Bat Evolution from Evolution: The Grand Experiment

[jmwtagptd]

This video does nothing to disprove evolution. The absence of something in the fossil record does not indicate that it does not exist. There are organisms that existed that we will never know about. Fossilization is a very rare event where the conditions must be able to preserve the skeleton and turn it into limestone. Most people do not believe in evolution simply because they are ignorant of what it really is. Evolution is simply the change in alleles in a population over time.

[utubedetective72]

1:58 Russell Crow's sweedish brother

[DisprovingEvolution]

Bats and the Platypus.....

Destroying the myth of evolution with undeniable FACTS.

Evolution = RELIGION of naturalism

[daNDayati]

@DisprovingEvolution the facts are supportive of evolution.. (by the way.. you rely on evolutionary theory to fill your pickup bozo) re: Using Microfosils In Petroleum Exploration by Brian J. O'Nell, and Baker, R. 1979. A Primer of Oilwell Drilling. Petroleum Extension Service, the Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin. 94 pp... Thank Darwin the next time at the pump!!  cheers

[DisprovingEvolution]

@daNDayati

Darwin was a known RACIST with no degree in Biology__FACT

I'm not going to "thank him" or any other brain dead (and anti-science evolutionist) for anything.

Also, Darwin belonged to a Masonic order, which is even worse. You have been refuted by science, history, and by me. Next!!!

[daNDayati]

@DisprovingEvolution I am so sorry for you..you poor deluded slob.. degrees in biology did not exist in that time... (where are you getting this garbage?) and if Darwin were a Mason or a member of the Elks is completely irrelevant. You have not made a case for anything for that matter.. dispute the case I gave you regarding the use of evolutionary biology to find oil.. or discuss anything intelligently.. mindless rants reflect on you.. and you impotence... get a life.. and and education.

[DisprovingEvolution]

@daNDayati

Wrong again you sad "ape-man believer"

Darwin ONLY had a degree in Theology__FACT. Therefore, he wasnt a Biologist and therefore his word means nothing.

There were men in his day which did have degrees in Geology, Paleontology, and Biology-based fields of study.

Kid, you apparently are utterly CLUELESS on this topic. I suggest you learn how to read and use a search engine on the internet. I feel sorry for the educational system in your area. Tsk, tsk

[daNDayati]

@DisprovingEvolution degrees in science were not given until 1860, actually degrees per se did not exist.. a person was "read" in a discipline.. further very few of the scientists of the late 18th or early 19th century had relevant degrees at all. That would include James Watt, Benjamin Franklin, Joseph Black, Carl Scheele, John Dalton, Antione Lavoisier, Charles Lyell, Allesandro Volta, Michael Faraday and Joseph Priestley.

[daNDayati]

@DisprovingEvolution and I chose to study close to Darwin's digs.. University of Cambridge.. if you are relying on a search engine for your research that might explain how you have been mislead.. and (to correct your phylogeny) we are all technically apes..

(by the by.. what does tsk mean?)

[DisprovingEvolution]

@daNDayati

Actually junior, Darwin died in 1882. Therefore he could have easily have gotten a degree in one of the fields of science that many of his colleagues had.

You say science degrees werent given out until 1860. That means (according to your date) Darwin had 22 years to get a "degree" in ANY science and failed to do so. The man was a hack.

Now, go watch this video about why the theory of evolution is more RELIGION than science....

/watch?v=MpGsPZUsv4E

[daNDayati]

@DisprovingEvolution a youtube vid regarding evolution being a religion?.. you have issues that go beyond this curious obsession of yours.. are you attacking science because you don't understand the principles of science? do you have qualms about other scientific theories like germ, or atomic, or gravitational, or cosmological.. (quantum?) or is this a religious thing? (evangelical? baptist? mormon? muslim?) they all seem to have issues with evolution.

[DisprovingEvolution]

@daNDayati

I prefer REAL science over anti-science (aka evolution)

Saying "evolution done it" is not a coherent or logical argument. Never has been, never will be.

DNA didnt design itself, just like computer chips and binary code doesnt design itself (both very similar to DNA)

Rather ironic you evo-boys accept design in the following (art, music, books, architecture, sculpture, computer chips, jets, lasers, machines, clothes, and 99% of everything) accept for biological machines. Hypocrisy

[daNDayati]

@DisprovingEvolution you are going to have to better defining REAL science as scientific method rules them all. You will have to show where the method fails.. that, after all, is what validates a theory.. and evolution has been validated through more than one hundred thousand peer reviewed papers.. and the boys (and girls) of the NAS and 90 or more other scientific societies also back the theories findings..

[daNDayati]

@DisprovingEvolution and this design "watchmaker" obsession of yours.. we keep on repeating... it is not a tenable argument.. and by the way.. evolution is not just biological.. it is also cosmological.. and in physics.. which part is anti-science.. and when I show you that oil companies use evolutionary science.. your reaction is to just ignore.. Hypocrisy is not produced through the scientific method... take a few deep breaths.. and think..

[DisprovingEvolution]

@daNDayati

Wow, you're WRONG on so many different issues its hard to take you seriously.

No kid, the 4 fundamental forces and atoms (which are LESS complex than DNA by the way) didnt magically make themselves

Nothing can make itself. Everything in OBSERVED science (something evo-heads cant understand) has a cause and effect

Atoms produce physicality (this 3rd dimension) by producing length, width, and depth. The ONLY thing that dosent contain atoms is energy. Energy is eternal and the cause

[DisprovingEvolution]

@daNDayati

Further destroying your inept and UNscientific arguments is the FACT that this 3rd dimension (which is an illusion that is created with atoms) has LAWS that cant be broken.

The Laws of Physics (the laws that govern this 3 dimensional game we call "life") didnt make itself.

The Laws of Physics are "rules" made by the Gamemaker. The 4 Fundamental Forces (gravity, electromagnetism, and the 2 nuclear forces) didnt just happen by a magical accident.

Understand junior?

[daNDayati]

@DisprovingEvolution oh cool.. the anthropic principle.. (you do know how you use your wiki! or was it the Huffington Post?).. if you had read further you would have seen Roger Penrose state: "it tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts." Your Gish Gallop style of argumentation of throwing out half baked theories pseudo scientific theories, misrepresentations, falsities and out-right lies is..well.. expected.

[evoTARDSareINSANE]

@daNDayati = believes atoms, molecules, and the 4 fundamental forces "magically" made themselves

Hypocrisy much?

How bout you focus on finding that mythical "ape-man shared ancestor" that magically caused the polar opposite (and contradictory) "evolution" of Chimpanzees and early humans. Talk about a fairytale. You evo-religious zealots are hypocritical little twits that I wouldnt even call "pseudo-intellectuals"

Tsk, tsk (finger waving)

[1GodOnlyOne]

They believe that bats evolved from some other creature, but they have absolutely no evidence for that personal belief.

The darwinists are "batty!"

By the way, did you hear the news that atheist Hitchens died earlier today?

[daNDayati]

@1GodOnlyOne plenty of evidence that they actually evolved.. you have to look .. and read, re: "Primitive Early Eocene Bats from Wyoming and the evolution of flight and echolocation "Nature: 451, 818-821 (14 February 2008)..you would think that there is a positive correlation between illiteracy and religious belief.. who knows? by the way I liked the "batty" comment.. cute. and why did you lie about Hitchens? Makes sense. The religious "make stuff up" to compensate for unfounded beliefs.

[oldkingcole1313]

please read these posts from bottom up...

[oldkingcole1313]

3.The Lord said, ‘Let there be…’. Only an irrational man can come up with any other reasoning. God Created the Universe and Everything in it. This includes plants, animals and human beings.

FYI - (the correct answer is #3)

[oldkingcole1313]

2.‘Something from Nothing’. A belief, even a religion that in itself proclaimed that ‘from non-living substances, living substances can evolve.' This was buried by Louis Pasture in the middle 1800’s. The ‘Big Bang’ theory claims that nothing exploded and formed everything…and carried to it’s final end, man and animals, living things, evolved. ‘Something from Nothing’ cannot occur.

[daNDayati]

@oldkingcole1313 To quote a great mind in the face of religious bigotry .. "Eppur si muove" .. Yes something can come from apparently nothing.. to keep this simple... in the vernacular.. just because you can understand how it works does not mean it doesn't work.. Get you nose out of the bible long enough to read some Stephen Hawking; The Grand Design.. open your horizons..

[oldkingcole1313]

1. Everything was not always here because we see evidence of everything running down. It is a fact that all scientists agree upon. It is defined in the Second law of thermodynamics.

[pilgrimpater]

@oldkingcole1313 "It is defined in the Second law of thermodynamics."

In that case you could never have been born. Please, when will you creationists make the effort to understand what you are talking about rathere than parrot non scientific creation propoganda sites?

[oldkingcole1313]

There have been NO missing links found of any animals. There are only 3 possibilities of the origins of the universe.

1. Everything was always here

2. There was a Big Bang

3. Everything was Created supernaturally by God

[insanewarlock616]

Lack of evidence does not speak against anyone, is absence of evidence an evidence of absence?

[pennifold]

This is ridiculous. Bats as we know them showed up in the Eocene and probably evolved from gliding mammals similar to a tree shrew or a flying fox, neither of which has powered wings. We have fossil record of evolving echolocation and flying habits. Where are you getting these "scientists"?

[htfan199]

hmmm probably bats evolved from flying squirells :D

[FiverBeyond]

This video is simply dishonest, if anything for the fact that they fail to mention Onychonycteris, which shows a clear not-fully-developed ear, as well as distinctly more land-like legs, feet, tail, and claws.

[LSUGotTheBoom]

@FiverBeyond what bat is in the fossil? And did the Onychonycteris have wings?

[FiverBeyond]

@LSUGotTheBoom

Yes, Onychonycteris did still have its wings, but they weren't as fully formed as modern bats: it's the perfect "half-way point" that you could ask for in bat fossils, and you would think that these men would have heard of it. But to pretend that there have been no transitional bat fossils found at all... that's just turning their back on all evidence.