I am someone who in your terms would be a theistic evolutionist, with the possible exception that i don't see God playing tinkering with things, just letting creation unfold as it must. The beauty that is our world and indeed our universe to me is only heightened by the wonder of God's design.
@IamVerilance Then it sounds to me that you are not a theistic evolutionist, but instead a naturalistic evolutionist who has a Deist view of the origins of the Universe. Since evolution doesn't deal with the origins of the Universe, in regards to evolution, your view is no different than mine. Theistic evolution implies a divine guiding hand, not simply an intelligently designed set of initial conditions.
@IlC4RL0SIl I'm sorry if I gave off the impression that I believe "science knows it all". I don't believe that. I do, however, believe that science is our best shot at figuring most things out eventually. It is practically guaranteed to lead us closer and closer to the truth, just by its methodology.
These are excellent videos, you have a really open-minded attitude to the beliefs of creationists and you present a balanced argument, even in an environment where religion strives to stifle debate and discovery.
All beliefs are bad for humans. Beliefs are the cause of war, hate, racism, fear, and all to "good" things in humans. A true scientists forms no beliefs. No matter how many people shove their beliefs down your throat. Beliefs destroy your credibility.
Beliefs have nothing in common with real knowledge.
GSFY - so no answers, just more homilies and hot air, so much for you being a 'teachers teacher'. If you can't answer our questions just run along to your new mate Nephi's channel, just don't tell him what you've already said about creationists, he won't be too understanding.
@GoodScienceForYou Couldn't resist coming back for a few more posts, eh? Your post 5 days ago sounded pretty final.
Ah, well... I'm game for more. Have you tried what I suggested yet? Have you lined up some sequences yet? Take cytochrome C, for instance. It has been swapped in some very divergent organisms, and despite sequence differences, works the same in every one. Guess what pattern those sequence similarities & differences make? Hint: it's the same as the broken gene GULOP.
Have you heard of the Raelians? Atheists that accept Intelligent Design. There's also a book out called "An atheist defends Intelligent Design." I'm sure you have heard about the new discovery that people are calling the "missing link." It's being brought up in my Anthropology class.
I am aware of the existence of atheists who believe in ID. There is still the main logical problem of ID: If the claim is that complex things require an intelligent creator, then this rule must necessarily apply to the creator itself.
I've heard of many discovered "missing links". The term "missing link" originally referred to any fossil nonhuman hominid intermediate between humans and other apes - something Darwin never saw. We have hundreds now, so the link isn't missing.
@EvoBiologist I was just wondering that since many haven't. I think it's interesting that there are atheists that accept ID even if I don't understand why.
Missing link has been overused by the media.I simply want people to understand science. I don't think the media helps at all with their hype.
@RationalCreationist "Missing link has been overused by the media. I simply want people to understand science. I don't think the media helps at all with their hype."
I agree completely. I can't think of the last time popular media explained a biological discovery accurately.
@EvoBiologist I can't ever remember when science has explained normal genetics accurately without the projection of this religious bullshit of mystical creatures and magical causes. There is not such thing as evolution. No creature has ever been shown in evidence to break the boundaries of their fundamental genetics and morph into an entirely new form of life. If this was true, it would be shown in PHYSICAL evidence.
@GoodScienceForYou You keep talking about "boundaries of their fundamental genetics", and I keep asking you to define such boundaries. Fish would be a good one, since you mentioned fish when talking about these boundaries, and fish are a large diverse group of familiar animals.
So please, enlighten me. Where are these boundaries of fundamental genetics in fish?
@EvoBiologist Go take a look at the evidence, without the belief that has been brainwashed into your head. There is no way I am going to argue with you on this, because you are way to far in this shit hole of beliefs. When you have actually seen any creature that changes is foundational genetics and morphs into an entirely new creature with completely different genetics and becomes the parent of a new genus let me know. So far there is inference, implication and projection of beliefs, and...
@EvoBiologist You, for instance, will take some lame idea of creationists, and use that against your pet hypothesis that you already believe in and use all the bullshit that you think is real to perpetuate your beliefs. But you never look at any other hypothesis nor do you want to. That is intellectually dishonest and common with belief, not with real science.
@GoodScienceForYou I've looked at every idea I know of that has been proposed, and none but common descent can explain the pattern of diversity we see in life. I've examined the data more than anything else in my life, and continue to do so when I discover new data.
Your demand for a new genus evolving in front of our eyes is ridiculous, because such an event isn't predicted by evolution to occur. If it did, we'd abandon current theory.
What are the boundaries in fish? Always the genus?
@EvoBiologist I am sorry ,that you have succumbed to a fucking religion, pawned off as science. There is NO fucking evidence in the physical world to back your fucking belief. You can project this fucking fantasy until you die and be a common as dirt.
@GoodScienceForYou "I am sorry ,that you have succumbed to a fucking religion, pawned off as science."
...and I am sorry that after everything I have tried to show you, you still feel that way.
Please do try comparing DNA yourself, and get back to me at some point about what these "genetic boundaries" are. It would be a good mental exercise for both of us.
@EvoBiologist DNA comparisons for the most part are negated by the fact that you will find common use of the same proteans, minerals, elements, because they are finite, and there are only four programming "digits" used to form them into cells. It is only when there are tremendous links in physical evidence beyond what is found in DNA that you can make any assumptions. Do you understand? It is not the DNA that is the problem, it is the interpretation that is the problem.
@GoodScienceForYou "There is NO physical evidence to back up any theory."
Evidence is not the same as "absolute proof". There is some evidence for plenty of things that aren't even true. The key is to find the theory with the most evidential support.
"DNA comparisons for the most part are negated by the fact that you will find common use..."
That doesn't take into account mutations that don't change the protein, or mutations in non-coding regions such as broken protein coding genes.
@EvoBiologist Stop the semantic bullshit. It is "absolute evidence" not absolute proof. This is more of that bullshit "Straw Man" crap you are fond of.
There is absolute evidence for electrons in that computer you type on. There is absolute evidence of atomic energy in the lights in your house. There is absolute evidence for gravity, for light, for heat. But there is no absolute evidence for evolution, because it is a religion.
@GoodScienceForYou What is the difference between "absolute evidence" and "absolute proof"? How can evidence be absolute if it doesn't prove the thing it is evidence of? Isn't that just normal evidence? It can only be called "absolute" if it is absolute.
You talk about absolute evidence for electrons, energy, gravity, light, and heat. But these are just words representing concepts. Sure, there's evidence for something we call "gravity", but what IS gravity? Dropping stuff won't tell you.
@EvoBiologist Absolute evidence is what is required for belief. That means that all the evidence shows the same thing(s). You don't have that with Evodelusionism, because it is a religion. If you form opinions and beliefs without the needed evidence then you are religious. It would be better for you to understand yourself better and how you got your deeply held, religious beliefs that you think are science, because they told you it was.
"If you form opinions and beliefs without the needed evidence then you are religious."
Fine - if that's what you think. I'm still more likely to be right than you are because I base my research on one of the best supported theories in the history of science. Your hypothesis (and every other one proposed), by contrast, blatantly fails on many levels.
@EvoBiologist You are not fine, because if you take all of the building blocks of your belief and look at all the evidence you will see a total neglect of real science in that no other hypotheses that are just as plausible are allowed. Only the lame ones that are not really based on evidence are allowed in "opposition" to the religious belief.
@GoodScienceForYou "no other hypotheses that are just as plausible are allowed...I have already pointed this out to you."
You have not pointed out a plausible alternative hypothesis and neither has anyone else. If you are referring to your hypothesis that gorillas and humans separately appeared through some unknown mysterious process and bred to make chimps, then I have already explained to you that comparing the DNA makes it easy to reject this hypothesis. Have another you'd care to test?
@EvoBiologist Show me evidence that only points to evolution of creatures changing drastically into some new genus? Just one piece to get me started. I have not seen even one piece of evidence and I know just about all of it that you have been taught.
All of the 'evidence' is explained by other conclusions and better explained.
@GoodScienceForYou "Show me evidence that only points to evolution of creatures changing drastically into some new genus? ... I have not seen even one piece of evidence and I know just about all of it that you have been taught."
I seriously doubt you know half of what I do about the evidence for evolution. If you did, then you'd already know that GULOP on it's own is more than enough evidence to support the common ancestry of all primates.
GSFY - 'Give it a shot' - OK - you claimed 'The Chimp and Human produced the Neanderthals', and that chimps had been around for only '4,000 years'. As chimps occur in central Africa how long did it take their Neanderthal offspring to migrate to northern Europe? How long did Neanderthals survive, and why is there no mention of this distinct species of human in any ancient record? Why have we not found remains with Neanderthal features less 24,000 years old?
GSFY - you also claimed 'the Gorrilla and chimp produces the Orangutang' which is interesting as we have orangutan fossils from over 40,000 years ago in Borneo and Sumatra, and what appears to be an ancestor species in Thailand dating back 10-13.5 million years ago. Which is quite strange as you claim that chimps first appeared only 4,000 years ago and yet are ancestral to orangutans?!
GSFY - just in case ancient history isn't your thing, by 4,000 years ago the Egyptians had already seen the passing of the early dynastic period, the old kingdom and most of the first intermediate period. Yet you claim humans mated with gorilllas to produce chimps around this time, and subsequently humans mated with chimps to produce Neanderthals.
@GoodScienceForYou "What part of my hypothesis leaves out any plausibility and doesn't look only at the evidence we actually have? Give it a shot."
Compare the DNA sequences of gorilla, chimp, and human side by side. if your interbreeding hypothesis were correct, we would expect to see a situation where comparing different genes would give you different relationships between the 3. Instead, using any gene, we find humans and chimps closer than either is to gorilla. Overall ~98% identical.
The gorilla is not necessarily the mate to the human, but is close enough and big enough to force the insemination. The chimp and Human are too close to be anthing but relatives, much closer than some speciation from millions of years ago.
GSFY - so now you suggest gorillas raped humans?! Don't forget you claimed this happened 4,000 years ago(over 500 years after the building of the pyramids) and there is no evidence that gorilla or human genetics was substantially different to current and we know they can't produce offspring today. Thought you said you think people who believe things without 'absolute evidence' are 'nuts' or 'insane' - convicted out of your own mouth.
GSFY - and what about your claim for chimps and humans producing Neanderthals somewhat less than 4,000 years ago? How exactly does that fit into what we know of the ancient world and the age, distribution and frequency of Neanderthal remains? Care to explain that to us, or is it time for another rant?
GSFY - and so much for your 'I never make any errors in my statements' and yet you now cast doubt on the accuracy of your own gorilla claim? You do have a problem with consistency don't you, and an apparent obsession with bestiality? You really do need professional help and to take the medication offered.
@GoodScienceForYou So now you are backpedaling. Chimps might be made from a human/gorilla cross or they might be from a human/mysterious unknown ape cross. Where is your evidence for this cross exactly?
As for the similarity being too close, I've already pointed out that the per generation mutation rate needed to account for human/chimp differences is spot on if they diverged 6 or so million years ago. Don't take my word for it - do the math yourself. Then explain the nested hierarchy.
@EvoBiologist Do you understand the term "assumptions". Assumptions based on a pre belief can do magical things in a novel. If you were to create a magical world with a computer that magically ties all creatures together you do it with the assumption that there is a tie in the first place. The only tie to all creatures is how tiny and small the earth is and how finite all the usable materials available to make living creatures from. Understand? (I don't think you can.)
GSFY - nice to see you trying to explain away the problems we raised with your gorilla+human->chimp and chimp+human->Neanderthal notions, and all less than 4,000 years ago ... oooops, you didn't, what a surprise! What happened to your claim to only believe things based on 'absolute evidence', or 'I never make any errors in my statements'? We were getting all excited waiting for our 'teachers teacher' to explain everything, why so shy now?
@GoodScienceForYou This is your response to what he said? What a red herring.. Please explain why you think that 6 million years since divergence should leave Humans and Chimps so much more divergent than they are. EB told you to do the math yourself.
"The only tie to all creatures is how tiny and small the earth is and how finite all the usable materials available to make living creatures from"
The deep similarities observed in life are not about simply using the same materials.
@GoodScienceForYou "The only tie to all creatures is how tiny and small the earth is and how finite all the usable materials available to make living creatures from. Understand? (I don't think you can.)"
Look, even if you limit what's biologically possible to what's currently here on Earth, the pattern we see (a nested hierarchy) is still incredibly unlikely to occur. The only logical explanation so far proposed is the same one that explains the same pattern seen in viruses...
@EvoBiologist I given you enough to get free of this, if you had the ability to see how all this works on you. See you later. I wish you well, and that you actually do something for science when you get free of these beliefs.
GSFY - so we trash your laughable chimp notions and now you run away trying to save some face, well, you won't be missed. You really should stay on creationist channels, where they have much less knowledge about science and may relish your ill-educated attacks on evolution. On science based channels people will dismantle your nonsense and then simply laugh at you.
@GoodScienceForYou Good luck to you as well. I do hope you try comparing sequence alignments as I suggested. It's a quantitative and predictive way of testing the theory of common descent and alternate hypotheses. It is the solid physical evidence you say you require. Try comparing primate genes against the predictions of anything you can think of - only one explanation works. I know, because I've studied the genes carefully. It's not a conspiracy or cult. Test the genes.
@EvoBiologist - I'm impressed that you can be so generous considering the foul-mouthed abuse you've received from GSFY. His somewhat more polite comments recently only seem to have happened after he got nowhere with his hectoring abuse, and as a result of being unable to answer the problems we raised with his daft notions. Unlike you I hold out little hope of him changing, and suspect he'll be back dumping his nonsense on a science channel in the near future.
You write "I have no fucking religion and I am a scientist. I understand all the 'science' in radiometric dating"
So, you claim to understand all of the science in radiometric dating.
Ok, given t(BP) = -1/\lambda*ln (N/N_0) where the ratio of N to N_0 is .783 and the half life is 50,000 years gives what result? If you can't give the answer, you don't understand
You're a Xtian fundy pretending to be a scientist; how sad.
@EvoBiologist Your scientists don't really understand the cause of the changes in the DNA, much less how to wipe their asses. Actually they know a little more about wiping their asses, but when shit remains, they don't even do a good job of that. You put you faith in these stupid humans to try and figure out the universe from the perspective of a human with dumb ass needs to fill in blanks with faith and belief.
@EvoBiologist Once the organic creature lineage is started, it develops based on the nature of the creature and the environment. As shown in actual absolute evidence: once the creature can no longer survive the environment, it goes extinct.
It does not evolved if it is dead. Dead ends are dead ends and you can't fill in the blanks with faith and belief. The absence of evidence is the absence of evidence.
@GoodScienceForYou An objective scientist never fills in the blanks with belief as you do. You have no idea what is happening in the genome of any creatures and yet you act like you do, but only because the belief is stronger than reality.
@GoodScienceForYou There are NO magical nor mystical causes in science! Stop doing that! Only look from the perspective of not believing in this bullshit and you will be a lot better off. They have no clue where the impetus for change in the DNA comes from or the mechanism that causes it. Not a clue. Yet they act like "Science" is their god and so they fill in the blanks with dumb ass beliefs that have nothing but religious causes.
@GoodScienceForYou You speak of scientists filling in the blanks with religious beliefs. Instead, we fill in the blanks with extrapolations of the evidence available, corroborated by other evidence wherever possible. This gives us the best picture possible from current information.
Instead, you ignore this information and come up with a much more complex version that contradicts the evidence. How do you propose all these complex organisms kept popping up throughout history?
@EvoBiologist "How do you propose all these complex organisms kept popping up throughout history?" It is your need for this answer that messes up your mind. It is why you allow answers that are not based on real evidence. The need is the weakness that allows you to be indoctrinated into beliefs pawned off as science.
There is no Evolution VS Religion both are religious, seeking to make up answers for things you are not capable of understanding. Until you can see actual physical........more
Until you can see physical evidence that has no other plausibility, then you are nuts to believe in such things. This is why I am the teachers teacher. If you want to be free, be free. It is that simple. You can walk back out the door you came in from into any delusional belief that is forced on you. You remember how you took on this belief, being surrounded by believers and all of them calling this "science" and having credentials? That has been around for many centuries of ignorance.
GSFY - you poor deluded simpleton. You think you're ' the teachers teacher' when you couldn't teach your way out of a paper bag. Whenever you're asked to explain or provide evidence for your ill-educated assertions you revert to rants and repeating your inane drivel. You really need to get professional help and to take the medication offered.
@KrokrX You are the one who believes in mystical causes. I don't. Who told you that evolution was possible? Why do you believe them.
You have not studied much of anything in this life. That is obvious. You are the dip shit who has trouble understanding logic. Here it is again. If you have no evidence for your beliefs, then it is a delusion. You have absolutely no proof or even irrefutable evidence showing any evolution, yet you believe.
GSFY - so where is your 'absolute evidence' for your claimed 'IQ over 180'? You've already said that 'Until you can see physical evidence that has no other plausibility, then you are nuts to believe in such things', so by your own standards you consider yourself 'nuts', guess what we agree, you are nuts!
GSFY - as for your claimed 'IQ over 180', according to your older brother, the one you've boasted is 'even more intelligent', he's publicly said he was tested at a more modest 126 and, in a protective older brotherly manner, would only say that you were 'somewhat lower'. Not that we needed his statement to realise that your claimed IQ was as much a fantasy as any of your other silly boasts. It's difficult to decide between laughing at you and pitying you.
GSFY - why don't you prove the rest of us wrong and clearly define your 'foundational genetics' boundary, or tell us which specific DNA sequences or ERV insertion patterns support your interbreeding notion better than the evolutionary explanation? Your lack of even quite basic scientifc knowledge has been apparent through your comments such as 'Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds', and no amount of bluster will change that.
GSFY - why do you believe your own claim to an 'IQ over 180' when it is perfectly plausible that your tester made a mistake, or that it's a figment of your imagination? You claim that you should only believe things that have 'no other plausibility' and yet you violate this by believing your own boastful statement. You similarly violate it by believing in god, astrology and that chimps were the result of humans breeding with gorillas around 4,000 years ago!
@GoodScienceForYou "It is your need for this answer that messes up your mind."
No - it is your need for this answer that messes up your hypothesis. See, the problem with your explanation is that it requires some method for the complex organisms to pop up instantaneously so that they can then interbreed as you claim and go extinct.
Evolution not only answers this problem, it does so in a predictive way. We can predict where new organisms will appear in the fossil record or on the genetic tree.
@EvoBiologist The problem is the belief in this. When you surround yourself with believers and they only look at evidence that supports the belief, you get what happened to you. You do not look at any of this the way an objective observer would because the belief destroys objectivity. That is a common human weakness. The other is that in all my studies nothing scientific on this is conclusive of any answer to how life got this way. There is NO physical evidence to back up any theory.
@homeostasis4me I actually did post an example run by an atheist group that accepts ID. They call themselves Raelians. There is also a book by an atheist defending ID called" An atheist defends Intelligent Design." I can't remember his name. But not all atheists accept evolution. It would be pointless to name people I know offline that aren't popular. It's quite rare that I talk to an atheist that doesn't accept evolution.
@homeostasis4me Bradley John Monton is the author of the book "Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design." More atheists in my opinion need to speak up if they don't accept evolution.
@RationalCreationist- More athiests don't speak up because, in my HO, most athiests agree with the theory. How many Xtians do you know who openly support late-term abortion?
@RationalCreationist An atheist who believes in ID is NOT, by definition, an athiest. There is no way around it- you can claim to be anything you want, but you can't claim to not believe in a higher power and also claim to believe that a higher power created all that is without someone like myself calling you out on the hipocracy. It's just......silly. People write books for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is the desire to make a bunch of money.
@homeostasis4me Yes they are an atheist. An atheist simply has to disbelieve in God. Don't add to what an athest has to believe or disbelieve. They can have other beliefs, jut not God beliefs. I'm using the term that most atheist I talk to would use.. An atheist that accepts intelligent design believes in aliens not a higher power. There is a difference. I don't agree with it but some of them support ID Christians.
@RationalCreationist- SOME of us support the xtian ID stance, just like SOME xtians support late-term abortion. Please, don't take me the wrong way, ok? Not being acidic here, just making a point.
GSFY - in the fantasy world you inhabit it may be normal to accept assertions, insults and profanities in lieu of evidence, but not here in the real world. Your inability to construct a meaningful argument would even embarrrass our resident YEC. The only evidence you've provided thus far merely supports the hypothesis that you have a serious mental health problem.
If your argument for evolution is to argue against creationism, then you are not a scientist. Only fuking religions argue with other religions. That is one reason why we know that Evodelusionism is a fuking religion.
Arguing against creationism has never been my argument for evolution. I only argue against creationism because most people who don't accept evolution do so because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Evolution has far more evidential support than it needs to receive universal acceptance. The biggest obstacle isn't evidence, but contradictory religious belief.
Google 29+ evidences for macroevolution
It is far from complete, but is a good summary of some easily understood points.
There is no evolution on this planet. All of the evidence points to this: Creatures come into existence in the parent group. They adapt to survive as the same creatures then go extinct or they are still here as the same genealogy.
There has never been a fish that evolved into man. There has never been a reptile who became human over some immense time. This has no foundational evidence to back it.
It is true that organisms never evolve out of their parent group. Chrordates stay chordates, vertebrates vertebrates, tetrapods tetrapods, amniotes amniotes, mammals mammals, etc. There are, however, numerous transitions from more generalized groups into more specialized subgroups. These exist in living organisms and fossils, but by far the best evidence of these transitions is genetic.
You may not think the evidence is enough, but it's ignorant to claim that no evidence exists for evolution.
Please show me you evidence for fish that came out of the water and started walking, grew lungs and eventually became human as the evolved through millions of years and became human.
Start there. Keep in mind that this is one of the foundational premises that all "Evotards" believe.
"Also keep in mind that I know all of the evidence in Science for this belief, so far."
That's a patently ridiculous statement. You should be ashamed of yourself. New evidence is published on a daily basis. You couldn't possibly keep up with every paper in all of the scientific journals on evolution.
You have yet to respond to my GULOP video or to any of the evidence on 29+ evidences for macroevolution. I'm still waiting. Why aren't these sufficient?
Test me you Evotard! You are a brainwashed fucking idiot. I was tested with an IQ over 180. That is 20 points above genius, dip shit. I keep up with all that there is published. You don't. You are a moron.
So you have read and digested every issue of Nature, Genetics, Heredity, Evolution, Molecular Systematics, TREE, Proceedings of the Royal Society, etc., etc., etc.? We're talking about many dozens of journals every month for many years.
Even if you are a super genius and a speed reader, I highly doubt that you have actually done this with any comprehension.
Your constant repetition of your IQ is an indication of your lack of important types of intelligence. Why not speak intelligently instead?
GSFY - you have no evidence that you have the IQ you claim that would meet the standard you require for evolution. You cannot prove that the test wasn't faulty or the tester didn't make a mistake, therefore, by your own criteria, your IQ is a religious belief you hold. Your contributions to date show no evidence of even an average IQ let alone anything higher. Enjoy your self delusion.
"GSFY - you have no evidence that you have the IQ you claim..."
Brilliant, KrokrX! Why should we believe anything he says? Using his own logic, he is likely simply delusional and brainwashed into his particular religious belief.
I like how he simply denied what you and I said about 88% of families, and just expects us to believe that he's right.
Come on, GSFY, you used the 88% figure first - quote the source and set us straight.
I personally am more of a population geneticist and evolutionary ecologist than a paleontologist. As I mentioned before, evolution is such a huge topic that no person can keep up with all of the evidence pouring in. I think it likely that you never read the original paper either and simply found a creationist misrepresenting the actual study. If not, go ahead then, show me where I'm wrong.
"evidence for fish that came out of the water and started walking, grew lungs"
It seems that you are unaware of the existence of mudskippers and lungfish, both of which are fish that move on land, have lungs, and are genetically more closely related to all land vertebrates than to any fish.
The rest of the transition from fish to human is written all over the tree of life and corroborated by living organisms, fossils, and most importantly, genetics.
Fuck you. Mud skippers have always been the same. They have never changes in millions of years, moron. And lung fish are the same. If it doesn't turn into a fucking lizard then it is no evolution. Evodelusionism is a fuking religion.
Why the foul language and aggression? This is not the way that rational people debate.
"If it doesn't turn into a fucking lizard then it is no evolution."
There are plenty of independent sources of evidence of intermediates between tetrapods and other fish. I'm sure you are aware of some.
I gave you 2 fish that both "came out of the water" and "grew lungs", as well as being genetically closer to you than to a goldfish. You respond with "Fuck you."
I hate your fuckkng Evodelusion religion, with just cause, because it is ruining biology and fukes up any possibility of progress as long as retards are in science like you. Nit wit!
You have absolutely no way to verify your belief in this magical bull shit of fish coming out of water. You do not have the capacity to understand what real evidence is. Your faith and belief is your guide, not intelligence.
We disagree on the rarity of fossils, so lets actually argue this point. You have said that an organism can't change genera. Yet, you also reference a figure of 88% of modern non-bird land vertebrates being represented in the fossil record. What you failed to mention is that this figure of 88% is of families, meaning that the genus count must be far lower. This means that either evolution within a family is possible, and/or that the fossil record is less complete than you suggested.
88% of the NOW living creatures, non bird vertibrates have been found and they show no evolution at all. Why is it that you don't know this? Could it be that they left it out of your classes, for some "unknown" reason.
These assholes are only going to show you the shit that forms your fucking belief.
GSFY - WRONG - your 88% actually refers to REPRESENTATIVES of FAMILIES. Snakes have 15 families with 457 genera and 2923 species, and if we apply your 88% of families, we could have as little as 2.9% of genera and 0.45% of species represented, hardly as complete a picture as you, or Denton and others, try to paint.
GSFY - you claim my numbers are 'not correct' but you don't say why, and then you revert to your profanities, insults and dumb assertions. You really are no different to those dishonest YECS you claim to despise. BTW - don't think I didn't notice that once again you failed to provide ANY evidence in support of your assertions, let alone any to meet the standards you require.
Just look at the evidence and forget the dogma from your fucking religion!
Those asshole palenondickheads, tainted all the evidence with poor dating methods, fictional data they made up, and forced belief. I'll bet they have even screwed up the Clad of creatures thinking many creatures that do not even belong is forced to fit. Delusional assholes are like that, and the want there little egos petted by publishing crap.
"I'll bet they have even screwed up the Clad of creatures thinking many creatures that do not even belong is forced to fit. Delusional assholes are like that, and the want there little egos petted by publishing crap."
There are so many grammatical and spelling errors in these 2 sentences that it isn't clear what you are trying to say. You also are simply making bold assertions with nothing to back them up. Simply calling people delusional won't help them understand why they are delusional.
On most forums if you criticize people for grammar on a fuking youtube forum you are considered to be ill mannered and a scum bag. It does not promote anything except your fucking resistance to what is being said. It does not promote chat.
It is not an argument for anything other than you are a pompous ass in the eyes of ALL readers.
I have been on forums for over 12 years. Have run many of them. Most have rules against criticizing posters for short and quick posting. Fuck you, pompous ass!
You are the person who has no evidence of anything, yet you belief and have faith in your religious bullshit.
Now, where is this physical, irrefutable, and has no other plausibilities evidence for evolution. It must contain no religious bullshit and that means no interpretation from delusional believers. NO opinions!
"Now, where is this physical, irrefutable, and has no other plausibilities evidence for evolution"
I think this request is impossible to fulfill for any explanation of anything in the universe. I've offered you my own argument, but it is apparent that you have yet to even watch my GULOP video.
Pay attention. Your GULOP video is no different than any of the others on the same idea. The problem for you is that you have no idea the missing parts that you never look at, because this is not taught to you from the indoctrinators, who own your mind.
I've read several of your posts on your forum. They take the same form they do here. Lots of bold unsubstantiated claims, abusive language, avoidance of others points, and no evidence or logic.
If you want to make a particular point, just make it. Don't tell me to go and read everything that was ever written about everything. That's just an evasive maneuver to get out of actually making a case.
@EvoBiologist You are the one with fairy tale claims of magical processes and mystical creatures that have never existed. Do you still believe the world is flat?
Do you still believe in the tooth fairy? How about Santa Clause? How about ghosts?
How about all those drugs you took in college? Did they give you insight into these mystical "common ape" ancestors? You will never have any evidence for this, because it is a fairy tale bunch of Evodelusional religious bullshit.
GSFY - as a troll you have some entertainment value, but as a human being you are simply a sad little man with childlike tantrums and paranoid delusions.
GSFY - BTW, your continued boasts and use of profanities and insults cut no ice, the resident 'drunk' down at my local pub does them better than you. Come to think of it, he also makes more coherent arguments than any you've provided to date!
@GoodScienceForYou Thank god! FINALLY, a youtoober worthy of having a discussion with! After you're finished here will you work on that energy problem the world is having? Thanks, Mr. Extremely Intelligent Genius!
I generally don't correct grammar unless someone makes such a big freaking deal about how brilliant they are. I think you've mentioned your IQ half a dozen times or so on my YouTube alone. I'd be happy to respond if you restated yourself and explained which creatures you think are being misplaced in what clades and why. Otherwise you are making baseless assertions that I have no reason to accept.
When I was 16 years old, I quickly realized that these fuddy duddies paleondickheads were tainting evidence. It is obvious to any one with objective reason. You can easily see the power of belief in their fucked up conclusions.
Only a weak and gullible moron allows this sort of crap to be called evidence.
Pay attention. The original of the genus is the parent of the genus. If you had all the DNA evidence you could do a complete trail back to the first (for instance) tiny horse. You would find a foundational genetic structure that has never changed.
And when the source of food for that creature is gone or the environment turns to water, or 50 below zero, or what ever it will not be able to adapt, it just dies.
This is shown in ALL the evidence. There is nothing before the parent of the genus.
GSFY - so after posting that nonsense I conclude you have no real evidence or any meaningful answers to the questions I asked. You're getting predictable.
GSFY - how about you providing evidence to support your hypothesis about 'boundary of their foundational genetics'. How about answering the questions you ducked on another video? Or are you no better than those dishonest creationists with your own religious beliefs. BTW don't forget the evidence must meet the same standards you require for evolution.
Go read about 20,500 scientific papers and articles in science journals, in which these delusional assholes are trying to show evolution. All you will conclude is dead ends when the creatures can no longer adapt. That is the evidence and it has been right there in front of each of these delusional assholes for 40 fucking years. Adaptation to a point until the boundary is met.
"Adaptation to a point until the boundary is met. "
Ahhh... but where is that point? Truly, physics and genetics limit the degree and rate of change. I accept that - it actually explains a lot, like why land vertebrates don't have more than 4 legs.
Care to comment on my GULOP video? (I request once again)
Nice video. Good summary at the end. Good to hear you saying "understand and accept" evolution rather than "believe". Even Dawkins talks about "believing" evolution when he really means "understand". This gives the impression that evolution is something that can be believed or not believed, which supports creationists who claim that evolution is a religion. "Belief" has nothing to do with evolution. You might as well say you "believe" in rivers or any other observable phenomenon.
It's okay to say you believe in something even if you have solid evidence to base that belief on, so Dawkins isn't wrong for using that term. However, you don't have to actually believe something in science to simply accept it as the best explanation.
People accepted that time was constant, because it seemed pretty obvious that it was. Einstein showed that even things that seem like obvious truths aren't always true.
I both accept evolution and believe it to be the truth.
So That's what the whole motherhood thing was about. I agree with homeostasis4me. Asians are very attractive. You shouldn't put yourself down simply because of your ethnic background.
Sorry, but I just have to make a quick rant here.
My uncle and dad were having their usual religious conversation and my uncle just compared atheist to Hitler and the Germans. I can't say anything to either of them because neither knows about my position on religion.
Well, we have something in common then- we're like Baptists....we don't like change in certain situations. I'll be the first to admit that, if pressed. I wonder if our friend's child is on the way...he's awfully quiet. How cool is that? I think you'll make a good mother, angelic....just don't hurry it. Time is on your side.....trust me on that. My wife and I waited 13 years and it was the right thing to do, for us. We're better parents for it....no doubt about that.
I was wondering that too since he's been so quiet. I've slightly given up on motherhood since I found out my race (according to some Americans) is the least desirable to marry/mate with. My mom still is optimistic about me finding a husband in Japan.
I guess I should post this here. I'm considering giving up my anti-evolution stance. I was reading some stuff at my favorite OEC site that sometimes post articles on evolution from the TE perspective.
I've apparently missed a lot. But won't ask for any details.
It's good to know that you're considering your stance on evolution.
you'll probably think this is counter intuitive of me but I hope your not changing your mind only because of pressure from others. Change it only because you yourself agree with it.
Lotta men consider Asian women to be some of the most beautiful women one can look at....myself included. You shortchange yourself, angelic. Don't do that- ever. Aside from that, as a husband of 18 years I can say with a great deal of authority that physical beauty eventually fades, but inner beauty grows more and more profoundly beautiful as it is cultivated over the decades. There simply is no substitute for that. My wife is the most beautiful woman I have ever met...I'm very lucky.
"I wonder if our friend's child is on the way...he's awfully quiet. How cool is that?"
Good guess - Ashford (8lbs 3oz, 22in long) was born Monday at 10:15am here at home. He's sleeping with mom right now, so I decided to check my messages. I'll have to make a video soon - watching him has made me think about all the ape hold-overs you can see in babies (the grasping reflex of hands AND FEET, lanugo - he's a hairy bugger; most lose the hair in utero, and the fishy features he lost in the womb)
Ashford is a mighty fine name. Mighty fine. Congratulations, friend. You made my night! Have you learned that your own sleeping baby lying on your chest is like taking a valium? I am happy for you, Marcus. Kiss your wife and tell her that I'm happy for her. TAKE THAT TIME ALONE WITH YOUR FAMILY like I suggested. You won't be able to get that back, and your young family needs it. I'm happy for you. ENJOY! Time's about to run off and leave you...wait and see. It's weird.
Anywho, angelic, I'm like you in that respect. Offer another viewpoint where that is concerned and I have a REALLLY hard time being objective....to the point of blindly ignoring it. That video covers only a portion of the subject, but I feel it encompasses 99% of by beliefs about it. I felt it was time to give you a little insight into MY beliefs, as I have so strongly questioned yours. I'm not perfect, and I am rigid in my beliefs, too. You were completely right when you called me on that.
Watch it yet, angelic? I'll tell you something about myself- I'm indoctrinated. That's right. That video is a perfect representation of how I feel about that subject, and I will not entertain another viewpoint. I simply am not open to other concepts, and I will not entertain them because I have indoctrinated MYSELF, where that is concerned. Do I keep an open mind about it? Well....not really. I am not very objective concerning it. I'm pretty.....rigid in my belief. I offer no excuses...
I watched the video. I liked it. I wasn't sure what you were going to send me. If I had to pick a video that slightly summed up my beliefs it would be my featured video. I'm pretty sure no one here besides me would agree with it (maybe mejc2, not sure). I'm also not very open minded. But I actually do research my beliefs before accepting them. It makes me less likely to change.
Then he's not omniscient. Which opens up Pandora's box...check your inbox. I have to go play with my boy, ok? I'll see you here....don't take my comments to hard, ok? I'm a friend. Just a firm one. Have a nice day....go study. Let me know what you think of the video....I happen to like it very much, it's my beliefs perfectly rendered.
Thats where the self-analysis and application of personal morality to biblical atrocities comes in, freind. That's where you are failing yourself. Shakespeare said it best: "To thine own self be true." You're short-changing yourself. May I send you a video? Has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, I promise.
Angelic, I think you know what I'm trying to show you. I know, foxcanine has a point.....sort of....but understand: I'm not the enemy. I'm being brutally honest with you- that is all. You know my motivation, here- I have made that clear. You seem to be a beautiful person, and your moral standards seem to be perfectly sufficient from where I'm standing. But then, you now believe what you once did not, namely that infanticide is Ok sometimes...see where this has been going?
Which to me begs the question, what about people who die before missionaries can reach them. Those people in parts of the world( like that tribe in south America) that are split off from the rest of us.
No, god would be cruel to people for VERY LITTLE reason....like not loving him the way he wants. Like calling him an asshole. Like saying he's a monster.
I'm sorry ASG but you've done this before. You've said that we can't truly judge God but then turn around and say that "God wouldn't be cruel". Where in the bible does it say that God won't condemn people because they never heard of Christ. Where does it say that If people never hear about God they won't go to hell.
Even if God allowed people into heaven when they never heard of Christ. Why not just allow everybody into heaven. Why only those that ask Jesus into their heart
I don't think God would be cruel but that's just a personal opinion based on God of the Bible. It doesn't say any of that but God has been known to save people based on the prayers of others. God as a merciful judge would know who truly deserves Hell.
He can't allow just anyone into Heaven. Heaven is a place free of sin. It's why some people may go to Purgatory before Heaven. Would you really want to be forced to be with the same Being you denied for eternity?
To be honest, this argument seems to be going in circles. I wasn't explicitly talking about people who said they denied God but rather those who never heard of him or those who really didn't seek him.
They didn't truly know who he was. I've never heard of God saving people because others prayed. I grew up learning that only you could ask for forgiveness and it was only through Jesus that you could be saved. No other way would work. Basicly, John 14:6.
How about Lot and his daughters from Sodom and Gomorrah? The people of Nineveh were saved. God even instructed someone to have Abraham pray for them. From the Bible "The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much."
As a Catholic I am instructed to pray for the dead as to decrease their time in purgatory and send them to Heaven. It also never says that the ones who have never heard of Christ will never be saved.
I apologize for I don't know what you are refering to when you say "The people of Nineveh were saved". Do you know the verse?
I fail to see how Sodom And Gomorrah have to do with people who don't know God being saved. The people of the cities were merly acting on unmoral principles( though I find the entire story rather odd, being that everyone in the city wanted to rape angels, Wierd).
I brought up Lot and his daughters because they were saved at the request of Abraham. The part about Nineveh is more than just a verse. It's what the Book of Jonah is mostly about. They were to be destroyed but God saved them anyway.
As for your use of the verse"The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much." Are you refering to James 5:16. If not and I am far wrong, then please correct.
In the OT Abraham was asked to pray for a certain king. I need to look it up again. To me that shows God listens to the prayers of His faithful but it's still up to Him.
Angelic- I think you'll be more at ease if you're honest with yourself, where your inclinations towards evolutionary theory are concerned...consider the evidence. Then consider the validity of opposing views. Then decide what works for you.....I think you'll find the prevailing theory fits just fine, where origins are concerned. As my mother always says- it is what it is. Like it or not, it simply is what it is. Does it jive with your religious views? Well...there's the problem.
I am reseraching different books pro and anti evolution. Some old earth creationists seem to think that it's okay to accept evolution and don't even consider the contradiction between the fossil record and Genesis to be a big deal.. I'm not going to change my religion because of a scientific theory.
Nice compliments for Asian women and they are attractive but I'm not Asian. I can speak some Asian languages.
But...you changed your theory because of religion, did you not? What's the beef with your ethnicity? Why would Asain men find you more attractive than, say, Irish ones? I'm confused....but that's ok- it's a familiar feeling to me....lol. What gives, angelic?
I am someone who in your terms would be a theistic evolutionist, with the possible exception that i don't see God playing tinkering with things, just letting creation unfold as it must. The beauty that is our world and indeed our universe to me is only heightened by the wonder of God's design.
IamVerilance 1 year ago
@IamVerilance Then it sounds to me that you are not a theistic evolutionist, but instead a naturalistic evolutionist who has a Deist view of the origins of the Universe. Since evolution doesn't deal with the origins of the Universe, in regards to evolution, your view is no different than mine. Theistic evolution implies a divine guiding hand, not simply an intelligently designed set of initial conditions.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
to me its funny to see these dorky scientist talk like science knows it all but the truth we know so little about the universe and earth
IlC4RL0SIl 1 year ago
@IlC4RL0SIl I'm sorry if I gave off the impression that I believe "science knows it all". I don't believe that. I do, however, believe that science is our best shot at figuring most things out eventually. It is practically guaranteed to lead us closer and closer to the truth, just by its methodology.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
These are excellent videos, you have a really open-minded attitude to the beliefs of creationists and you present a balanced argument, even in an environment where religion strives to stifle debate and discovery.
Peace.
chazmeistro 1 year ago
@chazmeistro Thanks - I'm glad you like the videos. Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been on vacation for the past 2 weeks.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
All beliefs are bad for humans. Beliefs are the cause of war, hate, racism, fear, and all to "good" things in humans. A true scientists forms no beliefs. No matter how many people shove their beliefs down your throat. Beliefs destroy your credibility.
Beliefs have nothing in common with real knowledge.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - so no answers, just more homilies and hot air, so much for you being a 'teachers teacher'. If you can't answer our questions just run along to your new mate Nephi's channel, just don't tell him what you've already said about creationists, he won't be too understanding.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou Couldn't resist coming back for a few more posts, eh? Your post 5 days ago sounded pretty final.
Ah, well... I'm game for more. Have you tried what I suggested yet? Have you lined up some sequences yet? Take cytochrome C, for instance. It has been swapped in some very divergent organisms, and despite sequence differences, works the same in every one. Guess what pattern those sequence similarities & differences make? Hint: it's the same as the broken gene GULOP.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
Have you heard of the Raelians? Atheists that accept Intelligent Design. There's also a book out called "An atheist defends Intelligent Design." I'm sure you have heard about the new discovery that people are calling the "missing link." It's being brought up in my Anthropology class.
RationalCreationist 1 year ago
@RationalCreationist
I am aware of the existence of atheists who believe in ID. There is still the main logical problem of ID: If the claim is that complex things require an intelligent creator, then this rule must necessarily apply to the creator itself.
I've heard of many discovered "missing links". The term "missing link" originally referred to any fossil nonhuman hominid intermediate between humans and other apes - something Darwin never saw. We have hundreds now, so the link isn't missing.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist I was just wondering that since many haven't. I think it's interesting that there are atheists that accept ID even if I don't understand why.
Missing link has been overused by the media.I simply want people to understand science. I don't think the media helps at all with their hype.
RationalCreationist 1 year ago
@RationalCreationist "Missing link has been overused by the media. I simply want people to understand science. I don't think the media helps at all with their hype."
I agree completely. I can't think of the last time popular media explained a biological discovery accurately.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist I can't ever remember when science has explained normal genetics accurately without the projection of this religious bullshit of mystical creatures and magical causes. There is not such thing as evolution. No creature has ever been shown in evidence to break the boundaries of their fundamental genetics and morph into an entirely new form of life. If this was true, it would be shown in PHYSICAL evidence.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou You keep talking about "boundaries of their fundamental genetics", and I keep asking you to define such boundaries. Fish would be a good one, since you mentioned fish when talking about these boundaries, and fish are a large diverse group of familiar animals.
So please, enlighten me. Where are these boundaries of fundamental genetics in fish?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Go take a look at the evidence, without the belief that has been brainwashed into your head. There is no way I am going to argue with you on this, because you are way to far in this shit hole of beliefs. When you have actually seen any creature that changes is foundational genetics and morphs into an entirely new creature with completely different genetics and becomes the parent of a new genus let me know. So far there is inference, implication and projection of beliefs, and...
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist You, for instance, will take some lame idea of creationists, and use that against your pet hypothesis that you already believe in and use all the bullshit that you think is real to perpetuate your beliefs. But you never look at any other hypothesis nor do you want to. That is intellectually dishonest and common with belief, not with real science.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou I've looked at every idea I know of that has been proposed, and none but common descent can explain the pattern of diversity we see in life. I've examined the data more than anything else in my life, and continue to do so when I discover new data.
Your demand for a new genus evolving in front of our eyes is ridiculous, because such an event isn't predicted by evolution to occur. If it did, we'd abandon current theory.
What are the boundaries in fish? Always the genus?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist I am sorry ,that you have succumbed to a fucking religion, pawned off as science. There is NO fucking evidence in the physical world to back your fucking belief. You can project this fucking fantasy until you die and be a common as dirt.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "I am sorry ,that you have succumbed to a fucking religion, pawned off as science."
...and I am sorry that after everything I have tried to show you, you still feel that way.
Please do try comparing DNA yourself, and get back to me at some point about what these "genetic boundaries" are. It would be a good mental exercise for both of us.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist DNA comparisons for the most part are negated by the fact that you will find common use of the same proteans, minerals, elements, because they are finite, and there are only four programming "digits" used to form them into cells. It is only when there are tremendous links in physical evidence beyond what is found in DNA that you can make any assumptions. Do you understand? It is not the DNA that is the problem, it is the interpretation that is the problem.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "There is NO physical evidence to back up any theory."
Evidence is not the same as "absolute proof". There is some evidence for plenty of things that aren't even true. The key is to find the theory with the most evidential support.
"DNA comparisons for the most part are negated by the fact that you will find common use..."
That doesn't take into account mutations that don't change the protein, or mutations in non-coding regions such as broken protein coding genes.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Stop the semantic bullshit. It is "absolute evidence" not absolute proof. This is more of that bullshit "Straw Man" crap you are fond of.
There is absolute evidence for electrons in that computer you type on. There is absolute evidence of atomic energy in the lights in your house. There is absolute evidence for gravity, for light, for heat. But there is no absolute evidence for evolution, because it is a religion.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou What is the difference between "absolute evidence" and "absolute proof"? How can evidence be absolute if it doesn't prove the thing it is evidence of? Isn't that just normal evidence? It can only be called "absolute" if it is absolute.
You talk about absolute evidence for electrons, energy, gravity, light, and heat. But these are just words representing concepts. Sure, there's evidence for something we call "gravity", but what IS gravity? Dropping stuff won't tell you.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Absolute evidence is what is required for belief. That means that all the evidence shows the same thing(s). You don't have that with Evodelusionism, because it is a religion. If you form opinions and beliefs without the needed evidence then you are religious. It would be better for you to understand yourself better and how you got your deeply held, religious beliefs that you think are science, because they told you it was.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Absolute evidence is what is required for belief."
Only according to you.
"If you form opinions and beliefs without the needed evidence then you are religious."
Fine - if that's what you think. I'm still more likely to be right than you are because I base my research on one of the best supported theories in the history of science. Your hypothesis (and every other one proposed), by contrast, blatantly fails on many levels.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist You are not fine, because if you take all of the building blocks of your belief and look at all the evidence you will see a total neglect of real science in that no other hypotheses that are just as plausible are allowed. Only the lame ones that are not really based on evidence are allowed in "opposition" to the religious belief.
I have already pointed this out to you.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "no other hypotheses that are just as plausible are allowed...I have already pointed this out to you."
You have not pointed out a plausible alternative hypothesis and neither has anyone else. If you are referring to your hypothesis that gorillas and humans separately appeared through some unknown mysterious process and bred to make chimps, then I have already explained to you that comparing the DNA makes it easy to reject this hypothesis. Have another you'd care to test?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Show me evidence that only points to evolution of creatures changing drastically into some new genus? Just one piece to get me started. I have not seen even one piece of evidence and I know just about all of it that you have been taught.
All of the 'evidence' is explained by other conclusions and better explained.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Show me evidence that only points to evolution of creatures changing drastically into some new genus? ... I have not seen even one piece of evidence and I know just about all of it that you have been taught."
I seriously doubt you know half of what I do about the evidence for evolution. If you did, then you'd already know that GULOP on it's own is more than enough evidence to support the common ancestry of all primates.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist "Your hypothesis (and every other one proposed), by contrast, blatantly fails on many levels."
What part of my hypothesis leaves out any plausibility and doesn't look only at the evidence we actually have? Give it a shot.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - 'Give it a shot' - OK - you claimed 'The Chimp and Human produced the Neanderthals', and that chimps had been around for only '4,000 years'. As chimps occur in central Africa how long did it take their Neanderthal offspring to migrate to northern Europe? How long did Neanderthals survive, and why is there no mention of this distinct species of human in any ancient record? Why have we not found remains with Neanderthal features less 24,000 years old?
KrokrX 1 year ago
GSFY - you also claimed 'the Gorrilla and chimp produces the Orangutang' which is interesting as we have orangutan fossils from over 40,000 years ago in Borneo and Sumatra, and what appears to be an ancestor species in Thailand dating back 10-13.5 million years ago. Which is quite strange as you claim that chimps first appeared only 4,000 years ago and yet are ancestral to orangutans?!
KrokrX 1 year ago
GSFY - just in case ancient history isn't your thing, by 4,000 years ago the Egyptians had already seen the passing of the early dynastic period, the old kingdom and most of the first intermediate period. Yet you claim humans mated with gorilllas to produce chimps around this time, and subsequently humans mated with chimps to produce Neanderthals.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "What part of my hypothesis leaves out any plausibility and doesn't look only at the evidence we actually have? Give it a shot."
Compare the DNA sequences of gorilla, chimp, and human side by side. if your interbreeding hypothesis were correct, we would expect to see a situation where comparing different genes would give you different relationships between the 3. Instead, using any gene, we find humans and chimps closer than either is to gorilla. Overall ~98% identical.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
The gorilla is not necessarily the mate to the human, but is close enough and big enough to force the insemination. The chimp and Human are too close to be anthing but relatives, much closer than some speciation from millions of years ago.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - so now you suggest gorillas raped humans?! Don't forget you claimed this happened 4,000 years ago(over 500 years after the building of the pyramids) and there is no evidence that gorilla or human genetics was substantially different to current and we know they can't produce offspring today. Thought you said you think people who believe things without 'absolute evidence' are 'nuts' or 'insane' - convicted out of your own mouth.
KrokrX 1 year ago
GSFY - and what about your claim for chimps and humans producing Neanderthals somewhat less than 4,000 years ago? How exactly does that fit into what we know of the ancient world and the age, distribution and frequency of Neanderthal remains? Care to explain that to us, or is it time for another rant?
KrokrX 1 year ago
GSFY - and so much for your 'I never make any errors in my statements' and yet you now cast doubt on the accuracy of your own gorilla claim? You do have a problem with consistency don't you, and an apparent obsession with bestiality? You really do need professional help and to take the medication offered.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou So now you are backpedaling. Chimps might be made from a human/gorilla cross or they might be from a human/mysterious unknown ape cross. Where is your evidence for this cross exactly?
As for the similarity being too close, I've already pointed out that the per generation mutation rate needed to account for human/chimp differences is spot on if they diverged 6 or so million years ago. Don't take my word for it - do the math yourself. Then explain the nested hierarchy.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Do you understand the term "assumptions". Assumptions based on a pre belief can do magical things in a novel. If you were to create a magical world with a computer that magically ties all creatures together you do it with the assumption that there is a tie in the first place. The only tie to all creatures is how tiny and small the earth is and how finite all the usable materials available to make living creatures from. Understand? (I don't think you can.)
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - nice to see you trying to explain away the problems we raised with your gorilla+human->chimp and chimp+human->Neanderthal notions, and all less than 4,000 years ago ... oooops, you didn't, what a surprise! What happened to your claim to only believe things based on 'absolute evidence', or 'I never make any errors in my statements'? We were getting all excited waiting for our 'teachers teacher' to explain everything, why so shy now?
KrokrX 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou This is your response to what he said? What a red herring.. Please explain why you think that 6 million years since divergence should leave Humans and Chimps so much more divergent than they are. EB told you to do the math yourself.
"The only tie to all creatures is how tiny and small the earth is and how finite all the usable materials available to make living creatures from"
The deep similarities observed in life are not about simply using the same materials.
Lbbhecht 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "The only tie to all creatures is how tiny and small the earth is and how finite all the usable materials available to make living creatures from. Understand? (I don't think you can.)"
Look, even if you limit what's biologically possible to what's currently here on Earth, the pattern we see (a nested hierarchy) is still incredibly unlikely to occur. The only logical explanation so far proposed is the same one that explains the same pattern seen in viruses...
common ancestry
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist I given you enough to get free of this, if you had the ability to see how all this works on you. See you later. I wish you well, and that you actually do something for science when you get free of these beliefs.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - so we trash your laughable chimp notions and now you run away trying to save some face, well, you won't be missed. You really should stay on creationist channels, where they have much less knowledge about science and may relish your ill-educated attacks on evolution. On science based channels people will dismantle your nonsense and then simply laugh at you.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou Good luck to you as well. I do hope you try comparing sequence alignments as I suggested. It's a quantitative and predictive way of testing the theory of common descent and alternate hypotheses. It is the solid physical evidence you say you require. Try comparing primate genes against the predictions of anything you can think of - only one explanation works. I know, because I've studied the genes carefully. It's not a conspiracy or cult. Test the genes.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist - I'm impressed that you can be so generous considering the foul-mouthed abuse you've received from GSFY. His somewhat more polite comments recently only seem to have happened after he got nowhere with his hectoring abuse, and as a result of being unable to answer the problems we raised with his daft notions. Unlike you I hold out little hope of him changing, and suspect he'll be back dumping his nonsense on a science channel in the near future.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@KrokrX I don't expect GSFY to change, and he may not deserve the kind words. However, I think his intentions are good, so he has my good wishes.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoodScienceForYou - you are a coward, running away from a challenge.
You write "I have no fucking religion and I am a scientist. I understand all the 'science' in radiometric dating"
So, you claim to understand all of the science in radiometric dating.
Ok, given t(BP) = -1/\lambda*ln (N/N_0) where the ratio of N to N_0 is .783 and the half life is 50,000 years gives what result? If you can't give the answer, you don't understand
You're a Xtian fundy pretending to be a scientist; how sad.
AlanCFA 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvoBiologist "Your hypothesis (and every other one proposed), by contrast, blatantly fails on many levels."
What part of my hypothesis leaves out any plausibility and doesn't look only at the evidence we actually have? Give it a shot.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Your scientists don't really understand the cause of the changes in the DNA, much less how to wipe their asses. Actually they know a little more about wiping their asses, but when shit remains, they don't even do a good job of that. You put you faith in these stupid humans to try and figure out the universe from the perspective of a human with dumb ass needs to fill in blanks with faith and belief.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Once the organic creature lineage is started, it develops based on the nature of the creature and the environment. As shown in actual absolute evidence: once the creature can no longer survive the environment, it goes extinct.
It does not evolved if it is dead. Dead ends are dead ends and you can't fill in the blanks with faith and belief. The absence of evidence is the absence of evidence.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou An objective scientist never fills in the blanks with belief as you do. You have no idea what is happening in the genome of any creatures and yet you act like you do, but only because the belief is stronger than reality.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou There are NO magical nor mystical causes in science! Stop doing that! Only look from the perspective of not believing in this bullshit and you will be a lot better off. They have no clue where the impetus for change in the DNA comes from or the mechanism that causes it. Not a clue. Yet they act like "Science" is their god and so they fill in the blanks with dumb ass beliefs that have nothing but religious causes.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou You speak of scientists filling in the blanks with religious beliefs. Instead, we fill in the blanks with extrapolations of the evidence available, corroborated by other evidence wherever possible. This gives us the best picture possible from current information.
Instead, you ignore this information and come up with a much more complex version that contradicts the evidence. How do you propose all these complex organisms kept popping up throughout history?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist "How do you propose all these complex organisms kept popping up throughout history?" It is your need for this answer that messes up your mind. It is why you allow answers that are not based on real evidence. The need is the weakness that allows you to be indoctrinated into beliefs pawned off as science.
There is no Evolution VS Religion both are religious, seeking to make up answers for things you are not capable of understanding. Until you can see actual physical........more
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
Until you can see physical evidence that has no other plausibility, then you are nuts to believe in such things. This is why I am the teachers teacher. If you want to be free, be free. It is that simple. You can walk back out the door you came in from into any delusional belief that is forced on you. You remember how you took on this belief, being surrounded by believers and all of them calling this "science" and having credentials? That has been around for many centuries of ignorance.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - you poor deluded simpleton. You think you're ' the teachers teacher' when you couldn't teach your way out of a paper bag. Whenever you're asked to explain or provide evidence for your ill-educated assertions you revert to rants and repeating your inane drivel. You really need to get professional help and to take the medication offered.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@KrokrX You are the one who believes in mystical causes. I don't. Who told you that evolution was possible? Why do you believe them.
You have not studied much of anything in this life. That is obvious. You are the dip shit who has trouble understanding logic. Here it is again. If you have no evidence for your beliefs, then it is a delusion. You have absolutely no proof or even irrefutable evidence showing any evolution, yet you believe.
I call people like you evotards.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - so where is your 'absolute evidence' for your claimed 'IQ over 180'? You've already said that 'Until you can see physical evidence that has no other plausibility, then you are nuts to believe in such things', so by your own standards you consider yourself 'nuts', guess what we agree, you are nuts!
KrokrX 1 year ago
GSFY - as for your claimed 'IQ over 180', according to your older brother, the one you've boasted is 'even more intelligent', he's publicly said he was tested at a more modest 126 and, in a protective older brotherly manner, would only say that you were 'somewhat lower'. Not that we needed his statement to realise that your claimed IQ was as much a fantasy as any of your other silly boasts. It's difficult to decide between laughing at you and pitying you.
KrokrX 1 year ago
GSFY - why don't you prove the rest of us wrong and clearly define your 'foundational genetics' boundary, or tell us which specific DNA sequences or ERV insertion patterns support your interbreeding notion better than the evolutionary explanation? Your lack of even quite basic scientifc knowledge has been apparent through your comments such as 'Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds', and no amount of bluster will change that.
KrokrX 1 year ago
GSFY - why do you believe your own claim to an 'IQ over 180' when it is perfectly plausible that your tester made a mistake, or that it's a figment of your imagination? You claim that you should only believe things that have 'no other plausibility' and yet you violate this by believing your own boastful statement. You similarly violate it by believing in god, astrology and that chimps were the result of humans breeding with gorillas around 4,000 years ago!
KrokrX 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "It is your need for this answer that messes up your mind."
No - it is your need for this answer that messes up your hypothesis. See, the problem with your explanation is that it requires some method for the complex organisms to pop up instantaneously so that they can then interbreed as you claim and go extinct.
Evolution not only answers this problem, it does so in a predictive way. We can predict where new organisms will appear in the fossil record or on the genetic tree.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist The problem is the belief in this. When you surround yourself with believers and they only look at evidence that supports the belief, you get what happened to you. You do not look at any of this the way an objective observer would because the belief destroys objectivity. That is a common human weakness. The other is that in all my studies nothing scientific on this is conclusive of any answer to how life got this way. There is NO physical evidence to back up any theory.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
First off, why did you block me? You posted a video response to one of my videos, yet I am unable to comment on it because I am blocked.
Second, can you define “fundamental genetics”?
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@RationalCreationist I'd like an example of just ONE athiest who accepts ID. Post the citation?
homeostasis4me 1 year ago
@homeostasis4me I actually did post an example run by an atheist group that accepts ID. They call themselves Raelians. There is also a book by an atheist defending ID called" An atheist defends Intelligent Design." I can't remember his name. But not all atheists accept evolution. It would be pointless to name people I know offline that aren't popular. It's quite rare that I talk to an atheist that doesn't accept evolution.
RationalCreationist 1 year ago
@homeostasis4me Bradley John Monton is the author of the book "Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design." More atheists in my opinion need to speak up if they don't accept evolution.
RationalCreationist 1 year ago
@RationalCreationist- More athiests don't speak up because, in my HO, most athiests agree with the theory. How many Xtians do you know who openly support late-term abortion?
homeostasis4me 1 year ago
@homeostasis4me I know most atheists agree with evolution. What does abortion have to do with the subject at all?
RationalCreationist 1 year ago
@RationalCreationist An atheist who believes in ID is NOT, by definition, an athiest. There is no way around it- you can claim to be anything you want, but you can't claim to not believe in a higher power and also claim to believe that a higher power created all that is without someone like myself calling you out on the hipocracy. It's just......silly. People write books for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is the desire to make a bunch of money.
homeostasis4me 1 year ago
@homeostasis4me Yes they are an atheist. An atheist simply has to disbelieve in God. Don't add to what an athest has to believe or disbelieve. They can have other beliefs, jut not God beliefs. I'm using the term that most atheist I talk to would use.. An atheist that accepts intelligent design believes in aliens not a higher power. There is a difference. I don't agree with it but some of them support ID Christians.
RationalCreationist 1 year ago
@RationalCreationist- SOME of us support the xtian ID stance, just like SOME xtians support late-term abortion. Please, don't take me the wrong way, ok? Not being acidic here, just making a point.
homeostasis4me 1 year ago
You make a lot of bullshit statements and you don't even know they are bullshit. This is because you are a brainwashed mother fucker.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
GSFY - in the fantasy world you inhabit it may be normal to accept assertions, insults and profanities in lieu of evidence, but not here in the real world. Your inability to construct a meaningful argument would even embarrrass our resident YEC. The only evidence you've provided thus far merely supports the hypothesis that you have a serious mental health problem.
KrokrX 2 years ago
If your argument for evolution is to argue against creationism, then you are not a scientist. Only fuking religions argue with other religions. That is one reason why we know that Evodelusionism is a fuking religion.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
Arguing against creationism has never been my argument for evolution. I only argue against creationism because most people who don't accept evolution do so because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Evolution has far more evidential support than it needs to receive universal acceptance. The biggest obstacle isn't evidence, but contradictory religious belief.
Google 29+ evidences for macroevolution
It is far from complete, but is a good summary of some easily understood points.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
There is no evolution on this planet. All of the evidence points to this: Creatures come into existence in the parent group. They adapt to survive as the same creatures then go extinct or they are still here as the same genealogy.
There has never been a fish that evolved into man. There has never been a reptile who became human over some immense time. This has no foundational evidence to back it.
I have no religion.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
The biggest obstacle is that there is no evidence. There is only belief and forcing belief on evidence.
It is the most bullshit thing in science.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
It is true that organisms never evolve out of their parent group. Chrordates stay chordates, vertebrates vertebrates, tetrapods tetrapods, amniotes amniotes, mammals mammals, etc. There are, however, numerous transitions from more generalized groups into more specialized subgroups. These exist in living organisms and fossils, but by far the best evidence of these transitions is genetic.
You may not think the evidence is enough, but it's ignorant to claim that no evidence exists for evolution.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Please show me you evidence for fish that came out of the water and started walking, grew lungs and eventually became human as the evolved through millions of years and became human.
Start there. Keep in mind that this is one of the foundational premises that all "Evotards" believe.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
Also keep in mind that I know all of the evidence in Science for this belief, so far.
If you have something new, please show it to me.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
"Also keep in mind that I know all of the evidence in Science for this belief, so far."
That's a patently ridiculous statement. You should be ashamed of yourself. New evidence is published on a daily basis. You couldn't possibly keep up with every paper in all of the scientific journals on evolution.
You have yet to respond to my GULOP video or to any of the evidence on 29+ evidences for macroevolution. I'm still waiting. Why aren't these sufficient?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Test me you Evotard! You are a brainwashed fucking idiot. I was tested with an IQ over 180. That is 20 points above genius, dip shit. I keep up with all that there is published. You don't. You are a moron.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
So you have read and digested every issue of Nature, Genetics, Heredity, Evolution, Molecular Systematics, TREE, Proceedings of the Royal Society, etc., etc., etc.? We're talking about many dozens of journals every month for many years.
Even if you are a super genius and a speed reader, I highly doubt that you have actually done this with any comprehension.
Your constant repetition of your IQ is an indication of your lack of important types of intelligence. Why not speak intelligently instead?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
GSFY - you have no evidence that you have the IQ you claim that would meet the standard you require for evolution. You cannot prove that the test wasn't faulty or the tester didn't make a mistake, therefore, by your own criteria, your IQ is a religious belief you hold. Your contributions to date show no evidence of even an average IQ let alone anything higher. Enjoy your self delusion.
KrokrX 2 years ago
Fuck you asshole. You and your religious crap needs to be removed from science.
I hope that some day you are so fucking ashamed that you promoted this fucking insult to science.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
"GSFY - you have no evidence that you have the IQ you claim..."
Brilliant, KrokrX! Why should we believe anything he says? Using his own logic, he is likely simply delusional and brainwashed into his particular religious belief.
I like how he simply denied what you and I said about 88% of families, and just expects us to believe that he's right.
Come on, GSFY, you used the 88% figure first - quote the source and set us straight.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I find it funny that you are not familiar with this since it was published by one of your Doctors. From academia.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
I personally am more of a population geneticist and evolutionary ecologist than a paleontologist. As I mentioned before, evolution is such a huge topic that no person can keep up with all of the evidence pouring in. I think it likely that you never read the original paper either and simply found a creationist misrepresenting the actual study. If not, go ahead then, show me where I'm wrong.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
"evidence for fish that came out of the water and started walking, grew lungs"
It seems that you are unaware of the existence of mudskippers and lungfish, both of which are fish that move on land, have lungs, and are genetically more closely related to all land vertebrates than to any fish.
The rest of the transition from fish to human is written all over the tree of life and corroborated by living organisms, fossils, and most importantly, genetics.
Hurling insults like "Evotard" is illogical
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Fuck you. Mud skippers have always been the same. They have never changes in millions of years, moron. And lung fish are the same. If it doesn't turn into a fucking lizard then it is no evolution. Evodelusionism is a fuking religion.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
Why the foul language and aggression? This is not the way that rational people debate.
"If it doesn't turn into a fucking lizard then it is no evolution."
There are plenty of independent sources of evidence of intermediates between tetrapods and other fish. I'm sure you are aware of some.
I gave you 2 fish that both "came out of the water" and "grew lungs", as well as being genetically closer to you than to a goldfish. You respond with "Fuck you."
Who looks like the smart one here?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I know your faith and belief better than you do.
I hate your fuckkng Evodelusion religion, with just cause, because it is ruining biology and fukes up any possibility of progress as long as retards are in science like you. Nit wit!
You have absolutely no way to verify your belief in this magical bull shit of fish coming out of water. You do not have the capacity to understand what real evidence is. Your faith and belief is your guide, not intelligence.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
"There are plenty of independent sources of evidence of intermediates between tetrapods and other fish. I'm sure you are aware of some."
Unfortunately none of those sources have ever been able to tie any creature to any other creature, except by their fucking opinions.
Opinions are like assholes, everybody has them but only waste comes out.
Where is your absolute evidence of any tie between any fossilized creature that has no OPINIONS in it.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
We disagree on the rarity of fossils, so lets actually argue this point. You have said that an organism can't change genera. Yet, you also reference a figure of 88% of modern non-bird land vertebrates being represented in the fossil record. What you failed to mention is that this figure of 88% is of families, meaning that the genus count must be far lower. This means that either evolution within a family is possible, and/or that the fossil record is less complete than you suggested.
Response?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
88% of the NOW living creatures, non bird vertibrates have been found and they show no evolution at all. Why is it that you don't know this? Could it be that they left it out of your classes, for some "unknown" reason.
These assholes are only going to show you the shit that forms your fucking belief.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
GSFY - WRONG - your 88% actually refers to REPRESENTATIVES of FAMILIES. Snakes have 15 families with 457 genera and 2923 species, and if we apply your 88% of families, we could have as little as 2.9% of genera and 0.45% of species represented, hardly as complete a picture as you, or Denton and others, try to paint.
KrokrX 2 years ago
I am sorry but your numbers are not correct.
You are an asshole who is brainwashed into a fucking belief system that is full of belief forced on evidence.
Even so, I want you to show me any transitional fossils that have a trail from one species to the next, with huge morphological and changes in genus?
When you have that then you can speak, dumb as Evotard, Evodelusionist!
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
GSFY - you claim my numbers are 'not correct' but you don't say why, and then you revert to your profanities, insults and dumb assertions. You really are no different to those dishonest YECS you claim to despise. BTW - don't think I didn't notice that once again you failed to provide ANY evidence in support of your assertions, let alone any to meet the standards you require.
KrokrX 2 years ago
What the fuck, is the matter with your brain.
Just look at the evidence and forget the dogma from your fucking religion!
Those asshole palenondickheads, tainted all the evidence with poor dating methods, fictional data they made up, and forced belief. I'll bet they have even screwed up the Clad of creatures thinking many creatures that do not even belong is forced to fit. Delusional assholes are like that, and the want there little egos petted by publishing crap.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
"I'll bet they have even screwed up the Clad of creatures thinking many creatures that do not even belong is forced to fit. Delusional assholes are like that, and the want there little egos petted by publishing crap."
There are so many grammatical and spelling errors in these 2 sentences that it isn't clear what you are trying to say. You also are simply making bold assertions with nothing to back them up. Simply calling people delusional won't help them understand why they are delusional.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
On most forums if you criticize people for grammar on a fuking youtube forum you are considered to be ill mannered and a scum bag. It does not promote anything except your fucking resistance to what is being said. It does not promote chat.
It is not an argument for anything other than you are a pompous ass in the eyes of ALL readers.
I have been on forums for over 12 years. Have run many of them. Most have rules against criticizing posters for short and quick posting. Fuck you, pompous ass!
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
You are the person who has no evidence of anything, yet you belief and have faith in your religious bullshit.
Now, where is this physical, irrefutable, and has no other plausibilities evidence for evolution. It must contain no religious bullshit and that means no interpretation from delusional believers. NO opinions!
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
"Now, where is this physical, irrefutable, and has no other plausibilities evidence for evolution"
I think this request is impossible to fulfill for any explanation of anything in the universe. I've offered you my own argument, but it is apparent that you have yet to even watch my GULOP video.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Pay attention. Your GULOP video is no different than any of the others on the same idea. The problem for you is that you have no idea the missing parts that you never look at, because this is not taught to you from the indoctrinators, who own your mind.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
"The problem for you is that you have no idea the missing parts that you never look at"
...such as?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WE DO HAVE.
Don't be a fucking coward go to my site and read.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
"go to my site and read."
I've read several of your posts on your forum. They take the same form they do here. Lots of bold unsubstantiated claims, abusive language, avoidance of others points, and no evidence or logic.
If you want to make a particular point, just make it. Don't tell me to go and read everything that was ever written about everything. That's just an evasive maneuver to get out of actually making a case.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
@EvoBiologist You are the one with fairy tale claims of magical processes and mystical creatures that have never existed. Do you still believe the world is flat?
Do you still believe in the tooth fairy? How about Santa Clause? How about ghosts?
How about all those drugs you took in college? Did they give you insight into these mystical "common ape" ancestors? You will never have any evidence for this, because it is a fairy tale bunch of Evodelusional religious bullshit.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - as a troll you have some entertainment value, but as a human being you are simply a sad little man with childlike tantrums and paranoid delusions.
KrokrX 2 years ago
I am an extremely intelligent genius.
You are so fucking stupid that I feel like I am communicating with a fucking toad to discuss science with dumb delusional assholes like you.
You can ESAD
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
GSFY - BTW, your continued boasts and use of profanities and insults cut no ice, the resident 'drunk' down at my local pub does them better than you. Come to think of it, he also makes more coherent arguments than any you've provided to date!
KrokrX 2 years ago
@GoodScienceForYou Thank god! FINALLY, a youtoober worthy of having a discussion with! After you're finished here will you work on that energy problem the world is having? Thanks, Mr. Extremely Intelligent Genius!
homeostasis4me 1 year ago
I generally don't correct grammar unless someone makes such a big freaking deal about how brilliant they are. I think you've mentioned your IQ half a dozen times or so on my YouTube alone. I'd be happy to respond if you restated yourself and explained which creatures you think are being misplaced in what clades and why. Otherwise you are making baseless assertions that I have no reason to accept.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
When I was 16 years old, I quickly realized that these fuddy duddies paleondickheads were tainting evidence. It is obvious to any one with objective reason. You can easily see the power of belief in their fucked up conclusions.
Only a weak and gullible moron allows this sort of crap to be called evidence.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
Pay attention. The original of the genus is the parent of the genus. If you had all the DNA evidence you could do a complete trail back to the first (for instance) tiny horse. You would find a foundational genetic structure that has never changed.
And when the source of food for that creature is gone or the environment turns to water, or 50 below zero, or what ever it will not be able to adapt, it just dies.
This is shown in ALL the evidence. There is nothing before the parent of the genus.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
GSFY - so after posting that nonsense I conclude you have no real evidence or any meaningful answers to the questions I asked. You're getting predictable.
KrokrX 2 years ago
GSFY - how about you providing evidence to support your hypothesis about 'boundary of their foundational genetics'. How about answering the questions you ducked on another video? Or are you no better than those dishonest creationists with your own religious beliefs. BTW don't forget the evidence must meet the same standards you require for evolution.
KrokrX 2 years ago
Go read about 20,500 scientific papers and articles in science journals, in which these delusional assholes are trying to show evolution. All you will conclude is dead ends when the creatures can no longer adapt. That is the evidence and it has been right there in front of each of these delusional assholes for 40 fucking years. Adaptation to a point until the boundary is met.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
"Adaptation to a point until the boundary is met. "
Ahhh... but where is that point? Truly, physics and genetics limit the degree and rate of change. I accept that - it actually explains a lot, like why land vertebrates don't have more than 4 legs.
Care to comment on my GULOP video? (I request once again)
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Nice video. Good summary at the end. Good to hear you saying "understand and accept" evolution rather than "believe". Even Dawkins talks about "believing" evolution when he really means "understand". This gives the impression that evolution is something that can be believed or not believed, which supports creationists who claim that evolution is a religion. "Belief" has nothing to do with evolution. You might as well say you "believe" in rivers or any other observable phenomenon.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
Thanks.
It's okay to say you believe in something even if you have solid evidence to base that belief on, so Dawkins isn't wrong for using that term. However, you don't have to actually believe something in science to simply accept it as the best explanation.
People accepted that time was constant, because it seemed pretty obvious that it was. Einstein showed that even things that seem like obvious truths aren't always true.
I both accept evolution and believe it to be the truth.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Jeez......EB takes a break and all of a sudden it's so quiet......hello? Enjoy this time, man. Hope all is well.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
Congratulations Marcus.
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
So That's what the whole motherhood thing was about. I agree with homeostasis4me. Asians are very attractive. You shouldn't put yourself down simply because of your ethnic background.
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
Sorry, but I just have to make a quick rant here.
My uncle and dad were having their usual religious conversation and my uncle just compared atheist to Hitler and the Germans. I can't say anything to either of them because neither knows about my position on religion.
ITS FRUSTRATING.
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
Well, we have something in common then- we're like Baptists....we don't like change in certain situations. I'll be the first to admit that, if pressed. I wonder if our friend's child is on the way...he's awfully quiet. How cool is that? I think you'll make a good mother, angelic....just don't hurry it. Time is on your side.....trust me on that. My wife and I waited 13 years and it was the right thing to do, for us. We're better parents for it....no doubt about that.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
I was wondering that too since he's been so quiet. I've slightly given up on motherhood since I found out my race (according to some Americans) is the least desirable to marry/mate with. My mom still is optimistic about me finding a husband in Japan.
I guess I should post this here. I'm considering giving up my anti-evolution stance. I was reading some stuff at my favorite OEC site that sometimes post articles on evolution from the TE perspective.
AngelicSnowGirl 2 years ago
I've apparently missed a lot. But won't ask for any details.
It's good to know that you're considering your stance on evolution.
you'll probably think this is counter intuitive of me but I hope your not changing your mind only because of pressure from others. Change it only because you yourself agree with it.
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
Lotta men consider Asian women to be some of the most beautiful women one can look at....myself included. You shortchange yourself, angelic. Don't do that- ever. Aside from that, as a husband of 18 years I can say with a great deal of authority that physical beauty eventually fades, but inner beauty grows more and more profoundly beautiful as it is cultivated over the decades. There simply is no substitute for that. My wife is the most beautiful woman I have ever met...I'm very lucky.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
"I wonder if our friend's child is on the way...he's awfully quiet. How cool is that?"
Good guess - Ashford (8lbs 3oz, 22in long) was born Monday at 10:15am here at home. He's sleeping with mom right now, so I decided to check my messages. I'll have to make a video soon - watching him has made me think about all the ape hold-overs you can see in babies (the grasping reflex of hands AND FEET, lanugo - he's a hairy bugger; most lose the hair in utero, and the fishy features he lost in the womb)
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Ashford is a mighty fine name. Mighty fine. Congratulations, friend. You made my night! Have you learned that your own sleeping baby lying on your chest is like taking a valium? I am happy for you, Marcus. Kiss your wife and tell her that I'm happy for her. TAKE THAT TIME ALONE WITH YOUR FAMILY like I suggested. You won't be able to get that back, and your young family needs it. I'm happy for you. ENJOY! Time's about to run off and leave you...wait and see. It's weird.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
Anywho, angelic, I'm like you in that respect. Offer another viewpoint where that is concerned and I have a REALLLY hard time being objective....to the point of blindly ignoring it. That video covers only a portion of the subject, but I feel it encompasses 99% of by beliefs about it. I felt it was time to give you a little insight into MY beliefs, as I have so strongly questioned yours. I'm not perfect, and I am rigid in my beliefs, too. You were completely right when you called me on that.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
Watch it yet, angelic? I'll tell you something about myself- I'm indoctrinated. That's right. That video is a perfect representation of how I feel about that subject, and I will not entertain another viewpoint. I simply am not open to other concepts, and I will not entertain them because I have indoctrinated MYSELF, where that is concerned. Do I keep an open mind about it? Well....not really. I am not very objective concerning it. I'm pretty.....rigid in my belief. I offer no excuses...
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
I watched the video. I liked it. I wasn't sure what you were going to send me. If I had to pick a video that slightly summed up my beliefs it would be my featured video. I'm pretty sure no one here besides me would agree with it (maybe mejc2, not sure). I'm also not very open minded. But I actually do research my beliefs before accepting them. It makes me less likely to change.
AngelicSnowGirl 2 years ago
Then he's not omniscient. Which opens up Pandora's box...check your inbox. I have to go play with my boy, ok? I'll see you here....don't take my comments to hard, ok? I'm a friend. Just a firm one. Have a nice day....go study. Let me know what you think of the video....I happen to like it very much, it's my beliefs perfectly rendered.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
You will like it. And it will give you insight into MY belief system. It's the best way I can give you that- by one video.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
Hey angelic- I'm going to quit posting as replies....I'm filling your inbox up. I'm retarded. Take it for granted all my comments will be to you, ok?
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
Thats where the self-analysis and application of personal morality to biblical atrocities comes in, freind. That's where you are failing yourself. Shakespeare said it best: "To thine own self be true." You're short-changing yourself. May I send you a video? Has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, I promise.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
Angelic, I think you know what I'm trying to show you. I know, foxcanine has a point.....sort of....but understand: I'm not the enemy. I'm being brutally honest with you- that is all. You know my motivation, here- I have made that clear. You seem to be a beautiful person, and your moral standards seem to be perfectly sufficient from where I'm standing. But then, you now believe what you once did not, namely that infanticide is Ok sometimes...see where this has been going?
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
Which to me begs the question, what about people who die before missionaries can reach them. Those people in parts of the world( like that tribe in south America) that are split off from the rest of us.
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
Fox
Do you know the name of the tribe in South America? Why would a tribe of people that know nothing of God be deserving of hell.
AngelicSnowGirl 2 years ago
Pirahã tribe Because they didn't know Christ.
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
But that's not their fault. God wouldn't be cruel to someone for no reason at all.
AngelicSnowGirl 2 years ago
No, god would be cruel to people for VERY LITTLE reason....like not loving him the way he wants. Like calling him an asshole. Like saying he's a monster.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
I'm sorry ASG but you've done this before. You've said that we can't truly judge God but then turn around and say that "God wouldn't be cruel". Where in the bible does it say that God won't condemn people because they never heard of Christ. Where does it say that If people never hear about God they won't go to hell.
Even if God allowed people into heaven when they never heard of Christ. Why not just allow everybody into heaven. Why only those that ask Jesus into their heart
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
I don't think God would be cruel but that's just a personal opinion based on God of the Bible. It doesn't say any of that but God has been known to save people based on the prayers of others. God as a merciful judge would know who truly deserves Hell.
He can't allow just anyone into Heaven. Heaven is a place free of sin. It's why some people may go to Purgatory before Heaven. Would you really want to be forced to be with the same Being you denied for eternity?
AngelicSnowGirl 2 years ago
To be honest, this argument seems to be going in circles. I wasn't explicitly talking about people who said they denied God but rather those who never heard of him or those who really didn't seek him.
They didn't truly know who he was. I've never heard of God saving people because others prayed. I grew up learning that only you could ask for forgiveness and it was only through Jesus that you could be saved. No other way would work. Basicly, John 14:6.
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
How about Lot and his daughters from Sodom and Gomorrah? The people of Nineveh were saved. God even instructed someone to have Abraham pray for them. From the Bible "The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much."
As a Catholic I am instructed to pray for the dead as to decrease their time in purgatory and send them to Heaven. It also never says that the ones who have never heard of Christ will never be saved.
AngelicSnowGirl 2 years ago
I apologize for I don't know what you are refering to when you say "The people of Nineveh were saved". Do you know the verse?
I fail to see how Sodom And Gomorrah have to do with people who don't know God being saved. The people of the cities were merly acting on unmoral principles( though I find the entire story rather odd, being that everyone in the city wanted to rape angels, Wierd).
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
Fox
I brought up Lot and his daughters because they were saved at the request of Abraham. The part about Nineveh is more than just a verse. It's what the Book of Jonah is mostly about. They were to be destroyed but God saved them anyway.
AngelicSnowGirl 2 years ago
As for your use of the verse"The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much." Are you refering to James 5:16. If not and I am far wrong, then please correct.
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
Fox
That's the verse.
In the OT Abraham was asked to pray for a certain king. I need to look it up again. To me that shows God listens to the prayers of His faithful but it's still up to Him.
AngelicSnowGirl 2 years ago
Angelic- I think you'll be more at ease if you're honest with yourself, where your inclinations towards evolutionary theory are concerned...consider the evidence. Then consider the validity of opposing views. Then decide what works for you.....I think you'll find the prevailing theory fits just fine, where origins are concerned. As my mother always says- it is what it is. Like it or not, it simply is what it is. Does it jive with your religious views? Well...there's the problem.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
homeo
I am reseraching different books pro and anti evolution. Some old earth creationists seem to think that it's okay to accept evolution and don't even consider the contradiction between the fossil record and Genesis to be a big deal.. I'm not going to change my religion because of a scientific theory.
Nice compliments for Asian women and they are attractive but I'm not Asian. I can speak some Asian languages.
AngelicSnowGirl 2 years ago
Comment removed
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
But...you changed your theory because of religion, did you not? What's the beef with your ethnicity? Why would Asain men find you more attractive than, say, Irish ones? I'm confused....but that's ok- it's a familiar feeling to me....lol. What gives, angelic?
homeostasis4me 2 years ago