What is the Evidence for Evolution?
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 08. 2024
- Support Stated Clearly on Patreon: / statedclearly
Biologists teach that all living things on Earth are related. Is there any solid evidence to back this claim? Join us as we explore the facts! We start with a close look at the origin of whales from land mammals, and then touch on the origins of several other critters, including our own species.
If you want to learn more about whale fossils and evolution, we have articles for you to enjoy on our website!
statedclearly.c...
To learn more about whale embryos, check out the work of Dr. Hans Thewissen here: web.neomed.edu/...
For an in-depth view of whale evolution, read Dr. Hans Thewissen's new book "The Walking Whales" www.ucpress.edu...
Corrections:
Dolphin embryos shown in this animation come from spotted dolphins. Adult is a dusky dolphin.
Photo of bowhead whale pelvis comes from the Department of Wildlife Management, Barrow, Alaska
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.
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.
If you've ever seen one of those videos where members of a church congregation are writhing around on the floor speaking in tongues - you have a perfect explanation for the cognitive abilities of every creationist you encounter online.
"GiRliSh aCcOuNt"
"OsTriChEr"
"V2de0"
"AnDrEw"
Lets see, what else did he say?
Hippos are vegetarian but they ain't bringing it up in every conversation, just saying
They also are the most dangerous animal in all of Africa. So they have a great PR department...
They're vegetarian, but trust me, they wouldn't let a carcass go to waste. I've been to Africa and seen Hippo's feed on a buffalo carcass.
Sounds like they're a bunch of hippocrites. XD
Sorry, I just couldn't let this opportunity pass by...
***** I see what you did there...
What's your point?
When 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: czcams.com/video/AXQP_R-yiuw/video.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
*Absolutely beautiful and powerful one from James C. Maxwell:* _Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created._
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.
frtg *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.*
*No one has seen an egg producing other eggs and this fact alone destroys the theory of evolution.*
cells are eggs
@@charli_pg2927 *Interesting, that means ur s-kul is full of eggs. Or in the worst case it contains a small number of eggs.*
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?
Randall wilks needs to calm down dude he got like 5000 comments 😂
That's the ticket. If you can't refute what someone says, then attack them personally. Makes perfect sense.
In an effort to offset creationist propaganda, Mr. Wilks has posted factual information he backs with scientific studies, not like the empty claims of anti evolutionists. He has on several occasions invited creationists to try to refute what he writes and none have ever done so. Since they have no evidence to offer, it is much easier for them to attack him personally.
As Mr. Wilks has often said, "Truth is determined by EVIDENCE". All that creationists have ever demonstrated is that they have no evidence to support the creation story or to seriously challenge evolution. Lies, distortions and personal attacks is their style.
@@linglingzeng2857 robux
@@linglingzeng2857 I would never personally attack you even though your name sounds like a bunch of forks and spoons that dropped to the ground
@@markdunham9949 Thank you for that. You make it unnecessary for me to comment on your substandard intellect.
@@michaelgray9059 No, I did not know that, and neither do you. Neither Dr. Jeanson nor anyone else has ever provided evidence supporting creation mythology. Moreover, creationist website "Statements of Faith" automatically reject any evidence that contradicts a biblical account. There is no sense trying to communicate with those who have rejected reason.
*Absolutely beautiful one from Einstein:* _the f-anatical a-theists are like s-laves_
*Very beautiful and deep one from the great Newton, with much love:* _He must be blind who does not immediately see in the perfect and wise arrangement of beings, the infinite wisdom and goodness of the almighty Creator, and 'idiot' he who does not confess Him_
Some are asking if whale hips still have any sort of function. Yes they partially do. In normal land mammals, hip bones serve 3 main functions:
1) attaching the legs,
2) supporting internal organs
3) anchoring muscles of the sex organs.
Whales have lost the first two functions but maintain the third.
you said there are 3 but only statedv2?????
Galaxy Husky did you other to click "read more"...
Stated Clearly 😂😂😂 where did they come from and where did O2 come a rock
Galaxy Husky because it's a lie they make up stupid things and how about if what they found were dinosaurs that haven't been found orbits just Clay that a man child made
Thank you for providing the confirming evidence.
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.*
fdrr *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....*
jhyu *And look at what a guy has just told Eldridge on another v9de0:* _If BILLIONS of complex living creations don't prove a Creator, you will live and d-ie a damned f-ool_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
What video was that fake quote on?
Hahahahahaa
Evolution is a way of creation and the theory of evolution centuries before Darwin
@@lorann-ut5cqpropaganda
5ght *Absolutely a beautiful one from Newton:* _In want of other proofs, the thumb would convince me of the existence of a God._
You're obsessed. 🙄
@@Lexi2019AURORA *U rtrdd and obsessed*
Shut up bro you have no life. Like why a person would try a hundred times to disprove something in a way that is more pathetic than a sand dollar
@@doranbregovichow
This video is playing on a loop at the San Diego Natural History Museum. Well done!
@Oscar Hero Considering it was debunked over 60 years ago, and since I don't want to rewatch the video and I didn't see that part of the museum, I'm going to guess no. A quick Google search would answer your question though.
@Oscar Hero I highly doubt that. The scientific community has openly debunked it.
@Oscar Hero You seem to be deliberately trying to smear scientists and science museums to further your own anti-science agenda. The Piltdown Man was declared a hoax in 1953, yet it's only in the last few years that we've discovered how exactly Dawson produced his forgery. Any museums that display replicas of the Piltdown Man have accompanying signage which state exactly what it is: NOT legitimate science, but a forgery produced by fraudulent means. It is displayed as a warning that the story of the Piltdown Man, while historically significant for its negative impact on the scientific community and the public, is in fact false and any claims to the contrary should be disregarded.
@Oscar Hero Just because a few scientists have falsified evidence doesn't mean we should write off evolution as a whole. Try to see beyond your myopic religious beliefs and learn some real science.
@Oscar Hero Also, Lucy wasn't a hoax.
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
*Absolutely beautiful, from Pascal, with love:* _There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy._
Hahahahahahah
Maybe the last group is just smart and actually work and contribute to society and not just Abuusee children and take abuse of the poor with a sky daddy.
Ignorance is bliss!
What does this have to do with evolution? Nothing? Maybe you are on the wrong page.
@@ergonomover *The fact that u r so rtrdd disproves evolution.*
@@ergonomover*How many off-topic rtrdd comments do u post daily from ur countless t-rolling accounts, Eldridge?* 😅
*I was just begged to buy a "big thanks" for "stated clearly". L-srs have to find their way to survive....* 😂😂😂😂😂
@@Puppet-Master-1 *The evolutionists are beggars. And extremely rtrdd.*
@@Puppet-Master-1 It's good to see you buffoons getting so close. Do I hear wedding bells?
@@DocReasonable According to Larsen's "logic" they must be the same person because 1. they agree with each other and 2. they posted on the same thread within a short time.
@@ergonomover *Whenever you talk to ur own trolling accounts, u remind me that ur 1d1ocy is inhuman....*
@@doranbregovic Denying that other people than me exist on CZcams is "rtrdd", demented, insane, unreasonable, obtuse, ludicrous - I could go on.
Did anyone hear about the creationist that won a Nobel Prize for disproving evolution?..........
Yeah, neither did I.
Appearantly every creationist can disprove evolution, yet none of them had won a Nobel Prize. Hmmm 🤔
Thank you Joely for revealing your double digit IQ. We won't waste time with the likes of you.
Did anyone hear about the evolutionist who who disproved the existence of God?... Didn't think so
@@akoskormendi9711 so, nothing is disproven until someone wins the Nobel Prize? That's just about the stupidest thing I've heard. Definitely the stupidest thing I've heard today
@@SupremeOverkill No evolutionist wants to disprove God, and you can't disprove something that cannot be proven in the first place m. Disprove there is a microscopic tea pot between the orbit of Saturn and Uranus. Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy, you need to provide evidence for youd assertion first, so it can be debunked. Until then, dismissed.
universe: *waits a thousand billion years for the earth to be created*
humans: *creates the bible and states that the earth is 4000 years old*
universe: am i a joke to you?
god: *doesn't exist*
humans: *take god seriously*
god: am I not a joke to you?
No religious book says earth was created 4000 years ago, that's just stupid
Beverage Fissure 6000
Potato Baby he made a joke, people found it funny, which means it served its purpose.
What was the purpose of your comment? Seems like you didn’t think ahead of the red rage 😂
Killermemes. exe imagine being so stupid that you believe it takes intelligence to make artificial intelligence and yet you don’t believe it took intelligence to make biological intelligence even though you know biological intelligence is far mate advanced!
ghtyh *Absolutely a beautiful one from Newton:* _In want of other proofs, the thumb would convince me of the existence of a God._
*I really do love the laws of thermodynamics. Because they prove the universe was created.*
I think the laws of thermodynamics are an extraordinary example of human perception and reason, and by no means prove the universe was "created."
@@red_wullf*"I think" is an inaccurate phrase in ur case, Eldridge* 😅
Nothing annoys me more than science denial. Thank you for making this video
What about pineapple on pizzas?🙂
By the way, just so you know, evolution is not science. Just because it is taught in the subject of science doesn't mean it's science. For if you do believe that evolution is science, you are saying that one who does not believe in evolution does not trust science.
@@levibutinroblox477 Bwahahahahaha!!!!! Roblox is a game platform that allows children to create and be anything they can imagine. That makes it entirely appropriate for creationists for whom pretense is a way of life. They make endless assertions for which no evidence exists, yet pretend they are somehow superior to others. What you fail to understand is that *TRUTH is determined by EVIDENCE,* not by what anyone says and not by words in an old book. The rules of evidence are this: *If you don't have any...YOU LOSE!*
@@levibutinroblox477 One of the great things about religions is that, since they are all fabricated nonsense, their proponents feel entitled to fabricate whatever additional nonsense they feel is warranted. Since facts are an anathema to you, the incongruity of your claims about science sailed right over your head. Of course, your religion entities you to do so and pretense is what Roblox is all about.
In the REAL world, the following is what REAL scientists have to say:
*The American Association for the Advancement of Science statement on evolution:*
*"Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education. The AAAS Board of Directors is deeply concerned, therefore, about legislation and policies recently introduced in a number of states and localities that would undermine the teaching of evolution and deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens in an increasingly technological, global community. Although their language and strategy differ, all of these proposals, if passed, would weaken science education. The AAAS Board of Directors strongly opposes these attacks on the integrity of science and science education. They threaten not just the teaching of evolution, but students’ understanding of the biological, physical, and geological sciences."*
Creationists, who are often scientifically illiterate, often make the claim that evolution is not really science. The AAAS, in essence, is saying they lie.
Quick question: All living things consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first? Proteins or DNA?
+Abraxos, funny you should ask! I just wrote an article last month that we are currently turning into an animation. statedclearly.blogspot.com/2016/05/what-is-rna-world-hypothesis.html?m=1
All living things are made of proteins
That depends on how you define life. Virions are only made of RNA but they replicate, evolve, and display a variety of behaviors. It's worth noting, however, that they have to infect a cell and use its protein in order to replicate.
Virus are living organisms.
Your article is nothing new, and has been concluded to be unrealistic. I'll point this out later.
Abraxos Viruses aren't living organisms
*The 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._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Fake quote, especially since you cannot say which account posted it and when. I know why ostriches have wings, don't you?
9:36. Where's the evidence?
All around you.
I posted evidence which you were unable to refute.
BTW, you claiming _"Nuh ah"_ is not a refutation.
Neither of you two have posted anything but shit here. Address what was posted. Other people can see this you know. If you're still doing this tomorrow (Monday) then you're beyond being a sad attention seeker.
@@walkergaryaEndogenous retroviruses found in various species are bits of dna found inside an organism’s genome that looks like a retrovirus. 'Evolutionists' claim that these are 'junk' sequences that came from past viral dna despite the lack of supporting evidence for this then the likelihood that alleged ancient 'ape like ancestors' passed this on to their 'evolutionary' offspring is not probable or high when a shared common environment between many co existing species in the past is a more reasonable conclusion to come to. Shared similarities doesn't equate to shared common ancestry.
Those sequences aren't even 'junk’ or viruses. Endogenous retroviruses could be evidence of common design as well as shared environment but are certainly not evidence for common descent. They should certainly no longer be touted as the ‘smoking gun’ that proves ape to human evolution.
Up to 80% of human endogenous retroviruses are transcribed non randomly, therefore strongly suggesting a functional role. Thousands of endogenous retrovirus derived sequences are associated with cell type specific expression of neighbouring genes allegedly. More and more examples of viral sequences that have some kind of function in human cells. For example, many endogenous retrovirus sequences play a role in human gene regulation so are functional. They are there for a reason, and so are highly unlikely to have come from retroviruses, unless you want to reclassify what you think a virus is and what it's for? Which if true makes 'evolutionists' entire endogenous retroviruses argument null and void.
And if thousands of endogenous retroviruses really were inserted by retroviruses, the body’s own apoptosis defense mechanisms should have dealt with most of them long ago. Why we allegedly still have so many endogenous retroviruses (allegedly) suggests they were not caused by past viruses and aren't an 'evolutionary' leftover.
*
*"Every palaeontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome....brings terrible distress.... They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps, but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution, so you don’t talk about it.”*
And
*"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution.".*
Stephen J Gould.
Pick the bones out of that 🤡🍿🙂🍿
@@bigbabatunde1218 *Yale School of Medicine, 2023*
"Through painstaking experiments, scientists have uncovered thousands of switches nestled in long stretches of DNA that do nothing for us. Our genome contains thousands of broken copies of genes that no longer work, for example, and vestiges of viruses that invaded the genomes of our distant ancestors."
The New York Times, April 28, 2023
Really well done. Congratulations, I can imagine the hard work to make all this animations. If at least some people can understand and accept this true, your work is done. Keep walking, guys.
***** Grande Pirulla!
No, that's not what he is saying at all actually.
What he is saying is that even though this video (and thereby the animations that go along with it), must have taken a lot of hard work to make.
However if at least some people come away from this video understanding and accepting the overwhelming evidence for evolution (the topic of this video), then their (the video's creators) hard work will have paid off.
Guzman..that was my first thought also. Too funny.
Guzman 1611 "So I love you enough to get you saved and to see you in heaven."
--- If I don't qualify for Heaven, what does God intend to do to me?
Canal do Pirula Você por aqui? hahaha
Considering that this was made 9 years ago is insane. Truly a high quality video
it's cool and all, but an objective curriculum would also involve what the bible says also.
@@bvbxiong5791maybe in the context of comparative religions, but not in science. Unfortunately following the scientific method does not lead to concluding the Earth is 6000 years old or that we were made by god. Would be cool in a comparative religions setting, and discuss similarities and differences with other origin myths.
@@bvbxiong5791 are you really so dumb to think that biblical bronze age superstitions have any relevance in this video?
@@bvbxiong5791What objective curriculum could possibly be added by the Bible on the subject of evolution? The Bible is part of religious teachings, not science. Bible vs evolution is not a true dichotomy nor are the two mutually exclusive. Would you also ask that evolution be taught along side religious studies? I presume you wouldn't, and for good reason.
@@bvbxiong5791 you're misunderstanding the definition of "objective"
fb4 *Quoting the user "Riley.Monahan":* "Similarities don't equate to evolution, neither suggests evolution or God as the ;primary concept of life. We could have similar structures from a common ancestor or similar structures from a creator. The idea that evolution operates like a system of adding new code-where enough new, beneficial mutations eventually lead to evolution-raises further questions. The concept of random code being created, with the rare chance of a new one being beneficial, seems improbable without some form of guidance. The likelihood of random mutations producing complex, functional new traits is incredibly low, and more often, mutations tend to break down existing structures rather than build up new, beneficial ones."
Did you finally figure out which side Riley is on, and that he is not me? What a joke you are! Everyone can see Riley's obfuscation and arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity held no water, and so Riley ran away.
Riley tried to address your insanity: "Im confused, what does Eldrige belief come into my writing?"
You did not try to help him, you believers have so much trouble understanding and agreeing with each other. Aw, how sad.
What you, "Riley.Monahan", or any of your sock puppets feels, thinks or believes is totally irrelevant to science. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. They are evidence only of one's ignorance. There are more than 3000 religions, none of which are supported by evidence. They are all OPINIONS, nothing more. 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!*
*_SCIENCE ISN'T ABOUT BELIEFS, IT'S ABOUT TESTABLE AND FALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESES AND SCIENTIFIC THEORIES;_*
all of which must be backed by evidence. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion that is initially PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). There are degrees of certainty in science and as further evidence accumulates in support of a hypothesis, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports a hypothesis and none refutes it, it may be regarded as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which, in science, is the HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE. That is true for Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, Heliocentric Theory, Theories of Relativity, et al. They are all explanations for observed phenomena and they are all backed by massive evidence.
Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate personal bias and follow evidence wherever it leads. THAT is the path to truth, and that is science.
"GIVE ME PROOF THAT SCIENCE IS TRUE", yelled the creationist whose only proof is a book that was written thousands of years ago.
No wonder it took millions of years to get the right mutations. Just the fittest ones survived and had their genes passed down, all the other 90% species who didn't have good mutations went extinct. you're right, getting a good mutation is very rare and it is reflected through out evolution which has left us with only 10% of all species to ever exist on earth, and this number is only going down as humans make the climate worse by the day causing several other species to be endangered or possibly extinct.
*'Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.'*
Professor E. J. H. Corner
Botany Department of Cambridge
University.
Here are parts that you left out: "The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but *the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity.* Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution - from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology.. The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet *they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution,* and where else have we to worship?" (E.J.H. Corner 1961, from 'Evolution', p. 97, in "Contemporary Botanical Thought", Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh)
Try to avoid dishonestly mined quotes in the future, yours was 63 years old, things have advanced in the meantime.
@@ergonomover And still you, and them, cannot address what was originally posted. Where's your evidence?
@@bigbabatunde1218 Evolution is "the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity." was omitted by you in your OP. It totally refutes your intention to distort.
Who is "them", you mean Flanders? English not your first language?
@@ergonomover 'Evolutionists' seeking to prove 'evolution' isn't even credible
@@bigbabatunde1218 You might be right, it's like saying gravitationalists seeking to prove gravity.
Proof is not a metric in science, all you doing here is demonstrating your scientific illiteracy.
When you're in your 30s and you are watching this because you enjoy learning
Same
yep, that is me as well!
I'm 55 and I still haven't lost that childish desire to know everything in the world. I know I can't but I can try.
23
@Mister Fukable Too bad you're lying. The fossil record is spilling over with transitional forms (whales, horses, humans....)
Welcome to ur biology online lesson 🙂
Im here cuz of a quarter test I have in 30 mins lol
@Akki Sci channel Lol I got a 82% which is an A (idk how). I'm gonna have to study more because I had to guess in some of the questions
@Dillon Sudduth ?
@Dillon Sudduth no I'm just confused on what u meant
@Dillon Sudduth o ok gn
*Any intelligently designed thing is proof of an intelligent maker, but of course only intelligent beings can acknowledge that.*
Hahahahahahah
You are a moron
Begging the question. There's no reason to believe animals are intelligently designed. Knowing what we know about our own human design, we can think of a number of improvements that we would do better, right?
@@red_wullf*U mean no reason for a rtrd.*
@@dorianbregovic That actually helps make my point, thank you.
abc *Very beautiful, from Dawkins:* _if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer._
Who was he talking to and when? Don't you even know? Quote-mining is dishonest, a form of lying. Please stop lying.
4.4 k dislikes?
Man some people can't handle the truth.
More like they won't handle reality. Some happily admit they won't even believe in math and logic like 2+2=4 when the bible would say otherwise:
czcams.com/video/Ysecinv367w/video.html
Where did the worm come from
@@chrishunt3674 where did the homosexual come from
@Winston Grettum watch the video.
@@chrishunt3674 from cells
Creationist: I have a 15$ note.
Scientist: That is absurd. 15$ notes do not exist but if you insist then prove it to me.
Creationist: I can't prove I have a 15$ note but can you disprove it.
Scientist: No I can't disprove it but I do have a 100$ note. Here it is(shows the note)
Creationist: That's just your opinion.
Pretty much lol.
@Gaurav Mishra the fossil record refuted 5m 4s czcams.com/video/rX9dKwIb1-A/video.html
SteadFast nEasy Well, well, well.
@Steadfast nEasy. LOL! Do you realize that that video is speaking of million of years? How do you fit the bible's generations on that time span?
I will now explain some of the video's inaccuracies:
1 The Cambrian "explosion" took millions of years.
2 It looked like a sudden explosion because:
a) At the time there was no previous fossil evidence. That evidence has been found.
b) There is a record bias because soft animals don't fossilize easily.
3 Most earth fossil record is devoid of complex organism because it took life billions of years to change the planet's chemical environment. Complex life requires oxygen.
4 The fossil record is fragmentary because fosilization is a rare phenomenon.
5 That "Scientific dissent from Darwinism" comes from the Discovery Institute! I bet those pseudo scientists will gladly accept your donation to "the cause of God".
@GN LOL!!! right back at ya!!! No, the video is refuting millions of years.
Citation on your "found" evidence.
NOTHING fossilizes easily. That's why it took a sudden catastrophic worldwide event for the depositing of these fossils. That is also why you can call it a rare phenomenom.
There is nothing in the "Scientific dissent from Darwin" that YOU can point out to be wrong.
*Simply beautiful one from Newton, with much love:* _a-theism is so s-enseless and o-dious to mankind_
*Simply beautiful and deep one from the great Newton, with much love:* _He must be blind who does not immediately see in the perfect and wise arrangement of beings, the infinite wisdom and goodness of the almighty Creator, and 'idiot' he who does not confess Him_
"But Satan staged all of those in order to deceive us!"
Yeah, you gotta watch that Satan, facts are his secret weapon.
+Randall Wilks lol
"SATAN" and "DEMONS" are smart people. but watch out! We use fact bullets that can't be blocked! Well, they can be, with dumb arguement shields, but you'll usually just attract MORE "DEMONS" to the fight. And usually the"DEMONS" win because facts don't lie.
Satan isn't physical being , so that's not right
Nope your just but hurt because, we just found prof for evolution and not your holy book
evolution does not by any mean contradict with the existence of God. we simply say that God created this world and install this way of evolution as innate aspect in it...
Ali 22 then please explain how sin fits in this concept. Assuming you're referring to christianity.
sin comes from man as he pursuit perfection, as men trying to achieve perfection each one for his own self they come across unparalleled ways, so some of them commits sin as trying to force their way on behalf of others or on behalf of their own righteousness.
Still doesn't explain how sin came to be, and perhaps most importantly: Why did God create the concept of sin in the first place. Second, you're not at all describing sin from Christianity. What you're describing, although very vague, is somewhat akin to indoctrination or forced dogma. That is not sin as described in the Bible.
So, you're not talking about the Christian god at all. Christianity is incompatible with evolution. So you're actually trying to speak for the existence of an unknown god, am I right? A deistic perspective?
yes, you are right, i haven't read the bible, yet.
I strongly recommend reading it. Reading the Bible throroughly is the leading cause of atheism.
*I really do love math. Because math alone proves God.*
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.
This video is a beautiful masterpiece of informative media.
Yes, informative, but is it true?
Savanna Addison theres a difference between a theory and theorized fact. Gravity is considered a theorized fact for example. Evolution doesnt disprove the existence of a god but it seems to have disproved that a god made every creature. If a god exists, then he set up evolution
Savanna Addison theres flaws in the theory of evolution as well and scientists acknowledge them but they don't disprove evolution. They just question our understanding of how some creatures evolved
+Elias Montoya if you can conclude that God created everything, why would he create things to go through the long stressful process of evolution? Why wouldn't he just create everything the way it should be? In Genesis 1:31 it says "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day." Everything was "Very good." Why would it be called very good if there was still so much to be done? Evolution is imperfect. God is perfect. Evolution involves death. God didn't want death on the earth. You can do the math. :)
Ardipethicus Ramidus, Niels Bohr has never been my go-to when it comes to matters of Theology. The Bible - the original source - is where I go. If you are such a Theologian, try telling me why that statement Niels said is true. By the way, I'm not telling God what to do, I'm telling people about information of God that is already recorded in the Bible. Theology is what I've studied most, so if you have any questions relating to the subject of theology, I would love to answer them.
gutn *Very beautiful, from Dawkins:* _if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer._
Here's the actual quote "It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology- and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."
@@godzillawarssmt Great post, he never gives the context, his only intent is to misrepresent with lies.
@@lorann-ut5cq You are so mad at Dawkins that you leave out the context which totally refutes your claim. He was talking about aliens, not your god thingy.
@@ergonomover*Glad to see that u enjoy my quote from Dawkins and I'm also glad that u enjoy the v3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich", Eldridge.* 😅😅😅😅
@@doranbregovic Recycling the trash you left behind? Your quote is fake and the video never shows "ergonomover" so it is fake too. Glad to see you enjoyed how Godzillawarssmt also pointed at your dishonesty.
So.. after 11 mins, when does the evidence for evolution starts?
I am curious how you define evolution? A number of people have made that very same statement regarding this video but when challenged to define evolution, not one of them has ever gotten it right.
Is it possible that you are the first ever?
The evidence for evolution is all around you.
Get out of your mum's basement.
0:00
*Absolutely beautiful and motivational this one from Kelvin:* _The atheistic idea is so n-onsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words._
This is a cool video and all but I still have one question, how the F**K did the blobfish evolve?
Blobfish are the exception; they were created. ;-)
+Drank Yeah, that was the night he gave you shit for brains.
LimeGrass619 to not get stalked by big fish because who want to eat pink slime( I'm looking to you McDonalds)
Just googled 'how did the blobfish evolve', it's even uglier than the fish.
No, they're RELATED to whales. Did you even WATCH the video?!? get rect, dude!
First, remember the Bible says that Christians will be ridiculed and insult for their belief, so when you ridicule and insult us for our belief you are actually fulfilling Biblical prophecy. Second, most of use respect that you believe in evolution, so why can't you respect that we believe in creation?
+Joshua Warner
Respect belief? My grandmother believed that little men lived down by the river. I respect evidence and evolution has millions of pieces of evidence backing it. Show me one piece of evidence from the natural world that supports creationism? Live with your wishes if you want but I'd rather reality.
Bruh that aint a prediction. The people that wrote and advocated their book along with others were ridiculed for the foolishness they spoke about. It aint a prediction that you will be laughed and jeered at for speaking nonsense. The way they wrote it was their way of coping with being laughed at. All you have done is taken up their burden.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
My respect is based on if you are using those beliefs to vote and change laws or education policy.
"fulfilling Biblical prophecy" - How does this "prophecy" have weight when it was inevitable that there would be different religions with multiple sects, and humans routinely ridicule other humans for almost anything? That's no more a prophecy than saying "somewhere on earth it will rain in the next 10 years."
I might care if the bible had an exact description of something in science or mentioned me by full name, weight, height, date, skin color, facial features, etc, and then said exactly the words that I used 2000 years before I said it (assuming it's not generic, everyday speak) along with proof that it hasn't been modified since (because a common tactic of many so-called prophecies is to lie and claim something was said in the past when in reality it was made up by a person who already knows the present).
dude you strarted a coment war
The creationist typed "why no mammal with 3 yes" and thinks that is English. He also said "ridiculius" so we can nickname him (or her) Ridiculius Maximus. Having 3 eyes would contradict binocular vision with depth perception. Would you marry a girl with 3 eyes or call her a freak? So many stupid arguments, doesn't Ridiculius Maximus ever get tired of them?
*Wow u mean my typo makes u less rtrdd, b-allet dancer who insisted that ostriches have no wings?* 😅😅😅😅😅
*Absolutely beautiful and true saying from Pasteur:* _Too little science leads away from God, while too much science leads back to Him_
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. CZcams has great vids of starlings' imitations.
Hey everybody! Let's evolve to become even better humans. spread your arms and move them up and down so we may have flaps to fly or glide. let's evolve to flying humans by moving your arms up and down everyday.
Thanks for you report from Moronville (voting 100% for Drumpf).
Barnaby ap Robert I'm just saying how ridiculous evolution is.
Evolution is proved by every single one of the BILLIONS of fossils found all over the world and all DNA.
This is not your everyday stupid, this is advanced stupid
That is in no way what evolution states
Axl K Prz yes it does.
*"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution.".*
Stephen J Gould.
Your defence for _"God-did-it"_ being true is to quote-mine Gould? 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤦♂️🤣
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS 'Evolutionist"s' own foot in mouth, unrecanted, undenied public record comments exposes the open secret lie that is 'evolution' as taught and you cannot even begin to muster a defense pr any supporting evidence for 'evolution'.
@@bigbabatunde1218 Why don't you post the entire quote in its full context, coward.
@@bigbabatunde1218_"Creationists are dishonest out of pure necessity. When you attempt to rationalize irrational beliefs, there is no other option than to distort and deny the truth."_
- John Pieret
"Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am-for I have become a major target of these practices." SJ Gould, evolution as fact and theory, 1984
Nothing about creationist dishonest changes, eh?
Still waiting for the evidence. Is that on another video?
They'll never provide evidence only biased guess work.
A small sample of Christian hoaxes:
the Shroud of Turin (admitted by the Catholic Church as an artwork from 1390)
the Spear of Destiny (at least two known)
actual blood of Christ (not congealed after 1,970 years)
pieces of the Cross and the Ark (enough to build a shopping mall)
the fake Josephus mentions of Jesus
the original Crucifixion nails (thousands of 'em)
the Tomb of Christ (several)
the Birthplace of Christ (several)
the Dead Sea Scrolls at the Bible Museum, all of which are FORGERIES
the Exodus (never happened according to multiple archaeological expeditions and the actual historical record)
Noah's Ark (at least 4 have been found, including a natural rock formation)
Roman chariot wheels in the Dead Sea (poorly Photoshopped graphics)
gigantic human skeletons as big as skyscrapers (more devious Photoshopping, obviously)
all claims of miracles, none of which has ever been scientifically verified
every word of the Bible
etc etc....
It's so cute how little children will put their fingers in their ears, squeeze their eyes tightly shut, and repeatedly chant in a loud voice _"la la la la la, I can't hear you, I'm not listening, la la la la la"_ when they know they are about to be presented with a truth they do not WANT to accept, thinking that if they can avoid hearing the truth then that makes it go away.
It's just embarrassing though when supposed adults, like yourself, behave in similar fashion. Don't you think it is time you stopped acting so childishly?
@@TheHairyHeathen There is literally no truth in this video. So instead of name calling, like a child would do, how about presenting some actual evidence?
@@DocReasonable No wonder you like evolution. Fits right in with your little list there.
WW3 in the comment section!
fr7b *Absolutely a beautiful one from Newton:* _In want of other proofs, the thumb would convince me of the existence of a God._
de3 *Absolutely beautiful one from Dawkins, he has my respect for it:* _A serious case could be made for a deistic God._
So you’re saying the whale from the croods was real?!
No that is fantasy. The hoof artiodactyl ancestors like Pakicitidea did not look like modern bluewhales on 4 stompy legs. The modern look did not exist in the past.
Well, Tony, most people lacking cognitive ability are at least smart enough not to advertise the fact. You, on the other hand, flaunt your ignorance for the world to see. What happened to you? Fetal alcohol syndrome? Dropped on your head as a child? Most likely you are the product of a long family history of incestuous relationships.
Prove it.... Crickian!!! Seen any aliens lately?
@@user-oh7ds8pm1o
Do you number your sock puppets?
Answer just one question, how do you get life from non-life? Scientists, with all the ingredients and perfect lab conditions can't do it.
After that we'll get to the hard questions?
This video here is about ALREADY existing life diversification by well known heridity laws. Like how Equus had speciated variations such as the species of horse or the 3 zebra species (Grevy, Steppe and mountain with different chromosome numbers) or the wildass/donkey species adapted to desert mountain terrain. The topic sheds a HUGE light upon how 1 ape broodstock with many thousands of mating pairs had bonobos, chimpanzees and humans as 3 ape variations. So that people understand how ape variations work. This video here is about hoof mammals adapting to the water lifestyle as whales with the hoof feet to whale flippers and the nose to blowhole migration in opposition of the bird to water adaptation as penguins with birdwing to penguin flippers or the canine to the water lifestyle called pinnipeds with pawfeet to seal flipper adaptation.
Your question is about origin of the very first cells (without any cellcore and cellorganelles) from already existing already selfreplicating ribocyte ancestral structures.
Basic understanding:
Lifeforms are still entirely compound of nonliving material. You have neither a magical lifeforce nor some ingredient that would be fundamentally different to nonlivng structures. The term life refers to a set of processes like reproduction, metabolism, food absorption etc. Similar how the term fire or flame refers to a process of burnable compounds in burning reactions (active).
So is the origin of life research about how autocatalysis and acid replicators came to be to developed metabolism and to maintain those traits.
When you write something:
"with all the ingredients and perfect lab conditions can't do it."
We do not talk about this topic to be a piece assemble challenge like you would have some dozens of puzzlepieces to glue or stick them as a lifeform together as this is NOT how first life originated.
It is a false image.
You seem to have a false task/challenge image in your mind when you try to approach the topic and how to solve it.
You can't just have the image in your mind that you would be a puzzle piece assembler or a watchmaker or some sort of engineer to fiddle parts laying well sorted next to eachother around nor in a broader sense to be a cook that throws some ingredients into a pot either.
You look what acid structures exist like in outerspace or in vulcanic ponds or in hydrothermal vents and so on how those acid structures interact due to laws of physics and chemisty and what conditions allow the structures all by themselves to diversify and to maintain a type of autonome unit.
Such as micelles and which acids are able to get caught within the micelle fatbubbles and survive or gain complexity with a long chart you write about hundreds of interlocking of complexity observations where humans have no imagination freedom when it comes to it.
Basically like you can also do a chart about needles, cubes or dendritic complexity gain in snowflakes from simplistic water droplets and mindlessly write the gain of complexity in nature down without any human imagination or faith freedom - like a robot to collect the data.
Then you look what mechanical parts split fatbubbles, burst them or let maintain them and so on also with another chart you just mindlessly collect data.
When you have hundred steps as overview you have a good base to understand how primitive acid replicators work, how they "survive" and so on.
This is what the origin of life research is doing. This is long before any DNA becames a reductasis of those earlier RNA structures with the methyluracil (thymine) from the uracil base and so on.
Nobody knows yet, especially not theists. They're not even close.
Scientists are not far off though.
😊🖖
The proper definition of evolution is as follows: *"Evolution is any change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."* As you can see, this definition, which is used by all of science clearly implies that there must be something already living to evolve from. This begs the question why you would pose this challenge in the comments of a video about evolution when is it irrelevant to the topic?
Are you unaware that evolution does not address life origins?
Most people who have some science education understand that the leading life origins hypothesis in Abiogenesis has a great deal of evidence supporting it but is as yet still considered by science to be inconclusive. It appears as if you were not aware of this position held by science either.
Does one need to know how the planet formed in order to understand plate tectonics?
@@DenisK21 two different things.
*I really do love all the greatest scientists of this planet. First of all because of all them l-aughed at Aronra's cult.*
So im confused, how does the shape of animal bones show evidence that evolution is the reason for the similarities?
It seems like this still only shows evidence that all life on earth seems to be related but thats a different claim then the theory of evolution right?
Atheists and 'evolutionists' willfully misunderstand and willfully misrepresent DNA and genetics.
@@bigbabatunde1218 Fortunately we have plenty of scientists who provide material for laymen like us.
Would you be so kind as to provide an example to support your extraordinary claim?
You don't think the shape of fossil bones can reveal info on function? Please show your (cough) science on this, not just baseless claims.
@@ergonomoverMy, my, you have been a busy little shill haven't you.
Provide evidence for evolution or concede that you have no evidence to post. It's no good looking at your script you were provided with from your handler. You'll have to improvise.
Humiliation awaits you.
@@SamFey Shill as in payed? Sounds great, but your insinuation fails, I do this for free, too bad you dislike it.
Transitional fossils Archeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus, Australopithicus Afarensis, Homo Erectus, Lokiearcheota, Pikaia, Cloudina, Haikouella, Saccorhytus Coronarius, shared human DNA with bonobos = 98.5%, fusion on human chromosome #2, endogenous retroviral insertion points, vestigial structures, nested hierarchies, atavisms (such as mentioned in this video). I could go on and on, do you need more spoon-feeding? I expect a full, point-by-point rebuttal, not just hand-waving.
@@ergonomoverhe asked a question, you would never talk like that infront of him you coward. He didnt make a claim he only asked a question
As people become more educated you see more and more atheists
+NC Polar Coincidence? I think not lol.
NC Polar
And that is awesome! People are waking up!
Schools are modern churches. People are told about evolution and stuff, their faith in science is hardened, so we get atheists. Some of them are fundamentalists, like those who bless gods and explode everything, but fundamental atheists don't kill people... by exploding themselves in the name of God. Ofc atheists kill people, they just do it differently. Atheists are same people as christians or muslims. They just do things differently. It's funny to see how atheists replicate things that are done by other "believers". Classic priests convince people that there are God, that Earth is created by a thing that is like us with human type of mind. Teachers tell us that quantum physics is very important to us. I don't try to argue on the line "science vs God", I just stay outside of this line and find it funny.
+Abstract Russian Schools aren't modern churches, you don't need faith in science, that's why it's science. Science requires evidence to prove theories, I don't think you understand lol
They are similar. Everything needs faith. Science is my faith. I just try to be more than just believer in science. All people believe in something and the way how they believe is very similar, they just believe in different things. And the process of education is very similar to what churches were doing hundreds years ago. Why I even thinking about it? Because we are living in the world when it is harder to say that your faith is wrong. Everything seems so clear and noncontradictory, so we forget that the world is just a chaos that we will never understand until we die (and still will not understand). Remember the movie Matrix. We are not living in matrix (but who knows?) we create our own matrix and live within it. And the things from what our matrix is made is other's thoughts that we learned during the life.
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.
Giraffes allegedly have the same number of bones in their necks as we do. The real question is: *Did we used to be giraffes or did giraffes used to be us?* 😂😂😆🤦
Are any of your 7 neck vertebrae anywhere near 10 inches long? If so, you must be very tall. The common ancestor of all mammals lived about 200 million years ago. All mammals like whales, monkeys, bats and you have 7 neck vertebrae. Is your silly question about you trying to be silly? Careful, if you stick around, you might actually learn something, probably not from me, but that's okay.
One again you stand here telling the world you are too intellectually deficient to be able to grasp the concept of "common descent". Do you have an acquired brain injury, or are you just playing dumb so you can dishonestly construct ridiculous strawmen of evolution which you can then attack, because you are unable to attack the ACTUAL evolutionary explanation? It looks to me you must give up all your integrity when you join your cult of brainwashed zombie worshippers.
The giraffe is an excellent example of *Natural Selection.*
Thanks for providing that evidence.
👌👏🤝
Actually, it's a great example of evolutionary branching, as we and giraffes are comtemporary species, no one came from the other, but we had, indeed, a common ancestor which had that same number of vertebrae.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRSYeah, Ikr!?
Isn't he actually *proving* that we have common ancestry?
Then... LMAO.
*Absolutely beautiful one from Dawkins, he has my respect for it:* _A serious case could be made for a deistic God._
Good trick
Getting people to fall for a nonsensical 3,500 year old origins story? Indeed it was a "good trick"!
With his recent Freudian slip - larsen has revealed his Latin name for all to see:
_ridiculius se ipsum maxime_
Maximus Ridiculius is a toemented and dishnonest individual.
🤣
@@ergonomover😂
As usual, the creationist destroyer(of nuerons) is spewing codswallop. Bilateral symmetry can confer several advantages to an organism, it offers more mobile directional movement with the ability to move forward, backward, side to side, and the ability to stop and turn quickly, easily, and efficiently. It provides a division of labor, the front part has a mouth and sensory organs the tail part has waste removal.
Such beneficial traits are selected for and preserved by natural selection. Intelligent design is fundamentalist creationism, "not science".
What designed the "designer"? Creationists cannot answer.
*No one has ever seen the mammal with non-symetrical eyes, rtrd. And if symmetry brings some advantages you cannot show that nature works toward it .*
@@thedestroyer-r7u So why did you ask the stupid question of why humans haven't evolved 3 eyes? Binocular vision provides depth perception. Susan, did you marry a man who has 3 eyes? You don't don't think he is a freak?
Mutations that inched toward symmetry were beneficial, allowed organisms to reproduce more, the genetic trait was passed on, this is simple evolution 101, why are you still ignorant of it after all these years crying about it?
pdrq NOBODY here has claimed that ostriches have no wings
NOBODY here is using alternate accounts besides Larson
NOBODY here is falling for Larson’s pathetic self-projections
NOBODY has made a remotely rational argument against evolution
10:13. All living things on Earth are not related by descent but share common hallmarks of intelligent design. Not the same thing at all.
You guys really need to do better but cant seemingly.
Intelligent Design was debunked 20 years ago.
Do try and keep up, child.
And yet I gave you evidence that all living things on earth ARE related, which you were unable to explain.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS'Debunked' by who? You? 😂🤣🤣🤣😆🍿🙂🍿
@@TheHairyHeathenYou keep saying that you have posted evidence. But we only have your word for it as there's no evidence filled posts here from you.
@@bigbabatunde1218
Um yes there is an evidence filled post, it is directed specifically to you.
*U might think that the b-allet dancer Eldridge is just rtrdd when you see him insisting that ""Ostriches do not have wings ACCORDING TO ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA!". But that part "according to Encyclopedia Britannica" shows that his problems are much more severe.....*
*Last time when I asked the ostricher "ergonomover" why no mammal with 3 eyes he said that it is because of....the law of conservation of energy.* 😂😂😂😂😂
🥱😴💤
@@Lexi2019AURORAOstricher! 😅😅😅😅😅😅
@@thedestroyer-r7u👈🏻👎🏻
*The similarity between the beliefs and the speech of the ballet dancer a-ndrew eld-ridge and those of Darwin and Hitler is striking. Here below is the translation of a fragment from the original, German TableTalks (page 95 in the published text):*
_Among the two and a half billion people on earth we find 170 major creeds, each claiming to have the only correct idea of ​​the afterlife. 169 of them must be wrong, because only one can be right. None of the religions that we have today is more than 2500 years old at the most. In any case, humans of at least the rank of b-aboon have been around for at least 300,000 years. The great a-pe differs from the lowly man less than such a man differs from a head such as Schopenhauer. Looking down into such depths, 2000 years is a very small segment. From a material point of view, the universe consists of the same substances for us. May it be the earth, the sun or other stars. To imagine that there is only organic life on one of these stars has become impossible today!_
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?
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!_ 😂😂😂😂 😂😂😂😂
*Any smart person who understands biology, knows that life is in no way the product of natural processes.*
Any smart person informed on the subject knows that the origin of life is a field of study separate from evolution.
Maybe you are on the wrong video.
Oh great, Lora is back. 🙄🤦🏼♀️
*The b-allet dancer who insisted that ostriches have no wings tells us that the theory of evolution through random mutations is a fact. He also told us that mutations are not random.* 😅😅😅😅😅
How much do you get paid to comment?
I forwarded science that you first posted about how _some_ mutations are less than random. Most of them are still random, you and your dumb creationism lose again. Worthless comment of yours, as usual.
Wow, I reply "nobody cares", and he runs to the hills and hides. Yes, I'm talking about ATMSR who deleted all his "bunny bear" comments right now.
@@gunnybear-fw6of I double disliked that horrible vid.
@@HaileyTheComet You did right, posts by "ergonomover" are never seen in his putzy video. He got the wrong guy, and it wouldn't be the first time.
Quoting a theist on another video, talking to Susan: "don't be confused by the multiplicity, treat them as individuals, you will go farther."
Alas, this reasonable advice was rejected by Susan, who dreams that every evolutionist is a handsome old male dancer - who she is dying to talk to all day, every day.
Notice how Susan/gunny brings up accounts that never post here, as if someone cared.
Is "b-allet" dancer truly her most potent homophobic slur?
@@gunnybear-fw6of Not by me, you got the wrong guy, just like when you claimed everyone was konstantin and then Flanders. No one praises you, not even creationists, don't cry.
Btw, on another comment section, a creationist gave the guy below the following advice: "don't be confused by the multiplicity, treat them as individuals, you will go farther". This wise advice was rejected. The person below isn't going far at all, but spins in ever smaller circles.
By my count, Larsen aka ginobarila/thedestroyer/lorabundy/mulan/moran/dorian/doran/lora/lorann etc has posted 13 times in 4 hours while I've posted 7 times in 3 hours, without repeating myself. That sane people agree with what I say is icing on the cake.
His toxic repetitive spam keeps getting deleted by a moderator, maybe he should take a hint.
As far as I remember it, Larsen began by screaming that someone had said that *kiwis* have no wings. I have no idea who that was, but he was technically correct; kiwis just have a couple of almost microscopic arm bones that no one would describe as 'wings'. The species name for kiwis is Apteryx, which literally means *'WITHOUT WINGS'.*
Somehow, Larsen's rants mutated (or evolved) into being about ostriches... probably because I destroyed his 'argument' by explaining what 'Apteryx' means.
For further information, see A BIRD WITHOUT WINGS - Journal of Heredity, Volume 8, Issue 5, May 1917, Page 195.
I was the one pointing the further wing vestigialization out with the named example of kiwis. This was in context of him not wanting to engage in wing to flipper evolution with aukbirds and penguins either. I also rubbed under his nose that bacteria have evolved multicellularity in cases from brazil and japan with:
_Candidatus Magnetoglobus multicellularis', a multicellular, magnetotactic prokaryote from a hypersaline environment Fernanda Abreu et all._
_Novel multicellular prokaryote discovered next to an underground stream Kouhei Mizuno et all_
_Bacteria evolve macroscopic multicellularity by the genetic assimilation of phenotypically plastic cell clustering Yashraj Chavhan et all_
Before I realized that he demanded the absurdity with his 2 cell question that cells shall abondon their basic single cell base form and always duplicate already as pairs all of a sudden without being a single cell. So we have actually 2 cell multicellularity evolved in bacteria WITH the single cell base intact as evolution does predicts it (diplobaccilli & diplococci). HOWEVER Larsen wanted 2 cell / bicell bacteria *shall magically lose their single cell base* and just duplicate always as dual cells without starting as single cells ever again.
This obscure demand of him is simply not allowed by cytological mechanism - not even with suppossed exceptions of some plant cells regrowing an entire plant back again from a leaf as lifeforms still grow from single cell bases.
Where he also simply denies (with different sockaccounts) that DNA and genes are even real out of pure frustration to intensify his trollings.
*The b-allet dancer A. Eldridgeaja "ergonomover still didn't tell us how he knows that "LexiAirora is a "he"...* 😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
"While these readings have not changed significantly from Gallup’s previous measurement in 2019, the percentage who believe God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years is *the lowest in this four-decade trend, by one percentage point,* and the share who do not believe God had any role in human evolution is the highest recorded, by two points." --Gallup _Majority Still Credits God for Humankind, but Not Creationism_ 2024. Creationism is at an all-time low, acceptance of evolution at over 50% is an all-time high.
The tide has turned.
This good news hot off the presses comes courtesy of user Angelmou, and also Zubin Mehta, the 'friendly atheist' blogger.
@@ergonomover You are welcome. I would however add "US-american" as Canada and Europe (maybe wth exception of turkey) is a different story. Sadly the islamic world is also a different story.
*Quoting the user MomQuestionMark, comment made 4 years ago about the trolling account "randallwilks" of the b-allet dancer A-n-drew Eldridge:* _Randall wilks needs to calm down dude he got like 5000 comments_
Now L0ser Larsen is claiming Ergonomover is a young woman (Lexi) who uploads videos about Pokemon... just when U thought Gustav couldn't possibly be more psychotic.
@@gunnybear-fw6of Speak English, fqface.
@@gunnybear-fw6of I'm sorry that the definition of WING by Britannica has given you so much trouble, maybe time to get over it like a big boy? Just because you impersonate females (lorabundy, Susan Bundy) does not mean everyone else does. In your video, we see you complain that Docreasonable called you "Susan", why did his being truthful upset you, Susan? or should I say "Lora" or "Lorann"?
@@gunnybear-fw6of Yep, Britannica dictionary implies that if it does not fly or glide, then it is not a wing.
Try to think about that, if you can think at all.
The gunnybear trolling account is but the tip of the iceberg, the user also calls him- or herself Susan bundy/suziebundy/lorabundy/lorann/loran/lora as well as theDestroyer/benji/lateevening/gavroche/dorian/doran/moran/mulan/boran.
Why so many fake accounts? They are getting blocked because of too many lies, insults, personal attacks, privacy violations and wild delusions is my guess.
Had a relation like that. Did not last into older years. Could be how that kind of activity rewards a person.
@@tedkrasicki3857 I have a few relations that are creationists, but not like that, glad to say.
May they and you live long and prosper. We'll keep this character corralled up here, for public safety.
Larsen/gunnybear says the most "rtrdd" evolutionist is defending this comment section so well, that he should be paid for it.
Wouldn't be the first time a creationist complimented my advocacy, or that a creationist contradicted himself (or herself - since Larsen has many girl-names like lorabundy and Suzan Bundy).
Spelling "retarded" as "rtrdd" in hopes of defeating moderation, looks retarded.
How sad that creationists think that their repetitious lies and slander lend them any credibility at all. TRUTH is determined by EVIDENCE which they do not have. Their entire argument can be summed up as "Nuh-uh", "Nuh-uh", "Nuh-uh", which they think is irrefutable logic. How sad indeed.
@@Randall-Wilks-2 No degrees are necessary to refute brainless adversaries who've shown over the last 5 years or more that they are clueless. Thou shalt not steal the identity of RandallWilks - oh right, you don't follow the bible and neither should anyone else, apparently.
gte3 *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!_ 😂😂😂😂 😂😂😂😂
*Then the same rtrd said that the law of conservation of energy is not about keeping energy constant because....the word "conserve," means "save"* 😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
🥱😴💤
@@Lexi2019AURORAOstricher! 😅😅😅😅
@@thedestroyer-r7u👈🏻Childish!
Larsen.... *COME OUT TO PLAYeeYAY!!!*
Similarities don't equate to evolution, neither suggests evolution or God as the ;primary concept of life. We could have similar structures from a common ancestor or similar structures from a creator.
The idea that evolution operates like a system of adding new code-where enough new, beneficial mutations eventually lead to evolution-raises further questions. The concept of random code being created, with the rare chance of a new one being beneficial, seems improbable without some form of guidance. The likelihood of random mutations producing complex, functional new traits is incredibly low, and more often, mutations tend to break down existing structures rather than build up new, beneficial ones.
DNA scarring occurs when small blocks of DNA units are accidentally deleted or, in other cases, inserted. Insertions and deletions are created by cuts in the DNA followed by reattachment at the cut sites. Like actual scars they have a particular location and profile.
Humans and chimps share literally THOUSANDS of such random, accidental scars. Humans share many such scars with all the other primates. The idea that this could have happened by pure coincidence is impossible. It is irrelevant if some of these scars are detrimental, neutral, or beneficial. That this could have originally happened IN EACH SPECIES INDEPENDENTLY is statistically impossible.
Whatever guided random mutations was extremely sloppy, a few mutations are beneficial, most are neutral but some lead species to extinction, 4 billion species have gone extinct - now we have some 100 million species. That means about 40 prototypes for each species, the -god- "guidance" you spoke of seems rather haphazard, as if it were a natural process. Against strong odds (and your incredulity), we are here. Do you have an alternative, evidence-based explanation for biodiversity, for the similarities of traits and patterns of genes across species? Feel free to share it.
@@ergonomover My stance is against macroevolution, I'm congruent with the concept of microevolution which is just mutation. The explanation for similarities in genetic code across species is an all powerful being using the same template for life. It isn't a “God of the gaps statement”, with my understanding on evolution Darwin himself would now say it's a flawed theory, example; Darwin himself acknowledged this challenge, stating that if a complex organ could not have evolved through numerous, successive changes, his theory would fail.
A cell is an example of irreducible complexity. It functions like a highly sophisticated machine with various parts working together, such as the nucleus, transport systems, assembly lines, and waste disposal mechanisms. If even one part is missing or not functioning, the cell cannot survive. This complexity suggests that all parts must have arisen simultaneously, which is difficult to reconcile with the gradual, step-by-step process proposed by Darwin.
@@Riley.Monahan Even Michael Behe, inventor of the irreducible complexity lie, accepts the fact of evolution. In his book 'The Edge of Evolution' Behe states inside the dust jacket - 'There is little question that all species on Earth descended from a common ancestor.' And on page 12 'Evolution from a common ancestor is very well supported.' And on page 72 'The bottom line is this: common descent is true.' And again on page 72 'Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on Earth are biological relatives.'
@@DocReasonable How is it a lie if I give you tangible evidence towards the fact. while Behe believes in evolution in terms of common descent and species change, he challenges the sufficiency of natural selection and random mutations alone to account for all aspects of biological complexity. His stance is that intelligent design must be invoked to explain the origin of certain complex biological systems. All of the other sufficient evidence to me points towards evolution being an outdated belief system, I could be wrong though.