"Evolution is proven only within species as to adapt. Anything more is merely suppo"
What exactly is it that makes evolution within a species proven, but not proven otherwise? What mechanisms make natural selection true for organisms within a species, but not for organisms to speciate and evolve into different kinds? What is the definition of a species? How do organisms of the same species change over hundreds of millions of years,all the while remaining in the same species?
@ebastianlar718s - It's only strange, until you get over the idea that your long, long, long, long, long (+ another several million or so, longs) lost cousin is a bacteria. :]
...i find it hard to believe that everything came from one universal descent.
How do we explain that only one single single cell formed from nothing and evolved into every species. Couldnt multiple different single cells form from nothing (at different point of time) and evolved?
...Im not even in this field. I should be thinking up none biology things for my final year project.
@notfree25 - It's a hard concept to get your head around. But ALL of the relevant scientific facts from every scientific discipline, converge to one elegant fact - Common descent. The evolutionary concepts of biology are so predictive, they are now used in modern medicine to save countless lives. My degree was in the physical sciences, but if I was back in school, I would find an evolutionary idea for a final year project. Fascinating stuff.
where is that creature that had more primitive features than modern humans or modern chimps? show me a chimp looking animal that has a foot that resembles a human foot since evolution is gradual changes over a long period of time.
@daogdaog What part of more primitive common ancestor didn't you understand? Our last common ancestor with chimps are calculated to be around 7 million years old. You truly expect to find a human foot?
@Pottan23 mtDNA showed that humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. So it is likely that humans did not evolve from any apelike creatures. A common ancestor is just an speculative concept based on rate of mtDNA mutation which is still not fully understood. That is precisely why there many different results of chimp-human divergence dates. Do you have any fossil evidence or mtDNA extracted from a chimp-human common ancestor?
@daogdaog But we have more than just mtDNA. We also have pseudogenes, homologs, paralogs, ErV...all these tell the same story (i.e. common descent). The only real counter-explanation is "God did it". I'm not claiming common ancestor is a fact, it will never be a fact unless we invent time travel. But if we combine the amount of evidence we have, and compare that to any other alternative theories we have, evolution is as good as fact.
@daogdaog Your mistake is you think concept of common ancestor is based on only 1 kind of evidence. If that's the case, i will agree with you, the evidence is fishy and ambiguous. But that's not the case. We have multiple evidence, and when analyzed independently, they all collaborate to the same story. As an analogy, it's like solving a crime. If you have 1 witness saying person X is the murderer, you cannot be sure if that's true. But if you have 100 witnesses all telling the same story...
@Casshyr Your mistake is you think concept of common ancestor is based on speculative evidence. Where is your "body" of a common chimp-human ancestor? How could you independently analyze something when you dont have the fossil or mtDNA of a chimp-human common ancestor in the first place?
@daogdaog "Where is your "body" of a common chimp-human ancestor? " => we have transitional fossils for human evolution found all over the world. And besides, you miss the point. Evolution is collaborated by multiple lines of evidence. Lets go from another angle, if evolution is wrong, let me ask you: how do you explain shared ErV sites?
@Casshyr ERVs are sequences in the genome THOUGHT to be derived from ancient viral infections. It is another form of speculative evidence. Latest studies showed that so called ERV sequence aids during DNA transcription. A relatively short sequence in billions of sequences can possibly be mistaken to be a trace of ancient viral infection. Biologists having mapped the human genome actually know very little about human genome.
@daogdaog I guess you don't know enough about ERVs so you missed the crucial bit. Many segments of ERVs are shared between humans and other primates. If we assume that there is no common descent, and that we just happen to share ERVs insertions with chimpanzees and such, the mathematical probability of this happening is less than 1 in a billion. And ERVs are indeed ancient viral infections, there's no doubt on this. If there is, I like to see scientific sources on such claim.
@Casshyr So you rely on mathematical probability. Mathematicians have already computed that for a specie to evolve into entirely different specie by natural selection and random mutations would be like winning a 6/55 lotto every week for one thousand years. The probability of ERV insertion is meaningless because the probability of evolution in itself is considered to be zero.
@daogdaog "Mathematicians have already computed that for a specie to evolve into entirely different specie by natural selection and random mutations would be like winning a 6/55 lotto every week" => 3 things. First, source plz. Second, speciation events have been indeed observed. See London Underground Mosquitoes. Third, evolution is more than just natural selection and random mutations. If you don't know what i mean, wiki will help you.
@Casshyr I don’t think that London Underground mosquitoes be considered new specie until those insects will no longer be called mosquitoes. The same thing can be said about peppered moths and Galapagos finches. In fact, in the case of finches, variations are observed to be cyclic. A similar case can be said about ring species. Who cares about salamander not able to mate with another salamander?
@daogdaog "London Underground mosquitoes be considered new specie until those insects will no longer be called mosquito" => you are shifting your goal post. First you demand to see speciation. Now you are saying you need a bigger change. But such changes cannot occur within a human lifespan. If a mosquito gives birth to non-mosquito, that's actually proof AGAINST evolution! BTW, you haven't answer me on ERV. Where's your source for your 6/55 lotto statement?
@daogdaog No evolutionist would ever say that we evolved from any of the other great apes or Neanderthals where did you even get that? Your conclusion is rushed and based on an misinformed view of Evolution.
Our Chromosome nr 2 is a result of the fusion of two chromosomes and have telomeres where they don't belong (middle) and two centromeres, one of which is inactive. The inactive one corresponds with chimp chromosome nr 13. There's my evidence (com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk).
@Pottan23 You have no idea that there was a claim by evolutionary experts that humans evolved from chimps before Krings et al studies? Do you have the fossil or mtDNA evidence of a chimp-human common ancestor?
A common ancestor is just an speculative concept based on rate of mtDNA mutation.
@daogdaog The only Krings et al studies I can find are about mtDNA in neanderthals and whether or not they've contributed to our genome. What studies exactly are you referring to and who are these experts?
I just gave you testable, verifiable DNA evidence for a human-chimp common ancestor and you don't have a single word to say about it, funny that. And no, common decent has been very much a part of the theory of evolution ever since it was first penned.
@Pottan23 You have not understood Krings and et studies in detail. Read again. Where is your testable, verifiable DNA evidence for a human-chimp common ancestor? Fused chromosomes in humans have 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Show me real fused chromosomes, not something with missing or added segments. Maybe it there never was any fusion at all.
@daogdaog Then link me the right study yeesh. If there never was a fusion why are there telomeres in the middle of our chromosome 2? Why does our chromosome 2 have two centromeres? Why is the inactive centromere the same as the centromere in Chimp chromosome 13? If chimps and humans never shared the same DNA why do we have a chimp centromere in our genome? Why do we share at least seven ERV injection marks with chimps, marks that are randomly chosen by the virus and hereditary?
@Pottan23 A small percentage difference in DNA is more than enough to determine whether a specie will turn out to be a chimp or human. Regardless of the presence of centromere and telomemere, the mere fact that 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B would indicate most likely that chromosomes fusion did not occur in the past.
@daogdaog yeah lets talk number, a small (4%) difference between humans and chimps. The 150,000 base pairs you're referring to make up about 0.00005% of our genome AND we know were they came from, near the end of our chromosome 9. You're brushing aside an inactive primate centromere present in our and Chimp DNA? How did it get there?
What has someone promised you that is more beautiful than the knowledge that your family tree goes all the way to light itself? That is what science tells you.
@Pottan23 percentage difference does not mean much in genetics. The fact is that fruit fly DNA have been manipulated millions of times in labs all over the world to mimic millions of years of evolution yet fruit fly remained a fruit fly.
Even if you take that stance on the subject, that does nothing to prove that it was YOUR god who designed it. Anyone who tries to say that the functional structure of the physical world is proof for creation fails to see that that same logic could be employed by ALL religions.
"Lightning bolts sure are powerful and beyond human understanding, that's proof Zues designed those bolts for a purpose." See how foolish that sounds? I could go on... But HOPEFULLY you get the point...
When I was in elementary I was told and fed this garbage. Now that I'm an adult and have been able to think for myself, I have come to the conclusion that evolution is as ludicrous as a flying elephant. The "big bang" theory has been redefined more than Elizabeth Taylor had husbands. I can understand why it has been redefined. It's because common sense has prevailed in todays society and a logical thinking person will not accept life starting from an explosion, lol. The Bible is true: Gen 1:1
When I was in elementary I was fed the god garbage. Now that I'm an adult and have been able to think for myself, I have come to the conclusion that ideas of gods are as ludicrous as a flying elephant. The god-myths have been redefined more than Big Bang. I can understand why it has been redefined. It's because common sense has prevailed in todays society and a logical thinking person will not accept life starting from incantations, lol. The Bible is false: Gen 1:1 makes 0 sense
@yatter1 You mean to say "thank God for that". Whenever you use the lower case "g" you are referring to all the gods of mythology, which have no life and are from the imagination of the mind of man. However, whenever you use the upper case "G" then you are referring to The God of Created all things. Genesis 1:1 which you can read for yourself, but just in case you don't have a bible handy let me quote it for you:-) "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". It's really that simple
you need to look past biological evolution.. All matter evolved from the big bang to bring us to this point. Our solar system is the remnants of a much larger star that exploded 20 billion years ago and recombined. Complex atoms like the organic ones we know take extremely high temperatures to forge-higher than the temperature of our sun. Everything is everything, can ya dig?
i do believe we all evolve from something but saying god didn't created the first thing that made us evolve is just stupid as fuck u got to be an ignorant piece of shit to believe that and no im not a religious freak im not even part of a "religion" i just believe in god cause of my d.m.t experiences
doubt your own memory, kid. in asylums there are a lot of people who swears they saw, touched , heared, a lot of bullshit. a psychiatrist could help you. @kidsonic420
@kidsonic420 You are religious if you say God created the start. Have you any evidence for your claim?
Nice that you call others ignorant when you yourself have this explanation: "I don't know, so magic man must have dun it!" - it's lazy and stupid. Grow up!
Ignoring all this heated debate for a moment, could you please tell us the source of that wonderfull mike-olfield-esque music circa 6:00??? Thanks for posting your excellent educational videos
Actually the first human(s) didnt come from africa we were more monkey like back then :) by the time we became human like we were already quite spread over the planet.
Show us real evidences not illustrations/ Christmas trees and cartoons with nice stories about the Origin of Life.
Evolution is defiantly not a fact, because there are so many missing link and those who claim there are a lot of evidence proves evolution, have not actually taken the time to inspect the so called evidence.
They put an african person because the first humans were africans. Besides, they want to show similarity, so they just took someone who looks closest to them(dark skinned person among dark-haired apes). I'm not racist, just pointing out the obvious. Be privileged that they're chosen to represent humanity. If they had put an Asian or especially a white person there, I'm sure people would've complained about under-representation lol.
@TheYipedo You are not well informed. Please type the keywords "Human Genome Project" on Google. The human genetic record shows the migration of early humans. It also showed that we all came from Africa.
The proof is in our genes.
But you said "If they had put an Asian or especially a white person there, I'm sure people would've complained"
Scientists do NOT have to put anyone they like to represent the first humans. They merely followed what the evidence tells them.
@MrFareddy I am aware that our descendants are originally from Africa. Africans have probably retained a very slightly more similar genetic code compared to the other apes as apparently, Asians and Europeans have a bit tiny bit of Neanderthal blood in them(although the difference is surely insignificant). I'm simply poking fun at people saying it's "racist" when they're represented in a not-so-elegant manner and then complain about "under-representation" when they're not represented at all.
@TheYipedo Hey! I am Agnostic, not Atheist. 70 percent of Filipinos are Catholic. In U.P.(University of the Philippines) -the most liberal university in my country, the youth groups are MORE diverse because U.P. is more secular. Those youth groups include the UP Atheists' Circle (founded in 1996, a "non-stock, non-profit organization) and the UP Babaylan (the leading gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students' support group).
Evolution is such a stupid religion. According to theory of evolution's pattern, all dogs would have evolved by size from Chihuahua to Great Dane or vice versa. We all can look at that idea as stupid, but because dinosaurs share a similar vertibrae we conclude they evolved based on size of bone and skeletal structures? Give me a break.
@philster61 You're so ignorant of the facts I don't have enough space to type them in. Just because evolution is taught in schools does not make it correct. I've known evolutionists who have thrown their careers away. accepting evolution takes more faith than the Christians place in Jesus. I know because I've studied both the evolution THEORY and Christianity. If you believe evolution to be a fact and not a theory than that is sad.
@kedmonton You have not studied evolution at all. The fact that you don't use the word theory in the scientific sense belies that fact. Accepting evolution requires EVIDENCE of which there is overwhelming amounts of it. I suggest you go back to school.
@kedmonton The FACTS of evolution does not require faith. It has evidence. If you knew anything of the peer review process, (Which you don't) Then you would know that nothing makes it into a science classroom without being scrutinized, tested, retested, reviewed and then approved by the science community. You have NOT studied evolution at all. If you had then you would know what you're talking about. But you don't.
@kedmonton I dont believe evolution, I believe it is the best explanation. I am as close to certain it is true but I do know it isn't necessarily fact; in that sense nothing is. This in no way proves christianity either, so what is your point (and what you said about faith of evolution a religion is total bullshit too)
@kedmonton As much as you can argue that evolution does not have the evidence to be a proven fact, which it is still a theory as MOST ALL scientific hypothesis remain, you can not present evidence for intelligent design. Pointing out holes in evolutionary theory does not support any God in any way possible, a lack of evidence is not evidence in itself. Besides, evolutionary theory has nothing to do with Jesus or God. It wouldn't disprove anything besides Genesis.
@kollem26 Disprove Genesis, disprove their whole religion. Which we've already done, but we all know how incredibly dependent the religious are on boosting their ego thinking we were made for this world. :)
@kollem26 You have very badly missdefined you terms. A fact is one piece of concrete information. eg. There are marsupials in Australia. A theory is a framework that explains the most facts and is contradicted by the fewest or in the case of evolution no facts.
A hypothesis is the proposed theory BEFORE it has the facts added in to make it into a theory. As such, no theory is a hypothesis just as no outline is a book.
@kollem26 Technically, it wouldn't necessarily disprove that. I do think it is possible that it may have been God's will for evolution to be the means by which he created the world.
UCD disproves (or makes very ridiculous) the notion that organisms simply arrived on earth out of nothing. Take a belief of god out of the equation, and you've removed unnecessary human concepts from an attempt to study nature.
I have no disregard for your belief. But If we are to study science, such beliefs hold no value in studious ventures. However, if we are to be friends, respecting your beliefs is elementary, regardless of my own. =)
@kollem26 Technically, it wouldn't necessarily disprove that. I do think it is possible that it may have been God's will for evolution to be the means by which he created the world.
Agree with you and I add that: If science show genesis is wrong, then why to accept ANY part of the bible as THE TRUTH? Let's take it as an ancient filosophical material, a set of myths... but not as the "source of truth". @kollem26
@kollem26 yea but the same arguement can go for jesus and god as well. Where is your evidence to prove that. There is even less evidence there then there is for evolution
@kedmonton You know what is sad. all these creationists saying evolution is just a theory not a fact, when you obviously have no idea what the word theory really means. A theory is something that explains a group of known facts. Evolution is a theory AND a fact. The original HYPOTHESIS of evolution is supported by many facts. When you put those facts together, you get a THEORY. Unlike creationism, which is still only in the hypothesis phase because there are absolutely NO FACTS to support it.
Since nobody was around 500,000 years ago (much less, more than 1 million), nobody really knows for sure. Evolution and the Big Bang share the exact same mentality as philosophers like Aristotle and Plato; look at things, think about it, and think about it, and proclaim something is true. Get a big crowd of people to believe you and it's a universally accepted idea.
There's two major issues I see with the opening of the video. #1, everything with a common ancestor is a theory, not a fact. A fact is something that has proof--in relation to science which is nothing but observation and the application of observation. #2, it's called the "missing link" for a reason. We have never observed evolution, never observed or seen missing links, and nobody observed/recorded the planet's age more than a few thousand years.
For twentieth century man this phrase, the image of God, is as important as anything in Scripture, because men today can no longer answer that crucial question "Who am I?" In his own naturalistic theories, with the uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system, with an evolutionary concept of a mechanical, chance parade from the atom to man, man has lost his unique identity. As he looks out upon the world, as he faces the machine, he cannot tell himself from what he faces.
It's about time mankind learns that bit of humility, however. We've been "God's special boys and girls" for a long time now, with some really bad shit as a result.
@joshmb24 Gee........ how philosophical. Wonder if our primate cousins feel an identity crisis. Must really suck realising your a primate instead of "gods children"
@LegendaryZody .. i had the same argument yesterday with my mate until 3:30 in the morning and 2 weeks ago until 6:00 in the morning .. and he did not budge once .. i give him so many logical answers and all he could give me is a load of non-logical beliefs that dont make any sense at all and leaves me more foresighted and angry ... why cant god not just come down and tell us all ?? why do we have to believe in something that so obviously aint there !!
@dkinetik Yeah man I know what you mean. I don't like fighting with my friends because I might lose them. That's why i'm not going after his faith. He has read the Bible and so he knows what's in it and yet...he still chooses to believe in it. Me and him pretty much came to an agreement we wouldn't talk about it. So we stay friends based on the fun we have together.
@LegendaryZody he he , yea were really good friends too, and i found myself shouting at him sometimes trying to get my logical points across, which he took well as he is a Christian :) , but he contradicts him self all the time and never once gave me 1 good answer .. and the more we talked the more it unravelled , that he thinks he`s going to be saved when god has had enough and when god will "come down" and sort out the bad people in this world .. its just a fantasy to me , pure hope !!
@dkinetik Yes, recently my sister told me that she believed aliens from another dimension came and created humans.(seriously) And I asked her what led her to believe this. She couldn't really give me an answer so she linked plenty of conspiracy theories that are scientifically impossible. And in the end she told me it's up to her what she believes is real even if it doesn't make any sense. This is how believers think. Though sometimes there are logical ones out there that are open minded.
@Seanze329 lol :) well i wont say i believe, im pritty sure that alien elements from all across the universe created us , not meaning created by aliens, i mean material elements that fused together over billions of years, u only have to do science at school to see how things fuse together to create different things , its plain to see . i see something the other week saying that a 4 billion old meteor that hit the earth had part of our dna in it , im like wow, evolution makes more sense now !!
THis shit is fucking awesome!! How can one not embrace the beauty of science and our true origin. Don't anyone take this personal, but fuck your invisible, inaudible creator.
if all life on earth came from one ancestor, wouldn't that mean that all life on earth came from one single organism in the very very very beginning. are we are all related to the very first self replicating molecule?
"There are no morphological gaps"... you must be kidding. The fossil record is not near perfect. You would probably have been better off mentioning how using molecular genetics can show all of the intermediate stages as common ancestors.
Great video. I wanted to touch on one point where it mentions that no trait from a clade can be found in another which does not share a common ancestor (which contains the trait). While this is almost always true there is the possibility (very rarely) that a trait can evolve twice, presenting in two or more groups.
@TheHonestwords Actually when humans still had hair covering their entire bodies it was more likley that they where pale, the black skin collour likley evolved when humans started to have less hair protecting them from the suns UV light.
In other videos there is white and asian people close to chimps... if black people never appears in any video you would blame them for "not showing a black person as representant of homo sapiens". SO you and 41 people are wrong. @sandite5
- "Not a single test has failed" could have stated some tests
- made the signs of the "prestigious scientific organizations" larger, so we could have "checked it out"
- the reptile to mammal sequence was very well done
Is there a transcript available for this video? Is there a video/transcript specifically on the transitional forms of modern man from our common descent ancestor?
Evolution of mammals is only possible with heterosexual relationships, yet there are many so-called "atheists" who are really religious faggots that won't admit it...
@SirWinstonChurchill Do grow up. In humans evolution is now a matter of knowledge and culture. We are no longer bound by the law of natural selection except in a basic sense that we may become extinct if a catastrophic event occurs; just as the birds and bees are no longer bound by the law of gravity except in its most basic sense. You would do away with the contributions to human evolution of, for example, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Alan Turing and many, many others.
@SirWinstonChurchill There's actually genetic proof that homosexuality isn't a fetish but a natural trait, i.e. not a lifestyle choice but determined genetically. Could it be you're so fascinated by it because you're jealous? Maybe you should look a bit more carefully at your own desires? Why not have your DNA analysed, then you'll know for sure.
@colourmegone Homosexuality is nothing more than a disorder of the brain. In short, it is a mental illness. For whatever reasons we decided today that it is not and that these people are fine how they are. Several thousand years ago people with epilepsy were thought to be seized by the hand of the divine. It turns out they just have a disorder in their brain. It's the same thing. While homos might now "suffer" from their disorder, it is still a disorder nonetheless.
@TheDarxide23 You're wrong, homosexuality is genetic. It is human sexuality expressing itself with a difference to the norm. This has been accepted for some time now, but you probably didn't get the memo or maybe you couldn't read it?
Calling someone a 'homo' isn't really accepted in polite society. And who cares what people do in their bedrooms? or does the thought of all those men writhing in the throws of sexual pleasure disturb you? maybe you'd rather be taking part?
@colourmegone Doesn't disturb me in the least. I was just running out of room so I abbreviated. People like you always give me a chuckle. Say anything that might even be REMOTELY against homosexuals and instantly you launch into "you're a closet homo" or "you're a homophobe" etc.
Show me any kind of proof that it's genetic and I'll listen to what you have to say. There's plenty of evidence that most homosexuals have chemical imbalances in their brain. But none that it's in their genes.
@colourmegone Ran out of room, so here's part 2. You're also quite hypocritical in when you tell me that "homo" isn't polite, and yet you use the threat that I might be one myself as some sort of insult. Double standard much?
@TheDarxide23 I wasn't insulting by implying you are a homosexual, I was insulting you by implying you are too facile to understand your own motivations. I would never think calling someone 'homosexual' was an insult, much less a 'threat' as you state. It's a cliche' that people who feel threatened by homosexuality are usually homosexuals in self denial, but it's almost always true.
@colourmegone Again, I don't see how you assume I feel "threatened" by them. Same thing I said before, anything you perceive as slightly "offensive" toward them and instantly I'm a homophobe or a wannabe. I simply stated facts. Chemical imbalances in the brain indicate neurochemical disorders, which aren't part of evolution or genetics. They're disorders. And to ANYONE reading your comment, it will read as a threat or an insult, and I still find it hypocritical of you.
@TheDarxide23 And I quote "You're also quite hypocritical in when you tell me that "homo" isn't polite, and yet YOU USE THE THREAT that I might be one myself as some sort of INSULT." You're the one who used the word 'threat' not me.
@colourmegone I wouldn't waste your time on TheDarkside23. He/She/it isn't worth the effort. He/she/it is so rapped up in their own arrogance, no one is going to dent it.
@HonestMan395 I always like to debate these jerks, it helps me clarify my own thoughts, and besides most of them are simple minded fools so it's no great strain.
I know it probably won't make any difference to their views but maybe it will add to the dissonance they must be experiencing. It really takes quite a lot of energy to consistently deny reality.
Thanks for your comment, I often wonder if anyone reads these things.
"All modern organisms are descended from one original species"
True.
That "species" name is God.
earlysda 8 hours ago
Ignorants can't accept this theory.
wecantsee 6 days ago in playlist Facts of Evolution / Natural Selection
This needs to be liked, favorited, commented on, and shared far and wide! Come on people!
fegu 1 month ago
@Frab2001
"Evolution is proven only within species as to adapt. Anything more is merely suppo"
What exactly is it that makes evolution within a species proven, but not proven otherwise? What mechanisms make natural selection true for organisms within a species, but not for organisms to speciate and evolve into different kinds? What is the definition of a species? How do organisms of the same species change over hundreds of millions of years,all the while remaining in the same species?
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
@Frab2001 Vestigial organs, pseudo genes, geographical distribution. These things only make sense in light of evolution.
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 1 month ago
I am around the strange section of Youtube once more.
ebastianlar718s 2 months ago
@ebastianlar718s How is this strange?
MCSKeelar 2 months ago
@ebastianlar718s - It's only strange, until you get over the idea that your long, long, long, long, long (+ another several million or so, longs) lost cousin is a bacteria. :]
157626 2 months ago
...i find it hard to believe that everything came from one universal descent.
How do we explain that only one single single cell formed from nothing and evolved into every species. Couldnt multiple different single cells form from nothing (at different point of time) and evolved?
...Im not even in this field. I should be thinking up none biology things for my final year project.
notfree25 3 months ago
We cam't explain it but we know it must have happened at one point or another because otherwise we wouldn't be here.
MCSKeelar 2 months ago
@MCSKeelar This is where we bring in god =P
J/k, no intention of starting war
notfree25 2 months ago
@notfree25 - It's a hard concept to get your head around. But ALL of the relevant scientific facts from every scientific discipline, converge to one elegant fact - Common descent. The evolutionary concepts of biology are so predictive, they are now used in modern medicine to save countless lives. My degree was in the physical sciences, but if I was back in school, I would find an evolutionary idea for a final year project. Fascinating stuff.
157626 2 months ago
Comment removed
daogdaog 3 months ago
SCIENCE RULES!!!!
Thinkdeep420 3 months ago
where is that creature that had more primitive features than modern humans or modern chimps? show me a chimp looking animal that has a foot that resembles a human foot since evolution is gradual changes over a long period of time.
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog What part of more primitive common ancestor didn't you understand? Our last common ancestor with chimps are calculated to be around 7 million years old. You truly expect to find a human foot?
Pottan23 3 months ago
@Pottan23 mtDNA showed that humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. So it is likely that humans did not evolve from any apelike creatures. A common ancestor is just an speculative concept based on rate of mtDNA mutation which is still not fully understood. That is precisely why there many different results of chimp-human divergence dates. Do you have any fossil evidence or mtDNA extracted from a chimp-human common ancestor?
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog But we have more than just mtDNA. We also have pseudogenes, homologs, paralogs, ErV...all these tell the same story (i.e. common descent). The only real counter-explanation is "God did it". I'm not claiming common ancestor is a fact, it will never be a fact unless we invent time travel. But if we combine the amount of evidence we have, and compare that to any other alternative theories we have, evolution is as good as fact.
Casshyr 3 months ago
@daogdaog Your mistake is you think concept of common ancestor is based on only 1 kind of evidence. If that's the case, i will agree with you, the evidence is fishy and ambiguous. But that's not the case. We have multiple evidence, and when analyzed independently, they all collaborate to the same story. As an analogy, it's like solving a crime. If you have 1 witness saying person X is the murderer, you cannot be sure if that's true. But if you have 100 witnesses all telling the same story...
Casshyr 3 months ago
@Casshyr Your mistake is you think concept of common ancestor is based on speculative evidence. Where is your "body" of a common chimp-human ancestor? How could you independently analyze something when you dont have the fossil or mtDNA of a chimp-human common ancestor in the first place?
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog "Where is your "body" of a common chimp-human ancestor? " => we have transitional fossils for human evolution found all over the world. And besides, you miss the point. Evolution is collaborated by multiple lines of evidence. Lets go from another angle, if evolution is wrong, let me ask you: how do you explain shared ErV sites?
Casshyr 3 months ago
@Casshyr ERVs are sequences in the genome THOUGHT to be derived from ancient viral infections. It is another form of speculative evidence. Latest studies showed that so called ERV sequence aids during DNA transcription. A relatively short sequence in billions of sequences can possibly be mistaken to be a trace of ancient viral infection. Biologists having mapped the human genome actually know very little about human genome.
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog I guess you don't know enough about ERVs so you missed the crucial bit. Many segments of ERVs are shared between humans and other primates. If we assume that there is no common descent, and that we just happen to share ERVs insertions with chimpanzees and such, the mathematical probability of this happening is less than 1 in a billion. And ERVs are indeed ancient viral infections, there's no doubt on this. If there is, I like to see scientific sources on such claim.
Casshyr 3 months ago
@Casshyr So you rely on mathematical probability. Mathematicians have already computed that for a specie to evolve into entirely different specie by natural selection and random mutations would be like winning a 6/55 lotto every week for one thousand years. The probability of ERV insertion is meaningless because the probability of evolution in itself is considered to be zero.
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog "Mathematicians have already computed that for a specie to evolve into entirely different specie by natural selection and random mutations would be like winning a 6/55 lotto every week" => 3 things. First, source plz. Second, speciation events have been indeed observed. See London Underground Mosquitoes. Third, evolution is more than just natural selection and random mutations. If you don't know what i mean, wiki will help you.
Casshyr 3 months ago
@Casshyr I don’t think that London Underground mosquitoes be considered new specie until those insects will no longer be called mosquitoes. The same thing can be said about peppered moths and Galapagos finches. In fact, in the case of finches, variations are observed to be cyclic. A similar case can be said about ring species. Who cares about salamander not able to mate with another salamander?
daogdaog 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daogdaog "London Underground mosquitoes be considered new specie until those insects will no longer be called mosquito" => you are shifting your goal post. First you demand to see speciation. Now you are saying you need a bigger change. But such changes cannot occur within a human lifespan. If a mosquito gives birth to non-mosquito, that's actually proof AGAINST evolution! BTW, you haven't answer me on ERV. Where's your source for your 6/55 lotto statement?
Casshyr 3 months ago
@daogdaog No evolutionist would ever say that we evolved from any of the other great apes or Neanderthals where did you even get that? Your conclusion is rushed and based on an misinformed view of Evolution.
Our Chromosome nr 2 is a result of the fusion of two chromosomes and have telomeres where they don't belong (middle) and two centromeres, one of which is inactive. The inactive one corresponds with chimp chromosome nr 13. There's my evidence (com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk).
Pottan23 3 months ago
@Pottan23 You have no idea that there was a claim by evolutionary experts that humans evolved from chimps before Krings et al studies? Do you have the fossil or mtDNA evidence of a chimp-human common ancestor?
A common ancestor is just an speculative concept based on rate of mtDNA mutation.
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog The only Krings et al studies I can find are about mtDNA in neanderthals and whether or not they've contributed to our genome. What studies exactly are you referring to and who are these experts?
I just gave you testable, verifiable DNA evidence for a human-chimp common ancestor and you don't have a single word to say about it, funny that. And no, common decent has been very much a part of the theory of evolution ever since it was first penned.
Pottan23 3 months ago
@Pottan23 You have not understood Krings and et studies in detail. Read again. Where is your testable, verifiable DNA evidence for a human-chimp common ancestor? Fused chromosomes in humans have 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Show me real fused chromosomes, not something with missing or added segments. Maybe it there never was any fusion at all.
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog Then link me the right study yeesh. If there never was a fusion why are there telomeres in the middle of our chromosome 2? Why does our chromosome 2 have two centromeres? Why is the inactive centromere the same as the centromere in Chimp chromosome 13? If chimps and humans never shared the same DNA why do we have a chimp centromere in our genome? Why do we share at least seven ERV injection marks with chimps, marks that are randomly chosen by the virus and hereditary?
Pottan23 3 months ago
@Pottan23 A small percentage difference in DNA is more than enough to determine whether a specie will turn out to be a chimp or human. Regardless of the presence of centromere and telomemere, the mere fact that 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B would indicate most likely that chromosomes fusion did not occur in the past.
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog yeah lets talk number, a small (4%) difference between humans and chimps. The 150,000 base pairs you're referring to make up about 0.00005% of our genome AND we know were they came from, near the end of our chromosome 9. You're brushing aside an inactive primate centromere present in our and Chimp DNA? How did it get there?
What has someone promised you that is more beautiful than the knowledge that your family tree goes all the way to light itself? That is what science tells you.
Pottan23 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pottan23 percentage difference does not mean much in genetics. The fact is that fruit fly DNA have been manipulated millions of times in labs all over the world to mimic millions of years of evolution yet fruit fly remained a fruit fly.
daogdaog 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution is an absolute disgrace to science.
Objects never order anything, mutations never order anything and natural selection will only select what has already been ordered.
Evolution is so irrational that it should be removed from all classrooms.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 4 months ago in playlist Evolution tree
I gotta say, when you look at the eyeball, it works as if it were designed by a master engineer. because it was designed
legit0101 5 months ago
@legit0101
Even if you take that stance on the subject, that does nothing to prove that it was YOUR god who designed it. Anyone who tries to say that the functional structure of the physical world is proof for creation fails to see that that same logic could be employed by ALL religions.
"Lightning bolts sure are powerful and beyond human understanding, that's proof Zues designed those bolts for a purpose." See how foolish that sounds? I could go on... But HOPEFULLY you get the point...
Vampyrekai 4 months ago
@legit0101 you mean the human eye or the indepdently-eveolved spider eye? Did the designer mess something up , resulting in cataracts?
thinkingguy87 4 months ago
When I was in elementary I was told and fed this garbage. Now that I'm an adult and have been able to think for myself, I have come to the conclusion that evolution is as ludicrous as a flying elephant. The "big bang" theory has been redefined more than Elizabeth Taylor had husbands. I can understand why it has been redefined. It's because common sense has prevailed in todays society and a logical thinking person will not accept life starting from an explosion, lol. The Bible is true: Gen 1:1
SwingItLikeMoe 5 months ago
@SwingItLikeMoe
When I was in elementary I was fed the god garbage. Now that I'm an adult and have been able to think for myself, I have come to the conclusion that ideas of gods are as ludicrous as a flying elephant. The god-myths have been redefined more than Big Bang. I can understand why it has been redefined. It's because common sense has prevailed in todays society and a logical thinking person will not accept life starting from incantations, lol. The Bible is false: Gen 1:1 makes 0 sense
tdjdk 4 months ago
@tdjdk That's funny. It sounds like something I said but replaced with a few words. Hmmmm. Should I accuse you of plagiarism?
SwingItLikeMoe 4 months ago
@SwingItLikeMoe You do realise that you are labouring under an enormous delusion I hope?
yatter1 4 months ago
Comment removed
SwingItLikeMoe 4 months ago
@yatter1 Yes I do. ;-)
SwingItLikeMoe 4 months ago
@SwingItLikeMoe Thank god for that
yatter1 4 months ago
@yatter1 You mean to say "thank God for that". Whenever you use the lower case "g" you are referring to all the gods of mythology, which have no life and are from the imagination of the mind of man. However, whenever you use the upper case "G" then you are referring to The God of Created all things. Genesis 1:1 which you can read for yourself, but just in case you don't have a bible handy let me quote it for you:-) "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". It's really that simple
SwingItLikeMoe 4 months ago
@SwingItLikeMoe I use the small "g" on purpose to denote that I find nothing special about one myth from another.
yatter1 4 months ago
@yatter1 Yes, that's why I was able to help embellish your assertion. ;-)
SwingItLikeMoe 4 months ago
@SwingItLikeMoe chill the fuck out bro :p it's not hard to see why everyone can't stand preaching xtians x)
PdishmonkeyJJ 4 months ago
@PdishmonkeyJJ Don't you mean "xian"?
SwingItLikeMoe 4 months ago
@SwingItLikeMoe lol yea typo. not exactly the point but aight haha
PdishmonkeyJJ 4 months ago
@SwingItLikeMoe right, because the Bible has never been rewritten....
thinkingguy87 4 months ago
@thinkingguy87 I don't know what you mean by "rewritten". If you are trying to say the bible has mulitple translations then yes I agree.
SwingItLikeMoe 4 months ago
Comment removed
SwingItLikeMoe 5 months ago
you need to look past biological evolution.. All matter evolved from the big bang to bring us to this point. Our solar system is the remnants of a much larger star that exploded 20 billion years ago and recombined. Complex atoms like the organic ones we know take extremely high temperatures to forge-higher than the temperature of our sun. Everything is everything, can ya dig?
snotnosejoe 6 months ago
@snotnosejoe No! You sir, are talking shit. You have taken a group
of 'facts' and mixed them together in your mind, to come to the conclusion,
"Everything is everything"!
I hope you were high when you wrote this, because otherwise,
you are silly!
fntime 5 months ago
This is a very good film all children need to dee this film starting at age 5 or 6.
martin78594 6 months ago
Allah Ouakbar!
Fapsamup 8 months ago
HEY YOU, yes you. spread this video. share it with other people. Tweet it. Put it on facebook. Help mankind to grow faster.
nobrainQQ 8 months ago
the fact that you exist is just a theory too.
nobrainQQ 8 months ago
@Best0fScience
kidsonic420 8 months ago
i do believe we all evolve from something but saying god didn't created the first thing that made us evolve is just stupid as fuck u got to be an ignorant piece of shit to believe that and no im not a religious freak im not even part of a "religion" i just believe in god cause of my d.m.t experiences
kidsonic420 8 months ago
@kidsonic420 Quote: "i just believe in god cause of my d.m.t experiences"
Does D.M.T stand for Drugged Manufactured Trance.
HonestMan395 8 months ago 2
@kidsonic420 then did god lie to you in the bible?
amers963 8 months ago
doubt your own memory, kid. in asylums there are a lot of people who swears they saw, touched , heared, a lot of bullshit. a psychiatrist could help you. @kidsonic420
nobrainQQ 8 months ago
@kidsonic420 So you are by definition religious. A creationist even, the most stupid kind of religious people.
Helge129 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kidsonic420 You are religious if you say God created the start. Have you any evidence for your claim?
Nice that you call others ignorant when you yourself have this explanation: "I don't know, so magic man must have dun it!" - it's lazy and stupid. Grow up!
Sgagnot 7 months ago
@kidsonic420 "but saying god didn't created the first thing that made us evolve is just stupid as fuck"
No.
I can't even be bothered to say why that is a moronic statement, but it is.
JordanGBR93 6 months ago
Ignoring all this heated debate for a moment, could you please tell us the source of that wonderfull mike-olfield-esque music circa 6:00??? Thanks for posting your excellent educational videos
adiero 8 months ago
Actually the first human(s) didnt come from africa we were more monkey like back then :) by the time we became human like we were already quite spread over the planet.
MasterOfFlash92 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Show us real evidences not illustrations/ Christmas trees and cartoons with nice stories about the Origin of Life.
Evolution is defiantly not a fact, because there are so many missing link and those who claim there are a lot of evidence proves evolution, have not actually taken the time to inspect the so called evidence.
TryingToBeGoodMuslim 11 months ago
They put an african person because the first humans were africans. Besides, they want to show similarity, so they just took someone who looks closest to them(dark skinned person among dark-haired apes). I'm not racist, just pointing out the obvious. Be privileged that they're chosen to represent humanity. If they had put an Asian or especially a white person there, I'm sure people would've complained about under-representation lol.
TheYipedo 11 months ago 4
@TheYipedo You are not well informed. Please type the keywords "Human Genome Project" on Google. The human genetic record shows the migration of early humans. It also showed that we all came from Africa.
The proof is in our genes.
But you said "If they had put an Asian or especially a white person there, I'm sure people would've complained"
Scientists do NOT have to put anyone they like to represent the first humans. They merely followed what the evidence tells them.
MrFareddy 10 months ago
@MrFareddy I am aware that our descendants are originally from Africa. Africans have probably retained a very slightly more similar genetic code compared to the other apes as apparently, Asians and Europeans have a bit tiny bit of Neanderthal blood in them(although the difference is surely insignificant). I'm simply poking fun at people saying it's "racist" when they're represented in a not-so-elegant manner and then complain about "under-representation" when they're not represented at all.
TheYipedo 10 months ago
@MrFareddy Oh and you're a Filipino atheist. That's as rare as a genetic mutation. Hi.
TheYipedo 10 months ago
@TheYipedo Hey! I am Agnostic, not Atheist. 70 percent of Filipinos are Catholic. In U.P.(University of the Philippines) -the most liberal university in my country, the youth groups are MORE diverse because U.P. is more secular. Those youth groups include the UP Atheists' Circle (founded in 1996, a "non-stock, non-profit organization) and the UP Babaylan (the leading gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students' support group).
I'm from F.E.U. which is also secular.
MrFareddy 10 months ago
@sandite5 Lulz, there just HAD to be a comment on youtube on an African displayed with the monkeys...
dpoakaspine 1 year ago
@dpoakaspine Lulz, there just HAD to be a comment on youtube on a comment about an African displayed with the monkeys...
lost4468yt 1 year ago
1:06 ok so which one is the human..
Gunstill 1 year ago
I knew the platypus was just an imagination!
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
Evolution is such a stupid religion. According to theory of evolution's pattern, all dogs would have evolved by size from Chihuahua to Great Dane or vice versa. We all can look at that idea as stupid, but because dinosaurs share a similar vertibrae we conclude they evolved based on size of bone and skeletal structures? Give me a break.
kedmonton 1 year ago
@kedmonton Dogs is a poor example for you to use because they are a result of artificial selection by humans.
Every breed of dog has been bred for certain characteristics, to perform certain tasks for humans.
Thats why they are all different.
2camjohn 1 year ago
@kedmonton "Evolution is such a stupid religion."
WTF.......When did a scientific process become a religion?If I throw up my lunch over a cliff just to prove gravity, is that a religion also?
philster61 1 year ago
@philster61 You're so ignorant of the facts I don't have enough space to type them in. Just because evolution is taught in schools does not make it correct. I've known evolutionists who have thrown their careers away. accepting evolution takes more faith than the Christians place in Jesus. I know because I've studied both the evolution THEORY and Christianity. If you believe evolution to be a fact and not a theory than that is sad.
but keep studying before u make up your mind.
kedmonton 1 year ago
@kedmonton You have not studied evolution at all. The fact that you don't use the word theory in the scientific sense belies that fact. Accepting evolution requires EVIDENCE of which there is overwhelming amounts of it. I suggest you go back to school.
philster61 1 year ago
@kedmonton The FACTS of evolution does not require faith. It has evidence. If you knew anything of the peer review process, (Which you don't) Then you would know that nothing makes it into a science classroom without being scrutinized, tested, retested, reviewed and then approved by the science community. You have NOT studied evolution at all. If you had then you would know what you're talking about. But you don't.
philster61 1 year ago
@kedmonton I dont believe evolution, I believe it is the best explanation. I am as close to certain it is true but I do know it isn't necessarily fact; in that sense nothing is. This in no way proves christianity either, so what is your point (and what you said about faith of evolution a religion is total bullshit too)
underballbutter 1 year ago
@kedmonton As much as you can argue that evolution does not have the evidence to be a proven fact, which it is still a theory as MOST ALL scientific hypothesis remain, you can not present evidence for intelligent design. Pointing out holes in evolutionary theory does not support any God in any way possible, a lack of evidence is not evidence in itself. Besides, evolutionary theory has nothing to do with Jesus or God. It wouldn't disprove anything besides Genesis.
kollem26 1 year ago 35
@kollem26 Disprove Genesis, disprove their whole religion. Which we've already done, but we all know how incredibly dependent the religious are on boosting their ego thinking we were made for this world. :)
dleach89 1 year ago
@kollem26 You have very badly missdefined you terms. A fact is one piece of concrete information. eg. There are marsupials in Australia. A theory is a framework that explains the most facts and is contradicted by the fewest or in the case of evolution no facts.
A hypothesis is the proposed theory BEFORE it has the facts added in to make it into a theory. As such, no theory is a hypothesis just as no outline is a book.
Otherwise, I quite agree with you.
Lazerisous 1 year ago 2
@Lazerisous
good job, it's great that people like you can provide clarity to others, free of charge =)
grimslider75 11 months ago
@kollem26 Technically, it wouldn't necessarily disprove that. I do think it is possible that it may have been God's will for evolution to be the means by which he created the world.
chutch1122 1 year ago
@chutch1122
UCD disproves (or makes very ridiculous) the notion that organisms simply arrived on earth out of nothing. Take a belief of god out of the equation, and you've removed unnecessary human concepts from an attempt to study nature.
I have no disregard for your belief. But If we are to study science, such beliefs hold no value in studious ventures. However, if we are to be friends, respecting your beliefs is elementary, regardless of my own. =)
grimslider75 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kollem26 Technically, it wouldn't necessarily disprove that. I do think it is possible that it may have been God's will for evolution to be the means by which he created the world.
chutch1122 1 year ago
Agree with you and I add that: If science show genesis is wrong, then why to accept ANY part of the bible as THE TRUTH? Let's take it as an ancient filosophical material, a set of myths... but not as the "source of truth". @kollem26
nobrainQQ 8 months ago
@kollem26 yea but the same arguement can go for jesus and god as well. Where is your evidence to prove that. There is even less evidence there then there is for evolution
fonzieboy702 8 months ago
@kedmonton You know what is sad. all these creationists saying evolution is just a theory not a fact, when you obviously have no idea what the word theory really means. A theory is something that explains a group of known facts. Evolution is a theory AND a fact. The original HYPOTHESIS of evolution is supported by many facts. When you put those facts together, you get a THEORY. Unlike creationism, which is still only in the hypothesis phase because there are absolutely NO FACTS to support it.
bigjohntattoo 1 year ago 3
@bigjohntattoo Yes, you've bolded the big words, but that still doesn't answer how we got here.
kedmonton 1 year ago
@kedmonton Evolution explains it very clearly
bigjohntattoo 1 year ago
Since nobody was around 500,000 years ago (much less, more than 1 million), nobody really knows for sure. Evolution and the Big Bang share the exact same mentality as philosophers like Aristotle and Plato; look at things, think about it, and think about it, and proclaim something is true. Get a big crowd of people to believe you and it's a universally accepted idea.
WritingFighter 1 year ago
@WritingFighter You seem unfamiliar with the scientific peer review process.
Simply googling it would open your eyes to the way science is performed.
2camjohn 1 year ago
@WritingFighter One word: Fossil.
DarwinsFriend 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WritingFighter " Evolution and the Big Bang share the exact same mentality as philosophers like Aristotle and Plato"
What a load of rubbish..........
philster61 1 year ago
There's two major issues I see with the opening of the video. #1, everything with a common ancestor is a theory, not a fact. A fact is something that has proof--in relation to science which is nothing but observation and the application of observation. #2, it's called the "missing link" for a reason. We have never observed evolution, never observed or seen missing links, and nobody observed/recorded the planet's age more than a few thousand years.
WritingFighter 1 year ago
@WritingFighter what missing link? you have no understanding for natural selection.
EvenFive 1 year ago
@WritingFighter Missing link? Something between Eosimias sinensis, the Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, Proconsul africanus, Afropithecus turkanensis, Turkanapithecus kalakolensis, Sivapithecus indicus, hecus bambolii, Lufengpithecus lufengensis, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus bahrelghazali, lopithecus africanus, Paranthropus aethiopicus, Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis?
gamesbok 8 months ago
For twentieth century man this phrase, the image of God, is as important as anything in Scripture, because men today can no longer answer that crucial question "Who am I?" In his own naturalistic theories, with the uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system, with an evolutionary concept of a mechanical, chance parade from the atom to man, man has lost his unique identity. As he looks out upon the world, as he faces the machine, he cannot tell himself from what he faces.
joshmb24 1 year ago
@joshmb24
It's about time mankind learns that bit of humility, however. We've been "God's special boys and girls" for a long time now, with some really bad shit as a result.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@joshmb24 Gee........ how philosophical. Wonder if our primate cousins feel an identity crisis. Must really suck realising your a primate instead of "gods children"
philster61 1 year ago
@1:59 ---Something tells me that's SEMEN.
mmmmmarcus 1 year ago
I have a friend that thinks evolution isn't real. No matter how much proof there is for it...his religion will always get the better of his thinking.
LegendaryZody 1 year ago
@LegendaryZody .. i had the same argument yesterday with my mate until 3:30 in the morning and 2 weeks ago until 6:00 in the morning .. and he did not budge once .. i give him so many logical answers and all he could give me is a load of non-logical beliefs that dont make any sense at all and leaves me more foresighted and angry ... why cant god not just come down and tell us all ?? why do we have to believe in something that so obviously aint there !!
dkinetik 1 year ago
@dkinetik Yeah man I know what you mean. I don't like fighting with my friends because I might lose them. That's why i'm not going after his faith. He has read the Bible and so he knows what's in it and yet...he still chooses to believe in it. Me and him pretty much came to an agreement we wouldn't talk about it. So we stay friends based on the fun we have together.
LegendaryZody 1 year ago
@LegendaryZody he he , yea were really good friends too, and i found myself shouting at him sometimes trying to get my logical points across, which he took well as he is a Christian :) , but he contradicts him self all the time and never once gave me 1 good answer .. and the more we talked the more it unravelled , that he thinks he`s going to be saved when god has had enough and when god will "come down" and sort out the bad people in this world .. its just a fantasy to me , pure hope !!
dkinetik 1 year ago
@dkinetik Yes, recently my sister told me that she believed aliens from another dimension came and created humans.(seriously) And I asked her what led her to believe this. She couldn't really give me an answer so she linked plenty of conspiracy theories that are scientifically impossible. And in the end she told me it's up to her what she believes is real even if it doesn't make any sense. This is how believers think. Though sometimes there are logical ones out there that are open minded.
Seanze329 1 year ago
@Seanze329 lol :) well i wont say i believe, im pritty sure that alien elements from all across the universe created us , not meaning created by aliens, i mean material elements that fused together over billions of years, u only have to do science at school to see how things fuse together to create different things , its plain to see . i see something the other week saying that a 4 billion old meteor that hit the earth had part of our dna in it , im like wow, evolution makes more sense now !!
dkinetik 1 year ago
THis shit is fucking awesome!! How can one not embrace the beauty of science and our true origin. Don't anyone take this personal, but fuck your invisible, inaudible creator.
agent1180 1 year ago
These videos are So Beautiful. To me Science and true knolegde is absolutley beautiful.
Amazing.
Uranusvideotv 1 year ago
if all life on earth came from one ancestor, wouldn't that mean that all life on earth came from one single organism in the very very very beginning. are we are all related to the very first self replicating molecule?
Splooshiba 1 year ago
@Splooshiba yup...
gr4ndhustle 1 year ago
@gr4ndhustle thats.. amazing
Splooshiba 1 year ago
@Splooshiba Yes :) Beautiful huh :)
MissMischiv 1 year ago
great vid, thank you
mpeniak 1 year ago
"There are no morphological gaps"... you must be kidding. The fossil record is not near perfect. You would probably have been better off mentioning how using molecular genetics can show all of the intermediate stages as common ancestors.
SuperFrozendiceyoutu 1 year ago
Great video. I wanted to touch on one point where it mentions that no trait from a clade can be found in another which does not share a common ancestor (which contains the trait). While this is almost always true there is the possibility (very rarely) that a trait can evolve twice, presenting in two or more groups.
SuperFrozendiceyoutu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well at least I am not on the same phylogenetic tree as birds, so I don't taste like chicken.
darkwhitedirewolf 1 year ago
Lulz, they just HAD to show an African when they displayed all the monkeys...
sandite5 1 year ago 44
@sandite5 Well, they ARE the closest humans to the earlier hominids! Disclaimer: This is not a racist comment.
mmmmmarcus 1 year ago
@sandite5 It's all been traced back to Africa, ergo, African person.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@sandite5 maybe because primates originated in africa?
fsmelo87 1 year ago
@sandite5 : well africans were the first humans
GRIJZEKAK 1 year ago
@sandite5 That's because the first human beings were black. It's been proven true. Everyone was black in the beginning.
TheHonestwords 1 year ago
@TheHonestwords And yet racism against blacks still stand. It is very disappointing.
DeathsWill228 1 year ago
@TheHonestwords
"That's because the first human beings were black"
You assume this because today africans are black? hmmmmmm
gorilla199uncensored 1 year ago
@TheHonestwords Actually when humans still had hair covering their entire bodies it was more likley that they where pale, the black skin collour likley evolved when humans started to have less hair protecting them from the suns UV light.
Sweddude 11 months ago 12
@TheHonestwords So by that rationale, are you then stating that today's blacks have yet to evolve into whites?
likmahchoda 11 months ago
@sandite5 Well i think it was for a good reason. The mitochondrial Eve for humans comes from africa
hawkister 1 year ago
@sandite5 XD
gphhawkins 1 year ago
@sandite5 the first human was african
horbergaren 1 year ago
@sandite5 He is talking about common descent, so a picture of an African is highly applicable.
mrdanengland 10 months ago
@sandite5 Lol, Seriously?
sharpshooter740 9 months ago
In other videos there is white and asian people close to chimps... if black people never appears in any video you would blame them for "not showing a black person as representant of homo sapiens". SO you and 41 people are wrong. @sandite5
nobrainQQ 8 months ago
By the way its quite evident that ancient humans came from africa... so whats your racist "lulz" point? @sandite5
nobrainQQ 8 months ago
@sandite5
Probably because the first human beings lived in Africa.
joranjopie 8 months ago
@sandite5 so what. the white-man mated with savage mammals like the Neanderthal
isbeatz 8 months ago
@sandite5 I"m sure they only did it because or common descendent came from africa
fonzieboy702 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sandite5 a joke but i feel that it comes from a racist
esraretin 5 months ago
Nicely done. A comments:
- "Not a single test has failed" could have stated some tests
- made the signs of the "prestigious scientific organizations" larger, so we could have "checked it out"
- the reptile to mammal sequence was very well done
Is there a transcript available for this video? Is there a video/transcript specifically on the transitional forms of modern man from our common descent ancestor?
Thanks!
KevJJ888 1 year ago
Evolution of mammals is only possible with heterosexual relationships, yet there are many so-called "atheists" who are really religious faggots that won't admit it...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill Do grow up. In humans evolution is now a matter of knowledge and culture. We are no longer bound by the law of natural selection except in a basic sense that we may become extinct if a catastrophic event occurs; just as the birds and bees are no longer bound by the law of gravity except in its most basic sense. You would do away with the contributions to human evolution of, for example, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Alan Turing and many, many others.
colourmegone 1 year ago
@colourmegone
Marriage is a religious fetish. Monogamy is a religious fetish. Homosexuality is a fetish just as much as religion is a fetish...
You religious faggots will never admit that mammals can only evolve with heterosexual relationships even though you have genetic proof...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill There's actually genetic proof that homosexuality isn't a fetish but a natural trait, i.e. not a lifestyle choice but determined genetically. Could it be you're so fascinated by it because you're jealous? Maybe you should look a bit more carefully at your own desires? Why not have your DNA analysed, then you'll know for sure.
colourmegone 1 year ago
@colourmegone
Homosexuality is a fetish, it produces no offspring.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@colourmegone Homosexuality is nothing more than a disorder of the brain. In short, it is a mental illness. For whatever reasons we decided today that it is not and that these people are fine how they are. Several thousand years ago people with epilepsy were thought to be seized by the hand of the divine. It turns out they just have a disorder in their brain. It's the same thing. While homos might now "suffer" from their disorder, it is still a disorder nonetheless.
TheDarxide23 1 year ago
@TheDarxide23 You're wrong, homosexuality is genetic. It is human sexuality expressing itself with a difference to the norm. This has been accepted for some time now, but you probably didn't get the memo or maybe you couldn't read it?
Calling someone a 'homo' isn't really accepted in polite society. And who cares what people do in their bedrooms? or does the thought of all those men writhing in the throws of sexual pleasure disturb you? maybe you'd rather be taking part?
colourmegone 1 year ago
@colourmegone Doesn't disturb me in the least. I was just running out of room so I abbreviated. People like you always give me a chuckle. Say anything that might even be REMOTELY against homosexuals and instantly you launch into "you're a closet homo" or "you're a homophobe" etc.
Show me any kind of proof that it's genetic and I'll listen to what you have to say. There's plenty of evidence that most homosexuals have chemical imbalances in their brain. But none that it's in their genes.
TheDarxide23 1 year ago
@colourmegone Ran out of room, so here's part 2. You're also quite hypocritical in when you tell me that "homo" isn't polite, and yet you use the threat that I might be one myself as some sort of insult. Double standard much?
TheDarxide23 1 year ago
@TheDarxide23 I wasn't insulting by implying you are a homosexual, I was insulting you by implying you are too facile to understand your own motivations. I would never think calling someone 'homosexual' was an insult, much less a 'threat' as you state. It's a cliche' that people who feel threatened by homosexuality are usually homosexuals in self denial, but it's almost always true.
colourmegone 1 year ago
@colourmegone Again, I don't see how you assume I feel "threatened" by them. Same thing I said before, anything you perceive as slightly "offensive" toward them and instantly I'm a homophobe or a wannabe. I simply stated facts. Chemical imbalances in the brain indicate neurochemical disorders, which aren't part of evolution or genetics. They're disorders. And to ANYONE reading your comment, it will read as a threat or an insult, and I still find it hypocritical of you.
TheDarxide23 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDarxide23 And I quote "You're also quite hypocritical in when you tell me that "homo" isn't polite, and yet YOU USE THE THREAT that I might be one myself as some sort of INSULT." You're the one who used the word 'threat' not me.
colourmegone 1 year ago
@TheDarxide23 And it was certainly meant to be an insult to your intelligence, but not to your sexual proclivities.
colourmegone 1 year ago
@colourmegone I wouldn't waste your time on TheDarkside23. He/She/it isn't worth the effort. He/she/it is so rapped up in their own arrogance, no one is going to dent it.
HonestMan395 1 year ago
@HonestMan395 I always like to debate these jerks, it helps me clarify my own thoughts, and besides most of them are simple minded fools so it's no great strain.
I know it probably won't make any difference to their views but maybe it will add to the dissonance they must be experiencing. It really takes quite a lot of energy to consistently deny reality.
Thanks for your comment, I often wonder if anyone reads these things.
Regards
colourmegone 1 year ago