well man a supposedly intelligent creature which is in doubt manipulated dogs into different breeds implies it took an intelligence to manipulate different species. I t is hard to believe a non thinking process created life. Kind of absured if you ask me.
@worldlystone it disproves god think about it why did god allow the extinction of Neanderthals or go back to genesis god created adam of clay and water and eve of his rib
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
And noone tried to 'censor' this message, although people teaching that we're just shit throwing apes stuck in a zoo called earth floating around in a 13 billion year old universe where up is down and left is right probably SHOULD be censored, or at the very least it should be legal to slap you accross the face until you knock it off.
The person that hit this video with a vote bot did.Noone is teaching that silly strawman to anyone.Your understanding of evolution and what theory means in science is truly sad.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evolution is a theory. That's why it's called the theory of evolution and I don't want to hear any shit about how scientists have some special definition for theory either. Enough of this bullshit, evolution will be a fact when a monkey comes out of your asshole.
bahaha right on dude! And the Theory of Gravity is just a theory too! That;s why they call it a theory! Well played my friend, you sure know what you're talking about.
Seriously though, very good video, I liked the ending, good point about bearing false witness!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes in keeping with intellectual honesty I do believe that gravity is just a theory. The only thing we can observe about gravity for the most part is that things fall. You would hard pressed to prove that there's a force of attraction between objects that can't be accounted for by an electrostatic charge. All the mocking and ridicule aside, gravity really is just a theory.
Haha to be honest I've never given much thought to gravity since grade 12 physics (avoided it thus far in uni). There are also the movements of planets and stars, the tides, but i guess you are right about how complicated gravity really is as a force.
"That's why it's called the theory of evolution and I don't want to hear any shit about how scientists have some special definition for theory either"
This is the most ignorant comment on this video.Congratulations.
@sevenYearOldBoy germs, atoms, cells and the heliocentric theory are all theories, the fact of evolution is that living things change over time, proven fact, the theory explains the literaly MILLIONS of facts
big bang is a testable theory with predictions and measurements which support those predictions. what does this have to do with evolution? big bang could be found wrong tomorrow and biology keeps on rolling along uncaring. unlike religion, science tries to understand one thing at a time
Single cell to ape to human? um...humans ARE apes. thats like saying whats the distance between LA and the united states?
Now by your logic you would conclude that I'm am Indeed Elvis.You have everything to gain by believing me,and if you disbelieve my claim you may be killed by ninjas.Choose wisely....lol
stargirlsusan Pascal's Wager had holes in it even in the 17th century when it was first proposed. This type of specious logic was not only criticized by his contemporaries, but it has been torn to shreds since then. I'm surprised that there is a single scrap left for anyone to grasp and use as a defence of their belief. Even a child can see that this argument holds no water. The fault in this type of logic, is that all religions can make the claim about their God, in which they believe.
stargirlsusan. By the way, by saying "i dont loose nothing", suggests that you do - in fact - lose something. Maybe you should consider rewriting your introduction on your channel. You could use the following suggestions: "I lose nothing", "I don't lose anything" or "I don't lose a thing". Now go and read a little bit about evolution, and find out as to why your "how come there's still monkeys" comment, has put you forward for the most ridiculous comment of the year award. Peace!
I'm glad you're laughing. As I was initially feeling guilty chuckling at your level of ignorance too. Now I feel a lot better seeing as you see too can see the funny side to your lack of knowledge. Good one you. Way to show 'em ya dumb bugger ya!
ignorance?hahaha if calling other people ignorant makes you fell better then go for it. but please stop waisting my valuable time, see unlike you i actually have a purpose in life that i have to accomplish and i can't waste all my time here debating with you for no reason.
OK, well that sounds like a fair, defensible position to hold. My intention wasn't to call you ignorant to make you feel bad, or to make me feel good. I was merely highlighting the fact that - in my observation from reading your comments - that you seem to be lacking in knowledge in certain areas of science and history. I do not profess to be smarter, or to be someone wishing to school you in the "ways of the world" not at all. However, I would be interested in hearing about your "purpose"!
how does believing in evolution will help me be a better person, i do not believe in it, all of those formulas are man made,
if we came from the monkey how come there's still monkeys and who created the monkeys?and the whole universe? and how come there is something such thing as a universe? it all had to be created by someone, o yea! GOD,
So man didn't come from ape, but why are we so much alike? We have no trace of a common ancester so we can agree that it takes faith to believe in one, since faith means believing in somthing you cant see? But now what about scientific fact's? well i do agree that evolution can be seen, but only microevolution within a species, so to say that macroevolution is true well that takes just as much faith as to believe in a common ancester. This is all fact nothing from a fairy tale my friends
Homosapians(Thats us) are a part of the great ape family.This was established by biologist before the theory of evolution was even realized.I believe it because it is supported by empirical evidence.Who taught you otherwise?Why did you believe it?
The research dealing with mans evolution from the apes begins with the assumption that man did in fact evolve from the apes. No observations or interpretations are allowed to question this apriori assumption. What has been sought in paleoanthropology then are the transitional stages from ape-like animals to man. Transitional forms have proven as elusive here however, as between any other class of plants or animals. The missing links remain missing.
I made my own tin foil hat! You should realy think about making one yourself. I am going to wear it for the rest of my life, and so will my kid's and who knows a few million years down the road my family will evolve into iron people such as iorn man! So hurry make one! or my future iron man family will kick your future family's butt! Its called natural selection! LOL evolution = FAIL
Jamie2008hmfmf like worldlystone already said, we are Apes, the theory of evolution doesn't say that we evolved from apes, and you know why? BECAUSE WE ARE APES! Instead of trying to refute evolution, why don't do you first set yourself the task - something small and easy - try familiarizing yourself with the term Ape first. Then slap yourself across the face for not doing your research before entering into a conversation that you know very little about.
And further, does it not make sense to ANYONE that if we all believed in evolution, we could have any kinds of morals we wanted, because morals are held in an individuals hands, because who says people of the law are better than a civilian? Without any type of hope in life, it doesn't matter. People could say, hm, ok well since I only have this life then Im gone forever, why not do whatever I want because it doesnt matter. Why not just kill myself? Oh yeah, evolution explains everything, right?
I totally agree. Evolution is impossible. Accidents causing mutations, psh. How does that explain our emotions and reasons? I want to know that. Oh yeah thats right, it cant be explained by evolution. Hmmm, I smell bull...
Stupid atheists, like u, believe that the whole universe created itself. i guess, if u find a book on the street with torn out first page u say that that book created itself as u dont know the author and u didnt c him. No? y so? After all that book would be far less complicated than the univers is with all its laws according 2 which it functions, u stupid jerk.
Meanwhile you believe in an invisible man who hides in the clouds, judges us by the position in which we reproduce, and demands that you worship himself/his son or you will go to hell.
And you are very jaded for a Christian - I thought your god said to love your neighbor. Calling somebody a stupid jerk, or referring to atheists as stupid doesn't sound very Christian. You had better hope that your god doesn't exist because your behavior is going to land you in hell for all eternity.
Believers in evolution r just stupid jerks like u. If Darwin lived today he himself would abolish his own theory because NO linking spieces were ever found and he himself said that without finding them the theory would be dead. And then how can u explain the jump from non-living matter 2 the living one when scientists CANNOT produce even ONE LIVING bacterium and it's only ONE CELL!
This is so funny. Evolution is supposed to be a "fact", even though no organism has ever been observed in repeatable experimentation to evolve from one kind into another. In the case of Evolution, the scientific method has been modified such that the experimentation stage is skipped. So-called "scientists" skip this from the hypothesis stage directly only the "everybody agrees" stage. As such, it is promoted from hypothesis to theory simply because "scientists agree".
As such, Evolution becomes a theory by purely political means, and not in the same way as say Einstein's relativity was promoted to a theory, the latter having been subjected to repeated experimentation.
In short, Gould is talking out of his ass. "Hi, I'm Stephen Jay Gould, the most famous scientific dumbass!!!"
There is more evidence supporting evolutionary theory than there is atomic theory or cell theory. Evolution is better understood than gravity is. 99.5% (+/-) of real scientists accept evolutionary theory. Evolutionary Theory has been challenged for 150 years and has not been falsified.
I believe the only person talking out of ones ass in this case would be you.
by evolution theory, if we came up from smaller organisms, tadpoles, monkeys, or WHATEVER, in the last few billion years, what will Human be like in 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999 trillion years fron now? ONLY GOD KNOWS, eh!
We can't really tell how we will evolve. As of now, we can only reconstruct, not construct how evolution works. There are of course some things we can do to "speed" up or alter the way we evolve, like genetic modification. Maybe the usage of cybernetics, etc etc.
If you drop a ball in 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 trillion years from now, will it still fall down?
Why even argue. These are people that think T-rex and people coexisted. Nough said, severe dillusion. I almost feel bad for them. Cult, religion, any difference. Its all brain washing.
Spot on. Evolution is more than facts. It is truth. I wish the term 'evolution theory' was changed to 'evolution truth'. It would save so much confusion.
This is a strawman. When we say that evolution is a theory, we are saying that it is the THEORY OF HOW LIFE COULD HAVE EVOLVED INSTEAD OF PLANNED. It's that simple. So are we so wrong about the theory of evolution??? We are not talking about the scientific theories of evolution, but rather the evolutionist's theory of life. Are you going to tell me that Human evolution is a fact? Deceive much???
I see.So you don't know what the scientific theory of evolution is then.Try watching the whole video before you comment.Evolution is a theory and a fact.There is no strawman here.
Indeed the truth is something you gain and can never have as a whole (at least not in this world). But its not that I know the whole truth, its that I know what is a lie. Us coming from nothing is a lie, all other beliefs are lies. Creation is the only belief that is not based on vanity. It does not state that we came from nothing which is the only aternative to God. Pagan Gods came from nothing as well... Lie is a vanity, and vanity is a lie. Chew on that little truth, buddy.
My bad, I guess I didn't make it clear. I didn't say evolution, but I'm talking about an unguided process that starts with the big bang and evolved to where we are now. that is the alternative explanation to Creation.
No, we just do not give up our faith for what science geeks, gothics, emos, abortionists, gays, feminists, have to otherwise say. but that's funny about what you say about hidden agendas since science is full of them. Are you saying that I have hidden agendas? Are you having phantom phobias? Little me having hidden agendas... I guess I am an elite being diquised as a poor man.
Actually, evolution and the big bang is the most extreme vanity, coming from nothing and going to nothing......
actually, creation is the only belief that is based on vanity...according to creation, god created man apart from and above all other animals....sorry, but that is pretty vain. And what do you mean by pagan gods? all gods are pagan.
How is that vain? Do you even know what vanity is? If we were the same as animals, then we would live quite a pointless life.
Pagan Gods have hardly any explanation or any reason to why we worship them. They are usually extracted from what has been created rather than actually being the CREATOR. Ex: The sun god. When you worship the sun, you worship the created rather than the creator. It is illogical to believe in many gods.
Yes, I'd have to say one of us does know what vanity is but that one of us isn't you. The belief that we are above or better than others is the definition of vanity and that is the belief instilled by the Christian religion. And it's no more illogical to believe in many gods than it is to believe in one god, especially one who's good book contradicts itself so often, or one who believes himself to be an omnipotent designer and then designs a world and it's life forms with so many flaws.
That is not the definition of vanity, not even the Christians definition of it. When you do something in vain, you did it worthlessly or meaninglessly. So tell me again what vanity means? Try not to die in vain, mr. atheist. And even if your definition is true, you are still wrong. Don't the atheist go around saying that they alone are correct? And don't the Christians say that it isn't the christians who are correct but it is their God?
...and I didn't contradict myself. I didn't say I was better than you just because I have a dictionary and you don't...I'm sure you have more video games than me or something so it all balances out.
Yes, it is the definition of vanity. The word vain has multiple definitions, you are correct, it can mean worthless or needless but it can also mean excessive pride. However, vanity refers to pride, at least in the context that freethinkerbell was using it (freethinker, you can correct me if I misunderstood your comment) and it was freethinker's comment that you originally responded to, so it's in that context that we are using the word in this thread.
If you don't believe me about the definition of vanity...look it up, I just did (the following definitions are taken from the 2007 ed of Websters abridged dictionary):
vanity: inflated pride in oneself
vain: 1) having no real value
2) marked by futility or ineffectualness
3) having or showing undue or excessive pride
and I think we can all agree that each of these definitions are synonomous to the creationist view of life
Or take a microwave Manual for instance...the manual is the theorie on how the actual microwave works....you can use the microwave if you implement the theory you know from the manual. If this was a course at school, the teacher could ask you to learn the Manual (theory) and then he or she could also "Now use the microwave and warm up my soup" (implementing)
I just realised that the word *theory* could be better (easier) understood in another language, in this case the dutch language dutch for *theory* is *Theorie*. So for instance ...if my teacher in the Netherlands said "Jullie moeten de theorie leren en het kunnen toepassen in praktijk" (You must learn the theory and know how to implement it)
Simply Google Theory VS Law. Law existed until Einstein's theory of relativity sort of "changed" Newton's laws of physics (at the speed of light physics changes dramatically). So! Scientists decided to deem the highest form in the scientific hierarchy a THEORY! Thus a theory is testable, repeatable, observable etc. True though that facts explain theories. People who argue with the "it's only a theory" argument are fools.
It knocks them off their pedistal of being "God's favorite creation". It "reduces" humans to the level of animals...in their eyes this is a bad thing, particularly to their egos. I've noticed that quite a few Creationist objections to the ToE seem to be entirely based out of pride.
Since the chicken and the chicken egg were classified as such at the same time,your question is irrelevant.The bible has a lot to say about emotions.Why are you asking me these silly question?
The answer to the chicken or egg question is very easy.
Two 'not-quite-chickens' fell in love, had a special cuddle, and each contributed half of a zygote, which grew up to become an egg. But not just an ordinary egg. This egg had the world's first chicken growing inside it. Isn't that lovely!
Due to crossing over, random shuffling, chance recombination and random mutation in the process scientists like to call meiosis, the egg came first. From parents who were not quite chickens.
Obviously a bit more complicated since we are talking about breeding populations with substantial variation among individuals and associated genetic drift. Defining a species is a bit arbitrary and the ambiguity or uncertainty of this does not fit the world-view of the religious well since they see things so "black and white".
i really don't know why evolution scares believers so much.....science as a whole including evolution has a neutral affect on the god question IMO. ;-) great video stone
Thanks.I couldn't agree more.Even as a Christian i was confused as to why creationists would associated evolution with Atheism.Its as if some people think that the limitations of their own imaginations are some how the limitations of the possible actions that a god could take to fulfill its will.
if evolution is a "fact" then we are also related to roaches, rats, flys, or at least you are. How dare you call us jerks because we don't beleive what you and some scientist say are facts. Truth be told not all scientist agree with evolution. Try researching with some bias douchebag.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but we are related to roaches, rats, etc. In fact, if you understood anything about evolution at all you would already know that. It is why it is called "common descent". The "Theory" is that all extant life on earth shares a common ancestor billions of years ago. LUCA=Last Universal Common Ancestor. Arguments from incredulity or ignorance may appeal to the ignorant masses at Sunday service, but they fail miserably in the scientific arena.Get an education.
When you build a world-view based an argument-from-authority that the bible is inerrant, you have proven yourself to be closed minded and devoid of the ability or willingness (i.e. curiosity) to research and verify the information yourself. You, instead, prefer to be spoon fed information by your "chosen authority" and willingly exclude all other sources, especially those that conflict with your delusion.
Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.
Thats true,but I wasn't trying to prove that we evolved from apes.I was just trying to explain how evolution is a fact and a theory.I'm sorry If It seemed that way to you.
Is it more plasible that we were made from dirt by an invisible creator, even though there are many examples of transitional forms of homonid fossils already found as evidence of a transition? I can't understand how this mind blockage keeps people from critical thinkng.
the problem is that when scientific knolege increases the ount of transitional fossils decreases, and also evolutionists like to ignore the fossils that contradict evolutionary ´´theory´´
How can the amount of transitional fossils decrease? Did somebody purloin the archives? Further, paleontologists have barely scratched the surface of fossil bearing strata. There is little incentive to uncover the quintillion tons of rock to study fossil morphology. Usually the only fossil excavations undertaken is for the extraction deep in the earth of the fleshy remains, in the form of coal and oil! have you ever seen the fossils in coal beds? I have. Usually we burn the evidence for fuel.
By whom are they not considered transitional? The deluded? They were predicted by theory, and they were found. To deny this is tantamount to a lie in order to support a failed assertion that offers NO evidence for support, and you know which assertion I am talking about. No offspring generation is EVER identical to a parent generation. That alone is evolution! Observe, don't deny!
no you are doing word games again! I can accept the fact that living things change without assuming that apes and humans have a common ansestor, besides evolutionists accept that those are not transitional fosils, DO SOME RESEARCH
That's classic! A creationist imploring people do to research, when it is pretty apparent from your own comments that it is YOU who needs to do some real research
H. neanderthalensis - no it is not considered an ancestor of modern humans. But so what? How does this endanger the validity of evolution? Studies of their DNA are conclusive evidence of evolution and of our close relationship i.e. common ancestor.
H. habilis - jury is still out on whether it is a direct ancestor, it is still entirely plausible that habilis persisted for some time after giving rise to H. erectus. (cont.)
Coelacanth - coelacanth is not a species it's an entire order (Coelacanthiformes), the two extant species are not even in the same family as those found in the fossil record! The extant species (Latimeria spp.) were NEVER considered transitional to begin with as there is no fossil record for them.
Feathered dinosaurs - you'll have to be more specific, but basically this is false, there are quite a few feathered dinosaurs that are transitional e.g. Deinonychosaurs, Sinovenator, Byronosaurus.
As for "Evolutionists like to ignore the fossils that contradict" - Yeah, and what fossils might those be? There are no fossils that contradict evolution.
continuing with word games? you can not even define familly, claiming that the coelacanth in the fossil record and the living one are different families is just a random claim.
arquopteryx is older than any of the feathered dinosaurs that you mentioned, therefore they are not transitional
Give the word games bit a rest, the only one playing word games here is you, by twisting definitions to suit your own agenda.
Your statement is the random claim. The specimens found in the fossil record are significantly different to the two known modern Latimeria spp. They are quite a bit smaller than the modern species and have different internal structures, hence/ergo they are classified in entirely different families. (cont.)
Most of those found in the fossil record belong to the family Coelacanthidae, while the two modern Latimeria spp. belong to the family Latimeriidae. Taxonomy works by grouping together those organisms that share similar structure, anatomy, morphology, physiology etc., obviously those found in the fossil record and the extant species are sufficiently different (hint evolution), to warrant them being classified in separate families. (cont.)
They are not the same species, genus OR family, they are totally distinct and they most certainly have not remained unchanged over the last 410 million years! The extant Latimeria sp. are simply a specialised remnant of the ancient taxa, that probably survived by adapting to life in the deep ocean. (cont.)
I'm assuming you mean archaeopteryx? You are aware "transitional" does not mean "ancestral" and that archaeopteryx is not considered an ancestor of modern birds? Therefore my previous examples still stand. But I think I know what you're getting at now. The paper published last year on Sinosauropteryx that made the claim that not only did birds not evolve from theropods, but also that there is no evidence that dinosaurs even had feathers, a fringe view. (cont.)
It wasn't well received, the majority of scientists were unconvinced and other experts had previously concluded the exact opposite, that Sinosauropteryx in fact did have protofeathers.
Yes there is an alternate theory that suggests that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, but earlier from a common ancestor, however, it is poorly supported and holds little professional favour. Whereas, the widely held alternative that birds evolved from theropods is steadily accumulating evidence. (cont.)
The point is that the so called ´´amphibian structures´´ that the coelacanth seemed to have are know known to be 100% fish structures, so weather if the coelacanth in the fossil record is a different family or not, is irrelevant because we now know that there is no reason to think than the coelacanth evolved in to amphibian. As for archaeopteryx, well many evolutionists claim that it is the ancestor of modern birds, and in fact that is what some text books teach,
however Sinosauropteryx (oldest proto feathered creature) is younger than archaeopteryx (who has feathers) therefore the evidence shows that feathers did not evolved from feathers.
well said. the ending was cash haha
ICreamsodAI 11 months ago
definetly a votebot situation...which is bullshit!
MasterOhSo 1 year ago
Good, but your volume is too low....
ChuckyJesus666 1 year ago
well man a supposedly intelligent creature which is in doubt manipulated dogs into different breeds implies it took an intelligence to manipulate different species. I t is hard to believe a non thinking process created life. Kind of absured if you ask me.
MrJetco 1 year ago
the Michael likes the way you think. Good job.
Shitty comments and ratings though. That's a shame.
theM1chael 2 years ago
Thanks!
worldlystone 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Heres a question to you evolutionists, IF evolution DID happened to make it possible? Do you not just go in a circle and come back to GOD?
ssj5legend 2 years ago
Evolution does not prove or disprove god.What circle are you talking about?
worldlystone 2 years ago
@worldlystone it disproves god think about it why did god allow the extinction of Neanderthals or go back to genesis god created adam of clay and water and eve of his rib
dutchgangsta1 2 years ago
Where does your god come from? Did he evolve?
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 years ago
"Evoultionists" as you call us is NOT, i repeat, NOT a religion. That means that we do not have a god!
NuclearMouse94 2 years ago
pls try to understand!!! DId you know that all things in universe are ORGANIZE! did u believe that about 1% only discovered human by its research
wrathofmighty 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And noone tried to 'censor' this message, although people teaching that we're just shit throwing apes stuck in a zoo called earth floating around in a 13 billion year old universe where up is down and left is right probably SHOULD be censored, or at the very least it should be legal to slap you accross the face until you knock it off.
sevenYearOldBoy 2 years ago
The person that hit this video with a vote bot did.Noone is teaching that silly strawman to anyone.Your understanding of evolution and what theory means in science is truly sad.
worldlystone 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution is a theory. That's why it's called the theory of evolution and I don't want to hear any shit about how scientists have some special definition for theory either. Enough of this bullshit, evolution will be a fact when a monkey comes out of your asshole.
sevenYearOldBoy 2 years ago
bahaha right on dude! And the Theory of Gravity is just a theory too! That;s why they call it a theory! Well played my friend, you sure know what you're talking about.
Seriously though, very good video, I liked the ending, good point about bearing false witness!
CoretezTheKiller 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes in keeping with intellectual honesty I do believe that gravity is just a theory. The only thing we can observe about gravity for the most part is that things fall. You would hard pressed to prove that there's a force of attraction between objects that can't be accounted for by an electrostatic charge. All the mocking and ridicule aside, gravity really is just a theory.
sevenYearOldBoy 2 years ago
Haha to be honest I've never given much thought to gravity since grade 12 physics (avoided it thus far in uni). There are also the movements of planets and stars, the tides, but i guess you are right about how complicated gravity really is as a force.
CoretezTheKiller 2 years ago
"That's why it's called the theory of evolution and I don't want to hear any shit about how scientists have some special definition for theory either"
This is the most ignorant comment on this video.Congratulations.
worldlystone 2 years ago
@sevenYearOldBoy germs, atoms, cells and the heliocentric theory are all theories, the fact of evolution is that living things change over time, proven fact, the theory explains the literaly MILLIONS of facts
blazereef 1 year ago
@sevenYearOldBoy Evolution is a process, a proven fact, there is a theory to show how it happened.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Great Vid!
5 stars, just trying to help stop the creationist votebots terrorizing vids
Emin3mRulez 2 years ago
Hey worldystone,
Have you sent a message to thunderf00t about the votebots? He can help you out.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
Gravity bears a resemblance to evolution?
Perhaps this is partly why you're video is getting dugg down.
SmalltimR 3 years ago
What is it about my comparison between evolution and gravity do you take issue with?
worldlystone 2 years ago
Thats what i thought.Nothing to say.
worldlystone 2 years ago
Saw your comment on eddie goombah's vid so I came to lend a helping hand...or rather a helping 5*
ubergossen 3 years ago 2
Thanks:)
worldlystone 3 years ago
This video is under attack by hacker vote bots.Please five star and favorite.Thank you!
worldlystone 3 years ago
Come to my website and ill repsond to your video requests
316truth316 3 years ago
Big bang theory to universe to...distruction
single cell to ape to human to .......die or multiply
what`s next??
wrathofmighty 3 years ago
I think your missing a few steps there buddy.
worldlystone 3 years ago
big bang is a testable theory with predictions and measurements which support those predictions. what does this have to do with evolution? big bang could be found wrong tomorrow and biology keeps on rolling along uncaring. unlike religion, science tries to understand one thing at a time
Single cell to ape to human? um...humans ARE apes. thats like saying whats the distance between LA and the united states?
TREE not LADDER. see the difference?
addmoreice 3 years ago
if i believe in God and there is no God i dont loose nothing
If i believe in God and there is a God i had win(big time)
if i disbeliebe in God and there is no God i dont loose nothing
If i disbelieve in God and there is a God i had lost(big time)
there is two ways this is the most logic way i found to describe them, u chose
stargirlsusan 3 years ago
Do you believe that i am Elvis?If you do I'll give you one million dollars.If you don't i will send ninjas to you house to kill you next week.
worldlystone 3 years ago
Now by your logic you would conclude that I'm am Indeed Elvis.You have everything to gain by believing me,and if you disbelieve my claim you may be killed by ninjas.Choose wisely....lol
worldlystone 3 years ago
stargirlsusan Pascal's Wager had holes in it even in the 17th century when it was first proposed. This type of specious logic was not only criticized by his contemporaries, but it has been torn to shreds since then. I'm surprised that there is a single scrap left for anyone to grasp and use as a defence of their belief. Even a child can see that this argument holds no water. The fault in this type of logic, is that all religions can make the claim about their God, in which they believe.
bettySwollox 3 years ago
stargirlsusan. By the way, by saying "i dont loose nothing", suggests that you do - in fact - lose something. Maybe you should consider rewriting your introduction on your channel. You could use the following suggestions: "I lose nothing", "I don't lose anything" or "I don't lose a thing". Now go and read a little bit about evolution, and find out as to why your "how come there's still monkeys" comment, has put you forward for the most ridiculous comment of the year award. Peace!
bettySwollox 3 years ago
good one
u made me laugh! hahhahaahaaa
stargirlsusan 3 years ago
I'm glad you're laughing. As I was initially feeling guilty chuckling at your level of ignorance too. Now I feel a lot better seeing as you see too can see the funny side to your lack of knowledge. Good one you. Way to show 'em ya dumb bugger ya!
bettySwollox 3 years ago
ignorance?hahaha if calling other people ignorant makes you fell better then go for it. but please stop waisting my valuable time, see unlike you i actually have a purpose in life that i have to accomplish and i can't waste all my time here debating with you for no reason.
stargirlsusan 3 years ago 2
OK, well that sounds like a fair, defensible position to hold. My intention wasn't to call you ignorant to make you feel bad, or to make me feel good. I was merely highlighting the fact that - in my observation from reading your comments - that you seem to be lacking in knowledge in certain areas of science and history. I do not profess to be smarter, or to be someone wishing to school you in the "ways of the world" not at all. However, I would be interested in hearing about your "purpose"!
bettySwollox 3 years ago
how does believing in evolution will help me be a better person, i do not believe in it, all of those formulas are man made,
if we came from the monkey how come there's still monkeys and who created the monkeys?and the whole universe? and how come there is something such thing as a universe? it all had to be created by someone, o yea! GOD,
stargirlsusan 3 years ago
We didn't come from monkeys.Please learn the basics of evolution before leaving silly comments on videos.
worldlystone 3 years ago
So man didn't come from ape, but why are we so much alike? We have no trace of a common ancester so we can agree that it takes faith to believe in one, since faith means believing in somthing you cant see? But now what about scientific fact's? well i do agree that evolution can be seen, but only microevolution within a species, so to say that macroevolution is true well that takes just as much faith as to believe in a common ancester. This is all fact nothing from a fairy tale my friends
Jamie2008hmfmf 3 years ago
man is an ape.
worldlystone 3 years ago
LOL Who taught you that, and why did you believe it?
Jamie2008hmfmf 3 years ago
Homosapians(Thats us) are a part of the great ape family.This was established by biologist before the theory of evolution was even realized.I believe it because it is supported by empirical evidence.Who taught you otherwise?Why did you believe it?
worldlystone 3 years ago
The research dealing with mans evolution from the apes begins with the assumption that man did in fact evolve from the apes. No observations or interpretations are allowed to question this apriori assumption. What has been sought in paleoanthropology then are the transitional stages from ape-like animals to man. Transitional forms have proven as elusive here however, as between any other class of plants or animals. The missing links remain missing.
Jamie2008hmfmf 3 years ago
So did that conspiracy theory come with tin foil hat,or did you have make one yourself.
worldlystone 3 years ago
I made my own tin foil hat! You should realy think about making one yourself. I am going to wear it for the rest of my life, and so will my kid's and who knows a few million years down the road my family will evolve into iron people such as iorn man! So hurry make one! or my future iron man family will kick your future family's butt! Its called natural selection! LOL evolution = FAIL
Jamie2008hmfmf 3 years ago
Jamie2008hmfmf like worldlystone already said, we are Apes, the theory of evolution doesn't say that we evolved from apes, and you know why? BECAUSE WE ARE APES! Instead of trying to refute evolution, why don't do you first set yourself the task - something small and easy - try familiarizing yourself with the term Ape first. Then slap yourself across the face for not doing your research before entering into a conversation that you know very little about.
bettySwollox 3 years ago
And further, does it not make sense to ANYONE that if we all believed in evolution, we could have any kinds of morals we wanted, because morals are held in an individuals hands, because who says people of the law are better than a civilian? Without any type of hope in life, it doesn't matter. People could say, hm, ok well since I only have this life then Im gone forever, why not do whatever I want because it doesnt matter. Why not just kill myself? Oh yeah, evolution explains everything, right?
arrivedhasdarkness 3 years ago
"Oh yeah, evolution explains everything, right?"
No, not at all. It only explains the diversity of life.
jjukil 3 years ago
I totally agree. Evolution is impossible. Accidents causing mutations, psh. How does that explain our emotions and reasons? I want to know that. Oh yeah thats right, it cant be explained by evolution. Hmmm, I smell bull...
arrivedhasdarkness 3 years ago
When you're done with you straw man would you care to post a comment about evolution?
worldlystone 3 years ago
That doesnt make any sense. What are you trying to say?
arrivedhasdarkness 3 years ago
ok evolution cannot be both a fact and theory. it is simply a theory and its one of the stupidest things that man could have ever come up with...
jleazott 3 years ago
lol ya.. mankind should have ignored all the strange fossils and bones they found. "Duhh. what are these bones?"
"I dunno.. burn them!"
MattBaumann777 3 years ago
Stupid atheists, like u, believe that the whole universe created itself. i guess, if u find a book on the street with torn out first page u say that that book created itself as u dont know the author and u didnt c him. No? y so? After all that book would be far less complicated than the univers is with all its laws according 2 which it functions, u stupid jerk.
GeneNowok 3 years ago
Meanwhile you believe in an invisible man who hides in the clouds, judges us by the position in which we reproduce, and demands that you worship himself/his son or you will go to hell.
And you are very jaded for a Christian - I thought your god said to love your neighbor. Calling somebody a stupid jerk, or referring to atheists as stupid doesn't sound very Christian. You had better hope that your god doesn't exist because your behavior is going to land you in hell for all eternity.
1n354a 3 years ago
amen
jleazott 3 years ago
Believers in evolution r just stupid jerks like u. If Darwin lived today he himself would abolish his own theory because NO linking spieces were ever found and he himself said that without finding them the theory would be dead. And then how can u explain the jump from non-living matter 2 the living one when scientists CANNOT produce even ONE LIVING bacterium and it's only ONE CELL!
GeneNowok 3 years ago
This is so funny. Evolution is supposed to be a "fact", even though no organism has ever been observed in repeatable experimentation to evolve from one kind into another. In the case of Evolution, the scientific method has been modified such that the experimentation stage is skipped. So-called "scientists" skip this from the hypothesis stage directly only the "everybody agrees" stage. As such, it is promoted from hypothesis to theory simply because "scientists agree".
christianbrecht 3 years ago
As such, Evolution becomes a theory by purely political means, and not in the same way as say Einstein's relativity was promoted to a theory, the latter having been subjected to repeated experimentation.
In short, Gould is talking out of his ass. "Hi, I'm Stephen Jay Gould, the most famous scientific dumbass!!!"
christianbrecht 3 years ago
There is more evidence supporting evolutionary theory than there is atomic theory or cell theory. Evolution is better understood than gravity is. 99.5% (+/-) of real scientists accept evolutionary theory. Evolutionary Theory has been challenged for 150 years and has not been falsified.
I believe the only person talking out of ones ass in this case would be you.
1n354a 3 years ago
now you are lying. evolution has been proved to be a lie over n over again. where were yu all those times? bet yu were hiding, eh?
heheh...does it matter? NO!
sthcrox 3 years ago
It does if you are a gravitationalist - are you a gravitationalist?
1n354a 3 years ago
When was evolution proven a lie? Do you have a link? That sounds like hogwash.
MattBaumann777 3 years ago
Great video. I've linked creationists to Gould's essay so many times now I've lost count.
deBeuk 3 years ago
A question for ALL EVOLUTIONISTS:
by evolution theory, if we came up from smaller organisms, tadpoles, monkeys, or WHATEVER, in the last few billion years, what will Human be like in 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999 trillion years fron now? ONLY GOD KNOWS, eh!
sthcrox 3 years ago
It's a stupid question =)
We can't really tell how we will evolve. As of now, we can only reconstruct, not construct how evolution works. There are of course some things we can do to "speed" up or alter the way we evolve, like genetic modification. Maybe the usage of cybernetics, etc etc.
Avatra1 3 years ago
what criteria do yu use to identify the type a question belongs to? hehehe...just joking.
thanks for your answer, sure appreciate it.
cheers
sthcrox 3 years ago
No worries
Avatra1 3 years ago
a question for ALL GRAVITATIONALISTS:
If you drop a ball in 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 trillion years from now, will it still fall down?
1n354a 3 years ago
does it matter? no!
sthcrox 3 years ago
It does if you are a gravitationalist - are you a gravitationalist?
1n354a 3 years ago
does it matter? no!
sthcrox 3 years ago
It does if you are a gravitationalist - are you a gravitationalist?
1n354a 3 years ago
God is Santa Claus for adults.
ColoradoMikeyS 3 years ago
Why even argue. These are people that think T-rex and people coexisted. Nough said, severe dillusion. I almost feel bad for them. Cult, religion, any difference. Its all brain washing.
whitemanatc 3 years ago 2
No only that, they also believe T-rex with all those sharp jagged meat ripping teeth, was really a vegetarian.
fishcious 3 years ago
Who is brainwashed? Mr. Nough said?
What the hell is 'nough'???
You mean 'nuff said. You didn't even get that spelling right you dumb asshole
christianbrecht 3 years ago
Spot on. Evolution is more than facts. It is truth. I wish the term 'evolution theory' was changed to 'evolution truth'. It would save so much confusion.
bonangusacdc 3 years ago
This is a strawman. When we say that evolution is a theory, we are saying that it is the THEORY OF HOW LIFE COULD HAVE EVOLVED INSTEAD OF PLANNED. It's that simple. So are we so wrong about the theory of evolution??? We are not talking about the scientific theories of evolution, but rather the evolutionist's theory of life. Are you going to tell me that Human evolution is a fact? Deceive much???
randallsnowb 3 years ago
Do you know what a strawman is?
worldlystone 3 years ago
Yup, sure do... Ha! LOL!
randallsnowb 3 years ago
I see.So you don't know what the scientific theory of evolution is then.Try watching the whole video before you comment.Evolution is a theory and a fact.There is no strawman here.
worldlystone 3 years ago
Wat is the truth for your theory of life?
freethinkerbell 3 years ago
Indeed the truth is something you gain and can never have as a whole (at least not in this world). But its not that I know the whole truth, its that I know what is a lie. Us coming from nothing is a lie, all other beliefs are lies. Creation is the only belief that is not based on vanity. It does not state that we came from nothing which is the only aternative to God. Pagan Gods came from nothing as well... Lie is a vanity, and vanity is a lie. Chew on that little truth, buddy.
randallsnowb 3 years ago
The theory of evolution does not state that we came from nothing.When you're done beating on that strawman just let me know.
worldlystone 3 years ago
My bad, I guess I didn't make it clear. I didn't say evolution, but I'm talking about an unguided process that starts with the big bang and evolved to where we are now. that is the alternative explanation to Creation.
randallsnowb 3 years ago
It is almost as if religious people have a hidden agenda. science is not that hard to understand.
And the creation theory is a belief that is based on extreme vanity, it want to place man and earth in the center of the universe.
Next thing you going to tell me that the sun orbits the earth
freethinkerbell 3 years ago
No, we just do not give up our faith for what science geeks, gothics, emos, abortionists, gays, feminists, have to otherwise say. but that's funny about what you say about hidden agendas since science is full of them. Are you saying that I have hidden agendas? Are you having phantom phobias? Little me having hidden agendas... I guess I am an elite being diquised as a poor man.
Actually, evolution and the big bang is the most extreme vanity, coming from nothing and going to nothing......
randallsnowb 3 years ago
actually, creation is the only belief that is based on vanity...according to creation, god created man apart from and above all other animals....sorry, but that is pretty vain. And what do you mean by pagan gods? all gods are pagan.
fishcious 3 years ago
How is that vain? Do you even know what vanity is? If we were the same as animals, then we would live quite a pointless life.
Pagan Gods have hardly any explanation or any reason to why we worship them. They are usually extracted from what has been created rather than actually being the CREATOR. Ex: The sun god. When you worship the sun, you worship the created rather than the creator. It is illogical to believe in many gods.
randallsnowb 3 years ago
Yes, I'd have to say one of us does know what vanity is but that one of us isn't you. The belief that we are above or better than others is the definition of vanity and that is the belief instilled by the Christian religion. And it's no more illogical to believe in many gods than it is to believe in one god, especially one who's good book contradicts itself so often, or one who believes himself to be an omnipotent designer and then designs a world and it's life forms with so many flaws.
fishcious 3 years ago
That is not the definition of vanity, not even the Christians definition of it. When you do something in vain, you did it worthlessly or meaninglessly. So tell me again what vanity means? Try not to die in vain, mr. atheist. And even if your definition is true, you are still wrong. Don't the atheist go around saying that they alone are correct? And don't the Christians say that it isn't the christians who are correct but it is their God?
randallsnowb 3 years ago
Oh, and you contradicted yourself, btw.
"The belief that we are above or better than others is the definition of vanity"
But before you said that, you said:
"Yes, I'd have to say one of us does know what vanity is but that one of us isn't you."
Doesn't this state that you are better than me?
randallsnowb 3 years ago
...and I didn't contradict myself. I didn't say I was better than you just because I have a dictionary and you don't...I'm sure you have more video games than me or something so it all balances out.
fishcious 3 years ago
Yes, it is the definition of vanity. The word vain has multiple definitions, you are correct, it can mean worthless or needless but it can also mean excessive pride. However, vanity refers to pride, at least in the context that freethinkerbell was using it (freethinker, you can correct me if I misunderstood your comment) and it was freethinker's comment that you originally responded to, so it's in that context that we are using the word in this thread.
fishcious 3 years ago
If you don't believe me about the definition of vanity...look it up, I just did (the following definitions are taken from the 2007 ed of Websters abridged dictionary):
vanity: inflated pride in oneself
vain: 1) having no real value
2) marked by futility or ineffectualness
3) having or showing undue or excessive pride
and I think we can all agree that each of these definitions are synonomous to the creationist view of life
fishcious 3 years ago
could also ask ***
loek555 3 years ago
Or take a microwave Manual for instance...the manual is the theorie on how the actual microwave works....you can use the microwave if you implement the theory you know from the manual. If this was a course at school, the teacher could ask you to learn the Manual (theory) and then he or she could also "Now use the microwave and warm up my soup" (implementing)
loek555 3 years ago
I just realised that the word *theory* could be better (easier) understood in another language, in this case the dutch language dutch for *theory* is *Theorie*. So for instance ...if my teacher in the Netherlands said "Jullie moeten de theorie leren en het kunnen toepassen in praktijk" (You must learn the theory and know how to implement it)
loek555 3 years ago
Simply Google Theory VS Law. Law existed until Einstein's theory of relativity sort of "changed" Newton's laws of physics (at the speed of light physics changes dramatically). So! Scientists decided to deem the highest form in the scientific hierarchy a THEORY! Thus a theory is testable, repeatable, observable etc. True though that facts explain theories. People who argue with the "it's only a theory" argument are fools.
herbiethebarber 3 years ago
I tried to explain this point to someone but he said, "That is your opinion!" True story. In fact I provided the link to this video.
Brainmold 3 years ago
Evolution it self is a fact,(truth.) The theory of evolution is just explanation on how that fact works.'
Just like we know gravity is real, its a fact. Yet the theory behind gravity is the explanation of that fact.
Darkphoenix3450 3 years ago
theory is how fact works
like blueprint is how house is made
thenollie3 3 years ago
Why does evolution frighten believers?
It knocks them off their pedistal of being "God's favorite creation". It "reduces" humans to the level of animals...in their eyes this is a bad thing, particularly to their egos. I've noticed that quite a few Creationist objections to the ToE seem to be entirely based out of pride.
Bookwyrm86 3 years ago
Evolution is obvious,God is also obvious since you think your so smart what do you believe came first the chicken or the egg ?????
whats the bible got to do with love? religion is a diversion scientists are contra dicks!! God is one non other than
YOU ARE A FUCKING SPANK BUBBLE OF A BRAIN WHAT YOU DO IS A SHAME!!
wiseforlife 3 years ago
Since the chicken and the chicken egg were classified as such at the same time,your question is irrelevant.The bible has a lot to say about emotions.Why are you asking me these silly question?
worldlystone 3 years ago
The answer to the chicken or egg question is very easy.
Two 'not-quite-chickens' fell in love, had a special cuddle, and each contributed half of a zygote, which grew up to become an egg. But not just an ordinary egg. This egg had the world's first chicken growing inside it. Isn't that lovely!
Due to crossing over, random shuffling, chance recombination and random mutation in the process scientists like to call meiosis, the egg came first. From parents who were not quite chickens.
TeacherOfScience 3 years ago
lol@"special cuddle".
worldlystone 3 years ago
Good one. Proto-chicken to chicken!
Obviously a bit more complicated since we are talking about breeding populations with substantial variation among individuals and associated genetic drift. Defining a species is a bit arbitrary and the ambiguity or uncertainty of this does not fit the world-view of the religious well since they see things so "black and white".
doc911sc 3 years ago 2
"God is also obvious"
Which one? let me guess you one you believe in? and no others hat have the same evidence as your prefered imaginary god!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
i really don't know why evolution scares believers so much.....science as a whole including evolution has a neutral affect on the god question IMO. ;-) great video stone
istheretruth 3 years ago 2
Thanks.I couldn't agree more.Even as a Christian i was confused as to why creationists would associated evolution with Atheism.Its as if some people think that the limitations of their own imaginations are some how the limitations of the possible actions that a god could take to fulfill its will.
worldlystone 3 years ago
Very well done video. I especially liked the ending haha. Kick ass dude :)
TheWakingRaven 3 years ago
if evolution is a "fact" then we are also related to roaches, rats, flys, or at least you are. How dare you call us jerks because we don't beleive what you and some scientist say are facts. Truth be told not all scientist agree with evolution. Try researching with some bias douchebag.
donpatton 3 years ago
Did you actually watch this video?
"Try researching with some bias douchebag."
ROTFL!
Do you know what bias is?
worldlystone 3 years ago
Sorry to burst your bubble, but we are related to roaches, rats, etc. In fact, if you understood anything about evolution at all you would already know that. It is why it is called "common descent". The "Theory" is that all extant life on earth shares a common ancestor billions of years ago. LUCA=Last Universal Common Ancestor. Arguments from incredulity or ignorance may appeal to the ignorant masses at Sunday service, but they fail miserably in the scientific arena.Get an education.
doc911sc 3 years ago
Darn! doc911sc you beat me to it! I am always surprised at just how ignorant people like donpatton are of the facts of evolution.
TeacherOfScience 3 years ago
When you build a world-view based an argument-from-authority that the bible is inerrant, you have proven yourself to be closed minded and devoid of the ability or willingness (i.e. curiosity) to research and verify the information yourself. You, instead, prefer to be spoon fed information by your "chosen authority" and willingly exclude all other sources, especially those that conflict with your delusion.
doc911sc 3 years ago 2
If your mind is not expansive enough to truly appreciate the beauty of the science, then I can understand how you might feel a bit bitter.
Like the kid who can't see the sailboat on the magic eye poster. Except you still assert that everybody else is wrong.
Bless.
Furrowbrow 2 years ago
Sorry, doc.. that wasn't supposed to be directed at you.
Furrowbrow 2 years ago
Great work, excellent explantion!
5/5
Atheistblindchick 4 years ago
Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.
ReturnOfLion 4 years ago
Well said!Thanks for the comment!
worldlystone 3 years ago
Thanks for posting this!
flashcat 4 years ago
I believe that evolution is a theory cause evolution is crap full of bullshit.
alldyafterme 4 years ago
What?Are you joking?How can crap be full of bullshit?
worldlystone 4 years ago
Way to not even read the description ... or have even the most basic idea what a scientific theory means.
Worthless moron.
Jakemmx 4 years ago 2
Alldyafterme:Found a "talking snake" yet ? Maybe that`s more believable. Peace !!
Philos2006 3 years ago
Your ending is classic.
jebus6kryst 4 years ago
You need to turn your mic up for your next videos.
jebus6kryst 4 years ago
:0) smarty pants
cool video
BEX27EYH 4 years ago
A cool video,for my cool subscribers:)
worldlystone 4 years ago
Well you do know flattery will get you every were lol ;0)
BEX27EYH 4 years ago
Explaining the relationship between "fact" and "theory" is probably the hardest job that rational people face.
You've done a very good job.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago 2
Thanks,I did my best.
worldlystone 4 years ago
I can accept al the facts that you mentioned without assuming that apes and humans have a commun ansestor
a01011399 4 years ago
Thats true,but I wasn't trying to prove that we evolved from apes.I was just trying to explain how evolution is a fact and a theory.I'm sorry If It seemed that way to you.
worldlystone 4 years ago
Is it more plasible that we were made from dirt by an invisible creator, even though there are many examples of transitional forms of homonid fossils already found as evidence of a transition? I can't understand how this mind blockage keeps people from critical thinkng.
CHAS1422 4 years ago
the problem is that when scientific knolege increases the ount of transitional fossils decreases, and also evolutionists like to ignore the fossils that contradict evolutionary ´´theory´´
a01011399 4 years ago
How can the amount of transitional fossils decrease? Did somebody purloin the archives? Further, paleontologists have barely scratched the surface of fossil bearing strata. There is little incentive to uncover the quintillion tons of rock to study fossil morphology. Usually the only fossil excavations undertaken is for the extraction deep in the earth of the fleshy remains, in the form of coal and oil! have you ever seen the fossils in coal beds? I have. Usually we burn the evidence for fuel.
CHAS1422 4 years ago
neanderthal, homo habilis, coelacanth, feathered dinosaurs etc where considered to be transitions but not anymore
a01011399 4 years ago
By whom are they not considered transitional? The deluded? They were predicted by theory, and they were found. To deny this is tantamount to a lie in order to support a failed assertion that offers NO evidence for support, and you know which assertion I am talking about. No offspring generation is EVER identical to a parent generation. That alone is evolution! Observe, don't deny!
CHAS1422 4 years ago
no you are doing word games again! I can accept the fact that living things change without assuming that apes and humans have a common ansestor, besides evolutionists accept that those are not transitional fosils, DO SOME RESEARCH
a01011399 4 years ago
No,it is you who is playing deceptive word games.
worldlystone 4 years ago
why am I using word games?
a01011399 4 years ago
That's classic! A creationist imploring people do to research, when it is pretty apparent from your own comments that it is YOU who needs to do some real research
TheAnathemas 4 years ago
why? my arguments are correct, and evolutionists know this, they just don´t like to mention it
a01011399 4 years ago
H. neanderthalensis - no it is not considered an ancestor of modern humans. But so what? How does this endanger the validity of evolution? Studies of their DNA are conclusive evidence of evolution and of our close relationship i.e. common ancestor.
H. habilis - jury is still out on whether it is a direct ancestor, it is still entirely plausible that habilis persisted for some time after giving rise to H. erectus. (cont.)
TheAnathemas 4 years ago
Either way habilis is still transitional in the sense that it shows traits of both the homo and Australopithecus genera.
A rethink of our phylogeny does not disprove evolution.
TheAnathemas 4 years ago
Coelacanth - coelacanth is not a species it's an entire order (Coelacanthiformes), the two extant species are not even in the same family as those found in the fossil record! The extant species (Latimeria spp.) were NEVER considered transitional to begin with as there is no fossil record for them.
Feathered dinosaurs - you'll have to be more specific, but basically this is false, there are quite a few feathered dinosaurs that are transitional e.g. Deinonychosaurs, Sinovenator, Byronosaurus.
TheAnathemas 4 years ago
As for "Evolutionists like to ignore the fossils that contradict" - Yeah, and what fossils might those be? There are no fossils that contradict evolution.
TheAnathemas 4 years ago
continuing with word games? you can not even define familly, claiming that the coelacanth in the fossil record and the living one are different families is just a random claim.
arquopteryx is older than any of the feathered dinosaurs that you mentioned, therefore they are not transitional
a01011399 4 years ago
Give the word games bit a rest, the only one playing word games here is you, by twisting definitions to suit your own agenda.
Your statement is the random claim. The specimens found in the fossil record are significantly different to the two known modern Latimeria spp. They are quite a bit smaller than the modern species and have different internal structures, hence/ergo they are classified in entirely different families. (cont.)
TheAnathemas 4 years ago
Most of those found in the fossil record belong to the family Coelacanthidae, while the two modern Latimeria spp. belong to the family Latimeriidae. Taxonomy works by grouping together those organisms that share similar structure, anatomy, morphology, physiology etc., obviously those found in the fossil record and the extant species are sufficiently different (hint evolution), to warrant them being classified in separate families. (cont.)
TheAnathemas 4 years ago
They are not the same species, genus OR family, they are totally distinct and they most certainly have not remained unchanged over the last 410 million years! The extant Latimeria sp. are simply a specialised remnant of the ancient taxa, that probably survived by adapting to life in the deep ocean. (cont.)
TheAnathemas 4 years ago
I'm assuming you mean archaeopteryx? You are aware "transitional" does not mean "ancestral" and that archaeopteryx is not considered an ancestor of modern birds? Therefore my previous examples still stand. But I think I know what you're getting at now. The paper published last year on Sinosauropteryx that made the claim that not only did birds not evolve from theropods, but also that there is no evidence that dinosaurs even had feathers, a fringe view. (cont.)
TheAnathemas 4 years ago
It wasn't well received, the majority of scientists were unconvinced and other experts had previously concluded the exact opposite, that Sinosauropteryx in fact did have protofeathers.
Yes there is an alternate theory that suggests that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, but earlier from a common ancestor, however, it is poorly supported and holds little professional favour. Whereas, the widely held alternative that birds evolved from theropods is steadily accumulating evidence. (cont.)
TheAnathemas 4 years ago
I find it telling that you think because one or two papers are published that it must be the unanimous opinion of all evolutionary scientists.
TheAnathemas 4 years ago
The point is that the so called ´´amphibian structures´´ that the coelacanth seemed to have are know known to be 100% fish structures, so weather if the coelacanth in the fossil record is a different family or not, is irrelevant because we now know that there is no reason to think than the coelacanth evolved in to amphibian. As for archaeopteryx, well many evolutionists claim that it is the ancestor of modern birds, and in fact that is what some text books teach,
a01011399 4 years ago
however Sinosauropteryx (oldest proto feathered creature) is younger than archaeopteryx (who has feathers) therefore the evidence shows that feathers did not evolved from feathers.
a01011399 4 years ago
So what if Sinosauropteryx is older than archaeopteryx?
"evidence shows that feathers did not evolved from feathers."
No kidding......whats your point?
worldlystone 4 years ago
I said that Sinosauropteryx younger than archaeopteryx and I meant that feather did not evolved from proto feathers
a01011399 4 years ago