Another standard creationist confusion of the terms "missing link", "transitional form", and "ancestor". These three terms do not describe the the same thing, and archeopteryx remains a beautiful example of a transitional form between reptiles and birds. The point is that the theory of evolution explains transitional forms like this, while 'intelligent design' does not (notice that Wells did not address the point: archeopteryx shows even more reptillian features than bird features. Which is it?)
People like this piss me off. Evolutionary history is a wide and extremely complex part of natural sciences. Dicks like this and the lobbyists behind them, make a tough job even tougher. Instead of trying to poke holes in science and highlight the gaps to bolster the religion we all know they really believe in (dont tell me the ID isnt yahweh) they should be helping us find the answers. Its like saying "Haha science STILL doesnt have a cure for cancer, therefore Medicine is a myth/conspiracy"
OMG. This man went to Berkeley!? Yeah, homologous structures are used to decide how closely related animals are. I love how this clown left out the fact that genetics has shown how CLOSE we are when we use homology.
You would argue against homology, because it's how we humans were first labeled APES by a CREATIONIST.
Oh and if an animals descendants cannot be around as the same time as the descended. Why do we still have wolves and African Wild Dogs?
a have the question is there any miss link between the homo erctus and the homo sapeins?if so why the resent man construct civilizations in few time while the homo erectus do not via million years will you believe in my hypothesis that the programed minded man have come from out side the earth.that means he is extraterrestrial
Homo ergaster>Homo erectus>Homo heidelbergensis>Homo Rhodesiensis>Archaic Homo sapiens>Modern Homo sapiens
The reason early hominids did not construct civilizations is because they did not have sufficient intelligence. Even archaic humans had brains about 25% smaller than ours. More importantly, the basis for civilization is agriculture, which allowed people to stay in one place and develope unlike the hunter-gatherers in the past.
The fundies got a new scam going: find an idiot who talks utter nonsense,dress him up like a professor, train him to speak with gravitas & wrap his bs in scientific sounding nonsense.Don't say "Eve was created from Adam's rib",but "Adamized Ribbular Creatization".Not "Eve ate an apple a snake told her to" but "Serpentious Consumption of Appleized Matter".That is Creation Science, meant for those too retarded to understand real science.
"Now ah gots me a skience that backs up muh Holey Babble"
So a few religious nuts, who are in the tiny majority since most xtains accept the facts. But even these xtains deny the ark, the 6000 year old earth etc as the bible is too insane even for them.
"Discovery Institute" a truly repugnant, disingenuous (word was invented for this organisation), cynical, dishonest group of charlatans who serve no conceivable purpose other than push the political agenda of their shady benefactors. If there ever was a more dark, conspiritorial and dangerous group it is this unpleasant manifestation of superstitious nuts. Third rate academics and scientists prostituting their inferior credentials for mammon.
@MaximusArurealius if you have come this far to even discuss the possibility of the literal truth of the bible what is the point of posting any argument in its defence surely it is just a question of faith. Is the Koran or the Torat literaly true isn't it all about faith. My mum is a moslem and it is impossible for me to convince her that the koran is bullshit I guess if I cant convince her I cant convince a fundamental christian or jew either. Religion is evil full stop
@shiskabob, you nitwit. Did I MENTION THE BIBLE? No, you did. You're a fundie aren't you? Your belief in dinos turning into birds and wolves turning into whales is attacked by the Bible? HAR HAR HAR See this is what is so funny. You idiots deny deny deny that evolution/atheism is a religion, but that's ALL you can talk about. It's your only defense. So yes YOUR religion is evil full stop. Ya fucking moron.
@MaximusArurealius I agree evolution is a religion along with, atomic theory, theory of gravity, nuclear physics, brownian motion, astro physics, archeology, geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, astronomy, meteorology and the great priests of atheism, Einstein, Newton, Gallileo, Copernicus, Hawkins - I guess you are right there are so many religions in this world we are spoilt for choice.
@shishkabob, you nitwit. You have no clue as to what you're talking about. Newton, Gallileo and Copernicus were ALL Christians. SO MUCH for your great knowledge dummass.
@aaugoaa - "good video, the discovery institute should make videos like this often to guide people about the facts of some of evolution science claims."
The only problem is is that the Discovery Institute is blatantly lying, and when they aren't lying, they are not telling the whole story. If they actually did some science to back up their claims, I would not be so hard on them. Unlike honest scientists, they never admit when they are wrong, even after their errors are pointed out to them.
@CamW30 ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009) — Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight – and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.
@aaugoaa - "he finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs."
Did you read the article? They were comparing modern bird lungs to that of modern crocodiles. You could have missed the wording in the article. That word "may" was used a fair bit. This is just another study on what "may" have occurred. This is the way science works. Again, it is the journalists who blow it out of proportion. Still, this article further strengthens the case for evolution.
@CamW30 "For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.
Two factors must be considered: First, molecular clocks cannot be considered reliable in the absence of robust fossil calibration, whereas the fossil record is naturally incomplete. Second, in reconstructed phylogenetic trees, the time and pattern of lineage separation corresponds to the evolution of the characters studied, not to the actual evolutionary pattern of the lineages; these ideally should not differ by much, but may well do so in practice.
@aaugoaa - "For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs "
This just means that bird-like creatures may have evolved more than once. It also means that Archaeopteryx is not a direct ancestor of birds, but we already knew that. Rueben & Quick are quoting in this way to hype their paper. Since it's publication it has not been cited by anyone else. This article is hardly a game-changer. If it contained conclusive evidence it would have had more impact on science.
@CamW30 "This just means that bird-like creatures may have evolved more than once." HAR HAR HAR you're so full of shit. I bet you believe the bullshit about whale evolution too don't you?
@CamW30 The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.
@aaugoaa - "The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs"
See: Senter P. Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs. J Evol Biol 2010; 23(8); 1732-43.
It uses creation science methods to disprove creation science arguments.
@CamW30 Your accusations of lying with no evidence leave you in the unenviable situation of being the liar. But of course you're an atheist Marxist so lying is no problem for you. It's actually very Marxist. "Any statement that furthers world communism is a true statement."
Deluded much? I see by your other comments that you must have a PhD in biology... NOT! Go away little boy, at least until you have a clue about evolutionary theory.
@CamW30 A clue about evolution? HAHAHAHAA it's a fucking hoax. Other than that I don't really need to know anything. Is your granny one of those red-assed, blue-faced, butt-picker monkeys?
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." -- Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.
"The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist "
"
As far as we know, Louis Bounoure never served as ["Director" nor was even] a member of the CNRS. He was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. "
and yet you failed to answer the basic question. so i guess i am right in saying that you can ONLY explain VASCULAR plant speciation if you use evolution theory.
´btw... ambrose the electrical engineer from 19th century? HA HA HA HA
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." -- Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University
"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." -- Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.
First of all Dr. Hsü is certainly not a creationist, this "commentary" article starts with the following paragraph:
The Darwinian theory of evolution has two themes: common descent and natural selection. Creationists are barking up the wrong tree when they question common descent, which is amply documented by scientific evidence. Darwin's mistakes were in his emphasis on biotic competition in natural selection.
"9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view." -- Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.
you misspelled Etheridge. does that mean you copy paste already many times the same already debunked misquotes? LOLOL
Dr. Etheridge, world-famous paleontologist of the British Museum"4 is commonly quoted by evolution deniers but turns out to have been an obscure nineteenth century figure who was an assistant at the British Museum and was never famous at all.
"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact." -- Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University
That's you transpedophile, ignorant, half-educated 3rd world hick.
"Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather." -- Dr. David Berlinski
"Engber characterized Berlinski's viewpoints as "radical and often wrong-headed skepticism represents an ascendant style in the popular debate over American science: Like the recent crop of global-warming skeptics, AIDS denialists, and biotech activists, Berlinski uses doubt as a weapon against the academy—he's more concerned with what we don't know than what we do. "
Thomas Dwight (1843–1911) was an American physician, anatomist and teacher.
wow....so powerfull..a quote from more than 100 years ago! science must have stopped since then in order for it to even have any value at all! LOLOL
thing is... where the fuck is ONE single physician capable of explaining AB resistance without using evolution theory?
so it's obvious that the ignorant, not educated at all, a dumb knot teacher and a 3rd world bill hilly trailer park trash is, in the full sense: maxtard
@transtlantic - Nice work on exposing the quote-mining. Do these cut-&-pasters never actually look up the quotes? I guess that context means nothing to them. I always laugh when they use Gould quotes to disprove evolutionary theory; how uninformed can they be?
@CamW30 On your channel your music alone proves you to be a fucking moron. And THEN you use a video by a fucking hick, Shanedk a complete idiot, to prove evolution as science!!! HAR HAR HAR What a fucking joke that is. He knows about as much about evolution as you do. HAR HAR HAR
AND catching a fish in the ACT of evolving? What a fucking joke!! To say he's a dunce is to give him too much credit. He cites sub-species of fish as evolution. hahahahhaaa
@MaximusArurealius - "He knows about as much about evolution as you do."
Now that's the only sensible thing you've said. Too bad that the only way you can get your view across is to debase & attack your opponents with sarcasm. I guess that's all you got, as you have no empirical evidence for your beliefs. It is the sign of someone who knows that their worldview is on shaky grounds. I feel for you.
@CamW30 Creatards are sad? Nope, you deluded little moron. You evotards are the sad ones. You believe a bullshit hoax is true. Here the brainless evoturds are believing that dinos turned into birds and wolf-like creatures about the size of a wolf, turned into 150 ton sea going monsters. Now tell me how fucking intelligent that is? BTW I know more about evolution than you do asshole. I haven't found ONE of you dummasses who knows what evolution is. So fuck off.
@MaximusArurealius - "BTW I know more about evolution than you do asshole."
LOL Yeah, you haven't shown it so far. All I see are ad hominem attacks. ranting, & cussing.
"wolf-like creatures about the size of a wolf, turned into 150 ton sea going monsters."
With regard to your ignorance of evolutionary theory, I use your above quote to rest my case. Or would you like to argue evidence; say how the HOX family of genes proves evolutionary theory?
@transpedophile, If you knew jack shit about evolution you wouldn't even bring up AB resistance. It's nothing more than micro which isn't really evolution. And all creationists believe in micro you ignernt fuck.
i think i could repost the quote stating that AB resistance is one of the most well documented cases that support evolution theory... want it? lol
"nothing more than micro". and macro. i already explained that to you. you cannot stop from using micro/macro evolution in order to explain AB resistance. period.
what you are exposing is that all creationists don't have a flying fuck clue about what is micro/macro or evolution altogether.
@transpedophile, there IS NO macro asshole. Which means there is NO evolution. But you wouldn't know that. You're a MS impersonator and a huge self-confessed liar. All you are is a shit dumping bedpan jockey. HAR HAR HAR Go get an education.
@compactbrain said, ""video that reinforces my already incorrect beliefs about the world" That's great coming from an asshole who believes that dinos turn into birds and wolves turn into whales. HAR HAR HAR Do you have a lifesize statue of Piltdown Man in your room asshole? HAR HAR HAR
@aaugoaa Really, what the discovery institute does is tells half lies. When Archaeopteryx was discovered in 1860 it may have been thought to be the first bird from which all other bird came from. This was a vast simplification which current scientist understand. The current estimation is that we have only found about 1/2 the dinosaurs genera that we expect to discover, so even today we can expect to find more "missing links" in all categories, but there is no one, but lots "missing links".
@Loathomar, "loathomar?" hahahahaa do you know what loathomar means? hahahahahaha It means you hate the sea. hah ah hahaha you're a fucking dingbat wacko. Ding Ding Cuckoo!
I realize that in your little fantasy world of make believe that there are all sorts of "missing links," millions even. But the funny thing about it is that they are ALL still missing. HAR HAR HAR
So do you have any actual evidence that even ONE missing link is in existence somewhere? HAR HAR HAR
@MaximusArurealius Missing link between Humans and apes? Ardipithecus (5.5–4.4 Ma), Australopithecus (4–1.8 Ma), Kenyanthropus (3–2.7 Ma), Paranthropus (3–1.2 Ma), Homo (2 Ma–present)? Those "missing links"? That would be at the genus level, at the specie level the list is a whole lot longer. Is there are particular "missing link" you are looking for? It is sad that you think you ignorance "PWNED".
@Loathomar you stupid bastard, you cannot prove even one of those is a link to anything. AND Ardipithecus??? HAR HAR HAR He's just a fucking monkey. hahahahaaaa
@MaximusArurealius Ardipithecus where part of the Hominidae family, like humans, which are the "Great Apes". Monkeys, on the other hand are not Homonidae, and you have to go to the Superfamily of Hominoidea to have any monkey in the grouping. But would you have preferred I only used the things that really seemed man like for just the last 2 million years. You list the age or link you want filed and I will give you the closest fossilized records for that time or "gap".
There were no feathers on the latest fossil? That statement is a vey foolish thing to say. Wells is being totally deceptive. He knows that feathers do not fossilize. Imprints of feathers can fossilize, but only under very special circumstances. How does he sleep at night?
Anatomic homology is only one way to group organisms into clades. Increasing, using PCR, makes it possible to apply cladistic methods of analysis to biochemical and molecular genetic features of organisms.
@CamW30 ASSUMPTIONS AGAIN, NOT SCIENCE, NOT PROOF; JUST ASSUMPTIONS; SO WHAT IS MY APPENDIX; WHEN YOU SEE IT, DO YOU ASSUME THINGS OR PROVIDE SCIENCE? PLEASE DO NOT SAY IT IS RELATED TO MY DIGESTIVE SYSTEM; TODAY, SCIENCE SAYS IT IS USELESS; RIGHT? MORE TO COME CAMW30; I WANT YOU TO GET INTO STATISTICS OF EVOLUTION; PLEASE EXPLAIN THE STATISTICS BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE AND IGNORES ALL OTHER SCIENCES PROOF AGAINST EVOLUTION BEING VALID; GOT TO LOVE YA MAN; YOU MAKE IT EASY
@tumordick "SO WHAT IS MY APPENDIX; WHEN YOU SEE IT, DO YOU ASSUME THINGS OR PROVIDE SCIENCE? PLEASE DO NOT SAY IT IS RELATED TO MY DIGESTIVE SYSTEM; TODAY, SCIENCE SAYS IT IS USELESS; RIGHT?"
Don't bother answering him. He's just a mentally unwell person. He has conspiracy delusions and likes to spout off, but has nothing if substance to say. I feel sorry for him.
Sigh, still playing word games. Archeopteryx need not be the "first" bird-like dinosaur. Evolutionary biologists does not play the "missing link" game, only creation scientists do. How can Wells say that Archeopteryx is a related species, so birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs. It makes no sense. Science is constantly evolving with every new discovery.
The public will start to catch on about just how disingenuous these guys really are. You can only fool people for so long.
@CamW30 you again? thank you thank you thank you thank you for your response; did i say thank you; please all read his comment; to the average person, you know that the "agenda" of evolutionists DO try to show some "missing link" or at least they try to make YOU perceive that; now, people who want and ARE ALLOWED TO QUESTION ANYTHING, INCLUDING SCIENCE, KEEP QUESIONING; the "darwinian evolution theory" is soon becoming EXTINCT with A NEW RENAISSANCE OF THINKING; LET THEM HOLD ON TO OLD IDEAS !
Another standard creationist confusion of the terms "missing link", "transitional form", and "ancestor". These three terms do not describe the the same thing, and archeopteryx remains a beautiful example of a transitional form between reptiles and birds. The point is that the theory of evolution explains transitional forms like this, while 'intelligent design' does not (notice that Wells did not address the point: archeopteryx shows even more reptillian features than bird features. Which is it?)
FiverBeyond 2 weeks ago
People like this piss me off. Evolutionary history is a wide and extremely complex part of natural sciences. Dicks like this and the lobbyists behind them, make a tough job even tougher. Instead of trying to poke holes in science and highlight the gaps to bolster the religion we all know they really believe in (dont tell me the ID isnt yahweh) they should be helping us find the answers. Its like saying "Haha science STILL doesnt have a cure for cancer, therefore Medicine is a myth/conspiracy"
rossini55 2 months ago
Comment removed
teragreg 3 weeks ago
@teragreg Yes you are right, I shouldnt have called him a dick. But my point does still stand.
rossini55 2 days ago
@rossini55 I do not agree, he didn't mention religion once.
teragreg 2 days ago
@teragreg He didnt need to
rossini55 2 days ago
Jonathan Wells is a genius
ummmerrrrummm 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ummmerrrrummm: "Jonathan Wells is a genius" yes he is who sold his academic credentials out for blind and reasonless faith
sol3a1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OMG. This man went to Berkeley!? Yeah, homologous structures are used to decide how closely related animals are. I love how this clown left out the fact that genetics has shown how CLOSE we are when we use homology.
You would argue against homology, because it's how we humans were first labeled APES by a CREATIONIST.
Oh and if an animals descendants cannot be around as the same time as the descended. Why do we still have wolves and African Wild Dogs?
You sir, are an ass hat.
mosoi148 5 months ago
Comment removed
mosoi148 5 months ago
a have the question is there any miss link between the homo erctus and the homo sapeins?if so why the resent man construct civilizations in few time while the homo erectus do not via million years will you believe in my hypothesis that the programed minded man have come from out side the earth.that means he is extraterrestrial
abomarub 10 months ago
@abomarub It goes like this:
Homo ergaster>Homo erectus>Homo heidelbergensis>Homo Rhodesiensis>Archaic Homo sapiens>Modern Homo sapiens
The reason early hominids did not construct civilizations is because they did not have sufficient intelligence. Even archaic humans had brains about 25% smaller than ours. More importantly, the basis for civilization is agriculture, which allowed people to stay in one place and develope unlike the hunter-gatherers in the past.
WatermelonRat 9 months ago
The fundies got a new scam going: find an idiot who talks utter nonsense,dress him up like a professor, train him to speak with gravitas & wrap his bs in scientific sounding nonsense.Don't say "Eve was created from Adam's rib",but "Adamized Ribbular Creatization".Not "Eve ate an apple a snake told her to" but "Serpentious Consumption of Appleized Matter".That is Creation Science, meant for those too retarded to understand real science.
"Now ah gots me a skience that backs up muh Holey Babble"
drav1dan 11 months ago
i believe that dr, wells should go back and get reprogram by the unification church
calling rev. moon, you have a moonie on the loose
i bet max and aaugoaa are moonies
MrMegatruth 11 months ago
I LOVE THIS VIDEO!!!!
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
So a few religious nuts, who are in the tiny majority since most xtains accept the facts. But even these xtains deny the ark, the 6000 year old earth etc as the bible is too insane even for them.
Not much of an argument.
gorilla199uncensored 1 year ago
"Discovery Institute" a truly repugnant, disingenuous (word was invented for this organisation), cynical, dishonest group of charlatans who serve no conceivable purpose other than push the political agenda of their shady benefactors. If there ever was a more dark, conspiritorial and dangerous group it is this unpleasant manifestation of superstitious nuts. Third rate academics and scientists prostituting their inferior credentials for mammon.
vohshkab 1 year ago
@vohshkibob Thanks, I am going to use your quote for describing Talk Origins from now on. It fits them perfectly. HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@vohshkab Of course I have to make spelling corrections you illiterate nincompoop.
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@MaximusArurealius if you have come this far to even discuss the possibility of the literal truth of the bible what is the point of posting any argument in its defence surely it is just a question of faith. Is the Koran or the Torat literaly true isn't it all about faith. My mum is a moslem and it is impossible for me to convince her that the koran is bullshit I guess if I cant convince her I cant convince a fundamental christian or jew either. Religion is evil full stop
vohshkab 11 months ago
@shiskabob, you nitwit. Did I MENTION THE BIBLE? No, you did. You're a fundie aren't you? Your belief in dinos turning into birds and wolves turning into whales is attacked by the Bible? HAR HAR HAR See this is what is so funny. You idiots deny deny deny that evolution/atheism is a religion, but that's ALL you can talk about. It's your only defense. So yes YOUR religion is evil full stop. Ya fucking moron.
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@MaximusArurealius I agree evolution is a religion along with, atomic theory, theory of gravity, nuclear physics, brownian motion, astro physics, archeology, geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, astronomy, meteorology and the great priests of atheism, Einstein, Newton, Gallileo, Copernicus, Hawkins - I guess you are right there are so many religions in this world we are spoilt for choice.
vohshkab 11 months ago
@shishkabob, you nitwit. You have no clue as to what you're talking about. Newton, Gallileo and Copernicus were ALL Christians. SO MUCH for your great knowledge dummass.
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
Ratings disabled, what a surprise.
Thumbs down from me. Zero stars.
pinkubento 1 year ago
good video, the discovery institute should make videos like this often to guide people about the facts of some of evolution science claims.
aaugoaa 1 year ago
@aaugoaa - "good video, the discovery institute should make videos like this often to guide people about the facts of some of evolution science claims."
The only problem is is that the Discovery Institute is blatantly lying, and when they aren't lying, they are not telling the whole story. If they actually did some science to back up their claims, I would not be so hard on them. Unlike honest scientists, they never admit when they are wrong, even after their errors are pointed out to them.
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30 then explain why they are lying in this video, or not telling the full story.
aaugoaa 1 year ago
@CamW30 ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009) — Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight – and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.
aaugoaa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aaugoaa - "he finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs."
Did you read the article? They were comparing modern bird lungs to that of modern crocodiles. You could have missed the wording in the article. That word "may" was used a fair bit. This is just another study on what "may" have occurred. This is the way science works. Again, it is the journalists who blow it out of proportion. Still, this article further strengthens the case for evolution.
CamW30 1 year ago
@aaugoaa anyone who would believe that birds evolved from dinos is a dingbat.
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@CamW30 "For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.
aaugoaa 1 year ago
@aaugoaa - "there are other inconsistencies"
Two factors must be considered: First, molecular clocks cannot be considered reliable in the absence of robust fossil calibration, whereas the fossil record is naturally incomplete. Second, in reconstructed phylogenetic trees, the time and pattern of lineage separation corresponds to the evolution of the characters studied, not to the actual evolutionary pattern of the lineages; these ideally should not differ by much, but may well do so in practice.
CamW30 1 year ago
@aaugoaa - "For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs "
This just means that bird-like creatures may have evolved more than once. It also means that Archaeopteryx is not a direct ancestor of birds, but we already knew that. Rueben & Quick are quoting in this way to hype their paper. Since it's publication it has not been cited by anyone else. This article is hardly a game-changer. If it contained conclusive evidence it would have had more impact on science.
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30 "This just means that bird-like creatures may have evolved more than once." HAR HAR HAR you're so full of shit. I bet you believe the bullshit about whale evolution too don't you?
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@CamW30 The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.
aaugoaa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aaugoaa - "The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs"
See: Senter P. Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs. J Evol Biol 2010; 23(8); 1732-43.
It uses creation science methods to disprove creation science arguments.
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30 Your accusations of lying with no evidence leave you in the unenviable situation of being the liar. But of course you're an atheist Marxist so lying is no problem for you. It's actually very Marxist. "Any statement that furthers world communism is a true statement."
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@MaximusArurealius - "It's actually very Marxist."
Deluded much? I see by your other comments that you must have a PhD in biology... NOT! Go away little boy, at least until you have a clue about evolutionary theory.
Creatards are so sad.
CamW30 11 months ago
@CamW30 A clue about evolution? HAHAHAHAA it's a fucking hoax. Other than that I don't really need to know anything. Is your granny one of those red-assed, blue-faced, butt-picker monkeys?
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
if it's a "hoax" why the fuck can't you explain VASCULAR PLANT SPECIATION, without using evolution theory?????
transtlantic 11 months ago
@transpedo, you ignorant, uneducated, 3rd world hick. All you have is argument from ignorance and YOU have plenty of that asshole.
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." -- Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.
PWNED
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@MaximusHaggard
"The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist "
"
As far as we know, Louis Bounoure never served as ["Director" nor was even] a member of the CNRS. He was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. "
so easy to catch your bullshit....
transtlantic 11 months ago
"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." -- Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
Sir John Ambrose Fleming (29 November 1849 – 18 April 1945) was an English electrical engineer and physicist.
not only outdated but proof the guy had no idea what is evolution! LOLOL
transtlantic 11 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
and yet you failed to answer the basic question. so i guess i am right in saying that you can ONLY explain VASCULAR plant speciation if you use evolution theory.
´btw... ambrose the electrical engineer from 19th century? HA HA HA HA
LOLOL keep using such quotes! LOLOLOL
transtlantic 11 months ago
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." -- Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
Fleischmann, Albert, Victoria Institute, Vol. 65, pp. 194-195)
around 1911 is when that quote was published first.
quite outdated! LOLOL
so why can't you explain VASCULAR PLANT SPECIATION without using evolution theory???
transtlantic 11 months ago
"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." -- Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
First of all Dr. Hsü is certainly not a creationist, this "commentary" article starts with the following paragraph:
The Darwinian theory of evolution has two themes: common descent and natural selection. Creationists are barking up the wrong tree when they question common descent, which is amply documented by scientific evidence. Darwin's mistakes were in his emphasis on biotic competition in natural selection.
So Hsü fully accepts evolution.
transtlantic 11 months ago
"9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view." -- Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
you misspelled Etheridge. does that mean you copy paste already many times the same already debunked misquotes? LOLOL
Dr. Etheridge, world-famous paleontologist of the British Museum"4 is commonly quoted by evolution deniers but turns out to have been an obscure nineteenth century figure who was an assistant at the British Museum and was never famous at all.
transtlantic 11 months ago
"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact." -- Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University
That's you transpedophile, ignorant, half-educated 3rd world hick.
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
"Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather." -- Dr. David Berlinski
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@MaximusHaggard
"Engber characterized Berlinski's viewpoints as "radical and often wrong-headed skepticism represents an ascendant style in the popular debate over American science: Like the recent crop of global-warming skeptics, AIDS denialists, and biotech activists, Berlinski uses doubt as a weapon against the academy—he's more concerned with what we don't know than what we do. "
transtlantic 11 months ago
Thomas Dwight (1843–1911) was an American physician, anatomist and teacher.
wow....so powerfull..a quote from more than 100 years ago! science must have stopped since then in order for it to even have any value at all! LOLOL
thing is... where the fuck is ONE single physician capable of explaining AB resistance without using evolution theory?
so it's obvious that the ignorant, not educated at all, a dumb knot teacher and a 3rd world bill hilly trailer park trash is, in the full sense: maxtard
transtlantic 11 months ago
@transtlantic - Nice work on exposing the quote-mining. Do these cut-&-pasters never actually look up the quotes? I guess that context means nothing to them. I always laugh when they use Gould quotes to disprove evolutionary theory; how uninformed can they be?
CamW30 11 months ago
@CamW30 On your channel your music alone proves you to be a fucking moron. And THEN you use a video by a fucking hick, Shanedk a complete idiot, to prove evolution as science!!! HAR HAR HAR What a fucking joke that is. He knows about as much about evolution as you do. HAR HAR HAR
AND catching a fish in the ACT of evolving? What a fucking joke!! To say he's a dunce is to give him too much credit. He cites sub-species of fish as evolution. hahahahhaaa
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@MaximusHaggard
sub-species are solely explained by using evolution theory. try explain their existence without using evolution theory! LOLOLOL
transtlantic 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaximusArurealius - "He knows about as much about evolution as you do."
Now that's the only sensible thing you've said. Too bad that the only way you can get your view across is to debase & attack your opponents with sarcasm. I guess that's all you got, as you have no empirical evidence for your beliefs. It is the sign of someone who knows that their worldview is on shaky grounds. I feel for you.
CamW30 11 months ago
@CamW30 Creatards are sad? Nope, you deluded little moron. You evotards are the sad ones. You believe a bullshit hoax is true. Here the brainless evoturds are believing that dinos turned into birds and wolf-like creatures about the size of a wolf, turned into 150 ton sea going monsters. Now tell me how fucking intelligent that is? BTW I know more about evolution than you do asshole. I haven't found ONE of you dummasses who knows what evolution is. So fuck off.
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@MaximusArurealius - "BTW I know more about evolution than you do asshole."
LOL Yeah, you haven't shown it so far. All I see are ad hominem attacks. ranting, & cussing.
"wolf-like creatures about the size of a wolf, turned into 150 ton sea going monsters."
With regard to your ignorance of evolutionary theory, I use your above quote to rest my case. Or would you like to argue evidence; say how the HOX family of genes proves evolutionary theory?
"So fuck off."
Such intellectual prowess!
CamW30 11 months ago
@CamW30
Maxtard is a knot teacher and has been for more than 40 years.
So you not only realize that he is an old fuck, but he is also an old DUMBFUCK, ergo the reason he was always a knot teacher.
watch?v=uiBbktmCGXo
"After having tied lines to trees for 40 years, I finally hit upon that as the easiest way."
He took 40 years to figure out how to tie a line around a tree....
he is a real winner! LOLOL
transtlantic 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@transpedophile is only a shit dumping bedpan jockey who lies about being a doctor.
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@MaximusHaggard
"evotards are the sad ones"... yeah... the majority of educated people, with all their money, education and power are so damn sad... LOLOLOLOL
"here the brainless"... amazing how you say "here" -USA as if it were some sort of place you owned all to yourself.... LOLOLOL
the fact is: you are part of a MINORITY! lololol
you don't know anything about evolution, jack ass. that's why you keep being UNABLE to explain AB resistance w/out using evolution theory! LOLOLOLOL
transtlantic 11 months ago
@transpedophile, If you knew jack shit about evolution you wouldn't even bring up AB resistance. It's nothing more than micro which isn't really evolution. And all creationists believe in micro you ignernt fuck.
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@MaximusHaggard
i think i could repost the quote stating that AB resistance is one of the most well documented cases that support evolution theory... want it? lol
"nothing more than micro". and macro. i already explained that to you. you cannot stop from using micro/macro evolution in order to explain AB resistance. period.
what you are exposing is that all creationists don't have a flying fuck clue about what is micro/macro or evolution altogether.
now fuck off, you ignorant knot teacher.
transtlantic 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@transpedophile, there IS NO macro asshole. Which means there is NO evolution. But you wouldn't know that. You're a MS impersonator and a huge self-confessed liar. All you are is a shit dumping bedpan jockey. HAR HAR HAR Go get an education.
PWNED
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@aaugoaa By "great video", I assume you mean "video that reinforces my already incorrect beliefs about the world".
compactdisk2 1 year ago
@compactbrain said, ""video that reinforces my already incorrect beliefs about the world" That's great coming from an asshole who believes that dinos turn into birds and wolves turn into whales. HAR HAR HAR Do you have a lifesize statue of Piltdown Man in your room asshole? HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@aaugoaa Really, what the discovery institute does is tells half lies. When Archaeopteryx was discovered in 1860 it may have been thought to be the first bird from which all other bird came from. This was a vast simplification which current scientist understand. The current estimation is that we have only found about 1/2 the dinosaurs genera that we expect to discover, so even today we can expect to find more "missing links" in all categories, but there is no one, but lots "missing links".
Loathomar 1 year ago
@Loathomar, "loathomar?" hahahahaa do you know what loathomar means? hahahahahaha It means you hate the sea. hah ah hahaha you're a fucking dingbat wacko. Ding Ding Cuckoo!
I realize that in your little fantasy world of make believe that there are all sorts of "missing links," millions even. But the funny thing about it is that they are ALL still missing. HAR HAR HAR
So do you have any actual evidence that even ONE missing link is in existence somewhere? HAR HAR HAR
PWNED
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Missing link between Humans and apes? Ardipithecus (5.5–4.4 Ma), Australopithecus (4–1.8 Ma), Kenyanthropus (3–2.7 Ma), Paranthropus (3–1.2 Ma), Homo (2 Ma–present)? Those "missing links"? That would be at the genus level, at the specie level the list is a whole lot longer. Is there are particular "missing link" you are looking for? It is sad that you think you ignorance "PWNED".
Loathomar 11 months ago
@Loathomar you stupid bastard, you cannot prove even one of those is a link to anything. AND Ardipithecus??? HAR HAR HAR He's just a fucking monkey. hahahahaaaa
FAIL ASSHOLE
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Ardipithecus where part of the Hominidae family, like humans, which are the "Great Apes". Monkeys, on the other hand are not Homonidae, and you have to go to the Superfamily of Hominoidea to have any monkey in the grouping. But would you have preferred I only used the things that really seemed man like for just the last 2 million years. You list the age or link you want filed and I will give you the closest fossilized records for that time or "gap".
Loathomar 11 months ago
@Loathomar You're too fucking stupid to reply to. You know jack shit of what you're talking about. Now don't bother me anymore sonny.
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@MaximusArurealius LOL, you're funny.
Loathomar 11 months ago
@Loathomar TELL asshole, will you please post a picture or you Piltdown Man statue on your channel? HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 11 months ago
@aaugoaa
shannon...i think you should get psychiatric help....
transtlantic 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aaugoaa
i have to laugh everytime i read your posts...
you really are a dumb person
transtlantic 11 months ago
Time for a new theory! (Hint: God did it all)
9pt9 1 year ago
I'm bored of hearing why Evolution is wrong. Let's hear why Intelligent design is right.
JackHDiamond 1 year ago
There were no feathers on the latest fossil? That statement is a vey foolish thing to say. Wells is being totally deceptive. He knows that feathers do not fossilize. Imprints of feathers can fossilize, but only under very special circumstances. How does he sleep at night?
Anatomic homology is only one way to group organisms into clades. Increasing, using PCR, makes it possible to apply cladistic methods of analysis to biochemical and molecular genetic features of organisms.
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30 ASSUMPTIONS AGAIN, NOT SCIENCE, NOT PROOF; JUST ASSUMPTIONS; SO WHAT IS MY APPENDIX; WHEN YOU SEE IT, DO YOU ASSUME THINGS OR PROVIDE SCIENCE? PLEASE DO NOT SAY IT IS RELATED TO MY DIGESTIVE SYSTEM; TODAY, SCIENCE SAYS IT IS USELESS; RIGHT? MORE TO COME CAMW30; I WANT YOU TO GET INTO STATISTICS OF EVOLUTION; PLEASE EXPLAIN THE STATISTICS BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE AND IGNORES ALL OTHER SCIENCES PROOF AGAINST EVOLUTION BEING VALID; GOT TO LOVE YA MAN; YOU MAKE IT EASY
tumordick 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tumordick "SO WHAT IS MY APPENDIX; WHEN YOU SEE IT, DO YOU ASSUME THINGS OR PROVIDE SCIENCE? PLEASE DO NOT SAY IT IS RELATED TO MY DIGESTIVE SYSTEM; TODAY, SCIENCE SAYS IT IS USELESS; RIGHT?"
What are you trying to say here?
Ironhoist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ironhoist - "What are you trying to say here?"
Don't bother answering him. He's just a mentally unwell person. He has conspiracy delusions and likes to spout off, but has nothing if substance to say. I feel sorry for him.
CamW30 1 year ago
Sigh, still playing word games. Archeopteryx need not be the "first" bird-like dinosaur. Evolutionary biologists does not play the "missing link" game, only creation scientists do. How can Wells say that Archeopteryx is a related species, so birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs. It makes no sense. Science is constantly evolving with every new discovery.
The public will start to catch on about just how disingenuous these guys really are. You can only fool people for so long.
CamW30 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CamW30 you again? thank you thank you thank you thank you for your response; did i say thank you; please all read his comment; to the average person, you know that the "agenda" of evolutionists DO try to show some "missing link" or at least they try to make YOU perceive that; now, people who want and ARE ALLOWED TO QUESTION ANYTHING, INCLUDING SCIENCE, KEEP QUESIONING; the "darwinian evolution theory" is soon becoming EXTINCT with A NEW RENAISSANCE OF THINKING; LET THEM HOLD ON TO OLD IDEAS !
tumordick 1 year ago
Comment removed
CamW30 1 year ago