Is there a Monkey in your Family Tree? The Video

[5tonyvvvv]

Craig venter Borrowed and rearranged pre existing INFORMATION! life from non life is chemically and mathematically impossible!

[ndrthrdr1]

@5tonyvvvv You are as wrong as you are clueless.

Creatards are funny.

[5tonyvvvv]

@ndrthrdr1 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!

A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!

Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!

[ndrthrdr1]

@5tonyvvvv You are clearly not a chemist (although you will probably lie, as creatards so often do, and say that you are). If you were, you would easily understand the refutation of the ridiculous chirality argument.

You are grasping at straws. No matter.  We are an increasing steadily demographic, and creatards are steadily declining in number, heading the way of the large dinosaurs.

Good riddance.

[5tonyvvvv]

@ndrthrdr1 LOL..You are just another Indoctrinated moronic atheist that has no clue what Homochirality is!!

[FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7]

poor morons

[HConstantine]

No teleology involved, asshole. And modern humans are great apes, as the creationist linnaeus proved.

SAY WHAT A KIND IS, LIAR!

[gregrutz]

No, evolution does not say man is at the top, strawman argument. No, we did not evolve from a chimp, they have evolved as long as we have. . Classification shows>> All humans are still apes, and all apes are still monkeys, and all monkeys are still primates, and all primates are still mammals, and all mammals are still tetrapods Etc.

[jamesbond007sid]

This guy is a waste of life. He should go to his heaven.

[ofreshartist]

Great presentation keep exposing the lies being told. We didn't come from an ape-like ancestors we descend from Adam, and Eve (HUMANS). Darwinian Evolution is False. Jesus is Lord and Savior!

[gregrutz]

@ofreshartist  We are still apes, a kind of Great Ape.

[rpsmith014]

@ofreshartist You sound like you belong to a cult. Oh yeah, evolution is wacky but, oh being created out of a fucking rib bone, NOW THAT'S LOGICAL!

[5tonyvvvv]

@rpsmith014 No scientist in the world can make life or even the building blocks of life. All they have is assumptions! that one molecule might have linked up with another, or life flew in from space, or polarized light made complex molecules, its all assumptions! Homochirality proves natural processes can not produce life!!

[rpsmith014]

@5tonyvvvv Funny enough, I was watching 60 minutes the other day, and found a story about scientist J. Craig Venter and his team of scientists that have successfully created the first artificial, self-replicating bacteria. Very intriguing stuff. One more thing. Just because we don't know how life first began and only have assumptions, doesn't mean we should assume that these nonsensical, made-up stories from the low middle ages are true. We may find the answers eventually. Have some patience

[JamesThWilliams]

What the fuck is a Ph.D. in theology, do you even have to do any research whatsoever to get that. It sounds about as realistic as a Ph. D. in fine arts.

[TheHomelessCripple]

LoL, there is no "Apex" of the evolutionary tree of life. All creatures living today are equally evolved, just in different ways and adapted to different environments.

If anything living is at the apex of that tree it would be the Amoeba which essentially has gone unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, yet has somehow managed to survive and outlast almost all other life without further adaptation what so ever

[ThePrimusGuy]

God is a cunt.

[pontecanis]

The PrimusGuy~Hey! She won't like that,you know...she get's pissed about that kind of language~~we don't need any more earthquakes and Tsunamis right now!!

[gregrutz]

Man is at the apex....

First sentence and he is lying.

Evolution does not say that.

All animals living today have evolved as long as humans, till today.

[pontecanis]

An explanation of how apes and humans share blood types would be in order...all the Great Apes except Chimps and Bonobos have human blood type B, and identical blood antigens; Chimpanzees have type A and O, with antigens identical to humans; Bonobos have only Type A and the same identical antigens~~Q: How do creationists explain this? A: They can't !

[trueleroix]

What would you expect apes to evolve from? Something not ape-like?

[xxGodlessEndeavoRxx]

How to debunk the theory of Evolution.

Provide evidence each of the following are wrong. 1. The fossil record 2. Human and Chimpazee genome similarities. (Chromosome #2)

 3. Observed speciation in laboratories.

One more thing! 4. Stop equating Evolution with abiogenesis.

Origins of life = abiogenesis

Evolution starts with the premise LIFE is already here, then gives a mechanism(natural selection) for how it changes over time.

[damianpoirier]

ERVs are lingering remnants of failed viral infection which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. humans and chimps share 98,000 ERVs locations in common. What other conclusion can one come to?

[eelzen]

Evolution is a scientific theory. God is a religious fantasy. That's all we really know for sure The rest is faith based wishful thinking.

[vincenz55]

you got your facts ass backwards. A theory isnt a fact By whos criteria makes God unscientific? yours and other closed minded evolutionists. To beleive in ev is to have tons of faith because Creation facts are overwhelmingly against evolution so called facts. No comparison eelman. Now give the Creator his due Glory and credit and ask for forgiveness for your ignorance.

[eelzen]

vicenz55, No one is claiming a theory is a fact. Creationists are claiming God is a scientific theory. They should stick to religion and leave science to the professionals.

[Lonyguy]

a scientific theory explains the connection and explain the way that facts are interact with each other.

so in a way, a scientific theory hold a higher ground than just facts.

[vincenz55]

is there an echo in the room..Evolution is the most useless pile of hogwash ever invented by anyone..its despicable reprehensible and God will demand an accounting for everyone who beleives in it but especially its founder the depicable satan the devil.

[JamesThWilliams]

You can tell how stupid someone his by how strongly they cling to unreasonable beliefs. Creationists take the cake and then some.

[vincenz55]

And eveolutionists arent? Evolutionists cling to their own blindless piece of garbage beleif stronger than the bonding of crazy glue or as fleas to a dog. evolutionists make up their own rules so they can win and evolution is the only way. what a pile of crap.

[TheHomelessCripple]

@JamesThWilliams

They take the cake and then rape the baker in the ass

[vincenz55]

a theory is a theory sceinetific or not. a theory will always be a theory. how many theories has to be said to say it its a theory and not a fact

[poysm]

Check out the video: Evolution, Fossils, Genes and Mousetraps 1-9 with Ken Miller on YouTube.

Very good and Ken Miller was an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller Vs Dover court case, which proved that intelligent design is not science!

Then see, Why do people laugh at creationists? part 1-23 from Thunderf00t.

[vincenz55]

why cant you comment on the evidence here instead of groping for straws at other evolutionary crap videos

[JamesThWilliams]

He is showing you evidence but you are unwilling to accept it or view it. Repeating the same things over again would be redundant so just watch the videos.

[vincenz55]

he is showing evidence against evolution not for it

[gregrutz]

He does not understand how evolution happened. He is using straw man arguments.

Evolution does not say 'Man is at the apex' the first sentence is a lie.

[bonobox77]

Pobres gringos, pobres... de verdad son patéticos, decadentes y estúpidos. Pero al fin y al cabo, si son capaces de tragarse esos cuentos imbeciles biblicos, allá ustedes. La historia YA LOS REBASÓ.

[vincenz55]

porque non habla en ingles cabrone

[odacir64]

love the video.

keep up with the good work.

[CASSMAN777]

My friend is proof of evolution. He is the offspring of 5 monkeys having butt sex with a squirl and an ailien.

[odacir64]

good one., ha ha ha.,

[tzephon]

'Which "version" of the Bible is true?'

"That statement right there will..." None of his evidence point to Evolution. That is your presuppositional position. God's creation point to an extraordinary creator who uses 4 letters and some punctuation to describe every living thing.

The Old Testament is best represented by the Hebrew Tanach. The New Testament is best represented by the original language versions. Are you looking to argue over accuracy of translation?

[UltraSWG]

No, I'm saying there are 3 major Bible iterations, the Greek Orthodox, the Catholic, and the Protestant. Which one is the "correct" Bible? Then there's the myriad of translations, some of which contradict each other. Which one is the correct one? You put so much faith in a man-made book. You worship the written works of men, not the true God. God used evolution. It's clear as day, only religious zealots like you deny it.

[tzephon]

I used to think as you do, that God used evolution. But as I grew in my faith I had to decide that if the Word was true then evolution must be false. Does not every Christian Bible teach that God made man from the dust of the earth and does not teach man was made from animals? The theory of evolution is full a holes despite the stories made up to try to fill them in. I choose the Word of God over bad science.

[UltraSWG]

You rejected science because you felt it conflicted with your religion. God did not say exactly how he created the universe. You do not know how God did it, but God reveals his ways through the evidences in his creation. Saying man was made from dirt actually supports abiogensis. If you believe in the literal 6 day creation story, you're just bonkers. Days of Proclomation is much more plausible and more befitting God.

[tzephon]

Well, I have not rejected science, only bad science. Evolution is bad science.

No current hypothesis of abiogenesis works.

Six literal days depends on where you stand. Literally.

[UltraSWG]

Evolution is an observed naturally ocurring phenomenon. Saying that evolution is bad science is like saying gravity is bad science. If you disagree with modern Evolutionary Theory, then come with your own theory to explain why and how evolution ocurred and occurrs. That's how science works.

[tzephon]

Saying that evolution is bad science is nothing like saying that gravity is bad science, that is a false analogy. Gravity is actually observed and evolution is not. I will tell you why there is such diversity of life and so many fossils: 1. God made a bunch of creatures and 2. they die leaving behind bones. Creating new models of evolution is pointless as evolution is wrong. You don't have to buy the nonsense of evolution, look critically at its "proof". Have faith in God's Word.

[UltraSWG]

"Gravity is actually observed and evolution is not."

Wow, you really don't know anything about science or evolution, do you?

Evolution is the change in inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. Of course this is observed, it happens every day and is common sense. We've even observed speciation in the lab from Drosophila melanogaster to Drosophila pseudobscura.

Maybe you should read some other books besides the Bible, like maybe a biology book.

[tzephon]

That is actually the expression of variability, just as any given dog is canis lupus. No new information was added from D. melanogaster to D. pseudobscura. So no, evolution is not observed in the lab or in the world; that includes nylonase bacteria. The argument that D. melanogaster to D. pseudobscura is evolution is an equivocation.

[UltraSWG]

So you deny that allele frequency in a population changes over time? Really??

[tzephon]

Allele frequencies show the genetic diversity of a species population or equivalently the richness of its gene pool.

[UltraSWG]

Do you deny that allele frequency in a population changes over time? Do you deny that beneficial traits become more common in a population than detrimental traits? Yes or no? If you deny those things, then you trult deny evolution because that's all evolution is. If you do not deny those things, then you accept evolution, yet disagree with evolutionary theory. Start making sense.

[tzephon]

I have a hard time buying it beyond that which becomes the most observed phenotype, which is to say the observed traits due to variability within a species. I don't think that I can give a more comprehensive answer that this.

[UltraSWG]

Your personal incredulity aside, changes in allele frequency in a population has been observed, therefore, evolution has been observed. Rally against it all you want, but it's the truth.

[UltraSWG]

Uhm, sorry, fused human chromosome 2 and identicle endogenus retroviral markers in both human and ape DNA pretty much wins the case for common decent. In another hundred years, our grand children will be laughing their asses off at this video.

[tzephon]

How do you know what the fused chromosomes mean? How do you come to the conclusion that the fused chromosomes are any thing other than an explanation of the morphological difference between humans and apes? Have you split the fused chromosomes to see the effect? Have you fused chromosomes to see the effect in apes?

[UltraSWG]

Central telomeres and an inactive centromere in human chromosome 2 tell the story. If you were a geneticist, or a biologist with studies in genetics like I am, then this would be clear as day.

[tzephon]

What's clear as day is a line of crap. Telomeres are a buffer area of chromosomes where information isn't critical. In animals with complex cell structures (eukaryotes) the centromere has no defined DNA structure and is the just the common point for chromatids. You still haven't defined anything meaningful for the fusing.

[UltraSWG]

Now you're being willfully ignorant. That means "dumb on purpose".

If you want to know why human chromosome 2 is significant, watch this video:

watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M

However, I predict you will reject the knowledge in that video as well.

[tzephon]

I've seen this video before. All Ken Miller really has to say is that humans have fused chromosome 2 which has an inactive centromere corresponding to chimp chromosome 13. That would means an equal number of chromosomes with apes, that's fine, so what. The assumption of common ancestry is presupposition of evolution, and presupposition is not science. The fused chromosome may only describe the differences in human and ape morphology; it doesn't have to be common ancestry. Pure presupposition.

[UltraSWG]

It's not just an equal number of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is almost an exact copy of Chimp chromosome 2p and 2q.

And the fused chromosome isn't even the strongest evidence. Identicle ERV markers are 100% proof of common ancestry that would even stand up in a court of law. Only religious zealots refuse to accept the cold hard truth - that God made us using science, namely evolution, not magic!

[tzephon]

Almost an exact copy you say; It's been known that there is a 98% similarity between humans and apes for some time, so you don't offer any news here.

A study done at the University of Glasgow School of Vet Med shows that ERV have preferred locus of insertion. Work done with HIV do not necessarily correlate to HERV-K and assumptions based on that research is speculative until the vectors for the ERV in question are known.

[UltraSWG]

Now you're just grasping at straws.

Even *if* ERV's have preferred insertion locations on the genome, it would not explain identicle retroviral FRAGMENTS. That's the monkey wrench in your excuse. We have identicle ERV markers in the same locations in our genomes as a chimp does is thier's, THAT MEANS the fragments are identicle too. There's no other explaination for that except common ancestry. Or do you believe in some trickster God who is just trying to fool us?

[tzephon]

Which fragments are identical? That would go against the current molecular clock model which expresses ERV fragment drift over time.

Trickster God? No. But you are free to make as many wrong assumption on your own as you like. That's not God playing tricks on you, it's you playing tricks on yourself.

[UltraSWG]

Are you one of those guys who thinks the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that men walked with dinosaurs?

[tzephon]

Are you one of those guys who having failed to sell me a bridge in Brooklyn is now going to try to sell me choice farm land in the Everglades?

[UltraSWG]

Embarrassed to answer, eh? I can't make you accept the scientific consensus, all I can do is point out that it exists. If you wish to choose religion over science, that's all you.

[tzephon]

I accept religion because the Word of God is true. I also accept in science that which is true. A "scientific consensus" does not make truth; that is an appeal to popularity. There are so many holes in evolution that it does not hold water.

[UltraSWG]

"the Word of God is true"

That statement right there will forever prevent you from ever seeing the truth. The WORKS of God are true, and the evidences found in His creation are true. And His creation all points to Evolution.

His supposed "word" was written by man, is fallable, was mistranslated, and has been corrupted. Don't believe me? Which "version" of the Bible is true?

[basszack]

i had my son watch this so we could clear up any questions he has or may have.good job!

[ProclaimHisWord]

Excellent!

[dingorex]

Great video

[Darwinsgift]

This is a little long to dissect but is this man saying that life is impossible therfore god must have done it? Is he saying that fossils do exist of numerous species that evolved?... The transitional species tend to evolve in small and isolated enviroments.. That is why we see so many successful species that have evolved to that level.

[tzephon]

What evolution? You have a collection of fossils; that's it. "Evolution" is the assumption that one fossil must have in some way lead to another; assumptions are not proof.

[Darwinsgift]

We don't just have fossils, we also have sedimentary rocks that are made over many millions of years, like the chalk cliffs that are made almost entirely of carbonised life forms... These are like time layers with period fossils at different heights, and yes, they are proof!

[tzephon]

The geologic column of which you refer only exists in textbooks. And no they are not proof, they are assumptions. The dating of geologic layers and radio active decay dating are circular reasoning, and for each decay dating method that results in an "old earth" date there are multiple that result in "yound earth" age. You have a hand full of contrivances which you WANT to be true.

[Darwinsgift]

"The geologic column of which you refer only exists in textbooks."

Are you seriously saying that the "White cliffs of Dover" A famous symbol of the British Isles do not exist... Which world are you living in! This is my last reply!

[tzephon]

I'm not saying that the cliffs of Dover are not real and I'm not saying that they aren't comprised of fossils. What I'm saying is that that is all there is to that.

[tkstka]

you really are dumb..

[pawnographick]

i know i am

[sweatytoothmadman]

No, but there are apes if you go back far enough.