Evolution is REAL Science #5

[TheBatClass]

Your videos are fantastic. Thank you.

[standup4REALscience]

@TheBatClass You're welcome. Glad you enjoyed them.

[fhattest]

science is supposed to be the pursuit of the truth,its good to have theories but if you believe you already know the truth how can you continue to pursue it,everyone can argue but evolution is still a theory just like religion,believin in an almighty is just as ridiculous as believing in an animal kept flappin his arms and talked its kids into doing the same thing just to finally grow wings

[standup4REALscience]

@fhattest You're right that it is ridiculous to believe that "an animal kept flappin his arms and talked its kids into doing the same thing just to finally grow wings."

Good thing that's not at all how evolutionary theory works.

[fhattest]

@standup4REALscience its still only a theory,what if an alien race uses this planet as their operating table,keep trying to perfect some sort of ecosystem for whatever reason using the only blueprints for life that they have but continually fail which would explain the similarities in alot of fossils, then clean the slate for again whatever reason to start over in another attempt to get it right,its as plausible a theory as religion or science has to offer

[MyITRcom]

The tiny world of God and Religion shrinking daily with the expansion of science and our current understanding and knowing our world for real, instead of faith and feelings... Facts and evidence.

[thomasnonsense]

Excellent series of videos. Kirk Cameron is obviously an intermediate between an ostrich and a human because, while he looks mostly human, he keeps his head firmly buried in the sand!

[Jmundwyler]

First I would like to comment that most of those transitional forms definately look like a form of anti-diluvian animals that could have lost certain genetic information, or under developed animals that may have been quickly squished in the flood to preservation. Mostly good to look through the fossils, however remember that kinds reproduce after kinds not species. I would like to see the bipedal ape presentation as the idea of ignoring arthritis or scoliosis as evidence to create such an idea.

[svensktiger]

@Jmundwyler no kinds does not reproduce after kinds contrary to speices, unless kinds=species and then macro-evolution is not a question since sexual isolation is shown to diverge a species into 2. And ultimately evolution by natural selection.

[TheHomelessCripple]

@Jmundwyler

I have yet for a creationist to accurately and coherently define the meaning of "kind" as used in the context of creationism without using the word "kind" in its own definition. Please, I urge an attempt to do so.

[gregrutz]

@Jmundwyler Same KIND? Yes! Dogs make dogs. Apes make apes. That is why humans are still apes. And all apes are still monkeys. And all monkeys are still primates. And all primates are still mammals. And all mammals are still tetrapods. > They have 600 Neanderthals, not all of them had scoiliosis. DNA proves we did not evolve from them, they were a different kind of human. We did interbreed with them.

[AlexPleaseHelpDotCom]

Make more videos! :D

[pacriticalthinker]

Another great vid, SU4RS.

I wonder if flatfish would meet Ray Comfort's criteria for a living transitional organism. If asymmetry is adaptive, it's not hard to imagine that descendants of the halibut will be born with both eyes on the same side of their heads.

Of course, Comfort will just say that we have no way of knowing this, but it will be further evidence that his criteria are impossible to meet.

[LJonathan]

That is impressive if the predictions are true AND no other predictions have been disproven. I mean, just throwing out predictions and hope something sticks isn't really that impressive. I can only assume that is not the case?

[Ibis333]

Yes these are true predictions. This is how paleontologists decide where to dig. They figure out what features the intermediate or ancestral animal should have, when it would have lived, and in what kind of geography/climate. Then they go looking for it. This is how all the fossils of hominids, cetids (whales), Tiktaalik (therapod/fish), and Puijila (walking seal) were discovered.

[LJonathan]

I didn't say these aren't true predictions, it just makes me wonder of how many prediction they've made before they got it right. But I suppose that these discoveries are not easily found at random,which makes the evidence strong.

[Ibis333]

Yeah, I didn't mean "true" as in "not lying", I meant "true" as in "completely meeting all the requirements of" a prediction, including that of not being one of a slew of guesses in the hope of getting something right. The fact that they use these to select where to go on (expensive) expeditions which are then successful is strong evidence that these really are true predictions, not random guesses.

[andronic96]

yes, you guys make predictions. that doesnt prove anything. you dont even prove anything. its just big words used to confuse everyone. and you guys didnt find any evidence. and if you did then why dont you put pictures of that instead of those painted pictures. i dont know why you put those. its pictures painted by men. it doesnt prove anything.

[standup4REALscience]

Each of the major examples explained in this video was accompanied by a photograph or a detailed sketch of an actual fossil specimen. The artistic representations are based on this fossil evidence.

I suggest you watch the video again and see for yourself.

[A11ex]

@andronic96 what a mental block...I could spit in your face and you'd still would say it is rain...

[aliabdul286]

This is not proof of evolution. This is just misleading information. I challenge any evolutionist that see's this comment to an argument.

[zebraone100]

"This is not proof of evolution"

Strictly speaking, no scientific theory is ever 'proven' by evidence, they make predictions that are 'consistent' with physical evidence. However, a theory can be disproved by physical evidence.

A prediction that creation theory makes, since life was created at one point in time, is that all variations of life will be found in all levels of the fossil record. Since the evidence contradicts the prediction, the theory is 'proven' false.

[aliabdul286]

Thats exactly my point. They claim to have all the evidence, they claim it's been proven but it's nothing more than lies and I can put these athiests in the right

[zebraone100]

"Thats exactly my point."

If you think I'm on your side, you better think again, and you better re-read the last paragraph of my previous post. In it, I discuss how evidence can 'support' the theory of evolution, but, flat out, disprove the alternative theory of creation.

[javixm]

What lies?

Evidence doesn't lie...

[AtheistThatsATheist]

Did you know evolution has been observed?Did you know that it has been observed so many times that theres now 4 different types of evolution?

Google "Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home"

Apart from limbs and head changing size and shape these little fellows behavior have changed from the original group and theyve even developed a new valve.

Its pretty funny how you act like its a conspiracy.What about people whove never heard of the bible?Are they in it too?

[eeenok]

you don't even know that the POINT is that this video isn't claiming to be a proof of evolution; it's a rebuttal to the creationist claim that there are no transitional fossils, and a demonstration that this information is scientifically useful. it's PART of the network of evidence that supports an unavoidable conclusion of evolution. it's REASON for existing is that the "no transitional fossils" belief is just something creationists heard somewhere, rather than the result of honest study

[eeenok]

And what zebraone is getting at is that mathematical proofs are deductive while scientific proofs are inductive. Creationists rarely understand the difference, and their demands for proof are usually demands for deductive proof. To people with a clue, listening to this endless demand is like listening to a child on a camping trip whining for ice-cream (in case you were wondering why people tend to be kurt with creationists).

[eeenok]

In short, your challenge already contains the evidence that you are not an interesting combatant - that, like most creationists, your "argument" will consist of laughable assertions from your collection of Kent Hovind audio cassettes

[AndreaZ64]

aliabdul286 present your arguments first. Based on scientific research.

You might win a nobel price.

[javixm]

I accept your challenge.

(even if you posted it 3 months ago)

[g3nov3s3]

yes, but what if God planted those fossils just to test our faith?

[Looking4Coffee]

*facepalm*

Please tell me you aren't this stupid g3nov3s3.

[g3nov3s3]

If I were God, this is exactly what I would do!!!!! I would plant lots of evidence that would prove that is impossible for me to exist! However, I would reward those peple that still believe in me despite the tons of evidence to the contrary and punish those who are unbelievers!

[Looking4Coffee]

So you would be a deceiving God who punishes reason and rewards blind faith?

Great.

[g3nov3s3]

Well....Doooh!!!!! Isn't this what all leaders do???!! !IKings, presidents, etc. all of them want their subjects to follow them blindly! Otherwise if people would think for themselves they would probably want other leaders!

[Looking4Coffee]

Damnit.

Poe's law is a bitch.

[SydneyLeach]

Don't count on it.

[NerdFury]

great video

[hume1947]

jebus6kryst @

++ "I wonder, can you define evolution in a scientific context." ++

Quote:

++ In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974. ++

This is confirmation that they have zero evidence for their theory of evolution - That manKIND allegedly over a vast period of time did descend from a pond full of bacteria.

[standup4REALscience]

Actually, your response merely confirms that you lack the scientific knowledge and/or reading comprehension skills to recognize that a precise definition of evolution is not the same thing as the inference of common ancestry.

[hume1947]

4 / 4

Thus when they have the alleged fossil in front of them they get every fact wrong....

So how can they get anything right about an alleged fossil that they argue exists somewhere ..... but that they cannot SEE? Re: the Last Common ancestor of the chimp / man.

Their game is up ... this is another Piltdown man hoax to add credence to the deception theory of evolution.

Google:

Long Feet Offer Clues to Mystery of Small Hominid, nytimes

[hume1947]

3 / 4

Over 100 alleged evolutionist experts studied the Hobbits fossil and (1) they failed to carry out any DNA tests; (2) they failed to carry out full medical investigations; (3) they produced fabricated datings; (4) and WORSE every one of them failed to check the Hobbits FOOT.

This confirms that every peer review paper with reference to any fossil but be placed in the waste bin immediately.

(continued)

[cojawfee]

Several religious people once said that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.

This confirms that all religious texts and ideas need to be "but in the waste bin immediately."

[hume1947]

cojawfee @

++ "Several religious people once said that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. This confirms that all religious texts and ideas need to be "but in the waste bin immediately."" ++

Your argument fails.

1) Our authority is the Bible and not what certain people alledgely stated.

2) Whereas evolutionists have no authority they can go to. Thus you have 100 evolutionists with 100 different ideas.

3) Nowhere in God's word does it say the planet Earth was FLAT.

[cojawfee]

@hume1947

1. Your authority is a bunch of bronze age sheep herders. As well we four different stories about Jesus, each one crazier than the last.

2. Evolution is pretty well understood, anyone who has different ideas either has a theory they are trying get out or they are an idiot.

3. Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."

The church says the sun revolves around the earth, so it is done in heaven.

[hume1947]

2 / 4

Who would believe the real definition that over a vast period of time ... manKIND did allegedly descend from a pond full of bacteria?

We have the recent examples of the Hobbits. For 6 years we have had several alleged investigations by top evolutionists into the alleged new subspecies Homo floresiensis AKA the Hobbits.

By deception they have produced alleged peer reviewed papers and allegedly empire evidence to fabricate evidence for their alleged new subspecies.

(continued)

[hume1947]

1 / 4

standup4REALscience @

++ "Actually, your response merely confirms that you lack the scientific knowledge and/or reading comprehension skills to recognize that a precise definition of evolution is not the same thing as the inference of common ancestry." ++

How can someone be condemn for giving the evolutionists own definition? I accept the evolutionists own definition is a deception stated to mislead the innocent.

(continued)

[middlekk]

hume is a well-known troll. I'm sorry you've been plagued by him. Quote mining is his logical fallacy of choice, which he persists in using even when he is given the ENTIRE quote from which he gleans his anti-science nonsense.

You really only have two choices with people like him who revel in their ignorance. Ignore them or block them.

BTW: I saw an eft this morning. Cool!

[JakePelka]

This is kind of off topic, but I've read that Dewgongs are the only aquatic mammals that can cry, would you know anything about it?

[standup4REALscience]

No, I've never heard that before.

However, I know that there are marine animals capable of secreting excess salt from their bodies through ducts near their eyes. That's not necessarily "crying" but it's a similar physiological process.

[ndjarnag]

"Lower shell first"?  Well, I didn't expect that.

[Cephalochordata]

Another great piece of work Jeremy!

I really like how you've deliberately chosen some of the lesser known, wonderful transitions and assigned the usual, old gang of horses, birds, tetrapods etc. to a casual remark at the end :)

[standup4REALscience]

Yes, I did that intentionally. I'm glad you noticed!

[jebus6kryst]

Very well done. The Bat fossils were very interesting.

[hume1947]

jebus6kryst @

++ "Very well done. The Bat fossils were very interesting." ++

AND confirm [1] that you have zero fossils for your theory and [2] confirm that allegedly 50 million years ago a bat was simple a bat.

3 strikes and you are out.

[jebus6kryst]

Your statement only shows how ignorant you are of a transitional species. I wonder, can you define evolution in a scientific context. I am sure if you were able to do this you will understand why your comment is so foolish.

[hume1947]

3 / 3

Do you realise that a fossil knowingly - does not have to be on the ancestry line of humans say from the Last alleged Common Ancestor of the chimp / human and evolutionists by deception will claim it is a transitional?

Why would alleged scientists have to deceive you if they allegedly have plenty of evidence? Because they have zero evidence.

[jebus6kryst]

Of course, a fossil does not have to be an ancestry of humans. Most hominins that we find we think are not ancestors to any living species, like all the robust Australopiths. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Not once did you try to define evolution. Because you do not know the basics about evolution, all you have done is made yourself appear eve more foolish.

[hume1947]

2 / 3

Now what honest person would do that? Only deceivers would then come out and say: Every fossil that we dug up in the past or dig up in the future is a transitional fossil.

Thus you have fallen for the half baked idea that you have transitional fossils. If they lie about this they will lie about everything.

(continued)

[jebus6kryst]

Who says that? I did not. Of course, not every fossil we dig up is a transitional, must species go extinct and do not evolve into anything else. If they leave no decedents then they cannot be transitional.

[hume1947]

1 / 3

jebus6kryst @

++ "Your statement only shows how ignorant you are of a transitional species. I wonder, can you define evolution in a scientific context. I am sure if you were able to do this you will understand why your comment is so foolish." ++

While you had your nap because evolutionists had zero transitional fossil evidence (which was confirmed by Charles Darwin in his book Species of Origins) evolutionists decided to change the meaning of transitional.

(continued)

[jebus6kryst]

There are hundreds of transitional fossils, stop living under a rock. In addition, Charles Darwin wrote his book when paleontology was in its infancy. Nevertheless, during this life they found one of the first and best transition fossils, Archaeopteryx. The meaning of transitional has never change, stop creating straw men.

[PoeMcGoodwin]

Flatfish puberty sucks

[snarf66]

Great video! 5 stars, definitely.

By the way, did you include a pangolin in that one slide for bats just for JaguarJ0nes? :)

[CHAS1422]

You are thanking me for watching your video? I thank you for making it!

I predict that in 5 million years the decendents of hippopotami will be fully aquatic (if left to natural selection without human interference).

We are all transitional. We are extant transitional present forms,existing between past life and future generations.

[ProcInc]

You left out in 3:44 that turtles also are unique in that they have no temporal finestra.

Great video. Wow, I'm off to google maiacetus

[standup4REALscience]

Yes, but Odontochelys was an anapsid like all other turtles. I tried to focus on transitional features seen in the fossils.

Isn't maiacetus cool?

[ProcInc]

"Yes, but Odontochelys was an anapsid like all other turtles"

Haha, very good point

And maiacetus is definitely a contender for favourite new whale transitional

[CousinoMacul]

Sirenians = mermaids :-)

Great video!

Thanks Jeremy.

[satansaysdie]

don't forget that manatees have toenails on their "flippers" and are born with a pelvis with no function. Some are even know to have hip sockets.

[hanzo138]

Great informative video! Keep up the good work.

[Saukko31]

Good job!

5 stars and fav'd.