A group for those without religion, as well as those who oppose it.
Our country is [meeped].
One day they'll learn.
This is so sad that I laughed, almost crying.
Well, at least they teach something about evolution, all that we talk about at school is how Jesus "made" a living bird using mud and how Isaac was almost sacrificed by his father, we even have to pray all the mornings. DAMN! xD
WE (humans) ARE APES! But for the rest of this video, I agree.
So this is what Mayans thought about world ending in 2012. First Disney bought Lucas Films/Arts and now this creationist ********...ohh dear run for your lives q_q
Where do you want to run to, if the world is going to die? Better send those retards to mars and show them how natural selection works - the hard way XXXXXL deluxe.
LOL viruses are NOT LIVING ORGANISMS:D so his point about seeing those stuff evolve = invalid. really viruses need a host in order to even reproduce. anyways though i should point that out, since that is a VERY poor evidence of evolution.
If single cell organisms are no living things, how can we be? Just asking because we are not just one cell, but billions or trillions of cells co-existing with each other. How can a virus change over time by the priciples of evolution if its not living stuff? Ever seen a rock becoming something else? ;)
No, its not a poor evidence for evolution. In fact, without the understanding of evolution, we would have a much harder time fighting against those nasty microarganisms. If they would not live and evolve, than the same medicine against influenza that has been used 100 years ago would still work today - like an antidote against venom. If you ever had influenza, than you know it does not. Only the medicine against the symptoms might stay the same, but basicly influenza is something your body have to fight because this virus changes really fast and it becomes immune towards the recent vaccine.
Viruses are actually not considered living due to a lack of one of the necessary, five I think, qualifications to be officially considered a living organism. Though it is pretty much just a technicality when you get down to how the things function.
Quick search result: "...it cannot respond to a stimulus. It cannot grow and develop. It cannot adapt to the environment. The only way to reproduce is to do it inside a host cell and cannot independently reproduce."
So yeah, not living.
Ok, I was wrong on that point, but still they evolve. Just for Elf, before he gets overexcited.
If it evolves, isn't it a living organism then? And they have DNA too right?
Afaik a virus has RNA, DNA segments, not a full DNA. But that was my impression as well and it feeds from life like life usually does.
I did some research and well, it seems that it can be either DNA or RNA:
"... molecular techniques have been used to compare the DNA or RNA of viruses..."
They can even have both, DNA and RNA at different stages in the life cycle.
well yeah it changes from one kind of virus to (guess what) a new VIRUS! which is still a virus and until someone points out something that changed into another creature. (ie Bactria to a multicellular organism) then i will NEVER accept evolution, since it is wrong, unproven, and unscientific. so please point me to an experiment where they evolved single celled creatures into multicellular creatures.
Or you are just an idiot, Elf. As long as a virus, bacteria, multicellular organism, mammal ect. as species has no need and no possibility to change, it will not change - or lets just say if changes are not beneficial. And if something changes, it will mostly take a time span we both cant imagine. Speciation can happen within 1 human life among smaller animals, but the change from a frog to a reptile takes millions of years under the best circumstances. Same for single celled to multicellular.
a video on the topic:
A creationists video that makes the assumption that a bacteria HAVE to evolve into something more complex. But I already debunked it, look at my comments above.
I find it sad that those creationists bring in scientists in their argument, not biologists or so, just scientists - which could mean pretty much anyone except those who really work on the subject.
And? Who said that evolution is about going to a species to another? Evolution is just the inherited characteristics of previous generations, in this case, bacteria adapts to the antibiotic, and then their "offsprings" are also resistent to that same antibiotic, and here are 5 proofs of evolution, and the person who wrote that included this example:
Now if you excuse me, I need to sacrifice a cow for our god Fred =)
Of all those "proofs" I would only consider reason 1, maybe reason 4 as valid evidence for a common ancestor for all life. That's because reason 2 is wrong due to the evidence against it. http://creation.mobi/fossils-wrong-place basically stuff being in places it shouldn't. Reason 3 was just as wrong since I could meantion how donuts and car wheels look "similar" in terms of appearance or that bananas are similar to humans in terms of DNA (*im not too sure about the second one) basically similar stuff could JUST mean a common maker! http://creation.mobi/human-ape-dna next reason 5, I agree this does happen!! But does an Bactria change to anything else then a Bactria? NO! So asides for reason one and 4 which do not have extreme problems, and could actually support evolution the rest do not support evolution to well. But even 1 and 4 could prove that God designed this world due to everything being similarly designed by a common designer.
Ehm, the next stage of a bacteria after a couple of MILLIONS of years would probably be something like this: En.wikipedia.org An amoeba, a single celled lifeform. The next stept might be a herd of amoebas which hunt bacteria or other micro organism in groups until they might join together to simple multicelluar lifeforms for a better survival and so on and so forth. Biologists observed genetic changes that lead to benefitial mutations, basicly evolution live under the microscope.
Who do you trust more? Those who try to find the truth or those who are dishonest? If you would understand science, you would understand who the truth seeking and who the lair is. So leave this creation site and study some real science.
Again, who said that evolution is change of species? And 1 and 4 can is just the nature of the DNA, it's how it works, proof 3 is again, the nature of the DNA, it doesn't talk about similarities from the animal's structure, not at all, it says that many mamals share the same piece of DNA that we have, proving that we had the same ancestors.
And your link doesn't work for me, it says page not found,
I accept variation within a kind, and/or adaptation to an environment both are basically the same thing. But I accept it based on observation. I need to see big evolution to believe in it. And since I haven't seen it yet; I disregard it as unscientific due to it not being observed.
Are you sure?
Galapagos' page in Wikipedia:
"...The islands are geologically young and famed for their vast number of endemic species, which were studied by Charles Darwin during the voyage of the Beagle. His OBSERVEATIONS and collections contributed to the inception of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection..."
He observed, many different animals, like birds (I don't relaly remember the names of the species), months, Galápagos tortoises and other species if I remember well, but he found different between each one, for example the shape of the peaks from the birds:
The different coloration of months:
And the different kinds of shells that the Galápagos tortoises have:
This shape allows the tortoise to move the neck upwards:
This one is like the common shape of turtles:
And finally this one doesn't even seems to let the tortoise move the head upwards:
If that isn't overvation, then I don't know what is lol.
I don't really remember well lol, but I think that's how he discovered/proved evolution, but my point is that he DID observe
Yeah he observed variation within a kind and assumed that a turtle can become something that isn't a turtle.
For the third time, who said that evolution is change of species?
It has to be that in order for life to come from one common ansestor. By the way like I said before I accept variation within a kind
To make a creationist happy with their nonsensical perception of evolution, someone's flu would have to turn into a rabbit.
Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at Dregstudiosart.blogspot.com with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.
Go ahead and teach it as a scientific theory, which means that we can also point out the flaws within your "theory".
You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.
2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only
Maker: The Young Turks
Wow, when I saw this...I was like...WOW America...fucking wow...