LOL! They find a single fossil and then create a whole new species from it. There could be many reasons why this single fossil was missing a top shell....You dont create whole new species on an aberration.
@OptimalElement BBBBBBut arent animals cloned by using DNA from the parent animal? LOL! Woman is basically a clone of Adam (and Nature shows that Humans come from other Humans)....That is by far more plausible then reptiles evolving into humans. LOOOLLL!!!
No. A clone is a person who is exactly genetically identical copy of another person. A clone of adam would be another adam, not eve. Yes one species come from its own species but via birth, sperm and egg and stuff like that. NOT from a rib by magic. And children are not clones of their parents because children are not exactly genetically identical to their parents. And no reptiles don't evolve into humans, evolution doesn't claim that. lol learn some science.
@OptimalElement But the Bible says "woman came from man" and God created Eve out of Adam's rib...that is a form of cloning...just as children are basically clones of their parents...maybe not identical, but their DNA is inherited from both parental lines. Evolution does indeed teach that Humans ultimately evolved from fish and reptiles...a theory by far, is more implausible than Genesis, where a Creator is involved.
Oh and Evolution Theory is not Science...it is a belief that demands faith...It is the weirdest belief system of all belief systems in fact. Humans evolving from fish and reptiles...Its a retarded belief, dressed in sophisticated scientific terms....a corpse dressed in silk clothing so to speak.
Bible is a bronze age book which is wrong about almost everything. Evolution was tested and observed and is supported from disciplines from geology to biochemistry to genetics. I'm in university 3rd year major in Medicinal Chemistry I know science and all EVIDENCE points towards evolution. Eve out of Adam's rib is not cloning, it called magic. I didn't believe in magic since 6 :) To be clone you MUST be identical. Children not identical to parents, do you not get it? *sigh*.
@OptimalElement Humans producing copies of other humans, tigers, tigers is basically cloning. Maybe not exact copies...but cloning still. Eve's creation was a process of cloning, from a rib of Adam, which is why God did it. We have never observed reptiles transforming into mammals, but reptiles producing their own kind...the same with humans. Observing Bacteria developing a tolerance or resistance to something does not advance a bacteria outside it's taxonomy...still bacteria.
What EVO's are promoting is magic itself. The real evidence however points to a Creator...not some weird progressive transformations, where ants change into Bees, or Lizards into rats. LOOOLLL!!! EVO Theory is the most retarded theory in human history. All it is, is a Pagan myth clothed in Scientific terminology to make it sound less retarded.
No evolution doesn't claim that cats turn into bees or lizards into cats. I don't know what you are talking about but whatever it is its not evolution. Ancestors of whales used to live on land and were mammals, now they live in the sea and you are right they aren't fish they still are mammals. Humans breeding and making other humans is NOT cloning. Its not even type of cloning. There is no such thing as ''type of cloning''. I feel like I am talking to a wall.
@OptimalElement Evolution Theory teaches that humans evolved from fish and reptiles, through millions of years of countless mutations. Whales are said to have evolved from land wolves, and or deer like mammals....but mammals are said to have evolved from "mammalian-reptiles" LOL!
Humans producing Humans is a type of cloning, which is why God made woman from Adam's rib. In Nature we observe that humans come from humans...not humans from lizards. HAHAHAAHAHAAHA!!
Yes, because the fossil record shows that fish and sea creatures appeared long before human or any mammals. Only as we got up the strata layer or more resent era we find fossils that are half fish have mammals then eventually developing it small mammal creature but mostly reptiles which eventually evolved into dinosaurs. 65 million years ago dinosaur fossils record stops and there mammals start to dominate appear eventually at much younger rocks show ape like creature fossils.
@OptimalElement Thats what EVO scientists claims, even when fossils are found in certain strata where they dont belong. Theres a guard against bias scientists, its called Nature. Nature shows that reptiles do not produce mutated offspring with hair and fur. In fact, with all animals, there is no evidence whatsoever that they are producing offspring evolving out of their respective taxonomic class.
And these species supposedly existed for millions of years.
''Even when fossils find certain strata they don't belong''. What exactly do you mean? A human fossil in Jurassic layer? Well obviously we don't find that! Because its not there! If creation is true we should find humans with dinosaurs. But we don't. Animals don't evolve into different taxonomic class because evolution doesn't permit that. Australopithecus afarensis for example is a human ancestor and is in the same taxonomy as we are. Neanderthals were also on same branch.
@OptimalElement LOL! Many dinosaur fossils as found by spotting bones protruding from the surface...hardly the "Jurassic" layer. LOL! Also, recently, it has finally been confirmed that the soft tissue of a T-Rex fossil was indeed soft tissue, enabling scientists to map it's DNA.
Reptiles transitioning into mammals is an example of animals evolving outside their Taxonomic group. Or maybe humans and fish are members of the same taxonomic group? *smile*
LOL mate... your last comment is complete full of bullshit. And the dinosaur DNA analyzed???!!!! When? Can you sent me a link to a scientific paper? Or did some preacher just pulled it out the DNA out of his ass?
I asked for a scientific paper, not a news paper. If I am to learn or discuss such topics as geology or taxonomy I would deal with experts in that field, not bunch of journalists who always like to misquote and twist facts just to make a good story. Its no wonder the public is confused about things such as stem cell research, vaccines and global warming.
Just read the PBS article on this and the scientists themselves are not so convinced this is the explanation for the turtle.
Quote: "Not all scientists are convinced, however, that the new find answers the question of where turtles evolved...."We often see in marine animals there is a tendency to reduce the shell," Reisz says. "So this could represent an adaptation."
In other words folks this is all coffee shop musings. It very well could be this animal is losing it's shell not gaining it.
22 million years ago is too late. This Turtle could have evolved from Normal looking turtles. 220 million years would make a lot more sense. Turtles are older then dinosaurs or crocs
when people think of transitional fossil's they think of specie to specie there are also smaller changes which are more noticeable its really rare to find a specie to specie fossil considering how old it would be but there still out there
To all religious nutters . . . every single life-form is a transitional fossil. Even humans are between our ancestor specie and our descendant specie. You want a transitional? Look in the mirror. Or look at any animal alive or dead. Evolution never stops.
It's not a transitional fossil, there are no transitional fossils, there have never been any transitional fossils. This is simply a fully developed animal all of its own that we have never seen before. If there were transitional forms, we would be seeing them everywhere, in plants, all the different stages of human developement, billions and trillions of them all over the world. Instead, all we have are a few hoaxes and misrepresented animal species to make up for the lack.
do you know what type of rare conditions there has to be for a fossil to be made?
AND there have always been transitional fossils, the vid is showing the MAJOR changes in turtles through time, there are many more stages but not very big. do your research.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Freeze01, I would say a transitional fossil is a fossil that is "in between" ,as it were, complete species as we see today. Which wouldn't be able to survive according to the survival of the fittest idea. A mouse with genetic deformities that might eventually become wings would be easier prey than a regular mouse on account of its deformed arms-it wouldn't be able to move as fast, nor would it be able to fly. Duck soup. Thanks for the reply!
ah but that is where you go wrong in your thinking. The fossils you would like to see as proof for evolution would in fact disprove evolution.
Evolution is tiny steps from an ancestral form towards other forms that is why every fossil found is in fact a transitional form, its between what came before and what came after it. And yes this will of course be fully developed animals but with characteristics going towards species X.
There will never be found a crocaduck, it is a fallcious concept.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
TMI! Lol. What I meant is, how could giraffes have evovled? It doesn't seem possible: every time they lean down to take a drink of water, the blood rushes to their head and would kill them, if not for a body part they have that prevents the blood from actually reaching their head. So, before they developed this device their first drink of water becomes their last. The species of giraffes would be killed off before they got the thousands of years required to produce that body part.
A giraffe's heart weighs about ten pounds...nearly double the size one would expect from a mammal that size. They have a very high blood pressure, yes, but their vascular system is protected in such a way that it has extra support...like a pilot's g-suit. I'd venture to guess that as their necks grew longer over generations, many died from what you mentioned above, but a few had stronger circulatory systems and they survived. Co-evolution: it happens a lot.
@Freeze01 Not true : a fossil crocoduck was found . I'm not joking google real croca duck fossil .Its a predator bird with a set of big teeth similiar to a crocs mouth (for hunting fish) . I hunt fossils this is not a joke . I dont recal species name but google will prove it .
That if it indeed exist, makes it toothed bird, which the early aves indeed still had. But it still WOULDNT be a crocoduck as defined by the picture (half duck half crocodile), as both are pretty much specific extant species.
"there are no transitional fossils, there have never been any transitional fossils"
That statement is demonstrably false.
But the dogmatic finality of you statements show your true purpose...
To not see what is clearly before you.
I have a fossil in a box, it's transitional, you've never seen it. Your "are no, never was" answer indicates your intention to discredit before seeing. Almost like showing you a turtle "on the half shell", while you chant, "See, it's gotta whole half shell".
Creationists have a distorted view of how evolution works as they are sadly misled by the bias material they view. One point that stands out is their wanting to see a fossil of something like the infamous crocoduck. They don't understand that if a fossil like this was found it would actually disprove evolution.
too much evidence...stupid creationists
hiks45 7 months ago
Why...use a Naruto sad song...? It's such an amazing find...
ImAnotherZang 8 months ago
@ImAnotherZang
I know he should have used - the rising fighting spirit track...
RAGHUVARVASUDEV 4 months ago
@ImAnothethe
a sad song was chosen because it was directed towards creationists probably.
OptimalElement 1 month ago
LOL! They find a single fossil and then create a whole new species from it. There could be many reasons why this single fossil was missing a top shell....You dont create whole new species on an aberration.
sugarhitman 10 months ago
@sugarhitman
LOL They read a bronze age book and believe woman came from a man's rib! ...Your an idiot.
OptimalElement 1 month ago
@OptimalElement BBBBBBut arent animals cloned by using DNA from the parent animal? LOL! Woman is basically a clone of Adam (and Nature shows that Humans come from other Humans)....That is by far more plausible then reptiles evolving into humans. LOOOLLL!!!
sugarhitman 1 month ago
@sugarhitman
No. A clone is a person who is exactly genetically identical copy of another person. A clone of adam would be another adam, not eve. Yes one species come from its own species but via birth, sperm and egg and stuff like that. NOT from a rib by magic. And children are not clones of their parents because children are not exactly genetically identical to their parents. And no reptiles don't evolve into humans, evolution doesn't claim that. lol learn some science.
OptimalElement 1 month ago
@OptimalElement But the Bible says "woman came from man" and God created Eve out of Adam's rib...that is a form of cloning...just as children are basically clones of their parents...maybe not identical, but their DNA is inherited from both parental lines. Evolution does indeed teach that Humans ultimately evolved from fish and reptiles...a theory by far, is more implausible than Genesis, where a Creator is involved.
Nature supports the Creos..not the EVOs. *smile*
sugarhitman 1 month ago
Oh and Evolution Theory is not Science...it is a belief that demands faith...It is the weirdest belief system of all belief systems in fact. Humans evolving from fish and reptiles...Its a retarded belief, dressed in sophisticated scientific terms....a corpse dressed in silk clothing so to speak.
sugarhitman 1 month ago
@sugarhitman
Bible is a bronze age book which is wrong about almost everything. Evolution was tested and observed and is supported from disciplines from geology to biochemistry to genetics. I'm in university 3rd year major in Medicinal Chemistry I know science and all EVIDENCE points towards evolution. Eve out of Adam's rib is not cloning, it called magic. I didn't believe in magic since 6 :) To be clone you MUST be identical. Children not identical to parents, do you not get it? *sigh*.
OptimalElement 1 month ago
@OptimalElement Humans producing copies of other humans, tigers, tigers is basically cloning. Maybe not exact copies...but cloning still. Eve's creation was a process of cloning, from a rib of Adam, which is why God did it. We have never observed reptiles transforming into mammals, but reptiles producing their own kind...the same with humans. Observing Bacteria developing a tolerance or resistance to something does not advance a bacteria outside it's taxonomy...still bacteria.
sugarhitman 1 month ago
What EVO's are promoting is magic itself. The real evidence however points to a Creator...not some weird progressive transformations, where ants change into Bees, or Lizards into rats. LOOOLLL!!! EVO Theory is the most retarded theory in human history. All it is, is a Pagan myth clothed in Scientific terminology to make it sound less retarded.
sugarhitman 1 month ago
@sugarhitman
No evolution doesn't claim that cats turn into bees or lizards into cats. I don't know what you are talking about but whatever it is its not evolution. Ancestors of whales used to live on land and were mammals, now they live in the sea and you are right they aren't fish they still are mammals. Humans breeding and making other humans is NOT cloning. Its not even type of cloning. There is no such thing as ''type of cloning''. I feel like I am talking to a wall.
OptimalElement 1 month ago
@OptimalElement Evolution Theory teaches that humans evolved from fish and reptiles, through millions of years of countless mutations. Whales are said to have evolved from land wolves, and or deer like mammals....but mammals are said to have evolved from "mammalian-reptiles" LOL!
Humans producing Humans is a type of cloning, which is why God made woman from Adam's rib. In Nature we observe that humans come from humans...not humans from lizards. HAHAHAAHAHAAHA!!
sugarhitman 1 month ago
@sugarhitman
Yes, because the fossil record shows that fish and sea creatures appeared long before human or any mammals. Only as we got up the strata layer or more resent era we find fossils that are half fish have mammals then eventually developing it small mammal creature but mostly reptiles which eventually evolved into dinosaurs. 65 million years ago dinosaur fossils record stops and there mammals start to dominate appear eventually at much younger rocks show ape like creature fossils.
OptimalElement 1 month ago
@OptimalElement Thats what EVO scientists claims, even when fossils are found in certain strata where they dont belong. Theres a guard against bias scientists, its called Nature. Nature shows that reptiles do not produce mutated offspring with hair and fur. In fact, with all animals, there is no evidence whatsoever that they are producing offspring evolving out of their respective taxonomic class.
And these species supposedly existed for millions of years.
sugarhitman 1 month ago
@sugarhitman
''Even when fossils find certain strata they don't belong''. What exactly do you mean? A human fossil in Jurassic layer? Well obviously we don't find that! Because its not there! If creation is true we should find humans with dinosaurs. But we don't. Animals don't evolve into different taxonomic class because evolution doesn't permit that. Australopithecus afarensis for example is a human ancestor and is in the same taxonomy as we are. Neanderthals were also on same branch.
OptimalElement 1 month ago
@OptimalElement LOL! Many dinosaur fossils as found by spotting bones protruding from the surface...hardly the "Jurassic" layer. LOL! Also, recently, it has finally been confirmed that the soft tissue of a T-Rex fossil was indeed soft tissue, enabling scientists to map it's DNA.
Reptiles transitioning into mammals is an example of animals evolving outside their Taxonomic group. Or maybe humans and fish are members of the same taxonomic group? *smile*
sugarhitman 1 month ago
@sugarhitman
LOL mate... your last comment is complete full of bullshit. And the dinosaur DNA analyzed???!!!! When? Can you sent me a link to a scientific paper? Or did some preacher just pulled it out the DNA out of his ass?
OptimalElement 1 month ago
@OptimalElement Me lie? "I always tell the truth, even when I lie".
wwwDOTguardianDOTcoDOTuk/science/2007/apr/13/uknewsDOTtaxonomy
Enjoy my friend. *smile
sugarhitman 1 month ago
@sugarhitman
I asked for a scientific paper, not a news paper. If I am to learn or discuss such topics as geology or taxonomy I would deal with experts in that field, not bunch of journalists who always like to misquote and twist facts just to make a good story. Its no wonder the public is confused about things such as stem cell research, vaccines and global warming.
OptimalElement 1 month ago
@OptimalElement Oh ye of little trust...here you go: adsabsDOTharvardDOTedu/abs/2005Sci...307DOT1952S
sugarhitman 1 month ago
@sugarhitman
Yes, Digital Library for Physics and Astronomy. So what exactly you trying to show me?
OptimalElement 1 month ago
@OptimalElement This is a peer reviewed article...if you dont want to accept that, thats your problem. *smile*
sugarhitman 1 month ago
@sugarhitman
Well let it be a peer reviewed website. But what exactly are you trying to show me????
OptimalElement 1 month ago
@OptimalElement Think about it.
sugarhitman 1 month ago
@sugarhitman
I got more important things to think about.
OptimalElement 1 month ago
Good video.
Cainkane1 10 months ago
Just read the PBS article on this and the scientists themselves are not so convinced this is the explanation for the turtle.
Quote: "Not all scientists are convinced, however, that the new find answers the question of where turtles evolved...."We often see in marine animals there is a tendency to reduce the shell," Reisz says. "So this could represent an adaptation."
In other words folks this is all coffee shop musings. It very well could be this animal is losing it's shell not gaining it.
rockthecityatnight 11 months ago
thanks for making this vid, very enlightening! :)
bassetts1899 11 months ago
My foot is at a transitional position between the floor and someones butt! Desperation plays weird tricks on the mind.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 ..what?
bassetts1899 11 months ago
Nice video.... great music, I love Naruto!!!!
pasacaglia 1 year ago
Naruto music XD
ndyt 1 year ago
Love this vid. I really enjoyed the turtle at the end wearing a helmet... classic!
atchisrj1 2 years ago
I love how embryology can help with evolution.
123Atheist 2 years ago
For those who missed the name it's:
odontochelys semistestacea
TheOnlyTrueGoodGod 2 years ago
Yeah i noticed that right after i made the comment. I'm glad to have learned about this animal! thanks!
lesouder2222 2 years ago 3
22 million years ago is too late. This Turtle could have evolved from Normal looking turtles. 220 million years would make a lot more sense. Turtles are older then dinosaurs or crocs
lesouder2222 2 years ago 4
yeah you are right. i have a caption stating this on the clip. mabye you missed it.
mp9yq9tx 2 years ago 2
@mp9yq9tx that fossil looks nothing like your painting
Macewrx 1 year ago
when people think of transitional fossil's they think of specie to specie there are also smaller changes which are more noticeable its really rare to find a specie to specie fossil considering how old it would be but there still out there
starlogic99 2 years ago
I want that photo of the bird on the turtle.
albatross1977 2 years ago
To all religious nutters . . . every single life-form is a transitional fossil. Even humans are between our ancestor specie and our descendant specie. You want a transitional? Look in the mirror. Or look at any animal alive or dead. Evolution never stops.
beyondbedandbathisme 2 years ago 14
@beyondbedandbathisme so we are becoming perfect as time goes on?
urbman29 6 months ago
And excellent vid, mp9yq9tx.
Thanks for the share.
SpeakerForrTheDead 2 years ago
glad you liked it......:)
mp9yq9tx 2 years ago
It's not a transitional fossil, there are no transitional fossils, there have never been any transitional fossils. This is simply a fully developed animal all of its own that we have never seen before. If there were transitional forms, we would be seeing them everywhere, in plants, all the different stages of human developement, billions and trillions of them all over the world. Instead, all we have are a few hoaxes and misrepresented animal species to make up for the lack.
MusicGeek1625 2 years ago
do you know what type of rare conditions there has to be for a fossil to be made?
AND there have always been transitional fossils, the vid is showing the MAJOR changes in turtles through time, there are many more stages but not very big. do your research.
are you a creationist by any chance?
dondondodo 2 years ago
MusicGeek, what in your view would be a transitional fossil? Thanks in advance for your answer.
Freeze01 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Freeze01, I would say a transitional fossil is a fossil that is "in between" ,as it were, complete species as we see today. Which wouldn't be able to survive according to the survival of the fittest idea. A mouse with genetic deformities that might eventually become wings would be easier prey than a regular mouse on account of its deformed arms-it wouldn't be able to move as fast, nor would it be able to fly. Duck soup. Thanks for the reply!
MusicGeek1625 2 years ago
ah but that is where you go wrong in your thinking. The fossils you would like to see as proof for evolution would in fact disprove evolution.
Evolution is tiny steps from an ancestral form towards other forms that is why every fossil found is in fact a transitional form, its between what came before and what came after it. And yes this will of course be fully developed animals but with characteristics going towards species X.
There will never be found a crocaduck, it is a fallcious concept.
Freeze01 2 years ago 8
LOL! Crocaduck would be hilarious. How are giraffes alive today?
MusicGeek1625 2 years ago
well when a mommy giraffe and a daddy giraffe live each other very much they...
atheistnarutofan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TMI! Lol. What I meant is, how could giraffes have evovled? It doesn't seem possible: every time they lean down to take a drink of water, the blood rushes to their head and would kill them, if not for a body part they have that prevents the blood from actually reaching their head. So, before they developed this device their first drink of water becomes their last. The species of giraffes would be killed off before they got the thousands of years required to produce that body part.
MusicGeek1625 2 years ago
or it was the reason why they could evolve long necks.
atheistnarutofan 2 years ago
A giraffe's heart weighs about ten pounds...nearly double the size one would expect from a mammal that size. They have a very high blood pressure, yes, but their vascular system is protected in such a way that it has extra support...like a pilot's g-suit. I'd venture to guess that as their necks grew longer over generations, many died from what you mentioned above, but a few had stronger circulatory systems and they survived. Co-evolution: it happens a lot.
Bardlettt 2 years ago 3
@Freeze01 Not true : a fossil crocoduck was found . I'm not joking google real croca duck fossil .Its a predator bird with a set of big teeth similiar to a crocs mouth (for hunting fish) . I hunt fossils this is not a joke . I dont recal species name but google will prove it .
flyingscience 3 months ago
@flyingscience
That if it indeed exist, makes it toothed bird, which the early aves indeed still had. But it still WOULDNT be a crocoduck as defined by the picture (half duck half crocodile), as both are pretty much specific extant species.
Freeze01 3 months ago
You're not asking for a "transitional form".
You're asking for a chimera.
"This is simply a fully developed animal"
Of course it is.
Why would you ask for something "which wouldn't be able to survive"?
You seem to think of living organisms as "engineering projects".
They (we) are not. Organisms are dynamic systems in flux... always in flux.
By asking for the impossible, you get nothing.
SpeakerForrTheDead 2 years ago
"there are no transitional fossils, there have never been any transitional fossils"
That statement is demonstrably false.
But the dogmatic finality of you statements show your true purpose...
To not see what is clearly before you.
I have a fossil in a box, it's transitional, you've never seen it. Your "are no, never was" answer indicates your intention to discredit before seeing. Almost like showing you a turtle "on the half shell", while you chant, "See, it's gotta whole half shell".
SpeakerForrTheDead 2 years ago
what is this song? i think ive heard it in naruto before.
great video btw
oneill26011991 2 years ago
a you said it was 22 million years old did you mean that it's 220 million years old? because that's what it's says on Wikipedia.
deadman1144 3 years ago
oops....yes its 220 million years.
mp9yq9tx 3 years ago
Which is older, the species above or Archelon ?
MANILABOY6631 3 years ago
Lady paleontologist straightrens out creationists .Pretty as she is smart -
"Transitional Fossils in Evolution pt. 1 of 4'
flyingscience 3 years ago
Great vid.
NonStampCollector 3 years ago
Thanks :)
mp9yq9tx 3 years ago
Great that all these transitional fossils have been found in the last few decades .Sadly if only facts could convince creationists .
flyingscience 3 years ago
Yeah...I agree.
Creationists have a distorted view of how evolution works as they are sadly misled by the bias material they view. One point that stands out is their wanting to see a fossil of something like the infamous crocoduck. They don't understand that if a fossil like this was found it would actually disprove evolution.
mp9yq9tx 3 years ago
lol I love the crocoduck :P (wish it was real)
But I watched a anti-evoloution thingy and they were stating facts all proven wrong and I was finding my self arguing with the narrator 0_0
RUFUSfilms 2 years ago