I could only watch 3:30 of this idiot. I only had one college class in Biology, but I know from reading that Sickle Cell Anemia WAS at one time beneficial - it somehow makes one less succeptible to malaria - which is more likely to kill than anemia - hence it's being more common to people of African decent. The moron who made this has no idea what he's talking about. I can only stand so much stupidity.

By the way: What the hell is an "antiglobalist"?

Hiya, Keith!

I'm Kevin Brown, a scientific layman and an ACE ESL teacher-in-training, and even I know enough to kick this bullshit to the curb.

There is no such thing as an 'evolutionist'. Just because you're cool calling yourself a 'creationist' doesn't mean you get to spill your own nomenclature all over real science.

Other than that, this statement is probably fair.

Hey, I thought you were here to debunk evolution? Why are we off-tangent discussing abiogenesis? Just because most scientists would believe that abiogenesis started life on Earth doesn't mean that suddenly abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing.

To be fair, yes, your statement is accurate.

Ooh! That's right!

Big Science is plotting against yooooouuuu!

Abiogenesis is actually still referred to as chemical evolution by many popularizers of science, and frankly, evolutionary theory is a seperate field of science from abiogenesis, so it should hardly suprise you that scientists most often draw a clear distinction between the two (You see, unlike The Bible, science recognizes that there are many different forces at work which would've come together to form the Earth & all the life on it).

The Miller-Urey experiments did not fail, but nice try. The Miller-Urey experiments produced exactly what abiogenesis predicts; amino acids forming from common elements under prebiotic Earth conditions. They did not produce a living thing, of course, but that wasn't the goal of the experiments.

Moreover, Miller and Urey were not aware at the time of the importance of early Earth clays as a catalyst, and were not using all of the appropriate chemicals we currently know were abundant after the Earth's formation. In 1961, Juan Oro - while again not able to completely create new life (hardly puzzling, given the discrepancy in time and space that he had to conduct his experiment vs what the Earth had) - advanced our knowledge in the field of chemical evolution by leaps and bounds, demonstrating the ability of simple chemical reactions to form RNA strands given the time to do so.

That's right, just as the work of Galileo or a vast number of other astronomers in antiquity are considered icons of astronomy. This doesn't mean astronomers consider the work to be some kind of gospel (again, you're projecting your own ridiculous dogma into science), it means that these are considered some bold steps in the right direction.

Nope. Why? Because 'Darwinism' is not a properly recognized term in science (you might be referring to 'Social Darwinism', but you can go ahead and thank Martin Luther fo that; science had nothing to do with it).

Natural Selection was the term coined by Charles Darwin to describe the mechanism by which biological evolution occurs (and indeed, it crosses the scientific spectrum in many areas). But I'll bet you $20.00 that it doesn't mean what you think it does...

Ha! Cough-up, you antiglobalist motherfucker!

Natural Selection is actually (by and large) the struggle for sex. It doesn't matter if I'm an armor-plated, 60-ton killing and eating machine - if the ladies don't want to have sex with me, my species won't last beyond my generation. Survival is part of it (if I don't survive long enough to have sex, or give birth, or if my cubs don't survive to adulthood regularly enough, my species also dies-out), but reproduction is the key element here.

Maybe that's why it upsets you so much?

Uh. Yes it does.

You see, not every person is the same. Some people are slightly smarter. Some have more angled facial features. Some have a sixth finger.

When one of these slightly different attributes makes someone more likely to have sex and make babies, it gets passed along more often.

Yeah, but that's just a small change..., right?

Sure. But the thing is, many of these small changes collect over time. When you get enough small changes, they start adding-up into big changes.

Nope. Again, you're projecting nomenclature into the field... and besides that, Darwin definately identified mutation as the major mechanism himself (not knowing about DNA at the time and all).

Moreover, modern biology has proposed that random mutation is not as influential as Darwin had thought. You really need to go read a book published since the 90s or so.

Irreducible Complexity is pseudoscience. And even if it weren't, and this statement were true, it would not somehow validate the idea of either an 'intelligent designer' or God; it would just mean that we have one more unknown thing to figure-out.

Irreducible Complexity is a less than worthless concept. It doesn't even apply to mechanical engineering, a field where things are definately intelligently designed (somewhat).

Nope. See: modern biology.

Nope. See: just about anything, from height differences to eye color to skin color.

...GAH!.... I can't take it anymore! Somebody else do take it from here, please!

Its not funny, its sad. Couldn't bare more than a minute of this bullshit, and i feel like i already lost some of my brain  cells just by watching that.