Why evoltuion from water based organisms to land based is imposible

[odinata]

Why would anybody care what some douche who can't even SPELL the title of his own video correctly?

[Mesdriver]

Where came the bear from?

Dropped out of the sky?

[ZZzzzzzWhat]

.. and then the rain overflood the flat earth and the dinosaurs were gone.

[emmthreejonny]

Gee golly whiz! So many scientists in the comment section.

[eran5005]

the video itself is as dumb as dumb can be, and the description pretentious understanding of physics, chemistry, physiology and whatnot still shows that you haven't the slightest sliver of understanding in advanced genetics and the mechanisms of evolution, ever heard of transitional forms? that have some qualities of both land and sea living creatures.

this video tries to ridicule evolution but does not describe it at all - and still even this video makes more sense that jesus walking on water.

[gix500]

*CANT breathe under water thats the point

[gix500]

it didnt happen one day lol, it can only be possible through a transition. look at salamanders and other amphibians. frogs are born in water and can only be born there, as tadpoles, but then they crawl onto land. so early tadpoles couldent do that, they lived only in water and come from water, maybe u think they went from land to water, well look at dolphins and whales they can breathe under water, they originated from land

[eran5005]

@gix500 funny thing is - even mammals can only develop inside water, whats the difference if its a pond or a uterus? Obiviously there are SOME differences but still without a watery environment it couldn't have happened.

But people like the one who made this video like to ignore little facts like that :P

[simcult]

One word - Tortoise.

[GodGunsGutsGlory777]

HA HA! It's been a while since I have seen this.

Truly mocking the FOOLISHNESS of evolution lies!

[DarwinISmyHOMEboy]

You people really do not give a shit that you have no idea what your talking about do you. Type Mud skipper into youtube and you can see how completely invalid all your arguments set forth in the description really are.

[Ozzyman200]

Hlarious, though there really are people ignorant enough to deny evolution.

[chadthebeean]

Where did the bear come from?

[herpiethelovebug]

I feel like I lost 50 IQ points just watching this. Speaking of believing in fairy tales (see I read your input), I'm guessing you go to a special building every Sunday and pray to the invisible, all knowing, all seeing, completely man made, man in the sky.

Right?

[G11EM2]

I think I've said this to creationist videos before, but about half my brain cells just committed suicide, and I'm still smarter than that!

[chrisinsocalif]

Uh, what about a frog?

[f43d348k]

Somebody please tell me this video is a joke...

[alexkidd3d]

wow... this is the dumbest creation video i've seen yet.... which really is saying a lot.

[jzuidema]

WOW this video is so wrong on every level it touches upon it is amazing....I feel like recommending the author to actually read up on the subject is frankly too much to ask at this moment.....:( 1 star is too high

[SqueakerAlpha]

great video, interesting argument. Now try again with what evolution actually says. Why is there a bear already on land ?

[dmalburg]

Please read "Your Inner Fish" by Dr. Neil Shubin.

[neveruse513]

Snakehead fish are an evolutionist myth!!!

[opcn18]

You will never be able to put together an argument that hold water until you actually take the time to learn what evolutionary science says itself.

[xX0XDannyBoiX0Xx]

i would like to start off by saying you suck and finish off by saying you are a bible pushing ass

[asymmetrichwz]

lol....like that fish drawing with the feet

[justonium]

By the way, the first land animal ever could never be devoured by a larger land animal! : [_]

[justonium]

Look at the mudskipper. This shows a fish somewhere in the transition from sea to land. Mudskippers have been the way they are for millions of years. The evolution to life on land probably took hundreds of millions of years to occur, in small random steps.

[justonium]

You are right in saying that a water dwelling fish that had been previously just that- a water dwelling fish, could never just magically go and live on land and be transformed into a land creature just because of its newly evolved traits. Those traits had been evolved in the water environment. These adaptions evolve in many little "baby steps." Not in one magical day can a water dwelling species take to land.

[imdarkatm]

wtf ftade? Evoulotion video? A bit of character.... school project? Any its well funny =]m (btw im not reading the description -_- lol)

[ftade]

You could say that... lol descriptions bit long but worth it

[ZebrasFirst]

ftade, This video is clever and brilliant. Evolutionists enjoy mocking and scoffing at GOD because the idea of HIM is so "impossible and ridiculous". Yet, they never stop to realize what they believe is more impossible, and more ridiculous.

Funny video, intelligent (more info) box.

[WeedOfCrime]

More good news on the Evolution Front:

On December 30th, Kent Hovind's appeal of his conviction on 58 counts of tax evasion, fraud, and criminal malfeasance was officially denied on all counts by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Reverend Doctor Tax Cheat claimed in his appeal that he had no willfully violated the law, which is ridiculous, since he boasted for years about how much smarter he was than other evagelists who actually paid their taxes.

[WeedOfCrime]

This is why creationists will never get it. They can't understand anything above the level of a fairy tale. That must be why they find the Bible so comforting.

Read my lips: Evolution is about the change in SPECIES, not individuals.

[Desertphile]

"Read my lips: Evolution is about the change in SPECIES, not individuals."

Creationists do not dare understand science: they believe their gods will throw them into Hell if they do.

[IAMWHOIAMify]

Yes but to gain a change in species, you would have to have change in an individual who will go on to change the whole species. Or at least that is what evolutionists believe, right?

Furthermore Darwin also believed in a species that is in the middle of evolving into another. We know that these fossils have never been found. Ever. Darwin also acknowledged this in his book, if you ever taken a look. Moreover, you can't read lips.

[Desertphile]

I have no idea what "evolutionists" is/are so I cannot say what it or they "believe."

No, Darwin did not believe species evolve "in the middle" of two species: that is not how evolution works; that is therefore not what evolutionary theory states.

[bloty02]

yes your right, but the change in species couldn't happen without the gradual change in individuals

[micah1116]

Define species, I agree species change, but the changes are limited and a new structure is never formed. And yes individuals would have to change for species to change.

[WeedOfCrime]

"but the changes are limited"

In what way are they "limited", other than by your incredulity. What is the extent of "limitation", and what stops change from progressing beyond the "limit"?

And "new" structures form when old structures develop new functions through mutation. Example: the swim bladders of fish becoming lungs.

[philip1201]

Good.

Please look at wikipedia, list of transitional fossils.

1. As whale evolution and mudskippers have shown, muscles of sea- and landanimals are quite similar.

2. Amphibians were the transition from fully water to fully landborne animals. Being able to live in both environments, they can avoid temperature shifts. Having more freedom in choosing when to go on land would provide a greater advantage without being necissary, therefore it could evolve.

[philip1201]

3. Amphibians can easily replenish their water supply. Being able to feel when that is neccisary is not neccisary, but a great advantage. Therefore it could evolve. The skin of amphibians (and worms) is very thin, but it contains a thick layer of slime. This layer prevents loss of water, much as the wax coat on leaves.

Having a thicker skin of course would also be an advantage, but not necissary.

4. Yes, kidneys are extremely helpful. However, they are not necissary as amphibians have plenty...

[philip1201]

...of water in their environment. This prevents them from going far from water, which is why the storage of water is helpful.

Also, fish have kidneys.

5. Gills and lungs are similar in structure. Early amphibians would have to go underwater to breathe, but they'd have to do that anyway.

I'm not sure, but they might store some water in their mouth so they could stay out of water a little longer.

Frogs have simple baloon-shaped lungs, with very inefficient diffusion. That is still better...

[philip1201]

...than nothing. It evolved from the gas bladder of fish.

Those baloons have little intake speed, so making them dented would help (surface area increases intake speed). Each dent means more surface area, and therefore more oxygen on land. Therefore every small step causes small improvement, so it could evolve.

Wikipedia, helping debunk creationism since 2001.

[ftade]

Yes all from wikipedia... havent you learnt that wiki is not 100% accurate? anyone can edit it and put in random gibberish. so if you want to argue please get a better source.

[philip1201]

If you don't trust wikipedia, click the links at the bottom of the site, and/or check the history if there have been any large changes. (with the transitional fossils, you need to click on the fossil page before you get the links)

Youtube doesn't allow links to be placed in it's comments easily, so you'll have to check it yourself.

To show I'm not bluffing: tiktaalik dot uchicago . edu

Any sort of point against the contents of what i said?

[richard4president]

@philip1201 LOL Wikipedia hasn't debunked a single theory ever in the entire life of the site.

[philip1201]

@richard4president Indeed it hasn't. Creationism is not a theory. (scientific theories are the most accurate model for a certain part of reality in existence. Creationism, obviously is not).

[Desertphile]

"Please look at wikipedia, list of transitional fossils."

I see that fairly recently yet another intermediate species has been discovered and described: _Anchiornis_huxleyi_

Golly, it must really suck to be a Creationist in modern times.

[micah1116]

A transition would be two fossils that are exactly the same except for a new structure, such as gills, legs, etc. Show me one example of this. There should be billions of these, in fact 99% of the fossils we have should show this progression if evolution were true.

[Desertphile]

Tiktaalik.

You're welcome.

Now then: show me your gods.

[micah1116]

Okay, so send me pics. I want one of tiktaalik and one of the other fossil that is exactly the same except for a new structure.

[Desertphile]

Silly. Why not try an argument against what scientists actually assert? Oh, I know why you don't and you know why you don't.

[philip1201]

*seeing if comments are blocked*

[DimitriLozovoy]

What about the amphibians? I have been taught that the move from sea to land was a very gradual process and it would have happened in swampy areas.

[ftade]

People can have their own views, but so far i have not heard of the amphibian story

[DimitriLozovoy]

Well, that's what I learned in geology in college. It makes perfect sense, though.

[FiverBeyond]

In the amphibian theory (which is really well supported in the fossil record), there would never be any need for a single fish to ever become 'super mutated'. Amphibians who can breathe a little air do better, but don't suffocate if it's not %100. The same goes for the stomach, legs, eyes, etc.

TikTaalik really is a killer example of this. Eyes on the top of its head... a neck... and a wrist bone! Even if it couldn't live on permanently on land, it was one heck of a good amphibian!

[richard4president]

@FiverBeyond the fossil record supports creationism

[FiverBeyond]

@richard4president

Really? How does the fossil record support these two claims.

1. The earth is 6,000 years old.

2. All animal species were alive simultaneously at the creation of the earth.

[richard4president]

@FiverBeyond first off, if you look at the theory of the flood... there are squid in the grand canyon's record. How did that happen? Also, it is obvious that a lizard or other larger animals found in the fossil record didnt just die and wait millions of years there for the dirt to slowly cover them.. they would have obviously decomposed before that happened. The fact that bats in the fossil record look just like bats now? Look up how Mt. St. Helen made mini version of the grand canyon.

[FiverBeyond]

@richard4president

Not one fact that you've listed even suggests the 6,000 year old date, nor does it suggest that all animal species were alive simultaneously.

I'll ask again: since you claim that the fossil record supports these ideas, what evidence do you have for either of them?

[richard4president]

@FiverBeyond Maybe you just can't read. Since you obviously can't read and understand facts, refrain from responding to me.

"Debating evolutionist on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a monkey. They knock all the pieces over, dance on the table, try to find bugs in your hair, and then throw poop at you. Then they run back to their tribe and claim victory"

-Jonathan Richard

[FiverBeyond]

@richard4president

** politely tips hat **

[GodGunsGutsGlory777]

@richard4president

HA HA HA! Nice!

That is strangely ACCURATE indeed!

[richard4president]

@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Haha thanks!

[richard4president]

@FiverBeyond Also, check how at the point of the new tiny grand canyon being made, how the rock the volcano made just years earlier, was dated as millions of years old. Maybe carbon dating isn't that accurate hmm?

[FiverBeyond]

@richard4president

In the first place, the "miniature grand canyon" is nothing of the sort (the differences are obvious and key).

In the second place, carbon dating is used to date organic material, not igneous rocks, so I can only conclude that your story about carbon dating being used to date volcanic rocks is a flat-out falsehood (they must've used some other form of dating).

[LittleTruckingBozo]

"Evolutionists claim that one day, a species dwelling in water somehow stepped onto land and was transformed into a land-dwelling species."

No this is not what evolution(ist) claim. Idiot.