That isn't evidence! It a mutation happened where is the proof of the species turning into another animal? For example, scientists say that the beetle evolved from something. Where is that other animal(it's fossils at least) ?
@hachijuuhachi1 See, there are holes in your logic. If you lived in the desert, or in a tundra your descendants wouldn't die out. That's microevolution also. My previous example wasn't microevolution because they were bacteria. A single mutation in a gene in a population is microevolution, and it happens in all species, even within your own body. If many genetic changes occur slowly over time, a species will change into a new one, with no break in fertility. Anyway, have a good evening.
@jibblesmgeeThe situation in which my descendants dont die out or my bros descendants dont die out again isn't proof evolution has occurred, only gene pool isolation. A beneficial genetic mutation (not actual print that already is present) has yet to be found to have been passed from one generation to the next. Though we can philosophize that it might happen, proof is what is needed for such a scientific theory.
Is a mutation random, or a genetic reaction to adapt? What are your thoughts?
@hachijuuhachi1 "Is a mutation random, or a genetic reaction to adapt? What are your thoughts?"
The result of a mutation depends on environmental factors. The cause of a mutation can also be environmental factors but the location of, and the mutation it self is always random.
"A beneficial genetic mutation...has yet to be found to have been passed from one generation to the next."
The change from 48 to 46 chromosomes in the human evolution has been found...
actually my favourite dinosaur theory is the one in The Far Side panel about their remains being the giant chicken bones left here by large alien picnicers......
when Jurassic Park was first out, i couldn't believe anyone thought the premise that there were bird-like dinosaurs was made up, i thought they knew that was true back then, and i'm sure it was in books i had when even younger (which annoyingly i don't know what happened to them, those were cool sticker albums) - is it not obvious just based on the fact that reptiles today evolved into birds, ie birds are a later stage of the same branch....well anyway it was to me.
@Howie47 Why do you pit creationism and evolution against each other? Bacteria evolve constantly, and very quickly. As we use antibiotics to treat diseases, a few develop genetic mutations that make them resistant to the medicine. Those few remaining "lucky" bacteria that became resistant to the fungal antibiotic treatment are left to multiply, and become a new strain of bacteria. That's microevolution, and if you don't believe it exists, you really shouldn't talk about science at all.
@jibblesmgee - i think he means that the idea that there is some end goal to evolve to is not the case. until reading that it didn't really occur to me some people meant that is what evolution is, i just think of it more in the way you wrote there, about how things adapt to whatever conditions are around them, or at least try to adapt.
@jibblesmgee Just for clarity :). Microevolution does happen in bacteria but it is not the same as the general theory for evo. The term is equivalent to "survival of the fittest" but is not proof that evo has occured.
Eg. I'm allergic to grass, my bro isnt. My descendants soon die out. My bro's descendants prevail. But they didnt actually organically evolve. The stronger strains exist in the first place but are called "new" cz they were first uncommon and now more common.
@13doinurmomz13 then I'm like that I was raised in the church in a devout Christian family and got interested in paleontology so I believe in both the evolution and creation how would you explain both of them
@NUTCASE71733 lol, try telling that to the person I am arguing with. He has verbally attacked me for not believing in the creation story yet claiming to be a Christian. The Bible is a book of metaphor, something which Jesus Christ used extensively. The creation story of Genesis is no different. Evolution is a fact, and it is the work of God. there is no conflict, only marvel.
@donntarbh Just for clarity :) Evolution is not yet fact. There is no mechanism showing that DNA can be altered to produce new species. If the DNA barrier cannot be breached, evolution can't happen. Mutations can alter some code but if passed on to the next gen, the offspring become either infertile, weak or die out. Mutations almost always produce defects in an organism. And if mutation can't change a species into something else, what can change it?
@NUTCASE71733 lol, try telling that to the person I am arguing with. He has verbally attacked me for not believing in the creation story yet claiming to be a Christian. The Bible is a book of metaphor, something which Jesus Christ used extensively. The creation story of Genesis is no different. Evolution is a fact, and it is the work of God. there is no conflict, only marvel.
Maybe you should consider this peer-reviewed paper. "Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration". arguing for the irreducible complexity of two systems vital to bird flight -- feathers and the avian respiratory system. The author, Leeds University professor Andy McIntosh, challenges his critics to consider the design hypothesis as a valid scientific assumption "borne out by the evidence itself."
@Howie47 I haven't seen the paper, but I would point out that any educated commentater should be aware of '"Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", by Hermann J Muller, in Genetics, Vol 3, No 5, Sept 1918, which shows that Irreducably Complex (he called it 'Interlocking Complexity') structures are to be expected in evolved systems. Critics of evolution are going to have to do better than Irreducible Complexity. Muller won a Noble Prize.
@gamesbok This would be a huge change in the Darwinist's tactic. It would mean, they are now admitting, that some systems ARE irreducibly complex. Something, up to this paper, they have vehemently denied! This paper is apparently to new to have been reviewed and commented on by the scientific community. So I wouldn't rest much weight on it, until it is critiqued by others! Maybe it is Darwinist that will have to come up with something better. I.D. already has! Information Theory.
@Howie47 What you have failed to appreciate is that IC isn't a problem for evolution, something evolution certainly knew since 1918. It isn't an indication of ID. Information theory also is totally compatible with evolution, as I've shown with the Schneider paper. Do try and keep up.
Remember the Discovery Institute is a political organisation. It isn't a scientific organisation.
@gamesbok What you fail to appreciate is that just posting "papers", shows you fail to understand the subject. I just posted why P. C. Myers objection isn't relevant. Again, Irreducible systems, that them selves are necessities for their host life. Can't be used for some thing else while they are evolving. The whole point of I. S. is they are both necessary for the life and all their parts are also necessary to function. IF a mouse trap is necessary, it isn't useful in a house, as a tie clasp.
@Howie47 It was Ken Miller who used the mouse trap analogy at the Dover Trial, and you haven't shown why anything is irrelevant. What is required is that you disprove Muller's thesis, and that you haven't done. Systems can be as irreducably Complex as they want, it still a problem for evolution, still doesn't substantiate ID. You don't have an arguement.
@gamesbok I was referring to the 1918 paper you brought up. Which was on P C. Myers blog. I know Ken Miller tried to refute the mouse trap irreducible argument. By saying it's parts could serve some other purpose. Instead of scientific evidence. You seem to want to rest your case on "the argument from authority". That is your privilege. I can't stop you from deluding yourself and others. I only warn you that, those who forsake their reason, end up in a bad place.
@Howie47 Again you fail to appreciate the arguement. I'll summerise. ID states that IC systems could not evolve, example X, therefore IDer required. Counter arguement, X could have evolved this way, no IDer required. Note that the counter arguement does not have to show how it did evolve, mearly that it could. If there is possible route then the ID arguement collapses utterly, as indeed, it has.
@Howie47 'The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.'
@gamesbok I looked this up. This is a desperate ploy by P.C. Myers. I read his latest blog. He dug up some ancient paper, that has long been discarded. The claim that parts of irreducible systems could serve a different purpose. "Parts of a mouse trap, a tie clasp." LOL This is a silly and foolish argument. Because many irreducible systems are necessities for the whole life to exist.
@Howie47 This paper was published in International Journal of Design & Nature & Ecodynamics: and one of the peers involved seems to be a department secretary without qualifications. I will give you a banana if you can find an academic library that subscribes to this 'journal'.
Its a good thing that it doesn't matter what people believe. Evolution doesn't care and just keep on going. Human idea's are irrelevant. Just like a hammer doesn't care whether you believe in gravity or not when you slip it and it falls to the ground. Some things are simply just plain happening no matter how much religious people deny it because its uncomfortable for them.
It baffles me how people can still deny evolution. They don't contest gravity, they don't contest the fact that the earth isn't the centre of the universe. Heck, most evolution denialists don't even contest the holocaust - which, while a fact, still has less amount of evidence going for it than evolution.
Some people just won't do their research and think they know all about it anyway.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evolution is kept alive because of it's cultural popularity. Which keeps money flowing to scientist that will keep the myth alive. They just spin the evidence towards an evolution scenario. IF the facts don't fit the theory. Then so much for the facts. They are swept under the rug. Which has been woven into the Evolutionary World View. This foolish counter measure to religious dogma. Keeps the world stale mated, in a death spiral away from further enlightenment.
@ndjarnag Evolution is the proposition that life is naturally developing toward a nested hierarchy that will finally be isolated from all competition and will attain a supreme kingdom. A nice fairy tale for those who ignore all the other scientific basics; that undermine that proposition. I think some creation myths have more value then current culture directed science.
Artist supersedes scientist, when it comes to visualizing the future and the past.
@Howie47 I would agree that when you analyze the genetics of various creatures, the resulting phylogenetic tree would be a nested hierarchy, would is indicative of evolution. In the other hand, I don't think that evolution is "developing" toward a "supreme kingdom". For example: there are more bacterial cells living on each human than there are human cells. Also, the biomass of bacteria vastly outweighs that of "higher" life forms.
@ndjarnag A "nested hierarchy" is not proof of evolution. Because it is also a prediction of some creation models. Like Genesis. Where the last animal to be created was man. Which was given the abilities to dominate all the rest. Bacteria which live off of bio matter have no reason to evolve, and would have come into existence after or at the same time as the life they live off of. Bacteria found in amber are virtually the same as modern ones. NO evolution. Just adaptions due to design.
@Howie47 You don't actually cite the 'scientific basics that undermine that proposition'. I don't know what you mean by 'supreme kingdom', and I don't think you do either. Darwin certainly would have rejected any such concept. No creation myth has any value. They all lack mechanism.
@gamesbok Get a clue. Intelligent Design is a mechanism. Contrary to what most biologist insist that evolution means. "just change". In common language it is believed to mean, life is getting better (more evolved) bacteria-man, Model T-Ferrari. It suggest man is becoming more god like in nature. Life changes, downward and linear, it does not develop a higher state of being. Like in, nested HIGHarchy.
@Howie47 Intelligent design isn't a mechanism. How this mythical 'designer' impliments his concepts remains mysterious. Further 'higher' means little as there are amoeba that contain 100 times the genetic information we do, and will certainly be able to survive the vaiguaries of an uncertain future better than we. Nemotode worms live in a greater variety of environments and out number us. There are flat worms with 25% stem cells, almost immortal. Ever driven a Ferrari cross country?
@gamesbok How the mythical "evolution" builds intricate irreducible systems is a mystery. Oh ya, "one step at a time", etc. The same could be said of the IDer. But I agree, "higher" is misused by evolutionist, just like the word evolution is misused. It is evolutionist that say a hierarchy has and is further evolving. There is no evo going on. Each life has it's special place in the system of life. All are necessary for the whole. Not at all like (fittest) evo predicts.
@Howie47 Evolution is implicit in any system showing reproduction, variation and selection. It's true because of the meaning of the words, logically necessary, a priori true, inevitable, inescapable.
The intricate web of life is precisely the inevitable consiquence of natural selection, the inevitable consiquence of evolution.
You seem to be making claims based on some idiology. You are not making coherent arguements.
@gamesbok (Change) is implicit, "evolution" is not happening at all. When you use two different meanings at the same time for the same word. It only serves to confuse. Not enlighten. Evolution doesn't just imply change. So you now admit, "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with it? You seem to be able to come up with fairly explicit answers to my incoherent arguments!
@Howie47Ah, the 'Survival of the fittest' phrase, invented by the Economist Herbert Spencer, and never used by Darwin. Believe me, I would never doubt your confusion.
@Howie47 'All are necessary for the whole' Well no, as the removal of cod from the waters of the Maritime Provinces has shown, . Pick any extinction event, same story.
'Each life has it's special place in the system of life.' Yes, otherwise it's dead, Natural Selection.
Irreducable Complexity? see "Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", by Hermann J Muller, in Genetics, Vol 3, No 5, Sept 1918,. Wonderful stuff is education.
@gamesbok Extinction of single species has a rippling effect on the whole. Fortunately the whole bio-system has a self recovery ability built in. So that it can recover quickly from natural disasters. Life doesn't have to re-evolve for millions of years. After the K-T (flood) destruction. life recovered very quickly. As modern disasters have proved. I. C. is any system that won't function with a part missing. Like our circulation won't work without a heart. Where's yours?
@Howie47 I'm sorry, but if you're proposing the K-T as a flood event you're going to have to present evidence, evidence that seems to have escaped the scientific community so far. Indeed IC is any system that will not now function with a part missing, and as HJ Muller proved in 1918, evolution will produce IC systems.
@gamesbok It only "escaped "those who only listen to those in scientific community that march to the establishments drumbeat! But your HJ Muller hypothesis does seem to have escaped the scientific community. As they (both sides of the debate) are still arguing if said systems are or aren't irreducibly complex. Your the first I've ever heard try to make the argument that evolution can produce such systems!
@Howie47 I have no idea what 'god-like' might be, unless you mean mythical. For an idea how things develop might I suggest ‘Evolution of Biological Information’, Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research, Oxford University, July 2000. It's available on-line.
@gamesbok Casey Luskin-"One can pick Scrabble letters out of a bag all day long and call that "information." But unless those letters spell words, the information is useless." Random changes to a word or sentence, might on occasion change it's meaning. But the new meaning has to fit and enhance the already existing paragraph before it is useful (functional). All these books and papers on how information can self generate; side step the real issue. Can a coherent story spontaneously generate?
@Howie47 You haven't defined 'information', Schneider has, but you wouldn't know that as you haven't read the paper. 'Random changes to a word or sentence, might on occasion change it's meaning' ; That's all that is required. 'Can a coherent story spontaneously generate?' Yes, all stories can be generated, and those with'meaning will be preserved.
Schneider is a Scientist at University of Oxford. Luskin is a Lawer at the Discovery Institute, the Institute that hasn't discovered anything.
@gamesbok I don't have to read every paper. Because the basic principles never change! No stupid, random changes is not all that is required! The change must fit in a coherent fashion and add new or enhanced function. It also must not inhibit the all ready in place functionality. "Yes, all stories can be generated" A statement of pure bluster. And Dawkin's is a big mouthed pseudoscientist, who never published a single scientific paper. Just to put things in perspective.
@gluepot66 I think your referring to my comment about "there are more bacteria cells in the human body than there are human cells". Sure it is counterintuitive, but that seems to be the case. In fact, I was told this in my introductory biology classes in college. Just google "number of bacteria cells in the human body"......regardless, I still may need a head shrink.
@ndjarnag "What convinced you evolution is not true?" Reason, logic and lifes experiences. Mankind is to undisciplined to reach a clear, clean, unbiased paradigmn of origins. Intricate systems of life are unlikely to form by them selves. More so when the strong resistence to such complexity existing, is taken into consideration. Life self generating and evolving into what we see today. Is the biggest myth ever concocked by man. Creation myths have more truth then today's, just so fairytales.
For the record, do you have to believe the descent of every living organism from one ancestor to be biologically correct? why is creationism a sin? Is everyone around here heartless enough live a life without christian morality? If that's the case the why aren't WE HUMANS ALREADY EXTINCT?! someone answer me THAT!
@LavaDracovania wipe the rabid dribble off your chin and try again.
It's pretty clear that animal and human species are all related, being descended from common ancestors. I don't have to 'believe' that, I can see it all around me.
No-one said creationism is a sin. It's just wilfully ignorant, and fucking stupid to persist in ignorance.
And I have no idea what you're dribbling on about with lack of morality equating to extinction. Run along, grown ups are trying to watch the doco.
Look, morons. I'm A Progressive creationist. if birds are dinosaurs they were GUIDED into that form. but for your discontent I don't believe in a taxonomical change of that proportion: Reptile to bird. these dinosaur and bird fossils aren't transitional they're 100% dinosaur or 100% bird
@LavaDracovania You idiot. Believe what you like, it doesn't change the fact that the evidence is right in front of your eyes. These are self-evidently transitional fossils, they cannot be anything else.
@LavaDracovania You idiot. Believe what you like, it doesn't change the fact that the evidence is right in front of your eyes. These are self-evidently transitional fossils, they cannot be anything else.
@LavaDracovania You idiot. Believe what you like, it doesn't change the fact that the evidence is right in front of your eyes. These are self-evidently transitional fossils, they cannot be anything else.
That is yet again...VERY RIDICULOUS! A Prehistoric Peacock is not a transitional fossil! And The Archaeopteryx topic... AGAIN!? Get your discovery history correct, You Morons! the most Recent find shows Archie DID have the bones that give birds powered flight! Meaning Archie was Completely a BIRD! How Long Are You Atheists Going to dig up these 'Psuedosaurs'! and dinosaurs with 'Psuedo-feathers'! Please Somebody Say "Skin Shed!" dinosaurs were Complete Cold-blooded Reptiles!
@LavaDracovania So according to you, something that has feathers, is endothermic, and flies is a reptile? When you get to university, perhaps think about a biology course, I think you'll be surprised.
@gilesderoet I said a DINOSAUR IS A Reptile! not birds, you ding-dong.... I believe dinosaurs ectothermic scaly non-avian animals utterly unrelated to birds....
@LavaDracovania I knew exactly what you were saying, and it's flat wrong. Dinosaurs are not simply ' cold blooded scaly non-avian reptiles'. Different dinosaurs were warm-blooded, had skin and feathers (not reptile scales), some species even birthed live young. I don't see too many reptiles doing any of these. The evidence is crystal clear that dinosaurs are indeed very closely related to birds, so stop spouting rubbish that they aren't.
Is there an animal, with a full record of it's evolution till the present time. Start to finish, primitive animal to present time. With all links in between to clearly show this particular animal transformed? Or has not enough bones, ect been found for any particular animal? I've done some searching around and can't seem to find what I'm talking about.
evolution isn't concrete evidence just yet. there's still a missing link. though, i am not exactly on the creationists side either. there is plenty more to be learned and discovered.
@jweeks1982 Missing link is an outdated term (from when their where none known) .There are gap less records now of a few invertebrates .Evolution is completely verified by fossils and genome mapping .
@jweeks1982 Not sure I understand. There are many millions of missing links - only a handful have been preserved as fossils & recovered by humans. However, there are still more than enough to prove that certain populations evolved into other populations and some pathways (mainly marine ones, like fish to amphibians or land mammals to whales etc) are so well preserved as to make any other conclusion look quite silly.
5:12 - Finishing it off with Microraptor, very nice.
I wouldn't go so far as to call creationists idiots, but why they keep holding onto their scripture even when it's been proven wrong countless times, shows a mind that refuses to change. And a mind that cannot change is non-functioning by definition.
Oh, and the Jurassic Park Music was a great touch.
@cadman2300 Oviraptorid is very much like a modern Cassowary. All the raptors were part of the "Ratite" bird family. Modern Ratite's still have "claws", small or no wings, up to 15' high, 1,000 lbs. Act very much like what raptors would have acted. See YouTube Video. "Killer Cassowary Bird Attacks". Also latest research cast serious doubt on Dino to bird evo. Modern birds (ducks) are found in the fossil record long before raptors. Birds still carry the "genetic reserves" for teeth.
@cadman2300 P.S. Your stereotypical characterization of "creationist", bemoans your own ignorance of the whole subject. Of course Evolutionist never want to look to closely at whole picture. Lest their darkened minds be enlightened to the presence of a Creator.
@Howie47 Please provide some clear and tangible evidence of said "Creator" that goes beyond mere biblical mythology. Otherwise, don't respond to this reply because I don't want a video about bird evolution to be used as a springboard for a theistic discussion.
evolution is already a fact.. there is so much evidence in the favor of evolution it's not even funny... anybody who doesn't accept evolution is a fucking idiot. wake up..
All it took was archeopteryx to convince me that birds were in the dinosaur clade. This was 20 years ago and I moved on to other questions not related to dinosaurs.
And now I take a look again...
I love all these new fossils! Its like reading a book, but there are new characters every year.
I was the same way, myself. I was six when I heard about Archeopterix and I found it awesome how birds were in fact living dinosaurs. It made me become quite fond of them.
Maybe because birds ARE dinosaurs. Modern birds are Avian Maniraptors and Maniraptors very much are dinosaurs. Do some real research in taxonomy and cladistics and you might learn something.
When did this happen cause i still pretty sure archeopteryx is real and also that doesn't prove that birds didn't descend from dinosaurs cause of other transitional fossils like microraptor and the others who names i can't spell or pronounce
Really, and all the other Archeopteryx fossils were faked too? Wow, they were dug right out of the ground. Amazing hoax job then. Somehow they got them under layers of rock strata before pretending to find them.
Well firstly, sarcasm, learn it. Second, Archeopteryx is real. No matter how much you want to think otherwise, it is. Even if it weren't what about all of the other feathered dinosaurs found in Liaoning China?
Now there was a faked feathered dino known as Archaeoraptor. It was found to be 2 fossils in one. Maybe its that you were thinking of?
Then obviously they fucked up because they would be building intelligent educated individuals. You see I research and I educate myself. I look at facts and variables, I do not blindly trust a controlling dogmatic book wrote thousands of years ago by men with delusions of controlling the masses.
Ok, I will entertain your argument. Please provide concise evidence to support your claims and cite sources as to why you think Archeopteryx is fake. You see scientists get things done by asking questions and then seeking answers. My question is "Why does this individual insist that he knows these fossils are fake?" So I am now seeking the answer.
why would i tell YOU retarded dumb ass why this fossil is fake?? yeah i have proof a lot of it. If I ever need a brain transplant, I'd choose yours because I'd want a brain that had never been used.
Wait. So you refuse to support your claims and arguments with verifiable data? you resort to childish name calling and insults? That's so christian of you. "If they don't believe what you believe then hurt them". You are a coward then. You are terrified of the changing times and your dwindling religion. You are in the minority. we can liken it to evolution. We scientific individuals are more evolved that your bronze aged superstitious christians.
you are a professional retard :) : i am not religious but i do like Zeus, i dont refuse to support my claims i simply dont want to share them with you, you fat whiny little cock sucker now better shut up or i swear i will massacre you ;)
Well, I am a Science nerd, but that's beside the point. Are you not aware that is us "Science nerds" that drive the world these days with our advancements and technology? Yeah, like that computer your shitting around on right now. Now, unfortunately for your argument, the very fact that I have a good education and use deductive and logical thinking, has allowed me to have a pretty good life. If you wish to debate, bring your brain into the conversation and stop making yourself look stupid.
What's funny is how you think you're right in everything, no i'm not talking about science but people, you think you know when people are angry and happy and wrong you don't know shit, you don't know when people make an idiot out of themself either. besides i don't give a fuck if you're smarter than me and i do not wish to be smarter than people i wish to be the one i am because if you want to be smarter than someone and try too hard then you're just too stupid.
I also am an artist. Even though I am a science nerd its actually what I hope to be doing permanently here soon. I draw manga. but I also draw portraits and can paint. I don't think I am better than anyone. On the contrary, there will always be better. I just cannot stand the ignorance and stupidity some people display while online. There are plenty of people that are smart in different ways. There are different types of intelligence and it is just a relative term.
I mostly draw on paper and edit on computer with Photoshop or Manga Studio. I ink everything with Tachikawa or Nikko dip pens and I use Non Photogenic blue led pencils for the pencil work. I would like to try out a tablet sometime to draw straight digitally.
In the same way that I cannot be sure exactly what someone is feeling online, neither can you. All I can determine from them is what they convey through their words. And if its anger, its anger. I cannot be blamed if someone conveys themselves in a stupid manner online. Though I do defend that I can know when I am write on matters that I know well.
And what's wrong with christians? you science nerds have so much against it.
i'm not a christian myself...but i wonder, also you should know that by talking the way you do against insults well.. you kind of do make an idiot out of yourself (not trying to offend).
I would think that buy using an intellgent and logical approach to an argument instead of ad hominem attacks, I would actually look intelligent. that's just common sense. It is how you perceive me that changes the effect. I cannot changes your predisposition with my actions if you refuse to see them.
As for Christians, I hate ignorance. I have read the bible front to back more than just once, and I cannot come to believe something so ignorant and illogical.
I hate the bible because it creates hate and lies, gays are even hated because of that physcho book and i hate the book for that i cannot stand it! it is so fucking retarded
besides i am gay and i am hated because of that book. it's not only because of the bible we're hated but whatever.
So, it seems you are. I find it odd that you mention you are gay, so I went and checked your profile and searched your name on a few videos about gay rights. It seems what you say is true. That is coincidental, as you will find me on those same videos on YOUR side arguing FOR gay rights. Don't judge people merely at first read. And I agree with what you say.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Finding a new species in the fossil record is just finding a new species. It cannot be dated by any scientific means and thus it supports creation. Similarity is evidence of common designer.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No differences and similarity show a common designer and nothing else. All living creatures are made up of the same things just put together differently. Thank God don't hate him.
What about the fact that you can breed a new species of fruit fly all by yourself? You don't need fancy equipment, you just need a box, some fruit flies, fruit, and water. Keep them in there for about 100 generations and you'll have a new species by the end.
All fossils were manufactured in an underground factory in Jerusalem. They have been craftily planted in the ground by an ancient Jewish commie conspiracy to destroy the christian faith of the youth in the USA
That isn't evidence! It a mutation happened where is the proof of the species turning into another animal? For example, scientists say that the beetle evolved from something. Where is that other animal(it's fossils at least) ?
poplocker99 1 month ago
Love the Jurassic Park music in the end!
WanderingProphet 3 months ago
@hachijuuhachi1 See, there are holes in your logic. If you lived in the desert, or in a tundra your descendants wouldn't die out. That's microevolution also. My previous example wasn't microevolution because they were bacteria. A single mutation in a gene in a population is microevolution, and it happens in all species, even within your own body. If many genetic changes occur slowly over time, a species will change into a new one, with no break in fertility. Anyway, have a good evening.
jibblesmgee 3 months ago
@jibblesmgeeThe situation in which my descendants dont die out or my bros descendants dont die out again isn't proof evolution has occurred, only gene pool isolation. A beneficial genetic mutation (not actual print that already is present) has yet to be found to have been passed from one generation to the next. Though we can philosophize that it might happen, proof is what is needed for such a scientific theory.
Is a mutation random, or a genetic reaction to adapt? What are your thoughts?
Peace.
hachijuuhachi1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hachijuuhachi1 "Is a mutation random, or a genetic reaction to adapt? What are your thoughts?"
The result of a mutation depends on environmental factors. The cause of a mutation can also be environmental factors but the location of, and the mutation it self is always random.
"A beneficial genetic mutation...has yet to be found to have been passed from one generation to the next."
The change from 48 to 46 chromosomes in the human evolution has been found...
aakesson1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
actually my favourite dinosaur theory is the one in The Far Side panel about their remains being the giant chicken bones left here by large alien picnicers......
MannySteinerBIeeky 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
when Jurassic Park was first out, i couldn't believe anyone thought the premise that there were bird-like dinosaurs was made up, i thought they knew that was true back then, and i'm sure it was in books i had when even younger (which annoyingly i don't know what happened to them, those were cool sticker albums) - is it not obvious just based on the fact that reptiles today evolved into birds, ie birds are a later stage of the same branch....well anyway it was to me.
MannySteinerBIeeky 4 months ago
@Howie47 Why do you pit creationism and evolution against each other? Bacteria evolve constantly, and very quickly. As we use antibiotics to treat diseases, a few develop genetic mutations that make them resistant to the medicine. Those few remaining "lucky" bacteria that became resistant to the fungal antibiotic treatment are left to multiply, and become a new strain of bacteria. That's microevolution, and if you don't believe it exists, you really shouldn't talk about science at all.
jibblesmgee 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jibblesmgee - i think he means that the idea that there is some end goal to evolve to is not the case. until reading that it didn't really occur to me some people meant that is what evolution is, i just think of it more in the way you wrote there, about how things adapt to whatever conditions are around them, or at least try to adapt.
they're already perfect to their environment.
MannySteinerBIeeky 4 months ago
@jibblesmgee Just for clarity :). Microevolution does happen in bacteria but it is not the same as the general theory for evo. The term is equivalent to "survival of the fittest" but is not proof that evo has occured.
Eg. I'm allergic to grass, my bro isnt. My descendants soon die out. My bro's descendants prevail. But they didnt actually organically evolve. The stronger strains exist in the first place but are called "new" cz they were first uncommon and now more common.
Peace.
hachijuuhachi1 3 months ago
have you heard of the evolution of religion???
kieferkippy 7 months ago
So our reptilian brains are really chook brains ... explains humanity haha
Gordanasaurus 7 months ago
Thumbs up!
youngonewun 10 months ago
thumbs up if u belive in god and evolution
13doinurmomz13 11 months ago
whoa you can be a Christian and believe in the prehistoric times?
TommyShawfan1 10 months ago
@TommyShawfan1 yes of course
13doinurmomz13 10 months ago
@13doinurmomz13 then I'm like that I was raised in the church in a devout Christian family and got interested in paleontology so I believe in both the evolution and creation how would you explain both of them
TommyShawfan1 10 months ago
@TommyShawfan1 there is science to god hes all powerful he created us he designed the human race
13doinurmomz13 10 months ago
@TommyShawfan1
Yes actually. Not all christians are idiots. Many don't accept the bible as an accurate account of God's word.
NUTCASE71733 8 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 lol, try telling that to the person I am arguing with. He has verbally attacked me for not believing in the creation story yet claiming to be a Christian. The Bible is a book of metaphor, something which Jesus Christ used extensively. The creation story of Genesis is no different. Evolution is a fact, and it is the work of God. there is no conflict, only marvel.
donntarbh 4 months ago
@donntarbh Just for clarity :) Evolution is not yet fact. There is no mechanism showing that DNA can be altered to produce new species. If the DNA barrier cannot be breached, evolution can't happen. Mutations can alter some code but if passed on to the next gen, the offspring become either infertile, weak or die out. Mutations almost always produce defects in an organism. And if mutation can't change a species into something else, what can change it?
Peace
hachijuuhachi1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NUTCASE71733 lol, try telling that to the person I am arguing with. He has verbally attacked me for not believing in the creation story yet claiming to be a Christian. The Bible is a book of metaphor, something which Jesus Christ used extensively. The creation story of Genesis is no different. Evolution is a fact, and it is the work of God. there is no conflict, only marvel.
donntarbh 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@13doinurmomz13 whoa you can be a Christian and believe in the prehistoric times?
TommyShawfan1 10 months ago
Maybe you should consider this peer-reviewed paper. "Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration". arguing for the irreducible complexity of two systems vital to bird flight -- feathers and the avian respiratory system. The author, Leeds University professor Andy McIntosh, challenges his critics to consider the design hypothesis as a valid scientific assumption "borne out by the evidence itself."
Howie47 11 months ago
@Howie47 I haven't seen the paper, but I would point out that any educated commentater should be aware of '"Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", by Hermann J Muller, in Genetics, Vol 3, No 5, Sept 1918, which shows that Irreducably Complex (he called it 'Interlocking Complexity') structures are to be expected in evolved systems. Critics of evolution are going to have to do better than Irreducible Complexity. Muller won a Noble Prize.
gamesbok 11 months ago
@gamesbok This would be a huge change in the Darwinist's tactic. It would mean, they are now admitting, that some systems ARE irreducibly complex. Something, up to this paper, they have vehemently denied! This paper is apparently to new to have been reviewed and commented on by the scientific community. So I wouldn't rest much weight on it, until it is critiqued by others! Maybe it is Darwinist that will have to come up with something better. I.D. already has! Information Theory.
Howie47 11 months ago
@Howie47 What you have failed to appreciate is that IC isn't a problem for evolution, something evolution certainly knew since 1918. It isn't an indication of ID. Information theory also is totally compatible with evolution, as I've shown with the Schneider paper. Do try and keep up.
Remember the Discovery Institute is a political organisation. It isn't a scientific organisation.
gamesbok 11 months ago
@gamesbok What you fail to appreciate is that just posting "papers", shows you fail to understand the subject. I just posted why P. C. Myers objection isn't relevant. Again, Irreducible systems, that them selves are necessities for their host life. Can't be used for some thing else while they are evolving. The whole point of I. S. is they are both necessary for the life and all their parts are also necessary to function. IF a mouse trap is necessary, it isn't useful in a house, as a tie clasp.
Howie47 11 months ago
@Howie47 It was Ken Miller who used the mouse trap analogy at the Dover Trial, and you haven't shown why anything is irrelevant. What is required is that you disprove Muller's thesis, and that you haven't done. Systems can be as irreducably Complex as they want, it still a problem for evolution, still doesn't substantiate ID. You don't have an arguement.
gamesbok 11 months ago
@gamesbok I was referring to the 1918 paper you brought up. Which was on P C. Myers blog. I know Ken Miller tried to refute the mouse trap irreducible argument. By saying it's parts could serve some other purpose. Instead of scientific evidence. You seem to want to rest your case on "the argument from authority". That is your privilege. I can't stop you from deluding yourself and others. I only warn you that, those who forsake their reason, end up in a bad place.
Howie47 11 months ago
@Howie47 Again you fail to appreciate the arguement. I'll summerise. ID states that IC systems could not evolve, example X, therefore IDer required. Counter arguement, X could have evolved this way, no IDer required. Note that the counter arguement does not have to show how it did evolve, mearly that it could. If there is possible route then the ID arguement collapses utterly, as indeed, it has.
gamesbok 11 months ago
@Howie47 'The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.'
Judge John E. Jones
Kitzmuller v Dover Area School District.
gamesbok 11 months ago
@gamesbok I looked this up. This is a desperate ploy by P.C. Myers. I read his latest blog. He dug up some ancient paper, that has long been discarded. The claim that parts of irreducible systems could serve a different purpose. "Parts of a mouse trap, a tie clasp." LOL This is a silly and foolish argument. Because many irreducible systems are necessities for the whole life to exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howie47 11 months ago
@Howie47 This paper was published in International Journal of Design & Nature & Ecodynamics: and one of the peers involved seems to be a department secretary without qualifications. I will give you a banana if you can find an academic library that subscribes to this 'journal'.
gamesbok 11 months ago
that's make me laugh all those lies and non sense from evolutionists.
they create a myth in their mind pushed by satan.
alexrj2 11 months ago
Its a good thing that it doesn't matter what people believe. Evolution doesn't care and just keep on going. Human idea's are irrelevant. Just like a hammer doesn't care whether you believe in gravity or not when you slip it and it falls to the ground. Some things are simply just plain happening no matter how much religious people deny it because its uncomfortable for them.
afoaa 1 year ago
The music made me think of Jarassic Park.
phanable1 1 year ago
Great video!
It baffles me how people can still deny evolution. They don't contest gravity, they don't contest the fact that the earth isn't the centre of the universe. Heck, most evolution denialists don't even contest the holocaust - which, while a fact, still has less amount of evidence going for it than evolution.
Some people just won't do their research and think they know all about it anyway.
HimmiJoe 1 year ago
on 2:23 what tv show was that from
sirengrove 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution is kept alive because of it's cultural popularity. Which keeps money flowing to scientist that will keep the myth alive. They just spin the evidence towards an evolution scenario. IF the facts don't fit the theory. Then so much for the facts. They are swept under the rug. Which has been woven into the Evolutionary World View. This foolish counter measure to religious dogma. Keeps the world stale mated, in a death spiral away from further enlightenment.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 What convinced you evolution is not true? What do you think about the various creation myths from antiquity?
ndjarnag 1 year ago
@ndjarnag Evolution is the proposition that life is naturally developing toward a nested hierarchy that will finally be isolated from all competition and will attain a supreme kingdom. A nice fairy tale for those who ignore all the other scientific basics; that undermine that proposition. I think some creation myths have more value then current culture directed science.
Artist supersedes scientist, when it comes to visualizing the future and the past.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 I would agree that when you analyze the genetics of various creatures, the resulting phylogenetic tree would be a nested hierarchy, would is indicative of evolution. In the other hand, I don't think that evolution is "developing" toward a "supreme kingdom". For example: there are more bacterial cells living on each human than there are human cells. Also, the biomass of bacteria vastly outweighs that of "higher" life forms.
ndjarnag 1 year ago 6
@ndjarnag A "nested hierarchy" is not proof of evolution. Because it is also a prediction of some creation models. Like Genesis. Where the last animal to be created was man. Which was given the abilities to dominate all the rest. Bacteria which live off of bio matter have no reason to evolve, and would have come into existence after or at the same time as the life they live off of. Bacteria found in amber are virtually the same as modern ones. NO evolution. Just adaptions due to design.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 You don't actually cite the 'scientific basics that undermine that proposition'. I don't know what you mean by 'supreme kingdom', and I don't think you do either. Darwin certainly would have rejected any such concept. No creation myth has any value. They all lack mechanism.
gamesbok 11 months ago
@gamesbok Get a clue. Intelligent Design is a mechanism. Contrary to what most biologist insist that evolution means. "just change". In common language it is believed to mean, life is getting better (more evolved) bacteria-man, Model T-Ferrari. It suggest man is becoming more god like in nature. Life changes, downward and linear, it does not develop a higher state of being. Like in, nested HIGHarchy.
Howie47 11 months ago
@Howie47 Intelligent design isn't a mechanism. How this mythical 'designer' impliments his concepts remains mysterious. Further 'higher' means little as there are amoeba that contain 100 times the genetic information we do, and will certainly be able to survive the vaiguaries of an uncertain future better than we. Nemotode worms live in a greater variety of environments and out number us. There are flat worms with 25% stem cells, almost immortal. Ever driven a Ferrari cross country?
gamesbok 11 months ago
@gamesbok How the mythical "evolution" builds intricate irreducible systems is a mystery. Oh ya, "one step at a time", etc. The same could be said of the IDer. But I agree, "higher" is misused by evolutionist, just like the word evolution is misused. It is evolutionist that say a hierarchy has and is further evolving. There is no evo going on. Each life has it's special place in the system of life. All are necessary for the whole. Not at all like (fittest) evo predicts.
Howie47 11 months ago
@Howie47 Evolution is implicit in any system showing reproduction, variation and selection. It's true because of the meaning of the words, logically necessary, a priori true, inevitable, inescapable.
The intricate web of life is precisely the inevitable consiquence of natural selection, the inevitable consiquence of evolution.
You seem to be making claims based on some idiology. You are not making coherent arguements.
gamesbok 11 months ago
@gamesbok (Change) is implicit, "evolution" is not happening at all. When you use two different meanings at the same time for the same word. It only serves to confuse. Not enlighten. Evolution doesn't just imply change. So you now admit, "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with it? You seem to be able to come up with fairly explicit answers to my incoherent arguments!
Howie47 11 months ago
@Howie47Ah, the 'Survival of the fittest' phrase, invented by the Economist Herbert Spencer, and never used by Darwin. Believe me, I would never doubt your confusion.
gamesbok 11 months ago
@gamesbok Stop being a smuck! It refers to the fittest being selected for reproduction. Not it's social economic ramifications.
Howie47 11 months ago
@Howie47 'All are necessary for the whole' Well no, as the removal of cod from the waters of the Maritime Provinces has shown, . Pick any extinction event, same story.
'Each life has it's special place in the system of life.' Yes, otherwise it's dead, Natural Selection.
Irreducable Complexity? see "Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", by Hermann J Muller, in Genetics, Vol 3, No 5, Sept 1918,. Wonderful stuff is education.
gamesbok 11 months ago
@gamesbok Extinction of single species has a rippling effect on the whole. Fortunately the whole bio-system has a self recovery ability built in. So that it can recover quickly from natural disasters. Life doesn't have to re-evolve for millions of years. After the K-T (flood) destruction. life recovered very quickly. As modern disasters have proved. I. C. is any system that won't function with a part missing. Like our circulation won't work without a heart. Where's yours?
Howie47 11 months ago
@Howie47 I'm sorry, but if you're proposing the K-T as a flood event you're going to have to present evidence, evidence that seems to have escaped the scientific community so far. Indeed IC is any system that will not now function with a part missing, and as HJ Muller proved in 1918, evolution will produce IC systems.
gamesbok 11 months ago
@gamesbok It only "escaped "those who only listen to those in scientific community that march to the establishments drumbeat! But your HJ Muller hypothesis does seem to have escaped the scientific community. As they (both sides of the debate) are still arguing if said systems are or aren't irreducibly complex. Your the first I've ever heard try to make the argument that evolution can produce such systems!
Howie47 11 months ago
@Howie47 I have no idea what 'god-like' might be, unless you mean mythical. For an idea how things develop might I suggest ‘Evolution of Biological Information’, Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research, Oxford University, July 2000. It's available on-line.
gamesbok 11 months ago
@gamesbok Casey Luskin-"One can pick Scrabble letters out of a bag all day long and call that "information." But unless those letters spell words, the information is useless." Random changes to a word or sentence, might on occasion change it's meaning. But the new meaning has to fit and enhance the already existing paragraph before it is useful (functional). All these books and papers on how information can self generate; side step the real issue. Can a coherent story spontaneously generate?
Howie47 11 months ago
@Howie47 You haven't defined 'information', Schneider has, but you wouldn't know that as you haven't read the paper. 'Random changes to a word or sentence, might on occasion change it's meaning' ; That's all that is required. 'Can a coherent story spontaneously generate?' Yes, all stories can be generated, and those with'meaning will be preserved.
Schneider is a Scientist at University of Oxford. Luskin is a Lawer at the Discovery Institute, the Institute that hasn't discovered anything.
gamesbok 11 months ago
@gamesbok I don't have to read every paper. Because the basic principles never change! No stupid, random changes is not all that is required! The change must fit in a coherent fashion and add new or enhanced function. It also must not inhibit the all ready in place functionality. "Yes, all stories can be generated" A statement of pure bluster. And Dawkin's is a big mouthed pseudoscientist, who never published a single scientific paper. Just to put things in perspective.
Howie47 11 months ago
@ndjarnag I think you need a head shrink, is that truly what you believe?
gluepot66 1 year ago
@gluepot66 I think your referring to my comment about "there are more bacteria cells in the human body than there are human cells". Sure it is counterintuitive, but that seems to be the case. In fact, I was told this in my introductory biology classes in college. Just google "number of bacteria cells in the human body"......regardless, I still may need a head shrink.
ndjarnag 1 year ago 3
@ndjarnag An introductory class at college? don't they even teach you that at junior high? But I don't know what you are replying to
gluepot66 1 year ago
@ndjarnag no i think i may have commented on the wrong person sorry
gluepot66 1 year ago
@ndjarnag "What convinced you evolution is not true?" Reason, logic and lifes experiences. Mankind is to undisciplined to reach a clear, clean, unbiased paradigmn of origins. Intricate systems of life are unlikely to form by them selves. More so when the strong resistence to such complexity existing, is taken into consideration. Life self generating and evolving into what we see today. Is the biggest myth ever concocked by man. Creation myths have more truth then today's, just so fairytales.
Howie47 11 months ago
jurassic park music gives me the chills! beautiful
ApocDevTeam 1 year ago
For the record, do you have to believe the descent of every living organism from one ancestor to be biologically correct? why is creationism a sin? Is everyone around here heartless enough live a life without christian morality? If that's the case the why aren't WE HUMANS ALREADY EXTINCT?! someone answer me THAT!
LavaDracovania 1 year ago
@LavaDracovania wipe the rabid dribble off your chin and try again.
It's pretty clear that animal and human species are all related, being descended from common ancestors. I don't have to 'believe' that, I can see it all around me.
No-one said creationism is a sin. It's just wilfully ignorant, and fucking stupid to persist in ignorance.
And I have no idea what you're dribbling on about with lack of morality equating to extinction. Run along, grown ups are trying to watch the doco.
gilesderoet 1 year ago
Look, morons. I'm A Progressive creationist. if birds are dinosaurs they were GUIDED into that form. but for your discontent I don't believe in a taxonomical change of that proportion: Reptile to bird. these dinosaur and bird fossils aren't transitional they're 100% dinosaur or 100% bird
LavaDracovania 1 year ago
@LavaDracovania You idiot. Believe what you like, it doesn't change the fact that the evidence is right in front of your eyes. These are self-evidently transitional fossils, they cannot be anything else.
The only sin is ignorance.
gilesderoet 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LavaDracovania You idiot. Believe what you like, it doesn't change the fact that the evidence is right in front of your eyes. These are self-evidently transitional fossils, they cannot be anything else.
The only sin is ignorance.
gilesderoet 1 year ago
@LavaDracovania You idiot. Believe what you like, it doesn't change the fact that the evidence is right in front of your eyes. These are self-evidently transitional fossils, they cannot be anything else.
gilesderoet 1 year ago
@LavaDracovania lol progressive creationist = someone who got it arse backwards but can't admit to being wrong.
Believe whatever you like, it doesn't make it true. The evidence is right in front of your eyes: these are obviously fossils of transitional species.
The only sin is ignorance.
gilesderoet 1 year ago
what's up with all the zooming in and out and moving around!?!?
MrMoka369 1 year ago
That is yet again...VERY RIDICULOUS! A Prehistoric Peacock is not a transitional fossil! And The Archaeopteryx topic... AGAIN!? Get your discovery history correct, You Morons! the most Recent find shows Archie DID have the bones that give birds powered flight! Meaning Archie was Completely a BIRD! How Long Are You Atheists Going to dig up these 'Psuedosaurs'! and dinosaurs with 'Psuedo-feathers'! Please Somebody Say "Skin Shed!" dinosaurs were Complete Cold-blooded Reptiles!
LavaDracovania 1 year ago
@LavaDracovania Just fucking look at how much that primitive bird resembles a dinosaur, ffs you must be blind
Toady1104 1 year ago
@LavaDracovania lawl @ you
epshot 1 year ago
@LavaDracovania So according to you, something that has feathers, is endothermic, and flies is a reptile? When you get to university, perhaps think about a biology course, I think you'll be surprised.
gilesderoet 1 year ago
@gilesderoet I said a DINOSAUR IS A Reptile! not birds, you ding-dong.... I believe dinosaurs ectothermic scaly non-avian animals utterly unrelated to birds....
LavaDracovania 1 year ago
@LavaDracovania I knew exactly what you were saying, and it's flat wrong. Dinosaurs are not simply ' cold blooded scaly non-avian reptiles'. Different dinosaurs were warm-blooded, had skin and feathers (not reptile scales), some species even birthed live young. I don't see too many reptiles doing any of these. The evidence is crystal clear that dinosaurs are indeed very closely related to birds, so stop spouting rubbish that they aren't.
gilesderoet 1 year ago
Is there an animal, with a full record of it's evolution till the present time. Start to finish, primitive animal to present time. With all links in between to clearly show this particular animal transformed? Or has not enough bones, ect been found for any particular animal? I've done some searching around and can't seem to find what I'm talking about.
EarthEndDays 1 year ago
Science for the win, creationism for the fail!
amorphousguy 1 year ago
Beautiful limestones
ElGorkodos 1 year ago
god how i love science!
mmmmmarcus 1 year ago
evolution isn't concrete evidence just yet. there's still a missing link. though, i am not exactly on the creationists side either. there is plenty more to be learned and discovered.
jweeks1982 1 year ago
@jweeks1982 Missing link is an outdated term (from when their where none known) .There are gap less records now of a few invertebrates .Evolution is completely verified by fossils and genome mapping .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@jweeks1982 Not sure I understand. There are many millions of missing links - only a handful have been preserved as fossils & recovered by humans. However, there are still more than enough to prove that certain populations evolved into other populations and some pathways (mainly marine ones, like fish to amphibians or land mammals to whales etc) are so well preserved as to make any other conclusion look quite silly.
wearealltubes 1 year ago
hahaha. I love the Jurassic Park theme song.
davedaddy101 2 years ago
2:53 - Sinornithosaurus, awesome!
3:55 - That is one BIG Oviraptorid
5:12 - Finishing it off with Microraptor, very nice.
I wouldn't go so far as to call creationists idiots, but why they keep holding onto their scripture even when it's been proven wrong countless times, shows a mind that refuses to change. And a mind that cannot change is non-functioning by definition.
Oh, and the Jurassic Park Music was a great touch.
cadman2300 2 years ago 20
"Sinornithosaurus", that's quite a name.
There's been several new discoveries of feathered dinosaurs since the posting of this video. Perhaps, it's time for an updated epidsode.
ndjarnag 2 years ago 3
@cadman2300 Jurassic Park music was used because actual recordings of the music of the period are only available on 8-track.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@cadman2300 Have you seen Richard dawkins Wendy Wright debate?
MegaGayjesus 1 year ago
@cadman2300 Oviraptorid is very much like a modern Cassowary. All the raptors were part of the "Ratite" bird family. Modern Ratite's still have "claws", small or no wings, up to 15' high, 1,000 lbs. Act very much like what raptors would have acted. See YouTube Video. "Killer Cassowary Bird Attacks". Also latest research cast serious doubt on Dino to bird evo. Modern birds (ducks) are found in the fossil record long before raptors. Birds still carry the "genetic reserves" for teeth.
Howie47 1 year ago
@cadman2300 P.S. Your stereotypical characterization of "creationist", bemoans your own ignorance of the whole subject. Of course Evolutionist never want to look to closely at whole picture. Lest their darkened minds be enlightened to the presence of a Creator.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 Please provide some clear and tangible evidence of said "Creator" that goes beyond mere biblical mythology. Otherwise, don't respond to this reply because I don't want a video about bird evolution to be used as a springboard for a theistic discussion.
cadman2300 1 year ago
amazingly spectacular life forms, just awesome
beyondersam 2 years ago
evolution is already a fact.. there is so much evidence in the favor of evolution it's not even funny... anybody who doesn't accept evolution is a fucking idiot. wake up..
vvintermoon 2 years ago 42
People that say evolution is just a theory are just kidding themselves
FatCaterpillar11 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@FatCaterpillar11 It is "just" a theory! Theories are the closest thing people can get to reality!
The word you are looking for is hypothesis, as in: "People that say evolution is just a hypothesis are just kidding themselves"
wearealltubes 1 year ago
@FatCaterpillar11
Yeah they don't know what a scientific theory is at all.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@vvintermoon There are those with PHDs who deny evolution.
But those people are delusional and their PHDs are fake or they are con artists or a mixture lawl.
kingkong8974 1 year ago
Why were they playing the Land Before Time sound track at the end? Was archeopteryx trying to make it to the great valley?
DanCityDesperado 2 years ago
Actually, it's the soundtrack to Jurassic Park. The archeopteryx is chasing after the humans.
ndjarnag 2 years ago
My mistake, you are quite correct, boy is my face red.
DanCityDesperado 2 years ago
All it took was archeopteryx to convince me that birds were in the dinosaur clade. This was 20 years ago and I moved on to other questions not related to dinosaurs.
And now I take a look again...
I love all these new fossils! Its like reading a book, but there are new characters every year.
kurtu5 2 years ago 10
@kurtu5
I was the same way, myself. I was six when I heard about Archeopterix and I found it awesome how birds were in fact living dinosaurs. It made me become quite fond of them.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733
I was well into adulthood when it really hit home that birds were not distant relatives, but actual and real living dinosaurs.
I found out that old ladies who dotter over birds and make sure to throw the bread crumbs from bad bread in the yard, were beyond fucking cool.
They were taking it to the next nerd level and I never realized it until then.
This is about the same time my Großmutter(great mother, aka grandma) started painting water colors of birds. I have a few.
kurtu5 1 year ago
5 stars for the Jurassic Park music.
tintiringa 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
uhhhhhhhhh THAT'S A BIRD, how the fuck can someone say THAT'S A DINOSAUR!!!
nonameneeded07 2 years ago
uhhhhhhh THAT'S A BORDER COLLIE, how the fuck can someone say THAT'S A DOG!!
quickdudley 2 years ago
Gee, I don't know.
Maybe because birds ARE dinosaurs. Modern birds are Avian Maniraptors and Maniraptors very much are dinosaurs. Do some real research in taxonomy and cladistics and you might learn something.
cadman2300 2 years ago
looks like a viscous pheasant
320iguy 2 years ago
..... awesome!
victormania2008 2 years ago
Hope they have feathered dinsoaurs in jurrasic park 4
SynxVII 2 years ago 2
I hope they'll all have feathers
quickdudley 2 years ago
Comment removed
Dhaune 2 years ago
When did this happen cause i still pretty sure archeopteryx is real and also that doesn't prove that birds didn't descend from dinosaurs cause of other transitional fossils like microraptor and the others who names i can't spell or pronounce
Bigbruce20 2 years ago
Comment removed
Dhaune 2 years ago
A dozen or so archeopteryx fossils have been found.
ndjarnag 2 years ago
Really, and all the other Archeopteryx fossils were faked too? Wow, they were dug right out of the ground. Amazing hoax job then. Somehow they got them under layers of rock strata before pretending to find them.
AmatatsuShitenshi 2 years ago
Are you always this stupid or are you making a special effort today.
Dhaune 2 years ago
Well firstly, sarcasm, learn it. Second, Archeopteryx is real. No matter how much you want to think otherwise, it is. Even if it weren't what about all of the other feathered dinosaurs found in Liaoning China?
Now there was a faked feathered dino known as Archaeoraptor. It was found to be 2 fossils in one. Maybe its that you were thinking of?
AmatatsuShitenshi 2 years ago
You are the kind of human that you would use as a blueprint to build an idiot.
Dhaune 2 years ago
Then obviously they fucked up because they would be building intelligent educated individuals. You see I research and I educate myself. I look at facts and variables, I do not blindly trust a controlling dogmatic book wrote thousands of years ago by men with delusions of controlling the masses.
AmatatsuShitenshi 2 years ago
the first fossil picture you see in this video is FAKE you retard!!!
Dhaune 2 years ago
Ok, I will entertain your argument. Please provide concise evidence to support your claims and cite sources as to why you think Archeopteryx is fake. You see scientists get things done by asking questions and then seeking answers. My question is "Why does this individual insist that he knows these fossils are fake?" So I am now seeking the answer.
AmatatsuShitenshi 2 years ago
why would i tell YOU retarded dumb ass why this fossil is fake?? yeah i have proof a lot of it. If I ever need a brain transplant, I'd choose yours because I'd want a brain that had never been used.
Dhaune 2 years ago
Wait. So you refuse to support your claims and arguments with verifiable data? you resort to childish name calling and insults? That's so christian of you. "If they don't believe what you believe then hurt them". You are a coward then. You are terrified of the changing times and your dwindling religion. You are in the minority. we can liken it to evolution. We scientific individuals are more evolved that your bronze aged superstitious christians.
AmatatsuShitenshi 2 years ago
you are a professional retard :) : i am not religious but i do like Zeus, i dont refuse to support my claims i simply dont want to share them with you, you fat whiny little cock sucker now better shut up or i swear i will massacre you ;)
Dhaune 2 years ago
Stop talking like a shitty science nerd and get a fucking life.
Lars1993 2 years ago
Well, I am a Science nerd, but that's beside the point. Are you not aware that is us "Science nerds" that drive the world these days with our advancements and technology? Yeah, like that computer your shitting around on right now. Now, unfortunately for your argument, the very fact that I have a good education and use deductive and logical thinking, has allowed me to have a pretty good life. If you wish to debate, bring your brain into the conversation and stop making yourself look stupid.
AmatatsuShitenshi 2 years ago
What's funny is how you think you're right in everything, no i'm not talking about science but people, you think you know when people are angry and happy and wrong you don't know shit, you don't know when people make an idiot out of themself either. besides i don't give a fuck if you're smarter than me and i do not wish to be smarter than people i wish to be the one i am because if you want to be smarter than someone and try too hard then you're just too stupid.
my talent is drawing not science.
Lars1993 2 years ago
I also am an artist. Even though I am a science nerd its actually what I hope to be doing permanently here soon. I draw manga. but I also draw portraits and can paint. I don't think I am better than anyone. On the contrary, there will always be better. I just cannot stand the ignorance and stupidity some people display while online. There are plenty of people that are smart in different ways. There are different types of intelligence and it is just a relative term.
AmatatsuShitenshi 2 years ago
I draw on paper and i use a tablet in flash8.
i love animation..
Lars1993 2 years ago
I mostly draw on paper and edit on computer with Photoshop or Manga Studio. I ink everything with Tachikawa or Nikko dip pens and I use Non Photogenic blue led pencils for the pencil work. I would like to try out a tablet sometime to draw straight digitally.
AmatatsuShitenshi 2 years ago
In the same way that I cannot be sure exactly what someone is feeling online, neither can you. All I can determine from them is what they convey through their words. And if its anger, its anger. I cannot be blamed if someone conveys themselves in a stupid manner online. Though I do defend that I can know when I am write on matters that I know well.
AmatatsuShitenshi 2 years ago
And what's wrong with christians? you science nerds have so much against it.
i'm not a christian myself...but i wonder, also you should know that by talking the way you do against insults well.. you kind of do make an idiot out of yourself (not trying to offend).
Lars1993 2 years ago
I would think that buy using an intellgent and logical approach to an argument instead of ad hominem attacks, I would actually look intelligent. that's just common sense. It is how you perceive me that changes the effect. I cannot changes your predisposition with my actions if you refuse to see them.
As for Christians, I hate ignorance. I have read the bible front to back more than just once, and I cannot come to believe something so ignorant and illogical.
AmatatsuShitenshi 2 years ago
I hate the bible because it creates hate and lies, gays are even hated because of that physcho book and i hate the book for that i cannot stand it! it is so fucking retarded
besides i am gay and i am hated because of that book. it's not only because of the bible we're hated but whatever.
i do believe in god sometimes though..
Lars1993 2 years ago
So, it seems you are. I find it odd that you mention you are gay, so I went and checked your profile and searched your name on a few videos about gay rights. It seems what you say is true. That is coincidental, as you will find me on those same videos on YOUR side arguing FOR gay rights. Don't judge people merely at first read. And I agree with what you say.
AmatatsuShitenshi 2 years ago
KK.
i just hate gay hate and yes i do hate it when people hate lesbians too.
And i'm happy that you're on our side:)
you're straight ain't you?
also brb i have to eat dinner.
Lars1993 2 years ago
As our conversation no longer has much to do with Dinosaur evolution, I will continue this conversation in your channels comments.
AmatatsuShitenshi 2 years ago 2
No PMS please that is much cooler.
Lars1993 2 years ago
Fruity
myjizzureye 2 years ago
What.
Lars1993 2 years ago
really? when?
victormania2008 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Finding a new species in the fossil record is just finding a new species. It cannot be dated by any scientific means and thus it supports creation. Similarity is evidence of common designer.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
How ?
NordlandKB 2 years ago
you're not very bright are you?
there are a number of ways it can be dated, its too old to be carbon dated but radiometric dating is a very reliable way to get the age
and not only that but, LOL!!! you believe in an old fiction book
madden317 2 years ago 2
"Similarity is evidence of common designer."
So the differences are evidences of a different designer
ProcInc 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No differences and similarity show a common designer and nothing else. All living creatures are made up of the same things just put together differently. Thank God don't hate him.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
"No differences and similarity show a common designer and nothing else.
All living creatures are made up of the same things just put together differently.
Thank God don't hate him."
You are so bizarrely ridiculous.
Can you get any more tautological than that?
This is why evolution is science followed by the rational and your silly cult is laughable religious bile followed only by the ignorant
ProcInc 2 years ago 3
What about the fact that you can breed a new species of fruit fly all by yourself? You don't need fancy equipment, you just need a box, some fruit flies, fruit, and water. Keep them in there for about 100 generations and you'll have a new species by the end.
quickdudley 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Speciation is part of creation. Thanks for converting.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
I'm already a christian. I'm just a christian that unlike some others (such as Kent Hovind) believes in speciation.
quickdudley 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Creation by evolution. Thanks for converting.
A11ex 2 years ago
evolution is a fact buddy.
vvintermoon 2 years ago 6
I know, my comment was making fun of someone who made a comment of the same format on the next page.
quickdudley 2 years ago
This video is now outdated
The latest feathered dinosaur was discovered in November 2008.
Its called Anchiornis
ProcInc 3 years ago 2
...you gotta love science.
ndjarnag 3 years ago
Damn...remember a few months back I said that the latest feathered dino was anchiornis
Never mind...out dated again, this time its BIG!
Tianyulong, and ORNITHOSUCHIAN dinosaur has been discovered witjh feathers
This means that the LCA of ALL dinosaurs had feathers.
Dinosaurs without feathers were the anomaly...blew my mind
ProcInc 2 years ago
The Jurassic Park theme playing to Microraptor's gliding is so very right.
what dvd has that footage? (of microraptor I mean, never mind the theme music), I'm hoping to use it for a later video maybe
ProcInc 3 years ago
Thanks for posting this. I'm trying to study evolution as much as possible before my class starts next week.
SexyScientist6 3 years ago
I don't get the Science channal,but this is soo "cool" again well done! )
danshadegg 3 years ago
Great video, nice up to date stuff. Well done.
KennyTew2 3 years ago
AWESOME!
angelxtreme6 3 years ago
All fossils were manufactured in an underground factory in Jerusalem. They have been craftily planted in the ground by an ancient Jewish commie conspiracy to destroy the christian faith of the youth in the USA
KasparHauser4 3 years ago 5
WTF KasparHauser4
Paralititan 3 years ago
is that really the BEST you can do? how about just obeying the 9th commandment?
quickdudley 2 years ago
Ian Malcolm said it best, "Life found a way."
jesusnthedaisychain 3 years ago 2
Not more feathered dinosaurs. Don't we have evidence already? We're kind of rubbing it in now.
ProcInc 3 years ago