yeah original tetrapods eventually evolved to lay amniotic eggs which were eggs seen in modern reptiles and amphibians. This then allowed the evolutation of dinosaurs
Evolution is stupid. Atheists will believe the most absurd things no matter how crazy, as long as they don't have to concede there is a God. Design is OBVIOUS, and non-believers have to keep telling themselves "there is no design, there is no design" LOL and concoct elaborate drawings and imagine wild scenarios, ALL make-believe. If you want to BELIEVE that a fish crawled out of the mud and grew legs and was the ancestor humans, that's fine, but don't call it science. Admit it's RELIGION.
@DarthHater100 i wish i was as simple minded as you, but sorry, some of us arent fucking retarded and actually want to learn about the world. go back to your pretty little nursery book with the funny stories and characters and leave intelligent conversation to us big boys :)
@BlueBuzzards Ah, like a typical atheist, you can`t get your point across without using vulgarities. Why are you so angry? Nobody is forcing you to believe the Bible, nor does anybody force you to pay for it to be indoctrinated into your children. But evolutionists DO force their crazy beliefs to be taught to children, at tax payer expense. No one has ever seen people come from monkeys, evolution is not even science. Please give me you best piece of evidence for evolution.
@DarthHater100 Explore this channel more. There is a ton of evidence for evolution on it.
No one is saying humans came from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys, just like we share a common ancestor with all living things. Our common ancestor with monkeys was just relatively recent.
Highly dramatized, and somewhat missleading in its implication that evolution would be a concious act rather than a refinement by unconcious filtering.
mammals are not tetrapods. we may have four limbs, but that is not the entire definition. i found on wikipedia that tetrapods are four limbed animals who LAY EGGS ADAPTED FOR LAND. since we do not lay any kind of egg, we can't lay eggs adapted for land, therefor, we are not tetrapods. we are mammals.
@bonoboperson This is an inaccurate description of a tetrapod. In addition, the platypus and echidna (who are both monotremes, a subset of mammals) do lay eggs. Other mammals eggs are retained to live birth either through early development in the case of marsupial mammals or until later development in placental mammals.
@djarm67 oops i think i got that wrong, i was refering to amniotic tetrapods. i've got this arguement with some guy about whether we evolved from amphibians. he said we evolved from amniotic tetrapods and not amphibians. while it is true that we are amniotic tetrapods, but amniotic tetrapods had to evolve from non amniotic tetrapods, right?
@bonoboperson Whilst it is true that we did not evolve from "modern" amphibians, our ancestoral tetrapod line did include amphibians. Review the species with transitional features such as Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Whatcheeria and Tulerpeton.
@seedo201 a creationist is someone who believes the Bible's account on the origin of life: "god created Adam and eve in the garden of eden and all of the animals at the same time.
One of my favourite docos. I've rewatched it several times now and it is as awesome as ever. Horizon docos are badass, and I love the sense of humour they thread through this one.
Please let's not talk about any creation myths, specially those of a book called the bible. Evolution is a fact and fairytales from the bronze age have no place in modern science.
@mmnasir1000 Thats where you are wrong...we did NOT evolve from monkeys you twit!! But an ape like creature, thats why we are cousins with apes and not direct descendants!
@mmnasir1000 when Earth was created, the first living being were the beings with only 1 cell and they were created at the water, because it was the easiest environment to survive.. With the past of time, one of those cells,was incorporated in another one, with the objective of having a simbiotic relationship (a relation bettwen 2 beings in which they both take advantage). with that, there were create beings with more then 1 cell. With the evolutiion, there were evolving into otherspecies(fishs)
and, as they say in this video, when this one fish came out to land, it grew legs and formed the first tetrapod. with the reproduction of this tetrapod, there were created more species and depending on the evironment and on the mutations they suffered, they evolved into diferent species. one of those species belonged to the family of monkeys. evolution is always hapening, and with the evolution of the monkey, there were formed species very similar to usThe homo sapiens. thats how we were created
This documentary is full of shit. All the time it sounds like animals suddenly "mutate" into another one, all of the sudden. Why o why do they get this so wrong? No emphasizes on how long it takes for a >species< to slightly change and accumulate these changes, until it has to be considered a new one. If the environment changes too quickly hardly any species could survive and adapt. No wonder that creatiotards get this sooo wrong.
its simple as this....NOBODY knows the damn true. NO REAL HARD EVIDENCE except all THEORIES. its just a whole guessing game. we all have our OWN beliefs in our own shit. everybody on some bullshit here
That's taking it out of context. Like I could say "OH so water just floats up and rain happens then?" and you might disagree with rain.
More complex elements are created when a star dies. That material is ejected and eventually through a long cycle over millions of years those materials are drawn together through gravity and as rocks ect come together the total mass and gravity therefore get stronger and more elements are drawn to it.
@ResiusOnline First of all. You might think in your naivity that we've sampled the elements from these supernovas, but that's not the case. They are determined by the colors they emit. So the color red would be hydrogen (though there are other elements that emit the same color but we assume it must be hydrogen). Green would be oxygen. For all we know the colors we see could be caused by the waves passing through our atmosphere.
@ResiusOnline Secondly. You're talking about a stroke of luck beyond odds. Those stars are very far away and not subject to earths gravity. If if were the case that over millions of years these elements would reach the earth, then we would expect that these elements are CONSTANTLY reaching the earth. Thus constantly adding more elements.
People don't seem to understand this point. It takes millions of years? Today is a million years since then. So why is it not continuous from the beginning?
@ResiusOnline I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
How do scientist 'know' that it is a nuclear fusion? By the colors right? Exactly. There is still no hard evidence that oxygen is produce from supernovas. I know you take for granted what scientists tell you and it's never been challenged yet. I'm sure i'm alone in this opinion.
Now, i'll even grant you this. We'll take their word for it. You're saying that a supernova was what produce the water on the earth. That's completely ridiculous.
@ResiusOnline You kids get dumber with every generation. If it were up to people like you, we would never progress. You know that progress comes from correction? Am i not supposed to question what's established? Then from where will progress come?
If you're a 15 year old kid disregard this. Go play with your toys and leave all the thinking up to the adults. You wont understand for many years.
I'm currently reading "Written in Stone," which got me interested in a good documentary about tetrapod evolution. What's the title of this documentary? Is it just tetrapod evolution? or is it missing link? I'm having a terrible time tracking this down anywhere else but youtube.
Came on to the land grew legs and started to walk? Who is this video for? Three year olds? Few pieces of evidence? We have billions upon billions of fossils, including bacteria. They look alike isn't exactly evidence that one changed into the other. Scientists made up a story about why fish grew legs? OH WELL THEN THAT SETTLES IT. Sorry I can't watch any more parts of this. No one is stupid enough to believe this.
@Chicano2005 evolution doesn't happen in one generation. it takes thousands of generations, changing slightly every generation. it's like growth. everyday the person seems the same, but they ARE changing, but very slightly.
@Tazy50 why don't the scientist try to prove "theory of evolution" reversing it? Putting an animal in a different habitat to see if it evolves new traits.
@Chicano2005 we have with chickens in the lab, we produced chickens with teeth and clawed fingers. without changing genes. the'yr still there just turned off.
I think the mudskipper alone shows how evolution could come about. It's a fish, but in many ways it reminds one of an amphibian.
It's like how in molluscs you see all those stages of eye-development. And when I see a mudskipper I can imagine that that's certainly one possible way a proto-amphibian might have lived. I mean they actually spend more time on land then in the water!
Christians have no respect for these people that spend their entires lives researching these things for the good of everyone. Don't be so close minded
@xlucidxdreamx YOU ARE RIGHT . Sometimes the evidence are readily abundant but CREATIONISTS still deny the truth. Natural Diamonds for example did NOT take 6,000 years but MILLIONS OF YEARS to form from DEEP UNDERNEATH.
If diamonds are MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD, Earth must be older.
Therefore, DIAMONDS demolished the Book of Genesis.
@manco82 No, that would require belief in a god to whom we could turn our anger. But we do believe that facts and evidence are the way to go, and having beliefs that reflect reality will result in the best lives. We display the evidence available, because we think it is important, and because it has shown to be useful. This is not about religion, it’s not a response to religion.
@manco82 your own ignorance gives you away just to help the few brain cells you do have from succumbing to atrophy i'll try and give you some education. firstlya heretic would be a group like catholics/mennonites to your religion a heathen would be a jew or an islamic man or a pagan. we are atheists since we are not theists.
why do we even listen to creatonists? These people look at the Flinstones and say yep that's how it was then ^ ^ anyways nice vid keep putting them on youtube maybe one day they'll get the picture
@djarm67 its a pity that creationists need to use underhanded methods to try and get their point across, rather than evidence. Keep up the good work of posting!!!
It's ok there ignorant. But,... If they were truly "Right" then they'd would embrace this information and reserach it and use it to validate their (really really stupid) Claims.
Wait a minute. the fish would of already needed to have strong functioning legs to crawl out of its drying mud pool. You mean to say it already had them? Not a very good way to exsplain how they evolved. Someone exsplain this to me I must of missed something.. how would a fish who lived in water all its life know how to crawl and where?
@zlkimagenX we know from tiktaalik that it had wrists, but not really strong legs. so that it could support itself and look out of the water, but not go too far. However, as this was advantageous, it was selected for until legs were perfected.
@zlkimagenX: As they said, Mudskippers do it. They have only true fins. And in addition, they have to have more adaptations than just fins->limbs. They have to develop a way to absorb oxygen out of the water, and to keep water inside from evaporating; they have to have ways to keep their viscera from being crushed while not buoyed by water. There is more to the story...watch on.
The only thing that gets in my nerves are these people on either side who say they can't be reconciled.
If the bible is 100% correct then what are all these weird rocks we keep finding? Then again there are some suspicious holes in Darwin's theory that does make one wonder.
Referring to "that fish" in the singular, as if there was only one individual that crawled out onto the land and somehow miraculously reproduced... It's one of the biggest misconceptions of evolution, and I'm sure they know better... It's just dreadfully careless speech.
Wrong. That kind of typological thinking is one of the main reasons why people don't accept evolution.
Even people who accept evolution (but know little of it) often say things like "I believe in evolution, but the only thing I don't understand is where the first member of a new species found its mate." Creationists say far more idiotic shit still.
@Bueller007: Not really. The word fish has several meanings, among them a collective for a type of animal that lives in the water, as in "Fish for sale here!" I think you are just being a little over-particular here.
i don't think the fish or amphibians were the first to go on land....
Infact I'm pretty sure it would've been the trilobites or sea scorpions... Some sort of sea insect would've most likely been the first to come on land since they had an evolutionary head start
@skinnywhop87 Plants were the first to colonize the land, together with fungi (probably). Arthopods (insects, crustaceans, trilobites, sea scorpions, etc) followed. One of the major reasons vertebrates became successful on land is that there was already a well-established food source with an open niche available for predators.
i would think its the trilobites for sure, because other isopods and early crustaceans have hair-like/gill like structures under their bodies which retain
moisture, also it would make more sense for prey animals to seek shelter first on the land for short periods of time, long enough for their predators to lose interest and seek other options
The first land animals were from subphylum Myriapoda - the centipedes and millipedes! You can tell because they have a structure like amphibians that is problematic in retaining moisture.
Why are some people so resistant to truth? There is abundant evidence of common ancestry and evolution. The fossils are not only in the rocks but are also in the genes. Even if there were no fossils at all, there is STILL enough evidence to show evolution happens. Get over it.
@gregrutz Before you state soemthign like this you should look at a fish known as a mudskipper. They have fins that they can use as legs. They pull themselves along the ground with their fins. And they use their skin to breath out of the water.
@gregrutz No they didn't. Did you even look up videos and such of a mudskipper? This is more than likely how legs began.Though they were still fish and could not travel on land for any major length of time. And after watching the video exactly the same thing is said.
@gregrutz "An Ape comes down from tree and walked straight"...hope this statement clears the doubt....An "Ape" means one of the many species of apes....like wise "A Fish comes out of water and grew legs" mean a species of fish evolved it self to grew legs like organs and came out of water....In English there can be difference between "fish" and "Fish" both are pronunciated the same but has different meaning all together...Hope if i m even a little help...thanks
gregrutz is basically right, but there's more to it. Land vertebrate's closest cousins today are called "lobe-finned fishes" as opposed to the ray-finned fishes. These are fish that have true bones in their fins, which make them more powerful movers through muddy shallows. Imagine fish living in tidal lowlands which frequently go dry. When a pond dries up, fish that can use their fins to traverse over land to find another pond will be better at survival.
So natural selection favors stronger bones for scurrying around. But fish also need to breathe. The lungfish shows us how this happened--he is able to use his swim bladder (an internal air pouch which fish use as depth control) as a source of oxygen.
So now we have fish with strong fin-legs and swim bladders that can be used for breathing, making periodic excursions out of water. Food on land is abundant (insects,) so natural selection favored fish that could stay on land for longer periods.
The drying pools theory is a painfully long situation, but so are most other developments. 1. Mudskipper-like creatures spend all time in water (tens of thousands of years) 2. Creatures spend most time in water 3. They spend half of their time out of water, and retreat when that blistering sun is prevalent. 4. Spend most time out of water. 5. Spend very little time in water, only going in for food or retreat. Over this span of time, the fish grows fingers to walk. This isn't instant.
The narration following 1:46 is completely wrong. Scientists believe no such thing. This is simply making it easier for creationists to spread lies about what scientists actually believe.
@mark4kimm 6 days, not years.. but yeah, ofcourse the world was created in 6000 years or what ever.. the dinosaurs and fossils are just a test of our belief. And isnt i just amazing how he created the earth and the landscapes in the dark?! and theen he created light? what a geenius, ! seriously, I'm shocked over how many still believe this bible bullshit
@iris0093 bitch dont disrespect others beliefs just cuz u dont believe in it. ur ass wasnt raised right to respect anything. get da fuck outta here with your bullshit
So much for Tiktaalik as a 'transitional' fossil...
"Ancient Four-Legged Beasts Leave Their Mark" (ScienceNOW, January 6, 2010)
"Researchers have uncovered the earliest evidence of four-legged animals. Footprints and tracks preserved in the mud of an abandoned quarry in southeastern Poland date back 395 million years, UPENDING accepted thinking about when and where land animals first emerged...
"In some of the prints, individual digits can be made out. That means land animals already had feet 9 million years BEFORE the finlike structures of Tiktaalik and Panderichthys. In addition, some of the tracks show an animal walking with a diagonal, coordinated gait impossible for finned creatures...
"Other paleontologists are taken aback by the discovery of the tracks. 'We thought we'd pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods,' says Jennifer Clack of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. 'We have to RETHINK the whole thing.'"
Footprints show tetrapods walked on land 18m years earlier than thought according to Fossil footprints found in southern poland lead to a radical rethink of the evolution of the first four-legged animals or 'tetrapods'
Until now, experts had believed that the earliest tetrapod fossils are 375 million years old
However, the footprint tracks are 10 million years older than the oldest elpistostegid body fossils. Suggesting they are NOT transitional forms.
No. Theories and Facts and laws for that matter are different things. A theory will never become any of those things.
Gravity is a law in the sense that it can be used in calculation to constantly give the same results. ie terminal velocity, or escape velocity. The theory part comes in when you are trying to explain why it happens ie. relativity.
The theory will never become a fact or a law. This is the bases of the "only a theory" jibe often used by undereducated creationists.
Evolution is a theory. So while evidence clearly supports it, it is not 100% set in stone. Other options, such as creationism, though highly unlikely are also theoretically possible.
Gravity is a theory. So while evidence clearly supports it, it is not 100%set in stone. Other options such as Atlas holding the world on his back, though highly unlikely are also theoretically possible.
Well in your logic, assuming Atlas was a Titan condemned by Zeus to hold the sky forever, yea he totally could.
By not set in stone, I mean although "theory" is the most accurate scientific explanation it's a theory because it has not been disproved. So all though chances are its 99.99% true, it cannot be Law unless it cannot be disproved. this is why so many things are theories(e.g. gravity)
Seriously, we are not just talking about some evidence here. We are talking about every fossil ever found and classified, all of genetics, all of comparitive anatomy, it's like arriving at a car and claiming the pieces have spontaneously arranged themselves from bit's of other cars.
I understand the evidence. And don't get me wrong I believe in evolution.
And forgive me, artyfart2 is right. The "Theory of Evolution" explains evolution. Evolution is obviously a fact. It's the "Theory" itself , which implies humans and all living creatures evolved from a common ancestor by the means originally described by Darwin , that is the object of debate.
Funny!!!! allmost religion revelation - one piece of stone and Vast Imagination Mutter
jerubaal3333 1 week ago
Comment removed
Bouchi8 2 weeks ago
ap bio swaggggggg
rahoolbhimani 2 weeks ago
yeah original tetrapods eventually evolved to lay amniotic eggs which were eggs seen in modern reptiles and amphibians. This then allowed the evolutation of dinosaurs
Naturegirlishere 3 weeks ago
Evolution is stupid. Atheists will believe the most absurd things no matter how crazy, as long as they don't have to concede there is a God. Design is OBVIOUS, and non-believers have to keep telling themselves "there is no design, there is no design" LOL and concoct elaborate drawings and imagine wild scenarios, ALL make-believe. If you want to BELIEVE that a fish crawled out of the mud and grew legs and was the ancestor humans, that's fine, but don't call it science. Admit it's RELIGION.
DarthHater100 3 weeks ago
@DarthHater100 darthhater100 aka shockofgod this is his troll name
alltiedup217 3 weeks ago
@DarthHater100 i wish i was as simple minded as you, but sorry, some of us arent fucking retarded and actually want to learn about the world. go back to your pretty little nursery book with the funny stories and characters and leave intelligent conversation to us big boys :)
BlueBuzzards 3 days ago
@BlueBuzzards Ah, like a typical atheist, you can`t get your point across without using vulgarities. Why are you so angry? Nobody is forcing you to believe the Bible, nor does anybody force you to pay for it to be indoctrinated into your children. But evolutionists DO force their crazy beliefs to be taught to children, at tax payer expense. No one has ever seen people come from monkeys, evolution is not even science. Please give me you best piece of evidence for evolution.
DarthHater100 3 days ago
@DarthHater100 Explore this channel more. There is a ton of evidence for evolution on it.
No one is saying humans came from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys, just like we share a common ancestor with all living things. Our common ancestor with monkeys was just relatively recent.
webbess1 2 days ago
Highly dramatized, and somewhat missleading in its implication that evolution would be a concious act rather than a refinement by unconcious filtering.
Otherwise not bad.
00CaptainDan00 4 weeks ago
mammals are not tetrapods. we may have four limbs, but that is not the entire definition. i found on wikipedia that tetrapods are four limbed animals who LAY EGGS ADAPTED FOR LAND. since we do not lay any kind of egg, we can't lay eggs adapted for land, therefor, we are not tetrapods. we are mammals.
bonoboperson 2 months ago
@bonoboperson This is an inaccurate description of a tetrapod. In addition, the platypus and echidna (who are both monotremes, a subset of mammals) do lay eggs. Other mammals eggs are retained to live birth either through early development in the case of marsupial mammals or until later development in placental mammals.
djarm67 2 months ago
@djarm67 oops i think i got that wrong, i was refering to amniotic tetrapods. i've got this arguement with some guy about whether we evolved from amphibians. he said we evolved from amniotic tetrapods and not amphibians. while it is true that we are amniotic tetrapods, but amniotic tetrapods had to evolve from non amniotic tetrapods, right?
bonoboperson 2 months ago
@bonoboperson Whilst it is true that we did not evolve from "modern" amphibians, our ancestoral tetrapod line did include amphibians. Review the species with transitional features such as Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Whatcheeria and Tulerpeton.
djarm67 2 months ago
Thanks for uploading this, was really useful for studying evolution! Cheers
rspaton91 2 months ago
i wish they put animals animations in this insted of this
do501 3 months ago
412 creationists watched this
Dubickimus 3 months ago
@Dubickimus ill bet my ass
do501 3 months ago
@Dubickimus No, Creationists didn't watch this, if they did they would get an education and they don't want that.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz i wish i could give you an award for that comment, i LOLed
Dubickimus 2 months ago
@gregrutz creationists suck, they are an insult to Christians :)
12JimmySmith 2 months ago
@Dubickimus what is creationists? sorry for my ignorance:)
seedo201 2 months ago
@seedo201 a creationist is someone who believes the Bible's account on the origin of life: "god created Adam and eve in the garden of eden and all of the animals at the same time.
Dubickimus 2 months ago
@Dubickimus yeah that makes sense:) but I think that doesnt disaprove that there is a creator but may be support it
seedo201 2 months ago
@Dubickimus But 1211 people still has brains.
shadowknigth94 2 months ago
I luvz meh sum tetrapods
Gravija1980 4 months ago
thank you thank you shame about bible bashing bot disliking
n2488 4 months ago in playlist evolution
i believe in god. but not the bible. i believe he just let the universe do its thing with a pust here or there
wahhho 5 months ago
@wahhho same
brandonashplant 5 months ago
One of my favourite docos. I've rewatched it several times now and it is as awesome as ever. Horizon docos are badass, and I love the sense of humour they thread through this one.
demonella 5 months ago
Please let's not talk about any creation myths, specially those of a book called the bible. Evolution is a fact and fairytales from the bronze age have no place in modern science.
bombarderoazul 6 months ago
Evolution is the only game in town!!
jjoneil73 6 months ago
412 people are fish out of water with no limbs X__X
disturbedlink1 6 months ago
412 people are reality deniers
n987 7 months ago
We have a Christian vote bot. Please thumbs up, rational thinkers!
MalchikBlue 7 months ago
"Scientists believe that long ago a fish came up onto the land, grew legs and started to walk" Lol. "Scientists" are just as daft as Bible nutters!
jonstfrancis 7 months ago
First we were told we evolved from monkey. Now it is a fish. So where the fish came from?
mmnasir1000 8 months ago
Comment removed
jjoneil73 6 months ago
Comment removed
jjoneil73 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mmnasir1000 Thats where you are wrong...we did NOT evolve from monkeys you twit!! But an ape like creature, thats why we are cousins with apes and not direct descendants!
jjoneil73 6 months ago
@mmnasir1000
You're talking about two completely different eras. All tetrapods (Reptiles, Mammals, Birds, amphibians) are descendants of fish.
FlashVirus 6 months ago
@mmnasir1000 when Earth was created, the first living being were the beings with only 1 cell and they were created at the water, because it was the easiest environment to survive.. With the past of time, one of those cells,was incorporated in another one, with the objective of having a simbiotic relationship (a relation bettwen 2 beings in which they both take advantage). with that, there were create beings with more then 1 cell. With the evolutiion, there were evolving into otherspecies(fishs)
OVRLDD 5 months ago
and, as they say in this video, when this one fish came out to land, it grew legs and formed the first tetrapod. with the reproduction of this tetrapod, there were created more species and depending on the evironment and on the mutations they suffered, they evolved into diferent species. one of those species belonged to the family of monkeys. evolution is always hapening, and with the evolution of the monkey, there were formed species very similar to usThe homo sapiens. thats how we were created
OVRLDD 5 months ago
@OVRLDD
You clearly have no idea of even the basics of evolution, so please stop embarassing yourself.
OrthodoxDarwinist 2 months ago
so, resuming in a very short way: Unicelular beings --> Pluricelular Beings --> Fishes --> Missing Link --> Monkeys --> HUMAN.
OVRLDD 5 months ago
This documentary is full of shit. All the time it sounds like animals suddenly "mutate" into another one, all of the sudden. Why o why do they get this so wrong? No emphasizes on how long it takes for a >species< to slightly change and accumulate these changes, until it has to be considered a new one. If the environment changes too quickly hardly any species could survive and adapt. No wonder that creatiotards get this sooo wrong.
SeltsamerAttraktor 8 months ago
I think I'm turning into a TetraPak
AndyWhite007 8 months ago
@AndyWhite007 Can I drink your contents, then? Are you a juice box?
Rhinogradentian 8 months ago
GREAT!
preptimenow 9 months ago
its simple as this....NOBODY knows the damn true. NO REAL HARD EVIDENCE except all THEORIES. its just a whole guessing game. we all have our OWN beliefs in our own shit. everybody on some bullshit here
sadxgurl 9 months ago
@sadxgurl you maybe want to look up the definition of a scientifi theory.
the bible for example or ID / creationism are not scientific theories because they have no supporting evidence for their hypothesis.
Aanthanur 9 months ago
@sadxgurl acientific theory ain't your normal theory. the normal world theory would be a hypothesis in the scientific world.
111E982a 9 months ago
Where did the water come from?
knowwaie 10 months ago
@knowwaie
The water where? Water on earth? It formed through the bonding of Hydrogen and Oxygen at between 0c and 100c.
It's on other planets and moons too- just not in liquid form.
ResiusOnline 10 months ago
@ResiusOnline The water on the earth.
Oxygen only comes from plants, as far as we know. They have all this oxygen coming before any plant life.
In outer space. Other planets or ice meteors, aren't sure to contain oxygen. Very little if any at all.
It seems a stretch of speculation on their part. Should i just keep silent and take their word for it?
knowwaie 10 months ago
@knowwaie
Listen kid.
The water on earth comes from.
1. Hydrogen and Oxygen dispelled from a star when it goes supernova.
2. Ice Comets
3. Ice Meteors
"Oxygen only comes from plants, as far as we know."
Are you kidding? Do you not know what a supernova is?
"ice meteors, aren't sure to contain oxygen."
Ice = bonded hydrogen and OXYGEN. Basic logic...
ResiusOnline 10 months ago
@ResiusOnline You're retarded?
You've never heard of solid hydrogen? I guess it's not logical....
Oh, so supernovas brought water to the earth? Talk about calling upon the supernatural.
How old are you? If you don't mind me asking..
knowwaie 10 months ago
@knowwaie
"Oh, so supernovas brought water to the earth?"
That's taking it out of context. Like I could say "OH so water just floats up and rain happens then?" and you might disagree with rain.
More complex elements are created when a star dies. That material is ejected and eventually through a long cycle over millions of years those materials are drawn together through gravity and as rocks ect come together the total mass and gravity therefore get stronger and more elements are drawn to it.
ResiusOnline 10 months ago
@ResiusOnline First of all. You might think in your naivity that we've sampled the elements from these supernovas, but that's not the case. They are determined by the colors they emit. So the color red would be hydrogen (though there are other elements that emit the same color but we assume it must be hydrogen). Green would be oxygen. For all we know the colors we see could be caused by the waves passing through our atmosphere.
But this is granted regardless.
knowwaie 10 months ago
@ResiusOnline Secondly. You're talking about a stroke of luck beyond odds. Those stars are very far away and not subject to earths gravity. If if were the case that over millions of years these elements would reach the earth, then we would expect that these elements are CONSTANTLY reaching the earth. Thus constantly adding more elements.
People don't seem to understand this point. It takes millions of years? Today is a million years since then. So why is it not continuous from the beginning?
knowwaie 10 months ago
@knowwaie
I meant the sun, not OTHER stars.
You are an absolute moron.
Stars don't die all the time, it happens every 1000 years or so.
Please get some sort of primary education- please.
ResiusOnline 10 months ago
@ResiusOnline Hah, you're so retarded.
Do you know how many stars there are? Oh, so they are on some cycle that they can only die once every 1000 years?....
Oh so the sun exploded and brought oxygen to the earth?...
Holy shit kid. Lack of education is the least of you problems.
knowwaie 10 months ago
@knowwaie
Now they're not on a "cycle" but they live for roughly 10 billion years.
"Oh so the sun exploded and brought oxygen to the earth?..."
Basically yes. But not the sun, a star before the sun.
You're the kid here, and for the last time- get an education. This is like pulling teeth.
ResiusOnline 10 months ago
@ResiusOnline Pick a subject and i know infinitely more about it than you do. Don't get cocky with me.
Stop responding, you've already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you are severely mentally handicapped.
By the way, only pre adolescents ever say "read a science book" or "get an education". You're making it abundantly clear that you are a little kid.
knowwaie 10 months ago
@knowwaie
Well you've just been disproven kid- maybe you learned something, maybe you didn't.
I hope you did.
"Pick a subject and i know infinitely more about it than you do. "
Uh-huh.
ResiusOnline 10 months ago
@ResiusOnline How old are you? Honestly. I'm curious now.
knowwaie 10 months ago
@ResiusOnline I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
How do scientist 'know' that it is a nuclear fusion? By the colors right? Exactly. There is still no hard evidence that oxygen is produce from supernovas. I know you take for granted what scientists tell you and it's never been challenged yet. I'm sure i'm alone in this opinion.
Now, i'll even grant you this. We'll take their word for it. You're saying that a supernova was what produce the water on the earth. That's completely ridiculous.
knowwaie 10 months ago
@knowwaie scientists get constantly challenged and tested, that is the whole idea of the peer review process.
Aanthanur 9 months ago
@ResiusOnline You kids get dumber with every generation. If it were up to people like you, we would never progress. You know that progress comes from correction? Am i not supposed to question what's established? Then from where will progress come?
If you're a 15 year old kid disregard this. Go play with your toys and leave all the thinking up to the adults. You wont understand for many years.
knowwaie 10 months ago
@knowwaie
Here's a description of idiots like you
ehow.com/how-does_5057015_elements-formed-stars.html
ResiusOnline 10 months ago
@ResiusOnline This isn't what we were talking about... You said supernovas produced the oxygen and created the water on the earth..
Dude, are you retarded? You're completely changing the subject.
knowwaie 10 months ago
I'm currently reading "Written in Stone," which got me interested in a good documentary about tetrapod evolution. What's the title of this documentary? Is it just tetrapod evolution? or is it missing link? I'm having a terrible time tracking this down anywhere else but youtube.
PhilipTraumA 10 months ago
i have asked many people who fed t rex on noahs ark ,plus i aint doing it !!!!
TVCSD 10 months ago
When was this produced?
MangiferaZomfshark 11 months ago
@MangiferaZomfshark Checked and it's 2001
MangiferaZomfshark 11 months ago
i really wish they'd do this without the melodrama.
mastifiorulamitongla 11 months ago
@HumanVersion Agreed, so dumbed down and annoying. Not being snotty or anything, it just gets on my nerves.
Aspongeinmauve 1 year ago
"scientists believe a fish ame on land grew legs and started to walk"
Fucking god. This is why I hate pop-press science.
No. No no and ****ing no. Scientists do not believe that. No informed biologist believs that. That is as bad as any creationist strawman.
GallusSapien 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Came on to the land grew legs and started to walk? Who is this video for? Three year olds? Few pieces of evidence? We have billions upon billions of fossils, including bacteria. They look alike isn't exactly evidence that one changed into the other. Scientists made up a story about why fish grew legs? OH WELL THEN THAT SETTLES IT. Sorry I can't watch any more parts of this. No one is stupid enough to believe this.
mejc2 1 year ago
where did the fish came from? and what if we throw a person in the ocean will he/she grow gills?
Chicano2005 1 year ago
@Chicano2005 go educate yourself...
HeyPeni 1 year ago
@Chicano2005 evolution doesn't happen in one generation. it takes thousands of generations, changing slightly every generation. it's like growth. everyday the person seems the same, but they ARE changing, but very slightly.
Tazy50 1 year ago
@Tazy50 why don't the scientist try to prove "theory of evolution" reversing it? Putting an animal in a different habitat to see if it evolves new traits.
Chicano2005 1 year ago
@Chicano2005 because it takes thousands of years to devevop the slightest changes in a species...
Tazy50 1 year ago
@Chicano2005 we have with chickens in the lab, we produced chickens with teeth and clawed fingers. without changing genes. the'yr still there just turned off.
fishtankbank 1 year ago
@fishtankbank Im waiting on the "dino-chicken". the one that's supposed to resemble a dinosaur!
Chicano2005 1 year ago
@Chicano2005
super bugs aka germs
MercenaryNL 1 year ago
@Chicano2005 Animals don't evolve, species > breeding populations do.
They already did it with dogs, but creationists just say that is micro-evolution.
gregrutz 11 months ago
I think the mudskipper alone shows how evolution could come about. It's a fish, but in many ways it reminds one of an amphibian.
It's like how in molluscs you see all those stages of eye-development. And when I see a mudskipper I can imagine that that's certainly one possible way a proto-amphibian might have lived. I mean they actually spend more time on land then in the water!
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
This doco is awesome and these palaeontologists hilarious. "We are tetropods. To whit: one, two, three, four!"
demonella 1 year ago
Christians have no respect for these people that spend their entires lives researching these things for the good of everyone. Don't be so close minded
xlucidxdreamx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xlucidxdreamx YOU ARE RIGHT . Sometimes the evidence are readily abundant but CREATIONISTS still deny the truth. Natural Diamonds for example did NOT take 6,000 years but MILLIONS OF YEARS to form from DEEP UNDERNEATH.
If diamonds are MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD, Earth must be older.
Therefore, DIAMONDS demolished the Book of Genesis.
TAKE THAT, CREATIONIST DIM WITS.
MrFareddy 1 year ago
Why do you heathen atheists hate God?
manco82 1 year ago
@manco82 No, that would require belief in a god to whom we could turn our anger. But we do believe that facts and evidence are the way to go, and having beliefs that reflect reality will result in the best lives. We display the evidence available, because we think it is important, and because it has shown to be useful. This is not about religion, it’s not a response to religion.
Andzillasan 1 year ago
@Andzillasan You and the other heathens are going to burn in hell.
manco82 1 year ago
@manco82 I don’t operate under threats. Especially if there’s nothing behind them. As I believe I just told you, evidence is required.
Andzillasan 1 year ago
@manco82 your own ignorance gives you away just to help the few brain cells you do have from succumbing to atrophy i'll try and give you some education. firstlya heretic would be a group like catholics/mennonites to your religion a heathen would be a jew or an islamic man or a pagan. we are atheists since we are not theists.
derickhaywood 1 year ago
BBC always seems to get the good documentaries
Still I feel you, other nations are too busy with other problems such as getting food for its citizens than trying to force feed religion.
Yokaiou 1 year ago
why do we even listen to creatonists? These people look at the Flinstones and say yep that's how it was then ^ ^ anyways nice vid keep putting them on youtube maybe one day they'll get the picture
Venom1225 1 year ago
Awesome! Thanks so much for posting. Keep up the good work.
WharfRat0A54 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey don't you know homology recapitulates creation by design?
Watch and feel your bones in arms and legs and ask yourself: How could a random process have created this limbs/extremities so similar?
A: they weren't, they were created simultaneously :)
Please avoid irrational imaginations or faith based replies ;)
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
Thanks for posting this, am currently reading Shubin's 'Finding your inner fish' so it's very relevant. Great book if you haven't read it.
colourmegone 1 year ago 10
@colourmegone Shubin's "Your inner fish" is a fantastic book and I would recommend it to all.
djarm67 1 year ago 4
@djarm67 its a pity that creationists need to use underhanded methods to try and get their point across, rather than evidence. Keep up the good work of posting!!!
51m0n77 8 months ago
how did creationism come from a joke to a threat, the day our schools subject students to this bullshit will mark the downfall of the civil world
retrocareermelted 1 year ago
It's ok there ignorant. But,... If they were truly "Right" then they'd would embrace this information and reserach it and use it to validate their (really really stupid) Claims.
Nicosheldonflorendo2 1 year ago
lol its 3:05 AM.. i think ill jus watch em all XD fark it why not!!
h4tchetman 1 year ago
Wait a minute. the fish would of already needed to have strong functioning legs to crawl out of its drying mud pool. You mean to say it already had them? Not a very good way to exsplain how they evolved. Someone exsplain this to me I must of missed something.. how would a fish who lived in water all its life know how to crawl and where?
zlkimagenX 1 year ago
@zlkimagenX we know from tiktaalik that it had wrists, but not really strong legs. so that it could support itself and look out of the water, but not go too far. However, as this was advantageous, it was selected for until legs were perfected.
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
@zlkimagenX: As they said, Mudskippers do it. They have only true fins. And in addition, they have to have more adaptations than just fins->limbs. They have to develop a way to absorb oxygen out of the water, and to keep water inside from evaporating; they have to have ways to keep their viscera from being crushed while not buoyed by water. There is more to the story...watch on.
puncheex 1 year ago
We have a strange lineage.
granddad2002 1 year ago
9:27 thats a triops
jman12351 1 year ago
Like! Thanks for the upload!
Venaloid 1 year ago
The only thing that gets in my nerves are these people on either side who say they can't be reconciled.
If the bible is 100% correct then what are all these weird rocks we keep finding? Then again there are some suspicious holes in Darwin's theory that does make one wonder.
spectre111 1 year ago
@spectre111: About those holes. What are they?
puncheex 1 year ago
Terrible narration.
Referring to "that fish" in the singular, as if there was only one individual that crawled out onto the land and somehow miraculously reproduced... It's one of the biggest misconceptions of evolution, and I'm sure they know better... It's just dreadfully careless speech.
Bueller007 1 year ago
@Bueller007 I am sure nobody is that retarded to think that only one fish evolved. It's not a scientific paper, for fuck's sake.
redfoxonstilts 1 year ago
@redfoxonstilts
Wrong. That kind of typological thinking is one of the main reasons why people don't accept evolution.
Even people who accept evolution (but know little of it) often say things like "I believe in evolution, but the only thing I don't understand is where the first member of a new species found its mate." Creationists say far more idiotic shit still.
Bueller007 1 year ago
@Bueller007: Not really. The word fish has several meanings, among them a collective for a type of animal that lives in the water, as in "Fish for sale here!" I think you are just being a little over-particular here.
puncheex 1 year ago
Hahahaha! Votebots thumbing down... What a bunch of sore losers. xD
lardhat 1 year ago
i don't think the fish or amphibians were the first to go on land....
Infact I'm pretty sure it would've been the trilobites or sea scorpions... Some sort of sea insect would've most likely been the first to come on land since they had an evolutionary head start
skinnywhop87 1 year ago
@skinnywhop87
As a matter of fact, scientistis are quite positive that the insects come to land far more before than the fish or amphibians
barefootID 1 year ago
@skinnywhop87 Plants were the first to colonize the land, together with fungi (probably). Arthopods (insects, crustaceans, trilobites, sea scorpions, etc) followed. One of the major reasons vertebrates became successful on land is that there was already a well-established food source with an open niche available for predators.
thebadger587 1 year ago
Hey, no props or shout-outs for subphylum Myriapoda, the centipedes and millipedes? They were the first land animals!
CristinaFernandez 1 year ago
@CristinaFernandez
i would think its the trilobites for sure, because other isopods and early crustaceans have hair-like/gill like structures under their bodies which retain
moisture, also it would make more sense for prey animals to seek shelter first on the land for short periods of time, long enough for their predators to lose interest and seek other options
siciliano505 1 year ago
Actually the related group the Lobopodians probably made it before the others
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
The first land animals were from subphylum Myriapoda - the centipedes and millipedes! You can tell because they have a structure like amphibians that is problematic in retaining moisture.
CristinaFernandez 1 year ago
Comment removed
puncheex 1 year ago
Why are some people so resistant to truth? There is abundant evidence of common ancestry and evolution. The fossils are not only in the rocks but are also in the genes. Even if there were no fossils at all, there is STILL enough evidence to show evolution happens. Get over it.
Rosetuckytheband 1 year ago
"Came onto land and then grew legs"
I don't think so.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz Before you state soemthign like this you should look at a fish known as a mudskipper. They have fins that they can use as legs. They pull themselves along the ground with their fins. And they use their skin to breath out of the water.
WaxItYourself 1 year ago
@WaxItYourself
Fish did not flop onto land and then grow legs. They grew legs and walked onto land.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz No they didn't. Did you even look up videos and such of a mudskipper? This is more than likely how legs began.Though they were still fish and could not travel on land for any major length of time. And after watching the video exactly the same thing is said.
WaxItYourself 1 year ago 2
@WaxItYourself Fuck mudskippers, do you think I a some dumb shit creationist.
The dried up mud puddly theory is wrong.
The video says, 'A fish came onto the land and then grew legs." Wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "An Ape comes down from tree and walked straight"...hope this statement clears the doubt....An "Ape" means one of the many species of apes....like wise "A Fish comes out of water and grew legs" mean a species of fish evolved it self to grew legs like organs and came out of water....In English there can be difference between "fish" and "Fish" both are pronunciated the same but has different meaning all together...Hope if i m even a little help...thanks
Princedemars 1 year ago
@WaxItYourself
Wrong, go to part 4 @ 4:00
Legs first, the came on land.
gregrutz 1 year ago
greg, when did I ever state that you were a creationist? My point was that the mudskipper is currently developing legs.
WaxItYourself 1 year ago
this might help you understand where arems and legs came from. tiktaalik look him up then this will end it
kokofan50 1 year ago
But then explain how mudskippers came onto land WITHOUT legs! And try do not use ad-hominem, please.
mmmmmarcus 1 year ago
They walk out on their fins.
gregrutz 1 year ago
gregrutz is basically right, but there's more to it. Land vertebrate's closest cousins today are called "lobe-finned fishes" as opposed to the ray-finned fishes. These are fish that have true bones in their fins, which make them more powerful movers through muddy shallows. Imagine fish living in tidal lowlands which frequently go dry. When a pond dries up, fish that can use their fins to traverse over land to find another pond will be better at survival.
thebadger587 1 year ago
So natural selection favors stronger bones for scurrying around. But fish also need to breathe. The lungfish shows us how this happened--he is able to use his swim bladder (an internal air pouch which fish use as depth control) as a source of oxygen.
So now we have fish with strong fin-legs and swim bladders that can be used for breathing, making periodic excursions out of water. Food on land is abundant (insects,) so natural selection favored fish that could stay on land for longer periods.
thebadger587 1 year ago
in short: mudskippers came onto land with strong bony fins, not legs.
thebadger587 1 year ago
Except mudskippers aren't even close to the clade that tetrapods arose from. Mudskippers are bony fish. The Coelocanth is closer.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
The drying pools theory is a painfully long situation, but so are most other developments. 1. Mudskipper-like creatures spend all time in water (tens of thousands of years) 2. Creatures spend most time in water 3. They spend half of their time out of water, and retreat when that blistering sun is prevalent. 4. Spend most time out of water. 5. Spend very little time in water, only going in for food or retreat. Over this span of time, the fish grows fingers to walk. This isn't instant.
SoldatSolutrea 1 year ago
The drying pools theory has been rejected though. All the early tetrapods were
1. Giant Predators
2. very muscular.
3. Found in devonian RIVER DELTAS. not drying pools.
We don't find them in places like africa were there were pools (which probably weren't drying anyway.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@gregrutz: Don't spoil the suspense here, gregrutz. Leave 'em guessing, just like the zoologists of the 70s.
puncheex 1 year ago
The narration following 1:46 is completely wrong. Scientists believe no such thing. This is simply making it easier for creationists to spread lies about what scientists actually believe.
puffin02 2 years ago
Agree. It's cringeworthy and almost made me stop watching altogether.
Not a high grade from me because of that.
Cihl280777 2 years ago
how ever Bible is one of the greatest books writtern because of the role it plays on civilization, but you cant be serious if you believe all that
goodluckpeace44 2 years ago
haa why even argue, Bible and all that were books of lies.
ha ha ha
lies lies lies lies
Create the world in 6 days, "let there be light and there was light"
ha ha ha ha nonsense.
goodluckpeace44 2 years ago
@goodluckpeace44
yeah but in God years
6 year is like 6000 years of human years
something like that
mark4kimm 1 year ago
@mark4kimm 6 days, not years.. but yeah, ofcourse the world was created in 6000 years or what ever.. the dinosaurs and fossils are just a test of our belief. And isnt i just amazing how he created the earth and the landscapes in the dark?! and theen he created light? what a geenius, ! seriously, I'm shocked over how many still believe this bible bullshit
iris0093 1 year ago 11
@iris0093
christians, get the fuck out of here. Big boys are studying important things here, you go play with your unicorns.
YojimboAuron 9 months ago
@iris0093 bitch dont disrespect others beliefs just cuz u dont believe in it. ur ass wasnt raised right to respect anything. get da fuck outta here with your bullshit
sadxgurl 9 months ago
1 of 3
So much for Tiktaalik as a 'transitional' fossil...
"Ancient Four-Legged Beasts Leave Their Mark" (ScienceNOW, January 6, 2010)
"Researchers have uncovered the earliest evidence of four-legged animals. Footprints and tracks preserved in the mud of an abandoned quarry in southeastern Poland date back 395 million years, UPENDING accepted thinking about when and where land animals first emerged...
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
2 of 3
"In some of the prints, individual digits can be made out. That means land animals already had feet 9 million years BEFORE the finlike structures of Tiktaalik and Panderichthys. In addition, some of the tracks show an animal walking with a diagonal, coordinated gait impossible for finned creatures...
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
3 of 3
"Other paleontologists are taken aback by the discovery of the tracks. 'We thought we'd pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods,' says Jennifer Clack of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. 'We have to RETHINK the whole thing.'"
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Footprints show tetrapods walked on land 18m years earlier than thought according to Fossil footprints found in southern poland lead to a radical rethink of the evolution of the first four-legged animals or 'tetrapods'
Until now, experts had believed that the earliest tetrapod fossils are 375 million years old
However, the footprint tracks are 10 million years older than the oldest elpistostegid body fossils. Suggesting they are NOT transitional forms.
Professor Per Ahlberg and Jenny Clack
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago
No. Theories and Facts and laws for that matter are different things. A theory will never become any of those things.
Gravity is a law in the sense that it can be used in calculation to constantly give the same results. ie terminal velocity, or escape velocity. The theory part comes in when you are trying to explain why it happens ie. relativity.
The theory will never become a fact or a law. This is the bases of the "only a theory" jibe often used by undereducated creationists.
Munro1Man 2 years ago
There is the theory of gravity, gravitational law and the fact of gravity.
Evolution is a fact.
There is also the theory of evolution that explains that fact.
artyfarty2 2 years ago 2
Thank you for posting this great science video! Highly appreciated.
AnkleSpur 2 years ago
Watch till the end before rating.
KKM121 2 years ago
I cannot believe there are people still debating Evolution. Why don't we debate whether the earth is flat next?
heyanto 2 years ago 41
Evolution is a theory. So while evidence clearly supports it, it is not 100% set in stone. Other options, such as creationism, though highly unlikely are also theoretically possible.
DreyZab 2 years ago
Gravity is a theory. So while evidence clearly supports it, it is not 100%set in stone. Other options such as Atlas holding the world on his back, though highly unlikely are also theoretically possible.
Munro1Man 2 years ago
Well in your logic, assuming Atlas was a Titan condemned by Zeus to hold the sky forever, yea he totally could.
By not set in stone, I mean although "theory" is the most accurate scientific explanation it's a theory because it has not been disproved. So all though chances are its 99.99% true, it cannot be Law unless it cannot be disproved. this is why so many things are theories(e.g. gravity)
DreyZab 2 years ago
Which theory of gravity you are talking about? Newtonian? or general Relativity?
HMSBeagle200 2 years ago
Thank you for putting it so well.
heyanto 2 years ago
"Evolution is a theory"
That's not correct. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains that fact.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
@DreyZab
Seriously, we are not just talking about some evidence here. We are talking about every fossil ever found and classified, all of genetics, all of comparitive anatomy, it's like arriving at a car and claiming the pieces have spontaneously arranged themselves from bit's of other cars.
MaxSafeheaD 2 years ago
I understand the evidence. And don't get me wrong I believe in evolution.
And forgive me, artyfart2 is right. The "Theory of Evolution" explains evolution. Evolution is obviously a fact. It's the "Theory" itself , which implies humans and all living creatures evolved from a common ancestor by the means originally described by Darwin , that is the object of debate.
DreyZab 2 years ago
So are you saying speciation is in question, common ancestry or just making a statement that no theory can ever be 100% certain?
MaxSafeheaD 2 years ago
Comment removed
DreyZab 2 years ago
or the theory if intelligent falling
artyfarty2 2 years ago