The "Icons of Evolution" Documentary Part 3

Jonathan Well's Icons of Evolution. At least this TRIES to be intelligent, though it still fails miserably.

FundieVideoHell in no way supports the ideas and "theories" supported in this film. This video is here for entertainment and archival purposes (however, Fair Use sites that criticism and parody fall under it's protection, so feel free to make debunking videos or Youtube Poops :)

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Jonathan
• Wells
• Icons
• of
• Evolution
• FundieVideoHell
• Intelligent
• design
• is
• creationism
• in
• disguise

[tnafguy1]

@FundieVideoHell its youtube u fool, like i care about grammar... Im great in grammar, was best, top in my class always on grammar tests, shows how much u know. get a life and stop the useless insults. Evo is still dying, just like the geological fake column, ur a lie just like it lol

[FundieVideoHell]

@tnafguy1 At least I can spell and use grammar properly. I've dealt with a lot of dumb people on this channel, but at least most of them made an effort, which is more I can say of you. Keep commenting, I'm sure you'll eventually say something that makes sense, just like I'm also sure my factory of monkeys on typewriters will eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare.

[tnafguy1]

@FundieVideoHell traits can change a population, to a point where sometimes they cant breed with others, hardly proof for evolution, thats all u got..lmao. oh well. They either die from not breeding so thats the opposite of evolving for some. and they still stay salamanders, keep trying , nice try though, u seemed smart for a min huh ha

[FundieVideoHell]

@tnafguy1 Is that a challenge? Take a look at the Ensatina genus of salamanders, a prime example of a ring species. As they spread around the mountains surrounding the central valley in california, they formed 7 subspecies. When the ring did a full loop, the salamanders could not breed with the original population. However, in the reverse direction, the 7 subspecies can breed with adjacent subspecies. By some definitions, this would mean the two groups on each end have speciated, i.e, evolved.

[tnafguy1]

@FundieVideoHell suuuure, i bet u have not looked into them. lol

[FundieVideoHell]

@tnafguy1 lol, you're funny. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen those exact arguments reused, I'd be rich. What biological mechanism prevents speciation but allows adaptation? Spoiler: there isn't one. Look up what a ring species is. Adaptations add up and become speciation.

[tnafguy1]

@8698gil bahaha, i know so much about evo it turned me against it... anyone with a brain eventually researchs it enough to see it has too many dead ends. research Spike Psarris and Michael Cremo too for some evidence against silly evotards like urself. Ull get there one day child, one day

[8698gil]

@tnafguy1 Obviously you know nothing about evolution. Go back to a real school instead of home bible schooling and finish the fifth grade.

[tnafguy1]

@8698gil ur an fool lmao wow. and NOO. They say micro evo bc things can change favorably based on the environment or what suits them best, etc, but always stay that same kind of species and not turn into others...no examples of that are found, and if u say intermediates i will shoot u for being dumb, there is not enough of them, and most are frauds, so Evotards discredit themselves with the few fakes and mistaken identities of the 'transitions' .i know a lot about evolution too

[8698gil]

There are many, many dead ends in the evolutionary process. Many different human species arose over time, only to die out as a dead end. For instance, the gracile and robust australopithecines. The robust species was a dead end. The graciles most likely led to the homo species. Nature experiments. If a development is not very beneficial, it does not survive. Evolution is an ongoing process, and it takes time. Creationists have trouble with big numbers.