One of the biggest problems is that Evolutionists are believers to. Nowadays we have the Natural Selection exclusivity, and that is why the evidence of a form of design can't bee explained just by chance. The answer request not GOD but SEX. Sexual Selection is the actor that gives the sensation of design that no one wants to see. For more details please visit my blog here: nature-sucks.blogspot.com/
@michiyoyoshiku yeah well scientists all over the world would probably disagree with you,if im gonna place my bet on anything it will be them,you are a grown ass person and still believng in fucking fairy tales,my 9 year old son can see the facts,biologists all over the world see the facts
go back into your dark little world and pray god ends the world so you can get an easy ticket to avoid death
thats all you christians hopw for is that easy ticket that cost the world their lives
The truth is Evolution can't be proven. It's impossible to prove. You can't prove or even show __________ turned into ___________ over X amount of years. Evolution is still A THEORY
A THEORY as in it's not proven fact just a theroy and has been such for a century now..
@michiyoyoshiku then show me where your fucking god come from,you say that god always is and always will be therefore GOD come from nothing you fucking illtard
agaginYOU believe in a fairy tale cause YOU are to fucking stupid to understand what the fuck is really going on
again YOUR bible tells you not to realy on your own understanding
if you can make yourself stupid then you will see
and clearly its working for you
what you see is beyond me or any rational thinking person tho
@michiyoyoshiku The animals in Australia help to prove evoltution, they are very different from the rest of the world because that land mass has been separated for so long.
Can you show me the missing links between you and Adam and Eve? I thought so.
Humans are not evolving. All we ever see is variation in the genome, like differences in eye color, or skin color, height, weight, variances in abilities, such as music and athleticism. These differences have always been expressed within the genome. None of this is evolution. The folks who built the pyramids are no different from us genetically, other than they probably had a few less deleterious mutations. We haven't improved genetically since humans first appeared on the earth.
@achilles197474 Evolution isn't simply about variation, it's about natural selection. You're right, there isn't a great deal of genetic difference between historical Egyptians and modern day humans. But you see, 2000-4500 years really isn't a long time in a mammalian evolutionary sense. Look back 200,000 years and you'll start to notice a few differences. Look back 20,000,000 years to see larger differences (although our ancestry already primates). 200,000,000 and they were already mammalian.
Revelation 10:11 And they say to me(John), "You must prophesy again with regard to peoples and nations and tongues and many kings."
Is John one of the witnesses?
Check out my favs, especially the one about the stars found in the bible. Pics in those videos of the Sun Moon and Stars are authentic and the end time is drawing. The stars seem to be 11 then 12 and then definitely7. Check out these symbols and signs from heaven.
Pandamonk69, evolution makes sense, but it isn't disproving God. I don't think you ever said that. I commend you. The Catholic church believes in God, and they accept evolution. I mean, you can't deny evidence staring flat in your face. So I think it's possible that religion can readjust itself just like science. Back in Biblical times, science wasn't there to explain things. Now it is, hence, we should be allowed to adjust religion too. It's only fair. Don't you agree? I'm only a learning human
@compsciguy You're right I've never said that evolution disproves God. I do not agree that religion should just be able to move the goal posts so that they cannot be disproved - that is dishonest - but I do think it should get with the times and embrace science once more.
@compsciguy Science and Religion each have apologetic advantages. Science can be wrong, God cannot. But it is notoriously hard to prove a thing doesn't exist. Add to that the fact that God can do anything and even proving something is impossible is insufficient to disprove God.
Now religion wants to move the goalpost too and say that evolution and creation can both be true? If evolution is an explanation, then why would we need a second one?
The neo-Darwinist picture of evolution is the dominant 'central myth' of modern society. In this picture the essential characteristics of human nature are to be understood as accidental - without purpose or meaning. This 'central myth' infuses our education, health care policy, legal justice system, business practices, and other social institutions. If it were to be found fundamentally in error, the implications would be far reaching." (Willis W. Harman, President, Institute of Noetic Sciences)
@AbuIbraheemC The theory of Evolution does not give this picture in the slightest.
This is the exact type of thing you would accept from the Institute of Noetic "Sciences". The exact institute that "drives the flight from standard, peer-reviewed empiricism into the arms of a dualism that privileges the mental over the physical, the teleological over the non-purposive." Peer-reviewed empiricism is the basis of all science and as such Noetic Sciences are completely unscientific.
@AbuIbraheemC Evolution is demonstrable unlike fairy tale religions. It is not a myth like Jesus or God but it is actually observable. You are spreadinglies and you need to go back to school or just shut your lying mouth. If you want to base yourlife on a fairy tale then go ahead but dont get mad at others who actually want to know the truth.
yeah thats cause we never came from the trees like apes and monkeys!!!!!!!!..man has always been man created by God..and all life did not happen by accident and random chance..Evolution is Bullshit!!!!!
@Pandamonk69 yeah that makes..u just make this shit up as u go along...those ignorant triabal people u think are dumb..there smarter than us..and they did not come from apes like lucy..they were created by god..its called Intelligent design
...but u are de evolving..u might be turning back into an ape!!..LOL
@5tonyvvvv Not at all. You claimed we didn't come from the trees and I gave an example of extant humans who are perfectly adapted for the trees. I never claimed they were ignorant or dumb, you have projected that on to me.
We all came from a common human ancestor, and share a common ancestor with other apes. What is your problem with that, even if you do believe we were created by God? Is it because you think we are special? That we should dominate the "lower" animals? We are animals!
You're right, monkey skulls do look a lot like ours. Can one define "missing link" as being solely the shape of one of the skulls? If it is than we're all still monkeys.
@janderson65 We are all "monkeys" (primates to be more accurate) and there is no missing link but a gradual transition from what we were (classed as other species) to what we are now (homo sapiens sapiens).
@AzBirdDog There ain't a missing link. No scientist claims that there is. Humans are classified as primates along with monkeys and apes. We share as much with the other apes as the big cats do with each other.
Would you say Neanderthal bones look more like the other apes than humans? If so, then you clearly don't want to accept reality.
@Pandamonk69 You're speaking of the "monkey" bones that they are finding? Those bones are contructed differently, they are thicker that ANY human bones, thicker just like that of an ape. Your scientific data "claims" that neanderthal are related to us. But if you match bone for bone, They belong to the chimp-gorilla type. And again, Yes, Scientists did say that they were in search of a missing link. Don't want to believe it? Then you have failed in listening to them for the last century.
@Pandamonk69 You and the entire scientific community are about to find out, that your neaderthals aren't what you think they are. They weren't us, and no, they didn't die out. And for you, I would have to tell you not to accept everything that scientists say. Because they don't have it all figured out, they never did, and they're about to be schooled the hard way.
You can laugh, chuckle, scoff. Be my guest. But you won't be the last one laughing.They say neanderthals went extinct. Not true.
@AzBirdDog Well I think the scientific community are in the best position to know what Neanderthal are. We even have DNA evidence which proves they are not human, but that we are the closest extant animals to them. Their similar taxonomic traits are further evidence. And yes, they did die out, around 20,000-30,000 years ago to be precise.
I don't accept a lot of what single scientists say. I accept what science as a whole discovers. You learn far more as a collective than as individuals!
@Hjernespreng I don't know when I said that, but I do agree. That is what the position I have been arguing from. We certainly are part of the Hominidae family.
@AzBirdDog No scientist claims that they "have it all figured out". If they did, they'd be out of a job. However, they have learned a hell of a lot more in such a short space of time than any time before them. Give me evidence that the Neanderthals never went extinct.
You're bloody hilarious, you know that? Such as comedian.
@AzBirdDog It's quite understandable why we are the only living hominid. Because there have been far more species ever exist than do now. We have only be in existence for a short few hundred thousand years. Many other animals, even extinct ones, have existed far far longer than us, including many hominids. But every species dies out eventually, especially as others evolve to compete with them.
I don't follow scientists, I barely even know the names of many scientists, but I do follow science!
If that's true, then we will die out and something more advanced thanus
will take our place. What could we possibler evolve into that's more advanced than us? Science sure does leapinto pseudoscienctific grounds. What with parallel dimensions, quantum physics, black holes, alternatie timelines, etc.
Even Richard DAwkins discusses some strange concepts.
@compsciguy That's a bit egotistical? Do you really think we are THAT perfect?
Well I'd put it to you that there are many extant animals far more advanced than us. It just depends on your definition of advanced.
If you mean intellectually, then yes we/another creature certainly could advance much farther.
Quantum physics, blackholes, etc are backed up with mountains of evidence. The fact that something seems strange or that you don't understand it, does not make it pseudoscience.
What you are saying these is incredibly retarded! Humans ARE apes! So yes, those bones resembled ape bones because they are. And they are relevant because we ARE apes!
We have all the taxonomic traits of apes, simply because we ARE!
@Hjernespreng Keep laughing, beause my skull doesn't look anything like that of a chimp or gorilla. Now, yours may be different, depending on "what" your mother was messing around with. And it's quite apparent that you're only running on what you learned from maybe a few youtube videos, and never studied the real evidence out there.
@Pandamonk69 Gradual transition? LOL, from what they have found, you're going to need many, many gradual transitioning skulls. about 4 to 5 times of what they have found to this day.
@AzBirdDog Who calculated that we'd need 4-5 times what we have found to date? It ain't all about fossils either. There is far more evidence in DNA. Research ERVs.
Wow, the history deniers really have come out of the woodwork on this video. I think it is because of the "mis-leading" title which may make them think this video supports creationism. Seriously people, educate yourself. Read a book. Go to a museum. You're impeding social progress by clinging to your iron age superstitions.
@freethinker923 Yeah, I think that's key to what's going on, and why human trait-evolution is so hard to track. Humans seem to be on a developemental exponential scale since the brain-volume-increase. Perhaps more than any other species, we have become masters of our own destiny(?)
@Pandamonk69 I am aware of scientists being able to create "Man Made Life". Except all they did was take DNA, and put it in an already living cell. The said "look we created life". I can create life too, its called "having sex". Anyway, when they can actually create life from nothing, then I'll believe them.
@repticman123 What do you mean by "from nothing"? Life did not initially form "from nothing". No-one claims it does.
They created the DNA from "4 bottles of chemicals", THAT is the important part. Also it wasn't a living cell, it was an empty cell (they removed the existing DNA).
The experiment wasn't meant to replicate how life may have formed, it was simply to create life in the lab, which they achieved.
According to scientists, everything came from nothing.
And yes, they do believe life started in a warm pool of mud. lol.
It's the biggest leap of "FAITH" than any religion on the planet.
It's an even bigger leap of faith than you sitting in your garage, waiting for a 1963 Corvette (your favorite color) to just appear! With a full tank of gas! lol
They say they have it all figured out, but really, They haven't got a clue!
@AzBirdDog No scientist claims "everything came from nothing". That is another creationist strawman. You don't think mud is a good environment for life to thrive? Then why wash your hands when they are covered in it?
Faith is the belief without evidence. For anything to be considered scientific, it has to have mountains of evidence. It has to go through to most rigorous testing possible. This is as far from faith as you can get.
Science would stop if "they have it all figured out".
@Pandamonk69 LOL, You need to stop thinking from present day forward, and remember the roots of scientific thought. Because yes, scientist and others in this field have claimed, "Missing Link". If you don't think so, then you have failed to listen to their teachings for the last century since darwin.
They also claim that life started from NO LIFE.
Sorry, if you can't accept the truth of their teachings, and this is what they "preach". I wash my hands because NOW there is life in that mud.
@AzBirdDog The popular definition of "missing link" is akin to transitional species. We have a glut of transitional fossils which makes the argument that the link is missing completely defunct. The term missing link described what was traditionally thought as the link between humans and so-called "lower" animals. Since Darwin, this term has been dropped by everyone but the media.
Life has been created from non life in the lab. It is certainly possible!
@Pandamonk69 "Life has been created from non life in the lab. It is certainly possible!"
LOL, funny thing here is this. You said it yourself, "Life has been created..."
That's a far, far shot from, "Life just happened from nothing, with no help or intervention."
And when we say, "Like was created by a higher being than us." You people scoff at the idea. LOL. That's very funy that you speak as though it's some great first achievement. LOL.
It's not. And now you know what we're talking about.
@AzBirdDog Yes life has been created... BUT... the conditions in which life was created mimicked as closely as possible what the conditions on the early Earth would be like. The scientists simply set up the right conditions and life assembled itself!
I scoff at the idea, because it's exactly that, an IDEA! You have no basis and no evidence. There is no proof that a creator even exists. You're simply claiming "I don't know how it happened, so an unknowable thing did it". That is not an answer!
@Pandamonk69 Now this is the biggest line of crap.
The guy created life using instruments pre "created".
In a simulation "pre-created". When are you going to open your eye's and see that you're painting yourself into a corner with this?
And how in the royal hell do you, or anybody else for that matter, know what the conditions were when LIFE BEGAN???? How?? You're simply pulling all of this out the thin air. It's baseless! It's all THEORY, Panda! Theory! The scientific community has no clue.
@AzBirdDog Haha, no-one claims than life sprung out of nothing. They claim that it form from existing conditions. I don't see how I am painting myself into a corner. I do, however, see that you are setting up a strawman.
We know what the LIKELY conditions are through geology. We also know at roughly what time life formed, through analysis of DNA. We can then examine the environment from around this time. And finally test this environment in the lab. And what do we find? Simple life forms!
@Pandamonk69 You must be about 12 years old. Because in my 44 years of life, I can remember back when I was a kid, scientists making claims of a missing link that hasn't been found yet. lol.
If you seriously don't know of this, then please stop. You're wasting my time and yours. Mostly mine! lol
Wait a minute, Change of story, because it's been 40 years that we've looked for the missing link, AND HAVEN'T FOUND ONE!
@AzBirdDog Well I wasn't a scientist who claimed that. It must've been someone on the discovery channel or some equivalent. Scientists don't tend to use the term "missing link" anymore, and haven't for decades. The only time it is used, is through the media.
We have found many many many transitional forms. Do a simple google search to find just a few of the glut that we have. You ignorance isn't an argument.
I somewhat agree with you. It's so much easier being an atheist scientist, because you are allowed to change your mind once some new evidence comes in. It's so easy. Anyone can be an atheist, they just don't have to tell you what they DO believe in. Not every atheists is a scientist. Not every scientists is an atheist.
Those are the true brave ones. Risking their reps by saying they are Christians. They are held to the upmost scrutiny for believing like that. I commend them!
@compsciguy Changing your mind based on evidence is the best way to ensure you are right. It is not courageous to knowingly promote an idea that you know is wrong. That is called a lie. The most courageous thing imo is to admit when you are wrong and promote that fact.
Abiogenesis has been proven by human hands in a lab. However,
there were no humans when life really began so long ago. So...noone and I mean NOONE knows what happened. And yes, there are ppl claiming that subatomic
particlles can appear out of thin air. Maybe not life, but particles. Look it up. It amazes me. :D
@compsciguy You're right, no one does know exactly what happened. What we do know is what is likely to have happened and that it is certainly possible.
I think you are trying to pick faults with quantum physics without having one clue about the theory. The theory is strange but perfectly evidenced.
@AzBirdDog Now that's the funniest part. "Theory" has several meanings including: a conjecture or idea - a philosophical theory; or an empirically testable explanation of fact - a scientific theory. Scientific theories are in complete contrast with philosophical theories. A theory is an end goal for science. They do not progress to laws, which are different things.
And I'm not pulling any of this out of thin air. Do the tiniest bit of research and you'll release that. google "scientific theory"
@AzBirdDog I don't even have "the science channel". I live in the UK with standard freeview. We get about 30 channels, half of which are shopping or news.
I read scientific books, I keep reasonably up-to-date with the progressions of science, reading articles in pubmeds, etc. My girlfriend is a scientist studying for her PhD in molecular medicine for fuck sake! I can't help but be deeply involved with new developments.
Since you keep bringing up tv, I suggest you drop YOUR remote.
@AzBirdDog Any research that has been done of wicca has produced no results, ie. it's a load of nonsense. Same with prayer, ghosts, telepathy, NDEs, etc, etc. All nonsense. Not a shred of evidence in favour.
There have been some surprises along the way, such as acupuncture - I've seen it given on the NHS before - but it is not generally accepted for it's spiritual elements, more for it's physical elements.
@compsciguy I'm not saying they shouldn't be investigated, but you can't investigate absolutely every one and the ones that have been investigated have produced no evidence for the existence of ghosts.
@Pandamonk69 And here we go again, at your crazy talk about "the right conditions". That's insane talk! Absolutely INSANE! Your reading this stuff, and watching the science channel, that's where you got your info, and it's all based on FAITH in believing that the conditions were something they know about.
You're taking this just like the religeous. There's only idea's that they speak of. But IN FACT, It's all based in THEORY!
@AzBirdDog Watching the science channel? Haha, no. I'm actually following scientific papers. I'm talking to the scientists. I'm reading books. I'm learning.
You laugh at me saying "the right conditions". Go out and do a bit of research. Look at some rocks. If you study enough, you'll be able to tell what kinds of rocks they are, and the conditions required for them to form. This may even help you to be able to date the rocks. You can do all this yourself.
@compsciguy I accept that "I do not know" is the best answer for now, but we are close to knowing. We do know the right conditions for life and are testing these in the lab.
Human beings came 4 billions years AFTER the origins of life on Earth. They are irrelevant to abiogenesis.
@repticman123 By that logic you could say "The big bang isn't true because we can't recreate it in a lab" or "Planet formation can not be recreated in a lab so we can not possibly know it to be true" or "Only things that can be recreated in a lab can possibly be true".
@repticman123 Thats not true, we have many different kinds of evidence,fossil,DNA,Plate tectonics and continental drift and distribution of animals,vestigial organs/parts/features. We could never observe macro evolution happening because it takes millions of years.For example its like (as Dawkins puts it) a detective arriving at the scene of a crime. We dont need to see the crime happening to find out who the killer is. We use DNA testing to solve crimes and we use it to trace our ancestry.
@LauraKathleen05 Macro evolution isn't a term used by contemporary scientists. But yeah we have witnessed SPECIATION in bacteria, flies and even salamanders! Look up salamander ring species
According to Islamic law, non-Muslims may be enslaved (owned as property) by Muslims, but - in keeping with Islam's supremacist message - a fellow Muslim should never be.
By the way, scientists from various disciplines generally set their "Impossibility Standard" at one chance in 1050 (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion). Therefore, whether one chance in 10100,000,000,000 or one chance in 1040,000, the notion that life somehow rose from non-life has clearly met the scientific standard for statistical impossibility.
@Pandamonk69 so you are telling the very same scientist that you are trusting that they have no idea of the odds of life spontaniously forming? Okay take a billion jars cap them off and call me when life forms in them. sounds odd but you will actually have better ingredients for life in that jar than the early earth. But you and i know the odds are definately enormoust. Sorry man these are the odds set by your precious scientist, you dont believe them?
@silentpimpsmak You could say there is a 1 in 1x10^1million chance that life could form spontaneously, but how could you possibly calculate that? How could you possibly take into account every factor (the environment, the amount of time, the amount of chances, natural chemical bonds, natural selection, possible combinations that produce life, other types of possible life, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.). IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CALCULATE!
Jars? Reminds me of the peanut butter man. Hilarious! hahahahahaha
@silentpimpsmak physorg . com / news189321143 . html Jars do not have an external envionment affecting them. And why would you use a billion? The surface area of earth is incredibly more vast than that, and it still took billions of years.
@roadkill14 Do you even understand they impossible odds for the first strand of DNA to assemble its self? ONE wrong move =death. Jars do not have an external environment affecting them, thank you giving life an even better chance of spontaneously forming.
@silentpimpsmak. Yes, one wrong move=death. Whats your point? Why would external factors necessarily be a hinderence? A simulated meteor impact has been shown to "create" amino acids, thats one pretty dramatic step closer that 10 years ago, creationists would probably have called impossible anyway.
"one chance in 1040,000" am i right in saying that you just said that this tests as statistically impossible? So if I perform the test 1,040,000 times......
@roadkill14 lets talk amino acids, i guess evolution really has no foundation with out it. i will debate with you later when life out of amino acids are created in a lab, and scientist have been using all left handed amino acids since 1993 and no luck. All life is made up of only left handed amino acids and they still cant do it. a meteor strike will never produce all left handed amino acids. 50\50 of left and right =death.
@silentpimpsmak Life didn't start with DNA. It started with self replicating organic polymers. Nobody (except straw-manning creationists) claims that a fully modern, eukaryote cell sprung from a mud puddle struck by lightening.
.
Peanut putter jars and their contents are sterilised to prevent the non-spontaneous occurrence of modern microbes. A jar of peanut butter is an inert environment. The early earth was not. Comparing the two is a logical fail.
@silentpimpsmak As for the probability "argument" - A) the conditions for proto-life forms were not purely chaotic, they were conducive to forming polymer chains and encapsulating them in lipid vesicles. B) whatever the odds are against a particular ticket winning the lottery may be, the odds of the lottery being won is 100%.
Weak video, especially Pandamonk being an evolutionist you should know that scientist dont even know if the skulls are just ancestors of monkeys even just an ancestor. Do you research and i wouldnt even be quick to put dates next to the skulls as the same method used to date these skulls has dated living things at over 2,000 years old. This is Junk looks like a bunch of old gorilla skulls. You for got to mention that we have found the modern human skull below dinosaur bones 28 times now
@silentpimpsmak The dating methods are accurate when used correctly. We know the limitations of the methods, and it is these limitations which creationists pick up as "evidence the dating methods don't work". We are very well aware that they don't work when used incorrectly.
Please give evidence of modern human fossils being found anywhere near dinosaur fossils.
@Bomb5hed No fossil can be dated, only the dating of the rocks around the fossil and the same rock current human skulls can be found in. I think you know enough that evolution is actually going away from its own theories and more research is only building bigger gaps in the already impossible theory
@silentpimpsmak I very much disagree. Science isn't a set in stone, unchanging, close-minded philosophy like religion. Just because elements of theories change with evidence doesn't mean that the theory as a whole has anything wrong with it. It actually advances the support for the theory.
Cremo commented on a recent fossil skull discovery which suggests that Homo erectus may not have evolved from Homo habilis, as previously thought. What is not being reported, is that humans just like us, also co-existed with these early peoples,
@farinango I can safely conclude that the so called expert is no more than a crank. One would expect an expert in the subject to understand one of the most basic drivers of the process of evolution right? Well this guy seems to think that a parent daughter species relationship can not include coexistence, yet this is exactly what allopatric speciation predicts. Plus he offered no evidence for the early existence of modern man.
Yes, these are the polite explanations, but AIDS is transmitted sexually, by tranfusions, by needles, and we can rule out needles and tranfusions with monkeys.
Zoophilia may be rare among humans, but it would only take one occurrence to get into the system.
The days on Noah and the days of Lot will be repeated, to which you are testimony.
@Mdebacle Why must we rule out needles and transfusions with monkeys?
It is very easy to see how needle sharing could have been the cause: People could have been treating chimps and one could have become seriously ill themself, requiring the use of a needle. The only one they have is one already used on a chimp. They either use it and take the risk or let the seriously ill person die.
It is true that there are possibilities other than bestiality for the existence of AIDS and for the once existent hominids. But sometimes the simplest solution is the correct one.
On 60 Minutes broadcast on 04/11. the reporter (Bob Simon) on australopithicus sediba called it a "hybrid". Perhaps his lying eyes were telling him the truth.
@Pandamonk69 [why is bestiality the simplest solution]
Because bestiality could, in one generation, produce some thing that is genetically and anatomically half-way between ape and human. Such a thing would necessarily have 47 chromosomes.
[please provide evidence ]
Just look at this video without the doctrinal verbage, and think of it titled "Ape/Human Hybrids Exterminated and Fossilized by Catastrophic Flood".
@Mdebacle I was mainly referring to aids, but it is only the simplest solution if it is proven to be possible. However, I will have a look at the video.
The evidence is that chimps and gorillas have no ancestors except chimps and gorillas. The only possible gorilla ancestor was the 10-foot gigantopithicus. The reason the true "missing link" ( i.e. thecommon ancestor of humans and apes} has never been found is because it never existed.
@Mdebacle Chimps definitely do have ancestors. The common chimp and bonobo share a common ancestor from ~1 million years ago (around the same as us and Neanderthal). They share a common ancestor with us from ~6 million years ago and with gorillas ~7 million years ago. This means that chimps are more closely related to us than to gorillas.
@Mdebacle Why do you immediately expect fossil evidence. Fossil evidence is not good evidence compared with what we have available to us now, genetic, etc.
As far as I know there has only been one, reported, chimp fossils EVER found. This is because the kind of environment they live doesn't allow for fossilisation.
However, ERVs are proof we share a common ancestor with chimps. Also, there are two species of chimp, which means they must share a common ANCESTOR.
@Pandamonk69 [Why do you immediately expect fossil evidence. ]
If the supposed MRCA of chimps/humans produced descendants that have fossils all over S. Africa Kenya Ethiopia, then there should be a line of fossils that turned into chimps bonobos gorillas.
Don Rumsfeld said the absence of evidenc is not evidence of absence, but old Rummy was wrong.
@Mdebacle Gigantopithecus was not an ancestor of modern gorillas. It is classified in the same subfamily as orangutans.
Exactly, Schizophrenia is a good explanation for theism.
There are no fossils of humans (homo sapiens) older than 200,000 years, and only one fossil ever found of a chimp. Chimps are more closely related to us than any other species, so to say "Apes, humans and half-way in between" is ludicrous.
@Mdebacle I don't know of this exact case, but hybrids are possible, and this could certainly be one.
However, it cannot be a hybrid of Human and Chimp, because neither existed at that time. If you think they did, please provide evidence of homo sapiens existing more just 200,000 years ago.
@Mdebacle: Wonderful theory (about AIDS and all). Prediction noted, if/when we ever fund any viable A. DNA. We were lucky finding any for a Neandertal; Australopithecus is about 100 times farther back. Of course, we did find some mangled DNA from Tyrannosaurus, so anything's possible.
There is a story that an advanced Human race called the Anunnaki from a 10th planet Nibiru came here and gave birth to us like a test tube baby mixing their male seed with oval egg of Homoerectus female in a vesel from the clay of the Earth and inserting it invitro fertilization into an Anunnaki female, giving birth to cromagnon race.Then later an Anunnaki mated with two beautiful females that gave birth to the Homosapien Adam and Eve.Story from Sumerian Tablets thousands years before the bible
We are the missing Link from Homoerectus and the more advance humans (with an extended rear brain, not upward but straight back). humans called the Anunnaki
'"It appears to share features with both bees and wasps, and supports theories of bee evolution." The article says nothing about this bee using nectar, producing honey or wax.' Correct debacle! It doesn't, because it is referring to physiognomy rather than behavior, which cannot be deduced from viewing the insect in amber. Your "argument" here is irrelevent..."Evolutonists must believe such things from psychological necessity"~since bees exhibit no psyche, this idea is just silly!
If you claim that somehow entomologists must have a psychological need to see the evidence for evolution as making evolution valid, that is a bit of a stretch! The evidence is there,you are the one with the psychological need to deny-->BTW, making cells to raise young within came 1st:bees and wasps both do this, regardless of honey production. As wasps are omnnivorous, they feed their young differently than bees.
I cant find link on this, but im sure they announced that anteaters have like 97% the same dna as humans, yet we're meant to be from primates?
How could Neanderthal, a supposed pre-cursor to the homo line have co-existed for thousands of years with Cromagnon?
Current dating of Cro-Magnon bones point to more recent date 17,000 years. The earliest known remains of Cro-Magnon like humans are dated to 30,000 radiocarbon years.
Im not pro creationist or anti evolution neither of them fully explain
I very much doubt that. Especially since anteaters have (I believe) between 54 and 60 chromosomes.
Firstly they were not a per-cursor to the genus homo, but actually a part of it. Secondly, it is entirely possible that a descendant can live along-side its ancestor.
The earliest cro-magnon dates to 32,600 ± 1,100. The youngest neanderthal dates to 31,390 ± 220.
evolution is a fact
you brainwashed religious fucktards are simply dumb
even if there is a god and thats a big IF doesnt mean its "your" god
you believe it will be cause some con man living of "your" donations says so
Proverbs 3:5-6
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.[a]
the bible says you have to be pretty stupid to believe it
coltsrule5150 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One of the biggest problems is that Evolutionists are believers to. Nowadays we have the Natural Selection exclusivity, and that is why the evidence of a form of design can't bee explained just by chance. The answer request not GOD but SEX. Sexual Selection is the actor that gives the sensation of design that no one wants to see. For more details please visit my blog here: nature-sucks.blogspot.com/
seremosricos 8 months ago
yeah these christian idiots wanna see 20 million years of wrok happen before their eyes in mere seconds
thats cause they dont have to ability to wrap their brains around something thats so much bigger than them ot their religion
which would explain wht they still believe in a religion thats over 2 thousand years old
youtube mudskipper
thats proof of evolution
its a creature that isnt exactly fish nor is it amphibian its in between and evolving to either go from water to land or vice versa
coltsrule5150 8 months ago
@coltsrule5150
Evolution can't be proven There's no evidence of evolution and all the animals in Australia completely contradict evolution
michiyoyoshiku 7 months ago
@michiyoyoshiku yeah well scientists all over the world would probably disagree with you,if im gonna place my bet on anything it will be them,you are a grown ass person and still believng in fucking fairy tales,my 9 year old son can see the facts,biologists all over the world see the facts
go back into your dark little world and pray god ends the world so you can get an easy ticket to avoid death
thats all you christians hopw for is that easy ticket that cost the world their lives
coltsrule5150 7 months ago
@coltsrule5150
The truth is Evolution can't be proven. It's impossible to prove. You can't prove or even show __________ turned into ___________ over X amount of years. Evolution is still A THEORY
A THEORY as in it's not proven fact just a theroy and has been such for a century now..
Evolution is the fairy tale.
michiyoyoshiku 7 months ago
@michiyoyoshiku cant be proven? then why do they teach it and not god in the class rooms? its cause evolution is FACT
and god is an IDEA
again GROW UP
coltsrule5150 7 months ago
@coltsrule5150
You grow up and accept that Evolution is just a theory that has yet to be proven.
michiyoyoshiku 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@michiyoyoshiku its a proven fact
you cant accept it
your bible tells you in ord5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.[a] er to believe you have to trust not in your own rational thought
YOUR OWN BIBLE TELLS YOU THAT YOU HAVE TO BE STUPID TO BELIEVE
Proverbs 3:5-6
coltsrule5150 7 months ago
@michiyoyoshiku Proverbs 3:5-6
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.[a]
Your own book tells you that you have to be stupid to believe
coltsrule5150 7 months ago
@coltsrule5150
You're the stupid person to think everything came out of a pile of shit. show me this pile of shit that all life came from.
michiyoyoshiku 7 months ago
@michiyoyoshiku then show me where your fucking god come from,you say that god always is and always will be therefore GOD come from nothing you fucking illtard
agaginYOU believe in a fairy tale cause YOU are to fucking stupid to understand what the fuck is really going on
again YOUR bible tells you not to realy on your own understanding
if you can make yourself stupid then you will see
and clearly its working for you
what you see is beyond me or any rational thinking person tho
coltsrule5150 7 months ago
@coltsrule5150
You are a complete and utter idiot
michiyoyoshiku 4 months ago
@michiyoyoshiku The animals in Australia help to prove evoltution, they are very different from the rest of the world because that land mass has been separated for so long.
Can you show me the missing links between you and Adam and Eve? I thought so.
thismortalsoul 4 months ago
@thismortalsoul
YOU are such an idiot it's not even funny
michiyoyoshiku 4 months ago
Humans are not evolving. All we ever see is variation in the genome, like differences in eye color, or skin color, height, weight, variances in abilities, such as music and athleticism. These differences have always been expressed within the genome. None of this is evolution. The folks who built the pyramids are no different from us genetically, other than they probably had a few less deleterious mutations. We haven't improved genetically since humans first appeared on the earth.
achilles197474 10 months ago
@achilles197474 Evolution isn't simply about variation, it's about natural selection. You're right, there isn't a great deal of genetic difference between historical Egyptians and modern day humans. But you see, 2000-4500 years really isn't a long time in a mammalian evolutionary sense. Look back 200,000 years and you'll start to notice a few differences. Look back 20,000,000 years to see larger differences (although our ancestry already primates). 200,000,000 and they were already mammalian.
Pandamonk69 10 months ago 2
@achilles197474 Check out this documentary: bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00z6zc7/sign/Horizon_20102011_Are_We_Still_Evolving/
Pandamonk69 10 months ago
@achilles197474 When did humans first appear on the Earth?
gamesbok 10 months ago
We have evolved. yep. from homo sapiens sapiens to homo stupido stupidus.
GunaMalaysia 11 months ago
@GunaMalaysia ...funny :|
Pandamonk69 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Revelation 10:11 And they say to me(John), "You must prophesy again with regard to peoples and nations and tongues and many kings."
Is John one of the witnesses?
Check out my favs, especially the one about the stars found in the bible. Pics in those videos of the Sun Moon and Stars are authentic and the end time is drawing. The stars seem to be 11 then 12 and then definitely7. Check out these symbols and signs from heaven.
themiraclesonearth 11 months ago
Notice that all of them start with "homo" XD
MyMegagame 1 year ago
@MyMegagame O homo, stultus es. ;)
SloveintzWend 10 months ago
Thanks.
legion1a 1 year ago
hay guys i have found the missing link it Roy Lynk dont you think so ?
inzen1909 1 year ago
Pandamonk69, evolution makes sense, but it isn't disproving God. I don't think you ever said that. I commend you. The Catholic church believes in God, and they accept evolution. I mean, you can't deny evidence staring flat in your face. So I think it's possible that religion can readjust itself just like science. Back in Biblical times, science wasn't there to explain things. Now it is, hence, we should be allowed to adjust religion too. It's only fair. Don't you agree? I'm only a learning human
compsciguy 1 year ago
@compsciguy You're right I've never said that evolution disproves God. I do not agree that religion should just be able to move the goal posts so that they cannot be disproved - that is dishonest - but I do think it should get with the times and embrace science once more.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@compsciguy Science and Religion each have apologetic advantages. Science can be wrong, God cannot. But it is notoriously hard to prove a thing doesn't exist. Add to that the fact that God can do anything and even proving something is impossible is insufficient to disprove God.
Now religion wants to move the goalpost too and say that evolution and creation can both be true? If evolution is an explanation, then why would we need a second one?
swilson3d 1 year ago
The neo-Darwinist picture of evolution is the dominant 'central myth' of modern society. In this picture the essential characteristics of human nature are to be understood as accidental - without purpose or meaning. This 'central myth' infuses our education, health care policy, legal justice system, business practices, and other social institutions. If it were to be found fundamentally in error, the implications would be far reaching." (Willis W. Harman, President, Institute of Noetic Sciences)
AbuIbraheemC 1 year ago
@AbuIbraheemC The theory of Evolution does not give this picture in the slightest.
This is the exact type of thing you would accept from the Institute of Noetic "Sciences". The exact institute that "drives the flight from standard, peer-reviewed empiricism into the arms of a dualism that privileges the mental over the physical, the teleological over the non-purposive." Peer-reviewed empiricism is the basis of all science and as such Noetic Sciences are completely unscientific.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@AbuIbraheemC Evolution is demonstrable unlike fairy tale religions. It is not a myth like Jesus or God but it is actually observable. You are spreadinglies and you need to go back to school or just shut your lying mouth. If you want to base yourlife on a fairy tale then go ahead but dont get mad at others who actually want to know the truth.
db10001110101 1 year ago
the missing link is alive and well and living in new cunmock. probably ur brother in law.
jimk47 1 year ago
@jimk47 Nah they're just inbred in new cumnock! Haha
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
yeah thats cause we never came from the trees like apes and monkeys!!!!!!!!..man has always been man created by God..and all life did not happen by accident and random chance..Evolution is Bullshit!!!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Hahaha, look at tribal people. It is quite obvious that we are adapted for trees.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 yeah that makes..u just make this shit up as u go along...those ignorant triabal people u think are dumb..there smarter than us..and they did not come from apes like lucy..they were created by god..its called Intelligent design
...but u are de evolving..u might be turning back into an ape!!..LOL
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Not at all. You claimed we didn't come from the trees and I gave an example of extant humans who are perfectly adapted for the trees. I never claimed they were ignorant or dumb, you have projected that on to me.
We all came from a common human ancestor, and share a common ancestor with other apes. What is your problem with that, even if you do believe we were created by God? Is it because you think we are special? That we should dominate the "lower" animals? We are animals!
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv He's an ape. He has no sense in his head to understand that he too has FAITH in believing what scientists are preaching to him.
They said we started off as the smallest cells and grew into humans.
LOL, And they can prove it! But not just yet. LOL.
That's FAITH! And he's against believing in FAITH, yet it's only good to believe in faith when scientists tell him it's okay. lol.
Talk about gullable! Damn! Now they change it to, We come from a common ape, and not an organism.
AzBirdDog 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog Haha the funniest thing is that you started as a single cell, merged with a sperm, and grew into a human.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
You're right, monkey skulls do look a lot like ours. Can one define "missing link" as being solely the shape of one of the skulls? If it is than we're all still monkeys.
janderson65 1 year ago
@janderson65 We are all "monkeys" (primates to be more accurate) and there is no missing link but a gradual transition from what we were (classed as other species) to what we are now (homo sapiens sapiens).
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 Oooooh, But there is a missing link!
That's what all the scientists and biologists keep telling us.
This is their "proof" of evolution.
We're not monkeys, we're humans.
Nothing has ever been discovered that's like us, in all the time that man has been poking around in the dirt.
Nothing.
Take a look at any of the hominids that walked before us. Not one human bone in any of them. Not one! All the bones are more like apes than humans.
Take a look!
AzBirdDog 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog There ain't a missing link. No scientist claims that there is. Humans are classified as primates along with monkeys and apes. We share as much with the other apes as the big cats do with each other.
Would you say Neanderthal bones look more like the other apes than humans? If so, then you clearly don't want to accept reality.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 You're speaking of the "monkey" bones that they are finding? Those bones are contructed differently, they are thicker that ANY human bones, thicker just like that of an ape. Your scientific data "claims" that neanderthal are related to us. But if you match bone for bone, They belong to the chimp-gorilla type. And again, Yes, Scientists did say that they were in search of a missing link. Don't want to believe it? Then you have failed in listening to them for the last century.
AzBirdDog 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog Neanderthal bones are more robust than ours but have far more in common with us than any other extant ape!
I have listened to the scientists, I suggest you do too. Don't accept everything the creationist preachers say.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 You and the entire scientific community are about to find out, that your neaderthals aren't what you think they are. They weren't us, and no, they didn't die out. And for you, I would have to tell you not to accept everything that scientists say. Because they don't have it all figured out, they never did, and they're about to be schooled the hard way.
You can laugh, chuckle, scoff. Be my guest. But you won't be the last one laughing.They say neanderthals went extinct. Not true.
AzBirdDog 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog Well I think the scientific community are in the best position to know what Neanderthal are. We even have DNA evidence which proves they are not human, but that we are the closest extant animals to them. Their similar taxonomic traits are further evidence. And yes, they did die out, around 20,000-30,000 years ago to be precise.
I don't accept a lot of what single scientists say. I accept what science as a whole discovers. You learn far more as a collective than as individuals!
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 Pandaboy, Mighty big claim you're making there, pal.
You're going to have mud on your face pretty soon!
I'll tell you what, I'm going to keep your username handy.
In the meantime, stay healthy, Buddy!
I'm going to love baking your crow pie!
AzBirdDog 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog Why will I have mud on my face soon? Why not rebut my points now instead of claiming what is going to happen in the future?
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69
"looks nothing like that of a chimp or gorilla"?
Sorry, but it does.
The "major" thing that makes our skulls look different is that we got more storage for our brains . Nothing else.
And we share as good as all the other ape traits with them to.
Hell, even if Evolution WASN'T real and God actually created us then he designed humans as APES!
Hjernespreng 1 year ago
@Hjernespreng I don't know when I said that, but I do agree. That is what the position I have been arguing from. We certainly are part of the Hominidae family.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69
Agh!
I must've clicked wrong!
I was replying to Azbird.
Hjernespreng 1 year ago
@Hjernespreng That's ok. Resend it if you want.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog No scientist claims that they "have it all figured out". If they did, they'd be out of a job. However, they have learned a hell of a lot more in such a short space of time than any time before them. Give me evidence that the Neanderthals never went extinct.
You're bloody hilarious, you know that? Such as comedian.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 And your the one who taught me. lol
Guess what, scientists haven't found a living relic hominid because THEY DON'T WANT TO BE EMBARRASSED FOR CHASING THE BOOGIE MAN!
That's why, Panda! Fear of redicule. And they call themselves scientists. lol
A bunch of half wits, and you're following their every word, line for line. lol
You're such a joke! Do yourself a favor, stop watching the discovery channel and start back over with sesame street! lol
AzBirdDog 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog It's quite understandable why we are the only living hominid. Because there have been far more species ever exist than do now. We have only be in existence for a short few hundred thousand years. Many other animals, even extinct ones, have existed far far longer than us, including many hominids. But every species dies out eventually, especially as others evolve to compete with them.
I don't follow scientists, I barely even know the names of many scientists, but I do follow science!
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69
If that's true, then we will die out and something more advanced thanus
will take our place. What could we possibler evolve into that's more advanced than us? Science sure does leapinto pseudoscienctific grounds. What with parallel dimensions, quantum physics, black holes, alternatie timelines, etc.
Even Richard DAwkins discusses some strange concepts.
compsciguy 1 year ago
@compsciguy That's a bit egotistical? Do you really think we are THAT perfect?
Well I'd put it to you that there are many extant animals far more advanced than us. It just depends on your definition of advanced.
If you mean intellectually, then yes we/another creature certainly could advance much farther.
Quantum physics, blackholes, etc are backed up with mountains of evidence. The fact that something seems strange or that you don't understand it, does not make it pseudoscience.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog
"all the bones are more like apes than humans"
*laughs manically*
What you are saying these is incredibly retarded! Humans ARE apes! So yes, those bones resembled ape bones because they are. And they are relevant because we ARE apes!
We have all the taxonomic traits of apes, simply because we ARE!
Hjernespreng 1 year ago
@Hjernespreng Keep laughing, beause my skull doesn't look anything like that of a chimp or gorilla. Now, yours may be different, depending on "what" your mother was messing around with. And it's quite apparent that you're only running on what you learned from maybe a few youtube videos, and never studied the real evidence out there.
AzBirdDog 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog It is far more like a chimps than any other animal. Show us some "real" evidence...
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog If you totally believed in evolution, Seriously, Pandamonk. You wouldn't be here argueing this.
They found human type foot prints in ancient volcano ash.
They draw a dipiction of what they believe took place, with drawings of a creature with a monkey-like head with a human body.
When in fact, what made those foot prints is the same hominid that walks today, leaving THE SAME foot prints that we can't ID.
Don't believe this, Then stay tuned, you'll know the truth real quick like.
AzBirdDog 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog Haha, those footprints have been completely refuted. Any "drawings" aren't scientific.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 Gradual transition? LOL, from what they have found, you're going to need many, many gradual transitioning skulls. about 4 to 5 times of what they have found to this day.
AzBirdDog 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog Who calculated that we'd need 4-5 times what we have found to date? It ain't all about fossils either. There is far more evidence in DNA. Research ERVs.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@janderson65 We are apes by classification or primates if you like
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
Wow, the history deniers really have come out of the woodwork on this video. I think it is because of the "mis-leading" title which may make them think this video supports creationism. Seriously people, educate yourself. Read a book. Go to a museum. You're impeding social progress by clinging to your iron age superstitions.
freethinker923 1 year ago
I was surprised at the differences between H. Sapiens' skull 30 kya and now.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 Yeah, I think that's key to what's going on, and why human trait-evolution is so hard to track. Humans seem to be on a developemental exponential scale since the brain-volume-increase. Perhaps more than any other species, we have become masters of our own destiny(?)
bimini1212 1 year ago
wow those are not links those are deformed skulls of chimps (and they look the same to me)
hubjubjub 1 year ago
@hubjubjub Then you aren't very observant, are you.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
If evolution was true, we would be able to re create it in a lab. But we can't..so, yea.
repticman123 1 year ago
@repticman123 1. Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life.
2. Who told you we can't create life in the lab? Do the simplest of Google searches if you want to inform yourself rather than argue from ignorance.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 I am aware of scientists being able to create "Man Made Life". Except all they did was take DNA, and put it in an already living cell. The said "look we created life". I can create life too, its called "having sex". Anyway, when they can actually create life from nothing, then I'll believe them.
repticman123 1 year ago
@repticman123 What do you mean by "from nothing"? Life did not initially form "from nothing". No-one claims it does.
They created the DNA from "4 bottles of chemicals", THAT is the important part. Also it wasn't a living cell, it was an empty cell (they removed the existing DNA).
The experiment wasn't meant to replicate how life may have formed, it was simply to create life in the lab, which they achieved.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@repticman123 And that's not even the half of it.
According to scientists, everything came from nothing.
And yes, they do believe life started in a warm pool of mud. lol.
It's the biggest leap of "FAITH" than any religion on the planet.
It's an even bigger leap of faith than you sitting in your garage, waiting for a 1963 Corvette (your favorite color) to just appear! With a full tank of gas! lol
They say they have it all figured out, but really, They haven't got a clue!
AzBirdDog 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog No scientist claims "everything came from nothing". That is another creationist strawman. You don't think mud is a good environment for life to thrive? Then why wash your hands when they are covered in it?
Faith is the belief without evidence. For anything to be considered scientific, it has to have mountains of evidence. It has to go through to most rigorous testing possible. This is as far from faith as you can get.
Science would stop if "they have it all figured out".
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 LOL, You need to stop thinking from present day forward, and remember the roots of scientific thought. Because yes, scientist and others in this field have claimed, "Missing Link". If you don't think so, then you have failed to listen to their teachings for the last century since darwin.
They also claim that life started from NO LIFE.
Sorry, if you can't accept the truth of their teachings, and this is what they "preach". I wash my hands because NOW there is life in that mud.
AzBirdDog 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog The popular definition of "missing link" is akin to transitional species. We have a glut of transitional fossils which makes the argument that the link is missing completely defunct. The term missing link described what was traditionally thought as the link between humans and so-called "lower" animals. Since Darwin, this term has been dropped by everyone but the media.
Life has been created from non life in the lab. It is certainly possible!
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 "Life has been created from non life in the lab. It is certainly possible!"
LOL, funny thing here is this. You said it yourself, "Life has been created..."
That's a far, far shot from, "Life just happened from nothing, with no help or intervention."
And when we say, "Like was created by a higher being than us." You people scoff at the idea. LOL. That's very funy that you speak as though it's some great first achievement. LOL.
It's not. And now you know what we're talking about.
AzBirdDog 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog Yes life has been created... BUT... the conditions in which life was created mimicked as closely as possible what the conditions on the early Earth would be like. The scientists simply set up the right conditions and life assembled itself!
I scoff at the idea, because it's exactly that, an IDEA! You have no basis and no evidence. There is no proof that a creator even exists. You're simply claiming "I don't know how it happened, so an unknowable thing did it". That is not an answer!
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 Now this is the biggest line of crap.
The guy created life using instruments pre "created".
In a simulation "pre-created". When are you going to open your eye's and see that you're painting yourself into a corner with this?
And how in the royal hell do you, or anybody else for that matter, know what the conditions were when LIFE BEGAN???? How?? You're simply pulling all of this out the thin air. It's baseless! It's all THEORY, Panda! Theory! The scientific community has no clue.
AzBirdDog 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog Haha, no-one claims than life sprung out of nothing. They claim that it form from existing conditions. I don't see how I am painting myself into a corner. I do, however, see that you are setting up a strawman.
We know what the LIKELY conditions are through geology. We also know at roughly what time life formed, through analysis of DNA. We can then examine the environment from around this time. And finally test this environment in the lab. And what do we find? Simple life forms!
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 LOL, That's a load of bullshit as far as the eye can see.
LOL, Panda, It's all based in theory!
That's all, man, Theory!
AzBirdDog 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog Already explained...
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 You must be about 12 years old. Because in my 44 years of life, I can remember back when I was a kid, scientists making claims of a missing link that hasn't been found yet. lol.
If you seriously don't know of this, then please stop. You're wasting my time and yours. Mostly mine! lol
Wait a minute, Change of story, because it's been 40 years that we've looked for the missing link, AND HAVEN'T FOUND ONE!
We have to change our story QUICK!!!
AzBirdDog 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog Well I wasn't a scientist who claimed that. It must've been someone on the discovery channel or some equivalent. Scientists don't tend to use the term "missing link" anymore, and haven't for decades. The only time it is used, is through the media.
We have found many many many transitional forms. Do a simple google search to find just a few of the glut that we have. You ignorance isn't an argument.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69
How can anyone know for sure if the evidence is fake or real? How can we
have so much faith in scientists that have their own agenda? ARe you saying that ALL scientists are very good moral ppl who would NEVER EVER lie?
compsciguy 1 year ago
@compsciguy No, I don't trust scientists, but I do trust science. Science very quickly rids itself of fakes and mistakes.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog
I somewhat agree with you. It's so much easier being an atheist scientist, because you are allowed to change your mind once some new evidence comes in. It's so easy. Anyone can be an atheist, they just don't have to tell you what they DO believe in. Not every atheists is a scientist. Not every scientists is an atheist.
Those are the true brave ones. Risking their reps by saying they are Christians. They are held to the upmost scrutiny for believing like that. I commend them!
compsciguy 1 year ago
@compsciguy Changing your mind based on evidence is the best way to ensure you are right. It is not courageous to knowingly promote an idea that you know is wrong. That is called a lie. The most courageous thing imo is to admit when you are wrong and promote that fact.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@compsciguy Yes, anyone who doesn't change their mind when evidence suggests something new cannot be a scientist, they must instead be brainwashed.
swilson3d 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69
Abiogenesis has been proven by human hands in a lab. However,
there were no humans when life really began so long ago. So...noone and I mean NOONE knows what happened. And yes, there are ppl claiming that subatomic
particlles can appear out of thin air. Maybe not life, but particles. Look it up. It amazes me. :D
compsciguy 1 year ago
@compsciguy You're right, no one does know exactly what happened. What we do know is what is likely to have happened and that it is certainly possible.
I think you are trying to pick faults with quantum physics without having one clue about the theory. The theory is strange but perfectly evidenced.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog Now that's the funniest part. "Theory" has several meanings including: a conjecture or idea - a philosophical theory; or an empirically testable explanation of fact - a scientific theory. Scientific theories are in complete contrast with philosophical theories. A theory is an end goal for science. They do not progress to laws, which are different things.
And I'm not pulling any of this out of thin air. Do the tiniest bit of research and you'll release that. google "scientific theory"
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 Okay, you got me there. You're not pulling it out of thin air, You're pulling it out of the science channel!
Dude, research also has been done on wicca.
Are you going to believe in that too?
Drop the TV remote and try real life for once. Seriously!
It will help you in not being a youtube troll! lol
AzBirdDog 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog I don't even have "the science channel". I live in the UK with standard freeview. We get about 30 channels, half of which are shopping or news.
I read scientific books, I keep reasonably up-to-date with the progressions of science, reading articles in pubmeds, etc. My girlfriend is a scientist studying for her PhD in molecular medicine for fuck sake! I can't help but be deeply involved with new developments.
Since you keep bringing up tv, I suggest you drop YOUR remote.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog Any research that has been done of wicca has produced no results, ie. it's a load of nonsense. Same with prayer, ghosts, telepathy, NDEs, etc, etc. All nonsense. Not a shred of evidence in favour.
There have been some surprises along the way, such as acupuncture - I've seen it given on the NHS before - but it is not generally accepted for it's spiritual elements, more for it's physical elements.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69
Why did you just say that there's no evidence for ghosts? Are you saying that
EVERY single ghost story in all of humanity is 100 percent FICTION and should
NOT even be considered for investigation? That is NOT science. That is what science is AGAINST.
compsciguy 1 year ago
@compsciguy I'm not saying they shouldn't be investigated, but you can't investigate absolutely every one and the ones that have been investigated have produced no evidence for the existence of ghosts.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog Nothing more?
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 And here we go again, at your crazy talk about "the right conditions". That's insane talk! Absolutely INSANE! Your reading this stuff, and watching the science channel, that's where you got your info, and it's all based on FAITH in believing that the conditions were something they know about.
You're taking this just like the religeous. There's only idea's that they speak of. But IN FACT, It's all based in THEORY!
A theory IS NOT AN ANSWER, Panda!
AzBirdDog 1 year ago
@AzBirdDog Watching the science channel? Haha, no. I'm actually following scientific papers. I'm talking to the scientists. I'm reading books. I'm learning.
You laugh at me saying "the right conditions". Go out and do a bit of research. Look at some rocks. If you study enough, you'll be able to tell what kinds of rocks they are, and the conditions required for them to form. This may even help you to be able to date the rocks. You can do all this yourself.
Scientific theories are based in FACT!
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69
Not abiogenesis. Big bang and evolution, maybe, but not that theory that states
that life appeared out of nowhere. Even other ppl are saying that particles can
appear out of thin air. WHATEVER!! WE did not come from rocks! Rpcks
cannot have babies!
compsciguy 1 year ago
@compsciguy No one claims that "particles can appear out of thin air" or that we "come from rocks". That is a strawman based in ignorance.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69
I do not know" is the best answer there is. Saying that
life came from the "premordial soup" or "ameoba slime" is
a faith based claim. Noone knows the right conditions for life
to form. And in that experiment, why didn't they make full human beings?
They could, couldn't they?
compsciguy 1 year ago
@compsciguy I accept that "I do not know" is the best answer for now, but we are close to knowing. We do know the right conditions for life and are testing these in the lab.
Human beings came 4 billions years AFTER the origins of life on Earth. They are irrelevant to abiogenesis.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@repticman123 By that logic you could say "The big bang isn't true because we can't recreate it in a lab" or "Planet formation can not be recreated in a lab so we can not possibly know it to be true" or "Only things that can be recreated in a lab can possibly be true".
stiaa04 1 year ago
@repticman123 So creationism can't be true either using the same argument.
bimini1212 1 year ago
@repticman123 Thats not true, we have many different kinds of evidence,fossil,DNA,Plate tectonics and continental drift and distribution of animals,vestigial organs/parts/features. We could never observe macro evolution happening because it takes millions of years.For example its like (as Dawkins puts it) a detective arriving at the scene of a crime. We dont need to see the crime happening to find out who the killer is. We use DNA testing to solve crimes and we use it to trace our ancestry.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05 We can observe "Macro" evolution in bacteria and flies.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 I dont know if thats macro evolution, i thought macro evolution was going from one species to another?
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05 Macro evolution isn't a term used by contemporary scientists. But yeah we have witnessed SPECIATION in bacteria, flies and even salamanders! Look up salamander ring species
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 Excellent. I will do that, and thanks :)
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
According to Islamic law, non-Muslims may be enslaved (owned as property) by Muslims, but - in keeping with Islam's supremacist message - a fellow Muslim should never be.
CitizenOfUtube 1 year ago
By the way, scientists from various disciplines generally set their "Impossibility Standard" at one chance in 1050 (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion). Therefore, whether one chance in 10100,000,000,000 or one chance in 1040,000, the notion that life somehow rose from non-life has clearly met the scientific standard for statistical impossibility.
silentpimpsmak 1 year ago
@silentpimpsmak There is no way to accurately measure the chance of life arising naturally, so this point is moot.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 so you are telling the very same scientist that you are trusting that they have no idea of the odds of life spontaniously forming? Okay take a billion jars cap them off and call me when life forms in them. sounds odd but you will actually have better ingredients for life in that jar than the early earth. But you and i know the odds are definately enormoust. Sorry man these are the odds set by your precious scientist, you dont believe them?
silentpimpsmak 1 year ago
@silentpimpsmak You could say there is a 1 in 1x10^1million chance that life could form spontaneously, but how could you possibly calculate that? How could you possibly take into account every factor (the environment, the amount of time, the amount of chances, natural chemical bonds, natural selection, possible combinations that produce life, other types of possible life, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.). IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CALCULATE!
Jars? Reminds me of the peanut butter man. Hilarious! hahahahahaha
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@silentpimpsmak physorg . com / news189321143 . html Jars do not have an external envionment affecting them. And why would you use a billion? The surface area of earth is incredibly more vast than that, and it still took billions of years.
roadkill14 1 year ago
@roadkill14 Do you even understand they impossible odds for the first strand of DNA to assemble its self? ONE wrong move =death. Jars do not have an external environment affecting them, thank you giving life an even better chance of spontaneously forming.
silentpimpsmak 1 year ago
@silentpimpsmak. Yes, one wrong move=death. Whats your point? Why would external factors necessarily be a hinderence? A simulated meteor impact has been shown to "create" amino acids, thats one pretty dramatic step closer that 10 years ago, creationists would probably have called impossible anyway.
"one chance in 1040,000" am i right in saying that you just said that this tests as statistically impossible? So if I perform the test 1,040,000 times......
roadkill14 1 year ago
@roadkill14 lets talk amino acids, i guess evolution really has no foundation with out it. i will debate with you later when life out of amino acids are created in a lab, and scientist have been using all left handed amino acids since 1993 and no luck. All life is made up of only left handed amino acids and they still cant do it. a meteor strike will never produce all left handed amino acids. 50\50 of left and right =death.
silentpimpsmak 1 year ago
@silentpimpsmak Life didn't start with DNA. It started with self replicating organic polymers. Nobody (except straw-manning creationists) claims that a fully modern, eukaryote cell sprung from a mud puddle struck by lightening.
.
Peanut putter jars and their contents are sterilised to prevent the non-spontaneous occurrence of modern microbes. A jar of peanut butter is an inert environment. The early earth was not. Comparing the two is a logical fail.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@silentpimpsmak As for the probability "argument" - A) the conditions for proto-life forms were not purely chaotic, they were conducive to forming polymer chains and encapsulating them in lipid vesicles. B) whatever the odds are against a particular ticket winning the lottery may be, the odds of the lottery being won is 100%.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 right because the chances are so overwhelming its hard to figure out the amount of zeros to put behing a number.
silentpimpsmak 1 year ago
Weak video, especially Pandamonk being an evolutionist you should know that scientist dont even know if the skulls are just ancestors of monkeys even just an ancestor. Do you research and i wouldnt even be quick to put dates next to the skulls as the same method used to date these skulls has dated living things at over 2,000 years old. This is Junk looks like a bunch of old gorilla skulls. You for got to mention that we have found the modern human skull below dinosaur bones 28 times now
silentpimpsmak 1 year ago
@silentpimpsmak The dating methods are accurate when used correctly. We know the limitations of the methods, and it is these limitations which creationists pick up as "evidence the dating methods don't work". We are very well aware that they don't work when used incorrectly.
Please give evidence of modern human fossils being found anywhere near dinosaur fossils.
Bomb5hed 1 year ago
@Bomb5hed No fossil can be dated, only the dating of the rocks around the fossil and the same rock current human skulls can be found in. I think you know enough that evolution is actually going away from its own theories and more research is only building bigger gaps in the already impossible theory
silentpimpsmak 1 year ago
@silentpimpsmak I very much disagree. Science isn't a set in stone, unchanging, close-minded philosophy like religion. Just because elements of theories change with evidence doesn't mean that the theory as a whole has anything wrong with it. It actually advances the support for the theory.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo [days of Noah ... Lot...what that means]
In the days of Noah, "all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth" Genesis 6:12.
This is probably when humans and apes hybridized.
In the days of Lot, the Sodomites attempted to sexually assault two angels Genesis 19:5.
In Luke 17:26-28 we learn that such spiritual conditions will re-occur and have similar results.
Mdebacle 1 year ago
Cremo commented on a recent fossil skull discovery which suggests that Homo erectus may not have evolved from Homo habilis, as previously thought. What is not being reported, is that humans just like us, also co-existed with these early peoples,
farinango 1 year ago
@farinango It isn't being reported because it isn't true. Please point to a single piece of evidence to support this outlandish assertion.
KennyTew2 1 year ago
@KennyTew2 go here Fossil Skull Discovery Pt.1
farinango 1 year ago
@farinango I can safely conclude that the so called expert is no more than a crank. One would expect an expert in the subject to understand one of the most basic drivers of the process of evolution right? Well this guy seems to think that a parent daughter species relationship can not include coexistence, yet this is exactly what allopatric speciation predicts. Plus he offered no evidence for the early existence of modern man.
KennyTew2 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo [eating monkeys , monkey bite]
Yes, these are the polite explanations, but AIDS is transmitted sexually, by tranfusions, by needles, and we can rule out needles and tranfusions with monkeys.
Zoophilia may be rare among humans, but it would only take one occurrence to get into the system.
The days on Noah and the days of Lot will be repeated, to which you are testimony.
Mdebacle 1 year ago
@Mdebacle Why must we rule out needles and transfusions with monkeys?
It is very easy to see how needle sharing could have been the cause: People could have been treating chimps and one could have become seriously ill themself, requiring the use of a needle. The only one they have is one already used on a chimp. They either use it and take the risk or let the seriously ill person die.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69
It is true that there are possibilities other than bestiality for the existence of AIDS and for the once existent hominids. But sometimes the simplest solution is the correct one.
On 60 Minutes broadcast on 04/11. the reporter (Bob Simon) on australopithicus sediba called it a "hybrid". Perhaps his lying eyes were telling him the truth.
Mdebacle 1 year ago
@Mdebacle Why is bestiality the simplest solution?
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 [why is bestiality the simplest solution]
Because bestiality could, in one generation, produce some thing that is genetically and anatomically half-way between ape and human. Such a thing would necessarily have 47 chromosomes.
[please provide evidence ]
Just look at this video without the doctrinal verbage, and think of it titled "Ape/Human Hybrids Exterminated and Fossilized by Catastrophic Flood".
Mdebacle 1 year ago
@Mdebacle I was mainly referring to aids, but it is only the simplest solution if it is proven to be possible. However, I will have a look at the video.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 [I will have a look at the video.]
I did not mean to imply that there is a video "Ape/Human Hybrids ..."
I meant that this video we are watching now could be re-titled "Ape/Human Hybrids ..." and would make perfect sense.
Mdebacle 1 year ago
@Mdebacle ok, well for that to be the case, the evidence would have to be in its favour, which it isn't.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 [the evidence would have to be ...]
The evidence is that chimps and gorillas have no ancestors except chimps and gorillas. The only possible gorilla ancestor was the 10-foot gigantopithicus. The reason the true "missing link" ( i.e. thecommon ancestor of humans and apes} has never been found is because it never existed.
Mdebacle 1 year ago
@Mdebacle Chimps definitely do have ancestors. The common chimp and bonobo share a common ancestor from ~1 million years ago (around the same as us and Neanderthal). They share a common ancestor with us from ~6 million years ago and with gorillas ~7 million years ago. This means that chimps are more closely related to us than to gorillas.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 [Chimps definitely do have ancestors]
What can you tell us about these ancestors ?
Where were they discovered ?
Where are they located now ?, Other than in somebody's fertile imagination?
Mdebacle 1 year ago
@Mdebacle Why do you immediately expect fossil evidence. Fossil evidence is not good evidence compared with what we have available to us now, genetic, etc.
As far as I know there has only been one, reported, chimp fossils EVER found. This is because the kind of environment they live doesn't allow for fossilisation.
However, ERVs are proof we share a common ancestor with chimps. Also, there are two species of chimp, which means they must share a common ANCESTOR.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 [Why do you immediately expect fossil evidence. ]
If the supposed MRCA of chimps/humans produced descendants that have fossils all over S. Africa Kenya Ethiopia, then there should be a line of fossils that turned into chimps bonobos gorillas.
Don Rumsfeld said the absence of evidenc is not evidence of absence, but old Rummy was wrong.
Mdebacle 1 year ago
@Mdebacle There is no evidence for God
I've explained why there are no fossils. You picked the bit you liked and ignored the important bits.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Pandamonk69 [explained why there are no fossils]
But there are fossils. Apes, humans and half-way in between.
It is the ancestor ancestor species of apes that never existed,
unless you count gigantopithicus which shows how good genes of original gorillas were.
Schizophrenia would cause a person to deny what exists and to imagine what does not exist.
There is a poem about ape ancestors:
"If the bones ain't there,
the cupboard is bare".
Mdebacle 1 year ago
@Mdebacle Gigantopithecus was not an ancestor of modern gorillas. It is classified in the same subfamily as orangutans.
Exactly, Schizophrenia is a good explanation for theism.
There are no fossils of humans (homo sapiens) older than 200,000 years, and only one fossil ever found of a chimp. Chimps are more closely related to us than any other species, so to say "Apes, humans and half-way in between" is ludicrous.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Mdebacle I don't know of this exact case, but hybrids are possible, and this could certainly be one.
However, it cannot be a hybrid of Human and Chimp, because neither existed at that time. If you think they did, please provide evidence of homo sapiens existing more just 200,000 years ago.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo Also, sharing a needle with a chimp.
Pandamonk69 1 year ago
@Mdebacle: I find that...unbelievable. Got any evidence that humans could force themselves on anything else around them? Let alone did...
However, in your particular cited case, there is real evidence, and it is not backing your thesis.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex [evidence that humans could force themselves on anything else ]
See wikipedia article 'zoophilia and health'. My guess is that many STDs started from this, including AIDS.
I restate my prediction that australo-whatever DNA will have 3 strings of PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes , 2 from humans, 1 from apes.
Mdebacle 1 year ago
@Mdebacle: Wonderful theory (about AIDS and all). Prediction noted, if/when we ever fund any viable A. DNA. We were lucky finding any for a Neandertal; Australopithecus is about 100 times farther back. Of course, we did find some mangled DNA from Tyrannosaurus, so anything's possible.
puncheex 1 year ago
Well done. Enjoyed..Thank you
cymbeline8 1 year ago
There is a story that an advanced Human race called the Anunnaki from a 10th planet Nibiru came here and gave birth to us like a test tube baby mixing their male seed with oval egg of Homoerectus female in a vesel from the clay of the Earth and inserting it invitro fertilization into an Anunnaki female, giving birth to cromagnon race.Then later an Anunnaki mated with two beautiful females that gave birth to the Homosapien Adam and Eve.Story from Sumerian Tablets thousands years before the bible
joeykoolpagan 2 years ago
We are the missing Link from Homoerectus and the more advance humans (with an extended rear brain, not upward but straight back). humans called the Anunnaki
joeykoolpagan 2 years ago
Just one among many myths which don't fit the facts.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
@joeykoolpagan: Sounds just about as believable, too.
puncheex 1 year ago
'"It appears to share features with both bees and wasps, and supports theories of bee evolution." The article says nothing about this bee using nectar, producing honey or wax.' Correct debacle! It doesn't, because it is referring to physiognomy rather than behavior, which cannot be deduced from viewing the insect in amber. Your "argument" here is irrelevent..."Evolutonists must believe such things from psychological necessity"~since bees exhibit no psyche, this idea is just silly!
pontecanis 2 years ago
If you claim that somehow entomologists must have a psychological need to see the evidence for evolution as making evolution valid, that is a bit of a stretch! The evidence is there,you are the one with the psychological need to deny-->BTW, making cells to raise young within came 1st:bees and wasps both do this, regardless of honey production. As wasps are omnnivorous, they feed their young differently than bees.
pontecanis 2 years ago
[since bees exhibit no psyche, this idea is just silly]
The psychological necessity is in the evolutionists, not in the bees.
Mdebacle 2 years ago
You miss his next point
Pandamonk69 2 years ago
I cant find link on this, but im sure they announced that anteaters have like 97% the same dna as humans, yet we're meant to be from primates?
How could Neanderthal, a supposed pre-cursor to the homo line have co-existed for thousands of years with Cromagnon?
Current dating of Cro-Magnon bones point to more recent date 17,000 years. The earliest known remains of Cro-Magnon like humans are dated to 30,000 radiocarbon years.
Im not pro creationist or anti evolution neither of them fully explain
smskinner1001 2 years ago
I very much doubt that. Especially since anteaters have (I believe) between 54 and 60 chromosomes.
Firstly they were not a per-cursor to the genus homo, but actually a part of it. Secondly, it is entirely possible that a descendant can live along-side its ancestor.
The earliest cro-magnon dates to 32,600 ± 1,100. The youngest neanderthal dates to 31,390 ± 220.
Pandamonk69 2 years ago