Heres your proof for creation we are born there for creation. A new car is built there for created. The big bang theoretically the earth was created and the universe so theres your proof of creationism
Look guys im tired of saying this creation is all the things we talk about wether it be evolution or god or some other type of creation creation is real so stop dising creationists to say creation is not real then your stupid it is real so come up with some other term. With out creation nothing would exist come on a 6 year old can tell you that
Well heres a couple of generic differences 1. I can speak.2 my legs are longer than my arms.My feet are not the same so theres a couple of major differences
Ya im an ape thats why were called humans not apes humans are a species of their own we are much more than an ape i can speak they cant and if we were ape why cant true apes speak im sure they have vocal chords
Yo ignorant ass yeudh moron i said ancestor and im talking about tail bone ya know the one that says because of evolution it disappeared and we should not have it and yes our supposed ancestor did have one which yes at one time apes had them too retard through evolution any way and all i said is we only had and lost a tail because of sperm cells they had tails you are a stupid ignorant read tard that does not know how to read duh
No microevolution is not actually evolution its a slight variation which dna allows another way you guys put bullshit out there there are supposedly 5 different types of evolution but a bacteria that becomes immune to something is not evolution it stays the same species what dont you understand about that the dna is the same not different SO ITS NOT EVOLUTION
No we dont i dont have feet that look like hand I dont have facial features like an ape and my dna is not the same 100 percent so i dont have the same characteristics as an ape if i did my dna would show where i changed into an ape and it dont so how can you say we do so back at you are you stupid. I walk upright not on my knuckles my legs are longer than my arms there is no same characteristics at all
I mean if we evolved from apes then we should have some of the old characteristics as the apes we should still have hand like feet of that animal or at least a trait of proof that would show it was there like the whales have an ankle bone supposidly. And why when you look at evolution it lost not gained thats devolution not evolution. And if i was an ape why would i lose my tail that would come in handy an extra arm and an easier way to climb i mean i dont see loss very beneficial at all
@cjguitarist100 When did the apes start growing tails again. Darn chimps must have began to grow tails when God was not watching. You ignorant ass the Great Ape family do not have tails.
everything in the animal kingdom would be related if we evolved from the same thing. But not everything is related because we would have to share all the dna of everything if we evolved it would all go back to the very first thing to be made and we would have to have the same dna as that
Just because we share things doesnt mean were related if that were the case we would all be imbreds. and if we evolved why is everyones dna different other than that in the same genepool. That said we would have the same dna as our ancestor that made us not more or less. So we cant share the same common ancestor that would be impossible
Just like the atom that caused the supposed big bang what did it evolve from when the very material that made everything was not around yet. I mean what was there before anything in the universe existed even before the atom and if you dont believe in creation then what did energy evolve from but according to science energy cant be created or destroyed so how can you say theres no god if energy always existed when god could be that very energy
why dont we see new creatures evolving from nothing now. Because evolution cant know when to stop i mean theres variations but still the same species not totally different. I mean these are the things that dont make sense so you cant just say this is how its done and not think of the impossibilities that go with it
And how did our one ancestor make the apes and monkeys and us how did the mating happen on that. And what did the common ancestor come from and how could these animals survive if they did evolve with out knowledge on what was safe to eat and what wasnt and how did they know to mate if there was no information to them. I mean you cant mate animals of two totally different species. Thats like trying to mate a human with an orrangatan which is our closesist ancestor it would not happen.
And besides that all the species that evolved from other ones would have had to evolve at the same time in order to keep that species alive sounds kind of hard when it takes millions of years to happen and we should see humans evolving still today but we dont.
and its funny you dont see animals evolving today the polar bears and the penquins arent evolving and their under alot of pressure. You dont see humans evolving to resist cancer or other diseases with no known cure so if evolution is real then we should be evolving to do these things but yet it dont happen how bizarre. I mean humans had well enough time to do so
dinosaurs didnt. And if evolution did happen then what did the single celled organism evolve from what did the protien evolve from all the atoms they must all have a common ancester if they evolved wheres the fossil record on that stuff we have microscopes powerfull enough to look at that stuff why dont they ever talk about that stuff
no the freaking fossils dont show evidence of evolution most of the fossils look the same as they did millions of years ago just like the so called transitional fossil from reptile to bird was bullshit there were fully formed birds 65 million years older than that one and look the same now and the so called fish believed to be the missing link was bullshit because it still lives today it was thought to be exstinct. And why didnt the croc or alligator evolve and how did they survive and the
Humans are the 5th ape and ironicly a creation scientist put the human race in that catagory (by his own rules of classification ). We have the same number of bones , teeth and muscles ,and the same organs .There is no generic diffrence that anyone can name .His respose to the naysayers was to name 1 generic diffrence .
Boys boys.... stop arguing! it was ALIENS all along! lol. They made us, and we are God/Goddess. It's really deep. Sorry. I'll put on my tinfoil gorgon mask and go back to the kitchen. (where I'll make myself some popcorn coated in nutritional yeast). Great video btw.
@jiminiflix. I want to know where the evidence FOR creationism is. Let us assume evolution is false, in the sense that you are right about the difference between animals in modern day is large so evolution is disproved. How does this PROVE creationism? I believe creationism isn't the only alternative solution. Therefore disproving evolution IS NOT evidence for creationism. For creationism to be considered a notable theory, evidence for it is needed, until that time it's a joke
The Astrolopithicus Petroglyphicus emerged in the Cambrian, and in moments of rest from the struggle for survival, carved rock into imaginary animal shapes, which are commonly mistaken for fossils. As their culture and imagination evolved, so did the imaginary animals they carved. I don't think they ever got around to a talking snake.
@jiminiflix YOu use your irony as substance, seriously? You do not know anything about it. It is a proven fact. Don't think that you could form an opinion that isn't an educated one.
@jiminiflix. We are apes, check your DNA. It has more in common with the other Great Apes than with any other species. We are a close family. Monkeys are cousins to us apes. And cats, like cows & us apes are all mammals.
@archolman You need to understand our dna is so unlike an ape. The "likeness" of our dna to an ape is only found in around 4% of the genome. Scientists don't know what "ape creature" we came from as it doen't exist. Biologically we have more not in common with an ape than in common. I believe any similarities displays a similar creator. Humans are so much more than apes, we stand apart from the animal kingdom. If thats your view, please feel free to believe it.
Nice video. It's funny, most people who say 'there are not transitional fossils' will never be able to draw you a picture of what they would accept as a transitional fossil.
I don't get why Ken Miller is on the side he's on. As a loyal Catholic, he ultimately believes in a Designer. He said so in the debate with Behe, Berlinsky, Johnson, and Buckley. (Sorry, I don't remember the guys on the other team--except Lynn, who is another puzzler.)
More puzzling is the title of his book: Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul.
@MorganMarvinson Ken Miller is on the side he is on because he is a scientist and looked at the evidence, the fossils and DNA. Why don't creationists look at the evidence?
@gregrutz Creationists do look at the evidence. You are barking up the wrong tree on that mantra. Ken Miller is in a very awkward position, calling himself a "believer" in the Designer while doing everything he can to undermine the evidence of the Designer. I don't know enough about him to know why he does this, but, according to Behe's recent "Afterward" in BLACK BOX, Miller has beaten up on a strawman definition of "irreducible complexity," rather than dealing with what Behe proposed.
@gregrutz What you don't know about what Creation scientists study is no criteria for their judgment. Miller acknowledged in debate that he believes in a God as a designer "on some level." ID is based on the scientific premise that one looks for the best explanation of language. The best explanation is intelligence.
Our discussion is a waste of both of our time because you've made up your mind and your worldview keeps you from recognizing the weaknesses of your point of view.
@TheFallibleFiend If it isn't science, evolution isn't science. They are both inferences to account for the complexity of life. Granted, my worldview expects order to come from order, design to come from purposeful design, life to come from life, and language to come from an intelligent being.
Perhaps you have experience of disorder ordering itself, complex design coming by accident, life coming from non-life, and language coming from inanimate things. Then evolution would make sense to you.
@gregrutz "Evolution is Biology" No, it is a philosophical explanation of biology.
"It was accepted 150" It was presented then, but it took time to be accepted. It is the backbone of the philosophical explanations of Biology--not its physical study.
"It has been observed..." Variation within species has been extrapolated as evidence of the philosophical position.
"DNA now shows" The evidence from DNA is rather convoluted and not straightforward.
@gregrutz I have a different paradigm, based on the available evidence:
The basic phyla of organisms are buried at the lowest levels of the strata. They are sea life that was not highly mobile and were buried because they were at home in the waters that . Based on zonation, the other animals were buried in higher strata. The dinosaurs were buried by this same catastrophe as they are found buried with marine life.
You say they evolved hollow bones. Are you saying early ones didn't have them?
@gregrutz Since the theory is about how animals got buried, it doesn't deal with mosaics of species. (Explain a platypus.) Since what I have read about feathers on dinosaurs has pointed to the controversial nature of the evidence, I think it wise to gather more information before drawing a judgment about the sketchy findings you mention.
@gregrutz How much of the geological record is tar pits? Very little. How many are rivers and bottoms of lakes? That could account for a few--but not the massive burial of animals all over the world.
The geological column is about burial--a burial that interrupted normal life. Nests are covered in mud; fish are covered while giving birth or after eating another fish; dinosaurs are buried in the "throws of death." The mechanisms you suggest do not explain these phenomena--just stabs in the dark.
@gregrutz I realize the Biblical description of the flood is foreign to you, but it wasn't just rain. There was total disruption of the planet.
Gen. 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all *the fountains of the great deep broken up*, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
This included mudslides, volcanism, turbidites--in short, total upheaval.
@gregrutz Scientists INFER that evolution happened--without any undisputed transitional forms to validate the inference. (Don't drag out Tiktaalik. It is millions of years too late in the column to be the ancestor of amphibians.) Every "transition" has been finally categorized as a side branch to the tree. No direct links have ever been found. We are left only with INFERENCE--not evidence that it ever occurred.
@MorganMarvinson No. Your "worldview" is a pretend way of doing science by asserting that God did it. Of course, ID creationists assiduously avoid saying that it had to be god, but it's embedded in their assumption that order has to come from order, so even if it were aliens, then in their view, the aliens' order came from higher aliens or from god, until you get back to god. ID creationism is straight-forward argument from ignorance and not science. Convincing to non-scientists, though
@TheFallibleFiend You misunderstand the whole focus of ID. Most ID proponents plainly accept that the designer is God. What they don't do, is say that the scientific evidence DEMONSTRATES that the designer is God. The scientific evidence only points to design, and the best inference for design is a designer--not chance.
@MorganMarvinson No, they don't say it is god that is the desinger, they left god out so they can teach ID in public schools. The lost in court, it didn't fool anyone.
@gregrutz You're giving your side of the argument a black eye. Unless you live under a rock, you should know better. There are atheist scientists and there are creationist scientists (and scientists with other religious beliefs). One believes there is no god; the other believes that there is a God and that He made the world. That aside, both groups are scientists, and they can both study the evidence of science.
@MorganMarvinson Most, 60%, of scientists accept God, all of them accept evolution.
There are creationists, they are not scientists, they follow the bible or quran or whatever, all religions have a creation story. It is religion not science.
Do you really think Kent Hovind or Ken Ham have ever studied the fossil record, they just deny it. And then lie, saying ''We all have the same evidence, just draw different conclusions."
++ "Name one fossil that is on the alleged ancestry line LEADING to humans?"
Australopithecus afarensis. ++
With reference to the fossils of Australopithecus afarensis, which included Lucy. The evolutionists alleged mountain of empiric evidence has been found to have been a mist of falsehoods.
Quote:
++ Abstract
Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. .....
..... This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. .....
++ "Debatable, skeletally Archaeopteryx barely qualifies as a bird due to its transitional status." ++
Why ignore the scientific evidence? It is a BIRD. You have no bird before Archie or any intermediate fossil post, so he is no transitional.
Quote:
++ Scientists have finally solved the long-standing riddle over whether Archaeopteryx, the earliest known bird, was capable of flight or whether it just used its feathers to stay warm. .....
..... X-ray scans have revealed that the creature's brain was "surprisingly similar" to modern day sparrows, eagles or parrots and that Archaeopteryx soared above prehistoric Earth 147 million years ago.
It is the first time anyone has been able to peer inside the head of the fossil - regarded as one of the most important and valuable in the world - and reconstruct the size and shape of its brain in detail. Dr Angela Milner, who led the study at the National .....
..... History Museum, said scientists had been arguing about Archaeopteryx since it was discovered 143 years ago.
"Now that we know Archaeopteryx was capable of controling the complex business of flying, this raises more questions," she said.
"If flight was advanced by the time Archaeopteryx was around, then were birds actually flying millions of years earlier than we'd previously thought?" ++
Google:
X-ray shows earliest bird had a head for heights, telegraph
Science has rejected nothing about evolution. And Darwin... was a long time ago. He just advanced the original theory. Countless scientists from different fields of study have proved his theory.
++ Science has rejected nothing about evolution. And Darwin... was a long time ago. He just advanced the original theory. Countless scientists from different fields of study have proved his theory. ++
(1) The theory of evolution cannot be science then if it has no rejected evidence.
(2) If proven true give me just one fossil that is on the alleged
lmao! Darwin predicted Archaeopteryx lithographica. ++
The argument is that Darwin said That he had zero fossils to support his theory of evolution. It is no good arguing we have plenty of fossils. Of course we have fossils and every one of them looks like it was created.
Please note Archie had wonderful wings to allow him to fly note no Archie with half a wing?
"The argument is that Darwin said That he had zero fossils to support his theory of evolution."
Darwin originally wrote that the fossil record during his time was poorly studied. But that was 150 years ago, far before the boom of paleontological study starting forty years ago or even the Bone Wars.
"It is no good arguing we have plenty of fossils."
rofl. We have hundreds, but you can keep burying your head in the sand if you like.
"Please note Archie had wonderful wings to allow him to fly no Archie with half a wing?"
For one A. lithographica lacked many of the adaptations for flight, such as a fused breastbone making it unlikely to be able to achieve powered flight. Second "half a wing", do you mean more primitive feathers? Look at Anchironis huxlei or Pedopenna daohugouensis. Both of which are basal to and found chronologically before Archaeopteryx lithographica and Microraptor gui.
.... such as the tooth structure and the poorly ossified shoulder bones. It has been suggested that this is a separate genus, however the differences can also be ascribed to the possible juvenile stage of the animal and/or a different feeding niche. However, this specimen has the best preserved head, from which the litany of Archae's reptilian cranial features were described. At the moment it still resides within A. lithographica. ++
++ For one A. lithographica lacked many of the adaptations for flight, such as a fused breastbone making it unlikely to be able to achieve powered flight. ++
A bird and it could fly.
Quote:
++ The Eichstatt Specimen
Found near Workerszell in 1951, it was described by P. Wellnhofer in 1974. This is the smallest of all the specimens, being some 2/3 the size of the others.
Debatable, skeletally Archaeopteryx barely qualifies as a bird due to its transitional status.
"++ The Eichstatt Specimen"
What's your point?
I also assume that since you didn't comment on the other point I made on other intermediate dinosaurs that you concede that there are transitional species in the fossil record.
"Name one fossil that is on the alleged ancestry line LEADING to humans?"
++ I also assume that since you didn't comment on the other point I made on other intermediate dinosaurs that you concede that there are transitional species in the fossil record. ++
You have zero intermediate fossils Pre or Post Archaeopteryx. Darwin said he had none so what did the High priests of the ToE do? They decreed all fossils are transitional. Pure dishonesty.
Evolution cannot be observed. It cannot be tested for reliability. It is like interpreting the Bible. You see some things that seem to be 2 and 2 theological truths and you decide it's 4 (it's oversimplifying it). Science is not a religion. It can make no dogma. It does need observable reliability. W/o it, mathematical formula to demonstrate evolution is just using variables assumed by those who believe in evolution. Creationists could do the same thing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evolution cannot be observed. It cannot be tested for reliability. It is like interpreting the Bible. You see some things that seem to be 2 and 2 theological truths and you decide it's 4 (it's oversimplifying it). Science is not a religion. It can make no dogma. It does need observable reliability. W/o it, mathematical formula to demonstrate evolution is just using variables assumed by those who believe in evolution. Creationists could do the same thing.
Evolution has been tested. They predict where and what kind of fossils they should find according to the age and location of the strata, and they go and find it - and they're right. OH SHIT, A PREDICTION! Evolution is used to develop vaccines (Predicting the evolution of viruses).
Evolution has been observed. There are many counts of observed speciation and we have observed multicellular life rise from single celled life. We have observed the evolution of metabloic systems in E-Coli as well.
try googling observed speciation - you will get many hits because we have "observed" evolution. Not just simple shifts in gene frequency but actual speciation!!!!!
@fool1shmortal: "Evolution cannot be observed. It cannot be tested for reliability.' Really? Try this please: "Blount, Z. D., C. Z. Borland, and R. E. Lenski. 2008. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. PNAS'. Good read. Clear and informative. Evolution may not be predictive of future life (way too many variables) it is very much a fact, and yes, quite testable.
It's been observed in numerous present-day examples. Tragopogon in San Francisco Bay, Lillium, polyploidy in plants and desert rats, eight nonlethal mutants of the H1N1 swine flu virus, antibiotic resistance.... Organisms are evolving right front of our eyes, but you have to look around to learn. You can't just pick up a magazine or a creationist pamphlet out of the restroom and think you know the science. There are hundreds of thousands of researchers with years of experience worldwide.
You might be under the impression that evolution is based on indirect data only, but genetic mutation, lateral gene transfer, and natural selection are shaping new genomes regularly. It's not only a historical science, but an experimental and predictable one as well. The public has been sold a bill of goods through a very shrewd conservative marketing campaign to disparage it. With the uninformed state of the public, they are unfortunately gaining ground.
...but do they become a different species? Do viruses become bacteria when the conditions are best for bacteria. We heard in class that we, as primates, started walking upright because we wanted to and we eventually did but why are there still chimps? They don't want to stand? Why do many men in India&the Mideast have a lot of body hair? In "Flock of Dodos", rabbits eating their turds made God, to them, not that intelligent; but they did not explain why it was an natural adaptation.
@fool1shmortal: "why are there still chimps?" You do realize that's as silly as asking why are there still Brits if there are Americans, Aussies, Kanucks, Kiwis? Common ancestry. Yeesh.
Are you seriously arguing against evolution or are you asking honest questions? Because, like all creationists, you have zero understanding of evolution. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it is untrue. A virus becoming a bacteria!? The old why are there still chimps (we didn't evolve from chimps we are cousins: first page biology book stuff). Things don't evolve because they want to, evolution is what happens when they adapt to their environment.
That was from one of your evolution fans. I know most believe things evolve naturally or are phased out naturally, which makes it ironic evolution fans are for abortion and other population control, fetal./embryonic stem cell research (which doesn't even work) saving the planet, etc. If a species can't handle us, that's tough, right? As it is, I'm all for environmentally-friendly stuff if it doesn't send us back to the bad ol' dark ages, but I'm just playing devil's advocate.
Science w/o reason is mad (science). Don't try to force improvements on the human race. It may just be making the gene pool weaker. This mad science, aided by socially-applied evolutionary theory (the parts they like), is all used to suppress certain people deemed inferior. It's like a pseudo-scientific reason to dominate the 3rd world. You wonder why they scare dissenters so much--insecurity. You see them use the scientific method objectively in their global warming crisis nonsense?
-fetal./embryonic stem cell research (which doesn't even work)- Lolol. I mean, besides the hilarious and far too frequently asked question of *if we started to walk upright why are there still chimps?* (and the far too frequent ignorance to the fact that there were no chimps back then) this really made your post lulzy. Stem cell research hasn't shown many results.... yet. You want to at least let some actual research get done instead of just giving up now?
++ "yes it can be observed.....why do you think people get flu shots every year? maybe the flu changes? thats evolution." ++
Evolution only equals change. Not your theory of evolution idea such as mice into bats and dinosaurs into parrots. Variation within a KIND always means bacteria remains bacteria, a bird remains a bird.
The proof that evolutionists have zero evidence is confirmed when you argue every fossil found is transitional. Darwin said they were all missing.
@mickeykozzi Wo wo, how is that evolution? Evolution is about how one species morphs into another species. Just because viruses get more resistant, that doesn't tell you that apes are related to humans
@OldaurGold What does show apes are related to humans is the ERV evidence, Endoginious Retro Virus. These are Virus that left distinct markers in our DNA, and also show up in Ape DNA. These are inserted randomly, but preserve their position. We have a record of diseases our common ancestor suffered. This could have happened by chance, one chance in 10**148. and that's just the K type ERVs.
@mickeykozzi Flu changes is not evolution. Like the Nylon eating bacteria, science has shown that bacteria can transfer small amounts of DNA (known as plasmid transfers) to other bacterium. (Note: this is information transfer, not information creation, as the data must already exist for it to be transferred. Thus genetic transfers have nothing to do with Darwinian evolution). Nylon eating bacteria began as bacteria and ended as bacteria asthe flu remains as a flu virus, its not evolution
The graph at 3:22 really nails it. The transitions and gradations are gradual enough that the creationists can't figure out where to draw their line in the sand... the "kind" line.
Awesome video UNFFwildcard! This is a point I try to make to creationists all the time when they deny transitional fossils and assert that they're "just a such and such"
Btw, you have a big block of "enter your text here" covering the Africa one at 2:05.
I will hazard a guess, having had personal experience with UNF, that he blocked that image on purpose. He's a thoughtful guy that likely saw that people like myself might appreciate such a gesture.
From a not-particularly-sensitive-to-race-issues-half-black-guy, thanks UNF. I for one recognize the move as empathetic, and as one that is to be applauded.
Let's say there's a "gap" in the fossil record. You come up with something that resides in that gap. Bastard scientists, always learning and finding shit.
Pat yourself on the back? I think not. Now you have 2 gaps!
Oh yeah? Show me ONE creature recorded in the fossil record that was so "transitional" that it was dysfunctional. Show me half a leg, half an eye, half a fucking wing!
Great point, we don't see them. Evolutionists would say ' oh natural selection ' but if they didn't survive half evolved how could the whole progression of evolution work? The chain could have broken anywhere but obviously they believe evolution was happennin to every creature and so the strongest survived , in reality- I see animals are designed. Mathematically E is ridiculous. In regard to this vid , an evolutionist would find it hard to classify these skulls.
Changes within a species is one thing and natural , all species from one life form is another. Dogs mix and we have different breeds, this is NOT evolution. They are still within their species. This in a Biblical sense is how God started it all- it was HIs will for all life to procreate and subdue the earth. As all lifeforms had to have started somewhere- it is far more likely they started as their own species. Man must have come from A man and A woman, we can all interbreed , not 'ape ancestors
"Changes within a species is one thing and natural"
Its exactly the same mechanism as all species from common ancestors though. Changes within in a species in also evolution because evolution by definition is changing allele frequencies.
The only difference between change within a species and between species is gene flow. If gene flow is isolatd then new species inevitably emerge through change.
Species arising seperately is silly since it doesn't account for life's systematic pattern
You speak as though there is some mind behind the gene flow. Changes within a species is NOT evolution- its called breeding. Species today are NOT intermixing, there is ORDER. If all life could interbreed it would destroy itself. But go right back to where species 'branched off" - is an amazing concept - here from simpler lifeforms DNA information somehow came into being to gradually make new branches of species. How could this information split and increase into thousands of DIFFERENT species?
Do you even have the vaguest, most basic idea of what evolution is? I mean, you look silly and, sorry to say, stupid, making comments about something you quite obviously know nothing about. PLEASE read and study evolution BEFORE making comments against. Remember, if you can prove evolution wrong you would instantly become rich and the most famous person on the planet. Think you can do it? We're waiting, friend.
"it is species species seperating into two species"
When has this ever happenned? How is it possible?
"Simple, its called genetics"
So information in genetics over time changes- lifeforms grow from simpler to complex ...like a tadpole to a whale (conceptually) - is this science? How or where does increased information come from and the trillions of genetic codes required for these changes? "Simple, its called genetics" Over 25,000 scientists reject that all living organisms are related.
@jiminiflix Where does the information come from? 'How Evolution Increases Genetic Information', Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research, Oxford University, July 2000.
Evolution is the opposite of the interbreeding of species, it is species species seperating into two species that are unable to interbreed.
Breeding is evolution below the species level that was the first clue as to how we worked out that evolution was responsible for biodiversity.
How could this information split and increase? Simple, its called genetics. If you understand the mechanisms of this you will understand how silly it is to deny that evolution has and is happening
@jiminiflix A St Bernard cannot breed with a Chiwawa. That's speciation in anyone's book. You haven't established any God, and man certainly came from man, as all creatures remain within their clades. However, the point at which you can no longer call him 'man' is arbitary.
@jiminiflix As a Chiwawa and a St. Bernard cannot breed I fail to see your point. If you are going to claim 'it is far more likely' you are going to have to support that claim. I'll tell you what's likely, with EXACT figures. Given the ERV traces in human DNA the chance that we are not Related to Chimps is 1 in 10**148, and that's just the K type ERVs.
There is also the fact that it takes perfect conditions to create fossils. We are building a puzzle but our pieces are buried and scattered around our globe and many are missing. There are thousands of fossils in storage that have not been studied yet. We will never get 100% of our puzzle completed but we will after some time be able to step back and see the picture.
DUH
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
Heres your proof for creation we are born there for creation. A new car is built there for created. The big bang theoretically the earth was created and the universe so theres your proof of creationism
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
Creation is anything made new
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
Look guys im tired of saying this creation is all the things we talk about wether it be evolution or god or some other type of creation creation is real so stop dising creationists to say creation is not real then your stupid it is real so come up with some other term. With out creation nothing would exist come on a 6 year old can tell you that
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
And we share simular teeth with all kinds of omnivores so what does that prove so you are saying im related to a bear and a dog come on
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
Well heres a couple of generic differences 1. I can speak.2 my legs are longer than my arms.My feet are not the same so theres a couple of major differences
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
Ya im an ape thats why were called humans not apes humans are a species of their own we are much more than an ape i can speak they cant and if we were ape why cant true apes speak im sure they have vocal chords
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
Retard
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
Yo ignorant ass yeudh moron i said ancestor and im talking about tail bone ya know the one that says because of evolution it disappeared and we should not have it and yes our supposed ancestor did have one which yes at one time apes had them too retard through evolution any way and all i said is we only had and lost a tail because of sperm cells they had tails you are a stupid ignorant read tard that does not know how to read duh
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
No microevolution is not actually evolution its a slight variation which dna allows another way you guys put bullshit out there there are supposedly 5 different types of evolution but a bacteria that becomes immune to something is not evolution it stays the same species what dont you understand about that the dna is the same not different SO ITS NOT EVOLUTION
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
No we dont i dont have feet that look like hand I dont have facial features like an ape and my dna is not the same 100 percent so i dont have the same characteristics as an ape if i did my dna would show where i changed into an ape and it dont so how can you say we do so back at you are you stupid. I walk upright not on my knuckles my legs are longer than my arms there is no same characteristics at all
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
I mean if we evolved from apes then we should have some of the old characteristics as the apes we should still have hand like feet of that animal or at least a trait of proof that would show it was there like the whales have an ankle bone supposidly. And why when you look at evolution it lost not gained thats devolution not evolution. And if i was an ape why would i lose my tail that would come in handy an extra arm and an easier way to climb i mean i dont see loss very beneficial at all
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
@cjguitarist100
We do. Are you stupid, cj?
odinata 1 month ago
@cjguitarist100 When did the apes start growing tails again. Darn chimps must have began to grow tails when God was not watching. You ignorant ass the Great Ape family do not have tails.
yeudh 1 month ago
Because everything we know today if evolution is true came from one thing. But why is dna so totaly different dont make sense to me
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
everything in the animal kingdom would be related if we evolved from the same thing. But not everything is related because we would have to share all the dna of everything if we evolved it would all go back to the very first thing to be made and we would have to have the same dna as that
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
Just because we share things doesnt mean were related if that were the case we would all be imbreds. and if we evolved why is everyones dna different other than that in the same genepool. That said we would have the same dna as our ancestor that made us not more or less. So we cant share the same common ancestor that would be impossible
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
I mean we share the same amount of chromozomes as tobacco plants does that mean were related no
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
Just like the atom that caused the supposed big bang what did it evolve from when the very material that made everything was not around yet. I mean what was there before anything in the universe existed even before the atom and if you dont believe in creation then what did energy evolve from but according to science energy cant be created or destroyed so how can you say theres no god if energy always existed when god could be that very energy
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
why dont we see new creatures evolving from nothing now. Because evolution cant know when to stop i mean theres variations but still the same species not totally different. I mean these are the things that dont make sense so you cant just say this is how its done and not think of the impossibilities that go with it
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
And how did our one ancestor make the apes and monkeys and us how did the mating happen on that. And what did the common ancestor come from and how could these animals survive if they did evolve with out knowledge on what was safe to eat and what wasnt and how did they know to mate if there was no information to them. I mean you cant mate animals of two totally different species. Thats like trying to mate a human with an orrangatan which is our closesist ancestor it would not happen.
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
and evolution is not science its a belief just as id. So stop saying its science when its not
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
And besides that all the species that evolved from other ones would have had to evolve at the same time in order to keep that species alive sounds kind of hard when it takes millions of years to happen and we should see humans evolving still today but we dont.
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
according to evolution
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
and its funny you dont see animals evolving today the polar bears and the penquins arent evolving and their under alot of pressure. You dont see humans evolving to resist cancer or other diseases with no known cure so if evolution is real then we should be evolving to do these things but yet it dont happen how bizarre. I mean humans had well enough time to do so
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
dinosaurs didnt. And if evolution did happen then what did the single celled organism evolve from what did the protien evolve from all the atoms they must all have a common ancester if they evolved wheres the fossil record on that stuff we have microscopes powerfull enough to look at that stuff why dont they ever talk about that stuff
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
no the freaking fossils dont show evidence of evolution most of the fossils look the same as they did millions of years ago just like the so called transitional fossil from reptile to bird was bullshit there were fully formed birds 65 million years older than that one and look the same now and the so called fish believed to be the missing link was bullshit because it still lives today it was thought to be exstinct. And why didnt the croc or alligator evolve and how did they survive and the
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
that supposed transtinal fossil is a drawing not a real fossil some more bullshit
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
Humans are the 5th ape and ironicly a creation scientist put the human race in that catagory (by his own rules of classification ). We have the same number of bones , teeth and muscles ,and the same organs .There is no generic diffrence that anyone can name .His respose to the naysayers was to name 1 generic diffrence .
flyingscience 6 months ago
Boys boys.... stop arguing! it was ALIENS all along! lol. They made us, and we are God/Goddess. It's really deep. Sorry. I'll put on my tinfoil gorgon mask and go back to the kitchen. (where I'll make myself some popcorn coated in nutritional yeast). Great video btw.
LocustaVampa 7 months ago
@jiminiflix. I want to know where the evidence FOR creationism is. Let us assume evolution is false, in the sense that you are right about the difference between animals in modern day is large so evolution is disproved. How does this PROVE creationism? I believe creationism isn't the only alternative solution. Therefore disproving evolution IS NOT evidence for creationism. For creationism to be considered a notable theory, evidence for it is needed, until that time it's a joke
Ubercool29 7 months ago
The Astrolopithicus Petroglyphicus emerged in the Cambrian, and in moments of rest from the struggle for survival, carved rock into imaginary animal shapes, which are commonly mistaken for fossils. As their culture and imagination evolved, so did the imaginary animals they carved. I don't think they ever got around to a talking snake.
gamesbok 8 months ago
First class video, thank you.
gamesbok 8 months ago
it annoys me that they say the fossils are human-like or ape-like because ALL humans are apes
blazereef 1 year ago
@blazereef Humans are not ape, we are nothing like apes. Its like saying a cat is like a cow.
jiminiflix 8 months ago
@jiminiflix Do you even hear yourself? If you insist upon making up your own definitions at least acknowledge your malfucktion
splicedenergy 8 months ago
@splicedenerg Ok YOU ARE a ape. Science doesn't truly back the LIE!!
jiminiflix 8 months ago
@jiminiflix YOu use your irony as substance, seriously? You do not know anything about it. It is a proven fact. Don't think that you could form an opinion that isn't an educated one.
splicedenergy 8 months ago
@splicedenergy Name a fact to me.
jiminiflix 8 months ago
Comment removed
archolman 7 months ago
@jiminiflix. We are apes, check your DNA. It has more in common with the other Great Apes than with any other species. We are a close family. Monkeys are cousins to us apes. And cats, like cows & us apes are all mammals.
archolman 7 months ago
@archolman You need to understand our dna is so unlike an ape. The "likeness" of our dna to an ape is only found in around 4% of the genome. Scientists don't know what "ape creature" we came from as it doen't exist. Biologically we have more not in common with an ape than in common. I believe any similarities displays a similar creator. Humans are so much more than apes, we stand apart from the animal kingdom. If thats your view, please feel free to believe it.
jiminiflix 7 months ago
@archolman - Some folks are a little more "ape" than others though. :)
dink65 7 months ago
Nice video. It's funny, most people who say 'there are not transitional fossils' will never be able to draw you a picture of what they would accept as a transitional fossil.
jnoort 1 year ago
Good job. You made a point they didn't want to hear, judging by the down votes.
gregrutz 1 year ago
microevolution..... Which is biogenesis which is fact.
purpleleach1 1 year ago
I don't get why Ken Miller is on the side he's on. As a loyal Catholic, he ultimately believes in a Designer. He said so in the debate with Behe, Berlinsky, Johnson, and Buckley. (Sorry, I don't remember the guys on the other team--except Lynn, who is another puzzler.)
More puzzling is the title of his book: Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul.
To whom does he want to give his soul?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson He's a loyal Catholic, and Catholics, like Eastern Orthodox, accept evolution.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Ken Miller is on the side he is on because he is a scientist and looked at the evidence, the fossils and DNA. Why don't creationists look at the evidence?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Creationists do look at the evidence. You are barking up the wrong tree on that mantra. Ken Miller is in a very awkward position, calling himself a "believer" in the Designer while doing everything he can to undermine the evidence of the Designer. I don't know enough about him to know why he does this, but, according to Behe's recent "Afterward" in BLACK BOX, Miller has beaten up on a strawman definition of "irreducible complexity," rather than dealing with what Behe proposed.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Creationists do not study the fossil record, they deny it.
Ken Miller calls himself a 'believer' in Jesus, not a Deisgner.
ID is an argument based on IC, complex is some how proof it was IDed.
But Behe can't prove anything is too complex and his ID fails.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz What you don't know about what Creation scientists study is no criteria for their judgment. Miller acknowledged in debate that he believes in a God as a designer "on some level." ID is based on the scientific premise that one looks for the best explanation of language. The best explanation is intelligence.
Our discussion is a waste of both of our time because you've made up your mind and your worldview keeps you from recognizing the weaknesses of your point of view.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Your worldview prevents you from recognizing that ID is not science.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend If it isn't science, evolution isn't science. They are both inferences to account for the complexity of life. Granted, my worldview expects order to come from order, design to come from purposeful design, life to come from life, and language to come from an intelligent being.
Perhaps you have experience of disorder ordering itself, complex design coming by accident, life coming from non-life, and language coming from inanimate things. Then evolution would make sense to you.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Evolution is Biology, a science.
It was accepted 150 years ago and is now the backbone of Biology.
It has been observed in nature and in the lab.
DNA now shows us who our closest relitives in life are.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "Evolution is Biology" No, it is a philosophical explanation of biology.
"It was accepted 150" It was presented then, but it took time to be accepted. It is the backbone of the philosophical explanations of Biology--not its physical study.
"It has been observed..." Variation within species has been extrapolated as evidence of the philosophical position.
"DNA now shows" The evidence from DNA is rather convoluted and not straightforward.
Yet you honestly think your statements are true.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
So what is your theory as to how evolution happened, any ideas.
Tell us why the dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago.
Or explain any of the other 5 mass extinctions?
Your a smart person, tell us how it happened.
And why did dinosaurs evolve hollow bones, and feathers and oval eggs in nests?
And why are 97% of everything that ever lived extinct?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I have a different paradigm, based on the available evidence:
The basic phyla of organisms are buried at the lowest levels of the strata. They are sea life that was not highly mobile and were buried because they were at home in the waters that . Based on zonation, the other animals were buried in higher strata. The dinosaurs were buried by this same catastrophe as they are found buried with marine life.
You say they evolved hollow bones. Are you saying early ones didn't have them?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Read a geology book. zonation? Floods don't sort fossils.
Explain feathers on dinosaurs with your theory.
There is a 160 million years history of dinosaurs changing, maybe you should study them.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Since the theory is about how animals got buried, it doesn't deal with mosaics of species. (Explain a platypus.) Since what I have read about feathers on dinosaurs has pointed to the controversial nature of the evidence, I think it wise to gather more information before drawing a judgment about the sketchy findings you mention.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson the theory is about how animals got buried, WHAT?
No, the theory is about how life changed over time.
It does explain the fossil record.
Some were buried in tar pits, some in rivers, many sank to the bottom of lakes.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz How much of the geological record is tar pits? Very little. How many are rivers and bottoms of lakes? That could account for a few--but not the massive burial of animals all over the world.
The geological column is about burial--a burial that interrupted normal life. Nests are covered in mud; fish are covered while giving birth or after eating another fish; dinosaurs are buried in the "throws of death." The mechanisms you suggest do not explain these phenomena--just stabs in the dark.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The geologic column is a time scale. it shows everything did not live at the same time.
Fact, we don't find trilobites burieds in young rocks.
We don't find dinos in old rocks or young rocks, just the ones in the middle.
How did a fish die from 40 days of rain?
The mechanism is millions of years of geology, have you ever studied geology, then you don't know what you are talking about.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I realize the Biblical description of the flood is foreign to you, but it wasn't just rain. There was total disruption of the planet.
Gen. 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all *the fountains of the great deep broken up*, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
This included mudslides, volcanism, turbidites--in short, total upheaval.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson And where is the geologic evidence for this?
What is the name of the mud layer with all the dead bodies in it?
Zion Nat. Park is 3000 feet of wind blown sand, how did a flood do that?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Yes it took a whole 10 years before everyone accepted evolution, but they all did. All scientists now accept it happened.
Evolution has been observed, not just wolf to dog variation.
DNA is very straightforward, they know every protein in it.
It shows Chimps are closer to humans than they are to gorillas.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz No, more than 10 years. And, no, not ALL did. Why do you make this up?
Variation is all that has ever been observed.
The "tree," mapped out by DNA is convoluted, showing twisting of relationships of supposedly related--and unrelated--species.
It shows that chimps are closer to gorillas than humans, but that we have some DNA segments parallel to gorillas but not not to chimps.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Wrong, we have the fossils, they show evolution happened.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Scientists INFER that evolution happened--without any undisputed transitional forms to validate the inference. (Don't drag out Tiktaalik. It is millions of years too late in the column to be the ancestor of amphibians.) Every "transition" has been finally categorized as a side branch to the tree. No direct links have ever been found. We are left only with INFERENCE--not evidence that it ever occurred.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson No. Your "worldview" is a pretend way of doing science by asserting that God did it. Of course, ID creationists assiduously avoid saying that it had to be god, but it's embedded in their assumption that order has to come from order, so even if it were aliens, then in their view, the aliens' order came from higher aliens or from god, until you get back to god. ID creationism is straight-forward argument from ignorance and not science. Convincing to non-scientists, though
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend You misunderstand the whole focus of ID. Most ID proponents plainly accept that the designer is God. What they don't do, is say that the scientific evidence DEMONSTRATES that the designer is God. The scientific evidence only points to design, and the best inference for design is a designer--not chance.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson No, they don't say it is god that is the desinger, they left god out so they can teach ID in public schools. The lost in court, it didn't fool anyone.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson about what Creation scientists study
There is no such thing as creation scientists. Creationism is a religious story, all religions have one, yours may not be the right one, study that.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You're giving your side of the argument a black eye. Unless you live under a rock, you should know better. There are atheist scientists and there are creationist scientists (and scientists with other religious beliefs). One believes there is no god; the other believes that there is a God and that He made the world. That aside, both groups are scientists, and they can both study the evidence of science.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Most, 60%, of scientists accept God, all of them accept evolution.
There are creationists, they are not scientists, they follow the bible or quran or whatever, all religions have a creation story. It is religion not science.
Do you really think Kent Hovind or Ken Ham have ever studied the fossil record, they just deny it. And then lie, saying ''We all have the same evidence, just draw different conclusions."
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson Why don't you watch the videos you are spamming, you might learn something.
gregrutz 1 year ago
tiktaalik motherfuckers oh yeh dimetrodon cooler then any thing today just plain badass
patrickledford420 1 year ago
Excellent video!
wollin20 1 year ago
1 / 3
whitefox998
++ "Name one fossil that is on the alleged ancestry line LEADING to humans?"
Australopithecus afarensis. ++
With reference to the fossils of Australopithecus afarensis, which included Lucy. The evolutionists alleged mountain of empiric evidence has been found to have been a mist of falsehoods.
Quote:
++ Abstract
Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. .....
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
2 / 3
..... This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. .....
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
1 / 3
whitefox998 @
++ "Debatable, skeletally Archaeopteryx barely qualifies as a bird due to its transitional status." ++
Why ignore the scientific evidence? It is a BIRD. You have no bird before Archie or any intermediate fossil post, so he is no transitional.
Quote:
++ Scientists have finally solved the long-standing riddle over whether Archaeopteryx, the earliest known bird, was capable of flight or whether it just used its feathers to stay warm. .....
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
2 / 3
..... X-ray scans have revealed that the creature's brain was "surprisingly similar" to modern day sparrows, eagles or parrots and that Archaeopteryx soared above prehistoric Earth 147 million years ago.
It is the first time anyone has been able to peer inside the head of the fossil - regarded as one of the most important and valuable in the world - and reconstruct the size and shape of its brain in detail. Dr Angela Milner, who led the study at the National .....
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
3 / 3
..... History Museum, said scientists had been arguing about Archaeopteryx since it was discovered 143 years ago.
"Now that we know Archaeopteryx was capable of controling the complex business of flying, this raises more questions," she said.
"If flight was advanced by the time Archaeopteryx was around, then were birds actually flying millions of years earlier than we'd previously thought?" ++
Google:
X-ray shows earliest bird had a head for heights, telegraph
hume1947 1 year ago
creationists are a s dumb as you can get
DaysOfStorms 1 year ago
The fact is that science has rejected every fossil that evolutionists alleged was on the ancestry line LEADING to humans.
This video is pure false propaganda. Name one fossil that leads to humans ... I do not want a list but your best one.
Darwin said you had zero fossils!
hume1947 1 year ago
science has done that? news to me lol
mickeykozzi 1 year ago
Science has rejected nothing about evolution. And Darwin... was a long time ago. He just advanced the original theory. Countless scientists from different fields of study have proved his theory.
dekotable 1 year ago
Dekotable @
++ Science has rejected nothing about evolution. And Darwin... was a long time ago. He just advanced the original theory. Countless scientists from different fields of study have proved his theory. ++
(1) The theory of evolution cannot be science then if it has no rejected evidence.
(2) If proven true give me just one fossil that is on the alleged
ancestry line LEADING to humans?
hume1947 1 year ago
1) what the fuck are you talking about?
2) get educated.
dekotable 1 year ago
"Darwin said you had zero fossils!"
lmao! Darwin predicted Archaeopteryx lithographica.
whitefox998 1 year ago
whitefox998 @
++ "Darwin said you had zero fossils!"
lmao! Darwin predicted Archaeopteryx lithographica. ++
The argument is that Darwin said That he had zero fossils to support his theory of evolution. It is no good arguing we have plenty of fossils. Of course we have fossils and every one of them looks like it was created.
Please note Archie had wonderful wings to allow him to fly note no Archie with half a wing?
hume1947 1 year ago
"The argument is that Darwin said That he had zero fossils to support his theory of evolution."
Darwin originally wrote that the fossil record during his time was poorly studied. But that was 150 years ago, far before the boom of paleontological study starting forty years ago or even the Bone Wars.
"It is no good arguing we have plenty of fossils."
rofl. We have hundreds, but you can keep burying your head in the sand if you like.
whitefox998 1 year ago
"Please note Archie had wonderful wings to allow him to fly no Archie with half a wing?"
For one A. lithographica lacked many of the adaptations for flight, such as a fused breastbone making it unlikely to be able to achieve powered flight. Second "half a wing", do you mean more primitive feathers? Look at Anchironis huxlei or Pedopenna daohugouensis. Both of which are basal to and found chronologically before Archaeopteryx lithographica and Microraptor gui.
whitefox998 1 year ago
2 / 2
.... such as the tooth structure and the poorly ossified shoulder bones. It has been suggested that this is a separate genus, however the differences can also be ascribed to the possible juvenile stage of the animal and/or a different feeding niche. However, this specimen has the best preserved head, from which the litany of Archae's reptilian cranial features were described. At the moment it still resides within A. lithographica. ++
Google:
All About Archaeopteryx, talk origins
hume1947 1 year ago
1 / 2
whitefox998 @
Re: Archaeopteryx lithographica
++ For one A. lithographica lacked many of the adaptations for flight, such as a fused breastbone making it unlikely to be able to achieve powered flight. ++
A bird and it could fly.
Quote:
++ The Eichstatt Specimen
Found near Workerszell in 1951, it was described by P. Wellnhofer in 1974. This is the smallest of all the specimens, being some 2/3 the size of the others.
It also differs in other aspects .....
(cont.)
hume1947 1 year ago
"A bird and it could fly."
Debatable, skeletally Archaeopteryx barely qualifies as a bird due to its transitional status.
"++ The Eichstatt Specimen"
What's your point?
I also assume that since you didn't comment on the other point I made on other intermediate dinosaurs that you concede that there are transitional species in the fossil record.
"Name one fossil that is on the alleged ancestry line LEADING to humans?"
Australopithecus afarensis.
whitefox998 1 year ago
whitefox998
Re: Archaeopteryx.
++ I also assume that since you didn't comment on the other point I made on other intermediate dinosaurs that you concede that there are transitional species in the fossil record. ++
You have zero intermediate fossils Pre or Post Archaeopteryx. Darwin said he had none so what did the High priests of the ToE do? They decreed all fossils are transitional. Pure dishonesty.
hume1947 1 year ago
whitefox998 @
++ "It is no good arguing we have plenty of fossils." rofl. We have hundreds, but you can keep burying your head in the sand if you like. ++
Look at what I actually said:
The argument is that Darwin said That he had zero fossils to support his theory of evolution.
Yes we may have millions of fossils but they all support creation by God and none support the Theory of evolution.
Name a fossil that is on the alleged ancestry line LEADING to humans?
hume1947 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution cannot be observed. It cannot be tested for reliability. It is like interpreting the Bible. You see some things that seem to be 2 and 2 theological truths and you decide it's 4 (it's oversimplifying it). Science is not a religion. It can make no dogma. It does need observable reliability. W/o it, mathematical formula to demonstrate evolution is just using variables assumed by those who believe in evolution. Creationists could do the same thing.
fool1shmortal 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution cannot be observed. It cannot be tested for reliability. It is like interpreting the Bible. You see some things that seem to be 2 and 2 theological truths and you decide it's 4 (it's oversimplifying it). Science is not a religion. It can make no dogma. It does need observable reliability. W/o it, mathematical formula to demonstrate evolution is just using variables assumed by those who believe in evolution. Creationists could do the same thing.
fool1shmortal 2 years ago
Evolution has been tested. They predict where and what kind of fossils they should find according to the age and location of the strata, and they go and find it - and they're right. OH SHIT, A PREDICTION! Evolution is used to develop vaccines (Predicting the evolution of viruses).
Evolution has been observed. There are many counts of observed speciation and we have observed multicellular life rise from single celled life. We have observed the evolution of metabloic systems in E-Coli as well.
Skepnostic 2 years ago 21
try googling observed speciation - you will get many hits because we have "observed" evolution. Not just simple shifts in gene frequency but actual speciation!!!!!
ShalomYal 2 years ago
@fool1shmortal: "Evolution cannot be observed. It cannot be tested for reliability.' Really? Try this please: "Blount, Z. D., C. Z. Borland, and R. E. Lenski. 2008. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. PNAS'. Good read. Clear and informative. Evolution may not be predictive of future life (way too many variables) it is very much a fact, and yes, quite testable.
magick205 2 years ago 2
It's been observed in numerous present-day examples. Tragopogon in San Francisco Bay, Lillium, polyploidy in plants and desert rats, eight nonlethal mutants of the H1N1 swine flu virus, antibiotic resistance.... Organisms are evolving right front of our eyes, but you have to look around to learn. You can't just pick up a magazine or a creationist pamphlet out of the restroom and think you know the science. There are hundreds of thousands of researchers with years of experience worldwide.
charadester 2 years ago 2
You might be under the impression that evolution is based on indirect data only, but genetic mutation, lateral gene transfer, and natural selection are shaping new genomes regularly. It's not only a historical science, but an experimental and predictable one as well. The public has been sold a bill of goods through a very shrewd conservative marketing campaign to disparage it. With the uninformed state of the public, they are unfortunately gaining ground.
charadester 2 years ago
yes it can be observed.....why do you think people get flu shots every year? maybe the flu changes? thats evolution
mickeykozzi 2 years ago 14
...but do they become a different species? Do viruses become bacteria when the conditions are best for bacteria. We heard in class that we, as primates, started walking upright because we wanted to and we eventually did but why are there still chimps? They don't want to stand? Why do many men in India&the Mideast have a lot of body hair? In "Flock of Dodos", rabbits eating their turds made God, to them, not that intelligent; but they did not explain why it was an natural adaptation.
fool1shmortal 2 years ago
@fool1shmortal: "why are there still chimps?" You do realize that's as silly as asking why are there still Brits if there are Americans, Aussies, Kanucks, Kiwis? Common ancestry. Yeesh.
magick205 2 years ago
Are you seriously arguing against evolution or are you asking honest questions? Because, like all creationists, you have zero understanding of evolution. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it is untrue. A virus becoming a bacteria!? The old why are there still chimps (we didn't evolve from chimps we are cousins: first page biology book stuff). Things don't evolve because they want to, evolution is what happens when they adapt to their environment.
jimbrown257 2 years ago
Brits can become Americans if they want. I didn't take the other primates becoming man because they wanted to get higher up longer.
fool1shmortal 2 years ago
That was from one of your evolution fans. I know most believe things evolve naturally or are phased out naturally, which makes it ironic evolution fans are for abortion and other population control, fetal./embryonic stem cell research (which doesn't even work) saving the planet, etc. If a species can't handle us, that's tough, right? As it is, I'm all for environmentally-friendly stuff if it doesn't send us back to the bad ol' dark ages, but I'm just playing devil's advocate.
fool1shmortal 2 years ago
Science w/o reason is mad (science). Don't try to force improvements on the human race. It may just be making the gene pool weaker. This mad science, aided by socially-applied evolutionary theory (the parts they like), is all used to suppress certain people deemed inferior. It's like a pseudo-scientific reason to dominate the 3rd world. You wonder why they scare dissenters so much--insecurity. You see them use the scientific method objectively in their global warming crisis nonsense?
fool1shmortal 2 years ago
-fetal./embryonic stem cell research (which doesn't even work)- Lolol. I mean, besides the hilarious and far too frequently asked question of *if we started to walk upright why are there still chimps?* (and the far too frequent ignorance to the fact that there were no chimps back then) this really made your post lulzy. Stem cell research hasn't shown many results.... yet. You want to at least let some actual research get done instead of just giving up now?
LanceDirk 2 years ago
@fool1shmortal
We still have chimps because they are our cousins not ancestors.
123Atheist 2 years ago
mickeykozzi @
++ "yes it can be observed.....why do you think people get flu shots every year? maybe the flu changes? thats evolution." ++
Evolution only equals change. Not your theory of evolution idea such as mice into bats and dinosaurs into parrots. Variation within a KIND always means bacteria remains bacteria, a bird remains a bird.
The proof that evolutionists have zero evidence is confirmed when you argue every fossil found is transitional. Darwin said they were all missing.
hume1947 1 year ago
zero evidence? you might as well say they is no evidence for the sun LOL LOL LOL LOL. Only the highly uneducated would say there is zero evidence.
mickeykozzi 1 year ago
mickeykozzi @
++ "Only the highly uneducated would say there is zero evidence." ++
Do you know the story of the Emperor's clothes?
I stated ++ The fact is that science has rejected every fossil that evolutionists alleged was on the ancestry line LEADING to humans. ++
Name one!
hume1947 1 year ago
@mickeykozzi it is just MICRO evolution. lol
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
@mickeykozzi Wo wo, how is that evolution? Evolution is about how one species morphs into another species. Just because viruses get more resistant, that doesn't tell you that apes are related to humans
OldaurGold 9 months ago
@OldaurGold Just because we can combine snowflakes doesn't mean we can make a snowbank, M I RITE
BoredInfidel 8 months ago
@OldaurGold What does show apes are related to humans is the ERV evidence, Endoginious Retro Virus. These are Virus that left distinct markers in our DNA, and also show up in Ape DNA. These are inserted randomly, but preserve their position. We have a record of diseases our common ancestor suffered. This could have happened by chance, one chance in 10**148. and that's just the K type ERVs.
gamesbok 8 months ago
@mickeykozzi Flu changes is not evolution. Like the Nylon eating bacteria, science has shown that bacteria can transfer small amounts of DNA (known as plasmid transfers) to other bacterium. (Note: this is information transfer, not information creation, as the data must already exist for it to be transferred. Thus genetic transfers have nothing to do with Darwinian evolution). Nylon eating bacteria began as bacteria and ended as bacteria asthe flu remains as a flu virus, its not evolution
jiminiflix 8 months ago
The graph at 3:22 really nails it. The transitions and gradations are gradual enough that the creationists can't figure out where to draw their line in the sand... the "kind" line.
tifforo1 2 years ago 2
japanese become giant robots and koreans become the zerg? never have i so wanted to be asian. :P
pyr666 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Question: Why is the kettle boiling?
Atheist answer: Because the water's been heated to 100 degrees centigrade resulting in a change in state from liquid to gas.
Christian answer: Because I want to have some tea.
For more about how Atheists and Christians interpret evidence very differently, check out my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
♥† HOW TO GET SAVED FROM HELL and HAVE ETERNAL and EVERLASTING LIFE IN HEAVEN!: visit my channel for link in description. †♥
howtogetsaved 2 years ago
Awesome video UNFFwildcard! This is a point I try to make to creationists all the time when they deny transitional fossils and assert that they're "just a such and such"
Btw, you have a big block of "enter your text here" covering the Africa one at 2:05.
majorvoltage 2 years ago
I will hazard a guess, having had personal experience with UNF, that he blocked that image on purpose. He's a thoughtful guy that likely saw that people like myself might appreciate such a gesture.
From a not-particularly-sensitive-to-race-issues-half-black-guy, thanks UNF. I for one recognize the move as empathetic, and as one that is to be applauded.
joshTheGoods 2 years ago
Oh ok. I thought it was just an error in annotations.
majorvoltage 2 years ago
"Btw, you have a big block of "enter your text here" covering the Africa"
This proves that the video evolved unguided and was not intelligently designed.
agnostic1100 2 years ago
Progressional creation
But I agree evolution is the most plausable naturalistic explanantion.
Therefore demanded.
But the fossil record shows progressional creation.
JAMRAND 2 years ago
Beautiful, Thanks for posting this video:-)
cosmos11 2 years ago
I see the hole in your arguments.
Let's say there's a "gap" in the fossil record. You come up with something that resides in that gap. Bastard scientists, always learning and finding shit.
Pat yourself on the back? I think not. Now you have 2 gaps!
What a kick-ass video.
hairyreasoner 2 years ago
haha, that would make a nice satire for a disproof of evolution.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
Oh yeah? Show me ONE creature recorded in the fossil record that was so "transitional" that it was dysfunctional. Show me half a leg, half an eye, half a fucking wing!
Take that, god-haters!
hairyreasoner 2 years ago 2
Great point, we don't see them. Evolutionists would say ' oh natural selection ' but if they didn't survive half evolved how could the whole progression of evolution work? The chain could have broken anywhere but obviously they believe evolution was happennin to every creature and so the strongest survived , in reality- I see animals are designed. Mathematically E is ridiculous. In regard to this vid , an evolutionist would find it hard to classify these skulls.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"If they didn't survive half evolved how could the whole progression of evolution work"
They DID, surprise. Evolution isn't progress with goals but rather species being moulded by their environment by selected traits procreating.
Nothing in evolution was ever half evolved except in hindsight.
Mathematically Evolution can be simulated.
"An evolutionist would find it hard to classify these skulls"
Because they are clearly transitional
ProcInc 2 years ago 2
Changes within a species is one thing and natural , all species from one life form is another. Dogs mix and we have different breeds, this is NOT evolution. They are still within their species. This in a Biblical sense is how God started it all- it was HIs will for all life to procreate and subdue the earth. As all lifeforms had to have started somewhere- it is far more likely they started as their own species. Man must have come from A man and A woman, we can all interbreed , not 'ape ancestors
jiminiflix 2 years ago
"Changes within a species is one thing and natural"
Its exactly the same mechanism as all species from common ancestors though. Changes within in a species in also evolution because evolution by definition is changing allele frequencies.
The only difference between change within a species and between species is gene flow. If gene flow is isolatd then new species inevitably emerge through change.
Species arising seperately is silly since it doesn't account for life's systematic pattern
ProcInc 2 years ago
You speak as though there is some mind behind the gene flow. Changes within a species is NOT evolution- its called breeding. Species today are NOT intermixing, there is ORDER. If all life could interbreed it would destroy itself. But go right back to where species 'branched off" - is an amazing concept - here from simpler lifeforms DNA information somehow came into being to gradually make new branches of species. How could this information split and increase into thousands of DIFFERENT species?
jiminiflix 2 years ago
Do you even have the vaguest, most basic idea of what evolution is? I mean, you look silly and, sorry to say, stupid, making comments about something you quite obviously know nothing about. PLEASE read and study evolution BEFORE making comments against. Remember, if you can prove evolution wrong you would instantly become rich and the most famous person on the planet. Think you can do it? We're waiting, friend.
Good luck.
-Papa
papasitoman 2 years ago
"it is species species seperating into two species"
When has this ever happenned? How is it possible?
"Simple, its called genetics"
So information in genetics over time changes- lifeforms grow from simpler to complex ...like a tadpole to a whale (conceptually) - is this science? How or where does increased information come from and the trillions of genetic codes required for these changes? "Simple, its called genetics" Over 25,000 scientists reject that all living organisms are related.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
@jiminiflix Where does the information come from? 'How Evolution Increases Genetic Information', Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research, Oxford University, July 2000.
Care to name these 25,000?
gamesbok 1 year ago
Evolution is the opposite of the interbreeding of species, it is species species seperating into two species that are unable to interbreed.
Breeding is evolution below the species level that was the first clue as to how we worked out that evolution was responsible for biodiversity.
How could this information split and increase? Simple, its called genetics. If you understand the mechanisms of this you will understand how silly it is to deny that evolution has and is happening
ProcInc 2 years ago
@jiminiflix Of course species don't interbreed, that's the definition of species. Where did the information come from?
‘Evolution of Biological Information’, Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research, Oxford University, July 2000.'
gamesbok 8 months ago
@gamesbok Ok. lol.
jiminiflix 8 months ago
@jiminiflix A St Bernard cannot breed with a Chiwawa. That's speciation in anyone's book. You haven't established any God, and man certainly came from man, as all creatures remain within their clades. However, the point at which you can no longer call him 'man' is arbitary.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok Silly.
jiminiflix 1 year ago
@jiminiflix As a Chiwawa and a St. Bernard cannot breed I fail to see your point. If you are going to claim 'it is far more likely' you are going to have to support that claim. I'll tell you what's likely, with EXACT figures. Given the ERV traces in human DNA the chance that we are not Related to Chimps is 1 in 10**148, and that's just the K type ERVs.
gamesbok 8 months ago
I don't understand why africans would be offended (by the chart). I mean, it's humour!
It might be a little mean, but it's till humour.
TwilightAronXD 2 years ago
That's priceless! Excellent video.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
oh and yes we do have computers here in africa
we don't all just play coconut bongos and dance around in grass skirts all day either
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
Would my adjustments be adequate?
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
you just got trolled : )
I am gay though. I suck many dicks constantly... smoke pole every day
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
"we don't all just play coconut bongos and dance around in grass skirts all day either "
You just ruined my plan to move there LOL
artyfarty2 2 years ago
how would you like it if I made a video of people dancing strange and eating mayonnaise and onion sandwitches set to polka music?
Huh? oh it's not funny is it peckerwood!!
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
it's me; I'm the nigger
now take it down
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
Are there any Africans here who are offended by the chart at 2:03?
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
@UNFFwildcard shit i accidentaly hit the thumbs up before reply. wasnt it an ape with an ak-47 i think i saw that somewhere else
patrickledford420 1 year ago
other than that good job on this especially the chart at 3:06
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
Edit this video to get rid of that evolution chart that starts at 2:03
It's really racist and if you don't see that then just trust me that depicting africans as giant mongoloids used to be a staple of racist propaganda.
Now I'm pretty sure that this was just an oversight and that you'll correct this so I wont have to flag it
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
noob, i hope u die. Damn u are a racist votenixon, racist against humanity.
tuoljg 2 years ago
Comment removed
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
What I see is progressional creation.
I think Dr. hugh Rosss' model better explains what we actually see in the fossil record.
JAMRAND 2 years ago
Blaow!
gearhead55 2 years ago
Comment removed
pestmanpat 2 years ago
Re; transitional fossils
At 0:27 you display a collection of transitional fossils from the smithsonian intitute.
In it specimen F "rudolfensis" is listed in this gradiant line of transitional fossils as having a cranial capacity of 775 cc
This has now been exposed as false and i attach a video explanation
pestmanpat 2 years ago
3:06 LOL That made my day :)
nhojmabon 2 years ago
LOL
This is Tiktaalik.
It is a transitional fossil.
Now shut up.
XXL2oo 2 years ago
Seriously, the transitional ape to gundam was AWESOME!
OblivionMon 2 years ago
There is also the fact that it takes perfect conditions to create fossils. We are building a puzzle but our pieces are buried and scattered around our globe and many are missing. There are thousands of fossils in storage that have not been studied yet. We will never get 100% of our puzzle completed but we will after some time be able to step back and see the picture.
nice video!
buddcinder 2 years ago