The aggression in this comment section, from both sides, has reached sad new heights. If you have genuine questions, sincere doubts, or wish to respectfully teach or share perspectives with each other, please do! But if you feel the urge to post in anger, try one of the following instead: - Pet a dog - Cook a healthy meal - Dance like nobody's watching (after checking to make sure nobody's watching) - Do some push-ups - Call a friend - Organize your drawer (you know the one) - Chat with a neighbor - Befriend a cat - Write a short-story - Donate a bag of minimally processed, shelf-stable goods to your local food bank - Build something out of wood
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'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.
+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.
"70% of the comments are made by a single person" Randall Wilks is not even educated in science. He is PAID to lie, cheat and deceive on behalf of the cult of evolution.
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 ;)
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.
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.
*A. Eldridge from his trolling account "ergonomover":* _No one insisted ostriches have no wings_ *Eldridge in the same thread, about my v1de0:* _I watched about all of it_ *Now watch the v3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" and tell me that this r-rd doesn't lie...* 😂😂😂😂
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.
@@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.
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?
*When Dawkins said that the details of biochemistry reveal "some sort of designer", he was right and honest. Any tiny part and any mechanism in any living organism reveals, without doubt, a designer.*
He actually said one "might" find such evidence if aliens seeded Earth with life. We found no such evidence. He was not talking about some spooky, immaterial "designer" which he and everyone knows is a smoke-screen for the god of the bible, since the Dover trial fiasco for "intelligent design". "Not science" was the ruling, remember?
Dawkins is honest; creationists are not. There is no evidence to support creation mythology that is the basis of their worldview, so they use deceit like this quote mine. The 'designer' Dawkins referred to was a _REMOTE POSSIBILITY_ that life could have been seeded throughout the universe by some advanced civilization. That is called the _Panspermia hypothesis,_ NOT a Scientific Theory.
*I see the r-trdd evolutionist "ergonomover" (the one who insisted that ostriches have no wings) switched again to spamming mode. I remind you what someone told him:* _bro, I agree with you, but please, stop spamming!_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
*And of course we are waiting for the ostricher to provide the description of the biological processes involved in writing his rtrdd posts. We want to see if these processes are intelligent design or not. So far.....NADA!*
UA-cam reply function does not permit posting the pages of info you are begging for. Why were you never educated? I'm still waiting for you to answer why ostriches have wings, why you need to lie about me ever being a "b-allet" dancer, whether the solar circle is more of an elipse, why there are no living dinosaurs. So far... after nearly 2 years, NADA, RIEN
@@randomcommenter3202 imagine being part of a cult that endorses being a good person and then coming to a video about factual proof disproving your view, and then laughing at others while deluding yourself that you're going to have eternal life. what a sad person
*Lies Creationists Tell - about Transitional Fossils - "Missing Links"* *Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that tangibly and demonstrably encode an evolutionary transition. Thus, transitional fossils are characterized by their retention of primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in contrast with their more recently evolved characteristics (the phenotype and genotype). The term "missing link" is a popular slang term for such transitional forms, but it is misleading. The term is particularly used in popular media, but it is inaccurate and confusing, partly because it implies that there exists a single undiscovered fossil that is needed to confirm the transition. In contrast, the continual discovery of more and more transitional fossils is further refining and validating evolutionary transitions. Transitional fossils are numerous and varied throughout the Tree of Life, including those between primates and early humans, contrary to the claims of creationists who deny evolution. Evolutionary theory considers all populations of organisms to be in transition, whether changes be slow, as in genetic drift, or fast, as when a changing environment imposes significant adaptive pressures. A transitional form of life is one that demonstrably illustrates a particular intermediate evolutionary stage of change or adaptation. Transitional fossils usually coexist with gaps in a sequence in the fossil record. The low incidence of fossilization precludes the discovery of detailed sequences of fossils spanning millions of years. However, fine gradations of fossils between species and genera are abundant in the fossil record, as are coarser sequences between higher taxa.* One need only search for 'Transitional Fossils' to see numerous examples. Thousands of transitional fossils exist and more come to light all the time. Lying about them won't make them go away. In the past, most fossils were discovered by accident, and while many are still discovered that way, paleontologists today plan their digs well in advance, using geologic survey data. Fifty years ago, we had no transitional whale fossils. Since then, using advanced geologic maps and the predictive ability of the Theory of evolution, there have been many remarkable finds in the appropriate geologic strata in places like India, Pakistan, and Egypt. So, what has been the creationist reaction? To claim that each discovery creates 2 more "missing links".
nco *The r-trdd evolutionist "ergonomover" (the one who insisted that ostriches have no wings, see the v3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich") keeps spamming. I remind you what someone told him:* _bro, I agree with you, but please, stop spamming!_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
gtg *V3de0 "Exposing the biggest troll of the century - the ballet dancer Andrew Eldridge aka ergonomover", time **4:33** u can see how the same rtrd insists that dogs and wolves are different species because....dogs are a subspecies of wolves. He doesn't even understand the relationship between a set and its subsets.*
Do you know the difference between a set and a species? Doesn't look like it, and since you don't the difference between a man and ship, anyone can doubt everything you post.
@@DocReasonable *U'r kinda slow. You said that codes are random and now u'r saying that nature is not random. This is as d-mb as your claim that ostriches do not have wings, b-allet dancer Eldridge.*
@@DocReasonable *And by the way are you paid by a Christian congregation to destroy atheism? Because when you say "nature is not random", u d-estroy the theory of evolution through random mutations and natural selection. Which you said it's a fact...*
First cells were prokaryotic, lacking advanced organelles like a nucleus, nothing like the complex cells of today. Our bodies are still 6-7% mineral, the atoms of your left hand came from a different star than those of the right hand.
What the hell are you talking about? First cells were less complex than engines. They were pretty simple and came from even simpler structures, like RNA which is furthermore composed of tiny proteins. Then those simple cells turned into complicated ones that we can observe today after BILLIONS of years of evolution.
@@lesny.nietoperek The more an atheist proves that there is no God, the more he proves that he has a spirit of his own behind his statement, and the information with which he expresses his opinion is not the result of chance. In contrast, each particle of the observable universe contains 1,509 bits of information, and about 6 × 10 ^ 80 bits of information are stored in all the particles of matter in the observable universe. The universe had to start in a very high state of information. Much of the information in living things is made up of messages sent to start processes in biological machines. Biological structures are often digital (DNA, RNA, proteins), and biological messaging is very similar to a language, with arbitrary symbols, similar to human language. Creatures are permeated by ingenious architecture, databases, and operating systems that build, repair, and replicate themselves. A mere pinpoint DNA contains as much information as a pile of paperback books that would orbit the Earth 5,000 times. We now know that even the simplest functional cell is almost inexhaustibly complex and contains at least 250 genes and their associated proteins. The vast amount of information in DNA, even the gene sequences of DNA encoding specific proteins, proves to be too large for random point mutations to have enough time to induce known differences in racial DNA. Which came first, the ATP synthase molecular machine or the protein and RNA production machines that need ATP to make the ATP synthetase machine? For evolution to work, such systems must emerge from scratch, be carefully balanced and regulated in relation to other processes, and function to sustain them. The atheist attributes the latter to chance, as opposed to his own text, which is from his own spirit. According to him, all information structures have developed passively, purely physically. The information in these macromolecules has been actively involved in their own creation. According to this statement, few need an intelligent designer-formulator, many do not. To which form of mental illness does this statement belong, to which the atheistic worldview is entitled? You don't have factual answers to basic questions: 1. Where did the first subjects of evolutionary organisms come from? 2. Where does the genetic information come from, whose faulty copying results in the entire biological world, because that's what the the engine of evolution? If everything comes from mistakes, what created from an initial, error-free state? 3. What kind of tree of life is evidenced by the initial cellular complexity whose origin is not known?! 4. The survival of the most viable individuals is not the same as the survival of the individuals necessary for the evolution of a species. How does natural selection, operating blindly, extract the millions of kinds of environmental selection pressure needed to fully evolve the millions of organisms not yet fully evolved? 5. If Darwin did not talk about the origin of species, what he did discover was microevolutionary adaptation. But what does this have to do with the origin of organisms in which evolutionary adaptation takes place afterwards?
*Intelligent design is indeed everywhere, but how can a rtrd see it, when he cannot see the wings of an ostrich? (see the v3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" for more details)*
frd *The ballet dancer a-ndrew "ergonomover" eldri-dge is not only an expert in ostriches, he masters math too, I quote him:* _Dropped from 250,000 to 237,000. That's a drop of -23,000. Or an increase of 23,000 if you want to be pedantic._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
*More about the cell membrane, see if it's intelligently designed or the product of natural, random processes:* _The cell membrane also contains many different proteins. Proteins make up about half of the cell membrane. Many of these proteins are transmembrane proteins, which are embedded in the membrane but stick out on both sides (i.e., they span across the entire lipid bilayer)._ _Some of these proteins are receptors, which bind to signal molecules. Others are ion channels, which are the only means of allowing ions into or out of the cell._
@Lola1-foff *You are 100% right and the inane comments of the ostricher in this page confirm what you say. Defending the theory of evolution through random mutations, saying it is a fact and then claiming that nature is not random....the peak of rtrdtion!*
@@ruach-m2b *DNA mutations are not random* Mutations occur when DNA is damaged and left unrepaired, causing a new variation. New research from University of California, Davis, and the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Germany finds that DNA mutations are not random as previously thought. We always thought of mutation as basically random across the genome,” said Grey Monroe, an assistant professor in the UC Davis Department of Plant Sciences who is lead author on the paper. “It turns out that mutation is very non-random and it’s non-random in a way that benefits the plant [or animal]."
@Lola1-foff Not everything that is complicated has to be designed. This is nature evolving for billions of years, not a car made in a few months. This universe didn't have to be made intelligently, since no matter how things would turn out, it would still be all in place and complex. We have no other universe to compare ours to. Everything just follows the rules of physics and living organisms evolve due to natural selection.
@Lola1-foff dude this is just stupid... your saying evolution is stupid because you think scientist think that modern-day cells pop out of nowhere... first of all theres a thing called protocells... and they were extremely simple and I mean unbelievably simple compared to modern day bacteria...
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..?
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.
@@ergonomover I also noticed that it's hard to let go of the idea of agency behind the evolution process... one of these shore mammals that would not be able to get on land anymore, but lacked the ability to sleep while in the water, would just die, drown... so it does take some mutations and adaptations that allow the animal to stay forever in the water before it totally lets go, after which some mutations that make the legs unusable just don't matter any more and if these mutations add to the streamlining they'd actually take over the genepool... Survivor bias, many mutations just die out, and small benefits spread through the population at exponential rates... this is just a process that you can't see while watching one single animal going about his business...
@@marcdc6809 What you said reminds me of the calculation of 4 billion extinct species to date. Today, we have maybe over 100 million (only around 2 million species catalogued) - it is the cream of the crop, the lone survivors in a sea of death. Also, experts in genetics hold that species arose as populations as you have described, not as individuals. There is a standing axiom or rule that species which dwindle to under 50 members are in great danger of extinction (low gene pool, genetic depression and defects from inbreeding). It might be safe to say agents of evolutionary change include the environment and ecology (food chain), operating on such a large and interconnected scale as to be hard to grasp.
@@ergonomover I guess another example is how birds evolved, the dinosaur with feathers had a lot of advantages, even if flight is not immediately one, and when the climate cooled down the feathered ones would have a clear and present advantage over the naked ones, preserving body heath, keeping the chicks safe... number of eggs that can be hatched by one bird... they didn't just all develop feathers, but the gene that allowed for feathers spread like wildfire in the population over generations...
@@marcdc6809 I happen to love bird history and birds, living dinosaurs all around us, sharing with our fledgling species the planet they've been watching over for 100 million years. The emergence of feathers from scales is well-documented, fancy feathers were important in attracting mates. When the cataclysm hit, small and agile trumped huge and clunky 100% No living thing longer than my forearm survived. Now, we have 10,000 species of birds. I am currently super-intrigued by starlings, which swarmed around my neighborhood a year ago. UA-cam has great vids of starlings' imitations.
*Even Dawkins had to admit an intelligent creator when confronted with the undeniable evidence found in DNA. And that makes Aronra's disciples cry. Now I see they try to say that Dawkins didn't mean that.* 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
'Demand for synthetic DNA is growing across multiple industries including cell and gene therapy development and biomanufacturing. Coupled with that growth is a need for genetic constructs that can, in some cases, encompass sequences that are currently difficult to synthesize and sequence. Enzymatic DNA synthesis was designed to address both of those challenges. Using the technique, scientists can rapidly generate long, complex DNA sequences without using toxic materials unlike traditional chemical synthesis. 'In this GEN webinar, Konlin Shen, PhD, will discuss practical applications of enzymatic DNA synthesis technology in DNA nanotechnology. He will describe how his work in the lab of Shawn Douglas, PhD, at University of California, San Francisco relies on the technology to assemble complex genetic constructs with long randomers and repetitive sequences. During the webinar, Natasha Paul, PhD, will describe Molecular Assemblies’ Fully Enzymatic Synthesis™ (FES™) technology for generating long or complex DNA sequences for research, and how it addresses limitations of chemical synthesis.' Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News
*Let's read about the cell membrane, see if it's intelligently designed or the product of random, natural processes:* _The cell membrane also plays an important role in cell SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATION. The membrane contains several embedded proteins that can bind molecules found outside of the cell and pass on MESSAGES to the inside of the cell._
Please explain the process by which a cell membrane is created. Does it entail pixie dust? Magical incantations? Has it ever been documented? Enquiring minds want to know.
@@ruach-m2b “I never guess. It is a shocking habit - destructive to the logical faculty” - Sherlock Holmes. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion which is initially PROVISIONAL (a _Hypothesis)._ Only when all evidence confirms the hypothesis and none refutes it, does it become accepted as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. What is observed to be __random_ is the many copy errors that occur during cell division and replication (mitosis and meiosis). They are what account for the genetic variation we see in any population of organisms. Such populations are subject to diseases, predators, starvation and other environmental hazards. Most of those individuals will not survive. Only those that survive long enough to reproduce will pass their variant genes to future generations. THAT is _Natural Selection_ and there is nothing random about it. Of course, if you choose to believe in the existence of Big Foot, Alien Abductions, or invisible supernatural entities, that is your right to do so. Just be aware that such beliefs are supported by no evidence whatsoever. You have a right to your _opinion._ That is all that can be said of any of the thousands of religions; they are _OPINIONS_ and nothing more. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. They are not evidence of any sort. If billions of people believe a false thing; it is still false.
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.
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.
*I see the evolutionist troll A. Eldridge ran away from the fact that I caught him once again in his l-ies and from my simple request (to describe the biological processes involved in writing his rtrdd comments) and now he's walking his spamming account "randallwilks"*
Describing all the biological processes involved in humans writing something is a "simple" request? Best stupid joke I've heard today. You think I'm everyone on UA-cam and every account exists only to fool you? As if you were somehow sooo important? Paranoid and narcissistic, not looking good for Jesus camp if it needs you. If you don't want me here, you should not have begged me to come, by calling everyone by my name before I ever got here.
"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." - Richard Dawkins
fdf1 *Pure science from the 66-year-old evolutionist, the b-allet dancer A-n-drew Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable" (see the v8de0 "Ergonomover and the ostrich")* _Ostriches do not have wings ACCORDING TO ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA!_ 😂😂😂😂 😂😂😂😂
I find it difficult to believe in evolution; I understand that fossils and skeletons have been found that show two animals are similar but wouldn't that mean that a very large number of skeletons and fossils would be found between the two? If evolution is a gradual process then there would be so many different fossils out there from the between stages. And I don't appreciate the comments I have seen below stating that questioning or not believing in evolution makes you a useless idiot; most people believe in evolution because they were told to believe it. All I'm doing is questioning it; imagine how annoyed you would be if when you died you realised that everything you were taught was a lie.
Mugicianwill "And I don't appreciate the comments I have seen below stating that questioning or not believing in evolution makes you a useless idiot;" Well, kinda by definition it does make someone an idiot as they clearly have never bothered or took the time to actually properly understand what evolution means. It literally is as factual as gravity. Would you think someone was an idiot if they claimed gravity doesn't exist? That isn't hyperbole, evolution itself is something that we know absolutely for unequivocal fact exits...the THEORY of evolution explains evolution (think about it, why would we need a THEORY of something unless it is something we have observed to form a theory of???)
Personally I wouldn't see someone as an idiot to question gravity, I would listen and try and understand their thoughts behind the reasons they think that; even if something seems impossible, it doesn't mean it is false. I just think it is good to question any beliefs we may have, if we never questioned anything, we would still believe that the Earth is flat and the evidence I have seen on evolution doesn't make me 100% certain, but believe me I am trying to find solid evidence, feel free to send any links to more convincing videos.
Mugicianwill So if someone questioned the existence of gravity and jumped off a building thinking they could fly, you wouldn't find that in the least bit idiotic? Just asking'
Really? This is why many people don't question what they are told to believe... Because they are afraid of being verbally insulted. I hope one day you find some compassion towards others mate.
Are we already back to the mindless spam wars in these comments? There is no good reason to begin more than the occasional comment thread on this or any other video and similarly, ...posting the same copy and paste comment over and over again accomplishes nothing. If no one is responding, you are simply talking to yourself. It matters not if the content of that comment is scientifically accurate or not. Repetitive posting of the same comment, over and over again, day after day is spam. You are annoying far more people than you are influencing. Of course it is worse when the spam is irrational nonsense but still, spam is spam. One need only scroll down this page to recognize who the culprits are. And you know who you are. Do the world a favor and accept the fact that if you have posted the same comment dozens of times and no one has responded, ...it is because no one is interested.
It is so sad that this is the response I got from my opening comment. A psycho troll who is one of the main spamming culprits and a juvenile nitwit who thinks being obtuse is somehow redeeming and clever. You two are farcical reminders of what type of drivel a person may run into online. Examine your own behavior and grow TF up.
GCMGOME, Are YOU Gcmgome Wilks? Charles Darwin and Francis Dalton were cousins. Both were scratching each other's backs because Darwin's theory of evolution and eugenics were cross-supporting each other. I wonder who the cousin of Randall Wilks is in terms of their back scratching? Randall, a prolific spammer, is clearly protected by his secret cousins on this channel.
@@gcmgome *Your cult is d-ying, probably that's why you have to use so many trolling accounts pretending that they belong to different persons and carrying imaginary dialogs to them.*
I saw a video where a person says that whales can't have evolved from a land animal as no intermediate species were found. Well, these are all the intermediate species which perfectly match the evolution theory.
*Let's read about the cell membrane, see if it's intelligently designed or the product of random, natural processes:* _The cell membrane also plays an important role in cell SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATION. The membrane contains several embedded proteins that can bind molecules found outside of the cell and pass on MESSAGES to the inside of the cell._ _Importantly, these receptor proteins on the cell membrane can bind to substances produced by other areas of the body, such as hormones. When a molecule binds to its target receptor on the membrane, it initiates a signal transduction pathway inside the cell that transmits the signal to the appropriate molecules._ _As a result of these often complex signaling pathways, the cell can perform the action specified by the signaling molecule, such as making or stopping the production of a certain protein._
your talking about modern day cells... the first protocells which were one of the first cells were extremely simple and I mean unbelievably as simple as even modern day cells... the first protocells were chemicals that performed autocatalytic functions and it in no way is as complex as the cells today... if you'd like to discuss this then just reply this is so stupid
*EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - Vestigial Human Traits.* Vestigial refers to an organ or part that is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function. They are not necessarily useless as some people assume. Just as humans inherit characteristics of their nearest relatives, each of us has characteristics inherited from more distant relatives. In the inner corners of your eyes you have what is called a semilunar fold or plica semilunaris. There is a muscle attached to it, but it doesn't do anything in humans. In many other animals (sharks, frogs birds, your cat), however, that muscle controls a transparent nictitating membrane or "third eyelid" that can be drawn over the eye. Proponents of 'intelligent design' have no explanation as to why humans have those muscles. They are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory as vestigial remnants of an ancestral characteristic. You also have three sets of muscles attached to your ears. In other animals, those muscles turn the ears to focus on the direction of a sound. This ability is found in monkeys, most of which cannot turn their head horizontally. Humans and the other apes can turn their heads vertically and the ability to move the ears is largely lost in those species. Using sensitive electronic devices, researchers find that the human brain is still sending nerve impulses to those muscles in response to sounds, but the most any human can do is a bit of a wiggle. Proponents of 'intelligent design' have no explanation as to why humans have those muscles. They are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory as vestigial remnants of an ancestral characteristic. Then there is the Plantaris Muscle, which in other primates facilitates an arboreal lifestyle, allowing the feet to function much the same as hands in gripping branches. The human foot has lost this ability, rather early on it seems, in the process of becoming bipedal. The muscle, however, is still there. It is a long pencil thin muscle and tendons running down the back of the calf, that are extremely painful when ruptured and often misdiagnosed as a more serious injury. This injury, often called "Tennis Leg" occurs most frequently in athletes over 40 due to the tendon and attachments becoming more brittle. With or without treatment, the two ends of the rupture will shrivel and disappear within weeks with no loss of function in the leg. It is indeed one of evolution's leftovers. It is often harvested for reconstructive surgery elsewhere in the body. That these muscles are still present in the human body indicates that the genetic instructions for them are still present in the human genome and active to some extent. At some point the genes for these traits may be silenced by a mutation that disables a gene (such as a premature STOP codon or frameshift) making them a pseudo gene; one which no longer produces a protein. There is evidence that is already happening as this muscle is absent in one leg or both in about 10% of the population. The same seems to be happening with wisdom teeth. In the wild, primate infants are capable of grasping and holding on to the mother's fur shortly after birth, allowing the mother to pursue other activities. That is called the Palmar grasp reflex and is a primitive reflex found in infants of humans and most other primates. Human infants, because of the limited birth canal and large human brain must enter this world at a much earlier stage of physical and neuronal development. Despite that, the developing human embryo exhibits this grasping reflex in the uterus as early as 16 weeks. Even at birth, that reflex, the Palmar Grip Reflex, is incredibly strong as most parents of newborns will attest. While the infant's grasp is capable of supporting the child's weight, one must exercise caution as the child may suddenly let go. This reflex may persist up to 6 months after birth. As this is of no benefit to a human child, it is vestigial. All Great Apes, including humans, have an appendix. In other apes, the appendix is quite large and a repository for bacteria which help to digest the leaves that make up a large part of their diet. In humans, it is minuscule and is called the vermiform (worm-shaped) appendix. While some hypothesize that our appendix is a repository for good bacteria to replenish our gut biota following diarrhea, the fact is that a 'hot' appendix can kill you, whereas those who have had it removed go on to lead normal lives. The vomeronasal organ (VNO), is an organ located at the base of the dividing wall between the right and left nostrils (nasal septum). It is present in most amphibians, reptiles, and mammals but absent in birds and adult Old World (catarrhine) monkeys which include apes and humans. It enables the detection of pheromones via pheromone receptor (VR) genes that produce proteins sensitive to certain biochemical signals. That organ is clearly present in the human fetus but appears to be atrophied or absent in adults and is thus vestigial. The VR genes, plentiful in other species, while present in the human genome are all or almost all disabled by mutations making them pseudo-genes, again vestigial remnants. Evolution makes incremental alterations to what is already there. It may help to think of evolution as a robot gardener, dragging a garden hose around various obstacles until it can go no further. Now, an intelligent gardener would need only to retrace its steps, unwinding the hose before plotting a new path to where it needs to go. The robotic gardener (evolution) cannot do that. With a limited tool kit, all it can do is add more hose. An example of that is the _Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve,_ a branch of the Vagus nerve (tenth cranial nerve) that supplies motor function and sensation to the Larynx (voice box) present in most vertebrates. In the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods (land vertebrates), the nerve's route would have been direct from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, land vertebrates developed longer necks, making the heart and brain ever further apart. As a result, the RLN became incrementally longer, but still needed to loop around the aorta, thus the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. It branches from the Vagus nerve in the chest cavity before it loops around the aorta and then back up to the larynx. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed. While neurons are the longest cells in an animal body, those in the giraffe RLN can be as long as 5 meters. Were there such a thing as an "intelligent designer", it would have been possible at any point to simply reroute that nerve by a couple centimeters. That did not happen. In humans, that means a detour of about 18 inches. In the giraffe, that detour amounts to about 15 feet of "extra hose":
*RIP evolution! From live science, 2022:* _New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA. This goes against one of the key assumptions of the theory of evolution_ 😂😂😂😂
gftv *V2de0 "Ergonomover and the ostrich" shows that the evolutionist (in reality a f-ailed b-allet dancer) A-n-drew Eldridge is totally 1-nsane and rtrdd.* 😅😅😅😅😅
People might look at your posts and then at my posts and come to a different conclusion than yours. Why not let them think and decide for themselves? Any "b-allet" dancer still working at my age is a success by definition. You have no idea what you are talking about as usual. Besides, I'm retired. Did you ever retire as failed latrine-cleaning assistant? Once you do a thing, you _are_ defined by it? Never to late to learn to think.
2:44 I love that you bring this up, because Whales actually shed most of their hair within a short time after they're born (search it up). Now, this can mean that whales may have a little bit of hair, but nowhere near the amount as a land animal. So it's reasonable to say that in this aspect, the two aren't related. Plus, you don't see land animals (such as a bear or bird or cat) shed their hair and never have that hair grow back
Deer Shed their hair twice a year, once in the spring to get rid of their winter coat and again in later summer. In the summer, their fur is red, while in the winter it's gray to dark brown. Cats Shed their fur around spring and summer to get a thinner coat for the warmer months. Some cats need brushing during moulting to prevent dead hairs from getting trapped in their fur. Dogs Shed a lot of hair.
@maylingng4107 To me, you may be confusing that last sentence I said. Let's take cats for example. Yes they will obviously shed hair, but it grows back. I said, "You don't see animals like [the animals I mentioned] shed their hair and NEVER grow back."
@@DavidFarrington13 You are wrong again. While most animals experience some hair loss due to seasonal shedding or health issues, the only animals known to experience permanent pattern baldness similar to humans are the stump-tailed macaque monkey, and certain dog breeds like dachshunds and greyhounds; meaning once they lose hair, it generally doesn't grow back in the same way as other animals with fur.
*LIES CREATIONIST TELL- ABOUT THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS* The second law Misapplication by creationists The false analogy of entropy as disorder is used in several fields outside of science with varying success. Creationists have picked up on disorder terminology like a drowning man to a rope and have suggested that the second law of thermodynamics is a refutation of evolution. Their analogy would state that more complex life forms could never evolve from simpler ones. It should be obvious that this false analogy of a false analogy is incorrect. First, the Earth is not an isolated system - it receives a copious amount of incoming energy from the Sun. Second, evolution does not imply that life is becoming increasingly complex; only that complexity can arise from accumulated mutations, i.e. copy errors during cell division and replication (Mitosis and Meiosis). Survival of mutant genes is never certain and only those organisms that live long enough to reproduce will pass those genes to future generations. That is Natural Selection, aka "survival of the fittest". Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics in a strict energetic sense. The energy of the sun is converted by photosynthesis to chemical potential energy, starches and sugars, which are converted to mechanical work or heat. In each case, the energy transfer is inefficient, and some energy is dissipated as heat to the environment, leading to a dispersion of energy. In a similar manner, "ordered" snowflakes can form when the weather becomes cold but the entropy of the universe still increases. Victor J. Stenger, a theoretical physicist, refuted the creationist claim: “A transmitter and a receiver are two interacting systems. They are not individually isolated. So, the entropy lost by one system can be gained by the other. Or, equivalently, the information lost by one can be gained by the other. So a physical system, such as a biological organism or Earth itself, which gets energy from the sun, can become more ordered by purely natural processes. A quote from chemistry education illustrates this point: “One aspect of biological systems that intrigues students is the possibility of discovering violations of the well-known laws of thermodynamics and physical chemistry. It is easy to refute most of the examples suggested. A germinating seed or an embryo developing in a fertilized chicken egg are often naively cited as examples of isolated systems in which an increase in order, or decrease in entropy occurs spontaneously. It is evident, however, that respiration, assuming O2 is present, produces an increase in entropy in the form of heat, which more than compensates for the decrease in entropy that arises when the elements present in the seed or in the yolk of the egg are organized into tissues of the plant or animal. Indeed, neither germination nor embryonic development will occur without the presence of oxygen As PZ Myers said: "The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen." Furthermore, Carl Sagan pointed out that if the second law of thermodynamics were applied to a god, then (that) god would necessarily have to die. (Brief quiz for creationists: How many generally recognized laws of thermodynamics exist? We spoke about the second law: Tell us about the other laws if you can.) The only intelligent designers for whom there is evidence are humans. The laws of thermodynamics were discovered as limitations on what the clever engineers of the 19th century were able to design. Intelligent designers are not able to construct perpetual motion machines. Intelligent designers don't bypass the second law of thermodynamics.
Mr. Wilks - This message was sent to me a few months ago by Dr. May Ling Ng (we were graduate students at Princeton university and remained in contact over the years): (reference: University College London) *The Second Law of Thermodynamics (more than one law) applied to Evolution* Creationists often use the second law to argue that systems cannot decrease in entropy, or cannot become ordered with time; only the opposite is true. Translating this to evolution would mean that to the increase in entropy (tendency towards disorder) within the genetic makeup of a living organisms, makes it impossible for a more complex (ordered) species to evolve. I will sidestep the discussion of open versus closed systems, which provide some of the rationale in favor of a brand new research project (from UCL and the Universities of Gdansk, Singapore, and Delft), which has uncovered that there are additional second laws of thermodynamics (not clearly noticeable and on a small scale) According to the original second law the universe is in a growing state of disorder, or increasing in entropy. The new research was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reveals that on very small scales there is actually a whole family of “second laws”, which can lead to unexpected and counterintuitive phenomena. For this, we need to enter into the quantum realm as the article further states: "Statistical laws apply when we consider large numbers. For example, imagine we toss a coin thousands of times. In this case, we expect to see roughly equal numbers of heads as tails. However, this is not true when tossing the coin just a few times. It's possible we will find all the coins landing tails. Similar phenomena occur when considering systems made out of very few particles, instead of very many particles," said co-author Professor Stephanie Wehner (Delft). "We can use tools from quantum information theory to understand the case when we don't have a large number of particles." Professor Oppenheim (UCL Physics & Astronomy) added: "While a quantum house will get messier rather than tidier, like a normal house, our research shows that the ways in which it can get messier are constrained by a range of extra laws. Stranger still, the way these second laws interact with each other can even make it look like the traditional second law has been violated. For instance, a small system can spontaneously become more ordered when it interacts with another system which barely seems to change. That means some rooms in the quantum house may spontaneously become much tidier, while others only become messier but only imperceptibly." In other words, while individual parts of a system may become more ordered, the overall entropy of the total system (a measure of disorder) increases." In a sense, the traditional second law only holds on average. A small system can spontaneously become more ordered when it interacts with another system which barely seems to change. Drawing inference that applies to evolution, we can consider living organisms are small systems interacting with a large system (nature), getting more ordered is remarkably possible, and does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
@@AntonetteHopkins-cv7hd Thanks for that. May Ling is certainly an authority on the subject. My only comment is that sidestepping " the discussion of open versus closed systems" is like sidestepping the elephant in the room.
@@RandallWilks That is because all creationist and others who are uneducated confuse a "theory" with a "law". They think that the law is a higher order of assertion, which it is not. Many others still do not know that a "theory" is not a "scientific theory", the two are just different animals.
@@AntonetteHopkins-cv7hd Certainly 'Oscar' and his countless 'sock puppets' are ignorant of that and much more. Yes, Laws differ from Scientific Theories in that they do not explain anything: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed and may be found false when extrapolated. For example, Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies to weak gravitational fields, and the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in the case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Again, *LAWS do not explain ANYTHING, it is THEORIES that do the explaining.* There are a lot of misconceptions about that, especially among people who have never been inside a science classroom. They often think that a Law is absolute. They are not. A Law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed and may be found false when extrapolated. I encounter people who claim that Abiogenesis (chemical origin of life) is impossible because of a supposed Law of Biogenesis, from Pasteur that life arises from pre-existing life. That is of course what can be observed at present. If it is to be regarded as a Scientific Law, then it is subject to the same conditions under which it was observed and may prove false when extrapolated. That is exactly what happens when this "Law of Biogenesis", that 'life only arises from a past life' is extrapolated and applied to the prebiotic earth.
To more politely correct your question: I'm not sure how this is observation of evolution and not similarities :) And to answer your question: Science is based around finding patterns, proposing theories to explain them and testing them with evidence; so yes these are similarities, just ones most logically explained by the theory of evolution
The point of science is to explain what we can see and experience with logical theories. If you suppose all creatures were made more or less similar to each other by God for no reason, that's fine, but that denies science. We all see a pattern that perfectly fits into the idea of evolution.
*The evolutionist troll in this comment section cries "nature is not random", but then we have the theory of evolution through RANDOM mutations and natural selection. So, if nature is not random, then the random mutations cannot be natural. Are they magical?*
Apparently, this creationist troll was not listening in Biology Class. Copy Errors (mutations) during cell division and replication (mitosis and meiosis) are indeed RANDOM, and they are indeed NATURAL (No magical supernatural entities involved). They are what produce the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. Every offspring will most resemble its parents but will differ somewhat genetically. Most of those offspring will not survive, falling to predators, disease or starvation. THAT is Natural Selection and it is NOT RANDOM. Only those offspring that live long enough to successfully reproduce will pass their gene variants to future generations via the population gene pool. That is a PROCESS that continues over many generations. Genes that contribute a survival advantage will proliferate within that population gene pool. Evolution takes place in POPULATIONS, not individuals. As - Socrates tells us, "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." Fortunately for people like you, your ignorance can be cured *IF* you educate yourself. Should you fail to do so, you will forever be known as a (shudder) creationist.
It depends on how you define random. Due to certain environmental conditions, mutations appear in the DNA. These mutations can be little, but they can affect the organism's performance in its habitat. If the organism survives in given habitat, its genes are passed on for generations along with the mutations. That's how natural selection works, to put it shortly, and it results in evolution. In my opinion there isn't any point in discussing whether this is random or not random. It's better to just understand how it works.
It’s more so a lack of faith to deny your God couldn’t have orchestrated evolution from the beginning of time. He is God, time is nothing to him, he watched as his children grew and evolved until they ultimately were formed in his image. The whole creationist argument is for nothing, evolution does not deny your claims. It simply changes them and some of the faithful have been oppose to change for the longest time.
Just talk about hippopotami and whales then! There's the mating incompatibility between whales or large sea creatures and hippopotami. Hippos give birth to their young headfirst while whales give birth to their tail-first offspring. Hippos are much smaller. Hippos are vegan unlike whales. Hippos do look much different. Hippos have extended ears. These facts support that they are not ancestrally related. At a fundamental level many things have atoms, or at a certain level, all geometries can be made of points; it doesn't mean a protostar in Andromeda has any of our stardust or a specific segment makes a square instead of another triangle. This progression of evolution joins big lego blocks. It's a clarity of logic. Instead of ignoring your findings, evidence is being sought than correlation. Otherwise the other differences are ignored and it takes much to assume that much genetic mutation. Present this as correlation, not evidence in your video!
'Hippos are vegan' - no, hippos kill and eat meat, U fumb duck. 'Since biologist Joseph Dudley.made the first scientific record of carnivory in hippos in 1996, other cases of hippo carnivory and even cannibalism have also been documented. Dudley lists instances where wild hippos have fed on impalas, elephants, kudus, wildebeest, zebras, and other hippos that they either killed themselves or were killed by other predators. Events like these have been seen both during times when carnivory may be a last resort (e.g. droughts when food is scarce), and when it was merely a convenient opportunity, like a mass drowning of wildebeest crossing a river. There are also reports of captive hippos in zoos killing and eating their neighbors, including tapirs, wallabies, flamingoes and pygmy hippos.'
Ever seen a dugong or a manatee, shthed?? They are obviously evolved from hippo-like creatures and even still have hippo-like toenails on their flippers.
@fernandoq.dalisay Bwahahahahaha!!! Clarity of logic is not your forte. You add 2 and 2 and get 22. None of your 'facts' support a conclusion that they are not distantly related. It is comparative DNA that provides that evidence. Whale evolution is supported by a reasonably complete series of fossils. Whales are arteriodactyls, as are cattle, deer, and hippos. Whales still retain the four-chambered stomach of their ancestors [also not conclusive evidence]. Sireneans (manatees, dugongs and sea cows) are examples of convergent evolution. Here again there is a fossil record of their evolution from proboscidians (elephants) from which they also differ physiologically. In each case, evolution worked to make each organism more successful in an aquatic environment. Your ignorance could be cured *IF* you educate yourself. 'There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.' - Socrates
You know homologous and analogous traits exist right? Think about how genetically similar we are to other primates, yet we differ significantly in phenotype. Does that mean our feet being incapable of gripping make us less related? No, because our brains, anatomy, and social structures are still similar enough to show relatedness amongst different species. There is evidence outside correlation too, we see insect species evolve in real time and we see species that haven’t evolved in millennia. The examples shown are easy and simple without having to explain difficult phenomena like gene flow or convergent evolution.
*Personally I think that now it's the time for YT to make a revolution and to introduce a minimum acceptance test for allowing users to use its app: the ones who cannot find the wings of an ostrich should be banned because such rtrds can only pollute YT and the b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover" is the best example.*
“If you base medicine on science, you cure people. If you base the design of planes on science, they fly. If you base the design of rockets on science, they reach the Moon. It works! …bitches!” -Richard Dawkins
*It's hilarious that you speak in the name of science when in reality u r a ballet dancer with no education. You have to face the truth, all the greatest scientists of this planet acknowledged an intelligent creator.*
@@maylingng4107 *And using this girlish account "mayling" only makes u look d-mber. It's hilarious that you speak in the name of science when in reality u r a ballet dancer with no education. You have to face the truth, all the greatest scientists of this planet acknowledged an intelligent creator.*
@@gdanskbedankst "There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." - Richard Dawkins
@@gdanskbedankst *An undeniable fact of science:* Thumbs are characteristic of most if not all, primates. They are not evidence of supernatural entities but of evolution. It is too late to educate Newton, who died 300 years ago, but you could at least try to educate yourself.
@@RandallWilks frr _Newton's education was limited by what was available to him 300 years ago._ *Indeed, while ur education is much vaster, that's why u insisted that 00-striches have no wings and that codes are random and the the universe is infinite but at the same time expands and contracts regularly.*
3:39 I like that you also bring this up, because a study has shown that this "vestigial" hip bone is actually not for anything regarding legs. Rather, it's shown to have its role in reproduction. I can link that study here if needed
There is no study, U efn ret@ard. To all the creationist vermin who keep screaming that whale hips are not vestigial ... 'Male genitalia evolve rapidly, probably as a result of sexual selection. Whether this pattern extends to the internal infrastructure that influences genital movements remains unknown. Cetaceans (whales and dolphins) offer a unique opportunity to test this hypothesis: since evolving from land-dwelling ancestors, they lost external hind limbs and evolved a highly *reduced* pelvis which seems to serve no other function except to anchor muscles that maneuver the penis.'
*EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION* Over the millions of years of whale evolution, we see a succession of fossils through time with shared characteristics that start with land animals that swam using webbed feet on hind legs for propulsion. In land mammals, including humans, what we see is a pelvis consisting of a pair of hip bones each fused bones, ilium, ishium and pubis to which various muscles are attached. In the spinal column there are 5 vertebrae numbered S1-S5, the sacral vertebrae, that in most mammals fuse together during embryological development forming a solid triangular bone, the saccrum, which also forms the back wall of the pelvis giving firm support to hind limbs. Successive early cetacean fossils show increased use of the tail for propulsion, placing a premium on spinal flexibility. Freeing the pelvis from the spine provided that flexibility, and that took place in two steps; First, as in Rhodocetus, those five vertebrae of the sacrum separated into individual vertebrae, reducing the point of pelvic fusion to a single sacral vertebrae. While spinal flexibility was improved, it reduced support for hind limbs while on land. While they were ungainly on land, perhaps like today's sea lions or Elephant Seals, it seems that, like sea lions, they came ashore to breed and give birth. The second step in basilosauroides (Basilosuarus and Dorodon) was the complete separation of the pelvis from the spinal column. That gave them spinal flexibility and a powerful tail, but they had no support for hind limbs. At that point, they would have been fully aquatic. Basilosaurus and Dorodon hind limbs had fully articulated pelvis, femur, tibia, fibula, metacarpals, and phalanges, all the normal parts of a quadrupedal leg. That pelvis, however, was no longer fused to the vertebrae. The 18-inch hind limbs were of little use for propelling a 50-foot Basilosaurus and the same applied to the smaller Dorodon. Since their value for propulsion was negligible and had the effect of increasing drag, evolutionary pressure favored further reduction in size and eventual elimination which took place in more recent cetaceans. Remnants of that pelvis were retained in later species along with their role of muscular support, which in all mammals includes penile muscles. Because of the difficulty of assuming a mating position in an aquatic environment where movement is in 3 dimensions, male whales evolved a prehensile penis. Something that could be termed a "mobile dick". ;-) Today's whales retain a remnant femur with articulated ball and socket joint to the remnant pelvis. The Northern Right Whale retains not only those bones but an articulated tibia as well. The genes for those hind limbs are still present in the cetacean genome. Hind limb buds appear in early embryos to be turned off by control sequences in later development. The control sequence on rare occasions have malfunctioned, resulting in a whale or dolphin with hind limbs. That process is analogous to the human tail which at between 4 and 5 weeks of age the human embryo has 10-12 developing tail vertebrae. It's most pronounced at around day 31 to 35 of gestation and then it regresses into the four or five fused vertebrae becoming our coccyx. The progressive reduction and eventual elimination of hind limbs in cetaceans (whales, porpoises, and dolphins) reoccurred in the convergent evolution of Sirenians (manatees, dugongs, and sea cows) from their Proboscidian ancestors, also well documented in the fossil record. In convergent evolution, unrelated species may evolve similar features to deal with similar environments. The forelimbs of both cetaceans and sirenians have evolved as front flippers which function as a single unit, yet internally contain five separate phalanges (finger bones). Those of the manatee are tipped with tiny hooves, vestiges of their proboscidian ancestry.
Allah and Xenu approuve of your message, even if it comes without a shred of evidence. What kind of weird, Trickster god would put wrist bones and 5 sets of finger bones into whale fins if whales are _not_ related to land animals?
@@lorann-ut5cq Your personal attacks are not very Christian, are you upset? I never insisted that, maybe you misunderstood someone else. Sorry about your obsession with 66 dancing ostriches, get help for your paranoid delusions, soon, please, lorann aka benji/mulan/moran/doran/boran/lora/loran. You keep getting booted out for good reasons. Why not answer my question instead of attacking the messenger like a coward?
1. Comparative Anatomy. This can be summarized in one sentence: "Just because we look alike, we share the same origin!" This isn't evidence. 2. Embryology and Development. This is the same thing. "Just because we're similar we share the same origin." 3. Fossil. A "walking whale" doesn't need to have evolved from a land creature. There are many creatures like aligators who live in both water and land. That doesn't mean they're originally water creatures. Plus, we don't really know if it walked on land or not. That's just the conclusion scientists came to based on the fossils they found. It could be wrong. The problem with atheists is that they rely on evidence and data that changes over time. Maybe after a hundred years we find out that all of this is false because we find new data. 4. DNA Like evidence 1 and 2, this is based on assumptions and the illogical claim "we look similar so that means we share the same ancestor" The existence of a creator is more logical. Atheists like coincidences. They love em! They would say everything is a coincidence to reject God.
*Interesting, this looks very similar to a post of mine I posted some days ago, I quote myself:* *"Look, guys, I give not one but 5 (five) lines of evidence for evolution". Ok, but any smart, educated person realizes that all these can be summarized in the fallacy " A is similar to B, therefore A comes from B"*
Lol you arguing with scientists over this shit I would love to see.😂 he brings up multiple things to why they share a common ancestor or are mammals. This is way more complex than a simple logic-filling god.
We can compare embryos and see clearly they are looking very similiar, another way to know that we are related. Not only fossils show that whales had land-ancestors but dna too. in the end no one knows for sure but that whales are mammals is a fact and that mammals evolved on land also. In the end this are conclusion who tend to show a direction whats going one no one knows for shure, but still better as a god of the gaps.
*Does Time Move Forward Only or can it Move Backward also?* The "creation of the universe" is one of the favorite topic of creationists in this and other videos. They are stuck with the timeless (outside the material universe) creator who puffed the universe into existence. Apparently, this creator existed in perpetuity. Creationist stop here; they are unable to provide any evidence; but never mind "evidence", they cannot even provide a logical explanation or an intelligent guess about how this may have occurred. So here are some thoughts on the subject; I would call them just a postulate and perhaps approaching a hypothesis. Our understanding currently states that (articulated by Sean Carroll, now a professor at Caltech, and Jennifer Chen): "Most of the laws of physics, like gravity and quantum mechanics, are symmetric with respect to time. That means that it doesn't matter whether time moves forward or backwards. If time ran in reverse, all the laws of physics would work the same." That is, all the laws except one. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does imply a direction. The Second Law states that over time, everything moves from an ordered state to a disordered state (increase in entropy). It's the only physical law that can't go backwards. Entropy increases only for an ISOLATED system. We can theorize that our universe is a closed system (But there are many who would argue with that, and advocate the existence of other universes). What this means, ultimately, is that time only exists because the Big Bang "created" a universe that started out ordered. If the universe was disordered from the beginning, there would be nothing left to mix and time would not exist. This also means that someday in the far distant future, once everything in the universe gets mixed for good, time may disappear completely. The new argument (in the articles by Carroll and Chen) cites an experiment where they “created” two universes resulting from a simulated Big Bang. In this model one of the created universes was moving from disorder to order, entropy in reverse, moving backwards to the Singularity whence the Big Bang originated from. I do not think (I am guessing) that this was not a physical experiment, but only a computer simulation model. While the discussion and the model are highly theoretical and not based on tangible evidence in nature (we have not found any, but that does not mean that none exists). The new postulate or hypothesis is one of the most fascinating areas of future research. It has been theorized by several (including S. Hawking) that the classical laws of physics do not apply to black holes, where indeed time may move backward. It is further theorized that at the center of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in a fantastically small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them, cease to function. In many ways, the black hole is analogous to the Singularity from which the universe expanded (via the Big Bang). Many science fiction movies tell tales of moving back in time and using black holes in space as a jump in time or in dimensions. Often, fairy tales are not that far from reality and are based on them. However moving on this, one would have to take on and dispute Einstein and his theories, and that is a formidable task: According to Einstein's theory, "time and space, in a way, trade places inside the black hole. Inside the black hole, the flow of time itself draws falling objects into the center of the black hole. No force in the universe can stop this fall, any more than we can stop the flow of time”. I wish I could be alive 100 years from now, when our knowledge will advance to the point that the 21st century will be regarded as a time of ignorant cave men (and women). And where would this leave creationists?
Hello May Ling, I have not heard from you for a while, I hope that you are well. Interesting and fascinating discussion. I am sure that more to come on this.
*Wow the ultimate evidence of the rtrd A-n-drew Eldridge "ergonomover" that his trolling accounts are not his is....there are some fb accounts with the same names and pics. At least now we know where he stole the pics from.* 😅😅😅😅😅
You're in no position to accuse other people of stealing pics when your little boyfriend here Oscar screenshotted MY Nintendo Mii avatar and put it in his disgusting profile pic. Liar, hypocrite!
*A COMMON MISCONCEPTION is that evolution should lead to some particular trait,* such as a large brain. There is no "goal' to evolution; not speed, not strength, not intelligence, and certainly not 'humanity'. Evolution is about one thing: survival. Evolution occurs at the molecular level. In every living species, mutations (copy errors) occur with every cell division and replication Those mutations are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. It is the then-current environment that wields the pruning shears, favoring those mutations that best suit the organism for that environment. Today's apes are very well suited to their forest environment. Unlike our early hominin ancestors, there is no evolutionary pressure for change. Millions of years ago, in early Miocene Africa, when forests covered much of the continent, those forests harbored 30 or more species of apes, but as the climate of east Africa became warmer and dryer, the forests diminished and grasslands expanded. Competition among ape species increased and many went extinct. Today there are 8 extant species of Great Apes (Hominids) including humans. There are also Lesser Apes; gibbons and siamangs. One population of apes that, as the forests retreated, opted for life on the open savanna, stood on two feet and faced different evolutionary pressures that set their descendants on an evolutionary trajectory that culminated in us. The populations of apes that stayed in the forests became today's chimps, bonobos, orangs, and gorillas. The modern human brain is about 2% of total body mass, yet it requires fully 20% of total caloric consumption. I think you can understand that for most animals it is a daily challenge to consume enough calories just to survive, and the energy demands of a larger brain would be more of a burden than an asset. It is also the case that the larger human brain requires that babies be born at a less advanced stage of neural development placing an additional burden primarily on the mother. Japanese researchers have compared brain scans of baby macaques, chimps, and human children and found that brain volume for both chimp and human babies increases at three times the rate of infant macaques, however, during early childhood, human brain expansion was twice that of chimpanzees due to rapid growth of connections between brain cells. In the human infant, fully 60% of caloric intake goes into neuronal development. Human brain development continues into the early twenties. For most other species, the necessity for such a long childhood would place them at a survival disadvantage. Two human characteristics; a large brain and a long childhood are interrelated. Both had their beginnings in our primate ancestors. The survival of many other species of mammals was dependent on having large litters of offspring and the odds that at least some of them would survive. Early primates already had a larger brain than most other mammals resulting in greater cognitive ability. Primates parlayed that benefit into having fewer offspring (only two 'feeding stations') and investing time and effort in teaching survival tactics to those offspring over a longer childhood. Evolution occurs by incremental modification of existing structures. Among primates, we see increases in brain size from Prosimians (like Lemurs and Lorises) to Simians (Monkeys, apes, and humans). Among those simians, we see increases in brain size and cognition from New World Monkeys to Cercopithians (Old World Monkeys) and still further expansion in apes, particularly in the Great Apes (Hominids). In general, the expansion of the brain follows primate evolution. That trend toward an ever larger cranial capacity (brain size) is also seen in the evolution of the human species. A brain, being soft tissue, has not been found in fossils, but brain size can be inferred from cranial capacity. Our early bipedal ancestors, Australopithecines, such as the famous "Lucy" fossil (Australopithecus afarensis), had a cranial capacity (375 to 550 cc) somewhat larger than that of modern chimpanzees. Fossils from that species are dated 3.9-2.9 mya. They were followed by Australopithecus africanus, which lived from 3.67 to 2 mya, then by the genus Homo lineage: H. habilis 2.3-1.65 mya (500-900 cm3); H. erectus (aka H. ergaster) from about 2 mya to ca. 117 to 108kya (They had a large variation in brain size - from 546-1,251 cc). H. erectus was the most successful hominid species, with populations existing for 2 mya and spanning Africa and much of Eurasia. They diverged into multiple species, H. heidelbergensis, H. rhodesiensis, et al, including the common ancestor of H. neanderthalensis, H. denisova, H. sapiens. Several hominin species were contemporaries in time and interbreeding between them took place. Some fossils are difficult to classify, quite possibly due to such interbreeding. See: 'List of human evolution fossils'. We are just now beginning to understand the environmental pressures that lead to a larger brain; increasingly complex social networks, and in humans, where the development of language enabled a culture built around tool manufacture and use. Cooperative hunting no doubt played a role as well. The challenges of a rapidly changing climate may also have been a contributing factor. If it had not been for the development of language, humanity would have had to continuously re-invent the Acheulian Hand Axe. Two factors allowing human speech are the hyoid bone, also present in Neanderthals, to which the muscles of the tongue are attached, and a particular variant of the FOXP2 gene found in other mammals that allows for complex speech. Humans share this variant with both Neanderthal and Denisovans, indicating that it was inherited from a common ancestor. Neither chimps, bonobos or other apes have that variation, indicating that it arose sometime after the species diverged. So, yes, the human evolutionary history is indeed complex, but as Richard Feynman said, "Science is the joy of finding things out.". We are getting a lot of clues as to the expansion of the human brain from embryology and comparative genomics, but we see a progression in brain size from early mammals to primates, to monkeys, to apes, and to humans. In addition, while most mammal brains are smooth, primate brains have convolutions that increase the surface area of the cortex. Those convolutions increase from monkeys to apes and more in humans. See: "Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language". Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano, Anthony P. Monaco, Svante Pääbo Nature 418, 869 - 872 (22 Aug 2002) ------------------ "The increase in total cerebral volume during early infancy and the juvenile stage in chimpanzees and humans was approximately three times greater than that in macaques," the researchers wrote in the journal article. But human brains expanded much more dramatically than chimpanzee brains during the first few years of life; most of that human-brain expansion was driven by explosive growth in the connections between brain cells, which manifests itself in an expansion in white matter. Chimpanzee brain volumes ballooned about half that of humans' expansion during that time period. Human Intelligence Secrets Revealed by Chimp Brains By Tia Ghose, Senior Writer | December 18, 2012 07:01pm
Where is the critical thought in your audience? Just a quick scroll down the comments section shows that those who share your viewpoints are acting like 12-year-olds mocking those with opposing viewpoints. What's worse - it is usually carried by the same people, the number of which you can count with your fingers. This gives me the impression that you are not promoting critical thinking to your own audience.
You are addressing the moderator, the author of "stated clearly" channel, and trying to blame his 'audience' for mockery worthy of 12 year-olds, how interesting. Perhaps what you don't see are the spam-fests by 1 or 2 religious trolls, who offered personal attacks, harassment and insults, misquotations, disinformation, spammng the same things over and over. The moderator is not having it. Only a handful are mocking 'opposing viewpoints' too much for your delicate sensibilities? Which 'opposing viewpoint' do you find least mock-worthy, pray tell.
"Opposite viewpoints" The denial of observations is not any "opposition" - like the denial of the spherical shape of planet earth is not any opinion, either. People can try to imagine the Earth shape to be pyramidshape or pencakeshape or cube shape all those personal claims are just a denial of globe observations. So is the denial of biological mechanism like evolution as meaningless.
@@gdanskbedankst I see men in white approaching someone with wild paranoid delusions who thinks everyone is a single old dancer who is totally evil and never sleeps. Anti-psychotic medication might help with these delusions.
I can imagine Larsen at work in the sewers, begging to his supervisor for an internet break: "Please boss!!!! I gotta remind Ergonomover that 66 rtrded ballet dancers have no ostrich wings!! IT'S URGENT!!!"
"Larson, like I said the last 47 times you begged for a break: wipe that excrement off your face before addressing me! And stop cleaning the latrines with your head, I am _not_ impressed."
NOTICE TO CREATIONISTS: 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!
*Very well, from live science, 2022:* _New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA. This goes against one of the key assumptions of the theory of evolution_ 😂😂😂😂
@@gdanskbedankst *WRONG AGAIN!!!! I PREVIOUSLY SUGGESTED THAT YOU TRY TO EDUCATE YOURSELF. EITHER YOU DID NOT TRY OR YOU FAILED MISERABLY. PLATO SAID "THERE IS ONE GOOD: KNOWLEDGE AND ONE EVIL: IGNORANCE. ALL YOU HAVE ARE LIES AND DISTORTIONS.
Twenty-one replies and still no evidence that creation stories are anything other than mythology. Since creationists are not capable of truth, they think that hurling insults are acceptable substitutes for rational response.
*U could simply say that u reject any rational argument ruining ur doctrine. By the way, nature creating information and quotes was not yet spotted in the wild.*
@@gdanskbedankst I asked for *EVIDENCE.* You give me an assertion, your baseless opinion. Assertions lacking corroborating evidence cannot be distinguished from lies and are dismissed as such. They are, in fact, the very definition of the word 'bullshit'.
@@gdanskbedankst You really have a comprehension problem, don't you? What I reject are arguments lacking corroborating evidence, which is all you have. Nature creates information ALL THE TIME. The fact that the DNA molecule is both heritable and mutable makes evolution INEVITABLE.
@@RandallWilks *There must be some c0nfusion on your side. Nature was never seen creating information. Probably you mix information with rain, wind or something like that.*
@@gdanskbedankst More creationist delusions. Hundreds of copy errors (mutations) occur during cell division and replication (mitosis and meiosis). Most, but not all are corrected by DNA mechanisms. While some may be instantly fatal to a developing organism, others are responsible for the genetic variation seen in every population of organisms. Your ignorance of those facts does not speak well of your cognitive ability.
@@crickcrickianspcshp Oh no they use logic and reason! You have no argument back but are offended by science so time to pull out the childish insults because that's all you have left to "fight back" against science!
UA-cam is not sending my responses to Angelmou, and I dont think pasting it again will do any better. But if I was attacked by evolutionists, I would be distressed, and I just think trying to out-logic everything as a form of 'gotcha' just gives me the impression that the commenters are approaching tihs subject with minimal empathy.
@@gdanskbedankst Poor theistic dudes attacked by evolutonists on a video that never mentions your oogity boogity creator. Were either of you ever going to address the evidence demonstrated in this video? Last month, you said "I am not a Christian" so why do you care about evolution so much? What fairy tales of yours does it refute?
I think there's just something very wrong with the UA-cam algorithm. It deletes intelligent comments while allowing the puerile idi0cy of banjo, oscar and larsen to proliferate.
*Why do u say that, Eldridge? I see the garbage u posted as "randallwilks" just below. And the garbage replies from ur accounts like "ergonomover", "angelmou", "docreasonable", connan-le cimmerien" r also there. Do u mean, u posted even more garbage like that and somehow it doesn't appear here?*
@@banjo7899 *It is just his trick to mask the heavy censoring that is performed here against theists. He l-ies as usual. i saw him doing that many times. Never trust the d-vil.*
You only have to look around you to know that life, the universe and everything is entirely natural and alines perfectly with *The Fundamental Forces and Laws of Nature.*
Great comment and good advice from Stated Clearly 👍🙏 When looking at the intelligence and communication skills in this forum, you get the thought that human evolution is moving backwards 🤔
@@banjo7899 Common sense is not performing to run away from numerous thousands of observations again and again. Like a particular user starting with the letter b and ending with o. Example: Running away from fur coat genes in humans to be readable malfunctional by the mir205, ELF3 RNA regulation not executing the radable fur genes such as KRT2&35 and PTPRM etc. properly within humans as result to stopping an ape fur coat. ;-) Okay my bad I forgot readable ape fur gene regulation and their malfunction _shall not mean anything_ . Like the particular mammalness of humans _shall not mean anything_ Or the very specific digit lobe finned fish base genes with 4x copy errored hox base for the the del and gli subset to form hands as tertiary step. _It shall not mean anything_ Just like the semi aquatic beach wobbling whales exactly in between 1/4 moved blowhole Qaisracetus fossils (in the older burials) and 3/4 moved blowhole fossils (in the younger lagerstätten) with the 1/2 migrated noses of Chonecetus and of course Janjucetus in the middle of the ages. But we know that _Shall not mean anything_ as you have some fake news from Creation institute (CI) up your sleeves hiding that we found numerous specimen and not just 1 lonely single skull of Pakicetus and more than 1 specimen of Ambulocetus etc. And many more. 3,6 million research papers over 100+ years of different fields _shall not mean anything_ . Common sense is that not. It is conspiratorial denial, similar how oscar and co. argue "I do not feel the movement of the spinning globe" therefore the Earth shall be a stationary disc.
@@banjo7899 *"COMMON SENSE"* in the words of Albert Einstein, "is the collection of prejudices one acquires by age 18." It is thus not a means for determining truth which is arrived at by the examination of evidence. Creationists have a psychological need to believe in creation mythology as they have made it the basis for their worldview. Evidence is what rational people use in making decisions; that is a concept totally alien to those who have subordinated their intellect to that of ancient goat herders.
Calcutta Library employees: "Ganeet, who is this man who comes in every day and giggles insanely while typing on internet?" "I do not know but he frightens and disgusts me, Poonam.'"
The creationist dude named oscar ( who impersonated randall wilks ) has been claimed to live in russia and probably part of the ST.petersburg disinformation & propoganda outfit
Oscar is always making derogatory slurs against Belgians on the "Mankind Rising" video, so I suggested he was a failed Congolese asylum seeker who was bitter at being kicked out of the country for his extremism. He went absolutely 🦧💩 spamming the comment section and harrassing every user 10x more than usual. 🤔💡
Fish evolved from an animal similar to a coral-like sea squirt, or tunicate, and the first fish may have originated around 530 million years ago. Some of the earliest fish-like vertebrates were invertebrates, possibly cephalochordata.
Here is the part of the quote that the dishonest creationist left out: “The fanatical atheists are like slaves *who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who-in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"-cannot hear the music of the spheres.”* ― Albert Einstein Personally, I never felt the weight of (theistic) chains, there was little to throw off, and the struggle was not that hard. It is not about a grudge I hold, Enlightenment values of reason, logic and the scientific method are simply worth fighting for.
gtr *The v8de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" shows that the b-allet dancer A-n-drew Eldridge aka "ergonomover" says this from his account "docreasonable"* _OK fine! I'll admit that captainatheist9855 is my trolling account (it's where I make rtrded comments)_ 😂😂😂😂 *The bad thing is that all his comments from all his t-rolling accounts are r-trdd....*
“If taken at face value, the miraculous explanation would tell us that science is not worth the trouble, that it will never yield the answers we seek, and that nature will forever be beyond all human understanding. Sterile and nonproductive in its consequences, the claim of miracle would put a lid on curiosity, experimentation, and the human creative imagination.” ― Biologist Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution
The Geological Society of America Position Statement: Adopted in October 2005; revised May 2009, November 2012, May 2017, and October 2021. Evolution and the directly related concept of deep (geologic) time are essential parts of science curricula at all levels of education. The evolution of life on Earth stands as one of the central concepts of modern science that is accepted by the scientific community. Two centuries of research in geology, paleontology, and biology have produced an increasingly detailed, consistent, and robust picture of how life on Earth evolved. Creationism, whether presented as creation “science” or intelligent design, attempts to explain complicated phenomena of the natural world by invoking a supernatural creator or designer. Creationism cannot be tested using the scientific method and therefore has no place in a science curriculum.
Creationist comments on this forum are characterized by utter nonsense and repetition thereof. About 400 BCE, Socrates said; 'There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.' Socrates believed that evil was a result of ignorance rather than intention and an increase in knowledge resulted in an increase in virtue. Creationists say 'Fuck that shit, we're going with ignorance.'
Sorry, creationists, but Isaac Newton's 1st and 2nd rules of scientific reasoning exclude your talking snake: "Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes." Got that? Everything in nature has natural causes, the simplest explanation has the most power.
ufqv 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?
ygsd Why does DNA show that some species are more distantly related than others? Why have there been three new variations of American Goatsbeard flowers if macro evolution doesn’t happen?
fkd Why do we have vomeronasal organs despite not using pheromones? Where did we get chromosome 2 and cytochrome B from? Why do we have pseudogenes, appendixes, wisdom teeth, Plica semilunaris and Nictitating membranes?
THOUSANDS of gods have sprung from the imaginations of primitive peoples. If you believe in ANY of them, you are a _THEIST._ An _A-THEIST_ is anyone who rejects such nonsense.
Ho Hum, more creationist nonsense and still ZERO evidence to support creation mythology. That does not represent Darwin's 'Origin of Species' and this creationist knows that very well. His game is MISINFORMATION, otherwise known as LIES. But hey, when that's all they've got, they run with it.
Again, creationist @gdanskbedankst proves that misinformation is his only weapon against facts. That is why he resorts to mindless repetition. If he had a mind he would understand the sheer stupidity of it.
The ballet dancer Larsen has an unnatural obsession with ostriches. Maybe it's the long eyelashes? Wouldn't be the wings, as they don't have any -- according to Britannica.
That's a good question, but creationists will claim that (he, she, or it) ALWAYS existed. That means that this supreme being was a couch potato through billions of eons until he finally, six thousand years ago, got off his ass and worked for 6 days, after which he needed to rest his candy ass. The next thing we know is that he decided to shit can the whole project, drowning not just adult humans, but their children, puppies, kittens, koalas, pandas, every living thing. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
There are several well-informed people here defending the science clearly stated. Pretending they don't exist is a pretty dumb tactic. Oh right, we're dealing with creationists, the talking snake, the 7-headed dragon, they'll believe just about anything.
Oscar: "joined 22 hours ago" Copying LARSEN'S username Has a yt banner of the sun's surface Is subbed to the globebusters Has public playlists Says "got milk" Sometimes Oscar worries me.
'Newton’s “heresies” primarily concerned two areas of theology which are in some ways interrelated. First, *Newton absolutely denied the immortality of the soul* and eternal torment. The God he saw in creation was not a God who tortured people into infinity.' Ray of Light (Christian website)
He's a birdbrain for sure. He traded in his big evolved Homo Sapiens brain for a lighter, more streamlined version, so that he could evolve wings for powered flight. He has no bone marrow (intellectually spineless too), He wants 4 eyes, but losing binocular vision (depth perception) will make flying quite dangerous. Like the 2 hapless birds that died hitting my new bay windows head first, Larsen's crash-landings (and arguments that crash a burn) have taken their toll. Your dad worked for NASA, but from Down Under? Just curious. Do protect your anonymity.
One great example of a testable prediction made by evolution theory is the fish-to-land-animal transitional form _Tiktaalik_ . A creature part fish and part land-animal was predicted to be found in rock layers 375 million years old. The first one was unearthed after 5 years of digging. Lungs and gills, a swiveling neck, fore-fins with 8 wrist bones. It did push ups and breathed air, was it a fish or a land-animal? 60 specimens tour the globe's museums.
@@crickcrickianspcshp How many fish with lungs, swiveling necks and wrist bones do you know of? Will your replies ever graduate past kindergarten level?
*WHAT ARE **_CREATIONISTS?_* Creationists are, by their own admission, people who hold to any one of the thousands of creation myths that arose in primitive societies. Their one common thread is a belief that one or more supernatural entity used magic to create humans and everything else. The fact that there is no evidence to support such belief does not register with them. Their religion dictates what they are to believe and those that fail to do so are threatened with eternal punishment, because the deity loves you. On the other hand, those who willingly parrot the dogma of their particular belief system are promised an afterlife of 24/7 eternal bliss. (perpetual use of hallucinogens, perhaps?) The one seemingly unifying concept of such supernatural belief systems is that the vast diversity of life on this planet could not possibly have come about by any NATURAL process, such as evolution. It is immaterial to creationists which supernatural entity (or entities) performed the miracle of creation, they are united in their opposition to evolution. To aid them in their denial, many adopt a "Statement of Faith" such as this from Answers in Genesis: *_"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."_* This makes creationism the antithesis of science. Science is a search for truth and truth is established by evidence, not by what anyone says. By what means can rational discussion be conducted when evidence is rejected? Virtually none. Such an attitude sets creationism at odds with science, which is a search for truth based on evidence. How logical is it for someone to claim they accept the findings of science in some regards, but not others? Trying to reason with such people is like administering medicine to the dead. 'Cognitive Dissonance' is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who is confronted by information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values. Beliefs instilled in children are particularly resistant to change since they tend to become part of that person's identity. Thus any information contradicting those beliefs will be seen as an attack on one's self, causing extreme mental stress and discomfort. There are but two means by which to resolve Cognitive Dissonance, to either change the belief or to deny and attack the information that contradicts that belief. "Belief is not an idea the mind possesses, belief is an idea that possesses the mind." (Robert Oxton Bolton). Belief is so inextricably enmeshed in emotion that rational thought becomes impossible. “Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.” - Albert Einstein Breaking free of such indoctrination creates its own set of problems. Not only is there inner conflict, but any attempt to do so will certainly meet with resistance from family or circles of acquaintances who have been similarly indoctrinated.
@@gdanskbedankst Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one, including Newton, James Maxwell, Lord Kelvin or anyone else who is hung up on religious nonsense. All religions are OPINIONS. Opinions are mere assertions and not supported by any evidence. As such they are the ANTITHESIS OF SCIENCE.
@@lorann-ut5cq Science isn't about beliefs, but about evidence, I was never a "b-allet" dancer, why lie about it 100 times a day? Mindless repetition shows who is rtrdd.
Larsen thinks that making everyone hate his guts will get him brownie points with Jesus. He's wrong about that too of course, and will spend eternity screaming in the infernal underworld for being a liar.
The aggression in this comment section, from both sides, has reached sad new heights. If you have genuine questions, sincere doubts, or wish to respectfully teach or share perspectives with each other, please do! But if you feel the urge to post in anger, try one of the following instead:
- Pet a dog
- Cook a healthy meal
- Dance like nobody's watching (after checking to make sure nobody's watching)
- Do some push-ups
- Call a friend
- Organize your drawer (you know the one)
- Chat with a neighbor
- Befriend a cat
- Write a short-story
- Donate a bag of minimally processed, shelf-stable goods to your local food bank
- Build something out of wood
This video's comment section need a stronger moderation
@@Un-ProsTitutePants-UPExactly racso
"sad new heights" 😭💀
- Touch Grass
You forgot "-Go fishing"
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.
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?
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.
My face when 70% of the comments are made by a single person
Your face? I thought that was your butt.
"70% of the comments are made by a single person"
Randall Wilks is not even educated in science. He is PAID to lie, cheat and deceive on behalf of the cult of evolution.
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
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
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.
*A. Eldridge from his trolling account "ergonomover":* _No one insisted ostriches have no wings_
*Eldridge in the same thread, about my v1de0:* _I watched about all of it_
*Now watch the v3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" and tell me that this r-rd doesn't lie...* 😂😂😂😂
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.
@@linglingzeng2857*We do not need to refute rtrds.*
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
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.
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?
*Internet-the place where people come to l-augh at the c-r1c-ture A. Eldridge "ergonomover".*
*When Dawkins said that the details of biochemistry reveal "some sort of designer", he was right and honest. Any tiny part and any mechanism in any living organism reveals, without doubt, a designer.*
He actually said one "might" find such evidence if aliens seeded Earth with life. We found no such evidence. He was not talking about some spooky, immaterial "designer" which he and everyone knows is a smoke-screen for the god of the bible, since the Dover trial fiasco for "intelligent design". "Not science" was the ruling, remember?
Pseudoscientific claim 👍
why is that?
Dawkins is honest; creationists are not. There is no evidence to support creation mythology that is the basis of their worldview, so they use deceit like this quote mine. The 'designer' Dawkins referred to was a _REMOTE POSSIBILITY_ that life could have been seeded throughout the universe by some advanced civilization. That is called the _Panspermia hypothesis,_ NOT a Scientific Theory.
like seriously, give a single reason
Mengapa terdapat konflik/spam di komentar terbaru ?
*I see the r-trdd evolutionist "ergonomover" (the one who insisted that ostriches have no wings) switched again to spamming mode. I remind you what someone told him:* _bro, I agree with you, but please, stop spamming!_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
*And of course we are waiting for the ostricher to provide the description of the biological processes involved in writing his rtrdd posts. We want to see if these processes are intelligent design or not. So far.....NADA!*
UA-cam reply function does not permit posting the pages of info you are begging for. Why were you never educated?
I'm still waiting for you to answer why ostriches have wings, why you need to lie about me ever being a "b-allet" dancer, whether the solar circle is more of an elipse, why there are no living dinosaurs. So far... after nearly 2 years, NADA, RIEN
😂
Hi Randomcommenter 🤣
@@Aurora666_yt they made a lie that humans shared something with orangutans
@@Aurora666_yt imagine burning for eternity. Couldn't Be me
@@randomcommenter3202 imagine being part of a cult that endorses being a good person and then coming to a video about factual proof disproving your view, and then laughing at others while deluding yourself that you're going to have eternal life. what a sad person
*Lies Creationists Tell - about Transitional Fossils - "Missing Links"*
*Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that tangibly and demonstrably encode an evolutionary transition. Thus, transitional fossils are characterized by their retention of primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in contrast with their more recently evolved characteristics (the phenotype and genotype).
The term "missing link" is a popular slang term for such transitional forms, but it is misleading. The term is particularly used in popular media, but it is inaccurate and confusing, partly because it implies that there exists a single undiscovered fossil that is needed to confirm the transition. In contrast, the continual discovery of more and more transitional fossils is further refining and validating evolutionary transitions. Transitional fossils are numerous and varied throughout the Tree of Life, including those between primates and early humans, contrary to the claims of creationists who deny evolution.
Evolutionary theory considers all populations of organisms to be in transition, whether changes be slow, as in genetic drift, or fast, as when a changing environment imposes significant adaptive pressures. A transitional form of life is one that demonstrably illustrates a particular intermediate evolutionary stage of change or adaptation.
Transitional fossils usually coexist with gaps in a sequence in the fossil record. The low incidence of fossilization precludes the discovery of detailed sequences of fossils spanning millions of years. However, fine gradations of fossils between species and genera are abundant in the fossil record, as are coarser sequences between higher taxa.*
One need only search for 'Transitional Fossils' to see numerous examples. Thousands of transitional fossils exist and more come to light all the time. Lying about them won't make them go away. In the past, most fossils were discovered by accident, and while many are still discovered that way, paleontologists today plan their digs well in advance, using geologic survey data. Fifty years ago, we had no transitional whale fossils. Since then, using advanced geologic maps and the predictive ability of the Theory of evolution, there have been many remarkable finds in the appropriate geologic strata in places like India, Pakistan, and Egypt. So, what has been the creationist reaction? To claim that each discovery creates 2 more "missing links".
nco *The r-trdd evolutionist "ergonomover" (the one who insisted that ostriches have no wings, see the v3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich") keeps spamming. I remind you what someone told him:* _bro, I agree with you, but please, stop spamming!_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
gtg *V3de0 "Exposing the biggest troll of the century - the ballet dancer Andrew Eldridge aka ergonomover", time **4:33** u can see how the same rtrd insists that dogs and wolves are different species because....dogs are a subspecies of wolves. He doesn't even understand the relationship between a set and its subsets.*
Do you know the difference between a set and a species? Doesn't look like it, and since you don't the difference between a man and ship, anyone can doubt everything you post.
*So, natural, random processes creating two symmetric eyes.....Got it!*
Nature is not random, Ostrich Larsen. It is 100% controlled by the laws of physics.
@@DocReasonable *Oh, you told us that codes are random and now u'r saying that nature is not random? Any other random thoughts you might have?*
@@ruach-m2b There is no such thing as natural coding, @hole. U fumb duckin' pissa sht
@@DocReasonable *U'r kinda slow. You said that codes are random and now u'r saying that nature is not random. This is as d-mb as your claim that ostriches do not have wings, b-allet dancer Eldridge.*
@@DocReasonable *And by the way are you paid by a Christian congregation to destroy atheism? Because when you say "nature is not random", u d-estroy the theory of evolution through random mutations and natural selection. Which you said it's a fact...*
Ok but the first cell that isbmore complex that a engine ,apear from itself?
First cells were prokaryotic, lacking advanced organelles like a nucleus, nothing like the complex cells of today.
Our bodies are still 6-7% mineral, the atoms of your left hand came from a different star than those of the right hand.
no
What the hell are you talking about? First cells were less complex than engines. They were pretty simple and came from even simpler structures, like RNA which is furthermore composed of tiny proteins. Then those simple cells turned into complicated ones that we can observe today after BILLIONS of years of evolution.
@@Mustardissimowhy do you write with thick text ??
@@lesny.nietoperek The more an atheist proves that there is no God, the more he proves that he has a spirit of his own behind his statement, and the information with which he expresses his opinion is not the result of chance. In contrast, each particle of the observable universe contains 1,509 bits of information, and about 6 × 10 ^ 80 bits of information are stored in all the particles of matter in the observable universe. The universe had to start in a very high state of information. Much of the information in living things is made up of messages sent to start processes in biological machines. Biological structures are often digital (DNA, RNA, proteins), and biological messaging is very similar to a language, with arbitrary symbols, similar to human language. Creatures are permeated by ingenious architecture, databases, and operating systems that build, repair, and replicate themselves. A mere pinpoint DNA contains as much information as a pile of paperback books that would orbit the Earth 5,000 times. We now know that even the simplest functional cell is almost inexhaustibly complex and contains at least 250 genes and their associated proteins. The vast amount of information in DNA, even the gene sequences of DNA encoding specific proteins, proves to be too large for random point mutations to have enough time to induce known differences in racial DNA. Which came first, the ATP synthase molecular machine or the protein and RNA production machines that need ATP to make the ATP synthetase machine? For evolution to work, such systems must emerge from scratch, be carefully balanced and regulated in relation to other processes, and function to sustain them. The atheist attributes the latter to chance, as opposed to his own text, which is from his own spirit. According to him, all information structures have developed passively, purely physically. The information in these macromolecules has been actively involved in their own creation. According to this statement, few need an intelligent designer-formulator, many do not. To which form of mental illness does this statement belong, to which the atheistic worldview is entitled?
You don't have factual answers to basic questions:
1. Where did the first subjects of evolutionary organisms come from?
2. Where does the genetic information come from, whose faulty copying results in the entire biological world, because that's what the the engine of evolution? If everything comes from mistakes, what created from an initial, error-free state?
3. What kind of tree of life is evidenced by the initial cellular complexity whose origin is not known?!
4. The survival of the most viable individuals is not the same as the survival of the individuals necessary for the evolution of a species. How does natural selection, operating blindly, extract the millions of kinds of environmental selection pressure needed to fully evolve the millions of organisms not yet fully evolved?
5. If Darwin did not talk about the origin of species, what he did discover was microevolutionary adaptation. But what does this have to do with the origin of organisms in which evolutionary adaptation takes place afterwards?
*Intelligent design is indeed everywhere, but how can a rtrd see it, when he cannot see the wings of an ostrich? (see the v3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" for more details)*
Mindless repetition confirms creationist dementia.
@@RandallWilks *U r projecting, c-ll-wwn.*
frd *The ballet dancer a-ndrew "ergonomover" eldri-dge is not only an expert in ostriches, he masters math too, I quote him:*
_Dropped from 250,000 to 237,000. That's a drop of -23,000. Or an increase of 23,000 if you want to be pedantic._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
you know, I've seen bowls of porridge that have more personality, intelligence and courage than you do. How bad does it hurt being a triple loser?
numbers... please explain this is much? nothing or useless? 250,000 what? cows?
*More about the cell membrane, see if it's intelligently designed or the product of natural, random processes:*
_The cell membrane also contains many different proteins. Proteins make up about half of the cell membrane. Many of these proteins are transmembrane proteins, which are embedded in the membrane but stick out on both sides (i.e., they span across the entire lipid bilayer)._
_Some of these proteins are receptors, which bind to signal molecules. Others are ion channels, which are the only means of allowing ions into or out of the cell._
@Lola1-foff *Indeed, a message-driven distributed architecture. Aren't random processes amazing :)?*
@Lola1-foff *You are 100% right and the inane comments of the ostricher in this page confirm what you say. Defending the theory of evolution through random mutations, saying it is a fact and then claiming that nature is not random....the peak of rtrdtion!*
@@ruach-m2b *DNA mutations are not random*
Mutations occur when DNA is damaged and left unrepaired, causing a new variation. New research from University of California, Davis, and the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Germany finds that DNA mutations are not random as previously thought. We always thought of mutation as basically random across the genome,” said Grey Monroe, an assistant professor in the UC Davis Department of Plant Sciences who is lead author on the paper. “It turns out that mutation is very non-random and it’s non-random in a way that benefits the plant [or animal]."
@Lola1-foff Not everything that is complicated has to be designed. This is nature evolving for billions of years, not a car made in a few months. This universe didn't have to be made intelligently, since no matter how things would turn out, it would still be all in place and complex. We have no other universe to compare ours to. Everything just follows the rules of physics and living organisms evolve due to natural selection.
@Lola1-foff dude this is just stupid... your saying evolution is stupid because you think scientist think that modern-day cells pop out of nowhere... first of all theres a thing called protocells... and they were extremely simple and I mean unbelievably simple compared to modern day bacteria...
WW3 in the comment section!
FR are all these people bots or something ?! I don’t even know what they be talking about half the time lol
Which came first, the right or the left ear?
Pardon? 👂✋️
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS
Another Banjo.
Bilateral symmetry evolved before ears.
@@numbersix9477
It is banjo using one of his 31+ sock-puppet accounts.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS It may seem that I’m 31x smarter than you, but I only have one account…😉
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..?
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.
@@ergonomover I also noticed that it's hard to let go of the idea of agency behind the evolution process... one of these shore mammals that would not be able to get on land anymore, but lacked the ability to sleep while in the water, would just die, drown... so it does take some mutations and adaptations that allow the animal to stay forever in the water before it totally lets go, after which some mutations that make the legs unusable just don't matter any more and if these mutations add to the streamlining they'd actually take over the genepool...
Survivor bias, many mutations just die out, and small benefits spread through the population at exponential rates... this is just a process that you can't see while watching one single animal going about his business...
@@marcdc6809 What you said reminds me of the calculation of 4 billion extinct species to date. Today, we have maybe over 100 million (only around 2 million species catalogued) - it is the cream of the crop, the lone survivors in a sea of death. Also, experts in genetics hold that species arose as populations as you have described, not as individuals. There is a standing axiom or rule that species which dwindle to under 50 members are in great danger of extinction (low gene pool, genetic depression and defects from inbreeding).
It might be safe to say agents of evolutionary change include the environment and ecology (food chain), operating on such a large and interconnected scale as to be hard to grasp.
@@ergonomover I guess another example is how birds evolved, the dinosaur with feathers had a lot of advantages, even if flight is not immediately one, and when the climate cooled down the feathered ones would have a clear and present advantage over the naked ones, preserving body heath, keeping the chicks safe... number of eggs that can be hatched by one bird... they didn't just all develop feathers, but the gene that allowed for feathers spread like wildfire in the population over generations...
@@marcdc6809 I happen to love bird history and birds, living dinosaurs all around us, sharing with our fledgling species the planet they've been watching over for 100 million years. The emergence of feathers from scales is well-documented, fancy feathers were important in attracting mates. When the cataclysm hit, small and agile trumped huge and clunky 100% No living thing longer than my forearm survived. Now, we have 10,000 species of birds. I am currently super-intrigued by starlings, which swarmed around my neighborhood a year ago. UA-cam has great vids of starlings' imitations.
*Even Dawkins had to admit an intelligent creator when confronted with the undeniable evidence found in DNA. And that makes Aronra's disciples cry. Now I see they try to say that Dawkins didn't mean that.* 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
🤔 One of Banjo's sock-puppets appears and suddenly all of my comments have disappeared.
🧐 Very interesting indeed 🤨
I thought you deleted them yourself 🤔 Cause that would actually make sense…👌
'Demand for synthetic DNA is growing across multiple industries including cell and gene therapy development and biomanufacturing. Coupled with that growth is a need for genetic constructs that can, in some cases, encompass sequences that are currently difficult to synthesize and sequence. Enzymatic DNA synthesis was designed to address both of those challenges. Using the technique, scientists can rapidly generate long, complex DNA sequences without using toxic materials unlike traditional chemical synthesis.
'In this GEN webinar, Konlin Shen, PhD, will discuss practical applications of enzymatic DNA synthesis technology in DNA nanotechnology. He will describe how his work in the lab of Shawn Douglas, PhD, at University of California, San Francisco relies on the technology to assemble complex genetic constructs with long randomers and repetitive sequences. During the webinar, Natasha Paul, PhD, will describe Molecular Assemblies’ Fully Enzymatic Synthesis™ (FES™) technology for generating long or complex DNA sequences for research, and how it addresses limitations of chemical synthesis.'
Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News
de3 *Absolutely beautiful one from Dawkins, he has my respect for it:* _A serious case could be made for a deistic God._
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!
*Let's read about the cell membrane, see if it's intelligently designed or the product of random, natural processes:*
_The cell membrane also plays an important role in cell SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATION. The membrane contains several embedded proteins that can bind molecules found outside of the cell and pass on MESSAGES to the inside of the cell._
So is God controlling these processes in real time, or is it something he programmed in a very long time so???
Please explain the process by which a cell membrane is created. Does it entail pixie dust? Magical incantations? Has it ever been documented? Enquiring minds want to know.
@@RandallWilks *Let me guess, your version is...natural, random processes creating all these.* 😅😅😅😅
@@ruach-m2b “I never guess. It is a shocking habit - destructive to the logical faculty” - Sherlock Holmes. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion which is initially PROVISIONAL (a _Hypothesis)._ Only when all evidence confirms the hypothesis and none refutes it, does it become accepted as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
What is observed to be __random_ is the many copy errors that occur during cell division and replication (mitosis and meiosis). They are what account for the genetic variation we see in any population of organisms.
Such populations are subject to diseases, predators, starvation and other environmental hazards. Most of those individuals will not survive. Only those that survive long enough to reproduce will pass their variant genes to future generations. THAT is _Natural Selection_ and there is nothing random about it.
Of course, if you choose to believe in the existence of Big Foot, Alien Abductions, or invisible supernatural entities, that is your right to do so.
Just be aware that such beliefs are supported by no evidence whatsoever.
You have a right to your _opinion._ That is all that can be said of any of the thousands of religions; they are _OPINIONS_ and nothing more. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. They are not evidence of any sort. If billions of people believe a false thing; it is still false.
@@ruach-m2b Natural selection is a non-random process, did you forget yet again?
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.
*I see the evolutionist troll A. Eldridge ran away from the fact that I caught him once again in his l-ies and from my simple request (to describe the biological processes involved in writing his rtrdd comments) and now he's walking his spamming account "randallwilks"*
Describing all the biological processes involved in humans writing something is a "simple" request? Best stupid joke I've heard today. You think I'm everyone on UA-cam and every account exists only to fool you? As if you were somehow sooo important? Paranoid and narcissistic, not looking good for Jesus camp if it needs you. If you don't want me here, you should not have begged me to come, by calling everyone by my name before I ever got here.
reported for spam.... as I've done for all the eldrigde, bold text, v3de0, 00strich comments which are clearly copied from some script...
"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." - Richard Dawkins
fdf1 *Pure science from the 66-year-old evolutionist, the b-allet dancer A-n-drew Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable" (see the v8de0 "Ergonomover and the ostrich")*
_Ostriches do not have wings ACCORDING TO ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA!_ 😂😂😂😂 😂😂😂😂
I find it difficult to believe in evolution; I understand that fossils and skeletons have been found that show two animals are similar but wouldn't that mean that a very large number of skeletons and fossils would be found between the two? If evolution is a gradual process then there would be so many different fossils out there from the between stages.
And I don't appreciate the comments I have seen below stating that questioning or not believing in evolution makes you a useless idiot; most people believe in evolution because they were told to believe it. All I'm doing is questioning it; imagine how annoyed you would be if when you died you realised that everything you were taught was a lie.
Mugicianwill "And I don't appreciate the comments I have seen below stating that questioning or not believing in evolution makes you a useless idiot;"
Well, kinda by definition it does make someone an idiot as they clearly have never bothered or took the time to actually properly understand what evolution means. It literally is as factual as gravity. Would you think someone was an idiot if they claimed gravity doesn't exist? That isn't hyperbole, evolution itself is something that we know absolutely for unequivocal fact exits...the THEORY of evolution explains evolution (think about it, why would we need a THEORY of something unless it is something we have observed to form a theory of???)
Personally I wouldn't see someone as an idiot to question gravity, I would listen and try and understand their thoughts behind the reasons they think that; even if something seems impossible, it doesn't mean it is false. I just think it is good to question any beliefs we may have, if we never questioned anything, we would still believe that the Earth is flat and the evidence I have seen on evolution doesn't make me 100% certain, but believe me I am trying to find solid evidence, feel free to send any links to more convincing videos.
Mugicianwill So if someone questioned the existence of gravity and jumped off a building thinking they could fly, you wouldn't find that in the least bit idiotic? Just asking'
Mugicianwill Willful ignorance deserves nothing but ridicule, you stupid fuck.
Really? This is why many people don't question what they are told to believe... Because they are afraid of being verbally insulted. I hope one day you find some compassion towards others mate.
Are we already back to the mindless spam wars in these comments? There is no good reason to begin more than the occasional comment thread on this or any other video and similarly, ...posting the same copy and paste comment over and over again accomplishes nothing. If no one is responding, you are simply talking to yourself.
It matters not if the content of that comment is scientifically accurate or not. Repetitive posting of the same comment, over and over again, day after day is spam. You are annoying far more people than you are influencing.
Of course it is worse when the spam is irrational nonsense but still, spam is spam. One need only scroll down this page to recognize who the culprits are.
And you know who you are. Do the world a favor and accept the fact that if you have posted the same comment dozens of times and no one has responded, ...it is because no one is interested.
I really agree with you. That Randall Wilks dude does indeed spam a lot, copy/pasting the same endless and meaningless comments over and over again…
*You never stopped posting mindless spam. Look what you did from your account "randallwilks".*
It is so sad that this is the response I got from my opening comment. A psycho troll who is one of the main spamming culprits and a juvenile nitwit who thinks being obtuse is somehow redeeming and clever.
You two are farcical reminders of what type of drivel a person may run into online. Examine your own behavior and grow TF up.
GCMGOME,
Are YOU Gcmgome Wilks?
Charles Darwin and Francis Dalton were cousins. Both were scratching each other's backs because Darwin's theory of evolution and eugenics were cross-supporting each other.
I wonder who the cousin of Randall Wilks is in terms of their back scratching? Randall, a prolific spammer, is clearly protected by his secret cousins on this channel.
@@gcmgome *Your cult is d-ying, probably that's why you have to use so many trolling accounts pretending that they belong to different persons and carrying imaginary dialogs to them.*
I saw a video where a person says that whales can't have evolved from a land animal as no intermediate species were found. Well, these are all the intermediate species which perfectly match the evolution theory.
Yep. The anti-evolution crowd makes a lot of things up.
*Let's read about the cell membrane, see if it's intelligently designed or the product of random, natural processes:*
_The cell membrane also plays an important role in cell SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATION. The membrane contains several embedded proteins that can bind molecules found outside of the cell and pass on MESSAGES to the inside of the cell._
_Importantly, these receptor proteins on the cell membrane can bind to substances produced by other areas of the body, such as hormones. When a molecule binds to its target receptor on the membrane, it initiates a signal transduction pathway inside the cell that transmits the signal to the appropriate molecules._
_As a result of these often complex signaling pathways, the cell can perform the action specified by the signaling molecule, such as making or stopping the production of a certain protein._
So is God controlling all of these individual processes in real time, or is it something he programmed in a very long time to run by itself???
your talking about modern day cells... the first protocells which were one of the first cells were extremely simple and I mean unbelievably as simple as even modern day cells... the first protocells were chemicals that performed autocatalytic functions and it in no way is as complex as the cells today... if you'd like to discuss this then just reply this is so stupid
@@Crimsoncloak_ *Nobody has seen a non-modern cell. So what is your evidence for "protocells"?*
@@ruach-m2bWhat do you mean by non-modern cell? if you mean cells that are different from modern cells theres fossil evidences pointing them out
*EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - Vestigial Human Traits.* Vestigial refers to an organ or part that is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function. They are not necessarily useless as some people assume.
Just as humans inherit characteristics of their nearest relatives, each of us has characteristics inherited from more distant relatives. In the inner corners of your eyes you have what is called a semilunar fold or plica semilunaris. There is a muscle attached to it, but it doesn't do anything in humans. In many other animals (sharks, frogs birds, your cat), however, that muscle controls a transparent nictitating membrane or "third eyelid" that can be drawn over the eye. Proponents of 'intelligent design' have no explanation as to why humans have those muscles. They are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory as vestigial remnants of an ancestral characteristic.
You also have three sets of muscles attached to your ears. In other animals, those muscles turn the ears to focus on the direction of a sound. This ability is found in monkeys, most of which cannot turn their head horizontally. Humans and the other apes can turn their heads vertically and the ability to move the ears is largely lost in those species. Using sensitive electronic devices, researchers find that the human brain is still sending nerve impulses to those muscles in response to sounds, but the most any human can do is a bit of a wiggle. Proponents of 'intelligent design' have no explanation as to why humans have those muscles. They are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory as vestigial remnants of an ancestral characteristic.
Then there is the Plantaris Muscle, which in other primates facilitates an arboreal lifestyle, allowing the feet to function much the same as hands in gripping branches. The human foot has lost this ability, rather early on it seems, in the process of becoming bipedal. The muscle, however, is still there. It is a long pencil thin muscle and tendons running down the back of the calf, that are extremely painful when ruptured and often misdiagnosed as a more serious injury. This injury, often called "Tennis Leg" occurs most frequently in athletes over 40 due to the tendon and attachments becoming more brittle. With or without treatment, the two ends of the rupture will shrivel and disappear within weeks with no loss of function in the leg. It is indeed one of evolution's leftovers. It is often harvested for reconstructive surgery elsewhere in the body.
That these muscles are still present in the human body indicates that the genetic instructions for them are still present in the human genome and active to some extent. At some point the genes for these traits may be silenced by a mutation that disables a gene (such as a premature STOP codon or frameshift) making them a pseudo gene; one which no longer produces a protein. There is evidence that is already happening as this muscle is absent in one leg or both in about 10% of the population. The same seems to be happening with wisdom teeth.
In the wild, primate infants are capable of grasping and holding on to the mother's fur shortly after birth, allowing the mother to pursue other activities. That is called the Palmar grasp reflex and is a primitive reflex found in infants of humans and most other primates.
Human infants, because of the limited birth canal and large human brain must enter this world at a much earlier stage of physical and neuronal development. Despite that, the developing human embryo exhibits this grasping reflex in the uterus as early as 16 weeks. Even at birth, that reflex, the Palmar Grip Reflex, is incredibly strong as most parents of newborns will attest. While the infant's grasp is capable of supporting the child's weight, one must exercise caution as the child may suddenly let go. This reflex may persist up to 6 months after birth. As this is of no benefit to a human child, it is vestigial.
All Great Apes, including humans, have an appendix. In other apes, the appendix is quite large and a repository for bacteria which help to digest the leaves that make up a large part of their diet. In humans, it is minuscule and is called the vermiform (worm-shaped) appendix. While some hypothesize that our appendix is a repository for good bacteria to replenish our gut biota following diarrhea, the fact is that a 'hot' appendix can kill you, whereas those who have had it removed go on to lead normal lives.
The vomeronasal organ (VNO), is an organ located at the base of the dividing wall between the right and left nostrils (nasal septum). It is present in most amphibians, reptiles, and mammals but absent in birds and adult Old World (catarrhine) monkeys which include apes and humans. It enables the detection of pheromones via pheromone receptor (VR) genes that produce proteins sensitive to certain biochemical signals.
That organ is clearly present in the human fetus but appears to be atrophied or absent in adults and is thus vestigial. The VR genes, plentiful in other species, while present in the human genome are all or almost all disabled by mutations making them pseudo-genes, again vestigial remnants.
Evolution makes incremental alterations to what is already there. It may help to think of evolution as a robot gardener, dragging a garden hose around various obstacles until it can go no further. Now, an intelligent gardener would need only to retrace its steps, unwinding the hose before plotting a new path to where it needs to go. The robotic gardener (evolution) cannot do that. With a limited tool kit, all it can do is add more hose.
An example of that is the _Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve,_ a branch of the Vagus nerve (tenth cranial nerve) that supplies motor function and sensation to the Larynx (voice box) present in most vertebrates. In the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods (land vertebrates), the nerve's route would have been direct from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, land vertebrates developed longer necks, making the heart and brain ever further apart. As a result, the RLN became incrementally longer, but still needed to loop around the aorta, thus the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. It branches from the Vagus nerve in the chest cavity before it loops around the aorta and then back up to the larynx. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed. While neurons are the longest cells in an animal body, those in the giraffe RLN can be as long as 5 meters. Were there such a thing as an "intelligent designer", it would have been possible at any point to simply reroute that nerve by a couple centimeters. That did not happen. In humans, that means a detour of about 18 inches. In the giraffe, that detour amounts to about 15 feet of "extra hose":
*RIP evolution! From live science, 2022:* _New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA. This goes against one of the key assumptions of the theory of evolution_ 😂😂😂😂
@@gdanskbedankst ah so you read all that and mentioned a completely irrelevant post from a site that supports theism. how about critical thinking?
gftv *V2de0 "Ergonomover and the ostrich" shows that the evolutionist (in reality a f-ailed b-allet dancer) A-n-drew Eldridge is totally 1-nsane and rtrdd.* 😅😅😅😅😅
People might look at your posts and then at my posts and come to a different conclusion than yours. Why not let them think and decide for themselves? Any "b-allet" dancer still working at my age is a success by definition. You have no idea what you are talking about as usual. Besides, I'm retired. Did you ever retire as failed latrine-cleaning assistant? Once you do a thing, you _are_ defined by it? Never to late to learn to think.
2:44 I love that you bring this up, because Whales actually shed most of their hair within a short time after they're born (search it up). Now, this can mean that whales may have a little bit of hair, but nowhere near the amount as a land animal. So it's reasonable to say that in this aspect, the two aren't related. Plus, you don't see land animals (such as a bear or bird or cat) shed their hair and never have that hair grow back
Why would land mammals shed all their hair? Also, why do you think BIRDS have hair?? Efn t@rd.
Deer
Shed their hair twice a year, once in the spring to get rid of their winter coat and again in later summer. In the summer, their fur is red, while in the winter it's gray to dark brown.
Cats
Shed their fur around spring and summer to get a thinner coat for the warmer months. Some cats need brushing during moulting to prevent dead hairs from getting trapped in their fur.
Dogs
Shed a lot of hair.
@maylingng4107 To me, you may be confusing that last sentence I said. Let's take cats for example. Yes they will obviously shed hair, but it grows back. I said, "You don't see animals like [the animals I mentioned] shed their hair and NEVER grow back."
@@DavidFarrington13
You are wrong again.
While most animals experience some hair loss due to seasonal shedding or health issues, the only animals known to experience permanent pattern baldness similar to humans are the stump-tailed macaque monkey, and certain dog breeds like dachshunds and greyhounds; meaning once they lose hair, it generally doesn't grow back in the same way as other animals with fur.
@maylingng4107 And Whales also don't grow their hair back once it's shed. So therefore what I said was true
*LIES CREATIONIST TELL- ABOUT THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS*
The second law Misapplication by creationists
The false analogy of entropy as disorder is used in several fields outside of science with varying success. Creationists have picked up on disorder terminology like a drowning man to a rope and have suggested that the second law of thermodynamics is a refutation of evolution. Their analogy would state that more complex life forms could never evolve from simpler ones.
It should be obvious that this false analogy of a false analogy is incorrect. First, the Earth is not an isolated system - it receives a copious amount of incoming energy from the Sun. Second, evolution does not imply that life is becoming increasingly complex; only that complexity can arise from accumulated mutations, i.e. copy errors during cell division and replication (Mitosis and Meiosis). Survival of mutant genes is never certain and only those organisms that live long enough to reproduce will pass those genes to future generations. That is Natural Selection, aka "survival of the fittest".
Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics in a strict energetic sense. The energy of the sun is converted by photosynthesis to chemical potential energy, starches and sugars, which are converted to mechanical work or heat. In each case, the energy transfer is inefficient, and some energy is dissipated as heat to the environment, leading to a dispersion of energy. In a similar manner, "ordered" snowflakes can form when the weather becomes cold but the entropy of the universe still increases.
Victor J. Stenger, a theoretical physicist, refuted the creationist claim:
“A transmitter and a receiver are two interacting systems. They are not individually isolated. So, the entropy lost by one system can be gained by the other. Or, equivalently, the information lost by one can be gained by the other. So a physical system, such as a biological organism or Earth itself, which gets energy from the sun, can become more ordered by purely natural processes.
A quote from chemistry education illustrates this point:
“One aspect of biological systems that intrigues students is the possibility of discovering violations of the well-known laws of thermodynamics and physical chemistry. It is easy to refute most of the examples suggested. A germinating seed or an embryo developing in a fertilized chicken egg are often naively cited as examples of isolated systems in which an increase in order, or decrease in entropy occurs spontaneously. It is evident, however, that respiration, assuming O2 is present, produces an increase in entropy in the form of heat, which more than compensates for the decrease in entropy that arises when the elements present in the seed or in the yolk of the egg are organized into tissues of the plant or animal. Indeed, neither germination nor embryonic development will occur without the presence of oxygen
As PZ Myers said: "The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen."
Furthermore, Carl Sagan pointed out that if the second law of thermodynamics were applied to a god, then (that) god would necessarily have to die.
(Brief quiz for creationists: How many generally recognized laws of thermodynamics exist? We spoke about the second law: Tell us about the other laws if you can.)
The only intelligent designers for whom there is evidence are humans. The laws of thermodynamics were discovered as limitations on what the clever engineers of the 19th century were able to design. Intelligent designers are not able to construct perpetual motion machines. Intelligent designers don't bypass the second law of thermodynamics.
Mr. Wilks - This message was sent to me a few months ago by Dr. May Ling Ng (we were graduate students at Princeton university and remained in contact over the years):
(reference: University College London)
*The Second Law of Thermodynamics (more than one law) applied to Evolution*
Creationists often use the second law to argue that systems cannot decrease in entropy, or cannot become ordered with time; only the opposite is true. Translating this to evolution would mean that to the increase in entropy (tendency towards disorder) within the genetic makeup of a living organisms, makes it impossible for a more complex (ordered) species to evolve.
I will sidestep the discussion of open versus closed systems, which provide some of the rationale in favor of a brand new research project (from UCL and the Universities of Gdansk, Singapore, and Delft), which has uncovered that there are additional second laws of thermodynamics (not clearly noticeable and on a small scale)
According to the original second law the universe is in a growing state of disorder, or increasing in entropy. The new research was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reveals that on very small scales there is actually a whole family of “second laws”, which can lead to unexpected and counterintuitive phenomena. For this, we need to enter into the quantum realm as the article further states:
"Statistical laws apply when we consider large numbers. For example, imagine we toss a coin thousands of times. In this case, we expect to see roughly equal numbers of heads as tails. However, this is not true when tossing the coin just a few times. It's possible we will find all the coins landing tails. Similar phenomena occur when considering systems made out of very few particles, instead of very many particles," said co-author Professor Stephanie Wehner (Delft). "We can use tools from quantum information theory to understand the case when we don't have a large number of particles."
Professor Oppenheim (UCL Physics & Astronomy) added: "While a quantum house will get messier rather than tidier, like a normal house, our research shows that the ways in which it can get messier are constrained by a range of extra laws. Stranger still, the way these second laws interact with each other can even make it look like the traditional second law has been violated. For instance, a small system can spontaneously become more ordered when it interacts with another system which barely seems to change. That means some rooms in the quantum house may spontaneously become much tidier, while others only become messier but only imperceptibly."
In other words, while individual parts of a system may become more ordered, the overall entropy of the total system (a measure of disorder) increases." In a sense, the traditional second law only holds on average. A small system can spontaneously become more ordered when it interacts with another system which barely seems to change. Drawing inference that applies to evolution, we can consider living organisms are small systems interacting with a large system (nature), getting more ordered is remarkably possible, and does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
@@AntonetteHopkins-cv7hd Thanks for that. May Ling is certainly an authority on the subject. My only comment is that sidestepping " the discussion of open versus closed systems" is like sidestepping the elephant in the room.
@@RandallWilks
That is because all creationist and others who are uneducated confuse a "theory" with a "law". They think that the law is a higher order of assertion, which it is not. Many others still do not know that a "theory" is not a "scientific theory", the two are just different animals.
@@AntonetteHopkins-cv7hd Certainly 'Oscar' and his countless 'sock puppets' are ignorant of that and much more.
Yes, Laws differ from Scientific Theories in that they do not explain anything: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed and may be found false when extrapolated. For example, Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies to weak gravitational fields, and the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in the case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Again, *LAWS do not explain ANYTHING, it is THEORIES that do the explaining.*
There are a lot of misconceptions about that, especially among people who have never been inside a science classroom. They often think that a Law is absolute. They are not. A Law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed and may be found false when extrapolated.
I encounter people who claim that Abiogenesis (chemical origin of life) is impossible because of a supposed Law of Biogenesis, from Pasteur that life arises from pre-existing life. That is of course what can be observed at present. If it is to be regarded as a Scientific Law, then it is subject to the same conditions under which it was observed and may prove false when extrapolated. That is exactly what happens when this "Law of Biogenesis", that 'life only arises from a past life' is extrapolated and applied to the prebiotic earth.
I'm not sure how these are observances of evolution but evidence of simularities
You're also not sure of how basic words are spelt.
What did you try to write? No insult.
To more politely correct your question: I'm not sure how this is observation of evolution and not similarities :)
And to answer your question: Science is based around finding patterns, proposing theories to explain them and testing them with evidence; so yes these are similarities, just ones most logically explained by the theory of evolution
The point of science is to explain what we can see and experience with logical theories. If you suppose all creatures were made more or less similar to each other by God for no reason, that's fine, but that denies science. We all see a pattern that perfectly fits into the idea of evolution.
Why do you think they are similar
*The evolutionist troll in this comment section cries "nature is not random", but then we have the theory of evolution through RANDOM mutations and natural selection. So, if nature is not random, then the random mutations cannot be natural. Are they magical?*
Apparently, this creationist troll was not listening in Biology Class. Copy Errors (mutations) during cell division and replication (mitosis and meiosis) are indeed RANDOM, and they are indeed NATURAL (No magical supernatural entities involved). They are what produce the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. Every offspring will most resemble its parents but will differ somewhat genetically. Most of those offspring will not survive, falling to predators, disease or starvation. THAT is Natural Selection and it is NOT RANDOM.
Only those offspring that live long enough to successfully reproduce will pass their gene variants to future generations via the population gene pool. That is a PROCESS that continues over many generations. Genes that contribute a survival advantage will proliferate within that population gene pool. Evolution takes place in POPULATIONS, not individuals.
As - Socrates tells us, "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." Fortunately for people like you, your ignorance can be cured *IF* you educate yourself. Should you fail to do so, you will forever be known as a (shudder) creationist.
Imagine believing sky daddy just popped things into existence in 2024. I’m sorry you have a simple mind but you’re wrong
It depends on how you define random. Due to certain environmental conditions, mutations appear in the DNA. These mutations can be little, but they can affect the organism's performance in its habitat. If the organism survives in given habitat, its genes are passed on for generations along with the mutations. That's how natural selection works, to put it shortly, and it results in evolution.
In my opinion there isn't any point in discussing whether this is random or not random. It's better to just understand how it works.
It’s more so a lack of faith to deny your God couldn’t have orchestrated evolution from the beginning of time. He is God, time is nothing to him, he watched as his children grew and evolved until they ultimately were formed in his image. The whole creationist argument is for nothing, evolution does not deny your claims. It simply changes them and some of the faithful have been oppose to change for the longest time.
It's still better than insects
Just talk about hippopotami and whales then! There's the mating incompatibility between whales or large sea creatures and hippopotami. Hippos give birth to their young headfirst while whales give birth to their tail-first offspring. Hippos are much smaller. Hippos are vegan unlike whales. Hippos do look much different. Hippos have extended ears. These facts support that they are not ancestrally related. At a fundamental level many things have atoms, or at a certain level, all geometries can be made of points; it doesn't mean a protostar in Andromeda has any of our stardust or a specific segment makes a square instead of another triangle. This progression of evolution joins big lego blocks. It's a clarity of logic. Instead of ignoring your findings, evidence is being sought than correlation. Otherwise the other differences are ignored and it takes much to assume that much genetic mutation. Present this as correlation, not evidence in your video!
'Hippos are vegan' - no, hippos kill and eat meat, U fumb duck.
'Since biologist Joseph Dudley.made the first scientific record of carnivory in hippos in 1996, other cases of hippo carnivory and even cannibalism have also been documented. Dudley lists instances where wild hippos have fed on impalas, elephants, kudus, wildebeest, zebras, and other hippos that they either killed themselves or were killed by other predators. Events like these have been seen both during times when carnivory may be a last resort (e.g. droughts when food is scarce), and when it was merely a convenient opportunity, like a mass drowning of wildebeest crossing a river. There are also reports of captive hippos in zoos killing and eating their neighbors, including tapirs, wallabies, flamingoes and pygmy hippos.'
Ever seen a dugong or a manatee, shthed?? They are obviously evolved from hippo-like creatures and even still have hippo-like toenails on their flippers.
Hippos are 90% aquatic and they communicate underwater in song just like whales do. Ready to apologize for your cart00nish ign0rance?
@fernandoq.dalisay Bwahahahahaha!!! Clarity of logic is not your forte. You add 2 and 2 and get 22. None of your 'facts' support a conclusion that they are not distantly related. It is comparative DNA that provides that evidence.
Whale evolution is supported by a reasonably complete series of fossils. Whales are arteriodactyls, as are cattle, deer, and hippos. Whales still retain the four-chambered stomach of their ancestors [also not conclusive evidence].
Sireneans (manatees, dugongs and sea cows) are examples of convergent evolution. Here again there is a fossil record of their evolution from proboscidians (elephants) from which they also differ physiologically.
In each case, evolution worked to make each organism more successful in an aquatic environment.
Your ignorance could be cured *IF* you educate yourself. 'There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.' - Socrates
You know homologous and analogous traits exist right? Think about how genetically similar we are to other primates, yet we differ significantly in phenotype. Does that mean our feet being incapable of gripping make us less related? No, because our brains, anatomy, and social structures are still similar enough to show relatedness amongst different species. There is evidence outside correlation too, we see insect species evolve in real time and we see species that haven’t evolved in millennia. The examples shown are easy and simple without having to explain difficult phenomena like gene flow or convergent evolution.
*Personally I think that now it's the time for YT to make a revolution and to introduce a minimum acceptance test for allowing users to use its app: the ones who cannot find the wings of an ostrich should be banned because such rtrds can only pollute YT and the b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover" is the best example.*
“If you base medicine on science, you cure people. If you base the design of planes on science, they fly. If you base the design of rockets on science, they reach the Moon. It works! …bitches!” -Richard Dawkins
*It's hilarious that you speak in the name of science when in reality u r a ballet dancer with no education. You have to face the truth, all the greatest scientists of this planet acknowledged an intelligent creator.*
@@maylingng4107 *And using this girlish account "mayling" only makes u look d-mber. It's hilarious that you speak in the name of science when in reality u r a ballet dancer with no education. You have to face the truth, all the greatest scientists of this planet acknowledged an intelligent creator.*
@@gdanskbedankst "There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." - Richard Dawkins
My challenge to creationists: Provide evidence that creation stories are anything other than mythology. You can't.
*Unforgettable one from Newton:* _In want of other proofs, the thumb would convince me of the e-x-stence of G0d_
@@gdanskbedankst *An undeniable fact of science:* Thumbs are characteristic of most if not all, primates. They are not evidence of supernatural entities but of evolution. It is too late to educate Newton, who died 300 years ago, but you could at least try to educate yourself.
@@RandallWilks frr _Newton's education was limited by what was available to him 300 years ago._
*Indeed, while ur education is much vaster, that's why u insisted that 00-striches have no wings and that codes are random and the the universe is infinite but at the same time expands and contracts regularly.*
@@gdanskbedankst Mindless repetition confirms creationist dementia.
@@RandallWilks *Not sure why u r projecting ur issues on other people.*
3:39 I like that you also bring this up, because a study has shown that this "vestigial" hip bone is actually not for anything regarding legs. Rather, it's shown to have its role in reproduction. I can link that study here if needed
There is no study, U efn ret@ard. To all the creationist vermin who keep screaming that whale hips are not vestigial ...
'Male genitalia evolve rapidly, probably as a result of sexual selection. Whether this pattern extends to the internal infrastructure that influences genital movements remains unknown. Cetaceans (whales and dolphins) offer a unique opportunity to test this hypothesis: since evolving from land-dwelling ancestors, they lost external hind limbs and evolved a highly *reduced* pelvis which seems to serve no other function except to anchor muscles that maneuver the penis.'
*EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION* Over the millions of years of whale evolution, we see a succession of fossils through time with shared characteristics that start with land animals that swam using webbed feet on hind legs for propulsion. In land mammals, including humans, what we see is a pelvis consisting of a pair of hip bones each fused bones, ilium, ishium and pubis to which various muscles are attached. In the spinal column there are 5 vertebrae numbered S1-S5, the sacral vertebrae, that in most mammals fuse together during embryological development forming a solid triangular bone, the saccrum, which also forms the back wall of the pelvis giving firm support to hind limbs.
Successive early cetacean fossils show increased use of the tail for propulsion, placing a premium on spinal flexibility. Freeing the pelvis from the spine provided that flexibility, and that took place in two steps;
First, as in Rhodocetus, those five vertebrae of the sacrum separated into individual vertebrae, reducing the point of pelvic fusion to a single sacral vertebrae. While spinal flexibility was improved, it reduced support for hind limbs while on land. While they were ungainly on land, perhaps like today's sea lions or Elephant Seals, it seems that, like sea lions, they came ashore to breed and give birth.
The second step in basilosauroides (Basilosuarus and Dorodon) was the complete separation of the pelvis from the spinal column. That gave them spinal flexibility and a powerful tail, but they had no support for hind limbs. At that point, they would have been fully aquatic.
Basilosaurus and Dorodon hind limbs had fully articulated pelvis, femur, tibia, fibula, metacarpals, and phalanges, all the normal parts of a quadrupedal leg. That pelvis, however, was no longer fused to the vertebrae. The 18-inch hind limbs were of little use for propelling a 50-foot Basilosaurus and the same applied to the smaller Dorodon. Since their value for propulsion was negligible and had the effect of increasing drag, evolutionary pressure favored further reduction in size and eventual elimination which took place in more recent cetaceans.
Remnants of that pelvis were retained in later species along with their role of muscular support, which in all mammals includes penile muscles. Because of the difficulty of assuming a mating position in an aquatic environment where movement is in 3 dimensions, male whales evolved a prehensile penis. Something that could be termed a "mobile dick". ;-)
Today's whales retain a remnant femur with articulated ball and socket joint to the remnant pelvis. The Northern Right Whale retains not only those bones but an articulated tibia as well.
The genes for those hind limbs are still present in the cetacean genome. Hind limb buds appear in early embryos to be turned off by control sequences in later development. The control sequence on rare occasions have malfunctioned, resulting in a whale or dolphin with hind limbs.
That process is analogous to the human tail which at between 4 and 5 weeks of age the human embryo has 10-12 developing tail vertebrae. It's most pronounced at around day 31 to 35 of gestation and then it regresses into the four or five fused vertebrae becoming our coccyx.
The progressive reduction and eventual elimination of hind limbs in cetaceans (whales, porpoises, and dolphins) reoccurred in the convergent evolution of Sirenians (manatees, dugongs, and sea cows) from their Proboscidian ancestors, also well documented in the fossil record. In convergent evolution, unrelated species may evolve similar features to deal with similar environments. The forelimbs of both cetaceans and sirenians have evolved as front flippers which function as a single unit, yet internally contain five separate phalanges (finger bones). Those of the manatee are tipped with tiny hooves, vestiges of their proboscidian ancestry.
But the most surprising part is that their creator is ONE the Almighty God.
So its not something weird that they may share some similarities.
Allah and Xenu approuve of your message, even if it comes without a shred of evidence.
What kind of weird, Trickster god would put wrist bones and 5 sets of finger bones into whale fins if whales are _not_ related to land animals?
@@lorann-ut5cq Your personal attacks are not very Christian, are you upset? I never insisted that, maybe you misunderstood someone else. Sorry about your obsession with 66 dancing ostriches, get help for your paranoid delusions, soon, please, lorann aka benji/mulan/moran/doran/boran/lora/loran. You keep getting booted out for good reasons. Why not answer my question instead of attacking the messenger like a coward?
@@lorann-ut5cq Everything you've ever said is a lie.
@@lorann-ut5cq You said it was based on a "feeling", please don't confuse your feelings with evidence.
Adam & eve , talking snake & donkey , bible dragons , unicorns , griffin , lamia & sirens or any other magical stuff were 100% complete FRAUDS
1. Comparative Anatomy.
This can be summarized in one sentence: "Just because we look alike, we share the same origin!" This isn't evidence.
2. Embryology and Development.
This is the same thing. "Just because we're similar we share the same origin."
3. Fossil.
A "walking whale" doesn't need to have evolved from a land creature. There are many creatures like aligators who live in both water and land. That doesn't mean they're originally water creatures. Plus, we don't really know if it walked on land or not. That's just the conclusion scientists came to based on the fossils they found. It could be wrong. The problem with atheists is that they rely on evidence and data that changes over time. Maybe after a hundred years we find out that all of this is false because we find new data.
4. DNA
Like evidence 1 and 2, this is based on assumptions and the illogical claim "we look similar so that means we share the same ancestor"
The existence of a creator is more logical. Atheists like coincidences. They love em! They would say everything is a coincidence to reject God.
*Interesting, this looks very similar to a post of mine I posted some days ago, I quote myself:*
*"Look, guys, I give not one but 5 (five) lines of evidence for evolution". Ok, but any smart, educated person realizes that all these can be summarized in the fallacy " A is similar to B, therefore A comes from B"*
Lol you arguing with scientists over this shit I would love to see.😂 he brings up multiple things to why they share a common ancestor or are mammals. This is way more complex than a simple logic-filling god.
DNA is the thing we can kow how closely related we are to eachother you dont know hat you are talking about
We can compare embryos and see clearly they are looking very similiar, another way to know that we are related. Not only fossils show that whales had land-ancestors but dna too. in the end no one knows for sure but that whales are mammals is a fact and that mammals evolved on land also. In the end this are conclusion who tend to show a direction whats going one no one knows for shure, but still better as a god of the gaps.
@norben1162 Maybe we share the same DNA because we have one creator? This is evidence for God more than evolution
Great video! Love to educate myself after having my education ruined by my Chrisitan highschools.
😁👍
*Does Time Move Forward Only or can it Move Backward also?*
The "creation of the universe" is one of the favorite topic of creationists in this and other videos. They are stuck with the timeless (outside the material universe) creator who puffed the universe into existence. Apparently, this creator existed in perpetuity. Creationist stop here; they are unable to provide any evidence; but never mind "evidence", they cannot even provide a logical explanation or an intelligent guess about how this may have occurred.
So here are some thoughts on the subject; I would call them just a postulate and perhaps approaching a hypothesis. Our understanding currently states that (articulated by Sean Carroll, now a professor at Caltech, and Jennifer Chen): "Most of the laws of physics, like gravity and quantum mechanics, are symmetric with respect to time. That means that it doesn't matter whether time moves forward or backwards. If time ran in reverse, all the laws of physics would work the same." That is, all the laws except one. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does imply a direction. The Second Law states that over time, everything moves from an ordered state to a disordered state (increase in entropy). It's the only physical law that can't go backwards. Entropy increases only for an ISOLATED system. We can theorize that our universe is a closed system (But there are many who would argue with that, and advocate the existence of other universes).
What this means, ultimately, is that time only exists because the Big Bang "created" a universe that started out ordered. If the universe was disordered from the beginning, there would be nothing left to mix and time would not exist. This also means that someday in the far distant future, once everything in the universe gets mixed for good, time may disappear completely. The new argument (in the articles by Carroll and Chen) cites an experiment where they “created” two universes resulting from a simulated Big Bang. In this model one of the created universes was moving from disorder to order, entropy in reverse, moving backwards to the Singularity whence the Big Bang originated from. I do not think (I am guessing) that this was not a physical experiment, but only a computer simulation model.
While the discussion and the model are highly theoretical and not based on tangible evidence in nature (we have not found any, but that does not mean that none exists). The new postulate or hypothesis is one of the most fascinating areas of future research. It has been theorized by several (including S. Hawking) that the classical laws of physics do not apply to black holes, where indeed time may move backward. It is further theorized that at the center of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in a fantastically small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them, cease to function. In many ways, the black hole is analogous to the Singularity from which the universe expanded (via the Big Bang).
Many science fiction movies tell tales of moving back in time and using black holes in space as a jump in time or in dimensions. Often, fairy tales are not that far from reality and are based on them. However moving on this, one would have to take on and dispute Einstein and his theories, and that is a formidable task: According to Einstein's theory, "time and space, in a way, trade places inside the black hole. Inside the black hole, the flow of time itself draws falling objects into the center of the black hole. No force in the universe can stop this fall, any more than we can stop the flow of time”. I wish I could be alive 100 years from now, when our knowledge will advance to the point that the 21st century will be regarded as a time of ignorant cave men (and women). And where would this leave creationists?
Hello May Ling, I have not heard from you for a while, I hope that you are well. Interesting and fascinating discussion. I am sure that more to come on this.
@@AntonetteHopkins-cv7hd I am well, thank you. Send me an email.
*Wow the ultimate evidence of the rtrd A-n-drew Eldridge "ergonomover" that his trolling accounts are not his is....there are some fb accounts with the same names and pics. At least now we know where he stole the pics from.* 😅😅😅😅😅
You're in no position to accuse other people of stealing pics when your little boyfriend here Oscar screenshotted MY Nintendo Mii avatar and put it in his disgusting profile pic. Liar, hypocrite!
3:20 almost
*A COMMON MISCONCEPTION is that evolution should lead to some particular trait,* such as a large brain. There is no "goal' to evolution; not speed, not strength, not intelligence, and certainly not 'humanity'. Evolution is about one thing: survival. Evolution occurs at the molecular level. In every living species, mutations (copy errors) occur with every cell division and replication Those mutations are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. It is the then-current environment that wields the pruning shears, favoring those mutations that best suit the organism for that environment. Today's apes are very well suited to their forest environment. Unlike our early hominin ancestors, there is no evolutionary pressure for change.
Millions of years ago, in early Miocene Africa, when forests covered much of the continent, those forests harbored 30 or more species of apes, but as the climate of east Africa became warmer and dryer, the forests diminished and grasslands expanded. Competition among ape species increased and many went extinct. Today there are 8 extant species of Great Apes (Hominids) including humans. There are also Lesser Apes; gibbons and siamangs.
One population of apes that, as the forests retreated, opted for life on the open savanna, stood on two feet and faced different evolutionary pressures that set their descendants on an evolutionary trajectory that culminated in us. The populations of apes that stayed in the forests became today's chimps, bonobos, orangs, and gorillas.
The modern human brain is about 2% of total body mass, yet it requires fully 20% of total caloric consumption. I think you can understand that for most animals it is a daily challenge to consume enough calories just to survive, and the energy demands of a larger brain would be more of a burden than an asset. It is also the case that the larger human brain requires that babies be born at a less advanced stage of neural development placing an additional burden primarily on the mother. Japanese researchers have compared brain scans of baby macaques, chimps, and human children and found that brain volume for both chimp and human babies increases at three times the rate of infant macaques, however, during early childhood, human brain expansion was twice that of chimpanzees due to rapid growth of connections between brain cells. In the human infant, fully 60% of caloric intake goes into neuronal development. Human brain development continues into the early twenties. For most other species, the necessity for such a long childhood would place them at a survival disadvantage.
Two human characteristics; a large brain and a long childhood are interrelated. Both had their beginnings in our primate ancestors. The survival of many other species of mammals was dependent on having large litters of offspring and the odds that at least some of them would survive. Early primates already had a larger brain than most other mammals resulting in greater cognitive ability. Primates parlayed that benefit into having fewer offspring (only two 'feeding stations') and investing time and effort in teaching survival tactics to those offspring over a longer childhood.
Evolution occurs by incremental modification of existing structures. Among primates, we see increases in brain size from Prosimians (like Lemurs and Lorises) to Simians (Monkeys, apes, and humans). Among those simians, we see increases in brain size and cognition from New World Monkeys to Cercopithians (Old World Monkeys) and still further expansion in apes, particularly in the Great Apes (Hominids). In general, the expansion of the brain follows primate evolution.
That trend toward an ever larger cranial capacity (brain size) is also seen in the evolution of the human species. A brain, being soft tissue, has not been found in fossils, but brain size can be inferred from cranial capacity. Our early bipedal ancestors, Australopithecines, such as the famous "Lucy" fossil (Australopithecus afarensis), had a cranial capacity (375 to 550 cc) somewhat larger than that of modern chimpanzees. Fossils from that species are dated 3.9-2.9 mya. They were followed by Australopithecus africanus, which lived from 3.67 to 2 mya, then by the genus Homo lineage: H. habilis 2.3-1.65 mya (500-900 cm3); H. erectus (aka H. ergaster) from about 2 mya to ca. 117 to 108kya (They had a large variation in brain size - from 546-1,251 cc).
H. erectus was the most successful hominid species, with populations existing for 2 mya and spanning Africa and much of Eurasia. They diverged into multiple species, H. heidelbergensis, H. rhodesiensis, et al, including the common ancestor of H. neanderthalensis, H. denisova, H. sapiens. Several hominin species were contemporaries in time and interbreeding between them took place. Some fossils are difficult to classify, quite possibly due to such interbreeding. See: 'List of human evolution fossils'.
We are just now beginning to understand the environmental pressures that lead to a larger brain; increasingly complex social networks, and in humans, where the development of language enabled a culture built around tool manufacture and use. Cooperative hunting no doubt played a role as well. The challenges of a rapidly changing climate may also have been a contributing factor. If it had not been for the development of language, humanity would have had to continuously re-invent the Acheulian Hand Axe. Two factors allowing human speech are the hyoid bone, also present in Neanderthals, to which the muscles of the tongue are attached, and a particular variant of the FOXP2 gene found in other mammals that allows for complex speech. Humans share this variant with both Neanderthal and Denisovans, indicating that it was inherited from a common ancestor. Neither chimps, bonobos or other apes have that variation, indicating that it arose sometime after the species diverged.
So, yes, the human evolutionary history is indeed complex, but as Richard Feynman said, "Science is the joy of finding things out.". We are getting a lot of clues as to the expansion of the human brain from embryology and comparative genomics, but we see a progression in brain size from early mammals to primates, to monkeys, to apes, and to humans. In addition, while most mammal brains are smooth, primate brains have convolutions that increase the surface area of the cortex. Those convolutions increase from monkeys to apes and more in humans.
See: "Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language". Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano, Anthony P. Monaco, Svante Pääbo Nature 418, 869 - 872 (22 Aug 2002)
------------------
"The increase in total cerebral volume during early infancy and the juvenile stage in chimpanzees and humans was approximately three times greater than that in macaques," the researchers wrote in the journal article.
But human brains expanded much more dramatically than chimpanzee brains during the first few years of life; most of that human-brain expansion was driven by explosive growth in the connections between brain cells, which manifests itself in an expansion in white matter. Chimpanzee brain volumes ballooned about half that of humans' expansion during that time period.
Human Intelligence Secrets Revealed by Chimp Brains
By Tia Ghose, Senior Writer | December 18, 2012 07:01pm
Where is the critical thought in your audience? Just a quick scroll down the comments section shows that those who share your viewpoints are acting like 12-year-olds mocking those with opposing viewpoints. What's worse - it is usually carried by the same people, the number of which you can count with your fingers. This gives me the impression that you are not promoting critical thinking to your own audience.
You are addressing the moderator, the author of "stated clearly" channel, and trying to blame his 'audience' for mockery worthy of 12 year-olds, how interesting. Perhaps what you don't see are the spam-fests by 1 or 2 religious trolls, who offered personal attacks, harassment and insults, misquotations, disinformation, spammng the same things over and over. The moderator is not having it. Only a handful are mocking 'opposing viewpoints' too much for your delicate sensibilities? Which 'opposing viewpoint' do you find least mock-worthy, pray tell.
"Opposite viewpoints" The denial of observations is not any "opposition" - like the denial of the spherical shape of planet earth is not any opinion, either. People can try to imagine the Earth shape to be pyramidshape or pencakeshape or cube shape all those personal claims are just a denial of globe observations. So is the denial of biological mechanism like evolution as meaningless.
*Those" evolutionists" are actually....a single person....* 😅😅😅 *I see some of "them" already approached u.*
@@gdanskbedankst I see men in white approaching someone with wild paranoid delusions who thinks everyone is a single old dancer who is totally evil and never sleeps. Anti-psychotic medication might help with these delusions.
sdf *Watch v2de0s like "erg0n0m0ver and the 000-strich" to find out more about the t-r00l*
I can imagine Larsen at work in the sewers, begging to his supervisor for an internet break: "Please boss!!!! I gotta remind Ergonomover that 66 rtrded ballet dancers have no ostrich wings!! IT'S URGENT!!!"
"Larson, like I said the last 47 times you begged for a break: wipe that excrement off your face before addressing me! And stop cleaning the latrines with your head, I am _not_ impressed."
@@ergonomover lol
NOTICE TO CREATIONISTS:
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!
*Very well, from live science, 2022:* _New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA. This goes against one of the key assumptions of the theory of evolution_ 😂😂😂😂
@@gdanskbedankst *WRONG AGAIN!!!! I PREVIOUSLY SUGGESTED THAT YOU TRY TO EDUCATE YOURSELF. EITHER YOU DID NOT TRY OR YOU FAILED MISERABLY. PLATO SAID "THERE IS ONE GOOD: KNOWLEDGE AND ONE EVIL: IGNORANCE. ALL YOU HAVE ARE LIES AND DISTORTIONS.
@@gdanskbedankst *LOSER!*
@@RandallWilks *U're projecting, Eldridge.*
Twenty-one replies and still no evidence that creation stories are anything other than mythology. Since creationists are not capable of truth, they think that hurling insults are acceptable substitutes for rational response.
*U could simply say that u reject any rational argument ruining ur doctrine. By the way, nature creating information and quotes was not yet spotted in the wild.*
@@gdanskbedankst I asked for *EVIDENCE.* You give me an assertion, your baseless opinion. Assertions lacking corroborating evidence cannot be distinguished from lies and are dismissed as such. They are, in fact, the very definition of the word 'bullshit'.
@@gdanskbedankst You really have a comprehension problem, don't you? What I reject are arguments lacking corroborating evidence, which is all you have. Nature creates information ALL THE TIME. The fact that the DNA molecule is both heritable and mutable makes evolution INEVITABLE.
@@RandallWilks *There must be some c0nfusion on your side. Nature was never seen creating information. Probably you mix information with rain, wind or something like that.*
@@gdanskbedankst More creationist delusions. Hundreds of copy errors (mutations) occur during cell division and replication (mitosis and meiosis). Most, but not all are corrected by DNA mechanisms. While some may be instantly fatal to a developing organism, others are responsible for the genetic variation seen in every population of organisms. Your ignorance of those facts does not speak well of your cognitive ability.
Weak, unconvincing "evidence."
Creationism has always been like that. 👍
@@crickcrickianspcshp Oh no they use logic and reason! You have no argument back but are offended by science so time to pull out the childish insults because that's all you have left to "fight back" against science!
@redtail-k5pyou clearly haven’t read a single of the three comments above
@@Jerry_Berry01You clearly got trolled
@redtail-k5p bro thinks using bold font makes him sound confident 😂
A beautiful quote from Stephen Hawking: “There is no God. No one directs the universe,”
*How is life, t-r000ling at 66?*
*Beautiful one from Newton, with much love:* _a-theism is so s-e-nseless and 0-dious to mankind_ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *You didn't answer my question, how is life, t-r000ling at 66?* 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *Beautiful one from Newton, with much love:* _a-theism is so s-e-nseless and 0-dious to mankind_ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@gdanskbedankst You seem to be struggling to decide how best to butcher English. Were you home-schooled?
We should not believe in evolution we should accept evolution it is as true as the sun exsists
So you actually believe in evolution?? Unbelievable 🤔
@banjo7899 I don't believe i accept evolution it is an undeniable reality
@@riazijabar5296 So you don’t believe in it? I’m relieved to hear…😅
I couldn’t believe you actually believed it either
@@banjo7899 i believe evolution is real
@@riazijabar5296 So now you actually believe it?? Unbelievable 🤔
UA-cam is not sending my responses to Angelmou, and I dont think pasting it again will do any better. But if I was attacked by evolutionists, I would be distressed, and I just think trying to out-logic everything as a form of 'gotcha' just gives me the impression that the commenters are approaching tihs subject with minimal empathy.
*It's ok. Without heavy cens0ring, the evolution fairy tale d-es!*
@@gdanskbedankst Poor theistic dudes attacked by evolutonists on a video that never mentions your oogity boogity creator. Were either of you ever going to address the evidence demonstrated in this video?
Last month, you said "I am not a Christian" so why do you care about evolution so much? What fairy tales of yours does it refute?
@@gdanskbedankst In an alternate reality perhaps, not in ours though.
Interestingly, my comments and replies hoping to defend evolution, this channel and this video are being heavily censored.
Don’t worry too much about it, no one will miss these comments…🤔😁
I think there's just something very wrong with the UA-cam algorithm. It deletes intelligent comments while allowing the puerile idi0cy of banjo, oscar and larsen to proliferate.
*Why do u say that, Eldridge? I see the garbage u posted as "randallwilks" just below. And the garbage replies from ur accounts like "ergonomover", "angelmou", "docreasonable", connan-le cimmerien" r also there. Do u mean, u posted even more garbage like that and somehow it doesn't appear here?*
@@banjo7899 *It is just his trick to mask the heavy censoring that is performed here against theists. He l-ies as usual. i saw him doing that many times. Never trust the d-vil.*
@@banjo7899Those with a brain will, that excludes you.
still love it
You only have to look around you to know that life, the universe and everything is entirely natural and alines perfectly with *The Fundamental Forces and Laws of Nature.*
Great comment and good advice from Stated Clearly 👍🙏 When looking at the intelligence and communication skills in this forum, you get the thought that human evolution is moving backwards 🤔
No amount of blank denial, lies or logical fallacies can refute *The Theory of Evolution.* ✔️
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS but common sense can…
@@banjo7899 Common sense is not performing to run away from numerous thousands of observations again and again. Like a particular user starting with the letter b and ending with o. Example: Running away from fur coat genes in humans to be readable malfunctional by the mir205, ELF3 RNA regulation not executing the radable fur genes such as KRT2&35 and PTPRM etc. properly within humans as result to stopping an ape fur coat. ;-)
Okay my bad I forgot readable ape fur gene regulation and their malfunction _shall not mean anything_ .
Like the particular mammalness of humans _shall not mean anything_
Or the very specific digit lobe finned fish base genes with 4x copy errored hox base for the the del and gli subset to form hands as tertiary step. _It shall not mean anything_
Just like the semi aquatic beach wobbling whales exactly in between 1/4 moved blowhole Qaisracetus fossils (in the older burials) and 3/4 moved blowhole fossils (in the younger lagerstätten) with the 1/2 migrated noses of Chonecetus and of course Janjucetus in the middle of the ages.
But we know that _Shall not mean anything_ as you have some fake news from Creation institute (CI) up your sleeves hiding that we found numerous specimen and not just 1 lonely single skull of Pakicetus and more than 1 specimen of Ambulocetus etc.
And many more. 3,6 million research papers over 100+ years of different fields _shall not mean anything_ .
Common sense is that not. It is conspiratorial denial, similar how oscar and co. argue "I do not feel the movement of the spinning globe" therefore the Earth shall be a stationary disc.
_"My feelings are not evidence"_
- @@banjo7899
@@banjo7899 *"COMMON SENSE"* in the words of Albert Einstein, "is the collection of prejudices one acquires by age 18." It is thus not a means for determining truth which is arrived at by the examination of evidence. Creationists have a psychological need to believe in creation mythology as they have made it the basis for their worldview. Evidence is what rational people use in making decisions; that is a concept totally alien to those who have subordinated their intellect to that of ancient goat herders.
Calcutta Library employees:
"Ganeet, who is this man who comes in every day and giggles insanely while typing on internet?"
"I do not know but he frightens and disgusts me, Poonam.'"
The creationist dude named oscar ( who impersonated randall wilks ) has been claimed to live in russia and probably part of the ST.petersburg disinformation & propoganda outfit
@@b4li7 He's probably just big-noting himself. He's more likely to be in Nigeria.
@@DocReasonable lol
You 📌🔨 it again, sir. 👍
Oscar is always making derogatory slurs against Belgians on the "Mankind Rising" video, so I suggested he was a failed Congolese asylum seeker who was bitter at being kicked out of the country for his extremism.
He went absolutely 🦧💩 spamming the comment section and harrassing every user 10x more than usual.
🤔💡
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS
One thing I’ve always wondered and haven’t been able to find a lot of info on is what fish evolved from?
Fish evolved from an animal similar to a coral-like sea squirt, or tunicate, and the first fish may have originated around 530 million years ago. Some of the earliest fish-like vertebrates were invertebrates, possibly cephalochordata.
@@crickcrickianspcshp In other words, and specifically you are a complete and uneducated moron. What was the last book you read on biology? If any?
Here because of South Park
Here is the part of the quote that the dishonest creationist left out: “The fanatical atheists are like slaves *who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who-in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"-cannot hear the music of the spheres.”* ― Albert Einstein
Personally, I never felt the weight of (theistic) chains, there was little to throw off, and the struggle was not that hard. It is not about a grudge I hold, Enlightenment values of reason, logic and the scientific method are simply worth fighting for.
gtr *The v8de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" shows that the b-allet dancer A-n-drew Eldridge aka "ergonomover" says this from his account "docreasonable"* _OK fine! I'll admit that captainatheist9855 is my trolling account (it's where I make rtrded comments)_ 😂😂😂😂
*The bad thing is that all his comments from all his t-rolling accounts are r-trdd....*
People actually believe this then regurgitated it 😅😂😅
Needs more emojis
@@thedestroyer-r7u hello gullable
@@paulmichael1150 It's "gullible", and you attacked one of your own side. 🤣🤣🤣
@@Aurora666_yt 🤣👏
I hope you know we’re constantly evolving xD give us a few million years and we will look a bit different
“If taken at face value, the miraculous explanation would tell us that science is not worth the trouble, that it will never yield the answers we seek, and that nature will forever be beyond all human understanding. Sterile and nonproductive in its consequences, the claim of miracle would put a lid on curiosity, experimentation, and the human creative imagination.”
― Biologist Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution
The Geological Society of America Position Statement:
Adopted in October 2005; revised May 2009, November 2012, May 2017, and October 2021.
Evolution and the directly related concept of deep (geologic) time are essential parts of science curricula at all levels of education. The evolution of life on Earth stands as one of the central concepts of modern science that is accepted by the scientific community. Two centuries of research in geology, paleontology, and biology have produced an increasingly detailed, consistent, and robust picture of how life on Earth evolved. Creationism, whether presented as creation “science” or intelligent design, attempts to explain complicated phenomena of the natural world by invoking a supernatural creator or designer. Creationism cannot be tested using the scientific method and therefore has no place in a science curriculum.
why is there so many bots?
Mostly the comment is filled with hatred and a little bit of the comment section is just students want to learn evolution lmao
Creationist comments on this forum are characterized by utter nonsense and repetition thereof. About 400 BCE, Socrates said; 'There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.' Socrates believed that evil was a result of ignorance rather than intention and an increase in knowledge resulted in an increase in virtue. Creationists say 'Fuck that shit, we're going with ignorance.'
Ostriches have (anatomically complex) wings but hell will freeze over before a creationist can tell us why. Evolution explains it.
Sorry, creationists, but Isaac Newton's 1st and 2nd rules of scientific reasoning exclude your talking snake:
"Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes."
Got that? Everything in nature has natural causes, the simplest explanation has the most power.
There is none.
What, brain cells in ur skull?
@@DocReasonable created by God
ufqv 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?
ygsd Why does DNA show that some species are more distantly related than others? Why have there been three new variations of American Goatsbeard flowers if macro evolution doesn’t happen?
fkd Why do we have vomeronasal organs despite not using pheromones? Where did we get chromosome 2 and cytochrome B from? Why do we have pseudogenes, appendixes, wisdom teeth, Plica semilunaris and Nictitating membranes?
THOUSANDS of gods have sprung from the imaginations of primitive peoples. If you believe in ANY of them, you are a _THEIST._ An _A-THEIST_ is anyone who rejects such nonsense.
*The imagination of Darwin beats anything. Humans and whales coming from bacteria....* 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Ho Hum, more creationist nonsense and still ZERO evidence to support creation mythology. That does not represent Darwin's 'Origin of Species' and this creationist knows that very well. His game is MISINFORMATION, otherwise known as LIES. But hey, when that's all they've got, they run with it.
Again, creationist @gdanskbedankst proves that misinformation is his only weapon against facts. That is why he resorts to mindless repetition. If he had a mind he would understand the sheer stupidity of it.
@@RandallWilks *You have to admit, the imagination of Darwin beats anything. Humans and whales coming from bacteria....* 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@gdanskbedankst You likely came from a single cell and it only took 9 months. It is equally likely you came from slime mold.
The ballet dancer Larsen has an unnatural obsession with ostriches. Maybe it's the long eyelashes? Wouldn't be the wings, as they don't have any -- according to Britannica.
"Halloo I am Daneesh, I mean Dennis, and I are here to tells you of the solar circle power are the CHEAP BARGAIN for you!" - Gustav Larsen at 'work'.
😂😂
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS
If an intellegent designer are the one who created all the living thing on earth , then who made the intellegent designer ?
*Let's stick to facts: we observe that nature cannot create any of them.*
Well, the question wasn’t very intelligent, neither was the spelling…
@@banjo7899do you believe in jesus & the bible genesis ?
@@maylingng4107 *Sorry to give u sad news, DNA, math and the laws of physics prove undeniably an intelligent creator.*
That's a good question, but creationists will claim that (he, she, or it) ALWAYS existed. That means that this supreme being was a couch potato through billions of eons until he finally, six thousand years ago, got off his ass and worked for 6 days, after which he needed to rest his candy ass. The next thing we know is that he decided to shit can the whole project, drowning not just adult humans, but their children, puppies, kittens, koalas, pandas, every living thing. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
There are several well-informed people here defending the science clearly stated. Pretending they don't exist is a pretty dumb tactic.
Oh right, we're dealing with creationists, the talking snake, the 7-headed dragon, they'll believe just about anything.
Oscar: "joined 22 hours ago"
Copying LARSEN'S username
Has a yt banner of the sun's surface
Is subbed to the globebusters
Has public playlists
Says "got milk"
Sometimes Oscar worries me.
'Newton’s “heresies” primarily concerned two areas of theology which are in some ways interrelated. First, *Newton absolutely denied the immortality of the soul* and eternal torment. The God he saw in creation was not a God who tortured people into infinity.'
Ray of Light (Christian website)
According to Ostrich Larsen, Stan Lee rules the underworld of Hades.
He's a birdbrain for sure. He traded in his big evolved Homo Sapiens brain for a lighter, more streamlined version, so that he could evolve wings for powered flight. He has no bone marrow (intellectually spineless too), He wants 4 eyes, but losing binocular vision (depth perception) will make flying quite dangerous. Like the 2 hapless birds that died hitting my new bay windows head first, Larsen's crash-landings (and arguments that crash a burn) have taken their toll.
Your dad worked for NASA, but from Down Under? Just curious. Do protect your anonymity.
One great example of a testable prediction made by evolution theory is the fish-to-land-animal transitional form _Tiktaalik_ . A creature part fish and part land-animal was predicted to be found in rock layers 375 million years old. The first one was unearthed after 5 years of digging. Lungs and gills, a swiveling neck, fore-fins with 8 wrist bones. It did push ups and breathed air, was it a fish or a land-animal?
60 specimens tour the globe's museums.
@@crickcrickianspcshp How many fish with lungs, swiveling necks and wrist bones do you know of?
Will your replies ever graduate past kindergarten level?
*WHAT ARE **_CREATIONISTS?_* Creationists are, by their own admission, people who hold to any one of the thousands of creation myths that arose in primitive societies. Their one common thread is a belief that one or more supernatural entity used magic to create humans and everything else. The fact that there is no evidence to support such belief does not register with them. Their religion dictates what they are to believe and those that fail to do so are threatened with eternal punishment, because the deity loves you. On the other hand, those who willingly parrot the dogma of their particular belief system are promised an afterlife of 24/7 eternal bliss. (perpetual use of hallucinogens, perhaps?)
The one seemingly unifying concept of such supernatural belief systems is that the vast diversity of life on this planet could not possibly have come about by any NATURAL process, such as evolution. It is immaterial to creationists which supernatural entity (or entities) performed the miracle of creation, they are united in their opposition to evolution. To aid them in their denial, many adopt a "Statement of Faith" such as this from Answers in Genesis:
*_"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."_*
This makes creationism the antithesis of science. Science is a search for truth and truth is established by evidence, not by what anyone says. By what means can rational discussion be conducted when evidence is rejected? Virtually none. Such an attitude sets creationism at odds with science, which is a search for truth based on evidence. How logical is it for someone to claim they accept the findings of science in some regards, but not others? Trying to reason with such people is like administering medicine to the dead.
'Cognitive Dissonance' is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who is confronted by information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values. Beliefs instilled in children are particularly resistant to change since they tend to become part of that person's identity. Thus any information contradicting those beliefs will be seen as an attack on one's self, causing extreme mental stress and discomfort.
There are but two means by which to resolve Cognitive Dissonance, to either change the belief or to deny and attack the information that contradicts that belief. "Belief is not an idea the mind possesses, belief is an idea that possesses the mind." (Robert Oxton Bolton). Belief is so inextricably enmeshed in emotion that rational thought becomes impossible. “Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.” - Albert Einstein
Breaking free of such indoctrination creates its own set of problems. Not only is there inner conflict, but any attempt to do so will certainly meet with resistance from family or circles of acquaintances who have been similarly indoctrinated.
*Honest question: if u think that the c-rr-eeationist Newton was s-t00p1d and u r smart, how come Newton was so smart and u r so s-tt00p1d?*
@@MayLNg Bwahahahahaha!!!! That's Oscar, the internet buffoon, trying his impersonating schtick again. Get lost, Oscar.
@@RandallWilks *Talking to ur own accounts only makes u look even d-mber.*
@@gdanskbedankst Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one, including Newton, James Maxwell, Lord Kelvin or anyone else who is hung up on religious nonsense. All religions are OPINIONS. Opinions are mere assertions and not supported by any evidence. As such they are the ANTITHESIS OF SCIENCE.
That evolution is settled and useful science seems to make creationists mad and not just angry.
@@lorann-ut5cq Science isn't about beliefs, but about evidence, I was never a "b-allet" dancer, why lie about it 100 times a day? Mindless repetition shows who is rtrdd.
@@lorann-ut5cq
Larsen thinks that making everyone hate his guts will get him brownie points with Jesus. He's wrong about that too of course, and will spend eternity screaming in the infernal underworld for being a liar.
He's an everlasting source of laugh.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS 'I couldn't see something more embarrassing'
@@DocReasonable
I wanted to see how a failed assistant latrine attendant looked like.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS once it's just enough
@@DocReasonable
😊🤝