o really so why we don't see the middle stages in our life you know like a monkey with a head of a human and a human with wings and so on... please stop that bullshit and by the way who made the first virus and what kind of brain does viruses have to proved themselves with reverse transcriptase that the scientists discovered it just in this century man we are not blind... who says that the chance or nature made the life like who says that the wind can build skyscraper .
@JungleJargon "Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are sequences in the genome thought to be derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome"... I uh... I don't see any conflict with evolution there. In fact, as shown in the video, ERV's demonstrate clearly how we share an ancestor with chimps.
if fosilized embyos were found, why not find bones? this is sad- evo team is losing to ID team in terms of serious research output. dawkins & the others, please find the fossils to regain score with ID team!
@silaki1 - I.D. has not to date (10/06/2011) produced ANY research. At every turn, their claims have been based on the "Cherry Picking" and "Quote Mining" of research performed by Real Scientists, or their own feable comprehension of the Science they purport to understand. Mind you, none of the I.D. Psuedo-Scientists are actually Specialists in the fields they claim to be disproving.
The most recent research (published in scientific journals, Nature, RNA )show viruses did not contribue to DNA material. So-called "Junk DNA" has been discovered not to be junk after all. We were ignorant of its use. The non-coding segments of DNA have been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed). Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
@Mogley52 Your entire post is bullshit and wrong. It is well establish that humans have genes from multiple retroviruses which range from 8-25%. This also mostly what is considered junk DNA. Some DNA that in the past was thought of junk DNA was found not to be, but not all of it.
@Mogley- I just need to mention to you about your opening sentence on your 'Popular article'. There are not two types of Science, is what you mean to say is there are two types of Evidence. The Sciences can help to determine the validity of evidence, whether Empirical or Circumstantial.
The use of Mathematics, isn't very useful or accurate in this argument. You mention "odds", which is based on Statistical Analysis and Statistics aren't very reliable-Too much Human bias for Stat interpretation
This video is so patently ridiculous that its production is really an affront to any thinking individual. Not wanting to enter into a debate over the implications of this idea, i would simply like the raise this challenge. To anyone that has watched this video, please refer to ONE scholarly article on HERVs that supports this hypothesis and I will present 5 that show it to be ill concieved. Not to be rude, but if you are going to present dogma as science please say so.
I wondered if it would be possible for a virus to evolve from non-viral DNA in a genome. Highly improbable no doubt. But imagine it; a virus that just "appears"...
There is no doubt that viruses have had an influence on physical evolution and it would be foolish to assume that they haven't also influenced conscious evolution. Do a Google search on Information Virus Consciousness for a theory that combines information, evolution, viruses and consciousness. It should appear in the top 10.
Viruses are transposons that broke off and went on its own, which would therefore explain why they have some of our DNA sequences. They are not assigned to any kingdom and are therefore not considered to be alive.
Huh... this video is straight up BS! I know where we actually come from. And we are NOT an "accident," I can sure as hell tell you that. But the "controllers" here would prefer it if most on the planet honestly thought that -- or better yet to have them conflict with one another over belief systems and scientific ideologies, e.g. creationism vs. evolution. Hah... wrong again; just another "Brotherhood" machiavellian ploy.
@DeadlyRedRing said "I can assure you that natural selection is not random".
Depends on what you mean by random.
Whether a trait is "selected" is to a large degree a matter of chance. A mutated monkey that is smaller may or may not be find his small size advantageous depending on chance environmental factors that may not have been in play at another time. Chance dictates whether a change is good, bad or neutral.
It's interesting that in order for both chimps and humans to have the same ERV implanted in the same DNA location, even in spite of the 1 in 50,000,000 chance, it MUST be assumed that we literally lived together in complete harmony. By all biblical accounts, chimps never existed... so christians must have a very hard time making any sense of this.
You CANNOT say "Retroviral infections of a germline cell can make a detectable mark on the genome of the resulting off spring. Once this mark becomes fossilized in the genome it will be passed down to all future descendents"
The problem is, fossilization has nothing to do with the genome, descent, nor evolution. Fossilization is a posthumous event that results in the preservation of a physical body. In no way does this affect any "descendants."
I was sort of dissapointed at first when I realized early on that the video wasn't about the possible origin of the first cellular life coming partially or wholly from viral entities--but I found it interesting to learn of another method that confirms the tree of life science has produced from a number of independent methods.
@dookiecheez: It is well known that we didn't basically evolve from viruses, the main reason: they have no cellular equipment and must "borrow" that from their host. They therefore had themselves to evolved from a prokaryote just as eukaryotes (including ourselves) did.
Right. But the line between living and non-living is a little blurry with regards to viruses and proto-cells. We don't exactly know what the first cells or first viruses were like so... Maybe there were self contained molecules with most of the characteristics of life, and then viruses developed which could make use of the self contained molecules...and the whole inserting a 'copy me' into the self contained molecule started the first proto-cell with true heredity?
@dookiecheez: Since viruses are RNA-only, it's likely they evolved very early on; they are remarkably like bacterial spores; perhaps that is how they started out, only later developing the plan for self-replication, and then when DNA became useful, developing a reverse transcriptase.
I'll preface this by saying, I am NOT a creationist:
While ERV signatures are a beautiful source of evidence for common descent, the premise of the title of this video is all wrong and very misleading. Just because humans have endogenous retroviral sequences in their genomes doesn't mean that we're "descended" from viruses. There are scientists who think that all life very well may be descended from the equivalent of viruses, but there is really not yet enough evidence to make the claim.
Actually, genetic information is constantly being added or subtracted from the genome by mutation. How else would evolution occur in the first place? Retroviruses do this very easily, albeit sometimes with error, which can lead to cancer, but the point is that they are another plausible way genetic change occurs. If that genetic change, caused by a virus for example, increased the fitness of an organism then that gene WILL be maintained through natural selection.I agree about your last comment:)
I am a bit skeptical, as genetic information cannot be added to the genome. Genetic information can only be lost through mutation. So it does not follow logic that new information introduced by a retrovirus can survive more than a few generations without the aid of science.By sustaining the life of those who otherwise would not survive without medical interventions, and often encouraging them to reproduce, all we're doing is reversing natural selection and going backwards.
Actually, genetic information is constantly being added or subtracted from the genome by mutation. How else would evolution occur in the first place? Retroviruses do this very easily, albeit sometimes with error, which can lead to cancer, but the point is that they are another plausible way genetic change occurs. If that genetic change, caused by a virus for example, increased the fitness of an organism then that gene WILL be maintained through natural selection.I agree about your last comment:)
@HeyRuca: Ummm, let's see - you assert that genetic information cannot be added, then use this as a premise that ERVs cannot be sustained. Then you twist that into a statement about the backwardness of medical interventions, winding up with nonsense about natural selection. What a life you must lead.
@puncheex My premise was skepticism. I have since done some research and it makes more sense now. I did not twist my assertions into anything. My two statements were not related. Also, it is not nonsense. We are reversing the process of natural selection and essentially sustaining what nature would have filtered out through natural selection. That much is obvious. Good night.
Free energy technology exists!But the Oil companies want these technologies unknown to the masses,Find a motor that needs no fuel or input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
who created the virus 0.0 ... no one knows i dont care how many scientists say so or religious ppl say so... no one knows ... at least no one down here and its not like u can have a second life to tell others about deaths theres NO takesy's baksey's after death
Evolution by itself already blows apart the traditional Bible stories of Genesis.
Evolution means, Genesis = Ridiculous.
Trying to "fix the bible" so it works again, is like a child trying to "fix the story of Santa Claus" after finding out the story he was told is not true.
I think this is a great video but the only problem is explaining how something can be created out of nothing. We all have or had a set of parents who created us as far back as we can tell. Are you all saying that at some point there was no parents and we just popped into this world? Something created us but what created that something and who created the something that created the something that create us Humans?
@dfndamerica1 Even if we tried to explain you, you would more than likely either not understand or close your ears and start spewing out random verses.
@dfndamerica1: Well, essentially, abiogenesis theorizes about the occurrence of one of those very low probability events that Demski always runs on about. Not quite as low as the building up of a useful protein from random actions, but something low enough to take some 50 million years or so. Once the chemical possibilities of heritance, mutation and natural selection form, the rest is ToE.
The real question is where are the proponents of ID debunking the findings in this video? Whcih page in the fukkin Bible that disproves this scintific evidence? Where are you now, i wanna see/hear you!
@azmanabdula Depends on what you consider life... a virus evolves and has a set 'task' much like a computer, embedded into it's DNA, and does what it's supposed to do. We on the other hand, have developed a brain, which some of us tend to not use, but in any case, just because something doesn't have a consciousness or we can't tell if it has one, doesn't mean it's not alive. We just don't care about it being alive because it's a lesser being. Like unborn babies. >:)
@azmanabdula I think you misunderstood not only my words but the whole concept of the video. As for describing life, scientifically the leaving state of a being is when it can store information, have motor skills and be able to suck up energy, convert it and use it as well as multiply itself by any means possible. So in that sense even flowers are alive. That's more or less the true concept of life, at least personally and from what I know and understand.
@azmanabdula But that doesn't have much to do with our evolution, what this video explains is the cause of the mutation. One thing that Creationists are right about is that we cannot add information to our DNA, but with this theory, and with the evidence it provides making it highly likely to be true, we can explain how it happened. The living state of the virus has nothing to do with this, it's the DNA of our ancestors that took some of the virus' information and hence the mutations happened.
@azmanabdula: Aye, there's a bit of a rub. Viruses in our time cannot reproduce without us (us being any other members of the tree of life). That may not have been the whole word in the distant past, though; remember that they are adapting to their environment (us) at least as much as we are adapting to them.
@dvarblo: Not through relationships in the tree of life, no, not directly. Then again, since they invade us and leave potent pieces of DNA lying about, it is entirely possible that they have some say in the final product, nicht wahr?
How do we know when a DNA sequence is an ERV? The theory and the model make sense to me, but I'm just confused how we know which shared sequences are inherited ERV's and which are simply just... shared ancestral DNA.
@pnoozi Statistical analysis. Many genes are like fingerprints. That's how we know the human chromosome #2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes--complete with the erroneous telomere in the middle. You just don;t get a single chromosome matching 96% of two ape chromosomes IN SERIES, WITH THE TELOMERE in the right place, any other way.
@pnoozi "How do we know when a DNA sequence is an ERV?"
Retroviruses have distinct genetic codes related to their function. 3 genes are necessary for all of them: GAG, the group-specific antigen, codes for the virus structure, ENV codes for the envelope, and POL, the polymerase gene, codes for the reverse-ranscriptase which the virus uses to implant itself in DNA.
@djindox3: An analogic example would be the existence of Neandertal genes in H sapiens, but only those which left Africa more then, perhaps, 30,000 years ago. Some of us have them, and some of us don't.
@aeroshock1 He's being facetious. BUT, one hypothesis for how advances cells evolved is through fusion of a prokaryote, a virus, and another protocell. Since modern sperm are essentially modified viruses, you could almost argue that we are just fancy sex organs for that first virus. Not really true, but funny.
Exactly! THIS is how science works! There are so many people that don't understand the process or the basics of terminology, yet argue ad nauseum about it in spite of their ignorance.
Interesting observation is made.
Hypothesis is formed. (i.e. Prediction)
Hypothesis is tested.
Prediction is show to be correct.
Repeat TONS of times (as has been done with evolution), without falsification, and a common "theory" emerges.
Correct me if my understanding is wrong, but the video at 0:56-1:03 seems to contradict what I've learned. It seems to show a virally originated mRNA transcribing protein parts that assemble into a new HIV virus. I thought it transcribed one long protein that is then cut apart by HIV protease, exported within a new membrane, and finished outside the host cell. I'm taking biochem this semester, so if you could help clarify the process, I would appreciate. Thanks! :)
arguing a point with any religous person will inevitably fail, because the fact remains they believe in a fairy story an are unwilling to let go of that particular "comfort blanket" .
Why is it that religous groups have such a large power in the western world? Belief either way in a deity is irrelevant to an ability to do a job. so, remove religion from politics entirely and everywhere else it shouldnt be, keep it to yourselves on your damn holy days.
@tarantio1 it`s not as bad in Europe (well, I can at least speak for Germany). Imagine some politician publicly declares his firm belief in god etc.
That would be just weird and awkward and people would kinda raise their eyebrows. It would simply be ridiculous.
Besides, religion is most powerful when countries are underdeveloped and people are poor and not educated. Mostly if people aren`t educated. That`s what I see in the US. :( And I fear it`ll happen in europe, too...
@xBuscopanx Yes, you're right. Here in Portugal (and we're not speaking of a high-developed country ...) we see no politicians claiming their religious beliefs, and almost nobody accepts Inteligent Design as a theory. Almost everyone have an idea of evolution as a scientific fact, although few understand it (and with "few" I mean the educated people, which have at least completed the secondary). Unfortunately, I'm seeing inteligent design is gaining new fans. :(
yes, gravity is classified under theory as well as everything else. There is just more probable theories than others. And, yes, there could be a God, but with the accepted current data we have gathered: very unlikely. Personally, I remain on the fence towards the God subject.
If one simple message picked up from outer-space is enough to prove intelligent life elsewhere, why is the combined DNA located in your brain, which is the equivalent of 20 million 200 page books, not enough to prove the existence of an intelligent creator?
and there is every indication that DNA is quite capable of forming through natural processes...
we have known RNA will form out of the neucleotides that make it up, and just last year we found a natural process that allowed those neucleotides to form on their own....
so all of that DNA is just evidence that we got here on our own... not the other way around.
1. Clubpenguin, outer-space messages might prove the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence, but not of a superbeing.
Where does the DNA sequence say: I AM YOUR CREATOR?
No biological structure proves intelligent design by a superbeing (no human eye, bacterial flagellae, DNA, etc.). Creationists tried their pseudo-science, being refuted time and again.
Bottom line: postulating a super-agent explains exactly nothing; it is the remnant of superstitious, ignorant ages! Get over it!
2. Clubpenguin, your desire to prove a superbeing existence is bound to fail. Through the ages of human evolution, natural philosophers have tried to provide a god-proof, to no avail. If they ever did come up with anything reliable, you would know, would you not?
Religion is inevitably based on blind faith. If convincing proof of a superbeing would ever be presented, faith would vanish and freedom would succumb. Regarding such proof, dont cross your fingers. It is history, get over it!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well, Religion is the only thing that actually explains how everything is in existence, It means a god created the *universe*, And all in it, The theory of evolution is blind, It can't explain at all how all things exist, How the planets were placed in the perfect positions and set to motion to orbit around the sun without colliding.
How Nature itself was created, Or anything like that. You say that we may have evolved from bacteria, .. Continued on comment #2 not enough space
1) Clubpenguin, thats fantastic! You have the theory of everything!
You get the flue; how come? Gods will. A tsunami that kills a quarter million people? Gods will! You win the lottery? Gods will! Credit crisis? Gods will! Got fired and have no health care insurance anymore? Gods will!
Every question the same answer: God did it! The simple beauty of this theory is awesome and its explanatory power supersedes that of solid science, which always comes with these confusing details. Wow!
2) Back to earth, Clubpenguin. The Theory of Evolution is about the origin of species, not about the origin of life. The modern theory convincingly explains the observed evolutionary facts, and it is accepted worldwide by the scientific community; the theory has no use for a superbeing.
There are theoretical explanations on how suns and planets come about, based on gravity and the composition of early universe. Nothing is created; everything exists through natural laws and god is a delusion.
"SHIT" happens and the way things are are either by random chance or coincidence there is no evidence of a "god"...
As for evolution I think selective interbreeding and inbreeding over millions of years between small migrating groups in harsh environments with few resources is what drives Evolution...
You think I'm full of bullshit because you have never seen it in action because your life is too short to examine it in action...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No evidence?
What do you call the bible?
What do you call the beliefs of a large portion of the planet's population?
What do you call the fact that we are *alive* and that we are going to *survive* because we were placed on the one and only planet that very well supports life on this galaxy? Just the right distance from the sun, not too close, not too far.
What do you call all the animals, the atmosphere to protect us from meteors.
The Air that just so happens to be the right one that ...
Clubpenguin, the Bible is manmade, it does not give any evidence of god!
The beliefs of the majority of mankind -in very different religions (!)- are no evidence of god, but evidence of worldwide human delusion. Truth of one superbeing or another is not given by a majority vote.
Life on earth under favourable conditions? Self evident:
IF life, THEN right conditions, ELSE no life.
Nothing miraculous there; no evidence of a superbeing.
Would you, please, go study the Theory of Evolution?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Manmade? But through man god wrote it. if you actually read it there is a lot of evidence, The end is near, And a lot of events like the ones described in the bible are occurring. War, Economical crisis. etc
Please Clubpenguin, no offence meant, but I have to say that that is nonsense. There is no evidence that the bible describes current times. Through the ages Christians have believed time and again that the end of times was near. They gave away there belongings and waited in vain.
Again (!) no evidence of superbeings exists at all, for reasons I gave above: there exists no proof of god and if it existed you would not have to believe, you would know, and freedom would go down the drain.
Clubpenguin, let me help you out, this is a trivial matter. If you really desire to be called Recreate instead of Clubpenguin, open a channel with the name Recreate and comment using your new name. You will then be properly addressed to as Recreate. Until then, you are Clubpenguin. Why? Just to keep things simple. Got that?
You're right about the wars, and in fact, economic crises predate money. Economics is about the allocation of scarce resources. Money just happens to the a common resource these days. Before money, that would have been stuff like food and shelter. Imagine: "My crops failed and I can't catch a #%@! rabbit to save my life!" That would be an economic crisis.
The end is always near...the end has been near for everybody around the world over the past many eons...the end always be near for future generations who believe that the end is near and they will have their own historic/holy text to justify their belief...
The nice thing about the end always being near...if you miss it for whatever reason, you won't have to wait long for another end to close in on you!
there are many theories of everything... look them up... Steven Hawking, super string theory. your ignorant and argue with no knowledge. many questions you pose are explainable and you need to look up ur facts before arguing
Creationism is a BELIEF. It's not even a theory. Beliefs and theories are different. Creationism is for small minded people who were brain-washed while they grew up.
clubpenguin1help...you want to talk proof about evolution, while you support creationsim? Ha. How about NO proof for creationism. Plenty of proof supporting evolution...Try taking Evolutionary Biology and learn something, instead of doing something as stupid as attending church.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You do know that "evolution" is just a theory and is only taught in some schools, while creationism is taught in others, Meaning, A science book can teach creationism, or evolution, the unproved theory, as i say it.
Creationism is religion and is not science, so you won't find it in a science book.
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny !
gravity is just a theory. Just so you know. The idea you get sick from germs? It's called germs theory. Intelligent design? It's what's called bullshit. Not only by scientists, but by courts, and it's been done twice by the supreme court. Yup, still bullshit.
No, it's actually still a theory, because who is to say it's gravity and not a flying spaghetti monster? Personal observation are also the least reliable of all forms of evidence. But you obvious know nothing of science, and any biology text book will use evolution as the explanation for biology, because nothing makes sense in biology without it.
Ah, that makes sense. That's why the theory of general relativity basically falsified the 3 laws of gravity newton made that you keep referring to. No, no, you're right. Theories change over time, that's why we still have scientists. If they knew all the answers they'd be priests.
It seems that your "bullshit detector" goes off everytime you hear something that contradicts your pre-existing beliefs... and conveniently turns on the ignore switch. Do you know what the definition of a theory is? Or what the role of any theory is? Could you answer these two questions for me please. Thanks.
Why is it so hard for you to even consider creation? If seeing is believing, I certainly don't see Great Apes "evolving" into humans. Evolution does not just magically stop!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I have read most of the comments for this video by now and I have to say in response to someone I am still skeptic. This video has not convinced me that the THEORY of Evolution is fact. "Stand up for real science." Screw you. You are all so narrow-minded!
It's good to be skeptic, but you should know that evolution is the ONLY scientific choice. No one even studies creationism because it was ruled out a long time ago.
You've only demonstrated how narrow-minded you are. It's good to be skeptical, but even in the face of all the evidence for evolution, to be skeptical is to show you're either stubborn or your standards are set so high that nothing could convince you of its validity. And you should look up what a theory means in scientific terms. It's not just a wild guess that some people came up with after a night of drinking.
Could organisms be so commonly similar to each other, because they were all created by the same designer? Evolutionists are going to have a hard time getting people to believe them when they say we descended from viruses.
It does not say that we descended from viruses. It says that some of our DNA originated from ancient retroviral infections. The patterns seen in these random insertions of viral DNA within the genomes of related organisms match the predictions of common ancestry.
Sure these patterns of viral DNA insertions could have been put there by a common designer. Such a proposition, however, is unfalsifiable and therefore NOT science.
Very interesting video, but very misleading title. I was prepared to shout "BS" on the top of my lungs and back it up... but thankfully the science displayed was correct.
Please, change the title. There is no evidence that single cell organisms (and there for multicellular organisms) descend from viruses. On the contrary, viruses are dependent on proper cells to reproduce.
This is one "nonstop" video. =p
ustavobarr25g 2 days ago
great video thanks
jayejayeee 1 week ago
Jesus all day! Fuck muslims
21twix1 3 weeks ago
o really so why we don't see the middle stages in our life you know like a monkey with a head of a human and a human with wings and so on... please stop that bullshit and by the way who made the first virus and what kind of brain does viruses have to proved themselves with reverse transcriptase that the scientists discovered it just in this century man we are not blind... who says that the chance or nature made the life like who says that the wind can build skyscraper .
God helps you
inthewayofallah1 1 month ago
Aloha
franciscomrls0 1 month ago
ERV's disprove evolution.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon "Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are sequences in the genome thought to be derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome"... I uh... I don't see any conflict with evolution there. In fact, as shown in the video, ERV's demonstrate clearly how we share an ancestor with chimps.
7j8i9m 3 months ago
Evolution does not happen. It is not science.
Evlution is fantasy.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 3 months ago
if fosilized embyos were found, why not find bones? this is sad- evo team is losing to ID team in terms of serious research output. dawkins & the others, please find the fossils to regain score with ID team!
silaki1 5 months ago
@silaki1 you're a fucking retard
greiteneis 4 months ago in playlist Life genetics evolution
@silaki1 - I.D. has not to date (10/06/2011) produced ANY research. At every turn, their claims have been based on the "Cherry Picking" and "Quote Mining" of research performed by Real Scientists, or their own feable comprehension of the Science they purport to understand. Mind you, none of the I.D. Psuedo-Scientists are actually Specialists in the fields they claim to be disproving.
1lumpen 3 months ago
The most recent research (published in scientific journals, Nature, RNA )show viruses did not contribue to DNA material. So-called "Junk DNA" has been discovered not to be junk after all. We were ignorant of its use. The non-coding segments of DNA have been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed). Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 ''HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.''-fantastic understanding of what atheism actually is you ignorant fool.
Flash13Magic 4 months ago
@Mogley52 Your entire post is bullshit and wrong. It is well establish that humans have genes from multiple retroviruses which range from 8-25%. This also mostly what is considered junk DNA. Some DNA that in the past was thought of junk DNA was found not to be, but not all of it.
firespinguy 4 months ago
@Mogley- I just need to mention to you about your opening sentence on your 'Popular article'. There are not two types of Science, is what you mean to say is there are two types of Evidence. The Sciences can help to determine the validity of evidence, whether Empirical or Circumstantial.
The use of Mathematics, isn't very useful or accurate in this argument. You mention "odds", which is based on Statistical Analysis and Statistics aren't very reliable-Too much Human bias for Stat interpretation
1lumpen 3 months ago
@Mogley52 Well, none of that is true, i see we have another liying creationist on our hands...sigh.
itchygonads 3 months ago
This video is so patently ridiculous that its production is really an affront to any thinking individual. Not wanting to enter into a debate over the implications of this idea, i would simply like the raise this challenge. To anyone that has watched this video, please refer to ONE scholarly article on HERVs that supports this hypothesis and I will present 5 that show it to be ill concieved. Not to be rude, but if you are going to present dogma as science please say so.
sboy031 5 months ago
@sboy031
(1) pubmedcentral(dot)nih(dot)gov/articlerender(dot)fcgi?artid=1617120 [ERV integration in divergent species]
(2) iscid(dot)org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-1-t-000167(dot)html [integration in divergent infections]
(3) pubmedcentral(dot)nih(dot)gov/articlerender(dot)fcgi?artid=509317 [ERV integration preference]
(4) pnas(dot)org/cgi/content/full/101/suppl_2/14572 [no surrent ERV transposition activity]
(5) genetics(dot)org/cgi/content/full/171/3/1183 [relating to the creation of new ERVs]
sboy031 5 months ago
I wondered if it would be possible for a virus to evolve from non-viral DNA in a genome. Highly improbable no doubt. But imagine it; a virus that just "appears"...
DrSpooglemon 6 months ago
I like the other guy's voice better.
Gravija1980 6 months ago
There is no doubt that viruses have had an influence on physical evolution and it would be foolish to assume that they haven't also influenced conscious evolution. Do a Google search on Information Virus Consciousness for a theory that combines information, evolution, viruses and consciousness. It should appear in the top 10.
TheAccurate1 9 months ago
Viruses are transposons that broke off and went on its own, which would therefore explain why they have some of our DNA sequences. They are not assigned to any kingdom and are therefore not considered to be alive.
opiates 10 months ago
Huh... this video is straight up BS! I know where we actually come from. And we are NOT an "accident," I can sure as hell tell you that. But the "controllers" here would prefer it if most on the planet honestly thought that -- or better yet to have them conflict with one another over belief systems and scientific ideologies, e.g. creationism vs. evolution. Hah... wrong again; just another "Brotherhood" machiavellian ploy.
EsheAhkura 1 year ago
@EsheAhkura You are correct in that we are not an "accident." I can assure you that natural selection is not random.
DeadlyRedRing 11 months ago
@DeadlyRedRing said "I can assure you that natural selection is not random".
Depends on what you mean by random.
Whether a trait is "selected" is to a large degree a matter of chance. A mutated monkey that is smaller may or may not be find his small size advantageous depending on chance environmental factors that may not have been in play at another time. Chance dictates whether a change is good, bad or neutral.
dimbulb23 10 months ago
@EsheAhkura you can tell us sure as hell, well that's not sure at all then, there is no evidence for your hell at all.
You know where we come from, care to enlighten us with your "knowledge" and how you aquired this "knowledge"
Toudiyama 11 months ago
viralcode
carbonfconfusion 1 year ago
fantastic video.
Aprilshowersss 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's interesting that in order for both chimps and humans to have the same ERV implanted in the same DNA location, even in spite of the 1 in 50,000,000 chance, it MUST be assumed that we literally lived together in complete harmony. By all biblical accounts, chimps never existed... so christians must have a very hard time making any sense of this.
Icemario87 1 year ago
Comment removed
Icemario87 1 year ago
Comment removed
Icemario87 1 year ago
Comment removed
Icemario87 1 year ago
You CANNOT say "Retroviral infections of a germline cell can make a detectable mark on the genome of the resulting off spring. Once this mark becomes fossilized in the genome it will be passed down to all future descendents"
The problem is, fossilization has nothing to do with the genome, descent, nor evolution. Fossilization is a posthumous event that results in the preservation of a physical body. In no way does this affect any "descendants."
Icemario87 1 year ago
@Icemario87
I think a more metaphorical fossilisation was meant. As if it were "set in stone" only the stone were the DNA.
Quintinohthree 11 months ago
@Quintinohthree Gotcha, makes sense. Seems obvious now :P
Icemario87 11 months ago
@Icemario87 Oxford dictionary: Fosilize (british ~ise): to become, or make somebody/something become, fixed and unable to change or develop
Toudiyama 11 months ago
NEVER, GOD CREATED ALL HUMAN BEINGS. EVOLUTION IS LIES
bass109 1 year ago
@bass109 when is jesus coming back to rapture your dumbass off the planet?
metalsusa1 11 months ago
Comment removed
agent0sephiroth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@agent0sephiroth "The feeling of only one being existing"
from an evolutionary point of view.....
if you believed you were 2.....
it could be dangerous.....
azmanabdula 1 year ago
I was sort of dissapointed at first when I realized early on that the video wasn't about the possible origin of the first cellular life coming partially or wholly from viral entities--but I found it interesting to learn of another method that confirms the tree of life science has produced from a number of independent methods.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez: It is well known that we didn't basically evolve from viruses, the main reason: they have no cellular equipment and must "borrow" that from their host. They therefore had themselves to evolved from a prokaryote just as eukaryotes (including ourselves) did.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
Right. But the line between living and non-living is a little blurry with regards to viruses and proto-cells. We don't exactly know what the first cells or first viruses were like so... Maybe there were self contained molecules with most of the characteristics of life, and then viruses developed which could make use of the self contained molecules...and the whole inserting a 'copy me' into the self contained molecule started the first proto-cell with true heredity?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez: Since viruses are RNA-only, it's likely they evolved very early on; they are remarkably like bacterial spores; perhaps that is how they started out, only later developing the plan for self-replication, and then when DNA became useful, developing a reverse transcriptase.
puncheex 1 year ago
I'll preface this by saying, I am NOT a creationist:
While ERV signatures are a beautiful source of evidence for common descent, the premise of the title of this video is all wrong and very misleading. Just because humans have endogenous retroviral sequences in their genomes doesn't mean that we're "descended" from viruses. There are scientists who think that all life very well may be descended from the equivalent of viruses, but there is really not yet enough evidence to make the claim.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Actually, genetic information is constantly being added or subtracted from the genome by mutation. How else would evolution occur in the first place? Retroviruses do this very easily, albeit sometimes with error, which can lead to cancer, but the point is that they are another plausible way genetic change occurs. If that genetic change, caused by a virus for example, increased the fitness of an organism then that gene WILL be maintained through natural selection.I agree about your last comment:)
smithers1222 1 year ago
I am a bit skeptical, as genetic information cannot be added to the genome. Genetic information can only be lost through mutation. So it does not follow logic that new information introduced by a retrovirus can survive more than a few generations without the aid of science.By sustaining the life of those who otherwise would not survive without medical interventions, and often encouraging them to reproduce, all we're doing is reversing natural selection and going backwards.
HeyRuca 1 year ago
Comment removed
smithers1222 1 year ago
Actually, genetic information is constantly being added or subtracted from the genome by mutation. How else would evolution occur in the first place? Retroviruses do this very easily, albeit sometimes with error, which can lead to cancer, but the point is that they are another plausible way genetic change occurs. If that genetic change, caused by a virus for example, increased the fitness of an organism then that gene WILL be maintained through natural selection.I agree about your last comment:)
smithers1222 1 year ago
@HeyRuca: Ummm, let's see - you assert that genetic information cannot be added, then use this as a premise that ERVs cannot be sustained. Then you twist that into a statement about the backwardness of medical interventions, winding up with nonsense about natural selection. What a life you must lead.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex My premise was skepticism. I have since done some research and it makes more sense now. I did not twist my assertions into anything. My two statements were not related. Also, it is not nonsense. We are reversing the process of natural selection and essentially sustaining what nature would have filtered out through natural selection. That much is obvious. Good night.
HeyRuca 1 year ago
@HeyRuca: Whatever.
puncheex 1 year ago
Very neat.
stevehayes13 1 year ago
(nothing to do with the vid)
THIS IS FUCKED
every time i go to load a vid it loads on 360 p
then i expand/explode it then it goes to 480 p and i have to re load it....
FUCK ME DRUNK!
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula yeah i hate that. hahaha i'm high
flumberg 1 year ago
@flumberg ; )
azmanabdula 1 year ago
Free energy technology exists!But the Oil companies want these technologies unknown to the masses,Find a motor that needs no fuel or input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
glennjgd 1 year ago
who created the virus 0.0 ... no one knows i dont care how many scientists say so or religious ppl say so... no one knows ... at least no one down here and its not like u can have a second life to tell others about deaths theres NO takesy's baksey's after death
Jesssdabest 1 year ago
@Jesssdabest: And so I imagine that you cannot ever find a criminal guilty unless you watched him commit the crime personally?
puncheex 1 year ago
@Jesssdabest said "who created the virus"
Doesn't matter WHAT (not who) created the virus.
Evolution by itself already blows apart the traditional Bible stories of Genesis.
Evolution means, Genesis = Ridiculous.
Trying to "fix the bible" so it works again, is like a child trying to "fix the story of Santa Claus" after finding out the story he was told is not true.
The bible = defeated.
jinitron 8 months ago
I will just say look what the Quran says about human creation and compare this with science and judge by yourself
(36) Does man think that he will be left uncontrolled, (without purpose)?
(37) Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)?
(38) Then did he become a leech-like clot; then did (Allah) make and fashion (him) in due proportion.
(39) And of him He made two sexes, male and female.
(40) Has not He, (the same), the power to give life to the dead?
The Resurrection from 36 to 40
inthewayofallah1 1 month ago
I think this is a great video but the only problem is explaining how something can be created out of nothing. We all have or had a set of parents who created us as far back as we can tell. Are you all saying that at some point there was no parents and we just popped into this world? Something created us but what created that something and who created the something that created the something that create us Humans?
dfndamerica1 1 year ago
@dfndamerica1 Even if we tried to explain you, you would more than likely either not understand or close your ears and start spewing out random verses.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@dfndamerica1: Well, essentially, abiogenesis theorizes about the occurrence of one of those very low probability events that Demski always runs on about. Not quite as low as the building up of a useful protein from random actions, but something low enough to take some 50 million years or so. Once the chemical possibilities of heritance, mutation and natural selection form, the rest is ToE.
puncheex 1 year ago
The real question is where are the proponents of ID debunking the findings in this video? Whcih page in the fukkin Bible that disproves this scintific evidence? Where are you now, i wanna see/hear you!
Manuellaborer 1 year ago
pardon my ignorance but i though viruses were the only thing that wernt related to us.
dvarblo 1 year ago
@dvarblo you might have misinterpreted the concept.......virus aren't technically alive.....so......?
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula Depends on what you consider life... a virus evolves and has a set 'task' much like a computer, embedded into it's DNA, and does what it's supposed to do. We on the other hand, have developed a brain, which some of us tend to not use, but in any case, just because something doesn't have a consciousness or we can't tell if it has one, doesn't mean it's not alive. We just don't care about it being alive because it's a lesser being. Like unborn babies. >:)
Razgrits 1 year ago
@Razgrits yes of course.....a set of virus that we are prone to .....should be related to us....somehow....
but as for living......like you said....describe life!
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula I think you misunderstood not only my words but the whole concept of the video. As for describing life, scientifically the leaving state of a being is when it can store information, have motor skills and be able to suck up energy, convert it and use it as well as multiply itself by any means possible. So in that sense even flowers are alive. That's more or less the true concept of life, at least personally and from what I know and understand.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@Razgrits dvarblo said " viruses were the only thing that wernt related to us"
i was responding to that question.......
sorry about the missunderstanding.....
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula But that doesn't have much to do with our evolution, what this video explains is the cause of the mutation. One thing that Creationists are right about is that we cannot add information to our DNA, but with this theory, and with the evidence it provides making it highly likely to be true, we can explain how it happened. The living state of the virus has nothing to do with this, it's the DNA of our ancestors that took some of the virus' information and hence the mutations happened.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@azmanabdula: Aye, there's a bit of a rub. Viruses in our time cannot reproduce without us (us being any other members of the tree of life). That may not have been the whole word in the distant past, though; remember that they are adapting to their environment (us) at least as much as we are adapting to them.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex i didnt think of it like that.....fuck........
we arent related.........we are their world......ie environment........
clever bloke!
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@dvarblo: Not through relationships in the tree of life, no, not directly. Then again, since they invade us and leave potent pieces of DNA lying about, it is entirely possible that they have some say in the final product, nicht wahr?
puncheex 1 year ago
How do we know when a DNA sequence is an ERV? The theory and the model make sense to me, but I'm just confused how we know which shared sequences are inherited ERV's and which are simply just... shared ancestral DNA.
pnoozi 1 year ago
@pnoozi Statistical analysis. Many genes are like fingerprints. That's how we know the human chromosome #2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes--complete with the erroneous telomere in the middle. You just don;t get a single chromosome matching 96% of two ape chromosomes IN SERIES, WITH THE TELOMERE in the right place, any other way.
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
@pnoozi "How do we know when a DNA sequence is an ERV?"
Retroviruses have distinct genetic codes related to their function. 3 genes are necessary for all of them: GAG, the group-specific antigen, codes for the virus structure, ENV codes for the envelope, and POL, the polymerase gene, codes for the reverse-ranscriptase which the virus uses to implant itself in DNA.
Hooya2 1 year ago
one question i have..wheres this discreet location the erv 5 population exists in?
djindox3 1 year ago
@djindox3: An analogic example would be the existence of Neandertal genes in H sapiens, but only those which left Africa more then, perhaps, 30,000 years ago. Some of us have them, and some of us don't.
puncheex 1 year ago
Comment removed
aeroshock1 1 year ago
@aeroshock1 He's being facetious. BUT, one hypothesis for how advances cells evolved is through fusion of a prokaryote, a virus, and another protocell. Since modern sperm are essentially modified viruses, you could almost argue that we are just fancy sex organs for that first virus. Not really true, but funny.
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
That was So Cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cutes22 1 year ago
What a great video, kudos.
TriathNanEilean 1 year ago
This is the piece of evidence that convinced me that evolution was in fact how we humans came into being.
IncognitoViewer 1 year ago 2
Agent Smith was right !!! O.O
pwiattitto 1 year ago 28
Exactly! THIS is how science works! There are so many people that don't understand the process or the basics of terminology, yet argue ad nauseum about it in spite of their ignorance.
Interesting observation is made.
Hypothesis is formed. (i.e. Prediction)
Hypothesis is tested.
Prediction is show to be correct.
Repeat TONS of times (as has been done with evolution), without falsification, and a common "theory" emerges.
It's a beautiful process!
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago 4
BestOfScience,
Correct me if my understanding is wrong, but the video at 0:56-1:03 seems to contradict what I've learned. It seems to show a virally originated mRNA transcribing protein parts that assemble into a new HIV virus. I thought it transcribed one long protein that is then cut apart by HIV protease, exported within a new membrane, and finished outside the host cell. I'm taking biochem this semester, so if you could help clarify the process, I would appreciate. Thanks! :)
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
can you post this in a time line including the birth of our sun and the earth atmosphere
Please.
Creator makes similar species.
Some dog must have beat your father to your mom.
arbyt3r 1 year ago
i don't know why people down rate you.
clubpenguin1help 1 year ago
@clubpenguin1help cause some people don`t like to see their holy book fail :)
xBuscopanx 1 year ago
arguing a point with any religous person will inevitably fail, because the fact remains they believe in a fairy story an are unwilling to let go of that particular "comfort blanket" .
Why is it that religous groups have such a large power in the western world? Belief either way in a deity is irrelevant to an ability to do a job. so, remove religion from politics entirely and everywhere else it shouldnt be, keep it to yourselves on your damn holy days.
tarantio1 2 years ago
@tarantio1 it`s not as bad in Europe (well, I can at least speak for Germany). Imagine some politician publicly declares his firm belief in god etc.
That would be just weird and awkward and people would kinda raise their eyebrows. It would simply be ridiculous.
Besides, religion is most powerful when countries are underdeveloped and people are poor and not educated. Mostly if people aren`t educated. That`s what I see in the US. :( And I fear it`ll happen in europe, too...
xBuscopanx 1 year ago
@xBuscopanx Yes, you're right. Here in Portugal (and we're not speaking of a high-developed country ...) we see no politicians claiming their religious beliefs, and almost nobody accepts Inteligent Design as a theory. Almost everyone have an idea of evolution as a scientific fact, although few understand it (and with "few" I mean the educated people, which have at least completed the secondary). Unfortunately, I'm seeing inteligent design is gaining new fans. :(
NunoAer 1 year ago
yes, gravity is classified under theory as well as everything else. There is just more probable theories than others. And, yes, there could be a God, but with the accepted current data we have gathered: very unlikely. Personally, I remain on the fence towards the God subject.
creationofself 2 years ago
If one simple message picked up from outer-space is enough to prove intelligent life elsewhere, why is the combined DNA located in your brain, which is the equivalent of 20 million 200 page books, not enough to prove the existence of an intelligent creator?
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
because there is no signature on DNA,
and there is every indication that DNA is quite capable of forming through natural processes...
we have known RNA will form out of the neucleotides that make it up, and just last year we found a natural process that allowed those neucleotides to form on their own....
so all of that DNA is just evidence that we got here on our own... not the other way around.
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago
1. Clubpenguin, outer-space messages might prove the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence, but not of a superbeing.
Where does the DNA sequence say: I AM YOUR CREATOR?
No biological structure proves intelligent design by a superbeing (no human eye, bacterial flagellae, DNA, etc.). Creationists tried their pseudo-science, being refuted time and again.
Bottom line: postulating a super-agent explains exactly nothing; it is the remnant of superstitious, ignorant ages! Get over it!
evospecies 2 years ago 2
2. Clubpenguin, your desire to prove a superbeing existence is bound to fail. Through the ages of human evolution, natural philosophers have tried to provide a god-proof, to no avail. If they ever did come up with anything reliable, you would know, would you not?
Religion is inevitably based on blind faith. If convincing proof of a superbeing would ever be presented, faith would vanish and freedom would succumb. Regarding such proof, dont cross your fingers. It is history, get over it!
evospecies 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well, Religion is the only thing that actually explains how everything is in existence, It means a god created the *universe*, And all in it, The theory of evolution is blind, It can't explain at all how all things exist, How the planets were placed in the perfect positions and set to motion to orbit around the sun without colliding.
How Nature itself was created, Or anything like that. You say that we may have evolved from bacteria, .. Continued on comment #2 not enough space
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
Continued from previous comment...
But who created the bacteria? Or the planet that the bacteria could survive on?
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
1) Clubpenguin, thats fantastic! You have the theory of everything!
You get the flue; how come? Gods will. A tsunami that kills a quarter million people? Gods will! You win the lottery? Gods will! Credit crisis? Gods will! Got fired and have no health care insurance anymore? Gods will!
Every question the same answer: God did it! The simple beauty of this theory is awesome and its explanatory power supersedes that of solid science, which always comes with these confusing details. Wow!
evospecies 2 years ago 2
Also, Call me ReCreate, Ignore my username. OK?
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
No, Clubpenguin, you have chosen your name, we know you as such and and you cannot change it.
evospecies 2 years ago
Are you asking me why god lets bad things happen to people?
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
No, Clubpenguin, I am not asking you why god lets bad things happen to people. The question is senseless, there is no superbeing in existence.
I am trying to get it through to you that your Theory of Everything is worthless, but my sarcasm appears to have obscured the message.
evospecies 2 years ago
Call me recreate for. OK? Got that?
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
2) Back to earth, Clubpenguin. The Theory of Evolution is about the origin of species, not about the origin of life. The modern theory convincingly explains the observed evolutionary facts, and it is accepted worldwide by the scientific community; the theory has no use for a superbeing.
There are theoretical explanations on how suns and planets come about, based on gravity and the composition of early universe. Nothing is created; everything exists through natural laws and god is a delusion.
evospecies 2 years ago 2
"SHIT" happens and the way things are are either by random chance or coincidence there is no evidence of a "god"...
As for evolution I think selective interbreeding and inbreeding over millions of years between small migrating groups in harsh environments with few resources is what drives Evolution...
You think I'm full of bullshit because you have never seen it in action because your life is too short to examine it in action...
NinjaChampionKO 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No evidence?
What do you call the bible?
What do you call the beliefs of a large portion of the planet's population?
What do you call the fact that we are *alive* and that we are going to *survive* because we were placed on the one and only planet that very well supports life on this galaxy? Just the right distance from the sun, not too close, not too far.
What do you call all the animals, the atmosphere to protect us from meteors.
The Air that just so happens to be the right one that ...
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
all scientifically explainable phenomena
reid300 1 year ago
(continued from previous comment)
bodies need to live?
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
(forgot the "our")
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
Clubpenguin, the Bible is manmade, it does not give any evidence of god!
The beliefs of the majority of mankind -in very different religions (!)- are no evidence of god, but evidence of worldwide human delusion. Truth of one superbeing or another is not given by a majority vote.
Life on earth under favourable conditions? Self evident:
IF life, THEN right conditions, ELSE no life.
Nothing miraculous there; no evidence of a superbeing.
Would you, please, go study the Theory of Evolution?
evospecies 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Manmade? But through man god wrote it. if you actually read it there is a lot of evidence, The end is near, And a lot of events like the ones described in the bible are occurring. War, Economical crisis. etc
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
Please Clubpenguin, no offence meant, but I have to say that that is nonsense. There is no evidence that the bible describes current times. Through the ages Christians have believed time and again that the end of times was near. They gave away there belongings and waited in vain.
Again (!) no evidence of superbeings exists at all, for reasons I gave above: there exists no proof of god and if it existed you would not have to believe, you would know, and freedom would go down the drain.
evospecies 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't blame you, you are just brainwashed by man into their little theory. it can be convincing at times.
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
Hahaha, thank you Clubpenguin, that is very kind of you. LOL.
evospecies 2 years ago
*ReCreate
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
Clubpenguin, let me help you out, this is a trivial matter. If you really desire to be called Recreate instead of Clubpenguin, open a channel with the name Recreate and comment using your new name. You will then be properly addressed to as Recreate. Until then, you are Clubpenguin. Why? Just to keep things simple. Got that?
evospecies2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No. That is not an option. And no.
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
lol, we've always had wars and there has been always somesort of economical crisis somewhere in the world ever since the invention of money
thew00 1 year ago
it's never been as bad as now. look at the 50's
clubpenguin1help 1 year ago
the 30's were worse than today... plague...dark-ages..
reid300 1 year ago
@thew00,
You're right about the wars, and in fact, economic crises predate money. Economics is about the allocation of scarce resources. Money just happens to the a common resource these days. Before money, that would have been stuff like food and shelter. Imagine: "My crops failed and I can't catch a #%@! rabbit to save my life!" That would be an economic crisis.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
The end is always near...the end has been near for everybody around the world over the past many eons...the end always be near for future generations who believe that the end is near and they will have their own historic/holy text to justify their belief...
The nice thing about the end always being near...if you miss it for whatever reason, you won't have to wait long for another end to close in on you!
1n354a 1 year ago 14
there are many theories of everything... look them up... Steven Hawking, super string theory. your ignorant and argue with no knowledge. many questions you pose are explainable and you need to look up ur facts before arguing
reid300 1 year ago
jau wie geil checkt mal FrauenMeister . com steht voll was übers online daten
korpakola 2 years ago
Absolutely amazing video!
very informative.
thank you
Scarakon 2 years ago
Great video!!
Misleading title, but catchy :P
5 stars :)
Geistkampfer 2 years ago
Creationism is a BELIEF. It's not even a theory. Beliefs and theories are different. Creationism is for small minded people who were brain-washed while they grew up.
clubpenguin1help...you want to talk proof about evolution, while you support creationsim? Ha. How about NO proof for creationism. Plenty of proof supporting evolution...Try taking Evolutionary Biology and learn something, instead of doing something as stupid as attending church.
MrBrianbeyer 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?
IQbrew 2 years ago
Because we did not evolve from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with chimpanzees.
tuntiss 2 years ago 2
IQbrew, because you are a monkey.
ndyt 2 years ago
Do you ask this question due to your ignorance, or arrogance? As the answer for this question is everywhere.
silo123 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Stopped at 0:13, My bullshit detector went off there. Oh well.
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
So close your eyes and say LA LA LA real loud, it will all go away.
gregrutz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
My bullshit detector went off again, It says your full of shit.
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
sorry you were home schooled,
try reading a science book for a change.
gregrutz 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You do know that "evolution" is just a theory and is only taught in some schools, while creationism is taught in others, Meaning, A science book can teach creationism, or evolution, the unproved theory, as i say it.
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
Some schools teach allah made us.
So what?
Creationism is religion and is not science, so you won't find it in a science book.
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny !
It has been accepted.
gregrutz 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
My bullshit detector went off again at line 3.
protip: evolution is a theory, do not try to convince someone who believes in written, existent, word otherwise
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
gravity is just a theory. Just so you know. The idea you get sick from germs? It's called germs theory. Intelligent design? It's what's called bullshit. Not only by scientists, but by courts, and it's been done twice by the supreme court. Yup, still bullshit.
silo123 2 years ago 42
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Drop an apple.
Not a theory anymore.
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
No, it's actually still a theory, because who is to say it's gravity and not a flying spaghetti monster? Personal observation are also the least reliable of all forms of evidence. But you obvious know nothing of science, and any biology text book will use evolution as the explanation for biology, because nothing makes sense in biology without it.
silo123 2 years ago 2
No, Evolution is one path one can take, Creationism is another.
And, Cut the shit, Gravity's not a theory, It's a law. Try it yourself. Try everything. It proves itself right.
clubpenguin1help 2 years ago
Ah, that makes sense. That's why the theory of general relativity basically falsified the 3 laws of gravity newton made that you keep referring to. No, no, you're right. Theories change over time, that's why we still have scientists. If they knew all the answers they'd be priests.
silo123 2 years ago
gravity is a theory but is backed up by solid facts and yet to be proven wrong... just like evolution
reid300 1 year ago
Comment removed
xPreatorianx 1 year ago
@silo123 There is a BIG difference between "just a theory" and a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
tuzmor 1 year ago 2
@clubpenguin1help
It seems that your "bullshit detector" goes off everytime you hear something that contradicts your pre-existing beliefs... and conveniently turns on the ignore switch. Do you know what the definition of a theory is? Or what the role of any theory is? Could you answer these two questions for me please. Thanks.
Spetsop 2 years ago
Nice video. Thanks for teaching me something new and interesting :)
patricknelson 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hat jemand Lust mit mir zu chatten bin wieder Einsam und gelangweilt
babyygirlyyie 2 years ago
Why is it so hard for you to even consider creation? If seeing is believing, I certainly don't see Great Apes "evolving" into humans. Evolution does not just magically stop!
tesfan4evr 2 years ago
Who said it stopped?
OTknights666 2 years ago
I certaintly don't see apes evolving into humans! Try and prove me wrong.
tesfan4evr 2 years ago
Tesfan4evr, I propose that you do some homework before you post ignorant remarks.
evospecies 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I have read most of the comments for this video by now and I have to say in response to someone I am still skeptic. This video has not convinced me that the THEORY of Evolution is fact. "Stand up for real science." Screw you. You are all so narrow-minded!
tesfan4evr 2 years ago
It's good to be skeptic, but you should know that evolution is the ONLY scientific choice. No one even studies creationism because it was ruled out a long time ago.
123Atheist 2 years ago
You've only demonstrated how narrow-minded you are. It's good to be skeptical, but even in the face of all the evidence for evolution, to be skeptical is to show you're either stubborn or your standards are set so high that nothing could convince you of its validity. And you should look up what a theory means in scientific terms. It's not just a wild guess that some people came up with after a night of drinking.
aPenguin09 2 years ago
@tesfan4evr
Theories account FOR facts. Facts are merely confirmed observations. Theories are explanations of datasets OF facts.
Check out: notjustatheory . com
anglicantian 2 years ago
Very well done but you could have picked a better title.
Eugensdiet 2 years ago
Could organisms be so commonly similar to each other, because they were all created by the same designer? Evolutionists are going to have a hard time getting people to believe them when they say we descended from viruses.
AngusBeefcakes 2 years ago
Did you actually watch the video?
It does not say that we descended from viruses. It says that some of our DNA originated from ancient retroviral infections. The patterns seen in these random insertions of viral DNA within the genomes of related organisms match the predictions of common ancestry.
Sure these patterns of viral DNA insertions could have been put there by a common designer. Such a proposition, however, is unfalsifiable and therefore NOT science.
standup4REALscience 2 years ago 3
Screw the fossils. The new saying should be, "We've got the viruses. We win." =P
Deioth 2 years ago 4
There is another organism... on this planet... that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is?
A virus.
Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet... you are a... plague.
And we... are the cure.
neonsilkworm 2 years ago
Mr. Anderson.. lol
djd904 2 years ago
yeah, the referenced channel is fantastic
ndjarnag 2 years ago
Very interesting video, but very misleading title. I was prepared to shout "BS" on the top of my lungs and back it up... but thankfully the science displayed was correct.
Please, change the title. There is no evidence that single cell organisms (and there for multicellular organisms) descend from viruses. On the contrary, viruses are dependent on proper cells to reproduce.
InfectedDaemon 2 years ago 2
Misleading title is misleading. Good video though.
I can see Creationists grasping onto this, ignoring the ERV evidence and shouting about the misleading title.
Lbbhecht 2 years ago 2
so if we engineer retrovirusses, we can change our own dna?
EPIC.
1imax111 2 years ago
it's been done in science fiction novels such as the ender's game saga (not really in ender's game, but in one or two of its sequels).
controlledentropy 2 years ago