When chromosome numbers were discovered in 1905-1910, it proved the origin of every species was the first male and female with the species' chromosomes.
It took about 30 years for Neo-Darwinism to claim that inbreeding chromosomal mutants could displace the unmutated. Evolution then became a religion based on biological absurdities.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
@Mogley52 umm, common genetics just means some mechanism happen to work very well. "one thing different and..." well yeah, hence why they died out, just like a sports team missing one goal and getting kicked out of the play-offs, doesn't mean "god dun it". Mutation happens all the time, positive ones live on negative ones die. Basically ur comments mean you don't understand evolution or most atheists position for that matter. Sorry to point that out.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Stw 573 belonged to a species of Australopithecus, but it belongs to its own species, and an earlier one at that. And it only proves our points: here you have a slightly opposable big toes - on a foot built for walking upright (and not opposable to the extent of the genus Pan) - along with other members of the SAME GENUS who do not have opposable toes at all.
Well, that's not working, either. It appears characters are being altered when a URL is typed into the message post. Just do a Google image search for 'chimpanzee hip bone' and view the second image.
You realize that if this represented 6000 years there would be ridiculous un-missable differences of bone structure from any parent to child. it would assume that all humans grew in population at the same time they evolved in a uniform way. meaning every offspring had the same evolution regardless of their environment. And why would evolution start at that point and stop after 6000 years. If you fail to see how illogical your words are there is no hope for you. dont procreate
one second =125,000 years this video runs about four minutes or 240 seconds. That is about 30 million years. some how I don't think you present an accurate representation of what human like skulls looked like 30 million years ago. However, who cares, you make this stuff up anyway. Good video.
@mejc2 A generation is approx. 22 years. 500 generations per second equals 11,000 years per second. Multiply that by 240 and you get 2.64 million years (not 30 million years). The various species of Australopithecus lived from 4 million to 2 million years ago, approximately.
considering that australopithicus was a knuckle walking ape, to believe that it changed from ape to human in only 120,000 generations is very far fetched. we have observed bacteria in longitudinal studies for over 40,000 generations. They are still bacteria.
@mejc2 Australopithecus was not 'knuckle walking'. As soon as our ancestors left the trees, they walked upright. Even a chimpanzee can walk upright if it wants to.
Also, humans are classified as apes. Apes didn't become humans. Apes are still apes - it's just that some of them are us. Not only is the genus Pan our closest relatives, but we are the closest relatives to the genus Pan (Chimpanzees and Bonobos). You should read up on evolution. You don't seem to understand the concept at all.
It is my understanding that makes me know that the evolution displayed in this video is an illusion. Australopithecus had the wrist bones of a knuckle walker, the hips of a knuckle walker, and feet with opposable big toe. Those are facts. Now maybe you can deliver some stories to appose those facts. Why do you think that Australopithecus was not a knuckle walking ape. Also, according to your logic all creatures are just living organisms in various stages of accidental changing.
@mejc2 Evolution doesn't produce "accidents." Accident implies there was originally some sort of intent that was strayed from. Evolution doesn't operate on intent, it operates on selective pressures such as natural selection or sexual selection, and even genetic drift to some degree.
@mejc2 As for this video being an "illusion," I think you are misunderstanding the intent of this video. This video doesn't show direct evolutionary stages. What you are seeing are highly-related skulls, more of a "great grandparent, cousin, aunt, brother" progression than a "grandfather, father, us" progressions. As it says in the info box, this isn't meant to show direct lineage, but rather a showcase of how macro events occur in micro changes. Every frame is possible within the previous.
@mejc2 Wrist bones do not determine upright walking. If an organism chooses to walk upright, its wrist bones are not going to evolve to the changes brought about by the new mode of travel until later. This is pretty basic common sense. You're also wrong about the hips. Homo and Australopithecus hips are very similar, and are indicative of walking upright. Image comparison:
How cute. You take the skull of an ape and show how it resembles that of man. Why don't you show the inner ear canal that allows men to walk upright and apes not so much. how about showing the feet of apes that resemble hands and stay that way all through the fossil record. Nah stick with the skull it really is better for supporting the fairy tale.
Ace video, does it start off with an australopithecine? How does it look like the same specimen all the way throughout? I reckon you should also do a version with a time strip, showing the passage of time, and another side-bar doing the various species names. I also really liked the music.
Excellent Video. Hopefully people get the message without too much bickering over subjects not pertaining to the video. Darwin would be smiling if he saw this.
I have never seen an animation of the skulls like this, but the jaw going from the simian shelf to the outside buttress; the brain case growing, the nose bones growing, the back of the mandible shrinking, the shifting of teeth, the shrinking of the K-9's, the expanding of the front of the skull for the cerebral cortex even the balance of the occipital condoles to work with the shape of the skull, COOL! I am sending this to friends!
@RavenBlaze AA in psychology and currently going for biomedical technology. I figured you were pre-med with all the lingo you used. My psych education did nothing more than make me think I knew what people were thinking. I didn't. Best of luck to you.
@brianwurst1234 actually in my AA in art I took a basic anthropology course to complete my natural science series, then when I transfered to a bigger school for my BA I had to take another science so I took " the geologic history of humans" which was basically another anthro course and I took a cultural anthro course to fill in some gaps, and I figured "hey my degree is about people" understanding our evolution seemed to fit in perfectly as my sciences.
@RavenBlaze I sort of went to college the first time because I had to, mom told me so, and now I hope to get it right! Cool channel btw, I support my big brother. He's got him a boy friend;)
How come its always the "flat faced and no canine" type that is the "spokes man" for Homo Sapiens? I have canines that are of the same size, compared to the skull size, as the gorilla for exemple. There are many Sapiens that have more prominent jaws. Is it because we consider these characteristics ape like?
He explains the facts that both creationists and evolutionists go by, he just shows how they interpret the information through their own 'glasses' per say, and goes on to discuss natural selection and mutations, and the misinterpretations people have considering the simple sciences of these subjects that simply cannot be refuted, whether on a cellular level, or a logical level. Just give it a chance before you bash it, I always give others a chance.
@skatergimpff8 first of all, mutations have not "always shown a loss of information." This is a misconception that is easily researched, and you can do so by first understanding that mutations are insertions, deletions and re-arrangements. By this very definition every mutation is not a "loss of information."
Second of all, you haven't given anything a chance. I've recommended you many resources and you've viewed none of them. I have seen that Ken Ham video, and likely as many as you.
@skatergimpff8 It's so easy to dismiss Ken Ham, skatergimpff8, because he makes extremely common misconceptions about science. He does this because his belief is that of a biblical literalist, not merely a believer but a literalist. And because of his literalistic interpretations he finds conflicts with evolution and his faith that other people don't have a problem with, so he comes up with excuses and misrepresents science because to him the ends justify the means.
@skatergimpff8 you need to stop getting your science from guys like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. It only takes two seconds to search anywhere, even here on youtube, to find out how demonstratively wrong guys and dishonest guys like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are on all matters of Science.
I believe I did not say anything about Kent Hovind, please don't relate for me, let my words do that, and I do not need your advice on what I should and shouldn't do, I am simply asking people to have an open mind and watch this simply for the sake of open-mindedness. There is no dishonesty here, sir, this video I am referring is simple facts, nothing else, and there is no refuting his logic. He kills evolution with simplicity in less than an hour.
@skatergimpff8 I'm watching the video series I believe you were trying to link me to right now. I'm only two minutes in but I've paused it and I want you to do as I've done and take the time to watch a video I recommend. You don't have to do it in one sitting but please do so.
The video series you just recommended has already made a very common mistake in regards to "chance." So I feel it is appropriate that you search on youtube "Ep3: Climbing Mount Improbable"
Just as many evolutionists claim creationists are ignorant on the subject and have misinterpretations of what evolution is, I would like you all to see what evolutionists misinterpret about creationists, and if you won't take the time out of your day to have an open mind, then please don't bother trying to make an arguement with me with a closed mind. I am done here, I would just like people to give this video a chance, watch it with an open mind and an unbiased opinion. God Bless!
Hey man, I completely agree, it is just another segment of the world power's agenda to move people away from Christ and to unite the people and have them live under their ways. I now realize debating with these people is worthless, don't throw pearls to swine. I'm done here, but amishron, thanks for being one of the few to back me up. God Bless and good luck!
@skatergimpff8 I'm not sure how you can call it useless. I've been extremely cordial with you, have offered to answer any of your questions, have already corrected some small misconceptions and referred you to quality videos for reference.
I'm not sure what to say if you call that worthless. All I've tried to do is kindly answer your questions and criticisms and provide you with a means to better educate yourself.
@amishron61 it does still go on today. Question was there nylon before 1920? Well guess what they found in 1970... bacteria that eats nylon! Also if evolution was not real, why do some anti-biotics that worked 10 years ago not work so well now?
Why, you ask? Because the educational system is hacking away at Christianity and forcing children to study/pass/believe in the theory of evolution. Many people believe it, even though all of the supposed 'transitional' fossils have been found to be a misunderstanding of what they really were. Dawkins himself, the godfather of Evolution, couldn't give a single example of evolution in it's works, even on the smallest scale. I just don't understand why a theory is a required course!! God Bless.
@skatergimpff8 First of all, Evolution is not an alternative to Christianity. Evolution is a scientific fact, and there are many Christians that accept it for that reason.
Second of all, Charles Darwin lived 150 years ago. He lived before mendelian genetics. To act as if a scientific theory's credibility lies on its founders understanding is ludicrous. Science is based on the most up to date understanding, not what people thought 200 years ago.
Well, sir, I believe you are not as intelligent or informed as you'd like people to believe. If you actually read my post, I said Dawkins, not Darwin. Please read a post before picking out fragments to harp on. I would sure like to know who accepts it as fact, and on what basis. What solid proof have we discovered that has made the change from it being a theory to it being a fact? There is a supposed 300 million years of time available for scientists to study, yet nothing groundbreaking?
@skatergimpff8 I'm sorry you are right, you did say Dawkins and not Darwin. That's my mistake, I thought you said grandfather of evolution, and not godfather. My apologies.
However, I don't believe you understood very well what I just said to you. You want to know when the theory of evolution will become a fact... I'm telling you, I've told you, theories and facts in science are not in opposition to eachother. Cell Theory never becomes Cell Fact. Theories ARE MADE UP OF facts.
@skatergimpff8 Evolution, much like gravity, is both a theory and a fact.
That gravity occurs is a fact, this is not seriously debated by anyone. However, general relativity is the scientific theory that explains how this fact occurs.
The same is true with evolution. That evolution occurs, that things evolve is a scientific fact. Natural Selection, sexual selection and the like are the scientific explanations as to why this fact occurs. It is the mechanism.
@skatergimpff8 I want you to YouTube search "Evolution Misconceptions" and the first video you should see is called "Evolution" by QualiaSoup. I want you to watch that, as I think it will help clear up some common misconceptions I think you might have. If you have any questions afterward, I would encourage you to PM me to see if I can't help you out.
@deRoyLight Please answer the questions I asked you, don't refer me to some video. I am not the smartest man on this planet, but I understand there is intelligent design. Evolutionists MUST believe in Abiogenesis, because they don't believe in an intelligent creator. I am saying this because Christianity goes by the Bible, which clearly states God made Man, the end, so don't tell me Christianity goes hand in hand with evolution. If a Christian believes in Evolution, he is not a Christian.
@skatergimpff8 skatergimpf88. I already answered your questions mate. I referred you to the Evolution Misconceptions video because it is a very simple video that will help clear up any common misconceptions you might have.
"Evolutionists" do not have to believe in abiogenesis. Please if you would have watched the video I told you to look up you would know this. Please watch the video.
"Evolutionists MUST believe in Abiogenesis, because they don't believe in an intelligent creator."
-
No. They are two different facts and theories.
"If a Christian believes in Evolution, he is not a Christian."
-
You do understand that creationists make only a small amount of people on the earth, right? Orthodox and Catholic christiand DO accept evolution as a fact, since denying it would either imply ignorance or willful ignorance. The first one is no longer an excuse, and the second one... :D
@justforflag2 True but what I dont understand is how catholic can dismissed the stories in genisis an a methpot ( or not literial) and then take it literially went Jesus said this is my body - ( they belive the communion wafers literally turn into the body of christ)
"Dawkins himself, the godfather of Evolution, couldn't give a single example of evolution in it's works, even on the smallest scale."
Uh, Dawkins wrote an entire book about the evidence for evolution. Its called "The Greatest Show On Earth:The Evidence for Evolution" Its fascinating. So I am at a loss as to how you can make that statement.
For your information, evolution is just a theory & it is just that, nothing more. It is hypothetical that man came frome monkey. Well if he did then it would still be going on today. Nothing of evolution is true. So for you dimwits that believe this shit, you must have crawled out from under a rock.
@amishron61 This is exactly what I meant. Evolution doesn't say that man came from monkey. It's that kind of lack of understanding of science that I was talking about when I first addressed you.
Search on youtube "Evolution Misconceptions" the first video you should see should be called "Evolution" by user QualiaSoup. It should help clear up some of the obvious common misconceptions you have.
Thanks for being one of the few to back me up, man, it's nice to see i'm not the only one, although unfortunately the crowd is dwindling, it saddens me, truly. God Bless
@skatergimpff8 It took the church centuries to finally admit they were wrong about everything revloving around the earth. It will probably take them a few more centuries to finally acknowledge evoultion
The only plausible form of evolution is microevolution, which would have taken millions of years. If that is the case, our ancestors would have eased into recording history at the LEAST, 5 million years ago, and that is being very lenient, they probably would have long before that. But my point is, why is there no recorded history from before, 5,000-10,000 BC. Not a single piece? That seems kind of odd..Evolution is just a THEORY, why after such strenuous years of study can it not be proven LAW?
@skatergimpff8 Skatergimpff8... I don't think you understand what theory means in Science. A theory in Science is the highest form of explanation. Theories never become laws in Science, that's not how it works. Cell theory is "just a theory," germ theory is "just a theory," atomic theory is "just a theory." None of these things are ever called laws. Even general relativity is "just a theory." A theory in Science means an explanation well-supported by the evidence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The logical problem with this video is that the same metamorphosis can be done with any skull of any species and eventually turned into a human skull. Skull morphology is only 1 of tens of thousands of modifications that would need to occur throughout the body to go from gibbon (Australopithecus) to man. This makes this video rather wonderfully deceptive.
I did, and yet it remains a valid counter for the reason that I stated: That you are oversimplifying the issue. You are focused solely on the morphology of a single body part, so you have ignored the morphology of the rest of the body as well as the many chemical process changes, such humans losing the ability to synthesize proteins from vegetative matter, which is a disadvantage, transitioning from brown muscle tissue to red and white muscle tissue, which is an evolutionary disadvantage, etc.
This video isn't meant to "prove" evolution. Evolution is not seriously questioned in the scientific world at this point, it's merely a matter of discovering all the mechanisms. This is just to help someone understand how it is small changes, when compounded, can make drastic results. Each frame is within the natural realm of the previous frame. At no point can you stop and say "ok, an invisible line will tell natural selection to stop working."
You also misunderstand evolution slightly when you mention things that are advantageous, that disappear or become vestigial.
Evolution isn't about what is advantageous, it is about what best helps someone survive (and ultimately) reproduce. So for example while it may be more beneficial to have an appendix than not, it still consumes energy to sustain. This is why some birds have wings but can't fly anymore. The need to fly was lessened and it wasn't worth more than the energy it cost.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Evolution isn't about what is advantageous, it is about what best helps someone survive (and ultimately) reproduce"
That is the very definition of advantageous in the biological sense. For example, the reason there are no herbivores that have broken protein synthesis genes is because it is 100% fatal. This scientific observation says that such a mutation, which humans would have required, would have killed off all of our progenitors. Biochemistry prevents evolution.
I think i explained myself well enough when I expounded on what was meant by advantageous.
Evolution is unconscious. It is guided largely by natural (and sexual) selection. A bird for example doesn't decide beforehand that it wings will be useful later on. If there is no selective pressure to keep their wings, then all the wings are is a burden on your energy, and slowly but surely the wings become less and less burdening (fuctional), until eventually you have something like the dodo.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
When I called it a gibbon. That should be obvious. It is a gibbon that is mislabeled as a different genus. It happens all the time. for example, dogs were labeled "canis familiaris" for over a hundred years before getting properly labeled "canis lupus" relatively recently.
That's a different species, not a different genus. The first latin word this the life form's genus, the second is it's species. Dogs are still genus "canis" with wolves, jackels and coyotes.
And that disproves my assertion that scientists misclassify animals how? Especially when you take teh time to consider the fact that red wolves were moved out of genus canis around tweh sae time that dogs were moved into species lupus?
Serously man, you need to quit acting like scientists are infallible, all-knowing, godlike creatures and just acknowledge that they make classification errors. Your current tack just makes you look ignorant.
I never said scientists are infallible, the only people I ever met who claimed that are theologians. I am not a scientist, so I might not fully understand anything, but scientists devote their lives to learning everything they can about their field. So, they make mistakes less often then I do.
taxonomy is something we use to classify animals based on their characteristics, it is a human system of classification imposed on nature. it's hard to get something WRONG when your only using it for classification
Excellent concept, but hideous execution. Was the maddeningly terrible music and stupid "Macro/Polo" text *really* necessary? 3 stars, would've been 5.
Obviously these are not necessarily the way in which the changes took place but this makes the point beautifully and NephilmFree really needs to take this on board in his ridiculous "morphology" arguments. Best analogy i have heard is from Nykytyn2. Look in the mirror every day and, hangovers apart, you see absolutely no change whatsoever but look at a photo of you as a two year old .........
Wow! DeRoyLight....you really have outdone yourself. I am one of your first subscribers, and I say that with pride. You have such incredible talent, not only in video, and humor. You are also incredible in your responses to your opposition. I have to say I enjoyed reading your responses on this video, than I have enjoyed watch all of Thunderf00t's videos w. Ray Comfort. You should totally try to turn this into something profitable. I would be willing to donate to your talent! Keep it up!
I love these pathetic FANTASY videos the Evolutionist morons have to create in order to attempt to bolster their pathetic ideas because of the absolute and utter LACK and ABSENCE of transitional forms in the fossil record. If it weren't for the fact that they get away with this bullshit each and every day without much serious scientific challenge it would actually be hilarious. Instead, it's sickening in the extreme.
You're really smart :-). Ever heard of down syndrome? That's a change in the gene from the parent to the child that is a mutation that does dramatically "change" a human. So why can't other "changes" take place huh?
@TheChasty: That's not exactly a mutation, that's an example of polyploidy, an extra chromosome (more accurately a meiotic nondisjunction event). And all the problems and benefits that entails. While trisomy 21 gives rise to Down's it also seems to confer resistance to tumors of all types. But you are correct that many other changes take place during replication of the genome. Substitutions, duplications, and translocations, oh my.
actually you do. you are still a monkey. you are still an ape. you are still a mammal, and a vertebrate. you are all of the categories in taxonomy above species as well as species.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't believe that religion has all the answers but I am convinced that Darwin was wrong. Sure, the obvious Facts such as survival of the fittest etc, but science has still been unable to find the missing link. That is because there is no link. No, I don't even pretend to know the answer but I know that no one person or scientific movement has provided anything but Theories. If you have facts I will listen, but keep your misguided rhetoric to your self.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why is it that your first response to me or anyone on this thread comes with a defensive tone? Neither of you so called know-it-all's have come up with any FACTs. What a stupid response (humans took millions of years.) Infinit888 and ZoeMarks don' t really want to have a civil discussion they want to pontificate and act like stupid kids who want to appear smart. Since you have both failed you have lost privileges to communicate with me. Grow up. Responses to me are considered spam and unread
You know... I'm actually being quite nice with you. I refuse to believe that you are that stupid as to not understand what a scientific theory really is and what it isn't. Thus I rationalize that you must be willfully ignorant.
Facts? I told you to go look up the definition of a scientific theory. Did you do that simple task? I'm trying to help you find the facts but I'm sorry I won't spoon feed them to you. You're 37 you aren't a child anymore. You need to put some effort into it.
The trouble with the stupid missing link argument is that there is no such a thing. No scientist worth his salt would say there was such a beast. You have to understand the transition from the ape-like ancestors to today's humans took millions of years. The slow transition means every generation is slightly different to the previous one.
What would a missing link look like? Monkey on the left side and human on the right?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why is it that your first response to me or anyone on this thread comes with a defensive tone? Neither of you so called know-it-all's have come up with any FACTs. What a stupid response (humans took millions of years.) Infinit888 and ZoeMarks don' t really want to have a civil discussion they want to pontificate and act like stupid kids who want to appear smart. Since you have both failed you have lost privileges to communicate with me. Grow up. Responses to me are considered spam and unread
the sphinx has erosion marks that can only have been created by rain over thousands of years. Giza has been a desert since the days of the first dynasties of Egypt. The date of 10,000 BC is actually quite appropiate, because the sphinx, aligned due east, would have been pointing directly at the constellation Leo.
However this has nothing to do with evolution, but rather with the accuracy of our relatively recent historical record.
umm i'm sorry but i'm a christion and i don't find this wrong or anything but according to this guy in about 1000 years our spinal cord will be connected to our chin
wtf? You obviously have no understanding of evolution. The changes depicted here had evolutionary purpose. A negative evolutionary pressure would clearly be applied well before our spinal cord connects to our chin, as such a design would not be very effective for survival, would it? Just another dumb kid commenting about things he clearly knows nothing about.
in there god says that there are too many stars in the sky to count.
that means the bible is real, because back then they thought they could sit down at night and count the stars, but as we progressed scientifically we found that there really is too many to count. some things in the bible go hand in hand with science. obviously not all though. in case you're wondering, i'm a christian
Can't anyone see there are too many stars to count by... trying to count them? Counting predates any major modern religion. And yes, modern means recent. But science, as in discovery or logic itself began before man was even here to define it.
When chromosome numbers were discovered in 1905-1910, it proved the origin of every species was the first male and female with the species' chromosomes.
It took about 30 years for Neo-Darwinism to claim that inbreeding chromosomal mutants could displace the unmutated. Evolution then became a religion based on biological absurdities.
Mdebacle 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 month ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 1 month ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 1 month ago
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
Mogley52 1 month ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 1 month ago
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 1 month ago
@Mogley52 umm, common genetics just means some mechanism happen to work very well. "one thing different and..." well yeah, hence why they died out, just like a sports team missing one goal and getting kicked out of the play-offs, doesn't mean "god dun it". Mutation happens all the time, positive ones live on negative ones die. Basically ur comments mean you don't understand evolution or most atheists position for that matter. Sorry to point that out.
RavenBlaze 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 1 month ago
silly religitards.. they are more monkey than the monkey.
SuperDelusionist 5 months ago
Stw 573 belonged to a species of Australopithecus, but it belongs to its own species, and an earlier one at that. And it only proves our points: here you have a slightly opposable big toes - on a foot built for walking upright (and not opposable to the extent of the genus Pan) - along with other members of the SAME GENUS who do not have opposable toes at all.
cyclonus11 9 months ago
Well, that's not working, either. It appears characters are being altered when a URL is typed into the message post. Just do a Google image search for 'chimpanzee hip bone' and view the second image.
cyclonus11 9 months ago
There was an issue with the URL. Use this one.
anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/pelvis_and_feet.gif
cyclonus11 9 months ago
Take that creationist! This is by far one of the best videos on You Tube!
0pnMnded 10 months ago
What's with the shit music?
djbuzzed 11 months ago
@deRoyLight
Well then, the video only represents about 6000 years. No evolution has happened since then.
mejc2 11 months ago
You realize that if this represented 6000 years there would be ridiculous un-missable differences of bone structure from any parent to child. it would assume that all humans grew in population at the same time they evolved in a uniform way. meaning every offspring had the same evolution regardless of their environment. And why would evolution start at that point and stop after 6000 years. If you fail to see how illogical your words are there is no hope for you. dont procreate
djbuzzed 11 months ago
@djbuzzed
Hey, 240 generations is about 6000 years. I didn't make the video. Don't shoot the messenger.
mejc2 11 months ago
@mejc2 The video doesn't represent 6000 years. The average lifespan used is not reflective of today's average life span, obviously.
deRoyLight 11 months ago
@deRoyLight
OH so what lifespan does the video use a a basis?
mejc2 11 months ago
one second =125,000 years this video runs about four minutes or 240 seconds. That is about 30 million years. some how I don't think you present an accurate representation of what human like skulls looked like 30 million years ago. However, who cares, you make this stuff up anyway. Good video.
mejc2 11 months ago
@mejc2 A generation is approx. 22 years. 500 generations per second equals 11,000 years per second. Multiply that by 240 and you get 2.64 million years (not 30 million years). The various species of Australopithecus lived from 4 million to 2 million years ago, approximately.
So no, this video is not far fetched.
cyclonus11 9 months ago
@cyclonus11
considering that australopithicus was a knuckle walking ape, to believe that it changed from ape to human in only 120,000 generations is very far fetched. we have observed bacteria in longitudinal studies for over 40,000 generations. They are still bacteria.
mejc2 9 months ago
@mejc2 Australopithecus was not 'knuckle walking'. As soon as our ancestors left the trees, they walked upright. Even a chimpanzee can walk upright if it wants to.
Also, humans are classified as apes. Apes didn't become humans. Apes are still apes - it's just that some of them are us. Not only is the genus Pan our closest relatives, but we are the closest relatives to the genus Pan (Chimpanzees and Bonobos). You should read up on evolution. You don't seem to understand the concept at all.
cyclonus11 9 months ago
@cyclonus11
It is my understanding that makes me know that the evolution displayed in this video is an illusion. Australopithecus had the wrist bones of a knuckle walker, the hips of a knuckle walker, and feet with opposable big toe. Those are facts. Now maybe you can deliver some stories to appose those facts. Why do you think that Australopithecus was not a knuckle walking ape. Also, according to your logic all creatures are just living organisms in various stages of accidental changing.
mejc2 9 months ago
@mejc2 Evolution doesn't produce "accidents." Accident implies there was originally some sort of intent that was strayed from. Evolution doesn't operate on intent, it operates on selective pressures such as natural selection or sexual selection, and even genetic drift to some degree.
deRoyLight 9 months ago
@mejc2 As for this video being an "illusion," I think you are misunderstanding the intent of this video. This video doesn't show direct evolutionary stages. What you are seeing are highly-related skulls, more of a "great grandparent, cousin, aunt, brother" progression than a "grandfather, father, us" progressions. As it says in the info box, this isn't meant to show direct lineage, but rather a showcase of how macro events occur in micro changes. Every frame is possible within the previous.
deRoyLight 9 months ago
@mejc2 Wrist bones do not determine upright walking. If an organism chooses to walk upright, its wrist bones are not going to evolve to the changes brought about by the new mode of travel until later. This is pretty basic common sense. You're also wrong about the hips. Homo and Australopithecus hips are very similar, and are indicative of walking upright. Image comparison:
anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/pelvis_and_feet.gif
cyclonus11 9 months ago
@mejc2 The image I linked also shows that you're wrong about the 'opposable big toe', by the way.
cyclonus11 9 months ago
@cyclonus11
fossil find stw 573
mejc2 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cyclonus11
fossil find stw 573
mejc2 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How cute. You take the skull of an ape and show how it resembles that of man. Why don't you show the inner ear canal that allows men to walk upright and apes not so much. how about showing the feet of apes that resemble hands and stay that way all through the fossil record. Nah stick with the skull it really is better for supporting the fairy tale.
mejc2 1 year ago
this song is amazing, goes perfectly with the message
Biankito 1 year ago
Ace video, does it start off with an australopithecine? How does it look like the same specimen all the way throughout? I reckon you should also do a version with a time strip, showing the passage of time, and another side-bar doing the various species names. I also really liked the music.
themanamp 1 year ago
Excellent Video. Hopefully people get the message without too much bickering over subjects not pertaining to the video. Darwin would be smiling if he saw this.
brewerbrian420 1 year ago
CHEESY AMERICAN MUSIC..
mumpump 1 year ago
I have never seen an animation of the skulls like this, but the jaw going from the simian shelf to the outside buttress; the brain case growing, the nose bones growing, the back of the mandible shrinking, the shifting of teeth, the shrinking of the K-9's, the expanding of the front of the skull for the cerebral cortex even the balance of the occipital condoles to work with the shape of the skull, COOL! I am sending this to friends!
RavenBlaze 1 year ago
@RavenBlaze Pre-Med? Internship? Residency?
brianwurst1234 1 year ago
@brianwurst1234 BA in psychology, associates in art. you?
RavenBlaze 1 year ago
@RavenBlaze AA in psychology and currently going for biomedical technology. I figured you were pre-med with all the lingo you used. My psych education did nothing more than make me think I knew what people were thinking. I didn't. Best of luck to you.
brianwurst1234 1 year ago
@brianwurst1234 actually in my AA in art I took a basic anthropology course to complete my natural science series, then when I transfered to a bigger school for my BA I had to take another science so I took " the geologic history of humans" which was basically another anthro course and I took a cultural anthro course to fill in some gaps, and I figured "hey my degree is about people" understanding our evolution seemed to fit in perfectly as my sciences.
RavenBlaze 1 year ago
@RavenBlaze I sort of went to college the first time because I had to, mom told me so, and now I hope to get it right! Cool channel btw, I support my big brother. He's got him a boy friend;)
brianwurst1234 1 year ago
How come its always the "flat faced and no canine" type that is the "spokes man" for Homo Sapiens? I have canines that are of the same size, compared to the skull size, as the gorilla for exemple. There are many Sapiens that have more prominent jaws. Is it because we consider these characteristics ape like?
MidwinterSon 1 year ago
He explains the facts that both creationists and evolutionists go by, he just shows how they interpret the information through their own 'glasses' per say, and goes on to discuss natural selection and mutations, and the misinterpretations people have considering the simple sciences of these subjects that simply cannot be refuted, whether on a cellular level, or a logical level. Just give it a chance before you bash it, I always give others a chance.
skatergimpff8 2 years ago
@skatergimpff8 first of all, mutations have not "always shown a loss of information." This is a misconception that is easily researched, and you can do so by first understanding that mutations are insertions, deletions and re-arrangements. By this very definition every mutation is not a "loss of information."
Second of all, you haven't given anything a chance. I've recommended you many resources and you've viewed none of them. I have seen that Ken Ham video, and likely as many as you.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
@skatergimpff8 It's so easy to dismiss Ken Ham, skatergimpff8, because he makes extremely common misconceptions about science. He does this because his belief is that of a biblical literalist, not merely a believer but a literalist. And because of his literalistic interpretations he finds conflicts with evolution and his faith that other people don't have a problem with, so he comes up with excuses and misrepresents science because to him the ends justify the means.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
@skatergimpff8 yeah but giving creationist a chance is like giving "flat earth theory" or "Stork theory" a chance
badpanda84 1 year ago
Ken Ham - Where Did God Come From
skatergimpff8 2 years ago
@skatergimpff8 you need to stop getting your science from guys like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. It only takes two seconds to search anywhere, even here on youtube, to find out how demonstratively wrong guys and dishonest guys like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are on all matters of Science.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
I believe I did not say anything about Kent Hovind, please don't relate for me, let my words do that, and I do not need your advice on what I should and shouldn't do, I am simply asking people to have an open mind and watch this simply for the sake of open-mindedness. There is no dishonesty here, sir, this video I am referring is simple facts, nothing else, and there is no refuting his logic. He kills evolution with simplicity in less than an hour.
/user/TruthPurposeLife#p/f/4/nQUIx2mzt3A
skatergimpff8 2 years ago
@skatergimpff8 I'm watching the video series I believe you were trying to link me to right now. I'm only two minutes in but I've paused it and I want you to do as I've done and take the time to watch a video I recommend. You don't have to do it in one sitting but please do so.
The video series you just recommended has already made a very common mistake in regards to "chance." So I feel it is appropriate that you search on youtube "Ep3: Climbing Mount Improbable"
It should be very useful to you
deRoyLight 2 years ago
@skatergimpff8 There IS refuting that logic. Claiming it isn't possible by default but claiming you have an 'open mind' IS dishonest.
Iced1992 1 year ago
Comment removed
skatergimpff8 2 years ago
This isn't in response specifically to that one but merely a point by point refutation of another of Ken Hams distortion filled "lectures"
He is a notorious fibber:
watch?v=arMGLixFse4
GallusSapien 2 years ago 3
It's on 'TruePurposeLife''s channel. Please watch it, for some reason it is not letting me post any comments.
skatergimpff8 2 years ago
amishron61,
You don't know what a scientific theory is, do you?
OutlawGrrl 2 years ago 5
Just as many evolutionists claim creationists are ignorant on the subject and have misinterpretations of what evolution is, I would like you all to see what evolutionists misinterpret about creationists, and if you won't take the time out of your day to have an open mind, then please don't bother trying to make an arguement with me with a closed mind. I am done here, I would just like people to give this video a chance, watch it with an open mind and an unbiased opinion. God Bless!
skatergimpff8 2 years ago
Evolution never happened. If it had it would be still going on today. Evolution theory if a pile of crap.
amishron61 2 years ago
@amishron61 ... which is why it does still go on today.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
It does not go on today & if you think it does than you are dumber than I thought you were.
amishron61 2 years ago
@amishron61 If you don't think evolution happens today then you probably have no idea what evolution is.
deRoyLight 2 years ago 2
Hey man, I completely agree, it is just another segment of the world power's agenda to move people away from Christ and to unite the people and have them live under their ways. I now realize debating with these people is worthless, don't throw pearls to swine. I'm done here, but amishron, thanks for being one of the few to back me up. God Bless and good luck!
skatergimpff8 2 years ago
@skatergimpff8 I'm not sure how you can call it useless. I've been extremely cordial with you, have offered to answer any of your questions, have already corrected some small misconceptions and referred you to quality videos for reference.
I'm not sure what to say if you call that worthless. All I've tried to do is kindly answer your questions and criticisms and provide you with a means to better educate yourself.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
It is. It has even been observed in other species of animals.
At least, if you DO understand how evolution works.
justforflag2 1 year ago 2
@justforflag2 May be you should change your username to just for fag.
amishron61 1 year ago
@amishron61
Well, nice pun.
"Just For Flag" means that this username
was picked because there have been
false-flagging campaigns against us on
youtube.
And of course, your comment is pointless.
justforflag2 1 year ago
... maybe you should drop the whole "fag" bit. Unless you're still in high school, of course. Then carry on. Whatever makes you feel popular.
deRoyLight 1 year ago 3
@deRoyLight Maybe it makes you defensive because you are a fag. How would you like the fag word shoved up your ass?
amishron61 1 year ago
Let's not turn your own mental deficiencies into a me thing. This is about you big guy.
deRoyLight 1 year ago 5
@amishron61 it does still go on today. Question was there nylon before 1920? Well guess what they found in 1970... bacteria that eats nylon! Also if evolution was not real, why do some anti-biotics that worked 10 years ago not work so well now?
RavenBlaze 1 year ago
Why, you ask? Because the educational system is hacking away at Christianity and forcing children to study/pass/believe in the theory of evolution. Many people believe it, even though all of the supposed 'transitional' fossils have been found to be a misunderstanding of what they really were. Dawkins himself, the godfather of Evolution, couldn't give a single example of evolution in it's works, even on the smallest scale. I just don't understand why a theory is a required course!! God Bless.
skatergimpff8 2 years ago
@skatergimpff8 First of all, Evolution is not an alternative to Christianity. Evolution is a scientific fact, and there are many Christians that accept it for that reason.
Second of all, Charles Darwin lived 150 years ago. He lived before mendelian genetics. To act as if a scientific theory's credibility lies on its founders understanding is ludicrous. Science is based on the most up to date understanding, not what people thought 200 years ago.
I'm afraid you are misinformed on evolution.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
Well, sir, I believe you are not as intelligent or informed as you'd like people to believe. If you actually read my post, I said Dawkins, not Darwin. Please read a post before picking out fragments to harp on. I would sure like to know who accepts it as fact, and on what basis. What solid proof have we discovered that has made the change from it being a theory to it being a fact? There is a supposed 300 million years of time available for scientists to study, yet nothing groundbreaking?
skatergimpff8 2 years ago
@skatergimpff8 I'm sorry you are right, you did say Dawkins and not Darwin. That's my mistake, I thought you said grandfather of evolution, and not godfather. My apologies.
However, I don't believe you understood very well what I just said to you. You want to know when the theory of evolution will become a fact... I'm telling you, I've told you, theories and facts in science are not in opposition to eachother. Cell Theory never becomes Cell Fact. Theories ARE MADE UP OF facts.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
@skatergimpff8 Evolution, much like gravity, is both a theory and a fact.
That gravity occurs is a fact, this is not seriously debated by anyone. However, general relativity is the scientific theory that explains how this fact occurs.
The same is true with evolution. That evolution occurs, that things evolve is a scientific fact. Natural Selection, sexual selection and the like are the scientific explanations as to why this fact occurs. It is the mechanism.
Evolution ALREADY is a fact.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
@skatergimpff8 I want you to YouTube search "Evolution Misconceptions" and the first video you should see is called "Evolution" by QualiaSoup. I want you to watch that, as I think it will help clear up some common misconceptions I think you might have. If you have any questions afterward, I would encourage you to PM me to see if I can't help you out.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
@deRoyLight Please answer the questions I asked you, don't refer me to some video. I am not the smartest man on this planet, but I understand there is intelligent design. Evolutionists MUST believe in Abiogenesis, because they don't believe in an intelligent creator. I am saying this because Christianity goes by the Bible, which clearly states God made Man, the end, so don't tell me Christianity goes hand in hand with evolution. If a Christian believes in Evolution, he is not a Christian.
skatergimpff8 2 years ago
@skatergimpff8 skatergimpf88. I already answered your questions mate. I referred you to the Evolution Misconceptions video because it is a very simple video that will help clear up any common misconceptions you might have.
"Evolutionists" do not have to believe in abiogenesis. Please if you would have watched the video I told you to look up you would know this. Please watch the video.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
"Evolutionists MUST believe in Abiogenesis, because they don't believe in an intelligent creator."
-
No. They are two different facts and theories.
"If a Christian believes in Evolution, he is not a Christian."
-
You do understand that creationists make only a small amount of people on the earth, right? Orthodox and Catholic christiand DO accept evolution as a fact, since denying it would either imply ignorance or willful ignorance. The first one is no longer an excuse, and the second one... :D
justforflag2 1 year ago
@justforflag2 True but what I dont understand is how catholic can dismissed the stories in genisis an a methpot ( or not literial) and then take it literially went Jesus said this is my body - ( they belive the communion wafers literally turn into the body of christ)
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84
Don't remind me of that FREAKING CRACKER!
justforflag2 1 year ago
"Dawkins himself, the godfather of Evolution, couldn't give a single example of evolution in it's works, even on the smallest scale."
Uh, Dawkins wrote an entire book about the evidence for evolution. Its called "The Greatest Show On Earth:The Evidence for Evolution" Its fascinating. So I am at a loss as to how you can make that statement.
itry2brational 2 years ago 2
For your information, evolution is just a theory & it is just that, nothing more. It is hypothetical that man came frome monkey. Well if he did then it would still be going on today. Nothing of evolution is true. So for you dimwits that believe this shit, you must have crawled out from under a rock.
amishron61 2 years ago
@amishron61 This is exactly what I meant. Evolution doesn't say that man came from monkey. It's that kind of lack of understanding of science that I was talking about when I first addressed you.
Search on youtube "Evolution Misconceptions" the first video you should see should be called "Evolution" by user QualiaSoup. It should help clear up some of the obvious common misconceptions you have.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
Thanks for being one of the few to back me up, man, it's nice to see i'm not the only one, although unfortunately the crowd is dwindling, it saddens me, truly. God Bless
skatergimpff8 2 years ago
@skatergimpff8 It took the church centuries to finally admit they were wrong about everything revloving around the earth. It will probably take them a few more centuries to finally acknowledge evoultion
badpanda84 1 year ago
The only plausible form of evolution is microevolution, which would have taken millions of years. If that is the case, our ancestors would have eased into recording history at the LEAST, 5 million years ago, and that is being very lenient, they probably would have long before that. But my point is, why is there no recorded history from before, 5,000-10,000 BC. Not a single piece? That seems kind of odd..Evolution is just a THEORY, why after such strenuous years of study can it not be proven LAW?
skatergimpff8 2 years ago
@skatergimpff8 Skatergimpff8... I don't think you understand what theory means in Science. A theory in Science is the highest form of explanation. Theories never become laws in Science, that's not how it works. Cell theory is "just a theory," germ theory is "just a theory," atomic theory is "just a theory." None of these things are ever called laws. Even general relativity is "just a theory." A theory in Science means an explanation well-supported by the evidence.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
"But my point is, why is there no recorded history from before, 5,000-10,000 BC."
-
Because they couldn't write yet. This is what starts history - writing. The rest is archaeology. It's not odd, it's simple logic.
They left their bones here though.
justforflag2 1 year ago
good video.. stupid subtitles
Gadogk 2 years ago
Awesome vid! 5 stars!
0pnMnded 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is very interesting academic research...
w w w. erectus walks amongst. us /Chap9
(no spaces)
YouSmellLikePOOO 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The logical problem with this video is that the same metamorphosis can be done with any skull of any species and eventually turned into a human skull. Skull morphology is only 1 of tens of thousands of modifications that would need to occur throughout the body to go from gibbon (Australopithecus) to man. This makes this video rather wonderfully deceptive.
RavingConservative 2 years ago
Click more info on the right.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
I did, and yet it remains a valid counter for the reason that I stated: That you are oversimplifying the issue. You are focused solely on the morphology of a single body part, so you have ignored the morphology of the rest of the body as well as the many chemical process changes, such humans losing the ability to synthesize proteins from vegetative matter, which is a disadvantage, transitioning from brown muscle tissue to red and white muscle tissue, which is an evolutionary disadvantage, etc.
RavingConservative 2 years ago
Again I think you missed the point.
This video isn't meant to "prove" evolution. Evolution is not seriously questioned in the scientific world at this point, it's merely a matter of discovering all the mechanisms. This is just to help someone understand how it is small changes, when compounded, can make drastic results. Each frame is within the natural realm of the previous frame. At no point can you stop and say "ok, an invisible line will tell natural selection to stop working."
deRoyLight 2 years ago
You also misunderstand evolution slightly when you mention things that are advantageous, that disappear or become vestigial.
Evolution isn't about what is advantageous, it is about what best helps someone survive (and ultimately) reproduce. So for example while it may be more beneficial to have an appendix than not, it still consumes energy to sustain. This is why some birds have wings but can't fly anymore. The need to fly was lessened and it wasn't worth more than the energy it cost.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Evolution isn't about what is advantageous, it is about what best helps someone survive (and ultimately) reproduce"
That is the very definition of advantageous in the biological sense. For example, the reason there are no herbivores that have broken protein synthesis genes is because it is 100% fatal. This scientific observation says that such a mutation, which humans would have required, would have killed off all of our progenitors. Biochemistry prevents evolution.
RavingConservative 2 years ago
I think i explained myself well enough when I expounded on what was meant by advantageous.
Evolution is unconscious. It is guided largely by natural (and sexual) selection. A bird for example doesn't decide beforehand that it wings will be useful later on. If there is no selective pressure to keep their wings, then all the wings are is a burden on your energy, and slowly but surely the wings become less and less burdening (fuctional), until eventually you have something like the dodo.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
I would provide you in fact with the same challenge I offer the few rational people on here that reject evolution, as it seems you do.
I'd be interested in hearing, in a private message, the three best reasons why evolution cannot, or has not occurred. And see if I can't help you out.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
I accept.
RavingConservative 2 years ago
Gibbons are genus Hylobates, not Australopithecus.
RadarKat73080 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am aware of that. I am saying that Australopithecus is improperly labeled.
RavingConservative 2 years ago
Where?
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
When I called it a gibbon. That should be obvious. It is a gibbon that is mislabeled as a different genus. It happens all the time. for example, dogs were labeled "canis familiaris" for over a hundred years before getting properly labeled "canis lupus" relatively recently.
RavingConservative 2 years ago
That's a different species, not a different genus. The first latin word this the life form's genus, the second is it's species. Dogs are still genus "canis" with wolves, jackels and coyotes.
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
And that disproves my assertion that scientists misclassify animals how? Especially when you take teh time to consider the fact that red wolves were moved out of genus canis around tweh sae time that dogs were moved into species lupus?
Serously man, you need to quit acting like scientists are infallible, all-knowing, godlike creatures and just acknowledge that they make classification errors. Your current tack just makes you look ignorant.
RavingConservative 2 years ago
I never said scientists are infallible, the only people I ever met who claimed that are theologians. I am not a scientist, so I might not fully understand anything, but scientists devote their lives to learning everything they can about their field. So, they make mistakes less often then I do.
RadarKat73080 2 years ago 4
taxonomy is something we use to classify animals based on their characteristics, it is a human system of classification imposed on nature. it's hard to get something WRONG when your only using it for classification
types10000 2 years ago 2
my skull can do that in 2 minutes :)
jordanalanclaxton 2 years ago 2
GO! GO!
GO DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION!
how on earth did you get the morphing done? brilliant concept.
crappy music tho. :P
thinkppl 2 years ago 4
Like the video and the song. 5 stars
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
Excellent concept, but hideous execution. Was the maddeningly terrible music and stupid "Macro/Polo" text *really* necessary? 3 stars, would've been 5.
7b 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you just stared at a skull for four minutes.
mistermoen 2 years ago
Obviously these are not necessarily the way in which the changes took place but this makes the point beautifully and NephilmFree really needs to take this on board in his ridiculous "morphology" arguments. Best analogy i have heard is from Nykytyn2. Look in the mirror every day and, hangovers apart, you see absolutely no change whatsoever but look at a photo of you as a two year old .........
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
indeed.
but many of the phases are familiar: I recognize: a habilis like being @ ~ 1:00
homo erectus like fellow (seriously-perfect fit)@ ~1:20 - 1:30
a heidelberger @ ~2:36
It may not be perfect, but as I said, It shows human evo well.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
After the first minute I started to wonder when the brain will start to grow.
Beautiful.
gagnashdiak 2 years ago
That was very well done, deRoyLight.
Thanks.
SpeakerForrTheDead 2 years ago 3
pretty good video, but a bit too slow moving
and the song is WAY far over the top (John Legend is an admirable man in many ways, but not for this heavy handed praise-bomb)
Your other version is much better on both accounts. Nice job on that.
ddunniii 2 years ago
"pretty good video, but a bit too slow moving"
the irony there is that its 500 generations a second
ProcInc 2 years ago 10
you go ahead and make THAT video :P
be a little boring and long though
JacSPierce 2 years ago
Beautiful video.
hawkhandsaw 2 years ago
Wow - really managed to flush out a lot of creatards.
fluffymcdeath 2 years ago 9
Wow! DeRoyLight....you really have outdone yourself. I am one of your first subscribers, and I say that with pride. You have such incredible talent, not only in video, and humor. You are also incredible in your responses to your opposition. I have to say I enjoyed reading your responses on this video, than I have enjoyed watch all of Thunderf00t's videos w. Ray Comfort. You should totally try to turn this into something profitable. I would be willing to donate to your talent! Keep it up!
FreeThinkingCrusader 2 years ago
Any real arguments for a change?
XXL2oo 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
I love these pathetic FANTASY videos the Evolutionist morons have to create in order to attempt to bolster their pathetic ideas because of the absolute and utter LACK and ABSENCE of transitional forms in the fossil record. If it weren't for the fact that they get away with this bullshit each and every day without much serious scientific challenge it would actually be hilarious. Instead, it's sickening in the extreme.
hotnuke 2 years ago
Idiot, every fossil is a transitional fossil.
van1980 2 years ago 3
we know of over twenty species of transitional forms going from ape to human, people who have been brainwashed by religion fail to see the truth.
bombarderoazul 2 years ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@bombarderoazul We know many transitional forms going from ape to chimp, people who have been brainwashed by religion fail to see the truth.
MidwinterSon 1 year ago
"LACK and ABSENCE of transitional forms in the fossil record"
You kidding, right? Because if you are not, then you know no more of the fossil record than my cats.
RHYMEMAIDEN1 2 years ago 5
You're really smart :-). Ever heard of down syndrome? That's a change in the gene from the parent to the child that is a mutation that does dramatically "change" a human. So why can't other "changes" take place huh?
TheChasty 2 years ago
@TheChasty: That's not exactly a mutation, that's an example of polyploidy, an extra chromosome (more accurately a meiotic nondisjunction event). And all the problems and benefits that entails. While trisomy 21 gives rise to Down's it also seems to confer resistance to tumors of all types. But you are correct that many other changes take place during replication of the genome. Substitutions, duplications, and translocations, oh my.
magick205 2 years ago
You didn't even watch the video, did you.
Homepie 2 years ago
"...every day without much serious scientific challenge..."
Waaaahahahaha!
Ever stop to wonder why that is?
Dimwit.
SpeakerForrTheDead 2 years ago
lol
thermos26 2 years ago
koñ´{kop
Toritoyouknow 2 years ago
Awesome video the question is, can you resist the click?
canyouresisttheclikk 2 years ago
i dont come from monkeys
thebeast90220 2 years ago
Nope... who said so?
infinit888 2 years ago
actually you do. you are still a monkey. you are still an ape. you are still a mammal, and a vertebrate. you are all of the categories in taxonomy above species as well as species.
Neeboopsh 2 years ago 3
Not as such. But your distant ancestors did. Live with it.
ZoeMarks 2 years ago
Very beautifull music....
ororomunroe1960 2 years ago 2
its MARCO not macro you dumb shit
leonscottkennedyre4 2 years ago
i know,,,the aliens grabed them all and did things,,,,,,;),,,,,, for the better i wounder,,,,,lol,,,,
stardark113055 2 years ago
u gotta b kidding me ,,,,wrong,,,,,,;),,,,,
stardark113055 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't believe that religion has all the answers but I am convinced that Darwin was wrong. Sure, the obvious Facts such as survival of the fittest etc, but science has still been unable to find the missing link. That is because there is no link. No, I don't even pretend to know the answer but I know that no one person or scientific movement has provided anything but Theories. If you have facts I will listen, but keep your misguided rhetoric to your self.
bobmcgranaghan 2 years ago
look up the definition of a scientific theory you ignoramus. It's not equivalent to the colloquial use of the word theory.
infinit888 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why is it that your first response to me or anyone on this thread comes with a defensive tone? Neither of you so called know-it-all's have come up with any FACTs. What a stupid response (humans took millions of years.) Infinit888 and ZoeMarks don' t really want to have a civil discussion they want to pontificate and act like stupid kids who want to appear smart. Since you have both failed you have lost privileges to communicate with me. Grow up. Responses to me are considered spam and unread
bobmcgranaghan 2 years ago
You know... I'm actually being quite nice with you. I refuse to believe that you are that stupid as to not understand what a scientific theory really is and what it isn't. Thus I rationalize that you must be willfully ignorant.
Facts? I told you to go look up the definition of a scientific theory. Did you do that simple task? I'm trying to help you find the facts but I'm sorry I won't spoon feed them to you. You're 37 you aren't a child anymore. You need to put some effort into it.
infinit888 2 years ago 6
Now that bobmcgranaghan has decided to spit his dummy big time that will leave room for the rational folk to have rational discussions.
So how was your day then?
ZoeMarks 2 years ago 2
The trouble with the stupid missing link argument is that there is no such a thing. No scientist worth his salt would say there was such a beast. You have to understand the transition from the ape-like ancestors to today's humans took millions of years. The slow transition means every generation is slightly different to the previous one.
What would a missing link look like? Monkey on the left side and human on the right?
Take your head out of the sand.
ZoeMarks 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why is it that your first response to me or anyone on this thread comes with a defensive tone? Neither of you so called know-it-all's have come up with any FACTs. What a stupid response (humans took millions of years.) Infinit888 and ZoeMarks don' t really want to have a civil discussion they want to pontificate and act like stupid kids who want to appear smart. Since you have both failed you have lost privileges to communicate with me. Grow up. Responses to me are considered spam and unread
bobmcgranaghan 2 years ago
We have lost privileges to communicate with you? Because, I assume you don't understand science.
Well boo hoo to you you complete and utter arrogant , ignorant and ill-informed little jerk.
How on earth do you type with one hand so well?
ZoeMarks 2 years ago 4
... the "scientific movement" hasn't provided anything but theories?
I'm sorry but when you say that it makes me question if you understand Science very well.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
the sphinx has erosion marks that can only have been created by rain over thousands of years. Giza has been a desert since the days of the first dynasties of Egypt. The date of 10,000 BC is actually quite appropiate, because the sphinx, aligned due east, would have been pointing directly at the constellation Leo.
However this has nothing to do with evolution, but rather with the accuracy of our relatively recent historical record.
zapproowsdower 2 years ago
PLANET OF THE APES
Hilarto 2 years ago
umm i'm sorry but i'm a christion and i don't find this wrong or anything but according to this guy in about 1000 years our spinal cord will be connected to our chin
GUNMILRILTV 2 years ago
wtf? You obviously have no understanding of evolution. The changes depicted here had evolutionary purpose. A negative evolutionary pressure would clearly be applied well before our spinal cord connects to our chin, as such a design would not be very effective for survival, would it? Just another dumb kid commenting about things he clearly knows nothing about.
Nudiford 2 years ago 2
Is this over millions of years?
PraetorianL33T 2 years ago 2
Yes it's from Australopithecus to Homo sapiens in over 4 million years I believe.
infinit888 2 years ago
our faces get smaller and our heads get bigger lol soon we'll look like greys....
cyrus7913 2 years ago
When a was 9 nine years old i know the bible was stupid wizards storys
SuperStarPido 2 years ago 2
the bible pre-dates mordern science.
in there god says that there are too many stars in the sky to count.
that means the bible is real, because back then they thought they could sit down at night and count the stars, but as we progressed scientifically we found that there really is too many to count. some things in the bible go hand in hand with science. obviously not all though. in case you're wondering, i'm a christian
yunolks3 2 years ago
Can't anyone see there are too many stars to count by... trying to count them? Counting predates any major modern religion. And yes, modern means recent. But science, as in discovery or logic itself began before man was even here to define it.
ncastronomer 2 years ago
well sorry that u didnt grow up and learn the truth
neo62003 2 years ago
Very Nice!
SmogGta 2 years ago
Its looking more and more alien? If you continue the evolution, it starts to look like a grey alien's skull?? THEY MUST BE TIME TRAVELERS!! :O
No1CGIguy 2 years ago