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: ruclips.net/video/AXQP_R-yiuw/видео.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 ;)
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien *That's just your impression of urs, but remember u insisted that ostriches do not have wings. I suggest u study the anatomy of a real ostrich.*
@gdanskbedankst I suggest that you stop lying and actually all the debunking you received, you won't because you are a coward but my advice is still sound.
*When "ergonomover" insisted that ostriches have no wings (see the v3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich") we had the confirmation that he is an evolutionist.*
Who is "we"? You are all alone here like you were when you didn't celebrate Christmas, poor little troll dude. No amount of lies will make a falsehood true. I sleep 8 hours a night and use ONE account, you should try it sometime. *I keep saying ostriches have vestigial wings that evolution explains, why don't you quote me on that?*
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. Newton died in 1727, almost 100 years before Charles Darwin was even born. Sadly, Newton wasted decades with alchemy, trying to change lead into gold, and never benefited from Darwin's observations and insights that are the basis of modern biology.
The 'proof' Newton wanted came along 140 years after his death, it's called "The Origin of Species". You used only 30 of your trolling accounts to upvote this irrelevant quote?
You were shown 6 species of multicellular bacteria, Ron Perry used you to teach about cyanobacteria which you had to deny was bacteria, your humiliation was complete.
@@ergonomover *Small correction. The 6 species of multicellular bacteria weren't species of multi-cellular bacteria. It seems that education has chased u and Perry ur whole lives, but u have always been faster.*
@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Cyanobacteria is multicellular bacteria (you can verify with a microscope) no matter how much you dishonestly moved the goalposts. I even showed you dictionary definitions that backed up Ron Perry, you had nothing but empty hands waving. Education, do you have any? What was your source - you never mentioned. Creationist website, right?
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 alleged mechanism, the mutation lottery, as the source of ever inflating complexity and mind-boggling creativity is fundamentally absurd. Imagine an alphabet lottery spitting out Britanica. That would be child's play compared to generating the book of life in all its staggering diversity. Natural selection does not conceive new information...
Given that DNA is excessively complex and that the phenomenon of duplication followed by any other mutations just creates new genes. I'd say you are dead wrong. P.S : Information isn't a thing in biology.
Your comparison is a misleading lie, as the diversity in nature is not a lottery from scratch like an empty slate as your spitting out Britanica comparison want you to believe - it is gradual variation of what is always already established with the observed deathtoll you also ignore. This humaness info is apeness info base deformation for the same reason dogness is from wolfness the deformation. And natural selection is like the name says the selection factor not the conceiving factor. Info gain mutations & gene drift etc. by specific types are, where you ignore the names. Do you actually paraphrase your sentences that way so that you can speak in your bedroom to the air and think you would speak to an invisible Jesus and not to confess lies, because due to a technicality you crafted by sinister intent, you did not write a direct lie, just bogus with the power to deceit and ultimately misleading independent readers, who did not pay close enough attention to what is wrong with your writings? Or is it to hypnotize yourself so that you really belief evolution would cast trillion letters, instead of short words saving them if they are correct and diversify always from the last safepoint till you have a book with long lists of saved correct spellings upfront in a heridity list.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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?
Ron Perry made a video about this blunder of yours, thanks for your part in educating folks about evolution. His "angry youtuber" short video now has 5.3 thousand views. You were served over a half-dozen examples of multicellularity in bacteria - everybody saw it.
@user-ei6ob4zw5l You can only be talking about yourself. Everyone can see you are running from Anabeaena, Actinomycetes, Chloroflexi, Desulfobulbaceae, Beggiatoa and Thioploca as examples of multicellular bacteria. You lose every argument as your insults prove.
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.
@@happilysecular1833 *Not long time ago u revealed to the world other amazing scientific facts like: ostriches do not have wings; water contains molecules of oxygen; 250 -v237 means an increase of 23.*
*Darwin was a great source of inspiration for evolutionists, including for Hitler who implemented in WWII the vision of Darwin about the superior race.*
Ah that lie again Larsen. Does it plague you at night that Hitler was a creationnist, like you, who didn't understand evolution and had Darwin's book burned? You don't like to be reminded that Hitler didn't his religious views and that they are quite clearly yours.
*MORE LIES CREATIONISTS TELL - "That Hitler and the Nazis were atheists and influenced by Darwin's Theory of Evolution''* Among the vast repertoire of lies being spread by creationists, none are so blatantly false nor so easily refuted as these. First, Hitler was most certainly NOT atheist, he was raised Catholic and told one of his generals "I will always be a Catholic." In his speeches and writing he often invoked 'God the Creator'. Secondly, his thinking was in no way influenced by Charles Darwin's ideas. There is no indication Hitler ever read anything Charles Darwin wrote. Such assertions are examples of creationist attempts to vilify a highly respected man who has been dead for 130 years. Since they cannot counter his ideas with facts, they demonstrate their lack of integrity by attacking the person. This is not only 'ad hominem' logical fallacy, but vicious slander. Fundamentalist creationists assert that the Theory of Evolution caused Adolph Hitler to reject Christianity, making it possible for the Nazi's to conduct mass genocide against the Jewish people. These fallacious claims are easily refuted by quoting Hitler's own words which are a matter of record. As to the assertion that Hitler and the Nazis were in any way influenced by Darwin, at no time in any of his speeches or writings did he even once mention Darwin or his books. On the contrary, Darwin's books were specifically singled out and banned by the Nazi party. An official Nazi library journal from 1935 lists several categories of banned books, one of them: "Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism". www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#guidelines *The one thing that more than anything else influenced Hitler and the Nazis was Martin Luther's 1543 book "On the Jews and Their Lies".* In that book, this "Man of God" encouraged violence against the Jewish people; destruction of properties, expulsions, That such a hate-filled treatise was written by a revered religious leader boggles the mind. It fueled antisemitism for centuries to come. It lead to the mass expulsion of Jews in many European countries and must in large part be held responsible for the Holocaust. That book and translations thereof can still be found on the internet and still inspire attacks on Jewish people in the U.S. and elsewhere. Hitler identified as a Christian and believed he was doing 'God's will'. He outlawed the German Freethinkers Association (atheists and agnostics), confiscated their property, and gave it to religious organizations. Hitler even bragged about it in a speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933: *"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."* So much for creationist lies. Here are Hitler's own words with citations: "Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5 "Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward."- Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12 "That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?" - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2 "The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 10 "For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!' " - Adolf Hitler's prayer, Mein Kampf, Vol. 2 Chapter 13 *"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people."* - Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant. "We don't ask the Almighty, 'Lord, make us free!' We want to be active, to work, to work together, so that when the hour comes that we appear before the Lord we can say to him: 'Lord, you see that we have changed.' The German people is no longer a people of dishonor and shame, of self-destructiveness and cowardice. No, Lord, the German people is once more strong in spirit, strong in determination, strong in the willingness to bear every sacrifice. Lord, now bless our battle and our freedom, and therefore our German people and fatherland." - Adolf Hitler, Prayer, May 1, 1933 "The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgment of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism is hostile to religion is a lie." - Adolf Hitler, speech to members of the Nazi Party on the Nazi-Vatican Concordant, July 22, 1933 *"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."* - Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933 He had indeed. He outlawed the German Freethinkers Association and confiscated their property. *"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."* - Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936 The extermination of 'inferior races' as practiced by the Nazis was not 'Natural Selection' but rather artificial selection' to preserve an Aryan master race which they believed were the “highest image of God”. It was in fact the same sort of 'breeding' practiced by humans for thousands of years on their crops and livestock. The attempted extermination of the Jews had its roots in the antisemitism preached from Christian pulpits, Catholic and Protestant, throughout Europe for more than 1000 years. Whenever a priest or pastor was at a loss for a sermon topic 'Christ killer Jews' or accusations of 'Blood Libel' were always well received and usually resulted in attacks on Jews and their homes and businesses. Martin Luther was noted for his anti Jewish rants and lobbied for their expulsion and confiscation of their properties. In 1543 Martin Luther published a book "On the Jews and Their Lies", a 65,000-word antisemitic treatise. Here is an excerpt: *"What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? ...Let me give you my honest advice. First, their synagogues or churches should be set on fire. ...Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. ...Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books..."*. And that is just some of his milder writing. How about that? A Neo-Nazi in the 16th century. Christian theologians lit the fuse that became the Holocaust. Martin Luther's book "On the Jews and Their Lies" is available as a pdf download, (make sure you want the whole thing). The Gospel Coalition has published some of his choicest epithets; "Luther’s Jewish Problem" October 19, 2017 www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/luthers-jewish-problem/ Hitler and the Nazis did not invent antisemitism, they merely exploited what was already there. Christianity had a very definite role in creating the climate that enabled the Holocaust. It is time they recognized that fact and did more than a few "Mea Culpas".
Hitler banned and burned all of Darwin's and Haeckel's books. Hitler hated atheists and banned them from joining the SS. He loved Jesus so much he painted pictures of him. Hitler was a creationist who thought Germans were created by God as the finest examples of humanity.
Hitler was an evolution-hating creationist. 'It was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will.The State should consecrate it as an institution which is called upon to produce creatures made in the likeness of the Lord.' -Creationist Adolf Hitler
@@DocReasonable *Interesting trolling from ur accounts "docreasonable", "randallwilks" and "conan-le-cimmerien". Does God in the Bible teach that some humans are low race non-humans or Darwin in his books?*
*Beautiful one from Max Planck - founder of modern science, read it carefully:* _As a physicist, that is, a man who had devoted his whole life to a wholly prosaic science, the exploration of matter, no one would surely suspect me of being a fantast. And so, having studied the atom, I am telling you that there is no matter as such! All matter arises and persists only due to a force that causes the atomic particles to vibrate, holding them together in the tiniest of solar systems, the atom._ _Yet in the whole of the universe there is no force that is either intelligent or eternal, and we must therefore assume that behind this force there is a conscious, intelligent Mind or Spirit. This is the very origin of all matter_
@@TheHairyHeathen *All the greatest scientists of this planet acknowledged an intelligent creator exactly because of the undeniable evidence for him. U and quadrillions of other being are the undeniable evidence for an intelligent creator, everything in this universe is evidence for him (and this is also the topic of my quote), but of course, only intelligent people can understand this simple thing, 66 year old troll.*
@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 yet another steaming dog turd issuing from the foetid hole you call your mouth. Where is the actual science these incredulous scientists performed that demonstrated the existence of your imaginary friend? I'm waiting with bated breath for your citations. LOL
@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Larsen uses the image of Maxwell Planck on several of his dozens of trolling accounts. Planck, the closest confidante and dearest friend of Hitler. Planck also loved Fritz Haber, the creator of chemical warfare and Zyklon-B, used to excruciatingly gas millions of civilians, mostly Jewish people.
@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 I wonder why Gustard uses an avatar of Maxwell Planck, the man who enabled the development of Zyklon-B for the Holocaust? Gustard does say the Jews deserved it, and he supports Hamas, so....
*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._
So Oscar wasn't happy with soiling himself while talking about science in general or that he is jealous of my country. So he tried to talk about martial arts; "how did he do" you might ask. To start off Oscar wanted to say that French boxing wasn't a thing, already now you should be mocking him as he is claiming that a sport that is seeing competitions all over the world and has a regulating body is not real. But that's not all! See Oscar wanted to sound smart, however he didn't know the real name of the art so what did he call it? "Muay Thai", yep he mistook Thai boxing for French boxing. Apparently the "thai" in "Muay Thai" wasn't enough of a clue nevermind that the name is in thai language. For the curious the name of French boxing is "Savate" in reference to the shoes the practionners use to kick with. If you wanted a new reason to point and laugh at Oscar, you have one.
Au Parc Astérix, il y avait un spectacle "vintage" rue de Paris avec des danses et puis des combats de savate et de cane que j'ai du jouer cent fois. Thanks for reminding me. Oscar can be a useful idiot parfois.
Oh, absolutely it is. Anyhow your argument is just one of *_personal incredulity_* combined with a *_god of the gaps_* argument. That is: _"I can't, don't, or _*_won't_*_ believe that DNA can form naturally, therefore it didn't"_ linking to _"I don't see how DNA could exist without magic, therefore my favourite imaginary sky wizard is real"._
@@gardenflower-k3n LOL. It's funny how every time someone exposes the weakness of your argument, instead of admitting you argument is weak, or even trying to defend your argument, all you do is try to attack the person. These are the actions of a giant LOSER.
@@TheHairyHeathen fff *If people watch the v4de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" they understand why u believe nature can create codes and information, 66 year old troll A. Eldridge*
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....*
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.
juh *Another beautiful one from Einstein:* _Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble_
“I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.” ― Albert Einstein letter to Haner
@@gardenflower-k3n Here's another confirmed quote by Einstein: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
@gdanskbedankst You forgot the rest of the quote about having thrown off the chains of theism, quote-mining is what liars do, when they cannot dispute 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.
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. RUclips has great vids of starlings' imitations.
*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...* 😂😂😂😂
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.
I confess I have the same problem as Lord Kelvin who said thi: _the a-theistic idea is so n-onsensical, that I do not know how I can put it into words_
@biglongfish9253 Lorraine Larsen fails to understand that it's possible for people to be awake in Australia, USA, Asia, Africa and Europe ALL AT THE SAME TIME. What is it about the world that baffles U so much, Lorraine??
@biglongfish9253 I didn't, how did you get the crazy idea that if you're wrong a thousand times then being wrong one more time won't be a problem for you?
saw *Absolutely beautiful and true one 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._
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien *That has to be told by u, the one who insisted that ostriches have no wings, as it can be seen in the v3de0 "ergonomober and the ostrich"* 😅😅😅
@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 That you can't differentiate people doesn't surprise anyone. That you don't know what's in your video doesn't surprise anyone. That you can't even write the title of your video, now you've dug yourself an even bigger hole.
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.
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)
"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.*
ski *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_ 😂😂😂😂
*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?
@ginobarila Buttwipe Larsen thinks mammals should have 3 or more eyes as evidence for evolution. Despite the fact that 2 eyes are the ideal for stereoscopic vision and depth perception. Any additional eyes would destroy this ability and would make vision non-functional. Natural selection only favours ADVANTAGES, U thick piece of sht Lsrsen.
@ginobarila Your own quote does not allow design as possibility. Example: Nonrandom is not meaning willful intent by a mind. Example: So does a rock rolling down from a leftsided hill by gravity not mean an intelligence did decide to push it down to the left, the hill was just nonrandomly leftsided due to exact erosion by leftwind currents and the rock did lie to the left edge with statistical lef winds. That you can't understand nonrandomness ALSO means no God is not the fault of people. It is you confusing randomness as term with senselessness emotions in your private life. ;-)
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.
@@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
Well except for fossil records, ERV markers, antibiotic research, pseudo genes, ring species, chromosome 2 in humans, cytochrome c and b, vestigial organs, homologous structures, divergence, nested Hierarchs and classification, continental distribution, endemism, observed speciation and avoids simulation.
*I really do love DNA. Your amazingly complex and intelligent organism is built following the instructions written on a piece of matter whose volume is 80 times smaller than the one of a single living cell. DNA a masterpiece and the undeniable evidence for an intelligent creator.*
"I really do love DNA." You don't. You don't even know how the sugarbackbone acid DNA operates. Example: "the instructions written on a piece of matter" There is nothing _written_ : The rows chaining up with the electrical charged partneracids are called by the term infos. There is no mindinfo meant with the term info in the acid topic. "undeniable evidence for an intelligent creator." The trait intelligence is billions of years younger in origin than DNA is old. Same goes for the much younger in time _to create_ activity, which also came to be long after DNA was already established for billion years. Your conspiracy myth where the much older age of DNA is just denied by you as a private person is however evidence that you hate the order of history, as it sheds a light upon how menmade tales of a creator came to be and are ultimately just a form of dishonesty. That you do not want that the dishonesty is exposed under the spotlight - because it hurts your feelings and your inflated Ego you worship as deity - you repeat phrases. The funny thing is that there is no faith freedom or free will in reality about these topics.
@@starfish-f3t You once more deeply wish to confuse me with different people. I just rubbed under your nose Larsen, that reality does not allow intelligence as trait and the to create activity to be even remotely as old as the billion of years OLDER DNA. This is why intelligent design or creator believes are illegit by the order of history. That you jump around with meaningless insults like always is not my fault. Like you also do not want to learn that the sugar acid row chains of DNA are called info, where nothing is written. We do not talk about little books with ink.
@ Why do you bear false witness? I was the one informing you that ostrich have birdwing anatomy. You confuse me with different users, those user did inform you about the flightfunction defintion of wings VERSUS the bone and tissue one you repeat endlessly. And Water does contain dissolved oxygen O2 molecules or fish could not respriate in rivers and seas.
@@Angelmou *Not long time ago u revealed to the world other amazing scientific facts like: ostriches do not have wings; water contains molecules of oxygen; 250 -v237 means an increase of 23.*
dsu *Absolutely 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_
"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.
If you are an intelligent being, then you could answer my question: Can you actually describe what detectable and measurable, objectively verifiable, properties, qualities and attributes that intelligently designed things must have, that non intelligently designed things lack? Or are you just a vacuous *_"r-trd"_* expressing your personal incredulity?
@ruach-m2b so you admit you cannot identify anything of non-human origin which has been intelligently designed. Thank you for your admission of failure.
@ruach-m2b now, if were some other person you claim I am, whom you like to quote out of context, that DOES NOT alter the fact that you can not identify anything of non-human origin which has been intelligently designed. You failed, you lose, sorry, go have a cry now.
@ruach-m2b that's right, you keep on crying like the giant loser that you are. It is plainly obvious that you cannot identify anything of non-human origin which has been intelligently designed, but completely lack the integrity to admit this.
@@TheHairyHeathen frf _If you are an intelligent being_ *No doubt, while u r the rrr-trd who insisted that ostriches have no wings, so my post was not for u, 66 year old troll.*
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._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
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!_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
ATTENTION: Please check your reason and logic at the door when viewing this video. Upon its conclusion they will be restored to you. Thank you for your cooperation. We hope you enjoyed this ancient fantasy.
The reason is sound as observations are presented. The only people who have issues are people worshipping misimprinted feelings. You _REALLY_ have a lot of fear that private (subjective) sense in life feelings could be revealed as objective void of any actual meaning. I asked you the last 5x why you do run away from the repeatably observable info gain mutation types by their very names (such as dispersed duplication mutation or proximal duplication mutation and several more) before I also asked for your private help to show the asserted _more than natural_ processes (your alleged supernatural proceedings). This means to shed a light upon the metaphysiscal superproceedings and metanatural organ counterparts like what the counterpart of the ear organ would be in an asserted supernatural realm or how hearing or superhearing processes would be superproceeded etc. *You are however on "default ignore" mode.* As if even the tinniest drop of reality risks your claims to crumble. Maybe because observations are hardly to get in line with the denial of the very order of history - like the much younger in time _to create_ & _to design_ activity long after life already diversified. So that any designer or creator claim is ultimately a denial of the order of history and therefore ultimately an illegit opinion, usually fueled by emotional anxiety to realize that asserted relationshippartners are solely existing in the fantasyrealm of a bunch of humans.
*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_
@@starfish-f3t Switching from one user account "user-ei6ob4zw5l" to "starfish-f3t" as sockpuppet also to upvote yourself and accusing others what you do Larsen with more insult tries of your own ill-mannered behavior after quoting long dead people once more. It would not be a surprise if you hear voices in your mind and think they are those (most of the time) out of their actual context & meaning quotes.
@user-ei6ob4zw5l WHY do U switch Ur trolling accounts when you spew the exact same cr@p from each of them? Is it so U won't be banned for too much trolling from the same account?? OF COURSE it is, U slimey ruckin fetard.
@@starfish-f3t WHY do U switch Ur trolling accounts when you spew the exact same cr@p from each of them? Is it so U won't be banned for too much trolling from the same account?? OF COURSE it is, U slimey ruckin fetard.
@@DocReasonable juh *I switch my accounts, but I do not pretend that my accounts belong to different persons, I don't carry imaginary dialogs between them and I don't praise myself from them, like u do, 66 year old embarrassing troll.* 😂😂😂😂😂😂
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…
@Lorabundy-vi5uw As your quote shows, you have no understanding of science that is why you believe in a god. Also, a little reminder, we are all smarter than you. That's why debunking you is so easy. P.S : if you want about deep scientific researches why are you always failing to provide evidence?
*Beautiful, from Dawkins:* _if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
*Answers in Genesis says arguments you shouldn't use include:* -- evolution is just a theory, Paluxy dino and human tracks, there are no beneficial mutations, there are no transitional forms, polystrate trees, evolution is not adaptation, the speed of light slowed down, NASA faked the Moon landings, macroevolution over thousands of generations should be immediately observable, radiometric dating is all false, God allows free will choices, Greenland ice layers, scientists are out to get you, why are there still apes, fossilized clams on Mount Everest, there's a living Brontosaurus in the Congo, fossils don't prove the creature had children, any of Ron Wyatt's claims, there are no fish with limbs, etc etc.
Yeah it shows Dawkins is open minded about possibilities - while no one could demonstrate any signature, so the design claimers failed to provide any evidence.
swu *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_ 😂😂😂😂
_"This goes against one of the key assumptions of the theory of evolution"_ Who says so, give a citation that this is a requirement that evolution must be true. Otherwise admit that this is just another *_LIE_* that you made up. You're not just a loser, you're a despicable and immoral loser!
@@TheHairyHeathen *This is from Newton, with love, for u:* _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_
@user-ei6ob4zw5l Well thank you for sharing that, but why should I give a damn about Newton's opinion. Newton also was a believer in alchemy. Do you accept that is true because it was his opinion?
@user-ei6ob4zw5l You lack of citation would seem to be an ADMISSION that this is just another *_LIE_* that you have made up. Do you actually believe your own lies? If so, you should probably be talking to a therapist.
*Simply beautiful, quoting the 66 year old ballet dancer Eldridge aka "docreasonable"/"FlandiddlyandersFRS":* *he:* _An entire human digitized genome = 3.436687 Gb. My computer could hold 330 of them._ *he again:* _That's an argument for the superi0rity of humans over god_ *Right, because unlike his computer, a human body holds.....30 trillion copies of a genome!!!!!!* 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
And they are all ape info variations with the exact info you run away from - it is like all dogcells also contain the wolf info mutations of the dogness. What a shocking reveal that evolution is correct. ;-)
@changgi-tn4uy You repeat this insult post to distract from the fact that you run away from the ape base in each human DNA in each cell in our bodies. So the trillion times the evidence for evolution as repeatable observation. ;-) So your mocking fails once more. Like it always does. It just shows you to run away from the evidence over and over again.
“I am not very impressed with theological arguments whatever they may be used to support. Such arguments have often been found unsatisfactory in the past. In the time of Galileo it was argued that the texts, 'And the sun stood still... and hasted not to go down about a whole day' (Joshua x. 13) and 'He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not move at any time' (Psalm cv. 5) were an adequate refutation of the Copernican theory.” ― Alan Turing, (gay atheist founder of computer science) 'Computing machinery and intelligence'
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_ 😂😂😂😂
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!_ 😂😂😂😂 😂😂😂😂
This is not superstition, it is actually applied in engineering and design. Superstition is the primitive belief in magical unseen beings that use magic to conjure life into existence, you know, the sort of nonsense you find credible.
@@lolekbolek-jz9ko you are quite pathetic. You could easily have Googled it, but instead just decided to try to insult the person who showed that your assertions are wrong, because I pointed out that it is YOUR magical beliefs which are primitive superstitions. Why is it that you cling to such backward ideas?
*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...
*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!_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
ghy *Simply 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._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@user-ei6ob4zw5l You know a lot about humiliation, being on the receiving end of it! Case in point, you just had to start your comment with a wrong assumption. So for a red herring you chose self-humiliation...not wise.
*Simply beautiful, from Dawkins:* _if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Switching to another sockpuppet by just copy and pasting a statement of Dawkins to be open minded - but till this day no one could show any signature. This was the context you ignore with your quotemine ;-)
@changgi-tn4uy Your deflecting try where you once more bear false witness is just to distract that you run away from the context of the open mindness of Dawkins. This happens when you engage in quotemining and confuse it with "mocking". And writing emoticons does not make you laugh, either. ;-)
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.
jiu *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_ 😅😅😅😅😅
“RIP creatards! From live science, 2022: New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA. This goes against one of the key Straw Men that creatards like to make by pretending evolution is random” -Fixed it for you
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
*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.
aki *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_ 😅😅😅😅😅
“RIP creatards! From live science, 2022: New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA. This goes against one of the key Straw Men that creatards like to make by pretending evolution is random” -Fixed it for you
*Check the v3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" to see an evolutionist convinced that ostriches do not have wings. And that's the best Aronra's cult has.* 😅😅😅
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?
*Unforgettable this one from Lord Kelvin says the same thing as all other greatest scientists:* _If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God._
Quotations, regardless of who said them, are only opinions and neither prove, nor disprove anything. If you had any actual evidence supporting your case you wouldn't be bothered with quotations. When you fall back to using quotations you CONCEDE that you have no case.
My oldest memories of him were on "one fact" video where he used an account called "Larsen" or maybe "Gustav Larsen" - same butchered English *In bold* . It soon disappeared and when someone called him Larsen, he responded "who's Larsen?". He flaunts his lies. At that time 2 years ago, there was also a mega-troll called Magnus Carlsen, an Impersonation of the Chess champ. I love chess and hate fakers. Need to get my keyboard fixed, the "I" doesn't work.
@ergonomover Yes, the Magnus Carlsen impersonator appeared around the same time that Gustav Larsen first emerged from the sewers. Gustav Larsen is obviously a Scandinavian name, but I seriously doubt he's from that part of the world. They tend to speak English. You might have to use lower case 'L' for the time being!
@@ergonomover*Talking to ur own trolling accounts makes u look d-mbrr than usual. Why did u insist thay in my v2de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" nobody says that ostriches do not have wings?*
@@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.
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien *Why r u projecting, s-c-umbag? Remember u insisted that Trrump is an atheist and that ostriches have no wings. This is UR reality.*
@gdanskbedankst I most certainly didn't say that. Whether Rump is an atheist or not doesn't matter as he found use in cults of morons all over the US. Cults like yours, Larsen.
*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._
*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 RUclips 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.
*To get science from a creature who insisted that ostriches have no wings and that 250 - 237 means an increase of 23 is like learning math from a duck.*
*Beautiful - this one from Lord Kelvin says the same thing as all other greatest scientists:* _If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God._
During the middle ages, the church found that an Auto da fe was far more effective at forcing a belief in god. Creationists are very frustrated that this option is not open to them. They have been reduced to hurling insults rather than torches.
apw *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_ 😂😂😂😂
Here is what that study actually says: *Mutation Bias Reflects Natural Selection in Arabidopsis Thaliana* Grey Monroe, J. et al. (2022) Nature _Our findings reveal adaptive mutation bias that is mediated by a link between mutation rate and the epigenome. This is mechanistically sound in light of evidence that DNA repair factors are recruited by specific features of the epigenome._ _This intuitive model fits established Theory showing that adaptive mutation bias does evolve despite drift when the length of sequence affected is large._ _Thus, while perhaps initially surprising, our synthesis between epigenomics and population genetic Theory predicts that the observed biases readily arise via natural selection._ _The adaptive mutation bias described here provides confirmation for many previous observations in eukaryotes, including reduced genetic variation in constrained loci._ _Since mutational biases are a product of evolution, they differ between organisms, which explains differences in the distribution of fitness effects of new mutations among species._ _Our discovery yields a new account of the forces driving patterns of natural selection inspiring future directions for Theoretical and practical research on mutation in biology and evolution._
gju *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'm still waiting for you to produce that citation of a scientific study that says evolution must be driven only by random mutations. I wonder why you can't produce that? Would it be because you are 'full of it' and this isn't true?
“RIP creatards! From live science, 2022: New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA. This goes against one of the key Straw Men that creatards like to make by pretending evolution is random” -Fixed it for you
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
- Touch Grass
You forgot "-Go fishing"
I really enjoyed the video, I learned a lot and l liked how you showed the real bones.
Or... try to understand and respect the other person's point of view.
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.
bhy *Another sad day in which no one single 1-cell bacterium was seen evolving to a 2-cell bacterium.*
Your feelings are hurt Larsen, but it doesn't matter. Reality doesn't cater to your whim.
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien *Reality is what I posted above, 66 year old troll. While ur reality is "ostriches do not have wings"* 😅😅😅😅
@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Were u looking, shthead??
@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 It isn't Larsen, it never was and never will be.
@user-ei6ob4zw5l When you repeat the same debunked lie about me you just show that you moral value whatsoever.
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.*
This comment didn’t age well…
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: ruclips.net/video/AXQP_R-yiuw/видео.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
ght *He tries to obfuscate the fact that today is Another sad day in which no one single 1-cell bacterium was seen evolving to a 2-cell bacterium.*
You mean another day in which you deny that very specific thing on which you were debunked. Nothing new from you.
So you still run from photos of diplococci and you been able to witness it yourself under a microscope, because you hate 2 celled bacteria.
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien *That's just your impression of urs, but remember u insisted that ostriches do not have wings. I suggest u study the anatomy of a real ostrich.*
@gdanskbedankst
If ostriches DO have wings, why can't they fly?
The answer is either:
a.) god is ret@rded (like U)
OR
b.) evolution is a fact.
@gdanskbedankst I suggest that you stop lying and actually all the debunking you received, you won't because you are a coward but my advice is still sound.
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?
*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.
Who is "we"? You are all alone here like you were when you didn't celebrate Christmas, poor little troll dude.
No amount of lies will make a falsehood true. I sleep 8 hours a night and use ONE account, you should try it sometime. *I keep saying ostriches have vestigial wings that evolution explains, why don't you quote me on that?*
*Newton has simply 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. Newton died in 1727, almost 100 years before Charles Darwin was even born. Sadly, Newton wasted decades with alchemy, trying to change lead into gold, and never benefited from Darwin's observations and insights that are the basis of modern biology.
The 'proof' Newton wanted came along 140 years after his death, it's called "The Origin of Species".
You used only 30 of your trolling accounts to upvote this irrelevant quote?
gaw *Another sad day in which no one single 1-cell bacterium was seen evolving to a 2-cell bacterium.*
Were U looking?? If so, did U use a telescope, binoculars, periscope, microscope or a Viewmaster? Ignorant sht.
You were shown 6 species of multicellular bacteria, Ron Perry used you to teach about cyanobacteria which you had to deny was bacteria, your humiliation was complete.
@@ergonomover *Small correction. The 6 species of multicellular bacteria weren't species of multi-cellular bacteria. It seems that education has chased u and Perry ur whole lives, but u have always been faster.*
@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Cyanobacteria is multicellular bacteria (you can verify with a microscope) no matter how much you dishonestly moved the goalposts.
I even showed you dictionary definitions that backed up Ron Perry, you had nothing but empty hands waving.
Education, do you have any? What was your source - you never mentioned. Creationist website, right?
*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 alleged mechanism, the mutation lottery, as the source of ever inflating complexity and mind-boggling creativity is fundamentally absurd. Imagine an alphabet lottery spitting out Britanica. That would be child's play compared to generating the book of life in all its staggering diversity. Natural selection does not conceive new information...
Given that DNA is excessively complex and that the phenomenon of duplication followed by any other mutations just creates new genes. I'd say you are dead wrong.
P.S : Information isn't a thing in biology.
Your comparison is a misleading lie, as the diversity in nature is not a lottery from scratch like an empty slate as your spitting out Britanica comparison want you to believe - it is gradual variation of what is always already established with the observed deathtoll you also ignore. This humaness info is apeness info base deformation for the same reason dogness is from wolfness the deformation. And natural selection is like the name says the selection factor not the conceiving factor. Info gain mutations & gene drift etc. by specific types are, where you ignore the names. Do you actually paraphrase your sentences that way so that you can speak in your bedroom to the air and think you would speak to an invisible Jesus and not to confess lies, because due to a technicality you crafted by sinister intent, you did not write a direct lie, just bogus with the power to deceit and ultimately misleading independent readers, who did not pay close enough attention to what is wrong with your writings? Or is it to hypnotize yourself so that you really belief evolution would cast trillion letters, instead of short words saving them if they are correct and diversify always from the last safepoint till you have a book with long lists of saved correct spellings upfront in a heridity list.
No, new information comes from point mutations and gene duplication.
@@happilysecular1833 *New information never appear by itself contrary to ur superstitions.*
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.*
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.
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.
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
*Another sad day in which no one single 1-cell bacterium was seen evolving to a 2-cell bacterium.*
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!
Same here!
@@martinludena8758 Wdym
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.
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.
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?
hyg *Another sad day in which no one single 1-cell bacterium was seen evolving to a 2-cell bacterium.*
Ron Perry made a video about this blunder of yours, thanks for your part in educating folks about evolution.
His "angry youtuber" short video now has 5.3 thousand views.
You were served over a half-dozen examples of multicellularity in bacteria - everybody saw it.
@@ergonomover *U mean he was so good at making a fool of himself and showing that he has no idea about biology.*
@user-ei6ob4zw5l You can only be talking about yourself. Everyone can see you are running from Anabeaena, Actinomycetes, Chloroflexi, Desulfobulbaceae, Beggiatoa and Thioploca as examples of multicellular bacteria. You lose every argument as your insults prove.
@user-ei6ob4zw5l
No, that's you, imbecile.
Weirdest comment section award goes to this video
This is what happens to creationist and flat Earth trolls when they get called out and humiliated.
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.*
*Some adults have the superstition that information gets randomly evolved.* 😅😅😅
Superstitions? Random? I have no idea what you’re talking about, but I accept a scientific fact called EVOLUTION. Ever heard of it?
@@happilysecular1833 Yeah, those adults who believe that ostriches have no wings.
@@happilysecular1833 *Ur great performance is captured in v1de0s like "ergonomover and the ostrich.*
@@happilysecular1833 *Not long time ago u revealed to the world other amazing scientific facts like: ostriches do not have wings; water contains molecules of oxygen; 250 -v237 means an increase of 23.*
*Darwin was a great source of inspiration for evolutionists, including for Hitler who implemented in WWII the vision of Darwin about the superior race.*
Ah that lie again Larsen. Does it plague you at night that Hitler was a creationnist, like you, who didn't understand evolution and had Darwin's book burned? You don't like to be reminded that Hitler didn't his religious views and that they are quite clearly yours.
*MORE LIES CREATIONISTS TELL - "That Hitler and the Nazis were atheists and influenced by Darwin's Theory of Evolution''* Among the vast repertoire of lies being spread by creationists, none are so blatantly false nor so easily refuted as these.
First, Hitler was most certainly NOT atheist, he was raised Catholic and told one of his generals "I will always be a Catholic." In his speeches and writing he often invoked 'God the Creator'.
Secondly, his thinking was in no way influenced by Charles Darwin's ideas. There is no indication Hitler ever read anything Charles Darwin wrote.
Such assertions are examples of creationist attempts to vilify a highly respected man who has been dead for 130 years. Since they cannot counter his ideas with facts, they demonstrate their lack of integrity by attacking the person. This is not only 'ad hominem' logical fallacy, but vicious slander.
Fundamentalist creationists assert that the Theory of Evolution caused Adolph Hitler to reject Christianity, making it possible for the Nazi's to conduct mass genocide against the Jewish people. These fallacious claims are easily refuted by quoting Hitler's own words which are a matter of record.
As to the assertion that Hitler and the Nazis were in any way influenced by Darwin, at no time in any of his speeches or writings did he even once mention Darwin or his books. On the contrary, Darwin's books were specifically singled out and banned by the Nazi party. An official Nazi library journal from 1935 lists several categories of banned books, one of them: "Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism". www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#guidelines
*The one thing that more than anything else influenced Hitler and the Nazis was Martin Luther's 1543 book "On the Jews and Their Lies".* In that book, this "Man of God" encouraged violence against the Jewish people; destruction of properties, expulsions,
That such a hate-filled treatise was written by a revered religious leader boggles the mind. It fueled antisemitism for centuries to come. It lead to the mass expulsion of Jews in many European countries and must in large part be held responsible for the Holocaust. That book and translations thereof can still be found on the internet and still inspire attacks on Jewish people in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Hitler identified as a Christian and believed he was doing 'God's will'. He outlawed the German Freethinkers Association (atheists and agnostics), confiscated their property, and gave it to religious organizations. Hitler even bragged about it in a speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933:
*"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."*
So much for creationist lies. Here are Hitler's own words with citations:
"Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5
"Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward."- Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12
"That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?"
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 10
"For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!' "
- Adolf Hitler's prayer, Mein Kampf, Vol. 2 Chapter 13
*"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people."* - Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant.
"We don't ask the Almighty, 'Lord, make us free!' We want to be active, to work, to work together, so that when the hour comes that we appear before the Lord we can say to him: 'Lord, you see that we have changed.' The German people is no longer a people of dishonor and shame, of self-destructiveness and cowardice. No, Lord, the German people is once more strong in spirit, strong in determination, strong in the willingness to bear every sacrifice. Lord, now bless our battle and our freedom, and therefore our German people and fatherland." - Adolf Hitler, Prayer, May 1, 1933
"The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgment of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism is hostile to religion is a lie." - Adolf Hitler, speech to members of the Nazi Party on the Nazi-Vatican Concordant, July 22, 1933
*"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."* - Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933
He had indeed. He outlawed the German Freethinkers Association and confiscated their property.
*"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."* - Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936
The extermination of 'inferior races' as practiced by the Nazis was not 'Natural Selection' but rather artificial selection' to preserve an Aryan master race which they believed were the “highest image of God”. It was in fact the same sort of 'breeding' practiced by humans for thousands of years on their crops and livestock.
The attempted extermination of the Jews had its roots in the antisemitism preached from Christian pulpits, Catholic and Protestant, throughout Europe for more than 1000 years. Whenever a priest or pastor was at a loss for a sermon topic 'Christ killer Jews' or accusations of 'Blood Libel' were always well received and usually resulted in attacks on Jews and their homes and businesses.
Martin Luther was noted for his anti Jewish rants and lobbied for their expulsion and confiscation of their properties. In 1543 Martin Luther published a book "On the Jews and Their Lies", a 65,000-word antisemitic treatise. Here is an excerpt:
*"What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? ...Let me give you my honest advice. First, their synagogues or churches should be set on fire. ...Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. ...Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books..."*. And that is just some of his milder writing. How about that? A Neo-Nazi in the 16th century. Christian theologians lit the fuse that became the Holocaust.
Martin Luther's book "On the Jews and Their Lies" is available as a pdf download, (make sure you want the whole thing).
The Gospel Coalition has published some of his choicest epithets; "Luther’s Jewish Problem" October 19, 2017 www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/luthers-jewish-problem/
Hitler and the Nazis did not invent antisemitism, they merely exploited what was already there. Christianity had a very definite role in creating the climate that enabled the Holocaust. It is time they recognized that fact and did more than a few "Mea Culpas".
Hitler banned and burned all of Darwin's and Haeckel's books. Hitler hated atheists and banned them from joining the SS. He loved Jesus so much he painted pictures of him. Hitler was a creationist who thought Germans were created by God as the finest examples of humanity.
Hitler was an evolution-hating creationist. 'It was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will.The State should consecrate it as an institution which is called upon to produce creatures made in the likeness of the Lord.'
-Creationist Adolf Hitler
@@DocReasonable *Interesting trolling from ur accounts "docreasonable", "randallwilks" and "conan-le-cimmerien". Does God in the Bible teach that some humans are low race non-humans or Darwin in his books?*
*Beautiful one from Max Planck - founder of modern science, read it carefully:* _As a physicist, that is, a man who had devoted his whole life to a wholly prosaic science, the exploration of matter, no one would surely suspect me of being a fantast. And so, having studied the atom, I am telling you that there is no matter as such! All matter arises and persists only due to a force that causes the atomic particles to vibrate, holding them together in the tiniest of solar systems, the atom._
_Yet in the whole of the universe there is no force that is either intelligent or eternal, and we must therefore assume that behind this force there is a conscious, intelligent Mind or Spirit. This is the very origin of all matter_
Again, nothing but opinions, but *_NEVER_* any actual evidence for your imaginary friend. God of the gaps arguments. Pathetic.
@@TheHairyHeathen *All the greatest scientists of this planet acknowledged an intelligent creator exactly because of the undeniable evidence for him. U and quadrillions of other being are the undeniable evidence for an intelligent creator, everything in this universe is evidence for him (and this is also the topic of my quote), but of course, only intelligent people can understand this simple thing, 66 year old troll.*
@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703
yet another steaming dog turd issuing from the foetid hole you call your mouth. Where is the actual science these incredulous scientists performed that demonstrated the existence of your imaginary friend? I'm waiting with bated breath for your citations. LOL
@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Larsen uses the image of Maxwell Planck on several of his dozens of trolling accounts. Planck, the closest confidante and dearest friend of Hitler. Planck also loved Fritz Haber, the creator of chemical warfare and Zyklon-B, used to excruciatingly gas millions of civilians, mostly Jewish people.
@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 I wonder why Gustard uses an avatar of Maxwell Planck, the man who enabled the development of Zyklon-B for the Holocaust? Gustard does say the Jews deserved it, and he supports Hamas, so....
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…😉
*"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.
*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?
@@DocReasonable*Greetings from the creationist Newton, ostricher.* 😅😅😅😅😅
So Oscar wasn't happy with soiling himself while talking about science in general or that he is jealous of my country. So he tried to talk about martial arts; "how did he do" you might ask.
To start off Oscar wanted to say that French boxing wasn't a thing, already now you should be mocking him as he is claiming that a sport that is seeing competitions all over the world and has a regulating body is not real.
But that's not all! See Oscar wanted to sound smart, however he didn't know the real name of the art so what did he call it? "Muay Thai", yep he mistook Thai boxing for French boxing. Apparently the "thai" in "Muay Thai" wasn't enough of a clue nevermind that the name is in thai language. For the curious the name of French boxing is "Savate" in reference to the shoes the practionners use to kick with.
If you wanted a new reason to point and laugh at Oscar, you have one.
🤣
Au Parc Astérix, il y avait un spectacle "vintage" rue de Paris avec des danses et puis des combats de savate et de cane que j'ai du jouer cent fois. Thanks for reminding me. Oscar can be a useful idiot parfois.
@@ergonomover Gonna have to thank him on this one
*DNA is the undeniable evidence of an intelligent creator. Nature creating information and codes was not observed in the wild.*
Oh, absolutely it is. Anyhow your argument is just one of *_personal incredulity_* combined with a *_god of the gaps_* argument. That is: _"I can't, don't, or _*_won't_*_ believe that DNA can form naturally, therefore it didn't"_ linking to _"I don't see how DNA could exist without magic, therefore my favourite imaginary sky wizard is real"._
@@TheHairyHeathen *If people watch the v4de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" they understand why u believe nature can create codes and information.*
@@gardenflower-k3n
Your video only shows you're a psychopathic cyberstalker.
@@gardenflower-k3n
LOL. It's funny how every time someone exposes the weakness of your argument, instead of admitting you argument is weak, or even trying to defend your argument, all you do is try to attack the person. These are the actions of a giant LOSER.
@@TheHairyHeathen fff *If people watch the v4de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" they understand why u believe nature can create codes and information, 66 year old troll A. Eldridge*
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.
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
juh *Another beautiful one from Einstein:* _Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble_
“I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.”
― Albert Einstein letter to Haner
@@ergonomover *Fake letter. Quoting Einstein:* _I am not an atheist_ 😂😂😂
@@gardenflower-k3n Here's another confirmed quote by Einstein: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
@@ergonomover *A very beautiful one from Einstein:* _a-t-heists are like s-laves_ 😂😂
@gdanskbedankst You forgot the rest of the quote about having thrown off the chains of theism, quote-mining is what liars do, when they cannot dispute evolution.
*Internet-the place where people come to l-augh at the c-r1c-ture A-n-drew Eldridge "ergonomover".*
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🤮🤮
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. RUclips 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.
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?*
*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...* 😂😂😂😂
*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.
I confess I have the same problem as Lord Kelvin who said thi: _the a-theistic idea is so n-onsensical, that I do not know how I can put it into words_
That you believe that physic is over?
Or are you referring to your constant appeal to authority fallacy?
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien*How did u get that crazy idea that ostriches do not have wings?*
@biglongfish9253 Lorraine Larsen fails to understand that it's possible for people to be awake in Australia, USA, Asia, Africa and Europe ALL AT THE SAME TIME. What is it about the world that baffles U so much, Lorraine??
@@DocReasonable *Who is Lorraine? And how did u get that crazy idea that ostriches do not have wings?*
@biglongfish9253 I didn't, how did you get the crazy idea that if you're wrong a thousand times then being wrong one more time won't be a problem for you?
saw *Absolutely beautiful and true one 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._
Can U jerk off in private?
Every time you speak you show that Pascal was wrong in calling theists rational.
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien *That has to be told by u, the one who insisted that ostriches have no wings, as it can be seen in the v3de0 "ergonomober and the ostrich"* 😅😅😅
@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 That you can't differentiate people doesn't surprise anyone.
That you don't know what's in your video doesn't surprise anyone.
That you can't even write the title of your video, now you've dug yourself an even bigger hole.
And ur pascal is wrong
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.
Ok I don't get anything
Yeah, evolution is pretty complex. You should come back when you’re in high school or college.
@@happilysecular1833
Or middle school!
@@happilysecular1833 *Indeed, especially that now we know from u that ostriches have no wings....*
*Don't u get the wonderful fallacy "similarities=inheritance"?*
maybe u r stupid or a kid
*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.*
*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.*
ski *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_ 😂😂😂😂
*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?
*Indeed, the absence of the mammals with 3 or 4 eyes destroys the myth of evolution.*
Why?
@ginobarila Buttwipe Larsen thinks mammals should have 3 or more eyes as evidence for evolution. Despite the fact that 2 eyes are the ideal for stereoscopic vision and depth perception. Any additional eyes would destroy this ability and would make vision non-functional. Natural selection only favours ADVANTAGES, U thick piece of sht Lsrsen.
@ginobarila
and who says evolution is random? Besides, you already confirmed you believe evolution is true.
@ginobarila Your own quote does not allow design as possibility. Example: Nonrandom is not meaning willful intent by a mind. Example: So does a rock rolling down from a leftsided hill by gravity not mean an intelligence did decide to push it down to the left, the hill was just nonrandomly leftsided due to exact erosion by leftwind currents and the rock did lie to the left edge with statistical lef winds. That you can't understand nonrandomness ALSO means no God is not the fault of people. It is you confusing randomness as term with senselessness emotions in your private life. ;-)
@@Angelmou *Ur babbling reminds me the unforgettable moment when u revealed the world 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"?😂😂😂😂😂😂👽
😂
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
Maybe there isn't that much evidence
Well except for fossil records, ERV markers, antibiotic research, pseudo genes, ring species, chromosome 2 in humans, cytochrome c and b, vestigial organs, homologous structures, divergence, nested Hierarchs and classification, continental distribution, endemism, observed speciation and avoids simulation.
@@happilysecular1833 *Ah, so no evidence!*
@@happilysecular1833I live that bs with the ERV markers.
*I really do love DNA. Your amazingly complex and intelligent organism is built following the instructions written on a piece of matter whose volume is 80 times smaller than the one of a single living cell. DNA a masterpiece and the undeniable evidence for an intelligent creator.*
"I really do love DNA." You don't. You don't even know how the sugarbackbone acid DNA operates. Example:
"the instructions written on a piece of matter" There is nothing _written_ : The rows chaining up with the electrical charged partneracids are called by the term infos. There is no mindinfo meant with the term info in the acid topic.
"undeniable evidence for an intelligent creator." The trait intelligence is billions of years younger in origin than DNA is old. Same goes for the much younger in time _to create_ activity, which also came to be long after DNA was already established for billion years. Your conspiracy myth where the much older age of DNA is just denied by you as a private person is however evidence that you hate the order of history, as it sheds a light upon how menmade tales of a creator came to be and are ultimately just a form of dishonesty.
That you do not want that the dishonesty is exposed under the spotlight - because it hurts your feelings and your inflated Ego you worship as deity - you repeat phrases.
The funny thing is that there is no faith freedom or free will in reality about these topics.
@@Angelmou *The opinions of a r-trd who insisted that there is a single instance of the genome in the human body are irrelevant, 66 year old troll.*
@@starfish-f3t You once more deeply wish to confuse me with different people. I just rubbed under your nose Larsen, that reality does not allow intelligence as trait and the to create activity to be even remotely as old as the billion of years OLDER DNA. This is why intelligent design or creator believes are illegit by the order of history. That you jump around with meaningless insults like always is not my fault. Like you also do not want to learn that the sugar acid row chains of DNA are called info, where nothing is written. We do not talk about little books with ink.
@ Why do you bear false witness? I was the one informing you that ostrich have birdwing anatomy. You confuse me with different users, those user did inform you about the flightfunction defintion of wings VERSUS the bone and tissue one you repeat endlessly. And Water does contain dissolved oxygen O2 molecules or fish could not respriate in rivers and seas.
@@Angelmou *Not long time ago u revealed to the world other amazing scientific facts like: ostriches do not have wings; water contains molecules of oxygen; 250 -v237 means an increase of 23.*
de3 *Absolutely beautiful one from Dawkins, he has my respect for it:* _A serious case could be made for a deistic God._
dsu *Absolutely 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_
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.
*Any intelligently designed thing is proof of an intelligent maker, but of course, only intelligent beings can acknowledge that.*
If you are an intelligent being, then you could answer my question: Can you actually describe what detectable and measurable, objectively verifiable, properties, qualities and attributes that intelligently designed things must have, that non intelligently designed things lack? Or are you just a vacuous *_"r-trd"_* expressing your personal incredulity?
@ruach-m2b
so you admit you cannot identify anything of non-human origin which has been intelligently designed. Thank you for your admission of failure.
@ruach-m2b
now, if were some other person you claim I am, whom you like to quote out of context, that DOES NOT alter the fact that you can not identify anything of non-human origin which has been intelligently designed. You failed, you lose, sorry, go have a cry now.
@ruach-m2b
that's right, you keep on crying like the giant loser that you are. It is plainly obvious that you cannot identify anything of non-human origin which has been intelligently designed, but completely lack the integrity to admit this.
@@TheHairyHeathen frf _If you are an intelligent being_
*No doubt, while u r the rrr-trd who insisted that ostriches have no wings, so my post was not for u, 66 year old troll.*
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?
@@sjoerdstougie *Irrelevant*
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!_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
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
ATTENTION: Please check your reason and logic at the door when viewing this video. Upon its conclusion they will be restored to you. Thank you for your cooperation. We hope you enjoyed this ancient fantasy.
The reason is sound as observations are presented. The only people who have issues are people worshipping misimprinted feelings. You _REALLY_ have a lot of fear that private (subjective) sense in life feelings could be revealed as objective void of any actual meaning. I asked you the last 5x why you do run away from the repeatably observable info gain mutation types by their very names (such as dispersed duplication mutation or proximal duplication mutation and several more) before I also asked for your private help to show the asserted _more than natural_ processes (your alleged supernatural proceedings). This means to shed a light upon the metaphysiscal superproceedings and metanatural organ counterparts like what the counterpart of the ear organ would be in an asserted supernatural realm or how hearing or superhearing processes would be superproceeded etc.
*You are however on "default ignore" mode.* As if even the tinniest drop of reality risks your claims to crumble.
Maybe because observations are hardly to get in line with the denial of the very order of history - like the much younger in time _to create_ & _to design_ activity long after life already diversified. So that any designer or creator claim is ultimately a denial of the order of history and therefore ultimately an illegit opinion, usually fueled by emotional anxiety to realize that asserted relationshippartners are solely existing in the fantasyrealm of a bunch of humans.
Even with magical creation, all living things come from the ONE LIFE SOURCE. So Ur arguing against your own beliefs as well, cretin.
*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_
@@happilysecular1833 *U r projecting, 66 year old p-athetic troll.*
@@starfish-f3t Switching from one user account "user-ei6ob4zw5l" to "starfish-f3t" as sockpuppet also to upvote yourself and accusing others what you do Larsen with more insult tries of your own ill-mannered behavior after quoting long dead people once more. It would not be a surprise if you hear voices in your mind and think they are those (most of the time) out of their actual context & meaning quotes.
@user-ei6ob4zw5l WHY do U switch Ur trolling accounts when you spew the exact same cr@p from each of them? Is it so U won't be banned for too much trolling from the same account?? OF COURSE it is, U slimey ruckin fetard.
@@starfish-f3t WHY do U switch Ur trolling accounts when you spew the exact same cr@p from each of them? Is it so U won't be banned for too much trolling from the same account?? OF COURSE it is, U slimey ruckin fetard.
@@DocReasonable juh *I switch my accounts, but I do not pretend that my accounts belong to different persons, I don't carry imaginary dialogs between them and I don't praise myself from them, like u do, 66 year old embarrassing troll.* 😂😂😂😂😂😂
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…
*Unforgettable and true saying from Pasteur:* _Too little science leads away from God, while too much science leads back to Him_
So why is it that no scientific research has established the existence of god?
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien *As my quote says, deep scientific research confirms the existence of God. Of course, only intelligent beings understand this.*
@@Lorabundy-vi5uw That's only a CLAIM, buttfq... provide EVIDENCE to back it up or pissov.
@Lorabundy-vi5uw As your quote shows, you have no understanding of science that is why you believe in a god. Also, a little reminder, we are all smarter than you. That's why debunking you is so easy.
P.S : if you want about deep scientific researches why are you always failing to provide evidence?
@@Lorabundy-vi5uw Putrid Larsen.... how come U can only quote dead people?? U have literally no observations of Ur own. Prurient shthead.
*Beautiful, from Dawkins:* _if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer._
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
*Answers in Genesis says arguments you shouldn't use include:*
-- evolution is just a theory, Paluxy dino and human tracks, there are no beneficial mutations, there are no transitional forms, polystrate trees, evolution is not adaptation, the speed of light slowed down, NASA faked the Moon landings, macroevolution over thousands of generations should be immediately observable, radiometric dating is all false, God allows free will choices, Greenland ice layers, scientists are out to get you, why are there still apes, fossilized clams on Mount Everest, there's a living Brontosaurus in the Congo, fossils don't prove the creature had children, any of Ron Wyatt's claims, there are no fish with limbs, etc etc.
@@DocReasonable *U insisted that ostriches have no wings. U re the king of 1-d1ocy.* 😅😅😅😅
@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Can U pee into Ur own m0uth?
Yeah it shows Dawkins is open minded about possibilities - while no one could demonstrate any signature, so the design claimers failed to provide any evidence.
@@Angelmou *U insisted that ostriches have no wings. U re the king of 1-d1ocy.* 😅😅😅😅
swu *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_ 😂😂😂😂
_"This goes against one of the key assumptions of the theory of evolution"_
Who says so, give a citation that this is a requirement that evolution must be true. Otherwise admit that this is just another *_LIE_* that you made up. You're not just a loser, you're a despicable and immoral loser!
@@TheHairyHeathen *This is from Newton, with love, for u:* _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_
@user-ei6ob4zw5l
Well thank you for sharing that, but why should I give a damn about Newton's opinion. Newton also was a believer in alchemy. Do you accept that is true because it was his opinion?
@user-ei6ob4zw5l
You lack of citation would seem to be an ADMISSION that this is just another *_LIE_* that you have made up.
Do you actually believe your own lies? If so, you should probably be talking to a therapist.
@@TheHairyHeathen *Beautiful one from Newton, with much love:* _a-theism is so s-enseless and o-dious to mankind_ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
*Simply beautiful, quoting the 66 year old ballet dancer Eldridge aka "docreasonable"/"FlandiddlyandersFRS":*
*he:* _An entire human digitized genome = 3.436687 Gb. My computer could hold 330 of them._
*he again:* _That's an argument for the superi0rity of humans over god_
*Right, because unlike his computer, a human body holds.....30 trillion copies of a genome!!!!!!* 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
And they are all ape info variations with the exact info you run away from - it is like all dogcells also contain the wolf info mutations of the dogness. What a shocking reveal that evolution is correct. ;-)
@@Angelmou *R u still monkeying with science, f'n rr-t-rd?* 😂😂😂😂😂😂
@changgi-tn4uy You repeat this insult post to distract from the fact that you run away from the ape base in each human DNA in each cell in our bodies. So the trillion times the evidence for evolution as repeatable observation. ;-) So your mocking fails once more. Like it always does. It just shows you to run away from the evidence over and over again.
“I am not very impressed with theological arguments whatever they may be used to support. Such arguments have often been found unsatisfactory in the past. In the time of Galileo it was argued that the texts, 'And the sun stood still... and hasted not to go down about a whole day' (Joshua x. 13) and 'He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not move at any time' (Psalm cv. 5) were an adequate refutation of the Copernican theory.”
― Alan Turing, (gay atheist founder of computer science) 'Computing machinery and intelligence'
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.*
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!_ 😂😂😂😂 😂😂😂😂
Some adults have the superstition that information gets randomly evolved....
This is not superstition, it is actually applied in engineering and design. Superstition is the primitive belief in magical unseen beings that use magic to conjure life into existence, you know, the sort of nonsense you find credible.
@@TheHairyHeathenWhaaaat? It os applied in design? Only in the design of ur skull I guess! 😅😅😅😅
@@lolekbolek-jz9ko
you are quite pathetic. You could easily have Googled it, but instead just decided to try to insult the person who showed that your assertions are wrong, because I pointed out that it is YOUR magical beliefs which are primitive superstitions. Why is it that you cling to such backward ideas?
*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...
*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!_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
ghy *Simply 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._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
He didn't see how to put the rest of physics into words either 😂. You are terrible with your appeal to authority fallacies.
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien *U insisted that ostriches have no wings. How much more do u want to h-umiliate urself?*
@user-ei6ob4zw5l You know a lot about humiliation, being on the receiving end of it! Case in point, you just had to start your comment with a wrong assumption.
So for a red herring you chose self-humiliation...not wise.
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien*How is life trolling at 66, Eldridge?*
@gummybear-uq1je I'll tell you once I'm 66 and I change my name to Larsen. But you'll be dead by then.
Bruh why are people hating on evolution it’s so cool
@@MostReveredBigPriest You have a pronoun dumbass, and by the law of Trump it's "she/her" for everyone!
*Simply beautiful, from Dawkins:* _if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer._
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Switching to another sockpuppet by just copy and pasting a statement of Dawkins to be open minded - but till this day no one could show any signature. This was the context you ignore with your quotemine ;-)
@@Angelmou _Switching to another sockpuppet_
*This is what u did, 66 year old clueless troll.* 😂😂😂😂😂
@changgi-tn4uy Your deflecting try where you once more bear false witness is just to distract that you run away from the context of the open mindness of Dawkins. This happens when you engage in quotemining and confuse it with "mocking". And writing emoticons does not make you laugh, either. ;-)
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS _if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer._
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@gdanskbedankst
_"Evolution creates the illusion of design."_
- Richard Dawkins
Intelligent Design is an illusion 😃👍
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.
jiu *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_ 😅😅😅😅😅
You still have not produced any citation that evolution cannot include non-random mutation. You are just lying and making this up, aren't you?
@@TheHairyHeathen*Don't be bothered so much by reality, 66 year old troll.*
@@malvinebetratoxin
well obviously reality doesn't come into play in your mind … you live in a world of delusion.
“RIP creatards! From live science, 2022:
New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA. This goes against one of the key Straw Men that creatards like to make by pretending evolution is random” -Fixed it for you
@ginobarila
well obviously reality doesn't come into play in your mind … you live in a world of delusion.
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.
*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.
aki *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_ 😅😅😅😅😅
“RIP creatards! From live science, 2022:
New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA. This goes against one of the key Straw Men that creatards like to make by pretending evolution is random” -Fixed it for you
*Check the v3de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" to see an evolutionist convinced that ostriches do not have wings. And that's the best Aronra's cult has.* 😅😅😅
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?
*Unforgettable this one from Lord Kelvin says the same thing as all other greatest scientists:* _If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God._
Quotations, regardless of who said them, are only opinions and neither prove, nor disprove anything. If you had any actual evidence supporting your case you wouldn't be bothered with quotations. When you fall back to using quotations you CONCEDE that you have no case.
@@lorann-ut5cq
the fact remains you have no actual evidence to support your delusions. Adding lies to your discourse does not rescue your failure.
@@TheHairyHeathen *The opinions of u, the r-trd who insisted that ostriches have no wings, r irrelevant*
@
Excellent demonstration by you of how a LOSER avoids confronting a point by making _ad hominem_ attacks.
@@TheHairyHeathen*Confronting points with a r-trd who insisted that ostriches have no wings?* 😅😅😅😅
Oscar tells us that even LARSEN is Ergonomover....could these creatards BE any more insane??
My oldest memories of him were on "one fact" video where he used an account called "Larsen" or maybe "Gustav Larsen" - same butchered English *In bold* . It soon disappeared and when someone called him Larsen, he responded "who's Larsen?". He flaunts his lies.
At that time 2 years ago, there was also a mega-troll called Magnus Carlsen, an Impersonation of the Chess champ. I love chess and hate fakers.
Need to get my keyboard fixed, the "I" doesn't work.
And Larsen says that even OSCAR is Ergonomover. Everyone here Is Me! ME, ME, ME!
IS THAT CLEAR?
@ergonomover Yes, the Magnus Carlsen impersonator appeared around the same time that Gustav Larsen first emerged from the sewers. Gustav Larsen is obviously a Scandinavian name, but I seriously doubt he's from that part of the world. They tend to speak English.
You might have to use lower case 'L' for the time being!
@@ergonomover*Talking to ur own trolling accounts makes u look d-mbrr than usual. Why did u insist thay in my v2de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich" nobody says that ostriches do not have wings?*
Why do you insist on humiliating yourself @atheism-themoststupidrelig5703
*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.
@@happilysecular1833 *This is a hobby only r-trds like u practice.*
@@Lorabundy-vi5uw
Why do you keep projecting?
You're only humiliating yourself.
sjue *Another sad day in which no one single 1-cell bacterium was seen evolving to a 2-cell bacterium.*
Another sad day for Larsen, forced to deny reality to save his fragile ego.
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien *Why r u projecting, s-c-umbag? Remember u insisted that Trrump is an atheist and that ostriches have no wings. This is UR reality.*
@gdanskbedankst Were U looking?? If so, did U use a telescope, binoculars, periscope, microscope or a Viewmaster? Ignorant sht.
@gdanskbedankst I most certainly didn't say that.
Whether Rump is an atheist or not doesn't matter as he found use in cults of morons all over the US. Cults like yours, Larsen.
We have observed the transition from single cell to multi cell creatures.
Your ignorance is not much of an argument.
*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
*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 RUclips 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...
*To get science from a creature who insisted that ostriches have no wings and that 250 - 237 means an increase of 23 is like learning math from a duck.*
Larsen is dangerously ins@ne, ret@rded and utterly broken. He has nothing to lose. DO NOT approach.
*Beautiful - this one from Lord Kelvin says the same thing as all other greatest scientists:* _If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God._
During the middle ages, the church found that an Auto da fe was far more effective at forcing a belief in god. Creationists are very frustrated that this option is not open to them. They have been reduced to hurling insults rather than torches.
apw *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_ 😂😂😂😂
Here is what that study actually says:
*Mutation Bias Reflects Natural Selection in Arabidopsis Thaliana*
Grey Monroe, J. et al. (2022) Nature
_Our findings reveal adaptive mutation bias that is mediated by a link between mutation rate and the epigenome. This is mechanistically sound in light of evidence that DNA repair factors are recruited by specific features of the epigenome._
_This intuitive model fits established Theory showing that adaptive mutation bias does evolve despite drift when the length of sequence affected is large._
_Thus, while perhaps initially surprising, our synthesis between epigenomics and population genetic Theory predicts that the observed biases readily arise via natural selection._
_The adaptive mutation bias described here provides confirmation for many previous observations in eukaryotes, including reduced genetic variation in constrained loci._
_Since mutational biases are a product of evolution, they differ between organisms, which explains differences in the distribution of fitness effects of new mutations among species._
_Our discovery yields a new account of the forces driving patterns of natural selection inspiring future directions for Theoretical and practical research on mutation in biology and evolution._
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *Praising a dead cult didn't help u become smart. Sad!*
@gdanskbedankst It is your creationist cult that is dying an unmorned death.
@gdanskbedankst
I have never praised Kent Hovind.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS mmm *After u insisted that ostriches have no wings, did u get the Guinness Prize for the most rtrdd tr0ll of the world?*
gju *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'm still waiting for you to produce that citation of a scientific study that says evolution must be driven only by random mutations. I wonder why you can't produce that? Would it be because you are 'full of it' and this isn't true?
“RIP creatards! From live science, 2022:
New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA. This goes against one of the key Straw Men that creatards like to make by pretending evolution is random” -Fixed it for you
If it was true it would be happening right now and all over the world at this very second I'm speaking to you
It is
Your abysmal ignorance is not proof that a god exists. "There is one good; knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." - Plato.
Creationists are EVIL.
@@RandallWilksEasy now, she’s just a child.
@@happilysecular1833 She should grow up and get an education. Her ignorance can be cured *IF* she educates herself.
@@happilysecular1833Why r u talking to ur own accounts, Eldridge?
*A new day and still no one single 1-cell bacterium seen to evolve to a 2-cell bacterium....*
A new day, and Larsen is still too scare to acknowledge that what he denies has definitely happened.
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien *U nicely said that ostriches have no wings* 😅😅😅
@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 No I didn't, however I can kindly say that you have no moral value at all, and that is true.