@FellOnSoundGarden how is that the same? americans and the british are the same species. british traveled from there to usa. if british evolved into americans yes it would be weird if some british simply stayed british.
he still didnt answer why haven't monkeys evolved as half as drastically as we have over the 6m years. and im a supporter of the theory btw i just want some to answer it or admit there are holes.
@snakkeonps3 Evolution doesn't just happen at some fixed rate. A species could evolve relatively very quickly or a species could remain virtually unchanged for millenia. For instance, if a species inhabits a stable environment that it is well-suited to, then there is little selective pressure, whereas a species that lives in a harsh, unstable environment will more often have to compete in order to survive, so that those who are unfit don't pass on their genes.
What is so stunning to me is that Christine O'Donnell actually ASKED that question on TV. I am absolutely amazed that there are still people that ask such an idiotic question.
Apparently many people need to get library cards and begin reading. In the event that they are illiterate, perhaps they ought to watch science shows that explain evolution.
What is so difficult to understand about humans and chimpanzees having a common ancestor?
@Wien0sterreich I agree. What's really scary is when supposedly educated liberals take up the same argument and say something like "it takes time...give them a few million years and they will." Are they basic tenets of evolution (e.g., species evolve for reproductive success--not toward some idealized perfection-- in their niche) that difficult to understand or are people really that stupid?
I think my computer is broken because i cannot zoom into that area where he points to that shows the ancestor that connects us to monkeys. Keep looking buddy, youll find it some day....ridiculous assumption.
First of all, you don't even know the difference between monkeys, anthropoids, hominoids, hominids, etc. You don't know the numerous different species of intermediate fossils that connect us to our last common ancestor with chimpanzees. Second, I hope you are just a kid who has yet to get some education, if you are an adult, then you should be ashamed of yourself.
But are bonoboes and chimps really different species? They can still interbreed, they just have a different social structure and different behavioral patterns.
They are subspecies in the process of speciation. They can still interbreed but I don't think they do in the wild. There are many ways of reproductive isolation such as: a geological barrier, different mating patterns, different mating seasons, etc. If they are and maintain their reproductive isolation, we can expect that they will eventually become so dissimilar that they cannot interbreed even if they tried. Hence, they become different species.
I have to correct myself. Apparently common chimps and bonobos are recognized as distinct species of the genus pan. They became reproductively isolated around 1 million years ago which is not that long geologically speaking. Because of their recent divergence, they are fairly similar in appearance but have been separated long enough to be unable to reproduce. So you can say, they were in the process of speciating for 1 million years.
So, around one million years ago there was a population of ancestral chimpanzees which became separated from one another. This separation is thought to have been caused by the formation of the Congo River and the now TWO populations became reproductively isolated, ie there was no interbreeding between the 2. At some point in that million years, individuals of those populations would not of been able to reproduce even if they were somehow brought together.
Once that point is reached, they become distinct species. Now, suppose that river dried up 10,000 years after it formed and the two populations came in contact with each other again. The two populations would probably have some characteristics that were different, but they would still be able to reproduce, therefore they would be sub-species. If there were observers 10,000 years ago, they would consider the 2 populations subspecies.
As I hope I illustrated the distinction between species and sub species is sort of arbitrary and you must think of it as a work in progress. If bonobos and common chimps remain isolated for the next millions and millions of years, we can expect them to become more and more dissimilar from each other. Also, the bonobos can also speciate and split into 2 or more isolated groups, which can then further split, and so on.
So hopefully you can see how the tree of life is like splitting branches, but if you go back far enough, you can see how every life form is related to every other one in a long, continuous process of splitting and re-splitting. This is the beauty of evolution and common descent. So, speciation needs: a population of organisms, some type of barrier to split the group and prevent interbreeding, different environments, and of course, lots of time.
BTW bili apes are now considered a sub-species of the common chimpanzee. So, the same deal going on there, just most likely they haven't been isolated from the ancestral group long enough to be considered separate species. Not much is known about them at this time, however, as they were only recently discovered.
"Alright, so you are saying that subspecies are still the same species, just in the process of splitting off?"
And to answer your original question: yes. Subspecies, if they remain reproductively isolated, are considered to be in the process of becoming different species. This process is called speciation. Sorry for rambling lol but it's not something that can be explained in a few short words. I really hope I helped you understand it a little bit
One more thing. I hope this example shows how completely illogical thi common creationist argument is:"if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?". When a population begins speciation it is simply a splitting of the gene pools into two or more sub-populations and reproductive isolation between them. These sub-populations have equal chance to evolve and proliferate.
All the individuals of a population don't just magically transform into a new kind, while shredding the old kind! That is a completely misguided view of evolution. That's like saying: if the USA came from English settlers, why is England still around? so,If you ever hear that argument, like MrSchultzstaffel stated below, you have an instant realization that they have absolutely no fucking idea what they are talking about! lol good day sir.
"have you ever looked at a monkey "as if that explains evolution lmaooo what a fool.How this idot has his own show amazes me.maybe he evolved from a smart monkey.
While that is not proof of evolution I agree, when you look a chimp you do not see the resemblance? You have to agree that we are more related to chimps than we are to, say, dogs? That we are more related to dogs than birds? More to birds than fish? More to fish than plants? You see the pattern? We are cousins of every living creature on earth, some more closely than others. This is EXACTLY what the theory of evolution predicts, and is further PROVEN from our DNA evidence.
lmaooo dawkins is a fool he leaves out who that comon ancestor is , why ? because he doesnt know he is just assuming that there is one, and notice the chart works backwards all you see is one human and the rest animals.all he has manged to do is make up a silly chart and thinks it qualifies it as something factual. he is entitled to his oppinions tho lol
It is factual because our DNA is 98% IDENTICAL to chimps. Our dna is slightly less the same from gorillas, and then slightly less the same from orangutans. This has been proven with most highest degree of certainty one can ever have.
Equally illogical. Then the off-shoots of these ape's should have evolved along with us; albiet in a different direction, but if we evolved from apes then why are there still apes? Well, if we all evolved from fish then why are there still fish? Diversification of life and the theory of evolution are certainly not one and the same. There isn't a single, transitional form that anyone can point to in order to back up their theory, so they should objectively say that they just don't really know.
there are many transitional forms. MANY. Please don't get your science from religious bigots and ignorant creationists. Do your own research and realize evolution has been PROVEN and backed up with 150 years of evidence in fields like geology,paleontology, genetics, comparative anatomy, etc. We have seen species evolve with our own eyes and with the recent coding of the human genome only further confirms our relationship to other life forms.Highschool biology textbook will do.
@FellOnSoundGarden MY GOD,YOU'VE CONVINCED ME!! I mean, what the hell would I have ever done without a genius like yourself telling me the blatently obvious?! How could I have ever been so stupid as to listen to a 2,000 year old book and an antiquated religion when you had the answers all along?! I feel so ashamed!! I should have done my own research just like you said! My current degree's in biological chemistry and human physiology are totally meaningless and I'm humbled by your greatness! lol
@MrSchultzstaffel@MrSchultzstaffel@MrSchultzstaffel@MrSchultzstaffel I actually do have a degree in biochemistry. I would bet my life that if you had "degree's" in biological chemistry you would NEVER ask the question:" If we evolved from fish, why are there still fish?"It is simply impossible to ask that question and know ANYTHING about how evolution by natural selection works, let alone pass a college level course in biology.
@FellOnSoundGarden How comforting to know that you would "bet your life" on something or someone that you don't even know. lol There's no common ground here because you can't have a conversation with a hate-filled, crazy person who "bet's their life" on absolutely no evidence at all. Good day to you Sir. lol
@FellOnSoundGarden lol Love the hate speach. How bout' this: whatever you say is the truth okay? lol That's the religion you bring to the table anyway young-one...and you're welcome to it. =D
Okay, so you admit you don't have degrees in biological science? i am about facts. FACT: you asked the question: "If we evolved from fish, why are there still fish?" One can only ascertain that you are ignorant about the theory of evolution. Simple as that. Yes i am 24, and i call you out on your complete bullshit and ignorance. It's not hate. It's frustration. i am still waitingfor any objective facts.
@MrSchultzstaffel If you really do have those degrees i pity the university(Liberty university?) you went to and your professors. I might have to write them a letter and let them know their science curriculum is seriously lacking. You wouldn't pass high school biology with that type of understanding of evolution. Simply not possible, unless you cheated.
@FellOnSoundGarden No doubt if someone doesn't agree with you then it's the local concentration camp for them! lol To insult someone, (or at least to attempt to,) that you don't even know is the height of bigotry as well as arrogance. The only "degree" that you have is that of what is known as a "5150;" or an unstable mental patient. lol No wonder intelectual give and take isn't possible here on YouTube. The professional YouTube argue'ers like yourself are unemployed and have all day here.
@FellOnSoundGarden Now put a sock in it you moron. types like you have an agenda and wouldn'y accept any real evidence even if it bit you in the ass because your so full of hate for any objective fact that you'll go to any lengths to support your unsubstantiated claims and religion of evolution, so since there's no common ground with which to have a real debate, then we'll both find out after we're dead. I'm more than content to wait and am quite comfortable with my positions.I'll see you there.
Please enlighten me on the objective facts that disprove evolution, or where evolution is wrong. Not that i expect much from a moron like you, but i am more than willing to listen. I love to learn, and be corrected, like any good scientist.
@FellOnSoundGarden I think that you personally are living proof of evolution...lol Your ape-like behavior here is proof enough of it. You're obviously not serious about anything at all, because if creationism is such a fairy tale, then why does it offend you so? Do you attack Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny with such vitriolic hatered? I doubt it. Because actual fairy tales don't give us such an accurate insight into the character of such hate-filled bigots like yourself. God bless. lol
No, because people like you are not trying to teach santa clause in science class. Again, you have stated you are creationist, thatevolution is false, and that you have objective facts for your position. Where are they? I am waiting Ill be here all night
@FellOnSoundGarden But the Bible is just as much fiction as Santa Clause, according to you...so Creationism is an out-right lie...according to you...so Santa Clause and Creationism have a moral equivalancy...according to you...and listening to you I hear a person who is on fire screaming "IT'S NOT HOT, IT'S NOT HOT! WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS!" But do you want facts? Of course not. You're obsessed with rank hate. lol So I'm content to just allow you to burn in your own anger. God Bless. lol
I really do want facts. Or I want an admission you do not understand evolution. If's fine if you don't,just don't go around saying it's false when you have no knowledge even about themost simple aspect of it: speciation.
@FellOnSoundGarden Remember...I lied about all of my education...I really don't have degree's in biochemistry because if I did, then I could never disagree with one so obviously as wise as you. lol And I had to have lied...because you told me so, and you have absolutely no other motivation here other than the objective truth correct? lol Easy on the keyboard there...random chance and natural selection might not be able to spontaniously assemble another one if you keep pounding away like that!
BTW you notice i didnt include my credientials at first because i dont believe you need a science degree to understant evolution is a proven fact. you tell me i'm full of hate, but where am i wrong? you back it up with nothing, just attack my character. What objective facts are there to prove god exists and/or evoluton is false? do you even know what objective means? I would love a real debate, I'm just waiting for some evidence
@FellOnSoundGarden Even if you had credientals to begin with you've dis-credited them here already with your obvious venom concerning any other point of view of the world other than your own.You don't want debate;you want to shut-down any other view of the world that doesn't fit into your comfort zone because you've already got the whole world figured out; and so I agree with you 100%.Of course I lied about my credientals, because even if I produced proof you'd call it a lie. You're obvious. lol
Okay, so you have no facts refuting evolution then? I would love to debate you. I really would. I dont the world figured out. I have a degree in science and devot my life to it. I think very hard before becoming to decision. For you to dismiss evolution because there are still fish, you don't understand how it works!!!!! Again, last time, what the facts to disprove evolution/ prove creationism? I would seriously take a look at them and consider them.
@FellOnSoundGarden "AGAIN YOU'RE NOT LISTENING TO ME! WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS! WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS! WHY DON'T YOU CREATIONISTS JUST DIE!" lol Notice that those interogative's are all followed by exclamations which form a very clear declarative. That reveals your character that's clearly rooted in hatered and rank bias. Such is the scientific method is it not? Where close-minded ideologue's discount actual evidence because objectivity was never their goal. And you question my credientials? lol
I cannot discount evidence that you have not presented. I am frustrated you opened your mouth about a subject you are obviously ignorant about. I will admit to that. Again, where are the facts? Do you want to tel the truth that you don' have a science degree and are ignorant about evolution?
@FellOnSoundGarden What for? You've already made up your mind about me with your hate leading the way. lol I'm actually not angry in the least but I am a little amused at your rank arrogance here. My actual education would run circles around yours but even the realization of that here might just drive you to attempt suicide in a fit of rage so we'll just have to leave it at that. lol So I'll just have to leave you to your version of the facts because it's no skin off my nose what you believe. =D
It's very hard to believe you have a degree in biologcal chemistry and ask questions like you did. I am sorry but you can talk big on youtube with you having 2 degrees, but I actually do have a degree in biochemisry. I will call you out on your bullshit. This could of never happened if you did't open your mouth about something you know nothing about. Still waiting for thosefacts.............
@FellOnSoundGarden And you'll continue to await them until the day you die. Because nothing will ever reach your personal standard as actual "proof" in your world. You decide what is objectivity and what's truth because in your world; you're god. And that's fine, it's your life and you are free to believe whatever you wish. It's not threatening to me in the least bit. But my belief system seems to be incredibally threatening to you, or you would not attack it so. lol
Okay, so you admit you don't have any evidence and you don't have a science degree? I could care less what you believe. It's about facts. AGAIN, You stated evolution is false because fish are still here. The claim to have a science degree. People like you want toteach creationism in our schools. That is very threatening to me. Why? Because i value truth and understand children are gullable and wlll belileve what someone like you says. LAST CHANCE: where are you objective facts?
@FellOnSoundGarden "LAST CHANCE!" lol There was no "first chance" with you and you know it. Now proceed with the obligatory, "GUILTY! ANOTHER RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALIST! NO EDUCATION AND A LIAR!" lol You now have the opportunity to be the judge,jury and excutioner in a case who's outcome was written by you even before the charges were read and the trial was under-way! lol And...uhhh...you have an actual science degree? lol No doubt from the university of "What's Happen'ing baby?" lol Good day Sir.
I never said any of that. Ill take that as a concession that you dont understand evolution. You may have education,but it sure as hell cannot be in science. Not one post provded evidence that refuted evolution, or proved creationism. NOT ONE. You said some silly things and maintained you had evidence.anytime you want to present it, I will be more than willing to have a debate and change my position if I am mistake. PM me
@FellOnSoundGarden That's not going to happen Sir.(The changing of the mind, let alone the so-called "debate.")lol And if anyone's at actual fault here; it's me. I have enough advice to understand that if those who claim to seek actual council are closed-minded and hate-filled and will refuse to act in any other fashion,then the prudent course of action is but to dust one's shoe's off and just walk away.If the actual truth was something that we were all worthy of,then none of us would have it.
BTW keep going around saying you have degrees in biologcal chemistry an physiology. It probably makes you feel good to impess yutube idiots. But once in a while, you will find someone that does have science degree and will call you out on it. Sorry to upset you. I know it hurts to be wrong, but maybe next time you think before babbling shit out of your mouth.
@FellOnSoundGarden I still have yet to find that person and I'm more convinced than ever that you're just an education'less mental patient...but that is your right to be as such. And no...I will never take my lead from a hate-filled zelot such as yourself and I'll post what I please, where I please and you'll just have to self-destruct in a pool of your own anger because stopping me is quite impossible. lol Freedom of speach is something that you're going to have to live with Sir. All the best.
when a population of organisms speciates, not every single member magically turns into another form. If you had the faintest idea of how evolution by natural selection works you would not make such asinine comments." Well, if we all evolved from fish then why are there still fish?" thank you for making me laugh. It would be even funnier if retards like you weren't running this country and deciding the curriculum for our children's education.
Haha, the bitch at the beginning, "evolution is a myth"..."why aren't monkeys STILL evolving into humans???" Oooh check-mate, scientists! When people say things like that it just shows how completely ignorant they are of what they're talking about. It's interesting to me, because most people in the world today believe in some creation myth. Humans, just like the other great apes, don't know that they're apes. We're not so different.
@McTaggStar How to shut up a Young Earth Creationist! Tell them about the impacts. One happened 65 million yrs ago left a crater 170 km diam! A crater 3.5 km diam=8000 Hiroshima bombs! Imagine what a170 km diam crater impact was like! They put them in the flood (being no written records and we are still here)? So the flood destroyed everyone anyway. But the flood is too different (imagine the ark in that). A young earth is not looking good. Another crater is 250 km... and one is 500 km diam!!!
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
@SuperAwesomeAtheist i like Dawkins and i repsect science and everything but theres no proof we came from the common ancestors. We are so different from are cousins in every way. Weaker, much smarter and much different looking. We walk so differently. We are different in every way. No way we evolved from the same specie that gorillas evolved from. There is absolutely no proof. That missing link what is it ?
Nobody knows nothing but i agree with Dawkins that they work with the problem.
You must go to evolution exhibits to see the many missing links that they have found. I suggest the one in Nebraska that Dr. Dawkins is at in the video, or there are a lot in New York. Also, research Human Chromosome #2. You want proof, I can give you all the proof you need. You say you respect science, so do the research for yourself before you say there is no proof. That is the problem with people today, they want to say there is no proof, when actually, there's tons of it.
@SuperAwesomeAtheist My friend theres 46 chromosomes on human fused up. and apes and monkeys 48.
That is a big difference. Who's to say we really evolved from that. There is no proof only a few so called evidence that mean nothing. Just because you don't beleive in religion this dosen't make it true either. At the end of the day we know nothing. And Dawkins admited it and said we work with the problem. If there was real proof it would of been a real breakthrough.
I'm confused, you know that to explain the different number of chromosomes between humans and chimps is the original hypothesis that 2 of the chromosomes had to fuse, and then it was later proven with Human Chromosome #2, showing that it had 3 telomeres and in between each telomere you find a centromere from the fused chromosomes. Are you saying that's not proof? If you are, then you are a moron, because that is how evidence is produced, with an idea, testing, then proof.
@SuperAwesomeAtheist I'm saying that the fact that is fused. We could of been genitically engineered an alien and an ape mix to make us. How do we know that its not the case ? Check LLoyd Pie.
I agree there is evidence like the other guy told me 98 % of dna. But real hardcore proof is not there.
And pls don't call me a moron because you got your info on some other youtube video and acting smart with me. At the end of the day i don't know more than you and you don't know more than me.
@SuperAwesomeAtheist I never wrote i know more than you. You obviously don't know how to read . Its very difficult to explain here but look that up and then draw your own conclusions. youtube.com/watch?v=ObjiTKIPDjU.
@SuperAwesomeAtheist You can't call me a moron for not trusting the mainstream science. Evolution is not a fact. There's more to it. Honnestly from your replies and the way you talk you sound retarded. You don't know dick. Dawkins dosent know dick either. You are brainwashed by the mainstream science. Natural selection dosen't even make sense. How do you know hominoids dosent exist ? Its like saying aliens dosent exist. How do you know ?
The FACT that we haven't seen these hominoids tells us that they don't exist in our society. The FACT that we haven't found another life form YET in the UNIVERSE means they don't exist, to society. Have you done any testing? Have you compared all of the resources available and made a hypothesis, tested it, proved it to be true with no evidence disputing it, and made it into Scientific Theory, just like Evolution, Relativity, The Big Bang, and all of the others?
in what way does natural selection not make "sense"? It's good not to trust everything someone tells you, but when the best scientific minds have PROVEN evolution over the last 150 years with enormous amounts of evidence, you better have SOMETHING to back up your idea that it's not a fact. Saying dawkins doesn't know dick or natural selection doesn't make sense does not qualify. Please get educated. It's ignorance like this that is ruining our civilization.
Proven what? That out of the blue modern man came from
that ancestry along with apes etc..... We may have 96 % of its dna but this does not contradict creationism. We could of got created similar yet very different instead of evolving. Something else is really at play here that nobody knows. There is certain scientific facts but all of it is hypothesis. I should get educated ? You should get your head out of your ass.
Doesn't that fact that the earth is 4.6 billion years old contardict creationism? Doesnt the fact that all vertebrates(incluing humans) have gill slits when our embryos are first formed? What abou the fact that human ACTUALLY have vestigal tails and in some humans it develops fully? What about the fact that there new species are formed EVERY SINGLE DAY? thatt completely disproves creationism. BTW, there are MANY MANY more facts like these, Ijust don't have the space.
I was calling you a moron if you were ignoring factual proof. Now, I'm calling you a moron for not reading, and using another YouTube video as a reference is not a bad thing. Why create my own video, when there is a video proving my point, with a creditable source in it? I looked into your Lloyd Pye guy as well, and looked away as soon as I read that he believes BigFoot exists. Granted, I will give him that BigFoot, the monster truck, is roaming the Earth.
@SuperAwesomeAtheist youtube.com/watch?v=IgvqZixAzm4 Just watch it and learn. You will come to realise theres no proof of evolution. Give it a chance. And if the whole thing dosent make sense to you then so be it. Give me your thoughts.
Believe it or not, I liked that video. The way he explained it in this one should allow it to be another hypothesis that needs to be tested, and see if it debunks the Theory of Evolution. I would jump on that ban wagon, because the ultimate goal is to find answers. How else to find answers, but to look and test every possible hypothesis, including those that question Evolution. I applaud you sir.
Only a MORON would think humans came from MONKEYS, for christ sake. Yeah, a FULL-BODIED human who's, on average, about 5-6 feet tall, evolved from a small-ass monkey who's probably, at BEST, only 1/3rd or 1/4th of his size.
Please tell me this is a joke. Common chimps are, on average, around 5' 6'' tall, and weigh around 150lbs. That is who we share the common ancestor with. I believe you are referring to the Bonobos that evolved AFTER humans, and branched from the chimps. They are, on average, around 2' 6''. Once again, do the research, and know what you are talking about before you spout out ignorant rubbish.
@whoo689 You are the moron. The difference in size between monkeys (or, more aptly, early hominids) and modern humans does not disprove evolution. Do you realize that all dogs (i.e. ranging from tiny lap dogs to Great Danes) are descendants from wolves? Selective breeding can lead to major physical differences over a relatively short period. Even within humanity, you have a tremendous physical differences between groups of people who are separated geographically or culturally.
Oh, well, thanks for clearing that up for us. Folks, we can lay this to rest, polychronio figured this one out. It's a pretty open/shut case. Good work polychronio!
If a god caused and directed natural processes to make something, he/she was still a creator. In other words, your god can still be a creator via guided evolution. Did you even consider that?
Again, a god could have given the modern species of humans spirits after the species evolved into its modern incarnation (i.e., homo sapien sapiens).
There's a good amount of evidence to support the general idea that modern species came from past species. This general idea is "evolution."
If you've got evidence for evolution AND evidence for a creator (and soul exclusivity), put ALL of the pieces of the puzzle together. Don't exclude any solid evidence in an explanation.
(part 2) Building on top of those last two statements, a god could have given the ancestors of modern humans a thing that could have developed into souls when modern humans appeared. "Soul seeds" could have been used.
Or perhaps a god picked a specific group of early humans and made that group evolve into modern humans. If you wanna be strict with the definition of "human," you could call everything that came before us "proto-humans."
What information do you have to prove that, besides the bible, because it is fallible. Sorry, but it's true. I can list you sooooo many mistakes and contradictions in the bible, that it honestly can't be used as a reliable source. That's the beauty about science, you have theories first, that can be tested and then, if they pass, are stamped into scientific law and fact. Just like MrNobody47710 presents, it is a good theory, god used evolution to create us. Open your mind!
I need to retract this statement, because I kinda screwed that up. First, you have a Hypothesis, then you test it, and if the tests pass, it becomes theory. If it is 100% true, and no other evidence contradicts it, then it will become law. That's why it is the theory of evolution, not because it's an idea, but because every test done on the hypothesis has come out true.
@polychronio Funny how you said we don't share the same ancestor, then you claim we share the same ancestor (God). You don't seem to have an understanding on evolution... small DNA mutations over time allow a species to survive the environment with better characteristics. Example is an animal with more hair can survive cold climates better. Animals with less fur die, animals with more fur can live and reproduce, creating a population of very furry animals, which is a new, different species.
1) Nobody claims that our ancestors were chimps, haven't you watched the video?
2) If Adam and Eve had 2 suns, who did they 'make love' with in order to produce the rest of mankind? I can only think of one way and it’s to sick to type (It starts with an 'i' and ends with 'nsect') I guess Oedipus wasn't very original.
@1973blownvega micah 5:2 is a self profiling prophecy, kind of like saying i prophesize that i am going to work tomorrow. when i show up to work BAM im a prophet! how about, You eat breath and drink through the same hole in your body, guaranteeing some percentage of us will choke to death. this is not intelligent design nor is the fact that our reproductive organs are in the same area as our waste organs. a good enginer will tell you that you dont put a night club next 2 a sewer treatment plant.
What proof does he have of this? I think it's just his theory, what's he believes. I would like to see undisputable proof. I think that he wants to get rid of all other religions that don't agree with his ideas and set up his own religion.
Have you been to any Evolution exhibits? I'm going to take a guess and say no. In New York, they have all kinds of fossils of what used to be known as "missing links". Remember how years ago people were asking for proof of Darwin's theory? "Where's the missing link?" Yeah, science has come a very long way, even if everyone, like you, haven't followed it every step of the way. You want proof, go look for it, it's easy to find, if you look.
@SuperAwesomeAtheist Thank you for replying. Yes, I have been to an evolution exhibit. The more I hear what Richard Dawkins has to say, the more I am convinced that he believes that he is a superior "african ape" and the more I read about Darwin's theories, the more I am convinced that he was a white supremacist. This is what Darwin wrote in "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life." Even the title reveals something.
@SuperAwesomeAtheist Darwin wrote: "At some future time period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world...The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
@SuperAwesomeAtheist Sorry that's in the Descent of Man, page 156. But the full title of Origin of Species says "favoured races". I'll quote from a book that I'm reading called "The End of Christianity": "Favored races? Doesn't that mean superior races? And don't superior races imply inferior races? Within evolutionary theory, it is the destiny of inferior races to be rooted out and destroyed.....Just so there is not doubt, Darwin saw, as a consequence of his theory, that whites.......
@SuperAwesomeAtheist ...that whites (whom he (Darwin) regarded as "superior") would exterminate blacks (whom he regarded as "inferior"). Darwin was an intelligent white male English person. So is Richard Dawkins. He thinks he's higher up the scale. I've read that Hitler espoused Darwinism. Some of my ancestors came from Africa; I guess that makes me lower down. No, the love of Jesus Christ and daily the proof of His loving presence is what I believe and will always follow.
What does that have to do with the origin of homo-sapiens? Red, yellow, black, and white, looks like Dawkin's uses his sight, and like you said, acknowledges we originated from Africa. It doesn't matter if Darwin was a white supremest or a closet nutcase. The fact of the matter is, scientists have done the research, and found that we share the same dna as these chimps, and that our atoms that make life can be traceable to the stars themselves, shout out to Neil Degrasse Tyson!
@HeisLord9876 First of all, you're lying. Even if you aren't (which you are) and Darwin was racist I fail to see what it has to do with Dawkins. They are two different people. Judging people by groups in this fashion is the kind of thinking that justifies racism for bigots. It is a fallacy of logic and you should be ashamed. You cannot judge all people based on one bad apple. Do you think all Catholics are evil because Hitler was a Catholic? All Americans are evil because of Timothy McVeigh?
@HeisLord9876 If you don't like the fossil record as proof. Now we have proof from DNA and genetic sequences. It's funny when creationists ask "where is the proof" when all you have to do is look.
you are in for a bit of a shock.you been conned in a cosmic conspiracy you are hypnotized by the old serpent and his venom has rendered you senseless god help you
Logic, Science, and Reason tell me that instead of me being in for a shock, you will be in for the same, boring, everyday, never-changing fate as myself, full of life until you die one day. You need to come to grips with that, and stop coming up with your senseless metaphors about the old serpent and his venom, because I have never been struck by a serpent, and don't plan on it. May common sense help you.
Common mistake: Christine and Bill refer to monkeys (with tails) when they mean apes (no tails). @MrNewKingjames: It's an illustration of our knowledge of the tree of life, not the tree of life itself. If you distrust this illustration, you probably won't accept somebody showing you on a map how to get from A to B, either. Lastly, the age of the man pointing (to what looked like me to be real lines rather than imaginary ones) neither adds to nor subtracts from mankind's scientific knowledge.
I do not think that an old man pointing to imaginary lines on a chart is proof of anything it is like a card trick you are tricked into thinking you have learned something
That old man is Richard Dawkins, look him up. Also, just because science and reason goes against everything you believe is imaginary, like the lines you described (which were real lines) or your dictator in the sky, doesn't make that science and reason untrue, you poo-spouting moron.
ARE YOU KIDDING!, if you like going to bed with a religious prude no doubt saying in her little annoying voice, aaah don't touch me there and oooh don't do that and oooh my put that in my mouth no thank you Mr , sex is for procreation only, if that your idea of a good lay I;m sorry for you and I'm sorry for the woman you live with.
Sometimes I wonder, how the Fuck these People are successfull in Public.In Europe, these Folks get either Ignored or locked away, if they get Dangerous.
@SuperAwesomeAtheist sorry, bad analogy. Analogies are based on common principles and the common principle here is the evolutionary development of a subject's biological makeup and not the subject's location and nationality.
@Qrazii sorry no, the analogy is fine. It IS based on a common principle, and the common principle here is that in both instances, a branching pattern can be observed.
@jeff8605 No, that's not equivalent. What she said is really something like "If the French are descendents of europeans, how come there are still europeans?" or "If the chinese are descendents of asians how come there are still asians?", since we are still apes.
I don't believe O'Donnell understands that we are apes. I believe she sees us a whole different species. As if "Mankind" is it's own animal breed, created separate from the animals, as the bible describes.
@ljietuvis This analogy doesn't fit either, because she's referring to one species "changing" into another. French can mate with Europeans and they can produce offspring of the same species. We cannot reproduce with Chimps, Gorillas or even Bonobos.
That's why it's an "analogy". Americans "not being able to mate" with Europeans being analogous to them being a different species... and yet Europeans still exist.
Or maybe I misunderstood your reference to the French, etc.
@jeff8605 No, it's not. The Europeans coming over to America is not an evolutionary process. Are you saying that Europeans are now genetically lower on the evolutionary scale than Americans because they crossed the ocean? Or in the same thread, a few apes didn't immigrate to another country and become human beings. It's not the equivalent question.
I never stated that migration is evolution. NOR did I say that Europeans are genetically lower. Thats a fail on both counts. What I was inferring was that BOTH show a branching tree pattern of sorts. Humans and modern day apes branched off a common ancestor to become 2 different species subsets. Americans and modern day Europeans branched off hundreds of years ago, and went on to form two different cultural subsets.
@FellOnSoundGarden how is that the same? americans and the british are the same species. british traveled from there to usa. if british evolved into americans yes it would be weird if some british simply stayed british.
snakkeonps3 3 weeks ago
he still didnt answer why haven't monkeys evolved as half as drastically as we have over the 6m years. and im a supporter of the theory btw i just want some to answer it or admit there are holes.
snakkeonps3 3 weeks ago
@snakkeonps3 Evolution doesn't just happen at some fixed rate. A species could evolve relatively very quickly or a species could remain virtually unchanged for millenia. For instance, if a species inhabits a stable environment that it is well-suited to, then there is little selective pressure, whereas a species that lives in a harsh, unstable environment will more often have to compete in order to survive, so that those who are unfit don't pass on their genes.
chumbukket 3 weeks ago
What is so stunning to me is that Christine O'Donnell actually ASKED that question on TV. I am absolutely amazed that there are still people that ask such an idiotic question.
Apparently many people need to get library cards and begin reading. In the event that they are illiterate, perhaps they ought to watch science shows that explain evolution.
What is so difficult to understand about humans and chimpanzees having a common ancestor?
Wien0sterreich 2 months ago
@Wien0sterreich I agree. What's really scary is when supposedly educated liberals take up the same argument and say something like "it takes time...give them a few million years and they will." Are they basic tenets of evolution (e.g., species evolve for reproductive success--not toward some idealized perfection-- in their niche) that difficult to understand or are people really that stupid?
JLP4444 3 weeks ago
I think my computer is broken because i cannot zoom into that area where he points to that shows the ancestor that connects us to monkeys. Keep looking buddy, youll find it some day....ridiculous assumption.
AABREU80 2 months ago
@AABREU80 First of all, your comment makes no grammatical sense. Secondly, you're an idiot.
martinbuzora 2 months ago
@AABREU80
First of all, you don't even know the difference between monkeys, anthropoids, hominoids, hominids, etc. You don't know the numerous different species of intermediate fossils that connect us to our last common ancestor with chimpanzees. Second, I hope you are just a kid who has yet to get some education, if you are an adult, then you should be ashamed of yourself.
FellOnSoundGarden 2 months ago
But are bonoboes and chimps really different species? They can still interbreed, they just have a different social structure and different behavioral patterns.
CorrundumAndSilver 2 months ago
@CorrundumAndSilver
They are subspecies in the process of speciation. They can still interbreed but I don't think they do in the wild. There are many ways of reproductive isolation such as: a geological barrier, different mating patterns, different mating seasons, etc. If they are and maintain their reproductive isolation, we can expect that they will eventually become so dissimilar that they cannot interbreed even if they tried. Hence, they become different species.
FellOnSoundGarden 2 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden Alright, so you are saying that subspecies are still the same species, just in the process of splitting off?
What about biliapes? Same deal there?
CorrundumAndSilver 2 months ago
@CorrundumAndSilver
I have to correct myself. Apparently common chimps and bonobos are recognized as distinct species of the genus pan. They became reproductively isolated around 1 million years ago which is not that long geologically speaking. Because of their recent divergence, they are fairly similar in appearance but have been separated long enough to be unable to reproduce. So you can say, they were in the process of speciating for 1 million years.
FellOnSoundGarden 2 months ago
@CorrundumAndSilver
So, around one million years ago there was a population of ancestral chimpanzees which became separated from one another. This separation is thought to have been caused by the formation of the Congo River and the now TWO populations became reproductively isolated, ie there was no interbreeding between the 2. At some point in that million years, individuals of those populations would not of been able to reproduce even if they were somehow brought together.
FellOnSoundGarden 2 months ago
@CorrundumAndSilver
Once that point is reached, they become distinct species. Now, suppose that river dried up 10,000 years after it formed and the two populations came in contact with each other again. The two populations would probably have some characteristics that were different, but they would still be able to reproduce, therefore they would be sub-species. If there were observers 10,000 years ago, they would consider the 2 populations subspecies.
FellOnSoundGarden 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FellOnSoundGarden
"If there were observers 10,000 years ago, they would consider the 2 populations subspecies."
What I meant here is that if there were observers 10,000 years AFTER the Congo river formed, they would recognize the two populations as sub-species.
FellOnSoundGarden 2 months ago
@CorrundumAndSilver
As I hope I illustrated the distinction between species and sub species is sort of arbitrary and you must think of it as a work in progress. If bonobos and common chimps remain isolated for the next millions and millions of years, we can expect them to become more and more dissimilar from each other. Also, the bonobos can also speciate and split into 2 or more isolated groups, which can then further split, and so on.
FellOnSoundGarden 2 months ago
@CorrundumAndSilver
So hopefully you can see how the tree of life is like splitting branches, but if you go back far enough, you can see how every life form is related to every other one in a long, continuous process of splitting and re-splitting. This is the beauty of evolution and common descent. So, speciation needs: a population of organisms, some type of barrier to split the group and prevent interbreeding, different environments, and of course, lots of time.
FellOnSoundGarden 2 months ago
@CorrundumAndSilver
I love to talk biology, any other questions of comments feel free to ask! :)
FellOnSoundGarden 2 months ago
@CorrundumAndSilver
BTW bili apes are now considered a sub-species of the common chimpanzee. So, the same deal going on there, just most likely they haven't been isolated from the ancestral group long enough to be considered separate species. Not much is known about them at this time, however, as they were only recently discovered.
FellOnSoundGarden 2 months ago
@CorrundumAndSilver
"Alright, so you are saying that subspecies are still the same species, just in the process of splitting off?"
And to answer your original question: yes. Subspecies, if they remain reproductively isolated, are considered to be in the process of becoming different species. This process is called speciation. Sorry for rambling lol but it's not something that can be explained in a few short words. I really hope I helped you understand it a little bit
FellOnSoundGarden 2 months ago
@CorrundumAndSilver
One more thing. I hope this example shows how completely illogical thi common creationist argument is:"if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?". When a population begins speciation it is simply a splitting of the gene pools into two or more sub-populations and reproductive isolation between them. These sub-populations have equal chance to evolve and proliferate.
FellOnSoundGarden 2 months ago
@CorrundumAndSilver
All the individuals of a population don't just magically transform into a new kind, while shredding the old kind! That is a completely misguided view of evolution. That's like saying: if the USA came from English settlers, why is England still around? so,If you ever hear that argument, like MrSchultzstaffel stated below, you have an instant realization that they have absolutely no fucking idea what they are talking about! lol good day sir.
FellOnSoundGarden 2 months ago
"have you ever looked at a monkey "as if that explains evolution lmaooo what a fool.How this idot has his own show amazes me.maybe he evolved from a smart monkey.
prime440 3 months ago
Comment removed
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@prime440
While that is not proof of evolution I agree, when you look a chimp you do not see the resemblance? You have to agree that we are more related to chimps than we are to, say, dogs? That we are more related to dogs than birds? More to birds than fish? More to fish than plants? You see the pattern? We are cousins of every living creature on earth, some more closely than others. This is EXACTLY what the theory of evolution predicts, and is further PROVEN from our DNA evidence.
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
lmaooo dawkins is a fool he leaves out who that comon ancestor is , why ? because he doesnt know he is just assuming that there is one, and notice the chart works backwards all you see is one human and the rest animals.all he has manged to do is make up a silly chart and thinks it qualifies it as something factual. he is entitled to his oppinions tho lol
prime440 3 months ago
@prime440
It is factual because our DNA is 98% IDENTICAL to chimps. Our dna is slightly less the same from gorillas, and then slightly less the same from orangutans. This has been proven with most highest degree of certainty one can ever have.
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
Equally illogical. Then the off-shoots of these ape's should have evolved along with us; albiet in a different direction, but if we evolved from apes then why are there still apes? Well, if we all evolved from fish then why are there still fish? Diversification of life and the theory of evolution are certainly not one and the same. There isn't a single, transitional form that anyone can point to in order to back up their theory, so they should objectively say that they just don't really know.
MrSchultzstaffel 3 months ago
@MrSchultzstaffel
Y u no make sense.
Jsmith858522 3 months ago
@Jsmith858522 N u mak no sense either. lol I mak 4 X as much sense as u. lol
MrSchultzstaffel 3 months ago
there are many transitional forms. MANY. Please don't get your science from religious bigots and ignorant creationists. Do your own research and realize evolution has been PROVEN and backed up with 150 years of evidence in fields like geology,paleontology, genetics, comparative anatomy, etc. We have seen species evolve with our own eyes and with the recent coding of the human genome only further confirms our relationship to other life forms.Highschool biology textbook will do.
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
Comment removed
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden MY GOD,YOU'VE CONVINCED ME!! I mean, what the hell would I have ever done without a genius like yourself telling me the blatently obvious?! How could I have ever been so stupid as to listen to a 2,000 year old book and an antiquated religion when you had the answers all along?! I feel so ashamed!! I should have done my own research just like you said! My current degree's in biological chemistry and human physiology are totally meaningless and I'm humbled by your greatness! lol
MrSchultzstaffel 3 months ago
@MrSchultzstaffel @MrSchultzstaffel @MrSchultzstaffel @MrSchultzstaffel I actually do have a degree in biochemistry. I would bet my life that if you had "degree's" in biological chemistry you would NEVER ask the question:" If we evolved from fish, why are there still fish?"It is simply impossible to ask that question and know ANYTHING about how evolution by natural selection works, let alone pass a college level course in biology.
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden How comforting to know that you would "bet your life" on something or someone that you don't even know. lol There's no common ground here because you can't have a conversation with a hate-filled, crazy person who "bet's their life" on absolutely no evidence at all. Good day to you Sir. lol
MrSchultzstaffel 3 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden lol Love the hate speach. How bout' this: whatever you say is the truth okay? lol That's the religion you bring to the table anyway young-one...and you're welcome to it. =D
MrSchultzstaffel 3 months ago
@MrSchultzstaffel
Okay, so you admit you don't have degrees in biological science? i am about facts. FACT: you asked the question: "If we evolved from fish, why are there still fish?" One can only ascertain that you are ignorant about the theory of evolution. Simple as that. Yes i am 24, and i call you out on your complete bullshit and ignorance. It's not hate. It's frustration. i am still waitingfor any objective facts.
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
@MrSchultzstaffel If you really do have those degrees i pity the university(Liberty university?) you went to and your professors. I might have to write them a letter and let them know their science curriculum is seriously lacking. You wouldn't pass high school biology with that type of understanding of evolution. Simply not possible, unless you cheated.
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden No doubt if someone doesn't agree with you then it's the local concentration camp for them! lol To insult someone, (or at least to attempt to,) that you don't even know is the height of bigotry as well as arrogance. The only "degree" that you have is that of what is known as a "5150;" or an unstable mental patient. lol No wonder intelectual give and take isn't possible here on YouTube. The professional YouTube argue'ers like yourself are unemployed and have all day here.
MrSchultzstaffel 3 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden Now put a sock in it you moron. types like you have an agenda and wouldn'y accept any real evidence even if it bit you in the ass because your so full of hate for any objective fact that you'll go to any lengths to support your unsubstantiated claims and religion of evolution, so since there's no common ground with which to have a real debate, then we'll both find out after we're dead. I'm more than content to wait and am quite comfortable with my positions.I'll see you there.
MrSchultzstaffel 3 months ago
@MrSchultzstaffel
Please enlighten me on the objective facts that disprove evolution, or where evolution is wrong. Not that i expect much from a moron like you, but i am more than willing to listen. I love to learn, and be corrected, like any good scientist.
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden I think that you personally are living proof of evolution...lol Your ape-like behavior here is proof enough of it. You're obviously not serious about anything at all, because if creationism is such a fairy tale, then why does it offend you so? Do you attack Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny with such vitriolic hatered? I doubt it. Because actual fairy tales don't give us such an accurate insight into the character of such hate-filled bigots like yourself. God bless. lol
MrSchultzstaffel 3 months ago
@MrSchultzstaffel
No, because people like you are not trying to teach santa clause in science class. Again, you have stated you are creationist, thatevolution is false, and that you have objective facts for your position. Where are they? I am waiting Ill be here all night
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden But the Bible is just as much fiction as Santa Clause, according to you...so Creationism is an out-right lie...according to you...so Santa Clause and Creationism have a moral equivalancy...according to you...and listening to you I hear a person who is on fire screaming "IT'S NOT HOT, IT'S NOT HOT! WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS!" But do you want facts? Of course not. You're obsessed with rank hate. lol So I'm content to just allow you to burn in your own anger. God Bless. lol
MrSchultzstaffel 3 months ago
@MrSchultzstaffel
I really do want facts. Or I want an admission you do not understand evolution. If's fine if you don't,just don't go around saying it's false when you have no knowledge even about themost simple aspect of it: speciation.
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden Remember...I lied about all of my education...I really don't have degree's in biochemistry because if I did, then I could never disagree with one so obviously as wise as you. lol And I had to have lied...because you told me so, and you have absolutely no other motivation here other than the objective truth correct? lol Easy on the keyboard there...random chance and natural selection might not be able to spontaniously assemble another one if you keep pounding away like that!
MrSchultzstaffel 3 months ago
@MrSchultzstaffel
BTW you notice i didnt include my credientials at first because i dont believe you need a science degree to understant evolution is a proven fact. you tell me i'm full of hate, but where am i wrong? you back it up with nothing, just attack my character. What objective facts are there to prove god exists and/or evoluton is false? do you even know what objective means? I would love a real debate, I'm just waiting for some evidence
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden Even if you had credientals to begin with you've dis-credited them here already with your obvious venom concerning any other point of view of the world other than your own.You don't want debate;you want to shut-down any other view of the world that doesn't fit into your comfort zone because you've already got the whole world figured out; and so I agree with you 100%.Of course I lied about my credientals, because even if I produced proof you'd call it a lie. You're obvious. lol
MrSchultzstaffel 3 months ago
@MrSchultzstaffel
Okay, so you have no facts refuting evolution then? I would love to debate you. I really would. I dont the world figured out. I have a degree in science and devot my life to it. I think very hard before becoming to decision. For you to dismiss evolution because there are still fish, you don't understand how it works!!!!! Again, last time, what the facts to disprove evolution/ prove creationism? I would seriously take a look at them and consider them.
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden "AGAIN YOU'RE NOT LISTENING TO ME! WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS! WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS! WHY DON'T YOU CREATIONISTS JUST DIE!" lol Notice that those interogative's are all followed by exclamations which form a very clear declarative. That reveals your character that's clearly rooted in hatered and rank bias. Such is the scientific method is it not? Where close-minded ideologue's discount actual evidence because objectivity was never their goal. And you question my credientials? lol
MrSchultzstaffel 3 months ago
@MrSchultzstaffel
I cannot discount evidence that you have not presented. I am frustrated you opened your mouth about a subject you are obviously ignorant about. I will admit to that. Again, where are the facts? Do you want to tel the truth that you don' have a science degree and are ignorant about evolution?
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden What for? You've already made up your mind about me with your hate leading the way. lol I'm actually not angry in the least but I am a little amused at your rank arrogance here. My actual education would run circles around yours but even the realization of that here might just drive you to attempt suicide in a fit of rage so we'll just have to leave it at that. lol So I'll just have to leave you to your version of the facts because it's no skin off my nose what you believe. =D
MrSchultzstaffel 3 months ago
@MrSchultzstaffel
It's very hard to believe you have a degree in biologcal chemistry and ask questions like you did. I am sorry but you can talk big on youtube with you having 2 degrees, but I actually do have a degree in biochemisry. I will call you out on your bullshit. This could of never happened if you did't open your mouth about something you know nothing about. Still waiting for thosefacts.............
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden And you'll continue to await them until the day you die. Because nothing will ever reach your personal standard as actual "proof" in your world. You decide what is objectivity and what's truth because in your world; you're god. And that's fine, it's your life and you are free to believe whatever you wish. It's not threatening to me in the least bit. But my belief system seems to be incredibally threatening to you, or you would not attack it so. lol
MrSchultzstaffel 3 months ago
Okay, so you admit you don't have any evidence and you don't have a science degree? I could care less what you believe. It's about facts. AGAIN, You stated evolution is false because fish are still here. The claim to have a science degree. People like you want toteach creationism in our schools. That is very threatening to me. Why? Because i value truth and understand children are gullable and wlll belileve what someone like you says. LAST CHANCE: where are you objective facts?
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden "LAST CHANCE!" lol There was no "first chance" with you and you know it. Now proceed with the obligatory, "GUILTY! ANOTHER RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALIST! NO EDUCATION AND A LIAR!" lol You now have the opportunity to be the judge,jury and excutioner in a case who's outcome was written by you even before the charges were read and the trial was under-way! lol And...uhhh...you have an actual science degree? lol No doubt from the university of "What's Happen'ing baby?" lol Good day Sir.
MrSchultzstaffel 3 months ago
@MrSchultzstaffel
I never said any of that. Ill take that as a concession that you dont understand evolution. You may have education,but it sure as hell cannot be in science. Not one post provded evidence that refuted evolution, or proved creationism. NOT ONE. You said some silly things and maintained you had evidence.anytime you want to present it, I will be more than willing to have a debate and change my position if I am mistake. PM me
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden That's not going to happen Sir.(The changing of the mind, let alone the so-called "debate.")lol And if anyone's at actual fault here; it's me. I have enough advice to understand that if those who claim to seek actual council are closed-minded and hate-filled and will refuse to act in any other fashion,then the prudent course of action is but to dust one's shoe's off and just walk away.If the actual truth was something that we were all worthy of,then none of us would have it.
MrSchultzstaffel 3 months ago
@MrSchultzstaffel
BTW keep going around saying you have degrees in biologcal chemistry an physiology. It probably makes you feel good to impess yutube idiots. But once in a while, you will find someone that does have science degree and will call you out on it. Sorry to upset you. I know it hurts to be wrong, but maybe next time you think before babbling shit out of your mouth.
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden I still have yet to find that person and I'm more convinced than ever that you're just an education'less mental patient...but that is your right to be as such. And no...I will never take my lead from a hate-filled zelot such as yourself and I'll post what I please, where I please and you'll just have to self-destruct in a pool of your own anger because stopping me is quite impossible. lol Freedom of speach is something that you're going to have to live with Sir. All the best.
MrSchultzstaffel 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrSchultzstaffel
when a population of organisms speciates, not every single member magically turns into another form. If you had the faintest idea of how evolution by natural selection works you would not make such asinine comments." Well, if we all evolved from fish then why are there still fish?" thank you for making me laugh. It would be even funnier if retards like you weren't running this country and deciding the curriculum for our children's education.
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
I wonder if that woman knows what her picture is being used for…
samheuring 3 months ago
Haha, the bitch at the beginning, "evolution is a myth"..."why aren't monkeys STILL evolving into humans???" Oooh check-mate, scientists! When people say things like that it just shows how completely ignorant they are of what they're talking about. It's interesting to me, because most people in the world today believe in some creation myth. Humans, just like the other great apes, don't know that they're apes. We're not so different.
McTaggStar 4 months ago
@McTaggStar How to shut up a Young Earth Creationist! Tell them about the impacts. One happened 65 million yrs ago left a crater 170 km diam! A crater 3.5 km diam=8000 Hiroshima bombs! Imagine what a170 km diam crater impact was like! They put them in the flood (being no written records and we are still here)? So the flood destroyed everyone anyway. But the flood is too different (imagine the ark in that). A young earth is not looking good. Another crater is 250 km... and one is 500 km diam!!!
Justwantahover 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
fuck you Dawkin, you have corrupted my biology textbook, it was one of the most boring subject in my biology textbook
yahmana 5 months ago
@yahmana
Dawkin or Darwin? Also, how?
SuperAwesomeAtheist 5 months ago
@SuperAwesomeAtheist i like Dawkins and i repsect science and everything but theres no proof we came from the common ancestors. We are so different from are cousins in every way. Weaker, much smarter and much different looking. We walk so differently. We are different in every way. No way we evolved from the same specie that gorillas evolved from. There is absolutely no proof. That missing link what is it ?
Nobody knows nothing but i agree with Dawkins that they work with the problem.
levedia 4 months ago
@levedia
You must go to evolution exhibits to see the many missing links that they have found. I suggest the one in Nebraska that Dr. Dawkins is at in the video, or there are a lot in New York. Also, research Human Chromosome #2. You want proof, I can give you all the proof you need. You say you respect science, so do the research for yourself before you say there is no proof. That is the problem with people today, they want to say there is no proof, when actually, there's tons of it.
SuperAwesomeAtheist 4 months ago 2
@SuperAwesomeAtheist My friend theres 46 chromosomes on human fused up. and apes and monkeys 48.
That is a big difference. Who's to say we really evolved from that. There is no proof only a few so called evidence that mean nothing. Just because you don't beleive in religion this dosen't make it true either. At the end of the day we know nothing. And Dawkins admited it and said we work with the problem. If there was real proof it would of been a real breakthrough.
levedia 4 months ago
@levedia
I'm confused, you know that to explain the different number of chromosomes between humans and chimps is the original hypothesis that 2 of the chromosomes had to fuse, and then it was later proven with Human Chromosome #2, showing that it had 3 telomeres and in between each telomere you find a centromere from the fused chromosomes. Are you saying that's not proof? If you are, then you are a moron, because that is how evidence is produced, with an idea, testing, then proof.
SuperAwesomeAtheist 4 months ago
@SuperAwesomeAtheist I'm saying that the fact that is fused. We could of been genitically engineered an alien and an ape mix to make us. How do we know that its not the case ? Check LLoyd Pie.
I agree there is evidence like the other guy told me 98 % of dna. But real hardcore proof is not there.
And pls don't call me a moron because you got your info on some other youtube video and acting smart with me. At the end of the day i don't know more than you and you don't know more than me.
levedia 4 months ago
@levedia
You know more than me? That has yet to be seen.
SuperAwesomeAtheist 4 months ago
@SuperAwesomeAtheist I never wrote i know more than you. You obviously don't know how to read . Its very difficult to explain here but look that up and then draw your own conclusions. youtube.com/watch?v=ObjiTKIPDjU.
levedia 4 months ago
@SuperAwesomeAtheist You can't call me a moron for not trusting the mainstream science. Evolution is not a fact. There's more to it. Honnestly from your replies and the way you talk you sound retarded. You don't know dick. Dawkins dosent know dick either. You are brainwashed by the mainstream science. Natural selection dosen't even make sense. How do you know hominoids dosent exist ? Its like saying aliens dosent exist. How do you know ?
You don't. You know dick. Nothing is fact.
levedia 4 months ago
@levedia
The FACT that we haven't seen these hominoids tells us that they don't exist in our society. The FACT that we haven't found another life form YET in the UNIVERSE means they don't exist, to society. Have you done any testing? Have you compared all of the resources available and made a hypothesis, tested it, proved it to be true with no evidence disputing it, and made it into Scientific Theory, just like Evolution, Relativity, The Big Bang, and all of the others?
SuperAwesomeAtheist 4 months ago
@levedia
in what way does natural selection not make "sense"? It's good not to trust everything someone tells you, but when the best scientific minds have PROVEN evolution over the last 150 years with enormous amounts of evidence, you better have SOMETHING to back up your idea that it's not a fact. Saying dawkins doesn't know dick or natural selection doesn't make sense does not qualify. Please get educated. It's ignorance like this that is ruining our civilization.
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden Scientific minds ? Its called mainstream buddy.
Proven what? That out of the blue modern man came from
that ancestry along with apes etc..... We may have 96 % of its dna but this does not contradict creationism. We could of got created similar yet very different instead of evolving. Something else is really at play here that nobody knows. There is certain scientific facts but all of it is hypothesis. I should get educated ? You should get your head out of your ass.
levedia 3 months ago
@levedia
Doesn't that fact that the earth is 4.6 billion years old contardict creationism? Doesnt the fact that all vertebrates(incluing humans) have gill slits when our embryos are first formed? What abou the fact that human ACTUALLY have vestigal tails and in some humans it develops fully? What about the fact that there new species are formed EVERY SINGLE DAY? thatt completely disproves creationism. BTW, there are MANY MANY more facts like these, Ijust don't have the space.
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
@FellOnSoundGarden Meant some is hypothesis not all. I mistyped.
levedia 3 months ago
@levedia
I was calling you a moron if you were ignoring factual proof. Now, I'm calling you a moron for not reading, and using another YouTube video as a reference is not a bad thing. Why create my own video, when there is a video proving my point, with a creditable source in it? I looked into your Lloyd Pye guy as well, and looked away as soon as I read that he believes BigFoot exists. Granted, I will give him that BigFoot, the monster truck, is roaming the Earth.
SuperAwesomeAtheist 4 months ago
@levedia
Just look up "Ken Miller Human Chromosome 2 Genome" and you will see what I'm talking about.
SuperAwesomeAtheist 4 months ago
@levedia just because you havent seen the proof or gone to look for it doesnt mean its not there.
Keldrath 4 months ago
@levedia
" No way we evolved from the same specie that gorillas evolved from. There is absolutely no proof. That missing link what is it ?"
I guess you never heard of australopithecus afarensis then huh? Think before you post next time
FellOnSoundGarden 3 months ago
@SuperAwesomeAtheist youtube.com/watch?v=IgvqZixAzm4 Just watch it and learn. You will come to realise theres no proof of evolution. Give it a chance. And if the whole thing dosent make sense to you then so be it. Give me your thoughts.
levedia 4 months ago
@levedia
Believe it or not, I liked that video. The way he explained it in this one should allow it to be another hypothesis that needs to be tested, and see if it debunks the Theory of Evolution. I would jump on that ban wagon, because the ultimate goal is to find answers. How else to find answers, but to look and test every possible hypothesis, including those that question Evolution. I applaud you sir.
SuperAwesomeAtheist 4 months ago
Comment removed
yahmana 5 months ago
I'm proud to be part of that family tree!
DSBoomerRider 6 months ago
Only a MORON would think humans came from MONKEYS, for christ sake. Yeah, a FULL-BODIED human who's, on average, about 5-6 feet tall, evolved from a small-ass monkey who's probably, at BEST, only 1/3rd or 1/4th of his size.
REAL believeable...
whoo689 6 months ago
@whoo689
Please tell me this is a joke. Common chimps are, on average, around 5' 6'' tall, and weigh around 150lbs. That is who we share the common ancestor with. I believe you are referring to the Bonobos that evolved AFTER humans, and branched from the chimps. They are, on average, around 2' 6''. Once again, do the research, and know what you are talking about before you spout out ignorant rubbish.
SuperAwesomeAtheist 6 months ago
@whoo689 You are the moron. The difference in size between monkeys (or, more aptly, early hominids) and modern humans does not disprove evolution. Do you realize that all dogs (i.e. ranging from tiny lap dogs to Great Danes) are descendants from wolves? Selective breeding can lead to major physical differences over a relatively short period. Even within humanity, you have a tremendous physical differences between groups of people who are separated geographically or culturally.
rgplaw 4 months ago
Up yours, Christine. Stay out of politics, ignoramus.
MrNobody47710 8 months ago
ive been looking through my bible, and i cant find where it says i should be against evolution... hmmm....
DrBamm 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Humans are from humans... chimpenzies are from chimpenzies.......animal and human don't share same ancestor. God made us....
polychronio 9 months ago
@polychronio
Oh, well, thanks for clearing that up for us. Folks, we can lay this to rest, polychronio figured this one out. It's a pretty open/shut case. Good work polychronio!
SuperAwesomeAtheist 9 months ago 13
@polychronio have you been educated?? i mean at all?? i feel very sorry for you.
ThePearl2004 8 months ago
@polychronio
If a god caused and directed natural processes to make something, he/she was still a creator. In other words, your god can still be a creator via guided evolution. Did you even consider that?
MrNobody47710 8 months ago
@MrNobody47710 animal doesn't have a spirit. human does have a spirit. evolution doesn't exist.
polychronio 8 months ago
@polychronio
Again, a god could have given the modern species of humans spirits after the species evolved into its modern incarnation (i.e., homo sapien sapiens).
There's a good amount of evidence to support the general idea that modern species came from past species. This general idea is "evolution."
If you've got evidence for evolution AND evidence for a creator (and soul exclusivity), put ALL of the pieces of the puzzle together. Don't exclude any solid evidence in an explanation.
MrNobody47710 8 months ago
@polychronio
(part 2) Building on top of those last two statements, a god could have given the ancestors of modern humans a thing that could have developed into souls when modern humans appeared. "Soul seeds" could have been used.
Or perhaps a god picked a specific group of early humans and made that group evolve into modern humans. If you wanna be strict with the definition of "human," you could call everything that came before us "proto-humans."
Do you see all of the possible explanations?
MrNobody47710 8 months ago
@polychronio
What information do you have to prove that, besides the bible, because it is fallible. Sorry, but it's true. I can list you sooooo many mistakes and contradictions in the bible, that it honestly can't be used as a reliable source. That's the beauty about science, you have theories first, that can be tested and then, if they pass, are stamped into scientific law and fact. Just like MrNobody47710 presents, it is a good theory, god used evolution to create us. Open your mind!
SuperAwesomeAtheist 8 months ago
@SuperAwesomeAtheist
I need to retract this statement, because I kinda screwed that up. First, you have a Hypothesis, then you test it, and if the tests pass, it becomes theory. If it is 100% true, and no other evidence contradicts it, then it will become law. That's why it is the theory of evolution, not because it's an idea, but because every test done on the hypothesis has come out true.
SuperAwesomeAtheist 6 months ago
@polychronio Funny how you said we don't share the same ancestor, then you claim we share the same ancestor (God). You don't seem to have an understanding on evolution... small DNA mutations over time allow a species to survive the environment with better characteristics. Example is an animal with more hair can survive cold climates better. Animals with less fur die, animals with more fur can live and reproduce, creating a population of very furry animals, which is a new, different species.
zoomie6421 5 months ago
That girl failed her High School Biology class sounds like.
hubomba 10 months ago
@safify32
1) Nobody claims that our ancestors were chimps, haven't you watched the video?
2) If Adam and Eve had 2 suns, who did they 'make love' with in order to produce the rest of mankind? I can only think of one way and it’s to sick to type (It starts with an 'i' and ends with 'nsect') I guess Oedipus wasn't very original.
wybo2 10 months ago
christine odonnell=chimp dawkins= rational intelligent human
phildirt3 10 months ago
...that is NOT a good question---its the question most elementary school children have
TheGreatDeciever55 11 months ago
He who laughs last laughs best
MrNewkingjames 11 months ago
Got God or Darwin ?
1. Jesus Christ fulfills o-v-e-r 200 Old Testament Messianic Prophecies ( Micah 5:2; etc.) Google Messianic Prophecies fulfilled by Jesus.
2. Jesus Christ makes 30 “I AM” statements in the Gospel of John.
ex: “… for unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24)
Check the Gospel of John in the New Testament.
3. 17 Secular sources confirm that Jesus Christ walked the earth (Celsus, Tacitus, Lucian, etc.) Google Secular sources for Jesus.
1973blownvega 11 months ago
1. There's no evidence of what Thallus wrote - we don't have his writings, only the claims made by Christian apologists centuries later.
2. Pliny was born well after Jesus was executed. He reports that Jesus was worshipped? Of course. We know this.This is early Christianity.
3. Not a single "secular" historical reference to Jesus mentions him being raised from the dead.
4. There's not a single contemperaneous account of any part of the life or death of Jesus.
I can copy and paste too, lol.
SuperAwesomeAtheist 11 months ago 10
@1973blownvega micah 5:2 is a self profiling prophecy, kind of like saying i prophesize that i am going to work tomorrow. when i show up to work BAM im a prophet! how about, You eat breath and drink through the same hole in your body, guaranteeing some percentage of us will choke to death. this is not intelligent design nor is the fact that our reproductive organs are in the same area as our waste organs. a good enginer will tell you that you dont put a night club next 2 a sewer treatment plant.
vermin65803 10 months ago
Comment removed
MrNobody47710 8 months ago
What proof does he have of this? I think it's just his theory, what's he believes. I would like to see undisputable proof. I think that he wants to get rid of all other religions that don't agree with his ideas and set up his own religion.
HeisLord9876 11 months ago
@HeisLord9876
Have you been to any Evolution exhibits? I'm going to take a guess and say no. In New York, they have all kinds of fossils of what used to be known as "missing links". Remember how years ago people were asking for proof of Darwin's theory? "Where's the missing link?" Yeah, science has come a very long way, even if everyone, like you, haven't followed it every step of the way. You want proof, go look for it, it's easy to find, if you look.
SuperAwesomeAtheist 11 months ago 4
@SuperAwesomeAtheist Thank you for replying. Yes, I have been to an evolution exhibit. The more I hear what Richard Dawkins has to say, the more I am convinced that he believes that he is a superior "african ape" and the more I read about Darwin's theories, the more I am convinced that he was a white supremacist. This is what Darwin wrote in "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life." Even the title reveals something.
HeisLord9876 11 months ago
@SuperAwesomeAtheist Darwin wrote: "At some future time period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world...The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
HeisLord9876 11 months ago
@SuperAwesomeAtheist Sorry that's in the Descent of Man, page 156. But the full title of Origin of Species says "favoured races". I'll quote from a book that I'm reading called "The End of Christianity": "Favored races? Doesn't that mean superior races? And don't superior races imply inferior races? Within evolutionary theory, it is the destiny of inferior races to be rooted out and destroyed.....Just so there is not doubt, Darwin saw, as a consequence of his theory, that whites.......
HeisLord9876 11 months ago
@SuperAwesomeAtheist ...that whites (whom he (Darwin) regarded as "superior") would exterminate blacks (whom he regarded as "inferior"). Darwin was an intelligent white male English person. So is Richard Dawkins. He thinks he's higher up the scale. I've read that Hitler espoused Darwinism. Some of my ancestors came from Africa; I guess that makes me lower down. No, the love of Jesus Christ and daily the proof of His loving presence is what I believe and will always follow.
HeisLord9876 11 months ago
@HeisLord9876
What does that have to do with the origin of homo-sapiens? Red, yellow, black, and white, looks like Dawkin's uses his sight, and like you said, acknowledges we originated from Africa. It doesn't matter if Darwin was a white supremest or a closet nutcase. The fact of the matter is, scientists have done the research, and found that we share the same dna as these chimps, and that our atoms that make life can be traceable to the stars themselves, shout out to Neil Degrasse Tyson!
SuperAwesomeAtheist 11 months ago
@HeisLord9876 First of all, you're lying. Even if you aren't (which you are) and Darwin was racist I fail to see what it has to do with Dawkins. They are two different people. Judging people by groups in this fashion is the kind of thinking that justifies racism for bigots. It is a fallacy of logic and you should be ashamed. You cannot judge all people based on one bad apple. Do you think all Catholics are evil because Hitler was a Catholic? All Americans are evil because of Timothy McVeigh?
lolgazmatronz 10 months ago
@HeisLord9876 If you don't like the fossil record as proof. Now we have proof from DNA and genetic sequences. It's funny when creationists ask "where is the proof" when all you have to do is look.
bloodties1 11 months ago
you are in for a bit of a shock.you been conned in a cosmic conspiracy you are hypnotized by the old serpent and his venom has rendered you senseless god help you
MrNewkingjames 11 months ago
@MrNewkingjames
Ummmm, what?
SuperAwesomeAtheist 11 months ago
@MrNewkingjames
Logic, Science, and Reason tell me that instead of me being in for a shock, you will be in for the same, boring, everyday, never-changing fate as myself, full of life until you die one day. You need to come to grips with that, and stop coming up with your senseless metaphors about the old serpent and his venom, because I have never been struck by a serpent, and don't plan on it. May common sense help you.
SuperAwesomeAtheist 11 months ago
@MrNewkingjames did you really say that, HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HOLY SHIT HAHAHAHAHAHAH
you made my night, thank you, that was fucking hysterical.
SabahAlev 11 months ago
Common mistake: Christine and Bill refer to monkeys (with tails) when they mean apes (no tails). @MrNewKingjames: It's an illustration of our knowledge of the tree of life, not the tree of life itself. If you distrust this illustration, you probably won't accept somebody showing you on a map how to get from A to B, either. Lastly, the age of the man pointing (to what looked like me to be real lines rather than imaginary ones) neither adds to nor subtracts from mankind's scientific knowledge.
opeendaginmaart57 11 months ago
Comment removed
opeendaginmaart57 11 months ago
I do not think that an old man pointing to imaginary lines on a chart is proof of anything it is like a card trick you are tricked into thinking you have learned something
MrNewkingjames 1 year ago
@MrNewkingjames - you're an idiot.
KubamanAA 11 months ago
@MrNewkingjames
Dude, put down the fucking bible and read some real books, you're making a fool of yourself!
Jesus Tapdancing Christ, man, you ought to be ashamed of your wilful ignorance!
Nilguiri 11 months ago
@MrNewkingjames
That old man is Richard Dawkins, look him up. Also, just because science and reason goes against everything you believe is imaginary, like the lines you described (which were real lines) or your dictator in the sky, doesn't make that science and reason untrue, you poo-spouting moron.
SuperAwesomeAtheist 11 months ago
You know what, anyone who ask that question are a last cause, because they havent bother to read ANYTHING about evolution. Not a shred of it.
Science is interesting, and if she dont agree then she can fuck of.
gulbirk 1 year ago
christine o'donnelll; a superstitious fucking moron who got owned in her third attempt
AMpufnstuf 1 year ago
If Christine O'Donnell admitted to practicing witchcraft, why are there still people who admit to practicing witchcraft?
NephandiMan 1 year ago
It's weird I think Christine o donnell is a total nut case but at the same time I kind of like her.
mcarbone80 1 year ago
@mcarbone80
She's kinda cute.
TheSonorama21 1 year ago
@R20710 haha feel free. its not copywritten :p
jeff8605 1 year ago
i always thought orangatangs were closer to us than apes. hmm you learn something everyday.
D4K0T4375 1 year ago
OMG! I cant believe my bestfriend asked me "Why are there still monkeys?" !!! JESUS CHRIST IN A BOTTLE #FAIL!!!!
ElectronicCalifornia 1 year ago
She must be a great lay, though.
JacksInn 1 year ago 16
@JacksInn
ARE YOU KIDDING!, if you like going to bed with a religious prude no doubt saying in her little annoying voice, aaah don't touch me there and oooh don't do that and oooh my put that in my mouth no thank you Mr , sex is for procreation only, if that your idea of a good lay I;m sorry for you and I'm sorry for the woman you live with.
adlerbr12 1 year ago
@adlerbr12 :)
JacksInn 1 year ago
@adlerbr12
have you ever heard of a joke?
TheSonorama21 1 year ago
@TheSonorama21
I agree, I bet she's wild in the ol' bedroom and/or pickup truck, lol.
SuperAwesomeAtheist 1 year ago
@JacksInn really? is that necessary?
sugarmagnolia17 1 year ago
@JacksInn If you like using two condoms in the missionary position.
blablaidontcarewhour 11 months ago
@JacksInn Wow, that's so inappropriate.
HeisLord9876 11 months ago
Sometimes I wonder, how the Fuck these People are successfull in Public.In Europe, these Folks get either Ignored or locked away, if they get Dangerous.
ReezeGoingSenseless 1 year ago
Odonnell's question is basically the equivalent of asking, "If americans are largely descendent's of europeans, then why are there still europeans?"
jeff8605 1 year ago 56
@jeff8605
Nice analogy.
SuperAwesomeAtheist 1 year ago 6
@SuperAwesomeAtheist sorry, bad analogy. Analogies are based on common principles and the common principle here is the evolutionary development of a subject's biological makeup and not the subject's location and nationality.
Qrazii 1 year ago
@Qrazii sorry no, the analogy is fine. It IS based on a common principle, and the common principle here is that in both instances, a branching pattern can be observed.
jeff8605 1 year ago
@jeff8605 No, that's not equivalent. What she said is really something like "If the French are descendents of europeans, how come there are still europeans?" or "If the chinese are descendents of asians how come there are still asians?", since we are still apes.
ljietuvis 1 year ago
@ljietuvis
I don't believe O'Donnell understands that we are apes. I believe she sees us a whole different species. As if "Mankind" is it's own animal breed, created separate from the animals, as the bible describes.
SuperAwesomeAtheist 1 year ago 2
@ljietuvis This analogy doesn't fit either, because she's referring to one species "changing" into another. French can mate with Europeans and they can produce offspring of the same species. We cannot reproduce with Chimps, Gorillas or even Bonobos.
kingryanarthur 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kingryanarthur
"We cannot reproduce with Chimps, Gorillas"
That's why it's an "analogy". Americans "not being able to mate" with Europeans being analogous to them being a different species... and yet Europeans still exist.
Or maybe I misunderstood your reference to the French, etc.
Nilguiri 11 months ago
@jeff8605 well done.
hennaert 1 year ago
@jeff8605 a funnier analogy if the U.S was Brittish , then why we still have Britts :)
thugyheadbanger 1 year ago
@jeff8605 No, it's not. The Europeans coming over to America is not an evolutionary process. Are you saying that Europeans are now genetically lower on the evolutionary scale than Americans because they crossed the ocean? Or in the same thread, a few apes didn't immigrate to another country and become human beings. It's not the equivalent question.
HeisLord9876 11 months ago
@HeisLord9876 LOLWUT?
I never stated that migration is evolution. NOR did I say that Europeans are genetically lower. Thats a fail on both counts. What I was inferring was that BOTH show a branching tree pattern of sorts. Humans and modern day apes branched off a common ancestor to become 2 different species subsets. Americans and modern day Europeans branched off hundreds of years ago, and went on to form two different cultural subsets.
jeff8605 11 months ago