In addition to that, what I have noticed throughout all my discourse with believers, is that they really do not possess a firm grasp of reality, and most importantly do not understand how the real world works. Their entire epistemology - belief system, which is an extension of their personalities, is predicated on IGNORANCE. IT IS SO SAD. They are not comfortable with their ignorance, so they then project and purport their emotional, irrational explanations for things they don't understand.
hmm...sure you can say oh that's just monkey behavior...but it's not. It's more nuanced than that I THINK. It can be called human behavior. So when you try to put "it all in perspective" but substituing a cherished word with another, you create a different outlook, but not necessarily a more accurate one. We are different from monkeys. But yeah compared to aliens we might as well be the same. Still. Nuance. But I've never been a monkey.
ErikMartin - A monkey again judging other monkeys about a 3rd monkeys political philosophy. Oh and by the way, ErikMonkey does not get that neither socialism or communism is a materialist philosophy. They are political ideologies and strategies for governance. However, all Judiac based religion is materialist, as they are the ones who promote that all things in the universe being nothing more than human resources and having no intrinsic value of their own. Clearly you are an uneducated Monkey.
@MeatPancake I'm an agnostic and support the theory of evolution -- you're jumping to conclusions. Most lefties are materialist in the sense that the consider people as little more than mindless clay, which should be molded into material equality by social engineers. They reject immaterial concepts such as individual liberty, intellectual labor, and so forth. They are obsessed with material equality, and blinded by political correctness.
Monkeys do not destroy boundaries but rather replace other monkeys' boundaries with their own. Monkeys make good points but ruin it with their own negative view of other monkeys.
To clarify: we share a distant ancestor with monkeys(chimps&bonobos), and even a more distant ancestor with apes. Leading biologists,such as Frans de Waal, are saying we really are so closely related (98.5% genetically) to "monkeys" that we are basically them with big brains, & that our species very distinct classification as "Homo sapiens" just exists to satisfy the human ego.
i don't know about you but I'M NOT A MONKEY and i know that i'm special because the bible makes a very clear distinction between man and animal and if you had actually read it you would know that but no hard feelings have fun in hell
@j4pan Inquire a little about science. A book that has not been consistent with science, ever... Written two-thousand years ago by a bunch of ignorant men in the desert. It's unfortunate it still has force today with everything we now know.
@j4pan Christians frequently resort to threats of Hell when people act in ways they don’t approve. This is because at the end of the day, that is all they have. They can’t persuade someone to change their behavior with logical discourse, because they can’t reasonably support their position. So, they threaten with childish fantasies of revenge and torment upon their imagined enemies. It is really pathetic when you think about it.
@caz4453 I’ll concede that not all Christians resort to the threat of hell, but I maintain it is not uncommon.
To a certain extent, you are very correct. There have been over 30,000 different denominations and sects of Christianity. This means that the term “Christianity” covers a wide range of beliefs and dogmas. In fact, one would be hard pressed to deem any single trait or attitude as uniquely Christian.
@caz4453 They believe the same folly that you can prove is false, making them a cult. When an individual decides to take on a title, he can be generalized.
@j4pan Does it explain the science behind why man is not an "animal"? We are members of the kingdom Animalia, which includes every multicellular, heterotrophic being on the planet. Genetic distinctions and similarities, whether or not they were designed by a god, still exist. No, we are not a "monkey", but we are a simian, one of the groups of primates. We can keep trying to set ourselves apart as much as we want, but we're just animals. Why is that so offensive to some people?
The bible (any of them) being Metaphorical is an excuse, a lame one. The people who wrote this controlling fear mongering crap fully believed the earth was flat and that the entire universe was a few thousand years old. Please keep your priests away from my kids.
and as for the bible? i can't lie.. the story of the bible is a very profound one... a lot of thought and experiences and stories were put into making it, i give you that... i think that all the stories in the bible are all metaphorical and should not taken too seriously or literally.. instead we should just read it like any other literature and enjoy the stories and consider its morals... it always when we take things too seriously that coincidently a lot shit happens to hits the fan..
@myssytys Nope.God is just a illusion,occationalor more 'visinting' thought inside head (in brains) of Monkey :) ;-)
Back in '90s were published on news that 98% of HUMAN DNA is Equal as DNA Monkey - so only 2 of HUMAN DNA is not. That means that Delusion related to case: HUMAN is not ANIMAL/MONKEY related is 98%.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Okay.. So basically you replace the word 'human' with 'monkey', and make fun of mankind in a pathetic attempt to be.. uhh clever? I don't get the point..!
And this is why Bob "J.R." Dobbs came to spread the Word. SLACK. Only True decendents of the Yeti can comprehend, but you too can achieve exclusion from the monkey masses (a.k.a. Pinks)
By virtue and sublime generosity, the Church of the SubGenius has opened this door to you. Take the leap of slack. Take the responsibility that comes with complete lack of regard! Follow Bob to the Mother Ship and have more sex, get more money and have more fun!
Let me explain this to you as simply as I can. The phenotypic expression of an allele for wrinkly peas or non-wrinkly peas, straight hair, curly hair, short snout, long snout, is no different when natural selection takes place in the wild or when artificial breeding takes place. It applies the same principle of breaking the species up into isolated populations and driving a "selected" phenotype. To proliferate the allele for curly hair, you have to exclude the allele for straight hair. Loss.
No, I think you've misunderstood. Not your fault though, as A) I'm not too good at explaining what I mean and B) there is a 2 comment at a time limit so literally every time I try to say something I miss out on half of my argument. But I understand evolution fully and already knew everything you 'explained' so to be honest (and not being rude) I am finding you a bit patronising. As I said though, not your fault. Now that's off my chest I'll try to fit an argument into one comment...
Mutation is what causes the change. Adding a new allele *is* changin the allele frequency, I'm not saying that mutations don't happen in fact that has been my argument the entire time. The fact is speciation takes millions of years to occur, and that is enough time for enough mutations to happen that *some* of them will be beneficial to the species, be passed on and in the end out-compete the 'originals' or at least allow the 'mutants' live alongside as a seperate species.
Also, as a small note, there are far too many fallacies in this video for me to list them all, but the idea of this planet, sun and Universe being mediocre are essentially completely wrong. Modern science disproves the mediocrity principle. Modern science completely shoots a hole through abiogensis and evolution but don't let that stop you from believing in the fairy tale. When you realise you were created by a loving, all-powerful God, it might be too late unfortunately. Shame.
@athlete117 - you don't know what evolution is, do you?
Begging your pardon for saying, but you don't give off the impression of being very intelligent... at all.
Evolution is a proven fact - please be so kind as to tell me what you think it is. Because selective breeding is evolution. As is the process of bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant.
So you cannot deny evolution. That's like denying respiration.
And abiogenesis? Pray, tell me when that has *ever* been 'proven' wrong.
Nice try but selective breeding reveals what changes to allele frequency in population genetics can do. It's essentially a loss of genetic variation because you're selecting dogs with curly hair or dogs with shorter snouts and, generation after generation, removing their allele competitors for longer snouts and straight hair. You can get big dogs or little dogs, curly dogs, straight-haired dogs, dogs with short snouts, dogs with long snouts, etc by removing competitor alleles from the population
@athlete117 - it may be 'basic biology' but by giving one rather poor sentance you can't end an argument.. Due to random mutation a gene can be generated that causes the antibiotic resistance. This can then be passed via HGT in plasmid exchange to other bacteria. When these bacteria reproduce via binary fission they will, assuming there are no further mutations, pass on the same genetic material on to their 'daughter' cells.
This is a change in allele frequency and is evolution.
@athlete117 - selective breeding is evolution and the reason it ends with a loss of genetic variation is because of the way humans perform it. If you just allow the dogs with curly hair to breed you *will* lose variation. That doesn't happen in nature, where such radical changes take much longer to happen and mating preferences are less forcibly changed. Therefore each trait takes longer to be passed on to the whole population but it keeps genetic diversity.
No, you don't get it. It doesn't matter how fast or how slow the selection process is; each gene fights over the loci and each gene has an allele competitor, be it for blue eyes, brown eyes or green eyes, etc. Natural selection removes the alleles that don't aid survival from the population. Say you have green bugs and brown bugs. The birds can easily see the green bugs so they all, eventually get eaten. The allele for brown bugs proliferates at the expense of the allele for a green bug.
No, I 'get it' fully . You clearly misunderstood what I said. I don't mean that the speed with which it happens directly affects the chances of alleles being passed on etc, I meant that one of the reasons you lose genetic variation in selective breeding is because they force larger changes in shorter spaces of time. In order to do this they only allow individuals with certain traits to breed. Hang on I'll make two posts (character count)
So if they want, say, curly hair, they will only allow the curly haired individuals to breed. This helps to spread the curly hair genotype among the group but at the same time means that only a small proportion of the population are being allowed to breed into the curly haired group so there is less variation. However in nature this is not how it works. In nature the curly haired and straight haired individuals would breed.
In nature, the population would be expected to diversify more gradually due to selection pressures and you'd expect to see populations becoming established independent of one another. However, my whole point is that this leads to less genetic variety in any one of the individual populations in the exact same way artificial breeding does. Each population will have less genetic information than the original wolf archetype.
You cannot turn a dog into anything other than a dog by changing the allele frequency. Great Danes and Chihuahua's have the same morphology, and they both have less genetic information than the original wolf archetype. If you continually drive for bigger and bigger, or smaller and smaller, that way lies extinction. The only way to turn a dog into a non-dog is through the introduction of new genetic information via mutations. Positive mutations are extremely rare even over millions of years.
I think I had misunderstood what you meant and you (of course, given your last post) misunderstood what I meant.
But the whole point I'm making is that evolution is not at all proven wrong by modern science. You said yourself the positive mutations are very rare, but no one said that speciation takes any less than millions of years (in nature).
The speed at which speciation happens doesn't really matter in this case. I think you've misunderstood the point. Isolating populations from one another and consequently changing the allele frequency in each population (as a result of natural selection of course) has no power to generate new features, only to select what is pre-existing in the gene pool. So for evolution to take place, you're reliant on mutations. But what is the power of mutative recombination?
Turns out that binding-site conversions yield very poor results when it comes to accounting for the emergence of all bodyplans and phyla throughout history. It is turning out that mutations and natural selection take far, far, far too long for the timescale we have and there's no guarantee that the changes to binding-site can even generate this upward evolutionary change. Evolution and, especially Darwinism, is a very long way from being a scientific fact, I am afraid.
I only mentioned selective breeding because I thought you didn't understand the basic principles of evolution - in reality it is not a good example of natural selection or mutation but at the same time it *is* evolution and I was just trying to get you to understand that (thinking you had no idea what evolution was - most creationists I see denying it think that it is speciation over one generation) so I think this whole argument stems from us misunderstanding each other.
Hang on, a minute, I'd be a fool to let you off so lightly here. Did you just say selective breeding isn't a good example of natural selection or mutation? So you agree that selective breeding and changing allele frequency is not evolution? Because that's essentially my position.
what creationists would call 'micro' evolution is actually a fact (note my examples from before). What you seem to misunderstand is what creationists call 'macro' evolution (the correct term is just 'evolution'). Which as I say, occurs when a mutation (which is not that uncommon an occurence, suprisingly) causes a phenotype change that is beneficial to the organism (which is rarer but still common when we talk of billions of years) and that organism then survives longer and spreads the...
mutated genes on to his / her offspring, (at least some of) who(m) are going to also develope these traits and be in a position to *ahem* 'create the next generation' and in doing so further spread out their genetics.
So to be honest I think you misunderstood something about evolution.... because although it is difficult to prove in the long term (entirely due to creationists claiming fossils are tests from god -.-) it is completely un-prove-wrong-able and can be seen under a microscope.
abiogenesis, otherwise known as chemical evolution, is a serious example of wishful thinking among atheists. I did not say abiogenesis has been proven wrong, I said that modern science shoots a hole through it. Meaning, what we find on the cellular level (molecular machines), the overlapping information of the DNA molecule, etc, etc, present huge, and I mean huge, obstacles for any theory of abiogenesis. Also, what they produce in the lab is a result of applied knowledge in biochemsitry.
It's essentially engineering and they also do not represent true "primordial" conditions. They exclude unifunctional monomers, use pure compounds, the list goes on and on. But even still, even when you get RNA, what are you going to do with it? It's a huge leap from there to anything approaching a mycoplasma bacteria.
It never ceases to amaze me. If you follow the evolutionist logic, you're not really a monkey either, you're a chemical reaction long, long ago and far, far away. Come on, monkeys are too good for you guys.
humans are primates, and thus, essentially, we are monkeys. i don't know how on earth people can deny that they are animals, you'd have to be mentally retarded to believe that humans are a class of their own.
The "monkeys" as the narrator of this video calls us forgot to say that the "monkeys" teach. So this "monkey" just taught us that we are all "moneys" including the one who made this video.
its all true we are monkey we use are common sense to get the better of us which is whats recking the earth which is why this earth would be one hell of a better place if we wern't on it.
theyre saying "monkey' and "monkey" over and over again as it is a insult?Whats wrong with being a relative of one of the most cunning and smart animal in the planet?
It's a good way to really explain people what their message is. It's clearly not an insult, they just state that humans forget who they really are, intelligent monkies
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
you don't know what makes us up of who we are who told you that we are monkeys? why do you have to believe in everything they say? sheep. the government is corrupt, all systems are corrupt!!!
76 people are in denial lol
JoelOFWG 2 months ago
song
??
liljj2221 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
7 bilion.
Franciscavid 3 months ago
I absolutely love this.
Gore1NOT1Core 4 months ago
Great video. Gives a good view about the world we live in. Great, really great !!
susandanielle 5 months ago
In addition to that, what I have noticed throughout all my discourse with believers, is that they really do not possess a firm grasp of reality, and most importantly do not understand how the real world works. Their entire epistemology - belief system, which is an extension of their personalities, is predicated on IGNORANCE. IT IS SO SAD. They are not comfortable with their ignorance, so they then project and purport their emotional, irrational explanations for things they don't understand.
michel5891 5 months ago
DANCE MONKEYS DANCE
Endivisual 5 months ago
oh my god this video. I fucking love it!
everyone in the world needs to see this.
simplystatic 6 months ago
72 Monkeys can't admit to being a monkey.
Monday566 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
dance monkey, dance. LMFAO
guyverman 7 months ago
Boring and unimaginative. Cmon, come up with something that's really clever instead of this trite shit.
NozomiSky 7 months ago
@NozomiSky Wow
Gore1NOT1Core 7 months ago
I freakin love this video.... who made iT?
tymatik 7 months ago
This monkey can type on a mac book made by the all knowing monkey master of the universe—steve jobs
jhayes2118 7 months ago
I kinda like that I came here after watching a video called girl or food.
monkeymind
amunneheh 8 months ago
Some of these 'monkeys' call themselves 'monkeys' when they are actually apes. Intriguing
namemydoglola 9 months ago
"In fact, they love to list all the things that they think
separate them from the animals:"
call themselves 'apes' instead of 'monkeys'
,)
smbdy555 8 months ago
monkeys comment on videos on youtube. . . . . of monkeys
C420ish 10 months ago
cmon. yeah we're apes, but monkeys just sounds funnier.
franklin2422 10 months ago
Comment removed
simplystatic 10 months ago
what's the name of the song in the background?
canucks16 11 months ago
2:49 The monkeys make music = LOL!!!
LETTIS79 11 months ago
we are not monkeys. we are apes.
someonespecial1994 11 months ago 7
68 apes do not like that monkeys run the earth *cough cough*
Judicial78 11 months ago
hmm...sure you can say oh that's just monkey behavior...but it's not. It's more nuanced than that I THINK. It can be called human behavior. So when you try to put "it all in perspective" but substituing a cherished word with another, you create a different outlook, but not necessarily a more accurate one. We are different from monkeys. But yeah compared to aliens we might as well be the same. Still. Nuance. But I've never been a monkey.
FeelingFreshSon 1 year ago
IT'S STUPID TO THINK HUMANS ARE MONKEYS
I'm an ape, and proud of it.
robbiDun 1 year ago
I'm not a monkey
cteeput 1 year ago
Yeah, i guess You guys are monkey, Im an alien
aspen2030 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
67 monkeys deny that they are just a bunch of monkeys.
Hooliejj23 1 year ago
MAY GAD stupidest video ever... Im not a monkey, have u ever seen a monkey.. we are ALIEN HYBRIDS!
aspen2030 1 year ago
@aspen2030 and some of them think that their ancestors had sex with alien monkeys...''shock the monkey!'' peter gabriel
earthga 1 year ago
I'll stick with the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy's entry on Earth, thanks.
damnhooligan 1 year ago
Drinking game: Every time he says monkey, have a drink.
Enjoy your coma
MurmurLaughingSkull 1 year ago 5
@MurmurLaughingSkull
a coma indeed i could never drink 63 beers, shots or any glass of any drink =D
eveaholic 1 year ago
ErikMartin - A monkey again judging other monkeys about a 3rd monkeys political philosophy. Oh and by the way, ErikMonkey does not get that neither socialism or communism is a materialist philosophy. They are political ideologies and strategies for governance. However, all Judiac based religion is materialist, as they are the ones who promote that all things in the universe being nothing more than human resources and having no intrinsic value of their own. Clearly you are an uneducated Monkey.
MeatPancake 1 year ago
@MeatPancake I'm an agnostic and support the theory of evolution -- you're jumping to conclusions. Most lefties are materialist in the sense that the consider people as little more than mindless clay, which should be molded into material equality by social engineers. They reject immaterial concepts such as individual liberty, intellectual labor, and so forth. They are obsessed with material equality, and blinded by political correctness.
ErikMartin81 1 year ago
This video was no doubt made by a socialist or communist. It's very easy to identify their type of pathetic materialist world view.
ErikMartin81 1 year ago
@ErikMartin81 i think its a reasonable view of what the monkies do today, whoever made this video is clearly no uneducated... dummies...
MrHendrik90 1 year ago
@ErikMartin81 i think its a reasonable view of what the monkies do today, whoever made this video is clearly no uneducated... dummies...
MrHendrik90 1 year ago
I thought every monkey knows the slide changes AFTER the beep, not before it.
brian2k1 1 year ago
Comment removed
brian2k1 1 year ago
knock me I am from Asian # lushfmlk.info #
WinnieXenobia 1 year ago
Monkeys do not destroy boundaries but rather replace other monkeys' boundaries with their own. Monkeys make good points but ruin it with their own negative view of other monkeys.
petercoffin 1 year ago
It was funny till you mentioned how our brains are too big to allow us to be happy. Then shit got real...
damn nature....YOU SCARY!
Uzzie101 1 year ago 3
And another one.
marclippens 1 year ago
DID HE JUST CALL BLACK PEOPLE MONKEYS?
yannique 1 year ago 5
@yannique yeshe did !!!!
starlightcm 1 year ago
ITS FUNNY CAUSE ITS TRUE LOLOL AMIRITE?
lordofdrapes 1 year ago
this is lame, pretentious navel gazing attempt at being clever, cute and enlightening.
lookatmepleasesir 1 year ago
@lookatmepleasesir
i think the He's right...it's just that simple.
Pathetic is that: You think He wanna be cute and clever.
You're just a Monkey too, my friend. lol.
smbdy555 1 year ago 2
@lookatmepleasesir How is he being pretentious? I'm sure he realizes that he is also just a monkey. He never says otherwise.
Lawllerkins 1 year ago
@Lawllerkins we're primates, but we aren't monkeys
lookatmepleasesir 1 year ago 2
DANCE MONKIES DANCE!
BaronpFB 1 year ago
Monkeys make videos on youtube about other monkeys
oldskoolliam 1 year ago 48
@oldskoolliam +1 XD
spacedk 1 year ago
So true!
josephkoniak 1 year ago
We're apes damnit!
strangwool 1 year ago
PING
TheSchimmi 1 year ago
LOL@ The Monkees make music!
JEDI7ACEN 1 year ago
To clarify: we share a distant ancestor with monkeys(chimps&bonobos), and even a more distant ancestor with apes. Leading biologists,such as Frans de Waal, are saying we really are so closely related (98.5% genetically) to "monkeys" that we are basically them with big brains, & that our species very distinct classification as "Homo sapiens" just exists to satisfy the human ego.
effn55 1 year ago 3
@effn55 I agree, I cant see much of the diff btw humans and other apes...
ladamadelcaribe 1 year ago
I love it. Thank you.
DEricKesler 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...brought to you by just another monkey
anonymees 1 year ago 2
I wish i was a monkey :(
NorProductions 1 year ago
We are not monkeys! We are apes.
jlmccabe 1 year ago 4
@jlmccabe you just missed the whole fucking point.
T0bb5 1 year ago
i don't know about you but I'M NOT A MONKEY and i know that i'm special because the bible makes a very clear distinction between man and animal and if you had actually read it you would know that but no hard feelings have fun in hell
j4pan 1 year ago
@j4pan Inquire a little about science. A book that has not been consistent with science, ever... Written two-thousand years ago by a bunch of ignorant men in the desert. It's unfortunate it still has force today with everything we now know.
grdavies00 1 year ago 3
@j4pan hahahahahaha
Dandello 1 year ago
@j4pan Christians frequently resort to threats of Hell when people act in ways they don’t approve. This is because at the end of the day, that is all they have. They can’t persuade someone to change their behavior with logical discourse, because they can’t reasonably support their position. So, they threaten with childish fantasies of revenge and torment upon their imagined enemies. It is really pathetic when you think about it.
DEricKesler 1 year ago 46
@DEricKesler ...please don't lump all Christians together. If people within a race are so different, what makes all people of a religion the same?
caz4453 7 months ago
@caz4453 Because race does not differ your opinion of the world, religion does.
Remman 7 months ago
@caz4453 I’ll concede that not all Christians resort to the threat of hell, but I maintain it is not uncommon.
To a certain extent, you are very correct. There have been over 30,000 different denominations and sects of Christianity. This means that the term “Christianity” covers a wide range of beliefs and dogmas. In fact, one would be hard pressed to deem any single trait or attitude as uniquely Christian.
DEricKesler 7 months ago
@caz4453 They believe the same folly that you can prove is false, making them a cult. When an individual decides to take on a title, he can be generalized.
SorrellsAV 4 months ago
@j4pan
LOL.
says the monkey
AntidoteY 1 year ago 4
@j4pan lol the irony
JGSPuppet 1 year ago
@j4pan
Does the bible also give you the right to judge other people? You seem very defensive about this. Perhaps an ego issue. almost calls for a......
UMADBRAH?
MichaelBallack91 1 year ago 2
@j4pan Does it explain the science behind why man is not an "animal"? We are members of the kingdom Animalia, which includes every multicellular, heterotrophic being on the planet. Genetic distinctions and similarities, whether or not they were designed by a god, still exist. No, we are not a "monkey", but we are a simian, one of the groups of primates. We can keep trying to set ourselves apart as much as we want, but we're just animals. Why is that so offensive to some people?
echoskybound 7 months ago
Monkey hives. Awesome.
Cerberus1441 1 year ago
The last time I checked, we referred to the "Law of Gravity," not the "Theory of Gravity."
wjoelbrooks 1 year ago
This beep is slowly eating my brain.
lefthandedspatula 1 year ago 2
Cities = Monkey hives! Very smart.
Erudecorp 1 year ago
I don't think myself as monkey because humans are not monkeys but apes.
aperculum 1 year ago
@aperculum
Apes are big, tailless monkeys.
SolRosenberg84 1 year ago
I love it. Sharing, and sharing again.
ItsTheBigH 1 year ago
The human condition in 3 minutes.
grubelsucht 1 year ago
Thank you! That was fantastic!!!!
ClaytonFord 1 year ago
That was brilliant.
OIFYer 1 year ago
what an insult to monkeys.....
cpmondello 1 year ago
The bible (any of them) being Metaphorical is an excuse, a lame one. The people who wrote this controlling fear mongering crap fully believed the earth was flat and that the entire universe was a few thousand years old. Please keep your priests away from my kids.
freefromit 1 year ago
@freefromit you sound like an angry monkey
lithjimmy 1 year ago
guuess you didnt.. sorry monkey buddy
larry89 1 year ago
and as for the bible? i can't lie.. the story of the bible is a very profound one... a lot of thought and experiences and stories were put into making it, i give you that... i think that all the stories in the bible are all metaphorical and should not taken too seriously or literally.. instead we should just read it like any other literature and enjoy the stories and consider its morals... it always when we take things too seriously that coincidently a lot shit happens to hits the fan..
larry89 1 year ago
@ScienceReasnRational
get real we're all animals.. we think we're so civilized but we're barely out of the jungle
larry89 1 year ago
So God was a Great Ape creating more Apes? Seems to fit :)
myssytys 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
coffinperson 2 years ago
@coffinperson
genesis was referring to Gods Persona, not physical image.
Christians need to stop being offended by the fact that humans are considered primates.
I am Christian but that does not mean that Genesis was meant to be taken literally...
ronhudsonjr 2 years ago
@coffinperson
So God was an ape? :)
myssytys 1 year ago
Comment removed
PNACATTACKdotCOM 1 year ago
Comment removed
PNACATTACKdotCOM 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@myssytys Nope.God is just a illusion,occationalor more 'visinting' thought inside head (in brains) of Monkey :) ;-)
Back in '90s were published on news that 98% of HUMAN DNA is Equal as DNA Monkey - so only 2 of HUMAN DNA is not. That means that Delusion related to case: HUMAN is not ANIMAL/MONKEY related is 98%.
PNACATTACKdotCOM 1 year ago
Comment removed
larry89 1 year ago
so have you ever wondered who wrote the bible in the first place jackass? lmao
larry89 1 year ago
Umm, great video and all but.
We AREN'T monkeys.
We are apes...
Monkeys have tails, apes don't.
Just saying...
I'd love to be a monkey, that would be awesome.
Sadly, we don't have tails.
TheDominie 2 years ago
funny thing is this video is made by just another monkey xD
like me!
Metaalhoofdje123 2 years ago
GREAT JOB MAN!!!
stojadinovicp 2 years ago
great video
illdawg1234 2 years ago
funny and very ... sad!
putzmitt3l 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video is made by a monkey
takkakto 2 years ago
haha!!!!!! if there are aliens, this is probably EXACTLY what they would think, and we ARE monkeys!!!!
mintybubble247 2 years ago
That was too cool. So true. Thank Cianna
cultofchrist 2 years ago
Loved it
shellghost5 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Okay.. So basically you replace the word 'human' with 'monkey', and make fun of mankind in a pathetic attempt to be.. uhh clever? I don't get the point..!
aapinator 2 years ago
that's cus you're a stupid monkey! x-D
desichick 2 years ago
Ha.. Ha.. .. Ha.
aapinator 2 years ago
I like this video, but that *beep* after every sentence is annoying as hell. Can't imagine why it's there.
mousti00 2 years ago
And this is why Bob "J.R." Dobbs came to spread the Word. SLACK. Only True decendents of the Yeti can comprehend, but you too can achieve exclusion from the monkey masses (a.k.a. Pinks)
By virtue and sublime generosity, the Church of the SubGenius has opened this door to you. Take the leap of slack. Take the responsibility that comes with complete lack of regard! Follow Bob to the Mother Ship and have more sex, get more money and have more fun!
hjdjdjdj 2 years ago
We are decedent of Yeti, not of ape. Ape spawn are tasty morsels in daily humor.
slipnets 2 years ago
Let me explain this to you as simply as I can. The phenotypic expression of an allele for wrinkly peas or non-wrinkly peas, straight hair, curly hair, short snout, long snout, is no different when natural selection takes place in the wild or when artificial breeding takes place. It applies the same principle of breaking the species up into isolated populations and driving a "selected" phenotype. To proliferate the allele for curly hair, you have to exclude the allele for straight hair. Loss.
athlete117 2 years ago
No, I think you've misunderstood. Not your fault though, as A) I'm not too good at explaining what I mean and B) there is a 2 comment at a time limit so literally every time I try to say something I miss out on half of my argument. But I understand evolution fully and already knew everything you 'explained' so to be honest (and not being rude) I am finding you a bit patronising. As I said though, not your fault. Now that's off my chest I'll try to fit an argument into one comment...
Caerus2 2 years ago
Mutation is what causes the change. Adding a new allele *is* changin the allele frequency, I'm not saying that mutations don't happen in fact that has been my argument the entire time. The fact is speciation takes millions of years to occur, and that is enough time for enough mutations to happen that *some* of them will be beneficial to the species, be passed on and in the end out-compete the 'originals' or at least allow the 'mutants' live alongside as a seperate species.
Caerus2 2 years ago
5 stars!!!!!!!!!!!
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
Also, as a small note, there are far too many fallacies in this video for me to list them all, but the idea of this planet, sun and Universe being mediocre are essentially completely wrong. Modern science disproves the mediocrity principle. Modern science completely shoots a hole through abiogensis and evolution but don't let that stop you from believing in the fairy tale. When you realise you were created by a loving, all-powerful God, it might be too late unfortunately. Shame.
athlete117 2 years ago
@athlete117 - you don't know what evolution is, do you?
Begging your pardon for saying, but you don't give off the impression of being very intelligent... at all.
Evolution is a proven fact - please be so kind as to tell me what you think it is. Because selective breeding is evolution. As is the process of bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant.
So you cannot deny evolution. That's like denying respiration.
And abiogenesis? Pray, tell me when that has *ever* been 'proven' wrong.
Caerus2 2 years ago
Nice try but selective breeding reveals what changes to allele frequency in population genetics can do. It's essentially a loss of genetic variation because you're selecting dogs with curly hair or dogs with shorter snouts and, generation after generation, removing their allele competitors for longer snouts and straight hair. You can get big dogs or little dogs, curly dogs, straight-haired dogs, dogs with short snouts, dogs with long snouts, etc by removing competitor alleles from the population
athlete117 2 years ago
To get new features you have to add new information. This is not the same as changing allele frequency.
Bacteria become antibiotic resistant by losing the ability to metabolise the poison. That's basic biology.
athlete117 2 years ago
@athlete117 - it may be 'basic biology' but by giving one rather poor sentance you can't end an argument.. Due to random mutation a gene can be generated that causes the antibiotic resistance. This can then be passed via HGT in plasmid exchange to other bacteria. When these bacteria reproduce via binary fission they will, assuming there are no further mutations, pass on the same genetic material on to their 'daughter' cells.
This is a change in allele frequency and is evolution.
Caerus2 2 years ago
@athlete117 - selective breeding is evolution and the reason it ends with a loss of genetic variation is because of the way humans perform it. If you just allow the dogs with curly hair to breed you *will* lose variation. That doesn't happen in nature, where such radical changes take much longer to happen and mating preferences are less forcibly changed. Therefore each trait takes longer to be passed on to the whole population but it keeps genetic diversity.
as you said, 'nice try'.
Caerus2 2 years ago
No, you don't get it. It doesn't matter how fast or how slow the selection process is; each gene fights over the loci and each gene has an allele competitor, be it for blue eyes, brown eyes or green eyes, etc. Natural selection removes the alleles that don't aid survival from the population. Say you have green bugs and brown bugs. The birds can easily see the green bugs so they all, eventually get eaten. The allele for brown bugs proliferates at the expense of the allele for a green bug.
athlete117 2 years ago
No, I 'get it' fully . You clearly misunderstood what I said. I don't mean that the speed with which it happens directly affects the chances of alleles being passed on etc, I meant that one of the reasons you lose genetic variation in selective breeding is because they force larger changes in shorter spaces of time. In order to do this they only allow individuals with certain traits to breed. Hang on I'll make two posts (character count)
Caerus2 2 years ago
So if they want, say, curly hair, they will only allow the curly haired individuals to breed. This helps to spread the curly hair genotype among the group but at the same time means that only a small proportion of the population are being allowed to breed into the curly haired group so there is less variation. However in nature this is not how it works. In nature the curly haired and straight haired individuals would breed.
Caerus2 2 years ago
In nature, the population would be expected to diversify more gradually due to selection pressures and you'd expect to see populations becoming established independent of one another. However, my whole point is that this leads to less genetic variety in any one of the individual populations in the exact same way artificial breeding does. Each population will have less genetic information than the original wolf archetype.
athlete117 2 years ago
You cannot turn a dog into anything other than a dog by changing the allele frequency. Great Danes and Chihuahua's have the same morphology, and they both have less genetic information than the original wolf archetype. If you continually drive for bigger and bigger, or smaller and smaller, that way lies extinction. The only way to turn a dog into a non-dog is through the introduction of new genetic information via mutations. Positive mutations are extremely rare even over millions of years.
athlete117 2 years ago
I think I had misunderstood what you meant and you (of course, given your last post) misunderstood what I meant.
But the whole point I'm making is that evolution is not at all proven wrong by modern science. You said yourself the positive mutations are very rare, but no one said that speciation takes any less than millions of years (in nature).
Caerus2 2 years ago
The speed at which speciation happens doesn't really matter in this case. I think you've misunderstood the point. Isolating populations from one another and consequently changing the allele frequency in each population (as a result of natural selection of course) has no power to generate new features, only to select what is pre-existing in the gene pool. So for evolution to take place, you're reliant on mutations. But what is the power of mutative recombination?
athlete117 2 years ago
Turns out that binding-site conversions yield very poor results when it comes to accounting for the emergence of all bodyplans and phyla throughout history. It is turning out that mutations and natural selection take far, far, far too long for the timescale we have and there's no guarantee that the changes to binding-site can even generate this upward evolutionary change. Evolution and, especially Darwinism, is a very long way from being a scientific fact, I am afraid.
athlete117 2 years ago
I only mentioned selective breeding because I thought you didn't understand the basic principles of evolution - in reality it is not a good example of natural selection or mutation but at the same time it *is* evolution and I was just trying to get you to understand that (thinking you had no idea what evolution was - most creationists I see denying it think that it is speciation over one generation) so I think this whole argument stems from us misunderstanding each other.
Caerus2 2 years ago
Hang on, a minute, I'd be a fool to let you off so lightly here. Did you just say selective breeding isn't a good example of natural selection or mutation? So you agree that selective breeding and changing allele frequency is not evolution? Because that's essentially my position.
athlete117 2 years ago
what creationists would call 'micro' evolution is actually a fact (note my examples from before). What you seem to misunderstand is what creationists call 'macro' evolution (the correct term is just 'evolution'). Which as I say, occurs when a mutation (which is not that uncommon an occurence, suprisingly) causes a phenotype change that is beneficial to the organism (which is rarer but still common when we talk of billions of years) and that organism then survives longer and spreads the...
Caerus2 2 years ago
mutated genes on to his / her offspring, (at least some of) who(m) are going to also develope these traits and be in a position to *ahem* 'create the next generation' and in doing so further spread out their genetics.
So to be honest I think you misunderstood something about evolution.... because although it is difficult to prove in the long term (entirely due to creationists claiming fossils are tests from god -.-) it is completely un-prove-wrong-able and can be seen under a microscope.
Caerus2 2 years ago
abiogenesis, otherwise known as chemical evolution, is a serious example of wishful thinking among atheists. I did not say abiogenesis has been proven wrong, I said that modern science shoots a hole through it. Meaning, what we find on the cellular level (molecular machines), the overlapping information of the DNA molecule, etc, etc, present huge, and I mean huge, obstacles for any theory of abiogenesis. Also, what they produce in the lab is a result of applied knowledge in biochemsitry.
athlete117 2 years ago
It's essentially engineering and they also do not represent true "primordial" conditions. They exclude unifunctional monomers, use pure compounds, the list goes on and on. But even still, even when you get RNA, what are you going to do with it? It's a huge leap from there to anything approaching a mycoplasma bacteria.
athlete117 2 years ago
It never ceases to amaze me. If you follow the evolutionist logic, you're not really a monkey either, you're a chemical reaction long, long ago and far, far away. Come on, monkeys are too good for you guys.
athlete117 2 years ago
we are all monkeys monkeys rock!!!!!!!!!!
orion4mm 2 years ago
bman, was that supposed to make sense?
humans are primates, and thus, essentially, we are monkeys. i don't know how on earth people can deny that they are animals, you'd have to be mentally retarded to believe that humans are a class of their own.
einshuldigen 2 years ago
:D :P
wowlvl2noob 2 years ago
Way too much monkeys respond to this video -.-
wowlvl2noob 2 years ago
The "monkeys" as the narrator of this video calls us forgot to say that the "monkeys" teach. So this "monkey" just taught us that we are all "moneys" including the one who made this video.
bman64456 2 years ago
good show
kutthroat84 2 years ago
The monkeys draw a lot of invisible lines in the dirt. I really love this video.
Iamherenow 2 years ago
Love this.
AliceandCat 2 years ago
ur a monkey to
coopermurphy98 2 years ago
Well said
sonofthedestroyer 2 years ago
The monkeys have got their entire plalent wired up to EXPLODE!
Great job Amerika!
BattousaiOfChaos 2 years ago
LOL Funny~
asanzos 2 years ago
love it !!
usikd 2 years ago
Don't sound like jerks to me......infinite common sense for all
greenthums 2 years ago
These guys sound like jerks. If i were where they are I'd teach them a thing or two >:(
*Note: I know what it means so don't message me calling me an idiot...
iMosh23364631 2 years ago
iMosh23364631......you're an idiot
LoooooooL
alitoiskool 2 years ago
>:[
xD
iMosh23364631 2 years ago
but seriously, you are an idiot.
alitoiskool 2 years ago
What makes you come to the conclusion I'm an idiot?
iMosh23364631 2 years ago
Oh ooo ah ah?
thetravelingboy 2 years ago
its all true we are monkey we use are common sense to get the better of us which is whats recking the earth which is why this earth would be one hell of a better place if we wern't on it.
oldskoolliam 2 years ago
Hehehehehe..... YES!!!
I embrace my monkeyness!!!!
DeSwiss 2 years ago
theyre saying "monkey' and "monkey" over and over again as it is a insult?Whats wrong with being a relative of one of the most cunning and smart animal in the planet?
sleeper7271 2 years ago
It's a good way to really explain people what their message is. It's clearly not an insult, they just state that humans forget who they really are, intelligent monkies
Krygeryo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hundred billions of stars? another theory
fakingbits 2 years ago
yea man just like that gravity "just a theory"
wetard57 2 years ago 5
@wetard57 A theory with hardcore evidence to back it up. Both evolution and gravity have tons of evidence to back it up.
themightyjoseph 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you don't know what makes us up of who we are who told you that we are monkeys? why do you have to believe in everything they say? sheep. the government is corrupt, all systems are corrupt!!!
dragon246135 2 years ago