You will never win an argument against inferior minds....and don't go explaining irony to them either...in fact don't even bother...ignorance has it's value too sometimes by luck, pushing human kind into unplanned perspective...sometimes
That may have been a little unfair, those articles were from 2003, the person who wrote the would have been almost twelve when you made the video, they'd probably grown up considerably by then!
That may have been a little unfair, those articles were from 2003, the person who wrote the would have been almost twelve when you made the video, they'd probably grown up considerably since then!
anyone who has just a little common sense would ever believe in evolution. How ugly and boring and pathetic is the theory. How exciting is arqueology, the Holy Manuscripts!!!! I love God, creator of the heavens and earth. Praise your Name!!!
Jesus and the Nephilim are centuries if not thousands of years apart. The word Nephilim can mean bully or tyrant according to my Strong's concordance. I've met plenty of short bully tyrants. What ever they were they bred with women and created something new. Kinda like the Grecian stories of Cronus and Zeus. And Z then breeding with the humans. The Neanderthal were stronger than men, the Anakites in Deuteronomy are the tall ones. Not necessary the same group as the neanderthals are pre flood.
When the new theory came out (May 2010) that Eurasian humans inherited Neanderthal DNA, The Economist (May 8) pointed out the flaw. Neanderthal mtDNA is non-human and was not passed on to Eurasian humans.
What this proves is that Neanderthals were the hybrid offspring of human males with Eurasian DNA and non-human females (probably Heidelberg or Homo-whatever).
You must be like a DonExodus wannabe. There are people on here that are much more educated and knowledgeable than you.
Every arrogant, condescending slam in this video against the creationists concerns, have become validated and proven, as we now know that Neanderthals and humans may be the same species.
Google: Neanderthal DNA New scientist May 6 2010
This just underlines how science has been hijacked by the religion of atheism.
ALL science disciplines MUST use the THEORY of evo timeline.
uhhhh...man you r sooooo STUPID! Any of your scientist show me just a geunine fosile record of the neandertals and not of some sort of a monkey and I'll became an evolutionist tomorrow. But that can happen only a little bit tomorrow... Only thing that you have is a lie that you repeat. No evidences to start from, nothing. Just a lie and a weakness of your caracter to see where the truth is.
++ "Species is usually defined as being able to mate and produce viable reproducing offspring. Neanderthals are extinct so they can not be the same species as we are now. We have evolved since then." ++
Science now accepts what we said all along. The Neandertals were human, and did breed with us.
++ “Neanderthal man interbred with the first anatomically modern humans to migrate out of Africa, according to a pioneering study showing that there was a flow of genetic material between early Homo sapiens and our extinct cousins. …..
….. Scientists had dismissed the idea that Neanderthalers could have had children with our early ancestors, but a study of the Neanderthal genome, derived from analysing 40,000-year-old fossilised bones, has produced the most convincing evidence to date of limited interbreeding.” ++
Google:
Neanderthals 'bred with early humans', independent
++ great, you proved neanderthals are different than humans. I'm a creationist, I know their different, but I don't understand how it supports evolution. ++
The Neanderthals are not a different species from humans; they are humans. Do not let evolutionists confuse you with baloney.
@hume1947 "The Neanderthals are not a different species from humans; they are humans." Modern humans and Neanderthals are members of the same genus but species? Species is usually defined as being able to mate and produce viable reproducing offspring. Neanderthals are extinct so they can not be the same species as we are now. We have evolved since then.
@hume1947 I disagree with your interpretation of the current evidence regarding Neanderthal genetics. I again point out to you that both Neanderthal and Cro Magnon as they existed then are genetically different than modern humans are now. Studies have shown human populations have changed genetically more dramatically in the last ten thousand years, probably due to the adoption of agriculture and civilization, than in the past.
@hume1947 The question is whether our direct ancestors who were contemporaries of Neanderthals could have and did interbreed. That is still an open question with evidence pointing both directions. Todays Homo sapiens are not the same as our ancestors were even ten thousand years ago. If we could go back in time it would be interesting to see if a modern human could breed with Cro Magnons even.
Now we know that Darwin argued that humans descended from an unknown creature for which he had no fossil evidence to support his theory. But he argued that it was carried out by gradual mutations. Thus the author of this video implies that the Neanderthals did not allegedly evolve by gradual mutations but it was ok for an ape to do it. Wise up and check out the facts of your theories.
@hume1947 "Thus the author of this video implies that the Neanderthals did not allegedly evolve by gradual mutations but it was ok for an ape to do it" I do not find this implication in this video. Neanderthals and Cro Magnon as well as modern humans are apes so your point here is illogical. Evolution can occur gradually or when environmental conditions change drastically quite quickly. Study the scientific usage of "theory" before using it so carelessly.
++ In 1983 one of the most complete Neanderthal skeletons ever found was discovered at Kebara in the Levant, which included the first fossil hyoid bone of a Neanderthal ever discovered. This bone is located in the throat and is directly related to the structure of the human vocal tract and is indistinguishable from that of modern humans (Arensburg et al., 1987).
.. A Neanderthal brain volume equals or exceeds modern human dimensions (Deacon, 1994), ranging from about 1200_1750 ml, and thus on the average about 100 ml larger than modern humans (Stringer and Gamble, 1993). Holloway (1985: 320) has stated "I believe the Neanderthal brain was fully Homo, with no essential differences in its organization compared to our own." ++
++ This analysis, along with a number of considerations of human genetics, argues that the fate of the Neandertals was to be absorbed into modern human groups. Just as importantly, it also says that the behavioral difference between the groups were small. They saw each other as social equals. ++
Google:
The Emerging Fate Of The Neandertals, sciencedaily
In your vid you daid neandethals appear in the fossil records 600k yrs ago...but later in the part about the dna that our common ancestor lived about 500k yes ago....I was woundering if thats how long they survived untill dieing out after having homo sapiens and neanderthals branched off
Misinterpreted fossils by some people do not constitute a argument...
Indeed there have been lots of paleontologists who have faked findings, or even fossils that are still in debate as to what, when and why they were found in a specific region.
But one misinterpreted/falsified fossil dose not constitute as evidence against the many other fossils that correlate with each other and support the others claims!
Read the comment again! I did not state that there is just one misinterpreted/falsified fossil!
I said "Indeed there have been LOTS of paleontologists who have faked findings". So clearly I stated that there are more than one.
"But one misinterpreted/falsified fossil dose not..." I said "one" to point out that the real fossils clearly outnumber by far the fake ones.(I was using sarcasm)
And because you did not notice that, I clearly doubt your ability to use reason and logic.
wait, I heard somewere that chimpanzees have 95% of human D.N.A. if creationists. don't know if this is true, but if it is, creationists are admiting we could've evolved from chimpanzees
The immediate atheist response to a statement like this is usually to make jokes about fairies and flying spaghetti monsters but their inability to acknowledge this as even a possibility makes any intellectual investigation they do pointless. They're forced into a position of coming up with alternate explanations for what Christians know is truth.
For fun discussion without the usual Atheist/Christian ranting, check out my channel.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
great, you proved neanderthals are different than humans. I'm a creationist, I know their different, but I don't understand how it supports evolution. It discredits two articles about creation, but that does not discredit all theorys of creation. You were lazy and only found one theory. My explanation is that neanderthals were nephilim. If you don't know who they were, look em up.
TheHurricane: Nephilim? You think they were giants? Yeah, why don't YOU not be so lazy and actually look up how tall the average neanderthal was (here's a hint: THEY WERE 5'5") Also, I was discrediting a major institution of creationism. Good enough for me.
Basically, this is what you have to believe: God created 2 species that look nearly identical to one another (hell, Neanderthals even had bigger brain cavities) and let one just die out. Never mentioned in the bible (haha, Nephilim!)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why are you quoting the bible and taking its fable as fact? People believed in god long before religion was even organized. The proof in god is simple. YOU. You actually believe a dumb mindless explosion caused bacteria to become intelligant and transform into humans? Rocks are smart :P The truth of the matter is the earth gave birth to all living things yet the earth has no intelligence. Your arguments suck . I have never once read the bible in my whole life and i strongly believe in god.
TheHurricane: So, if you would be so kind, explain your hypothesis to me now. They weren't Nephilim, unless Jesus and everyone else was 2 feet tall. They weren't man...but they most certainly could pass for man...but, again, they weren't because genetics tells us they were a separate species. Evolution explains their existence perfectly - they were a sister-species that branched-off 500k years ago. What's your explanation?
Oh you stupid fool. He didn't get some idea from a neighbor down the street sitting in a lawn chair with a beer in one hand and a smoke in the other, so dont imply that its "just a theory" when you clearly dont have a damn clue.
Try actually looking up what supports this "just a theory" bullshit implication, and then maybe you wont embarrass yourself so much.
@TheHurricane401789 You don't need to disprove creationism anyway as there is absolutely nothing that supports it. The same with fairies, unicorns and Father Christmas....you don't need to disprove them do you?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
honestly, I am not trying to be rude though, I just do not get this video..... I feel it may be misleading, I will continue to pray for heaven, the past is the past, but the future is rapidly appoaching, very scary, and very real!! just my opinion though, this is why I like you tube!
Just because you dont get it, I guess it must be wrong. Science to hard for you to understand? Try religion or some Barney videos... both are made for the same age level!
Creationists don't need "evidence". Faith alone trumps all science. Including gravity. Now if you'll excuse me I have a bridge to leap off of...WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE CRUNCH!!
It has been documented that mtDNA in very rare cases can be inherited from the father, however this is usually accompanied with infertility and other effects that would essentially nullify their reproduction/survivability value.
Although this essentially changes nothing about this video i just wanted to be pedantic.
So we are not evolved from from neanderthal? Interesting. But if we had a common ancestor, that would would mean we would have had to coexist with them for quite some time, no? Were we geographically removed, did we just ignore one another for a huge stretch of time? If we coexisted for a long period it tends to suggest the we are not too superior to neanderthal. Maybe disease took them out. A bug we could fight that they could not?
GodWhamIt: It's very possible disease took them out. If that were the case, it's even more likely that the disease CAME from us (like small pox and the Native Americans.) Consider that the Neanderthals had been living just fine for 490,000 years as a different species, then we migrate to their territory, and they disappear just 10,000 years after we meet up with them.
I hate to nit pick but there was, while not a consensus among biologists, very little debate, even as early as the late 80's that Neanderthal was not a human ancestor but instead a sister species. Most biologists had already pegged Neanderthal as a sister to us, not ancestor.
It seems to me that the creationists should be saying that the neanderthals were wiped out in the flood. why would they claim they were descendants of noah? that is a ridiculous claim, but a slightly less ridiculous claim would be that the neanderthals were the nephillim, would it not? they seem to fuck up their story at every turn.
the truth is this you fuckers dont know the truth and neither do i
god could of been a giant turkey who made the turkey race in his image and a book of commandments and us assgoblin humans arised from the earth and ate them
nothing is explained in a 1000 page book that you base your life on
nothing productive comes from living in the past or the future
"Hide the truth"? Yeah, hide it in all of those peer reviewed academic journals and years and years of study to validate the theory... you actually have to learn about it these days to see the truth, it's not like creationism where you can simply say "all the evidence is wrong lalalalalala" and be done with it, the truth of evolution is hidden by that bit requiring you to be willing to learn and research.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Killua2001 @
** "Hide the truth"? Yeah, hide it in all of those peer reviewed academic journals and years and years of study to validate the theory..." **
For over 150 years you produced thousands of peer reviewed papers, essays and books proclaiming the alleged evidence to support Darwin's TREE OF LIFE. Now we find everything was false - the TREE must be cut down and burned with all the peer reviewed documents. We told you so.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
2 / 2
The new DNA evidence confirms that everything you were told about the Neanderthals over the last 100 years was wrong.
There is evidence that early modern humans hybridised with our extinct relatives, such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol 363, p 2813).
..... Unfortunately, Boule's prejudices got in the way of scientific objectivity. He described the La Chapelle-aux-Saints man, and subsequently all Neandertals, as dull-witted, brutish, ape-like creatures who walked hunched over with a shuffling gait. Unfortunately, this mistaken view was universally accepted by paleoanthropologists for decades. It also became the source of the popular images of dim-witted cavemen that still appear in cartoons and movies. ++
++ The remains of more than 400 Neandertals have been found. The most controversial one was excavated in 1908 at la Chapelle-aux-Saints in southwestern France. This is a nearly complete skeleton of a man who would have been elderly by Neandertal standards. The bones were analyzed between 1911 and 1913 by the noted French paleontologist, Marcellin Boule . .....
++ "There is evidence that early modern humans hybridised with our extinct relatives, such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol 363, p 2813)." ++
And how is that oppossed to evolution's model?
Because for over a century evolutionists (in opposition to the Bible) they argued that humans were not Neandertals.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
1 / 2
forelelyon @
** "For over 150 years you produced thousands of peer reviewed papers, essays and books proclaiming the alleged evidence to support Darwin's TREE OF LIFE. Now we find everything was false - the TREE must be cut down and burned with all the peer reviewed documents. We told you so."
Go to college....dip shit **
From your comment you may not have read this.... Please Google:
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life, new scientist
"lol comntamination? that would make it more similar to humans... "
Only if it's human mDNA contamination.
Awful lot of animals out there to contaminate those samples besides us.
"About 5 percent of the DNA in the samples is actually Neanderthal DNA, Egholm estimated, but he and Rothberg said pilot experiments had convinced them that the decoding was feasible."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
How did them get this extraction of Dna from a fossel that was suposto be 500k years old. oh it must of been younger than you think that is the skull Im talking about--being younger????? than u think...???
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Oh ya Im Going to give up God now thank you for changing my life you have corrected me in the ways of creationism.. I have no problem with the neanderthal men your dating is wrong about the neanderthal men from the valley they were very old and smart; smarter than u or I. ever seen the ears on an old man they never stop growing-- neather does the eyebrow ridge.also we know that Micro evo. exist. show me some proof of your Religion of Macro. evo. and the missing link
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
** What kind of argument is, "You do not know who the common ancestor of Neanderthals and Humans was"? **
Its the kind of argument that confirms that you know zero concerning your alleged common ancestors. You have no evidence, no DNA or fossils of this alleged common ancestor.
Also, how can you alleged: "Chimps and humans split 5 million years ago and Neanderthals and humans split about 500,000 years ago."
When you have zero evidence of both alleged common ancestors?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Google: msnbc Scientists decode Neanderthal genes
"The results from the new studies confirm the Neanderthal's humanity, and show that their genomes and ours are more than 99.5 percent identical, differing by only about 3 million bases.
"This is a drop in the bucket if you consider that the human genome is 3 billion bases," said Edward Rubin of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,...."
NOTE: Chimps differ from humans by about 30 million to 50 million base pairs.
hume1947: That just helps prove my point. Chimps and humans split 5 million years ago and Neanderthals and humans split about 500,000 years ago. They differ by a factor of 10. The article says we differ from Neanderthals by 3 million base pairs and from chimps by 30 million. Guess what? That's a factor of 10 too. Both facts are compatible and support the evolutionary splits.
If you understood how evolution worked you wouldn't have tried using that article as an argument against evolution.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
** The article says we differ from Neanderthals by 3 million base pairs and from chimps by 30 million. Guess what? That's a factor of 10 too. Both facts are compatible and support the evolutionary splits.
If you understood how evolution worked you wouldn't have tried using that article as an argument against evolution. **
You cannot just bring in this factor of 10 after going on your latest estimated alleged dates. You do not know who the common ancestor of Neanderthals and Humans was.
hume1947: Jesus-tap-dancing-Christ you're an idiot. What kind of argument is, "You do not know who the common ancestor of Neanderthals and Humans was"? Of course I know who the common ancestor of Neanderthals and Humans was - it was a guy named Frank who lived in Arlington, VA. Seriously, your arguments are...not even arguments. Go back to your rocking chair - let the younger generation do the thinking for ya ;)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Google:
Independent neanderthal man may not have been as stupid as he looks
Nanderthals were not as stupid as they have been portrayed ....
"Our research disputes a major pillar holding up the long-held assumption that Homo sapiens were more advanced than Neanderthals. It is time for archaeologists to start searching for other reasons why Neanderthals became extinct," said Metin Eren, a graduate student at Exeter University.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
zombiechaddy - the producer of this video has left a comment on my profile stating:
"I'm sorry, I can't tell: is this a dry joke? Please tell me it is! There are so many nutters here on YouTube that I'm almost convinced that someone would actually right as an argument that my video about Neanderthals "confirms that the theory of evolution has no substantial evidence.""
The evidence on N. Man has greatly changed over the last 5 years, and to base your video on 'old' facts is not honest.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The video is a deception.
The video has been loaded in the year 2008, and takes as it's evidence to condemn from two article issued by the same source (two authors) - That are dated 1998 AND 2003.
This confirms that the theory of evolution has no substantial evidence and that it should be placed in a coffin and buried.
horse meets donkey.stud meets ass.Norman meets english wench.Homo sapiens(smart ass)meets neanderthal(redhead)and it all comes together in a US Army Mule
Probably not smarter. I remember reading that some cromagnon bones were found painted red(not with blood) which suggests some cromagnon religion.
Also creationism was the default belief for most early humans. All civilizations had some creation myth, many similar in some ways particularly the creator god making animals and humans out of arts and crafts (clay, mud, paper, wood carvings, rock statues,tree bark.The most facinating is the aztec pig god whittled humans out of dug up mushrooms.
this is to Seekmosttoprophesy: evolution is scientific it's the chemical genetic change in a species.the bible is not scientific, it has god and bullshit like that!
There would be no thing called intelligent design if there was no evidence. The fact there is a thing called intelligent design is proof that there is evidence of some kind of a Creator besides the historical background. Darwinism has no evidence and no historical background so it is kind of pointless to be asking for evidence because the creatures themselves are the evidence plus all the evidence that science offers for a Designer. If you want evidence, it is all around us but we need honesty.
TheFactory: You haven't challenged ANY of the points I made in my video. Sorry if my cockiness is just too much for you, but that doesn't make me wrong.
is that too many commentators get far too cocky and childish...it appears that debaters on both sides tend to be as abrasive as possible in order to show their "intelligence but what is not realized is that when you are cocky you lose credibility and resulting in getting ignored...
you raise hackles on the back of my neck - with your stupid ignorant video that is far too cocky and...not funny...not scientific...showing flippancy shows fear...
What would you respond to the creationists that Darwin is somehow responsible for the holocaust? I know it's bullshit, and that germans simply misinterpreted Darwin and that evolution doesn't teach anything about mass murder with the goal of eugenics... but is there a more rigorous answer than that?
Evolution is Mathematically impossible millions of times over. The problem is that the "process" which already is impossible needs to be repeated millions of times. What people don't realize is that the odds of evolution NOT happening are greater than it is of ever happening so the result is that no evolutionary process ever happens. IOW, even if it did start to happen (which defies logic), it would undo its happening at a greater rate than happening. The result is nothing, not even one cell.
Seekmosttoprophesy: STOP THE PRESSES OF ALL SCIENCE BOOKS - THIS GUY FIGURED IT OUT! Guy, you have no idea what you're talking about. The process you're talking about on the mathematical level is gene mutation. Did you know that, on average, every human has three mutations during embryonic development? Bet you didn't know that. The fact is that the vast majority of mutations do nothing. Very few do something beneficial and it is those rare genes that get passed on.
Sekkmos: Plus, your statement that "the result is nothing, not even one cell" testifies to your idiocy. You're looking at ID and Creationism bullshit that tries to lump abiogenesis with evolution. Go to a library.
No species has ever been known to change into another species. Variation within species is not mutation. It is built into the design. Biological life forms are not God they are created things. So not only does evolution never start, it does not continue. End of story.
seek: Once again, you prove your idiocy. No species "changes into another species" as if overnight or through one generation. Go watch this video and get a better understanding of how evolution works:
Evolution says dinosaurs died out millions of years ago and yet the Bible describes two living dinosaurs. The creature that swallowed Jonah was more than likely a dinosaur as well. Idiocy is a teaching that has been proven wrong by historical writings. Not only is evolution absurd, it is wrong too. Hint: don't confuse the age of the earth with the age of animals that have been mineralized by the earth.
Of course it is historical. It is a history of their "goat herding" but it is actually much more than that but you wouldn't know about that if you have never really studied it. They likely had better mental faculties than we do.
The only thing that has been seen in the fossil record is the variation of species. There is no evidence for changing species. The idea of evolution is, itself, not even scientific. You have to come up with evidence before saying something like that. People in a cult only listen to what cult followers say. Evolution is baseless mindless cult.
tomatoes used to be a different species with half the chromosome number...all of those species have a different chromosome number from the parent species ..usually doubled
bread wheat has 6 times the number of chromosomes as its grandparent species wild wheat
All that extra information is useless to the domesticated wheat plant.
It is the accumulation of information (bad information) that an existing species was designed to accumulate (if or when it was needed). The preexisting design was already there. We have the "grandparent" species to prove the design already existed. We also have dinosaur bones to prove that the dinosaurs described in the Bible are real.
polyploidy (allopolyploidy & autoployploidy)is an evolutionary process if it causes evolution polyploid speciation is macroevolution ..not unnatural selection ..learn some real science please
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Variation of species is a part of the original design so there is no evolution or changing of species because the integrity of each of the species is maintained. Unnatural selection is when there is outside influence from outside sources.
You need to understand, the variations alternate as does the environment. The variations are variations of a particular said species. It will always be that same species. Monkeys don't change to dogs and dogs don't change into deer. We have likely lost more species than we have today. Existing species do not change into other species. You might be able to say that deer and reindeer are the same but not a deer and a cat.
Of course they don't. That goes against what evolution really is about.
Evolution isn't about any species magically transforming into another current species.
It is about the current ones slowly changing over the course of generations to adapt to their environment.
And if you really want to get touchy, we can talk about Convergent Evolution.
That is when two different species start adopting similar traits based on similar environments. example: Canines and Tasmanian Tigers. Similar but different
Why do you try to get all Christians looking the same? Your information does not convince me. I have read a lot about many theries and scientific data. Most show what you believe, but even most of the people who find these discoveries still believe in god. I want proof that the world wasn't created by god.
"I want proof that the world wasn't created by god."
Scientifically there is no proof the world WAS created by god and definitive proof of the natural process of how the earth was formed.
Secondly, the only argument of the god you are referring to creating the earth comes from the biblical book of genesis which has been shown to be inaccurate about so many things it is not worth believing one inevidential conviction
Well, in my opinion our world had to have a beginning. So then comes a highly condensed partice....well where did that particle come from? Did something come from nothing? I don't think so and neither does science. Something had to always exist. Bingo...God. Maybe not Jesus, but some form of God. I know the quantom theory, but that makes no sense either.
First I was like "Holy shit! The audio quality is crap!"
Then I was like "Holy shit! This is fascinating!"
Finally I was like "Holy shit! Creationism is stupid!"
storstarkskogsturk 2 months ago
Go Darwin.
bobwify 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They are stupid.
bobwify 6 months ago
You will never win an argument against inferior minds....and don't go explaining irony to them either...in fact don't even bother...ignorance has it's value too sometimes by luck, pushing human kind into unplanned perspective...sometimes
allen764 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That may have been a little unfair, those articles were from 2003, the person who wrote the would have been almost twelve when you made the video, they'd probably grown up considerably by then!
Pudabudigada 9 months ago
That may have been a little unfair, those articles were from 2003, the person who wrote the would have been almost twelve when you made the video, they'd probably grown up considerably since then!
Pudabudigada 9 months ago
Nephilim, mesopotamia, summerians, machu pichu, Peru, Ur, Jericho, Nile, anak, temples, dinossaurs, bolivia, pyramids, ruins, art, rosetta stone(s),etc.etc.etc.
anyone who has just a little common sense would ever believe in evolution. How ugly and boring and pathetic is the theory. How exciting is arqueology, the Holy Manuscripts!!!! I love God, creator of the heavens and earth. Praise your Name!!!
mrtriplewinner 1 year ago
Jesus and the Nephilim are centuries if not thousands of years apart. The word Nephilim can mean bully or tyrant according to my Strong's concordance. I've met plenty of short bully tyrants. What ever they were they bred with women and created something new. Kinda like the Grecian stories of Cronus and Zeus. And Z then breeding with the humans. The Neanderthal were stronger than men, the Anakites in Deuteronomy are the tall ones. Not necessary the same group as the neanderthals are pre flood.
diva123abc 1 year ago
When the new theory came out (May 2010) that Eurasian humans inherited Neanderthal DNA, The Economist (May 8) pointed out the flaw. Neanderthal mtDNA is non-human and was not passed on to Eurasian humans.
What this proves is that Neanderthals were the hybrid offspring of human males with Eurasian DNA and non-human females (probably Heidelberg or Homo-whatever).
Mdebacle 1 year ago
A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome
Richard E. Green, et al. Science 328, 710 (2010); DOI: 10.1126/science.1188021
Good video but the latest results show neanderthals and humans shagged. Everyone outside of Africa has neanderthal some DNA.
ooglebydoogleby 1 year ago
Creationist: "I don't understand any of this, so the Bible must be right!!!"
gupsphoo 1 year ago
You must be like a DonExodus wannabe. There are people on here that are much more educated and knowledgeable than you.
Every arrogant, condescending slam in this video against the creationists concerns, have become validated and proven, as we now know that Neanderthals and humans may be the same species.
Google: Neanderthal DNA New scientist May 6 2010
This just underlines how science has been hijacked by the religion of atheism.
ALL science disciplines MUST use the THEORY of evo timeline.
n2h2o2 1 year ago
uhhhh...man you r sooooo STUPID! Any of your scientist show me just a geunine fosile record of the neandertals and not of some sort of a monkey and I'll became an evolutionist tomorrow. But that can happen only a little bit tomorrow... Only thing that you have is a lie that you repeat. No evidences to start from, nothing. Just a lie and a weakness of your caracter to see where the truth is.
In 6 days God has created EVRYTHING!
snajpdj 1 year ago
ahhhhh, new channel for good laughs. subbed
blazereef 1 year ago
1 / 3
Dchellberg @
++ "Species is usually defined as being able to mate and produce viable reproducing offspring. Neanderthals are extinct so they can not be the same species as we are now. We have evolved since then." ++
Science now accepts what we said all along. The Neandertals were human, and did breed with us.
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
2 / 3
Quote:
++ “Neanderthal man interbred with the first anatomically modern humans to migrate out of Africa, according to a pioneering study showing that there was a flow of genetic material between early Homo sapiens and our extinct cousins. …..
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
3 / 3
….. Scientists had dismissed the idea that Neanderthalers could have had children with our early ancestors, but a study of the Neanderthal genome, derived from analysing 40,000-year-old fossilised bones, has produced the most convincing evidence to date of limited interbreeding.” ++
Google:
Neanderthals 'bred with early humans', independent
hume1947 1 year ago
I like this vid, can anyone suggest some more books on the subjects of Evolution/(Creation) i have to look into it more.
utumano 1 year ago
how can you come to a conclusion when there is so much more to the universe man has not discovered or will ever understand.
Hammersmashedface09 1 year ago
1 / 4
TheHurricane401789 @
++ great, you proved neanderthals are different than humans. I'm a creationist, I know their different, but I don't understand how it supports evolution. ++
The Neanderthals are not a different species from humans; they are humans. Do not let evolutionists confuse you with baloney.
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947 "The Neanderthals are not a different species from humans; they are humans." Modern humans and Neanderthals are members of the same genus but species? Species is usually defined as being able to mate and produce viable reproducing offspring. Neanderthals are extinct so they can not be the same species as we are now. We have evolved since then.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
Dchellberg @
Just answered this in a 3 part reply.
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947 I disagree with your interpretation of the current evidence regarding Neanderthal genetics. I again point out to you that both Neanderthal and Cro Magnon as they existed then are genetically different than modern humans are now. Studies have shown human populations have changed genetically more dramatically in the last ten thousand years, probably due to the adoption of agriculture and civilization, than in the past.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
@hume1947 The question is whether our direct ancestors who were contemporaries of Neanderthals could have and did interbreed. That is still an open question with evidence pointing both directions. Todays Homo sapiens are not the same as our ancestors were even ten thousand years ago. If we could go back in time it would be interesting to see if a modern human could breed with Cro Magnons even.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
2 / 2
Now we know that Darwin argued that humans descended from an unknown creature for which he had no fossil evidence to support his theory. But he argued that it was carried out by gradual mutations. Thus the author of this video implies that the Neanderthals did not allegedly evolve by gradual mutations but it was ok for an ape to do it. Wise up and check out the facts of your theories.
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947 "Thus the author of this video implies that the Neanderthals did not allegedly evolve by gradual mutations but it was ok for an ape to do it" I do not find this implication in this video. Neanderthals and Cro Magnon as well as modern humans are apes so your point here is illogical. Evolution can occur gradually or when environmental conditions change drastically quite quickly. Study the scientific usage of "theory" before using it so carelessly.
Dchellberg 1 year ago
1 / 2
Dchellberg @
++ "If we could go back in time it would be interesting to see if a modern human could breed with Cro Magnons even." ++
Of course they could and did. The author of this video to allegedly win his argument has to attack two dated reports. At point 3.20 he argues that:
++ “The genetic differences between modern humans and the Neanderthals are way to numerous to be attributed to micro-evolution.”
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
2 / 4
Quote 1:
++ In 1983 one of the most complete Neanderthal skeletons ever found was discovered at Kebara in the Levant, which included the first fossil hyoid bone of a Neanderthal ever discovered. This bone is located in the throat and is directly related to the structure of the human vocal tract and is indistinguishable from that of modern humans (Arensburg et al., 1987).
Neanderthal Brains
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
3 / 4
.. A Neanderthal brain volume equals or exceeds modern human dimensions (Deacon, 1994), ranging from about 1200_1750 ml, and thus on the average about 100 ml larger than modern humans (Stringer and Gamble, 1993). Holloway (1985: 320) has stated "I believe the Neanderthal brain was fully Homo, with no essential differences in its organization compared to our own." ++
Google:
Neanderthals are Still Human!, icr
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
4 / 4
Quote 2:
++ This analysis, along with a number of considerations of human genetics, argues that the fate of the Neandertals was to be absorbed into modern human groups. Just as importantly, it also says that the behavioral difference between the groups were small. They saw each other as social equals. ++
Google:
The Emerging Fate Of The Neandertals, sciencedaily
hume1947 1 year ago
In your vid you daid neandethals appear in the fossil records 600k yrs ago...but later in the part about the dna that our common ancestor lived about 500k yes ago....I was woundering if thats how long they survived untill dieing out after having homo sapiens and neanderthals branched off
mnewf2002 2 years ago
Creationists are by far the best comedians on this planet.
LaingGod 2 years ago
You got that right...
I especialy like the creativity of Kent Hovid saying "We lived with dinosaurs"
TheMetalHead102 2 years ago
evolution is a bad fairy tale
darkfur35 2 years ago
Your life is a bad fairy tale.
LaingGod 2 years ago
Give me arguments...
TheMetalHead102 2 years ago
@TheMetalHead102 ....fossils misinterpreted by biased people
darkfur35 2 years ago
@darkfur35
Misinterpreted fossils by some people do not constitute a argument...
Indeed there have been lots of paleontologists who have faked findings, or even fossils that are still in debate as to what, when and why they were found in a specific region.
But one misinterpreted/falsified fossil dose not constitute as evidence against the many other fossils that correlate with each other and support the others claims!
Next argument please.
TheMetalHead102 2 years ago
@TheMetalHead102 ....It is not just one fossil misinterpreted/falsified, it is many.
darkfur35 2 years ago
Read the comment again! I did not state that there is just one misinterpreted/falsified fossil!
I said "Indeed there have been LOTS of paleontologists who have faked findings". So clearly I stated that there are more than one.
"But one misinterpreted/falsified fossil dose not..." I said "one" to point out that the real fossils clearly outnumber by far the fake ones.(I was using sarcasm)
And because you did not notice that, I clearly doubt your ability to use reason and logic.
TheMetalHead102 2 years ago
@TheMetalHead102 evolution is not based on reason or logic
darkfur35 2 years ago
posit an alternative that is, then.
snoman99991 2 years ago
Conspiraciiiiiiiiiiiiies!
BananaOrangeBerry 1 year ago
Wonderful vid. Thanks.
skyzthelimi7 2 years ago
wait, I heard somewere that chimpanzees have 95% of human D.N.A. if creationists. don't know if this is true, but if it is, creationists are admiting we could've evolved from chimpanzees
arachnophile01 2 years ago
@arachnophile01
98% not 95%.
123Atheist 2 years ago
98.5% not 98%
BlackRaptor31 2 years ago
Creationist have no idea how much scientists know.
And no idea how silly Kent and Ken are.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Darwin kinda looks like a neanderthal on that last pic. LMAO
Severtized 2 years ago 3
Easy way the prove evolution. "We saw it"
55drako 2 years ago
It's a german word. They say ''tal'' when they write ''thal''. It's a word meaning valley.
X33vince 2 years ago
thank you for correctly pronouncing NeanderTHal. not saying NeanderTal. its a pet peeve of mine
will we ever see all of your original chaddagg video again?
SkeptikSnarf 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There is a supernatural aspect to this world."
The immediate atheist response to a statement like this is usually to make jokes about fairies and flying spaghetti monsters but their inability to acknowledge this as even a possibility makes any intellectual investigation they do pointless. They're forced into a position of coming up with alternate explanations for what Christians know is truth.
For fun discussion without the usual Atheist/Christian ranting, check out my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
great, you proved neanderthals are different than humans. I'm a creationist, I know their different, but I don't understand how it supports evolution. It discredits two articles about creation, but that does not discredit all theorys of creation. You were lazy and only found one theory. My explanation is that neanderthals were nephilim. If you don't know who they were, look em up.
TheHurricane401789 2 years ago
TheHurricane: Nephilim? You think they were giants? Yeah, why don't YOU not be so lazy and actually look up how tall the average neanderthal was (here's a hint: THEY WERE 5'5") Also, I was discrediting a major institution of creationism. Good enough for me.
Basically, this is what you have to believe: God created 2 species that look nearly identical to one another (hell, Neanderthals even had bigger brain cavities) and let one just die out. Never mentioned in the bible (haha, Nephilim!)
zombiechaddy 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why are you quoting the bible and taking its fable as fact? People believed in god long before religion was even organized. The proof in god is simple. YOU. You actually believe a dumb mindless explosion caused bacteria to become intelligant and transform into humans? Rocks are smart :P The truth of the matter is the earth gave birth to all living things yet the earth has no intelligence. Your arguments suck . I have never once read the bible in my whole life and i strongly believe in god.
Hammersmashedface09 2 years ago
"Your arguments suck . I have never once read the bible in my whole life and i strongly believe in god."
Haha! Awesomely stupid line. I'm adding this to my Creationist Stupidity Hall of Fame (on my channel page.)
zombiechaddy 2 years ago 10
Hammersmashedface09 @
++ "I have never once read the bible in my whole life and i strongly believe in god." ++
The Bible was inspired by God and confirms the many of his attributes such as power, love, wisdom and justice. Plus remember
James 2:19 (King James Version)
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
hume1947 1 year ago
TheHurricane: So, if you would be so kind, explain your hypothesis to me now. They weren't Nephilim, unless Jesus and everyone else was 2 feet tall. They weren't man...but they most certainly could pass for man...but, again, they weren't because genetics tells us they were a separate species. Evolution explains their existence perfectly - they were a sister-species that branched-off 500k years ago. What's your explanation?
zombiechaddy 2 years ago 3
"You were lazy and only found one theory"
Oh you stupid fool. He didn't get some idea from a neighbor down the street sitting in a lawn chair with a beer in one hand and a smoke in the other, so dont imply that its "just a theory" when you clearly dont have a damn clue.
Try actually looking up what supports this "just a theory" bullshit implication, and then maybe you wont embarrass yourself so much.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
@TheHurricane401789
In scientific terms there are NO "Theories" of creationism. None, There are a number of conjectures that haven't yet made it to hypothesis.
In popular parlance there are theories, but the common use of the word is vastly different to the scientific one.
ozowen 1 year ago
@TheHurricane401789 Creationism is not even a theory dude. lol
MrBlackjackGuy 11 months ago
@TheHurricane401789 You don't need to disprove creationism anyway as there is absolutely nothing that supports it. The same with fairies, unicorns and Father Christmas....you don't need to disprove them do you?
masala505 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Question: Why is the kettle boiling?
Atheist answer: Because the water's been heated to 100 degrees centigrade resulting in a change in state from liquid to gas.
Christian answer: Because I want to have some tea.
For more about how Atheists and Christians interpret evidence very differently, check out my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
Excellent video, did not realise that creationists believe that the ice layer above the earth stopped evolution.
emiliation123 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
honestly, I am not trying to be rude though, I just do not get this video..... I feel it may be misleading, I will continue to pray for heaven, the past is the past, but the future is rapidly appoaching, very scary, and very real!! just my opinion though, this is why I like you tube!
ReadDoug 2 years ago
Just because you dont get it, I guess it must be wrong. Science to hard for you to understand? Try religion or some Barney videos... both are made for the same age level!
raistlin072 2 years ago
what.... 1997.. haha an explosion of knowledge..
ReadDoug 2 years ago
Creationists don't need "evidence". Faith alone trumps all science. Including gravity. Now if you'll excuse me I have a bridge to leap off of...WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE CRUNCH!!
DCLugi 2 years ago
you can't call something scientific when it isn't proven scientifically. Evolution is just a theory, not science!
Surprisefull 2 years ago
You apparently do not know what the term "Theory" indicated to the scientific community.
To scientists, "Theory" actually indicates a "well supported and substantiated" claim which is supported by the evidence.
They don't use the term in the same way that lay-people do.
kris01987 2 years ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
@kris01987 .... again, evolution is not and cannot be substantiated...
Surprisefull 2 months ago
retard
Rockster969 2 years ago
It has been documented that mtDNA in very rare cases can be inherited from the father, however this is usually accompanied with infertility and other effects that would essentially nullify their reproduction/survivability value.
Although this essentially changes nothing about this video i just wanted to be pedantic.
finalsight 2 years ago
Some good points I guess but confusing for a 14 year-old like me hahaha
mrspuffsitekick 2 years ago
So we are not evolved from from neanderthal? Interesting. But if we had a common ancestor, that would would mean we would have had to coexist with them for quite some time, no? Were we geographically removed, did we just ignore one another for a huge stretch of time? If we coexisted for a long period it tends to suggest the we are not too superior to neanderthal. Maybe disease took them out. A bug we could fight that they could not?
GodWhamIt 2 years ago
GodWhamIt: It's very possible disease took them out. If that were the case, it's even more likely that the disease CAME from us (like small pox and the Native Americans.) Consider that the Neanderthals had been living just fine for 490,000 years as a different species, then we migrate to their territory, and they disappear just 10,000 years after we meet up with them.
zombiechaddy 2 years ago
Humans have a big problem with childbirth due to our recent development of bipedalism, i.e. our birth canal is very narrow.
Neanderthal's birth canal was even narrower than ours, it is quite possible that as many as 1 in 2 neander babies and mothers died in childbirth.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
I hate to nit pick but there was, while not a consensus among biologists, very little debate, even as early as the late 80's that Neanderthal was not a human ancestor but instead a sister species. Most biologists had already pegged Neanderthal as a sister to us, not ancestor.
intelligentfalling 2 years ago
It seems to me that the creationists should be saying that the neanderthals were wiped out in the flood. why would they claim they were descendants of noah? that is a ridiculous claim, but a slightly less ridiculous claim would be that the neanderthals were the nephillim, would it not? they seem to fuck up their story at every turn.
anyway Happy FSM day!!!!!
RAMEN
IKnowThings 2 years ago 3
God is Santa Claus for adults !!!!
zoltan656 2 years ago
I LOL'ed the most at 3:15
This vid is precious :)
Cephalochordata 3 years ago
the truth is this you fuckers dont know the truth and neither do i
god could of been a giant turkey who made the turkey race in his image and a book of commandments and us assgoblin humans arised from the earth and ate them
nothing is explained in a 1000 page book that you base your life on
nothing productive comes from living in the past or the future
only the present is where you can truly live
but christians live to die
they worship seemingly false gods
and they waste away =]
killgore333333 3 years ago
i luv turkey
dg6066 2 years ago
I love how well structured and organized the arguments of the creationists are! (/sarcasm)
jec0683 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It is great to see that evolutionists 'HIDE' the truth - but it will not go away!
hume1947 3 years ago
"Hide the truth"? Yeah, hide it in all of those peer reviewed academic journals and years and years of study to validate the theory... you actually have to learn about it these days to see the truth, it's not like creationism where you can simply say "all the evidence is wrong lalalalalala" and be done with it, the truth of evolution is hidden by that bit requiring you to be willing to learn and research.
Killua2001 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Killua2001 @
** "Hide the truth"? Yeah, hide it in all of those peer reviewed academic journals and years and years of study to validate the theory..." **
For over 150 years you produced thousands of peer reviewed papers, essays and books proclaiming the alleged evidence to support Darwin's TREE OF LIFE. Now we find everything was false - the TREE must be cut down and burned with all the peer reviewed documents. We told you so.
hume1947 3 years ago
Go to college....dip shit
forelelyon 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
2 / 2
The new DNA evidence confirms that everything you were told about the Neanderthals over the last 100 years was wrong.
There is evidence that early modern humans hybridised with our extinct relatives, such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol 363, p 2813).
hume1947 2 years ago
And how is that oppossed to evolution's model?
DINDRAGON 2 years ago
3 / 3
..... Unfortunately, Boule's prejudices got in the way of scientific objectivity. He described the La Chapelle-aux-Saints man, and subsequently all Neandertals, as dull-witted, brutish, ape-like creatures who walked hunched over with a shuffling gait. Unfortunately, this mistaken view was universally accepted by paleoanthropologists for decades. It also became the source of the popular images of dim-witted cavemen that still appear in cartoons and movies. ++
Neandertals, anthro
hume1947 2 years ago
2 / 3
Quote:
++ The remains of more than 400 Neandertals have been found. The most controversial one was excavated in 1908 at la Chapelle-aux-Saints in southwestern France. This is a nearly complete skeleton of a man who would have been elderly by Neandertal standards. The bones were analyzed between 1911 and 1913 by the noted French paleontologist, Marcellin Boule . .....
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
1 / 3
DINDRAGON @
++ "There is evidence that early modern humans hybridised with our extinct relatives, such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol 363, p 2813)." ++
And how is that oppossed to evolution's model?
Because for over a century evolutionists (in opposition to the Bible) they argued that humans were not Neandertals.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1 / 2
forelelyon @
** "For over 150 years you produced thousands of peer reviewed papers, essays and books proclaiming the alleged evidence to support Darwin's TREE OF LIFE. Now we find everything was false - the TREE must be cut down and burned with all the peer reviewed documents. We told you so."
Go to college....dip shit **
From your comment you may not have read this.... Please Google:
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life, new scientist
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
lol comntamination? that would make it more similar to humans...
666luke999 3 years ago
"lol comntamination? that would make it more similar to humans... "
Only if it's human mDNA contamination.
Awful lot of animals out there to contaminate those samples besides us.
"About 5 percent of the DNA in the samples is actually Neanderthal DNA, Egholm estimated, but he and Rothberg said pilot experiments had convinced them that the decoding was feasible."
It had better be!
tubewatch59 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How did them get this extraction of Dna from a fossel that was suposto be 500k years old. oh it must of been younger than you think that is the skull Im talking about--being younger????? than u think...???
winpeg65 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
see truth4utc
winpeg65 3 years ago
See the comments in his video, he got totally owned.
PoisonToothG 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh ya Im Going to give up God now thank you for changing my life you have corrected me in the ways of creationism.. I have no problem with the neanderthal men your dating is wrong about the neanderthal men from the valley they were very old and smart; smarter than u or I. ever seen the ears on an old man they never stop growing-- neather does the eyebrow ridge.also we know that Micro evo. exist. show me some proof of your Religion of Macro. evo. and the missing link
winpeg65 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
** What kind of argument is, "You do not know who the common ancestor of Neanderthals and Humans was"? **
Its the kind of argument that confirms that you know zero concerning your alleged common ancestors. You have no evidence, no DNA or fossils of this alleged common ancestor.
Also, how can you alleged: "Chimps and humans split 5 million years ago and Neanderthals and humans split about 500,000 years ago."
When you have zero evidence of both alleged common ancestors?
hume1947 3 years ago
You sir are an idiot.
PatrioticEagle50 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Google: msnbc Scientists decode Neanderthal genes
"The results from the new studies confirm the Neanderthal's humanity, and show that their genomes and ours are more than 99.5 percent identical, differing by only about 3 million bases.
"This is a drop in the bucket if you consider that the human genome is 3 billion bases," said Edward Rubin of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,...."
NOTE: Chimps differ from humans by about 30 million to 50 million base pairs.
hume1947 3 years ago
hume1947: That just helps prove my point. Chimps and humans split 5 million years ago and Neanderthals and humans split about 500,000 years ago. They differ by a factor of 10. The article says we differ from Neanderthals by 3 million base pairs and from chimps by 30 million. Guess what? That's a factor of 10 too. Both facts are compatible and support the evolutionary splits.
If you understood how evolution worked you wouldn't have tried using that article as an argument against evolution.
zombiechaddy 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
** The article says we differ from Neanderthals by 3 million base pairs and from chimps by 30 million. Guess what? That's a factor of 10 too. Both facts are compatible and support the evolutionary splits.
If you understood how evolution worked you wouldn't have tried using that article as an argument against evolution. **
You cannot just bring in this factor of 10 after going on your latest estimated alleged dates. You do not know who the common ancestor of Neanderthals and Humans was.
hume1947 3 years ago
hume1947: Jesus-tap-dancing-Christ you're an idiot. What kind of argument is, "You do not know who the common ancestor of Neanderthals and Humans was"? Of course I know who the common ancestor of Neanderthals and Humans was - it was a guy named Frank who lived in Arlington, VA. Seriously, your arguments are...not even arguments. Go back to your rocking chair - let the younger generation do the thinking for ya ;)
zombiechaddy 3 years ago
Please, enlighten me. Which, among the "old" facts used in this video, have 'changed' in the past 5 years ?
ChrisJRBradley 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Google:
Independent neanderthal man may not have been as stupid as he looks
Nanderthals were not as stupid as they have been portrayed ....
"Our research disputes a major pillar holding up the long-held assumption that Homo sapiens were more advanced than Neanderthals. It is time for archaeologists to start searching for other reasons why Neanderthals became extinct," said Metin Eren, a graduate student at Exeter University.
Put him in a suit and he could be your best man!
hume1947 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
zombiechaddy - the producer of this video has left a comment on my profile stating:
"I'm sorry, I can't tell: is this a dry joke? Please tell me it is! There are so many nutters here on YouTube that I'm almost convinced that someone would actually right as an argument that my video about Neanderthals "confirms that the theory of evolution has no substantial evidence.""
The evidence on N. Man has greatly changed over the last 5 years, and to base your video on 'old' facts is not honest.
hume1947 3 years ago
hume1947: shit...I can't believe I wrote "wright" as "right"...you're still an idiot though.
zombiechaddy 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
As the video states - Humans all go back to a mtDNA Eve. Further proof that the Bible is correct. Science agrees with the Bible.
hume1947 3 years ago
"Eve" is a metaphorical name given for the usual "mother" of a species. It doesn't mean a literal "Eve" created by the invisible sky father.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago 4
@hume1947 The Stupid!!! It Burns!!!
progressthruscience 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The video is a deception.
The video has been loaded in the year 2008, and takes as it's evidence to condemn from two article issued by the same source (two authors) - That are dated 1998 AND 2003.
This confirms that the theory of evolution has no substantial evidence and that it should be placed in a coffin and buried.
hume1947 3 years ago
rubbish dogs dont turn into evolve to deer its like saying a human evolves into a geomadic silicate petrosapien
skelescorch10 3 years ago
Bravo! *golf clap*
Raxilla 3 years ago
this is an excellent video. keep it up
randompedestrian382 3 years ago
More videos please.
Michigan1985 3 years ago
horse meets donkey.stud meets ass.Norman meets english wench.Homo sapiens(smart ass)meets neanderthal(redhead)and it all comes together in a US Army Mule
stevenstreets3 3 years ago
My take is that Neanderthals were smarter than creationists!!! isn't that sad? I would think so.
But hey, we live in a free society, they are entitled to believe in magic man.
lapiz1969 3 years ago
Probably not smarter. I remember reading that some cromagnon bones were found painted red(not with blood) which suggests some cromagnon religion.
Also creationism was the default belief for most early humans. All civilizations had some creation myth, many similar in some ways particularly the creator god making animals and humans out of arts and crafts (clay, mud, paper, wood carvings, rock statues,tree bark.The most facinating is the aztec pig god whittled humans out of dug up mushrooms.
VoteNixon2008 3 years ago
you are idiots why does there have to be a higher being????
there is as much proof behind the bible as there is behind a book about fairies. Scientists have proven evolution.
I dont understand how you believe something with nothing to back it up!!!!!!
felixisdabomb 3 years ago
amazing yet humerous argument as usual
evTom14 3 years ago
your style of making videos is really cool
GentleSavage1 3 years ago
After all this time, this video still rocks. :-)
legendre007 3 years ago
chadagg where are you ?
dancingnature 3 years ago
Can Darwin be my homeboy?
katey1dog 3 years ago 6
Awesome!
TomSFox 3 years ago 3
this is to Seekmosttoprophesy: evolution is scientific it's the chemical genetic change in a species.the bible is not scientific, it has god and bullshit like that!
jordiejosh 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
There would be no thing called intelligent design if there was no evidence. The fact there is a thing called intelligent design is proof that there is evidence of some kind of a Creator besides the historical background. Darwinism has no evidence and no historical background so it is kind of pointless to be asking for evidence because the creatures themselves are the evidence plus all the evidence that science offers for a Designer. If you want evidence, it is all around us but we need honesty.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Awesome- I love learning about Neanderthals :) Hahaha I laughed my ass off the first time I heard about the "Ice Shield"
kickinoranges 3 years ago
What's the kickass song at the end?
Microsoftttttt 3 years ago
what are you afraid of? if evolution is true...then why defend it with such blatant cockiness?
TheFactory01 3 years ago
TheFactory: You haven't challenged ANY of the points I made in my video. Sorry if my cockiness is just too much for you, but that doesn't make me wrong.
zombiechaddy 3 years ago
i hadn't intended on countering anything you said because of your cockiness - i couldn't stand to listen to the video after the first 30 sec
TheFactory01 3 years ago
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
StandForScience 3 years ago 3
the problem with the evolution creation "debate"
is that too many commentators get far too cocky and childish...it appears that debaters on both sides tend to be as abrasive as possible in order to show their "intelligence but what is not realized is that when you are cocky you lose credibility and resulting in getting ignored...
you raise hackles on the back of my neck - with your stupid ignorant video that is far too cocky and...not funny...not scientific...showing flippancy shows fear...
TheFactory01 3 years ago
i love the wax Neanderthals in the beginning of this video - very convincing...
TheFactory01 3 years ago
What would you respond to the creationists that Darwin is somehow responsible for the holocaust? I know it's bullshit, and that germans simply misinterpreted Darwin and that evolution doesn't teach anything about mass murder with the goal of eugenics... but is there a more rigorous answer than that?
bootsielon 3 years ago
Evolution is Mathematically impossible millions of times over. The problem is that the "process" which already is impossible needs to be repeated millions of times. What people don't realize is that the odds of evolution NOT happening are greater than it is of ever happening so the result is that no evolutionary process ever happens. IOW, even if it did start to happen (which defies logic), it would undo its happening at a greater rate than happening. The result is nothing, not even one cell.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Seekmosttoprophesy: STOP THE PRESSES OF ALL SCIENCE BOOKS - THIS GUY FIGURED IT OUT! Guy, you have no idea what you're talking about. The process you're talking about on the mathematical level is gene mutation. Did you know that, on average, every human has three mutations during embryonic development? Bet you didn't know that. The fact is that the vast majority of mutations do nothing. Very few do something beneficial and it is those rare genes that get passed on.
zombiechaddy 3 years ago
Sekkmos: Plus, your statement that "the result is nothing, not even one cell" testifies to your idiocy. You're looking at ID and Creationism bullshit that tries to lump abiogenesis with evolution. Go to a library.
zombiechaddy 3 years ago
No species has ever been known to change into another species. Variation within species is not mutation. It is built into the design. Biological life forms are not God they are created things. So not only does evolution never start, it does not continue. End of story.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
seek: Once again, you prove your idiocy. No species "changes into another species" as if overnight or through one generation. Go watch this video and get a better understanding of how evolution works:
watch?v=EyjufVuQZ48
zombiechaddy 3 years ago
Evolution says dinosaurs died out millions of years ago and yet the Bible describes two living dinosaurs. The creature that swallowed Jonah was more than likely a dinosaur as well. Idiocy is a teaching that has been proven wrong by historical writings. Not only is evolution absurd, it is wrong too. Hint: don't confuse the age of the earth with the age of animals that have been mineralized by the earth.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
So...the bible says it so it must be true? LOL. Great logic. There is nothing historical about a book written by a bunch of nomadic goat herders.
sciguy11 3 years ago 2
Of course it is historical. It is a history of their "goat herding" but it is actually much more than that but you wouldn't know about that if you have never really studied it. They likely had better mental faculties than we do.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"and yet the Bible describes two living dinosaurs."
The behemoth and leviathan are just fictional animals, not dinosaurs. 200 years ago people thought giants existed, people have learnt since the past.
"Hint: don't confuse the age of the earth with the age of animals that have been mineralized by the earth."
The oldest organisms discovered are ~3.5 bil years old, ~1 bil years younger than the earth which in itself is ~800 mil years younger than the sun.
You are just being silly
ProcInc 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The only thing that has been seen in the fossil record is the variation of species. There is no evidence for changing species. The idea of evolution is, itself, not even scientific. You have to come up with evidence before saying something like that. People in a cult only listen to what cult followers say. Evolution is baseless mindless cult.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
hahahahaha, u sir, jusy wayched a video showin some evidence of evolution, and u deny any evidence
lordbyrne 3 years ago
"There is no evidence for changing species."
polyploid speciations are common most of the food we eat and horticultural plants are the result of either allopolyploidy or autopolyploidy
tomatoes, ice potatoes, coffee, bread and macaroni wheat, most domestic roses, primroses, etc etc
dont believe in evolution....then pizza doest exist for you either
dancingnature 3 years ago 2
Don't be silly. A tomato is still a tomato. A potato is still a potato.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
tomatoes used to be a different species with half the chromosome number...all of those species have a different chromosome number from the parent species ..usually doubled
bread wheat has 6 times the number of chromosomes as its grandparent species wild wheat
dancingnature 3 years ago 3
because more goes into making bread then just wheat. thats why there are more chromosomes.
mnewf2002 3 years ago
bread wheat has 6 times the number of chromosomes as its grandparent species, wild wheat
bread wheat is a different species(an allopolyploid species) and cant mate with either of the 3 the grandparent species
polyploid speciation is macroevolution btw
google allopolyploid
dancingnature 3 years ago
Have you ever heard of useless information?
All that extra information is useless to the domesticated wheat plant.
It is the accumulation of information (bad information) that an existing species was designed to accumulate (if or when it was needed). The preexisting design was already there. We have the "grandparent" species to prove the design already existed. We also have dinosaur bones to prove that the dinosaurs described in the Bible are real.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
be nice if you knew what you were talking about
polyploid species have double or more chromosomes ..theyre a different species
and if you want accurate info about how living organisms deal with information parts 1 and 2
watch?v=I14KTshLUkg
watch?v=i9u50wKDb_4
dancingnature 3 years ago
If the species is so different, you can't even be sure they are even related at all.
Besides that, you are speaking of UNnatural selection which is made with an outside source of information that is reflected in the genes.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
polyploidy (allopolyploidy & autoployploidy)is an evolutionary process if it causes evolution polyploid speciation is macroevolution ..not unnatural selection ..learn some real science please
dancingnature 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Variation of species is a part of the original design so there is no evolution or changing of species because the integrity of each of the species is maintained. Unnatural selection is when there is outside influence from outside sources.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"Variation of species [...]no evolution [...]because the integrity of each of the species is maintained. Unnatural selection [...]."
that is pure unadulterated pseudoscience nonsense
variation is what natural selection works on
it doesnt matter HOW the mutations that cause variation happen
organisms can add anything from single base pairs up to entire other organisms
they can delete small or large parts of their genomes
entire other organisms? ...your mitochondria are purple bacteria
dancingnature 3 years ago
You need to understand, the variations alternate as does the environment. The variations are variations of a particular said species. It will always be that same species. Monkeys don't change to dogs and dogs don't change into deer. We have likely lost more species than we have today. Existing species do not change into other species. You might be able to say that deer and reindeer are the same but not a deer and a cat.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Of course they don't. That goes against what evolution really is about.
Evolution isn't about any species magically transforming into another current species.
It is about the current ones slowly changing over the course of generations to adapt to their environment.
And if you really want to get touchy, we can talk about Convergent Evolution.
That is when two different species start adopting similar traits based on similar environments. example: Canines and Tasmanian Tigers. Similar but different
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
"If the species is so different, you can't even be sure they are even related at all."
Ha Ha!! I was wondering when some desperate, straw-clutching creationist would come up with that dumb one!
It's been known for a long time that they buried thier dead,and cared for their disabled.
Creationists have been insisting for a century or more, on their own observations, that neanderthals were human.
And what the hell are you talking about "outside source of information"??!!
Tobytrim 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Outside influence or outside source of information as in selectively breeding animals is influencing the genome with an outside influence.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
So what's your point?
Tobytrim 3 years ago
Why do you try to get all Christians looking the same? Your information does not convince me. I have read a lot about many theries and scientific data. Most show what you believe, but even most of the people who find these discoveries still believe in god. I want proof that the world wasn't created by god.
MvLx2 3 years ago
"I want proof that the world wasn't created by god."
Scientifically there is no proof the world WAS created by god and definitive proof of the natural process of how the earth was formed.
Secondly, the only argument of the god you are referring to creating the earth comes from the biblical book of genesis which has been shown to be inaccurate about so many things it is not worth believing one inevidential conviction
ProcInc 3 years ago
"I want proof that the world wasn't created by god."
I want evidence that it was.
ytafromonkey0 3 years ago
Well, in my opinion our world had to have a beginning. So then comes a highly condensed partice....well where did that particle come from? Did something come from nothing? I don't think so and neither does science. Something had to always exist. Bingo...God. Maybe not Jesus, but some form of God. I know the quantom theory, but that makes no sense either.
MvLx2 3 years ago