Transitional Fossils prove Evolution is wrong; Darwin admitted this!

[dabaron332]

Fossils are probably the most compelling evidence FOR evolution, you retard. I'd also like to point out that all fossils are transtitional, as species are always evolving. You might want to do a bit more research on evolution before you go about bashing it. By research, I don't mean reading some stupid christian forum where christians go to masturbate over scripture and how series of words prove that theories backed by hundreds of scientists are wrong. Evolution is a proven fact. Get over it.

[123456789robbie]

it's about how unlikely it is for any particular animal to be fosilized. even now we're lucky to have the number of fosils we do

[ChristianIce]

To disprove evolution you have to publish a paper for the peer review.

Pass the news to the other creationists.

2 minutes and 52 seconds that I won't even watch, just some waste of space in google's HDs.

[yodirty33]

its gonna be fun in heaven to meet creationists and be like "yeah we made it to! and im sure the big guy told you how wrong you were in life right?"

[tra1215]

The reason we don't have 100's of transitional fossils is because the process of preservation in stone is rare. Most fossils would have disintegrated before getting a chance to be preserved so well. We're damn lucky to have found the ones we did! Also, Darwin died before most transitional fossils were discovered. All he did was present the idea for evolution. More recent scientists are the ones who give credit to his idea.

[DoctorBlissphd]

Are you a paleontologist? Do you know the likelyhood of a fossil forming? Darwin has nearly nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution as it is today. He came up with the concept, that's it. Darwin was also a humble man, and knew that his idea couldn't be proved in the time he lived in. We have evidence now from a myriad of fields that confirm Darwin's theory. That's why it's called a theory. Why do you think that YOU can just look at some fossil pictures and determine the record is false?

[MrTimeLimited]

You are a retard, I've read origins of species and if you actually read the book instead of nit picking a quote you'd also know that Darwin stated was too incomplete, too biased and too poorly known to provide strong evidence against his theory. Since then we have found hundreds of links that prove evolution. And is backed by over 90% of the National Academy of Science according to National Geographic.

[davapod]

The stink of willful ignorance once again wafts from the mouth of another creationist poster boy. Stop quote mining. It's been over 150yrs since Darwin published, and the fossil record has grown exponentially since then. That record can only be explained in one way and that isn't by the "magic guy in the sky did it" hypothesis..By the way every fossil or organism is in effect transitional, what do you expect to find? Oh I know, the crockoduck...

[dracuel]

you say "if you look at it without bias..."this coming from a christian?Also creationism says dinosaurs never existed and fossils are to troll scientist... so you are using something u dont believe exists to disprove what we believe? that would be like me quoting the bible to create atheist

[finetakeallthenames]

As others have said, Darwin's knowledge of things is extremely limited compared to our knowledge today. But besides that, Darwin actually had several concerns about his theory, precisely because he lacked that knowledge. As our knowledge, and fossil record has grown, evolution only gains strength. I need to find a video I saw once that did an excellent job of discussing this

[metalsusa1]

My God when are you creationists going to give it up already? Finish reading what Darwin was saying and you'll realize he was confident future finding would prove him right. Stop your pathetic and misleading quote mining lies.

[nekineki]

i love your "when you really look at it" argument, like a kid making videos in his bedroom sees things clearer than people who study this for a living.

[Futzyy]

He said that that's the best argument against it, that doesn't mean that renounced his own theory. And no, We won't find fossils of everything, do you know what it takes for something to fossilize? No? Then shut the hell up.

[tosmyth]

seriously open up your mind kid, darwin knew nothing compared to today. Every fossil is a transitional fossil how could they not be? are you hoping to find a half fish half gorilla? why would something evolve in such a fashion, what benefit would the species have.

[alienisuntverus]

So the fossils that show a clear transition from one species to another over a period of time disproves the theory that makes that prediction and your source is the scientist who lived before DNA. Creation logic fails so hard.

[wonbyamile]

@ItsThatGuy LoL my comment was joke. You creationists have no sense of humor......Oh yeah and the Bible is also full of crap. LoL

[wonbyamile]

creationism makes a lot more sense.........................­.God created 1 man and 1 woman and they populated the whole wide world. Oh yeah that makes a lot more sense. As they say "Incest is best"......oh yeah and some of them turned different colors during their trip.

[ItsThatGuy1989]

@wonbyamile Adam and Eve is a metaphor fuck face. Ever read the bible? Oh that's right you listen to what every man says if he has something very complex that looks fucking sophisticated. the bible It's full of symbolism's

[semperveritatem]

Geology has discovered a lot in the last 100 years, you should probably try to catch up...

[vozuluzov]

Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.

[SqueakerAlpha]

Darwins thoughts on evolution are interesting but not relevant to the theory as it exists today. Darwin did not know of the workings of the cell, or dna, how genetics worked. There has been no evidence in over 100 years that disproves evolution. True there have been adjustments to the tree diagrams as more information is found.

Every fossil is transitional, and we have lots of fossils, lots and lots and lots , and lots.

[revilo412]

You can take any quote and make it into an argument if you use it in the wrong context.

Here you go, I know God doesnt exist because I went to work last Sunday, and I'm still alive. "For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD.

Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.” therefore God doesn't exist.

[gregrutz]

Good thing we found all the transitional fossils proving evolution.

MOST of the animals went extinct, no dinosaurs, no trilobites, no microraptors,etc.

Almost everthing is a transitional fossil.

Keep reading, Darwin answers his own question.

[xtro1969]

You need to jump back in your time machine & come back, a lot has changed....you'd be amazed.......

[evilgenius2003]

Please pick up a dictionary and look up the word "fact" before you attempt to use it again. After that, go to a library and check out any biology text that is less than one hundred years old. Then you will know why you fail.

[MannyXj1]

Evolutionary scientist would laugh in your face! You can't even properly attempt to disprove evolutionary facts, because the presented evidence against those facts are false to begin with. You'd rather attempt to slander proven science to fit your own bullshit agenda than seek truth. You want to believe creationism is true so badly that you look up poor arguments to validate your apparent doubt. But you lack the sense to even realize what makes those arguments false. I pity you...

[Vicsor]

You stopped reading before he explained WHY he said this, good job.

After that quote he says the reason why he said this is because they hadn't found a lot of fossils back then. We are 150 years later and we DID find a lot more fossils now.

[jerrygreg2]

It's not a fact. Your head is full of wee wheels.

[MsAgnosticatheist]

If you are looking for truth you need to read science books by the best and most respected men in the field, not creationist websites. Fossils are even not the strongest support for Evolution biology is. Paleontologist r professionals these scientist study for decades on the history of some obscure species that you've never even heard of. Don't think you know more about evolution or fossils than they do. These fossils are millions of years, even billions years old. Rare enough that some exists

[chia8047]

wow all of you evolutinist think for a minit it makes no sence im only 14 and i know just think evilotion makes no sence

[AwesomOver9000]

@chia8047 "wow all of you evolutinist think for a minit it makes no sence im only 14 and i know just think evilotion makes no sence"

Let me fix this up for you..

"Wow, all of you evolutionists should think for a minute. It makes no sense. I'm only 14 and I know. Just think, evolution makes no sense."

There you go, now practice writing some more, and when you can actually articulate your ideas come on back and you can explain how "evilotion makes no sence'.

[chia8047]

wow all of you evolutinist think for a minit it makes no sence im only 14 and i know just think

[Pigdowndog]

May I suggest you actually read "On the Origin of Species" instead of repeating creationist website crap.

Also check out WildwoodClaire's video in reply to your uninformed nonsense.

Evolution is a fact, get over it!

[bigboy45454545]

Wow, not only are you quote mining Darwin but you're an Creatarded ignoramus as well. Happy Magic Cosmic Jewish Zombie Day. He became undead so you can spread the lies of your religion.

[WildwoodClaire1]

And by the way, Jesus don't like lying, whatever the reason for, and your creation myth won't get you into heaven anymore.

[WildwoodClaire1]

Fascinating how you quote mine a 19th century publication and ignore the thousands of transitional fossils discovered since 1859, the discovery of the laws of genetics, the discovery of the structure of DNA, and the completion of the human genome project, not once stopping to consider how absurd it is for a modern human to blindly accept a mythology concocted by a particularly uninformed group of ancient sheep-stealers. Congratulations on being chosen the "Dim Bulb of the Week" by Claire.

[hugesinker]

Many great scientists anticipate objections to their own conclusions, state those objections, and then offer a rebuttal to them. You skipped over the part of the book where he rebuts that objection-- he did not believe it to be valid and explains why. This is a common tactic of Creationist sources known as quote-mining. It is a reprehensible form of dishonesty.

[bluemoonrising26]

Ben Johnson must DIE.

[AwesomOver9000]

@bluemoonrising26 I disagree, Ben Johnson should live. He's one of the best arguments for atheism yet.

[bluemoonrising26]

@AwesomOver9000

You may be right. XD

[DarthFennec]

Go to the Wikipedia page called `List of Transitional Fossils,' there's loads of them.

Obviously you've never read The Origin of Species. His next sentence is, `The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.'

The fossil record isn't perfect, and Darwin had access to pretty much none of it compared to what we have today. A common ancestor may not be obviously a common ancestor, sometimes things don't leave fossils, and we can't dig everywhere.

[Thinker4343]

Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipthecus ramidus, Ardipithecus kadabba, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus boisei, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus bahreghazali, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo erectus.

To name a few....

[Thinker4343]

Propliopithecus, Aegyptopithecus, Proconsul, Limnopithecus, Dryopithecus, Pakicetus, Nalacetus, Ichthyolestes, Gandakasia, Ambulocetus, Himalayacetus, Attockicetus, Remingtonocetus, Dalanistes, Kutchicetus, Andrewsiphius, Indocetus, Qaisracetus, Takreacetus, Artiocetus, Babiacetus, Protocetus, Pappocetus, Eocetus, Georgiacetus, Natchitochia, Dorudon, Ancalacetus, Zygorhiza, Saghacetus, Chrysocetus, Gaviacetus, Pontogeneus, Basilosaurus, Basiloterus, Sahelanthropus tchadensis,

[Thinker4343]

Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus. Diademodon. Proelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus,Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon, Vincelestes, Pariadens, Kennalestes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops, Palaechthon, Purgatorius, Cantius, Pelycodus, Amphipithecus, Pondaungia, Parapithecus,

[Thinker4343]

Doleserpeton annectens, vieraella, Proterogyrinus, Limnosclis, Tseajaia, Solenodonsaurus, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Captorhinus, Petrolacosaurus, Araeoscelis, Apsisaurus, Claudiosaurus, Planocephalosaurus, Protorosaurus, Prolacerta, Proterosuchus, Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus, Coelophysis, Deinonychus, Oviraptor, Lisboasaurus, Archeopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Paleothyris, Protoclersydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon,

[Thinker4343]

"Do not have them"

Hmm.....Interesting.....What about these?

Cladoselache, tristychius, ctenacanthus, paleospinax, spathobatis, Protospinax, Acanthodians, cheirolepis, mimia, Canobius, Aeduella, Parasemionotus, Oreochima, leptolepis, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion, tiktaalik, panderichthys, Elpistostege, Obruchevichthys, Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Pholidogaster, Pteroplax, Dendrerpeton acadianum, Archegosaurus decheni, Eryops megacephalus, Trematops, Amphibamus lyelli,

[LunarJay]

The description of this video is incorrect; Darwin clearly did not imply that transition fossils prove his theory wrong. Even if you take this quotation to be an acknowledgement of an unexplained flaw in his theory, it should not be presented as undeniable proof against; it shows ignorance and lack of understanding. Should the Evolutionists versus Creationists debate really be reduced to an immature argument?

[coolgreyoneabby]

Your quote from Darwin is dishonest. Creationists always quote Darwin questioning his own theory but always conveniently stop right before Darwin explains why we see what we see. In his book, he was playing his own devils advocate then explaining the evidence. Dishonest creationists simply quote the preamble suggesting that Darwin himself did not believe his own work. Shame on you Creationists. At least be Honest. Isn't dishonesty a sin?

[NotsoxPosiSarah]

No one below is willing to be un-biased. They all are repeating the same rhetoric, but its cute how everyone wants to act like they knew Darwins thought process when he disputed the notion of evolution being accurate. Its almost humorous how quick so many below will discard some ones opposing philosophy and just deem them as an invalid religious nut.

[terrymorse]

The necessary conditions for making a fossil are quite rare, so rare that it's a wonder that we find any at all. Yet we do, and the number and variety of species found to date are quite amazing. Lots an lots of transitional species, too.

Study up on evolution, you'll be amazed at how such a simple concept can produce such variety.

[haz020190]

ha just realised everyone below me said the same thing... sorry bout that =P

[haz020190]

back in darwins time the fossil record was incredibly incomplete compared to today.

We have today pretty much every transitional fossil that we could ask for.

apes to humans, the ancestry of whales, the first tetrapods, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, early reptiles into dinosaurs archosaurs mammals and other lineages, dinosaurs to birds the list goes on!

compared to darwins day the fossil record is much more complete.

dont quote things that are now out of context.

[kevinhops317]

look at fossil records, genetics and physics "it really doesn't support creation theory, and thats a fact"

[gregrutz]

They must teach quote mining in Sunday school

[griffin3220789]

Actually we do have many transitional fossils. The reason Darwin said what he did is that they did not know of any transitional fossils at the time and genetics had not been discovered yet. Now a days we have plenty of transitional fossils and everyone back up evolution. Also, even without these fossils we could prove it with genetics. Are we from the same time period?

[coolintruddle]

I'm not going to debate you. I'm not going to show you where you're wrong. I will tell you this, Darwin lived 150 years ago. Many aspects of his theory have holes in it. In 150 years, we have filled in most of those holes. That is what the scientific method is. A self correcting system, because we test and retest and if something is found to be wrong, we throw it out and try something new. It is called critical thinking.

[boojo1]

This is really quite depressing. You really need to consider the evidence before you form an opinion. Bias is far too evident in your stance. Get a few books, both for and against evolution that offer an objective look, study them with an open mind.

Then, when you can honestly say you have reached your own conclusions, come back with another video.

Question everything and know that there is no ultimate truth.

[MrLemex]

Transitional fossils prove evolution is wrong? That does not even make sense. Besides, Darwin lived 150 years ago, so obviously he will not know as much as we do now. This video is crap.

[EarthlyDerision]

In all truth all fossils are transitional fossils. Every species that ever existed was a transitional point toward the next. In Darwin's time there were far fewer fossils known. Its also interesting to note that no fossil has ever been discovered in stratum it would not be expected to be found in.

[Vehementi]

"Even Darwin himself questioned evolution..."

Of course he did. Every good scientist questions and doubts his hypothesis. This was 150 years ago, just look at the comments here, we've found all of them SINCE then, and they all fit together and match up the phylogenic tree of life perfectly.

He also said life would have to have an embedded code of some sort, that is used to define features of an animal... lo and behold, we stumble across DNA, which is exactly what Darwin predicted.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Kid, you don't know what you're talking about.

Everything you say is just silly.

Any time a creationist starts a sentence with "Even Darwin said ..." you can bet your behind he hasn't actually read it in context. You didn't even read the following paragraphs - you're just repeating silly crap you read and didn't understand.

[Thinker4242]

Sahelanthropus tchadensis Orrorin tugenensis Ardipthecus ramidus Ardipithecus kadabba Australopithecus afarensis Australopithecus africanus Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus garhi Australopithecus aethiopicus Australopithecus boisei Australopithecus robustus Australopithecus bahreghazali Homo habilis Homo rudolfensis Homo erectus To name a FEW

[Thinker4242]

Hold on!!! theres some more. Proconsul Limnopithecus Dryopithecus Pakicetus Nalacetus Ichthyolestes Gandakasia Ambulocetus Himalayacetus Attockicetus Remingtonocetus Dalanistes Kutchicetus Andrewsiphius Indocetus Qaisracetus Takreacetus Artiocetus Babiacetus Protocetus Pappocetus Eocetus Georgiacetus Natchitochia Dorudon Ancalacetus Zygorhiza Saghacetus Chrysocetus Gaviacetus Pontogeneus Basilosaurus Basiloterus

[Thinker4242]

Just a few more.. Procynosuchus Dvinia Thrinaxodon Cynognathus Diademodon Proelesodon Probainognathus Exaeretodon Oligokyphus Kayentatherium Pachygenelus Diarthrognathus Adelobasileus Sinoconodon Kuehneotherium Eozostrodon Morganucodon Haldanodon Peramus Endotherium Kielantherium Aegialodon Steropodon Vincelestes Pariadens Kennalestes Cimolestes Procerberus Gypsonictops Palaechthon Purgatorius Cantius Pelycodus Amphipithecus Pondaungia Parapithecus Propliopithecus Aegyptopithecus

[Thinker4242]

Heres some more!! Doleserpeton annectens vieraella Proterogyrinus Limnosclis Tseajaia Solenodonsaurus Hylonomus Paleothyris Captorhinus Petrolacosaurus Araeoscelis Apsisaurus Claudiosaurus Planocephalosaurus Protorosaurus Prolacerta Proterosuchus Hyperodapedon Trilophosaurus Coelophysis Deinonychus Oviraptor Lisboasaurus Archeopteryx Sinornis Ambiortus Hesperornis Ichthyornis Paleothyris Protoclersydrops Clepsydrops Archaeothyris Varanops Haptodus Dimetrodon Sphenacodon Biarmosuchia

[Thinker4242]

THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL Fossils!! Except for these.... Cladoselache tristychius ctenacanthus paleospinax spathobatis Protospinax Acanthodians cheirolepis mimia Canobius Aeduella Parasemionotus Oreochima leptolepis Osteolepis Eusthenopteron Sterropterygion tiktaalik panderichthys Elpistostege Obruchevichthys Hynerpeton Acanthostega Ichthyostega Pholidogaster Pteroplax Dendrerpeton acadianum Archegosaurus decheni Eryops megacephalus Trematops Amphibamus lyelli

[gregrutz]

Keep reading after your mine quote. Darwin answers the question.

[AmericanNohbuddy]

do you even know what a transitional fossil is? Kid, go get an education.

[iamsupertoad]

maybe evolution is true................hahahhahha­hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Fabricated1337]

There seems to be a confusion about the term 'theory'.

In the scientific world, a theory is something that was proven by mathematical or physical evidence via the scientific method.

[pamansprewell33]

people say the bible is false because it's based on a myth.  what is evolution based on? the big bang theory. we can't all evolve out of nothing... so the earth was created SOMEHOW- and i guess they say it was a series of cosmic "accidents" that resulted in the formation of a cell??? sounds far fetched to me.

[gregrutz]

You have never studied fossils and don't understand evolution.

Darwin is 150 years out of date.

99% of animals went extinct.

Read the next line after your quote, he answers the question.

[1Mafioso4]

Evolution, science & reason = Truth

[PBGlorious]

@1Mafioso4 evolution is not science.Its sounds more like a fairy tail.1st of all science is observation,u must be able to observe it.evolution you cant.fossils cant prove anything at all.if u c fossils in da dirt all u know is it DIED!! it doesnt come wid a tag saying wat group or species it belongs 2 or it descended from from dis or dat animal!3rd wat evolution teaches is a none live thing came alive.no1 has seen non-living come to life n wat makes u think dat it doesnt happen now happened b4

[1Mafioso4]

@PBGlorious i'm not about to get into one of these youtube arguments with you Evolution is real and your an idiot if you believe otherwise

[aguteempasil]

@PBGlorious everything you have just said is ignorant. it absolutely IS observable, it IS fact, and there are mountains upon mountains of evidence to support it. you have no idea what evolution is.

[PBGlorious]

@aguteempasil excuse my ignorance can you please tell me any evidence of evolution that I can observe? and just in case can u tell me your view of what evolution is?? please convince me, im a theist, it would be great if u could.

[aguteempasil]

@PBGlorious its not just one group of scientists who support evolution, its a whole range of other disciplines of science that come to the same conclusion. it is a gradual, very gradual change in inherited traits in a population, pressured by environmental factors through means of natural selection. you should research it because it is very interesting and its liberating, i found, to realize that holy scripture is mythology and not fact. scripture is kind of an unsatisfactory explanation.

[weirdone17]

@1Mafioso4 OK, you must be a retard. The bible has over 2000 years of evidence of Jesus, God, Moses, The Burning bush, and many other things. Evolution is STILL just a theory and a lie.

[1Mafioso4]

@weirdone17 FUCK THE BIBLE!!! it was written by ignorant jewish tribes men in the bronze age!!the bible is not evidence

[aguteempasil]

@weirdone17 there is no evidence that jesus even existed. the bible is a source of mythology, not a source of reliable information. we dont know who the authors were, we dont know exactly when most of the books were written in the OT. evolution is not just a theory, its a fact. the theory aspect is the processes by which it occurred. get your fucking facts straight.

[KiptaviusFuzz]

Fossilization is not an easy process; it requires almost perfect placement to avoid deterioration, but that hasn't stopped thousands of specimens from being fossilized. The problem isn't that scientists don't have enough fossil evidence, it is that there are too many to put into their rightful taxa. Evolution can be demonstrated independent of fossils with our understanding of phylogenetics. Idiot...

[patrickledford420]

no no no when he was alive they had no fossils since then we have found many many fossils literaly thousands just in the last 7 million years of human fossils and there is many complete fossils and no they dont just see the fossils and think there transitions go look up donexodus2 and aronra vids on here every bit of paleontology, biology, genetics, homologies, atavisms, phylogonies, and fossils dude are fucking abundent

[00Jax00]

if i could make a suggestion.

you don't know anything about science. stick to religion and try and empower people to believe in God along with the scientific theories that have more proof then him. And don't try and disprove any of it because you personally have failed epically every time

[00Jax00]

the conditions have to be just right to make a fossil. btw your criticizing science for haveing little proof in the time of Darwin when your supporting a religion with not physical evidence that God exists at all. Also we have a lot more fossils today, than what they had when Darwin came up with his theory.

[Gigano1986]

In order to asses the Modern Synthesis to be true, scientists don't depend solely upon fossils. Fossils tell us a lot about what happened to life on earth and when and where specific species in life's history lived and how they looked like. However, one can infer from genetics and ecology alone that life must have evolved and continues to evolve to this day.

Fossils can disproof evolution: finding rabbits in the Precambrium to quote a famous example. However, no such fossil has ever been found.

[lucius1976]

These guys should put more focus on where the bible is wrong instead wasting their time. f

[mgunslinger17]

You do know that the odds of a skeleton becoming a fossil are very low, right? The conditions have to be just right for them to be formed. That said, for sure there are gaps in the fossil record. Just because there are not a lot transitional species fossils does not disprove evolution.

[Havokreator]

Bird evolution:

Epidexipteryx hui, Protoavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Archeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiasaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis

[Havokreator]

And there are quite a few thousand more, but I'll leave it at this.

[ozpowermo]

LOL @ FAIL!

[JohnHasSeriousQ]

Ben. You don't have to give up God in order to accept that Evolution is the best explanation of how life changed over the past 4 billion years or so into what it is today. Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller and many other extremely respectable scientists believe in God. Only the most literalist interpretation of the bible, the 6 day creation story for example, needs to go in order for Christianity to not conflict with data.

This shouldn't be hard because you already don't think God is a Rock!

[sabertooth1980]

Quoting Darwin's book. Argument from Authority. The ideas stand on their own merits regardless of who preposed them.

Next, Out of Date information. Sense Darwin's time we have mapped genomes, uncovered the transitional fossils and learned more than what Darwin at the time could have even imagined.

Denial You're doing it right.

Science You're failing. Hard.

[flyingscience]

On the average there is 1new transitional fossil found every 7 weeks .

[flyingscience]

Transitional fossil: bats(no sonar) , turtles with only a (bottom shell ), transitional fish to amphibians with the start of feet , transitional birds from dinos, early ape with human traits have been found in less than 10 years .

[flyingscience]

Fighting evolution with quotes and omitting key points is a common creationist tactic .Evangelicals are becoming secular and skeptical at an alarming rate due to easy access of information on the internet .1/4 of Evangelical kids have left in 10 years !

[flyingscience]

Ben - read and watch several pro evolution articles /videos on transitional fossils .You need to unlearned what you have been indoctrinated from Evangical upbringing .

[TheKilgoretrout]

Since Darwin's time we have found many transitional fossils. We also know of ring species which can interbreed along the ring, but the ends cannot. By removing one or more of the subspecies, we would have 2 or more new species, which is what Darwin predicts. The "missing" species would be transitional species

[DerivedApe]

I see you failed to quote the whole thing as it end with sentence "The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

After that Darwin goes on explaining whatkind of transitions he would expect there to be etc.

you can read the whole section here:

tiny(DOT)cc/PvUuu

You really should avoid picking quotes like this from creationist websites because most of the time, if not always quotemines.

rest of your video is just assertions that are simply false.