Am I the only theistic person that is offended by the animals dieing and the douch-a-tichians and not the theory of evolution? EVOLUTION FOR THE WIN..and ugh...see my page...lol..peace and love......ohhh...and uggghhhh...DAMN NATURE YOU SCARY!
Actually "everything dies" is not very accurate. For example, all organisms that reproduce through cloning (e.g. one cell organisms or some plants that can make clones) do not need to die. Cloning organisms are essentially immortal unless they get destroyed by a force or get eaten.
@Triipticz Hermaphroditism is not cloning. It involves two distinct animals contributing genetic material to the offspring. The difference is simply that each of these individual animals could be either female, or male, but this does not affect the genetic exchange.
Opposed to that, cloning involves only one parent and the "offspring" is an (almost perfect) genetic copy of the parent, except the mutations that occur.
In this regard hermaphroditism is different from cloning.
@roccobaroccoSC I thought that hermaphroditism is where something has both sexual organs and can produce offspring by itself? Also, I thought that there was no variation in cloning populations due to no mutations?
Are you saying that something an ALL POWERFUL being created, can't die, won't perish if not suited to their environment and won't reproduce with variation? Their all powerful, they can do anything. When was the last time you had a brain scan?
@SinnersBurnInHell What are you talking about? Where in the bible does talk about a physical place called hell? You seem to have gotten it wrong as much as everybody else. All the comments I've seen here have all mostly been incorrect.
@SinnersBurnInHell "if thunderf00t or richard dawkins said the moon was made of cheese you would believe it" no i dont think i would,though im positive that if the bible said that the moon was made of cheese you would believe it. "the bible has been proven correct many times" orly? when,when has the bible ever been proven correct. self fullfilling prophecies dont count. "and hell is real and goes on forever"well if i was so bad then theres no need to be sad.cause everybody else will be there to
@SinnersBurnInHell a 1500 year old book tells you than tried and tested methods and theories. "i hope that one day you will start loving jesus and obeying his commandments so he can save you from your sins" i hope that someday you stop taking the easy wayout and open your eyes to the natural beauty around you. you dont need a god to be happy, you only have one life dont,waste it on your knees praying to an imaginary sky wizard.
@SinnersBurnInHell being an atheist. "yet you cant even show me one transitional form" i repeat, o rly? homo erectus,austrailopithicus,homo habilis,homo heidelbergensis,sahelenthropus tchadensis,need i go on? "the book of genesis clearly explains how we were created" you mean the same book of genesis that says god created light THEN created the sun. "id rather believe that we came from a loving god,than from monkeys" of course you would-because thats the easy way. you would rather believe what
"you mean the same book of genesis that says god created light THEN created the sun" lol so you mean we need first to create sun and only then the notion of photons? yeah it really does sound more logical
@SinnersBurnInHell "Yes, a holy book, the most accurate book in the universe" what evidence do you have to prove that the bible is the word of god and not made by some random guy "science is the word of man" same can be said for god he could have been simply made up "I know you worship evolution" people don't "worship" evolution you accept it or not "yet you can't even show me one transitional form"
@SinnersBurnInHell (2)con "yet you can't even show me one transitional form" Pohlsepia,Rhyniognatha,Sphecomyrma,Attercopus,Haikouichthys,Guiyu Hynerpeton, Eocaecilia, Eileanchelys,Asilisaurus these are just a couple their are much much more
@SinnersBurnInHell "yes a holy book,the most accurate book in the universe" o rly? we are talking about the same bible arent we? you know the one that mentions unicorns like 8 times. "the bible is the word of god,science is the word of man" the BIBLE is also the word of men,otherwise its description of heavan wouldnt be so anthropomorphic, dont you understand? why would you believe in something so ridiculous? "i know you worship evolution" actuley i dont wotship anything,kind of the point of
pleanty of evidence fr evolution,its actuley been recreated in labs,creationism however has absolutley no arguments that we havent disproven,not only that but most creationist arguments are based on lies,misrepresentation of evidence and quote mining. be sure to check the comment section,this is a 3 page reply.
@SinnersBurnInHell lies then i will actuley give your argument some merit,until then dont call the people who make your food liers. "the bible indicates that the universe is 6000 years old" yes,and harry potter indicates that if i wave a wand and say some funny words then i can make things fly. the bible is just a book.there was no adam,no eve,there are no angels,no demons and there is certainley no god. "there is no evidence for evolution only creation" actuley you have that backwords there is
@SinnersBurnInHell "wow you are so brainwashed" no,sadly it is you who is brainwashed,you were spoonfed christianity as a child so that by the time you got older you wouldnt be able to imagine a life without some sort of diety.its like the old saying goes,you cant teach an old dog new tricks. "the only reason you believe the lies of scientists is because you believe what you want to" ill tell you what if you can produce real,undeniable,evidence (NOT the bible) that what the scientists say are
@SinnersBurnInHell its probabley stupid of me to try and explane something as complicated as evolution to a nutter like you but i guess ill try. No i dont believe that a fish gave birth to a monkey, what kind of stupid question is that? i do believe that through millions of years of genetic mutations and genetic variences,not to mention going through millions of transitional species,we slowly evloved into what we are today. Do you understand or am i going to fast for you.
@SinnersBurnInHell Mark your f***ing nuts,you know that right? I have literaly never seen a person as mentally unhealthy as you. even caughlin666 is sane compared to you. please,get help for yourself
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't survive if their tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, so-called "Junk DNA." Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss almost everything: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Some excellent points in the video, it's certainly one of my faves. But, the greatest thing about evolution is not explained. Evolution is not only adaptation to the environment, evolution is about changing into more COMPLEX forms. It might be the true 4th property of life, and I doubt there's an algorithm to that.
@arven979 While evolution has obviously resulted in the proliferation of more and more complex forms of life on our planet since life began, i would contend that it is incorrect to say that complex forms are inevitable or are some kind of 'goal' for evolution. If this were true we would expect to see only the most complex forms today, where instead we see life ranging from the most simple to the most complex.
Instead complexity should be viewed as any other adaptation: increasing reproductive success in some environments and decreasing it in others. Consider that the ancestors of modern Archae, one of earth's simplest types of organisms, have been around billions of years, continuously evolving and adapting to their environment, yet never into anything noticeably more "complex".
Some of these organisms live in extremely harsh environments and any adaptation that would make them more complex could very well kill them. However if we instead look at the lineage of modern humanity we see one in which increasing complexity proved to have positive effect on reproductive success.
@jcarlson08, What I meant was that it is perfectly clear how among one species that *has* i.e. eyes, the environment can cause one of its branch with better eyesight to develop into another species with significantly better eyesight. But, what causes the eyes to develop out of nothing is what intrigues me. Evolution isn't only about adaptation, it is as well about appearance and development of things completely new.
@arven979 I think I see what you are getting at now. And it's certainly true that we wouldn't have all the wonderfully complex and beautiful adaptations we see in life without evolution!
Evolutionists like to speak of the "fact" of evolutionj. But when they find themselves on shakey ground they start speaking of it as the "theory" of evolution. Speaking out of both sides of their mouths is one of their evolutionary "mutations"....
"There's no end men won't go to to disbelieve the Bible." Napoleon
@citizenfitz The-o-ry:a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact
@UndeadAppleTree Yes, we all know that. I got it back in high school. My gripe is with the darwinians who speak of the "fact" of evolution one minute, then the of "theory" of evolution the next. There are lots of them here and at Yahoo.
@citizenfitz It's like gravity. There is in fact gravity, which keeps us tethered to the nearest planet/star/galaxy and makes things fall to the ground, and then there are theories of gravity, such as Newton's and Einstein's. The same applies with pretty much everything in science: Light, sound, motion, quanta, atoms, cells, germs, evolution, stars, galaxies, and even the brain. There are colloquial "theories" which are actually hypotheses, and there are scientific theories with actual facts.
Religions are for drones. If you believe is anywhere from a6 to 10,000 years old, please do everyone a favor here on Earth and don't have any offspring; that way the rest of the world can more rapidly evolve. Religions are just socially ACCEPTED CULTS.
@Dudeamis yep, more example of Darwinist DODGES, and crying "quote-mine!" like pathetic losers, when they can't face or deal with the quotes, or the points in the quotes. Thanks for being so predictable. (I mean, all you drones are cut out from the same assembly line of stupidity, so it's par for your warped course, we know, kid.) "Quote mines"...they said what they said....get over it. lol.... here are some more.
@Dudeamis yeah, and I'm supposed to put the whole thing they said or the whole book in one comment? Yeah, nice convenient moaning and belching, when things get rough. Can't deal with the quotes, and references, and problems, so you dismiss them as "quote mines!" or "argument from authority" which is hysterical coming from Darwinists, who appeal to authority all the time, with their "errggh, 99% of scientists accept evolution" arf arf. Committing TWO fallacies at once. Authority and Majority.
@wowamonn see my video "Darwinists Lie about 'Micro' and 'Macro' Evolution terms". And see that Thomas Henry Huxley coined "Darwinist", in 1860, in a POSITIVE sense. A Darwinist himself. Anyone who holds to Darwinian Evolution theory (not the straw-men) the myths of major groups arising from other major groups. Assumptions. YOU are a Darwinist (though in lock-step dishonestly disown or play dumb about the term). The term "Darwinist" was NOT invented by Creationists. By by Darwinists themselves.
@sweetmikser The question is not who invented the term but how it is used and in many cases it is used by some American creationists to try to equate the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection to that of a doctrine which is not the case in many commonwealth countries
@wowamonn as I said, look at my video "Darwinists like about 'Micro' and 'Macro' Evolution terms". Click it. It's posted on the video response section, on this very page. And leave your thoughts, critiques, challenges, or points there, if you want. Peace.....
@Dudeamis (3rd), and yes there ARE "Evolutionists" and "Darwinists". And moronically denying that is childish. Gould used the terms "Darwinist" and "Evolutionist" all the time, in a neutral or positive sense. "Darwinist" was not invented by Creationists, but coined by T.H. Huxley in 1860, in a positive sense. A Darwinist himself. Anyone who holds to Darwinian evolution theory, of "descent with modification over time leads to bigger changes and cross-overs". Which is SPECULATION...not "facts".
actually no its based one empirical evidence, so unless you want to start questioning gravity, germ theory and atomic theory I think maybe you should just leave shared ancestry alone too.
@Dudeamis (3rd) more drone-ish dishonest and desperate barf...of comparing Darwinian speculation with things like uh "gravity" and "germs". FAIL. No physicist, astronomer, or chemist doubts the actual existence of "gravity" (I'm not talking about the mechanism that may or or may not cause it, but that things pull and fall, and don't float, observably). But PLENTY of degreed scientists, biologists, paleontologists, geologists, etc, doubt the existence of "ape-men", and question Darwinian myths.
lol this is so funny coming from a guy who blocked me for being arrogant and a bunch of other ironic statements. Yep soooo many 7% is just such a tremendous amount. Get lost you're a joke.
@Dudeamis I only commented to you here cuz you spewed this crap about "making things fit and ignoring data", which is HYSTERICAL coming from a sick Atheist Darwinist drone-tard like you. Darwinists (see the quotes, why don't you) are NOTORIOUS force-fitters, and data ignorers, if it doesn't fit their preconceptions of "ape-men" and "fish ancestry" or "gradualism"...with no intelligent direction. Which is why zombie-tards such as you bring up pathetic "ERVs" all the time. YOU are the joke. lol
@Dudeamis idiot...Gould used the term "Darwinist" in a neutral or positive sense....and plenty still use the term, who are in the field. (So..."double-facepalm). If you got out of your cocoon of demented ignorance and arrogance...and deviated a little from your script of stupid talking points of "there's no such thing as an evolutionist" arf arf, because you equate non-empirical Darwinian "super macro" myths with uh "science", and insult the intelligence of even degreed people who question it.
Gould lived 150 years ago. Try to catch up to modern times. And who are these people in the field? I find it far more likely that they refer to themselves as biologists. I like how you can just ignore empirical evidence that doesn't fit your desire to live in a created world. Degreed? Where did you get it? A crackerjack box? Seriously I would love to know what school and what major you have.
@Dudeamis Gould lived 150 years ago? Huh? You sure you got the right "Gould", son? I'm talking about the Stephen Gould who just died a few years ago.... (sighs...)
@Dudeamis yep, more examples of Darwinist DODGES, and crying "quote-mine!" like pathetic losers, when they can't face or deal with the quotes, or the points in the quotes. Thanks for being so predictable. (I mean, all you drones are cut out from the same assembly line of stupidity, so it's par for your warped course, we knoe, kid.) "Quote mines"...they said what they said....get over it. lol.... here are some more.
@Dudeamis (2nd) also, it's misleading and drone-ish to pathetically say "RNA was created in the lab", when only paltry amino acids and SOME RNA strands (if that much) were made, under controlled conditions. And then dishonestly touting that garbage as "uhh, abiogenesis has been proven in a lab" arf arf. Uhhhh....fail. No code has ever been made in any lab, even under contolled situations. No DNA...no code, no life. See my "Failed A-biogenesis Experiments" video.
I like your attempt to make me sound like a dog, it was adorable, tremendously sophomoric and immature, but then what can I expect from you at this point? Well clearly nothing. RNA is the precursor to DNA, try to keep up.
@Dudeamis Darwinists and Atheists speak out both sides of their rectums. "nothing accidental about it"? Well, then what? It was done deliberately? according to Atheists? It was accidental, if there was no outside intelligence directing things. Don't try to glibly lie and hypocritically say "nothing accidental" or "not by chance" and then say "by chance" when it suits you. All of it was ACCIDENTAL AND BLIND according Atheists, if there was no one intentionally guiding anything.
chemical reactions are not accidents, did you sleep during chemistry class? or were you brought up in a christian school where they taught you about 4 legged insects, the light source called the moon or how to cure leprosy with blood soaked birds?
Actually my assumptions, are based on your videos and posts, you clearly don't understand the biology. And it doesn't matter how old you think the earth is, you're still a creationist, your idea of science is looking at the bible and trying to make the evidence fit it. And no amount of reinterpreting and ignoring data will change that. Sorry.
@Dudeamis no, sonny...a priori bias is a Darwinist habit.... And also is PROJECTION... (accusing others of what you're so obviously guilty of). Here are some "quote mines" for you to chew on.
"So between man's supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was ONLY THE IMAGINATION OF NINETEENTH CENTURY SCIENTISTS."
And further it says:
"People WANTED to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work."
Physicist Lipson:
"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
yep more examples of quote mining good job, you've got it down to a... science. about the closest thing you have down to a science.
As for blocking me, thanks, for showing that creationists fear being countered and will hide when anybody dare challenges them. As for you idea that because some ERVs target certain locations means that ERVs can't be used to proved common ancestry is just plain silly. Its like you assume that all shared ERV locations are these ERVs. who's projecting?
@Dudeamis yep, more example of Darwinist DODGES, and crying "quote-mine!" like pathetic losers, when they can't face or deal with the quotes, or the points in the quotes. Thanks for being so predictable. (I mean, all your drones are cut out from the same assembly line of stupidity, so it's par for your warped course, we know, kid.) "Quote mines"...they said what they said....get over it. lol.... here are some more.
@Dudeamis William Robin Thompson, Biologist, Entomologist:
"A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of Darwin's book Origin of Species was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. THE SUCCESS OF DARWINISM WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A DECLINE OF SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY."
Bertalanffy:
"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied to 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds."
@Dudeamis yep, more example of Darwinist DODGES, and crying "quote-mine!" like pathetic losers, when they can't face or deal with the quotes, or the points in the quotes. Thanks for being so predictable. (I mean, all you drones are cut out from the same assembly line of stupidity, so it's par for your warped course, we know, kid.) "Quote mines"...they said what they said....get over it. lol.... here are some more.
@Dudeamis you miss the point. I'm not talking about the double-talk of Atheist fanatics (such as yourself), and convenient side-stepping and canards about "chemical reactions". Nor your dumbbell assumptions about who I am and what I deal with. I'm an OLD EARTH Creationist, as I said...not some Young Earth fundie. I embrace real science, not myth and speculation (from ANY side). And I said the overall drift is that there was NO DELIBERATE HAND, according to Atheists, in life's formations etc.
@Ambushcrysis many animals adapt their enviornment to suit their needs. birds build nests, beavers build dams and so on. that doesn't mean that those animals are exempt from evolutionary properties.
not to be a dick but hte bear doesn't die in that video... it actually runs off i think.... i don't remember it in its entirety, but i know it lived....
I disagree. Life is life even if some never die, if environment does not affect survival, and/or if life does not reproduce with variation. Think about a person with all the same properties as anyone alive, but is immortal and does not reproduce. Of course, laws of nature may not allow that, but just conceptually speaking, would we not consider him/her alive?
This was really cool to watch. I understood it already, but things like this make it a lot easier to pass on the information. I'm not very elegant with my words and get tongue tied looking for the right ones to explain. Thanks TF, You always make it easier to understand without needing to dub it down
Anything that exists is a creation. You can't say because it doesn't "die" or reproduce then its not a creation. How does that make sense at all? Its there it must be created. If its not created than its something that will last for an infinit amount of time and it wouldn't have to abide by the laws of life or whatever you want to call it, because was it wasn't created by anything dealing with life. But since we are all creations, we'll all fade away unless we have christ.
@DeadlyRedRing Dude if there is a creation for God, then theres really no difference between the big bang and God. If God has a creator, than his creator would have a creator, and his creator's creator would have a creator. And it would be an endless cycle. Now the big bang, what created the explosion, the right conditions, what created those conditions, the elements, what created the elements. So it'd be the same thing. In order to have life the way we have it, you'd need a begining...
@BIGDADDYDUKE2 The first part of your reply is my argument precisely. By the logic if it's there, it must be created, nothing exists because everything that created something had to have been created. I am not saying I know how the universe began, no one on this planet can say that, but my ignorance does not imply God created the universe. Science doesn't have all the answers...yet.
@DeadlyRedRing Ha then what answers does science have? Science of this sort is flat out, not to be rude but dumb. Its dumb to look at couch and wonder how it got there. Its dumb to look at a message on a piece of paper and wonder how it got there. Its dumb to look at the earth which is a thousand times more complex than a message on a paper and wonder how the Earth got here. If we as intellegent beings can't create something as beautiful and complex as a planet, what makes you think....
@DeadlyRedRing something unintellegent like nothing could create something like a planet. The only logic is something smarter than humans by a long shot, created this planet, the universe and everything that consists of it. I believe that being to be God, in other words, Jesus Christ.
@BIGDADDYDUKE2 If nothing cound not possibly have created our world today, what makes you think something unintelligent like nothing could create God, in other words, Jesus Christ. Same principle. Using the fact that something has to have created everything just brings you into a loop that you yourself are smart enough to have realized. While it may be possible that there is a God, this argument does not cut it for me.
@DeadlyRedRing Oh, dude I'm not trying to persuade you to believing God is real. You have to realize that if you or I are not willing to accept ones beliefs then theres really no point in arguing. Which I'm not. I'm having a discussion with you ha. But actually, no, not the same principle. When it comes down to it, inorder for anything to exists you would HAVE to have something that is intellegent that was also eternal to create something. That way we could have something to begin with....
@DeadlyRedRing But dude I wasn't always a believe either. Alot of religions claim that. "Hey theres a being and he was first, ha". And its like well dude the guy next to you is claiming the same thing but in a different manner. So whose right? "We'll I am because I have a funny feeling". I ended up going with christianity, not because I was brought up christian but because of what it really is. Dude I guarentee, that you've never seen or met a real christian....
@DeadlyRedRing This might sound stupid considering like 80 percent of our country claims to be christian, but when you read the Bible and apply it to what you see in real life, you're seeing a preverted version of it. You see mostly selfrighteous people, who gossip and act like they're better than everyone because they fell for religion. Christanity is not a religion what so ever. And I remember Jesus, being God, was mad at the pharisees because they were attention seekers, and they wouldnt...
@DeadlyRedRing Let go of their religious ways, which were based off of christianity. I'm telling you dude, if you read the Bible and didn't go in there with the mindset like "I'm going to find info to prove christians wrong" if you just went in there just to learn about it, you'd be so surprised. I'm willing to bet that you nor the "christian" next to you know what christianity really is. Even if its all made up, its real enough to change my life, and its the most amazing book I've ever read.
@BIGDADDYDUKE2 I don't mean to offend you, and perhaps this just highlights the difference between our positions, but nonetheless; that just suggests to me that you should read more books.
@Useless2112 Ha hey man we all have our opinions. But for one, I absolutely hate reading! I find it to be really boring. But nothing has ever grabbed my attention like the Bible has. Even when thinking about reading the Bible I'm like man I don't want to because I hate reading. But I end up doing it and then I just can't stop. In school I have to read certain books, and yeah I'll read them but I wont care for them. I wont be excited to read them. But when I read the Bible I don't want to stop.
@Ratznium If you enjoy ignorance but not the bible, you're saying the bible isn't ignorant because if it was you'd enjoy it. Good one. Your wisdom is only surpassed by your ignorance.
@DeadlyRedRing But you'd need something to give us that begining, something that was there before the begining. And that thing would have to be eternal. Why? Because its impossible to have something come from nothing. I don't expect to go on a picnick and take an empty box and when I get to where I want to be, open the box and find a sandwhich in there. You'd have to create it and put it in there.
It is unfortunate that uneducated religious bigots reproduce more often than open minded people. Everyone who is a sane, rational, and tolerant person needs to have as many babies as possible! Please! Have lots of sex without condoms! (preferably with other sane, rational, and tolerant people)
The only thing I did not like about this video was that the transition periods appear to be arbitrary. I saw a very good video called I think, "Is evolution a blind watch maker?" Where a guy took these principles and made a computer program that ran through watches (that were fancifully given the ability to reproduce), and found under various conditions that random watch parts always evolved to better watches after a couple thousand generations.
If you are in the driver's seat of your life, and have no emotional need to conform to some bullshit then you can learn all that humans have to offer, and not believe anything until it is proven to you absolutely. You need to be honest with yourself to get free of other people's controls over you. They can convince you that you are smart and good when you are just a dumb conformist who has no balls to seek what is true.( Read this several times.)
@GoodScienceForYou "you can learn all that humans have to offer, and not believe anything until it is proven to you absolutely" What gibberish. What the hell can it mean to "learn" something and then say that you don't believe it? How long have you been insane?
"You need to be honest with yourself " What would you know about that - you have been lying to everybody on YouTube and lying to yourself. You LIE about your IQ, you LIE about reading 20,000 papers.
i think this mabey alittle too much info for most religious type's to take in mabey try to make it as easy as 1+1 and they may be able to get it given 800 generations haha
I have asked ever Evotard I have come across to show me this absolutely clear, indisputable, undeniable, irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence that does not contain some bullshit opinion from an Evotard and they have all failed. They have all failed themselves. They fucked themselves with beliefs that they attach ego to, and proclaim faith in this shit to the other followers, by getting degrees in this bullshit. The best place to indoctrinate is the classroom where this shit is forced on you.
Each and every part of this religious BS is refuted by better concepts that actually follow the evidence. I hate faith based bullshit in science. If you only get your information from the people who are brainwashed and want to make you into them, then you are really stupid. You put faith in humans who are really messed up and full of shit. You would never make a scientist until you can be objective and that includes being objective about you.
@GoodScienceForYou Better concepts you say? Such as? Nothing has been refuted, nor has it been replaced. If you think it has, then please, present the refutation and replacement.
When you Evotards can answer this question, then you will be free. Where is you absolutely irrefutable, undeniable, obvious, physical evidence for evolution? So, far all you have is faith and belief and NO Evidence at all that would lead a sane person to think this shit is real. If you want to be a free thinker, then get free of all delusional human emotional mental garbage. "The Neutral Evolution Forum".
@GoodScienceForYou It's funny how you re-post at the top, every time you get cornered. You're just parroting the same thing over and over, even though we've given you all the evidence you could ask for. Stop pretending, It's annoying.
@Oicurmtoyoy You are an Evotard. What you say means nothing because your religion negates you as a scientist. If you want to be free of bullshit beliefs that have no evidence then you can. If your goal is to be a moron who parrots common human garbage beliefs, your are succeeding. Goto The Neutral Evotlon Forum and read this time. Learn from me if you want to be free.
@AlanCFA The problem with observation is the observer. When people believe in faith based HEMG, they project that belief on the world. When people believe that fish evolved into humans ( from a religion about 2600 years old), they will force that belief on evidence.
Since there is NO WAY to objectively test their conclusions, it is not science. It is based on perpetuation of beliefs. It is possible to learn all that mankind "knows" and not take on bullshit if you understand humans.
@GoodScienceForYou "Since there is NO WAY to objectively test their conclusions" Wrong again. Any theory makes testable predictions and the ones made by evolutionary theory have passed their tests. IF you knew something about evolution THEN you would know that fact. But since you are a religious goon with NO understanding of the subject, it is not surprising that you don't know that.
@Oicurmtoyoy The problem with you is that you allow others to tell you what evidence is.
Even when I was very young, and was presented with all the "evidence", it was clear that there was no evidence to even start this idea that simple life evolved from nothing and that complex life came from simple life forms. The evidence was not there to even suggest this. So, I knew it was a religious idea. Then I looked up where this shit came from. It is from an ancient religion from over 2600 years ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Even when I was very young, and was presented with all the "evidence", it was clear that there was no evidence to even start this idea..."
But when you got older you found out that there WAS evidence and then lied and pretended that there was not. You claimed that the fusion of human chromosome #2 NEVER happened. Then you found out that there was evidence that it HAD happened and that you were WRONG and so you LIED and claimed that you always accepted the fusion.
@Oicurmtoyoy Inference, implication and wishing it was real, is not science. When you have the abilty to just observe what is going on and not project ideas on what you see, then you will be a scientist. The belief is brainwashed into your head then they reinforce it with religious slogans that have nothing to do with science. You do not have any evidence to support words like "Evolutionary pressure". and "Random Mutations" all are human emotional mental garbage, HEMG ideas from belief.
@GoodScienceForYou You start with a few insults, then you suggest I go to a forum which you rarely visit yourself. Then you tell me about brainwashing and religion, and how there is no evidence.
Inference and implication are science, when they are logical ones. You have failed to explain how the inferences made are lacking in logic or reason, and until you do so, you have failed to refute the evidence.
You also said "simple life evolved from nothing". The theory of evolution dosen't say that.
@Oicurmtoyoy It's clear that you haven't made much comment on the the details and mechanisms of evolution, because you don't actually know about evolution. No one said life evolved from nothing, so don't even try that straw man.
@Oicurmtoyoy Also, those phrases aren't slogans. Random mutations are real, and undeniably observed. Evolutionary pressure has also been observed. I find it Ironic that you would complain about these "slogans", which I haven't even used so far, and then you use "HEMG" in the same sentence. THAT, is a slogan.
@GSFY "When you have the abilty to just observe what is going on and not project ideas on what you see, then you will be a scientist." How would you know, you've never been one.
Please name ONE scientist (a real one, not yourself) who has written that scientific theories need to be absolute, irrefutable, and have no other plausible explanations in order to be accepted. You cannot do it. Einstein did not agree with that, nor Feynman, nor Hubble, nor Watson, etc. NOBODY accepts your gibberish
@GSFY "Inference, implication and wishing it was real, is not science." Wishing it was real is not science, but inference IS part of EVERY branch of science and IF you knew anything about science, you'd know that. But you are not scientifically literate and are a religious crank who repeats LIES and insults at every turn
Name ONE scientist who accepts your nonsense that theories must be absolutely proven with no other plausible explanations. Just ONE.(not yourself as you are NOT a scientist)
@GoodScienceForYou Evidence for evolution?xa..Read a book about it..visit a museum and look at fossils..And in the process of it..Keep an open mind..Evolution is far more elegant and beautiful that you think..and YES we are cousins with chimps..deal with it..YES THE POPE IS A CHIMPS COUSIN...
@Stevoukos I know that you are a monkey's ass, but that is not in the literal sense. If you like being an idiot, that is your problem. There is no irrefutable evidence for evolution, you dumb Evotard. If you want to get free of the controls this shit has over your life, and be a free thinker, that would be good for you. Go to The Neutral Evolution Forum and read. Don't post and wast time with the same bullshit I have answered there many times.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Stevoukos You are the moron who believes in some fucked up relgion of Evortards, called Evodelusionism. NOT ONE single believer can answer my easy question:
Where is your absolutely, irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence that simple life forms have evolved into complex life forms? YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE OPINIONS IN YOUR ANSWER. It must be self-evident and obvious to anyone. Otherwise you are considered to be insane, irrational beleiver in bullshit.
@GoodScienceForYou "Where is your absolutely, irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence that simple life forms have evolved into complex life forms" You have been told many times, but it does not sink in due to your very low IQ. NO scientific theory requires absolute irrefutable evidence. NONE. You LIE when you claim they do.
Where is your irrefutable evidence for the existence of God? I mean the God that you believe in, not your God=Truth crap.
@Stevoukos The subject is Evolution. You fucking Evotard use this lame argument all the time. Why are you just a fucking parrot of this fucked up belief system? Don't you ever compare this shit religion of Evodelusionism to real science! UNDERSTAND? Don't side step, avoid and think this is good. Where is your absolutely irrefutable evidence that fish evolved into humans? Answer that fucking question and you will be free of this fucking religious bullshit.
@GoodScienceForYou I suppose you believe in gravity because you can see actually things not flying right?Please don't say that gravity has the mathematical equations as well because in that manner one can claim that molecular biology for example is wrong..So please tell me you believe in gravity because you actually see it..am I correct?
@Stevoukos I told you to never compare this shit to functional science. Shit beliefs of fish becoming human over some fantasy time is just that, religious beliefs, NOT SCIENCE. Don't sidestep, it is a really unprofessional and poor response to my direct questions. Where is your absolute evidence that fish evolved into humans? Answer that question NOW!
@GoodScienceForYou The minute you ask this question shows how little you know about evolution..No fish directly evolved into human..When evolutionists say life was created at seas what they mean is that at seas simple organisms where first created..Simple one cell or multicellural organisms..Some of them adapted and could also survive at land(this is not fiction-you can see it right know..ex frogs) and some started living only in lands.This is how life started from the seas and moved to land.
@Stevoukos The minute I ask for REAL evidence, you delusional brainwashed fuckers all state that you don't have to have evidence. The premise of your fucking religion is that fish became human over some immense time, So, prove it you dumb Evotard. All you are saying is religious mumbo mythology that HAS NEVER BEEN tested by any scientific methods. It is all religous slogans and mythological fucking fairy stories. How fucking stupid are you? Who told you that shit and why do you believe?
@GoodScienceForYou Did I say I don't have to have evidence?Evidence is all around you..Oh and by the way..Your reply about gorrilas having different number of chromosomes..
Evolution is not just about adaptation to new enviroments(which causes new traits) but also about mutations..Mutations can be either change in DNA sequences OR in chromosomic anomalies (for example one more chromosome-ex Down syndrome where people have 3 21 chromosomes)These anomalies are in most cases fatal but in somecases
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Stevoukos All of the evidence only points to normal genetics interbreeding, genetic traits passed down the same lineages, and adaptations that normally cause diseases. All "mutations" are genetically unstable freaks that do not continue. There is no evidence of any creature ever breaking the boundaries of their foundational genetics that came from the fist of the parent species. If you have any absolutely obvoius and irrefutable evidence to prove otherwise, you would be the first.
Diabetes, Cancer, and the hundreds of other genetic diseases are increasing, ,because there is no positive changes to DNA taking place. Once the DNA structure has this flaw, it never goes away and it never gets fixed. It just continues on and on unless it is a disease that stops breeding. The only "cure" genetics has NOW is to sterilize or kill people with these traits ie, kill unborn babies. Does that sound familiar to you?
Am I the only theistic person that is offended by the animals dieing and the douch-a-tichians and not the theory of evolution? EVOLUTION FOR THE WIN..and ugh...see my page...lol..peace and love......ohhh...and uggghhhh...DAMN NATURE YOU SCARY!
BAchoHAl 3 weeks ago
Actually "everything dies" is not very accurate. For example, all organisms that reproduce through cloning (e.g. one cell organisms or some plants that can make clones) do not need to die. Cloning organisms are essentially immortal unless they get destroyed by a force or get eaten.
roccobaroccoSC 1 month ago in playlist Още видеоклипове от Thunderf00t
@roccobaroccoSC A clone of something is not the same thing as the first thing it is just a replica.
Triipticz 1 week ago
@Triipticz So when a cell splits in two, could you tell me which one is the "first thing" and which one is the replica?
roccobaroccoSC 6 days ago
@roccobaroccoSC Ah I see what you mean. I thought you meant organisms that clone themselves through hermaphroditism. Sorry.
Triipticz 6 days ago
@Triipticz Hermaphroditism is not cloning. It involves two distinct animals contributing genetic material to the offspring. The difference is simply that each of these individual animals could be either female, or male, but this does not affect the genetic exchange.
Opposed to that, cloning involves only one parent and the "offspring" is an (almost perfect) genetic copy of the parent, except the mutations that occur.
In this regard hermaphroditism is different from cloning.
roccobaroccoSC 5 days ago
@roccobaroccoSC I thought that hermaphroditism is where something has both sexual organs and can produce offspring by itself? Also, I thought that there was no variation in cloning populations due to no mutations?
Triipticz 4 days ago
Wonderful video...
TheWisemonkey8 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you saying that something an ALL POWERFUL being created, can't die, won't perish if not suited to their environment and won't reproduce with variation? Their all powerful, they can do anything. When was the last time you had a brain scan?
TriFortitude123 2 months ago
Comment removed
TriFortitude123 2 months ago
@SinnersBurnInHell What are you talking about? Where in the bible does talk about a physical place called hell? You seem to have gotten it wrong as much as everybody else. All the comments I've seen here have all mostly been incorrect.
TriFortitude123 2 months ago
what an amazing video, especially the combination of music and visuals at the beginning
AndyfromWrexham 3 months ago in playlist All Thunderfoot Videos Part 1
@SinnersBurnInHell aahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha
Mnemosyn3 3 months ago
evolution was invented by jews to put shame on jesus
alexgrinkov 3 months ago
@alexgrinkov Jewish people don't believe in evolution...
CursedZebra 1 week ago
1:41 did Martin Sheen pass off the "winning" gene, or is the winning gene a result of some sort of mutation? Seriously though, I love your videos TF,
Thunderf00t, educating people and schooling creationist morons on YouTube since 2006.
ilackedtheheart 4 months ago
@SinnersBurnInHell Including You!
werewolf873 5 months ago
@SinnersBurnInHell "if thunderf00t or richard dawkins said the moon was made of cheese you would believe it" no i dont think i would,though im positive that if the bible said that the moon was made of cheese you would believe it. "the bible has been proven correct many times" orly? when,when has the bible ever been proven correct. self fullfilling prophecies dont count. "and hell is real and goes on forever"well if i was so bad then theres no need to be sad.cause everybody else will be there to
werewolf873 5 months ago
@SinnersBurnInHell a 1500 year old book tells you than tried and tested methods and theories. "i hope that one day you will start loving jesus and obeying his commandments so he can save you from your sins" i hope that someday you stop taking the easy wayout and open your eyes to the natural beauty around you. you dont need a god to be happy, you only have one life dont,waste it on your knees praying to an imaginary sky wizard.
werewolf873 5 months ago
@SinnersBurnInHell being an atheist. "yet you cant even show me one transitional form" i repeat, o rly? homo erectus,austrailopithicus,homo habilis,homo heidelbergensis,sahelenthropus tchadensis,need i go on? "the book of genesis clearly explains how we were created" you mean the same book of genesis that says god created light THEN created the sun. "id rather believe that we came from a loving god,than from monkeys" of course you would-because thats the easy way. you would rather believe what
werewolf873 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@werewolf873
"you mean the same book of genesis that says god created light THEN created the sun" lol so you mean we need first to create sun and only then the notion of photons? yeah it really does sound more logical
alexgrinkov 3 months ago
@SinnersBurnInHell "Yes, a holy book, the most accurate book in the universe" what evidence do you have to prove that the bible is the word of god and not made by some random guy "science is the word of man" same can be said for god he could have been simply made up "I know you worship evolution" people don't "worship" evolution you accept it or not "yet you can't even show me one transitional form"
mimarp478 5 months ago
@SinnersBurnInHell (2)con "yet you can't even show me one transitional form" Pohlsepia,Rhyniognatha,Sphecomyrma,Attercopus,Haikouichthys,Guiyu Hynerpeton, Eocaecilia, Eileanchelys,Asilisaurus these are just a couple their are much much more
mimarp478 5 months ago
@SinnersBurnInHell "yes a holy book,the most accurate book in the universe" o rly? we are talking about the same bible arent we? you know the one that mentions unicorns like 8 times. "the bible is the word of god,science is the word of man" the BIBLE is also the word of men,otherwise its description of heavan wouldnt be so anthropomorphic, dont you understand? why would you believe in something so ridiculous? "i know you worship evolution" actuley i dont wotship anything,kind of the point of
werewolf873 5 months ago
wtf
HS1911TS1950 5 months ago
pleanty of evidence fr evolution,its actuley been recreated in labs,creationism however has absolutley no arguments that we havent disproven,not only that but most creationist arguments are based on lies,misrepresentation of evidence and quote mining. be sure to check the comment section,this is a 3 page reply.
werewolf873 5 months ago
@SinnersBurnInHell lies then i will actuley give your argument some merit,until then dont call the people who make your food liers. "the bible indicates that the universe is 6000 years old" yes,and harry potter indicates that if i wave a wand and say some funny words then i can make things fly. the bible is just a book.there was no adam,no eve,there are no angels,no demons and there is certainley no god. "there is no evidence for evolution only creation" actuley you have that backwords there is
werewolf873 5 months ago
@SinnersBurnInHell "wow you are so brainwashed" no,sadly it is you who is brainwashed,you were spoonfed christianity as a child so that by the time you got older you wouldnt be able to imagine a life without some sort of diety.its like the old saying goes,you cant teach an old dog new tricks. "the only reason you believe the lies of scientists is because you believe what you want to" ill tell you what if you can produce real,undeniable,evidence (NOT the bible) that what the scientists say are
werewolf873 5 months ago
@SinnersBurnInHell its probabley stupid of me to try and explane something as complicated as evolution to a nutter like you but i guess ill try. No i dont believe that a fish gave birth to a monkey, what kind of stupid question is that? i do believe that through millions of years of genetic mutations and genetic variences,not to mention going through millions of transitional species,we slowly evloved into what we are today. Do you understand or am i going to fast for you.
werewolf873 5 months ago
@SinnersBurnInHell Mark your f***ing nuts,you know that right? I have literaly never seen a person as mentally unhealthy as you. even caughlin666 is sane compared to you. please,get help for yourself
werewolf873 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't survive if their tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, so-called "Junk DNA." Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss almost everything: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
That ... was ... brilliant!
AntiMatterWave 6 months ago
Some excellent points in the video, it's certainly one of my faves. But, the greatest thing about evolution is not explained. Evolution is not only adaptation to the environment, evolution is about changing into more COMPLEX forms. It might be the true 4th property of life, and I doubt there's an algorithm to that.
arven979 7 months ago
@arven979 While evolution has obviously resulted in the proliferation of more and more complex forms of life on our planet since life began, i would contend that it is incorrect to say that complex forms are inevitable or are some kind of 'goal' for evolution. If this were true we would expect to see only the most complex forms today, where instead we see life ranging from the most simple to the most complex.
jcarlson08 7 months ago
Instead complexity should be viewed as any other adaptation: increasing reproductive success in some environments and decreasing it in others. Consider that the ancestors of modern Archae, one of earth's simplest types of organisms, have been around billions of years, continuously evolving and adapting to their environment, yet never into anything noticeably more "complex".
jcarlson08 7 months ago
Some of these organisms live in extremely harsh environments and any adaptation that would make them more complex could very well kill them. However if we instead look at the lineage of modern humanity we see one in which increasing complexity proved to have positive effect on reproductive success.
jcarlson08 7 months ago
@jcarlson08, What I meant was that it is perfectly clear how among one species that *has* i.e. eyes, the environment can cause one of its branch with better eyesight to develop into another species with significantly better eyesight. But, what causes the eyes to develop out of nothing is what intrigues me. Evolution isn't only about adaptation, it is as well about appearance and development of things completely new.
arven979 7 months ago
@arven979 I think I see what you are getting at now. And it's certainly true that we wouldn't have all the wonderfully complex and beautiful adaptations we see in life without evolution!
jcarlson08 7 months ago
I love the ID you put in IDiot haha.
nextgenvids 7 months ago
Brilliantly put mate, thanks for this
CorrerPorVida 7 months ago
Evolutionists like to speak of the "fact" of evolutionj. But when they find themselves on shakey ground they start speaking of it as the "theory" of evolution. Speaking out of both sides of their mouths is one of their evolutionary "mutations"....
"There's no end men won't go to to disbelieve the Bible." Napoleon
citizenfitz 7 months ago
@citizenfitz The-o-ry:a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact
UndeadAppleTree 7 months ago
@UndeadAppleTree Yes, we all know that. I got it back in high school. My gripe is with the darwinians who speak of the "fact" of evolution one minute, then the of "theory" of evolution the next. There are lots of them here and at Yahoo.
citizenfitz 7 months ago
@citizenfitz It's like gravity. There is in fact gravity, which keeps us tethered to the nearest planet/star/galaxy and makes things fall to the ground, and then there are theories of gravity, such as Newton's and Einstein's. The same applies with pretty much everything in science: Light, sound, motion, quanta, atoms, cells, germs, evolution, stars, galaxies, and even the brain. There are colloquial "theories" which are actually hypotheses, and there are scientific theories with actual facts.
sillygames 7 months ago
Excellent video! Sharing everywhere!
7thirteen713 8 months ago
Religions are for drones. If you believe is anywhere from a6 to 10,000 years old, please do everyone a favor here on Earth and don't have any offspring; that way the rest of the world can more rapidly evolve. Religions are just socially ACCEPTED CULTS.
MyCJ3000 9 months ago
Awesome vid! Where'd u get the audio track?
Wiinajamizzi 9 months ago
Batteries died at one point. They were created.
f00tstep 10 months ago
Brilliant film.
FoxKnightJ07 10 months ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dudeamis yep, more example of Darwinist DODGES, and crying "quote-mine!" like pathetic losers, when they can't face or deal with the quotes, or the points in the quotes. Thanks for being so predictable. (I mean, all you drones are cut out from the same assembly line of stupidity, so it's par for your warped course, we know, kid.) "Quote mines"...they said what they said....get over it. lol.... here are some more.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
no you took a piece of what they said, that is what a quote mine is.
Dudeamis 10 months ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@Dudeamis yeah, and I'm supposed to put the whole thing they said or the whole book in one comment? Yeah, nice convenient moaning and belching, when things get rough. Can't deal with the quotes, and references, and problems, so you dismiss them as "quote mines!" or "argument from authority" which is hysterical coming from Darwinists, who appeal to authority all the time, with their "errggh, 99% of scientists accept evolution" arf arf. Committing TWO fallacies at once. Authority and Majority.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser What is a Darwinist?
wowamonn 10 months ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@wowamonn see my video "Darwinists Lie about 'Micro' and 'Macro' Evolution terms". And see that Thomas Henry Huxley coined "Darwinist", in 1860, in a POSITIVE sense. A Darwinist himself. Anyone who holds to Darwinian Evolution theory (not the straw-men) the myths of major groups arising from other major groups. Assumptions. YOU are a Darwinist (though in lock-step dishonestly disown or play dumb about the term). The term "Darwinist" was NOT invented by Creationists. By by Darwinists themselves.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser The question is not who invented the term but how it is used and in many cases it is used by some American creationists to try to equate the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection to that of a doctrine which is not the case in many commonwealth countries
wowamonn 10 months ago
@wowamonn as I said, look at my video "Darwinists like about 'Micro' and 'Macro' Evolution terms". Click it. It's posted on the video response section, on this very page. And leave your thoughts, critiques, challenges, or points there, if you want. Peace.....
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@Dudeamis (3rd), and yes there ARE "Evolutionists" and "Darwinists". And moronically denying that is childish. Gould used the terms "Darwinist" and "Evolutionist" all the time, in a neutral or positive sense. "Darwinist" was not invented by Creationists, but coined by T.H. Huxley in 1860, in a positive sense. A Darwinist himself. Anyone who holds to Darwinian evolution theory, of "descent with modification over time leads to bigger changes and cross-overs". Which is SPECULATION...not "facts".
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
*facepalm* Find one Darwinist today.
actually no its based one empirical evidence, so unless you want to start questioning gravity, germ theory and atomic theory I think maybe you should just leave shared ancestry alone too.
Dudeamis 10 months ago
@Dudeamis (3rd) more drone-ish dishonest and desperate barf...of comparing Darwinian speculation with things like uh "gravity" and "germs". FAIL. No physicist, astronomer, or chemist doubts the actual existence of "gravity" (I'm not talking about the mechanism that may or or may not cause it, but that things pull and fall, and don't float, observably). But PLENTY of degreed scientists, biologists, paleontologists, geologists, etc, doubt the existence of "ape-men", and question Darwinian myths.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
lol this is so funny coming from a guy who blocked me for being arrogant and a bunch of other ironic statements. Yep soooo many 7% is just such a tremendous amount. Get lost you're a joke.
Dudeamis 10 months ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@Dudeamis I only commented to you here cuz you spewed this crap about "making things fit and ignoring data", which is HYSTERICAL coming from a sick Atheist Darwinist drone-tard like you. Darwinists (see the quotes, why don't you) are NOTORIOUS force-fitters, and data ignorers, if it doesn't fit their preconceptions of "ape-men" and "fish ancestry" or "gradualism"...with no intelligent direction. Which is why zombie-tards such as you bring up pathetic "ERVs" all the time. YOU are the joke. lol
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@Dudeamis idiot...Gould used the term "Darwinist" in a neutral or positive sense....and plenty still use the term, who are in the field. (So..."double-facepalm). If you got out of your cocoon of demented ignorance and arrogance...and deviated a little from your script of stupid talking points of "there's no such thing as an evolutionist" arf arf, because you equate non-empirical Darwinian "super macro" myths with uh "science", and insult the intelligence of even degreed people who question it.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
Gould lived 150 years ago. Try to catch up to modern times. And who are these people in the field? I find it far more likely that they refer to themselves as biologists. I like how you can just ignore empirical evidence that doesn't fit your desire to live in a created world. Degreed? Where did you get it? A crackerjack box? Seriously I would love to know what school and what major you have.
Dudeamis 10 months ago
@Dudeamis Gould lived 150 years ago? Huh? You sure you got the right "Gould", son? I'm talking about the Stephen Gould who just died a few years ago.... (sighs...)
sweetmikser 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dudeamis yep, more examples of Darwinist DODGES, and crying "quote-mine!" like pathetic losers, when they can't face or deal with the quotes, or the points in the quotes. Thanks for being so predictable. (I mean, all you drones are cut out from the same assembly line of stupidity, so it's par for your warped course, we knoe, kid.) "Quote mines"...they said what they said....get over it. lol.... here are some more.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@Dudeamis (2nd) also, it's misleading and drone-ish to pathetically say "RNA was created in the lab", when only paltry amino acids and SOME RNA strands (if that much) were made, under controlled conditions. And then dishonestly touting that garbage as "uhh, abiogenesis has been proven in a lab" arf arf. Uhhhh....fail. No code has ever been made in any lab, even under contolled situations. No DNA...no code, no life. See my "Failed A-biogenesis Experiments" video.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
I like your attempt to make me sound like a dog, it was adorable, tremendously sophomoric and immature, but then what can I expect from you at this point? Well clearly nothing. RNA is the precursor to DNA, try to keep up.
Dudeamis 10 months ago
@Dudeamis Darwinists and Atheists speak out both sides of their rectums. "nothing accidental about it"? Well, then what? It was done deliberately? according to Atheists? It was accidental, if there was no outside intelligence directing things. Don't try to glibly lie and hypocritically say "nothing accidental" or "not by chance" and then say "by chance" when it suits you. All of it was ACCIDENTAL AND BLIND according Atheists, if there was no one intentionally guiding anything.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
chemical reactions are not accidents, did you sleep during chemistry class? or were you brought up in a christian school where they taught you about 4 legged insects, the light source called the moon or how to cure leprosy with blood soaked birds?
Dudeamis 10 months ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
Actually my assumptions, are based on your videos and posts, you clearly don't understand the biology. And it doesn't matter how old you think the earth is, you're still a creationist, your idea of science is looking at the bible and trying to make the evidence fit it. And no amount of reinterpreting and ignoring data will change that. Sorry.
Dudeamis 10 months ago
@Dudeamis no, sonny...a priori bias is a Darwinist habit.... And also is PROJECTION... (accusing others of what you're so obviously guilty of). Here are some "quote mines" for you to chew on.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@Dudeamis The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
"So between man's supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was ONLY THE IMAGINATION OF NINETEENTH CENTURY SCIENTISTS."
And further it says:
"People WANTED to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work."
Physicist Lipson:
"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
yep more examples of quote mining good job, you've got it down to a... science. about the closest thing you have down to a science.
As for blocking me, thanks, for showing that creationists fear being countered and will hide when anybody dare challenges them. As for you idea that because some ERVs target certain locations means that ERVs can't be used to proved common ancestry is just plain silly. Its like you assume that all shared ERV locations are these ERVs. who's projecting?
Dudeamis 10 months ago
@Dudeamis yep, more example of Darwinist DODGES, and crying "quote-mine!" like pathetic losers, when they can't face or deal with the quotes, or the points in the quotes. Thanks for being so predictable. (I mean, all your drones are cut out from the same assembly line of stupidity, so it's par for your warped course, we know, kid.) "Quote mines"...they said what they said....get over it. lol.... here are some more.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@Dudeamis William Robin Thompson, Biologist, Entomologist:
"A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of Darwin's book Origin of Species was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. THE SUCCESS OF DARWINISM WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A DECLINE OF SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY."
Bertalanffy:
"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied to 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds."
sweetmikser 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dudeamis yep, more example of Darwinist DODGES, and crying "quote-mine!" like pathetic losers, when they can't face or deal with the quotes, or the points in the quotes. Thanks for being so predictable. (I mean, all you drones are cut out from the same assembly line of stupidity, so it's par for your warped course, we know, kid.) "Quote mines"...they said what they said....get over it. lol.... here are some more.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@Dudeamis you miss the point. I'm not talking about the double-talk of Atheist fanatics (such as yourself), and convenient side-stepping and canards about "chemical reactions". Nor your dumbbell assumptions about who I am and what I deal with. I'm an OLD EARTH Creationist, as I said...not some Young Earth fundie. I embrace real science, not myth and speculation (from ANY side). And I said the overall drift is that there was NO DELIBERATE HAND, according to Atheists, in life's formations etc.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
What about humans? We don't adapt to our environment, the environment adapts to us.
Ambushcrysis 10 months ago
@Ambushcrysis modern science is killing evolution :P
ROFLoftus 10 months ago
@ROFLoftus Not really, evolution is still happening.
DoNotLaughAtMe 10 months ago
@Ambushcrysis many animals adapt their enviornment to suit their needs. birds build nests, beavers build dams and so on. that doesn't mean that those animals are exempt from evolutionary properties.
radahad000 10 months ago
You are all incorrect. A giant turtle threw up the universe. I have evidence from the book IT by stephen king.
Also:
e^(pi*i)=-1 Your argument is invalid.
killa432546 10 months ago
Does anyone know where I can download this algorithm/program?
mousaey 11 months ago
Is there any program to play around wih evolution, like these..."tomatoes" in the Vid.?
LutzDerLurch 11 months ago
If evolution isn’t true the bible must be made out of wool because it’s covering your eyes.
2dogssittingonthero 11 months ago
not to be a dick but hte bear doesn't die in that video... it actually runs off i think.... i don't remember it in its entirety, but i know it lived....
320iguy 11 months ago
I disagree. Life is life even if some never die, if environment does not affect survival, and/or if life does not reproduce with variation. Think about a person with all the same properties as anyone alive, but is immortal and does not reproduce. Of course, laws of nature may not allow that, but just conceptually speaking, would we not consider him/her alive?
7lllll 11 months ago
get rid of text and the video would be "ok" if not this video sucked balls
YourFavoriteTroll 1 year ago
This was really cool to watch. I understood it already, but things like this make it a lot easier to pass on the information. I'm not very elegant with my words and get tongue tied looking for the right ones to explain. Thanks TF, You always make it easier to understand without needing to dub it down
Sevenfish0 1 year ago
Excellent video! The evolution animations are great.
sc00f 1 year ago
CAN ANYONE PLEASE TELL ME THE NAME OF THE SONG OR MUSIC THAT PLAYS FOR THE FIRST 1 MIN AND 36 SECS??
TrentusMaximus78 1 year ago
@TrentusMaximus78 It's called "Oxygene Pt 2", by Jean Michel Jarre.
smegmadiver22 1 year ago
this music makes me want to evolve
Virus278 1 year ago
@Virus278 that couldn't be said any gayer.
Muhammadisatroll 1 year ago
ZOMG DID HE DIED?!11!1!!!!
Revolder2 1 year ago
Anything that exists is a creation. You can't say because it doesn't "die" or reproduce then its not a creation. How does that make sense at all? Its there it must be created. If its not created than its something that will last for an infinit amount of time and it wouldn't have to abide by the laws of life or whatever you want to call it, because was it wasn't created by anything dealing with life. But since we are all creations, we'll all fade away unless we have christ.
BIGDADDYDUKE2 1 year ago
@BIGDADDYDUKE2 Then what created God?
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing Dude if there is a creation for God, then theres really no difference between the big bang and God. If God has a creator, than his creator would have a creator, and his creator's creator would have a creator. And it would be an endless cycle. Now the big bang, what created the explosion, the right conditions, what created those conditions, the elements, what created the elements. So it'd be the same thing. In order to have life the way we have it, you'd need a begining...
BIGDADDYDUKE2 1 year ago
@BIGDADDYDUKE2 The first part of your reply is my argument precisely. By the logic if it's there, it must be created, nothing exists because everything that created something had to have been created. I am not saying I know how the universe began, no one on this planet can say that, but my ignorance does not imply God created the universe. Science doesn't have all the answers...yet.
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing Ha then what answers does science have? Science of this sort is flat out, not to be rude but dumb. Its dumb to look at couch and wonder how it got there. Its dumb to look at a message on a piece of paper and wonder how it got there. Its dumb to look at the earth which is a thousand times more complex than a message on a paper and wonder how the Earth got here. If we as intellegent beings can't create something as beautiful and complex as a planet, what makes you think....
BIGDADDYDUKE2 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing something unintellegent like nothing could create something like a planet. The only logic is something smarter than humans by a long shot, created this planet, the universe and everything that consists of it. I believe that being to be God, in other words, Jesus Christ.
BIGDADDYDUKE2 1 year ago
@BIGDADDYDUKE2 If nothing cound not possibly have created our world today, what makes you think something unintelligent like nothing could create God, in other words, Jesus Christ. Same principle. Using the fact that something has to have created everything just brings you into a loop that you yourself are smart enough to have realized. While it may be possible that there is a God, this argument does not cut it for me.
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing Oh, dude I'm not trying to persuade you to believing God is real. You have to realize that if you or I are not willing to accept ones beliefs then theres really no point in arguing. Which I'm not. I'm having a discussion with you ha. But actually, no, not the same principle. When it comes down to it, inorder for anything to exists you would HAVE to have something that is intellegent that was also eternal to create something. That way we could have something to begin with....
BIGDADDYDUKE2 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing But dude I wasn't always a believe either. Alot of religions claim that. "Hey theres a being and he was first, ha". And its like well dude the guy next to you is claiming the same thing but in a different manner. So whose right? "We'll I am because I have a funny feeling". I ended up going with christianity, not because I was brought up christian but because of what it really is. Dude I guarentee, that you've never seen or met a real christian....
BIGDADDYDUKE2 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing This might sound stupid considering like 80 percent of our country claims to be christian, but when you read the Bible and apply it to what you see in real life, you're seeing a preverted version of it. You see mostly selfrighteous people, who gossip and act like they're better than everyone because they fell for religion. Christanity is not a religion what so ever. And I remember Jesus, being God, was mad at the pharisees because they were attention seekers, and they wouldnt...
BIGDADDYDUKE2 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing Let go of their religious ways, which were based off of christianity. I'm telling you dude, if you read the Bible and didn't go in there with the mindset like "I'm going to find info to prove christians wrong" if you just went in there just to learn about it, you'd be so surprised. I'm willing to bet that you nor the "christian" next to you know what christianity really is. Even if its all made up, its real enough to change my life, and its the most amazing book I've ever read.
BIGDADDYDUKE2 1 year ago
@BIGDADDYDUKE2 I don't mean to offend you, and perhaps this just highlights the difference between our positions, but nonetheless; that just suggests to me that you should read more books.
Useless2112 1 year ago
@Useless2112 Ha hey man we all have our opinions. But for one, I absolutely hate reading! I find it to be really boring. But nothing has ever grabbed my attention like the Bible has. Even when thinking about reading the Bible I'm like man I don't want to because I hate reading. But I end up doing it and then I just can't stop. In school I have to read certain books, and yeah I'll read them but I wont care for them. I wont be excited to read them. But when I read the Bible I don't want to stop.
BIGDADDYDUKE2 1 year ago
@BIGDADDYDUKE2
Translation: "I enjoy ignorance. (Except knowing about the Bible)."
Ratznium 1 year ago
@Ratznium If you enjoy ignorance but not the bible, you're saying the bible isn't ignorant because if it was you'd enjoy it. Good one. Your wisdom is only surpassed by your ignorance.
BIGDADDYDUKE2 1 year ago
@BIGDADDYDUKE2
That's a logical fallacy, by the way. Regardless, it's clear that you entirely missed the point.
Ratznium 1 year ago
@Ratznium No its clear that I gave you a second thought about sending me your hilarious comment.
BIGDADDYDUKE2 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing But you'd need something to give us that begining, something that was there before the begining. And that thing would have to be eternal. Why? Because its impossible to have something come from nothing. I don't expect to go on a picnick and take an empty box and when I get to where I want to be, open the box and find a sandwhich in there. You'd have to create it and put it in there.
BIGDADDYDUKE2 1 year ago
crocodile got raped 1:16
Godofrockl666 1 year ago
It is unfortunate that uneducated religious bigots reproduce more often than open minded people. Everyone who is a sane, rational, and tolerant person needs to have as many babies as possible! Please! Have lots of sex without condoms! (preferably with other sane, rational, and tolerant people)
AllOtherNamesTaken2 1 year ago
The only thing I did not like about this video was that the transition periods appear to be arbitrary. I saw a very good video called I think, "Is evolution a blind watch maker?" Where a guy took these principles and made a computer program that ran through watches (that were fancifully given the ability to reproduce), and found under various conditions that random watch parts always evolved to better watches after a couple thousand generations.
AllOtherNamesTaken2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheist / science use the gospel of guesswork
here is a challenge!
Give the age of the earth and or evolution without
utilising assumptive data to calculate it?
valu777 1 year ago
there are still 570 people that remain idiots
paradoxinhumanshape 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you are in the driver's seat of your life, and have no emotional need to conform to some bullshit then you can learn all that humans have to offer, and not believe anything until it is proven to you absolutely. You need to be honest with yourself to get free of other people's controls over you. They can convince you that you are smart and good when you are just a dumb conformist who has no balls to seek what is true.( Read this several times.)
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "you can learn all that humans have to offer, and not believe anything until it is proven to you absolutely" What gibberish. What the hell can it mean to "learn" something and then say that you don't believe it? How long have you been insane?
"You need to be honest with yourself " What would you know about that - you have been lying to everybody on YouTube and lying to yourself. You LIE about your IQ, you LIE about reading 20,000 papers.
do you believe in leprechauns?
AlanCFA 1 year ago 4
Entropy
skyehoyt1971 1 year ago
Entrophy
skyehoyt1971 1 year ago
The second melody is by Robert Miles, anyone know the name (it is definitely not Children).
5m1nutes 1 year ago
This was kinda cool
xEarlX10 1 year ago
i think this mabey alittle too much info for most religious type's to take in mabey try to make it as easy as 1+1 and they may be able to get it given 800 generations haha
manic42018 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have asked ever Evotard I have come across to show me this absolutely clear, indisputable, undeniable, irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence that does not contain some bullshit opinion from an Evotard and they have all failed. They have all failed themselves. They fucked themselves with beliefs that they attach ego to, and proclaim faith in this shit to the other followers, by getting degrees in this bullshit. The best place to indoctrinate is the classroom where this shit is forced on you.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Each and every part of this religious BS is refuted by better concepts that actually follow the evidence. I hate faith based bullshit in science. If you only get your information from the people who are brainwashed and want to make you into them, then you are really stupid. You put faith in humans who are really messed up and full of shit. You would never make a scientist until you can be objective and that includes being objective about you.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou Better concepts you say? Such as? Nothing has been refuted, nor has it been replaced. If you think it has, then please, present the refutation and replacement.
Oicurmtoyoy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When you Evotards can answer this question, then you will be free. Where is you absolutely irrefutable, undeniable, obvious, physical evidence for evolution? So, far all you have is faith and belief and NO Evidence at all that would lead a sane person to think this shit is real. If you want to be a free thinker, then get free of all delusional human emotional mental garbage. "The Neutral Evolution Forum".
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou It's funny how you re-post at the top, every time you get cornered. You're just parroting the same thing over and over, even though we've given you all the evidence you could ask for. Stop pretending, It's annoying.
Oicurmtoyoy 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@Oicurmtoyoy You are an Evotard. What you say means nothing because your religion negates you as a scientist. If you want to be free of bullshit beliefs that have no evidence then you can. If your goal is to be a moron who parrots common human garbage beliefs, your are succeeding. Goto The Neutral Evotlon Forum and read this time. Learn from me if you want to be free.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "...your religion negates you as a scientist". Speak for yourself - YOU are the religious one who uses Creationist arguments.
Jimmy - do you believe in leprechauns?
AlanCFA 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlanCFA The problem with observation is the observer. When people believe in faith based HEMG, they project that belief on the world. When people believe that fish evolved into humans ( from a religion about 2600 years old), they will force that belief on evidence.
Since there is NO WAY to objectively test their conclusions, it is not science. It is based on perpetuation of beliefs. It is possible to learn all that mankind "knows" and not take on bullshit if you understand humans.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Since there is NO WAY to objectively test their conclusions" Wrong again. Any theory makes testable predictions and the ones made by evolutionary theory have passed their tests. IF you knew something about evolution THEN you would know that fact. But since you are a religious goon with NO understanding of the subject, it is not surprising that you don't know that.
p.s. - do you believe in leprechauns?
AlanCFA 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Oicurmtoyoy The problem with you is that you allow others to tell you what evidence is.
Even when I was very young, and was presented with all the "evidence", it was clear that there was no evidence to even start this idea that simple life evolved from nothing and that complex life came from simple life forms. The evidence was not there to even suggest this. So, I knew it was a religious idea. Then I looked up where this shit came from. It is from an ancient religion from over 2600 years ago
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Even when I was very young, and was presented with all the "evidence", it was clear that there was no evidence to even start this idea..."
But when you got older you found out that there WAS evidence and then lied and pretended that there was not. You claimed that the fusion of human chromosome #2 NEVER happened. Then you found out that there was evidence that it HAD happened and that you were WRONG and so you LIED and claimed that you always accepted the fusion.
AlanCFA 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Oicurmtoyoy Inference, implication and wishing it was real, is not science. When you have the abilty to just observe what is going on and not project ideas on what you see, then you will be a scientist. The belief is brainwashed into your head then they reinforce it with religious slogans that have nothing to do with science. You do not have any evidence to support words like "Evolutionary pressure". and "Random Mutations" all are human emotional mental garbage, HEMG ideas from belief.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou You start with a few insults, then you suggest I go to a forum which you rarely visit yourself. Then you tell me about brainwashing and religion, and how there is no evidence.
Inference and implication are science, when they are logical ones. You have failed to explain how the inferences made are lacking in logic or reason, and until you do so, you have failed to refute the evidence.
You also said "simple life evolved from nothing". The theory of evolution dosen't say that.
Oicurmtoyoy 1 year ago
@Oicurmtoyoy It's clear that you haven't made much comment on the the details and mechanisms of evolution, because you don't actually know about evolution. No one said life evolved from nothing, so don't even try that straw man.
Oicurmtoyoy 1 year ago
@Oicurmtoyoy Also, those phrases aren't slogans. Random mutations are real, and undeniably observed. Evolutionary pressure has also been observed. I find it Ironic that you would complain about these "slogans", which I haven't even used so far, and then you use "HEMG" in the same sentence. THAT, is a slogan.
Oicurmtoyoy 1 year ago
@GSFY "When you have the abilty to just observe what is going on and not project ideas on what you see, then you will be a scientist." How would you know, you've never been one.
Please name ONE scientist (a real one, not yourself) who has written that scientific theories need to be absolute, irrefutable, and have no other plausible explanations in order to be accepted. You cannot do it. Einstein did not agree with that, nor Feynman, nor Hubble, nor Watson, etc. NOBODY accepts your gibberish
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@GSFY "Inference, implication and wishing it was real, is not science." Wishing it was real is not science, but inference IS part of EVERY branch of science and IF you knew anything about science, you'd know that. But you are not scientifically literate and are a religious crank who repeats LIES and insults at every turn
Name ONE scientist who accepts your nonsense that theories must be absolutely proven with no other plausible explanations. Just ONE.(not yourself as you are NOT a scientist)
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou Evidence for evolution?xa..Read a book about it..visit a museum and look at fossils..And in the process of it..Keep an open mind..Evolution is far more elegant and beautiful that you think..and YES we are cousins with chimps..deal with it..YES THE POPE IS A CHIMPS COUSIN...
Stevoukos 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stevoukos I know that you are a monkey's ass, but that is not in the literal sense. If you like being an idiot, that is your problem. There is no irrefutable evidence for evolution, you dumb Evotard. If you want to get free of the controls this shit has over your life, and be a free thinker, that would be good for you. Go to The Neutral Evolution Forum and read. Don't post and wast time with the same bullshit I have answered there many times.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Stevoukos You are the moron who believes in some fucked up relgion of Evortards, called Evodelusionism. NOT ONE single believer can answer my easy question:
Where is your absolutely, irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence that simple life forms have evolved into complex life forms? YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE OPINIONS IN YOUR ANSWER. It must be self-evident and obvious to anyone. Otherwise you are considered to be insane, irrational beleiver in bullshit.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoodScienceForYou "Where is your absolutely, irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence that simple life forms have evolved into complex life forms" You have been told many times, but it does not sink in due to your very low IQ. NO scientific theory requires absolute irrefutable evidence. NONE. You LIE when you claim they do.
Where is your irrefutable evidence for the existence of God? I mean the God that you believe in, not your God=Truth crap.
AlanCFA 1 year ago 5
@GoodScienceForYou Do you believe in gravity?
Stevoukos 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stevoukos The subject is Evolution. You fucking Evotard use this lame argument all the time. Why are you just a fucking parrot of this fucked up belief system? Don't you ever compare this shit religion of Evodelusionism to real science! UNDERSTAND? Don't side step, avoid and think this is good. Where is your absolutely irrefutable evidence that fish evolved into humans? Answer that fucking question and you will be free of this fucking religious bullshit.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou I suppose you believe in gravity because you can see actually things not flying right?Please don't say that gravity has the mathematical equations as well because in that manner one can claim that molecular biology for example is wrong..So please tell me you believe in gravity because you actually see it..am I correct?
Stevoukos 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stevoukos I told you to never compare this shit to functional science. Shit beliefs of fish becoming human over some fantasy time is just that, religious beliefs, NOT SCIENCE. Don't sidestep, it is a really unprofessional and poor response to my direct questions. Where is your absolute evidence that fish evolved into humans? Answer that question NOW!
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou The minute you ask this question shows how little you know about evolution..No fish directly evolved into human..When evolutionists say life was created at seas what they mean is that at seas simple organisms where first created..Simple one cell or multicellural organisms..Some of them adapted and could also survive at land(this is not fiction-you can see it right know..ex frogs) and some started living only in lands.This is how life started from the seas and moved to land.
Stevoukos 1 year ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stevoukos The minute I ask for REAL evidence, you delusional brainwashed fuckers all state that you don't have to have evidence. The premise of your fucking religion is that fish became human over some immense time, So, prove it you dumb Evotard. All you are saying is religious mumbo mythology that HAS NEVER BEEN tested by any scientific methods. It is all religous slogans and mythological fucking fairy stories. How fucking stupid are you? Who told you that shit and why do you believe?
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou Did I say I don't have to have evidence?Evidence is all around you..Oh and by the way..Your reply about gorrilas having different number of chromosomes..
Evolution is not just about adaptation to new enviroments(which causes new traits) but also about mutations..Mutations can be either change in DNA sequences OR in chromosomic anomalies (for example one more chromosome-ex Down syndrome where people have 3 21 chromosomes)These anomalies are in most cases fatal but in somecases
Stevoukos 1 year ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Stevoukos All of the evidence only points to normal genetics interbreeding, genetic traits passed down the same lineages, and adaptations that normally cause diseases. All "mutations" are genetically unstable freaks that do not continue. There is no evidence of any creature ever breaking the boundaries of their foundational genetics that came from the fist of the parent species. If you have any absolutely obvoius and irrefutable evidence to prove otherwise, you would be the first.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Diabetes, Cancer, and the hundreds of other genetic diseases are increasing, ,because there is no positive changes to DNA taking place. Once the DNA structure has this flaw, it never goes away and it never gets fixed. It just continues on and on unless it is a disease that stops breeding. The only "cure" genetics has NOW is to sterilize or kill people with these traits ie, kill unborn babies. Does that sound familiar to you?
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago