe. But to say that random mutation/natural selection is the mechanism that brought humans about is wild speculation. There is no lab or mathematical evidence to support Darwinism after 100 years.
@kotoroshinoto I think you overestimate how much time there was to bring about all the diverse species and complex systems we see in nature everyday. I also think you over estimate the amount of time during which the diversity of organisms arose, which is about 30 million years (Cambrian period). There is no Darwinian explanation for that crucial explosion of life.
@alsdyall soft bodied creatures existed prior to the explosion, and the advent of only a small number of new features could lead to a very rapid changeover in species dominance, new niches, and lead to an explosion of new traits due to "evolutionary arms races", it is NOT suprising to see sudden bursts of new species especially given that the development of calcification for exo and endo skeletons would create a burst of diversity in fossils.
@alsdyall in other words, the fact that that particular set of mutations takes on a statistically absurd sounding (key word is sounding) likelihood, it still happened that way. High chances against something happening do not belie the fact that it did in fact occur that way.
You can flip a coin 1000 times, the particular order of heads and tails that YOU JUST OBSERVED is HIGHLY UNLIKELY BUT IT STILL HAPPENED RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES.
@kotoroshinoto Agreed. But this didn't just happen regarding humans it happened millions of times in different species. I'm not saying I know how it happened, and I'm definitely not saying some mystery man upstair said poof and it happened. I'm just saying Darwinists don't know either but aren't honest enough to admit it.
@alsdyall This may be true. Your problem is that you assign a special significance to the human genome. Left to itself, _some_ mutations will clearly happen. The result is that _some_ path of mutations will certainly occur -- however unlikely any given sequence of mutations is, the end result must be one of those unlikely sequences.
@achilles197474 Without sociaty, things like that could kill us and would be thined out by natural selection.We made an environment that allows flaws to exist and even thrive.
ps. People with sickle cell anemia are immune to the deadly disease malaria, they have a mutation that is an advantage in thier native reagion.
The natural order of things is to go from a state of order to less order. A simple brain does not evolve into a complex brain. See Cornell University's Dr. John Sanford, Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome. The human genome is deteriorating via the accumulation of mutations. Overall, mutations have the sum impact of being deleterious. Mutations and natural selection don't evolve anything - macro evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
@RespectMyHate Too complex to human brain! Any way God is not the real answer. You can always ask..who made the god..He must be very complex to make this world. So someone might have created him. May be a superior god...Then who created the superior god.....see there is no end to this argument. Its not valid. I dont think its a good argument to say its complex, so somebody created it!
@100Secular God is eternal, no body made him, because God isn't made out of anything, he has a different nature than anything we can imagine. God just simply exists.
@RespectMyHate ....I guess it proves my point...Gods are not real explanation. Gods are beyond imagination?hmmm May be they are just human imaginations....thats more reasonable. You are right that he/she/it is not made out of any physical matter...because she is the product of human imagination!
@100Secular so I guess dark matter is a product of our imagination also, anyway thats irrelevent to the point I'm trying to make. The creator of the universe is described in the Bible as being a consuming fire, how can the creator of matter be made out of matter? Gods anatomy is something completely different than anything we can imagine. Trying to describe a being who exists outside of time with your finite human brain.
Well...dark matter is a logistical approach. The idea of 'Gods' or a creator is not a logistical one any more. At the time people wrote Bible, it might have been a good explanation. But its not good anymore. If God is fire then he is made of matter, because fire is plasma, nothing but a form of matter.
@100Secular what if something other than matter can exist? I think that could be a possiblity, people claim to have seen ghost, or spirits, they also claim that these entities have the ability to walk clean through walls, certainly a being who has such abilities can't be made out of matter. The Bible says God is a spirit, and that he is also omni present. An omni present being can't be made out of matter. People say I'm close minded, but I think I'm very open minded I mean look at what I believe
@RespectMyHate If there's actually a god, there's 99.99% chance that you're fucked no matter which god you believe. I'm being generous with that figure because there are definitely more than 10,000 different religions and denominations in the world. Prepare to burn in hell you asshole!
@RespectMyHate Athiests think God is just like human, acts like humans, thinks like humans, bound to the law of physics, and lives in the realm of space and time. They will never be able to unfold the mystery of universe yet so certain that there is no God.
@archilles1195 none of what you just said make god any more believable and likely. And the gods described by most religions DO act petty and human, evidenced by their works described in "holy literature".
@RespectMyHate ok i believe in god. zeus therefore im right? you see its not really the problem of there being a god for me thats the problem its how many thats one of the big reasons i dont believe its not wether or not jesus existed its if zeus appolo etc existed and how can people have 100s of diffrent of interpretations of the same god? couldnt god be clear in his messages? i mean if hes trying to save us all wouldnt it help if he was as clear as possible?
@emanrulez1 think of it like this. If you don't take the god or of any of these peoples languages and cultures literally you would be closer to the truth. These cultures scriptures, languages, religions were human beings trying to name, or define the unknowable. The wise religions or cultures referred to all of nature, the universe, the cosmos, fate, the essence etc. as the unknowable. The eternal essence can be given an earthly name? No "god" is real in that sense. It's just a mental concept.
@alsdyall ok so when the sun was unknowable we called it a god. now we know what it is. we didnt know why the earth went round so we made a god for that. we didnt know why the sky didnt fall on us so we made a god for that. what you sir have just did is say we put god were science and reason has yet to get to or find out. which is dumb its the same as saying god is the sun 100s of years ago.
@emanrulez1 No. I'm not using the god of the gaps concept. That IS dumb. I'm not saying they gave a name to the unknown I'm saying they often gave a name to the All or the "unknowable" which is different. This is where scientists are now as they realize the universe is eternal. We do have limits. Certain not all ancient cultures accepted that and humbled themselves before this eternal unknowable wonder we call reality and nature and they called Neteru,or al-kalum -- the All.
@emanrulez1 No. I'm not using the god of the gaps concept. That IS dumb. I'm not saying they gave a name to the unknown I'm saying they often gave a name to the All or the "unknowable" which is different. This is where scientists are now as they realize the universe is eternal. We do have limits. Certain not all ancient cultures accepted that and humbled themselves before this eternal unknowable wonder we call reality and nature and they called Neteru,or al-kalum -- the All.
@RespectMyHate Waves travel through walls, my radio work indoors, Gamma waves travel through almost anything. So is God a wave? Is God energy?
Plus, nobody is fucked, it says that He will forgive us in heaven and isn't that what Jesus died for, our sins? people who believe in God only take the bits that suit them and leave the rest out.
Pop Quiz: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin.
p.s. Adaptation by moths on trees does not count - that's simply the same as Africans developing dark skin or Nordic people having barrel chests. Lizards developing cecal glands - amazing but not 'evolution of the species'
Pop Quiz: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin.
p.s. Adaptation by moths on trees does not count - that's simply the same as Africans developing dark skin or Nordic people having barrel chests. Lizards developing cecal glands - amazing but not 'evolution of the species'
There is no reason for being offensive towards me. Just because you don't agree with me you don't have the right to call me hypocrit or crazy.
Just by reading your comments i see you search for biased info on Young Earth Creationism websites.
I'm sorry for posting a Wikipedia reference, but there are plenty of references (100+) inside both articles. If you could read them please it would probably enlighten you about the subject. Also, understand that Evolution doesn't disprove God's existence.
if evolution is true why do we not see new species? why is the big bang theroy terrible for the idea of evolution? if we evolved from 1 cell lungs had to be there from the start ot you get a dead creature? why does carbon dating FAIL when we know the REAL date of the event? if we evolved from apes, why do apes still remain the same and not created fire? why are animals for example born with INFORMATION? why did darwin lie and leave out VITAL info? why can charles darwin be traced to hitler
Q. if evolution is true why do we not see new species?
A. Because it does not happen in 1 second. Not in 1 min. Not in 1hour. Not ina day. Not in a week or month or year or even in a centuary. Dude, its a long process which cannot be observed in couple of human life time.
I don't know what you're talking about exactly, but here's a question for you:
Take a 6k year old rock, make a statue with it, date it. If the dating says 6k, you can refute them with "Na ah. I sculpted it yesterday. You method doesn't work."
@lardhat - You miss the point! We both know that carbon dating has been shown to be wildly inaccuarate on items of known age. Therefore it DOES fail. (I'm not talking about sculptures here).
And, besides, are you aware that we don't use carbon dating for very old things? Evidence for a certain evolutionary path is seldom (perhaps never) aided by carbon dating. So what's your point?
evolution is just a way the immoral can continue to live there lives to avoid faced the day of judgement, All so called "proof" for evolution is shatted and destroyed at (creation.com) because remember NOTHING in the bible has EVER been proven wrong, NOTHING! even science proves the bible is correct. The Earth is around 6-8 thousand years old, there is so much evidence.. Information is not contained in DNA, where does it come from, do what DARWIN did, leave it out if it does not work for you.
If we evolved from a common ancestor of chimpanzees, there were many morphological changes resulting from mutations to make it happen. Since this is a natural process and can be observed, can anyone list the mutations that cause morphological changes to humans, today, which are considered beneficial?
Ron Wyatt discovered Noah's Ark you can check his videos out right here on youtube. He also diescovered the Red Sea Crossing site, the route of the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, Zedekiah's Cave, Mount Sinai and the Ark of the Covenant. Now, please understand this, Satan is working overtime to try to debunk these discoveries and his sheep won't even consider checking them out. I post this so those who are seeking and not Satan's sheep will have the opportunity to see. Merry Christmas
I am a Christian and i agree with everything you said about how evolution works. Certainly young earth creationists need to understand that the Bible is not a Scientific book and several parts of it should not be taken litterally, as they were written by people whose culture, time, etc limited their understanding of the natural world.
@fgil1990 pathetic, how can you be a christian when you cant accept the word of God. If your having trouble with the book of Genesis then I feel sorry for you, The Bible has NEVER failed to any science!!!! NEVER.
How dare you claim the word of SCRIPTURE should not be taken litterally, grant the Holy Spirt to be just a bit more clever than you, just because you cant understand it does not mean God is at YOUR level! What a crazy statement you have made! hippocrit
Great Flash course into DNA. I myself would have liked to see a description on how e.g. Chaperones are involved in protein folding, but am aware that there is no way to explain what can take years of study in a brief selection of videos (and this part is after all about DNA and not Proteins or how Enzymes are fomed), Again many thanks for this set. Runi
If the "FIRST DNA" was able to bind itself together without proteins then all the more that newer DNAs can bind itself without the need for one specie to evolve from another.
There is a higher possibility that different species do have their own DNA tree that is distinct and separate from each other. And, a higher possibility that man did not came from apes.
Similarities does not account to origin. Having a finite set of combination, there will always be similarities to be found.
@FaithRationale You know some viruses' genetic material is made up by RNA right? RNA can both encode AND have catalytic functions, so it has the basal function of both DNA and proteins; hence talking about an RNA world prior to DNA and proteins.
No, there is no higher possibility for that. The fact that taxonomy studies were so well confirmed by the later phylogeny and the realization that genotype determine phenotype almost perfectly accounts for the evolution and speciation, including apes
@gaelminville the chromosome is made up of bunched up DNA..... so basically they're the same size because they're different names for the same thing in different states, or "situations."
@gaelminville The chromosomes are made up from your DNA. The chromosomes are "larger" than all your DNA together, due to the fact that it's hold together by various proteins, but when talking "genome size" we almost always talk about the length of DNA string(s) that can be in several chromosomes. Typical microorganisms have all their DNA in a single chromosome, where you see eukaryotes have their DNA spread over several chromosomes.
I have one question??? This stuff is well not elementary not in such detail but in 8th grade elementary school you learn this stuff tho it's vague , and in detail in high school!!! Is it that in some countries stuff like this is not being implemented in schools???
@adamkyler Basicly DNA gets transcribed by proteins (RNA polymerases) to form mRNA strings. These mRNA strings then get translated in the ribosomes which produces polypeptide strings, which make up proteins.
Various proteins bind to the DNA string, either prohibiting or allowing the initial transcription of a specific part of the genome. These are (in multicellulars) largely controlled by extracellular signals starting cascades of chemical signal pathways within cells.
Science and reasoning are key, no doubt. Both of which underpin 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
By excluding that the biblical story of creation is literally true and that God is omnipresent and active in the creation, it is possible to interpret almost anything in evolutionary way. The truth is, however, it is not random mutations and struggle for survival that is changing animals and adapting them to new circumstances. It is the omnipresence of God in animals that makes all the changes. God is continuously maintaining everything and he is even adding new things to the creation.
To pontecanis: If I can not prove that the truth is the truth, it does not prove that the truth is not the truth. I can not absolutely prove that my previous comment reflects the truth, but I can make it quite possible that it does. Now, magic miracles are not God´s miracles, but nevertheless they are miracles, and the thirteenth video among my channel´s favourites shows a magic miracle of levitation. If you can prove that it is not a miracle, I will write you a poem of gratitude here.
I can't prove it because I didn't see that one instance, but I can tell you the trick is likely in the scarf. At very least, I can guarantee you that I can do it with trickery as opposed to a "miracle."
Proof is not a thing that can be obtained. It is a word only for the layman and the clueless who actually believe it exists.
To Muchodelcrazy who answered my comment: Do you mean that the scarf is not real, since it goes through his neck? Your "likely in the scarf" and "I can guarantee you" make but a straw man, by which you are trying to prevent people from admitting that magic miracles occur daily in show-business all over the world. Magicians can do tricks, but mainly, advanced a magic-show contains real magic, and to say that any kind of levitation is illusion, is equivalent to to denying that birds can fly.
Wow, you're really, really stupid and really really gullible. You think magic really exists? You think you can't make a scarf that can appear to pass through something, but really not? THAT is less plausible than actual, unexplainable fantasy-magic?
Haha, and I've been able to do the "scarf through the neck" trick since I was about eight. Look it up, it's such an elementary trick you can learn how to do it and prove it to yourself.
To Muchodelcrazy: You are not only making a straw man, you are trying to bluff as in poker. If you can not do real magic, I do not think that you can do exactly the same "scarf through the neck" number as on my channel´s13th favourite. Honestly to say, I suspect that you are secret an antichrist who concerning magic miracles is promoting the attitude: "I can not believe my eyes!" in order to keep people in the dark age of scientific materialism, and this is my last answer to you.
You don't even know what a straw man is and you're an idiot. Hah! The dark age of scientific materialism? How can people believe such barbaric things? You mean the scientific materialism that gave you that computer, saves millions of lives, and makes our modern way of life and population levels possible?
Oh yeah, how does your computer work, by the way? I mean, apparently anything you see and can't explain is therefore unexplainable, so it MUST be magic!
Who is excluding the creation story? I don't "exclude" it, it just fails to support itself with any objective evidence in any way, contradicts history, civilizations that are over 9,000 years old, plants that are 21,000 years old. And on the other hand, repeatable, prediction-making studies come out day after day. Every single argument in defense of biblical literalism is made out of gross misunderstandings or lies, unsupported by any actual emperical data.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i dont believe the earth is billions of years old that is complete bullshit. there is no proof for anything evolutionists say. they dated a rock from a volcano that was made only about a hundred years ago and it came out to be like 100 thousand years old.....so i dont believe anything about evolution becuz all the "facts" are not facts at all just lies put together by the evolutionists becuz they dont want to see their little baby evolution die
Yes the dating was way older than the magma flow only problem with your statement is that they where testing a theory about substances within the magma flow that where not effected by it. The reason they tested the lava flow is because they knew the date of it already
If you reject the age of the earth and radiometric dating, you're beyond help and wouldn't believe it no matter what.
Roblov explained the dating of the rock well. All the other examples of radiometric dating "failing" are all equally out of ignorance of the process. There's a reason why people go to school before they become geologists.
Btw, you're arguing against geology, not evolution. DNA, ERVs, and nested heirarchies all still stand without the geological agreement of the earth's age.
@allen11ish On the contrary. If anyone can prove evolution wrong, they would be famous. It would go in history books and maybe even the Nobel Prize. Science doesn't work like a religion. If it's wrong, it goes in the trash can.
Not all the material that rocks from volcanoes come are made out of come straight out of the mantle (i.e. igneous). Some of them have will have elements of rock that was part of the earths crust many thousands or even millions of years ago. This is due to a process known as the 'Rock Cycle' where rocks are essentially re-cycled. Look it up :-).
@allen11ish go look up the explanation of this, the scientists were quote mined but thats typical of creationist. lying does not equal a valid argument
So if us humans evolved from random mutations being systematically either eliminated or preserved over about 1 billion years, then it would be logical to think that this is bound to happen by now in almost every part of the galaxy closer to the center and in a stable location. If you only need 5 bil yrs, the universe is at least 13 bil. It's happened everywhere, over and over again. Now, it would be logical that NASA discovered evidence when in space. Guess what? They did.
I'm so glad you asked. Check out what Richard Hoagland has to say about the pictures that have been taken of the moon and Mars. Also, listen to what John Lear has to say. Then try Henry Deacon. And Bob Dean. And Dr. Pete Peterson. And Dr. Steven Greer. Check out the Disclosure Project, and Project Camelot, and Project Enterprise. Have fun, you might've just knocked on the door to a whole new reality.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not making a positive claim with the anthropic principle here. Using that trusim is merely to acknowledge that we have only one data point which may not meaning anything.
I think it would be hypothetically possible to conclude one way or another with regards to things like gaxalies, stellar systems, etc if we just had more data points.
Like say we found a living planet with different properties that together reach stasis: that would overturn the "specialness"
Yes and No because again its a great philosophical position based on a what if ? scenario. If only we had another data point is in fairness the only way to get more answers to this mystery I guess.
Also the Earth is special in our solar system but not so exclusive even through creationists scriptures show references to worlds (plural) or solar systems similar to the Earth and its solar system. Its one of several I beleive as the universe is constantly expanding and far from a static cosmos.
There are twenty different amino acids. If we consider that an average-sized protein molecule is composed of 288 amino acids, there are 10300 different combinations of acids. Of all of these possible sequences, only "one" forms the desired protein molecule. The other amino-acid chains are either completely useless or else potentially harmful to living things. In other words, the probability of the coincidental formation of only one protein molecule cited above is "1 in 10300". it is impossible.
It's not true that only one combination forms the right protein. There are many amino acid changes that make no difference in the 3 dimensional shape the protein has or the catalytic qualities of side group/ other chemical properties.
Others have only a slight effect. Say one amino acid change makes one region slightly more hydrophobic. This very well could have no effect.
But every once and a while a change in chemistry does cause a change in 3 dimensional shape.
Following the selection of these special 20 amino acids, it is essential they be set out in a specific sequence. Even if all the conditions are completely fulfilled, just a single amino acid being in the wrong sequence will prevent protein forming.
Just wondering, in the origin of life how could the transcription factors be there to transcribe for protein translation if they are proteins themselves, and had to have been synthesized by translation? I am studying to be a biologist and this confuses me, someone please help!
DrWilliams95 1 month ago
Well that's a nice theory. I hope one day it can explain in any scientifically accepable detail the fossil record, the evolution of the genetic code, the evolution of the hawks eye, how a giraffe's neck developed valves in it's neck to keep the brain from hemmoraging, the evolution of the flagellum at the cellular level etc. without using "maybe" "probably" "it could be" etc. Richard Dawkins explanation of the eyes development sounds like a speculative just so story. Is this science??!!
alsdyall 2 months ago
@alsdyall are you really pulling the retarded irreducible complexity argument out? That shit has been refuted countless times, and the fact that one can speculate a step by step process to build an eye with functional intermediates SHOWS that it is possible, his particular version may not reflect exactly what happened, but it is nonetheless a refutation.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@kotoroshinoto No, I'm asking you to explain it. Now, clearly; without using all this probably, maybe, could have or give us more time BS. Either your so-called scientific mechanism can explain reality or it can't. It's 2011, the veil has been lifted. Show and prove.
alsdyall 1 month ago
And no I'm not pulling the irreducible complexity argument out. Ken Miller debunked that argument, which says these organisms couldn't have evolved because all parts are needed to function. Miller suggested that "it is possible" that the parts "may have" been used for other functions, thus refuting the argument - -theoretically and logically. He admitted however that this is not evidence!! So what I'm asking is for you to show how evolution did it. Period.
alsdyall 1 month ago
@alsdyall We evolved, eyes exist. Evidence provided.
kotoroshinoto 1 month ago
@kotoroshinoto That's genius. What a celebrated, empty theory. Thanks.
alsdyall 1 month ago
@alsdyall do i have to provide evidence for the sun coalescing from the remnants of the supernova of a larger older star too, or do the observed phenomena and chemical signatures suffice? you have no idea how science works do you?
kotoroshinoto 1 month ago
@kotoroshinoto No. I have no idea how random mutation and natural selection accounts for the phenomena I mentioned below.(Such as the development of DNA) And you have no idea either because you can't explain it rationally and in any detail and you can't refer me to any sources that can either because they don't exist. How childish it is to insult someone who clears through all your bs and asks you a straight question.
alsdyall 1 month ago in playlist How Evolution Works
@alsdyall development of dna in the first place may or may not be relevant to evolution, it depends on which group under bio-genesis hypotheses you ascribe to. If you believe in an RNA/protein world that transitioned to using DNA as a genomic molecule, then there are potential evolutionary explanations, but we can't really demonstrate fossils of life from billions of years ago, even if we had fossilized organisms from that far back, the cell components wouldn't be preserved.
kotoroshinoto 1 month ago
Comment removed
alsdyall 1 month ago
Come on dude, I have a computer and I can look up how the scientific method works. But I can't look up how "evolution" explains crucial phenomena such as of how the first single cell became a multi-cell, or how the sexes originated.
alsdyall 1 month ago in playlist How Evolution Works
@kotoroshinoto Let's agree that It is scientific fact that there can be small incremental changes over time within a certain population or kind or type of living thing due to environmental and genetic changes. Ok? Let's leave it there.
alsdyall 1 month ago
@alsdyall sometimes it isn't all that small and incremental, especially in cases of disaster or predation on small populations. Genetic drift can be quite extreme.
kotoroshinoto 1 month ago
@alsdyall but really, this is all that is required to explain the rest, it REALLY boils down to this.
kotoroshinoto 1 month ago
@alsdyall but the lack of evidence for a particular transition doesn't disprove it happened, it only means we cannot say for sure what the intermediate stages were.
kotoroshinoto 1 month ago
@kotoroshinoto That's what I'm saying. For the most part evolution works as long as it stays within it's limitations which basically amount to explaining how the traits of different species vary within their kind. And that's it. It doesn't need to go into origins of life or even the origin of distinct species, DNA the sexes etc. because that's beyond it's scope. I get it. That way it stays within the realm of science and away from wild speculaltion, myth and misleading wordplay. I gotcha.
alsdyall 1 month ago
@alsdyall I'm sorry to inform you, there is NO such thing as a biological "kind".
kotoroshinoto 1 month ago
@alsdyall Tthe origin of distinct species is by no means outside the purview of evolutionary theory. The origin of life itself IS.
kotoroshinoto 1 month ago
@kotoroshinoto Oh I didn't mean anything particular by kind, any different than the term species. I'm glad you overcame your reticence to try and correct me though. As far as the earth, from what I know about 4.5 billion years old.
alsdyall 1 month ago
Well that's the whole problem. According to evolutionary theory overall you would start with one form of life and then it spilts into constantly increasing diversity creating distinct species with the phyla (or larger categories) appearring last. The visible evidence shows however the broad range of diversity of phyla already existing and then the variation appears later within the phyla.
alsdyall 1 month ago
@alsdyall there are fossils of bacterial colonies from way back before multicellular life existed, in more recently formed fossils you begin to see more advanced things such as archaea and simple eukaryotes. It isn't until eukaryotes had been around for a while that you see evidence any kind of multicellular lifeforms. We're talking about the evolution of KINGDOMS not just phyla or genera.
kotoroshinoto 1 month ago
Comment removed
alsdyall 1 month ago
@kotoroshinoto You are talking about basic biology and zoology fundamental studies that don't require an evolutionary spin to understand.
alsdyall 1 month ago
@kotoroshinoto I have a question for you, since you brought up the idea of "kinds", I've only really seen that in connection to young-earth creationism so far. (Though I know the idea is NOT tethered to that belief-set) How old do YOU believe the planet is.
kotoroshinoto 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I didn't read any of these longass comments. I'm just here to say to Don Exodus- Thank you. I've been needing to get some clear, concise sources that serve as as proof for evolution. You, sir, have made a fan.
HilarityHands 3 months ago
Comment removed
HilarityHands 3 months ago
Well done. It does help for the laymen to understand the structure functionality of these systems and I appreciate the lesson.
gugaberg123 4 months ago
i actually didn't know this: amino acids can be basic? I'm curious about why amino acids were originally named as such if they aren't necessarily acidic
miretchin 5 months ago in playlist How Evolution Works
This has been flagged as spam show
Question for the board. Secretariat had a mutant heart, 22 lbs. vs. avg. 8 lb. heart for a thoroughbred horse. His heart allowed him to run faster than any horse in known history. Arguably his mutation was good. None of his offspring had extra large hearts. Why was the mutation for an extra large heart not selected and passed to his offspring? That is how natural selection is supposed to work, right?
achilles197474 8 months ago
« Why was the mutation for an extra large heart not selected and passed to his offspring? »
You misunderstood selection. Selection is not about what traits present in the parent are passed on to its offspring: that is a matter of genetics. Selection occurs AFTER the offspring has already been produced: it is the difference in reproductive success between two offspring carrying rival alleles for some trait.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
Mutations are deleterious to the human genome. That is why we have to correct near sightedness and crooked teeth. The genome deteriorates over time. Mutations have the opposite impact that the theory says they should have. Diabetes, leukemia, sickle cell anemia, lupus, etc. "DNA is constantly subject to mutations, accidental changes in its code. Mutations can lead to missing or malformed proteins, and that can lead to disease." - Understanding Genetics
Evolutionists' beliefs don't change facts.
achilles197474 10 months ago
@achilles197474 Is sickle-cell anemia deleterious?
coltharpnicholas 9 months ago
@coltharpnicholas having 2 copies of the gene is highly deleterious and often fatal, being heterozygous for it makes you highly resistant to malaria parasites, but only minimally affects your health. (something about the altered hemoglobin makes it harder for them to replicate in your red blood cells.) Also, there apparently are some foods that are protective.
there are two selective forces at work. In populations without significant malaria presence, the gene would begin to disappear.
kotoroshinoto 6 months ago
@kotoroshinoto regarding the foods, I can't quite recall what they were, but there are supposedly some chemicals in the diets of native african tribes that help mitigate the degree to which red blood cells assume sickle shapes, making the impact of the gene less severe. This is a relatively new area of research though.
kotoroshinoto 6 months ago
@kotoroshinoto Right, that was my point. achilles claimed that all mutations are deleterious, which is nonsense, as sickle-cell anemia demonstrates.
coltharpnicholas 4 months ago
@coltharpnicholas it's easy to refute the guesswork of an ancient philosopher. The real question my friend is how mutation could possibly have brought about the over 90 million distinct complex species that we see today; all functional self sustaining systems made up of complex blood, respiratory, genetic, nerve, immune, skeletal, endocrine and digestive systems.That's an unfathomable amount of information much more than the .2 % of beneficial mutations observed in nature.
alsdyall 3 months ago
@alsdyall Not at all. This process has been going on for billions of years, and there are multiple offspring per generation. I'm not sure where you get ".2%" from, but if that figure is correct, it's completely reasonable that the human body could have evolved within billions of years.
coltharpnicholas 3 months ago
@coltharpnicholas
that sounds great except the fossil record - the Cambrian explosion in particular- belies all of that. The vast array of organisms we see today arose at a rate which defies any explanation that random mutation working with natural selection can provide.
alsdyall 3 months ago
@alsdyall Not really. The Cambrian explosion may have been "rapid" on a geological scale, but "rapid" here means "millions of years." Also, please point to a species which developed during the Cambrain which is still around.
Incidentally, some think that the Cambrian explosion represents the development of bones. There wouldn't be many fossils before it because soft tissue doesn't fossilize well.
coltharpnicholas 2 months ago
@coltharpnicholas This gives a shorter period of time for these structures such as bones to form...randomly. I get obvious conclusion that all the life forms we see are related and naturally from the same material. But it's also an obvious conclusion that complex systems such as the nervous, skeletal, reproductive, digestive, respiratory, muscular, endocrine, circulatory and the immune systems aren't random phenomena. Not to mention DNA the origin of which Darwinism wisely avoids.
alsdyall 2 months ago
@alsdyall one thing to note, real scientists don't call evolution by natural selection Darwinism anymore, SOMETIMES they might call it Darwinian evolution but even that is rare. The theory has been modified by modern findings and doesn't quite fit exactly into the box that darwin originally placed it in. Additionally, you aren't understanding the power of selection, nobody claimed the features are random, they aren't.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@kotoroshinoto Whatever it's called - are you saying that the build up of complex organs didn't come about by the random, purposeless force of mutation (copying errors) sifted and preserved by natural selection?Just so I can understand - Is there a contemporary or coherent statement of the current definition of the mechanism?
alsdyall 2 months ago
@alsdyall yes, but just because the source of change is random does not mean the resulting structure is built by pure random chance, the power of selection for maintaining a working organism is very powerful at selecting traits that aid survival and rejecting changes that harm survival. This filter is what enables the randomness to do anything, otherwise life would have gone extinct from genomic information decay.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@alsdyall also, Evolution's job as a theory is to explain the process by which organisms were able to change over time. We KNOW that organisms changed, the theory attempts to explain how. Thus, it makes NO sense to insinuate weakness in the theory due it its not explaining origins of life. It makes no attempt because that is NOT relevant to what the theory is attempting to explain in the first place.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@alsdyall You keep using the word "random". Why? Evolution is not a "random" process. Yes, mutations are effectively random. However, mutations happen at the level of the individual; evolution is a large-scale phenomenon. There is nothing random about the fact that helpful mutations accumulate, while detrimental mutations generally do not.
"Darwinism" (which is not a thing) does not "avoid" the origin of DNA any more than physics does. It is simply outside of its scope.
coltharpnicholas 1 month ago
@coltharpnicholas What do you mean, 'outside of it's scope"? Is it not interested? or it doesn't know? or is that for the field of abiogenesis? Does abiogenesis say anything useful?
alsdyall 1 month ago
@alsdyall If "it" is the theory of evolution, then "it" is not interested, because "it" is an abstract concept incapable of feeling. "We" -- human beings -- certainly are interested.
Here is what I mean: evolution is a model for how life changes over time. The origin of life is a completely unrelated concept from a theoretical point of view. Imagine if someone criticized the theory of relativity for not explaining how the laws of physics arose.
coltharpnicholas 1 month ago
@alsdyall You'd have to clarify what you mean by "useful." I don't know if any practical applications have come from the study of abiogenesis, but on a theoretical level, scientists have developed a pretty strong framework for how life could have arisen. DonExodus2 has another good video on it.
coltharpnicholas 1 month ago
@coltharpnicholas These are forms of reductionism I don't wish to take part of. You can't take a part of something (life, organisms) in fragments and expect it to make any sense in the whole. You can't tell me that DNA mutation and natural selection is the basis of Biology if you can't explain how the life and the DNA came about in the first place. It's like being an "expert" on elephants trunk and having no concept of Elephants on the whole. That's what's going on here. Admit you don't know.
alsdyall 2 weeks ago
@coltharpnicholas Well that's the random I'm talking about which is pretty much half the so-called equation.
alsdyall 1 month ago
@alsdyall Think about rolling a die. Each individual roll is essentially random and impossible to predict. But over a large number of rolls, we can predict that each number will come up roughly the same number of times. Large-scale patterns frequently emerge from small-scale events which are essentially random.
Mutations are random; the fact that beneficial mutations tend to survive is not random.
coltharpnicholas 1 month ago
@coltharpnicholas Keep this in mind also for example- An ape could, theoretically, mutate into a man by changing just one percent of his DNA. One must remember, though, that all mutations have to be in exactly the same order as a human person’s genome. It is estimated that one million mutations are required for every one percent difference. It would take 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances to get five mutations in the exact order.
alsdyall 3 months ago
@alsdyall you underestimate the power of large amounts of time. Also you misunderstand that evolution is NOT directed TOWARD being human, or toward anything in particular at all except for traits that benefit reproduction and survival. We became human because that particular collection of traits suited our ancestral population's survival, not because that particular set of mutations is intrinsically desirable.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@kotoroshinoto It's irrefutable that humans evolved into what we are over time. I mean, any unnatural or supernatural explanation is patently implausible simply because man is natural and made of the same natural elements found throughout creation...er...the universe. But to say that random mutation/natural selection is the mechanism that brought humans about is wild speculation. There is no lab or mathematical evidence to support Darwinism after 100 years.
alsdyall 2 months ago
@kotoroshinoto I think you overestimate how much time there was to bring about all the diverse species and complex systems we see in nature everyday. I also think you over estimate the amount of time during which the diversity of organisms arose, which is about 30 million years (Cambrian period). There is no Darwinian explanation for that crucial explosion of life.
alsdyall 2 months ago
@alsdyall soft bodied creatures existed prior to the explosion, and the advent of only a small number of new features could lead to a very rapid changeover in species dominance, new niches, and lead to an explosion of new traits due to "evolutionary arms races", it is NOT suprising to see sudden bursts of new species especially given that the development of calcification for exo and endo skeletons would create a burst of diversity in fossils.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@alsdyall in other words, the fact that that particular set of mutations takes on a statistically absurd sounding (key word is sounding) likelihood, it still happened that way. High chances against something happening do not belie the fact that it did in fact occur that way.
You can flip a coin 1000 times, the particular order of heads and tails that YOU JUST OBSERVED is HIGHLY UNLIKELY BUT IT STILL HAPPENED RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@kotoroshinoto Agreed. But this didn't just happen regarding humans it happened millions of times in different species. I'm not saying I know how it happened, and I'm definitely not saying some mystery man upstair said poof and it happened. I'm just saying Darwinists don't know either but aren't honest enough to admit it.
alsdyall 2 months ago
@alsdyall This may be true. Your problem is that you assign a special significance to the human genome. Left to itself, _some_ mutations will clearly happen. The result is that _some_ path of mutations will certainly occur -- however unlikely any given sequence of mutations is, the end result must be one of those unlikely sequences.
coltharpnicholas 2 months ago
@achilles197474 Without sociaty, things like that could kill us and would be thined out by natural selection.We made an environment that allows flaws to exist and even thrive.
ps. People with sickle cell anemia are immune to the deadly disease malaria, they have a mutation that is an advantage in thier native reagion.
cjdragon1988 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is hard to believe that anyone would teach that people are descended from fish. Only goes to show...you really can't fix stupid.
achilles197474 10 months ago
The natural order of things is to go from a state of order to less order. A simple brain does not evolve into a complex brain. See Cornell University's Dr. John Sanford, Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome. The human genome is deteriorating via the accumulation of mutations. Overall, mutations have the sum impact of being deleterious. Mutations and natural selection don't evolve anything - macro evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 11 months ago
Alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
Let me sum up the proof of evolution in one sentence. I like pusy waaaaay better than going to church.
beatlesto21st 11 months ago
donex for president
managarm1349 11 months ago
ITS TOO COMLEX. There really is a God.
RespectMyHate 11 months ago
@RespectMyHate Too complex to human brain! Any way God is not the real answer. You can always ask..who made the god..He must be very complex to make this world. So someone might have created him. May be a superior god...Then who created the superior god.....see there is no end to this argument. Its not valid. I dont think its a good argument to say its complex, so somebody created it!
100Secular 11 months ago
@100Secular God is eternal, no body made him, because God isn't made out of anything, he has a different nature than anything we can imagine. God just simply exists.
RespectMyHate 11 months ago
@RespectMyHate Yeah I know. God exists in your imagination.
gupsphoo 11 months ago 18
@RespectMyHate ....I guess it proves my point...Gods are not real explanation. Gods are beyond imagination?hmmm May be they are just human imaginations....thats more reasonable. You are right that he/she/it is not made out of any physical matter...because she is the product of human imagination!
100Secular 11 months ago
@100Secular so I guess dark matter is a product of our imagination also, anyway thats irrelevent to the point I'm trying to make. The creator of the universe is described in the Bible as being a consuming fire, how can the creator of matter be made out of matter? Gods anatomy is something completely different than anything we can imagine. Trying to describe a being who exists outside of time with your finite human brain.
RespectMyHate 11 months ago
@RespectMyHate
Well...dark matter is a logistical approach. The idea of 'Gods' or a creator is not a logistical one any more. At the time people wrote Bible, it might have been a good explanation. But its not good anymore. If God is fire then he is made of matter, because fire is plasma, nothing but a form of matter.
100Secular 11 months ago
@100Secular what if something other than matter can exist? I think that could be a possiblity, people claim to have seen ghost, or spirits, they also claim that these entities have the ability to walk clean through walls, certainly a being who has such abilities can't be made out of matter. The Bible says God is a spirit, and that he is also omni present. An omni present being can't be made out of matter. People say I'm close minded, but I think I'm very open minded I mean look at what I believe
RespectMyHate 11 months ago
@RespectMyHate What if there is no gods.
100Secular 11 months ago
@100Secular Then you have nothing to worry about, but if there is most people are fucked.
RespectMyHate 11 months ago
Comment removed
gupsphoo 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RespectMyHate If there's actually a god, there's 99.99% chance that you're fucked no matter which god you believe. I'm being generous with that figure because there are definitely more than 10,000 different religions and denominations in the world. Prepare to burn in hell you asshole!
gupsphoo 9 months ago 7
@RespectMyHate Athiests think God is just like human, acts like humans, thinks like humans, bound to the law of physics, and lives in the realm of space and time. They will never be able to unfold the mystery of universe yet so certain that there is no God.
archilles1195 3 months ago
@archilles1195 True
RespectMyHate 3 months ago
@archilles1195 none of what you just said make god any more believable and likely. And the gods described by most religions DO act petty and human, evidenced by their works described in "holy literature".
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@kotoroshinoto You atheist will rot in hell.
archilles1195 2 months ago
@archilles1195 thats nice, cool story bro, good luck with that nonexistent afterlife of yours.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@100Secular Then you would have nothing to worry about, but if there is shame on you.
RespectMyHate 11 months ago
@RespectMyHate ok i believe in god. zeus therefore im right? you see its not really the problem of there being a god for me thats the problem its how many thats one of the big reasons i dont believe its not wether or not jesus existed its if zeus appolo etc existed and how can people have 100s of diffrent of interpretations of the same god? couldnt god be clear in his messages? i mean if hes trying to save us all wouldnt it help if he was as clear as possible?
emanrulez1 9 months ago
@emanrulez1 think of it like this. If you don't take the god or of any of these peoples languages and cultures literally you would be closer to the truth. These cultures scriptures, languages, religions were human beings trying to name, or define the unknowable. The wise religions or cultures referred to all of nature, the universe, the cosmos, fate, the essence etc. as the unknowable. The eternal essence can be given an earthly name? No "god" is real in that sense. It's just a mental concept.
alsdyall 4 months ago
@alsdyall ok so when the sun was unknowable we called it a god. now we know what it is. we didnt know why the earth went round so we made a god for that. we didnt know why the sky didnt fall on us so we made a god for that. what you sir have just did is say we put god were science and reason has yet to get to or find out. which is dumb its the same as saying god is the sun 100s of years ago.
emanrulez1 4 months ago
@emanrulez1 No. I'm not using the god of the gaps concept. That IS dumb. I'm not saying they gave a name to the unknown I'm saying they often gave a name to the All or the "unknowable" which is different. This is where scientists are now as they realize the universe is eternal. We do have limits. Certain not all ancient cultures accepted that and humbled themselves before this eternal unknowable wonder we call reality and nature and they called Neteru,or al-kalum -- the All.
alsdyall 4 months ago in playlist DonExodus's 'How evolution works.'
This has been flagged as spam show
@emanrulez1 No. I'm not using the god of the gaps concept. That IS dumb. I'm not saying they gave a name to the unknown I'm saying they often gave a name to the All or the "unknowable" which is different. This is where scientists are now as they realize the universe is eternal. We do have limits. Certain not all ancient cultures accepted that and humbled themselves before this eternal unknowable wonder we call reality and nature and they called Neteru,or al-kalum -- the All.
alsdyall 4 months ago in playlist DonExodus's 'How evolution works.'
@RespectMyHate Waves travel through walls, my radio work indoors, Gamma waves travel through almost anything. So is God a wave? Is God energy?
Plus, nobody is fucked, it says that He will forgive us in heaven and isn't that what Jesus died for, our sins? people who believe in God only take the bits that suit them and leave the rest out.
BluffinWithMyMuffin3 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Come on evolutionists: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin!
There are cash rewards out on the internet for an authentic answer - never been claimed yet though!
Remember adaptation of moths, lizards and such like do not count as 'evolution of the species'
RUKEAL 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Come on evolutionists: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin!
There are cash rewards out on the internet for an authentic answer - never been claimed yet though!
Remember adaptation of moths, lizards and such like do not count as 'evolution of the species'
RUKEAL 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Come on evolutionists: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin!
There are cash rewards out on the internet for an authentic answer - never been claimed yet though!
Remember adaptation of moths, lizards and such like do not count as 'evolution of the species'
RUKEAL 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Come on evolutionists: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin!
There are cash rewards out on the internet for an authentic answer - never been claimed yet though!
Remember adaptation of moths, lizards and such like do not count as 'evolution of the species'
RUKEAL 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Come on evolutionists: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin!
There are cash rewards out on the internet for an authentic answer - never been claimed yet though!
Remember adaptation of moths, lizards and such like do not count as 'evolution of the species'
RUKEAL 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Come on evolutionists: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin!
There are cash rewards out on the internet for an authentic answer - never been claimed yet though!
Remember adaptation of moths, lizards and such like do not count as 'evolution of the species'
RUKEAL 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Come on evolutionists: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin!
There are cash rewards out on the internet for an authentic answer - never been claimed yet though!
Remember adaptation of moths, lizards and such like do not count as 'evolution of the species'
RUKEAL 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Come on evolutionists: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin!
There are cash rewards out on the internet for an authentic answer - never been claimed yet though!
Remember adaptation of moths, lizards and such like do not count as 'evolution of the species'
RUKEAL 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Come on evolutionists: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin!
There are cash rewards out on the internet for an authentic answer - never been claimed yet though!
Remember adaptation of moths, lizards and such like do not count as 'evolution of the species'
RUKEAL 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Come on evolutionists: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin!
There are cash rewards out on the internet for an authentic answer - never been claimed yet though!
Remember adaptation of moths, lizards and such like do not count as 'evolution of the species'
RUKEAL 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pop Quiz: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin.
p.s. Adaptation by moths on trees does not count - that's simply the same as Africans developing dark skin or Nordic people having barrel chests. Lizards developing cecal glands - amazing but not 'evolution of the species'
RUKEAL 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pop Quiz: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin.
p.s. Adaptation by moths on trees does not count - that's simply the same as Africans developing dark skin or Nordic people having barrel chests. Lizards developing cecal glands - amazing but not 'evolution of the species'
RUKEAL 11 months ago
There is no reason for being offensive towards me. Just because you don't agree with me you don't have the right to call me hypocrit or crazy.
Just by reading your comments i see you search for biased info on Young Earth Creationism websites.
I'm sorry for posting a Wikipedia reference, but there are plenty of references (100+) inside both articles. If you could read them please it would probably enlighten you about the subject. Also, understand that Evolution doesn't disprove God's existence.
fgil1990 1 year ago
@fgil1990
I just found out i can't post links, so... search wikipedia for "Objections to evolution" and read the article, sonicSUB.
Peace.
fgil1990 11 months ago
if evolution is true why do we not see new species? why is the big bang theroy terrible for the idea of evolution? if we evolved from 1 cell lungs had to be there from the start ot you get a dead creature? why does carbon dating FAIL when we know the REAL date of the event? if we evolved from apes, why do apes still remain the same and not created fire? why are animals for example born with INFORMATION? why did darwin lie and leave out VITAL info? why can charles darwin be traced to hitler
sonicSUB 1 year ago
@sonicSUB
Q. if evolution is true why do we not see new species?
A. Because it does not happen in 1 second. Not in 1 min. Not in 1hour. Not ina day. Not in a week or month or year or even in a centuary. Dude, its a long process which cannot be observed in couple of human life time.
100Secular 1 year ago
@sonicSUB
Q. why is the big bang theroy terrible for the idea of evolution?
A. Its not!
100Secular 1 year ago
@sonicSUB
Q. if we evolved from 1 cell lungs had to be there from the start ot you get a dead creature?
1 cell lung???? u r not talking abt evolution buddy.
100Secular 1 year ago
@sonicSUB
Q. why does carbon dating FAIL when we know the REAL date of the event?
A. It does not Fail. Its a fact...just like a radioactive carbon.
100Secular 1 year ago
@100Secular - What do you mean 'It does not fail. Its a fact...'
If an artifact is 300 years old - why does carbon dating not reflect that exact age? Instead giving a age off the charts?
RUKEAL 11 months ago
@RUKEAL
I don't know what you're talking about exactly, but here's a question for you:
Take a 6k year old rock, make a statue with it, date it. If the dating says 6k, you can refute them with "Na ah. I sculpted it yesterday. You method doesn't work."
lardhat 11 months ago
@lardhat - You miss the point! We both know that carbon dating has been shown to be wildly inaccuarate on items of known age. Therefore it DOES fail. (I'm not talking about sculptures here).
RUKEAL 11 months ago
@RUKEAL
Don't tell me what you're NOT talking about. Tell me what you ARE talking about.
Seashells? Because we know carbon dating fails to render accurate datings from these. You know what we do then? WE DON'T USE IT TO DATE SEASHELLS!
It's like complaining that forks don't cut. Just use a friggin knife.
And don't tell me it doesn't apply to your case, because you haven't shown us your case.
lardhat 11 months ago
And, besides, are you aware that we don't use carbon dating for very old things? Evidence for a certain evolutionary path is seldom (perhaps never) aided by carbon dating. So what's your point?
lardhat 11 months ago
evolution is just a way the immoral can continue to live there lives to avoid faced the day of judgement, All so called "proof" for evolution is shatted and destroyed at (creation.com) because remember NOTHING in the bible has EVER been proven wrong, NOTHING! even science proves the bible is correct. The Earth is around 6-8 thousand years old, there is so much evidence.. Information is not contained in DNA, where does it come from, do what DARWIN did, leave it out if it does not work for you.
sonicSUB 1 year ago
If we evolved from a common ancestor of chimpanzees, there were many morphological changes resulting from mutations to make it happen. Since this is a natural process and can be observed, can anyone list the mutations that cause morphological changes to humans, today, which are considered beneficial?
achilles197474 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Wyatt discovered Noah's Ark you can check his videos out right here on youtube. He also diescovered the Red Sea Crossing site, the route of the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, Zedekiah's Cave, Mount Sinai and the Ark of the Covenant. Now, please understand this, Satan is working overtime to try to debunk these discoveries and his sheep won't even consider checking them out. I post this so those who are seeking and not Satan's sheep will have the opportunity to see. Merry Christmas
thechessstick 1 year ago
@6:00 "If you want to know more about it, wikipedia it." xD
Thats how it works !
TheSpecialSpicy 1 year ago
I am a Christian and i agree with everything you said about how evolution works. Certainly young earth creationists need to understand that the Bible is not a Scientific book and several parts of it should not be taken litterally, as they were written by people whose culture, time, etc limited their understanding of the natural world.
fgil1990 1 year ago
@fgil1990 pathetic, how can you be a christian when you cant accept the word of God. If your having trouble with the book of Genesis then I feel sorry for you, The Bible has NEVER failed to any science!!!! NEVER.
How dare you claim the word of SCRIPTURE should not be taken litterally, grant the Holy Spirt to be just a bit more clever than you, just because you cant understand it does not mean God is at YOUR level! What a crazy statement you have made! hippocrit
sonicSUB 1 year ago
How can anyone conceivably dislike this video?
supersmash43 1 year ago
still like watching these vids, after all those years... hua
managarm1349 1 year ago
Very helpful ! Thanks
amico99999 1 year ago
Great Flash course into DNA. I myself would have liked to see a description on how e.g. Chaperones are involved in protein folding, but am aware that there is no way to explain what can take years of study in a brief selection of videos (and this part is after all about DNA and not Proteins or how Enzymes are fomed), Again many thanks for this set. Runi
RuniChannel1 1 year ago
i feel stupid cuz im having a hard time understanding this o.O....
sm00125 1 year ago
If the "FIRST DNA" was able to bind itself together without proteins then all the more that newer DNAs can bind itself without the need for one specie to evolve from another.
There is a higher possibility that different species do have their own DNA tree that is distinct and separate from each other. And, a higher possibility that man did not came from apes.
Similarities does not account to origin. Having a finite set of combination, there will always be similarities to be found.
FaithRationale 1 year ago
@FaithRationale You know some viruses' genetic material is made up by RNA right? RNA can both encode AND have catalytic functions, so it has the basal function of both DNA and proteins; hence talking about an RNA world prior to DNA and proteins.
No, there is no higher possibility for that. The fact that taxonomy studies were so well confirmed by the later phylogeny and the realization that genotype determine phenotype almost perfectly accounts for the evolution and speciation, including apes
xxDickBonesxx 1 year ago
Comment removed
FaithRationale 1 year ago
Free cake, did you say? Ooooh, baby! I'm there on a bear!
CristinaFernandez 1 year ago
hey is the chromozone bigger or smaller than the DNA? Or the opposite?
gaelminville 1 year ago
@gaelminville the chromosome is made up of bunched up DNA..... so basically they're the same size because they're different names for the same thing in different states, or "situations."
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
@gaelminville The chromosomes are made up from your DNA. The chromosomes are "larger" than all your DNA together, due to the fact that it's hold together by various proteins, but when talking "genome size" we almost always talk about the length of DNA string(s) that can be in several chromosomes. Typical microorganisms have all their DNA in a single chromosome, where you see eukaryotes have their DNA spread over several chromosomes.
xxDickBonesxx 1 year ago
I have one question??? This stuff is well not elementary not in such detail but in 8th grade elementary school you learn this stuff tho it's vague , and in detail in high school!!! Is it that in some countries stuff like this is not being implemented in schools???
Satybp666 1 year ago
How does DNA make the initial step toward a protein?
adamkyler 1 year ago
@adamkyler Basicly DNA gets transcribed by proteins (RNA polymerases) to form mRNA strings. These mRNA strings then get translated in the ribosomes which produces polypeptide strings, which make up proteins.
Various proteins bind to the DNA string, either prohibiting or allowing the initial transcription of a specific part of the genome. These are (in multicellulars) largely controlled by extracellular signals starting cascades of chemical signal pathways within cells.
xxDickBonesxx 1 year ago
@xxDickBonesxx Thanks :P
adamkyler 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science and reasoning are key, no doubt. Both of which underpin 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
byScrooby 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
By excluding that the biblical story of creation is literally true and that God is omnipresent and active in the creation, it is possible to interpret almost anything in evolutionary way. The truth is, however, it is not random mutations and struggle for survival that is changing animals and adapting them to new circumstances. It is the omnipresence of God in animals that makes all the changes. God is continuously maintaining everything and he is even adding new things to the creation.
mikilavush 2 years ago
And the evidence for this is.........?
Oh, I forgot, there is none.
pontecanis 2 years ago 2
To pontecanis: If I can not prove that the truth is the truth, it does not prove that the truth is not the truth. I can not absolutely prove that my previous comment reflects the truth, but I can make it quite possible that it does. Now, magic miracles are not God´s miracles, but nevertheless they are miracles, and the thirteenth video among my channel´s favourites shows a magic miracle of levitation. If you can prove that it is not a miracle, I will write you a poem of gratitude here.
mikilavush 2 years ago
I can't prove it because I didn't see that one instance, but I can tell you the trick is likely in the scarf. At very least, I can guarantee you that I can do it with trickery as opposed to a "miracle."
Proof is not a thing that can be obtained. It is a word only for the layman and the clueless who actually believe it exists.
Muchodelcrazy 2 years ago 2
To Muchodelcrazy who answered my comment: Do you mean that the scarf is not real, since it goes through his neck? Your "likely in the scarf" and "I can guarantee you" make but a straw man, by which you are trying to prevent people from admitting that magic miracles occur daily in show-business all over the world. Magicians can do tricks, but mainly, advanced a magic-show contains real magic, and to say that any kind of levitation is illusion, is equivalent to to denying that birds can fly.
mikilavush 2 years ago
Wow, you're really, really stupid and really really gullible. You think magic really exists? You think you can't make a scarf that can appear to pass through something, but really not? THAT is less plausible than actual, unexplainable fantasy-magic?
Haha, and I've been able to do the "scarf through the neck" trick since I was about eight. Look it up, it's such an elementary trick you can learn how to do it and prove it to yourself.
Muchodelcrazy 2 years ago 2
To Muchodelcrazy: You are not only making a straw man, you are trying to bluff as in poker. If you can not do real magic, I do not think that you can do exactly the same "scarf through the neck" number as on my channel´s13th favourite. Honestly to say, I suspect that you are secret an antichrist who concerning magic miracles is promoting the attitude: "I can not believe my eyes!" in order to keep people in the dark age of scientific materialism, and this is my last answer to you.
mikilavush 2 years ago
You don't even know what a straw man is and you're an idiot. Hah! The dark age of scientific materialism? How can people believe such barbaric things? You mean the scientific materialism that gave you that computer, saves millions of lives, and makes our modern way of life and population levels possible?
Oh yeah, how does your computer work, by the way? I mean, apparently anything you see and can't explain is therefore unexplainable, so it MUST be magic!
Muchodelcrazy 2 years ago 2
way to go...mikilavush was one ignorant i-think-im-so-smart guy....wait..they all are lol..
the very first comment of his was the exact opposite of basic philosophy.."if i cant prove something then it does not mean that its not the truth.."
haha ..but seriously he thinks magic tricks arent illusions...its people like these u gotta be aware of wasting time on.....
Sciborg09 2 years ago
Who is excluding the creation story? I don't "exclude" it, it just fails to support itself with any objective evidence in any way, contradicts history, civilizations that are over 9,000 years old, plants that are 21,000 years old. And on the other hand, repeatable, prediction-making studies come out day after day. Every single argument in defense of biblical literalism is made out of gross misunderstandings or lies, unsupported by any actual emperical data.
Muchodelcrazy 2 years ago 31
wow. good point! thumbs up for that one!
bouiglob 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i dont believe the earth is billions of years old that is complete bullshit. there is no proof for anything evolutionists say. they dated a rock from a volcano that was made only about a hundred years ago and it came out to be like 100 thousand years old.....so i dont believe anything about evolution becuz all the "facts" are not facts at all just lies put together by the evolutionists becuz they dont want to see their little baby evolution die
allen11ish 1 year ago
Best way not to get refuted: make excessively vague and unsupported assertions.
DNAunion 1 year ago
Yes the dating was way older than the magma flow only problem with your statement is that they where testing a theory about substances within the magma flow that where not effected by it. The reason they tested the lava flow is because they knew the date of it already
robvlob 1 year ago 3
If you reject the age of the earth and radiometric dating, you're beyond help and wouldn't believe it no matter what.
Roblov explained the dating of the rock well. All the other examples of radiometric dating "failing" are all equally out of ignorance of the process. There's a reason why people go to school before they become geologists.
Btw, you're arguing against geology, not evolution. DNA, ERVs, and nested heirarchies all still stand without the geological agreement of the earth's age.
Muchodelcrazy 1 year ago
You know you're a dipshit, right?
daftpunkrulerfan1 1 year ago
@allen11ish On the contrary. If anyone can prove evolution wrong, they would be famous. It would go in history books and maybe even the Nobel Prize. Science doesn't work like a religion. If it's wrong, it goes in the trash can.
Scarlett770 1 year ago
Not all the material that rocks from volcanoes come are made out of come straight out of the mantle (i.e. igneous). Some of them have will have elements of rock that was part of the earths crust many thousands or even millions of years ago. This is due to a process known as the 'Rock Cycle' where rocks are essentially re-cycled. Look it up :-).
Abilityspeaks 1 year ago
@allen11ish go look up the explanation of this, the scientists were quote mined but thats typical of creationist. lying does not equal a valid argument
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@allen11ish --i dont believe the earth is billions of years old that is complete bullshit --- The Age of the earth has nothing to do with Evolution.
If you Object to the known age of the earth, then your problem is not with Evolutionary theory.
Your beef is with Atomic Theory, Because those ages are known Based on known radioactive decay rates.
--there is no proof for anything evolutionists say. --- Right, except everything that has managed to pass peer review.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@Muchodelcrazy well said...you blasphemer :haha)
managarm1349 1 year ago
So if us humans evolved from random mutations being systematically either eliminated or preserved over about 1 billion years, then it would be logical to think that this is bound to happen by now in almost every part of the galaxy closer to the center and in a stable location. If you only need 5 bil yrs, the universe is at least 13 bil. It's happened everywhere, over and over again. Now, it would be logical that NASA discovered evidence when in space. Guess what? They did.
musicequalstruth 2 years ago
musicequalstruth
Do you have a source for that? It sounds interesting.
uberjinks 2 years ago
I'm so glad you asked. Check out what Richard Hoagland has to say about the pictures that have been taken of the moon and Mars. Also, listen to what John Lear has to say. Then try Henry Deacon. And Bob Dean. And Dr. Pete Peterson. And Dr. Steven Greer. Check out the Disclosure Project, and Project Camelot, and Project Enterprise. Have fun, you might've just knocked on the door to a whole new reality.
musicequalstruth 2 years ago
Alrighty thanks! I'll check it out when I have time.
uberjinks 2 years ago
Don't get me wrong. I'm not making a positive claim with the anthropic principle here. Using that trusim is merely to acknowledge that we have only one data point which may not meaning anything.
I think it would be hypothetically possible to conclude one way or another with regards to things like gaxalies, stellar systems, etc if we just had more data points.
Like say we found a living planet with different properties that together reach stasis: that would overturn the "specialness"
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
Yes and No because again its a great philosophical position based on a what if ? scenario. If only we had another data point is in fairness the only way to get more answers to this mystery I guess.
Also the Earth is special in our solar system but not so exclusive even through creationists scriptures show references to worlds (plural) or solar systems similar to the Earth and its solar system. Its one of several I beleive as the universe is constantly expanding and far from a static cosmos.
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago
There are twenty different amino acids. If we consider that an average-sized protein molecule is composed of 288 amino acids, there are 10300 different combinations of acids. Of all of these possible sequences, only "one" forms the desired protein molecule. The other amino-acid chains are either completely useless or else potentially harmful to living things. In other words, the probability of the coincidental formation of only one protein molecule cited above is "1 in 10300". it is impossible.
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago
@MissionWorldPeace
It's not true that only one combination forms the right protein. There are many amino acid changes that make no difference in the 3 dimensional shape the protein has or the catalytic qualities of side group/ other chemical properties.
Others have only a slight effect. Say one amino acid change makes one region slightly more hydrophobic. This very well could have no effect.
But every once and a while a change in chemistry does cause a change in 3 dimensional shape.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat
Following the selection of these special 20 amino acids, it is essential they be set out in a specific sequence. Even if all the conditions are completely fulfilled, just a single amino acid being in the wrong sequence will prevent protein forming.
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago