tl;dr version of my post:
The youtube vis is biased garbage at it's finest!
Ok I'll kindly respond to the last vid you posted, and I dare to try to debunk in a way that you may understand.
Befor I do that I'll adress the apparent problem you have with evolution:
As I said before evolution to me makes life valueless... therefore I dont believe in it.. I've been carefull to put I BELIEVE or MY OPINION in all my posts just about..
First off, if evolution means to you that life is valueless, that's entirely your problem.
I could have a problem with the fact that the earth revolves around the sun because
it makes our planet less important. wtfbbqsauce that doesn't change that fact i hear?
RIGHT!
So what you do is try to find arguments against evolution, which can be a fallacy in itself since if you
want evolution to be wrong, you can find "evidence" for it.
And that brings me to the next point, the *cough* youtube vid.
Aside from the content, the music is horrid and tries to create a mysterious "omgsecretrevealed" atmosphere.
Then content:
It uses propaganda methods, e.g. "the lie abiogenesis", "liars err... evolutionists" etc.
Which isn't really scientific but rather.... childish?
Alright first attack is again abiogenesis. Aside from the fact that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis
it even attacks abiogenesis in an inproper way. He (creator of the vid) like any other attacker of abiogenesis seen in this thread
attacks the "Miller&Urey" experiment, which is
1 theoretical approach to how organic substances
could have been formed. It's only
1 out of
many theories that try to explain abiogenesis.
AFAIK the experiment wanted to prove if under roughly the conditions of early earth organic substances
could hav spontaneously formed. But well it has nothin to do with evolution anywayss, so let's move on.
Rambling about natural selection and mutations.
In this part there occurs twisting of facts, namely that all mutations are harmful, and "evolutionists" can't provide
evidence of useful mutations. There are useful mutations. One example: Some people won't die /or won't die as early as others)
from HIV/AIDS. This is caused by a difference in a gene that codes for a receptor in immune cells.
Next part is about transistory animals and apparantly not changing animals.
I'll adress the animals that haven't changed over millions of years first:
He picked out 3-4 animals that haven't changed. First of: wow that's a lot. Second: Look up the term Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.
In easy words: it describes the conditions under which no evolution will happen.
Populations that live in a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium will not change genetically (and thus won't change in general).
Transistory animals are a bit harder: (This is all according to my knowledge, someone with more insight is free to correct me)
The fossil record isn't complete. Animals have to die in special conditions in order to fossilize.
It's impossible to have a contineous timeline of fossils. Thus a fossil is always only a peek into a time period. Between these peeks
there lie many million years. So in between peeks many changes can happen.
The statements about the homnid fossils are lies. e.g
"piltdown man"
The "Piltdown Man" is a famous hoax consisting of fragments of a skull and jawbone collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Way to go! Prove a hoax incomplete in order to prove evolution wrong!
"nebraska man"
Nebraska Man was the name applied by the popular press to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a putative species of ape. Hesperopithecus meant "ape of the western world" and it was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. Though not a deliberate hoax, the classification proved to be a mistake.
Same as "piltdown man". Both aren't used by "evolutionists" to track human ancestry, since they're not
homo.
The first fossil of the "java man" was indeed a skullcap and a thighbone,
but there were more fossils found that were more complete.
"Neanderthal"
LIES
"Lucy & australopethices"
One of the arguments was that they didn't walk like modern human.
Of course they did not.
Bipedialism was something unique, it had to develop or
evolve.
His arguments against human ancestry all fail, since he's unable (and doesn't even mention) to debunk real
human ancestors as false, like homo ergaster, homo errectus, homo rudolfensis etc.
He
fails to even mention them!
This is a bit of a lenghty post, I bet I missed some intermediate responses, I'll adress them in an edit.
Edit:(hey big&bold is fun xD)
Do you realize that the processing of Natural Selection as I understand it doesn't "create" a more suitable being thats "more" adapted to it's environment?
Yet instead, eliminates those who are unfit in their environment..
It doesn't create something new from what already is, as I understand it.
edit-- when i think of evolution I'm mainly refering to what evolution mainly suggests.. that we evolve or "grow" into a new species..
although i see the reality of natural selection, and although its associated with evolution.. it I dont see how it envolves the growth or the occurance of "new species" aka evolution
You can't see evolution happen in your lifetime on a macroscopic level. The problem is that evolution is linked to generations,
and many animals are rather slow at producing new generations.
You can however observe evolution in bacteria and virae pretty easily. One example is the HI virus.
You are somewhat right with your natural selection argument (which you took straight out of the vid).
Imagine a population of apes living in a forest. They live in a forest, so natural selection
favors those who are well adapted to living in trees. Now by some random event
Half of the population is forced into a tree-less environment. Still there? Good.
Now the first half will still not change, since conditions didn't change. The others, however, are forced to adapt
(->selective pressure, if you want the right term). Now natural selection will only favor those apes
and eventual mutations that will happen that are beneficial in a tree-less environment.
Maybe those apes will adapt to bipedialism. Maybe, since their hands are free they can use them to manipulate tools.
Maybe this leads to an increase in brain volume and the development of language.
Nahhh that's too far-fetched to be true, sorry.
And Jinx, not to be insulting, but your fact!=theory argument is just stupid. Let me explain to you what a scientific theory is.
First you make observations. Then, beacuse of these observations (or
facts) you formulate a
hypothesis.
You then make further observations to see if your hypothesis is still true. If you can't find any contradicting
evidence you publish your hypothesis, which is then called
theory. Scientific peers are now free to test your theory.
You can't say for me the word scientific theory means something different, thus evolution isn't a fact.
Edit2:
Quite awesome public lecture about evolution I visited last year, it's worth the hour
Piccy guide since the player was a ***** to me the first time:
http://tv.royalsoc.ac.uk/dpx_live/dpx.php?dpxuser=dpx_v12
,but I think this guy does a great job summarizing all of it into one 10 minute video.
