. The fact is DNA is a finely tuned machined one mismatched nucleotide pair causes problems in a proteins tertiary structure and make that protein non-functional or the organism that those proteins make up impossible to survive in a wild setting and try to reproduce. Genes are not the end all to prove evolution, i am learning it right now.
As far as genetic diversity a 1% difference in genes is about 30million base pairs and that is significant, not to mention that during replication DNA mismatches are repaired 99.99% of the time. The telomeres in the human second chromosome can be called hetero-chromatin and looks identical to telomere sequences.
There are 6800 and more genetic diseases caused by deleterious mutations, because there is no other kind of mutation.
READ TWICE: We know they are screwed up DNA coding because we can see the original fit condition in people who do not have the particular disease. Read AGAIN and again.
That means there is only genetic degradation shown in ALL the absolutely irrefutable physical evidence.
There is no evolution from simple towards complex.
why did this guy just post this in my inbox I swear to god this woman is the freshest person I have ever seen and she is explaining this to people who can speak English....
@firstplacechickenegg Lots of predators means low survival rate of prey. If the fish evolved muscular fins similar to the mudskipper, then they can escape predators very easily. This results in low survival rate of the predators due to a greater challenge in catching prey. This evolutionary pressure cause the predators to adapt to this change also, and an evolutionary arms race begins. Another arms race is seen between parasites and their hosts. This is why a new cold virus evolves every year.
@Ryan1468 I think we should stop wasting our time on youtube comments when all we have is 500 characters to explain or argue a point when both evolution and the bible are pretty vague on why and how we got here. If you feel strongly about it write a book on it or a thesis or some thing like that. Me I`m bored of mocking the evolutionists and bible bashers in 500 characters or less, when both have got the whole thing wrong and are just picking facts out the air. Try expanding your minds
@firstplacechickenegg Evolution is not a theory about how life originated, just as the theoretical atomic structure has nothing to do with the creation of atoms.Evolution only deals with what happens once a self replicating molecule is present.It is an inevitability with replicating organisms,and has been proven time and time again.Rejecting evolution is comparable to believing the stork brings babies and rejecting sexual reproduction.You need to be completely ignorant of evolution to reject it
have always agreed evolution happens in a way - just not to create new species.Though have never stated in comments for this video upload. In my view of the world history has been tampered with at the highest level of authority. At school and at local national history museums it is taught that carbon dating is the method of dating history back to the dinosaurs and beyond.Yet now evolution has so many critics, the methods and facts to discover how long ago dinosaurs existed has suddenly changed
@firstplacechickenegg Did they? Well, perhaps this was before the use of carbon-14 dating was amended, I'm sure there will be changes made to the evolutionary theory, too. Not because scientists are just blatantly trying to lie, because they're discovering more. It only works on the carbon found in materials that were once living organisms up to around 50,000 years. To look at dinosaurs and the KT extinction I think they just piece together probable series of events based on the fossil record.
@Ahuazusu no offence hopefully but 65 million years to oops only 50,000 years and then lets change the evolutionary theory when all prehistoric knowledge is based on a lie that carbon-14 dating worked to calculate millions of years. I lied about my age yesterday by ten years to three separate people and nobody knew
@firstplacechickenegg Again, which scientists or whom in general said that? I only know around 65 million is the current estimate, but is there evidence that's what was claimed and meant by any institutions when they referred to carbon dating, and then they just changed it? I don't know; either of us could look up a timeline of scientific headlines throughout the decades to see if the status quo changes one year in particular.
Evolution theory is very entertaining but does not really help world peace. But thats the point of evolution theory. Competition and survival of the fittest - how exciting. Without the theory of evolution and without the thought of the religions and god we all just piss in the wind. Nice to know someone has given us irrigation, hippys and culture across the globe. Please do not place me as a creationist I still believe evolution can happen within a same species just not lizards to birds...peace
@firstplacechickenegg Continued: And when different groups of one species are isolated from one another long enough they are known to become different from one another and lose the ability to successfully interbreed after many generations; they are then classified as separate species. This is observable speciation, and supports that over time different groups follow different paths of genetic change and give rise to new species.
@Ahuazusu sounds good though the whole carbon dating thing has me skeptical as always and the lack of evidence for inbetween species like species that did not mutate in a positive way like all mutation attempts made today. unless two mutants had sex and their offspring were mutated or carried the mutant gene and then they had mutant offspring with other mutants and then mutated a mutant limb useful to survival like a wing with machine guns on it. Some fossils of mutants please that died wrong
Evolution of one species to another has been disproved. The whole thing is scientists to proud to admit it. People hanging on to the idea that it is still plausable are just frightened of what it would mean
Day 1 >Would you look at that I have a leg instead of a fin.
Day 2 > I wonder if I could breath on the surface of the water.
Day 3 > going out this afternoon to try and wiggle on to the shore. With my new mutant fin I should be able to wiggle out of the water learn how to breath air.
Day 4 > watched disney little mermaid
Day 5 > did not work started choking and wiggling back into the water was really tiring. Now I`ve been eaten by predator in the sea because I can`t swim.
Where are the intermediate stages of fossils where mutant evolution went wrong. Where did you learn your history. Why are prehistoric animals such as sharks and crocodiles not wiped out like dinosaurs. Why if evolution took so long is there animals that survived the dinosaurs and have not evolved into anything else outside there species when evolution THEORY claims through natural selection evolution takes place. Within a same species evolution can take place but not across the board. peace
@firstplacechickenegg Because species wouldn't be forced to adapt as much with each generation if they are already well suited to their environment. Sharks, crocodiles, and insects have all remained very well built to survive.
The exact species of sharks and crocodiles that lived at the same time of the dinosaurs are extinct, but their highly similar, but smaller descendants still live today you see.
@Ahuazusu why are sharks and crocodiles not wiped out like dinosaurs. Sharks and crocodiles did not evolve into anything than slightly larger, smaller or different versions. They did not evolve into a totally different living creature that we see today. Evolution can happen in a species but not to change a species into an entirely different living creature, that is my point. Scales do not become feathers. you see do you see now thanks
Well, why did anything survive? Sharks and crocodiles survived most likely because they are creatures of the water, and watery habitats were less seriously affected by the catastrophy.
@firstplacechickenegg Woah there, no need to be snide. I don't think anyone's exactly certain what killed off the large dinosaur species, but clearly many species that lived at the same time as them were able to survive better than they, and have descendant species.
Looking also at your above comment, do you think "evolution" happens in days? It would supposedly take millions of years of small differentiations adding up with each generation until genetically they were quite different.
@firstplacechickenegg And another thing; did you know that the fur or hair on mammals, the scales on reptiles, and the feathers on birds are all made of the same substance: keratin? Some birds even still have scales on their legs, and when examined, feathers and scales have highly similar protein sequences making them up. Consider feathers elongated scales.
@Ahuazusu considered and thought about that the years it would take for a very clever man from today to design wings on insects and birds. Then the the fact that carbon dating is useless at determining history of life. The fact that evolution of one species to another has been disproved anyway. Don`t know what snide means but it sounds good. I had a drink with a fish the other night he drank me under the table but then he was legless
@Ahuazusu that must mean that reptiles really flapped there stubby legs for millions of years jumping about their habitat in the subconcious hope that one day they would be able to fly. This may be true because some high jumpers training for the olympics have been training in the galapagos islands and their offspring have started growing wings out of their shoulder blades... So sorry you are right because I`ve seen diagrams and illustrations of them so it must be true. My nails need trimming
@firstplacechickenegg No, that's not the theory, and how has evolution been disproved exactly? How is carbon dating unreliable? It works, but it only proves something is as old as 50,000 years. Besides carbon dating there are a number of radiactive decaying substances which can measure billions of years like uranium, thorium, rubidium, argon and potassium.
@Ahuazusu what makes evolution happen they say evolution just takes over. Why do scientists from all over the world claim that carbon dating is how they get there numbers in the millions when dating history but all of a sudden uranium is a better source but is 700,000 years out of what they previously claimed the dinosaurs became extinct, yet for years carbon dating only proves 50,000 years old. You do the math my name is baron samedi and I play the voodoo guy in james bond films
@firstplacechickenegg So, you're now agreeing that evolution does in fact happen in a way- just not to create new species? Evolution doesn't have a will, it's just the name for the explanation of what most scientists believe happens. Change is just an ongoing, constant part of life on this planet, and the best suited tend to have better chances to pass on their genetics. The only thing carbon dating was really used to prove was that the creationist theory of a 6,000 year old Earth was not true.
@Ahuazusu creationists believe an old lie (the bible) and evolutionists believe the new lie evolution of species to another species. My belief is that something has manipulated the beliefs of people through time to suit the survival of humanity. Everyone has to believe in something and the bible served its purpose and now evolutions purpose disproving god makes us all think about survival more than having faith in god and gods word. Without gods word for faith we have faith in what? science
@firstplacechickenegg Well, to be fair scientific advancement in general has been what has brought us modern medicine and other beneficial technologies, and people don't really need to worship a god figure to know to be decent to one another or else you could say that believing in a god doesn't necessarily make you moral to begin with.
@Ahuazusu thats just ignorant or naive. Moral is how you see it not necessarily good or bad. Without gods word what ever the religion good moral is hard to come by if a person fears nothing
@firstplacechickenegg Yeah, morality is what is considered good or bad; it's what a society is willing to accept based on their interpretation of morality and values. Theocracies usually give us the morality that non-believers are lesser and may be killed or ostracized, and not just in Western religions. Frankly, I don't think it's really needed anymore to maintain a society.
No wonder Ferris Bueller liked to skip class so much. Ben Stein, for all his air of dry academia, is a complete idiot. I'd skip his class too.
Anyway hey, thanks for this well-presented and informative video. It's a very good thing to offer these kinds of evolutionary surveys for people. My favorite is 5:48 - "ALL fossils are transitional forms." This needs to be stressed more often in public and scientific discourse.
Also, it's nice to see an amateur DIY video that isn't about cleavage.
Very good young lady you've done your homework and presented a very good video ...i'm glad to see that are people like you who know what they are talking about .
We should teach the alternatives to math, numerology. In physics we need to teach alternative of magic. In chemistry we need to teach the alternative of alchemy. In astronomy, we need to teach the alternative of astrology. In medical science we need to teach the alternative of miracles,and faith healing. I can point out "errors," in each of these fields, so I guess we could teach these "alternatives," because pointing out gaps automatically makes your view right with creationist logic.
I have a 5 " jet black fossilized Megalodon tooth that is at least 50 Million years old. Are there people here that doubt the process of evolution ? The Meg tooth, as with all shark teeth, is roughly estimated to represent 10 foot of shark for each inch of tooth. So it couldn't be, as some of the 4 year old's debating here that it is a regular Great White tooth that somehow " fossilized " in 50 years, because there is no Great Whites over 22- 23 ft left.
This was a great video. Nothing new to me here, that said I have not seen so much information about evolution presented so well, in such a quick format. This is a brilliant video, I am working through your videos and can't wait for the big bang video.
P.S. I "figuratively" love you, you rock!!! Keep up the good work.
Imagine writing a book in which every character represents one organism that has lived and died over the course of the history of Earth. But in order for each letter to be printed on the page, there is a very rare set of conditions that must be met, corresponding to the geographical location on the page, its condition, and what letter was printed.You will find that it is impossible to write a complete book, often times with bigger gaps than stretches of words.
By reading the sentence: "T_e _r_gin _f Sp_ci__s, _y C_ar_l_s Da_wi_", it is very easy to determine the meaning of it: "The Origin Of Species, by Charles Darwin".These gaps represent missing links, but when one is found, like the second letter being "t"(exactly what is predicted by evolution) the scientific conclusion is inevitable.Examples of these missing links are Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, Ardipithecus, and Ambulocetidae (note Ardipithecus a the link between apes and man)
they will not debunk anything. the fact remains that soft tissue has been found in multiple dinosaurs, and it was carbon dated, meaning that the tissue is younger than 100k years. no one seems to be able to explain this. i havent found a single evolutionist that has been able to provide an explanation.
i think you are confused. i never made the claims that your video attempts to debunk. i simply want to know why soft tissue was found in multiple dinosaur bones, and why it was carbon dated, meaning that there was a measurable amount of C14 in it. note that C14 decays after 100k years, so the soft tissue is younger than 100k years. can you please explain this, because no one else has been able to.
Evolution...no evidence???!!How about this Earth's smartest humans on the planet working for the last 150 years to refute Evolution, #BIGFAIL, it hasn't happened yet. Creationists argue about Darwin, but evolutionary biologists and many scientists in other fields have long ago moved way away from Darwin.and continue to this day trying to make Evolution fail, but they cannot find anything better to explain how life moves forward.
Everyone look up the following video title: "Protect IP Bill is WORSE than S.978 and being RUSHED". It's a matter of saving or losing good videos like this.
Are we still evolving? like its weird to think about. Why would evolution stop with human, like is there more transitioning to do in terms of humans. But i wonder what we would become in the future..
@unknownbutnotalone I think evolution of humans has pretty much halted, as there is no environmental pressure. Think about it, why would you need to be fast to hunt deer if you can just buy venison at the grocery store.
@Ryan1468: "Natural" evolution of humans has likely halted as there is no environmental pressure. We have become completey separated from nature and harnessed technology like crazy, essentially rendering natural selection obsolete. In a sense, we're still evolving...but we just have more control over our course of evolution.
@Drucef I agree with you. There are no selective pressures. Almost every single person has children. So now the only selective pressure will be sexual; being physically able to reproduce and whoever has the most kids. There is some natural selection, but with our rapidly advancing medical system this will soon become irrelevant in first world countries.
With the advancement of genetic modification, in the near future we will be able to fully control our evolutionary future.
@unknownbutnotalone Like Ryan said, we're largely protected from environmental pressures that expedite the process of natural selection. But evolution never stops. On the micro level we're evolving all the time. Different cultures will adapt to whatever pressures their environment happens to exhibit. You won't see any gross evolutionary changes because we're not isolated from others very easily. But just wait until humans colonize space, isolating themselves in a new environment unlike earth.
John Calvert, a lawyer and intelligent design proponent wrote:
“ The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins
The senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way:
“ Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils....I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument
David Raup, who was the curator of geology Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:
“ "[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. . [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
YOU ARE A FUCKING THE BIOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY OF HUMANS THE EYE THE VESICULAR TRANSPORT SYSTEM THE BLOOD CLOTTING SYSTEM THE DNA REPLICATION SYSTEM NEURAL CONNECTIONS IN THE BRAIN the placenta (non)similarity of apes and humans evidence from mitochrondrial dna evidence from nuclear dna y chromosome evidence humans and neanderthals "There's no clear genetic test.We're going to have to let the fossil people answer this one." -Oxford University population geneticist Rosalind Harding
Great vid. It's strange, I am a Christian but I identify more with atheists. I absolutely love learning about the evolution of the earth, its inhabitants and stellar bodies. I don't feel threatened, I feel excited.
When I hear other Christians attack these theories, I have to ask... doesn't it fill you with wonder and excitement? Look how far we've come. It just feels like such insecurity.
@aquiace : You said: "When I hear other Christians attack these theories, I have to ask... doesn't it fill you with wonder and excitement?"
--
I agree. Christians who take every letter of the bible as the literal word of god cannot accept evolution as it would contradict god. However, mainstream christianity hasn't the bibliolatrous attitude so typical for muslims and creationist alike and therefore can look with awe at what science achieves without being conflicted.
About Bacteria: It's hard to prove that the resistant strains have evolved - they simply might have been there in the first place unnoticed as outnumbered by non-resistant variants.
@minesajd : You said: "if they existed even in small numbers then anti biotics would have never worked."
--
Not necessarily. Your immun system - if not compromised - may kill off what hasn't been finished of by the anti-biotics. Kind of shifting the "balance of power" in favour of your body.
and one other problem is that humans have already circumvented Darwin's ideas by manipulating natural selection. It's exponential. Darwinism does not take that fact into the equation.
Quoting Darwin is like quoting Freud on modern psychiatrists. Their obsolete at best.
@types10000 I don't think eye glasses where around thousands of years ago. thousands of eyes ago humans didn't need eye glasses because they weren't around long enough to mate. Therefore they didn't pass on degenerative eye sight disease. It's called survival of the fittest. Not to mention splicing animal genes with plant genes causing the extinction of wild animals, totally subverting natural selection. Darwin had no idea of cell complicity and genetics.
"I don't think eye glasses where around thousands of years ago. thousands of eyes ago humans didn't need eye glasses because they weren't around long enough to mate"
- i dont contest this
"Therefore they didn't pass on degenerative eye sight disease"
- incorrect, that statement makes no sense; if they were not around long enough to be effected by genetic degenerative eye illnesses then there would be no selective pressure for their removal :)
"It's called survival of the fittest. Not to mention splicing animal genes with plant genes causing the extinction of wild animals, totally subverting natural selection."
- the fact we can artifically modify organisms does not indicate natural selection is incorrect (we're simply introducing new variables that will then be subject to natural selection)
"Darwin had no idea of cell complicity and genetics."
- yes and when genetics was discovered it confirmed his theory
only one problem with your explanation. The Cambrian Explosion is a scientific concept. All the varies phylum's are observed as already existing in this layer. If you invoke conjecture as fact then the mystery is solved. every living thing is related to pond scum. pond scum became the reptiles and mammals and birds and dinosaurs ect ect.?
funny how you fill in the gaps so selectively.... Darwin only observed how life adapts to its environment. He had no idea about genetic evolution.
"only one problem with your explanation. The Cambrian Explosion is a scientific concept. All the varies phylum's are observed as already existing in this layer. If you invoke conjecture..."
- we dont need to use conjecture: we have fossils before and after the Cambrian and punctuated equilibrium explains how the rapid evolutionary change that took place during this time is possible.
@types10000 there is no fossil recorded of phylum evolution. All the known phylum's just appear altogether in the cambrian layer. do the math. the 60 million years of the development of the cambrian layer is a very small fraction of the age the earth. That's why science calls it an explosion. Darwin's theory is small incremental changes over vast amounts of time. Evolution today observed as exponential.
"there is no fossil recorded of phylum evolution."
- INCORRECT, we have fossils before, after and during the Cambrian explosion, it simply isnt 'as complete' as other points in history (due to the rapid diversification)
"All the known phylum's just appear altogether in the cambrian layer"
- incorrect, again, fossils before after and during
@types10000 you're flailing here. there is no fossils of evolving phylums. Didn't you just say monkeys didn't come from algae? At what layer are there no fossils? was life always here or did it come into existence? When it came into existence, where there some phylum that evolved into the other known phylum's we see today? the answer is no. Maybe you can wish it so, but then that's called "conjecture". You do know how science uses conjecture in theories? don't you?
- that would be among the very first layers which pertain to times of exclusively soft-bodied organisms (that do not fossilize).
"was life always here or did it come into existence?"
- the current EVIDENCE indicates life arose via undirected naturalistic means (abiogenesis) however this is unrelated to evolution which deals with the first population of organisms onwards.
"he 60 million years of the development of the cambrian layer is a very small fraction of the age the earth. That's why science calls it an explosion"
- it's called an explosion because it involved a large amount of diversification over a short period of time.
"Darwin's theory is small incremental changes over vast amounts of time"
- INCORRECT, whilst this is true of the gradualist model used by Darwin this hasnt existed since the 1960's, we now use punctuated equilibrium WHICH DOES explain the rapid diversification
@types10000 I'm hardly out of date. There's no such thing as contemporary Darwin citations. My point exactly. You seem to love to invoke his name and now you switch it up? The latest theories on mans evolution now have man closer to 1.9 million years old, and not 145,000 yrs. old. That's the nature of exponential gains in knowledge. No one is right for long. Evolution is emergent, no way to know what it will become. fact
- you claimed evolution could only happen in a gradual fashion and i debunked this by providing a new modelling methodology that showed it could happen rapidly
"There's no such thing as contemporary Darwin citations"
- i never said anything about 'contemporary Darwin citations'
" You seem to love to invoke his name and now you switch it up"
incorrect:
- Darwin is a person he founded evolutionary theory and got many things correct
- Evolution is a scientific theory that has been improved and become more accurate over time.
I no more invoke Darwin with respect to evolutionary biology that i invoke Newton with respect to physics, both are very smart people who got many things right and few things wrong as well of not knowing about a bunch more things.
are you really so ignorant of science that you dont understand what a theory is???
- theories are the highest level of evidentary support in science (there is no higher level - laws are on a completely different hierarchy and relate almost exclusively to mathematics)
- evolution shares the rank of theory with gravity, atomic theory .etc
@types10000 chimps are over 90% genetically the same as humans, but that doesn't make them 90% human, or us 10% chimp.... your accretions do nothing in the light of the observations. All you have is conjecture. Chimps have been chimps for millions of years. That's funny considering we still share the same environments. So evolution is bias towards humans? lol They remain unchanged and we accelerate? sounds like you believe in the super natural. Just face it, no way for you to know fore sure.
"chimps are over 90% genetically the same as humans, but that doesn't make them 90..."
- no, because 'chimp' and 'human' are taxonomic CLASSIFICATIONS imposed on nature. In reality there is simply genetic variability. If ANY two organisms share 100% of their genetics they're biologically indistinguishable.
"All you have is conjecture"
- incorrect, there is no more conjecture involved in evolution than there is in gravity (which shares the same scientific level of evidence)
- Do we have precursors to phylum that appeared during the cambrian explosion? Yes, they are called precambrian fossils.
- Can evolution explain the rapid diversification that occured during the Cambrian explosion? Yes, Punctuated Equilibrium has explained rapid evolutionary diversification for the last 50 years.
Do we have evidence that modern vertebrate organisms are related to primitive soft-bodied organisms (which do not fossilize) ?
Yes, now to try to follow this carefully:
- If we take a modern soft-bodied organism and compare it's genetics to that of a modern vertebrate organism eg. a chimp. We can establish their relatedness using the same methodology we do for siblings/cousins.
@ty the gaps are obvious. The "singularity" of the big bang theory to the existence of life on earth. From algae to monkeys, from monkeys to man, from the quantum to the galactic. Science doesn't even know why matter has mass. All of these ideas are pure conjecture. Isn't the truth that all life and matter steams from the BBT's "singularity"? Doesn't science say that the singularity was transcendent of time and space? and isn't it "omni" potent to become a universe of everything from "pea" size?
@types10000 so much for the success of the "Theory of Everything" Hawkins isn't really stupid because he can't talk. And funny how you pick and chose what science book to site from.
the theory of evolution is a theory of filling in the gaps you half wit. And so when they dig up a human today and a chimp from today, then that proves we came from chimps?
If you want to call yourself a monkeys uncle, that's ok with me, as long as you don't throw you poo my way...lol
"Science doesn't even know why matter has mass... Isn't the truth that all life and matter steams from the BBT's singularity....Doesn't science say that the singularity was transcendent of time and space?... and isn't it omni potent"
- most of your comment is factually incorrect and none of it demonstrates a gap in evolutionary theory
So at the beginning of the video ZOMGitsCriss proves that through Natural Selection bacteria became bacteria and that salamanders became, well, salamanders. O....K...
@SculptedThoughts The problem is that both examples she gave demonstrated Natural Selection creating variations of already existing information....in order for macroevolution to take place, there would have to be new information added. Gene duplication has been proposed, but has never been demonstrated to be effective....this is not the case in Natural Selection's ability to create beneficial variations within the genome.
"Gene duplication has been proposed, but has never been demonstrated to be effective"
- incorrect, in edition to the fact you have no evidence against it, it HAS been demonstrated to work eg. bacteria have been observed to gain the ability to ingest nylon through this way.
"this is not the case in Natural Selection's ability to create beneficial variations within the genome"
- again, it's observed to and you have no evidence against it
This is called ring specis if it continues for 35,000-1,000,000 years a new common ancestor that will spawn a new species thru a build up of micro changes will be born.
Creationists are pwned! Bet this is the sixth time I watch the same video! It's just that good. Anyways, isn't there a way of blocking the moron discussion below?
I enjoy your channel. I don't have to be worried about "being wrong" according to creationists etc., thags are just open to be learned, and I like that. It's funny how many people complicate their lives because of "dogmatic masturbation".
First. Awesome as always! Well researched and well presented. Denial in this matter equals critiquing a painting with your eyes closed or listening to a piece of music while wearing earphones with some other music playing... It's an invalid stance... And to comment on the obviously racist lunatic MakeSoapOutofKIKES.... What the f**k are you even doing here. By your arguments you disqualify yourself... You're just a dumb ass bigot, that could have no hope of following reasoning like this...
First of all the Bible is like a puzzle and it's not meant to be understood by the Wicked, you white people. You white people( Edomites ) was that talking snake in the Garden of Eden. Eve was not made from a rib. There is a term used in the scriptures, bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. Adam and Eve were of the same family or tribe, God did not make her from his rib. And i can go on and on, but non of the Wicked( you white people ) will understand.
@Jacobrise7 You do realize that the formula for religion to continue to work is keep a large mass of simple people and keep them ignorant of anything that defies their teachings. For example the Vatican teaches against using protection, was formerly against modern medicine, teaches that although its backed by science as natural that homosexuality is immoral.
@TheDreadedlife Not to mention that they supported Hitler, crippled the development of scientific study for years and now currently still support limiting the rights of others while not paying taxes that could benefit hundreds annually.
@Jacobrise7 This is a slap in the face of science and of the scientific method. People like you should be forbidden to enjoy the fruits of science. So you better start praying and slaughtering a bunch of birds (like the bible says), no more health care for you!
@MakeSoapOutofKIKES Uhm yeah I call this the "god of the gaps". Just because we don't know something doesn't mean it happened by magic (or aliens .. WTF?!). Also, I've never heard that scientsits are baffled by the speed of human evolution. We have an extensive fossil record of intermediated species, which was more that we could have hoped for, more than we needed in order to prove the hypothesi evolution made (methodologically).
@Jacobrise7 You mean the "minds of the simple" like every science university that studies biology in the world. As opposed to your great mind that accepts the story of the talking snake, woman made from the rib of a man, all the animal "kinds" of the world loaded on a boat while God kills all other children and animals. Yeah, YOU are the smart one.
@Jacobrise7 yes, thank God for your intellectual superiority over all those scientists and scholars... Who needs biochemistry when we have you who can see right through the bullshit with your faith.
Suited for survival? Tell me this you evolutionary braniacs. Why has NOTHING ever evolved into living forever. Why is it that all these creatures who evolved all these survival methods are...DEAD ?
Could you please try and come anywhere near explaining that? You may laugh, but nobody can really explain why things die, or why ALL living creatures die. Why did no animal ever evolve out of this, if they want to survive so badly? My Bible explains it, but what doe your so called "science" say?
@SoWhat1221 ...So I can take it that you have probably never even thought of that, let alone come up with anything like a decent answer? O.K., change gears and answer this for me. Why does everything want to live? Why all this constant drive to live and survive? What is the point of it all? Why would single celled whatevers want to live so badly? Why this constant drive toward reproduction? What is the purpose, if it is only just to reproduce again, over and over?
@Laylow4now Because the creatures with genes that don't 'want' to live, just die and don't pass on their genes, the same is for the animals that don't reproduce, these genes are just not passed on.
@nervousision .....And this drive to reproduce was there in the original single celled organism? That just happened to find something else to reproduce with, who also shared a drive to survive? Why would these creatures try to reproduce, when it would never benefit themselves. Example, a creature that reproduces will then have to use scarce food resources to feed their young. Why would any creature do that, when it is easier to just eat your own food and not reproduce?
@Laylow4now I can answer that. She already did in fact. Every time she said the word, "transitional" she answered that question. It applies to the fossils just as it applies to those that are alive. Humanity is not an ultimate being that is perfect. We are greatly flawed and thus we die. Same can be said for other animals. But you could think of humanity as an improvement from single celled organisms if you look at it from the right angle.
Good video with clear points and arguments that make sense. Good job Criss!
Honestly, the part that I think works best for this is the fact that every fossil ever found IS a transition, no matter how minor. Humans don't want to look a diagram of thousands or hundreds of thousands of fossils; they'd rather have just one really awesome one. That's so close-minded!
Criss, would love to hear you on topic about the big bang!!
Wonderfully laid out presentation! I wish every evolution-denier would watch this video. It probably wouldn't change their minds (it's tough to beat faith with logic), but at least they would stop using the same tired and disproved arguments against it.
@love187punk I've read one line : they keep saying evolution is random. IT'S FUCKING NOT RANDOM!!! the FIRST part is random : the mutation! Then, if this mutation is beneficial (run faster, jump higher, etc), so if they are adapted, the creature has more chances to survive. If they survive, the mutation will pass on. Why is it so hard to understand?! seriously, I don't understand your problem with that. Don't quote mine, learn from actual science book, written by a scientist not by a theologian
@love187punk they always says "micro-evolution possible" (within a kind). Well, we know for a FACT that they were evolution of one lezard (don't remember the name), it evolved into something else. the two could breed together. then the second evolved again. The second and third could breed together, then again until the sixth evolution...and the first and the sixth weren't able to breed together...they evolved to much...it was two different kinds at that point... evolution proven. next please!
@MrGralgrathor God this "debate" will never end. Even I find myself incredulous about evolution, yet every time I read about it I don't know how you can have more evidence for evolution without either disproving it or making a world that is so neat that it probably would be evidence for a god. For instance if we had a perfect ladder of transitionals of every species it might convince some creationists but it would probably be evidence against a natural origin.
@jndillaha dude, go to college, take scientific class, then ask your teacher! we are not scientists, we just know they have the more accurate view of the universe, and we have to help them continue to improve it. If you want to stop that, i'm going to stop you! if you just don't want to understand, either your too stupborn to see it, either your too stupid. In both case, you waist my time and the time of all the community (except the ones here for the lolz...). go to, well...your "hell". enjoy
you dont understand. i am trying to help them improve their accurate view of the universe. when you ask me to understand, you are actually asking me to acquiesce to your views. the problem with science and people like you is that you dont believe in dissenting views. ive shown proof that certain dinosaur BONES, not fossils, cannot be millions of years old, but you ask me to trust what a college teacher says over my own research, and you refuse to address my claims. you are a puppet.
. The fact is DNA is a finely tuned machined one mismatched nucleotide pair causes problems in a proteins tertiary structure and make that protein non-functional or the organism that those proteins make up impossible to survive in a wild setting and try to reproduce. Genes are not the end all to prove evolution, i am learning it right now.
pmolter 7 hours ago
As far as genetic diversity a 1% difference in genes is about 30million base pairs and that is significant, not to mention that during replication DNA mismatches are repaired 99.99% of the time. The telomeres in the human second chromosome can be called hetero-chromatin and looks identical to telomere sequences.
pmolter 7 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are 6800 and more genetic diseases caused by deleterious mutations, because there is no other kind of mutation.
READ TWICE: We know they are screwed up DNA coding because we can see the original fit condition in people who do not have the particular disease. Read AGAIN and again.
That means there is only genetic degradation shown in ALL the absolutely irrefutable physical evidence.
There is no evolution from simple towards complex.
GoodScienceForYou 15 hours ago
why did this guy just post this in my inbox I swear to god this woman is the freshest person I have ever seen and she is explaining this to people who can speak English....
lol god
MultiAmplify 19 hours ago
lots of predators equals low survival rate. So predators did not evolve only weeners?
firstplacechickenegg 22 hours ago
@firstplacechickenegg Lots of predators means low survival rate of prey. If the fish evolved muscular fins similar to the mudskipper, then they can escape predators very easily. This results in low survival rate of the predators due to a greater challenge in catching prey. This evolutionary pressure cause the predators to adapt to this change also, and an evolutionary arms race begins. Another arms race is seen between parasites and their hosts. This is why a new cold virus evolves every year.
Ryan1468 14 hours ago
@Ryan1468 I think we should stop wasting our time on youtube comments when all we have is 500 characters to explain or argue a point when both evolution and the bible are pretty vague on why and how we got here. If you feel strongly about it write a book on it or a thesis or some thing like that. Me I`m bored of mocking the evolutionists and bible bashers in 500 characters or less, when both have got the whole thing wrong and are just picking facts out the air. Try expanding your minds
firstplacechickenegg 12 hours ago
@firstplacechickenegg Evolution is not a theory about how life originated, just as the theoretical atomic structure has nothing to do with the creation of atoms.Evolution only deals with what happens once a self replicating molecule is present.It is an inevitability with replicating organisms,and has been proven time and time again.Rejecting evolution is comparable to believing the stork brings babies and rejecting sexual reproduction.You need to be completely ignorant of evolution to reject it
Ryan1468 11 hours ago
have always agreed evolution happens in a way - just not to create new species.Though have never stated in comments for this video upload. In my view of the world history has been tampered with at the highest level of authority. At school and at local national history museums it is taught that carbon dating is the method of dating history back to the dinosaurs and beyond.Yet now evolution has so many critics, the methods and facts to discover how long ago dinosaurs existed has suddenly changed
firstplacechickenegg 1 day ago
@firstplacechickenegg Did they? Well, perhaps this was before the use of carbon-14 dating was amended, I'm sure there will be changes made to the evolutionary theory, too. Not because scientists are just blatantly trying to lie, because they're discovering more. It only works on the carbon found in materials that were once living organisms up to around 50,000 years. To look at dinosaurs and the KT extinction I think they just piece together probable series of events based on the fossil record.
Ahuazusu 1 day ago
@Ahuazusu no offence hopefully but 65 million years to oops only 50,000 years and then lets change the evolutionary theory when all prehistoric knowledge is based on a lie that carbon-14 dating worked to calculate millions of years. I lied about my age yesterday by ten years to three separate people and nobody knew
firstplacechickenegg 22 hours ago
@firstplacechickenegg Again, which scientists or whom in general said that? I only know around 65 million is the current estimate, but is there evidence that's what was claimed and meant by any institutions when they referred to carbon dating, and then they just changed it? I don't know; either of us could look up a timeline of scientific headlines throughout the decades to see if the status quo changes one year in particular.
Ahuazusu 21 hours ago
Evolution theory is very entertaining but does not really help world peace. But thats the point of evolution theory. Competition and survival of the fittest - how exciting. Without the theory of evolution and without the thought of the religions and god we all just piss in the wind. Nice to know someone has given us irrigation, hippys and culture across the globe. Please do not place me as a creationist I still believe evolution can happen within a same species just not lizards to birds...peace
firstplacechickenegg 1 day ago
@firstplacechickenegg Continued: And when different groups of one species are isolated from one another long enough they are known to become different from one another and lose the ability to successfully interbreed after many generations; they are then classified as separate species. This is observable speciation, and supports that over time different groups follow different paths of genetic change and give rise to new species.
Ahuazusu 1 day ago
@Ahuazusu sounds good though the whole carbon dating thing has me skeptical as always and the lack of evidence for inbetween species like species that did not mutate in a positive way like all mutation attempts made today. unless two mutants had sex and their offspring were mutated or carried the mutant gene and then they had mutant offspring with other mutants and then mutated a mutant limb useful to survival like a wing with machine guns on it. Some fossils of mutants please that died wrong
firstplacechickenegg 1 day ago
Ha! Here in England Darwin is such a hero, we have him on one side of the £10 note! Long live Darwin. (And her majesty.)
MariamARaine 1 day ago
Evolution of one species to another has been disproved. The whole thing is scientists to proud to admit it. People hanging on to the idea that it is still plausable are just frightened of what it would mean
firstplacechickenegg 1 day ago
Fish diary
Day 1 >Would you look at that I have a leg instead of a fin.
Day 2 > I wonder if I could breath on the surface of the water.
Day 3 > going out this afternoon to try and wiggle on to the shore. With my new mutant fin I should be able to wiggle out of the water learn how to breath air.
Day 4 > watched disney little mermaid
Day 5 > did not work started choking and wiggling back into the water was really tiring. Now I`ve been eaten by predator in the sea because I can`t swim.
firstplacechickenegg 2 days ago
@firstplacechickenegg
Gen 1 > lots of predators = low survival rate
Gen 150 > muscular fins for navigating shallow waters to hide from predators
Gen 350 > crossing inlets with skeletal fins protects eggs from predators that can't cross
Gen 500 > swim bladders used for breathing air decreases mortality rate of parents when crossing shallow water
Gen 1000 > bone structure in fins allow mobility on land for food
Gen 1850 > better and better legs and lungs
Makes sense when you use the right theory
Ryan1468 1 day ago
Where are the intermediate stages of fossils where mutant evolution went wrong. Where did you learn your history. Why are prehistoric animals such as sharks and crocodiles not wiped out like dinosaurs. Why if evolution took so long is there animals that survived the dinosaurs and have not evolved into anything else outside there species when evolution THEORY claims through natural selection evolution takes place. Within a same species evolution can take place but not across the board. peace
firstplacechickenegg 3 days ago
@firstplacechickenegg Because species wouldn't be forced to adapt as much with each generation if they are already well suited to their environment. Sharks, crocodiles, and insects have all remained very well built to survive.
The exact species of sharks and crocodiles that lived at the same time of the dinosaurs are extinct, but their highly similar, but smaller descendants still live today you see.
Ahuazusu 3 days ago
@Ahuazusu why are sharks and crocodiles not wiped out like dinosaurs. Sharks and crocodiles did not evolve into anything than slightly larger, smaller or different versions. They did not evolve into a totally different living creature that we see today. Evolution can happen in a species but not to change a species into an entirely different living creature, that is my point. Scales do not become feathers. you see do you see now thanks
firstplacechickenegg 2 days ago
@firstplacechickenegg
"like dinosaurs?"
Well, why did anything survive? Sharks and crocodiles survived most likely because they are creatures of the water, and watery habitats were less seriously affected by the catastrophy.
MrGralgrathor 2 days ago
@firstplacechickenegg Woah there, no need to be snide. I don't think anyone's exactly certain what killed off the large dinosaur species, but clearly many species that lived at the same time as them were able to survive better than they, and have descendant species.
Looking also at your above comment, do you think "evolution" happens in days? It would supposedly take millions of years of small differentiations adding up with each generation until genetically they were quite different.
Ahuazusu 2 days ago
@firstplacechickenegg And another thing; did you know that the fur or hair on mammals, the scales on reptiles, and the feathers on birds are all made of the same substance: keratin? Some birds even still have scales on their legs, and when examined, feathers and scales have highly similar protein sequences making them up. Consider feathers elongated scales.
Ahuazusu 2 days ago
@Ahuazusu considered and thought about that the years it would take for a very clever man from today to design wings on insects and birds. Then the the fact that carbon dating is useless at determining history of life. The fact that evolution of one species to another has been disproved anyway. Don`t know what snide means but it sounds good. I had a drink with a fish the other night he drank me under the table but then he was legless
firstplacechickenegg 1 day ago
@Ahuazusu that must mean that reptiles really flapped there stubby legs for millions of years jumping about their habitat in the subconcious hope that one day they would be able to fly. This may be true because some high jumpers training for the olympics have been training in the galapagos islands and their offspring have started growing wings out of their shoulder blades... So sorry you are right because I`ve seen diagrams and illustrations of them so it must be true. My nails need trimming
firstplacechickenegg 1 day ago
@firstplacechickenegg No, that's not the theory, and how has evolution been disproved exactly? How is carbon dating unreliable? It works, but it only proves something is as old as 50,000 years. Besides carbon dating there are a number of radiactive decaying substances which can measure billions of years like uranium, thorium, rubidium, argon and potassium.
Ahuazusu 1 day ago
@Ahuazusu what makes evolution happen they say evolution just takes over. Why do scientists from all over the world claim that carbon dating is how they get there numbers in the millions when dating history but all of a sudden uranium is a better source but is 700,000 years out of what they previously claimed the dinosaurs became extinct, yet for years carbon dating only proves 50,000 years old. You do the math my name is baron samedi and I play the voodoo guy in james bond films
firstplacechickenegg 1 day ago
@firstplacechickenegg So, you're now agreeing that evolution does in fact happen in a way- just not to create new species? Evolution doesn't have a will, it's just the name for the explanation of what most scientists believe happens. Change is just an ongoing, constant part of life on this planet, and the best suited tend to have better chances to pass on their genetics. The only thing carbon dating was really used to prove was that the creationist theory of a 6,000 year old Earth was not true.
Ahuazusu 1 day ago
@Ahuazusu creationists believe an old lie (the bible) and evolutionists believe the new lie evolution of species to another species. My belief is that something has manipulated the beliefs of people through time to suit the survival of humanity. Everyone has to believe in something and the bible served its purpose and now evolutions purpose disproving god makes us all think about survival more than having faith in god and gods word. Without gods word for faith we have faith in what? science
firstplacechickenegg 1 day ago
@firstplacechickenegg Well, to be fair scientific advancement in general has been what has brought us modern medicine and other beneficial technologies, and people don't really need to worship a god figure to know to be decent to one another or else you could say that believing in a god doesn't necessarily make you moral to begin with.
Ahuazusu 1 day ago
@Ahuazusu thats just ignorant or naive. Moral is how you see it not necessarily good or bad. Without gods word what ever the religion good moral is hard to come by if a person fears nothing
firstplacechickenegg 22 hours ago
@firstplacechickenegg Yeah, morality is what is considered good or bad; it's what a society is willing to accept based on their interpretation of morality and values. Theocracies usually give us the morality that non-believers are lesser and may be killed or ostracized, and not just in Western religions. Frankly, I don't think it's really needed anymore to maintain a society.
Ahuazusu 21 hours ago
@Ahuazusu maintain ... make sure you clean out the cage once a week.
firstplacechickenegg 12 hours ago
No wonder Ferris Bueller liked to skip class so much. Ben Stein, for all his air of dry academia, is a complete idiot. I'd skip his class too.
Anyway hey, thanks for this well-presented and informative video. It's a very good thing to offer these kinds of evolutionary surveys for people. My favorite is 5:48 - "ALL fossils are transitional forms." This needs to be stressed more often in public and scientific discourse.
Also, it's nice to see an amateur DIY video that isn't about cleavage.
TheWanderingPrimate 5 days ago
@TheWanderingPrimate if people want obvious examples of transitional forms, show them the flying fish or the platypus.
inkblotInteractive 5 days ago
Great video. Again!
gandralf 1 week ago
This is, so far, my favorite video from you! Keep it up. And hells yeahs bring on that big bang vid!
KenTankerous 1 week ago
Very good young lady you've done your homework and presented a very good video ...i'm glad to see that are people like you who know what they are talking about .
Fishingbirb 1 week ago
damn i try to watch only one your video per a day, but i still falling in love, damn :)
newpro2227 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We should teach the alternatives to math, numerology. In physics we need to teach alternative of magic. In chemistry we need to teach the alternative of alchemy. In astronomy, we need to teach the alternative of astrology. In medical science we need to teach the alternative of miracles,and faith healing. I can point out "errors," in each of these fields, so I guess we could teach these "alternatives," because pointing out gaps automatically makes your view right with creationist logic.
KevZen2000 2 weeks ago
I have a 5 " jet black fossilized Megalodon tooth that is at least 50 Million years old. Are there people here that doubt the process of evolution ? The Meg tooth, as with all shark teeth, is roughly estimated to represent 10 foot of shark for each inch of tooth. So it couldn't be, as some of the 4 year old's debating here that it is a regular Great White tooth that somehow " fossilized " in 50 years, because there is no Great Whites over 22- 23 ft left.
Damn ! : )
yipeokia1 2 weeks ago
This was a great video. Nothing new to me here, that said I have not seen so much information about evolution presented so well, in such a quick format. This is a brilliant video, I am working through your videos and can't wait for the big bang video.
P.S. I "figuratively" love you, you rock!!! Keep up the good work.
lelandstarr6333 2 weeks ago
Evidence for evolution: check out The Young Turks: Cat With Wings. Evidently, a number of cats have been developing wings in a province of China.
I guess the atheists/agnostics are just nuts, though.
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
you idiot, bacterial resistance is not an example of 'evolution'. Bacterial resistance and evolution are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS
OldaurGold 3 weeks ago
@OldaurGold Actually, you idiot: bacterial resistance is a small scale example of evolution.
The organism adapts resistance, and changes to accommodate something previously lethal to it: thus survives under conditions it previously couldn't.
What IS evolution?
Adapting to be better suited to survive conditions you otherwise couldn't.
Actually - it is simply adapting... but if an adaptation doesn't provide the advantage: it dies.
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago 2
of course there are gaps you fool. We don't know where we came from
OldaurGold 3 weeks ago
@OldaurGold Part 1.
Imagine writing a book in which every character represents one organism that has lived and died over the course of the history of Earth. But in order for each letter to be printed on the page, there is a very rare set of conditions that must be met, corresponding to the geographical location on the page, its condition, and what letter was printed.You will find that it is impossible to write a complete book, often times with bigger gaps than stretches of words.
Ryan1468 2 weeks ago
@OldaurGold Part 2.
By reading the sentence: "T_e _r_gin _f Sp_ci__s, _y C_ar_l_s Da_wi_", it is very easy to determine the meaning of it: "The Origin Of Species, by Charles Darwin".These gaps represent missing links, but when one is found, like the second letter being "t"(exactly what is predicted by evolution) the scientific conclusion is inevitable.Examples of these missing links are Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, Ardipithecus, and Ambulocetidae (note Ardipithecus a the link between apes and man)
Ryan1468 2 weeks ago
@mightymaxfan
they will not debunk anything. the fact remains that soft tissue has been found in multiple dinosaurs, and it was carbon dated, meaning that the tissue is younger than 100k years. no one seems to be able to explain this. i havent found a single evolutionist that has been able to provide an explanation.
jndillaha 3 weeks ago
@mightymaxfan
i think you are confused. i never made the claims that your video attempts to debunk. i simply want to know why soft tissue was found in multiple dinosaur bones, and why it was carbon dated, meaning that there was a measurable amount of C14 in it. note that C14 decays after 100k years, so the soft tissue is younger than 100k years. can you please explain this, because no one else has been able to.
jndillaha 3 weeks ago
Evolution...no evidence???!!How about this Earth's smartest humans on the planet working for the last 150 years to refute Evolution, #BIGFAIL, it hasn't happened yet. Creationists argue about Darwin, but evolutionary biologists and many scientists in other fields have long ago moved way away from Darwin.and continue to this day trying to make Evolution fail, but they cannot find anything better to explain how life moves forward.
nash984954 1 month ago in playlist More videos from ZOMGitsCriss
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone look up the following video title: "Protect IP Bill is WORSE than S.978 and being RUSHED". It's a matter of saving or losing good videos like this.
jityr2 1 month ago
Really nice video. Good selection of examples, especially the fused chromosome.
DocDukeOfDarkness 1 month ago in playlist Weitere Videos von ZOMGitsCriss
Are we still evolving? like its weird to think about. Why would evolution stop with human, like is there more transitioning to do in terms of humans. But i wonder what we would become in the future..
unknownbutnotalone 1 month ago
@unknownbutnotalone I think evolution of humans has pretty much halted, as there is no environmental pressure. Think about it, why would you need to be fast to hunt deer if you can just buy venison at the grocery store.
Ryan1468 1 month ago
@Ryan1468: "Natural" evolution of humans has likely halted as there is no environmental pressure. We have become completey separated from nature and harnessed technology like crazy, essentially rendering natural selection obsolete. In a sense, we're still evolving...but we just have more control over our course of evolution.
Drucef 1 month ago
@Drucef I agree with you. There are no selective pressures. Almost every single person has children. So now the only selective pressure will be sexual; being physically able to reproduce and whoever has the most kids. There is some natural selection, but with our rapidly advancing medical system this will soon become irrelevant in first world countries.
With the advancement of genetic modification, in the near future we will be able to fully control our evolutionary future.
Ryan1468 1 month ago
@unknownbutnotalone Like Ryan said, we're largely protected from environmental pressures that expedite the process of natural selection. But evolution never stops. On the micro level we're evolving all the time. Different cultures will adapt to whatever pressures their environment happens to exhibit. You won't see any gross evolutionary changes because we're not isolated from others very easily. But just wait until humans colonize space, isolating themselves in a new environment unlike earth.
anzwertree 1 month ago
$1 RELIGIOUS HOOKER
John Calvert, a lawyer and intelligent design proponent wrote:
“ The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins
annanownow 1 month ago
PIECE OF SHIT
The senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way:
“ Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils....I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument
annanownow 1 month ago
@annanownow
Quote mine :)
TheMrgoku1985 1 month ago
WORTHLESS
David Raup, who was the curator of geology Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:
“ "[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. . [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
annanownow 1 month ago
annanownow 1 month ago
You misspelled "activisms."
MadHatter34784 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
Remember people, quantum theory....just a theory!
sw0rdf1sh2326 1 month ago
Great vid. It's strange, I am a Christian but I identify more with atheists. I absolutely love learning about the evolution of the earth, its inhabitants and stellar bodies. I don't feel threatened, I feel excited.
When I hear other Christians attack these theories, I have to ask... doesn't it fill you with wonder and excitement? Look how far we've come. It just feels like such insecurity.
aquiace 1 month ago
@aquiace : You said: "When I hear other Christians attack these theories, I have to ask... doesn't it fill you with wonder and excitement?"
--
I agree. Christians who take every letter of the bible as the literal word of god cannot accept evolution as it would contradict god. However, mainstream christianity hasn't the bibliolatrous attitude so typical for muslims and creationist alike and therefore can look with awe at what science achieves without being conflicted.
januk36 1 month ago
fantastic vid, very composed and filled with information. well presented.
minesajd 1 month ago
About Bacteria: It's hard to prove that the resistant strains have evolved - they simply might have been there in the first place unnoticed as outnumbered by non-resistant variants.
januk36 1 month ago
@januk36
Nylon eating bacteria
TheMrgoku1985 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMrgoku1985 : You said: "Nylon eating bacteria"
--
Your point being ?
januk36 1 month ago
@januk36 if they existed even in small numbers then anti biotics would have never worked.
minesajd 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@minesajd : You said: "if they existed even in small numbers then anti biotics would have never worked."
--
Not necessarily. Your immun system - if not compromised - may kill off what hasn't been finished of by the anti-biotics. Kind of shifting the "balance of power" in favour of your body.
januk36 1 month ago
Wow, smart AND beautiful? I never thought I'd see that. Love the video.
VoodooChilli27 1 month ago
oh, common sense for dummies? Since there are a lot of dummies in the world I assume it's a good theme :)
justromeo 1 month ago 2
After hearing Ray Comfort speak I threw-up in my mouth a little.
kayak2004 1 month ago
@kayak2004 Did it taste like banana?... never mind...
skywize 1 month ago
love your accent for some reason lol
mrlegkick666 1 month ago
I'm gonna marry this chick.
MadHatter34784 1 month ago
The Salamanders that rejoined at the end of the mountain range could not breed, they are now different species.
DrWilliams95 1 month ago
and one other problem is that humans have already circumvented Darwin's ideas by manipulating natural selection. It's exponential. Darwinism does not take that fact into the equation.
Quoting Darwin is like quoting Freud on modern psychiatrists. Their obsolete at best.
romney27 1 month ago
@romney27
"and one other problem is that humans have already circumvented Darwin's ideas by manipulating natural selection."
- what the hell are you on about? the Artificial selection used by humans pre-dates Darwin by thousands of years, he knew about it.
types10000 1 month ago
@types10000 I don't think eye glasses where around thousands of years ago. thousands of eyes ago humans didn't need eye glasses because they weren't around long enough to mate. Therefore they didn't pass on degenerative eye sight disease. It's called survival of the fittest. Not to mention splicing animal genes with plant genes causing the extinction of wild animals, totally subverting natural selection. Darwin had no idea of cell complicity and genetics.
romney27 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@romney27
"I don't think eye glasses where around thousands of years ago. thousands of eyes ago humans didn't need eye glasses because they weren't around long enough to mate"
- i dont contest this
"Therefore they didn't pass on degenerative eye sight disease"
- incorrect, that statement makes no sense; if they were not around long enough to be effected by genetic degenerative eye illnesses then there would be no selective pressure for their removal :)
types10000 1 month ago
@romney27
"It's called survival of the fittest. Not to mention splicing animal genes with plant genes causing the extinction of wild animals, totally subverting natural selection."
- the fact we can artifically modify organisms does not indicate natural selection is incorrect (we're simply introducing new variables that will then be subject to natural selection)
"Darwin had no idea of cell complicity and genetics."
- yes and when genetics was discovered it confirmed his theory
types10000 1 month ago
only one problem with your explanation. The Cambrian Explosion is a scientific concept. All the varies phylum's are observed as already existing in this layer. If you invoke conjecture as fact then the mystery is solved. every living thing is related to pond scum. pond scum became the reptiles and mammals and birds and dinosaurs ect ect.?
funny how you fill in the gaps so selectively.... Darwin only observed how life adapts to its environment. He had no idea about genetic evolution.
romney27 1 month ago
@romney27
"only one problem with your explanation. The Cambrian Explosion is a scientific concept. All the varies phylum's are observed as already existing in this layer. If you invoke conjecture..."
- we dont need to use conjecture: we have fossils before and after the Cambrian and punctuated equilibrium explains how the rapid evolutionary change that took place during this time is possible.
"funny how you fill in the gaps so selectively"
- you havnt named a gap yet :)
types10000 1 month ago
@types10000 there is no fossil recorded of phylum evolution. All the known phylum's just appear altogether in the cambrian layer. do the math. the 60 million years of the development of the cambrian layer is a very small fraction of the age the earth. That's why science calls it an explosion. Darwin's theory is small incremental changes over vast amounts of time. Evolution today observed as exponential.
romney27 1 month ago
@romney27
"there is no fossil recorded of phylum evolution."
- INCORRECT, we have fossils before, after and during the Cambrian explosion, it simply isnt 'as complete' as other points in history (due to the rapid diversification)
"All the known phylum's just appear altogether in the cambrian layer"
- incorrect, again, fossils before after and during
types10000 1 month ago
@types10000 you're flailing here. there is no fossils of evolving phylums. Didn't you just say monkeys didn't come from algae? At what layer are there no fossils? was life always here or did it come into existence? When it came into existence, where there some phylum that evolved into the other known phylum's we see today? the answer is no. Maybe you can wish it so, but then that's called "conjecture". You do know how science uses conjecture in theories? don't you?
romney27 1 month ago
@romney27
"you're flailing here. there is no fossils of evolving phylums"
- INCORRECT, we have fossils before after and during the Cambrian explosion.
- Was there rapid diversification during this time? Yes.
- Did these forms magically appear out of nowhere? NO, we have precursor forms.
"Didn't you just say monkeys didn't come from algae?"
- YES, they do however share a common ancestor with it.
types10000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@romney27
"At what layer are there no fossils?"
- that would be among the very first layers which pertain to times of exclusively soft-bodied organisms (that do not fossilize).
"was life always here or did it come into existence?"
- the current EVIDENCE indicates life arose via undirected naturalistic means (abiogenesis) however this is unrelated to evolution which deals with the first population of organisms onwards.
types10000 1 month ago
@romney27
"where there some phylum that evolved into the other known phylum's we see today?"
- you dont quite understand how evolution works do you?
'Phylum' is a taxonomic rank and taxonomy itself is a system of classification of MODERN organisms. Classifications dont evolve.
GET SMARTER
types10000 1 month ago
@romney27
"Maybe you can wish it so, but then that's called "conjecture". You do know how science uses conjecture in theories? don't you?"
Conjecture is "An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information."
ALL OF SCIENCE must use conjecture (science doesnt work in the realm of absolute proof)
types10000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@romney27
"he 60 million years of the development of the cambrian layer is a very small fraction of the age the earth. That's why science calls it an explosion"
- it's called an explosion because it involved a large amount of diversification over a short period of time.
types10000 1 month ago
@romney27
"Darwin's theory is small incremental changes over vast amounts of time"
- INCORRECT, whilst this is true of the gradualist model used by Darwin this hasnt existed since the 1960's, we now use punctuated equilibrium WHICH DOES explain the rapid diversification
Your more than 50 years out of date :)
types10000 1 month ago
@types10000 I'm hardly out of date. There's no such thing as contemporary Darwin citations. My point exactly. You seem to love to invoke his name and now you switch it up? The latest theories on mans evolution now have man closer to 1.9 million years old, and not 145,000 yrs. old. That's the nature of exponential gains in knowledge. No one is right for long. Evolution is emergent, no way to know what it will become. fact
romney27 1 month ago
@romney27
@romney27
"hardly out of date"
incorrect, i just demonstrated you were:
- you claimed evolution could only happen in a gradual fashion and i debunked this by providing a new modelling methodology that showed it could happen rapidly
"There's no such thing as contemporary Darwin citations"
- i never said anything about 'contemporary Darwin citations'
types10000 1 month ago
@romney27
" You seem to love to invoke his name and now you switch it up"
incorrect:
- Darwin is a person he founded evolutionary theory and got many things correct
- Evolution is a scientific theory that has been improved and become more accurate over time.
I no more invoke Darwin with respect to evolutionary biology that i invoke Newton with respect to physics, both are very smart people who got many things right and few things wrong as well of not knowing about a bunch more things.
types10000 1 month ago
@romney27
"no way to know what it will become. fact"
are you really so ignorant of science that you dont understand what a theory is???
- theories are the highest level of evidentary support in science (there is no higher level - laws are on a completely different hierarchy and relate almost exclusively to mathematics)
- evolution shares the rank of theory with gravity, atomic theory .etc
- Theories are comprised OF FACTS
types10000 1 month ago
@types10000 chimps are over 90% genetically the same as humans, but that doesn't make them 90% human, or us 10% chimp.... your accretions do nothing in the light of the observations. All you have is conjecture. Chimps have been chimps for millions of years. That's funny considering we still share the same environments. So evolution is bias towards humans? lol They remain unchanged and we accelerate? sounds like you believe in the super natural. Just face it, no way for you to know fore sure.
romney27 1 month ago
@romney27
"chimps are over 90% genetically the same as humans, but that doesn't make them 90..."
- no, because 'chimp' and 'human' are taxonomic CLASSIFICATIONS imposed on nature. In reality there is simply genetic variability. If ANY two organisms share 100% of their genetics they're biologically indistinguishable.
"All you have is conjecture"
- incorrect, there is no more conjecture involved in evolution than there is in gravity (which shares the same scientific level of evidence)
types10000 1 month ago
@romney27
1).
- Do we have precursors to phylum that appeared during the cambrian explosion? Yes, they are called precambrian fossils.
- Can evolution explain the rapid diversification that occured during the Cambrian explosion? Yes, Punctuated Equilibrium has explained rapid evolutionary diversification for the last 50 years.
types10000 1 month ago
@types10000
2).
Do we have evidence that modern vertebrate organisms are related to primitive soft-bodied organisms (which do not fossilize) ?
Yes, now to try to follow this carefully:
- If we take a modern soft-bodied organism and compare it's genetics to that of a modern vertebrate organism eg. a chimp. We can establish their relatedness using the same methodology we do for siblings/cousins.
types10000 1 month ago
@ty the gaps are obvious. The "singularity" of the big bang theory to the existence of life on earth. From algae to monkeys, from monkeys to man, from the quantum to the galactic. Science doesn't even know why matter has mass. All of these ideas are pure conjecture. Isn't the truth that all life and matter steams from the BBT's "singularity"? Doesn't science say that the singularity was transcendent of time and space? and isn't it "omni" potent to become a universe of everything from "pea" size?
romney27 1 month ago
@romney27
"the gaps are obvious. The 'singularity of the big bang theory to the existence of life on earth"
- incorrect, the big bang is cosmology, evolutionary theory only relates to biology and the diversification of life.
"From algae to monkeys"
- monkeys did not evolve from algea. stupid.
"from monkeys to man"
- the fossil record of the ape human lineage is particularly complete, it's been reduced to microevolutionary steps.
types10000 1 month ago
@types10000 so much for the success of the "Theory of Everything" Hawkins isn't really stupid because he can't talk. And funny how you pick and chose what science book to site from.
the theory of evolution is a theory of filling in the gaps you half wit. And so when they dig up a human today and a chimp from today, then that proves we came from chimps?
If you want to call yourself a monkeys uncle, that's ok with me, as long as you don't throw you poo my way...lol
romney27 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@romney27
"Science doesn't even know why matter has mass... Isn't the truth that all life and matter steams from the BBT's singularity....Doesn't science say that the singularity was transcendent of time and space?... and isn't it omni potent"
- most of your comment is factually incorrect and none of it demonstrates a gap in evolutionary theory
types10000 1 month ago
So at the beginning of the video ZOMGitsCriss proves that through Natural Selection bacteria became bacteria and that salamanders became, well, salamanders. O....K...
ATLMastering 2 months ago
@ATLMastering Microevolution over billions of years = macroevolution.
SculptedThoughts 1 month ago
@SculptedThoughts The problem is that both examples she gave demonstrated Natural Selection creating variations of already existing information....in order for macroevolution to take place, there would have to be new information added. Gene duplication has been proposed, but has never been demonstrated to be effective....this is not the case in Natural Selection's ability to create beneficial variations within the genome.
Autumn6 1 month ago
@Autumn6
"The problem is that both examples she gave demonstrated Natural Selection creating variations of already existing information"
- NEW information arises from EXISTING information.
eg. a gene duplication followed by random mutation to the duplicated gene can result in new functionality.
"in order for macroevolution to take place, there would have to be new information added"
- refer. to above.
- also your incorrect: macroevolution is simply the cumulative effect of microevolution
types10000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Autumn6
"Gene duplication has been proposed, but has never been demonstrated to be effective"
- incorrect, in edition to the fact you have no evidence against it, it HAS been demonstrated to work eg. bacteria have been observed to gain the ability to ingest nylon through this way.
"this is not the case in Natural Selection's ability to create beneficial variations within the genome"
- again, it's observed to and you have no evidence against it
types10000 1 month ago
@ATLMastering
watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y
This is called ring specis if it continues for 35,000-1,000,000 years a new common ancestor that will spawn a new species thru a build up of micro changes will be born.
TheMrgoku1985 1 month ago
Simply awsome,clear cut truth.
cycohlic 2 months ago
Creationists are pwned! Bet this is the sixth time I watch the same video! It's just that good. Anyways, isn't there a way of blocking the moron discussion below?
Krappman 2 months ago
stand your ground
VOEnantiomerXe 2 months ago
OMG, these people con't BE argued with, don't bother, but.. if people don't WE'LL BE CONSUMED!! D:
VOEnantiomerXe 2 months ago
I enjoy your channel. I don't have to be worried about "being wrong" according to creationists etc., thags are just open to be learned, and I like that. It's funny how many people complicate their lives because of "dogmatic masturbation".
VOEnantiomerXe 2 months ago
First. Awesome as always! Well researched and well presented. Denial in this matter equals critiquing a painting with your eyes closed or listening to a piece of music while wearing earphones with some other music playing... It's an invalid stance... And to comment on the obviously racist lunatic MakeSoapOutofKIKES.... What the f**k are you even doing here. By your arguments you disqualify yourself... You're just a dumb ass bigot, that could have no hope of following reasoning like this...
Krappman 2 months ago
This is true, but honestly you can give all this information to creationists and they will just deny it. Just flat out deny it. Sad really
twostepRMX 2 months ago
@twostepRMX
i think ancient astronaut theory gives more anwsers then does christianity creationists or conventional science
ancient astronaut gives many anwsers that conventional science can not
even many scientists openly admit it should have been impossible for humans to have evolved so quickly
creations say we didn't evolve but we see the fossil record.
ancient astronaut theorists say we are domesticated homo erectus by E.T's
this fits best.
we are like domesticated animals
MakeSoapOutofKIKES 2 months ago
First of all the Bible is like a puzzle and it's not meant to be understood by the Wicked, you white people. You white people( Edomites ) was that talking snake in the Garden of Eden. Eve was not made from a rib. There is a term used in the scriptures, bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. Adam and Eve were of the same family or tribe, God did not make her from his rib. And i can go on and on, but non of the Wicked( you white people ) will understand.
Jacobrise7 2 months ago
Darwin was an Idiot. Your evolution and all of your theories are a bunch of lies that impregnate the minds of the simple.
Jacobrise7 2 months ago
@Jacobrise7 You do realize that the formula for religion to continue to work is keep a large mass of simple people and keep them ignorant of anything that defies their teachings. For example the Vatican teaches against using protection, was formerly against modern medicine, teaches that although its backed by science as natural that homosexuality is immoral.
TheDreadedlife 2 months ago in playlist More videos from ZOMGitsCriss
@TheDreadedlife Not to mention that they supported Hitler, crippled the development of scientific study for years and now currently still support limiting the rights of others while not paying taxes that could benefit hundreds annually.
TheDreadedlife 2 months ago in playlist More videos from ZOMGitsCriss
@Jacobrise7 This is a slap in the face of science and of the scientific method. People like you should be forbidden to enjoy the fruits of science. So you better start praying and slaughtering a bunch of birds (like the bible says), no more health care for you!
Floortjahh 2 months ago
@Floortjahh
would darwin of today be able to tell us why humans evolved so quickly?
humans became the most complex beings.
but, we evolved much quicker than other animals ever have.
how is this possible? even scientists say this does not fit.
human evolution is similar to domesticated animals
we evolved very quickly like domesticated animals are
we have a low genetic diversity & a high diversity of traits & selected purposes like domesticated animals
E.T's domesticated us?
MakeSoapOutofKIKES 2 months ago
@MakeSoapOutofKIKES Uhm yeah I call this the "god of the gaps". Just because we don't know something doesn't mean it happened by magic (or aliens .. WTF?!). Also, I've never heard that scientsits are baffled by the speed of human evolution. We have an extensive fossil record of intermediated species, which was more that we could have hoped for, more than we needed in order to prove the hypothesi evolution made (methodologically).
Floortjahh 2 months ago
@Jacobrise7 You mean the "minds of the simple" like every science university that studies biology in the world. As opposed to your great mind that accepts the story of the talking snake, woman made from the rib of a man, all the animal "kinds" of the world loaded on a boat while God kills all other children and animals. Yeah, YOU are the smart one.
coolgreyoneabby 2 months ago
@Jacobrise7 yes, thank God for your intellectual superiority over all those scientists and scholars... Who needs biochemistry when we have you who can see right through the bullshit with your faith.
MrNicMachiavelli 2 months ago
ALL OF YOU WHITE PEOPLE, GET READY FOR SLAVERY, AND IT'S MY JOB TO CONSTANTLY REMIND YOU OF THIS!
Mr321takeoff 2 months ago
This video has two of my favourite things: Science and a cute blond:-)
MisterTutor2010 2 months ago
Suited for survival? Tell me this you evolutionary braniacs. Why has NOTHING ever evolved into living forever. Why is it that all these creatures who evolved all these survival methods are...DEAD ?
Could you please try and come anywhere near explaining that? You may laugh, but nobody can really explain why things die, or why ALL living creatures die. Why did no animal ever evolve out of this, if they want to survive so badly? My Bible explains it, but what doe your so called "science" say?
Laylow4now 2 months ago
@Laylow4now That's not how evolution works...
SoWhat1221 2 months ago
@SoWhat1221 ...So I can take it that you have probably never even thought of that, let alone come up with anything like a decent answer? O.K., change gears and answer this for me. Why does everything want to live? Why all this constant drive to live and survive? What is the point of it all? Why would single celled whatevers want to live so badly? Why this constant drive toward reproduction? What is the purpose, if it is only just to reproduce again, over and over?
Laylow4now 2 months ago
@Laylow4now I refuse to argue on the with you over the Internet.
It's like the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
SoWhat1221 2 months ago
@SoWhat1221 ...Not really, its that you cannot answer my point at all, so you just resort to calling me names.
Laylow4now 2 months ago
@Laylow4now I should have proof-read that.
SoWhat1221 2 months ago
@Laylow4now Because the creatures with genes that don't 'want' to live, just die and don't pass on their genes, the same is for the animals that don't reproduce, these genes are just not passed on.
nervousision 2 months ago
@nervousision .....And this drive to reproduce was there in the original single celled organism? That just happened to find something else to reproduce with, who also shared a drive to survive? Why would these creatures try to reproduce, when it would never benefit themselves. Example, a creature that reproduces will then have to use scarce food resources to feed their young. Why would any creature do that, when it is easier to just eat your own food and not reproduce?
Laylow4now 2 months ago
@Laylow4now single cell organisms don't need others to reproduce with
nervousision 2 months ago
@Laylow4now I can answer that. She already did in fact. Every time she said the word, "transitional" she answered that question. It applies to the fossils just as it applies to those that are alive. Humanity is not an ultimate being that is perfect. We are greatly flawed and thus we die. Same can be said for other animals. But you could think of humanity as an improvement from single celled organisms if you look at it from the right angle.
Aendiine 2 months ago
@Aendiine ...The concept of "flawed" has to be based on a deviation from an original perfect standard. Where are you getting that standard?
Laylow4now 2 months ago
Good video with clear points and arguments that make sense. Good job Criss!
Honestly, the part that I think works best for this is the fact that every fossil ever found IS a transition, no matter how minor. Humans don't want to look a diagram of thousands or hundreds of thousands of fossils; they'd rather have just one really awesome one. That's so close-minded!
Criss, would love to hear you on topic about the big bang!!
hellfencer 2 months ago
"but you ask me to trust what a college teacher says over my own research"
Seriously?! *facepalm*
CrankyPollyanna 2 months ago
Wonderfully laid out presentation! I wish every evolution-denier would watch this video. It probably wouldn't change their minds (it's tough to beat faith with logic), but at least they would stop using the same tired and disproved arguments against it.
badsaj1 2 months ago
Rational, Beautiful, Intelligent, Eloquent . . . Great combination . . .
hughc023 2 months ago
I want to add my appreciation for this video. I am glad to discover another voice of reason.
mocaler1 2 months ago
lol the christian that says that Darwin created a fairy tale for adults. Does no one else see the irony?
Is that irony? whatever it's fucking funny.
whoisthisghastlyman 2 months ago
read this, it will prove evolution is wrong
w w w . evanwiggs . c o m /articles/reasons.html#mutations
love187punk 2 months ago
@love187punk I've read one line : they keep saying evolution is random. IT'S FUCKING NOT RANDOM!!! the FIRST part is random : the mutation! Then, if this mutation is beneficial (run faster, jump higher, etc), so if they are adapted, the creature has more chances to survive. If they survive, the mutation will pass on. Why is it so hard to understand?! seriously, I don't understand your problem with that. Don't quote mine, learn from actual science book, written by a scientist not by a theologian
schpoutns 2 months ago
@love187punk they always says "micro-evolution possible" (within a kind). Well, we know for a FACT that they were evolution of one lezard (don't remember the name), it evolved into something else. the two could breed together. then the second evolved again. The second and third could breed together, then again until the sixth evolution...and the first and the sixth weren't able to breed together...they evolved to much...it was two different kinds at that point... evolution proven. next please!
schpoutns 2 months ago
« it will prove evolution is wrong »
Suffice to say it didn't. Beneficial mutations are observed. The evolution of new beneficial features is observed. Next.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
@MrGralgrathor God this "debate" will never end. Even I find myself incredulous about evolution, yet every time I read about it I don't know how you can have more evidence for evolution without either disproving it or making a world that is so neat that it probably would be evidence for a god. For instance if we had a perfect ladder of transitionals of every species it might convince some creationists but it would probably be evidence against a natural origin.
RuinSonic 2 months ago
Theists need to fill the gap inside their head.
ImDed2 2 months ago
@jndillaha dude, go to college, take scientific class, then ask your teacher! we are not scientists, we just know they have the more accurate view of the universe, and we have to help them continue to improve it. If you want to stop that, i'm going to stop you! if you just don't want to understand, either your too stupborn to see it, either your too stupid. In both case, you waist my time and the time of all the community (except the ones here for the lolz...). go to, well...your "hell". enjoy
schpoutns 2 months ago
@schpoutn
you dont understand. i am trying to help them improve their accurate view of the universe. when you ask me to understand, you are actually asking me to acquiesce to your views. the problem with science and people like you is that you dont believe in dissenting views. ive shown proof that certain dinosaur BONES, not fossils, cannot be millions of years old, but you ask me to trust what a college teacher says over my own research, and you refuse to address my claims. you are a puppet.
jndillaha 2 months ago