I will come down to ur level of scientific understanding and will assume that either mutations are mutual or harmful equally. With literally NO mutations with a positive outcome in its entirety. How the fuck does that prove evolution? Because for evolution to occur not only does the mutation have to be positive it would have to change geneticmaterial and add new DNA material lol even in an atheist standpoint such probability is lower than a belief in God.
ALL animals, birds, etc are divided into THREE main categories: Carnivore- Omnivore - Herbivore ; You rely on 'Natural selection up the evolution tree over millions years, how did a cockatoo make a change to an eagle and eat meat? how long did it take? when their life span is only aprox 80 years. - Didn't the first have to be perfect to fit into the ECO system and to take their preordained place in Nature..
For everyone else who didn't get a chance to bask in the wonderment of Unity4allhumans' stupidity; this genius creatard said that "mutations do not change the DNA".
For some reason reading creationist websites (his version of "research") led him to the bizarre idea that nothing can possibly change DNA.....
Needless to say my steadfast faith in humanity is really being questioned here....
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
i have always wondered how an organism, when subjected to a change in its natural environment, adapts to it on a genetical level.
is it like when the demands on the organism change the DNA comes up with an improvement or dormant genes switch on if there is a environmental condition that make having that trait favorable over others?
because random mutations take so much time that it seems unlikely the favorable trait will just develop by random mutations, just too many variables in a DNA strain.
Mutations are the ultimate source of genetic variation b/c they alter the order of bases in the nucleotides of DNA.
Genetic variation can ALSO be produced by the recombination of chromosomes that occurs during sexual reproduction (independent assortment), crossing-over & randomn segregation during meiosis, random fertilization, transposed genetic elements (endogenous retroviruses, LINEs, SINEs, etc.).
To undertsand this in fully you will need to study 2nd/3rdyr genetics units at uni.
@GnosticHumanist Trust me i understand it more than you. I wonder if you can give me one single evidence of any known mutation which added new dna information... Good luck you wont find it. Cause mutations do not and can not cause new DNA material. So from mutation nothing can evolve,, You are following dawrin like christians follow Jesus.. BLINDLY.
Actually I'm about to start a PhD in evolutionary biology; I actually bothered to get an education, unlike yourself.
There are many ways of adding new info to a genome, the most obvious being a gene duplication.
Eg:
Yeast was put in a very low sugar medium. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
@LazaaMMA but youre also under the assumption the earth is billions of years and humans 2 million if that was so no life could sustain on this planet there woulde be an uncountable amount of fossils and oil and the human population would be passed the trillions look at the evolution scale since the first humans existed it might hurt yur head its so stupid.... there are no vestigial organs... lol design flaws..?
@909Kunfused909 Well modern human - Homo sapiens having modern cognitive and especially your superstitious capacities is only about 200.000 years old. And life prior to the domestication of animals and the start of agriculture was very harsh. There weren't any supermarkets 10000 ago. People died, only the fittest survived.
Fossils just don't spawn so easily, we're lucky to actual have some.
@LazaaMMA I just love you people and the way you interpret "evidence" I can show you 10 skeletons of cats that all lived in the last hundred years.. line them up in order from smallest to largest shazzaaaam holy fuck evolution!
@LazaaMMA or the more logical route the eye is just getting worst which would make a lot more sense cause we can see everything in the world i meen EVERYTHING is going in a downward spiral the opposite of evolution maybe it was prefect but our sin like it says in the bible has destroyed us but I cant see that its getting worst or better or demonstrate it and test it so that couldnt be science eh..? remind you of anything..?? "cough" evolution "cough"
@LazaaMMA "you people' tee hee theory of gravity isnt fact gravity is we feel it its a law we just dont understand it and how to fully comprehend it.. but its really sad that evolution is a"FACT" when it isnt but hey were just repeating history... flat earth.... earth the center of the universe to name a couple even though there wasnt much fact just speculation but it was FACT
@unity4allhumans: do you really believe fossils hold no DNA? Check out chromosome 2 in humans and all the data that supports the claim that we evolved from apes. It's funny when people claim other people are deluded because they themselves already hold such a strong view that anything countering their view causes them to plug their ears.
Um, a scientific theory is a vast collection of substantial evidence supporting a claim made not by scientists who want to debunk god or intelligent design ideas, but claims brought together from the collection of vast data. notice, intelligent design is a mere idea with no logical proof, not even drawings.
Just show me the real transitional fossils !!!! How are drawings proof ?! Evolution is such a joke! Science is real and science is what proves evolution wrong! Darwin was wrong! Theory is not fact! Seriously wake up!
i would like more information on the egg laying to placenta, at some stage a reptile/mammal laid an egg to its offspring that would give birth instead? Do we have any knowledge of how this transition occurred?
the creation brigade asks for one or two transitional fossils and you give them a butt-load... nice work DonExodus2...
P.S.; the 172 people who disliked this video probably don't even want to see the evidence for themselves... typical relgious fundamentalist's response...
This is good, but you have to realize that most creationists don't have the attention span to read this material. I am not making a joke at the expense of creationists; i am an educator. This won't make an impact unless you include a voice over and preferably so highlighting. AronRa usually does it right though he occasionally buries people in a torrent of jargon. Good resource though.
I clicked this to see an informative video on evolution, and I got not only that, but one of my favorite classic rock songs, by Grand Funk Railroad! Thanks, DonExodus!
Most people know very little about the racist side of the theory of evolution. According to the views put forward by Darwin in this book, human races represent different stages of evolution, and some races have evolved and progressed more than others. Some of them, in fact, were pretty much at the same level as apes. Darwin claimed that the "struggle for survival" also applied between human races.
A small copy of Tyrannosaurus rex, for long the subject of Darwinist transitional form propaganda, has been found in northwest China. Just as one might expect from Darwinists, the fossil, given the name Raptorex kriegsteini, was first depicted in the press as the ancestor of T. Rex.
But when more details of the fossil were released, it was realized that it actually eliminated all the Darwinist speculation about T. Rex. In Darwinists own words, the new fossil dealt a lethal blow to the theory of evolution.
The 125-million-year-old Raptorex lived fully 60 million years before T. Rex, and was 100 times lighter than it. T. Rex was 15 meters long and weighed 4 tones, while Raptorex was 3 meters long and weighed just 60 kg.
Despite being 60 million years older than T. Rex, the fossil possessed exactly the same anatomical features. To put it another way, IT NEVER CHANGED OVER THE COURSE OF 60 MILLION YEARS, but bore all the EXACT SAME complex features as T. Rex. In other words, the animal was nothing more than a different sized member of the same species as T. Rex that lived 125 million years ago.
@Unity4allhumans Evolution has never meant that all members of all groups of every population change. It indicates what change CAN happen and notes that it does happen and that at times it will happen to a portion of a population in a separate region because the different environmental pressures of the different region tends to remove members that are like the original. Sponges haven't changed much in 500million years. Change only comes when your species is no longer fit for the environment.
@Unity4allhumans Thus since no evolution present in fossil record and DNA technology really voids in a circumstance where your comparing living creatures against dead fossils THAT most probably have no DNA to begin with.
@Unity4allhumans did you just say the "dead" fossils didnt have DNA when it was alive? or are you saying there put there by satan? are you not even watching any of these videos?
No phylogenetic analysis has accounted for each and every gene. Even if we don't know what a gene does we can still compare sequence identity to other taxa to test the predictions of evolution
Making a tree of how families of genes have unfolded correspond to the tree of life.
For everyone else who didn't get a chance to bask in the wonderment of Unity4allhumans' stupidity; this genius creatard said that "mutations do not change the DNA".
For some reason reading creationist websites (his version of "research") led him to the bizarre idea that nothing can possibly change DNA.....
Needless to say my steadfast faith in humanity is really being questioned here....
@GnosticHumanist The only one that is failing and in denial is YOU, lmao 99% OF MUTATIONS ARE HARMFUL and 1% have no effect. NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE BENEFICIAL MUTATION HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED.
THUS Mutations HAVE NO ABILITY TO ADD A LIFE FORM’S DNA ANY NEW INFORMATION THAT DOES NOT ALREADY EXIST.
A microcephalic kid with an extra chromosome has more of a grasp on reality that you do.
MOST mutations are NEUTRAL with remainder either being deletarious or beneficial. Of course this all depends on the particular environment. We see beneficial mutations all the time; drug resistant bacteria, peppered-moths changing their color to suit a changing environment, those are just two off the top of my head.
& you've already been humiliated by your "no adding info" fail.
Where do u get ur info from up yer ass im guessing. Its a known fact that genetic mutations are predominantly harmful. Observations confirm that mutations overwhelmingly cause a loss of information, not a net gain, as evolution requires. Any rare case beneficial mutation which are usually found in a (closed environment) may lead to a positive outcome but still does not add any new information to the genome.
I get my information from professors of science and their findings in scientific papers; and they state that nearly all genetic mutations are NEUTRAL in effect. This is obvious when you actually think about it.
DON'T AVOID THE QUESTION: Why are you arguing about a topic you clearly have not the slighest understanding of?
@GnosticHumanist Its clearly you that has a lack of understanding especially when your persisting to present infactual data such as all mutations being mutual... No scientific data composed by proffessors would support your stance. So maybe instead of asking me to shut it due to lack of comprehension u need to look in the mirror and tell it to your self. At least i am not trying to alter facts and present them as truth.
@Unity4allhumans You ignorance on this subject is overwhelming. You must be the only person that knows that 99% of mutations have a negative impact on the individual. The rest of us biologist see that most are neutral and are neither selected for or against. Look at the human population and great genetic diversity and gene expression. With all the different genetic information expressed in humans, most are natural. Get up to speed on the subject you are obviously not.
@yeudh The irony here is that i am the only one using fact while ur just attacking me personally. So the ignorance is on u. The majority of mutations are negative if you have scientific data to prove ur fabricated statement bring it. Because i keep looking back at multiple scientific sources and they all saying the same damn thing. And even if what u say is true which it is not. Please present me with evidence that shows any mutations which adds new genetic material.
@Unity4allhumans You keep showing your ignorance on the subject. Here is something simple for a simple mind. Eye color is a phenotype that is directed by allele frequency on the chromosome. This area has undergone mutations, the allele frequency is not the same across the genotype, this is by definition a mutation and one that has a natural effect on the phenotype. Read Andreas Wagners paper on the Robustness & Evolvability A Paradox Resolved 2007 Royal Society.
@yeudh If im ignorant your a frikken idiot. You went into an entire different subject how ever your example only strengthens my opinion on Darwins theory of evolution. This is because NO MATTER WHAT happens an eye is and eye... it may vary in colour size and other physcal characteristics but it wont change into a mouth you blinded baboon.
So this BEGS the question: why are you arguing about a topic you clearly have not the slighest understanding of?
Basic human decency would have it that if know less about biology and chemistry than the average grade 7 kid at school, you would not go around telling scientists who have dedicated their lives to the subject that they're wrong merely because it conflicts with your bizarre religious mythology.
I mean you clearly have never even seen a biology textbook.
Stephen Brusatte from the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who studied the fossil, made the following statement:
Much of what we thought we knew about tyrannosaur evolution turns out to be simplistic or out and out wrong.[1]
Here we have an animal thats one ninetieth or one hundredth of the size of Tyrannosaurus Rex but with all the signature features that were thought to be necessary adaptations for a large-bodied predator
"Favored races" emerged victorious from this struggle. According to Darwin, the favored race were the Caucasians, while he unwisely regarded the other nations the Europeans were fighting at the time, and the Turkish nation in particular, as supposedly "half-ape nations."
Darwin understood better than you that diversity is what makes a robust genome. You might actually not sound so stupid if you learned what evolution actually taught instead of fabricating these straw men.
@ExtantFrodo This is the fossil of a jawbone found in 1994 in Hadar, Ethiopia, together with fossils of Australopithecus afarensis. The fossil was dated to 2.3 -3.5 million years old and displayed characteristics belonging to Homo sapiens, the humanspecies alive today.
@Unity4allhumans Homo habilis (pronounced /ˈhoʊmoʊ ˈhæbəlɪs/) ("handy man") is a species of the genus Homo, which lived from approximately 1.4-2.3 million years ago at the beginning of the Pleistocene period] The discovery and description of this species is credited to both Mary and Louis Leakey, who found fossils in Tanzania, East Africa, between 1962 and 1964. Homo habilis (or possibly H. rudolfensis) is the earliest known species of the genus Homo. APE.
Don't take my word for it although im very happy to spoon feed you because i want to prevent COMMUNISM/MATERIALISM dominating western world.(if its not too late already.)
They have caused enough hate and division. THEY NEED TO LEAVE FACTS ALONE.
I find old bones pretty boring stuff. Too much room for mistake, too much room for misinterpretation. I prefer DNA analysis which is amenable to rigorous mathematically precise comparative observations.
If you find something interesting like a Cambrian bunny then let me know. Cuz until you can refute the ERVs and pseudo genes, degenerate codons and everything else that puts us squarely in kinship with chimps I'll remain convinced that evolution is the best explanation for what we observe.
@Unity4allhumans Darwin didn't know about DNA exactly, but he did correctly surmise that cells had some means of using information. LOL, taking their word for it? Open your eyes dude you can go study at any university and see it for your self. You won't regret it. I'd sooner take the words of people who are constantly trying to prove each other wrong than the ravings of ill equipped desert nomads.
What makes you say it can not be precisely compared? The sequences are digital.
@ExtantFrodo SO NO DNA NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE IN DARWINS DAY. BUT YET IT WAS TREATED AS FACTS THEN? YOUR REALLY DELUDED IF YOU CAN NOT SEE HOW FAKE THIS THEORY IS!
@Unity4allhumans If you recall, Mendeleev's table of the elements was also quite incomplete. That didn't mean it wasn't a great descriptor and indicator of where the undiscovered elements would go when we found them. Indeed it was used to calculate the properties of the missing elements which facilitated their refinement and extraction and eventual confirmation of their existence. You could learn a thing or two if you weren't so closed minded.
@Unity4allhumans we have documented mutation of genes into beneficial new genes. That is as a leaky faucet. Where is the mechanism to take back these beneficial mutations and revert to the earlier version? What data bank is used to compare? Where is the earlier version retained for reconversion to the earlier form? Creationist have addressed not one of these issues their proposal implies.
And perhaps critically: Is it intelligent to remove beneficial genes?
According to the classic scenario of whale evolution, mammals dwelling on the land are considered to have moved into the water. The fact is, however, that an examination of Indohyus shows that it already lived in water, and its dental structure shows that it lived a herbivorous existence.
This feature of Indohyus represents a major contradiction of those evolutionists who say, in their classical accounts, that terrestrial mammals moved into the sea in order to find prey. The New Scientist article said this on the subject:
The research also challenges the idea that cetaceans the order that includes whales, dolphins, and porpoises split from their land-dwelling forebears and returned to the water to hunt aquatic prey. . . This suggests that Indohyus was a shallow water wader already, and had not returned to the water simply to hunt live prey.
None of these features characterize all modern and extinct cetaceans [whales} In addition, all of these characters are found in some mammals unrelated to cetaceans
Those making these claims about Indohyus also suggest that it shares a common dental structure with whales. However, whales are carnivores. Indohyus, on the other hand, was a herbivore, with totally different feeding patterns. That being the case, it is obvious that the similarity constructed between the two does not stand on any sound foundations.
Obtaining a food source is one reason for migration. Avoidance of predators is another. Perhaps you would try to consider ALL factors just because they are relevant.
Despite all the Darwinist speculation, it appears from even a brief examination of the Anchiornis Huxleyi fossil that it represents a species of bird similar to those living today. The fossil in question exhibits fully avian features in terms of skull and general anatomy.
As they strive to account for the supposed evolution of two wings, Darwinists now have to account for third and fourth wings not observed in dinosaurs, nor flying squirrels nor birds. This of course deals a profound and severe blow to the Darwinist claim of evolution from bipedal dinosaurs.
are you fucking nutz? Look at early bird feathering patterns. The 4 wing versions were obviously tried and failed and consigned to the garbage heap. Never the less you seem to have no clue at all that evolution wouldn't likely produce 3 winged creatures. Small changes over time dude not giant leaps supporting untenable designs.
A fossil discovered in China the other day was quickly taken up as a four-winged bird in the Darwinist media. Darwinists right away claimed that this fossil might be the ancestor of birds. As ever, they immediately gave the animal a name. They baptized it Anchiornis huxleyi, in memory of Thomas Huxley, an atheist, Darwinist and 32nd degree freemason known as Darwins bulldog.
This new fossil, found in strata dating back 151-161 million years, was older than Archaeopteryx. But from the Darwinist perspective it exhibited no imaginary transitional form characteristics that it needed to go to Archaeopteryx. With its four wings, as Darwinists described it, this life form represent a huge puzzle in terms of Darwinist theory.
This approximately 160-million-year-old life form possesses the same features as present-day birds with muffed feet. It represents an extinct member of the species that comprise this family. This is so obvious that any scientist looking at pictures of it will easily see this clear resemblance.
@ExtantFrodo Recent research shows just 2.5% of DNA is different between people and mice, and only 1% different from a chimpanzee.6 A UK chief scientist said, "We share half our genes [DNA] with the banana."7 This convoluted field of molecular evolutionary biology is obviously becoming more puzzling--??not less--??
@Unity4allhumans Your figures are meaningless out of context. DNA studies come in all forms. Expressed DNA, Raw sequence, protein cos. The stuff that confuses you is stuff you chose for that purpose. You could, for instance study the business about ERVs and how that evidence is relevant and incontrovertible. You have yet to say how evolution could possibly NOT happen. Given all that we know about it you'd have some mighty twisty explaining to do.
@ExtantFrodo You fail to see the critical facts that Archaeopteryx was introduced as the bird oldest ancestor.
Anchiornis huxleyi is 160 million years old and much older than ARCHAEOPTERYX.
DINO BIRD has long been thrown out as the evidence of evolution because HUXLY crushed it alive.
The fact that M. gui is 20 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, the oldest known fossil bird, makes the evolutionary scenario ascribed to it totally groundless.
@Unity4allhumans LOL, you really are an idiot. We find an older predecessor (18 million years) and that blows your mind? How does it falsify the theory of evolution? You are grasping at nothing at all. not even straws. We expect to keep finding more fossils as we continue to search. What the hell else would you expect?
@Unity4allhumans The fossil you're looking for is Archeopterex and it's even mentioned in this video. Also, watch a video in my favorites called "the Archeopterex challenge" and it'll debunk the claim that Archeopterex was fully bird.
@Unity4allhumans said "WHERE IS THE TRANSITIONS BETWEEN THE 2 BETTER YET BETWEEN DINASOUR AND BIRD."
Birds ARE a type of dinosaur you dumb cunt.
" Paleontologists regard birds as the only clade of dinosaurs to have survived the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 65.5 Ma ago."
Please refrain from using the internet, or communicating in any manner until you learn that preaching about topicd you know absolutely NOTHING about is pathetic and wastes everyone's time.
@Unity4allhumans You may not realize this, but even an animal like the platypus is an intermediate form... mammal: gives milk and has hair... reptile: has no nipples, it's limbs come out from the side of the body, has only one orifice for urination, defecation and reproduction, has the ear orifices at the same level as reptiles, lays eggs and is poisonous. In fact, it has a lot more reptilian traits than mammal.
You don't get it. See theropods gave rise to other groups before going extinct. That is to say that there were other groups of theopods that were still able to make a living-- while a subset of theropods gave rise to other taxa. There's no requirement that the new taxa completely replace the groups that came before. Like amphibians came from fish, but there are still fish because it's possible for that group to continue to thrive
@ExtantFrodo BTW when you want to argue with me atleast use the name of the specimen in question. My mind is OPEN. I want to know the truth. EVOLUTION is a LIE.
AND under the MODEL even after several attempts to make it fit with scientific findings is causing us to lose alot valuable information.
WE need to throw evolution and faith based ideologies out of our class rooms.
evolution using our valuble resource has got us no where for over 200 years.
Darwinists tried to publicize the fossil named Ida as the so-called ancestor of human beings in May 2009. This fossil that is presented to be the so-called ancestor of human beings through wide speculation of mainstream media did in fact belong to a lemur.
In his 1868 book Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (The History of Natural Creation) Ernst Haeckel suggested that he had made various comparisons using human, monkey and dog embryos. The drawings he produced consisted of nearly identical embryos. On the basis of these drawings, Haeckel then suggested that the life forms involved had common origins.
That was the supposed scientific work (!) that Darwin citied as a reference in his book The Descent of Man. In fact, some people realized that Haeckels illustrations were a distortion even before Darwin wrote his book. Following the exposure of the fraud, Haeckel himself admitted the huge scientific fraud he had perpetrated
Okay, you can stop copy/pasting from creationist apologetics sites now. We got the message: you think that just copy/pasting stuff without even trying to understand what's being said is going to achieve anything. We applaud your dedication to ignorance. Now fuck off.
BTW this guy asks people to refute his fossil evidence thats what i am doing and doing it well might i add. THERE IS MORE FAKE EVOLUTION EVIDENCE ON ITS WAY. STAY TUNE.
In 1949, Kenneth Oakley of the British Museum's Paleoanthropology Department sought permission to perform a new dating technique, the fluoride test, on some old fossils. When it was carried out on the Piltdown Man fossil, it was revealed that the jawbone contained no fluoride. This showed that it had been underground for no more than a few years. The skull contained a low level of fluoride, making it only a few thousand years old.
These specimens were given the name of Piltdown Man, an age of 500,000 was estimated for them, and they were exhibited in various museums as incontrovertible proof of evolution. For some 40 years, they were the subject of many scientific papers, analyses and reconstructions. Some 500 academics from various universities all over the world prepared doctoral theses on the subject of Piltdown Man.
Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species
Maybe the pieces do fit together nicely, but the reality is they start out with a very damaged specimen, and they end up with something very similar to an australopithecine [an imaginary human-like group including Lucy]". "It's very difficult not to make them look like something you have in your mind if there's any chance of play"
You still don't get it, do you? Evolutionary theory isn't based on fossils. It's based on the matching nested hierarchies in biology. Fossils are helpful in establishing genealogies, but even if there had been found *no* transitional fossils, the theory would still be valid in the absence of any contradictory evidence.
The Darwinist Tim White from the University of California and his team, who examined Ardi and suggested that it might be the missing link in the supposed evolution of man, had to make this admission:
"There are no apparent features sufficiently unique to warrant the exclusion of Ar. ramidus as being ancestral to Australopithecus,
published the results in Nature magazine: The Archaeoraptor fossil was announced as a missing link and purported to be possibly the best evidence since Archaeopteryx that birds did, in fact, evolve from certain types of carnivorous dinosaur . . . But Archaeoraptor was revealed to be a forgery in which bones of a primitive bird and a non-flying dromaeosaurid dinosaur had been combined. . . .
« We conclude that Archaeoraptor represents two or more species »
And Archaeoraptor was one of about six fossils that were discovered to be false. Six out of hundreds. And by whom were these six discovered to be false, you might ask? By creationists, screaming "NO, THAT CAN'T BE TRUE! GODDIDDIT!"? No, by scientists, who compared the fossil against what they knew, and decided something was weird about the fossil.
Strictly though fossil evidence is one line of evidence. Nothing really "proves" a theoretical framework. This is why creationists can always move the goalposts.
We know theories are valid because they meet predictions. They're just useful
@LFPBHAT: Thanks and youre right as well. 1 fossil, 1 still photo of evidence, does not PROVE a theory. U need the whole collection of still photos in chronological order, to flip thru. Then U will see the real picture. I like the "MOVIE" analogy, it enables our human minds to condense geological time frames down to something we can almost visualize.
Youre right when you point out: weaving other lines of evidence with fossils makes evolution undeniable. But the goalposts will still be moved :(
I just wanted to say I love reading the comments on these types of videos. They give me a small piece of advice, and enough information for me to look for more.
Evolution is true. no denying that. The fact many animals share the same traits while not being in the same genealogic tree is a gain for evolution. It shows that under the same circumstances, the environment will tend to select the same traits for natural selection.
"The fact many animals share the same traits while not being in the same genealogic tree is a gain for evolution."
Not according to Gavin de Beer: "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was MISPLACED; for such inheritance CANNOT be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as HOPELESS."
Identity of genes and identity of traits are two matters. While many traits will be common in creatures with the same genes, the environment also determines a lot.
One good example: The marsupial dog, found near other marsupials, but with many canine traits. Analysis of his genes made him, while really dog-like, totally unrelated to other canines
I mentioned it a gain for scientists have a way making mistakes that are really useful to humanity.
I guess we now know Tiktaalik is one less 'transitional' fossil...
"Ancient Four-Legged Beasts Leave Their Mark" (ScienceNOW, January 6, 2010)
"Researchers have uncovered the earliest evidence of four-legged animals. Footprints and tracks preserved in the mud of an abandoned quarry in southeastern Poland date back 395 million years, UPENDING accepted thinking about when and where land animals first emerged...
Yes, but isn't convergent evolution as a whole rather problematic? After all, if there's no common ancestor between bats and whales, how did the process of evolution produce the same feature of echolocation via the same genetic mechanism in two completely different species?
I like how Wiki sums it up, "Convergence is difficult to quantify..." That's an understament.
There was a common ancestor between bats and whales, its just it didn't have echolocation.
Most of the time taxa find similar ways to respond to the same pressures. In something as constrained as hearing in vertebrates having accrued shifts in one single protein towards a common result isn't too unusual. If there's only a few ways to reach echolocation from gradual shifts then you'll tend to get the same result each time.
Convergence like other terms is especially hard to quantify. It is really only intended as an assessment. It's like saying "the pocket gopher is the best all around worm eater of north america, its abilities are well rounded"
That could be a useful statement that could be difficult to quantify. It's more a quality of something.
It's really not problematic because if the claim of natural selection is that populations become adapted to their environments then the prediction is that similar environments will produce similar effects.
Comparing the legless lizard with snakes with caecillians could be very quantatively difficult since they diverged a 100 million years apart. They could use radicallly different genetic means of disabling legs so it would be like comparing apples and oranges. No objective genetic standard
Maybe the echolocation thing is a bad example. It doesn't fossilize well in either. They've yet to find flying bat transitional fossils and the whale echolocation system involves the fleshy "melon" on their head which doesn't preserve.
The natural history of the two might never be known. I'm alright with that though. Some things we may never know.
Kinda picked a bad trait as an example. It will probably be at least 10 years before we can try to reconstruction things genetically.
"In some of the prints, individual digits can be made out. That means land animals already had feet 9 million years BEFORE the finlike structures of Tiktaalik and Panderichthys. In addition, some of the tracks show an animal walking with a diagonal, coordinated gait impossible for finned creatures...
"Other paleontologists are taken aback by the discovery of the tracks. 'We thought we'd pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods,' says Jennifer Clack of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. 'We have to RETHINK the whole thing.'"
WOW! That's GREAT NEWS for evolution. You do know it doesn't disprove evolution or prove creationism. It just means we now have more information than before.
How? It's sure not too great for everyone who claims Tiktaalik's a tranistional form. And did you also say that about this article:
"Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links" (ScienceDaily, June 9, 2009)
"'For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from,' Ruben said. 'That's a pretty serious problem...'
tiktaalik is a transitional form. It obviously had ancestors. In the case of the specimen we've labeled tiktaalik it is a descendant of an older branch.
Reconstructing the ancient past is a hit or miss dicey proposition. We still don't see anything so far off timeline to raise any eyebrows.
"We still don't see anything so far off timeline to raise any eyebrows."
What? You don't think the fact that "land animals already had feet 9 million years BEFORE the finlike structures of Tiktaalik and Panderichthys" is a rather significant problem for the entire evolutionary timeline? Why else would Ms. Clack declare, "We have to RETHINK the whole thing"?
"You don't think the fact that "land animals already had feet 9 million years BEFORE the finlike structures of Tiktaalik and Panderichthys" is a rather significant problem for the entire evolutionary timeline?"
Nope. 9 million years is an eye blink in volutionary deep time. I'm surprised you ask.
what problems are those? What if birds evolved soon after the sea to land transition and they all evolved in parallel with dinosaurs? or a branch of them evolved into dinosaurs. This is would only be data pertinent to how the timelime of life evolved on earth. How would it affect anything we KNOW about evolution? You want to show m a cambrian bunny? Then earthly evolutionary models were completely wrong. That still doesn't alter that evolution does do what it's said to do.
I also like with Xu Xing said about Gigantoraptor:
"We thought previously that we had a relatively simple pattern - as dinosaurs became smaller in size they became more birdlike. Now, after the discovery of Gigantoraptor, things get more complicated. That doesn't mean birds aren't descended from dinosaurs, but the transition is very complicated."
("Massive Birdlike Dinosaur Unearthed in China," National Geographic, June 13, 2007)
"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from"
This is basically "If we evolved from monkeys then how come there are still monkeys and if you can't see why this isn't a problem then you're too far gone.
Your interpretation of that article leaves it all to confirmation bias.
"Your interpretation of that article leaves it all to confirmation bias."
It's very obvious you did not read the article. If you had, you would have noticed that I did not say that, but rather Ruben did!!
"'For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from,' RUBEN SAID. 'That's a pretty SERIOUS PROBLEM, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories'"
That's what confirmation bias is. You take one quote out of an article and interpret it to conform to your preconcieved notions are.
What it means is not that birds aren't descended from dinosaurs but instead the quoted is referring to a minority opinion that birds are descended from archosaurs not theropods.(both close branches of dinosaurs)
Can you see how that sentence could be construed either way? What he meant is what I explained above.
The article says, "When the team members compared the MSY sequences, they got a SURPRISE. They found that the chimpanzee Y chromosome has LOST LOTS of genes that are present in humans..."
How come they didn't say humans gained these genes?
yeah this is quite common when they did the corn genome project they found that lineages
gain and lose genes quite commonly. And that was just between varieties of corn that humans artifically selected from a common ancestor over thousands of years
That corn genome project is really the most illustrative model because it's the only time that a bunch of closely related varieties of the same species have been completely sequenced. There's just not enough money to do it in others
"In Bats and Whales, Convergence in Echolocation Ability Runs Deep" (ScienceDaily, Jan 27, 2010)
Stephen Rossiter of the University of London, says, "However, it is generally assumed that most of these so-called convergent traits have arisen by different genes or different mutations. Our study shows that a complex trait - echolocation - has in fact evolved by IDENTICAL genetic changes in bats and dolphins."
Its useless to argue with the creationists, They either deny the present fossils, or demand even more fossils. Yet they deny it all together because they don't believe that our planet is much, much older than 6,000 years.
1) Because creatures have similar features and occur at different times doesn't show that they are related. Example: the common placental dog and the extinct marsupial Tasmanian dog. These two creatures are obviously not related (that's a different topic) but are so closely similar that biologists cannot distinguish the two except for the birth processes.
So if the theory of evolution were so flawed, why didn't "evolutionists" mistake the thylacine for a dog? I'm not an expert, but from what I can tell, the only part of the skeletal structure that more than superficially looks canine is the skull, which still features "two prominent holes in the palate bone, which are characteristic of marsupials generally." (Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale)
I was using the thylacine to illustrate a point. The point was, some species descend, according to evolutionists, from completely different branches in the evolutionary tree. When two animals appear to be related, but aren't, evolution classifies it as mere "convergence" and dismisses it.
Convergence shows that common features doesn't mean relation and because a creature occurs at a later point in the timeline, doesn't mean that it is descended from an earlier organism.
You haven't addressed my point. How is it that "evolutionists" can tell convergence from true relation? Your very example acknowledges that the evolutionary tree has not been pieced together simply by using superficial similarities between fossils.
The evolutionists themselves have labeled the convergence. A quick google search will explain convergence to you if it really needs to be done. As an evolutionist, you should know your own terms, not have an intelligent design theorist explain them to you.
Don't condescend me. I obviously wasn't asking you what convergence was. What I'm asking you is, if "evolutionists" are simply drawing up the evolutionary tree based on superficial similarities between species, how do they know when similarities are a case of convergence? There must be more to the study of cladistics than you are letting on, or realize.
Convergence is based on the pre-accepted idea that evolution is true. If two creatures have distinct similarities but cannot possibly be related because it doesn't fit into the evolutionary time scheme then it is labeled as convergence. Creatures that would ordinarily be related and used as transitional fossils, are not because they do not agree with evolution. There are many examples.
Not only that, but the Discovery Institute are actively campaigning for (and I quote):
"Chapman(Bruce Chapman, Founder and President) is up front about having a social and political agenda. He sees design intelligence as a way to combat the growing reliance on genetic explanations for human behavior and what he sees as an undermining of personal responsibility."
This goes on further and just Wiki 'Discovery Institute' to read the whole thing. It is pretty sinister.
Me too. If they genuinely believed what they say, I would be easier on them, but its ALL for profit and political gain. They really don't believe any of it, they are not stupid, they are just corrupt to the point of no return...
they are afraid they won't be able to send people to jail or claim they should end up in hell just because their genetic makeup is different than normal. The prisons are full of those being discriminated against for their genetics albeit in a politically correct fashion. It's appalling.
If evolution the way it is fed to you was true. We would see millions and billion of positive mutation which add new DNA material to the genome.
Unity4allhumans 1 month ago
I will come down to ur level of scientific understanding and will assume that either mutations are mutual or harmful equally. With literally NO mutations with a positive outcome in its entirety. How the fuck does that prove evolution? Because for evolution to occur not only does the mutation have to be positive it would have to change geneticmaterial and add new DNA material lol even in an atheist standpoint such probability is lower than a belief in God.
Unity4allhumans 1 month ago
You only have ONE big problem:
ALL animals, birds, etc are divided into THREE main categories: Carnivore- Omnivore - Herbivore ; You rely on 'Natural selection up the evolution tree over millions years, how did a cockatoo make a change to an eagle and eat meat? how long did it take? when their life span is only aprox 80 years. - Didn't the first have to be perfect to fit into the ECO system and to take their preordained place in Nature..
dontpoisonme 2 months ago
@dontpoisonme no because they wernt eagles at first.
im not an expert but when birds where first evolving they needed to adapt to the environment so they could live.
the cockatoo adapted in an area where there was more fruit and trees theirfor it is a herbavoir.
the eagle adapted to a more mountainess reagion so it had to eat meat
hotmic12345678910 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Unity4allhumans
I see you deleted your comment.
For everyone else who didn't get a chance to bask in the wonderment of Unity4allhumans' stupidity; this genius creatard said that "mutations do not change the DNA".
For some reason reading creationist websites (his version of "research") led him to the bizarre idea that nothing can possibly change DNA.....
Needless to say my steadfast faith in humanity is really being questioned here....
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
achilles197474 3 months ago
i have always wondered how an organism, when subjected to a change in its natural environment, adapts to it on a genetical level.
is it like when the demands on the organism change the DNA comes up with an improvement or dormant genes switch on if there is a environmental condition that make having that trait favorable over others?
because random mutations take so much time that it seems unlikely the favorable trait will just develop by random mutations, just too many variables in a DNA strain.
paarsefrikandel 4 months ago in playlist Atheism issues
Mutations are the ultimate source of genetic variation b/c they alter the order of bases in the nucleotides of DNA.
Genetic variation can ALSO be produced by the recombination of chromosomes that occurs during sexual reproduction (independent assortment), crossing-over & randomn segregation during meiosis, random fertilization, transposed genetic elements (endogenous retroviruses, LINEs, SINEs, etc.).
To undertsand this in fully you will need to study 2nd/3rdyr genetics units at uni.
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
@GnosticHumanist Trust me i understand it more than you. I wonder if you can give me one single evidence of any known mutation which added new dna information... Good luck you wont find it. Cause mutations do not and can not cause new DNA material. So from mutation nothing can evolve,, You are following dawrin like christians follow Jesus.. BLINDLY.
Unity4allhumans 2 months ago
@Unity4allhumans
Actually I'm about to start a PhD in evolutionary biology; I actually bothered to get an education, unlike yourself.
There are many ways of adding new info to a genome, the most obvious being a gene duplication.
Eg:
Yeast was put in a very low sugar medium. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
@LazaaMMA but youre also under the assumption the earth is billions of years and humans 2 million if that was so no life could sustain on this planet there woulde be an uncountable amount of fossils and oil and the human population would be passed the trillions look at the evolution scale since the first humans existed it might hurt yur head its so stupid.... there are no vestigial organs... lol design flaws..?
909Kunfused909 7 months ago
@909Kunfused909 Well modern human - Homo sapiens having modern cognitive and especially your superstitious capacities is only about 200.000 years old. And life prior to the domestication of animals and the start of agriculture was very harsh. There weren't any supermarkets 10000 ago. People died, only the fittest survived.
Fossils just don't spawn so easily, we're lucky to actual have some.
SloveintzWend 7 months ago
@LazaaMMA I just love you people and the way you interpret "evidence" I can show you 10 skeletons of cats that all lived in the last hundred years.. line them up in order from smallest to largest shazzaaaam holy fuck evolution!
909Kunfused909 7 months ago
@LazaaMMA or the more logical route the eye is just getting worst which would make a lot more sense cause we can see everything in the world i meen EVERYTHING is going in a downward spiral the opposite of evolution maybe it was prefect but our sin like it says in the bible has destroyed us but I cant see that its getting worst or better or demonstrate it and test it so that couldnt be science eh..? remind you of anything..?? "cough" evolution "cough"
909Kunfused909 7 months ago
@LazaaMMA "you people' tee hee theory of gravity isnt fact gravity is we feel it its a law we just dont understand it and how to fully comprehend it.. but its really sad that evolution is a"FACT" when it isnt but hey were just repeating history... flat earth.... earth the center of the universe to name a couple even though there wasnt much fact just speculation but it was FACT
909Kunfused909 7 months ago
@unity4allhumans: do you really believe fossils hold no DNA? Check out chromosome 2 in humans and all the data that supports the claim that we evolved from apes. It's funny when people claim other people are deluded because they themselves already hold such a strong view that anything countering their view causes them to plug their ears.
bodhidharma78 9 months ago
Um, a scientific theory is a vast collection of substantial evidence supporting a claim made not by scientists who want to debunk god or intelligent design ideas, but claims brought together from the collection of vast data. notice, intelligent design is a mere idea with no logical proof, not even drawings.
bodhidharma78 9 months ago
@bodhidharma78 so if there is no logical proof of design can u please show me the logical proof that we werent designed if you dont mind?
909Kunfused909 7 months ago
Just show me the real transitional fossils !!!! How are drawings proof ?! Evolution is such a joke! Science is real and science is what proves evolution wrong! Darwin was wrong! Theory is not fact! Seriously wake up!
TAMMZ78 10 months ago
@TAMMZ78 is just a troll. Pay no heed.
TheJascal 9 months ago
@TAMMZ78 "Science is real" and "Theory is not fact"
So what about the Theory of Relativity jackass?
Stevoukos 9 months ago
i would like more information on the egg laying to placenta, at some stage a reptile/mammal laid an egg to its offspring that would give birth instead? Do we have any knowledge of how this transition occurred?
ilifter 10 months ago
the creation brigade asks for one or two transitional fossils and you give them a butt-load... nice work DonExodus2...
P.S.; the 172 people who disliked this video probably don't even want to see the evidence for themselves... typical relgious fundamentalist's response...
RAGHUVARVASUDEV 11 months ago
170 people are either very stupid or blind.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
Don't think I didn't notice the birds in the background when you started explaining the transitional stage from reptiles to birds.
lashkaretoiba 1 year ago
great video but the music is totally crap - I can't focus
jfeuiebf 1 year ago
This is good, but you have to realize that most creationists don't have the attention span to read this material. I am not making a joke at the expense of creationists; i am an educator. This won't make an impact unless you include a voice over and preferably so highlighting. AronRa usually does it right though he occasionally buries people in a torrent of jargon. Good resource though.
michalchik 1 year ago
This was totally awesome, thanks alot. Boy you must know a funk load about all this.
P.s; When you say you believe in god.........? That's a little confusing. :s
akrulla 1 year ago
I clicked this to see an informative video on evolution, and I got not only that, but one of my favorite classic rock songs, by Grand Funk Railroad! Thanks, DonExodus!
Vortigern99 1 year ago
Wow you must have put so much time into that.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
Most people know very little about the racist side of the theory of evolution. According to the views put forward by Darwin in this book, human races represent different stages of evolution, and some races have evolved and progressed more than others. Some of them, in fact, were pretty much at the same level as apes. Darwin claimed that the "struggle for survival" also applied between human races.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
Oh, shut up, you utter and complete moron.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
A small copy of Tyrannosaurus rex, for long the subject of Darwinist transitional form propaganda, has been found in northwest China. Just as one might expect from Darwinists, the fossil, given the name Raptorex kriegsteini, was first depicted in the press as the ancestor of T. Rex.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
But when more details of the fossil were released, it was realized that it actually eliminated all the Darwinist speculation about T. Rex. In Darwinists own words, the new fossil dealt a lethal blow to the theory of evolution.
The 125-million-year-old Raptorex lived fully 60 million years before T. Rex, and was 100 times lighter than it. T. Rex was 15 meters long and weighed 4 tones, while Raptorex was 3 meters long and weighed just 60 kg.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
Despite being 60 million years older than T. Rex, the fossil possessed exactly the same anatomical features. To put it another way, IT NEVER CHANGED OVER THE COURSE OF 60 MILLION YEARS, but bore all the EXACT SAME complex features as T. Rex. In other words, the animal was nothing more than a different sized member of the same species as T. Rex that lived 125 million years ago.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans Evolution has never meant that all members of all groups of every population change. It indicates what change CAN happen and notes that it does happen and that at times it will happen to a portion of a population in a separate region because the different environmental pressures of the different region tends to remove members that are like the original. Sponges haven't changed much in 500million years. Change only comes when your species is no longer fit for the environment.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo If not all members evolved. THAN how can evolution be the 'ORIGIN SPECIES?
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans Read the post again you illiterate twat.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo For DNA to be used as evidence for ancestral links or evolution.
We would have to have every single parent of that species in question.
In short we would have to have the entire sequence of evolution present in order to make an accurate estimate.
Anyone one who watches crime investigation channels would know this.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans Thus since no evolution present in fossil record and DNA technology really voids in a circumstance where your comparing living creatures against dead fossils THAT most probably have no DNA to begin with.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans did you just say the "dead" fossils didnt have DNA when it was alive? or are you saying there put there by satan? are you not even watching any of these videos?
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans
No phylogenetic analysis has accounted for each and every gene. Even if we don't know what a gene does we can still compare sequence identity to other taxa to test the predictions of evolution
Making a tree of how families of genes have unfolded correspond to the tree of life.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Unity4allhumans ""or DNA to be used as evidence for ancestral links or evolution.
We would have to have every single parent of that species in question. """" False.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
- increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
- increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
- novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
- novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
YOU FAIL
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
Comment removed
Unity4allhumans 2 months ago
@Unity4allhumans
I see you deleted your incredibly comment.
For everyone else who didn't get a chance to bask in the wonderment of Unity4allhumans' stupidity; this genius creatard said that "mutations do not change the DNA".
For some reason reading creationist websites (his version of "research") led him to the bizarre idea that nothing can possibly change DNA.....
Needless to say my steadfast faith in humanity is really being questioned here....
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
@GnosticHumanist The only one that is failing and in denial is YOU, lmao 99% OF MUTATIONS ARE HARMFUL and 1% have no effect. NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE BENEFICIAL MUTATION HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED.
THUS Mutations HAVE NO ABILITY TO ADD A LIFE FORM’S DNA ANY NEW INFORMATION THAT DOES NOT ALREADY EXIST.
Unity4allhumans 2 months ago
@Unity4alhumans
A microcephalic kid with an extra chromosome has more of a grasp on reality that you do.
MOST mutations are NEUTRAL with remainder either being deletarious or beneficial. Of course this all depends on the particular environment. We see beneficial mutations all the time; drug resistant bacteria, peppered-moths changing their color to suit a changing environment, those are just two off the top of my head.
& you've already been humiliated by your "no adding info" fail.
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
Where do u get ur info from up yer ass im guessing. Its a known fact that genetic mutations are predominantly harmful. Observations confirm that mutations overwhelmingly cause a loss of information, not a net gain, as evolution requires. Any rare case beneficial mutation which are usually found in a (closed environment) may lead to a positive outcome but still does not add any new information to the genome.
Unity4allhumans 2 months ago
@Unity4allhumans
I get my information from professors of science and their findings in scientific papers; and they state that nearly all genetic mutations are NEUTRAL in effect. This is obvious when you actually think about it.
DON'T AVOID THE QUESTION: Why are you arguing about a topic you clearly have not the slighest understanding of?
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
@GnosticHumanist Its clearly you that has a lack of understanding especially when your persisting to present infactual data such as all mutations being mutual... No scientific data composed by proffessors would support your stance. So maybe instead of asking me to shut it due to lack of comprehension u need to look in the mirror and tell it to your self. At least i am not trying to alter facts and present them as truth.
Unity4allhumans 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Unity4allhumans
By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
- increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
- increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
- novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
- novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
YOU FAIL
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
@Unity4allhumans You ignorance on this subject is overwhelming. You must be the only person that knows that 99% of mutations have a negative impact on the individual. The rest of us biologist see that most are neutral and are neither selected for or against. Look at the human population and great genetic diversity and gene expression. With all the different genetic information expressed in humans, most are natural. Get up to speed on the subject you are obviously not.
yeudh 1 month ago
@yeudh The irony here is that i am the only one using fact while ur just attacking me personally. So the ignorance is on u. The majority of mutations are negative if you have scientific data to prove ur fabricated statement bring it. Because i keep looking back at multiple scientific sources and they all saying the same damn thing. And even if what u say is true which it is not. Please present me with evidence that shows any mutations which adds new genetic material.
Unity4allhumans 1 month ago
@Unity4allhumans You keep showing your ignorance on the subject. Here is something simple for a simple mind. Eye color is a phenotype that is directed by allele frequency on the chromosome. This area has undergone mutations, the allele frequency is not the same across the genotype, this is by definition a mutation and one that has a natural effect on the phenotype. Read Andreas Wagners paper on the Robustness & Evolvability A Paradox Resolved 2007 Royal Society.
yeudh 1 month ago
@yeudh If im ignorant your a frikken idiot. You went into an entire different subject how ever your example only strengthens my opinion on Darwins theory of evolution. This is because NO MATTER WHAT happens an eye is and eye... it may vary in colour size and other physcal characteristics but it wont change into a mouth you blinded baboon.
Unity4allhumans 1 week ago
@Unity4allhumans
So this BEGS the question: why are you arguing about a topic you clearly have not the slighest understanding of?
Basic human decency would have it that if know less about biology and chemistry than the average grade 7 kid at school, you would not go around telling scientists who have dedicated their lives to the subject that they're wrong merely because it conflicts with your bizarre religious mythology.
I mean you clearly have never even seen a biology textbook.
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
Stephen Brusatte from the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who studied the fossil, made the following statement:
Much of what we thought we knew about tyrannosaur evolution turns out to be simplistic or out and out wrong.[1]
Here we have an animal thats one ninetieth or one hundredth of the size of Tyrannosaurus Rex but with all the signature features that were thought to be necessary adaptations for a large-bodied predator
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
"Favored races" emerged victorious from this struggle. According to Darwin, the favored race were the Caucasians, while he unwisely regarded the other nations the Europeans were fighting at the time, and the Turkish nation in particular, as supposedly "half-ape nations."
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
Darwin, Dawkin, hitchens. THEY ARE ALL RELATED.
YOU have more in common with a religious person than you have with these RICH racist BASTARDS.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
Darwin understood better than you that diversity is what makes a robust genome. You might actually not sound so stupid if you learned what evolution actually taught instead of fabricating these straw men.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo This is the fossil of a jawbone found in 1994 in Hadar, Ethiopia, together with fossils of Australopithecus afarensis. The fossil was dated to 2.3 -3.5 million years old and displayed characteristics belonging to Homo sapiens, the humanspecies alive today.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans Homo habilis (pronounced /ˈhoʊmoʊ ˈhæbəlɪs/) ("handy man") is a species of the genus Homo, which lived from approximately 1.4-2.3 million years ago at the beginning of the Pleistocene period] The discovery and description of this species is credited to both Mary and Louis Leakey, who found fossils in Tanzania, East Africa, between 1962 and 1964. Homo habilis (or possibly H. rudolfensis) is the earliest known species of the genus Homo. APE.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans You say yeah so what right????
WELLL look carefully??? Homo sapiens(HUMANS) FOUND EARLIER than GENUS(APE)
THIS IS THE EVOLUTIONARY EVIDENCE YOU DEDICATE YOUR ENTIRE LIFE DEFENDING.
YOU should be proud 5 stars for the higly trained monkey.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo CHECK it out with your own sources.
Don't take my word for it although im very happy to spoon feed you because i want to prevent COMMUNISM/MATERIALISM dominating western world.(if its not too late already.)
They have caused enough hate and division. THEY NEED TO LEAVE FACTS ALONE.
THAT goes for RELIGIOUS PEOPLE TOO.
LET FACTS LEAD OUR WAY.
AND LIVE AND LET LIVE.
STOP THE HATE, LEARN WHY THEY REALLY INSTIGATE.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
I find old bones pretty boring stuff. Too much room for mistake, too much room for misinterpretation. I prefer DNA analysis which is amenable to rigorous mathematically precise comparative observations.
If you find something interesting like a Cambrian bunny then let me know. Cuz until you can refute the ERVs and pseudo genes, degenerate codons and everything else that puts us squarely in kinship with chimps I'll remain convinced that evolution is the best explanation for what we observe.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo well you haven't observed anything. Your just taking their word for it.
And when evidence is smacking in your face. You reject it.
It can not be precisley comparitive.
I ask you this WAS DNA available in DARWINS day?
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans Darwin didn't know about DNA exactly, but he did correctly surmise that cells had some means of using information. LOL, taking their word for it? Open your eyes dude you can go study at any university and see it for your self. You won't regret it. I'd sooner take the words of people who are constantly trying to prove each other wrong than the ravings of ill equipped desert nomads.
What makes you say it can not be precisely compared? The sequences are digital.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo SO NO DNA NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE IN DARWINS DAY. BUT YET IT WAS TREATED AS FACTS THEN? YOUR REALLY DELUDED IF YOU CAN NOT SEE HOW FAKE THIS THEORY IS!
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans If you recall, Mendeleev's table of the elements was also quite incomplete. That didn't mean it wasn't a great descriptor and indicator of where the undiscovered elements would go when we found them. Indeed it was used to calculate the properties of the missing elements which facilitated their refinement and extraction and eventual confirmation of their existence. You could learn a thing or two if you weren't so closed minded.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo i want to know your understanding of evolution please explain!
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans we have documented mutation of genes into beneficial new genes. That is as a leaky faucet. Where is the mechanism to take back these beneficial mutations and revert to the earlier version? What data bank is used to compare? Where is the earlier version retained for reconversion to the earlier form? Creationist have addressed not one of these issues their proposal implies.
And perhaps critically: Is it intelligent to remove beneficial genes?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo look at evolutionary evidence that conflicts with evolution. How do you explain it?
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
According to the classic scenario of whale evolution, mammals dwelling on the land are considered to have moved into the water. The fact is, however, that an examination of Indohyus shows that it already lived in water, and its dental structure shows that it lived a herbivorous existence.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
This feature of Indohyus represents a major contradiction of those evolutionists who say, in their classical accounts, that terrestrial mammals moved into the sea in order to find prey. The New Scientist article said this on the subject:
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
The research also challenges the idea that cetaceans the order that includes whales, dolphins, and porpoises split from their land-dwelling forebears and returned to the water to hunt aquatic prey. . . This suggests that Indohyus was a shallow water wader already, and had not returned to the water simply to hunt live prey.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
None of these features characterize all modern and extinct cetaceans [whales} In addition, all of these characters are found in some mammals unrelated to cetaceans
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
Those making these claims about Indohyus also suggest that it shares a common dental structure with whales. However, whales are carnivores. Indohyus, on the other hand, was a herbivore, with totally different feeding patterns. That being the case, it is obvious that the similarity constructed between the two does not stand on any sound foundations.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
Obtaining a food source is one reason for migration. Avoidance of predators is another. Perhaps you would try to consider ALL factors just because they are relevant.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
Despite all the Darwinist speculation, it appears from even a brief examination of the Anchiornis Huxleyi fossil that it represents a species of bird similar to those living today. The fossil in question exhibits fully avian features in terms of skull and general anatomy.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
As they strive to account for the supposed evolution of two wings, Darwinists now have to account for third and fourth wings not observed in dinosaurs, nor flying squirrels nor birds. This of course deals a profound and severe blow to the Darwinist claim of evolution from bipedal dinosaurs.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
are you fucking nutz? Look at early bird feathering patterns. The 4 wing versions were obviously tried and failed and consigned to the garbage heap. Never the less you seem to have no clue at all that evolution wouldn't likely produce 3 winged creatures. Small changes over time dude not giant leaps supporting untenable designs.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
A fossil discovered in China the other day was quickly taken up as a four-winged bird in the Darwinist media. Darwinists right away claimed that this fossil might be the ancestor of birds. As ever, they immediately gave the animal a name. They baptized it Anchiornis huxleyi, in memory of Thomas Huxley, an atheist, Darwinist and 32nd degree freemason known as Darwins bulldog.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
This new fossil, found in strata dating back 151-161 million years, was older than Archaeopteryx. But from the Darwinist perspective it exhibited no imaginary transitional form characteristics that it needed to go to Archaeopteryx. With its four wings, as Darwinists described it, this life form represent a huge puzzle in terms of Darwinist theory.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
This approximately 160-million-year-old life form possesses the same features as present-day birds with muffed feet. It represents an extinct member of the species that comprise this family. This is so obvious that any scientist looking at pictures of it will easily see this clear resemblance.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans "This approximately 160-million-year-old life form possesses the same features as present-day birds with muffed feet"
not to mention the TEETH and the LONG SPINEY TAIL, and the wing claws. You really like to lie about it don't you?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo Recent research shows just 2.5% of DNA is different between people and mice, and only 1% different from a chimpanzee.6 A UK chief scientist said, "We share half our genes [DNA] with the banana."7 This convoluted field of molecular evolutionary biology is obviously becoming more puzzling--??not less--??
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans Your figures are meaningless out of context. DNA studies come in all forms. Expressed DNA, Raw sequence, protein cos. The stuff that confuses you is stuff you chose for that purpose. You could, for instance study the business about ERVs and how that evidence is relevant and incontrovertible. You have yet to say how evolution could possibly NOT happen. Given all that we know about it you'd have some mighty twisty explaining to do.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo You fail to see the critical facts that Archaeopteryx was introduced as the bird oldest ancestor.
Anchiornis huxleyi is 160 million years old and much older than ARCHAEOPTERYX.
DINO BIRD has long been thrown out as the evidence of evolution because HUXLY crushed it alive.
The fact that M. gui is 20 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, the oldest known fossil bird, makes the evolutionary scenario ascribed to it totally groundless.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans LOL, you really are an idiot. We find an older predecessor (18 million years) and that blows your mind? How does it falsify the theory of evolution? You are grasping at nothing at all. not even straws. We expect to keep finding more fossils as we continue to search. What the hell else would you expect?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo WHERE IS THE TRANSITIONS BETWEEN THE 2 BETTER YET BETWEEN DINASOUR AND BIRD.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans still in the ground buddy
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans Between dinosaur and birds?? Easy, just do a search for feathered dinosaurs
danoso0931 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans The fossil you're looking for is Archeopterex and it's even mentioned in this video. Also, watch a video in my favorites called "the Archeopterex challenge" and it'll debunk the claim that Archeopterex was fully bird.
oldblubblub 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans said "WHERE IS THE TRANSITIONS BETWEEN THE 2 BETTER YET BETWEEN DINASOUR AND BIRD."
Birds ARE a type of dinosaur you dumb cunt.
" Paleontologists regard birds as the only clade of dinosaurs to have survived the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 65.5 Ma ago."
Please refrain from using the internet, or communicating in any manner until you learn that preaching about topicd you know absolutely NOTHING about is pathetic and wastes everyone's time.
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
@ExtantFrodo No its not becuase of the age that my mind is opened. Here are few points that any logical minded person should consider.
1. that Archaeopteryx till today is used as a factual origin of bird from reptile transition in text books.
2. Anchiornis huxleyi is younger.
3. Anchiornis was along side theropods in the earliest Late Jurassic Tiaojishan .
what does point 3 mean? They lived alongside their so called dinasour ancestors.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans
1) So what? Text books are always behind the curve.
2) Great, we have more data.
3) As you say, "so called". New data means rewriting bird history.
4) Notice that Anchiornis is not more like a modern bird than archeopteryx.
So what's your beef?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans You may not realize this, but even an animal like the platypus is an intermediate form... mammal: gives milk and has hair... reptile: has no nipples, it's limbs come out from the side of the body, has only one orifice for urination, defecation and reproduction, has the ear orifices at the same level as reptiles, lays eggs and is poisonous. In fact, it has a lot more reptilian traits than mammal.
danoso0931 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans
You don't get it. See theropods gave rise to other groups before going extinct. That is to say that there were other groups of theopods that were still able to make a living-- while a subset of theropods gave rise to other taxa. There's no requirement that the new taxa completely replace the groups that came before. Like amphibians came from fish, but there are still fish because it's possible for that group to continue to thrive
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo BTW when you want to argue with me atleast use the name of the specimen in question. My mind is OPEN. I want to know the truth. EVOLUTION is a LIE.
AND under the MODEL even after several attempts to make it fit with scientific findings is causing us to lose alot valuable information.
WE need to throw evolution and faith based ideologies out of our class rooms.
evolution using our valuble resource has got us no where for over 200 years.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
Darwinists tried to publicize the fossil named Ida as the so-called ancestor of human beings in May 2009. This fossil that is presented to be the so-called ancestor of human beings through wide speculation of mainstream media did in fact belong to a lemur.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
In his 1868 book Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (The History of Natural Creation) Ernst Haeckel suggested that he had made various comparisons using human, monkey and dog embryos. The drawings he produced consisted of nearly identical embryos. On the basis of these drawings, Haeckel then suggested that the life forms involved had common origins.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
That was the supposed scientific work (!) that Darwin citied as a reference in his book The Descent of Man. In fact, some people realized that Haeckels illustrations were a distortion even before Darwin wrote his book. Following the exposure of the fraud, Haeckel himself admitted the huge scientific fraud he had perpetrated
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
Okay, you can stop copy/pasting from creationist apologetics sites now. We got the message: you think that just copy/pasting stuff without even trying to understand what's being said is going to achieve anything. We applaud your dedication to ignorance. Now fuck off.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
I applaud your loyality to such fake theories. Your a blind religious FOOL.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
BTW this guy asks people to refute his fossil evidence thats what i am doing and doing it well might i add. THERE IS MORE FAKE EVOLUTION EVIDENCE ON ITS WAY. STAY TUNE.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
In 1949, Kenneth Oakley of the British Museum's Paleoanthropology Department sought permission to perform a new dating technique, the fluoride test, on some old fossils. When it was carried out on the Piltdown Man fossil, it was revealed that the jawbone contained no fluoride. This showed that it had been underground for no more than a few years. The skull contained a low level of fluoride, making it only a few thousand years old.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
These specimens were given the name of Piltdown Man, an age of 500,000 was estimated for them, and they were exhibited in various museums as incontrovertible proof of evolution. For some 40 years, they were the subject of many scientific papers, analyses and reconstructions. Some 500 academics from various universities all over the world prepared doctoral theses on the subject of Piltdown Man.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
Jungers said this on the subject:
Maybe the pieces do fit together nicely, but the reality is they start out with a very damaged specimen, and they end up with something very similar to an australopithecine [an imaginary human-like group including Lucy]". "It's very difficult not to make them look like something you have in your mind if there's any chance of play"
... Ardi, requires a lot of guesswork
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
« requires a lot of guesswork »
You still don't get it, do you? Evolutionary theory isn't based on fossils. It's based on the matching nested hierarchies in biology. Fossils are helpful in establishing genealogies, but even if there had been found *no* transitional fossils, the theory would still be valid in the absence of any contradictory evidence.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
The Darwinist Tim White from the University of California and his team, who examined Ardi and suggested that it might be the missing link in the supposed evolution of man, had to make this admission:
"There are no apparent features sufficiently unique to warrant the exclusion of Ar. ramidus as being ancestral to Australopithecus,
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
published the results in Nature magazine: The Archaeoraptor fossil was announced as a missing link and purported to be possibly the best evidence since Archaeopteryx that birds did, in fact, evolve from certain types of carnivorous dinosaur . . . But Archaeoraptor was revealed to be a forgery in which bones of a primitive bird and a non-flying dromaeosaurid dinosaur had been combined. . . .
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
We conclude that Archaeoraptor represents two or more species and that it was assembled from at least two, and possibly five, separate specimens. . .
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
« We conclude that Archaeoraptor represents two or more species »
And Archaeoraptor was one of about six fossils that were discovered to be false. Six out of hundreds. And by whom were these six discovered to be false, you might ask? By creationists, screaming "NO, THAT CAN'T BE TRUE! GODDIDDIT!"? No, by scientists, who compared the fossil against what they knew, and decided something was weird about the fossil.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
It has been told to me by creationists that the fossil evidence to prove that human evolution is true could all fit into one small coffin.
I replied, "If that's true, then could you explain how the creation theory accounts for even ONE of those fossils."
TooferMan 1 year ago
@TooferMan
Strictly though fossil evidence is one line of evidence. Nothing really "proves" a theoretical framework. This is why creationists can always move the goalposts.
We know theories are valid because they meet predictions. They're just useful
There's boxes and boxes of bones though.
I say you said the right thing
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@LFPBHAT: Thanks and youre right as well. 1 fossil, 1 still photo of evidence, does not PROVE a theory. U need the whole collection of still photos in chronological order, to flip thru. Then U will see the real picture. I like the "MOVIE" analogy, it enables our human minds to condense geological time frames down to something we can almost visualize.
Youre right when you point out: weaving other lines of evidence with fossils makes evolution undeniable. But the goalposts will still be moved :(
TooferMan 1 year ago
I just wanted to say I love reading the comments on these types of videos. They give me a small piece of advice, and enough information for me to look for more.
Evolution is true. no denying that. The fact many animals share the same traits while not being in the same genealogic tree is a gain for evolution. It shows that under the same circumstances, the environment will tend to select the same traits for natural selection.
Xgya2000 1 year ago
@Xgya2000
"The fact many animals share the same traits while not being in the same genealogic tree is a gain for evolution."
Not according to Gavin de Beer: "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was MISPLACED; for such inheritance CANNOT be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as HOPELESS."
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
Identity of genes and identity of traits are two matters. While many traits will be common in creatures with the same genes, the environment also determines a lot.
One good example: The marsupial dog, found near other marsupials, but with many canine traits. Analysis of his genes made him, while really dog-like, totally unrelated to other canines
I mentioned it a gain for scientists have a way making mistakes that are really useful to humanity.
Xgya2000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What about the platypus - is it a duck or a mammal?
"I mentioned it a gain for scientists have a way making mistakes that are really useful to humanity."
Please explain
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
1 of 3
I guess we now know Tiktaalik is one less 'transitional' fossil...
"Ancient Four-Legged Beasts Leave Their Mark" (ScienceNOW, January 6, 2010)
"Researchers have uncovered the earliest evidence of four-legged animals. Footprints and tracks preserved in the mud of an abandoned quarry in southeastern Poland date back 395 million years, UPENDING accepted thinking about when and where land animals first emerged...
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Rather textbook case of convergence. This stuff is seen more commonly in evolutionary experiments like what Lenski did.
People have independently evolved the sickle cell trait multiple times.
This is a case were one gene was given selective pressure to reach a specific conformation and there is a limited number of ways to do this.
Also they should'nt have said "identical"
"A gene known as prestin in both bats and dolphins has picked up many of the same mutations over time, the studies show"
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat
"Rather textbook case of convergence."
Yes, but isn't convergent evolution as a whole rather problematic? After all, if there's no common ancestor between bats and whales, how did the process of evolution produce the same feature of echolocation via the same genetic mechanism in two completely different species?
I like how Wiki sums it up, "Convergence is difficult to quantify..." That's an understament.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
There was a common ancestor between bats and whales, its just it didn't have echolocation.
Most of the time taxa find similar ways to respond to the same pressures. In something as constrained as hearing in vertebrates having accrued shifts in one single protein towards a common result isn't too unusual. If there's only a few ways to reach echolocation from gradual shifts then you'll tend to get the same result each time.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
Convergence like other terms is especially hard to quantify. It is really only intended as an assessment. It's like saying "the pocket gopher is the best all around worm eater of north america, its abilities are well rounded"
That could be a useful statement that could be difficult to quantify. It's more a quality of something.
Homology on the other hand is highly quantitative
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
It's really not problematic because if the claim of natural selection is that populations become adapted to their environments then the prediction is that similar environments will produce similar effects.
Comparing the legless lizard with snakes with caecillians could be very quantatively difficult since they diverged a 100 million years apart. They could use radicallly different genetic means of disabling legs so it would be like comparing apples and oranges. No objective genetic standard
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
Maybe the echolocation thing is a bad example. It doesn't fossilize well in either. They've yet to find flying bat transitional fossils and the whale echolocation system involves the fleshy "melon" on their head which doesn't preserve.
The natural history of the two might never be known. I'm alright with that though. Some things we may never know.
Kinda picked a bad trait as an example. It will probably be at least 10 years before we can try to reconstruction things genetically.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
2 of 3
"In some of the prints, individual digits can be made out. That means land animals already had feet 9 million years BEFORE the finlike structures of Tiktaalik and Panderichthys. In addition, some of the tracks show an animal walking with a diagonal, coordinated gait impossible for finned creatures...
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
3 of 3
"Other paleontologists are taken aback by the discovery of the tracks. 'We thought we'd pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods,' says Jennifer Clack of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. 'We have to RETHINK the whole thing.'"
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
WOW! That's GREAT NEWS for evolution. You do know it doesn't disprove evolution or prove creationism. It just means we now have more information than before.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
@ExtantFrodo
"WOW! That's GREAT NEWS for evolution."
How? It's sure not too great for everyone who claims Tiktaalik's a tranistional form. And did you also say that about this article:
"Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links" (ScienceDaily, June 9, 2009)
"'For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from,' Ruben said. 'That's a pretty serious problem...'
I'll say it is!
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
tiktaalik is a transitional form. It obviously had ancestors. In the case of the specimen we've labeled tiktaalik it is a descendant of an older branch.
Reconstructing the ancient past is a hit or miss dicey proposition. We still don't see anything so far off timeline to raise any eyebrows.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
@ExtantFrodo
"We still don't see anything so far off timeline to raise any eyebrows."
What? You don't think the fact that "land animals already had feet 9 million years BEFORE the finlike structures of Tiktaalik and Panderichthys" is a rather significant problem for the entire evolutionary timeline? Why else would Ms. Clack declare, "We have to RETHINK the whole thing"?
What does she mean by the "whole thing"?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
"You don't think the fact that "land animals already had feet 9 million years BEFORE the finlike structures of Tiktaalik and Panderichthys" is a rather significant problem for the entire evolutionary timeline?"
Nope. 9 million years is an eye blink in volutionary deep time. I'm surprised you ask.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
And don't forget the problems Gigantoraptor presents.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
what problems are those? What if birds evolved soon after the sea to land transition and they all evolved in parallel with dinosaurs? or a branch of them evolved into dinosaurs. This is would only be data pertinent to how the timelime of life evolved on earth. How would it affect anything we KNOW about evolution? You want to show m a cambrian bunny? Then earthly evolutionary models were completely wrong. That still doesn't alter that evolution does do what it's said to do.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
@ExtantFrodo
Timeline problems cont.
I also like with Xu Xing said about Gigantoraptor:
"We thought previously that we had a relatively simple pattern - as dinosaurs became smaller in size they became more birdlike. Now, after the discovery of Gigantoraptor, things get more complicated. That doesn't mean birds aren't descended from dinosaurs, but the transition is very complicated."
("Massive Birdlike Dinosaur Unearthed in China," National Geographic, June 13, 2007)
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from"
This is basically "If we evolved from monkeys then how come there are still monkeys and if you can't see why this isn't a problem then you're too far gone.
Your interpretation of that article leaves it all to confirmation bias.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat
"Your interpretation of that article leaves it all to confirmation bias."
It's very obvious you did not read the article. If you had, you would have noticed that I did not say that, but rather Ruben did!!
"'For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from,' RUBEN SAID. 'That's a pretty SERIOUS PROBLEM, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories'"
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
No, you're wrong.
That's what confirmation bias is. You take one quote out of an article and interpret it to conform to your preconcieved notions are.
What it means is not that birds aren't descended from dinosaurs but instead the quoted is referring to a minority opinion that birds are descended from archosaurs not theropods.(both close branches of dinosaurs)
Can you see how that sentence could be construed either way? What he meant is what I explained above.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat
Okay, let's try another article... and I won't make comments:
"Y Chromosome Evolving Rapidly" ScienceNOW, January 13, 2010)
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
That's a really interesting article you should read it. It looks like the Y chromosome experiences more mutations.
It will be interesting to see if this is because of the 3d dimesional location of the chromosome or maybe positive selection?
Should be interesting
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat
The article says, "When the team members compared the MSY sequences, they got a SURPRISE. They found that the chimpanzee Y chromosome has LOST LOTS of genes that are present in humans..."
How come they didn't say humans gained these genes?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
yeah this is quite common when they did the corn genome project they found that lineages
gain and lose genes quite commonly. And that was just between varieties of corn that humans artifically selected from a common ancestor over thousands of years
That corn genome project is really the most illustrative model because it's the only time that a bunch of closely related varieties of the same species have been completely sequenced. There's just not enough money to do it in others
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat
Here's another interesting find:
"In Bats and Whales, Convergence in Echolocation Ability Runs Deep" (ScienceDaily, Jan 27, 2010)
Stephen Rossiter of the University of London, says, "However, it is generally assumed that most of these so-called convergent traits have arisen by different genes or different mutations. Our study shows that a complex trait - echolocation - has in fact evolved by IDENTICAL genetic changes in bats and dolphins."
How?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
animals evolved not human beings..
gordonculp 2 years ago
Great video. But you cannot argue creationists with these. They would still want to see fossils of crocoducks and fronkeys. :P
pnerd 2 years ago 3
Its useless to argue with the creationists, They either deny the present fossils, or demand even more fossils. Yet they deny it all together because they don't believe that our planet is much, much older than 6,000 years.
emancoy 2 years ago 2
emancoy
1) Because creatures have similar features and occur at different times doesn't show that they are related. Example: the common placental dog and the extinct marsupial Tasmanian dog. These two creatures are obviously not related (that's a different topic) but are so closely similar that biologists cannot distinguish the two except for the birth processes.
uberjinks 2 years ago
So if the theory of evolution were so flawed, why didn't "evolutionists" mistake the thylacine for a dog? I'm not an expert, but from what I can tell, the only part of the skeletal structure that more than superficially looks canine is the skull, which still features "two prominent holes in the palate bone, which are characteristic of marsupials generally." (Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale)
Leehofooks 2 years ago
I was using the thylacine to illustrate a point. The point was, some species descend, according to evolutionists, from completely different branches in the evolutionary tree. When two animals appear to be related, but aren't, evolution classifies it as mere "convergence" and dismisses it.
Convergence shows that common features doesn't mean relation and because a creature occurs at a later point in the timeline, doesn't mean that it is descended from an earlier organism.
uberjinks 2 years ago
You haven't addressed my point. How is it that "evolutionists" can tell convergence from true relation? Your very example acknowledges that the evolutionary tree has not been pieced together simply by using superficial similarities between fossils.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
The evolutionists themselves have labeled the convergence. A quick google search will explain convergence to you if it really needs to be done. As an evolutionist, you should know your own terms, not have an intelligent design theorist explain them to you.
uberjinks 2 years ago
Don't condescend me. I obviously wasn't asking you what convergence was. What I'm asking you is, if "evolutionists" are simply drawing up the evolutionary tree based on superficial similarities between species, how do they know when similarities are a case of convergence? There must be more to the study of cladistics than you are letting on, or realize.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
Convergence is based on the pre-accepted idea that evolution is true. If two creatures have distinct similarities but cannot possibly be related because it doesn't fit into the evolutionary time scheme then it is labeled as convergence. Creatures that would ordinarily be related and used as transitional fossils, are not because they do not agree with evolution. There are many examples.
uberjinks 2 years ago
So then you admit that the evolutionary tree is not just based on similar appearances, but also time line and geography?
As an ID proponent, I'm guessing you're not a Young Earth Creationist, right?
Leehofooks 2 years ago
The evolutionary is based on an evolutionary time line and geography yes.
I am an intelligent design theorist not a creationist and I'm not certain if the earth is young or old but I am leaning to the old earth.
uberjinks 2 years ago
So what exactly are you proposing? You seem to be rejecting evolution outright.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
Exactly what is the difference between a creationist and an intelligent design theorist?
1ProudFemaleAtheist 2 years ago
@1ProudFemaleAtheist
There is no difference. They systematically changed the title.
spiderpig85 2 years ago 2
That's what I thought.
:-)
1ProudFemaleAtheist 2 years ago
Not only that, but the Discovery Institute are actively campaigning for (and I quote):
"Chapman(Bruce Chapman, Founder and President) is up front about having a social and political agenda. He sees design intelligence as a way to combat the growing reliance on genetic explanations for human behavior and what he sees as an undermining of personal responsibility."
This goes on further and just Wiki 'Discovery Institute' to read the whole thing. It is pretty sinister.
spiderpig85 2 years ago 2
The whole Discovery Institute thing makes me so sick, I can barely stand it. Liars and con artists - while thinking they have the moral high ground.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 2 years ago 3
@1ProudFemaleAtheist
Me too. If they genuinely believed what they say, I would be easier on them, but its ALL for profit and political gain. They really don't believe any of it, they are not stupid, they are just corrupt to the point of no return...
spiderpig85 2 years ago 2
they are afraid they won't be able to send people to jail or claim they should end up in hell just because their genetic makeup is different than normal. The prisons are full of those being discriminated against for their genetics albeit in a politically correct fashion. It's appalling.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago