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.
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.
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 ;)
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.
dfr *The d-mbest and the most evil troll you could encounter is the 66 year old b-allet dancer A-n-d-rew Eldridge aka "flandiddlyandersFRS"/"docreasonable"/"ergonomover" who insisted that ostriches have no wings (see the v6de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich").*
@@malvinebetratoxin Who is "we" - you and your 40+ dishonest trolling accounts? You don't know what evidence is or you would've provided some. I use ONE account, sorry your "feeling" didn't pan out.
@@ginobarila Nothing I said is in that video. It shows other accounts run by other people. You are the liar here, I use ONE account and never was a "b-allet" dancer. Even if you were right, one error on some other video years ago does not negate what is said today. You just can't deal with it. Why are the wings of ostriches just as anatomically complex as are those of birds that _can_ fly? Try to use your brain and answer the question.
@gdanskbedankst To clarify, are you suggesting the evolutionary fact that whales are mammals and used to be land creatures as nonsense? If so, please show your evidence.
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.
@@michaelgray9059 Yes indeed, Charles Darwin did write "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Thank you for that quote mine. Darwin's teaching method was to propose possible objections to his theory, and then answer them. Creationists love to use what he wrote as possible objections to claim Darwin doubted his own theory. Invariably and dishonestly, they fail to include his answer, which was to the effect that he could find no such instance. Michael Behe in his book "Darwin's Black Box" argued for "intelligent design" and "Irreducible Complexity". Arguments for both were shot down in the Federal Court trial Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which Behe's ideas were shot down and "intelligent design" was ruled "religion, not science". Behe's own Lehigh University has taken the unusual step of posting an official rejection of Behe's ideas. Since that time, no one has proposed ANY complex organ that could not be explained by incremental evolutionary steps. Behe himself is strangely silent on the subject. Please be more honest when quoting someone. It is the parts you omit that betray your motive.
*For Aronra's disciples, just follow the arrows: living cell -> information -> instructions ->abstractions-> genetic code ->intelligent mechanisms for writing, copying, reading and processing intelligent instructions -> INTELLIGENT CREATOR.*
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?
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.
*Evolution through RANDOM mutations and natural selection - that is the myth-theory of evolution about. All these years in which the poor rtrd Eldridge "ergonomover" preached it as sure fact, but didn't manage to understand it. Damn, this boy is....*
"Theory" means "written explanation" dope. For example, we have colour theory, germ theory, game theory, evolution theory, music theory, driving theory, etc. Go to school, these are some of the things you would learn.
*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
*You shouldn't be surprised that the poor evolutionist A. Eldridge didn't know that the theory of evolution is about RANDOM mutations. Remember he insisted that ostriches have no wings.*
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.
idf *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_ 😅😅😅😅😅
I see that changing account didn't give you the courage to actually read the article and notice it actually made evolution stronger. I mean it's logical, you're enough of a coward to have multiple accounts so already you're not helping yourself Larsen.
@UCDOliXkJwraftyfn3UaGFWQ That evolution can be generalized to non-random mutations thus making it an even more powerful. Besides to debunk evolution you would have to prove that non-random mutations can't arise through evolution but you won't do that because as I said you're a coward who doesn't research a thing. See what I did there Larsen? It's called "doing science".
@@malvinebetratoxin The article does not disprove the theory of evolution; instead, it refines our understanding of one of its mechanisms-genetic mutations. Here's a breakdown of why this study does not invalidate evolution, along with its implications: 1. Randomness and Evolutionary Theory Traditional evolutionary theory posits that mutations are random with respect to an organism's needs, providing raw material for natural selection to act upon. The study finds that mutations are not entirely random, especially in essential genes, which are protected from mutations to reduce harmful effects. However, evolution is not dependent on pure randomness. The central tenets of evolution-variation, heredity, and differential survival based on advantageous traits-still apply. 2. Clarification vs. Contradiction The non-random nature of mutations in essential genes does not contradict the theory of evolution but highlights a layer of biological complexity. Natural selection still operates on mutations, whether random or patterned. The study’s findings suggest that DNA repair mechanisms have evolved to shield critical genes, which aligns with evolutionary principles: organisms with better protection for vital genes would have higher survival and reproduction rates, spreading those mechanisms. 3. Evolutionary Flexibility Mutations in less-critical regions of the genome remain random, preserving the genetic variability needed for adaptation and evolution. The protective mechanisms described in the study are themselves a product of evolution, arising to optimize survival and reproduction. 4. Potential Implications The findings deepen our understanding of genetic processes and could lead to medical advances, such as improving DNA repair mechanisms to prevent diseases like cancer. t challenges a simplistic view of mutation but does not undermine the vast body of evidence supporting evolution, such as fossil records, observed speciation events, and comparative genomics.
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.
*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...* 😂😂😂😂
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.
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien *kji *After you told us that 0-striches have no wings, did you claim from Guinness your prize for the most rtrdd tr0ll of this planet?* 😅😅😅😅
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!_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
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.
hgt *Too much comedy here: the evolutionist (a 66 year old b-allet dancer in real life ) A. Eldridge aka "flandidlyandersFRS/"docreasonable"/"ergonomover" cries all around that mutations are not random, this way destroying the theory of evolution through random mutations.*
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.
What about octopus or squid? They don't have hand, wrist or finger bones! Why not picking another 'fish animal' other than whales? Why based the whole theory that ALL the animals developed from the same ancestor by just comparing animals that best suits your narrative? This is not a theory, this is a hypothesis..
Either the explanation is too specific or too general, some people are never happy. What about the evolution of the octopus over 330 million years? You need vestigial shell evidence of the relation to the nautilus? You did nothing to refute the evidence presented here, so evolution theory stands.
@@dim7918 - The ancestral lineage of whales was used here for two primary reasons. First: by examining the genomes of two extant species, it was determined that whales and hippos shared a common ancestor. Second: the fossil record demonstrated the progression of morphological change which supported this conclusion. In the case of Cephalopods such as octopus and squid, the fossil record is not nearly as complete due to their physical structure not being well suited for fossilization. What we do know about these animals is that they diverged from mollusk-like slugs and snails and have elaborate nervous systems which can perform a surprisingly diverse group of behaviors. It is simply easier (and subsequently more convincing) to illustrate the existing fossil discoveries of the whale lineage than it is to chart the progression of increasingly complex physiology and behaviors of Cephalopods. Still, it has been done and you can easily view this progression by simply searching the words "the evolution of cephalopods" in Google.
@@gcmgome well you just prove my point.. there is selection bias in the evidence that the theory is based on. You cant just pick animals that it's 'easy' and more 'suited' to your narrative to make it more 'convincing' as you say.. it is either all animals or none! This is what the theory suggests in the first place. And I have done my research about a lot of animals including the Cephalopods.. still evidence is inconclusive with the gaps being filled with narrative rather than evidence.. and narratives with no evidence is called faith! Please don’t get me wrong: evolution is a scientific fact. There’s no point arguing that. We see evidence of it all around us. But often when evolution is discussed, a small detail is overlooked: a distinction between micro- and macro- evolution. Think about it..
fhy *Let me share the good news: 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_ 😂😂😂😂
These similarities do not conclude that evolution is real. By the way, there are no complete skeletons of prehistoric creautures. They only find fragments and fill in the blank with imagination and pure speculation.
We do not talk about mere similarities you could have the human opinion freedom to handwave away the observations. We talk about exact organ and bodytissue repurposement readable in the DNA as readable heridity record. Like hoof feet and astragalus ankle bone info to be repurposed for whale flippers in contrast of the birdwing to flipper adaptations like in penguins and also in aukbirds. You come to this video with the wacky idea you can just declare by your willpower stuff away, while no one informed you that there is no free willpower for all humans in existence to make facts disappear. We also have complete skeletons. You are hopelessly misinformed and most likely you wish conspiracy talk would be legit. Conspiracy greeders are happy that they would have their tummyfeelings and sense in life emotions somewhat bubbled in a safe space. Unfortunately such as safespace is a delusion.
This is simply nonsense: *"...there are no complete skeletons of prehistoric creautures."* Why would anyone say something that is so easily refuted? I've been to a natural history museum and seen numerous complete fossilized skeletal remains of prehistoric creatures with my own eyes. You can easily do so as well. There are numerous locations across North America where complete fossilized remains of prehistoric creatures are being displayed. Stop lying.
@@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
*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...
*The theory of evolution through random mutations and natural selection was destroyed by the evolutionist A. Eldridge aka "docreasonable", I quote him:* _DNA mutations are not random_
for *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_ 😂😂😂😂
@@walkergarya huh *I have a question, Eldridge, if u think u r so smart how come u r so s-tp1d? I mean, u insisted that ostriches have no wings, as the v3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" shows....*
@@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...*
drf *I really do love math. Because it shows that the probability of producing the genome by chance in the most simple organism is 0 followed by millions of zeroes after the decimal comma.*
@@gardenflower-k3n Oh I've debunked your math claims, that's why you deleted your comment to hide your shame. I've not only debunked you, I've now proven you lie to support your claims. If you want to refute me, then produce the math showing your claim, and show that it isn't a calculation of a permutation, and is actually a probability calculated for an observed event which has been tested multiple times and has a large sample size to ensure accuracy. Go ahead, show us how clever you think you are.
*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.
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._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
*Dawkins on the reality of the intelligent design:* _if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer._ *But let's not deviate from the main topic, the fact that I caught the evolutionist spammer A. Eldridge once again in his l-ies:* *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...* 😂😂😂😂
In reality, Dr Dawkins' quote was made under false pretences and was about aliens produced by a Darwinian process. We looked, there is no such signature. You really should try to provide context for your quotes if your great intellect is big enough. "Now watch" I gather trying to tell people what to do is not working for you, hence all the cyber-begging. I don't lie, you do, since I never was a "b-allet" dancer. How many times will you lie about it today?
*Symmetry in the living organisms destroys the evolution through random mutations. Randomness and natural processes in general cannot create symmetry at macro level. Give me an example of a natural square.*
@@ruach-m2b Einstein affirmed that what appeared to be randomness was in reality human ignorance of hidden variables. I know that's gone way over Ur rancid head
@@ruach-m2b “Nothing in Nature is random. … A thing appears random only through the incompleteness of our knowledge.” This quote, stated by the eminent Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, proves to be a universal truth.
@@ruach-m2b I knew the words of Einstein would be too hard for U, shtbucket Einstein affirmed that what appeared to be randomness was in reality human ignorance of hidden variables. U FUMB DUCK!!!
"have never made a square" Hey Larsen we had the exact topic half of a year ago when you did run from cubic crystal formations with various minerals - pyrite (foolsgold) was there a major example. But you also denied DNA to be real, while you can extract DNA in your own kitchen with kitchenware. I even gave the list of utensils back the day. But we know that you do not care about observations. Like you do not care that functionality is not another term for "design". This is why you do not get the birdwing info vestigialization from flight to flightlessness (you confuse with winglessness) in birds and run away from the specific bird evolution evidence with kiwibirds etc. Or where you did not care about that we are long beyond "mere similarities" in comparison but exact info knowledge you do not care about either, because you do want to run away from the very existence of the sugarbackbone acids. You did fall into so many trapholes you did dig yourself in. And then you just repeat botlike always the same.
@@Angelmou *U mean that discussion in which u didn't manage to give me a set of 2 symmetrical crystals? Well, I also remember that u insisted that ostriches have no wings. R u still monkeying with science? Cause so far u only made people laugh.*
asd *The evolutionist Eldridge aka "docreasonable" was just screaming:* _Natural processes are NOT random._ *Wow, but he was convinced that the theory of evolution through random mutations is real and natural!*
Aww diddums, were you not smart enough to understand that *_selection,_* a non-random process, determines which mutations thrive or fail within a population's gene pool?
@@TheHairyHeathen *As I already told ur tr0lling account "docreasonable", the theory of evolution is about random mutations and natural selection, rtrd.*
*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!_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
*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)*
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!_ 😂😂😂😂 😂😂😂😂
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.
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.
Holy Shit, Roger, are you really that cognitively impaired that you cannot open a book? Try doing a Google search on the internet. That will give you many sources for the information you seek. The short answer is: the DNA molecule that is both heritable and mutable. It exists in every living organism and is passed from parent to offspring. Every offspring will inherit DNA from its parents and will most resemble those parents but will differ somewhat genetically due to copy errors (mutations) that always occur during cell division and replication (mitosis and meiosis). Those mutations, should this organism live long enough to reproduce, will be passed to that organism's future offspring. That will occur generation after generation with each successful generation passing its variant genes to the population gene pool and future generations. Incremental alterations to DNA will ultimately manifest in incremental changes to physiology. At some point, those accumulated changes may produce a population sufficiently different from ancestral populations to be regarded BY HUMANS as a new species. It is humans who name species based on physical characteristics and DNA. Nature does not provide name tags.
@@RandallWilks so humans gained their ability for advanced speaking, reading and writing (which no other animal can, including apes) due to copy errors?? Sounds very logical!
@@banjo7899 Aren't you forgetting the part about how non-random natural selection puts order to the copy errors, the beneficial ones get passed on at reproduction? I'm pretty sure you know about it already, but you have memory lapses?
@@ergonomover Your assumption that Banjo has any knowledge is without merit. Nothing rattling around in his skull could be called logical. As an advanced primate brain, the human brain has the ability to think and create means of communication. That is a skill banjo never acquired.
@@ergonomover so you’re actually confirming that humans have the ability to speak because of copy errors? But it was controlled copy errors?? So I guess humans also play music because of copy errors…?? Very logical…
*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
Little baby crying because someone hurt his beliefs? There there, I will change your diaper signed by Jesus from Walmart and give you holy water. You sound like a baby, grow up you shet
@@webdiver-1 - That's a clueless reply but what can we expect from someone who thinks that millions of scientists are wrong ...but only about evolution?
@@webdiver-1 Don't be ridiculous. Science is not up for a vote. SCIENCE IS A SEARCH FOR TRUTH and that search NEVER ENDS. It proceeds from evidence to a conclusion which is initially PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). [A hypothesis is a prediction of what MIGHT happen, based on available EVIDENCE.] It is incumbent on scientists to make every effort to DISPROVE hypotheses and do so as quickly as possible so that time and other resources are better allocated to more promising areas of research. As additional evidence accumulates in support of a hypothesis, so does the certainty that it is correct. When all evidence supports a conclusion and none refutes it, it can become a Scientific Theory, which is the highest degree of certainty possible in science. That applies to Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Heliocentric Theory, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Gravity, Theories of Relativity, ALL such theories. If evidence is ever uncovered that is inconsistent with that explanation (theory), then the theory must be discarded or revised. A theory is never altered to suit one's beliefs or preferred outcome. What anyone thinks, feels or believes means jack to science. It wouldn't matter if someone's name was Albert Einstein, Stephan Hawking or Joe Somebody, if they don't have evidence, they've got nothing. Creationists make assertions that lack corroborating evidence. They cannot be distinguished from lies and are dismissed as such.
@@RandallWilks *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_ 😂😂😂😂
*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.
@@TheStarflight41 Were you a participant in Messrs Dunning and Kruger's initial study? Obviously you know even less about philosophy than you do about science.
*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.*
More creationist lies and distortions. That is NOT what Dawkins said and you know it. One only has to read what he had said and written throughout his career to see how dishonest YOU are.
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!*
Oscar Larsen, back again for more of the same.... what a boring no-hoper he is. At least he was self-aware enough to put the word 'toxin' in his name this time.
While evolution is often presented as a fact supported by multiple lines of evidence, it’s important to question the assumptions behind these claims. One key argument for evolution is the similarity between species, such as shared DNA or structural features, which is interpreted as evidence of common ancestry. However, similarity does not necessarily prove a relationship. For example, human-designed systems like cars or computers also share similarities, but that’s due to a common designer using efficient patterns-not random chance or gradual change over time. Another point to consider is the concept of irreducible complexity. Many biological systems-like the bacterial flagellum-require all their parts to function. If even one part were missing, the entire system would fail. This challenges the idea of gradual evolutionary development, as these systems couldn’t work in an incomplete form. Instead, their complexity points to intentional design. Lastly, interpreting fossils or genetic data requires a starting worldview. If one assumes evolution is true, the data will naturally seem to confirm it. But when viewed through a design perspective, the same evidence can point to a Creator who used consistent patterns and principles. Similarity doesn’t have to mean descent-it can just as easily mean design.
It never fails, creationists always compare mechanical objects, which have to be designed (cars, etc.) to the fake claim of a supernatural (god) designer. Then it gets worse, when challenged to list a single piece of evidence for a design or a designer. Irreducible complexity (IR) has been destroyed as a claim with no evidence. IR is the invention of creationist Michael Behe, who was placed on the witness stand in a trial about teaching of Intelligent Design where he was totally embarrassed, and his arguments shredded. Behe is an advocate of the lie of Intelligent Design and the member of the anti-science cult, the Discovery Institute. Evolution is not an "if true", it is a FACT. It was observed in nature and duplicated in the laboratory in 3 different experiments to date. I was a member of the MSU project team, where after 30,000 generations we (project team of several PhD biologists) witnessed the emergence of a brand new species.
@discovery_uncharted So you think all cars were designed and built by the same person?? FROM NOTHING, like animals in the Bible? And yes, even the inventor of the irreducible complexity fallacy (Michael Behe) has since disclaimed it AND he accepts the fact of evolution via common descent. And no one ASSUMES evolution is true; we examine the science and we CONCLUDE that it's factual.
We do neither talk about manufactured objects puzzled together from dislocated pieces such as cars without the designed objects being born by any "mothercars", nor do we talk about superficial similarities open for any wide range of menmade interpretations. We talk about EXACT info shifts over time like wolf face info to dog face variation or wolf ear to many dog ears variations. So are creationists completely incapable to address the wolf face to aerodynamic shape sighthound dog head or boxy st. bernhard dog head info by their specific names, as they are incapable to address the ape face info to human face variation, either. Or why humans have furcoat genes readable in malfunction or why dolphins have whisker genes and scent smelling genes not expressed with minor exceptions when they regrow whiskers. There is not only 1 flagellum but dozens of different variation of the previous input output F0 system - we also have further reuse of the info over generations like copying the flagellum info 100x around the hull to have not a locomotion system but a defense system to be too big and wiggly to swallow by predation. Nothing there points to any conspiratorial idea of a creator. The idea is just silly for many different reasons.
Another load of crap from creationist fools. You repeat long refuted creationist nonsense. You have no good evidence for your lies. The assertion of "god did it" has no value. There is NO evidence for you fairy tale of a designer.
New study of the origin of the genetic code reveals that shorter amino acids are older than more complicated ones and it suggests that the modern genetic code in all lifeforms present is a more sophisticated version than the precursor one with different amino acid pairings which died out: Order of amino acid recruitment into the genetic code resolved by last universal common ancestor’s protein domains Sawsan Wehbi, Andrew Wheeler, Benoit Morel, and Joanna Masel December 12, 2024 It suggest that modern Trypthohan or Phenylalanine were sparse in early life, a previous template used Norvaline and Norleucine not in use in the code of life anymore.
@@PoorCreationists*Carrying imaginary dialogs to ur own trolling accounts is not a sign of sanity, 66 year old troll. Are u still monkeying with science?*
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.
*When "ergonomover" insisted that ostriches have no wings (see the v3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich") we had the confirmation that he is an evolutionist.*
Actual quote from Albert Einstein: "The fanatical atheists are like slaves *who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle."* - Albert Einstein. Einstein was indeed an Atheist in every sense of the word. He just wasn't fanatical about it.
I’m genuinely trying to understand. You found bones in whales that “appear” to be leg bones. They could be any other kind of bone, such as pelvic for instance. How do cases where a creature shares similarities indicate the evolution of an entire new species and Genetic makeup? From my understanding, animals can adapt to their environment (micro-evolution) but they can’t create new genetic makeup entirely (macro-evolution). I’m looking for evidence of Evolution, but as it stands this isn’t conclusive in any way. Am I missing something?
Whales DO have pelvic bones. They also have actual vestigial leg bones, femur and tibia.Yes, your masters say you're allowed to believe in microevolution but not macroevolution. It's like you people all have one brain between you.
*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; a pair of hip bones each consisting of the fused bones, ilium, ishium and pubis to which various muscles are attached. In the lower spinal column, there are 5 vertebrae, the sacral vertebrae, numbered S1-S5. In most mammals, those vertebrae fuse during embryological development to form a solid triangular bone, the sacrum, which 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 fused vertebrae of the sacrum separated into individual vertebrae, reducing the point of pelvic fusion to just one single sacral vertebrae. While spinal flexibility was improved, it reduced support for hind limbs while on land. Rhodocetus would have been ungainly on land, perhaps like today's Sea Lions or Elephant Seals. Like those semi-aquatic mammals, Rhodocetus likely came ashore to breed and give birth. The next step in whale evolution was the complete separation of the pelvis from the spinal column as seen in the basilosauroides (Basilosaurus and Dorodon). That gave them spinal flexibility for a more powerful tail, but no support for hind limbs which were now almost useless but perhaps used in mating. At that point they would have been fully aquatic. Basilosaurus and Dorodon hind limbs were fully articulated with pelvis, femur, tibia, fibula, metacarpals, and phalanges. Those are all normal parts of a quadrupedal hind leg. That pelvis, however, was no longer fused to the spinal column. 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 have evolved a prehensile penis. Something that could be termed a "mobile dick". ;-) Today's whales retain a remnant femur that forms an articulated ball and socket joint to the remnant pelvis. The Northern Right Whale retains not only those bones but an articulated tibia as well. Genes for 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 malfunction, 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, a feature we share with other apes. 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 sireneans 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.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS I'm sharing where I find discrepancy in the reasoning in hopes to find an answer, because so far I haven't. How is that not trying to understand?
Dissing the modern synthesis by bringing up how little Charles Darwin knew about biology and genetics is as silly and as non-productive as criticizing today's auto designs by emphasizing how little Carl Benz knew about aerodynamics and internal combustion engine designs.
*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.
Yes, you should be sorry for your lie Larsen. Unless you claim that making something prone to mistakes and with many useless parts is the work of intelligent.
@gdanskbedankst For the second time you should indeed be sorry for how pathetic you are. -Still not Mr.Eldridge -No creationnists were ever observed defining information in biology, because you can't and you know it.
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien *Sorry, b-allet dancer Eldridge, nature creating information and codes was not yet observed in the wild. Same as the ostriches without wings you insisted on.*
@gdanskbedankst Case in point, you reiterate your failures. P.S : You compliment my agility, because I am nowhere near the level of professional dancer. Being more interested in Muay Thai, rugby and physics have their downsides.
@gdanskbedankst Oscar, we have observed exactly this, new mutations developing new beneficial traits that are passed on. You are again lying, as expected. Pathetic.
fju *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_ 😂😂😂😂
@@walkergarya *I have a question, b-allet dancer A. Eldridge: if u think u r smart and the creationist Newton was s-tp1d, how come Newton was so smart and u r the opposite?*
Thanks for telling us you have 22 sock accounts If evolution is false, why do humans and chimps share over 200 ERV markers in the same locations in both genomes? Why do antibiotics need to kept up to date with micro organisms if they don’t evolve? How do you explain ring species? Where can I find a single example of a non-transitional fossil? Why does DNA show that some species are more distantly related than others? Why have there been three new variations of American Goatsbeard flowers if macro evolution doesn’t happen?
*I would like to quote the b-aaalet dancer A. Eldridge aka "flandiddlyandersFRS"/"randallwilks"/"ergonomover"/"docreasonable":* _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._
So-called god was unable to defeat anyone riding an iron chariot: “And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." - Judges 1:19
I am an Atheist. I do not believe in the existence of God. There is no testable evidence to support the belief in any gods or supernatural entities. I rely on science, reason, logic, and empirical evidence to form my worldview and have not found compelling evidence or arguments to support the existence of God. The universe is governed by natural laws and forces, rather than moral, spiritual, or supernatural ones. As an atheist, I reject religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making. I emphasize the social and empirical nature of inquiry and prioritize scientific solutions to intellectual problems. There is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between faith and science, and that it inevitably leads to hostility. I am engaged in a continually evolving search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy.
_I rely on science, reason, logic, and empirical evidence_ *You are the empirical evidence of your creator. You and many other quadrillions of created living beings. As Newton once said,* _In want of other proofs, the thumb would convince me of the existence of a God._
@@starfish-f3t Larsen wrote: " _You are the empirical evidence of your creator._ " Humans are born by their parents. They are not like clocks created by someone fiddling parts together of any maker. "You and many other quadrillions of created living beings." Lifeforms are not created, they are born by their parents (or mitosis results of the former parental cells). "As Newton once said, In want of other proofs, the thumb would convince me of the existence of a God." Opposable thumbs are finger adaptations in primates from the former mammalian paws with claw to nail flattening mutations - something Newton lacked education of in his time period. This post is for the general information.
@@starfish-f3t Like all science denying creationist theists. you don't present any actual objectively verifiable, positive empirical evidence in support of your claims. Instead you make baseless assertions such as _"You are the empirical evidence of your creator"_ which take a huge non-sequitur from you having existence, to that existence being the result of a magical conjuring spell performed by an undetectable cosmic wizard. This also relies on a logical fallacy _begging the question,_ assuming your conclusion (a creator) in your premise. Then you try to back this up with often out of context quotations, as if they are actually evidence, and not just opinions.
If you're curious about what's happening in this comment section, read: _"Creationism's Trojan Horse The Wedge of Intelligent Design"_ by Barbara Forest & Paul A. Gross
@@lorann-ut5cq Actual quote from Albert Einstein: "The fanatical atheists are like slaves *who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle."* - Albert Einstein. Einstein was indeed an Atheist in every sense of the word. He just wasn't fanatical about it.
@@gcmgome Oh, look, there he is AGAIN. A creationist who thinks that personal attacks trump actual evidence. Notice he even has delusions as to who he is responding to. Creationists are not Christians, they are an evil anti-science cult. They think "Nuh-uh", "Nuh-uh", "Nuh-uh", is a really powerful argument. Smh.
What are you bringing to the table? Evolutionist don't have much money 💰. So you will have to create civil unrest and start fires 🔥 everywhere in Canada in order to drastically reduce its value so that you can buy it for a dollar. 😂
*But moving away from the rudimentary intellect of a ballet dancer who insisted that ostriches have no wings, Newton just nailed it:* _In want of other proofs, the thumb would convince me of the existence of a God._
The human thumb is a product of evolution. It is shared by most if not all primates. We have them, Chimpanzees have them, ALL APES HAVE THEM. It seems odd that Newton did not know that. But then he was too busy writing about Alchemy and other bullshit.
*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.*
@@Ryan_Gosling_3 *U r projecting. By the way, I give you some news, 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_ 😂😂😂😂
@@UNLebanon - When you say *"Empirical observations that can be made and assessed consistently by a 3rd party."* You make it sound like there are two equally legitimate opposing sides that require an impartial arbiter to determine what the facts are. This is simply not the case. The scientific method and running the gauntlet of merciless peer review provides more than adequate arbitration for any scientific discovery. Especially considering that there is only one legitimate perspective concerning evolution.
@@gcmgome That is in no way what I said. My definition of "evidence" is what is used in the scientific method; for as you pointed out, the peer review process is precisely that 3rd party assessment that takes place to ensure the validity of the observable claims. I think you are the second person who misinterpreted my post believing me to be some kind of creationist apologist. I am not. I accept the theory of evolution as being evidently true.
@@UNLebanon - I did allow for the possibility that you were trying to make a different point by starting the second sentence in my comment with: "You make it sound like..." But if I'm the second person who misinterpreted what you were trying to say maybe it's ....?
The human thumb is a product of evolution. It is shared by most if not all primates. We have them, Chimpanzees have them, ALL APES HAVE THEM. It seems odd that Newton did not know that. But then he was too busy writing about Alchemy and other bullshit.
Quote from an article on the fallacies of Intelligent Design. "In contrast, intelligent design is a less comprehensive alternative to evolutionary theory. While evolution relies upon detailed, well-defined processes such as mutation and natural selection, ID offers no descriptions of the design process or the designer. In fact, proponents do not even agree among themselves as to which biological phenomena were designed and which were not. Ultimately, this “theory” amounts to nothing more than pointing to holes in evolution and responding with a one-word, unceasingly repeated mantra: “design.” But unless ID advocates fill in the details, there is no way to scientifically test intelligent design or make predictions from it for future research. In short, it is not valid science. These deceptive tactics have brought the ID movement limited success but cannot change the essential facts about intelligent design. ID offers scattered and questionable critiques of evolution as the sole evidence for “design” and promotes a vague notion which lacks the detail and scientific rigor necessary to constitute an alternative scientific theory. Furthermore, advocates push ID in an ill-conceived effort to challenge materialistic philosophy, advance faith in a narrow conception of god, and establish a politically faith based ideology in public life. Their efforts actually undermine our strongest traditions and understandings of science, faith, and honest political debate." (Bryan Collinsworth: The Flaws in Intelligent Design)
Ho Hum, same old shit. Creationists NEVER present any evidence for the mythological creation stories that are the basis of their worldview. BECAUSE THERE IS NONE!!!! GET OVER IT PEEPS, REALITY IS A BITCH, ISN'T IT? But it beats the hell out of ignorance.
@@RandallWilks And if your reality is only that which you can see with the eye.... Then you are only perceiving around Two percent of reality. Which really makes you out to be small minded
@@PoorCreationists Good luck to you on that one. Just another atheist peddling his small world view. You can choose to stick to your ignorance or expand your mind and find purpose.
Guys i cant understand why is the great majority of comments based on trashtalking about religious people. I mean yes evolution is based and proven and it does not contradict the idea of having a creator, a great I am above and before everything else. (Just for example if you think about motion and force, you have the fact that nothing can exsist without a cause But here we are with the big bang theory and it seems like there was nothing -at least nothing that we can observe- before it) So, with the best intentions i suggest that if you have some sort of disagreement with someone on any topic, the best thing to do is just sit down and talk with them, you dont have to change their point of view or vica versa, but a genuine conversation could give both of you some interesting POWs. Best wishes
The problem with LGBTQIIA 🏳️🌈 evolutionists is that they are not degree educated in science, they are not qualified in science, and they have become agents of evolution working for Dawkins for free. Dawkins is using them. 😂😂😂
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....*
When creationist said that god made human & all living creature in this planet , which god are they reffering to ? Allah,jesus,visnuh ? . Because there are more than thousands of god perserve in human history
They refer to vague tummy feelings to be chosen by the concept of an invisible father figure with the exact same tastes and distastes their own (usually narcissistic) ego does have. (which ain't a coincidence) This means first comes the approach towards the world to have some emotional relationship to a surrogate parent to give the own Ego attention/recognition and strokes on the back - then to imagine you would be made in the image. The image there is also usually a very firery and brimstone throwing one - full of wrath and judgemental to "smite" or "fire" all those people which appear to be "wicked" to your very own taste/distaste. Like mentioned before. This panopticon includes to made up places which defy the very laws of thermodynamics. This means that the invisible father figure shall perform teleportation magic to send people to a place were impossible everlasting burning processes shall work, while in the actual world (they usually refer to as designed) no everlasting flame is able to work out - not even our sun or any sun is ignited forever. Those ideas have long rattails of denialism of what is able to be realistic. Father figures are not just there because people stubbornly want them to be there and stomp angry to the ground and pretend very hard. Parents are mortal collections of processes. Like our own parents have heartbeat, cell metabolism and brain processes, which cease to be. Humans have a limited lifespan and so are all parents mortal. In fact the idea that behind everything that happens - behind thunder and lightning or the rainfall shall be a guy like a thundermaker or rainmaker as deities (anthropomorphization) goes actually deep into tribalistic uprising in families. Humans love to see everywhere potential partners for relationships - even in inanimate forces and blind circumstances. This goes so far that humans worship the idea of units like the concept of a uniform entity. An idea of a uniform soul made out of 1 substance alone - to such an extend that the process depending nature of reality is pushed out of sight to not to bother about it. What is seen for example in creationism is that the concept of a creator is a self-contradiction as the creator shall be timeless (or spaceless) - the idea behind is that time and space are seen as restrictions or emotional hurtful insults towards a uniform father figure of a dense not changing substance (made up supernature). The fun fact is that this is not how processes work AT ALL: You need time to have chains of thoughts and space to be even there to begin with. You can't have no space (smaller than a dot) to do anything anywhere at all. To have an "any where" to begin with to perform alone to be sitting around, too. Time is mandatory like for thinking processes or creation processes to roll out or how someone feels emotions like switching from being wrathful to being happy or cozy you need time to perform these switches to proceed. Creationists also do not care about the order of history for the reason they do not care about any process overviews. Creationism is also actually a conspiracy myth in which the order of history shall be scrambled and in which much younger in time activities such as the _to create_ & _to design_ activities shall be older than they truly are. The _To create_ and _to design_ activities both originated in much later time periods AFTER thinking organs developed a certain amount of neuronal area complexity came to be. This is why activities like "absorbing nutrients from the surrounding water" is actually millions upon millions of years OLDER in time than the first ever performed creation activity. Deity believers do not care about that AT ALL. As they disconnect the process nature of reality from their emotional imprint towards relationship partners including madeup imaginary relationship partners seen behind every bush.
@@ChadJPT All known forms of theism do operate in such a way. It is more that many humans share the same confidence in dogmatic thinking about certain images and the same conspiracies. God is in all religious rituals also a slogan like you would envision a magic spell to "cast away" disturbing limitations of reality. Human mortality is just 1 very common limitating factor to be "wished away" in most religions. I recently gave a rather obscure example: People can for example hate that some materials are unable to swim through, even by world best swimmers. For example a solid cube of cold steel is not able to be a medium for the world best olympia swimmer or all dolphins to swim through. So out of basic anger emotions and hate towards the "unswimmability" as restricting factor (through the steel block) the person can shout "But God can!" - "God can surely swim through a solid block of cold steel like it would be water!" and call it a day. As the steelblock is therefore all of a sudden similar to a water pool or a river. This also illustrates the main issue why slogans such as God do exist in the first place. Humans hate emotional hurtful limitations "burdened" upon our shoulders by reality. Like that humans ain't immortal, that steel blocks ain't a medium to swimm through at a summer day or that fire is not everlasting burning to torture evildoers etc. The limits of reality are even more profound than many people are aware of. Like that you need a hearing organ (or microphone equivalent) to detect and also process soundwaves for the process of hearing/listening to be existing. A deity shall listen/hear prayers but...HOW... without ear organ sound processing activities in active proceedings? Theists can never tackle and address those issues in any in depth detail talk like a process overview. So are specific activities also not as old as some humans wish they would be. Beside the ability to process hearing activities - another one is the already mentioned is the _to create_ activity.
@@ChadJPT It has been the practice of ignorant people everywhere to create supernatural entities to explain all the things they do not know. Gods are the embodiment of ignorance. The "God Concept" originated with Homo erectus as an explanation for thunder. Creationists still honor that tradition.
God believers, just stop doubting about evolution facts. Just stop believing in creationism if you are not able to come up with FACTS about your believe
bnv *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_ 😂😂😂😂
Evidence of non random mutations is not contradictory to evolution unless it was discovered that all mutations are not random. But that isn't what that article says, is it liar?@gdanskbedankst
@@thejabberwocky2819 *The theory of evolution says exactly this, that mutations are random, 66 year old troll who insisted that ostriches have no wings. How hard is it for u to get that the theory is false, 66 year old troll A. Eldridge who insisted that ostriches have no wings?*
@gdanskbedankst 'Non-random' simply means the mutations are a consequence of natural physics, not they were programmed by a Middle-Eastern tech worker in the clouds. Jesus fq, how are U SO ret@arded Skib??
*Quoting the fake, impersonating trolling account "MayLing Ng" of the same p-sych0-tic tr0ll A. Eldridge:* _A-n-dr- ew E-l-dridge, who is a friend of mine (has been for 6 years). He is semi-retired and lives in Paris. He is an actor and a ballet dancer (in his younger days). Andrew seldom comments on YT anymore._ *Quoting Eldridge from his trolling account "ergonomover":* _I never had the job of "ballet" dancer_
You're a joke Oscar/Larsen. You cannot refute evolution, so instead just try to troll people who understand it, and don't feel compelled to deny it because they are babies who still believe in magical fairy tales, just like you are. Why didn't you ever grow up? Do you suffer a cognitive developmental disorder?
@@lorann-ut5cq Who is "we", you and your 40 dishonest trolling accounts? You don't know what evidence is, and you have none, I use ONE account. Please learn to tell people apart. Your butchered English makes you look retarded.
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
@Un-ProsTitutePants-UPExactly racso
"sad new heights" 😭💀
- Touch Grass
You forgot "-Go fishing"
I really enjoyed the video, I learned a lot and l liked how you showed the real bones.
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.
What do you mean by that?
everybody is saying +(insert name here)
AndyLora I guess
What face?
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.*
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
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
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.
dfr *The d-mbest and the most evil troll you could encounter is the 66 year old b-allet dancer A-n-d-rew Eldridge aka "flandiddlyandersFRS"/"docreasonable"/"ergonomover" who insisted that ostriches have no wings (see the v6de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich").*
Spoiler alert: no posts by "ergonomover" appear in that putzy video. You got the wrong guy, your little "feeling" was wrong.
@@ergonomover *Except that we have plenty of public evidence that "docreasonable" is ur account.*
@@malvinebetratoxin Who is "we" - you and your 40+ dishonest trolling accounts?
You don't know what evidence is or you would've provided some. I use ONE account, sorry your "feeling" didn't pan out.
@@ergonomover *Why did u lie that in the v3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" nobody says that ostriches have no wings?*
@@ginobarila Nothing I said is in that video. It shows other accounts run by other people. You are the liar here, I use ONE account and never was a "b-allet" dancer.
Even if you were right, one error on some other video years ago does not negate what is said today. You just can't deal with it. Why are the wings of ostriches just as anatomically complex as are those of birds that _can_ fly? Try to use your brain and answer the question.
Whales evolved from land animals which evolved from sea animals 😊
Mammals evolved from land reptiles.
Back in the pool everybody!
@@Sak-pz5bp *In the pool of nonsense.*
@gdanskbedankst Pool of urine in Ur case.
@gdanskbedankst To clarify, are you suggesting the evolutionary fact that whales are mammals and used to be land creatures as nonsense? If so, please show your evidence.
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 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.
@@michaelgray9059 Yes indeed, Charles Darwin did write "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Thank you for that quote mine. Darwin's teaching method was to propose possible objections to his theory, and then answer them. Creationists love to use what he wrote as possible objections to claim Darwin doubted his own theory. Invariably and dishonestly, they fail to include his answer, which was to the effect that he could find no such instance.
Michael Behe in his book "Darwin's Black Box" argued for "intelligent design" and "Irreducible Complexity". Arguments for both were shot down in the Federal Court trial Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which Behe's ideas were shot down and "intelligent design" was ruled "religion, not science". Behe's own Lehigh University has taken the unusual step of posting an official rejection of Behe's ideas.
Since that time, no one has proposed ANY complex organ that could not be explained by incremental evolutionary steps. Behe himself is strangely silent on the subject.
Please be more honest when quoting someone. It is the parts you omit that betray your motive.
*Internet-the place where people come to l-augh at the c-r1c-ture A-n-drew Eldridge "ergonomover".*
*For Aronra's disciples, just follow the arrows: living cell -> information -> instructions ->abstractions-> genetic code ->intelligent mechanisms for writing, copying, reading and processing intelligent instructions -> INTELLIGENT CREATOR.*
@ruach-m2b So your god can do all of that programming but he CAN'T program his creations to evolve??? WHY NOT, what's stopping him??
@@DocReasonable *Do u remember when u insisted that 0striches have no wings?* 😅😅😅😅😅😅
For Hovind's disciples, just follow the trail of drool.
@@user-ei6ob4zw5l Seems like only U remember that Oscar, and U have never stopped crapping on about it for even 5 minutes.
@@user-ei6ob4zw5l
Do you remember when you said:
_"In vain, Susie, we have your words that tell anything about you, you have claims"_
🤭
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?
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
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.
@@ergonomover _Do you know the difference between a set and a species?_
*First u need to learn the difference between a set and a subset, r-t-rrd.*
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…😉
*Evolution through RANDOM mutations and natural selection - that is the myth-theory of evolution about. All these years in which the poor rtrd Eldridge "ergonomover" preached it as sure fact, but didn't manage to understand it. Damn, this boy is....*
And yet, it still remains...a THEORY! And it will remain a THEORY forever!
"Theory" means "written explanation" dope. For example, we have colour theory, germ theory, game theory, evolution theory, music theory, driving theory, etc. Go to school, these are some of the things you would learn.
Your church lied to you about Hypothesis = theory
@@ramunasstulga8264 *Aronra's cult lied to u that a theory is not a theory.*
@@Lorabundy-vi5uw You are so cute when you are feeling sorry for yourself. ;-)
So you admit that evolution is a valid explanation supported by evidence.
*Some adults have the superstition that information gets randomly evolved.* 😅😅😅
*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
So I can see you are using 33 sock-puppet accounts.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *My accounts r just fine. What about urs? They carry imaginary dialogs to one another and they praise each other.....* 😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *My accounts r just fine, ostricher. What about urs, which carry imaginary dialogs among them and praise each other?*
*You shouldn't be surprised that the poor evolutionist A. Eldridge didn't know that the theory of evolution is about RANDOM mutations. Remember he insisted that ostriches have no wings.*
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.nietoperekrna is "simple"?😂😂😂😂😂😂👽
idf *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_ 😅😅😅😅😅
I see that changing account didn't give you the courage to actually read the article and notice it actually made evolution stronger. I mean it's logical, you're enough of a coward to have multiple accounts so already you're not helping yourself Larsen.
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien*Oh, really! Show us ur courage and tell us: what does my quote say?*
@UCDOliXkJwraftyfn3UaGFWQ That evolution can be generalized to non-random mutations thus making it an even more powerful. Besides to debunk evolution you would have to prove that non-random mutations can't arise through evolution but you won't do that because as I said you're a coward who doesn't research a thing.
See what I did there Larsen? It's called "doing science".
@@malvinebetratoxin
The article does not disprove the theory of evolution; instead, it refines our understanding of one of its mechanisms-genetic mutations. Here's a breakdown of why this study does not invalidate evolution, along with its implications:
1. Randomness and Evolutionary Theory
Traditional evolutionary theory posits that mutations are random with respect to an organism's needs, providing raw material for natural selection to act upon.
The study finds that mutations are not entirely random, especially in essential genes, which are protected from mutations to reduce harmful effects.
However, evolution is not dependent on pure randomness. The central tenets of evolution-variation, heredity, and differential survival based on advantageous traits-still apply.
2. Clarification vs. Contradiction
The non-random nature of mutations in essential genes does not contradict the theory of evolution but highlights a layer of biological complexity.
Natural selection still operates on mutations, whether random or patterned. The study’s findings suggest that DNA repair mechanisms have evolved to shield critical genes, which aligns with evolutionary principles: organisms with better protection for vital genes would have higher survival and reproduction rates, spreading those mechanisms.
3. Evolutionary Flexibility
Mutations in less-critical regions of the genome remain random, preserving the genetic variability needed for adaptation and evolution.
The protective mechanisms described in the study are themselves a product of evolution, arising to optimize survival and reproduction.
4. Potential Implications
The findings deepen our understanding of genetic processes and could lead to medical advances, such as improving DNA repair mechanisms to prevent diseases like cancer.
t challenges a simplistic view of mutation but does not undermine the vast body of evidence supporting evolution, such as fossil records, observed speciation events, and comparative genomics.
@@malvinebetratoxin People like you make me sick🤮🤮
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
*In the 21st century are there people who still believe that natural processes can create information, codes, feelings and awareness?*
No need to _"believe"_ it.
The mountains of evidence clearly demonstrate it.
@@user-ei6ob4zw5l
DNA alone obliterates your claims.
@user-ei6ob4zw5l
No. DNA is 100% proof of common ancestry.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *It just proves u inherited the genes of ur "smart" mother, Eldridge. But u have to prove that nature can make info and codes*
@@gdanskbedankst
You obviously have no idea what the word "information" actually means.
You are committing a reification logical fallacy.
*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...* 😂😂😂😂
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.
@@DavidFarrington13 id like to see that if you don't mind. Sounds like an interesting read! Thanks in advance!
kaw *RIP Aronra's cult. From Dawkins:* _if you look at the details of biochemistry you might find the signature of some sort of designer_
So you believe in smart aliens Larsen? Which ones? Go on select a planet out there. Is your Cult centered around little martians?
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien*For the moment I only met d-mb ones e.g u.*
@@malvinebetratoxin If you want to stop meeting dumb creatures then getting rid of your mirrors will help massively!
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien *kji *After you told us that 0-striches have no wings, did you claim from Guinness your prize for the most rtrdd tr0ll of this planet?* 😅😅😅😅
@gdanskbedankst Can't compete with a delusionnal liar, you are winning by default.
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!_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
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.
sub *As a matter of fact DNA, math, the laws of physics and all the greatest scientists of this planet point to an intelligent creator.*
U told us that cyanobacteria is NOT bacteria, because it disproves your ret@rded claims .... ur a dead-set fqn wnkr.
hgt *Too much comedy here: the evolutionist (a 66 year old b-allet dancer in real life ) A. Eldridge aka "flandidlyandersFRS/"docreasonable"/"ergonomover" cries all around that mutations are not random, this way destroying the theory of evolution through random mutations.*
_"Too much comedy here"_
Yeah, you. 🤭
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *No, it's u, b-less crcture.*
de3 *Absolutely beautiful one from Dawkins, he has my respect for it:* _A serious case could be made for a deistic God._
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*
What about octopus or squid? They don't have hand, wrist or finger bones! Why not picking another 'fish animal' other than whales?
Why based the whole theory that ALL the animals developed from the same ancestor by just comparing animals that best suits your narrative? This is not a theory, this is a hypothesis..
Your name is exceptionally appropriate.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS why?
Either the explanation is too specific or too general, some people are never happy. What about the evolution of the octopus over 330 million years? You need vestigial shell evidence of the relation to the nautilus? You did nothing to refute the evidence presented here, so evolution theory stands.
@@dim7918 - The ancestral lineage of whales was used here for two primary reasons. First: by examining the genomes of two extant species, it was determined that whales and hippos shared a common ancestor. Second: the fossil record demonstrated the progression of morphological change which supported this conclusion.
In the case of Cephalopods such as octopus and squid, the fossil record is not nearly as complete due to their physical structure not being well suited for fossilization.
What we do know about these animals is that they diverged from mollusk-like slugs and snails and have elaborate nervous systems which can perform a surprisingly diverse group of behaviors. It is simply easier (and subsequently more convincing) to illustrate the existing fossil discoveries of the whale lineage than it is to chart the progression of increasingly complex physiology and behaviors of Cephalopods.
Still, it has been done and you can easily view this progression by simply searching the words "the evolution of cephalopods" in Google.
@@gcmgome well you just prove my point.. there is selection bias in the evidence that the theory is based on. You cant just pick animals that it's 'easy' and more 'suited' to your narrative to make it more 'convincing' as you say.. it is either all animals or none! This is what the theory suggests in the first place. And I have done my research about a lot of animals including the Cephalopods.. still evidence is inconclusive with the gaps being filled with narrative rather than evidence.. and narratives with no evidence is called faith!
Please don’t get me wrong: evolution is a scientific fact. There’s no point arguing that. We see evidence of it all around us. But often when evolution is discussed, a small detail is overlooked: a distinction between micro- and macro- evolution. Think about it..
You look at you and then you start to think that what you see is the result of natural, random processes. Man, how can you be so gullible?
Natural processes aren't random, dunce.
Natural processes aren't random, Dr. Deception..
@@DocReasonable*Oh, that means that evolution through random mutations is magical. Got it!* 😅😅😅
@@malvinebetratoxin Oscar Larsen, back again for more of the same.... what a boring no-hoper he is.
Thats such a stupid way of thinking smh
fhy *Let me share the good news: 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_ 😂😂😂😂
I'm interested in learning from you. Name all of your other sock puppets - I want to be thorough.
@@maylingng4107 *Why r u using this impersonating, girlish tr0lling account, Eldridge? Where did u take this pic from?*
@user-ei6ob4zw5l
Piss off, Oscar!
@user-ei6ob4zw5l
Piss off, Oscar!
@@numbersix9477 *I like the way u project. Ur activity here is acaptured in the wonderful v3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich", Eldridge.*
These similarities do not conclude that evolution is real. By the way, there are no complete skeletons of prehistoric creautures. They only find fragments and fill in the blank with imagination and pure speculation.
We do not talk about mere similarities you could have the human opinion freedom to handwave away the observations. We talk about exact organ and bodytissue repurposement readable in the DNA as readable heridity record. Like hoof feet and astragalus ankle bone info to be repurposed for whale flippers in contrast of the birdwing to flipper adaptations like in penguins and also in aukbirds. You come to this video with the wacky idea you can just declare by your willpower stuff away, while no one informed you that there is no free willpower for all humans in existence to make facts disappear. We also have complete skeletons. You are hopelessly misinformed and most likely you wish conspiracy talk would be legit. Conspiracy greeders are happy that they would have their tummyfeelings and sense in life emotions somewhat bubbled in a safe space. Unfortunately such as safespace is a delusion.
You are hopelessly misinformed.
This is simply nonsense: *"...there are no complete skeletons of prehistoric creautures."* Why would anyone say something that is so easily refuted? I've been to a natural history museum and seen numerous complete fossilized skeletal remains of prehistoric creatures with my own eyes.
You can easily do so as well. There are numerous locations across North America where complete fossilized remains of prehistoric creatures are being displayed. Stop lying.
@RobertDress-dq9pc You've been lied to by creationist charlatans. Try thinking for yourself, you'll be much better off.
@@Mustardissimo Thanks for providing an example of how insane and rtrd'd creationists are.
😂
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
@@randomcommenter3202 Imagine deluding yourself into dedicating your entire life to an ancient fairytale from the middle east, couldn't be me
*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...
*The theory of evolution through random mutations and natural selection was destroyed by the evolutionist A. Eldridge aka "docreasonable", I quote him:* _DNA mutations are not random_
*DNA mutations are not random*
“At first glance, what we found seemed to contradict the established theory that initial mutations are entirely random and that only natural selection determines which mutations are observed in organisms,” said Detlef Weigel, PhD, scientific director at Max Planck Institute.
“It means we can predict which genes are more likely to mutate than others and it gives us a good idea of what’s going on,” Weigel said.
Copyright © 2024 Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News.
@@DocReasonable"predict which genes are more likely".... I wouldn't want to fly to the moon based on this kind of science...."more likely"
*Quoting the evolutionist A. Eldridge aka "flandiddlyandersFRS":* _0striches do not have wings_
Oscar, your stupidity and dishonesty is showing.
@@Lorabundy-vi5uw I am not confused Oscar, you are a liar.
@@walkergarya hju *U r c0nfused, Eldridge, there is no Oscar here.*
@@Lorabundy-vi5uw Don't lie to me Oscar, we know who you are.
@@walkergarya ght *U r c0nfused, 66 year old trr0l A. Eldridge, there is no Oscar here.*
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
@Theguywhowandersim pretty sure they are bots, yeah
for *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_ 😂😂😂😂
No creatard, you are lying again, as expected.
@gdanskbedankst Crawl back under your rock creatard, you are not worth my time.
@@walkergarya huh *I have a question, Eldridge, if u think u r so smart how come u r so s-tp1d? I mean, u insisted that ostriches have no wings, as the v3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" shows....*
@gdanskbedankst Crawl back under your rock creatard, you are not worth my time.
@gdanskbedankst Enough of Ur garbled drivel, creatard.
*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...*
drf *I really do love math. Because it shows that the probability of producing the genome by chance in the most simple organism is 0 followed by millions of zeroes after the decimal comma.*
I've already debunked you here. Too bad. You need to go have a cry now.
@@gardenflower-k3n
Oh I've debunked your math claims, that's why you deleted your comment to hide your shame. I've not only debunked you, I've now proven you lie to support your claims. If you want to refute me, then produce the math showing your claim, and show that it isn't a calculation of a permutation, and is actually a probability calculated for an observed event which has been tested multiple times and has a large sample size to ensure accuracy. Go ahead, show us how clever you think you are.
@@TheHairyHeathen juj *U can't debunk anything, rr-ttrdd troll, remember ur math is "250 - 237 means an increase of 23".*
@@gardenflower-k3n Are socks on sale at your local reject shop, Oscar??
@@DocReasonable *Changing ur trolling account didn't make u less r-trdd, Eldridge.*
*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...
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?
*Dawkins on the reality of the intelligent design:* _if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer._ *But let's not deviate from the main topic, the fact that I caught the evolutionist spammer A. Eldridge once again in his l-ies:*
*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...* 😂😂😂😂
In reality, Dr Dawkins' quote was made under false pretences and was about aliens produced by a Darwinian process. We looked, there is no such signature. You really should try to provide context for your quotes if your great intellect is big enough.
"Now watch" I gather trying to tell people what to do is not working for you, hence all the cyber-begging. I don't lie, you do, since I never was a "b-allet" dancer. How many times will you lie about it today?
*Symmetry in the living organisms destroys the evolution through random mutations. Randomness and natural processes in general cannot create symmetry at macro level. Give me an example of a natural square.*
Nature is not random, d00shbagge.
@@ruach-m2b Einstein affirmed that what appeared to be randomness was in reality human ignorance of hidden variables. I know that's gone way over Ur rancid head
@@ruach-m2b “Nothing in Nature is random. … A thing appears random only through the incompleteness of our knowledge.”
This quote, stated by the eminent Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, proves to be a universal truth.
@@DocReasonable *If u claim than nature is not random, then the theory of natural evolution through random mutations was always a myth, r-tttttr-d.*
@@ruach-m2b I knew the words of Einstein would be too hard for U, shtbucket Einstein affirmed that what appeared to be randomness was in reality human ignorance of hidden variables. U FUMB DUCK!!!
*Random, natural processes have never made a square, but we should believe they made humans....* 😅
Ever Seen a crystal,moron?
@@Wetrustinknowledge
Agreed.
Good one. 👍
Hey stupid, you’ve already been told countless times that there is nothing random about evolution.
"have never made a square" Hey Larsen we had the exact topic half of a year ago when you did run from cubic crystal formations with various minerals - pyrite (foolsgold) was there a major example. But you also denied DNA to be real, while you can extract DNA in your own kitchen with kitchenware. I even gave the list of utensils back the day. But we know that you do not care about observations. Like you do not care that functionality is not another term for "design". This is why you do not get the birdwing info vestigialization from flight to flightlessness (you confuse with winglessness) in birds and run away from the specific bird evolution evidence with kiwibirds etc. Or where you did not care about that we are long beyond "mere similarities" in comparison but exact info knowledge you do not care about either, because you do want to run away from the very existence of the sugarbackbone acids. You did fall into so many trapholes you did dig yourself in. And then you just repeat botlike always the same.
@@Angelmou *U mean that discussion in which u didn't manage to give me a set of 2 symmetrical crystals? Well, I also remember that u insisted that ostriches have no wings. R u still monkeying with science? Cause so far u only made people laugh.*
asd *The evolutionist Eldridge aka "docreasonable" was just screaming:* _Natural processes are NOT random._
*Wow, but he was convinced that the theory of evolution through random mutations is real and natural!*
I told U YEARS ago that mutations are not random... U are simply not capable of processing information 🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
@@DocReasonable *Sorry, but the theory of evolution is about random mutations and natural selection, rtrd.*
Aww diddums, were you not smart enough to understand that *_selection,_* a non-random process, determines which mutations thrive or fail within a population's gene pool?
@@TheHairyHeathen *As I already told ur tr0lling account "docreasonable", the theory of evolution is about random mutations and natural selection, rtrd.*
*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!_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
frv *The v3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" shows an evolutionist who is convinced that 0striches do not have wings* 😅😅😅😅
More lies from the creatard troll Oscar.
@gdanskbedankst You are lying again creatard, exactly what I expect from you.
@@walkergarya *After u insisted that ostriches have no wings, did u get the Guinness Prize for the most rtrdd tr0ll of the world?*
@@Lorabundy-vi5uw
Nothing you say is true.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *After u insisted that ostriches have no wings, did u get the Guinness Prize for the most rtrdd tr0ll of the world?*
*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.*
RuBisCO is also a good example of un-intelligent design. It is so incredibly inefficient but it is still the most abundant enzyme on the planet.
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!_ 😂😂😂😂 😂😂😂😂
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.
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
This doesn't address the question of how different species arise. In short, it's useless.
Holy Shit, Roger, are you really that cognitively impaired that you cannot open a book? Try doing a Google search on the internet. That will give you many sources for the information you seek. The short answer is: the DNA molecule that is both heritable and mutable. It exists in every living organism and is passed from parent to offspring. Every offspring will inherit DNA from its parents and will most resemble those parents but will differ somewhat genetically due to copy errors (mutations) that always occur during cell division and replication (mitosis and meiosis). Those mutations, should this organism live long enough to reproduce, will be passed to that organism's future offspring. That will occur generation after generation with each successful generation passing its variant genes to the population gene pool and future generations. Incremental alterations to DNA will ultimately manifest in incremental changes to physiology. At some point, those accumulated changes may produce a population sufficiently different from ancestral populations to be regarded BY HUMANS as a new species. It is humans who name species based on physical characteristics and DNA. Nature does not provide name tags.
@@RandallWilks so humans gained their ability for advanced speaking, reading and writing (which no other animal can, including apes) due to copy errors?? Sounds very logical!
@@banjo7899 Aren't you forgetting the part about how non-random natural selection puts order to the copy errors, the beneficial ones get passed on at reproduction? I'm pretty sure you know about it already, but you have memory lapses?
@@ergonomover Your assumption that Banjo has any knowledge is without merit. Nothing rattling around in his skull could be called logical. As an advanced primate brain, the human brain has the ability to think and create means of communication. That is a skill banjo never acquired.
@@ergonomover so you’re actually confirming that humans have the ability to speak because of copy errors? But it was controlled copy errors??
So I guess humans also play music because of copy errors…?? Very logical…
*"V3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" shows an evolutionist convinced that ostriches have no wings* 😅😅😅😅😅
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *Are you sure it doesn't show that u r in that situation?* 😅😅😅😅
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *V3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" shows that u shouldn't rely on ur judgement.*
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS dfr *V3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" shows that u shouldn't rely on ur judgment.*
@@gardenflower-k3n
Your creepy video only shows that you are a sociopathic cyberstalker.
*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
BULLSHIT
Are you crying? You sound like a child who's just been told that Santa is not real.
*Indeed. But good enough for gullible rtrds like this "theairyheathen" who in reality is a b-allet dancer who insisted that 0striches have no wings.*
Little baby crying because someone hurt his beliefs? There there, I will change your diaper signed by Jesus from Walmart and give you holy water.
You sound like a baby, grow up you shet
@@crickcrickianspcshp
It's very naughty to tell lies. Go sit in the corner, you are on a time-out.
pseudoscience
Nevermind that for this to be so the entire global scientific community would have to be wrong about evolution.
@@gcmgome so science has become democracy now ?
@@webdiver-1 - That's a clueless reply but what can we expect from someone who thinks that millions of scientists are wrong ...but only about evolution?
@@webdiver-1 Don't be ridiculous. Science is not up for a vote. SCIENCE IS A SEARCH FOR TRUTH and that search NEVER ENDS. It proceeds from evidence to a conclusion which is initially PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). [A hypothesis is a prediction of what MIGHT happen, based on available EVIDENCE.] It is incumbent on scientists to make every effort to DISPROVE hypotheses and do so as quickly as possible so that time and other resources are better allocated to more promising areas of research.
As additional evidence accumulates in support of a hypothesis, so does the certainty that it is correct. When all evidence supports a conclusion and none refutes it, it can become a Scientific Theory, which is the highest degree of certainty possible in science. That applies to Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Heliocentric Theory, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Gravity, Theories of Relativity, ALL such theories. If evidence is ever uncovered that is inconsistent with that explanation (theory), then the theory must be discarded or revised. A theory is never altered to suit one's beliefs or preferred outcome. What anyone thinks, feels or believes means jack to science. It wouldn't matter if someone's name was Albert Einstein, Stephan Hawking or Joe Somebody, if they don't have evidence, they've got nothing. Creationists make assertions that lack corroborating evidence. They cannot be distinguished from lies and are dismissed as such.
@@RandallWilks *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_ 😂😂😂😂
*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?
*There are adults believing that information gets randomly evolved.* 😅😅😅
There are liars who deliberately misrepresent evolution as being random. Why do you think people feel the need to lie about this?
Yeah ... this is a philosophy course... not science.
@@TheStarflight41
Were you a participant in Messrs Dunning and Kruger's initial study?
Obviously you know even less about philosophy than you do about science.
@@TheStarflight41Stop talking to yourself
@@happilysecular1833 *This is a hobby only r-trds like u practice.*
*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.*
More creationist lies and distortions. That is NOT what Dawkins said and you know it. One only has to read what he had said and written throughout his career to see how dishonest YOU are.
No😂
Of course! Prometheus and Ephimetheus! The creators of humanity in greek religion!
Really really dumb.
It was designed by a being i have never seen, and since It was designed the designer never design anymore.
You can believe the myth of evolution, but that won't make it true.
Evolution is a verified fact, stop crying.
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!*
@@DocReasonable*U have a strange understanding of this word "fact", but no wonder u told us that 00 striches have no wings.* 😅😅😅😅😅
Oscar Larsen, back again for more of the same.... what a boring no-hoper he is. At least he was self-aware enough to put the word 'toxin' in his name this time.
@@malvinebetratoxin man you halfhuman inbreds have got lesser IQ than our common ancestor. stop reproducing man.
While evolution is often presented as a fact supported by multiple lines of evidence, it’s important to question the assumptions behind these claims. One key argument for evolution is the similarity between species, such as shared DNA or structural features, which is interpreted as evidence of common ancestry. However, similarity does not necessarily prove a relationship. For example, human-designed systems like cars or computers also share similarities, but that’s due to a common designer using efficient patterns-not random chance or gradual change over time.
Another point to consider is the concept of irreducible complexity. Many biological systems-like the bacterial flagellum-require all their parts to function. If even one part were missing, the entire system would fail. This challenges the idea of gradual evolutionary development, as these systems couldn’t work in an incomplete form. Instead, their complexity points to intentional design.
Lastly, interpreting fossils or genetic data requires a starting worldview. If one assumes evolution is true, the data will naturally seem to confirm it. But when viewed through a design perspective, the same evidence can point to a Creator who used consistent patterns and principles. Similarity doesn’t have to mean descent-it can just as easily mean design.
It never fails, creationists always compare mechanical objects, which have to be designed (cars, etc.) to the fake claim of a supernatural (god) designer. Then it gets worse, when challenged to list a single piece of evidence for a design or a designer.
Irreducible complexity (IR) has been destroyed as a claim with no evidence. IR is the invention of creationist Michael Behe, who was placed on the witness stand in a trial about teaching of Intelligent Design where he was totally embarrassed, and his arguments shredded. Behe is an advocate of the lie of Intelligent Design and the member of the anti-science cult, the Discovery Institute.
Evolution is not an "if true", it is a FACT. It was observed in nature and duplicated in the laboratory in 3 different experiments to date. I was a member of the MSU project team, where after 30,000 generations we (project team of several PhD biologists) witnessed the emergence of a brand new species.
@discovery_uncharted
So you think all cars were designed and built by the same person?? FROM NOTHING, like animals in the Bible? And yes, even the inventor of the irreducible complexity fallacy (Michael Behe) has since disclaimed it AND he accepts the fact of evolution via common descent. And no one ASSUMES evolution is true; we examine the science and we CONCLUDE that it's factual.
Another banjo sock-puppet account. 🙄😂
We do neither talk about manufactured objects puzzled together from dislocated pieces such as cars without the designed objects being born by any "mothercars", nor do we talk about superficial similarities open for any wide range of menmade interpretations. We talk about EXACT info shifts over time like wolf face info to dog face variation or wolf ear to many dog ears variations. So are creationists completely incapable to address the wolf face to aerodynamic shape sighthound dog head or boxy st. bernhard dog head info by their specific names, as they are incapable to address the ape face info to human face variation, either. Or why humans have furcoat genes readable in malfunction or why dolphins have whisker genes and scent smelling genes not expressed with minor exceptions when they regrow whiskers.
There is not only 1 flagellum but dozens of different variation of the previous input output F0 system - we also have further reuse of the info over generations like copying the flagellum info 100x around the hull to have not a locomotion system but a defense system to be too big and wiggly to swallow by predation.
Nothing there points to any conspiratorial idea of a creator. The idea is just silly for many different reasons.
Another load of crap from creationist fools. You repeat long refuted creationist nonsense. You have no good evidence for your lies. The assertion of "god did it" has no value. There is NO evidence for you fairy tale of a designer.
New study of the origin of the genetic code reveals that shorter amino acids are older than more complicated ones and it suggests that the modern genetic code in all lifeforms present is a more sophisticated version than the precursor one with different amino acid pairings which died out:
Order of amino acid recruitment into the genetic code resolved by last universal common ancestor’s protein domains Sawsan Wehbi, Andrew Wheeler, Benoit Morel, and Joanna Masel December 12, 2024
It suggest that modern Trypthohan or Phenylalanine were sparse in early life, a previous template used Norvaline and Norleucine not in use in the code of life anymore.
Excellent 🤝
@@PoorCreationists*Carrying imaginary dialogs to ur own trolling accounts is not a sign of sanity, 66 year old troll. Are u still monkeying with science?*
@@Lorabundy-vi5uw
Stop doing that then.
@user-ei6ob4zw5l
You (intentionally) mix different people, 97 year old failed latrine attendant larsen.
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.
*When "ergonomover" insisted that ostriches have no wings (see the v3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich") we had the confirmation that he is an evolutionist.*
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *No, my v3de0s show that u r 1-nsane and r-trdd.*
@@gardenflower-k3n
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *No, my v3de0s show that u r 1-nsane and r-trdd, 66 year old tr-oll*
@@starfish-f3t
Your creepy video only shows that you are a sociopathic cyberstalker.
Actual quote from Albert Einstein: "The fanatical atheists are like slaves *who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle."* - Albert Einstein. Einstein was indeed an Atheist in every sense of the word. He just wasn't fanatical about it.
I’m genuinely trying to understand. You found bones in whales that “appear” to be leg bones. They could be any other kind of bone, such as pelvic for instance. How do cases where a creature shares similarities indicate the evolution of an entire new species and Genetic makeup? From my understanding, animals can adapt to their environment (micro-evolution) but they can’t create new genetic makeup entirely (macro-evolution). I’m looking for evidence of Evolution, but as it stands this isn’t conclusive in any way. Am I missing something?
Whales DO have pelvic bones. They also have actual vestigial leg bones, femur and tibia.Yes, your masters say you're allowed to believe in microevolution but not macroevolution. It's like you people all have one brain between you.
I doubt you are _"genuinely trying to understand"_
Accepting micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is like accepting meters but not kilometers... It doesn't make sense in anyway.
*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; a pair of hip bones each consisting of the fused bones, ilium, ishium and pubis to which various muscles are attached. In the lower spinal column, there are 5 vertebrae, the sacral vertebrae, numbered S1-S5. In most mammals, those vertebrae fuse during embryological development to form a solid triangular bone, the sacrum, which 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 fused vertebrae of the sacrum separated into individual vertebrae, reducing the point of pelvic fusion to just one single sacral vertebrae. While spinal flexibility was improved, it reduced support for hind limbs while on land. Rhodocetus would have been ungainly on land, perhaps like today's Sea Lions or Elephant Seals. Like those semi-aquatic mammals, Rhodocetus likely came ashore to breed and give birth.
The next step in whale evolution was the complete separation of the pelvis from the spinal column as seen in the basilosauroides (Basilosaurus and Dorodon).
That gave them spinal flexibility for a more powerful tail, but no support for hind limbs which were now almost useless but perhaps used in mating. At that point they would have been fully aquatic.
Basilosaurus and Dorodon hind limbs were fully articulated with pelvis, femur, tibia, fibula, metacarpals, and phalanges. Those are all normal parts of a quadrupedal hind leg. That pelvis, however, was no longer fused to the spinal column. 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 have evolved a prehensile penis. Something that could be termed a "mobile dick". ;-)
Today's whales retain a remnant femur that forms an articulated ball and socket joint to the remnant pelvis. The Northern Right Whale retains not only those bones but an articulated tibia as well.
Genes for 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 malfunction, 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, a feature we share with other apes.
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 sireneans 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.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS I'm sharing where I find discrepancy in the reasoning in hopes to find an answer, because so far I haven't. How is that not trying to understand?
Dissing the modern synthesis by bringing up how little Charles Darwin knew about biology and genetics is as silly and as non-productive as criticizing today's auto designs by emphasizing how little Carl Benz knew about aerodynamics and internal combustion engine designs.
*The truth is that DNA destroys the racist fairytale of Darwin.*
@gdanskbedankst=🤡
*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
*Sorry, DNA is the undeniable evidence of an intelligent creator and destroys Aronra' cult.*
Yes, you should be sorry for your lie Larsen. Unless you claim that making something prone to mistakes and with many useless parts is the work of intelligent.
@gdanskbedankst For the second time you should indeed be sorry for how pathetic you are.
-Still not Mr.Eldridge
-No creationnists were ever observed defining information in biology, because you can't and you know it.
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien *Sorry, b-allet dancer Eldridge, nature creating information and codes was not yet observed in the wild. Same as the ostriches without wings you insisted on.*
@gdanskbedankst Case in point, you reiterate your failures.
P.S : You compliment my agility, because I am nowhere near the level of professional dancer. Being more interested in Muay Thai, rugby and physics have their downsides.
@gdanskbedankst Oscar, we have observed exactly this, new mutations developing new beneficial traits that are passed on. You are again lying, as expected. Pathetic.
If you're interested in the topic of evolutionary biology, read:
_"Why Evolution is True"_
by Jerry A. Coyne
*I am not interested, 66 year old troll. So far u told us that ostriches have no wings. This must be the evolutionary biology u r talking about.*
fju *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_ 😂😂😂😂
Creatard lies do not refute evidence based science.
@@walkergarya *I have a question, b-allet dancer A. Eldridge: if u think u r smart and the creationist Newton was s-tp1d, how come Newton was so smart and u r the opposite?*
@@Lorabundy-vi5uw I have no need to waste time answering questions from creationist trolls.
Thanks for telling us you have 22 sock accounts
If evolution is false, why do humans and chimps share over 200 ERV markers in the same locations in both genomes? Why do antibiotics need to kept up to date with micro organisms if they don’t evolve? How do you explain ring species? Where can I find a single example of a non-transitional fossil? Why does DNA show that some species are more distantly related than others? Why have there been three new variations of American Goatsbeard flowers if macro evolution doesn’t happen?
@@Lorabundy-vi5uw What happened to you? Hard drugs? Drinking petroleum? Sh0t in the head? A lobotomy gone wrong? All of the above?
*I would like to quote the b-aaalet dancer A. Eldridge aka "flandiddlyandersFRS"/"randallwilks"/"ergonomover"/"docreasonable":*
_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._
Perhaps U could gain useful employment as an exhibit in a freak show? Worth considering.
_"If somewhere in The Bible I found a passage saying 2 + 2 = 5 - I wouldn't question what I am reading. I would believe it."_
- Pastor Peter LaRuffa
🤭
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS denial is a river in egypt
So-called god was unable to defeat anyone riding an iron chariot: “And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." - Judges 1:19
I am an Atheist. I do not believe in the existence of God. There is no testable evidence to support the belief in any gods or supernatural entities. I rely on science, reason, logic, and empirical evidence to form my worldview and have not found compelling evidence or arguments to support the existence of God. The universe is governed by natural laws and forces, rather than moral, spiritual, or supernatural ones. As an atheist, I reject religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making. I emphasize the social and empirical nature of inquiry and prioritize scientific solutions to intellectual problems. There is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between faith and science, and that it inevitably leads to hostility. I am engaged in a continually evolving search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy.
_I rely on science, reason, logic, and empirical evidence_
*You are the empirical evidence of your creator. You and many other quadrillions of created living beings. As Newton once said,* _In want of other proofs, the thumb would convince me of the existence of a God._
@@starfish-f3t Larsen wrote: " _You are the empirical evidence of your creator._ " Humans are born by their parents. They are not like clocks created by someone fiddling parts together of any maker.
"You and many other quadrillions of created living beings." Lifeforms are not created, they are born by their parents (or mitosis results of the former parental cells).
"As Newton once said, In want of other proofs, the thumb would convince me of the existence of a God."
Opposable thumbs are finger adaptations in primates from the former mammalian paws with claw to nail flattening mutations - something Newton lacked education of in his time period.
This post is for the general information.
@@starfish-f3t
Like all science denying creationist theists. you don't present any actual objectively verifiable, positive empirical evidence in support of your claims. Instead you make baseless assertions such as _"You are the empirical evidence of your creator"_ which take a huge non-sequitur from you having existence, to that existence being the result of a magical conjuring spell performed by an undetectable cosmic wizard. This also relies on a logical fallacy _begging the question,_ assuming your conclusion (a creator) in your premise. Then you try to back this up with often out of context quotations, as if they are actually evidence, and not just opinions.
@@starfish-f3tWow, I’m glad nobody’s using “evidence” that pathetic to prove evolution. And Newton never said that.
If you're curious about what's happening in this comment section, read:
_"Creationism's Trojan Horse The Wedge of Intelligent Design"_
by Barbara Forest & Paul A. Gross
*Very beautiful one from Einstein:* _the f-anatical a-theists are like s-laves_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@lorann-ut5cq
_"Atheists are like slaves who have thrown off the shackles of their oppressors."_
- Albert Einstein
@@lorann-ut5cq Actual quote from Albert Einstein: "The fanatical atheists are like slaves *who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle."* - Albert Einstein. Einstein was indeed an Atheist in every sense of the word. He just wasn't fanatical about it.
Do you know what "scientific" evidence means? Definitely not!
Why didn't you get properly educated in science?
By all means share with us *what "scientific" evidence means?*
@@gcmgome *What for? A r-trd like urself who insisted that 000-striches have no wings, cannot get it, anyway.*
@@gcmgome Oh, look, there he is AGAIN. A creationist who thinks that personal attacks trump actual evidence. Notice he even has delusions as to who he is responding to.
Creationists are not Christians, they are an evil anti-science cult. They think "Nuh-uh", "Nuh-uh", "Nuh-uh", is a really powerful argument. Smh.
@@gdanskbedankst Why are U back again after being banned from this channel 18 times?
I hope they put Canada on eBay, I want to have a shot at it too.
What are you bringing to the table?
Evolutionist don't have much money 💰. So you will have to create civil unrest and start fires 🔥 everywhere in Canada in order to drastically reduce its value so that you can buy it for a dollar. 😂
*But moving away from the rudimentary intellect of a ballet dancer who insisted that ostriches have no wings, Newton just nailed it:* _In want of other proofs, the thumb would convince me of the existence of a God._
Are U having a stroke, Skibidi? I mean, another one?
sar *Absolutely a beautiful one from Newton:* _In want of other proofs, the thumb would convince me of the existence of a God._
You keep repeating yourself.
Did you forget your dementia medicine?
The human thumb is a product of evolution. It is shared by most if not all primates. We have them, Chimpanzees have them, ALL APES HAVE THEM. It seems odd that Newton did not know that. But then he was too busy writing about Alchemy and other bullshit.
*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.*
Evolution is a fairytale, nothing more.
Obviously not.
Your claim that 98% of earth's career scientists accept fairy tales as fact is interesting. Do you have evidence for that claim?
Your bloodline is inbred and unintelligent.
@@Ryan_Gosling_3 *U r projecting. By the way, I give you some news, 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 Now show the rest of the article, shthed, or at least the conclusion it reaches.
I love how you state the evidence for the scientists' claims. Instead of just trusting the scientists' claims are true simply because.
@@PoorCreationists Empirical observations that can be made and assessed consistently by a 3rd party.
@@UNLebanon - When you say *"Empirical observations that can be made and assessed consistently by a 3rd party."* You make it sound like there are two equally legitimate opposing sides that require an impartial arbiter to determine what the facts are. This is simply not the case.
The scientific method and running the gauntlet of merciless peer review provides more than adequate arbitration for any scientific discovery. Especially considering that there is only one legitimate perspective concerning evolution.
@@PoorCreationists Of course, I was complimenting this video in my original post. Did you think I was being sarcastic?
@@gcmgome That is in no way what I said. My definition of "evidence" is what is used in the scientific method; for as you pointed out, the peer review process is precisely that 3rd party assessment that takes place to ensure the validity of the observable claims.
I think you are the second person who misinterpreted my post believing me to be some kind of creationist apologist. I am not. I accept the theory of evolution as being evidently true.
@@UNLebanon - I did allow for the possibility that you were trying to make a different point by starting the second sentence in my comment with: "You make it sound like..."
But if I'm the second person who misinterpreted what you were trying to say maybe it's ....?
*Absolutely a beautiful one from Newton:* _In want of other proofs, the thumb would convince me of the existence of a God._
The human thumb is a product of evolution. It is shared by most if not all primates. We have them, Chimpanzees have them, ALL APES HAVE THEM. It seems odd that Newton did not know that. But then he was too busy writing about Alchemy and other bullshit.
*The moment you deny the obvious intelligent design is the moment when u should know that ur brain has passed away.*
Quote from an article on the fallacies of Intelligent Design.
"In contrast, intelligent design is a less comprehensive alternative to evolutionary theory. While evolution relies upon detailed, well-defined processes such as mutation and natural selection, ID offers no descriptions of the design process or the designer. In fact, proponents do not even agree among themselves as to which biological phenomena were designed and which were not. Ultimately, this “theory” amounts to nothing more than pointing to holes in evolution and responding with a one-word, unceasingly repeated mantra: “design.” But unless ID advocates fill in the details, there is no way to scientifically test intelligent design or make predictions from it for future research. In short, it is not valid science. These deceptive tactics have brought the ID movement limited success but cannot change the essential facts about intelligent design. ID offers scattered and questionable critiques of evolution as the sole evidence for “design” and promotes a vague notion which lacks the detail and scientific rigor necessary to constitute an alternative scientific theory. Furthermore, advocates push ID in an ill-conceived effort to challenge materialistic philosophy, advance faith in a narrow conception of god, and establish a politically faith based ideology in public life. Their efforts actually undermine our strongest traditions and understandings of science, faith, and honest political debate."
(Bryan Collinsworth: The Flaws in Intelligent Design)
@@walkergarya *U need to read my post once again, Eldridge.*
@gdanskbedankst I read it once, it was another stupid creatard lie like everything you post.
@gdanskbedankst I understand your post better than you do. That is why I know it is complete bullshyte.
@@walkergarya kik *U also need to understand my post, tr0ll and of course u cannot do it for the reasons mentioned in my post.*
Ho Hum, same old shit. Creationists NEVER present any evidence for the mythological creation stories that are the basis of their worldview. BECAUSE THERE IS NONE!!!! GET OVER IT PEEPS, REALITY IS A BITCH, ISN'T IT? But it beats the hell out of ignorance.
@@RandallWilks it's not about the evidence. It's about how you perceive the evidence. And choose to ignore it.
@@RandallWilks And if your reality is only that which you can see with the eye.... Then you are only perceiving around Two percent of reality. Which really makes you out to be small minded
@@AnthonySmith-777
_"Something that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from something that does not exist"_
- Matt Dillahunty
@@AnthonySmith-777
What evidence do you have?
@@PoorCreationists Good luck to you on that one. Just another atheist peddling his small world view.
You can choose to stick to your ignorance or expand your mind and find purpose.
Guys i cant understand why is the great majority of comments based on trashtalking about religious people.
I mean yes evolution is based and proven and it does not contradict the idea of having a creator, a great I am above and before everything else.
(Just for example if you think about motion and force, you have the fact that nothing can exsist without a cause
But here we are with the big bang theory and it seems like there was nothing -at least nothing that we can observe- before it) So, with the best intentions i suggest that if you have some sort of disagreement with someone on any topic, the best thing to do is just sit down and talk with them, you dont have to change their point of view or vica versa, but a genuine conversation could give both of you some interesting POWs.
Best wishes
The problem with LGBTQIIA 🏳️🌈 evolutionists is that they are not degree educated in science, they are not qualified in science, and they have become agents of evolution working for Dawkins for free.
Dawkins is using them. 😂😂😂
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....*
When creationist said that god made human & all living creature in this planet , which god are they reffering to ? Allah,jesus,visnuh ? . Because there are more than thousands of god perserve in human history
They refer to vague tummy feelings to be chosen by the concept of an invisible father figure with the exact same tastes and distastes their own (usually narcissistic) ego does have. (which ain't a coincidence) This means first comes the approach towards the world to have some emotional relationship to a surrogate parent to give the own Ego attention/recognition and strokes on the back - then to imagine you would be made in the image. The image there is also usually a very firery and brimstone throwing one - full of wrath and judgemental to "smite" or "fire" all those people which appear to be "wicked" to your very own taste/distaste. Like mentioned before.
This panopticon includes to made up places which defy the very laws of thermodynamics. This means that the invisible father figure shall perform teleportation magic to send people to a place were impossible everlasting burning processes shall work, while in the actual world (they usually refer to as designed) no everlasting flame is able to work out - not even our sun or any sun is ignited forever.
Those ideas have long rattails of denialism of what is able to be realistic.
Father figures are not just there because people stubbornly want them to be there and stomp angry to the ground and pretend very hard. Parents are mortal collections of processes. Like our own parents have heartbeat, cell metabolism and brain processes, which cease to be.
Humans have a limited lifespan and so are all parents mortal.
In fact the idea that behind everything that happens - behind thunder and lightning or the rainfall shall be a guy like a thundermaker or rainmaker as deities (anthropomorphization) goes actually deep into tribalistic uprising in families.
Humans love to see everywhere potential partners for relationships - even in inanimate forces and blind circumstances.
This goes so far that humans worship the idea of units like the concept of a uniform entity. An idea of a uniform soul made out of 1 substance alone - to such an extend that the process depending nature of reality is pushed out of sight to not to bother about it.
What is seen for example in creationism is that the concept of a creator is a self-contradiction as the creator shall be timeless (or spaceless) - the idea behind is that time and space are seen as restrictions or emotional hurtful insults towards a uniform father figure of a dense not changing substance (made up supernature).
The fun fact is that this is not how processes work AT ALL:
You need time to have chains of thoughts and space to be even there to begin with.
You can't have no space (smaller than a dot) to do anything anywhere at all.
To have an "any where" to begin with to perform alone to be sitting around, too.
Time is mandatory like for thinking processes or creation processes to roll out or how someone feels emotions like switching from being wrathful to being happy or cozy you need time to perform these switches to proceed.
Creationists also do not care about the order of history for the reason they do not care about any process overviews.
Creationism is also actually a conspiracy myth in which the order of history shall be scrambled and in which much younger in time activities such as the _to create_ & _to design_ activities shall be older than they truly are. The _To create_ and _to design_ activities both originated in much later time periods AFTER thinking organs developed a certain amount of neuronal area complexity came to be.
This is why activities like "absorbing nutrients from the surrounding water" is actually millions upon millions of years OLDER in time than the first ever performed creation activity.
Deity believers do not care about that AT ALL.
As they disconnect the process nature of reality from their emotional imprint towards relationship partners including madeup imaginary relationship partners seen behind every bush.
Angelmou , so are they creating their own religion ?
@@ChadJPT All known forms of theism do operate in such a way. It is more that many humans share the same confidence in dogmatic thinking about certain images and the same conspiracies. God is in all religious rituals also a slogan like you would envision a magic spell to "cast away" disturbing limitations of reality.
Human mortality is just 1 very common limitating factor to be "wished away" in most religions.
I recently gave a rather obscure example: People can for example hate that some materials are unable to swim through, even by world best swimmers. For example a solid cube of cold steel is not able to be a medium for the world best olympia swimmer or all dolphins to swim through. So out of basic anger emotions and hate towards the "unswimmability" as restricting factor (through the steel block) the person can shout "But God can!" - "God can surely swim through a solid block of cold steel like it would be water!" and call it a day. As the steelblock is therefore all of a sudden similar to a water pool or a river.
This also illustrates the main issue why slogans such as God do exist in the first place.
Humans hate emotional hurtful limitations "burdened" upon our shoulders by reality.
Like that humans ain't immortal, that steel blocks ain't a medium to swimm through at a summer day or that fire is not everlasting burning to torture evildoers etc.
The limits of reality are even more profound than many people are aware of.
Like that you need a hearing organ (or microphone equivalent) to detect and also process soundwaves for the process of hearing/listening to be existing.
A deity shall listen/hear prayers but...HOW... without ear organ sound processing activities in active proceedings?
Theists can never tackle and address those issues in any in depth detail talk like a process overview.
So are specific activities also not as old as some humans wish they would be.
Beside the ability to process hearing activities - another one is the already mentioned is the _to create_ activity.
@@ChadJPT It has been the practice of ignorant people everywhere to create supernatural entities to explain all the things they do not know. Gods are the embodiment of ignorance. The "God Concept" originated with Homo erectus as an explanation for thunder. Creationists still honor that tradition.
God believers, just stop doubting about evolution facts. Just stop believing in creationism if you are not able to come up with FACTS about your believe
bnv *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_ 😂😂😂😂
*Exceptionally beautiful one from Newton, with much love:* _a-theism is so s-enseless and o-dious to mankind_ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Evidence of non random mutations is not contradictory to evolution unless it was discovered that all mutations are not random. But that isn't what that article says, is it liar?@gdanskbedankst
@@thejabberwocky2819 *The theory of evolution says exactly this, that mutations are random, 66 year old troll who insisted that ostriches have no wings. How hard is it for u to get that the theory is false, 66 year old troll A. Eldridge who insisted that ostriches have no wings?*
@gdanskbedankst 'Non-random' simply means the mutations are a consequence of natural physics, not they were programmed by a Middle-Eastern tech worker in the clouds. Jesus fq, how are U SO ret@arded Skib??
*Quoting the fake, impersonating trolling account "MayLing Ng" of the same p-sych0-tic tr0ll A. Eldridge:*
_A-n-dr- ew E-l-dridge, who is a friend of mine (has been for 6 years). He is semi-retired and lives in Paris. He is an actor and a ballet dancer (in his younger days). Andrew seldom comments on YT anymore._
*Quoting Eldridge from his trolling account "ergonomover":* _I never had the job of "ballet" dancer_
You're a joke Oscar/Larsen. You cannot refute evolution, so instead just try to troll people who understand it, and don't feel compelled to deny it because they are babies who still believe in magical fairy tales, just like you are. Why didn't you ever grow up? Do you suffer a cognitive developmental disorder?
@@TheHairyHeathen _You're a joke_
*U r obviously projecting, Eldridge.* 😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
@gdanskbedankst He is not Eldridge, I use one account, you should try it sometime.
@@ergonomover *We have countless evidence that all these accounts are run by a psychotic c-rrr-t1n aka u.*
@@lorann-ut5cq Who is "we", you and your 40 dishonest trolling accounts?
You don't know what evidence is, and you have none, I use ONE account. Please learn to tell people apart.
Your butchered English makes you look retarded.
Wishing everyone a Merry Christmas or a Happy whatever you celebrate... and a Healthy New Year.