After the debate, an atheist admits he can no longer believe in Darwinian Evolution after hearing that the fossil record completely lacks Darwin's predicted transitional forms. (Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort's debate with the Blasphemy Challenge group on the existence of God aired on ABC's Nightline 05-09-2007.)

This is a clip from episode 498 of "The Atheist Experience" TV show Watch the TV show at http://www.atheist-experience.com/

Small misspelling in one of the images... I know I know... ;) It's a bit dry, but a I am experimenting with a different format.

Knowntje's video reply http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGTPpYfjZoM reference to the paper on nylon degrading bacteria, due to an alternative reading frame http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=345072 what i forgot to say was that gene duplication, which is known to happen, with a huge array of references if you want any (just mail me), can result in gene redundancy which allows for mutations such as the reading frame shift seen above in the nylon degrading bacteria. although i'm not entirely certain as to wether the length of DNA in this case was redundant, junk, or less useful than the resulting DNA from the frame shift.

Demonstrating the relationship between micro-evolution, which most people can't deny, and macro-evolution.

You can download the programs from: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbhdjm/courses/b242/Tuts/NSProgs.html PDrift and PSelect are the ones I recommend. Natsel and Drift for funky retro action. I will follow this video with demonstrations of each program and how they demonstrate important principles in population genetics and microevolution.

To believe that microevolution can not lead to macroevolution is to have faith in a limit never observed to exist. This is a response to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNLvXllvvsA Transitional species: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

Dthklok

differences between macro and micro evolution

responding

A response to some christian propaganda featureing a Strawman and a blonde white Jesus. I would like to make a correction; an actual biologist commented on my "strawman Science" video with some information; as it turns out, the words "Microevolution" and "Macroevolution" do indeed exist in Real Science. However, it's different from Creation Science (i.e. bullshit religious pseudo-science) most genetic mutations are small and insignificant, or practically insignificant. THAT is Micro-evolution. Anything bigger than that is Macro-Evolution. Creationists did NOT invent those words, they merely took them from Real science and completely screwed up the meaning. Creationists think Clydesdales are "Microevolution".

Carl Baugh talks with Dr. Carl Jackson about what to tell hand how to tell an evolutionist about creation. They give us evidence of Evolution being corrupt. They also give us evidence of creation being factual. Dr. Carl Baugh -- In the past -- He didn't believe in Creation -- He believed in Evolutionary Theory - He is sorry for the people who don't know about the evidence that points to creation -- Evolutionist turned Creationist -- Dig Dinosaurs -- Discover and Excavate Dinosaurs Dr. Carl Jackson -- Has a P.H.D in science education -- From the University of Virginia -- Respected among Creationists and also among Scholars in General Creation VS Evolution Remember when you are speaking with an evolutionist -- Compromising won't do any good with them -- Dispel Myths that they have heard about creationists Albert Einstein -- "Science without religion is lame; Religion without science is blind" -- Religion and Science are both searching for the truth There are some Christians (Also Pastors) that believe God created in 6 days like the Bible says - Some Christians (Also Pastors) that believe that God created in billions of years like Evolutionary Theory says (compromising) (on the fence) Issues with Micro Evolution -- AND -- Macro Evolution Micro Evolution (Variation within Genetic Boundary) (Does Occur) Macro Evolution (Species can accumulate information to create a new kind) (Doesn't Occur) Micro Evolution -- Should be called Micro Variation Darwin's Finches -- Finch Beaks are different Discolored Moth -- Moths in England -- When Pollution discolored the trees -- Moths change color -- Adapting to the Trees They talk about Bacteria -- supposedly evolving to be resistant -- to the anti biotic drugs Understanding why someone remains to be an Atheist -- They believe that they have a strong basis to remain an atheist Richard Dawkins -- Best Selling Atheist Author -- Wrote the Book -- The God Delusion -- He says -- "Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism invented by the mind of man" Christian Century -- Martin Lings -- July 1982 -- Still true today -- "More cases of loss of religious faith can be traced to the Theory of Evolution than anything else" True Scientist even if they are not Christian or religious will say things like - Linus Pauling -- Two time Nobel Prize Winner -- "Science is the search for truth, the effort to understand the World" William Provine -- Biology Professor at Cornell University -- May 15 2005 -- Washington Post Newspaper -- Evidence for Macro Evolution aren't in the fossil record (missing link fossil) -- But he says "its difficult to explore a billion year old fossil record be patient" - Self Contradictory Mark Twain -- 1835-1910 -- Something is fascinating about science -- One gets such extensive returns of guess out of such a insignificant investigation of fact -- There is a lot of guessing involved with little fact -- Lack of Missing Link Fossils If a frog turns into a prince -- Fairytale -- BUT -- If a newt turn into a human with millions of years -- Science - Something you could bring up if you are talking to an evolutionist -- What makes it different if more time is involved An evolutionist needs to realize -- Time is not the friend of evolution -- Time is the enemy of evolution Time is the enemy of evolution -- It has to occur very rapidly or the living systems will Biodegrade before you have a functioning unit -- even if you could put them together -- but you need an entire supporting cast behind that cellular appearance There is no way that you can get non-living inorganic material produced a living cell -- they cant even imagine how it could of happened -- yet they say it did happen A Major Problem is time -- it is going to have to all be in place -- before it biodegrades Richard Dawkins -- Evolutionist -- With Bill Moyers -- PBS Interview -- "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening" -- Evolution is too slow to be observed -- That is faith

For connivance sake, some scientists use the phrases "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution." The former refers to modification within a population that has not resulted in speciation; the latter refers to modification within a population that occurred at or above the species level. Note that micro-evolution and macro-evolution have been observed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEmX0aDyh1E Oenothera gigas Primula kewensis Tragopogon Raphanobrassica Galeopsis tetrahit Madia citrigracilis Brassica Adiantum pedatum Woodsia abbeae Stephanomeira malheurensis Zea mays Drosophila paulistorum Drosophila melanogaster Rhagoletis pomonella Eurosta solidaginis Tribolium castaneum Nereis acuminata Epilobium angustifolium Faeroe Island house mouse Five new species of cichlid fish

An educational video showing you how to create your own wide crown moulding with a router and modified router table, right from the comfort of your shop.

A video response to a private message. http://au.youtube.com/user/Warriorofgod777 His private message below: Darwin first of all, left room in his book, "The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection" saying that a creator could have created the first forms of Life. So, even the "brilliant" Darwin has givin some credit towards God. Second of all, According to Darwins theory, the little speck of Life developed in "pre-biotic soup" Then developed itself and reproduced. Finally, the cell emerges. Certain evolutionists believe that it took as long for that first little speck to turn into a cell as it for the first progress of man. That now living cell reproduced and evolved through the eons by natural process alone and eventually developed into simple plants and animals. According to Darwins theory, all this happened not with any great leaps or sudden changes, but by only incremental steps. Small changes in spieces are seen by everyone as microevolution. Darwinism claims that, givin enough time, microevolution in species resulted in macroevolution. Causing the major transitions necessary to prove dawins theory to be a "fact." Darwainian evolution is not fact because Macroevolution hasn't happened. The major evidence against macroevolution is in the fossil record and the complexity of the cell. There simply is no conclusive fossil evidence of how single-cell organisms changes step-by-step into complex plants and animals. As for the "pre-biotic soup" and then evolving into man, this too has been proven a DEAD END! In molecular biologists Michael Behe "Darwins black box", Behe spells out the "Irreducible complexity of molecular mechanisms." As Behe explains, the cell was a "black box" as far as Darwin was concerned. How it worked was a total mystery to Darwin. Behe has opened up the black box, and his work has proven the complex systems in a cell depend on far too many interconnected patrs to have built up gradually step by step. Behe explains that there is not enough time for macroevolution to have happened. Beyond the problems for evolutionists in the fossil record and in the irreducible complexity of the cell is the primary question of them all. If indeed, everything started with the "Big Bang", then where did the elements of The Big Bang come from and what was before the Big Bang???

A response to a private message http://au.youtube.com/user/Warriorofgod777 His private message below: Darwin first of all, left room in his book, "The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection" saying that a creator could have created the first forms of Life. So, even the "brilliant" Darwin has givin some credit towards God. Second of all, According to Darwins theory, the little speck of Life developed in "pre-biotic soup" Then developed itself and reproduced. Finally, the cell emerges. Certain evolutionists believe that it took as long for that first little speck to turn into a cell as it for the first progress of man. That now living cell reproduced and evolved through the eons by natural process alone and eventually developed into simple plants and animals. According to Darwins theory, all this happened not with any great leaps or sudden changes, but by only incremental steps. Small changes in spieces are seen by everyone as microevolution. Darwinism claims that, givin enough time, microevolution in species resulted in macroevolution. Causing the major transitions necessary to prove dawins theory to be a "fact." Darwainian evolution is not fact because Macroevolution hasn't happened. The major evidence against macroevolution is in the fossil record and the complexity of the cell. There simply is no conclusive fossil evidence of how single-cell organisms changes step-by-step into complex plants and animals. As for the "pre-biotic soup" and then evolving into man, this too has been proven a DEAD END! In molecular biologists Michael Behe "Darwins black box", Behe spells out the "Irreducible complexity of molecular mechanisms." As Behe explains, the cell was a "black box" as far as Darwin was concerned. How it worked was a total mystery to Darwin. Behe has opened up the black box, and his work has proven the complex systems in a cell depend on far too many interconnected patrs to have built up gradually step by step. Behe explains that there is not enough time for macroevolution to have happened. Beyond the problems for evolutionists in the fossil record and in the irreducible complexity of the cell is the primary question of them all. If indeed, everything started with the "Big Bang", then where did the elements of The Big Bang come from and what was before the Big Bang???

A response to a private message.... part 3 (short!) http://au.youtube.com/user/Warriorofgod777 His private message below: Darwin first of all, left room in his book, "The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection" saying that a creator could have created the first forms of Life. So, even the "brilliant" Darwin has givin some credit towards God. Second of all, According to Darwins theory, the little speck of Life developed in "pre-biotic soup" Then developed itself and reproduced. Finally, the cell emerges. Certain evolutionists believe that it took as long for that first little speck to turn into a cell as it for the first progress of man. That now living cell reproduced and evolved through the eons by natural process alone and eventually developed into simple plants and animals. According to Darwins theory, all this happened not with any great leaps or sudden changes, but by only incremental steps. Small changes in spieces are seen by everyone as microevolution. Darwinism claims that, givin enough time, microevolution in species resulted in macroevolution. Causing the major transitions necessary to prove dawins theory to be a "fact." Darwainian evolution is not fact because Macroevolution hasn't happened. The major evidence against macroevolution is in the fossil record and the complexity of the cell. There simply is no conclusive fossil evidence of how single-cell organisms changes step-by-step into complex plants and animals. As for the "pre-biotic soup" and then evolving into man, this too has been proven a DEAD END! In molecular biologists Michael Behe "Darwins black box", Behe spells out the "Irreducible complexity of molecular mechanisms." As Behe explains, the cell was a "black box" as far as Darwin was concerned. How it worked was a total mystery to Darwin. Behe has opened up the black box, and his work has proven the complex systems in a cell depend on far too many interconnected patrs to have built up gradually step by step. Behe explains that there is not enough time for macroevolution to have happened. Beyond the problems for evolutionists in the fossil record and in the irreducible complexity of the cell is the primary question of them all. If indeed, everything started with the "Big Bang", then where did the elements of The Big Bang come from and what was before the Big Bang???

This is to all creationists who believe solely in microevolution.

"name one example of a functional, helpful, mutation found in scientific testing to date. I studied fruit flys for years, went though thousands generations, observed hundreds of mutations even flys with 4 wings(extra wings ALWAYS were non functional)and never did we find a functional, helpful mutation. Not only that the mutation did not increase information in the genome, the mutation was always bred out. You see a mutation is always a weakness and does no help in the advancement of a species." -Wilcox2969

The final part - finally ! http://au.youtube.com/user/Warriorofgod777 His private message below: Darwin first of all, left room in his book, "The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection" saying that a creator could have created the first forms of Life. So, even the "brilliant" Darwin has givin some credit towards God. Second of all, According to Darwins theory, the little speck of Life developed in "pre-biotic soup" Then developed itself and reproduced. Finally, the cell emerges. Certain evolutionists believe that it took as long for that first little speck to turn into a cell as it for the first progress of man. That now living cell reproduced and evolved through the eons by natural process alone and eventually developed into simple plants and animals. According to Darwins theory, all this happened not with any great leaps or sudden changes, but by only incremental steps. Small changes in spieces are seen by everyone as microevolution. Darwinism claims that, givin enough time, microevolution in species resulted in macroevolution. Causing the major transitions necessary to prove dawins theory to be a "fact." Darwainian evolution is not fact because Macroevolution hasn't happened. The major evidence against macroevolution is in the fossil record and the complexity of the cell. There simply is no conclusive fossil evidence of how single-cell organisms changes step-by-step into complex plants and animals. As for the "pre-biotic soup" and then evolving into man, this too has been proven a DEAD END! In molecular biologists Michael Behe "Darwins black box", Behe spells out the "Irreducible complexity of molecular mechanisms." As Behe explains, the cell was a "black box" as far as Darwin was concerned. How it worked was a total mystery to Darwin. Behe has opened up the black box, and his work has proven the complex systems in a cell depend on far too many interconnected patrs to have built up gradually step by step. Behe explains that there is not enough time for macroevolution to have happened. Beyond the problems for evolutionists in the fossil record and in the irreducible complexity of the cell is the primary question of them all. If indeed, everything started with the "Big Bang", then where did the elements of The Big Bang come from and what was before the Big Bang???

My attempt to explain to those who do not get it that no reasonable person can believe in micro evolution without believing in macro. Note: This is NOT a video about religion. "Darwinism" is NOT a religion nor is evolution. If you post a religiously themed comment you will be mocked and your comment will be marked as spam.

How to fix evolutionary 'theory' so that it begins to make sense, so that it at least holds together as a logical hypothesis. As is, it doesn't hang together. The correction is simple, reinstates an old solution used for millennia by theists and non-theists alike. Webpages on this topic I wrote about six years ago are: http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/Godevol.html and http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/Evolshort.htm . PLEASE NOTE: the OLD Darwinian term for "micro evolution" was "Adaptation", and I use that in the video. There is no quarrel with microevolution aka Adaptation, it's been known and used since time began, in agriculture and breeding, and is already stated in Genesis 1:26 (decree) and Genesis 6 (decree of two animals per 'kind'). So the quarrel is with "macro evolution", which used to be termed simply "evolution" or "transmutation" in Darwin's works. So I use the older terms in the video. Macro evolution aka transmutation or evolution suffers from the same limitations as did Newtonian physics. So you cannot use Adaptation and then just blithely assert it applies across the board from the origin of life onward, no more than you could claim Newtonian physics explains all physics. So evolutionary 'theory' is but a hypothesis and needs an Einstein to fix it. The video restores the proper three-pronged premise for such a fix, to the original "life", "matter", "energy" tripod of elements which the ancients have long recognized. Notice you don't need to use god words, and you can concede intelligent design (because even a life force would demonstrate intelligence of design). Then everyone can severally define "life", the non-theists as they determine, and the theists as they determine; you don't need to complicate the issue by introducing creationism into the classroom (i.e., to avoid deciding WHICH VERSION of creationism to teach). Finally, schools and not Federal Law, should determine what should be taught in any given school in the US, since our culture is so widely diverse on this topic.

An Evolutionary model of the timeline of man. Most of these changes Creationists would describe as "Micro-Evolution" which they believe in. Of course, because Macro Evolution is the SAME THING as Micro Evolution, they believe in Macro Evolution without knowing it! So. Stop rambling about "Gaps" and tell me, which step is not possible in this timeline of known fossils.

How often have you not heard religious people pull the macro V. micro evolution card? We observe micro evolution all around us, but have been unable to observe macro evolution. Here is another thing we have been unable to observe...

I respond to VenomFangX's somewhat interesting video on creationism vs evolution (or rather, his video on evolution and why it is, in his mere opinion, kinda smelly, while he doesn't even attempt to backup creationism, but says it must be true... after all... evolution just sounds icky!)... I attempt to clear up much of the misinformation he is spreading to others, but of course, I doubt he will accept this response or even bother watching my video. If he does, I applaud him, and hope he accepts the response so that maybe he and I could have a mature, unbiased, intellectual discussion of both sides of the arguments, no logical fallacies, circular arguments, personal attacks, etc. If not... oh well! He has the power in this regard. A few high notes of the video... --If evolution is false, that does not automatically make creationism true. To believe otherwise is false and to argue otherwise is a logical fallacy. --Evolution, Abiogensis, and the Big Bang are completely separate and do not rely on each other. --Micro-evolution *is* evolution. Macro-evolution is a made-up term in an attempt to disprove evolution. All evolution is seen as micro-evolution, macro-evolution is just the larger picture over a long, long period of time. --My argument or analogy on that science explains how not why was pretty weak, sorry. I'm terrible at wording sometimes. --Windows Movie Maker is pretty sucky, forgive the strange cuts in the video. --Humanism does not teach that the Universe was created out of nothing. Actually, I don't think any scientific hypothesis or theory claims that... --Interpreting the world around you as being created or designed is not scientific proof that it is designed or created. Creationism has no scientific evidence backing it up, only speculative "evidence" which is built upon solely through assumptions and presumptions, not real proof. --I will not censor any comments (unlike VenomFangX), however I will most likely ignore any comments with Bible verses in them... unless I'm really bored. Which could happen. But don't count on it. -- I invite believers and nonbelievers to comment and share their opinion, positive or negative, however, try to stay mature (a hard thing to ask in the YouTube community) Peace. ----- Here is a few links for ya! http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1901241.htm http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/heinrich_geology.html http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/coral_reef.html http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/tree.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15384828/