Science Vs Evolution
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 вер 2020
- I love science! How many people well into their 60's buy microscopes like a kid just to look into all the world around them! How many people are so whacked about raven personalities that they have over a thousand hours (Where's Guinness's Book?) of video tape just on ravens? That doesn't include the many hundreds of hours of a host of many different types of animals! But there are certain scientific things I'm not sold on. And some You Tubers have asked questions as to why?
My experience is that science can help us to find many amazing facts about our world but like statistics in math extrapolations carried too far can lead us to conclusions that are physically impossible. In this video I explain why I totally support the "Special Theory of Evolution"* but find the "General Theory of Evolution"* both non-scientific and more accurately, physically impossible.
Like I say at the end, if you disagree that's great but do us all the favor of sharing why, more specifically give us the actual real world science that convinces you the "General Theory of Evolution" is possible! I thank you in advance!
*Here is the distinction between the two according to G. A. Kerkut ;
"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand, there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis."
In biology, to simplify, this concept is usually introduced as Micro Evolution and Macro Evolution. - Домашні улюбленці та дикі тварини
I like this story:
The Scientist wants to know how grass grows. Each day she takes a few measurements of the lawn outside of his office. Processes the data, cleans it up, plots it (add whatever steps you want to make it look legit)...
...and concludes that grass grows at a linear rate and retracts back into the ground to a constant height about every two weeks.
Of course the story has a happy ending:
...and gets torn a new one in peer review.
And that is just what would happen to your naive babystep-extrapolator.
Damn, someone already published a study on this? I've spent the last 15 years researching it. I've read every journal one the subject that's been written since 1749 (it's hard to find good scientific journals on the subject prior). And ask for naught, because someone else completed their studies first. Well I'd like to see what journal they're published in.
lol
@@visforvegan8
" 1749 (it's hard to find good scientific journals on the subject prior)'
You have to go to England to find that really early stuff from the Royal Society. While keeping in mind that Newton would have blocked the publication of anything that gave away the alchemical secrets of lawn maintenance in the early 1700's.
Marion, you missed the real reason for the story, and that is simply that incomplete information leads to a faulty conclusion. By day 4 or 5 the scientist would have certainly seen his theory fall apart. That is what I accuse Darwin of. Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” Face it the fool chose not only not to look he was both judge and jury for his own stupid comment. That's not science. Darwin based his entire story of "evolution" on misleading and incomplete information. And it's still incomplete even to this day, but the scientific and academic community continues to brush that all aside and just continue to push his faulty conclusion. Even though they still can't even come close to show how the human eye or a flight feather could have actually evolved. Many scientists are very upfront about the many problems, that's why we've seen numerous fake ideas come and go. Many will also admit the evolutionary story goes against all common sense, yet they "HAVE" to believe it cause something about not letting a divine foot in the door? Fine, doesn't mean I have to believe it. If you choose to great, but I'm not the naive one here.
@@theravendiaries Sorry you missed the punchline. Taking more data points would not have helped.
Unless he caught the gardener mowing the lawn.
lol dunning-kruger effect in action, my dude. amusing tho.
Not sure why you say that, a fifth grader gets the jest of it. I'm simply claiming the grand theory of evolution overestimates the ability of the massive amount of change that needs to take place for something like skin cells to be able to manufacture a non living flight feather with the complexity of the minute hooks and barbules that to the best of my knowledge are out of reach for anyone to begin to explain. Glad we made you laugh though! : )
@@theravendiaries The "best of your knowledge" is pretty limited obviously. If you cared how feathers evolved you could go learn it. You CHOOSE to be ignorant and dishonest.
Perhaps you need to aim higher than a 5th grader when dealing with topics that are more complex than a 5th grade level? Real science doesn't rely on 5th graders. It relies on people doing real research.
Your emotional appeal to you person incredulity points to your lack of understanding of just how long these processes have had to work. Skins cells don't magically just produce feathers. Thats not how it works. The fact that you think it does just points to your lack of a grasp on the subject. You can still reject a conclusion if you wish but showing you don't understand the argument doesn't add anything to that claim.
@@theravendiaries
" I'm simply claiming the grand theory of evolution overestimates the ability of the massive amount of change that needs to take place for something like skin cells to be able to manufacture"
Yes we are aware that you are fond of making up fact free claims.
"best of my knowledge are out of reach for anyone to begin to explain"
Gee YOUR knowledge that is constrained by your need to ignore anything that disproves the long disproved Bible. You refuse to understand how science works and ignore any science that you don't like therefor a disproved book is trued because you say so.
@@theravendiaries "Not sure why you say that" Thanks for the example.
This all just seems like a argument from "I don't understand, thus evolution must be wrong". And why are you criticizing Darwin's work when we have 162 years of research? Does Darwin getting things wrong or any character flaws somehow discredit the whole field of research into evolution.
No, I understand quite well, what I don't get is how we've chosen to jump hurdles over common sense and called it science.
@@theravendiaries Common sense doesn't account for relativity, quantum mechanics, or how a rainbow works. We shouldn't expect science to conform to common sense. That's what kept people arguing for a flat earth or geocentric solar system long after science had proven the contrary. "Common sense" is time and time again proven to be a terrible way to understand the world as it really is.
@@davinchat2 I was about to say something but you've summed up the problems with "common sense" well. The world doesn't conform to our "common sense", we as a species go out to understand the world better.
Yep, the god of the gaps argument. And he dishonestly leaves the huge gaps where they are actually small gaps if any. This video is utter rubbish.
Hey, I'm not alone in fact i have a good many respected scientists and researchers who have found the same. Problem is science is a boys' club and the rules state you have to adhere to the evolutionary dogma or you don't get to play. One great example is the book, "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" a book written by a well respected Micro Biologist, Michael Denton. Published in 1985 in scientific terms "it demonstrated that the living world is fundamentally discontinuous and shows no evidence of the functional continuum predicted by Darwinian theory" In every day language he and others have shown that nowhere in nature, and especially in the micro machine world, can we demonstrate how this repurposing theory could possibly work. He also demonstrates that there is no animal or group of animals or creatures of any kind that can one show any thing even close to a continual repurposing changes parent to offspring, parent to offspring the theory claims we would find. Look at the "best" the horsey example, NOTHING absolutely nothing says those animals are even related. It is assumed they might be. Here's the book;
www.amazon.com/Evolution-Theory-Crisis-Michael-Denton/dp/091756152X
You can read it free here; (I know you most likely won't ... )
alta3b.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/crisis1.pdf
In his book, Mr. Denton demonstrated the major taxa-defining characteristics, such as mammalian hair or avian feathers are not led up to via a series of functional intermediates, and this undermines Darwinian adaptive gradualism. I found exactly the same in my research. Please, as I've told others, if you have ANY EVIDENCE that can refute that simple idea, please share. Because if you paid attention to the video above, I showed you I've read many of those "peer review" articles in the best journals (at the time Science and Nature) for over 20 years. NOT ONE demonstrates the possibility of macro evolution, ALL ASSUME it happened. That's like me assuming the "child" in the example above just continued to grow at ridiculous rates to be able to step all the way to the moon in one step. Seriously people, we tested this logic on 5th graders. Somehow they got it.
"It can't happen, it can't happen, it can't happen!"
Ok... I hear you... care to explain why it can't happen?
Let's start at the supposed 200 million mark. There are no birds (I'd argue and do argue they were there but in evolutionary timeline there are no birds yet.) Magically at the 160 m mark we now recognize full flying birds with feathers. OK can you chart that for me, can you give me a step by step scientific explanation detailing how in 40 million years we all of a sudden have a full flying bird with both internal and external characteristics that are different than all their ancestors. The lungs are different, their covering is different (scales vs feathers) their heart is different, their feet are different (why is that? Ever wondered why a bird needed entirely different feet and just how did they come about?) Can you do that? Do you understand ALL that would really have to change over in just 40 million years? Good news is there's no transitions so you get to make the whole thing up but... There would be millions of necessary changes, all would have to be in a forward step by step manner and all would have to be kept and transmitted through the same line of animal. We can neither show nor demonstrate any such thing. Now allow me to make it worse, cause in just over a hundred million years later you gotta show me how the hummingbird came about. Even with a bird to start with, the inconceivable amount of changes and adaptations that need to take place just in the bird family to get us to hummingbird is overwhelming. And it's silly little puzzles like this that pretty much tell me its physically impossible. Too date, no one in the world, has been able to explain how it is possible, they just tell they believe it is. Cool more power to them but am I really out of line to doubt?
@@theravendiaries
"e supposed 200 million mark."
Are you talking about 200 million years ago? Nothing supposed.
"(I'd argue and do argue they were there"
Without a fact supporting you.
" Magically at the 160 m mark we now recognize full flying birds with feathers. O"
No. That was not remotely a modern bird. It was a flying toothed dinosaur.
"OK can you chart that for me, can you give me a step by step scientific explanation detailing how in 40 million years we all of a sudden have a full flying bird with both internal and external characteristics that are different than all their ancestors"
Why do want us to lie for you? That is not the case, its BS you made up. It has TEETH its not a modern bird. There are non flying dinosaurs with feathers as well. Oh and explain step by step how your disproved god came to be. Every detail please.
"Ever wondered why a bird needed entirely different feet "
No because that transitional fossil did not have modern bird feet.
" Do you understand ALL that would really have to change over in just 40 million years? "
Not all that much as they had feathers and very similar arms, pelvis, and teeth.
"s, all would have to be in a forward step by step manner and all would have to be kept and transmitted through the same line of animal. "
Just like all life.
" We can neither show nor demonstrate any such thing. "
Sure can.
Dinosaur to bird
Kulindadromeus - A basal neornithischian (Ya know, Triceratops, Iguanadon, Hypsilophodon, and such) with feathers.
Allosaurus - A large theropod with a wishbone.
Aerosteon - A large theropod of the same lineage as the aforementioned Allosaurus that has air sacs supplementing lungs, like modern birds.
Compsognathus - A small coeleurosaur with a wishbone.
Epidendrosaurus
Epidexipteryx
Scandoriopteryx
Gigantoraptor - A large oviraptorosaur discovered brood its nests in order to protect and incubate eggs.
Gobivenator
Mei
Saurornithoides
Sinovenator
Buitreraptor
Pyroraptor
Unenlagia
Graciliraptor
Bambiraptor
Balaur
Tsaagan
Dromaeosaurus
Sinosauropteryx - a basal coelurosaur discovered to be covered in feathers. It is also the first dinosaur to have its colour determined, thanks to preserved pigment structures in the feathers.
Protarchaeopteryx
Caudipteryx
Velociraptor - a very famous dromaeosaur discovered to have quill knobs on it's wrists. For SOME odd reason, sadly. everyone sees these things as mutant allosaur-looking... uh... things.
Deinonychus
Utahraptor
Achillobator
Oviraptor - the first dinosaur discovered to steal brood nests.
Sinovenator
Beipiaosaurus
Lisboasaurus
Sinornithosaurus
Microraptor - a feathered bird with distinctly dinosaurian characteristics, such as its tail.
Xiaotingia - slightly earlier than Archaeopteryx, slightly more like a dinosaur and less like a bird
Archaeopteryx - the famous bird-with-teeth.
Anchiornis
Baptornis
Rahonavis
Confuciusornis
Sinornis
Iberomesornis
Theriznosaurus
Nothronychus
Citipati
Falcarius
Alxasaurus
Chirostenotes
Avimimus
Khaan
Incisivosaurus
Caenagnathus
Troodon
Byronosaurus
Ingenia
Hesperonychus
Conchoraptor
Patagopteryx
Ambiortus
Hesperornis - A diving seabird with prominent teeth. It's also completely flightless.
Apsaravis
Ichthyornis - A flying seabird with prominent teeth.
Columba - One of many typical modern birds.
" Now allow me to make it worse, "
Oh to make up more BS.
"cause in just over a hundred million years later you gotta show me how the hummingbird came about."
Because you are the arbiter of science, no you are not. Hummingbirds are just small birds, they came about via the process of natural selection.
" And it's silly little puzzles like this that pretty much tell me its physically impossible."
Its your religion that does that. An argument from personal incredulity does not show it to be impossible.
"hey just tell they believe it is."
No, just go on the evidence and the process, both of you which you refuse to do.
"but am I really out of line to doubt?"
Yes as you are going on your disproved religion, not the actual evidence, just your ignorance on the subject.
Ethelred Hardrede
@@ethelredhardrede1838 Above you gave me a hodge lodge list of about 60 animals with different names we have found in many different "eras", from ALL over the world. You wanna talk science, line em up, put them in order from oldest to youngest, more importantly show what specific characteristic each individual passed on to the next supposed "generation". To have valid argument the line needs to show a straight line of "repurposing" of specific characteristics from generation to generation. In time your creature needs to be becoming less dinosaur like and more bird-like in all areas not just one and you have to have a line that carries ALL these "new developments" generation to generation into one type of animal. As it stands, all I can see, and all science has shown us, is one type had some one way lungs that were similar to a birds but not really the same as birds. One type had "holes' in their bones but not really like the incredible structure we see in birds. A few had some sort of so-called "photo-feathers" but nothing to show how that line developed a full barbed feather let alone the amazing hook and barbs found on a flight feather. Nothing in science shows any kind of dino line becoming more and more bird-like over time. It's just a hodge lodge of mosaics.
Cats and dogs share a common ancestor, they are carnivora. You seem to lead into that. But then you do not address it accurately. Instead you jump to fruit flies.
When you are talking on a topic you only have a superficial understanding of. It might be best to only state what you know then move on. Which is what he does a lot. What he needs to do is simply state nothing at all.
But then how's this guy supposed to brag about his endless hobbies if he doesn't have a jumping off point that makes him sound like he's an authority?
@@grantwillis8542 In my ears he sounds more like someone non particularly good or interested at anything, which also can be seen in this ridiculous video.
Dogs and cats share a common ancestor. : ) Yep, where's the actual science in that? I know they believe it. I know they tell the story about it, but the actual physical evidence to prove that is well, nowhere to be found. So to say dogs and cats share a common ancestor is nothing more than a we want it to be true cause we got nothing else story. Good luck with that!
@@theravendiaries I guess the genetic and fossil evidence magically doesn't exist because you say it doesn't? Or do you not think that genes and fossils are physical?
@@theravendiaries "Yep, where's the actual science in that? I know they believe it. I know they tell the story about it, but the actual physical evidence to prove that is well, nowhere to be found." You're such a liar. Just like any other creationist.
bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7007-10-12
www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jul/26/cats-vs-dogs-in-terms-of-evolution-are-we-barking-up-the-wrong-tree
drbillspetnutrition.com/history-evolution-of-the-dog-cat/
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2535216/A-cross-panther-squirrel-55-million-year-old-fossil-reveals-shared-ancestor-cats-dogs.html
Science vs Evolution is a nonsensical title, man...
no no... Science vs evolution happens. It's the scientists using science to add or correct evolution. You get accolades if you can prove something or disprove something. And we've tossed accolades to scientists that fixed some incorrect information.
It's not a fight like it sounds. It's more like putting up a wall to correct your roomba's path because it keeps falling down the stairs.
@@JackDesert
"Science vs evolution happens.
No.
"It's the scientists using science to add or correct evolution. "
That is part of the science of evolution, not vs it. That is where the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis came from.
But you looked ... gosh does that make it click bait? : )
@@theravendiaries
I have news for you, it was not the title that got you flooded with rational people.
You got debunked by Viced Rhino today. I recommend you watch the video and learn something real on the subject. You don't have to stay so bloody wrong. You can learn. Rhino did so you can too.
@@theravendiaries, if it was not for Viced Rhino covering your rubbish video, I would not know who you were. And you can go on just being a cook at McDonald's.
"I love science" says the anti-scientific conspiracy theorist. I don't like people spreading lies from personal incredulity.
Anti-scientific conspiracy theorist ... that's almost funny. When I've asked scientists, numerous research personal and doctors what their thoughts on evolution are, a common response I get is, why do you care about that? Evolution was something we learned in school, it has nothing to do with my field of work. Unless one is a biologist or paleontologist, or a few of the other disciplines along those lines, evolution isn't even a consideration when doing science. Most science is done without giving a whip about evolution.
@@theravendiaries You should stop commenting, exposing your almost infinite stupidity. Have you heard of the field of medicine? Doctors? Hospitals? Vaccine? All based on our understanding of evolution. 99,5% of the scientists in relevant fields agree on
1) Evolution is a scientific fact
2) Evolution is a scientific law
3) Most importantly, but due to lack of education you wont understand why, The Theory of Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory that explains how evolution happens.
There are 100,000 peer reviewed scientific papers supporting evolution and 0 scientific peer reviewed papers against evolution. The fact that your brainwash and lack of education makes you think evolution is not a thing does not matter. You are just unable to learn. Evolution is still a scientific fact, a scientific law and a scientific theory.
@@theravendiaries They told you that just to shut your up and get rid of you.
@@mitchellkent1815 Yeah, thanks, it won't work. : )
@@freddan6fly Check out "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" a book written by a well respected Micro Biologist. Michael Denton has his Ph.D. in biochemistry from King’s College in London. It was published in 1985 and demonstrated that the living world is fundamentally discontinuous and shows no evidence of the functional continuum predicted by Darwinian theory. In simple terms he and others have shown that nowhere in nature, including the micro world, and in no animal or group of animals can one show any thing even close to a continual parent to offspring, parent to offspring set of repurposing and the continuous and related changes the theory claims we would find.
www.amazon.com/Evolution-Theory-Crisis-Michael-Denton/dp/091756152X
You can read it free here; (I know you most likely won't ... )
alta3b.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/crisis1.pdf
In his book, Mr. Denton demonstrated the major taxa-defining characteristics, such as mammalian hair or avian feathers are not led up to via a series of functional intermediates, and this undermines Darwinian adaptive gradualism. I found exactly the same in my research. Please, as I've told others, if you have ANY EVIDENCE that can refute that simple idea, please share. Because if you paid attention to the video above, I showed you I've read many of those "peer review" articles in the best journals (at the time Science and Nature) for over 20 years. NOT ONE demonstrates the possibility of macro evolution, ALL ASSUME it happened. That's like me assuming the "child" in the example above just continued to grow at ridiculous rates to be able to step all the way to the moon in one step. Seriously dude, we tested this logic on 5th graders. Somehow they got it.
So you don't understand analogy or evolution therefore evolution is wrong....
No, I'm saying from all the science I've seen, been apart of and read about that it's physically impossible. And I demonstrate how small steps are great to a point but there comes a time when the science itself claims something that is physically impossible. I see the sideways and downwards direction of evolution, I have never, and as far as I can tell nobody has ever demonstrated how we can ever get anything new. We can repurpose, yes, but that repurposing has physical limits.
@@theravendiaries lol, _"and I demonstrate"_ ... no, you "claimed" those things, you didn't demonstrate a darn thing.
Evolution isn't directional.. which you would know, if you ever studied it.
@@theravendiaries
"bout that it's physically impossible."
Then you have only seen the Creationist fake science because it is possible.
" And I demonstrate how small steps are great to a point b
With a strawman using numbers you made up and showing an idiot for a scientist and ignoring the fact that it would take someone brain dead stupid to come that false conclusion. And it had nothing to do with how evolution by natural works, its NOT GEOMETRIC yet you did that in your strawman.
"when the science itself claims something that is physically impossible. I"
No you never supported that false claim.
"I have never, and as far as I can tell nobody has ever demonstrated how we can ever get anything new.
Oh dear, how quaint. LOTS of people have explained how. We can even see it happen in the fossil record.
" We can repurpose, yes, but that repurposing has physical limits.
Really and what are those? Your religion is not physical. Arm and hands evolved to become wings. We CAN see that in the fossil record, in the bones of birds, bats, flying squirrels that are exactly the sort of species that Creationists claim cannot happen.
I posted this already but I don't think you have read it.
Let me get you started in your journey to reality. This even covers new things evolving. It is very basic so if you have a problem ASK, I can answer why I wrote what I did and expand where needed.
How evolution works:
First step in the process.
Mutations happen - There are many kinds of them from single hit changes to the duplication of entire genomes, the last happens in plants not vertebrates. The most interesting kind is duplication of genes which allows one duplicate to do the old job and the new to change to take on a different job. There is ample evidence that this occurs and this is the main way that information is added to the genome. This can occur much more easily in sexually reproducing organisms due their having two copies of every gene in the first place.
Second step in the process, the one Creationist pretend doesn't happen when they claim evolution is only random.
Mutations are the raw change in the DNA. Natural selection carves the information from the environment into the DNA. Much like a sculptor carves an shape into the raw mass of rock. Selection is what makes it information in the sense Creationists use. The selection is by the environment. ALL the evidence supports this.
Natural Selection - mutations that decrease the chances of reproduction are removed by this. It is inherent in reproduction that a decrease in the rate of successful reproduction due to a gene that isn't doing the job adequately will be lost from the gene pool. This is something that cannot not happen. Some genes INCREASE the rate of successful reproduction. Those are inherently conserved. This selection is by the environment, which also includes other members of the species, no outside intelligence is required for the environment to select out bad mutations or conserve useful mutations.
The two steps of the process is all that is needed for evolution to occur. Add in geographical or reproductive isolation and speciation will occur.
This is a natural process. No intelligence is needed for it occur. It occurs according to strictly local, both in space and in time, laws of chemistry and reproduction.
There is no magic in it. It is as inevitable as hydrogen fusing in the Sun. If there is reproduction and there is variation then there will be evolution.
Some books to get you started:
Why evolution is true - Jerry A. Coyne
THIS BOOK IN PARTICULAR to see just how messy and undesigned the chemistry of life is.
Herding Hemingway's Cats: Understanding how Our Genes Work
Book by Kat Arney
This shows new organs evolving from previous organs. Limbs from fins.
Your Inner Fish
Book by Neil Shubin
Wonderful life : the Burgess Shale and nature of history / Stephen Jay Gould
Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billions Years of Evolution on Earth Andrew H, Knoll
This not beyond your comprehension. You CAN understand this if you stop living in denial to support your religion.
Ethelred Hardrede
Evolution is not a belief system. It is a theoretical model that most parsimoniously explains all the available evidence,
@@theravendiaries lol, and yet you haven't pointed at anything that goes against it... all you did is point to something you think it can't explain or is impossible then made a conclusion based on that.
Do you have any _evidence_ that goes against evolution? or are you just playing pretend?
@@theravendiaries
" might argue there's a bit of cherry picking going on"
You could but it would be no more honest than that strawman that you started the video with.
"If it supports great, if it doesn't must come from some denier ... Right?
Oh now your are talking about Creationists.
@@theravendiaries, yes the grand conspiracy. Scientists are not the ones making an effort to be honest. It is this exemplary UA-camr.
@@theravendiaries supply us with your theoretical model, so that we can compare that to the available evidence in the same light of scrutiny. Or are you comfortable with your lack of intellectual integrity?
@@theravendiaries, you are aware of the history of creationism in science as a theoretical model, right? Or did your science and history education stop at the 8th grade level? You know like Bishop Usher, and the geologists that disproved his model of natural history based on a chronology from the Bible? How about Ellen G White and Henry Morris? You are aware of all the science and history here, correct?
You think that someone that "loves" science as much as this guy would put in more effort into learning about science.
My "science" is simple, it says the extrapolations I was taught in evolutionary theory are physically impossible. No one has demonstrated different. We still can't even show how anything new can come about. We talk repurpose, but that, like in my video is an example that is overused and would not lead to the complexity we see and have. Wanna show me how skins cells can learn to make a flight feather? Please?
@@theravendiaries _"My "science" is simple, it says the extrapolations I was taught in evolutionary theory are physically impossible. No one has demonstrated different."_
- *That's not how this works buttercup. You made the claim, its on you to demonstrate it. Demanding that your empty claims are valid till someone else demonstrates something against them isn't how the burden of proof works.*
_"We talk repurpose, but that, like in my video is an example that is overused and would not lead to the complexity we see and have."_
- *based on what **_evidence?_** I know, evidence is a novel thing to you... but you need to have it if you want anyone to take you seriously.*
_"Wanna show me how skins cells can learn to make a flight feather? Please?"_
- *Why would anyone waste time trying to demonstrate your dishonest strawman? You don't think feathers could form? Then its on you to show why that's true.*
@@theravendiaries There are places you can go and learn how certain parts evolved over time like feathers or eyes.
@@DJH316007 Uhm, they tell you how they think they may have evolved, NO ONE, to the best of my knowledge will tell you they know how they evolved and then can give you the pathway. If I'm wrong please share your source. Thanks!
@@timeshark8727 I think you're flying upside down. It's the scientific community that made the empty and false claims in the first place. So even by your reasoning they are the ones who were supposed to have to show how from the very start. They didn't and they don't, they simply make a claim and we are supposed to believe them because? Well I don't believe them, that's why I'm asking for the evidence. Obviously you can't provide it either.
And your statement below about the dogs cats and ancestor. To have "genetic" evidence you have to have genetic material from all three, the don't have anything but bones from the supposed "ancestor." Even dogs and cats genetic material is so far removed from each other, and that's why we can't make a cat from a dog or a dog from a cat. So to claim both came from the same source, is not even a good story as far as the real science is concerned.
A chef? You should warn people where you work so they don't eat there. Judging from your aptitude at science you might poison someone.
Wait I'm trying to discuss something of some seriousness with someone who has a "I'm Not f Up" video on his channel? Man, you guys are great! : )
@@theravendiaries
Well you have this silly video on your page. And Raven's don't have diaries. I doubt that even Huginn and Muninn did and they worked for another imaginary god, Odin. Who was pretty smart by imaginary god standards.
@@theravendiaries Well if you don't believe in evolution you probably don't believe in the germ theory of disease and don't wash your hands at the least.
Just being honest. I would expect you don't even wipe, with your anti-science and health beliefs. Because GAWD WILL PROTECT YOU from those filthy non evolved diseases...!!!
You are a living loony toon and history will remember you and your kind with a sad laugh.
@@theravendiaries, that was one my past coworkers who had a serious drug problem. He and you share one thing in common, a delusional view of reality and the inability to admit it.
@@richarddimartino7806 Good one! 🤪
This guy knows nothing about science or evolution.
Init dude seem to have gotten his education from AIG
Well actually my model is exactly the scientific method of observe, measure, record, hypothesize, and then come to some conclusion. The jest of the story is simply incomplete information can lead to faulty conclusions. I then apply it to Darwins ideas and the fact Mr. Darwin didn't even know or understand the existence, workings and complexity of something like a cell and that I believe his extrapolations led him to faulty conclusions also. I further my argument by reminding one that even with all we tried to do and manipulate with things like fruit flies we still don'y have anything close to clear cut answers. If I'm so whacked why do we have books like "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" written by an actual molecular biologist who has similar questions?
@@theravendiaries "Evolution a Theory in Crisis"
Lol.. only in your dreams. This is a common lie you guys have been telling for over 100 years.
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection isn't an idea with holes. It's one of the most solid theories in science and Evolution by natural selection is one of the best-substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines.
That is why. 100% of all accredited university biology departments accept and teach evolution as the fundamental bedrock of biology, medicine and reject creationism. 100%.
@@theravendiaries Here,, I save a list of lies you guys tell. You hit on several of them. So old.
The reason you have to lie is that you have no truth. Check out #9.
Here are all your lies,
1. It’s just a theory.
2. You can never prove evolution and science disprove it.
3. The 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution.
4. What do you think it all happen by accident? No tornado in a junkyard made a 747.
5. Look at the trees and sky.
6. If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
7. They don’t look like transitions to ME- just different KINDS of animals!”
8. Science is unreliable and keeps changing its mind, unlike the Bible/quran.
9. Scientists are abandoning belief in evolution in droves and soon it will collapse.
10. Any scientist who tries to provide evidence against evolution is automatically fired.
11. Polly strata trees. You can't explain that. Anything you can’t explain disproves evolution and proves my god.
12. Fishes are older than the human race, so they should be having evolution before us hahahaha, the crocodile is also older than human and it's still living in the rivers and eating raw meat!
13. Life is irreducible complex. The bacterial flagellum proves that.
14. Carbon testing is unreliable.
15. You can’t add new information to a gene. Life is always losing genetic material.
16. DNA is information and information can only come from intelligence.
17. The pre-cambrian explosion proves Darwin is wrong.
18. All fossils are all fakes, just like Piltdown Man, Jave Man Peking man and Nebraska Man. And you can't prove that they ever gave birth.
19. There are no transitional fossils and everything is explained by Noah's flood.
20. Evolution came from a tale given to amateur humanists while in a satanic trance, in other words, Satan is the author.
21. Evolution is not observable and can't be tested. You weren’t there.
22. I’ve never seen a monkey give birth to a human, nor a cat giving birth to a dog!
23. Isaac Newton believed in creation and he should know.
24. You can't get life out of a jar of peanut butter - therefore God did it
25. Atheism, evolution, and science are just a religion and America is a Christian nation.
26. Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin were evolutionists and Atheists so it must be bad.
27. Moondust proves a young earth.
28. Micro-evolution yes but Macro-evolution is impossible.
29. We've found human and dinosaur footprints side by side.
30. You can't have knowledge or morals without God. All truth and knowledge comes from god.
31. What is your proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct?
32. They found the soft tissue and DNA of a dinosaur - so they cant have died out 65 million years ago!"
33. Besides,, deep down you KNOW that there is a God because you just want to sin.
34. If you would just open your mind and believe, then you would understand.
35. You are better off believing in God and be wrong then not believing and be wrong.
36. The Universe is fine-tuned for life and only a god could have done that.
37. I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.
38. Either believe in god or believe in evolution, you can't believe in both.
39. Kalam Cosmological Argument.
40. They found ancient man-made stones carving with dinosaurs on them.
41. The Earth's rotation, magnetic field and the suns shrinking size prove a young Earth.
42. Darwin said it was absurd to think an eye could evolve and Darwin recanted his belief in Evolution and converted back to Christianity on his deathbed.
43. Kent Hovind said so.
44. Polonium Halos proves a young Earth.
45. Darwinism is not a theory, It is merely a hypothetical hypothesis based on willful speculation,assumptions and a Priori paradigm of Metaphysical Naturalism.. NOT Science in any way.
46. Similarity of design is NOT even a sure indication of transitional-ness, let alone evidence or proof.+
47. You know a watch had to have a watchmaker, so there must be a creator of life.
48.The universe and life is so complex that it could never have come from nothing by accident and come into being all by itself therefore this even more complex and living spirit mind who came from nothing and who doesn't need creating , created the world and we don't know how, BTW , jesus died on the cross for your sins.
49. Evolution is not real because I can't possibly understand it. It makes no sense to me.
50. If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead, there are none.
51, These dinosaurs are only 10,000 years old at the most!!! Have you ever asked why 99% of all scientists are jewish! do a little research and you will find a religious conspiracy!
52. You can't prove that the miracles in the quran/bible are not real and didn't happen.
53. You were taught what your parents knew or did know, and science EVERY day finds out that we are more likely to live in a supradigital multidimensional environment, rather than a biotopic. There are different sides to matter, flesh and spirit as the Bible would explain it,
54. Evolution is not evidence, it is postulation and wrong. Science says life is supradigital, and not biological. Read quantum.
55. Also the fact that humans have conscience disprove evolution, even Dawkins agrees conscience cannot be passed on through evolution
56. Science uses circular reasoning to defend itself.
57. If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't.
58. See everyone that believes in evolution they don't understand what a developmental change means in bone structure. That is required for evolutionary process to actually exist and there is no proof. Maybe some photo shop proof. But not real proof.
59. We know evolution is false because the declaration of independence says we are all "created" equal
60.EVOLUTION IS NOT IN THE BIBLE. IT'S JUST A THEORY BY CHARLES DARWIN. YOU CAN TRUST THE BIBLE BECAUSE IT'S GOD'S WORD AND 100% ACCURATE.60606060
@@benjamindover5676 Surprise! That is an actual book written by a well respected Micro Biologist. Michael Denton has his Ph.D. in biochemistry from King’s College in London. In 1985 he published "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" in which he demonstrated that the living world is fundamentally discontinuous and shows no evidence of the functional continuum predicted by Darwinian theory. In simple terms no where in nature, and animal or group of animals can show a continual parent to offspring, parent to offspring set of repurposing and the continuous and related changes the theory claims we would find.
www.amazon.com/Evolution-Theory-Crisis-Michael-Denton/dp/091756152X
Take a look at some of the comments about the book
You can read it free here;
alta3b.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/crisis1.pdf
In his book, Mr. Dentonyour
Have you read Jerry Copyne's book, "Why Evolution is True"? Darwin's book is quite old given the rate of scientific progress. Try reading Coyne's book and then tell us how you belief changes.
Of course, you could always write a paper for a peer-reviewed journal and be remembered as the one the showed bioly evolution is wrong. Heck, maybe Nobel prize time!
"d Jerry Copyne's book, "Why Evolution is True"?"
I don't think he has. I have recommended it to him as I do to everyone that I have had to explain the process of evolution by natural selection.
Darwins book is important cause it laid the ground work. Everything has been built on Darwin's underlying premise that many minor changes over a long enough period of time equals massive changes like "light-sensitive cells" to an eye. I've read what I could about this and as i said in my video i have found nothing to convince me this is even remotely possible. To answer your question no I have not read Jerry Coyne's book and haven't felt a need to. I have read enough stuff from Darwin, Huxley, Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Ruse, Scott and others and I doubt Jerry has anything new. As to writing an paper? No no in school I specifically chose not to get into the field of science. Peer review is a "Boys Club" write what they want to hear great, anything else, and you're a ? (I'll let you fill in the blank)
@@theravendiaries
"Darwins book is important cause it laid the ground work"
So you have not read it and insist on going on a obsolete book that is only of historical value.
"verything has been built on Darwin's underlying premise"
On one concept from it, natural selection.
"minor changes over a long enough period of time equals massive changes like "light-sensitive cells" to an eye."
Many mutations that accumulate over generations for present day eyes. No single massive magical change is needed to form a modern day eye that looks evolves not designed. IF the human was designed the desgner is stupid since the blood vessels are in front of the retina. And behind where a competent designer would put them in octopi. So you are insisting that the eye was designed a magic using idiot.
"i have found nothing to convince me this is even remotely possible. "
Even Darwin managed to show how its possible but you are smarter than everyone competent and knowledgeable because you are inept, due to your disproved religion.
"To answer your question no I have not read Jerry Coyne's book and haven't felt a need to. "
Because you go on a disproved and don't want to know the modern science, got it.
"I have read enough stuff from Darwin, Huxley, Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Ruse, Scott and others a"
Clearly not enough to understand eyes.
" No no in school I specifically chose not to get into the field of science."
Obviously, but you insist that you understand what you clearly do not while admitting that don't understand the step by step eye.
" Peer review is a "Boys Club"
Lie. Its a process intended to make sure that the conclusion follow from the evidence presented and that no egregious mistakes were made in getting the evidence. After that its published and gets beat on by others that actually know the subject, unlike you. You don't even know how any of it works and use Creationist BS instead of learning.
"e what they want to hear great, anything else, and you're a ? (I'll let you fill in the blank)"
That is just plain false. See Dr Mary Schweitzer's discovery of collagen in a T. rex fossil. It sure had stuff many didn't want here BUT IT GOT PUBLISHED EXACTLY UNLIKE THAT LIE YOU JUST TOLD.
Its hardly the only such instance. Heck you refuse to read my simple explanation of the process SO HERE IT IS YET AGAIN.
How evolution works:
First step in the process.
Mutations happen - There are many kinds of them from single hit changes to the duplication of entire genomes, the last happens in plants not vertebrates. The most interesting kind is duplication of genes which allows one duplicate to do the old job and the new to change to take on a different job. There is ample evidence that this occurs and this is the main way that information is added to the genome. This can occur much more easily in sexually reproducing organisms due their having two copies of every gene in the first place.
Second step in the process, the one Creationist pretend doesn't happen when they claim evolution is only random.
Mutations are the raw change in the DNA. Natural selection carves the information from the environment into the DNA. Much like a sculptor carves an shape into the raw mass of rock. Selection is what makes it information in the sense Creationists use. The selection is by the environment. ALL the evidence supports this.
Natural Selection - mutations that decrease the chances of reproduction are removed by this. It is inherent in reproduction that a decrease in the rate of successful reproduction due to a gene that isn't doing the job adequately will be lost from the gene pool. This is something that cannot not happen. Some genes INCREASE the rate of successful reproduction. Those are inherently conserved. This selection is by the environment, which also includes other members of the species, no outside intelligence is required for the environment to select out bad mutations or conserve useful mutations.
The two steps of the process is all that is needed for evolution to occur. Add in geographical or reproductive isolation and speciation will occur.
This is a natural process. No intelligence is needed for it occur. It occurs according to strictly local, both in space and in time, laws of chemistry and reproduction.
There is no magic in it. It is as inevitable as hydrogen fusing in the Sun. If there is reproduction and there is variation then there will be evolution.
Some books to get you started:
Why evolution is true - Jerry A. Coyne
THIS BOOK IN PARTICULAR to see just how messy and undesigned the chemistry of life is.
Herding Hemingway's Cats: Understanding how Our Genes Work
Book by Kat Arney
This shows new organs evolving from previous organs. Limbs from fins.
Your Inner Fish
Book by Neil Shubin
Wonderful life : the Burgess Shale and nature of history / Stephen Jay Gould
Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billions Years of Evolution on Earth Andrew H, Knoll
Ethelred Hardrede
@@theravendiaries The weight you give Darwin's book is much like giving Franklin's experiments weight over modern electrical theory. Darwin discovered something and opened the door of inquiry. Like many scientists before him and after, their expectation was that others would take these findings and expand on them, make newer discoveries, find the predictive capability of these theories or adjust them where they were short sighted.
Books on scientific discovery aren't religious canon, they're the opening of that door to inquiry on a subject. That's the value of peer review as well. Later books on ANY scientific topic will have newer, better confirmation and potentially entirely new understanding that have come from exploring and testing that original hypothesis.
@@justaguy6100
Raven thinks that science is like his religion. All based on one book and everything else is based on the book.
Sorry but this video is rather bad.. Really bad. It gets far too much wrong and just plain uses analogies that have nothing to do with evolution, but describe more your misunderstandings with it. You claimed to have researched it, but watching Hovind or Ken Ham video's isn't research.. I recommend using Berkley University's online course for the basics of evolution. Its 30 hours for the first module and completely free. That will clear up alot of misinformation you have been fed.
I appreciate the recommendation, but my 3 years in a real school where we met, had classes and did I actual field work gave me a pretty good idea of how they wanted to promote and ingrain the idea of evolution. And you have no idea what academia has gleaned over and pushed into these courses as actual scientific facts. Back in my day there was at least a reasonable amount of controversy, today you have no choice. And that's one reason I did not get into an actual science field is cause I saw the upcoming tote the party line or don't bother attitude way back in the mid 70's.
@@theravendiaries Yeah, right. That is why you are using every single common creationist talking point without any form of critical reasoning or questioning of them. Did you go to some religious school taught by someone like kent hovind? Try again.
And no, back in the 70s there wasn't controversy about rather or not evolution by natural selection is a thing, only perhaps about some specific aspects of it. And also gotta love the ability for science to clean out the false claims and the fraudulent papers. Maybe that is the controversy you are confused over? Hard to say, because nearly everything in this video is absurdly false without even a hint you understand the scientific method or the rigorousness of peer review or even something so basic as the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
I don't know what you mean by "choice". Facts don't care about feelings, something is either true, or it isn't. Creationism, isn't true. So therefor in serious academia, it is not a valid choice. Because its demonstrably false.
And what you love isn't science, what you should say instead is you love things that support your presupposed beliefs based on ancient folklore and superstitions. Good lord this video is just awful. From that first analogy to the false equivalences to the obvious lack of any experience in anything scientific.
I seriously don't believe you spent any time in a science class that actually taught much of anything to you, or you spent your time playing mental gymnastics with cognitive dissonance and only trying to refute it as you went and not actually understand the arguments. Like every other creationist.
You do realize that the article you cherry picked at 8:52 in your video, explains that the only logical conclusion is that evolution is true and is taking place right now as we speak. Right?
Yup, I think it's a great example of scientific double talk, because what the article admits is IT CAN"T but yet we still believe IT DOES.
@@theravendiaries
", because what the article admits is IT CAN"T
Source please, the WHOLE thing not what you cherry picked out of context. That was from 2004 and the person that wrote that is the person that has worked out the feathers, he NEVER said it could not be done.
You changed what he meant in the video and you changed what he wrote on this thread. He did NOT say it cannot be done, not of it was double talk.
Do you have the usual Creationist reading problem, only seeing what you want to see?
@@theravendiaries OH it does. It is a fact. There is more than one form of evolution you know. And no, you just cherry picked a quote out of the article that you felt help push your idea.
I was just about to subscribe, then I watched this one in it's entirety. Oh well, I just evolved a little :)
"Like I say at the end, if you disagree that's great but do us all the favor of sharing why, more specifically give us the actual real world science that convinces you the "General Theory of Evolution" is possible!" You ignored the challenge so it doesn't appear like you've evolved at all, more like you just crawled back under the safety of your rock? : )
@@theravendiaries ALL you have is IGNORANCE! Try understanding what you're trying to debunk!
Okay Raven... tell me when was the last time you celebrated the festival of feasts? Have you taught people to not boil a baby goat in its own mother's milk, both of those are in the ten commandments in the original book that hasn't changed.
Wow, you want to get into an Old Testament stuff? As I understand it, it seems God was setting these "chosen" people apart. He set specific rules for them to follow so that they would be obvious in their everyday practices, and that they would be set apart from every other people group in the world. I agree there's some pretty seemingly weird stuff, and this chosen group proved it couldn't all be followed but maybe that might have been specifically put in place so that in time the "new covenant' would make more sense?
@@theravendiaries Except that the "new covenant" didn't get rid of the things he pointed out, so...
@@timeshark8727 And that is based on who, or what interpretation?
@@theravendiaries its based on the bible. I guess you have studied that the same way you have studied evolution... start with your preconceptions and make up a conclusion based on those first, last and only.
@@theravendiaries
Jesus, he said he did not come to change the law. That is not an interpretation. Of course he may not have said it as none of that was written down til decades later, for the oldest of the four gospels and its doubtful that any were written by eyewitnesses. Luke even says that its not personal experience.
lol
no
Summed it up beautifully! Funny how so many people here are trash talking you without actually bringing up any counter evidence
_"How have you studied to be a scientist?"_
- *That's a silly question... the real question would be, "have you studied to be a scientist?"... but of course, the answer is an obvious "no".*
Loving science is not the same as studying to be a scientist... buying microscopes does not make you a scientist... falsely claiming to have been "trained in the scientific method" does not make you a scientist.
... you are a layman who has dabbled in science while holding onto your preconceptions. So much of what you say is amazingly wrong and caused by a profound lack of knowledge on the topic... like when you talk about "there was never only 1" when evolution happens to _populations_ not individuals.
There's nothing really wrong with being a layman (although pretending to be a trained expert when you aren't, like you are doing, is rather dishonest) but frankly, you seem to be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect coupled with the strong desire to support a preconception.
You picked a strawman version of the theory of evolution (2 versions actually) rather than the standard/accepted modern theory... and then misrepresent them through the misuse of terms like "macro evolution" and "micro evolution".
You claim that _"everything you were taught about evolution had been overturned"_ which is a flat lie. There is still quite a bit from when Darwin first wrote about it even though we have learned a lot and refined or corrected the ideas to reflect that knowledge.
Also, if "everything was overturned" why are you trying to point to outdated sources when trying to talk about a modern theory? And why are you so proud about reading Darwin's writings if they aren't even part of the theory (according to your logic) anymore?
You use nebulous, dishonest, terms like "kinds" while talking about animal groups... *try to actually define it*
You talk a lot about some sort of "limits" or "barriers" or what is "impossible"... *try to demonstrate any of these limits, barriers, or supposed impossibilities using actual science instead of just alluding vaguely to them while crowing about your imagined expertize.*
Its really classy of you to insult and attack the honesty of *_real_* scientists while you pretend to be one from reading some popular science magazines and a pile of sources you claim aren't even part of the theory anymore.
Your arguments amount to personal incredulity... not science. That you don't understand or don't like something is not a valid argument against the idea.
And worse, the support for your claims amount to little more than "believe me, I'm a scientist and have read a lot of magazines"... hardly a valid form or argumentation.
Grasping at things you think can be used as ammunition against evolution while ignoring context and changing your standards over and over does nothing to actually attack the idea... all it does is give people who know more about the theory than you (anyone who has taken any level 200+ biology courses in a university in the past 20 years for example) a clear impression that you don't know what you are talking about and are only interested in slinging mud.
Finally, don't you think that its dishonest to demand that other people use science to argue against you, and that they argue for one of your strawmen, when your arguments aren't based on science and don't talk about the modern theory at all?
Frankly, if you wanted to actually talk about evolution you should be using the "modern synthesis theory of evolution" at the very least... is that in any of your magazines? was it too hard to strawman or misrepresent?
and he doesn't actually cite any sources that goes agaisnt his view. He attacks Darwin for his original theories that has since been fixed, tossed, or properly extrapolated to the facts as we know them. He's about as much as a scientist as a blind man is a taxi driver.
I couldn't have said that better, Timeshark. I agree on every point.
I was in the collage system back in the mid 70's BEFORE collage was a big deal. I took the classes I was interested in which was pretty much ALL science and math. I was so heavy in those subjects that even though I had far more credits than I needed to get a degree I couldn't get a degree cause I didn't take any of the filler stuff (English, phycology ...) I soon saw there was no future in the fields I was interested in. Mr. Jaques Cousteau did 2 things, he made marine science real popular, and he made marine science real popular. By the time I would have finished grad work all the jobs I was interested in were already overfull with waiting lists. So I got into my other love the restaurant biz. Now. having the rep of an "amazing world class chef" (I'm saying I had the reputation for one I'm not claiming to be one...) you rub elbows with all kinds, but you get to be especially privy to some of the "top" people in any and all fields. In short I have been privy to many ideas, problems, successes, and anything else that hits you in life from the sources themselves.
You can argue anything you want about evolution, but the history of science it became the domineering idea and base for doing science, even though it's assumed and still today there is not one repeatable experiment that both you and I or anybody else can do that has stood the test of time. Scientists are really bad at history and somehow forget everything they used to support the theory last decade (and all the ones before) has been pretty much overturned and discarded. In fact I would say it's only by the fact that new things are happening all the time there's still that "hope" of finding something, anything, they can use, and that is what keeps the theory alive.
Since the beginning, the problem I have with the theory of evolution, modern or whatever is that nobody has ever been able to show how the evolutionary process can produce anything new. Period. So to me common sense voids it out right there. All it can do is repurpose so, "if you don't have it you can't possibly choose from it." All my biology classes skipped over that bit and your modern biology classes have to do the same.
As I say in the video above, the grand theory of evolution is based on extrapolating by many 1000 x the simple changes we can and do see. I say these extrapolations are physically impossible because in life the reality is there are many millions of changes that must take place. All these massive changes must happen together and at the same time and i say that's physically impossible. So until someone somewhere can demonstrate how something like a skin cell can "learn" to make a "proto feather" and then, somehow magically figure out how to produce the ridiculously complex hook and barb system of a flight feather, to me, it's all talk.
I'm not here to sling mud, I'm here to question WHAT we are telling ourselves and questioning whether it's even possible. As I said above, through the restaurant I got privy to some pretty high level people, and so far, no one has been able to demonstrate otherwise. They talk evolution like it's a fact, and that's fine, but the honest ones, when it all comes down to it, will tell you, we can't prove it, we just believe it. So, believe what you want, if you have some demonstrable and repeatable science that we haven't seen before please present it and I'd love to learn. Thanks!
@@theravendiaries obvious that you didn’t take English courses because you can’t even spell the word college.
@@theravendiaries With your understanding of math, engineering and biology I think this is what you wished to have learned, not actually studied. You are really really really uneducated in all of science. You should take down this embarrassing stupid video. Strawmanning evolution and "disprove" the strawman only shows that you are utterly uneducated, and believe in lies from AIG and similar.
So you're entire argument is, "I'm a really cool dude, so therefore my misunderstanding of science is proof I'm right."
Hmmm, needs work.
Watch this for starters:
ua-cam.com/video/qR1p0PFdoUE/v-deo.html
Then look up AronRa for a primer on evolution, and other subjects.
You'll find that you're not the smartest person in the room. And that's ok, you're a smart guy, you've done interesting things in your life, you've got a lot to be proud of, but the science of evolution is just not your thing. Never too late to learn, though.
Come back after you've really got an understanding of the subject.
OK you get points for the funniest response I've seen in a while. What I'm saying is from all my understanding of science, from all I read about, from all I heard one on one from some pretty high level scientists is, that in the end they are really asking me to believe something that has been demonstrated over and over again to be physically impossible. I only saw one AronRa thing and it was a short on the eye. Uhm, all he did was line up a bunch of existing ways light is perceived in different creatures and claim there is a direct line from photo cell to eye. To me he kind of demonstrates my steps to the moon bit cause in between each of those things he presented there's millions of things that need to happen. Thanks for the laugh!
@@theravendiaries "demonstrated over and over again to be physically impossible" - OK, demonstrate that, please.
Not with a stupid analogy, or a basic misunderstanding of scientific principles, but with actual evidence, and citations.
Y'know, the way scientists do things.
@@DeathsHood Uhm you have it backwards, they are supposed to demonstrate the ability to do what they say can be done. They didn't, they haven't and guess what they won't, cause they can't! And they don't feel they need to. That's what my story is about. If you can find a scientific paper on the actual pathway for a how skin cells changed from making scales to being able to make feathers, I'd love to see it. To date there's nothing close.
@@theravendiaries Uh, no, I have it exactly the right way around.
You made the assertion "demonstrated over and over again to be physically impossible"
Demonstrated.
To be physically impossible.
So demonstrate it.
If you can make that assertion, with that level of confidence, either you _have evidence supporting it,_ or you are a lying dickhead.
Which is it?
@@theravendiaries been meaning to get back to you. But a lengthier reply requires more time, than a quick knock out. I think you're a fun dude, with a really poor understanding of science (or I should say a highly cherry picked and biased view). I'll be in touch. Just wanted you to know I hadn't forgotten. And yes, I try to use humor, sometimes I'm more rude, and glad you didn't take offense to dinner if the barbs.
I love your boldness and truth. I'm not afraid to follow. Just learning about ravens and found a like believing soul.
Well someone who brags about being a self-described chef and sommelier is obviously also qualified to overturn all of biology without ever even publishing a paper. Good on you, sir. You are the bestest human ever!
I don't need to brag, my achievements while I was in the restaurant and wine industry are well documented in dozens of papers, magazines and professional articles. And, if you had spent some time seeing all the other stuff I actually do, you'd learn I am a very hands on person who has learned most of my life lessons by being physically involved in the real world thus learning from first hand experiences how the world around us works and how we can better relate to it. (Uhm, get involved?) I laugh cause, I didn't need to write paper on brain size, but I have been telling people for decades brain size has nothing to do with intelligence. On this channel I've clearly demonstrated how smart and ingenious ravens were and yet "science" didn't acknowledge the fact that brain size had nothing to do with intelligence until a recent experiments in 2016. (not the best example but it will do; www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160426101527.htm ) I have no doubt that one day the evolutionary house of cards will fall to nothing more that a bad idea. I've already demonstrated we don't have the time for it to take place just by the simple rain water erosion problem alone. With up to 50 feet of erosion a year, there's no way the earth could have gone through even 1 million years like this. But, I'm in no hurry, I can wait. : )
@@theravendiaries "I don't need to brag, my achievements while I was in the restaurant and wine industry are well documented in dozens of papers, magazines and professional articles."
You're bragging right there. You have an incredibly inflated opinion of yourself. As for your science-related nonsense, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Do you honestly think "science" didn't understand that ravens and crows were intelligent prior to 2016?
@@sledzeppelin No not bragging, I did put in both the time and the work and it's all documented. if I was bragging I'd actually list all the achievements, but I don't have to, others have already done that. The fact is they exist and are there for anyone curious enough to look them up.
If you had actually searched and read the available material ... you would have seen the scientific regarded brain size as the major factor for intelligence. I, and others for decades have said that is wrong. Turns out we were right, and finally in 2016 it's been shown that density and perhaps some other factors contribute to intelligence.
As to my "science" I have many decades of actual video documentation involving ravens, erosion, and a lot a varied wildlife in their natural environments. I notice most the science community and educators have pretty little animations to tell their stories. Wonder why that is ...
@@theravendiaries "As to my "science" I have many decades of actual video documentation involving ravens, erosion, and a lot a varied wildlife in their natural environments."
Awesome! Publish your evidence and put it to the test, Professor Bullshit. If you have all the evidence you say, and if you're so much more right about everything than the scientific mainstream, you have a Nobel Prize and great fame and riches waiting for you.
You haven't you done that yet? Wonder why that is ...
"Science says everything is so locked down tight, because I read this magazine"
Cite sources? If you love Science then you know that scientists love citing sources.
And We ahve been to the moon so it's not impossible for his kid to step on the moon, but it's more than single step. It's all the small steps one after another.
The father in the step story would ahve been laughed out of town for having such a poor understanding of math, science, and logic so bad that his great grandkids woudl be wearing full masks to hide their faces.
The fact is scientists spent many decades trying to manipulate fruit flies in an attempt to get ... ANYTHING! Something ... anything new! Failed in every way. Double wings, mutations of all sorts that killed or sterilized. Couldn't make em into crawly bugs, couldn't make stingers on em. NOTHING NEW. The entire project over many decades proved how tight things are locked. We can't budge em. But, wait, the new nano fake and newly created synthetic stuff may final change all that. But that's not natural.
@@theravendiaries Lol, and if they made them into "crawly bugs" or made stingers you'd just say that they altered what was already there or duplicated something... just like when they get new wings, colors, eyes ect.
Heck, in genetics class we made ones with new colors, new eye shapes/structures, new legs, new abdomen shapes, etc... took like 2 months. but of course, you don't count anything as "new" because that would ruin your claim. So the goals just keep swinging and swaying whenever you need them to.
@@theravendiaries
" fact is scientists spent many decades trying to manipulate fruit flies in an attempt to get ... ANYTHING! "
No, to learn things.
"Something ... anything new! Failed "
Wrong, they got lots of things.
"Double wings, mutations of all sorts that killed or sterilized. "
And those that did not.
"Couldn't make em into crawly bugs, couldn't make stingers on em. NOTHING NEW
Wrong, the lab species can interbreed with each other but they can no longer interbreed with wild fruitflies. THAT is a new species.
". We can't budge em"
Even what you wrote shows they got budged a lot.
just curious...
? are you familiar with punctuated equilibria (stephen gould & niles eldredge)
You are the best!!
Yes, a little from school but if you have something to share I'd love to hear it!
theravendiaries i’m surprised you heard about it in school
it’s not usually taught
anyway, it’s too much to cover here in text
i’m a talker, not a writer
i’m not an evolutionist and my “religion” is too far off the main line to easily summarize
if you’d like, i’m available in voice at your convenience (zoom, skype, FB messenger or phone)
i’d also like to talk with you about crows
i’ve had some unusual experiences with them recently
@@heronstone I don't mean to put you off, but I'm one of those rare individuals who doesn't zoom, Skype. i check FB 3 times a year, and I don't own a phone, I know whacked right? However you are welcome to try to address anything here, or reach me by personal email by going to the "about" section on the channel here.
Saw your crows 1 & 2 on you channel, and too bad Hitchcock didn't know you, you made a better segment for "The Birds" than he did!
theravendiaries... so get on FB a fourth time this year
audio works great in messenger
i’m sorry, but if we can’t talk, i don’t see any way for us to have meaningful communication...
at least meaningful for me
Theravendiaries, do you think that if you can demonstrate that evolution is not true it will automatically prove that 'your' god is real?
No not at all. First the video was answering a specific question from another You Tuber as to why, as a student of science I never bought into the evolutionary theory. Now let's be clear, although evolutionary theory is the driving idea put forth for scientific discovery, not all scientists agree with it follow it or even believe it to be true. I simply tried to explain in simple language that science can come to conclusions that aren't entirely true. In fact extrapolations can be physically impossible. So although "Micro Evolution" is indeed something we can easily confirm over and over again, the extrapolated "Macro Evolution" is not nor has it ever been confirmed. I find it physically impossible for many reasons. Life is too complex, most of the creation is locked pretty tight from about the family level up (you can't make fruit flies into ants or bee like insects, no matter what we do they are always a type of fruit fly) and, maybe most importantly even if there was 4.5 billion years since the earth was formed it's still not enough time to even begin to explain something like the combination of the human brain & nose (ester reading olfactory bulb) let alone eyes, ears, and so much more. Because these things are already here, we sort of take them for granted. But just take anyone of those, and try to p-lot out an evolutionary path, and any one who is honest with themselves ill soon learn each of those physical abilities are far beyond anything a hit and miss repurposing evolutionary theory can explain. Where that leads others is totally up to them. I'm just convinced "scientifically" that the theory of Marco evolution is physically impossible and have yet to read, hear os see anyone who has any solid evidence that can prove my conclusion different. Is that so unreasonable? In other words rather than call me a "Liar", "Stupid" full of nonsense and all the other silly games being played out, how bout someone hit us with the evidence I've always try to find. Something real, something demonstrable, something repeatable, something other than we think, or it may have, i.e. some solid evidence. Too much too ask?
@@theravendiaries If you don't believe it then why make a video about it?
Are you saying you 'don't' have an ulterior motive for your position?
If you don't then what is your motivation for going to all the trouble of making a video about it?
A lot of your arguments were either dishonest or demonstrated a fundamental lack of knowledge especially your 'walking child' analogy which was very poor.
Let me give you an example of your analogy using a different subject.
My car can accelerate from 0-60 MPH in six seconds. By your argument the next six seconds would get me to 120 MPH and a further 12 seconds would get me to 220 MPH and in one minute I would be doing 600 MPH
Now the scientific method would take into account, engine size and rev limit, gearbox ratios, wheel size, aerodynamics etc. etc.
So your baby steps was either blatantly dishonest or massively ignorant. Only you know the answer to that.
"When an honest man is shown to be wrong he can either stop being wrong or stop being honest" Your choice.
@@theravendiaries _"the extrapolated "Macro Evolution" is not nor has it ever been confirmed."_
- *Macro evolution is speciation... we see and cause it quite regularly.*
_"I find it physically impossible for many reasons."_
- *Lol, what **_you_** think or want to believe does not matter and the reasons you present have no support backing any of it. No one cares about your opinion when talking about science.*
_"Life is too complex, most of the creation is locked pretty tight from about the family level up"_
- *A claim with no evidence... again.*
_"even if there was 4.5 billion years since the earth was formed it's still not enough time to even begin to explain something like the combination of the human brain & nose"_
- *another claim with no evidence...*
_"and have yet to read, hear os see anyone who has any solid evidence that can prove my conclusion different."_
- *lol, you sticking your fingers in your ears and holding your eyes shut is not a demonstration of anything about science, all it demonstrates is your dishonesty.*
_"how bout someone hit us with the evidence I've always try to find"_
- *... several people already have... you ignore all of it. Besides, if you actually tried to find it, you would have. This stuff isn't hidden.*
@@sulas548 I explained in the very beginning of the video I was answering a question another You Tuber had. And you analogy doesn't work. In my steps, 3 actual days were measured, each day doubling the next. That's science, taking the time to observe and record over a period of time. Maybe the next could have physically doubled but much beyond that and it's not very likely. But here''s the simple point you seem to miss, to take those first few steps and then extrapolate them out to even just a few weeks, we see the result is so far unattainable it's ridiculous. That is exactly what I see scientists doing with the theory of evolution. We all see small changes in our own time span but then Darwin and his followers took what we can see and extrapolated it out to the ridiculous and applied those small changes to all changes in a fairy tale time line that we don't even know to true or not. We think we can validate it but even the science for that is pretty dependent on many other things we can't validate to be true. So, if you want believe them go ahead, I haven't seen the science that backs up those extrapolated claims in a number of different scientific disciplines. And please if you have something that's actually scientific to share please do.
@@timeshark8727 I think you must work in the argument department ... : )
ua-cam.com/video/DkQhK8O9Jik/v-deo.html
If animals are locked, then how do you explain the existence of dogs.
Hello, Addison, Animals seem to be locked at about the "Family" level. You can get dogs from the wolf (tops on the canine list), but you can't get a wolf from a tiger. Wrong family. I work with ravens, I could mate them down the ladder to lessor birds (teach them to smoke and drink coffee and then my calm, deliberate thoughtful ravens would eventually become jumpy and nervous little crows... : ) by removing specific traits but I doubt I could ever improve (add new traits) on the raven no matter how hard I try. (Nobody has!)
OK, avoiding the bandwagon of insulting you...
Have you ever thought about taking the items you claim are "impossible" (something that needs to be demonstrated as much as "possible" does), and asking an evolutionary biologist about them one by one? Not "here is this huge dump of questions I have," but one by one find out how an actual evolutionary biologist addresses each?
Taking just one of your points; if a dog ever did somehow become a cat it would show our understanding of biology is tragically flawed. You are effectively saying "we don't see something biologists say we shouldn't see... therefore biologists are wrong."
Also, in science, the original work isn't what is important, but the current work. While Ford revolutionized the auto industry, no one needs to study the Model T to produce modern cars.
GREAT skit, luv-luv it. Should definitely be on SNL. Good work here
: ) Thank you, glad it made you laugh but sadly it's a true to life experience that anyone born after 1970 wouldn't have a clue about. I posted this below for someone else but if you're curious here's the reasoning behind the rant ... The teaching of evolution has been the plan since Darwin's book came out. Just like some (especially those who wanted to be in power) immediately embraced communism since Marx's stuff. I personally lived through the first step. "Origins", Darwin's main book came out in 1869, but it wasn't until 1962 the my state of California forced the (I think first) teaching of it in public schools. I was in second grade and the kids were warned at that time that a theory was going to be taught in science classes, and that many teachers disagreed with the theory itself and more so that is was being forced on young children. I think we're seeing something similar in sex ed for grade schoolers? (Remember they say get the kids get the world?) So that was step one but those teachers had taught us to be cautious and diligent and to not just take it all in but look at what the theory was really saying. Since that time everything has changed, (step 2) even history classes began changing the narrative and it quickly took over many aspects of life it wasn't initially involved in. Even the Sunday comics BC and the cave man Fred Flintstone was invented. We kind of laughed and joked about it but then it permeated all life and by the time I got to college in 1975, everything academic was completely under the evolutionary umbrella. I grew up with the opposing views but today the kids are growing up indoctrinated by what has become a dogma that many people still aren't convinced about. Know that most everything they used to try to convince us when I was I grade school has been overturned. So we've watched the next thing come and go over and over again. And because the world of science moves so fast, they keep coming up by using interpretations of "new stuff" and it usually takes years to be able to reproduce the "science" to show that the interpretation is not really supportive. Most people aren't aware of all the "we were wrongs" and retractions. So, my silly little video is just a back to basics, warning to be careful because extrapolations can bring one to the wrong conclusions even though the science (3 days of real world measure and observation) is good.
@@theravendiaries "gather round children and I'll spin ya a yarn"
You are so full of crap, its no wonder you couldn't fit any actual scientific knowledge in there.
@@theravendiaries
Glad I kept a copy of my reply to that false narrative.
"it's been the plan since Darwin's book came out.
Oh so science is an evil plot against your imaginary god. No. I can see you have lost your temper as that is the main cause of illegible monobloc posts.
"immediately embraced communism since Marx's stuff. "
Nice lie. Darwin's family was a capitalist as it gets.
" See, I personally lived through the first step"
Lie. You are not that old, no one is.
"but it wasn't until 1962 the my state of California forced the (I think first) teaching of it in public schools. "
Lie, realty was taught in PUBLIC COLLEGES before that. My mother got her degree in Physical anthro at that time.
". I was in second grade and the kids were warned at that time that a theory was going to be taught in science classes,"
It wasn't. Well maybe in the bio class. I skipped it.
", and that many teachers disagreed with the theory itself"
Due to religion not science.
" I think we're seeing something similar in sex ed for grade schoolers?
They don't teach much of that in grade school but some people shriek and yell anyway.
" So that was step one but those teachers had taught us to be cautious and diligent and to not just take it all in but look at what the theory was really saying"
You mean they were forced to lie to you by Creationists.
". Since that time everything has changed, (step 2) "
You mean reality entered the school sysetems because, US CONSTITUTION.
"even history classes began changing the narrative "
Mine still lied about the cause of the Civil, they taught that MARXIST BS that it was about economics not slavery.
" Even the Sunday comics and the cave man Fred Flintstone was invented."
NO, Fred was on national TV, not the comics and Alley Oop had been around since before I was born.
" I got to college in 1975, everything academic was completely under the evolutionary umbrella."
And before then because its real science. Where did get that BS from, real science was taught, even in public colleges, long before the 60's.
"I grew up with the opposing views "
You mean saturated in religious nonsense.
" what has become a dogma that many people still aren't convinced about. "
By real science that their religious dogma denies.
"Know that most everything they used to try to convince us when I was I grade school has been overturned"
Know that you just lied.
". So we've watched the next thing come and go over and over again"
Yes, one more set of lies from Creationists to put their religion back into public schools in denial of the US Constitution.
" And because the world of science moves so fast, they keep coming up by using interpretations of "new stuff""
Keep learning more.
" it usually takes years to be able to reproduce the "science" to show that the interpretation is not really supportive. "
Or to support it as happens with evolution by natural selection.
"Most people aren't aware of all the "we were wrongs" and retractions."
I am aware of the few cases and the vast number of lies by Creationists that are never retracted.
"o, my silly little video is just a back to basics, "
Back to disproved religion and lies about real science.
", warning to be careful because extrapolations can bring one to the wrong conclusions"
Sometimes, especially strawman nonsense you made up.
"(3 days of real world measure and observation) is good"
Three days? Only in your strawman BS. In reality scientists spend years.
" Hope that makes sense and answers your question?"
Sure was a lot of BS again from you. You lied about the California school sytem. I took physical anthro in 1970 at Cal State Long Beach, from the same person my mother took Religions of Mexico on the early 60's. So I KNOW you are making up nonsense.
Ethelred Hardrede
@@ethelredhardrede1838 I think we have a failure to communicate ... just a few to demonstrate;
> Glad I kept a copy of my reply to that false narrative.
Nothing false about it, I lived it, you gonna tell me you were there?
>"it's been the plan since Darwin's book came out.
In Darwins book he made it clear he didn't accept the God narrative of creation for numerous reasons. Some had to do with the way animals interacted (wasps depositing the eggs on spiders etc.) One of his goals was to give an alternative to "Special Creation". Darwins bulldog Huxley made it clear he was a hedonist who hated the God thing and went out of his way to make way for evolutionary theory to be the accepted science. Darwins followers continued to argue for the theory and the teaching of it.
>Oh so science is an evil plot against your imaginary god. No. I can see you have lost your temper as that is the main cause of illegible monobloc posts.
If by the word evil you mean going against God, then yes, you are correct.
>"immediately embraced communism since Marx's stuff. " Nice lie. Darwin's family was a capitalist as it gets.
Sorry it had nothing to do with Darwin or his family, there were just people in general who saw the advantages to them for communism.
>" See, I personally lived through the first step" Lie. You are not that old, no one is.
>"but it wasn't until 1962 the my state of California forced the (I think first) teaching of it in public schools.
>" Lie, realty was taught in PUBLIC COLLEGES before that. My mother got her degree in Physical anthro at that time.
>". I was in second grade and the kids were warned at that time that a theory was going to be taught in science classes," It wasn't. Well maybe in the bio class. I skipped it.
It was, I was there.
>", and that many teachers disagreed with the theory itself" Due to religion not science.
Perhaps, doesn't matter they still told us to be critical.
Skip some...
>" I got to college in 1975, everything academic was completely under the evolutionary umbrella." And before then because its real science.
>Where did get that BS from, real science was taught, even in public colleges, long before the 60's.
In science classes yes, but it then worked it's way into everything.
>"I grew up with the opposing views " You mean saturated in religious nonsense.
Your opinion ...
>" what has become a dogma that many people still aren't convinced about. "
>By real science that their religious dogma denies.
Some cases yes, but I know many scientists who aren't or weren't convinced at the time.
>"Know that most everything they used to try to convince us when I was I grade school has been overturned"
>Know that you just lied.
Actually no, the moon didn't come out of the earth, Stalactites and stalagmites don't take millions of years, Neither does coal and host of other things they presented. Comets didn't seed the planet with water. Go find a grade school science book written between 1962 and 1970 and you'd laugh at what we were taught. Oh, wait, you skipped science?
>". So we've watched the next thing come and go over and over again" Yes, one more set of lies from Creationists to put their
>religion back into public schools in denial of the US Constitution.
Nah, I'm talking about what they believed to be true in the science departments, nothing to do with creationism.
>" And because the world of science moves so fast, they keep coming up by using interpretations of "new stuff""
>Keep learning more.
>" it usually takes years to be able to reproduce the "science" to show that the interpretation is not really supportive. "
>Or to support it as happens with evolution by natural selection.
Even the term "natural selection" has lost it's strength. Some argue it's becoming a meaningless term cause in realty it doesn't really say much. Natural selection is basically what lives.
>"Most people aren't aware of all the "we were wrongs" and retractions."
>I am aware of the few cases and the vast number of lies by Creationists that are never retracted.
I'm not concerned with what creationists do or don't do, when dealing with the theory of evolution only the science should be considered.
>"o, my silly little video is just a back to basics, " Back to disproved religion and lies about real science.
No I'm question why it's OK for an artist to make positive comments on religious ideas, but taboo for a scientist.
>", warning to be careful because extrapolations can bring one to the wrong conclusions"
>Sometimes, especially strawman nonsense you made up.
>"(3 days of real world measure and observation) is good"
>Three days? Only in your strawman BS. In reality scientists spend years.
No it's more a lesson in making conclusions with incomplete knowledge.
@@theravendiaries
"I think we have a failure to communicate
Not on my part.
"Nothing false about it, I lived it, you gonna tell me you were there?"
Not in the same rooms but in California schools at THE SAME TIME. Graduated from High School in 1969 and my mother was in the same college in the early 60's. I saw her books. Read some of them.
"In Darwins book he made it clear he didn't accept the God narrative of creation for numerous reasons"
False, as you don't have the narrative from a god, you have the words of ignorant men. Presuppositionalism is anti-science.
"One of his goals was to give an alternative to "Special Creation". "
His goal was show the evidence and reasoning. He was afraid of being treated just like you are treating him. He was right on that.
" Darwins bulldog Huxley made it clear he was a hedonist who hated the God thing"
No, and Huxley was not Darwin either.
" went out of his way to make way for evolutionary theory to be the accepted science."
Oh how terrible, he promoted good solid thinking over wilful ignorance.
"Darwins followers continued to argue for the theory and the teaching of it."
Those don't really exist and even if that was true there is not one thing wrong with going on evidence and reason. Darwin was 160 years ago and science progressed all that time. It is not a 160 year old theory. It real up to date science.
"If by the word evil you mean going against God, then yes, you are correct.
No, I mean that its evil in your Presuppositionalist closed mind. Not in the real world. You want to real evil? Look up Charls Ng. That is evil, not going on evidence and reason.
"Sorry it had nothing to do with Darwin or his family, there were just people in general who saw the advantages to them for communism."
Sorry, even if that was true, it does not change reality, or the science or the long disproved Bible. Its an attempt to poison the well, dishonest.
"It was, I was there."
Its not taught in 2nd grade even today. Of course my 2nd grade was Catholic school however my point is that the science of evolution was taught in PUBLIC schools in California, and most of the nation, long before that.
"Perhaps, doesn't matter they still told us to be critical."
Because they were going on their religion. Not because there was anything wrong with the actual science.
"In science classes yes, but it then worked it's way into everything."
Not in public schools.
">"I grew up with the opposing views " You mean saturated in religious nonsense.
Your opinion ..."
Its what the evidence shows, not just opinion. Your 'opposing views' are religion not science and that is not mere opinion.
"Some cases yes, but I know many scientists who aren't or weren't convinced at the time."
Creationists that were not going on the science, just as today and as you are doing.
"Actually no, the moon didn't come out of the earth, "
That is the present theory with a Mars sized object smacking into the Earth. If you mean the Moon spontaneously erupting from the Earth, that was never science it was a wild assed guess that was not supported by physics. It was nonsense. I sure never bought into that silly guess, it was NOT science.
" Stalactites and stalagmites don't take millions of years"
Many thousands and no one said millions except you.
"Neither does coal and host of other things they presented. "
False, most of the coal today is from over a hundred million years ago.
". Comets didn't seed the planet with water."
Sure did, it is just not the only source.
"Go find a grade school science book written between 1962 and 1970 and you'd laugh at what we were taught. "
Not in the science. Oh sure some is wrong. My college geology book from the late 1960's still treated continental drift as hypothesis rather than a solid theory. Not laughable. It was a bit backward though even then. The book out of date. Texts always are.
"Oh, wait, you skipped science?"
No, but you clearly did. I never said I skipped science. I have been reading science books since I got much past see spot run. Of course we didn't have that book in my Catholic school.
"Nah, I'm talking about what they believed to be true in the science departments, nothing to do with creationism."
I don't see any sign that you have taken a science class. Maybe one of those waste of time bio classes where you cut up frogs and learn the names of things. Which is why I went straight to chem in high school. I really had no desire to play kill bugs again just for a class.
Your method of marking quotes and mixing in your replies is messy and hard to parse. Please separate what you write from what I wrote.
"ven the term "natural selection" has lost it's strength. "
False.
"Some argue it's becoming a meaningless term cause in realty it doesn't really say much"
Some Creationists, such as you argue that. There has been a greater emphasis on the founder effect but that too is constrained and enhanced by natural selection.
" Natural selection is basically what lives."
Not quite, what survives to reproduce the next generation that does the same. I explained how it works to you twice in posts that you are evading.
"I'm not concerned with what creationists do or don't do, when dealing with the theory of evolution only the science should be considered."
PLUS
""In Darwins book he made it clear he didn't accept the God narrative of creation for numerous reasons""
Shows you lied about being only concerned with the science. You are concerned with your religion and are making up nonsense about the science to support your disproved religion.
"No I'm question why it's OK for an artist to make positive comments on religious ideas, but taboo for a scientist."
Religion is not science and art is not science. Why do you think that using your long disproved book should be part of science? Science goes on evidence and reason, not Presuppositionalism, which is anti-science. Saying a goddidit has never been supported by evidence. Nor has it ever answered anything. Its an attempt to stop people from looking for a natural answer.
"No it's more a lesson in making conclusions with incomplete knowledge."
No its a deliberate strawman not related to how the process of science actually works. A SCIENTIST is supposed to look for how they may have screwed up before writing a paper. And even after that is has to be confirmed by others using the same and other techniques. Evolution by natural selection has been confirmed time after time over 150 years.
The communication problems are with you, you claiming to have knowledge of how the scientific process works and that opening strawman, on its own, showed that you don't know how it works. You are PRESUPPOSING that a book with a long disproved Great Flood is from a god for no rational or science based reason. You believe because you believe and you clearly want real science to go away so you can live in your bubble of wilful ignorance, unopposed by reality.
I got that in the video and in this most recent reply of your. The lack of communication is due to your refusal to go on verifiable evidence. You did a fine job of communicating your stance, that you are anti-science and pro disproved religion.
Ethelred Hardrede
How can you show a picture of the different stages of the transition from scales to feathers, while saying It is imposibble to have a gradual transition from scales to feathers???
Just look at the book
Easy, think about it ... #1 there would have to be thousands of transitions between each of those "pictures." Scientists can't show the advantages of those changes, nor do they even consider that each of those changes would make the "scale" useless, and until it is a full "feather" that structure is completely useless also. #2 It is the extremely specialized cells in the birds skin that manufactures these nonliving structures we call feathers. The real world difference between scales reptiles produce and a feathers birds produce is ridiculously complex, yet scientists try to fool us with the simplistic version of the pictures you see in the video. I say it's not only not true, it's impossible for "nature" to be able to make the massive amount of changes needed to make an animal with scales become an animal whose now softer and more pliable skin magically produces these incredibly complex structures (seriously, with hooks on one side and smooth on the other so they lock like velcro?) we call feathers. Just my opinion ... disagree, great but please show how it could be done cause scientifically, the "book" is an extremely ridiculous and incomplete story.
@@theravendiaries #1 Those little transitions wouldn't be necessarily useless. They could have some other function different from flying. Probably thermoregulation/thermal isolation, ethological functions (showy, colorful feathers for sexual selection) are some options i can think of. This transitions could be useful for those functions, and we now the function of an organ can shift when it evolves (this is called exaptation).
You should also take into account that natural selection is not the same as evolution. Natural selection is just one mechanism for evolution, so other mechanisms such as genetic drift can produce some intermediate stages that are not necessarily better than the stage before it. I also think neutral theory of molecular evolution can support this. Of course, these all are still hypotheses, but that's what science does: we make hypotheses and then try to prove them wrong or right with sustainable evidence, via experimentation or via direct observation in the case of paleobiology (fossil record as well as extant organisms).
2# Why would you think scientists try to fool us? All in all, we know any physiological or morphological structure can be explained in meanings of molecules. And we now all molecules in an organism depend on chemical reactions, which we know depend on enzimes and other proteins, which we know for sure that are coded in the genome of that organism. The genetic composition of a population can change through many different mechanisms: natural selection, random mutation, genetic drift, migration... actually, it usually changes through a mix of all mechanisms.
So, we change the genetic composition, thus the enzimes encoded in the genome are changed, thus the chemical reactions that occur are changed, thus the molecular structure of our traits re changed. That's how you can have a feather from a reptile scale (also, the reptile ancestors of birds probably had different scales than nowadays reptiles). You think feather molecular structure is too complex? Well, you are lucky, because this didn't happen yesterday or 100 years ago, this would have happened at least throughout the course of thousands or millions of years.
@@Albertoemc2 I disagree cause I've looked and almost all of those little transitions would be useless. Don't believe me, draw it out and look at the possible steps yourself. Almost any and all changes would have absolutely no benefit whatsoever. You'd lose the use of the original function, and it's be lots of time and many steps before any other function could be realized. See, scientists aren't trying to fool us, we've all just been brainwashed that your millions of years of time would somehow magically take care of all that. Not only don't I believe it, I've never ever seen any confirmation in real life. Just like your second sentence, "could" is nothing but a slight of hand.
All of your "hypothesis" listed have already been proven false with over a hundred years of work with fruit flies. No natural selection, no genetic drift no random mutations it's all talk and the science showed us we were wrong. In everything we could think of, all we got were fruit flies, most died, or couldn't reproduce and many couldn't even make it in the wild. BUT, that truth doesn't make anybody any money, and that fact doesn't give people the power and prestige they want so it's all been brushed aside for the next rounds of more talk and "hypothesis."
Your last section is closer to the truth for WE are set and determined to change the genetic composition of ALL life, including people. But understand what is really going on is WE are set and determined to play god. It's happening all around us as we speak, and my bet is it doesn't go well.
This is a perfect example of what Neil deGrasse Tyson said ... "The problem is, knowing enough about a subject to think you're right but, not enough about a subject to KNOW you're wrong." This guy's arguments seem largely based on incredulity and flawed extrapolations. The terminology he uses reeks of creationist source material. And, his disingenuous apologetics tactics leads me to distrust the entirety of this video.
That's fine but realize I base it on real world hands on experience. No one has been able to demonstrate how a skin cell could possibly learn to make a feather. And with the complexity of the miniature hook and barb system a flight feather the problem become far more difficult. That's not a flawed extrapolation, there's simply no science that explains it, they just assume it must have happened. That is not scientific.
@@theravendiaries There you go with the "no one can prove me wrong so I'm right" mentality... ignoring all the evidence that goes against you of course.
Oh my god this guy is a really hopeless case
That doesn't tell anybody anything they don't already suspect. But as I said in the video, if you disagree great, but at least have the guts to share the science that convinces you.
theravendiaries dude, if you can say something like “fruit flies haven’t turned into something else” you get the whole concept wrong. What am I supposed to tell you, the whole history of biology? That’s not my job. That’s like “the earth is flat, share the science to prove me wrong”. Yea, like, look around. Have the humility to get your head out of the sand and read some science instead of brazenly telling people to make you understand what the whole world knows. Watch some science videos that aren’t by religious nutjobs. Knowledge is pretty accessible to anyone who’s not preconditioned to hold on to mystical fairy tales. You probably believe the earth is 6.000 years old too, probably it’s our job to explain you too how that’s not the case. Ugh.
@@kekikyavuz If you watched the video you should have seen I got much of my information from Science and Nature magazine between the years of 1986 and 2016. I live in a neighborhood full of professors, researchers, teachers, marine biologists and more. Being a chef they come to me, cause I feed them. Over the years I have heard first hand many of the experiments and research done at, USC, UCLA, UC Irvine, OCC, Chapman University, along with much that has been done at many of our Biotech companies in So Cal.
For decades numerous scientists have worked with fruit flies, hydras and other small and quickly reproducing species to try to alter their genetics to try to get what they could out of them, and to find out numerous other tings about them.
In short they are locked, and they could not make fruit flies into crawly bugs, or bees or anything else that might suggest an evolutionary progression of any sort. They always remained 100% fruit fly.
Like I said nobody can make a cat into a dog and nobody can make a dog into a cat, yet we teach our kids one animal became both. Bad story bad science.
Now you want to talk science or you want to demonstrate how little you know about what's going on in the world of science?
I'm glad to listen!
@@theravendiaries There is not one single geneticist that will say you can turn one species into another currently existing species, here you show a fundamental lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the theory of evolution. If you had understood Darwin in "On the Origin of Species", which i have read, then you would know that the boundary between living species is not always hard border but actually in many cases has a very subtle blending of characteristics between, what we consider under the Linnaean classification system, different species. When you start talking about evolution the borders between species become even more subtle. No one teaches that you can make a cat into a dog or vice versa. But a dogs and cats will over millions of years evolve into species that are obviously distinct from what we now know of as dogs and cats, but dogs will never evolve into cats and cats will never evolve into dogs. Not one evolutionary scientist who actually understands the evolutionary theory will say that.
You seem to suffer from a severe case of confirmation bias, only accepting that information in the materials that you read that confirm your belief that this world was created by a vengeful, genocidal, anthropomorphised, sky fairy.
You also suffer from a severe case of projection. No evolutionary scientist will tell you that evolution happens in single steps between species, "one step to the moon as you say". Instead the current best understanding is that to get to the number of species we have today took trillions of steps over billions of years. A trillion steps will get you to the moon and back many many times over. You on the other hand believe the stories of long dead goat herders that a bearded Sky fairy created all the different species in 3 of his 7 days of creation, three steps to the moon if you will.
@@Momkang I am very familiar with everything you said and I agree with some of it. I didn't just read Darwin once, I read his other stuff, his letters to others and 3 of his "Origin" revisions. But understand we are combining the stories of two different fields who don't communicate very well with each other.
"There is no .. geneticist that will say you can turn one species into another currently existing species" Agreed, yes 100% correct! And yet paleontologists tell us one species of animal (Carnivora, a group of animals called miacids) that lived ONLY 55 million years ago (some have shortened it to 42 million) are the ancestors of ALL dogs, cats, bears, ... sea lions , walrus, ... hyenas ... mongoose and more. I didn't make that up that is what they teach and here's how the press portrays it;
www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jul/26/cats-vs-dogs-in-terms-of-evolution-are-we-barking-up-the-wrong-tree
So who's science do you believe? The geneticist or the paleontologist? Both claim to be "science."
And where is your science for "dogs and cats will over millions of years evolve into species that are obviously distinct from what we now know of as dogs and cats." Didn't you just claim "you (can't) turn one species into another currently existing species?" So tell me, WHEN does this magic happen? Cause my study of science tells me it didn't, it doesn't, and it never will. Show me where I'm wrong.
You say, "to get to the number of species we have today took trillions of steps over billions of years", but where are those steps? There's nothing in the fossil record? I see no science for that here did the pterodactyl gets it's wings? Where did the turtle get is shell? There are hundreds of unique features in the natural world were there is no possible step by step lineage from any ancestor whatsoever. If I'm wrong here, please show me?
It's astounding how bad these arguments are. And it might be a cautionary tale to anyone who feels like boasting about the sheer number of subjects they've delved into, since, as we all know, a jack of all trades is a master of none.
Do we all know, or are you just one of the sheep? I gotta laugh, I'm certainly not a jack of all trades, I'm a participant in the few I enjoy. And I happened to have done very well in all the ones I mentioned in my video. Except for fencing and making surfboards I was PAID to do things I like to do. My restaurant put me in the back door to places and introduced me to many people of all walks of life for over 40 years. As to bad arguements, you want to explain to me how a skin cell can learn to manufacture a flight feather that has a completely smooth side, and the other has thousands of micro barbules on the other? Cause I met the best and they can't ... please, try!
@@theravendiaries You haven't got a clue on what evolution is.
Well, reading this comment section I'm, as always, rather saddened to see all this religious bile being spouted in the name of science because a thinking man dared question a theory - a THEORY. That is a deeply troubling sign of the times, or, once deeply troubling but today I do accept that the vast majority are perfectly happy to understand nothing themselves and rely entirely on headline statements spoon fed them by experts they designate to do their thinking for them.
Aye. Shame on those who believe anything in science I say, "belief" is the very antithesis of science and always will be. "Belief" should be reserved for religion and spirituality, the fact that so many today so easily say "believe the science" betrays the truth, science is to them just so much religious dogma to be parroted out in attempts to pretend an understanding of that which is, in reality, beyond their ken.
Regarding a comment you wrote in the top thread here on wing evolution, yes, I have had this issue bubbling away at the back of my mind for some time... As far as I understand it, the process would run something like this...
A ... fictional tree rat is born with a very slightly enlarged flap of skin under its arm pit... and every so slightly webbed 'fingers'
It has no evolutionary advantage but for some reason it bumps into another rat with the same mutation and they breed and that webbed skin is slightly enhanced in the off-spring.
That webbing is a dominant gene and so, though it provides no advantage, quite possibly the reverse, it continues to grow over multiple generations.
Eventually, thousands of generations later, after a natural disaster split these tree rats from the others so they could not interbreed, a tree rat stands there looking like a flying squirrel.
It looks under it's arms and thinks: "You know what, I've been carrying these irritating flaps of skin around under my legs and fingers as they evolved for generations, I think I'll put them to some use, I wonder if they have aerodynamic potential?"
So, the tree rat runs along a branch, jumps to another, and, as it does so it spreads its legs out in the hope that the flaps of skin will catch the wind. ...It works!
So, the tree rat then goes home and tells its family: "Hey guys, you know these mutated flaps of skin under our arms and between our fingers that we've been dragging around for thousands of generations despite them being neither use nor ornament?"
"I am aware of the flaps you are referring to..." Says mother tree rat.
"Well, today I discovered that they have aerodynamic potential and, by spreading my legs out as I jump between branches, I could glide, like a leaf on the wind!"
"Have you been on the fungi again Bob?" Says Mrs Tree rat.
"No, honest, it's true, I can show you how to do it!"
"Now you listen here sonny Jim, we're the lost lineage of tree rats, always have been, we don't talk about our weird skin flaps, they're the bane of our lives, the last thing we need is you flying around in front of the neighbours, they'll cast us out of the group! No, you stay on the ground, you hear me?"
"No! I'm going to bring our children up as FLYING tree rats and you can't stop me!"
"HAVE YOU ENTIRELY TAKEN LEAVE OF YOUR SENSES BOB?!? I will not have you putting these crazy ideas into our children's heads, it's hard enough for them to mate with their mutant skin flaps as it is!"
"Then you'll be left behind because I am SUPER FLYING TREE RAT!"
"Then I cast thee out of this crook in the branches Bob for thou art not the tree rat I me, ho, but you are no longer one of us, you are something different!"
So Bob the super flying tree rat began his long walk up the mountain from whence he flew to multiply across the Earth and so the flying tree rat was born.
I concur, to my eye, none of that makes any sense whatsoever, I cannot for the life of me imagine how the mechanical apparatus for flight could evolve and, more troublesome, were that to happen accidentally, as it must, how all those steps wherein a creature had a completely useless appendage... and then suddenly decided to try gliding... yup, that is surely a conundrum of megalithic proportions. I would REALLY like to hear a genuine explanation for that process because, by natural selection's own tenets, it just doesn't make sense.
As you, I love science... and am personlly not religious... but that problem there... that bothers me.
[Typo edit]
I am surprised you have this viewpoint. The evidence for evolution is kinda everywhere.
But you saw the entire video right? I do find species evolution up to the family level everywhere, however, I see no evidence for the changes of an arm to a wing, 2 way lungs to oneway lungs, scales to feathers anywhere and neither does any scientist and not one scientific experiment demonstrates how such major changes are even possible. Therefore I conclude the extrapolations are overblown and we are fooling ourselves into believing it's even possible.
Seriously we've had over a 150 years to come up with something and in reality we still have nothing
Take a look at an explanation of possible eye evolution;
"As Nilsson and Pelger12 suggested, from an eyespot to an eyecup to a fully formed camera-style eye could take as few as 364 000 generations, and the production of such an eye in perhaps as short a period as half a million years. Of course, there would be more to an eye than just a cup, but that is a key step (Figure 2), and that cup may fit the real definition of an ‘eye.’ If one assumes that the eye must provide spatial information to be defined as an eye, then the curvature of a cup would create the first eye, as primitive spatial information would be provided. Such an eye can be seen in the limpet.13 Progress toward a more typical eye could proceed quickly in geological terms with the sides of the cup creating a pinhole as can be seen in the abalone13 or the nautilus eye14 (Figure 3). Crystalline lenses were added later on in the eye’s evolutionary history. This explains why different lineages have surprisingly different compounds composing their lenses. Trilobites have calcite, invertebrates have recruited a variety of crystallins and some novel proteins,15 and vertebrates have a wide variety of somewhat similar crystallins, mostly heat-shock proteins.16, 17 Evolution has selected whatever enzyme or heat-shock protein was available, often co-opted from other functions, to design and fashion metazoan lenses. This indicates that lenses are relative latecomers in the development of the eye, and are often taxon-specific. As these compounds are biochemically different, they differ in their ability to be deformed. Fish lenses, for example, are quite hard and deform very little, but most avian lenses are soft and quite ductile."
This is utter double talk and in reality they have said nothing. Here's the one important thing they leave out, they have all these so called steps, but these steps have to take place in the same lineage form the same creature over and over again for it to be able to "select" anything. These are all separate creatures and there is absolutely no way to line these things up in a neat little sequence. You can't select from what you don't have!
In short, scientists have conveniently lined up everything we see from an eyespot to the human eye but there's is absolutely nothing in between, and no sign of any lineage to carry the genes needed to select from.
So can you explain to me how we can call that a "scientific" explantation of eye evolution? Does that explain eye evolution to you?
And I find it is the same for the "evolution" of feathers, arms, legs, digits ...
What did a turtle select it's shell from? 😊
@@theravendiaries @theravendiaries I'm no expert, but the 'inbetween' you be talking about is gradual. Transitional fossils and the like. Birds didn't just pop into existence from a theropod, they were pressured into the niche that they occupy. And that change is S L O W, but considering the millions of years in between to species, it's more than likely than they are indeed flooofy dinosaurs.
@@arsantiqua8741 OK, I think we can agree neither of us has seen anything "in between?" And guess what neither has anyone else in the entire world. And there are no fossils or evidence of fossils that are "in between." They've had over a hundred and fifty years to comb the fossil record and they still find nothing "in between." My scientific prediction is and always has been they never will. Those "transitions" don't and in fact can't exist, why? An arm "turning into a wing" 90% of the sages in-between make both useless. Two way lungs, step be step "turning into" one way lungs is the death sentence for 99% of the stages. The same goes for skin that produces scales into skin that produces feathers. The animal would die. Also for these so called transitions to take place one animal, and only the descendants of that one animal can continue the lineage all through out the entire process. They forget to tell you that. Because otherwise the so called mutations and changes can't be selected from. So a so and so with a whatever in China, could not have inherited a whatever from and example in Argentina, which would not have inherited anything from something in Canada. So one, you can't select from what you don't have. And two, most all so-called transitions would die. So the step by step S L O W process you have been led to believe is not supported by any scientific evidence, nor can it be. It is therefore falsified by the scientific method. Many scientists are very aware of this and they are trying to figure out how to get around the prevailing dogma of "natural selection." They have to it is, and always was a fake idea that doesn't really say anything anyway. It truly means whatever was lucky enough to get selected, gets selected. It has nothing to do with strength, mobility, positive or negative consequences. It is one of the dumbest scientific ideas ever. But most importantly, you cannot select anything new from something you don't already have. So think about it, in essence nothing new can come ever about. Period. That's the science and because I don't work for anyone who has authority over me I can can address this problem for what it really is. Most do not have that freedom.
@@theravendiaries this seems interesting. How do fossils work in your hypothesis? (Edit: Btw, Idk if you will look this up or not, but have you considered looking at how whales evolved? We aren't completely sure about which animals were the ancestors of whales, but we have closely related animals of those transitional forms which may or may not have been direct ancestors of the whale. The fossils were lucky enough to have survived all the stuff that goes on in the crust.)
@@arsantiqua8741 You seemed to have had another question, and just as I went to post response, it seemed to have been pulled; here's your answer anyway.
Look, I'm whacked, and a little crazy, This channel is called The Raven Diaries because of my love and work with ravens, and that they are an animal I am truly in awe of. I fought the "brain size science" claiming world wide to pit my ravens against anything on the planet for intelligence and didn't actually have the science on my side till 2016 when they finally "proved" ravens and crows and many other birds have much more densely packed neurons in the brains than most other animals including mammals. Side note, I laugh cause dinosaurs would have had to have had their brains both shrink in size, and somehow get far more dense at the same time. Anyway the ravens get me out into the wildest lands in the western United States. Of most interest were areas where man had little or no influence (it's amazing how big even just the USA is!) In the areas returning year after year, I started noticing the erosion that kept creeping along. Specially in Grand Canyon, Bryce and many other parks where I could also converse with the rangers to make sure I wasn't totally off. Then I looked back at my studies in my own Back Bay in the 70's. Because I was actually photographing this stuff, I could see erosion was far faster than I remember it being reported. The rangers at Bryce even changed the erosion rates from 1 to 2 feet every 1,000 years to well here's their listing;
"In the case of Bryce Canyon, the hoodoos' rate of erosion is 2-4 feet (0.6-1.3 m) every 100 years. As the canyon continues to erode to the west it will eventually capture (in perhaps 3 million years) the watershed of the East Fork of the Sevier River."
Notice it's a little contradictory? 2 to 4 feet erosion in 3 million years is 400 to 800 miles of erosion ... it wouldn't just capture the "wouldn'tfactorneeded so there would be time for it to happen. BUT time also works against it. Erosion studies are relatively new, but already I've found major contradictions in the claims of long ages.
Like I said I'm whacked and I certainly don't expect anyone to drop everything and follow me. However for those interested in science, real science I made a couple of videos that show why I think this is a problem for the uniformitarian view of very long ages.
The first is based on my work and findings in my own Back Bay of Newport Beach where we had to know the rates of erosion (this was all new back then) and figure our if continuing to spend 50 million dollars to dredge the Back Bay was a good idea. I give some actual facts and figures in this one;
ua-cam.com/video/zwyczdS8wjY/v-deo.html
The other is a follow up answering some questions and showing some of the other areas that call the long ages into question.
ua-cam.com/video/pmtVqhr32Vs/v-deo.html
Those that are interested I invite to check out the science themselves, and perhaps to look a documentaries like "Operation Lighthouse Rescue" and "Killer Floods" on Netflix.
Understand, I'm old enough that in school we were taught in history that most all the ancient cultures recorded a flood in the lifetime of man like it had actually happened. We also started learning in science, that the earth is much older than that. I simply record what I see in the field, I encourage others to do the same. I also prefer to talk science vs history, and keep religious ideas on the back burner.
I agree that people treat the theory like a law, but I don't think it is wrong just incomplete, like all fields of science. I think though that you underestimate what millions of years can do. The scale of time is just way too big for beings that lives only 70 years old
Viced Rhino's reply to this video:
ua-cam.com/video/qR1p0PFdoUE/v-deo.html
And kickid his ass, kind of Rhino's M.O. ;-)
I saw it a while back. As is typical he didn't really address or perhaps he didn't understand the simplicity of the demonstration. All that video above does with it's silly steps to the moon bit is to demonstrate that; incomplete information, extrapolated out, will most likely lead to faulty conclusions. Which is exactly what I accuse Darwin and his followers of doing. Now Mr. Rhino took this simple written for second graders story and turned it into 30 minutes of nonsense, along with what 5 or 6 commercials one has to see? Enjoy that!
I've learned that life and most things at the cellular and molecular level are pretty much locked. Our current problems with Covid is a perfect example. The "virus' didn't jump from a bat to humans, follow the work and patents of Ralph Baric and the Wuhan "bat lady" (all of them and their NIH grants are available online) and you will see they had to force it. It seems they did it by combining human tissues with mouse tissues, and then they were able to introduce the virus from the bat to the chimeric mouse, and then make it "jump' to people.
Nice put.
One problem you seem to have is just assuming that things are impossible without demonstrating them to actually be impossible.
I think this is best illustrated with the child stepping to the moon. You never actually show WHY it is impossible, you just (rightly) assume it is impossible and move on, and hope your audience does the same thing too. This will get you into trouble later when you assume that cats and dogs couldn't have had a common ancestor, but you don't actually show any reasoning as to why that is the case.
As a heuristic of what to believe about your day to day life your initial emotional response to an idea isn't a terrible way to do things, but unfortunately in science you need to be able to show your working.
Well I guess I kind assume my audience to have some common sense? One step, 240,000 miles in length shouldn't have to be explained. The science paper claimed one animal became; a dog, a cat, a bear, a sea lion, a skunk, a, a, a, a, on and on. Perhaps I assume too much but it's like saying a dog we have today will one day be 15 entirely new animals we can't even conceive or dream of today. That's not science, that's science fiction.
@@theravendiaries Again, common sense means nothing within science. If the science man says 'in 5 weeks my daughter will be able to step to the moon' and you contest that claim, they are going to ask why. It should be incredibly easy to show that there are facts that they have not taken into account, you don't need to just rely on common sense.
Being able to articulate why your intuitions were correct is incredibly important, and is a step that you seem to be skipping over.
Also if the various dog breeds remained genetically isolated for a while we would actually end up with 15 'entirely new' animals all descendants of dogs.
@@theravendiaries A child WILL walk at least 240,000 miles in their lifetime. You do know that right?
"In science" one observes, records what one can, hypothesizes, and maybe is able to come to some sort of conclusion. And one tries to be as unbiased as possible. My example was supposed to be a simple; observe, measure, hypothesize and conclusion based on three days work. The whole point was incomplete information can lead to faulty conclusions. Had our scientist even measure a couple more days, the whole thing would have never even been an issue. I didn't demonstrate how it was impossible cause I give my audience a little more credit to just "know" a step to the moon in 34 days would be impossible unless the child continued to grow at physically impossible rates.
As to dogs and cats sharing the same ancestor, it's the scientific community that lacks the evidence that that is even remotely possible. They SAY it is, they BELIEVE it is possible but there is nothing more than the ridiculous "many small steps" crap producing all these amazing new features BS. Look if people choose to believe that extremely poor explanation fine, I don't. I think they are fooling themselves. And know this, they don't give a flying fish if the rest of the world believes them or not. That's the way they are choosing to do science. Fine, but I don't have to believe them and I think it's ridiculous "educators' go along with that very short sighted belief and teach that "maybe" idea to our kids?
Like I said if you got some real scientific evidence, show us? People don't realize, science ASSUMES evolution, but science has never demonstrated anything new or real since Darwin's day.
@@vancecrofoot Hi Vance, the illustration was simply to point out that even when we use the scientific method, incomplete data will most likely produce faulty conclusions. Darwin had no idea about the non living micro machines that run a cell. Nobody can even begin to show us how any of those "machines" evolved let alone from what? So I say Darwin had very limited information yet he extrapolated his small step crap to all life. I'd say "scientifically" he was a short sighted fool with extremely limited info, and his conclusions are faulty. My video was supposed to be somewhat the same? : )
You are lost my friend!
Um, how so?
You say there are holes in the evolution approach, but yet in your videos you refer to God, I can only assume you are a Christian of some capacity, in that faith you recognize that a virgin was given a child through Immaculate Conception... I’d like to hear how you can explain that?!?!
@@snookbeware6six6 Simple it's called a miracle. I've seen 'em. One example; when a loved one was going thru cancer in Santa Monica I spent years in the waiting room. I met peoples of all races, creeds, religions and ages battling advanced melanoma. Year after year I talked first person with the patients, their loved ones, the nurses and the doctors. Some people who shouldn't have, died, some people who shouldn't have lived and some even became totally "cancer free" even though they started with stage 3 or 4. All the science available says what I saw and what some of these doctors saw was impossible. Even they would say under their breath the only explanation is a miracle. So my experience tells me our physical world is not all their is. My "in the world experiences" tells me the spiritual (not some smoke and vapor stuff) is far more powerful and longer lasting than our physical one. Hence the death and resurrection bit? Thomas doubted and said he wouldn't believe unless he actually saw and touched. Jesus seems to reward those who believe without actually seeing and touching and told us they will be blessed because of it. My life, and the fact my wife is still with us even though I was told she would die 20 years ago, has shown me "faith" can actually have "proof" if one is willing to look for it. So from what I've seen, a virgin birth is really kind of easy? Modern science could repeat it today by simply injecting "seed' in a young virgin. Yes?
@@theravendiaries
". One example; when a loved one was going thru cancer in Santa Monica I spent years in the waiting room.
Medical miracles are not supernatural events, its a really bad use of the word.
"All the science available says what I saw and what some of these doctors saw was impossible."
I doubt that AND much of medical 'science' is not remotely good science. Its often just one step up from sociology.
"was told she would die 20 years ago
That is a medical mistake, not a miracle. Let me know when someone grows a new arm, without a real medical breakthrough.
" Modern science could repeat it today by simply injecting "seed' in a young virgin. Yes?'
And that is a bad definition of virgin. So are you saying Jehovah used a turkey baster? You might not want to go there.
You may love science but you have no idea what it is. When you discover what science is I doubt that you will still claim to love it.
Robert, science is mistakenly thought of as something only phd's can do. I work for a California State Park and we have Jr science everything. Most of the science these kids do is part one and two of a so called scientific method. They observe and record. They simply watch and then write down what they see. The info is then sent to labs and recorded and over time patterns will hopefully been seen and then things will be hypothesized and conclusions will be considered and MAYBE something will be done about it. From what I've seen probably not, all this info will just sit and go nowhere. But my friend that's science.
What you fail to understand is that my simple scientific story, and that's all it is, was created to simply say even when we use the scientific method, incomplete information can lead to faulty conclusions. Remember Mr. Darwin didn't even know what a cell was or what life was built upon and yet he sold the world he knew how all life came to be. I disagree. And I'm willing to bet one day Mr. Darwin's ideas will be discarded and people will wonder how did we come to be led to believe it in the first place. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
By the way I use science to cook, to teach how to taste wine in a very deliberate scientific method, to determine what kind fo sword handle I prefer, to shape my surfboards, to observe and record the silly antics of my ravens and so much more. No, Robert I love science, I wonder if maybe you don't know or understand what science really is and that we kind of use it all the time to look at and navigate our world?
So, I think I see where you got that story about the scientist and his kid walking wrong;
You assume that when he is extrapolating the distances from his first few measurements that he means distance traveled in a *single step.*
That's simply not true.
What the scientist is doing is figuring out how far his son would travel at the observed rate of progression given a certain period of time overall, not in a single step.
The point of this story is to illustrate that enough small steps, either figurative or literal, over a long enough period of time can build up to big things.
And this is assuming that you aren't intentionally misunderstanding the point of this story for the sake of your preferred outcome. I don't want to assume you're a liar right out of the gate, since this is the first video of yours I've seen, but the myriad of other anti-science content that I've seen (Flat Earth, Creationist) doesn't leave me with a lot of hope that this is an honest mistake.
Your putting too much thought into the story. The story is a simple doubling of distance in each step, which we all know by day 4 or 5 is going to be the limit. However out of sillyness our "scientist" makes a game of the time and development during his trip. The simple conclusion is science is great, but science misused, and especially when we chose to over extrapolate can lead to physically impossible conclusions. That is exactly what Darwin did in his original "Origins" book. He took the simple examples of change we all see and know and extrapolated them into physically impossible ideas. I don't care where you want to start in the series of life, you cannot get to the next level of complexity because you cannot "choose" from what you don'y have. Repurposing has massive limits, something entirely new has to come out of nowhere.
@@theravendiaries And you're putting almost zero thought into it, resting on Personal Incredulity while completely missing the point;
Lots of little steps add up to big distances over enough time.
Extrapolation only fails when the data it is built on is faulty to begin with. This is what the process of Peer Review exists to correct; it weeds out the conclusions and ideas which fail to stand up to scrutiny and new data.
"you cannot get to the next level of complexity because you cannot "choose" from what you don'y have. Repurposing has massive limits, something entirely new has to come out of nowhere."
And yet, the fact remains that none of you have been able to demonstrate any such hard limit on how mutations affect the evolution of an organism.
The only reason the re-purposing of existing structures doesn't work for you people is you fail to account for the amount of time required for the re-purposing to actually occur. The fins of a fish physically cannot become a set of legs within a single generation, because *that's not how it works.*
In this context, the re-purposing process is like the hypothetical distance traveled by the toddler;
The starting point (fin) is where the kid starts, the end point (a working leg) is the Moon, and each small change in the species which carries on to the next generation is every little step the kid hypothetically would take to travel that distance, while the amount of time given (a little over a month) is how long it takes to get from one point to another.
You fail to account for the amount of time it takes for these things to happen, and just how gradually they *do* actually happen within complex organisms.
*That* is why you can't wrap your head around this.
I've never come across such flawed analogies as are to be found within this argument. The very first one is blindingly ridiculous, since evolution is not about each successive footstep becoming longer in order to cover a distance equal to that of the Earth and the Moon; it's about an uncountably-huge number of paces, each of which are of the same small length, accumulating until just such a huge distance is covered.
Mr. Brown. My analogy is simple cause it's one foot in front of another. Evolution would involve changes at each step which of course no one has ever demonstrated that can happen, or ever has happened in the past. Everything we have is a finished product. BUT you miss the real point of the story, the point is incomplete data, extrapolated out to any conclusion, is bound to be wrong. And that sir, is my argument against Darwins "long argument." Darwin had no clue to the bases and complexity of the cell and molecular world. We still don't have all the info. And yet we claim to know how it all began ... (singing) dumb dee dumb dumb.🎶
@@theravendiaries Of course we've demonstrated that changes occur constantly in tiny steps; more times than can be counted. Where on Earth are you getting this ludicrous information from?
And - no - absolutely no organism whatsoever is a "finished product".
Every single organism is always transitional, at every point in time.
And why are you obsessed with what Darwin knew, when he was working over a hundred-and-fifty years ago?
@@theravendiaries Are you serious?? Incremental changes have never been observed?? What universe are you living in, and when will it get around to developing sentient life?
Why do you keep confusing evolution with abiogenesis?
Why do you believe that there's any such thing as a finished product in nature?
Do you even begin to understand that all of the evidence we have from embryology, geographical distribution of species, vestigial traits, the fossil record, molecular taxonomy, etcetera, etcetera, does not merely add up to "incomplete data extrapolated out to a conclusion" but combines to form a testable scientific theory which is so far beyond doubt that you might as well be claiming that the Earth is 10,000 years old to be any more incorrect in your understanding.
For goodness sake do some valid research!
@@robertbrown569 We all know and recognize certain specific small changes but as my neighbors work with Hydras since 1972 has proved we can go to a certain point and then that's it. Doesn't matter what you do it won't budge. Like a computer, small changes (beaks on birds that change with size of seeds that year) are written in the program, beyond that, nothing. Go ahead try, I've got over a hundred years of fruit fly testing research using 100 of thousands of generations, and many decades of hydra research (which if you look those up you'll find they call them immortal cause they can reproduce forever) to back me up. What have you got besides other peoples rantings, who you most likely don't even know but yet are willing to take their word for it? : )
Your statements about "finished product" and every single organism being transitional is not supported, believed maybe, but certainly not supported by any hard science. Darwin's ideas are the basic bottom level building block of the entire idea of everything shares the same ancestor type of evolution. With out it there is no basis for that kind of evolution. But it was and still is just a concept that has yet to be proven by any testable repeatable science that you and I can both do. I mean if evolution was so basic and true, shouldn't there be something we can do to easily demonstrate it? Take the 50 to 60 so called "dino-bird" combos, first line em up in some sort of evolutionary line one after another. Can't do it, they are just a hodge podge group of mosaics. Then try to take anyone of them and tell me scientifically exactly what traits are losing their so-called dino like bits and gaining their bird bits. And then visa versa ... In the end you will find they are all stuck, there is absolutely no sign of anything becoming more of something else. There is no sign of anything losing something else. It ... is ... finished ... If I'm wrong show me?
@@istoppedthecar I've been privy to watch and listen to the research by those actually doing it since before the genome project of the 80's. And all life has continued to show these people (like Francis Collins and gang) is that it just keeps getting more complex the more we learn. ALL their so called dreams of the 80's of finding all these cures to a host of diseases and ailments are still a long ways away. They didn't even actually finish the genome cause it's too intertwined and seemly repetitive. So we ended up with "junk DNA" which somehow, every once in a while someone will magically find something it's good for. Imagine that. Fact is we don't know near what we think we know. So if you chose to base your ideas of science on what we think we know but in reality don't really know, go ahead. I don't. I've watched as these people retire still frustrated with what they still don't know, and worse, many have come to grips with the fact they are no closer to finding it than when they first started out. In fact for many it's only continued to get more complex and they have far more questions leaving their chosen field than they had answers when they entered their field. Don't get me wrong we've made some incredible progress over the past 50 years, but nothing close to the hopes and projections of those whose many ideas that were never able to be played out. Just an observation of real people in real time ...
This is critical and I agree!!! A bird that is accustomed to a food source for thousands of years is one day gone, and so the bird finds a new source of food, however this new source of food leads to minor injury like stretching of the head or having to duct in to a small hole or pecking away at something yet it's beak is too weak and so is injured in the process. Let this repeat over and over and over, what you have is cycle of change, injury and adaptation but foolish people call this evolution. No, evolution does not exist, the world is made up of minor changes one after the other, year after year, injury after injury triggered by the ever changing environment and world, and the absolute critical Mutation of DNA which is the main backbone of the process due to shock, injury, disease. These factors all combine and create the illusion of evolution but a view in to the fine details of this process shows it is a never ending process of natural change. Evolution is a corruption of science because evolution explains nothing and yet blankets everything, it is not science.
This is pure ignorance.
As a polymath, I have studied evolution and you are utterly wrong. Your example is also nonsensical: not one step by the child was toward the moon, therefore there is no extrapolation that would put the child on the moon.
It was a simple example in distance ... that's it.
@@theravendiaries It was then a half truth, because you never said that when you prattled this nonsense off. It was, indeed, a simple example of making up a strawman.
How about you find out if anyone actually DID that. I mean, population stats starts off with the number of pigeons growing to the mass of the earth, but they don't actually PREDICT that happening, because this is merely an intro to the dual dynamic of population growth: birth and death.
Wow - all this time I'd just been showing up for the cool raven videos!
Evolution relies on the idea that time miraculously lets the impossible happen - yet evoutionists skip all the inconvenient math that says the universe isn't old enough just for the necessary mutations to get a 150 chain protein.
Loved the step to the moon example!
The math, and background radiation tells us the universe is over 13 billion years old, and the earth over 3 billion, that seems to me time enough.
@Jo Kuiper Not to run 77 x 10^100 tries to get a single protein at half the size of the average . Need about 15 billion years for that.
@@phylismaddox4880 Faulty math is unimpressive.
@@phylismaddox4880 That is assuming that every single amino acid in a protein chain assembled simultaneously.
That's not how it works.
Instead, we start with one amino acid bonding with another. Then another, and another, and another, until there are enough amino acids to form a protein.
Typically, such a process would only take a few minutes.
@@phylismaddox4880 I don't care of how small the odds are, fact is it happened.
You obviously have no idea about the science of evolution.
Three words too much. An improvement : "You obviously have no idea about science"
You are absolutely correct! And that's my argument I can't find the science in "Evolution". I've looked, I hear the stories, I hear the talk, I'm looking for the science? You got some? Show it!
@@theravendiaries Oh, so you have studied it... agree with parts of it, and an entire version of it... but can't find any science in it?
You need to try to keep your stories straight.
Just 1 question: where is your evidence? You keep saying stuff is phisically or otherways impossible, yet no demonstration or evidence is presented.
Your strongest argument is that you don't think so.
Wait? I said I can see how we can measure 3 consecutive steps, and they double each day. Right? Then if we extrapolate that we come to a conclusion that is physically impossible. SOOOOOO ... I can see how a birds beak can change with the season depending on the food available. But when the food changes back so does the beak. Right? HOWEVER I cannot and scientists cannot show me how a dinosaur can change step by step into a bird. They can't show me scientifically, they can't even begin to demonstrate how a scale can really change it's genetic make up to even begin to make the proto feathers let alone an actual flight feather. SO, they tell us stories, I'm asking for the science behind. NOBODY HAS IT! Not you, anyone else on this board not anyone in the world. If you want to believe their stores fine, I choose not and I've clearly demonstrated why! : )
@@theravendiaries
" I said I can see how we can measure 3 consecutive steps, and they double each day. Right?"
Yes you created a strawman that has nothing to do with evolution where there is NO constant doubling in the rate of change.
" Then if we extrapolate that we come to a conclusion that is physically impossible. SOOOOOO "
So its nonsense you made up that is not related to how evolution works. You DID prove something, that you don't know how it works.
" But when the food changes back so does the beak. Right?"
IF it changes back, if it does not the change continues.
" I cannot and scientists cannot show me how a dinosaur can change step by step into a bird"
You refuse to but scientist can and have done so. Your religion induced limits do not constrain scientists.
"hey can't show me scientifically, "
They cannot show YOU anything because you have closed your mind.
"even begin to make the proto feathers let alone an actual flight feather."
Funny that one of your cherry picked out of context quotes was someone that did that. The out of context quote was from 2004, LOTS more is known now and he did a lot of that work.
"NOBODY HAS IT!"
You even quoted the guy that does.
"e, I choose not and I've clearly demonstrated why! : )
Yes you demonstrated a tightly shuttered mind.
The fact that you conceal that you are a Christian in this video shows your fears. Choosing the “Scientific information” you do reinforces what I’m talking about. I believe everyone has an opinion. You make some really cool raven videos that I appreciate very much. But when you cite Oppenheimer for free thought and inject your religion, I’m pretty sure you missed the boat. No one is ever completely correct , unless you believe in Jesus. I won’t fault you for being yourself, I will when you try to sell it to others as fact. Please keep the raven videos going , tell Jesus hi for me 😈🤘🏻🖤❤️!
That silly video was put together just to explain why, I, as one who was trained in the field don't I go along with the common ancestor to everything evolutionary model. My video was made simply to demonstrate that even in science, incomplete information can lead to faulty conclusions. That is exactly what i'd accuse Darwin and all his followers of doing. They knew so little about the makings and processes of life, and yet they extrapolated these minor findings (birds beaks change according to food sources) out and applied this idea to all life. To date it still is very incomplete. That's science. And, will do and will do!
When you seek the truth, you will find it. People are waking up
I cant tell if theravendaires is that ridiculously ignorant or that intentionally dishonest?
Your post tells us nothing. Ignorant about what? Dishonest about what?
You should take this video down, it just makes you look foolish.
The only place this video has in science is as a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I suspect that this guy isn't actually as dumb as he seems. But maybe I'm just being generous...
@@Bill_Garthright he is being clever and strategic. Or so he thinks.
You claim that there is no way for a cat to become a dog, yet you don't realize that nobody else does either. The cat and dog you see today look so different because they did not come from one another. The cat may in the future evolve to look like the dog, (think of convergent evolution) however their common ancestor looked quite like neither.
Think about it, if a cat and dog shared the same ancestor, then at one time they supposedly had the same genetic material. So you're limiting the so called "drift" and "repurposing" the theory of evolution claims to have in the first place. More importantly, that "ancestor" your speaking of is nothing more than a scientific guess. There is nothing in science to say that those possum looking things 40 million years ago actually became our current dogs and cats. Scientists believe it, doesn't mean it's true! I, for one, don't believe it's true. In fact as I state in the video I think it's scientifically impossible. Further more, no one can demonstrate how it could have happened they just believe it did.
I'm no star student of science but I sometimes feel drowned in a world that has just accepted the theory of evolution as reality.. Being a Cristian doesnt mean "one who rejects science".. why wouldn't we want to delve into the sciences of creation? It's here for us to explore, study, and marvel at the brilliance behind it.
Hi Liz, you don't have to be a star, just appreciative and your in good company. Most all the founding fathers like:
Turner - father of botany, and yet he was arrested for preaching the reformation!
Bacon - really? how about scientific method ...
Galileo - just a little astronomer, physicist, engineer, philosopher, and mathematician.
Pascal - Pascal's law (physics), Pascal's theorem (math), Pascal's calculator (computing) and Pascal's Wager (theology)
Boyle - well respected scientist and considered one of the most important figures in the history of Chemistry yet said the study of science could improve glorification of God!
And there's others like the little Newton's and Kepler's and ....
... of modern science were God following "believers" of one sort or another, and most told us it was the creation itself that inspired them to do the work they did.
As far as the drowning bit, what gets me is Darwin told us his main goal in writing “On the Origin of Species” was to overthrow the dogma of separate creations, later known as creationism. He specifically wanted to rid the world of the God did it idea! So in a way, Darwin was fighting religion, and using scientific ideas, not science itself. Most people, even scientists don't even realize there is not one scientific experiment anywhere in Darwin's original writings, it's all "can you imagine if ..." "if we could perceive that ... and I love the fact that his conversations are one way answers, "if it could be found ... then my theory would absolutely break down ... but I can find no such case ..." But ...
Privately Darwin conceded, "The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick," and "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." Well, duh!
But the fact remains, all of Darwins writings are a form of circular reasoning, and if you compare Darwin's first copy in 1859 to his last edition in 1872, he made changes and concessions because of the flack he received from other scientists and theologians. Of special interest to me was his trying to answer Mivarts argument against the development of bird wings that he wrote about in his book, "The Incompetency of “Natural Selection” to Account for the Incipient Stages of Useful Structures" So Dawrin's "new" idea was that “proto-wings” of insects or birds could have had a some sort of thermoregulation function and then when they reached a certain size, started to have a function designed to allow the act of flying! Yeah right that works! See got a problem? Evolution answers everything!
In short, just like the writings of Marx, and other ideas along that line, Darwin's writings found an audience in people who naturally want to rebel.
Is anything different today?
PS, thanks for saying Hi, in your own special way!
@@theravendiaries Never have I gotten such a long and detailed relpy on youtube before, Thank you!
Today, yesterday.. lately in general I find myself deep in thought preparing for any conversation where I have to make the case for God, and expecting whoever I'm having the conversation with to come at me from every angle of science and philosophy.. as if either of those things are independent from a mind that holds belief in a creator.
It sounds 100% true that the writing of Darwin and Marx are followed by people who, at the core, just want to rebel. I'll keep that in mind. Also, no wonder Darwin shuddered looking at eyes and feathers. Happenstance won't produce that amount of beautiful, working, complexity.
Personally, as much as I love to learn about animals (among other sciences).. I have a hard time retaining specific information for later use, especially if it's just from a textbook or a lecture. ADD is a frustrating thing to have.
So I really like videos like this because it's something I can learn from at my pace.
I appreciate the time you took to write out that reply! Good day
"but I sometimes feel drowned in a world that has just accepted the theory of evolution as reality"
Have you ever wondered why? I mean, really wondered.
@@RaveRaven227 _"why wouldn't we want to delve into the sciences of creation?"_
Because there is none.
_"Being a Cristian doesnt mean "one who rejects science"_
Then you shouldn't reject the fact that biological life evolves and has done so for billions of years.
I reckon its just too much for a human mind, just a few rungs up from animal, to consider a creator who is able to design and produce the entire complexity of the universe with a single thought and to make this impossibly complex system in perfection to be sustained into infinity. I believe every word of it. I cant see Him who created but i see His tracks and we are still only here in the basement without much of a candle. The stage is set and what is happening is happening because men gave up on believing in a benevolent Creator and started teaching trash explanations. "Is Genesis History"? Watch the movie, let Dr Carter blow you away with his explanation of how DNA works. Look at the mountains and think catastrophic forces that reshaped this planet not so long ago actually. It has been proven that rocks and coal can be formed very quickly and there are so many problems with dating methods and then just the sheer complexity of it all tells me that the glass is about to be broken and it will be face to face with reality. I believe it because the raven told me. Brother im glad that you made it possible for me to write a testimony and i pray that everyone will rethink the science and understand that though He winks at our foibles, our foibles will be our undoing.
Numbers don't lie? Not when a liar is making up numbers that are not reality based.
Lying and telling someone something they don't want to hear are two different things. Why is it most people who have seen this video can understand it whether they agree with it or not. Or is the just another COVID shut-in mad at the world anger demonstration? : )
@@theravendiaries
"Lying and telling someone something they don't want to hear are two different things. "
Correct and not relevant to your strawman which is nether. It was dishonest and has nothing with how science is actually done.
". Why is it most people who have seen this video can understand it
I do. You don't understand the scientific method, you proved that with your stawman.
"Or is the just another COVID shut-in mad at the world anger demonstration? : )"
Poisoning the well again. Thanks for making it clear again that you are not interested in fixing your errors, assuming they are mere errors. YOU claim you understand the process IF so you willfully lied.
Now which is it? Accidental and you should remove the blatant strawman or willful? The more you try to defend a strawman the more it looks wilful.
@@ethelredhardrede1838 I'm not lying I'm answering someone else's question in my own personal manner. My three days of measurement (and I've watched kids learn to walk it's not too far fetched) and then the goofy extrapolation out to another so many days is not set up to say my model is true therefore evolution is false. It's simply to warn that even in science when we extrapolate, especially when we don't have the whole picture, caution should be used cause we can take it too far. I go on to explain that I can compare that the Darwin's observations over the small period of time, and fact he didn't have all the information either (certainly didn't understand the complexity of a cell) and then he made extrapolations that make me wonder if it's even physically possible. Even the little science I do use puts that into question. But there's no dishonesty there, my model is 100% correct as far as the numbers are concerned, and the conclusions are my own. By the way, evolution is still based on the, "we can see and prove these little so these big things must be true also." So tell me, is that honest science? To many, (except for the real hardliners and what do they call them priests of evolution?) even in the science world, Macroevolution is still more of a philosophy and the real science needs some work; plato.stanford.edu/entries/macroevolution
And I'm not alone in my questioning. This from Professor James M. Tour, who is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. Known for his work on nanocars, nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University.
In the past he's said … I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.
… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.
... I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.
... Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science - with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public - because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said - I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.
If someone that credentialed admits to not getting it, if someone in those circles asked the same questions I do and gets the same blank response from scientists, why should I worry about anybody else not getting it?
@@theravendiaries
" I'm not lying "
Your video starts out with one.
"My three days of measurement
All fictional.
" then the goofy extrapolation out to another so many days"
Again fictional.
" It's simply to warn that even in science when we extrapolate, "
No, its to set a fake version of how science is done. And its in relation to evolution which neither studied for few days nor is it logarithmic nor would that fake paper get published.
"I go on to explain that I can compare that the Darwin's observations over the small period of time"
A false claim and not relevant anyway as it over 160 years ago.
". But there's no dishonesty there, my model is 100% correct
Its a 100 percent strawman, not related to how science is done so its not honest.
"By the way, evolution is still based on the, "we can see and prove these little so these big things must be true also."
Yet another lie. Science does not do proof and its based on your false claims. Not just little things.
" So tell me, is that honest science? "
No and its your lie, its not science works.
" To many, (except for the real hardliners and what do they call them priests of evolution?)"
You mean lying Creationists.
"Macroevolution is still more of a philosophy"
Yet another Creationist lie.
"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"
So BS not science. Funny how you cherry picked a field that does not do actual science. More dishonesty.
"This from Professor James M. Tour, "
A Creationist who admits to not understanding evolution. And makes up nonsense like 'well what if it was on another planet' in a long about proteins as if that is how people think life started.
" I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. "
Because he does not understand the process at all.
"Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? "
Yes and another scientist offered to explain it to him. Dr Tour refused because it would be recorded. He has no desire to understand it. He is NOT a biochemist. He does not know the subject.
"I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me"
A false claim as he is not a biochemist and does understand that low yields are still more than zero, yes he rants about low yields, valid for comerce, as if its valid for early self or co reproducing chemistry.
I have seen all his nonsense. Its not relevant to how life got started.
", if you say what I just said - I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” "
Funny how none were biochemists or people that are learning how life might have started.
"f someone that credentialed admits to not getting it, if"
Its evidence that he not competent in the subject. He is NOT a biochemist and has not convinced biochemist about any of that. Nor that Adam and Eve which he teaches to children. He believe in the long disproved Flood and teaches that. He is competent in his FIELD, which is not biochem. He is utterly irrational about any science that conflicts with his religion.
Did you have the delusion that I don't know about him. Try THIS, from a biochemist:
Elucidating the Agenda of James Tour: A Defense of Abiogenesis
ua-cam.com/video/SixyZ7DkSjA/v-deo.html
The origin of life! How did we get here? How did the first living organism come about? Can it have happened spontaneously? Isn't life way too complex for that to happen? It seems ridiculous, right? Well, no. Not if you understand biochemistry, which creationists do not. But every once in a while, a hero emerges from academia to champion the cause of the creationist, and lend some illusory credence to their views. In this case, that hero is James Tour, a synthetic organic chemist who insists that abiogenesis is impossible, and he should know better than anyone, because he's a chemist. I was made aware of Dr. Tour after a couple hundred people linked me to a video of his in an empty argument from authority, insisting that because a chemist confirms their religious bias, they must be right. But is Dr. Tour a bit biased himself? Let's find out precisely what his agenda is, shall we?
I note that you are still evading my explanation of the process of evolution.
Ethelred Hardrede
To put it out there, I completely disagree with your opinion on evolution, but I do find it very interesting to see someone else's view on the subject.
I would really like to hear more views like this, where people share their beliefs but also try and look at the material disagreeing with them to gain more understanding.
Perfect, and like I said in the video if you want to share what it is, the science that is that convinces that a molecules to man type of evolution is probable, I'd love to hear it. Thanks!
@@theravendiaries if evolution does not exist, then how could you explain the existence of domestication of plants and animals with traits that did not originally exist in the wild species?
@@addisonchow9798 Well first "evolution" just means change, so in that way we'd both agree evolution is a fact. However as to what you are referring to, to me there is a very simple and logical explanation. For example, when we make cars we make them with an air conditioner that can either heat or cool. So in essence we, the outside source gets to make a selection. ALL LIFE has a broad range of of adaptability. And there are many built in factors that can make a selection. Take certain species of a juniper bush and grow it at sea level, then take the very same seeds and grow them at a very high elevation, and it will seem like you have two completely different plants. The warm environment vs cold, the sandy verses a different soil, and the altitude all make a selection of unique attributes for the plant as it grows. Further more a human can take those same seeds and in time develop a number of different characteristics by selecting what ever it is they want to highlight. So it's easier for me to believe this was all written by someone in the original code than to believe the massive amount of information needed to do this was somehow "hit upon" through some sort of natural "selection" process. In fact I think if I turn the question back on you, perhaps you can tell me how "evolution" was able to have these characteristics available in the first place? People forget you can't select what you do already have, so in essence, and here's the thing your biology teacher forgot to mention, the whole theory fails cause it is impossible to ever truly have the ability to have anything new! At every level in all of life there is something the so called lower version or "ancestor" does not have. So logically the very idea of evolution in the Darwinian style is a totally ridiculous concept that should have never gotten a platform int the first place. BUT, the sad thing is, like the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, it's the only story they have that gets them away from what they really do not want to face. It's the scientists themselves who said they could not let a divine foot in the door. So, they actually chose to believe something that is in all scientific reasoning, impossible. But Addison, this should be no surprise, aren't we seeing that with COVID, don't we see that in our current politics? People chose to believe a lot of things and for what reasons? So I believe the "domestication abilities" were pre-written so that we could use them to better our own lives.
@@theravendiaries ok, then can you explain why there are so many strains of covid 19 that makes vaccines difficult to make?
@@addisonchow9798 We do know that COVID 19 is caused by a virus. And we know a virus by it's very nature goes into your system and borrows or steals your DNA to be able to replicate itself. (If your interested look up “molecular hijacking”) And since your DNA is different from everyone else in the world, I would assume the possibility of numerous strains from different people all over the world is almost expected?
I'll just leave this here.
ua-cam.com/video/qR1p0PFdoUE/v-deo.html
Pretty good. Especially Darwin's retard sexism and racism which is new to me. How did you get the animals footage royalty free (presumably)?
You ask, "How did you get the animals footage royalty free (presumably)? I'm not sure what you are asking here, if you can be more specific I'll try to answer?
@@theravendiaries You filmed everything yourself? Or are you using someone else's copyrighted material? Thanks.
@@nonlinorg5345 Yes I try to film everything myself and in this video all of it is. On the few cases when I don't, I'll generally give credit or in the case of other You Tube stuff I'll take a screen shot showing the title, URL or the original source.
"Have you read Darwin's original book?" Ah why would I? If I wanted a correct understanding of evolution I would read an up to date book on it and not one that is 150 years out of date. Darwin got a lot right, but he got things wrong too. We refined the things he right and we got tossed the things he got wrong, our understanding of evolution has changed greatly since the time of Darwin. You clearly don't understand how science works.
Actually I do understand, and not only how science works but more importantly how people use and mis-use it. Darwin's book is very important because it is the base ideas that form all evolutionary thinking. Problem is these base ideas are not falsifiable, so in essence the whole body of work is metaphysical and completely unprovable. If that's what one chooses to believe great, but don't sit there and tell me it's all scientific and "proven", cause it's not. They are still guessing and hoping they will one day have an answer, even if it's just enough to shut some of us up. : )
@@theravendiaries "Actually I do understand" Clearer you don't. In many places in the comments you claim cr*p like this 'Darwins book is important cause it laid the ground work.' But in science that stuff is irrelevant because science WILL change to better fit the data.
"Darwin's book is very important because it is the base ideas that form all evolutionary thinking." Guess what moron, Darwin is not the finial authority, because that's not how science works. Yes Darwin got a lot of things right, but he got thi9ngs wrong too, he also didn't know about a number of other things. Darwin's book was important only in that it was a first step, we then built upon what he got right and that became more important then what Darwin wrote.
"Problem is these base ideas are not falsifiable" YES THEY ARE! Sticking your head in the sand and screaming 'I see nothing' does not invalided anything.
"so in essence the whole body of work is metaphysical and completely unprovable." Complete false, we have more evidence in support of evolution than we do for gravity.
"If that's what one chooses to believe great" This is how I know you have no scientific training, you can not choose your beliefs, that's not how beliefs work.
"but don't sit there and tell me it's all scientific and "proven", cause it's not." You are not a scientist, you do not work in any of the related fields, so you do not have any authority to claim that one of our strongest scientific fields of research is wrong.
"They are still guessing and hoping they will one day have an answer" They already have an answer and they can prove it beyond a shadow of doubt with testable evidence. Just because creationists refuse to accept reality does not made that evidence disappear.
"even if it's just enough to shut some of us up." You morons will never shut up. There is nothing true in your arguments, just like so many others, and like them is seems you too refuse to accept that you might be wrong. You have closed your mind off.
@@theravendiaries Evolution is a proven fact. It can be verified with comparative anatomy, embryology and development, the fossil record, DNA comparisons, species distribution, and direct observation just to name a few. It's irrefutable, undeniable, and there isn't a university or medical school on the planet that would teach otherwise. www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution
@@darrylelam256 Nice, rant, but I'm betting, in time, your ideas abut evolution will be proved wrong. : )
@@vancecrofoot Yes, "evolution" is a scientific fact but I'd disagree strongly on the "proven fact" bit. In science facts are different from what we in the real world call facts. "Facts" in science can and do change. Evolution is a scientific fact, yes, but if the whole thing were proven false tomorrow, science would go along just fine with whatever that new "fact" was. In the real world we tend to mix fact with the idea of something actually being true. Evolution is a scientific fact, but it may not be true. Make sense?
If you love a science then you should actually learn about it. If you are earnestly interested in biology why not take a class on it or try to understand the arguments. Demonstrating you don't even know the subject doesn't show you love science. Liking bird videos is not science. Biology is not a simplistic extrapolation. There are many paths of study on evolution and they are well documented.
Also science is peer-reviewed, but I guess that is why you are making youtube videos and not writing research papers.
I did learn all I could in school. Took many classes in both biology and more specifically marine biology. I also learned the ins and outs & plusses and minuses of peer review. I would call it two things 1. A boys club, write about what we want to hear and accolades all around. Tell us anything we don't want to hear and beware, worse watch your back. 2, Money ... Nuff said.
I got into the restaurant industry instead of following the science route (no jobs worth anything back then). By doing so, and because my restaurant was of a higher caliber, I rubbed elbows with the elite of the world in most every industry including the scientific circles. Asked lots of questions, got lots of replies. Would you be surprised to learn what the scientists actually think and believe is not exactly what the press leads us to believe? Just asking...
@@theravendiaries wow... you are so full of crap...
lol average science denier
NO, unfortunately most of the science being put forth is science fiction. Watch the following; ua-cam.com/video/NZaZAH2WHAY/v-deo.html
There is not one shred of actual repeatable science involved, it's all story telling. No one can demonstrate how flight evolved, in fact they have absolutely no clue, so all they do is tell stories of how they think it may have evolved. #1 It's not science, #2 I don't believe them. If you choose to, be my guest. : )
@@theravendiaries again, evolution is part of science, no matter how much you distort what evolution actually is it doesn’t change the facts. When you distort science, you are effectively a science denier. The facts that we are evolved creatures and are still evolving is overwhelming and the fact that we live on an ancient earth is overwhelming as well. None of these facts will change just because your beliefs require them to.
If you think you’re so clever there are numerous phds, awards, and infinite credibility if you’re able to DEMONSTRATE how these people are wrong. Not just say “no one can demonstrate how flight evolved, just stories 🤓” as if your whole entire shabang isn’t based on stories upon other stories upon other stories. Noah’s flood never happened & is impossible to have happen. Historian consensus is that Mose never existed. Historian consensus is that Jesus wasn’t just 1 person, but many. I mean c’mon, do you just prey on your audience not knowing any better?
@@dffa60 Distort - distortion good word. I don't, and never have denied real workable and repeatable science. In fact I was both a chef (we use lots of science) and a top paid sommelier and wine educator. The tasting and evaluating of wine is one of the most disciplined scientific methods there is. We use all our senses to follow very precise methods each and every time we taste in order to be able to do all a sommelier is hired to do. We are working with and evaluating wines and wine cellars that are worth sometimes many hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's not a guessing game and we can't afford to be wrong...
Now, I understand you are basing your opinion about me on a simple video made to answer another U tuber's question on why I didn't believe the theory of evolution. In answer to your above statements, in the end (or in the beginning) it comes down to this, we either believe there is an eternal being who created all this for us, or there is some as yet unidentifiable "force" which magically formed something from nothing and continued to improve upon itself until "we" finally arrived.
I don't normally share it on this channel, but my overall view of the world is pretty simple, In Genesis 3:15, the creator God tells us there will be a war between the seed of the snake (Satan) and the seed of the woman (Jesus the Christ). Throughout the rest of the story we learn Satan hates mankind so much he has done, and is doing everything and anything to fool any and all as to the true nature of life, love and the universe. I believe your "Historian consensus" has purposely covered up the true history of the world because they are following his influence. Wanna a fun search to see if I just might be correct? Start with a little search for the very giants historians deny yet for some silly reason many newspapers reported first hand stories on for many decades at the close of the last centuries (1700 to early 1900's). Why do so many of the articles claim the Smithsonian took possession of all these relics? Why haven't we seen them since?
Game? Start here; rumble.com/v21ilkm-everywhere-giants-appear-they-cant-hide-the-facts-anymore.html
And please David, don't think for a moment I don't understand where you are coming from. I do. And I also believe the reason the world has turned it back on the biblical story is because even the "church" itself has forgotten the true story and watered down history to the point of a church goer is nothing more than a deluded, judgmental little do-gooder who wants to tell you how to live your life. WRONG! The true history of the world makes the "Lord of The Rings" story look like a Sunday comic. Darwin failed in his theology studies, and in my opinion then tried to replaced it with a fake theory of the history of this world. I don't believe him, and all your prof's and phd's have chosen to follow this fake and flawed history. All I can say is good luck with that! And from what I'm seeing in the world? I'm thinking Satan is on the move once again, watch and remember, his goal is to do everything to kill and destroy mankind.
@@theravendiaries ok so, as long as the science in question is workable and repeatable you will accept it right? Well, here is a video of bacteria evolving under laboratory conditions to become immune to certain antibiotics. This is indeed workable and repeatable because you can even do this yourself!
- ua-cam.com/video/plVk4NVIUh8/v-deo.html
So also I'd like to take this time to posit a game;
Start here!: If evolution isn't real, please explain the mechanism in which these bacterias were able to successfully become immune to the antibiotics after successive generations (11 days of constantly surveillance bacteria-generations).
I have also heard creationists say microevolution is different than macroevolution & that macroevolution cannot occur but microevolution CAN occur, however let us get this clear that it's part of the same theory of evolution, and that what the creationists posit about two separate theories is just incorrect.
Another thing, it's not *my* historian consensus... it's THE historian consensus. Literally google "was Moses real", the very first thing says "Moses is seen as a legendary figure". Source after source keeps repeating that he is just a mythical character & that his myth is based off older myths! You can even read some of the previous mythologies to see where they get some of the newer myths from! (noahs flood is an embellishment of a local flood in the Mesopotamian region before the bibles time) Also, your objection of "covered up the true history of the world" with a few mentions of Satan in there kinda just isn't convincing... cause y'know maybe we got no evidence of Satan & him controlling the agenda of the world or anything of that sort at all.
I think it's in both our bests interests if we don't continue this conversation because honestly I don't see it going anywhere, but I do have one question. You made mention of the church itself forgetting the true story.. what is the true story? Is there a ver of the bible which you can refer me to read? I've read a great deal of major religious books such as the Quran, Bhagavad Gita, numerous translations of the bible and so forth, I don't find any bit of it compelling but I do read it for my own interests sake. And also where you say "I don't believe him, and all your prof's and phd's have chosen to follow this fake and flawed history", after all the arguments I've heard from anywhere, I don't think I've seen that many refutations in just 1 sentence dismissing so much testable and verifiable evidence at just the wave of a hand. Tbh I suggest you find a better excuse to dismiss that in future times. I have to applaud you for how hard you turn away from modern science to keep up your beliefs, religion can be powerful like that lol.
@@dffa60 In my opinion your first example is a reconfiguration of old science. We knew in my day (70's) that a small percentage of whatever you want to chose (bacteria, a group of animals etc.) already has written in their code the ability to overcome many kinds of change and negative input. Take plants that do best at sea level and plant them at a high altitude and a very small group will survive. But the ones that survive can appear very different from their sea level cousins. Take em back to sea level and they go back to what they were. Fish do the same with eyes, or lack of in dark caves. We saw all kinds of stuff in the hundred years worth of experiments with fruit flies. Minor changes, but in all this stuff, absolutely nothing new was created!
Next, my movie attempts to demonstrate the difference between the micro and the macro claims. The first three steps, yeah we can all agree on it's not to hard to imagine a kid doubling from the 2", to 4" to 8", and maybe we could get a 16" step on day 4 but probably not. So for the observer to come to conclusion that in so many days his kid could step all the way to the moon is absolutely ridiculous. So no. it's not part of the same theory macro evolution is a wildly exaggerated hypothesis that we can clearly demonstrate to be false. We see it with a flight feather, yes we can see "stages" that already exist, but this is how a feather grows, and has absolutely nothing to do with how a step by step method could have "evolved" any of the in between stages starting from scratch even if one is to start with a scale. The "evolution" of eye has the same ridiculous millions of steps missing hypothesis. To me it's all a story and not a well told one. See, they are asking me to take what they say by faith, faith in their word alone. Sound familiar?
To answer your question, had you taken the time to watch the video I sent, you not only would have seen the verse, you would have gotten quiet an eye opening as to just one aspect as to how I think our history has been manipulated so that we the people have absolutely no idea what truth really is.
So, try this, read Genesis 3:15 and tell me who you think those two "seeds" may be referring to. Then read Genesis 6, and tell me who are the "sons of God?" But the video I sent is more fun! : )
I completely agree! Evolution is not science.
At 2:40 You show a miacis as ancestor of feliforms and caniforms and a lot of extinct critters with dozens of species like Borophaginae and beardogs. You need to be aware that at the time miacis existed - it was not alone but it existed already with species variations of it widely forgotten like Miacis australis,M. cognitus, M. deutschi, M. exiguus, M. hargeri etc. So dozens of species of it and they all died out long ago. But we do not find any bears or seals or dogs or cats etc. in the burials of the older sediments as Miacis existed. You made also a wide mistake: Evolution is not "becoming something different". Seals and bears and dogs and cats are still today variations of Miacis and did not lose as they are seals or cats to be miacis variations. Like fruitflies or wasps did not lose to be insects neither or insects did not lose to be Hexapoda variations neither from times you do not find any flies in the burials.
Like all mammals from mice to elephants are still variations of 1 species that was the first MAMMAL species. Mammal is not a group definition in general - but was originally 1 species name - just additional layers of variations were added to the species "mammal" as adaptations, sub-adaptations and sub-subadaptations. Fruit flies of course remain fruitflies as they remain flies and neoptera and insects as fruitfly variations, fly sub-variations and neoptera sub-sub-variations and so on.
And what many people ignore is that no seleciton pressure for breeding was added there.
So unlike faster sighthound dog breeds with faster doglegs to outrun any wolf ancestor - scientists did not *actively* breed hugely different looks or tastes - like butterfly look a like flies that taste more bitter, because the mutations that appeared more butterflyish in look were not selected to have more offspring.
We are not in vegetable or fruit breeding there for commercial success.
Your claims of science fiction at 7:00 is actually false by todays observations. Feathers are for example even today still scales here the actual transformations of scales to feathers: media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs40851-017-0085-4/MediaObjects/40851_2017_85_Fig3_HTML.gif
And each step is known from the basic quill dune form to the simple rachis to the double rachis for at least 3 types of length and stiffness.
And birds still remain dinosaurs today or we could not "de-breed" them:
That is the very same reason why birds have beaks and bird legs now but STILL switched-off dinolegs and saurian teeth: www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(06)00064-9 even in the media explained:
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3487977/Scientist-grow-dinosaur-leg-CHICKEN-bizarre-reverse-evolution-experiment.html
When you "reverse" Evolution by de-breeding tests (Just switching on the ancestral base)
That means like we can read in the bird DNAheritage record (The DNA itself is a breeding record for millions of generations) - we can switch on off-switched parts of the ancestral forms within the variations.
And you also ignore again:
We do not have any beaked birds in sediments before teeth birds had beakbirds as their variations.
You also do not get immediately from a theropod dino in just 1 jump to a finch without the adaptational in-between steps - because "MICRO"evolution is the reason why all of evolution as mechanism is true.
You can only go from adaptation till it has established a breed as species population to from that point as adaptation of the sub-breeds (subvariations) to more sub-subvariations and then when the sub-subvariations have been established to get from them to further adaptations as sub-sub-subvariations and so on at infinite - without an end or a goal.
That is also the reason why humans and chimps are both equal adaptations of 1 ape ancestor while ape ancestry was a breed originally of primates alonside the monkeys we see with their adaptations in the new world.
And you seem to be puzzled about the pinpoints in those charts - this is the reason because no scientist would have the audacity to call any SPECIFIC species finding like in the fossil record an absolute definitive great-great-...grand parent of an individual today.
This has something to do with limits and blurryness of reconstruction.
Like for example you have today living Shetland ponies and just imagine all other horses would have died out, but we would only have donkey skeletons found.
It would be to indicate a donkey - pony relationship as coming from a pinpointed ancestor - but no scientist would come by the finding to the conclusion that donkeys are the direct pony ancestors but contemporaries of the last common ancestor for the ponies as horse ancestry as Equus in that case.
This is something that is not as easy to understand.
First and foremost well done! It is so refreshing to have a well written critique that attacks and attempts to question and correct differences and difficulties. It made my day! Now let’s address what you’ve documented. And please, please nothing I say is an attack on you, it’s a direct attack on what we are told by the scientists and the interpretations of the people in the press.
In your first section I totally get your explanation. I understand there were other Miacis but to “me”, the diversity can in no way account for the the vast difference in a bear, a cat, a dog, and come on, a walrus? a seal lion, mongoose? and a skunk? We’re not only talking vastly different niches, food sources, and environments, we are talking specific personalities in what far less than 42 million years. The difference between a bear and a hyena and a sea lion is so great it stretches even my imagination how just those 3 animals alone could possibly share the same ancestors? Sea lions alone somehow “learned” to dive to depths of 5,000 feet? That’s approximately 500 atmospheres of pressure, and they have ears, how is that possible?
Next, the picture you sent is too small for me to comment on.
When you say each step is “known” yes it’s known, cause it’s there and we actually see it in the development of every bird as it goes. And we interpret a few in the fossil record. But in birds the genes are already pre-programed to take it through each of the steps. It’s the in between steps on the original animals in the wild that baffles me. What is the advantage and how and why would these things continue to change through steps where there is no conceivable advantage? I don’t tell us how and why most of these traits would be passed on?
For simplicity, take a look at this article, I prefer to use articles like this rather than peer review papers, cause anybody can follow them.
people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm
Now skip down to fig 9. Scientists claim this is the beginning of feather evolution. Now the host animal just went from scales to this. So they are implying this animal just went from one with a well protected covering to a massive amount of worthlessness hollow bumps that wouldn't even protect from them from the sun? And this is what a cold blooded scale bearing animal to a now warm blooded one? That right there is a huge jump in adaptive characteristics that to me are not advantages in any way imaginable. Not only that the animal would die. But for fun let’s say it did live, and we’ll call this “follicle collar” covered animal “pimples”.
Now Figure 10 - “the next step” tells us the genes somehow managed to tell the follicle collars to magically split into barb ridges to generate “unbranched barbs”? Wow, what would make the genes tell them to split it in the first place, and then why? What is the advantage? And how many million of years did our bumpy little “pimples” run around before he finally got some relief from the sun with it’s new almost down like covering? Yes the final product has an advantage, but the interim? While they are learning to split? And why would the split ones all somehow be “selected for” if it wasn’t until the end product where there was an advantage?
And then let’s skip down to Fig 16 and I cut and paste for clarity, “Figure 16. Hypothesized final stages in the evolution of feathers like those of modern-day birds. T he development of barbules (without hooklets) generated a bipinnate, open pennaceous feather (Stage 3a + b), and evolution of differentiated proximal and distal barbules led to the first closed, pennaceous vane, with some barbules having hooklets to firmly attach to grooved barbules of the adjacent barb (Stage 4). Differential new barb ridge addition to each side of the follicle then led to the development of a closed pennaceous feather with an asymmetrical vane (Stage 5) 🤣 In case you can’t tell that’s a “rolling on the floor laughing face” because that entire line says nothing. I don’t know if you’ve ever looked at flight feathers under a microscope but the degree of detail is absolutely astounding. The millions of tiny hooks on one side of the barbules line up so well on the “smooth side” that they can interlock so tight as to keep out both water and air. It is so far beyond my comprehension how the genes could possibly select for anything close. Think about it, where did it start? Where and how did these little micro hooks form in the first place? And how did the genes learn to select for them? How could it possibly have learned that only one side could have millions of hooks while the other had to remain smooth? Here again the advantage is only realized in the end product when all the barbules have millions of hooks on one side and absolutely no hooks on the other. This is an engineering feat in itself, even with our tech today but for these people to ask me to accept that nature somehow overcame this daunting problem on the little explanation they gave me above? Sorry that is exactly the kind of example for my step to the moon. It’s, from everything I know of science, physically impossible.
“Reverse Evolution”, to me, looks good on the surface. But here again when you look deep what are we really doing? We’re looking at a dinosaur, we’re looking at a bird, and now we know enough about the gene pool that we can manipulate the genes to make one more like the other. And with molecular cooking the top 3 star restaurants make the big bucks cause they can make a strawberry look and taste like a tomato, and they can also make a tomato look and taste like strawberry. The key is “they are doing the manipulations”, and in the article it specifically says, “‘The experiments are focused on single traits, to test specific hypotheses,’ says Vargas. ‘Not only do we know a great deal about bird development, but also about the dinosaur-bird transition, which is well-documented by the fossil record. ‘This leads naturally to hypotheses on the evolution of development that can be explored in the lab.’
My hands on experience tells me that we can see and do in the lab, and what is done and can be done in the wild are world’s apart.
@@theravendiaries Before I actually answer in detail you do not really get, that we do not "randomly" manipulate genes we just express the deactivated genes - the "introns" to make them exons again for the protein formation like the teeth to kick in again the original just switched off ancestral code routine still existing.
Like you do not really get that feathers are today still the scale bumps as photos linked of it today not "in the past". This is the BMP SHH expression of the genes.
www.researchgate.net/profile/Randall_Widelitz/publication/11026627/figure/fig2/AS:281243066355734@1444064980733/Models-of-feather-branching-and-evolution-of-feather-formsa-Roles-of-noggin-BMP4-Shh.png
As technical repurposement.
This has something to do how bodyforms in general are made of acid chains.
(Amino and nuclein acids)
I usually give a neutral example:
Darkening in color info.
When something like a horn of a goat, a hair of humans or fur of a horse or claws of a dog or feathers of a crow appear black in color.
It depends on the number of Tyrosine within the acid chains in the structure of those organic tissues.
Because tyrosine appear with oxygene very dark brown to a black if you not look really close at it - like beneath a microscope.
Then you see it is really dark brown by the amount of tyrosina and darkening in color info.
Tyrosine is basically magnetically + / - chained with T(hymine) A(denine) T(hymine) short TAT in the genetic code.
But also with T A C as well.
So depending on the number of TAT or TAC in a code anything can appear more dark in color.
From light brown to really black but even a black horse is not really black but incredible dark brown by the amouint of TATs in a chain.
By copyerrors of TATTATTAT for example to 6x TAT you have 6x darkening info for fur, hair or horns or nails or whatever.
When you have here in a dog white and black nails:
You can see where TAT is expressed and not expressed:
www.vetmed.wsu.edu/images/librariesprovider19/pet-care/procedures/paws2.jpg?sfvrsn=2
If you have for example a point mutation for TAT to TAA you get white (actually colorless info) there expressed as white nail/claw. (point albinism) for the reason the TAT chains are silenced by the TAA point which means in genetical code "stop marker".
So is a feather just a scale repurposement. It is just counterintuitive like someone thinks the sun obviously moves over the sky - when it is just an optical illusion caused by the earth surface and we moving beneath the sun to cause this illusion of the moving sun.
You have the bases as regulatory networks for specific expressions as heritage record - the recycling and repurposement order is still readable.
I just recommend you to actually learn about that.
Like for example 3 genes to either shorten and enlongating faces of wolves to flat carlin/pug dog faces or knifefaces like sighthound dogs.
Or we as humans are right now in this very moment breeding variations of apes. That is why humans still grow primate snouts/muzzles in the wombs of our mothers till the 54.-56. day of pregnancy HERE photos & MRI scans:
www.2020mag.com/courses/108698/fig1-2-3.jpg
and
cdn.skim.gs/image/upload/v1456338095/msi/fetal-facial-development_azvreg.jpg and encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZecZNH9ejWot7_LKFuTuqQrBUKAHuz8VbkEkY7kJwmaKVeOeL5Q and embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/thumb/0/09/Stage22_bf4.jpg/375px-Stage22_bf4.jpg
Simply, because the Primate/Mammalian gene switches (ALX GENE regulatory base) needs to be re-regulated from muzzle towards ape and human in each and every human - "degeneration muzzle/snout towards the flat face".
This causes problems with our wisdom teeth/third molars not to have enough space because the basic longer ape muzzle/snout for is degenerated a bit too much to have a too flattened human face. ;-)
The feathers from scales are no problem for the dunes used as benefit like nesting eggs and much more.
The selection weighted it out.
Like we also have reptiles losing the robust scale defense for sand diving selection etc.
@@Angelmou No offense but you didn't address any of the questions I asked you to clarify for me. As you express in your color example, you already have an idea how certain chains are read and expressed. So you've just demonstrated scientists already have a pretty good idea of how they are going to get the results they want. So in the so called "reverse evolution" aren't they just removing specific sections of the chain to "take it back to where it was at an earlier time...?" Here's the thing YOU CAN NOT demonstrate how that piece they are removing got there in the first place. And to say a "mutation" is nothing more than wishful thinking. What you are in fact telling me is that codes, written codes continually rewrite themselves and that in time we will get from scales to a pliable skin that now produces feathers. As you put it, "a feather is just a scale repurposement." That tells me nothing as to how this supposed simple repurposement could have possibly taken place. To me, this is absolutely absurd. These new fangled interactions and additions don't happen with computers, in fact they don't happen anywhere else in all life and yet somehow we are told that we should believe that our coded genetics can not only play and rearrange themselves, they can continually create new stuff over and over and again and some how magically get it right time after time after time. Why don't we find any of the many millions of dead failures there would have to be if this is true, anywhere in the fossil record?
And as to the degeneration of the muzzle? The whole embryo is a complete distortion and mess until completion. What about the distance between and the size of the eyes? What about the terribly distorted shape of the skull? Wait didn't we have, worm or nudibranch look at about 2 to 3 weeks, and then a fish or salamander stage with a tail? This is just a rewrite of Haeckel's BS story of recapitulation. The simple proof is if you stopped the growth of your embryo at 3 weeks you wouldn't have a worm or nudibranch you have a dead mass of unfinished mess. An embryo has to complete the entire process the already programmed genes are tell it to complete. This is life, and yes we can, and do, manipulate it a very small degree but as it said in the article you sent, it's one small thing at a time. And in most cases scientists are well aware of the outcome before they even try. Here again the idea you can get teeth from a chicken through manipulation, and then extrapolating that if you continue you'll one day get a t-rex is ... not even close to true.
You end with, "The feathers from scales are no problem" yet you gave me absolutely nothing that shows me the pathway, or the influence for the changes,, or how the changes could possibly even take place, or the how and why is the "next step" before the final product is usable, even remotely beneficial? I'm not trying to be unreasonable here, it's just that I think your answer sidesteps the questions I've made about the the perceived "benefits" of the evolutionary process itself. As just one of hundreds of examples, I still say going from an arm to a wing, every single step from where the claw is no longer usable ... all the way to where you actually have a full functioning wing to at least be able to glide with, is not only questionable, it's not only detrimental to the animal itself, it's physically impossible. Show me where I'm wrong?
@@theravendiaries I did not have much time yet to adress all the variations of the seals and seallions and more for example.
"No offense but you didn't address any of the questions I asked you to clarify for me."
Some questions are not what the observations are. Scientists do not first imagine or fantasize things and give fantasies names - they observe and test first and give the results names AFTER they are observed.
"As you express in your color example, you already have an idea how certain chains are read and expressed."
The example I gave was when you have TAT and it copy errors at random to 2xTAT or to TAA or to TAC.
TAC would have as point error the same result because it stills chains with tyrosine.
"So you've just demonstrated scientists already have a pretty good idea of how they are going to get the results they want."
No scientists observe things and describe them. They do not actively design or manipulate result outcome without a proper demand of it in the tests.
As I worked in the field of evolution of nematode parasites within Aedes and Culex and other mosquito parasites incl. mutation rates of parasites within parasites you just have testtube and sequence them and independently another lab tests it as well for double blind group tests also with a number of different sets of samples.
" So in the so called "reverse evolution" aren't they just removing specific sections of the chain to "take it back to where it was at an earlier time...?" Here's the thing YOU CAN NOT demonstrate how that piece they are removing got there in the first place"
No there is no Removing. It is a silenced part of the former chained built up.
How can I explain it to you to get you an actual understanding...
You are not aware of that we could read Design / Creaiton in the DNA like "this is a human hand designed to be a human hand" *IF it would be there* .
BUT that is simply not what we ACTUALLY observe and read in the DNA itself.
Hands of humans for example are not "designed" like by blueprint or from scratch or created in any actual sense as goal - All of that would be readable - they are as we read here: science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/338/6113/1476/F3.large.jpg and d2ufo47lrtsv5s.cloudfront.net/content/sci/338/6113/1476/F2.large.jpg Dell/Gli/Xtj + / - regulation deformations & organ recycling. Translated into proper english it means: Lobe finned fish fin MINUS 2 digits PLUS Finger enlargements = "paw" MINUS the webs PLUS Thumb opposable = Hand. - > While the claw to finger nail flattening is there not part of the overview photo.
Containing recycling the former ancestral hierachy incl. unnecessary digits deactivated.
This is why humans are to exact 0% ray finned fish - but to 100% very specific 7 digit lobe finned fish descendants.
Not for example 13 or 20 digit lobe finned fish deformations in that exact recycling-repurposement order.
That is why we as humans are today even still genetically very specific DEFORMATIONS of highly specific 7 digit lobe finned fish, but absolute not ray finned fish sub-sub...variations nor specific 13 digit lobe finned fishes. This makes no sense outside of Evolution.
Because this is a heritage record incl. the exact ancestral repurposement steps.
This is also not something someone made up or thought before testing.
Scientists were open minded about if human hands are for example designed with it as particular goal or scientists were ALSO open that it would be ray finned fish deformations or any digit number.
But the observations revealed a very specific truth that must be accepted if you want to be honest.
" And to say a "mutation" is nothing more than wishful thinking."
Mutations are observable or we could not breed vegetables or dogs with different head shapes.
"What you are in fact telling me is that codes, written codes"
No, there is no "writing" in the acid chains.
We talk about sugar backbone acids magnetically by + and - charge chain with the acids to form hair, scales, bumps, skin etc. as cell formation.
"continually rewrite themselves and that in time we will get from scales to a pliable skin that now produces feathers."
This is what we live observe and even use as tool. Like backscale to wingmuff in 2 independent breedings of pigeon birds and chickenbirds:
www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Shapiro17/publication/323074117/figure/fig5/AS:592197460176897@1518202285602/Model-describing-link-between-Pitx1-and-Tbx5-expression-levels-and-foot-epidermal.png
This scale to feather or even wing muff back is usually not a survival benefit with some exceptions like:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor
" As you put it, "a feather is just a scale repurposement." That tells me nothing as to how this supposed simple repurposement could have possibly taken place."
Again this is the observation of the world we live in incl. photos.
To give you a neutral example:
You can't neither say "Oh I don't believe in interlocking of complexity in our world - I only believe in degeneration and therfor water can only rain down as simplistic water or hail droplets when it is cold.
Completely in denial that 1000s of different formed snowflakes incl. the interlocking of complexity into snowcrystals are the observation and that snow is real in the world we live in.
Explained by crystallization/nucleation theory here: www.snowcrystals.com/morphology/SnowflakeMorphology2med.jpg
Someone can't just say: I personally have the feelings and emotions our world is a fallen degenerative place and I just deny by my personal subjective discomfort the interlocking / gain of complexity by DEFAULT!
Snow in all its gaining complexity is a real thing and is first observed and then named.
Snow is just real and it got a name after it was observed.
So does the SHH + BMP2&4 protein repurposement get that name AFTER it was observed as scale repurposement for the feathers.
Or in the recent example the Pitx with the back wing muff.
"To me, this is absolutely absurd."
I have no problem if people have strong negative emotions - but when they don't actually adress what is real and observable and just go with a biased ideology the conversation usually ends. And I say: This person can believe what he/she likes emotionally - what gives him/her strenght and meaning in their daily life, BUT the person shall never confuse this emotional attachment EVER with a truthful and honest image of reality.
" These new fangled interactions and additions don't happen with computers,"
Yes computer codes are not even nearly as flexible as rubbery acids.
If something in a code breaks - usually the whole program is useless. This is not how genes work. They are more flexible as laypeople think.
" in fact they don't happen anywhere else in all life and yet somehow we are told that we should believe that our coded genetics can not only play and rearrange themselves, they can continually create new stuff"
Actually they only repurpose old stuff, that is the reason why wasps, bees, beetles, locusts and fruitflies are still variations of insects and not something completely new disconnect from the precursor forms.
"Why don't we find any of the many millions of dead failures"
Actually the number of dead is billions - in humans the number of spontaneous abortions alone in the first week is partially double as high as the succesful nesting. Even of successful fertilized egg cells.
The number of dead embryos in a egg nest of a butterfly is not to play down - like the millions of caterpillars washed away at a rain storm not be able to climb back on a feeding tree and starve or get killed by predators (birds/hunting beetles etc.)
" there would have to be if this is true, anywhere in the fossil record?
And as to the degeneration of the muzzle?"
We have for the humans such a trend and for dogs www.skytopia.com/project/evolution/human-skull-evolution-3840.jpg
Where we do not have flat faced humans in older sediments.
" The whole embryo is a complete distortion and mess until completion."
Nope, it follows the pathway of the bilaterial built up:
embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/0/01/Proposed_Hox_protein_classification.jpg
Like the fin to paws to hands recycling route as signal repurposement.
@@theravendiaries Part 2 of 2:
" What about the distance between and the size of the eyes?"
Depending on the brain to skull parameters.
" What about the terribly distorted shape of the skull?"
The skull hardening happens after the wildgrowth of the prefrontal cortex and some more.
www.mpg.de/10851125/a-tiny-change-with-considerable-consequences
" Wait didn't we have, worm or nudibranch look at about 2 to 3 weeks, and then a fish or salamander stage with a tail? This is just a rewrite of Haeckel's BS story of recapitulation."
No recapitulation idea was debunked by the lack of selection of the embryos Haeckel did not understand.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory#/media/File:Haeckel_vs_von_Baer.svg
Today we understand that there is no recapitulation but an evo devo recycling incl. selection already with the signal pathways Haeckel was not aware.
Here is a song parody about it:
ua-cam.com/video/ydqReeTV_vk/v-deo.html
"The simple proof is if you stopped the growth of your embryo at 3 weeks you wouldn't have a worm or nudibranch you have a dead mass of unfinished mess. An embryo has to complete the entire process the already programmed genes are tell it to complete."
This is even a reason why Recapitulation is not a correct image, because the half finish selection is not survivable without reactivating the recycled forms.
" Here again the idea you can get teeth from a chicken through manipulation, and then extrapolating that if you continue you'll one day get a t-rex is "
This would not happen, because T-Rex were sub-variations of a side branche not leading to chickens, not the great-great-grand fathers of chickens.
That is as absurd as claiming to use a donkey to make a horse or a horse to make a zebra. While all are Equus variations you can't swipswap different variations lineages around.
" yet you gave me absolutely nothing that shows me the pathway, or the influence for the changes,"
The changes are there as mutations of the SHH and BPM aka the A C G T chains representing them.
Like the melanine for the skin color depends on the Tyrosine aka the TAT or TAC amount in the acid chains.
" or how the changes could possibly even take place, or the how and why is the "next step" before the final product is usable, even remotely beneficial? (...) I still say going from an arm to a wing, every single step from where the claw is no longer usable "
This was adressed as selection for nesting. Or half wings even have a survival benefit:
ua-cam.com/video/JMuzlEQz3uo/v-deo.html
" I'm not trying to be unreasonable here, it's just that I think your answer sidesteps the questions I've made about the the perceived "benefits" of the evolutionary process itself."
Evolution happens due to the imperfection of reproduction - offspring is not 100% absolute perfect copies of the parents. Evne tiny steps can have a great result like the half wing flaps to outrun/jump climb a predator (observation example).
I notice that you like to reply to comments, but its all superficial nonsense, vague proclamations, and dodges, you never seem to reply to the examples or questions that people present to you which demonstrate your utter ignorance... why can't you answer any of the criticisms or discuss the examples honestly if you're such an expert?
First of all I'm not an "expert." In the beginning of the video i tell you I'm just answering another You Tuber's question. Which I did. However as you see by the onslaught of silly posts people don't like my personal reasons for questioning the grand theory of evolution so in typical ding bat style I get called all kinds of names and people make all kinds of accusations that have absolutely nothing to do with science, or what I cover and discuss in the video. Why would I waste my time on a bunch of rabbit trails that we already know will go absolutely nowhere?
You yourself got off on some old testament stuff having to do with goat milk and old laws that, from what i can tell no longer apply. I asked you for your source, and you said the bible. Fine but where? And who said it? I was hoping you'd give me specifics, you didn't, but may i suggest you read Acts 15, and then please tell me why you think I (a gentile) should follow some of the old testament rules? Thanks!
@@theravendiaries lol, you can't even manage to be honest in this response. See, this is why you shouldn't lie, it just snowballs and you then need to lie to support your earlier lies or have the entire house of cards fall.
Go gaslight somewhere else, this is text, you aren't fooling anyone... we can all read what was already written.
_"Why would I waste my time on a bunch of rabbit trails that we already know will go absolutely nowhere?"_
- *Lol, so you think that when people ask you specific questions that destroy your claims, or point to specific pieces of evidence that destroy your claims that they are just rabbit trails which will go nowhere?*
_"You yourself got off on some old testament stuff having to do with goat milk and old laws"_
- *No I didn't. I replied on the thread that someone else started which contained those as examples. If you recall, the only thing I replied to was your false assertion about old rules being tossed out... a claim you didn't support in any way, if I recal.*
_"Fine but where? And who said it? I was hoping you'd give me specifics, you didn't"_
- *For someone who never supports his claims, you sure do demand that other people support their claims... then you ignore any that are actually supported.*
Here you presented 1 example, an example that wasn't part of the ones from the earlier thread, of 1 rule that was changed between the new and old testament... and one that wasn't as much about a law as an issue about who would be saved. I don't know why you think pointing at 1 thing that was changed means that none of the rules from the old testament apply anymore... I guess you think killing and stealing are ok now? They were rules from the old testament after all.
As someone else pointed out to you earlier (which you ignored then so I'm not sure why I'm bothering again) Matthew 5:17 when Jesus says:
_"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or
the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."_
So tell me again that the new testament discards the old laws...
@@timeshark8727 Seems you missed Acts 15? From the King James Version
1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor
we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
(15 to 27 He tells a story so let's skip to the conclusion)
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
@@theravendiaries I already addressed this... try reading the post you are replying to.
@@timeshark8727 You did? I must have missed it. Was it under another post? Cause the jest of it is the Jews realized they couldn't follow all the law, so for the gentiles the apostles shortened the whole law down to;
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
So I don't know but I would say the boiling in mother's milk bit seems to be gone? : )
You can’t just assert that something’s impossible over and over, and lean on the amount of hobbies you have and your personal incredulity as if that backs you up.
You repeat over and over again that the genetic code is somehow “tightly locked”. My question is: How? By what? How have you discovered that? Why aren’t you publishing your research and claiming your Nobel prize for overturning one of the most well evidenced and understood scientific theories there is?
Any scientist would kill to make a breakthrough of that magnitude. Your name would go down in history, you’d be showered with acclaim and recognition for generations upon generations to come. You’d be up there with Einstein, Newton, Galileo, and the likes. So make with it if you have such damning evidence.
Unless, of course, it’s _somehow_ possible that maybe, just maybe, the hundreds of thousands of people who spend their entire lives carefully and meticulously studying this narrow topic understand it better than you do from reading magazines on your couch while kissing bears and building fences.
Hi Crystal 959, first thanks for questioning, but my list of hobbies was more to show that when I do something I don't just skim the surface, I really get involved. (Have you pulled a lions tail? Pet a tiger? Kissed a Grizzly bear?) : ) Understand this video was made to answer someone else's question as to why, even though I was trained in the sciences in school, don't I believe the "we all share a common ancestor" version of evolution. Personally I think it's a dumb and unprovable idea. If that kind of evolution was real and had happened there would be millions of steps in between every single living thing. And for people to by the idea that it happened because "we" say so, well screw that, they are free to believe that nonsense but I say think it through. For instance they say chimps, bonobos and people all share a common ancestor, what 7 million years ago? (or whatever the current drift theory is now) but think about that. Do you realize the kind and massive amount of genetic material that HAD to be in that so-called ancestor? Scientists say chimps and man share what 95% of their genetic material but think about it, every detail, hair, nails, skin, and every organ, heart, brain, every gland, everything is so completely different that if you take any part of a man or a chimp into a lab they will know which it came from. No question, we are that different. So they've used statistics (better known as liars math) specifically in a way to fool themselves. Well have at it I don't buy it. And by the way, I've lived next door (since 1986) to a Dr. Hydra, who worked at a major lab in SoCal with those little animals for decades, and I saw heard and got to discuss from the source their evolutionary failures. ALL of them. Fact is, it doesn't happen. We can play a little bit in the lab but all those little bits of change either goes back to where it was, or dies. None of it would happen in the wild. It's manipulated. If that wasn't true, we'd be able to show it over and over again.
PS that silly little video was made for a 5th grade mind set and they got it. It simple says incomplete data, especially when it's extrapolated out, can give poor results. Darwin had very incomplete data, his extrapolation was absolutely ridiculous, something came from the sea, evolved to be a land dwelling animal and then went back into the sea and became a whale. Yep, good. Wanna tell me what makes you believe? I'd love to hear the evidence that convinces you! Thank you.
Rejection of abiogenesis and solely random mutation seems to be the only reasonable opinion. The probabilities just never add up to anything reasonable. The evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth and a gradually changing fossil column, however, looks like evidence that demands a verdict. There’ are too many unrelated experiments from unrelated disciplines that corroborate the same explanation.
Um, maybe - concept, not argument here - the problem is more fundamental. There's no objective calibration for the various dating methods - they rely on independent correlation. Problem being that various systems use extrapolations rather than definitive data - insert inadvertent confirmation bias and we get a lot of corrections that compound the problem.
In one famous example, an observed lava flow from an 1812 eruption gave three wildly different dates when radiometrically dated. Maybe sampling isn't the problem - calibration is. First prove the method can actually date something of known date. But no methodologies start there.
Basically, I suspect strongly that we need a good hard look at the yardsticks first.
Phylis Maddox It is just too unreasonable that the two unrelated yardsticks of “red shift” and cosmic background radiation are wrong in the exact same way, predicting the same length of time. The coincidence is the calibration. Add to this so many different, unrelated radioactive dating methods relying on different atoms and isotopes also being “wrong” in the same way. I am left with no alternative conclusion about the age of the earth.
How bout one at a time. The gradual fossil column is easily demonstrated every time we have a tsunami, or major flood scenario. What gets buried first? All those found living in the water, then the smallest land animals who can't move well, and on it goes, so amphibians are buried before reptiles, which are buried before larger mammals, which are buried before birds. In fact the birds and larger animals begin moving, elephants ripping themselves out of their chains, birds flying away, way before the tsunami even hits! The "higher" animals are already heading for the high ground, explain that! But that's the real science we can record today. Lyell knew nothing about that in the 1800's (The Principles of Geology.)
And why do we find things that are are way out of order. I still have my original 1992 Smithsonian magazine were there are bear tracks, actual bear tracks in permian deposits. There are 3 toed bird tracks also witnessed and commented on by both the writer of the article, and the finder of the track site. No scientist, not one, not one in the entire world went to explore it and report on it. Gee guess why ... ?
In other areas there are horse tracks in carboniferous deposits in the Grand Canyon. The Havasupai Indians told them white boys they were horse tracks, but them white boys knew better cause their theory said there weren't any horses back then so those horse tracks can't be horse tracks. So believe who and what you want, my research says these people are specifically choosing to ignore what's right in front of them.
Is it any different today? Let's look at the science of; ... masking ... climate change ... covid-19 ...
What do you want to believe? Who do you choose for your source? No matter what or who, maybe more importantly, why? 🙂
theravendiaries Asking oneself “why” one wants to believe something might only manipulate and re-arrange one’s own confirmation biases.
I want to believe the best explanation for the evidence, exercising self-control to overcome confirmation biases.
Ignoring evidence, backing into conclusions, and leaning on broad conspiracy theories are ways to build on foundations of sand.
The evidence required to tell the truth is not usually all immediately in front of us at the same time, though.
Sometimes there is a lot of evidence to consider, so getting to a truthful explanation is very hard work.
And unfortunately, there are a lot of manipulative individuals, online and offline, who troll though the abundance of data to find isolated evidence.
Upon a simple analysis, the isolated fact seems to support the conclusion they like the best.
In my judgement, the layering of sediments and fossils should not be taken as evidence of a gradual, ancient earth, nor should it be taken as evidence of a more recent, apocalyptic event.
That approach is too ambiguous, and only escalates confirmation bias.
Instead, I think fossils should be interpreted in light of conclusions from sturdier evidence in geology, astronomy, and physics.
The fossil does not identify the age of the sediment.
The sediment identifies the age of the fossil.
New explanations can then be assembled by “beginning at the beginning” of the common explanation, referencing red shift, background radiation, and a variety of isotope ratios.
@@DinosaurKale Funny, in the video I clearly demonstrate why I questioned the stories and extrapolations about science and I used an actual example that even a child can understand. I simply asked if you disagree great, but please show me the science that convinced you.
But I question your science background, because you claim fossils don't identify the age, well then please tell me what is an index fossil? I also doubt very much you yourself have done any work whatsoever on either red shift, or background radiation. So, in essence you are just taking someone else's word about science.
So, I'll ask again, what is the science that convinces you a molecules to man evolution is possible?
Everything was designed, beautifully and intricately, by God.
How would you know?
Good on you for using common sense and logic! And for doing this presentation. Much respect.
He blathered a bunch of nonsensical gibberish which has nothing to do with what evolution actually is. He used no common sense here.
The (incredibly effective) scientific method is deliberately designed to exclude "common sense" as it is just a short hand for "I believe something that I cannot demonstrate".
@@spitfire184 I think of "common sense" as being "I am so arrogant as to think my way of understanding is intuitive and the only way so everyone should think like me".
@@wishusknight3009 Well I don't disagree with you there. What you described is why it always infuriated me when he told me something is "common sense". It's really a conversation-ender.
So, let's say I give you this whole argument. Let's say I accept this bs crap about "macro" evolution being impossible, because "dogs don't change into cats," as if that's a good argument 🙄.
So, how do you explain the diversity of life then? Where did all of these organisms come from? Why did they go extinct? Did birds exist at the same time as dinosaurs? Were rabbits around during the pre-cambrian Era? Did sabertooth hunt white tailed deer?
Why are there no human fossils in the layers we typically call the triassic, jurassic, Cambrian, etc. eras, that typically are thought to be pre human? You're such a good scientist, surely you have some kind of hypothesis that can be tested, and verified, right?
The simple fact is, that evolution explains the diversification of life quite well, and throughout this whole video, I did not hear a single explanation, nor even bare justification for your various assertions. I suggest you research more, because you claim to be such a lover of science, yet seem to be unwilling to actually do more than skim the surface, and cherry pick data you think supports your opinion.
This video was made to simply answer the question as to why I, even though I was schooled in the sciences, don't believe the evolutionary "molecules to man, we all share the same ancestor" version of evolution. My video lays out the simple to follow idea that if we have limited data, over a short period of time, our conclusions will most likely be faulty. That is exactly how I saw Darwin's whole argument in his book {Origins) first written in 1859. He knew nothing of cell life, structure or the many incredible cascading complexities and interactions at the cell level. In fact there is still so much we don't know. Look at this current virus mess, my bet is we are going to end up doing more harm than good because we are experimenting in an area we know very little about. What people don't understand is that Darwin did not do one experiment in his book, and to this day no one has been able to do one experiment that has lasted the test of time that demonstrates what he laid out. The scientific community never "proved" his theory, they just chose to accept and promote it's teachings. In essence, Darwin's base idea is unprovable, yet it is believed in most academic circles. That doesn't make it true.
I disagree with your "I did not hear one single explanation" nor even a justification..." For example, the "line" of the mammal I show (starting at the 2:40 mark) from 40 million years ago that somehow morphed into all cats, dogs, hyphens, sea lions and more is just a story, And you should asking THEM how they came to these conclusions with absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever ever. It's a story of what they think may have happened they have no clue how or if it did happen. I then go into the fact that scientists spent many decades trying to get anything they could out of fruit fly lines (starting at 3:34 ). They got nowhere. I also know this first hand cause my next door neighbor spent decades trying to do the same with hydras at a major university in So Cal. They got nothing. The animal is locked and they can't budge it. I also explain why I don't believe the dinosaur to bird story, Look at the record, we've got many so-called transitions in the fossil record and yet when you lay them all out, not one can be demonstrated to becoming or moving towards something else. And you certainly can't lay them in any order of this one developed this character which was then passed and added in the next. It's just a hodge podge of different animals found at different layers. I also made the observation that I researched the original writings. Most my classmates did not. Did you?
This was absolutely wonderful presentation, thank you!
ahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha
"This was absolutely wonderful presentation, thank you!"
- And wrong, of course.
That some wonderful BS and willful ignorance. And that was the best stuff.
Thank you! I love your channel, bless you!
😂
Incredible! I like it. Makes cense to me. I'm a beleaver.
And I am a racaooon
"I'm a beleaver." - like agent orange? Then it is called defoliant. Or can't you spell?
You have to believe already to swallow the nonsense in the video.
Meh. More superficial lip flapping.
Allah
Bearing false witness for god. SAD! Learn the thing you're trying to debunk!
This guy is highly intelligent! I was just having a similar discussion with one of my Sons. His history class was teaching him evolution, with out mentioning any other forms of creation or any other options. I'm going to show him your video.
Now subscribed! Thank you for expanding the mind💯
You're welcome but I might differ on the intelligence bit. I kind of view myself as slightly handicapped in that way. For example I have never been able to master a forging language, and I have friends who speak 6 to 13! Hence in science classes I had a difficult time with latin. However, my strength seems to the ability to see something and then make or copy most anything. I came from family with little extra income so we had to learn how to make everything from scratch. My friends all had brand new Schwinn Sting Rays back in the mid 60's. We had to piece-fit numerous old bikes to make do. My skate boards were really just old metal skates attached to plywood. I tend to be a doer, rather than a talker. So in biology, try as I may could not, and still can not figure out how to make an arm into a wing. All the steps from a claw, to an unusable appendage, to a fully functional wing are not only not advantages, they are detrimental to the animal. I challenged my fellow students and of course got the same tongue lashing I get here in the comment section. I'm wrong, but they can't show me how I'm wrong. And of course none of them can show me how an arm can become a wing either.
And it shows you the difference in teaching also. In my day in "history" we learned all the different flood stories from around the world. It was only in science where we got the evolution stuff. The science department managed to bully and strong arm the history department. My advise to your son is, please thank, think and challenge and consider carefully everything you hear. Thanks for the encouragement!
There is no other option that can be proven to be true, evolution has been proven to be right, deal with it.
"His history class was teaching him evolution"
I doubt the veracity of your statement.
If the history teacher is teaching evolution then your son's school has more problems than you think... evolution should be taught in science, specifically biology, class. History should teach about human history. Its actually the only class that should talk about religions and the stories they contain.
As far as their being other options aside from evolution... none have been demonstrated. In science we teach the best explanation, no one cares about unsubstantiated religious claims and magic.
_"His history class was teaching him evolution"_ You're wrong. History class has nothing to do with biology class.
People always also overlook darwins racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory, derogatory and self-centered beliefs about not only the intelligence of animals, but the intelligence of women, claiming that women are inferior to men in all forms, which is incredibly ludicrous and about as unscientific as it gets
Yeah funny I'm reading about Abe Lincoln in "Team of Rivals" (Doris Goodwin) and all the written correspondence in the 1800's in America between the guys is how intelligent and creative the "girls" are. And I laugh to some of the English writers of the same time period who record their women as such idiots and belong in their "place". Those fools really missed out!
Nobody overlooks that. It's not relevant, unless someone is proposing that we should worship Darwin, like a religion.
It isn't being overlooked. It simply isn't relevant.
As others have said, that is completely irrelevant. However, I am curious to see your citations.
Plus, Darwin was better than most religious people of the time. And better than most fundamentalists today.
Thank you. Amen
For what? Deliberately misrepresenting science in the service of his religious delusions?
Jesus is what separates us...🙄
But that's not what He came to do. If you read about the twelve who tried to follow Him, He went out of His way to get them to all "just get along" with each other and the world (remember the love your enemies bit?) He simply said "love one another as I have loved you." Think about it, true love, the real "I put you first over my own wants and needs" type of stuff shouldn't separate us, in fact shouldn't it unite us?
I reckon its just too much for a human mind, just a few rungs up from animal, to consider a creator who is able to design and produce the entire complexity of the universe with a single thought and to make this impossibly complex system in perfection to be sustained into infinity. I believe every word of it. I cant see Him who created but i see His tracks and we are still only here in the basement without much of a candle. The stage is set and what is happening is happening because men gave up on believing in a benevolent Creator and started teaching trash explanations. "Is Genesis History"? Watch the movie, let Dr Carter blow you away with his explanation of how DNA works. Look at the mountains and think catastrophic forces that reshaped this planet not so long ago actually. It has been proven that rocks and coal can be formed very quickly and there are so many problems with dating methods and then just the sheer complexity of it all tells me that the glass is about to be broken and it will be face to face with reality. I believe it because the raven told me. Brother im glad that you made it possible for me to write a testimony and i pray that everyone will rethink the science and understand that though He winks at our foibles, our foibles will be our undoing.