Biola university gear Videos

Again you display your ignorance... Even now can't help to show your incompetence. 

+Scott Gilley More insults. As usual. You cannot defend evolution because you know and I know that real science doesn't support it. It's full of fakes, frauds and forgeries that have been allowed to deceive the public for centuries.Just keep on giving me stupid insults. Come back with a reasonable argument.I may even actually BUY you a shovel so you can really get to work on finding real evidence. What address do I send it to?

+johnlewisbrooks The cognitive dissonance is strong in you.

+johnlewisbrooks https://richarddawkins.net/2016/01/scientists-prove-key-aspect-of-evolutionary-theory/

+johnlewisbrooks HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!Abiogenesis is still not included in evolution. Just because you think it is, does not make it true. That you think it's silly just shows how ignorant you are. Even that you refer to evolution as pseudo science shows how much of a simpleton you really are. You don't understand what a theory is in science. Theory: A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena. I don't have a need to prove evolution to someone so closed minded as you. That your school failed you in that arena says enough about the extent of the brainwashing of your religion. Evolution is taught in public schools all around the world, because it is a fact. Evolution is real science, unlike creationism(pseudo science). That's why it is taught in public schools and your bible bullshit isn't taught. Dawkins never said any such thing about the fossil record. That you would say that just shows how desperate you are. You know you're wrong, otherwise your bible creationism nonsense would be taught in public schools as fact instead of evolution. I'm not mad or pissed off at all. Actually I've been going around showing all my friends this conversation for a few days now, we've all had a fantastic laugh at your ignorance and shitty knowledge of science. Everything you say is laced with bullshit and ignorance. I'll always come back here when I'm in a shitty mood, just to laugh at your stupidity.

+Scott Gilley Insults after insults after jab after jab. I don't know enough about reproduction? Hmmm...actually I know THE answer. The Bible says every animal shall reproduce after it's own kind with some variation. It also says in II Peter there have been MANY creations on Earth...Ahem? What does the fossil record show? Even Dawkins admits the fossil record poses a serious problem for evolution because the creatures appear seemingly out of nowhere.Hmmm...maybe he's GOT something there, huh?You're mad and pissed off and accue me of being a simpleton when I have shown you there are very real reasons why I do not buy into it. It's not just because the Bible says so. It's because REAL SCIENCE cannot make a watertight case for it.How many HOURS in the Camel Clutch do I have to torture you with???

+Scott Gilley Nothing in your post did anything to prove evolution.And for you to say abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution is silly. It's the very first step while evolution would be a continuation.Because of this it will remain a theory and will never be a law no matter how many pipe smoking Brits claim otherwise.lol.I'm not whining or crying.If evolution is a FACT then prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Be sure to call Dawkins and tell him that you have actual proof that step one, abiogenesis is  fact, which would easily get you a Nobel Prize, and step, two, you've filled the most obvious gaps in the fossil record and 3, you can explain why there's creatures who have remained UNCHANGED and lastly, why fossils suddenly appear without any transitional forms.Do you NOT see that I have very real reasons to not buy into this BUNK?Besides that it's been filled with pseudo science and fakes and frauds all over the place. Shiesters looking to get a quick buck from a sideshow. Nebraska Man was one, Piltdown Man was two and Lucy was a third in a long list of frauds where specimens were cobbled together from totally different creatures, painted, acid treated to look more aged and even glued together. Might as well have been a Barnum And Bailey sideshow!'Come one, come all! See the greatest discovery since the opening of King Tut's tomb! Look upon the artist rendition of what scientists have come up with regarding a single tooth! He's got a bone club...he's got monkey to man face an the body of Macho man Randy Savage covered over by an animal pelt! The one...the ONLY...NE-BRASCA-MAN!'And along comes a simple FARMER and makes fools of the world by showing the world it was a PIGS TOOTH and the PIG WAS STILL ALIVE!

Your lack of understanding is not evidence against evolution... No matter how much you whine and cry about it.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution... Nothing in your rant is even the slightest threat to the fact of evolution.

+Scott Gilley Still, strike one. Abiogenesis/chemosynthesis hasn't been observed even one time. Probably the biggest hurdle facing evolution is the fact that science cannot account for it's very first step.Strike two, throwing millions and even billions of years infront of something doesn't eliminate the fact that we have creatures practically UNCHANGED. Coelacanth would be one of those. It flies directly in the face of that article because in the face of 400-500 million years it's just a FISH. We have alligators and crocodiles who are decendants of others practically unchanged. We have 70 million year old flies in amber drops that we can see today as well.Strike 3, How can a completely dumb process suddenly make it's first decision? You need abiogenesis first of all, which as stated has never been proven. Also, the first living cells by NO MEANS simple, so how can a dumb, and undocumented process produce such a thing? It's the equivalent to believing the Three Stooges somehow built NYC.Strike 4, The fossil record itself shows completely different separate species in every case. There's not enough intermediaries to make any watertight cases.Lastly, shut up and move on before I SUPLEX YOU, PUT YOU IN A CAMEL CLUTCH AND BREAK YOUR BACK AND MAKE YOU HUMBLE!

+johnlewisbrooks //www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbreaker/why-strong-arguments-from-atheists-tend-to-increase-a-christians-faith/

+johnlewisbrooks //www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/intelligent-design-without-creator-why-evolution-may-be-smarter-we-thought

+johnlewisbrooks Please do not reproduce, you clearly don't understand enough about reproduction to take part in it. The world will be a much better place, much sooner, if ignorant people like you don't reproduce and infect a new generation with your ignorance.

+johnlewisbrooks So you say that one is the root of the other, and then you acknowledge that they are two separate things....You sound very ignorant.

+johnlewisbrooks you were clearly conflating.You have been proven wrong on evolution, now you are trying to deflect in a different direction.Sad thing, we've spent so much time on a secondary issue. The real point here, is that you believe this all came about due to an evil sky fairy, because you were brainwashed as a child, into believing a ancient myth

+danger2709 I know they are two separate things. but still, life doesn't come from nonlife and evolution doesn't happen.By GOSH! How simple can it be?I never said they were the same.

+Scott Gilley I never said abiogenesis was the same as evolution, I said it was the root of it. Matters not because neither happen.lolKeep wearing them fingers out.

+johnlewisbrooks As if evolution and evolutionary theory were not already confusing enough, many creationists complicate matters even further by promulgating the mistaken idea that evolution is the same as abiogenesis. One common way this is done is to argue that evolution cannot explain how life began while creationism can and, therefore, creationism is superior to evolution.Now, the origin of life is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not a part of evolutionary theory.The study of the naturalistic origins of life is called abiogenesis, and while scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from nonliving material, that has no impact on evolution. Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some divine power, evolution would still stand on the evidence as our best explanation so far for how that life has developed.Now, it is true that biological evolution and molecular evolution (the basis of naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis) do have some relation and overlap in the sense that molecular change (in genes) is what drives biological evolution.So, it is not necessarily invalid to join the two — especially when you consider that it is hard to draw a definitive line between life and non-life.The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens.Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.Another related error made by some creationists is the idea that evolutionary theory cannot explain the origin of the universe while creationism does — and, once again, evolution is inferior to creationism. However, the origins of the universe are even further removed from evolutionary theory than is the origin of life. There is some connection in that scientists seek naturalistic explanations for both, but that is simply due to the fact that they are both scientific pursuits and not because of any inherent relationship such that problems with one will undermine the other.In both instances described above, the creationists spreading this misunderstanding are doing so for one of two reasons. The first possibility is that they simply do not understand the nature of evolutionary theory. In not having a clear idea about what evolution is, they mistakenly include ideas which do not belong. This failure to understand the topic sheds some interesting light on their attempts to critique it, however.The second possibility is that some creationists do understand what evolution is and do understand that neither the origin of life nor the origin of the universe are really relevant to the truth or validity of evolutionary theory. In such cases, the creationists in question are being consciously and deliberately dishonest with their audience. Perhaps they imagine that by confusing people as to the true nature of evolution, they will be able to gain more support for their own position — a position which is, according to them, more in accordance with the will of God and Christian doctrines.

+johnlewisbrooks Modern abiogenesis hypotheses are based largely on the same principles as the Oparin-Haldane theory and the Miller-Urey experiment. There are, however, subtle differences between the several models that have been set forth to explain the progression from abiogenic molecule to living organism, and explanations differ as to whether complex organic molecules first became self-replicating entities lacking metabolic functions or first became metabolizing protocells that then developed the ability to self-replicate.The habitat for abiogenesis has also been debated. While some evidence suggests that life may have originated from nonlife in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, it is possible that abiogenesis occurred elsewhere, such as deep below Earth’s surface, where newly arisen protocells could have subsisted on methane or hydrogen, or even on ocean shores, where proteinoids may have emerged from the reaction of amino acids with heat and then entered the water as cell-like protein droplets.Some scientists have proposed that abiogenesis occurred more than once. In one example of this hypothetical scenario, different types of life arose, each with distinct biochemical architectures reflecting the nature of the abiogenic materials from which they developed. Ultimately, however, phosphate-based life (“standard” life, having a biochemical architecture requiring phosphorus) gained an evolutionary advantage over all non-phosphate-based life (“nonstandard” life) and thereby became the most widely distributed type of life on Earth. This notion led scientists to infer the existence of a shadow biosphere, a life-supporting system consisting of microorganisms of unique or unusual biochemical structure that may have once existed, or possibly still exists, on Earth.As the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated, organic molecules can form from abiogenic materials under the constraints of Earth’s prebiotic atmosphere. Since the 1950s, researchers have found that amino acids can spontaneously form peptides (small proteins) and that key intermediates in the synthesis of RNA nucleotides (nitrogen-containing compounds [bases] linked to sugar and phosphate groups) can form from prebiotic starting materials. The latter evidence may support the RNA world hypothesis, the idea that on early Earth there existed an abundance of RNA life produced through prebiotic chemical reactions. In fact, in addition to carrying and translating genetic information, RNA is a catalyst, a molecule that increases the rate of a reaction without itself being consumed, meaning that a single RNA catalyst could have produced multiple living forms, which would have been advantageous during the rise of life on Earth. The RNA world hypothesis is one of the leading self-replication-first conceptions of abiogenesis.Some modern metabolism-based models of abiogenesis incorporate Oparin’s enzyme-containing coacervates but suggest a steady progression from simple organic molecules to coacervates, specifically protobionts, aggregates of organic molecules that display some characteristics of life. Protobionts presumably then gave rise to prokaryotes, single-celled organisms lacking a distinct nucleus and other organelles because of the absence of internal membranes but capable of metabolism and self-replication and susceptible to natural selection. Examples of primitive prokaryotes still found on Earth today include archaea, which often inhabit extreme environments with conditions similar to those that may have existed billions of years ago, and cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), which also flourish in inhospitable environments and are of particular interest in understanding the origin of life, given their photosynthetic abilities. Stromatolites, deposits formed by the growth of blue-green algae, are the world’s oldest fossils, dating to 3.5 billion years ago.There remain many unanswered questions concerning abiogenesis. Experiments have yet to demonstrate the complete transition of inorganic materials to structures like protobionts and protocells and, in the case of the proposed RNA world, have yet to reconcile important differences in mechanisms in the synthesis of purine and pyrimidine bases necessary to form complete RNA nucleotides. In addition, some scientists contend that abiogenesis was unnecessary, suggesting instead that life was introduced on Earth via collision with an extraterrestrial object harbouring living organisms, such as a meteorite carrying single-celled organisms; the hypothetical migration of life to Earth is known aspanspermia.Research on abiogenesis has benefited significantly from astrobiology, the field of study concerned with the search forextraterrestrial life (life beyond Earth) and with understanding the conditions required for life to form. Astrobiological investigations of the moon Titan, for example, which has an atmosphere lacking free oxygen, have revealed that complex organic molecules are present there, offering scientists a glimpse into the formation of biological materials in a prebiotic habitat resembling that of early Earth.

+johnlewisbrooks Abiogenesis Biologyabiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex. Biogenesis, in which life is derived from the reproduction of other life, was presumably preceded by abiogenesis, which became impossible once Earth’s atmosphere assumed its present composition.Although many equate abiogenesis with the archaic theory of spontaneous generation, the two ideas are quite different. According to the latter, complex life (e.g., a maggot or mouse) was thought to arise spontaneously and continually from nonliving matter. While the hypothetical process of spontaneous generation was disproved as early as the 17th century and decisively rejected in the 19th century, abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved.

+johnlewisbrooks you keep saying the examples we provide are adaptation, not evolution.Adaptation IS evolution!!Your entire argument revolves around trying to redefine the meaning of the word evolution. It's dishonest, and wrong.And btw, abiogenesis and evolution are two very different things. With each post, you demonstrate further that you don't understand the subject.

+Scott Gilley You have said all of that for me to say this...The only fossils you find are individual species.Oh, and the very root of evolution is abiogenesis which has never been proven.Have a nice life lining up monkey skulls!

+danger2709 Do you think it's time for another recap?

+johnlewisbrooks I honestly didn't think I'd have to go this far too spell this shit out for you...Definitions of Evolutionary TermsAdaptation: The adjustment or changes in behavior, physiology, and structure of an organism to become more suited to an environment. According to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation.Chromosome: A double stranded DNA molecule that contains a series of specific genes along its length. In most sexually reproducing organisms, chromosomes occur in pairs, with one member of the pair being inherited from each parent.DNA: Deoxyribonucleic acid. A large biological molecule composed of subunits known as nucleotides strung together in long chains. The sequences of these nucleotides contain the information that cells need in order to grow, to divide into daughter cells, and to manufacture new proteins. Changes in DNA result in mutations, which may be beneficial, neutral, or deleterious to the organism. If these changes occur to DNA in sperm or egg cells, they could be passed onto the next generation.Evolution: Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.Fact: In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples.Fossil: A remnant or trace of an organism of a past geologic age, such as a skeleton or leaf imprint, embedded, and preserved in the Earth's crust, usually in stratified rock.Hypothesis: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Scientific hypotheses must be posed in a form that allows them to be rejected.Genomics: A recent branch of genetics that studies organisms in terms of their complete genetic material, including genes and their functions.Macroevolution: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new species and broader taxonomic groups.Microevolution: Changes in the traits of a group of organisms within a species that do not result in a new species.Mimicry: In biology, mimicry is the superficial resemblance of one species of organism to another species or to a natural object in its surroundings. Some kinds of mimicry result in a selective advantage for concealment and protection from predators. Another type of mimicry enables protection to the mimic through its resemblance to another species that is toxic or in some other way dangerous.Mutation:A change in the sequence of one or more nucleotides in DNA. Such changes can alter the structure of proteins or the regulation of protein production. In some cases mutations result in the organism possessing these altered traits to have a greater or lesser chance of surviving and reproducing in a given environment than other members of its species.Natural selection:Differential survival and reproduction of organisms as a consequence of the characteristics of the environment.Paleontologist:A scientist who studies fossils to learn about ancient organisms.Protein:A large molecule consisting of a chain of smaller molecules called amino acids. The sequence of amino acids and the molecule's three-dimensional structure are coded by the instructions in DNA and determine a protein's specific function in cells or organisms.Population: A group of organisms of the same species that are in close enough proximity to allow them to interbreed.RNA:Ribonucleic acid. A molecule related to DNA that consists of nucleotide subunits strung together in chains. RNA serves a number of cellular functions, including providing a template for the synthesis of proteins and catalyzing certain biochemical reactions. The structure of RNA is determined by the sequence of nucleotides on DNA.Science:The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.Sedimentary:Rocks formed of particles deposited by water, wind, or ice.Selective breeding:The intentional breeding of organisms with desirable traits in an attempt to produce offspring with enhanced characteristics or traits that humans consider desirable. This process is also known as "artifical selection" (compare with "natural selection").Speciation:The evolutionary processes through which new species arise from existing species.Species: In sexually reproducing organisms, species consist of individuals that can interbreed with each other.Survival of the fittest: A term that refers to the survival of only those organisms best able (fittest) to obtain and utilize resources, resulting in the evolution of organisms that are best adapted to the environment. Darwin used metaphorically to describe "natural selection." The phrase was invented by the 19th century philosopher Herbert Spencer It has been misapplied through history to explain and justify social and economic inequities in human populations ("social Darwinism") or as a method for improving the human condition through selective breeding (eugenics). Survival alone is insufficient for evolution - it's reproduction - passing on of genes that really counts. Most modern biologists no longer use this term when describing or discussing natural selection.Theory: A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.Trait:A physical or behavioral characteristic of an organism.

+johnlewisbrooks Defining adaptationJust as it is tempting to take natural selection to extremes, it is tempting to look for the evolutionary advantage of any trait of an organism — in other words, to see adaptationseverywhere. Of course, the natural world is full of adaptations — but it is also full of traits that are not adaptations, and recognizing this is important. However, before we examine traits that are not adaptations, it will be useful to specifically define what an adaptation actually is and how we can determine whether or not a trait qualifies as an adaptation.An adaptation is a feature produced by natural selection for its current function. Based on this definition we can make specific predictions ("If X is an adaptation for a particular function, then we'd predict that...") and see if our predictions match our observations. As an example, we'll consider the hypothesis: feathers are an adaptation for bird flight. Is the evidence consistent with this hypothesis? There are several relevant lines of evidence that must be examined:Is it heritable?If a trait has been shaped by natural selection, it must be genetically encoded — since natural selection cannot act on traits that don't get passed on to offspring. Are feathers heritable? Yes. Baby birds grow up to have feathers like those of their parents.Is it functional?If a trait has been shaped by natural selection for a particular task, it must actually perform that task. Do feathers function to enable flight? In the case of bird flight, the answer is fairly obvious. Birds with feathers are able to fly and birds without feathers would not be able to.Does it increase fitness?If a trait has been shaped by natural selection, it must increase the fitness of the organisms that have it — since natural selection only increases the frequency of traits that increase fitness. Are birds more fit with feathers than without? Yes. Birds without feathers aren't going to leave as many offspring as those with feathers.We could do experiments to test each of these criteria of adaptation. So far so good — the feature could have been shaped by natural selection. But we also have to look at historical questions about what was going on when it arose. Did feathers arise in the context of natural selection for flight?How did it first evolve?Did the trait arise when the current function arose? Did feathers arise when flying arose? The answer to this is probably no. The closest fossil relatives of birds, two-legged dinosaurs called theropods, appear to have sported feathers but could not fly.This last question emphasizes the importance of understanding organisms' history through fossils such as Archaeopteryx and reconstructed phylogenies. It is not enough to know that the feature is functional right now. We want to know what was happening when it first evolved, which often involves reconstructing the phylogeny of the organisms in which we are interested and determining the likely ancestral states of the characters.Feathers meet three of the necessary requirements to be considered an adaptation for flight, but fail one of them. So the basic form of feathers is probably not an adaptation for flight even though it certainly serves that function now.

+danger2709 That would be more of an adaptation. So still, no big cause for alarm.lol

+johnlewisbrooks Don't know why you are obsessed with needing to see a change in DNA.If you and your family starting living in deep caves, raised your children there, and their children and so on, it's likely you would begin to see change - eg. larger pupils to make use of the available light. Or better hearing etc.Same DNA, clear example of evolution.

+danger2709 Nothing new in their dna. If I had that in my DNA and started eating a lot of veggies the same thing would happen to me.Technically that's not a change and it's not evolution. it's actually normal, and nothing out of the ordinary.lol

+johnlewisbrooks You are right about one thing - the changes that occurred are normal. And guess what, that's exactly what evolution is....normal! Something doesn't have to change from a cat to a bird to be evolution. It is subtle changes, incremental adaptations, that over long periods of time add up to something significant.Where did you do your reading? Religious literature that claims to debunk the proof? Anything from an credible source?

+danger2709 No. That's not evolution at all and you know it. I have read many articles on that particular subject. Still a lizard, still same DNA. The genetics are still the exact same meaning nothing special happened. That means that said changes are actually totally normal which means it's not evolution.I'm stupid and insane now because I call garbage garbage.OK!

+johnlewisbrooks So, to summarise the last couple of posts:Danger2709 - presents evidence from a controlled case studyScott Gilley - provides detailed scientific analysis of the key issuesJohnlewisbrooks - "no it's not. Lol"John, you are the perfect example of Dunning Kruger syndrome. You also illustrate something I was taught long ago - "When a person is insane, they don't know it, it's only the people around them who suffer. It's the same with stupidity"

A new gut structure, and cecal valves are not the result of genetic information, but rather latent genes....Can you even fathom how ignorant this statement is? Genes are genetic information... Genetic information has a direct correlation to evolution and DNA...Did you graduate high school? A gene is the basic physical and functional unit of heredity. Genes, which are made up of DNA, act as instructions to make molecules called proteins. In humans, genes vary in size from a few hundred DNA bases to more than 2 million bases.Genetics is the study of genes, heredity, and genetic variation in living organisms. It is generally considered a field of biology, but it intersects frequently with many of the life sciences and is strongly linked with the study of information systems.EvolutionFurther information: RNA world hypothesisDNA contains the genetic information that allows all modern living things to function, grow and reproduce. However, it is unclear how long in the 4-billion-year history of life DNA has performed this function, as it has been proposed that the earliest forms of life may have used RNA as their genetic material. RNA may have acted as the central part of early cell metabolism as it can both transmit genetic information and carry out catalysis as part of ribozymes. This ancient RNA world where nucleic acid would have been used for both catalysis and genetics may have influenced the evolution of the current genetic code based on four nucleotide bases. This would occur, since the number of different bases in such an organism is a trade-off between a small number of bases increasing replication accuracy and a large number of bases increasing the catalytic efficiency of ribozymes. However, there is no direct evidence of ancient genetic systems, as recovery of DNA from most fossils is impossible because DNA survives in the environment for less than one million years, and slowly degrades into short fragments in solution.Claims for older DNA have been made, most notably a report of the isolation of a viable bacterium from a salt crystal 250 million years old, but these claims are controversial.Building blocks of DNA (adenine, guanine and related organic molecules) may have been formed extraterrestrially in outer space. Complex DNA and RNA organic compounds of life, including uracil, cytosine and thymine, have also been formed in the laboratory under conditions mimicking those found in outer space, using starting chemicals, such as pyrimidine, found in meteorites. Pyrimidine, like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), the most carbon-rich chemical found in the universe, may have been formed in red giants or in interstellar dust and gas clouds.

+danger2709 Those cecal valves are not the result of new genetic information, but rather latent genes.Sorry. No evolution. Just as I already knew.lol

+danger2709 The new GUT STRUCTURE was only a bigger version of one that already existed. And no, I'm not ignorant of the facts. It has been debunked already. Just absolutely stupid.

+johnlewisbrooks I agree, you ARE ignorant of facts. The study of the lizards showed 3 main changes:- COMPLETELY NEW gut structure- larger heads (not body or limbs)- stronger jawsThat is not "a bigger lizard". It is a lizard with features that have changed to the point where they are noticably different. ie. it has EVOLVED!By trying to reject these facts, you are trying to redefine the meaning of the word evolution.Under it's true scientific meaning, I just proved it to you.Which means you are still wrong

You're really going to try and say that all of those 28 links didn't work? I just checked them all... Nice try, maybe take a class in learning to use the internet? 

+Scott Gilley I'm not making excuses! The link didn't work!

+Scott Gilley I just did a copy and paste. Still getting the Hmmmm message.

+Scott Gilley I just watched a video where Lawrence Krauss accuses teaching creationism is akin to child abuse and that it hinders learning.Well apparently he needs to do some learning himself along with the YEC because NOT ONE TIME does the Bible claim a 6-10,000 year old Earth.Not ONE TIME does it say the Earth is flat. Not ONE TIME does it say Adam and Eve were the only people on Earth. The claim of the WHOLE EARTH being flooded over during the time of Noah isn't to be found either.If this is the video you want me to watch then all you've done was managed to expose Krauss for his own ignorance. On top of that I in no way proves evolution.The Biblical claim matches what we see, that there have been many creations (2 Peter 3:5) and that animals would reproduce after their own kind. The evidence for this being true is overwhelming. Not ONE TIME has the species barrier been broken.Do experiments on lizards, fruit flies, trap amino acids all day long. By the end of the day the species BARRIER REMAINS!

All the above links are from you tube, so you can literally just copy and paste any of the titles into the you tube search bar... Little bit of effort will go a long way(instead of making excuses about not seeing the links). Danger2709, do you see the links I'm posting?

Try copying and pasting the links into your address bar... :/

+Scott Gilley I'm not getting a video so I typed it in google and have found nothing more than texts and video sites.The only one of any real interest was an interview on the PakMan show where Lawrence Krauss equates creationism to a form of child abuse.It's just a bunch of finger pointing.Besides that, Krauss is a complete moron.lol

+danger2709 That's NOT evolution at all. It's just a bigger lizard. no new DNA, no new or partially formed anything. No mutations whatsoever.Yeah, I'm so ignorant of the facts.

+johnlewisbrooks that's right...it's still a lizard. One that has EVOLVED.Given that such obvious changes occurred over a matter of years, it is easy to see that the changes that would likely occur over millions of years would be significant.Your post just reaffirms that you don't understand evolution.There is not a point where an animal "crosses a major barrier". The word evolve tells you that change is incremental, slow and subtle. You are looking for the wrong thing (and deliberately using it as a strawman)

+Scott Gilley I just clicked on it and it says Hmmm can't reach this page. Is it on youtube somewhere?

//americannewsx.com/politics/creationism-is-not-science-its-child-abuse-watch-and-learn-video/

+Scott Gilley And I'm certainly for it. And sure viruses and certain bacteria can build adaptations and resistance just as vaccines can.People can grow and change and adapt. Guess what? They are STILL people.It's STILL a virus, it's STILL bacteria.No new parts, no new DNA code, no NOTHING. Still it's essentially the same.How about that video for the (6-7 time going on 100)?

+Scott Gilley Why don't you talk to me instead of behind my back with danger2709?I keep requesting this video that's supposed to prove evolution is true. Yet for several days I haven't seen anything.

+danger2709 It's still a lizard and it hasn't crossed any major barriers. And throwing millions of years infront of it isn't going to help either.Any dog breeder knows that this doesn't work.lol

I would tend to agree, except that this guy is extremely closed minded... I think he'll keep fighting against the evidence.

+Scott Gilley I suspect ol mate may go quiet for a while.....

+danger2709 This is exactly why I keep on referring to him as ignorant.

+johnlewisbrooks Thanks for your response, which demonstrates that you don't know what evolution actually is.Evolution does not mean "adding a new feature" as you so eloquently put it. The article I provided shows how EXISTING features of the lizard EVOLVED to better suit their local environment.It would be like a creature who lived in a dark environment. Over time, it's eyes may evolve to have larger pupils, and other changes to better use the available light. Alternately, it may develop better hearing. Your response is simply "well why didn't it suddenly grow a fuckin torch on its head?"I now see why you reject evolution - you don't understand it. That inability to comprehend is nothing to be ashamed of, but lashing out to defend your ignorance certainly is

+johnlewisbrooks You do realize that without our understanding of evolution, we wouldn't have vaccines(just one tiny example), and we would still be living for a mere 40 years instead of the average of 80 years that we now live to.

+johnlewisbrooks I say that you are ignorant, because every post you make is evidence that you are ignorant, it's as simple as that. Just because you call the facts crap, doesn't make the facts go away. Join the world in the knowledge that evolution is a fact and that you are wrong.

+johnlewisbrooks I'm making an observation that you are ignorant, not because of one single reason or another... I'm making this observation because you repeatedly ignore the evidence, and outright dismiss the evidence because god... Seems to me that ignorance is a very real and dangerous symptom of religion... You really need to open your mind and look at the truth and the facts. The truth will not go away, and I see you being an ignorant fool until you die, if you do not open your mind.

+Scott Gilley Video? Where is it?And if you're calling me ignorant because of the Croatian Lizard crap then it is you who needs to study.It's just a muscled up lizard with NO NEW parts and NO NEW DNA.

The ignorance is astounding... :/

+Scott Gilley Watch the 'fucking video's"? Huh? I really am not seeing where they've been posted. You may think I'm trying to dodge this but I'm not.Post it again then?

+danger2709 This is absolute CRAP. It turns out that all they are are bigger lizards. They have no newly formed organs and as it turns out are completely capable of eating vegetables. The so called 'new cecal valves' are literally nothing more than a bigger muscle that retains all of it's normal functions. It's far from being a new feature. And with a bigger and better food supply it's nothing amazing that they were bigger. I guess by that standard overweight people are evolving.And as for their lower aggression levels you can find this in common squirrels. Pick one up here and they bite your hand, pick one up at Grand Canyon National Park and they steal your food. Why? Because they're used to being handfed and treated like kings. Same thing with a common housecat.Nothing extraordinary about this at all.

+johnlewisbrooks John, thanks for the challenge to show you a documented example of evolution occurring in an observable timeframe.Challenge accepted!The below links documents an example where lizards were introduced to a controlled environment, and rapidly evolved.//news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.htmlAs I have now provided the evidence you requested, I assume you will now acknowledge that you are wrong.More likely, I expect that this is highly inconvenient to your pre determined beliefs, and you will go VERY quiet!

+johnlewisbrooks How you know someone failed basic biology? When a blanket dismissal of evolution occurs!This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macro-evolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.These days even most creationists acknowledge that micro-evolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galapagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.The historical nature of macro-evolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If super-intelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.//www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

+johnlewisbrooksDude, watch the fucking videos... The evidence of evolution is demonstrable and "rock solid". All you need to do is look. Open your mind, and look... I already have provided it, and the more you look, the more obvious it will be.  I cannot force you to look. Just as I can lead a horse to water, but cannot force it to drink.

+Scott Gilley Whatever. Where's the magic ROCK SOLID evidence video you have that proves evolution?Provide it or I will suplex you until you are humble!

+danger2709 That's because gravity can actually be proven. You show me something such as hair slowly turning into feathers over ANY period of time and that'll be enough to keep me quiet. But the fact is that there's no water tight case for it.

+johnlewisbrooks I didn't insult you. I pointed out that referring to cavemen was a primary school level of understanding.And you are wrong, we have thousands of transitional fossils. In particular, the evolution of apes into the various species we see today (including humans) is well documented and proven. In more recent times, DNA testing has been able to prove our understanding in much greater detail.Your example of kids in a swimming pool is the dumbest thing I've heard today. It shows you clearly don't understand evolution. You may as well be trying to argue against gravity

+johnlewisbrooks And about Louis Pastuer...No where is he credited with debunking life coming from nonlife. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_PasteurOn an aside, I've not called you an idiot, fool, or a 3rd grader. I HAVE called you ignorant though. Ignorance is a state of being uninformed. So, I stand by my words that describe you as ignorant.

+danger2709 I know what the fossil record shows. It shows NO transitional forms. You simply do not see fins turning into fingers over the course of millions of years. You do not see bony stumps turning into feathered limbs over millions of years. There simply isn't a water tight case.Hey, I have a GREAT idea. We'll put up a billion dollars, shale we? We can do a little experiment. We can tell a family of people to live inside a swimming pool, and their children and their children and their children MUST stay in that swimming pool for at least a few hundred years.GUESS WHAT???They aren't going to have fins or gills to help them adapt to their new environment.That's why the belief in evolution is the equal of believing in miracles.FIND THE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS OR CAN IT! I want a watertight empirical case made and there is none.Resort to calling me an idiot or a fool and subject me to being called a 3rd grader all day long, but the science behind it has been filled with fakes, frauds, forgeries and theories that have been proven wrong. Life coming from nonlife have been debunked by a MILK MAN over 200yrs ago called Louise Pastuer.

+Scott Gilley I am RALLY not seeing any video links! WHERE ARE THEY???

+johnlewisbrooks you say you haven't ignored evidence....yes you have, your last post ignores the entire fossil record!Then you make a silly sweeping claim like "cavemen have been found to be false"...who?? Are you really using a 3rd Grade understanding of our predecessors to try an present a scientific argument? Cavemen? Seriously??Then you make another grand claim to say "the universe points to an intelligent mind". That is a massive claim, so needs to be supported....yet you provide nothing.Just because you can't understand it, doesn't mean it was done by a higher power.The fact is, that science now explains most of the things you claim point to ID....so your argument is literally shrinking by the day.

#1 You have ignored the evidence despite what you claim, and I have linked(quite a few times) to videos with facts backed by science(the observation of reality). Ignoring them, doesn't make them go away.#2 Just because you put the word fact in front of a sentence, does not give the sentence any credibility. It only makes you seem ignorant and closed minded.#3 That you see a creative mind in anything we have discussed, leads me to believe(based on the evidence apparent in this conversation) that you are delusional, and ignorant in the face of real facts that are backed by empirical evidence.

+danger2709 I haven't ignored the evidence and I do not see any video's posted anywhere.Fact, abiogenesis doesn't happen. Fact, practically all cavemen have been proven to be false. Fact, transitional fossils do not give us a watertight case. Fact, it's mathematically impossible for the DNA code to arise through chemical reactions of any kind.And the Universe, while not perfect, still points to an intelligent mind. If ANY of those cosmological constants were slightly off we might not even be here. That's not absolute proof, but definitely a signature for a creative mind.That goes to BOTH of you.lol

I even went out of my way to make it like retard easy for you... All you have to do is scroll up and click the links, after making some popcorn.

This is exactly why I call you ignorant... The fact that you ignore all the evidence, yet claim to be open minded(laughable), you insert god at your convenience, every "reference" you make is of a creationist(they have absolutely zero credibility to any competent scientist), and you misrepresent all the competent scientists that you attempt to reference. It's quite pathetic really. I also answer with A.Why don't you actually do some research, instead of just copy/paste all the debunked(not disputed) creationist garbage?Until you make an honest attempt to open your mind and look at the facts and do the research, you will be called ignorant constantly... I'm just trying to help... I honestly feel bad for you. I'm sure you're a great person(religion aside), you really do need to make an honest attempt to educate yourself. Apparently, your school failed hard. 

+johnlewisbrooks you asked me which explanation makes more sense for the beginning of the universe - a dumb, unfeeling source of energy, or an intelligent god?My answer is A - an unfeeling source of energy.Answer A tells us an event occurred without needing to have a higher purpose, and we can track and explain what happened subsequently using science and logic.You answer - god did it - offers an initial explanation, but then raises a multitude of unanswerable questions - why did he do it? why did he make so many obvious mistakes? why has he done nothing since? why has he not intervened since, to alleviate suffering and pain? The questions create a huge problem for your proposed answer, as they create enormous conflict with other religious claims.....such that any reasonable person can only conclude that the entire story is made up. It was just an unsophisticated attempt by ancient men to explain the world around them. Scientific learning in the centuries since has proven how poor an attempt it was.

+Scott Gilley These are from biologists as well."The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts.""No one can demonstrate that the limits of a species have ever been passed. These are the Rubicons which evolutionists cannot cross since actual changes of species by such means are still unknown."Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist of the British Museum Of Natural History"I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.""It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another."Dr Kemp, Curator Of Zoological Collections Of Fossils and Evolution Of Oxford University."In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stemgroup forms"."There's not enough evidence from fossil material to take theorising out of the realms of fantasy" New Scientist page 259."Dr. Ernst Mayr, Professor Of Zoology and world reknowned taxonomist and explorer."To believe that such drastic mutations would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is the equivalent to believing in miracles".Dr. John C. Kendrew, Cambridge Scientist and Nobel Laureate, from his writing "The Thread Of Life" page 106."Mutations will almost always be deletorious, almost always, in fact, they kill the organism or the cell, often at so early a stage in it's existance that we do not realize it ever came into being at all."Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt, German born American geneticist."Nobody has produced even a single species by the selected micromutations."Dr. C. D. Darlington, English biologist, geneticist, eugenicist, often given credit for the discovery of chromosomal crossover and the role it plays in inheritance."The most outstanding evolutionary mystery is now this: how matter has originated and evolved, why it has taken its present form in the Universe and on Earth, and why is it capable of forming itself into complex living sets of molecules."I know, I know. Guilty of quote mining. That still doesn't stop the quotes from being quoted.Abiogenesis/chemosynthesis has never been observed and there's no water tight case of transitional forms.So please, stop trying to show me evolution. It doesn't work and I know it.

+danger2709 I loled at "learned colleague"!! This guy doesn't know much of anything of worth on this subject at all. It's almost as if he has spent his whole life in a very sheltering religion...

The internet is where religion comes to die...

Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice. ~Sam Harris

I'm not typing all the shit you need to learn, but I'll happily link to videos that do ;)

+Scott Gilley Ever heard of Earnst Haeckels? Yeah, a court decided that HE was a fraud. Unfortunately his false embryo stages have found there way into many school books and have been allowed to deceive the public for quite some time.In a 1997 interview in The Times of London, Dr. Richardson stated: “This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. … What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t. … These are fakes.”We can also go to "Piltdown Man" or how about Nebraska Man". All of these are embarrassing frauds that were pushed as being the truth. Kinda funny the so called scientists declared they had found some amazingly old fossil, whipped up a bunch of artists conceptions...only to find out it was a pigs tooth and the pig was STILL ALIVE!But be that as it may...abiogenesis/chemosynthesis hasn't been observed a single time, not one new species has ever been documented as arising from another. Also, there's no known way in nature for new DNA to appear in the genetic code and the chances of DNA arriving from a random unguided process is mathematically impossible. And on top of that there's no evidence for a 'primordial soup' of any kind.Who needs to go to court and hire a bunch of lawyers when the science doesn't add up?Evolution has failed.

The empirical evidence for evolution is demonstrable, you have no argument here...

All those quotes are from disreputable creationists, or they are taken out of context and misrepresented. Please stop trying to get one past me. You obviously don't even understand the basics of evolution! If you did you might have a better argument.

The science behind the universe tells us that there is no creator. That's a fact of this world. 

See, the thing is that in the decision the court ruled that evolution has scientific merit and creationism/intelligent design was even shown to use faulty notions, very flawed logic, and even lies in their attempt at getting it into the schools. It was literally shown to be unconstitutional. All based on the science... They basically gave the judge a lesson in science inside the court room. 

+Scott Gilley It shouldn't matter what a court of people says. It should matter what the science behind the Universe tells us. Nothing less than a creator.A man can look at a book and the first thing we see is a SIGN of intelligence.A random, blind and unguided process produced all of that? Right...

+Scott Gilley Creationism hasn't been debunked, but rather refused. It's basically the idea that if you believe in God you cannot possibly be a scientist and you therefore leave your brain at the doorstep.Oh, and that's despite the real evidence for a creator.Oh, and evolution has been accepted despite the many evidences against it from REAL biologists and scientists. Practically every single caveman they've found has proven to be a hoax!Dr. Albert Fleischmann"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts.""No one can demonstrate that the limits of a species have ever been passed. These are the Rubicons which evolutionists cannot cross since actual changes of species by such means are still unknown."Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist of the British Museum Of Natural History"I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.""It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another."Dr Kemp, Curator Of Zoological Collections Of Fossils and Evolution Of Oxford University."In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stemgroup forms"."There's not enough evidence from fossil material to take theorising out of the realms of fantasy" New Scientist page 259."Dr. Ernst Mayr, Professor Of Zoology and world reknowned taxonomist and explorer."To believe that such drastic mutations would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is the equivalent to believing in miracles".Dr. John C. Kendrew, Cambridge Scientist and Nobel Laureate, from his writing "The Thread Of Life" page 106."Mutations will almost always be deletorious, almost always, in fact, they kill the organism or the cell, often at so early a stage in it's existance that we do not realize it ever came into being at all."Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt, German born American geneticist."Nobody has produced even a single species by the selected micromutations."Dr. C. D. Darlington, English biologist, geneticist, eugenicist, often given credit for the discovery of chromosomal crossover and the role it plays in inheritance."The most outstanding evolutionary mystery is now this: how matter has originated and evolved, why it has taken its present form in the Universe and on Earth, and why is it capable of forming itself into complex living sets of molecules."

+johnlewisbrooks Creationism/Intelligent Design is not valid science and has already been debunked in court!! lol Nice try though ;)

+Scott Gilley One last thing before I bed down today...You've said that the Bible isn't valid reference material?//www.godandscience.org/Ahem, there's lots of valid reference material right here and it does quite a good job at explaining most atheists misconceptions about the Bible.

+Scott Gilley I'm totally open minded. Actually the Bible gives us instructions to actually do that, completely contrary to what an atheist will accuse a believer in God of being."Whatever is true and of good report, think on these things".I might learn something? Ok, and what if I do pick up a few new tricks? How then will that help either of us in our woefully brief existence if there's no afterlife?Without God life, the Universe and the world around us is pointless and mindless. We live in a mathematically impossible Universe where if the cosmos were even slightly maladjusted we might not even exist.Oh, that would be evidence of a powerful thinking God now wouldn't it?

I can't really say anything else, aside from picking apart that last paragraph you wrote. I hope you really are interested in being open minded enough to watch all those... You may learn something.

+Scott Gilley Is Sam Harris aware that many atheists are responsible for millions of deaths? The gangbangers on the streets kill one another without any religion. What about the likes of Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot? Hundreds of millions of people have been killed directly or otherwise by these evil men who were atheists. Adolf Hitler may have claimed He was a Christian, but he sure had an odd way of showing it by KILLING the very people who wrote the Bible itself. Heinrich Himmler was an atheist and a rabid anti-Semite who instituted industrialized murder. What about planned parenthood? 60million people so far have been murdered without so much as a bat of the eye.But why then would Sam Harris even care? If atheism turns out to be true then who then cares at all what men do? After all we are nothing more than a collection of molecules moving around in a big pool of energy. Why have any morals at all if we go to the grave and that's that? We might as all well just eat, drink and do as we please because when we are dead that's that!Morality has no place in atheism. Why cry out for justice when there's really no benefit or punishment for failing or passing any morals?Basically if atheism is true, who cares if I'm a nice guy or a machinegun toting nut who shoots up a mall. All of our sufferings and pleads for justice are ultimately FUTILE.God easily makes more sense here.

+johnlewisbrooks I don't need to bother to trying to prove a negative... That's just a stupid thing to ask. Plus, on top of that, the onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence of the claim, not the other way around. I still contend that there is no evidence for god. Please provide evidence of his existence. Convince me oh great indoctronator!!!

"It is taboo in our society to criticize a persons religious faith...These taboos are offensive, deeply unreasonable, but worse than that, they are getting people killed.This is really my concern. My concern is that our religions, the diversity of our religious doctrines, is going to get us killed. I'm worried that our religious discourse- our religious beliefs are ultimately incompatible with civilization." ~Sam Harris

+Scott Gilley Oh, zero evidence for a God of any kind? Are you really sure? Then prove that He doesn't. That's your claim, so now back it up!Prove to me beyond any doubt that there's NO GOD and that there's an absolute zero possibility of Him or it.And do not give me that Santa or Easter Bunny garbage.

I'm not being a "jerk". I'm being intellectually honest, please try it.

Are you offended? If so, why?

See, the failure of your argument, is that we actually have EVIDENCE that nature did it... God has zero evidence... 

+Scott Gilley You know we were having a pleasant discussion. Stop being a jerk about it. There's nothing about this that requires your rude obnoxious spouting. So be civil or can it!

+Scott Gilley Try using your brain instead of relying on "I don't understand this, so therefore nature did it" arguments. And God convinces people to do horrendously evil things???"Love God and love your neighbor as you should yourself".If all of those evil men and women you're thinking of would have followed this simple rule untold billions would be alive. This is what happens when we DO NOT follow God.Tell them to use their brains. Oh, and a heart with it!

+Michael Farrell Huh?

+OsmosisIf someone said "that guy's a bad driver", couldn't I legitimately ask "what's wrong with his driving?", without getting a kindergarten response like "maybe the fact that it's... bad". 

+Mentat1231I'm betting it's the "terribly fallacious" part.  which Craig is.

What exactly are you objecting to here?