@OlaNaTungee6 They did little intermixing with Homo sapiens. 1 out of 100. Intermixing did not cause their extinction. If they intermixed on a massive level, you would see more than 4% DNA similarity. A few had sex, and a lot did not. There are two theories to Neanderthal extinction: 1) "They're meat only diet caused Vitamin A poisoning." Or the more likely theory 2) "Homo sapiens and Neanderthal had consist warfare with each other, leading to Neanderthal's genocide.
@OlaNaTungee6 Of course they were not stupid like a Chimpanzee, but they still didn't not have the same level of cognitive abilities as Homo sapiens. That's just basic fact..
@JordoF6 Even smarter? You're kidding, right? Neanderthals were living in caves and practiced Cannibalism on their dead. Cro-Magnon( Pre-modern Humans) were living in Huts made out of Mammoth tusk and Wool. Cro-Magnon made sculptures and cooked their food. Neanderthals ate their food raw. If they were smarter, they would have never went extinct. Darwin's theory, the strongest survives. You either adapt, or you die.
7 billion humans on the planet, the strongest dominates as well.
@NewOrleansboii Man cannibalism was part of their culture it was to make sure no animal would defile their dead family member,we can't judge them for that.Secondly smart has nothing to do with going extinct cockroaches are not smart but they have been able to survive for millions of years due to numbers.Same applies with our species we had number advantages over the neanderthal.We outnumbered them 3-1.
@JordoF6 I never implied intelligence increase reproductive success. However, it does implies to H. Sapiens, cognitive abilities helped Cro-Magnon stay alive longer to out-breed the other Homos humanoids. The invention of agriculture by H. Sapiens helped humans to produce larger numbers of offspring. Cockroaches is a different story. Human activity caused Cockroach's larger numbers. Where ever humans migrate, cockroaches follow, because we are their main source for survival.
I like the woolly Rhino...hmmm....but I also like the Neanderthals....hmmm...which one is better? THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY TO FIND OUT!......FIIIIIIGHT!!!
1) WHY DID WOOLY RHINO/MAMMOTHS DIE OFF? they would have better survived the ice age than their hairless brethren!
2) Why do the best preserved specimens of wooly rhino(poland) and that baby (dima) mammoth exibit a LACK of hair?
The FACT is rhinos were relitivly hairless like their African conterparts and the and the mammoths the same, their geographic ranges covered north america through eurasia to the siberian coast. which suggests that pangea existed closer to our times that people admit!
FFS! Is there one video related to prehistory or science I can watch without over zealous Christian and atheist douche bags telling each other how stupid and/or evil those they disagree with are?
Quite embarrassing that we can't just tolerate each others views, and try not to force our own on others. It's so unbecoming for western civilization.
@JeZebeL2600 I don't know what the most common skintype for Neanderthals was, but I think I remember seeing an article a couple of years ago hich revealed that at least some Neanderthals had pale skin (and red hair).
@JeZebeL2600 no, they were fair. They didn't live in sunny, hot areas which meant their pigmentation didn't need to be dark to protect from the suns rays.
Are people still debating about an answer that no one will ever figure out until it's too late? The Geico Spokesperson just got rammed by a Rhino, for crying out loud! Call 9-1-1.
Evolution is for kids. lol. Makes for good story telling, but when you compare it to reality it is entirely lacking.
for those wondering about this stuff, there is no actual evidence for any of it. Thing is that people think it is true, so anything founds must fit into the story. They will find a tooth and construct entire stories on it, they will find short people and construct entire stories on it. Bones show nothing like this and a few of them have even been hoaxes
@semitope FACEPALM.Religion is for kids who can't grow up snakes talking 6 billion people from 2 people.Jesus christ and neanderthals are not our ancestors they lived alongisde us as a separate but similar human species get your facts right.
@semitope So what you believe in god? theres no evidence for him and his magical kingdom besides a fucking book of lies i used to be a christian fucking sucks being brainwashed now im free
@semitope What is the fossil record? Genetic drift? Carbon dating? I can go on an on. What are all those things...tools of Satan to trick man? Lol.
What "no evidence" do you speak of? You must mean that little mythological fairy tail in that book that says the world was created in 6 days, 6-10 thousand years ago. Even though physics, chemistry, geology, biology, sociology, ect. all say otherwise. The mountain of evidence in ALL the sciences blows your superstitious creationist illogic away.
@FractalHolon fossil record? A bunch of dead things that tell you nothing unless you want them to. The whale sequence is supposed to be best and that's pretty much broken now. Not only would it take much more time (for even simple changes) than is available, the time available got screwed up recently with whale fossil find of a fully formed whale around the time of the transitional forms they propose. You should check out the debate between sternberg (double PhD), meyers and shermer + 1 other.
@FractalHolon lol. You are really just repeating the party line arent you? Name some random part of science and say whatever you want about it. All of those things hinge on radiometric dating to be accurate, strangely enough. It is not. Carbon dating is not used to date things they expect to be millions of years old and they make a ton of assumptions to get the ages they do.
@JordoF6 and you will embrace satan,in which you dont believe ? thats the problem with you atheists. you bark too much,and you got warped by inner " selfconfidence "
@8rdf Man hes running from a fucking rhino who are one of the fastest mammals on earth.And plus they where much smaller than us but he survived a hit from rhino we wouldnt be able to do that.
The best piece of science fiction i've seen since star wars. At least Luke and co had faith in the force not just some primitive "theory" of "genetics" and "apes" that is as woolly as the rhino.
Seriously people, does every clip on youtube featuring some prehistoric animal have to be accompanied by a creation vs. evolution debate. Look, it's simple: we have the fossils, we win! Evolution is a fact, creationism a bronze age myth. Now can everybody just enjoy the woolly rhino already...
@weelittledragon Why would evolution be true just because of fossils? Fossils are simply the remains of dead animals. Their age and whether they hold an ancestor-descendant relationship with modern animals is something totally different. And yes, I do enjoy the woolly rhino, but not the poor guy who got hurt.
@daeodon First of all, glad you enjoyed the Rhino. I think I said in another last comment that I didn't think this is the place for any lengthy debate on evolution. There are enough places for that here on youtube, without it having to spill out all over the place. I will adress your question, though. When I say that fossils provide us with evidence for evolution, I don't mean that the mere existence of the things prove evolution. (continued)
@daeodon This is (as you rightly pointed out) not the case. However, the theory of evolution, like any scientific theory, makes testable predictions about the world. When we look at the fossil record we see that it is pretty much entirely consistent with the predictions of evolutionary theory. So much so even, that some fossils were predicted to exist, even before the actual fossils were discovered; thus proving that the theory is at least a useful model for studying life.
@daeodon The theory of evolution also predicts what can't exist in the fossil record. For instance, something like a pegasus or a 'transitional form' between a shark and a bear would instantly debunk evolution. However, no such fossils have been found.
Basically, fossils provide us with a means for testing evolution, and so far this theory has passed this test pretty much unscathed.
@weelittledragon Evolution has not actually passed the test. Doubtless to say animals from different classes don't have transitional forms, but evolution also predicts a common ancestor of these different classes, which hasn't been found yet. Also, evolution does not predict the appearance of 'living fossils'. Also, what's an example of fossils that were predicted before discovery? Archaeopteryx? Microraptor? Tiktaalik?
@daeodon As a biologist, I think I know what I'm saying when I say that it has passed the test. Living fossils never were a problem for the theory of evolution, even though creationists make them out to be. Evolution does not require morphological change over time in the absence of selective pressures and it doesn't require extinction of species either. Your concept of the process is quite clearly warped.
Here's two fossils that were predicted before the actual finds: Najash and Pezosiren.
@weelittledragon All the same, the living fossils are evidence that THEIR ancient counterparts have not evolved. Their species for certain changed very little over geological time. Living fossils do not provide evidence for evolution, and provide evidence that those species in particular certainly did not evolve.
@daeodon I think you're misinterpreting what I said about living fossils. I never claimed that they are proof of evolution. I merely stated that the existence of such creatures does nothing to discredit the theory of evolution, which is what your initial claim boiled down to.
@weelittledragon Najash and Pezosiren are apparently known as 'transitional links' for their respective kinds. Were Najash's legs fully-functioned? While the remains of Pezosiren are quite complete, most foot bones and tail bones are missing, opening the probability that it still had flippers and a fluked tail like a normal sea cow, meaning it may not be the terrestrial mammal that was anticipated.
@daeodon The functionality of Najash's legs is of no importance whatsoever to the validity of it as a piece of evidence for evolution. Also, it so happens that I have just written a piece on the evolution of manatees and thus have only just read the full description of the original Pezosiren fossil. While the tailbones and toebones are largely missing, the shape of the long limbbones definitively have all the characteristics for land locomotion, and certainly aren't flippers.
@daeodon Also, while we do not have any definite fossil 'common ancestors' of different classes, the only reason for this is that we cannot with certainty ascribe an ancestor-descendent relationship between fossils. We do, however, have morphological intermediates between classes. Wether these are the actual ancestors or are just situated closely to the split between groups in the phylogenetic tree doesn't matter. The predictions initially made by the theory are verified.
@weelittledragon What would be an example of a well defined morphological intermediate? Monotremes may lay eggs instead of having live young but they are still mammals, not reptiles, or an intermediate between the two.
@daeodon Your comment about monotremes is bizarre. It kind of illustrates a lack of understanding of what phylogeny and taxonomy are actually saying. You should realize that phylogenetically speaking 'reptiles' as we normally use the term don't constitute an actual clade or natural group. I could mention some of the so called 'mammal like reptiles' as morphological intermediates, but the thing is, you would just deny what they are off hand, without anything to back up the 'why' behind this.
@weelittledragon Calling something an intermediate is very subject to opinion. Defining a class on a whole is quite opinionated. I could classify mammal-like reptiles as reptiles, or neither a reptile or mammal based on their mammalian characteristics. The creature would be different in everyone's perception. The evidence against Pezosiren being terrestrial is that it has a rather long body and the tail beyond the pelvis is still thick, unlike a hippo or rhino, and suggests a tapering.
@daeodon Also, I just remember that my initial comment was about how I did not want this to turn into a lengthy debate on evolution, yet you have made it just that. My very point in my initial comment was that it's getting ridiculous that the comment section of every video featuring an extinct animal is turning into a creationist vs evolutionist battlefield.
@weelittledragon The reason why I did it is because you termed creation as a bronze-age myth, and not everybody agrees with that, including me. As long as both stick to their point of view, the debate would literally rage forever, regardless of who is right. Surely one can enjoy watching videos of extinct animals for what they are.
I believe In God and Evolution, i think that God created the universe, otherwise how would it have got here?... dont try telling me it was the big bang because even if it was someone had to make them events take place, Scientists have proven the universe hasnt always existed so there you go. And the human body is so complicated, it had to be designed. The way the veins carry blood, the way we have eyesight, the way we hear, that cannot just come from nowhere.
How can you explain human complexity by inventing a being which is everso more complex i.e. a God. Where did this "God" come from?
Making such massive claims (i.e. the existance of a God) requires massive evidence my friend.. or is religion somehow exempt from the need to provide evidence for their claims?
Can you explain to me how every religion claims to be the only one yet there are so many religions out there? How is this possible?
@MrJakey1996 And who exactly created the creator? I mean honestly, that guy must be so complicated it's just stupid to assume that he just was there. He must have been designed.
@MrJakey1996 Maybe the univese was always here just in a different form, where would god come from if the universe didn't exist? Why would someone have to make event take place based on what? Why can't things you don't understand just happen? Do you understand everything that happens for reasons you don't understand of course not.
@MrJakey1996 Fine.. But where did God come from, and who created that God that created the first God?...You see, we are humans, and not every single detail can be explained.
We don't always know the answer to everything. Its nearly impossible, we are not intellectual advanced enough to know such things. It's way beyond our comprehension. Just like Human society is way beyond an ants comprehension, The best answer to that question is NO answer. Undefined.
A DIFFERENT SPECIES? SPECIES? WHO CARES IF THEY LOOK DIFFERENT! YOU TREAT THEM LIKE ANIMALS! THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MOST ANIMAL SPECIES THAT THE HUMAN SPECIES DOESN'T HAVE! THEY'D NEVER KILL THERE OWN SPECIES! AND I NEARLY CRIED WHEN I SAW THAT POOR MAN GET HURT! AND YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO BROADCAST IT WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION!?!?! JUST BECAUSE HE LOOKS DIFFERENT!?!?!
@1billion1deaths1 I agree that humans don't evolve from animals, but I also agree with Hobu that evolution is REAL. With Fossils around to tell us about it, we find bones of whales known as "Basilosaurus" that haves 2 little rear legs and 2 huge flippers and now whales don't have these 2 little legs. Like Prehistoric dogs evolved to whales because the Basilosaurus fossil told us that.
@1billion1deaths1 you're so arrogant and hypocrite u think you deserve to be greated by a God. you're just a scared kid, waiting for santa claus. hit some books
@Kaeralho Scared kid?? scared of god? yes. You dont know god ther for your understanding and reasoning is to that of an animal.I have the ancient book of time itself, If u dont believe truth in morality you dont believe in Creation and purpose. Explain the need for mankind in philosophy or why philosophy dominates the laws of man? If your animal to human theory was not ignored like it is, this planet would know no "LAWS" If u follow law u follow "belief".
In addition, what are your scientific credentials? You have zero knowledge about science, you don't know the meaning of most basic scientific terms, all your "knowledge" about evolution consists obviously only of retarded crap you have read from creationist pedopriests liars' blogs. It would take just one minute for you to check it out from scientific sources what "theory" means in science and whether evolution is fact.
"Trust you"... ROFLMAO. You were joking when you wrote that, yes?
Did you make at least a minimal attempt to understand what I have been explaining now in several comments already? You seem to be like a robot or parrot who numbly repeats his pre-programmed sentence without paying any attention to what he is being explained.
Theory of evolution (the explanation) is a framework that explains HOW evolution happens, via what mechanisms.
"Theory" in science means not a "guess" but a "well-substantiated explanation of data, a set of principles that explains some natural phenomenon, is based on empirical evidence and has been experimentally verified".
"Theory" is science has COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MEANING than in everyday language. Look it up.
Read my post several times if necessary and at least TRY to actually think and understand what I said. YOU are the one who is mistaken here but you make no attempt to learn anything.
So if your next answer to me would be "this is only a theory" then don't even bother to reply because I am not fond of talking with mindless robots.
@Hobu123 I have completely understood what has been poorly presented before me by you, and I only repeat because getting through to a mind such as yours requires being able to seep to the standards of that mind, therefore I act as a "Robot or parrot who numbly repeats his pre-programmed sentence"
Human Evolution is not a proven fact, but only a theory.
HEY!!!! STOP MAKING FUN OF MY GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDFATHER!!!
Why should neanderthal be a missing link? Neanderthal was a parallel species. And there is no "missing link" at all in science.
Do you even understand what you are talking about, or do you just blindly babble some nonsense you have read from your pedoblogs of biblical cretinists?
@Hobu123 well its a theory right? thers a reason why its a theory, if u dont believe thers holes,,u must believe its 100% accurate, but beliving in something hard enough doesnt make it fact.
First, mutagenesis is a fact from observable reality, and second, your constant failure to understand what "theory" means in science is really amazing.
@Hobu123 how if no human mutation has never been recorded in time so pure sheer irrelevence, thers several holes to fake bones all the way to dating techniques way way off, but u know watever lets u sleep at night , i know its a scary world.
What are you talking about? EVERY HUMAN, including you, contains around 100 new mutations that your parents did not have. Where do you even take your absurd data from?
Dating methods work well, the stories you read from blogs of creationist liars have little to do with reality.
Several fake bones, like out of numerous millions and millions? lolwut?
@Hobu123 wat nobody transformes into one species into another! plain retardedness,,, and thats why its a theory, Never stated as a fact! Because thers tons of evidence against it..if ther wasent,, we wouldnt be having this conversation. Its that simple,,, u just accept it , For your own reasoning and convinient, maybe u got something to loose ?
We are having this conversation because you lack even the most basic knowledge about science and imagine that your lack of knowledge and understanding means that science is wrong.
"Nobody" transforms into another species - because POPULATIONS evolve, not individuals. For speciation event you need reproductive isolation of a population which hardly occurs in modern globalized world.
For speciation it is needed that a population becomes reproductively isolated from other populations so that changes that occur there remain only into that population. Then the population will over time become genetically different from other populations and eventually new species.
However, we have seen speciation numerous times both in nature and in labs in different organism groups. Speciation is a FACT from observable reality.
@Hobu123 u defenatly have something to loose, seeing as thers tons of evidence against your theory u so much believe in, Theorized work on billions of years ago...yea right.
Why do you fail to present any of that "evidence against"? Funny how none of the millions of scientists from all around the world knows such evidence. You obviously think you know something that 21st century scientists do not know?
@Hobu123 yea watever lets u sleep at night, theory boy lmao ,,,full of predictions ,assumptions on billions of years ago, and your positive like if u were actually ther, LOL priceless!LOL
@1billion1deaths1 we never been the same, we're always changing, generation after generation. look at the fossils retard.... your ancestors were apes, fossils don't lie. and genetic tests proved it. get a life
@BBoyEmanuel your a retart, no one in human history has evolved mutated into a diffrent species thers no evidence of it written or even carved. But it lets u sleep atnight, it justifice your lifestyle I bet, I can see why this theory assumption based on almost 5 billion years ago would benifet you, But watever u already planted thats from wat you will eat, you wont leave this world without getting wats yours trust me!
@1billion1deaths1 how the fuck can you say "it's not written"? writing exists for about 5000years, do you expect the apes we evolved from to write: "we will be humans one day"?writing means nothing, anyone can write whatever the fuck they want. proof is physical. bones are there, dna is in the bones. proves that we evolved. for example, why do you think ppl that live at tropics have darker skin? that's how evolution made to protect them from perpendicular, powerful solar radiation. go to school
@BBoyEmanuel wat??lol yea..so we just magically got brains one day. Alot of Bones are fake! thats already proven. Dna & nano technology show intellegent design, intellegent creation, meaning your accident prob theory remains and stays at theory, rather then factual.PEople change color because of the sun and are build for ther conditions. But nobodys ever transformed like a ninja turtle like u believe, and then one day had brains for no reason LOL this is priceless lmao!
@1billion1deaths1 your retarded. it's nothing MAGICAL in evolution. look at snails. they have around 1000 neurons. everytime your kids will have a kid, that kid will suffer a little mutation in the genes. that's mutation. probably that mutation will make him have 10 neurons more then you. cuz less... it's impossible. seriously, stop replying you make yourself look uneducated
@BBoyEmanuel its magical and u believe in fantasy, because no ones ever witnessed it! And it has more holes then that of your panies. Dating techniques are not 100% accurate, shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old and they were still alive Lmao, Man thouse are some old snails *see science (1984), Vol. 224, pp. 58-61..can u grasp on that?? Lava from MT. St Helens was dated the potassium argon method. it ranged 340,000 to 3million, volcano erupted in 1980,irrelevent
@1billion1deaths1 the coal we all used in some grills is dated 320 million years ago, so you failed. and that volcano erupts for millions of years, INCLUDING 340.000 years ago. go kill yourself, and stop fuckin writing me back, there's no point of talking with a primitive ape like you. go back to school
@BBoyEmanuel HAHAAH I could see why this theory, assumption on billions of years ago would benifet and justifie your animal like behavior, only if it was 100% accurate. Are u gonna be able to sleep atnight? Knowing that u cant really sleep with your sister?? or have intercourse with your doggy??lmao Are u scared that some one might be watching?? not visual to the naked eye..just go to sleep because your six pack will disapeer one day, from dust u came, from dust shall u return
@BBoyEmanuel offcourse you care, your so vane...look at your picture lol your telling me your not gonna care? wen u spend more then half your life on working out your stomach..just to loose it all in a blink of a eye? c'mon your upsest with yourself.
Retarded nonsense. Go ask in any genetics institute if their research shows any "intelligent design", they will be rolling on the floor laughing. Genetics is the field that studies directly the root causes of evolution.
And PLEASE, DO US A FAVOR. If you plan to moan your bivblical cretinist idiocy, at least try to avoid the "arguments" that have been fully refuted in:
That site has a list of most common cretinist nonsense with rebuttals, your retarded "living snails" and "St Helens" are all there. Do you cretinist EVER have anything new or do you just continue blindly repeating the same old and 10000 times refuted fundie nonsense?
Living snails? All there: under CD011.3. Boooriiing.
The old age of those living snails was caused by well known reservoir effect - those snails took the carbon to build their shells from water, and the dissolved carnon in water came from limestone which due to its old age contained no 4C any more. That way the snails "inherited" the old age of limestone.
That effect is well known among science and every scientist knows that this must be taken into account when dating snails.
What was dated in St Helen's lava flow were xenoliths and xenocrysts whiche WERE old (lava flow can contain unmelted rocks). Not to mention the fact that CRETINIST LIARS sent the samples to lab that clearly stated that their equipment can not date things that are younger than 2 million years, therefore contamination could not be avoided. Why didn't your CRETINIST LIARS use a lab that deals with dating younger samples? Because they are CRETINIST LIARS
Finally, some additional argon gas entered the dacite when it formed in parent melt and didn't degas later, increasing the apparent age.
1billion1deaths1, if you REALLY imagine that we haven't heard all that old and retarded cretinist nonsense before then really, ROFLMAO.
Living snails, St Helens, oldest tree, Mississippi delta, supernovas, geologic column - WE HAVE HEARD ALL THAT CREATIONIST CRAP ALREADY MILLION TIMES, so save us from seeing it once again.
Therefore, before taking another "argument" from some retard's like Kent Hovind's or another idiot's blog, do us a favor and make sure that this argument has not been refuted in the list I gave you.
Read my lips: WE HAVE SEEN ALL YOUR CRETINIST "ARGUMENTS" 10000 times already and every scientist can REFUTE all cretinist arguments. Is there a need to go over the same old crap again and again since every fundie believes that we have never heard their retarded "arguments"?
>>>>re u gonna be able to sleep atnight? Knowing that u cant
>>>> really sleep with your sister?? or have intercourse with your
>>> doggy??
And when their arguments end, they start ad hominem attacks. Seen that billion times already. LMAO, fundie retard.
It always goes the same way with fundie retards - at first they come up with their crap "arguments", thinking that we have never heard those, and when we refute them all, they start ad hominem attacks and threats with hellfire etc. LOL
@1billion1deaths1 you don't know what you are talking about. Theory for a scientist means explanation, and facts and laws are nothing but an embarrassment to a scientist who cannot explain it. Newton discovered the laws of gravity but he doesn't know how it works and now here is Einstein, explaining it by his elegant theories. You know what FACT is? what you believe was made before humans understand the importance of rational arguments and evidence of senses.
@KEEETARO no a scientific "Fact" is not a theory in no way. Theorys are made up of assumptions & predictions ther not 100% accurate , no matter how hard u believe in them. FACTS are FACTS!! grasp on that.
You have been repeatedly explained what FACT and THEORY means in science, so every time you continue moaning that retarded nonsense, you make yourself only look more and more foolish.
Evolution is FACT FROM OBSERVABLE REALITY.
Theory of evolution is experimentally verified EXPLANATION of HOW it happens (studies its mechanisms).
Theory is explanation of facts. It doesn't mean that it is a "guess" - the components of the explanations themselves are also facts. Theory of evolution, for example, involves mutagenesis as part of the explanation of evolution, and mutagenesis itself is a fact.
Theory is the HIGHEST FORM OF EXPLANATIONS in science. Theories DO NOT become anything else any more. Theory can be 100% accurate but still it won't be called a fact because theory is EXPLANATION OF FACTS.
@Hobu123 scientific facts, are factual. Theorized work on billions of years ago is not "fact" because its not 100% accurate, no matter how much u believe in it its still theorized. U wish theorys were "facts", It would justifie your lifestyle in a heartbeat.
It is obvious that it is not possible to explain the meaning of scientific words to someone who has the deepest imaginable level of religious fundamentalist brainwash.
Perhaps it still helps you to understand if you replace the word "theory" with word "explanation" and now look it. Explanation, no matter how accurate it is, will always be "explanation". It isn't like something is "explanation" and later becomes a "fact". Explanation is always explanation
Reconstruction of events that happened in the past is not random ideas - all is based on studying EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. In science, conclusions are made based one evidence, not like in your religious fundamentalism where at first someone baselessly concludes that some silly Bronze Age fairytale about talking snakes is literally true and then starts to deny everything that contradicts that absurdity.
It is "only a theory" that Earth orbits Sun - nobody has ever seen it happening.
Nobody has ever spent a year in outer space and watched Earth making circle around Sun. Nobody. Therefore, according to your creationist "logic", it is "only a theory" that Earth orbits Sun.
Have you been travelling by plane? It is "only a theory" that makes planes fly - theory of aerodynamics.
It is also "only a theory" that you consist of cells - it is cell theory.
It is "only a theory" that microbes cause diseases - germ theory.
Gravity is also "only a theory" - theory of gravity.
"My" theory has no problems at all, your argumentation against it comes only from the fact that you have zero knowledge and understanding about it and you are filled with nonsense and absurdities fed to you by religious fundamentalist propagandist liars.
@Hobu123 so now its the evolution mutation Fact??? u wish , it Stays at theory carved at theory foever! nothing more then assumptions and predictions that justified u banging your mom. Animal lmao
Yes, evolution via mutagenesis, natural selection, genetic drift etc are facts from observable reality. All observable, all testable, all being experimented with.
The explanation that explains how these facts are all tied together is called "theory of evolution". "Theory" in science, as you have been repeatedly explained, DOES NOT mean "a guess" but an experimentally verified explanation of facts.
Human origins do not concern ToE. These are different theories.
i've just about had it, what do u have against us??? U r allowed to believe so why not us??? Just cause we believe in the creation story does not mean we do not believe in evolution, i think the several days of creation could of been millions of years apart allowing evolution to come into effect, and also u explain this, we all know about the big bang, the exsplosion which created the universe... HOW DOES AN EXPLOSION COME OUT OF NOWHERE??? There mustof been something to trigger it..
he almost killed the geico guy!
HesHymn 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nice one
geocachespoilers 2 weeks ago
1:17 yeea wood :) 1:19 turn head oh snap !
IEqualepic 2 weeks ago
the Neanderthal would have noticed the Rhino much earlier!!!!! They're not as stupid as portrayed here...
OlaNaTungee6 2 weeks ago
@OlaNaTungee6 They were stupid compared to Homo Sapiens. Otherwise, they would have never with extinct.
NewOrleansboii 2 weeks ago
@NewOrleansboii they didn't. they intermixed with the Homo Sapiens. we still have Neanderthal-genes
OlaNaTungee6 2 weeks ago
@OlaNaTungee6 They did little intermixing with Homo sapiens. 1 out of 100. Intermixing did not cause their extinction. If they intermixed on a massive level, you would see more than 4% DNA similarity. A few had sex, and a lot did not. There are two theories to Neanderthal extinction: 1) "They're meat only diet caused Vitamin A poisoning." Or the more likely theory 2) "Homo sapiens and Neanderthal had consist warfare with each other, leading to Neanderthal's genocide.
NewOrleansboii 2 weeks ago
@NewOrleansboii but they were not stupid
OlaNaTungee6 2 weeks ago
@OlaNaTungee6 Of course they were not stupid like a Chimpanzee, but they still didn't not have the same level of cognitive abilities as Homo sapiens. That's just basic fact..
NewOrleansboii 2 weeks ago
@NewOrleansboii Yes they did they where even smarter.
JordoF6 6 days ago
@JordoF6 Even smarter? You're kidding, right? Neanderthals were living in caves and practiced Cannibalism on their dead. Cro-Magnon( Pre-modern Humans) were living in Huts made out of Mammoth tusk and Wool. Cro-Magnon made sculptures and cooked their food. Neanderthals ate their food raw. If they were smarter, they would have never went extinct. Darwin's theory, the strongest survives. You either adapt, or you die.
7 billion humans on the planet, the strongest dominates as well.
NewOrleansboii 5 days ago
@NewOrleansboii Man cannibalism was part of their culture it was to make sure no animal would defile their dead family member,we can't judge them for that.Secondly smart has nothing to do with going extinct cockroaches are not smart but they have been able to survive for millions of years due to numbers.Same applies with our species we had number advantages over the neanderthal.We outnumbered them 3-1.
JordoF6 5 days ago
@JordoF6 I never implied intelligence increase reproductive success. However, it does implies to H. Sapiens, cognitive abilities helped Cro-Magnon stay alive longer to out-breed the other Homos humanoids. The invention of agriculture by H. Sapiens helped humans to produce larger numbers of offspring. Cockroaches is a different story. Human activity caused Cockroach's larger numbers. Where ever humans migrate, cockroaches follow, because we are their main source for survival.
NewOrleansboii 5 days ago
I like the woolly Rhino...hmmm....but I also like the Neanderthals....hmmm...which one is better? THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY TO FIND OUT!......FIIIIIIGHT!!!
magmablood2 1 month ago
@magmablood2 Cute . :) heheh
TheNbaLover22 3 weeks ago
1) WHY DID WOOLY RHINO/MAMMOTHS DIE OFF? they would have better survived the ice age than their hairless brethren!
2) Why do the best preserved specimens of wooly rhino(poland) and that baby (dima) mammoth exibit a LACK of hair?
The FACT is rhinos were relitivly hairless like their African conterparts and the and the mammoths the same, their geographic ranges covered north america through eurasia to the siberian coast. which suggests that pangea existed closer to our times that people admit!
realistromeo 1 month ago
FFS! Is there one video related to prehistory or science I can watch without over zealous Christian and atheist douche bags telling each other how stupid and/or evil those they disagree with are?
Quite embarrassing that we can't just tolerate each others views, and try not to force our own on others. It's so unbecoming for western civilization.
joker52mlb 1 month ago
Neanderthals were darker skinned. werent they?
JeZebeL2600 1 month ago
@JeZebeL2600 I don't know what the most common skintype for Neanderthals was, but I think I remember seeing an article a couple of years ago hich revealed that at least some Neanderthals had pale skin (and red hair).
weelittledragon 1 month ago
@weelittledragon
oh alright cool, thanks
JeZebeL2600 1 month ago
@JeZebeL2600 no, they were fair. They didn't live in sunny, hot areas which meant their pigmentation didn't need to be dark to protect from the suns rays.
ledbelly7 4 weeks ago
@ledbelly7
yes i thought about that after i posted my comment :P stupid, stupid.
JeZebeL2600 2 weeks ago
@JeZebeL2600 Not stupid at all ;)
ledbelly7 2 weeks ago
Im a neanderthal and i am sooo offended!!!
TheTunerida 1 month ago
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
DonkeyKongLad 1 month ago
Are people still debating about an answer that no one will ever figure out until it's too late? The Geico Spokesperson just got rammed by a Rhino, for crying out loud! Call 9-1-1.
smokintheblaze 1 month ago
Evolution is for kids. lol. Makes for good story telling, but when you compare it to reality it is entirely lacking.
for those wondering about this stuff, there is no actual evidence for any of it. Thing is that people think it is true, so anything founds must fit into the story. They will find a tooth and construct entire stories on it, they will find short people and construct entire stories on it. Bones show nothing like this and a few of them have even been hoaxes
semitope 2 months ago
@semitope FACEPALM.Religion is for kids who can't grow up snakes talking 6 billion people from 2 people.Jesus christ and neanderthals are not our ancestors they lived alongisde us as a separate but similar human species get your facts right.
JordoF6 2 months ago
@JordoF6 you mean "get the fairytale straight"
semitope 2 months ago
@semitope So what you believe in god? theres no evidence for him and his magical kingdom besides a fucking book of lies i used to be a christian fucking sucks being brainwashed now im free
JordoF6 2 months ago
@JordoF6 go read some more. if u think there is no evidence, u arent looking
semitope 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@semitope
"if u think there is no evidence, u arent looking"
LOL what evidence do you have for what god?
Im pretty sure all religions are still RELIGIONS which require Faith (The definition of religion and faith is BASELESS BELIEF)
gorilla199uncensored 2 months ago
@semitope What is the fossil record? Genetic drift? Carbon dating? I can go on an on. What are all those things...tools of Satan to trick man? Lol.
What "no evidence" do you speak of? You must mean that little mythological fairy tail in that book that says the world was created in 6 days, 6-10 thousand years ago. Even though physics, chemistry, geology, biology, sociology, ect. all say otherwise. The mountain of evidence in ALL the sciences blows your superstitious creationist illogic away.
FractalHolon 1 month ago 24
@FractalHolon fossil record? A bunch of dead things that tell you nothing unless you want them to. The whale sequence is supposed to be best and that's pretty much broken now. Not only would it take much more time (for even simple changes) than is available, the time available got screwed up recently with whale fossil find of a fully formed whale around the time of the transitional forms they propose. You should check out the debate between sternberg (double PhD), meyers and shermer + 1 other.
semitope 1 month ago
@FractalHolon lol. You are really just repeating the party line arent you? Name some random part of science and say whatever you want about it. All of those things hinge on radiometric dating to be accurate, strangely enough. It is not. Carbon dating is not used to date things they expect to be millions of years old and they make a ton of assumptions to get the ages they do.
semitope 1 month ago
@JordoF6 and you will embrace satan,in which you dont believe ? thats the problem with you atheists. you bark too much,and you got warped by inner " selfconfidence "
Citzen92 1 month ago
@Citzen92 Satan isn't real and neither is your god their called imaginary creatures.
JordoF6 1 month ago
@JordoF6 yes!!they are nothing but brainwashed fools
sexygamer2121 3 weeks ago
Kabal... wins , animality!
matoporcomida 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homo sapiens would survive this attack easily because we would always travel with at least one other friend.
When the Rhino attacks we cant outrun it.
But we dont need to.
We just have to outrun our friend.
-anadus7
cradiIy 2 months ago
haha that neandertal cant even run fast haha
8rdf 2 months ago
@8rdf Man hes running from a fucking rhino who are one of the fastest mammals on earth.And plus they where much smaller than us but he survived a hit from rhino we wouldnt be able to do that.
JordoF6 2 months ago
why is he coughing up blood
beautifulmofo 2 months ago
@beautifulmofo Umm.. because he just got hit by a Rhino.. DUH
NewOrleansboii 2 weeks ago
fucking 240p
cleverseo 3 months ago
caveman got pwned.
skedaddleMLS 3 months ago
The best piece of science fiction i've seen since star wars. At least Luke and co had faith in the force not just some primitive "theory" of "genetics" and "apes" that is as woolly as the rhino.
robbodg9 3 months ago
1:19 "Oh shi-"
Asarelah 3 months ago
Seriously people, does every clip on youtube featuring some prehistoric animal have to be accompanied by a creation vs. evolution debate. Look, it's simple: we have the fossils, we win! Evolution is a fact, creationism a bronze age myth. Now can everybody just enjoy the woolly rhino already...
weelittledragon 3 months ago
@weelittledragon Why would evolution be true just because of fossils? Fossils are simply the remains of dead animals. Their age and whether they hold an ancestor-descendant relationship with modern animals is something totally different. And yes, I do enjoy the woolly rhino, but not the poor guy who got hurt.
daeodon 1 month ago
@daeodon First of all, glad you enjoyed the Rhino. I think I said in another last comment that I didn't think this is the place for any lengthy debate on evolution. There are enough places for that here on youtube, without it having to spill out all over the place. I will adress your question, though. When I say that fossils provide us with evidence for evolution, I don't mean that the mere existence of the things prove evolution. (continued)
weelittledragon 1 month ago
@daeodon This is (as you rightly pointed out) not the case. However, the theory of evolution, like any scientific theory, makes testable predictions about the world. When we look at the fossil record we see that it is pretty much entirely consistent with the predictions of evolutionary theory. So much so even, that some fossils were predicted to exist, even before the actual fossils were discovered; thus proving that the theory is at least a useful model for studying life.
weelittledragon 1 month ago
@daeodon The theory of evolution also predicts what can't exist in the fossil record. For instance, something like a pegasus or a 'transitional form' between a shark and a bear would instantly debunk evolution. However, no such fossils have been found.
Basically, fossils provide us with a means for testing evolution, and so far this theory has passed this test pretty much unscathed.
weelittledragon 1 month ago
@weelittledragon Evolution has not actually passed the test. Doubtless to say animals from different classes don't have transitional forms, but evolution also predicts a common ancestor of these different classes, which hasn't been found yet. Also, evolution does not predict the appearance of 'living fossils'. Also, what's an example of fossils that were predicted before discovery? Archaeopteryx? Microraptor? Tiktaalik?
daeodon 1 month ago
@daeodon As a biologist, I think I know what I'm saying when I say that it has passed the test. Living fossils never were a problem for the theory of evolution, even though creationists make them out to be. Evolution does not require morphological change over time in the absence of selective pressures and it doesn't require extinction of species either. Your concept of the process is quite clearly warped.
Here's two fossils that were predicted before the actual finds: Najash and Pezosiren.
weelittledragon 1 month ago
@weelittledragon All the same, the living fossils are evidence that THEIR ancient counterparts have not evolved. Their species for certain changed very little over geological time. Living fossils do not provide evidence for evolution, and provide evidence that those species in particular certainly did not evolve.
daeodon 1 month ago
@daeodon I think you're misinterpreting what I said about living fossils. I never claimed that they are proof of evolution. I merely stated that the existence of such creatures does nothing to discredit the theory of evolution, which is what your initial claim boiled down to.
weelittledragon 1 month ago
@weelittledragon Najash and Pezosiren are apparently known as 'transitional links' for their respective kinds. Were Najash's legs fully-functioned? While the remains of Pezosiren are quite complete, most foot bones and tail bones are missing, opening the probability that it still had flippers and a fluked tail like a normal sea cow, meaning it may not be the terrestrial mammal that was anticipated.
daeodon 1 month ago
@daeodon The functionality of Najash's legs is of no importance whatsoever to the validity of it as a piece of evidence for evolution. Also, it so happens that I have just written a piece on the evolution of manatees and thus have only just read the full description of the original Pezosiren fossil. While the tailbones and toebones are largely missing, the shape of the long limbbones definitively have all the characteristics for land locomotion, and certainly aren't flippers.
weelittledragon 1 month ago
@daeodon Also, while we do not have any definite fossil 'common ancestors' of different classes, the only reason for this is that we cannot with certainty ascribe an ancestor-descendent relationship between fossils. We do, however, have morphological intermediates between classes. Wether these are the actual ancestors or are just situated closely to the split between groups in the phylogenetic tree doesn't matter. The predictions initially made by the theory are verified.
weelittledragon 1 month ago
@weelittledragon What would be an example of a well defined morphological intermediate? Monotremes may lay eggs instead of having live young but they are still mammals, not reptiles, or an intermediate between the two.
daeodon 1 month ago
@daeodon Your comment about monotremes is bizarre. It kind of illustrates a lack of understanding of what phylogeny and taxonomy are actually saying. You should realize that phylogenetically speaking 'reptiles' as we normally use the term don't constitute an actual clade or natural group. I could mention some of the so called 'mammal like reptiles' as morphological intermediates, but the thing is, you would just deny what they are off hand, without anything to back up the 'why' behind this.
weelittledragon 1 month ago
@weelittledragon Calling something an intermediate is very subject to opinion. Defining a class on a whole is quite opinionated. I could classify mammal-like reptiles as reptiles, or neither a reptile or mammal based on their mammalian characteristics. The creature would be different in everyone's perception. The evidence against Pezosiren being terrestrial is that it has a rather long body and the tail beyond the pelvis is still thick, unlike a hippo or rhino, and suggests a tapering.
daeodon 1 month ago
@daeodon Also, I just remember that my initial comment was about how I did not want this to turn into a lengthy debate on evolution, yet you have made it just that. My very point in my initial comment was that it's getting ridiculous that the comment section of every video featuring an extinct animal is turning into a creationist vs evolutionist battlefield.
weelittledragon 1 month ago
@weelittledragon The reason why I did it is because you termed creation as a bronze-age myth, and not everybody agrees with that, including me. As long as both stick to their point of view, the debate would literally rage forever, regardless of who is right. Surely one can enjoy watching videos of extinct animals for what they are.
daeodon 1 month ago
I believe In God and Evolution, i think that God created the universe, otherwise how would it have got here?... dont try telling me it was the big bang because even if it was someone had to make them events take place, Scientists have proven the universe hasnt always existed so there you go. And the human body is so complicated, it had to be designed. The way the veins carry blood, the way we have eyesight, the way we hear, that cannot just come from nowhere.
MrJakey1996 3 months ago
@MrJakey1996 so u belive in evolution but you think the human body was designed? Explain.
pupaglupa 3 months ago
@pupaglupa Well obviously i cant explain it... its to hard to explain, especially to someone who is to stubborn to even think that God is real.
MrJakey1996 3 months ago
@MrJakey1996 why can't you explain it? lol
How can you explain human complexity by inventing a being which is everso more complex i.e. a God. Where did this "God" come from?
Making such massive claims (i.e. the existance of a God) requires massive evidence my friend.. or is religion somehow exempt from the need to provide evidence for their claims?
Can you explain to me how every religion claims to be the only one yet there are so many religions out there? How is this possible?
Thanks
pupaglupa 3 months ago
@MrJakey1996 And who exactly created the creator? I mean honestly, that guy must be so complicated it's just stupid to assume that he just was there. He must have been designed.
EPR89 3 months ago
@MrJakey1996 Maybe the univese was always here just in a different form, where would god come from if the universe didn't exist? Why would someone have to make event take place based on what? Why can't things you don't understand just happen? Do you understand everything that happens for reasons you don't understand of course not.
hydrolito 3 months ago
@MrJakey1996 Fine.. But where did God come from, and who created that God that created the first God?...You see, we are humans, and not every single detail can be explained.
We don't always know the answer to everything. Its nearly impossible, we are not intellectual advanced enough to know such things. It's way beyond our comprehension. Just like Human society is way beyond an ants comprehension, The best answer to that question is NO answer. Undefined.
NewOrleansboii 2 weeks ago
1:16 awww shit whos idea was to get firewood -_-
pacificbomber 3 months ago
A DIFFERENT SPECIES? SPECIES? WHO CARES IF THEY LOOK DIFFERENT! YOU TREAT THEM LIKE ANIMALS! THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MOST ANIMAL SPECIES THAT THE HUMAN SPECIES DOESN'T HAVE! THEY'D NEVER KILL THERE OWN SPECIES! AND I NEARLY CRIED WHEN I SAW THAT POOR MAN GET HURT! AND YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO BROADCAST IT WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION!?!?! JUST BECAUSE HE LOOKS DIFFERENT!?!?!
SuperHockeygoalie 3 months ago
Where the hell is a Blastiose, Venusaur, Charizard or Rhydon when you need one!
Abominatrix650 3 months ago
That Human had goy Pain and misery from the Rhino!!!! Hoo we!!!!
MrHenryjr0618 4 months ago
This part use to freak the hell out of me when I was little. But now I'm not.
MrHenryjr0618 4 months ago
Why is BBC doing an documentary on Republicans?
djcheff 5 months ago
1:57 OWNED!
Afterschave 5 months ago in playlist Walking With Beasts
AaOoOOoAAAaaAOUoOUAaGHGGgHHhG
gennadiysdengi 5 months ago
@1billion1deaths1 I agree that humans don't evolve from animals, but I also agree with Hobu that evolution is REAL. With Fossils around to tell us about it, we find bones of whales known as "Basilosaurus" that haves 2 little rear legs and 2 huge flippers and now whales don't have these 2 little legs. Like Prehistoric dogs evolved to whales because the Basilosaurus fossil told us that.
yes4roblox 5 months ago
@yes4roblox
Actually humans ARE a species of animals.
Hobu123 5 months ago
poor neanderthal
ELEMENT1111100 5 months ago
HUMBUG! STUFF & NONSENSE!
grenrut 5 months ago
I'd pick the donkey.
DutchBenjamins 6 months ago
Evolution is only a theory,therefore not proven.
Human beings can only know so much about themselves.
Religion, Atheism, evolution. Theories and beleifs are all we can rely on to keep a steady lifestile.
Until one of them is proven.
HyperChief117 6 months ago
@HyperChief117
>>>>Evolution is only a theory,therefore not proven
Shouldn't you at least make an attempt to read few comments written before? It has all been explained there.
Evolution is fact.
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 your monkey human theory is not a fact in no way, but if it was,,your lifestyle would be justified in a heartbeat, low life.
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1
He was speaking about evolution theory, not human origins theory. You are not even able to understand that these are TWO DIFFERENT THEORIES?
Just wow. And you really consider yourself to be in place of criticizing 21st century science.
Hobu123 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1 you're so arrogant and hypocrite u think you deserve to be greated by a God. you're just a scared kid, waiting for santa claus. hit some books
Kaeralho 3 months ago
@Kaeralho Scared kid?? scared of god? yes. You dont know god ther for your understanding and reasoning is to that of an animal.I have the ancient book of time itself, If u dont believe truth in morality you dont believe in Creation and purpose. Explain the need for mankind in philosophy or why philosophy dominates the laws of man? If your animal to human theory was not ignored like it is, this planet would know no "LAWS" If u follow law u follow "belief".
1billion1deaths1 2 months ago
@Hobu123 >>>>>>Shouldn't you at least make an attempt to read few comments written before? It has all been explained there.
Evolution is fact
I've read all the coments that I need to, Evolution is a theory until proven otherwise.
HyperChief117 6 months ago
@HyperChief117
Just READ what has been explained here in many comments. Just READ.
Evolution is fact.
Theory of evolution explains HOW it happens.
These are two different things.
Hobu123 5 months ago
@Hobu123 Trust me, I know, evolution is not a fact, only a theory.
HyperChief117 5 months ago
READ, just READ what has been discussed here for pages. At least make minimal attempt to READ and UNDERSTAND anything that has been explained here.
In science, there are no "only theories". In science "theory" means the highest level of knowledge.
In science, "evolution" and "theory of evolution" are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
Evolution is FACT from OBSERVABLE REALITY and ToE explains HOW it happens.
Nobody is going to trust YOU as you show that you even don't know the meaning of most basic terms.
Hobu123 5 months ago
2
In addition, what are your scientific credentials? You have zero knowledge about science, you don't know the meaning of most basic scientific terms, all your "knowledge" about evolution consists obviously only of retarded crap you have read from creationist pedopriests liars' blogs. It would take just one minute for you to check it out from scientific sources what "theory" means in science and whether evolution is fact.
"Trust you"... ROFLMAO. You were joking when you wrote that, yes?
Hobu123 5 months ago
@Hobu123 'Tis a theory, not a fact. I am not the most fond of arguing with people that do not wish to admit when they are wrong.
HyperChief117 5 months ago
@HyperChief117
1
Did you make at least a minimal attempt to understand what I have been explaining now in several comments already? You seem to be like a robot or parrot who numbly repeats his pre-programmed sentence without paying any attention to what he is being explained.
Hobu123 5 months ago
2
Once more, maybe it finally reaches you:
Evolution (the process) is fact.
Theory of evolution (the explanation) is a framework that explains HOW evolution happens, via what mechanisms.
"Theory" in science means not a "guess" but a "well-substantiated explanation of data, a set of principles that explains some natural phenomenon, is based on empirical evidence and has been experimentally verified".
"Theory" is science has COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MEANING than in everyday language. Look it up.
Hobu123 5 months ago
3
Read my post several times if necessary and at least TRY to actually think and understand what I said. YOU are the one who is mistaken here but you make no attempt to learn anything.
So if your next answer to me would be "this is only a theory" then don't even bother to reply because I am not fond of talking with mindless robots.
Hobu123 5 months ago
@Hobu123 I have completely understood what has been poorly presented before me by you, and I only repeat because getting through to a mind such as yours requires being able to seep to the standards of that mind, therefore I act as a "Robot or parrot who numbly repeats his pre-programmed sentence"
Human Evolution is not a proven fact, but only a theory.
HyperChief117 5 months ago
@Hobu123
Hobu123 5 months ago
he sounds like Arno
Mjosiah 6 months ago
People can believe watever they want,, everyone entiteld to ther own opinion, watever benifets you people more, watever justifice your behaviours.
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
HEY!!!! STOP MAKING FUN OF MY GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDFATHER!!!
oJKBo 6 months ago
Pwned?
supersmash43 6 months ago
all the neanderthals shouldve moved to fiji or centeral brazil or some remote area. but i guess theyre brains were still developing.
bossisbestbossisbest 6 months ago
there numbers have plumetted and they must have sex with there big nosed wifes LMAO no offence
hyoneff1998 6 months ago
this life is a bridge so quickly get across it and dont sped time building on it
pinball281 6 months ago
ancient jews,always hogging all the woods and too lazy to move to a new place
Jake4595 6 months ago
thumbs up if the Neanderthal should hv been prepared for this
1372587 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ther brains were 13% larger then the modern man but no reputable scientist thinks its a missing link.Fake fake faKE
this video must of cost big bucksLOL
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1
Why should neanderthal be a missing link? Neanderthal was a parallel species. And there is no "missing link" at all in science.
Do you even understand what you are talking about, or do you just blindly babble some nonsense you have read from your pedoblogs of biblical cretinists?
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 ther all missing links, the evolution mutation theory has more holes then your panies.
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1
Care to name any of these "holes"?
Funny how millions of professional scientists from all around the world do not know these.
Also, "missing link" is more a journalist term, not scientific.
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 lol name? u actually think its 100% accurate?? LOL
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1
And now when it is time to name any "holes", the dodging starts?
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 well its a theory right? thers a reason why its a theory, if u dont believe thers holes,,u must believe its 100% accurate, but beliving in something hard enough doesnt make it fact.
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1
First, mutagenesis is a fact from observable reality, and second, your constant failure to understand what "theory" means in science is really amazing.
Why I haven't seen any "holes" mentioned?
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 how if no human mutation has never been recorded in time so pure sheer irrelevence, thers several holes to fake bones all the way to dating techniques way way off, but u know watever lets u sleep at night , i know its a scary world.
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1
What are you talking about? EVERY HUMAN, including you, contains around 100 new mutations that your parents did not have. Where do you even take your absurd data from?
Dating methods work well, the stories you read from blogs of creationist liars have little to do with reality.
Several fake bones, like out of numerous millions and millions? lolwut?
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 wat nobody transformes into one species into another! plain retardedness,,, and thats why its a theory, Never stated as a fact! Because thers tons of evidence against it..if ther wasent,, we wouldnt be having this conversation. Its that simple,,, u just accept it , For your own reasoning and convinient, maybe u got something to loose ?
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1
1
We are having this conversation because you lack even the most basic knowledge about science and imagine that your lack of knowledge and understanding means that science is wrong.
"Nobody" transforms into another species - because POPULATIONS evolve, not individuals. For speciation event you need reproductive isolation of a population which hardly occurs in modern globalized world.
Hobu123 6 months ago
2
For speciation it is needed that a population becomes reproductively isolated from other populations so that changes that occur there remain only into that population. Then the population will over time become genetically different from other populations and eventually new species.
However, we have seen speciation numerous times both in nature and in labs in different organism groups. Speciation is a FACT from observable reality.
Hobu123 6 months ago
3
Third, it continues to be amazing how you STILL haven't understood what THEORY and FACT mean in science. Are you stupid deliberately or just playing?
Theories DO NOT become facts in science. Theories EXPLAIN facts in science.
"Theory" is a word that scientists use for EXPLANATIONS that have been experimentally verified. How hard it is for you to grasp that?
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 u defenatly have something to loose, seeing as thers tons of evidence against your theory u so much believe in, Theorized work on billions of years ago...yea right.
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@Hobu123 that doesnt mean anything,,, humans have been the same foever, its written in history, yet your theory is blind, blind faith..LOL
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1
False claim. Humans have changed a lot over time.
Written history dates back only few thousand years while our species has existed around 200,000 years.
Hobu123 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>>>>>thers tons of evidence against your theory
Why do you fail to present any of that "evidence against"? Funny how none of the millions of scientists from all around the world knows such evidence. You obviously think you know something that 21st century scientists do not know?
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 yea watever lets u sleep at night, theory boy lmao ,,,full of predictions ,assumptions on billions of years ago, and your positive like if u were actually ther, LOL priceless!LOL
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1 we never been the same, we're always changing, generation after generation. look at the fossils retard.... your ancestors were apes, fossils don't lie. and genetic tests proved it. get a life
BBoyEmanuel 6 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@BBoyEmanuel your a retart, no one in human history has evolved mutated into a diffrent species thers no evidence of it written or even carved. But it lets u sleep atnight, it justifice your lifestyle I bet, I can see why this theory assumption based on almost 5 billion years ago would benifet you, But watever u already planted thats from wat you will eat, you wont leave this world without getting wats yours trust me!
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1 how the fuck can you say "it's not written"? writing exists for about 5000years, do you expect the apes we evolved from to write: "we will be humans one day"?writing means nothing, anyone can write whatever the fuck they want. proof is physical. bones are there, dna is in the bones. proves that we evolved. for example, why do you think ppl that live at tropics have darker skin? that's how evolution made to protect them from perpendicular, powerful solar radiation. go to school
BBoyEmanuel 6 months ago 12
@BBoyEmanuel wat??lol yea..so we just magically got brains one day. Alot of Bones are fake! thats already proven. Dna & nano technology show intellegent design, intellegent creation, meaning your accident prob theory remains and stays at theory, rather then factual.PEople change color because of the sun and are build for ther conditions. But nobodys ever transformed like a ninja turtle like u believe, and then one day had brains for no reason LOL this is priceless lmao!
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1 your retarded. it's nothing MAGICAL in evolution. look at snails. they have around 1000 neurons. everytime your kids will have a kid, that kid will suffer a little mutation in the genes. that's mutation. probably that mutation will make him have 10 neurons more then you. cuz less... it's impossible. seriously, stop replying you make yourself look uneducated
BBoyEmanuel 6 months ago
@BBoyEmanuel its magical and u believe in fantasy, because no ones ever witnessed it! And it has more holes then that of your panies. Dating techniques are not 100% accurate, shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old and they were still alive Lmao, Man thouse are some old snails *see science (1984), Vol. 224, pp. 58-61..can u grasp on that?? Lava from MT. St Helens was dated the potassium argon method. it ranged 340,000 to 3million, volcano erupted in 1980,irrelevent
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1 the coal we all used in some grills is dated 320 million years ago, so you failed. and that volcano erupts for millions of years, INCLUDING 340.000 years ago. go kill yourself, and stop fuckin writing me back, there's no point of talking with a primitive ape like you. go back to school
BBoyEmanuel 6 months ago
@BBoyEmanuel HAHAAH I could see why this theory, assumption on billions of years ago would benifet and justifie your animal like behavior, only if it was 100% accurate. Are u gonna be able to sleep atnight? Knowing that u cant really sleep with your sister?? or have intercourse with your doggy??lmao Are u scared that some one might be watching?? not visual to the naked eye..just go to sleep because your six pack will disapeer one day, from dust u came, from dust shall u return
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1 do you think I care that I die one day? it's life, deal with it.
BBoyEmanuel 6 months ago
@BBoyEmanuel offcourse you care, your so vane...look at your picture lol your telling me your not gonna care? wen u spend more then half your life on working out your stomach..just to loose it all in a blink of a eye? c'mon your upsest with yourself.
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1
1
Retarded nonsense. Go ask in any genetics institute if their research shows any "intelligent design", they will be rolling on the floor laughing. Genetics is the field that studies directly the root causes of evolution.
And PLEASE, DO US A FAVOR. If you plan to moan your bivblical cretinist idiocy, at least try to avoid the "arguments" that have been fully refuted in:
talkorigins.
org/
indexcc/
list.
html
Hobu123 6 months ago
2
That site has a list of most common cretinist nonsense with rebuttals, your retarded "living snails" and "St Helens" are all there. Do you cretinist EVER have anything new or do you just continue blindly repeating the same old and 10000 times refuted fundie nonsense?
Hobu123 6 months ago
3
Living snails? All there: under CD011.3. Boooriiing.
The old age of those living snails was caused by well known reservoir effect - those snails took the carbon to build their shells from water, and the dissolved carnon in water came from limestone which due to its old age contained no 4C any more. That way the snails "inherited" the old age of limestone.
That effect is well known among science and every scientist knows that this must be taken into account when dating snails.
Anything new?
Hobu123 6 months ago
4
St Helens? All there: CD013.1. Boooriiing.
What was dated in St Helen's lava flow were xenoliths and xenocrysts whiche WERE old (lava flow can contain unmelted rocks). Not to mention the fact that CRETINIST LIARS sent the samples to lab that clearly stated that their equipment can not date things that are younger than 2 million years, therefore contamination could not be avoided. Why didn't your CRETINIST LIARS use a lab that deals with dating younger samples? Because they are CRETINIST LIARS
Hobu123 6 months ago
5
Finally, some additional argon gas entered the dacite when it formed in parent melt and didn't degas later, increasing the apparent age.
1billion1deaths1, if you REALLY imagine that we haven't heard all that old and retarded cretinist nonsense before then really, ROFLMAO.
Living snails, St Helens, oldest tree, Mississippi delta, supernovas, geologic column - WE HAVE HEARD ALL THAT CREATIONIST CRAP ALREADY MILLION TIMES, so save us from seeing it once again.
ANYTHING NEW?
Hobu123 6 months ago
6
Therefore, before taking another "argument" from some retard's like Kent Hovind's or another idiot's blog, do us a favor and make sure that this argument has not been refuted in the list I gave you.
Read my lips: WE HAVE SEEN ALL YOUR CRETINIST "ARGUMENTS" 10000 times already and every scientist can REFUTE all cretinist arguments. Is there a need to go over the same old crap again and again since every fundie believes that we have never heard their retarded "arguments"?
Hobu123 6 months ago
7
>>>>re u gonna be able to sleep atnight? Knowing that u cant
>>>> really sleep with your sister?? or have intercourse with your
>>> doggy??
And when their arguments end, they start ad hominem attacks. Seen that billion times already. LMAO, fundie retard.
It always goes the same way with fundie retards - at first they come up with their crap "arguments", thinking that we have never heard those, and when we refute them all, they start ad hominem attacks and threats with hellfire etc. LOL
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 it doesnt matter its not a FACT, remains theory..ask your teachers. Nobody will tell u that its a stated fact.
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1 you don't know what you are talking about. Theory for a scientist means explanation, and facts and laws are nothing but an embarrassment to a scientist who cannot explain it. Newton discovered the laws of gravity but he doesn't know how it works and now here is Einstein, explaining it by his elegant theories. You know what FACT is? what you believe was made before humans understand the importance of rational arguments and evidence of senses.
KEEETARO 6 months ago
@KEEETARO no a scientific "Fact" is not a theory in no way. Theorys are made up of assumptions & predictions ther not 100% accurate , no matter how hard u believe in them. FACTS are FACTS!! grasp on that.
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1 I don't just believe and I know you don't listen so I end here saying.... If you think Theories are like that... you can fuck off!
KEEETARO 6 months ago
@KEEETARO Go FUck off.. and Thoerized on some other shit on A zillion years ago! fcken Wack Off.
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1
You have been repeatedly explained what FACT and THEORY means in science, so every time you continue moaning that retarded nonsense, you make yourself only look more and more foolish.
Evolution is FACT FROM OBSERVABLE REALITY.
Theory of evolution is experimentally verified EXPLANATION of HOW it happens (studies its mechanisms).
EVEREY scientist tells you that.
How long will it take before you understand it?
Hobu123 6 months ago
2
>>>>People can believe watever they want,, everyone entiteld to ther own opinion
Science is not about beliefs nor opinions, science is about facts and empirical evidence.
Earth is round, it is not matter of opinion - if you believe that Earth is flat, Earth will not become flat for you, it is still round.
So either your "opinion" corresponds to reality or you live in reality denialism.
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 I already know, but a "theory" is not a stated "fact" if it was 100% accurate it would be , but its not
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1
Theory is explanation of facts. It doesn't mean that it is a "guess" - the components of the explanations themselves are also facts. Theory of evolution, for example, involves mutagenesis as part of the explanation of evolution, and mutagenesis itself is a fact.
Theory is the HIGHEST FORM OF EXPLANATIONS in science. Theories DO NOT become anything else any more. Theory can be 100% accurate but still it won't be called a fact because theory is EXPLANATION OF FACTS.
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 scientific facts, are factual. Theorized work on billions of years ago is not "fact" because its not 100% accurate, no matter how much u believe in it its still theorized. U wish theorys were "facts", It would justifie your lifestyle in a heartbeat.
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1
It is obvious that it is not possible to explain the meaning of scientific words to someone who has the deepest imaginable level of religious fundamentalist brainwash.
Perhaps it still helps you to understand if you replace the word "theory" with word "explanation" and now look it. Explanation, no matter how accurate it is, will always be "explanation". It isn't like something is "explanation" and later becomes a "fact". Explanation is always explanation
Theory = explanation
Hobu123 6 months ago
2
Reconstruction of events that happened in the past is not random ideas - all is based on studying EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. In science, conclusions are made based one evidence, not like in your religious fundamentalism where at first someone baselessly concludes that some silly Bronze Age fairytale about talking snakes is literally true and then starts to deny everything that contradicts that absurdity.
It is "only a theory" that Earth orbits Sun - nobody has ever seen it happening.
Hobu123 6 months ago
3
Nobody has ever spent a year in outer space and watched Earth making circle around Sun. Nobody. Therefore, according to your creationist "logic", it is "only a theory" that Earth orbits Sun.
Have you been travelling by plane? It is "only a theory" that makes planes fly - theory of aerodynamics.
It is also "only a theory" that you consist of cells - it is cell theory.
It is "only a theory" that microbes cause diseases - germ theory.
Gravity is also "only a theory" - theory of gravity.
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 millions of theories dont help your theory out one bit.
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1
"My" theory has no problems at all, your argumentation against it comes only from the fact that you have zero knowledge and understanding about it and you are filled with nonsense and absurdities fed to you by religious fundamentalist propagandist liars.
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 your theory remains theorized. Dont tell me u believe its 100% accurate?
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1
It is not even clear WHAT theory you mean right now.
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 I take thats a no?
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1
WHICH theory you are speaking about? You are jumping from one to another.
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 your evolution mutation theory stating that humans evolved from animals! lmao Do u believe its 100% accurate?
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1
It is a FACT that humans evolved from animals. Actually, humans ARE animals.
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123 so now its the evolution mutation Fact??? u wish , it Stays at theory carved at theory foever! nothing more then assumptions and predictions that justified u banging your mom. Animal lmao
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
@1billion1deaths1
Yes, evolution via mutagenesis, natural selection, genetic drift etc are facts from observable reality. All observable, all testable, all being experimented with.
The explanation that explains how these facts are all tied together is called "theory of evolution". "Theory" in science, as you have been repeatedly explained, DOES NOT mean "a guess" but an experimentally verified explanation of facts.
Human origins do not concern ToE. These are different theories.
Hobu123 6 months ago
@Hobu123
i've just about had it, what do u have against us??? U r allowed to believe so why not us??? Just cause we believe in the creation story does not mean we do not believe in evolution, i think the several days of creation could of been millions of years apart allowing evolution to come into effect, and also u explain this, we all know about the big bang, the exsplosion which created the universe... HOW DOES AN EXPLOSION COME OUT OF NOWHERE??? There mustof been something to trigger it..
legojvcproductions 5 months ago 2