@OMGitsSEVEN Ida is a 47 million year old common ancestor of anthropoids and prosimians; a time when the continents and climate were completely different. Her descendants were the ones who later evolved to other anthropoid species in Africa, for example.
Wow this evoheads are relly desperate to find ANYTHING they can teach to 5 year old children to be their ancestor....what is this?? a small monkey???? how the heck they can tell that it is the ancestor of who??? ADN relationship??? Our DNA is realted to flies too....
When it comes to Darwin and his children(atheist ,or evolution fools)the question is who is right,The BIBLE.or Darwin?GODor Darwin ?that's the bottom line.
LOL! 2:12 "It is thought that a layer of co2 would form on the surface of the lake causing the animals to pass out, and sink to the bottom" LOL!
They call that "science".
You can never question creation because the function of hydrogen and most of the most common elements that are essential working parts inside of life forms along with the ordering of the essential working parts inside of us all require a very great Maker.
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL You obviously haven't studied the subject which you are obviously trying to display an opinion about. The problem in today's society is that there is a lot of information around, but not very much understanding. If you made an effort to understand the world around you through any means which you can, then perhaps you wouldn't automatically dismiss valid ideas such as evolution with meaningless drivel. It is people like you that prevent the world moving forwards.
lol this bs it is no more then a primate.not the missing link . the missing link is inbetween primates and humans, not primates.we have been trying to teach primates all kinds of stuff.but they just cant get as smart as us.if we cant help them evolve then how did we? and plz dont start with aliens thats just absurd
@robZzdaboss There's no way for us to make animals evolve into humans. Although the reason dogs exist & have so much variation is because of selective breeding by humans (evolution from wolves).
There are plenty of fossils of our ancestors after diverging from chimpanzees. Just to name a few (google them): sahelanthropus tchadensis, ardipithicus ramidus, australophithecus afarensis, australopithecus africanus, australopithecus sediba, paranthropus aethiopithecus, paranthropus boisei.
@23loosecannon - Oh yeah. Because the idea that an exergonic reaction (with no known ingredients, activation energy, or reactive media) actually CREATED a universe makes soooooooo much more sense than the idea that an ultranatural being set the rules for natural phenomenon.
I LOVE HOW PISSED RELISIOUS OR SHOULD I SAY SUPERSTIOUS PEOPLE GET WHEN SCIENCE KEEPS PROVING THIS. THERE LIKE NNOOOOOO .... TALKING SNAKES ARE FAR MORE RELISTIC. WHY DONT YOU BELIVE IN LORD RINGS AS WELL, IF YOU THINK BOOKS WITH STORYS IN ARE REAL. LOL ..
LEAVE THIS KIND OF STUFF FOR THE HUMANS THAT WANA GO FORWARD AND YOU GUYS KEEP DYING OF CANCER COZ WHO CARES IF YOU DIE, YOUR GOING TO 'HEAVEN' LOL
Cont.. PLUS if humans DID come from primates, you scientists STILL can't proved how they became to be here. Apart from being concieved in the womb of the females. you cannot prove where the very first primate came from - The chicken or the egg rings a bell?
This is wrong, it has been proved (BY EXPERTS "Science Bioligists") that pigs have the nearest 99% (or was 98%) DNA to humans. NOT primates! (it even less with primates) Even the bible gave this clue when is says that adam was made from a pig.... so this video is sorry to say is DEBUNKED!
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL Fossilization is a rare occurence. We're fortunate to find any at all. And with there being millions of time more mosquitoes/bugs than primates the odds are that much higher. Pretty simple, huh?
@gvman3670 What evidence is there that the lemur ever produced any progeny significantly different from itself, much less that it led to humans, & isn't just 1 of countless fossils of dead end, extinct animals? We are not only being told that its invisible babies led to us but that all the other invisible "missing links" did the same. How do we tell "missing" links from never existed links, btw? Dataless speculation presented as Gawd's truth is pseudo science - & the foundation of evolution.
@gvman3670 What evidence is there that Ida ever produced progeny significantly different from herself in any way,much less that they led to humans, & that she isn't just one of countless dead end extinct animals? We are not only being told her invisible offspring led to us but that innumerable "missing" links did too. Based on...faith. Btw, how do you tell "missing" links from never existed links? Dataless speculation presented as Gawd's truth is pseudo science - and business as usual for evo.
@LoricaLady Ever hear of DNA? We don't even NEED fossils to prove where we came from, all we need are DNA samples. Ask every molecular biologist or DNA expert on Earth where we came from and you'll get just one answer...."we evolved from lower primates".
And why do you think evolution produces offspring much different than their parents? That just tells me you're arguing against something you don't understand, and that's the only reason you're arguing against it. Educate yourself further first.
@gvman3670 How can DNA samples tell us that fossils "tens of millions of years" old led to us or anything else when even evoltuionists say DNA lasts at most 100,000 years? What DNA sample is telling us that Ida is your great great etc. grandma? "We don't need fossils" means, "Just ignore the concrete evidence of uncounted billions of fossils that show the exact opposite of what evo teaches & believe our new story, also built on dataless speculation, about how DNA shows its true anyway. Cont.
@LoricaLady DNA samples of living creatures is all that's needed. You're just going to blindly argue with me to continue believing some invisible sky daddy made us from dirt instead of trying to actually learn anything, aren't you? If so, and I believe it's the case, I don't feel like wasting any more time on you. Go learn what you're arguing against, or your arguments are vacuous and meaningless.
BTW, you're a transitional species, too. How's that grab you?
@gvman3670 "DNA samples of living creatures is all that's needed." Is that right? Explain to me, give data, even give Google referenced evolutionary website that spell out how DNA samples from living creatures show Ida is your great, great, etc. grandma. Or use any "transitioinal form" whatsoever & show how DNA can be tracked back to it from living creatures. Don't just say it's so. Support your statement with facts. Waiting...
@gvman3670 Cont. You reference to "sky daddy" is the typical strawman logical fallacy presented by YT evo buffs. That is, instead of answering valid Qs you have changed the subject to Diety. Evolution stands or falls based on science regardless of what you or I think about YHWH/God, Zeus, the Koran or the Bible, etc. etc.
@gvman3670 Not every biologist agrees with evo Scientists from every field are dissenting from it, tho they may get Expelled if they are too vocal. You're evading the fact that the vid above is saying they have proof for our ancestry and that the truth is they are offering you pseudo science. That should bother you. All of evo theory is built on dataless speculation & logical fallacies, just like Ida.
Educate YOURself. Evo says there must be significant changes in progeny.
@LoricaLady Ida is the first transitional fossil showing the link between proto-simmians and monkeys. It's not saying it's a human ancestor. Understand that much FIRST, since you're arguing a point not made in the video. And the changes in evo that happen in the womb are genetic, not often meaning that it would physically be distinguishable from it's parents. If you don't understand that your view of evo is skewed. Birds don't give birth to rats, get it? Small changes over time make big changes.
@gvman3670 What do the words "missing link in human evolution mean to you?" They mean Ida is considered to be part of the so called chain of animals leading to us. No, birds don't give birth to cats. That's one reason we can tell evo is bogus. As Mendell - who used actual data & the scientific method (unlike Darwin who showed no orign of any species & 0 science, just gave armchair speculations) showed, bees stay bees & peas stay peas. Do you believe in the so called Tree of Life or not?
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL actually it is 22% of our dna is shared with banana's and the reason we find lots of old bugs is because the tree's 65million years ago would always be eaten alive by bugs and stuff so the tree's produced this thick substance called amber which when covered something it preserved it but other animals however have to die in very specific way and condition to be fossilized it's amazing that we even have the amount of fossils we do if have any other questions feel free to ask :)
You are inaccurate to say that bananas share 22% DNA its closer to 50%, actually lettuce is about 16% dna similar to humans too! PIGS is almost 99%.
Last you have just made excuses. Excuses that does not make sense!! A very small thing such as mosquitoes, insects can be found, yet these MONKEY skull are so rare!! Yet we find compete DINOSAURS remains!
Lets not forget the amount of grand hoaxes that was created to further these lies.
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL Now your being ignorant i made no excuse i clearly explained the reason for their being so many insect fossils go on the internet and look up amber it fossilized countless insects and is even made for jewelry such as amber necklaces ad etc. second the dinosaurs lived for hundreds of millions of years the evolution for mammals to be the size they are too 65 million years HUGE DIFFERENCE also animals have to die in certain swamp like conditions to be fossilized unlike insects
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL on top of that the first human like mammals didn't appear until around 5 million years ago creating very little time for fossilization and on top of that 99.98% of all biologists believe in evolution and by the way atheism = free thinking
but i would like to know what religion are you, i don't like to assume
It is quite clear you belong to the religion of darwinism!!
What you have stated is nothing BUT BBC news speculation & FAITH!!
"mammals did not appear until 5million years" again you are making up excuses!! Regardless what period, they appeared, the point of fact is that these ANCIENT MONKEY SKULLS, are rare.
U can try to make up excuses & create faith(theories). The darwinism theory of evolution is flawed.
I respect religions that are TRUE, but I belong to none.
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL and i love how u respect religions that are true !..... please sir, none of them are, and its really easy to say.... evolution is the best explanation we have, even without fossils....... creation is just Sooo stupid....
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL you poor fool i feel so bad for you resorting to ignorance because you know your beliefs are lies you still continue to ignore the amber substance i just mentioned and the process of fossilization i just mentioned you give no responses to a clear statement
and by the way the facts you stated such as pigs being 99% dna related to humans only proves evolution
i don't need a single fossil to prove evolution it's just another pile of evidence
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL Goodbye troll but before i go i want to say thank you for:
1. proving you can answer my questions
2. proving your unrealistic stupidity
3.showing that you have no knowledge of evolution
4. and making it obvious that you are brainwashed
p.s you 2 are also showing courage through the internet dumbass by the way i deal with nuts worse than you all the time and you are joke if you think anyone will take you seriously asking questions children can answer and then be discovered
I have been reading all the comments and you have been presented evidence against you're claims yet you ignore them like any brainwashed idiot. I feel very bad for you.
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL Insects have existed since the Devonian era, which was about 396 million years ago. Primates have only existed for around 65 million years. Fossilisation occurs by chance, through several different method, so considering the fact that insects have been around a lot longer than primates, it is likely that they have had more, 'chances,' to become fossilised.
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL because they are bigger than mosquitoes, and arent so easy to preserve.... and there are alot more mosquitoes, so a better chances to find one :D
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL Simple ther are more insects then they are humans.. Making these ancient monkey skulls soo rare... But I wonder what RebelResistance2011 said O_o...!!!
Her skeleton was preserved? It doesn't work that way. She fell into a lake. Water isn't a preservative. If she's X million years old, her bone marrow and food would be LONG decomposed. Place a piece of fruit into an open jar of water and see what it looks like in 2 days. Let along millions of years. Sorry scientific community, but this is by FAR your most pathetic attempt at making yourSELVES into gods.
Assuming the skeleton is real, where are the skeletons of the millions of additional primates? Since one can't reproduce asexually, more than one would be needed to bring the next generation. And, thousands of generations would be needed to visibly detect evolutionary changes. So why haven't they found more skeletons? Bones decompose? Her's didn't. So others should have survived decomposition as well.
This is just a skeleton, which happens to be as much different from a human skeleton as a cat is from a dog. Concocting a theory that this is humans' first ancestor is just as accurate as concocting a theory that humans descended from a flying spaghetti monster. Total bunk. How can anyone believe this?
EVOs are really starting to show themselves to be retarded. Are they making this fossil an ancestor of humans because it has thumbs? This is tantamount to claiming Mammals evolved from Dimetrodon because it has "mammal-like" teeth.
@sugarhitman It's not. But this is only two minutes of an entire documentery therefor we can assume that there is more to it than just thumbs. I dought they would have made a documentery just to say "Durr hurr! We found a fossel with thumbs!" I'll bet if we saw the whole thing they would say more than that. Anyway no average person wants to see this "link" anyway. It isn't as significant as the ape/human transisions that they have found.
@f00tstep Well it doesnt seem to be out of context..and they clearly said its an ancestor of humans because of the thumbs...there was enough time to add an additional reason to support their conclusion.
And there has never been ape/human transitions discovered..they are either apes or humans period. The missing links always get refuted by those in your own ranks.
@sugarhitman "...there was enough time to add an additional reason to support their conclusion." That's the uploaders fault. They could have added more of the origional video but they didn't and it ended up making a bad impression.
@sugarhitman "And there has never been ape/human transitions discovered..they are either apes or humans period." That’s only because when transitional fossils are found they have to be categorized into either group depending on how human they are. Lucy is one of the earliest known mostly human fossils but it also has many qualities of apes, therefore it is considered ape/human but categorized as human.
@f00tstep "Yet, this can be questioned, as finds of Australopithecus foot bones indicate that the Laetoli footprints may not have been made by Australopithecus.[12] Many scientists also doubt the suggestion of bipedalism, and argue that even if Australopithecus really did walk on two legs, it did not walk in the same way as a human.[13][14][15]." Lucy wiki
@sugarhitman Walking on two feet isn't the only thing that determines a human. If it were Chickens would be our cousins. In fact that's just as bad as saying thumbs are the only thing that make a human.
@f00tstep They are claiming that since Lucy was "Bipedal" she must have been an ancestor of humans...looking at the incomplete fossil shows that she was simply an ape...as well as Ardi. Sorry....but all the hype about missing links always end up being refuted.
@sugarhitman When somthing is refuted it gives us a chance to fix the error and we often do. You're only looking at the stuff that was proven wrong or mute. It's like having icing on a cake and saying the cake has no icing. Anyway I want to know somthing. Why don't you personaly believe that science can be right when it contridicts the bible. Science contridicted the bible when it found out how to cure lepercy and nobody raised an eyebrow at that, what gives?
@f00tstep "“For behold, in those days and at that time, When I bring back the captives of Judah and Jerusalem, 2 I will also gather all nations, And bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat; And I will enter into judgment with them there On account of My people, My heritage Israel, Whom they have scattered among the nations; They have also divided up My land. " Joel 3
@sugarhitman It's not that. It's just that asking science to disprove proficy is like asking a dolphin to fly a plane instead of hunt fish. It's not the kind of thing that science is for. You want to talk to sombody who works with historicle documants and scripture for that. But all the same simple logic can disprove other things in the bible like the great flood for instance.
@f00tstep Science cannot explain the ancient past..hence the many different interpretations of what happened in the ancient world. I would put my faith in He who can predict the future...rather than those who cant even explain the distant past.
BTW, EVOs have their own Flood story...they believe the Seas were formed from comet/Asteroids impacts followed by heavy rains. LOL!
@sugarhitman that "flood didn't cover the entire planet and wipe out evrything in existance though. A flood that coverd the enitire earth would defy the laws of conservation of mass. Not to mention that the amount rain water talked about in the bible would have mixed with the salt water creating a mixture deadly to all marine life. Not to mention you could not fit two of each speicies into the ark.
@f00tstep Thats why its called a "miracle". God can manipulate natural laws, whenever He sees fit. Im sorry, seeing that His Word contains such accurate Prophecies...Ill have to side with His explanation of what occurred in the past...rather then someone who is not sure about what happened back then..and certainly someone who cant predict the future..as God can and have.
@sugarhitman I just realized how long this conversation has become... anyway go ahead and believe what you want. I won't stop you. However if you are interested I will direct you to EnglishCaddys Facts of Evolution series. It is very informitive, And basicly sums up evrything I know about evolution and more. It may shed some light on how they determin ancestry. That's all I realy have left to say.
@jshowa2 just letting you answer your own questions. it is the missing link. If you've been paying attention we've been linked all the way and this one completes it (More or less). Even with ape-men it took this Eda to close the gap, scientifically of course. But people will believe what they want.
most people will buy into any nonsense, there was never a missing link to find, but evolutionist and satanist have fooled many. Evolution is the kingpin of atheism and communism.
I think its beutiful that we could come from somthing so little it makes me feal at ease with the world, say what you like but the truth will set you free
The headline says "missing link found" then they give us this picture of what is obviously not the missing link. They just keep trying to feed this junk science to the sheople who will believe anything people with initials behind their names spew out in the name of countering religion. All they do is reinforce the bible thumpers and make themselves look stupid.
Classic case of showing us one thing and telling us something else. They must be right. We have NEVER seen a monkey with a tail and finger like toes. That's amazing!! From the skull to the ribs down the spine and feet cry out MONKEY!!!! Commentator slips in after describing it as an animal "eventually becoming human". So you could look at anything and say "eventually becoming human" and that's your scientific answer.
@khalilrabee Are you a mammal? It turns out IDA is a missing link but may not be our ancestor as the first group of scientists thought. You are still classified as a Great Ape. Are you home schooled?
@khalilrabee wow, you really don't understand how evolution works, do you? In the past there was an ape that lived in Africa. Some lived in the trees and some on the plains. The ones that lived in the trees got stronger and the ones on the plains started using their hands and walked upright. In millions of years they evolved away from each other. They are both still apes. One ape we call humans, the other we call chimps. Chimps are closer to Humans than they are to gorillas. Think.
@khalilrabee Wow, you are good at debater. LOL Humans, Chimps, gorillas and oranatangs are all apes and none on them have tails ! You didn't do good in school did you?
"i did good enough but i dont swallow every crap of evolutionists..."
It's better than swallowing the crap of religious dumbasses.
show me one single animal transformed/transforming into another animal in our ages..."
Evolution doesn't transform one creature into another instantly. It is a shift from one adaptation to another. It took millions of years just for our ape ancestors to walk upright but you would never have seen this happen unless you yourself could live for that long.
Technically we still are monkeys, We share very close genetic proximity to all apes.
What our ancestors will become is tough to say.
"these are just theories without evidence..theres not evidence to back it up, just like many other theories"
No, when we are talking about theory in scientific terms we are not referring to whether evolution exists or not. The debate ended over 100 years ago. Rather the debate is about how this occurs and the processes involved.
@khalilrabee Everything is changing [evolving]. Everything is a complete species. Major changes take millions of years. Only fast reproducing things like bacteria can be seen to evolve, like new cold and flu 'germs'.
@khalilrabee We SHARE a common ancestor with apes. They evolved into what they are now, as did we. And we're all STILL evolving. Evolution is an ongoing process.
@VinnyMonster1 theres no proof that we evolved from apes...words are not proof and theres no animal transformed into another animal...not one single animal
and again they can keep saying things but words arent proof, their words are simply a theory without sufficient evidence to suport it like many other theories
@khalilrabee You must be barmy! There is tons of proof! The fossi record is thick with proof! And for your information a SCIENTIFIC theory Is a model based on OBSERVABLE and tested FACTS. And as for animals transitioning from one to another, What about Archaeopteryx, a bird with clearly reptillian features, but obviously a bird. Homo Habilis, a primitive hominid with characteristics of both human and ape. Wolves and Dogs, you sir, are severely misinformed.
@VinnyMonster1 how i love atheist evolutionists when the say "ur an idiot! theres TONS of proofs!" tons! right...where are the tons? there are tons of evidence! we have it! we do2nt want to show u but we do have it!
show me one single animal that transformed into another...not just words...
ur an ape maybe, im not...wheres ur tail? so sad...
@khalilrabee You're not worth replying to, I ALREADY gave you two examples. If you're TOO DENSE to accept what MILLIONS of people already have, then it's your own fault.
@VinnyMonster1 Animals don't just transform into different animals, that's not how it works asswipe. It takes thousands of years in most cases. But then, you probably think it's magic, well you already believe in something as ridiculous as believing in Santa Claus. Explain to me why our dentition is so similar to ape dentition (That's teeth for you, retardo) Why our basic anatomy is so similar to ape anatomy, why humans and apes share many similar behavioural traits.
@khalilrabee And by that comment, you prove conclusively that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Evolutionary theory states that humans and modern apes SHARE a COMMON ancestor. But then, you're probably too scared of what the Invisible Magic Man Who Lives In The Sky is going to do to you after you're dead to think straight enough to realize this.
@VinnyMonster1 And you still haven't explained why dentition is so similar to ape dentition. Why our basic anatomy is so similar to ape anatomy, and why humans and apes share many similar behavioural traits. Because without resorting to evolution, you can't, that's why. Hell, even the vestigal hair on our bodies is a leftover from an earlier stage in our evolution, so are our wisdom teeth. And By the way, there are a HELL of a lot of Christians who accept evolution.
"she could confirm darwinian theory and debunk creationism"
Fuck me! One hundred and fifty years of millions of fossils including definite missing links among transitional forms, the discovery of DNA, the observation of evolution in lizards and fish and the study of genome and none of it has debunked creationism, they'll ignore it, misepresent the facts or lie to their followers purely for a book sale or admission ticket to their theme parks.
DARWIN HIMSELF SAID THAT IF HUMANS DID COME FROM APE LIKE CREATURE THEN THIS EARTH WILL BE FILLED WITH SKELTONS OF HALF APE HALF HUMAN CREATURE BUT THERE IS NOT ONE AT ALL. NOT EVEN IN THE EARLIEST STAGE OF EVOLTION OR THE VERY END STAGE TOO SO HE HIMSELF SAID HIS THEORY WAS BASED ON THOUGHT NOT FACT.
@brntobme yep that is the biggest question man kind has tried to answer. I believe in god and Darwin's theories. I believe that we are descendants of monkeys, thought the only thing that makes me wonder is how did the monkeys get here? That I believe is were god comes into play.
How can you believe something you know nothing about?
Clearly we did not evolve from monkeys, that is nonsense that only religious people say.
Humans are members of the great apes. We share a close common ancestor with other great apes like orangutans, a slightly more distant common ancestor with monkeys and even more distant with other mammals.You can extend this and extrapolate back and at some stage we share a common ancestor wth all living things, including plants & fungi
I assume you believe that viruses are indeed alive, if so you must admit that these constructs are easily the least complex form of life on this planet. It is very easy to see how this type of life can have come together by chance, much less simpler molecules
"Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules"
"features of self-organization and self-replication are often considered the hallmark of living systems, there are many instances of abiotic molecules exhibiting such characteristics under proper conditions. Martin and Russel show that compartmentation by cell membranes from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, and that matter with such attributes would be life's most likely last common ancestor"
@brntobme Martin, William; Russel, Michael J. (2003). "On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 358 (1429): 59–85. doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1183. PMID 12594918
Here is what wikipedia says about this over-hyped tripe:
"and that while the fossil is a primate, there is no evidence to suggest that its species is a direct ancestor of humans"
"a modern-era, media-savvy scientist with the right amounts of showmanship, populist sensibility, and disregard for the normal avenues of scientific prestige required to pull this off"
"take story straight to the masses in a way that would appeal to the average person, especially kids"
....Yawn... 'missing link' only fuels the idiot creationists fire. There never was a 'missing link' and the whole term was a victorian media fad. The creationists will claim that the gap this fossil bridges is in fact now TWO gaps!
There is no halting the tide of idiocy that is creationism.
No No No this is more lies by scientist to bolster the evolition theory, keep looking you will never find it because it does not exist. Every few years they come up with some monkey that supposedly proves we came from apes, maybe you came from an ape but the only way is if your mom had sex with a monkey, hey thats something they have not tried yet maybe thats next in there playbook.
Actually this fossil does not prove that we 'came from apes' as you so stupidly wrote. We ARE in fact apes! Get that? We (humans) are apes. We have a common ancestor with other apes, slightly less close ancestor with monkeys and so on all the way to every living animal including trees!
That is very different from your silly ape nonsense. This video shows the earliest close common ancestor of todays ape and monkey species that we have found to date... if you bothered to study you'd know that
@evoman1776 Calling people dumb because they do not agree with you is not a very enlightened way to discuss things but when you have no other proof of evolution that is what you resort to.
@glendaweil If someone says 2 + 2 = 5, I don't need to argue with them, nor am I calling them dumb because they don't agree with me. I'm calling them dumb because they are. If someone refuses to use the brain they have, then there's no other word.
@evoman1776 Were is you proof of evolution when Darwin said the missing link will be found and it clearly has not been found, then you say that was never the proof for evolution you keep moving your argument to fit the failures. Come on use your brain. I believe in adaptation of species to date I have no evidence to support anything else.
@evoman1776 Darwin said there would be a missing link, to date none has been found, now you say we do not need a missing link. I know that we have no evidence of one species evolving into another. I believe in adaptation of species that is provable but it is not evolution one species to another.
@roner61 Based on what I have observed in the real world animals have babies after their own kind and this appears to be going on unbroken right now. Based on that, I don't believe were missing any links. Just because the grass is wet dosen't mean that it rained.
This fossil may show how a lemur changed to another adaptation of a lemur but proves little about people.
Haha, if you actually studied this then you would understand how funny you are... it's like telling a mechanic that engines clearly don't run on petrol because, basically, you don't know how theyt work and you have a book that says otherwise... you haven't studied it (probably claim you have though, transparently) and you don't intend on studying it because you already know the answer from your little book!
1. That is not a leap of faith at all. Tell me, do you consider a virus as a living being?
2. Of course bacteria don't turn into dogs, that would be absurd! Will you please tell me your point?
3. What do you mean? Please elaborate...
4. DNA does not limit the ammount of change in this way... it seems clear that you are attempting to argue from someone elses point of view and are misunderstanding this persons point. I assume you mean DNA's ability to correct mutation?
The fact that mutations kill most of the time is clear and obvious and in no way refutes the theory of evolution, though you would know this if you had ever actually studied it, yet you clearly have not. You seem to be getting your arguments from the usual source and are typically not even attempting to listen to the arguments against your position, in fact it seems you have like never even heard them!
If you had you would realise the absurdity of your refutations
Oh and having blue eyes is not a mutation. There was a mutation a long time ago that caused blue eyes but it is now permanently fixed into the common gene pool... proof of evolution.
@seansalvador1 True, You must have a evolutionary view to be looking for links between different kinds of animals. The point that I tire with is trying to explain I understand that little changes with alot of time....Blah, Blah. Intermediaries of EVERY species should be in play now.
Regardless of the belief system. The past is defiantly not the key to the past. Lots of time, money, and effort was spent on a one sided education. I would have loved to see both sides much earlier.
Tell me the exact logic of this assertion... you claim that all intermediates should be apparent (i assume you mean living or at least found fossils) which would be absurd, as for this to be so the planet would be too small to hold every example! Of course, most animals that die are eaten (usually by bacteria) and are therefore unfosilised. There is also the fact that we cannot possibly sift through every bit of earth looking for fossils!
Well how did he make us? A clot of blood? Born from out mothers thigh? From dust? From a rib? ...what about Lilith?
... there are many creation myths, why shoult i believe your? More to the point, why do you believe your version and not any others, especially pre jewish ones?
@OMGitsSEVEN Ida is a 47 million year old common ancestor of anthropoids and prosimians; a time when the continents and climate were completely different. Her descendants were the ones who later evolved to other anthropoid species in Africa, for example.
dredoc1 4 days ago
why was she found in europe and not africa? Didnt we already lose our tails before leaving africa?
OMGitsSEVEN 1 week ago
Wow this evoheads are relly desperate to find ANYTHING they can teach to 5 year old children to be their ancestor....what is this?? a small monkey???? how the heck they can tell that it is the ancestor of who??? ADN relationship??? Our DNA is realted to flies too....
IsaacBG84 2 weeks ago
A lemur..that's all folks. Next!!
Frab2001 4 weeks ago
When it comes to Darwin and his children(atheist ,or evolution fools)the question is who is right,The BIBLE.or Darwin?GODor Darwin ?that's the bottom line.
Bznrebel 1 month ago
LOL! 2:12 "It is thought that a layer of co2 would form on the surface of the lake causing the animals to pass out, and sink to the bottom" LOL!
They call that "science".
You can never question creation because the function of hydrogen and most of the most common elements that are essential working parts inside of life forms along with the ordering of the essential working parts inside of us all require a very great Maker.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL You obviously haven't studied the subject which you are obviously trying to display an opinion about. The problem in today's society is that there is a lot of information around, but not very much understanding. If you made an effort to understand the world around you through any means which you can, then perhaps you wouldn't automatically dismiss valid ideas such as evolution with meaningless drivel. It is people like you that prevent the world moving forwards.
leannehehe 2 months ago
@leannehehe
You are OBVIOUSLY like many very very DISHONEST!!
The world is backward due to RACIST DARWINIAN ideologists, yes darwin was a racist propaganda mouth piece, which u venerate!!
YOU FAILED to bring any evidence!! There is a rarity of ancient monkey skulls yet we find FISH, PLANTS, DINOSAURS.
You only make yourself look very very very foolish, like others!!
LEARN to be HONEST!!
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 2 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL I don't know if Darwin was a racist, but it doesn't matter, his theory is still correct.
xphreakyphilx 2 months ago
good try
C13SKY 2 months ago
lol this bs it is no more then a primate.not the missing link . the missing link is inbetween primates and humans, not primates.we have been trying to teach primates all kinds of stuff.but they just cant get as smart as us.if we cant help them evolve then how did we? and plz dont start with aliens thats just absurd
robZzdaboss 2 months ago
@robZzdaboss There's no way for us to make animals evolve into humans. Although the reason dogs exist & have so much variation is because of selective breeding by humans (evolution from wolves).
There are plenty of fossils of our ancestors after diverging from chimpanzees. Just to name a few (google them): sahelanthropus tchadensis, ardipithicus ramidus, australophithecus afarensis, australopithecus africanus, australopithecus sediba, paranthropus aethiopithecus, paranthropus boisei.
vicksoma 2 months ago
i have i problem thinking thats one of my ansesters you know what no this is giving me head ache i think im just gonna look up a different topic
dillon560 2 months ago
course this crap comes from the BBC,its a lemur folks
deadontime70 3 months ago
Yea right just another lemur nothing more.
glendaweil 4 months ago
that looks more like a modern monkey..
nickz777 4 months ago
The people below me are putting quite a show :))
revlin66 6 months ago
@revlin66 lol
DJTinez13 5 months ago
@23loosecannon - Oh yeah. Because the idea that an exergonic reaction (with no known ingredients, activation energy, or reactive media) actually CREATED a universe makes soooooooo much more sense than the idea that an ultranatural being set the rules for natural phenomenon.
BlackFox0911 7 months ago
I LOVE HOW PISSED RELISIOUS OR SHOULD I SAY SUPERSTIOUS PEOPLE GET WHEN SCIENCE KEEPS PROVING THIS. THERE LIKE NNOOOOOO .... TALKING SNAKES ARE FAR MORE RELISTIC. WHY DONT YOU BELIVE IN LORD RINGS AS WELL, IF YOU THINK BOOKS WITH STORYS IN ARE REAL. LOL ..
LEAVE THIS KIND OF STUFF FOR THE HUMANS THAT WANA GO FORWARD AND YOU GUYS KEEP DYING OF CANCER COZ WHO CARES IF YOU DIE, YOUR GOING TO 'HEAVEN' LOL
23loosecannon 7 months ago
Cont.. PLUS if humans DID come from primates, you scientists STILL can't proved how they became to be here. Apart from being concieved in the womb of the females. you cannot prove where the very first primate came from - The chicken or the egg rings a bell?
RebelResistance2011 7 months ago
This is wrong, it has been proved (BY EXPERTS "Science Bioligists") that pigs have the nearest 99% (or was 98%) DNA to humans. NOT primates! (it even less with primates) Even the bible gave this clue when is says that adam was made from a pig.... so this video is sorry to say is DEBUNKED!
RebelResistance2011 7 months ago
@RebelResistance2011
Even more confusing banana is 50% dna shared with humans. Why are these ancient monkey skulls so rare??? Yet we find 65million old mosquitoes.
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 4 months ago 7
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL Fossilization is a rare occurence. We're fortunate to find any at all. And with there being millions of time more mosquitoes/bugs than primates the odds are that much higher. Pretty simple, huh?
gvman3670 4 months ago
@gvman3670 What evidence is there that the lemur ever produced any progeny significantly different from itself, much less that it led to humans, & isn't just 1 of countless fossils of dead end, extinct animals? We are not only being told that its invisible babies led to us but that all the other invisible "missing links" did the same. How do we tell "missing" links from never existed links, btw? Dataless speculation presented as Gawd's truth is pseudo science - & the foundation of evolution.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@gvman3670 What evidence is there that Ida ever produced progeny significantly different from herself in any way,much less that they led to humans, & that she isn't just one of countless dead end extinct animals? We are not only being told her invisible offspring led to us but that innumerable "missing" links did too. Based on...faith. Btw, how do you tell "missing" links from never existed links? Dataless speculation presented as Gawd's truth is pseudo science - and business as usual for evo.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@LoricaLady Ever hear of DNA? We don't even NEED fossils to prove where we came from, all we need are DNA samples. Ask every molecular biologist or DNA expert on Earth where we came from and you'll get just one answer...."we evolved from lower primates".
And why do you think evolution produces offspring much different than their parents? That just tells me you're arguing against something you don't understand, and that's the only reason you're arguing against it. Educate yourself further first.
gvman3670 4 months ago
@gvman3670 How can DNA samples tell us that fossils "tens of millions of years" old led to us or anything else when even evoltuionists say DNA lasts at most 100,000 years? What DNA sample is telling us that Ida is your great great etc. grandma? "We don't need fossils" means, "Just ignore the concrete evidence of uncounted billions of fossils that show the exact opposite of what evo teaches & believe our new story, also built on dataless speculation, about how DNA shows its true anyway. Cont.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@LoricaLady DNA samples of living creatures is all that's needed. You're just going to blindly argue with me to continue believing some invisible sky daddy made us from dirt instead of trying to actually learn anything, aren't you? If so, and I believe it's the case, I don't feel like wasting any more time on you. Go learn what you're arguing against, or your arguments are vacuous and meaningless.
BTW, you're a transitional species, too. How's that grab you?
gvman3670 4 months ago
@gvman3670 "DNA samples of living creatures is all that's needed." Is that right? Explain to me, give data, even give Google referenced evolutionary website that spell out how DNA samples from living creatures show Ida is your great, great, etc. grandma. Or use any "transitioinal form" whatsoever & show how DNA can be tracked back to it from living creatures. Don't just say it's so. Support your statement with facts. Waiting...
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@gvman3670 Cont. You reference to "sky daddy" is the typical strawman logical fallacy presented by YT evo buffs. That is, instead of answering valid Qs you have changed the subject to Diety. Evolution stands or falls based on science regardless of what you or I think about YHWH/God, Zeus, the Koran or the Bible, etc. etc.
And it falls big time.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@gvman3670 Not every biologist agrees with evo Scientists from every field are dissenting from it, tho they may get Expelled if they are too vocal. You're evading the fact that the vid above is saying they have proof for our ancestry and that the truth is they are offering you pseudo science. That should bother you. All of evo theory is built on dataless speculation & logical fallacies, just like Ida.
Educate YOURself. Evo says there must be significant changes in progeny.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@LoricaLady Ida is the first transitional fossil showing the link between proto-simmians and monkeys. It's not saying it's a human ancestor. Understand that much FIRST, since you're arguing a point not made in the video. And the changes in evo that happen in the womb are genetic, not often meaning that it would physically be distinguishable from it's parents. If you don't understand that your view of evo is skewed. Birds don't give birth to rats, get it? Small changes over time make big changes.
gvman3670 4 months ago
@gvman3670 What do the words "missing link in human evolution mean to you?" They mean Ida is considered to be part of the so called chain of animals leading to us. No, birds don't give birth to cats. That's one reason we can tell evo is bogus. As Mendell - who used actual data & the scientific method (unlike Darwin who showed no orign of any species & 0 science, just gave armchair speculations) showed, bees stay bees & peas stay peas. Do you believe in the so called Tree of Life or not?
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL actually it is 22% of our dna is shared with banana's and the reason we find lots of old bugs is because the tree's 65million years ago would always be eaten alive by bugs and stuff so the tree's produced this thick substance called amber which when covered something it preserved it but other animals however have to die in very specific way and condition to be fossilized it's amazing that we even have the amount of fossils we do if have any other questions feel free to ask :)
GeniusAtheist 3 months ago
@GeniusAtheist
You are inaccurate to say that bananas share 22% DNA its closer to 50%, actually lettuce is about 16% dna similar to humans too! PIGS is almost 99%.
Last you have just made excuses. Excuses that does not make sense!! A very small thing such as mosquitoes, insects can be found, yet these MONKEY skull are so rare!! Yet we find compete DINOSAURS remains!
Lets not forget the amount of grand hoaxes that was created to further these lies.
Try 2 think, freely.
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 3 months ago 2
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL Now your being ignorant i made no excuse i clearly explained the reason for their being so many insect fossils go on the internet and look up amber it fossilized countless insects and is even made for jewelry such as amber necklaces ad etc. second the dinosaurs lived for hundreds of millions of years the evolution for mammals to be the size they are too 65 million years HUGE DIFFERENCE also animals have to die in certain swamp like conditions to be fossilized unlike insects
GeniusAtheist 3 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL on top of that the first human like mammals didn't appear until around 5 million years ago creating very little time for fossilization and on top of that 99.98% of all biologists believe in evolution and by the way atheism = free thinking
but i would like to know what religion are you, i don't like to assume
GeniusAtheist 3 months ago
@GeniusAtheist
It is quite clear you belong to the religion of darwinism!!
What you have stated is nothing BUT BBC news speculation & FAITH!!
"mammals did not appear until 5million years" again you are making up excuses!! Regardless what period, they appeared, the point of fact is that these ANCIENT MONKEY SKULLS, are rare.
U can try to make up excuses & create faith(theories). The darwinism theory of evolution is flawed.
I respect religions that are TRUE, but I belong to none.
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 3 months ago 3
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL and i love how u respect religions that are true !..... please sir, none of them are, and its really easy to say.... evolution is the best explanation we have, even without fossils....... creation is just Sooo stupid....
Grokfyr 2 months ago
And "darwinism" is NOT a religion, i have no idea why ppl want to call it that... is has NOTHING to do with religion....
Grokfyr 2 months ago
@GeniusAtheist
hehhe you call ME ignorant, when I state FACTS & truth!!
Does the truth hurt??
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 3 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL you poor fool i feel so bad for you resorting to ignorance because you know your beliefs are lies you still continue to ignore the amber substance i just mentioned and the process of fossilization i just mentioned you give no responses to a clear statement
and by the way the facts you stated such as pigs being 99% dna related to humans only proves evolution
i don't need a single fossil to prove evolution it's just another pile of evidence
GeniusAtheist 3 months ago
@GeniusAtheist = the ART of sheer stupidity!!!
LOL it's too funny!!! Too funny!!
Your words are meangingless, your courage is through the inter net!!!
FACE 2 FACE, you would NOT, NOT utter such KULUMBUS VOMIT!!
The fact that PIG dna is closer then MONKEYS shows how wrong the DARWINISTS are!!
Well done for IMMORTALIZING yourself, as a liar & manipulator, TRUE laughing hard hehehhhehhehe.
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 3 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL Goodbye troll but before i go i want to say thank you for:
1. proving you can answer my questions
2. proving your unrealistic stupidity
3.showing that you have no knowledge of evolution
4. and making it obvious that you are brainwashed
p.s you 2 are also showing courage through the internet dumbass by the way i deal with nuts worse than you all the time and you are joke if you think anyone will take you seriously asking questions children can answer and then be discovered
GeniusAtheist 3 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL Lol you got DESTROYED by @GeniusAtheist
I have been reading all the comments and you have been presented evidence against you're claims yet you ignore them like any brainwashed idiot. I feel very bad for you.
MW2Addiction 2 months ago
@MW2Addiction
"destroyed" LOL how funny, too funny, YOU fail to state where!!
Where is this so called evidence???
In fact geniusatheist like many darwinists FAIL to present any evidence!!
YOU NEED TO THINK B4 YOU TYPE!!
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 2 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL Insects have existed since the Devonian era, which was about 396 million years ago. Primates have only existed for around 65 million years. Fossilisation occurs by chance, through several different method, so considering the fact that insects have been around a lot longer than primates, it is likely that they have had more, 'chances,' to become fossilised.
leannehehe 2 months ago
@leannehehe
LOL @your comment. Its too funny!! CHANCE, not very scientific is it!! "devonian era" lolol too funny.
Yet we find COMPLETE dinosaurs remains & hardly monkey skulls!!
You can believe in CHANCE or missing link with ZERO EVIDENCE, fact remains DARWIN theory of evolution is NOT taken seriously & has been debunked!!
PEOPLE are not from MONKEYS or from AFRICA!!
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 2 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL because they are bigger than mosquitoes, and arent so easy to preserve.... and there are alot more mosquitoes, so a better chances to find one :D
Grokfyr 2 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL Simple ther are more insects then they are humans.. Making these ancient monkey skulls soo rare... But I wonder what RebelResistance2011 said O_o...!!!
curemymind 1 week ago
@RebelResistance2011 The Bible certainly never says that Adam was made from a pig. You need to find some more reliable "sources."
LoricaLady 4 months ago
Her skeleton was preserved? It doesn't work that way. She fell into a lake. Water isn't a preservative. If she's X million years old, her bone marrow and food would be LONG decomposed. Place a piece of fruit into an open jar of water and see what it looks like in 2 days. Let along millions of years. Sorry scientific community, but this is by FAR your most pathetic attempt at making yourSELVES into gods.
BlackFox0911 7 months ago
Assuming the skeleton is real, where are the skeletons of the millions of additional primates? Since one can't reproduce asexually, more than one would be needed to bring the next generation. And, thousands of generations would be needed to visibly detect evolutionary changes. So why haven't they found more skeletons? Bones decompose? Her's didn't. So others should have survived decomposition as well.
BlackFox0911 7 months ago
This is just a skeleton, which happens to be as much different from a human skeleton as a cat is from a dog. Concocting a theory that this is humans' first ancestor is just as accurate as concocting a theory that humans descended from a flying spaghetti monster. Total bunk. How can anyone believe this?
BachScholar 7 months ago
hoax
AlphaMaIe 8 months ago
EVOs are really starting to show themselves to be retarded. Are they making this fossil an ancestor of humans because it has thumbs? This is tantamount to claiming Mammals evolved from Dimetrodon because it has "mammal-like" teeth.
This is really retarded..Im sorry, but it is.
sugarhitman 8 months ago
@sugarhitman I'm sure their is more to it than that. these documenteries are horidly oversimplified.
f00tstep 8 months ago
@f00tstep They are claiming this thing is an ancestor of humans based on thumbs...they clearly say that in this video. How is that "scientific"?
sugarhitman 8 months ago
@sugarhitman It's not. But this is only two minutes of an entire documentery therefor we can assume that there is more to it than just thumbs. I dought they would have made a documentery just to say "Durr hurr! We found a fossel with thumbs!" I'll bet if we saw the whole thing they would say more than that. Anyway no average person wants to see this "link" anyway. It isn't as significant as the ape/human transisions that they have found.
f00tstep 8 months ago
@f00tstep Well it doesnt seem to be out of context..and they clearly said its an ancestor of humans because of the thumbs...there was enough time to add an additional reason to support their conclusion.
And there has never been ape/human transitions discovered..they are either apes or humans period. The missing links always get refuted by those in your own ranks.
sugarhitman 8 months ago
@sugarhitman "...there was enough time to add an additional reason to support their conclusion." That's the uploaders fault. They could have added more of the origional video but they didn't and it ended up making a bad impression.
f00tstep 8 months ago
@sugarhitman "And there has never been ape/human transitions discovered..they are either apes or humans period." That’s only because when transitional fossils are found they have to be categorized into either group depending on how human they are. Lucy is one of the earliest known mostly human fossils but it also has many qualities of apes, therefore it is considered ape/human but categorized as human.
f00tstep 8 months ago
@f00tstep "Yet, this can be questioned, as finds of Australopithecus foot bones indicate that the Laetoli footprints may not have been made by Australopithecus.[12] Many scientists also doubt the suggestion of bipedalism, and argue that even if Australopithecus really did walk on two legs, it did not walk in the same way as a human.[13][14][15]." Lucy wiki
Lucy was an ape..EVOs are getting desperate.
sugarhitman 8 months ago
@sugarhitman Walking on two feet isn't the only thing that determines a human. If it were Chickens would be our cousins. In fact that's just as bad as saying thumbs are the only thing that make a human.
f00tstep 8 months ago
@f00tstep They are claiming that since Lucy was "Bipedal" she must have been an ancestor of humans...looking at the incomplete fossil shows that she was simply an ape...as well as Ardi. Sorry....but all the hype about missing links always end up being refuted.
When will you guys end your pointless search?
sugarhitman 8 months ago
@sugarhitman When somthing is refuted it gives us a chance to fix the error and we often do. You're only looking at the stuff that was proven wrong or mute. It's like having icing on a cake and saying the cake has no icing. Anyway I want to know somthing. Why don't you personaly believe that science can be right when it contridicts the bible. Science contridicted the bible when it found out how to cure lepercy and nobody raised an eyebrow at that, what gives?
f00tstep 8 months ago
@f00tstep "“For behold, in those days and at that time, When I bring back the captives of Judah and Jerusalem, 2 I will also gather all nations, And bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat; And I will enter into judgment with them there On account of My people, My heritage Israel, Whom they have scattered among the nations; They have also divided up My land. " Joel 3
Can Science refute that? Nope.
sugarhitman 8 months ago
@sugarhitman That isn't a scientific subject though why would you use science to refute it? I vote we stop this for now, it's going nowhere.
f00tstep 8 months ago
@f00tstep Of course you cant refute accurate prophecy as this...thats why I believe God exists.
sugarhitman 8 months ago
@sugarhitman It's not that. It's just that asking science to disprove proficy is like asking a dolphin to fly a plane instead of hunt fish. It's not the kind of thing that science is for. You want to talk to sombody who works with historicle documants and scripture for that. But all the same simple logic can disprove other things in the bible like the great flood for instance.
f00tstep 8 months ago
@f00tstep Science cannot explain the ancient past..hence the many different interpretations of what happened in the ancient world. I would put my faith in He who can predict the future...rather than those who cant even explain the distant past.
BTW, EVOs have their own Flood story...they believe the Seas were formed from comet/Asteroids impacts followed by heavy rains. LOL!
sugarhitman 8 months ago
@sugarhitman that "flood didn't cover the entire planet and wipe out evrything in existance though. A flood that coverd the enitire earth would defy the laws of conservation of mass. Not to mention that the amount rain water talked about in the bible would have mixed with the salt water creating a mixture deadly to all marine life. Not to mention you could not fit two of each speicies into the ark.
f00tstep 8 months ago
@f00tstep Thats why its called a "miracle". God can manipulate natural laws, whenever He sees fit. Im sorry, seeing that His Word contains such accurate Prophecies...Ill have to side with His explanation of what occurred in the past...rather then someone who is not sure about what happened back then..and certainly someone who cant predict the future..as God can and have.
sugarhitman 8 months ago
@sugarhitman I just realized how long this conversation has become... anyway go ahead and believe what you want. I won't stop you. However if you are interested I will direct you to EnglishCaddys Facts of Evolution series. It is very informitive, And basicly sums up evrything I know about evolution and more. It may shed some light on how they determin ancestry. That's all I realy have left to say.
f00tstep 8 months ago
@RusconiDom lol yeah well i figured as much but hard to tell at times. especially considering the intellect of the comment we both replied on ;p
TheWeeaboo 8 months ago
@RusconiDom ofcouse he is religious lmao.
TheWeeaboo 8 months ago
@jshowa2 just letting you answer your own questions. it is the missing link. If you've been paying attention we've been linked all the way and this one completes it (More or less). Even with ape-men it took this Eda to close the gap, scientifically of course. But people will believe what they want.
restlesspride666 9 months ago
@jshowa2 Nope.
restlesspride666 9 months ago
we were created by ET's :D
TheAwakening87 9 months ago
most people will buy into any nonsense, there was never a missing link to find, but evolutionist and satanist have fooled many. Evolution is the kingpin of atheism and communism.
mwhod 9 months ago
@mwhod you have to wear a safety helmet when you go outside don't you? Corks on your forks?
foobee2 9 months ago
@mwhod the irony of your first phrase prevented me from argueing with you. oh and ofcourse linking atheism and communism.
TheWeeaboo 8 months ago
I think its beutiful that we could come from somthing so little it makes me feal at ease with the world, say what you like but the truth will set you free
and science is that truth.
al3xxxxx 10 months ago
The headline says "missing link found" then they give us this picture of what is obviously not the missing link. They just keep trying to feed this junk science to the sheople who will believe anything people with initials behind their names spew out in the name of countering religion. All they do is reinforce the bible thumpers and make themselves look stupid.
mullinstrucking 10 months ago
Classic case of showing us one thing and telling us something else. They must be right. We have NEVER seen a monkey with a tail and finger like toes. That's amazing!! From the skull to the ribs down the spine and feet cry out MONKEY!!!! Commentator slips in after describing it as an animal "eventually becoming human". So you could look at anything and say "eventually becoming human" and that's your scientific answer.
falconjblack2008 10 months ago
@falconjblack2008 why? you have a better answer??
dereck123 10 months ago
thats our ancestor? u ppl are nuts...thats a monkey...
khalilrabee 11 months ago
@khalilrabee Yes, it is a monkey. We are Humans / apes / monkeys / primates. Our ancestory will be monkeys too.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz show me on single evidence that this is my ancestor...are u nuts? ur a monkey? go live in a jungle then...
khalilrabee 10 months ago
@khalilrabee Are you a mammal? It turns out IDA is a missing link but may not be our ancestor as the first group of scientists thought. You are still classified as a Great Ape. Are you home schooled?
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz are u an idiot? show me one single animal that turned into another animal...one single example
khalilrabee 10 months ago
@khalilrabee 99% of all species that ever lived on the earth are extint, they turned into another animal.
Like Dinosaurs with feathers, Microraptor.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz extinct is not the synonim of transformed...
microraptor does not exist anymore...
khalilrabee 10 months ago
@khalilrabee Here is the evidence, the facts, go look.
The fossils are layered like this:
In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils,
above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils
and dinosaur fossils.
No human or bunny fossils are found in any of these layers.
No dating used
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz amazing...why dont apes still transform? why do apes still exist?
khalilrabee 10 months ago
@khalilrabee wow, you really don't understand how evolution works, do you? In the past there was an ape that lived in Africa. Some lived in the trees and some on the plains. The ones that lived in the trees got stronger and the ones on the plains started using their hands and walked upright. In millions of years they evolved away from each other. They are both still apes. One ape we call humans, the other we call chimps. Chimps are closer to Humans than they are to gorillas. Think.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz maybe ur an ape...i dont have a tail...
khalilrabee 9 months ago
@khalilrabee Wow, you are good at debater. LOL Humans, Chimps, gorillas and oranatangs are all apes and none on them have tails ! You didn't do good in school did you?
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz i did good enough but i dont swallow every crap of evolutionists...
show me one single animal transformed/transforming into another animal in our ages...dont give that billion years crap...
khalilrabee 9 months ago
"i did good enough but i dont swallow every crap of evolutionists..."
It's better than swallowing the crap of religious dumbasses.
show me one single animal transformed/transforming into another animal in our ages..."
Evolution doesn't transform one creature into another instantly. It is a shift from one adaptation to another. It took millions of years just for our ape ancestors to walk upright but you would never have seen this happen unless you yourself could live for that long.
kingmafi6699 9 months ago
@kingmafi6699 ok so if i go to the jungle with my wife and have kids there, live on trees, my descendents will one day become monkeys?
this is so sad...
these are just theories without evidence..theres not evidence to back it up, just like many other theories...
khalilrabee 9 months ago
@khalilrabee
Technically we still are monkeys, We share very close genetic proximity to all apes.
What our ancestors will become is tough to say.
"these are just theories without evidence..theres not evidence to back it up, just like many other theories"
No, when we are talking about theory in scientific terms we are not referring to whether evolution exists or not. The debate ended over 100 years ago. Rather the debate is about how this occurs and the processes involved.
kingmafi6699 9 months ago
@khalilrabee Everything is changing [evolving]. Everything is a complete species. Major changes take millions of years. Only fast reproducing things like bacteria can be seen to evolve, like new cold and flu 'germs'.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@khalilrabee We SHARE a common ancestor with apes. They evolved into what they are now, as did we. And we're all STILL evolving. Evolution is an ongoing process.
VinnyMonster1 9 months ago
@VinnyMonster1 theres no proof that we evolved from apes...words are not proof and theres no animal transformed into another animal...not one single animal
and again they can keep saying things but words arent proof, their words are simply a theory without sufficient evidence to suport it like many other theories
khalilrabee 9 months ago
@khalilrabee You must be barmy! There is tons of proof! The fossi record is thick with proof! And for your information a SCIENTIFIC theory Is a model based on OBSERVABLE and tested FACTS. And as for animals transitioning from one to another, What about Archaeopteryx, a bird with clearly reptillian features, but obviously a bird. Homo Habilis, a primitive hominid with characteristics of both human and ape. Wolves and Dogs, you sir, are severely misinformed.
VinnyMonster1 9 months ago
@VinnyMonster1 how i love atheist evolutionists when the say "ur an idiot! theres TONS of proofs!" tons! right...where are the tons? there are tons of evidence! we have it! we do2nt want to show u but we do have it!
show me one single animal that transformed into another...not just words...
ur an ape maybe, im not...wheres ur tail? so sad...
khalilrabee 9 months ago
@khalilrabee You're not worth replying to, I ALREADY gave you two examples. If you're TOO DENSE to accept what MILLIONS of people already have, then it's your own fault.
VinnyMonster1 9 months ago
@VinnyMonster1 Animals don't just transform into different animals, that's not how it works asswipe. It takes thousands of years in most cases. But then, you probably think it's magic, well you already believe in something as ridiculous as believing in Santa Claus. Explain to me why our dentition is so similar to ape dentition (That's teeth for you, retardo) Why our basic anatomy is so similar to ape anatomy, why humans and apes share many similar behavioural traits.
VinnyMonster1 9 months ago
@VinnyMonster1 right, go on keep believing what u want...but there is only 1 truth
khalilrabee 9 months ago
@khalilrabee And that truth is that you are an idiot. And judging from how badly you word your coments, I'd say a barely educated idiot at that.
VinnyMonster1 9 months ago
@VinnyMonster1 right right...im the idiot and u who believe ur a descendent of chimps are not...good for u
khalilrabee 9 months ago
@khalilrabee And by that comment, you prove conclusively that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Evolutionary theory states that humans and modern apes SHARE a COMMON ancestor. But then, you're probably too scared of what the Invisible Magic Man Who Lives In The Sky is going to do to you after you're dead to think straight enough to realize this.
VinnyMonster1 9 months ago
@VinnyMonster1 And you still haven't explained why dentition is so similar to ape dentition. Why our basic anatomy is so similar to ape anatomy, and why humans and apes share many similar behavioural traits. Because without resorting to evolution, you can't, that's why. Hell, even the vestigal hair on our bodies is a leftover from an earlier stage in our evolution, so are our wisdom teeth. And By the way, there are a HELL of a lot of Christians who accept evolution.
VinnyMonster1 9 months ago
@VinnyMonster1 what if monkeys were actually humans?
khalilrabee 9 months ago
@khalilrabee And Man Created God in His Own Image.
VinnyMonster1 9 months ago
@VinnyMonster1 im not christian...
khalilrabee 9 months ago
@khalilrabee Just an idiot?
VinnyMonster1 9 months ago
@gregrutz Personally, I think khalilrabee is Tarzan's Step Brother.
VinnyMonster1 9 months ago
looks like a spider monkey....
sethzky77 11 months ago
"she could confirm darwinian theory and debunk creationism"
Fuck me! One hundred and fifty years of millions of fossils including definite missing links among transitional forms, the discovery of DNA, the observation of evolution in lizards and fish and the study of genome and none of it has debunked creationism, they'll ignore it, misepresent the facts or lie to their followers purely for a book sale or admission ticket to their theme parks.
ganados0 1 year ago
you people dont know how difficuelt it is to find traces of our relatives !
but if people want to live in a dreamworld believing we came from 2 people then poor you i feel sorry for you !!!
noeszigi 1 year ago
DARWIN HIMSELF SAID THAT IF HUMANS DID COME FROM APE LIKE CREATURE THEN THIS EARTH WILL BE FILLED WITH SKELTONS OF HALF APE HALF HUMAN CREATURE BUT THERE IS NOT ONE AT ALL. NOT EVEN IN THE EARLIEST STAGE OF EVOLTION OR THE VERY END STAGE TOO SO HE HIMSELF SAID HIS THEORY WAS BASED ON THOUGHT NOT FACT.
whitney1ish 1 year ago
@whitney1ish
Actually there is!
seansalvador1 1 year ago
What created life... or what sparked life into existence?
brntobme 1 year ago
@brntobme yep that is the biggest question man kind has tried to answer. I believe in god and Darwin's theories. I believe that we are descendants of monkeys, thought the only thing that makes me wonder is how did the monkeys get here? That I believe is were god comes into play.
flightdeckreviews 1 year ago
@flightdeckreviews
How can you believe something you know nothing about?
Clearly we did not evolve from monkeys, that is nonsense that only religious people say.
Humans are members of the great apes. We share a close common ancestor with other great apes like orangutans, a slightly more distant common ancestor with monkeys and even more distant with other mammals.You can extend this and extrapolate back and at some stage we share a common ancestor wth all living things, including plants & fungi
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@brntobme
Do you believe that viruses are alive?
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@seansalvador1 even so, was caused it to become alive? Scientist are stuck, they know it.
brntobme 1 year ago
@brntobm
I asked you a question...
I assume you believe that viruses are indeed alive, if so you must admit that these constructs are easily the least complex form of life on this planet. It is very easy to see how this type of life can have come together by chance, much less simpler molecules
"Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules"
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@brntobme
"features of self-organization and self-replication are often considered the hallmark of living systems, there are many instances of abiotic molecules exhibiting such characteristics under proper conditions. Martin and Russel show that compartmentation by cell membranes from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, and that matter with such attributes would be life's most likely last common ancestor"
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@brntobme Martin, William; Russel, Michael J. (2003). "On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 358 (1429): 59–85. doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1183. PMID 12594918
seansalvador1 1 year ago
Here is what wikipedia says about this over-hyped tripe:
"and that while the fossil is a primate, there is no evidence to suggest that its species is a direct ancestor of humans"
"a modern-era, media-savvy scientist with the right amounts of showmanship, populist sensibility, and disregard for the normal avenues of scientific prestige required to pull this off"
"take story straight to the masses in a way that would appeal to the average person, especially kids"
Mdebacle 1 year ago
Comment removed
zzzIdividedbyzerozzz 1 year ago
....Yawn... 'missing link' only fuels the idiot creationists fire. There never was a 'missing link' and the whole term was a victorian media fad. The creationists will claim that the gap this fossil bridges is in fact now TWO gaps!
There is no halting the tide of idiocy that is creationism.
seansalvador1 1 year ago 11
@seansalvador1
...It's a never ending, constantly expanding tautology!
seansalvador1 1 year ago
this looks like a little monkey! 47 MILLION YEARS?? Hahahahaha what a crock
ocoauction 1 year ago
No No No this is more lies by scientist to bolster the evolition theory, keep looking you will never find it because it does not exist. Every few years they come up with some monkey that supposedly proves we came from apes, maybe you came from an ape but the only way is if your mom had sex with a monkey, hey thats something they have not tried yet maybe thats next in there playbook.
glendaweil 1 year ago
@g
Actually this fossil does not prove that we 'came from apes' as you so stupidly wrote. We ARE in fact apes! Get that? We (humans) are apes. We have a common ancestor with other apes, slightly less close ancestor with monkeys and so on all the way to every living animal including trees!
That is very different from your silly ape nonsense. This video shows the earliest close common ancestor of todays ape and monkey species that we have found to date... if you bothered to study you'd know that
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@glendaweil Oh stop kidding around! No one could be as dumb as you pretend to be!
evoman1776 1 year ago
@evoman1776 Calling people dumb because they do not agree with you is not a very enlightened way to discuss things but when you have no other proof of evolution that is what you resort to.
glendaweil 1 year ago
@glendaweil If someone says 2 + 2 = 5, I don't need to argue with them, nor am I calling them dumb because they don't agree with me. I'm calling them dumb because they are. If someone refuses to use the brain they have, then there's no other word.
evoman1776 1 year ago
@evoman1776 Were is you proof of evolution when Darwin said the missing link will be found and it clearly has not been found, then you say that was never the proof for evolution you keep moving your argument to fit the failures. Come on use your brain. I believe in adaptation of species to date I have no evidence to support anything else.
glendaweil 1 year ago
@evoman1776 Darwin said there would be a missing link, to date none has been found, now you say we do not need a missing link. I know that we have no evidence of one species evolving into another. I believe in adaptation of species that is provable but it is not evolution one species to another.
glendaweil 1 year ago
So from Lucy we go to Eda. hehhe. what happened in between. uhhh for 44 million years.
mmnasir101 1 year ago
the link is certainly still missing...looks like a leemer
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33 And what do you think the link going be like?
roner61 1 year ago
@roner61 Based on what I have observed in the real world animals have babies after their own kind and this appears to be going on unbroken right now. Based on that, I don't believe were missing any links. Just because the grass is wet dosen't mean that it rained.
This fossil may show how a lemur changed to another adaptation of a lemur but proves little about people.
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33
Haha, if you actually studied this then you would understand how funny you are... it's like telling a mechanic that engines clearly don't run on petrol because, basically, you don't know how theyt work and you have a book that says otherwise... you haven't studied it (probably claim you have though, transparently) and you don't intend on studying it because you already know the answer from your little book!
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@seansalvador1 Haha. If you actually used your common senses then you would understand how funny you are....
1. The steps to get to the supposed starting point of evolution take a huge leap of faith. Life from non life.
2. Bacteria never create anything except other Bacteria. Never cats and dogs...another huge leap of faith.
3. All the evedience appears to be inferred to be correct based on enormous amounts of time.
4. DNA limits the amount of change. Mutations Kill Mostly
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33
1. That is not a leap of faith at all. Tell me, do you consider a virus as a living being?
2. Of course bacteria don't turn into dogs, that would be absurd! Will you please tell me your point?
3. What do you mean? Please elaborate...
4. DNA does not limit the ammount of change in this way... it seems clear that you are attempting to argue from someone elses point of view and are misunderstanding this persons point. I assume you mean DNA's ability to correct mutation?
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33
The fact that mutations kill most of the time is clear and obvious and in no way refutes the theory of evolution, though you would know this if you had ever actually studied it, yet you clearly have not. You seem to be getting your arguments from the usual source and are typically not even attempting to listen to the arguments against your position, in fact it seems you have like never even heard them!
If you had you would realise the absurdity of your refutations
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@seansalvador1 How can mutations kill most of the time? if a mutation gives some individual...lets say:blue eyes...or 6 fingers...is he going to die?
roner61 1 year ago
@roner61
No. Most mutations do not cause such minute changes, that was my point. Most mutations in fact are fatal.
What you have just (rather stupidly) asked is "How can mutations kill, if ones that do not kill... do not kill?"
Well, as i said, most mutations DO kill.
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@roner61
Oh and having blue eyes is not a mutation. There was a mutation a long time ago that caused blue eyes but it is now permanently fixed into the common gene pool... proof of evolution.
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33
There never has been a missing link... link to what exactly?
This is Victorian nonsense propaganda.
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@seansalvador1 True, You must have a evolutionary view to be looking for links between different kinds of animals. The point that I tire with is trying to explain I understand that little changes with alot of time....Blah, Blah. Intermediaries of EVERY species should be in play now.
Regardless of the belief system. The past is defiantly not the key to the past. Lots of time, money, and effort was spent on a one sided education. I would have loved to see both sides much earlier.
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33
Tell me the exact logic of this assertion... you claim that all intermediates should be apparent (i assume you mean living or at least found fossils) which would be absurd, as for this to be so the planet would be too small to hold every example! Of course, most animals that die are eaten (usually by bacteria) and are therefore unfosilised. There is also the fact that we cannot possibly sift through every bit of earth looking for fossils!
Both sides? Please elaborate...
seansalvador1 1 year ago
i was talking about the big bang where from non living matter turned into life
thats stupid en a believe yust like i cant proof god visible to anyone
youre 4 pound brain would explode it would not be able to stand it
but well its bizarre why to denie GOD
whats a good reason to denie how made thou soul ????
would youre life change alot if you were to believe in god???
the devil en demons are laughing at YOU
Psalm 53. 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God
pagein en heiden animals
sukruoosten 1 year ago
@sukruoosten "thats stupid en a believe yust"
an't even spell out how to call someone stupid.. is this the definition of irony, or stupidity? I'm at a loss...
Big bang theory is about the beginning of life? Really? I thought that was abiogenesis... idiot.
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@seansalvador1 yes en its not stupid to believe non living materials can create life
en difference genders en then to go on en make new species wow what are the odds of that chance
it only takes a fool like the bible says to denie god psalm 53
yust alone to believe another false demonic religion what is evolution
sad very sad but hell outweigs heaven so im right
what exploded en where was the energy
some plants needs certain animals wich evolved first
far far away long long ago RIGHT?
sukruoosten 1 year ago
@sukruoosten
When you can string this sentence together in English i'll attempt a reply...
Also, are you of the opinion that viruses are living beings?
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@sukruoosten
Do you believe that viruses are alive?
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@sukruoosten You need help - starting with your grammar.
evoman1776 1 year ago
@evoman1776 i promise you eventho i consider youtube like MSN language
but if i were to try en learn more about my spelling en grammar
then in return will you mayby try to read a bit about the bible en learn more about god
reply me back i always hate these kind of comments but oh well no problem here
IM NOT PERFECT
sukruoosten 1 year ago
Comment removed
seansalvador1 1 year ago
its funny how men always looks for ways to denie HIM (god) how made all
cause that would make him the boss of everything from living to non living
its said en pathetic to believe in a religion called evolution
no proof all fiction
let me say this what exploded where was the energie
how dit genders like male/female evolve first
Psalm 53. 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good
sukruoosten 1 year ago
@sukruoosten
Well how did he make us? A clot of blood? Born from out mothers thigh? From dust? From a rib? ...what about Lilith?
... there are many creation myths, why shoult i believe your? More to the point, why do you believe your version and not any others, especially pre jewish ones?
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@seansalvador1 good point sadly i cant proof why i believe it
cause if i say the bible is holy en true you will denie it
but i say to you why do you believe a dot spinned 20 biljon years ago<