Evolution...?

[spurraider21]

And the mud fish walking on it's fins left the ocean to become a ?

as of now those mudfish are still mudfish. they are merely an example of fish that have adapted to be able to live on land. a lot of skepticism comes from "i cant imagine life coming from sea to land, how would they make that transition." the mudfish give us a living example of just that

Are talking micro or macro Evolution?

they're essentially the same thing.

if we are talking distance, you can talk in inches or feet. but distance is still distance. when talking about time, we can use seconds or minutes. when talking evolution, we can look at micro or macro. there really isn't a hard-lined distinction between micro and macro. one is just over a shorter period of time, one is over a longer period of time

[Avante]

like i said, arthropods (including insects, spiders), invertebrates (like worms) and vertebrates (including elephants) don't share common land ancestors. arthropods are more closely related to crustaceans, like lobsters, crabs, shrimp, etc.

crustaceans are quite different from "bony fish" as they are referred to, which gave rise to modern vertebrates

So you really believe all those varieties of spiders came from lobsters, crabs, shrimp? Come on man.

So you see a spider as an improvement? You see lobsters, shrimp and crabs as lesser level creatures?

So there was some reason for things to change into something else, right? Why would a lobster or crab want to evolve into a spider? So there really is no explanation as to ....why?....anything actually occured, right? It's.....they simply did.....right? No reasoning at all.

How does a lobster ever ac ulate the ability to make a web? Where does the poison in a black widow come from? Why is a wolf spider so different from a Daddy Longlegs? Where did the camel spider come from, now there;s a strange creature.

Come on guy, you really buy all that bull ?

That old sun just hangs there as does the Earth. If something that amazing can be a reality why do you struggle so with intelligent design? It makes far more sense than lobster becoming a million different varieties of spiders. You honestly don't see how goofy talking like that is do you? This....I went to school and they taught me....is weak. I was told...here take these salt tablets during football practice, then they discovered that's the worst thing ya can do.

Your....if ya studied biology....is also weak. What was the biology taught 500 years ago like compared to today?

Little fishy things crawling out of pools and swamps, finding food, growing legs, standing tall and walking then becoming .....

Dude, ya gotta be kidding me.

[mouse]

I love that GIF.

You should it's your ancestors.

[Avante]

spurraider instead of just waving it off with...just another religious mumbo jumbo.....how about actually commenting on this, ok? As ya know we do have religious universities,while we have no atheists ones, ok?

Yes I;m skeptical of the Bible. But I do like common sense. This makes sense, up to the couple sentences.

Fossils disprove evolution

One of the most powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.
Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms? Critics often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible states in Genesis I that all creatures reproduce “after their kind” (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism. Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn’t it?

How about this one?

eason #1) Genetic Entropy

"Genetic entropy" is a scientific fact which is admitted by all prominent geneticists. Genetic entropy is the natural deterioration of DNA via mutations which are caused by various types of errors; such as errors in copying a chromosome. Dr. Sanford, for example, stated that DNA is deteriorating at an alarming rate.

If evolution were true, our human DNA, and the DNA of all other living species on this earth, could trace their genealogy back to the "first living cell" and thus all DNA on earth would contain 660 million years of ac ulated genetic defects because there would have been 660 million years of ac ulating and continuous genetic entropy.

Why would we see these mutations on our DNA? The reason is that there is no mechanism on any DNA to fix most type of genetic errors.

The genetic defects would have ac ulated from generation to generation and from species to species. It is ludicrous that any animal could survive 1 million years of continuous genetic entropy, but to survive for 660 million years of continuous genetic entropy is simply far beyond ludicrous.

[Avante]

spurraider, what happens on thee boards is too many come here to just around they don't wanna watch videos or actually read anything. They just wanna.."you're a got"...because like them it's simple.

So don't be a lazy poster, ok? And don't just wave off all the other things poking holes in evolution, ok? And we see tons of holes being poked in evolution.

Google....evolution the big hoax....evolution a fraud....evolution just a fantasy.....and you will be overwelmed with the amount of info found there.

I do think most buy the lesser to the advanced, that's very believable and makes a lot of sense. But this talk of everything having the fish as a common ancestor is totally stupid, ok?

[boutons_deux]

and Avante' creationism, infinitely mysterious and unexplained, has not a single "hole"

[Avante]

and Avante' creationism, infinitely mysterious and unexplained, has not a single "hole"

You must have me confused with somebody else, how many times have I said...."we really have no clue"...? And we don't. And I'm no Bible thumper at all, I think that's a load of bull .

We simply have to look at what are facts. The distance from the sun, perfect. The speed the earth spins, perfect. The seasons, perfect. The nutrients in the ground, perfect. Only a fool would think this could happen by some...BIG BANG...or by chance, there is something behind this perfection, what that is we don't know.

We can have the sperm and egg which is totally amazing, but the thought of some superior something is...NO WAY IN ...come on.

What has happened is we humans have found something we can't explain so we try to come up with some explanation. Religious beliefs, evolutuion are just us humans trying to get a grasp on something so far beyond us it's comical.

[mouse]

they're essentially the same thing.

____^ Lost all credibility.(not that there was much in the first place)

[Infinite_limit]

Proof of Evolution

[spurraider21]

So you really believe all those varieties of spiders came from lobsters, crabs, shrimp? Come on man.

didnt say they came FROM those creatures. was referring to the entire class of arthropods, and giving some common examples so you know what i was talking about.

So you see a spider as an improvement? You see lobsters, shrimp and crabs as lesser level creatures?

no. there is no "higher" and "lower" on the evolutionary tree. this is a misconception. lobsters, shrimps, and crabs are all currently existing. they aren't "lower" than insects. but insects and well as currently living arthropods' ancestors can be traced back to earlier, now extinct, arthropods

So there was some reason for things to change into something else, right? Why would a lobster or crab want to evolve into a spider? So there really is no explanation as to ....why?....anything actually occured, right? It's.....they simply did.....right? No reasoning at all.

hey you moron. for the millionth time, there is no REASON. you keep making this same mistake OVER and OVER again. nothing "wants" to evolve. you keep asking this same ing question and i keep giving you the same ing answer. there is no conscious decision to evolve. this is because a living thing does not evolve during its lifetime. stop making this same mistake, its annoying to point this out every single time.

How does a lobster ever ac ulate the ability to make a web? Where does the poison in a black widow come from? Why is a wolf spider so different from a Daddy Longlegs? Where did the camel spider come from, now there;s a strange creature.

yes, there are many different kinds of spiders, and they have some unique characteristics. but spiders also have a ton in common. only the ignorant would ignore that. based on what environment they lived in, different spider adaptations would be developed over time. spiders who lived in an area with a lot of flying insects would either have a way to capture them, or they would die. 99.9% of all spider species that ever existed, are now extinct. not every species is able to conveniently adapt. almost none of them do.

That old sun just hangs there as does the Earth. If something that amazing can be a reality why do you struggle so with intelligent design? It makes far more sense than lobster becoming a million different varieties of spiders. You honestly don't see how goofy talking like that is do you? This....I went to school and they taught me....is weak. I was told...here take these salt tablets during football practice, then they discovered that's the worst thing ya can do.

there are a hundred billion galaxies. each galaxy has 100 billion stars. and many of these stars have several planets. there are probably billions of earth-like planets with the same temperature and conditions. with the billions upon billions of planets out there, it would actually make less sense if you didn't think so

Your....if ya studied biology....is also weak. What was the biology taught 500 years ago like compared to today?

that's irrelevant. if i had a question about electronics, i'd probably defer to somebody who has studied electrical engineering. but how do you think electrical engineering was 500 years ago? oh wait, it didn't exist.

the fact that biology is so much further along now than it was in the past only makes a stronger case for it, considering creationism was the dominant theory during a time where we had virtually no biological knowledge. how seriously would you take a theory on electricity from the 1200's if it conflicted with a more modern one?

Little fishy things crawling out of pools and swamps, finding food, growing legs, standing tall and walking then becoming .....

Dude, ya gotta be kidding me.

nope, dead serious

[spurraider21]

spurraider instead of just waving it off with...just another religious mumbo jumbo.....how about actually commenting on this, ok? As ya know we do have religious universities,while we have no atheists ones, ok?

Yes I;m skeptical of the Bible. But I do like common sense. This makes sense, up to the couple sentences.

ok, i'll break these down for you, since they seem like a 6th grader wrote them

Fossils disprove evolution

One of the most powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.
Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms? Critics often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible states in Genesis I that all creatures reproduce “after their kind” (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism. Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn’t it?

It's really hard to say fossils disprove evolution when fossils provide more evidence than anything else regarding it. This says there should be transitional forms. There are. Many of them. We have found tons of, for instance, primate fossils. This claims that "the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms." This is completely false, even mouse will tell you this. Most fossils we find are fragments. When we do find a complete-form fossil for something, it's usually pretty incredible. You can't just make up and say "we haven't found transitional fossils" when we have. This entire argument is based on the claim that we don't have transitional fossils, which is simply inaccurate.

Reason #1) Genetic Entropy

"Genetic entropy" is a scientific fact which is admitted by all prominent geneticists. Genetic entropy is the natural deterioration of DNA via mutations which are caused by various types of errors; such as errors in copying a chromosome. Dr. Sanford, for example, stated that DNA is deteriorating at an alarming rate.

If evolution were true, our human DNA, and the DNA of all other living species on this earth, could trace their genealogy back to the "first living cell" and thus all DNA on earth would contain 660 million years of ac ulated genetic defects because there would have been 660 million years of ac ulating and continuous genetic entropy.

Why would we see these mutations on our DNA? The reason is that there is no mechanism on any DNA to fix most type of genetic errors.

The genetic defects would have ac ulated from generation to generation and from species to species. It is ludicrous that any animal could survive 1 million years of continuous genetic entropy, but to survive for 660 million years of continuous genetic entropy is simply far beyond ludicrous.

I feel like this person read the syllabus to their Biology 101 class but never actually took the course. They read the table of contents of the textbook and never bothered actually reading the chapters.

They get it right when they say DNA replication has errors, and these errors are called mutations. they can add, remove, or change existing genes from one copy to the next. most of the time, these mutations make no actual impact, as large segments of genes are "not coded" in that they have no actual (or known) function.

It's the running theory that we could in fact trace geneology back to an original ancestor. the problem is, the first ancestor was a most likely a single celled organism, and it's not like we have that single celled organism captured and framed where we could run tests on it.

when they say all DNA on earth would contain 660 million years of genetic "defects" they are misleaded. not every mutation is harmful, or a "defect." in fact, some mutations end up being quite helpful. no, not like the x-men.

they claim "there is no mechanism on DNA to fix most type of genetic errors." this is actually quite false. genetic "proofreading" is actually quite prominent. it's just not flawless. here, read this, it's quite short. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofreading_%28biology%29

They say "it is ludicrous that any animal could survive 1 million years of continuous genetic entropy, but to survive 660 million" is ludicrous. first of all, no single animal (that we know of) can live for 1 million years. second of all, like i said, a majority of mutations don't have any actual effect at all. third, if a mutation was so harmful that it killed the animal, that animal would die before it reproduced, and so that specific mutation would not be passed along the generations. this is called natural selection.

animals that had the poor fortune of receiving harmful mutations tend to die off. avante, 99.9% of all animal species that EVER lived... are now extinct. just think about that for a second instead of reading past it. instead of thinking each little genetic mutation is going to have some crazy effect like skin melting off, a third arm, you have the realize its not like the x-men. most genetic mutations have no effect, and most effects they do have are tiny.

[spurraider21]

spurraider, what happens on thee boards is too many come here to just around they don't wanna watch videos or actually read anything. They just wanna.."you're a got"...because like them it's simple.

So don't be a lazy poster, ok? And don't just wave off all the other things poking holes in evolution, ok? And we see tons of holes being poked in evolution.

Google....evolution the big hoax....evolution a fraud....evolution just a fantasy.....and you will be overwelmed with the amount of info found there.

I do think most buy the lesser to the advanced, that's very believable and makes a lot of sense. But this talk of everything having the fish as a common ancestor is totally stupid, ok?

dont call me lazy. i give pretty thorough answers to everything you throw at me. i dont just spam articles/youtubes and say "ok avante, how about this one."

why dont you go google "successful hail mary touchdowns"... and you'll be overwhelmed with all those results. that doesn't mean its a high % play

the "lesser to the advanced" is a stupid misconception. ancestors aren't "lesser." there is no objective way to call something more or lesser. you have something that has adapted to live in its current environment. humans probably couldn't have survived on this planet a billion years ago. doesn't mean we would have been "less advanced" than we are now.

[spurraider21]

____^ Lost all credibility.(not that there was much in the first place)

from the same genius who brought us this

[spurraider21]

avante if you had any knowledge of biology you'd know better than to post garbage like that

[Avante]

avante if you had any knowledge of biology you'd know better than to post garbage like that

The only garbage I've read is you thinking we all have a common ancestor.....fish. That's garbage!

[mouse]

from the same genius who brought us this

That's all you do , you find yourself not able to give an intelligent response to something so you go after the film producers , the websites, etc.

You have no insight or personal opinions that are worth reading instead of maybe debunking the video with your vast knowledge on the subject you try and find some pathetic loophole to avoid it .

that seems to sum up the life of a clueless Darwin supporter online.
A truly waste of bandwidth.

[spurraider21]

That's all you do , you find yourself not able to give an intelligent response to something so you go after the film producers , the websites, etc.

You have no insight or personal opinions that are worth reading instead of maybe debunking the video with your vast knowledge on the subject you try and find some pathetic loophole to avoid it .

that seems to sum up the life of a clueless Darwin supporter online.
A truly waste of bandwidth.

of course. information is unreliable when coming from an unreliable source.

i've debunked so many videos you've posted here over the last year that i got tired of it. especially when you end up reposting the same videos yet again after i've done so. there's no purpose debunking/refuting what you post anymore because you're just going to repost it a month later hoping everybody forgot.

all this time i've asked you to clarify your views and to give a full description of alternative design, and you never do. you always just say "i've posted it before... i'm not going to waste my time." you go in circles. and if you want to just have meaningless conversation that goes in circles, i recommend hitting up chumpdumper

[spurraider21]

____^ Lost all credibility.(not that there was much in the first place)

just to humor you one last time, i actually sat through this entire video.

oddly, the video never discusses micro or macro evolution. this entire video is about abiogenesis.

as i've told you probably about a dozen times by now, abiogenesis and evolution are two different discussions.

[Avante]

There is just too much of this stuff out there, why is that?

Yes, it is number 5 that we see, which would explain man. Sure we did evolve from a lesser human. We did not evolve from some fish, that's beyond stupidity.

[mouse]

i've debunked so many videos you've posted here over the last year

Link?

Don't confuse lame insults and sub par smack talking as "debunking"

prove me wrong with your so called scientific facts

[mouse]

Debunk this

[Avante]

Debunk this

It's no use bro, the boy simply doesn't get it and doesn't want to think all that time he spent in school studying biology was a huge waste of time. He will never ever wake up to reality.

While I disagree with the Biblical God I do see a Superior Something responsible for all this.

[ChumpDumper]

It's no use bro, the boy simply doesn't get it and doesn't want to think all that time he spent in school studying biology was a huge waste of time. He will never ever wake up to reality.

While I disagree with the Biblical God I do see a Superior Something responsible for all this.

I've never seen a superior being create a universe.

[Avante]

How many of you reading this would totally ignore..."please stop bugging me"..? Look at this freaK, every sIngle day here he comes. Not an once of self respect at all, none!

Here he is again, I gurantee it!

[ChumpDumper]

How many of you reading this would totally ignore..."please stop bugging me"..? Look at this freaK, every sIngle day here he comes. Not an once of self respect at all, none!

Here he is again, I gurantee it!

You keep replying, so why not?