Dude you're awesome.... really enjoyed the explanation... I wish I could exchange you with our college professors.....
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi saibal
@Noone-dc9si
7 жыл бұрын
He is a great teacher, many educators could learn a thing or to from this man
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi no
@thomasrad6296
11 жыл бұрын
This guy is a genius when it comes to teacher one of the best i have encountered in my entire life.
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi thomas
@thomasrad6296
3 жыл бұрын
@@avamaewoo2525 Hey do we know each other?
@chosam4600
10 жыл бұрын
"Look at all the KFC you've eaten. It's very unlikely that every drumstick bone is gonna become a fossil"
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi cho
@e521soediv
11 жыл бұрын
I'm confused on the deeper undertones of evolution. What are the factors of the molecular changes in a given species? the information in DNA brings forth the blueprint of a species of a particular shape,size,height,color,bone density, heart function, consciousness, blood viscosity, spatial dimensions of its skeletal structure etc. So when a "species changes";what is it that is changing the "coding" in DNA to manifest a creature of a different baseline blueprint of spatial attributes from before?
using the geological time scale, with respect to the blind processes and unguided mutations that give evolution probability, how many years would it take for a protein to fold?
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi the
@jamesmccobb970
11 жыл бұрын
That second hypothesis... how does it account for genetic drift? How would the species stay the same without natural selection, when it is still effected by genetic drift?
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi james
@korimecklenburg7577
8 жыл бұрын
Wonderful explanation, love these videos! Thank you so much.
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi kori
@itmereef564
5 жыл бұрын
Hey, this guy's pretty cool. He was able to explain the idea in a more compressed and easy to understand way. I watched an Indian guy explain the same topic, but he took so long to explain the idea.
@jessebryant9233
4 жыл бұрын
Regarding this dudes explanation... Well, what is the nature of the changes that we observe actually observe? Well, they've proven to be overwhelmingly either neutral or deleterious. _And we're supposed to believe that such changes can magically "add up" until they turn an amoeba into an elephant?_ I don't think I could ever have enough faith to believe that!
@hikkicornmori359
4 жыл бұрын
Jesse Bryant Well, I generally don’t see that big of a leap, but sure
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi it
@itmereef564
3 жыл бұрын
@@avamaewoo2525 Hello! I appreciate the greetings, it really warms my heart
@keeshkat0536
2 жыл бұрын
i dont understand why people like u always bring race/nationality into things. Like if it were another yt guy u watched u wouldn't have mentioned they were yt
@niallbennington3692
12 жыл бұрын
That's the problem. While they would assert that koalas and bears are the same "kind", they wouldn't suggest humans and other apes are closely related. Even though koala and bear intelligence varies hugely, they wouldn't even make an attempt at drawing a relationship of apes and humans from the evidence. Fortunately, I've only heard this claim once. 99% of creationists would try to find created "kinds" by genetic research, though it's a silly endeavor.
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi niall
@hisham031170
8 жыл бұрын
Is there any observable proof that micro can lead to macro?
@Saperwill
8 жыл бұрын
no
@Alhalmeya
8 жыл бұрын
+sarud durdstrom but that's a question in my study guide bruh
@Saperwill
8 жыл бұрын
+Trinitro phenylnitramine that is no prove for evolution
@Saperwill
8 жыл бұрын
+Trinitro phenylnitramine it is a believe to 100%
@markphillips8486
8 жыл бұрын
+Buck Rogers No. The population numbers are only there at the microbial level. Above that level of complexity, the numbers are insufficient for mutative genetic success. The only reason there is some gene mutation success at the microbial level is because they have such enormous population numbers. And those mutative successes come at a fitness cost - they are actually less suitable for survival than their "normal" fellows under ordinary microbial conditions. EXAMPLE: Antibiotic resistant bacteria only out-survive ordinary bacteria in the presence of antibiotics. In ordinary environments, the resistive mutants quickly die out in competition with the ordinary bacteria. Furthermore, when bacteria micro-evolve through mutations, THEY REMAIN BACTERIA. There is NO evidence that bacteria could evolve into giraffes, OR EVEN EUKARYOTES!
@mejc2
12 жыл бұрын
hypothesis or Theories? Hypothesis is a better choice elevating it to a theory is quite a jump being that there is no evidence or mechanism for either gradualism or punctuated equilibrium. Actually there is no observed mechanism which is capable of producing either result.
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi mejc2
@zuberkhanstillalive6747
7 жыл бұрын
hello if i wants pdf or notes from where did i get this
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi zuber
@emmanuellaacheampong37
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you
@StGeoRUSH619
9 жыл бұрын
Thank you...now this makes sense !!! You're the best...PEACE
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi george
@moshemyym4627
8 жыл бұрын
There are two hypothesis or theories to explain how groups diverged from each other. Phyletic gradualism and Punctuated equilibrium. Now these are EXPLANATIONS with no scientific evidence to back them. For phyletic gradualism the assumption is made where changes will accumulate over time. It is also based on common ancestry, another hypothesis with no science behind it. Since we have no evidence for whether changes will be made or that they will accumulate over long periods of time, macro-evolution becomes unrealistic. There are no examples today whether in the field or lab that gives us an idea of this kind of change. Leaping to fossils to explain macro-evolution is placing the cart before the horse. First it must be demonstrated that changes will accumulate over time in order to even consider placing fossils in between two different groups of animals to explain how they're related or how one evolved from the other. As for punctuated equilibrium, it was a nice hypothesis for evolution at one point but there's no scientific evidence backing this as well. In fact the idea came to an end by one of its promoters, Dr. Steven J. Gould. The example given here is the oil spill that could effect animals to the point of possibly making mutants of some sort. I guess that is as good as a hope but that's about it. Punctuated equilibrium is a lot faster in that it can happened within thousands of years contrary to phyletic gradualism which takes much longer. But again, it has no physical evidence for support. The fact is, both of these ideas are outside the realm of science. There's no way to gather data to support them because of the time-span needed for the changes to take place. We must also consider that the evolutionary process is blind and mindless. Have we ever seen or witness a blind, mindless process in the midst of designing some biological system? How about DNA? DNA is complicated in itself but what about something like the cell? Conclusion. There's no evidence for macro-evolution. It is outside of the realm of real science. There's nothing wrong with giving it some thought or considering it but for how long? And if there's a better explanation for the existence of biological systems, why not consider it? Why does it seem that biological systems are programmed to adapt and have variation? Programs are running throughout biological systems. Craig Venter, an evolutionists (and intelligent designer by default) who has created synthetic DNA stated, DNA is the software of life. Software? Can their be another explanation that makes more sense, that can better explain the existence of these biotechnological marvels in nature? Intelligence perhaps?
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi mosheMYY
@niallbennington3692
12 жыл бұрын
On a scale even the most ardent evolutionist would be reluctant to recognize :P There was even this one time a creationist suggested (I can't remember the name of the website) all animals of the same "shape" were members of the same created kind. So according to him, the thylacine (a marsupial) was actually a member of the "dog" kind, and that all koalas are part of the "bear" kind. It was silly, really. . .
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi niall
@Machboosluvin
12 жыл бұрын
I like your explanations man! thanks a lot. :)
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi ali
@hornyatheist9982
9 жыл бұрын
Best explanation on the tube .. Thanx..
@patrickroisen3828
9 жыл бұрын
+Horny Atheist Thank you for the compliment.
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi horny
@hiker-uy1bi
Жыл бұрын
"think of all the KFC you've eaten"
@MikelRC70
6 жыл бұрын
I can understand why some people don't believe in macroevolution since people explain it so poorly. Cheetahs are an example of a cat turning into something other than a cat. They are the only living species of cat that don't have a cutaneous sheath around their claws. Imagine that you came up with a list of all the characteristics that an animal has to have in order to be 100% cat. Let's say that having a cutaneous sheath is one of those characteristics. Just to make the math easy, let's say that your list contains 20 characteristics and that the cheetah has the other 19 characteristics. Wouldn't that make cheetahs only 95% cat? Now, all cats belong to the family felidae. Since cheetahs arent 100% cat, do they really belong to the family felidae? Personally, I think the cut off point should be at least 50%... anything at least 50% cat belongs to the family felidae. However, it's arbitrary. A lot of people don't know this, but the species taxon is the only taxon that is found in nature... everything else, including the family taxon, are man-made. I can't overestimate how important it is for you to understand and accept that last sentence. Think about it in order to understand it's implications. None of the species of cat alive today are 100% cat unless you simply define one of the species as being 100% cat. It's your right to do so, since again, it's totally man-made. But as soon as you define one species as being 100% cat then that automatically means that none of the others are 100% cat. To make matters worse, some of those 20 characteristics that cats have may be subjective and not completely black and white. For example, let's say that being agile was one of your 20 characteristics. There are over 40 species of cats still alive today. Surely some of them are more agile than others. What if the cheetah is only 80% agile? Wouldn't that bring down it's cat percentage down to 94% (5 x .80 = 4)? And surely, if you believe in speciation, in a few hundred thousand years a new species can arise from the cheetah that only has 18 characteristics. So it's even less of a cat than the cheetah and even closer to that 50% cut off point that I previously mentioned. Now, some people will object by saying that a cutaneous sheath shouldn't be necessary in order for an animal to be considered a cat. But again, it's a man-made list, and I'm a man, so I can make that decision if I want. If you don't like my list, then you can certainly make your own list, but surely, if your list is a good list, any future species can lose one or more characteristics until they are less than 50% of whatever animal you are talking about. In fact, depending on what characteristics are on your list, it's even possible that some species of cats are already less than 50% and don't actually belong in the family felidae. I mean, it's not as though taxonomists are gods and can't make mistakes. Perhaps the cheetah currently isn't a cat. I'm not saying that it isn't at least 50% cat; I'm saying that I don't know and neither do you. Think about it.
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi ripple
@oglow100
12 жыл бұрын
Either way it is not the belief system that causes atrocities to occur and instead it is the ignorance and closed mindedness of the people that do these horrific acts. Bear in mind that many people who kill are sick in the head (eg. Psychopaths).
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi advanced
@saminasekander49
9 жыл бұрын
It was a very helpful video . Thank u ☺️
@patrickroisen3828
9 жыл бұрын
+samina sekander You're welcome.
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi samina
@philster00700
12 жыл бұрын
What do you mean when? Did you want recorded footage of him saying it? I'm sure he didn't convert to Judaism if that's what your implying.
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi nine
@yingyang1008
7 жыл бұрын
OK - lets imagine a species of fish which lives in a cave with no light and has no eyes (there are fish such as this) Let's imagine that the cave wall is now knocked down and the fish can swim outside in the light Are we saying that these fish will now possibly develop eye sight over a few billion years seeing as eye sight will now give them an advantage? How does that happen? What kind of mutations would be required? What benefit would a few of the huge number of mutations that would be required give a fish? We can all see how eye sight would be an advantage. But how does the fish go about growing eyes? These kinds of videos never answer this type of question
@patrickroisen3828
6 жыл бұрын
If you're curious about how vision evolved, this video does a decent job of explaining how it happened. It's happened several times in our planet's history, giving rise to the very different patterns seen in various kinds of organisms. www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html A fascinating side note about this. Some scientists a while ago figured out how a particular kind of algae detected light and swam towards the light. Other scientists used their discovery to develop a way to stimulate individual neurons in brains simply using light. Your hypothetical fish may never develop eyes (the real ones without eyes lost them because any mutant who damaged a gene that helped develop eyes wasn't wasting energy building a useless body part and thus had an advantage), but your fish might over a long period of time develop ways to detect light in other ways.
@denbecr49
4 жыл бұрын
Likely that species would be unable to survive in competition with other sighted predators and prey that weren't equally as disadvantaged as were the species of life adapted to the total darkness of the caves. There would no longer be the niche they had evolved to occupy. They would go extinct quickly. Just as birds that settled on islands on which they had no predators eventually lost their ability to fly, when predators arrived they were unable to evolve quickly enough to escape extinction. Over 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct. The fossil record shows us the vast periods of time in which none of the modern species existed yet, but there are those that still deny evolution. It's an inescapable fact that it occurred. We have pieced together a great deal of how it occurred and have far more evidence now than Darwin could have hoped for. He didn't even have the advantage of the whole branch of biology called genetics.
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi ying
@MissBieberno1
9 жыл бұрын
Excellent!
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi amy
@fubrian2945
6 жыл бұрын
Your are my saviour
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi fu
@fdafsdfasgs
11 жыл бұрын
Wow, really great explained :)
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi jesper
@minervacantdie7110
11 жыл бұрын
They're called spotted squirrels, because I spotted them and killed them!
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi minervacantdie
@ThePHXArcher87
11 жыл бұрын
science doesn't say a whole lot about many of these issues but scientist do....
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi the
@JimCampbell777
2 жыл бұрын
Isn't Macro the result of thousands/millions of years of Micro???
@Wisebecomefools
11 жыл бұрын
I think you for the apology on the idiot comment. My fairytale response was in reference to evolutionist calling what I believe a fairytale. There are to many assumptions in evolution for me. Variation is a loss of information we are not going up genetically but going down. I appreciate the debate but we see the same information and interpret it differently. You see from a different world view than me and I don't except evolution as fact everything is assumption or speculation.
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi wisebecomefools
@rcsverige
3 жыл бұрын
YIKERS! Creationists trying to manipulate evolution to fit their religious beliefs is kind of comical but also disappointing.
@person222
9 жыл бұрын
Revisiting this as its been some time since college. Ive worked with drosophila and was convinced of micro but there's some huge gaping holes in the lack of transitional ancestor knowledge for macro. From a purely logical standpoint, does it really make sense that the only fossils we find are these distinct species, wholly different from the "next one in line". And we just take it as gospel. At least add some skepticism in there while you teach it, room for major improvement or even replacement. Informative vid nonetheless
@rstevewarmorycom
9 жыл бұрын
+person222 Lemme guess. You flunked the course.
@patrickroisen3828
9 жыл бұрын
+person222 We actually have tons of transitional fossils for all sorts of species. For example, if you look at the evolution of the horse, there's quite a lot of transitional fossils from the ancestral form. Now, you may be bringing up an issue with the way we humans define things, we like categories, a thing is either A or B, we generally don't like things that are kind of Aish, but also a little bit B. With nature, however, it's annoyingly not set up so nicely for us. If you were looking at some kind of deer thing from say 30 million years ago, you might find a grand total of 3 partial fossils of it in 3-5 years worth of digging (remember, the creation of fossils requires certain environments, etc, including not having annoying predators chew up the bones beyond recognition). Those 3 fossils are from different individuals who may show as much variation as modern day humans do (imagine some future scientist examines the skeletons of the actors from Game of Thrones who play Tyrion Lannister and The Mountain!). If you then find a fossil from a descendant of theirs from 29.5 million years ago, while it would be different enough to be considered different species if you'd seen them in the flesh side by side, you may not be able to make that judgement from your single partial fossil. You'd likely need to see more distinct changes in order for you to be certain about there being a distinct new species. This may be artificially creating in your way of thinking the "lack of transitional fossils." Beyond fossils, however, we've been able to do far more with DNA and other molecules. They've even recently been able to find intact soft structures like collagen and red blood cells from dinosaur fossils. This can give us far more nuanced looks into things besides making guesses based on the shape of a bone. www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-soft-tissue-recovered-eight-cretaceous-era-fossils-180955538/?no-ist
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi person222
@ravenwda007
7 жыл бұрын
Micro, Macro, same thing. Only difference is time.
@swperry
6 жыл бұрын
that's what your high school biology teacher will tell you
@boots789v5
6 жыл бұрын
Wrong they are not the same! Macro evolution is a theory
@jackson5116
6 жыл бұрын
the only thing that differs from a theory and a law is where it was originally developed. Theories can be proven or disproven (macroevolution has been proven by species loss), while laws can never be disproven.
@p00tis
6 жыл бұрын
@@boots789v5 So is gravity... 🤔🤔🤔
@boots789v5
6 жыл бұрын
Photos Spencer ,good point
@jessebryant9233
4 жыл бұрын
*ATTENTION W S!* Continuing our conversation... No, *micro and macro* are by definition, NOT the same. And why do you think that small neutral and deleterious changes (losing ≠ gaining) can "add up" to large changes that somehow generate novel information and new body plans, organs, and functions? That's not good math... My other question would be: What is implied by the term *'natural selection'* and what are the logical outworking of the implication? And for the record: NOBODY claims that speciation (variation within limits) doesn't occur. Nobody.
@ws1982
4 жыл бұрын
Jesse Bryant Hi Waiting for your evidence on dendrochronology.
@jessebryant9233
4 жыл бұрын
@@ws1982 Then you'll be waiting a long time. We have to deal with your first claim where you equivocate micro with macro for no good reason. They are NOT the same. Also, you did not answer the questions in the above....
@ws1982
4 жыл бұрын
Jesse Bryant The dendrochronology point was to do with micro and macro. It was pointing out how it’s easy to disprove the 4300 year timeline young creationists have. Therefore the small changes can build up to large overall changes. What makes you think that changes are limited and can’t build up? What process limits them? Using the 4300 year timeline you must believe the changes are very rapid and that Noah had many thousands of pairs of animals in the ark. So why has the rapid change process slowed so incredibly? Where is your list of the original kinds?
@jessebryant9233
4 жыл бұрын
@@ws1982 You're trying to change the topic again. If you had any will to actually answer the questions already on the table...
@ws1982
4 жыл бұрын
Jesse Bryant How am I changing the topic? I am saying small changes add up to large changes. It’s evidenced in the fossil record and in dna. You may not like or agree with the evidence but thats your misunderstanding. Evolution simply put is decent with modification. I don’t separate micro or macro as they are part of the same process. Small changes add up to large differentiation over time. So any disagreement on micro and macro is related to time. So I’ll ask again: Can you demonstrate that the time for all these changes has been restricted to 4300 years? Can you tell me the process that limits change in your version? What is that mechanism?
@s.91.a
8 жыл бұрын
his hand gestures kept throwing me off
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi futi
@Kevin-ju7wb
5 жыл бұрын
1:20...... ouch*
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi kevin
@MaxOrDieYT
4 жыл бұрын
the thing about macroevolution is that it cant be observed, and it is all just theories, then microevolution, on the other hand, can be observed.
@MaxOrDieYT
4 жыл бұрын
@jurpleoi its not the change on species, its a change in is quality, like adaptation
@MaxOrDieYT
4 жыл бұрын
@jurpleoi duh, a bird cant turn into a dog by itself, God would have to do that.
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi MaxOrDie
@marceloribeirosimoes8959
Жыл бұрын
I'm wondering how adults keep listening to stories like kids. He explains very well. Ok. At 2:42 mins, he points to the board and calls those letter species. Ok. So, they are still the same KIND of living things like "amoebas only", "protozoa only", "cats only", or "dogs only", right? Oh, becoming a fossil is a rare event, now... ...I see. That's the last recurse... Even Darwin expected that. The KFC and an animal in the wilderness comparison was the highest point, so far! Oh, boy!!!!!!! "...people are finding fossils "every day" (well, they were RARE at least than a minute ago), MAYBE they will find..." That's NOT science!!!!!!!!!! SCIENCE = WE KNOW - something that WE KNOW - what is KNOWN. The method: OBSERVE, EXPERIMENT, MEASURE, TEST, ... Funny that we are only missing the transitional fossils... ...maybe that's just a coincidence. At 4:50 mins, that's unbeatable. The reason we never have seen a transitional fossil is that "something happened" and only those individuals at the transitional stage got dead. And he says that with no blush sign!!!!!!!!! Man, he is just like an evangelic pastor teaching about tithing!!!! They are exactly the same!!!!!!! And he does the same thing after some point to pull the lace in the end. "...but we got to be careful here..." Oh, man... Ask him to show some animal with an arm becoming a wing or vice-versa. Or maybe with a phin becoming a wing. Who knows... Do you know that there's no one? Because they would never survive. There's no need for a catastrophe...
@earlysda
10 жыл бұрын
"Evolution has never been observed while it's happening" - Richard Dawkins. Neither "micro" nor "macro" Evolution has ever been observed, but then, Evolution was never about observed evidence anyway, was it?
@braveapollo5872
10 жыл бұрын
earlysda Evolution has absolutely 100% been observed. And there is extremely strong evidence of macro not just micro evolution. Your quote mining is just silly. If you would like examples of evolution in action, I'd be happy to show you where but I'm sure you are capable of using Google.
@IAMinDreams
10 жыл бұрын
Fresh water sharks are a proof of micro evolution, also many many generations of changing fruit flies.
@earlysda
10 жыл бұрын
***** The sharks have turned into....sharks. The fruit flies have turned into.... fruit flies. Do you understand that no one has observed Evolution while it's happening? Evolution fails the scientific method.
@IAMinDreams
10 жыл бұрын
earlysda Wrong, micro evolution is proven, micro evolution shows that life can in fact change and when you have a little change here another change there another micro evolutionary path and eventually that leads to macro evolution over long periods of time, we have a 2% difference in DNA from an average chimp, that's only 2%!!! Evolution IS the scientific method, saying micro evolution is true but macro isn't is like saying letters can make words but words can't make up paragraphs.
@earlysda
10 жыл бұрын
***** You are showing us your belief in the god of aeons of time, Sion. That's fun, isn't it? That is not scientific tho.... Evolution has never been observed while it's happening. That is observed, scientific fact.
@abu5alaf91
10 жыл бұрын
after studying evolution for a while i realized it fits perfectly for the bible, for example micro evolution and noah's arc .. and so on! and i became a christian
@TheAcadianGuy
10 жыл бұрын
@abu5alaf91: Please tell me you aren't serious.
@antiHUMANDesigns
10 жыл бұрын
There hasn't been enough time since the supposed flood to change a cat-animal into tiger, lion, sandcat, lynx, puma, serval, and so on. The flood supposedly happened about 4400 years ago. That's not enough time. Then again, there's another problem in the bible. The bible groups bats in with birds, claiming that bats are a kind of bird. So, if they only took one pair of birds on the ark, perhaps it could've evolved into all forms of birds (not likely at all!), but there's *no* *way* it could possibly evolve into a bat, which is a mammal. So this is a problem when going with the bible's idea of "kinds" of animals. There simply would be no bats, today. Of course, this is if you're even entertaining the notion of a world-wide flood, which is ridiculous in itself.
10 жыл бұрын
LOL Did you read the bible ? Because the bible says that bats are birds ...
@antiHUMANDesigns
9 жыл бұрын
Churchof thepainfultruth The bible groups bats into birds. That is, it says bats are a kind of bird. Of course, what they meant by "bird" is not what we scientifically mean as bird, today. They basically meant "things that fly" (but for some reason do not include insects that fly, for example). Leviticus 11:13-19 There are 2 big problems with the idea that one base animal of it's "kind" would've evolved through microevolution into the different species of it's "kind" (whatever that means) after the flood: 1. If the bible considers bats to be part of the "bird" group, then it requires bats to evolve from birds, after the flood. That is impossible. A bird cannot evolve into a mammal. Even if it could, that's a *lot* of evolution...! 2. One species of bird evolving into a multitude of bird species is *macroevolution*, not microevolution. Speciation is macroevolution.
@antiHUMANDesigns
9 жыл бұрын
Churchof thepainfultruth Yes, my point exactly, that when they said "bird", they had a different definition of what counts as a bird. However, the Linnean system is not good enough anymore, since it was "invented" before we knew about evolution. Nowadays, we use a monophyletic cladistic system, instead, and we're moving away from linnean taxonomy, because it's... wrong, and doesn't make good sense. The "error" is to equate birds and bats, as if they would be similar when they're absolutely not. They're very different and not closely related at all. But this doesn't cause a problem *until* you get into a situation like noah's ark and the flood. A bird cannot evolve into a mammal, so bats must be a part of some other "kind", but the bible does group them up with birds. The thing is that the "modern system" of categorisation is what it is because it's correct, and because our older systems weren't correct and didn't make sense. That include the categorization in the bible. It makes no sense at all to include bat into a group with birds, unless you also include anything else that can fly, like many insects. I mean, the *only* thing I can think of that connects bats to birds is that they fly (though there are 57 species of bird that don't fly). If that is the criteria, then butterflies are also birds. I mean, the problem is that either the bible makes absolutely no sense ,or god's way of categorizing animals is *bad*, and neither explanation is very satisfying, is it? "Where is the evidence and proof that atheism is accurate and correct." How could it be "accurate and correct"? Isn't the question whether it is *reasonable* and/or *rational*? You're asking if a label that describes a lack of belief in gods is accurate and correct. *Yes*, the label is very much accurate and correct if applied to an atheist, since it perfectly describes the atheist's lack of belief in gods. If you want evidence, just look in the damned dictionary. As for whether it is rational and/or reasonable, the fact that we have no evidence for the existence of any gods, it is *very* reasonable and rational to not believe in gods. Now, it's possible that you're asking for "proof and evidence" that *no* *gods* *exist*, but that's not the claim that atheism makes. We have no idea whether any gods exist or not - but we atheists do not *believe* they exist, because then we would be *theists*. That doesn't mean we believe they do not exist, because that would be a claim that requires evidence, and you *can't* have evidence for that. It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something, especially something as vaguely defined as a "god". However, if you're talking about a specific god, such as the god of the bible, then the evidence convinces me that *that* specific god does not exist.
@tristancatayoc4303
11 жыл бұрын
damn right
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi tristan
@Wisebecomefools
11 жыл бұрын
Thanks for clearing that up for me. What you call evolution I call genetics. There is variation but there is no proof one animal changed into a different animal. Go ahead and say the fossil record, there is no proof there either. Dogs vary but there still dogs. I like they way you guys always resort to name calling I comfortable in my faith and if you want to believe evolution you have that right.
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi wisebecomefools
@chimpanzeethat3802
3 жыл бұрын
Evolution doesn't involve one species changing into a different kind of organism. If one animal changed into something completely different that wouldn't be evolution, it would be Pokemon.
@ryanlowe1781
6 жыл бұрын
Look at the scientifically illiterate in the comments section. Triggered much.
@dallastwifordjr8658
6 жыл бұрын
You vaguely explain a theory and you call it science. Every example given of "evolution" here is micro-evolution. Yes a genetic mutation can occur to make a squirrel change its spots, but in no scenario will it evolve into a bear. If this was caused by as you say mutation, the said mutated species would die off before a million years ever took place due to the genetic load. Genetic load is defined by "the reduction in the mean fitness of a population relative to a population composed entirely of individuals having optimal genotypes. Load can be caused by recurrent deleterious mutations, genetic drift, recombination affecting epistatically favorable gene combinations, or other genetic processes." Therefore evolution through small mutations over millions of years is impossible. Also if fossils of currently existing animals can be found throughout the geologic column they have existed as their own species since the beginning. The Bible explains that birds and sea animals existed together before there were reptiles or mammals. Before you write off the Bible as a biased religious source, it has been proven time and time again to be historically correct. Here are some examples : www.icr.org/biblical-record www.thetrumpet.com/1912-archaeology-proves-bible-history-accurate . Genesis 1:20 states," And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." That being said, a few verses later in Genesis 3 it is made clear that a serpent already exists along with a skinned animal believed to be a sheep. As stated in the following link, the fossil record does not show a progressive evolution from simple to complex, it however shows constant complexity throughout the fossil record, www.icr.org/creation-fossil . Please realize that the Bible is historically proven and would be hypocritical to believe in evolution unless you think recent archaeological finds are fake. God designed every aspect of the universe, in fact the Latin meaning of universe is single spoken phrase. In the beginning God created everything with a single command. God created everything with the purpose of curating his creation and so that mankind could have a relationship with God for His glory. Man chose to stray away from Gods plan, and was separated from God because of his choice and was doomed to eternal separation from God in hell. Out of love, God sent His Son, Jesus, to die, to pay the penalty of our wrongdoing so we could have an eternal relationship with God, but after three days Jesus rose from the grave. This eternal relationship cannot be earned or paid for. It is free for anyone who wants it, but its not just a box to check off like having insurance, but it is a lifestyle change. If you believe that Jesus died for your sins, and rose from the dead so that you can be with him, you will be saved. God doesn't want you to live in a life of sin, run to him because he will fulfill your life. We are more than just higher evolved animals, but we were created with a purpose. If you have any questions i highly recommend reading the Bible, and I will be praying for you. God bless, Dallas T.
@patrickroisen3828
6 жыл бұрын
Where have you observed a population with optimal genotypes anywhere? If such a perfect population did exist, then yes, as punctuated equilibrium suggests, natural selection would weed out any mutations from that population. However, since there's only an optimal genotype for a particular environment, if anything in the environment changes, then that population will no longer be optimal and now natural selection starts rewarding the mutants that might be slightly better fit for the new environment than the previous genotypes. If there's no mutant that improves the chances of survival, then the population starts to decline, and may ultimately go extinct. That's something we've been seeing play out all over the place. Recently, there's been some observations of really cool ways that nature has used to leapfrog over the need for normal mutation rates, sexual reproduction, etc to generate new diversity. You might find this article about sea slugs "stealing" the genes necessary to pull off photosynthesis very interesting. www.newscientist.com/article/dn16124-solar-powered-sea-slug-harnesses-stolen-plant-genes/
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi dallas
@thomasrad6296
11 жыл бұрын
to teaching*
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi thomas
@Saperwill
8 жыл бұрын
wtf is a common ancestor ? we can not even observe species evolve, on what knowledge is a common ancestor based?
@john69smith
8 жыл бұрын
+sarud durdstrom DNA is my guess. Say you have species A. From species A you get two groups that are influenced by different environments. Those two groups evolve into different species which had species A as their common ancestor.
@Saperwill
8 жыл бұрын
+Gerardo Martinez bullshit
@justanothergamer4688
8 жыл бұрын
+sarud durdstrom don't be so rude. you just don't understand evolution.
@ciao_abhi
8 жыл бұрын
+sarud durdstrom just because you cannot see evolution does not mean it doesnt happen. It is not simple. There are complex DNA sequencing, morphology, homology, and numerous other things that determine the common ancestor. Just because you have a rudimentary understanding of this subject does not mean the work of millions of scientists over couple hundred years are dismissed. I don't understand quantum mechanics. Do i conclude that quantum mechanics is false and that i know more than the leading scientists? OR do I say "maybe there is more I need to learn". Put science first over ego.
@Saperwill
8 жыл бұрын
+Abhi Pokhrel to put it to the truth evolution is a total Hoax. there is no evidence what so ever and that are not my words but words of many scientist.
@lethaborofhiwa8781
3 жыл бұрын
Yoh m xure you r old now
@zangminkuki3428
4 жыл бұрын
How many of you believe this
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi zangmin
@zangminkuki3428
3 жыл бұрын
Hi @@avamaewoo2525
@whiteliketar
12 жыл бұрын
@badpanda84 you are pretty confused yourself.keep trying
@avamaewoo2525
3 жыл бұрын
hi whitelikestar
@cogen651
9 жыл бұрын
His explanation for macro is BS. Please. Macro should be thrown out of evolution.
@patrickroisen3828
9 жыл бұрын
+cogen651 Can you present your data in support of your position?
@markphillips8486
8 жыл бұрын
+Patrick Roisen It is MACRO that requires evidence. The shell game of evolution says we observe microevolution, microbial evolution, and speciation, so macroevolution must be true - it's a phony shell game. Real science - the burden of proof is on macroevolution to present its POSITIVE case, not some anti-macroevolution to present the NEGATIVE case - although it is plentiful: genome rearrangement requirements for probabilistic mutagenic success being among them; and it is sufficient negative data standing alone all by itself - although it does NOT stand alone in the negative data against macroevolution.
@markphillips8486
8 жыл бұрын
+CamW30 Do you know how evolutionary theory works? And do you know it depends upon which kind of evolution you are talking about? Do you know macro-evolution is proposed to occur through co-incident genetic mutations, which are under increasing scrutiny as adequate mechanisms for the radical changes required for macro-changes. Are you aware that the micro-evolution of the horse over 50 million years is well documented, but that fishapods to amphibians, or wolf-like creatures to whales, or ape-like hominids to home sapiens are forced into 10 million years in the fossil record - 20% of the time for only three micro-changes in the horse! These may be elementary observations, but it appears you are not able to discuss such things as probability theory of base-exchange explanations without name-calling, which is the resort of those with no retort.
@patrickroisen3828
8 жыл бұрын
dmp p You seem to be unfamiliar with punctuated equilibrium, again, an unusual gap in education for someone who claims to have a comprehensive knowledge of biology. You're also oddly flexible in your definitions of "micro" vs "macro." You're completely fine with the supposedly micro-evolution of the horse, ie the change from a pretty dang small thing about the size of a dog with toes and a host of other characteristics quite different from those of the modern day horse, yet the change from the ancestral form of the whales to the modern day is apparently far too big of a change for you despite all of the structural similarities of the ancestors to modern day whales, (take a look at evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03) or the obvious progression from our ancestors to the modern day humans. What makes something micro vs macro for you? You said "Do you know macro-evolution is proposed to occur through co-incident genetic mutations, which are under increasing scrutiny as adequate mechanisms for the radical changes required for macro-changes." I'll address the second part of your statement first. Saying something is under increasing scrutiny without any citation or rationale is a specious argument, it's that rhetorical device politicians and pundits use to sling mud while trying to maintain an air of respectability "Well, people are saying..." Can you tell me which large group of peer-reviewed studies or experiments are calling this into question? To address the first part, the odd phrasing seems to suggest you're not all that familiar with the content yourself. Yes, for large scale changes within a group of related organisms, you need to have a number of mutations occur. However, as anyone whose familiar with genetics knows, single point mutations, especially within developmental genes, can actually have fairly significant effects. Secondly, mutation (through replication error, etc) is only one source of new genetic combinations. Sexual reproduction evolved in large part because it is great at generating new variation from one generation to the next at a rate much higher than just plain vanilla replication errors. When you talk about "probability theory of base-exchange," it sounds like you're citing one of the studies where people did some probability studies but didn't understand the difference between probability and frequency of alleles within a population.
@markphillips8486
8 жыл бұрын
Of course I'm familiar with Gould's theories. Just because someone disagrees with you and doesn't mention every single argument for their position doesn't mean they are ignorant of the basic justifications for huge gaps in the fossil record.. I will make no such insulting assumptions about you, trusting you know Stephen himself has some interesting things to say about neo-Darwinianism regarding its growing inadequacies. I also trust you know why punctuated equilibrium arose as a "theory" in the first place, and there are brilliant scholars like Berlinski who are not part of any of the so-called creationist conspiracy movements that find neo-Darwinian mechanisms totally inadequate to explain the evidence as recorded by nature. I am guessing you selectively read only the material that supports your position, and that you do not recognize the dangers faced by especially non-tenured professors, scientists, and editors who oppose the neo-Darwinian gestapo, so there is nothing to gain from pointing you in the direction of some of those brave souls - you likely know who they are and scoff at them anyway. But to let you know the papers are out there, here is one: Van Hofwegen DJ, Hovde CJ, and Minnich SA. 2016. Rapid evolution of citrate utilization by Escherichia coli by direct selection requires citT and dctA. J Bacteriol 198:1022-1034. Now dig and go find some more if you truly want to be objective. There are plenty more such papers and growing, even against the assumptive mentality that tries to suppress these papers. Ask yourself if you are truly being objective, or are you like those who refused to give up on phlogiston and spontaneous theory. You may not believe it; but I was once where you are. Best fortune and may truth drive the journey.
@whiteliketar
13 жыл бұрын
ha ha look at his little face ...really believing all those lies he learnt from his atheist teachers. Foolishness seems to know no bounds.
Пікірлер: 646