"There is, infact, a legitimate, scientific controversy over Darwin's Theory of Evolution" ..... Dude! - Darwin just popped the idea - It has moved a LOOONG way since then. So, nope.
That there are so many people in my country that have such a difficult time distinguishing between fact and fiction is worrying.
It's like their fantasy/reality switch got stuck on fantasy. Science is the finger that comes along to jiggle the switch, but some of them are so stuck they never budge or they break completely.
@AstronomyGuru1 "Intelligent design is creationism in a lab coat."
You mean a bowtie and a lobbyist's budget...they're not doing anything in labs, because they don't have any testable propositions. They're skipping the 'lab coat' phase and trying to go right into the 'established science' phase. They don't see a problem with this because thats how all of their other claims about "reality" have entered the public sphere: bare assertion.
Another good show from Horizon. They let the ID proponents put forward their arguments, then show how these arguments were refuted at the trial. Everyone knows that ID is just creationism rebranded.
This is a battle between "faith and knowledge" narrator states w/in the first 2 min. He has already given us the presupposition. And this documentary should be dismissed (unless you like the sound of 1 hand clapping) as anti-ID period.
@algadykhalifa And like any murderer it should be locked up for life or if you are a Christian Fundie it should be taken to the edge of town and stoned.
Energy sources without the need for fuel or energy input exist ,But the coverup is very strong,Get a motor that needs no gas or electric input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Big change is comming soon!
It annoys me every day that there are still people out there that genuinely think, (add ignorant redneck drawl) if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys!, How can you be so fucking uninformed about something you argue against so fervently, I hope you get sterilized.
I have made some videos debunking some Muslim theists views, especially one that contrast their use of quotes by scientists to support creationism with what those scientists really said. Click on my name to watch, thanks.
Thank you BBC for showing the UK that my country is filled with superstitious, inbred hillbillies (and adding to my already considerable embarrassment)
i bet this video rules (just read Judge Jones' ruling). But damnit every video i watch is going to read "Dover Trial - Intelligent Design Get Is It Is Day In Court #X".
How can anyone in this day in age, in such a technologicaly advanced society as the United states, actually believe in Genesis word for word??? I mean believing that there is a god is one thing, but to take genesis literally??? it boggles the mind
@Frizzail420 Brainwashing and indoctrination. Its a really sad state of affairs, but we are pushing against it, inch by inch. Its almost embarrassing to be an American because of this... but we are trying.
If you want to know the truth behind the Intelligent Design racket, please read the WEDGE DOCUMENT, available online. Its promoter, the Discovery Institute, knows ID isn't science. It's the blueprint of the DI's strategy to replace quality scientific education with a primitive christian funamentalist theocracy in which all civil rights will be eradicated, and all our life-affecting decisions will be made by savagely perverted christian preachers. Please read it for yourselves, it's very scary.
@ccp5150: i, too, don't like ID or anything about DI's work, and the Wedge Document is indeed something anyone interested in the practice and philosophy of science should read, but you went straight overboard in the your claim. The WD aims to replace science with a non-materialistic philosophy based on faith, which is much worse then a mere theocracy; a tyranny of the mind rather than the body. What would follow from that could be what you suggest, but the document certainly doesn't say so.
The supernatural designer is where you inevitably end up in ID.
Where would the 'natural designer' have come from? Unless you admit that this designer evolved naturally, thus contradicting ID, you invariably regress to a supernatural being, a god, literally.
@svsguru2000 man, you're wright in thinking in this way - I think this too, and so this is why I don't believe in "alien parents"! But notice that this claim IS NOT PART OF ID! This is a deduction that can be made, but its outside of the purpose of ID. Its like the consequences of evolution like eutanasia for Darwin's theory itself: conclusions that can be made from the theory, but its not part of it. ok?
@marteco: One might think so were it not for The Wedge Document, the statements of Behe and lately Demski about who they thiink the Designer is, Judge Jones' considered opinion based on evidence at trial, and Johnson's own statements on the matter of the reason for founding the DI. Given that, I find no evidence that anyone at the DI thinks the designer is other than the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Yahweh/Allah.
A scientific theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Therefore, ID is NOT a scientific theory. How is this so damn difficult to understand?
I remember hearing about this quite a bit, seeing as I was still in high school at the time. The world was laughing at us and with good reason. The U.S. is basically the only high-tech country in the world where these nutjobs can even make it to court, regardless of the fact that they have always lost the last 40+ years.
It's really stupid that this even becomes an issue, we're suppose to be the leading scientific country in the world yet seen by the world community as a country of religious dunder heads.
Unfortunatly not. In Germany one of our education minister(former religion teacher) tried to bring this nonsense in our biology lesson. I'm really grateful that that is against our Basic Constitutional Law. But in private schools its spreading like a virus.
Private schools are totally different. Public schools should never even touch religion as they belong to the public and the state, but if parents are willing to pay the extra money so they can indoctrinate their kids with nonsense, let them
@davis80smusic: No, it hasn't. It was a good blow, but they're coming back. The DI still gets funding and they're working to pass "teach the controversy" and "teacher freedom (to teach religion)" laws in a numner of states.
@puncheex yeah, but having lost so convincingly in Dover, no one will want to touch it and risk millions of dollars in lawsuits and lost legal fees - I mean, why would they do that with the Dover precedent indicating that they will probably lose? I don't doubt their sincerity, but they're not stupid... the Wedge Strategy has been publicly exposed as a sham - no one is buying - a lost cause... keep religion in the church and home and sidewalks, not in science classes -
@davis80smusic: I'd like to agree, but go take a look at the NCSE web page and check out the news column. It reports on creationism/ID legislation (news since 1/1/2010) in MO, MS, CA, KY and LA. They're still out there.
@puncheex I'll check, but it's not that I doubt they're out there trying - they've got to make a show of keeping their finger in the legal pie so to speak, but the odds of success, when there are other things to worry about like economic disaster, and two wars, not to mention an unfriendly administration in power, with all this against them the odds of success are minuscule
ID is a product of religion and therefore in violation of the constitusion. But creationism was taught in schools for years before it was band in the 70s. Why is that. So it was in violation for the constitusion for 200 years
@Kamwis17: Because it took that long to bring together the cause, the right case and the right people to make that interpretation of the constitution. this is one of those cases where the rights of the minority must be held against the beliefs of the majority, and that takes time and luck to properly address.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It's untestable, adds nothing to scientific understanding, makes no useful or accurate predictions, opens no new avenues of research, and is supported by zero evidence. Suck my atheistic texan cock creationists
@rddaos I love you. I couldn't have said it better myself. I am agnostic, and everything you said supports my position on theism or atheism also... why bother with things that only lead to indefinite answers when there are more important things to focus on... If ID really does exist, I am quite confident that the designer does not come in any form that we have imagined up anyway... and there is no point to this video.
Yes it was always obvious to me, even as a young child, that no "intelligent" designer gave men nipples or babies erections. Yes, that's right. No "intelligent" designer would feel the need to design the human body to create erections in your sleep. You cannot reproduce yourself while asleep, nor do men breast feed. However, evolution explains these things easily. I remember sitting in sunday school thinking to myself "this is preposterous!"
Yep, all intelligence design is, is a set of poorly designed, untestable arguements against evolution. It in fact has absolutely no scientific substance within itself.
Something outside of human understanding isn't a nail in the coffin against science, its just an unanswered question and there are billions of those ... Its the same again and again and again from this lot:
Holy crap, that guy at 7:45 is in the creationist movie "A question of origins." Here he is teaching creation in the classroom, but in origins he claims he always taught evolution. Fucking liar!
We are made of the stuff of stars. The molocules that make us are the same material that makes the stars and planets.
We did not come from monkeys.
We did not come from dirt.
Only Creationists make either claim. We evolved from a common ancestor. The evidence is conclusive. Your personal incredulity is not evidence of anything.
I like this, except...why are almost all of the visual representations of religion specifically Catholic? They're one of the few who don't have to have a problem with evolution.
the first 3 questions would be quite an intelligent comment from an "evolutionist" but from a creationist or the like it is just jawdroppingly realitytwisting^^
so, for fun my three questions for you are: Does it not dawn on you Creationists that you're following some dudes thoughts from way long ago? Do you not think we have new and better ways of understanding history and how things work?......
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Does it not dawn on you evolutionists that your following some dudes thoughts from way long ago?
Do you not think we have new and better ways of understand history and how things work?
Your beleifs are just that strong you can't see to let go or accept the possibility of change?
It's totally insane most humans let their ego get in the way
Ever try to dispute anything these crazy evo people beleive in? they go apecrap right away, like religious people, they most likely could be deemed insane
"evolutionists" or, people who are convinced by the evidence supporting evolution do not follow "some dudes(sic) thoughts from way long ago..."
Darwin is not relevant to this discussion because he know almost nothing of the evidence that we have today for evolution.
We have new and better ways of understanding the world around us and how things work than Darwin did and all of these point to the theory of evolution being correct.
[Does it not dawn on you evolutionists that your following some dudes thoughts from way long ago?]
-Says the guy who ignores every piece of evidence from the last 2000 years and follows an ancient magical storybook. Absolutely amazing. You can't make it up.
@rrpostalagain I respect and admire those who try to reason with christians, but I fear their efforts are in vain. You can't discuss cosmology with those who see witches and demons in the night sky. You can't discuss biology with those who think snakes talk, or who believe unicorns, dragons and satyrs roam the forests. You can't discuss physics with those who believe magic wands part oceans, and you can't discuss paleontology with those who believe The Flintstones is a documentary.
@ccp5150 yes, but, a glutton for punishment, i find myself trying to discuss things rationally with them. but every time, my face just gets sore from repeated palming.
@ccp5150: I don't do it for them, poor creatures that they are. i do it for myself, to show myself that my arguments are reasonable and telling, because otherwise my conscience wouldn't let me rest.
...and for the occasional lurker, who needs some rationality to avoid the quagmire.
Religious creationists may win the occasional hit and run battling with evolutionists but putting both side on an equal debating playing field ie. their (so called) experts vs. our experts, evolutionist wipe the floor with them. The Dover trial was merely a silver platter on with the creationist had their asses handed to them. And I promise you the next time it happens it will be worse because science is expanding it's knowledge where as creationism is stagnant.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
by saying this, you show how you, along with all the other idiotic evolutionist are dangerous and should be systematically removed from the gene pool. oh wait, thats what you guys say about christians. see how rediculous you sound, you have no more right to get rid of religion than christianity has to get rid of evolution. And by the way, Christianity will not be lost, because its the truth.
We have DNA these days which proves it even better.
Mayeb you can explain why god gave humans the exact same DNA in the exact same spot to produce Vitamin D as every otehr mammal, but then put the 4 stage over the end of the 3rd stage so it does nothing!
No the fossils are NOT the best used evidence. You're the only one stuck on them because you have some borderline sociopathic allergy to them. There are many disparate fields all pointing the same way.
i dont know anyone who belives we learnt everything from when darwin was around. but most of mankinds learning has come about through the scientific process. if you ignore the evidence for evolution YOU are crazy.
@Lowfun If you've got to that point of ignorance, believe me, you don't need any of the evidences available anywhere. Go back to sleep, dude. But, please, avoid snoring.
the fossil record is a good place to start. When fossils are arranged in the order of their age, a continual series of change is seen, new changes being added at each stage.
also artificial selection like in horticulture (probly spelt wrong) where the botanist (probly spelt wrong) will select a certain aspect of a plant and over a few generations of selective breeding you have a new plant, thats a version of evolution through artificial selection. also bacteria becoming resistant.
Once again, you are a living, breathing, almost thinking transitional species. Trying to tell us you don't exist might make sense in your book, but it's what all the snickering is about.
My advice: go to your nearest farm and find a domesticated sheep. Then go into the wild forests and find another sheep.
Try to breed them.
You will find that they cannot successfully breed because they are reproductively isolated from one another due to evolution; one has been domesticated, one allowed to continue in the wild.
A whole new species was made through this process.
= EVOLUTION.
Or go to a university to see drug resistance, fossils, phylogenetics, etc.
@karlkarlkarl1234 There is a species of whale which has retained an ancestral pelvis and part of it's femurs indicating one of it's ancestors was a terrestrial mammal.
Faith is explanation without science. Basically saying, I don't know so god must have done it. You will never talk real science with a creationist, because they have low IQ's. They believe in Jesus Zombies and sky fairies based on a book 2000 years old that copied astrological sun god myths. This video might as well show "Frosty the Snowman" and call it science that he lived.
Whatever the mechanism is that causes evolution, it is closed tied to DNA for self replication. Understand that there are differences between Darwin evolution and evolution itself. Evolution is observable on a large scale. Darwin evolution is observable on small calls. Darwin cannot actually add information or produce new traits. Obviously the secret lies within DNA. What is that secret? I honestly don't know.... but I know Darwin didn't figure it out either.
all froma single base pair. I have to go but it seems that you have the misconseption that evolution has not changed since proposed by Darwin and that science accepted it because darwin proposed it. This is not that case. Science has proven evolution not Darwin, who just came up with the idea of change over time.
There is no difference between Darwin and accpeted evolution, they just explain different things. Science explains HOW the changes come about under, WHY they do change, the mechanism behind mutations, allele interactions, inheritence relations and all that fun stuff. All Darwin did is explain under what circumstance it came about, mainly enviromental presure. Darwin contribution is ecological in nature and has nothing to do with genetics, thats what we added
Humans are so dumb. We argue A vs B and never realize that it could have been C or D all along. ID does not prove religion and evolution does not disprove God. The truth is a long ways in between.
Yes, but evolution is fact, ID is a lie. It's as simple as that.
It's true, we don't understand everything about evolution, we don't understand everything about anything, but we know enough about it to realise that the possibility of it not occuring, nor having ever occured is nil.
evolution is the closest thing to the truth. Saying oh we don't know that it may be c or d doesnt further our knowledge. YOu have to prove its not A or B and prove it C or D. thats what this is all about
Ok how about for starters, for any scientific theory to be true it should be 100% observable. Darwin evolution predicts slow, steady, gradual, continuous change. The fossil record contains stasis in species. Some species are unchanged for a million years. Thus it falls apart in explaining 100%. If we gave Darwin evolution the same skepticism we gave anything else we'd see it hardly explains anything.
darwins theory IS 100% observable, just because we havent seen every single phyla diverge it doesnt meen we have never seen phyla diverge. Bananas a new spececies that arose in humanities life time and other selective breeding plants such as corn, letuce and mustard which all came from the same decendent. Domestication of dog from wolves also comes to mind. Phylia radiation from lake victoria fishes (very famous study look it up). Darwin finches doesnt acualy count cause he only...
You know this honestly disapoints me. I know i am going off ranting and all but simply because some people want to feel confortable believing some ancient scriptures they think it is ok to criticism actual science using arguemnts from ignorance while wanting to impose their imaginative ideals. If you want me to take anything you say beyond this point seriously you must explain what you think evolution is because i doubt you even understand the basics and think that animals mutate into one...
Furthermore, Darwin evolution can only emphasize existing traits but not produce new ones. For a new trait to exist, it requires DNA coding to self replicate. We haven't observed DNA to mutate and produce more complex changes in the lab.... we don't actually know anything about the mechanism which causes evolution.
corection YOU don't know the mechanism that causes evolution. Not existing traits but existing DNA, recombination of DNA is what makes a new trait. It kinda funny how the people who don't actualy learn about this stuff pretend they know the most. So lets clear up some misconceptions.
Firstly, I am not religious. I just think Darwin is so incomplete and not intellectually satisfying that I don't know where to start. I am not saying evolution is false, that is observable via fossils. I just don't think Darwin came close to describing it. They didn't even know a cell had constituent parts.
Yes Darwin did not prove evolution. He suggested the mechanism, his expertise was ecology and how evolution can occure. Science over the past 100 years has proven that his idea of how evolution would come about was correct. It has also explained the genetics behind such a model. Science prove evolution not Darwin.
saw the result of evolution but din't track it down. But that aside quite honestly if you have never heard of observed evolution please just google it before you start claiming things; just looking at my insignificant universities data there are many many studies tracking evolutionairy change.
some species have remained unchanged for millions of years (I think the most was 2 million or something but those are extinct.) You're point? Speciation doesnt happen over one generation you need atleast 10 generation before you can start seeing changes. Furthermore the alpha position (played by crocodiles, tigers and what not) is a result of the most adapted species, they can't get any better so they will persist until the conditions change which may a very long time
the next statement you make is almost laughable. So recombining DNA can't make new traits? You must not believe in sickle cell anemia, UV sensory tissue, alu elements, cancer, cistic fibrosis, deletion (5)(del.15p-pterm) known as cri-du-chat syndrome, FMR1 complexion, puma genes, non homologous end joining, p51 transcription factors, HDL catalysis, lac Oc lac z- laciS mutations, auxotrophic organisms, and honestly the list goes on. Do you realize how many mutations have ever been documented...
leading to new traits? it is incredibly incredibly ignorant to make such a statement when you can just google for 5 seconds and get lists upon lists of documented mutations both benificial and harmful. Maybe the people who actualy work in labs should comment on the statist of DNA duplications, deletions, translocations, substitutions, oxidations, reductions, misence and non-sense, frame shift, SNP, INDEL mutations (those being the main groups mutations are classified in)
Darwin evolution specifies which species is most beneficial for survival. Unfortuantely, Darwin evolution cannot explain genetic mutations. In fact, it is a HUGE misconception that genetic mutations have been observed in the lab.
The fact that mutations can corrupt DNA is important for the Darwinian paradigm because in order for an organism to eventually evolve into an entirely different organism, changes must be made to the creatures genome over time. But Darwinian evolution needs more than just change. It needs an increase in genetic information. Critics point out that genetic mutation does not appear to provide a mechanism for that increase.
No evolution does not nessesiate mutations it just nessesiatates variation. But we eventualy proved that the variation Darwin refered to was brought about mutations
frankfihn - "It needs an increase in genetic information." So what's your problem with that. Haven't we already established that life can acquire new information all the time? Or are you now going to say someone would of had to put that information in?
In fact, there appear to be genetic limitations to the potential for biological change. As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner explains, . . .Reptiles and birds are very different. Reptiles have no genetic information for wings or feathers. To change a reptile into a bird would require the addition of. . .complex information. . . . I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large scale evolution.
Yes reptiles have genetic information for wings infact, humans also posses them they are just HOX genes that are turned off. To change a reptile into a bird you require mutation. Let me put it this way. There is the alphabet and we have a random sentence. Chose which ever you like. By rearanging the letter you can get different words froma completly different language conveing a completly different message.
frankfihn - "I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large scale evolution." Good job that evolution doesn't care for your opinion then isn't it. The truth is, it doesn't matter what you think or your arm chair opinion on such matters. As proved since the 70's when the creationist movement first started.
What they really cant account for is the build up of information. . . .And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information
The same holds true for codons in the DNA. By rearanging the different amino acids we can get different codons that code for different amino acids. Even if we have the same codons we can rearange the codons in different orders to get different polypeptides. This is the differentce between you and a sickled cell animea individual. The only differeence is one C base pair replaced by one A base pair, yet the result is a completly different protein that functions differently in both individuals.
Please define "information" as it is used in your statement. And please don't try to use a probability argument when you don't understand how to apply probability in the first place. However, I do congradulate you on at least acknowledging the existance of beneficial mutations.
Again, one more time.... I have no religion I subscribe to so I don't have a religious point of view to defend. From a scientific perspective, I don't find Darwin evolution intellectually satisfying. Since there are observed cases where his predictions are false, it falls apart as a means of explaining everything as it is packaged. That doesn't mean it's not a factor, it just simply doesn't explain large scale evolution change. It's very incomplete and people don't seem to notice.
I will just end by saying arguments from authority don't carry any weight in science. You cannot judge a theory or credit a theory by who proposed it. To suggest that evolution is flawed because Darwin did not fully understand it is not an acceptable arguemtn because it assumes that evolution has not changed since his time. You must evaluate the theory not the person who proposed it. If a bum of the street proposed the idea that magic pixie faries created life and it turns out he was right....
"The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and therefore never scrutinize or question."
Stephen Jay Gould
If you look at Darwin evolution, there are examples like stasis where his predictions are false. There is simply more going on here than we currently understand. However, since we're so convinced that we've solved it, we've stopped analyzing the mystery.
The birth of a child is a miracle? One miracle is ok, six and a half billion miracles starts to get a bit monotonous....
ElijahBailey2000 3 months ago
I wish sumone could re-upload these videos, parts 2,3 and 5 have been removed. :(
philhunter2005 4 months ago in playlist Dover Trial - Intelligent Design Get's It's Day In Court
02:46
"There is, infact, a legitimate, scientific controversy over Darwin's Theory of Evolution" ..... Dude! - Darwin just popped the idea - It has moved a LOOONG way since then. So, nope.
Move on
tdjdk 5 months ago
you got to love richard dawkins lol dude is so funny without tring to be.
tommiedepew1 6 months ago in playlist Dover Trial - Intelligent Design Get's It's Day In Court
That there are so many people in my country that have such a difficult time distinguishing between fact and fiction is worrying.
It's like their fantasy/reality switch got stuck on fantasy. Science is the finger that comes along to jiggle the switch, but some of them are so stuck they never budge or they break completely.
GermanChocolateCake 9 months ago
lol creationism got pwned by Judge Jones
poolopis01 11 months ago 3
Carl Sagan said it best:
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
LiveTheWild 11 months ago 6
@AstronomyGuru1 They're sensitive, my bristles. :p
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@AstronomyGuru1 I know, it just gets my bristles up when anyone insinuates that they go anywhere near a laboratory.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@AstronomyGuru1 "Intelligent design is creationism in a lab coat."
You mean a bowtie and a lobbyist's budget...they're not doing anything in labs, because they don't have any testable propositions. They're skipping the 'lab coat' phase and trying to go right into the 'established science' phase. They don't see a problem with this because thats how all of their other claims about "reality" have entered the public sphere: bare assertion.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago 2
Another good show from Horizon. They let the ID proponents put forward their arguments, then show how these arguments were refuted at the trial. Everyone knows that ID is just creationism rebranded.
TychoCelchu 1 year ago
Intelligent Design is just Creation Myth fancily worded
spartacandream 1 year ago
This is a battle between "faith and knowledge" narrator states w/in the first 2 min. He has already given us the presupposition. And this documentary should be dismissed (unless you like the sound of 1 hand clapping) as anti-ID period.
dalerob66 1 year ago
"to think free is great, to think right is greater"
mastergremlin 1 year ago
The intelligent design is a truly the KILLER of EVOLUTION MYTH .
algadykhalifa 1 year ago
@algadykhalifa Not really. Keep watching the videos; it shows how intelligent design got destroyed.
When intelligent design is looked at under the light of truth from either science or law, it completely falls apart.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@algadykhalifa Have you even watched the video(s) or even the descriptions for that matter?
daangelo29 1 year ago
@algadykhalifa And like any murderer it should be locked up for life or if you are a Christian Fundie it should be taken to the edge of town and stoned.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
blah! blah! blah! who cares live your life fuck hoes and eat food!!...blunt too.
Jacory069 1 year ago
Energy sources without the need for fuel or energy input exist ,But the coverup is very strong,Get a motor that needs no gas or electric input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Big change is comming soon!
graywackeknifebdr 1 year ago
@graywackeknifebdr
Show me the math demonstrating how it works.
rkyeun 1 year ago
It annoys me every day that there are still people out there that genuinely think, (add ignorant redneck drawl) if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys!, How can you be so fucking uninformed about something you argue against so fervently, I hope you get sterilized.
TheJameySuede 1 year ago
Religion FAIL...............................again!
sorry ray coniff and cunt cameron you lose again go grip your own banana.
TheJameySuede 1 year ago
Thank God for Judge Jones!
gupsphoo 1 year ago
@gupsphoo Amen to that!
chh5555 1 year ago
I can't imagine what would happen if we teach "intelligent falling theory" alongside the theory of general relativity.
TaffyAlpha 1 year ago
I have made some videos debunking some Muslim theists views, especially one that contrast their use of quotes by scientists to support creationism with what those scientists really said. Click on my name to watch, thanks.
skydivephil 1 year ago
Thank you BBC for showing the UK that my country is filled with superstitious, inbred hillbillies (and adding to my already considerable embarrassment)
dowhatthouwilt911 1 year ago
i bet this video rules (just read Judge Jones' ruling). But damnit every video i watch is going to read "Dover Trial - Intelligent Design Get Is It Is Day In Court #X".
Learn to use apostrophe's.
CntrBrdr 1 year ago
How can anyone in this day in age, in such a technologicaly advanced society as the United states, actually believe in Genesis word for word??? I mean believing that there is a god is one thing, but to take genesis literally??? it boggles the mind
Frizzail420 1 year ago 2
@Frizzail420 Brainwashing and indoctrination. Its a really sad state of affairs, but we are pushing against it, inch by inch. Its almost embarrassing to be an American because of this... but we are trying.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
The only scientific superpower on earth? What? No really...what? Once again, WHAT? I really don't get what that means...
lolzomgz1337 1 year ago
If you want to know the truth behind the Intelligent Design racket, please read the WEDGE DOCUMENT, available online. Its promoter, the Discovery Institute, knows ID isn't science. It's the blueprint of the DI's strategy to replace quality scientific education with a primitive christian funamentalist theocracy in which all civil rights will be eradicated, and all our life-affecting decisions will be made by savagely perverted christian preachers. Please read it for yourselves, it's very scary.
ccp5150 1 year ago
@ccp5150: i, too, don't like ID or anything about DI's work, and the Wedge Document is indeed something anyone interested in the practice and philosophy of science should read, but you went straight overboard in the your claim. The WD aims to replace science with a non-materialistic philosophy based on faith, which is much worse then a mere theocracy; a tyranny of the mind rather than the body. What would follow from that could be what you suggest, but the document certainly doesn't say so.
puncheex 1 year ago
I love Horizon.
GeorgesBarras 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
American reject God, Planet Mars belong to China LOL
Evolution also supported by zero evidence, so proof you came from organic soup, rock or monkey LOL
fightforfair 1 year ago
lol this is more on liar video. "Supernatural designer" pff! This is not part of ID.
More lies...
marteco 1 year ago
@marteco
The supernatural designer is where you inevitably end up in ID.
Where would the 'natural designer' have come from? Unless you admit that this designer evolved naturally, thus contradicting ID, you invariably regress to a supernatural being, a god, literally.
svsguru2000 1 year ago
@svsguru2000 man, you're wright in thinking in this way - I think this too, and so this is why I don't believe in "alien parents"! But notice that this claim IS NOT PART OF ID! This is a deduction that can be made, but its outside of the purpose of ID. Its like the consequences of evolution like eutanasia for Darwin's theory itself: conclusions that can be made from the theory, but its not part of it. ok?
marteco 1 year ago
@marteco: One might think so were it not for The Wedge Document, the statements of Behe and lately Demski about who they thiink the Designer is, Judge Jones' considered opinion based on evidence at trial, and Johnson's own statements on the matter of the reason for founding the DI. Given that, I find no evidence that anyone at the DI thinks the designer is other than the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Yahweh/Allah.
puncheex 1 year ago
Anyone knows the music @ 8:18? Sounds amazing...
kaox44 1 year ago
A scientific theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Therefore, ID is NOT a scientific theory. How is this so damn difficult to understand?
bikeguy98 1 year ago 4
Does anyone know the real name of the "Monkey Song" and who sings it?
pheenpiu 1 year ago
Magic has no place in science
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
I remember hearing about this quite a bit, seeing as I was still in high school at the time. The world was laughing at us and with good reason. The U.S. is basically the only high-tech country in the world where these nutjobs can even make it to court, regardless of the fact that they have always lost the last 40+ years.
RebelGuy95 1 year ago
It's really stupid that this even becomes an issue, we're suppose to be the leading scientific country in the world yet seen by the world community as a country of religious dunder heads.
nogod65 1 year ago 4
Only in America could this actualy be an issue...
MakoSharkX 1 year ago 5
Unfortunatly not. In Germany one of our education minister(former religion teacher) tried to bring this nonsense in our biology lesson. I'm really grateful that that is against our Basic Constitutional Law. But in private schools its spreading like a virus.
OBI8501 1 year ago 2
@OBI8501
Private schools are totally different. Public schools should never even touch religion as they belong to the public and the state, but if parents are willing to pay the extra money so they can indoctrinate their kids with nonsense, let them
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX: Careful; be vigilant. Australia is also having its problems, and there is a Creation Museum in the UK as well.
puncheex 1 year ago
long storey short... creationism gets its ass handed to it
CropDuster33 1 year ago 5
I fucking love the narrator.
Ultraglycerin 2 years ago
rddaos woops FORGOT BOUT TOENAILS N EAR MUSCLES soz caps
azmanabdula 2 years ago
Creationists have backed off for now, because the Wedge Strategy to fake a controversy about religion vs science failed absolutely
davis80smusic 2 years ago 2
@davis80smusic: No, it hasn't. It was a good blow, but they're coming back. The DI still gets funding and they're working to pass "teach the controversy" and "teacher freedom (to teach religion)" laws in a numner of states.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex yeah, but having lost so convincingly in Dover, no one will want to touch it and risk millions of dollars in lawsuits and lost legal fees - I mean, why would they do that with the Dover precedent indicating that they will probably lose? I don't doubt their sincerity, but they're not stupid... the Wedge Strategy has been publicly exposed as a sham - no one is buying - a lost cause... keep religion in the church and home and sidewalks, not in science classes -
davis80smusic 1 year ago
@davis80smusic: I'd like to agree, but go take a look at the NCSE web page and check out the news column. It reports on creationism/ID legislation (news since 1/1/2010) in MO, MS, CA, KY and LA. They're still out there.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex I'll check, but it's not that I doubt they're out there trying - they've got to make a show of keeping their finger in the legal pie so to speak, but the odds of success, when there are other things to worry about like economic disaster, and two wars, not to mention an unfriendly administration in power, with all this against them the odds of success are minuscule
davis80smusic 1 year ago
@davis80smusic: "Don't get cocky, boy!"
puncheex 1 year ago
The narrator is wrong - "a controversial new idea called intelligent design"
It's not new at all - William Paley and his "watch" argument is exactly the same thing.
jazzx251 2 years ago
@jazzx251: The term originated in the 80s, from the work done by the Berkeley Law School professor Phillip Johnson.
puncheex 1 year ago
ID is a product of religion and therefore in violation of the constitusion. But creationism was taught in schools for years before it was band in the 70s. Why is that. So it was in violation for the constitusion for 200 years
Kamwis17 2 years ago 4
@Kamwis17 yup and so was slavery
moh490234890238490 2 years ago
@Kamwis17: Because it took that long to bring together the cause, the right case and the right people to make that interpretation of the constitution. this is one of those cases where the rights of the minority must be held against the beliefs of the majority, and that takes time and luck to properly address.
puncheex 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is more bias than the nova documentary I didnt think that was possible
DeJay17Revolution 2 years ago
It is no more biased than a documentary taking pity on mental cases would be.
jazzx251 2 years ago 2
Dejay, it's not biased. It's showing that ID is nothing more then religion and not science.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It's untestable, adds nothing to scientific understanding, makes no useful or accurate predictions, opens no new avenues of research, and is supported by zero evidence. Suck my atheistic texan cock creationists
rddaos 2 years ago 55
@rddaos I love you. I couldn't have said it better myself. I am agnostic, and everything you said supports my position on theism or atheism also... why bother with things that only lead to indefinite answers when there are more important things to focus on... If ID really does exist, I am quite confident that the designer does not come in any form that we have imagined up anyway... and there is no point to this video.
Chronikhit 2 years ago 4
Yes it was always obvious to me, even as a young child, that no "intelligent" designer gave men nipples or babies erections. Yes, that's right. No "intelligent" designer would feel the need to design the human body to create erections in your sleep. You cannot reproduce yourself while asleep, nor do men breast feed. However, evolution explains these things easily. I remember sitting in sunday school thinking to myself "this is preposterous!"
rddaos 2 years ago 4
lol... I love my man nipples and midnight erections.... I wouldn't have it any other way! God Damnit!
Chronikhit 2 years ago 4
@rddaos
Yep, all intelligence design is, is a set of poorly designed, untestable arguements against evolution. It in fact has absolutely no scientific substance within itself.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@rddaos But it's been helping stupid people feel smart for over 20 years.
subacute 5 months ago
Sir David Attenborough--a great scientist and articulate human being. It's great to hear him take on these creationist phonies.
frantic1971 2 years ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
Something outside of human understanding isn't a nail in the coffin against science, its just an unanswered question and there are billions of those ... Its the same again and again and again from this lot:
Creationism: "Science, can you explain this?"
Science: "Nope, not yet."
Creationism: "Oh, then god did it."
Science: "No wait, there is your explanation.."
Creationism: "Oh, ok, got a theory on this?"
Science: "Nope, not yet"
Creationsim: "OK, God did that then"
Science: "Whatever."
8GrolschMan8 2 years ago
Comment removed
8GrolschMan8 2 years ago
Holy crap, that guy at 7:45 is in the creationist movie "A question of origins." Here he is teaching creation in the classroom, but in origins he claims he always taught evolution. Fucking liar!
Boognish64 2 years ago
This documentary is really good. Much better than the Nova documentary on Dover Trials.
dirtyhyde8 2 years ago
We are made of the stuff of stars. The molocules that make us are the same material that makes the stars and planets.
We did not come from monkeys.
We did not come from dirt.
Only Creationists make either claim. We evolved from a common ancestor. The evidence is conclusive. Your personal incredulity is not evidence of anything.
Bookwyrm86 2 years ago 5
Brilliantly said, I couldn't have said it any better.
FuckReligiousPeople 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is almost a mute point anymore.
More and more people are understanding evolution just isn't right.
Time is all we got until the truth comes out and don't kid yourself it's happening as we speak and speeding up.
I'm not a bible thumper.
I am my own god. I make my own decisions.
Look up into the stars,tell me you evolved from mud or a monkey or whatever you guys think. It don't matter, you feel it in your gut.
Lowfun 2 years ago
I feel pizza in my gut.
Your opinion is no basis for fact.
GeorgesBarras 2 years ago 2
mute? It's moot. lmao!
AgnosticFonts00 2 years ago
I like this, except...why are almost all of the visual representations of religion specifically Catholic? They're one of the few who don't have to have a problem with evolution.
farsight001 2 years ago
I can`t believe what i`m watching! America is going backwards!
peteq1972 2 years ago 7
@Lowfun 2 weeks ago: THIS is funny man!!!!:))
the first 3 questions would be quite an intelligent comment from an "evolutionist" but from a creationist or the like it is just jawdroppingly realitytwisting^^
so, for fun my three questions for you are: Does it not dawn on you Creationists that you're following some dudes thoughts from way long ago? Do you not think we have new and better ways of understanding history and how things work?......
artaudian 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This has nothing to do with a bible.
It's just impossible for evolution to be right.
Read Darwins books would you. even he admits theres very good chance he is wrong. Find me more then 5 transitional fossils please !
Even those 5 are questionable.
Lowfun 2 years ago
Look at the fossil record and you shall find it.
mangetuffa 2 years ago 2
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
really? more than 5? "even those are questionable!?!?! LOL!!!!!
Protoclepsydrops,Clepsydrops, Yanoconodon, Pedopenna, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Ichthyornis, Pakicetus, Mammalodon, Eurhinodelphis, Merychippus, Equus, Pliohippus, Nautiloidea, Arandaspis, Birkenia, Haikouichthys
Conodont, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus
is that 5 yet? there's plenty more!
Zentz29 2 years ago 4
While you are logged on to the internet try doing some research.
It mind open that closed mind you possess.
Just type in "transitional fossils". It's so easy even a Christian can do it.
Pigdowndog 2 years ago
Please look into evolution a bit more.
There are WAY more than 5.
Yet you creationfaggots deny everyone we show you.
FuckReligiousPeople 2 years ago 3
"God bless you, and may he watch over United States of Ammurka"
Coldwarwinner 2 years ago
The Evolutionists have proof and the Creationist have none, Evolutionists win again!!!
kevdura 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Does it not dawn on you evolutionists that your following some dudes thoughts from way long ago?
Do you not think we have new and better ways of understand history and how things work?
Your beleifs are just that strong you can't see to let go or accept the possibility of change?
It's totally insane most humans let their ego get in the way
Ever try to dispute anything these crazy evo people beleive in? they go apecrap right away, like religious people, they most likely could be deemed insane
Lowfun 2 years ago
"evolutionists" or, people who are convinced by the evidence supporting evolution do not follow "some dudes(sic) thoughts from way long ago..."
Darwin is not relevant to this discussion because he know almost nothing of the evidence that we have today for evolution.
We have new and better ways of understanding the world around us and how things work than Darwin did and all of these point to the theory of evolution being correct.
Jugglingbuffoon 2 years ago 3
[Does it not dawn on you evolutionists that your following some dudes thoughts from way long ago?]
-Says the guy who ignores every piece of evidence from the last 2000 years and follows an ancient magical storybook. Absolutely amazing. You can't make it up.
rrpostalagain 2 years ago 43
@rrpostalagain I respect and admire those who try to reason with christians, but I fear their efforts are in vain. You can't discuss cosmology with those who see witches and demons in the night sky. You can't discuss biology with those who think snakes talk, or who believe unicorns, dragons and satyrs roam the forests. You can't discuss physics with those who believe magic wands part oceans, and you can't discuss paleontology with those who believe The Flintstones is a documentary.
ccp5150 1 year ago
@ccp5150 You know, there are days I agree with that sentiment.
rrpostalagain 1 year ago
@ccp5150 yes, but, a glutton for punishment, i find myself trying to discuss things rationally with them. but every time, my face just gets sore from repeated palming.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@ccp5150
"you can't discuss paleontology with those who believe The Flintstones is a documentary. "
LOL quoted for awesomeness.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@ccp5150: I don't do it for them, poor creatures that they are. i do it for myself, to show myself that my arguments are reasonable and telling, because otherwise my conscience wouldn't let me rest.
...and for the occasional lurker, who needs some rationality to avoid the quagmire.
puncheex 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If evolution is right, where did it go wrong?
Only the strong survive in evolution,yet it doesnt seem to be that way. oh my,
So when did evolution stop because as humans we clearly have weak which goes directly against evolution.
Where are the damn transitional fossils? EH ? Where ?
why did human bones just all of a sudden show up?
come on you evolutionists ,get grip look at the facts, look around you.
Lowfun 2 years ago
You need to look at the facts as all of your questions have either been answered, or just don't make sense.
Come on you creationist, get a grip and look at the facts around you.
JohnFotios 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the only reason you beleive a majority of the scientists think evolution is right is because that majority are the ones brainwashed.
its pretty simpe,, like very simple.
there are no transitional fossils.
my lord think about it, if evolution was real they would be everywhere, point blank.
there is none yet you all still fight for evolution, /boggle
Mankind didn't learn everything back in the 50's and such, get over it , re-learn the new facts.
Evolution is a joke.
Lowfun 2 years ago
Wow, you realize there are thousands of transitional fossils? No, of course not. You want to remain ignorant in your bubble called the bible.
Smurfkiller921 2 years ago 4
You are a transitional species, genius.
rrpostalagain 2 years ago
this is way christianity needs to fought with every fiber of our being
and then lets go after islam and the other faiths
thesparitan 2 years ago
"Get over it evolutionists and move on, re-learn the knowledge we have to date and embrace it already, geesh."
You mean the knowledge found in over 200,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers concerning evolution?
Get a clue, moron.
Overwhelming majority support in the scientific community > your epic fail
3kgttwinturbo 2 years ago 2
Religious creationists may win the occasional hit and run battling with evolutionists but putting both side on an equal debating playing field ie. their (so called) experts vs. our experts, evolutionist wipe the floor with them. The Dover trial was merely a silver platter on with the creationist had their asses handed to them. And I promise you the next time it happens it will be worse because science is expanding it's knowledge where as creationism is stagnant.
michaelwitbeck 2 years ago
If you all beleive you came from a mud puddle you are insane. don't you get it?
Random chance? Even Darwin himself didn't have 70% of his own faith in his own work.
It was a great way to explain things back when people where not as technologically advanced.
Get over it evolutionists and move on, re-learn the knowledge we have to date and embrace it already, geesh.
Lowfun 2 years ago
1) Only fucking morons spout stats like "70% of his own faith in his own work"
2) You didnt make it to high school did you?
3) Is your father also your brother?
myrmecia1977 2 years ago
*Facepalm*
zack1127 2 years ago
christianity needs to die before it kills us all
if if god vs science god loses everytime
thesparitan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
by saying this, you show how you, along with all the other idiotic evolutionist are dangerous and should be systematically removed from the gene pool. oh wait, thats what you guys say about christians. see how rediculous you sound, you have no more right to get rid of religion than christianity has to get rid of evolution. And by the way, Christianity will not be lost, because its the truth.
jdcard02 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
randisgreen,
The fossil records are best used to disprove evolution.
Where are all the millions if not billions of transitional fossils?
When science studies these so called evolutionary peices they are not similiar at all to the previous or following fossil.
We are becoming concious and having a hard time accepting our knew knowledge it seems.
Is the intent of the knew knowledge good or evil?
I don't know but wish I did.
Lowfun 2 years ago
Fossil completely line up with evolution.
We have DNA these days which proves it even better.
Mayeb you can explain why god gave humans the exact same DNA in the exact same spot to produce Vitamin D as every otehr mammal, but then put the 4 stage over the end of the 3rd stage so it does nothing!
Explain that design please! :)
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Do you get tired of not having an education?
TheDarkKnight987 2 years ago
No the fossils are NOT the best used evidence. You're the only one stuck on them because you have some borderline sociopathic allergy to them. There are many disparate fields all pointing the same way.
rrpostalagain 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.T.
D.E.S.I.G.N. = "If Nanotechnology Took Engineering, Looks Like Intelligent Guidance Engineered Nature Too! DNA's Encoding Shows Intelligent Guidance Needed!"
Acronym77 2 years ago
I dislike the fact when someone mentions being created they go right to religion. NO , stop doing that.
There are writings that state we came from alien beings.
Do we really know?
Lowfun 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's insane to me that people think we learned everything back when darwin was around.
Mankind still learning,evolution is for crazy people.
Lowfun 2 years ago
i dont know anyone who belives we learnt everything from when darwin was around. but most of mankinds learning has come about through the scientific process. if you ignore the evidence for evolution YOU are crazy.
randisgreen 2 years ago
Randisgreen, find me any evidence of evolution and I shall determine wether or not I should ignore it.
Lowfun 2 years ago
You obviously have internet access. Just type "evidence of evolution" into a search engine and read some of the pages that come up.
Gravitationalist 2 years ago 18
@Gravitationalist lol, he just said he would ignore the evidence.
SuperFeimer 1 year ago
@Lowfun If you've got to that point of ignorance, believe me, you don't need any of the evidences available anywhere. Go back to sleep, dude. But, please, avoid snoring.
mcshundess 1 year ago
the fossil record is a good place to start. When fossils are arranged in the order of their age, a continual series of change is seen, new changes being added at each stage.
also artificial selection like in horticulture (probly spelt wrong) where the botanist (probly spelt wrong) will select a certain aspect of a plant and over a few generations of selective breeding you have a new plant, thats a version of evolution through artificial selection. also bacteria becoming resistant.
randisgreen 2 years ago 3
That sums up the ignorance of the bible fuckers well lowfun. Congratulations your the biggest fuckwit on YT.
myrmecia1977 2 years ago 2
Seems your evolutionary beleifs are falling apart myrmecia77.
Sorry you need to use anger to try and control it.
I'm not a bible thumper.
You better read up on darwin again.
He himself stated "if there are no transitional fossils" then his theory is wrong.
No fossils have EVER been found.
So why is this moronic population still think evolution exists? because they are brain washed. like you !
Lowfun 2 years ago
Once again, you are a living, breathing, almost thinking transitional species. Trying to tell us you don't exist might make sense in your book, but it's what all the snickering is about.
rrpostalagain 2 years ago 2
@Lowfun
My advice: go to your nearest farm and find a domesticated sheep. Then go into the wild forests and find another sheep.
Try to breed them.
You will find that they cannot successfully breed because they are reproductively isolated from one another due to evolution; one has been domesticated, one allowed to continue in the wild.
A whole new species was made through this process.
= EVOLUTION.
Or go to a university to see drug resistance, fossils, phylogenetics, etc.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234 There is a species of whale which has retained an ancestral pelvis and part of it's femurs indicating one of it's ancestors was a terrestrial mammal.
chroniclerofthe70s 1 year ago
@chroniclerofthe70s That only proves that god used a left over woolly mammoth to build the whale from! I'm kidding!
chh5555 1 year ago
New idea? It's a millenia old idea dressed up in a scientist Halloween costume.
RichardMNixon 2 years ago 4
hallo ^_^
the animals in arab evolution from dinosaurs
please see my video ( Animals in saudi is evolution from dinosaurs )
thecosmology 2 years ago
Faith is explanation without science. Basically saying, I don't know so god must have done it. You will never talk real science with a creationist, because they have low IQ's. They believe in Jesus Zombies and sky fairies based on a book 2000 years old that copied astrological sun god myths. This video might as well show "Frosty the Snowman" and call it science that he lived.
lputjenter 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
kayk0522 2 years ago
google "wedge strategy". You can read all about it on wikipedia. Christians came up with ID in a plan to destroy science.
SkeksisRule 2 years ago
Whatever the mechanism is that causes evolution, it is closed tied to DNA for self replication. Understand that there are differences between Darwin evolution and evolution itself. Evolution is observable on a large scale. Darwin evolution is observable on small calls. Darwin cannot actually add information or produce new traits. Obviously the secret lies within DNA. What is that secret? I honestly don't know.... but I know Darwin didn't figure it out either.
frankfihn 2 years ago
all froma single base pair. I have to go but it seems that you have the misconseption that evolution has not changed since proposed by Darwin and that science accepted it because darwin proposed it. This is not that case. Science has proven evolution not Darwin, who just came up with the idea of change over time.
wallrush00 2 years ago
There is no difference between Darwin and accpeted evolution, they just explain different things. Science explains HOW the changes come about under, WHY they do change, the mechanism behind mutations, allele interactions, inheritence relations and all that fun stuff. All Darwin did is explain under what circumstance it came about, mainly enviromental presure. Darwin contribution is ecological in nature and has nothing to do with genetics, thats what we added
wallrush00 2 years ago
Humans are so dumb. We argue A vs B and never realize that it could have been C or D all along. ID does not prove religion and evolution does not disprove God. The truth is a long ways in between.
frankfihn 2 years ago
Yes, but evolution is fact, ID is a lie. It's as simple as that.
It's true, we don't understand everything about evolution, we don't understand everything about anything, but we know enough about it to realise that the possibility of it not occuring, nor having ever occured is nil.
Vehementi 2 years ago 2
He didn't say evolution isn't fact...
bluntedinatx 2 years ago
evolution is the closest thing to the truth. Saying oh we don't know that it may be c or d doesnt further our knowledge. YOu have to prove its not A or B and prove it C or D. thats what this is all about
wallrush00 2 years ago
Ok how about for starters, for any scientific theory to be true it should be 100% observable. Darwin evolution predicts slow, steady, gradual, continuous change. The fossil record contains stasis in species. Some species are unchanged for a million years. Thus it falls apart in explaining 100%. If we gave Darwin evolution the same skepticism we gave anything else we'd see it hardly explains anything.
frankfihn 2 years ago
darwins theory IS 100% observable, just because we havent seen every single phyla diverge it doesnt meen we have never seen phyla diverge. Bananas a new spececies that arose in humanities life time and other selective breeding plants such as corn, letuce and mustard which all came from the same decendent. Domestication of dog from wolves also comes to mind. Phylia radiation from lake victoria fishes (very famous study look it up). Darwin finches doesnt acualy count cause he only...
wallrush00 2 years ago
You know this honestly disapoints me. I know i am going off ranting and all but simply because some people want to feel confortable believing some ancient scriptures they think it is ok to criticism actual science using arguemnts from ignorance while wanting to impose their imaginative ideals. If you want me to take anything you say beyond this point seriously you must explain what you think evolution is because i doubt you even understand the basics and think that animals mutate into one...
wallrush00 2 years ago
Furthermore, Darwin evolution can only emphasize existing traits but not produce new ones. For a new trait to exist, it requires DNA coding to self replicate. We haven't observed DNA to mutate and produce more complex changes in the lab.... we don't actually know anything about the mechanism which causes evolution.
frankfihn 2 years ago
corection YOU don't know the mechanism that causes evolution. Not existing traits but existing DNA, recombination of DNA is what makes a new trait. It kinda funny how the people who don't actualy learn about this stuff pretend they know the most. So lets clear up some misconceptions.
wallrush00 2 years ago
Firstly, I am not religious. I just think Darwin is so incomplete and not intellectually satisfying that I don't know where to start. I am not saying evolution is false, that is observable via fossils. I just don't think Darwin came close to describing it. They didn't even know a cell had constituent parts.
....cont'd
frankfihn 2 years ago
Yes Darwin did not prove evolution. He suggested the mechanism, his expertise was ecology and how evolution can occure. Science over the past 100 years has proven that his idea of how evolution would come about was correct. It has also explained the genetics behind such a model. Science prove evolution not Darwin.
wallrush00 2 years ago
saw the result of evolution but din't track it down. But that aside quite honestly if you have never heard of observed evolution please just google it before you start claiming things; just looking at my insignificant universities data there are many many studies tracking evolutionairy change.
wallrush00 2 years ago
some species have remained unchanged for millions of years (I think the most was 2 million or something but those are extinct.) You're point? Speciation doesnt happen over one generation you need atleast 10 generation before you can start seeing changes. Furthermore the alpha position (played by crocodiles, tigers and what not) is a result of the most adapted species, they can't get any better so they will persist until the conditions change which may a very long time
wallrush00 2 years ago
the next statement you make is almost laughable. So recombining DNA can't make new traits? You must not believe in sickle cell anemia, UV sensory tissue, alu elements, cancer, cistic fibrosis, deletion (5)(del.15p-pterm) known as cri-du-chat syndrome, FMR1 complexion, puma genes, non homologous end joining, p51 transcription factors, HDL catalysis, lac Oc lac z- laciS mutations, auxotrophic organisms, and honestly the list goes on. Do you realize how many mutations have ever been documented...
wallrush00 2 years ago
leading to new traits? it is incredibly incredibly ignorant to make such a statement when you can just google for 5 seconds and get lists upon lists of documented mutations both benificial and harmful. Maybe the people who actualy work in labs should comment on the statist of DNA duplications, deletions, translocations, substitutions, oxidations, reductions, misence and non-sense, frame shift, SNP, INDEL mutations (those being the main groups mutations are classified in)
wallrush00 2 years ago
one another
wallrush00 2 years ago
Darwin evolution specifies which species is most beneficial for survival. Unfortuantely, Darwin evolution cannot explain genetic mutations. In fact, it is a HUGE misconception that genetic mutations have been observed in the lab.
....cont'd
frankfihn 2 years ago
Yes Dawin din't explain mutation because he din't know about it.
wallrush00 2 years ago
The fact that mutations can corrupt DNA is important for the Darwinian paradigm because in order for an organism to eventually evolve into an entirely different organism, changes must be made to the creatures genome over time. But Darwinian evolution needs more than just change. It needs an increase in genetic information. Critics point out that genetic mutation does not appear to provide a mechanism for that increase.
....cont'd
frankfihn 2 years ago
No evolution does not nessesiate mutations it just nessesiatates variation. But we eventualy proved that the variation Darwin refered to was brought about mutations
wallrush00 2 years ago
frankfihn - "It needs an increase in genetic information." So what's your problem with that. Haven't we already established that life can acquire new information all the time? Or are you now going to say someone would of had to put that information in?
mattyabsley 2 years ago
In fact, there appear to be genetic limitations to the potential for biological change. As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner explains, . . .Reptiles and birds are very different. Reptiles have no genetic information for wings or feathers. To change a reptile into a bird would require the addition of. . .complex information. . . . I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large scale evolution.
...cont'd
frankfihn 2 years ago
Yes reptiles have genetic information for wings infact, humans also posses them they are just HOX genes that are turned off. To change a reptile into a bird you require mutation. Let me put it this way. There is the alphabet and we have a random sentence. Chose which ever you like. By rearanging the letter you can get different words froma completly different language conveing a completly different message.
wallrush00 2 years ago
frankfihn - "I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large scale evolution." Good job that evolution doesn't care for your opinion then isn't it. The truth is, it doesn't matter what you think or your arm chair opinion on such matters. As proved since the 70's when the creationist movement first started.
mattyabsley 2 years ago
What they really cant account for is the build up of information. . . .And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information
frankfihn 2 years ago
The same holds true for codons in the DNA. By rearanging the different amino acids we can get different codons that code for different amino acids. Even if we have the same codons we can rearange the codons in different orders to get different polypeptides. This is the differentce between you and a sickled cell animea individual. The only differeence is one C base pair replaced by one A base pair, yet the result is a completly different protein that functions differently in both individuals.
wallrush00 2 years ago
Please define "information" as it is used in your statement. And please don't try to use a probability argument when you don't understand how to apply probability in the first place. However, I do congradulate you on at least acknowledging the existance of beneficial mutations.
belliebum12 2 years ago
Again, one more time.... I have no religion I subscribe to so I don't have a religious point of view to defend. From a scientific perspective, I don't find Darwin evolution intellectually satisfying. Since there are observed cases where his predictions are false, it falls apart as a means of explaining everything as it is packaged. That doesn't mean it's not a factor, it just simply doesn't explain large scale evolution change. It's very incomplete and people don't seem to notice.
frankfihn 2 years ago
I will just end by saying arguments from authority don't carry any weight in science. You cannot judge a theory or credit a theory by who proposed it. To suggest that evolution is flawed because Darwin did not fully understand it is not an acceptable arguemtn because it assumes that evolution has not changed since his time. You must evaluate the theory not the person who proposed it. If a bum of the street proposed the idea that magic pixie faries created life and it turns out he was right....
wallrush00 2 years ago
"The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and therefore never scrutinize or question."
Stephen Jay Gould
If you look at Darwin evolution, there are examples like stasis where his predictions are false. There is simply more going on here than we currently understand. However, since we're so convinced that we've solved it, we've stopped analyzing the mystery.
frankfihn 2 years ago