Evolution is REAL Science #2

[Casshyr]

Evolution rocks!

[kc0itf]

How exactly is this a beneficial mutation?

[Einargizz]

Have there been any discussions among the scientific community about the possibility of fixing this genetic disorder in the human race, thus allowing us to synthesize vitamin C again?

[khilty4344]

I love how all of you are arguing for or against God. Did any of you think of trying to see what happens when you combine science and the bible? One word Creationism, Combining what we know as scientific fact and the Word of God (Bible) sheds a lot of light on many different areas of question, such as the beginning of the world, molecular structure, DNA and how the human race came to be. Fact is both sides have evidence to support but when added together you get a lot more answers.

[gorilla199uncensored]

@khilty4344

"Word of God (Bible) "

So you just ignore everything the bible claims as science proves it wrong!

"how the human race came to be. "

It evolved not made of clay 6000 years ago!

"Fact is both sides have evidence "

LOL NO

Your god of the gaps is not evidence.

[khilty4344]

@gorilla199uncensored Say what you want but the Theory of evolution is just that, a theory accepted by many. Science has fallacies just like everything else. I suggest you do some reading b4 you try to negate anything based on the statement below. That is about a rudimentary as it gets and you could go in circles arguing both sides.

"It evolved not made of clay 6000 years ago!"

[OurLucylocket]

@khilty4344 Evolution is both a Fact and Theory .. based on 100% provable evidence before it can be called a Fact... science indeed is very very finite that way.. unlike all religions which or Faith based because indeed these beliefs are completely unprovable based on the supernatural rather than the natural world. If you where Ill would you not let a doctor cure you if it was proven by scientific evidence he could do so, or would you rather have a witch doctor or faith healer, .. ?

[ZukoFireBook]

I like videos like this but people who don't believe in evolution will blindly ignore the facts.

[Lesrevil08]

Lemmiwinks is my distant cousin!! Hell yeah

[Korkzor]

@mejc2 Yes, you might think so. Evolution can however seemingly go "backwards", if you like, perhaps because of bad luck. This is pure speculation but suppose a relatively small group of mammals were isolated with a rich diet of vitamin C and lots of food. Then those mammals would inevitably be dominant, despite their "error". There may have been other factors involved that even though they were in a disadvantage on the vitamin C, they had advantages in other areas that were more important.

[colbyrules8]

funny, how the human has not changed in one aspect except for height in over 20,000 years, this is stupid, you are stupid..............

you believe in 1 out of millions of 0's.1 that random events happened to just the perfect timing just the perfect way to create us, also if you do believe that, where did matter come from if it cant be created or destroyed?

[TheNocturneMoon]

@colbyrules8 Humans evolve at less than 1% every 5 million years. We're still evolving but it's far too slow for any one lifetime to see it. Saying we don't evolve because not much has changed is like saying "I don't believe the earth is rotating because I don't feel it." Point is it's moving too slow. Natural Selection is not about randomness it's about a species' ability to change and adjust to survive in its surroundings, as well as mutations occurring that are then passed on to offspring.

[TheNocturneMoon]

@colbyrules8 One example of Evolution we can see today is that certain types of bacteria evolve quicker to adjust, there are types of TB bacteria that can't be killed by drugs because changes and mutations allowing them to survive the anti-biotics passes on quickly to their offspring.

[TheNocturneMoon]

@colbyrules8 Do you believe in a creator? Because if you do, stating Laws, about how matter can't be created or destroyed, just proved that matter couldn't have been made by a man in the sky. That argument has nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution is an explanation of what happened once life got here, and how it changed and became the millions of modern species that we see today. The will of certain species and genes to survive is just incredible. :)

[colbyrules8]

@TheNocturneMoon What you just described is adaptation, the fact no species can ever change their chromosone count disproves evolution straight up.

also, what you said about do i believe in a creator is pure stupidity. Not saying you are stupid, but think about it, matter can not be created naturally, so the only way is if something created it.............

[MrMZaccone]

@colbyrules8 No species can ever change their chromosome count??? AAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH­AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!! Of course they can you idiot! ROFLMAO!!!

[colbyrules8]

@MrMZaccone Then why can't you cross breed different species?

You truely are an idiot if you think they can, good intelligent reply, a five year old could reply better. And show me evidence of evolution on the macro level.

[MrMZaccone]

@colbyrules8 Why should you be able to cross breed different species and how would that prove that they can't change their chromosome count? Let's define terms here so I can be certain of what you are actually saying. Are you claiming that no member of a species can have a different chromosome count than the species to which it belongs?

[MrMZaccone]

@colbyrules8 As for evidence of evolution on a macro level, what sort of evidence would you accept? ( I can't wait to hear this dance number )

[doctorh2005]

@MrMZaccone

/// As for evidence of evolution on a macro level, what sort of evidence would you accept? ///

Try Empirical.

[MrMZaccone]

@doctorh2005 Oh, that's funny! Try this, define what you would accept as evidence and I'll provide it. I won't have you moving the goal posts after the fact. Speciation?

[freethinker923]

god must have fucked with that gene after adam ate the apple... >_>

[Animations4u]

These explations are alot more believable than that bible crap.

[monkypunishr]

@Animations4u wooow i couldnt agree more!

[doctorh2005]

How does this prove common ancestry?????

Genetic similarity doesnt necessarily imply common ANCESTRY, but could easily imply a common DESIGNER.

Refuted.

[standup4REALscience]

This video clearly demonstrates that common ancestry can be used to generate predictions concerning what should be found in the genetic material of species.

But genetic similarity is only part of the prediction. Shared derived characters (like the premature stop codon) are predicted due to inheritance from common ancestors.

"Common design" cannot be used to make such predictions and is therefore impossible to refute. It could be used to rationalize away any observation, just as you have done.

[doctorh2005]

""Common design" cannot be used to make such predictions and is therefore impossible to refute. It could be used to rationalize away any observation, just as you have done"

You accuse me of "God of the gaps", while you at the same time use the "Evolution of the gaps" fallacy.

Tell me why "Common design" cannot be used to make predictions....

[standup4REALscience]

A supernatural cause can be used to explain any and all observations. Unless you are willing to put limitations on what God can and cannot do, then any observation could be deemed consistent with the notion of "common design" because God is capable of both suspending and acting in accord with the laws of nature.

[standup4REALscience]

Consider the predictions generated from common ancestry that are described in this video. Notice how the prediction is derived from the mechanism of change (inheritance from common ancestors) that is purported to have caused the patterns in the DNA evidence. If such patterns were not found, it would be evidence against common ancestry.

Provide a similar prediction using "common design." Be sure that it is actually generated from the purported way in which the designer interacts with nature.

[Protectourbioshpere]

@doctorh2005 This argument just goes round and round doesn't it. The fact of the matter is, however, that this is the best guess we have based on our current set of fact based knowledge. You people are so determined to make everyone bow down to your supposed creator, but you cannot provide a single shred of tangible evidence. How do you expect any rational person to believe that? If I told you mickey mouse was the creator and I saw it on the Disney channel you would say I'm crazy.

[colbyrules8]

@Protectourbioshpere the fact matter can not be created or destroyed idiot, you have no facts behind evolution either

[Protectourbioshpere]

@colbyrules8 LOL wow....Is this a joke or are you really this ignorant? The correlation that you are trying to make between the laws of thermodynamics and evolution holds absolutely no validity. No matter is being created in evolutionary change whatsoever, and just to set you straight there is an immense amount of evidence for evolution. We cannot, however, show abiogenesis to be true. Do yourself a favor and do not come out here talking like you have a clue when you don't. Do some research.

[MrMZaccone]

@colbyrules8 Matter cannot be created or destroyed but it CAN be converted to energy and back again. WTF is your point for bringing up the law of conservation of mass-energy and how does it apply to your argument?

[MrMZaccone]

@doctorh2005 It's not just the similarities but the differences and the pattern in which they occur that prove common ancestry. If you don't understand that, I'll gladly explain it but it will take several posts. I guarantee it will be worth it.

[doctorh2005]

@MrMZaccone

/// It's not just the similarities but the differences and the pattern in which they occur that prove common ancestry ///

So? Whose to say that a Common Designer/Creator can also create beings that contain BOTH similarities and differences.

[MrMZaccone]

@doctorh2005 And the pattern in which they occur? What purpose would it serve a designer to create life containing the EXACT pattern that would indicate common ancestry? Frankly, I don't think you get what I'm saying. Do you accept DNA paternity testing as valid and scientific?

[MGsven]

@doctorh2005 some crappy designer that must be

[doctorh2005]

@MGsven

Why do u say that then?

[MGsven]

@doctorh2005 non active parts of the genome, why would the designer put non active dna in several species making it look like they are descended from a common ancester

[jmg94j]

Great vid. Spoken in language that even a creationist could understand. The key word here is "could". Most of them will still choose not to understand it, or make up excuses to dismiss it.

[Jmundwyler]

This does not require evolution to prove. Provided all kinds of animals (see Familia) were in the garden of God east of Eden together and they were made some to require vitamin C and others not to it would be the most godly way to merely make the genes this way to produce a perfect animal that needs "fruit bearing seed" and to "eat the fruit with the seed" as opposed to the skin where usually guinea pigs get their vitamin C. This would show an inbuilt dependancy for God and not evolution.

[doctorh2005]

@Jmundwyler

Good comment. Take no notice of the insults.

God Bless

[standup4REALscience]

That's an interesting rationalization. But it is not science. Using such reasoning you could explain any possible observation.

In this example, scientists used evolutionary theory to predict the patterns they should find in the genetic evidence before those patterns were eventually discovered.

It is impossible to make scientific predictions if you allow for the intervention of a supernatural being who creates patterns that just happen to mimic those we would expect if evolution has occurred.

[doctorh2005]

"It is impossible to make scientific predictions if you allow for the intervention of a supernatural being who creates patterns that just happen to mimic those we would expect if evolution has occurred. "

What a load of rubbish.

God Himself CREATED the very foundations for science (which = "KNOWLEDGE")

[standup4REALscience]

And how can you test that proposition?

Can you set up an experiment to test for the intervention of an supernatural being who, by definition, has the power to suspend the laws of nature?

What if God is in control of what appear to us to be fully "natural" processes? Unless you're willing to place arbitrary limits on the powers of God, it is impossible to disprove the claim that God is responsible for all seemingly "natural" phenomena.

[Protectourbioshpere]

@Jmundwyler I hope that you understand why we have such a hard time with the god theory. To me it just sounds like a cop out. Why take the time and effort to actually study anything we know full well that god did it? The problem, however, is that god is not tangible, and we have no way of testing any god hypothesis. There is no such thing as blind faith in science. We have to rely on what we can see to allow for absolute certainty. If god is at the root of the question we will find it.

[MrMZaccone]

@Protectourbioshpere There is no god "theory" god is a hypothesis at best and not a very good one. Don't give these idiots any more credit than they deserve.

[smarthandsomeguy]

1) Nobody knows the origin of the universe. But we do know (thanks to the cosmic background radiation (google WMAP)), that the overall energy of the universe is exaclty 0.

2) If you don't believe that matter can be created or destroyed naturally, you don't believe that the sun shines, you don't believe in e=mc2, and that nuclear weapons work.

3) Actually, it's religious ppl who believe god came from nothing.

[BrandonHawk21]

@smarthandsomeguy just sparked somethin here

[IHATEATHEIST2]

We continuously Evolve ...the only difference now is that we no longer Elvolve in line with our Natural Inviroment ...w are the only species on Earth that change our Inviroment (Clothes,Houses, ect) ...so what are we evolving into?....come and join us .

[b1gr1g]

Fools! Satan obviously created DNA, made 95.5% of our DNA look like other hominids and hell i'd even bet God planted cosmic background radiation just to test us DUH!!!!!! How else could we eat banans, they were made for our hand lawlerz.

[RedsOfKing]

wow you are such a lame brains you think hehe a banana is for hand than watch whats inside it and what on the top of outside it..

[djarm67]

5 star and fave

DJ

[Checkmass]

This makes a lot of sense. Who ever doesn't comprehend this is officially a dumb ass. lol

[SlapAchristian]

dont give science a bad name. your statement however proves that we have evolved from our neanderthal days, however you seem to be lagging behind.

[artyfarty2]

"your statement however proves that we have evolved from our neanderthal days, however you seem to be lagging behind"

evolved from neanderthals? And you think he is lagging? neanderthals are a different lineage to humans!

[MelanholicCarnage]

stop evolving?  stop spamming.

[andronic96]

evolution is NOT real. this has nothing to do with proving creationism wrong. why has everything stopped evolving. maybe thers just a common designer.

[plevyman]

Everything hasn't stopped evolving, you spanner.

[matc2]

NO animal, or any other life in the planet has stopped evolving..

[hakesho]

it could be argued that humans have stopped evolving. even though we are still subject to plenty of mutations, we may have tamed nature to the point where we can't really be "naturally selected" anymore.

[MrMZaccone]

@hakesho Wait till the next large asteroid impact and see if you still think that way.

[hakesho]

it's really sad to see people try to refute something they don't even properly understand.

[derek24hudson]

Why are children SIMILAR to their parents, and siblings? It's just common sense, as you know. Darwin pointed out that the ONLY KNOWN reason for similarity amongst organisms is relatedness. genetics (unavailable to darwin) confirm this principle beautifully, in LEGALLY BINDING PATERNITY TESTS. THE SAME PRINCIPLE shows up relatedness at a greater distance than parent/child. A father caught by a paternity test could say "Similar? Yes, but it doesn't prove ancestry!" Oh yes it does, in ALL courts!

[EvoBiologist]

...by the way - subscribed, and linking this video from my GULOP video.

[EvoBiologist]

Nice! I've got my own GULOP video. It's nice to see other people recognizing what a strong case it presents for common descent.

[Kattarina98]

Fascinating. Thank you, Professor Mohn!

Has there been a trade-off for the loss of this ability, like e.g. susceptibility for sickle cell anaemia ./. protection against malaria?

[standup4REALscience]

No, there is no other known benefit.

And I'm a high school teacher, not a professor. You can just call me Jeremy.

[redegg3]

TOBACCO HAS 48 chromosomes so that means monkeys are also drugs?!

evolutionist dont smoke your gramps!!

[standup4REALscience]

Similarity in number of chromosomes does not automatically translate into relatedness. It is the genetic material contained in the chromosomes that matters.

It is a coincidence that the tobacco plant has the same number of chromosomes as we observe in the great apes. The genetic information carried by the chromosomes of the tobacco plant differs significantly from the information carried by ape chromosomes. The differences are obvious to anyone who has taken the time to research the subject.

[garrywarney]

But tobacco doesn't share 98% of our DNA now does it?

[VomitVideos]

How would you define truth?

[edwierd33]

This doesn't prove anything, Creationists do not deny natural selection. So I don't know what the point of this video is. They just don't believe in common ancestry.

In other words, this does not explain common ancestry, this explains natural selection.

[standup4REALscience]

The video is not an attempt to "explain" common ancestry. It merely demonstrates how common ancestry helps us to make sense out of biological observations.

The inference of common ancestry was used to generate the predictions that were put forth in the video. Those predictions were confirmed by the molecular evidence that showed, among other things, that all primates susceptible to scurvy have a nearly identical pseudogene that is broken in the same way.

Did Creationists predict this evidence?

[edwierd33]

Again, a similarity, that's it. Yes they are similar genetically. They are related. Doesn't prove they have common ancestors.

Yes, true the evolution theory helped to form this very cool experiment. It helps us to understand the molecular "similarities". This does not mean that the theory is fact. And, it is not like creationists don't believe in science, they don't believe in "Darwins" evolution theory.

[standup4REALscience]

What does it mean to say "they are related" if they do not share common ancestry?

What kind of relationship are you referring to?

[edwierd33]

What I mean when I say "related" is that they are in the same group "primates". This does not prove that they share common ancestry. On the other hand, it does prove natural selection.

[standup4REALscience]

How does the evidence of nearly identical GULO pseudogene sequences "prove natural selection?"

[edwierd33]

There you go again, twisting words to make them sound good for your case. You like to use the words "Nearly Identical". I like the word "similar".

Natural selection, or adaptation. Same thing. These species adapted to their surroundings. They had plenty of Vitamin C in there diets. So there genetic code was adapted, or naturally selected.

[standup4REALscience]

There is much more than mere "similarity" in these sequences. There are identical deletion mutations that create a premature STOP codon in the middle of exon 10.

Essentially, your argument is that "adaptation" has lead to these identical deletion mutations in the exact same location of the GULO-related sequences of all of the higher primates. That would be an astronomically unlikely coincidence.

It appears to me that you are the one who is twisting words to make them sound good for your case.

[edwierd33]

Just because you 'say' that it is astronomically unlikely, does not make it so. Show me some science. Actually show me some math, I'm better with math.

If it wasn't adaptation, then the offspring that were susceptible to scurvy, you would think, would die off. And there would be at least some primates that didn't have this. We do not understand enough about genetics to say that it is impossible for these different but similar species to adapt in the exact same location. That is an assumption.

[standup4REALscience]

As I mention in the video, the mutation would only be harmful to individuals that did not get enough vitamin C in their diets. Most primates get more than enough vitamin C in their diets, so that the mutation would not be harmful.

There are primates that can synthesize their own vitamin C, including lemurs, lorises, pottos, & galagos. They apparently branched off from the rest of the "higher primates" before the deletion mutation occurred in the ancestor of monkeys, apes, and humans.

[edwierd33]

Sorry, I meant within the certain species that have the defect. And how do you know what the diet of monkeys and apes, consisted of back then?

[YoungMetalgearPro]

"most" creationists believe in a god~ a bible, quran or what ever you fancy before you sleep. so anything that contradicts the teachings they deny and call non believers crazy.

[edwierd33]

Maybe you are right, maybe not, but if more creationists and evolutionists were more informed on both ends, they would open their minds to other possibilities.

[HezechiahBartlett]

standup4REALscience: OK, The lack of Gulo is not a disorder, if it was then the end of evolution would be utoepic, meaning that a super-species would evolve essentially graphically dependent from it's surroundings or as it would be, the earth. The reason some genes become repressed and no longer continue is that their function wasn't necessary for survival any longer. This is Darwin, as it stands.

[Juggernauticali]

Whoa whoa. The quote at the beginning of the video, "...exceptional species among phylogenetically higher animals..."

What on earth is an "exceptional species" and a "higher animal?"

[standup4REALscience]

In this sense, "exceptional" means "deviating widely from a norm." This is in reference to the fact that most animals can produce their own Vitamin C, except primates and guinea pigs.

"Higher animals" is an archaic way to refer to all animals but placazoans, sponges, ctenophores, and cnidarians. The use of this phrase has the unfortunate implication that evolution is a progressive process from "lower" or "less evolved" to "higer" or "more evolved" organisms. This isn't how evolution works.

[BlackFly73]

Excellent Again - I was using the GULO pseudogenes in class the other day as I discussed Genome structures with my class. I also used ALU as a transposon - It was a proud moment when a student asked if this meant that we all came from a common ancestor!!!!

Would you be willing to share your graphics???

[ndjarnag]

dude, these videos are brillant.

[standup4REALscience]

Thanks for the kind words. I'm hoping to have another video put together soon.

[gorilla199uncensored]

Andrekinghorn15 Please insert your excuse and explain how this is intelligent design? You know creationism! LOL

[Andrewkinghorn15]

Ok then no problem. We would expect to see certain things like that we are like chimps and other primates.

This is a very interesting video, some good science but has a crappy hypothesis!

[gorilla199uncensored]

"We would expect to see certain things like that we are like chimps and other primates."

Very vauge as I expected.

Explain why god gave man the DNA all 4 stages to produce Vitamin C, then screwed the location of the 4th stage so it does not work?

Why did he design all the other apes with this pointless flaw?

Its just part of gods stupid design?

[Minttzz]

"Ok then no problem. We would expect to see certain things like that we are like chimps and other primates.

This is a very interesting video, some good science but has a crappy hypothesis! "

Sorry, this comment makes no sense. Why would we expect to see a broken gene for making Vitamins C?

[middlekk]

Wow. Creationists are completely retarded. They think that a defective gene shared across related species is evidence of "intelligent" design.

We have a new oxymoron. Military intelligence, intelligent design, jumbo shrimp. Fits.

[standup4REALscience]

I'm not interested in insulting Creationists. I'm interested in educating them.

Please try to avoid name-calling.

The problem with the "common design" explanation is that any possible observation can be explained by it. An explanation that can be used to explain everything actually explains nothing.

[middlekk]

Sometimes, they refuse to be educated. You will learn this the more your excellent videos are passed around.

They will deny the evidence that's right in front of them. And claim you are working for Satan himself.

And, of course, "common design" doesn't work because the evidence shows that there isn't one. There are many designs -- depending on how far back you look.

I'm working my way through evo-devo now. Fascinating stuff.

[gorilla199uncensored]

"There are many designs"

Not when they are lying for their religion, its all the deisgner and the did it, but they will never explain the hard questions :)

[Xpistos2]

Couldn't respond as the comments were disabled. So I am using this space: I am aware of that scripture. That one hasn't seen is not to say there is no evidence. Much of what you assert about scientific truths, you have not seen. Much of what scientist assert as true, they have not seen. Evidence is to be equated with sight. The scripture you quoted doesn't mean that Faith is belief without evidence, albeit it is belief without sight.

[middlekk]

No. Evidence does not have to be equated with sight. No one has even seen an electron. Yet we know they're everywhere. No one has ever seen a quark; yet we know they're the fundamental building blocks of all matter.

You're reaching.

And the Prof never disables comments, so it must be something YOU did.

[Xpistos2]

I wonder what it was. Anyway. there is no reaching in what i said. You stated that Jesus asserted that Faith was belief without evidence. I said He didn't. You provided a scripture. I showed that that scripture doesn't say what you say it says. And you then say I am reaching? God's revelation to me of His being IS, in fact, evidence. You're insistence that that evidence be assessable to you on your terms, is not proof, in its inasessability to you, that it is not evidence to me from God.

[middlekk]

And now you're just being bat-shit certifiably insane.

Anecdotes are not proof of anything. "God's revelation" could have been indigestion, anoxia, an epileptic seizure, or any other form of hallucination. Proves NOTHING.

Please seek medical and/or psychiatric help.

[Xpistos2]

Adding you to my prayer list! :-)

[stanmagicman]

Comment ARE disable one his main page!!!!!! I guess you don't research very deeply.

[middlekk]

Comments aren't disabled in the VIDEO where we were having the discussion. I guess that makes you the one who didn't research very deeply.

[gorilla199uncensored]

"I'm not interested in insulting Creationists."

Possible

"I'm interested in educating them."

Not possible!

When somone pretends somthing because tis their religion, no amount of sence/fact/education will change their mind!

They have to decide to accept the truth first, then they will find it easily.

[PreparationH67]

I wonder if u could mess with the guinea pig genes and get them to produce the enzyme again. I would defiantly be more "useful" than that genetic experiment were they made some glow in the dark rats.

[middlekk]

Actually, they're working on this type of research now.

Except they're using mice that have the human genetic defect inserted.

Transgenic animals are extremely useful in biomedical research, and are another way that evolutionary theory is being used to benefit us.

[PreparationH67]

Cool, I think it would be pretty useful if people no longer had to rely on citrus and stuff to get Vitamin C

[middlekk]

OF course, at this point, vitamin C can be manufactured so cheaply and is otherwise so ubiquitous in our diets that it's probably not worth the effort to "fix" it.

For space travelers, maybe. But that's what Tang was developed for (do they even still make Tang?).

[PreparationH67]

I think they do, but Tang still takes up space on the shuttle and who knows it might be a useful modification in the future. Freeing up some industry and farmland for other things? Use it for people living on the moon or something to reduce the amount of stuff they have to send up? Only time will tell.

[middlekk]

You may be right, but even people who go to the moon or Mars have to eat, and vitamin C is easy to add to just about any food substance. I don't know about stability over long times though.

It's nice to think about, but probably not on the top of the list of problems science worries about.

Still, it would be proof of concept, so who knows? Curing a genetic defect would give enormous support to gene therapy for Alzheimers, Parkinsons, cancer, etc. etc. etc.

[Mjhavok]

Why do you think the 1st video got a lot more comments than this one?

[standup4REALscience]

Because the discussion on that video veered off into an argument about religion.

That seems to be what happens on pretty much every evolution video on YouTube.

[Mjhavok]

Yep. I am not immune to doing that and I enjoy the argument but it is annoying when important science (which is much more interesting and fun) gets hijacked by it.

[standup4REALscience]

Agreed.

Thanks for helping to spread the word about my videos.

[Mjhavok]

I'll do my best for future videos also.

[gildor67]

Great videos! Thanks a lot!

[CousinoMacul]

Very nice!

[jebus6kryst]

So much information packed into this video. Wonderfully done.

[ndjarnag]

Awesome!

[LVskywalker]

bravo!

[damianpoirier]

Very very well done. Could anyone watch this and not understand? TYVM Favorited and 5*

[Pirwzwhomper]

Wonderful video.

[ndjarnag]

wow, excellent!

[YamaruXninja]

Thanks for VIDEO!!