I can only imagine that all the negative votes are from creationists who deny evolution... For some reason some people seem to believe that if evolution is wrong, their primitive superstitions will become true. Quite sad really...
@shadywolf91 There were vote bot attacks a couple of years ago. Vote bots (short for "voting robot computer programs") were used by fundamentalist religiotards to dump fake Dislikes on these videos in an attempt to con people into thinking that most people actually dislike these videos.
Click like on these videos to dilute the effect of the vote bots. Never underestimate the devious dishonesty of religious nuts.
@ndrthrdr1 Yeah I figured something like that probably happened. I've seen it all over, I wonder if there is one individual controlling them all o.O, probably not though.
Well, if God is real, and if God has such absolute power, then wouldn't he be able to create life that was just as advanced as in the real world but did not need any of the organs that life needs in reality? I mean God is magic, isn't he?
I'm an atheist, I have no problem with Christians or Jews or Muslims, but seriously, KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.
You dont need to TROLL the earth for every part of it that DOESNT AGREE WITH YOU!
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, you, me, squirrels, I mean seriously, you can say you are right, but dont go everywhere for the purpose of trolling anyone who doesnt agree with you.
and one more thing.
ATHEISTS DONT SUPPORT THE DEVIL, ATHEIST MEANS THAT THEY DONT BELIEVE IN GOD OR THE DEVIL!! GAH!
I agree that abiogenesis is different from evolution, but the 15 year project had nothing to do with abiogenesis. They have been trying it for over 300 years and even with a full strand of synthetic DNA; it still didn't work. They at the Craig Venter Center soon realized that and had to use a host cell. We must now look at the scientific evidence and ask what did it show us? That is what are minds are made for, we can't ignore the scientific data. Wake up the new dawn is here!
@yhenry77 Abiogenesis for over 300 years? Should also research how Venter maid his synthetic cell. More over, apparently were not the first forms of life, self replicating chemicals such as rna were, which lead to cell development.
@mistereveready In 1665, Robert Hooke published the first drawings of a microorganism. Hooke was followed in 1676 by Anton van Leeuwenhoek, Many felt the existence of microorganisms was evidence in support of spontaneous generation.
A team of 17 researchers from the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) created the largest man-made DNA structure by synthesizing and assembling the 582,970 base pair genome of a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium.
Life started out simple? We know that even the simplest life forms are very complex. On May 20, 2010 - A team of 17 researchers from the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) may have inadvertently provided answers to the issues. They created the largest man-made DNA structure by assembling the 582,970 base pair genome of a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium. It took 15 years, 17 scientists (one a former Nobel Prize winner) and a supercomputer.
@yhenry77 Well I.D. is where the creatures were created in basically their current shape. Some people think evolution started with a magical start, but yet to see any evidence for that. Last I checked Craig Venter is an atheist. Even if abiogenesis is an accurate description of how life formed from nonlife, it still doesn't default to an unproven supernatural magical creature. It would default to being an "unknown" which means to keep trying for an honest answer.
@mistereveready I am just looking at the evidence; the Craig Venter project is the only successful created synthetic life form. The fact he is an atheist doesn't affect outcome of scientific data. There are over 700 scientists (Ph.D.) have sign a statement (Dissent From Darwinism) which reads "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
@yhenry77 Once again, Abiogenesis is different from Evolution. Also the DFD you mention is a very sketchy document, misrepresenting some of the people, padding numbers with anyone who has a phd and is willing to sign. Furthermore, truth is not a matter of democracy. This is not to say Darwin was 100% right. He made many mistakes, of which many were corrected, much like any other scientific theory. Evolution isn't an argument from authority basing anything on a book like religions do.
so what will humans evolve into? will we look like some kind of fancy bird or something a million years from now? rats have proved very adapt at surviving; perhaps we will become the rats we are at heart...evolution is fantastic; too bad we can't harness the supernatural powers that turned our gills into lungs & grow back gills so we don't drown. but i won't hold my breath
This is a great VIDEO. I strongly support Darwinian Theory. His explanations are more convincing than any theory could. Scientific bases are what count by the end of the day.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dawin didnt prove a thing, thats why he went on and on about waiting to see how the fossil record will eventually prove him right. In addition to you're last point, isnt it possible that creation might take the same path too. Designers usually produce their most advanced work last, building on the technology they already have. So the evidence only supports the fact that the animals appeared gradually, this favours neither account over the other.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No, a few million years. You forget genesis was written in hebrew. The hebrew language used the word day to define periods of time. We still do now in english to some degree i.e "in my fathers day" does that mean one day? or does it perhaps refer to his physical peak? his career peak? The writer describes things as they would appear to an observer on earth. Evening and morning were used to make it clear that these things happened in stages.
finding a few similar animals and slotting them in by order of size is hardly evidence. Then again, if you dont take into account all the other variables in the universe one can't appreciate the statistical odds. We all know what happens when we bring the bigger picture into view, we get accused of going into abiogenesis or some other field.
rightly said, all the fossils THAT SUPPORT Darwin's theory. but what about those who do not support it, just disappear into some store and no one thinks more about them.The whole film is served by tendentious questions and answers,I not deny all theory of evolution, but simply that some species such as our for example may have evolved long before the dates in the theory, there is archaeological evidence that simply are denied because they do not coincide with the scientific Doctrina
For better or for worse, the absence of selection makes us more varied. Taller/smaller, stronger/weaker, brighter/dumber. Downside: defects like astigmatism, asthma and infertility become more common.
But as biomanwin says; it is not a problem, as long as we have technology!
That is a pretty young branch of research. Some scientists think that we are doomed to die off without our technology, and others think that the fact we were able to attain so much genetic diversity could actually be advantageous. This is an oversimplification of course, and we would only have the potential to die off if we were exposed to natural selection again.
No, but I do at least know something about his life and work. He was not 'bored', he had no desire for 'fame' and his works pushed human understanding of the world forward immeasurably. You're just plain wrong on all counts.
Mmmm, well, I prefer to spend my time learning from REAL scientists have something to show for (no mere guessing games as in the case of Darwin) ,clever people like Tesla, and Ed L. or Werner von Braun etc.
We've established that you know nothing about Darwin. So your dismissing his careful, methodical years of observation as "guessing games" is going to meet the contempt it deserves.
LOL the bible said that the first creatures were in the sea. It also does not say that they were all created at the same time. The hebrew word day is used much like we might say "in my fathers day" so it does not mean literal days. Similarly, to demonstrate that they were all made at clearly different times, the author used evening and morning make it clear that there were gaps between each act. genesis actually says fish then birds then land animals so it was correct
The bible didnt distinguish between the type of land based or flying creature. This means that moses may have been initially referring to flying insects. We know they were around with or before the early land based creatures.
ok so whats that got to do with insects? by categorizing the type of creature you are proving nothing. And why talk about millions of years? i didnt dispute the time frames. Also, the 2000 year old book thats actually older (3600) makes some impressive statements and predictions. You dont have a shred of evidence that the writers were not inspired of god. I dont have evidence they were but they sure had some accurate predictions + advanced knowledge about earth, space and infection control
In 2008, a Tufts University student and a faculty lecturer uncovered what they believe is the world's oldest known full-body impression of a primitive flying insect, a 300 million-year-old specimen from the Carboniferous Period. The scientists presented the fossil at the Second International Congress on Ichnology, in Krakow, Poland in September 2008. The oldest definitive insect fossil is the Devonian Rhyniognatha hirsti, from 396 million year ago.
So are you suggesting that the amphibian/reptiles came before the common flying insect? Would i be correct in suggesting that such creatures would not preserve over the millions of years like some larger animals? Additionally, without flying insects, how do you propose the vegetation and plant life was pollnated?
how do you propose the vegetation and plant life was pollnated?
That's a very good question and it made me laugh. It shows how little you know about evolution.
Real flowers existed only about 130 million years ago, seeds had not evolved yet. Ever notice the plants in the dinosaur pictures, they are always ferns, spore producing plant.
well im glad you had a giggle. There is some evidence that they did exist up to 250 million years ago, a chemical called oleanane (used by plants with flowers) has been discovered in rocks dated 250 million yrs. Lets be honest, we will find older ones in the future (unless we ignore them because it does not fit with evolution). Just goes to show how distorted our dating system is when we base our theories upon so many assumptions.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the first assuption was that the oldest flowers are 130 million yrs old. That is an assumption because it was simply the oldest one that we found evidence of, not the actual first ever flower. The assupmtion that the earth has had a stable past leading to a predictable rock strada. Ultimately the whole of evolutionary science is based on a theory, data that fits is used, data that condradicts is mostly ignored. The dating system is haphazard at best and you know it.
Evolution IS a Theory, it will always be a Theory. A theory is a relatioship between facts. All the facts fit the theory or it would be thrown out or modified to fit the facts.
No one says the earth has predicctable rock strada. The geologic column is a TIME scale, the rocks are different all over the earth [no sign of a global flood]
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Im a radiobiological scientist so im well aware of what makes a theory, i also know that some thoeries are more water tight than others.
The geologic column is indeed a time scale but it is different all over the world, so how do we determine the age of each layer? Do we find a fossil in a layer, look to our book of theory for when it lived and date the layer this way? Then get loads of radimetric dating values and pick out the one that agrees?
Um, Dude... How Ignorant can you be? People clearly show you in video part 1 of this that in Australia there is a certain part there which clearly shows with using REAL SCIENCE TECNOLOGY (not assumptions) that the fossil is around 3.5 billon years old not a mere few millions. And probably that "FLOWER" you found was either tampered or it's shit. So please do the people who enjoy watching this video and STOP WRITING YOUR STUPID, SENSELESS COMMENTS! We all know you're wrong so just SHUT UP!:))
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i think it was on wikipedia that i found the info about the plant. So grow up and grow a brain so that you dont have to rely on the discovery channel so much
Just a question - Where do you guys stand on punctuated equilibrium? Ive seen a lot recently about ecological systems abruptly shifting, is it possible that the small changes Darwin envisioned were actually very rapid, possibly from having a large population of the ancestors being hit by some disaster, epidemic or weather change?
The slow gradual changes Darwin envisioned corresponds well with neutral mutations, genetic drift and small adaptations (like beak sizes in birds).
But the fossil record as well as recent advances in evolutionary development (evo-devo) shows us that large shifts in morphology can, and does, sometimes happen in just a few hundred generations. As predicted by punctuated equilibrium. Especially at bottle neck events and in case of dramatically changed environmental pressure.
A geological analogy - the main force shaping a mountainside is the slow, gradual process of erosion. Yet a landslide can change the shape of the mountain very rapidly. It's not a simple 'either/or' question.
To say evolution is survival of the fittest is misleading. Survival is not what's important, it's reproductive success that matters. In fact, survival is only important when it contributes to reproductive success.
Best evidence against the perfection of the human eye is the fact that the squid have the same eye evolved on their own route without all the problems we have.
Kind of sad that the opposing "theory" against evolution stands here on the eye being "so well designed". Yet the eye isn't built well at all. Like needing glasses and the blind spot of the eye. "I don't understand so magic man dun it!" pathetic.
Oh well, you see, eyes before the fall were perfect, its only because of Eve that we have to wear glasses - Apparently.
So whenever Creationists start droning about how perfect the design is, they always have their backs covered when you mention glasses, appendix, wisdom teeth, genetic diseases and cancer.
Lol. Call me crazy but i like the bleeps and blops. Makes it different. If only we could turn it on and of without turning of the voice. Good upload though.
Well, you know. A little dubious logic and some Bible quotes are enough for creationists to "debunk" anything scientific. Should that fail for them, they can always call it "intellectual arrogance". :)
I can only imagine that all the negative votes are from creationists who deny evolution... For some reason some people seem to believe that if evolution is wrong, their primitive superstitions will become true. Quite sad really...
shadywolf91 4 months ago
@shadywolf91 There were vote bot attacks a couple of years ago. Vote bots (short for "voting robot computer programs") were used by fundamentalist religiotards to dump fake Dislikes on these videos in an attempt to con people into thinking that most people actually dislike these videos.
Click like on these videos to dilute the effect of the vote bots. Never underestimate the devious dishonesty of religious nuts.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Yeah I figured something like that probably happened. I've seen it all over, I wonder if there is one individual controlling them all o.O, probably not though.
shadywolf91 4 months ago
@shadywolf91 I don't know if it was one person or more than one, but at least YouTube doesn't let it happen any more.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
Well, if God is real, and if God has such absolute power, then wouldn't he be able to create life that was just as advanced as in the real world but did not need any of the organs that life needs in reality? I mean God is magic, isn't he?
VinnyMonster1 7 months ago
I'm an atheist, I have no problem with Christians or Jews or Muslims, but seriously, KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.
You dont need to TROLL the earth for every part of it that DOESNT AGREE WITH YOU!
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, you, me, squirrels, I mean seriously, you can say you are right, but dont go everywhere for the purpose of trolling anyone who doesnt agree with you.
and one more thing.
ATHEISTS DONT SUPPORT THE DEVIL, ATHEIST MEANS THAT THEY DONT BELIEVE IN GOD OR THE DEVIL!! GAH!
TheSirSilvester 11 months ago
I agree that abiogenesis is different from evolution, but the 15 year project had nothing to do with abiogenesis. They have been trying it for over 300 years and even with a full strand of synthetic DNA; it still didn't work. They at the Craig Venter Center soon realized that and had to use a host cell. We must now look at the scientific evidence and ask what did it show us? That is what are minds are made for, we can't ignore the scientific data. Wake up the new dawn is here!
yhenry77 1 year ago
@yhenry77 Abiogenesis for over 300 years? Should also research how Venter maid his synthetic cell. More over, apparently were not the first forms of life, self replicating chemicals such as rna were, which lead to cell development.
mistereveready 11 months ago
@mistereveready In 1665, Robert Hooke published the first drawings of a microorganism. Hooke was followed in 1676 by Anton van Leeuwenhoek, Many felt the existence of microorganisms was evidence in support of spontaneous generation.
A team of 17 researchers from the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) created the largest man-made DNA structure by synthesizing and assembling the 582,970 base pair genome of a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium.
I have two videos on YouTube search "yhenry77"
yhenry77 11 months ago
Life started out simple? We know that even the simplest life forms are very complex. On May 20, 2010 - A team of 17 researchers from the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) may have inadvertently provided answers to the issues. They created the largest man-made DNA structure by assembling the 582,970 base pair genome of a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium. It took 15 years, 17 scientists (one a former Nobel Prize winner) and a supercomputer.
Isn't this is an Intelligent Design project?
yhenry77 1 year ago
@yhenry77 Well I.D. is where the creatures were created in basically their current shape. Some people think evolution started with a magical start, but yet to see any evidence for that. Last I checked Craig Venter is an atheist. Even if abiogenesis is an accurate description of how life formed from nonlife, it still doesn't default to an unproven supernatural magical creature. It would default to being an "unknown" which means to keep trying for an honest answer.
mistereveready 1 year ago
@mistereveready even if abiogenesis >>*isnt*<<
mistereveready 1 year ago
@mistereveready I am just looking at the evidence; the Craig Venter project is the only successful created synthetic life form. The fact he is an atheist doesn't affect outcome of scientific data. There are over 700 scientists (Ph.D.) have sign a statement (Dissent From Darwinism) which reads "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
yhenry77 1 year ago
@yhenry77 Once again, Abiogenesis is different from Evolution. Also the DFD you mention is a very sketchy document, misrepresenting some of the people, padding numbers with anyone who has a phd and is willing to sign. Furthermore, truth is not a matter of democracy. This is not to say Darwin was 100% right. He made many mistakes, of which many were corrected, much like any other scientific theory. Evolution isn't an argument from authority basing anything on a book like religions do.
mistereveready 1 year ago
Comment removed
yhenry77 1 year ago
so what will humans evolve into? will we look like some kind of fancy bird or something a million years from now? rats have proved very adapt at surviving; perhaps we will become the rats we are at heart...evolution is fantastic; too bad we can't harness the supernatural powers that turned our gills into lungs & grow back gills so we don't drown. but i won't hold my breath
maaruz1979 1 year ago
Was Darwin wrong?
Yep, he was far too pessimistic about the availability of fossils.
About the theory itself? No. 150+ years and still going strong.
Tenebrous76 1 year ago
This is a great VIDEO. I strongly support Darwinian Theory. His explanations are more convincing than any theory could. Scientific bases are what count by the end of the day.
TheIdealist97 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawin didnt prove a thing, thats why he went on and on about waiting to see how the fossil record will eventually prove him right. In addition to you're last point, isnt it possible that creation might take the same path too. Designers usually produce their most advanced work last, building on the technology they already have. So the evidence only supports the fact that the animals appeared gradually, this favours neither account over the other.
ukman2001 2 years ago
in a matter of a few days?
chachee99 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, a few million years. You forget genesis was written in hebrew. The hebrew language used the word day to define periods of time. We still do now in english to some degree i.e "in my fathers day" does that mean one day? or does it perhaps refer to his physical peak? his career peak? The writer describes things as they would appear to an observer on earth. Evening and morning were used to make it clear that these things happened in stages.
ukman2001 2 years ago
@ukman2001
Good thing we found the transitional fossils !!
gregrutz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz
finding a few similar animals and slotting them in by order of size is hardly evidence. Then again, if you dont take into account all the other variables in the universe one can't appreciate the statistical odds. We all know what happens when we bring the bigger picture into view, we get accused of going into abiogenesis or some other field.
ukman2001 2 years ago
Good thing we found all the fossils supporting evolution.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz
rightly said, all the fossils THAT SUPPORT Darwin's theory. but what about those who do not support it, just disappear into some store and no one thinks more about them.The whole film is served by tendentious questions and answers,I not deny all theory of evolution, but simply that some species such as our for example may have evolved long before the dates in the theory, there is archaeological evidence that simply are denied because they do not coincide with the scientific Doctrina
BgStalker 2 years ago
Name one that does not fit the theory.
gregrutz 2 years ago
I'd love to know which fossils you're referring to.
Daruqe 2 years ago
@BgStalker
I swear, it's a CONSPIRACY!!!!
They're hiding all the Pre-Cambrian rabbits.
progressthruscience 2 years ago
I can't believe the dogmatism of this vid, reminds me of a Kent Hovind seminar. I thought NG was more classy than this, guess not.
agnostaxian 2 years ago
This video has fact to back it up, Kent has a 2000 year old book and some BS.
gregrutz 2 years ago
For better or for worse, the absence of selection makes us more varied. Taller/smaller, stronger/weaker, brighter/dumber. Downside: defects like astigmatism, asthma and infertility become more common.
But as biomanwin says; it is not a problem, as long as we have technology!
Cephalochordata 2 years ago
That is a pretty young branch of research. Some scientists think that we are doomed to die off without our technology, and others think that the fact we were able to attain so much genetic diversity could actually be advantageous. This is an oversimplification of course, and we would only have the potential to die off if we were exposed to natural selection again.
biomanwin 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Darwin was simply a bored individual, thought of becoming famous through the ignorance and stupidity of his fellow humans !!!
buschmann69 2 years ago
What an incredibly ignorant comment.
Timbul53525253 2 years ago
Do you happen to be his great Grandson ?
buschmann69 2 years ago
No, but I do at least know something about his life and work. He was not 'bored', he had no desire for 'fame' and his works pushed human understanding of the world forward immeasurably. You're just plain wrong on all counts.
Timbul53525253 2 years ago 2
Mmmm, well, I prefer to spend my time learning from REAL scientists have something to show for (no mere guessing games as in the case of Darwin) ,clever people like Tesla, and Ed L. or Werner von Braun etc.
buschmann69 2 years ago
We've established that you know nothing about Darwin. So your dismissing his careful, methodical years of observation as "guessing games" is going to meet the contempt it deserves.
Timbul53525253 2 years ago
LOL the bible said that the first creatures were in the sea. It also does not say that they were all created at the same time. The hebrew word day is used much like we might say "in my fathers day" so it does not mean literal days. Similarly, to demonstrate that they were all made at clearly different times, the author used evening and morning make it clear that there were gaps between each act. genesis actually says fish then birds then land animals so it was correct
ukman2001 2 years ago
then genesis is wrong,
fish, amphipians, reptiles,dinosaurs then birds.
gregrutz 2 years ago
The bible didnt distinguish between the type of land based or flying creature. This means that moses may have been initially referring to flying insects. We know they were around with or before the early land based creatures.
ukman2001 2 years ago
The first land animals were amphibians, they were the only land animals for millions of years until reptiles evolved.
gregrutz 2 years ago
ok so whats that got to do with insects? by categorizing the type of creature you are proving nothing. And why talk about millions of years? i didnt dispute the time frames. Also, the 2000 year old book thats actually older (3600) makes some impressive statements and predictions. You dont have a shred of evidence that the writers were not inspired of god. I dont have evidence they were but they sure had some accurate predictions + advanced knowledge about earth, space and infection control
ukman2001 2 years ago
In 2008, a Tufts University student and a faculty lecturer uncovered what they believe is the world's oldest known full-body impression of a primitive flying insect, a 300 million-year-old specimen from the Carboniferous Period. The scientists presented the fossil at the Second International Congress on Ichnology, in Krakow, Poland in September 2008. The oldest definitive insect fossil is the Devonian Rhyniognatha hirsti, from 396 million year ago.
gregrutz 2 years ago
So are you suggesting that the amphibian/reptiles came before the common flying insect? Would i be correct in suggesting that such creatures would not preserve over the millions of years like some larger animals? Additionally, without flying insects, how do you propose the vegetation and plant life was pollnated?
ukman2001 2 years ago
how do you propose the vegetation and plant life was pollnated?
That's a very good question and it made me laugh. It shows how little you know about evolution.
Real flowers existed only about 130 million years ago, seeds had not evolved yet. Ever notice the plants in the dinosaur pictures, they are always ferns, spore producing plant.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Amphibians first appeared in the Devonian Period.
The Devonian is a geologic period and system of the Paleozoic era spanning from 416 to 359.2 million years ago
gregrutz 2 years ago
well im glad you had a giggle. There is some evidence that they did exist up to 250 million years ago, a chemical called oleanane (used by plants with flowers) has been discovered in rocks dated 250 million yrs. Lets be honest, we will find older ones in the future (unless we ignore them because it does not fit with evolution). Just goes to show how distorted our dating system is when we base our theories upon so many assumptions.
ukman2001 2 years ago
Assumptions, name one.
The dating system and evolution are based on facts, not assumptions.
gregrutz 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the first assuption was that the oldest flowers are 130 million yrs old. That is an assumption because it was simply the oldest one that we found evidence of, not the actual first ever flower. The assupmtion that the earth has had a stable past leading to a predictable rock strada. Ultimately the whole of evolutionary science is based on a theory, data that fits is used, data that condradicts is mostly ignored. The dating system is haphazard at best and you know it.
ukman2001 2 years ago
Evolution IS a Theory, it will always be a Theory. A theory is a relatioship between facts. All the facts fit the theory or it would be thrown out or modified to fit the facts.
No one says the earth has predicctable rock strada. The geologic column is a TIME scale, the rocks are different all over the earth [no sign of a global flood]
gregrutz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Im a radiobiological scientist so im well aware of what makes a theory, i also know that some thoeries are more water tight than others.
The geologic column is indeed a time scale but it is different all over the world, so how do we determine the age of each layer? Do we find a fossil in a layer, look to our book of theory for when it lived and date the layer this way? Then get loads of radimetric dating values and pick out the one that agrees?
ukman2001 2 years ago
The fossils get more complex as time goes on. Darwin didn't need radiometric dating to prove evolution happened.
gregrutz 2 years ago 2
Um, Dude... How Ignorant can you be? People clearly show you in video part 1 of this that in Australia there is a certain part there which clearly shows with using REAL SCIENCE TECNOLOGY (not assumptions) that the fossil is around 3.5 billon years old not a mere few millions. And probably that "FLOWER" you found was either tampered or it's shit. So please do the people who enjoy watching this video and STOP WRITING YOUR STUPID, SENSELESS COMMENTS! We all know you're wrong so just SHUT UP!:))
7278093 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i think it was on wikipedia that i found the info about the plant. So grow up and grow a brain so that you dont have to rely on the discovery channel so much
ukman2001 2 years ago
well I cant watch this one while I'm eating lol
I'll have to come back to it in a bit.
paulusmagirl 2 years ago
Just a question - Where do you guys stand on punctuated equilibrium? Ive seen a lot recently about ecological systems abruptly shifting, is it possible that the small changes Darwin envisioned were actually very rapid, possibly from having a large population of the ancestors being hit by some disaster, epidemic or weather change?
manchester26m 3 years ago
The slow gradual changes Darwin envisioned corresponds well with neutral mutations, genetic drift and small adaptations (like beak sizes in birds).
But the fossil record as well as recent advances in evolutionary development (evo-devo) shows us that large shifts in morphology can, and does, sometimes happen in just a few hundred generations. As predicted by punctuated equilibrium. Especially at bottle neck events and in case of dramatically changed environmental pressure.
Cephalochordata 3 years ago 3
A geological analogy - the main force shaping a mountainside is the slow, gradual process of erosion. Yet a landslide can change the shape of the mountain very rapidly. It's not a simple 'either/or' question.
Timbul53525253 2 years ago
punctuated equilibrium?
gregrutz 2 years ago
To say evolution is survival of the fittest is misleading. Survival is not what's important, it's reproductive success that matters. In fact, survival is only important when it contributes to reproductive success.
falcoperegrinus82 3 years ago
Indeed but generally you could say that the first prerequisite for reproduction is survival.
omegavalerius 3 years ago
This was the best presented model for eye evolution I had ever seen.
Irreducible complexity?.......seriously, I don't understand how anybody claiming scientific training would ascribe to such nonsense.
buzzausa 3 years ago
Best evidence against the perfection of the human eye is the fact that the squid have the same eye evolved on their own route without all the problems we have.
wolfwing1 3 years ago 2
Kind of sad that the opposing "theory" against evolution stands here on the eye being "so well designed". Yet the eye isn't built well at all. Like needing glasses and the blind spot of the eye. "I don't understand so magic man dun it!" pathetic.
halelorf 3 years ago 6
Oh well, you see, eyes before the fall were perfect, its only because of Eve that we have to wear glasses - Apparently.
So whenever Creationists start droning about how perfect the design is, they always have their backs covered when you mention glasses, appendix, wisdom teeth, genetic diseases and cancer.
All because of Eve. Bitch.
manchester26m 3 years ago
Darwin = my hero.
studiomarcel 3 years ago
Beautiful illustration with the ping pong balls!
UppruniTegundanna 3 years ago
Great upload big guy, I shall feature on my page as a playlist =D
Johannwyss82 3 years ago
Arg that fking buzzing sound, bleeps and blops piss me off.
Interesting video nontheless.
aadoza 3 years ago 2
Lol. Call me crazy but i like the bleeps and blops. Makes it different. If only we could turn it on and of without turning of the voice. Good upload though.
Dutchdrummer99 3 years ago
Simple... if you're lacking in reason enough to fall for such stupid claims, then you're simply not a reasoning person.
Digimaul 3 years ago 4
ping-pong balls! i love it!
burnhippiesforfuel 3 years ago 4
Well, you know. A little dubious logic and some Bible quotes are enough for creationists to "debunk" anything scientific. Should that fail for them, they can always call it "intellectual arrogance". :)
BamBasse 3 years ago 11
this is REALLY entertaining. thx for uploading
FullOfFail 3 years ago 3