Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
This is a response to mysticalforest's video, 'Atheist (sic) are Related To Apes.'
Hello again, Nick. I’d been under the impression that you’d vowed to stay away from the subject
of evolution and so was rather surprised when I stepped in this particularly unpleasant
video on a recent visit to your channel. I see you’re up to your old tricks again!
As a result I felt obliged to respond, but you didn’t make it easy since you evidently
didn’t think it necessary to incorporate a point into your fifteen-minute rambling
and disjointed rant. So I decided that my best course of action was to individually
address just some of your more egregious cerebral defecations.
Now, why don’t you save us some time and bend over now while I pull on my gloves – and
then we can get started. “Yeah, Darwin did just make it up, because…
here’s the thing. Um, you don’t have any proof of evolution. You have no proof. You
have no fossils that suggest that humans and apes have a relation. You have none. None.
There’s not one. You haven’t found one yet. Not one intermediate creature. Not one.
Not one intermediate creature from any creature. Nothing. Not one animal. Not one intermediate
creature of a bug. Nothing. You have nothing.” Fortunately for progress and humanity, science
places no stock in for the opinions of ignorant and feeble-minded simpletons. If it did, then
we might still be curing cancers with leeches and crapping out of windows.
Despite your vociferous, yet unsupported, denials, the fossil record is replete with
transitional forms. Not only do these organisms exhibit multiple incremental morphological
changes, each building on those inherited from their predecessors, they also happen
to appear in the correct chronological order in the stratigraphic column.
Countless examples have been pointed out to creationists time and time again, so if you
want to credibly discredit them, you need to give specific and rational arguments against
each. Denying their existence outright is a debating strategy worthy of a five-year-old,
or someone with the mental age of one. All you’ve given is your personal opinion, and
that means jack-*** to me or anyone else you might be trying to convince.
This behavior make’s you look like someone who’s either unwilling to examine any evidence
that conflicts with the puerile bedtime stories his parents peddled onto him as fact, or is
simply too stupid to understand it no matter how many times or how simply it’s explained
to him. “OK? DNA. He did not know about DNA, which,
you know, if you’re a scientist… once they… when they did find out about DNA,
you shouldn’t believe in evolution at all. It should have totally debunked it. Actually
it does debunk it, but you people still believe it. You still believe apes and humans are…
they have a similar ancestor or some *** - when our DNA is so different.”
It’s hard to know where to begin when you hear something as profoundly moronic as this.
You haven’t been sticking things into your ear again lately, have you Nick?
Firstly, it’s a documented fact that chimpanzees share at least 96% of their DNA with humans.
Excluding insertions and deletions, the number is close to 99%. I can only image that you
got the thought that our DNA is so different from the same place you seem to get all your
ideas. Secondly, do you even the vaguest idea of
what DNA actually is, how it replicates, what it does, and how it relates to evolution?
Your YouTube material suggests you don’t, and yet you still seem to feel qualified to
decree by fiat that its discovery should force scientists to abandon evolutionary.
For the record, the advent of molecular biology and the sequencing of over 100 billion base-pairs
of DNA from thousands of organisms has done nothing but confirm and strengthen evolutionary
theory. From explaining the number of chromosomes in humans and great apes, to the remarkable
convergence of anatomical and genetic cladograms; from the conservation of endogenous retroviral
sequences to the discovery of vestigial genes, DNA sequence information is proof positive
of the fact of evolution as beautifully explained by the theory of the same name and your baseless
assertion to the contrary if proof of nothing other than your oafish ineptitude.
Finally, Darwin produced his theory despite possessing only a tiny fraction of the data
we have today, including no knowledge of DNA and therefore the mechanism of his descent
with modification. Every one of the millions of pieces of evidence collected since has
held the possibility of destroying his grand idea, and yet has done nothing but confirm,
refine or elaborate on it. The fact that he was able to do so is simply a testament to
the genius of the man whose reputation you’re attempting to besmirch with your pig-ignorant
***-wittery. “OK, you foolish moron. That’s not a fact.
I don’t know where you get this from, OK? That’s not a fact. OK? You might think it’s
a fact because you lie through your teeth every day. And… you know, you have to lie,
OK? You have to say, ‘well this is a fact, and this is a fact’. But you’re not saying…
you know… you’re not really meaning what we’re meaning. A fact to you is something,
you know, a hypothesis that you can prove over and over again.”
Errrr. What else would you call something that you could prove over and over again,
Nick? I’d be curious to know. Also, have you been sniffing your Mom’s nail polish
again? Even though you neglect to mention what you
would consider a fact to be, I’d like to point out that the validity any branch of
science is not brought into question just because a random imbecile baselessly asserts
what is factual and what is not. Also, I found it interesting that you said…
Because you really don’t know, do you Nick? And that’s because you’ve never truly
bothered to find out. And yet you’re more than happy to arrogantly strut around the
internet pretending otherwise while wearing your stupidity like a crown and your ignorance
like a badge of honor. “A scientific fact is not the same as, you
know, what we say is a fact. What we say is a fact is something that is a proven fact.
You cannot prove that apes and humans have a relation. You can’t prove it. You can’t
prove that. You can’t prove dinosaurs and birds have a relation. You know? So it’s
not a fact in my view. It’s just a *** idea. That’s what it is. That’s all it
is.” So what exactly is a “proven fact”, Nick?
Once again, you forgot to tell us. Is it because of your inability to adequately articulate
the anemic thoughts that are crawling through the sludge between your ears, or because you
don’t really know yourself? Is it a case of, “I’m not sure what a fact is, but
I know one when I see one?” I’d like to know, because otherwise it’s really difficult
to respond to this kind of non-argument. So let me make an assumption and suggest that
a fact to you is something that you can see, touch, smell or hear (on Fox News, perhaps).
Something simple and uncomplicated. Something that doesn’t have to make you think too
hard before accepting it. If that’s the case, then how would you convict
someone of ***, Nick? Would you only do it if you saw it with your own eyes? Or on
TV? Or maybe if Glen Beck told you he saw it happen? Would you ignore the DNA evidence,
the fingerprints, the blood spatter patterns, the fiber analysis, the cell phone records,
and so on? Because these kinds of evidence, these facts, are used every day to indirectly
prove beyond all reasonable doubt the fact that the accused committed the crime despite
no one having seen it happen. Similarly, the fact of human evolution has
been proved beyond all reasonable doubt by numerous and independent lines of evidence
including; the remarkable morphological similarities between ourselves and other primates; our
numerous vestigial organs such as the extrinsic ear and erector pili muscles, the appendix,
coccyx, wisdom teeth and many more; the fossil record and its entirely consistent temporal
and geographic distribution; and of course the absolutely conclusive and undeniable genetic
data. I can only imagine that you refuse to acknowledge
any of this evidence because either your profound stupidity renders you incapable of understanding
it or because you refuse to examine it honestly because you prefer to live in a world explained
by infantile fables and magic than in one illuminated by science.
“OK, you have ideas and you call them facts. You call it a fact because you… you found
one little tiny simmil… similarity. There’s similarity there, that’s a fact. They’re
related. That’s it. They’re related because there’s one similarity. That makes them
related!” Your thinking that evolutionary links are
made using “only one similarity” is yet another example of the magnitude of your gargantuan
ignorance. We’ve known for over a century that whales
evolved from land animals, and more recently specifically from early ungulates. Numerous
fossils directly demonstrate this progression using multiple morphological changes including;
the shape of the head, the gradual conversion of forelimbs to flippers, the development
of the structures of the ear and the loss of the rear limbs and pelvis. Additionally,
the geochemical, geographical, chronological and embryological evidence also all points
to the same conclusion. Hardly “just one similarity”, eh Nick?
And to cap it all, after all this was discovered, the DNA evidence you claim debunks evolution
has finally confirmed that that whales’ closest living relatives are, guess what,
ungulates. Your misrepresentation of the evidence for evolution, Nick, reflects either your
profound dishonesty or the utter lack of anything resembling a thought process rattling around
inside your empty skull. “Just ‘cause there’s similarities, doesn’t
mean they’re related. You know, a butterfly has scales, OK? Just like a Komodo dragon,
or fish, or snakes. Um... doesn’t mean they’re all related.”
Oops! Bad example Nick, because scales are a wonderful example of evolution. The scales
of butterflies are made of a carbohydrate-based polymer called chitin while those of fish
contain, among other components, the protein collagen. This reflects the evolutionary line
of insects from arthropods which themselves diverged from their common ancestor with chordates
long before any kind of scale evolved. Reptilian scales, on the other hand are composed
of both collagen and keratin which are also major components of their evolutionary descendants,
hair and feathers. All of this is beautifully explained by evolutionary theory, and your
stock answer, that your god did it for his own inscrutable reasons explains nothing.
But it does at least save you the inconvenience of having to actually think about anything,
something that is perfectly demonstrated in the next clip.
“Smallest single celled organism has natural selection within the DNA. Now if there is
a smaller organism that did not have natural selection and then this organism did, or,
you know, whatever, how many intermediate creatures – which there’s none. Erm…
then you can say that’s an evolutionary process. But the fact is, every creature has
natural selection. Now there’s no evidence to show that natural selection was an evolutionary
process. It’s just something that all creatures have. It’s not something new. It’s not
something that the first creature did not have. All creatures have it.”
Congratulations, Nick, because his is probably the most moronic thing I have ever heard a
creationist say on YouTube. I suggest that you pull your head out of you *** for a minute
and look up the actual meaning of the phrase “natural selection”, because it’s obvious
that you have no idea what it actually means. To give an analogy in terms of something you
might be able to understand; you would have made as much sense if you’d declared that
you hated football because the baskets are too high for you reach second base and score
a goal-in-one with. All you just did was confirm the sheer magnitude of your learning disability.
“You know, ‘cause if there’s not evolution, there’s creation, OK? And, um… that’s
just the way it is, heh. You know, if there’s not evolution, there’s creation.”
False dichotomies, now is it Nick? Because “creation” doesn’t just mean your particular
fable does it? How about the Hindu creation, or the Norse? What about the numerous Native
American myths, or the Aboriginal dreamtime? Please supply convincing and supportable evidence
to explain why your particular flight of fancy trumps these and countless others, because
I very much doubt that you can. In effect, what you should have said is “if there’s
not evolution and its pesky empirical and verifiable evidence, then it’s some story
evidently made up by uneducated and ignorant savages in a more primitive time.”
I know which I’d be betting on. “You know, if there is a heaven and hell,
you know, who’s the smarter one here? Because if there isn’t, then, hey, nothing’s going
to happen to me – it doesn’t matter, nothing’s going to happen to you. But if there is a
heaven and hell, something’s going to happen to you. And it’s not going to be good. And,
er, who’s going to be the more intelligent one here? Yeah, I am. Not you. So either way
I win.” And we finish up with a crude and clumsily
worded version of Pascal’s wager. Is that really the best you can do Nick? Because,
what makes you so sure that, if there is a god, you’ve picked the right one? There’s
more than one choice, or haven’t you noticed? Even just in your religion.
So, which door do you think you’d be going through if it turns out that the Muslims happen
to be right? After all, they’re just as fervent in their beliefs and have equally
as much evidence to support them as you do, don’t they? And what about the Hindus, Nick?
Maybe you’ll come back as a dung beetle, or a syphilis bacterium – that’d be a
step up. On the whole I think I’ll stick to just
being nice to people and doing the best I can to make the world a better place. If there
is no god, at least some people might remember me fondly for my acts, not my beliefs, and
if there is then maybe I’ll be able to grab myself a *** or two or come back as Hugh
Hefner. And on the remote possibility that old Yahweh
happens to not actually be a fantasy concocted by long-dead desert savages, then I guess
I’ll be seeing you downstairs, Nick. Because from all the bile and hate I’ve seen you
spew in your videos, you’re as much of a Christian as I’m a beauty queen. Unless
of course the bearded one doesn’t care about your behavior and lets you in simply because
you’re dumb enough to believe in him without any evidence at all, in which case you can
keep your heaven because I’d rather not spend eternity in the company of a cold-hearted,
mean-spirited little bigots like you. Well, I suppose we’re all done, Nick, so
you can stand up and pull up your pants now. Hopefully I’ve put your ideas back where
they belong and this time they’ll stay there. In the future, you really should stick to
politics, you know. It might not stop you from being an arsehole, but at least I won’t
have to spend my time tearing you a new one. �