"See, how hard was it to read the first few comments or to actually understand that the first premise of the video is just wrong?"
Ok. You win by a word game. That was all that the modern science begun. "Scientists" were discussing words. Francis Bacon generally have said - words are not important. What is important is the reality. That is how science developed. Sadly now science look exactly the same way as in the times of F. Bacon.
It DOES NOT MATTER how you will call it a theory/diaper/superman/batman if it violates known laws it cannot exist or the laws it violates can not exist.
It cannot be called anything scientific at all as the premise had not even been tested and/or no new specie have been found because that is the hypothesis of evolution. I have no idea why it is called a theory honestly. IT SHOULD NOT. No new specie have been found on the experiment.
It is a mind boggling what happened to the scientific method if people are not mad at this obvious fraud.
According to this diagram of scientific method it should still be called a hypothesis.
Maybe they say that partially the theory of evolution works because there exist a natural selection or something like that. Or another type of word games like:
The test should prove to produce new species/ and or speciments should produce urine. Ok there was no new specie but a speciment urinated. Is that how this fraud got the status of theory? Or what other fraud was there?
I guess it was stated that although no new specie have been observed the natural selection occurs. So that should be the theory of natural selection that is 100% accurate. Yes natural selection happens within the limits of genepool of a specie. But that is not what it's all about.
Ok the guy in the video took hypothesis for a theory. I knew you would be nitpicky on that. For the sake of argument - pretend he had ment a hypothesis and not a theory, and watch the rest ok?
We must know what are we talking about. You say that I don't know. But do you know? What is the theory evolution in your understanding of it? Maybe we are talking about two different things.
As I understand it. It is a theory that states what Darwin stated. "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
If that is the case - IT IS WRONG. No new specie originated by that means. But yes natural selection occurs and is 100% verifiable.
The theory of evolution does not violate any scientific law, so I don't know what the fuck you are talking about, again you are wrong, no big surprise.
''Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.''
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagoshttp://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/a-new-species-of-darwins-finch-evolved-in-just-two-generations/Now shut the fuck up, you are annoying.
"From the description, one would think that this was a very convincing example of macroevolution in action. Obviously, there must have been quite a number of massive mutations to produce an entirely new species that could not interbreed with the original. Right? Actually, every statement above is absolutely true. However, some of the important details have been intentionally left out, in order to make this example sound much better than it really is. Here is what actually happened.
The example above is not macroevolution, but is simply due to a single genetic event known as polyploidy. The original goatsbeards from Europe were standard diploid (two copies of each chromosome) plants. However, plants often do not undergo complete monoploidy during meiosis (during the formation of the sex cells, or gametes). This means that the gametes may remain diploid. When diploid gametes fuse, a new polyploid "species" is formed. No new information is created (Do you have twice as much information if you copy one book to produce an identical copy? No!), but the chromosomes are duplicated. The new "species" cannot produce viable offspring with the original species simply because of the difference in number of chromosomes. With goatsbeards, the process has happened more than once. Of course, the two "new" species have the same number of chromosomes and can produce viable offspring, since they are virtually identical.
If you look at the speciation events that are listed as evidence of evolution, most of them will fall into the polyploidy plant category. Evolutionists often "forget" to tell the reader that the new "species" are unable to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply because of a chromosomal duplication event. A casual oversight on the part of the writers? I think not! How much new information added to the new species? None!!! Were you deceived into thinking that the example given above was a dramatic example of evolution in action? Be wary of evolutionists bearing examples of "speciation.""
The theory of evolution does not violate any scientific law, so I don't know what the fuck you are talking about, again you are wrong, no big surprise.
You conveniently leave out the parts of the movie I had gave you. And now you play ignorant that you do not know what I am talking about. How convenient. Just like your "evolutionists" masters of omision.
Now shut the fuck up, you are annoying.
Nervous?
Now I know why it is called a theory - by ommision the unconvenient truth by a half truths. That is trully wicked way of tricking the science community. And to think all of that effort just to discredit the Holy Word.
That does not meet the criterium of a definition of a new specie. Sorry to say that. It is just "so called" hybrydisation which means a breeding within the same specie, but for a convenience sake, and sake of their taxonomy called a different specie.
How come - when it came to the polyploid plants so called "evilutionists" knows exactly what is the definition of the specie, and when it come to the other species - they forget that? Im talking about this part:
They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.''
Classic definition.............. There is no other. At least there shouldn't be a switchy switchy with the definitions for convenience sake. That just proves we live in a totally wicked world if something like that happens.
Stop and think for a second. Doesn't that bother you? Are you so hopelessly tuned on to evolution that you are not even slightly critical, that something fishy is going on?
In one article they say that it is normal for hybridisation to have fertile offspring, on the other they say that hybrids are infertile. That should make your red light off - they are messing with your head by contradictory informations ok? They are preying on your ignorance.
If I will call myself a Cyborg and everybody would agree would that make me one? According to some self proclaimed scientist yeah.
Yeah I know you will say that my sources are not credible because they have God in the name of the page. You guys are predictible. You do not want to double check if that is true, you will just assume they are wrong because you are so SCIENCE POWER RANGERS... Sigh..... ehhhhh
