Yes I saw her video as well, the whole thing was flawed. She made no points, couldnt back up anything. She should be ashamed that a kid your age could break her whole video. I think its great that you slapped her down and said "No this is fact"
That was a terrible video and I'm glad to see someone tearing it apart. The part that got me the most was when they started comparing birds to non-theropod dinosaurs. They could make the same comparison between non-theropods and theropods and come to the same conclusion. Well considering they are idiotic creationists I suppose they wouldn't have a problem with such a conclusion!
Most evolutionary biologists hold that birds evolved from theropod saurischians and not ornithoschians. The Alan Feduccia quote at 5:54 is taken completely out of context and is a total mischaracterization in a lame attempt to make him sound like a creationist, which he is not. His argument is that birds and theropods share a common ancestor and that birds are not direct descendants of theropods which is what he is arguing in that quote. He is not a creationist.
Where are these fossil records? The fossils you mention are "not" transitional. Are you saying evolution is intelligent? Why didn't the animal die in transition? Quit drinking the Koolaid son...God made everything including your forefather. You are answering with quotes without proof...because there are no proofs for an outdated "hypothesis".
"Where are these fossil records? The fossils you mention are "not" transitional."
If we found a "transitional" fossil, wouldn't we then just end up with two gaps instead of one, thus requiring even more "transitionals" to fill in the gaps? There will always be gaps in the fossil record but those gaps are being filled all the time. For years the creationsist demanded a transitional form between land mammals and whales, that transitional was found in the Indus Valley in the 90's.
Gotta love how religionists make fools of themselves tho, don't ya? Archaeopteryx had teeth, as well as, feathers, what birds have teeth, other than an egg tooth? Comparing an alnkylosaur to a raptor is, equivalent to comparing apples and oranges, only worse, since, apples and oranges are both in the same Class.
However, the mutations themselves are the backbone of the process, and, regardless of what you people say, most processes in macro-evolution are completely dependent upon coincidence.
if there was a natural selection there should be a reason. how does this reason happens and how could it be at the correct time and exact place? For evolutionist its just a coinsidence, for me it is created perfectly.
there is no useful mutation (i am a genetic engineer i search for that realy deeply)- and there is no chance in any way of life. Look at universe, Neptune's moon Triton, Saturn's rings, just go search for them and than also quatum physics. 4 powers that affect an atoms formation. An the power hidden in an atom that can easily destroy a city. These are designed, it is obvious. As your body, your DNA and life. They are created. You have a destiny, as everthing.Even if you accept or not..
i can understand your effort, but please look with wise, not only eyes.. first of all mutations only damage organisms, like disasters, DNA has a complex structure and any mutation would have a effect like a bomb. So neo-darwinists ideas break down. And they should show us just one fossile to prove the idea. They couldn't. Because there is no intermediate fossile. Upss, sorry you drop your candy :)
Yes, mutations are dangerous, but not all kills the organism.
DNA is made up by different combinations of 4 different molecules. The combination of these molecules determine how an organism will develope. A mutation changes this combination.
Most of the time this kills the organism, but in some cases a mutation grands a combination that is beneficial.
But mutations are not. Natural selection only comes into play in this process after a positive mutation has occurred in a reproductive cell. That is a coincidental event. Not impossible, but still a coincidence.
A neutral one can, of course, be inherited to future generations and even prove useful when the environment changes. And NS effects negative mutations aswell, usually by discarding them.
But mutations are not. Natural selection only comes into play in this process after a positive mutation has occurred in a reproductive cell. That is a coincidental event. Not impossible, but still a coincidence.
But mutations are not. Natural selection only comes into play in this process after a positive mutation has occurred in a reproductive cell. That is a coincidental event. Not impossible, but still a coincidence.
What I don't understand about the origin of birds video is that this woman is trying to be taken seriously as a scientist while thinking anything is impossible. The only reason why science can advance is because the idea that something is impossible is a deception.
if we are unflawed, what is the human appendix for? Why are people starting to lose thier 3rd set of molars also called wisdom teeth, don't the number of bones that we have in our feet indicate they are still evolving?
Don't give up!
wollin20 2 years ago
Yes I saw her video as well, the whole thing was flawed. She made no points, couldnt back up anything. She should be ashamed that a kid your age could break her whole video. I think its great that you slapped her down and said "No this is fact"
Camronas 2 years ago
That was a terrible video and I'm glad to see someone tearing it apart. The part that got me the most was when they started comparing birds to non-theropod dinosaurs. They could make the same comparison between non-theropods and theropods and come to the same conclusion. Well considering they are idiotic creationists I suppose they wouldn't have a problem with such a conclusion!
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
Most evolutionary biologists hold that birds evolved from theropod saurischians and not ornithoschians. The Alan Feduccia quote at 5:54 is taken completely out of context and is a total mischaracterization in a lame attempt to make him sound like a creationist, which he is not. His argument is that birds and theropods share a common ancestor and that birds are not direct descendants of theropods which is what he is arguing in that quote. He is not a creationist.
falcoperegrinus82 3 years ago
archaeopteryx and I think velociraptor had pneumatic skeletons.
falcoperegrinus82 3 years ago
Where are these fossil records? The fossils you mention are "not" transitional. Are you saying evolution is intelligent? Why didn't the animal die in transition? Quit drinking the Koolaid son...God made everything including your forefather. You are answering with quotes without proof...because there are no proofs for an outdated "hypothesis".
IAmForTruth 3 years ago
"Where are these fossil records? The fossils you mention are "not" transitional."
If we found a "transitional" fossil, wouldn't we then just end up with two gaps instead of one, thus requiring even more "transitionals" to fill in the gaps? There will always be gaps in the fossil record but those gaps are being filled all the time. For years the creationsist demanded a transitional form between land mammals and whales, that transitional was found in the Indus Valley in the 90's.
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
Nice video, happy to see young people like you thinking and knowing so much. Keep up the good work little fellow.
eydos 3 years ago 2
I just posted a documentary about the evolution of birds. The Dinosaur Feather Mystery (parts 1-6)
Very fascinating.
(Yes, I'm advertasing ;D )
pienipaha 3 years ago
How many millions of times did lizards have to jump off cliffs before they evolved even 1 feather?
Not sure but... if I was a lizard standing at the edge of a cliff looking down at all the other wannabe pilots.... I don't think I'd jump.
But evolution proves it again. Anything, I mean anything is possible if you think about it hard enough.
ChainMailArmor 4 years ago
So if I think hard about growing wings out of my back, I'm going to evolve into some fucked up person with wings taped on his back?
DJcrackbitch 3 years ago
Nobody has gave a plausible model for the evolution of the bellow lung to the avian lung!
CHASCHARLTON 4 years ago
Gotta love how religionists make fools of themselves tho, don't ya? Archaeopteryx had teeth, as well as, feathers, what birds have teeth, other than an egg tooth? Comparing an alnkylosaur to a raptor is, equivalent to comparing apples and oranges, only worse, since, apples and oranges are both in the same Class.
RSPM 4 years ago
Also, the red blood cells of raptors were nucleated, just like birds.
RSPM 4 years ago
2) The "completely different structure" does not mean minor differences.
ThatChristian 4 years ago
1) A mutation is random. When something random happens to be useful, it is called a coincidence.
ThatChristian 4 years ago
Yes, however natural selection is compeletely noncoincedental
Kabane52 4 years ago
However, the mutations themselves are the backbone of the process, and, regardless of what you people say, most processes in macro-evolution are completely dependent upon coincidence.
ThatChristian 4 years ago
No, natural selection is not coincedence, and it is a huge part of evolution
Kabane52 4 years ago
if there was a natural selection there should be a reason. how does this reason happens and how could it be at the correct time and exact place? For evolutionist its just a coinsidence, for me it is created perfectly.
gencrauf 4 years ago
You say "evolutionist" as if it is a religion. It's not.
Cheesemuffffin 3 years ago
there is no useful mutation (i am a genetic engineer i search for that realy deeply)- and there is no chance in any way of life. Look at universe, Neptune's moon Triton, Saturn's rings, just go search for them and than also quatum physics. 4 powers that affect an atoms formation. An the power hidden in an atom that can easily destroy a city. These are designed, it is obvious. As your body, your DNA and life. They are created. You have a destiny, as everthing.Even if you accept or not..
gencrauf 4 years ago
i can understand your effort, but please look with wise, not only eyes.. first of all mutations only damage organisms, like disasters, DNA has a complex structure and any mutation would have a effect like a bomb. So neo-darwinists ideas break down. And they should show us just one fossile to prove the idea. They couldn't. Because there is no intermediate fossile. Upss, sorry you drop your candy :)
gencrauf 4 years ago
Here is a fossil.
Australopithecus Afarensis
Not all mutations are detrimental
talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/mutations.html
Kabane52 4 years ago
Yes, mutations are dangerous, but not all kills the organism.
DNA is made up by different combinations of 4 different molecules. The combination of these molecules determine how an organism will develope. A mutation changes this combination.
Most of the time this kills the organism, but in some cases a mutation grands a combination that is beneficial.
LordEsel88 4 years ago
AKA coincidence.
ThatChristian 4 years ago
But natural selection is the very opposite of coincidence.
pienipaha 3 years ago
But mutations are not. Natural selection only comes into play in this process after a positive mutation has occurred in a reproductive cell. That is a coincidental event. Not impossible, but still a coincidence.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Positive or neutral mutation, to be exact :)
A neutral one can, of course, be inherited to future generations and even prove useful when the environment changes. And NS effects negative mutations aswell, usually by discarding them.
pienipaha 3 years ago
[] Positive or neutral mutation, to be exact :) []
Yes, however a neutral mutation being selected is less likely, as it is just as easily selected against.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
I think the chance is pretty much 50 / 50. Depends on the mutations "type", I guess.
Though it is rare, negative mutations can also be inerited in some, very rare cases.
pienipaha 3 years ago
But mutations are not. Natural selection only comes into play in this process after a positive mutation has occurred in a reproductive cell. That is a coincidental event. Not impossible, but still a coincidence.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
But mutations are not. Natural selection only comes into play in this process after a positive mutation has occurred in a reproductive cell. That is a coincidental event. Not impossible, but still a coincidence.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
hey kid. I am a molecular biologist. I see that you don't know anything about science. Try to read some books.
nodyxes 4 years ago
I have. Who are you, Michael Denton?
Kabane52 4 years ago
horses ancesters were the size of rabits.
kajaragi 4 years ago
He really really really hopes it isn't. That is his proof. lol.
Mjhavok 4 years ago
What I don't understand about the origin of birds video is that this woman is trying to be taken seriously as a scientist while thinking anything is impossible. The only reason why science can advance is because the idea that something is impossible is a deception.
LordToast 4 years ago
Archaeopteryx doesnt have any living descendants though does it? Im pretty sure it was a branch that died off.
HyperNathan 4 years ago
Yes, it is probable that it has no living descendants, but we cannot know for sure.
Kabane52 4 years ago
if we are unflawed, what is the human appendix for? Why are people starting to lose thier 3rd set of molars also called wisdom teeth, don't the number of bones that we have in our feet indicate they are still evolving?
Grimli 4 years ago
my feet could sure use some mutations..... they be flat. lol.
kajaragi 4 years ago