Atheists or scientist both don't want to believe because they find gods rules he has given us along with the gift of life are to hard to follow that is temptation and don't give into it. if u don't rely on faith over mans version of what's rite and wrong and you deny Jesus he won't wipe ur sins clean we will all be judged I am no better than you nor are you better than me
When my friends neighbor died (he was an atheist) his wife saw black wings in the room and immediately repented from sins and asked that Jesus would forgive her for denying him so long and thanked him that he had saved her from the eternal suffering.
I am a Christian and a lot of scientific theories seem very similar to, or tie into the bible it all seems amazing because people have evolved and adapted but god created us in his image and we do not have souls! We are souls, we have a body! So I think our bodies have evolved but not from fish or primates, we are warned about these false religions and doubting the lord because we don't need proof we need faith, believe me I don't think it makes much sense but looking at it as a bigger picture
You must not know what a theory means in science do you...
In science, a theory is the highest honor a hypothesis can get. A hypothesis is only called theory if it can explain all the available data, make accurate predictions of what should happen if the theory is true, and MUST be falsifiable yet not disproven.
Also, Gravity is just a theory, I guess one shouldn't take it 'seriouly' either?
TYT- You have to believe in something to be ‘agonistic’- I want to win- but first learn,
the cells of animals or people (whatever) have different cell types that-regenerating would give a ‘black butterfly’, small-cat, big-dog, variegated (green/white leaves)-new plants, and a small horse ECT… how are these made? How many trees can go over the whole earth in how long?
@adrianmolm715 Well, cats, dogs and horses are for the most part artificially selected. For the Black Butterfly, if the butterfly needs to be dark in it's environment then the darkest butterflies will survive and the light ones will die off from predation. As the darker butterflies live, through each generation they will get darker until they can match their environment with little predation. Once the predation starts to taper off that's when natural selection of that trait doesn't need to work.
@adrianmolm715 I have read the Bible, however, it has nothing to do with evolution, so I'm almost certain you're not sure the difference between artificial and natural selection.
@AgowTisro Yes, the Bible has nothing to do with evolution, execpt for the artifacts that the Bible talks about (that time those objects were “normal” today they are artifacts)
@AgowTisro Yes, the Bible has nothing to do with evolution, execpt for the artifacts that the Bible talks about (that time those objects were “normal” today they are artifacts)
read it again- how many times have you seen a movie that was good, over and over -cool stuff
@adrianmolm715 Well, I gave an example of evolution, you refer me to the bible multiple times, so I'm genuinely convinced you're not interested in learning about evolution just completing your self-righteous agenda, so I bid you adieu here.
@AgowTisro I have learned about both sides, in a lot of areas like muslim, atheism, stuff like that but it doesn’t have history and a good reason why there is life on this earth, look at history there was harsh times before so why didn’t they just (kill themselves and stufflikethat) NO, there is a job/place for us here-look in the center of the Bible (fftkay), Psalms 118:8 Trust God rather than man (I shortened it), but God do a lot when you trust him
@adrianmolm715 Well, that shows how little you know about religion. The three "great" Abrahamic religions are Muslim, Christianity and Judaism, all three were founded around the same time. Muslim has the same, if not longer history than Christianity. Atheism technically outlasts all of them, the first organized religion didn't appear until the Sumarians. I can tell you the people before Christianity's rise weren't depressed without YOUR specific God.
@AgowTisro Judaism is the same thing as Christianity as far as GOD and History but Judaism Now days being called Zoinism (fill full the BIBLE’S prophecy, ps. Different subject, just learn history that therwill be the reason for the upcoming f)
and look at both sides of Muslim’s, they say they are friendly and joyful, but on the other side killing people and look up the many killings in Oslo, Norway at a camp and what about 9/11! We all have different books Toro, Koran, Bible, and textbooks
@AgowTisro Islam (not Muslim) was established around 632 AD, and Judaism was established around 1800BCE (depending on what criteria one uses), Christianity around 32 AD, thus they were not founded at the same time... just saying.
@gregrutz Correct, the only problem is that science doesn’t have all of the answers for everything, so it doesn’t have the result of ‘much’, biases- result. so yea there are some wonders, but in the Bible it said in psalms 105:5 so interesting things and so on
@darius777ful Interesting... wouldn't a Muslim make just as confident a remark based on their faith, as you have made based on yours? Would they be any more correct than you? If not, why not, if faith makes belief sound?
No as it turns out, I don't trust you, nor will I out of fear of eternal damnation. The trust I have is in my decision to be agnostic; that such a decision is the best one I can make; that it's reasonable. There is no invisible magic man in the sky waiting for me after death.
@BrandonSchleifer theory is actually (in the scientific sense) is how something works. Evolution is a fact, the theory explains it. Gravity is a fact, the theory explains it, sexual reproduction is a fact. The theory explains it.
@ThatGuyOverThere428 no a theory is an explanation of how or why things happen laws or 'facts' are extremely accurate and testable/repeated theories; gravity is a law of physics. evolution a law of nature.
@treetheoak Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.
-wikipedia
in other words, a theory stays a theory, a law stays a law, evolution and its constant occurring is a scientific theory, it will never be a Law because it does not dwell in that subject matter.
@treetheoak Gravity is a force of nature. A Law has to do with math, the law of gravity is F=gX[m1+m2]/2. The theory of gravity is called the theory of relitivity. It will alway be a theory.
First off, evolution is not the same thing as natural selection. Natural selection states that a variety of genetic traits are passed down to the offspring and that the creatures that have the best genetic traits in that environment survive, the others perish or go somewhere else, and the beneficial genetic traits are passed down to the other offspring. This process is a loss of information. The original parent had all of the genetic traits that it's offspring had. The future offspring have less
@Dustman3400 Evolution states that over time species originated from simple organic compounds to more complex species ultimately resulting in every species that exist today. This requires new genetic information to be added to the offspring for this to be successful. Natural selection can't be the mechanism for this work. It has never been observed that offspring acquire new genetic information. For this reason I would disagree that evolution is a fact or close to gravity as you stated.
Hey! I don't care if people believe in a god-like intelligence behind it all, as long as they accept evolution, and don't seek to deny an actual education to our kids and grand-kids.
what is this 'evolution' theory you are talking about from Darwin? Never heard of it.
But im writing this to show my outrage at Cenk's hit piece one of the most important books of modern biology, 'The formation of vegetable mould through the action of worms, with observations on their habits.' by C. Darwin
Personally, everything that Ive ever needed to know is found in those masterfully written pages. Copies can be found for free at Project Gutenberg.
I love it, Cenk great job " uhhh black, boom go" Uhh owl.. go" Always good at boiling these ridiculous arguments down to their base and showing how it really is
DNA mutation altering organisms in a way that offers a benefit to their survival in a controlled experimental setting? That would be the long term E.coli experiment.
Evolution: get with the program or get out of the damn gene pool!
@Kougeki1000 exactly. big animals have small popualtions so they die out more easily, usualy most generalised animals die while more spesialised animals them to die.
@Kougeki1000 Strong doesn't necessarily mean physical strength, it can mean alot of different things. Simply being able to survive in a harsh enviroment can be considered a strength.
Natural selection isn't actually a 'fact'. They're are very few 'absolutes' in science- for example the theory of gravity is one of them. However natural selection is a very good theory and is the best one we have right now regarding evolution broadly. Creationism isn't even close to being a theory, let alone anything else. I'm always stumped that so many Americans can't seem to understand the difference between the two.
You name call and then state that I have no idea about the principles of evolution.... I'd love for you to educate me, so why not explain them to me.... if you have any idea. I mean, instead of declaring that they are true and insulting me (which is a very weak thing to do) why not explain the principles to me. I'd love to hear them.
Actually, it was @realskeptic that submitted the peppered moth evidence for evolution and not me. I was simply responding to it. You've only resorted to stating that something "is" and simple ignorant name calling in order t o support your beliefs regarding evolution. What you haven't done for me or any others on this thread is support your position by responding to the objections.
If you will: Where did sexual reproduction come from? The Peppered Moth was still a moth.
Wow - you are no longer asking silly questions re origin & development of flight!
As for the utterly ridiculous question about sexual reproduction, bacteria do a primitive form of it all the time - that's how antibiotic resistance is spread.
And they are primitive forms. It is reasonable to expect that in more highly developed forms, the processes are more complicated: oviparous, viviparous types, production of spores & gametes in plants / bryophytes etc. The list goes on.
What I like Tom is when people who accept evolution can't explain it. They are really good at declaring that life as we know it evolved from lower life forms into what we see around us, but when you ask them specific questions about specific things they just repeat what they've already said or they move on to more declarative statements... like you have done.
You've told me that bacteria reproduce sexually. I'm not sure that is the case, but if it is it doesn't answer my question.
You are ridiculous! I'm not "declaring" anything. That's a FACTUAL account - not baseless gibberish in a meaningless religious text.
Do the research.
Sexual or meiotic reproduction has significant benefits - FITNESS - for organisms that do it because the offspring have genes (alleles) from both parents. SR has EVOLVED from v simple forms of exchange of DNA eg in +ve & -ve strains of bacteria (YES THEY DO IT!) to the range of mechanisms shown in higher plants and animals.
I'm not sure how else I can ask the question in such a way that you will understand it. What you are telling me is how some bacteria produce. What I am asking you is nothing to do with that.
Single celled organisms can't reproduce sexually because they lack germ cells... since they only have one cell and that is the whole organism. From that point, please explain how an asexually reproducing single cell began sexual reproduction without germ cells or a mate. since it is the first one
What you are doing is looking at bacteria and telling me what they do... from this side of the story. What I am asking you is how the single celled asexually reproducing organism which would have had to have been a one-of-a-kind organism would have randomly found a mate (which wouldn't have existed) with the exact same genes as well as germ cells (which wouldn't have existed in a single celled organism) and began something it had never done before (sexual reproduction)
Unicells reproduce. They produce lots of offspring. These offspring share a common ancestor. They MUST have the same genes. Some will have mutated and have different allele (forms of a gene). Some of these forms confer selective advantage. These unicells can pass on this advantage to their, by definition, fitter offspring.
DO NOT JUMP FROM UNICELLS TO MULTICELLS AT THIS TIME. SEE MY PREVIOUS.
I do understand, I'm just not so blinded by my beliefs that I can't consider anything else.
Ok, your common ancestor... how did he reproduce? asexually.... and then there were two... how did they reproduce? asexually... and then there were 4 how did they reproduce? asexually... and then there were 8. How? asexually. and then 16.. asexually.
So these are copies of one another... why would they have begun sexual reproduction and who would they have reproduced with? Each other?
I didn't realize we were arguing. I though that, like me, you wanted to know what truth is. Argument is more a tool to defend a position at all costs. I don't argue, I search for truth... which is what science is supposed to do.
So, what about the time scales? The single-celled organisms layed around in puddles for what....? 100 million years and got bored and then went to the unicell singles bar? Or maybe it was 400o years before they got lonely?
That defies natural selection. In natural selection, things that are working continue to work... asexual reproduction would have been working... why would they have suddenly decided to start reproducing some other way.
Please stop telling me that bacteria do it... I get that, but you're simply telling me what happens now.
Maybe you don't understand the difference in sexual and asexual reproduction?
So this one celled organism just happened to develop sexual reproduction for no good reason, found another copy of itself by floating around the entire planet randomly and then when it found this other of its own kind it knew how to reproduce sexually and produce a third copy of itself. And it did it all in one lifetime, right? If it is the only one and it died before reproducing then what?
There would have been? How do you know that? How do you know that there were millions of anything just floating around in puddles or in the sea or whatever? You don't know that at all. What you know is that they would have had to have been in order for natural selection to have happened, but you don't know. In order for your belief to work, you have to write the narrative, but you have zero "scientific evidence" that it did happen like that. Stop telling me what you believe.
I "accept" evolution because all other ideas about the origin of species are not based on evidence. That is, evidence which abounds, is plain to see and can be subject to scrutiny & investigation. It follows natural laws.
Any suggestion that things just happened . . . . pathetic, misguided.
The response is no better than that of people who believe in witch doctors, voodoo, spirits, fairies, piskies, sprites, nymphs, naiads . . . . . gullible children.
I know why you accept evolution.. because you think Science is the measure of all truth. What I'm saying is that you accept that based on things that you can't prove. YOu accept that the "evidence" is convincing enough, but that is the standard used by religious people also. Their religious evidence tells them that their religion is true just as your scientific evidence tells you that your science is true. So who makes the call between the two?
What I asked you, Tom, is to explain to me how and why the single celled organism (which would have had to reproduce asexually) went from asexual to sexual reproduction. Also, how did it find another creature that had evolved with the exact same genes as itself to reproduce with. Also, on this big ole planet... how did they find each other?
They didn't... they would have had to have been created together. The reproduction of viruses and bacteria is irrelevant to the question.
You make an impossible leap from unicells to multicells that no one (with sufficient critical capacity) has ever suggested.
Forms of sex'l repro were occuring in unicells - see above.
Multicellular organisms developed - adhering unicells - and in time sex'l repro evolved. Look at fungi. They do both - mostly asexual but many can fuse when conditions permit.
NB This is NOT a step in evolution of animal sex'l repro. It's another way SR evolved.
You are still describing reproduction from this side of the process. your "evidence" simply says that it happens. That "evidence" can be interpreted by creationists who would say that God designed the fungi and etc to reproduce that way. You would argue differently, I'm sure.
What I am asking you to explain is how they got to the point of having the "other."
Ok>> Amino Acids floated around and randomly formed proteins. Proteins randomly floated together to form structures that eventually formed a cell that for some reason received some energy that we call life. That cell floated around aimlessly. It wold have had to reproduce asexually because it would have been the only one.... then what?
How did it bump into another of its kind with the same DNA and RNA? How did it just randomly think, "Hey, I think I'll try to reproduce in a way that I never have before with this other organism!"
The organism wouldn't have had any reason to do that. There wouldn't have been a mate and there wouldn't have been a reason to simply start out doing it... not through natural selection or evolution.
I can see from your posts that you simply ignore facts when they are presented to you & continue to argue from the depths of stupidity in which you reside.
You continue to suggest that unicells are sexual reproducers like us/plants etc.
You refuse to appreciate the circumstances in which unicells then or now exist.
You are blinded by your faith. Faith, which is a fear of the unknown formed through ignorance into the terrible phenomenon of organised religion: blinkered.
Funny you would mention what you call my "faith." Again, that's an unscientific conclusion you have reached because I haven't even mentioned my faith. You assume that I am religious just like you seem to have assumed other things. For all you know, I could be a Phd'ed molecular biologist who is doing you like his students and challenging your position in order to get you to think and defend it. You haven't a clue.
If that were the case, you'd have developed your arguments way beyond the weak repetition of the suggestion that unicells suddenly developed sexual reproduction.
Study it a little more. Evolution and its naturalistic ideas stretch all the way back to the beginning of the universe. What you are talking about specifically is Darwinianism, but there is a lot more to evolution that that.
Don't be a moron, humans didn't evolve from monkeys, we`re from the same genetic tree as monkeys and neanderthals, but we humans are the only of that tree that has reached the point of where we have the ability to communicate with formed words and the ability to use and create tools.
All of this can be found and verified by numerous respected sources over the last 2,000 years from Darwin to archeologists.
The only proof that creationism has is a book written by men. Your counter?
.......The animals we see today are MODERN ANIMALS. Of course we didn't evolve from them! Modern animals had to come from somewhere as well, humans share 98% of the same genes with chimps. The two remaining chromasomes have been proven to have been fused into one chromasome (look up the human genome). This proves humans and chimps shared a common ancsestor. Futhermore chimps are apes, not monkeys.
@Reqrezentin it took this long you came up with that?
and to answer your question, the reason monkeys are still around is because they simply didnt die off during the thousands of years and haven't evolved as much as we have. however as any google search will show you they are incredibly smart and can mimic what people do, hence the saying "monkey see, monkey do."
As I have said before, any google search will show that humans didnt evolve from monkeys, both we and monkeys came from the same evolutionary tree, like how a house cat and a lion are different species but are still in the evolutionary tree.
Its taught in school because facts and research has shown that the idea of evolution is much more logical then an all mighty and whimsical god being created the world is seven days.
i just told you how the fossils and artifacts show we evolved, all this can be verified and even built upon by sources around the world from different groups and establishments. However your book is a work of fiction. Yes some of the humans in have lived, such as Jesus and his disciples, but it is entirely a work of fiction, written by men to explain why everything in the world is there. Although great things have been done in its name, it has been abused and it is outdated.
At this point of our debate I`m going to declare myself the winner, because at this point I have shot down every question you have asked and has and have now been reduced to spamming the same question over and over again.
It was fun having this debate with you, have a nice day. :)
I asked how is it flawed, you provides no evidence to back up your claim. Is it a controlled environment : yes. Is it done several times? Yes, twelve different experiments at once. Do they all give the same result mutation wise? No, some have shown more growth and even one display a mutation none of the other 11 lines displayed. How many generations as it lasted? Currently 51557 generations of E.Coli in twelve different path
How isn't that a controlled environment test on evolution?
Ok, it was a great experiment I can admit that . However till they do that with animals and not bacteria we don't have any proof, also how can you link bacteria to humans...
May I present as evidence the Holstein-Freisian cow as evidence for a mammal to evolve through selective breeding some desirable traits. By reproducing the cows that produced the most milk, the high-milk production gene spread in the population of Holstein-Freisian. This resulted into cows that produce so much milk that they have to be milked at least twice per day or they udder can suffer infections or worse. This occurs for around 2 milleniums.
@Reqrezentin i always wondered if anyone has done replications of this experiment with Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) or Arabidopsis thaliana (lab cress) models which are the two most used in researching as both have their genome fully sequenced for a while now?
Are you purposefully retarded or is it from creationist brainwashing? I fully explained WHY horses can't have wings and why there are still monkeys. If you're gonna keep talking the same shit over and over, you aren't gonna listen no matter what I say. If you want to actually LEARN something, come back to me when you're done acting like a fucking moron.
To start off I'm not a scientist. I merely like reading science books I get at the library. I don't have ALL the answers scientists currently have so I might be missing a few points here. Even if you were to ask a credited scientist, they wont say they have all the answers you are looking for. that's why scientists continue to study to make more discoveries. Creationism doesn't work that way. We wouldn't have a problem with it though if the sponsors for the idea were honest.
Second: For a horse to make the genes for wings it'd have to undergo a pretty significan't genetic mutation and even if it were possible for hosrses to get wings it wouldn't happen in a few seconds like in pokemon, or the weird-ass super evolution creationists think is more logical than REAL evolution.
And in case you're curious about what super evolution is, it's a term thought up to define the biblical idea of 8 people multiplying into 6 billion in 4000 years without suffering from a weak gene pool on top of the varied diversity of apperances people are known to take in each region of the world. Same applies to animals.
What? How do you get that conclusion from what I said? Furthermore based on your reply to GrayKnight3445, you obviously choose not to look into the opposing side and instead spew out the creationist bullshit. It has been tested using computer models. AND AS I SAID BEFORE WE HAVE DNA EVIDENCE RETARD.
And you have JUST lost the argument. Evolution is not an evil concept, creationism is as it is counterproductive to society and is unconstitutional which is why it is not allowed to be taught in schools. It's proponents are dishonest, and have broken the law continuously. If creationism WERE a valid concept why would people bother to give it a chance given those facts?
I have, you're either stupid or brainwashed into thinking all fields of science are wrong because it doesn't agree with your beleifs. If you want your proof so badly, look up the human genome for the DNA evidence for evolution. Also look up computer models as well. I hardly see how people like you still exist but it proves that the human race is still primitive if we have ignoramuses like you.
It doesn't matter if you plan to go to college. You're still an idiot if you don't at least acknowledge evolution as fact even a little bit since it is the unifying theory of biology. If evolution was false, then it would affect every other field as a whole. Microbiology depends on evolution to determine what cures a deseise. Why do you think viruses keep resisting medicines? They are EVOLVING since they want to live on while we want them to stop making us sick.
I need to point out this one thing though; I have pointedly listed the facts currently known. I have pointed out there have been computer models. I have pointed out the fact scientests managed to identify the contents of the human genome . we have fossils, the geologic record, everything we could hope for. and you refuse these facts.
Your kind are all alike, no matter what evidence is shown you act like a little child sticking his fingers in his ears and say "not enough, lalalala". And you say you wish to learn? You are a fucking hypocrite which shows you are a creationist even if you dont think you are one. Creationism has been taken to the courts TWICE. Both times they have been deemed innapropriate for schools as stated by the constitution. Science wins. GIVE UP.
It doesn't matter since I explained in my last comment what the deal is. You wont listen despite the sources I cite for you, so why should I bother with someone who buys into creationist bullshit? Science and logic wins.
Chemestry sometimes crosses paths with biology, so this would be something you would need to know anyway which ultimatel makes me more suprised how you could not think the thery has any truth. Furthermore if you really WERE a chemestry student you would know what a scientific theory i. BTW, a scientific theory is to never be confused as a hypothoesis, which is a common misconception. A theory explains facts, it is not a guess. A Hypothesis is a guess.
Now on the matter of the genome, the human genome is 98% identical to a Chimpanzee's. the reason being is that chimps and other great apes have 48 chromasomes. Humans have 46. We could not have just lost those chromosomes as such a thing would be fatal. It has been proven through genetic research that the missing chromosomes have fused together. Specifically the chromosome in question is chromosome #2 on the human genome. We share a common ancestor with chimps thanks to this evidence.
FINALLY, if a horse were to get wings it would take millions of years, and even then nature would experiment with several different ideas on it before the final product is made. If you look at fossil birds like Microraptor or Archeopterix you can see some rather interesting differences. Microraptor for example had four wings; two in front and two in back. However they were ment for gliding as opposed to powered-flight like modern birds.
ya 4real its not even a theory just a fairy tail. gawd awmighty & his invisible hands cr8ed da universe & earth & plants & animals 4real. dat is truth. dat is fact. dat is science 4u & me
It might be the worst theory but at least it is supported by evidence, can be tested and involves rational arguement.
Religious statements about the origin of life rely on faith based on books that are so full of contradictions they are meaningless (after all, they are MERELY the Words of Men).
Well, the problem is that horses don't have the DNA to make wings. To evolve requires a specefic gene or gene sequence. Birds have the DNA to make teeth, which f they were created in present form, they wouldn't have them at all. To say god just put extra genes in there makes no sense, especially when you look at dinosaurs which look almost exactly like birds in terms of skeletal structure. Humans also have the genes to make tails, and sometimes newborns have tails.
A horse can't grow wings because it doesn't have the genes to do the job. It's the same as the crocoduck strawman argument. IT DOESN't HAPPEN.
Secondly, evolution occurs over a period of millions of years. Of course you aren't gonna see evolution happen before your eyes. But if you want a fast-paced example, you can compare a developing fetus growing into a human baby or the lineage of domestic dogs.
Fossils very much exist.... certainly... but in order to accept them as proof of evolution you have to BEGIN the scientific process with the belief that God does not exist and Evolution developed the known universe. This means you begin the investigation with an assumed conclusion and then you interpret the evidence in light of that bias.
Doing that violates the scientific process itself.
That fossil record can be interpreted in other ways if you begin without the bias.
@originaldane "Evolution developed the known universe"
Evolutions has NOTHING to do with how the universe began, it is the study of how life transforms/changes over time once it has already been formed. Your premise is a false one.
To accuse someone of falsehood, is a deeply unattractive trait so characteristic of some superstitious, pathetically maleable and easily-led, blinkered sub-sections of mankind.
Your ignorance about proposals for the biological and chemical orgins of life completely disqualify you from making rational comments on this topic.
However, I am quite confident your disqualification from contributing to rational arguement will not stop you from continuing to spout drivel.
@tomjreid I think you should reread what I wrote (what you commented on) before indulging in the irony of accusing me the exact opposite of what I actually said.
Unless YOU believe that abiogeneisis and evolution are the same?
Instead of telling me that proof exists and all of that, can you explain to me what the proof is as far as your understanding?
For instance, the flying dinosaur... illogical to hold that dinosaurs simply slowly developed the ability to fly. The mutation process would have hindered its survival ability until it could fly... in the mean time the thing would have been eaten or starved to death.
Don't just accept "truth" because it came form a professor or scientist.
You poor, pathetic individual. You really have no idea - whatsoever - about the principles of evolution do you?
Flight has evolved in many different ways.
Today, Flying Squirrels demonstrate how flight started: gliding. The physiological similarities between Flying Squirrels and bats - other mammals with skin between arms and body - are striking.
Also, Achilles, where did it find the other animal that would have had to evolve with the same DNA sequence so that it would have had to have had to mate with? Where did that animal come from? There's more, but I'm interested to hear your response.
Yes viruses and such mutate, but that is a far cry from what evolutionists claim regarding humans and other complex organisms. I would be happy to discuss it with you.
I'll ask you one question to begin with. That one celled organism that resulted from the random arrangement of amino acids into protiens and proteins into DNA and etc... it would have had to reproduce asexually... since it was the only one. Do you have any hint at which time it began sexual reproduction?
He makes several false statements. #1, he said that all scientists agree... Not all scientists agree on anything, Evolution or otherwise. #2, "Theory" is not just "a scientific term" like he said. It is a step in the scientific process. Now, when the theory cannot be proven, you cannot simply diminish the importance of your own process in order to declare that it is true. Doing that would be very "unscientific." #3, Gravity is clearly demonstrable. Evolution is not.
@originaldane Yes, it is. You can easily demonstrate evolution, observe it as well. MIcrobes and viruses constantly evolve and can be observed. Natural selection is true, and so is evolution, however all scientists do not agree on the specifics of how evolution happened but no scientist disagrees that it did happen, that's why it's a theory and not a fact yet because everything about it is not clear, but it does happen.
too bad that he was off on that, and didn't get to finsh his other last book in which he is openly critical of the so called social darwinists, say they are taking their theories and misusing them, etc.
I just think a god like amount of sentient energy started the big bang dictated the physics and said best of luck i believe that science is the only logical approach to the universe and that religion has lost its usefulness
one of the new polls that i thought you guys would find funny, states with lowest test scores, lower educational and high amounts with churches are the states that are mainly republicans.
Atheists or scientist both don't want to believe because they find gods rules he has given us along with the gift of life are to hard to follow that is temptation and don't give into it. if u don't rely on faith over mans version of what's rite and wrong and you deny Jesus he won't wipe ur sins clean we will all be judged I am no better than you nor are you better than me
alwaysjamina7x 4 weeks ago
When my friends neighbor died (he was an atheist) his wife saw black wings in the room and immediately repented from sins and asked that Jesus would forgive her for denying him so long and thanked him that he had saved her from the eternal suffering.
alwaysjamina7x 4 weeks ago
I am a Christian and a lot of scientific theories seem very similar to, or tie into the bible it all seems amazing because people have evolved and adapted but god created us in his image and we do not have souls! We are souls, we have a body! So I think our bodies have evolved but not from fish or primates, we are warned about these false religions and doubting the lord because we don't need proof we need faith, believe me I don't think it makes much sense but looking at it as a bigger picture
alwaysjamina7x 4 weeks ago
It's amazing that no one mentions the Vedas when talking about God. I find that very surprising
MrDammit2hell 1 month ago
A recent Pew study found that 63 percent of Americans are idiots.
werebee 1 month ago
I believe in natural selection and God. But I will never think that the big bang was real.
MriBackup 1 month ago
One great guy - Englishman Charles Darwin
MyMerlin1 3 months ago
Evolution is just a theory. Do not take it seriouly.
Chaliamusiclover 4 months ago
@Chaliamusiclover How does one not take something 'seriouly'?
DuTriDu 4 months ago
@Chaliamusiclover
You must not know what a theory means in science do you...
In science, a theory is the highest honor a hypothesis can get. A hypothesis is only called theory if it can explain all the available data, make accurate predictions of what should happen if the theory is true, and MUST be falsifiable yet not disproven.
Also, Gravity is just a theory, I guess one shouldn't take it 'seriouly' either?
calthopian 4 months ago
@Chaliamusiclover You don't know what a scientific theory is, this has already been said so I'll say this: you're a fucking idiot.
jojogonzo 3 months ago
Earth worms are extremely important to the soil. They recycle the and fertilization the soil.
MrKevin624 5 months ago
TYT- You have to believe in something to be ‘agonistic’- I want to win- but first learn,
the cells of animals or people (whatever) have different cell types that-regenerating would give a ‘black butterfly’, small-cat, big-dog, variegated (green/white leaves)-new plants, and a small horse ECT… how are these made? How many trees can go over the whole earth in how long?
adrianmolm715 6 months ago
@adrianmolm715 Well, cats, dogs and horses are for the most part artificially selected. For the Black Butterfly, if the butterfly needs to be dark in it's environment then the darkest butterflies will survive and the light ones will die off from predation. As the darker butterflies live, through each generation they will get darker until they can match their environment with little predation. Once the predation starts to taper off that's when natural selection of that trait doesn't need to work.
AgowTisro 5 months ago
@AgowTisro Talk like that- artificially means- “made by human skill” and the BIBLE says that
We The People “Humans” are created like Himself (Genesis 1:27).
But right now we are in a car/world that has a nasty wreck and Sooner or Later it is going to the scrap-yard!
READ the Bible /matt. is a interesting book to read
adrianmolm715 5 months ago
@adrianmolm715 I have read the Bible, however, it has nothing to do with evolution, so I'm almost certain you're not sure the difference between artificial and natural selection.
AgowTisro 5 months ago
@AgowTisro Yes, the Bible has nothing to do with evolution, execpt for the artifacts that the Bible talks about (that time those objects were “normal” today they are artifacts)
adrianmolm715 5 months ago
@AgowTisro Yes, the Bible has nothing to do with evolution, execpt for the artifacts that the Bible talks about (that time those objects were “normal” today they are artifacts)
read it again- how many times have you seen a movie that was good, over and over -cool stuff
adrianmolm715 5 months ago
@adrianmolm715 Well, I gave an example of evolution, you refer me to the bible multiple times, so I'm genuinely convinced you're not interested in learning about evolution just completing your self-righteous agenda, so I bid you adieu here.
AgowTisro 5 months ago
@AgowTisro I have learned about both sides, in a lot of areas like muslim, atheism, stuff like that but it doesn’t have history and a good reason why there is life on this earth, look at history there was harsh times before so why didn’t they just (kill themselves and stufflikethat) NO, there is a job/place for us here-look in the center of the Bible (fftkay), Psalms 118:8 Trust God rather than man (I shortened it), but God do a lot when you trust him
adrianmolm715 5 months ago
@adrianmolm715 Well, that shows how little you know about religion. The three "great" Abrahamic religions are Muslim, Christianity and Judaism, all three were founded around the same time. Muslim has the same, if not longer history than Christianity. Atheism technically outlasts all of them, the first organized religion didn't appear until the Sumarians. I can tell you the people before Christianity's rise weren't depressed without YOUR specific God.
AgowTisro 5 months ago
@AgowTisro Judaism is the same thing as Christianity as far as GOD and History but Judaism Now days being called Zoinism (fill full the BIBLE’S prophecy, ps. Different subject, just learn history that therwill be the reason for the upcoming f)
and look at both sides of Muslim’s, they say they are friendly and joyful, but on the other side killing people and look up the many killings in Oslo, Norway at a camp and what about 9/11! We all have different books Toro, Koran, Bible, and textbooks
adrianmolm715 5 months ago
@adrianmolm715 This is going nowhere.
AgowTisro 5 months ago
@AgowTisro the (fftkay) is- Fun Fact To Know And Yell
adrianmolm715 5 months ago
@AgowTisro Islam (not Muslim) was established around 632 AD, and Judaism was established around 1800BCE (depending on what criteria one uses), Christianity around 32 AD, thus they were not founded at the same time... just saying.
shaun2135 5 months ago
@adrianmolm715 There is only one side, science. Every religion has a creation story which is fantacy.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz Correct, the only problem is that science doesn’t have all of the answers for everything, so it doesn’t have the result of ‘much’, biases- result. so yea there are some wonders, but in the Bible it said in psalms 105:5 so interesting things and so on
adrianmolm715 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah americans are fucking stupid..
KeySour 7 months ago
don't worry about creationist... natural selection will take care of them ;-)
youkeylaylee 7 months ago 4
@youkeylaylee
lol like that... trim to trim the hedge...lol
dodo's?
chugs 7 months ago
28 people believe in something with no proof over something with loads of proof.
These people, God bless them, are touched.
bebop7c2 7 months ago
That book on earthworms probably had some kind of crucial importance for agriculture, at the time;
bbphnix 9 months ago
Anyone who rejects evolution is an idiot.
JImmy4336 9 months ago
@JImmy4336 I always point to seedless watermelon. That is evolution right there.
Laughtraxx 7 months ago
gods real
darius777ful 9 months ago
@darius777ful So is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
GimmieUtoob 9 months ago
@GimmieUtoob you will see when you die frend trust me
darius777ful 9 months ago
@darius777ful Interesting... wouldn't a Muslim make just as confident a remark based on their faith, as you have made based on yours? Would they be any more correct than you? If not, why not, if faith makes belief sound?
No as it turns out, I don't trust you, nor will I out of fear of eternal damnation. The trust I have is in my decision to be agnostic; that such a decision is the best one I can make; that it's reasonable. There is no invisible magic man in the sky waiting for me after death.
GimmieUtoob 9 months ago
@GimmieUtoob prolly
darius777ful 9 months ago
Little science jargon for everyone:
Law - applies mathematically in all scenarios
Theory - an explanation that has not been disproved after many attempts to disprove it.
Hypothesis - an explanation that has not been tested enough or is not complete enough to be a theory.
Experiment - a series of actions that can be replicated to attempt to disprove or support a hypothesis or theory.
If you don't like the theory of evolution, create an experiment to prove it wrong.
BrandonSchleifer 10 months ago
@BrandonSchleifer theory is actually (in the scientific sense) is how something works. Evolution is a fact, the theory explains it. Gravity is a fact, the theory explains it, sexual reproduction is a fact. The theory explains it.
ThatGuyOverThere428 10 months ago
@ThatGuyOverThere428 no a theory is an explanation of how or why things happen laws or 'facts' are extremely accurate and testable/repeated theories; gravity is a law of physics. evolution a law of nature.
treetheoak 9 months ago
@treetheoak Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.
-wikipedia
in other words, a theory stays a theory, a law stays a law, evolution and its constant occurring is a scientific theory, it will never be a Law because it does not dwell in that subject matter.
ThatGuyOverThere428 9 months ago
@treetheoak Gravity is a force of nature. A Law has to do with math, the law of gravity is F=gX[m1+m2]/2. The theory of gravity is called the theory of relitivity. It will alway be a theory.
gregrutz 9 months ago
Comment removed
Dustman3400 11 months ago
First off, evolution is not the same thing as natural selection. Natural selection states that a variety of genetic traits are passed down to the offspring and that the creatures that have the best genetic traits in that environment survive, the others perish or go somewhere else, and the beneficial genetic traits are passed down to the other offspring. This process is a loss of information. The original parent had all of the genetic traits that it's offspring had. The future offspring have less
Dustman3400 11 months ago
@Dustman3400 Evolution states that over time species originated from simple organic compounds to more complex species ultimately resulting in every species that exist today. This requires new genetic information to be added to the offspring for this to be successful. Natural selection can't be the mechanism for this work. It has never been observed that offspring acquire new genetic information. For this reason I would disagree that evolution is a fact or close to gravity as you stated.
Dustman3400 11 months ago
Im raised as a Jahova's witness, and take from me, IF god created us, he made monkeys first :)
cwongchung 11 months ago
Mat dillahunty should get on tyt
horbergaren 11 months ago
Hey! I don't care if people believe in a god-like intelligence behind it all, as long as they accept evolution, and don't seek to deny an actual education to our kids and grand-kids.
Hereticbooks 1 year ago 2
what is this 'evolution' theory you are talking about from Darwin? Never heard of it.
But im writing this to show my outrage at Cenk's hit piece one of the most important books of modern biology, 'The formation of vegetable mould through the action of worms, with observations on their habits.' by C. Darwin
Personally, everything that Ive ever needed to know is found in those masterfully written pages. Copies can be found for free at Project Gutenberg.
bdhcarbon 1 year ago
I love it, Cenk great job " uhhh black, boom go" Uhh owl.. go" Always good at boiling these ridiculous arguments down to their base and showing how it really is
corius737 1 year ago
Charlie!! Can we take a break here!!
st105900 1 year ago
Owl, go, turn your neck around like that. Its a nice trick. Go.
st105900 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hm.. The Turk doesn't know what a theory is..
peronkop 1 year ago
DNA mutation altering organisms in a way that offers a benefit to their survival in a controlled experimental setting? That would be the long term E.coli experiment.
Evolution: get with the program or get out of the damn gene pool!
evilamnesiac 1 year ago 29
One thing I never got about evolution. How did life go from one sex to two sexes? o_o
Manofaction0 1 year ago
The strongest doesn't survive, the best adapted survives - is what evolution says.
Kougeki1000 1 year ago 60
@Kougeki1000 exactly. big animals have small popualtions so they die out more easily, usualy most generalised animals die while more spesialised animals them to die.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
@Kougeki1000 Strong doesn't necessarily mean physical strength, it can mean alot of different things. Simply being able to survive in a harsh enviroment can be considered a strength.
petercharleskrug 1 year ago
@Kougeki1000 Isnt that the same thing in a way??
cwongchung 11 months ago
@Kougeki1000 I agree. Humans are by far the best adapted but certainly not the strongest, but they are the best at surviving.
snypa514 8 months ago
Natural selection isn't actually a 'fact'. They're are very few 'absolutes' in science- for example the theory of gravity is one of them. However natural selection is a very good theory and is the best one we have right now regarding evolution broadly. Creationism isn't even close to being a theory, let alone anything else. I'm always stumped that so many Americans can't seem to understand the difference between the two.
MrDragon1968 1 year ago
63%?
I don't want to live in this country any more.
MonstahhB 1 year ago
@tomjreid
You name call and then state that I have no idea about the principles of evolution.... I'd love for you to educate me, so why not explain them to me.... if you have any idea. I mean, instead of declaring that they are true and insulting me (which is a very weak thing to do) why not explain the principles to me. I'd love to hear them.
originaldane 1 year ago
@tomjreid
Actually, it was @realskeptic that submitted the peppered moth evidence for evolution and not me. I was simply responding to it. You've only resorted to stating that something "is" and simple ignorant name calling in order t o support your beliefs regarding evolution. What you haven't done for me or any others on this thread is support your position by responding to the objections.
If you will: Where did sexual reproduction come from? The Peppered Moth was still a moth.
originaldane 1 year ago
@originaldane
Wow - you are no longer asking silly questions re origin & development of flight!
As for the utterly ridiculous question about sexual reproduction, bacteria do a primitive form of it all the time - that's how antibiotic resistance is spread.
And they are primitive forms. It is reasonable to expect that in more highly developed forms, the processes are more complicated: oviparous, viviparous types, production of spores & gametes in plants / bryophytes etc. The list goes on.
tomjreid 1 year ago
@tomjreid
What I like Tom is when people who accept evolution can't explain it. They are really good at declaring that life as we know it evolved from lower life forms into what we see around us, but when you ask them specific questions about specific things they just repeat what they've already said or they move on to more declarative statements... like you have done.
You've told me that bacteria reproduce sexually. I'm not sure that is the case, but if it is it doesn't answer my question.
originaldane 1 year ago
@originaldane
You are ridiculous! I'm not "declaring" anything. That's a FACTUAL account - not baseless gibberish in a meaningless religious text.
Do the research.
Sexual or meiotic reproduction has significant benefits - FITNESS - for organisms that do it because the offspring have genes (alleles) from both parents. SR has EVOLVED from v simple forms of exchange of DNA eg in +ve & -ve strains of bacteria (YES THEY DO IT!) to the range of mechanisms shown in higher plants and animals.
tomjreid 1 year ago
@tomjreid
I'm not sure how else I can ask the question in such a way that you will understand it. What you are telling me is how some bacteria produce. What I am asking you is nothing to do with that.
Single celled organisms can't reproduce sexually because they lack germ cells... since they only have one cell and that is the whole organism. From that point, please explain how an asexually reproducing single cell began sexual reproduction without germ cells or a mate. since it is the first one
originaldane 1 year ago
@tomjreid
What you are doing is looking at bacteria and telling me what they do... from this side of the story. What I am asking you is how the single celled asexually reproducing organism which would have had to have been a one-of-a-kind organism would have randomly found a mate (which wouldn't have existed) with the exact same genes as well as germ cells (which wouldn't have existed in a single celled organism) and began something it had never done before (sexual reproduction)
originaldane 1 year ago
@originaldane
You just don't understand do you.
Unicells reproduce. They produce lots of offspring. These offspring share a common ancestor. They MUST have the same genes. Some will have mutated and have different allele (forms of a gene). Some of these forms confer selective advantage. These unicells can pass on this advantage to their, by definition, fitter offspring.
DO NOT JUMP FROM UNICELLS TO MULTICELLS AT THIS TIME. SEE MY PREVIOUS.
tomjreid 1 year ago
@tomjreid
I do understand, I'm just not so blinded by my beliefs that I can't consider anything else.
Ok, your common ancestor... how did he reproduce? asexually.... and then there were two... how did they reproduce? asexually... and then there were 4 how did they reproduce? asexually... and then there were 8. How? asexually. and then 16.. asexually.
So these are copies of one another... why would they have begun sexual reproduction and who would they have reproduced with? Each other?
originaldane 1 year ago
@originaldane
You have no idea of the timescales involved.
I guess you argue the world is about 4000 years old.
BLINKERED. IGNORANT.
BTW There is no such thing as religious evidence. Expressions of opinion by the gullible and easily led ARE NOT EVIDENCE.
Actually, arguing with you is a waste of time.
Don't bother posting at me again. Have a nice afterlife.
tomjreid 1 year ago
@tomjreid
I didn't realize we were arguing. I though that, like me, you wanted to know what truth is. Argument is more a tool to defend a position at all costs. I don't argue, I search for truth... which is what science is supposed to do.
So, what about the time scales? The single-celled organisms layed around in puddles for what....? 100 million years and got bored and then went to the unicell singles bar? Or maybe it was 400o years before they got lonely?
originaldane 1 year ago
@tomjreid
That defies natural selection. In natural selection, things that are working continue to work... asexual reproduction would have been working... why would they have suddenly decided to start reproducing some other way.
Please stop telling me that bacteria do it... I get that, but you're simply telling me what happens now.
originaldane 1 year ago
@tomjreid
Maybe you don't understand the difference in sexual and asexual reproduction?
So this one celled organism just happened to develop sexual reproduction for no good reason, found another copy of itself by floating around the entire planet randomly and then when it found this other of its own kind it knew how to reproduce sexually and produce a third copy of itself. And it did it all in one lifetime, right? If it is the only one and it died before reproducing then what?
originaldane 1 year ago
@originaldane
Again. You just don't understand do you.
There would be millions of unicells in the sea, in puddles, in soil. They don't just wander around. They can't. They haven't got legs.
But they can exchange DNA.
Bacteria do it all the time
tomjreid 1 year ago
@tomjreid
There would have been? How do you know that? How do you know that there were millions of anything just floating around in puddles or in the sea or whatever? You don't know that at all. What you know is that they would have had to have been in order for natural selection to have happened, but you don't know. In order for your belief to work, you have to write the narrative, but you have zero "scientific evidence" that it did happen like that. Stop telling me what you believe.
originaldane 1 year ago
@originaldane
I "accept" evolution because all other ideas about the origin of species are not based on evidence. That is, evidence which abounds, is plain to see and can be subject to scrutiny & investigation. It follows natural laws.
Any suggestion that things just happened . . . . pathetic, misguided.
The response is no better than that of people who believe in witch doctors, voodoo, spirits, fairies, piskies, sprites, nymphs, naiads . . . . . gullible children.
tomjreid 1 year ago
@tomjreid
I know why you accept evolution.. because you think Science is the measure of all truth. What I'm saying is that you accept that based on things that you can't prove. YOu accept that the "evidence" is convincing enough, but that is the standard used by religious people also. Their religious evidence tells them that their religion is true just as your scientific evidence tells you that your science is true. So who makes the call between the two?
originaldane 1 year ago
@tomjreid
What I asked you, Tom, is to explain to me how and why the single celled organism (which would have had to reproduce asexually) went from asexual to sexual reproduction. Also, how did it find another creature that had evolved with the exact same genes as itself to reproduce with. Also, on this big ole planet... how did they find each other?
They didn't... they would have had to have been created together. The reproduction of viruses and bacteria is irrelevant to the question.
originaldane 1 year ago
@originaldane Again, RIDICULOUS.
You make an impossible leap from unicells to multicells that no one (with sufficient critical capacity) has ever suggested.
Forms of sex'l repro were occuring in unicells - see above.
Multicellular organisms developed - adhering unicells - and in time sex'l repro evolved. Look at fungi. They do both - mostly asexual but many can fuse when conditions permit.
NB This is NOT a step in evolution of animal sex'l repro. It's another way SR evolved.
tomjreid 1 year ago
@tomjreid
You are still describing reproduction from this side of the process. your "evidence" simply says that it happens. That "evidence" can be interpreted by creationists who would say that God designed the fungi and etc to reproduce that way. You would argue differently, I'm sure.
What I am asking you to explain is how they got to the point of having the "other."
originaldane 1 year ago
@tomjreid
Ok>> Amino Acids floated around and randomly formed proteins. Proteins randomly floated together to form structures that eventually formed a cell that for some reason received some energy that we call life. That cell floated around aimlessly. It wold have had to reproduce asexually because it would have been the only one.... then what?
originaldane 1 year ago
@tomjreid
How did it bump into another of its kind with the same DNA and RNA? How did it just randomly think, "Hey, I think I'll try to reproduce in a way that I never have before with this other organism!"
The organism wouldn't have had any reason to do that. There wouldn't have been a mate and there wouldn't have been a reason to simply start out doing it... not through natural selection or evolution.
originaldane 1 year ago
@originaldane
I can see from your posts that you simply ignore facts when they are presented to you & continue to argue from the depths of stupidity in which you reside.
You continue to suggest that unicells are sexual reproducers like us/plants etc.
You refuse to appreciate the circumstances in which unicells then or now exist.
You are blinded by your faith. Faith, which is a fear of the unknown formed through ignorance into the terrible phenomenon of organised religion: blinkered.
tomjreid 1 year ago
@tomjreid
Funny you would mention what you call my "faith." Again, that's an unscientific conclusion you have reached because I haven't even mentioned my faith. You assume that I am religious just like you seem to have assumed other things. For all you know, I could be a Phd'ed molecular biologist who is doing you like his students and challenging your position in order to get you to think and defend it. You haven't a clue.
originaldane 1 year ago
@originaldane
Mate, in your dreams.
If that were the case, you'd have developed your arguments way beyond the weak repetition of the suggestion that unicells suddenly developed sexual reproduction.
Try again when you've done the research.
tomjreid 1 year ago
@acfacf4321
Study it a little more. Evolution and its naturalistic ideas stretch all the way back to the beginning of the universe. What you are talking about specifically is Darwinianism, but there is a lot more to evolution that that.
@Reqrezentin
Please get off of my side if that is the best that you have to offer,, "So... they turned a money into a human."
To everyone who has responded to my posts... where are your answers to my points? Sexual Reproduction... flight.. scientific method?
originaldane 1 year ago
Life would be more fun if people followed the Harry Potter books rather than the Bible.
StirItUP1973 1 year ago
Evolution is the worst theory ever made in the history of mankind.
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin its not a theory, its a fact. a fact that is backed by real, replicable experiments and studies.
The Bible is a book written by humans with no proof aside from whats in the book.
Do the math.
GrayKnight3445 1 year ago
@GrayKnight3445
Wow, so they turned a monkey into a human in a controlled experiment?
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
Don't be a moron, humans didn't evolve from monkeys, we`re from the same genetic tree as monkeys and neanderthals, but we humans are the only of that tree that has reached the point of where we have the ability to communicate with formed words and the ability to use and create tools.
All of this can be found and verified by numerous respected sources over the last 2,000 years from Darwin to archeologists.
The only proof that creationism has is a book written by men. Your counter?
GrayKnight3445 1 year ago
@GrayKnight3445
How come there are still monkeys around?
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
.......The animals we see today are MODERN ANIMALS. Of course we didn't evolve from them! Modern animals had to come from somewhere as well, humans share 98% of the same genes with chimps. The two remaining chromasomes have been proven to have been fused into one chromasome (look up the human genome). This proves humans and chimps shared a common ancsestor. Futhermore chimps are apes, not monkeys.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin it took this long you came up with that?
and to answer your question, the reason monkeys are still around is because they simply didnt die off during the thousands of years and haven't evolved as much as we have. however as any google search will show you they are incredibly smart and can mimic what people do, hence the saying "monkey see, monkey do."
I look forward to your reply. :)
GrayKnight3445 1 year ago
@GrayKnight3445
Yes, I want to know why there are still monkeys, why haven't they evolved into humans.
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
As I have said before, any google search will show that humans didnt evolve from monkeys, both we and monkeys came from the same evolutionary tree, like how a house cat and a lion are different species but are still in the evolutionary tree.
Hope that answered your question. :)
GrayKnight3445 1 year ago
@GrayKnight3445
But why do they teach that in school then?
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
Its taught in school because facts and research has shown that the idea of evolution is much more logical then an all mighty and whimsical god being created the world is seven days.
GrayKnight3445 1 year ago
@GrayKnight3445
But you haven't proved or showed evolution in a controlled scientific experiment.
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
thats because its not a magical force that can bend the universe on a whim. It takes millions of years for evolution to make changes in ANY species.
We know this from the artifacts, fossils, and genetic research that has been and is currently being done.
GrayKnight3445 1 year ago
@GrayKnight3445
no you lie, I have a book that tells me otherwise and you have stones which prove nothing.
How about showing it to me?
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
i just told you how the fossils and artifacts show we evolved, all this can be verified and even built upon by sources around the world from different groups and establishments. However your book is a work of fiction. Yes some of the humans in have lived, such as Jesus and his disciples, but it is entirely a work of fiction, written by men to explain why everything in the world is there. Although great things have been done in its name, it has been abused and it is outdated.
GrayKnight3445 1 year ago
@GrayKnight3445
But you still can't show me a controlled experiment thus disapproving all of your shit.
Can you do that? please tell me.
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
At this point of our debate I`m going to declare myself the winner, because at this point I have shot down every question you have asked and has and have now been reduced to spamming the same question over and over again.
It was fun having this debate with you, have a nice day. :)
GrayKnight3445 1 year ago
@GrayKnight3445
I am the winnerr.
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
Richard Lenski's experiment proves it. NEXT.
Atharkas 1 year ago
@Atharkas
Too flawed.
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin How it is flawed?
Atharkas 1 year ago
@Atharkas
yes
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
I asked how is it flawed, you provides no evidence to back up your claim. Is it a controlled environment : yes. Is it done several times? Yes, twelve different experiments at once. Do they all give the same result mutation wise? No, some have shown more growth and even one display a mutation none of the other 11 lines displayed. How many generations as it lasted? Currently 51557 generations of E.Coli in twelve different path
How isn't that a controlled environment test on evolution?
Atharkas 1 year ago
@Atharkas
Ok, it was a great experiment I can admit that . However till they do that with animals and not bacteria we don't have any proof, also how can you link bacteria to humans...
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
May I present as evidence the Holstein-Freisian cow as evidence for a mammal to evolve through selective breeding some desirable traits. By reproducing the cows that produced the most milk, the high-milk production gene spread in the population of Holstein-Freisian. This resulted into cows that produce so much milk that they have to be milked at least twice per day or they udder can suffer infections or worse. This occurs for around 2 milleniums.
Atharkas 1 year ago
Also, by comparing the genomes it is possible to link humans to unicellular life forms. But this will be for another class :p
Atharkas 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin i always wondered if anyone has done replications of this experiment with Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) or Arabidopsis thaliana (lab cress) models which are the two most used in researching as both have their genome fully sequenced for a while now?
bdhcarbon 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
Are you purposefully retarded or is it from creationist brainwashing? I fully explained WHY horses can't have wings and why there are still monkeys. If you're gonna keep talking the same shit over and over, you aren't gonna listen no matter what I say. If you want to actually LEARN something, come back to me when you're done acting like a fucking moron.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733
Please help me *cough*
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
To start off I'm not a scientist. I merely like reading science books I get at the library. I don't have ALL the answers scientists currently have so I might be missing a few points here. Even if you were to ask a credited scientist, they wont say they have all the answers you are looking for. that's why scientists continue to study to make more discoveries. Creationism doesn't work that way. We wouldn't have a problem with it though if the sponsors for the idea were honest.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
Second: For a horse to make the genes for wings it'd have to undergo a pretty significan't genetic mutation and even if it were possible for hosrses to get wings it wouldn't happen in a few seconds like in pokemon, or the weird-ass super evolution creationists think is more logical than REAL evolution.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
And in case you're curious about what super evolution is, it's a term thought up to define the biblical idea of 8 people multiplying into 6 billion in 4000 years without suffering from a weak gene pool on top of the varied diversity of apperances people are known to take in each region of the world. Same applies to animals.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733
Then we agree, evolution is shitty when it comes to humans.
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
What? How do you get that conclusion from what I said? Furthermore based on your reply to GrayKnight3445, you obviously choose not to look into the opposing side and instead spew out the creationist bullshit. It has been tested using computer models. AND AS I SAID BEFORE WE HAVE DNA EVIDENCE RETARD.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733
I am not a retard, you evil.
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
And you have JUST lost the argument. Evolution is not an evil concept, creationism is as it is counterproductive to society and is unconstitutional which is why it is not allowed to be taught in schools. It's proponents are dishonest, and have broken the law continuously. If creationism WERE a valid concept why would people bother to give it a chance given those facts?
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733
No I did not. What are you saying? that Creationism's way is wrong? You are the one trying to disapprove it and you can't even prove your point.
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
I have, you're either stupid or brainwashed into thinking all fields of science are wrong because it doesn't agree with your beleifs. If you want your proof so badly, look up the human genome for the DNA evidence for evolution. Also look up computer models as well. I hardly see how people like you still exist but it proves that the human race is still primitive if we have ignoramuses like you.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733
I am going to University in 1 years time..
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
It doesn't matter if you plan to go to college. You're still an idiot if you don't at least acknowledge evolution as fact even a little bit since it is the unifying theory of biology. If evolution was false, then it would affect every other field as a whole. Microbiology depends on evolution to determine what cures a deseise. Why do you think viruses keep resisting medicines? They are EVOLVING since they want to live on while we want them to stop making us sick.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733
I'm eating I'll right back when I finish
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
I need to point out this one thing though; I have pointedly listed the facts currently known. I have pointed out there have been computer models. I have pointed out the fact scientests managed to identify the contents of the human genome . we have fossils, the geologic record, everything we could hope for. and you refuse these facts.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
Your kind are all alike, no matter what evidence is shown you act like a little child sticking his fingers in his ears and say "not enough, lalalala". And you say you wish to learn? You are a fucking hypocrite which shows you are a creationist even if you dont think you are one. Creationism has been taken to the courts TWICE. Both times they have been deemed innapropriate for schools as stated by the constitution. Science wins. GIVE UP.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733
Ok lets start again. What is the problem exactly, I have your attention now.
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
It doesn't matter since I explained in my last comment what the deal is. You wont listen despite the sources I cite for you, so why should I bother with someone who buys into creationist bullshit? Science and logic wins.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733
You haven't cited sources or sites, that's why I been didn't listen, you cited bullshit.org
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
I told you a while back to look up the human genome, fucktard. Oh I forget, facts aren't relavent in your warped mind.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733
I know what the human genome is, what's your point. I'm studying for Chem you cunt, make your case now.
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
Chemestry sometimes crosses paths with biology, so this would be something you would need to know anyway which ultimatel makes me more suprised how you could not think the thery has any truth. Furthermore if you really WERE a chemestry student you would know what a scientific theory i. BTW, a scientific theory is to never be confused as a hypothoesis, which is a common misconception. A theory explains facts, it is not a guess. A Hypothesis is a guess.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
Alright you don't believe I'm studying for Chem, lets continue this debate in pm, I got a lot to say.
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
Now on the matter of the genome, the human genome is 98% identical to a Chimpanzee's. the reason being is that chimps and other great apes have 48 chromasomes. Humans have 46. We could not have just lost those chromosomes as such a thing would be fatal. It has been proven through genetic research that the missing chromosomes have fused together. Specifically the chromosome in question is chromosome #2 on the human genome. We share a common ancestor with chimps thanks to this evidence.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
FINALLY, if a horse were to get wings it would take millions of years, and even then nature would experiment with several different ideas on it before the final product is made. If you look at fossil birds like Microraptor or Archeopterix you can see some rather interesting differences. Microraptor for example had four wings; two in front and two in back. However they were ment for gliding as opposed to powered-flight like modern birds.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
More ignorance of the principles of evolution.
tomjreid 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
ya 4real its not even a theory just a fairy tail. gawd awmighty & his invisible hands cr8ed da universe & earth & plants & animals 4real. dat is truth. dat is fact. dat is science 4u & me
ButterOnCorn 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
It might be the worst theory but at least it is supported by evidence, can be tested and involves rational arguement.
Religious statements about the origin of life rely on faith based on books that are so full of contradictions they are meaningless (after all, they are MERELY the Words of Men).
What does this make religion?
tomjreid 1 year ago
@tomjreid
There's no evidence for evolution. I haven't seen a controlled experiment where a horse turned into a horse with wings ..
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
That's not how it works. You don't see a horse with wings because that goes AGAINST evolution. Stop beleiving the lies spead by Kirk Cameron.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733
Well why not? Why would the horse run when it can fly faster?
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
Well, the problem is that horses don't have the DNA to make wings. To evolve requires a specefic gene or gene sequence. Birds have the DNA to make teeth, which f they were created in present form, they wouldn't have them at all. To say god just put extra genes in there makes no sense, especially when you look at dinosaurs which look almost exactly like birds in terms of skeletal structure. Humans also have the genes to make tails, and sometimes newborns have tails.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733
But it's natural selection, what if the horse was to get wings wouldn't it evolve and the other suckers die?
How come we haven't seen evolution while "we've been around"?
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin
A horse can't grow wings because it doesn't have the genes to do the job. It's the same as the crocoduck strawman argument. IT DOESN't HAPPEN.
Secondly, evolution occurs over a period of millions of years. Of course you aren't gonna see evolution happen before your eyes. But if you want a fast-paced example, you can compare a developing fetus growing into a human baby or the lineage of domestic dogs.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733
But you have to evolve how come it does't have the genes? Anything can evolve according to evolution. We might fly soon.
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
Lastly @ realskeptic
Fossils very much exist.... certainly... but in order to accept them as proof of evolution you have to BEGIN the scientific process with the belief that God does not exist and Evolution developed the known universe. This means you begin the investigation with an assumed conclusion and then you interpret the evidence in light of that bias.
Doing that violates the scientific process itself.
That fossil record can be interpreted in other ways if you begin without the bias.
originaldane 1 year ago
@originaldane "Evolution developed the known universe"
Evolutions has NOTHING to do with how the universe began, it is the study of how life transforms/changes over time once it has already been formed. Your premise is a false one.
acfacf4321 1 year ago
@acfacf4321
To accuse someone of falsehood, is a deeply unattractive trait so characteristic of some superstitious, pathetically maleable and easily-led, blinkered sub-sections of mankind.
Your ignorance about proposals for the biological and chemical orgins of life completely disqualify you from making rational comments on this topic.
However, I am quite confident your disqualification from contributing to rational arguement will not stop you from continuing to spout drivel.
Please stop.
tomjreid 1 year ago
@tomjreid I think you should reread what I wrote (what you commented on) before indulging in the irony of accusing me the exact opposite of what I actually said.
Unless YOU believe that abiogeneisis and evolution are the same?
Please be more careful next time.
acfacf4321 1 year ago
@acfacf4321
You are quite right. I'd missed the rest of your posts and hadn't seen your angle.
I thought I had cancelled the post.
Obviously not.
Sorry about that.
As for the comments about the maleable types - they stand but directed elsewhere.
The muppet here is someone who seems determined for evolution to produce a flying horse!
They seem to be unaware that evolution isn't directed.
tomjreid 1 year ago
also @realskeptic
Instead of telling me that proof exists and all of that, can you explain to me what the proof is as far as your understanding?
For instance, the flying dinosaur... illogical to hold that dinosaurs simply slowly developed the ability to fly. The mutation process would have hindered its survival ability until it could fly... in the mean time the thing would have been eaten or starved to death.
Don't just accept "truth" because it came form a professor or scientist.
THINK!
originaldane 1 year ago
@originaldane
You poor, pathetic individual. You really have no idea - whatsoever - about the principles of evolution do you?
Flight has evolved in many different ways.
Today, Flying Squirrels demonstrate how flight started: gliding. The physiological similarities between Flying Squirrels and bats - other mammals with skin between arms and body - are striking.
Any thoughts?
tomjreid 1 year ago
@realskeptic
Evolutionists tout the peppered moth a lot..."Look at how the color of the moth changed after this area was industrialized. EVOLUTION IS HAPPENING!"
#1) Evolutionist hold that the process takes an extended time period... not a few decades like peppered moths.
#2) the black peppered moth was still a peppered moth hence no change of species.
What happened here was no more than what horse breeders do with race horses or work horses... not evolution.
originaldane 1 year ago
@originaldane
Evolutionary change can take a range of timespans.
However, the changes in the peppered moth's colour - melanic and pale forms - is a demonstration of natural selection.
It is you - in your ignorance - that is "touting" the p.m. as an example of evolution.
STOP IT.
tomjreid 1 year ago
Also, Achilles, where did it find the other animal that would have had to evolve with the same DNA sequence so that it would have had to have had to mate with? Where did that animal come from? There's more, but I'm interested to hear your response.
originaldane 1 year ago
Achilles:
Yes viruses and such mutate, but that is a far cry from what evolutionists claim regarding humans and other complex organisms. I would be happy to discuss it with you.
I'll ask you one question to begin with. That one celled organism that resulted from the random arrangement of amino acids into protiens and proteins into DNA and etc... it would have had to reproduce asexually... since it was the only one. Do you have any hint at which time it began sexual reproduction?
originaldane 1 year ago
@originaldane
No viruses do not mate.
They mutate but they do not reproduce.
They require hosts to replicate.
tomjreid 1 year ago
He makes several false statements. #1, he said that all scientists agree... Not all scientists agree on anything, Evolution or otherwise. #2, "Theory" is not just "a scientific term" like he said. It is a step in the scientific process. Now, when the theory cannot be proven, you cannot simply diminish the importance of your own process in order to declare that it is true. Doing that would be very "unscientific." #3, Gravity is clearly demonstrable. Evolution is not.
originaldane 1 year ago
@originaldane Yes, it is. You can easily demonstrate evolution, observe it as well. MIcrobes and viruses constantly evolve and can be observed. Natural selection is true, and so is evolution, however all scientists do not agree on the specifics of how evolution happened but no scientist disagrees that it did happen, that's why it's a theory and not a fact yet because everything about it is not clear, but it does happen.
Achilles9924 1 year ago
too bad that he was off on that, and didn't get to finsh his other last book in which he is openly critical of the so called social darwinists, say they are taking their theories and misusing them, etc.
KangaKucha 1 year ago
I just think a god like amount of sentient energy started the big bang dictated the physics and said best of luck i believe that science is the only logical approach to the universe and that religion has lost its usefulness
Thespians1 1 year ago
one of the new polls that i thought you guys would find funny, states with lowest test scores, lower educational and high amounts with churches are the states that are mainly republicans.
mrjammed 1 year ago