Well, don't chromosomes fuse just before they begin mitosis? I agree, it doesn't make sense that a pair of 'extra' chromosomes would 'fuse' to become two less within a cell and just go on as if it were natural. My question is this, why? Why would these extra chromosomes just 'fuse' on their own? What mindless force pushes a chromosome to fuse, resulting in intelligence which alleged to have been non-existent up to that point?
@MrTatzer "Is it even possible..." Yes it is; an individual carrying a Robertsonian translocation like this hasn't lost any genetic material and can therefore mate with a normal individual and produce viable, fertile offspring. A well known example of this would be Przewalski's wild horses (33 chromosomes) mating with domesticated horses (32 chromosomes because of translocation)
"isn't it highly unlikely..." Its a heritable trait, it doesn't have to re-fuse in every new individual
what if the neanderthal dna didn't come from a neanderthal but another primate? you assume neanderthals existed, also you don't quote the guy you debated. "everyone in this room is missing a pair of chromosomes" assumes that we were supposed to have the ones we are 'missing'. also, when considering the idea that God wouldn't 'fool' you, consider about Jesus telling the disciples why he speaks in parables, “they may indeed see but not perceive,
i am very religous but i think all commmon religions are bull... they are just one persons conception of god... i beleive that god is real but started the world with the big bang and just sat back and watched..... catholicism is crap lutheracism is crap same with every thing else.... im ignostic try it out
Just because you know the Sequence.. You still are NEVER gonna prove God doesnt exist.. So give up.. And we ll never be able to prove he does. So GIVE UP TRYING THIS IS A FAIL.
@TheSpartanondrugs You go ahead and believer you were CREATED from Nothing... You have no purpose... And you just came from goo.. Thats fine with me. Your life has no purpose.. And all EVOLUTIONISTS and ATHIESTS life are this way.. Mine however will never be corrupted by this.. And if Im right im going to Heaven... And if your wrong.. Your going to hell. Go ahead.
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x Fine then. If you would like to believe something because you want to be rewarded, go ahead. Or you could be like me and want to be like me and search for the truth, even if you don't like it.
I pity you. Seriously.
Yes, I do believe in evolution and I do reject the bible
So does Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Marie Curie, Aristotle
But if you want to believe something because it gives you comfort, go ahead.
You think with emotion. You know you want to believe god is real because you want there to be a heaven. You want your life to have meaning.
I think without emotion. I want there to be a heaven, but that isn't a good enough reason to believe it. The fact is that there is large amounts of evidence for evolution. I don't know what the universe was created from, and I don't pretend to.
@cgm0407 Tragically every year millions of people will die who have bet there lives.. and eternal souls... On the chance.. That the 700 unexplainable prophecies.. (BEEN PROVEN) About Jesus are not reliable. They believe they can safley ignore the claims that Christ has made About Himself, about salvation, and about heaven and hell. In the light of the overwhelming evidence for the authority of the Bible. One question though.. What if your wrong? Is it worth betting your life?
@trademac1974 Not really. Scientists use language like that because they're aware that some future discovery could possibly overturn them, regardless of how remote that possibility is.
Can you imagine if all of the people who have studied electricity still could not use it to light a room or simply show the effects of it? They would be called electricity fanatics that believe in a myth called electricity since you can’t actually see an electrical current but only the effects of it. They have produced results and the world is better off for it. Produce results, or everything you are saying is rubbish and all of the data that has been compiled is useless.
Someone please give me proof.......create life from non-life, not in a cartoon video, not on a chart but a living organism from where there was none. You can explain how you THINK it happened so do it!
When scientist can prove he has created life from non-life....the argument will be over. you can study DNA all you want and make assumptions. Make life from non-life - Now that would be proof.
You all have 23 pairs of chromosomes and apes have 24 pair….so you are missing a pair….i am laughing because making an assumption is not science. Your Video has failed in every way to prove anything.
@coffeeis4closers It is all a matter of natural selection based upon habitat properties and conditions. If life is easier due to a specific trait, then the organism will utilize this and become a dominant species in the area.
Christianity is a great message, as long as it is not taken to a fundamental scale. Treat others how you'd like to be treated and such. Don't get me wrong, I love the messages and morals it portrays. Although I find it rather ignorant to claim every story in the bible is absolutely truthful in every way shape and form without question. I also feel spreading the message through fear of hell is no way to go about things.
human created divinitity not otherwise, out of hadicapness and atrophia in growing and development some people think there is a kind of dad in the sky, but that is really gross to believe if you think bout it.
No matter how much you want to argue or display "proofs", evolution in and of itself is still and always will be a "THEORY". Ask yourself this question. If we evolved from apes or chimpanzees then why have they remained completely UNCHANGED and un-evolved? Or better yet, why would they even still exist?
@coffeeis4closers There is so very much wrong with that comment. 1) You clearly don't understand what a scientific theory is. 2) We didn't evolve from modern apes. 3) Modern apes have evolved just as much as we have, just in a different way. 4) Did you really just ask "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?", possibly the most cliched creationist strawman ever?!?
@alexjoneschannel3 "why is it a strawman?" Did you even read the rest of my post? Its a strawman because it completely ignores what evolutionary theory actually says.
I don't know what changes would occur if we were to muck about with our genetics like that, though I'd be willing to wager that nobody knows at the moment.
I don't understand why scientists don't put forth any physical evidence in regards to transitional forms. i'm not here to anger people or be disrespectful to anybody's beliefs, i'm just searching for the truth (like everybody else)... every time i hear about evidence in the fossil record, it always turns out to be a hoax or is disproved. for evolution to be true, wouldn't there be hundreds of transitional forms at the very least? help me out?
@jonron3657 "every time i hear about evidence in the fossil record, it always turns out to be a hoax or is disproved" Then you're only listening to creationists who talk about the same half dozen instances, while at the same time completely ignoring the fact that it was scientists who found out they were frauds in the first place. Every fossil is a transitional form.
@ArcanaKnight i explore listening to people from all different viewpoints ie. evolutionist, creationist etc. why do you assume that i'm unaware that scientists discovered the fraudulent reconstructions/illustrations? what evidence is there to support that every fossil is a transitional form? it seems that making a statement like that assumes that evolutionary theory is true. isn't that logically backwards?
@jonron3657 "it seems that making a statement like that assumes that evolutionary theory is true" Only if you ignore all the evidence supporting common descent; evidence which not only spans multiple fields, but also provides independent confirmation of what we find in the fossil record.
Its fine to listen to other viewpoints like creationists, but don't make the mistake of also giving their claims equal weight; if you do, you might as well do the same with alchemy and astrology.
@jonron3657 there are more then several pools full of evidence, and you should go to a museum to see some of them.
however fossils are quite the weak amount of evidence for evolution. Our Dna and the traceable heredity we can drawn from it is a much strong evidence for evolution.
Then of course the amount of speciation between, bacteria, flies and other examples that we have already witnessed as well.
To be honest about evolution it also matters from which point do you start out?
Evolution is a theory that was developed in biology so you should use the definition on evolution that is given by biology, not by creationism. (cont.)
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
After you start from this point. Then the scientific statement makes much sense. Any definition that creationism gives that is different then this is a strawman.
In the past few years it has been reported in the News that All white people of European descent have a percentage of neanderthal dna in their DNA. So how is it you can say they were not Human?
@CrownIdeas Would you call a chihuahua a great dane? Neanderthals were a sub-species of the hominid species. Almost but not quite like the difference between a horse and a donkey. They could interbreed, but were clearly difference, as can be seen in their fossils, as well as in their DNA (which we've partly sequenced by the way)
@libalchris I would call chihuahuas and great danes both dogs. Just like I would call Norwegians and Pigmy African both humans. Geneticists tell us there is a lot less diversity in the human genome and than genome of other primates like chimpanzees. This shows a possible bottle necking of the population at some point. Neanderthals were a race of humans who died out. We may be less fit and diverse as a because of that. Not sure humans could survive a massive population wipeout again.
@gorilla199uncensored I don't understand the question... I was siting peered reviewed articles that say the human population has dropped very low at points in its history, so we would expect to find humans with different dna than we have now, because whole races have been wiped out.
@CrownIdeas "so we would expect to find humans with different dna than we have now" Yes, but it wouldn't really be that noticeably different from ours; it'd be more akin to how different your 2nd cousin's DNA is different than yours than the difference between neanderthals and us.
Dear people who saw this. Before you yell at this guy for saying his opinion (FREEDOM OF SPEECH). I want to ask Did you actually watch the whole thing?? if no why judge him also please be open to other opinions and accept the fact that he is right. And I don't believe in god but you don't see atheists running around youtube yelling at religious people. It saddens me when I see people devoting there lives to lies.
Dear people who saw this. Before you yell at this guy for saying his opinion (FREEDOM OF SPEECH). I want to ask Did you actually watch the whole thing?? if no why judge him also please be open to other opinions and accept the fact that he is right. And I don't believe in god but you don't see atheists running around youtube yelling at religious people. It saddens me when I see people devoting there lives to lies.
@9112274 So what you are is saying life came by nothing. Nothing made something? He can talk about viruses and sound smart but he is taking it out of perspective. How can nothing make something that right there is all need to know but it isn't all I know because god blessed me to learn more
@thinkagainism THe elements you're made of, stardust basically, the elements that make up your body, are just as dead as the elements that make up a rock. It's when these elements happen to form complex, big molecules through hundreds of millions of years of bombardment of Earth by amino acids, water, other organic(carbon,oxygen,hydrogen-based- is the meaning of "organic" in chemistry), that things start to happen, eventually membranes form RNA form DNA form, and evolution is taking off!Simple!
@thinkagainism Every carbon atonm, hydrogen atom, oxygen atom in your body are dead alone. But those elements take part in making life, have doing so on Earth for 4 billion years now, leading to scientists creating new life, but sadly also dumb hicks who'd rather trust a bronze-age, dumb fairytalebook like "The Bible" or "The Quran". Luckily atheism is growing the fastest, so humanity will no doubt one day be rid of those books(who are made of organic molecules, by the way, same as you, hehe: )
At 6:45 it says Chimp A + Chimp B = Human, which happened from the fusion.This is just begging the question, if 2 Chimps gave birth to a human, why don't we see the same thing happening today? We still have chimps, so if evolution were true, we should be able to test this idea and repeat it today. And I don't want to hear that the chances are so unlikely that it can't be repeated, because this event must have occured at least twice in order for humans to survive, since we'd need male and female.
@megamaster125 "why don't we see the same thing happening today?" That's nothing more than an ignorant strawman. Nowhere did he say that modern apes did this or can do this; this occurred in our distant ancestor. Modern apes have evolved just as much as humans have, they've just taken a different pathway.
"this event must have occured at least twice in order for humans to survive..." Not true. This mutation wouldn't have kept it from being able to interbreed with the rest of it's tribe.
@ArcanaKnight No, it is a completely valid question. The video claims that Chimp A + Chimp B = Human. If that were true, we could repeat that experiement today.
@gorilla199uncensored That's exactly what the video says and presents. The video states that 2 chimps bred, the chromosomes fused, and the result was a human. The video clearly states that Chimp A + Chimp B = Human. If that is true, we could do an experiement and test that idea.
Insults are a terrible way to convert people btw. Your insults are just weak and pathetic, and only go to verify what the Bible says. I don't need to pretend the Bible is true, it is true whether you like it or not.
@megamaster125 the assumption that you're making (that you don't realize yourself) is that the fusion of the chromosomes right there and then resulted in humans. That is NOT true. Surprisingly, the fusion of chromosomes has little effect on the organism. The genes are still there. It doesn't even mean that the fusion is the direct split between chimps and humans, it just occurred somewhere within the human lineage.The significance of the fused chromosome is that it proves common ancestry.
@gorilla199uncensored Yes, that is what the video said. It's not my fualt the video says Chimp A + Chimp B = Human. And insulting me does not make me want to believe atheism/evolution any more. All you do when you insult me is verify the Bible as true.
And if you think the Bible is wrong, then prove it. Start with Genesis 1:1. Prove to me that God didn't create the universe. You can't.
If you are so retarded you cant watch a video with simple language and dont understand what it says, and get it so wrong as you do, then you are either mentally damaged, lying or retarded or you might be all 3 (A CREATIONIST)
" And insulting me does not make me want to believe atheism/evolution any more."
You will never stop your god pretending no matter what I say!
This guy makes 2 major errors in the first 34 seconds. First, he claims evolution has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt. If that were true, these 15 questions against evolution would already have answers.
creation.com/15-questions
Then he goes on to make the fallacy that a majority vote makes something true. That's not how science works, science works based on evidence, not majority vote.
@megamaster125 "these 15 questions against evolution would already have answers." They have been responded to: tinyurlDOTcom/7afvsvm
"science works based on evidence" And creationism works by denying the evidence that doesn't fit with their preconceived narrative. He's also not saying that its right because so many scientists accept it, he's saying that so many scientists accept it because its the one of the most well-supported scientific theories we have.
@ArcanaKnight No, that site doesn't answer those questions, it just avoids them or makes fallacies. Take #9 for instance. They claim fossils are a rarity, but they're not. We have hundreds and thousands of triceratops fossils.
Or take #4. You claim it's not a valid question but it is. How did animals know to evolve with wings for instance? How does natural selection choose something that doesn't exist yet?
@megamaster125 "We have hundreds and thousands of triceratops fossils" I'm going to need your source for that claim.
And #4 isn't a valid question. Nobody claims that natural selection is a creative process, so objecting to NS because it "selects and doesn't create" is ignorantly fallacious at best, dishonest at worst. NS is just one of the mechanisms of evolution.
@ArcanaKnight At the Hell Creek Formation, 47 triceratop skulls were found in this last decade alone.
wikipediadotorg/wiki/Triceratops
And if you need other sources, just google "how many triceratop fossils have been found"
#4 is a valid question. How does NS select something that isn't there yet? You just don't want it to be a valid question, but that doesn't change anything.
@megamaster125 "47 triceratop skulls were found in this last decade alone." That's quite a bit less than "hundreds and thousands" of triceratops fossils you claimed earlier. Those were also all collected from the same area, where the rare conditions necessary for fossilization would've been present. Considering that the area spans roughly 1.3 million years, and only 47 fossils were found, it should tell you how rare it actually is.
@megamaster125 "How does NS select something that isn't there yet?" It doesn't; it selects the mutations that arise because those are the main creative process, not NS. That's why the question isn't valid. Its like asking "what does the number 5 taste like?", then getting upset when people just look at you dumbfounded at your ignorance; its a purposefully ignorant question on their part, meant to be unanswerably wrong in its premise.
@megamaster125 "They claim fossils are a rarity, but they're not. We have hundreds and thousands of triceratops fossils." => you say hundreds and thousands have been found, yet you later give a source that says only 47... and fossils are indeed very rare to form, creationists accept this too. This is why even if evolution is not true, we will still expect fossil records to be "spotty". That's also why we don't just rely on fossil as evidence for evolution, and this is where genetics comes in.
@Casshyr You should actually read what I said. I said they found 47, in a certain area, in the LAST DECADE ALONE. I said nothing about how many they found prior to that. And again, if you want more sources, just google "how many triceratop fossils do we have," and you'll get dozens of results.
@megamaster125 considering the # of triceratops estimated to be present in the past, in order to say fossil formation is common, you would need to show me at least 10,000 thousands triceratops fossils found in America ALONE in order to make that claim. Will, lets see then, can you? btw I googled your query, and no, it is not common. And furthermore, I can actually cite scientific references that say fossils are hard to form
Only because the scientists think it's true that gives it an edge over other religions? Only because the majority of people believe something is true, it does not mean it is. People used to believe if you were ill you had bad blood and had to lose some; that's how George Washington died!
also you say 99.98% of scientists believe in it, well yea any professor who trys to teach creationism in a class room gets fired! hahah not a very valid reason why creationism isn't true.
@dapwnage123 You do realize that its possible to disagree with evolution without actually teaching creationism, right. Also, in that case they wouldn't be fired because of their personal beliefs, they'd be fired because they were teaching religious beliefs instead of the required curriculum, thereby violating their employment contract as well as the separation clause.
@dapwnage123 Yes, but again, you do realize that its possible to disagree with evolution and not teach creationism, right?
Creationism is a religious/political movement, not a scientific one, that much can be seen by their choice of debate venues and the complete lack of scientific publications.
explain how the bible predicted the renewing of the nation Israel thousands of years before it happened... Amos 9:11, 13 and as you know Israel became a nation in 1948..
Here's a thought, we could just stop being stupid fucking apes and bitching to each other about how everything came to be and just accept people's beliefs for what they are, well all know one day who was actually right or not, just chill out, seriously.
@Jaylikesgreen i would be ok with this, but sadly, in many countries like US, there is an active campaign to push evolution out of school, or at least to have creationism taught in science class along with evolution. If you don't speak up for evolution, it'll be overran in regions where religious beliefs dominate.
@ToRZanderax Because certain people still don't believe that the bible is compatible with evolution. Since it pretty much said god unanimously poofed everything into existence in 6 days.
Thank you Don :) Science is so beautiful. My brother put this in a beautiful way a few years ago. I might post it on another video.
How wondrous it is to know that we are the descendants of ancient life. A series of winners, who succeeded in copulating. 3 billion years later, and here we are, pondering our beginning.
As Brian Cox once said: " Life is the means by which the universe understands itself."
@AikenBruce no, that just means our understanding for more efficient and safer vehicles has evolved. necessity is the mother of invention, and its always being improved, as a necessity of the times. much like evolution. everything evolves to what are environment demands from us, for survival.
@AikenBruce Then I am a fool. So is Stephen Hawking then. From your channel I see you believe in the illuminati and brain control. That explains a lot.
wikipedia : ERVs are sequences in the genome THOUGHT to be derived from ancient viral infections. Endogenous retroviruses MAY BE a variant of a retrovirus. THOUGHT and MAY BE suddenly become irrefutable evidence? New studies suggest that those sequence so called ERV actually aid during transcription. Even now biologists still unable to decipher so many segments in DNA. How can they be so sure about something they dont know much about? Genes only make up around 1.5% of the genome.
@daogdaog Even if, by some slim chance, ERV's turn out to be something besides retroviral DNA, the theory of evolution would still be validated (yet again) in predicting that the more phylogentically related the primate is to humans the more ERV's (or whatever you think they are) it and humans will share; In the same way evolution predicted the identical (both in structure and location) dysfunctional vitamin C gene in primates, etc, etc.
@jbass02 Let us go back to basics to see if evolution can be validated. What are the series of animals that eventually evolved into a giraffe starting from the earliest known giraffid?
@daogdaog Are you implying that you believe evolution is falsified if the full ancestry of giraffa is still being, and will always be, refined starting from say Climacoceras, to Palaeotragus primaevus (which has the same dental formula as giraffa) to P. germaini, Samotherium, S. africanum, Bohlinia, and G. punjabiensis? Here is a notable paper on the subject if you want see a relatively modern summary and understanding of the evidence: bringyou.to/GiraffeEvolution.pdf
@jbass02 Dont rely too much on wikipedia. Starting from Climacoceras you will have morphology consistent with evolution. From a deer-like animal to giraffe-looking animals. but you will have a chronology problem because based on research results Samotherium the assumed descendant of Climacoceras existed before Climacoceras. Okapi the assumed relative of giraffe existed before Samotherium and Climacoceras. How can a descendant evolve into its ancestor?
@daogdaog This is not wiki. I sent you a professional paper making sense of a hundred years of facts. If you are truly interested you’d read it. I used Climacocera as an early form example, but it’s not on the ultimate lineage. Straight from the paper: Canthumeryx sirtensis (~20 Mya) is the earliest known giraffine ancestor. Next, Giraffokeryx -ancestor of Okapi- (10-15 Mya) along with Palaeotragus primavus (14 Mya). Then Samotheres/S. africanum (5-9 Mya), then Bohlinia/B. attica (7-9 Mya).
@jbass02 Read some more about giraffe evolution. According to Mitchell and Skinner research, some short necked giraffes lived before their deer-like supposed ancestors. Four legged short necked animals had no need to evolve into a giraffe to reach higher leaves. Watch youtube "goats in a tree".
@daogdaog Please be specific. What "short necked giraffes lived before their deer-like supposed ancestors"? I obliged you in changing the subject from ERV's to giraffes, gave you the information u asked for, and now youre equivocating. Our evidence and understanding of ERVs and the fossil record is only going to increase and be refined for as long as humans are studying them. Ur position of hoping that evidence stops coming in for evolution has to be ringing some intellectual alarms in you.
@jbass02 You used Climacoceras as an early form example, yet you have not provided when Climacoceras first existed. If this basic and iconic example of evolution is not clear to you, how would you expect to understand fully some more complex topics? Did those four legged short necked animals up in a tree puzzled you? Four legged short necked animals had no need to evolve into a giraffe. Such evidence wont need any refinement.
@daogdaog The dates are in the paper. Several Climacoceras fossils have been dated to between 14 and 17 mya. Their features link them to early giraffids, however, they are a sister group to the family Canthumerycidae which are the actual ancestors of giraffes. There is nothing Un-evolutionary here about the sequence and location of fossils. Basic? Iconic? not clear to me? You're equivocating again. And bringing up climbing goats is a straw man fallacy.
@jbass02 You stated earlier that giraffe evolve starting from Climacoceras 14m to Palaeotragus to Samotherium. Palaeotragus first existed 18MYA. Read some more research papers.
@daogdaog I made myself very clear in following messages about this. I used the genara Climacoreras casually earlier, where more accurately I should have started with a different genera/species Canthumeryx sirtensis (~20 Mya), the earliest known giraffine ancestor. You don't care what the facts are or what they mean. I knew this when you immediately changed the subject from ERVs to giraffes but I'm a patient person so if you want to talk facts, and not change the subject again, I'm around.
@jbass02 No, it is not about genera. You are the one changing your info because you have searched the internet and found that the earliest known giraffid is Climacoreras 14MYA, then you realized that you were wrong. Get lost. Be honest. How could we continue this discussion if you kept changing info just to fit in your arguments?
@daogdaog Look. You asked me about the lineage to modern giraffes. I saw this as an opportunity to learn something new. I quickly discovered, on wiki an other websites, that knowledge of giraffe evolution came off as obscure (and not because of lack of evidence). So I found a research paper done by professionals in the field. I used the genera Climacocera *from the paper* not realizing until later that this was incorrect. I read the paper again and corrected myself. But you do seem to care.
@jbass02 If the iconic example of evolution is obscure, how obscure it could be for a common ancestor without having extracted mtDNA from it? Biologists have found out using mtDNA evidence that humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. Since there is no mtDNA evidence for a common ancestor, biologists speculated that there was a common ancestor based on not so well known rate of mtDNA mutations.
@daogdaog I said the knowledge of giraffe evolution 'came off' as obscure. But it's not as obscure as you hoped it was. Regarding your obscurity question, if you want to know how paleontologists determine what they're looking at you'll read up on it (some of it's in the paper).
"Biologists have found out using mtDNA evidence that humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans".
You're exactly right. You've taken you're first step in understanding evolution.
@jbass02 You mentioned you saw giraffe evolution as an opportunity to learn something new. Now you have the guts to say I am the one having my first steps understanding. You just dont get it. Since there is no mtDNA evidence for a common ancestor, biologists speculated that there was a common ancestor based on not so well known rate of mtDNA mutations. I dont think you understood what I was saying. The source you were reading stated giraffe evolution is obscure, why would you insert "came off"?
@daogdaog Even if you're right and the giraffe evolutionary pathway isn't really known at the moment, so what? Whale evolution, human evolution, etc. also used to be similarly unknown, but we eventually uncovered evidence that shed light on these previously unknown areas. All you're doing is trying to make a god-of-the-gaps argument.
@ArcanaKnight which evidence uncovered that shed light on these previously unknown areas? Have biologists extracted mtDNA evidence of a common ancestor of human and chimp or human and neanderthal? Do you have any evidence of incremental or fine gradation? Please dont give me that supposed whale legs without pelvic bones.
@daogdaog Even if you want to ignore the fossil evidence, the genetic evidence alone confirms common descent. We have multiple independent genetic methods of determining ancestry, and not only do the results of each of the tests confirm each other, but also that shown by the fossil record. That is something science refers to as independent confirmation.
@daogdaog Yes, I learned something about *giraffe evolution* only with regards to their intermediate forms. I didn't learn anything new about evolution itself. On the same page where the paper says giraffe evolution is obscure it goes on to say, "We set out here an alternative conclusion [alternative to the obscurity] that arises from a review of the palaeontological and biochemical evidence of giraffe prehistory, and show that a history of intermediate forms does exist."
@jbass02 It is very clear from the paper you were reading that there are no intermediate forms showing a three-quarter length giraffe neck. Yet so still make excuses for your lack of knowledge. Show me some concrete evidence. Is there any mtDNA evidence extracted from human and chimp common ancestor?
@daogdaog The answer to ur giraffe question very well may be Bohlinia, which I mentioned earlier. From what I'm gathering you may want to keep an eye out for additional Bohlinia fossils in the near future. That said, I want to point out to u that although ur questions are not bad ones, they're just not set up to falsify evolution. There are several ways to falsify evolution (or violently shake it up). Example, find a giraffe in the Cretaceous and you'd be famous forever.
@jbass02 I dont intend to be famous forever. Based on mtDNA evidence, humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. It is not about falsification. Just give me any mtDNA evidence extracted from human and chimp common apelike ancestor. Without it, human evolution is just speculation. Those "may well be" and "thought to have evolved from" or "thought to be derived from " are not solid evidence.
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x Yes, professional. Look up the paper and the authors. They have dozens papers published in peer-reviewed science journals, mostly biomedical. Btw, its all public information. Their email addresses are even on the paper I cited. If u find any fault in their methods or findings let them know. Let the publishers know. Thats how [professional] science works. One of the reasons scientific papers are published is so that other people can prove them wrong, if possible. Good luck.
@jbass02 Tragically every year millions of people will die who have bet there lives.. and eternal souls... On the chance.. That the 700 unexplainable prophecies.. (BEEN PROVEN) About Jesus are not reliable. They believe they can safley ignore the claims that Christ has made About Himself, about salvation, and about heaven and hell. In the light of the overwhelming evidence for the authority of the Bible. One question though.. What if your wrong? Is it worth betting your life?
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x I tend to believe claims when multiple lines of evidence corroborate them, and I tend not to believe extraordinary claims without it. If your god does exist, then he made me that way. You sure do place a lot of emphasis on the bible. I'd suggest reading what biblical scholars actually know and think about the bible. It falls apart pretty quickly. Plus, for all we know, the devil -and not god- could have inspired the compilation of the bible (many of the books Are forgeries)
@TheElixar "we have 23 23 because the 24th and the 24th fused into one correct?"
You're mistaken; in that scenario we would be left with 23 and 24, not 23 and 23. The 24th pair of chromosomes didn't fuse to each other, they fused with another pair of chromosomes, leaving 23 pairs of chromosomes, or 46 individual chromosomes.
The problem with evolution scientists is they keep searching for evidences to prove the evolution theory, if they put in the same effort to disprove evolution, they wouldn't need to waste so much time.
Just calculate the probability of atoms and molecules randomly becoming a simplest single cell living organism from the earth formation time till it appeared which is 1 billion years.
It's more rational for them to believe in buying lottery everyday and striking first prize each time.
stewiecall97. its a pair fusing. 2 + 2=2 so instead of one its two
TheKidzant 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Am I missing something here? If the common ancestor had 48 chromosomes and 2 of them fused together, wouldn't we have 47?
Please explain what I am not understanding here?
stewiecall97 2 days ago
Comment removed
stewiecall97 2 days ago
Well, don't chromosomes fuse just before they begin mitosis? I agree, it doesn't make sense that a pair of 'extra' chromosomes would 'fuse' to become two less within a cell and just go on as if it were natural. My question is this, why? Why would these extra chromosomes just 'fuse' on their own? What mindless force pushes a chromosome to fuse, resulting in intelligence which alleged to have been non-existent up to that point?
cdzuber 2 days ago
Is it even possible for an individual with fused chromosomes to reproduce properly?
Furthermore, isn't it highly unlikely that a pair of Chromosomes fuses in the exact same cell?
MrTatzer 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrTatzer "Is it even possible..." Yes it is; an individual carrying a Robertsonian translocation like this hasn't lost any genetic material and can therefore mate with a normal individual and produce viable, fertile offspring. A well known example of this would be Przewalski's wild horses (33 chromosomes) mating with domesticated horses (32 chromosomes because of translocation)
"isn't it highly unlikely..." Its a heritable trait, it doesn't have to re-fuse in every new individual
ArcanaKnight 3 days ago
what if the neanderthal dna didn't come from a neanderthal but another primate? you assume neanderthals existed, also you don't quote the guy you debated. "everyone in this room is missing a pair of chromosomes" assumes that we were supposed to have the ones we are 'missing'. also, when considering the idea that God wouldn't 'fool' you, consider about Jesus telling the disciples why he speaks in parables, “they may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand...."
cdzuber 4 days ago
Proof ... ??? go to creation web site and add /human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm also a whole page of articles ... /article/6399
AndyG792 1 week ago
@AndyG792 I read it. It was hilarious.
TheSpartanondrugs 1 week ago
i am very religous but i think all commmon religions are bull... they are just one persons conception of god... i beleive that god is real but started the world with the big bang and just sat back and watched..... catholicism is crap lutheracism is crap same with every thing else.... im ignostic try it out
MrCrossfadingrage 1 week ago
@MrCrossfadingrage the word is agnostic
AndyG792 1 week ago
No one ever made this video... it just evolved over time and now we have what you see here. Amazing!
ToneKingGuitarMan 2 weeks ago
@ToneKingGuitarMan That's right, you got it!
AndyG792 1 week ago
Just because you know the Sequence.. You still are NEVER gonna prove God doesnt exist.. So give up.. And we ll never be able to prove he does. So GIVE UP TRYING THIS IS A FAIL.
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 2 weeks ago
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x He's not trying to disprove god. Nice try...
TheSpartanondrugs 1 week ago
Why dont we see chimp chromozones still fusing... Not convinced..
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 2 weeks ago
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x "None is deafer then he who does not want to hear"
TheSpartanondrugs 1 week ago
@TheSpartanondrugs You go ahead and believer you were CREATED from Nothing... You have no purpose... And you just came from goo.. Thats fine with me. Your life has no purpose.. And all EVOLUTIONISTS and ATHIESTS life are this way.. Mine however will never be corrupted by this.. And if Im right im going to Heaven... And if your wrong.. Your going to hell. Go ahead.
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 6 days ago
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x lmaooooo@ heaven and hell. hahahaha and who told you that!? the Bible?? hahaha
Daedae333 6 days ago
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x Fine then. If you would like to believe something because you want to be rewarded, go ahead. Or you could be like me and want to be like me and search for the truth, even if you don't like it.
I pity you. Seriously.
Yes, I do believe in evolution and I do reject the bible
So does Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Marie Curie, Aristotle
But if you want to believe something because it gives you comfort, go ahead.
Once again, I feel sorry for you.
TheSpartanondrugs 6 days ago
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x You see, here's the difference between us
You think with emotion. You know you want to believe god is real because you want there to be a heaven. You want your life to have meaning.
I think without emotion. I want there to be a heaven, but that isn't a good enough reason to believe it. The fact is that there is large amounts of evidence for evolution. I don't know what the universe was created from, and I don't pretend to.
Well, believe what you want.
TheSpartanondrugs 6 days ago
One problem you failed to REALIZE EVOLUTION IMAGES BY ERNST ARE PROVED TO BE FRAUD IN NEW SCIENCE MAGAZINE
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ok so if evolution takes BIILLIONS OF YEARS.. THEN WHY ISNT THERE MORE ANIMALS AND INSECTS AND ONLY 7 BILLION HUMANS... DEBUNKED
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 2 weeks ago
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x dude that makes no sense kill yourself
cgm0407 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 2 weeks ago
Interesting how the scientist uses Probably and Must have instead of did
trademac1974 2 weeks ago
@trademac1974 Not really. Scientists use language like that because they're aware that some future discovery could possibly overturn them, regardless of how remote that possibility is.
ArcanaKnight 2 weeks ago
The only creationists that argue this video, are the ones not smart enough to understand this.
trfinck 2 weeks ago
Can you imagine if all of the people who have studied electricity still could not use it to light a room or simply show the effects of it? They would be called electricity fanatics that believe in a myth called electricity since you can’t actually see an electrical current but only the effects of it. They have produced results and the world is better off for it. Produce results, or everything you are saying is rubbish and all of the data that has been compiled is useless.
dreigel411Vin 3 weeks ago
@dreigel411Vin You think there's not proof for evolution? I've got one word for you: race.
superfawful65 2 weeks ago
@superfawful65 And I will give you one word Babel.....as in Tower of,,,
dreigel411Vin 2 weeks ago
@superfawful65 which makes you a a racist...how sad
dreigel411Vin 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Someone please give me proof.......create life from non-life, not in a cartoon video, not on a chart but a living organism from where there was none. You can explain how you THINK it happened so do it!
dreigel411Vin 3 weeks ago
When scientist can prove he has created life from non-life....the argument will be over. you can study DNA all you want and make assumptions. Make life from non-life - Now that would be proof.
dreigel411Vin 3 weeks ago
You all have 23 pairs of chromosomes and apes have 24 pair….so you are missing a pair….i am laughing because making an assumption is not science. Your Video has failed in every way to prove anything.
dreigel411Vin 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
pegasusfreedom 3 weeks ago
I don't understand how any religious person can watch this video, or one like it, then go back to church and read the Bible with a straight face.
Venusvixen57 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you sure is not another PILTDOWN MAN ?
MrCobra811 4 weeks ago
Don Exodus just got wood explaining evolution
pendermann54 1 month ago
@coffeeis4closers It is all a matter of natural selection based upon habitat properties and conditions. If life is easier due to a specific trait, then the organism will utilize this and become a dominant species in the area.
PudencePuhlmann 1 month ago
Christianity is a great message, as long as it is not taken to a fundamental scale. Treat others how you'd like to be treated and such. Don't get me wrong, I love the messages and morals it portrays. Although I find it rather ignorant to claim every story in the bible is absolutely truthful in every way shape and form without question. I also feel spreading the message through fear of hell is no way to go about things.
PudencePuhlmann 1 month ago
human created divinitity not otherwise, out of hadicapness and atrophia in growing and development some people think there is a kind of dad in the sky, but that is really gross to believe if you think bout it.
alracgabu 1 month ago
I don't understand how the first point proves evolution.
TheUsername1029 1 month ago
No matter how much you want to argue or display "proofs", evolution in and of itself is still and always will be a "THEORY". Ask yourself this question. If we evolved from apes or chimpanzees then why have they remained completely UNCHANGED and un-evolved? Or better yet, why would they even still exist?
coffeeis4closers 1 month ago
@coffeeis4closers There is so very much wrong with that comment. 1) You clearly don't understand what a scientific theory is. 2) We didn't evolve from modern apes. 3) Modern apes have evolved just as much as we have, just in a different way. 4) Did you really just ask "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?", possibly the most cliched creationist strawman ever?!?
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight
hi
why is it a strawman?
would there come out an ape again, if u cut the fused chomosome?
or would come out a human if u fuse them?
what came out the first time after it fused back than?
how did this mutation developed and made children? with other apes?
alexjoneschannel3 1 month ago
@alexjoneschannel3 "why is it a strawman?" Did you even read the rest of my post? Its a strawman because it completely ignores what evolutionary theory actually says.
I don't know what changes would occur if we were to muck about with our genetics like that, though I'd be willing to wager that nobody knows at the moment.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
I don't understand why scientists don't put forth any physical evidence in regards to transitional forms. i'm not here to anger people or be disrespectful to anybody's beliefs, i'm just searching for the truth (like everybody else)... every time i hear about evidence in the fossil record, it always turns out to be a hoax or is disproved. for evolution to be true, wouldn't there be hundreds of transitional forms at the very least? help me out?
jonron3657 1 month ago
@jonron3657 "every time i hear about evidence in the fossil record, it always turns out to be a hoax or is disproved" Then you're only listening to creationists who talk about the same half dozen instances, while at the same time completely ignoring the fact that it was scientists who found out they were frauds in the first place. Every fossil is a transitional form.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight i explore listening to people from all different viewpoints ie. evolutionist, creationist etc. why do you assume that i'm unaware that scientists discovered the fraudulent reconstructions/illustrations? what evidence is there to support that every fossil is a transitional form? it seems that making a statement like that assumes that evolutionary theory is true. isn't that logically backwards?
jonron3657 1 month ago
@jonron3657 "it seems that making a statement like that assumes that evolutionary theory is true" Only if you ignore all the evidence supporting common descent; evidence which not only spans multiple fields, but also provides independent confirmation of what we find in the fossil record.
Its fine to listen to other viewpoints like creationists, but don't make the mistake of also giving their claims equal weight; if you do, you might as well do the same with alchemy and astrology.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@jonron3657 there are more then several pools full of evidence, and you should go to a museum to see some of them.
however fossils are quite the weak amount of evidence for evolution. Our Dna and the traceable heredity we can drawn from it is a much strong evidence for evolution.
Then of course the amount of speciation between, bacteria, flies and other examples that we have already witnessed as well.
(cont.)
NathanWubs 1 month ago
@jonron3657
To be honest about evolution it also matters from which point do you start out?
Evolution is a theory that was developed in biology so you should use the definition on evolution that is given by biology, not by creationism. (cont.)
NathanWubs 1 month ago
@jonron3657 3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
After you start from this point. Then the scientific statement makes much sense. Any definition that creationism gives that is different then this is a strawman.
NathanWubs 1 month ago
In the past few years it has been reported in the News that All white people of European descent have a percentage of neanderthal dna in their DNA. So how is it you can say they were not Human?
CrownIdeas 2 months ago
@CrownIdeas Would you call a chihuahua a great dane? Neanderthals were a sub-species of the hominid species. Almost but not quite like the difference between a horse and a donkey. They could interbreed, but were clearly difference, as can be seen in their fossils, as well as in their DNA (which we've partly sequenced by the way)
libalchris 1 month ago
@libalchris I would call chihuahuas and great danes both dogs. Just like I would call Norwegians and Pigmy African both humans. Geneticists tell us there is a lot less diversity in the human genome and than genome of other primates like chimpanzees. This shows a possible bottle necking of the population at some point. Neanderthals were a race of humans who died out. We may be less fit and diverse as a because of that. Not sure humans could survive a massive population wipeout again.
CrownIdeas 1 month ago
@CrownIdeas
"This shows a possible bottle necking of the population at some point."
Not claiming this is the ark fairy tale are you? LOL
gorilla199uncensored 1 month ago
@gorilla199uncensored I don't understand the question... I was siting peered reviewed articles that say the human population has dropped very low at points in its history, so we would expect to find humans with different dna than we have now, because whole races have been wiped out.
CrownIdeas 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrownIdeas "so we would expect to find humans with different dna than we have now" Yes, but it wouldn't really be that noticeably different from ours; it'd be more akin to how different your 2nd cousin's DNA is different than yours than the difference between neanderthals and us.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrownIdeas
So not going to cliam the ark fairy tale and the bible is true?
" so we would expect to find humans with different dna than we have now, because whole races have been wiped out."
What ever you where reading you didnt understand the point,
gorilla199uncensored 1 month ago
Theists are just coming here to troll, knock it tue fuck off.
ClimberTB 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear people who saw this. Before you yell at this guy for saying his opinion (FREEDOM OF SPEECH). I want to ask Did you actually watch the whole thing?? if no why judge him also please be open to other opinions and accept the fact that he is right. And I don't believe in god but you don't see atheists running around youtube yelling at religious people. It saddens me when I see people devoting there lives to lies.
9112274 2 months ago
Dear people who saw this. Before you yell at this guy for saying his opinion (FREEDOM OF SPEECH). I want to ask Did you actually watch the whole thing?? if no why judge him also please be open to other opinions and accept the fact that he is right. And I don't believe in god but you don't see atheists running around youtube yelling at religious people. It saddens me when I see people devoting there lives to lies.
9112274 2 months ago
@9112274 So what you are is saying life came by nothing. Nothing made something? He can talk about viruses and sound smart but he is taking it out of perspective. How can nothing make something that right there is all need to know but it isn't all I know because god blessed me to learn more
thinkagainism 1 month ago
@thinkagainism THe elements you're made of, stardust basically, the elements that make up your body, are just as dead as the elements that make up a rock. It's when these elements happen to form complex, big molecules through hundreds of millions of years of bombardment of Earth by amino acids, water, other organic(carbon,oxygen,hydrogen-based- is the meaning of "organic" in chemistry), that things start to happen, eventually membranes form RNA form DNA form, and evolution is taking off!Simple!
winterstellar 1 month ago
@thinkagainism Every carbon atonm, hydrogen atom, oxygen atom in your body are dead alone. But those elements take part in making life, have doing so on Earth for 4 billion years now, leading to scientists creating new life, but sadly also dumb hicks who'd rather trust a bronze-age, dumb fairytalebook like "The Bible" or "The Quran". Luckily atheism is growing the fastest, so humanity will no doubt one day be rid of those books(who are made of organic molecules, by the way, same as you, hehe: )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar *having been doing so" I'm tired, so typos flourish here.: )
winterstellar 1 month ago
the big bang theory proven: once there was nothing.....then it exploaded
kinnykiller 2 months ago
@kinnykiller Once there was something, then it decided to create everything for no reason.
Nothing is unstable.
TheSpartanondrugs 1 month ago
Comment removed
debrikishaw 2 months ago
At 6:45 it says Chimp A + Chimp B = Human, which happened from the fusion.This is just begging the question, if 2 Chimps gave birth to a human, why don't we see the same thing happening today? We still have chimps, so if evolution were true, we should be able to test this idea and repeat it today. And I don't want to hear that the chances are so unlikely that it can't be repeated, because this event must have occured at least twice in order for humans to survive, since we'd need male and female.
megamaster125 2 months ago
@megamaster125 "why don't we see the same thing happening today?" That's nothing more than an ignorant strawman. Nowhere did he say that modern apes did this or can do this; this occurred in our distant ancestor. Modern apes have evolved just as much as humans have, they've just taken a different pathway.
"this event must have occured at least twice in order for humans to survive..." Not true. This mutation wouldn't have kept it from being able to interbreed with the rest of it's tribe.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@ArcanaKnight No, it is a completely valid question. The video claims that Chimp A + Chimp B = Human. If that were true, we could repeat that experiement today.
megamaster125 2 months ago
@megamaster125
"The video claims that Chimp A + Chimp B = Human"
are you totally retarded/ignornat or only when it is needed to pretend your bible is true?
That is not what the video says you idiot!
gorilla199uncensored 2 months ago
@gorilla199uncensored That's exactly what the video says and presents. The video states that 2 chimps bred, the chromosomes fused, and the result was a human. The video clearly states that Chimp A + Chimp B = Human. If that is true, we could do an experiement and test that idea.
Insults are a terrible way to convert people btw. Your insults are just weak and pathetic, and only go to verify what the Bible says. I don't need to pretend the Bible is true, it is true whether you like it or not.
megamaster125 2 months ago
@megamaster125 the assumption that you're making (that you don't realize yourself) is that the fusion of the chromosomes right there and then resulted in humans. That is NOT true. Surprisingly, the fusion of chromosomes has little effect on the organism. The genes are still there. It doesn't even mean that the fusion is the direct split between chimps and humans, it just occurred somewhere within the human lineage.The significance of the fused chromosome is that it proves common ancestry.
debrikishaw 2 months ago
@megamaster125
"The video states that 2 chimps bred, the chromosomes fused, and the result was a human."
NO YOU FUCKING CREATARD!
Humans are not desended from chimps, you ignornat fool!
" don't need to pretend the Bible is true,"
LOL YES YOU DO!
"t is true whether you like it or not."
SORRY EVERY GREAT/REPUTABLE UNIVERSITY IN THE WORLD TEACHES SCIENCE/S THAT DISPROVE THE BIBLE!
Thats why the majority of xtians know the bible is not true.
gorilla199uncensored 2 months ago
@gorilla199uncensored Yes, that is what the video said. It's not my fualt the video says Chimp A + Chimp B = Human. And insulting me does not make me want to believe atheism/evolution any more. All you do when you insult me is verify the Bible as true.
And if you think the Bible is wrong, then prove it. Start with Genesis 1:1. Prove to me that God didn't create the universe. You can't.
megamaster125 2 months ago
@megamaster125
"Yes, that is what the video said."
NO IT DOES NOT.
If you are so retarded you cant watch a video with simple language and dont understand what it says, and get it so wrong as you do, then you are either mentally damaged, lying or retarded or you might be all 3 (A CREATIONIST)
" And insulting me does not make me want to believe atheism/evolution any more."
You will never stop your god pretending no matter what I say!
Its up to you to cure your sickness!
gorilla199uncensored 2 months ago
@megamaster125
"And if you think the Bible is wrong, then prove it. "
Well if you wanted to educate yourself (but you cant as you must remain stupid to pretend god is real) you could look it up online.
WHY DOES EVERY REPUTABLE UNIVERSITY TEACH SCIENCES THAT PROVE THE BIBLE FALSE?
Its up to you prove your claims!
PROVIDE EVIDENCE
YOUR GOD EXISTS
IT DID IT
This is where every xtian doesnt even try as they know theres no point! :)
gorilla199uncensored 2 months ago
@gorilla199uncensored Okay I'll prove it with lords wisdom.
thinkagainism 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thinkagainism
"Okay I'll prove it with lords wisdom."
SO NOTHING?
Just proves you have NO evidence for your imaginary friend!
gorilla199uncensored 1 month ago
This guy makes 2 major errors in the first 34 seconds. First, he claims evolution has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt. If that were true, these 15 questions against evolution would already have answers.
creation.com/15-questions
Then he goes on to make the fallacy that a majority vote makes something true. That's not how science works, science works based on evidence, not majority vote.
megamaster125 2 months ago
@megamaster125 "these 15 questions against evolution would already have answers." They have been responded to: tinyurlDOTcom/7afvsvm
"science works based on evidence" And creationism works by denying the evidence that doesn't fit with their preconceived narrative. He's also not saying that its right because so many scientists accept it, he's saying that so many scientists accept it because its the one of the most well-supported scientific theories we have.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@ArcanaKnight No, that site doesn't answer those questions, it just avoids them or makes fallacies. Take #9 for instance. They claim fossils are a rarity, but they're not. We have hundreds and thousands of triceratops fossils.
Or take #4. You claim it's not a valid question but it is. How did animals know to evolve with wings for instance? How does natural selection choose something that doesn't exist yet?
megamaster125 2 months ago
@megamaster125 "We have hundreds and thousands of triceratops fossils" I'm going to need your source for that claim.
And #4 isn't a valid question. Nobody claims that natural selection is a creative process, so objecting to NS because it "selects and doesn't create" is ignorantly fallacious at best, dishonest at worst. NS is just one of the mechanisms of evolution.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@ArcanaKnight At the Hell Creek Formation, 47 triceratop skulls were found in this last decade alone.
wikipediadotorg/wiki/Triceratops
And if you need other sources, just google "how many triceratop fossils have been found"
#4 is a valid question. How does NS select something that isn't there yet? You just don't want it to be a valid question, but that doesn't change anything.
megamaster125 2 months ago
@megamaster125 "47 triceratop skulls were found in this last decade alone." That's quite a bit less than "hundreds and thousands" of triceratops fossils you claimed earlier. Those were also all collected from the same area, where the rare conditions necessary for fossilization would've been present. Considering that the area spans roughly 1.3 million years, and only 47 fossils were found, it should tell you how rare it actually is.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@megamaster125 "How does NS select something that isn't there yet?" It doesn't; it selects the mutations that arise because those are the main creative process, not NS. That's why the question isn't valid. Its like asking "what does the number 5 taste like?", then getting upset when people just look at you dumbfounded at your ignorance; its a purposefully ignorant question on their part, meant to be unanswerably wrong in its premise.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@megamaster125 "They claim fossils are a rarity, but they're not. We have hundreds and thousands of triceratops fossils." => you say hundreds and thousands have been found, yet you later give a source that says only 47... and fossils are indeed very rare to form, creationists accept this too. This is why even if evolution is not true, we will still expect fossil records to be "spotty". That's also why we don't just rely on fossil as evidence for evolution, and this is where genetics comes in.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr You should actually read what I said. I said they found 47, in a certain area, in the LAST DECADE ALONE. I said nothing about how many they found prior to that. And again, if you want more sources, just google "how many triceratop fossils do we have," and you'll get dozens of results.
megamaster125 2 months ago
@megamaster125 considering the # of triceratops estimated to be present in the past, in order to say fossil formation is common, you would need to show me at least 10,000 thousands triceratops fossils found in America ALONE in order to make that claim. Will, lets see then, can you? btw I googled your query, and no, it is not common. And furthermore, I can actually cite scientific references that say fossils are hard to form
Casshyr 2 months ago
@megamaster125
"First, he claims evolution has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt."
It has and stupid pleas from that scientiifc site LOL ONLY JOKING YOUR RELIGIOUS SITE!
DONT CHANGE THAT!
gorilla199uncensored 2 months ago
Only because the scientists think it's true that gives it an edge over other religions? Only because the majority of people believe something is true, it does not mean it is. People used to believe if you were ill you had bad blood and had to lose some; that's how George Washington died!
10gacituao 2 months ago
Evolution is dumb. You people dumb enough to believe we came from monkeys, hmmm, maybe you did come from monkeys ha ha
Thehours1000 2 months ago
@Thehours1000 Yes because the thought that we came from a supernatural being is much more provable.
clarizio 2 months ago
@Thehours1000 Well, mokeys are more evolved than dirt or more likely than a rib!
owenivor 2 months ago
Comment removed
Hehehemppa 2 months ago
@Thehours1000
Back to middle age, idiot
Hehehemppa 2 months ago
Hey, We're all part Dandelion too. If this charade called Evolution is real =S lawl.
iAm5061756c 2 months ago
also you say 99.98% of scientists believe in it, well yea any professor who trys to teach creationism in a class room gets fired! hahah not a very valid reason why creationism isn't true.
dapwnage123 2 months ago 2
@dapwnage123 You do realize that its possible to disagree with evolution without actually teaching creationism, right. Also, in that case they wouldn't be fired because of their personal beliefs, they'd be fired because they were teaching religious beliefs instead of the required curriculum, thereby violating their employment contract as well as the separation clause.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@ArcanaKnight i never said for their personal beliefs... i said if they teach it..
dapwnage123 2 months ago
@dapwnage123 Yes, but again, you do realize that its possible to disagree with evolution and not teach creationism, right?
Creationism is a religious/political movement, not a scientific one, that much can be seen by their choice of debate venues and the complete lack of scientific publications.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
explain how the bible predicted the renewing of the nation Israel thousands of years before it happened... Amos 9:11, 13 and as you know Israel became a nation in 1948..
dapwnage123 2 months ago
@dapwnage123 self-prophesed prophecy does not confirm validity.
supersymbiotic 2 months ago
@supersymbiotic bad spelling lol.
supersymbiotic 2 months ago
@supersymbiotic That's self-fullfilled prophecy, not self-prophesed prophecy.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@ArcanaKnight lol, long night...:p' thanx though.
supersymbiotic 2 months ago
@ArcanaKnight actually now that I think of it could count as both, because of confirmation bias.
supersymbiotic 2 months ago
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"
dapwnage123 2 months ago
@dapwnage123 what verse is this again??
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 2 weeks ago
@BigFudg Wow, 8 months... Anyway, yeah, I was jokin' =P
TheOmniscientSpanner 2 months ago
In the beginning man created god
hakaboy6924 2 months ago 2
YAY AN EVO THEIST
retrogamerist 3 months ago
Here's a thought, we could just stop being stupid fucking apes and bitching to each other about how everything came to be and just accept people's beliefs for what they are, well all know one day who was actually right or not, just chill out, seriously.
Jaylikesgreen 3 months ago
@Jaylikesgreen i would be ok with this, but sadly, in many countries like US, there is an active campaign to push evolution out of school, or at least to have creationism taught in science class along with evolution. If you don't speak up for evolution, it'll be overran in regions where religious beliefs dominate.
Casshyr 2 months ago
I have a solution. God used evolution to create humans. Done. Solved 200 years of debate in a single paragraph.
ToRZanderax 3 months ago
@ToRZanderax Yes, your with the 38% of americans who believe that. You didn't come up with that, sorry bro.
TheSpartanondrugs 3 months ago
@TheSpartanondrugs Then why all the debate?
ToRZanderax 3 months ago
@ToRZanderax Because certain people still don't believe that the bible is compatible with evolution. Since it pretty much said god unanimously poofed everything into existence in 6 days.
TheSpartanondrugs 3 months ago
@TheSpartanondrugs People should read their bibles in Hebrew. It clearly says 6 Ages, not days as in 24 hours. 6 Periods of time.
ToRZanderax 3 months ago
Thank you Don :) Science is so beautiful. My brother put this in a beautiful way a few years ago. I might post it on another video.
How wondrous it is to know that we are the descendants of ancient life. A series of winners, who succeeded in copulating. 3 billion years later, and here we are, pondering our beginning.
As Brian Cox once said: " Life is the means by which the universe understands itself."
Think about this, please. Open your mind!
Njhawkes1234 3 months ago
My V8 Holden Monaro has 4 wheels like the Model T Ford in ancient times - this proves that cars evolved.
AikenBruce 3 months ago
@AikenBruce
LOL youare retarded.
Care to comment on why humans have Inactive DNA FOR TAILS? LOL
gorilla199uncensored 3 months ago in playlist Human Evolution Is A FACT
@AikenBruce no, that just means our understanding for more efficient and safer vehicles has evolved. necessity is the mother of invention, and its always being improved, as a necessity of the times. much like evolution. everything evolves to what are environment demands from us, for survival.
TheRunningComedian 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRunningComedian Ok so if evolution takes BIILLIONS OF YEARS.. THEN WHY ISNT THERE MORE ANIMALS AND INSECTS AND ONLY 7 BILLION HUMANS... DEBUNKED
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 2 weeks ago
Thanks for proving that life was created by a Supreme Intelligence
AikenBruce 3 months ago
@AikenBruce Good old fashion ignorance from you.
TheSpartanondrugs 3 months ago
@TheSpartanondrugs Only a fool says: "There is no God"
AikenBruce 3 months ago
@AikenBruce What's your basis for that claim?
GreyRaven75 3 months ago
@GreyRaven75 The bible, of course. I've seen that quote a number of times from creationists.
killthemwithfirelol 3 months ago
@AikenBruce Then I am a fool. So is Stephen Hawking then. From your channel I see you believe in the illuminati and brain control. That explains a lot.
TheSpartanondrugs 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSpartanondrugs Ok so if evolution takes BIILLIONS OF YEARS.. THEN WHY ISNT THERE MORE ANIMALS AND INSECTS AND ONLY 7 BILLION HUMANS... DEBUNKED
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 2 weeks ago
wikipedia : ERVs are sequences in the genome THOUGHT to be derived from ancient viral infections. Endogenous retroviruses MAY BE a variant of a retrovirus. THOUGHT and MAY BE suddenly become irrefutable evidence? New studies suggest that those sequence so called ERV actually aid during transcription. Even now biologists still unable to decipher so many segments in DNA. How can they be so sure about something they dont know much about? Genes only make up around 1.5% of the genome.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog Even if, by some slim chance, ERV's turn out to be something besides retroviral DNA, the theory of evolution would still be validated (yet again) in predicting that the more phylogentically related the primate is to humans the more ERV's (or whatever you think they are) it and humans will share; In the same way evolution predicted the identical (both in structure and location) dysfunctional vitamin C gene in primates, etc, etc.
jbass02 4 months ago in playlist Human Evolution Is A FACT
@jbass02 Let us go back to basics to see if evolution can be validated. What are the series of animals that eventually evolved into a giraffe starting from the earliest known giraffid?
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog Are you implying that you believe evolution is falsified if the full ancestry of giraffa is still being, and will always be, refined starting from say Climacoceras, to Palaeotragus primaevus (which has the same dental formula as giraffa) to P. germaini, Samotherium, S. africanum, Bohlinia, and G. punjabiensis? Here is a notable paper on the subject if you want see a relatively modern summary and understanding of the evidence: bringyou.to/GiraffeEvolution.pdf
jbass02 3 months ago
@jbass02 Dont rely too much on wikipedia. Starting from Climacoceras you will have morphology consistent with evolution. From a deer-like animal to giraffe-looking animals. but you will have a chronology problem because based on research results Samotherium the assumed descendant of Climacoceras existed before Climacoceras. Okapi the assumed relative of giraffe existed before Samotherium and Climacoceras. How can a descendant evolve into its ancestor?
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog This is not wiki. I sent you a professional paper making sense of a hundred years of facts. If you are truly interested you’d read it. I used Climacocera as an early form example, but it’s not on the ultimate lineage. Straight from the paper: Canthumeryx sirtensis (~20 Mya) is the earliest known giraffine ancestor. Next, Giraffokeryx -ancestor of Okapi- (10-15 Mya) along with Palaeotragus primavus (14 Mya). Then Samotheres/S. africanum (5-9 Mya), then Bohlinia/B. attica (7-9 Mya).
jbass02 3 months ago
@jbass02 Read some more about giraffe evolution. According to Mitchell and Skinner research, some short necked giraffes lived before their deer-like supposed ancestors. Four legged short necked animals had no need to evolve into a giraffe to reach higher leaves. Watch youtube "goats in a tree".
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog Please be specific. What "short necked giraffes lived before their deer-like supposed ancestors"? I obliged you in changing the subject from ERV's to giraffes, gave you the information u asked for, and now youre equivocating. Our evidence and understanding of ERVs and the fossil record is only going to increase and be refined for as long as humans are studying them. Ur position of hoping that evidence stops coming in for evolution has to be ringing some intellectual alarms in you.
jbass02 3 months ago
@jbass02 You used Climacoceras as an early form example, yet you have not provided when Climacoceras first existed. If this basic and iconic example of evolution is not clear to you, how would you expect to understand fully some more complex topics? Did those four legged short necked animals up in a tree puzzled you? Four legged short necked animals had no need to evolve into a giraffe. Such evidence wont need any refinement.
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog The dates are in the paper. Several Climacoceras fossils have been dated to between 14 and 17 mya. Their features link them to early giraffids, however, they are a sister group to the family Canthumerycidae which are the actual ancestors of giraffes. There is nothing Un-evolutionary here about the sequence and location of fossils. Basic? Iconic? not clear to me? You're equivocating again. And bringing up climbing goats is a straw man fallacy.
jbass02 3 months ago
@jbass02 You stated earlier that giraffe evolve starting from Climacoceras 14m to Palaeotragus to Samotherium. Palaeotragus first existed 18MYA. Read some more research papers.
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog I made myself very clear in following messages about this. I used the genara Climacoreras casually earlier, where more accurately I should have started with a different genera/species Canthumeryx sirtensis (~20 Mya), the earliest known giraffine ancestor. You don't care what the facts are or what they mean. I knew this when you immediately changed the subject from ERVs to giraffes but I'm a patient person so if you want to talk facts, and not change the subject again, I'm around.
jbass02 3 months ago
@jbass02 No, it is not about genera. You are the one changing your info because you have searched the internet and found that the earliest known giraffid is Climacoreras 14MYA, then you realized that you were wrong. Get lost. Be honest. How could we continue this discussion if you kept changing info just to fit in your arguments?
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog Look. You asked me about the lineage to modern giraffes. I saw this as an opportunity to learn something new. I quickly discovered, on wiki an other websites, that knowledge of giraffe evolution came off as obscure (and not because of lack of evidence). So I found a research paper done by professionals in the field. I used the genera Climacocera *from the paper* not realizing until later that this was incorrect. I read the paper again and corrected myself. But you do seem to care.
jbass02 3 months ago
@jbass02 If the iconic example of evolution is obscure, how obscure it could be for a common ancestor without having extracted mtDNA from it? Biologists have found out using mtDNA evidence that humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. Since there is no mtDNA evidence for a common ancestor, biologists speculated that there was a common ancestor based on not so well known rate of mtDNA mutations.
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog I said the knowledge of giraffe evolution 'came off' as obscure. But it's not as obscure as you hoped it was. Regarding your obscurity question, if you want to know how paleontologists determine what they're looking at you'll read up on it (some of it's in the paper).
"Biologists have found out using mtDNA evidence that humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans".
You're exactly right. You've taken you're first step in understanding evolution.
jbass02 3 months ago
@jbass02 You mentioned you saw giraffe evolution as an opportunity to learn something new. Now you have the guts to say I am the one having my first steps understanding. You just dont get it. Since there is no mtDNA evidence for a common ancestor, biologists speculated that there was a common ancestor based on not so well known rate of mtDNA mutations. I dont think you understood what I was saying. The source you were reading stated giraffe evolution is obscure, why would you insert "came off"?
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog Even if you're right and the giraffe evolutionary pathway isn't really known at the moment, so what? Whale evolution, human evolution, etc. also used to be similarly unknown, but we eventually uncovered evidence that shed light on these previously unknown areas. All you're doing is trying to make a god-of-the-gaps argument.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
@ArcanaKnight which evidence uncovered that shed light on these previously unknown areas? Have biologists extracted mtDNA evidence of a common ancestor of human and chimp or human and neanderthal? Do you have any evidence of incremental or fine gradation? Please dont give me that supposed whale legs without pelvic bones.
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog Even if you want to ignore the fossil evidence, the genetic evidence alone confirms common descent. We have multiple independent genetic methods of determining ancestry, and not only do the results of each of the tests confirm each other, but also that shown by the fossil record. That is something science refers to as independent confirmation.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
@daogdaog Yes, I learned something about *giraffe evolution* only with regards to their intermediate forms. I didn't learn anything new about evolution itself. On the same page where the paper says giraffe evolution is obscure it goes on to say, "We set out here an alternative conclusion [alternative to the obscurity] that arises from a review of the palaeontological and biochemical evidence of giraffe prehistory, and show that a history of intermediate forms does exist."
jbass02 3 months ago
@jbass02 It is very clear from the paper you were reading that there are no intermediate forms showing a three-quarter length giraffe neck. Yet so still make excuses for your lack of knowledge. Show me some concrete evidence. Is there any mtDNA evidence extracted from human and chimp common ancestor?
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog The answer to ur giraffe question very well may be Bohlinia, which I mentioned earlier. From what I'm gathering you may want to keep an eye out for additional Bohlinia fossils in the near future. That said, I want to point out to u that although ur questions are not bad ones, they're just not set up to falsify evolution. There are several ways to falsify evolution (or violently shake it up). Example, find a giraffe in the Cretaceous and you'd be famous forever.
jbass02 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jbass02 I dont intend to be famous forever. Based on mtDNA evidence, humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. It is not about falsification. Just give me any mtDNA evidence extracted from human and chimp common apelike ancestor. Without it, human evolution is just speculation. Those "may well be" and "thought to have evolved from" or "thought to be derived from " are not solid evidence.
daogdaog 3 months ago
@jbass02 You sent a "PROFESSIONAL PAPER" What is professional? on your "OPINION"
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 2 weeks ago
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x Yes, professional. Look up the paper and the authors. They have dozens papers published in peer-reviewed science journals, mostly biomedical. Btw, its all public information. Their email addresses are even on the paper I cited. If u find any fault in their methods or findings let them know. Let the publishers know. Thats how [professional] science works. One of the reasons scientific papers are published is so that other people can prove them wrong, if possible. Good luck.
jbass02 2 weeks ago
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 2 weeks ago
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x I tend to believe claims when multiple lines of evidence corroborate them, and I tend not to believe extraordinary claims without it. If your god does exist, then he made me that way. You sure do place a lot of emphasis on the bible. I'd suggest reading what biblical scholars actually know and think about the bible. It falls apart pretty quickly. Plus, for all we know, the devil -and not god- could have inspired the compilation of the bible (many of the books Are forgeries)
jbass02 2 weeks ago
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x proven prophecies,. please show these prophecies and show me how they were proven
mandrillx 1 day ago
@jbass02 Let us go back to basics. What are the series of animals that eventually evolved into a giraffe starting from the earliest known giraffid?
daogdaog 4 months ago
IM SERIOUS CAN SOMEONE HELP ME
If we have 46 chromazones
and the chims have 48
and 1 chromozone, are we not missing 2 chromozones
which means that instead of 24 24
we have 23 23 because the 24th and the 24th fused into one correct?
wouldnt that mean we have 23 pairs
and then 1 full chromozone
meaning we have 47? please help me.
TheElixar 4 months ago
@TheElixar Check the Dover Trial, Ken Miller explained that in court.
BaronesaReturns 4 months ago
@TheElixar "we have 23 23 because the 24th and the 24th fused into one correct?"
You're mistaken; in that scenario we would be left with 23 and 24, not 23 and 23. The 24th pair of chromosomes didn't fuse to each other, they fused with another pair of chromosomes, leaving 23 pairs of chromosomes, or 46 individual chromosomes.
ArcanaKnight 4 months ago
The problem with evolution scientists is they keep searching for evidences to prove the evolution theory, if they put in the same effort to disprove evolution, they wouldn't need to waste so much time.
Just calculate the probability of atoms and molecules randomly becoming a simplest single cell living organism from the earth formation time till it appeared which is 1 billion years.
It's more rational for them to believe in buying lottery everyday and striking first prize each time.
Tsuruga0Ren 4 months ago in playlist Human Evolution Is A FACT