What is Evolution?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Support Stated Clearly on Patreon: / statedclearly
Evolution is often considered a complex and controversial topic but it's actually a very simple concept to understand. Watch this short animation to see how evolution works. Share it with your friends on Facebook who might be confused or may have been mislead about the evolutionary process.
You can learn more about genetics and evolution by visiting our website at www.statedclear...
This video is our first animation with illustrations from the talented Rosemary Mosco. If you don't already know her work, make sure to check out her website at BirdAndMoon.com You'll love her biology comics, posters and t-shirts.
This video features custom music by AD at Proof Avenue. Check his other work at ProofAvenue.com
Sources:
The definition of Evolution:
"Genetic change in a population of organisms; in general, evolution leads to progressive change from simple to complex." - Biology, Seventh Edition, Raven, Johnson, Losos, Singer (college textbook) pg G-6 glossary
"Descent with modification...change in the genetic composition of a population from generation to generation." - Biology Eighth Edition, Campbell, Reece (college textbook) pg G-14 glossary
"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life." University of California Berkley evolution.berke...
Dogs evolved from wolves: news.bbc.co.uk/...
Thanks to Hedvig Francke for providing Closed Captions in Swedish.
Here's the link to the natural selection video: ua-cam.com/video/0SCjhI86grU/v-deo.htmlsi=2004Lu4YGpVirjj2
hello, fellow biology students...
Got my evolution test in 2 hours :/
@@tyrel5013 Hopefully you did well on it! lol
I'm here from RE
@@tyrel5013 Did it go ok?
@@frankiestein7092 got a 39%😎😤
*NEVER, in all the history of science has ANY explanation based on empirical evidence EVER been replaced by a supernatural one. One has to question the rationality and credibility of those who maintain otherwise.*
Because science is controlled by the government. The government is corrupt and so is science. 100 years ago, people would have known the truth.
Great video!! Really helped me with my biology study, thank you :))
No problem, ma'am
Beautiful woman
I did not know that we all evolved from billions of years of cell reproduction.
Do not stop learning!!!
I can comment here, but since Animation Fun has muted and blocked me, can he see me here? I'm just trying to figure out how this comment system works. Sorry for the off-topic post.
Um... Go evolution! ^.^
I read your 'about' tab, and i just have one question...
Have you *ever once* felt satisfied that; through objective use of pertinent logic & reason, that you have even made any recognisable dent in the delusions of the deeply anchored creationist, like Animation Fun?
I mean ive seen almost every Atheist Experience episode, watched days on end worth of free thinkers convention debates as well as hours of, thunderfoot, King crocoduck, Dawson.
And in all this time ive never felt satisfied i have ever seen a creationist budged one recognisable inch... I mean i already thought i was confident that i knew ignorance well, but Animation Fun really sets new standards of ignorance for me, Is it really like this mostly everywhere? or have i just had a bad run?
Postghost
Fist off, thank you for confirming that I'm not shouting into a void. I've been really concerned about it, and any message at all is greatly appreciated. *deep, satisfied sigh of relief*
To answer your question, no. As some creationists DO allow themselves to be human beings, every once in a while I've become somewhat friendly with, and even maintained civil discourse with them... but they remain deluded.
I choose to believe in hope, and that - should they ever change their minds - they do not tell anyone about it.
I mean, if you don't have a problem with what someone's said... do you reply to their comment and tell them "good job?"
Under the criteria "I've shut them up," I HAVE "convinced" several individuals.
Unfortunately, under this new comment system, "a lack of reply to my comment" is NOT an indication of "my opponent no longer has anything to say and might agree with me." It might be an indication of "my opponent has muted me or blocked me or marked my comment of spam."
Because... under the new system, if you are blocked or muted or your comment is marked as spam, you are NOT TOLD about it, and when you log in ALL your comments APPEAR fully visible and unmarked. When you log in, it just looks like everyone's ignoring you.
arthurjeremypearson Yes, the google+'s new powers of public appointed censorship have completely obliterated all chance of facilitating totally reasonable argumentation.
It really is utterly stupid because it dismisses discussion from the realm of objective input altogether and now just gives people an avenue to virtually emulate putting their fingers in their ears and singing LaLaLaa.. .
It has caused now even UA-cam, to be a become an inadequate platform for intellectually honest conversation on any true level.
It too has now gone way of a lot failed platforms for online discussions, it will be a dark day for me the moment i fully realise that the internet is no longer that precious sanctuary that all religions come to die; instead their advocates can now incubate eachothers nativity, free of any and all contention.
Idiocracy is truly here.
***** First of all My account existed LONG before the current fruit-loopy terms and agreements were so eloquently farted out by the morons at Google recently, so, no.
I've made multiple references to the fact its their right to censor so idk where you're getting that im unaware of it, i just think its stupid; if you read the comments and knew even %10 of the story you're chiming into- you would be aware that he is flagging people for hate speech only because they don't believe in the same fairy tale book, and he thinks he's being _harassed_ because we have discussed this person's conduct in another post,amongst each other. Please explain to me what's so wrong about that...
Why are you ironically wining that we're wining anyway? anybody ask you specifically? (im not asking you now- im just saying)
But regardless its kinda situational, if you had followed the saga that surrounds this person then you might understand the frustration people feel because *block* and *mute* don't seem to do either of those things properly; go ahead- ask anyone who is part of this, its half the reason why its still going we've all blocked and muted each-other already.
When the same shit you just destroyed gets plastered in your notifications 5 times a day, and you cant refer to what you've already said, because the post no longer exists, after repeat times of saying "I'll explain it to you again",because the person in question brings you back to square one every time by choosing to remove what they don't like yet still badger you with the same crap all over... the exchange starts to get a little annoying wouldn't you think, especially when the person keeps sending spiteful nasty thing like telling people to delete their account, and they are worth nothing, Just because they don't believe the same fairy tales, where's the Google contingent to protect me from constant badgering by their acidic, moronic, long-flogged-out comments?
***** Out of interest i did go to see the policies and all i found was-
"We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, sexual orientation/gender identity, or their status as a returned soldier)."
Which directly means they are aloud to call me whatever they like for being a heathen and tell me that im going to hell because i was born evil and im supposed to just sit there and ho-hum, because they're granted special pleading because its profitable to Google to have more partners and users within the 'in' groups so their popularity can be thus guaranteed...
Nah!, id rather do what i do, and be the same person until i get my account banned thank you, ill leave the Google dick sucking to those who'd advocate it.
And i think ill leave the self-righteous posing to those who revere it as virtuous, thanks
If you sort comments by "newest first" on this video, you WILL lose brain cells. This is a warning.
Thanks for the warning ☠️
R u sure??? Cause I don't feel anything
i lost some
💀💀💀
I found a comment I made, 6 years ago when I was an evolution denying, young Earth creationist and now as an atheist that thread was the cringest thing I have ever read.
Hi! Who else got forced to watch this... but then actually enjoyed the video?💀😂
Shut uo
12345 IN ACTION yep forced to because of science class
science class damn
didnt like it just got forced to watch it >:(
i hate online school stfu
that means whoever we end up dating, we'll be related to them. oh sweet home alabama
Is that yoongi in your prfile pic
@@akankshagupta4138 no, it's jaemin from nct
@@lvezone nana 💔
@@junhoes7547 yeahh
Hey cousin
Evolution: nature's way of repeatedly saying "it's not a bug, it's a feature" and hoping it sticks.
Evolution is an ongoing and continuous series of natural experiments where what works gets perpetuated and those that don't, perish.
LMAOOO
facts
Evolution: Darwin's way of repeatedly saying "it's not a bug, it's a feature" and hoping it sticks.And it has always been a lie.
Who else is here because of "Biology Class"
Hereeeeeee, sighhh
me
Nope science
Yup
We dont see evolution in our biology class...
I’m not even watching this for biology class. I just love learning about biology and evolution.
You are a fool.
Me to 🙃
Same
Forget "evolution", because there is not evolution!! Just devolution. Proof: you are getting older!!
I'll tell you what evolution is, it's a myth that can't be backed. Evolution has NO evidence whatsoever to back it up, so. Let's see the transitional forms, can you name them and show them? There should be transitional forms everywhere. So far no one has come up with anything. So I'll ask again, WHERE - ARE - THE - TRANSITIONAL FORMS?
How to start an argument on UA-cam:
1. Write a comment.
2. Wait...
Ur wrong, dumbass!
(j/k, couldn't resist!)
Allan Floyd I know right.
Alex Davies You 2 are the dumbest fucks on youtube!!
Andrew Gambrel Only because your Mom isn't on UA-cam yet.
Andrew Gambrel Her milkshake brings all the boys to the yard...?
Even Religion evolves.. Oooooh The Irony...
Almost everything evolves lol
amen😂
If a religion changed, why would one believe it? They wouldn't. Simple.
@TenleyandChevy Your right! Because people change. An example, look at Christianity. There are many branches of Christianity, like Catholicism, Protestants, Reforms, Calvinism, Lutheranism, and so forth..
People change and so does their mind. But even tho certain people changed Christianity. It doesn't mean God has change too or the Bible. People may try to add or take away to the Bible, but the Bible is God's Word and His Word stands firm.
@myrinsk
Enough to become a different species is the question?
bruh this vid is about evolution why everybody having a war over religion lmao
because unlike evolution, religion has logic "minus infinite"
@@thatkidwholovesfighting7638 ?
Because evolution goes agaisnt their beliefs
because young earthers think evolution is fake blah blah blah
look, I'm Christian (Catholic) and still believe in evolution. There is a possibility that evolution still occurred. Not necessarily in the bible but It's possible 🤷♂️
Who has to watch this for science class on google classroom while at home?😁 Pretty good vid tbh..
@Jamie B np :D
😇😇
Yup
Me
Relateble
When two badgers get together and you know... "fall in love".
Kitsune lol
this person is definitely around 7 because they are saying what the video clearly said because sex is soooooooooooooo hilarious and apparently everyone needs to know about it.
Snorkel
And you’re clearly 9 because you don’t find sex funny.
SEX IS SO FUNNY AND EPIC
@@quackhead1895 ummm
Why are young earth creationists on this channel? Can't they just go to Answers -bullshit- In Genesis or Kent Hovind -fails- debate?
The folks at Answers in Genesis and Kent Hovind need to make livings. They've found a way! A few tens of thousand of sheep get shorn (just a tiny bit) in the process.
You're thinking of it as predator-prey relationship. I agree but a case could be made that it's a symbiotic relationship. The shepherds need the money and the sheep need to be misinformed. Is harm done? Oh, absolutely! The sheep end up being vaccinated against scientific literacy. But if that's what the sheep want ...
or we can go to doctor (mediocre) Richard Dawkins that refuses to Answer anybody that has different views like Dennis Noble.
Does anyone know how to install minecraft mods?
How is that relevant here?? XD
if you're not gonna tell me how to install minecraft mods please don't watse my time.
if you're not gonna tell me how to install minecraft mods please don't watse my time.
if you're not gonna tell me how to install minecraft mods please don't watse my time.
if you're not gonna tell me how to install minecraft mods please don't watse my time.
*WHAT ARE CREATIONISTS?* Creationists are, by their own admission, people who hold to any one of the thousands of creation myths that arose in primitive societies. Their one common thread is a belief that one or more supernatural entity used magic to create humans and everything else. The fact that there is no evidence to support such belief does not register with them. Their religion dictates what they are to believe and those that fail to do so are threatened with eternal punishment, because the deity loves you. On the other hand, those who willingly parrot the dogma of their particular belief system are promised an afterlife of 24/7 eternal bliss. (perpetual use of hallucinogens, perhaps?)
The one seemingly unifying concept of such supernatural belief systems is that the vast diversity of life on this planet could not possibly have come about by any NATURAL process, such as evolution. It is immaterial to creationists which supernatural entity (or entities) performed the miracle of creation, they are united in their opposition to evolution. To aide them in their denial, many adopt a "Statement of Faith" such as this from Answers in Genesis:
*_"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."_*
This makes creationism the antithesis of science. Science is a search for truth and truth is established by evidence, not by what anyone says. By what means can rational discussion be conducted when evidence is rejected? Virtually none. Such an attitude sets creationism at odds with science, which is a search for truth based on evidence. How logical is it for someone to claim they accept the findings of science in some regards, but not others? Trying to reason with such people is like administering medicine to the dead.
'Cognitive Dissonance' is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who is confronted by information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas or values. Beliefs instilled in children are particularly resistant to change, since they tend to become part of that person's identity. Thus any information contradicting those beliefs will be seen as an attack on one's self, causing extreme mental stress and discomfort.
There are but two means by which to resolve Cognitive Dissonance, to either change the belief or to deny and attack the information that contradicts that belief. "Belief is not an idea the mind possesses, belief is an idea that possesses the mind." (Robert Oxton Bolton) . Belief is so inextricably enmeshed in emotion that rational thought becomes impossible. “Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.” - Albert Einstein
Breaking free of such indoctrination creates its own set of problems. Not only is there inner conflict, but any attempt to do so will certainly meet with resistance from family or circles of acquaintances who have been similarly indoctrinated.
Why is there 18k comments about religious comments and like 2 religious ones
Look at the most recent comments
Johnson Jackson Agreed. UA-cam comments are just toxic and unreliable. I've been learning that I should be more in a position of just listening to every view, as long as they are being presented with kindness and a genuine open desire for truth, rather than getting tempted and baited into anger and argument and forcing myself into a narrow-minded spot just because I want to win. Truth > pride. Truth is love.
@@sponge6171 Oh wow. That actually helped me a lot. Thank you
@@armytbchaine6515 Anytime :)
@@sponge6171 powerful words! most people just want to fight and defend their hard line views from both side of the tracks
If evolution is real, then how come there's no transitional species between Pikachu and Raichu?
CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!
Damn. You got us. Time to pack it up.
If creationism is real, then how come we have transitions AT ALL? Why is the highest form of life in the Precambrian just a trilobite? Why no rabbits, monkeys, horses, foxes, mice, cats, dogs, squirrels in the entire Cambrian period? Why?
Becuase they had not EVOLVED yet.
CHECKMATE CREATARD.
Clue phone cretard: There is no transition between Pikachu and Raichu becuase, like your religion, they are fictitious. There ARE however transitions between terrestrial mammals and whales.
Adam Knapp There may be, pokemon is not real life, I hope you know its diffrent
The reason those fossils aren't found in the Cambrian is because the thunderstone hadn't been discovered yet.
im religious and believe in god but damn these people in the comments are taking it way too.... far? there is evidence that evolution exists, and some of these creationists are acting like flat earthers ngl.
icie, I think most of them are only trolls PRETENDING to be creationists or flat Earthers. They've probably never even read the Bible.
@@picturepainter honestly i wouldnt be surprised
You have every right to believe that a god exists, nobody can stop you from doing that, and I have no problem with that. However, when people choose belief over logic and claiming it to be fact, then I'll have a problem with you.
@@PD-ws4td that's exactly what im talking about. the facts are there and its honestly disappointing to see all these people give other logical religious people a bad rep. i've even started questioning religion instead of just blindingly following tradition because of facts like these.
Well not surprising... most Christians accept evolution
I did not believe in God
I hated his ways.
But God changed me!
I was addicted to alcohol, obscene, to pornography. This world today is full of adultery. Children hate parents, the younger generation no longer follows God.
But do you know that God still loves us?
Two years ago, I was so depressed. After the New Year's party, I got tired of this world. Then God came to me.
God showed me that he was real.
When we're all not even thinking about him, he's still waiting.
I cried so much that I cry even now. This generation is really rejecting God. And there is a judgment coming. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all.
Do you know that hell is real? God made us in his image but we use our functions to hate things, steal, lie, gossip! That's why we don't know God. But he is so near that if you seek him, you will find him just as he promised!
The love of God cannot measure with ours. He gave us all. He sent his son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for my sin. And Jesus rose again! So you who are reading can be saved and become children of God! Jesus is the only way to be saved. Repent and believe him. God is giving us today to repent and return to him. He sent his son so we can live. We can be forgiven and begin everything clean through Jesus. We can even become a new creation and live with Jesus forever.
Ask God to forgive you and reveal yourself. I know he will because I know he is real and he is with me. Heaven rejoices when a sinner returns to him. After giving my life completely to Jesus, all my addictions disappeared and I am living a new life. Now this world is nothing to me. Money, success, popularity ... are just lies that the devil uses to make our mind lose consciousness and turn against God. God can take care of that if you seek his kingdom. That's not important. This is not religion. It's all about Jesus. It is if you know God and love him. That's very true. Jesus will come soon and everything that rebels against him will be judged. He still loves you. He wants you to come back. We have to change our lives! Thank you for reading.
Seems like a victim of the 12-step-program-sect.
Were you drunk after the new year party?
I know evolution is wrong! not because of logic or data or even reason! it's because I want to believe in god very strongly and I can't allow anyone to disrupt that!
arch angel
Accepting evolution, and believing in God are *not* mutually exclusive.
Evidence: the majority of Christians.
Eru Ilúvatar
I never said that, what I am saying is NOT believing in evolution and religion ARE (for the most part) mutually exclusive.
Well, no believing in evolution doesn't do anything, because evolution does happen and there is proof and stuff around that happens and would still happen believe it or not, one thing that might help you, is that God probably made evolution to happen so his creation would survive, also if you embrace the knownledge that is given to you, you might apply that knownledge in real life.
Eru Ilúvatar Cool name =D
Pablo Colunga
you guys seem to continue misunderstand me. YES, you can understand evolution and believe in god. what I am saying thought is that if you are against evolution, it is pretty much PURELY because of your religion. you may try to dress it up saying "the science isn't there" or what not, but that is just a window dressing.
Creationists, show me fossils of bunnies in the Precambrian layer and I'll s-hut up.
I came just to look at the comments. Not disappointed
*Grabs popcorn*
The comments, even on videos like these, are vastly entertaining aye. The internet never fails me
@Cantrell K, LOL.
@Cantrell K lmao I'm gay but nah...ion want him.
@@cameronscott9248 I recommend the videos that debunk flat-earthers. The newest comments over there are great.
its amazing how few people understand such a simple and obvious process even at this very basic
level ... An excellent series of videos 👍
@@combinedeffects4799 Damn bro, are you like 12 years old, ranting and raving at science like a lunatic?
"best your hoax theory can accomplish are explaining minor variations of the same kind. The rest is atheist imagination in overdrive ."
Yet you believe in the bible and intelligent design, things that have zero supporting evidence, over the most substantiated theory in the history of science. Evolution is science not atheism. You either understand it, or you're an ignorant buffoon. Pretty obvious what the case is here.
"you can’t make micro into macro"
This is a 5 year old level of argument, long refuted by actual experts in the subject and based on a straw man. There is no such thing as a "kind" in biology. Spew less lies, please.
"believing that the impossible will become the inevitable"
Then prove it is impossible. Oh wait, idiotic creationists like you don't do the whole proof thing. You just state whatever fantasy is comforting to you and use it as a basic to deny any science and knowledge that conflicts. You are a pathetic peasant that just repeats what professional liars say. Try looking at both sides instead of regurgitating old debunked propaganda.
"you are supporting a hoax theory that is allowed to survive because anyone who opposes it in academia and tries to be honest is threatened and persecuted"
Show me on the doll where evolution hurt you. You are ranting like a 3rd grader who just learned basic addition and subtraction arguing against calculus. You need knowledge and understanding before discussing science. That's just the simple fact, and you don't have anything other than fantasy as an explanation, while evolution has millions of research papers, fossils and experiments that support it. ID has zilch, but thanks for playing, "Who wants to be moron."
Literally every argument you made was ad hominem. I've never seen a more pretentious, pathetic rant in my life. Oh look, you're a far right Trumper, no shock, a science denier and faux outrager who wants to be the victim in every situation yet can't even refute a SINGLE piece of evidence supporting evolution. Typical Christian conservative LIAR.
It's horseshit.
@@MrGreen-fi5sg Like you?? because evolution is a real thing how do you think a caterpillar turns into a butterfly? Evolution
@@TheDarkPanther0 Actually the metamorphosis of a caterpillar is NOT an example of evolution. it's a totally different process .
@@MrGreen-fi5sg Horseshit ?, so you deny evolution happens? do you also deny the earth is spherical or that germs exist? because it really is the same level of ignorance.
So remember kids, on thanks giving, you're really eating grandpa!!! LOLLLLLLLL
Mammals are distantly related to reptiles, but the lineage goes back much further than one or two generations. On Thanks Giving you are eating a descendant of ancient reptiles.
Not grandpa. Distant cousin Eddy.
Your ancestors are dead. The turkey is your cousin.
LOL
dynamitecrip Now, we are all sons of bitches
Alot of angry Christians in the comments it’s honestly funny looking at them quoting from their bronze age book saying it immediately debunks all of the evidence for evolution 😂😂
Ikr 🤣
If their bronze age book creation myth did happened , then we whould have :
Dirt being able to turn into men
Bone magicly turn into woman
Talking snake
@@b4li7
No, no, no, no, no. After the apple incident, God tracked down every snake in the garden and excised, from every chromosome in every snake, the genes that once gave snakes vocal cords and human level intelligence. He later did the same thing, planet-wide, with donkeys.
Bro but u can't prove evolution
@b4li7 what abt evolution fish say me grow legs boom fish go monkey 🐒 go into man🤣 😂 😆 I love making fun of idiots
Almost 40% scientists believe in a higher power, yet the percentage of scientists who accept is above evolution 97% (the general public is 61%) so it's not a matter evidence conflicting with faith or believe. The evidence of evolution describes a physical process in nature that requires reproduction, heritable variation, and natural selection. We can observe these processes taking place in the lab. It's both a theory and an observable fact.
Were are you getting your figures from? I question 40% of scientists believe in a higher power.
There is absolutely no reason at all to believe in a higher power like a god.
Howard San www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
it's actually 51% who believe in a God/higher power according to this survey, and secondly, please don't be one of those.
This is from November 5, 2009. this pole is bogus. For a start its American and America is apparently a deeply religious country. These fugues are outdated, based in America and probably wrong in the first instance anyway. Your statement is flawed in a major way, how about posting some accurate and relevant figures that reflect what you implied.
funnybot152
"please don't be one of those." Im the person that questions other peoples figures and judging from your sources I was right to lol. Whats the point if your figures are outdated and irrelevant. Is America the science epicenter of the world lol, No and not even close.
There is no debate between Creationism and Evolution.
Just like there is no debate between the flat earth society and people who accept the earth is round.
You are right. Creation is correct, while evolutionism is false. There is no debate.
Joe, stop screaming you're magically right.
Joe Richmond Just like the earth is flat and Santa exist... ;)
...and the earth is hollow and the sun revolves around the earth and stars fall from the sky.
which creation? torrah, new testament, hindu, islam etc theres no evidence for any of those but there is evidence for evolution and evolution doesnt disprove a god it shows that a god is unnecessary for the diversity of life
Evolution is not random. The mutations that lead to variation may be random, but evolution is not.
Thanks that’s a question on the assignment
Sorry to burst ur bubble but evolution is impossible its js a theory with no proof
He should cover that in the natural selection video
I thought I was studying biology but by reading comments in the section below I feel as if I was one of the viewers of war between religious and scientific people.. Well for me God is my soul and science is my teacher
Era Smith good
Thank u Jack postma
Vimal Sehgal for fuck sake look around you idiot
the world doesnt care about your feelings
if you die your conscious bo longer exist just like before you were born
this is the real world wake up
you say that your god love you even tho you have never met him before
fuck for all we know god might be a something more than someone
Vimal Sehgal How are the book sales going? I won’t be buying it. To say that the theory of evolution “is atheistic and anti soul, not science at all, based on blind faith irrationality and dogma only” is one of the silliest and most inaccurate things I have ever read. Your baseless claims show your lack of knowledge.
@@halogen5580 WHo knows? what if you are wrong? Anyways, we'all eventually find what will happen to us. God bless you brother.
But explain to me when we get Charizard?
According to the bible there once were so called "Leviathans", they were not quite like Charizard, since they lived in the Sea, so more like Gyarados. But the were able to spew fire, so I guess that could have been dragon rage attack or something. So if we ever find a Leviathan fossil I'm sure they could revive a biblical Gyarados Jurassic-Park-style :D Too bad so far no fossils of fire-breathing sea-dragons have been found :(
haiggoh Maybe just none of the fish ever made it to level 20?
CrowSephus
well they can only splash so what else would you expect? I guess exp share wasn't invented yet
haiggoh just gotta make it to level 15 then they get tackle and the whole process becomes much easier.
CrowSephus
haha, you out-nerded me ;)
I have a dream: one day, I'll open a youtube video about evolution, and i will find just people with a degree in biology and same nerds posting underneath it. Really, just leave us alone! It is time you go bother astrophysicist about dark energy for Christ's sake!
Agreed
How has this got 1500 dislikes when he's only stating facts???
Guess some people don't like facts, can't change them though
Facts discomfort willfully ignorant people.
The dislikes could really be one person with 1500 sock accounts.
ua-cam.com/video/H2sWzApuuvc/v-deo.html
@@fendergilbraltar5158 seen that before, biggest load of lies, mistruths and misunderstandings out there. Try again Cletus
It's time for some creationist bingo! First we take a look at Eagle Jones a few posts further down this page. What typical traits can we find in this interesting example?
- American? Check!
- God did it? Check!
- Evolution is a lie, no sources included? Check!
- Secret conspiration? Check!
- American christians is oppressed? Check!
5 points in two badly formulated sentences. That's something to be proud of Eagle boy!
Religion is horrible here in America. It's hard to convert people to Atheism without people saying how it's false without evidence, and they may try to turn it on you saying stupid things like, "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" And, "That's stupid!"
@@themac7915 This is so unhealthy for both sides ):
@@themac7915 america sucks
who here is watching this for home learning during lockdown? im pleased im looking at evolution at home instead of school cos i have my old friend google around XD
Baha, same
*HERE IS WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS US - About Morality.* Please cite the passages that promote morality. Don't forget the quiz at the end.
1. You can own slaves. You can buy and sell slaves. You can even sell your own daughter (Exodus 21:7-10). If she fails to please her master, you must refund him the purchase price.
2. You can beat the living shit out of your slaves without being punished, as long as they do not die within two days (Exodus 20:20-21). Under what standards of morality is it ever okay to beat another human being like that and not suffer any consequences? It is reassuring the bible endorses property rights, but a source of morality it is not.
3. The bible not only condones slavery but sets prices for them (Leviticus 27:3-7). The bible obviously was concerned about human traffickers getting a fair price for their goods.
4. Surely Jesus had compassion towards slaves. He tells slaves to be obedient and subservient. That is why slave owners in the Americas pushed Christianity onto their slaves and punished those caught practicing their ancient religions.. Very reassuring. According to Jesus, it was okay to beat slaves, those who unwittingly made mistakes were to be given few lashes, those who knowingly violated rules were to be given many lashes. Ownership rights, you know.
5. Thou shalt not kill. Now THERE is a good one. However, it seems there are exceptions:
No sooner had Moses returned from his first trip up the mountains to find a party to which he had not been invited, in a fit of rage he orders his Levite goon squad to kill "every man his brother, and every man his friend and every man his neighbor." Exodus 32:28 "The Levites did as Moses commanded and that day about 3000 of the people died." 'Tough Love' maybe?
6. But there are others. The bible requires the faithful to put to death by stoning;
Adulterers (Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Leviticus 20:10);
Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13),
Non virgins (Deuteronomy 22:20-21),
any of your neighbors foolish enough to mow their lawn on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15,Exodus 35:1-3,Numbers 15:32-36).
7. Oh, and speaking of rape, surely that ranks high on the ‘Thou shalt nots’ of the ten commandments. *NO???* It is not even mentioned???
An oversight perhaps? But then it was so important to forbid mixing fabrics or cooking a kid in its mother's milk (so important that it needed to be repeated three times) and such. Take a look at these REALLY important commandments (there are different versions within the bible). Thou shalt not:
Worship other gods
Work on the Sabbath (death penalty crime)
Take the name of the lord in vain (OMG, ANOTHER capital crime)
Make graven images
Covet thy neighbor’s wife or house or ass
And, oh yes, ‘thou shalt not kill’ and ‘thou shalt not steal’ are in there somewhere near the bottom. *But rape? Not one word!!!*
How about elsewhere in the bible? Surely somewhere the bible must condemn rape, no?
Oh, yes, here; Deuteronomy 22:28-29 28 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her *and they are discovered,* 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives"
*YESSS! There it is. Rape is a PROPERTY crime*. The rapist has damaged the father’s PROPERTY and it is he that must be compensated. What justice for the victim of the rape? She has to marry her rapist. Surely she lived happily ever after, no? And what if they were not discovered and the girl kept quiet out of fear? The bible is quite clear about the fate of girls who are not virgins on their wedding day. Here, as elsewhere in the bible, women are chattel and have no say in their future.
It is interesting to note that, while the bible mandates death by stoning for adulterers and non virgin brides, raping an 'unbethrothed' virgin incurred only a monetary penalty. This is biblical justice? In any case, it begs the question; what is the penalty for raping a 'betrothed' virgin? Is compensation to be paid to her intended husband?
8. The bible endorses mass murder and sex slavery. Numbers 31:14-18 "14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. *17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."*
Numbers 31:35 - "And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him." *THIRTY TWO THOUSAND VIRGINS* being divided up to be used by “god’s chosen people” at the same time their mothers and brothers by the tens of thousands were being slaughtered like animals. Many of those women would have been pregnant, their unborn fetus dying inside them. And what would have been the crime of young boys of whatever age? 2? 4? 10? There was no distinction about age. This is GENOCIDE, condemned by civilized nations of the world.
If you fail to feel a deep sense of moral outrage at this, how do you condemn ISIS for doing far less? Genocide in whatever form is an ugly stain on humanity. To claim it to be a moral act is the ultimate evil. Why then, should you regard the bible as a moral guide? Is ISIS any less evil?
So what response do we hear from zealots? Shock? Horror? No! Their predicable response is indifference and a callous “They had it coming to them.” We have heard those words echoed by unrepentant Nazis and the barbaric ISIS. And how does that equate to morality? Are not empathy and compassion the cornerstones of morality? Where then is there any morality here?
Perhaps it was just an oversight that the bible nowhere condemns slavery, or rape or molesting children, but yet it was so important to forbid mixing fabrics or cooking a kid in its mother's milk (so important that it needed to be repeated three times). What does that say about biblical priorities?
If the bible is the source of your 'morality', call a mental health hotline, NOW..
God sends Abraham to murder his own son, clearly an immoral act. Abraham is perfectly willing to do so. And for this, the bible praises Abraham. To a rational person, morality is doing what's right, no matter what one is told. Biblical morality is doing what you are told no matter what.
Although an angel was sent to 'stay Abraham's hand', no such courtesy was given Jephthah's daughter made into a burnt offering to the lord (Judges 11:29-40). That should be enough to turn anyone's stomach. And what of Jephthah? Was this murderer of an innocent child punished in any way? *Was he condemned? NO. He is PRAISED. THE BIBLE TACITLY APPROVES OF HUMAN SACRIFICE.*
To suggest that morality stems from religion is not only wrong, it is frightening. You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong, you lack empathy, not religion. And the bible has a special message for women: "STFU". We see at every turn they are denied the rights afforded to men; they were regarded as property, either of their father or their husband. It can be a source of pride for women that apparently not a single one of them participated in the writing of the bible. The rights that women have today were not granted them by the bible, they had to fight for them. The bible endorses misogyny.
Some of the rules in the bible are downright strange. Take Leviticus 15:19- 24 for instance that forbids contact with a woman while she is "unclean" (during her period). I mean how is a guy to know? Surely it is impolite to ask. Donald Trump has a way of finding out, but I doubt the average guy could get away with it.
Atheists have greater claim to morality than those who espouse religion. They are moral because it is the intelligent way to behave towards our fellow man, not out of expectation of reward or fear of punishment. If you are "moral" because of those constraints, you are a very dangerous person.
Slavery still exists, but it has been made illegal in virtually every part of the world, NOT because of guidance from the bible, but because it was the right thing to do. Morality stems from empathy and concern for our fellow man. Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things; but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion. Dictators take control of a populace by instilling fear of punishment, how is religion any different than that?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire
Mark Twain once said _"It ain't the parts of the bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I DO understand."_
Now the question: Do YOU understand why the bible is said to be the source of morality? Because I sure don't..
*The American Association for the Advancement of Science statement on evolution:*
*"Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education. The AAAS Board of Directors is deeply concerned, therefore, about legislation and policies recently introduced in a number of states and localities that would undermine the teaching of evolution and deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens in an increasingly technological, global community. Although their language and strategy differ, all of these proposals, if passed, would weaken science education. The AAAS Board of Directors strongly opposes these attacks on the integrity of science and science education. They threaten not just the teaching of evolution, but students’ understanding of the biological, physical, and geological sciences."*
Creationists, who are often scientifically illiterate, often make the claim that evolution is not really science. The AAAS, in essence, is saying they lie..
The American Association for the Advancement of Science statement on evolution is worthless. Most of the members are rabid atheists and their anti-religious motives affect their world view.
Trying to reason with an evolutionist is not like talking to a brick wall. It's like talking to a brick wall with graffiti on it and then expecting to get an intelligent reply back.
You are using the apriori presumption of evolution as proof for evolution, which is a philosophical error.
A priori 1: Involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to a necessary effect; not supported by fact: "an a priori judgment"
A priori 2: Based on hypothesis or theory rather than experiment.
Darwin did not document one single fact in his Origin of Speciess or his Descent of Man of a genuine evolutionary transition taking place. That actually sums up the entirety of Darwin's Origin of Species and his Descent of Man as well as most arguments of evolutionists. Evolutionists have hijacked science in the name of atheism because of their initial rejection of Revelation. Darwin's Origin and his Descent are mere philosophic diatribes against God's role in the creation of the universe and against His providential rule and ordering of events both in the physical realm of non living systems and in the macro-molecular biological realm of living species; it is not on a par with genuine scientific treatises such as Newton's Principia Mathematica , Boyle's empirical gas law that describes the relationship between pressure and volume of a confined gas, Faraday's laws of electrolysis, Pasteur "renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation, and pasteurization, the last of which was named after him. His research in chemistry led to remarkable breakthroughs in the understanding of the causes and preventions of diseases, which laid down the foundations of hygiene, public health and much of modern medicine" (Wikipedia), Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and
Erik Acharius (1757-1819), Swedish botanist[1] who studied lichens
Gary Ackers (1939-2011), American biophysicist who worked on thermodynamics of macromolecules.
Gilbert Smithson Adair (1896-1979), British protein chemist who identified cooperative binding of oxygen binding haemoglobin.
Arthur Adams (1820-1878), English physician and naturalist[2] who classified crustaceans and molluscs
Michel Adanson (1727-1806), French naturalist[3] who studied the plants and animals of Senegal
Julius Adler (born 1930), American biochemist and geneticist known for work on chemotaxis.
Monique Adolphe (1932-2022), French cell biologist, pioneer of cell culture
Edgar Douglas Adrian (1st Baron Adrian) (1889-1977), British electrophysiologist, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1932) for research on neurons.
When you compare Darwin's ramblings in his Origin to the works of these other, genuine scientists it's almost ludicrous that he has been lifted to the status of a philosopher-sage by his slack jawed, gullible band of followers.
Your belief in evolution is motivated more by a prejudice against the sovereignty of God, and a rebellion against His Lordship in your life, as it is written in Psalm Two,
1"Why do the nations conspire[a]
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth rise up
and the rulers band together
against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break their chains
and throw off their shackles.”
Jesus is Lord over Darwin.
Scroll down for the Festival of Ignorance. Enjoy!
A
A b c d e f g h I j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
I must say; I really do appreciate your time and effort into this very informative video! thanks :)
The theory of evolution is a dogma without any scientific evidence. It was introduced not for scientific reasons but for ideological reasons. There are no fossils that prove evolution. Millions of fossils prove no evolution. Living things did not appear by evolution but by the Cambrian explosion. And traces have been found that prove that people from the times when Darwinists claimed that people were half animals were fully human. There was no such thing as evolution. And countless studies in laboratories have failed to turn up any examples of beneficial mutations. Almighty Allah created living things not by evolution but by the Cambrian explosion. The functions of all organs, which Darwinists call obsolete organs in living things, have been revealed. In other words, there is no such thing as an expired organ in humans or other living things.
Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testable and falsifiable hypotheses and theories all of which must be backed by evidence. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion that is initially PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). There are degrees of certainty in science and as further evidence accumulates in support of that conclusion, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports a conclusion and none refutes it, it may be regarded as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which, in science, is the HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE. That is true for Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, Heliocentric Theory, Theories of Relativity, et al. They are all explanations for observed phenomena and they are all backed by massive evidence.
Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate personal bias and follow evidence wherever it leads. THAT is the path to truth, and that is science.
when?
So you all believe that the big bang, if I can get this straight, A MASSIVE EXPLOSION came out of nowhere when nothing wasn't anything. That's supernatural, supernatural as in can't be explained by normal science as we know it.
@@bobbertonsmivelton7019 we are allowed not to know things lol
@@bobbertonsmivelton7019 If you ever learn how to check facts for yourself you would realize that someone fed you a line of shit. NO, you did not "get it straight", you bought creationist bullshit. There was no _"MASSIVE EXPLOSION."_ If you ever bother to learn about a subject, and you should before demonstrating your ignorance, you would find that the term "Big Bang" was initially used derisively by astronomer Fred Hoyle who believed in a "steady state" universe.
The hypothesis of an expanding universe was proposed in 1927 by the Belgian astronomer Georges Lemaître, who was also a Catholic priest. He proposed an expanding universe as a model that would explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae and that the red shifts themselves were not constant, but varied, suggesting there was a definite relationship between amount of red-shift and their distance from observers.
In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided observational evidence for Lemaître's hypothesis. Hubble's
observations showed that galaxies are receding in every direction at velocities (calculated from
their observed red-shifts) directly proportional to their distance from the Earth and each other.
The physics of the "Big Bang" Theory originating from a singularity suggested that the initial
condition of the universe would have been an extremely dense white hot plasma (an opaque fog)
the gravity of which would have been so,great as to prevent the escape of any radiation until it
cooled sufficiently to allow protons and electrons to bind forming the simplest elements (primarily
Hydrogen, with small amounts of Helium and Lithium). IF that assumption was correct, it was
hypothesized that some 'echo' of the Big Bang should be detectable in the form of residual
radiation.
The search for such evidence began in earnest about 1940 and by 1964 a group at Princeton proposed a series of elaborate experiments to aid that search when the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was discovered quite by accident by radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. It earned them the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics.
From 2003 to 2010, NASA's WMAP spacecraft took very detailed pictures of the universe by means of the cosmic microwave background radiation. The images can be interpreted to indicate that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (within one percent error) and that the Lambda-CDM model and the inflationary theory are correct. No other cosmological theory can yet explain such a wide range of observed parameters, from the ratio of the elemental abundances in the early universe to the structure of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the observed higher abundance of active galactic nuclei in the early universe and the observed masses of clusters of galaxies.
The "Big Bang" Theory was not some wild ass guess that scientists adopted to verify their "world view." Quite the opposite. Its acceptance by the scientific community only came about after much debate, in the 1970s when the evidence became beyond overwhelmingly persuasive that that there was an expansion of space from a pre-existing state. (Not from 'nothing' as creationists assert.)
It is not so much that "steady state' was proven wrong, but that the evidence supporting "Big Bang" became overwhelming. As Albert Einstein said "The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms." The Big Bang theory certainly did that, providing explanation for the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), large scale structure and Hubble's law.
So, in the future it would benefit you to really "get things straight" and not be so eager to buy creationist bullshit.
SCIENCE ISN'T ABOUT BELIEFS, IT'S ABOUT TESTABLE AND FALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESES AND SCIENTIFIC THEORIES; all of which must be backed by evidence. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion that is initially PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). There are degrees of certainty in science and as further evidence accumulates in support of that conclusion, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports a conclusion and none refutes it, it may be regarded as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which, in science, is the HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE. That is true for Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, Heliocentric Theory, Theories of Relativity, et al. They are all explanations for observed phenomena and they are all backed by massive evidence.
Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate personal bias and follow evidence wherever it leads. THAT is the path to truth, and that is science..
Dear Randall Wilks, I urge you to stop commenting because I am getting tired of liking your comments. Please stop.
Lol.
Hey, I got 3 letters. Now try more.
Okay, looks like The block has been removed. Hot damn.
God exist because there is no proof he doesn't
Therefore, santa claus exists as well
*_HECC_*
What the hell are you talking about. Santa claus used to be real person in germany
Now wait just a dog gone minute there Kenny Arais are you telling me that santa is not real 😢😢😢 now i have to rethink this whole christianity thing...
Take a step outside the box. Count how many fingers are on your hand, Count how many eyes you have, Take anatomy classes or look it up. Look around you. Look a trees look at rocks.
The idea of a god/creator sounds more rational and logical than Santa Claus since everything we see today is created somehow. And who knows Santa Claus might be real too. He probably was a man dedicated to Christmas but the stories about him flying with his reindeer is probably a myth or made up .
Very well and clearly explained, the speaker has a good steady calm voice, well enunciated ☺
Science and Divinity cannot be separated
Its the opposite, world-leaders always used science to influence world-folk and since ever highest leading staff also arrogate to change divinity, all for selfish benefit
So is Darwin a Project of world-leading Freemasons
Reality is not based on theories. We are here to find out what is already given, not to add speculations - this is science. Any subjective attempts are based on bad intentions. Human has created nothing, so cannot know and must only learn.
Sent Prophets revealed "reality" and last holy book Koran explains lifes before humans, evolution and all creation. Koran expains embroyonal development of baby, long before doctors had no tools to find out this; and many more truth.
If you are prejudiced, you will not seek, but act inbetween your and others limitedness. Those who ain´t seek divine way, won´t face matter of salvation, as not agreed truth that came from of a direction their ego haven´t awaited at life
yeah he made for narration
thats crazy but did i ask?
@@GabeAdventures nope I dont remember asking either
@@MONKIMAJOR i dont remember asking u to ask me if i asked u
The following statements are what scientists say.
The creationist answer: "Nuh-uh", "Nuh-uh", "Nuh-uh", ad infinitum
Is nobody gonna talk about the weird visual glitches throughout the video?
I was literally going through the comments to see if anyone else had them too.
I've lost faith in humanity after reading these comments
me too. i want to die
*Does every scientific organization in the world endorse evolution as a fact? YES.*
*Do all science organizations in the world regard evolution as a branch of science? YES.*
*DO Biology departments of every secular university in the world back evolution? YES.*
*Does the Biology department of Baptist Baylor University teach evolution? YES it does.*
*DO the Geology departments of every secular university in the world endorse evolution? YES.*
*Does the Geology department of Baptist Baylor University endorse evolution? YES it does.*
*Does the Episcopalian church endorse evolution? YES it does.*
*Does the Catholic Church endorse evolution? YES it does.*
*Does the United Methodist Church? YES it does.*
*Does the Presbyterian Church? YES it does.*
Do creationists accept the evidence for evolution? NO, because their belief system requires them to reject any evidence that does not support their biblical interpretation. They grew up with that belief. It was not reasoned into them, and most likely cannot be reasoned out of them. One cannot reason with those who reject its use. That would be like giving medicine to a dead man..
atheist 💛💛💛💛💛💛
Creationist: Haha, that is funny.
Leo so u worship MAX WORLD
Imagine if people denied mathematics or language. That’s the same as science deniers like creationists
where is evidence for evilution?
nothing but fake lucy fossils made with pigs teeth!!!
the evilutionists commit tax fraud and tax evasion by funding their religion with government taxes. this is double felony. we should round up these heathen evilutionists and send them all to jail. start with mayling and randalwilts, fbi on their way
@@fortunenese1668 - Triggered much?
@@hammalammadingdong6244 by stating truth? self project ur butthurt elsewhere evotard
fortune nese - ad hominem attacks and ignorance are not evidence, amigo.
Hamma Lammadingdong Im pretty sure he’s just trolling and acting like a creationist. The funny thing is though I don’t really know, because some creationists I know act just like that seriously.
Creationist tactic #1: Lie
Creationist tactic #2: Lie some more.
Creationist tactic #3: Keep lying, no need for evidence; someone is bound to believe the lies.
Creationist tactic #4: When challenged to present any evidence for fabricated statements, respond with “prove it is a lie”.
Creationist tactic #5: Why stop lying now? You can always claim you are winning.
Creationist tactic #6: Claim you are morally superior.
Randall Wilks Atheists tactics #1 attack the believers
@Eden Zurlent, Except evolution is not just considered as a "belief", it's also considered as a proven fact. For which creationists deny.
You forgot quoting the bible
@@tagnochciao7102 Oh, yeah. You're right. They do that quite often, don't they? What they don't get is that TRUTH is determined by EVIDENCE; not by what anyone says and not by words in an old book. The rules of evidence are this: IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY...
*YOU LOSE!*
@@bensonchen3915 *_SCIENCE ISN'T ABOUT BELIEFS, IT'S ABOUT TESTABLE AND FALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESES AND SCIENTIFIC THEORIES;_* all of which must be backed by evidence. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion that is initially PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). There are degrees of certainty in science and as further evidence accumulates in support of a hypothesis, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports a hypothesis and none refutes it, it may be regarded as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which, in science, is the HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE. That is true for Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, Heliocentric Theory, Theories of Relativity, et al. They are all explanations for observed phenomena and they are all backed by massive evidence.
Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate personal bias and follow evidence wherever it leads. THAT is the path to truth, and that is science.
Even i believe in evolution but i also believe in god because recently i have witnessed a paranormal shit
How does the paranormal and god connect ? Spirituality can exist without any gods.
Lol
Eagle93Writer how does it connect?? well we had to call a priest to settle everything
***** Please, dont say exorcism... thats psychological abuse nothign more of COURSE that changes a person for life. But NOT positivly. Not on the inside.
Paranormal shit, that kille me! 😂😂😂
I don't accept science. I don't accept what scientists say. I accept the Word of God as laid out in Genesis 1 and 2. qed.
Facts don't care about yours fellings...
Cool now go watch a video about theology because you’re statement of you not caring about science is not needed here.
@@Autistic_R4tard
Thanks for your critique of my sarcastic assertion. 😁
Damn bro that was outstanding acting you actually had me fooled there
@@Autistic_R4tard s
🙂Life is DULL absent occasional sarcasm. Your miss wasn't a shocker. A number of creationists are loopy enough that even over-the-top sarcasm isn't always obvious.
Creationists don't like evolution and wish it would go away. They have been attempting to refute Darwin's ideas for 160 years and their lack of success makes them very frustrated. Since they have no facts by which to refute evolution, they turn to personal attacks on the man. One suggestion; since they have so far been unsuccessful in eliminating evolution, they might consider prayer. While I have personal doubts as to its efficacy, there are those who claim it works. If creationists were to put all their efforts into mass prayer and were successful, I might be convinced.
I'm a creationist,btw. The reason Creationists failed to refute Evolution is because a lot of pastors actually accepted some parts of Evolution.They didn't fight back the way they should have.
Do you believe we are the products of random chance?
@@ahryan8557 Uh yeah lol
but how can nothing become something
@@arsjproductions5743 Something from nothing is what the bible claims. What do you think "Out of the void" means? It asserts that life was 'created' where none had existed before. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation for the BIOLOGICAL PROCESS which gave rise to the vast diversity of life on this planet; what Charles Darwin termed "descent with modification".
Creationists assert life originated by supernatural intervention, for which there is ZERO evidence. Most scientists think it most likely came about by natural molecular combinations from inorganic precursor components. That is called _Abiogenesis,_ for which there is SOME evidence, but is inconclusive. In science, that is called a _Hypothesis,_ a possible explanation for observed phenomena. There is insufficient evidence for it to be regarded as a Scientific Theory. If further evidence were to demonstrate abiogenesis to be impossible, that hypothesis will be discarded. However, as additional evidence accumulates in support of a hypothesis, so does the confidence that it is correct. When all evidence supports a hypothesis and none refutes it, it can become a Scientific Theory, which in science is the highest level of certainty possible.
Why is it that UA-cam seems to be the only place where people are suddenly experts on evolution and can disprove a topic that has been researched for 200+ years?
And even then they're going on about abiogenesis, of which evolution doesn't try to explain :|
Abiogenesis, cosmology, astrophysics, quantum physics, they've all been mindfucked.
edbo10 Simple... Everyone has their own opinion and they all think theirs is right. Creationists don't want to accept Evolution and Evolutionist don't want to accept Creation. They all fight each other over which one is right when really neither one of them are right (see last paragraph). Ok, technically one of them has to be right, but neither of them are completely supported by evidence. Creationists attack Evolutionist with statements like, "If we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" At the same time, Evolutionist attack Christians by sarcastically asking, "Well if there's a God, how come there is no evidence?" Gene mutation (a big part of evolution) explains how animals can develop into new species without the original species being affected (like humans coming from monkeys. As for evidence of God, how do you know where to look? There are many galaxies in the universe, just because you can't see God doesn't mean he's not there, it just means you haven't found him. Louise CK (an atheist) made this same point (although joking it's a great point) this year as a host on Saturday Night Live. The next paragraph is a direct quote from him.
"I’m not religious. I don’t know if there’s a God. That’s all I can say, honestly, is I don’t know. Some people think that they know that there isn’t. That’s a weird thing to think you can know. “Yeah, there’s no God.” Are you sure? “Yeah, no, there’s no God.” How do you know? “Cause I didn’t see Him.” There’s a vast universe! You can see for about 100 yards - when there’s not a building in the way. How could you possibly… Did you look everywhere? Did you look in the downstairs bathroom? Where did you look so far? “No, I didn’t see Him yet.” I haven’t seen 12 Years a Slave yet; it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I’m just waiting until it comes on cable."
Before I go into anymore detail, I would like to say when I refer to "Evolution" I am referring to Charles Darwin's "Theory of Evolution". You might ask, "what the hell's the difference?" Well Evolution IS a proven fact (Although many Creationist will tell you otherwise) but the "Theory of Evolution" is not fact, it is theory. If you mention this being a theory (despite it's name) it is almost certain a smart ass know it all Evolutionist is going to comment back saying, "You don't understand the meaning of scientific theory." Well I can assure you that I DO understand the scientific meaning of theory. According to science, a scientific theory is a (to sum it up short and sweet) theory that has not yet been unproved by theory. A scientific theory is one that is basically the best conclusion scientist are able to come up with. However, one important part Evolutionist leave out, is the fact that scientific theory has NEVER been proved either. If it was proved, it would no longer be theory, but a fact. Now days, more and more scientist are starting to realize "The Evolution Theory" as we know it is bullshit. Carbon 14 dating techniques rely on assumptions that completely fuck up the whole process in which we calculate the age of old fossils. It is a very complex process and difficult to explain. Just know that Carbon 14 is in every living (animal & plant) being in existence. Once an animal dies, the Carbon 14 starts to decay. In order to date an old fossil two things must be known... 1. How fast Carbon 14 decays and 2. The amount of Carbon 14 in an animal before it died.... We know how fast Carbon 14 decays, it's half-life is 5730 years. However since we have no way of finding out of much Carbon 14 was in an old animal (such as dinosaurs), a little more science comes into play. All living things also contain Carbon 12, which unlike Carbon 14 doesn't ever decay after the death of an animal. Since Carbon 12 doesn't ever decay and Carbon 14 does, we get an idea of how old a fossil is by the ratio between Carbon 14 and Carbon 12. Of a living creature, we have one Carbon 14 atom for every trillion Carbon 12 atoms, which gradually increases after death. An older fossil will have a lower Carbon 14/Carbon 12 ratio. As of right now, this whole process seems to be working fine... Until you look at where Carbon 14 and Carbon 12 come from. They come from space. Carbon 14, Carbon 12 and Oxygen all combine in our atmosphere to form C02 (carbon dioxide) which is breathed in by our plants, and eventually eaten by us. How is this a problem? Well remember when I mentioned that assumption that fucks the whole process up? Well scientists (used to) assume that the amounts of Carbon 14 and Carbon 12 in our atmosphere has always been the same. You see the reason we have 1 Carbon 14 atom for every trillion Carbon 12 atoms, is because that is what our atmosphere gives us. This entire Carbon 14 dating is based on the assumption that we have the exact same amount of Carbon 14 and Carbon 12 as we always have; (1 to 1 trillion). Our atmosphere both produces Carbon 14 and removes it (through decaying). To assume our Atmosphere has the same amount of C-14 as it always has, is saying that our atmosphere's C-14 production rate and C-14 removal rate have always been equal. Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of Carbon 14 dating, assumed this ratio to be constant, however we now know this to be bullshit... The Specific Production Rate of C-14 is 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute. This proves everything we know about dating fossils to be false. Not that this is just one flaw of the Evolution Theory, there are many other flaws. There are just as many flaws in religion, but they don't force that to our children in school so I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about the younger generation being misinformed. My person opinion is: I believe in evolution as a process, but neither Creation or Evolution will ever be proved completely. There will always be people of both groups who claim "they know" but everyone wants to think they know the answer. Everyone wants to find the answer, so they can be credited for it. I think there are some things that mankind will never know, we just can't accept that as our answer. Why are there millions of planets with no valid forms of life, why do we live just to eventually die, what literally makes the world go round, what happens when we die, what is the purpose of life? These kind of questions we will never know, but there are always going to be 'scientist, theorists and professionals' out there who claim they know the answer. I think we should all accept the fact that there are things we will never know. I think instead of fighting religious vs. non religious, Christian vs. Muslim, and black vs. white, that we should accept each other for who we are. Just because are belief systems are different doesn't mean we have to hate each other.
Drannon Moore Louis' argument proves a point, agnosticism is like the neutral country, but it's a pretty bad analogy.
Finding out stuff doesn't just rely on direct observation, predictions also help us learn more about the world around us.
I'd also like to point out that the theory of evolution ain't forced on kids (look how many fucksticks magically disprove evolution over UA-cam comments), you can see religious advertising everywhere. Last time I checked, evolutionists didn't go around house-to-house trying to convert their beliefs, nor do I see billboard adverts saying EVOLUTION IS THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE, nor do I receive any fliers in the letterbox about how religion is false and should be questioned.
Also, to answer your unanswerable questions:
Our planet is pretty much just the right porridge. The conditions on this planet are incredibly hard to find elsewhere, which is why life is able to flourish here - it's not the Atacama desert across the entire planet.
We don't just live to die. We live (well most of us do) to go on to produce offspring to continue the success of our species. Everything has an expiry date; thing's just don't go on forever.
Planets spin due to the matter they were formed on already being in motion. Technically speaking, nothing that we can see in the observable universe is actually still - we're only still relative to this planet, but in the context of the solar system everyone is moving at several thousand kilometres per hour, depending on your geographical location.
What happens when you die? I don't know you so it could be one of many, or many of a lot of things. I do know for sure that cellular activity slowly ceases to continue.
The answer to life, the universe, and everything?
42
Actually, these questions would've been provided answers by google within half a second of hitting enter after typing it in.
_____
On a side note, if you decide that evolution has too many holes in it, you're more than welcome to show anyone with an interest in science, hobby or profession, your claims as to why you think it's a load of bs ;)
edbo10 I hope you don't think I was attacking you or Evolution in my original post. That is not my intentions... I was just answering your question. You asked why people on UA-cam suddenly know everything about Evolution. So I answered that by basically saying that everyone has their own opinion, but due to the FACT that neither Creation or Evolution have been proved, people from both parties automatically think their view is right. Basically, the whole concept of creation (according to most religions anyway) relies on faith and not evidence, so it's pretty safe to say that Creation cannot be proved. Evolution itself is proven, but the Theory of Evolution has a long way to go before being 'proven'.
My second paragraph was a sketch from Saturday Night Live, it is not meant to be taken literally. I realize everything we know about the universe isn't based upon direct observation. However, the point he makes is still solid. There are hundreds of galaxies (Nobody is sure how many) is the universe... Nothing humans have ever invented can observe things that far away. We will never know how vast the universe is. Does the universe just keep going?... Does it end up wrapping like a giant planet?... Or do you just fall off the end of the world like Columbus thought the Earth did? No one knows, and until this, we will never know how many planets, stars, or black holes are even out there. I'm not saying a God is even possible, but if it were, there would never be a legit way of knowing. Due to this fact, nobody will ever be able to literally disprove God. How can you say something 'isn't' there, if you never even looked?
Oh, Evolution ain't forced on kids is it? Lmao... And we Kentuckians have a bad reputation for using bad grammar. Perhaps you went to a strict religious private school, which would explain your intolerance towards people who belong to a religion. Either that, or you aren't from America, because here EVERY SINGLE PUBLIC SCHOOL IN THE UNITED STATES TEACHES EVOLUTION AS FACT. We learned Evolution from 8th grade until I graduated 8 years ago. They do call it 'The Evolution Theory' in text books, however they teach it as fact, like that is the one and only possible way. Also just because people on UA-cam have different opinions, doesn't mean that evolution isn't taught to them as kids. I said, "There are just as many flaws in religion, but they don't force that to our children in school so I'm not worried about that". I didn't say, "They stick shotguns in our kids mouths until they believe evolution". You're saying that just because someone is taught something in school means they have to believe that. That's not true, they could be forced to learn evolution in school and still grow up to not believe that. Besides, no preacher has ever pulled up to my house to try and convert my beliefs, there aren't billboards around my area saying, "Creation is the wave of the future" and I damn sure have never had a letter arrive in the mailbox that read, "Evolution is false and should be questioned".
I figured you would be smart enough to understand that I wasn't asking you those questions in my comment. I was simply listing a selection of questions that have always kept scientist wondering, but at the same time (because of the things they didn't know) advanced science forward. That's why I think it's important for scientist to not jump to conclusions, and still consider the fact that evolution may not be the answer we think it is, or maybe not the entire theory of evolution, but parts of it. If everyone automatically assumes it is true, then it will never get full investigated. However as long as there are people there to question these things, people will always strive to figure out which one is right. This can end two ways, people will either find out they were right the entire time, or they will discover new evidence that supports a theory never thought of before. This is why debate is important. If the people of Europe convinced Christopher Columbus, that the world was flat, they would have never discovered America, or until a very long time at least.
Yes, most scientist agree that the theory of Evolution is real, however not all scientist agree. In fact, pretty much all scientists are realizing now that there ARE problems with the way the theory has been proposed. The Radiocarbon dating system that I mentioned before, is one of the biggest flaws, scientist are now discovering. The founder of radiocarbon dating, Dr. Willard Libby, was a scientist who believed in Evolution. He was the first person to realize there was a flaw in his method, yet he chose to ignore this and continue his research. He even ended up winning a Nobel peace prize in chemistry for his accomplishments. But why did he ignore this flaw? HELLO! He just created a record breaking technology that was about to make him a rich man who's inventions would still be used 60 years later. Do you really think he was going to say, "Oh we fucked up guys, mission abort." Hell no, and no other scientist would either. If any scientist discovered something (even though they knew it was all bullshit) and they could get the whole world to believe it, do you really expect them to come out and tell the whole deceived public that they fucked up? It don't work like that, people are greedy and just want to be recognized. Actually, the inventor of the much beloved Evolution Theory, Charles Darwin himself, converted to Christianity and denounced Evolution before he died.
Once again, I am not trying to disprove Evolution, Religion or anyone's personal beliefs, I just want people to be able to think for themselves. I want people to believe what they believe, because they believe it and not because everyone else does. I am confident with my personal beliefs so it does not bother me that other people think differently then I do. Cultural variation is a beautiful thing in my eyes. I love people of all beliefs, colors, sex, ect. Although I love people of all beliefs and accept everyone for who they are, I do not like the fact that people force their beliefs on other people. I think that kids should be aware of both religion and evolution, but until scientists can prove one or the other without a doubt, they shouldn't be allowed to teach kids (who don't even know the difference) that one or the other is true. To make a schoolbook that states "Evolution is real" or "The Tyrannosaurus roamed the Earth 20 million years ago" is just as bad as making a schoolbook that says, "Creation is real" and "God created the world 7 thousand years ago" (or however old they think Earth is). They shouldn't be able to tell us how old dinosaurs are since scientist KNOW radiocarbon dating (The dating system to date fossils) IS BULLSHIT. I think that you assumed I'm a religious nut, but this is not coming from a religious perspective. I just want people to admit we don't have all the answers we think we do. Scientists think they know everything but they don't. They are only human. There are scientist fuck ups every day. The Theory of Evolution may turn out to be real, but until all the kinks are worked out we will never know. If everyone falls for the shit, they will never care to fix the kinks, they will just go with it. However, if someone stands up and says, "something doesn't seem right here, how come diamonds show up to be millions of years old when we KNOW they aren't very old at all" then scientist may do a further investigation and find out something we currently don't know.
"That's not true, they could be forced to learn evolution in school and still grow up to not believe that."
That's exactly what I was trying to say regarding forcing the learning of evolution. It ain't compulsory to believe it. Evolution is also taught in high school science here too, but there's a lot of fucksticks who take it the wrong way and just decide science as a whole is bullshit. The same kind of science that lets them have the latest phone every month.
"Actually, the inventor of the much beloved Evolution Theory, Charles Darwin himself, converted to Christianity and denounced Evolution before he died."
That's a complete load of bollocks - Darwin's daughter was beside him on his deathbed and never recalled him suddenly seeing Jesus or renouncing his scientific views.
I live in Australia, and I've received fliers in the mailbox and had missionaries come to my door, just to be nice I play along, but I think just judging from my appearance they'd already know I'm irreligious lol. Billboards are from time to time used for religious advertising here, I don't know about your location but I'm pretty sure there's some form of religious advertising in every developed nation.
I never thought you were a religious nut because of the content of your first post - you clearly stated that you weren't trying to disprove evolution so that's that. As you said, evolution already has heaps of evidence for its existence and thus is taught in schools, radiocarbon dating isn't the only radiometric dating method you know.
I do agree on a whole with what you are saying however. Skepticism has always provided a way of advancing things, all the time on the Discovery Science channel commercial breaks Michio Kaku says, "question everything."
What is Evolution? Ask Triple H
lol
now that was funny
+Rocky Garcia haha
Good one
W
for you people who do not accept evolution (not necessarily religious people because you can still be religious and believe in evolution) why do you go even go on these videos? Do you specifically go on this just to tell people on how its wrong without evidence or why we should believe you?
This is coming from a former intelligent design supporter. I used to go on these videos with an open mind and debating people on this matter on the comment section too BUT supported with evidence. I would seek the knowledge of why people believe certain things and if I don't believe in the same things as other people do I would argue with them without bias or close-mindedness. If their belief wins out using the current evidence then I will change my belief. Pure simple. And so I did because my beliefs are not static , but I always seek answers to things. This is the scientific way to think.
Its not you believing in something and trying to cherry pick for evidence you like that may support it.
User Carlton Walter has been repeatedly posting the same utter nonsense, day after day. As is typical for creationists, all he has are lies and distortions, deleting it each time he is called out only to post the same nonsense again.
Wow, sure are a LOT of creatards in the comments here
"Creatards" : a lovely word to dismiss not just one, but two entire groups of people!
Molly Elizabeth Creationists I do dismiss because they are doltishly stupid, and are compulsive liars. Who's the other group that I am "dismissing" hmm?
@ruffo coyote Buddy, his comment is six fucking years old.
I know, how did you find it? Was it by the search engine. Anyway, The Theory of the Survival of the Fittest points to a huge giant Fall, just like Moses described happening in Eden, the garden God made for His first humans. The smaller the entity, the more generations it has and possibilities of mutating. The fact that living things have a mutating behaviour not only doesn't preclude being designed in the first place, but doesn't really explain the fossils "record". We don't even know how complete it is, but the age of the universe is too young, there's not enough time to have produce what we are experiencing. Why it's so important to people is one more mystery to be solved!
@@InnerMittenSignal no, you're waaaaay off what the evidence points to. Go read some other books beyond your bible.
For those of you who have a problem accepting research and scientific theories of biological evolution, just remind yourselves of what you're used to believing in: God's, Devils, Ghosts, Demons, Angels...
Lots of Atheist here.... I love it...
I do, too.
I love it too.. Seeing atheist ppl gives me pleasure
@consuetudinary were not talking to you.. if you don't care do not reply then ?
I'm a Brazilian atheist
@Dan C. please pe nice. Evolution is a religion to in a way. You are put your FAITH in men that think we are here because of giant rocks and other elements.
I wasn't allowed to learn about this in school, so I thought I would try learning now.
It's never too late 👍
Creationism in a nutshell:
"I have never engaged in any activity that could remotely be confused with homework on this subject, nor would I recognize actual homework on it, nor do I understand or appreciate the homework that others have invested on the topic. However, I browsed a web page, talked it over with a minister and an MBA, and consulted a few like-minded and equally ill-informed people, so I feel confident in saying that scientists are full of cr@p."
Well said.
@Dan C.
What would you accept as evidence for God's existence
@Dan C.
Which one?
@Dan C.
Actually the bible god is not the only god that claimed to create everything there are other religions that their god claims the same claims
And how do you know that the nt is the word of god as it doesn't claim to be from god to begin with it could be someone who is just writing stuff?
@Dan C. Suggesting that a deity created everything solves nothing and only creates an endless cycle of 'what created the deity that created the deity that created... etc'.
shout out to that single-celled organism for making humans possible
@@theNormalguy42 yes
@@theNormalguy42 ( Chemical reactions ) and what do you believe in? Magic?
@@Ligerbee the "something came from nothing" people tend to think evolution and origins are the same thing.
@@theNormalguy42 A single-celled organism really is nothing, is it not? 😅
The best part about evolution is that it’s true whether you believe in it or not.
Its all lie. If you believe or not God is exist.
@@martahailegiorgis3443 OK Marta go back to feed your children
Also.. believe in it or not cthulhu exist!!
You cannot use the same sentence to everything you can imagine.
@@martahailegiorgis3443 Are you a genetic twin to either of your parents? No?
Congrats! Evolution is real and youre wrong.
Hello world! I am a girl from Russia, and I am preparing for exams) I do not know English, but I am very glad that there are subtitles for Russian!
Hello, hope your exams go well :)
"But my magic book says.. ! "
I agree origin of the species is pure alchemy.
*HERE IS WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS US - About Morality.* Please cite the passages that promote morality. Don't forget the quiz at the end..
1. You can own slaves. You can buy and sell slaves. You can even sell your own daughter (Exodus 21:7-10). If she fails to please her master, you must refund him the purchase price.
2. You can beat the living shit out of your slaves without being punished, as long as they do not die within two days (Exodus 20:20-21). Under what standards of morality is it ever okay to beat another human being like that and not suffer any consequences? It is reassuring the bible endorses property rights, but a source of morality it is not.
3. The bible not only condones slavery but sets prices for them (Leviticus 27:3-7). The bible obviously was concerned about human traffickers getting a fair price for their goods.
4. Surely Jesus had compassion towards slaves. He tells slaves to be obedient and subservient. That is why slave owners in the Americas pushed Christianity onto their slaves and punished those caught practicing their ancient religions.. Very reassuring. Accorging to Jesus, it was okay to beat slaves, those who unwittingly made mistakes were to be given few lashes, those who knowingly violated rules were to be given many lashes. Ownership rights, you know.
5. Thou shalt not kill. Now THERE is a good one. However, it seems there are exceptions:
No sooner had Moses returned from his first trip up the mountains to find a party to which he had not been invited, in a fit of rage he orders his Levite goon squad to kill "every man his brother, and every man his friend and every man his neighbor." Exodus 32:28 "The Levites did as Moses commanded and that day about 3000 of the people died." 'Tough Love' maybe?
6. But there are others. The bible requires the faithful to put to death by stoning;
Adulterers (Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Leviticus 20:10);
Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13),
Non virgins (Deuteronomy 22:20-21),
any of your neighbors foolish enough to mow their lawn on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15,Exodus 35:1-3,Numbers 15:32-36).
7. Oh, and speaking of rape, surely that ranks high on the ‘Thou shalt nots’ of the ten commandments. *NO???* It is not even mentioned???
An oversight perhaps? But then it was so important to forbid mixing fabrics or cooking a kid in its mother's milk (so important that it needed to be repeated three times) and such. Take a look at these REALLY important commandments (there are different versions within the bible). Thou shalt not:
Worship other gods
Work on the Sabbath (death penalty crime)
Take the name of the lord in vain (OMG, ANOTHER capital crime)
Make graven images
Covet thy neighbor’s wife or house or ass
And, oh yes, ‘thou shalt not kill’ and ‘thou shalt not steal’ are in there somewhere near the bottom. *But rape? Not one word!!!*
How about elsewhere in the bible? Surely somewhere the bible must condemn rape, no?
Oh, yes, here; Deuteronomy 22:28-29 28 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her *and they are discovered,* 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives"
*YESSS! There it is. Rape is a PROPERTY crime*. The rapist has damaged the father’s PROPERTY and it is he that must be compensated. What justice for the victim of the rape? She has to marry her rapist. Surely she lived happily ever after, no? And what if they were not discovered and the girl kept quiet out of fear? The bible is quite clear about the fate of girls who are not virgins on their wedding day. Here, as elsewhere in the bible, women are chattel and have no say in their future.
It is interesting to note that, while the bible mandates death by stoning for adulterers and non virgin brides, raping an unbethrothed virgin incurred only a monetary penalty. This is biblical justice?
8. The bible endorses mass murder and sex slavery. Numbers 31:14-18 "14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. *17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."*
Numbers 31:35 - "And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him." *THIRTY TWO THOUSAND VIRGINS* being divided up to be used by “god’s chosen people” at the same time their mothers and brothers by the tens of thousands were being slaughtered like animals. Many of those women would have been pregnant, their unborn fetus dying inside them. And what would have been the crime of young boys of whatever age? 2? 4? 10? There was no distinction about age. This is GENOCIDE, condemned by civilized nations of the world.
If you fail to feel a deep sense of moral outrage at this, how do you condemn ISIS for doing far less? Genocide in whatever form is an ugly stain on humanity. To claim it to be a moral act is the ultimate evil. Why then, should you regard the bible as a moral guide? Is ISIS any less evil?
So what response do we hear from zealots? Shock? Horror? No! Their predicable response is indifference and a callous “They had it coming to them.” We have heard those words echoed by unrepentant Nazis and the barbaric ISIS. And how does that equate to morality? Are not empathy and compassion the cornerstones of morality? Where then is there any morality here?
Perhaps it was just an oversight that the bible nowhere condemns slavery, or rape or molesting children, but yet it was so important to forbid mixing fabrics or cooking a kid in its mother's milk (so important that it needed to be repeated three times). What does that say about biblical priorities?
If the bible is the source of your 'morality', call a mental health hotline, NOW..
God sends Abraham to murder his own son, clearly an immoral act. Abraham is perfectly willing to do so. And for this, the bible praises Abraham. To a rational person, morality is doing what's right, no matter what one is told. Biblical morality is doing what you are told no matter what.
Although an angel was sent to 'stay Abraham's hand', no such courtesy was given Jephthah's daughter made into a burnt offering to the lord (Judges 11:29-40). That should be enough to turn anyone's stomach. And what of Jephthah? Was this murderer of an innocent child punished in any way? *Was he condemned? NO. He is PRAISED. THE BIBLE TACITLY APPROVES OF HUMAN SACRIFICE.*
To suggest that morality stems from religion is not only wrong, it is frightening. You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong, you lack empathy, not religion. And the bible has a special message for women: "STFU". We see at every turn they are denied the rights afforded to men; they were regarded as property, either of their father or their husband. It can be a source of pride for women that apparently not a single one of them participated in the writing of the bible. The rights that women have today were not granted them by the bible, they had to fight for them. The bible endorses misogyny.
Some of the rules in the bible are downright strange. Take Leviticus 15:19- 24 for instance that forbids contact with a woman while she is "unclean" (during her period). I mean how is a guy to know? Surely it is impolite to ask. Donald Trump has a way of finding out, but I doubt the average guy could get away with it.
Atheists have greater claim to morality than those who espouse religion. They are moral because it is the intelligent way to behave towards our fellow man, not out of expectation of reward or fear of punishment. If you are "moral" because of those constraints, you are a very dangerous person.
Slavery still exists, but it has been made illegal in virtually every part of the world, NOT because of guidance from the bible, but because it was the right thing to do. Morality stems from empathy and concern for our fellow man. Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things; but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion. Dictators take control of a populace by instilling fear of punishment, how is religion any different than that?
Mark Twain once said _"It ain't the parts of the bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I DO understand."_
Now the question: Do YOU understand why the bible is said to be the source of morality? Because I sure don't..
This presentation made soooo much sense. It tells in simple manner that evolution is and relates the topic to a relatable subject. I love this presentation thumbs up!
the presentation is hight presumptuous and impossible
@@raysalmon6566 To a creationist whose mind is cluttered with creation mythology it must seem so. If your religion has convinced you that 'faith', belief in the absence of evidence, is in any way superior to evidence based science, then you have subordinated your intellect to that of ancient goat herders.
Scientist have made a new discovery!
Smartphones evolved from toasters, which evolved from screws, which were created by Iron molecules 1 billion years ago.
@@outofthebox9699 Ah, the words of an imbecile, flaunting his ignorance across the internet.
@@outofthebox9699 those where created by man
GoodScienceForYou
"Abstract
Analysis of human mutation rates and the number of genes required for human intellectual and emotional fitness indicates that we are almost certainly losing these abilities. If so, how did we get them in the first place, and when did things begin to change?" Dr. Gerald Crabtree, Professor of Genetics Stanford University."
You are trying to make it seem as if mutations could only be detrimental, but they're not.
*Beneficial mutations:* white skin (in cloudy, foggy areas), the frameshift mutation following a gene duplication that enabled the production of _Nylonase enzyme_, etc.
Don't worry, folks, natural selection constantly weeds out whatever is bad.
White skin comes from loss of pigmentation that protects the body from cancer. The UK is a prime example of this. Some huge percentage in rise of skin cancer there. (Skin cancer is a two fold disease. One is the skin allows natural radiation to mutate skin cells, and next the immune system is so degraded it cannot destroy them. You see it is all degradation.)
www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470300_3
The ideal skin color was "olive" with the abilty to go light olive or almost black as needed, but was not a permanent condition. It was adaptable to any solar condition on earth. And we had hair at one time and that was lost.
The nylonase is absolutely evidence of DESIGN as found in all bacteria studies.
I don't think you have ever read any of the articles on this subject. You just "believe" because of your need to believe and for no other reason. Your education is horrible. You have faith in humans, and that has never worked out very well.
Science is all about destroying life on earth as can be seen by all the uses of science. Even medical science has rapidly degraded humanity.
I cited the article on this formation of "new" enzymes.
evolutionsciencenow.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-magical-evotard-fairy-of-bacteria.html
GoodScienceForYou
"White skin comes from loss of pigmentation that protects the body from cancer. The UK is a prime example of this."
Sun rarely even shines in the UK, pal.
"Some huge percentage in rise of skin cancer there."
Skin cancer is much more prevalent in countries with people with white skin, but with more sunny hours per year.
(Skin cancer is a two fold disease. One is the skin allows natural radiation to mutate skin cells, and next the immune system is so degraded it cannot destroy them. You see it is all degradation.)"
It is a way of helping us produce more vitamin D, because there is little sun in cloudy, foggy places like the UK
"The ideal skin color was "olive" with the abilty to go light olive or almost black as needed, but was not a permanent condition. It was adaptable to any solar condition on earth."
The ideal skin color is dependent upon how many hours the sun shines in a year, idiot.
"And we had hair at one time and that was lost."
*I am glad we lost it.* It was most likely due to sexual selection (a kind of artificial selection).
"The nylonase is absolutely evidence of DESIGN as found in all bacteria studies."
LOL. so Yahweh redesigned the bacteria in the 20th century? Ever heard about random mutation? This shit only needed 2 mutations; a gene duplication, and a frameshift mutation. Are you trying to suggest that this would be utterly impossible to happen by itself? Two lowsy mutations? Think before you comment.
Design 101
We recognize design by comparing things to nature. Thus, we can never determine whether a naturally occurring thing was designed or not.
"I don't think you have ever read any of the articles on this subject. You just "believe" because of your need to believe and for no other reason."
I read what I cited, obviously.
"Your education is horrible. You have faith in humans, and that has never worked out very well. "
I never said I have faith in humanity =)
We became intelligent too soon relatively to the ability to control our own emotions. This makes us a mess.
"Science is all about destroying life on earth as can be seen by all the uses of science."
Science is about acquiring knowledge (through the scientific method), and is the only means for that.
People use scientific knowledge both for destroying life, and preserving life. Science has doubled our lifespans through clean water, antibiotics, organ transplants, stem cells, etc.
"Even medical science has rapidly degraded humanity."
*I must say, I agree on that one.* It totally eliminates natural selection
"I cited the article on this formation of "new" enzymes."
*Your own stupid blog* (or any blog, for that matter) *doesn't count as scientific study.*
Try harder.
Evolution is still a fact, and we need science if we want to learn more about the world around us, whether you like it or not.
Eru Ilúvatar Evolution is a fantasy, taught by people who want to own you and make a slave of you. So far you have not shown any evidence for evolution but you still believe...Why? Are you really that dense. Go look at evidence without your religious faith.
Eru Ilúvatar P.S. My blog can never be "stupid" because I have an IQ much higher than any living person. It is the reason why I know what is going on and you don't.
You would do yourself and your family a big favor, and help them to a better life if you read the entire blog.
Your own theory that it takes millions of generations to have "evolution" is destroyed by the Nylonase flavobacterium. There are so many contradictions in your stupid religion.
evolutionsciencenow.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-magical-evotard-fairy-of-bacteria.html
GoodScienceForYou
"Your own theory that it takes millions of generations to have "evolution" is destroyed by the Nylonase flavobacterium. There are so many contradictions in your stupid religion."
No one ever said evolution only works if it takes millions of generations (straw man)
For example, humans evolved from ancient apes in just 2 million years, and 2 million / 20 (the length of a human generation) is just 100.000 generations.
BTW if it happens faster, it just makes evolution more obvious to everyone ;)
"My blog can never be "stupid" because I have an IQ much higher than any living person."
So your IQ is at least 229, yet you operate with red herrings and straw men?
Couldn't you figure out with your monster IQ that these are logical fallacies? :P
lol, you must love to be humiliated.. why don't you get a domina for yourself? :D
Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is uneducated on the concept of evolution. They either A) Don't understand the concept of evidence B) Don't understand the evidence that supports evolution C) Don't understand that the Theory of Evolution is on the same playing field as the Theory of Gravity, the Heliocentric Theory, the Germ Theory of Disease, the Atomic Theory, and so on. My advice is to make an effort to learn so you don't make foolish choices.
***** You're right. I should have specified that they are not educated in this particular scientific theory
***** You just say "a lot of educated..." or you can really tell their names and arguments against the Theory?
I certainly don't believe nature is the force behind life. I found it rather comical that the narrator started the video off acknowledging that evolution doesn't tell us "how life began on earth" in the first place! what we believe about the beginning of all things really is the necessary starting point for our entire worldview. Just because something appears to be random and undetermined may not be that at all.
I disagree. Though what we believe about our origins is important, I don't think that's the starting point. The mechanism we use to determine what our beliefs will be is the starting point - it's where every single one of our beliefs comes from. If we are intellectually honest, we would determine each belief in the same way consistently. I personally try to use logic for myself.
Speaking of logic, what makes you think natural forces couldn't cause life to begin?
Do you want all at once? Tracing step by step from obvious things to deeply hidden is the only way to discover more.
Looks like Oscar deleted all his crap from this comment section. Good riddance.👍🏻
That is great, perhaps this comment section may become a crap-free zone, and intelligent conversation may return.
It appears you are mistaken, he’s come back :(
*THE HUMAN BRAIN IS REMARKABLE* for its size and complexity in relation to body mass. Even more remarkable is the fact that at 2% of average body weight, it requires 20% of total caloric intake to function. Still more remarkable is that the human infant, born of necessity at a very early stage of development, utilizes 60% of available calories for neuronal development. That brain continues expansion through adolescence and even into early adulthood. Such a long childhood is also a unique human feature, but is a continuation of a trend that began with our primate ancestors..
Our abilities to speak, make tools or fly to the moon are due to the increased cognitive abilities of a brain whose size and complexity increased incrementally over millions of years of evolution. Evolution is a PROCESS and not an EVENT. What we see over the course of evolution is incremental alterations of existing structures, not sudden changes.
This is what we see in the evolution of the human brain. Humans are vertebrates, mammals, primates and apes and our genome reflects that ancestry. Early mammal survival in a world dominated by dinosaurs, depended on increased sensory perception (sight, smell and hearing) and the mammalian brain developed an expanded cortex to accommodate that demand.
Primates and rodents separated from a common ancestor about 75 million years ago. The rodent evolutionary path to success lay in their reproductive ability, primates on the other hand, relied on increased cognitive ability for enhanced survival. Rather than relying on having large litters of young, primates invested more time and effort producing one or two offspring, nurturing them over longer periods of time during which offspring learned from their parents. Primates are generally limited to two mammary glands, although supernumerary mammaries are not unheard of, even in humans. They are regarded as atavistic traits.
When ancestral primates took to the trees, it placed a premium on visual acuity, depth perception and hand-eye coordination. Again, the brain expanded to accommodate that demand. Individual primates lacking those characteristics would have been more likely to fall to their deaths. That is natural section at work, improving the gene pool through elimination of the least fit.
Primate brains are, on an average, about double the size of other, similar sized mammals. Monkeys have larger cranial capacity and more complex brains than prosimians (Lemurs and Lorises). The brains of apes are still larger and more complex. The human brain is a continuation of the trend. It is a is a scaled up ape brain. This is consistent with evolutionary theory that, rather than creating new structures, evolution modifies what already exists.
Each increase in brain size corresponds roughly to increased cognition. Whereas the brains of other mammals are smooth, primate brains have convolutions that effectively increase surface area and the number of neurons.
The Neocortex is the part of the mammalian brain involved in higher-order brain functions such as sensory perception, cognition, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning and (in humans) language. The Neocortex is a major part of the brain of all primates, especially so in humans where cerebral cortex occupies 80% of the brain mass and contains 16 billion neurons (Avzevedo et al., 2009).
Thus far, we know of at least three uniquely human genes associated with greater human cerebral development: NOTCH2NL, ARHGAP11B and SRGAP2C. The latter two came about from partial duplications of the parent gene found in apes.
In a related development, one mutation in our ancestors disabled the MYH16 gene making it a pseudo gene. That gene in apes gave them powerful jaw muscles which encircled the skull, possibly restricting encephalization. Other genes affecting human evolution are FOXP2 involved in the development of language and HACNS1 affecting limb and digit specialization.
"THE HUMAN BRAIN IS REMARKABLE for its size and complexity in relation to body mass. Even more remarkable is the fact that at 2% of average body weight, it requires 20% of total caloric intake to function. Still more remarkable is that the human infant, born of necessity at a very early stage of development, utilizes 60% of available calories for neuronal development. That brain continues expansion through adolescence and even into early adulthood. Such a long childhood is also a unique human feature, but is a continuation of a trend that began with our primate ancestors..
Our abilities to speak, make tools or fly to the moon are due to the increased cognitive abilities of a brain whose size and complexity increased incrementally over millions of years of evolution. Evolution is a PROCESS and not an EVENT. What we see over the course of evolution is incremental alterations of existing structures, not sudden changes.
This is what we see in the evolution of the human brain. Humans are vertebrates, mammals, primates and apes and our genome reflects that ancestry. Early mammal survival in a world dominated by dinosaurs, depended on increased sensory perception (sight, smell and hearing) and the mammalian brain developed an expanded cortex to accommodate that demand.
Primates and rodents separated from a common ancestor about 75 million years ago. The rodent evolutionary path to success lay in their reproductive ability, primates on the other hand, relied on increased cognitive ability for enhanced survival. Rather than relying on having large litters of young, primates invested more time and effort producing one or two offspring, nurturing them over longer periods of time during which offspring learned from their parents. Primates are generally limited to two mammary glands, although supernumerary mammaries are not unheard of, even in humans. They are regarded as atavistic traits.
When ancestral primates took to the trees, it placed a premium on visual acuity, depth perception and hand-eye coordination. Again, the brain expanded to accommodate that demand. Individual primates lacking those characteristics would have been more likely to fall to their deaths. That is natural section at work, improving the gene pool through elimination of the least fit.
Primate brains are, on an average, about double the size of other, similar sized mammals. Monkeys have larger cranial capacity and more complex brains than prosimians (Lemurs and Lorises). The brains of apes are still larger and more complex. The human brain is a continuation of the trend. It is a is a scaled up ape brain. This is consistent with evolutionary theory that, rather than creating new structures, evolution modifies what already exists.
Each increase in brain size corresponds roughly to increased cognition. Whereas the brains of other mammals are smooth, primate brains have convolutions that effectively increase surface area and the number of neurons.
The Neocortex is the part of the mammalian brain involved in higher-order brain functions such as sensory perception, cognition, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning and (in humans) language. The Neocortex is a major part of the brain of all primates, especially so in humans where cerebral cortex occupies 80% of the brain mass and contains 16 billion neurons (Avzevedo et al., 2009).
Thus far, we know of at least three uniquely human genes associated with greater human cerebral development: NOTCH2NL, ARHGAP11B and SRGAP2C. The latter two came about from partial duplications of the parent gene found in apes.
In a related development, one mutation in our ancestors disabled the MYH16 gene making it a pseudo gene. That gene in apes gave them powerful jaw muscles which encircled the skull, possibly restricting encephalization. Other genes affecting human evolution are FOXP2 involved in the development of language and HACNS1 affecting limb and digit specialization." - The human brain
@@penginator89 Just wondering; what was your purpose in duplicating my post?
@@RandallWilks read the last 2 words of my duplicated comment
@@penginator89 You added the words '- The human brain'. That doesn't answer my question.
*HOW EVOLUTION WORKS It is helpful to understand that evolution is a molecular process. The random mutations that naturally occur during cell division and replication (mitosis and meiosis) are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. Mutations are ongoing and continuous for every living species. "Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur.''*
Those genetic variants are subjected to a selection process that is performed by whatever environment the organisms find themselves. In this respect, evolution is an ongoing, continuous set of natural experiments. Those that work get perpetuated, those that don't, perish. It is as if the environment acted as an umpire who says "There are good mutations and there are bad mutations and there are neutral mutations, but they ain't nuthin' until I (the environment) calls 'em." That is Natural Selection. Neutral mutations just go along for the ride producing neither immediate benefit nor harm (Genetic Drift).
The result of those selection processes is organisms best suited for their current environment. Should that environment change, it would put the population under stress. If the population gene pool has sufficient genetic variation it increases the likelihood that at least some offspring should be able to survive and perpetuate the species (albeit one of slightly different genetic makeup).
What everyone should understand is that genetic changes do not occur because of some 'need'. The mutations are RANDOM and get selected if they are USEFUL. That is a process called Natural Selection and it is anything BUT random.
Let's take the example of the Panda. Bears in general are omnivores, eating plant matter, but with a marked preference for meat when available. The preferred food of the Panda however, is bamboo leaves, which have such low nutritional value that they must eat almost continuously. The Panda would certainly be able to extract more nutrition with a four chambered stomach (as in ungulates and whales) or something akin to a cecal valve that would slow the passage of food, but it has neither in its genetic toolbox. In feeding themselves, pandas are continuously stripping bamboo leaves from their stalks, a process that could be facilitated if they had a thumb.
Bears however do not have thumbs, nor do they have genes for them in their genetic toolbox. Nor do new features simply spring into existence. However, if a slightly altered body component provides some benefit, natural selection will perpetuate it. Evolution is modification with descent and results in incremental alterations to what is already there.
As an analogy, imagine a robot gardener dragging a hose around various obstacles it encounters in a garden until it can go no further. Now an intelligent gardener could simply retrace his steps and take a different path, avoiding those obstacles. The robot gardener (evolution) is not an intelligent force and cannot do that. With a limited tool kit, it can only (figuratively) add more hose to get the job done.
While a thumb would be quite useful to a panda for stripping leaves, evolution cannot rewind to produce one. Instead, it has taken "a piece of hose' (a wrist bone) and enlarged it to act as a stand in for a thumb. That is not an elegant solution and not a perfect one, but it gets the job done. Evolution is does not produce perfect solutions, but tweaks here and there to "get the job done". THAT is how evolution operates. The panda’s "thumb", developed over many generations of holding things, is clearly a co-opted “radial sesamoid” bone from the paw of a bear. Likewise, the 'Red Panda', a raccoon relative with a similar diet, has evolved a similar feature.
Based in part on the fact that no tetrapods, (terrestrial vertebrates) exist in the fossil record prior to about 370 million years ago, the Theory of Evolution would predict that tetrapods evolved from fish. If that were the case, there should have existed at one time a fish with characteristics of both fish and tetrapods. In other words a Transitional Species. Until about 2005, there was little evidence for such a creature. There were however, a class of fish called Sarcopterygians or Lobe Finned Fishes, that dominated Devonian seas. What characterized those lobe finned fishes was that those fins were supported by external bones and muscles. Those bones, a single bone, connected to two bones connected to smaller bones, are analogous to the limb bones of all tetrapods, including humans. Most Sarcopterygian Fishes have long been extinct, but they are survived today by two species of coelacanth and six species of lungfish. ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/sarcopterygii.html
Still, what was missing was a fossil showing characteristics of fish AND tetrapods. When Neil Shubin and his team decided to search for a fossil that filled the gap between the Lobe Finned Fishes that dominated Devonian Seas and the earliest tetrapod fossils represented by Ichthyostega and Acanthostega dated about 370 mya. Since those fossils were found in geologic deposits indicating a freshwater environment and if the Theory of Evolution is correct in its hypothesis that tetrapods evolved from fish, then transitional fossils should be found in similar deposits somewhat older in age. The problem was that geologic deposits of that age are exposed at few places on the earth's surface. Fortunately, a great deal of geologic exploration has been done throughout the world, financed often times by oil and mining interests. They selected an area in the Canadian Arctic, Ellesmere Island, as having the greatest likelihood of success. It took 4 years of searching during the short summers of that hostile environment but succeeded, returning in 2004 with 9 specimens of the fish they named Tiktaalik. It was exactly what one would expect a transitional fish-tetrapod to look like and was found in deposits dated 375 mya. If this was not the direct ancestor of tetrapods, it was something very much like it.This is a great example of using evolutionary theory as a predictive tool.
Btw, biointeractive(dot)org is a great source of information for all of science. If anyone has an interest in expanding their knowledge of science they should use it.
The genetic variation within a population is referred to as a gene pool. Organisms can move freely within that population breeding with each other, perpetuating any new mutations that work and eliminating those that are less than optimal. Each offspring will most resemble its parents, yet will vary slightly genetically because of unique mutations acquired during meiosis. Thus the genetic makeup of a population will change ever so slightly with each successive generation.
Populations are not stable, they expand and contract with changing conditions. So long as there is sufficient genetic variation within a population there will be some members capable of surviving those conditions and perpetuating the species. The alternative is extinction.
When populations expand and migrate to new territories, some portions of it will become genetically isolated from each other and no longer share a common gene pool. In such cases, each such sub population will carry a subset of the parent population genome, but subsequent mutations will be unique to each new population (the genotype) that will come to differentiate that population from others (Genetic Drift).
To the extent that such populations encounter differing environmental conditions, that environment will exert different evolutionary pressures on that population. New mutations will have a much greater chance of coming to dominance within a smaller population than they would in the larger parent population where they would be one among the many. Over thousands of generations genetic differences accumulate in the different gene pools making interbreeding ever more difficult until at some point speciation can be said to have occurred. Because speciation is a process, rather than an event, it would be no more possible to pinpoint where speciation occurred than to identify where on the color spectrum orange becomes red.
Excellent your text. I think the vast majority of people don't understand this mechanism well. Evolution is the hypothesis that best explains life on Earth. Mutations + Natural Selection = Evolution. When you use Panda as an example, we can conclude that it is a mistake to call a Species as being "more evolved" or at the "top of the evolutionary scale" as some like to think about the human kind, after all the concept of "elegance" it's pretty relative since the Panda adaptation does the job.
Evolution would have to be a result of deleting dna because the simplest life forms are complicated
Deleted comment:
Jesus911 2 hours ago (edited)
Evolution would have to be a result of deleting dna because the simplest life forms are complicated
@Jesus911 It is very obvious that religion has destroyed your ability to think.
Another deleted comment:
Jesus911
Randall Wilks ameobas 290 to 670 billion dna base pairs. You have 3 billion. Yeah no buddy i went to a secular university and I am a biologist and let me tell you that the university tried to do that
Damn man you just cleared my 2 year old doubt in a couple of minutes. Thanks a lottttt.....
ua-cam.com/video/H2sWzApuuvc/v-deo.html
Beware of Oscar the troll in the comments of evolution videos!
Who knew a video made for educational purposes would turn into a creationists battleground? 😂
Other evolution topic video have also turned into a creationist battleground but luckilly alot of the creationist account got terminated 😂
@@NUSANW0RK for good reason... and I thought Jimhappnin1425 is enough on his own.😂
@@daadventuresofvboi956Some creationist dude decided to impersonate stated clearly ( the pageowner ) to spam lies,missinformation,harrasment & science/evolution denial comment on other evolution topic video by other channel , but luckilly the creationist account got terminated lol
@@b4li7 yeah.. its a common tactic unfortunately. I saw one trying to impersonate Bill Nye. 😂
Randall Wilks, and his millions of sock puppet accounts, do battle with millions of creationist sock puppet accounts, turning comments sections of certain videos into cesspools. Seriously, the guy just copies and pastes his agonizingly dry lectures over and over again, and it goes back years and years in the comments section. You'll see his different sock puppets like "MayLing" where he literally takes a profile picture from an Asian dating site, and pretends to be a young female scientist that, surprise, surprise, always backs up Randal Wilks and coincidentally types in the same way. It would be pathetic if it weren't so sad. He'll claim he's "defending" evolution videos, but he's just inviting unhinged creationists due to all the personal attacks and barbs he used to sling with his sock puppets.
I love it when creationists sit there on their behind a computer watching a video on evolution with provides facts and evidence, in an easy to understand way, and then sits there behind their computer screen saying nope! That's rubbish. Go read your bible. Just because your not convinced does not mean that evolution is false. That is called an argument from personal incredulity.
They just state that evolution is false and give no data to back up their statements ;-;
this is why im athiest
*****
How can u deny god=creator just because you was ape and still an ape? Why can god create human from ape?? The theory of evolution deny nothing ..
Tenuk868 It is not necessary to deny something that does not exist, just like those monsters under the bed.
***** "Dogs do have a common ancestor, it was a dog.". No. the common ancestor to all dogs are wolves.
Very valuable presentation. Thanks! So glad this one mentions Alfred Russel Wallace, who should be as celebrated as Darwin.
*The DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES at conservative Baptist BAYLOR UNIVERSITY has issued this statement:*
*"The fossil record clearly indicates a progression in complexity of organisms from very simple fossil forms in the oldest rocks (>3.5 billion years old) to a broad spectrum from simple to complex forms in younger rocks, that some organisms that were once common are now extinct, and that the living organisms inhabiting our world today are similar (but generally not the same) as organisms represented as fossils in young sedimentary deposits, which in turn have evolutionary ancestors represented as fossils in yet older rocks.*
*Mammals, for example, are prevalent today and can be traced back in the fossil record for approximately 200 million years, but are not present as mammals in the fossil record before that; however, fossil forms that have reasonably been interpreted to be associated with the evolutionary precursors to mammals are found in older rocks. Whether biological evolution occurs has not been a matter of scientific debate for more than a century. It is considered a proven fact. The specific mechanisms of biological change over time continue to be a topic of active research, and include mechanisms proposed by Charles Darwin as well as more recently developed ideas based on our growing knowledge of genetics and molecular biology. Using the methods of modern science, our knowledge of the fundamental mechanisms of life has grown enormously since the initial characterization of the role of DNA in reproduction, inheritance and evolution in the mid-1950s.*
*The American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society, partnering with the most respected geoscience societies in America including the Geological Society of America, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (among others), have produced a booklet on evolution and the fossil record that can be downloaded as a PDF file. This booklet was written for the general public by people who have worked with the fossil record throughout their careers, and was thoroughly reviewed by other professional geologists and paleontologists."*
www.baylor.edu/geology/index.php?id=62340
That site also has a link to download above referenced "Evolution and the Fossil Record" by Pojeta and Springer. (1 MB PDF file). It also provides links to the position statements from other scientific organizations.
This is a science department in religiously conservative (Southern Baptist) run Baylor University that has declared their intent to teach SCIENCE. Imagine that.
Not even able to read 5 comments in a row before encountering creationists...
This is sad, especially in the 21st century. Humanity is a weird thing...
Clips like this one tend to get overrun by autistic theist trolls over time.
Well we creationists are just as sick as seeing evolutionist comments like yours
The sheer amount of extremists both for and against religion is honestly shocking. It’s ridiculous.
@@nevermore7285 There's nothing more frustrating than seeing someone spread blatant misinformation that they know for a fact they have no evidence to back up simply because of their own personal religious beliefs.
@@Corzappy what facts are there about evolution? IT's all built on assumptions. You just buy it as fact when the reality is, it's a THEORY, not fact. Get your FACTS straight. :)
Nebular hypothesis is a weaker theory than evolution but not a single reality denier is saying anything because it has no theological implications.
Awesome we learnt a lot!!!!! I like how it was cartoonic that children can understand! Wonderful! A child or adult WILL like it mostly !!!! KEEP IT UP!!!!!
FINALLY!!! A comment that is not about what is fake ,religion or evolution.
Cartoonish. Just like the THEORIES behind the evolution religion. Spongebob. Pastor Kent Hovind cracks me up when he says that. JUST IMAGINE!
@@deantotherescue8429 you are so right. It is stupid.
You are believing in a lie.
*EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - THE HUMAN BRAIN* (part 1) - is remarkable for its size and complexity in relation to body mass. Even more remarkable is the fact that at 2% of average body weight, it requires 20% of total caloric intake to function. Still more remarkable is that the human infant, born of necessity at a very early stage of development, utilizes 60% of available calories for neuronal development. That brain continues expansion through adolescence and even into early adulthood. Such a long childhood is also a unique human feature, but is a continuation of a trend that began with our primate ancestors..
Our abilities to speak, make tools or fly to the moon are due to the increased cognitive abilities of a brain whose size and complexity increased incrementally over millions of years of evolution. Evolution is a PROCESS and not an EVENT. What we see over the course of evolution is incremental alterations of existing structures, not sudden changes.
This is what we see in the evolution of the human brain. Humans are vertebrates, mammals, primates and apes and our genome reflects that ancestry. Early mammal survival in a world dominated by dinosaurs, depended on increased sensory perception (sight, smell and hearing) and the mammalian brain developed an expanded cortex to accommodate that demand.
Primates and rodents separated from a common ancestor about 75 million years ago. The rodent evolutionary path to success lay in their reproductive ability, primates on the other hand, relied on increased cognitive ability for enhanced survival. Rather than relying on having large litters of young, primates invested more time and effort producing one or two offspring, nurturing them over longer periods of time during which offspring learned from their parents. Primates are generally limited to two mammary glands, although supernumerary mammaries are not unheard of, even in humans. They are regarded as atavistic traits.
A message to all creationists:
Do you think you are smarter than over 90% of all Scientists on earth, who have spent years studying this?
I don't think so.
+earth star The problem is that they think they do. Typical of those exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, they are blissfully unaware of their own ignorance. They have no idea of what they don't know.
Randall Wilks They have grown up with these beliefs, and now when they see videos like this, I suppose they feel personally insulted at the fact everything they once thought they knew is actually wrong. It's hard for them to progress, which is why I'm thankful I wasn't into a religious family.
+earth star Science says that life cannot come from non-life.
Science says that matter cannot come from nothing.
Science says that energy cannot come from nothing.
Why are we here? What's our purpose? What happens when we die?
Can science answer these questions?
No, but science can tell you to think like a rational person.
Science can tell you that life came from life.
Science can tell you that matter came from something.
Science can tell you that energy came from something.
Life isn't just physical. It's spiritual. And you know that. We all know that.
With all of the religions, in all of the ages, one religion stands apart:
Jesus Christ paid the penalty for your sin, out of love.
Did you deserve it? No.
Did I deserve it? NO.
Did Hitler deserve it? No.
Does a 'Pope' deserve it? NO.
You cannot earn your way into heaven.
You just need to take the time to get sincere in your heart.
Just take the time to tell God, "I am sorry, I give my life to you."
What happens after that? Is your life perfect? No.
Do you still have the same problems? Yes.
But you will feel a peace that is indescribable with words.
You will have a joy that others won't understand.
You will have a love for others, because you yourself have felt love.
It isn't a scam. It isn't a 'fairy tale'. It isn't some stupid story. It's real life.
Jesus Christ died for your sins. Google his crucifixion.
Jesus Christ rose from the grave 3 days later. Google that.
This isn't some adult 'santa clause', this is what life is about.
Just come to God in your heart and tell him your sorry, and ask for forgiveness.
It truly is as simple as that.
I have nothing to gain by saying this. I just want everyone to know.
Clint R I know the story of Christ etc. That's not going to change my feelings on the matter, because I don't believe what you say is true. Science doesn't know the answer to these questions. But science (to me at least) seems more plausible than someone or something that's somewhere we can't see creating us using magic. At least in the future science may be able to answer these questions, whereas Christianity seems to stay rooted to the spot in its beliefs. Nothing bad ever came out of moving forward. Also, I see many people of your religion attacking other religions and ideologies in very insulting ways, which show they do not understand what they are talking about and are very ignorant. Obviously this isn't a reflection on your entire religion, but it doesn't paint a very good picture of it.
earth star As I said, I have absolutely nothing to gain by convincing anyone of anything. I let truth speak for itself. God has given you the right to believe as you wish, even if you wish to trade truth for lies. I sincerely hope that you find what you know you are missing.
*THE HUMAN BRAIN IS REMARKABLE* for its size and complexity in relation to body mass. Even more remarkable is the fact that at 2% of average body weight, it requires 20% of total caloric intake to function. Still more remarkable is that the human infant, born of necessity at a very early stage of development, utilizes 60% of available calories for neuronal development. That brain continues expansion through adolescence and even into early adulthood. Such a long childhood is also a unique human feature, but is a continuation of a trend that began with our primate ancestors.
Our abilities to speak, make tools or fly to the moon are due to the increased cognitive abilities of a brain whose size and complexity increased incrementally over millions of years of evolution. Evolution is a PROCESS and not an EVENT. What we see over the course of evolution is incremental alterations of existing structures, not sudden changes.
This is what we see in the evolution of the human brain. Humans are vertebrates, mammals, primates and apes and our genome reflects that ancestry. Early mammal survival in a world dominated by dinosaurs, depended on increased sensory perception (sight, smell and hearing) and the mammalian brain developed an expanded cortex to accommodate that demand.
Primates and rodents separated from a common ancestor about 75 million years ago. The rodent evolutionary path to success lay in their reproductive ability, primates on the other hand, relied on increased cognitive ability for enhanced survival. Rather than relying on having large litters of young, primates invested more time and effort producing one or two offspring, nurturing them over longer periods of time during which offspring learned from their parents. Primates are generally limited to two mammary glands, although supernumerary mammaries are not unheard of, even in humans. They are regarded as atavistic traits.
When ancestral primates took to the trees, it placed a premium on visual acuity, depth perception and hand-eye coordination. Again, the brain expanded to accommodate that demand. Individual primates lacking those characteristics would have been more likely to fall to their deaths. That is natural section at work, improving the gene pool through elimination of the least fit.
Primate brains are, on an average, about double the size of other, similar sized mammals. Monkeys have larger cranial capacity and more complex brains than prosimians (Lemurs and Lorises). The brains of apes are still larger and more complex. The human brain is a continuation of the trend. It is a is a scaled up ape brain. This is consistent with evolutionary theory that, rather than creating new structures, evolution modifies what already exists.
Each increase in brain size corresponds roughly to increased cognition. Whereas the brains of other mammals are smooth, primate brains have convolutions that effectively increase surface area and the number of neurons.
The Neocortex is the part of the mammalian brain involved in higher-order brain functions such as sensory perception, cognition,
generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning and (in humans) language. The Neocortex is a major part of the brain of all primates, especially so in humans where cerebral cortex occupies 80% of the brain mass and contains 16 billion neurons (Avzevedo et al., 2009).
Thus far, we know of at least three uniquely human genes associated with greater human cerebral development: NOTCH2NL, ARHGAP11B and SRGAP2C. The latter two came about from partial duplications of the parent gene found in apes.
In a related development, one mutation in our ancestors disabled the MYH16 gene making it a pseudo gene. That gene in apes gave them powerful jaw muscles which encircled the skull, possibly restricting encephalization. Other genes affecting human evolution are FOXP2 involved in the development of language and HACNS1 affecting limb and digit specialization.
@Jason Jennings Nashon has a comprehension problem. Can he provide evidence for a creation event? No. Can he produce any evidence that would refute the theory of evolution? No. What he doesn't want to understand is that if someone does not have an answer to a question, the rational response would be "I don't know." NOT "GODDIDIT".
Nice video. I liked how you didn't brought up religion. No comparisons, no snide remarks, just good clean info... Still 117 people chose to feel offended.
When speaking of Evolution, isn't the consideration and discussion of our divine Creator a relevant necessity, in order TO sort things out sufficiently?
When I was in school, Evolution was the Theory ... and it remains so, to many.
@@anothercomment3451 You dont know what a scientific theory is, do you
@@rayman11 Gravity?
@@anothercomment3451 Gravity, and cell theory are both scientific theories
@@rayman11 Yes! Just a theory.
NO. PROOF. OF. CREATIONISM. STOP. BEING. DELUSIONAL.
Pranks that went too far:
Bible and Qur'an
Makson ikr
damn chill whats ur problem with religion smh
Makson
Evolution is the lie that went too far into the foolish men - who believed whatever was said to them and did not have any rational approach towards it!! And they believed what was said to them because it gave them the freedom to do whatever they want to do with their lives and were set free of religious boundings!
thats a good thing
Evolution is Descent with modification. The value of Scientific Theories is in their predictive ability. The Theory of Evolution would predict that every organism born will most resemble its parents yet will be slightly different genetically. The mutations that occur during meiosis are the basis for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. Those variations are subject to continual natural selection and only those that survive long enough to reproduce will pass their genes to the population gene pool. The genomes of every vertebrate contains not just inherited functional genes but genes that have been disabled by mutation. If such a gene were vital for survival, organisms carrying that gene would be eliminated by natural selection.
One class of genes that were vital for the survival of early mammals are Odorant Receptor (OR) genes odor detection and identification (Odorant Receptor genes). They constitute one of the largest multiple gene families in animals including primates. There are over 1000 of such genes in mammalian genomes, however the human genome retains only 339 active OR genes and a large number of OR genes that have been disabled by mutations (Pseudo genes). One can infer from this that odor detection was not a trait vital for human survival. It appears that when primates took to the trees, odor detection was far less vital for survival than depth perception and visual acuity. No primates have more than 400 active OR genes.
The theory of evolution would predict that as populations of species diverge and further speciation occurs, each such sub population would inherit a subset of the parent gene pool and that the gene pools of those populations would subsequently acquire further mutations unique to them. Each population starts with the active genes and pseudo genes inherited from its parent population that over the course of subsequent generations acquire further mutation that have the potential of modifying a gene or its regulatory sequence. There would also be the possibility of it disabling a gene by a frame shift or premature stop codon. The latter creating a pseudo gene. Again, any individual organism having a gene disabled that was vital for survival would be eliminated by natural selection. Non-vital genes, such as odorant receptors, would not significantly impair a tree dwelling primate's odds of survival. The Theory of Evolution would predict then that an evolutionary tree for primates could be constructed on the basis of active and inactive OR genes. And that is indeed the case.
Another gene in vertebrate genomes, named GULO, is what allows most other animals to produce vitamin C which is essential for good health. In humans, that gene has a specific mutation which prevents it from completing the final stage of vitamin C production and it is now a pseudo gene GULOP. Humans who do not get vitamin C in their diet (from fresh fruits and vegetables) get Scurvy, a disease that decimated the crews of sailing ships.
It turns out that chimps have that same defective gene, disabled by exactly the same mutation. That fact does not bother chimpanzees in the least, because their diet of mostly leaves and fruit provide all the vitamin C they need. Living chimps today of course got that defective gene from their parents who got it from their ancestors who happen to be our ancestors as well. Not only does every ape have that same pseudo gene with the same disabling mutation so in fact does every other primate in the sub order Haplorhini. That is Old World monkeys, New World monkeys, even Tarsiers, which are close to basal primates but not ancestral to the Strepsirrhini sub order (Lemurs, Lorises et al). That places the origin of that mutation to be about 63 million years ago and underscores their common ancestry.
And that is just one of the many pseudo genes passed from generation to generation from ancestors to present day organisms that are evidence for common ancestry. But those are just part of the problem for creationists and "intelligent design" advocates. Evolution explains pseudo genes very well. Explaining why some "creative entity" would leave such things "on the cutting room floor" is quite another matter.
On top of that evidence, Endogenous Retroviruses (ERV's), the genetic 'fossils' of ancient retro viral infections. The thing about retroviruses is that when they enter a host organism's cell, they always insert DNA copies of their RNA into a random location of that host's genome. When that cell divides and replicates, the viral DNA will be replicated at that same location. If that cell is a germ cell, that DNA sequence can be replicated and passed through millions of generations and found in present day species. Again, that is also evidence of common ancestry. As always, the creationist/'intelligent design' people have no good explanation for them.
Those remnants of ancient viral infections, ERV's, make up 8% of the human genome which is an awful lot of DNA compared to just 2% that code for proteins. That expanse of DNA may be something of a 'Scrap Pile' of disabled viruses, but that doesn't mean that certain useful snippets can't be found and put to use. They certainly have. One such snippet is a segment of Human Endogenous Retrovirus W (HERV-W), named Synctin 1 which in humans aids the formation of the placenta.
See: "Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis" www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10693809. Now, other placental mammals use other versions of synctins for placental development, but they are derived from different ERV's. The one utilized by the human genome is the same one used by the other apes and Old World monkeys, but not New World monkeys, which places common ancestry of those species (Catarrhini) more than 25 million years ago.
academy.resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/endogenous-retroviruses.jpg
slideplayer.com/slide/5684143/18/images/63/endogenous+retroviruses.jpg
www.scientificamerican.com/article/tiny-genetic-differences-between-humans-and-other-primates-pervade-the-genome/
www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683/
Ape odor receptor genes
So there you have it, multiple lines of evidence all converging in the same direction. And THAT is as close to absolute certainty as it gets in science.
I love how creationist can't reply to your comments.. They lack way too much intelligence to even try to argue against you.
All this people insulting science and evolution through a computer that wouldn't exist without science and scientific thinking.
Javier Diplomado
Computers wouldn’t exist without science and scientific thinking?
You just supported creation to the fullest.
Computers were CREATED and DESIGNED with different COMPONENTS to perform different FUNCTIONS. Then we installed PROGRAMS to help the FUNCTIONS of the computer.
Sounds close to how the human body was designed with different components with different functions and programs to help with each function.
Theory of evolution wouldn’t exist without the CREATION of life itself.
So you’re saying life wasn’t created because of the ability to reproduce? How about other life forms that don’t reproduce? They’re created?
Ricahrd P'Brien
But what about the bacteria and viruses that don’t reproduce? All they do is multiply themselves. They’re living life forms in addition to having dna of their own.
Genetic recombination happens in bacteria and viruses as well nevertheless they’re still a virus or bacteria. All we have now is a variation of viruses and bacteria. They didn’t change into a different species.
Reproduction and self multiplication just creates variations of that life form. They remain that type of life form. They don’t change into a completely different species.
Ricahrd P'Brien
So we have life forms that can, can’t reproduce. Does that mean they wouldn’t exist without scientific thinking?
This videos uses genetic recombination, reproduction, and natural selection to explain how a small rodent turned into a large elephant thanks to Darwin and Wallace.
Natural selection, genetic recombination, gene flow, and genetic drift only creates variations of the same species. I agree with that. Changes happens everyday.
But insulting scientific thinkers by force feeding a theory of a rodent turning into an elephant is just the same as force feeding a god onto people.
The need for a breeder wasn’t answered just speculated and opinionated let alone how a small rodent survived the painful process of turning into a large elephant over millions of years.
The main issue is the genetic information already determines how long your toe will be. Genetic recombination can create a larger toe however to an extent. Even if our toe grew to being the size of a basketball how could we survive millions of years with a basketball size toe? Have you ever had gout? Just the slightest breeze or temperature change can cause great pain and that’s just a toe! The rodent still has to gain over 2 tons of mass, huge ears, get a lot taller, form a trunk, tusks etc.
The rest of our body parts don’t have the information to adapt with our humongous toe. Our legs will still perform just the same as having a normal sized toe. Therefore causing more strain to the body.
How could a species survive millions of years let alone a hundred years with this type of issue? They would instantly become easy prey, and become way more prone to sickness and disease. Their body doesn’t have the information to counter or balance the huge change.
"So we have life forms that can, can’t reproduce."
Only artificial made life, such as Mules.
"Does that mean they wouldn’t exist without scientific thinking? "
No. And no one said so.
"This videos uses genetic recombination, reproduction, and natural selection to explain how a small rodent turned into a large elephant thanks to Darwin and Wallace. "
Jupp, do you have any evidence against that?
"Natural selection, genetic recombination, gene flow, and genetic drift only creates variations of the same species. I agree with that. Changes happens everyday. "
Do you have any evidence of a gene, or something like that, that STOPS adaption? We see adaption, we see variation within species, we see constant change. To say that this in enough time would not result in new species, is to say that adaption stops. What is your EVIDENCE that adaption stops at some point?
"But insulting scientific thinkers by force feeding a theory of a rodent turning into an elephant is just the same as force feeding a god onto people. "
But no one does that with evolution. Scientists says "here is the evidence", not "accept this". Today, there are 4 million pieces of evidence for evolution.
"The need for a breeder wasn’t answered just speculated and opinionated let alone how a small rodent survived the painful process of turning into a large elephant over millions of years. "
Why would it be painful? Is it painful to you to not be a precise copy of your parents?
"The main issue is the genetic information already determines how long your toe will be."
And trough a number of processes, genetic information change, which is what we call adaption.
"Genetic recombination can create a larger toe however to an extent."
What causes a limit?
"Even if our toe grew to being the size of a basketball how could we survive millions of years with a basketball size toe?"
IF we did, it would be because it was beneficial. Beneficial mutations survive, not hurtful ones. IF it was beneficial, this huge toe would be the REASON we survived.
"The rodent still has to gain over 2 tons of mass, huge ears, get a lot taller, form a trunk, tusks etc. "
Which is no different from 2 short people giving birth to a long person. This person is not in pain because of that.
"The rest of our body parts don’t have the information to adapt with our humongous toe."
The body works the same. If the toe does, so does everything else.
"Our legs will still perform just the same as having a normal sized toe. Therefore causing more strain to the body. "
Which is why such a mutation would not survive.
"How could a species survive millions of years let alone a hundred years with this type of issue? "
These so called "issues", if they did survive, were BENEFICIAL for survival, THAT is WHY the mutation thrived..
"They would instantly become easy prey, and become way more prone to sickness and disease."
Which would mean it was a failed mutation, that would be killed off = Natural selection.
"Their body doesn’t have the information to counter or balance the huge change."
So, tall people are having problems with being tall, because their parents are short?
What is evoultion?
It is a thing that creationist love to argue about
Its fiction.
Marta Hailegiorgis fiction is a magical man that created the world with magic. look how dumb you sound.
ua-cam.com/video/H2sWzApuuvc/v-deo.html
Evolution is NEVER about "one animal turning into another" as creationists love to characterize it. Offspring will always differ slightly from their parents genetically. Errors (mutations) always occur during cell division because replication is an imperfect process.
Evolution takes place within populations as mutations are subjected to the natural selection process and survivors pass their genes to successive generations via the gene pool.
When segments of a population become genetically isolated from each other their separate gene pools diversify due to mutations that are now unique to different gene pools. As those differing mutations accumulate, chance interbreeding between the now separate gene pools become increasingly problematical and speciation has occurred. It is no more possible to determine the exact point where speciation occurred, any more than it is possible to determine the point on the electromagnetic spectrum where red turns to orange. This is why it is so ludicrous for creationists to claim that there should be fossils of one species in the process of becoming another.
When speciation occurs, the two populations will initially be quite similar genetically and physiologically. Mutations unique to each population are continuous and lead to greater and greater differences between them. There is no point at which mutations stop. Many species with recent common ancestors can still interbreed but offspring are quite often sterile. For example, horses, donkeys and zebras can all interbreed and offspring are usually, but not always sterile. Dromedary (one hump) and Bactrian (two hump) camels can produce fertile hybrids of superior size and strength.Such hybrids are thought to be one factor in diversification of species.
On the larger scale, evolution results in incremental alterations to what is already there. As an analogy, imagine a robot gardener dragging a hose around various obstacles it encounters until it runs out of hose. Now an intelligent gardener could simply retrace his steps and take a different path. The robot gardener (evolution) cannot do that. With a limited tool kit, it can only (figuratively) add more hose. We see this throughout nature. One example being the Panda's "thumb". Now the Panda is a bear with a bear's paw. Their diet is bamboo leaves which they spend many hours per day stripping from their stalks and eating. A thumb would be quite useful in that activity, but evolution cannot rewind to produce one. Instead, it has taken "a piece of hose' (a wrist bone) and enlarged it to act as a stand in for a thumb. That is not an elegant solution and not a perfect one, but it gets the job done. Evolution is does not produce perfect solutions, but tweaks here and there to "get the job done".
In much the same way, the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve in fish (yes fish have one). The larynx serves multiple functions, including control of respiration, airway protection, coordination of swallowing, and phonation. It is a branch of the Vagus nerve responsible for hiccups (another vestige). The nerve in fish travels from the brain to the larynx past the heart. This is a direct route and would be consistent with 'intelligent design'. Through successive stages of evolution these organs moved further apart, yet the nerve still looped around heart arteries, in effect "adding more hose" to get the job done. In the giraffe, that amounts to about 15 feet of "extra hose".
There is a similar situation in the leg bones of the horse. In the course of evolution, running over hard baked plains favored the fusing of leg bones (Fibula and tibia) for a stronger bone. As in other mammals, there is an artery that passes between these bones. Had an "intelligent designer" been involved, the artery would have simply been rerouted a couple of centimeters and the bone totally fused. Again, the 'robot gardener' of evolution cannot backtrack to do this and a gap remains between the two bones the only function of which is to allow passage of that artery.
One often hears creationists claim that life is "perfectly designed", yet the various adaptations we see in the natural world are quite often just good enough to get the job done. Weak backs and knees are characteristics of humans; we have a common windpipe and trachea which results in many deaths each year from choking; we have a vestigial appendix that, while any remaining function is debatable, an inflamed one can be fatal.
We have 3 sets of muscles attached to our ears that would move them toward the source of sound that are now totally useless unless one considers wiggling ones ears to be a form of sexual attraction.
We all have a semi-lunar fold in the inner corners of our eyes with attached muscles that are vestiges of nictitating membranes many animals have as a "third eyelid".
Then there is the Plantaris Muscle, which in other primates facilitates arboreal lifestyle, allowing the feet to function much the same as hands in gripping branches. The human foot has lost this ability in the process of becoming bipedal, but the muscle is still there. It is a long pencil thin muscle and tendons running down the back of the calf, that are extremely painful when ruptured and often misdiagnosed as a more serious injury. This injury, often called "Tennis Leg" occurs most frequently in athletes over 40 due to the tendon and attachments becoming more brittle. With or without treatment, the two ends of the rupture will shrivel and disappear within weeks with no loss of function in the leg. It is indeed one of evolution's leftovers. It is often harvested for reconstructive surgery elsewhere in the body.
We see vestigial structures all through nature. They remain in some cases because they have been adapted for other purposes, in others they remain simply because there has been no evolutionary advantage to eliminating them. Similarly, pseudo-genes are vestiges of previously active genes. They certainly do not support the idea of "intelligent design". They are however, completely consistent with the Theory of Evolution
"Offspring will always differ slightly from their parents genetically." What are the differences between you and your father that you think lend support to your neo darwinist faith?
How long did it take 2 write that?
Mutations are almost always harmful.
Randall Wilks I am very curious on the scientific methodology used to determine “bad design” in life.Do we redesign the life with the theorized bad design and see if it’s “better”?
Clearly life is undergoing genetic degradation.This is evident by the increasing number of genetic diseases and disorders.It seems far more reasonable to say that “evolution” is a process that slowly but surely is causing a breakdown of our original design.Natural selection works to remove genetic diversity from the population and leads to extinction.This is evident by all the extinct animals found as fossils and the increasing extinction rate agreed upon by most scientists today.
The irony of your argument of “bad design” is that it is entirely subjective and it still infers design.It is hard to deny that life has purpose and purpose infers intelligence.Things that have specific functions infer intelligence and fore thought.Creation is the most reasonable and logical explanation for life. Evolutionists always make the debate about creation or evolution.Creation is how life started and we all have heard the anti-creationists declare that evolution has nothing to do with how life started. So why are Evolutionists opposed to creation? Is it maybe a defense of atheism or an issue with God? Lol!
It is not creation or evolution, it is about the limitations of evolution and what the evidence infers.It is a debate over the claims of universal common ancestry, not over if genes change over time.Of coarse offspring differs from their parents.Duh!
We just make reasonable inferences from the evidence.Claims like, we are related to carrots are absurd and completely unfounded by the evidence.Creationists have plenty of scientific evidence to support their objections and criticisms about universal common ancestry.I am completely unaware of any creationists that argue that life has not changed over time.How you have convinced yourself that intelligent design hinges on whether or not you think the design is bad, good, perfect or whatever, is beyond me? We are the most intelligent creatures on Earth and could we create a better human? Could we create the simplest form of life? Your arrogance highlights your ignorance of how much of life we don’t understand and how we are nowhere close to being able to create living things.
It sounds like you’re mad at your creator. Like a child, you think that pretending he doesn’t exist is a reasonable way to act.What is next?Hatred? Maybe revenge?Are you trying to teach him a lesson by spreading atheism? If you’re going to make claims about creationists, at least address their actual arguments and the evidence for those arguments.If your going to call a design bad, be consistent and admit it was designed.I really hope you find peace with God.I hope you stop seeing yourself as some bad design and recognize that you are of infinite value and are made in the image and likeness of the creator of the universe.God bless you.
Randall keep your comments short by the time someone read all of your comments they could have evolved into something else...
This is a very well put together video on evolution and the process behind it. Thanks for the upload.
*Lies Creationists Tell - about Transitional Fossils - "Missing Links"*
*Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that tangibly and demonstrably encode an evolutionary transition. Thus, transitional fossils are characterized by their retention of primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in contrast with their more recently evolved characteristics (the phenotype and genotype).
The term "missing link" is a popular slang term for such transitional forms, but is misleading. The term is particularly used in popular media, but is inaccurate and confusing, partly because it implies that there exists a single undiscovered fossil that is needed to confirm the transition. In contrast, the continual discovery of more and more transitional fossils is further refining and validating evolutionary transitions. Transitional fossils are numerous and varied throughout the tree of life, including those between primates and early humans, contrary to the claims of creationists who deny evolution.
Evolutionary theory considers all populations of organisms to be in transition, whether changes be slow, as in genetic drift, or fast, as when a changing environment imposes significant adaptive pressures. A transitional form of life is one that demonstrably illustrates a particular intermediate evolutionary stage of change or adaptation..
Transitional fossils usually coexist with gaps in a sequence in the fossil record. The probabilities of fossilization pretty much precludes the discovery of detailed sequences of fossils spanning millions of years. However, fine gradations of fossils between species and genera are abundant in the fossil record, as are coarser sequences between higher taxa.* www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/transitionalfossils.htm
There are thousands of transitional fossils and more coming to light all the time. Lying about them won't make them go away. In the past, most fossils were discovered by accident, and while many are still discovered that way, paleontologists today plan their digs well in advance using geologic survey data. Fifty years ago, we had no transitional whale fossils. Since then, using advanced geologic maps and the predictive ability of the Theory of evolution, there have been many remarkable finds in the appropriate geologic strata in places like India, Pakistan and Egypt. So, what has been the creationist reaction? To claim that each new discovery creates 2 more "missing links".
References:
.
The creationists bark but the Evolution goes on.
I heard a Someone argue something about if evolution is real how come a rock hasn’t changed into an animal. I was like 🤦♂️
Well tbh that's kinda what this entire theory is saying
@@Rationalist101 not at all
@@DiMadHatter It's similar to it
@@astrixosth9030 Lol
@@Rationalist101 please, show us your understanding of abiogenesis and evolution.
Creationists! If you feel threatened by this then please click on the advertisement or an assortment of videos on creationism on the right. Don't worry, you don't want your fictional "heaven" to be overcrowded anyway. Just let us revel in actual science (or in your mind burn in a fictional "hell") so that we don't have to live a life of ignorance. This seems a lot more exciting than whatever it is you're wasting your time on. I thank you kindly.
+God, Science, and People Ah yes, and still protecting your the typical belief in magic fallacy.
What is fiction to you is the whole world to somebody else. Idk if you were born yesterday but pretty sure you would know
ua-cam.com/video/H2sWzApuuvc/v-deo.html