What do you mean we can't get our tails back? My cousin was born with a little tail, but, now that I think about it, it wasn't useful for anything beyond poking fun at him for the past 40 yrs. :)
I'm glad to see your videos starting to get more and more hits. I know that you've been through a lot, a theist might say "God is testing you" (pun intended). But I'm also damn glad to see you keeping up the awesome work through which we got to know you as AronRa!
If a whale used to have legs and it cannot redevelop legs... how did a creature living in the sea evolve legs in the first place? Surely it would've been specialised for it's environment? If it had fins that turned into legs, why can they not turn from fins into legs again?
Why can the mechanisms "not be truly reversed"? Does that just mean it cannot redevelop the same legs, but could develop a new type of leg?
You wouldn't get the SAME mutations, because the ORIGINAL structures aren't there. The bones in a whale's hand are not like the spires of a fish's fin. They might develop legs again in a way like what fish did, but they won't be the same kind of leg, with the same kind of hands. It will be something different, not an undo. It is the difference between a circle and a helix.
@DaToNyOyO It didn't always live in the sea, that's why it had legs in the first place. It's vestigial and has nothing to pressure it to evolve back into what it once was.
@pat5168 But the video even states and shows that it came from the sea to the land and went back to the sea. How did it originally evolve legs that it had no use for?
@DaToNyOyO Are you unaware that there are fish which develop their gills into lungs? /watch?v=ZUsARF-CBcI And that of the fish which venture onto land, legs would be extremely favored?
@pat5168 Doesn't really answer my question. It's tantamount to a religious baffoon claiming the bible proves the bible.They exist and therefore it happens, doesn't touch on the "why" or the "how" it happens.
@DaToNyOyO We weren't there, so "why" can only ever be speculation unless it was for a reason that left an impact large enough to be evident today. "How" is really quite simple, a fish ventures into shallow water, voluntarily or no, and it is beneficial for more amphibious traits, which will be favored when the population is introduced to that specific mutation(s). Over many generations, the beneficial will become dominant, and it can progress.
But, are their fins completely different to the structure of other fins? I mean, they won't match the fins of ancient pre-fish fish because they can't form the same mutations; as is claimed.
This is priceless. No idividual could do that. That would be preposterous. Consider whole populations that slowly evolve traits in that direction. The why and how are both answered elequently in the idea of natural selection. Random mutations are selected for by survival advantage.
That was a response to your asking how a fish could survive on land until it could develop lungs and grow limbs. I was just pointing out that no individual member of a species could. Only populations over many, many generations go undergo such major changes.
I love comparing and contrasting videos like this and videos like "Kent Hovind: 100 reasons why evolution is stupid." I want to point every single person I hear who uses the "creation is science too!" argument to this video.
I have to make a comment at 3:39. I have heard of mutations in human beings generating tails or tail-like structures. I will agree that reverse mutations, or the changing back of a single base pair, is highly unlikely so if a "species" as so defined was impart created mainly on this nucleotide replacement, yes going back would be improbable. However, genes change not just by this mechanism, but by other factors such as transposons and chromosomal rearrangement.
Mightn't a vestigial aberration prove an advantage in the new phenotype and environment? wouldn't it then get passed on until humans HAD re-evolved the ol' tail?
I firmly believe I must be mistaken and AronRa spot on, but I don't see it yet
Ugh I just saw a poppress article saying that dollos law had been overturned. They pointed to a re-emergence of particular teeth in certain species of frog as 'breaking' that law. As though a single re-emergent trait was the same thing as making a chihuahua back into a wolf. Yes an atavistic characteristic can be expressed by an organism and of course, given the right circumstance this expression can become again fixed in a populus, but that does NOT overturn Dollos law.
I'm also not quite convinced by the "dead-end". True, it is difficult to imagine whales evolving back into land-dwellers, but I don't see why, under the right conditions, they would not be able to evolve limbs "from scratch" (bad wording, but bare with me) just as ancient fish have. Imagine an extinction of all land or amphibian fauna, opening up plenty of new niches. Whales being already air-breathing, they would be even more likely than fish to colonize (perhaps as tripods, flippers+tail?)
When in time, solution becomes repugnant to ones self-concept it is lead out by an evolution; to which creationist say it has unholy power as a higher entity, while evolution becomes a taxedermy for it and questions the laws of reasons. Is vitality an exact science to be misunderstoond as one resolve? The mind in question is the first iso-tope of suggestion and has no power except to itself. Reason is then concidered not an exact science to creationists. Revolve through opened reason to seeunity
Dollo's Law is strikingly similar to the Laws of Thermal Dynamics, moving from low entropy (the species or gene) to higher entropy (new species or mutated gene).
@deepashtray This similarity is only superficial, as no law of physics actually prevents an "irreversible" thermodynamic process from happening in reverse. What entropy describes is an emergent property of...wait for it...large populations. It simply becomes terribly improbable that twelve hundred trillion atoms simultaneously arrange themselves in a particular ordered state (like food coloring separating from water on it's own after mixing in). Dollo's law actually does prohibit this
@deepashtray because any genetic information that is "discarded" physically can not be re-obtained. This is significantly different from entropy because that, for small systems, entropy can easily be "violated."
@deepashtray One should also probably note that a genetic mutation isn't necessarily at a higher or lower entropy. All it is is the change in the genetic sequence, and while different DNA can form more complex structures, that doesn't equate to that DNA having a higher "entropy".
I would have to say this: strawmanning requires that you actually understand what your opponent's argument is. It's a form of lying, meaning you have to know what the truth is in order to be guilty of it. Instead much of what creationists say is simply false without being deliberate lies.
@GoblinKnightLeo I would be inclined to agree with you if I did not know that some people really don't know the arguments of the 'opponent' and are merely parroting something their creationist master told them. I can not falsify this possibility, so it remains an unignorable factor when determining the particular level of malfeasance present.
The idiocy of Creationism never ceases to astound me. This is what a Creationist had to say when I pointed out that snakes develop limbs during their embryonic stage.
"Well, jokes on you because before The Fall all snakes DID walk on four legs, retard."
@mistereveready No, those are not tails, they do not have bones within them. And in our embryonic stage we actually do develop tails (Gill slits too.) but it gets absorbed and becomes the end of our spine.
Yeah, but how cool would it be for a monkey give birth to a human? Or even better a walrus? Thats stupid I know; but wouldn't that be kinda cool? (A a penguin birth a crockoduck? Can you imagine all the dumbass stuff Ray Comfort might have come up with before settling on the crockoduck? A pigraffe? A rhinosapigeon? A elephig fruit?)
I hate how creationist doofs think thy can disprove any branch of well developed science just by saying it doesn't fit in with their 2000 year old desert myths
@sukruoosten You will die and rot forever... And funny you should mention proof... There is plenty of proof for evolution. Where is the proof of your god?
You have to define god first and demonstrate it to be real. Evolution s noareligion, anyone with a functioning brain can tell the difference even if they happen to beleive in a god themselves (Ex: Ken Miller), we know atoms bond to form molecules and humans are made of matter as everything else in the universe, so the burden of proof is on you to show us your faith is correct.
@GallusSapien Unless I'm mistaken, the third installment is Caniform Carnivore Cladogram Construction, and the fourth is Foundations of Feliform Families.
About the tails and not get them back part. Last I checked some people do have tails. So in that case, humans inheriting tails wouldn't be impossible, just very unlikely. Or am I mistaking something?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Muslims invaded countries in the name of Alla
Catholics invaded countries in the name of The Virgin Mary
USA invades countries in the name of Democracy
Communist dictators kill their own citizens in the name of their atheist philosophy
see even if you take God out of the equation we will still have wars, genocides, and many unjust people trying to control us... evolution just another bullshit to control stupid smart people mind
yeah bullshit i want to see a fucken tiger evolve into chicken...if we have a common ancestor it means a human was our ancestor not an facken ape... this evolution is bunch of bullshit
@telectronicguy Our common ancestor would have to have been an ape -since humans are a species of ape by definition. If you say that our ancestor must have been human, but could not have been an ape, then you may as well say that the ancestor of ducks must have been a duck, but that it could not have been a bird. This is also why tigers -being mammals- cannot "evolve" into chickens, which are a subset of avian dinosaurs.
@telectronicguy "i want to see a fucken tiger evolve into chicken"
Then why don't you write a new book for the Book of Magical Jesus called the Bible and make it happen there since physical laws don't need to be obeyed there.
@telectronicguy You actually think that's how evolution works? No wonder why you don't accept Evolution. If Evolution were anything like that, nobody would accept it.
@telectronicguy I can tell by your hyper-emotional response that you are religious and not just a person who does not accept evolution. Emotion is a very critical thing when trying to gain as realistic an understand of something as possible. It is crucial you set such a thing aside and maintain a degree of acedemic detatchment or you will become either closed to or susceptible to something that may or may not be true. Try it. You may even end up having something to contribute.
@ymalmsteen887 Evolution does have to work with whatever is already there. Every successive change tends to be subtle and slight and variable. Starting with feathers on a dinosaur's arm, it is easy enough to derive a wing out of that. But the same problem would not be able to take the dimished hand bones of a modern bird and turn them back into dexterous pentadactyl hands.
@Pineverends What I am asking is: Does it exist as a possibility that evolution (not devolution) of a dexterous structure, perhaps pentadactyl, from a wing could occur if the genetic architecture has not been lost?
@alx90x These aren't widely broadcast because -as I said- some of these were described as such only in the works of Ernst Mayr, and they don't happen to be available in an online format.
10:11 One thing I don't understand is that when people accepting evolution say that 1 thing can never evolve into a fundamentally different thing, but isn't that what has happened since the beginning of life? Isn't there a point where you can go back far enough, through our ancestors, and come to something that DID actually have gills? Is that still "us" ? How far back do you have to go when "us" is no longer valid?
@squirreljester2 The first tetrapods were still chordates. The first mammals were still tetrapods. The first primates were still mammals. The first humans were still all of the above and never changed into anything fundamentally different at any point along the way.
@AronRa Wouldn't our ancestors be considered fish? Mammals didn't appear until like 65mya, so before that, our ancestor was a dinosaur? reptile? Maybe it's just a misuse of a broad term like "fish" or "mammal", but that's the one thing I've never understood, that there's a hell of a lot of fundamentally different forms between bacteria and current life.
The phylogentic tree at 4:00 was horribly misleading and innaccurate. Maybe you were making a point that i missed? After viewing some of your other videos, it seems like an odd 'mistake'.
No, it is overly simplistic but it is not inaccurate. You probably just figured form the way it is presented that it is trying to indicate a linear progession from hagfish through pidgeons to chimpanzees. However it is clearly demonstrating that these are all diverged branches.
It is also acceptable to feature a "main line" in an cladogram for purely illustrative purposes
@ProcInc Not to be terse, but you are wrong. The point of a phylogentic tree is to illustrate the relationship of one animal to another. That specific diagram suggests that there is a common ancestor between mammals and birds that is different from the common ancestor between mammals and lizards which is wrong, thus, it is inaccurate. If the bird clade joined to the lizard clade then that would be accurate. My point stands.
@CanberraReptileSanc I missed that at my last look, you are correct. Fortunately the cladogram was no so inaccurate that it attempted to lump mammals and birds together by the diagnostic trait of homeothermy
@AronRa Swapped bodies... Re: homeothermy, it sounded as though you had placed birds and mammals in that sequence due to the evolution of homeothermy thus suggesting the evolution of homeothermy only once. You may not have though but I thought it an odd mistake as your caniform vids gave me a little chubby.
Ancient Sumerians said the Gods (Plural) created man by splicing their genes with monkey genes. And that they created us to dig gold for them. This was on ancient clay tablets. But what an odd thing to say. somebody pretending to be a God, was shaking them down for gold, and surely had some good tricks to convince the people they were Gods.
Great documentary AronRa! Truly the evidence presented here indicates... 2:03-Whoa! I want a free hug! Great set of cans!... I'm sorry, that was inappropriate, my evolved libido took over there... I am but an ape!
I can't stand it when creationist repeat known fallacies in a discussion. I would want discussions to have a "Certified Spanker", so that when anyone, on either side, used a faulty claim then the Spanker would spank them hard. Subsequent refering later in the discussion to claims that had earlier yeilded a spank would then result in new spanks being administrated.
I think that this would save a lot of time while discussing things with a creationist.
@N3CR1S they don't care that the things they are saying, are lies. the intended audience of this pulp is not the thinking person, its the sheep who need something, anything, to affirm their beliefs. Ray comfort for example has had his errors pointed out to him several time but continues to spout his nonsense. why? because the sheep pay very well for the reinforcement he gives, neither he or they care about its validity. it sounds scientific enough. Ray has made millions from this industry.
@N3CR1S hmmm, i didn't really read you first post properly and thought you were saying something else. i apologise. i have read it properly now and i agree in principal with your idea. although, if implemented, i don't think any creationist would dare go on stage as their entire argument is based on fallacies. it would virtually kill off these highly entertaining 'ass-woopings'.
@erin321321 yeah, that would be the greatest drawback of the idea. If we expand the Spankers authority to also cover talks/lectures and not just debates then it would work. If no creationst talked about or debated for creationism then the problem would solve itself. Instead, if they did talk/lectured/debated we would get some realy amusing entertainment :)
Your use of Judas priest only reinforced how awesome I think you are (this is ontop of the great amount of evidence and the depth you go to prove a fact to the blind masses and people with a genuine interest in furthering their education on the subject.) well done sir, well done.
Actually, macro-evolution has been observed. Evolutionary THEORY though is "just a theory". As in: just a comprehensive model for the explanation of a well defined set of phenomena, supported by numerous independently verifiable observations.
In a sense, we do see evolution in all our lifetimes. Just not from one species to another. We see one of the intermediate steps, the changes that made you look different than your father and mother, and even more different than all your grandparents.
@GodofCider Yeah it is. We're all related, regardless of what species. It also gives us an imperative to take care of the earth, as the other plants and animals are no longer just resources, they're very distant family
I think Evolution as per Darwin's theory is 100% correct, but not for the reasons given by Neo-Darwinists.
The Creationists do in fact have a good point that the newer interpretations of Darwinism suffer severely from the kind of epistemological overreach that is familiar from the world of finance (i.e. the efficient market hypothesis).
It is possible that good science based on good principles can fall fowl of its own practitioner's refusal to acknowledge real philosophical issues that arise.
« Could a gene reemerge through selective breeding? »
Well, a *trait* could re-emerge through selective breeding, if we were to select from descendants showing a particular atavism. But the gene coding for that trait would not likely have the same sequence of nucleotides it once had.
Basically i was saying that i understood the inability to de-evolve naturally to a former point. Your previous response made it clear as to the mistake i was making. Basically, while it is possible to maybe grow "another" tail, it wouldn't be the same tail as prehistory, as those genes are dormant?
« Do you know of a place I can read on this more? »
A 101 on population genetics? Phew... Can't think of any comprehensive overview on the subject off the bat... Ask your questions; I'll see if I can find more specific reference material to answer them.
Main question would be, What is the difference then, if it's the same genes, why not call it deevolution? (as in regrowing the tail, as opposed to calling it a new tail)
Population genetics 101 is a good start lol. I think it's library time.
Because that would imply that evolution is reversible. It is not. Evolution is technically a statement about the population gene pool. Even if traits reappear that were present at first, or traits disappear that were not present first, the genome always grows to differ *more* from what it was at a certain point in time, never less.
Thanks, well put. The very nature of evolution means that even if "it" grew back, it wouldn't be for the same purposes, and therefor couldn't be defined as the same thing. The term deevolution basically has absolutely no meaning, it's a nonword lol.
O, it might even be for the same purposes (or more accurately: in response to similar circumstances), but genetic divergence would still have increased.
@niuntestigomas That is a very good analogy to the common creationist argument that "we've never seen it". They insist on seeing, within a lifetime, a process which takes many many thousands of years and generations. Actually, if I may use my broad brush, it often seems like an inability to see the scale of the argument.
Aron, you are my hero. Every one of your videos is extremely informative and just adds yet more to my base of knowledge. I'm sure you are constantly thanked all the time, but it can never be enough for the service you are providing so... thank you!
@AronRa: Thanks for these videos. I run into plenty of individuals whom scoff and ridicule evolution and my belief in it due to their ill-conceived concepts and limited understanding of evolution. I, also, get scoffed at, and ridiculed in being an atheist. I have not lost hope in my decision to accept my current positions. I have no regrets in becoming an atheist or accepting science as it is. You have my respect, thanks, and gratitude.
"It should be obvious that S1ngMe2Sleep is theDracoIX's sock puppet."
of course it's obvious...
Don't misunderstand.
The object is not to win, but to allow the troll to display the depth of his ignorance.
Silence implies consent and agreement. A creatard should be challenged and allowed to expose himself. Aspiration to willful ignorance is not a worthy ambition, nor should it be promoted as such.
Some people have as their purpose in life, to serve as examples to others.
@DeathofSpeech well i could be wrong but he looked like the only one adding any opposing views to aronra, i don't know i haven't read all the comments but he was one of the main ones trying to at least add a counter view, i guess that is not welcome here.
@AronRa wow i can't believe you blocked that guy. i have been following the comments and he made a lot of great points that i don't think anyone refuted.
he also said n-word many times before and you didn't block him so i don't think that's why you blocked him. this guy he called a n-word also doesnt have a pic on his profile so he couldn't have meant it as a racial slur.
you are censoring people for no honest reason. that is what it looks like.
@AronRa i thought you were an advocate of free speech? and you block someone for simply saying a word? i hope you are joking and didn't block him because that would make you a hypocrite like thunderfoot.
Any reader in this thread would have been well within their rights to have Drac's account removed, and YT would do so almost instantly.
Free Speech doesn't imply the abdication of responsibility for that speech or the freedom to impose offensive speech upon others.
Any reader here is within their rights under YT ToS to terminate Drac's account and his socks as a permaban for racial slur... actual race is irrelevant.
we don't need to argue about this but you don't know what freedom of speech is if you think it doesn't protect offensive speech. like i said we don't need to argue.
as soon as you say offensive speech is banned that allows anything deemed offensive to be censored and who gets to define offensive you have lost your right to speak freely at this point
@DeathofSpeech this is aronras channel and he can do whatever he wants. but what he cant do is say he is for free speech and then censor someone for saying one word.
if someone is obviously flooding comment with nothing but spam then blocking isn't censorship but this person was adding to the conversation very much and didn't do anything to be blocked.
everyone in here has made insults at each other aronra even has too i have seen, so its just hypocritical to let some do it and not others.
Wow... exactly 4 channel views in your account life.
"this guy he called a n-word also doesnt have a pic on his profile so he couldn't have meant it as a racial slur."
I'm sure you're right... I'm sure he meant to call several people "nigger" in only the nicest possible way.
He was a useless troll, and you have exactly 4 channel views in the history of your account yet magically you show up here in this thread to defend the indefensible. Sock Puppet Troll much?
@DeathofSpeech look at your name death of speech? i guess you enjoy watching people censored is that right? if you are going to block people at least do it for a reason that makes sense like flooding or spamming. block for saying a word? i don't believe he is blocked. not for saying a single word.
@S1ngMe2Sleep You can fix ignorant or wrong but you can't fix stupid. He's lost the debate on several topics yet refuses to listen until another theist tells him he is wrong. He's been flaming for over a week and still hasn't come any closer to proving his point. How long could a skeptic comment on an ID or Creationist channel before they we blocked? Even if we were respectful to people and not their views? How much abuse should AronRa and the viewers tolerate?
He was refuted more than a dozen times in this discussion, yet he refused to accept any position other than the one he initially held - even when it was shown that his original position made absolutely no sense whatsoever. He was obviously a Poe - a troll if you will. He certainly didn't provide anything real to the discussion, he was just having fun at the expense of others.
Having that he has lost every argument in every way possible, theDracoIX has now been reduced to racial profanity in lieu of any semblance of acceptable conduct. Consequently, I have blocked him. This is the first time I've had to block anyone in at least a year. It is really sad that parents allow their children to grow up like him.
What do you mean we can't get our tails back? My cousin was born with a little tail, but, now that I think about it, it wasn't useful for anything beyond poking fun at him for the past 40 yrs. :)
shananagans5 2 days ago
@AronRa what is that program or database that lists all those different related species that you keep using and where can I get a copy of it?
Evirthewarrior 4 days ago
The PR problem of Evolution would probably be solved if we changed the term "Theory" to something like Exemplar or Summary.
KAPTAINmORGANnWo4eva 6 days ago
I'm glad to see your videos starting to get more and more hits. I know that you've been through a lot, a theist might say "God is testing you" (pun intended). But I'm also damn glad to see you keeping up the awesome work through which we got to know you as AronRa!
Cheers mate! We're all cheering for ya!
juuonse 1 week ago
proportions may differ... i see what you did there :P
theswayzeexpress1 1 week ago
I love how Aron-Ra is one of the only youtubers who makes top comments on his own videos lol
Judicial78 1 week ago
"There's nothing to build on"? "We can't get them [tails] back"? Well, where did eyes come from? What did eyes "build on"?
CplFerro 1 week ago
Watching Kirk Cameron, I'm sure every modern day ape looks at him and goes...."That is why we didn't evolve into humans."
JT826 1 week ago
@AronRa
Yet another excellent vid, very useful and educational.
Thanks for all your hard work it is very appreciated
regards
ian
ianthegodking 1 week ago
Brilliant work
Mee551able 1 week ago
I have questions:
If a whale used to have legs and it cannot redevelop legs... how did a creature living in the sea evolve legs in the first place? Surely it would've been specialised for it's environment? If it had fins that turned into legs, why can they not turn from fins into legs again?
Why can the mechanisms "not be truly reversed"? Does that just mean it cannot redevelop the same legs, but could develop a new type of leg?
AronRa, am I missing something?
DaToNyOyO 2 weeks ago
@DaToNyOyO I hope AronRa replies to this.
jahbabylon 1 week ago
@jahbabylon Me too.
DaToNyOyO 1 week ago
@DaToNyOyO
You wouldn't get the SAME mutations, because the ORIGINAL structures aren't there. The bones in a whale's hand are not like the spires of a fish's fin. They might develop legs again in a way like what fish did, but they won't be the same kind of leg, with the same kind of hands. It will be something different, not an undo. It is the difference between a circle and a helix.
rkyeun 1 week ago
@DaToNyOyO It didn't always live in the sea, that's why it had legs in the first place. It's vestigial and has nothing to pressure it to evolve back into what it once was.
pat5168 1 week ago
@pat5168 But the video even states and shows that it came from the sea to the land and went back to the sea. How did it originally evolve legs that it had no use for?
DaToNyOyO 1 week ago
@DaToNyOyO When it was on land, I would assume.
pat5168 1 week ago
@pat5168 So it was in the sea with no legs, climbed out the sea and grew legs? That's preposterous.
DaToNyOyO 1 week ago
@DaToNyOyO How so?
pat5168 1 week ago
@pat5168 How could a fish thing climb out the sea without legs or lungs and survive on land for long enough to grow legs and lungs?
DaToNyOyO 1 week ago
@DaToNyOyO Are you unaware that there are fish which develop their gills into lungs? /watch?v=ZUsARF-CBcI And that of the fish which venture onto land, legs would be extremely favored?
pat5168 1 week ago
@pat5168 Doesn't really answer my question. It's tantamount to a religious baffoon claiming the bible proves the bible.They exist and therefore it happens, doesn't touch on the "why" or the "how" it happens.
DaToNyOyO 1 week ago
@DaToNyOyO We weren't there, so "why" can only ever be speculation unless it was for a reason that left an impact large enough to be evident today. "How" is really quite simple, a fish ventures into shallow water, voluntarily or no, and it is beneficial for more amphibious traits, which will be favored when the population is introduced to that specific mutation(s). Over many generations, the beneficial will become dominant, and it can progress.
pat5168 1 week ago
@DaToNyOyO There are fish today that walk on land. Just look up mudskippers.
CainmosniMirrored 3 days ago
@CainmosniMirrored
But, are their fins completely different to the structure of other fins? I mean, they won't match the fins of ancient pre-fish fish because they can't form the same mutations; as is claimed.
Do you see what I mean?
DaToNyOyO 3 days ago
@DaToNyOyO
This is priceless. No idividual could do that. That would be preposterous. Consider whole populations that slowly evolve traits in that direction. The why and how are both answered elequently in the idea of natural selection. Random mutations are selected for by survival advantage.
TheCelticChimp 2 days ago
@TheCelticChimp No individual could do what..?
DaToNyOyO 2 days ago
@DaToNyOyO
That was a response to your asking how a fish could survive on land until it could develop lungs and grow limbs. I was just pointing out that no individual member of a species could. Only populations over many, many generations go undergo such major changes.
TheCelticChimp 2 days ago
Hi., you use a clip at 5:23., could you please direct me to it., thanks :)
mysty0 2 weeks ago
@mysty0 The audio from 5:23 was one of Shockofgod's rants. I don't remember which one.
AronRa 1 week ago
I had to try really hard not to shoot my computer monitor when Kirk Cameron was talking.
jmhizon83 3 weeks ago
I love comparing and contrasting videos like this and videos like "Kent Hovind: 100 reasons why evolution is stupid." I want to point every single person I hear who uses the "creation is science too!" argument to this video.
zetronman 3 weeks ago
I have to make a comment at 3:39. I have heard of mutations in human beings generating tails or tail-like structures. I will agree that reverse mutations, or the changing back of a single base pair, is highly unlikely so if a "species" as so defined was impart created mainly on this nucleotide replacement, yes going back would be improbable. However, genes change not just by this mechanism, but by other factors such as transposons and chromosomal rearrangement.
dontwatchpornatwork 1 month ago
Comment removed
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dontwatchpornatwork I was wondering about human vestigial tails too :)
Mightn't a vestigial aberration prove an advantage in the new phenotype and environment? wouldn't it then get passed on until humans HAD re-evolved the ol' tail?
I firmly believe I must be mistaken and AronRa spot on, but I don't see it yet
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 3 weeks ago
Talking to creationists is like falling down the rabbit hole. You enter a world where up is down, right is wrong, and myth trumps fact.
red666111 1 month ago 5
@red666111 lol this.
BailBondsOrangeCA 1 month ago
Ugh I just saw a poppress article saying that dollos law had been overturned. They pointed to a re-emergence of particular teeth in certain species of frog as 'breaking' that law. As though a single re-emergent trait was the same thing as making a chihuahua back into a wolf. Yes an atavistic characteristic can be expressed by an organism and of course, given the right circumstance this expression can become again fixed in a populus, but that does NOT overturn Dollos law.
GallusSapien 1 month ago
I'm also not quite convinced by the "dead-end". True, it is difficult to imagine whales evolving back into land-dwellers, but I don't see why, under the right conditions, they would not be able to evolve limbs "from scratch" (bad wording, but bare with me) just as ancient fish have. Imagine an extinction of all land or amphibian fauna, opening up plenty of new niches. Whales being already air-breathing, they would be even more likely than fish to colonize (perhaps as tripods, flippers+tail?)
neoZykl 2 months ago
@neoZykl What, they'd become seals? Land-seals?
JaytheOstrich 1 month ago
When in time, solution becomes repugnant to ones self-concept it is lead out by an evolution; to which creationist say it has unholy power as a higher entity, while evolution becomes a taxedermy for it and questions the laws of reasons. Is vitality an exact science to be misunderstoond as one resolve? The mind in question is the first iso-tope of suggestion and has no power except to itself. Reason is then concidered not an exact science to creationists. Revolve through opened reason to seeunity
in2dionysus 2 months ago
Dollo's Law is strikingly similar to the Laws of Thermal Dynamics, moving from low entropy (the species or gene) to higher entropy (new species or mutated gene).
deepashtray 3 months ago
@deepashtray This similarity is only superficial, as no law of physics actually prevents an "irreversible" thermodynamic process from happening in reverse. What entropy describes is an emergent property of...wait for it...large populations. It simply becomes terribly improbable that twelve hundred trillion atoms simultaneously arrange themselves in a particular ordered state (like food coloring separating from water on it's own after mixing in). Dollo's law actually does prohibit this
attheveryend 3 months ago
@deepashtray because any genetic information that is "discarded" physically can not be re-obtained. This is significantly different from entropy because that, for small systems, entropy can easily be "violated."
attheveryend 3 months ago
@attheveryend Thank you for taking the time to make that clear. What you're saying makes sense. With entropy information isn't being lost.
deepashtray 3 months ago
@deepashtray One should also probably note that a genetic mutation isn't necessarily at a higher or lower entropy. All it is is the change in the genetic sequence, and while different DNA can form more complex structures, that doesn't equate to that DNA having a higher "entropy".
Ahuc899 3 months ago in playlist Falsifying Phylogeny
I would have to say this: strawmanning requires that you actually understand what your opponent's argument is. It's a form of lying, meaning you have to know what the truth is in order to be guilty of it. Instead much of what creationists say is simply false without being deliberate lies.
GoblinKnightLeo 4 months ago
@GoblinKnightLeo I would be inclined to agree with you if I did not know that some people really don't know the arguments of the 'opponent' and are merely parroting something their creationist master told them. I can not falsify this possibility, so it remains an unignorable factor when determining the particular level of malfeasance present.
attheveryend 3 months ago
The idiocy of Creationism never ceases to astound me. This is what a Creationist had to say when I pointed out that snakes develop limbs during their embryonic stage.
"Well, jokes on you because before The Fall all snakes DID walk on four legs, retard."
pat5168 4 months ago
@mistereveready No, those are not tails, they do not have bones within them. And in our embryonic stage we actually do develop tails (Gill slits too.) but it gets absorbed and becomes the end of our spine.
pat5168 4 months ago
@hevyAccel Manbearpig!
pat5168 4 months ago
Yeah, but how cool would it be for a monkey give birth to a human? Or even better a walrus? Thats stupid I know; but wouldn't that be kinda cool? (A a penguin birth a crockoduck? Can you imagine all the dumbass stuff Ray Comfort might have come up with before settling on the crockoduck? A pigraffe? A rhinosapigeon? A elephig fruit?)
hevyAccel 5 months ago
@hevyAccel
A Bananaman?
rkyeun 4 months ago
I love your videos and I love when I see a creationist "correct" your errors and yet makes many more of their own.
darththeo 5 months ago
nice touch on "breaking the law"... \m/
hobaleo 5 months ago
Judas Priest fuck ya!
rockaholick37 7 months ago
I hate how creationist doofs think thy can disprove any branch of well developed science just by saying it doesn't fit in with their 2000 year old desert myths
Spocktacular96 7 months ago
BREAKING THE LAW BREAKING THE LAW
imma grow me some wings now. brb!
daskraut 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wauw heckles theorie was false about 200 years ago
he was even sued by his own university but still this RELIGION CALLED
EVOLUTION
is still taught
there is not a single proof of evolution NONE
thank god when Jesus return there will bee no more scoffers en unbelievers
THEY ALL WILL DY EN BURN FOREVER
sukruoosten 9 months ago
@sukruoosten actually it was found out haeckle lied and falsified his drawings. later we used a camera and it turned out he didn't need to.
and i wish your god would return, then we wouldn't have to put up with people like you.
satanisthetruegod666 8 months ago
@sukruoosten great to see that you know about evolution more then professionals!
eleminatus 8 months ago
@sukruoosten You will die and rot forever... And funny you should mention proof... There is plenty of proof for evolution. Where is the proof of your god?
Marz1ns4n1ty 8 months ago
@Marz1ns4n1ty well yes everything will Dy crumble fall out en rot away
except THE ETERNAL ONE
furthermore you end no one can deny god THE CREATOR
tell me a few points how life started with only nonliving matters
that takes faith(evolution)
there is not a single evidence that the religion evolution is good let alone proof hahahahah
you have to believe it
sukruoosten 8 months ago
@sukruoosten
You have to define god first and demonstrate it to be real. Evolution s noareligion, anyone with a functioning brain can tell the difference even if they happen to beleive in a god themselves (Ex: Ken Miller), we know atoms bond to form molecules and humans are made of matter as everything else in the universe, so the burden of proof is on you to show us your faith is correct.
NUTCASE71733 6 months ago
@sukruoosten wow did you even understand this video?
kly45 8 months ago
... I wish I understood half of the things that you were talking about.
bicsc7 9 months ago
This is the best series on youtube since the FFOC. When is the third installment due?
GallusSapien 1 year ago
@GallusSapien Unless I'm mistaken, the third installment is Caniform Carnivore Cladogram Construction, and the fourth is Foundations of Feliform Families.
Juxtaroberto 11 months ago
About the tails and not get them back part. Last I checked some people do have tails. So in that case, humans inheriting tails wouldn't be impossible, just very unlikely. Or am I mistaking something?
mistereveready 1 year ago
@mistereveready I think he's referring to the population getting back tails, not just atavisms in certain individuals.
Juxtaroberto 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Muslims invaded countries in the name of Alla
Catholics invaded countries in the name of The Virgin Mary
USA invades countries in the name of Democracy
Communist dictators kill their own citizens in the name of their atheist philosophy
see even if you take God out of the equation we will still have wars, genocides, and many unjust people trying to control us... evolution just another bullshit to control stupid smart people mind
telectronicguy 1 year ago
@telectronicguy BE GONE TROLL
zzyzx0788 11 months ago
@telectronicguy One word. "Ignorance"
bebeLUVnardo 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yeah bullshit i want to see a fucken tiger evolve into chicken...if we have a common ancestor it means a human was our ancestor not an facken ape... this evolution is bunch of bullshit
telectronicguy 1 year ago
@telectronicguy Our common ancestor would have to have been an ape -since humans are a species of ape by definition. If you say that our ancestor must have been human, but could not have been an ape, then you may as well say that the ancestor of ducks must have been a duck, but that it could not have been a bird. This is also why tigers -being mammals- cannot "evolve" into chickens, which are a subset of avian dinosaurs.
AronRa 1 year ago 68
@telectronicguy
Did you even watch the video?
dhx84 1 year ago
@telectronicguy You dropped out of school WAY to early.
winterstellar 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@telectronicguy "i want to see a fucken tiger evolve into chicken"
Then why don't you write a new book for the Book of Magical Jesus called the Bible and make it happen there since physical laws don't need to be obeyed there.
xephyr1000 5 months ago
@telectronicguy You actually think that's how evolution works? No wonder why you don't accept Evolution. If Evolution were anything like that, nobody would accept it.
XxI3ioHazardxX 1 month ago
@telectronicguy I can tell by your hyper-emotional response that you are religious and not just a person who does not accept evolution. Emotion is a very critical thing when trying to gain as realistic an understand of something as possible. It is crucial you set such a thing aside and maintain a degree of acedemic detatchment or you will become either closed to or susceptible to something that may or may not be true. Try it. You may even end up having something to contribute.
14ByTheSword 1 month ago
@ymalmsteen887 Remember that any development has to be functional (or inconsequential) at every tiny incremental stage.
AronRa 1 year ago 6
Is there a script for this video or any of your Falsifying Phylogeny videos?
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@ymalmsteen887 Evolution does have to work with whatever is already there. Every successive change tends to be subtle and slight and variable. Starting with feathers on a dinosaur's arm, it is easy enough to derive a wing out of that. But the same problem would not be able to take the dimished hand bones of a modern bird and turn them back into dexterous pentadactyl hands.
AronRa 1 year ago 6
@AronRa "Evolution does have to work with whatever is already there. " True, but isn't the "whatever is already there" DNA not the wing or hand?
"But the same problem would not be able to take the dimished hand bones of a modern bird and turn them back into dexterous pentadactyl hands"
If I understand this correctly, there is a difference between losing a structure and losing the genetic architecture.
Dollo’s law and the re-evolution of shell coiling. Rachel Collin and Roberto Cipriani. 2003
Pineverends 4 months ago
@Pineverends What I am asking is: Does it exist as a possibility that evolution (not devolution) of a dexterous structure, perhaps pentadactyl, from a wing could occur if the genetic architecture has not been lost?
Pineverends 4 months ago
BREAKIN' THE LAW
erixmix 1 year ago
why cant i find anything on "darwins 3rd law of biodiversity?"
alx90x 1 year ago
@alx90x These aren't widely broadcast because -as I said- some of these were described as such only in the works of Ernst Mayr, and they don't happen to be available in an online format.
AronRa 1 year ago 5
Its awesome how often you use the word 'myriad'
OpiatedBliss 1 year ago
10:11 One thing I don't understand is that when people accepting evolution say that 1 thing can never evolve into a fundamentally different thing, but isn't that what has happened since the beginning of life? Isn't there a point where you can go back far enough, through our ancestors, and come to something that DID actually have gills? Is that still "us" ? How far back do you have to go when "us" is no longer valid?
squirreljester2 1 year ago
@squirreljester2 The first tetrapods were still chordates. The first mammals were still tetrapods. The first primates were still mammals. The first humans were still all of the above and never changed into anything fundamentally different at any point along the way.
AronRa 1 year ago 2
@AronRa Wouldn't our ancestors be considered fish? Mammals didn't appear until like 65mya, so before that, our ancestor was a dinosaur? reptile? Maybe it's just a misuse of a broad term like "fish" or "mammal", but that's the one thing I've never understood, that there's a hell of a lot of fundamentally different forms between bacteria and current life.
squirreljester2 1 year ago
The phylogentic tree at 4:00 was horribly misleading and innaccurate. Maybe you were making a point that i missed? After viewing some of your other videos, it seems like an odd 'mistake'.
CanberraReptileSanc 1 year ago
@CanberraReptileSanc "The phylogentic tree at 4:00 was horribly misleading and innaccurate."
No, it is overly simplistic but it is not inaccurate. You probably just figured form the way it is presented that it is trying to indicate a linear progession from hagfish through pidgeons to chimpanzees. However it is clearly demonstrating that these are all diverged branches.
It is also acceptable to feature a "main line" in an cladogram for purely illustrative purposes
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Not to be terse, but you are wrong. The point of a phylogentic tree is to illustrate the relationship of one animal to another. That specific diagram suggests that there is a common ancestor between mammals and birds that is different from the common ancestor between mammals and lizards which is wrong, thus, it is inaccurate. If the bird clade joined to the lizard clade then that would be accurate. My point stands.
CanberraReptileSanc 1 year ago
@CanberraReptileSanc I missed that at my last look, you are correct. Fortunately the cladogram was no so inaccurate that it attempted to lump mammals and birds together by the diagnostic trait of homeothermy
ProcInc 1 year ago
@CanberraReptileSanc I see your point about the MRCA with lizards, but did not note the implication you saw of homeothermy.
AronRa 1 year ago
@AronRa Swapped bodies... Re: homeothermy, it sounded as though you had placed birds and mammals in that sequence due to the evolution of homeothermy thus suggesting the evolution of homeothermy only once. You may not have though but I thought it an odd mistake as your caniform vids gave me a little chubby.
TheSlothHead 1 year ago
Ancient Sumerians said the Gods (Plural) created man by splicing their genes with monkey genes. And that they created us to dig gold for them. This was on ancient clay tablets. But what an odd thing to say. somebody pretending to be a God, was shaking them down for gold, and surely had some good tricks to convince the people they were Gods.
ElectricJunta 1 year ago
Breaking the law.
Epic!
kirkey99 1 year ago 24
Great documentary AronRa! Truly the evidence presented here indicates... 2:03-Whoa! I want a free hug! Great set of cans!... I'm sorry, that was inappropriate, my evolved libido took over there... I am but an ape!
June28July 1 year ago
Breakin' the law, breakin' the law!!
G0lfYankee 1 year ago
I can't stand it when creationist repeat known fallacies in a discussion. I would want discussions to have a "Certified Spanker", so that when anyone, on either side, used a faulty claim then the Spanker would spank them hard. Subsequent refering later in the discussion to claims that had earlier yeilded a spank would then result in new spanks being administrated.
I think that this would save a lot of time while discussing things with a creationist.
N3CR1S 1 year ago
@N3CR1S they don't care that the things they are saying, are lies. the intended audience of this pulp is not the thinking person, its the sheep who need something, anything, to affirm their beliefs. Ray comfort for example has had his errors pointed out to him several time but continues to spout his nonsense. why? because the sheep pay very well for the reinforcement he gives, neither he or they care about its validity. it sounds scientific enough. Ray has made millions from this industry.
erin321321 1 year ago
@erin321321 i know, thats why i proposed the idea.
N3CR1S 1 year ago
@N3CR1S hmmm, i didn't really read you first post properly and thought you were saying something else. i apologise. i have read it properly now and i agree in principal with your idea. although, if implemented, i don't think any creationist would dare go on stage as their entire argument is based on fallacies. it would virtually kill off these highly entertaining 'ass-woopings'.
erin321321 1 year ago
@erin321321 yeah, that would be the greatest drawback of the idea. If we expand the Spankers authority to also cover talks/lectures and not just debates then it would work. If no creationst talked about or debated for creationism then the problem would solve itself. Instead, if they did talk/lectured/debated we would get some realy amusing entertainment :)
N3CR1S 1 year ago
@N3CR1S Just don't "debate" them. There's a reason why they're still creationists. They aren't interested in learning.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
Your use of Judas priest only reinforced how awesome I think you are (this is ontop of the great amount of evidence and the depth you go to prove a fact to the blind masses and people with a genuine interest in furthering their education on the subject.) well done sir, well done.
ronocko 1 year ago
« macroevolution is just a theory »
Actually, macro-evolution has been observed. Evolutionary THEORY though is "just a theory". As in: just a comprehensive model for the explanation of a well defined set of phenomena, supported by numerous independently verifiable observations.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago 2
Lol Breaking the law.
Annulable 1 year ago
thanks for the videos
miguelsquim 1 year ago
You can totally see nip at 2:05! Just more proof that evolution is immoral!
P.S. sorry if creationists use this as an excuse to flag you : /
scoopapa 1 year ago
In a sense, we do see evolution in all our lifetimes. Just not from one species to another. We see one of the intermediate steps, the changes that made you look different than your father and mother, and even more different than all your grandparents.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream True enough. It's actually rather awe-inspiring when one thinks about the larger picture of what this means.
GodofCider 1 year ago
@GodofCider Yeah it is. We're all related, regardless of what species. It also gives us an imperative to take care of the earth, as the other plants and animals are no longer just resources, they're very distant family
spartacandream 1 year ago
I'm really glad you made this video, gives me more cannon fodder for any idiot Ive ever come across that tells me "evolution is a theory not a law"
zzyzx0788 1 year ago 2
@rrpostalagain, thanks
Take care,
Ismael
niuntestigomas 1 year ago
I think Evolution as per Darwin's theory is 100% correct, but not for the reasons given by Neo-Darwinists.
The Creationists do in fact have a good point that the newer interpretations of Darwinism suffer severely from the kind of epistemological overreach that is familiar from the world of finance (i.e. the efficient market hypothesis).
It is possible that good science based on good principles can fall fowl of its own practitioner's refusal to acknowledge real philosophical issues that arise.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter Finance is a terrible measure of everything.
Icemario87 1 year ago
We have DEvolved!!!! Many many humans are getting dumber, their brains non functioning under the weight of a giant cross and some fairy tale book.
Meraneus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wait, we have DEvolved!!!! Were getting dumber and dumber under the weight of a giant cross and a fairy tale book.
Meraneus 1 year ago
Comment removed
Meraneus 1 year ago
(Maybe) Silly question:
Could a gene reemerge through selective breeding? I.E. the human tail reemerging through breeding of a human who was born with a vestigial tail?
(chose selective breeding in order to not break the natural selection law of de-evolving)
judomuerte 1 year ago
« Could a gene reemerge through selective breeding? »
Well, a *trait* could re-emerge through selective breeding, if we were to select from descendants showing a particular atavism. But the gene coding for that trait would not likely have the same sequence of nucleotides it once had.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« the natural selection law of de-evolving »
Eh?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor
Basically i was saying that i understood the inability to de-evolve naturally to a former point. Your previous response made it clear as to the mistake i was making. Basically, while it is possible to maybe grow "another" tail, it wouldn't be the same tail as prehistory, as those genes are dormant?
judomuerte 1 year ago
« as those genes are dormant? »
Well, the genes involved may be the same genes - but the nucleotide sequences are not likely to be the same.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor
Do you know of a place I can read on this more? (I'm sure you have better things to do then answer the 10 questions that made me think of next lol)
judomuerte 1 year ago
« Do you know of a place I can read on this more? »
A 101 on population genetics? Phew... Can't think of any comprehensive overview on the subject off the bat... Ask your questions; I'll see if I can find more specific reference material to answer them.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor
Main question would be, What is the difference then, if it's the same genes, why not call it deevolution? (as in regrowing the tail, as opposed to calling it a new tail)
Population genetics 101 is a good start lol. I think it's library time.
judomuerte 1 year ago
« why not call it deevolution? »
Because that would imply that evolution is reversible. It is not. Evolution is technically a statement about the population gene pool. Even if traits reappear that were present at first, or traits disappear that were not present first, the genome always grows to differ *more* from what it was at a certain point in time, never less.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor
*Lightbulb*
Thanks, well put. The very nature of evolution means that even if "it" grew back, it wouldn't be for the same purposes, and therefor couldn't be defined as the same thing. The term deevolution basically has absolutely no meaning, it's a nonword lol.
judomuerte 1 year ago
« it wouldn't be for the same purposes »
O, it might even be for the same purposes (or more accurately: in response to similar circumstances), but genetic divergence would still have increased.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor
Right on, thanks for answering my questions :)
judomuerte 1 year ago
@judomuerte
Sure, no problem.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
And that is why I don't believe that adults comes from babies. I have observed them for hours and never seen one turn into a middle age man. SC
Take care,
Ismael
niuntestigomas 1 year ago
@niuntestigomas That is a very good analogy to the common creationist argument that "we've never seen it". They insist on seeing, within a lifetime, a process which takes many many thousands of years and generations. Actually, if I may use my broad brush, it often seems like an inability to see the scale of the argument.
rrpostalagain 1 year ago
Aron, you are my hero. Every one of your videos is extremely informative and just adds yet more to my base of knowledge. I'm sure you are constantly thanked all the time, but it can never be enough for the service you are providing so... thank you!
RARCURI 1 year ago
You're brilliant man! Love the vids big fan!
64Ways2Die 1 year ago
Fuck yeah, Judas Priest!
Orayn 1 year ago 2
Judas Priest made my day. First time for everything...
jbxenia 1 year ago
PINECONES :D
TheSuperbloop 1 year ago
@AronRa: Thanks for these videos. I run into plenty of individuals whom scoff and ridicule evolution and my belief in it due to their ill-conceived concepts and limited understanding of evolution. I, also, get scoffed at, and ridiculed in being an atheist. I have not lost hope in my decision to accept my current positions. I have no regrets in becoming an atheist or accepting science as it is. You have my respect, thanks, and gratitude.
bigd318 1 year ago
"...but this person was adding to the conversation very much and didn't do anything to be blocked."
It should be obvious that S1ngMe2Sleep is theDracoIX's sock puppet. For crying out loud ppl, stop feeding the trolls.
stork5100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stork5100
"It should be obvious that S1ngMe2Sleep is theDracoIX's sock puppet."
of course it's obvious...
Don't misunderstand.
The object is not to win, but to allow the troll to display the depth of his ignorance.
Silence implies consent and agreement. A creatard should be challenged and allowed to expose himself. Aspiration to willful ignorance is not a worthy ambition, nor should it be promoted as such.
Some people have as their purpose in life, to serve as examples to others.
DeathofSpeech 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@S1ngMe2Sleep
"but this person was adding to the conversation very much"
Provide an example.
DeathofSpeech 1 year ago
@DeathofSpeech well i could be wrong but he looked like the only one adding any opposing views to aronra, i don't know i haven't read all the comments but he was one of the main ones trying to at least add a counter view, i guess that is not welcome here.
S1ngMe2Sleep 1 year ago
@S1ngMe2Sleep
Please post an example of what you believe was added to the comment thread.
Give a specific example of a contribution you feel was made.
DeathofSpeech 1 year ago
@AronRa wow i can't believe you blocked that guy. i have been following the comments and he made a lot of great points that i don't think anyone refuted.
he also said n-word many times before and you didn't block him so i don't think that's why you blocked him. this guy he called a n-word also doesnt have a pic on his profile so he couldn't have meant it as a racial slur.
you are censoring people for no honest reason. that is what it looks like.
S1ngMe2Sleep 1 year ago
@AronRa i thought you were an advocate of free speech? and you block someone for simply saying a word? i hope you are joking and didn't block him because that would make you a hypocrite like thunderfoot.
S1ngMe2Sleep 1 year ago
@S1ngMe2Sleep
You might want to check YT terms of service.
Any reader in this thread would have been well within their rights to have Drac's account removed, and YT would do so almost instantly.
Free Speech doesn't imply the abdication of responsibility for that speech or the freedom to impose offensive speech upon others.
Any reader here is within their rights under YT ToS to terminate Drac's account and his socks as a permaban for racial slur... actual race is irrelevant.
DeathofSpeech 1 year ago 2
@DeathofSpeech offensive speech
we don't need to argue about this but you don't know what freedom of speech is if you think it doesn't protect offensive speech. like i said we don't need to argue.
as soon as you say offensive speech is banned that allows anything deemed offensive to be censored and who gets to define offensive you have lost your right to speak freely at this point
S1ngMe2Sleep 1 year ago
@S1ngMe2Sleep
"you don't know what freedom of speech is if you think it doesn't protect offensive speech."
Drac's right to express himself isn't imparted. His ability to impose offensive speech where it is not welcome is not guaranteed.
.
Answer the question...
If someone forced their way into your home to spam you, are you required to tolerate that as free speech?
A public house is private but open... and the owner may still set rules for acceptable behavior.
DeathofSpeech 1 year ago
@DeathofSpeech this is aronras channel and he can do whatever he wants. but what he cant do is say he is for free speech and then censor someone for saying one word.
if someone is obviously flooding comment with nothing but spam then blocking isn't censorship but this person was adding to the conversation very much and didn't do anything to be blocked.
everyone in here has made insults at each other aronra even has too i have seen, so its just hypocritical to let some do it and not others.
S1ngMe2Sleep 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@S1ngMe2Sleep
"but this person was adding to the conversation very much"
Provide an example of Drac adding anything but trolling.
Then avail yourself of the YT ToS.
Drac committed a permaban offense by the Terms of Service to which he agreed at signup.
It was charitable of AronRa not to have Drac's account(s) removed.
DeathofSpeech 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@S1ngMe2Sleep
"but this person was adding to the conversation very much"
Provide an example.
DeathofSpeech 1 year ago 2
@S1ngMe2Sleep
"so its just hypocritical to let some do it and not others."
Drac violated YT ToS... in fact, he violated the ToS in a way that if it were called to YT's attention, Draco's account(s) would be permabanned.
I think it rather charitable that Draco was handed his hat, but his account(s) were not burned.
Of course any offended reader still has that option.
DeathofSpeech 1 year ago
@S1ngMe2Sleep
Wow... exactly 4 channel views in your account life.
"this guy he called a n-word also doesnt have a pic on his profile so he couldn't have meant it as a racial slur."
I'm sure you're right... I'm sure he meant to call several people "nigger" in only the nicest possible way.
He was a useless troll, and you have exactly 4 channel views in the history of your account yet magically you show up here in this thread to defend the indefensible. Sock Puppet Troll much?
DeathofSpeech 1 year ago 4
@DeathofSpeech look at your name death of speech? i guess you enjoy watching people censored is that right? if you are going to block people at least do it for a reason that makes sense like flooding or spamming. block for saying a word? i don't believe he is blocked. not for saying a single word.
S1ngMe2Sleep 1 year ago
@S1ngMe2Sleep
Do you believe that someone has the right to enter your home uninvited to sell you something?
Of course not.
YT is a private venue, and a channel a private subset of that which is also private.
Invitation to comment is a revocable privilege, not a right.
Imposition of gratuitously offensive language is justifiable cause for revoking that privilege.
Drac is free to express himself someplace else unless some reader makes an issue and gets his accounts burned.
DeathofSpeech 1 year ago
@S1ngMe2Sleep You can fix ignorant or wrong but you can't fix stupid. He's lost the debate on several topics yet refuses to listen until another theist tells him he is wrong. He's been flaming for over a week and still hasn't come any closer to proving his point. How long could a skeptic comment on an ID or Creationist channel before they we blocked? Even if we were respectful to people and not their views? How much abuse should AronRa and the viewers tolerate?
GottliebBurckhardt 1 year ago
@S1ngMe2Sleep
He was refuted more than a dozen times in this discussion, yet he refused to accept any position other than the one he initially held - even when it was shown that his original position made absolutely no sense whatsoever. He was obviously a Poe - a troll if you will. He certainly didn't provide anything real to the discussion, he was just having fun at the expense of others.
CloserEnd 1 year ago
Having that he has lost every argument in every way possible, theDracoIX has now been reduced to racial profanity in lieu of any semblance of acceptable conduct. Consequently, I have blocked him. This is the first time I've had to block anyone in at least a year. It is really sad that parents allow their children to grow up like him.
AronRa 1 year ago 89
@AronRa Have you seen the latest video from Nephilimfree? I really do not know what to think of that fuck wit anymore? His ignorance is stupefying :(
blade004 1 year ago