I could tell right away Leakey's statement was an obvious quote mine. How did I know? It ALWAYS is. These creationists could quote mine Newton into denying gravity.
"the premise of your belief in evolution" Jimi, there is no "belief" in evolution. It may sound nit-picky, but it is an important distinction to understand that evo. is a theory that is accepted or rejected depending on ones personal study/understanding of the subject in part or wholly. This distinction is important because evo. is a scientific theory, not a "faith" or "belief-system" it requires testable/provable hypothesis...not even in the same universe as a faith or belief. Cheers...
you really think a christian is going to listen to anything you say. I see it is the truth because I don't have an ancient myth restricting my interpretation of the evidence.
That will not apply to a christian. They will put the earplugs in the second they hit play, and cherry pic and look for "holes" in your logic. They won't really listen unforgivably. I am embarrassed to say we are of the same species.
@PoWBlackOPS4 I suppose I'm speaking to those who aren't sure if the creationists have a case, or otherwise haven't made up their mind and the hypothetical honest creationist.
@PoWBlackOPS4 I believe evolutionist are descendants of pond scum. I believe I'm descendant from Adam and the creation of a devine being. I wish you evolutionist where such proselytizers. I know you believe in a supernatural event, "fish turning into man". I never observed the fish do that. The natural course of a fish is to make another fish just like itself. So I'm sorry I can't believe in the supernatural I need something thats down to earth.
@DionAFields ""I'm sorry I can't believe in the supernatural"
What? So you don't believe in any of the hundreds of god's that have been offered up for belief, well thats a good start. However, your understanding of evolution is laughably dumb. Please, please please actually take the time to understand what you are criticising before commenting in future. You might just avoid making a fool of yourself.
@KennyTew2 Oh the ole I don't know anything about evolution trip. You know I seen this game soooooooooooo many times. What you really mean to say is, "I don't accept your version of the so called evdience there fore I must be ignorant of the SO CALLED SCIENCE. Because no rational thinking person could ever come to any other conclusion then you have." Well try again butt munch. I don't fall for the ole I don't know anything about evolution game. I know better and probably far more then you.
@KennyTew2 You know how I know you don't know shit about evolution? Because no rational thinking person that knows the so called evidence of evolution could think that was evidence unless they was ignorant of the rest of the story of evolution.
I want to know something though? Why must you force your beliefs on me? A fellow athiest why must I follow you cult of bullshit? Can't you Just keep you stupid ass beliefs to yourself? Its like the damn Mormons coming to the door all the time. Except you want to force this crap on us in school even the Mormons aren't that low
@DionAFields When exactly did I do that? Do you think the truth matters? Should we ignore those who deliberately lie to the ignorant or correct them? If I claimed that Christians worshipped the Prophet Mohammed do you think I should be corrected? Please think before commenting in future.
@KennyTew2 Do you think christians should be telling you, your going to hell? They think they are just telling you the truth. I think you should keep your damn opinions to yourself and stop trying to force them on school children, hell the christians aren't allowed to do that in public schools.... Oh I thought long and hard about this so I'll comment if you don't mind pond scum.
@DionAFields "Do you think christians should be telling you, your going to hell?" I guess if my god were so evil that it would slaughter billions for the crime of requiring evidence I would feel an imperative to save them from his wickedness by trying to convince them to kiss his evil ass, but it isn't up to me to tell them what they can say.
"I think you should keep your damn opinions to yourself" Well I guess you are entitled to your opinion, in spite of the irony.
2) "the christians aren't allowed to do that in public schools"
Oh I see, America is the whole world right? In fact my children are subjected to a daily act of worship in school.
"Why must you force your beliefs on me" Really? I forced you to watch this video did I? I made you believe in evolution did I? You cant even see the irony of insisting on your right to respond in spite of your ignorance, yet insist that my right to free speech is somehow a forceful imposition.
3) "no rational thinking person that knows the so called evidence of evolution could think that was evidence unless they was ignorant of the rest of the story of evolution."
So you are suggesting that the majority of scientists who are experts in the field do not accept evolution? Are you really that dumb?
The simple fact is that at school level the broadly accepted scientific consensus is what is taught, as we move to FE and HE more critical analysis is introduced, but this still excludes...
4) creationists/astrologers/psychics. This is because students at these levels are taught to use proper, peer reviewed scientific research and not internet websites. To my knowledge there isn't a single scientific paper ever published that either has any evidence against evolution or any evidence supporting creationism, so there simply isn't a scientific alternative to teach. Bare in mind though it isn't only evolution that you lot reject, but most established science.
@KennyTew2 It is ironic and I was hoping you'd see my point most atheist don't. No I don't think Christians should be telling people they are going to
You need to lighten-up man. All that frustration is not helping you make your case. Also, have you ever seen a Pygmy skull? I haven't, but I'd be willing to bet it looks very different than today's humans (even though they are still alive today). I tried to find it on Youtube, but no luck. I think you should have shown every different modern skull you can find, including Pygmies and other rare human species still alive today. Now that would make a case, and a video worth watching.
Actually I haven't, but I have seen hundreds of measurements of their brains along with several brain casts. From these I am able to conclude that their skull shape is like that of modern man and quite unlike any of the hominins I present here. In the hominins the brain is long and low and behind the eyes, whereas ours are quite distinct.
2) "you should have shown every different modern skull you can find" I showed all major racial groups including the groups shown in the creationist video. If you would like to read fuller and deeper scientific analysis you can find it in the scientific literature. However, I am no longer willing to spend dozens of hours proving creationsts wrong in each and every detail when they are all (my experience at least) too dishonest to accept the evidnece when shown.
Pygmies and other diminutive humans have been shown to have evolved from typical human groups, this fact renders any view that the fossils represent such a group prior to the existence of modern humans completely untenable. Additionally all of the skulls shown are within the size range of our own and larger than the pygmies, it is the neurocranial globularity, facial prognathism, lack of chin and many other anatomical features that distinguish them, not some crude measurement of size.
@KennyTew2 SO if you lived in a new environment would you genetically change?. If you and your wife had children in a different environment would your offspring be different? In a hundred generations would they be a different species? DO you just need lots of time? You showed how similar races are on earth, how lon would it take for us to evolvin into a new species altogether and where on earth would it occur? If a million normal people are born and a mutation occurs does that change a species?
@jiminiflix "SO if you lived in a new environment would you genetically change?. " No. "If you and your wife had children in a different environment would your offspring be different?" No. "In a hundred generations would they be a different species?" Unlikely, but it depends upon mutation rate and environmental pressure. "DO you just need lots of time?" See previous answer. "how lon would it take for us to evolvin into a new species" See previous answer.
@jiminiflix "where on earth would it occur? " Most likely in a small isolted group subjected to high selection pressure. "If a million normal people are born and a mutation occurs does that change a species?" No, it changes an individual, unless the mutation is then spread throughout the species, in which case yes, the species would have changed by however many base pairs the mutation includes.
@KennyTew2 We have millions of dissabled people on earth. Is that not a population due to mutation? That has not changed the DNA of human species. Don't you think the premise of your belief in evolution really only exists on paper?
@jiminiflix For a mutation to spred through the gene pool it would have to confer some advantage. Being disabled is not an advantage. But this is not a matter of idle speculation, it has been observed in nature, (The origin of nylonase) and even in humans (the evolution of trichromatic colour vision). Furthermore, each of us contain around 120 mutations of our own, so the fact that one generation carries new genetic material that was not present in the previous is a simple fact.
@KennyTew2 How could there be enough time even in a trillion years for every mutational change to happen even between an ape like creature and a human? How do you know how long its possible for a creature to mutate an entire hip bone, all the bones in its feet, a new digestive system, brain, hairless skin? The origin of nylonase is not evidence for evolution, rather the bacteria adapted to the environment by already existing dna information. Its been thrown out of court.
@jiminiflix "the bacteria adapted to the environment by already existing dna information"
But it’s a single point mutation, so the nylon eating bacteria must have hung around since the dawn of time waiting, (without starving) until their food source was invented by man?
Stupidity aside your argument has been proven wrong by the fact that the evolution of nylonase in bacteria without the ability to produce it has been observed in the lab.
The only thing that has been thrown out of court here is the notion that there is anything scientific about the lies creationists tell, see Kitzmiller v Dover.
"Tell me the mathematical chances of getting just 2 , 3 or 4 mutations that are related to each other?"
WTF? You simply dont know enough to know that this question is nonsense.
@jiminiflix Anyone, even a creationist, has to answer the question, "Why do we find NO modern human fossils 3m years old?" Having these primate species in our history, continuous in time, and similar in shape, getting closer to sapiens, and homo sapiens right after, suggests that each species developed from each other, in a continuous line. Alternatively, you could suggest that homo-sapiens were created, and all the other evolved, I suppose, but I wouldn't bet on it.
@boulderdsvo I never thought of that, but then again why would I? I beleive its simple, God made all life as His word says, TOGETHER, as all life needs all life to exist. EVerything works together, trees, plants, insects, birds, mammals, etc. They exist to contribute to the environment made for man to habit. I believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old and fossils exist because of the flood. The hominid bones of mans ancestry are variations within the ape family.
@jiminiflix Do you care about facts at all or just prefer to believe the things that make you comfortable? In reality every claim you made in your last post has already been conclusively proven wrong many times and often by several distinct scientific disciplines.
@KennyTew2 What facts? There are no facts in historical science only estimation,theory and conjecture. I think you know that. A fact is not a fact because its in a paper, a book or just because there is a "majority agreement". Fossils prove nothing about evolution- thats a fact!
@lethalsub What an interesting question, as far as I am aware there isn't but I will check some of the literature. If I don't reply again you can assume they are the same.
I caught this info on the tube (old school tv, not a pc tube) a few months ago, but I'd like to know more.
I know I could possibly look it up on the web, but considering your profession you would have access to "the gritty details", which are very important.
what skulls vdo we have that were before these four? what evolved into those four skulls on the table? just a question, as we say that we humans evolved from those four, what did those four evolve from? and what did those evolve from? and what did those evolve from? etc etc etc, do we have a perfect foddil record with a clear perfect transition forming?
@hudfadz We cant tell for sure which are direct (Parent/Child Relationship) ancestors and which are collateral (More Like Cousins) ancestors. Both the Neanderthals and Us share a common ancestor about 500,000 years ago. The most likely candidate is Heidelbergensis who in turn probably descended from ergaster. Ergaster is most likely a descendant of Habilis which in turn descended from some species of australopithecine, It all gest a bit sketchy from here as there is a substantial gap in...
2) the fossil record. However, somewhere in the middle of the gap we have Ardipithicus and further back still Sahelanthropus. Going back even further we arrive at the miocene apes, of which procouncil africanus is a fine example.
I hope this massively simplified overview is of some use. I also apologise in advance if any of the species/genus names are misspelled, but Im both dyslexic and working from memory.
u want me to believe everyone alive today has a similar skull bone structure? what a crock. take a look around, the variations are astounding. big heads, little heads, round heads, square heads, odd shaped and "normal" shaped. please man stop the insanity.
@azjmiles All modern human skulls fall within a range of variability both in size and shape. Every characteristic has been measured tens of thousands of times and distribution curves along with standard deviations for each aspect can be calculated by anyone with rudimentary math skills. The images shown highlight those differences that result from racial variation. It is simply a question of statistical fact that none of the hominin skulls fall within the range of variation found among...
2) extant humans. In fact, the differences are so stark that I could identify any non human hominin skull as being non-human from at least 20 yards, as could any competent anatomist. The differences are so stark that one would have to be blind or incompetent to fail to spot them. Thanks for your opinion, but since we are dealing with facts, you are simply wrong.
Try learning something about the subject under discussion before making a fool of yourself in future.
@KennyTew2 what are the parameters of judging the variability of "all" modern human skulls? in other words obviously infants, toddlers, young adults and little people will have a different range of size and shape. also those with disabilities such as fragile X and Down Syndrome would also vary in size and shape from a "normal" human skull.
@azjmiles Exactly so, if you type child's growth chart into google you should easily find charts for height and age. Such charts exist/or can be drawn for any human variable. CranDat, is another resource which includes the cranial capacity of tens of thousands of humans from all racial groups and both sexes from all around the world. Abnormal humans (hydrocephalic and microcephalic for example) are not included within the range for obvious reasons, but are easily identified.
2) As to what the variables actually are, well there are too many to list but here are a few examples of skull measurements; Vault height/length Parietal angle Vault width/height Occipital angle Frontal Angle Glabellar projection Canine fossa depth Prognathism. But like I said it really matters what you are studying, none of these would be of use when measuring tooth enamel thickness. I hope this information is of value.
@evoTARDSareINSANE you seriously need to quit talkin about things you just heard from other ignorant people and actually read something about evolution :)
@evoTARDSareINSANE really which aspect of the theory exactly do you believe to be flawed? If you are a bible believing Christian like most of the crack pots who comment on my videos surely you believe in unicorns?
@KennyTew2 EvoTARD is apparently an Old Earth Creationist. He also goes by the name buffboynick, who believes we were genetically engineered by aliens. both Evo and Buffy (!) claim to be molecular biologists.
Buffy also says he has a degree in physics and a masters in philosophy. He thinks the Earth is hollow and that gravity is only produced by stars and black holes.
I know little about evolution, but this guy knows nothing about physics and his maths is shocking.
this is all I was trying to post BTW..."skin muscles body fat etc proportions are known & documented & used today,for example in crimes,missing persons etc where victims skulls are used,formulas are applied to create a reconstruction of the face,these same principles can be used to extrapolate the look of other species bones/fossils. ,without going into it too deep ,related aspects such as bio mechanics is also used in conjunction. That is how we can get ideas of how extinct species could look".
@KennyTew2 Oh well, 6 days & as yet no sign of my post, its no surprise but is disappointing & just bolsters my view that I.D & "cdesign proponentsists" just will not allow the free flow of Evolution counter points on any videos I have so far come across, I cant say "all" but only because I have not seen visited them all, a factual & evidence based approach that i`m sure they would have trouble with! :-)
as usual when I try to post a comment on the video that this was a response too(i think?) its "pending approval" like nearly all creationist vids,the ones where I have managed to leave a reply its usually only one & then I get Blocked..
Neanderthals must be in my opinion a Homo Sapien - Species Or SubSpecies. Scientist say that all Non Africans have neanderthals in them about 1-4%. We know two different Species cannot have Healthy Babies.Example - Ligers are Sterile,and Sometimes Sickly they also cause birth problems for female tigers. If we look at the fossil records it would indicate that Neanderthals and Sapiens lived Arabian/African regions at one in time.
Not all crosses are mules and it certainly isn't all non africans that have neanderthal DNA. When these facts are considered with an evaluation of the neanderthal genome and the anatomical differences it is clear that they were a distinct group in a way unlike any species variation known today.
I'm still happy with the conclusion that the Neanderthals are a distinct species, but I would not be surprised if further evaluation of the evidence led to the conclusion that they were a subspecies.
@AntiochusMegas I cant remember where I got my neanderthal skull from. It was a medical supplier. However, i recommend boneclones, they have supplied me with many great replicas in the past and are the best supplier I have found.
I'm sure you've also noticed that the cretinists are claiming that the famous "Lucy" was nothing more than a chimp, despite the wide pelvis, human-like connection of the skull to the spine, smaller teeth, etc. The mendacity of these people knows no bounds.
@SuperImready I couldn't agree more. When I first started looking into their claims I was staggered by their ignorance and willingness to simply tell lies.
@KennyTew2 Sorry to interupt this dialogue but i have to say that is exactly what has shocked me since i have been on youtube. The Creationist's (ppsimmons is a classic example ) insistence on continually blatantly lying, in order to cover up their own lack of evidence for creation, is truly staggering.
Btw very well done on this. I loved the skull sequence. Let's see any creotard lie themself out of that one.
All these skulls are classified as ape or human.Get it right dont lie to people.But dont believe this creationist fool look at it for yourself.Non of these examples are classified as links.
@clawedification "All these skulls are classified as ape or human"
Ok lets see who's telling lies. Please provide a reference to a single scientific paper which agrees with the lies you have been told. In reality no one who has ever studied any of these fossils has ever agreed with your conclusion.
Personally I could name dozens of anatomical differences between these skulls and those of H sapiens.
Proving you wrong will not take long, you have nothing in support of your assertions.
@KennyTew2 I dont have to prove anything for one little detail they are still looking for the missing links.This means you are a liar think about that. Even if you did have it witch I doubt because I have never heard of you,show me one example of mutations like the skulls increasing the information in the genome.Stupid ass religion of evolution has no foundation get real quit wasting your time and go out use you smarts to help people.
@clawedification “they are still looking for the missing links.” This comment makes it clear that you never even bothered researching the subject before commenting. There are tens of thousands of ‘missing links’ found to date spanning some 20+ species including Ardipithecus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, H ergaster, H erectus, H heidelbergensis, H neanderthalensis all widely accepted links and none of them are missing.
2) “This means you are a liar think about that.” No it means that you don’t know what you are talking about. “show me one example of mutations like the skulls increasing the information in the genome.” Read the following, “The evolution of trichromatic color vision by opsin gene duplication in New World and Old World primates” This paper illustrates just one of many well documented instances of increasing information in the genome. You have been lied to, isnt it sad.
among races started in cca 55 000 Bc. When Bible (= Sumerian mythology) in its Genesis is also correct. But Biblical "Adam"(plural) or Sumerian Adapas (half human, half Saurian DNA) was an experimental subject, created from human and non human DNA( when humans were already on this planet) - by the "visitors". The modern Afro Semites are offspring of human and Anunnaki(saurian) DNA. Neanderthals, Lucy ,... were also Adapas . They were all successfully destroyed by white race
I've also heard them argue that early hominids are in fact TOO apelike to be our ancestors, and that the absence of the "missing link" leaves too large a gap to be able to link our species to the hominid line. Now they say that early hominids were in fact humans. Wow.
@Glowis123 I know it's absolutely shocking. I've read the Java skull cap described as that of a gibbon by some creationists and fully human by others. Thus displaying a level of incompetence that is difficult to comprehend. Fortunately for them too many of their followers simply take what they say on faith.
@LithodidMan It's great to have you back on board! After all you wouldn't want to miss any of my one video a year output!
Thanks for the kind words, and keep up the great work! Your ability to constantly deal with the crap they spew is truly astounding. I look forward to your next video.
thank you so much for posting this, I just watched the original video and thought by myself: "This bunch of filthy liars deserve a response." You gave it very accurately.
Umm...can we believe both? I believe that we did and are still evolving today. I actually believe that we are still on our way to becoming a more intelligent species. I also believe that there must have been some interaction with god knows what that caused our brains to enlarge in size and cause bipedal walking. Theres just too many unique qualities we have as humans for us to have just evolved normally like other species have. We must have interacted with something to become so...human lol.
Creation implies that we should live in a theocracy. It's ok to beleive in god, sure, but creationism goes against the 1st ammendment of the constitution. This is especially illegal since creationists try to go to a government official to get it into schools instead of subect their "theory" to peer review. Scientists are open to peer reviewing it but since creationism has no solid evidence of it's own and instead focuses on disproving all science without evidence to the contrary, well you see.
@dss103 you're looking through the eyes of a human-centred view of evolution. the fact that we stand upright and have larger brains has more to do with evolutionary pressures and diet than anything else.
that said, while I myself do not believe in god there is nothing incompatible with evolution and such a belief. Kenneth R. Miller is a brilliant biologist at Brown University who absolutely believes evolution and christianity are compatible.
@AussiePolitics "University who absolutely believes" yes Darwinism (with modern Interventionism) is a belief... and substitute of Sumerian(=Biblical) Afro Semitic occult Creationism... Creationism was correct only for Afro Semites and Neanderthals. When Black, Yellow, White and Red race all came from outer constellations. 1. mixing started in cca 55 000 BC
There were found traces of modern humans in coal layers under 80 m - old around 200 000 years.
@VendPrekmurec i was just stating that unlike a lot of christian nutjobs who are so brainwashed they think evolution means the same thing as atheism. oh and dont call it dawinism, the theory has expanded vastly since the time of darwin and our greater understanding of genetics and cell structures all providing further evidence over the years. evolution is not a belief, it is a scientific theory against which hypothesises may be tested and predictions made. its based on evidence and research.
@AussiePolitics darwinian theory is good theory - explains many things and i totally agree. But there are too much big gaps in human evolution. White race arrived (according from Vedic - knowledge) to this planet somewhere around 700 000 - 600 000BC from Taurus, Pleiades, Ursa Minor, Ursa Major, Orion, Danebola,... when others (black, yellow, red) races arrived a little bit later. There was no evolution of Black race from sub human and there was no ev. from black race. Period. Neanderthals, Lucy
@VendPrekmurec the white race did not 'arrive' it arose after our common ancestors left africa. it was in response to climates where there was less vitamin d available due to less sunlight. that is why they have less pigmentation. you do realise there is more genetic variability between black people than between black and white people.
@VendPrekmurec As Usual AussiePolitics is spot on. If you look up the National Geographic's Genographic Project you should find a map of the origins of the modern human races. Personally when I look at the fossil evidence I don't see any real 'gaps' in fact at times it can be hard drawing the line between different groups in evolutionary time.
@AussiePolitics and others sub-humans were experimental subjects (all were successfully destroyed by white race) - in fact their Neanderthal genom comes from white race...They were also created as Semitic Adams (Adapas). Artificial Cross breeds - of Anunnaki (Saurians from outer space)
There are many examples, eg, DNA shows that Neanderthals and modern humans shared a common ancestor some 500,000 years ago. Retrovirus studdies show that we split from chimps about 6 million years ago.
Single species have split into two in lab experements.There are at least dozens of examples.
@KennyTew2 first off. lab EXPERIMENTS. not natural. those were aided. second. where is the proof that that neanderthals and humans shared a common ancestor? we couldnt have split from chimps because if that were the case chimps wouldnt be chimps they would be something else. or did they decide not to evolve due to climate changes also? dude i want proof. not spoof. i want to believe in this evolution thing.
@itsnotik "first off. lab EXPERIMENTS. not natural." Which unatural process occured that you are objecting to? Being in a alb does not invalidate the speciation event. if it does how so?
"we couldnt have split from chimps because if that were the case chimps wouldnt be chimps they would be something else"
The common ancestor was neither chimp nor man, which aspect of the retrovirus evidence do you dispute exactly?
@KennyTew2 the evidence. thats what i dispute you have yet to show or anyone to that matter has shown evidence. you call it evidence but then just group things to prove your evidence. thats like saying i stole candy from a store because i ate a piece of candy similar to the one stolen. you have no proof over it. your just saying so because it seems that way
@itsnotik Not true, We have conclusively proven human evolution through the fossil record, DNA and retroviruses. We have proven every aspect of evolution, your ignorance changes nothing.
@KennyTew2 humorous that you want to call names. and are getting upset. but yet. YOU still have not proven shit homie. nothing is proven you fucking asshole hence why the Evolution talk is a THEORY! you fucking idiot. none of this can be proven you tard. you rather than being close minded brainwashed and bias to this shit should look into different avenues there for you can have a better understanding of what the fuck you are talking about. mr. i studied for 10 years and cant answer shit.
@itsnotik You have been referred to the evidnec here is some more proof for you to fail to understand then ignore,
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
Welkin E. Johnson and John M. Coffin
So, remember your comment about macro evolution? having been shown two observed instances of speciation and conclusive DNA evidence, none of which you have even been able to offer a valid criticism of, do you now accept it? or are you in denial?
@KennyTew2 your damn right i dont have the answers but at least i dont go trying to preach answers that i cant fully answer. who is a tard now big boy. stop drowning yourself with sweets and overstand your self. knwo that you are a powerful being that came from nothing other than your damn self(meaning human race) overstand the differences between every species and overstand we are what we are for a reason. whether we came from a monkey or not. the physical is limited enhance your consciousness
@KennyTew2 hmmm yea ummm there goes another theory of yours. i have used lsd.. lets see how you concluded that. i made a comment that is closely related to someone who has taken lsd. ummm wrong.i have never taken lsd. matter of fact i just found out what that was like 2 weeks ago. obviously i have heard of it but thats just like you hearing of vagina...lol that was uncalled for but humorous none the less
@itsnotik Ahh , I see you are a child, not a retarded adult. That makes sense. If you are old enough to understand it read the paper on retroviruses its quite intertesting.
I wont respond again, I'm not in the buisness of arguing with chidren.
@KennyTew2 thats cause you dont want a "child" to shut your stupid ass up. im going to read it. and i bet it still doesnt prove a thing. more theories related to grouping and assuming. assumptions are not all accurate. and age has nothing to do with knowledge or intelligence. like i said open your mind you will be more accepting to other concepts and you should argue with children im positive there are 10 year old kids that will shut your ass up in proving your own argument
@KennyTew2 oh and thank you for more info for me too look up i will check it out and get back to you. for my defense however i have seen alot of documentaries and read a lil about evolution. everything says the same shit and can not truthfully link anything. i hope your evidence is exactly that.
@itsnotik You will be surpried at what we can kn ow if you search deep enough. Keep looking and you will find the truth for yourself. Sorry for being hard on you.
@itsnotik "we couldnt have split from chimps because if that were the case chimps wouldnt be chimps they would be something else" No one says humans split from chimps. Humans and chimps have a common ancestor. Even if humans did come from chimps directly, that does not mean chimps would have to be something else. "Americans" came from Europe, so does that mean Europeans are something different?
@lhvinny wow..... yes europeans are different from americans. our mentalities are different thus we are different. but if you put it into species, we are the same we are humans. we come from and will continue to make the same things.
@itsnotik You said that if humans came from chimps, then chimps would have to have to become something other than chimps. Your complaint was not that Americans would be different from Europeans, but that Europeans would have to have changed into something other than Europeans even though they still lived in Europe.
@lhvinny but they did change...they changed races. still human. and my arguement is not just chimps its monkey or a monkey like being. my over all point since you all cant seem to grasp it. is there is no PROOF that any species existed as another species or are common decents from another species. thats all im saying. everyone just sees that it makes sense to evolve but noone questions changing species. evolution "I believe"is within a species not from one to another
@itsnotik "there is no PROOF that any species existed as another species" No one claims this.
"are common decents from another species." You are dead wrong here. The exact same nested hierarchy of life appears as a trend in every comprehensive study of trends in anatomy, microbiology, physiology, and genetics. If the nested heirarchy were a myth and species were not related via common descent, these independent fields would not get the exact same results.
@lhvinny please answer how can noone claim that if the whole arguement is saying we evolved into the species we are from ANOTHER SPECIES...... meaning coming from another species
@itsnotik Your statement was that a species existed as another species. That's like saying a car existed as a horse-drawn wagon before it was a car. No, a car was always car. The idea, concept, and construction of cars was based upon previous modes of transportation. Saying a car was something else and saying it is a descendant from other modes of transportation are two different things.
@lhvinny but the fact that you are sayin gthey are two different things is exactly what im saying about everything. they are all seperate. hence why i question them coming from one thing. i dunno maybe im not respresenting myself well enough. im not argueing what you are saying, im just saying i wanna see where any of what you were taught connects. can you get me?
@itsnotik Here is my impression of your position. 1) Evolution occurs. 2) Changes in the genetic code and selection for beneficial changes drive evolution. 3) There is some sort of barrier that allows changes in genetic information as long as it does not cause changes in species, but anything at the species level or higher is prevented somehow. Please correct me if this is not your view.
@itsnotik If after watching these you have questions that I can help clarify, I will be more than willing to do so. I do not feel that the conversation needs to end unless you feel that I would be inadequate at attempting to answer.
@itsnotik In the meantime, I will refer you to four videos by AronRa that will hopefully clarify some of the questions you have with regards to speciation and common descent that I appear to have not explained as well as is necessary for you to understand. I am by no means going to claim to be the best teacher on this subject, and thus I am deferring to his explanations, which I feel are superior to what I can explain in text.
@itsnotik The Homo sapiens species arose from another species once there was enough difference between the organisms that the animals classified as Homo sapiens could no longer produce fertile offspring with the parent population. We see this today in ring species such as the seagull and the salamander of the Central Californian Valley.
@itsnotik It is evident by the way you phrase things, especially when it comes to the word "species," that you do not understand taxonomic terms, which is a fundamental requirement in order to understand how common descent is apparent. You are asking me, not only to teach you common descent, but also basic taxonomy, basic biology, and basic genetics. No one can do that in youtube comments alone. You need to take a class and study the subject.
@lhvinny you keep sayin gthe same shit but not linking anything which was my question. you go to the break downs of this and that rather than just saying how they come together.
@itsnotik In the field of genetics alone, there are even more specific trends that still give forth the same hierarchy. If you pick any gene and plot its mutations across multiple species, you will see that the same hierarchy shows up.
ERVs are wonderful for showing descent. Not only do they confirm the hierarchy, but their exact locations and the number of them make their appearance by any means other than common descent an unexplainable coincidence.
@itsnotik If you are expecting an adequate explanation of common descent to occur in any number of 500 character boxes that does not constitute flooding, you are on a fool's errand. The best way to learn about evolution is to take a biology course at any of multiple accredited public higher learning institutions, or by sitting down and having a conversation with a university professor of biology. I can only give you very short, and admittedly incomplete, explanations due to youtube limitations
@lhvinny dont make excuses you can write in multiple boxes hence why we can respond to each other... what more do you need. you cant complete them because you have no answers your damn self.
@lhvinny see the thing is i know what comon decent is. which you arent getting. what i am asking and saying is; show that we come from the supposed common decent. there is no proof too any of it. things just relate. not because they have similarities do they have to have come from each other. shit if you break everything down to its core we are all atoms and molecules. does that mean since everything can break down to that everything came from a common decent?
@itsnotik "not because they have similarities do they have to have come from each other." I already told you that it is not just the similarities or the differences that show the descent. It is the combination of the two.
"you cant complete them because you have no answers your damn self. " What part of my explanations have not provided answers to you? Have you even bothered to look into the multiple individually confirming trees of life from different fields of study that I've pointed out?
Allow me to help. Here’s a skeletal model of speciation:
A section of a population splits off, and this split breeding subpopulation (called a deme) becomes increasingly sexually isolated as it moves into a different niche, changes geographic location, or both.
This new set of environmental factors causes different morphological traits to confer fitness, i.e. allow the organisms to survive and thrive (benefited traits), decrease fitness (detrimental traits), or have no appreciable effect (neutral traits). As a result, the frequencies of alleles (gene variants) that encode those traits change within the deme, as the organisms with more beneficial traits out-compete those with less.
These environmental factors that induce frequency changes are called selective pressures, and this process of change is called natural selection. Natural selection acts on preexisting genetic variation, as well as new variation introduced by germ line mutations.
Since the deme is now subjected to different selective pressures, it changes, and since it becomes sexually isolated, little to none of the changes can be shared with the population from which it split. Given the isolation, as the change becomes noticeable, the members of the deme are considered a subspecies. Eventually, the change can become so great that members of the deme can no longer interbreed with those of the other population, and the deme is considered a population of a new species.
And there are many instances where this progression is quite apparent, such as in ring species: One example is that of the salamander species, Ensatina eschscholtzii. There are 19 demes in a horseshoe formation in the mountains around the central valley of California. On one end of the horseshoe is E. e. eschscholtzii, and on the other end is E. e. klauberi. Each deme can interbreed with the next, yet E. e. eschscholtzii, cannot interbreed with E. e. klauberi (Wake, 1997).
Another example is that of the warbler species, Phylloscopus trochiloides. They wrap around the Himalayas, and unlike Ensatina, P. t. plumbeitarsus and P. t. viridanus actually meet in Russia. This model of incipient speciation with living intermediaries in P. trochiloides has even been confirmed on the genetic level (Irwin, 2005).
As for evidence for common ancestry, I find the molecular genetic evidence the most conclusive. Namely, the long terminal repeat discontinuity ratios, the shared LTR mutations, and the distribution/mutation nested hierarchies of endogenous retroviral and alu insertions in orthologous loci, the deactivating mutation arrangement and corroboratory SNP nested hierarchies of pseudogenes, and the further corroboratory nested hierarchies of intron and synonymous exon SNPs.
how about this for you evolutionists. here is a "link" you can use which however is still not evolution. its genetic splicing. research annunaki and the planet nibiru
Well, race did use to be synonymous with species. The alternative title for Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection', was; 'The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'.
@dookiecheez True (hence the term "human race"), but when Creationists are using it in this argument, they're using double speak to mean these variants are the same as blacks, whites, Asians, etc. I guess that's more about breeds than race.
notice creationist richard leaky says "the differences are 'probably' no more pronounced..."? some scientist, when he uses "probably" to discredit known fact.
Ever notice how creationists never come up with evidence from various branches of science SUPPORTING creationism? Instead, they come up with stupid notions that they imagine will DISPROVE evolution. This is not how science works. You don't attempt to show that something is true by claiming something else to be false.
@ElveeKaye you cant prove either side, but yet "evolutionists" say they have evidence. yet they can not link these "Scientifically proven facts" . so how do they have evidence? i agree the Neanderthal is a different species, but how does anyone get that we came from them or any other species prior to them? when someone can answer that then ill consider evolution.
@itsnotik "but how does anyone get that we came from them or any other species prior to them?" Comparative DNA studies across multiple species indicates a nested heirarchy of life. Neanderthals have more in common with moder humans than modern chimps, which are more similar than the other great apes, which are more similar than old world monkeys, which are more similar than mice, etc. This heirarchy shows up without exception in all other fields of study by independent verification.
@lhvinny that doesnt say anything other than. oh these are similar so they have to be alike. why do people rule out the fact that these species could have existed as there own species? we know species come and go. well we know the go but none of us know when ANY species on this planet started r what it started as.
I could tell right away Leakey's statement was an obvious quote mine. How did I know? It ALWAYS is. These creationists could quote mine Newton into denying gravity.
fdasherv 1 month ago
Thanks for your in depth research. Appreciated.
lazycackle 2 months ago
"the premise of your belief in evolution" Jimi, there is no "belief" in evolution. It may sound nit-picky, but it is an important distinction to understand that evo. is a theory that is accepted or rejected depending on ones personal study/understanding of the subject in part or wholly. This distinction is important because evo. is a scientific theory, not a "faith" or "belief-system" it requires testable/provable hypothesis...not even in the same universe as a faith or belief. Cheers...
orangemod 3 months ago
you really think a christian is going to listen to anything you say. I see it is the truth because I don't have an ancient myth restricting my interpretation of the evidence.
That will not apply to a christian. They will put the earplugs in the second they hit play, and cherry pic and look for "holes" in your logic. They won't really listen unforgivably. I am embarrassed to say we are of the same species.
PoWBlackOPS4 3 months ago
@PoWBlackOPS4 I suppose I'm speaking to those who aren't sure if the creationists have a case, or otherwise haven't made up their mind and the hypothetical honest creationist.
KennyTew2 3 months ago
@PoWBlackOPS4 I believe evolutionist are descendants of pond scum. I believe I'm descendant from Adam and the creation of a devine being. I wish you evolutionist where such proselytizers. I know you believe in a supernatural event, "fish turning into man". I never observed the fish do that. The natural course of a fish is to make another fish just like itself. So I'm sorry I can't believe in the supernatural I need something thats down to earth.
DionAFields 2 months ago in playlist Evolution vs creationism
@DionAFields ""I'm sorry I can't believe in the supernatural"
What? So you don't believe in any of the hundreds of god's that have been offered up for belief, well thats a good start. However, your understanding of evolution is laughably dumb. Please, please please actually take the time to understand what you are criticising before commenting in future. You might just avoid making a fool of yourself.
KennyTew2 2 months ago
@KennyTew2 Oh the ole I don't know anything about evolution trip. You know I seen this game soooooooooooo many times. What you really mean to say is, "I don't accept your version of the so called evdience there fore I must be ignorant of the SO CALLED SCIENCE. Because no rational thinking person could ever come to any other conclusion then you have." Well try again butt munch. I don't fall for the ole I don't know anything about evolution game. I know better and probably far more then you.
DionAFields 2 months ago
@KennyTew2 You know how I know you don't know shit about evolution? Because no rational thinking person that knows the so called evidence of evolution could think that was evidence unless they was ignorant of the rest of the story of evolution.
DionAFields 2 months ago
I want to know something though? Why must you force your beliefs on me? A fellow athiest why must I follow you cult of bullshit? Can't you Just keep you stupid ass beliefs to yourself? Its like the damn Mormons coming to the door all the time. Except you want to force this crap on us in school even the Mormons aren't that low
DionAFields 2 months ago
You really should stop forcing your beliefs on others evolutionist.
DionAFields 2 months ago in playlist Evolution vs creationism
@DionAFields When exactly did I do that? Do you think the truth matters? Should we ignore those who deliberately lie to the ignorant or correct them? If I claimed that Christians worshipped the Prophet Mohammed do you think I should be corrected? Please think before commenting in future.
KennyTew2 2 months ago
@KennyTew2 Do you think christians should be telling you, your going to hell? They think they are just telling you the truth. I think you should keep your damn opinions to yourself and stop trying to force them on school children, hell the christians aren't allowed to do that in public schools.... Oh I thought long and hard about this so I'll comment if you don't mind pond scum.
DionAFields 2 months ago
@DionAFields "Do you think christians should be telling you, your going to hell?" I guess if my god were so evil that it would slaughter billions for the crime of requiring evidence I would feel an imperative to save them from his wickedness by trying to convince them to kiss his evil ass, but it isn't up to me to tell them what they can say.
"I think you should keep your damn opinions to yourself" Well I guess you are entitled to your opinion, in spite of the irony.
KennyTew2 2 months ago
2) "the christians aren't allowed to do that in public schools"
Oh I see, America is the whole world right? In fact my children are subjected to a daily act of worship in school.
"Why must you force your beliefs on me" Really? I forced you to watch this video did I? I made you believe in evolution did I? You cant even see the irony of insisting on your right to respond in spite of your ignorance, yet insist that my right to free speech is somehow a forceful imposition.
KennyTew2 2 months ago
3) "no rational thinking person that knows the so called evidence of evolution could think that was evidence unless they was ignorant of the rest of the story of evolution."
So you are suggesting that the majority of scientists who are experts in the field do not accept evolution? Are you really that dumb?
The simple fact is that at school level the broadly accepted scientific consensus is what is taught, as we move to FE and HE more critical analysis is introduced, but this still excludes...
KennyTew2 2 months ago
4) creationists/astrologers/psychics. This is because students at these levels are taught to use proper, peer reviewed scientific research and not internet websites. To my knowledge there isn't a single scientific paper ever published that either has any evidence against evolution or any evidence supporting creationism, so there simply isn't a scientific alternative to teach. Bare in mind though it isn't only evolution that you lot reject, but most established science.
KennyTew2 2 months ago
@KennyTew2 It is ironic and I was hoping you'd see my point most atheist don't. No I don't think Christians should be telling people they are going to
DionAFields 2 months ago
@DionAFields
Nice to see you are still blowing shite and proving yourself to be a total moron.
Well done.
Keep up the good work.
tellnet 1 month ago
There is no evidence that we came from knuckle walkers.
watch?v=qZev7hb40uk
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon "There is no evidence that we came from knuckle walkers."
There is reasonably compelling evidence that you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about, as evidenced by comment.
KennyTew2 3 months ago 8
You need to lighten-up man. All that frustration is not helping you make your case. Also, have you ever seen a Pygmy skull? I haven't, but I'd be willing to bet it looks very different than today's humans (even though they are still alive today). I tried to find it on Youtube, but no luck. I think you should have shown every different modern skull you can find, including Pygmies and other rare human species still alive today. Now that would make a case, and a video worth watching.
skaggmo 4 months ago
@skaggmo "have you ever seen a Pygmy skull?"
Actually I haven't, but I have seen hundreds of measurements of their brains along with several brain casts. From these I am able to conclude that their skull shape is like that of modern man and quite unlike any of the hominins I present here. In the hominins the brain is long and low and behind the eyes, whereas ours are quite distinct.
KennyTew2 4 months ago
2) "you should have shown every different modern skull you can find" I showed all major racial groups including the groups shown in the creationist video. If you would like to read fuller and deeper scientific analysis you can find it in the scientific literature. However, I am no longer willing to spend dozens of hours proving creationsts wrong in each and every detail when they are all (my experience at least) too dishonest to accept the evidnece when shown.
KennyTew2 4 months ago
Pygmies and other diminutive humans have been shown to have evolved from typical human groups, this fact renders any view that the fossils represent such a group prior to the existence of modern humans completely untenable. Additionally all of the skulls shown are within the size range of our own and larger than the pygmies, it is the neurocranial globularity, facial prognathism, lack of chin and many other anatomical features that distinguish them, not some crude measurement of size.
KennyTew2 4 months ago
You admit they are different species, how scientifically can they be related to us?
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix Look up allopatric specialtion.
KennyTew2 4 months ago
@KennyTew2 SO if you lived in a new environment would you genetically change?. If you and your wife had children in a different environment would your offspring be different? In a hundred generations would they be a different species? DO you just need lots of time? You showed how similar races are on earth, how lon would it take for us to evolvin into a new species altogether and where on earth would it occur? If a million normal people are born and a mutation occurs does that change a species?
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix "SO if you lived in a new environment would you genetically change?. " No. "If you and your wife had children in a different environment would your offspring be different?" No. "In a hundred generations would they be a different species?" Unlikely, but it depends upon mutation rate and environmental pressure. "DO you just need lots of time?" See previous answer. "how lon would it take for us to evolvin into a new species" See previous answer.
KennyTew2 4 months ago
@jiminiflix "where on earth would it occur? " Most likely in a small isolted group subjected to high selection pressure. "If a million normal people are born and a mutation occurs does that change a species?" No, it changes an individual, unless the mutation is then spread throughout the species, in which case yes, the species would have changed by however many base pairs the mutation includes.
I hope this helps.
KennyTew2 4 months ago
@KennyTew2 We have millions of dissabled people on earth. Is that not a population due to mutation? That has not changed the DNA of human species. Don't you think the premise of your belief in evolution really only exists on paper?
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix For a mutation to spred through the gene pool it would have to confer some advantage. Being disabled is not an advantage. But this is not a matter of idle speculation, it has been observed in nature, (The origin of nylonase) and even in humans (the evolution of trichromatic colour vision). Furthermore, each of us contain around 120 mutations of our own, so the fact that one generation carries new genetic material that was not present in the previous is a simple fact.
KennyTew2 4 months ago
@KennyTew2 How could there be enough time even in a trillion years for every mutational change to happen even between an ape like creature and a human? How do you know how long its possible for a creature to mutate an entire hip bone, all the bones in its feet, a new digestive system, brain, hairless skin? The origin of nylonase is not evidence for evolution, rather the bacteria adapted to the environment by already existing dna information. Its been thrown out of court.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix "the bacteria adapted to the environment by already existing dna information"
But it’s a single point mutation, so the nylon eating bacteria must have hung around since the dawn of time waiting, (without starving) until their food source was invented by man?
Stupidity aside your argument has been proven wrong by the fact that the evolution of nylonase in bacteria without the ability to produce it has been observed in the lab.
KennyTew2 4 months ago
2) " Its been thrown out of court."
The only thing that has been thrown out of court here is the notion that there is anything scientific about the lies creationists tell, see Kitzmiller v Dover.
"Tell me the mathematical chances of getting just 2 , 3 or 4 mutations that are related to each other?"
WTF? You simply dont know enough to know that this question is nonsense.
KennyTew2 4 months ago
@KennyTew2 Tell me the mathematical chances of getting just 2 , 3 or 4 mutations that are related to each other?
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix Anyone, even a creationist, has to answer the question, "Why do we find NO modern human fossils 3m years old?" Having these primate species in our history, continuous in time, and similar in shape, getting closer to sapiens, and homo sapiens right after, suggests that each species developed from each other, in a continuous line. Alternatively, you could suggest that homo-sapiens were created, and all the other evolved, I suppose, but I wouldn't bet on it.
boulderdsvo 4 months ago
@boulderdsvo I never thought of that, but then again why would I? I beleive its simple, God made all life as His word says, TOGETHER, as all life needs all life to exist. EVerything works together, trees, plants, insects, birds, mammals, etc. They exist to contribute to the environment made for man to habit. I believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old and fossils exist because of the flood. The hominid bones of mans ancestry are variations within the ape family.
jiminiflix 4 months ago
@jiminiflix Do you care about facts at all or just prefer to believe the things that make you comfortable? In reality every claim you made in your last post has already been conclusively proven wrong many times and often by several distinct scientific disciplines.
KennyTew2 4 months ago
@KennyTew2 What facts? There are no facts in historical science only estimation,theory and conjecture. I think you know that. A fact is not a fact because its in a paper, a book or just because there is a "majority agreement". Fossils prove nothing about evolution- thats a fact!
jiminiflix 4 months ago
Is there a significant difference between the possible wrist movements of Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens?
lethalsub 5 months ago
@lethalsub What an interesting question, as far as I am aware there isn't but I will check some of the literature. If I don't reply again you can assume they are the same.
KennyTew2 5 months ago
@KennyTew2 Thank you.
I caught this info on the tube (old school tv, not a pc tube) a few months ago, but I'd like to know more.
I know I could possibly look it up on the web, but considering your profession you would have access to "the gritty details", which are very important.
lethalsub 5 months ago
what skulls vdo we have that were before these four? what evolved into those four skulls on the table? just a question, as we say that we humans evolved from those four, what did those four evolve from? and what did those evolve from? and what did those evolve from? etc etc etc, do we have a perfect foddil record with a clear perfect transition forming?
hudfadz 5 months ago
@hudfadz We cant tell for sure which are direct (Parent/Child Relationship) ancestors and which are collateral (More Like Cousins) ancestors. Both the Neanderthals and Us share a common ancestor about 500,000 years ago. The most likely candidate is Heidelbergensis who in turn probably descended from ergaster. Ergaster is most likely a descendant of Habilis which in turn descended from some species of australopithecine, It all gest a bit sketchy from here as there is a substantial gap in...
KennyTew2 5 months ago
2) the fossil record. However, somewhere in the middle of the gap we have Ardipithicus and further back still Sahelanthropus. Going back even further we arrive at the miocene apes, of which procouncil africanus is a fine example.
I hope this massively simplified overview is of some use. I also apologise in advance if any of the species/genus names are misspelled, but Im both dyslexic and working from memory.
KennyTew2 5 months ago
u want me to believe everyone alive today has a similar skull bone structure? what a crock. take a look around, the variations are astounding. big heads, little heads, round heads, square heads, odd shaped and "normal" shaped. please man stop the insanity.
azjmiles 5 months ago
@azjmiles All modern human skulls fall within a range of variability both in size and shape. Every characteristic has been measured tens of thousands of times and distribution curves along with standard deviations for each aspect can be calculated by anyone with rudimentary math skills. The images shown highlight those differences that result from racial variation. It is simply a question of statistical fact that none of the hominin skulls fall within the range of variation found among...
KennyTew2 5 months ago
2) extant humans. In fact, the differences are so stark that I could identify any non human hominin skull as being non-human from at least 20 yards, as could any competent anatomist. The differences are so stark that one would have to be blind or incompetent to fail to spot them. Thanks for your opinion, but since we are dealing with facts, you are simply wrong.
Try learning something about the subject under discussion before making a fool of yourself in future.
KennyTew2 5 months ago
@KennyTew2 what are the parameters of judging the variability of "all" modern human skulls? in other words obviously infants, toddlers, young adults and little people will have a different range of size and shape. also those with disabilities such as fragile X and Down Syndrome would also vary in size and shape from a "normal" human skull.
azjmiles 5 months ago
@azjmiles Exactly so, if you type child's growth chart into google you should easily find charts for height and age. Such charts exist/or can be drawn for any human variable. CranDat, is another resource which includes the cranial capacity of tens of thousands of humans from all racial groups and both sexes from all around the world. Abnormal humans (hydrocephalic and microcephalic for example) are not included within the range for obvious reasons, but are easily identified.
KennyTew2 5 months ago
KennyTew2 5 months ago
Look at this evoTARD play with his skulls, haha
the RELIGION of evolution is as much "fact' as UNICORNS
In fact, MAGICAL mutation theory (evolution) is not even real science.
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE you seriously need to quit talkin about things you just heard from other ignorant people and actually read something about evolution :)
dieghettozz 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE really which aspect of the theory exactly do you believe to be flawed? If you are a bible believing Christian like most of the crack pots who comment on my videos surely you believe in unicorns?
KennyTew2 5 months ago
@KennyTew2 EvoTARD is apparently an Old Earth Creationist. He also goes by the name buffboynick, who believes we were genetically engineered by aliens. both Evo and Buffy (!) claim to be molecular biologists.
Buffy also says he has a degree in physics and a masters in philosophy. He thinks the Earth is hollow and that gravity is only produced by stars and black holes.
I know little about evolution, but this guy knows nothing about physics and his maths is shocking.
lethalsub 5 months ago
@lethalsub Interesting, he's clearly a nut job, but from your description he's more bat shit crazy than I ever imagined.
KennyTew2 5 months ago
@KennyTew2 lol
lethalsub 5 months ago
this is all I was trying to post BTW..."skin muscles body fat etc proportions are known & documented & used today,for example in crimes,missing persons etc where victims skulls are used,formulas are applied to create a reconstruction of the face,these same principles can be used to extrapolate the look of other species bones/fossils. ,without going into it too deep ,related aspects such as bio mechanics is also used in conjunction. That is how we can get ideas of how extinct species could look".
paulspydar 5 months ago
@paulspydar I wonder whether you post will beat the censorship board, fingers crossed!
KennyTew2 5 months ago
@KennyTew2 Oh well, 6 days & as yet no sign of my post, its no surprise but is disappointing & just bolsters my view that I.D & "cdesign proponentsists" just will not allow the free flow of Evolution counter points on any videos I have so far come across, I cant say "all" but only because I have not seen visited them all, a factual & evidence based approach that i`m sure they would have trouble with! :-)
paulspydar 5 months ago
@paulspydar Thats a shame.
KennyTew2 5 months ago
as usual when I try to post a comment on the video that this was a response too(i think?) its "pending approval" like nearly all creationist vids,the ones where I have managed to leave a reply its usually only one & then I get Blocked..
paulspydar 5 months ago
Russian soldiers killed in checyhna
whiteliketar 6 months ago
Neanderthals must be in my opinion a Homo Sapien - Species Or SubSpecies. Scientist say that all Non Africans have neanderthals in them about 1-4%. We know two different Species cannot have Healthy Babies.Example - Ligers are Sterile,and Sometimes Sickly they also cause birth problems for female tigers. If we look at the fossil records it would indicate that Neanderthals and Sapiens lived Arabian/African regions at one in time.
KEGGAE45 6 months ago
Not all crosses are mules and it certainly isn't all non africans that have neanderthal DNA. When these facts are considered with an evaluation of the neanderthal genome and the anatomical differences it is clear that they were a distinct group in a way unlike any species variation known today.
I'm still happy with the conclusion that the Neanderthals are a distinct species, but I would not be surprised if further evaluation of the evidence led to the conclusion that they were a subspecies.
KennyTew2 6 months ago
@KennyTew2 It was just my opinion but yours also seems plausible.
KEGGAE45 6 months ago
@KEGGAE45 It's a great thing that contemporary science affords us a reasonable chance of finding out which view is correct.
KennyTew2 6 months ago
Great video! I was just wondering where you managed to get a cast of a Neanderthal skull?
AntiochusMegas 6 months ago
@AntiochusMegas I cant remember where I got my neanderthal skull from. It was a medical supplier. However, i recommend boneclones, they have supplied me with many great replicas in the past and are the best supplier I have found.
KennyTew2 6 months ago
I'm sure you've also noticed that the cretinists are claiming that the famous "Lucy" was nothing more than a chimp, despite the wide pelvis, human-like connection of the skull to the spine, smaller teeth, etc. The mendacity of these people knows no bounds.
SuperImready 6 months ago 4
@SuperImready I couldn't agree more. When I first started looking into their claims I was staggered by their ignorance and willingness to simply tell lies.
KennyTew2 6 months ago
@KennyTew2 It's really all they've got!
SuperImready 6 months ago
@KennyTew2 Sorry to interupt this dialogue but i have to say that is exactly what has shocked me since i have been on youtube. The Creationist's (ppsimmons is a classic example ) insistence on continually blatantly lying, in order to cover up their own lack of evidence for creation, is truly staggering.
Btw very well done on this. I loved the skull sequence. Let's see any creotard lie themself out of that one.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago 2
@pilgrimpater I couldn't agree more, it genuinely is shocking to anyone used to honest debate.
KennyTew2 5 months ago
Great pwnage, subbed.
Sulcuscentralis 7 months ago
All these skulls are classified as ape or human.Get it right dont lie to people.But dont believe this creationist fool look at it for yourself.Non of these examples are classified as links.
clawedification 7 months ago
@clawedification "All these skulls are classified as ape or human"
Ok lets see who's telling lies. Please provide a reference to a single scientific paper which agrees with the lies you have been told. In reality no one who has ever studied any of these fossils has ever agreed with your conclusion.
Personally I could name dozens of anatomical differences between these skulls and those of H sapiens.
Proving you wrong will not take long, you have nothing in support of your assertions.
KennyTew2 7 months ago
@KennyTew2 I dont have to prove anything for one little detail they are still looking for the missing links.This means you are a liar think about that. Even if you did have it witch I doubt because I have never heard of you,show me one example of mutations like the skulls increasing the information in the genome.Stupid ass religion of evolution has no foundation get real quit wasting your time and go out use you smarts to help people.
clawedification 7 months ago
@clawedification “they are still looking for the missing links.” This comment makes it clear that you never even bothered researching the subject before commenting. There are tens of thousands of ‘missing links’ found to date spanning some 20+ species including Ardipithecus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, H ergaster, H erectus, H heidelbergensis, H neanderthalensis all widely accepted links and none of them are missing.
KennyTew2 7 months ago
2) “This means you are a liar think about that.” No it means that you don’t know what you are talking about. “show me one example of mutations like the skulls increasing the information in the genome.” Read the following, “The evolution of trichromatic color vision by opsin gene duplication in New World and Old World primates” This paper illustrates just one of many well documented instances of increasing information in the genome. You have been lied to, isnt it sad.
KennyTew2 7 months ago
among races started in cca 55 000 Bc. When Bible (= Sumerian mythology) in its Genesis is also correct. But Biblical "Adam"(plural) or Sumerian Adapas (half human, half Saurian DNA) was an experimental subject, created from human and non human DNA( when humans were already on this planet) - by the "visitors". The modern Afro Semites are offspring of human and Anunnaki(saurian) DNA. Neanderthals, Lucy ,... were also Adapas . They were all successfully destroyed by white race
VendPrekmurec 8 months ago
Comment removed
VendPrekmurec 8 months ago
seriously excellent video
scarletharlot69 8 months ago
I've also heard them argue that early hominids are in fact TOO apelike to be our ancestors, and that the absence of the "missing link" leaves too large a gap to be able to link our species to the hominid line. Now they say that early hominids were in fact humans. Wow.
Glowis123 9 months ago
@Glowis123 I know it's absolutely shocking. I've read the Java skull cap described as that of a gibbon by some creationists and fully human by others. Thus displaying a level of incompetence that is difficult to comprehend. Fortunately for them too many of their followers simply take what they say on faith.
KennyTew2 8 months ago
@KennyTew2 great vid. where did u get those skulls
kissntellen 7 months ago
Hey, I know I was subbed to you and never unsubbed, but just saw that I wasn't currently! Fixed that, awesome vid as always.
LithodidMan 9 months ago
@LithodidMan It's great to have you back on board! After all you wouldn't want to miss any of my one video a year output!
Thanks for the kind words, and keep up the great work! Your ability to constantly deal with the crap they spew is truly astounding. I look forward to your next video.
KennyTew2 9 months ago
Good video! Evolution is real and these people need to accept it.
VinnyMonster1 9 months ago 7
@VinnyMonster1 You should never trust an atheist.
MrExAtheist 7 months ago
@MrExAtheist As opposed to trusting someone who believes in a being that is comparable to santa claus?
VinnyMonster1 7 months ago
@MrExAtheist Why? Got any evidence that we are less trustworthy than theists, or are you just demonstrating your prejudice?
KennyTew2 7 months ago
EXCELLENT VIDEO EXACTLY WHAT I NEEDED TO SEE
SHIBBYiPANDA 10 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Always glad to be of service. ;-)
KennyTew2 10 months ago
Facts, observations and evidence ~ destroying fairytales since 4004BC
meloveoasis 10 months ago 12
@meloveoasis Actually, not facts, just a bunch of biased assertions used to support obviously incorrect presuppositions about the origin of life.
MrExAtheist 7 months ago
thank you so much for posting this, I just watched the original video and thought by myself: "This bunch of filthy liars deserve a response." You gave it very accurately.
0ldFrittenfett 11 months ago
Umm...can we believe both? I believe that we did and are still evolving today. I actually believe that we are still on our way to becoming a more intelligent species. I also believe that there must have been some interaction with god knows what that caused our brains to enlarge in size and cause bipedal walking. Theres just too many unique qualities we have as humans for us to have just evolved normally like other species have. We must have interacted with something to become so...human lol.
dss103 11 months ago
Creation implies that we should live in a theocracy. It's ok to beleive in god, sure, but creationism goes against the 1st ammendment of the constitution. This is especially illegal since creationists try to go to a government official to get it into schools instead of subect their "theory" to peer review. Scientists are open to peer reviewing it but since creationism has no solid evidence of it's own and instead focuses on disproving all science without evidence to the contrary, well you see.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@dss103 you're looking through the eyes of a human-centred view of evolution. the fact that we stand upright and have larger brains has more to do with evolutionary pressures and diet than anything else.
that said, while I myself do not believe in god there is nothing incompatible with evolution and such a belief. Kenneth R. Miller is a brilliant biologist at Brown University who absolutely believes evolution and christianity are compatible.
AussiePolitics 10 months ago
@AussiePolitics "University who absolutely believes" yes Darwinism (with modern Interventionism) is a belief... and substitute of Sumerian(=Biblical) Afro Semitic occult Creationism... Creationism was correct only for Afro Semites and Neanderthals. When Black, Yellow, White and Red race all came from outer constellations. 1. mixing started in cca 55 000 BC
There were found traces of modern humans in coal layers under 80 m - old around 200 000 years.
VendPrekmurec 8 months ago
@VendPrekmurec i was just stating that unlike a lot of christian nutjobs who are so brainwashed they think evolution means the same thing as atheism. oh and dont call it dawinism, the theory has expanded vastly since the time of darwin and our greater understanding of genetics and cell structures all providing further evidence over the years. evolution is not a belief, it is a scientific theory against which hypothesises may be tested and predictions made. its based on evidence and research.
AussiePolitics 8 months ago
@AussiePolitics darwinian theory is good theory - explains many things and i totally agree. But there are too much big gaps in human evolution. White race arrived (according from Vedic - knowledge) to this planet somewhere around 700 000 - 600 000BC from Taurus, Pleiades, Ursa Minor, Ursa Major, Orion, Danebola,... when others (black, yellow, red) races arrived a little bit later. There was no evolution of Black race from sub human and there was no ev. from black race. Period. Neanderthals, Lucy
VendPrekmurec 8 months ago
@VendPrekmurec the white race did not 'arrive' it arose after our common ancestors left africa. it was in response to climates where there was less vitamin d available due to less sunlight. that is why they have less pigmentation. you do realise there is more genetic variability between black people than between black and white people.
AussiePolitics 8 months ago
@VendPrekmurec As Usual AussiePolitics is spot on. If you look up the National Geographic's Genographic Project you should find a map of the origins of the modern human races. Personally when I look at the fossil evidence I don't see any real 'gaps' in fact at times it can be hard drawing the line between different groups in evolutionary time.
Where exactly do you see a gap?
KennyTew2 8 months ago
@AussiePolitics and others sub-humans were experimental subjects (all were successfully destroyed by white race) - in fact their Neanderthal genom comes from white race...They were also created as Semitic Adams (Adapas). Artificial Cross breeds - of Anunnaki (Saurians from outer space)
VendPrekmurec 8 months ago
There are many examples, eg, DNA shows that Neanderthals and modern humans shared a common ancestor some 500,000 years ago. Retrovirus studdies show that we split from chimps about 6 million years ago.
Single species have split into two in lab experements.There are at least dozens of examples.
KennyTew2 1 year ago
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) Speciation event in drosophila.
KennyTew2 1 year ago
@KennyTew2 first off. lab EXPERIMENTS. not natural. those were aided. second. where is the proof that that neanderthals and humans shared a common ancestor? we couldnt have split from chimps because if that were the case chimps wouldnt be chimps they would be something else. or did they decide not to evolve due to climate changes also? dude i want proof. not spoof. i want to believe in this evolution thing.
itsnotik 1 year ago
@itsnotik "first off. lab EXPERIMENTS. not natural." Which unatural process occured that you are objecting to? Being in a alb does not invalidate the speciation event. if it does how so?
"we couldnt have split from chimps because if that were the case chimps wouldnt be chimps they would be something else"
The common ancestor was neither chimp nor man, which aspect of the retrovirus evidence do you dispute exactly?
KennyTew2 1 year ago
@KennyTew2 the evidence. thats what i dispute you have yet to show or anyone to that matter has shown evidence. you call it evidence but then just group things to prove your evidence. thats like saying i stole candy from a store because i ate a piece of candy similar to the one stolen. you have no proof over it. your just saying so because it seems that way
itsnotik 1 year ago
@itsnotik Not true, We have conclusively proven human evolution through the fossil record, DNA and retroviruses. We have proven every aspect of evolution, your ignorance changes nothing.
KennyTew2 1 year ago
@itsnotik " the evidence. thats what i dispute "
Thanks for a nice clear and concise response. You fuck tards crack me up!
KennyTew2 1 year ago
@KennyTew2 humorous that you want to call names. and are getting upset. but yet. YOU still have not proven shit homie. nothing is proven you fucking asshole hence why the Evolution talk is a THEORY! you fucking idiot. none of this can be proven you tard. you rather than being close minded brainwashed and bias to this shit should look into different avenues there for you can have a better understanding of what the fuck you are talking about. mr. i studied for 10 years and cant answer shit.
itsnotik 1 year ago
@itsnotik You have been referred to the evidnec here is some more proof for you to fail to understand then ignore,
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
Welkin E. Johnson and John M. Coffin
So, remember your comment about macro evolution? having been shown two observed instances of speciation and conclusive DNA evidence, none of which you have even been able to offer a valid criticism of, do you now accept it? or are you in denial?
KennyTew2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KennyTew2 fuck outta here you fucking maroon
itsnotik 1 year ago
@KennyTew2 moron for you slow fuckers...like yourself
itsnotik 1 year ago
@KennyTew2 your damn right i dont have the answers but at least i dont go trying to preach answers that i cant fully answer. who is a tard now big boy. stop drowning yourself with sweets and overstand your self. knwo that you are a powerful being that came from nothing other than your damn self(meaning human race) overstand the differences between every species and overstand we are what we are for a reason. whether we came from a monkey or not. the physical is limited enhance your consciousness
itsnotik 1 year ago
@itsnotik " the physical is limited enhance your consciousness"
Lay off the LSD dude!
KennyTew2 1 year ago
@KennyTew2 hmmm yea ummm there goes another theory of yours. i have used lsd.. lets see how you concluded that. i made a comment that is closely related to someone who has taken lsd. ummm wrong.i have never taken lsd. matter of fact i just found out what that was like 2 weeks ago. obviously i have heard of it but thats just like you hearing of vagina...lol that was uncalled for but humorous none the less
itsnotik 1 year ago
@itsnotik Ahh , I see you are a child, not a retarded adult. That makes sense. If you are old enough to understand it read the paper on retroviruses its quite intertesting.
I wont respond again, I'm not in the buisness of arguing with chidren.
KennyTew2 1 year ago
@KennyTew2 thats cause you dont want a "child" to shut your stupid ass up. im going to read it. and i bet it still doesnt prove a thing. more theories related to grouping and assuming. assumptions are not all accurate. and age has nothing to do with knowledge or intelligence. like i said open your mind you will be more accepting to other concepts and you should argue with children im positive there are 10 year old kids that will shut your ass up in proving your own argument
itsnotik 1 year ago
@KennyTew2 oh and thank you for more info for me too look up i will check it out and get back to you. for my defense however i have seen alot of documentaries and read a lil about evolution. everything says the same shit and can not truthfully link anything. i hope your evidence is exactly that.
itsnotik 1 year ago
@itsnotik You will be surpried at what we can kn ow if you search deep enough. Keep looking and you will find the truth for yourself. Sorry for being hard on you.
KennyTew2 1 year ago
@itsnotik "we couldnt have split from chimps because if that were the case chimps wouldnt be chimps they would be something else" No one says humans split from chimps. Humans and chimps have a common ancestor. Even if humans did come from chimps directly, that does not mean chimps would have to be something else. "Americans" came from Europe, so does that mean Europeans are something different?
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny wow..... yes europeans are different from americans. our mentalities are different thus we are different. but if you put it into species, we are the same we are humans. we come from and will continue to make the same things.
itsnotik 1 year ago
@itsnotik You said that if humans came from chimps, then chimps would have to have to become something other than chimps. Your complaint was not that Americans would be different from Europeans, but that Europeans would have to have changed into something other than Europeans even though they still lived in Europe.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny but they did change...they changed races. still human. and my arguement is not just chimps its monkey or a monkey like being. my over all point since you all cant seem to grasp it. is there is no PROOF that any species existed as another species or are common decents from another species. thats all im saying. everyone just sees that it makes sense to evolve but noone questions changing species. evolution "I believe"is within a species not from one to another
itsnotik 1 year ago
@itsnotik "there is no PROOF that any species existed as another species" No one claims this.
"are common decents from another species." You are dead wrong here. The exact same nested hierarchy of life appears as a trend in every comprehensive study of trends in anatomy, microbiology, physiology, and genetics. If the nested heirarchy were a myth and species were not related via common descent, these independent fields would not get the exact same results.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny please answer how can noone claim that if the whole arguement is saying we evolved into the species we are from ANOTHER SPECIES...... meaning coming from another species
itsnotik 1 year ago
@itsnotik Your statement was that a species existed as another species. That's like saying a car existed as a horse-drawn wagon before it was a car. No, a car was always car. The idea, concept, and construction of cars was based upon previous modes of transportation. Saying a car was something else and saying it is a descendant from other modes of transportation are two different things.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny but the fact that you are sayin gthey are two different things is exactly what im saying about everything. they are all seperate. hence why i question them coming from one thing. i dunno maybe im not respresenting myself well enough. im not argueing what you are saying, im just saying i wanna see where any of what you were taught connects. can you get me?
itsnotik 1 year ago
@itsnotik Here is my impression of your position. 1) Evolution occurs. 2) Changes in the genetic code and selection for beneficial changes drive evolution. 3) There is some sort of barrier that allows changes in genetic information as long as it does not cause changes in species, but anything at the species level or higher is prevented somehow. Please correct me if this is not your view.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny actually yea that is kinda where i stand. i just dont see the connection of different species.
itsnotik 1 year ago
@itsnotik If after watching these you have questions that I can help clarify, I will be more than willing to do so. I do not feel that the conversation needs to end unless you feel that I would be inadequate at attempting to answer.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@itsnotik In the meantime, I will refer you to four videos by AronRa that will hopefully clarify some of the questions you have with regards to speciation and common descent that I appear to have not explained as well as is necessary for you to understand. I am by no means going to claim to be the best teacher on this subject, and thus I am deferring to his explanations, which I feel are superior to what I can explain in text.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@itsnotik The four videos are:
Falsifying Phylogeny Parts 1 and 2 linked here:
/watch?v=91UAzMNUDLU
/watch?v=wH8LOQAu-5I
The 10th and 11th Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism linked here:
/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc
/watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y
Please realize that I am not calling you a creationist, just that his later two videos are geared towards those who hold that view.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@itsnotik The Homo sapiens species arose from another species once there was enough difference between the organisms that the animals classified as Homo sapiens could no longer produce fertile offspring with the parent population. We see this today in ring species such as the seagull and the salamander of the Central Californian Valley.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny oh see thats getting somewhere...kinda
itsnotik 1 year ago
@itsnotik It is evident by the way you phrase things, especially when it comes to the word "species," that you do not understand taxonomic terms, which is a fundamental requirement in order to understand how common descent is apparent. You are asking me, not only to teach you common descent, but also basic taxonomy, basic biology, and basic genetics. No one can do that in youtube comments alone. You need to take a class and study the subject.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny you keep sayin gthe same shit but not linking anything which was my question. you go to the break downs of this and that rather than just saying how they come together.
itsnotik 1 year ago
@itsnotik In the field of genetics alone, there are even more specific trends that still give forth the same hierarchy. If you pick any gene and plot its mutations across multiple species, you will see that the same hierarchy shows up.
ERVs are wonderful for showing descent. Not only do they confirm the hierarchy, but their exact locations and the number of them make their appearance by any means other than common descent an unexplainable coincidence.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@itsnotik If you are expecting an adequate explanation of common descent to occur in any number of 500 character boxes that does not constitute flooding, you are on a fool's errand. The best way to learn about evolution is to take a biology course at any of multiple accredited public higher learning institutions, or by sitting down and having a conversation with a university professor of biology. I can only give you very short, and admittedly incomplete, explanations due to youtube limitations
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny dont make excuses you can write in multiple boxes hence why we can respond to each other... what more do you need. you cant complete them because you have no answers your damn self.
itsnotik 1 year ago
@lhvinny see the thing is i know what comon decent is. which you arent getting. what i am asking and saying is; show that we come from the supposed common decent. there is no proof too any of it. things just relate. not because they have similarities do they have to have come from each other. shit if you break everything down to its core we are all atoms and molecules. does that mean since everything can break down to that everything came from a common decent?
itsnotik 1 year ago
@itsnotik "not because they have similarities do they have to have come from each other." I already told you that it is not just the similarities or the differences that show the descent. It is the combination of the two.
"you cant complete them because you have no answers your damn self. " What part of my explanations have not provided answers to you? Have you even bothered to look into the multiple individually confirming trees of life from different fields of study that I've pointed out?
lhvinny 1 year ago
@itsnotik
Allow me to help. Here’s a skeletal model of speciation:
A section of a population splits off, and this split breeding subpopulation (called a deme) becomes increasingly sexually isolated as it moves into a different niche, changes geographic location, or both.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
This new set of environmental factors causes different morphological traits to confer fitness, i.e. allow the organisms to survive and thrive (benefited traits), decrease fitness (detrimental traits), or have no appreciable effect (neutral traits). As a result, the frequencies of alleles (gene variants) that encode those traits change within the deme, as the organisms with more beneficial traits out-compete those with less.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
These environmental factors that induce frequency changes are called selective pressures, and this process of change is called natural selection. Natural selection acts on preexisting genetic variation, as well as new variation introduced by germ line mutations.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
Since the deme is now subjected to different selective pressures, it changes, and since it becomes sexually isolated, little to none of the changes can be shared with the population from which it split. Given the isolation, as the change becomes noticeable, the members of the deme are considered a subspecies. Eventually, the change can become so great that members of the deme can no longer interbreed with those of the other population, and the deme is considered a population of a new species.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
And there are many instances where this progression is quite apparent, such as in ring species: One example is that of the salamander species, Ensatina eschscholtzii. There are 19 demes in a horseshoe formation in the mountains around the central valley of California. On one end of the horseshoe is E. e. eschscholtzii, and on the other end is E. e. klauberi. Each deme can interbreed with the next, yet E. e. eschscholtzii, cannot interbreed with E. e. klauberi (Wake, 1997).
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
Another example is that of the warbler species, Phylloscopus trochiloides. They wrap around the Himalayas, and unlike Ensatina, P. t. plumbeitarsus and P. t. viridanus actually meet in Russia. This model of incipient speciation with living intermediaries in P. trochiloides has even been confirmed on the genetic level (Irwin, 2005).
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
As for evidence for common ancestry, I find the molecular genetic evidence the most conclusive. Namely, the long terminal repeat discontinuity ratios, the shared LTR mutations, and the distribution/mutation nested hierarchies of endogenous retroviral and alu insertions in orthologous loci, the deactivating mutation arrangement and corroboratory SNP nested hierarchies of pseudogenes, and the further corroboratory nested hierarchies of intron and synonymous exon SNPs.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
And yes, I can provide numerous research publications and discuss each in detail.
Ring species references:
Irwin, D. E., S. Bensch, J. H. Irwin, and T. D. Price. "Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species." Science 307.5708 (2005 Jan 21): 414-16.
Wake, D. B. "Incipient Species Formation in Salamanders of the Ensatina Complex." Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94.15 (1997 Jul 22): 7761-767
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
how about this for you evolutionists. here is a "link" you can use which however is still not evolution. its genetic splicing. research annunaki and the planet nibiru
itsnotik 1 year ago
Yay, Littlebig Planet!
yermomsboxx 1 year ago
I'm betting that most Creationists don't even understand the difference between race and species.
eksyte 1 year ago
@eksyte
Well, race did use to be synonymous with species. The alternative title for Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection', was; 'The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez True (hence the term "human race"), but when Creationists are using it in this argument, they're using double speak to mean these variants are the same as blacks, whites, Asians, etc. I guess that's more about breeds than race.
eksyte 1 year ago
@eksyte
Yeah true, but it's not half as bad as watching them start to say species and then say 'kind' instead.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
20 people don't understand or have not watched this video properly.
muzvh1 1 year ago 2
nicely done.
notice creationist richard leaky says "the differences are 'probably' no more pronounced..."? some scientist, when he uses "probably" to discredit known fact.
tomitstube 1 year ago
Ever notice how creationists never come up with evidence from various branches of science SUPPORTING creationism? Instead, they come up with stupid notions that they imagine will DISPROVE evolution. This is not how science works. You don't attempt to show that something is true by claiming something else to be false.
ElveeKaye 1 year ago 10
@ElveeKaye you cant prove either side, but yet "evolutionists" say they have evidence. yet they can not link these "Scientifically proven facts" . so how do they have evidence? i agree the Neanderthal is a different species, but how does anyone get that we came from them or any other species prior to them? when someone can answer that then ill consider evolution.
itsnotik 1 year ago
@itsnotik "but how does anyone get that we came from them or any other species prior to them?" Comparative DNA studies across multiple species indicates a nested heirarchy of life. Neanderthals have more in common with moder humans than modern chimps, which are more similar than the other great apes, which are more similar than old world monkeys, which are more similar than mice, etc. This heirarchy shows up without exception in all other fields of study by independent verification.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny that doesnt say anything other than. oh these are similar so they have to be alike. why do people rule out the fact that these species could have existed as there own species? we know species come and go. well we know the go but none of us know when ANY species on this planet started r what it started as.
itsnotik 1 year ago
@itsnotik The nested heirarchy is not only found via the similarities, but by looking at the differences and the similarities together.
No one claims that species don't exist as its own species.
"macro evolution doesnt exist." Please do research into Culex pipiens and Culex molestus. You are wrong.
As for the Annunaki and Nibiru, they are part of many mythologies, so what? What do they have to do with evolution?
lhvinny 1 year ago