The discovery of Ida was an example of the media not having all the facts before jumping to conclusions, but I guess that's what happens when someone makes the claim "We have found the missing link between humans & primates!" before a thorough examination of the subject has been performed
Thank you very much for pointing out this mistake, good sir, you are definately an amazing intellectual & one of the finest I've found on YouTube
Speaking of tabloid journalists, I recall reading in a newspaper (don't recall which one) three or four months back where an article in it flatly stated that modern humans were directly descended from Neanderthals. Made me cringe inside.
David Attenborough seems to be a media whore dabbling in science and trying to make it "exciting" to the drone like masses (people who really and truly aren't interested) this turns a cool discovery into tabloid type garbage. Let's not recreate nebraska man, thats what happens when media gets ahold of science without proper oversight.
I never understood why every little discovery is declared to be "the missing link" as if evolution were in need of additional fossil evidence to demonstrate its validity.
I guess it sells magazines and tv spots to be overly sensational.
"...so scientific evidence is never going to matter to any of these people... " So why do you make all these videos trying to convince or debate those people (religious especially creationist)? I do enjoy those videos and I agree with you (It's hard not to agree with facts :P ) ... just curious as to why
@XGralgrathor well we must first define God/defined as a higher power ..the wisdom in everything including human body/our intelligence-our mind 4example does nt know how 2recreate our bodies/if we did we could4example regrow our teeth/if u can do smthing once u can do it again/but the reason i started believing was just a feeling/i asked u because it seems strange2me to first believe then stop the other way round is more common
@XGralgrathor i defined it here/i said WE must define it first /like what is it 4 u-nature? u-r soul?power?a person?then i can tell u
ETHICS has no logic/people hurt themseles not2mention others although it d be REASONABLE not to/so yes there is smthing /is in your soul first of all/animates life/+i don t know who that is
The logical order is to first establish that there is something that requires defining. To my knowledge, in this case, this has not been established yet.
@XGralgrathor we must agree on a notion so that we can talk about it/the fact we already do talk means we are considering the fact smthing called god might existt(or not)/,but then we must agree on what could be(because each perceives it diferently)
« we must agree on a notion so that we can talk about it »
Great. Let's agree that we exist, and that the world around us exist, and that the world works in ways that are left for us to discover. How do we go about discovering those ways? We observe. And then we try and explain our observations. And then we give names to the explanations we propose to explain our observation. So, list your observations, provide an explanation.
@XGralgrathor and by that i mean i would want 2 be/feel closer but i m not/some people are/i felt that in a church and at that time i didnt believe i only went2church4a spcific reason....again..could have been just the good energetic field of the church created by all the people that prayed there at times/probably the closest was when once at a beach i felt like all the creation is in me and i am in all(all1)/that time i didnt believe either:)so i thaught...there is no god there is creation..
@XGralgrathor anyway:to believe or not with words is nothing/i can state anything ..i believe..i dont..means nothing/u can t perceive god with u r intelect/as you dont feel love with you mind
Yes you do. But you're right, you *also* feel it with your body. Anyway, are you comparing your god to an emotion? Something that exists only subjectively, as an experience?
@XGralgrathor there are "upper"+"lower"feelings/those that come from 1/outside2the inside+2/the oposite/ex/someone caresses you=u feel pleasure or even love/2/feelings of morality(not thoughts):for example u r religion even might tell u smting is wright(but usually is people:family society)but u srongly feel is not-and the oposite/you feel god this way (spontaneous love in fact out of nothing but as i said im not the best example/i have felt it briefly and lost it ALTHOUGH i d want2feel it/but
@XGralgrathor/so now i m just rationalizing the fact that since i have felt it exists(although i m aware of the fact some people are deceiving themselves others by just being emotional +others just mentaly believing-still they might do that in an effort to really feel close2god)we have other senses not only our mind but need2be cultivated/thats why people pray-fast=do yoga-study about god- go to the mountains IN AN effort to come closer-to feel Him
@XGralgrathor/its our world that is dense/there are other realities/at first they appera"thin"the better u train ur self the better u can see them so that they appear more dense TO YOU-more real-more clear/at first you can just feel it/so the god-think is a very personal experience/+needs work +wiil.they are people who deote all their life2that/if priests seem fanatic2you think about yogis or budhist monks/they are very raional/if they were jus deceiving themselves they d quit-u cant say r all
and on the other hand you can rationalize that there are thinks your reason cant answer2you/ex.(what is the basis of ethics/birth /death/soul /eternal questions)anyway it s basically a feeling(especially at early stages)that s why there s no proof
i hope you understood/i think i should have pm you
i think we are more than our body/we have feelings and the best ones are the unselfish ones which doesnt go along with reason and yet they make us happy
i think what a person loves more that is his pers. god/but eventually all material thinks come to an end and then u suffer+search for a more permanent hapyness
so ultimately people search god(as permanent bliss that dsnt depend on mater)
@delagrazia If you're saying there must be an external source to trigger emotion, you're rather naive
In fact, you can intentionally tap into EVERY emotion(fear, anger, happy, horny, whatever) if you learn your body and capable of triggering the chemical and hormonal processes that give us the sensations we have labelled as "emotions"
"to first believe then stop the other way round is more common"
Everybody starts out not believing in gods, so yeah... And some people have the courage to examine their beliefs, even if they are more comfortable than the alternative.
@delagrazia I have never come across any good reasons for believing in a god. The only reason that I used to believe in a god was when I was too young to know that the evidence that I thought was evidence for a god wasn't really evidence. The dishonesty of religious people is saddening(they claim to know something that they can not possibly know).
When you grow up you stop believing in fairytales and that's just what happened and I haven't seen any reasons for believing in fairytales since then.
The real controversy was in keeping the bloody thing secret in order to cement ownership of the discovery. Yeah, you discovered it, well done.. now how about letting people, many of whom are smarter than you, study it. I despise this way of doing science.
You're giving SIR Attenborough too hard a time, he didn't claim this to be the missing link that creationists harp on about. That link is a gross oversimplification. What this is is an intermediate between modern primates and earlier mammals.
theres tons of transitional forms here. theyll never listen. its emotion and ego. theres no real miss link anyway. it saddens me the human race is what i\t is in regards to the facsinating truth about our physical world. they are bored or have to much invested ( like the rc church inc)and need to make up super hero stories. as horrific as the truth maybe sometimes, at least you kno ur not kidding urself. and the story of how we got here is amazing as if that can even describe it.
As usual Aronra has shot himself in the foot by saying it is only debated by those who reject evidence not in scripture. Wrong again. All u have to do is type in "Australopithecus disputed" & u will find secular scientist debate this paradigm. “Australopithecus afarensis”: A composite species
Walter W. Ferguson1
(1)
Department of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, 69978 Tel Aviv, Israel
Received: 20 November 1991 Accepted: 18 December 1991
The video was made two days after it had already been revealed that Ida was not all that it was reported to be, and Arona tried to bullshit me into telling me that this video was his prediction that Ida may not be all that she was reported to be. Your messing with the wrong guy my friend. People please do your research and don't let anyone bullshit you.
It is the equivalent of the holy grail, actually it is worth more than a meaningless relic from Arthurian mythology. (notice I didn't say christian) This is a new fossil and it does exist, but it is not what it is touted to be. Where as the holy grail is a mythologic vessel that never existed and carries no actual value. So it's not a terrible comparison.
Evolution DOES challenge two particular aspects of religion:
1) a "perfect", literal bible.
2) With no "Garden of Eden", there is no "fall of man", and hence, no need for a savior to redeem man. For SOME versions of Christianity, this is a killer.
I grew up a Roman Catholic (until I came to my senses), and that whole fall of man thing is pivotal to them.
@ikvsabre it is pivital and the reason is is , that they are in the biz of selling redemption. without the fall o man they cant place all that guilt on you, that you must owe god more then you can really repay. thru guilt and fear of hell they make a living. this is their biz. i was raised in the rc church too. glad you came to ur senses. they are evil. if anything on earth is.
I find it funny yet disturbing that I find it funny that Geerup is compelled to respond to every move that science makes. Well at least it's more interesting than an old fashioned bible session. A creationist response with the intention to collide for the sensation is reason to give more attention to the subject of evolution. The more they fail, the more attention is given to what is factual.
If evolution was for the purpose of political movement, people would have known by now. We know religion
Aron, you disagreed with what attenborough said, saying ida was not a link between humans and other apes (that one being 35 years ago) but neither does he. he said ida is the link between apes/monkeys and smaller generalized mammals. Feel free to flame me if im misunderstanding
Attenborough was wrong about Ida being a link between apes and more generalized primates. She was a link between lemurs and the rest of the primate clade.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"'Missing Link' Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor as Claimed, Anthropologists Say" (ScienceDaily, Mar. 3, 2010)
"'Many lines of evidence indicate that Darwinius has nothing at all to do with human evolution,' says Chris Kirk, associate professor of anthropology at The University of Texas at Austin."
@AronRa It is tough to compute, isn't it? It reminds me a LOT of the "buyer's regret" insecurities I observe a lot in people who frequent electronics forums. You'll see six different people having it out over six different DVD players all claiming theirs is the best, none of them having owned or used anyone else's. Deep down they're terrified that they made the wrong choice, so they *have* to convince other people to justify it to themselves.
Actually, I watched it several months ago and posted a question - from what species did primates evolve from?
Talk Origins says, "GAP: 'The modern assemblage can be traced with little question to the base of the Eocene' says Carroll (1988). But before that, the origins of the very earliest primates are fuzzy."
While Kathleen Hunt's article is still a valuable compilation, it is more than a decade out-of-date now, and at least a few more basal primates have been discovered in the last few years. I think the phylogenetic tree is adequately robust at this point -with Ida completing the link between Haplorhines and Strepsirhines. Also which individual 'species' a whole taxonomic order derived from is usually far too specific to determine for certain. But we do know it was an Archontid.
If you have seen this video, then what was the purpose behind your comment? Are you merely saying that you agree with me? Or are you just letting me know that professorial anthropologists agree with me? Or are you also saying that you yourself agree with me too?
John Hawks posted on his weblog: "Unbelievable Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees"
"I can't believe how sedated the reaction to this paper has been so far. The outcome of the sequencing is really, really weird. More than thirty percent of the chimpanzee Y chromosome has no homolog in humans, and likewise for the human Y in chimpanzees... Just glancing at the ideograms, they don't even look like homologous chromosomes!"
I would also like to share with you something my Christian instructor on cellular biology once wrote to me:
"The evidence of taxonomic relationships is overwhelming when you look at the comparisons between the genomic (DNA) sequences of both closely-related and even distantly-related species. The DNA of yeast and humans shares over 30% homology with regard to gene sequences. ...[continued]
Comparison of the human and mouse genome shows that only 1% of the genes in either genome fails to have an orthologue with the other genome. Comparison of non-gene sequences, on the other hand, shows a huge amount of divergence. This type of homology can be explained only from descent from a common ancestor. The probability of these things being a coincidence, which I guess would be the argument of creationism and intelligent design, is statistically so small as to be negligible.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
HAHA say something smart then say somethin slanderous by saying everything they believe is a coincidence. More slander HAHA so sad... if anybody believes it is a coincidence it is atheist. Science doesn't disprove God, yet atheist act like it gives them a reason to, and turn it into a religion by claiming because science exist God doesn't. I guess facts and history are coincidence to huh? Retarded to even say that is just outright slanderous and a generalization of other peoples beliefs.
@xdyingfetusx69 iv said this many times before and will probably have to many times more to creationist, it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something when your talking about all of existence, therefore the task of "proving god doesn't exist" is an impossible one to answer, what you can only do is prove the existence of something that fulfills the questions the previous explination was used to answer, yes science doesn't prove god's inexistence, but nothing proves the existence of god
I promise not to keep asking questions; however, I am very curious to know your thoughts about this article: "Y Chromosome Evolving Rapidly" (ScienceNow Jan. 13, 2010)
It says, "more than 30% of the DNA differs between chimps and humans..." Also, "When the team members compared the MSY sequences, they got a surprise. They found that the chimpanzee Y chromosome has lost lots of genes that are present in humans..."
You left out some very important context in your quote. From the article you mention: "As is well-known, humans and chimps share 98% of their DNA. But more than 30% of the DNA differs between chimps and humans in the region of the Y chromosome that determines sex." That last bit adds quite a bit of perspective to the 30% number. We're talking about a pretty small and focused part of the Y chromosome here.
See "Human-Chimp Gene Gap Widens from Tally of Duplicate Genes" (Scientific America, December 2006)
"Researchers studying changes in the number of copies of genes in the two species found that their mix of genes is only 94 percent identical. The 6 percent difference is considerably larger than the commonly cited figure of 1.5 percent."
And if this isn't such a big deal, why does John Hawks say in his "Mailbag: Y so extreme?" posting: "Two knowledgeable people independently told me we should wait for the gorilla. We'll see if it's equally weird in some third way, or if chimps are the odd ones out."
What does that mean exactly? It sure doesn't make it sound like chimps are very close to use with a comment like that.
I don't know that I would be all that surprised. Humans and chimpanzees diverged what? Seven to ten million years ago? In a manner of speaking that means a divergence of up to 20 million years during which we would each become increasingly distinct.
Sorry Aron ra but you've definitely taken sir David Attenborough the wrong way here. He's not talkin about a missing link between humans and chimps, he's talking about a generalised mammal fossil from before primates existed which is what ida is no?
No. Sir Attenborough is wrong even there. We already had other fossils representing the 'crown' or basal development of primates from more generalized mammals. Ida is a link between the two main branches of primates, being Strepsirhini and Haplorhini.
Ok but thats not the point you made in the vid. If thats the case(I've no reason to doubt your knowledge on fossils) then Attenborough was wrong to sensationalise it but was right in that it was a missing link in early mammalian/primate fossils? Sorry but i've great respectr for the guy and can only read that he was trying to dumb himself down a bit to reach the public! Have you seen his documentary on Darwin? I posted it in your vid responses in case!
As much as I love attenboroughs films, he is a broadcaster and narrater, not an expert. He works hard to make informative programmes, yet he himself has no expertise of biology. We should remember that.
I've never heard of any news program associated with Rupert Murdoch doing sensational news coverage... hahaha okay I can't say that with a straight face!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well...Ida *would* debunk creationism if God claimed that evidence leads to the Truth. But in Christianity, there are a LOT of verses that say God is doing the exact opposite. Atheists wonder why fossils "debunk" God then are baffled still why we don't see God in the first place sitting in the sky or why sex "feels good" despite our God saying it's evil. It's all the same thing. Faith works together with Christ's sacrifice to make salvation possible.
Fossils provide evidence of evolution, which creationists deny takes place.
Atheists do not wonder about debunking god, but ask for emperical evidence that shows the god of the bible is more than just another mythological figure.
You see, Aron, just because the press hype something, this does not mean the thing is worthless. The big thing about "Ida" is that she was so well preserved. Hardly lacking anything. Even her last supper they could study. Ignorant journalists saying link between apes and men?? Why bother? We know this is a valuable specimen. Maybe pre separation between strepsirhinni, monkeys and apes.
That's probably one of the most through and comprehensive explanations of human evolution that I have seen. Awesome video. I'm a new subscriber and I can't wait to see more of your videos.
Yes, I believe in the biblical account of creation. However, I cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt how it took place. Nor can I scientifically explain the virgin birth, Christ raising Lazarus or Himself from the dead. But then again, the Bible only commands us to believe in Jesus (John 5:24).
As for my faith, it comes from Hebrews 11:1, 3 and 6...
"1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen... 3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible... But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."
I believe that if something is absolutely impossible to fully explain or prove in any way shape or form ever then its the same as if it doesn't really exist.
"I believe that if something is absolutely impossible to fully explain or prove in any way shape or form ever then its the same as if it doesn't really exist."
You mean like dark energy? After all, we have all this matter, but were is the antimatter? Also, we can't seem to find any Population III stars that consist only of hydrogen, helium, and lithium. Does that mean the Big Bang didn't occur since dark energy & Population III stars don't exist?
Well in the case of dark energy even though we cant see it directly we have lots of evidence to support that it exists. But just like with black holes before we found evidence that they exist they existed only as a mathematical possibility. Our knowledge of the universe around us is always growing as we find new things and come up with new theories in order to explain new information. Meaning that there is evidence for all of those things mentioned and it is possible to explain what they are.
we have lots of evidence to support that [dark energy] exists
Not exactly. See the article "Dark Energy's Demise? New Theory Doesn't Use the Force" (National Geographic, Aug. 18, 2009). None of the theories about dark energy as a way to account for why the expansion of the universe is speeding up seem to hold up. The article says, "Still, more than ten years later, no one is sure what dark energy is - or if it really exists."
Make sure to read the last section, "Hard Pill to Swallow."
In the case of supernatural beings by definition they are outside our ability to define and no evidence at all currently exists mathematically or otherwise to prove anything about their existence. So saying that a god exists has just as much merit as saying that invisible unicorns are everywhere all around us. Or any other unprovable untested idea that anyone could possibly imagine.
BTW, Wiki says, "In physics, the graviton is a HYPOTHETICAL elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity in the framework of quantum field theory. IF IT EXISTS..." I will just stop right there.
You should also check out the impressive list of "Unresolved Problems In Physics" posted on Wiki. Scientists have no idea about these things, but yet our universe works great and we exist. How?
I don't believe in anything supernatural. I guess there could be something that is sort of like a god, but I'm not sure what that thing would be. So I don't believe in creationism because I don't believe in a creator in any traditional sense.
"My personal belief is that evolution has taken place, but it is a highly problematic theory with lots of difficulties and incomplete explanations."
Fair enough. I believe in microevolution (changes in colors, shape, etc), but I do not believe that macroevolution occurs (existing species into completely new species). And there is a huge difference.
For the record, I do not believe humans originally came from sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacter.
"but lizards and amoebas would not be a part of the human lineage as far as I know." Then where did humans originally come from?
Wiki says, "The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaea... The evolution of multicellularity occurred in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacter."
So again, do you really believe your family line can be traced to "slime moulds"?
As for stasis, Eldredge and Gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972 since they were having trouble with the fossil record. So they just decided to propose a theory which requires zero transitional forms. Brilliant! Eldredge writes about Darwin's theory of gradualism...
"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years [now 150] of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record WILL NOT confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (The Myths of Human Evolution, p. 45 - 46)
Mortison, That came from "The Myths of Human Evolution" by Niles Eldredge, pp 45 - 46
He also said, "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen.... When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else" (Reinventing Darwin, 1995).
But if your idea was right there shouldn't be any transitional forms.
There is only 1 theory of evolution.
If you can't tell the difference between the superbeing you worship and a book that claims to have been writen by him/her/it when the book was clearly writen by men who had no idea about morality (forgot to call slavery and child rape evil), science or story structure whats-so-ever.
As for transitional forms, Eldredge wrote, "[Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later [now 150 years], it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (The Myths of Human Evolution, pp. 45-46)
'Gradualism' (Darwin) - gradual change over long periods of time with "innumerable transitional forms... embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth."
'Punctuated Equilibrium' (Eldredge and Gould) - evolution occurs quickly, in small, isolated populations with transitional forms not likely to be preserved.
Both describe evolution, but with radically different times (very long vs. very short). Which is correct?
"Both"? But I thought you said "there is only 1 theory of evolution." Please explain how 'both' can happen, especially since Eldredge said, "Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else." Examples of both would be helpful.
I think Gould and Eldredge came up with their theory in 1972 because they just weren't finding the transitional forms that Darwin said should be everywhere. That's why Eldredge said, "The fossil record simply shows that [Darwin's] prediction was wrong."
"BUT THERE ARE. EXPLAIN THAT INSTEAD OF ANORING IT!"
Look up the "List of transitional fossils" on Wiki. Notice anything? Except for a few skulls, they are JUST ARTIST RENDERINGS! Why?
And LOL, they still have Ida on there even though it's proven to be just another Lemur, not a human ancestor. ("Primate fossil 'NOT an ancestor,'" BBC, October, 21 2009)
"Both are true sometimes when the population is small evolution happen quickly and other times when the population is large it happens slowly.
Scientist have observed speciation."
Okay, then how about some specific examples?
And what are your thoughts the article, "Mammals Beat Reptiles in Battle of Evolution" (LiveScience, July 31, 2009)? Why do crocs, gators and tuataras have such a low rate of speciation if they've been around much longer than mammals?
I told you to look it up yorself so you get used to doing research before hand.
Crocodiles simple work so well they don't need to change. The crocodilr form has evolved at least 3 time, but real crocodiles and gators where the best at it.
"Stephanomeira malheurensis" , "Maize (Zea mays)" and "Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)" . Google "list of observed speciations".
3 If the niche an organism fills is no longer there it has to change or die.
Crocidilies have placed themselfs in a corner if things change they either live through it or they die. Our real ancestor could change easly and they worked better as a group.
4 Those ancestors didn't evolve into humans. They evolved into sponges. Then after a long line of things evolving into other things we happen to evolve.
Okay, but why are there any species at all? If all life forms arose from gradual expansion through various mutations from a small beginning gene pool, shouldn't all organisms just grade into each other without any distinct boundaries? Even Darwin recognized this problem and actually denied the existence of species.
And why did Gould say, "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change... They may get a little bigger or bumpier. But they remain the same species..."
I told you how to find the list oftransitionnal forms
I told you how to find a list of instances of observed speciation. And I have told you why the bible was clearly not writen by god. Explain why are there any transitional form, instance of observed speciation and why the bible is so poorly writen.
Well, Wiki says of transitional fossils, "According to modern evolutionary theory, ALL populations of organisms are in transition"
Looks like we are all transitional forms. Guess what? I agree with this, but I don't agree that these forms will eventually evolve into entirely NEW species. After all, the population of the peppered moth changed from dark to light - but it was still a moth. Same with the finches Darwin observed - still birds.
Birds is not a specie. Ther are 10000 species of birds. And I'm still waiting on the explation for all of those instances of observed speciation. And I ment, why do we find transitional species in between mordern amphibians and fish.
The only reason you have to not believe in evolution is 1 poorly writen book.
With regard to Acanthostega, it appears to be a mosaic like the platypus.
Acanthostega fails the tetrapod test in eight out of these 41 characteristics (developed by S.J. Godfrey), with two other characters not found in Acanthostega and another five not known from the fossil material. Thus Acanthostega still has 26 out of these 41 tetrapod characteristics.
See "Dark Energy's Demise? New Theory Doesn't Use the Force" (Natl Geographic, Aug 18, 2009)
"astronomers had thought that gravity should be slowing down the cosmic expansion triggered by the big bang. That year [1998] two independent teams announced data showing that the universe's expansion is speeding up...To explain this observation, astronomers started to entertain the idea of dark energy...Still, more than ten years later, no one is sure what dark energy is - or if it really exists."
And? Their theory is just a variation on the Big Bang model. Their theory might be viable, but in no way does away with the consequences of relativity theory.
It might be viable, but as the article says, "Such a model, however, could violate a widely held tenant of cosmology known as the Copernican principle."
What are your thoughts about this recent article: "Ancient muscle tissue extracted from 18 million year old fossil" (November 5, 2009)?
« Such a model, however, could violate a widely held tenant of cosmology known as the Copernican principle »
Indeed. But the model referring to is the alternate model, that tries to explain the observed expansion without "dark matter". As was I, in the previous comment.
« What are your thoughts about this recent article »
Ah, you mean McNamara et al, 2009, Organic preservation of fossil musculature with ultracellular detail. It's easier if you cite the article itself, in stead of referring to some (usually inaccurate) piece of journalism about it. Yes, very interesting. But why did you bring it up?
"Yes, very interesting. But why did you bring it up?"
Well, in the article "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery" (Discover, April 27, 2006), Jeffrey Bada said, "Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal dose that will WIPE OUT biomolecules."
First, why is her discovery called "dangerous"? Second, doesn't Bada's comment seem to indicate organic material cannot survive for millions of years? So how did "blood" survive in the salamander fossil for 18 million years?
« First, why is her discovery called "dangerous"? »
It's only called that by journalists and other unsavory folk. Schweizer et al simply call it 'fossilized tissue'.
« Bada's comment »
Bada is free to publish an paper on the matter himself. Me, I don't get my science from journalists. You should really start quoting scientific papers themselves, in stead of referring to articles written about them.
"You should really start quoting scientific papers themselves, in stead of referring to articles written about them"
Oh, so these journals are 100% completely wrong and no one really discovered soft tissue in an 18 million year old salamander, right? Sure these are just summaries of the full scientific papers. But are you suggesting that the article says they found soft tissue (including blood), but their scientific paper indicates they really didn't? Wise up!
« Oh, so these journals are 100% completely wrong »
Don't be obtuse. They're not 100% wrong, and they're not accurate either. They're, on the whole, just accurate enough to give the general public the barest notion of what scientists are working on, without conveying anything close to actual understanding about it. If you want to talk science, talk journals, not magazines.
« no one really discovered soft tissue in an 18 million year old salamander, right? »
That's right, no one did. This is a perfect example of journalistic sloppiness: the article persistently talks of 'soft tissue', while the paper makes it very clear that what was discovered is THE FOSSILIZED REMAINS OF soft tissue.
"Fossilized" implies something that is hard and mineralized. But the T. rex tissue Schweitzer showed on 60 Minutes (yes, I know that's not a certified scientific journal) was very elastic and stretchy. Now unless my eyes were being deceived, the video I saw of the tissue was not in a mineral state as one would expect with a "fossil."
Google: "Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue" (MSNBC, March 2005) to see three pictures of the tissue - not fossils!
Sure, because it was dried out after thousands (or millions) of years. The point being, once it was "chemically treated," did it remain hardened and mineralized, or did it regain its elasticity?
Look, we can dicker around about what a "fossil" and "soft tissue" are, but that still does not answer the question of how organic tissue could have possibly survives AND remained elastic for "millions of years." "Chemically treated" does not answer that.
Because the few organic molecules that remained were well embedded in minerals and protected from moisture, presumably. But you should ask a geologist such questions.
Since most geologists study rocks, and we are talking about organic tissue, it might be better to ask a biologist or a chemist. Speaking of which, Jeffrey Bada (a chemist) said, "Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal dose that will WIPE OUT biomolecules." Was he completely wrong?
« Since most geologists study rocks, and we are talking about organic tissue »
Actually, geology encompasses geophysics and chemistry as well. Any geologist worth his salt would be able to explain the process of mineralization to you.
« Was he completely wrong? »
Like I said, let Bada substantiate his comments in a scientific paper, and I'll consider them.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
**************
XGralgrathor @
**************
++ "« because it was dried out »" ++
Well a few more fossils keep getting hung out.... the Hobbit, Ida the Darwinius and Ardi ... you have none left.
Why follow evolutionist alleged experts whom over the last 150 years have fabricated every (100%) conclusions with reference to the alleged ancestry of monkeys to humans?
Oh that's interesting. The hundreds of transitional species found in the fossil record were all fake were they? You can sit and wish that you're correct, but it doesn't make it so. I could give you loads of examples, but what would be the point? You'll never listen. You'll keep raising the bar until you can't deny the veracity of evolutionary science, and when that happens you'll claim blindly that the evidence is falsified (as you just have.)
What is fabricated as proven by the failed empiric evidence over the last 150 years are the evolutionist false conclusions, and the false statement that they are transitional to a different alleged creature.
Darwin argued he had zero evidence. If you think otherwise just name ONE fossil that you believe is on the alleged ancestry line from the alleged Last Common Ancestor of the chimp & human allegedly right through to humans?
did you not watch the vid AronRa said 1/2 of them. Darwin not have much profe and saying its wrong is like say Jules Verne's not getting to the moon after he worked out most of the math means no one has ever been to the moon
Don't call people misgeided (at best of what you said) if you are lieing by saiyng it
You have the full opportunity to state one fossil that you believe is on the alleged ancestry line from the alleged Last Common Ancestor of the chimp & human through to humans.
Your argument fail, because we allegedly got to our moon but science as rejected your fossils. Name one on that alleged ancestry line you cannot.
Australopithecus ramidus - 5 to 4 million years BCE Australopithecus afarensis - 4 to 2.7 million years BCE Australopithecus africanus - 3.0 to 2.0 million years BCE Australopithecus robustus - 2.2 to 1.0 million years BCE Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years BCE Homo erectus - 2 to 0.4 million years BCE Homo sapiens - 400,000 to 200,000 years BCE Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200,000 to 30,000 years BCE Homo sapiens sapiens - 130,000 years BCE to present
++ did you not watch the vid AronRa said 1/2 of them. Darwin not have much proof and saying its wrong is like say Jules Verne's not getting to the moon after he worked out most of the math means no one has ever been to the moon. ++
do you know what propaganda isbucause what i say isn't what you call truths are and good luck at getting some school si you know what the words you are useing mean
++ "Oh that's interesting. The hundreds of transitional species found in the fossil record were all fake were they? You can sit and wish that you're correct, but it doesn't make it so. I could give you loads of examples, but what would be the point? You'll never listen." ++
The fossils I accept are not faked no one says this.
"Evolution may take giant leaps" (PhysOrg, Dec 11, 2009)
"The work suggests that natural selection MAY NOT be the cause of speciation, which Pagel said 'really goes against the grain' for scientists who have a Darwinian view of evolution. The model that provided the BEST FIT for the data is SURPRISINGLY INCOMPATIBLE with the idea that speciation is a result of many small small events"
So much for Darwin's theory of gradualism. It also speaks volumes about the lack of transitional fossils.
The point being, once it was "soaked in acid" it did not disolve, but regained its elasticity. The 60 Minutes transcript provides this information:
"Schweitzer put some fragments of the bone in acid to dissolve away the outermost layer of mineral. But the acid worked too fast, and all the mineral dissolved away. Being a fossil, there SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTHING LEFT. But there was. It was elastic, like living tissue."
The acid was only meant to dissolve away the mineralization, they weren't saying 'the acid should have dissolved the tissue' they just weren't expecting it to be there..
And why didn't they expect to find any tissue? Is it due to the same reasons the scientist raised in the article, "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery" (Discover, April 27, 2006)?
They sure raised a lot of doubts (and so did the blogs), but it turns out "extremely decay prone soft tissues is more common in the fossil record" ("Ancient muscle tissue extracted from 18 million year old fossil," PhysOrg, November 5, 2009). How is that possible?
Because it's over 60 million years old, if all fossils were 6000 years old, finding intact tissue wouldn't be a surprise anywhere. The age has little to do with it, it's mostly to do with the speed of initial preservation.
Evolution wouldn't permit them to be anything else. Every new species ever evolved was and still is a member of every single clade from which it descended. And moths and birds are entire groups or clades, not single species.
What are your thoughts about the recent segment on 60 Minutes, "Scientist's Dino Findings Making Waves" (November 15, 2009)?
How is it possible for the organic material Schweitzer found inside the T-rex bones (blood vessels and possibly intact cells) to have survived for 68 million years?
Also see, "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery" (Discover, April 2006) BTW, what's so "dangerous" about it?
Well the conventional paradigm about extremely limited preservation is both very old and very deeply established and is radically challenged by Schweitzer's discovery, but I really dunno what's so "dangerous" about it. All improvements of science always happened this way.
And btw, Schweitzer describes herself as "a complete and total Christian" and has condemned all YEC interpretations of her discoveries.
"One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize."
But soft tissue fossils have been found in Greenland and China, so his hypothesis was completely wrong! What did he say is the "ONLY alternative"?
[T]his appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists... the ONLY alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation." (I agree!)
"Schweitzer... has condemned all YEC interpretations of her discoveries."
She is definitely a theistic evolutionist - but doesn't that still require a belief in God? And until she can determine how organic tissue survived for 68 million years, then I don't see how she, or anyone else, can "condemn" what we already know about the preservation of soft tissue.
BTW, wasn't Dawkins also wrong when wrote in the Blind Watchmaker about the lack of fossils before the Cambrian...
Theistic evolution isn't an explanation but just a type of worldview that (whatever way) includes both evolution and theism. There are many variations of that mutual inclusion so "requiring" isn't so sure a thing in this context.
It hasn't been rigorously determined how soft tissues could NOT survive that long, it's just a deeply established paradigm.
The molecular evidence found in the tissue sample did add to the evidence for birds' inclusion in Dinosauria.
What I do know that the Cambrian "Explosion" covers 80 million years and that both evident (less complex) predecessors have been found in earlier strata and many from other lines of evidence like anatomy, embryology and molecular biology corroborate the existence of evolutionary origin. Read Donald Propetho's book Evolution:What The Fossils Say And Why It Matters.
Btw do you think the ancestors should to be found specifically in Iceland or China? One can be their ancestor without living there.
The discovery of Ida was an example of the media not having all the facts before jumping to conclusions, but I guess that's what happens when someone makes the claim "We have found the missing link between humans & primates!" before a thorough examination of the subject has been performed
Thank you very much for pointing out this mistake, good sir, you are definately an amazing intellectual & one of the finest I've found on YouTube
Tarynus 2 months ago
OUTSTANDING oratory and explanation of the phylogeny of human descent.
psycotria 9 months ago
Speaking of tabloid journalists, I recall reading in a newspaper (don't recall which one) three or four months back where an article in it flatly stated that modern humans were directly descended from Neanderthals. Made me cringe inside.
Vexille1983 11 months ago
David Attenborough seems to be a media whore dabbling in science and trying to make it "exciting" to the drone like masses (people who really and truly aren't interested) this turns a cool discovery into tabloid type garbage. Let's not recreate nebraska man, thats what happens when media gets ahold of science without proper oversight.
Cougar139tweak 11 months ago
Good video. Good point. Good stuff...as usual. You are the one true warrior of reason. Keep posting. Never stop. Thank you sir!
paahtopaisti 11 months ago
The second mistake I've seen David Attenborough make. The first is when he called a brown hyena a species of dog.
Retrieverman1 1 year ago
I never understood why every little discovery is declared to be "the missing link" as if evolution were in need of additional fossil evidence to demonstrate its validity.
I guess it sells magazines and tv spots to be overly sensational.
th30r3m 1 year ago
"...so scientific evidence is never going to matter to any of these people... " So why do you make all these videos trying to convince or debate those people (religious especially creationist)? I do enjoy those videos and I agree with you (It's hard not to agree with facts :P ) ... just curious as to why
sterfpaul 1 year ago
"...an embarrassing display of auto-fellating fanfare." Best line ever!
mtszabo 1 year ago
It's such a relief to get back to honest science after so much drama.
colourmegone 1 year ago
i thought u said u believed before..
delagrazia 1 year ago
what made u stop believing in God?/i mean u believe in a higher power...or nature or nothing?
delagrazia 1 year ago
« what made u stop believing in God? »
What made you believe in a god?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor well we must first define God/defined as a higher power ..the wisdom in everything including human body/our intelligence-our mind 4example does nt know how 2recreate our bodies/if we did we could4example regrow our teeth/if u can do smthing once u can do it again/but the reason i started believing was just a feeling/i asked u because it seems strange2me to first believe then stop the other way round is more common
delagrazia 1 year ago
"well we must first define God"
So you defined it first, and started believing in it only after you defined it?
I don't think that's how it works. You must have had some experience that made you think there was something that required a definition first.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor i defined it here/i said WE must define it first /like what is it 4 u-nature? u-r soul?power?a person?then i can tell u
ETHICS has no logic/people hurt themseles not2mention others although it d be REASONABLE not to/so yes there is smthing /is in your soul first of all/animates life/+i don t know who that is
delagrazia 1 year ago
« i said WE must define it first »
The logical order is to first establish that there is something that requires defining. To my knowledge, in this case, this has not been established yet.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor we must agree on a notion so that we can talk about it/the fact we already do talk means we are considering the fact smthing called god might existt(or not)/,but then we must agree on what could be(because each perceives it diferently)
delagrazia 1 year ago
« we must agree on a notion so that we can talk about it »
Great. Let's agree that we exist, and that the world around us exist, and that the world works in ways that are left for us to discover. How do we go about discovering those ways? We observe. And then we try and explain our observations. And then we give names to the explanations we propose to explain our observation. So, list your observations, provide an explanation.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor and by that i mean i would want 2 be/feel closer but i m not/some people are/i felt that in a church and at that time i didnt believe i only went2church4a spcific reason....again..could have been just the good energetic field of the church created by all the people that prayed there at times/probably the closest was when once at a beach i felt like all the creation is in me and i am in all(all1)/that time i didnt believe either:)so i thaught...there is no god there is creation..
delagrazia 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor anyway:to believe or not with words is nothing/i can state anything ..i believe..i dont..means nothing/u can t perceive god with u r intelect/as you dont feel love with you mind
delagrazia 1 year ago
« as you dont feel love with you mind »
Yes you do. But you're right, you *also* feel it with your body. Anyway, are you comparing your god to an emotion? Something that exists only subjectively, as an experience?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor there are "upper"+"lower"feelings/those that come from 1/outside2the inside+2/the oposite/ex/someone caresses you=u feel pleasure or even love/2/feelings of morality(not thoughts):for example u r religion even might tell u smting is wright(but usually is people:family society)but u srongly feel is not-and the oposite/you feel god this way (spontaneous love in fact out of nothing but as i said im not the best example/i have felt it briefly and lost it ALTHOUGH i d want2feel it/but
delagrazia 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor/so now i m just rationalizing the fact that since i have felt it exists(although i m aware of the fact some people are deceiving themselves others by just being emotional +others just mentaly believing-still they might do that in an effort to really feel close2god)we have other senses not only our mind but need2be cultivated/thats why people pray-fast=do yoga-study about god- go to the mountains IN AN effort to come closer-to feel Him
this is not as un-tangible as u might think
delagrazia 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor/its our world that is dense/there are other realities/at first they appera"thin"the better u train ur self the better u can see them so that they appear more dense TO YOU-more real-more clear/at first you can just feel it/so the god-think is a very personal experience/+needs work +wiil.they are people who deote all their life2that/if priests seem fanatic2you think about yogis or budhist monks/they are very raional/if they were jus deceiving themselves they d quit-u cant say r all
delagrazia 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor/crazy/
and on the other hand you can rationalize that there are thinks your reason cant answer2you/ex.(what is the basis of ethics/birth /death/soul /eternal questions)anyway it s basically a feeling(especially at early stages)that s why there s no proof
delagrazia 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor sorry i wrote quite chaotic
i hope you understood/i think i should have pm you
i think we are more than our body/we have feelings and the best ones are the unselfish ones which doesnt go along with reason and yet they make us happy
i think what a person loves more that is his pers. god/but eventually all material thinks come to an end and then u suffer+search for a more permanent hapyness
so ultimately people search god(as permanent bliss that dsnt depend on mater)
.few find it
delagrazia 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor to have an emotion u need the cause that triggered it
delagrazia 1 year ago
@delagrazia If you're saying there must be an external source to trigger emotion, you're rather naive
In fact, you can intentionally tap into EVERY emotion(fear, anger, happy, horny, whatever) if you learn your body and capable of triggering the chemical and hormonal processes that give us the sensations we have labelled as "emotions"
xESOTERlC 11 months ago
"to first believe then stop the other way round is more common"
Everybody starts out not believing in gods, so yeah... And some people have the courage to examine their beliefs, even if they are more comfortable than the alternative.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@delagrazia How could I?
AronRa 1 year ago 22
@delagrazia I have never come across any good reasons for believing in a god. The only reason that I used to believe in a god was when I was too young to know that the evidence that I thought was evidence for a god wasn't really evidence. The dishonesty of religious people is saddening(they claim to know something that they can not possibly know).
When you grow up you stop believing in fairytales and that's just what happened and I haven't seen any reasons for believing in fairytales since then.
lilmarome 1 year ago
The real controversy was in keeping the bloody thing secret in order to cement ownership of the discovery. Yeah, you discovered it, well done.. now how about letting people, many of whom are smarter than you, study it. I despise this way of doing science.
You're giving SIR Attenborough too hard a time, he didn't claim this to be the missing link that creationists harp on about. That link is a gross oversimplification. What this is is an intermediate between modern primates and earlier mammals.
jacksawild 1 year ago
theres tons of transitional forms here. theyll never listen. its emotion and ego. theres no real miss link anyway. it saddens me the human race is what i\t is in regards to the facsinating truth about our physical world. they are bored or have to much invested ( like the rc church inc)and need to make up super hero stories. as horrific as the truth maybe sometimes, at least you kno ur not kidding urself. and the story of how we got here is amazing as if that can even describe it.
adzug 1 year ago
Praise be to Darwin.
TheGreatWolfFenrir 1 year ago
As usual Aronra has shot himself in the foot by saying it is only debated by those who reject evidence not in scripture. Wrong again. All u have to do is type in "Australopithecus disputed" & u will find secular scientist debate this paradigm. “Australopithecus afarensis”: A composite species
Walter W. Ferguson1
(1)
Department of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, 69978 Tel Aviv, Israel
Received: 20 November 1991 Accepted: 18 December 1991
benthemiester 1 year ago
this guy is awesome!
yoeldg 1 year ago
The video was made two days after it had already been revealed that Ida was not all that it was reported to be, and Arona tried to bullshit me into telling me that this video was his prediction that Ida may not be all that she was reported to be. Your messing with the wrong guy my friend. People please do your research and don't let anyone bullshit you.
benthemiester 1 year ago
It is the equivalent of the holy grail, actually it is worth more than a meaningless relic from Arthurian mythology. (notice I didn't say christian) This is a new fossil and it does exist, but it is not what it is touted to be. Where as the holy grail is a mythologic vessel that never existed and carries no actual value. So it's not a terrible comparison.
JamesThWilliams 1 year ago
great video, saw the link on facebook - atheist quote of the day
foxygrandpa991 1 year ago
Aron,
Evolution DOES challenge two particular aspects of religion:
1) a "perfect", literal bible.
2) With no "Garden of Eden", there is no "fall of man", and hence, no need for a savior to redeem man. For SOME versions of Christianity, this is a killer.
I grew up a Roman Catholic (until I came to my senses), and that whole fall of man thing is pivotal to them.
ikvsabre 1 year ago
@ikvsabre it is pivital and the reason is is , that they are in the biz of selling redemption. without the fall o man they cant place all that guilt on you, that you must owe god more then you can really repay. thru guilt and fear of hell they make a living. this is their biz. i was raised in the rc church too. glad you came to ur senses. they are evil. if anything on earth is.
adzug 1 year ago
Are you retarded?
ZebraJones01 1 year ago
I find it funny yet disturbing that I find it funny that Geerup is compelled to respond to every move that science makes. Well at least it's more interesting than an old fashioned bible session. A creationist response with the intention to collide for the sensation is reason to give more attention to the subject of evolution. The more they fail, the more attention is given to what is factual.
If evolution was for the purpose of political movement, people would have known by now. We know religion
allianceofdemons 1 year ago
Aron, you disagreed with what attenborough said, saying ida was not a link between humans and other apes (that one being 35 years ago) but neither does he. he said ida is the link between apes/monkeys and smaller generalized mammals. Feel free to flame me if im misunderstanding
TheBoyd1986 1 year ago
Attenborough was wrong about Ida being a link between apes and more generalized primates. She was a link between lemurs and the rest of the primate clade.
AronRa 1 year ago 7
Comment removed
TheBoyd1986 1 year ago
I thought Andre The Giant was the Eighth Wonder Of The World.
kingquadroon 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"'Missing Link' Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor as Claimed, Anthropologists Say" (ScienceDaily, Mar. 3, 2010)
"'Many lines of evidence indicate that Darwinius has nothing at all to do with human evolution,' says Chris Kirk, associate professor of anthropology at The University of Texas at Austin."
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
Judging by the comment, you obviously haven't actually seen this video.
Why do all these sock-puppet creatards insist on commenting on videos they won't even watch?
AronRa 1 year ago
@AronRa It is tough to compute, isn't it? It reminds me a LOT of the "buyer's regret" insecurities I observe a lot in people who frequent electronics forums. You'll see six different people having it out over six different DVD players all claiming theirs is the best, none of them having owned or used anyone else's. Deep down they're terrified that they made the wrong choice, so they *have* to convince other people to justify it to themselves.
Meyvn 1 year ago
@AronRa
Actually, I watched it several months ago and posted a question - from what species did primates evolve from?
Talk Origins says, "GAP: 'The modern assemblage can be traced with little question to the base of the Eocene' says Carroll (1988). But before that, the origins of the very earliest primates are fuzzy."
Fuzzy?
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
While Kathleen Hunt's article is still a valuable compilation, it is more than a decade out-of-date now, and at least a few more basal primates have been discovered in the last few years. I think the phylogenetic tree is adequately robust at this point -with Ida completing the link between Haplorhines and Strepsirhines. Also which individual 'species' a whole taxonomic order derived from is usually far too specific to determine for certain. But we do know it was an Archontid.
AronRa 1 year ago
If you have seen this video, then what was the purpose behind your comment? Are you merely saying that you agree with me? Or are you just letting me know that professorial anthropologists agree with me? Or are you also saying that you yourself agree with me too?
AronRa 1 year ago
@AronRa 2 of 2
John Hawks posted on his weblog: "Unbelievable Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees"
"I can't believe how sedated the reaction to this paper has been so far. The outcome of the sequencing is really, really weird. More than thirty percent of the chimpanzee Y chromosome has no homolog in humans, and likewise for the human Y in chimpanzees... Just glancing at the ideograms, they don't even look like homologous chromosomes!"
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
I would also like to share with you something my Christian instructor on cellular biology once wrote to me:
"The evidence of taxonomic relationships is overwhelming when you look at the comparisons between the genomic (DNA) sequences of both closely-related and even distantly-related species. The DNA of yeast and humans shares over 30% homology with regard to gene sequences. ...[continued]
AronRa 1 year ago
Comparison of the human and mouse genome shows that only 1% of the genes in either genome fails to have an orthologue with the other genome. Comparison of non-gene sequences, on the other hand, shows a huge amount of divergence. This type of homology can be explained only from descent from a common ancestor. The probability of these things being a coincidence, which I guess would be the argument of creationism and intelligent design, is statistically so small as to be negligible.
-Jill Buettner
AronRa 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
HAHA say something smart then say somethin slanderous by saying everything they believe is a coincidence. More slander HAHA so sad... if anybody believes it is a coincidence it is atheist. Science doesn't disprove God, yet atheist act like it gives them a reason to, and turn it into a religion by claiming because science exist God doesn't. I guess facts and history are coincidence to huh? Retarded to even say that is just outright slanderous and a generalization of other peoples beliefs.
xdyingfetusx69 1 year ago
@xdyingfetusx69 iv said this many times before and will probably have to many times more to creationist, it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something when your talking about all of existence, therefore the task of "proving god doesn't exist" is an impossible one to answer, what you can only do is prove the existence of something that fulfills the questions the previous explination was used to answer, yes science doesn't prove god's inexistence, but nothing proves the existence of god
shadowrideer 1 year ago
@AronRa 1 of 2
Yes, all of the above.
I promise not to keep asking questions; however, I am very curious to know your thoughts about this article: "Y Chromosome Evolving Rapidly" (ScienceNow Jan. 13, 2010)
It says, "more than 30% of the DNA differs between chimps and humans..." Also, "When the team members compared the MSY sequences, they got a surprise. They found that the chimpanzee Y chromosome has lost lots of genes that are present in humans..."
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1
You left out some very important context in your quote. From the article you mention: "As is well-known, humans and chimps share 98% of their DNA. But more than 30% of the DNA differs between chimps and humans in the region of the Y chromosome that determines sex." That last bit adds quite a bit of perspective to the 30% number. We're talking about a pretty small and focused part of the Y chromosome here.
ericflynnster 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ericflynnster
Hate to break it to you... but it's only 94%
See "Human-Chimp Gene Gap Widens from Tally of Duplicate Genes" (Scientific America, December 2006)
"Researchers studying changes in the number of copies of genes in the two species found that their mix of genes is only 94 percent identical. The 6 percent difference is considerably larger than the commonly cited figure of 1.5 percent."
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@ericflynnster (cont)
And if this isn't such a big deal, why does John Hawks say in his "Mailbag: Y so extreme?" posting: "Two knowledgeable people independently told me we should wait for the gorilla. We'll see if it's equally weird in some third way, or if chimps are the odd ones out."
What does that mean exactly? It sure doesn't make it sound like chimps are very close to use with a comment like that.
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1
I would suggest you watch either of these two video series;
watch?v=Of0PjoZY4L0
watch?v=CqsvEwByKU0
TheStraightFacts 1 year ago
I don't know that I would be all that surprised. Humans and chimpanzees diverged what? Seven to ten million years ago? In a manner of speaking that means a divergence of up to 20 million years during which we would each become increasingly distinct.
AronRa 1 year ago
Sorry Aron ra but you've definitely taken sir David Attenborough the wrong way here. He's not talkin about a missing link between humans and chimps, he's talking about a generalised mammal fossil from before primates existed which is what ida is no?
rccaulfield 1 year ago
No. Sir Attenborough is wrong even there. We already had other fossils representing the 'crown' or basal development of primates from more generalized mammals. Ida is a link between the two main branches of primates, being Strepsirhini and Haplorhini.
AronRa 1 year ago
Ok but thats not the point you made in the vid. If thats the case(I've no reason to doubt your knowledge on fossils) then Attenborough was wrong to sensationalise it but was right in that it was a missing link in early mammalian/primate fossils? Sorry but i've great respectr for the guy and can only read that he was trying to dumb himself down a bit to reach the public! Have you seen his documentary on Darwin? I posted it in your vid responses in case!
rccaulfield 1 year ago
As much as I love attenboroughs films, he is a broadcaster and narrater, not an expert. He works hard to make informative programmes, yet he himself has no expertise of biology. We should remember that.
RickyPayneTV 1 year ago
Superb video. Excellent example of top notch science reporting for the general public.
Not too in-depth, not oversimplified, very thorough; just right.
Well done good sir.
starguts 2 years ago 22
I've never heard of any news program associated with Rupert Murdoch doing sensational news coverage... hahaha okay I can't say that with a straight face!
stingernick 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well...Ida *would* debunk creationism if God claimed that evidence leads to the Truth. But in Christianity, there are a LOT of verses that say God is doing the exact opposite. Atheists wonder why fossils "debunk" God then are baffled still why we don't see God in the first place sitting in the sky or why sex "feels good" despite our God saying it's evil. It's all the same thing. Faith works together with Christ's sacrifice to make salvation possible.
sk8teh14 2 years ago
I wouldn't say that it was because a god created the world, with evidence leading away from truth....
I'd say it was a god with a perverse sense of humour
Sutskoen 2 years ago
? I'm confused about this comment. What is the point of it? and why the reference to sex?
SuperHP666 1 year ago
Strawman argument.
Fossils have nothing to do with atheisim.
Fossils provide evidence of evolution, which creationists deny takes place.
Atheists do not wonder about debunking god, but ask for emperical evidence that shows the god of the bible is more than just another mythological figure.
thirdclass2006 1 year ago
Without a doubt the most rock and roll hair in evolution discussion.
imr22 2 years ago
This guy should be the President.
wimc1207 2 years ago
You see, Aron, just because the press hype something, this does not mean the thing is worthless. The big thing about "Ida" is that she was so well preserved. Hardly lacking anything. Even her last supper they could study. Ignorant journalists saying link between apes and men?? Why bother? We know this is a valuable specimen. Maybe pre separation between strepsirhinni, monkeys and apes.
skinnyjohnsen 2 years ago
That's probably one of the most through and comprehensive explanations of human evolution that I have seen. Awesome video. I'm a new subscriber and I can't wait to see more of your videos.
Omikron420 2 years ago
1 of 2
Yes, I believe in the biblical account of creation. However, I cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt how it took place. Nor can I scientifically explain the virgin birth, Christ raising Lazarus or Himself from the dead. But then again, the Bible only commands us to believe in Jesus (John 5:24).
As for my faith, it comes from Hebrews 11:1, 3 and 6...
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
2 of 2
"1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen... 3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible... But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."
What do you believe?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
I believe that if something is absolutely impossible to fully explain or prove in any way shape or form ever then its the same as if it doesn't really exist.
Omikron420 2 years ago
"I believe that if something is absolutely impossible to fully explain or prove in any way shape or form ever then its the same as if it doesn't really exist."
You mean like dark energy? After all, we have all this matter, but were is the antimatter? Also, we can't seem to find any Population III stars that consist only of hydrogen, helium, and lithium. Does that mean the Big Bang didn't occur since dark energy & Population III stars don't exist?
And what's the force carrier of gravity?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Well in the case of dark energy even though we cant see it directly we have lots of evidence to support that it exists. But just like with black holes before we found evidence that they exist they existed only as a mathematical possibility. Our knowledge of the universe around us is always growing as we find new things and come up with new theories in order to explain new information. Meaning that there is evidence for all of those things mentioned and it is possible to explain what they are.
Omikron420 2 years ago
we have lots of evidence to support that [dark energy] exists
Not exactly. See the article "Dark Energy's Demise? New Theory Doesn't Use the Force" (National Geographic, Aug. 18, 2009). None of the theories about dark energy as a way to account for why the expansion of the universe is speeding up seem to hold up. The article says, "Still, more than ten years later, no one is sure what dark energy is - or if it really exists."
Make sure to read the last section, "Hard Pill to Swallow."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
In the case of supernatural beings by definition they are outside our ability to define and no evidence at all currently exists mathematically or otherwise to prove anything about their existence. So saying that a god exists has just as much merit as saying that invisible unicorns are everywhere all around us. Or any other unprovable untested idea that anyone could possibly imagine.
Omikron420 2 years ago
and the force carrier of gravity is a graviton BTW.
Omikron420 2 years ago
Graviton?
BTW, Wiki says, "In physics, the graviton is a HYPOTHETICAL elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity in the framework of quantum field theory. IF IT EXISTS..." I will just stop right there.
You should also check out the impressive list of "Unresolved Problems In Physics" posted on Wiki. Scientists have no idea about these things, but yet our universe works great and we exist. How?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Science is a work in progress.
That is why physicists still have jobs.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
dark energy, population 3 stars, the lack of antimatter and the force carrier of gravity are not impossible to explain.
Look up the theories on all 4 of these.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
"What do you believe?"
I don't believe in anything supernatural. I guess there could be something that is sort of like a god, but I'm not sure what that thing would be. So I don't believe in creationism because I don't believe in a creator in any traditional sense.
Mortison77577 2 years ago
"My personal belief is that evolution has taken place, but it is a highly problematic theory with lots of difficulties and incomplete explanations."
Fair enough. I believe in microevolution (changes in colors, shape, etc), but I do not believe that macroevolution occurs (existing species into completely new species). And there is a huge difference.
For the record, I do not believe humans originally came from sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacter.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
1 of 3
"but lizards and amoebas would not be a part of the human lineage as far as I know." Then where did humans originally come from?
Wiki says, "The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaea... The evolution of multicellularity occurred in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacter."
So again, do you really believe your family line can be traced to "slime moulds"?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
2 of 3
As for stasis, Eldredge and Gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972 since they were having trouble with the fossil record. So they just decided to propose a theory which requires zero transitional forms. Brilliant! Eldredge writes about Darwin's theory of gradualism...
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
3 of 3
"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years [now 150] of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record WILL NOT confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (The Myths of Human Evolution, p. 45 - 46)
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Where did you get this from:
"The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong."
Where those the world of Niles Eldridge?
Mortison77577 2 years ago
Mortison, That came from "The Myths of Human Evolution" by Niles Eldredge, pp 45 - 46
He also said, "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen.... When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else" (Reinventing Darwin, 1995).
Eldredge is not a fan of Darwin. Why?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Yes, it can.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
Once again according to your idea there shouldn't be any transitional forms.
Eplain that.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
If your idea was right there shouldn't be any transitional forms, but there are. How do you explain that?
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
Okay, then what species did primates originally evolve from? How about fish?
Now every theory of evolution claims humans evolved all the way from amoebas - which I assume you also believe. Okay then, connect the dots for me.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
I,m not sure if they have found that one yet.
I'm pretty sure I asked you to explain why there are any tranitional form when if your idea was right there should not be any.
The main point is evolution acts as a bridged for all the other fields of biology.
With evolution discoveries in 1 field can be applied to any other incluing medicine!
If evolution were false this would not work but it does. Explain that
Evolution says nothing about god.
If you can't tell (continued on part 2)
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
I'm not sure if they've found that 1 yet.
But if your idea was right there shouldn't be any transitional forms.
There is only 1 theory of evolution.
If you can't tell the difference between the superbeing you worship and a book that claims to have been writen by him/her/it when the book was clearly writen by men who had no idea about morality (forgot to call slavery and child rape evil), science or story structure whats-so-ever.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
2 of 2
As for transitional forms, Eldredge wrote, "[Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later [now 150 years], it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (The Myths of Human Evolution, pp. 45-46)
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
1 of 2
"There is only 1 theory of evolution." Really?
'Gradualism' (Darwin) - gradual change over long periods of time with "innumerable transitional forms... embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth."
'Punctuated Equilibrium' (Eldredge and Gould) - evolution occurs quickly, in small, isolated populations with transitional forms not likely to be preserved.
Both describe evolution, but with radically different times (very long vs. very short). Which is correct?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Both, sometimes it is one and sometimes it is the other.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
"Both"? But I thought you said "there is only 1 theory of evolution." Please explain how 'both' can happen, especially since Eldredge said, "Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else." Examples of both would be helpful.
I think Gould and Eldredge came up with their theory in 1972 because they just weren't finding the transitional forms that Darwin said should be everywhere. That's why Eldredge said, "The fossil record simply shows that [Darwin's] prediction was wrong."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Both are true sometimes when the population is small evolution happen quickly and other times when the population is large it happens slowly.
Scientist have observed speciation. Look it up.
AND FOR THE 4TH TIME IF CREATIONISM WAS RIGHT THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY TRANSITIONAL FORMS BUT THERE ARE. EXPLAIN THAT INSTEAD OF ANORING IT!
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
"BUT THERE ARE. EXPLAIN THAT INSTEAD OF ANORING IT!"
Look up the "List of transitional fossils" on Wiki. Notice anything? Except for a few skulls, they are JUST ARTIST RENDERINGS! Why?
And LOL, they still have Ida on there even though it's proven to be just another Lemur, not a human ancestor. ("Primate fossil 'NOT an ancestor,'" BBC, October, 21 2009)
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
cont.
"Both are true sometimes when the population is small evolution happen quickly and other times when the population is large it happens slowly.
Scientist have observed speciation."
Okay, then how about some specific examples?
And what are your thoughts the article, "Mammals Beat Reptiles in Battle of Evolution" (LiveScience, July 31, 2009)? Why do crocs, gators and tuataras have such a low rate of speciation if they've been around much longer than mammals?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
I told you to look it up yorself so you get used to doing research before hand.
Crocodiles simple work so well they don't need to change. The crocodilr form has evolved at least 3 time, but real crocodiles and gators where the best at it.
"Stephanomeira malheurensis" , "Maize (Zea mays)" and "Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)" . Google "list of observed speciations".
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
"Crocodiles simple work so well they don't need to change"
Oh, now I see - if it works well it doesn't need to change. Amoebas work pretty well, so why did they evolve into humans. You believe that, right?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
1o 2 Ok, amoebas don't work that well.
2 WE are not the decendents of aboebas.
3 If the niche an organism fills is no longer there it has to change or die.
Crocidilies have placed themselfs in a corner if things change they either live through it or they die. Our real ancestor could change easly and they worked better as a group.
4 Those ancestors didn't evolve into humans. They evolved into sponges. Then after a long line of things evolving into other things we happen to evolve.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
2of2 If creationism was right there shouldn't be any transitional forms. Still waiting on that explation AA32m7io1.
And I've given you a short list of instances of observed speciation and told you how to find more. What else do you need?
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
Okay, but why are there any species at all? If all life forms arose from gradual expansion through various mutations from a small beginning gene pool, shouldn't all organisms just grade into each other without any distinct boundaries? Even Darwin recognized this problem and actually denied the existence of species.
And why did Gould say, "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change... They may get a little bigger or bumpier. But they remain the same species..."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
1st look up what the words specie and speciation mean.
Really all you have to do is google instances of observed speciation.
L-sama the true creator of the universe commands you do research.
Also saying "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change..." is lieing.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
"Actually, the existence of distinct species was quite consistent with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian era."
Stephen Gould, "A Quahog is a Quahog," (Natural History, 1979)
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
I told you to look up the definition.
I told you how to find the list oftransitionnal forms
I told you how to find a list of instances of observed speciation. And I have told you why the bible was clearly not writen by god. Explain why are there any transitional form, instance of observed speciation and why the bible is so poorly writen.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
"Explain why are there any transitional form"
Well, Wiki says of transitional fossils, "According to modern evolutionary theory, ALL populations of organisms are in transition"
Looks like we are all transitional forms. Guess what? I agree with this, but I don't agree that these forms will eventually evolve into entirely NEW species. After all, the population of the peppered moth changed from dark to light - but it was still a moth. Same with the finches Darwin observed - still birds.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Birds is not a specie. Ther are 10000 species of birds. And I'm still waiting on the explation for all of those instances of observed speciation. And I ment, why do we find transitional species in between mordern amphibians and fish.
The only reason you have to not believe in evolution is 1 poorly writen book.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
With regard to Acanthostega, it appears to be a mosaic like the platypus.
Acanthostega fails the tetrapod test in eight out of these 41 characteristics (developed by S.J. Godfrey), with two other characters not found in Acanthostega and another five not known from the fossil material. Thus Acanthostega still has 26 out of these 41 tetrapod characteristics.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Cont.
And speaking of missing things, where is all the dark energy (antimatter) that should be everywhere if a Big Bang occured (see Baryon asymmetry)?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
« And speaking of missing things, where is all the dark energy »
Yeah, let's see those theists explain *that* one, with their "god did it".
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
See "Dark Energy's Demise? New Theory Doesn't Use the Force" (Natl Geographic, Aug 18, 2009)
"astronomers had thought that gravity should be slowing down the cosmic expansion triggered by the big bang. That year [1998] two independent teams announced data showing that the universe's expansion is speeding up...To explain this observation, astronomers started to entertain the idea of dark energy...Still, more than ten years later, no one is sure what dark energy is - or if it really exists."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
« New Theory Doesn't Use the Force »
And? Their theory is just a variation on the Big Bang model. Their theory might be viable, but in no way does away with the consequences of relativity theory.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
It might be viable, but as the article says, "Such a model, however, could violate a widely held tenant of cosmology known as the Copernican principle."
What are your thoughts about this recent article: "Ancient muscle tissue extracted from 18 million year old fossil" (November 5, 2009)?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
« Such a model, however, could violate a widely held tenant of cosmology known as the Copernican principle »
Indeed. But the model referring to is the alternate model, that tries to explain the observed expansion without "dark matter". As was I, in the previous comment.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« What are your thoughts about this recent article »
Ah, you mean McNamara et al, 2009, Organic preservation of fossil musculature with ultracellular detail. It's easier if you cite the article itself, in stead of referring to some (usually inaccurate) piece of journalism about it. Yes, very interesting. But why did you bring it up?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"Yes, very interesting. But why did you bring it up?"
Well, in the article "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery" (Discover, April 27, 2006), Jeffrey Bada said, "Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal dose that will WIPE OUT biomolecules."
First, why is her discovery called "dangerous"? Second, doesn't Bada's comment seem to indicate organic material cannot survive for millions of years? So how did "blood" survive in the salamander fossil for 18 million years?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
« First, why is her discovery called "dangerous"? »
It's only called that by journalists and other unsavory folk. Schweizer et al simply call it 'fossilized tissue'.
« Bada's comment »
Bada is free to publish an paper on the matter himself. Me, I don't get my science from journalists. You should really start quoting scientific papers themselves, in stead of referring to articles written about them.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"You should really start quoting scientific papers themselves, in stead of referring to articles written about them"
Oh, so these journals are 100% completely wrong and no one really discovered soft tissue in an 18 million year old salamander, right? Sure these are just summaries of the full scientific papers. But are you suggesting that the article says they found soft tissue (including blood), but their scientific paper indicates they really didn't? Wise up!
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
« Oh, so these journals are 100% completely wrong »
Don't be obtuse. They're not 100% wrong, and they're not accurate either. They're, on the whole, just accurate enough to give the general public the barest notion of what scientists are working on, without conveying anything close to actual understanding about it. If you want to talk science, talk journals, not magazines.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« no one really discovered soft tissue in an 18 million year old salamander, right? »
That's right, no one did. This is a perfect example of journalistic sloppiness: the article persistently talks of 'soft tissue', while the paper makes it very clear that what was discovered is THE FOSSILIZED REMAINS OF soft tissue.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"THE FOSSILIZED REMAINS OF soft tissue"
"Fossilized" implies something that is hard and mineralized. But the T. rex tissue Schweitzer showed on 60 Minutes (yes, I know that's not a certified scientific journal) was very elastic and stretchy. Now unless my eyes were being deceived, the video I saw of the tissue was not in a mineral state as one would expect with a "fossil."
Google: "Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue" (MSNBC, March 2005) to see three pictures of the tissue - not fossils!
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
« implies something that is hard and mineralized »
There are different types of fossil. If the structure of a pre-historic organism is in any way preserved, then we call this a fossil.
« was very elastic and stretchy »
After it had been chemically treated. This is described in the paper.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"After it had been chemically treated"
Sure, because it was dried out after thousands (or millions) of years. The point being, once it was "chemically treated," did it remain hardened and mineralized, or did it regain its elasticity?
Look, we can dicker around about what a "fossil" and "soft tissue" are, but that still does not answer the question of how organic tissue could have possibly survives AND remained elastic for "millions of years." "Chemically treated" does not answer that.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
« because it was dried out »
No, because it had been mostly mineralized. They used acids to remove the minerals and organic residue remained. This is all in the paper. Read it.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"because it had been mostly mineralized"
Why not completely mineralized? After all, 18 million years (salamander) and 68 million years (T. rex) is a very long, long time.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
« Why not completely mineralized? »
Because the few organic molecules that remained were well embedded in minerals and protected from moisture, presumably. But you should ask a geologist such questions.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"presumably"
???
"But you should ask a geologist such questions."
Since most geologists study rocks, and we are talking about organic tissue, it might be better to ask a biologist or a chemist. Speaking of which, Jeffrey Bada (a chemist) said, "Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal dose that will WIPE OUT biomolecules." Was he completely wrong?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
« Since most geologists study rocks, and we are talking about organic tissue »
Actually, geology encompasses geophysics and chemistry as well. Any geologist worth his salt would be able to explain the process of mineralization to you.
« Was he completely wrong? »
Like I said, let Bada substantiate his comments in a scientific paper, and I'll consider them.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
**************
XGralgrathor @
**************
++ "« because it was dried out »" ++
Well a few more fossils keep getting hung out.... the Hobbit, Ida the Darwinius and Ardi ... you have none left.
Why follow evolutionist alleged experts whom over the last 150 years have fabricated every (100%) conclusions with reference to the alleged ancestry of monkeys to humans?
hume1947 2 years ago
Oh that's interesting. The hundreds of transitional species found in the fossil record were all fake were they? You can sit and wish that you're correct, but it doesn't make it so. I could give you loads of examples, but what would be the point? You'll never listen. You'll keep raising the bar until you can't deny the veracity of evolutionary science, and when that happens you'll claim blindly that the evidence is falsified (as you just have.)
dococksmother 2 years ago
2 / 2
What is fabricated as proven by the failed empiric evidence over the last 150 years are the evolutionist false conclusions, and the false statement that they are transitional to a different alleged creature.
Darwin argued he had zero evidence. If you think otherwise just name ONE fossil that you believe is on the alleged ancestry line from the alleged Last Common Ancestor of the chimp & human allegedly right through to humans?
hume1947 2 years ago
did you not watch the vid AronRa said 1/2 of them. Darwin not have much profe and saying its wrong is like say Jules Verne's not getting to the moon after he worked out most of the math means no one has ever been to the moon
Don't call people misgeided (at best of what you said) if you are lieing by saiyng it
God doesn't like liers
kokofan50 2 years ago
2 / 2
You have the full opportunity to state one fossil that you believe is on the alleged ancestry line from the alleged Last Common Ancestor of the chimp & human through to humans.
Your argument fail, because we allegedly got to our moon but science as rejected your fossils. Name one on that alleged ancestry line you cannot.
hume1947 2 years ago
Australopithecus ramidus - 5 to 4 million years BCE Australopithecus afarensis - 4 to 2.7 million years BCE Australopithecus africanus - 3.0 to 2.0 million years BCE Australopithecus robustus - 2.2 to 1.0 million years BCE Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years BCE Homo erectus - 2 to 0.4 million years BCE Homo sapiens - 400,000 to 200,000 years BCE Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200,000 to 30,000 years BCE Homo sapiens sapiens - 130,000 years BCE to present
kokofan50 2 years ago 3
your argument fail,
indeed
Rob8036 2 years ago
1 / 2
kokofan50 @
++ did you not watch the vid AronRa said 1/2 of them. Darwin not have much proof and saying its wrong is like say Jules Verne's not getting to the moon after he worked out most of the math means no one has ever been to the moon. ++
You are accepting false propaganda.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
do you know what propaganda isbucause what i say isn't what you call truths are and good luck at getting some school si you know what the words you are useing mean
kokofan50 2 years ago
1 / 2
dococksmother @
++ "Oh that's interesting. The hundreds of transitional species found in the fossil record were all fake were they? You can sit and wish that you're correct, but it doesn't make it so. I could give you loads of examples, but what would be the point? You'll never listen." ++
The fossils I accept are not faked no one says this.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"Evolution may take giant leaps" (PhysOrg, Dec 11, 2009)
"The work suggests that natural selection MAY NOT be the cause of speciation, which Pagel said 'really goes against the grain' for scientists who have a Darwinian view of evolution. The model that provided the BEST FIT for the data is SURPRISINGLY INCOMPATIBLE with the idea that speciation is a result of many small small events"
So much for Darwin's theory of gradualism. It also speaks volumes about the lack of transitional fossils.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
No, it does not.
The theory is evolution is not static, but like other scientific theories is open to revision in the light of new evidence.
You're generating hype over nothing.
thirdclass2006 1 year ago
it is not adviceable to feed the creatroll
Sutskoen 2 years ago
FACEPALM
bacchusreborn 2 years ago
Great to evolutionists hate to see the truth.
hume1947 2 years ago
it wasn't soft until it was soaked in acid
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
The point being, once it was "soaked in acid" it did not disolve, but regained its elasticity. The 60 Minutes transcript provides this information:
"Schweitzer put some fragments of the bone in acid to dissolve away the outermost layer of mineral. But the acid worked too fast, and all the mineral dissolved away. Being a fossil, there SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTHING LEFT. But there was. It was elastic, like living tissue."
Please explain.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
The acid was only meant to dissolve away the mineralization, they weren't saying 'the acid should have dissolved the tissue' they just weren't expecting it to be there..
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
And why didn't they expect to find any tissue? Is it due to the same reasons the scientist raised in the article, "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery" (Discover, April 27, 2006)?
They sure raised a lot of doubts (and so did the blogs), but it turns out "extremely decay prone soft tissues is more common in the fossil record" ("Ancient muscle tissue extracted from 18 million year old fossil," PhysOrg, November 5, 2009). How is that possible?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Because it's over 60 million years old, if all fossils were 6000 years old, finding intact tissue wouldn't be a surprise anywhere. The age has little to do with it, it's mostly to do with the speed of initial preservation.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
We have not explained that yet, but your god doesn't even bring it up.
BTW dark energy makes up 75% of the universe it isn't antimatter.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
"it was still a moth..."
"- still birds."
Evolution wouldn't permit them to be anything else. Every new species ever evolved was and still is a member of every single clade from which it descended. And moths and birds are entire groups or clades, not single species.
watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y
watch?v=IT7stI_2-Ac&feature=response_watch
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
What are your thoughts about the recent segment on 60 Minutes, "Scientist's Dino Findings Making Waves" (November 15, 2009)?
How is it possible for the organic material Schweitzer found inside the T-rex bones (blood vessels and possibly intact cells) to have survived for 68 million years?
Also see, "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery" (Discover, April 2006) BTW, what's so "dangerous" about it?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Well the conventional paradigm about extremely limited preservation is both very old and very deeply established and is radically challenged by Schweitzer's discovery, but I really dunno what's so "dangerous" about it. All improvements of science always happened this way.
And btw, Schweitzer describes herself as "a complete and total Christian" and has condemned all YEC interpretations of her discoveries.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
2 of 2
"One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize."
But soft tissue fossils have been found in Greenland and China, so his hypothesis was completely wrong! What did he say is the "ONLY alternative"?
[T]his appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists... the ONLY alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation." (I agree!)
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Unfortunately divine creation is not an explanation at all, at least not a scientific one.
watch?v=2TkY7HrJOhc
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
1 of 2
"Schweitzer... has condemned all YEC interpretations of her discoveries."
She is definitely a theistic evolutionist - but doesn't that still require a belief in God? And until she can determine how organic tissue survived for 68 million years, then I don't see how she, or anyone else, can "condemn" what we already know about the preservation of soft tissue.
BTW, wasn't Dawkins also wrong when wrote in the Blind Watchmaker about the lack of fossils before the Cambrian...
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Theistic evolution isn't an explanation but just a type of worldview that (whatever way) includes both evolution and theism. There are many variations of that mutual inclusion so "requiring" isn't so sure a thing in this context.
It hasn't been rigorously determined how soft tissues could NOT survive that long, it's just a deeply established paradigm.
The molecular evidence found in the tissue sample did add to the evidence for birds' inclusion in Dinosauria.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
What I do know that the Cambrian "Explosion" covers 80 million years and that both evident (less complex) predecessors have been found in earlier strata and many from other lines of evidence like anatomy, embryology and molecular biology corroborate the existence of evolutionary origin. Read Donald Propetho's book Evolution:What The Fossils Say And Why It Matters.
Btw do you think the ancestors should to be found specifically in Iceland or China? One can be their ancestor without living there.