i know this is just a cool little commercial not to be taken seriously, but since i see an evolution argument in the comments, i'll throw my two cents in. we didn't come from monkeys. most scientists don't believe we came from monkeys. we came from a common ancestor. not monkeys
@bktenn29youre kidding right? we and monkeys both share a commn ancestor. you didnt see mnkeys, they here early prim ates. THEN we had a splitting point where monkeys turned to mokeys, and the early man changed into what we are now.
@efatnas12 well, since you just said almost exactly what i said, i hope you're kidding. i said in my second to last sentence we came from a common ancestor. you said in your second sentence we and monkeys both share a common ancestor. i know this, i said it first...
opposing the idea of evolution doesn't mean i believe in invisible things living upstairs . . .
Btw, the oldest examples ever found of microorganisms, preserved in detail in amber, are virtually identical with modern species," reports Science News of Jan. 16, 1993, saying that these organisms have remained in a state of evolutionary suspended animation since the dawn of the age of the dinosaurs. This phenomenon is termed morphological stasis
@DarkPhoenix7878 Just because some species appear to have not changed does not disprove or make evoloution any less credible. There is vast amounts of evidence for evoloution. We have even forced it to happen in some cases; be it the evoloution of a single celled organism into a multicelluar organism, the adaption to growth in the dark by Chlamydomonas, the fact that the common cold is ever evolving thus why there will never be a cure, or the immunity to our poisons by countless pests.
@MegaLolburger forcing evolution is like forcing the big bang to happen.Because according to evolutionists, evolution occurs in nature, by natural selection and to force something is the opposite of natural flow of things. And for your information, multicellular chlamydomonas are considered as "mutant Chlamydomonas reinhardtii " (check all reports and you'll find that). And the National Research Council in 2007 admitted that mutation is not sufficient explanation for evolution.
@DarkPhoenix7878 Not at all, I gave you cases where we obsereve it happening. Humans speeding up the process is irrellevant. The point is, it happens, it is demonstrable. Done deal.
For your information Chlamydomonas is Unicellular... Yes there are mutants, your point being?
You can even simply look at a snake skeleton to see evidence. Snakes ancestors were known to have external legs and therefore a pelvic girdle; snakes today still have elements of a pelvic girdle.
@MegaLolburger Well then if you insist, our discussion ends here as i cannot talk to someone arrogant enough to think he knows better than the National Research Council.
@DarkPhoenix7878 When the hell did I say I know better? I said Evoloution is mutation (which it is, and any scientist will tell you that), so at what point did you come to the conclusion that I was implying I knew better than the NRC? Bloody hell, i've seen people resort to some stupid things in arguments but that was probably the most pathetic.
@MegaLolburger i'm a mutant human being who has 6 fingers in both feet. And that doesn't make me an evolved human being so again evolution is NOT mutation.
Stop confusing scientific terms and at least use the internet to help you find concrete definitions.
@DarkPhoenix7878 Oh derpdy fucking derp! You have just proven that you know precisely jack shit about evoloution, congratulations!
That is Somatic mutation.
The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. Without the mutation there is no evoloution. So yes, evoloution is mutation. These things don't happen magically.
@ThwartedVillainy@ThwartedVillainy stop your pathetic irony and do a google search (type darwin was . . .), or just read this article from a well respected newspaper (fastest one i found)
@DarkPhoenix7878 Have you read the article? It talks about the representation of biology as a "Tree of Life" being misleading because the degree of horizontal gene transfer that goes on has been revealed to be far higher than previously suspected.
The conclusion isn't that life didn't evolve, but rather that some of the contents of various organisms' genomes is derived from horizontal gene transfer, rather than the more common vertical gene transfer.
@UppruniTegundanna I'd rather say that the conclusion is that darwin has absolutely no concrete evidence to support his claims. and the dude just admitted it when he said "we have no evidnce".
because for your info Charles Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution, it was those that took what he taught about the Origin of Species, and in Charles Darwin's own words "people took them and made a religion of them".
@DarkPhoenix7878 Horizontal Gene Transfer is something that can only be detected at an extremely microscopic scale, which is why its details are only being discovered and understood thoroughly now. Neither Darwin, nor any of his contemporaries, had any knowledge of DNA and genes, and so the theory he put forward dealt broadly with heredity and natural selection - on these points he had plenty of evidence.
"People took them and made a religion of them", this was fabricated by Lady Hope.
@UppruniTegundanna well then mr i have deep scientific knowledge of DNA. There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA, meaning chromosome count within each species is fixed. And this is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Example: horse+donkey= mule= no evolution= fail. and it stops there. Another thing, the day they prove me how and where from cell n°1 came to existence i will . . .
@DarkPhoenix7878 Deactivated telomeres in Human Chromosome number 2 is strong evidence of a historical fusion of two chromosomes, which explains the difference in chromosome number between humans and other apes - this also indicates a change in the number of chromosomes.
As for the horse donkey point - indeed, eventually two species evolve to such a point where offspring between them is infertile; i.e. divergence has taken place.
@DarkPhoenix7878 No one knows precisely what processes brought the first cell into existence. But I don't understand why being provided with a plausible explanation for the first cell would cause you to suddenly accept the evidence for the biological life that followed it, if you don't accept it already.
That is like saying "the day you tell me when or where the first molecules of water came from, I will believe in soil erosion". It makes no sense.
@UppruniTegundanna i didn't say i will believe it, ". . ." means i will give it more thinking.
As u said, humans and monkey's. So blow my mind and tell me if humans evolved from apes why do apes still exist ?unlike other of ancestors of other evolved species ?
Why, i got the answer: Science NEVER said humans evolved from apes. Science said that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. That makes humans and apes related species.
---> HUGE difference compared to what 99% of people believe.
@DarkPhoenix7878 I didn't know that "..." meant that. Anyway, I haven't used the world monkey in this discussion. Humans are a type of ape: they belong to the superfamily Hominoidea - members of Hominoidea include humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orangs, all of whom diversified from a common ape ancestor.
Creatures do not abandon their ancestry over time: humans evolved from deuterostomes, and are still deuterostomes.
And both being deuterostomes because they share some embryological traits doesn't mean they be ancestors or even related in any way.(concrete definition of deuterostomes).
and with my flawless logic i support my claims with another thing. Given all the evidence provided by evolutionists, it is also possible to claim that humans DEvolved into apes and lower class human beigns (the ones we are now). Read the book seascape u'll get more ideas.
@DarkPhoenix7878 You dumbass. Darwin isn't the only person to think of evolution or to make the case for it. Virtually every biologist since then has only further supported the idea to a degree where it's no longer just an idea, it's a fact. The article you found was about a tiny detail having to do with the image devices used to picture evolution, not evolution itself.
@ThwartedVillainy calling me a "dubmass" adds nothing to your cridibility.
As for teh rest of whay you just said, your being so dogmatic and off topic. You only got back to the article i first posted the link of, because you doing nothing but turn around the point.
So instead of dodging what i said earlier try to comment on it. Saves us both some gray brain cells ;)
@DarkPhoenix7878 Not that it matters or anything but, I for one agree with thwartedvilliany you kind of are a dumb ass, and I think you're a troll too. . . .
@DarkPhoenix7878 Ok, now it's official. You are a total and complete dumbass. Your spelling is completely fucked and I clearly commented on your article that you didn't even read yourself. What else is there to do? Were you serious about going to google and typing, "darwin was..."? How about you provide your own evidence instead of playing games with google's algorithm. How about you go to google and type, "creationism is" and see what happens, idiot.
@DarkPhoenix7878 WTF, you bring the article up and then refuse to talk about it? I should just accept your dumb points and not question them? I'm sure you're used to an environment where questioning information is scolded, but in real academic settings, it's encouraged.
"If you have no answers for what i said earlier" What did you say earlier, I'm pretty sure I answered everything you said.
"You are a pathetic dogmatic animal" I don't think you know what "dogmatic" means.
@ThwartedVillainy Smarter people know we're just closely related and children of monkeys otherwise they'd still be evolving. But correct, there is no God.
@JPhantom95er I think you mixed up "evolution" with "Gawd" and "atheists" with "thousands and thousands of equally implausible churches and religious institutions".
@SuperAlexrobson Dumb to exponential level...Slave come from 'sclavus' that designated east Europeans, that were the first massive enslaved people in Europe, so i don't get your link of a slave and a black person.They were no massive slave trade of black persons in Europe, only in America
@yumi1851 if you knew history as a GCSE like me you would know that Europe got the slaves and sold them to america so it was Europe who actually got the slaves and sold or trade them if you will so yes the slave trade was done by europe so i dont know were your getting your info from and why sclavus means anything to my comment
@SuperAlexrobson AND THEN? does that mean 2 millions of French people got a black slave at home???? Don't mix up! Europeans started all but it's America who had most of the profit of this slave trade. You're that dumb?
@yumi1851 also Europe would of been the ones getting the profits wouldn't they.the idea Europe sold the slaves to america would make Europe got the profits. so don't go running you mouth with things like the current economy.when that has absolutely nothing to do with what the conversation is about,stick to the topic.
@yumi1851 also you may want to consider this.stop bringing down everyone else with your random insults before telling me to because so far all i said was europe and england have had slaves and you have decided that makes me the bad guy.
@SuperAlexrobson What insults did i throw? none. i made it clear 'slave' doesn't mean any individual who is black (which is a very american way of thinking), you've been trying justifying that slaves are supposed to be 'black' when it's more than twisted to say so nowadays. 'slave' would normally refer to an East european person and not a 'black' person because recently in your country you had 'black' slaves. Poor cunt
@yumi1851 just wondering havent u kinda came of topic with this whole thing all i said was ' but england and some of europe also had slaves' and then u have now decided that i think everyone slave has to be black and what do you mean with your country? do you actually have any idea were im from? i also know saves dont have to be black they were in the times of the slave trade.but before then there many different civilizations that had slaves Greek,Roman,Egyptian and the byzantine empire to
@SuperAlexrobson But isn't it what you are? A poor cunt? a 'slave' never refered to a black person at the first place, if it is too hard for you to understand, at least shut up, don't ridiculize yourself. The guy 'stuckz001 ' has top comment , showing to everyone that our world doesn't have a recessive economy only but also in the head
@yumi1851 Also im done here, you can comment back but im not gonna reply to that i kinda give up in a conversation when people resort to insults to try and prove themselves
They are lying, the man did not evolve from apes, they just had a common ancestor, this was the lack of understanding of creationist society that rejected Darwin!
People. listen to me, it's a fucking commercial. The idea of evolution fitted in the commercial, END OF STORY.
Seriously, these fucking debates about wether evolution exists or not is extremely stupid, why are people denying something that's a fact and has been proven so many times, you know why? Because they're stupid.
Okay, even God in the Judeo-Christian Bible hinted at evolution. Adam did not simply pop into existence because of Creation. No, God took simple components (mud) and produced it into a progressively more complex being. How is this process not considered as an ancient human's perspective of beings becoming more developed over time? Creationists who deny this are utterly stupid.
@Thedoctor19000 dude that's what I don't get. I'm an atheist myself so I'm obviously biased, but why did god have to instantaneously create humans instead of guide them into existence? It would be a FAR better argument for believers than "we were put here in his image and that's that"... Hell, I'm not sure if there's a god or not, none of us can be yet, but i highly doubt he's the god that islam and christianity make him out to be.
@StOnion the problem is that creationists feel the need to take the bible as fact to support their faith (though they do choose to ignore certain passages, e.g. its ok to sell your daughter into slavery ect.) and they choose to read it as a historical document even though it is a collection of fictitious stories voted for by a committee. creationists aren't stupid, just horribly misguided and too afraid to live in a world where they are truly responsible for themselves
@jackamatyus hmm I think its a premonition that three mudhopper-like fish had millions of years ago that a beer like guinness was going to come along, cos "good things come to those who wait". So they waited, evolved too, got opposable thumbs, so they could better enjoy a beer. Its a rewinded video of evolution.
@zam19862003 Actually, it's much simpler. they had water, they didn't like it, so they waited for something better to come along and eventually it did.
Well there would be a lot of situations in which either it would be impossible to be at higher altitudes, or even above water at all. Say if there was something slowly began to be released into the air that was toxic then a lot of creatures would need to be able to adapt to different environments in which the air wasn't present. I'm not saying that a bird will one day decide to grow gills I'm just saying that over time animals to other places.
@zodiark111 Birds and fish are distinct groups of animals, which at some point had a common ancestor. Birds might some day evolve to become more fish like, eg. penguins are already well on the way there, but they won't become fish. Evolution doesn't go backwards or do repeats, birds won't go back to being like their common ancestor then evolve into fish - they'll just become more fish-like. Presumably we'd then give them a new name, to describe the new genus of fish-like birds.
@jackamatyus You didn't say that at all. What you said was that there is something like a timeline of animals evolving over time, and a bird won't go back into the older creature and then turn into a fish. What's going on here is that we haven't distinguished what a "fish". Now of course a bird won't turn into some sort of type of fish that their already is, but it could turn into another kind of thing that shares the same characteristics of other aquatic animals.
@zodiark111 I did say that, I quote - 'birds won't go back to being like their common ancestor then evolve into fish - they'll just become more fish-like.'
Did you even read/understand my comment? Also, do you understand how biological classification and nomenclature work? Do you understand how evolution works? If not, learn how, then come back to me...else I'm just going to end up repeating myself.
I did read/understand your comment. I apologize for not being able to word my arguments correctly. I've always been bad at that. I had a feeling that you would respond like this, so just forget everything I said. I have other shit to do.
@jackamatyus Their parents would beat them and tell them they wanted them to be insects, and though the birds tried, they cracked under pressure and gave up to follow their own dreams.
@jackamatyus I just re-watched the video, yeah, it turns out, that evolutionists commonly assume that fish evolved into amphibians, then to reptiles, then to birds and mammals.
@maxymumcool The whole video is wrong, we didn't evolve from chimps, fish didn't evolve into plesiosaurs and plesiosaur-like animals. The bird part just appeared to be the most abusrd to me.
i think they evolve into fish because there's the cataclysm that killed off the dinosaurs, making the surface uninhabitable for a bit. this drove life back into the oceans for a little while untill the surface was habitable again and they evolved back into mammals.
true enough but remember that this is just a commercial and they are just trying to show dinosaurs - cataclysm - water/underground period - return to land etc.. i think making a commercial that's 100% accurate to actual evolution would be pretty ridiculous.
Micro evolution is something that does occur. Macro evolution is the bs that is shoved down our throat in kindergarten.
The fact is that no one has recorded any observation before 6000 years ago. Creationism and evolution as engines for the beginning of life are both stances based on faith.
@fortunadodesperado Ahem - no-one has recorded anything, because the writing was not yet invented back then. We have found many fossiles that indicate that evolution has happened, while creationism relies on a 2000 year old book to prove itself.
@tvpnbb are you referring to the STILL incomplete fossil record as proof? its barely even at the half way point, and truthfully i don't think it will even be close to fully uncovered any time soon, the gaps between each fossil group from a specific family of animals is tremendous.
@bassline4444 There are gaps, but they prove that there were earlier forms of animals we know today, and that many animal species have died in the past. This is far more than what proof creationists offer.
@tvpnbb When you find a fossil the only thing you really know about it is that it died. There is no proof at all that any novel creature has come about from another creature. Look up the inner workings of a cell and tell me if you think that something like that can come about randomly.
@fortunadodesperado 1. It is not absolute proof, but nothing is absolute. Because they have features that resemble other creatures, and we have observed "microevolution", it is reasonable to say that evolution is very likely.
2. They did not come wholly randomly. First came one small part, then another and so on. The smallest parts are so simple that they have a high chance of coming out randomly, and still the whole process took hundreds of millions of years.
@fortunadodesperado Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe evolution claims to know how life began, it is merely a theory for how live "evolved" after it was "spawned" for lack of better terms.
Whats the name of this song? <3
QuestionRenee 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
So the point is, the three of them is friend long before your mother breastfed you
YosafatPrasetya 2 weeks ago
@Faflik Gods not real bro, hes like Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.
BakedRangs 2 weeks ago
this is awesome but where is Our God Jesus Christ
ProFIlipino3198 2 months ago
and where is the God?
Faflik 2 months ago
Now, I'm thirsty.
Tauron68 2 months ago
Evolution!
MONKEYJAW89 2 months ago
Dinosaurs turn into fish because a meteor crashed, then apes into OLD men wh get younger until today... makes perfect sense.
macsdestroyspcs2 3 months ago
bored
kaloria36 3 months ago
Sarah Palin disliked this 52 times.
oppa1987 3 months ago
@oppa1987 no she didnt. and youre not funny.
ymistillavirgin 2 months ago
BASILOSAURUS FTW !!!
cybergreed38 4 months ago
I was expecting KaBoom! at the end :(
tolipotua12 5 months ago
@tolipotua12 Makes more sense that an organized planet explodes than nothing exploding to be, eh?
macsdestroyspcs2 3 months ago
why did people always thumb up the comment with a bad grammar?
WhoAteMyTacos 5 months ago 2
@WhoAteMyTacos well played
bakayurei 5 months ago
I hate it when the top rated comment is a reply, i can never find it -__-
concretecubes 5 months ago 36
This has been flagged as spam show
@concretecubes I hate it when the top rated comment is a reply, i can never find it -.-
fmalphons 4 months ago
i know this is just a cool little commercial not to be taken seriously, but since i see an evolution argument in the comments, i'll throw my two cents in. we didn't come from monkeys. most scientists don't believe we came from monkeys. we came from a common ancestor. not monkeys
bktenn29 5 months ago 2
@bktenn29 Monkeys are one of our common ancestors.
Nontheistism 4 months ago
@bktenn29youre kidding right? we and monkeys both share a commn ancestor. you didnt see mnkeys, they here early prim ates. THEN we had a splitting point where monkeys turned to mokeys, and the early man changed into what we are now.
efatnas12 4 months ago
@efatnas12 well, since you just said almost exactly what i said, i hope you're kidding. i said in my second to last sentence we came from a common ancestor. you said in your second sentence we and monkeys both share a common ancestor. i know this, i said it first...
bktenn29 4 months ago
this reversed would be of some interest
lupaguy 6 months ago
you guys are getting way too worked up over a beer commercial.
darkizzey 6 months ago
We was beeb a shimpanze!End!!
frastocazzo 6 months ago
@orkneymist I have great respect for mentally mature people like you :)
Like you said let's enjoy this great video.
DarkPhoenix7878 6 months ago
@orkneymist my holy book ! who said i have one ?
opposing the idea of evolution doesn't mean i believe in invisible things living upstairs . . .
Btw, the oldest examples ever found of microorganisms, preserved in detail in amber, are virtually identical with modern species," reports Science News of Jan. 16, 1993, saying that these organisms have remained in a state of evolutionary suspended animation since the dawn of the age of the dinosaurs. This phenomenon is termed morphological stasis
DarkPhoenix7878 6 months ago
@DarkPhoenix7878 Just because some species appear to have not changed does not disprove or make evoloution any less credible. There is vast amounts of evidence for evoloution. We have even forced it to happen in some cases; be it the evoloution of a single celled organism into a multicelluar organism, the adaption to growth in the dark by Chlamydomonas, the fact that the common cold is ever evolving thus why there will never be a cure, or the immunity to our poisons by countless pests.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger forcing evolution is like forcing the big bang to happen.Because according to evolutionists, evolution occurs in nature, by natural selection and to force something is the opposite of natural flow of things. And for your information, multicellular chlamydomonas are considered as "mutant Chlamydomonas reinhardtii " (check all reports and you'll find that). And the National Research Council in 2007 admitted that mutation is not sufficient explanation for evolution.
DarkPhoenix7878 6 months ago
@DarkPhoenix7878 Not at all, I gave you cases where we obsereve it happening. Humans speeding up the process is irrellevant. The point is, it happens, it is demonstrable. Done deal.
For your information Chlamydomonas is Unicellular... Yes there are mutants, your point being?
You can even simply look at a snake skeleton to see evidence. Snakes ancestors were known to have external legs and therefore a pelvic girdle; snakes today still have elements of a pelvic girdle.
Evoloution IS mutation.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger Well then if you insist, our discussion ends here as i cannot talk to someone arrogant enough to think he knows better than the National Research Council.
DarkPhoenix7878 6 months ago
@DarkPhoenix7878 When the hell did I say I know better? I said Evoloution is mutation (which it is, and any scientist will tell you that), so at what point did you come to the conclusion that I was implying I knew better than the NRC? Bloody hell, i've seen people resort to some stupid things in arguments but that was probably the most pathetic.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger i'm a mutant human being who has 6 fingers in both feet. And that doesn't make me an evolved human being so again evolution is NOT mutation.
Stop confusing scientific terms and at least use the internet to help you find concrete definitions.
DarkPhoenix7878 6 months ago
@DarkPhoenix7878 Oh derpdy fucking derp! You have just proven that you know precisely jack shit about evoloution, congratulations!
That is Somatic mutation.
The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. Without the mutation there is no evoloution. So yes, evoloution is mutation. These things don't happen magically.
MegaLolburger 6 months ago
@MegaLolburger couldnt've said it better myself
geoffwoade 6 months ago
51 seconds...
MaliceMods 6 months ago
Please, tell me the name of music =)
Archimetod 6 months ago
@bigron1986 That's Youtube for you bro
zzzIdividedbyzerozzz 6 months ago
Just shut the fuck up about who's right or wrong and enjoy how awesome the video is.
217Gnomes 6 months ago
seriously do people still believe in the evolution theory ? i man don't humans get self education any longer ???
DarkPhoenix7878 6 months ago
@DarkPhoenix7878 Yeah, pretty much every scientist and educated person believes in the fact of evolution.
ThwartedVillainy 6 months ago 13
@ThwartedVillainy @ThwartedVillainy stop your pathetic irony and do a google search (type darwin was . . .), or just read this article from a well respected newspaper (fastest one i found)
bit.ly / CL0o
DarkPhoenix7878 6 months ago
@DarkPhoenix7878 Have you read the article? It talks about the representation of biology as a "Tree of Life" being misleading because the degree of horizontal gene transfer that goes on has been revealed to be far higher than previously suspected.
The conclusion isn't that life didn't evolve, but rather that some of the contents of various organisms' genomes is derived from horizontal gene transfer, rather than the more common vertical gene transfer.
UppruniTegundanna 6 months ago
@UppruniTegundanna I'd rather say that the conclusion is that darwin has absolutely no concrete evidence to support his claims. and the dude just admitted it when he said "we have no evidnce".
because for your info Charles Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution, it was those that took what he taught about the Origin of Species, and in Charles Darwin's own words "people took them and made a religion of them".
DarkPhoenix7878 6 months ago
@DarkPhoenix7878 Horizontal Gene Transfer is something that can only be detected at an extremely microscopic scale, which is why its details are only being discovered and understood thoroughly now. Neither Darwin, nor any of his contemporaries, had any knowledge of DNA and genes, and so the theory he put forward dealt broadly with heredity and natural selection - on these points he had plenty of evidence.
"People took them and made a religion of them", this was fabricated by Lady Hope.
UppruniTegundanna 6 months ago
@UppruniTegundanna well then mr i have deep scientific knowledge of DNA. There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA, meaning chromosome count within each species is fixed. And this is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Example: horse+donkey= mule= no evolution= fail. and it stops there. Another thing, the day they prove me how and where from cell n°1 came to existence i will . . .
DarkPhoenix7878 6 months ago
@DarkPhoenix7878 Deactivated telomeres in Human Chromosome number 2 is strong evidence of a historical fusion of two chromosomes, which explains the difference in chromosome number between humans and other apes - this also indicates a change in the number of chromosomes.
As for the horse donkey point - indeed, eventually two species evolve to such a point where offspring between them is infertile; i.e. divergence has taken place.
UppruniTegundanna 6 months ago
@DarkPhoenix7878 No one knows precisely what processes brought the first cell into existence. But I don't understand why being provided with a plausible explanation for the first cell would cause you to suddenly accept the evidence for the biological life that followed it, if you don't accept it already.
That is like saying "the day you tell me when or where the first molecules of water came from, I will believe in soil erosion". It makes no sense.
UppruniTegundanna 6 months ago
@UppruniTegundanna i didn't say i will believe it, ". . ." means i will give it more thinking.
As u said, humans and monkey's. So blow my mind and tell me if humans evolved from apes why do apes still exist ?unlike other of ancestors of other evolved species ?
Why, i got the answer: Science NEVER said humans evolved from apes. Science said that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. That makes humans and apes related species.
---> HUGE difference compared to what 99% of people believe.
DarkPhoenix7878 6 months ago
@DarkPhoenix7878 I didn't know that "..." meant that. Anyway, I haven't used the world monkey in this discussion. Humans are a type of ape: they belong to the superfamily Hominoidea - members of Hominoidea include humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orangs, all of whom diversified from a common ape ancestor.
Creatures do not abandon their ancestry over time: humans evolved from deuterostomes, and are still deuterostomes.
UppruniTegundanna 6 months ago
@UppruniTegundanna apes, mankeys it's just semantics.
And both being deuterostomes because they share some embryological traits doesn't mean they be ancestors or even related in any way.(concrete definition of deuterostomes).
and with my flawless logic i support my claims with another thing. Given all the evidence provided by evolutionists, it is also possible to claim that humans DEvolved into apes and lower class human beigns (the ones we are now). Read the book seascape u'll get more ideas.
DarkPhoenix7878 6 months ago
@DarkPhoenix7878 You dumbass. Darwin isn't the only person to think of evolution or to make the case for it. Virtually every biologist since then has only further supported the idea to a degree where it's no longer just an idea, it's a fact. The article you found was about a tiny detail having to do with the image devices used to picture evolution, not evolution itself.
ThwartedVillainy 6 months ago
@ThwartedVillainy calling me a "dubmass" adds nothing to your cridibility.
As for teh rest of whay you just said, your being so dogmatic and off topic. You only got back to the article i first posted the link of, because you doing nothing but turn around the point.
So instead of dodging what i said earlier try to comment on it. Saves us both some gray brain cells ;)
DarkPhoenix7878 6 months ago
@DarkPhoenix7878 Not that it matters or anything but, I for one agree with thwartedvilliany you kind of are a dumb ass, and I think you're a troll too. . . .
maxymumcool 6 months ago
@maxymumcool next time before you pop in someone else's conversation be sure to knock the door and be polite.
kids these days have no manners, just throwing words randomly . . .
DarkPhoenix7878 6 months ago
@DarkPhoenix7878 Ok, now it's official. You are a total and complete dumbass. Your spelling is completely fucked and I clearly commented on your article that you didn't even read yourself. What else is there to do? Were you serious about going to google and typing, "darwin was..."? How about you provide your own evidence instead of playing games with google's algorithm. How about you go to google and type, "creationism is" and see what happens, idiot.
ThwartedVillainy 6 months ago
@ThwartedVillainy Enough with the article that i used to get in the conversation and stop turning around the point over and over again.
If you have no answers for what i said earlier, then these are my last words for you:
You are a pathetic dogmatic animal (level up from apes).
DarkPhoenix7878 6 months ago
@DarkPhoenix7878 WTF, you bring the article up and then refuse to talk about it? I should just accept your dumb points and not question them? I'm sure you're used to an environment where questioning information is scolded, but in real academic settings, it's encouraged.
"If you have no answers for what i said earlier" What did you say earlier, I'm pretty sure I answered everything you said.
"You are a pathetic dogmatic animal" I don't think you know what "dogmatic" means.
ThwartedVillainy 6 months ago
@ThwartedVillainy Dude. Don't feed the troll.
BParker049 6 months ago
@BParker049 You're right, I know better than to engage him. God dammit!
ThwartedVillainy 6 months ago
@ThwartedVillainy Smarter people know we're just closely related and children of monkeys otherwise they'd still be evolving. But correct, there is no God.
bigpyro1618 5 months ago
@DarkPhoenix7878 Yes they do, because evolution is a fact backed up by great amounts of scientific evidence and observations.
Task5003 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Too bad evolution is just a big lie concocted by atheists.
JPhantom95er 6 months ago
@JPhantom95er I think you mixed up "evolution" with "Gawd" and "atheists" with "thousands and thousands of equally implausible churches and religious institutions".
PanzeeReapa 6 months ago
... and supported by millions of pieces of evidence, none of which contradict it. Good luck trying to convince anyone that evolution is the lie.
ThwartedVillainy 6 months ago
But Creationists think the world is 5000 years old!!!!
MBJH17isbackonlyone 6 months ago
just here for the "sweet charity" song
rosieforst 6 months ago
i always get chills when i watch this. even though its for beer, it's a powerful commercial.
HeroineWith1000Faces 6 months ago
I'm religious, I believe in intelligent design. Other religious people please don't waste your time getting upset here... it's a commercial.
MrFindler 6 months ago
Inb4 religitards getting mad. Oh shit too late, always.
slipknotjake 6 months ago
whyyyhavent more peopel seen this
smoothcriminal829 6 months ago
The average person's view on evolution:
All I know about evolution is the 2 lectures I heard in high school biology.
james2010saha 6 months ago
Why didn't the black guy get enslaved?
stukz001 6 months ago 59
@stukz001 nigger
Alithecomedian 6 months ago
@stukz001 cos its ireland and we weren't complete cunts haha
Wholoveschickens 6 months ago
@Wholoveschickens Ah, that's right. I was being an ignorant American right there sorry bout that
stukz001 6 months ago
@stukz001 They're probably not in america stupid cunt
yumi1851 6 months ago
@yumi1851 but england and some of europe also had slaves
SuperAlexrobson 5 months ago
@SuperAlexrobson Dumb to exponential level...Slave come from 'sclavus' that designated east Europeans, that were the first massive enslaved people in Europe, so i don't get your link of a slave and a black person.They were no massive slave trade of black persons in Europe, only in America
yumi1851 5 months ago
@yumi1851 if you knew history as a GCSE like me you would know that Europe got the slaves and sold them to america so it was Europe who actually got the slaves and sold or trade them if you will so yes the slave trade was done by europe so i dont know were your getting your info from and why sclavus means anything to my comment
SuperAlexrobson 5 months ago
@SuperAlexrobson AND THEN? does that mean 2 millions of French people got a black slave at home???? Don't mix up! Europeans started all but it's America who had most of the profit of this slave trade. You're that dumb?
yumi1851 5 months ago
@yumi1851 also Europe would of been the ones getting the profits wouldn't they.the idea Europe sold the slaves to america would make Europe got the profits. so don't go running you mouth with things like the current economy.when that has absolutely nothing to do with what the conversation is about,stick to the topic.
SuperAlexrobson 5 months ago
@SuperAlexrobson And yes make your research about 'sclavus' before even opening your mouth bringing down 'black' persons
yumi1851 5 months ago
@yumi1851 when the fuk did i bring down the 'black' person as you say
SuperAlexrobson 5 months ago
@yumi1851 also you may want to consider this.stop bringing down everyone else with your random insults before telling me to because so far all i said was europe and england have had slaves and you have decided that makes me the bad guy.
SuperAlexrobson 5 months ago
@SuperAlexrobson What insults did i throw? none. i made it clear 'slave' doesn't mean any individual who is black (which is a very american way of thinking), you've been trying justifying that slaves are supposed to be 'black' when it's more than twisted to say so nowadays. 'slave' would normally refer to an East european person and not a 'black' person because recently in your country you had 'black' slaves. Poor cunt
yumi1851 5 months ago
@yumi1851 just wondering havent u kinda came of topic with this whole thing all i said was ' but england and some of europe also had slaves' and then u have now decided that i think everyone slave has to be black and what do you mean with your country? do you actually have any idea were im from? i also know saves dont have to be black they were in the times of the slave trade.but before then there many different civilizations that had slaves Greek,Roman,Egyptian and the byzantine empire to
SuperAlexrobson 5 months ago
@yumi1851 name but a few also by replying 'What insults did i throw?' then ending with 'Poor cunt kinda fails to convey the point doesn't it?
SuperAlexrobson 5 months ago
@SuperAlexrobson But isn't it what you are? A poor cunt? a 'slave' never refered to a black person at the first place, if it is too hard for you to understand, at least shut up, don't ridiculize yourself. The guy 'stuckz001 ' has top comment , showing to everyone that our world doesn't have a recessive economy only but also in the head
yumi1851 5 months ago
@yumi1851 however i never once stated 'slaves are black' i only ever said they had slaves in Europe so dunno were you got that from
SuperAlexrobson 5 months ago
@yumi1851 Also im done here, you can comment back but im not gonna reply to that i kinda give up in a conversation when people resort to insults to try and prove themselves
SuperAlexrobson 5 months ago
@stukz001 Why do your comment got many thumbs up?
chuchotarantino 6 months ago 6
Enough beer turns you into a primate.
I see this every weekend.
EightAlek 6 months ago
Too bad evolution doesn't work that way! We shared a common ancestor with apes, we didn't evolve directly from them :/
RancidHeart 6 months ago 4
proves that wear going backward with technology
first1at1everything 6 months ago
They are lying, the man did not evolve from apes, they just had a common ancestor, this was the lack of understanding of creationist society that rejected Darwin!
Gambito99100 6 months ago
People. listen to me, it's a fucking commercial. The idea of evolution fitted in the commercial, END OF STORY.
Seriously, these fucking debates about wether evolution exists or not is extremely stupid, why are people denying something that's a fact and has been proven so many times, you know why? Because they're stupid.
END OF STORY SHUT THE FUCK UP AND ENJOY.
Shadowmov3r 6 months ago 5
Comment removed
thefilmguy101 6 months ago
Everyone else thinking the black guy would turn into a slave?
bcodable 6 months ago
Didn't know we evolved from dolphins, which evolved from fish, which evolved from birds, which evolved from fish... I learned something today.
jaykayxB 6 months ago
Just show this to a creationist and be like "HA! evidence..."
ebonymoonwalk 6 months ago
I know, right? Like a Magikarp evolving into an Pigeotto! :D
ShaRoachie 6 months ago
beer and evolution.
those are two excellent things.
iChesus 7 months ago 2
WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE SONG?
CoLD45Rus 7 months ago
The creationist version of this video:
The three guys magically disappear. The end.
VirDiligo 7 months ago 179
Awesome! ;O
DylanCrashes 8 months ago
So everything evolved from Guinness?
1Koakuma1 8 months ago
@1Koakuma1 Everything evolved to create Guinness...Because it's tasty!
bluefootwalking 7 months ago
Dude.... they had a long life.
1TmH1 8 months ago 4
Although this is an awsome advert, Sammy Davis Jr makes it infinitely better.
Bagrah10 8 months ago
awesome
miisssiieekk 8 months ago
thats happens ever when i go home XD!
guido7095 8 months ago
51 secs fail
Theadamjonez 8 months ago
The left out the Annunaki
wipemysmile 8 months ago
near the end of this clip I saw the White House
Roachenator 8 months ago
if we came from those apes. then the apes havent evolved at all xD. nah. we are alien offspring
SlipparySurface 8 months ago
holy shit, that just blew my mind
TheBobsmithers 9 months ago
i wonder if this even makes sense if you rewind it.
DeviousPlatypus 9 months ago
Okay, even God in the Judeo-Christian Bible hinted at evolution. Adam did not simply pop into existence because of Creation. No, God took simple components (mud) and produced it into a progressively more complex being. How is this process not considered as an ancient human's perspective of beings becoming more developed over time? Creationists who deny this are utterly stupid.
Thedoctor19000 9 months ago
@Thedoctor19000 dude that's what I don't get. I'm an atheist myself so I'm obviously biased, but why did god have to instantaneously create humans instead of guide them into existence? It would be a FAR better argument for believers than "we were put here in his image and that's that"... Hell, I'm not sure if there's a god or not, none of us can be yet, but i highly doubt he's the god that islam and christianity make him out to be.
StOnion 8 months ago
@StOnion the problem is that creationists feel the need to take the bible as fact to support their faith (though they do choose to ignore certain passages, e.g. its ok to sell your daughter into slavery ect.) and they choose to read it as a historical document even though it is a collection of fictitious stories voted for by a committee. creationists aren't stupid, just horribly misguided and too afraid to live in a world where they are truly responsible for themselves
XanderBrice 6 months ago
Comment removed
Thedoctor19000 9 months ago
Press: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
darroni123 10 months ago
0:44 cutest thing ever XD
tschuju 10 months ago
Guiness is so going to hell for this shit.
UnderwhelmingSuccess 10 months ago
@UnderwhelmingSuccess Nah, they're gonna rot in the ground . . . just like you! ;)
x60mmx 10 months ago
Why would birds evolve into fish? xD
jackamatyus 10 months ago 60
@jackamatyus Dinosaurs.
thojoh370 10 months ago
@thojoh370 No.
jackamatyus 10 months ago
@jackamatyus Well, however they did it, it was a good thing they could do so fast enough to get away from that asteroid.
Kiahsobyk 9 months ago 2
@jackamatyus
why would a cell evolve into a bird?
RemiusTheAwesome 8 months ago
@RemiusTheAwesome natural selection (due to selection pressures), slowly acting on each generation of organisms...so evolution basically.
jackamatyus 8 months ago
@jackamatyus
Lol i was replying to the person who asked why birds would evolve into fish.
RemiusTheAwesome 8 months ago
@RemiusTheAwesome and that is me. And I replied back. You crazy?
jackamatyus 8 months ago
@jackamatyus lol to escape the fire and molten rock cause by that asteroid, duh! :P
choppy636 7 months ago
@jackamatyus hmm I think its a premonition that three mudhopper-like fish had millions of years ago that a beer like guinness was going to come along, cos "good things come to those who wait". So they waited, evolved too, got opposable thumbs, so they could better enjoy a beer. Its a rewinded video of evolution.
zam19862003 7 months ago
@zam19862003 Not really. No.
jackamatyus 7 months ago
@jackamatyus Yea really. Yea! lol
crazay1113 6 months ago
@zam19862003 Actually, it's much simpler. they had water, they didn't like it, so they waited for something better to come along and eventually it did.
StealthTroops 6 months ago
@StealthTroops YOU SMART...AND CORRECT
leroimiller 6 months ago
@jackamatyus
quite a few reasons actually.
zodiark111 6 months ago
@zodiark111 Would you care to explain them?
jackamatyus 6 months ago
@jackamatyus
Well there would be a lot of situations in which either it would be impossible to be at higher altitudes, or even above water at all. Say if there was something slowly began to be released into the air that was toxic then a lot of creatures would need to be able to adapt to different environments in which the air wasn't present. I'm not saying that a bird will one day decide to grow gills I'm just saying that over time animals to other places.
zodiark111 6 months ago
@zodiark111 Birds and fish are distinct groups of animals, which at some point had a common ancestor. Birds might some day evolve to become more fish like, eg. penguins are already well on the way there, but they won't become fish. Evolution doesn't go backwards or do repeats, birds won't go back to being like their common ancestor then evolve into fish - they'll just become more fish-like. Presumably we'd then give them a new name, to describe the new genus of fish-like birds.
jackamatyus 6 months ago
@jackamatyus Yes. What's your point?
zodiark111 6 months ago
@zodiark111 ...the point being that birds would not, and cannot, evolve into fish...
jackamatyus 6 months ago
@jackamatyus You didn't say that at all. What you said was that there is something like a timeline of animals evolving over time, and a bird won't go back into the older creature and then turn into a fish. What's going on here is that we haven't distinguished what a "fish". Now of course a bird won't turn into some sort of type of fish that their already is, but it could turn into another kind of thing that shares the same characteristics of other aquatic animals.
zodiark111 6 months ago
@zodiark111 I did say that, I quote - 'birds won't go back to being like their common ancestor then evolve into fish - they'll just become more fish-like.'
Did you even read/understand my comment? Also, do you understand how biological classification and nomenclature work? Do you understand how evolution works? If not, learn how, then come back to me...else I'm just going to end up repeating myself.
jackamatyus 6 months ago
@jackamatyus
I did read/understand your comment. I apologize for not being able to word my arguments correctly. I've always been bad at that. I had a feeling that you would respond like this, so just forget everything I said. I have other shit to do.
zodiark111 6 months ago
@jackamatyus Their parents would beat them and tell them they wanted them to be insects, and though the birds tried, they cracked under pressure and gave up to follow their own dreams.
cinemaspaz 6 months ago
@jackamatyus the fsh evolved into the birds It's backwards remember
maxymumcool 6 months ago
@maxymumcool No.
jackamatyus 6 months ago
@jackamatyus I just re-watched the video, yeah, it turns out, that evolutionists commonly assume that fish evolved into amphibians, then to reptiles, then to birds and mammals.
maxymumcool 6 months ago
@maxymumcool The whole video is wrong, we didn't evolve from chimps, fish didn't evolve into plesiosaurs and plesiosaur-like animals. The bird part just appeared to be the most abusrd to me.
jackamatyus 6 months ago
@jackamatyus
i think they evolve into fish because there's the cataclysm that killed off the dinosaurs, making the surface uninhabitable for a bit. this drove life back into the oceans for a little while untill the surface was habitable again and they evolved back into mammals.
Bevus11 6 months ago
@Bevus11 and the birds seem to be flightless bids somewhat like penguins
Bevus11 6 months ago
@Bevus11 No.
jackamatyus 6 months ago
@Bevus11 Fish to Mammals once more would take too long. A small rodent hidden into the slits of the earth is more probabl
MercenaryBlue 6 months ago
@MercenaryBlue
true enough but remember that this is just a commercial and they are just trying to show dinosaurs - cataclysm - water/underground period - return to land etc.. i think making a commercial that's 100% accurate to actual evolution would be pretty ridiculous.
Bevus11 6 months ago
@jackamatyus Because they weren't birds, just the ancient ancestor of the species.
Calumwins 6 months ago
@Calumwins again, no.
jackamatyus 6 months ago
@jackamatyus easier food source. Look at penguins
memberHD 6 months ago
@jackamatyus There is more food in the water than flying in the air ;)
kemita 6 months ago
@jackamatyus Because there is lots of water, and not many trees.
TheEthug 6 months ago
hahahahahaha! It's a frickin' advert for beer FFS!
thetruejoe90 10 months ago
Really? I mean really, re you guys serious?
A religious debate on every fucking video.
FxckCensors 11 months ago
what's the cell theory?
razorkid95 11 months ago
God I love the Irish.
trouts4 11 months ago
Micro evolution is something that does occur. Macro evolution is the bs that is shoved down our throat in kindergarten.
The fact is that no one has recorded any observation before 6000 years ago. Creationism and evolution as engines for the beginning of life are both stances based on faith.
fortunadodesperado 11 months ago
@fortunadodesperado Ahem - no-one has recorded anything, because the writing was not yet invented back then. We have found many fossiles that indicate that evolution has happened, while creationism relies on a 2000 year old book to prove itself.
tvpnbb 11 months ago
@tvpnbb are you referring to the STILL incomplete fossil record as proof? its barely even at the half way point, and truthfully i don't think it will even be close to fully uncovered any time soon, the gaps between each fossil group from a specific family of animals is tremendous.
bassline4444 11 months ago
@bassline4444 There are gaps, but they prove that there were earlier forms of animals we know today, and that many animal species have died in the past. This is far more than what proof creationists offer.
tvpnbb 11 months ago
@tvpnbb When you find a fossil the only thing you really know about it is that it died. There is no proof at all that any novel creature has come about from another creature. Look up the inner workings of a cell and tell me if you think that something like that can come about randomly.
fortunadodesperado 11 months ago
@fortunadodesperado 1. It is not absolute proof, but nothing is absolute. Because they have features that resemble other creatures, and we have observed "microevolution", it is reasonable to say that evolution is very likely.
2. They did not come wholly randomly. First came one small part, then another and so on. The smallest parts are so simple that they have a high chance of coming out randomly, and still the whole process took hundreds of millions of years.
tvpnbb 11 months ago
@fortunadodesperado Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe evolution claims to know how life began, it is merely a theory for how live "evolved" after it was "spawned" for lack of better terms.
Doublemac88 11 months ago
so 3 men evoluted trough 500 000 000 years and didnt DIED ? LOL !!!