Don't the religious evolutionists (RE's) have plenty of cousins on the family tree? If so then this is just another fossilize, nice though. I will make a couple predictions about "Ida", her mother and father were lemurs. Being as there is no rain forest there anymore the lemurs died. I don't see anything this is connecting?
@smoothpeople33 what the ida fossil is connecting is the lineages haplorhini and strepsirhini. until it was found, there was no fossil linking those two lineages so thats why its significant. but its not as significant as alot of the media reported it to be. also ida is not a lemur, shes too old to be one. also ida doesnt have a tooth comb or a toilet claw which all true lemurs have.
@ihmen Thanks for the information. I am not an expert on lemurs, but to me it still looks like a now extinct type of lemur. Certainly not a missing link. Beyond that I don't see it as proof of human linage.
@smoothpeople33 yeah to you it looks like a lemur because as you said you're "not an expert on lemurs" and dont know that ida is missing traits that all lemurs must have to be considered lemurs. i also told you its a link between haplorhini and strepsirhini which until it was found, was still missing.
@smoothpeople33 She has the part in her foot that lets her walk upright like a human. Whereas EVERY OTHER SINGLE Lemur cannot. That is the missing link. What do you want them to find different stages of the evolution process will that FINALLY persuade you? It's an EVOLVED lemur. Doesn't mean it's a link to humans. But it does prove evolution exists.
@JamMasterJay63 With all of the selective breeding going on and the high understanding of nature that were acquiring we still don't make new animals. Horses are horses and dogs are dogs with lots of variety, no way shape or form is this proof that things evolved from mud to man. Lemurs being lemurs is fine because the DNA locks them on as lemurs, even if they are not identical a 5 year old can classify them.
@smoothpeople33 You missed the point completely. We don't have horses that can walk upright or have evolved that ability. But this lemur does have the bone in her heel that let's her. This is PROOF that evolution exists. I never said that it was a link to humans.
@JamMasterJay63 We agree its a lemur...A fossil dosen't prove that it evolved from or into another animal or from another animal. Im skeptical of religious types and science types...show me the money. Does it make common sense that an amoeba grew to be me and you. 1. To much info has been added. 2. Things get more complex the smaller they get not ,more simple. 3. Nothing appears in transition to a new type of animal.
@smoothpeople33 Evolution - The change over time. It's a random combining of molecules that when they come together they form something new. Like this Lemur gaining the bone in it's heel that would let it walk upright.
who would dislike this video? people who don't value education. i don't like pointing fingers but i'd venture to guess they are religious folks with cognitive dissonance (ignoring information simply because it comes in conflict with your own ideas). intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
Religion is a completed crossword with no clues...the words fit, but they're wrong.
Science is a crossword puzzle only part completed.....the excitment is in completing it....and WE ARE using the clues.....
Curiousity is part of the human condition.....ironically, it seems its religion, that wants to take us back to being ignorant monkeys!!!!!!! oh well...you live and learn as they say....except for creationist of course ;)
@mcdinkity ha ha....evolution teaches we became fully formed animals from a rocks and water billions of yeas ago. Even if religious viewpoint seams wrong, you have to admit...life springing up from non life...that isn't science its philosophy.
@smoothpeople33 You're criticising Evolution and you don't even know the difference between Evolution - the theory that states how one form of life becomes another and Abiogensis - the hypothesis of how low life came from non-life. Are you for real? You're from the most scientifically advanced country on Earth and you don't even know the basics of the subject matter being discussed? Where I come from most 13 year olds wouldn't have made the mistake you just made.
@ketsan stating that Abiogensis isn't related to evolution is dishonest. At some point following an evolutionary tree backwards you will have to marry the two theory's. The only reason that the they are not a single theory is because the trouble it causes if they are put fully together. Abiogensis =the beginning of evolution.
@smoothpeople33 I didn't say they weren't related; I said they were different. What trouble? Common decent has been an accepted fact for nearly three thousand years simply by taxonomic data and it's confirmed by phylognetics and the fossil record. Whatever the mechanism of abiogenesis it obviously happened and nothing in abiogenesis can overturn the evidence for evolution. Even if God magiced simple life into existance from rocks it evolved into what we now see.
Evolution deals with diversity of life. Abiogenesis with the origin, there is a border line between the two. The fact that abiogenesis happened does not necessarily mean evolution had to happen. Next thing you'll be telling me that big bang theory is also part of evolution...
I'm NOT even a Christian by any means, and I still know how ridiculous this Darwinian trash truly is. If you afro-centrics trying to prove that all of humanity came swinging from African jungle trees, are now resorting to such desperate measures as using Lemur remains, then you are truly more pathetic than I gave you credit for. By the way, if the human mind evolved, then why did Minoans and others flush toilets in 2500 BC, and you Darwinists still ran to outhouses less than 100 years ago ?
Science isn't the gospel truth, things change and ideas form as we discover new technologies and uncover new finds such as this. Charles Darwin's THEORY of evolution has a lot of supporting evidence and also a lot of questions too, but it's worth exploring? Note that the title has a question mark: 'Our Common Ancestor?'
Evolution - Vestigial organs? and the Minoan civilisation... don't we know about them through scientific exploration? The very thing this doco is doing?
@EducatedRebellion101 HA HA HA!..You are so right...Minoans had flushable toilets and Darwinists used smelly outhouses while wearing red longjohns with the flap in the back...Fantastic!...
Why are animals that are alive today also fossils that are "billions" of years old, both are the same as they were then as they are now? (Bacteria, Horseshoe craps, lungfish,mosquitoes,spiders,dragonflies, some trapped in amber ) . Also if evolution is true are their still primitive animal lifeforms running around in the modern era, why have they not evolved or why are there no in between kinds? If we are related to monkeys, why do no humans speak monkey? Why is there no history before Egypt?
Um... they found a monkey... and said it was the best missing link find they have ever seen. If evolution were true, wouldn't someone sometime find a missing link and not a monkey? There should be a whole bunch of fossils of almost-humans right? I think evolution should be on the defensive for sure.
@Kuli24000 That is such a typical cop-out statement. Because something can't be explained doesn't automatically mean "God exists". It's the equivalent of pointing at an animal in the distance and saying "That's not a cow so it must be a horse"
@ThatBritGuy It isn't a cop-out statement at all. The thing that can't be explained is the entire chart from monkey to man. That is a huge part of the theory of evolution. So I will counter your argument by saying that claiming evolution is true is like pointing at an animal in the distance and claiming it is a horse when one doesn't have sufficient supporting facts to make the claim. Also, If anything, I believe evolutionists don't want to believe in God, and that is their starting block.
« The thing that can't be explained is the entire chart from monkey to man »
In fact, the phylogenetic tree of the human lineage is the most detailed that we have in paleontology. No other lineage is so well exemplified by fossil evidence.
« I believe evolutionists don't want to believe in God »
And yet many of them do. What religious scientists do not do is act like their faith should determine their conclusions even before having looked at the evidence: that is purely the domain of the religious pseudo- or non-scientific fringe.
« That is a huge part of the theory of evolution »
You are confusing the establishment of specific phylogenies with evolutionary theory in general. Even if evidence came up suggesting birds are not actually descendant from dinosaurs but from a more basal Archosaur, that would not disqualify the basic tenets of evolutionary theory; it would merely mean that we had to establish a new phylogenetic tree for birds.
Ida is not a monkey. Ida was represented as a very well *preserved* specimen, and a very good example of a link between two taxa that had so far been missing. You should understand that each time a new taxon emerges from a basal taxon, there are intermediary forms between those taxa. And we do not have all intermediate forms between all taxa in the ape lineages yet, hence the phrase "missing". We do have many of them though.
« wouldn't someone sometime find a missing link and not a monkey? »
Yes, and Ida is an example of an intermediate form between two taxa in the primate lineages, neither 'monkey', but representative of a ancestral form to monkeys.
« There should be a whole bunch of fossils of almost-humans right? »
Sigh. Ardipithecus ramidus; Australopithecus anamensis; A. afarensis; A. africanus; A. garhi; Paranthropus aethiopicus; P. boisei; P. robustus; Homo habilis; H. rudolfensis; H. ergaster; H. erectus, and so on.
Have you ever considered reading up on a subject before commenting on it?
YOU STUPID creationalist have no idea how insignificant you are with your feeble bible-home-tutoring and little dogmatic believes. you truly belong in a cave or even yet in a mental institution.your ignorance is an INSULT to mankind and all its progress. your parents are CRIMINALS to the state for having brainwashed you turning you into uneffective members of society.....if you so long for your ethernal "salvation"- go ahead and die already....and HANDS OFF THE INTERNET PLS, OK 10x
scientist have found millions of fossil specimens from all over the world, all these fossil specimens prove one fact....all living things on earth have maintained the same shape, structure, and charactaristics since the moment they were created. not even the oldest fossils ever found have ever had even the slightest change in them and this means that evolution is false.
2. And yes, OUR KNOWLEDGE DOES INCREASE WITH TIME. Is that a problem for you? Are we bothered by the fact that we continue to learn new things, boy? If so, then I suggest you throw away all your earthly possessions and go live the life of a Neolithic hermit on some remote island. Obviously the fast pace of a developing civilisation is not for you.
1. You fail to distinguish between fact and theory. Evolution as a biological phenomenon is confirmed fact.
2. You imply that any theory can ever be proven. Theories are only ever accurate in describing available observations.
3. You suggest that the accuracy of evolutionary theory is doubtful. This is not true: the basic tenets of evolutionary theory are very much consistent with available evidence.
@XGralgrathor .... i will explain the proof once more....scientist have found millions of fossil specimens from all over the world, all these fossil specimens prove one fact....all living things on earth have maintained the same shape, structure, and charactaristics since the moment they were created. not even the oldest fossils ever found have ever had even the slightest change in them and this means that evolution is false. it is a scientific proven fact that evolution is false.
« maintained the same shape, structure, and charactaristics »
Actually, the fossil record shows a pattern of diverging and progressing traits. Following one lineage, we see first the emergence of chordates, then vertebrates and craniates, then tetrapods, and so on. And at each juncture we see a number of sibling taxa emerge, together forming a branching tree. The fact that the fossil record doesn't show the fine detail you'd like to see does not detract from that which we *do* see.
« evolution as a biological phenomenon doesnt even make since,if the whole theory was proven false »
Which again shows your ignorance on the subject. The biological phenomenon of evolution is the changing of allele frequencies in populations from one generation to the next, and this is a confirmed observation.
« but when you try to say gravity hasnt been proven, thats not true. »
And again you fail to distinguish between fact and theory. Gravity is a natural phenomenon: it is a confirmed observation that mass attracts mass. The theory of gravity however (Einstein's General Theory of Relativity) is not proven, since it is a theory and theories are never proven.
The PHENOMENON of gravity is proven; it is observed, just like the phenomenon of evolution is observed. The THEORY that *explains* gravity is NOT: it is a theory. Just like the theory that explains evolution is not proven: it is a theory.
The PHENOMENON of gravity is proven; it is observed, just like the phenomenon of evolution is observed. The THEORY that *explains* gravity is NOT: it is a theory. Just like the theory that explains evolution is not proven: it is a theory.
The PHENOMENON of gravity is proven; it is observed, just like the phenomenon of evolution is observed. The THEORY that *explains* gravity is NOT: it is a theory. Just like the theory that explains evolution is not proven: it is a theory.
« einstein's theory of relativity has been proven allready »
No, it has not. It has been *confirmed* to be accurate within a certain scope. But that's the best you can do for theories: confirm their accuracy. You can never prove a theory.
Boy, I refuted your comments because the statements you made in them were *false*. It is that simple. Nobody denies that science learns new things all the time. But it'd do you good to learn a thing or to about the *actual* history of certain scientific findings before you start blathering about things you know nothing about.
@XGralgrathor .......the question here and point i was making is this: how was it considered a fact when we came from a fish, then it was considered a fact that we came from bird, years later it was considered a fact from apes? it obsivisly not a fact, and they should stop calling it that.
Because all branches of science describe facets of the same objective reality doesn't mean their theories have to depend on eachother, boy. But they'll probably teach you the basic principles of the scientific method somewhere along the way in elementary or high school. Best you keep from commenting on such matters until you understand them.
@uniVScity There is a profound difference between mathematical/logical proof and scientific proof.
Both can be undone by a counter-example but ee can only know absolutely in the ideal (math/logic), but we cannot in the practical (biologic/physical).
Ex. Has gravity been proven? Ideally no, but practically yes. We don't ideally know if gravity exists everywhere in the universe, only our observable part. Same with evolution.
@uniVScity Ideal proof and practical proof are both valid but requirements are different. You are expecting the wrong type of proof re evolution.
My point re gravity is that it is not _ideally_ provable (not all cases tested). Does that mean gravity isn't true? Is gravity proven? Yes. Gravity is _scientifically_ proven and accepted as true (or is there a better theory of Intelligent Falling?).
If you don't apply the same principle to evolution, I DO think you are being willfully stupid.
That *WHAT'S* been proven, boy? Are you talking about the biological phenomenon of evolution, to wit the changing of allele frequencies in populations from one generation to the next, or are you talking about the theoretical model that explains observations in biology, palaeontology, psychology and other branches of science in terms of what we know about this phenomenon, population dynamics and genetics? Be clear, boy!
@uniVScity "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." - A Hitler, Mein Kampf. "Got mit Uns" - Nazi belt buckle "The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity" - A Hitler speech (there's lots more)
Hitler regularly attended Catholic Church.
Re Bible burning: OTs of Jews were to be burned, not NTs of Christians.
Hitler might even claim that you are not a real christian, since you aren't racist, like the Bible tells you to be.
@uniVScity "For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." A Hitler, Mien Kampf v 2 chap 10. This is not compatible with evolution.
After reading Mien Kampf, it is very clear that Hitler thought social evolution was real, but not did not believe in biologic (darwin's theory) evolution.
Again what does Hitler's opinion matter to the truth of evolution?
@drfoxcourt ...............even if he quoted biblical passages, in speeches, it was probably being "used" as a form of power; i dont think it directly relates to him being a religous man. and his acts that he did, they directly say he was not a Christian. i think everyone can agree on that.
@uniVScity In YOUR mind Hitler was not a "True Christian", but whatever he was it certainly wasn't a evolution-supporting atheist as you had eluded. He certainly was religious, even if YOU don't want to call it "Christian.".
I would not claim that Hitler did what he did because he was a Christian, but the anti-semitic tone of the Catholic church of Hitler's youth didn't help.
Hitler did what he did because he was a racist, power mad, maniac, not an atheist.
@uniVScity "In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison." - A Hitler, Speech in Munich 4/12/1922
Coupled with his regular attendance in church, I'd say that kinda caps it for Hitler not being a religious man.
@echafaud i will tell you its needed for to have some important movemetsn
en contains even 9 muscles without you cant do shit like mating
dont believe me get youre removed en see
better yes if evolution is treu hahahhah then this is a big misstap en disproves evolution because evolution always improves not makes usseless bones en mucles reseachr it en look it up
Well sukyourself. Did you know that you still have the genes to grow that tail you used to have? Why would we have those genes? Why does the chicken still have its genes to grow a tail with 5 vertebrae or 12? Why does the chicken still have the genes to grow teeth or scales? You see, you have no education in just about every scietific field, so you sound like a slow preschooler asking these very basic questions.
@thestunnedninja a totaly uneducated statement.besides studying medicine and knowing more on the subject and having observed first hand (yea, we dissect and study the "natural" features of the human body; and await your divine punishment for it haha) those muscles andbones you're talking about [which show in reality how our species abides the same principles life evolved from;are the very same mesodermic formations you'll find in every vertebrate animal and even in lesser creatures (gastrulation
@thestunnedninja wow sorry mate rage had me , must have replied to the wrong person:...let there be known that I meant no disrespect against you, but only to tell sukruoosten that he is an idiot, and that I wish to bathe in his blood,amen
come on is that the real issue ....desperatly grabing every piece of consistent scientific fact only in order to defend it against ignorent religios fanatics.......instead of battling facts and theoriest we still try to force some sense in the heads of idiots bilieving in magical mythology .....i feel ashamed of the era compared to the late ranaissance
Okay this is a Reptile with opposable thumbs, and they want to sell this as a missing link! But we are also supposed to have evolved from the somewhat up right ape without opposable thumbs.
Hmmm? So we evolved from the Reptile with the thumbs, lost the thumbs when we became the ape, and on our way to the more up right cave man, we got the thumbs back! Got it!!!!
I'm glad we got this straight! Life sure has been simplified by Darwin, and the eager to prove the theory followers! Thank you
HEY CARAFIATA YOU NEVER BELIEFT ENYTHING AFTHER THE DAY YOU FOUND OUT SANTA DIDN,T EXCIST Ha haaaa ha haaa deep inside you are stil waithing for him dont you boy ? wlahaaa haa 2012 gonna Shock your 12% brainshit enyway. No santa for you no god for you no aliens for you Yes afcors noboddy and nothing wil be for you afther You Die nothing = that stupid , ore brainles ? This = THE CARDEN OF EDEN No no. reread think lurn
Some people need to believe in and fear a "God" it keeps them in line! With out that fear they would ravage this world even more than they do now! Thats why religion was Created! For control! I dont judge people who are "Religious Nuts" I simply tolerate them! Some of them are good people & my friends, its just a shame that so much is wasted on religion instead of the progression of man & science! But lets face it WE have a lt Bigger problems to worry about!
We get goose bumps because that is where hair use to be before we became Homo sapiens. you can research Jacobson's organ, junk DNA, the extra ear muscle called the Plantaris, apendix, the 3rd eye lid the Plica semilunaris, WISDOM TEETH! and my fav the tail bone (coccyx) all of these support Evolution! Why do Snakes have a hip bone & in Boas the remnants of hind limbs too!
Gravity is NOT a theory. Drop something, and it falls. This is proven fact. There are theories as to how this happens, but no doubt that it happens. You would have to have an example of every animal that every existed on earth to even begin to prove we, or any animal, evolved form other species, unless we witness a divergence ourselves. Awfully sharp teeth, for an omnivore.
@plastcbrane: Your heart is in the right place; let's work on the vocab. Things falling, the moon circling the Earth are facts by observation. Gravity is the theory that explains both of those facts. A theory is an inferential abstraction over a set of facts which provides an explanation for those facts, and perhaps others; it may be used to predict as yet unobserved facts. As an inference, it may be wrong or incomplete. Things evolving are facts; the theory of evolution explains why and how.
@puncheex Vocabulary eh? Ha. Gravity is the name of the force, it exists, and we see it everyday. What should we call it? The falling force? The theories involve why gravity happens.Things adapting is a fact, evolution is a term which infers divergence of species, and is a theory. Adaptation is not evolution in the strict sense. I am not saying that evolution doesn't happen, just that there is no proof other than circumstantial.
@plastcbrane: No the vocab I was thinking about was more like fact and theory. Gravity is not a fact. At one time we thought it was a force, and instead it is just a warpage of space-time. Perhaps soon that will change again if the Higgs is proven. Indeed evolution is a theory. There is no other evidence available other then circumstantial. Eye witnesses can lie, circumstances don't. And evolution has lots.
@puncheex The name of the phenomenon then. Gravity is what we call it. We may not know why it happens, but it is fact that it happens. Things fall, therefor gravity, for lack of a better word, is indeed a fact of physics. This isn't circumstantial, it can be demonstrated, observed and reproduced, fitting all the scientific criteria to be labeled fact. A workable description as to why or how isn't needed for it to be considered fact.
@plastcbrane: In that sense, evolution can be demonstrated as well. There are over 40 known observed speciation events; a google search will find them, and there is a list in talkoriginsDOT com. Look up Richard Lenski's bacterial experiment, in which bacteria spontaneously mutated to use citrates for energy, something never before seen.
@puncheex@puncheex We have never witnessed species diversion ever, if we did then you and I would not be having this conversation. All we have ever seen, including the list you mention, is adaptation. Things change processes, and features, but never cross the species line.
@puncheex This is a bullshit comment. Scientificilly, I should try every way to proove this wrong. Only by not prooveing evolution wrong, or seeing a species deveation ourselves, can we prove it right. But that still wouldent make it fact,(unless we witness it) for we have nothing to go on but some bones, and some questionable dateing tests.
@puncheex The bacteria that mutated were still bacteria, they dident evolve into amoeba or anything more complex. This can go on and on. The rehtoric never ends.Some say we haven't been keeping records long enough to have seen deveation yet. I don't know, but a dog has always been a dog. I mean the animal, and not the word.
@plastcbraneYou're right that bacteria remain bacteria. However, there were single celled ancestors to bacteria, and some speciated into different ways, from protists to eukaryotes to fungi, animals and plants. That's what the fossil record, as well as genetic mappings, say.
@puncheex All the fossil records show, are various different animals. When you say,"there were single celled ancestors to bacteria, and some speciated into different ways, from protists to eukaryotes to fungi, animals and plants" You assume evolution is indeed a fact, and shows a biased towards that argument. Meaning all events will be colored in that light for you. Question everything.
@puncheex It is a fact that the earth orbits the sun, just because we do know the exact cause, doesn't make it any less a fact. The same with gravity. When we start talking about space time, or dark matter, we are pretty much grasping at straws, for these things cannot be seen by their very nature, and so cannot be vindicated by the scientific method, unless our ideas about what science is change.
@plastcbrane: Sure it's a fact; I never said it wasn't. It is observable, and the observed is fact if it can be replicated and falsified. Quantum physics cannot be observed, and yet it's predictions are true; your computer would not work otherwise, and the theory of gravity allows GPS to work. I don't know what you mean by vindicated, but the theories of gravity and quantum mechanics are very successful in explaining and predicting actions within their realms.
@puncheex Quantum physics, and evolution, are not the same. Quantum physics displays a degree of unpredictability. The results of most of the tests that have been preformed have been against the predicted results. We do not know what happens on the quantum level. We do not know if we are actually observing particles, and scientists are constantly having to revise their theories.
@puncheex Not to mention that the observations change the outcome themselves. Yes there have been practical applications to the most mundane of quantum physics research. But its essence still eludes us. I am not sure why you compare it to evolution.
@puncheex Really, all of this, you, I, the universe, may not be real in the sense we take it to be. it may very well be some great beings dream. We will never know the answers to a lot of the questions that define our awareness. So this is really so much banter to fill the cosmic void. No more important than anything else, yet as important as anything. Great chatting with you, you made me think.
@puncheex If you can find conclusive proof, then post a link, if you can come up with a better name for the force that causes things to fall to earth, then go for it. We humans prove ourselves wrong again and again, and each time we think our new ideas and theories are right, only to prove our selves wrong again. I say we dident evolve form monkeys, we were always monkeys, and still are.
@plastcbrane: I think you read me wrong about gravity. One can observe a ball falling, and the moon orbiting. These are observations, facts, data. The theory of gravity explains why the ball and the moon act as they do, rather than some other way. Similarly for evolution. Speciation is observed, in the present and in fossils an identical pattern is observed in the past. The theory gives an explanation as to why all life appears to be related and yet so diverse.
great video thanks
ericajjful 1 week ago
your realy crazy,is that freak your grand mother?congratulatons fool
khalloud2008 1 week ago
A broken left wrist just like my father it's not a coincidence it's genetics. jk
livedandletdie 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from Best0fScience
they found the missing link they called it australopithecus sediba
Jackmachinima 4 months ago
okay, how do scientists know that this is an actual missing link or just a mutated animal?
MingeLordofGmod 9 months ago
@MingeLordofGmod 1. everything is a mutated [evolving] animal. 2. It has traits of different species, a transitional fossils.
gregrutz 9 months ago
Yep, it's official, that's a baby Godzilla.
1973dodgestepside 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
Don't the religious evolutionists (RE's) have plenty of cousins on the family tree? If so then this is just another fossilize, nice though. I will make a couple predictions about "Ida", her mother and father were lemurs. Being as there is no rain forest there anymore the lemurs died. I don't see anything this is connecting?
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33 what the ida fossil is connecting is the lineages haplorhini and strepsirhini. until it was found, there was no fossil linking those two lineages so thats why its significant. but its not as significant as alot of the media reported it to be. also ida is not a lemur, shes too old to be one. also ida doesnt have a tooth comb or a toilet claw which all true lemurs have.
ihmen 1 year ago
@ihmen Thanks for the information. I am not an expert on lemurs, but to me it still looks like a now extinct type of lemur. Certainly not a missing link. Beyond that I don't see it as proof of human linage.
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33 yeah to you it looks like a lemur because as you said you're "not an expert on lemurs" and dont know that ida is missing traits that all lemurs must have to be considered lemurs. i also told you its a link between haplorhini and strepsirhini which until it was found, was still missing.
ihmen 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33 She has the part in her foot that lets her walk upright like a human. Whereas EVERY OTHER SINGLE Lemur cannot. That is the missing link. What do you want them to find different stages of the evolution process will that FINALLY persuade you? It's an EVOLVED lemur. Doesn't mean it's a link to humans. But it does prove evolution exists.
JamMasterJay63 1 year ago
@JamMasterJay63 With all of the selective breeding going on and the high understanding of nature that were acquiring we still don't make new animals. Horses are horses and dogs are dogs with lots of variety, no way shape or form is this proof that things evolved from mud to man. Lemurs being lemurs is fine because the DNA locks them on as lemurs, even if they are not identical a 5 year old can classify them.
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33 You missed the point completely. We don't have horses that can walk upright or have evolved that ability. But this lemur does have the bone in her heel that let's her. This is PROOF that evolution exists. I never said that it was a link to humans.
JamMasterJay63 1 year ago
@JamMasterJay63 We agree its a lemur...A fossil dosen't prove that it evolved from or into another animal or from another animal. Im skeptical of religious types and science types...show me the money. Does it make common sense that an amoeba grew to be me and you. 1. To much info has been added. 2. Things get more complex the smaller they get not ,more simple. 3. Nothing appears in transition to a new type of animal.
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33 I never said that the lemur came from something else. But this is proof of evolution. That's what I am trying to get across.
JamMasterJay63 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33 Evolution - The change over time. It's a random combining of molecules that when they come together they form something new. Like this Lemur gaining the bone in it's heel that would let it walk upright.
JamMasterJay63 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33 The list of species which possess transitional features continues to grow. Epidexipteryx hui, Protoavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Archeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiasaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis
gregrutz 9 months ago 2
@smoothpeople33 Correct, dogs are still dogs, and Humans are still Apes, still mammals, still tetrapods.
gregrutz 9 months ago 2
who would dislike this video? people who don't value education. i don't like pointing fingers but i'd venture to guess they are religious folks with cognitive dissonance (ignoring information simply because it comes in conflict with your own ideas). intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
pwismyname 1 year ago
I love these kind of vedio,Hopin to see more,Subscribed.
Arjun007ize 1 year ago
yeah Germany, then there are no mammalians in africa nor america watch?v=cQVoSyVu9rk :)
FAIL
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
Comment removed
00TriedandTested00 1 year ago
ha ha religious people must think that we popped out of thin air fully formed lol
mcdinkity 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mcdinkity fully agree,
Religion is a completed crossword with no clues...the words fit, but they're wrong.
Science is a crossword puzzle only part completed.....the excitment is in completing it....and WE ARE using the clues.....
Curiousity is part of the human condition.....ironically, it seems its religion, that wants to take us back to being ignorant monkeys!!!!!!! oh well...you live and learn as they say....except for creationist of course ;)
00TriedandTested00 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
00TriedandTested00 1 year ago
@mcdinkity ha ha....evolution teaches we became fully formed animals from a rocks and water billions of yeas ago. Even if religious viewpoint seams wrong, you have to admit...life springing up from non life...that isn't science its philosophy.
smoothpeople33 9 months ago
@smoothpeople33 You're criticising Evolution and you don't even know the difference between Evolution - the theory that states how one form of life becomes another and Abiogensis - the hypothesis of how low life came from non-life. Are you for real? You're from the most scientifically advanced country on Earth and you don't even know the basics of the subject matter being discussed? Where I come from most 13 year olds wouldn't have made the mistake you just made.
ketsan 7 months ago 3
@ketsan stating that Abiogensis isn't related to evolution is dishonest. At some point following an evolutionary tree backwards you will have to marry the two theory's. The only reason that the they are not a single theory is because the trouble it causes if they are put fully together. Abiogensis =the beginning of evolution.
smoothpeople33 7 months ago
@smoothpeople33 I didn't say they weren't related; I said they were different. What trouble? Common decent has been an accepted fact for nearly three thousand years simply by taxonomic data and it's confirmed by phylognetics and the fossil record. Whatever the mechanism of abiogenesis it obviously happened and nothing in abiogenesis can overturn the evidence for evolution. Even if God magiced simple life into existance from rocks it evolved into what we now see.
ketsan 7 months ago 3
@ketsan
Let's keep this debate going. I can be the unbiased judge and if you win here is your prize.
nothing
morphine4mysoul 7 months ago
@morphine4mysoul Nothing except the mental workout.
ketsan 7 months ago
@smoothpeople33
Evolution deals with diversity of life. Abiogenesis with the origin, there is a border line between the two. The fact that abiogenesis happened does not necessarily mean evolution had to happen. Next thing you'll be telling me that big bang theory is also part of evolution...
OptimalElement 3 weeks ago
I'm NOT even a Christian by any means, and I still know how ridiculous this Darwinian trash truly is. If you afro-centrics trying to prove that all of humanity came swinging from African jungle trees, are now resorting to such desperate measures as using Lemur remains, then you are truly more pathetic than I gave you credit for. By the way, if the human mind evolved, then why did Minoans and others flush toilets in 2500 BC, and you Darwinists still ran to outhouses less than 100 years ago ?
EducatedRebellion101 1 year ago
@EducatedRebellion101
Science isn't the gospel truth, things change and ideas form as we discover new technologies and uncover new finds such as this. Charles Darwin's THEORY of evolution has a lot of supporting evidence and also a lot of questions too, but it's worth exploring? Note that the title has a question mark: 'Our Common Ancestor?'
Evolution - Vestigial organs? and the Minoan civilisation... don't we know about them through scientific exploration? The very thing this doco is doing?
ssmicks 1 year ago
@EducatedRebellion101 HA HA HA!..You are so right...Minoans had flushable toilets and Darwinists used smelly outhouses while wearing red longjohns with the flap in the back...Fantastic!...
DramaDon83 1 year ago
Why are animals that are alive today also fossils that are "billions" of years old, both are the same as they were then as they are now? (Bacteria, Horseshoe craps, lungfish,mosquitoes,spiders,dragonflies, some trapped in amber ) . Also if evolution is true are their still primitive animal lifeforms running around in the modern era, why have they not evolved or why are there no in between kinds? If we are related to monkeys, why do no humans speak monkey? Why is there no history before Egypt?
Lavere2009 1 year ago
153 religious people watched this video and couldent cope with the reality. Neph?
BlackBeardDelight187 1 year ago
Um... they found a monkey... and said it was the best missing link find they have ever seen. If evolution were true, wouldn't someone sometime find a missing link and not a monkey? There should be a whole bunch of fossils of almost-humans right? I think evolution should be on the defensive for sure.
Kuli24000 1 year ago
@Kuli24000 That is such a typical cop-out statement. Because something can't be explained doesn't automatically mean "God exists". It's the equivalent of pointing at an animal in the distance and saying "That's not a cow so it must be a horse"
ThatBritGuy 1 year ago
@ThatBritGuy It isn't a cop-out statement at all. The thing that can't be explained is the entire chart from monkey to man. That is a huge part of the theory of evolution. So I will counter your argument by saying that claiming evolution is true is like pointing at an animal in the distance and claiming it is a horse when one doesn't have sufficient supporting facts to make the claim. Also, If anything, I believe evolutionists don't want to believe in God, and that is their starting block.
Kuli24000 1 year ago
« The thing that can't be explained is the entire chart from monkey to man »
In fact, the phylogenetic tree of the human lineage is the most detailed that we have in paleontology. No other lineage is so well exemplified by fossil evidence.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« I believe evolutionists don't want to believe in God »
And yet many of them do. What religious scientists do not do is act like their faith should determine their conclusions even before having looked at the evidence: that is purely the domain of the religious pseudo- or non-scientific fringe.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« That is a huge part of the theory of evolution »
You are confusing the establishment of specific phylogenies with evolutionary theory in general. Even if evidence came up suggesting birds are not actually descendant from dinosaurs but from a more basal Archosaur, that would not disqualify the basic tenets of evolutionary theory; it would merely mean that we had to establish a new phylogenetic tree for birds.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« Um... they found a monkey... »
Ida is not a monkey. Ida was represented as a very well *preserved* specimen, and a very good example of a link between two taxa that had so far been missing. You should understand that each time a new taxon emerges from a basal taxon, there are intermediary forms between those taxa. And we do not have all intermediate forms between all taxa in the ape lineages yet, hence the phrase "missing". We do have many of them though.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« wouldn't someone sometime find a missing link and not a monkey? »
Yes, and Ida is an example of an intermediate form between two taxa in the primate lineages, neither 'monkey', but representative of a ancestral form to monkeys.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« There should be a whole bunch of fossils of almost-humans right? »
Sigh. Ardipithecus ramidus; Australopithecus anamensis; A. afarensis; A. africanus; A. garhi; Paranthropus aethiopicus; P. boisei; P. robustus; Homo habilis; H. rudolfensis; H. ergaster; H. erectus, and so on.
Have you ever considered reading up on a subject before commenting on it?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
Your all idiots, obviously God put it there to test our faith.
SGriiffiin 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
YOU STUPID creationalist have no idea how insignificant you are with your feeble bible-home-tutoring and little dogmatic believes. you truly belong in a cave or even yet in a mental institution.your ignorance is an INSULT to mankind and all its progress. your parents are CRIMINALS to the state for having brainwashed you turning you into uneffective members of society.....if you so long for your ethernal "salvation"- go ahead and die already....and HANDS OFF THE INTERNET PLS, OK 10x
echafaud 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
scientist have found millions of fossil specimens from all over the world, all these fossil specimens prove one fact....all living things on earth have maintained the same shape, structure, and charactaristics since the moment they were created. not even the oldest fossils ever found have ever had even the slightest change in them and this means that evolution is false.
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
« 25 yrs ago we came from a ape »
Nope. That was claimed almost from the start, 150 years ago, when The Origin of Species was first published.
« 15 years ago we came from a fungis »
Nope. Never claimed. Entirely different kingdom. We do share a common ancestor with them, that was also a eukaryote.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor .....the point is that the timeline changes to much to be accurate, so i was using an example of how unaccurate there theories are.
uniVScity 1 year ago
« the point is that the timeline changes »
The point is twofold:
1. It doesn't change as much as you think, boy.
2. And yes, OUR KNOWLEDGE DOES INCREASE WITH TIME. Is that a problem for you? Are we bothered by the fact that we continue to learn new things, boy? If so, then I suggest you throw away all your earthly possessions and go live the life of a Neolithic hermit on some remote island. Obviously the fast pace of a developing civilisation is not for you.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
« when i said evolution hasnt been proven »
When you say that, your mistake is threefold:
1. You fail to distinguish between fact and theory. Evolution as a biological phenomenon is confirmed fact.
2. You imply that any theory can ever be proven. Theories are only ever accurate in describing available observations.
3. You suggest that the accuracy of evolutionary theory is doubtful. This is not true: the basic tenets of evolutionary theory are very much consistent with available evidence.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor .... i will explain the proof once more....scientist have found millions of fossil specimens from all over the world, all these fossil specimens prove one fact....all living things on earth have maintained the same shape, structure, and charactaristics since the moment they were created. not even the oldest fossils ever found have ever had even the slightest change in them and this means that evolution is false. it is a scientific proven fact that evolution is false.
uniVScity 1 year ago
« maintained the same shape, structure, and charactaristics »
Actually, the fossil record shows a pattern of diverging and progressing traits. Following one lineage, we see first the emergence of chordates, then vertebrates and craniates, then tetrapods, and so on. And at each juncture we see a number of sibling taxa emerge, together forming a branching tree. The fact that the fossil record doesn't show the fine detail you'd like to see does not detract from that which we *do* see.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« evolution as a biological phenomenon doesnt even make since,if the whole theory was proven false »
Which again shows your ignorance on the subject. The biological phenomenon of evolution is the changing of allele frequencies in populations from one generation to the next, and this is a confirmed observation.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« but when you try to say gravity hasnt been proven, thats not true. »
And again you fail to distinguish between fact and theory. Gravity is a natural phenomenon: it is a confirmed observation that mass attracts mass. The theory of gravity however (Einstein's General Theory of Relativity) is not proven, since it is a theory and theories are never proven.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
« gravity is proven, its a very simple formula »
The PHENOMENON of gravity is proven; it is observed, just like the phenomenon of evolution is observed. The THEORY that *explains* gravity is NOT: it is a theory. Just like the theory that explains evolution is not proven: it is a theory.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« gravity is proven, its a very simple formula »
The PHENOMENON of gravity is proven; it is observed, just like the phenomenon of evolution is observed. The THEORY that *explains* gravity is NOT: it is a theory. Just like the theory that explains evolution is not proven: it is a theory.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« gravity is proven, its a very simple formula »
The PHENOMENON of gravity is proven; it is observed, just like the phenomenon of evolution is observed. The THEORY that *explains* gravity is NOT: it is a theory. Just like the theory that explains evolution is not proven: it is a theory.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor .......einstein's theory of relativity has been proven allready so its not really a theory anymore.
uniVScity 1 year ago
« einstein's theory of relativity has been proven allready »
No, it has not. It has been *confirmed* to be accurate within a certain scope. But that's the best you can do for theories: confirm their accuracy. You can never prove a theory.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
« so this would give you a "constant" and create a floating affect »
Are you on drugs, or do you just like talking nonsense to see how people'll react?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
« the speed of gravity is 7 x 10 to the 6th power faster than the speed of light. dont ask me how they came up with that either. »
I won't, because it's patent nonsense, and nothing like that is evident from any scientific publication.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor ....it is a scientific proven fact, that the theory of evolution is 100% false.
uniVScity 1 year ago
« the theory of evolution is 100% false »
How can you tell when it is consistent with all observations we have so far?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
« when you denied everytime they switched »
Boy, I refuted your comments because the statements you made in them were *false*. It is that simple. Nobody denies that science learns new things all the time. But it'd do you good to learn a thing or to about the *actual* history of certain scientific findings before you start blathering about things you know nothing about.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« 10 years ago we came from a bacteria »
Nope. Never claimed. Entirely different domain. We do share a common ancestor with them, that was also a biological cellular replicator.
« 1 year ago now we are back to some little monkey creature »
Not "back to". This is just one more node in the tree of life we're starting to discover. And it happened to be a node we had no fossil form for yet.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor .......the question here and point i was making is this: how was it considered a fact when we came from a fish, then it was considered a fact that we came from bird, years later it was considered a fact from apes? it obsivisly not a fact, and they should stop calling it that.
uniVScity 1 year ago
« considered a fact when we came from a fish »
Reading problems?
That was never claimed. It is true though that we share a common ancestor with fish, and that that common ancestor was also a vertebrate.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« then it was considered a fact that we came from bird »
Reading problems?
That was never claimed. It is true though that we share a common ancestor with birds, and that that common ancestor was also a tetrapod.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« years later it was considered a fact from apes? »
Reading problems?
That was claimed almost from the start, 150 years ago, when The Origin of Species was first published.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
Comment removed
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« 45 yrs ago we came from a fish »
Nope. That was never claimed. It is true though that we share a common ancestor with fish, and that that common ancestor was also a vertebrate.
« 35 years ago we came from a bird »
Nope. That was never claimed. It is true though that we share a common ancestor with birds, and that that common ancestor was also a tetrapod.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« 15 yrs ago the big bang theory was considered the beginning of evolution »
Are you daft? No, it never was. Cosmology is cosmology, biology is biology. Stop rambling.
« now they say that big bang has nothing to do with evolution »
It was never claimed otherwise, weirdo.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
« they went hand in hand »
Because all branches of science describe facets of the same objective reality doesn't mean their theories have to depend on eachother, boy. But they'll probably teach you the basic principles of the scientific method somewhere along the way in elementary or high school. Best you keep from commenting on such matters until you understand them.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
@uniVScity There is a profound difference between mathematical/logical proof and scientific proof.
Both can be undone by a counter-example but ee can only know absolutely in the ideal (math/logic), but we cannot in the practical (biologic/physical).
Ex. Has gravity been proven? Ideally no, but practically yes. We don't ideally know if gravity exists everywhere in the universe, only our observable part. Same with evolution.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
@uniVScity Ideal proof and practical proof are both valid but requirements are different. You are expecting the wrong type of proof re evolution.
My point re gravity is that it is not _ideally_ provable (not all cases tested). Does that mean gravity isn't true? Is gravity proven? Yes. Gravity is _scientifically_ proven and accepted as true (or is there a better theory of Intelligent Falling?).
If you don't apply the same principle to evolution, I DO think you are being willfully stupid.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
« has it proven? »
Has *what* been proven? That evolution occurs, or that evolutionary theory is true?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
« that its been proven »
That *WHAT'S* been proven, boy? Are you talking about the biological phenomenon of evolution, to wit the changing of allele frequencies in populations from one generation to the next, or are you talking about the theoretical model that explains observations in biology, palaeontology, psychology and other branches of science in terms of what we know about this phenomenon, population dynamics and genetics? Be clear, boy!
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
cont....so the actual lie thats been circulating is saying its proven.
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
@uniVScity Hitler was a Christian. He openly disavowed evolution. You need to do some reading and stop being so gullible.
What does Hitler's beliefs matter to the truth of evolution anyway?
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
@uniVScity "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." - A Hitler, Mein Kampf. "Got mit Uns" - Nazi belt buckle "The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity" - A Hitler speech (there's lots more)
Hitler regularly attended Catholic Church.
Re Bible burning: OTs of Jews were to be burned, not NTs of Christians.
Hitler might even claim that you are not a real christian, since you aren't racist, like the Bible tells you to be.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
@uniVScity "For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." A Hitler, Mien Kampf v 2 chap 10. This is not compatible with evolution.
After reading Mien Kampf, it is very clear that Hitler thought social evolution was real, but not did not believe in biologic (darwin's theory) evolution.
Again what does Hitler's opinion matter to the truth of evolution?
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
@drfoxcourt ...............even if he quoted biblical passages, in speeches, it was probably being "used" as a form of power; i dont think it directly relates to him being a religous man. and his acts that he did, they directly say he was not a Christian. i think everyone can agree on that.
uniVScity 1 year ago
@uniVScity In YOUR mind Hitler was not a "True Christian", but whatever he was it certainly wasn't a evolution-supporting atheist as you had eluded. He certainly was religious, even if YOU don't want to call it "Christian.".
I would not claim that Hitler did what he did because he was a Christian, but the anti-semitic tone of the Catholic church of Hitler's youth didn't help.
Hitler did what he did because he was a racist, power mad, maniac, not an atheist.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
@uniVScity "In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison." - A Hitler, Speech in Munich 4/12/1922
Coupled with his regular attendance in church, I'd say that kinda caps it for Hitler not being a religious man.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
Comment removed
uniVScity 1 year ago
TO CREATIONALISTS: why do people have tailbones
echafaud 1 year ago
@echafaud i will tell you its needed for to have some important movemetsn
en contains even 9 muscles without you cant do shit like mating
dont believe me get youre removed en see
better yes if evolution is treu hahahhah then this is a big misstap en disproves evolution because evolution always improves not makes usseless bones en mucles reseachr it en look it up
sukruoosten 1 year ago
@sukruoosten
Well sukyourself. Did you know that you still have the genes to grow that tail you used to have? Why would we have those genes? Why does the chicken still have its genes to grow a tail with 5 vertebrae or 12? Why does the chicken still have the genes to grow teeth or scales? You see, you have no education in just about every scietific field, so you sound like a slow preschooler asking these very basic questions.
thestunnedninja 1 year ago
@thestunnedninja what you just explained proofs evolution is bull shit you sewer rat hahah
evolution needs improvement not usseles genes en tales en vice versa
although you need them but you ofcourse will denie that ore dont know its very
important
sukruoosten 1 year ago
@thestunnedninja a totaly uneducated statement.besides studying medicine and knowing more on the subject and having observed first hand (yea, we dissect and study the "natural" features of the human body; and await your divine punishment for it haha) those muscles andbones you're talking about [which show in reality how our species abides the same principles life evolved from;are the very same mesodermic formations you'll find in every vertebrate animal and even in lesser creatures (gastrulation
echafaud 1 year ago
@echafaud
WTF?
thestunnedninja 1 year ago
@thestunnedninja wow sorry mate rage had me , must have replied to the wrong person:...let there be known that I meant no disrespect against you, but only to tell sukruoosten that he is an idiot, and that I wish to bathe in his blood,amen
echafaud 1 year ago
@echafaud
HAHAHAHA. No worries. sukroosten is an idiot!
thestunnedninja 1 year ago
Comment removed
echafaud 1 year ago
come on is that the real issue ....desperatly grabing every piece of consistent scientific fact only in order to defend it against ignorent religios fanatics.......instead of battling facts and theoriest we still try to force some sense in the heads of idiots bilieving in magical mythology .....i feel ashamed of the era compared to the late ranaissance
echafaud 1 year ago
Okay this is a Reptile with opposable thumbs, and they want to sell this as a missing link! But we are also supposed to have evolved from the somewhat up right ape without opposable thumbs.
Hmmm? So we evolved from the Reptile with the thumbs, lost the thumbs when we became the ape, and on our way to the more up right cave man, we got the thumbs back! Got it!!!!
I'm glad we got this straight! Life sure has been simplified by Darwin, and the eager to prove the theory followers! Thank you
phackitnow 1 year ago
I just want to know what they are doing with the DNA
MrDeanomartinez 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wilmex1 1 year ago
you mail me and say THATS NOT THE WAY IT WORKS
SO AGAIN I ASK YOU THEN HOW?
NO GOD NO ALIENS
you say we wil Never no it , THEN WHAT DO YOU NO MORE ?
Questions again and again you give no answers .
wilmex1 1 year ago
A horse can not evolve 2 somthing els because the horse wil Then not exsist enymore , there are thousends {1000} species on land.
there are hondreds in the sky,there 1000s in the sea .
were are YOU Talking about.
ITS GOD WHO PUT IT AL DOWN HERE
IF NOT , THEN ITS THE ALIENS. 2012 WIL ROCK YOUR BRAIN Enyway !
so we come from ape , then the ape shout be gone .
?
wilmex1 1 year ago
A horse can not evolve 2 somthing els because the horse wil Then not exsist enymore , there are thousends {1000} species on land.
there are hondreds in the sky,there 1000s in the sea .
were are YOU Talking about.
ITS GOD WHO PUT IT AL DOWN HERE
IF NOT , THEN ITS THE ALIENS. 2012 WIL ROCK YOUR BRAIN Enyway !
so we come from ape , then the ape shout be gone .
wilmex1 1 year ago
THIS PLANET IS FILT WITH CRAZY PEOPLE,WHO BELIEF EVERYTING THEY SEE
START WITH YOUR BRAIN INSTED OF BELIEFING YOUR EYES AND EARS FIRST.
NEXT YEAR WE FIND A HORSE WITH HUMAN HEAD AND THEN WE COME FROM THE HORSE !. AND WHERE IS A TIGER,CAMEL,OLIFANT COMING FROM.?
its just a spicie. sickplanet
wilmex1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people need to believe in and fear a "God" it keeps them in line! With out that fear they would ravage this world even more than they do now! Thats why religion was Created! For control! I dont judge people who are "Religious Nuts" I simply tolerate them! Some of them are good people & my friends, its just a shame that so much is wasted on religion instead of the progression of man & science! But lets face it WE have a lt Bigger problems to worry about!
bodyrocks1on1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We get goose bumps because that is where hair use to be before we became Homo sapiens. you can research Jacobson's organ, junk DNA, the extra ear muscle called the Plantaris, apendix, the 3rd eye lid the Plica semilunaris, WISDOM TEETH! and my fav the tail bone (coccyx) all of these support Evolution! Why do Snakes have a hip bone & in Boas the remnants of hind limbs too!
bodyrocks1on1 1 year ago
Gravity is NOT a theory. Drop something, and it falls. This is proven fact. There are theories as to how this happens, but no doubt that it happens. You would have to have an example of every animal that every existed on earth to even begin to prove we, or any animal, evolved form other species, unless we witness a divergence ourselves. Awfully sharp teeth, for an omnivore.
plastcbrane 1 year ago
@plastcbrane: Your heart is in the right place; let's work on the vocab. Things falling, the moon circling the Earth are facts by observation. Gravity is the theory that explains both of those facts. A theory is an inferential abstraction over a set of facts which provides an explanation for those facts, and perhaps others; it may be used to predict as yet unobserved facts. As an inference, it may be wrong or incomplete. Things evolving are facts; the theory of evolution explains why and how.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Vocabulary eh? Ha. Gravity is the name of the force, it exists, and we see it everyday. What should we call it? The falling force? The theories involve why gravity happens.Things adapting is a fact, evolution is a term which infers divergence of species, and is a theory. Adaptation is not evolution in the strict sense. I am not saying that evolution doesn't happen, just that there is no proof other than circumstantial.
plastcbrane 1 year ago
@plastcbrane: No the vocab I was thinking about was more like fact and theory. Gravity is not a fact. At one time we thought it was a force, and instead it is just a warpage of space-time. Perhaps soon that will change again if the Higgs is proven. Indeed evolution is a theory. There is no other evidence available other then circumstantial. Eye witnesses can lie, circumstances don't. And evolution has lots.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex The name of the phenomenon then. Gravity is what we call it. We may not know why it happens, but it is fact that it happens. Things fall, therefor gravity, for lack of a better word, is indeed a fact of physics. This isn't circumstantial, it can be demonstrated, observed and reproduced, fitting all the scientific criteria to be labeled fact. A workable description as to why or how isn't needed for it to be considered fact.
plastcbrane 1 year ago
@plastcbrane: In that sense, evolution can be demonstrated as well. There are over 40 known observed speciation events; a google search will find them, and there is a list in talkoriginsDOT com. Look up Richard Lenski's bacterial experiment, in which bacteria spontaneously mutated to use citrates for energy, something never before seen.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex @puncheex We have never witnessed species diversion ever, if we did then you and I would not be having this conversation. All we have ever seen, including the list you mention, is adaptation. Things change processes, and features, but never cross the species line.
plastcbrane 1 year ago
@plastcbran: So I gather you don't do things scientifically. The evidence is there, but you refuse to acknowledge it.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Evolution is not scientific fact, period. Maybe one day it will be, until that day I will hold reservations as to its integrity
plastcbrane 1 year ago
@puncheex This is a bullshit comment. Scientificilly, I should try every way to proove this wrong. Only by not prooveing evolution wrong, or seeing a species deveation ourselves, can we prove it right. But that still wouldent make it fact,(unless we witness it) for we have nothing to go on but some bones, and some questionable dateing tests.
plastcbrane 1 year ago
@puncheex The bacteria that mutated were still bacteria, they dident evolve into amoeba or anything more complex. This can go on and on. The rehtoric never ends.Some say we haven't been keeping records long enough to have seen deveation yet. I don't know, but a dog has always been a dog. I mean the animal, and not the word.
plastcbrane 1 year ago
@plastcbraneYou're right that bacteria remain bacteria. However, there were single celled ancestors to bacteria, and some speciated into different ways, from protists to eukaryotes to fungi, animals and plants. That's what the fossil record, as well as genetic mappings, say.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex All the fossil records show, are various different animals. When you say,"there were single celled ancestors to bacteria, and some speciated into different ways, from protists to eukaryotes to fungi, animals and plants" You assume evolution is indeed a fact, and shows a biased towards that argument. Meaning all events will be colored in that light for you. Question everything.
plastcbrane 1 year ago
@puncheex It is a fact that the earth orbits the sun, just because we do know the exact cause, doesn't make it any less a fact. The same with gravity. When we start talking about space time, or dark matter, we are pretty much grasping at straws, for these things cannot be seen by their very nature, and so cannot be vindicated by the scientific method, unless our ideas about what science is change.
plastcbrane 1 year ago
@plastcbrane: Sure it's a fact; I never said it wasn't. It is observable, and the observed is fact if it can be replicated and falsified. Quantum physics cannot be observed, and yet it's predictions are true; your computer would not work otherwise, and the theory of gravity allows GPS to work. I don't know what you mean by vindicated, but the theories of gravity and quantum mechanics are very successful in explaining and predicting actions within their realms.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Quantum physics, and evolution, are not the same. Quantum physics displays a degree of unpredictability. The results of most of the tests that have been preformed have been against the predicted results. We do not know what happens on the quantum level. We do not know if we are actually observing particles, and scientists are constantly having to revise their theories.
plastcbrane 1 year ago
@puncheex Not to mention that the observations change the outcome themselves. Yes there have been practical applications to the most mundane of quantum physics research. But its essence still eludes us. I am not sure why you compare it to evolution.
plastcbrane 1 year ago
@puncheex Really, all of this, you, I, the universe, may not be real in the sense we take it to be. it may very well be some great beings dream. We will never know the answers to a lot of the questions that define our awareness. So this is really so much banter to fill the cosmic void. No more important than anything else, yet as important as anything. Great chatting with you, you made me think.
plastcbrane 1 year ago
Comment removed
plastcbrane 1 year ago
@puncheex If you can find conclusive proof, then post a link, if you can come up with a better name for the force that causes things to fall to earth, then go for it. We humans prove ourselves wrong again and again, and each time we think our new ideas and theories are right, only to prove our selves wrong again. I say we dident evolve form monkeys, we were always monkeys, and still are.
plastcbrane 1 year ago
@plastcbrane: I think you read me wrong about gravity. One can observe a ball falling, and the moon orbiting. These are observations, facts, data. The theory of gravity explains why the ball and the moon act as they do, rather than some other way. Similarly for evolution. Speciation is observed, in the present and in fossils an identical pattern is observed in the past. The theory gives an explanation as to why all life appears to be related and yet so diverse.
punchee