GLBT OF HUNTERDON COUNTY OF NJ COM Open to GLBT Youth,Teen,Adults, Parents and Educator. Jan 18 2012 from 6:30pm to 8:45pm Wedesday Come and talk with each and there will be lots of food and win FREE DOOR PRIZES EACH MONTH. we will be having out and other great up coming speaker. so come and play board games or talk with each we may put on a movie too if the member what to. NORTH COUNTY BRANCH OF THE HUNTERDON COUNTY LIBRARY 65 Halsted Street Clinton, NJ 08809
did anyone else feel like they took a good scientific and cute story, then turned it into an excuse to push the word "homosexual" all over people? Im a supporter of gay rights in every way, but i certainly hate to have people in my face about it.
@SaraxPandaxBara If the video was about a heterosexual penguin couple, you wouldn't be disturbed, would you? That's called double standards, which is opposite of freedom and equality. Do you feel gay after watching the video? I know I don't. After all, this is YouTube, you can choose what to watch. Trying to turn somebody straight to gay is mission impossible and every gay person knows it, because they are surrounded by heterosexuals who pressure them to change and they always failed.
@gatekeepermkd obviously you didnt read the whole comment. if somebody pushed a bible in your face would you enjoy that? no, you wouldnt. i support gay rights fully and i am a part of multiple organizations. however if somebody doesnt appreciate what i am saying or doing, i certainly dont push my cross dressing or ideas into their minds like these reporters were doing and im certainly not trying to pressure anyone straight. wtf?
@SaraxPandaxBara Being a member of an organization, wearing a badge or ribbon doesn't mean that you understand the point of equality and freedom of expression. In the same way there're many Christians who attend religious ceremonies in churches and carry the Bible around, but yet fail to understand its profound meaning. You made it look like as this video was part of some "Go gay today!" propaganda. One's sexual orientation can't be determined or switched by watching a video about gay penguins.
@gatekeepermkd yes, in fact it did seem like a "go gay today" video in which they made it seem like this was some sort of unnatural occurrence. this is a very natural occurrence. i would just like to take this opportunity to thank you for educating me on sexual orientation. something i OBVIOUSLY didnt know about (ps: im a bisexual, just a very mellow one). my purpose in life is equality and freedom. we could go back and forth all day, but id rather not. so good day and i wish you the best. =)
@GlitchInferno really? anybody? so women are nobodies then.. ;) but I guess you only made a mistake with your diction..
but wait, you heard that clover defines herself as female, right? so there's another "mistake" then.. oh and also, there*s no such thing as "woman's clothing" you know.. so your hole comment is just FUCKED UP!
you really should grow up (which includes respecting other people). also, being weird is cool and way nicer than transphobic :D
This video was made almost 5 years ago, I understand some people have seen this video for the first time, but I'm willing to bet a majority have watched it many times, but what I don't understand is why after 5 years do you still need pages beyond pages of religious debates. Seriously? I might not agree with what you say but I will defend to the grave for your right to say it, but damn this is too much guys, if you don't wanna see homosexuality, why search this video?
@oneandonlylove0995 It just goes to show the kind of batshit stupidity religion has to offer us as a society. 50 pages of scientific debate would be fascinating but just look at the dribbling nonsense being presented here. I wish all these religious nut jobs would put their money where their mouths are and truly reject science by avoiding the internet altogether.
How can anyone say that homossexuality goes against nature after seeing something like this? Sexual orientation is not about rules;it's about love! <3
Even penguins understand that. Why can't humans do the same?
What's with all the people hating on animals? If you're going with Christianity animals don't have a soul, and thus no free will, they only follow instinct. If you go with the natural approach, you'd know animals choose mates via biological signs. In no way is this unnatural, they don't have the capacity to go outside of their archetype.
@WOLFWARR1 I'm a Christian as well. I didn't say a thing about them all being the same, I was just saying if you're going with that approach it's invalid. >.>
@astrothousand98 Evolution doesn't require belief. evolution is simply an explanation that explains observations of the natural world. Evolution only requires acknowledgment. You realize that gravity is just a theory too right?
Evolution requires no faith whatsoever. Any and all facets of evolution are welcome to debate and always have been since the theory was first introduced 150 years ago. If it was false don't you think a shred of evidence to the contrary would have surfaced by now?
@orjysean i do have knowledge on evolution is and i do know that gravity is still defined as a theory.....
and you just contradicted yourself by first saying that and debate against evolution are welcome and then stating that if any shred of evidence of the contrary had surfaced....
but anyways there is a lot of evidence that goes against evolution the holes within the theory and if studied you can find hundreds of thing unexplained....so yes I do think it a belief....
@astrothousand98 Unexplained yes. Discredited? No. It's true there is a lot of debate in the scientific world about evolution, such as the rate at which it occurs and which species descended from what. But as to whether evolution occurs or not? That was settled over a century ago.
I did not contradict myself in anyway.
If you would care to state what credible evidence there is that contradicts the theory of evolution I'd love to hear it. In 150 years you'd be the first to do so!
If it is true that evolution occurs through natural selection or some variation of the sort then there is what thing I don't understand. Basically most mammals when first born are generally weak. Though they have some form of protection from their parents such as claws, fangs, and other defensive mechanisms.
Now here is my question. What of humans? Our babies are one of the weakest and the parents generally can't do much against a wild beast such as a bear.
@astrothousand98 Humans are a social species that live in tribes, animals such as bears are unlikely to attack a group of humans. You also think of weapons as instruments to cause damage, but our weapons are our minds. As a highly intelligent species we can use advanced tactics, communication and tools to out think a predator. Also, being a species of ape, you can look at other ape species for an analogue of what early human behavior would have been similar to.
Finally if we can provide technological advances then why is it we need to evolve if we can just change our natural situation to one that suits us better?
@astrothousand98 These dictionary battles that always come up are pointless, words have no inherent meaning besides what we ascribe to them. A dictionary will tell you the common use of a word and there are many. Here is another definition for a weapon: "A means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest." In the sense human intelligence is a weapon as it allows you to gain an advantage over a less intelligent animal.
Cont. You may get the odd bear that is not acting logically, but a few illogical bears is not going to wipe out a whole species. Furthermore, a tribe of humans is likely to drive of or even kill a lone bear that wanders into their camp. Early homosapiens were intelligence and had tool to use as weapons such as clubs, spears, etc. They used their minds to compensate for poor natural weapons and defense mechanisms.
Cont. To answer your last question, modern humans have moved outside of evolution. Our current societies and technology have placed us outside of natural evolution. So in essence we have reach a point in evolution where we can now control (to some extent) the future of our evolution.
@sinhaserpente No ascribe meaning than that which we give them? A little self-centered to me but that's just my take on it...
Still even if our take on the word is different the basics remains the same. Though you might say gain or defend I might same attack or defense, to get to the point is not taking advantage over a less intelligent animal damage? Who says it has to be physical and direct?
If we gain advantage were indirectly causing other species to be less better off. Is that not damage?
@astrothousand98 I was merely pointing out that in lexicology a word is an expression of a thought and the sound and/or letter combination is a method of conveying that thought and has no inherent or objective meaning. This is why the meaning of words change over time, people end up using words for difference things and the lexicons are updated to reflect the current usage of that word. None of this however, has anything to do with the topic at hand.
Cont. I am happy to discuss the subject, but it is my opinion that quibbling over semantics is in no way beneficial. I am having a some trouble divining your question and I think you may be digressing. The original question was how humans survive when the of springs are so vulnerable and human parents have no means to defend themselves or their babies. My response was to illustrate that this is not that case and that humans use their intelligence to both stay alive and make tools/weapons.
Cont. Homo Sapiens are predators so it would not make sense to call us helpless. Early homo sapiens made weapons and hunted in numbers using fairly advanced tactics. The same weapons and tactics were used for protection as well. A group of men with spears can/could fight off a bear, even if some get killed, this is not enough to wipe out the species. So my point is that Homo Sapiens are actually adroit hunters and survivors, there is no reason to think that we should have died off.
Cont. If you want to see a clear illustration of human's abilities to fight and defend, look at all the wars and the millions that have been killed. Humans are a little too good at destroying things and it is likely that we will be the cause of our own extinction.
@sinhaserpente will what exactly is modern to you? If your saying that we as human beings can control how we can evolve than what's to say we couldn't do it in our earlier stages?
Basically what I'm saying is if our species have had tools for some thousand years how is it that the change has been so great?
If higher intelligence is brought into the equation of evolution wouldn't we see at least some other species close to our advancements if not farther?
@astrothousand98 One thing I remember reading was that supposedly human species ancestors evolved later than the dinosaurs who had ruled for millions of years. Why is it then that they brought new technologies or any other creature for that matter?
@astrothousand98 I will try and answer everything in order so that I don't miss anything. We have now moved beyond evolution due to technology. Science is progressive and is built upon preceding theories and knowledge. The reason we couldn't do this 5000 years ago is the same as why you can't take University level calculus without knowledge of year 6 maths. We have progressively advanced our technology and it has reach a point where we can sidestep evolution.
Cont. To use your earlier example: Do you have bears wandering into your back yard? Some places do, but you will notice that there is an absence of predators in cities due to advanced civilizations and urban sprawl. Furthermore, medicine is sufficiently advanced enough to prevent many people from dying from various diseases that would have killed them thousands of years ago. Whether you are old or young, ill or healthy, you have a good chance of survival it today's world.
Cont. This means that natural selection essentially no longer applies to humans. Furthermore, humans no longer live in isolated tribes, we live in cities as part of a global species and constantly interact with other humans around the world. We are too well connected, too far spread and too technologically advanced to be subjected to natural processes of evolution. There isn't any mutation in humans that can produce an advantage so great that the other humans die off.
Cont. Evolution works very slowly which is why you may not see other animals as intelligent as Homo Sapiens. Life on earth has existed for approximately 3.5 billion years. Modern humans have been around for roughly 200,000 years, this is a fairly short time in terms of evolution. In other words, we have not changed much at all in 200,000 years (biologically). Ardipithecus ramidus is an ancestor of ours that is fairly similar to Chimps and lived 4.5 million years ago.
Cont. The Homo Sapien and Chimp common ancestor is thought to have lived over 5.5 million year ago. So we have to go back over 5.5 million years to find the common ancestor of us and our closet cousin the chimp. To answer your question more directly, we don't know what factors lead to highly intelligent life. Human intelligence is not something that is guaranteed in evolution, it is a survival trait of ours.
Cont. For example, why don't humans live in the water like fish? It's not guaranteed that we would evolve to live in the water eventually and it's not guaranteed that fish will evolve to live on land. In the same way, it may not be evolutionary necessary for other animals to evolve to our level of intelligence, but at the same time, it could be possible for Chimp descendants to evolve to similar intelligence in 5 million years from now.
Cont. As I said, humans as we are now are about 200,000 years old so it took us about 3.3 billion years to get to this point. Furthermore, human civilization is only about 10, 000 years old and modern human civilization is around 5,000 years old. We have not been around for all that long in evolutionary terms.
Cont. Yes, dinosaurs lived around 65 million years ago. Dinosaurs were reptiles and ruled the world. When a massive meteor struck the earth, dinosaurs began do die out and this is when mammals began to flourish. Humans are of the mammalia class and we would have evolved from these early mammals. Humans developed technologies due to their intelligence as discusses earlier.
Cont. Humans, having the greatest intelligence, have the greatest tools and technologies. You can see the other apes and some other mammals that use basic tools to get to food. Otters break open nuts with rocks, Chimps use sticks to get to termites. This is how we started out but our intelligence allowed us to build on these technologies and in 10,000 years, this has build up to what you see today, the modern world.
Cont. We will continue to build upon and improve the technologies of today and the world in 1000 years time will be a vastly different place. If we live for another 10,000 years, it will be unrecognizable.
@sinhaserpente So then after reading everything you stated let's just place evolution aside for a bit. Let's say we always had this high intelligence before but have now found ways to improve on it over time...would there truly be any need to evolve?
Also why is it that you place human automatically on top in the intelligence level? Why is it that somehow we reached highly farther in that area than any other animal? True some animals are able to live in water/fly but that seem to be for habitat
@sinhaserpente Ok let's place evolution out of this for a bit. If we were to be born with this great intelligence would there be any true reason to evolve?
Why is that you automatically place humans at the top at the intelligence level? Is it so great we've greatly surpassed all other species when it comes to that? Of course it is but why is it that other animals have not done the same to us, sure some may run faster, swim better, fly higher, but no where near how far intellectually we've got.
@astrothousand98 That depends, being highly intelligent is not enough, you need experience and knowledge. For example, a child is not stupider than an adult, it just doesn't have the same amount of knowledge and experience. If our species was just put here out of nowhere, we would still be subjected to evolution because we would essentially be children. Those more adept for survival would survive and propagate; those dumber, slower, less athletic would die out.
Cont. You see, knowledge and technology is accumulative, you cannot just be smart and develop general relativity, you have to base your work off previous discoveries such as Newtonian gravity. You and I are not smarter than Galileo, but we may know things about physics that he never knew or dreamed of because the have the accumulated knowledge of the past.
Cont. So intelligence is not a sole factor, what moves a species outside of evolution is advancement in technology and knowledge which is an evolutionary process in itself that takes thousands of years. Look at the evolution of the computer. Compare the green screens with the text based OS to modern computer games that verge on realistic. Those engineers that created computers 30 years ago aren't dumber, they just didn't have access to the new accumulated knowledge and experience.
Cont. Humans are not automatically at the top in the intelligence level, they just are. It's like asking why the blue whale is automatically the largest (heaviest) animal; if it weren't, something else would be. If humans were not the most intelligence, some other animal would, probably Chimps or Dolphins. That is not to say that they would be as smart as we are now, but they would take the position as "smartest" animals.
Cont. You are wrong in your last statement, other animals are much, much more adept and certain things than us. A cheetah will make you look like you're standing still while running full speed. A bear can smell a drop of blood 5km away. A blue whale is over 2000 times more massive than an average human. Many animals have natural abilities and traits that cannot be even imagined by humans. Each species has its own extraordinary evolutionary abilities, ours happens to be intelligence.
Cont. None of any of this is evidence for evolution, which has been proven beyond any doubt and is one of the most well substantiated and accepted theories in all of science and which has been proven as a fact. If you are interested in some of the evidence for evolution I will be happy to outline some and/or direct you to areas of research. Many people get obsessed with paleontological proof, but that is hardly used these days as genetics provides all the proof needed.
@sinhaserpente still all the capabilities you outlined of the animals are either instinct our natural born talents.... intelligence on the other hand (As you said) is brought through experience and accumulated knowledge...therefore how does that mean we gained it through evolution if it essentially halts or slows it down or makes it alter less...
@astrothousand98 Cont Now your saying evolution brings knowledge though through what I've read on the matter that seems highly unlikely since evolution focuses on the species survival through instinct adapting to habitat and acquiring skills placing knowledge means evolution never truly is needed
@astrothousand98 That is not what I am saying and your interpretation of evolution is incorrect. Evolution has nothing to do with instinct or habitat (not directly), evolution is the diversification of species though genetic mutation. Beneficial mutations create an advantage for survival which causes the disadvantaged to die out. Knowledge is not passed on genetically and has nothing to do with evolution. Knowledge in intelligent beings can however, allow them to sidestep evolution.
@astrothousand98 That's not what I said, intelligence is not the same thing as knowledge and experience. Intelligence is the potential to learn and understand new and unique concepts. In this respect a 5 year old child can be more intelligent than an adult with more knowledge and experience. Intelligence is an evolutionary trait just like the others mentioned.
Cont. To see why we have essentially stopped evolution is simple. Let's take Giraffes for example, those with the longer necks will get most of the food on the trees, those with the shorter necks will be at a disadvantage and die out due to famine. Since the longer neck giraffes survive, they will be the ones to breed and will produce even more long necked giraffes. Now lets look at humans, let's pick some characteristics useful for survival. I will use intelligence and athleticism.
Cont. Humans that were more intelligent and athletic were able to catch their food and eat, those that were dumber and slower would die out because the intelligent and athletic humans are getting all the food and surviving ans subsequently breeding. In modern society, we don't hunt our own food and we have systems in place to cater for the disadvantaged. You can be an complete idiot with no skills, but you still get money (dole) and healthcare so you don't die out.
Cont. So you see, there is no more natural selection in the human species because those that would have died out in the wild are being cared for here by family, medical insurance, they get government handouts so that they don't starve and they live and are able to reproduce. Hence, no more evolution. Everyone has an equal opportunity to live regardless of disadvantage and therefore everybody can reproduce.
Cont. You may also be interested to know that there were other species similar to humans that died out. If I remember correctly, there were four of us and humans were the only ones to survive because we were more adept and surviving and since we lived in the same environment and ate the same food, the other species died. Homo Neanderthalensis is one such species. Neanderthals were a species very similar to humans that went extinct 30,000-50,000 years ago.
Cont. Their cranial capacity was similar, if not slightly larger, than ours which would make their intelligence comparable with ours. They hand many traditions such as song and art, they had rituals and buried their dead and they even looked after their sick. They built stone tools and weapons the same as us, there are many similarities. You may be tempted to say that they were human, but DNA sequencing shows that they were not.
Cont. The fact that we are the most intelligent species now does not mean that there were no species of comparable intelligence in the past and that there won't be other intelligent species in the future. If you look and the paleontological lineage of humans, from Australopithecus to modern Homo Sapiens, you will see the progressive growth of the cranial capacity which accounts for the progressive increase in intelligence.
Cont. If you are interested in this sort of stuff I recommend "talkorigins. org" you will find most of what you are looking for, they have information of all aspects of evolution, common arguments for and against, hundreds of fossil images, family trees outlining common ancestor and speciation. Of course, I am also happy to help with anything that I can. I have an interest in biology and my mother is a microbiologist so I know a decent amount, but my actual area is Physics.
@sinhaserpente still if we were to always have this intelligence this sense to try and find out what is right and wrong our species would not change over time. and as always we would intervene in animals affairs and do the same.
i do not wish to change your outlook just wish to state evolution seems to wild to be called anything more than a theory....yes some people call it what truly placed us here but (to me) it's little more than a self-absorbed opinion...
@astrothousand98 Evolution is a fact. It is a fact because it has been proven beyond doubt through genetics, paleontology, embryology and the like. The theory of evolution is a theory which outlines the mechanism by which it operates. Natural selection is one such theory. The theory part is debatable, but the fact that evolution happens is not. Also, scientific theories are not the same as the colloquial definition, they are extremely solid an accurate.
Cont. For example, we have the theory of gravity, the theory of the heliocentric solar system, germ theory, quantum theory (which makes some of the most accurate prediction in all of science). In fact, evolution theory is among the most substantiated theories and much more proven than the theory of gravity. In 150 years, not a single scientist has been able to disprove evolution, it is beyond any doubt and you can learn why if you utilize the link that I gave you.
Cont. "still if we were to always have this intelligence" this is a big if and we already know that we evolved though literally thousands of proofs so we know that we did not always have this intelligence. As I stated earlier, the cranial capacity of our ancestors had been measured and we know that they had smaller and smaller brains the farther you go back in time. Furthermore, as I already outlined, intelligence is not enough to sidestep evolution.
Cont. "...as always we would intervene in animals affairs and do the same." How? Technology is required for this. Also, if we were to be simply placed on earth out of no where with out intelligence, we would have no established societies, communications networks, political systems, economies etc. If you have an empty earth and place 10,000 people across it, you end up with tribes that have maybe 100 member each.
Cont. These tribes have no global communication networks, they may be in the US, they have no idea that China even exists, let alone that people are there. How are we supposed to sidestep evolution if we cannot communicate? In such a state, the tribes that are more adept at survival will wipe out the weaker tribes and pass on their genetic characteristics. Over millions of years, different tribes can evolve differently because they are isolated from tribes on the other side of the world.
Cont. Human races are examples of mild genetic mutations. We have whites, blacks, Asians etc., this is because these peoples were isolated from the others and evolved differently; however, the differences are not that great because we were no isolated for long enough. Now the earth is a global community, you can be on the other side of the world in 2 days, 200,000 years ago, you could not even get there.
Cont. Evolution is not a wild theory, it is actually quite easy and intuitive to understand given the proper education. Even so, the "wildness" of a theory has no bearing on its truth. Quantum mechanics is among the most bizarre areas of study. You have virtual particle pairs popping in and out of existence, particles in multiple places at the same time, particles interfering with themselves, particles tunneling through solid barriers, essentially teleporting. It is extremely strange .
Cont. Having said that, experimentation proves it and whether you like it or not, whether it sounds logical or not, whether it is intuitive or wild, that is how the universe is and we just have to accept it. In the same sense, evolution is as it is and your thoughts on its nature have no influence on its truth. I will give you one of the many proofs for evolution that may help you understand that type of information that we have to support it.
Cont. The human genome is roughly 3 billion base pairs long; you can think of these pairs as little steps on a latter, it has 3 billion steps. Roughly 1% of these are endogenous retorviral DNA. ERVs are viruses that attack the host and attach their DNA into the DNA of the host's cells. Often the host or the cells die and this information is lost.
Cont. However, if there is a error in the replication process and if the virus inserts into a sperm or egg cell, the virus will be inactive and the genetic information will be passed on to all descendants. ERVs are roughly 500 base pairs long and insert randomly into the host's DNA chain, the 3 billion base pairs. This means that you will have a specific 500 letter code in a specific location among your 3 billion base pairs.
Cont. This also means that you will have roughly 30,000 instances of these ERVs in your genome which are in completely arbitrary locations. How does this related to evolution? Well, if you have the exact same ERV DNA in the exact same location in your genome, it means that you are related. This also applies across species, for related species such as humans and chimps, we should have at least some ERVs in common.
Cont. And this is exactly what we find. There are several instances in the human genome where the ERV DNA is exactly the same and in exactly the same location. Having a single ERV in the same location is a 1 in 50,000,000 possibility and that is excluding the probability of it being the same ERV. So we have several in common with Chimps which means that a common ancestor was infected before the species diverged and all descendants inherited the ERV DNA.
Cont. There is literally mountains of irrefutable evidence for evolution and this whole thing about a "debate" or "controversy" is propaganda. There is no debate or controversy about the fact of evolution in science, that is purely a fabrication of creationists in the public arena. The only aspect debated within science is the method by which it works e.g. natural selection. The fact that evolution did and does happen is a fact
I don't mean to sound rude or arrogant, but those that oppose evolution are generally those that know very little about it. We can all wish for the sky to be purple, but at the end of the day our wishes don't make reality and the sky is blue. Read up on evolution, give it a chance and I'm sure you will see what it is all about. In fact, evolution is not incompatible with religion and even the catholic church had to accept the evidence and admit that it is a fact. Evolution does not = Atheism.
@sinhaserpente First of all your being a little ignorant since I myself have been learning and taking classes to do with evolution for family members and school since I was little. It seems farfetched that somehow over time that somehow our DNA has been able to have 3 million pairs. Even if it had been through evolution would we really get that much info from our one cell organisms to how we are now? And even so the earth was desolate planet so did our ancestors or organisms popped out no where.
@astrothousand98 and started to mutate or develop more cells? or has ever occurred to you about the fossil records could be wrong? If we were impacted my a meteor who's to say that earth did not rise with such heat and made some dinosaurs become hard fossils faster than other dinosaurs? the very idea that we evolved gradually over time only proves more preposterous when some scientist say that it was mutation while others say it was selection when mutation would prove to be quickly.....or faster
@astrothousand98 First of all, you are talking philosophy, not science. "It seems farfetched that somehow over time..." As I previously stated, it doesn't matter what it "seems" like, it only matters what the proof and evidence is. It "seems" like the sun orbits the earth, it "seems" like the earth is flat, it "seems" like planets travel a circular path when in fact they travel in a straight line along a curved spacetime. What "seems" has no bearing on science, science is about what is.
Cont. The earth was not desolate, by 1 billion years after it formed (which is when life began) it was capable of supporting life which is why life arose int he first place. We didn't pop out of no where, we evolved from single cell organism that lived 3.5 billion years ago. I cannot tell you how life stated as no one knows, there are only partial theories in abiogenesis. However, the fact that we don't know has nothing to do with god.
Cont. Your hypothesis of the meteor impact is not feasible. And even if it were, say some dinosaurs fossilized quicker, then some rabbits should have fossilized quicker too, or some humans. In the entire history of history, there has never been a rabbit found next to a dinosaur, not a single anachronism has been found in the fossil record and that by itself clearly illustrates evolution.
Cont. And even if we get rid of all the fossil evidence, all the geological evidence, evolution is still proven beyond any doubt through genetics. The fact that I can classify how related several species are using genetics, and then do the same things using paleontology, and then again with embryology, and get the exact same results with 3 completely different forms of evidence is astounding and irrefutable.
Cont. You can graph the evolutionary tree with any of the above methods and you will get the exact same tree. So in other words, for you to reject evolution, you have to reject genetics, paleontology, embryology and several other disciplines because they all give the same answers. Furthermore, most of modern medicine is based on evolution. Have you ever been inoculated, have you ever used antibiotics? These are all based on evolution and if you don't believe it, you should not use them.
Cont. The fact that they work is another proof of evolution, yet we don't need that proof because we knew that in the first place, hence why we created them. "it was mutation while others say it was selection when mutation would prove to be quickly.....or faster" Selection is part of mutation. It is genetic mutation AND natural selection that is commonly accepted. There is debate in the scientific world about what method is accurate and which is the primary driving force, but this means nothing.
Cont. This is only a debate about the METHOD of evolution, not the fact of evolution. To clearly illustrate this point I will use physics. We have absolutely no idea what gravity is, well ok, we know that it is caused by mass and the curvature of spacetime, but we don't know what it actually is. There is a theorized particle that is called the graviton that is believed to be massless and exchanged between masses at the speed of light.
Cont. There are also theories (many in M-Theory) that suggest that gravity is either leaking out of our universe into others, hence why it is so weak, or even that it is leaking into our universe from others. There is enormous debate and study on this topic of gravity and no body can agree, but no one doubts that gravity actually exists. It has been clearly illustrated, tested and proven; it is a fact. The theory of gravity however, still needs work.
Cont. So in the same sense that you accept gravity as a fact, even though it makes little sense and we have no idea what it is, we would accept evolution as a fact even though we have not completely decided upon which mechanism accurately describes its progress. Just a note on that, evolution theory is much more simple, intuitive, and understandable than the theories of gravity. You think evolution is weird, gravity itself slows down time.
Cont. So what we see is that your position is based on philosophy and limited understanding (I do not mean to be condescending but it is clear that you do not fully grasp evolution yet). Your philosophy is that it seems weird and unbelievable to you, but as a matter of science, it matters not how it seems, but how it is. When you look at the evidence, it is undeniable that life on earth evolved though some method of natural selection, probably incorporating mutation.
Cont. I have a question for you, who do you think knows about and understands life and evolution the most? I would say biologists, do you agree? Well does that not mean that they are the most qualified/able to answer the question of how life diversified? It just happens that those that understand it the most say that it is evolution, even the religious biologists.
Cont. It would be reasonable to say that you have no where near the understanding of evolution as a biology PhD and therefore their assessment of it would be much more accurate. The fact that just about all biologists agree on the fact of evolution and the fact that you disagree may be an indicator that you are missing vial information that they have. It's almost like trusting the diagnosis of a primary school child over a medical professional.
@sinhaserpente To answer you last question the reason I know and comprehend much about the theory is cause a close family friends who is a college teacher and happens to teach of evolution, and a close cousin who is also studying about it. The reason I talked about the meteor, what I was heading for was wouldn't the heat/impact cause enough pressure to fossilize? Ok to head towards genetics as well, why is it that it is very complicated creating vast pairs. To well thought out for just chance,,.
@astrothousand98 Finally why is it that you place so much though on my grammar? I mean I see you going irrelevant a lot and trying to cover up (Not trying to offend) though I pretty sure most people would what I mean when I said "seems". Yes, it can be taken philosophical though I was truly heading in that direction. Why do you try to use my words against such as with weapon? Then go on to explain info we both pretty much understand and know? Kinda feels a little immature like when comparing me?
@astrothousand98 Well you haven't exactly answered the question. I think I have already illustrated that you misunderstand much of evolution and I am sure you would have to agree that you have no where near the understanding of a Biology PhD. Since just about all Biology PhDs accept evolution as a fact then the statistics suggest that it is a matter of education. If you had a PhD in Biology, you would likely accept evolution.
Cont. The flaw with the meteor argument is that if it lead to fossilization than everything would have fossilized, not just dinosaurs. If I understand correctly, you believe that god created all life (possibly 6000 years ago?) and that all life existed simultaneously i.e. humans and rabbits walked and hopped with dinosaurs. If that is the case, then when your meteor fossilized the dinosaurs, it should have also fossilized humans and rabbits in the same geological layer. This is not the case.
Cont. Furthermore, for a meteor to have that affect around the whole globe as opposed to just the region of impact it would have had to be massive, so massive that it would have potentially wiped out all life on earth and perhaps destroyed the earth itself.
"To well thought out for just chance" This right here is a classic misconception about evolution, evolution does not work based on chance, there is no chance involved, it works based on natural selection.
Cont. I am not placing thought on grammar but on the argument itself. "Seems" is not a matter of grammar but is the actual argument put forth. Life "seems" designed, the emphasis is the subjective nature of the inference. There is no evidence for the design of life or the universe, there is only the opinion of some who look at it and say "that looks like it was designed." The ancient Greek philosophers had a saying: If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, doesn't mean it's a duck.
Cont. So the whole purpose of me picking at the word is to illustrate that the idea of design is not a scientific conclusion based on evidence and proof, but a personal opinion of some people who look and "seem" to see some sort of design. As I said, the earth seemed flat to people, the sun seemed to orbit the earth, it was though experimentation, evidence and proof that we uncovered the truth. Simply asserting something based on your perspective is not science and is not truth.
@sinhaserpente ok so um first of all your assuming I believe something that hasn't even been mention in this discussion...ok I don't know what might have lead you there but back on topic...
of course evolution doesn't work by chance cause only a "certain group" of species chosen get a "mutation" and it's only a "certain" type of mutation during a "certain time" yea....
and just cause it looks like evolution and works like evolution, doesn't always mean it's evolution"
@astrothousand98 Well if you don't accept evolution that only really leaves creationism/ID. I made some assumptions and asked for your input. Anyway, coming back on track, you yourself said "To well thought out for just chance" where you clearly call evolution chance. Now you say "of course evolution doesn't work by chance." So you yourself negate your earlier argument and we now both agree that evolution does not work based on chance.
Cont. "just cause it looks like evolution and works like evolution, doesn't always mean it's evolution" Now you are catching on. If we simply look at two similar animals and say: They look similar, they must have evolved from a common ancestor, that would be a broad inference. However, over the past 150 years we have accumulated mountains of evidence that proves evolutions. As I mentioned: fused chromosomes, ERVs,, vestigial organs, DNA genetics, etc.
Cont. Add to that the mountains of fossils that clearly illustrate a progressive evolutionary chain and that correlates precisely with all the other data and you have no other choice but to accept the fact. While I have not yet read it, Professor Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth" might be a good read for you as it should expose you to the majority of methods and proofs for evolution accompanied by lucid analogies and examples.
@sinhaserpente First of all it's either one or the other? Just a tad ignorant... I was being sarcastic with the whole chance thing (that's why I had quotations) evolution is completely chance...A random group gets a mutation, it's a random mutation, and the time this happens is random. For a few hundred years we thought the atom was the smallest structure, and then we find electrons, protons, neutrons...The book is too biased from what I've learned after hearing about it a few years back...
@SarethZhukov314 Wow man, really? Like how old are you? Whatever, you're way too ignorant. So I'm not going to waste my time. You're not even worth it.
@Lesbatr0n Okay, no one was asking you to. You're the one who messaged me lol. Go eat heshes pussy out if you're so sensitive about it. I bet it taste like salmon.
@SarethZhukov314 I'm aware that no one asked me to, I'm standing up for what I believe in. I'm not trying to start a fight or anything. Let's just leave it at that.
I really did not mean to put that. I had forgot about that and it was my friend that put that because they wanted to get on YouTube and they needed my account. Haha, I didn't know he put that!
@exmo7 Shut up. Homosexuals have been waiting for same-sex marriage to be legal. In World War II, Hitler would kill homosexuals, Jews, blacks, old people, kids, and women.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT!!!! GOD DAMN GAY QUEERS TALKING ABOUT PENGUINS FUCKING EACH OTHER GOD DAMNNNNNNNN. AND ATHAT FUCKING CROSS DRESSER PEACE OF SHIT CAN SUCK A CHOAD!!!!!!!! GOD DAMNNNNNN
@headbanger1997 you should grow up. this video isn't some "gay queer" making stuff up. educate yourself. it's a TRUE story. and a beautiful one. nature takes care of itself. whether it's the way you think it should or not.
it's you whos the siner..god said don't judge others..so why are you judging them..and its not a sin to be gay but acting like one is..in other words..a man that dresses as a woman (you finish the sentence).. ,.l.,
@yeahyeah1020 absolutley. I am a sinner. All have fallen short, none righteous, not one. The problem is in your worldview. Humanism has pervaded the culture to say that each is entitled to structure their own version of truth. I believe in absolute truth, which is found in the bible. The Word, outlines beautifully the design for the family and relations with others. Stray from that design and consequences ensue. Laws of harvest - you will reap what you sow more than you sow.
On what basis could you possibly say that a same sex couple is more qualified than a committed mother and father, husband and wife to form the family unit? You stray from the blueprint. On what foundation are you proposing to build?
@sandworm3 blueprint?? your belief not mine!! on what basis could you possibly say that heterosexual couples are more qualified?? in my opinion, both are qualified.
@sandworm3 once again, Your belief not mine! your belief is based on that little fantasy book called bible. and people who follow that as a blueprint for life have a very close mind in my opinion, hence im not surprised to hear you say such very ignorant comments.
@gambitx4000 Your belief doesn't matter in the scope of family design and unit. The design is set forth for the family and you and your sin agenda have no authority to re-write it.
@sandworm3 the scope of family design and unit according to whom?? dont make me laugh you intolerant mental midget. the few gay families i know function a lot better than any of the heterosexual couples i know. leave you prejudice aside and educate yourself. what a tool!
@gambitx4000 Let's just put things in perspective. Who is intolerant? For thousands of years the family has been a mother and a father, both with very specific roles. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me intolerant. It actually makes you the intolerant to anything contrary to your reprobate minded agenda. I better bold that (REPROBATE MIND).
@sandworm3 For many years blacks were slaves, and that was ok, for thousands of years women had basically no rights, peasants had no rights either, do you follow the pattern here? things change, people evolve. get with the program dude. the only institution where discrimination exist and it's ok with its members is the church. where women basically have no way of reaching the top, they're treated like second class citizens. the only thing im intolerant of is ignorant people like you.
Silo is definitely the bottom. You can tell when Roy just gives him wanting looks.
NecrophagousLove 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
gayandpeace 1 month ago
they arent the only gays in this video... *cough*reporter*cough*
fireflambe 1 month ago
1:30 the trainer was like
"0_o I am sure that's a guy..."
RakeBone 2 months ago
THAT announcer is HUGE and manly
AznSwat 2 months ago
PENQUINS cant be NASTY and be GAY, only humans can do that.
74vilgax 2 months ago
@74vilgax You're fucking stupid.
ZeroFjernsynet 2 months ago 3
that tranny is so annoying
chubeviewer 2 months ago
skipper and private from pinguins of madagascar
holloh9 2 months ago
how do you know their just not friends o.O
VagueDreamZ 2 months ago
@VagueDreamZ
Because they made a nest together. Only coupled penguins do that.
Fishtastic0303 1 month ago
Every other penguin seems to be very accepting…and people say animals are done
OldNewsThinker 2 months ago
@OldNewsThinker lol yes animals r done
candysmiles11 2 months ago
@candysmiles11 BWAHHAHAHA…I guess I proved my point ahaha! =)
OldNewsThinker 2 months ago
i find it funnier that they name the gay penguins gay names, roy and silo.
dennisrayso 2 months ago
Comment removed
dennisrayso 2 months ago
i saw a homosexual human lol
arsfanu21 3 months ago
lolololololol a manwoman lololololol
RYANisWATCHIN 3 months ago
I only see emtpy comments...... It's creepy. I hope its a bug
lannydragonlover 4 months ago
did anyone else feel like they took a good scientific and cute story, then turned it into an excuse to push the word "homosexual" all over people? Im a supporter of gay rights in every way, but i certainly hate to have people in my face about it.
SaraxPandaxBara 4 months ago
@SaraxPandaxBara If the video was about a heterosexual penguin couple, you wouldn't be disturbed, would you? That's called double standards, which is opposite of freedom and equality. Do you feel gay after watching the video? I know I don't. After all, this is YouTube, you can choose what to watch. Trying to turn somebody straight to gay is mission impossible and every gay person knows it, because they are surrounded by heterosexuals who pressure them to change and they always failed.
gatekeepermkd 3 months ago
@gatekeepermkd obviously you didnt read the whole comment. if somebody pushed a bible in your face would you enjoy that? no, you wouldnt. i support gay rights fully and i am a part of multiple organizations. however if somebody doesnt appreciate what i am saying or doing, i certainly dont push my cross dressing or ideas into their minds like these reporters were doing and im certainly not trying to pressure anyone straight. wtf?
SaraxPandaxBara 3 months ago
@SaraxPandaxBara Being a member of an organization, wearing a badge or ribbon doesn't mean that you understand the point of equality and freedom of expression. In the same way there're many Christians who attend religious ceremonies in churches and carry the Bible around, but yet fail to understand its profound meaning. You made it look like as this video was part of some "Go gay today!" propaganda. One's sexual orientation can't be determined or switched by watching a video about gay penguins.
gatekeepermkd 3 months ago
@gatekeepermkd yes, in fact it did seem like a "go gay today" video in which they made it seem like this was some sort of unnatural occurrence. this is a very natural occurrence. i would just like to take this opportunity to thank you for educating me on sexual orientation. something i OBVIOUSLY didnt know about (ps: im a bisexual, just a very mellow one). my purpose in life is equality and freedom. we could go back and forth all day, but id rather not. so good day and i wish you the best. =)
SaraxPandaxBara 3 months ago
anybody dressing up in woman's clothing is FUCKED UP! Clover you are weird!
GlitchInferno 5 months ago
@GlitchInferno really? anybody? so women are nobodies then.. ;) but I guess you only made a mistake with your diction..
but wait, you heard that clover defines herself as female, right? so there's another "mistake" then.. oh and also, there*s no such thing as "woman's clothing" you know.. so your hole comment is just FUCKED UP!
you really should grow up (which includes respecting other people). also, being weird is cool and way nicer than transphobic :D
silkedenise 2 months ago
Yeah, we are not interested in religious debates! Ah, what a cute couple there, wonderful! ;)
Labratoria 5 months ago
wait.. so do these gay pengquins have sex or not?
daboognish88 5 months ago in playlist Homosexuality
... why the monolouges of the comments on controversies? also thumbs up if Humon told u to go here :D
lifegiver33 5 months ago
science over religious, get over it.
all religious discriminates somehow, anyway.
kylebless310 5 months ago
This video was made almost 5 years ago, I understand some people have seen this video for the first time, but I'm willing to bet a majority have watched it many times, but what I don't understand is why after 5 years do you still need pages beyond pages of religious debates. Seriously? I might not agree with what you say but I will defend to the grave for your right to say it, but damn this is too much guys, if you don't wanna see homosexuality, why search this video?
AlexAndrea83109 6 months ago
Aw! Love is, indeed, beautiful.
RainWolf20 6 months ago
THE HELL IS THIS
i pissed my pants when i hear there r literally gay penguins.. and now i pooped my pants when theres FUCKEN 50 PAGES OF RELIGIOUS DEBATE.
u ppl owe me new PANTS
oneandonlylove0995 6 months ago
@oneandonlylove0995 It just goes to show the kind of batshit stupidity religion has to offer us as a society. 50 pages of scientific debate would be fascinating but just look at the dribbling nonsense being presented here. I wish all these religious nut jobs would put their money where their mouths are and truly reject science by avoiding the internet altogether.
orjysean 6 months ago
People...ENOUGH WITH THE RELIGIOUS DEBATES. SERIOUSLY.
YumeHoshiChan 7 months ago 7
Awww!!! They are so cute!!! *-*
How can anyone say that homossexuality goes against nature after seeing something like this? Sexual orientation is not about rules;it's about love! <3
Even penguins understand that. Why can't humans do the same?
Moonshine3991 8 months ago
It's funny to see how the zoo-keeper leans away from mr./ms Drag, as to not have to sit too close.
boomtao 8 months ago
=0
funselena190 8 months ago
What's with all the people hating on animals? If you're going with Christianity animals don't have a soul, and thus no free will, they only follow instinct. If you go with the natural approach, you'd know animals choose mates via biological signs. In no way is this unnatural, they don't have the capacity to go outside of their archetype.
LunarLogie 9 months ago 7
@LunarLogie not ALL christians are the same you know. im christian and i think love is all the same beautiful no matter who or what. :)
WOLFWARR1 6 months ago
@WOLFWARR1 I'm a Christian as well. I didn't say a thing about them all being the same, I was just saying if you're going with that approach it's invalid. >.>
LunarLogie 6 months ago
@LunarLogie very true
WOLFWARR1 6 months ago
well i'm happy for them and...........
no i'm not someone who believes in evolution and
yes i am of the heterosexual orientation........
astrothousand98 9 months ago 2
@astrothousand98 Evolution doesn't require belief. evolution is simply an explanation that explains observations of the natural world. Evolution only requires acknowledgment. You realize that gravity is just a theory too right?
Evolution requires no faith whatsoever. Any and all facets of evolution are welcome to debate and always have been since the theory was first introduced 150 years ago. If it was false don't you think a shred of evidence to the contrary would have surfaced by now?
orjysean 6 months ago
@orjysean i do have knowledge on evolution is and i do know that gravity is still defined as a theory.....
and you just contradicted yourself by first saying that and debate against evolution are welcome and then stating that if any shred of evidence of the contrary had surfaced....
but anyways there is a lot of evidence that goes against evolution the holes within the theory and if studied you can find hundreds of thing unexplained....so yes I do think it a belief....
astrothousand98 6 months ago
@astrothousand98 Unexplained yes. Discredited? No. It's true there is a lot of debate in the scientific world about evolution, such as the rate at which it occurs and which species descended from what. But as to whether evolution occurs or not? That was settled over a century ago.
I did not contradict myself in anyway.
If you would care to state what credible evidence there is that contradicts the theory of evolution I'd love to hear it. In 150 years you'd be the first to do so!
orjysean 6 months ago
@orjysean Will then how about this?
If it is true that evolution occurs through natural selection or some variation of the sort then there is what thing I don't understand. Basically most mammals when first born are generally weak. Though they have some form of protection from their parents such as claws, fangs, and other defensive mechanisms.
Now here is my question. What of humans? Our babies are one of the weakest and the parents generally can't do much against a wild beast such as a bear.
astrothousand98 6 months ago
@astrothousand98 Humans are a social species that live in tribes, animals such as bears are unlikely to attack a group of humans. You also think of weapons as instruments to cause damage, but our weapons are our minds. As a highly intelligent species we can use advanced tactics, communication and tools to out think a predator. Also, being a species of ape, you can look at other ape species for an analogue of what early human behavior would have been similar to.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
@sinhaserpente First let me inform you on the definition of weapons (not to bash but for knowledge)
1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. (Zoology) A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
Secondly if an animal or species is hungry, enraged, or distraught (which is bound to happen) it will act logically?
astrothousand98 5 months ago
@astrothousand98
Finally if we can provide technological advances then why is it we need to evolve if we can just change our natural situation to one that suits us better?
astrothousand98 5 months ago
@astrothousand98 These dictionary battles that always come up are pointless, words have no inherent meaning besides what we ascribe to them. A dictionary will tell you the common use of a word and there are many. Here is another definition for a weapon: "A means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest." In the sense human intelligence is a weapon as it allows you to gain an advantage over a less intelligent animal.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. You may get the odd bear that is not acting logically, but a few illogical bears is not going to wipe out a whole species. Furthermore, a tribe of humans is likely to drive of or even kill a lone bear that wanders into their camp. Early homosapiens were intelligence and had tool to use as weapons such as clubs, spears, etc. They used their minds to compensate for poor natural weapons and defense mechanisms.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. To answer your last question, modern humans have moved outside of evolution. Our current societies and technology have placed us outside of natural evolution. So in essence we have reach a point in evolution where we can now control (to some extent) the future of our evolution.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
@sinhaserpente No ascribe meaning than that which we give them? A little self-centered to me but that's just my take on it...
Still even if our take on the word is different the basics remains the same. Though you might say gain or defend I might same attack or defense, to get to the point is not taking advantage over a less intelligent animal damage? Who says it has to be physical and direct?
If we gain advantage were indirectly causing other species to be less better off. Is that not damage?
astrothousand98 5 months ago
@astrothousand98 I was merely pointing out that in lexicology a word is an expression of a thought and the sound and/or letter combination is a method of conveying that thought and has no inherent or objective meaning. This is why the meaning of words change over time, people end up using words for difference things and the lexicons are updated to reflect the current usage of that word. None of this however, has anything to do with the topic at hand.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. I am happy to discuss the subject, but it is my opinion that quibbling over semantics is in no way beneficial. I am having a some trouble divining your question and I think you may be digressing. The original question was how humans survive when the of springs are so vulnerable and human parents have no means to defend themselves or their babies. My response was to illustrate that this is not that case and that humans use their intelligence to both stay alive and make tools/weapons.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. Homo Sapiens are predators so it would not make sense to call us helpless. Early homo sapiens made weapons and hunted in numbers using fairly advanced tactics. The same weapons and tactics were used for protection as well. A group of men with spears can/could fight off a bear, even if some get killed, this is not enough to wipe out the species. So my point is that Homo Sapiens are actually adroit hunters and survivors, there is no reason to think that we should have died off.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. If you want to see a clear illustration of human's abilities to fight and defend, look at all the wars and the millions that have been killed. Humans are a little too good at destroying things and it is likely that we will be the cause of our own extinction.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
@sinhaserpente will what exactly is modern to you? If your saying that we as human beings can control how we can evolve than what's to say we couldn't do it in our earlier stages?
Basically what I'm saying is if our species have had tools for some thousand years how is it that the change has been so great?
If higher intelligence is brought into the equation of evolution wouldn't we see at least some other species close to our advancements if not farther?
astrothousand98 5 months ago
@astrothousand98 One thing I remember reading was that supposedly human species ancestors evolved later than the dinosaurs who had ruled for millions of years. Why is it then that they brought new technologies or any other creature for that matter?
astrothousand98 5 months ago
@astrothousand98 I will try and answer everything in order so that I don't miss anything. We have now moved beyond evolution due to technology. Science is progressive and is built upon preceding theories and knowledge. The reason we couldn't do this 5000 years ago is the same as why you can't take University level calculus without knowledge of year 6 maths. We have progressively advanced our technology and it has reach a point where we can sidestep evolution.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. To use your earlier example: Do you have bears wandering into your back yard? Some places do, but you will notice that there is an absence of predators in cities due to advanced civilizations and urban sprawl. Furthermore, medicine is sufficiently advanced enough to prevent many people from dying from various diseases that would have killed them thousands of years ago. Whether you are old or young, ill or healthy, you have a good chance of survival it today's world.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. This means that natural selection essentially no longer applies to humans. Furthermore, humans no longer live in isolated tribes, we live in cities as part of a global species and constantly interact with other humans around the world. We are too well connected, too far spread and too technologically advanced to be subjected to natural processes of evolution. There isn't any mutation in humans that can produce an advantage so great that the other humans die off.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. Evolution works very slowly which is why you may not see other animals as intelligent as Homo Sapiens. Life on earth has existed for approximately 3.5 billion years. Modern humans have been around for roughly 200,000 years, this is a fairly short time in terms of evolution. In other words, we have not changed much at all in 200,000 years (biologically). Ardipithecus ramidus is an ancestor of ours that is fairly similar to Chimps and lived 4.5 million years ago.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. The Homo Sapien and Chimp common ancestor is thought to have lived over 5.5 million year ago. So we have to go back over 5.5 million years to find the common ancestor of us and our closet cousin the chimp. To answer your question more directly, we don't know what factors lead to highly intelligent life. Human intelligence is not something that is guaranteed in evolution, it is a survival trait of ours.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. For example, why don't humans live in the water like fish? It's not guaranteed that we would evolve to live in the water eventually and it's not guaranteed that fish will evolve to live on land. In the same way, it may not be evolutionary necessary for other animals to evolve to our level of intelligence, but at the same time, it could be possible for Chimp descendants to evolve to similar intelligence in 5 million years from now.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. As I said, humans as we are now are about 200,000 years old so it took us about 3.3 billion years to get to this point. Furthermore, human civilization is only about 10, 000 years old and modern human civilization is around 5,000 years old. We have not been around for all that long in evolutionary terms.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. Yes, dinosaurs lived around 65 million years ago. Dinosaurs were reptiles and ruled the world. When a massive meteor struck the earth, dinosaurs began do die out and this is when mammals began to flourish. Humans are of the mammalia class and we would have evolved from these early mammals. Humans developed technologies due to their intelligence as discusses earlier.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. Humans, having the greatest intelligence, have the greatest tools and technologies. You can see the other apes and some other mammals that use basic tools to get to food. Otters break open nuts with rocks, Chimps use sticks to get to termites. This is how we started out but our intelligence allowed us to build on these technologies and in 10,000 years, this has build up to what you see today, the modern world.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. We will continue to build upon and improve the technologies of today and the world in 1000 years time will be a vastly different place. If we live for another 10,000 years, it will be unrecognizable.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
@sinhaserpente So then after reading everything you stated let's just place evolution aside for a bit. Let's say we always had this high intelligence before but have now found ways to improve on it over time...would there truly be any need to evolve?
Also why is it that you place human automatically on top in the intelligence level? Why is it that somehow we reached highly farther in that area than any other animal? True some animals are able to live in water/fly but that seem to be for habitat
astrothousand98 5 months ago
@sinhaserpente Ok let's place evolution out of this for a bit. If we were to be born with this great intelligence would there be any true reason to evolve?
Why is that you automatically place humans at the top at the intelligence level? Is it so great we've greatly surpassed all other species when it comes to that? Of course it is but why is it that other animals have not done the same to us, sure some may run faster, swim better, fly higher, but no where near how far intellectually we've got.
astrothousand98 5 months ago
@astrothousand98 That depends, being highly intelligent is not enough, you need experience and knowledge. For example, a child is not stupider than an adult, it just doesn't have the same amount of knowledge and experience. If our species was just put here out of nowhere, we would still be subjected to evolution because we would essentially be children. Those more adept for survival would survive and propagate; those dumber, slower, less athletic would die out.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. You see, knowledge and technology is accumulative, you cannot just be smart and develop general relativity, you have to base your work off previous discoveries such as Newtonian gravity. You and I are not smarter than Galileo, but we may know things about physics that he never knew or dreamed of because the have the accumulated knowledge of the past.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. So intelligence is not a sole factor, what moves a species outside of evolution is advancement in technology and knowledge which is an evolutionary process in itself that takes thousands of years. Look at the evolution of the computer. Compare the green screens with the text based OS to modern computer games that verge on realistic. Those engineers that created computers 30 years ago aren't dumber, they just didn't have access to the new accumulated knowledge and experience.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. Humans are not automatically at the top in the intelligence level, they just are. It's like asking why the blue whale is automatically the largest (heaviest) animal; if it weren't, something else would be. If humans were not the most intelligence, some other animal would, probably Chimps or Dolphins. That is not to say that they would be as smart as we are now, but they would take the position as "smartest" animals.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. You are wrong in your last statement, other animals are much, much more adept and certain things than us. A cheetah will make you look like you're standing still while running full speed. A bear can smell a drop of blood 5km away. A blue whale is over 2000 times more massive than an average human. Many animals have natural abilities and traits that cannot be even imagined by humans. Each species has its own extraordinary evolutionary abilities, ours happens to be intelligence.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. None of any of this is evidence for evolution, which has been proven beyond any doubt and is one of the most well substantiated and accepted theories in all of science and which has been proven as a fact. If you are interested in some of the evidence for evolution I will be happy to outline some and/or direct you to areas of research. Many people get obsessed with paleontological proof, but that is hardly used these days as genetics provides all the proof needed.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
@sinhaserpente still all the capabilities you outlined of the animals are either instinct our natural born talents.... intelligence on the other hand (As you said) is brought through experience and accumulated knowledge...therefore how does that mean we gained it through evolution if it essentially halts or slows it down or makes it alter less...
basically: knowledge + applying technology = changes or halts evolutionary changes...
astrothousand98 5 months ago
@astrothousand98 Cont Now your saying evolution brings knowledge though through what I've read on the matter that seems highly unlikely since evolution focuses on the species survival through instinct adapting to habitat and acquiring skills placing knowledge means evolution never truly is needed
astrothousand98 5 months ago
@astrothousand98 That is not what I am saying and your interpretation of evolution is incorrect. Evolution has nothing to do with instinct or habitat (not directly), evolution is the diversification of species though genetic mutation. Beneficial mutations create an advantage for survival which causes the disadvantaged to die out. Knowledge is not passed on genetically and has nothing to do with evolution. Knowledge in intelligent beings can however, allow them to sidestep evolution.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
@astrothousand98 That's not what I said, intelligence is not the same thing as knowledge and experience. Intelligence is the potential to learn and understand new and unique concepts. In this respect a 5 year old child can be more intelligent than an adult with more knowledge and experience. Intelligence is an evolutionary trait just like the others mentioned.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. To see why we have essentially stopped evolution is simple. Let's take Giraffes for example, those with the longer necks will get most of the food on the trees, those with the shorter necks will be at a disadvantage and die out due to famine. Since the longer neck giraffes survive, they will be the ones to breed and will produce even more long necked giraffes. Now lets look at humans, let's pick some characteristics useful for survival. I will use intelligence and athleticism.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. Humans that were more intelligent and athletic were able to catch their food and eat, those that were dumber and slower would die out because the intelligent and athletic humans are getting all the food and surviving ans subsequently breeding. In modern society, we don't hunt our own food and we have systems in place to cater for the disadvantaged. You can be an complete idiot with no skills, but you still get money (dole) and healthcare so you don't die out.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. So you see, there is no more natural selection in the human species because those that would have died out in the wild are being cared for here by family, medical insurance, they get government handouts so that they don't starve and they live and are able to reproduce. Hence, no more evolution. Everyone has an equal opportunity to live regardless of disadvantage and therefore everybody can reproduce.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. You may also be interested to know that there were other species similar to humans that died out. If I remember correctly, there were four of us and humans were the only ones to survive because we were more adept and surviving and since we lived in the same environment and ate the same food, the other species died. Homo Neanderthalensis is one such species. Neanderthals were a species very similar to humans that went extinct 30,000-50,000 years ago.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. Their cranial capacity was similar, if not slightly larger, than ours which would make their intelligence comparable with ours. They hand many traditions such as song and art, they had rituals and buried their dead and they even looked after their sick. They built stone tools and weapons the same as us, there are many similarities. You may be tempted to say that they were human, but DNA sequencing shows that they were not.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. The fact that we are the most intelligent species now does not mean that there were no species of comparable intelligence in the past and that there won't be other intelligent species in the future. If you look and the paleontological lineage of humans, from Australopithecus to modern Homo Sapiens, you will see the progressive growth of the cranial capacity which accounts for the progressive increase in intelligence.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. If you are interested in this sort of stuff I recommend "talkorigins. org" you will find most of what you are looking for, they have information of all aspects of evolution, common arguments for and against, hundreds of fossil images, family trees outlining common ancestor and speciation. Of course, I am also happy to help with anything that I can. I have an interest in biology and my mother is a microbiologist so I know a decent amount, but my actual area is Physics.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
@sinhaserpente still if we were to always have this intelligence this sense to try and find out what is right and wrong our species would not change over time. and as always we would intervene in animals affairs and do the same.
i do not wish to change your outlook just wish to state evolution seems to wild to be called anything more than a theory....yes some people call it what truly placed us here but (to me) it's little more than a self-absorbed opinion...
astrothousand98 5 months ago
@astrothousand98 Evolution is a fact. It is a fact because it has been proven beyond doubt through genetics, paleontology, embryology and the like. The theory of evolution is a theory which outlines the mechanism by which it operates. Natural selection is one such theory. The theory part is debatable, but the fact that evolution happens is not. Also, scientific theories are not the same as the colloquial definition, they are extremely solid an accurate.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. For example, we have the theory of gravity, the theory of the heliocentric solar system, germ theory, quantum theory (which makes some of the most accurate prediction in all of science). In fact, evolution theory is among the most substantiated theories and much more proven than the theory of gravity. In 150 years, not a single scientist has been able to disprove evolution, it is beyond any doubt and you can learn why if you utilize the link that I gave you.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. "still if we were to always have this intelligence" this is a big if and we already know that we evolved though literally thousands of proofs so we know that we did not always have this intelligence. As I stated earlier, the cranial capacity of our ancestors had been measured and we know that they had smaller and smaller brains the farther you go back in time. Furthermore, as I already outlined, intelligence is not enough to sidestep evolution.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. "...as always we would intervene in animals affairs and do the same." How? Technology is required for this. Also, if we were to be simply placed on earth out of no where with out intelligence, we would have no established societies, communications networks, political systems, economies etc. If you have an empty earth and place 10,000 people across it, you end up with tribes that have maybe 100 member each.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. These tribes have no global communication networks, they may be in the US, they have no idea that China even exists, let alone that people are there. How are we supposed to sidestep evolution if we cannot communicate? In such a state, the tribes that are more adept at survival will wipe out the weaker tribes and pass on their genetic characteristics. Over millions of years, different tribes can evolve differently because they are isolated from tribes on the other side of the world.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. Human races are examples of mild genetic mutations. We have whites, blacks, Asians etc., this is because these peoples were isolated from the others and evolved differently; however, the differences are not that great because we were no isolated for long enough. Now the earth is a global community, you can be on the other side of the world in 2 days, 200,000 years ago, you could not even get there.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. Evolution is not a wild theory, it is actually quite easy and intuitive to understand given the proper education. Even so, the "wildness" of a theory has no bearing on its truth. Quantum mechanics is among the most bizarre areas of study. You have virtual particle pairs popping in and out of existence, particles in multiple places at the same time, particles interfering with themselves, particles tunneling through solid barriers, essentially teleporting. It is extremely strange .
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. Having said that, experimentation proves it and whether you like it or not, whether it sounds logical or not, whether it is intuitive or wild, that is how the universe is and we just have to accept it. In the same sense, evolution is as it is and your thoughts on its nature have no influence on its truth. I will give you one of the many proofs for evolution that may help you understand that type of information that we have to support it.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. The human genome is roughly 3 billion base pairs long; you can think of these pairs as little steps on a latter, it has 3 billion steps. Roughly 1% of these are endogenous retorviral DNA. ERVs are viruses that attack the host and attach their DNA into the DNA of the host's cells. Often the host or the cells die and this information is lost.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. However, if there is a error in the replication process and if the virus inserts into a sperm or egg cell, the virus will be inactive and the genetic information will be passed on to all descendants. ERVs are roughly 500 base pairs long and insert randomly into the host's DNA chain, the 3 billion base pairs. This means that you will have a specific 500 letter code in a specific location among your 3 billion base pairs.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. This also means that you will have roughly 30,000 instances of these ERVs in your genome which are in completely arbitrary locations. How does this related to evolution? Well, if you have the exact same ERV DNA in the exact same location in your genome, it means that you are related. This also applies across species, for related species such as humans and chimps, we should have at least some ERVs in common.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. And this is exactly what we find. There are several instances in the human genome where the ERV DNA is exactly the same and in exactly the same location. Having a single ERV in the same location is a 1 in 50,000,000 possibility and that is excluding the probability of it being the same ERV. So we have several in common with Chimps which means that a common ancestor was infected before the species diverged and all descendants inherited the ERV DNA.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. There is literally mountains of irrefutable evidence for evolution and this whole thing about a "debate" or "controversy" is propaganda. There is no debate or controversy about the fact of evolution in science, that is purely a fabrication of creationists in the public arena. The only aspect debated within science is the method by which it works e.g. natural selection. The fact that evolution did and does happen is a fact
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
I don't mean to sound rude or arrogant, but those that oppose evolution are generally those that know very little about it. We can all wish for the sky to be purple, but at the end of the day our wishes don't make reality and the sky is blue. Read up on evolution, give it a chance and I'm sure you will see what it is all about. In fact, evolution is not incompatible with religion and even the catholic church had to accept the evidence and admit that it is a fact. Evolution does not = Atheism.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
@sinhaserpente First of all your being a little ignorant since I myself have been learning and taking classes to do with evolution for family members and school since I was little. It seems farfetched that somehow over time that somehow our DNA has been able to have 3 million pairs. Even if it had been through evolution would we really get that much info from our one cell organisms to how we are now? And even so the earth was desolate planet so did our ancestors or organisms popped out no where.
astrothousand98 5 months ago
@astrothousand98 and started to mutate or develop more cells? or has ever occurred to you about the fossil records could be wrong? If we were impacted my a meteor who's to say that earth did not rise with such heat and made some dinosaurs become hard fossils faster than other dinosaurs? the very idea that we evolved gradually over time only proves more preposterous when some scientist say that it was mutation while others say it was selection when mutation would prove to be quickly.....or faster
astrothousand98 5 months ago
@astrothousand98 First of all, you are talking philosophy, not science. "It seems farfetched that somehow over time..." As I previously stated, it doesn't matter what it "seems" like, it only matters what the proof and evidence is. It "seems" like the sun orbits the earth, it "seems" like the earth is flat, it "seems" like planets travel a circular path when in fact they travel in a straight line along a curved spacetime. What "seems" has no bearing on science, science is about what is.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. The earth was not desolate, by 1 billion years after it formed (which is when life began) it was capable of supporting life which is why life arose int he first place. We didn't pop out of no where, we evolved from single cell organism that lived 3.5 billion years ago. I cannot tell you how life stated as no one knows, there are only partial theories in abiogenesis. However, the fact that we don't know has nothing to do with god.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. Your hypothesis of the meteor impact is not feasible. And even if it were, say some dinosaurs fossilized quicker, then some rabbits should have fossilized quicker too, or some humans. In the entire history of history, there has never been a rabbit found next to a dinosaur, not a single anachronism has been found in the fossil record and that by itself clearly illustrates evolution.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. And even if we get rid of all the fossil evidence, all the geological evidence, evolution is still proven beyond any doubt through genetics. The fact that I can classify how related several species are using genetics, and then do the same things using paleontology, and then again with embryology, and get the exact same results with 3 completely different forms of evidence is astounding and irrefutable.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. You can graph the evolutionary tree with any of the above methods and you will get the exact same tree. So in other words, for you to reject evolution, you have to reject genetics, paleontology, embryology and several other disciplines because they all give the same answers. Furthermore, most of modern medicine is based on evolution. Have you ever been inoculated, have you ever used antibiotics? These are all based on evolution and if you don't believe it, you should not use them.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. The fact that they work is another proof of evolution, yet we don't need that proof because we knew that in the first place, hence why we created them. "it was mutation while others say it was selection when mutation would prove to be quickly.....or faster" Selection is part of mutation. It is genetic mutation AND natural selection that is commonly accepted. There is debate in the scientific world about what method is accurate and which is the primary driving force, but this means nothing.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. This is only a debate about the METHOD of evolution, not the fact of evolution. To clearly illustrate this point I will use physics. We have absolutely no idea what gravity is, well ok, we know that it is caused by mass and the curvature of spacetime, but we don't know what it actually is. There is a theorized particle that is called the graviton that is believed to be massless and exchanged between masses at the speed of light.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. There are also theories (many in M-Theory) that suggest that gravity is either leaking out of our universe into others, hence why it is so weak, or even that it is leaking into our universe from others. There is enormous debate and study on this topic of gravity and no body can agree, but no one doubts that gravity actually exists. It has been clearly illustrated, tested and proven; it is a fact. The theory of gravity however, still needs work.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. So in the same sense that you accept gravity as a fact, even though it makes little sense and we have no idea what it is, we would accept evolution as a fact even though we have not completely decided upon which mechanism accurately describes its progress. Just a note on that, evolution theory is much more simple, intuitive, and understandable than the theories of gravity. You think evolution is weird, gravity itself slows down time.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. So what we see is that your position is based on philosophy and limited understanding (I do not mean to be condescending but it is clear that you do not fully grasp evolution yet). Your philosophy is that it seems weird and unbelievable to you, but as a matter of science, it matters not how it seems, but how it is. When you look at the evidence, it is undeniable that life on earth evolved though some method of natural selection, probably incorporating mutation.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. I have a question for you, who do you think knows about and understands life and evolution the most? I would say biologists, do you agree? Well does that not mean that they are the most qualified/able to answer the question of how life diversified? It just happens that those that understand it the most say that it is evolution, even the religious biologists.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. It would be reasonable to say that you have no where near the understanding of evolution as a biology PhD and therefore their assessment of it would be much more accurate. The fact that just about all biologists agree on the fact of evolution and the fact that you disagree may be an indicator that you are missing vial information that they have. It's almost like trusting the diagnosis of a primary school child over a medical professional.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
@sinhaserpente To answer you last question the reason I know and comprehend much about the theory is cause a close family friends who is a college teacher and happens to teach of evolution, and a close cousin who is also studying about it. The reason I talked about the meteor, what I was heading for was wouldn't the heat/impact cause enough pressure to fossilize? Ok to head towards genetics as well, why is it that it is very complicated creating vast pairs. To well thought out for just chance,,.
astrothousand98 5 months ago
@astrothousand98 Finally why is it that you place so much though on my grammar? I mean I see you going irrelevant a lot and trying to cover up (Not trying to offend) though I pretty sure most people would what I mean when I said "seems". Yes, it can be taken philosophical though I was truly heading in that direction. Why do you try to use my words against such as with weapon? Then go on to explain info we both pretty much understand and know? Kinda feels a little immature like when comparing me?
astrothousand98 5 months ago
@astrothousand98 Well you haven't exactly answered the question. I think I have already illustrated that you misunderstand much of evolution and I am sure you would have to agree that you have no where near the understanding of a Biology PhD. Since just about all Biology PhDs accept evolution as a fact then the statistics suggest that it is a matter of education. If you had a PhD in Biology, you would likely accept evolution.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. The flaw with the meteor argument is that if it lead to fossilization than everything would have fossilized, not just dinosaurs. If I understand correctly, you believe that god created all life (possibly 6000 years ago?) and that all life existed simultaneously i.e. humans and rabbits walked and hopped with dinosaurs. If that is the case, then when your meteor fossilized the dinosaurs, it should have also fossilized humans and rabbits in the same geological layer. This is not the case.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. Furthermore, for a meteor to have that affect around the whole globe as opposed to just the region of impact it would have had to be massive, so massive that it would have potentially wiped out all life on earth and perhaps destroyed the earth itself.
"To well thought out for just chance" This right here is a classic misconception about evolution, evolution does not work based on chance, there is no chance involved, it works based on natural selection.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. I am not placing thought on grammar but on the argument itself. "Seems" is not a matter of grammar but is the actual argument put forth. Life "seems" designed, the emphasis is the subjective nature of the inference. There is no evidence for the design of life or the universe, there is only the opinion of some who look at it and say "that looks like it was designed." The ancient Greek philosophers had a saying: If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, doesn't mean it's a duck.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. So the whole purpose of me picking at the word is to illustrate that the idea of design is not a scientific conclusion based on evidence and proof, but a personal opinion of some people who look and "seem" to see some sort of design. As I said, the earth seemed flat to people, the sun seemed to orbit the earth, it was though experimentation, evidence and proof that we uncovered the truth. Simply asserting something based on your perspective is not science and is not truth.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
@sinhaserpente ok so um first of all your assuming I believe something that hasn't even been mention in this discussion...ok I don't know what might have lead you there but back on topic...
of course evolution doesn't work by chance cause only a "certain group" of species chosen get a "mutation" and it's only a "certain" type of mutation during a "certain time" yea....
and just cause it looks like evolution and works like evolution, doesn't always mean it's evolution"
astrothousand98 5 months ago
@astrothousand98 Well if you don't accept evolution that only really leaves creationism/ID. I made some assumptions and asked for your input. Anyway, coming back on track, you yourself said "To well thought out for just chance" where you clearly call evolution chance. Now you say "of course evolution doesn't work by chance." So you yourself negate your earlier argument and we now both agree that evolution does not work based on chance.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. "just cause it looks like evolution and works like evolution, doesn't always mean it's evolution" Now you are catching on. If we simply look at two similar animals and say: They look similar, they must have evolved from a common ancestor, that would be a broad inference. However, over the past 150 years we have accumulated mountains of evidence that proves evolutions. As I mentioned: fused chromosomes, ERVs,, vestigial organs, DNA genetics, etc.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
Cont. Add to that the mountains of fossils that clearly illustrate a progressive evolutionary chain and that correlates precisely with all the other data and you have no other choice but to accept the fact. While I have not yet read it, Professor Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth" might be a good read for you as it should expose you to the majority of methods and proofs for evolution accompanied by lucid analogies and examples.
sinhaserpente 5 months ago
@sinhaserpente First of all it's either one or the other? Just a tad ignorant... I was being sarcastic with the whole chance thing (that's why I had quotations) evolution is completely chance...A random group gets a mutation, it's a random mutation, and the time this happens is random. For a few hundred years we thought the atom was the smallest structure, and then we find electrons, protons, neutrons...The book is too biased from what I've learned after hearing about it a few years back...
astrothousand98 5 months ago
Comment removed
astrothousand98 5 months ago
thats racist against penguins lol
TheInsertNameHere123 10 months ago
Man that bitch is gross. If she interviewed me i'd stand up and walk away without looking back.
SarethZhukov314 10 months ago
@SarethZhukov314 That "bitch" is an MTF Transgender. You ignorant prick.
Lesbatr0n 10 months ago
Comment removed
SarethZhukov314 10 months ago
@SarethZhukov314 Wow man, really? Like how old are you? Whatever, you're way too ignorant. So I'm not going to waste my time. You're not even worth it.
Lesbatr0n 9 months ago
@Lesbatr0n Okay, no one was asking you to. You're the one who messaged me lol. Go eat heshes pussy out if you're so sensitive about it. I bet it taste like salmon.
SarethZhukov314 9 months ago
@SarethZhukov314 I'm aware that no one asked me to, I'm standing up for what I believe in. I'm not trying to start a fight or anything. Let's just leave it at that.
Lesbatr0n 9 months ago
@Lesbatr0n no shit intolerant fuck....
MegaMushroomDude 9 months ago
@MegaMushroomDude How am I an intolerant fuck?
Lesbatr0n 9 months ago
rofl wtf "how would penguins have sex?"
anyway it was cute :3
RandomCommenter707 10 months ago
Isn't it the job for the male penguins to take care of the egg because the females leave or does that only follow up with Emperor Penguins???
BackPeddlingNoob 10 months ago
I really did not mean to put that. I had forgot about that and it was my friend that put that because they wanted to get on YouTube and they needed my account. Haha, I didn't know he put that!
headbanger1997 11 months ago
3:14 i love how the guy almost falls back laughing
cammyNpammy 11 months ago
aww... thats so cute ^^
vampiresrock3000 1 year ago
theres a certain reasons they shake they're 'fanny's'. its called DRYING OFF
sandvichNATION 1 year ago
i saw a book on this at borders....
i laughed so hard my sister had to punch
me in the stomach.....
moonismylove 1 year ago
WHY GOD WHY my fav animal wallowing in the sinners way?
exmo7 1 year ago
@exmo7 Chick/man, they can barely think past reproduction and eating, they go by pheromones. Seriously. >.>
LunarLogie 9 months ago
@exmo7 Shut up. Homosexuals have been waiting for same-sex marriage to be legal. In World War II, Hitler would kill homosexuals, Jews, blacks, old people, kids, and women.
OKittilotO 9 months ago
So, why should they be just hurt more! You're a terrible person if you think they should still suffer, you terrible people.
OKittilotO 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT!!!! GOD DAMN GAY QUEERS TALKING ABOUT PENGUINS FUCKING EACH OTHER GOD DAMNNNNNNNN. AND ATHAT FUCKING CROSS DRESSER PEACE OF SHIT CAN SUCK A CHOAD!!!!!!!! GOD DAMNNNNNN
headbanger1997 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@headbanger1997 You Mad Bro?
robinvpersie11 1 year ago
@headbanger1997 you should grow up. this video isn't some "gay queer" making stuff up. educate yourself. it's a TRUE story. and a beautiful one. nature takes care of itself. whether it's the way you think it should or not.
abrowning0421 11 months ago
'He just appreciates a good looking female when he sees one" That one is one freaky sounding/looking female
theforgottenloved1 1 year ago
Ugh. It's pointless arguing with haters. There will always be blind, ignorant people who are still living in the past.
Gazble 1 year ago 12
look at that fucking tranny! bahaha
tPACoO 1 year ago
@tPACoO that poor zoo keeper. that guy is freaked the fuck out, look at him lean away from the tranny whenever he's talking
God Bless you Rob Gramsey the zoo keeper
tPACoO 1 year ago
it's you whos the siner..god said don't judge others..so why are you judging them..and its not a sin to be gay but acting like one is..in other words..a man that dresses as a woman (you finish the sentence).. ,.l.,
yeahyeah1020 1 year ago
@yeahyeah1020 absolutley. I am a sinner. All have fallen short, none righteous, not one. The problem is in your worldview. Humanism has pervaded the culture to say that each is entitled to structure their own version of truth. I believe in absolute truth, which is found in the bible. The Word, outlines beautifully the design for the family and relations with others. Stray from that design and consequences ensue. Laws of harvest - you will reap what you sow more than you sow.
sandworm3 1 year ago
On what basis could you possibly say that a same sex couple is more qualified than a committed mother and father, husband and wife to form the family unit? You stray from the blueprint. On what foundation are you proposing to build?
sandworm3 1 year ago
@sandworm3 No one said same-sex couples were better. >.> Even though, in most cases, they are.
LunarLogie 9 months ago
@sandworm3 blueprint?? your belief not mine!! on what basis could you possibly say that heterosexual couples are more qualified?? in my opinion, both are qualified.
gambitx4000 8 months ago
@gambitx4000 incorrect. the blueprint for the family unit is a loving mother and father - not two fathers or two mothers.
sandworm3 8 months ago
@sandworm3 once again, Your belief not mine! your belief is based on that little fantasy book called bible. and people who follow that as a blueprint for life have a very close mind in my opinion, hence im not surprised to hear you say such very ignorant comments.
gambitx4000 8 months ago
@gambitx4000 Your belief doesn't matter in the scope of family design and unit. The design is set forth for the family and you and your sin agenda have no authority to re-write it.
sandworm3 8 months ago
@sandworm3 the scope of family design and unit according to whom?? dont make me laugh you intolerant mental midget. the few gay families i know function a lot better than any of the heterosexual couples i know. leave you prejudice aside and educate yourself. what a tool!
gambitx4000 8 months ago
@gambitx4000 Let's just put things in perspective. Who is intolerant? For thousands of years the family has been a mother and a father, both with very specific roles. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me intolerant. It actually makes you the intolerant to anything contrary to your reprobate minded agenda. I better bold that (REPROBATE MIND).
sandworm3 8 months ago
@sandworm3 For many years blacks were slaves, and that was ok, for thousands of years women had basically no rights, peasants had no rights either, do you follow the pattern here? things change, people evolve. get with the program dude. the only institution where discrimination exist and it's ok with its members is the church. where women basically have no way of reaching the top, they're treated like second class citizens. the only thing im intolerant of is ignorant people like you.
gambitx4000 8 months ago