What is the Evidence for Evolution?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 тра 2024
- Support Stated Clearly on Patreon: / statedclearly
Biologists teach that all living things on Earth are related. Is there any solid evidence to back this claim? Join us as we explore the facts! We start with a close look at the origin of whales from land mammals, and then touch on the origins of several other critters, including our own species.
If you want to learn more about whale fossils and evolution, we have articles for you to enjoy on our website!
statedclearly.com/articles/cat...
To learn more about whale embryos, check out the work of Dr. Hans Thewissen here: web.neomed.edu/web/anatomy/DLD...
For an in-depth view of whale evolution, read Dr. Hans Thewissen's new book "The Walking Whales" www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=...
Corrections:
Dolphin embryos shown in this animation come from spotted dolphins. Adult is a dusky dolphin.
Photo of bowhead whale pelvis comes from the Department of Wildlife Management, Barrow, Alaska
Video gives three separate lines of evidence to support evolution.
Creationists: But where is the evidence!?!
+Adam Boyd It reminds me of a scene in _Johnny Dangerously_ where a young prosecutor goes to the corrupt DA with evidence against the mobster who is bribing him to keep him out of jail:
*Prosecutor*
Sir, I have got conclusive evidence:
Notarized depositions,
tire prints, blood samples.
I've got eyewitness accounts,
murder weapons, fingerprints...
*DA*
Hold it. Hold it, kid.
It's flimsy. It's not enough.
It'll never hold up in a court of law.
+Adam Boyd
It is about the quantity of data but the quality or the meaning of the data.
Three separate lines of data sounds impressive until you realize it's built on assumption, bias and imagination. At least the whale thing.
Tetra Xiphos So scientists imagined the existence of back legs on whales?
And imagined the genetic similarities?
And imagined fossils into the ground?
Funny because when I hear the word imaginary, a giant magical man in the sky would come to mind before I would ever think of something like whale feet.
And when I hear the word bias, I think people indoctrinated as children by their parents into religious doctrine.
It is no coincidence that those who ignore the evidence for evolution also happen to be raised in a religious setting.
Adam Boyd
Whales are descended from animals that lived on land!? That's insane! A guy was swallowed by a whale and lived inside it for three days and three nights? Yeah. Why not?
+Adam Boyd
_"...back legs on whales?"_
Back legs where? Did you check this claim?
_"...genetic similarities?"_
Lots of things have genetic similarity. Do you know how similar your DNA is to a banana?
_"...fossils into the ground?"_
Of course not. They didn't imagine fossils, they imagined the implications of those fossils. They assumed things based on what they think happened not what they observed.
_"Funny because when I hear the word..."_
Now you are speaking on your particular bias.
_"...something like whale feet."_
...is wholly ridiculous. The whale does not have feet. It's a marine animal. What use for feet would it have?
_"...those who ignore.. evidence for evolution (are) raised in a religious setting."_
That is not an empirical observation. Lots of people with religious(?) backgrounds believe in the kind of evolution sold by Darwin. Some scientists that use Evolutionary concepts in their explanations and hold this view believe in a god.
I realize that it's standard for atheistic evolutionist types to presume low intelligence or malicious intent on those that disagree with them. What I don't understand is why, after invoking intelligence as a primary discerning factor, they don't use their own to help settle the matter.
I currently go to a christian school, my teacher showed us this video to prove that evolution isn't real, not realizing that this is a pro evolution video. Then when she realized it went on about how this video is fake and a lie.
I went to a Christian school as well ...that is why I am an atheist today. Your teacher sounds like some of my former teachers.
Lol. I love it.
You should write one of your papers on why young earth creationists don't accept evolution.
It certainly keeps them on their toes.
I'm really sorry to hear you aren't getting a proper education, but you seem smart I too didn't receive a proper education but the internet is a vast body of knowledge and you can self teach the things you cant learn at school
@@richardgregory3684
If the stars aren't set in the firmament, why don't they all fall down and crush us? If the firmament isn't a crystal sphere, what keeps the water above it from pouring down and drowning us? ... I believe in the firmament because it keeps me safe and because Genesis says it's there. You should too.
‘Useless vestiges’ no more, researchers say
For decades, scientists assumed that the relatively small pelvic bones found in whales were simple remnants of their land-dwelling past, “useless vestiges” that served no real purpose, akin to the human appendix or tailbone.
A new study, co-authored by Erik Otárola-Castillo, a fellow in David Pilbeam’s paleoanthropology lab in the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, suggests that the bones, in fact, have a very specific purpose - particularly when it comes to making baby whales and baby dolphins. The research is described in a recent paper in Evolution.
Prof. David Pilbeam
Henry Ford II Research Professor of Human Evolution
Department of Human Evolutionary Biology
Harvard University
Indeed, the thing that whales have in common with land mammals have a function in common with land mammals.
You do not understand what a vestigial structure is. Just another creatard lying about science you are too lazy and ignorant to learn.
" simple remnants of their land-dwelling past, “useless vestiges” that served no real purpose" No, that is a myth that is made up by creationists as they are again the usual bearers of false witness aka active ignorers of the 9th commandment in their own religion. It is quotemining. Vestigial does not imply completely uselessness. The anchor of reproductive organs is a mammal trait supporting that whale are mere adaptations of landmammals to the water lifestyle. This comes again with the total lack of design in whales like the lack of a specific organ which is not a gene info deformation and like we had it before the complete lack of underwater respiratory breathing. Anti-evolution people also confuse the hipbones with the leg bones and the still existing leg info also the backfeet bones and backfreetinfo in the genes and the backlimb toe bones and backlimb toe bone info they do never want to address as observation. This is the same when you quote laypeople from the AiG cult unable to address the gene info by name and why genetics reveal evolutionary history supporting it. And people informed you about this as well. Here you show again your mean spirited true face.
ALL mammals have pelvic bones for reproductive purposes but primarily for attaching the hind legs. In whales and dolphins, the pelvis has lost the need to attach legs and is needed ONLY for anchoring the penis (only in males, obviously). It's a REDUCED function.
In what country did you study biology?
How could mutations-accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)-create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use-much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?
You were born with about seventy mutations in your own genome. How many of those are "harmful"?
@@DenisK21no idea.
@@paulfromcanada5267 The answer is; if you're still alive, NONE of them.
@@DenisK21oky doky if you say so.
Copy & Paste:
The average human may not have wolverine claws, telekinesis, or superhuman strength, but they will possess a wide range of mutations in their genome that make them unique. Most mutations are harmless; however, some mutations can cause serious harm to the affected organism.
@@paulfromcanada5267 Copy & Paste from the same source website:
When we think of mutants and mutations, perhaps our initial thoughts lead us to images of theatrical monsters made from laboratory mishaps. Slime green fluorescing creatures made from the accidental mixing of buckets of radioactive goo, may be the very picture of mutants in our minds. Yet, these images are largely just the stereotypes that we arrive at from the films, literature, and culture we've consumed over the years. In reality, mutations are rarely so dramatic. Mutations are also not always harmful, in fact, some are distinctly beneficial.
Hippos are vegetarian but they ain't bringing it up in every conversation, just saying
They also are the most dangerous animal in all of Africa. So they have a great PR department...
They're vegetarian, but trust me, they wouldn't let a carcass go to waste. I've been to Africa and seen Hippo's feed on a buffalo carcass.
Sounds like they're a bunch of hippocrites. XD
Sorry, I just couldn't let this opportunity pass by...
***** I see what you did there...
What's your point?
When all the comments are about creation vs evolution but i'm just here because my Biology teacher linked a video to do an assignment
It's better to avoid controversy
Let your teacher know that if you watch these on our website, there are no ads! www.statedclearly.com/videos/
Also, ask for extra credit for giving your teacher this tip ;)
@@StatedClearly haha you don't need to if your school chromebook has ad-blocker lololol
(S)-Riley Dunn LLLLL
Same here
*Simply beautiful and true saying from Pasteur:* _Too little science leads away from God, while too much science leads back to Him_
Stop talking to yourself, Oscar
@@Yuan-Xi _Louise_ is feminine, _Louis_ is masculine. Note the the city St. Louis, as well as the u.s. state Louisiana were named for the French King. Note: much of the U.S. west of the Mississippi River was originally claimed by France but was purchased by the U.S. by president Thomas Jefferson.
Concerning the origin of life itself, the watershed between chemistry and biology, the transition between lifeless chemical activity and organized biological metabolism, there is no direct evidence at all. The crucial transition from disorder to order left behind no observable traces
Life isn't order, it's just more disorder.
"The crucial transition from disorder to order left behind no observable traces"- this is just word salad.
And what's this arbitrary standard of "disorder" and "order" coming from, eh? Exactly what part of any organism's chemical makeup is intrinsically "living"? Which aspect of life transcends literally any other natural process, leaps over the laws of physics, in our universe?
What would constitute an "observable trace"?
_Disorder to order_ Self-organization in chemistry includes drying-induced self-assembly, molecular self-assembly, reaction-diffusion systems and oscillating reactions, autocatalytic networks, liquid crystals, grid complexes, colloidal crystals, self-assembled monolayers, micelles, microphase separation of block copolymers, and Langmuir-Blodgett films.
Otherwise: If what you said would be true: The food you eat would not be chemicals used to let your metabolism run alive incl. your biological heartbeat.
The origin of life is about abiogenesis aka origin of ribocytes and cell variations billions of years before animals existed.
When you're here because of your teacher and online school
my condolences. your teacher sent you to the wrong place. it's just a bunch of self made biologists that like to make up big names with phony explanations
they never have any evidence to show the public but that doesnt bother them. A better alternative would be something like robotics, programming or arduinos hobbyist kits to learn C ++ programming language
statistics, physics, chemistry, computer science, those are the REAL sciences
@Doc Reasonable yeah, to all student referred to this site. dont bother wasting your time. go learn something useful like programming unless you want to learn made up phrases like "the Acheulian Hand Axe "
like "hyoid bone "
like "variant of the FOXP2 gene "
and we must NOT forget the "Denisovans " and "bonobos "
atheists also have the inside track to the christian faith that even CHRISTIANS never had! they are experts on the bible and according to these people we all cram into a building and pretend like we're talking to the invisible man
Good day Stephany Ayala, Congrats, the uploader gives a good basic overview of the topic. I also recommend this video series for more details: ua-cam.com/video/AXQP_R-yiuw/v-deo.html as classification of all life and subclades.
There are people on this website, Mark Dunham being one of them, that continually accuse others of lying. Those who do so without corroborating evidence reveal themselves to be the liars.
same dude
Quick question: All living things consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first? Proteins or DNA?
+Abraxos, funny you should ask! I just wrote an article last month that we are currently turning into an animation. statedclearly.blogspot.com/2016/05/what-is-rna-world-hypothesis.html?m=1
All living things are made of proteins
That depends on how you define life. Virions are only made of RNA but they replicate, evolve, and display a variety of behaviors. It's worth noting, however, that they have to infect a cell and use its protein in order to replicate.
Virus are living organisms.
Your article is nothing new, and has been concluded to be unrealistic. I'll point this out later.
Abraxos Viruses aren't living organisms
The assumption or assertion is that similar features imply or demand macro-evolution. Are other explanations possible?
There is no assumption nor assertion. Macro evolution is speciation which has been observable in American Goatsbeard flowers since the 1950s.
Ring species prove Macro-evolution.
You seem to be highly confused. The term MACROevolution refers to speciation by the mechanism of micro evolution. Meaning equus to horse species, donkey species and 3 zebra species is an example of macro evolution (speciation) over many generations of small microevolutionary changes. Same goes for 1 ape broodstock into chimps and humans and bonobos. The term macroevolution does not refer to a fantasy idea in some creationists minds that donkeys could morph into their own cousins like horses or into dogs. Nor does macroevolution refer a chimp would swippswapp into a human or a human into a bonobo as all of those fantasy demands of swippswappery creationists imagine would directly violate the laws of evolution like laws of monophyly. In evolution a lifeform can only be a further adaptation of what the ancestral broodstock already was in a hierachical matter that a lifeform is never able to just completely losing. This is the reason why all 12,000 bird species from tiny hummingbird species to giant ostriches are still birds and also STILL dinosaurs and also still lobe finned fish and also STILL eukaryote cell clusters.
This is also the reason humans are not only still apes today, despite of being humans, they are also still primates, mammals, synapsidian, amniotes and also lobe finned fish, despite the fact that laypeople do not see the gene and anatomical fishyness in humans anymore, biologists still do. ;-)
This is a statement that does not make any sense *"The assumption or assertion is that similar features imply or demand macro-evolution."* Who exactly is asserting such a confused notion?
I always urge people who want to join a science discussion about evolution to learn the basics first. Start with how evolution is properly defined, then look up the definitions of the words "microevolution" and "macroevolution". While you are at it, learn the proper definition of a scientific theory and pay particular attention to how science uses the word "theory" differently than how it is used in everyday parlance.
Once you know and understand these definitions, you will understand that both microevolution and macroevolution result from the exact same process with scale being the only difference.
This newfound understanding will also allow you to see why suggesting that there is some imaginary relationship between the similar features of different species and whatever bogus definition you have for macroevolution, exposes your lack of science education.
*"Are other explanations possible?"* How about start with understanding what science actually teaches us before looking for alternatives.
Evolution verified for religious crybabies:
DNA scarring occurs when small blocks of DNA units are accidentally deleted or, in other cases, inserted. Insertions and deletions are created by cuts in the DNA followed by reattachment at the cut sites. Like actual scars they have a particular location and profile.
Humans and chimps share literally THOUSANDS of such random, accidental scars. Humans share many such scars with all the other primates. The idea that this could have happened by pure coincidence is impossible. It is irrelevant if some of these scars are detrimental, neutral, or beneficial. That this could have originally happened IN EACH SPECIES INDEPENDENTLY is statistically impossible.
@user-mk9qy4yd5t
*Exceptionally a beautiful one from Newton:* _In want of other proofs, the thumb would convince me of the existence of a God._
*The peak of irony: the b-allet dancer A. Eldridge is using an impersonating, girlish account "maylingng"*
@@maylingng4107 *I'm really sorry if Newton and all other greatest scientists made u mad, Andrew. Why do u use this impersonating account btw?*
@@voisierberlaimont
The greatest scientists? You know nothing about science or scientists, Oscar.
Randall wilks needs to calm down dude he got like 5000 comments 😂
That's the ticket. If you can't refute what someone says, then attack them personally. Makes perfect sense.
In an effort to offset creationist propaganda, Mr. Wilks has posted factual information he backs with scientific studies, not like the empty claims of anti evolutionists. He has on several occasions invited creationists to try to refute what he writes and none have ever done so. Since they have no evidence to offer, it is much easier for them to attack him personally.
As Mr. Wilks has often said, "Truth is determined by EVIDENCE". All that creationists have ever demonstrated is that they have no evidence to support the creation story or to seriously challenge evolution. Lies, distortions and personal attacks is their style.
@@linglingzeng2857 robux
@@linglingzeng2857 I would never personally attack you even though your name sounds like a bunch of forks and spoons that dropped to the ground
@@markdunham9949 Thank you for that. You make it unnecessary for me to comment on your substandard intellect.
@@michaelgray9059 No, I did not know that, and neither do you. Neither Dr. Jeanson nor anyone else has ever provided evidence supporting creation mythology. Moreover, creationist website "Statements of Faith" automatically reject any evidence that contradicts a biblical account. There is no sense trying to communicate with those who have rejected reason.
half the comments: did your teacher send you
other half: Randall Wilks
That's the ticket. If you can't refute what someone says, then attack them personally. Makes perfect sense.
dude got thousand likes for thousand coments
Creationists are getting a smack down by Randall Wilks lmaooooooo.
Watching this video objectively brings me to the conclusion that, yes there are similarities to certain aspects of the vast observed creatures (humans included). However, there's still a very huge gap in the line of reasoning connecting common ancestry beyond mere inference.
I am failing to understand how the only explanation to similarities of our genetics or physical attributes must be common ancestry. If our evidence for a common ancestor is similarities in attributes, then it is not at all far fetched to also make other inferences that are not in line with evolution.
I am still yet to find "emperical evidence" not just inferring similarities to a common ancestor.
DNA scarring occurs when small blocks of DNA units are accidentally deleted or, in other cases, inserted. Insertions and deletions are created by cuts in the DNA followed by reattachment at the cut sites. Like actual scars they have a particular location and profile.
Humans and chimps share literally THOUSANDS of such random, accidental scars. Humans share many such scars with all the other primates. The idea that this could have happened by pure coincidence is impossible. It is irrelevant if some of these scars are detrimental, neutral, or beneficial. That this could have originally happened IN EACH SPECIES INDEPENDENTLY is statistically impossible.
Inference based upon actual evidence = "facts"....... You can not say the same however for any supposed alternative which of course presupposes validity - also known as *ASSUMPTION* - based upon ancient claims originating from people of shall we say "questionable validity and understanding." So at least the concept of evolution has tangible evidence behind it whereas those who attack evolution = do not......
p.s. - you also invoke the stereotypical straw man argumentation so often used by said individuals who attack evolution. You demand "empirical evidence" - itself reflecting a subjective implication - in a manner to set up a false analogy.
The evidence is there and hence your argument therefore is one of incredulity towards the same. Yet as noted you have no tangible basis to call that evidence into question as you have nothing to offer as an alternative - at least not openly. Incredulity for its' own sake is not a very compelling counterpoint.
Give us just one example of *"other inferences that are not in line with evolution"?* ....oh wait, there are none, at least none that can be taken seriously. We can provide a great deal of evidence to support the concept of common ancestry....what evidence can you provide for these "other inferences" you refer to?
That is always the problem when an argument is premised upon nothing more than personal incredulity but I suspect that there is more to your objection than you have articulated. You did not mention a common creator but otherwise you are speaking like a creationist.
Is a belief in a creator at the root of your objection? Is that the "other inferences" you speak of?
We do not talk about mere similarities when it comes to the topic. We also talk about how DNA heritage works and how it is readable like why whales have hoof feet and hoof astragalus ankle bones and their specific hoof heridity gene info used for flippers in contrast to seals with their caniformia adapted clawpaw feet to sealflippers and sealion flippers in contrast to penguins and auk birds with their birdwings to flippers. This also includes still readable backlimb genes, not only the leg bones, but leg fiber and leg muscle genes, toe genes etc.
This is also the reason why all those named animals lack any designer for under water breathing organs (no created underwater respiratory systems) as in nature you do not have a fiddlefuddle God to put into the animals specific organs as outside elements to puzzle an animal into being, animals can only use the ancestral heritage info. So have land animals with landlungs only the info to adapt to the water with the lung organ to breathe. This is why gradually a local optimum is reached. This is also the reason you do not have whales or any sea mammal before the ancestral broodstock gradually adapted to the water. This is why in all old burials of the entire world you are never going to find even a single whale in all old mesozoic or paleozoic marine or landside burials of all countries of the entire world.
You need to understand that magic creation or bioengineering is able to breach the restrictions by evolution, while we do not see those breaching design signals. We also do not see the order of any creation ideas of religions in nature. We do not see for example that birds of the air are created alongside fish and whales of the sea. We observe that 12,000 modern beakbird species adapted after teethbird broodstocks established in the jurassic era of the past from dinosaurs. We do not find 1 single birdbone or feather or nest or birdegg in all older paleozoic burials before archosaurs had dinosaurs as adaptations and before dinos had teeth birds as further subadaptations. Then gradually in the burials the first birds appear and we dig them up.
This is not addressed by critics of evolution at all. Neither are saurian teeth genes, saurian claw genes and saurian scale gene bases in birds and DNA scars of birds to be damaged by diseases crocodiles and alligators were damaged with. As crocodiles are also archosaur variations. This means today we read in crocodile scars of DNA damaging viral diseases which are identical to bird DNA damages as both ancestors must have had the same sicknesses damaging their great-great-great...grandparents before dinosaurs did exist. This is something antievolution people also do never address. They just find excuses "well god made viral scars just look like diseases in the locations to fool us all" this is not how the world works. Realit is not all the time to be persecuted or deceitful where you could play a victim card and call it a day.
Uhhh because if younger species didn’t evolve from older, older went extinct and younger magically appeared. But you’re probably ok with magic.
*Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
Some are asking if whale hips still have any sort of function. Yes they partially do. In normal land mammals, hip bones serve 3 main functions:
1) attaching the legs,
2) supporting internal organs
3) anchoring muscles of the sex organs.
Whales have lost the first two functions but maintain the third.
you said there are 3 but only statedv2?????
Galaxy Husky did you other to click "read more"...
Stated Clearly 😂😂😂 where did they come from and where did O2 come a rock
Galaxy Husky because it's a lie they make up stupid things and how about if what they found were dinosaurs that haven't been found orbits just Clay that a man child made
Thank you for providing the confirming evidence.
out of the 58 thousand comments half are made by one person
Kind of annoying, I’d say.
So true, so true
Like Randall calm the fuck down
@@tadstrange1465 He still comments to this day lmao
@@saskia4313
He do be speaking facts tho
Charles Darwin the Gods killer.
*That's a theory as true as the theory of evolution. By now, Darwin knows that he was wrong. One day u'll be in the same situation.*
@@voisierberlaimont👈🏻ATMSR sock puppet account
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *It's not surprising that an i-nsane, rtrdd b-allet dancer who insisted that ostriches have no wings is a fan of Darwin, the one who insisted that some humans are non-humans low races.*
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger *U warned us that all ur comments are rtrdd, Andrew.*
I LEARNED A LOT FROM THIS
If the spaghetti monster isn't real then why are he planets shaped like meatballs?!
And why is DNA shaped like pasta?
Why is the blood colored like tomato sauce?
Maybe the Christian God is real and He made planets shaped like meatballs in order to test our faith?
This theory needs serious work. :(
Gay Jesus Physics. It explains meatball formation too.
So the book of Jude not only "predicts" there will be people who doubt Jesus, it actually claims they are a sign that Jesus is returning soon? Isn't that exactly the kind of thing you would expect from a religion that wants to claim exclusive validity and scare people away from believing anything else? How is that different from other major religions?
This video is playing on a loop at the San Diego Natural History Museum. Well done!
@Oscar Hero Considering it was debunked over 60 years ago, and since I don't want to rewatch the video and I didn't see that part of the museum, I'm going to guess no. A quick Google search would answer your question though.
@Oscar Hero I highly doubt that. The scientific community has openly debunked it.
@Oscar Hero You seem to be deliberately trying to smear scientists and science museums to further your own anti-science agenda. The Piltdown Man was declared a hoax in 1953, yet it's only in the last few years that we've discovered how exactly Dawson produced his forgery. Any museums that display replicas of the Piltdown Man have accompanying signage which state exactly what it is: NOT legitimate science, but a forgery produced by fraudulent means. It is displayed as a warning that the story of the Piltdown Man, while historically significant for its negative impact on the scientific community and the public, is in fact false and any claims to the contrary should be disregarded.
@Oscar Hero Just because a few scientists have falsified evidence doesn't mean we should write off evolution as a whole. Try to see beyond your myopic religious beliefs and learn some real science.
@Oscar Hero Also, Lucy wasn't a hoax.
From an article by Stephen Bartholomew, Jr. on March 12, 2021
The credibility of Whale evolution plunges to zero. This is clearly demonstrated by looking at the amazing physical features of whales and comparing them with the features of its original ancestor. A partial list of these features is:
Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.
A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.
Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index and to withstand high pressure.
Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.
Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.
Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.
Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).
Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.
Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.
Many cetaceans find objects by echolocation. They have a sonar system which is so precise that it’s the envy of the US Navy. It can detect a fish the size of a golf ball 230 feet (70 m) away. It took an expert in chaos theory to show that the dolphin’s “click” pattern is mathematically designed to give the best information.
These features are obviously highly developed and extraordinarily complex. However, none of them were inherent in Pakicetus or any of the other creatures that have been suggested as the whale’s original ancestor. Because mutations are the only source of genetic change, all of them, therefore, must be attributed to mutations. The creation of these entirely unique features, however, requires the introduction of new genetic information, and mutations are incapable of this:
Good for him, why should we care what this Stephen guy says? Does his article feature any biological and genetic data? Has it been peer-reviewed? Is he, in fact, any sort of biologist at all to begin with?
@@DenisK21argument from authority. Not important what his credentials are (though he does have them) what’s important is does what he has to say make sense?
@@paulfromcanada5267 Wow, he has "credentials". How specific. So that's a no on the biological or genetic data and on the peer review, then. Just no actual reason given that any of those adaptations cannot have arisen naturally, and a nonsensical assertion that the altered "information" in mutated DNA sequences that wasn't there before isn't, by definition, "new information". So, I say again... *why should we care?*
That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
Your copy and paste from a laypersons comment (you could just copy a friend you know from church) does not even get nostril migration with the photos in the videos. Eyes are not puzzle piece designs, but to water lifestyle adaptation. We had this topic before where you did not want to address even the photos of the semi-aquatic whale intermediates. So does Stephen in his private laypeople comment not address the DNA heritage record. And why do you come up again with denial of genetic changes. We had this topic before with the whippomorpha comparison you did not understand.
@@DenisK21 The parade of reconstructions on pages 66-69 in National Geographic’s November 2001 issue were meant to sum up the magazine’s claim regarding the origin of whales. A whole string of creatures were lined up one after the other and described as transitional forms in the evolution of the whale. According to the magazine, the order of these creatures, according to the geological periods they lived in, was as follows:
Pakicetus (50 million years ago)
Ambulocetus (49 million years ago)
Rodhocetus (46.5 million years ago)
Procetus (45 million years ago)
Kutchicetus (43-46 million years ago)
Durodon (37 million years ago)
Basilosaurus (37 million years ago)
Aeticetus (24-26 million years ago)
National Geographic’s list continued, but included known categories of dolphins and whales.
The number of these supposed transitional creatures in this series varies from one article or textbook to another, from three or four to ten or more, but almost all of them start with a four-legged creature that looks somewhat like a wolf, or a cow, or perhaps a wolf-cow. Yahya’s article is a withering critique of this whole idea of transitional forms in whale evolution. He says that “despite all National Geographic’s best efforts, the fact that there were no transitional forms between land and sea mammals and that they both emerged with their own particular features has not changed. There is no evolutionary link. Robert Carroll accepts this, albeit unwillingly and in evolutionist language: “It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales” (Carroll 1998, 329). The conclusion of Yahya’s article states the following:
Contrary to the claims of the paleontologist Hans Thewissen, who assumes a major role in evolutionist propaganda on the subject of the origin of marine mammals, and is one of National Geographic’s most important sources of information, we are dealing not with an evolutionary process backed up not by empirical evidence, but by evidence coerced to fit a presupposed evolutionary family tree, despite the many contradictions between the two . . .
Loud evolutionist propaganda about marine mammals . . . resembles the ‘horse series’ that was once put forward in the same way, but which evolutionists then admitted was invalid. A number of extinct mammals that lived at different times were lined up behind one another, and the evolutionists of the time tried to impose this as ‘firm evidence.’ Yet the truth emerged over time, and it was realized that these animals could not be each others’ ancestors, that they had emerged in different periods, and that they were actually independent extinct species. Niles Eldredge, the well-known paleontologist at American National History Museum, where the schemes of horse evolution were exhibited and where they are still kept in a basement, has this to say about them:
There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.
The evolution of the whales’ fairy story, so fiercely defended by National Geographic, is another of these fantasies of natural history. Like its predecessors, it too will soon find itself in the waste bin of science
Ok, let's break this down. First of all, the fact that certain plants and animals have similar structures is not at all "scientific proof" that they evolved from one another. Vestigial organs are observed to be structures that have degraded in their functionality, like in these whales. Natural selection can only "choose" from a gene pool that already exists. It has NEVER been observed to create new genetic information, such as would be required to change gills into lungs, fins into arms and legs, or scales into feathers, no matter HOW much time you want to imagine. Likewise, genetic mutations are a degradation of genetic information in living things, not the creation of new genetic material. The fact that the fossil record is massively deficient of supposed transitional forms has even been admitted by some evolutionists who care to be honest. The comparatively minuscule amount of supposed "transitional forms" presented can just as easily be described as animals with structures specifically designed to function in adjacent environments. Observable science has shown that although adaptation occurs as a process that has been pre-programmed into the DNA of living things, there are clearcut limitations, and that bacteria have ALWAYS been bacteria, dogs have ALWAYS been dogs, cats have ALWAYS been cats and Darwin's finches have ALWAYS been finches. That is what we see in OBSERVABLE science. And as for embryonic development, I have no idea what they think that "proves." That is just a fanciful idea. This presentation is just an oversimplified theory which immediately breaks down as soon as you scratch the surface. Sorry, but you need just as much FAITH to accept this as you do any other belief system.
Can’t talk scientifically to conclude your religious superstitions, that faith quip you guys use by the thousands is no substitute for education.
Similar structures alone indeed may not be sufficient to determine common ancestry. Entire identical sequences of DNA, however, is the clincher. Shared genes means shared genetic ancestry. Period. If you have a problem with this, then you'll have to find some pretty darn good evidence that everything we ever knew about genetics is wrong. Gooooooood luck with that.
"Vestigial organs are observed to be structures that have degraded in their functionality, like in these whales." Yes, that is verbatim what "vestigial organs" means. .........And?
Who ever said gills changed into lungs? Lungs originated as adaptations of outpocketings of the esophagus, while gill structures were repurposed into jaw and ears structures. And you're going to have to cite some evidence indicating the impossibility of limbs adapting into an alteration of limbs and whatnot.
Oh boy, the good ol' "loss/gain of genetic information", based on a ludicrously arbitrary and undefined standard.
"comparatively minuscule amount of transitional forms" is not how you say "literally every fossil we've ever found is a transitional form". Before you attempt to refute this point, go look up what the term "transitional form" even means.
If bacteria produced something that wasn't a further genetic variety of bacteria, and dogs and cats and finches likewise, it would DEBUNK the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is descent with inherited modification, not a complete shift in taxonomy. That's it. Dogs, for example, are STILL a genetic variety of wolves, canines, carnivora, mammals, synapids, tetrapods, vertebrates, animals, and eukaryotes.
Your fetus (like those of literally every single land vertebrate) developed gill structures that were then repurposed into jaw and ear structures. Genetic holdover from gill-bearing ancestors, or God reaching into your mom's womb to play a pointless prenatal prank?
All living organisms (and all those who are extinct) have similar genetic alignments, simply because they all evolved from a common ancestor. Vestigial organs are organs, tissues or cells in a body which are no more functional the way they were in their ancestral form of the trait. It is authentication of evolution and hence, were helpful in explaining adaptation. Such a structure can arise due to gene mutation which causes a change in the proteins.
Genetic mutations can be harmful, beneficial and (most of them neutral. The beneficial mutations enhance the organism's ability to survive and flourish. The fossil record are (millions of fossils unearthed) represent snapshots in time only, since fossilization is very rare and requires specific circumstances. Every species that ever lived and that lives today is a transitional form -- meaning that it is in transition. Each generation of every species is different from the predecessor generation of the species at the molecular level. As you are different from your parents. There is nothing preprogrammed! For each generation, slight errors are made in the copying of the genome, thus evolution occurs at the molecular level in populations and not in individuals.
"Observable science only" is a ridiculous and fake nonsense by YOU and fellow creationists. Most of the science is not observable. Have you seen an electron? or have you seen a far away galaxy in the universe (for example, a galaxy named HD1 has been crowned the new farthest object in the cosmos. Located some 13.5 billion light-years away). Most of the science is detected by other means than observation. Speaking of observation...... have you observed your god, biblical creation, heaven or hell? So then, according to you, they do not exist, is that not right?
No cats do not stay cats, and dogs do not stay dogs. Can you name a single excavation where dogs and cat remains were found that were more than 10 million years old? Given the fact that life existed on this planet for about 3.5 billion years, where did the dogs and cats come from? And each animal appears in a specific geological period, and there are no samples before that appearance; where did these animals descent from? Or is your god busy and pulling a new creation every couple of years?
You polluted the comment section with a pile of worn-out trash crammed into your brain by the dishonest clergy of your religion. Try to get an education, or at least read one science book!
Ok, let's break this down. First of all, the fact that certain plants and animals have similar structures is not at all "scientific proof" that they evolved from one another.
Vestigial organs are observed to be structures that have degraded in their functionality, like in these whales.
Natural selection can only "choose" from a gene pool that already exists. It has NEVER been observed to create new genetic information, such as would be required to change gills into lungs, fins into arms and legs, or scales into feathers, no matter HOW much time you want to imagine.
Likewise, genetic mutations are a degradation of genetic information in living things, not the creation of new genetic material.
The fact that the fossil record is massively deficient of supposed transitional forms has even been admitted by some evolutionists who care to be honest.
The comparatively minuscule amount of supposed "transitional forms" presented can just as easily be described as animals with structures specifically designed to function in adjacent environments.
Observable science has shown that although adaptation occurs as a process that has been pre-programmed into the DNA of living things, there are clearcut limitations, and that bacteria have ALWAYS been bacteria, dogs have ALWAYS been dogs, cats have ALWAYS been cats and Darwin's finches have ALWAYS been finches.
@@biglongfish9253 You fail to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence FOR biological evolution and the obvious impossibility that your phony god/creator cannot do anything.
Your arguments about "randomness" fail as well because you ignore natural selection.
Creationist still be like: "I don't care what you say, I still haven't seen a monkey evolve into a human so evolution is still false!"
And let us never forget the elusive Crockaduck.
+OnceUponAtimeThereWasAyoutubeUserWithAlongName 1992 If you cannot observe it, it is not empirical science. Sorry.
+Joe Richmond Have you ever gone to space and seen that the Earth is round? I can't imagine you would believe it otherwise.
I do not believe the Earth is flat. That is a false accusation. But no, I have not been anywhere to observe that it is round.
So you've traveled around its entire circumference, then? I admit I'm a little jealous, I've always wanted to travel the world.
Not to prove that it's actually round, of course, because I understand that such theories can be demonstrated by indirect evidence, and I can accept a thing as being true when that indirect evidence weighs overwhelmingly in its favor, rather than having to directly observe every feature and every event in the universe before I can self-righteously decree that it is credible and worthy of "empirical science."
Just for the experience. See new things, try the food, and all that.
Really well done. Congratulations, I can imagine the hard work to make all this animations. If at least some people can understand and accept this true, your work is done. Keep walking, guys.
***** Grande Pirulla!
No, that's not what he is saying at all actually.
What he is saying is that even though this video (and thereby the animations that go along with it), must have taken a lot of hard work to make.
However if at least some people come away from this video understanding and accepting the overwhelming evidence for evolution (the topic of this video), then their (the video's creators) hard work will have paid off.
Guzman..that was my first thought also. Too funny.
Guzman 1611 "So I love you enough to get you saved and to see you in heaven."
--- If I don't qualify for Heaven, what does God intend to do to me?
Canal do Pirula Você por aqui? hahaha
How come whales evolved blowholes in just a few million years
But sea turtles and giant marine reptiles dont have blowholes
Whys that
@@AI_Alien_Intelligence how does that make sence
earth is a lonely planet of 8 billion people
whales are from earth
@@AI_Alien_Intelligence how does that make sence?
Other animals simply evolved the ability to close their nostrils. 🤷♂️
The prehistoric marine reptiles (excluding sea turtles) also sorta have "blowholes" similar to the basilosaurids, maybe if they never went extinct, they will evolve similarly to cetaceans? Idk.
So. Do you truly believe that someone, let's say, human, if staying long enough in water will change to become, sea-living-human (sea-living-animal)?? Or that because of being in water, something will change in his genome??
Yes, if humans lived primarily in water over millions of years we will be adapted to water, and no it’s not because the genome somehow changes because your in water, but because of natural selection. We have direct evidence of this happening in whales.
What drives such individuals to exist in water......... = that is your question. A person can spend their lives working around water and not have an impetus for evolutionary change because = they can still go back to land if they want. So being in water alone offers no incentive to adapt.
If however something occurred with the environment so as to cause humans to abandon living on land then after a time it is possible that generations of people raised in an aquatic environment might begin to evolve in certain ways given that environmental stimulus.
Moral: there are people today whose ancestors spend much of their lives in the ocean being divers who rely upon obtaining their food by harvesting the ocean floor.
Consequently study has shown whereby they compared to "dry land people" have developed larger than normal spleens so that their bloodstream can retain more oxygen = allowing them to hold their breaths longer than normal - which facilitates their ability to work under water for longer periods of time. That = is an example of an evolutionary adaptation as a consequence of environment.
So such change is not "purposeful" in so much as it was sought out. It rather reflects that somewhere along the line people were born with oversized spleens ----> which allowed them to survive in their environment better ------> which means they were more successful and able to reproduce -----> leading to more children being born with larger spleens = until they now represent the status quo among that population.
Evolution is not about "changing into something else." It is about = changes which occur for some reason which prove beneficial in some manner. With enough such changes then over time = new species can potentially arise within a compatible environment.
The Bajau people have long lived on the waters of Southeast Asia, where they've evolved into sea-dwelling beings with bodies like no other humans on planet Earth. And they've evolved internal organs and body capabilities unlike our own.
No, changes are hereditary, their descendants will be a different species
No, that one human will not change one bit. Evolution isn't about individuals, it's about populations. Have a population of humans in a waterborne environment, and generations later, you'll find the latest generation of that population has adapted to that environment.
So you’re saying the whale from the croods was real?!
No that is fantasy. The hoof artiodactyl ancestors like Pakicitidea did not look like modern bluewhales on 4 stompy legs. The modern look did not exist in the past.
Well, Tony, most people lacking cognitive ability are at least smart enough not to advertise the fact. You, on the other hand, flaunt your ignorance for the world to see. What happened to you? Fetal alcohol syndrome? Dropped on your head as a child? Most likely you are the product of a long family history of incestuous relationships.
Prove it.... Crickian!!! Seen any aliens lately?
@@user-oh7ds8pm1o
Do you number your sock puppets?
Did anyone hear about the creationist that won a Nobel Prize for disproving evolution?..........
Yeah, neither did I.
Appearantly every creationist can disprove evolution, yet none of them had won a Nobel Prize. Hmmm 🤔
Thank you Joely for revealing your double digit IQ. We won't waste time with the likes of you.
Did anyone hear about the evolutionist who who disproved the existence of God?... Didn't think so
@@akoskormendi9711 so, nothing is disproven until someone wins the Nobel Prize? That's just about the stupidest thing I've heard. Definitely the stupidest thing I've heard today
@@SupremeOverkill No evolutionist wants to disprove God, and you can't disprove something that cannot be proven in the first place m. Disprove there is a microscopic tea pot between the orbit of Saturn and Uranus. Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy, you need to provide evidence for youd assertion first, so it can be debunked. Until then, dismissed.
Intermediary species are all fine and dandy, but we need to see species intermeidary to intermediary species, and species intermediary to species that are intemediary to species before that.
Every generation of every species is an intermediary species. Obviously you do not understand that evolution occurs in populations (not in individuals) at the molecular level. Over thousands of generations the small molecular changes add up to a significant changes and a new species is recognized.
@@maylingng4107 oh, I understand that this is what is believe to be true, I just don't understand how those two nostrils in the picture would gradually make their way up to the top without it entailing a massive structural overhaul of the entire species. You can't change one thing without changing the rest of the body. And those changes don't happen lightly. I understand the idea of small changes accruing over time, but I don't understand how that ties in with most species existing today having remained anatomically unchanged for hundreds of thousand of years. Humans have looked the same for 300,000 years. Let's take a million years then: how radical a change can occur in a million years? Not very. And Purgatorius existed 65 million years before humans. I don't see how you can go from what looks like a squirrel to a human in 65 million years given all that. If someone could please finally explain that to me, that would be great.
@@yuriynekrasov1995
No species alive in any period remains anatomically the same Each generation of every species is different at the molecular level from the previous generation. Evolution (emergence of new species) have been observed in nature and duplicated in the laboratory.
Purgatorius is the ancestor from which all primates. IT BECAME EXTINCT MORE than 40 million years ago, succeeded (evolved into) by all the 500 or so primates. Humans definitely do not look the same or identical to humans living 200,000 Years ago.
@@yuriynekrasov1995 Doctor Banjo you ain't a talking orang utan anymore?!
When you think about the theory of evolution: i suggest you ask yourself some questions in order to scrutinize what you are being told. Here are a few questions, to get you started thinking for yourself.❤
Why are there very distinct animal kinds? If things evolved one from another.
If evolution were true, should we not see all sorts of life forms in transitional states of evolving? But we do not, we see very specific, very distinct kinds of animals.
What would cause things to stop evolving, at a point of being a very distinct animal kind?
If humans evolved from chimps, then why did some chimps stop evolving and remained chimps while others continued to evolve into humans?
Why can we not bread with chimps, if we evolved from them?
Same with all other animal kinds, why can they not bread with each other, if they evolved from each other? Dogs, can only bread with dogs, cats can only bread with cats, cattle can only bread with cattle, and so on.
Why do we not see any animal evolving any new body parts today? We do not see animals starting to grow more legs, or ears, or eyes, or anything.
Why do we not see animals either beginning to change or in the process of changing? Like, we do not see a part leg, or a part eye, or a part ear, starting to form or in the process of forming at all.
Why do we not find transitionary fossils, if everything evolved slowly over time? If this were the case then there should be plenty of fossil evidence of this, instead of very specific, distinct animal fossils being found all the time.
Where did "the stuff" come from, that people say everything evolved from?
Is it possible that anything could come into existence by itself, or create itself?
How can any thing exist?
How could everything exist all by itself, and then evolve into all the amazing things that we see today?
Could the theory of evolution be wrong?
Do humans ever make mistakes, and ever think things that are not true?
Is it possible that evolution did not happen?
Are you willing to be honest with yourself and with other people? A willingness to admit mistakes, faults. Willing to express your true thoughts and feelings even in tough situations.
Is the truth important to you?
Are you afraid to ask questions? In order to seek out the truth and nothing but the truth.
Are you willing to accept or settle for anything, other than the truth?
Humans did NOT evolve from chimps, liar, nobody says they did. They evolved IN PARALLEL from a common ancestor.
First, be the first person in history to scientifically define the term "kinds" in a taxonomic context. Second, learn that humans did NOT evolve from chimpanzees, chimpanzees and we humans are both evolved from the same primate ancestors. Third, learn that evolution is NOT the process of "becoming humans". Fourth, learn that common ancestry does NOT equate to interbreedibility. Fifth, learn that animals, and all other domains of life, are STILL evolving; you yourself have about seventy-odd mutations you were born with in your genome, and your kids have/will have their OWN seventy-odd mutations each.
Actually, before all of that; **learn what evolution even is before you pretentiously pretend to "scrutinize" it just to sound like you somehow know better than an entire century's worth of people who made a living studying all this, fact-checking each other every step of the way.**
In other words... take your own advice, you disgusting hypocrite.
"When you think about the theory of evolution: i suggest you ask yourself some questions in order to scrutinize what you are being told."
Sure.
"Here are a few questions, to get you started thinking for yourself.❤"
Sure we will see:
"Why are there very distinct animal kinds?"
The term kinds is religious and not scientific. Like the directly mentioned dovekind in Genesis 7 on the board of the ark of noah in the idea as the dovekind flies away and back with a twig in the beak to show that the flood was done, which is not referring why doves are mere pigeon variations and like any 12,000 beak bird species (more than mammals) still just 1 beakbird.
In reality all beakbird species came from 1 teethbird broodstock in the early jurassic time period.
In creationism if you assume created kinds so called bara min in hebrew בָּרָא, מִין, You have there that birdness of a dove is basically "faked" so that their birdness is not the ancestry stock to deform it to doveness, but a direct deception to mislead in thinking that doves would be bird descendants, but that it would only be made (also genetically with their heridity record in their DNA incl. saurian teeth genes) to look like them as fake and to fool people with saurian scale and teeth base DNA in doves even today.
A more direct example is leviticus 11 : 22 _Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind_
In the hebrew original of the bible the Harbeh, (Ha)Solam and Hagab brood stocks
( הָֽאַרְבֶּ֣ה & הַסָּלְעָ֖ם & הֶחָגָ֖ב ) migratory/swarming locusts of Egypt. As resident region there.
The different swarming times and danger for the harvest and to be allowed to consume the locusts as food to avoid starvation was the education back the day.
Creationists claim therfore: locusts, bald locusts and grasshoppers (or the 3 "breeding" "variations" of the swarming locusts Harbeh, (Ha)Solam and Hagab) shall be created kinds / after his/their kind by God there. Or the bible would with "Kind" not be literally word by word correct.
So basically: The biblical God spoke an incantation spell and "poof" there was a bald locust/ or more precise the Hagab swarming locust breed (depending on translation from the old hebrew dialect) and it shall be absolute word by word true
To speak "Kinds" into existence by God's magic/miracles INSTEAD of actually observable mechanism in big technical details (like why breeds of locusts have "locustness" or "insectness" for specific mechanical brood reasons).
However REALITY itself shows ALSO observable that locusts, grasshoppers, kathylids, crickets and all swarming locust species of egypt from Solam to Hagab etc. are evolved variations of Orthoptera locusts and subclades of insects, anyway.
This is why it is observable (and also readable in the DNA as directly readable record today as well not only in the fossils that just independently confirm it).
That is the reason why bald locusts and grasshoppers are not only still locusts (as their variations) but why locusts in general are ALSO still insects.
As insect subsub-variations. That is why evolution is true and the bible authors making up the bible did not have a clue about detailed and rocksolid biology.
All animals are still choanozoa cell clusters.
" If things evolved one from another."
Creatures do not swippswapp into eachother. The diversity comes from hierachical splitting of broodstocks into more and more subclades of variations. This is why all 12,000 bird species are still birds from 1 single ancestral species.
1 species had 2 then 4 then 8 then 16 then 32 then 64. Without ever a chicken morphing into a duck.
"If evolution were true, should we not see all sorts of life forms in transitional states of evolving?"
Transitional stages in the speed of evolution are parents between grandparents and their own children. If you zoom out 100,000 generations you see that gradual changes occured. In humans for example 375,000 generations to have a flattened muzzle and snout to flatten human face.
"But we do not, we see very specific, very distinct kinds of animals."
All animals are still choanozoa cell clusters. As all animals share with 1 choanozoa cell broodstock ancestor and diversified into million of subvariations with ants and zebras.
"What would cause things to stop evolving, at a point of being a very distinct animal kind?"
There is no Stopping in evolution.
"If humans evolved from chimps,"
FALSE evolution forbids that chimps could swippswapp into their own cousin species humans. Humans and chimps are both equal speciated variation of the shared common ape hominid ancestral broodstock.
That means the ape ancestor had 2 adaptations. 1 to the jungle lifestyle which is the modern chimp and 1 ape adaptation to the open savannah and hunting lifestyle: the human.
"then why did some chimps stop evolving and remained chimps while others continued to evolve into humans?"
Chimps morphing into humans or humans morphing into chimps would violate and disproof evolution immediately as both are equal speciated variations of the same ape ancestor. Exactly like horses morphing into donkeys or donkeys morphing into horses would disproof evolution, because horses and donkeys and zebras are all 3 equal variations of Equus species as ancestral broodstock before any horses and donkeys and zebras existed.
"Why can we not bread with chimps, if we evolved from them?"
We did not evolve from chimps, we share a common ancestor. And you do not get how speciation works.
"Dogs, can only bread with dogs,"
Dogs can also breed with wolves, but not with bushdogs and mane wolves due to speciation.
Speciation happens due to genetic drift of the population stocks and imbalances of the centromeric protein binding partners.
A good example are Equus variations. Przewalski Horse has 66 chromosome, Horses 64, Donkeys 62, Onagers have 56, Northern&Southern Kulan 56 and 54, Grevy's Zebra 46; Plains Zebra 44; Montain Zebra32 and why hybrids such as zonkeys or mules or zorses do not lack own offspring capacities.
This is why breed foals like mule and zonkey and zorse foals are INFERTILE.
Due to bigger gaps in centromeric inbalances due to speciation from Equus ancestor species.
As the horses are the steppe adaptation of the same Equus broodstock, while the donkeys are the arid mountain ones and the zebras to the african savannah ones.
"Why do we not see any animal evolving any new body parts today?"
All bodyparts are always variations of older ones this is why whale flippers are hooffeet also genetically while sealflippers are clawfeet while penguinflippers are birdwings.
The rest later when the comment function works again. We can see that you do not understand why evolution is an observation. You think we talk about animal swippswappery instead of observable breeding laws and heritage mechanism.
“Kind” doesn’t mean anything in biology.
Do you know how books work?
*Why are there very distinct animal kinds? If things evolved one from another.*
Species evolve based on the challenges from nature to survive. This natural challenge is not uniform, but varies by location, climate, predators, being isolated, etc.
*If evolution were true, should we not see all sorts of life forms in transitional states of evolving? But we do not, we see very specific, very distinct kinds of animals.*
Evolution is a fact. Every generation of every species is a transitional species. Meaning that they are in transition. You do not understand the process of evolution, which occurs at the molecular level, each generation is molecularly different from the predecessor generation. Evolution does not leave gaps, it is continuous. For example, you pour red paint into a barrel full of blue paint, In a continuous manner the blue paint begins to turn pinkish, pink, bluish and then blue.
*What would cause things to stop evolving, at a point of being a very distinct animal kind?*
Nothing! Evolution does not stop, ever. The small molecular changes in each new generation add up, and at one point the species can no longer breed with the starting generation of species -- at this point we recognize a new species.
*If humans evolved from chimps, then why did some chimps stop evolving and remained chimps while others continued to evolve into humans?*
Humans did not evolve from chimps. Chimps and humans had a common ancestor, not a human nor a chimp.
*Why can we not bread with chimps, if we evolved from them?*
Because chimps and humans are different species. Very few species can breed with other (but has to be very close) species. Example: lions and tigers can breed, (because genetically they are very close) but the offspring is short lived and usually sterile.
*Same with all other animal kinds, why can they not bread with each other, if they evolved from each other? Dogs, can only bread with dogs, cats can only bread with cats, cattle can only bread with cattle, and so on.
Same answer as immediately above. There is no such definition in biology as a "KIND". Kind is an invention of creationists, same type as you, so they can avoid and sidestep the definition SPECIES, which they are unable to do.
*Why do we not see any animal evolving any new body parts today? We do not see animals starting to grow more legs, or ears, or eyes, or anything.*
Again, you have no idea what evolution is. Species evolve all body parts simultaneously based on the challenges presented by nature.
*Why do we not see animals either beginning to change or in the process of changing? Like, we do not see a part leg, or a part eye, or a part ear, starting to form or in the process of forming at all.*
Same answer as above. As I explained, that is not how evolution works.
*Why do we not find transitionary fossils, if everything evolved slowly over time? If this were the case then there should be plenty of fossil evidence of this, instead of very specific, distinct animal fossils being found all the time.*
Same answer as before. We have unearthed more than several million fossils, some are very similar (close to identical between two species). Fossilization is rare, and requires special circumstances. 117 billion humans (our species that lived and died on earth) but we only found about 6,000 human fossils --- that is how rare fossilization is.
*Where did "the stuff" come from, that people say everything evolved from?*
Which people say what? What is the "stuff"? All species are composed of chemicals; the first species were composed of chemicals also with the aid of an energy source. We have duplicated some parts of this process already.
*Is it possible that anything could come into existence by itself, or create itself?*
No. That is the nonsense you and fellow creationists claim --- so answer your own question.
*How can any thing exist?*
Look into the mirror.
*How could everything exist all by itself, and then evolve into all the amazing things that we see today?*
Same answer as all the answers above.
*Could the theory of evolution be wrong?*
You would have to disprove all the incredible amount of evidence for evolution, and find a different theory with more evidence, which is highly unlikely.
*Do humans ever make mistakes, and ever think things that are not true?*
Humans make mistakes all the time. Didn't you just make a gigantic mistake by listing your childish and no evidence comment and conclusions?
*Is it that evolution did not happen?*
No. Evolution happened and is happening.
*Are you willing to be honest with yourself and with other people? A willingness to admit mistakes, faults. Willing to express your true thoughts and feelings even in tough situations.
Is the truth important to you?*
The truth is very important -- that is why I wrote this comment. You do not have and cannot find a single piece of evidence that refutes evolution, can you?
*Are you afraid to ask questions? In order to seek out the truth and nothing but the truth.*
No, but you are afraid of the answers.
*Are you willing to accept or settle for anything, other than the truth?*
No.
----- You really need an education in biology, because you have none.
Can you name a single piece of evidence that refutes evolution?
Can you name a single science organization anywhere on the face of the earth that rejects evolution?
What was the last (if any) biology book that you read?
Where do you think the 5 billion species (9 million alive today) originated from?
Did you even complete high school?
Hey everybody! Let's evolve to become even better humans. spread your arms and move them up and down so we may have flaps to fly or glide. let's evolve to flying humans by moving your arms up and down everyday.
Thanks for you report from Moronville (voting 100% for Drumpf).
Barnaby ap Robert I'm just saying how ridiculous evolution is.
Evolution is proved by every single one of the BILLIONS of fossils found all over the world and all DNA.
This is not your everyday stupid, this is advanced stupid
That is in no way what evolution states
Axl K Prz yes it does.
Good trick
Getting people to fall for a nonsensical 3,500 year old origins story? Indeed it was a "good trick"!
Теорија еволуције је и даље - само теорија. Теорија може бити неубедљива или убедљива. Убедљиво приказана и неубедљиво приказана. Међутим, некад и неубедљива и неубедљиво приказана теорија може бити тачнија. Сама убедљивост - дакле - не значи ништа. Кључни аргумент за "сулуду теорију" је то што је космос - бесконачан. Тако се некад мислило. Међутим, астрофизика је од скора (20.век) пронашла да је Космос - коначан. Измерила је и количину "материје" и "анти-материје". У коначном скупу, смањује се вероватноћа за постојање таквих сулудих процеса. Сличност између јединки - не значи - ништа. Чак ни ДНК анализа не значи ништа. Јер нпр. потомство има пола гена једног пола другог родитеља. Али и родитељ има пола гена своје деце а пола неког другог. Тако можемо да извучемо сијасет погрешних закључака ако се водимо тиме (ДНК анализом), суво на основу добијених података, без упита и смислу и да ли резултат који смо добили (закључивањем - убедљивим) уопште - има смисла. Еволуција - нема смисла. То је њен пропуст, и зато кажем сулуда и апсурдна. Сулудо је све што је без смисла речено, па макар било и - убедљиво. Теорија еволуције спада у оне лажи које се упорно понављају без обзира што су сви осведочени у њихову лаж и бесмисао. То је део "нове парадигме" науке, која се базира - на - лажима. Не било каквим него моделованим, јер њима више није циљ наука, него научници, а преко научника - контрола умова друштва. Научницима се нуди "парадигма и модел" по којем ће да раде и да буду покорни "анти-догми". Део анти-догме су све научне недоказане теорије, које су оповргнуте у процесу научног доказивања али су услед политичких или других интересних и ненаучних разлога остављене као мртво месо у здравом телу науке, да својим смрадом укваре њен здрави остатак. Савест многих научника се побунила али су они цензуирани. Хришћани су у праву. Библија је тачна.
Q: Why did the creatard jump off the building?
A: He thought gravity was "just a theory"
@@happilysecular1833 Ето, доказ да људи који су склони насиљу - верују у Еволуцију. Да није насиља, заиста. Насиља над здравим разумом, те теорије не би ни било након доказа да је лажна. Еволуција - и јесте - насиље. Насиље над свима нама. Највеће насиље над онима који јој поклоне своје драгоцено, заиста, поверење. Покушај да умириш свој ум. Разбистри своје емоције. Пронађи срећу. Не био ти ја икад - судија шта ћеш чинити, него сам ти.
@@veselisaonichar8875 You sound like you’re talking about yourself in third person. Religious countries are the most violent and creationism is violence against common sense just like the belief that the earth is flat.
In case my previous joke flew over your head or the translation failed, I was saying that the THEORY of evolution is just as proven as the THEORIES of gravity, DNA, atoms, microorganisms and dinosaurs. You’re just crying because science isn’t playing along with your childish religious fantasies.
*Exceptionally beautiful and motivational this one from Kelvin:* _The atheistic idea is so n-onsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Online April 23, 2024 - the cycle begins anew as the sockpuppets are forced to "recycle"......
Phony likes don’t make up for your lack of citations.
@@happilysecular1833 *Sorry that Kelvin made u mad, Andrew, but he and all other greatest scientists of this planet were too smart to buy Aronra's doctrine.*
If AronRa is a chrisian creationist you are absolutely correct.
Why do humans and chimps share over 200 ERV markers in the same locations in both genomes? Why do antibiotics need to kept up do date with micro organisms if they don’t evolve? How do you explain ring species? Where can I find a single example of a non-transitional fossil? Why does DNA show that some species are more distantly related than others?
Nothing annoys me more than science denial. Thank you for making this video
What about pineapple on pizzas?🙂
By the way, just so you know, evolution is not science. Just because it is taught in the subject of science doesn't mean it's science. For if you do believe that evolution is science, you are saying that one who does not believe in evolution does not trust science.
@@levibutinroblox477 Bwahahahahaha!!!!! Roblox is a game platform that allows children to create and be anything they can imagine. That makes it entirely appropriate for creationists for whom pretense is a way of life. They make endless assertions for which no evidence exists, yet pretend they are somehow superior to others. What you fail to understand 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!*
@@levibutinroblox477 One of the great things about religions is that, since they are all fabricated nonsense, their proponents feel entitled to fabricate whatever additional nonsense they feel is warranted. Since facts are an anathema to you, the incongruity of your claims about science sailed right over your head. Of course, your religion entities you to do so and pretense is what Roblox is all about.
In the REAL world, the following is what REAL scientists have to say:
*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.
Welcome to ur biology online lesson 🙂
Im here cuz of a quarter test I have in 30 mins lol
@Akki Sci channel Lol I got a 82% which is an A (idk how). I'm gonna have to study more because I had to guess in some of the questions
@Dillon Sudduth ?
@Dillon Sudduth no I'm just confused on what u meant
@Dillon Sudduth o ok gn
After watching this video I can see why Darwin had oftentimes through his life had a cold shutter that he had dedicated his life to a fantasy
Observations you are unable to address incl. the photos are not allowed to be "fantasies" by reality. And you are also not any decider of what is real. Reality does this job for you. This video contains DNA heritage record comparison. DNA was not even discovered in the time Darwin was alive. No clue why you try to insult a man that is dead for about 150 years.
@@Angelmouhe's the one that said he shuddered many times during his lifetime, wondering if he had devoted his whole life to a fairy tale.... That's what he said.... Do you deny that?
@h7ds8pm1o So I looked up if you were bearing false witness. And no surprise you did as the context reveals _A letter from Darwin to the geologist Charles Lyell, from 23 November 1859. Darwin expressed how much it means to him that he has Lyell’s support: “I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting doctrine of modification in your new Edition. Nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely:-to have maintained, in the position of a master, one side of a question for 30 years & then deliberately give it up, is a fact, to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for thinking of the many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often & often a cold shudder has run through me & I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth like you & Hooker can be wholly wrong; & therefore I feel that I may rest in peace.”_
so...
Creationists and their sayings and feelings will always been revealed to be lies. It is literally like the cartoon prince of lies character that never ceases to deliver.
Already covered this one..... feelings morals next stand with science to help him feel better about himself and his low-grade hypothesis that he had been shuddering over his whole life...
You really need to call up the Francis Crick institute and see if there's anyone there maybe in a therapy department that can help you.....
*Exceptionally beautiful this one from Lord Kelvin says the same thing as all other greatest scientists:* _If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God._
Another lie from Oscar/Gustave/or from one of his 30 sock accounts.
*The peak of irony: the b-allet dancer A. Eldridge is using an impersonating, girlish account "maylingng"*
Considering that this was made 9 years ago is insane. Truly a high quality video
it's cool and all, but an objective curriculum would also involve what the bible says also.
@@bvbxiong5791maybe in the context of comparative religions, but not in science. Unfortunately following the scientific method does not lead to concluding the Earth is 6000 years old or that we were made by god. Would be cool in a comparative religions setting, and discuss similarities and differences with other origin myths.
@@bvbxiong5791 are you really so dumb to think that biblical bronze age superstitions have any relevance in this video?
@@bvbxiong5791What objective curriculum could possibly be added by the Bible on the subject of evolution? The Bible is part of religious teachings, not science. Bible vs evolution is not a true dichotomy nor are the two mutually exclusive. Would you also ask that evolution be taught along side religious studies? I presume you wouldn't, and for good reason.
@@bvbxiong5791 you're misunderstanding the definition of "objective"
4.4 k dislikes?
Man some people can't handle the truth.
More like they won't handle reality. Some happily admit they won't even believe in math and logic like 2+2=4 when the bible would say otherwise:
ua-cam.com/video/Ysecinv367w/v-deo.html
Where did the worm come from
@@chrishunt3674 where did the homosexual come from
@Winston Grettum watch the video.
@@chrishunt3674 from cells
ಠ_ಠ👇🏻👎🏻
It gives me a deep sense of satisfaction knowing that science has got it absolutely right. 😊🖖
...which means every "creation" story ever invented is nothing more than a steaming pile of 🐎💩
evolution does not by any mean contradict with the existence of God. we simply say that God created this world and install this way of evolution as innate aspect in it...
Ali 22 then please explain how sin fits in this concept. Assuming you're referring to christianity.
sin comes from man as he pursuit perfection, as men trying to achieve perfection each one for his own self they come across unparalleled ways, so some of them commits sin as trying to force their way on behalf of others or on behalf of their own righteousness.
Still doesn't explain how sin came to be, and perhaps most importantly: Why did God create the concept of sin in the first place. Second, you're not at all describing sin from Christianity. What you're describing, although very vague, is somewhat akin to indoctrination or forced dogma. That is not sin as described in the Bible.
So, you're not talking about the Christian god at all. Christianity is incompatible with evolution. So you're actually trying to speak for the existence of an unknown god, am I right? A deistic perspective?
yes, you are right, i haven't read the bible, yet.
I strongly recommend reading it. Reading the Bible throroughly is the leading cause of atheism.
This video is a beautiful masterpiece of informative media.
Yes, informative, but is it true?
Savanna Addison theres a difference between a theory and theorized fact. Gravity is considered a theorized fact for example. Evolution doesnt disprove the existence of a god but it seems to have disproved that a god made every creature. If a god exists, then he set up evolution
Savanna Addison theres flaws in the theory of evolution as well and scientists acknowledge them but they don't disprove evolution. They just question our understanding of how some creatures evolved
+Elias Montoya if you can conclude that God created everything, why would he create things to go through the long stressful process of evolution? Why wouldn't he just create everything the way it should be? In Genesis 1:31 it says "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day." Everything was "Very good." Why would it be called very good if there was still so much to be done? Evolution is imperfect. God is perfect. Evolution involves death. God didn't want death on the earth. You can do the math. :)
Ardipethicus Ramidus, Niels Bohr has never been my go-to when it comes to matters of Theology. The Bible - the original source - is where I go. If you are such a Theologian, try telling me why that statement Niels said is true. By the way, I'm not telling God what to do, I'm telling people about information of God that is already recorded in the Bible. Theology is what I've studied most, so if you have any questions relating to the subject of theology, I would love to answer them.
*Beautiful this one from Lord Kelvin says the same thing as all other greatest scientists:* _If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God._
Another lie from Oscar/Gustave/or from one of his 30 sock accounts.
*I really do love all the greatest scientists of this planet. First of all because of all them l-aughed at Aronra's cult.*
Another lie from Oscar/Gustave/or from one of his 30 sock accounts.
Never heard of AronRa but yes, scientists laugh at cults like Christianity, islam and any other cult that deny scientific facts such as evolution or the earth being round.
@@humankinglobetard3000 AronRa is a science communicator. The original poster "voisierberlaimont" is another of over 35+ sockpuppet account of the trolluser Gustave Larsen/Oscar/atheism_.../David/SusieBrundy etc. AronRa taught him once the terminology of felidae and feline in 1 comment section he did not care about. I usually highly recommend AronRa's Systematic classification of life series, as it gives a very good overview of most major intermediate forms (hundreds) from the single cell eukaryotes to humans at the end of the series. Creationists run away from that as most reasons how organs reshaped, what selection factors were involved and what side lineages branched off at specific time periods from the former ancestry are presented in clear terms.
This is a cool video and all but I still have one question, how the F**K did the blobfish evolve?
Blobfish are the exception; they were created. ;-)
+Drank Yeah, that was the night he gave you shit for brains.
LimeGrass619 to not get stalked by big fish because who want to eat pink slime( I'm looking to you McDonalds)
Just googled 'how did the blobfish evolve', it's even uglier than the fish.
No, they're RELATED to whales. Did you even WATCH the video?!? get rect, dude!
"But Satan staged all of those in order to deceive us!"
Yeah, you gotta watch that Satan, facts are his secret weapon.
+Randall Wilks lol
"SATAN" and "DEMONS" are smart people. but watch out! We use fact bullets that can't be blocked! Well, they can be, with dumb arguement shields, but you'll usually just attract MORE "DEMONS" to the fight. And usually the"DEMONS" win because facts don't lie.
Satan isn't physical being , so that's not right
Nope your just but hurt because, we just found prof for evolution and not your holy book
Cladistically, whales are fish. Isn't this a science channel?
Says who?
are you stupid?
Sure but so are many animals, if you’re getting technical, sure we are boney fish as well, but that’s not a useful categorization
*Exceptionally beautiful one from Newton, with much love:* _a-theism is so s-enseless and o-dious to mankind_ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Another lie from Oscar/Gustave/or from one of his 30 sock accounts.
Giving yourself phony likes doesn’t make up for a lack of citations, Oscar.
@@maylingng4107 *I'm really sorry if Newton and all other greatest scientists made u mad, Andrew.*
@@voisierberlaimont Oly dogs get mad. But humans like you, lie a lot.
First, remember the Bible says that Christians will be ridiculed and insult for their belief, so when you ridicule and insult us for our belief you are actually fulfilling Biblical prophecy. Second, most of use respect that you believe in evolution, so why can't you respect that we believe in creation?
+Joshua Warner
Respect belief? My grandmother believed that little men lived down by the river. I respect evidence and evolution has millions of pieces of evidence backing it. Show me one piece of evidence from the natural world that supports creationism? Live with your wishes if you want but I'd rather reality.
Bruh that aint a prediction. The people that wrote and advocated their book along with others were ridiculed for the foolishness they spoke about. It aint a prediction that you will be laughed and jeered at for speaking nonsense. The way they wrote it was their way of coping with being laughed at. All you have done is taken up their burden.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
"Fulfilling bible prophecy" LOL - "Mockers and stalkers!!!" Of course haha! Oh geez, you don't believe in prophecy for real do you? No offense, you might want to brush up on reality. 'Credible sources' Try them... o.O
My respect is based on if you are using those beliefs to vote and change laws or education policy.
"fulfilling Biblical prophecy" - How does this "prophecy" have weight when it was inevitable that there would be different religions with multiple sects, and humans routinely ridicule other humans for almost anything? That's no more a prophecy than saying "somewhere on earth it will rain in the next 10 years."
I might care if the bible had an exact description of something in science or mentioned me by full name, weight, height, date, skin color, facial features, etc, and then said exactly the words that I used 2000 years before I said it (assuming it's not generic, everyday speak) along with proof that it hasn't been modified since (because a common tactic of many so-called prophecies is to lie and claim something was said in the past when in reality it was made up by a person who already knows the present).
WW3 in the comment section!
So I just want to make sure I understand correctly...all of this is based on the interpretations made based on observations? And because there are astonishing similarities observed it 100% establishes the theory as fact that all living creatures are similar in blueprint but have slight changes in design based on functions etc. and that means obviously all creatures had to have come from two specific ones because the blueprint used shows all living creatures evolved from a single creature and not that there is a basic design varying between species? So the argument for the theory of evolution which could never be replicated scientifically is based on similarities in observation and not scientific studies scrutinised in a laboratory? It is a weak argument and cannot be stated as fact or proof because observations are subject to interpretation and interpretations are fluid...so I understand it as follows... a group of people look at something, see similarities and interpret the meaning of the similarities in a certain way when all they can prove consistently is that there are similarities...and what if someone comes with a different interpretation? Will it be entertained or shunned?
So here are the facts given and my interpretation of it:
1.There are anatomical similarities between species
2. There are DNA similarities between species
3. There are embriotic development similarities at the early stages of conception and somewhere very clear and obvious differences begin to show...
Your interpretation is that clearly they evolved from some vommon ancestor
Mine is that clearly there is a blueprint used so clearly there is design and clearly there are bound to be major similarities and major differences due to minor variations.
Can we state as fact that creatures evolved and changed so drastically? No we can't it is absurd yo claim that as fact.
Can we state as fact that there are forms of an evolutionary principle taking place in nature, yes because it can be consistently observed in micro evolution.
Can we state as fact that there is a clear design to animals. Yes you would be a fool to disagree.
Will I force my interpretation on anyone? No
Are you forcing yours onto those who disagree with you? Yes.
Funny how it works isn't it?
No one is forcing you to accept anything. This is a free society where you can remain as ignorant and as obtuse concerning this topic as you choose to. If you want to ignore the mountains of evidence that all points in the direction of evolution have at it, no one cares. But if you want to advance the notion of some invisible entity with magical super powers having a hand in biodiversity, excuse the adults in the room for not taking you seriously.
There is no Easter bunny....those are little round rabbit turds, not chocolate, it's best not to eat them.
By the same reasoning, there is no invisible creator designing living things from a common blueprint only to watch an almost total percentage of those designs go extinct. What a silly idea.
There are more than a hundred science societies, each composed of hundreds (some of thousands) of PhD biologists. Can you list any one of these that agrees with the trash you just posted (intelligent design)? But you claim to know better and more than all of these million+ biologists?
Evolution verified for religious crybabies:
DNA scarring occurs when small blocks of DNA units are accidentally deleted or, in other cases, inserted. Insertions and deletions are created by cuts in the DNA followed by reattachment at the cut sites. Like actual scars they have a particular location and profile.
Humans and chimps share literally THOUSANDS of such random, accidental scars. Humans share many such scars with all the other primates. The idea that this could have happened by pure coincidence is impossible. It is irrelevant if some of these scars are detrimental, neutral, or beneficial. That this could have originally happened IN EACH SPECIES INDEPENDENTLY is statistically impossible.
"So I just want to make sure I understand correctly...all of this is based on the interpretations made based on observations?" Humans do not have the interpreation freedom you wish they would have. This is a false faith you hold encouraged by humans but not by reality itself.
It is the same nonsense like a kindergarten teacher says the kids they can imagine how the world is by how they want...so that Earth could look like a glass of marmelade or a cube or a pink giraffe. Reality does not allow the naive idea that you can just have some personal opinion on the matter how the planet looks nor about lifeform origin.
"And because there are astonishing similarities observed"
We do not talk about mere similarites you could handwave by some human ideas. We talk about exact organ and tissue repurposement with exact names directly readable from the allele frequencies even with copyerrors and scars by viral damages in the exact locations.
A very mundane example: Birds and crocodiles share more scars in the genome at the same places than with other groups of animals because of the archosaurian heritage from the earlier perm time period (also crossmatching genetic clocks).
This is also the reason you do not find any crocodiles nor birds in all paleozoic layers before their archorsaurian broodstock ancestry were well established to have birds and crocodiles as later variations.
Otherwise you can show "haha a permian feather or a cambrian croco scale!" what you can't.
"it 100% establishes the theory as fact that all living creatures are similar in blueprint but have slight changes in design based on functions etc."
Lifeforms are born by their parents, they ain't designed.
Design is an activity that did not exist in the time period of the distant past before thinking organs were ALREADY well established to perform the first time the activity design.
This means the very origin of the design activity lies in the much younger ages not in any of all the older ones.
In the distant past there was no design and to think otherwise is a denial and not any legit opinion by how history and the order of history works.
"and that means obviously all creatures had to have come from two specific ones because the blueprint used shows all living creatures evolved from a single creature and not that there is a basic design varying between species?"
Different types of speciation aka allopatric, peripatric, parapatric and sympatric speciation are observed in nature and also in laboratory EVEN TODAY.
Species do neither just appear by speaking magical spells into thin air and then "poof" they would be there, nor does any biodesigner use some disessembled bodyparts like some jigsaw puzzles to assemble them into a living breathing wolf that jumps around for example.
Again: Lifeforms come from their respective parents.
"So the argument for the theory of evolution which could never be replicated scientifically"
We replicate breeding laws and heridity mechanism ALL the time. You have bread on your breakfast table as grassplant variation because of evolution of grass with 8x more nutrient info gain into rye and wheaten and barley - not because you did pray to a deity as 1 example and swoop you have a slice of bread appearing on your dish.
You try your very best to misportrait the topic for a complete false sense of security (like non existing interpretation realms which were never there) which is not allowed by the cold and merciless reality.
"is based on similarities in observation and not scientific studies scrutinised in a laboratory?"
Evolution theory is always scrutinized in lab - but it did withstand the test of time with more and more uncovering of DETAILS of evolution - like what exact genes mutated for turtle shells, parasites to adapt and bacteria to bypass hosts or how info gain to more nutrient complexity takes place or which duplications happened and what type of organ function changed or ain't in use anymore.
Today millions of secrets were revealed even the shape of bug reproductive organs.
Like the lung organ as variation of the swimmbladder gullet bag base to store oxygen with SOX mutations and more readable from the lung organ swimmbladder base.
Also the artifacts of the past exactly where we predict them with millions of correct prophecies.
Like with whales where they still have backlimb toe genes, backlimb fiber genes, backlimb muscle genes, backlimb legbone genes - but offswitched and partially broken, while sometimes like in a dolphin they can grow back partially - exactly like whiskergenes with dolphins growing whiskers and so on.
"It is a weak argument and cannot be stated as fact or proof because observations are subject to interpretation and interpretations are fluid"
No. Humans have no fantasy freedom when it comes to facts.
As personal hopes of humans are not allowed when it comes to cold technical overviews if you don't want to become dishonest.
"...so I understand it as follows... a group of people look at something, see similarities and interpret the meaning of the similarities in a certain way when all they can prove consistently is that there are similarities"
Which is crossconfirmed by the fossil intermediate forms you completely ignore but there is a huge problem you ignore anyway... ;-)
"...and what if someone comes with a different interpretation?"
There are different interpretations about a lot of details.
For example it was unclear how turtles got their shells as the fossil record did show BOTH pathways.
Either first the shell protection formed by scale merge and then the rips enlongated beneath the merged scales or vice versa.
By the anatomy and the fossil record findings it was unclear how turtles got the shells, because there Both ways were found in older burials (before any modern land or back to the water adapted turtles were established as broodstocks.)
The funny thing is teams of independent Geneticists analyzed the regulatory gene cascades what genes re and deregulated the ripcage and it turned out that first the rips expanded then the shell protection happened.
It turned out the flattened rip-enlongating and burrowing reptiles are the ancestral form of actual turtles and the transitional forms which were found also in the fossil record, anyway.
BUT there were ALSO cousin reptiles that just looked like turtles (they were basically fake turtle look a like) for the laypeople's eyes, while they weren't real turtles by tiny detail differences in the anatomy.
There the scales first merged shelllike and then the rips broadened they have a slightly different ripcage anatomy, while those were NOT the ancestor of any modern day surviving turtles as the genetic heritage record revealed, those turtle look alikes went extinct with the time of the dinosaurs.
I give you here a prob you ain't aware of:
"Will it be entertained or shunned?"
All is tested.
We also tested the idea of design signals.
You seem to be completely unaware of the matter that we could read Design / Creation in the DNA like "this is a human hand designed to be a human hand" *IF it would be there* .
BUT that is simply not what we *ACTUALLY* observe and read in the DNA itself, repeatably.
Hands of humans for example are not "designed" like by blueprint or out from scratch - All of that would be readable aka Del/ Gli /Xtj + / - regulation deformations & organ recycling.
Translated into proper english it means: Lobe finned fish fin MINUS 2 digits PLUS Finger enlargements = "paw" MINUS the webs PLUS Thumb opposable = Human Hand in this steporder readable.
Containing recycling the former ancestral hierachy incl. unnecessary digits deactivated of the lobe fin base.
This is why humans are to exact 0% ray finned fish - but to 100% very specific 7 digit lobe finned fish descendants with deregulated digit parts. RIGHT NOW.
Not for example 17 or 22 digit lobe finned fish deformations in that exact recycling-repurposement order.
That is why we as humans are today even still very specific DEFORMATIONS of highly specific digit lobe finned fish GENETICALLY by how the activation order read, but absolute not ray finned fish sub-sub...variations nor specific 20 digit lobe finned fish as cousins etc.
This direct and repeatable observation for all human beings makes ABSOLUTE no sense outside of Evolution.
It makes absolute no sense to observe facts like that without being very VERY specific digit lobe finned fish deformatory descendants WHATSOEVER.
part 2
"So here are the facts given and my interpretation of it:
1.There are anatomical similarities between species
2. There are DNA similarities between species"
Point 2 reveals that you do not understand why DNA similarity is a phrase you do not understand and think you have a vague free field for false ideas in your mind. DNA does not allow you to think in ways you want to think.
Like someone thinks that the term "earthball" allows people to think the earth could be a small football to kick around because the term "ball" lets freedom to uneducated people to imagine the size to be small.
DNA does not allow antievolution talk to have even air to breath at all.
"3. There are embriotic development similarities at the early stages of conception and somewhere very clear and obvious differences begin to show..."
Also
4. There are scars by specific viral diseases in the exact hierachical location order of a family tree.
5. There are silenced and broken DNA parts where we know the exact names and the function that sometimes switch back on again like teethgenes of birds, whisker or backlimb genes in whales but usually do not snap back etc.
6. There are no modern species in the old fossil burials neither in ALL marine nor landside ones of the entire world.
So do you never have 1 single bird bone or 1 single mammal bone in paleozoic burial ages.
7. We could read Design signals if they would be there, but there aren't any.
8. The activity to design can't exist in time periods before complex thinking organ architecture did develop.
etc.
You also need to be more concrete and specific. You want to talk very vague so that you think you can't get attacked, while reality does not care how careful and vague you may talk. Reality cuts through the soul with precission so to speak.
"Your interpretation is that clearly they evolved from some vommon ancestor
Mine is that clearly there is a blueprint used so clearly there is design and clearly there are bound to be major similarities and major differences due to minor variations."
There is no design otherwise we could observe that.
"Can we state as fact that creatures evolved and changed so drastically? No we can't it is absurd yo claim that as fact."
You are not a decider of what is absurd. Whales for example are still hoof mammals, despite of additionally being adapted to the water lifestyle in modern days with intermediate semi-aquatic forms living beach colony lifestyles wobbling on beaches like modern seals before adapting further to the sea with bigger size and sea birthing. This is why none of the 200 species of whales today existed in all old marine burials where ichthyosaurs etc. were found.
Whales also lack designed organs like underwater breathing organs they only have landlung adaptations from their mammal ancestry.
"Can we state as fact that there are forms of an evolutionary principle taking place in nature, yes because it can be consistently observed in micro evolution."
All of evolution is always microevolution incl. apes to humans and chimps.
The speed of evolution is always gradual and slow and not macrojumps.
You will never have a pair of wolf in the woods all of a sudden giving birth to a sighthound dog puppy with aerodynamic bodyshape to outrun the wolf mother. It needed hundreds of generations of gradual increase of bodyshape aerodynamics for that.
"Can we state as fact that there is a clear design to animals."
No.
Design is not allowed by reality to be even a legit opinion in those topics. It is also not mean humans stealing you this belief. Reality itself does not allow this to be on the table as idea.
"Yes you would be a fool to disagree."
You are a fool when you think your feelings could trump the cold and merciless reality.
"Will I force my interpretation on anyone? No "
Reality does not care about human interpretations.
A person can stomp all day his foot to the ground and say "the Earth is a pyramid" it will never turn into a pyramid.
"Are you forcing yours onto those who disagree with you? Yes."
No. Some people are just honest and rub under your nose that there is no opinion freedom in those cold matters of facts.
The constitution grants people belief freedom but reality does not allow freedom that the believes match with reality.
"Funny how it works isn't it?"
It is not funny that you think your Ego could just decide that your opinions would have reality deciding value.
Yet it can't.
See how funny that is? No one laughs.
maybe they were designed that way, another theory! maybe God used the same building blocks for some animals!
I understand the theory of evolution and find it rather good in an attempt to find current information in existence and extrapolating from that but just a thought.
"were designed that way,"
Design is a younger activity that did not exist in a distant past time period before lifeforms evolved a certain amount of neuronal complexity to perform the act of designing much later in younger periods of time.
"another theory!"
Nope, the denial of the young age of the design activity is not another theory it is just not wanting that history has a very certain order of origins after another. Like someone wishes that tanks would be older than horses so that he can imagine that Julius ceasar did drive in a tank into the battlefields of the roman empire and did not ride on horse back.
Only that thinking in that type of way does not fly with the evidence, but tries to ignore the very order of historical developments and origins. Like tanks thousands of years AFTER horses were tamed.
"maybe God used the same building blocks for some animals!"
Animals are not assembled like blocks or pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I'm not sure why people think they can have such absurd denial of giving birth opinions.
Animals are born by their parents, which were born by their parents (the grandparents) and so on. The past is not open for fantasy believes in denial of that. Over generations copy errors happen - this means that for example equus broodstocks developed the donkey species variation and the horse species variation and the 3 zebra species over 700,000 generations. As we can read it by genetic clocks in the DNA of the speciated variations. So did the ape broodstock have chimps and humans and bonobos as variations in roughly 375,000 generations. We can read that in the DNA as heridity record as well.
The problem with ascribing the complexity found in living organisms to some imaginary, invisible omnipotent designer is that in order to do so, you simply ignore all of what makes it a really silly idea. Skipping past the fact that your God is both imaginary and invisible, which should put him in the same conversation as the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, there is the issue of extinction.
It is estimated that over 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct and that all currently extant species, save a very small fraction of a percentage point will go extinct as well. How can you possibly reconcile this reality with the words "intelligent designer"?
Why would a designer continually design living things that will in time no longer exist?
Our best estimates are that as many as 4 billion species of plants and animals have lived at some time in the past on this planet. Does it make any sense at all that this imaginary designer went back to the drawing board 4 billion times?
Bwahahahahaha!!!! "MAYBE"????? What kind of reasoning is that? TRUTH is not what you want it to be. TRUTH is determined by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says and not by words in an old book. Science is a search for truth and it does so by following evidence to a conclusion which is initially PROVISIONAL _(a hypothesis)._ 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.
Theory means 'factual explanation'. Your design fantasy is just that... a fantasy.
All Gods are imaginary.
When you're in your 30s and you are watching this because you enjoy learning
Same
yep, that is me as well!
I'm 55 and I still haven't lost that childish desire to know everything in the world. I know I can't but I can try.
23
@Mister Fukable Too bad you're lying. The fossil record is spilling over with transitional forms (whales, horses, humans....)
what if a higher power (im not choosing one) created the first few organisms so they would grow (evolve) into modern day organisms?
ForumLight
Well, Evolution is actually the BASIS of biology. No matter if YOU think it is anti-science, basically EVERYONE that actually works with science (97,5%), accepts it as one of the strongest explanations in the history of science.
That would be cool :3 any evidence of it?
***** no evidence, just a cool thought.
Science makes determinations only when there is sufficient evidence to do so. There are hypotheses as to how life began, but none rise to the status of a theory. Science has no problem saying 'We don't know'. That is a much more honest answer than pretending that one does know.
The modern belief of the Catholic Church is that evolution (as well as the Big Bang), do not contradict the Bible, and that God is still responsible for the laws of the universe which allow these things to occur.
Here are some things Jesus Christ said of Himself.
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” John 14:6
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." John 3:18
Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. Matthew 16:13-17
Skeptics said for centuries, said "The bible we have now has been corrupted through the centuries.". In 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and proved otherwise. They said, "There's no way Israel can become a nation again as God promised in preparation for the end times.". Israel became a nation again in 1948.
All this being said, it does require faith to believe. Hebrews 11:6 tells us, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." Also John 20:27-29 states, "Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Don't be deceived, Jesus is the Son of God and the only way of being saved from God's judgement for our sin. Christ consciousness won't save you. Believing Jesus was an ascended master, a prophet or a good teacher won't save you. Romans 10:9 tells us how to be saved, "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved". Trust in Him, He shed his blood and gave His perfect life for you. Call on Him, He loves you, and He hears you.
Faith is the excuse people use to believe something without evidence.
"Skeptics said for centuries, said "The bible we have now has been corrupted through the centuries.". In 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and proved otherwise." This in no way demonstrates the supernatural origin of the bible.
"They said, "There's no way Israel can become a nation again as God promised in preparation for the end times.". Israel became a nation again in 1948." What happened in Israel in 1948 has nothing to do with the bible prophecy you mention.
" Jesus Christ said of Himself."
Actually what a real person named Yeshua/Yehosua REALLY said in his life is long forgotten and vanished into oblivion. When you quote scribbles fabricated by humans dozens of years AFTER Yeshua/Yehosua was even alive like the John scribbles on paper it means literally nothing. Truth is also established by evidence. That water is drinkable for example is such a mundane truth or that rivers flow downstream. Screaming for an everlasting life is you being greedy and dwelling in self centrism. The thinking a fictional person would grant you your greed wishes is void of sense as well, and it also has nothing to do with any of the topics beneath this video.
How did the authors of the Gospels know what Jesus said when he was alone or in a private conversation with no witnesses? The whole thing was invented decades if not centuries later.
The hilarious aspect of the words you just copied and pasted is in the fact that these words were first spoken by John Wesley ...a cleric and theologian wandering the British countryside circa 1770ish. The implications of which bible lobotomized nitwits never seem to fully comprehend so let me help you out: The one true path to heaven was revealed to Christians almost 18 centuries after the alleged death of Christ. I don't know what to say to someone who is adhering to a central tenet that is so laughably inconsistent with documented history.
@@SusieBundy-cw4oy Susan Larsen just said: 'Jesus is indeed the Truth and the son of devil'... OMG!!! Would not wanna be U on Judgement Day, Lardarse... or any other day
*Exceptionally beautiful one from Einstein:* _the f-anatical a-theists are like s-laves_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Tell us what you are doing here every minute of every day of your miserable failed life?
Tell us what motivates you to be here 24/7/365 for two decades?
13 likes in 1 hour??🤔🧐 Did Susie help you artificially upvote your comment?
Another lie from Oscar/Gustave/or from one of his 30 sock accounts.
@@Lexi2019AURORAThis clown thinks phony likes make up for a complete lack of citations.
anyone wanna help with my assignment lol because apparently we all got the same work.
Lana May what u said 😭
Lana, saaame
John Smith Nick Fuentes is right we need to stop all immigration bases af
@John Smith Funny you should mention "prof/teacher/scam artist". Your Kent Hovind sold fake cancer cures to unwitting victims, also convicted on two counts of mail fraud, along with criminal contempt, income tax evasion, failure to pay property taxes. Kent Hovind is almost as fake as your "John Smith" troll account. Cheers! 🙂 🤗 🤩
@John Smith can you stop trolling already
universe: *waits a thousand billion years for the earth to be created*
humans: *creates the bible and states that the earth is 4000 years old*
universe: am i a joke to you?
god: *doesn't exist*
humans: *take god seriously*
god: am I not a joke to you?
No religious book says earth was created 4000 years ago, that's just stupid
Beverage Fissure 6000
Potato Baby he made a joke, people found it funny, which means it served its purpose.
What was the purpose of your comment? Seems like you didn’t think ahead of the red rage 😂
Killermemes. exe imagine being so stupid that you believe it takes intelligence to make artificial intelligence and yet you don’t believe it took intelligence to make biological intelligence even though you know biological intelligence is far mate advanced!
That was evidence, but what's the process that drives it?
The forces of Nature
@@maylingng4107 wtf?
@@Eastern1 Perhaps you need to complete high school to understand the forces of Nature. They consist of the 4 fundamental forces of the universe, beneath those the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, etc.....
@@maylingng4107 I'm in high school right now, and I can't understand the concepts of process driving the evolution that's why I commented and you out the blue talk of Nature forces? What forces?
@@maylingng4107 I have lot of doubts regarding the evolution, you explain?
A prominent evolutionary whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues, unearthed more bones of Pakicetus, and published their work in the journal Nature.7 The commentary on this paper in the same issue8 says, ‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.’ (See skeleton.) This is very different from Gingerich’s picture of an animal right at home in the sea!
We had this topic before. You seem to wish that land animals should immediately MACROjump into full aquatic specimen. In reality you just ignore the semi-aquatic intermediate forms. From the Pakicitidae (Pakicetus, Nalacetus) *Ambulocetus; Gandakasia; Himalayacetus; Andrewsiphius; Attockicetus; Dalanistes; Kutchicetus; Remingtonocetus; Babiacetus; Carolinacetus; Georgiacetus; Natchitochia; Pappocetus; Pontobasileus; Makaracetus; Aegyptocetus; Artiocetus; Crenatocetus; Dhedacetus; Gaviacetus; Indocetus; Maiacetus: Peregocetus; Protocetus; Qaisracetus; Takracetus; Togocetus; Ancalecetus; Chrysocetus; Cynthiacetus; Dorudon; Masracetus; Ocucajea; Pontogeneus; Saghacetus; Stromerius; Supayacetus; Zygorhiza; Basilosaurus; Basiloterus; Eocetus; Platyosphys; Janjucetus; Mammalodon...* They do not vanish by closing the eyes. LOL
@@Angelmousmoke and mirrors. You can find almost any fossils and line them up in a row. Evolutionists used to do that with ape skulls. Have a small skull, then a slightly larger one and so on. Same with the iconic illustration from small ape to modern man. All deceptive, smoke and mirrors.
@@paulfromcanada5267 After the denial of the burial ages. We did not talk about any fossil allingment before, where you do not get that there is no line up freedom for humans as there is no imagination freedom in those topics. After you failed with texts from an Al Quaida-wannabe islamist. You do not understand the total lack of big skulls in older burials. Like you also do not want to understand (fully on purpose) the total lack of all whales in all old paleozoic and mesozoic burials of all countries of the entire world (ALL water and landside burials=no whales before younger hoof to water adaptation established as broodstocks) Like you do not understand the genetic reason why humans have bigger skulls due to a degeneration of the jaw skull wrapping muscle gene base and the wildgrowth of our prefrontal cortex. This is why you can't address in all of your answers the very names of the ape info gene base of humans like the notch and arhgap11 names you never addressed.
@@AngelmouI understand that that is all wild speculation.
@@paulfromcanada5267 No, there is no wild speculation freedom and how the DNA heritdity record works READABLE. Your faith relies on non existing human imagination and "wild speculation" freedom that was never granted by the observations in all of these topics. That is why you can't address the gene info by their VERY NAMES in any of your posts. You still do not address arhgap11 or anything by name at all. It is really that you are just like any flatearther or creationist in denial of observations in front of your nose. Flatearthers also do not want to address videofootage of the globe by indian or japanese weather satellites. Like you do not want to address ape info base in humans. That is why you can't address the total lack of all marine mammals in all paleozoic water and land burials before mammals as broodstock species did later diversify, too. This is why you can't address the whale hoof astragalus hoof ankle base or anything. You can only copy and paste laypeople quoting al qaidawannabe inmates in jails lol AiG are liars by their own admission. I can copy AiG too with like eith 8000 year old trees
The 8000 year old trees - in their own conclusion I quote AiG
_The 8,000-year-long BCP chronology appears to be correctly crossmatched, and there is no evidence that bristlecone pines can put on more than one ring per year._
But: *The best approach for collapsing this chronology* .... "one that takes into the account the evidence from C-14 dates, is one that factors the existence of migrating ring-disturbing events. Much more must be learned about this phenomenon before this hypothesis can be developed further."
They admit that the evidence of 8000 years is there *BUT it can't be allowed to be there and must be collapsed* with further excuse ideas (human imagination) to be made- up in the future - so that the faith doctrine shall not be touched by evidence and therefore reality like pesky 8000 year trees ITSELF - those ages shall be the default false AT ALL COSTS, before even looking at evidence and then to collapse the evidence with wild human speculation ideas to be artificially constructed - the creationist-by-default-doctrine, where they are always right and righteous in their faith statements of being always pseudotruthholding (bearing false witness against evidence).
Another one would be when they flat out deny different types of sedimentation processes - like for sandstone or limestone sedimentation or fossilization types for different types of it like by desertifications of sand dune burial or tarpits and try to conflate all and every fossil into flood burial with magical properties, where nothing they present actually represents how real life flood mechanics work.
The number of distortions and mental denial gymnastics is for each and every independent topic endlessly absurd.
Science of the gaps
It's against your religion?
ok. disprove it
Science works to expand human knowledge. There are still gaps in modern human knowledge, but religions sprang from primitive human imaginations as their knowledge was all gaps.
The video didn't explain Anything💀
This is a video of a whole series of videos - here is part 2 of it: ua-cam.com/video/G4VINRUe_o4/v-deo.html
What is unclear to you? If you need more infos MAYBE you should read a book of that topic.
just go through the comments, you'll get more knowledge about evolution than you learned in your entire life
This is just one of a whole series of short, explanatory videos from Stated Clearly. Check out others at www.statedclearly.com/videos/
I would also recommend the 3 part "Your Inner Fish" series as a good place to start for those seeking a better explanation of evolution. www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/your-inner-fish-series
Most UA-cam videos, such as this one, of necessity skip over much evolutionary history due to time constraints, leaving the impression of few evolutionary steps. There is however, a series of short videos of about 10 minutes each, the Systematic Classification of Life series, explaining evolution using taxonomic branches to trace evolutionary relationships. I recommend viewing at least some of the videos, if only to get an idea of the vast numbers of evolutionary changes that have taken place. Here is a link to the series playlist.
ua-cam.com/play/PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW.html
Why do humans and chimps share over 200 ERV markers in the same locations in both genomes? Why have there been three new variations of American Goatsbeard flowers if macro evolution doesn’t happen? Why do antibiotics need to kept up do date with micro organisms if they don’t evolve? How do you explain ring species? Where can I find a single example of a non-transitional fossil? Why does DNA show that some species are more distantly related than others?
What if all life has similar traits because they have a common creator not common ansestor.
Unfortunately there’s this little thing called “evidence”. Evolution is tested in labs and used for medicine on a daily basis. Intelligent design on the other hand remains a hypothesis and not a proven scientific theory like evolution, gravity and DNA.
WOW, how original.
The evidence doesn't support your "what if" - it's a silly question.
DNA scarring occurs when small blocks of DNA units are accidentally deleted or, in other cases, inserted. Insertions and deletions are created by cuts in the DNA followed by reattachment at the cut sites. Like actual scars they have a particular location and profile.
Humans and chimps share literally THOUSANDS of such random, accidental scars. Humans share many such scars with all the other primates. The idea that this could have happened by pure coincidence is impossible. It is irrelevant if some of these scars are detrimental, neutral, or beneficial. That this could have originally happened IN EACH SPECIES INDEPENDENTLY is statistically impossible.
There’s evidence of common ancestors. None for your god or gods.
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .” Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?
It's telling that you don't give a source for EITHER of those quotes, and that you proceed to abruptly claim that evolution "hinders" medical discovery... somehow.
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."
Why do you run away from breakthroughs in cytology we just talked before with the organelle cell complexity thanks to evolution you were not educated enough in them by confusing them with cells without those organelles? What you do here with book quotes of the preacher charlatan Demski quotemining other people is yet again void of meaning? The first quote is a critic about Kirschner being annoyed that his coleagues seem to ignore valuable tools for evolutionary base to make their research just easier. So unlike creationists who say all of science is an evil cooptation meaning all people would be part of a conspiratorial swarm mind - people in fields just use the tools they want to use without any career losing. So all this mean persecution talk of christian creationists is with this quote disproven. Are you now shocked about this revelation? Do you say sorry for having those conspiratorial thoughts or Dembski or the other anti-science preachers? Of course not as they want to dwell in their sinister ways. ;-)
So that you can use the Dembski lies to ignore dozens of breakthroughts be it neozoan population dynamics, parasite evolution and all adaptation types and mathematical models of mutations of germs. It is the same nonsense Meyer tries when he quotemines a critic of people to be too much gene focussed in the last 20 years and to demand a new focus where he quotemines the context that people should not always read the DNA heridity record of all lifeforms but go out into the fields and stuff.
Also in context: _Dr. Skell's field of work does not actually deal directly with anything biological, he is an inappropriate authority to appeal to, and Skell's assertion about evolutionary medicine is unsupported._ Ignoring the evolution dynamics of viruses for example is meaningless. This means evolution reveals medical discovery pathways. You are really desperate Paul(most likely not your real name).
@@walkergaryaThe theory of evolution is not standing up to scrutiny. It’s not based on evidence but a certain interpretation of the evidence. As we learn more about the complexity of so called simple life it’s become more and more evident that the theory just doesn’t work.
@@paulfromcanada5267 Whose scrutiny? YOUR scrutiny? The scrutiny of "scientists" who insist a global flood that somehow missed China actually happened? The scrutiny of whoever you're quote-mining this week? The scrutiny of the brilliant Nobel Prize winner Michael McDoesn'tExist?
"But where is the evidence?"
- Every creationist after watching this
ua-cam.com/video/14jEhdqa5Z4/v-deo.html
All this evidence doesn't falsify creationionism. One designer therefore similarities.
The real question is why is evolution the answer to these similarities. I dont understand. Ho does this falsify creationism?
@@mmmM-bl6jk Well, explaining how all life forms can be traced to one, the first. If you follow other equally strong evidence in other fields (physics, chemistry) you realize that the first way of life is a rare but natural process, which occurs in the first earth oceans, here and probably in many other places. Then, you go further, to the origins of the earth, the stars, the galaxy, the universe ... and suddenly you realize, I don't need a god to explain any of this, in the same way I don't need Zeus to explain lighting. , or Poseidon the waves, or Cupid love, or God my existence. God have been almost always there, is simply the easy answer to a question for lazy people, a tale to live happily in the ignorance. Now, i must say that the idea of an intelligence 1000 years more evolve can sound as god to all of us. Science is not about the non existence of god, is about all the possibilities and God is one, but there is not evidence to
backed up. My english is not very good, y hope that the text is not a grammatical disaster.
ua-cam.com/video/Rav8sfuJFYc/v-deo.html explain this.
As people become more educated you see more and more atheists
+NC Polar Coincidence? I think not lol.
NC Polar
And that is awesome! People are waking up!
Schools are modern churches. People are told about evolution and stuff, their faith in science is hardened, so we get atheists. Some of them are fundamentalists, like those who bless gods and explode everything, but fundamental atheists don't kill people... by exploding themselves in the name of God. Ofc atheists kill people, they just do it differently. Atheists are same people as christians or muslims. They just do things differently. It's funny to see how atheists replicate things that are done by other "believers". Classic priests convince people that there are God, that Earth is created by a thing that is like us with human type of mind. Teachers tell us that quantum physics is very important to us. I don't try to argue on the line "science vs God", I just stay outside of this line and find it funny.
+Abstract Russian Schools aren't modern churches, you don't need faith in science, that's why it's science. Science requires evidence to prove theories, I don't think you understand lol
They are similar. Everything needs faith. Science is my faith. I just try to be more than just believer in science. All people believe in something and the way how they believe is very similar, they just believe in different things. And the process of education is very similar to what churches were doing hundreds years ago. Why I even thinking about it? Because we are living in the world when it is harder to say that your faith is wrong. Everything seems so clear and noncontradictory, so we forget that the world is just a chaos that we will never understand until we die (and still will not understand). Remember the movie Matrix. We are not living in matrix (but who knows?) we create our own matrix and live within it. And the things from what our matrix is made is other's thoughts that we learned during the life.
At the time that Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species, a cell was considered a simple ‘blob of protoplasm’-a basic building block of life. But with the development of technology allowing us to study living things at a molecular level, it’s now realized that a single cell is enormously complex. And new jaw-dropping discoveries of its hitherto-unrealized complexity are continuing to be made. E.g. the cell has a ‘switchboard system’ to coordinate the multiplicity of biochemical events happening within.
Alright a new thread. Maybe this time someone won’t be able to ask you how many organic molecules can react before your gods have to get involved.
@@AMC2283I’m having a blast. 😇. All very informative. If you start looking closely at the claims of evolution it’s quite encouraging to faith as it becomes more and more apparent that life as it is could not happen naturally.
@@paulfromcanada5267 Your problem is that evolution is backed by EVIDENCE, not by what you or anyone says. On the other hand, there are thousands of religions that make claims with no evidence whatsoever. What you or anyone believes exists in the human mind. Go ahead and prove those beliefs are not simply delusions.
The old 'I don't understand physics therefore supernatural magic is the only answer' hogwash. Also, evolution is NOT about the origin of ife. Why don't you chattle understand that? It's very simple. @@paulfromcanada5267
@@RandallWilksevolution is backed by the interpretation of the evidence, so is theism. Same evidence, different interpretations. For example; creatures share some similarities with humans. Could be evidence of common ancestry, or a common creator. 😇
1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. This is God. God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential.
2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. Therefore, the First Cause is God.
3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. This means something must exist at all times. This is God.
4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. This perfect being is God.
5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God.
The existence of God (or more generally, the existence of deities) is a subject of debate in theology, philosophy of religion and popular culture.[1] A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God or deities can be categorized as logical, empirical, metaphysical, subjective or scientific. In philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God or deities involves the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the nature of being or existence) and the theory of value (since some definitions of God include "perfection").
The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God or deities began with Plato and Aristotle, who made arguments that today would be categorized as cosmological. Other arguments for the existence of God or deities have been proposed by St. Anselm, who formulated the first ontological argument; Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Thomas Aquinas, who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument (the kalam argument and the first way, respectively); René Descartes, who said that the existence of a benevolent God or deities is logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful. John Calvin argued for a sensus divinitatis, which gives each human a knowledge of God's existence.
West Virginia May Allow the Teaching of Intelligent Design in Classrooms
It passed the WV House, but did not pass the WV Senate yet, where it will be dead when the full Senate votes. The bill was instigated by 2 high school students and their religious parents. It is a violation of the U.S. Constitution and thus it will not prevail.
Do they also want to teach astrology? They want to teach religiously motivated denial of the younger age of the activity _to design_ AFTER life already existed and diversfied? Do they also want to teach that ancient romans used the inet 2000 years before it was invented? And they also want to teach the wacky religious faith that intelligence would be older in history than the historical origin of thinking organs (brains)? Are you aware that you can't just push the religious believes in any science class? Violating the first ammendment of the United states is yet again a new low.
Then there will be a court case and it will fail as intelligent design is not science.
@@mcmanustony There were already a dozen court cases. Intelligent Design lost every case. The most famous was Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education (2005), where Discovery Institute (advocating I.D.) was totally discredited and I.D. was declared a pseudo-science and religion --- not a science. ID was banned from the public school science class.
HOLY SHITT! Just what the most impoverished educationally disadvantaged part of the U.S. needs....more stupidity.
Creationist: I have a 15$ note.
Scientist: That is absurd. 15$ notes do not exist but if you insist then prove it to me.
Creationist: I can't prove I have a 15$ note but can you disprove it.
Scientist: No I can't disprove it but I do have a 100$ note. Here it is(shows the note)
Creationist: That's just your opinion.
Pretty much lol.
@Gaurav Mishra the fossil record refuted 5m 4s ua-cam.com/video/rX9dKwIb1-A/v-deo.html
SteadFast nEasy Well, well, well.
@Steadfast nEasy. LOL! Do you realize that that video is speaking of million of years? How do you fit the bible's generations on that time span?
I will now explain some of the video's inaccuracies:
1 The Cambrian "explosion" took millions of years.
2 It looked like a sudden explosion because:
a) At the time there was no previous fossil evidence. That evidence has been found.
b) There is a record bias because soft animals don't fossilize easily.
3 Most earth fossil record is devoid of complex organism because it took life billions of years to change the planet's chemical environment. Complex life requires oxygen.
4 The fossil record is fragmentary because fosilization is a rare phenomenon.
5 That "Scientific dissent from Darwinism" comes from the Discovery Institute! I bet those pseudo scientists will gladly accept your donation to "the cause of God".
@GN LOL!!! right back at ya!!! No, the video is refuting millions of years.
Citation on your "found" evidence.
NOTHING fossilizes easily. That's why it took a sudden catastrophic worldwide event for the depositing of these fossils. That is also why you can call it a rare phenomenom.
There is nothing in the "Scientific dissent from Darwin" that YOU can point out to be wrong.
*DNA alone is undeniable evidence for an intelligent creator and flusters Aronra's disciples.*
Not even close.
Wrong!
Abiogenesis.... Never seen/observed, never touched never heard never felt never smelled..... sounds like a god
In 2001, Craig Venter made headlines for sequencing the human genome. In 2003, he started mapping the ocean's biodiversity. And now he's created the first synthetic lifeforms -- microorganisms that can produce alternative fuels.
😮🤗😮😯😲😲😲😲WOW!!!!!🤗🤗.....that is impressive
So you're basically admitting there is no god?
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703Why are you pretending to think that after all the stalking and cloning you’ve done to her, Oscar?
@@maylingng4107don't be too hard on him, he works at the Crick Stop Mini Mart for less than minimum wage
Interestingly enough, every bit of this is conjecture and NOT science.
What is asserted in this video is based on evidence. Your creationism is based on fairy tales.
Don't forget Darwin's shuddering fantasy....@@walkergarya
Creatard, you are a liar and a fool. You mock science with the very tools built with science. You are a hypocrite and loser.@@user-oh7ds8pm1o
"every bit of this is conjecture" Since when is evidence conjecture? Because you want to deny it?
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Confusing honest people again with yourself, where you use different colored user sockpuppets is your problem. As you deep down know you remain dishonest and that your sins of bearing false witness are not lifted from your shoulders, till you apologize to real humans you try to hurt (God or Jesus is not going to make your sins undone) only apologizing to real people like here in the comment section and showing repent is going to work. First is to actually understand that there is more than 1 person. LOL
So all things on earth are related like, for example one creator, creating everything and utilizing From stuff he’s already created for instance…
Evolution verified for religious crybabies:
DNA scarring occurs when small blocks of DNA units are accidentally deleted or, in other cases, inserted. Insertions and deletions are created by cuts in the DNA followed by reattachment at the cut sites. Like actual scars they have a particular location and profile.
Humans and chimps share literally THOUSANDS of such random, accidental scars. Humans share many such scars with all the other primates. The idea that this could have happened by pure coincidence is impossible. It is irrelevant if some of these scars are detrimental, neutral, or beneficial. That this could have originally happened IN EACH SPECIES INDEPENDENTLY is statistically impossible.
So, it is your argument that God produced thousands of broken genes and put them not only into us, his crowning achievement, into our fellow primates as well?
Makes sense to me....😊😊
😮😮😮 On second thought, no it doesn't.
There’s evidence of common ancestors, none for your god.
"for example one creator, " The activitiy _to create_ originated AFTER life such as bacteria already existed. This means that creation capabilities are younger in history than life is old. You need to learn how history and the order of events work.
Actually, there are _thousands_ of creation stories, each of which claiming the existence of a quite different 'creator' entity. Primitive peoples could be very _creative_ in that respect.
speculative and does not present irrefutable evidence but yes the earth can be flat if enough of this type of evidence is presented
The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming, from multiple scences. Your denial of this shows you are only interested in your dogma, not reality.
"speculative" There is nothing speculative about reading the genetic heritage record.
"and does not present irrefutable evidence" Then try to refute the total lack of all modern blowhole whales in all old paleozoic and mesozoic burials of all countries of the entire world in presenting 1 whale skeleton in those burials as just 1 example.
"but yes the earth can be flat if enough of this type of evidence is presented" Flateatherism can only work by denial of repeatable observations like the curvature photos and video footage like of weather satellites etc. Like creationism/antievolution can only work in denial of repeatable observations like the denial of the ape info base genes in humans like Notch2nl or Arhgap11 as 1 example or the hoof astragalus bone anatomy and hoof mammal DNA heritage in whales.
Mental gymnastics is the best you've got?
@@user-tu1co9xl1k The user walkergarya is still not Andrew. And the evidence is in the video you did not watch at all. And no we already had 1000x that mere handwavable similarity is not the evidence it is exact organ repurposement readable in the DNA incl. the exact names of the mutations as heritage record like in whales the astragalus hoof anklebone anatomy the hooffingers to flippers in contrast to seal/pinniped flippers from canineform paws in contrast to birdwing to flippers in penguins etc. and the silenced omac&tomac readable scent smelling genes for the nose to blowhole migration now not expressed as the whale nostrils are not in front of the face for landscents to be smelled as 1 example. This is something you can't ever address by their very names as all your feelings are revealed to be falsely imprinted to human fantasies detached from facts such as genetics and the heritage record readable there. As you can't address any gene heritage names like in the bird example with the feathers from the SHH and BMP saurian scale to rachis and double rachis anatomy you are in denial like a person is in denial of globe photos.
@@user-tu1co9xl1k You are a waste of my time. If you want to believe creationist garbage, go ahead, you are beyond my help.
Wallow in your ignorance like a pig in it's own shit.
Thank you for reading this fairytale to me. Sometimes I enjoy make believe things.
Since when are observations incl. photos of them presented any "fairytale"? There is no belief needed for scientific toolsets.
@@user-tu1co9xl1kAh okay it is just another trolling account of you where you still confuse different people and you still run away from vestigial wings showing evidence of bird evolution ;-) And your sockpuppets denied DNA and the double helix and alleles and so on,
@@user-tu1co9xl1k Your denial of observations by name like the vestigial wing of ostrich evidence for bird evolution shows again how void of sense your trolling remains and your remaining sockpuppets will also be moderated for bearing false witness. As I'm also still not Andrew. ;-)
Yeah, the creationist fairy tales are pretty funny.
*Simply beautiful, from Dawkins:* _if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer._
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You must enjoy being humiliated 24/7/367, right?
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *Why do u try to project ur severe problems on somebody else, Andrew? Look, theists l-augh at u all day long and they have good reasons.*
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *I mean u r the adult who insisted that ostriches have no wings and that's the peak of rtrdtion.*
@@atheism-themoststupidrel Why do you allow us to constantly humiliate you?
This is out interpretation of what they think, these are NOT facts. Just bc things look similar does not mean they're somehow relatives. Man thinks he has all the answers but this makes no logical sense
These are facts confirmed by the DNA.
No there is no interpretation freedom. We do not talk about something humans have a voice or vote in to say "hahaha I'm able to handwave something away and just imagine in my human mind conicidental similarities and handwaving powers I hold". We talk about exact organ repurposement like hoof feet with hoof astragalus ankle bones to flippers in whales in contrast to pawfeet to flipper adaptations in seals and sealions as caniform landlife to sea variations in that lineage versus birdwings to penguin flippers in the bird land to water adaptation lineage etc. We talk about the observable total lack of all 80+ blowhole whale species known today in every single old mesozoic burial and all paleozoic burials of all countries of the ENTIRE world incl. all old marine and landside deposits. Do you have a cambrian dolphin or bluewhale or a jurassic one found? No, because back the day they were not yet adapted from hoof brood stocks to the water lifestyle. Or do you think that half migrated nose whales like janjucetus and Dorudon exactly in burials before even the first fully blowhole species first appeared ain't observable facts?
Or do you think that the readable DNA heridity record ain't the observation humans must nod to? Can you explain why whales still have the olfactory genes to smell scents, but not expressed as the noses are not in front of their faces as they are migrated for surfacing the water purpose? I mean why is scent smelling gene info for the nose like omacs and tomac in whale DNA if not by the hoof ancestry which had the noses in front of their faces? You need to understand that humans do not have denial voices without becoming dishonest with a whole variety of observations. Like a human is unable to belief the Earth is flat or cubeshapes or pyramidshape without active denial of curvature observations and actual globe photos by satellites etc.
Only when you think "I interpret everything as conspiracy! Such as all photos are faked by a sinister cabbal...Then I have artificially created a huge enough bubble in which I can deny those parts of reality I do not like and think a cube-Earthshape is wonderful!"
Humans do such things indeed.
Yes but nothing said here is a fact but is taught to be fact but how is it fact when it's called the Evolution theory. It's a theory bc we cannot observe thousands to millions of years only interpret what we think happend. Many creatures have similar components but that doesn't mean any type of correlation. Whose to say these creatures aren't just designed that way? Every creature is tuned for their environment (unless they're man made or domesticated)
@@smokedobbs6121 Again we do NOT talk about mere similarities or interpetation space you wish would be there.
You also confuse the daily day theory term with the scientific theory term.
Like you would confuse the bark of a dog with the bark of a tree.
The term theory is in the english language a homonym with opposite meanings. In science it does NOT come from the act to theorize about something. It comes from written summary on paper (modell written down) of known natural laws like the genetic law of independent assortment or the law of monophyly and selection types in nature summarized in Evolution theory.
Like you would confuse the practice of driving a car with the theory written on paper how to drive a car.
People confuse this all the time, because they have a very bad school education in scientific topics.
In schools you learn bogus like first comes a hypothesis or assertion then a theory and then a scientific law.
This is NOT how it works.
In science first comes the hypothesis/speculation about something, then specific laws are uncovered during research and then the summarization of the revealed laws as framework together on paper is finalized and checked (all the time) and this is then called a scientific theory/model as a toolset with the highest certainty of knowledge about a field.
This is why all the time research tries to disproof a theory to win nobel prizes.
Like germ theory of disease is the highest form of knowledge about various infections such as bacterial, viral and fungi infections and what medical treatments like vaccinations, antibiotics or anti-fugicides work best for what family or species of germs. Always challenged by new research.
Yeah, genetic analysis proves that.
Do we ( er..ok, i) think that sea mammals were beach and shore mammals who spent so much time running into the waves to avoid landlocked predators that their dna thought 'fuck it lets get really good at this and kind of.. stay in..?
"Do I think that sea mammals ... thought, 'fuck it',
lets get really good at this and kind of.. stay in the SEA"?
We eat sea mammals because they are not considered 'thinking animals".
So, no, they didnt't think, "fuck it, and stay in the SEA forever".
Over generations, any genetic mutation that helped sea mammals catch more seafood, avoid predators and have more offspring, was likely to be passed on at reproduction.
Beneficial mutations can accumulate.
Yet there are species today which exist between land and the ocean are there not. Some have remained that way for millions of years - such as reptiles. In so much as their environment has not altered such that they needed to remain in one environment or the other = there is no "incentive" for them to evolve any further.
The similarity between species supports one common Creator(Intelligent Design), but never answers how life began on earth. Microevolution is an accepted and undebated fact, and you don't need drawings of extinct whale-like creatures to show this...just look how mankind has bred dogs into very different breeds with specialized physical, temperamental, and functional attributes to serve us! Macroevolution and the origin of life is a very different, unproven hypothesis.
Stop lying, thanks.
1. Similarity between species is evidence of common ancestry NOT a common designer. Why would your common designer (god) include in our genome a broken gene that in other mammals produces vitamin C? Either delete it or fix it.
2. Intelligent Design was proven to be nothing more than intellectual fraud with NO evidence.
3. Even without a complete explanation for origin of life, we already have far more evidence for this process than there is for magical creation.
4. Your claim that macroevolution is an unproven hypothesis is shown to be a lie by the multitude of observed speciation events documented in the scienific literature.
Macro evolution is speciation, which has been observed and testable for decades.
The problem with "common sense" is that it's not very common.
@@happilysecular1833 OK, I will look up speciation, thanks.
There are Crickian evolutionist out there saying that Darwin's favored races book isn't about the human race at all....... And also that the word evolutionist is actually not a real word....
Does anyone out there want to help me correct them?
Cool video
The hypothesis of evolution changes every year; if one theory is said to be fact, but then a year later is shown to be wrong, then how can it be fact in the first place? A true fact is something that never changes.
🤦 What = causes some conclusion to be altered in some manner........ - *THAT* is the point. I'll give you a hint= "evidence" - which you sorely lack as far as establishing your supposed deity as real.
p.s. - what do you call ancient claims which have not been altered for millennia??? Answer: *anachronisms* - not facts.......
@@varyolla435
-Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause. Whatever caused it has to be outside time, matter and space. It would need to be personal, powerful and intelligent.
First of all, your assertion; _"The hypothesis of evolution changes every year"_ lacks corroborating evidence and is therefore bogus. 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!*
Unlike religions based on assertions and lacking evidence of any sort, SCIENCE proceeds from EVIDENCE to a conclusion which is initially PROVISIONAL (a _Hypothesis)._ Only as additional evidence comes to light in support of the hypothesis (and none refuting it) can it be elevated to a Scientific Theory, which is the highest degree of certainty possible in science. That is true of Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Heliocentric Theory, Theory of Evolution, Theories of Relativity, et al. If any of those scientific theories were ever proven wrong it would be a major event and certainly worthy of a Nobel Prize.
As usual, Paul, you always get things ass backward. I know a lot of Canadians and the are all smarter than you, so what happened" Were you dropped on your head as a child? Or fetal alcohol syndrome perhaps? Could it be your familial history of incestuous relationships?
You continue to not understand science. The fact that the *THEORY* (not hypothesis) of Evolution changes every year is a GOOD thing. Scientific theories are constantly being tested and refined to become closer and closer to the solid truth. And how does this change come about? By confirming FACTS. Facts that, by the way, *you are constantly trying to deny by either quote-mining folks to misrepresent their point or quoting fraudulent psuedo-science institutions that outright reject reality in favor of an actual FAIRY TALE.*
Screw off. Your daily quota of BS is neither required nor welcome.
Evolution is a scientific theory, way past a hypothesis. It has been so for more than a century. The foundational principles remain the same. Evolution has been observed in nature and duplicated in the laboratory. Every new discovery (and there are thousands) conform evolution further.
I thought Canadian were a little smarter, are they? Can you name a single science organization anywhere on the face of the earth that rejects evolution?
To all those who truly believe that whales evolved from a land mammal millions of years ago, can you name that SPECIFIC LAND MAMMAL from which whales had allegedly descended from? Thanks a lot in advance for answering my simple question! God bless, as always!
Making unreasonable demands doesn't refute anything, it just makes you a prick.
@@DenisK21unreasonable demand.... The single-celled flying spaghetti monster started it all....
@@user-oh7ds8pm1o Get lost, you cancer.
The 80+ species of whales evolved from a hoof artidactyl. For whales the transitional and also mosaic (uncle) forms were _Pakicetus; Nalacetus; Ichthyolestes; Ambulocetus; Gandakasia; Himalayacetus; Andrewsiphius; Attockicetus; Dalanistes; Kutchicetus; Remingtonocetus; Babiacetus; Carolinacetus; Georgiacetus; Natchitochia; Pappocetus; Pontobasileus; Makaracetus; Aegyptocetus; Artiocetus; Crenatocetus; Dhedacetus; Gaviacetus; Indocetus; Maiacetus: Peregocetus; Protocetus; Qaisracetus; Takracetus; Togocetus; Ancalecetus; Chrysocetus; Cynthiacetus; Dorudon; Masracetus; Ocucajea; Pontogeneus; Saghacetus; Stromerius; Supayacetus; Zygorhiza; Basilosaurus; Basiloterus; Eocetus; Platyosphys; Janjucetus; Mammalodon and several more_ incl. semi aquatic (not fully aquatic) shore and beach colony living on beach wobbling whale intermediate with shrunken still visible hindlimbs and tiny backfeet toes (they lived similar to wobbling seals sunbathing at beach colonies) with half migrated noses to the top of the head by their respective names.
@@user-oh7ds8pm1o "The single-celled flying spaghetti monster started it all" Nope the domain of single celled eukaryotes are not FSMs. They are something you can observe under any microscope today. I hope your thinking organ was not attacked by Naegleria.
Doc.... how's it going on your adventure climb with Dawkins up mount improbable?
Mt. Improbable is a term for adaptation optima. Evolution does not breach to the top in a step sometimes the top adaptation is not reachable at all. For example hoofmammals with their landlung breathing organs adapted to whales to live 24hours/7 days a week in the water environment. But they were incapable of evolving underwater organs to breathe in water itself. This is a top of a mountain unable to reach without so called DESIGN like a BIOENGINEER creating an underwater breathing organ into a whale or in religious ideas a god to make a miracle to let a whale breathe there. This is why climbing Mt improbable only works through gradual adaptations over adaptation over adaptation. This is why the human lense eye as organ had cup eye ancestry with the blind spot as handicap in our eyes and some downsides, while a designed eye organ would have no remains of the adaptational climbing tour from the cupeye. You most likely know this David, Oscar, Banjo or whatever you call yourself. Meaning you know why there are no design signals or any signs of Jesus etc. in nature for real. This makes you very angry and annoyed, especially against people who are just friendly reminders to be honest with observations. You on the other hand do not care if other people do not commit to sin (like bearing false witness against scientists) as you decided that you go "all in" when it comes to sinning. ;-)
No anger here..... Just using atheist / evolutionist speak 2 Mock the mockers...... And you are one of the mockers Doc.... You are Doc very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very unreasonable aren't you?
@@user-oh7ds8pm1o I'm not doc. I explained you the term you did not understand. And there is still no mocking. Reality is not mocking you. Honest people pointing out that you do not care about observations are also no mocking. You are blinded by hate towards honesty and people who do not share your sinning of bearing of false witness.
You sound so bible-ly when you say "best false witness"..... The only thing you bear is a single celled un-evolved brain...
@@biglongfish9253Observations like the lack of design signals such as underwater breathing mammals or reptiles or water fowls etc. in contrast to merely water adapted landlung variations are not any "games". Nor is this about any human incl. me nor you, simply because reality does not change by pretend or willpower of any human being. You can't understand that, as you never want to be honest with yourself that your "I" is not a deity. Regardless how many times you try to paly an actual game called pretend game. I assume you have this from your father or grandfather, who were most likely children in mind pretending all the time they were authoritative figures, while they were just phony people. Or you had some hallucination like hearing voices in your mind and confusing shizophrenic episodes with talking with Jesus or so. Writing 1000s of comments under dozens of fake names are symptoms of a severe personal issue.
Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?
Okay, now define how one empirically measures "design" or SHUT. UP. about "logical" causes.
"Living things look like they were designed," You seem to be confused: If you are a theist you assume EVERYTHING to be designed this includes every rock, blade of grass or snail on the ground, every mountain and every moon etc. In reality design is recognized by tooluse and observable manufacturing processes: Meaning a clock is designed, because it is a chronometer tool for time measurements and it rolls from observable assembly lines in observable factories you can visit or visit a watchmakers shop to talk to the watchmaker and shake hands with the watchmaker. You do not go to a snailmaker or a rivermaker or a factory where blades of grass would be jigsaw-puzzled together. You have a complete distorted view when it comes to the world. This is also why ancient humans who made up the bible imagined god could create mountains, trees, fish in the sea and bats to be birds, but not ships or cars or cameras or clocks. This is why in the bible Noah had to manufacture the ark. It was NOT miracously spoken into being. As actually designed objects are unable for god to make and non designed objects and structures are by humans only fantasized to be designed.
While the god could also just snap evildoers out of being with a snap of the fingers without collatoral damage like babyhamsters and babyrabbits to drown within this telltale.
Design and Creation for example is in reality an activity performed by biological thinking organ owners in way more younger time periods late in the history of our world. Like alpine skiing is also an activity of lifeforms with huge brains: humans in even more recent time periods.
This is why we have today designed things like SUVs and rockets and skyscraper elevators, while we do not have that 500 mio. years ago in ancient fossil remains, where brain lacking jellyfish and sponges performed filtered water in the oceans.
"Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”
Yeah it only appears for laypeople because some organs only look like they would be toolused, like lungs to support the body with oxygen when you look however into the details like the gene base you realize that this is an optical delusion- as the lung is a swimmbladder gullet bag deformation inherited from the fish ancestry to such a degree that water to landlife adaptation got specified to survived because it helped to store oxygen. This is in context understandanble.
"4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
There Crick is confused about that confuses a lot of people: Overly complexity which is actually a reason why it is NOT designed:
DNA is unecessarily complicated to store inheritence info, like the convoluted leading and lagging strand with the okazaki fragment for replication, instead of 2 side copying at once inwarded. The reason is it is not top down designed, but grown over time from earlier replicators naturally. This is also a main reason only 4 letters are used while in ceNA or XNA humans designed 6 and 8 letters and more can be used top down design instead of the bottum up survival with convoluted unnecessarily convoluted
"5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable."
Because you would confuse assembled tools for storage usage by observable pottery activities you can visit and learn yourself as job with non-assembled born lifeforms by the mothers changing over generations.
"Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?"
It is not logical to actively ignore to understand that the term _design_ is NOT another term for "I believe in thought-organ lacking thinkers as disembodied minds, older than brain organs that shall speak into the air and poof there is a tree".
This is just being childish and stubborn and wanting that magic is real.
@@DenisK21well first off, empirical evidence isn’t the only type of evidence.
Still, by observation, one can discern that something is designed if it has to many intricate elements all fitting together in a specific order.
em·pir·i·cal
adjective
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
@@PhilipK635well that would take us into the realm of theology. This is a fallen world because of our rebellion. But, nevertheless, it doesn’t negate the evidence. Life couldn’t have just happened by chance. It’s just too complex.
@@Angelmouwe could discern that a watch is designed even if we had never seen a factory. If I designed and manufactured an invention totally unique to me and I dropped it in the forest. Anyone who found it could tell it was designed even though they would have no clue what it is or where it came from.
The recent uptick in "alien activity" in the past few years has given Crickians great hope that maybe just maybe they will get to see a space alien in a spaceship before they die...... They have much hope....
do you actually take yourself seriously?
You're the one that believes in aliens and it's your side led by one of the greats Francis Crick that concludes such@@AMC2283
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703you actually think this floundering weirdo believes in anything you do?
Bru
Answer just one question, how do you get life from non-life? Scientists, with all the ingredients and perfect lab conditions can't do it.
After that we'll get to the hard questions?
This video here is about ALREADY existing life diversification by well known heridity laws. Like how Equus had speciated variations such as the species of horse or the 3 zebra species (Grevy, Steppe and mountain with different chromosome numbers) or the wildass/donkey species adapted to desert mountain terrain. The topic sheds a HUGE light upon how 1 ape broodstock with many thousands of mating pairs had bonobos, chimpanzees and humans as 3 ape variations. So that people understand how ape variations work. This video here is about hoof mammals adapting to the water lifestyle as whales with the hoof feet to whale flippers and the nose to blowhole migration in opposition of the bird to water adaptation as penguins with birdwing to penguin flippers or the canine to the water lifestyle called pinnipeds with pawfeet to seal flipper adaptation.
Your question is about origin of the very first cells (without any cellcore and cellorganelles) from already existing already selfreplicating ribocyte ancestral structures.
Basic understanding:
Lifeforms are still entirely compound of nonliving material. You have neither a magical lifeforce nor some ingredient that would be fundamentally different to nonlivng structures. The term life refers to a set of processes like reproduction, metabolism, food absorption etc. Similar how the term fire or flame refers to a process of burnable compounds in burning reactions (active).
So is the origin of life research about how autocatalysis and acid replicators came to be to developed metabolism and to maintain those traits.
When you write something:
"with all the ingredients and perfect lab conditions can't do it."
We do not talk about this topic to be a piece assemble challenge like you would have some dozens of puzzlepieces to glue or stick them as a lifeform together as this is NOT how first life originated.
It is a false image.
You seem to have a false task/challenge image in your mind when you try to approach the topic and how to solve it.
You can't just have the image in your mind that you would be a puzzle piece assembler or a watchmaker or some sort of engineer to fiddle parts laying well sorted next to eachother around nor in a broader sense to be a cook that throws some ingredients into a pot either.
You look what acid structures exist like in outerspace or in vulcanic ponds or in hydrothermal vents and so on how those acid structures interact due to laws of physics and chemisty and what conditions allow the structures all by themselves to diversify and to maintain a type of autonome unit.
Such as micelles and which acids are able to get caught within the micelle fatbubbles and survive or gain complexity with a long chart you write about hundreds of interlocking of complexity observations where humans have no imagination freedom when it comes to it.
Basically like you can also do a chart about needles, cubes or dendritic complexity gain in snowflakes from simplistic water droplets and mindlessly write the gain of complexity in nature down without any human imagination or faith freedom - like a robot to collect the data.
Then you look what mechanical parts split fatbubbles, burst them or let maintain them and so on also with another chart you just mindlessly collect data.
When you have hundred steps as overview you have a good base to understand how primitive acid replicators work, how they "survive" and so on.
This is what the origin of life research is doing. This is long before any DNA becames a reductasis of those earlier RNA structures with the methyluracil (thymine) from the uracil base and so on.
Nobody knows yet, especially not theists. They're not even close.
Scientists are not far off though.
😊🖖
The proper definition of evolution is as follows: *"Evolution is any change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."* As you can see, this definition, which is used by all of science clearly implies that there must be something already living to evolve from. This begs the question why you would pose this challenge in the comments of a video about evolution when is it irrelevant to the topic?
Are you unaware that evolution does not address life origins?
Most people who have some science education understand that the leading life origins hypothesis in Abiogenesis has a great deal of evidence supporting it but is as yet still considered by science to be inconclusive. It appears as if you were not aware of this position held by science either.
Does one need to know how the planet formed in order to understand plate tectonics?
@@DenisK21 two different things.
DocRtrdable....what about the Einstein quote?... Was it about his static cosmos theory?
Pay attention, P0S. Einstein wrote, "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him." He also stated, "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
Already been addressed, little one. Try again?
Static State theory....run from the quote, coward@@DocReasonable
*Simply beautiful, from Dawkins:* _A serious case could be made for a deistic God._
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Another lie from Oscar/Gustave/or from one of his 30 sock accounts.
Does anybody know what happened to "Susie"? Maybe she got eaten by Kirby? Or Freddy Fazbear? Now ATMSR has ANOTHER friend named Lora to help him troll these comments. See examples down below 👇🏻👇🏻.
*What r u doing here, Andrew?*
No evolution without God.
Man is made in the image of God. We are special.
There is no god.
We are an evolved species of ape.
You can personally believe that a deity invented evolutionary processes as people can also be convinced a deity caused the strong or weak nuclear interaction to exist or gravity. This is however a subjective faith projected onto the topic. It is not needed for the tools to be used or to work out.
'Close the door and pray to your father who is unseen.' (Matthew 6:5-8). So if he's unseen, HOW ARE WE IN HIS IMAGE, BILLY BOB? Cue banjo music...
Than why aren’t we invisible too?
Simians share some common behaviors when frustrated. Don't have to go to a major zoo with a 'Monkey House' to see 'Who flung dung'.
"Crickian, what is the god of your superstitious beliefs?
"Abiogenesis "
"Does your holy belief system have any prophets?"
"It has many, but the greatest is Darwin"
Nice projection.
The desperation skyrockets when dead researchers are confused with holy people. Especially when creationists are unable to debunk the evidence the researchers presented. So where does the user-oh/David (incl. his sockpuppets) here show the Geospiza Darwin finches or the barnacle research of Darwin to be flawed? The user can't show that. As the observable evidence is unshakable by his ill-mannered behavior. He just tries to attack dead people, who were more honest at the time they were alive than the user is ever going to be in his lifetime where he is proud to be a sinner (also without any salvation). Without lying - the user doesn't get attention. Without bearing of false witness the user can't think about himself as infallible deity detached from mere fallible mortals. Without lying about science he can't pretend that he would be immortal.
You Crickians are the attacker -mockers..... Crickians just can't accept it.... your superstitious belief system is debunked.....
@@Lexi2019AURORA don't be too hard on him, he works at the Crick Stop Mini Mart for less than minimum wage
Doc rtrdable.... Explain to us the Einstein quote where Einstein said one experiment could prove me wrong..... And how it related to his static cosmos theory.....just educate us ...
The Einstein quote is about an artifact he had to put into his equations to count for a steadystate idea that became obsolete with the big bang observations.
You sir or sirs are a fool..... That quote was about Einstein's relativity theories...
Quite the fool you are!!!!😂
How does it feel to be a disgraced mocker😅😂
Don't quit your day job..... If you even have one😂😂😂😂😂😂
Go to sleep tonight with your Buzz Lightyear doll😅