you creationists must have a very low opinion of yourselves if you believe that without god you will not have morals, feel guilty, and commit crimes. What bullshit. I have plenty of morals and I am an atheist. I'm much too intelligent to believe that an invisible man in the sky has to tell me how to live or I won't know any better.
Ha wow you really must be an idiot if you think something that has proof is a fairy tail and the thing that doesn't isn't. Im confused so you believe a god floating in the clouds created the earth but evolution which just expresses how animals change over time is far fetched. Oh by the way evolution makes no attempt at proving how life started it was intentionally left out because no one knows the answer.
@DarthHater100-amen! who saw it 350 million years ago.no one! because the earth is only six thousand years old. the truth telling young earth scientists are the real scientists!
Evolution is a fairy tale. Seriously, if you want to believe that fish just crawled out of water and started breathing, that's fine, but don't call it science. One rare fish with the ability to stay in some hybernative state and absorb oxygen is not proof fish evolved into land animals. There is simply NO proof for that. Yet evolutionists still talk about fish evolving as if there was proof. It is not a fact, so why do they state it as fact? They have no critical thinking skills.
I'm not shockofgod. I've proved that already, and it's atheist who are trolls. You know that God is real, but deny His obvious existence because turning off the God switch also turns off the guilt switch. One day you will meet your maker and be judged. And when I am dead, I will look down at you from heaven, with Jesus at my side, and watch you being tortured in Hell. It will be a pleasure seeing you beg for mercy. Please, keep being atheist, so I can enjoy seeing that for all of eternity.
@DarthHater100 spoken like a true christian shock.I love you think the act of a loving god will be to take pleasure in watching someone be tortured ...poor deluded moron.Your the troll with a fake account.isnt lying against one of the commandments ..its in the bible you should give it a read sometime,i'm sure you haven't.fail and fail again shock
@DarthHater100 this is what i love about most christians. you've never actually thought about the afterlife. if you think that you will be yourself in heaven think about how much that would suck after a million years. there would be all the same assholes and you would get bored as shit. im not religious at all but im probobly 1000 times more spiritual and moral then you. religion makes you brainwashed and you dont actually think about your views thoroughly.
@DarthHater100 Yes, and having a magical being that has never shown proof of existence to explain does not answer it all. You think it answers it, but it doesn't. In the beginning, there was a man like us. You think your right because when you have a god with no limits, you can come up with an excuse for everything! Your a dot in the billion-galaxy universe. IT WASN'T CREATED FOR YOU! YOUR NOT SPECIAL! IT'S A JOKE!!!
@DarthHater100 How depressing. Please go take a short science course or something and educate yourself. There is no excuse any more in the 21st century. I understand you have most definitely been through a childhood of brainwashing, but stop trying to spread rubbish on the internet and, rather, use the internet to better yourself mentally. You are only embarrassing yourself right now.
wow 70 million years ago and its had offspring that has climbed on land and yet those 70 million year old fish are still kicking it, shouldn't they be dead already? If they still have the ability to survive for that long in the wild then what was the point of that species having offspring that were more evolved then themselves?..........just asking!
@nics10able There was a specific claim that the modern fish are not the same as the ancient fish that first can onto land 380 million years ago. Eusthenopteron are not the same as a modern lung fish, even if they have a common characteristic in their lungs. Eusthenopteron also have a common leg structure with tetapods, but nobody is asking why tetrapods have not evolved since then. Both fish and tetrapods continue to evolve.
This kind of thinking is not at all what evolutionary theory claims. It's like, giraffes don't develop long necks to eat the leaves at the top of trees. Rather, the giraffes with genes for long necks survive better by having more food sources, and thereby pass on their long-neck genes. Finally, most giraffes come to have long necks.
stupid to believe on evolution.. but this is a type of fish!!!!!!!! life change with the time according the needs of earth!!!! every specie develop life according its needs and times.. earth, life, the universe, all is in constant motion! but that had not change our nature. just our times and it helps to maintain life. motion keep energy, the fact is that we are a design! life is in control by a master mind creator.
Creationists make me LOL. Almost as dumb as horoscopes, psychics, and mediums. Thank GOD I am not American where half the population is dumb enough to believe this shit
@ANOREXICWELSHMAN it is not more likely to believe that the universe came out of just luck and chance. Lets face it; some of the discoveries coming forwards in physics, ie double slit experement and such like is maybe even harder to believe than a creator making something... Furthermore creationism doesn't actually have to contradict modern theories, it depends if you take it literally or figuratively. Religion is not a scientific account and it doesnt try to be, it is just trying to explain why
@ehdave100 No, nobody cares about why. We need knowledge how things evolve and works.
Bacterias and viruses evolves all the time, and if we don't educate biologists we have no medics that can save us in the future. In USA the creationists now control many schools and refuse to learn about evolution and they who don't understand it will never understand biology and will never be able to contribute in that field.
This film ends with asking the viewers to not debate that here, so I say no more.
@ANOREXICWELSHMAN Well, I must be the smarter half because, I don't believe in this crap either, really I don't know what to believe but I know we didn't come from fish because it would be like.
Fish to monkey to human. How the hell does that work if they find monkey skeletons and giant human skeletons too?
Perfect example of letting some rabble-rousing preacher distort reality so that you'll fill up his collection plate. Stop that liar from distorting science to suit himself. He can't rouse the rabble if you wise up.
See for yourself. Test assumptions. Ask about everything. Question motives. Reading Darwin's Origin of the Species is an adventure. And he never claims that 1 monkey becomes 1 human.
@Skittywolf We find monkeys and humans living at the same time for the same reason you can live at the same time as your brother or cousin. We did not "come from" the monkeys that live today. We only share a common ancestor. Same with fish. And I'm curious: Where is the specific problem with the theory of evolution? At what point in the line between fish-like creature to human is there a gap that is impossible to cross?
@Vincentaneous No, I'm just saying that how would everything come from fish? It's idiotic if you ask me, and if we evolved from monkey ancestors the monkeys wouldn't just stay like that, species evolve together, it's not like we got smart and they just stayed stupid for no reason. If animals evolved separate, what would happen to the ones that didn't evolve, why didn't they? Plus, in the Bible they said humans used to be giant even before we found giant human skeletons. That's what I believe.
@Skittywolf Again, at what point in the line between fish-like creature and human is there a gap that is impossible to cross? Where is the point where a gradual change wouldn't work?
@Skittywolf here's an example: lets say i have a bulldog and a terrier, i breed them and I may gain a preferred breed called a pitbull... people will still breed the pitbull while the bulldog and terrier still exist because all are preferred. This is what happens in the wild, except the selection process is done by nature and not by arbitrary human preference. Not sure if that's idiotic or not but it's what really happens.
@Skittywolf you were asking how monkeys can still be around if there were offshoot species that evolved from them, i was using a case of dog breeding to show simply how a parent (sub-species in this case) can still be around after an offshoot species has evolved... it was not comparing any theories at all, it's just an analogy to answer your question... sorry for any confusion...
@Skittywolf - Animals that stay behind, and evolve less than more advanced lineages, stay the way they are because they have no need to change. Fish are still fish because there is still water and food, apes stay as apes because there is still jungles with trees and fruit to eat. Our ape ancestors evolved into humans because the environment was changing from forest to plains, so they started walking upright. Continued...
@Skittywolf There are no giant human predecessors, that myth is common in many cultures, greek, sumerian, judaic, hindu, native american. It comes from the fact that ancient people found bones of elephants and dinosaurs and thought they belonged to giant humans. Any race of giants that did exist was no taller than the tallest basketball player, which is plenty big to a short ancient Jew or Egyptian. There may have been giant apes that coexisted with primitive humans, if you must have a source.
@Rhinogradentian gorillas are pretty bloody big and imposing, and were a lot more widespread than currently when all these myths were first being formed. The most recent fossils of gigantopithecus are only 100,00 years old, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that they existed up until much more recently in the still largely unexplored areas of SE asia where it lived. The fact that Australian aborigines still have stories about extinct megafauna adds weight to the possibility also.
@mrsanity If we're getting into bigfoot or other sub-humans as giant human predecessors, that is just dandy, I can get on board with that. I draw the line at any humanoid over about 11 feet, because in pysiological terms, it's hard for bipeds to get that large. The point is, that any myth of humans of truly giant stature, that is say 20-30 feet, are obviously exaggerations based upon ancient cultures finding giant bones of elephants and dinosaurs. It may be that 2 kinds of evidence contributed.
@Rhinogradentian Almost without a doubt. Myths normally come from some very (to us) mundane sources, but when you have no scientific knowledge to speak of, the explanations for elusive giant apes or fossil finds can be quite creative and can combine in some of the most unusual ways.
@Rhinogradentian P.S. I forgot to manntion the nature of humans to exagerate contributes to the expansion of size when telling a tale of what someone has seen away from civilisation.
I caught a fish >-------------this big------------< honest!!
@Skittywolf try fish > newt > lizard > mouse > monkey > chimp > human
A crude analogy, but it gives you the idea. The timescale involved is also pretty phenomenal, when you think it took about 5 million years to get us from something akin to a chimp to where we are now, and we are looking t the process from fish starting about 400 million years ago. Evolution ran faster than now for most of this process as the animals involved had much faster generational turnover.
We actually know now from the acanthostega fossil found by Jennifer A Clack of Cambridge Uni. during her 1987 trip to Greenland in Upper Devonian (Famennian) rock dating to c.365Ma, that early tetrapods evolved legs whilst they were still primarily, if not wholly, inhabiting shallow waters. This is because the hind limbs of Acanthostega are more like flippers, it has internal gills & ribs are too short to support the chest cavity our of water.
Water dogs/mud puppies are designed to swim and hang out in shallow waters. Yes they can go on land, but if they have no water for too long, they will die. Go ahead try to put one from the pet store in a tank with no water. See how long it takes for your investment to die. Not very long.
@Codenamelumiere Water dogs are designed by evolution to be able to transfer from water source to water source. This is a huge evolutionary advantage and over time could possibly lead to complete or amphi-terrestrial life habits. It could even lead back to water habits. Who knows. but your example does nothing but support evolution.
@fcdog555 I grasp what you are saying but I am going to have to respectfully disagree. I stand firm that they were made that way from the beginning. But I am curious... which other creatures would you suppose these came from ? Which before and which after (if any) ? Maybe we could compare their similarities and differences ?
@Codenamelumiere First, I must make a clarification, they are not water dogs--water dogs are salamanders. these are fish. And as you would expect from an evolutionary stand point, this animal will share most of its traits with fish and some with amphibians-e.g. having gills, content of urine, bone anatomy, and possibly breath through skin. again, in the evolutionary stand point, this animal clearly came from a fish. As for future evolution, it's impossible to say.
lol.. my friends laughed at me when i said i think we where once fished that came out of water.. i stumbled on this vid.. and it seems very possible.. hmmm..
first of all if you dont like evolution then you must have no life because you are wacthing an evolution vid second if a fish gets a mutation that makes its fins more leg like then it might start go on land more its like if a monkey was born with out a tail you would not find that monkey in a tree
@ustolemymonkey Is there evidence for gradual evolution ?creatures seem to have in their genes the ability to switch on and off things like fins or legs (and many other things" . this explains why there is no fossil evidence for the gradual movement from fins to legs . however this supports a designer who 'pre-programmed' creatures with this ability .
@ark1588 Being that I have studied genetics in college, I would like to point out that you are completely wrong about the ability to switch on and off things like fins or legs. This is not a conscious act, nor does it work that way. The only way genes are switched on and off are by mutations in pseudogenes--there is no other mechanism than this. There HAS to be a mutation in order for future progeny to have a gene switched off. And furthermore, I should point out that there is no "leg gene" cont
@fcdog555 too much information , congratulations on what i'm sure is a wonderful college education .
my information was gleaned from the "darwin" week on the discovery channel . Regardless of the details of what causes fins to become legs or vice-versa , it is evidence for design . the direction of the program was to
answer the puzzle of why are there no intermediate stages ,the presentation was based on very recent findings .
@joyibrand i am not religious . i am very familiar with prof dawkins, i have all his books . i think he is a skilled broadcaster and communicator , however rather like the vatican i am not sure he always gets it right . there are many unresolved problems for evo via natural selection to overcome .
First, admit you don't know everything about evolution because it's a massive theory that has been researched for more than one hundred years by thousands of scientists working on hundreds of different angles.
Second, name a single problem you think hasn't been resolved, then prove yourself wrong by looking it up on Google.
@OrthodoxDarwinist A-hole, the only thing keeping me from announcing that you're the dumbest mutherfukker on YT is: 1. Translunatic 2. EternalSuckass77 aka DNAunion 3. ChikenOedipussy110 4. MegaDouche 5. Odinata/Foxlake02 FUCK I'm running out of numbers. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR You have a lot of competition!
nor a "fin gene," but rather genes that code for proteins (in fact that is the only thing genes code for). and thus, it is impossible for something to "turn off" the leg gene for 1) it does not exist, and 2) that is not how genetics work. Lastly, I can point you to evidence for gradual and punctuated evolution if you would like.
Btw, you just got owned by a college education in science:p
What this video in principle says is that whatever is needed for survival, living organisms can somehow intuitively comprehend, aim at and gradually construct within themselves, no matter how complicated those constructions may be. That is ridiculous an assumption. Nowhere in the fossil record there can be found such transitional details that can completely support the idea of a fish evolving into amphibious creature and further on into land-living creature. Glory to the God of Jesus Christ.
what is the best source for this sort of stuff. i love science. a lil obsessed i should say. please give me some info. i want to know of videos or documentaries about this. please and thank you email: apluz@tmail.com. thanks
Evolution is so stupid mixed up. If one chance of life mistakely come out of the ocean, why is this fish in fresh waters?... And those fins are not legs.
@StarSpawn06 Life emerged from water to land many times?... Oh really, I would love to see this video happening. Tell me this, how does the dead come to life, just to go back to the dead?... Don't believe those lies, life didn't appear out of the water, life was created by God.
Species of their own kind naturally bring forth animals of their own kind, but it's the same species of its kind, that's called micro-evolution. All animals of different species did not gave birth to each other.
@StarSpawn06 First of all, life is in the sea, so what are you asking?... And as for your other question, sorry I gotta answer this with a question... but what does descendants got to do with what I was talking about?...And yes, yes there is a theory of macro-evlution that you believe in, which is a false mythical made fantasy. Sorry, micro evolution is only observed, that's natural selection. If macro-evolution was true- which is not- would be called unnatural selection. Like a cat half dog.
@StarSpawn06 Sorry, you've been lied to... on purpose. Let me tell you what they did, evolutionists twisted in micro-evolution together with macro-evolution just to deceive you, so they just called it evolution. And that's a deceitful thing to do just so they can live in their burning lust, despite the fact that your soul would be at risk and could end up in eternal hell. Sorry, evolutionists scientists don't love you, nor do they care about you.
@wisefreethinker242 well evolution generally works on 2 simple rules 1.offspring look and are similar to their parents. 2.mistakes creep in and variation occurs these changes add up over a long period of time.
@wisefreethinker242 Tell me how macro evolution works if it is a distinct process from micro evolution. If the two are completely different, then tell me what the differences are. I know you don't believe in macro evolution, but you should be able to tell us how it works since you seem to know so much about what others believe. Tell me what is wrong with sciences models of macro evolution. And don't just say that it hasn't been observed, you have to go deeper than that.
yeah,yeah and you believe all of this because Darwin said so ??? And why are you talking about Adam and Eve ?? I guess we will all find out the truth the day we die.Have a nice life :D
If you want to believe that monkeys are your cousins then you are monkeys :D yeah right fishes started to walk,why don't they evolve anymore,why don't chimps carry cellphones ??? I'll rather believe that we were created by aliens than this
Most people who are evolutionists (Darwinists) are just as ignorant of how the evolution theory or process even works just as much as creationists (intelligent design). People seem to forget that the purpose of science is to gather evidence and facts about multiple theories until one is proven and tested to be true. Because neither theory has been proven, I think that both should be seriously examined and even taught. . Teaching Intelligent design isn't pushing religion into schools.
Most people who are evolutionists (Darwinists) are just as ignorant of how the evolution theory or process even works just as much as creationists (intelligent design). People seem to forget that the purpose of science is to gather evidence and facts about multiple theories until one is proven and tested to be true. Because neither theory has been proven, I think that both should be seriously examined and even taught. . Teaching Intelligent design isn't pushing religion into schools.
IDiocy is taught in schools as complete bullshit. and i am ok with it. teaching it as a "theory" it's wrong. because it's not just sheer stupidity, it's wrong by empirical proof that it is wrong.
and you have a very wrong idea about what is the purpose of science. science SEES and then explains. the validation comes AFTER the observation.
"seriously examined" - and it has been: There's no evidence to support ID.
evolution is actually a fact that have been proven by science,wether some people like it or not,they have to see the evidence,it's like what we do in crimes,we don't care about what the suspect says we only see the evidence,the same thing should be apllied on the evolution theory..you shouldn't be subjective,you should be objective!
@un7ucky Yes I understand it, But I dont believe it happened. Just because you have one interesting fish that can walk on land doesnt prove anything... It is an interesting theory but thats just what it is, A theory that cannot be tested.
@MrMegaDouche, the only reason you hate Hovind so much is he keeps proving evolution wrong. HAR HAR HAR and you think he should be beaten and raped for it. All you've done is prove what a sorry piece of shit YOU ARE.
Hovind is a fraud, a liar and...well...it's in jail. Accused by a group of peers. therefore you have nothing to say about it. because if you disagree with the court's sentence, you should present a valid argumentation. what you DO hate is the evidence that proves you wrong. right?
where did Hovind prove evolution wrong? he had the chance during the Dover trial, why didn't he show up? fear, maybe? LOLOL
test chromosomes number two, research nylon eating bacteria
and btw, a scientific theory is not supposed to be proven, it is supposed to be tested. first understand what a theory is, before you make ridiculous statements
It does seem rather satire if i were to ask you where did everything originate from and you go telling me - "God" without a single piece of evidence, where as the video above is providing the edivence in which you seem not to have
1. Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and may eventually diversify into new species.
Key word "may." There has never been a NEW species appear. EVER
2. A nested hierarchy of anatomical and genetic similarities, geographical distribution of similar species and the fossil record indicate that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor through a long series of these divergent events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth.
ANOTHER LIE ON WIKI no such thing as a common ancestor. Pure conjecture and assumption. PWNED
3. Evolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare.
They fail to mention that there is no proof of such a thing. And the neither of these forces have ever produced a new species or a new organ of any kind. Another mistake in Wiki.
4. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable differences (variation) in their traits. The main cause of variation is mutation, which changes the sequence of a gene. Altered genes, or alleles, are then inherited by offspring. There can sometimes also be transfer of genes between species.
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR check that out. "transfer of genes between the species" The Miracle of Evolution. HAR HAR HAR HAR
5. Two main processes cause variants to become more common or rare in a population. One is natural selection, which causes traits that aid survival and reproduction to become more common, and traits that hinder survival and reproduction to become more rare.
They called natural selection a process as if natural selection is looking around and making decisions. They fail to mention that natural selection is merely a theory and has not ever produced a new species. HAR HAR HAR
Evolutionary records shows that nearly a hundred reptile lineages have independently made the transition from egg laying to live birth in the past, and today about 20 percent of all living snakes and lizards give birth to live young only. The yellow-bellied three-toed skink lays eggs to reproduce. But individuals of the same species living in New South Wales's higher, colder mountains are almost all giving birth to live young. MaximusToadius thinks magic man just poofed than all into existence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@toadielake02 when I was coming back from the gym, I saw a taxi. The driver looked just like a big toad with a mustache. I was talking to Spectatio on the phone. I told him that it looked just like I imagined you to took. He laughed his ass off.
@MaximusArurealius "when I was coming back from the gym" TRANSLATION: When I was coming back from the whorehouse I was so drunk I couldn't make out faces. I started making up stories about the people who handed me my ass on YouTube. Then I laughed like a little schoolgirl.
megatruth is getting defensive about being defensive.
hahahahhahahahhahahahahhahha
Be careful about mentioning megatruths trans sock account or his other sock account because he will start posting messages whining like a bitch about it.
We don't either one need back up for a slimy little ignorant assed worm like you asshole. You are always so defensive. You can never put up any kind of an offense. I am taunting you because you'll try and then you'll make more of an ass of yourself TitieBaby. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
so jesus is okay with calling someone an "asshole?"
good to know
btw, you have already said in a previous post that you do not believe the trans claim and you have denied to me that the brayingjackass account was yours.
so once again, you have lied, but thanks for playing
mud skippers are CUTE
IvanderHaisley 4 months ago
Evolution is fact
End of discussion
B4IRUTUARU16 4 months ago
Their fish not fishes.
HAYDZREEF 5 months ago
you creationists must have a very low opinion of yourselves if you believe that without god you will not have morals, feel guilty, and commit crimes. What bullshit. I have plenty of morals and I am an atheist. I'm much too intelligent to believe that an invisible man in the sky has to tell me how to live or I won't know any better.
nancy6ify 5 months ago
Ha wow you really must be an idiot if you think something that has proof is a fairy tail and the thing that doesn't isn't. Im confused so you believe a god floating in the clouds created the earth but evolution which just expresses how animals change over time is far fetched. Oh by the way evolution makes no attempt at proving how life started it was intentionally left out because no one knows the answer.
kentimusmaximus 5 months ago
@DarthHater100-amen! who saw it 350 million years ago.no one! because the earth is only six thousand years old. the truth telling young earth scientists are the real scientists!
slr1238 5 months ago
Evolution is a fairy tale. Seriously, if you want to believe that fish just crawled out of water and started breathing, that's fine, but don't call it science. One rare fish with the ability to stay in some hybernative state and absorb oxygen is not proof fish evolved into land animals. There is simply NO proof for that. Yet evolutionists still talk about fish evolving as if there was proof. It is not a fact, so why do they state it as fact? They have no critical thinking skills.
DarthHater100 5 months ago
@DarthHater100 darthhater100 is really shockofgod this is one of his many troll accounts
alltiedup217 5 months ago
I'm not shockofgod. I've proved that already, and it's atheist who are trolls. You know that God is real, but deny His obvious existence because turning off the God switch also turns off the guilt switch. One day you will meet your maker and be judged. And when I am dead, I will look down at you from heaven, with Jesus at my side, and watch you being tortured in Hell. It will be a pleasure seeing you beg for mercy. Please, keep being atheist, so I can enjoy seeing that for all of eternity.
DarthHater100 5 months ago
@DarthHater100 spoken like a true christian shock.I love you think the act of a loving god will be to take pleasure in watching someone be tortured ...poor deluded moron.Your the troll with a fake account.isnt lying against one of the commandments ..its in the bible you should give it a read sometime,i'm sure you haven't.fail and fail again shock
alltiedup217 5 months ago
@DarthHater100 this is what i love about most christians. you've never actually thought about the afterlife. if you think that you will be yourself in heaven think about how much that would suck after a million years. there would be all the same assholes and you would get bored as shit. im not religious at all but im probobly 1000 times more spiritual and moral then you. religion makes you brainwashed and you dont actually think about your views thoroughly.
L0ngB0ard99 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarthHater100 Yes, and having a magical being that has never shown proof of existence to explain does not answer it all. You think it answers it, but it doesn't. In the beginning, there was a man like us. You think your right because when you have a god with no limits, you can come up with an excuse for everything! Your a dot in the billion-galaxy universe. IT WASN'T CREATED FOR YOU! YOUR NOT SPECIAL! IT'S A JOKE!!!
IvanderHaisley 4 months ago
@DarthHater100 You would enjoy watching people be tortured? That's very unchristian of you, trollface.
Sorgybaby 4 months ago
@DarthHater100 Idiot
CreativeVisionary92 3 months ago
@DarthHater100 How depressing. Please go take a short science course or something and educate yourself. There is no excuse any more in the 21st century. I understand you have most definitely been through a childhood of brainwashing, but stop trying to spread rubbish on the internet and, rather, use the internet to better yourself mentally. You are only embarrassing yourself right now.
Galaxy360 4 months ago
I will show this to my creationist roommate, as well as some more updated things. Thanks! Amazing, too!
DoctorNociceptor 7 months ago
wow 70 million years ago and its had offspring that has climbed on land and yet those 70 million year old fish are still kicking it, shouldn't they be dead already? If they still have the ability to survive for that long in the wild then what was the point of that species having offspring that were more evolved then themselves?..........just asking!
nics10able 8 months ago
@nics10able There was a specific claim that the modern fish are not the same as the ancient fish that first can onto land 380 million years ago. Eusthenopteron are not the same as a modern lung fish, even if they have a common characteristic in their lungs. Eusthenopteron also have a common leg structure with tetapods, but nobody is asking why tetrapods have not evolved since then. Both fish and tetrapods continue to evolve.
shishkabobby 7 months ago
@Gobbledychink
This kind of thinking is not at all what evolutionary theory claims. It's like, giraffes don't develop long necks to eat the leaves at the top of trees. Rather, the giraffes with genes for long necks survive better by having more food sources, and thereby pass on their long-neck genes. Finally, most giraffes come to have long necks.
artsavant 9 months ago
stupid to believe on evolution.. but this is a type of fish!!!!!!!! life change with the time according the needs of earth!!!! every specie develop life according its needs and times.. earth, life, the universe, all is in constant motion! but that had not change our nature. just our times and it helps to maintain life. motion keep energy, the fact is that we are a design! life is in control by a master mind creator.
Farstar11 9 months ago
Good on ya 'quarksarestrange' for the final comment on your video, these debates are getting ridiculous
Nerdsown 10 months ago
@zZhOrNyZmOnSTeRZz that same comment can found on the both sides of the debate
TheBeatholiC 10 months ago
i will like to poke those eyes with a stick
bleachfan178 10 months ago
206 likes against 8 dislikes... there is hope for the future still!
zzzIdividedbyzerozzz 11 months ago
Comment removed
ItsHarryHD 11 months ago
Creationists make me LOL. Almost as dumb as horoscopes, psychics, and mediums. Thank GOD I am not American where half the population is dumb enough to believe this shit
ANOREXICWELSHMAN 11 months ago
@ANOREXICWELSHMAN it is not more likely to believe that the universe came out of just luck and chance. Lets face it; some of the discoveries coming forwards in physics, ie double slit experement and such like is maybe even harder to believe than a creator making something... Furthermore creationism doesn't actually have to contradict modern theories, it depends if you take it literally or figuratively. Religion is not a scientific account and it doesnt try to be, it is just trying to explain why
ehdave100 11 months ago
@ehdave100 There is no why, only how.
pantherstudios 11 months ago
@pantherstudios @pantherstudios but is why not the very question that started science?
"why is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ the way it is"
ehdave100 11 months ago
@ehdave100 No, nobody cares about why. We need knowledge how things evolve and works.
Bacterias and viruses evolves all the time, and if we don't educate biologists we have no medics that can save us in the future. In USA the creationists now control many schools and refuse to learn about evolution and they who don't understand it will never understand biology and will never be able to contribute in that field.
This film ends with asking the viewers to not debate that here, so I say no more.
ytbabbler 7 months ago
@ANOREXICWELSHMAN Well, I must be the smarter half because, I don't believe in this crap either, really I don't know what to believe but I know we didn't come from fish because it would be like.
Fish to monkey to human. How the hell does that work if they find monkey skeletons and giant human skeletons too?
Skittywolf 11 months ago
@Skittywolf
Perfect example of letting some rabble-rousing preacher distort reality so that you'll fill up his collection plate. Stop that liar from distorting science to suit himself. He can't rouse the rabble if you wise up.
See for yourself. Test assumptions. Ask about everything. Question motives. Reading Darwin's Origin of the Species is an adventure. And he never claims that 1 monkey becomes 1 human.
Don't be a pawn or you'll get pawned.
artsavant 10 months ago
@artsavant Are you saying we did evolve now? And what's this about a preacher....?
Skittywolf 10 months ago
@Skittywolf We find monkeys and humans living at the same time for the same reason you can live at the same time as your brother or cousin. We did not "come from" the monkeys that live today. We only share a common ancestor. Same with fish. And I'm curious: Where is the specific problem with the theory of evolution? At what point in the line between fish-like creature to human is there a gap that is impossible to cross?
Vincentaneous 10 months ago
@Vincentaneous No, I'm just saying that how would everything come from fish? It's idiotic if you ask me, and if we evolved from monkey ancestors the monkeys wouldn't just stay like that, species evolve together, it's not like we got smart and they just stayed stupid for no reason. If animals evolved separate, what would happen to the ones that didn't evolve, why didn't they? Plus, in the Bible they said humans used to be giant even before we found giant human skeletons. That's what I believe.
Skittywolf 10 months ago
@Skittywolf Again, at what point in the line between fish-like creature and human is there a gap that is impossible to cross? Where is the point where a gradual change wouldn't work?
Vincentaneous 10 months ago
@Vincentaneous *facepalm* Nevermind
Skittywolf 10 months ago
@Skittywolf here's an example: lets say i have a bulldog and a terrier, i breed them and I may gain a preferred breed called a pitbull... people will still breed the pitbull while the bulldog and terrier still exist because all are preferred. This is what happens in the wild, except the selection process is done by nature and not by arbitrary human preference. Not sure if that's idiotic or not but it's what really happens.
DjDedan 9 months ago
@DjDedan Are we comparing the creationist's theory or the evolutionist's I can't tell anymore. >_<"
Skittywolf 9 months ago
@Skittywolf you were asking how monkeys can still be around if there were offshoot species that evolved from them, i was using a case of dog breeding to show simply how a parent (sub-species in this case) can still be around after an offshoot species has evolved... it was not comparing any theories at all, it's just an analogy to answer your question... sorry for any confusion...
DjDedan 9 months ago
@DjDedan Everyone's harassing me. ;_; I give up! I don't know anymore! Eat a chicken pot pie and have a good night! >_<"
Skittywolf 9 months ago
@Skittywolf lol - thats a good idea - take it easy!
DjDedan 9 months ago
@Skittywolf - Animals that stay behind, and evolve less than more advanced lineages, stay the way they are because they have no need to change. Fish are still fish because there is still water and food, apes stay as apes because there is still jungles with trees and fruit to eat. Our ape ancestors evolved into humans because the environment was changing from forest to plains, so they started walking upright. Continued...
Rhinogradentian 9 months ago
@Skittywolf There are no giant human predecessors, that myth is common in many cultures, greek, sumerian, judaic, hindu, native american. It comes from the fact that ancient people found bones of elephants and dinosaurs and thought they belonged to giant humans. Any race of giants that did exist was no taller than the tallest basketball player, which is plenty big to a short ancient Jew or Egyptian. There may have been giant apes that coexisted with primitive humans, if you must have a source.
Rhinogradentian 9 months ago
@Rhinogradentian gorillas are pretty bloody big and imposing, and were a lot more widespread than currently when all these myths were first being formed. The most recent fossils of gigantopithecus are only 100,00 years old, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that they existed up until much more recently in the still largely unexplored areas of SE asia where it lived. The fact that Australian aborigines still have stories about extinct megafauna adds weight to the possibility also.
mrsanity 9 months ago
@mrsanity If we're getting into bigfoot or other sub-humans as giant human predecessors, that is just dandy, I can get on board with that. I draw the line at any humanoid over about 11 feet, because in pysiological terms, it's hard for bipeds to get that large. The point is, that any myth of humans of truly giant stature, that is say 20-30 feet, are obviously exaggerations based upon ancient cultures finding giant bones of elephants and dinosaurs. It may be that 2 kinds of evidence contributed.
Rhinogradentian 9 months ago
@Rhinogradentian Almost without a doubt. Myths normally come from some very (to us) mundane sources, but when you have no scientific knowledge to speak of, the explanations for elusive giant apes or fossil finds can be quite creative and can combine in some of the most unusual ways.
mrsanity 9 months ago
@mrsanity I agree.
Rhinogradentian 9 months ago
@Rhinogradentian P.S. I forgot to manntion the nature of humans to exagerate contributes to the expansion of size when telling a tale of what someone has seen away from civilisation.
I caught a fish >-------------this big------------< honest!!
mrsanity 9 months ago
@Skittywolf try fish > newt > lizard > mouse > monkey > chimp > human
A crude analogy, but it gives you the idea. The timescale involved is also pretty phenomenal, when you think it took about 5 million years to get us from something akin to a chimp to where we are now, and we are looking t the process from fish starting about 400 million years ago. Evolution ran faster than now for most of this process as the animals involved had much faster generational turnover.
mrsanity 9 months ago
Novel with an alternative view of evolution see videl book trailer
dltanner99 1 year ago
We actually know now from the acanthostega fossil found by Jennifer A Clack of Cambridge Uni. during her 1987 trip to Greenland in Upper Devonian (Famennian) rock dating to c.365Ma, that early tetrapods evolved legs whilst they were still primarily, if not wholly, inhabiting shallow waters. This is because the hind limbs of Acanthostega are more like flippers, it has internal gills & ribs are too short to support the chest cavity our of water.
OrthodoxDarwinist 1 year ago
EVOLUTION IZ BETTAR CUZ IT HAZ EVIDENTS
fr3d420 1 year ago
@fr3d420 Hahahah oh dear.
EdsEnemy 1 year ago
Great Video!
NessVlogMusic 1 year ago
Bit of a blast from the past. David Attenborough without grey hair.
TychoCelchu 1 year ago 7
It's not just possible, we know for a fact that it did happen.: )
winterstellar 1 year ago
Water dogs/mud puppies are designed to swim and hang out in shallow waters. Yes they can go on land, but if they have no water for too long, they will die. Go ahead try to put one from the pet store in a tank with no water. See how long it takes for your investment to die. Not very long.
Codenamelumiere 1 year ago
@Codenamelumiere Water dogs are designed by evolution to be able to transfer from water source to water source. This is a huge evolutionary advantage and over time could possibly lead to complete or amphi-terrestrial life habits. It could even lead back to water habits. Who knows. but your example does nothing but support evolution.
fcdog555 1 year ago
@fcdog555 I grasp what you are saying but I am going to have to respectfully disagree. I stand firm that they were made that way from the beginning. But I am curious... which other creatures would you suppose these came from ? Which before and which after (if any) ? Maybe we could compare their similarities and differences ?
Codenamelumiere 1 year ago
@Codenamelumiere First, I must make a clarification, they are not water dogs--water dogs are salamanders. these are fish. And as you would expect from an evolutionary stand point, this animal will share most of its traits with fish and some with amphibians-e.g. having gills, content of urine, bone anatomy, and possibly breath through skin. again, in the evolutionary stand point, this animal clearly came from a fish. As for future evolution, it's impossible to say.
fcdog555 1 year ago
lol.. my friends laughed at me when i said i think we where once fished that came out of water.. i stumbled on this vid.. and it seems very possible.. hmmm..
THECuBANBEAzT 1 year ago
first of all if you dont like evolution then you must have no life because you are wacthing an evolution vid second if a fish gets a mutation that makes its fins more leg like then it might start go on land more its like if a monkey was born with out a tail you would not find that monkey in a tree
ustolemymonkey 1 year ago
@ustolemymonkey Is there evidence for gradual evolution ?creatures seem to have in their genes the ability to switch on and off things like fins or legs (and many other things" . this explains why there is no fossil evidence for the gradual movement from fins to legs . however this supports a designer who 'pre-programmed' creatures with this ability .
ark1588 1 year ago
@ark1588 Being that I have studied genetics in college, I would like to point out that you are completely wrong about the ability to switch on and off things like fins or legs. This is not a conscious act, nor does it work that way. The only way genes are switched on and off are by mutations in pseudogenes--there is no other mechanism than this. There HAS to be a mutation in order for future progeny to have a gene switched off. And furthermore, I should point out that there is no "leg gene" cont
fcdog555 1 year ago
@fcdog555 too much information , congratulations on what i'm sure is a wonderful college education .
my information was gleaned from the "darwin" week on the discovery channel . Regardless of the details of what causes fins to become legs or vice-versa , it is evidence for design . the direction of the program was to
answer the puzzle of why are there no intermediate stages ,the presentation was based on very recent findings .
ark1588 1 year ago
@ark1588
HOW DO U GET DESIGN?!
bbchbbd 1 year ago
Comment removed
joyibrand 1 year ago
@joyibrand i am not religious . i am very familiar with prof dawkins, i have all his books . i think he is a skilled broadcaster and communicator , however rather like the vatican i am not sure he always gets it right . there are many unresolved problems for evo via natural selection to overcome .
ark1588 1 year ago
@ark1588
First, admit you don't know everything about evolution because it's a massive theory that has been researched for more than one hundred years by thousands of scientists working on hundreds of different angles.
Second, name a single problem you think hasn't been resolved, then prove yourself wrong by looking it up on Google.
bariuspelagic 1 year ago
@ark1588 said "there are many unresolved problems for evo via natural selection to overcome."
Name one.
i dare you.
OrthodoxDarwinist 1 year ago
@OrthodoxDarwinist you need to do some research of your own here ,there are many sites (eg aig )
who point such difficulties ad nauseam , yes i know you dont like aig , well that's just tough .
ark1588 1 year ago
@ark1588
What the hell is AIG?
You didn't answer my question.
Name one "unresolved problem for evolution via natural selection."
OrthodoxDarwinist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OrthodoxDarwinist A-hole, the only thing keeping me from announcing that you're the dumbest mutherfukker on YT is: 1. Translunatic 2. EternalSuckass77 aka DNAunion 3. ChikenOedipussy110 4. MegaDouche 5. Odinata/Foxlake02 FUCK I'm running out of numbers. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR You have a lot of competition!
MaximusArurealuis 1 year ago
@ark1588 but there are intermediate stages....
thinkingsnotillegal 1 year ago
@ark1588 cont.
nor a "fin gene," but rather genes that code for proteins (in fact that is the only thing genes code for). and thus, it is impossible for something to "turn off" the leg gene for 1) it does not exist, and 2) that is not how genetics work. Lastly, I can point you to evidence for gradual and punctuated evolution if you would like.
Btw, you just got owned by a college education in science:p
fcdog555 1 year ago
Cool! Like it!
whitewitchwares 1 year ago
What this video in principle says is that whatever is needed for survival, living organisms can somehow intuitively comprehend, aim at and gradually construct within themselves, no matter how complicated those constructions may be. That is ridiculous an assumption. Nowhere in the fossil record there can be found such transitional details that can completely support the idea of a fish evolving into amphibious creature and further on into land-living creature. Glory to the God of Jesus Christ.
mikilavush 1 year ago
@mikilavush T-I-K-T-A-A-L-I-K
all together now: tiktaalik!
climid 1 year ago 2
Thanks YOU so much i just bought the whole collection. thank you so much. i love it. any other recomendations? please share. thank you so much.
apluz22 1 year ago
what is the best source for this sort of stuff. i love science. a lil obsessed i should say. please give me some info. i want to know of videos or documentaries about this. please and thank you email: apluz@tmail.com. thanks
apluz22 1 year ago
@apluz22 Lookup work (most if not all of it) from David Attenborough. And don't post your e-mail online like that.
jceiras 1 year ago
micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution micro-evolution + micro-evolution... ETC -
= macro evolution
I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this model.
doireallyneed1 1 year ago
Comment removed
DutchNordic 1 year ago
This my be a stupid question but how did that fish come back to life?
Abnormalproductions2 1 year ago
Comment removed
Abnormalproductions2 1 year ago
1)fishy!
2)lizard
3)big lizard
4)crocodile
5)alligator
6)dinosaur
that wat i thought at least
kiraheart4000 1 year ago
evolutionists rule! creationists are fools! hip hip hooray!
DNAppelblatt 1 year ago 18
Comment removed
Extropianity 1 year ago
Evolution is so stupid mixed up. If one chance of life mistakely come out of the ocean, why is this fish in fresh waters?... And those fins are not legs.
wisefreethinker242 1 year ago
@wisefreethinker242
life emerged from water to land many times ( plants, insects, arachnids, myriapods ,vertebrates ).
every species is mutating and being subjected to natural selection.
there is no "correct" path in evolution. anything can happen as long as it doesn't result in the organism's premature death.
StarSpawn06 1 year ago
@StarSpawn06 Life emerged from water to land many times?... Oh really, I would love to see this video happening. Tell me this, how does the dead come to life, just to go back to the dead?... Don't believe those lies, life didn't appear out of the water, life was created by God.
Species of their own kind naturally bring forth animals of their own kind, but it's the same species of its kind, that's called micro-evolution. All animals of different species did not gave birth to each other.
wisefreethinker242 1 year ago
@wisefreethinker242
I do not understand your question.
Do you assume that life in the water is "dead" ? or that it's too different from life on land ?
Also, which law of biology places a definite limit on the range of mutation of any lineage ?
StarSpawn06 1 year ago
@StarSpawn06 First of all, life is in the sea, so what are you asking?... And as for your other question, sorry I gotta answer this with a question... but what does descendants got to do with what I was talking about?...And yes, yes there is a theory of macro-evlution that you believe in, which is a false mythical made fantasy. Sorry, micro evolution is only observed, that's natural selection. If macro-evolution was true- which is not- would be called unnatural selection. Like a cat half dog.
wisefreethinker242 1 year ago
@StarSpawn06 Sorry, you've been lied to... on purpose. Let me tell you what they did, evolutionists twisted in micro-evolution together with macro-evolution just to deceive you, so they just called it evolution. And that's a deceitful thing to do just so they can live in their burning lust, despite the fact that your soul would be at risk and could end up in eternal hell. Sorry, evolutionists scientists don't love you, nor do they care about you.
wisefreethinker242 1 year ago
@wisefreethinker242
I assumed you were interested in hearing my explanation of what evolution really means. Clearly you are not.
My mistake. Sorry for wasting your time.
StarSpawn06 1 year ago
@wisefreethinker242 You should tell us what in biology makes macro evolution impossible, after you tell us how it's supposed to work.
123Atheist 1 year ago
@wisefreethinker242 well evolution generally works on 2 simple rules 1.offspring look and are similar to their parents. 2.mistakes creep in and variation occurs these changes add up over a long period of time.
TheOrionStar 1 year ago
@TheOrionStar Sorry, you're describing micro-evolution, I'm speaking against that man made mythical fantasy, macro-evolution!
wisefreethinker242 1 year ago
@wisefreethinker242 AAh your talking about the mythical distinction in a process thats one and the same.
DutchNordic 1 year ago
@wisefreethinker242 Tell me how macro evolution works if it is a distinct process from micro evolution. If the two are completely different, then tell me what the differences are. I know you don't believe in macro evolution, but you should be able to tell us how it works since you seem to know so much about what others believe. Tell me what is wrong with sciences models of macro evolution. And don't just say that it hasn't been observed, you have to go deeper than that.
123Atheist 1 year ago
@StarSpawn06 That's what evolutionists believe, that's called the theory of macro-evlution. It's an idea, meaning it's not true nor is it scientific!
wisefreethinker242 1 year ago
@wisefreethinker242
There is no "theory of macro-evolution".
Evolution is the Observed Phenomenon that the fauna and flora of Earth changes over time.
Natural Selection is the main Theory that explains why certain changes can occur and not others.
Belief has nothing to do with all this.
I'm sorry but until we can empirically study God, we cannot involve God in a scientitic discourse :/
StarSpawn06 1 year ago
after reading some of the comments , apparently all organisms are evolving but us! we're only getting dumber and boring...
great video !!
EcHeLoN5242 1 year ago
Evolution is the LEADING theory.
The most fake theory is the adam and eve christian biblical theory which is complete nonsense.
PirateKing1256 1 year ago
Simply beautiful!
SecretHolder 1 year ago
evolution is fakes theres proof
thegameshady1 1 year ago
@thegameshady1 proof that you're a retard that is...
HeathenRelief 1 year ago
@HeathenRelief nothin
thegameshady1 1 year ago
@thegameshady1 the argument of a creationist, "nothin" and "the bible". Well no wonder evolutionists have such a hard time disproving creationism...
HeathenRelief 1 year ago
@HeathenRelief the bible
thegameshady1 1 year ago
there is no evidence for evolution(fosiels). but only supported with stories and evolution estimates and 3ds max graphic softwares...
KamilKarga 1 year ago
@KamilKarga Hahaha try mastering grammar and the English language first, before you venture out into something as complicated as evolution.
Pasaxero 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pasaxero fuck you and fuck your english...
KamilKarga 1 year ago
@Pasaxero you eat too much peper. this is your problem...
KamilKarga 1 year ago
@RusconiDom
yeah,yeah and you believe all of this because Darwin said so ??? And why are you talking about Adam and Eve ?? I guess we will all find out the truth the day we die.Have a nice life :D
hercegovac00 1 year ago
Comment removed
Dmafia100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RusconiDom
Science and the supreme court in America confirm it as a fact. Are you sure you're not talking about abiogenesis ?
Dmafia100 1 year ago
@RusconiDom
What do mean almost ? you admit that things change, so how is it not a fact ?
Dmafia100 1 year ago
If you want to believe that monkeys are your cousins then you are monkeys :D yeah right fishes started to walk,why don't they evolve anymore,why don't chimps carry cellphones ??? I'll rather believe that we were created by aliens than this
hercegovac00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most people who are evolutionists (Darwinists) are just as ignorant of how the evolution theory or process even works just as much as creationists (intelligent design). People seem to forget that the purpose of science is to gather evidence and facts about multiple theories until one is proven and tested to be true. Because neither theory has been proven, I think that both should be seriously examined and even taught. . Teaching Intelligent design isn't pushing religion into schools.
SoloKavi37 1 year ago
Most people who are evolutionists (Darwinists) are just as ignorant of how the evolution theory or process even works just as much as creationists (intelligent design). People seem to forget that the purpose of science is to gather evidence and facts about multiple theories until one is proven and tested to be true. Because neither theory has been proven, I think that both should be seriously examined and even taught. . Teaching Intelligent design isn't pushing religion into schools.
SoloKavi37 1 year ago
@SoloKavi37
IDiocy is pushing stupidity into schools.
IDiocy is taught in schools as complete bullshit. and i am ok with it. teaching it as a "theory" it's wrong. because it's not just sheer stupidity, it's wrong by empirical proof that it is wrong.
and you have a very wrong idea about what is the purpose of science. science SEES and then explains. the validation comes AFTER the observation.
"seriously examined" - and it has been: There's no evidence to support ID.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@SoloKavi37 Yes it is. That's been tested in law.
gamesbok 7 months ago
evolution is actually a fact that have been proven by science,wether some people like it or not,they have to see the evidence,it's like what we do in crimes,we don't care about what the suspect says we only see the evidence,the same thing should be apllied on the evolution theory..you shouldn't be subjective,you should be objective!
pedroserfing 1 year ago
Except these fish have never transformed into a different species. They have always been like that since the dawn of time.
Gaaminator 1 year ago
@Gaaminator do you understand the concept of evolution? not agree with it but understand it?
un7ucky 1 year ago
@un7ucky Yes I understand it, But I dont believe it happened. Just because you have one interesting fish that can walk on land doesnt prove anything... It is an interesting theory but thats just what it is, A theory that cannot be tested.
Gaaminator 1 year ago
@Gaaminator
A scientific theory is supported by evidence. Evolution is a fact.
Dmafia100 1 year ago
just how well is evolution proven?
ultimateaqwninja8 1 year ago
Well strictly in the parlance of what the poster of this video wanted in the comments, this video was absolutely amazing. Very eye opening indeed.
MrBeasty015 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
EternalSkeptic8, WildCatsKitten1, and MaximusArurealius is the same person.
DarkMatter2525 1 year ago
oh god i love you old people arguing on youtube :D
magna378 1 year ago
Thanks for uploading loved this "life" series thirty years ago, when i was a boy
devious657 1 year ago
@MrMegaDouche, the only reason you hate Hovind so much is he keeps proving evolution wrong. HAR HAR HAR and you think he should be beaten and raped for it. All you've done is prove what a sorry piece of shit YOU ARE.
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius
Hovind is a fraud, a liar and...well...it's in jail. Accused by a group of peers. therefore you have nothing to say about it. because if you disagree with the court's sentence, you should present a valid argumentation. what you DO hate is the evidence that proves you wrong. right?
where did Hovind prove evolution wrong? he had the chance during the Dover trial, why didn't he show up? fear, maybe? LOLOL
transtlantic 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius
poor hovind, must be tough being a prison bitch. max you should know all about it.
btw, when has hovind proved evolution wrong? please be specific
MrMegatruth 1 year ago 22
@MrMegatruth Hey can you devise an experiment that can prove evolution?
ultimateaqwninja8 1 year ago
@ultimateaqwninja8
test chromosomes number two, research nylon eating bacteria
and btw, a scientific theory is not supposed to be proven, it is supposed to be tested. first understand what a theory is, before you make ridiculous statements
MrMegatruth 1 year ago 2
@ultimateaqwninja8
You want an experiment that proved mankind?
How about you do the same for religion and "god".
It does seem rather satire if i were to ask you where did everything originate from and you go telling me - "God" without a single piece of evidence, where as the video above is providing the edivence in which you seem not to have
MultiChingchongchang 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius
Be careful if you mention mrmegatruths sock accounts transtlantic/nakedapedude
The sock account troll is getting very defensive about it.
hahahahhahahahahhahahha
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1
when was i getting defensive? just because i found out your sock account does not mean i have one
you are projecting dishrackdarwin
MrMegatruth 1 year ago
EVOLUTION MISTAKES IN WIKI
1. Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and may eventually diversify into new species.
Key word "may." There has never been a NEW species appear. EVER
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
2. A nested hierarchy of anatomical and genetic similarities, geographical distribution of similar species and the fossil record indicate that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor through a long series of these divergent events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth.
ANOTHER LIE ON WIKI no such thing as a common ancestor. Pure conjecture and assumption. PWNED
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
3. Evolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare.
They fail to mention that there is no proof of such a thing. And the neither of these forces have ever produced a new species or a new organ of any kind. Another mistake in Wiki.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable differences (variation) in their traits. The main cause of variation is mutation, which changes the sequence of a gene. Altered genes, or alleles, are then inherited by offspring. There can sometimes also be transfer of genes between species.
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR check that out. "transfer of genes between the species" The Miracle of Evolution. HAR HAR HAR HAR
PWNED
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
5. Two main processes cause variants to become more common or rare in a population. One is natural selection, which causes traits that aid survival and reproduction to become more common, and traits that hinder survival and reproduction to become more rare.
They called natural selection a process as if natural selection is looking around and making decisions. They fail to mention that natural selection is merely a theory and has not ever produced a new species. HAR HAR HAR
PWNED AGAIN
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
Evolutionary records shows that nearly a hundred reptile lineages have independently made the transition from egg laying to live birth in the past, and today about 20 percent of all living snakes and lizards give birth to live young only. The yellow-bellied three-toed skink lays eggs to reproduce. But individuals of the same species living in New South Wales's higher, colder mountains are almost all giving birth to live young. MaximusToadius thinks magic man just poofed than all into existence.
foxlake02 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@toadielake02 when I was coming back from the gym, I saw a taxi. The driver looked just like a big toad with a mustache. I was talking to Spectatio on the phone. I told him that it looked just like I imagined you to took. He laughed his ass off.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius "when I was coming back from the gym" TRANSLATION: When I was coming back from the whorehouse I was so drunk I couldn't make out faces. I started making up stories about the people who handed me my ass on YouTube. Then I laughed like a little schoolgirl.
foxlake02 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@toadlake02 hahahahahahaaaaaaa ROFL
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius
megatruth is getting defensive about being defensive.
hahahahhahahahhahahahahhahha
Be careful about mentioning megatruths trans sock account or his other sock account because he will start posting messages whining like a bitch about it.
Be careful of his internet feelings.
hhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahha
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1
are you calling max in for back up?
it is probably a good idea, between the two of you there is something like 7 sock accounts.
bring in all your personalities from dishrackdarwin, max, sockpuppet357, brayingjackass, moogoogaipancakes to you wildcatskitten1
MrMegatruth 1 year ago
@MrMegaDouche
Hi translantic, hahahahaha
We don't either one need back up for a slimy little ignorant assed worm like you asshole. You are always so defensive. You can never put up any kind of an offense. I am taunting you because you'll try and then you'll make more of an ass of yourself TitieBaby. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius
so jesus is okay with calling someone an "asshole?"
good to know
btw, you have already said in a previous post that you do not believe the trans claim and you have denied to me that the brayingjackass account was yours.
so once again, you have lied, but thanks for playing
MrMegatruth 1 year ago
@MrMegatruth
Hi trans.
Why are you getting so defensive about your sock accounts?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1
when have i got defensive?
you are still projecting
MrMegatruth 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1
hey what did you think about the video? or do you just follow max around with your head stuck up his ass?
hahahahahahahahahahaha
MrMegatruth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMegaDoucheBag
Hi translanticDummAss
You have your head stuck up your ass. When you gonna pull it out and get a breath of fresh air.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius
"You are always so defensive"
I know, what a wet blanket megatrannie is, crying like a little girl.
hahahahahahhahahahahahhahha
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1
still waiting for max's approval? very sad
MrMegatruth 1 year ago
@MrMegatruth
Hi trans
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1
wow that is all you have
well then, hi dishrackdarwin
the best part is, i am not lying
MrMegatruth 1 year ago
@MrMegaLiar
Hi TransDummAss
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1
funny, even max has abandoned your stupid ass
MrMegatruth 1 year ago