the real story is quite complicated the phylotypic stage is evidence for evolution but in a very peripheral way. its the stage in development when embyro-wide patterns of development are orchestrated. the embryos start out and end up very different, its really only in this stage that they look similar. this is because they have a common inherited developmental constraint.
all the similarities in embryology are good but aren't nearly as good as even a very simple molecular study
Earnst Heakel's idea was discredited over 100 years ago. To continue this falacy, evotards select organism embryos at different stages of development and claim thier visual similarity in form is evidence all the phylum of life are related (Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny - the discredited 100 yrs old idea of Heakel). It the idea were true, the organisms should be the same and develop into the same organism. A chicken and human are obviously unrelated and vissually not similar at all. DOAH!
@winterstellar Things are going well thanks. I don't hang out whith hookers. I just made the mistake of looking at some of them. How about you? Did you ever figure out that God loves you and wants a relationship with you so he can forgive you when you do thinks like that? I did. Boy am I ever glad too, because we're all weak mortals who offend God, at least now and then, and I sure do want to be with God and experience His love eternally. So what about you? Have you tried seeking God yet? No?
@NephilimFree The fact that after sitting through this video (or not, which is more likely anyways), you come up here with a straight face, proclaiming that Haeckel was discredited, shows once again you are absolutely in the dark about both Haeckel and all the subjects mentioned in this video.
Yes, ont-recaps-phylo is descredited, but modern embryology is worlds apart from Haeckels assertions, and you dont have the brain function to realise it. The comment at the end is laughable......
@NephilimFree Of course, I could have told you this a million times before on your videos, but you, the coward that you are, of course blocked me some time ago in a (very civil mind you) discussion about cecal valves on one of your videos.
Your cognitive dissonance, denial of reality and utter lack of dealing with criticism in a professional, grown up way would persuade me to not comment on your myriad of mistakes, if it wasn't so much fun debunking your AiG inspired verbal diarrhea sessions.
@NephilimFree Ernst Haeckel's drawings were shown to be exaggerated, nothing more.
Moreover, his motives have no bearing on the body of observable and reproducible facts that has amassed in the decades since his drawings--facts which do not contradict evolution (specifically as it relates to embryology and development).
Embryological Evidence for Evolution is an excellent and accurate presentation. More than 1300 people have approved it. For those of you who fear science or who do not understand it, there are intelligent, educated clergy of all faiths who do understand science and could explain it to you in ways you might actually understand and accept without fear. I urge you to seek both help and education.
Fox News reports their own biased opinions and moronic world views. I decide they are a propaganda network of delusional morons. That must be what they meant right?
@Nails077 For sure. But thats true with all the News channels. You want the truth? Watch all the news stations and try to decipher it. Don't you just love America?
It not only illogical to think that everything happens for a reason its downright stupid. Because this requires some kind of magic plan but then there must be also a plan for this plan, i mean it cant just be there for no reason right? So there must be a super plan and for this super plan there must be also a plan and so on....
Fact is there are random forces in the nature. Nobody can predict a copying error (mutation) but what we can predict is which of these mutations is most likely to be selected.
@joeb0 To state that "nothing is random" is false. Mutations occur as the "random" result of non-random chemical reactions and non-random fundamental forces.
Of course I could have also gone on how flipping a coin or rolling dice also gets "random" results.
"It's illogical to think that everything happened for no reason at all." It is illogical to assume there is a reason or plan where there is no evidence of one. But if you NEED a reason: "entropy" leading to equilibrium through a gradient.
you have no right to say what is predicted by a common designer. First off, everything is clearly designed. Show me one example where nature produced DNA or any information for that matter. Just saying it's not predicted does not make that true.
@micah1116 To answer your question (and I know youve heard this before): Gene duplication and subsequent mutation on the copy. On the common designer:
Nothing can be predicted for a common designer, as a designer has the choice to implement given solutions across the range of life, and not stick to a strict hierarchy we see in the tree of life. The fact it is that way strongly suggests either evolution, or a deceitful designer mimicking a branching, evolution like process. Continued....
@micah1116 Continued... So if you were the designer, would you absolutely and invariably stick to branching hierarchical pattern as we see in life? Why not cross the line once or more? Why give feathers ONLY to birds?
So the common features are proof of design, in your view, but the non common features also comes from the designer, correct? So, everything is evidence of design? This is not an argument.
So design predicts everything and nothing, while evolution predicts the tree we see (cont)
@micah1116 (cont) But please elaborate on your view if you think i am missing something. I would once again like to ask you why this designer of yours never ever has violated the tree of life (the branching hierarchy we see)? Like I mentioned: feathers: why ONLY in birds? Evolution produced different types of eyes, why not share one design on this aspect, but do share others?
And why do we see this tree everywhere? Morphology, genetics, embryolgy, fossil record? Why not ONE deviation?
@micah1116 And on a different note, do you still adhere to Nephilimfree's argument that morphological change is required by evolution, and that chimps and humans are morphologically different, but the different dog breeds are not? I know you got thoroughly schooled on it on tLoR forums, and I wondered if you've changed your position to whatever degree....
Niggle isn't a racist term - according to the OED, it's origins are Scandinavian: 161020; < Scand; cf. Norw nigla to be penurious (ult. < ON hnøggr stingy, c. OE hnēaw
I'm sure you didn't mean to, but the first time I watched this video I had the impression you were saying that insects, octopodes, snails and earthworms are all annelids. I'm guessing you meant that "insects, octopodes, snails and earthworms" are examples of "arthropods, molluscs and annelids".
Develops "ass-first" - is that a technical term? Just giving you a hard time. :)
Actually, CRUD is a technical term; an acronym that started in nuclear research standing for Chalk River Unidentified Deposits. Just a little factoid for you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Please note that the forks are only observations of similarity and difference, and are no evidence whatsoever of evolution.
Evolutionists have spent much time and many years naming and labeling their observations of nature. the creation of an imaginary evolutionary tree. is quite an accomplishment. However, it is no evidence of evolution.
You never find any type of animal changing into any other type of animal. It is invariable all organisms reproduce after their kind.
No it isn't, you're right. What is the proof of evolution is that the tree is exactly as it could only be, given evolution, without exception. That is VERY unlikely by chance and by creation.
Unless you have another theory that better explains how no organism ever studied has ever breached this "tree". Like...say a mammal with compound eyes.
Whatever a "type" is, evolution says exactly why you don't get types turning into other types. Whatever evolves from X is a type of X.
Mejc2, when you were in the uterus of your mother you passed through all the stages of evolution that exist in all vertebrates before humans...just take a human embryology book and get informed...you are the proof that evolution exists though you are not aware of that.
Every updated textbook has this info. Its confirmed by all aspects of modern developmental biology. In fact, a whole branch of science called evolutionary developmental biology has sprung up that combines genetics, evolution, and development because these finding have been so successful. Rather than saying "wrong, read a book" why don't YOU investigate the field by reading the primary literature of the top people. Look for articles by Cliff Tabin, Sean Carroll, or David Kingsley as a start.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Even talk orgins, the evolutionism rag that it is, knows this is wrong.
"In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. "
Why are you insisting that Haeckel's exaggerated drawings discredits the entire field of modern embryology. Modern embryology doesn't depend on a 100 year old drawing. Or are you just so full of yourself that you don't even know what you are talking about? The evidence is in front of you; watch the video.
@mejc2 A day of great joy for me personally would be the day when illiterate, unschooled, untrained, ignorant and scientifically lazy creationists like yourself stop confusing Haeckels drawings and his ideas with MODERN embryology.
Pick up a book, read science magazines, check articles and papers (PubMed anyone?), visit museums....GET SCHOOLED BEFORE MAKING DUMB ARGUMENTS
@mejc2 Somehow your 2 braincells were able to devise and execute a plan to show the audience I was both correct in my first assessment of your ignorance, as well as adding more proof of your stupidity.
I will correct your dumb error once more: Haeckels drawings and the implications he attached to it, including the "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" hypothesis, have little implications on MODERN EMBRYOLOGY, nor does modern embryology rely on the concepts mentioned above. GET SCHOOLED!
Making observations, labeling them, and forcing them into your world view is not science. There is no evidence or mechanism for any animal to morph into any other animal. despite all of Don Exoducks hopes and wishes.
If you don't have the time or interest to read on biology and evolution, then I urge you to Please watch some more of DonExodus2 videos, you probably haven't seen them yet.
I love bringing up cladistics when creationists use the same designer argument. When presented with this evidence they always just ignore it and walk around the questions.
I think the "genius" behind the idiocy of ID is the correct assumption that most people are so ignorant of science that people don't realize how absurd this idea really is.
Even though I had a lot science classes in high school and college, I think that I have learned more about evolution and science from your videos and Thunderf00t's than I ever did in any of the classes I took. Thanks
Let me see if I have this correct. When I am accused of being an ass, I can say there is evolutionary evidence that proves we are all asses-first before we're anything else?
Now that I've read all the comments dropped, I feel I should add to something about the Fox Zen moment:
Does anyone else get an image of some super-whiny emo highschooler taking out his frustrations with the well-adjusted kids via Adobe Photoshop instead of, say, doing homework or hanging out with friends?
Another great video. I like the mention of us forming posterior-first. First learned about that little feature from AronRa's 10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism, which goes into greater depth into the tree at motormouth speed.
Soooo - the take home message here kiddos is - humans develop asshole firstt. Not too surprising, really. A random sampling of YouTube comments lends a great deal of supportive evidence to this fact.
You'd wonder how many more exellent vids from the likes of DonEx, AronRa, Potholer, CDK, Tfoot etc. the creationists have to overlook before something finally sinks in.
i think that it never will sink in. they either refuse to watch these, watch them and don't understand, or watch them and blatantly deny everything without considering.
I remembered those long hours in a Botany lab with the dichotomy key book counting stamen looking at the position of the stigma... or the API in microbiology... It would not be hard setting it up for a class work in high school.
i dont watch fox or msnbc, they always attack each other. cnn is at least focused on the news and not other station. but than i dont watch much news cause its all depressing
didn't watch the video because i spent hours upon hours studying this for my bio 2 exam last semester
I enjoyed studying this bit of bio because it makes evolution seem so obvious. There's this progression of slightly more and more complex forms emerging due to changes in early development. Those hox genes have done some incredible things
Great video, I love being able to learn something new everyday, it's been awhile since I have sat in a biology class... but I don't see how you can use this as substantial proof against people that believe in god. Aren't they just going to say, "Oh, well, god *made* them that way."?
"what ingredients were the 'quarks' formed and from what origin.
----------
Thanks.....and what caused the cosmic inflation?"
You know you are so adamant about God being first cause and all, that he created everything, but why don't you apply the same logic you use and tell what is God's cause? Who created him? Afraid to say you don't know?
The phylogenetic tree, as derived from embryology and the comparison of DNA, and the geographical distribution of species, and the fossil record, is the thing that unites these branches of evidence, and really puts common descent beyond reasonable doubt.
I don't think many creationists understand why the phylogenetic tree is such strong evidence - the problem is that understanding it takes just a bit of mental effort, and if you're not willing to expend that effort, you won't get it.
I'm sure that very few creationist types if any will actually watch and listen to this or try to understand what is being said.
However, for many of the rest of us this is good educational video. I learned several things from this short presentation that clarified some questions I have.
So you aren't preaching to the converted so much as educating the willing. Big thank you.
Great vid! Incidentally, it's become a common creationist argument to say "a dog never produces a non-dog". A good answer to this is to say "Quite right: anything descended from a dog, even 555 million years into the future, will still be classified as canis. Similarly, a deuterostome never produces a non-deuterostome. The first deuterostome is thought to be 555 million-year-old Kimberella, and without producing a non-deuterostome, it managed to diversify into everything from fish to elephants".
Well, firstly it would be nigh on impossible for evolution to elaborate on binocular vision and the tetrapod body plan now that it has been established, since nothing could select for miniscule gradated changes leading up to those characteristics. However, a creature is always going to be the sum of its ancestry. Humans are eukaryotic, deuterostomic, chordatic, vertebrate, tertapod, mammalian, primate hominids. All these adjectives describe a characteristic we have acquired during our ancestry.
"I'm guessing that when creationists develop, their blastopore becomes the anus :) "
Yeah, you meant mouth. Anything with red blood, so far as I know, develops an anal opening via the blastopore first. If you wanted to say creationists talk out their anus, then my switch is still effective. Sorry about killing your joke, though.
One thing I wish you'd said is that despite this tree structure being invariable in this case, evolution doesn't require that it be so. For example, if it somehow became advantageous for an animal down the line to develop with two germ layers, a mutation might cause this trait to be expressed, and a new species might only have two germ layers. However, this wouldn't disprove evolution; it would simply be an exception to the rule.
Videos like this are beyond anything that the vast majority of theists will understand or care to even listen to. This is precisely for people with a rudimentary knowledge of evolution.
in fact religious people are an insult to the true pioneers who have worked hard to give all the world all the mod cons... this beautiful world is wasted on the god loving idiots,, pity we couldn,t round all up and dump them on another planet of their own,,,no hospitals or food etc they can just prey when they get ill or need feeding!!!!!
The scariest part about the fox news thing is that it's actually old news. Fox news viewers still eat up their crap and claim everyone else is liberally biased!
Ha! I see you included that clip. It sure is something isn't it? I knew fox was bad but that is downright vile. I'm not typically inclined to use religiously connotative words such as "evil," but I think it applies in this case.
why would we expect even distribution of deuterostomes and protostomes with an intelligent creator? Small slip but it's falling into strawman territory. Great video though!
Very nice and informative description of 'what is'
ZeldasDiner 11 months ago
the real story is quite complicated the phylotypic stage is evidence for evolution but in a very peripheral way. its the stage in development when embyro-wide patterns of development are orchestrated. the embryos start out and end up very different, its really only in this stage that they look similar. this is because they have a common inherited developmental constraint.
all the similarities in embryology are good but aren't nearly as good as even a very simple molecular study
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
Earnst Heakel's idea was discredited over 100 years ago. To continue this falacy, evotards select organism embryos at different stages of development and claim thier visual similarity in form is evidence all the phylum of life are related (Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny - the discredited 100 yrs old idea of Heakel). It the idea were true, the organisms should be the same and develop into the same organism. A chicken and human are obviously unrelated and vissually not similar at all. DOAH!
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree - qdragon1337 accepted your debate challenge. He has over 4,000 subscribers. You refuse to debate him because you are a coward.
MercyAndGrace100 1 year ago
@NephilimFree How's it going with them hookers, Neph? Are you having fun with the hookers? But if you are, isn't that a "sin" or something? : )
winterstellar 1 year ago
@winterstellar Things are going well thanks. I don't hang out whith hookers. I just made the mistake of looking at some of them. How about you? Did you ever figure out that God loves you and wants a relationship with you so he can forgive you when you do thinks like that? I did. Boy am I ever glad too, because we're all weak mortals who offend God, at least now and then, and I sure do want to be with God and experience His love eternally. So what about you? Have you tried seeking God yet? No?
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Okay. I believe you. But wasn't it a bit sinful anyway? To look at themf? I have to go now, by the way. Cheers.
winterstellar 1 year ago
@NephilimFree The fact that after sitting through this video (or not, which is more likely anyways), you come up here with a straight face, proclaiming that Haeckel was discredited, shows once again you are absolutely in the dark about both Haeckel and all the subjects mentioned in this video.
Yes, ont-recaps-phylo is descredited, but modern embryology is worlds apart from Haeckels assertions, and you dont have the brain function to realise it. The comment at the end is laughable......
jzuidema 1 year ago 3
@NephilimFree Of course, I could have told you this a million times before on your videos, but you, the coward that you are, of course blocked me some time ago in a (very civil mind you) discussion about cecal valves on one of your videos.
Your cognitive dissonance, denial of reality and utter lack of dealing with criticism in a professional, grown up way would persuade me to not comment on your myriad of mistakes, if it wasn't so much fun debunking your AiG inspired verbal diarrhea sessions.
jzuidema 1 year ago 5
@NephilimFree the dunning-kruger effect strikes again!
AcanLord 11 months ago
@NephilimFree Ernst Haeckel's drawings were shown to be exaggerated, nothing more.
Moreover, his motives have no bearing on the body of observable and reproducible facts that has amassed in the decades since his drawings--facts which do not contradict evolution (specifically as it relates to embryology and development).
SevenSixTwoNato 10 months ago
Embryological Evidence for Evolution is an excellent and accurate presentation. More than 1300 people have approved it. For those of you who fear science or who do not understand it, there are intelligent, educated clergy of all faiths who do understand science and could explain it to you in ways you might actually understand and accept without fear. I urge you to seek both help and education.
TheA1teacher 1 year ago
Faux News took the photo of a JEW and deformed it to make its nose bigger and it's ears more spread.
Goebbels would be proud.
kaminarigaston 2 years ago
Fox News reports their own biased opinions and moronic world views. I decide they are a propaganda network of delusional morons. That must be what they meant right?
Nails077 2 years ago
@Nails077 For sure. But thats true with all the News channels. You want the truth? Watch all the news stations and try to decipher it. Don't you just love America?
Loubacca 2 years ago
Oh lord, its the first 1-2 months of zoology all over again (general biology II). Great job on the video, very educational.
Lido209vaj 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Don, nothing is random, regardless if evolution is correct or not. You're so close yet so far.
joeb0 2 years ago
joeb0, evolution is not entirely random, regardless of how ignorant you are on the subject.
adafuns 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is a reason for everything. It's illogical to think that everything happened for no reason at all. It's against every proven law of physics.
nothing is random.
joeb0 2 years ago
and again, evolution is not random. if you cannot understand as to why it is not then educate yourself on the subject.
adafuns 2 years ago
It not only illogical to think that everything happens for a reason its downright stupid. Because this requires some kind of magic plan but then there must be also a plan for this plan, i mean it cant just be there for no reason right? So there must be a super plan and for this super plan there must be also a plan and so on....
Mafiaaffe 2 years ago 2
Fact is there are random forces in the nature. Nobody can predict a copying error (mutation) but what we can predict is which of these mutations is most likely to be selected.
Mafiaaffe 2 years ago 2
@joeb0 To state that "nothing is random" is false. Mutations occur as the "random" result of non-random chemical reactions and non-random fundamental forces.
Of course I could have also gone on how flipping a coin or rolling dice also gets "random" results.
"It's illogical to think that everything happened for no reason at all." It is illogical to assume there is a reason or plan where there is no evidence of one. But if you NEED a reason: "entropy" leading to equilibrium through a gradient.
onijester56 1 year ago
you have no right to say what is predicted by a common designer. First off, everything is clearly designed. Show me one example where nature produced DNA or any information for that matter. Just saying it's not predicted does not make that true.
micah1116 2 years ago
@micah1116 To answer your question (and I know youve heard this before): Gene duplication and subsequent mutation on the copy. On the common designer:
Nothing can be predicted for a common designer, as a designer has the choice to implement given solutions across the range of life, and not stick to a strict hierarchy we see in the tree of life. The fact it is that way strongly suggests either evolution, or a deceitful designer mimicking a branching, evolution like process. Continued....
jzuidema 1 year ago 4
@micah1116 Continued... So if you were the designer, would you absolutely and invariably stick to branching hierarchical pattern as we see in life? Why not cross the line once or more? Why give feathers ONLY to birds?
So the common features are proof of design, in your view, but the non common features also comes from the designer, correct? So, everything is evidence of design? This is not an argument.
So design predicts everything and nothing, while evolution predicts the tree we see (cont)
jzuidema 1 year ago 3
@micah1116 (cont) But please elaborate on your view if you think i am missing something. I would once again like to ask you why this designer of yours never ever has violated the tree of life (the branching hierarchy we see)? Like I mentioned: feathers: why ONLY in birds? Evolution produced different types of eyes, why not share one design on this aspect, but do share others?
And why do we see this tree everywhere? Morphology, genetics, embryolgy, fossil record? Why not ONE deviation?
jzuidema 1 year ago 3
@micah1116 And on a different note, do you still adhere to Nephilimfree's argument that morphological change is required by evolution, and that chimps and humans are morphologically different, but the different dog breeds are not? I know you got thoroughly schooled on it on tLoR forums, and I wondered if you've changed your position to whatever degree....
jzuidema 1 year ago 4
Niggle isn't a racist term - according to the OED, it's origins are Scandinavian: 161020; < Scand; cf. Norw nigla to be penurious (ult. < ON hnøggr stingy, c. OE hnēaw
dlcu38 2 years ago
Great video, with one slight niggle:
I'm sure you didn't mean to, but the first time I watched this video I had the impression you were saying that insects, octopodes, snails and earthworms are all annelids. I'm guessing you meant that "insects, octopodes, snails and earthworms" are examples of "arthropods, molluscs and annelids".
dlcu38 2 years ago
", with one slight niggle"
Racist !
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
perfect tree of life?..... how come you did not win a nobel prize? coz that's a big discovery.
roniepao 2 years ago
its old news, where the hell have you been?
adafuns 2 years ago
Develops "ass-first" - is that a technical term? Just giving you a hard time. :)
Actually, CRUD is a technical term; an acronym that started in nuclear research standing for Chalk River Unidentified Deposits. Just a little factoid for you.
Ercular 2 years ago
Woops. It didn't start in nuclear research, but it was used as the acronym.
Ercular 2 years ago
So beacause of these 'tree's' i'm supposed to beleive evolution created the earth?!? Jk jk :P Nice job very informative :)
4thDefect 2 years ago
What does evolution have to do with the formation of the earth?
Helixbuilder 2 years ago 3
I missed what this was a response to.
MortQ42 2 years ago
The above nonsense by 4thDefect.
Helixbuilder 2 years ago 2
ahahahaha, exactly!! 'Jk' stands for 'Just Kidding'. It was a joke :P but don't worry. Seems it want in good taste haha
4thDefect 2 years ago
BirthDefect:
Who says that evolution created the earth?
Leehofooks 2 years ago 4
What is a "sea anenome"? I know what anemones are and I want to say I have seen one in your tanks.
matthewj1985 2 years ago
Typo probably.
DonExodus2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Please note that the forks are only observations of similarity and difference, and are no evidence whatsoever of evolution.
Evolutionists have spent much time and many years naming and labeling their observations of nature. the creation of an imaginary evolutionary tree. is quite an accomplishment. However, it is no evidence of evolution.
You never find any type of animal changing into any other type of animal. It is invariable all organisms reproduce after their kind.
mejc2 2 years ago
Except, you do. Evolution has been observed in insects and bacteria, organisms with shorter reproduction cycles.
IFE10M 2 years ago 2
No it isn't, you're right. What is the proof of evolution is that the tree is exactly as it could only be, given evolution, without exception. That is VERY unlikely by chance and by creation.
Unless you have another theory that better explains how no organism ever studied has ever breached this "tree". Like...say a mammal with compound eyes.
Whatever a "type" is, evolution says exactly why you don't get types turning into other types. Whatever evolves from X is a type of X.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
Mejc2, when you were in the uterus of your mother you passed through all the stages of evolution that exist in all vertebrates before humans...just take a human embryology book and get informed...you are the proof that evolution exists though you are not aware of that.
BrazilianGirlDoll 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Get a more up to date book. Or at least Google embryonic stages and evolution.
this is such an old argument that there are thousands of resources that will tell you that it is untrue.
You are being brainwashed "though you are not aware of that."
mejc2 2 years ago
Every updated textbook has this info. Its confirmed by all aspects of modern developmental biology. In fact, a whole branch of science called evolutionary developmental biology has sprung up that combines genetics, evolution, and development because these finding have been so successful. Rather than saying "wrong, read a book" why don't YOU investigate the field by reading the primary literature of the top people. Look for articles by Cliff Tabin, Sean Carroll, or David Kingsley as a start.
dideoxynucleotide 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Even talk orgins, the evolutionism rag that it is, knows this is wrong.
"In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. "
mejc2 2 years ago
Yes, because all of developmental biology is predicated on the truth of Haeckel's embryo's.
dideoxynucleotide 2 years ago 2
Why are you insisting that Haeckel's exaggerated drawings discredits the entire field of modern embryology. Modern embryology doesn't depend on a 100 year old drawing. Or are you just so full of yourself that you don't even know what you are talking about? The evidence is in front of you; watch the video.
JaMoond 2 years ago 13
@mejc2 A day of great joy for me personally would be the day when illiterate, unschooled, untrained, ignorant and scientifically lazy creationists like yourself stop confusing Haeckels drawings and his ideas with MODERN embryology.
Pick up a book, read science magazines, check articles and papers (PubMed anyone?), visit museums....GET SCHOOLED BEFORE MAKING DUMB ARGUMENTS
jzuidema 1 year ago 14
This has been flagged as spam show
@jzuidema
Your indoctrination is complete.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Somehow your 2 braincells were able to devise and execute a plan to show the audience I was both correct in my first assessment of your ignorance, as well as adding more proof of your stupidity.
I will correct your dumb error once more: Haeckels drawings and the implications he attached to it, including the "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" hypothesis, have little implications on MODERN EMBRYOLOGY, nor does modern embryology rely on the concepts mentioned above. GET SCHOOLED!
jzuidema 1 year ago 5
@jzuidema I meant of course ontogeny instead of ontology. I will try to refrain from Nephy's phylolegy-speak in the future better.....
jzuidema 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@jzuidema
Making observations, labeling them, and forcing them into your world view is not science. There is no evidence or mechanism for any animal to morph into any other animal. despite all of Don Exoducks hopes and wishes.
mejc2 1 year ago
mejc2,
If you don't have the time or interest to read on biology and evolution, then I urge you to Please watch some more of DonExodus2 videos, you probably haven't seen them yet.
emancoy 2 years ago 2
do you work for my insurance company? your approach is quite similar to theirs:
deny deny deny deny deny deny deny deny deny...
1n354a 2 years ago
CPDC
that's the only way insurance companies make money.
collect premiums deny claims.
Finally we agree on something
mejc2 2 years ago
cheers to that!
1n354a 2 years ago
I love bringing up cladistics when creationists use the same designer argument. When presented with this evidence they always just ignore it and walk around the questions.
Fucken Fox.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
good work on this. Really quite clear.
I think the "genius" behind the idiocy of ID is the correct assumption that most people are so ignorant of science that people don't realize how absurd this idea really is.
boswellnimrod 2 years ago
the poster might of been the best part. sweet vid.
ngarbo00 2 years ago
Comment removed
ngarbo00 2 years ago
Damn, I love the music at the beginning of your vids.
cherrymiss72 2 years ago
It really did not seem that technical. It was pretty straight forward to me.
JRChadwick 2 years ago
Interesting that the evidence for Evolution is simply educating people to the facts and not an ethereal debate.
Pity, most Creationists would have tuned out somewhere around the time you said "anus". LOL
Creationists aren't interested in proof, they already have their answer and they're not listening anymore. Catch 22 really.
warren52nz 2 years ago 4
So, if somone calls me, "You damn ass" I shuld responde, "Wery true sir, thank you"? :P
Mossasan 2 years ago
Even though I had a lot science classes in high school and college, I think that I have learned more about evolution and science from your videos and Thunderf00t's than I ever did in any of the classes I took. Thanks
TheKilgoretrout 2 years ago
Let me see if I have this correct. When I am accused of being an ass, I can say there is evolutionary evidence that proves we are all asses-first before we're anything else?
financialcounselor 2 years ago
Brilliant!
PieLover5000 2 years ago
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah..........
You had me on "the one of two paths" until you showed the "Coelem?" LOL
Sismicactivity 2 years ago
evolution debate aside... this is some very interesting information!
zapproowsdower 2 years ago
ROFL @ FOX zen moment
Like I said before, they're just becoming a caricature of themselves.
jrparri 2 years ago 3
Thanks. Appreciate your work
darkwhitedirewolf 2 years ago
2:27 What are No-Acoelomates?
0x8x0 2 years ago
Its supposed to read Coelom? No- Acoelomate.
I didnt do the yes for the others.
DonExodus2 2 years ago
Thanks, I just stumbled on the double negation ;)
0x8x0 2 years ago
Now that I've read all the comments dropped, I feel I should add to something about the Fox Zen moment:
Does anyone else get an image of some super-whiny emo highschooler taking out his frustrations with the well-adjusted kids via Adobe Photoshop instead of, say, doing homework or hanging out with friends?
TheBronzeDog 2 years ago
Probably a 4channer.
Dipstikk 2 years ago
LOL at those fox altered photos!
Just shows that you have to question everything in the news!
tsjoencinema 2 years ago 3
Another great video. I like the mention of us forming posterior-first. First learned about that little feature from AronRa's 10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism, which goes into greater depth into the tree at motormouth speed.
TheBronzeDog 2 years ago
Using logic to argue creationism is like using an uzi to stop someone shooting themselves
Yakovich 2 years ago 3
LOL!
It works, just a little too well...
anonbehell 2 years ago
Soooo - the take home message here kiddos is - humans develop asshole firstt. Not too surprising, really. A random sampling of YouTube comments lends a great deal of supportive evidence to this fact.
47f0 2 years ago 5
LMAO!!! Brilliant
on a serious note, This video is really useful for my research.
kennydaluz 2 years ago
You'd wonder how many more exellent vids from the likes of DonEx, AronRa, Potholer, CDK, Tfoot etc. the creationists have to overlook before something finally sinks in.
Finkeren 2 years ago
i think that it never will sink in. they either refuse to watch these, watch them and don't understand, or watch them and blatantly deny everything without considering.
jessivehadit 2 years ago
I remembered those long hours in a Botany lab with the dichotomy key book counting stamen looking at the position of the stigma... or the API in microbiology... It would not be hard setting it up for a class work in high school.
biologin12 2 years ago
Nephy totally pawned.
sakar181 2 years ago
Word!
Hanzi89 2 years ago
great vid don, as always
i dont watch fox or msnbc, they always attack each other. cnn is at least focused on the news and not other station. but than i dont watch much news cause its all depressing
SkeptikSnarf 2 years ago
nice video. one of your best.
ndjarnag 2 years ago
I'm not sure what the College of Cardinals has to do with anything. The Catholic church does not deny evolution of species. Look it up scientist.
CiachoLover 2 years ago
.....
DonExodus2 2 years ago
You should post this as a response to the latest anti-evolution embryology video - /watch?v=ictZJln3Vj4
JT898 2 years ago
Wow, Fox is fucked up.
AncelDeLambert 2 years ago
Great video, one of the many fantastic pieces of evidence for evolution!
P.s. LOVE your moments of zen
misslipstickvogue 2 years ago 2
i dont understand how people can be so anti-evolution.
margxpq19 2 years ago
that moment of zen was awesome! Thanks :-)
softy1000 2 years ago
No matter what anyone says the creationists will not accept anything except: YES YOU ARE GOING TO LIVE FOREVER, DEATH IS NOT REAL.
DoctorE0 2 years ago
Isn't that what it's REALLY about? They can't accept that death may be permanent.
cherrymiss72 2 years ago
but God is omniblastic...
zoxovox 2 years ago
didn't watch the video because i spent hours upon hours studying this for my bio 2 exam last semester
I enjoyed studying this bit of bio because it makes evolution seem so obvious. There's this progression of slightly more and more complex forms emerging due to changes in early development. Those hox genes have done some incredible things
ikkuj 2 years ago
nice comparison at 6:09 !
Fantastic video!
vreesje 2 years ago
Clearly straight forward explanation. Thanks Don!
coasterpro 2 years ago 3
Great video, I love being able to learn something new everyday, it's been awhile since I have sat in a biology class... but I don't see how you can use this as substantial proof against people that believe in god. Aren't they just going to say, "Oh, well, god *made* them that way."?
semperneoeon 2 years ago 2
Oh lol, I read 'organisms' as 'orgasms'.
Good video; never even heard of these things, except the anus/mouth thing, until now. Very interesting.
ChilyAnt 2 years ago
"what ingredients were the 'quarks' formed and from what origin.
----------
Thanks.....and what caused the cosmic inflation?"
You know you are so adamant about God being first cause and all, that he created everything, but why don't you apply the same logic you use and tell what is God's cause? Who created him? Afraid to say you don't know?
9Rayvik9 2 years ago 2
The phylogenetic tree, as derived from embryology and the comparison of DNA, and the geographical distribution of species, and the fossil record, is the thing that unites these branches of evidence, and really puts common descent beyond reasonable doubt.
I don't think many creationists understand why the phylogenetic tree is such strong evidence - the problem is that understanding it takes just a bit of mental effort, and if you're not willing to expend that effort, you won't get it.
Stegocephalian 2 years ago
Awsome video as allways :)
All love from me Jasmine
Eopyk 2 years ago
Wicked video. Can't wait for the follow up.
aljimilah 2 years ago
I'm sure that very few creationist types if any will actually watch and listen to this or try to understand what is being said.
However, for many of the rest of us this is good educational video. I learned several things from this short presentation that clarified some questions I have.
So you aren't preaching to the converted so much as educating the willing. Big thank you.
macnutz 2 years ago
finally an educational video from an atheist in a while. everyones so caught up in dramas nowadays.
alyu100tw 2 years ago
DonExodus is not an atheist, lol.
aljimilah 2 years ago
Ohhh that's right. haha
alyu100tw 2 years ago
please tell me i can continue to see vids from u after u graduate.
nobrainsleft75 2 years ago
Great vid! Incidentally, it's become a common creationist argument to say "a dog never produces a non-dog". A good answer to this is to say "Quite right: anything descended from a dog, even 555 million years into the future, will still be classified as canis. Similarly, a deuterostome never produces a non-deuterostome. The first deuterostome is thought to be 555 million-year-old Kimberella, and without producing a non-deuterostome, it managed to diversify into everything from fish to elephants".
UppruniTegundanna 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
so if a dog grew 95 eyes and 541 legs cuz of eviLution, it would still be a dog? ROFL UR DUM!
H3Serpent 2 years ago
Well, firstly it would be nigh on impossible for evolution to elaborate on binocular vision and the tetrapod body plan now that it has been established, since nothing could select for miniscule gradated changes leading up to those characteristics. However, a creature is always going to be the sum of its ancestry. Humans are eukaryotic, deuterostomic, chordatic, vertebrate, tertapod, mammalian, primate hominids. All these adjectives describe a characteristic we have acquired during our ancestry.
UppruniTegundanna 2 years ago 2
DonExodus does his bestforus once again, nice vid.
quagmire1032 2 years ago
Ha, Fox pwnage at the end was great.
CheezMonsterCrazy 2 years ago
The difference:
Supporters of evolution argue with fact after fact of empirical falsifiable evidence.
Supporters of creationism argue that empirical falsifiable evidence rhetoric.
jbz3 2 years ago
Great stuff.
Did you say round worms are both Acoelomate and Pseudocoelomate at 2:53 and 3:06 respectively?
hilbert54 2 years ago
It's an error. he needs to annotate it.
jbz3 2 years ago
Technical yes! but presented in terms that interested laymen can understand....priceless.
Another great video from the Don!
CHAS1422 2 years ago 2
3:30
I'm guessing that when creationists develop, their blastopore becomes the anus :)
Zed1967 2 years ago
"I'm guessing that when creationists develop, their blastopore becomes the anus :) "
Yeah, you meant mouth. Anything with red blood, so far as I know, develops an anal opening via the blastopore first. If you wanted to say creationists talk out their anus, then my switch is still effective. Sorry about killing your joke, though.
EpsilonKnight7 2 years ago
One thing I wish you'd said is that despite this tree structure being invariable in this case, evolution doesn't require that it be so. For example, if it somehow became advantageous for an animal down the line to develop with two germ layers, a mutation might cause this trait to be expressed, and a new species might only have two germ layers. However, this wouldn't disprove evolution; it would simply be an exception to the rule.
airandfingers 2 years ago
I guess if people don't want to read their textbooks for high school bio, they can watch this, it's the same thing.
chert95 2 years ago
were doing cladograms in our class =D
Ezplain 2 years ago
Sadly the only people who would understand this, already have a rudimentary knowledge of evolution.
excuse the expression, "You're preaching to the choir"
no converts today,
but, nonetheless good video.
DrewsAnimation 2 years ago
Videos like this are beyond anything that the vast majority of theists will understand or care to even listen to. This is precisely for people with a rudimentary knowledge of evolution.
GatorHighlights2 2 years ago
how do you argue against this!!!
kksf1979 2 years ago
you own, thank you for taking the time to make these videos
swyft187 2 years ago 3
in fact religious people are an insult to the true pioneers who have worked hard to give all the world all the mod cons... this beautiful world is wasted on the god loving idiots,, pity we couldn,t round all up and dump them on another planet of their own,,,no hospitals or food etc they can just prey when they get ill or need feeding!!!!!
GoldFinger1971 2 years ago
DonExodus, you are awesome, as always.
marge729 2 years ago
Yahweh did a fantastic job of making a bunch of FALSE evidence for Evilution.
jacobromu 2 years ago
"Yahweh did a fantastic job of making a bunch of FALSE evidence for Evilution."
Could you get anymore biased?
Assuming that God put it there can't be used as an argument. It's not falsifiable.
RealityBend 2 years ago
>>Yahweh did a fantastic job of making a bunch of FALSE
>>evidence for Evilution.
If that's the case, your "Yaweh" is a liar and an asshole. Fuck him.
scourfish 2 years ago
lol, so true
Nate2203 2 years ago
great video, i wait impatiently for the next.
take your time and make it awesome!
DXR13KE 2 years ago
DonEx is teh Hawtseks ^^
It still amazes me at how advanced biology knowledge is, and yet, there is yet still so much more to learn. 5 fuckin' stars =D
TinyCoconut 2 years ago
The scariest part about the fox news thing is that it's actually old news. Fox news viewers still eat up their crap and claim everyone else is liberally biased!
jbz3 2 years ago 2
3:30 ...and if the blastopore becomes a mouth but functions as an anus, then that organism is a creationist.
tmcthree 2 years ago 11
lol nice
squirrelywrath2 2 years ago
LMAO!!!
AbdultheImpailler 2 years ago
holy shit...fox did that? lol man if it wasn't for fox news, how would I ever laugh?
Jfrisella 2 years ago
*****
bamboo4tameshigiri 2 years ago
im getting incrementally more pissed off at fox news after every human and moral atrocity they commit.
nathanomgnathan 2 years ago 2
What are true tissues? What makes tissues true?
Is there any reason why it would be less accurate to pronounce coelemate as kole-a-mate?
How come these various demonstrable falsehoods are not landing Fox News in court? Or are they?
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Prediction: someone is going to confuse the difference between a "coelom" and a "coulomb."
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Ha! I see you included that clip. It sure is something isn't it? I knew fox was bad but that is downright vile. I'm not typically inclined to use religiously connotative words such as "evil," but I think it applies in this case.
Bobbiethejean 2 years ago
Yea lol, thanks again!
DonExodus2 2 years ago
Hey Don in one of you're videos you said that 70% of biologists believe in God. Where did you get that source
argetfalcon 2 years ago
It wasnt biologists, it was scientists in general, and it was from livescience.
That being said, ive seen contradicting evidence and surveys since.
DonExodus2 2 years ago
Oh That moment of zen is painful. Stupid Fox News.
teenzo 2 years ago
Awesome, this takes me back to high school biology. Man, it was a pain to learn that tree haha.
darkkodiak001 2 years ago
that moment of zen was so....well....Fox.
I'm surprised they didn't have handle bar mustaches and devil horns drawn on them!
And to the realization that we are made "ass first"....irony is so wonderful!
KingHeathen 2 years ago
"And to the realization that we are made "ass first"....irony is so wonderful!"
That's evidence God has a sense of humor :P
LotusGreenX 2 years ago 2
I actually laughted out loud on thatone. I love biology...
NaranjaPera 2 years ago
Great video as usual.
Fox lol...
BananaHurricane 2 years ago
lol most important thing I learned from this video was that octopii and insects have an ass-mouth!
VitaminTMan 2 years ago
Great video...
One question though, why is a blasterphore becoming an anus more advanced...?
RodHullIOnceWasHim 2 years ago
We have the fossils, we win. Why are those damn creationists so reluctant do realize that?
AtheistChase 2 years ago
Oh lord, I've forgotten all of these terms from my zoology class!
FlowCell 2 years ago
FOX News = FAIL!!!!!
Evolution FTW WOOOOO!!!
eSilva90 2 years ago 3
Science wins in general.
Skantaq 2 years ago
LINK TO WHERE YOU FOUND THE MOMENT OF ZEN PLOX
also, it would be awesome if you put a link in the description from now on to that, the moments of zen are awesome ^_^
CarpeOmne 2 years ago
"Your inner fish" had a chapter on this :l
zombi3fx1 2 years ago
Fox never ceases to impress me with their creative ways of spreading bullshit.
Fox news is only rivaled by similar fake news organizations like the Cuban Granma and the Venezuelan RCN.
TheBadYuYu 2 years ago
why would we expect even distribution of deuterostomes and protostomes with an intelligent creator? Small slip but it's falling into strawman territory. Great video though!
MercifulMing 2 years ago
The characters would be evenly distributed, and not placed into a pattern explainable only by descent.
DonExodus2 2 years ago
Unless he DIDS IT THAT WAY ON PURPOSE! God is a tricksy god! This sentence works best in gollums voice.
r00tcause 2 years ago
i now know why creationists deny evolution. they do not wish to admit they developed ass first.
i don't like the idea much either, but since that's the truth then all i can do is look like a bigger arsehole by denying it.
bignastydragon 2 years ago