Holy faith buried deep inside the ground. Scattered prayers never to be found. A powerful vortex of the only unholy power. Victims of the master daemon's ax. Skull eyes shall weep the tears of blood. Their souls are now as black as night. The mortal remains buried in Lucifer's park. Don't go play over there after dark. I wrote these words with the blood of faith. With the death of light and rotting prayers. Demons and darkness overrun the Earth. Our mission is now complete. Hail Satan!
"Scientific halucinations"..when you see expressions like that you know somebody has escaped from a psych ward somewhere and found a computer with YouTube. : )
Please guys, mammals didn't evolve from shrews. Shrews are modern, living mammals. The earliest mammals were (as we can tell from their skeletons) were tiny with pointy teeth like those of modern insect-eaters -- i.e. shrew-LIKE. Unlike modern shrews, they had a shoulder and ankle more like the egg-laying monotremes, did not yet have the middle ear bones in an enclosed middle ear, and (like monotremes) probably laid eggs and lacked nipples (features only seen in placentals and marsupials)
I personally own transitional fossil that fall between the broad tooth mako (isurus hastalis) and the great white, (charcharodon carcharias). The teeth of the extinct broad tooth mako have a smooth blade. the transitional have a ripples on the blade, and the modern great whites have a fully serrated blade.
Google "first mammals" and you'll see that they were shrews. From these shrews, all mammals are descended. Not only is your great great grandfather a common ancestor with a chimpanzee, but your great great great great grandfather is a shrew. Elephants and giraffes are also descend from shrews. If you care to make some scientific observations, you'll notice that shrews give birth shrews and that genomes are fixed. It is amazing in this day and age that people really believe this fairy tale.
@realhomosapiens No, all mammals evolved from the first mammal, a shrew sized animal. The oldest mammal with teeth like yours was small and ate meat [bugs].
All mammals evolved from the first mammal? wooow...you means bats too?
Listen and listen carefully, that story is even worst than any Creation story, Why? because any Creation story is taken on faith, but your myth is taken as if it were science, something you´re light years away to even began to grasp a clue on it...Tell me something, What would you do if somehow your scientific myth is proven totally and absolutio a flaw?
@realhomosapiens Hello? YES, bats are mammals too. Live birth, produce milk, etc. Whales too. Creationists loved the whales until they found all the transitional fossils.
If the Theory of Evolution was proven wrong scientists would have to come up with a new theory to show how evolution works.
Well if you wish to believe your great-great-great grandpa was a fish, up to you, but please don´t call it science, call it the moder myth about the origins,...there´re the hundred of creation myth and this is just one more added to the list...by the way pakicetus a whales ancestor based on the ear bump is not only non-scientific but ludicrous and in some sense stupid too...BYE
Hi greg once again you, still claiming that there are hundred of hallucinational fossils, right? I bet you´re right, there are millions of them, it´s not a difficult task to take any fossil and turn it into any hallucinational fossil...jejejejejeje...after all that´s how your scientific myth has been supported eversince with pure speculations or better said, hallucinations...have a nice one and keep on hallucinating
Now I see, there is no limits in the realm of scientific hallucinations...congratulations...but hallucinational are not the same as transitional...jejejejejejeje...good try but swing and a missed
Sure I do, I know what exactly a transitional ought to be, but seem to me that according to your definition aaaaaaall creatures that ever lived are transitional...just take a closer look to pakicetus, it´s a transitional? for you it is, Why? because you´re a devoute believer of a scientific hallucination called evolution...no other reason to grasp to, or any?...nooope my friend, your definition of transitional is as ambiguous as the definition of species...nobody knows for sure
Sure I do, What is yours? seems to me yours is as bizarre as the claim that given enough time and some random mutations one of those weird worm like cambrian creatures could ever turn to or evolve into humans...don´t you realize how silly is such a claim? hmmm, I don´t think so, because if you were enough to, you would not deffend such a claim so behemently...I hope you´re enough to understand, if not, don´t hesistate me to help you in such a tought task but I´ll do my best
@realhomosapiens So you agree that there were strange ''worms'' in the Cambian Period about 530 million years ago. And now we have humans today. Yes, that is a very large change over a very long time. How do you think it changed? Poof?
Nooope, the question I make was this: Why are you so proud of being a descendant of one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creatures? Why are you so sure that starfishes are your cousins?, that really blows my mind that a modern representative of the homo-sapiens-sapiens believes in such a ludicrous claim...Why do you believe you descend from one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creatres?...such a claim is incredible but beliving it, it´s incredible the most
There's nothing to really prove here, theres simply knowledge that needs to be explained to someone that claims because something is "silly" (subjectively) that it is not true. Last time i checked liking something doesn't make it any more or less true than it actually it is.
Nooope, the observational data indicates that, finches produce only finches a wide variety of species, rabbits produces only rabbits, a wide variety of them and the list goes on an on, but your scientific MYTH asserts against all odds that given enough time a weird worm like cambrian marine creature about two inches long produced humans, let alone all the creatures along the road...that my friend is stupidity in a nut shell, actually it´s against the observational data...capizca?
@gregrutz I believe in evolution because it has been proven. All scientists accept evolution. DNA is the best evidence. It shows how everything is related to everything.
So you believe evolution turned or tranformed those creatures into you? I mean, I know it took eons of time, but just take a look a pikaia gracilens and you and inmediately you´ll see that you are way too different...Why do you believe in such a ludicrous claim? that really blows my mind, and you?
Tell me, Whay test or experiment did scientists conduct that proves that given enough time plus some random mutations and natural selection could turn one of those weird cambrian marine creatures into humans, let alone all the creatures along the road? because that´s exactly what you believe and of course evolution which according to you it´s a fact and I don´t deny it...What kind of test or experiment was done to prove that your great-great-great-grandpa is one of those creatures?
@realhomosapiens WTF??? Test? We have the fact the there were strange marine creatures 530 million years ago, We have the fact the dinosaurs changed over 160 Million years. We have the fact that we are classified as tetrapods, mammals, primates, apes, humans. We are not testing anything, science is showing how this chain of events happened.
We have the fact the there were strange marine creatures 530 million years ago,
We have the fact the dinosaurs changed over 160 Million years
We have the fact that we are classified as tetrapods, mammals, primates, apes, humans
None of these three FACTS provide neither proof nor evidence that your great-great-great-grandpa was of those weird worm like cambrian marine creatures? I hope you´re enough to understand...NOW, Why do you believe in such a ludicrous claim?
First of all, I´m not obligated to give any explanation, second it´d be irrelevant...NOW, the next obvious question for you is: Where did all cambrian creatures came from? Where did the jelly-fish came from? Where did the extremely trilobites eyes come from? saying that they evolved from thin air is just silly...I guess you´ve been misleaded to believe in a scientific hallucination for which you have no evidence whatsoever and desperated try to deffend it and you have no evidence
Sure they did, but Where are they? arguing that they evolved from their ancestor constitute no evidence whatsoever, Why you can even grasp that?, no offense intended, but seems to me you have a mentar disorder...
Where jellyfish evolved from? What creatures the descender from? Where all of those creatures that appeared in the Cambrian era evolved from? you have no idea, ALL you can say is: They evolved from their ancestor...the evolution DID IT theory, right?...that´s not science
@realhomosapiens Yes, it is science. You should try reading one some time.
Everyone in the Cambrian Period had a mom and a dad just like today.
Do you think trilobites just ''poof'' appeared 530 million years ago.
Do you think ''poof'' dinosaurs just appeared 225 million years ago and ruled the earth for 160 million years unchanged. No, they changed, it is in the fossil record.
That is why creationists won't look at the fossils record, >Fossils just mean something died<
If trilobites and jelly-fishes plus so many other creatures in the Cambrian Period had a mom and dad just like today, Where is the evidence? saying that they evolved from . . . . who know what is neither an argument nor evidence to support your claim...Why you can understand it?...Now if trilobites and jelly-fishes fossils have been found in the Cambrian period, Where did they come from? Tell me where are their ancestors and you win, deal?
Once again, saying that the evidence is in the fossil record does not make any evidence at all for you scientific myth...
Tell me Who is the ancestor of those Jelly-Fish?
I understand that your scientific myth assumes that, but Who are they? I mean, What did the Jelly-Fish ancestor look like or Who were those ancestors?...any idea what creature it was?
Still waiting for your explanation Where did jelly-fish evolve from? and not only that, you´ve got to show me the evidence not only make arguments out of the blue sky...jejejejejejeje
You couldn´t show me any evidence to support your scientific myth, therefore your eery silence is enough proof and evidence that there is no proof an evidence to support your stupid belief...hope this time you´ll take a closer look at what your modern cult is all about and halt mocking the Bible and find out how silly, stupid if you will is what you actually strongly believe and so behemently deffend...please notice that no offense has I ever intended...have a nice one
Watch this and watch that, don´t you have balls to show me your evidence...yeap, give a call to DonExodus2 he can explain you...nooope, I´m you to provide the evidence that those jelly-fish found in the cambrian era evolved from some mythical creatures, and I called mythical since there is not a shred of evidence for it...hence it´s a myth...
Now, if you´re eager to believe in this stupidity, my friend it´s your choice, but please don´t call it science on don´t be proud of it, deal?
I´m convinced of evolution, What I´m not and never will is that evolution was the driving force that turned or changed one of those weird cambrian marine creatures into you, something you´re allways eager to deffend, but when asked to provide proof and evidence for such a ludicrous and certainly stupid belief either you send me to DonExodus2 videos or ...you run away...now you have some homework to do, take a closer look at your belief lest you´re believing in a scientific myth..bye
But how on earth you think you can change anybodys mind, and make me believe that one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creatures is my great-great-great-grandpa? you´ve got to be hallucinating...but if that´s what you have been misleaded to believe, well, let me tell you something, I don´t admire neither your intelligence nor your education but your faith, in order to believe in such a claim all you need is faith, deep faith...the question is, Who has been brainwashed?
@realhomosapiens I ask you three time if I showed you the evidence you demand would you '' Believe' in evolution. Nothing will, so you are the one who is brainwashed.
What is your theory to explain the 530 million year old strange marine creatures that was the most advanced life on earth.
For the n-th time, you have not explained anything, Where are the ancestors of Jelly-Fish, they lived more than 530 millions years ago, where are the ancestors of Horseshoe crab, trilobites and the list goes on and on, WHERE ARE THEY? if we have been able to find bacteria fossils dating 3,850 millions years old,Why there is not a shred of ancestry of any cambrian creatures? if they DID evolve, show me your evidence, do not just claim they did, proof and evidence please...
@realhomosapiens There aren't any jelly fish fossils before jelly fish evolved. There are alway more primitive ancestors in older rock, like you say, going back 3,850 million years.
Watch ''transitional fossils New'' by you know who.
Wait a minute.......there aren´t any jelly fish fossils before jelly fish evolved? sure there aren´t...
Jelly-fish just burst up in the fossil record...so once again, Where are the ancestors for jelly-fish?, I understand, after they "appeared" notice the word, APPEARED, of course they evolved into more what? I bet you´re right, jelly fish...but where did the jelly-fish come from before they evolved into more species of jelly-fish? that´s the NEXT obvious on obligated question...cont
If there aren´t any jelly fish fossils before they evolved, so you´re confirming my point, jelly-fish just burst up from nowhere at all...so they did not evolve or what...there must be ancestors for these beautifull creatures, according to your scientific myth it is not possible that they just appeared out of nothing, THERE MUST BE ANCESTORS if your scientific myth is true, Who are they? extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidences, did you know that? if not, now you know
@realhomosapiens So what you actually mean is 'No'. You've moved the criteria from begin an objective standpoint ('If you show me the fossil proof then I will accept it') to a subjective one ('If you show me the fossil proof AND I get to choose it's validity without evidence, then I will accept it') as you said by your "Hallucinational fossils" statement. You have already made the decision that any fossil given to you that doesn't fit in with your view is invalid for no logical reason.
First of all, believing that your great-great-great-grandpa was one of those weird worm like Cambrian marine creatures is insane, secondly considere such a claim as a scientific statement it´s a stupidity of its kind...
Now, if you have a flawness definition of what a transitional fossil is all about, then you have a very serious scientific problem at the very begining and everything that follows is garbage...period...me entendiste?
@realhomosapiens And a thousand years ago to believe that the earth orbited the sun was just as ridiculous seeming. Just because you cannot comprehend or are ignorant of it doesn't make it wrong. The data matches the hypothesis and has done so unequivocally for over a hundred years; it is the unifying theory of biology for a reason and is excepted amongst the scientific community as fact.
If you doubt the existence or meaning of transitional fossils then it is you, good sir, who has a problem.
Nooope, first at all, that a thousand years ago to believe that the earth orbited the sun bla bla bla, has nothing to do with my question and supports not your scientific mythology, OK? so let´s save time and grieve...
Now, if you have been deceived to believe that pakicetus is a transitional fossil to whales then you do really have a problem, either with what a transitional fossil is all about or a cognivite one, on either case you have to work it out...me entendiste?
@realhomosapiens A transitional fossil is a fossil that serves as a link between taxonomic groups. The Archaeopteryx is one between dinosaurs and birds. Pakicetus was a terrestrial ancestor to the whales. Titaalik was the link between fish-likes and terrestrial reptile-likes. These are more famous examples but only a few of thousands.
Evolution is scientific fact. To argue otherwise is like trying to argue the moon is made of cheese; you are provably wrong. End of 'discussion'.
Wait a minute, Pakicetus a terrestrial ancestor to sea dwelling creatures? you´ve got to be kidding, but assuming that such an assumption is true, How do you know it is true? I mean what is the evidence to claim that pakicetus is a whale ancestor? I don´t see any conexion other than a scientific hallucination and just in case, hallucinations support not your myth, not even scientific ones
@realhomosapiens Yes, because we can trace their ancestry with various intermediate forms (just google whale evolution for some more ancestors) from that ancestor to modern whales and see their evolutionary lines which fits in with the correct time line, skeletal structure and geographical location etc. You can even see the nasal passage move from the snout to the top of the head where whales have it today. I mean, there is no one form between a baby and an old man, but lots of little stages.
Wait a minute, we can trace their ancestry with varios intermediate forms?
One by one, don´t hurry up....Why pakicetus is a whale ancestor? me quiero reir un poco, estoy algo aburrido, come on make my day, Mr.Evolutionoid...sin espongarse, ehhh
@realhomosapiens As I said, Just browse google scholar if you want some scientific peer-reviewed papers and you'll find a lot of information of the basics of whale evolution on the net. Simply, it goes like this in genus: Indohyus > Pakicetidae > Ambulocetidae > Protocetidae > Dorudontinae (and a split here into Basilosauridae branch) > Odontoceti (toothed whales)and Mysticeti (baleen whales). If you want more info, I'm sure there is a natural history museum or some books...
If I want more scientific hallucinations, yes, there are plenty...I just need to read N. Shubbin´s Your Inner Fish, but frankly, I don´t read science fiction...it´s boring and non-profitable, at least for science education....jejejejejeje...no te esponges...es la neta
@realhomosapiens Y'know, talking to you is like talking to a strange bilingual wall. I throw evidence and explanations at you but you just block them with pointless denial and ignorant mockery. There are people who make a living studying evolutionary history, taxonomy and genetics; people who produce research and peer-reviewed paper.
You and people who think like you, have failed to produce any evidence and any peer-reviewed research. You have given nothing of scientific value.
@TheBanile I think we are wasting our time here, the only way this guy will learn is on his own, through a knot hole, kicking and screaming as he goes. For all we know he could be a troll or a poe.
@Antimidation Aye, likely. One day these people are just going to have to realise that the world and scientific progress has moved on... 100 years or so before they were born, oddly enough. Some people just don't like change I guess.
Unfortunately the troll and the genuine creationist-type are awfully similar....
Thowing me evidence?....you show me a fossil and assert that such a fossil is the ancestor of modern whaels just because a tiny similarity in the skull inner bone. excuse me, I´m an skeptic and I have freedom to despise such a ridiculous scientific fables...
Unless you give me strong evidence on how one of those weird cambrian marine creatures could turn or change into humans, I will continue despising your scientific myth...me entendiste?
I don't see the point here. You will close your eyes to anything I could ever give you for an answer. If i give you a fossil you will deny that it has anything to do with human evolution because you don't understand genome sequencing or the phylogenic tree. You are starting to sound like a typical creationist now....you think simply because the notion is too complex it's not worth your time to understand, then you mock us by saying you are fan of the sciences. I think you're a troll.
@realhomosapiens You make science sound like a popularity contest which is a down right shameful way to think. Science doesn't care about what's popular, it cares about what's true....as time passes, we gain knowledge and depending on that knowledge we adjust, maintain, or rethink certain things. And you know what? Evolution has passed the test of time....it stopped being a debate 100 years ago. It's passed all updated knowledge SIINCE.
Nooope, I make a scientific myth sounds as what it really is, a scientific fairy tale for gullible grown up which it´s taught as it were science, when in reality is garbage...no one in a righ mind would believe that given enough time a worm like cambrian creature, turned or changed into humans, I don´t buy that for a second, Do you? if you do, what proof or evidence have you been given that have lead you to such a deception?
@realhomosapiens It's because we can trace back those similarities and they all fit in a timeline cohenrently. It's like a crime-scene; no one was there to see it but you can trace the evidence for it clearly enough. There are so many papers on it if only you'd bother to look rather than just dismissing it. Are you going to deny the Theory of Radiation next? Or the Germ Theory? Because they relies on the same process.
I mean, what proof do you have that species DON'T evolve?
Once again and for the N-time... provide any relatedness between any of the cambrian era creatures and the ordivician era...let´s save time and grieve and focus on my question...you keep focussing on my persons and the germ theory and all of that...if your scientific fable is true and it´s overwhelmingly supported as you have been deceived to belive please answer my question and I´ll turn into a devoted-fundamentalist-extremist-incurable and incorregible evolutionist, zas? (deal?)
I haven´t said that species DO NOT evolve, actually evolution it´s a fact, ..but if by evolution you mean that humans evolved from one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creatures, nooope, that´s stupidity on a nut shell, no offense intended, I don´t need evidence for evolution, there´re plenty, GIVE ME solid evidenceS that evolution is the driving force that brough you here out of one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creatures and you win, Will you pleae?
@realhomosapiens Okay so, wait? You believe evolution is fact but either humans are excluded from this process or you don't understand how we came from primitive simple multicelluar species (like that of the pre Cambrian era)?
I'm sure if you researched this yourself you can get a satisfactory answer, rather than relying on me to find things. Admittedly, the Cambrian period is not as well-documented, as the fossil record isn't complete, but I'm sure there are good books on it.
Nooope, I didn´t say that, listen and listen carefully...if by evolution you mean-change over time, descent with modification, allele frequency changes in a given population, etc, BTW there several other definitions for evolution, yes, evolution it´s a fact, BUT and oooh what a big but, by evolution you meand that humans descend from one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creatures, that my friend is silly, anti-scientific and stupid (no offense intended)...me entendiste?
@realhomosapiens So yes, it is the Cambrian explosion you have problems with.
Again, like I said, it's a hard area scientifically because the fossil record is very incomplete; phylum diverge a lot during that period but we don't get the more defined stages we have with later periods of history. Don't be fooled by the name though, the Cambrian explosion was a very long period of history with plenty of time for the diverse phyla that we see coming from the organisms of that time.
@realhomosapiens The Cambrian explosion doesn't really contend any major problems for evolution, being perfectly consistent if just unusual; it just shows incomplete areas of the fossil record, a natural assumption considering fossilisation is a rare process. And it poses no problem for you really, our lineage from the Cambrian is rather more solid.
I'm sure there are some books out there that can explain it better than me, I don't know a lot about that time period specifically.
If fossilisation is a rare process, then Why there are by the millions of them in karoo formation and many other formations? seems to me fossilisation is not that rare but very common, so resort to a rare process is delusional and deceptive, check it out
@realhomosapiens Consider how many individual animals have lived throughout the many billion of years there has been life on this planet; a million or so is a tiny amount in total. Fossilation is the exception, not the rule and the conditions for fossilation do not happen as often as we'd like, or the fossil record would be much more complete; instances such as Karoo are rare (I have heard of almost none like it) and estimates for the amount of fossils there vary wildly.
Exactly, conduct a serious research on how fossilation works?
You´ll find out that rapid burial is the most important? if no rapid burial, no fossils...
Now what could have caused the rapid burial of so many billions of fossils in karoo formation? don´t tell me all those creatures were living there...I think you have to conduct a serious an objetive research on these matters, seems to me your educational systems have deeple deluded your...sorry about that, check it ou
@realhomosapiens But rapid burial is not the only way and there are other kinds of fossilation processes such as freezing or low oxygen or dry environments. As for Karoo, as I mentioned, the estimates of how many fossils are there vary wildly & have factors that affect calculations (such as assuming a constant rate). That said, why is rapid burial not applicable? It has many strata of million of years & contains marine glacial fossils in the current Karoo supergroup basin.
But the question remains, Did all those creatures used to live in that are in particular? Common sense and observational data indicates NO.-
Now, did you know that all the fossils that have been found are pretty indicated that those creatures were struggling to survive in a rapid mud burial? actually we would not have any fossils if not for a rapid burial process that took place in the past, actually NASA researches corroborate this, don´t let the fools fool you, be objetive
@realhomosapiens And even if rapid burial was the only way for fossilation to occur (which it isn't), why does this point to anything other than little local floods, tropical conditions such as mangroves or swamps, aquatic environments (as almost all Cambrian and pre-Cambrian animals were) or other natural and normal occurrences of rapid burial?
As for that matter, what do you believe happened instead of evolution, as, from your comments alone, I'm finding it hard to determine. And also, why?
BTW, I did forget to thank you for respectfull conversation, I do not debate any disrespectull person, so once again, I do really appreciate your respectullness...thank you
@realhomosapiens Your problem seems to be more that you don't understand or don't want to understand how we evolved from simple marine organisms to the complex structures we are today. And your confusing this judgement with a scientific perspective; science doesn't deal with what sounds the nicest or is the easiest to understand, it deals with the evidence, the facts, the data. And this points to evolution from single-celled organisms to complex structures we have now.
And you seem to understand such an unrealistic process and when asked for any evidence to support it, you have none...
Now, bacterias produce only bacterias, chimpanzees produce only chimpanzees, finches produce only finches and the list goes on and on and on, so Where did scientists get the idea that givn enough time simple marine organism which by the way were not simple, that´s bigotry, but that aside, turned or evolved into humans? that´s a huge scientific halluciantion
@realhomosapiens Evolution does not dispute that finches produce finches. However, those finches are not genetically identical and variation will occur; over larger periods of time this variation between generations, spurred by natural selection will mean that the differences will get larger and more apparent with each successive offspring.
And they were 'simple' biologically; not particularly complex structures in modern terms; not meant as a slight towards our ancestors.
Sure, we are not identical to our parents, does it mean that in the future we will turn or become something other than humans? not at all...variations between generations DID NOT turn one of those weird worm like creatures into a fish and then into an amphibian and then into a reptile...bla bla bla and kaboom here we are...that´s plain stupid (no offense intended) and that´s exactly what your scienticif myth asserts and you willfully believe...and that, is not science !!!
@realhomosapiens What is to stop this? What genetic barriers exist to say that one day, our very distant descendants do not resemble us closely and be a different species, possibly one that looks nothing like us in the long time it takes for more dramatic evolution to happen? As I said; small changes in shot times and big changes in long times. The evolution from fish-like ancestors to modern mammalian ones is rather more well documented the closer you get to modern day.
Do you see now? what is to stop this? first of all, the question implies that "THIS" was the driving force that turned one of those weird worm like cambrian creatures into humans and that is a horrible conclusion or assumption, I´ll go on and say a scientific hallucination at its highest degree...The evolution from fish-like ancestor . . . this comment shows that you have been endoctrinated to believe the scientific myth...cont
@realhomosapiens Transitional fossils are not hallucinations or fabrications, you can find loads of examples and clear transitions between different species, genus and families, that a consistent within the strata; so well understood what it that lead to the discovery of Tiktaliik, one of the important transitional fossils. In essence, all fossils are transitional. And the fossil record is highly backed by biology and archaeology and their methods. To dismiss it is simply denial..
I highly encourage you, actually I do urge you to find out why punctuated equilibrium came into being...the whale evolution, the horse evolution and ALL the supposedly transitional fossil are nothing more than fabrications...what a Darwin worshiper do is to put his or her imagination to work full throtle, for instance IDA...there is not a single link between one species and the next ones above in the fossil record between any strata, species appeared fully formed out of the blue sky
@realhomosapiens Why is the conclusion, with such vast evidence throughout the study of biological science alone, evolutionary theory is often nicknamed the 'uniting theory' as it links so many aspects of biology and chemistry together, seemingly ridiculous? This is a rather flimsy argument and a logical fallacy at best. Science doesn't deal with assumptions, it deals with facts and evolutionary theory is as much accepted as the theory of gravity and the theory of radiation.
@realhomosapiens Science also has nothing to gain by lying to scientists or itself. Why bother? What is the point? The motivation? Do you have evidence contrary to evolution besides being dismissive or denial of the facts? What proof for your theory (which, at this point, seems to only point to animals being poofed into existence by, presumably, magic). What evidence do you have the all the creatures were struggling against rapid burial? How can you even verify that with only a mineral skeleton?
What evidence do you have the all the creatures were struggling against rapid burial? How can you even verify that with only a mineral skeleton?, hmmm, now I see the point, better said, your point, you have not read articles that undermines your scientific myth, that´s why I told you, they have lied to you, you should ask your money back...struggling against rapid burial is the most common event in almost all fossils found...but that aside, little local floods could save the problem
@realhomosapiens again, I must ask what verification you have for the statement that "struggling against rapid burial is the most common event in almost all fossils found"? Where did you get this evidence. From my understanding and interest in palaeontology, most fossils are of animals that simply died and were buried; it's very hard to verify the cause of death, especially with something like drowning which leaves no visible mark on the position or on the skeleton itself.
First of all the scientific myth is a business, Do you know how much money did Richard & Mary Leakey earn? and you know who is in charge for this business now? your´e right, their son...
What evidence do I have contrary to the stupid idea that humans descend from a weird worm like cambrian marine creature? coming up next . . .
1.-Sudden appearence and 2.-Stasis, BUT, and oooh what a big but, the most important, which is observable, testable, and has proven over and over again is:
@realhomosapiens Science is not an industry in and of itself; it is however a tool used in well... almost every other industry. The pharmaceutical industry is a big one, for example. But y'know what? Creationism is it's own business too. That said, I fail to see how having a business out of science is credibility against it? After all, much of the industry relies on it being correct; medicine for example. Without science, including evolution, it would fall without profit...
I bet you´re right, unfortunatelly, we have made business from almost everything, abortion, war, slavery, medicine, and the list goes on and on, in that you´re absolutely right...
I do relay on true science every single moment, actually right now on this comment, but that aside, my point is that there is not any empirical evidence on any natural mechanism that CAN turn a fish into an amphibian or an amphibian into a reptile and a reptile into a mammal...NONE, only hallucinations
@realhomosapiens "not any empirical evidence on any natural mechanism that CAN turn a fish into an amphibian.." etc. Well, no, fish don't turn into amphibians, that's silly. But they do have a gradual progression of linages.
Well here I'd like to point out you are basically wrong. Genetics completely destroys that, as does natural selection and adaptation and the mechanisms of passing genes on. The fossil record denies it too, with the radiometric and geological evidence for it.
Fishes in just one generation do not produce amphibians...that´s for sure, but what about given some hundred millions years? that´s exactly what the silly theory asserts...just give enough time and everything can change into anything, and THAT is a scientific hallucination, a fable, a fairy tale taught in prestigious universities as it were science and theres is not a single shred of evidence to support such a claim, only assumptions blind speculations, hallucinations if you will
Well, no, fish don´t turn into ampibians, that´s silly....hmmm, I bet you´re right, but given 500 millions years is not silly but science right? the next obvious question, What kind of science? vooodo science?....your SILLY theory asserts with no evidence whatsoever, that given enough time on a primordial soup a simple single cell appeared somehow and turned into everything, plants and animals living and extinct, if that is not silly, then what is silly for you?
@realhomosapiens First of all, the Cambrian period and after was hardly 'sudden'. It was quick in evolutionary terms but it still took millions of years. I fail to see what exactly stasis has to do with it, could you explain your point a little more? Again, imperfect fossil records, this is not a nicely recorded period and of course the 'rate' of change, as it were, will depend on environmental pressures.
Also, you appear to have forgot the main point of your argument?
"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history....Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equall. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)
@realhomosapiens "One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."
The point is that just because evolution has some periods of time where things are not as clear cut as we would like it to be, does not make the hand-waving justification that "Well God must have done it". That is fallacious, having even less evidence behind it that the explanation is just that we don't have the technology or maybe the good luck to find the precise fossils we need, due to their very nature unfortunately. Like I said, imperfect record.
First all I want to point out that even if God does not exist, even so, the notion, concept, idea or scientific hallucination that humans evolved from one of those weird cambrian marine creatures remains as the greatest stupidity of humankind ever made in the name of science...better for scientist to say WE DON´T KNOW, I do accept that, but giving that explanation I do find extremely stupid and totally unsuported by REAL SCIENCE.
BTW I love science, real science not vooodo science
@realhomosapiens Your argument at the moment is basically "that sounds silly", and although you say that evidence points against it, you have provided none, not even an explanation of how it would work or how these things are explained without evolution. Every textbook, scientific paper, science journal, or article I have ever read has always taken evolution to be true, and all the evidence I've ever seen has unanimously conformed to the rules of evolution.
First of all, you have to determine and make it crystal clear that such an explanation (evolution) is ludicrous, the observational data does not fit with the theory...and don´t tell me it does, because if it did, punctuated equilibrium would not have come into existence, and it did, therefore gradualism has been discarded...now if you have been misleaded to believe that it does fit, I highly encourage you to conduct a serious and objertive research on the issue...seriously I do
@realhomosapiens Evolution doesn't contest that "finches produces finches, rabbits produces rabbits, pigeons produces pigeons", but it does say, as I think I'm mentioned before, that the offspring is not identical to the parent genetically; it has subtle variations or some mutation that it's parents didn't have. Over time, through natural selection and environmental factors, genes that are beneficial or benign show through and new species are born.
How do mutation bridge the genes number from one specie to another...some species just have a few chromosomes and some have hundreds of them...it´s not that simple....
Once again, new species have and will arise of the same creature...
Have you ever heard of a frog turning into a prince, well with the except of a few changes the story is the same one...evolution (weird worm cambrian creatures to humans) is a fairy tale, a scientific one, nevertheless a fairy tale.
@realhomosapiens The gap has been bridged; we can see most of it through the fossil record and the geological technology that helps put it into context. We can trace more 'recent' ancestors through our genes; changes in genes can be traced as they leave genetic markers; for example, most hominids have 24 chromosomes whereas we only have 23 pairs, however, with analyse of chromosome 2 we saw the that it was a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.
@realhomosapiens And again, these genetics links can and have been traces way back, supported by the overwhelming evidence in the fossil and geological record. Small genetic changes can make a huge amount of difference. I mean, humans and chimpanzee DNA is amazingly similar, but it makes a big different in the large scale. Again, this is undisputed in the scientific community because the evidence for it is overwhelming. Your disbelief is neither proof nor fact.
@TheBanile I mean, all life uses the same nucleic acid sequences for DNA, the fossil record provides anatomical convergences and lineages of so many forms of life, which the recent explosion in genetic technology has supported. the further back we go, the hard it is due to poor fossilising conditions or simply destruction of fossils, but even then we have a good idea; Myllokunmingia and Haikouichthys provide the earliest examples of the emergence of true vertebrates, for example.
There were plenty of creatures in the cambrian era, actually some of them still alive today, unchanged by the way...and there were plenty of creatures in the next layer, the ordovician era, according to your myth, give just ONE creature from the cambrian era that is related to any creature in the ordivician era, just ONE and I´ll worship Charly, zas? expression for deal...saludos, estas haciendo buen trabajo, gracias
@realhomosapiens You are slightly wrong; if you are referring to lampreys and hagfish, whilst they do bare many similarities to their ancestors, they are not 'unchanged'. And evolution doesn't state everything has to change, only if it has the environmental pressure to. As for a link, the two groups I mentioned lead to the of Ostracoderms, jawless fish of which there were quite a few groups, the development of the head seen in Pikaia and Branchiostoma in the Cambria also.
So the environment changes affected some species and no others...come on, give me a break, did those unchanged creatures lived in an unchanging buble or what? that´s explanation is ludicrous, at least I don't even buy i for free...in an everchanging planet there were some very special areas (bubles) so no change will take place...so there should have been a thousands of bubles since we have many plants and animals that have no changed at all throughout time
@realhomosapiens Well that's the point, evolution doesn't dictate that things have to change. This is part of the 'natural selection'; if a particular variation or a mutation is beneficial to the survival of that individual and it's offspring then it's genes will be more likely to pass on and spread around the surviving population.
And, as pointed out in this very video, so many of the 'unchanged' creatures are not actually 'unchanged', just similiar, so that argument is false.
Wrooooooon again, MORE & MORE frequently diabetis is present in humans being, the gene causing this disease is getting widely spread to humans race and don´t tell me that this mutation is beneficial to the survival of any human being offspring...now the next obvious question is: Why natural selection has not eliminated this gene in any given human population?
Nooope, nautilus are the very same nautilus than when they appeared the very fist time in the fossil record...wrong again
@xochitlcitlali For your diabetes argument I'd like to present the fact that diabetes can be caused by environmental factors rather than just genetics, so it doesn't affect genes that affect adaptation. And also, modern medicine counter-acts the diabetic selection process, it's no longer a factor in the breeding survival of humans.
Also, nautili are an entire family and, from what I gather, none of the original species remain. Morphologically they are similar but not identical.
@TheBanile For example, our current surviving nautiloids have a much thicker shells than their ancestor, hypothesised to be an adaptation for greater depths than their ancestors, possibly because of out-competition with new predators. Nautiloids, whilst very similar to their ancestors, are not identical and therefore so say they are the same is incorrect. Many species of nautiloids and some of the offshoots of that family also died out many years ago.
The interpretation of those similarities are ludicrous...humans and chimpz are supposedly 98% similar at DNA level, but chimpz and bonobos which are more close related should be more than 98% similar but they are less than 97%, there you have serious problem...now, humans and sheeps are 85% similar but in the outside we are quite different, aren´t we? how about humans and bananas, we share 60% plus similarities in DNA but, have you ever compared to a banana? think about it
@realhomosapiens And if anything that DNA evidence proves my point; even that tiny 15% different in DNA of sheep and human creates a very different animal, so the slight variation in genes can produce very different animals, especially when it;s extended and increases over many generations. I'd like to point out that bonobos are a species of chimp; though I'm interested in where you got that figure comparing bonobos to common chimpanzees, as I cannot find it anywhere.
@realhomosapiens In fact, having a look around, most information I've found seem to refute you, as the differences in bonobo and chimpanzee genomes is put at just 0.3 %. But, if you have the study where you got your figure from, I'd been happy to look at it and the relevant material..
@realhomosapiens The main rule is that, most of the time, small amounts of time show small changes and larger amounts of time show larger differences until the two are very different (though there are exceptions when the environment doesn't push selection). The fossil record supports this, as we can trace the lineages of certain animals fairly well throughout history. That's how it works, through changes in genetics, and the selection that is beneficial to some of these changes.
It´s just because a Cessna 182 can fly non-stop from LAX to SFO we can assume that given 600 my such an aircraft would reach the outer most part of our galaxy, it will never happen, just because we see speciation it does not mean that humans descend from one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creature, leeeeet alone all the creatures along the road.- Why you can not see the unsurmountable gap that needs to be bridged?
@realhomosapiens We have observational data of these changes in genes happening, but if you're expecting finches to suddenly produce rabbits then you are not only being unscientific but also unreasonable; you'd have to wait a good million or two years to see any real major differences. But the, like I say, the genetic markers and the fossil record provide good evidence of small fish-like animals adapting into land-bound creatures or certain dinosaur lines that started the birds.
@realhomosapiens And again you, your argument is still just argumentum ad ignorantiam and reductio ad ridiculum. Despite me pointing this out, you provide none of this observational data that disproves evolution entirely or even the research you said you have done. You assert that it sounds silly but provide no substance. So what if it sounds silly to you? That's subjective; and, regardless, the evidence contradicts you. if If you don't like it; tough! It's a scientific Theory.
@realhomosapiens And again, for evidence I must point to all the genetics, the fossil record, the schools of geology and plate tectonics, what we know and have observed in nature from bacteria to animals etc etc.
Your argument is still just humming argumentum ad ignorantiam and reductio ad ridiculum. You provide no evidence or explanation, just ignorant mockery, and it's quite frankly, becoming a waste of time. You have no interest in learning or the facts.
Your argument is still just humming argumentum ad ignorantiam and reductio ad ridiculum. You provide no evidence or explanation. . .
My argumentation is what the observational data is crying all around us...finches produces finches, rabbits produces rabbits, pigeons produces pigeons, more specifically, fishes produces ONLY fishes, and mammals only mammal, Where did you get the idea that given roughly 600 my to a worm like cambrian marine creature could produce humans? that´s silly
Nooope, the AAAAAAALL the observational data available nowadays point to anything else other that humans evolved from a worm like cambrian creature...that´s plain stupid...
I understand that science does not deal with supernatural, and that depending on what definition of supernatures scientist use, because to be honest, evolutionary biologist as Ricky DOES believe in supernatural...once again show me a mechanism that can bridge the unsumountable transformation for your "theory"
Now, if you can provide any proof or evidence of any cambrian marine creatures relatedness with one in the upper layer, believe me I´ll turn into a fundamentalist, extremist, radical, incorregible, consumed and totally deffender of the scientific myth you´re believing in...since no evidence has even been shown and never will, I regard your theory as what it really is, a scientific myth, a fairy tale for gullible grown ups, taught at prestigious universities as it were science.
If that were the case, we wouldn´t have the karoo formation and many other around the world...your answer is just the last refuge to hide away when no impirical evidence is not found to support your scientific fable...BTW, nobody will find any evince, you know why? because a scientific myth has not evidence at all, plain and simple....jejejeje...no te esponges
Evolution is not a ladder but a tree? hmmm, let´s see, let´s star from to top to button...
Where does humans come from? I understand is a tough question that nobody has a clue on it, but go ahead and give to this guy a name, whichever you want...I´ll prove your indoctrination system have made an utter brain-washed out of you, Don´t forget to ansewer my previous question about the relatedness between any cambrian marine creatures to one of those in the ordovicioan era
@realhomosapiens We know the relationship of humans to all other living things by the sequencing of our genome, all living things are made up of similar things. We know HOW similar we are to all things that can be sequenced. Where are you going with this? Are you asking for a specific split from certain creatures?
Well, at DNA level we are 80% plus similar to sheeps and 50% plus to bananas, actually we are 95% plus similar to chimpanzees but chimpanzees and bonobos are LESS that 95% among them when it should not be the case, so your similarity is worthless...any other clue on Why you believe your great-great-great-grandpa is one of those weird cambrian marine creatures and a startfish is your cousin? If and oooh what a big if, IIIIIIIF your scientific myth is true...jejeje...no te esponges
You can trace or you can imagine, assume, or hallucinate of any whale ancestry?
Give a strong evidence on Why pakicetus is a whales ancestor?
BTW, your assertion that there is no one form between a baby and an old man is flaw one, if my theory be true numberless intermediate must have existed...you can hallucinate that pakicetus is a whale ancestor, Why? because you have no choice, either you show your intemediate fossils or your theory is going to be fossilized...capizca?
@realhomosapiens Large number of intermediaries probably did exist, however fossilation, as a process, is very rare, so we only get a few snatches of the million of forms. Like taking photographs, to stick with the baby to man one; just because you don't have a photo of when you were 12, doesn't mean it never happened.
Pakicetus is a whale ancestor do the the unique morphology that it shares with the whale line, particularly the skull.
If fossilization were a very rare process we wouldn´t have that millions and millions of fossils out there at museums, let alone those not unearthed yet...your argument is silly in fallacious...
don´t you have a better one?
Just because a part of the internal ear bone is similar it´s enough to claim packietus is a whale ancestor? hmmm, I´m not stupid enough to believe it, are you?
@realhomosapiens Billions and billions of generations of organisms have lived on this world. Sure, we have millions of fossils, but that's only a tiny fraction of the sheer amount of creatures that have lived and died on this earth.
Also, quite a few fossils in museums are replicas for display purposes, as fossils are very valuable and often delicate. Most of the actual fossils are kept in a storage area for study and preserving.
@realhomosapiens You are wrong on a few important things here. And you classically sound like a creationist with blinders on and I'm willing to bet wouldn't know what evidence is if it bit him in the face...much less someone actually playing your game of "show me the transitional fossil" and the HIGHLY unlikely event that you would actually find the evidence compelling and indeed change your view over night. You fail to realize one key point, ALL fossils are transitional.
@realhomosapiens Take up the challenge please. You are not original...if you say that evolution is a lie...then prove it and go through the proper channels to get your paper reviewed. You sound convinced that common science is deceiving people....but for what purpose you don't reveal. My point is, science is a system that does not allow bias opinions to pollute anything, that's why they are called peer reviewed and by that i mean reviewed by all countries and all branches of science.
@realhomosapiens That's how we come to understand something to be as close to truth as we can, by testing a hypothesis and if it passes countless scrutiny and tests it then becomes a theory. You are lying to yourself sir, i must kindly disagree with your off handedness when it comes to evolution. Let me say it again....your idea or thought or any of your "questions that stump evolutionists" aren't original. I can give you modern examples of evolution if you would like.
I don´t want modern examples of evolution, actually there are plenty, I myself have witnessed evolution in my back yard...I´m not askin fro examples of evolution, I´m asking and hence despising the stupid idea that evolution was the driving force that turned one of those weird cambrian marine creatures into humans, of course given enough time, roughly 600 millions years, because if you believe in evolution then you believe in this ludicrous, anti-scientific, and stupid claim
@realhomosapiens You fail at understanding the principal of it. So everything else that has evolved you believe in then? But not humans? You may take offense to this but we seem to have a language barrier, keep in mind I;m just trying to inform you of information ANYONE can learn for themselves...you stick your foot in your mouth sir, when you say everything else science has as a scientific theory is ok, but not when it comes to human evolution. I feel like i'm talking to air.
@realhomosapiens What you do say is true though, it is up to science to prove that something is true, and it has....you don't seem to understand how difficult it is to get a peer reviewed paper through the gauntlet of scrutinizing scientists....evolution has passed the test, i'm sorry to disappoint you. By the way, if you understand that evolution is a tree and not a ladder then you would know man did not come directly from a cambrian creature.
The nautilus is an example of a creature who has not evolved much because it's suited for it's environment, just like the shark. But they have evolved but apparently not by your standards....which i'm sad to say are mislead. Evolution doesn't have a goal in mind...environment plays a huge role on how something may evolve.
@realhomosapiens I will pose you a transitional fossil because it's fun to see how creationists respond and it and maybe you can find some bias article from a creationist website that "tells" you how to think on this subject. Are you familiar with Tiktaalik? The fossil was found based off educated guesses that if a creature that was a major link between fish and tetrapods it would be found in a certain location....and it was right where the scientists estimated it to be.
Are you familiar with a man outside the White House almost identical to G. W. Bush, according to your criteria they must be twins....jejejejeje...any so considered transitional are just hallucinational fossill....read S. J. Gould why he came out with a different evolution versions...puntuated equilibrium, because gradualism DID NOT WORK...agarra la onda mi chave, no seas ingenuo
@realhomosapiens I'm sorry did you just compare me saying if a man looks like another man they must be related....i'm sorry but I guess you have never heard of taxonomy or phylogeny. Species branch off like a tree from one another...have you ever seen a phylogenetic tree?
Sure I have, only creatures at the tip of the branches....the rest is in blank....totally in blank
if you believe in such a phylogentic tree let me tell you something, you have been deceived and should ask your money back, or a deeper investigation is highly encouraged...oh no, lest you realize of the delusion you have been indoctrinated to
Comment removed
TheBanile 1 week ago
TheDarkLordLucifer 3 weeks ago
ANYONE who wants a retard like Palin to be president loses all rights to voice any sort of opinion, ever again.
DaToNyOyO 4 weeks ago
"Scientific halucinations"..when you see expressions like that you know somebody has escaped from a psych ward somewhere and found a computer with YouTube. : )
winterstellar 1 month ago
I don't think that these "creationist" are interested in logical answers, they just want to ask questions and simply state that "evolution" is wrong
deepeyes001 4 months ago
Please guys, mammals didn't evolve from shrews. Shrews are modern, living mammals. The earliest mammals were (as we can tell from their skeletons) were tiny with pointy teeth like those of modern insect-eaters -- i.e. shrew-LIKE. Unlike modern shrews, they had a shoulder and ankle more like the egg-laying monotremes, did not yet have the middle ear bones in an enclosed middle ear, and (like monotremes) probably laid eggs and lacked nipples (features only seen in placentals and marsupials)
paleobarbie666 7 months ago
I personally own transitional fossil that fall between the broad tooth mako (isurus hastalis) and the great white, (charcharodon carcharias). The teeth of the extinct broad tooth mako have a smooth blade. the transitional have a ripples on the blade, and the modern great whites have a fully serrated blade.
VisionXray23 10 months ago
the earth is getting hotter seems like we r gonna evolve soon lol
beedip84 11 months ago
Google "first mammals" and you'll see that they were shrews. From these shrews, all mammals are descended. Not only is your great great grandfather a common ancestor with a chimpanzee, but your great great great great grandfather is a shrew. Elephants and giraffes are also descend from shrews. If you care to make some scientific observations, you'll notice that shrews give birth shrews and that genomes are fixed. It is amazing in this day and age that people really believe this fairy tale.
achilles197474 1 year ago
@achilles197474
Shrews evolved into all mammals? evolutionist knows no limit on stupidity
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens good argument
executionerofgod 11 months ago
@realhomosapiens
Shrew-like you dolt.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@realhomosapiens No, all mammals evolved from the first mammal, a shrew sized animal. The oldest mammal with teeth like yours was small and ate meat [bugs].
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz
All mammals evolved from the first mammal? wooow...you means bats too?
Listen and listen carefully, that story is even worst than any Creation story, Why? because any Creation story is taken on faith, but your myth is taken as if it were science, something you´re light years away to even began to grasp a clue on it...Tell me something, What would you do if somehow your scientific myth is proven totally and absolutio a flaw?
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens Hello? YES, bats are mammals too. Live birth, produce milk, etc. Whales too. Creationists loved the whales until they found all the transitional fossils.
If the Theory of Evolution was proven wrong scientists would have to come up with a new theory to show how evolution works.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz
Well if you wish to believe your great-great-great grandpa was a fish, up to you, but please don´t call it science, call it the moder myth about the origins,...there´re the hundred of creation myth and this is just one more added to the list...by the way pakicetus a whales ancestor based on the ear bump is not only non-scientific but ludicrous and in some sense stupid too...BYE
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens Close your eyes and say LA LA LA real loud until all the transitional fossils go away.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz
Hi greg once again you, still claiming that there are hundred of hallucinational fossils, right? I bet you´re right, there are millions of them, it´s not a difficult task to take any fossil and turn it into any hallucinational fossil...jejejejejeje...after all that´s how your scientific myth has been supported eversince with pure speculations or better said, hallucinations...have a nice one and keep on hallucinating
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@realhomosapiens So Explain...
Epidexipteryx hui, Protoavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Archeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiasaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Tiktaalik, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis,
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
Now I see, there is no limits in the realm of scientific hallucinations...congratulations...but hallucinational are not the same as transitional...jejejejejejeje...good try but swing and a missed
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@realhomosapiens Do you know what a transitional fossils is? I didn't thing so.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
Sure I do, I know what exactly a transitional ought to be, but seem to me that according to your definition aaaaaaall creatures that ever lived are transitional...just take a closer look to pakicetus, it´s a transitional? for you it is, Why? because you´re a devoute believer of a scientific hallucination called evolution...no other reason to grasp to, or any?...nooope my friend, your definition of transitional is as ambiguous as the definition of species...nobody knows for sure
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@gregrutz
Sure I do, What is yours? seems to me yours is as bizarre as the claim that given enough time and some random mutations one of those weird worm like cambrian creatures could ever turn to or evolve into humans...don´t you realize how silly is such a claim? hmmm, I don´t think so, because if you were enough to, you would not deffend such a claim so behemently...I hope you´re enough to understand, if not, don´t hesistate me to help you in such a tought task but I´ll do my best
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@realhomosapiens So you agree that there were strange ''worms'' in the Cambian Period about 530 million years ago. And now we have humans today. Yes, that is a very large change over a very long time. How do you think it changed? Poof?
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
Nooope, the question I make was this: Why are you so proud of being a descendant of one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creatures? Why are you so sure that starfishes are your cousins?, that really blows my mind that a modern representative of the homo-sapiens-sapiens believes in such a ludicrous claim...Why do you believe you descend from one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creatres?...such a claim is incredible but beliving it, it´s incredible the most
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
There's nothing to really prove here, theres simply knowledge that needs to be explained to someone that claims because something is "silly" (subjectively) that it is not true. Last time i checked liking something doesn't make it any more or less true than it actually it is.
Antimidation 3 weeks ago
@Antimidation
Nooope, the observational data indicates that, finches produce only finches a wide variety of species, rabbits produces only rabbits, a wide variety of them and the list goes on an on, but your scientific MYTH asserts against all odds that given enough time a weird worm like cambrian marine creature about two inches long produced humans, let alone all the creatures along the road...that my friend is stupidity in a nut shell, actually it´s against the observational data...capizca?
realhomosapiens 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz I believe in evolution because it has been proven. All scientists accept evolution. DNA is the best evidence. It shows how everything is related to everything.
So you believe evolution turned or tranformed those creatures into you? I mean, I know it took eons of time, but just take a look a pikaia gracilens and you and inmediately you´ll see that you are way too different...Why do you believe in such a ludicrous claim? that really blows my mind, and you?
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@realhomosapiens Because evolution has been proven, just because you can't grasp it does not make it less of a fact.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
Tell me, Whay test or experiment did scientists conduct that proves that given enough time plus some random mutations and natural selection could turn one of those weird cambrian marine creatures into humans, let alone all the creatures along the road? because that´s exactly what you believe and of course evolution which according to you it´s a fact and I don´t deny it...What kind of test or experiment was done to prove that your great-great-great-grandpa is one of those creatures?
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@realhomosapiens WTF??? Test? We have the fact the there were strange marine creatures 530 million years ago, We have the fact the dinosaurs changed over 160 Million years. We have the fact that we are classified as tetrapods, mammals, primates, apes, humans. We are not testing anything, science is showing how this chain of events happened.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
We have the fact the there were strange marine creatures 530 million years ago,
We have the fact the dinosaurs changed over 160 Million years
We have the fact that we are classified as tetrapods, mammals, primates, apes, humans
None of these three FACTS provide neither proof nor evidence that your great-great-great-grandpa was of those weird worm like cambrian marine creatures? I hope you´re enough to understand...NOW, Why do you believe in such a ludicrous claim?
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@realhomosapiens So how do you explain the Cambrian Period animals and all the other extinct animals?
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
First of all, I´m not obligated to give any explanation, second it´d be irrelevant...NOW, the next obvious question for you is: Where did all cambrian creatures came from? Where did the jelly-fish came from? Where did the extremely trilobites eyes come from? saying that they evolved from thin air is just silly...I guess you´ve been misleaded to believe in a scientific hallucination for which you have no evidence whatsoever and desperated try to deffend it and you have no evidence
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@realhomosapiens Saying ''they evolved from thin air'' is a strawman argument. They evolved from their ancestors.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
Sure they did, but Where are they? arguing that they evolved from their ancestor constitute no evidence whatsoever, Why you can even grasp that?, no offense intended, but seems to me you have a mentar disorder...
Where jellyfish evolved from? What creatures the descender from? Where all of those creatures that appeared in the Cambrian era evolved from? you have no idea, ALL you can say is: They evolved from their ancestor...the evolution DID IT theory, right?...that´s not science
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@realhomosapiens Yes, it is science. You should try reading one some time.
Everyone in the Cambrian Period had a mom and a dad just like today.
Do you think trilobites just ''poof'' appeared 530 million years ago.
Do you think ''poof'' dinosaurs just appeared 225 million years ago and ruled the earth for 160 million years unchanged. No, they changed, it is in the fossil record.
That is why creationists won't look at the fossils record, >Fossils just mean something died<
and lived.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
If trilobites and jelly-fishes plus so many other creatures in the Cambrian Period had a mom and dad just like today, Where is the evidence? saying that they evolved from . . . . who know what is neither an argument nor evidence to support your claim...Why you can understand it?...Now if trilobites and jelly-fishes fossils have been found in the Cambrian period, Where did they come from? Tell me where are their ancestors and you win, deal?
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@realhomosapiens Deal, The ancestors of the Cambrian Period animals are in the Pre-Cambrian.
You LOSE.
The evidence is in the fossil reacord, go study it.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
Once again, saying that the evidence is in the fossil record does not make any evidence at all for you scientific myth...
Tell me Who is the ancestor of those Jelly-Fish?
I understand that your scientific myth assumes that, but Who are they? I mean, What did the Jelly-Fish ancestor look like or Who were those ancestors?...any idea what creature it was?
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@realhomosapiens And if I show you the ancestors of jellyfish, THEN you will 'believe' in evolution?
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
Sure I will, love to hear it from you
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@gregrutz
Still waiting for your explanation Where did jelly-fish evolve from? and not only that, you´ve got to show me the evidence not only make arguments out of the blue sky...jejejejejejeje
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@realhomosapiens And if I show you the ancestors of jellyfish, THEN you will 'believe' in evolution?
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
You couldn´t show me any evidence to support your scientific myth, therefore your eery silence is enough proof and evidence that there is no proof an evidence to support your stupid belief...hope this time you´ll take a closer look at what your modern cult is all about and halt mocking the Bible and find out how silly, stupid if you will is what you actually strongly believe and so behemently deffend...please notice that no offense has I ever intended...have a nice one
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@realhomosapiens Why won't you answer the question?
I never mentioned the bible, silly boy.
Watch Don's video, Why scientists accept Evolution. It has been proven, I don't need to prove it to you.
Nothing would convince you evolution happens anyway. Would it?
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
Watch this and watch that, don´t you have balls to show me your evidence...yeap, give a call to DonExodus2 he can explain you...nooope, I´m you to provide the evidence that those jelly-fish found in the cambrian era evolved from some mythical creatures, and I called mythical since there is not a shred of evidence for it...hence it´s a myth...
Now, if you´re eager to believe in this stupidity, my friend it´s your choice, but please don´t call it science on don´t be proud of it, deal?
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@realhomosapiens Evolution was proven 150 years ago. Grow up.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
I´m convinced of evolution, What I´m not and never will is that evolution was the driving force that turned or changed one of those weird cambrian marine creatures into you, something you´re allways eager to deffend, but when asked to provide proof and evidence for such a ludicrous and certainly stupid belief either you send me to DonExodus2 videos or ...you run away...now you have some homework to do, take a closer look at your belief lest you´re believing in a scientific myth..bye
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@realhomosapiens bye. I guess nothing I show you will change your brainwashed mind.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
But how on earth you think you can change anybodys mind, and make me believe that one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creatures is my great-great-great-grandpa? you´ve got to be hallucinating...but if that´s what you have been misleaded to believe, well, let me tell you something, I don´t admire neither your intelligence nor your education but your faith, in order to believe in such a claim all you need is faith, deep faith...the question is, Who has been brainwashed?
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@realhomosapiens I ask you three time if I showed you the evidence you demand would you '' Believe' in evolution. Nothing will, so you are the one who is brainwashed.
What is your theory to explain the 530 million year old strange marine creatures that was the most advanced life on earth.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
For the n-th time, you have not explained anything, Where are the ancestors of Jelly-Fish, they lived more than 530 millions years ago, where are the ancestors of Horseshoe crab, trilobites and the list goes on and on, WHERE ARE THEY? if we have been able to find bacteria fossils dating 3,850 millions years old,Why there is not a shred of ancestry of any cambrian creatures? if they DID evolve, show me your evidence, do not just claim they did, proof and evidence please...
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@realhomosapiens There aren't any jelly fish fossils before jelly fish evolved. There are alway more primitive ancestors in older rock, like you say, going back 3,850 million years.
Watch ''transitional fossils New'' by you know who.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
Wait a minute.......there aren´t any jelly fish fossils before jelly fish evolved? sure there aren´t...
Jelly-fish just burst up in the fossil record...so once again, Where are the ancestors for jelly-fish?, I understand, after they "appeared" notice the word, APPEARED, of course they evolved into more what? I bet you´re right, jelly fish...but where did the jelly-fish come from before they evolved into more species of jelly-fish? that´s the NEXT obvious on obligated question...cont
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@gregrutz
If there aren´t any jelly fish fossils before they evolved, so you´re confirming my point, jelly-fish just burst up from nowhere at all...so they did not evolve or what...there must be ancestors for these beautifull creatures, according to your scientific myth it is not possible that they just appeared out of nothing, THERE MUST BE ANCESTORS if your scientific myth is true, Who are they? extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidences, did you know that? if not, now you know
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@realhomosapiens And if I show you their ancestors, then you will accept evolution is true?
Yes or No ?
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
YEEES, that´s exactly whaT I´ve been asking for, go ahead please, make my day
WARNING: Hallucinational fossils are not acceptable, OK?
realhomosapiens 5 months ago
@realhomosapiens So what you actually mean is 'No'. You've moved the criteria from begin an objective standpoint ('If you show me the fossil proof then I will accept it') to a subjective one ('If you show me the fossil proof AND I get to choose it's validity without evidence, then I will accept it') as you said by your "Hallucinational fossils" statement. You have already made the decision that any fossil given to you that doesn't fit in with your view is invalid for no logical reason.
TheBanile 2 months ago
@TheBanile
First of all, believing that your great-great-great-grandpa was one of those weird worm like Cambrian marine creatures is insane, secondly considere such a claim as a scientific statement it´s a stupidity of its kind...
Now, if you have a flawness definition of what a transitional fossil is all about, then you have a very serious scientific problem at the very begining and everything that follows is garbage...period...me entendiste?
realhomosapiens 2 months ago
@realhomosapiens And a thousand years ago to believe that the earth orbited the sun was just as ridiculous seeming. Just because you cannot comprehend or are ignorant of it doesn't make it wrong. The data matches the hypothesis and has done so unequivocally for over a hundred years; it is the unifying theory of biology for a reason and is excepted amongst the scientific community as fact.
If you doubt the existence or meaning of transitional fossils then it is you, good sir, who has a problem.
TheBanile 2 months ago
@TheBanile
Nooope, first at all, that a thousand years ago to believe that the earth orbited the sun bla bla bla, has nothing to do with my question and supports not your scientific mythology, OK? so let´s save time and grieve...
Now, if you have been deceived to believe that pakicetus is a transitional fossil to whales then you do really have a problem, either with what a transitional fossil is all about or a cognivite one, on either case you have to work it out...me entendiste?
realhomosapiens 2 months ago
@realhomosapiens A transitional fossil is a fossil that serves as a link between taxonomic groups. The Archaeopteryx is one between dinosaurs and birds. Pakicetus was a terrestrial ancestor to the whales. Titaalik was the link between fish-likes and terrestrial reptile-likes. These are more famous examples but only a few of thousands.
Evolution is scientific fact. To argue otherwise is like trying to argue the moon is made of cheese; you are provably wrong. End of 'discussion'.
TheBanile 2 months ago
@TheBanile
Wait a minute, Pakicetus a terrestrial ancestor to sea dwelling creatures? you´ve got to be kidding, but assuming that such an assumption is true, How do you know it is true? I mean what is the evidence to claim that pakicetus is a whale ancestor? I don´t see any conexion other than a scientific hallucination and just in case, hallucinations support not your myth, not even scientific ones
realhomosapiens 2 months ago
@realhomosapiens Yes, because we can trace their ancestry with various intermediate forms (just google whale evolution for some more ancestors) from that ancestor to modern whales and see their evolutionary lines which fits in with the correct time line, skeletal structure and geographical location etc. You can even see the nasal passage move from the snout to the top of the head where whales have it today. I mean, there is no one form between a baby and an old man, but lots of little stages.
TheBanile 2 months ago
@TheBanile
Wait a minute, we can trace their ancestry with varios intermediate forms?
One by one, don´t hurry up....Why pakicetus is a whale ancestor? me quiero reir un poco, estoy algo aburrido, come on make my day, Mr.Evolutionoid...sin espongarse, ehhh
realhomosapiens 3 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens As I said, Just browse google scholar if you want some scientific peer-reviewed papers and you'll find a lot of information of the basics of whale evolution on the net. Simply, it goes like this in genus: Indohyus > Pakicetidae > Ambulocetidae > Protocetidae > Dorudontinae (and a split here into Basilosauridae branch) > Odontoceti (toothed whales)and Mysticeti (baleen whales). If you want more info, I'm sure there is a natural history museum or some books...
TheBanile 3 weeks ago
@TheBanile
If I want more scientific hallucinations, yes, there are plenty...I just need to read N. Shubbin´s Your Inner Fish, but frankly, I don´t read science fiction...it´s boring and non-profitable, at least for science education....jejejejejeje...no te esponges...es la neta
realhomosapiens 3 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens Y'know, talking to you is like talking to a strange bilingual wall. I throw evidence and explanations at you but you just block them with pointless denial and ignorant mockery. There are people who make a living studying evolutionary history, taxonomy and genetics; people who produce research and peer-reviewed paper.
You and people who think like you, have failed to produce any evidence and any peer-reviewed research. You have given nothing of scientific value.
TheBanile 3 weeks ago
@TheBanile I think we are wasting our time here, the only way this guy will learn is on his own, through a knot hole, kicking and screaming as he goes. For all we know he could be a troll or a poe.
Antimidation 3 weeks ago
@Antimidation Aye, likely. One day these people are just going to have to realise that the world and scientific progress has moved on... 100 years or so before they were born, oddly enough. Some people just don't like change I guess.
Unfortunately the troll and the genuine creationist-type are awfully similar....
TheBanile 3 weeks ago
@TheBanile
Thowing me evidence?....you show me a fossil and assert that such a fossil is the ancestor of modern whaels just because a tiny similarity in the skull inner bone. excuse me, I´m an skeptic and I have freedom to despise such a ridiculous scientific fables...
Unless you give me strong evidence on how one of those weird cambrian marine creatures could turn or change into humans, I will continue despising your scientific myth...me entendiste?
realhomosapiens 3 weeks ago
I don't see the point here. You will close your eyes to anything I could ever give you for an answer. If i give you a fossil you will deny that it has anything to do with human evolution because you don't understand genome sequencing or the phylogenic tree. You are starting to sound like a typical creationist now....you think simply because the notion is too complex it's not worth your time to understand, then you mock us by saying you are fan of the sciences. I think you're a troll.
Antimidation 3 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens You make science sound like a popularity contest which is a down right shameful way to think. Science doesn't care about what's popular, it cares about what's true....as time passes, we gain knowledge and depending on that knowledge we adjust, maintain, or rethink certain things. And you know what? Evolution has passed the test of time....it stopped being a debate 100 years ago. It's passed all updated knowledge SIINCE.
Antimidation 3 weeks ago
@Antimidation
Nooope, I make a scientific myth sounds as what it really is, a scientific fairy tale for gullible grown up which it´s taught as it were science, when in reality is garbage...no one in a righ mind would believe that given enough time a worm like cambrian creature, turned or changed into humans, I don´t buy that for a second, Do you? if you do, what proof or evidence have you been given that have lead you to such a deception?
realhomosapiens 3 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens It's because we can trace back those similarities and they all fit in a timeline cohenrently. It's like a crime-scene; no one was there to see it but you can trace the evidence for it clearly enough. There are so many papers on it if only you'd bother to look rather than just dismissing it. Are you going to deny the Theory of Radiation next? Or the Germ Theory? Because they relies on the same process.
I mean, what proof do you have that species DON'T evolve?
TheBanile 3 weeks ago
@TheBanile
Once again and for the N-time... provide any relatedness between any of the cambrian era creatures and the ordivician era...let´s save time and grieve and focus on my question...you keep focussing on my persons and the germ theory and all of that...if your scientific fable is true and it´s overwhelmingly supported as you have been deceived to belive please answer my question and I´ll turn into a devoted-fundamentalist-extremist-incurable and incorregible evolutionist, zas? (deal?)
realhomosapiens 3 weeks ago
@TheBanile
I haven´t said that species DO NOT evolve, actually evolution it´s a fact, ..but if by evolution you mean that humans evolved from one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creatures, nooope, that´s stupidity on a nut shell, no offense intended, I don´t need evidence for evolution, there´re plenty, GIVE ME solid evidenceS that evolution is the driving force that brough you here out of one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creatures and you win, Will you pleae?
realhomosapiens 3 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens Okay so, wait? You believe evolution is fact but either humans are excluded from this process or you don't understand how we came from primitive simple multicelluar species (like that of the pre Cambrian era)?
I'm sure if you researched this yourself you can get a satisfactory answer, rather than relying on me to find things. Admittedly, the Cambrian period is not as well-documented, as the fossil record isn't complete, but I'm sure there are good books on it.
TheBanile 3 weeks ago
@TheBanile
Nooope, I didn´t say that, listen and listen carefully...if by evolution you mean-change over time, descent with modification, allele frequency changes in a given population, etc, BTW there several other definitions for evolution, yes, evolution it´s a fact, BUT and oooh what a big but, by evolution you meand that humans descend from one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creatures, that my friend is silly, anti-scientific and stupid (no offense intended)...me entendiste?
realhomosapiens 2 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens So yes, it is the Cambrian explosion you have problems with.
Again, like I said, it's a hard area scientifically because the fossil record is very incomplete; phylum diverge a lot during that period but we don't get the more defined stages we have with later periods of history. Don't be fooled by the name though, the Cambrian explosion was a very long period of history with plenty of time for the diverse phyla that we see coming from the organisms of that time.
TheBanile 2 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens The Cambrian explosion doesn't really contend any major problems for evolution, being perfectly consistent if just unusual; it just shows incomplete areas of the fossil record, a natural assumption considering fossilisation is a rare process. And it poses no problem for you really, our lineage from the Cambrian is rather more solid.
I'm sure there are some books out there that can explain it better than me, I don't know a lot about that time period specifically.
TheBanile 2 weeks ago
@TheBanile
If fossilisation is a rare process, then Why there are by the millions of them in karoo formation and many other formations? seems to me fossilisation is not that rare but very common, so resort to a rare process is delusional and deceptive, check it out
realhomosapiens 2 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens Consider how many individual animals have lived throughout the many billion of years there has been life on this planet; a million or so is a tiny amount in total. Fossilation is the exception, not the rule and the conditions for fossilation do not happen as often as we'd like, or the fossil record would be much more complete; instances such as Karoo are rare (I have heard of almost none like it) and estimates for the amount of fossils there vary wildly.
TheBanile 2 weeks ago
@TheBanile
Exactly, conduct a serious research on how fossilation works?
You´ll find out that rapid burial is the most important? if no rapid burial, no fossils...
Now what could have caused the rapid burial of so many billions of fossils in karoo formation? don´t tell me all those creatures were living there...I think you have to conduct a serious an objetive research on these matters, seems to me your educational systems have deeple deluded your...sorry about that, check it ou
realhomosapiens 2 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens But rapid burial is not the only way and there are other kinds of fossilation processes such as freezing or low oxygen or dry environments. As for Karoo, as I mentioned, the estimates of how many fossils are there vary wildly & have factors that affect calculations (such as assuming a constant rate). That said, why is rapid burial not applicable? It has many strata of million of years & contains marine glacial fossils in the current Karoo supergroup basin.
TheBanile 2 weeks ago
@TheBanile
But the question remains, Did all those creatures used to live in that are in particular? Common sense and observational data indicates NO.-
Now, did you know that all the fossils that have been found are pretty indicated that those creatures were struggling to survive in a rapid mud burial? actually we would not have any fossils if not for a rapid burial process that took place in the past, actually NASA researches corroborate this, don´t let the fools fool you, be objetive
realhomosapiens 2 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens And even if rapid burial was the only way for fossilation to occur (which it isn't), why does this point to anything other than little local floods, tropical conditions such as mangroves or swamps, aquatic environments (as almost all Cambrian and pre-Cambrian animals were) or other natural and normal occurrences of rapid burial?
As for that matter, what do you believe happened instead of evolution, as, from your comments alone, I'm finding it hard to determine. And also, why?
TheBanile 2 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens
realhomosapiens 1 week ago
@TheBanile
BTW, I did forget to thank you for respectfull conversation, I do not debate any disrespectull person, so once again, I do really appreciate your respectullness...thank you
realhomosapiens 2 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens Your problem seems to be more that you don't understand or don't want to understand how we evolved from simple marine organisms to the complex structures we are today. And your confusing this judgement with a scientific perspective; science doesn't deal with what sounds the nicest or is the easiest to understand, it deals with the evidence, the facts, the data. And this points to evolution from single-celled organisms to complex structures we have now.
TheBanile 2 weeks ago
@TheBanile
And you seem to understand such an unrealistic process and when asked for any evidence to support it, you have none...
Now, bacterias produce only bacterias, chimpanzees produce only chimpanzees, finches produce only finches and the list goes on and on and on, so Where did scientists get the idea that givn enough time simple marine organism which by the way were not simple, that´s bigotry, but that aside, turned or evolved into humans? that´s a huge scientific halluciantion
realhomosapiens 2 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens Evolution does not dispute that finches produce finches. However, those finches are not genetically identical and variation will occur; over larger periods of time this variation between generations, spurred by natural selection will mean that the differences will get larger and more apparent with each successive offspring.
And they were 'simple' biologically; not particularly complex structures in modern terms; not meant as a slight towards our ancestors.
TheBanile 2 weeks ago
@TheBanile
Sure, we are not identical to our parents, does it mean that in the future we will turn or become something other than humans? not at all...variations between generations DID NOT turn one of those weird worm like creatures into a fish and then into an amphibian and then into a reptile...bla bla bla and kaboom here we are...that´s plain stupid (no offense intended) and that´s exactly what your scienticif myth asserts and you willfully believe...and that, is not science !!!
realhomosapiens 2 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens What is to stop this? What genetic barriers exist to say that one day, our very distant descendants do not resemble us closely and be a different species, possibly one that looks nothing like us in the long time it takes for more dramatic evolution to happen? As I said; small changes in shot times and big changes in long times. The evolution from fish-like ancestors to modern mammalian ones is rather more well documented the closer you get to modern day.
TheBanile 2 weeks ago
@TheBanile
Do you see now? what is to stop this? first of all, the question implies that "THIS" was the driving force that turned one of those weird worm like cambrian creatures into humans and that is a horrible conclusion or assumption, I´ll go on and say a scientific hallucination at its highest degree...The evolution from fish-like ancestor . . . this comment shows that you have been endoctrinated to believe the scientific myth...cont
realhomosapiens 2 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens Transitional fossils are not hallucinations or fabrications, you can find loads of examples and clear transitions between different species, genus and families, that a consistent within the strata; so well understood what it that lead to the discovery of Tiktaliik, one of the important transitional fossils. In essence, all fossils are transitional. And the fossil record is highly backed by biology and archaeology and their methods. To dismiss it is simply denial..
TheBanile 2 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens
realhomosapiens 1 week ago
@TheBanile
I highly encourage you, actually I do urge you to find out why punctuated equilibrium came into being...the whale evolution, the horse evolution and ALL the supposedly transitional fossil are nothing more than fabrications...what a Darwin worshiper do is to put his or her imagination to work full throtle, for instance IDA...there is not a single link between one species and the next ones above in the fossil record between any strata, species appeared fully formed out of the blue sky
realhomosapiens 2 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens Why is the conclusion, with such vast evidence throughout the study of biological science alone, evolutionary theory is often nicknamed the 'uniting theory' as it links so many aspects of biology and chemistry together, seemingly ridiculous? This is a rather flimsy argument and a logical fallacy at best. Science doesn't deal with assumptions, it deals with facts and evolutionary theory is as much accepted as the theory of gravity and the theory of radiation.
TheBanile 2 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens Science also has nothing to gain by lying to scientists or itself. Why bother? What is the point? The motivation? Do you have evidence contrary to evolution besides being dismissive or denial of the facts? What proof for your theory (which, at this point, seems to only point to animals being poofed into existence by, presumably, magic). What evidence do you have the all the creatures were struggling against rapid burial? How can you even verify that with only a mineral skeleton?
TheBanile 2 weeks ago
@TheBanile
What evidence do you have the all the creatures were struggling against rapid burial? How can you even verify that with only a mineral skeleton?, hmmm, now I see the point, better said, your point, you have not read articles that undermines your scientific myth, that´s why I told you, they have lied to you, you should ask your money back...struggling against rapid burial is the most common event in almost all fossils found...but that aside, little local floods could save the problem
realhomosapiens 1 week ago
@realhomosapiens again, I must ask what verification you have for the statement that "struggling against rapid burial is the most common event in almost all fossils found"? Where did you get this evidence. From my understanding and interest in palaeontology, most fossils are of animals that simply died and were buried; it's very hard to verify the cause of death, especially with something like drowning which leaves no visible mark on the position or on the skeleton itself.
TheBanile 1 week ago
@TheBanile
First of all the scientific myth is a business, Do you know how much money did Richard & Mary Leakey earn? and you know who is in charge for this business now? your´e right, their son...
What evidence do I have contrary to the stupid idea that humans descend from a weird worm like cambrian marine creature? coming up next . . .
1.-Sudden appearence and 2.-Stasis, BUT, and oooh what a big but, the most important, which is observable, testable, and has proven over and over again is:
realhomosapiens 1 week ago
@realhomosapiens Science is not an industry in and of itself; it is however a tool used in well... almost every other industry. The pharmaceutical industry is a big one, for example. But y'know what? Creationism is it's own business too. That said, I fail to see how having a business out of science is credibility against it? After all, much of the industry relies on it being correct; medicine for example. Without science, including evolution, it would fall without profit...
TheBanile 1 week ago
@TheBanile
I bet you´re right, unfortunatelly, we have made business from almost everything, abortion, war, slavery, medicine, and the list goes on and on, in that you´re absolutely right...
I do relay on true science every single moment, actually right now on this comment, but that aside, my point is that there is not any empirical evidence on any natural mechanism that CAN turn a fish into an amphibian or an amphibian into a reptile and a reptile into a mammal...NONE, only hallucinations
realhomosapiens 1 week ago
@realhomosapiens "not any empirical evidence on any natural mechanism that CAN turn a fish into an amphibian.." etc. Well, no, fish don't turn into amphibians, that's silly. But they do have a gradual progression of linages.
Well here I'd like to point out you are basically wrong. Genetics completely destroys that, as does natural selection and adaptation and the mechanisms of passing genes on. The fossil record denies it too, with the radiometric and geological evidence for it.
TheBanile 1 week ago
@TheBanile
Fishes in just one generation do not produce amphibians...that´s for sure, but what about given some hundred millions years? that´s exactly what the silly theory asserts...just give enough time and everything can change into anything, and THAT is a scientific hallucination, a fable, a fairy tale taught in prestigious universities as it were science and theres is not a single shred of evidence to support such a claim, only assumptions blind speculations, hallucinations if you will
realhomosapiens 6 days ago
@TheBanile
Well, no, fish don´t turn into ampibians, that´s silly....hmmm, I bet you´re right, but given 500 millions years is not silly but science right? the next obvious question, What kind of science? vooodo science?....your SILLY theory asserts with no evidence whatsoever, that given enough time on a primordial soup a simple single cell appeared somehow and turned into everything, plants and animals living and extinct, if that is not silly, then what is silly for you?
realhomosapiens 5 days ago
@realhomosapiens First of all, the Cambrian period and after was hardly 'sudden'. It was quick in evolutionary terms but it still took millions of years. I fail to see what exactly stasis has to do with it, could you explain your point a little more? Again, imperfect fossil records, this is not a nicely recorded period and of course the 'rate' of change, as it were, will depend on environmental pressures.
Also, you appear to have forgot the main point of your argument?
TheBanile 1 week ago
@TheBanile
My poin is this:
"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history....Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equall. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)
realhomosapiens 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@realhomosapiens "One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."
TheBanile 1 week ago
@realhomosapiens
The point is that just because evolution has some periods of time where things are not as clear cut as we would like it to be, does not make the hand-waving justification that "Well God must have done it". That is fallacious, having even less evidence behind it that the explanation is just that we don't have the technology or maybe the good luck to find the precise fossils we need, due to their very nature unfortunately. Like I said, imperfect record.
TheBanile 1 week ago
@TheBanile
First all I want to point out that even if God does not exist, even so, the notion, concept, idea or scientific hallucination that humans evolved from one of those weird cambrian marine creatures remains as the greatest stupidity of humankind ever made in the name of science...better for scientist to say WE DON´T KNOW, I do accept that, but giving that explanation I do find extremely stupid and totally unsuported by REAL SCIENCE.
BTW I love science, real science not vooodo science
realhomosapiens 6 days ago
@realhomosapiens Your argument at the moment is basically "that sounds silly", and although you say that evidence points against it, you have provided none, not even an explanation of how it would work or how these things are explained without evolution. Every textbook, scientific paper, science journal, or article I have ever read has always taken evolution to be true, and all the evidence I've ever seen has unanimously conformed to the rules of evolution.
TheBanile 5 days ago
@TheBanile
First of all, you have to determine and make it crystal clear that such an explanation (evolution) is ludicrous, the observational data does not fit with the theory...and don´t tell me it does, because if it did, punctuated equilibrium would not have come into existence, and it did, therefore gradualism has been discarded...now if you have been misleaded to believe that it does fit, I highly encourage you to conduct a serious and objertive research on the issue...seriously I do
realhomosapiens 4 days ago
@realhomosapiens Evolution doesn't contest that "finches produces finches, rabbits produces rabbits, pigeons produces pigeons", but it does say, as I think I'm mentioned before, that the offspring is not identical to the parent genetically; it has subtle variations or some mutation that it's parents didn't have. Over time, through natural selection and environmental factors, genes that are beneficial or benign show through and new species are born.
TheBanile 4 days ago
@TheBanile
How do mutation bridge the genes number from one specie to another...some species just have a few chromosomes and some have hundreds of them...it´s not that simple....
Once again, new species have and will arise of the same creature...
Have you ever heard of a frog turning into a prince, well with the except of a few changes the story is the same one...evolution (weird worm cambrian creatures to humans) is a fairy tale, a scientific one, nevertheless a fairy tale.
realhomosapiens 4 days ago
@realhomosapiens The gap has been bridged; we can see most of it through the fossil record and the geological technology that helps put it into context. We can trace more 'recent' ancestors through our genes; changes in genes can be traced as they leave genetic markers; for example, most hominids have 24 chromosomes whereas we only have 23 pairs, however, with analyse of chromosome 2 we saw the that it was a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.
TheBanile 3 days ago
@realhomosapiens And again, these genetics links can and have been traces way back, supported by the overwhelming evidence in the fossil and geological record. Small genetic changes can make a huge amount of difference. I mean, humans and chimpanzee DNA is amazingly similar, but it makes a big different in the large scale. Again, this is undisputed in the scientific community because the evidence for it is overwhelming. Your disbelief is neither proof nor fact.
TheBanile 3 days ago
@TheBanile I mean, all life uses the same nucleic acid sequences for DNA, the fossil record provides anatomical convergences and lineages of so many forms of life, which the recent explosion in genetic technology has supported. the further back we go, the hard it is due to poor fossilising conditions or simply destruction of fossils, but even then we have a good idea; Myllokunmingia and Haikouichthys provide the earliest examples of the emergence of true vertebrates, for example.
TheBanile 3 days ago
@TheBanile
I can see your sincerity but also your error...
There were plenty of creatures in the cambrian era, actually some of them still alive today, unchanged by the way...and there were plenty of creatures in the next layer, the ordovician era, according to your myth, give just ONE creature from the cambrian era that is related to any creature in the ordivician era, just ONE and I´ll worship Charly, zas? expression for deal...saludos, estas haciendo buen trabajo, gracias
realhomosapiens 3 days ago
@realhomosapiens You are slightly wrong; if you are referring to lampreys and hagfish, whilst they do bare many similarities to their ancestors, they are not 'unchanged'. And evolution doesn't state everything has to change, only if it has the environmental pressure to. As for a link, the two groups I mentioned lead to the of Ostracoderms, jawless fish of which there were quite a few groups, the development of the head seen in Pikaia and Branchiostoma in the Cambria also.
TheBanile 3 days ago
@TheBanile
So the environment changes affected some species and no others...come on, give me a break, did those unchanged creatures lived in an unchanging buble or what? that´s explanation is ludicrous, at least I don't even buy i for free...in an everchanging planet there were some very special areas (bubles) so no change will take place...so there should have been a thousands of bubles since we have many plants and animals that have no changed at all throughout time
realhomosapiens 3 days ago
@realhomosapiens Well that's the point, evolution doesn't dictate that things have to change. This is part of the 'natural selection'; if a particular variation or a mutation is beneficial to the survival of that individual and it's offspring then it's genes will be more likely to pass on and spread around the surviving population.
And, as pointed out in this very video, so many of the 'unchanged' creatures are not actually 'unchanged', just similiar, so that argument is false.
TheBanile 17 hours ago
@TheBanile
Wrooooooon again, MORE & MORE frequently diabetis is present in humans being, the gene causing this disease is getting widely spread to humans race and don´t tell me that this mutation is beneficial to the survival of any human being offspring...now the next obvious question is: Why natural selection has not eliminated this gene in any given human population?
Nooope, nautilus are the very same nautilus than when they appeared the very fist time in the fossil record...wrong again
xochitlcitlali 16 hours ago
Comment removed
TheBanile 15 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xochitlcitlali For your diabetes argument I'd like to present the fact that diabetes can be caused by environmental factors rather than just genetics, so it doesn't affect genes that affect adaptation. And also, modern medicine counter-acts the diabetic selection process, it's no longer a factor in the breeding survival of humans.
Also, nautili are an entire family and, from what I gather, none of the original species remain. Morphologically they are similar but not identical.
TheBanile 15 hours ago
@TheBanile For example, our current surviving nautiloids have a much thicker shells than their ancestor, hypothesised to be an adaptation for greater depths than their ancestors, possibly because of out-competition with new predators. Nautiloids, whilst very similar to their ancestors, are not identical and therefore so say they are the same is incorrect. Many species of nautiloids and some of the offshoots of that family also died out many years ago.
TheBanile 15 hours ago
@TheBanile
The interpretation of those similarities are ludicrous...humans and chimpz are supposedly 98% similar at DNA level, but chimpz and bonobos which are more close related should be more than 98% similar but they are less than 97%, there you have serious problem...now, humans and sheeps are 85% similar but in the outside we are quite different, aren´t we? how about humans and bananas, we share 60% plus similarities in DNA but, have you ever compared to a banana? think about it
realhomosapiens 3 days ago
@realhomosapiens And if anything that DNA evidence proves my point; even that tiny 15% different in DNA of sheep and human creates a very different animal, so the slight variation in genes can produce very different animals, especially when it;s extended and increases over many generations. I'd like to point out that bonobos are a species of chimp; though I'm interested in where you got that figure comparing bonobos to common chimpanzees, as I cannot find it anywhere.
TheBanile 3 days ago
Comment removed
TheBanile 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@realhomosapiens In fact, having a look around, most information I've found seem to refute you, as the differences in bonobo and chimpanzee genomes is put at just 0.3 %. But, if you have the study where you got your figure from, I'd been happy to look at it and the relevant material..
TheBanile 3 days ago
@realhomosapiens The main rule is that, most of the time, small amounts of time show small changes and larger amounts of time show larger differences until the two are very different (though there are exceptions when the environment doesn't push selection). The fossil record supports this, as we can trace the lineages of certain animals fairly well throughout history. That's how it works, through changes in genetics, and the selection that is beneficial to some of these changes.
TheBanile 4 days ago
@TheBanile
It´s just because a Cessna 182 can fly non-stop from LAX to SFO we can assume that given 600 my such an aircraft would reach the outer most part of our galaxy, it will never happen, just because we see speciation it does not mean that humans descend from one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creature, leeeeet alone all the creatures along the road.- Why you can not see the unsurmountable gap that needs to be bridged?
realhomosapiens 4 days ago
@realhomosapiens We have observational data of these changes in genes happening, but if you're expecting finches to suddenly produce rabbits then you are not only being unscientific but also unreasonable; you'd have to wait a good million or two years to see any real major differences. But the, like I say, the genetic markers and the fossil record provide good evidence of small fish-like animals adapting into land-bound creatures or certain dinosaur lines that started the birds.
TheBanile 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@realhomosapiens And again you, your argument is still just argumentum ad ignorantiam and reductio ad ridiculum. Despite me pointing this out, you provide none of this observational data that disproves evolution entirely or even the research you said you have done. You assert that it sounds silly but provide no substance. So what if it sounds silly to you? That's subjective; and, regardless, the evidence contradicts you. if If you don't like it; tough! It's a scientific Theory.
TheBanile 4 days ago
@realhomosapiens And again, for evidence I must point to all the genetics, the fossil record, the schools of geology and plate tectonics, what we know and have observed in nature from bacteria to animals etc etc.
Your argument is still just humming argumentum ad ignorantiam and reductio ad ridiculum. You provide no evidence or explanation, just ignorant mockery, and it's quite frankly, becoming a waste of time. You have no interest in learning or the facts.
TheBanile 5 days ago
@TheBanile
Your argument is still just humming argumentum ad ignorantiam and reductio ad ridiculum. You provide no evidence or explanation. . .
My argumentation is what the observational data is crying all around us...finches produces finches, rabbits produces rabbits, pigeons produces pigeons, more specifically, fishes produces ONLY fishes, and mammals only mammal, Where did you get the idea that given roughly 600 my to a worm like cambrian marine creature could produce humans? that´s silly
realhomosapiens 4 days ago
@TheBanile
Nooope, the AAAAAAALL the observational data available nowadays point to anything else other that humans evolved from a worm like cambrian creature...that´s plain stupid...
I understand that science does not deal with supernatural, and that depending on what definition of supernatures scientist use, because to be honest, evolutionary biologist as Ricky DOES believe in supernatural...once again show me a mechanism that can bridge the unsumountable transformation for your "theory"
realhomosapiens 6 days ago
@TheBanile
Now, if you can provide any proof or evidence of any cambrian marine creatures relatedness with one in the upper layer, believe me I´ll turn into a fundamentalist, extremist, radical, incorregible, consumed and totally deffender of the scientific myth you´re believing in...since no evidence has even been shown and never will, I regard your theory as what it really is, a scientific myth, a fairy tale for gullible grown ups, taught at prestigious universities as it were science.
realhomosapiens 2 weeks ago
@TheBanile
If that were the case, we wouldn´t have the karoo formation and many other around the world...your answer is just the last refuge to hide away when no impirical evidence is not found to support your scientific fable...BTW, nobody will find any evince, you know why? because a scientific myth has not evidence at all, plain and simple....jejejeje...no te esponges
realhomosapiens 3 weeks ago
@Antimidation
Evolution is not a ladder but a tree? hmmm, let´s see, let´s star from to top to button...
Where does humans come from? I understand is a tough question that nobody has a clue on it, but go ahead and give to this guy a name, whichever you want...I´ll prove your indoctrination system have made an utter brain-washed out of you, Don´t forget to ansewer my previous question about the relatedness between any cambrian marine creatures to one of those in the ordovicioan era
realhomosapiens 3 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens We know the relationship of humans to all other living things by the sequencing of our genome, all living things are made up of similar things. We know HOW similar we are to all things that can be sequenced. Where are you going with this? Are you asking for a specific split from certain creatures?
Antimidation 3 weeks ago
@Antimidation
Well, at DNA level we are 80% plus similar to sheeps and 50% plus to bananas, actually we are 95% plus similar to chimpanzees but chimpanzees and bonobos are LESS that 95% among them when it should not be the case, so your similarity is worthless...any other clue on Why you believe your great-great-great-grandpa is one of those weird cambrian marine creatures and a startfish is your cousin? If and oooh what a big if, IIIIIIIF your scientific myth is true...jejeje...no te esponges
realhomosapiens 3 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens
You can trace or you can imagine, assume, or hallucinate of any whale ancestry?
Give a strong evidence on Why pakicetus is a whales ancestor?
BTW, your assertion that there is no one form between a baby and an old man is flaw one, if my theory be true numberless intermediate must have existed...you can hallucinate that pakicetus is a whale ancestor, Why? because you have no choice, either you show your intemediate fossils or your theory is going to be fossilized...capizca?
realhomosapiens 2 months ago
@realhomosapiens Large number of intermediaries probably did exist, however fossilation, as a process, is very rare, so we only get a few snatches of the million of forms. Like taking photographs, to stick with the baby to man one; just because you don't have a photo of when you were 12, doesn't mean it never happened.
Pakicetus is a whale ancestor do the the unique morphology that it shares with the whale line, particularly the skull.
TheBanile 3 weeks ago
@TheBanile
If fossilization were a very rare process we wouldn´t have that millions and millions of fossils out there at museums, let alone those not unearthed yet...your argument is silly in fallacious...
don´t you have a better one?
Just because a part of the internal ear bone is similar it´s enough to claim packietus is a whale ancestor? hmmm, I´m not stupid enough to believe it, are you?
realhomosapiens 3 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens Billions and billions of generations of organisms have lived on this world. Sure, we have millions of fossils, but that's only a tiny fraction of the sheer amount of creatures that have lived and died on this earth.
Also, quite a few fossils in museums are replicas for display purposes, as fossils are very valuable and often delicate. Most of the actual fossils are kept in a storage area for study and preserving.
TheBanile 3 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens You are wrong on a few important things here. And you classically sound like a creationist with blinders on and I'm willing to bet wouldn't know what evidence is if it bit him in the face...much less someone actually playing your game of "show me the transitional fossil" and the HIGHLY unlikely event that you would actually find the evidence compelling and indeed change your view over night. You fail to realize one key point, ALL fossils are transitional.
Antimidation 3 weeks ago
@Antimidation
All fossil are transitional? Really? just tell me where did nautilus evolved from, and into what did they evolve to?
Sin espongarse please....jejejejeje
realhomosapiens 3 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens Take up the challenge please. You are not original...if you say that evolution is a lie...then prove it and go through the proper channels to get your paper reviewed. You sound convinced that common science is deceiving people....but for what purpose you don't reveal. My point is, science is a system that does not allow bias opinions to pollute anything, that's why they are called peer reviewed and by that i mean reviewed by all countries and all branches of science.
Antimidation 3 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens That's how we come to understand something to be as close to truth as we can, by testing a hypothesis and if it passes countless scrutiny and tests it then becomes a theory. You are lying to yourself sir, i must kindly disagree with your off handedness when it comes to evolution. Let me say it again....your idea or thought or any of your "questions that stump evolutionists" aren't original. I can give you modern examples of evolution if you would like.
Antimidation 3 weeks ago
@Antimidation
I don´t want modern examples of evolution, actually there are plenty, I myself have witnessed evolution in my back yard...I´m not askin fro examples of evolution, I´m asking and hence despising the stupid idea that evolution was the driving force that turned one of those weird cambrian marine creatures into humans, of course given enough time, roughly 600 millions years, because if you believe in evolution then you believe in this ludicrous, anti-scientific, and stupid claim
realhomosapiens 3 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens You fail at understanding the principal of it. So everything else that has evolved you believe in then? But not humans? You may take offense to this but we seem to have a language barrier, keep in mind I;m just trying to inform you of information ANYONE can learn for themselves...you stick your foot in your mouth sir, when you say everything else science has as a scientific theory is ok, but not when it comes to human evolution. I feel like i'm talking to air.
Antimidation 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Antimidation 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@realhomosapiens What you do say is true though, it is up to science to prove that something is true, and it has....you don't seem to understand how difficult it is to get a peer reviewed paper through the gauntlet of scrutinizing scientists....evolution has passed the test, i'm sorry to disappoint you. By the way, if you understand that evolution is a tree and not a ladder then you would know man did not come directly from a cambrian creature.
Antimidation 3 weeks ago
The nautilus is an example of a creature who has not evolved much because it's suited for it's environment, just like the shark. But they have evolved but apparently not by your standards....which i'm sad to say are mislead. Evolution doesn't have a goal in mind...environment plays a huge role on how something may evolve.
Antimidation 3 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens I will pose you a transitional fossil because it's fun to see how creationists respond and it and maybe you can find some bias article from a creationist website that "tells" you how to think on this subject. Are you familiar with Tiktaalik? The fossil was found based off educated guesses that if a creature that was a major link between fish and tetrapods it would be found in a certain location....and it was right where the scientists estimated it to be.
Antimidation 3 weeks ago
@Antimidation
Are you familiar with a man outside the White House almost identical to G. W. Bush, according to your criteria they must be twins....jejejejeje...any so considered transitional are just hallucinational fossill....read S. J. Gould why he came out with a different evolution versions...puntuated equilibrium, because gradualism DID NOT WORK...agarra la onda mi chave, no seas ingenuo
realhomosapiens 3 weeks ago
@realhomosapiens I'm sorry did you just compare me saying if a man looks like another man they must be related....i'm sorry but I guess you have never heard of taxonomy or phylogeny. Species branch off like a tree from one another...have you ever seen a phylogenetic tree?
Antimidation 3 weeks ago
@Antimidation
Sure I have, only creatures at the tip of the branches....the rest is in blank....totally in blank
if you believe in such a phylogentic tree let me tell you something, you have been deceived and should ask your money back, or a deeper investigation is highly encouraged...oh no, lest you realize of the delusion you have been indoctrinated to
realhomosapiens 3 weeks ago