Mankind Rising - Where do Humans Come From

Published on Sep 30, 2015
Subscribe to Naked Science - goo.gl/wpc2Q1
Every other Wednesday we present a new video, so join us to see the truth laid bare...
Follows mankind's journey of life from the first cell to the present day. Captured in a single, animated time lapsed shot, and based on archeological findings, we trace our epic journey from the first spark of life billions of years ago up to our present status as the most successful species on the planet. Humans are the pinnacle of a chain of species that has survived by way of evolution, natural selection, adaptation, and pure luck. From the formation of primordial genetic material to the development of speech, this is the improbable story of the incredible set of circumstances that led to human existence.
This documentary aims to answer such questions as: How did we get here? How did mutations create male and female sexes? And were we actually fish at one point during the evolutionary chain?
We are the most complex creature on this planet, a big brained, two-legged mammal. We’ve risen from the raw materials of the Earth to dominate and shape it. Wind the clock backwards and the story of how we got to be us is a puzzle that defies all logic. Through nearly 4 billion years of evolutionary twists and turns, disasters strike, predators threaten to wipe us out. From rodent to reptile, we face extinction at every turn, from the land into the water, fighting to survive every step of the way, from fish to worm, back to the very first spark of life, to a single simple cell. One change or predator along the way and this extraordinary story would have never been told.

Comments

  • They come from a dirty part of a girls body

  • 31:44 - 4M years ago we didn’t just start walking. We first carried and used sturdy branches for cane like support and protection. Then we found dried branches that were more firm and harder. As we did this or mobility improved and we used the branches as weapons and tools as we discovered that rocks could be tools and the both together, sticks and stones, along with leaves and dirt, could be fashioned into shelters! Our walking and other mobility vastly improved as we developed better stone and stick weapons and tools. From there it exploded! This I affirm...

  • So bad ass in the past, now defenseless creatures

  • so when I get gouse bumps my inner mouse is coming out?

  • 99% bullcrap but entertaining tho.

  • Not being racist but how people turn white?

  • Where do Humans Come From from GOD THE CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH AND ALL THINGS and anyone who says other wise is speaking false hood. Repent of your sins and be saved

    • Sin is an imaginary malady used to sell an imaginary cure. No sale. MAN created god in his image and saw that it was good. Henceforth, anything humans didn't understand could be explained by "Goddidit". There was no need for human intellect to advance beyond that of ancient goat herders.

  • if the monster fish didn’t chase us, we wouldn’t end up here

    • That part of the video was poorly done. My biggest complaint is how they depicted the transition from fish to tetrapods. First of all, the fish depicted are Placoderms, whereas it is the Sarcopterygian fishes that gave rise to land vertebrates. Sarcopterygian (Lobe-finned) fishes, of which only two species of Coelacanth and 6 species of Lungfish survive, had muscular fins with external bones homologous to those of tetrapods. Furthermore, the evidence shows that the transtion from fish to tetrapods such as Acanthastega did not take place in the ocean, but in weedy freshwater swamps where food in the form of land-based insects and other arthropods were a plentiful food source. Although this video was supposedly made in 2012 and uploaded to YT by Naked Science in 2017, it says absolutely nothing about the discovery of the transitional fossil Tiktaalik discovered in 2005. I would recommend the 3 part "Your Inner Fish" series as a good place to start for those seeking a better explanation of evolution. www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/your-inner-fish-series I recommend exploring that Biointeractive website for anyone seeking to increase their knowledge of science. One could click on "Topics" and select a subject such as Human Evolution

  • Muslims will dislike this video

  • ok so basically im monky

    • If you do a little research, you will find that it is spelled 'monkey'. With further research you will find that you would more correctly be identified as an 'Ape', although it is true that apes descended from a certain population of monkeys (about 35mya). One way that apes are differentiated from monkeys is that monkeys have tails and apes have lost theirs. The internal remnants of that tail in apes and humans is called the coccyx. So, humans evolved from ANCESTRAL APES as did today's chimps, gorillas and orangutans. When you understand evolution and how it works, you realize that evolution is ongoing and continuous for every living species and that it acts to make each species best suited for its environment. For apes, that environment is the forest, and they are so well suited for it that there is little environmental pressure for change. However, about 6 million years ago one population of apes took to walking upright and opted for life on the open savanna, setting their descendants on a different evolutionary trajectory that culminated in us. In 1974 a fossil designated A.L. 288-1was discovered and identified as Australopithecus afarensis, and given the nickname "Lucy". Since that time, more than 300 fossils of her species have been discovered. There are also related species A. africanus, A. sediba, A. Garhi, A. bahrelghazali, A. aetheiopicus, and A. promethius. That is six additional species for which there is considerable fossil evidence, (some only recently discovered) and I won't even bother with the robust australopithecines. So, yes, it is always nice to have more evidence, and given the spate of recent discoveries , more will likely come. Bone by bone comparisons with later Homo specimens have been done. If you focus on the skulls, which many people do, there are many similarities with those of apes, specifically in that they have a prognathic (forward projecting) face and in cranial capacity. The bones of the lower torso, however are quite another story. The pelvis, while still retaining some ape-like features, is far more similar to that of modern man that of chimps. The femura are angled to bring the knees directly under the center of gravity, enabling a smooth stride, rather than inefficiently shifting weight from side to side as chimps do when attempting bipedal motion. The feet too, are much like ours with all toes in line. They had long since lost the grasping toes that so suited apes for their arboreal lifestyle. Hands, too, took on proportions more like those of modern man. Still in transition though, were the relative length of arm and leg bones. These were in every respect, transitional fossils. Anatomical comparisons of apes, early hominins, Australopithecus, Homo erectus, and humans: www.nature.com/scitable/content/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/89011226/figure2_v004-7-16_1_2.jpg

  • Eveolution may not be fact (as far as we know today) but it certainly has more credibility than the bible or other religous means of explaining our past. The bible has as much credibility in the real world as the Harry Potter books do. Both were written by someone who had no evidence to support what they wrote, so why is the bible given more credibility than any other fairy tale book?

    • +Cyrus Powers Lol.

    • +Randall Wilks You sound like what Ray Bradbury would sound like if he had a US-tv account.

    • Cyrus Powers Just so you know, 'facts' are data. or pieces of evidence. Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testable and falsifiable hypothesis and theories. And first and foremost about evidence. Science provides the only reliable way to determine what is true or not true about the universe. It has not yet answered all the questions, but is the only methodology that has the capacity to do so. Truth is established by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion, which is always PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). As further evidence accumulates supporting that conclusion, so does the certainty that it is correct. At some point the accumulated evidence becomes so great that it would be perverse to deny it and it may be regarded as a Scientific Theory. A THEORY IN SCIENCE IS THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE. That is true of Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, Heliocentric Theory, Theories of Relativity, et al. They are explanations for observed phenomena and backed by massive amounts of evidence.

  • 2:55 Chemical soup? WITH A TONNE OF ACCIDENTS, "EVOLUTION KICKING IN" i dont know which is more ridiculous God or Soup LMAO .......

    • Well, science maintains the process of evolution took place over billions of years; The Abrahamic religions claim everything to have been created in 6 days. You choose.

  • Time and existence are two different things and until you realize that you shouldn't be teaching anybody anything. When you say something is older than existence, you lie. You're a false teacher. If somebody snapped their fingers and instantly creates a planet you must throw your antiquated time equipment away and go figure how they did it before you start pinning years to it all. You're lacking half of the math equation. So you see, time and existence are two different things, just read GENESIS. Don't ignore it or you may just be trying to say something that is utterly foolhardy and ridiculous. Some bull that deceives. And since you did, you depreciate what you're saying when you start talking hundreds of thousands of years, millions or even billions of years. It's been proven that the earth and the universe has only been in existence around six thousand years. I throw out everything that you say over THE MATH. The reason my eyeballs are not on each cheek of my buttocks is because God created me, ok? The reason there is a male and a female on the earth at the same time is because God created them, ok? When you think of how everything came to be just imagine to yourself if you will God speaking everything into existence. My friend, it is virtually impossible for a baby to sprout forth out of the dust and somehow survive. It is fantastically impossible, the brainstorm of a truly demented mind. It is absolutely absurd that I live among people who are so dimwitted as to believe that. The only realistic way we can possibly be here is that God created us. How did he do it? Well nobody should have to tell you to get up off your butt and read Genesis. Not only read it but open your mind and believe it because it is the only way we can possibly be here. There is no other way. So God created a baby, right? Nope, God created MAN in his fullness. He also created woman in her fullness. Hello, that's how Abel was born. That's our beginning, my friend. Nothing else can possibly be believed. NOTHING! People who were once in poopy diapers are not going to change my mind. So since God created man and woman in their fullness, don't ya think he would create the animals in their fullness? How about the earth, moon, sun, stars and the entire universe? Oh yeah, it's how it all began. I made this post to remind you all that anybody that talks stupidly as this man in this video you should ignore all of what they say. They are truly uneducated and they live going nowhere lives. Disregard this video and trash it along with the tons of other junk you will find online.

  • Everytime we hiccup it's our inner fish calling out to go into the ocean..

  • this documentary was really great, every moment was interesting. I was so engaged in it. i give it 5 out of 5 stars and will recommend it to other people.

  • is God real?

    • The invisible and the imaginary look very much alike. Religions require self delusion.

  • 32:09 We did surgery on a grape 🍇

  • I have 27 teeth Edit: I’m still growing so maybe I’ll get all 32 teeth in

  • 0:17 why they created tom cruise 3d animation ...

  • who else looked at the mirror really dramatically acting like a super saiyan......anyone..no...okay....

  • lies god created the earth too

    • They told you that in Sunday School didn't they? And you believed them didn't you. No one is born with a religion, but 'coincidentally', they somehow acquire the religion of their parents and the society in which they live. If that is not indoctrination, what is it? Religion is learned the same way one learns their native language, by imitation and repetition. Nonetheless, every proponent of every religion grows up with the firm belief that they are indeed fortunate to have been born into to the 'one true religion' and that the proponents of other religions are not only wrong, but probably evil as well. Despite evidence to the contrary, none, or very few, will acknowledge having been indoctrinated or indoctrinating their children. Following the religion dictated by the society into which one is born is not free will, it is the path of least resistance. Religions want followers, sheep, not independent thinkers which they will seek to destroy.

  • lies god created us

    • MAN created god in his image and saw that it was good. Henceforth, anything humans didn't understand could be explained by "Goddidit". There was no need for human intellect to advance beyond that of ancient goat herders.

  • *Mom about to squash spider with my shoe* Me: Mom noo, without him we wouldnt be alive!!.

  • Took that victory royale

  • Did you just show sex to us?

  • Everytime you about to masturbate remember that it's because your ancestor didn't find a girlfriend yet.

  • Earth was rich enough for life to start here spontaneously, doesn’t need to be imported from space , that’s bs , space has nothing different from what earth had .

  • WHY SO MANY ACCIDENTS,,,,,, JUST SAYING

    • +Randall Wilks WHAT U MAD ABOUT THO, HIT A NERVE?

    • You parents will probably never tell you, but...

  • Because there’s violence and some stuff that’s not for young children.

  • BTW, you gotta be at least 13 to watch this. Maybe...

  • soory man the truth is this God created heaven and earth. Read bible (Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And think did human's feelings to is evolution proces? (Genesis 1:27) So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. ours feelings comes from God Jehovah.

    • no you wont change my mind.

    • +Genos But.....but......the bible....???

    • HewmGT so How did we know God Existed Before the universe? when we didnt see it happen ?

    • Bwahahaha!!!! 😂

    • *WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS US* 1. You can own slaves. You can buy and sell slaves. You can even sell your own daughter (Exodus 21:7-10). If she fails to please her master, you must refund him the purchase price. 2. You can beat the living shit out of your slaves without being punished, as long as they do not die within two days (Exodus 20:20-21). Under what standards of morality is it ever okay to beat another human being like that and not suffer any consequences? It is reassuring the bible endorses property rights, but a source of morality it is not. 3. The bible not only condones slavery but sets prices for them (Leviticus 27:3-7). The bible obviously was concerned about human traffickers getting a fair price for their goods. 4. Surely Jesus had compassion towards slaves. He tells slaves to be obedient and subservient. That is why slave owners in the Americas pushed Christianity onto their slaves and punished those caught practicing their ancient religions.. Very reassuring. It was okay to beat slaves, those who unwittingly made mistakes were to be given few lashes, those who knowingly violated rules were to be given many lashes. 5. Thou shalt not kill. Now THERE is a good one. However, it seems there are exceptions: No sooner had Moses returned from his first trip up the mountains to find a party to which he had not been invited, in a fit of rage he orders his Levite goon squad to kill "every man his brother, and every man his friend and every man his neighbor." Exodus 32:28 "The Levites did as Moses commanded and that day about 3000 of the people died." 'Tough Love' maybe? 6. But there are others. The bible requires the faithful to put to death by stoning; Adulterers (Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Leviticus 20:10); Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), Non virgins (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), any of your neighbors foolish enough to mow their lawn on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15,Exodus 35:1-3,Numbers 15:32-36). 7. Oh, and speaking of rape, surely that ranks high on the ‘Thou shalt nots’ of the ten commandments. *NO???* It is not even mentioned??? An oversight perhaps? But then it was so important to forbid mixing fabrics or cooking a kid in its mother's milk (so important that it needed to be repeated three times) and such. Take a look at these REALLY important commandments (there are different versions within the bible). Thou shalt not: Worship other gods Work on the Sabbath (death penalty crime) Take the name of the lord in vain (OMG, ANOTHER capital crime) Make graven images Covet thy neighbor’s wife or house or ass And, oh yes, ‘thou shalt not kill’ and ‘thou shalt not steal’ are in there somewhere near the bottom. *But rape? Not one word!!!* How about elsewhere in the bible? Surely somewhere the bible must condemn rape, no? Oh, yes, here; Deuteronomy 22:28-29 28 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her *and they are discovered,* 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" *YESSS! There it is. Rape is a PROPERTY crime*. The rapist has damaged the father’s PROPERTY and it is he that must be compensated. What justice for the victim of the rape? She has to marry her rapist. Surely she lived happily ever after, no? And what if they were not discovered and the girl kept quiet out of fear? The bible is quite clear about the fate of girls who are not virgins on their wedding day. Here, as elsewhere in the bible, women are chattel and have no say in their future. 8. The bible endorses mass murder and sex slavery. Numbers 31:14-18 "14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. *17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."* Numbers 31:35 - "And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him." *THIRTY TWO THOUSAND VIRGINS* being divided up to be used by “god’s chosen people” at the same time their mothers and brothers by the tens of thousands were being slaughtered like animals. Many of those women would have been pregnant, their unborn fetus dying inside them. And what would have been the crime of young boys of whatever age? 2? 4? 10? There was no distinction about age. This is GENOCIDE, condemned by civilized nations of the world. If you fail to feel a deep sense of moral outrage at this, how do you condemn ISIS for doing far less? Genocide in whatever form is an ugly stain on humanity. To claim it to be a moral act is the ultimate evil. Why then, should you regard the bible as a moral guide? Is ISIS any less evil? So what response do we hear from zealots? Shock? Horror? No! Their predicable response is indifference and a callous “They had it coming to them.” We have heard those words echoed by unrepentant Nazis and the barbaric ISIS. And how does that equate to morality? Are not empathy and compassion the cornerstones of morality? Where then is there any morality here? Perhaps it was just an oversight that the bible nowhere condemns slavery, or rape or molesting children, but yet it was so important to forbid mixing fabrics or cooking a kid in its mother's milk (so important that it needed to be repeated three times). What does that say about biblical priorities? If the bible is the source of your 'morality', call a mental health hotline, NOW.. God sends Abraham to murder his own son, clearly an immoral act. Abraham is perfectly willing to do so. And for this, the bible praises Abraham. To a rational person, morality is doing what's right, no matter what one is told. Biblical morality is doing what you are told no matter what. Although an angel was sent to 'stay Abraham's hand', no such courtesy was given Jephthah's daughter made into a burnt offering to the lord (Judges 11:29-40). That should be enough to turn anyone's stomach. And what of Jephthah? Was this murderer of an innocent child punished in any way? *Was he condemned? NO. He is PRAISED. THE BIBLE APPROVES OF HUMAN SACRIFICE.* To suggest that morality stems from religion is not only wrong, it is frightening. You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong, you lack empathy, not religion. Atheists are far more moral than those who espouse religion. They are moral because it is the intelligent way to behave towards our fellow man, not out of expectation of reward or fear of punishment. If you are "moral" because of those constraints, you are a very dangerous person. And the bible has a special message for women: "STFU", but it can be a source of pride for women that apparently not a single one of them participated in the writing of the bible. Mark Twain once said "It ain't the parts of the bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I DO understand.

  • "Homo Erectus" Yeah that doesn't sound dirty at all.

    • Meaning "upright man" --- not what you think.

  • how did i get depression :) hehe

  • this is so fucking stupid im watching and im LMAO and if anybody believe this shit is even more stupid holy shit

    • +Randall Wilks us-tv.org/tv/video-erGmdSPQ1xs.html here is my answer to you read more and maybe you mind will be more open

    • +Snik jj How it REALLY happened: IN THE BEGINNING, a bunch of bored goat herders were sitting around wondering why they didn't know shit and decided to start making up shit so they could tell others about it, and become experts on the shit they made up. Others liked the idea of making up shit, so that they too could become experts on their own shit. Their ideas caught on and people have been doing it ever since. Religions have their origins in the ignorance of ancient man. They are perpetuated today by people like you who must promote the ignorance that will ensure the continuation of those religions. Science works from evidence to a conclusion, religions start with a conclusion that lacks any evidence and threaten punishment for those who do not believe. Science does not care whether anyone chooses not to believe the evidence, because the evidence does not disappear as a result. Without belief, religion would collapse. No one is born with a religion; it is imposed on a child's trusting but unreasoning mind.. The child's mind is tabula rasa until others start messing with it. Religion is a cultural artifact of a time when rational explanations for natural phenomena did not exist. It is perpetuated by parents indoctrinating their children before they have an ability to reason for themselves. Were it not for that, all religions would die. Following the religion of those who imparted it to you is not free will, it is the path of least resistance. That is the path that sheep take. If this indoctrination of children were seen as the child abuse it is, children might grow up regarding reason as the ultimate authority. There is no free will in any religion, only in rejection of religion. The one characteristic of all religions is that, with very few exceptions, children grow up accepting the religion of their parents. Years of imparting parental or societal bias leaves an indelible mark on a child. It becomes their core belief and any information contrary to that belief will not be countenanced. Teaching children to ask magical beings to solve their problems creates irresponsible adults who fail to find solutions. For all the thousands of years that religion controlled the mind of man, it benefited mankind not one whit. Both Archaeology and recorded history tell us that, during that time, few children lived to see their 5th birthday.. Religion could offer solace, nothing more. "Gods will"it was called' In the space of a mere 400 years, science has enlightened us and put an end to much human suffering. In just the last 100 years, science has doubled the average human life span. Religion makes empty promises, science delivers.

    • +Randall Wilks you are convincing your with this trash .. these are not facts ... if you want facts on how everything was created and where did you come from you can just ask and i will give you FACTS .. i hate it when there is an asshole who think i was a monkey and now im human -.-

    • You obviously prefer one of the 3000 or so creation mythologies. Let me guess, you like the one with talking snakes and donkeys? Stupidity is maintaining something to be true when all evidence leads to something else. When all evidence supports evolution and none refutes it, reason dictates that it is the truth. Truth is established by EVIDENCE, not by what someone says. People lie, evidence doesn't. Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testable and falsifiable hypothesis and theories. And first and foremost about evidence. Magic books with collections of Iron Age myths don't cut it as evidence. It really shouldn't be that hard to understand, but unfortunately, childhood indoctrination is difficult to overcome. Religion is not based on empirical observation, or questioning, of testing a hypothesis against nature, as is science. Instead it is based on dogma, authority, revelation, scripture and faith. Religions are based on stories from ancient cultures seeking explanations for the many things they did not understand. Those stories become religious dogma that is not to be questioned. Science is not about belief, but rather testable and falsifiable hypotheses and theories, all of which must be backed by evidence. What someone thinks, feels or believes is irrelevant to science. Those lacking evidence are not taken seriously.

  • The earth begin on fire ending up on fire,

  • Never laughed so hard in my life 😂 almost got me 👍

  • Ahh so this is why my parents let me drink water when i get hiccups

  • I'm still a Christian

    • So are most people who accept evolution as fact. The Episcopal, Catholic, Presbyterian and United Methodist churches, among others, have all issued statements endorsing evolution as fact and consistent with Christian doctrine. Thousands of Christian ministers have signed the Christian Clergy Letter www.theclergyletterproject.org/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm Dr. Francis Collins (PhD and MD) formerly director of the Human Genome Project and currently director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a devout Evangelist, has this to say: *"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."* AND.... *"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."* It is the fundamentalist fringe that tries to characterize the conflict they alone have created, as one between Christianity and Atheism when one's religious or philosophical views have nothing to do with science. In their narrow view, anyone not following their rigid thinking is an atheist and an enemy to be attacked. In so doing, they have created divisions within the religion they claim to be the exclusive arbiters thereof. They serve neither their religion nor science.

  • I remember they showed us this video in physical science class

  • With your PhD, come up with things to help better our lives, to get us prepared for natural disasters, etc.. But, please don't ever try to tell us where we came from or how we were made simply because no one knows. Therefore, just leave it as that and stop trying to be a smart ass, because that's where your so many theories will end up in.

    • _"what part of, “I rather be doubtful than dogmatic” didn’t you get"_ Depends. Are you a Creationist? If so, you are not doubtful but blindly swallow everything thrown at you in the name of religion. _"It seems you’re a bit confused between theories and facts"_ Please explain to me what you believe the difference between a scientific theory and a fact is. :) I'm curious.

    • +GOAT-MJ Jordan Sorry, but you have a misconception. A Scientific Theory will always be a theory unless it is invalidated. Newton's Theory of Gravity has been supplanted by Einstein's Theories of Relativity, but it still remains useful for everyday calculations. You should know that there are terms in the vernacular that are imprecise and ambiguous and that scientific terms require much more precision. The words "Theory" and "Hypothesis" are cases in point. A scientific Theory is an explanation for observed phenomena and they are arrived at by the process I described. Perhaps you think that a THEORY can be 'promoted' to a LAW, and that is not the case. Laws describe patterns, usually in the form of mathematical equations. Theories explain why. Theories do not become Laws and Laws do not become theories; they are totally different functions of science. Facts are just data or pieces of evidence. Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Science is a never ending pursuit of truth in which nothing is ever considered "proven" for that would end that search and, by extension, the end of science. Therefore, in science, A THEORY IS THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE. Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not explain anything: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. *As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated.* Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.

    • Randall Wilks, I concur, but only to certain extent. Either this theory of where we came from or the theory of evolution convince me, especially the former. There’s just too much guessing, extrapolating, and even imagining. Until and theory is put into use, it’s still a theory, i.e., the string theory and others.

    • Hm Grraarrpffrzz, what part of, “I rather be doubtful than dogmatic” didn’t you get? It seems you’re a bit confused between theories and facts. Perhaps, that’s ignorant.

    • Truth is established by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says. There are over 3000, different religions, each with their own creation story; not a single one of them has ever offered any verifiable empirical evidence to support them. Science is a search for truth and it does so by following evidence where it leads. It examines evidence to reach a conclusion which is always PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). As additional evidence accumulates in support of that conclusion, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports a conclusion and none refutes it, it can become a Scientific Theory, which is the highest degree of certainty possible in science. That applies to Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Heliocentric Theory, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Gravity, Theories of Relativity, ALL such theories. If evidence is ever uncovered that is inconsistent with that explanation (theory), then the theory must be discarded or revised. A theory is never altered to suit one's beliefs or preferred outcome. What anyone thinks, feels or believes means jack to science. It wouldn't matter if your name was Albert Einstein, Stephan Hawking or Joe Somebody, if you don't have evidence, you've got nothing. Assertions lacking corroborating evidence cannot be distinguished from lies and are dismissed as such.

  • If you want to watch a completely dogmatic, main stream media, main stream religious, main stream quackademia explanation of how humanity came to be, this is your best bet . If you want the TRUTH about where man came from, go read the ancient Sumerian tales of our creation .

    • +OldSkool How it REALLY happened: IN THE BEGINNING, a bunch of bored goat herders were sitting around wondering why they didn't know shit and decided to start making up shit so they could tell others about it, and become experts on the shit they made up. Others liked the idea of making up shit, so that they too could become experts on their own shit. Their ideas caught on and people have been doing it ever since. Religions have their origins in the ignorance of ancient man. They are perpetuated today by people like you who must promote the ignorance that will ensure the continuation of those religions. Science works from evidence to a conclusion, religions start with a conclusion that lacks any evidence and threaten punishment for those who do not believe. Science does not care whether anyone chooses not to believe the evidence, because the evidence does not disappear as a result. Without belief, religion would collapse. No one is born with a religion; it is imposed on a child's trusting but unreasoning mind.. The child's mind is tabula rasa until others start messing with it. Religion is a cultural artifact of a time when rational explanations for natural phenomena did not exist. It is perpetuated by parents indoctrinating their children before they have an ability to reason for themselves. Were it not for that, all religions would die. Following the religion of those who imparted it to you is not free will, it is the path of least resistance. That is the path that sheep take. If this indoctrination of children were seen as the child abuse it is, children might grow up regarding reason as the ultimate authority. There is no free will in any religion, only in rejection of religion. The one characteristic of all religions is that, with very few exceptions, children grow up accepting the religion of their parents. Years of imparting parental or societal bias leaves an indelible mark on a child. It becomes their core belief and any information contrary to that belief will not be countenanced. Teaching children to ask magical beings to solve their problems creates irresponsible adults who fail to find solutions. For all the thousands of years that religion controlled the mind of man, it benefited mankind not one whit. Both Archaeology and recorded history tell us that, during that time, few children lived to see their 5th birthday.. Religion could offer solace, nothing more. "Gods will"it was called' In the space of a mere 400 years, science has enlightened us and put an end to much human suffering. In just the last 100 years, science has doubled the average human life span. Religion makes empty promises, science delivers.

    • denial is the first step ... :)

    • +OldSkool *"One day you might understand what I tried to tell you here"* Really? will that be after you finished the 6th grade? There is something really wrong with you. Bye

    • now, go learn ...

    • this is what it sounds like, give or take ... us-tv.org/tv/video-1RiMrPUf1RM.html

  • So where did the one cell come from as well as the ocean itself? And where did the vegetation evolve from?

    • Vegetation evolved the same as all other life. The ocean came from the matter of the solar cloud. The one cell came from abiogenesis / chemical evolution. Though there is no reason to assume that the process happened only once. Maybe the first form of life on this planet died, and only the 10th or so made it, or maybe it happened at nearly the same time in different places on Earth.

  • So much here that isnt true, eg our ancestors didn't stand upright to get food from tall trees or to see over tall grass, we stood upright because we started using more sophisticated tools , so what used to be legs with clumsy toes evolved into arms with dexterous fingers . Another example : we didn't get the idea of fire from lightening strikes, we noticed that, as we were fashioning sophisticated tools out certain kinds of stones, pretty sparks would fly off and make the dry grass nearby catch fire.

  • Are these things scientifically proven? Or a made up?

  • So your saying this world all started from a lighting bolt?

    • You apparently have a comprehension problem, watch the video again and take notes.

  • go read the bible

    • As Mark Twain said, "Reading the bible is the best cure for Christianity."

    • *WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS US* 1. You can own slaves. You can buy and sell slaves. You can even sell your own daughter (Exodus 21:7-10). If she fails to please her master, you must refund him the purchase price. 2. You can beat the living shit out of your slaves without being punished, as long as they do not die within two days (Exodus 20:20-21). Under what standards of morality is it ever okay to beat another human being like that and not suffer any consequences? It is reassuring the bible endorses property rights, but a source of morality it is not. 3. The bible not only condones slavery but sets prices for them (Leviticus 27:3-7). The bible obviously was concerned about human traffickers getting a fair price for their goods. 4. Surely Jesus had compassion towards slaves. He tells slaves to be obedient and subservient. That is why slave owners in the Americas pushed Christianity onto their slaves and punished those caught practicing their ancient religions.. Very reassuring. It was okay to beat slaves, those who unwittingly made mistakes were to be given few lashes, those who knowingly violated rules were to be given many lashes. 5. Thou shalt not kill. Now THERE is a good one. However, it seems there are exceptions: No sooner had Moses returned from his first trip up the mountains to find a party to which he had not been invited, in a fit of rage he orders his Levite goon squad to kill "every man his brother, and every man his friend and every man his neighbor." Exodus 32:28 "The Levites did as Moses commanded and that day about 3000 of the people died." 'Tough Love' maybe? 6. But there are others. The bible requires the faithful to put to death by stoning; Adulterers (Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Leviticus 20:10); Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), Non virgins (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), any of your neighbors foolish enough to mow their lawn on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15,Exodus 35:1-3,Numbers 15:32-36). 7. Oh, and speaking of rape, surely that ranks high on the ‘Thou shalt nots’ of the ten commandments. *NO???* It is not even mentioned??? An oversight perhaps? But then it was so important to forbid mixing fabrics or cooking a kid in its mother's milk (so important that it needed to be repeated three times) and such. Take a look at these REALLY important commandments (there are different versions within the bible). Thou shalt not: Worship other gods Work on the Sabbath (death penalty crime) Take the name of the lord in vain (OMG, ANOTHER capital crime) Make graven images Covet thy neighbor’s wife or house or ass And, oh yes, ‘thou shalt not kill’ and ‘thou shalt not steal’ are in there somewhere near the bottom. *But rape? Not one word!!!* How about elsewhere in the bible? Surely somewhere the bible must condemn rape, no? Oh, yes, here; Deuteronomy 22:28-29 28 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her *and they are discovered,* 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" *YESSS! There it is. Rape is a PROPERTY crime*. The rapist has damaged the father’s PROPERTY and it is he that must be compensated. What justice for the victim of the rape? She has to marry her rapist. Surely she lived happily ever after, no? And what if they were not discovered and the girl kept quiet out of fear? The bible is quite clear about the fate of girls who are not virgins on their wedding day. Here, as elsewhere in the bible, women are chattel and have no say in their future. 8. The bible endorses mass murder and sex slavery. Numbers 31:14-18 "14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. *17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."* Numbers 31:35 - "And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him." *THIRTY TWO THOUSAND VIRGINS* being divided up to be used by “god’s chosen people” at the same time their mothers and brothers by the tens of thousands were being slaughtered like animals. Many of those women would have been pregnant, their unborn fetus dying inside them. And what would have been the crime of young boys of whatever age? 2? 4? 10? There was no distinction about age. This is GENOCIDE, condemned by civilized nations of the world. If you fail to feel a deep sense of moral outrage at this, how do you condemn ISIS for doing far less? Genocide in whatever form is an ugly stain on humanity. To claim it to be a moral act is the ultimate evil. Why then, should you regard the bible as a moral guide? Is ISIS any less evil? So what response do we hear from zealots? Shock? Horror? No! Their predicable response is indifference and a callous “They had it coming to them.” We have heard those words echoed by unrepentant Nazis and the barbaric ISIS. And how does that equate to morality? Are not empathy and compassion the cornerstones of morality? Where then is there any morality here? Perhaps it was just an oversight that the bible nowhere condemns slavery, or rape or molesting children, but yet it was so important to forbid mixing fabrics or cooking a kid in its mother's milk (so important that it needed to be repeated three times). What does that say about biblical priorities? If the bible is the source of your 'morality', call a mental health hotline, NOW.. God sends Abraham to murder his own son, clearly an immoral act. Abraham is perfectly willing to do so. And for this, the bible praises Abraham. To a rational person, morality is doing what's right, no matter what one is told. Biblical morality is doing what you are told no matter what. Although an angel was sent to 'stay Abraham's hand', no such courtesy was given Jephthah's daughter made into a burnt offering to the lord (Judges 11:29-40). That should be enough to turn anyone's stomach. And what of Jephthah? Was this murderer of an innocent child punished in any way? *Was he condemned? NO. He is PRAISED. THE BIBLE APPROVES OF HUMAN SACRIFICE.* To suggest that morality stems from religion is not only wrong, it is frightening. You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong, you lack empathy, not religion. Atheists are far more moral than those who espouse religion. They are moral because it is the intelligent way to behave towards our fellow man, not out of expectation of reward or fear of punishment. If you are "moral" because of those constraints, you are a very dangerous person. And the bible has a special message for women: "STFU", but it can be a source of pride for women that apparently not a single one of them participated in the writing of the bible. Mark Twain once said "It ain't the parts of the bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I DO understand.

    • Why? There is better fiction literature.

  • Biggest load of bs ever there no evidence that this is fact, only a "theory" since no fossils of all these uncreator involved species.

    • +Wayne Smith First of all, truth is established by evidence, not by what anyone says. Science is a search for truth and it does so by examining evidence to come to a conclusion, which is PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). As further evidence come to light in support of that conclusion, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports that conclusion, and none refutes it, it can become a Scientific Theory which in science is the highest degree of certainty possible. Some examples of Scientific Theories are; Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Heliocentric Theory, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Gravity, et al. Science does not elevate a hypothesis to the status of Scientific Theory where there is insufficient evidence to do so. Such is the case with the possible chemical origins of life (Abiogenesis). All of the studies done so far indicate it is possible and none refute that possibility; it therefore remains in the realm of hypotheses. Science has no problem saying "We don't know...YET."

    • Bwahahaha!!! 😂

    • Explain to me then in your words what a theory is, if you know what it is.

    • +Hm Grraarrpffrzz maybe, maybe, maybe. And maybe intelligent design caused it all. I know what a theory is and m8st reference say theory of evolution.

    • Congratulations: you don't know what a theory is.

  • Well done! Excelente!

  • Believe in God he is the source of all creatures by his words

    • *WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS US* 1. You can own slaves. You can buy and sell slaves. You can even sell your own daughter (Exodus 21:7-10). If she fails to please her master, you must refund him the purchase price. 2. You can beat the living shit out of your slaves without being punished, as long as they do not die within two days (Exodus 20:20-21). Under what standards of morality is it ever okay to beat another human being like that and not suffer any consequences? It is reassuring the bible endorses property rights, but a source of morality it is not. 3. The bible not only condones slavery but sets prices for them (Leviticus 27:3-7). The bible obviously was concerned about human traffickers getting a fair price for their goods. 4. Surely Jesus had compassion towards slaves. He tells slaves to be obedient and subservient. That is why slave owners in the Americas pushed Christianity onto their slaves and punished those caught practicing their ancient religions.. Very reassuring. It was okay to beat slaves, those who unwittingly made mistakes were to be given few lashes, those who knowingly violated rules were to be given many lashes. 5. Thou shalt not kill. Now THERE is a good one. However, it seems there are exceptions: No sooner had Moses returned from his first trip up the mountains to find a party to which he had not been invited, in a fit of rage he orders his Levite goon squad to kill "every man his brother, and every man his friend and every man his neighbor." Exodus 32:28 "The Levites did as Moses commanded and that day about 3000 of the people died." 'Tough Love' maybe? 6. But there are others. The bible requires the faithful to put to death by stoning; Adulterers (Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Leviticus 20:10); Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), Non virgins (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), any of your neighbors foolish enough to mow their lawn on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15,Exodus 35:1-3,Numbers 15:32-36). 7. Oh, and speaking of rape, surely that ranks high on the ‘Thou shalt nots’ of the ten commandments. *NO???* It is not even mentioned??? An oversight perhaps? But then it was so important to forbid mixing fabrics or cooking a kid in its mother's milk (so important that it needed to be repeated three times) and such. Take a look at these REALLY important commandments (there are different versions within the bible). Thou shalt not: Worship other gods Work on the Sabbath (death penalty crime) Take the name of the lord in vain (OMG, ANOTHER capital crime) Make graven images Covet thy neighbor’s wife or house or ass And, oh yes, ‘thou shalt not kill’ and ‘thou shalt not steal’ are in there somewhere near the bottom. *But rape? Not one word!!!* How about elsewhere in the bible? Surely somewhere the bible must condemn rape, no? Oh, yes, here; Deuteronomy 22:28-29 28 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her *and they are discovered,* 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" *YESSS! There it is. Rape is a PROPERTY crime*. The rapist has damaged the father’s PROPERTY and it is he that must be compensated. What justice for the victim of the rape? She has to marry her rapist. Surely she lived happily ever after, no? And what if they were not discovered and the girl kept quiet out of fear? The bible is quite clear about the fate of girls who are not virgins on their wedding day. Here, as elsewhere in the bible, women are chattel and have no say in their future. 8. The bible endorses mass murder and sex slavery. Numbers 31:14-18 "14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. *17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."* Numbers 31:35 - "And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him." *THIRTY TWO THOUSAND VIRGINS* being divided up to be used by “god’s chosen people” at the same time their mothers and brothers by the tens of thousands were being slaughtered like animals. Many of those women would have been pregnant, their unborn fetus dying inside them. And what would have been the crime of young boys of whatever age? 2? 4? 10? There was no distinction about age. This is GENOCIDE, condemned by civilized nations of the world. If you fail to feel a deep sense of moral outrage at this, how do you condemn ISIS for doing far less? Genocide in whatever form is an ugly stain on humanity. To claim it to be a moral act is the ultimate evil. Why then, should you regard the bible as a moral guide? Is ISIS any less evil? So what response do we hear from zealots? Shock? Horror? No! Their predicable response is indifference and a callous “They had it coming to them.” We have heard those words echoed by unrepentant Nazis and the barbaric ISIS. And how does that equate to morality? Are not empathy and compassion the cornerstones of morality? Where then is there any morality here? Perhaps it was just an oversight that the bible nowhere condemns slavery, or rape or molesting children, but yet it was so important to forbid mixing fabrics or cooking a kid in its mother's milk (so important that it needed to be repeated three times). What does that say about biblical priorities? If the bible is the source of your 'morality', call a mental health hotline, NOW.. God sends Abraham to murder his own son, clearly an immoral act. Abraham is perfectly willing to do so. And for this, the bible praises Abraham. To a rational person, morality is doing what's right, no matter what one is told. Biblical morality is doing what you are told no matter what. Although an angel was sent to 'stay Abraham's hand', no such courtesy was given Jephthah's daughter made into a burnt offering to the lord (Judges 11:29-40). That should be enough to turn anyone's stomach. And what of Jephthah? Was this murderer of an innocent child punished in any way? *Was he condemned? NO. He is PRAISED. THE BIBLE APPROVES OF HUMAN SACRIFICE.* To suggest that morality stems from religion is not only wrong, it is frightening. You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong, you lack empathy, not religion. Atheists are far more moral than those who espouse religion. They are moral because it is the intelligent way to behave towards our fellow man, not out of expectation of reward or fear of punishment. If you are "moral" because of those constraints, you are a very dangerous person. And the bible has a special message for women: "STFU", but it can be a source of pride for women that apparently not a single one of them participated in the writing of the bible. Mark Twain once said "It ain't the parts of the bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I DO understand.

    • And the 3000+ gods are all made up by humans.

  • lets evolve to fly please

  • Ridiculous!

  • I hate when people say," Monkey's are our closet cousin! we share %95 DNA with them!!!" We also share %95 DNA with banana's so I don't see what the big deal is??

    • *HUMANS ARE APES* Yes, this has been ascertained from multiple lines of evidence: comparative anatomy, comparative genomics, protein redundancy, multiple pseudo-gene commonality, and multiple Endogenous Retrovirus commonality. In total, something on the order of several thousand individual pieces of evidence supporting common ancestry. Comparative genomics informs us that chimpanzees and bonobos shared a common ancestor within the last 2 million years. The ancestral population was separated by the formation of the Congo River, forming two separate gene pools that differentiated due to genetic drift. Comparative genomics also informs us that chimps/bonobos and humans originated from a common ancestral population about 6 or 7 million years ago. One segment of that population took to walking upright and opted for life on the open savanna, setting their descendants on a different evolutionary trajectory that culminated in us. Those that remained in the forest were the ancestors of today's chimps and bonobos. The ancestral population that ultimately diverged into chimps/bonobos and humans derived from a population that about 10 million years ago included the ancestors of gorillas. However, chimps/bonobos and humans are closer related to each other than any of them are related to gorillas. An even more ancient population gave rise to orangutans. Ancestral apes derived from a population of Old World Monkeys about 35 million years ago. Skeletal changes to shoulder bones allowed swinging their arms over their heads; something monkeys cannot do. Monkeys move through the trees by running on top of the limbs. Apes on the other hand, could now swing from branch to branch (brachiation), allowing them to attain greater size. Since the tail used by monkeys for balance was no longer needed by brachiating apes, it was lost through evolution.

    • *HUMANS ARE PRIMATES* in addition to being Chordates, Vertebrates and Mammals. The physical similarities between humans and monkeys/apes has been noted since ancient times. We have grasping hands with opposable thumbs, fingernails instead of claws and forward facing eyes, among other common attributes. One hundred years before Darwin published his "Origin of Species", the Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus (aka Carl von Linne) established a system of classification for living organisms that is still used today. In so doing, he classified humans as Genus Homo and Species sapiens (lower case 's') and placed us in the Order Primates, meaning first order. Before Darwin arrived at his explanation for the vast diversity of life on this planet, the biblical explanation as commonly accepted without question and Linnaeus ostensibly believed in special creation. However, the resemblance between humans, and chimpanzees was so strong that he initially classified them with us in genus Homo. Later naturalists refined that classification, placing humans with the other apes in the family Hominidae. With living species today we can use genetics to determine relationships between species, and amazingly Linnaeus was overwhelmingly correct in his assessments. Our common ancestry with chimps/bonobos is attested to by far more than physical or genetic similarities. Within the genome of any species are not only genes, but pseudo genes; genes that were once active and producing a protein, but no longer due to a disabling mutation. The presence of thousands of non functional genes in any species does not fit well with a proposed "intelligent designer". While there are perhaps an infinite number of mutations that could disable a gene, the fact of two species sharing the same pseudo gene disabled by exactly the same mutation is very strong evidence for common ancestry. One could , supposedly, argue that to be a mere coincidence, but the fact is that in the case of humans and chimps/bonobos there are thousands of such shared pseudo genes, each disabled by the same mutation. Many of those pseudo genes are shared not only with chimps and bonobos, but with other apes as well, again attesting to common ancestry, and still others shared with monkeys and other primates. One gene, present in most mammals, called GULO enables the synthesis of vitamin C within their body.. That gene is present in the human body, but has been disabled by a mutation. It is a pseudo gene. Humans without fruits and vegetables in their diet get Scurvy, a problem that was most noticeable in the days of sailing ships and long sea voyages. It turns out that that pseudo gene, disabled by the same mutation, is present in the genomes of not just humans and apes, but all primates in the sub order Haplorhini which includes apes (including humans), Old World Monkeys, New World Monkeys and Tarsiers. It is a fully functioning gene in the genomes most other mammals including the other primate sub order Strepsirrhini (Lemurs and Lorises). That indicates the ancestral disabling mutation took place at the time the two lines diverged, perhaps 55 million years ago. If the thousands of pseudo genes attesting to common ancestry are not sufficiently convincing, there are also the 16,000 or so viral sequences (Endogenous Retroviruses or ERV's) acquired from ancestral infections that comprise 8% of the human genome as well as those of other vertebrates. When retroviruses infect a cell, they commandeer the replicating machinery of the host cell, inserting a DNA copy of their RNA into the host genome at a random location. When this happens to sperm or egg cells, that viral sequence can be passed to successive generations with the viral sequence trapped at its original location. The same viral sequence (ERV) found at the same location in multiple species is prima facie evidence of common ancestry. Each of these pseudo genes and ERV's originated independently of each other, and each is a separate line of evidence for common ancestry. References: pseudogene.org/background.php www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3352212/ www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1087782/? Vitamin C And Common Ancestry us-tv.org/tv/video-SF2N2lbb3dk.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1187282/ Endogenous retroviruses Current Biology 3 Aug 2015 www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)00615-6 Carl Zimmer's The Sixty-Million-Year Virus phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2006/03/13/the-sixty-million-year-virus/ kriskodisko.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/endogenous-retroviruses-and-homologous-pseudogenes/

    • Don't be a shit for brains, learn to check facts. You won't find them on creationist web sites. We share about 50% of our DNA with plants simply because most genes are performing necessary tasks within cells. Those tasks are much the same whether they are plant or animal.

  • Are we supposed to believe this fr?

    • Belief is not required where there is evidence. Science seeks answers based on evidence. Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testable and falsifiable hypothesis and theories. And first and foremost about evidence. Science: The pursuit of facts to become knowledgeable; Faith: The ignoring of facts to remain comfortable. Those who seek answers based on opinions or beliefs are most likely to fall prey to self deception and seek confirmation of their bias. Ancient mythologies may have seemed plausible to those people incapable of any other explanation, but to regard those mythologies as anything other than what they are is to subordinate your intellect to that of ancient goat herders.

  • No, it was god. Read More

  • Your great great great great great grandfather was soup, fucken bullshit

  • There is absolutely no observable evidence for this, we did not evolve from other species, that’s just out right stupid. EVOLUTION IS THE MOST DANGEROUS BELIEVE IN HISTORY.

    • Bwahahaha!!!! 😂

    • Hm Grraarrpffrzz Ok, you believe that the Big Bang is real, based on what scientific evidence this is true, I have studied the Big Bang and have a lot of questions that cannot be explained. What blew up, how can nothing blow up and create something, according to science and the laws of physics it is impossible.To get a star, a star has to have of been in existence to make another star, you’ve got a chicken in an egg problem there. Ok let’s get the definition of science right first, science is something that can be observed and experimented on. You cannot prove how old the earth and the universe, to use dumb theory’s like carbon dating to prove there belief is wicked. They say “ Carbon has been around for billions of years” it simply has not, it’s already been proven that carbon only stays In a dead body for 10,000 years, keeping that fossil or object in a freezer the carbon in it could only stay in the fossil for a max of 10,000 years, but that the fossil is in the dirt and the heat it would be much shorter. You can’t prove the age of the earth by carbon dating because if you used proper carbon dating you wouldn’t be getting stupid figures of billions or millions of years because there would be absolutely no carbon 14 in the object or fossil your testing. Just because people say evolution is real and saying it’s true and god is just a fictional character. No no no, Evolution is the dumbest theory on earth, it’s not even a theory it’s already been disproven, I honestly don’t know why it’s still been taught and people believe. You cannot say it’s true based on dumb “ facts “. Saying animals evolved new limbs and completely different bodies, it’s just absurd. When some scientists say the “billion” and “million” people get shocked by those big numbers and some how think it must be true. Do you know how complex a human body’s DNA and vital organs are ?, to say it came from chance and that soup came alive 3.6 billion years ago is just absolutely dumb. How come we haven’t got any evidence, real evidence for evolution, you give me any so called “evidence” of evolution and I can Shirley with out a doubt prove it wrong and stupid. Ok God in the is not effected by space, time or matter if he was he obviously is not god or the creator. Everything had to come into existence at the same time. If there were time and matter but no space where would it put it, if there were space and matter but no time when would you put it. I could go on with much more facts but I will see what you have to say.

    • _"do you hate the thought there is a creator"_ I don't hate it. I just think that it's absurd and ignorant. We have no evidence that a Creator ever existed or ever did anything whatsoever. Yet, lots of people believe it. Why? Mostly because they got indoctrinated and brainwashed by their parents, but also because they are too ignorant to understand the truth, and "God did it" is conveniently simple to understand. It's a lie of course, but you people don't care about the truth anyway. What I hate is the damage caused by people like you. Religion is the scourge of mankind. It's the cause of most problems. _"you don’t understand"_ Show me some evidence that deities exist. _"science backs up that there is no god"_ Where did I say that? Religions are like a failed form of proto-science: they try to give answers, like science, but in contrast to science they give a rats ass about what is true or not, but only care about money and power. _"that everything came from nothing"_ I never said that I believe that. The theory of evolution doesn't say that. The big bang theory doesn't say that. Creationists say that, who don't know what they are talking about, because they are ignorant buffoons who repeat each other without doing any fact checking or thinking. Educate yourself. If you educate yourself enough in natural sciences, you will start to understand the scientists, and you will abandon the embarrassingly stupid concept of invisible wonderlands you visit *after* you died and magical overlords that know everything but fck up over and over, and that want you to convert but hide at the same time... It's absurd. The only reason why you believe that nonsense is because you were trained to believe it, trained to never think for yourself, to never ask questions or doubt, same as we train puppies to fetch sticks. _"can you please tell me the ”evidence” for evolution"_ Here is a little starter: Humans have a partial genome sequence, that, right now, doesn't do anything, because it's not complete. If it would be complete, it would allow us to produce an enzyme that would help with the digestion of chitin (insect carapaces). All mammals whose genome has been checked have either the complete genome sequence or a partial one. Why is that? The explanation of Creationists is: "Well because God said so!" or "Liar!". The explanation of scientists is: all mammals either have insects as a huge part of their diet, or had ancestors who had insects as a huge part of their diet. So, millions of years ago, our ancestors munched mostly insects. As we kept evolving our diet changed. Losing due to a mutation a part of that sequence wasn't a problem anymore, as we were not eating a lot of insects anymore. It could have even been a boon, as we wouldn't create anymore enzymes that we were not needing. So over the millions of years we lost more and more of that genome sequences, until we are now here. That's just one of thousands of bits of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, compared to not a single piece of evidence supporting the supposed existence of magical overlords. _"tell me why you don’t believe there is a god or creator"_ Because it makes no sense to me. I always try to find the truth. I don't like believing in lies, I want to know what's really going on. So I listen to the arguments and what people have to say and compare that with the knowledge I acquired over the course of my lifetime. And deities? They make no sense. Does anybody have any evidence that deities exist? No. Can anybody explain how deities could exist? No. Is there any evidence that ever any miracle happened? Nope. Why are of the tenthousands of deities mankind made up, each and every single one of them is either invisible and/or absent? How can we have free will if God would know in advance how we'd decide? Why does God make mistakes? Especially if he knew in advance that he'd make them? Why are most highly religious nations far worse off than nations with less religion? Shouldn't God reward his worshippers? But the reality shows that it's the other way round. Where are the angels? Why are there so many mistakes and paradoxes in the Bible? Why is everything of interest in religion invisible? How does the afterlife exactly work? If a baby dies, is it a baby in an afterlife? If a person with a brain disease dies, he is still insane in the afterlife? What if an insane murderer repents? Can he murder people in the afterlife? How can you experience the afterlife when you are dead? Where is the evidence that souls exist? Can you detect souls? Or God? Or the afterlife? If there'd be one true religion, and thousands of false ones, then why is not one religion truly dominant? Even regarding Christianity, most people on Earth consider it to be nonsense. Why do religious parents have to indoctrinate their kids? How can religion be good, if it results in so much horror? For example Christian priests raping children in the name of the church to then get protected from the law by the church with the money worshippers like you donate? Or genital mutilation in the name of religion? Wars and executions? Entire governments destroying cultures and forcing their religion on them. Why is the average Creationist less educated than the average Atheist in the same country? If religion makes you moral, why is the relative percentage of Atheists in prison much lower compared to Theists? Why would religion be actually needed? As an Atheist, I can say that the world can be perfectly explained without magic and mythical overlords. In fact, claiming that deities exist raises far more questions than it answers. In short: why should I believe something if there is no reason to believe it and if it's harmful? I could go on and on here forever. Not once in my entire life have I heard one rational argument supporting the supposed existence of deities. Not once. Theists always say "Of course I could prove it, but you don't want to hear it". :D It's ridiculous.

    • Hm Grraarrpffrzz And water is not wet, so you can’t make it more wet, that’s just dumb.

    • Hm Grraarrpffrzz Haha, do you hate the thought there is a creator, you try to bring out all the things in life you don’t understand. To say that there is no god is one thing, but to say that science backs up that there is no god is just stupid. You should really test what you “ believe ” that everything came from nothing, now to say that my god is dumb and stupid is nothing on what you Believe. You should research your “ facts ” before quoting me again. Oh last thing, can you please tell me the ”evidence” for evolution, real facts and tell me why you don’t believe there is a god or creator, because I think that you one,don’t won’t to believe and is just ignorant or two, you are stupid and don’t have a clue about science or god.

  • fake

  • Fake history

  • 🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷 always the pigs

  • The dinosaurs were big and powerful and controlled everything, so they had no need to think to survive, just like every ruling class that lorded over the world. They stomped around the world, farting and pretending to rule over everything, but in the end, they were merely a means to an end...too bad for them...but they made it too...they became the birds...and to get back at us for taking over the world from them, they crap all over everything we create.

  • This is a joke.

  • Like I say, it takes faith to believe in this. More faith than what the Bible says

    • Randall Wilks - False. The claim is that something came from something that has always been. When you look at a book on your desk, you don’t think that book was written by itself. There has to be an author right? Same with the Universe. Why don’t you study if the Bible is true or not? I mean in America we swear on it in our court systems. And why don’t you study if the coming of Christ was true? We refer to historical points as B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (“Anno Domini” used to indicate that a date comes the specified number of years after the accepted date of Christ's birth.) So why do you care what other people believe ? You’re an atheist with no hope. You believe once you die then that’s it for you. No after life right? My point is, why do you even care what others believe?? In the grand scheme of things it shouldn’t matter to you. Well you may say that religion causes a lot of problems and that people need to accept the “truth.” I thought we are constantly evolving 🤔? So why don’t we realize the “truth” if our brains are getting smarter and evolving? Your belief is a faith as well as mine. But there is A LOT of evidence pointing to the Birth of Christ and Creation. Just because I may be a Creationist doesn’t mean that I don’t know Science

    • +Caden Taylor Please tell us where science claims "something from nothing"? The only such claims come from the bible.

    • Are you telling me that this so called “Science” is truth? And this is based on observational science...what about the observational science that FACTUALLY tells us that something can’t come from nothing. There has to be something that has ALWAYS been (hint: A Creator)

    • It’s apparent that you’ve been lied to, where did the big burst of energy that created everything come from? You don’t know right? Yeah that’s what I thought. Science was created.

    • Keep in mind that whatever you 'believe' is your opinion, nothing more. Opinions are not facts and they are certainly not evidence of any sort. Truth is established by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says. Science does not simply make rational explanations; there must be evidence for hypotheses. A rhetorical argument for the existence of something does not offer evidence - a hypothesis must be empirical (measured and supported with evidence) to be viable. The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. Neither creationism nor 'intelligent design' pseudoscience can do that.

  • This should get more likes

    • Rational people outnumber creationists 10 to one. That is pretty much the cause of the desperation exhibited by creationists on these pages. They have no facts to refute evolution so they resort to lies and distortions. That should be obvious to all concerned.

  • Cocaine can't transform into crack by itself. Get the hint😬

    • Randall Wilks hey crackhead white trash u dont know shit. The only thing u know is how to be a racist pig🐷

    • That you are a crack addict, sure.

  • I believe in god👍💯

    • So fucking what? There are people posting to this forum that believe in all manner of things; Flat earth, Bigfoot, Alien abductions, et al. Truth is established by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says or believes. Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testable and falsifiable hypothesis and theories. And first and foremost about evidence.

  • PROGRESS ! KEEP BANGING THOSE ROCKS TOGETHER !!!

  • So theres this boy called Sydney and he goes to bishop wand school and i really hate him cause he punched me send help

  • So weird that people completely engulf themselves in fantasy lore, even though reality is 100x more epic

    • Religion is the practice of training one's mind to ignore evidence, logic and reason, while being able to believe in myths based on faith alone..... and being proud of it rather than ashamed. Religion is not the product of rational minds. It is the product of ancient human minds in search of explanations for forces of nature they were not equipped to understand. They are all products of ignorance and must perpetuate ignorance by indoctrinating children. No one is born with a religion, it is imposed on minds incapable of reason. Following that imposed religion is not free will, it is the path of least resistance. Embracing a religion is subordinating your intellect to that of those ancient peoples and forfeiting your free will to groupthink.

  • Biggest bullshit to all those rats and monkeys hahahah..... poor idiots of Wisdom

    • Randall Wilks and being a clown is permanent

    • ​Habiba has an obsessive compulsion to flaunt his ignorance. Ignorance can be cured, stupidity is terminal.

    • 00000014 I know the crap you’re trying to explain. Tell me something - man made ships and airplanes right ? Who made Man ? And if man was a monkey or a lizard then why are monkeys still monkeys ? You have recently started believing that there is soul .... this vedio is just an imagination .... good for you

    • You don't even know how evolution works on molecular scale, so don't think you have the position to judge if this is bullshit or not. We have directly seen genetic mutations occurring in cells, and we know the exact locations in our genome of where mutations took place. We also know what characteristics these locations encode, and then we can compare them with animal species whom we have a close common ancestor with, and we see they lack this mutation. I know that evolution sounds pretty random in the way it is presented in this documentary, but believe me, on molecular scale it makes much more sense. To make it evolution more clear, consider dogs. Because, how would you explain the different dog races (all descendents of wolfs) if evolution is bullshit? From a wolf to a chihuahua is only a couple of onehundred thousand years, so imagine what could happen in a hundreds of millions of years.

  • Science ur full of shit, how d hell u knew it was the 1st cell, and what was its name ?

    • +Randall Wilks I'm from another country, if I choose to type a certain way, that's my business Mr Randall, again, Science is full of shit, that's the topic I am discussing

    • How old are you kid? About 10 from the way you write.

  • So we came from lightning and water? That's.... incredibly disappointing by way of simplicity

    • It's a 43 minute video, what did you expect, a doctoral dissertation? You have a computer and an internet connection which puts the bulk of human knowledge virtually at your finger tips, and you complain?

  • Very entertaining even if we won't know.

  • *HOW EVOLUTION WORKS* It is helpful to understand that evolution is a molecular process. The random mutations that naturally occur during cell division and replication (mitosis and meiosis) are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. Mutations are ongoing and continuous for every living species. Those mutations are subjected to a selection process that is performed by whatever environment the organisms find themselves. In this respect, evolution is an ongoing, continuous set of experiments. Those that work get perpetuated, those that don't, perish. It is as if the environment acted as an umpire who says "There are good mutations and there are bad mutations and there are neutral mutations, but they ain't nuthin' until I (the environment) calls 'em." That is Natural Selection. Neutral mutations just go along for the ride without producing immediate benefit (Genetic Drift). The result of those selection processes is organisms best suited for their current environment. Should that environment change, it would put the population under stress. If the population gene pool has sufficient genetic variation it increases the likelihood that at least some offspring should be able to survive and perpetuate the species (albeit one of slightly different genetic makeup). What you should understand is that genetic changes do not occur because of some 'need'. The mutations are RANDOM and get selected if they are USEFUL. That is a process and it is anything BUT random. Let's take the example of the Panda. Bears in general are omnivores, eating plant matter, but with a marked preference for meat when available. The preferred food of the Panda however, is bamboo leaves, which have such low nutritional value that they must eat almost continuously. The Panda would certainly be able to extract more nutrition with a four chambered stomach (as in ungulates and whales) or something akin to a cecal valve, but it has neither in its genetic toolbox. In feeding themselves, pandas are continuously stripping bamboo leaves from their stalks, a process that could be facilitated if they had a thumb. Bears however do not have thumbs, nor do they have genes for them in their genetic toolbox. Nor do new features simply spring into existence. However, if a slightly altered body component provides some benefit, natural selection will perpetuate it. Evolution results in incremental alterations to what is already there. As an analogy, imagine a robot gardener dragging a hose around various obstacles it encounters in a garden until it can go no further. Now an intelligent gardener could simply retrace his steps and take a different path, avoiding those obstacles. The robot gardener (evolution) is not an intelligent force and cannot do that. With a limited tool kit, it can only (figuratively) add more hose to get the job done. While a thumb would be quite useful to a panda for stripping leaves, evolution cannot rewind to produce one. Instead, it has taken "a piece of hose' (a wrist bone) and enlarged it to act as a stand in for a thumb. That is not an elegant solution and not a perfect one, but it gets the job done. Evolution is does not produce perfect solutions, but tweaks here and there to "get the job done". THAT is how evolution operates. Based in part on the fact that no tetrapods, (terrestrial vertebrates) exist in the fossil record prior to about 370 million years ago, the Theory of Evolution would predict that tetrapods evolved from fish. If that were the case, there should have existed at one time a fish with characteristics of both fish and tetrapods. In other words a Transitional Species. Until about 2005, there was little evidence for such a creature. There were however, a class of fish called Sarcopterygians or Lobe Finned Fishes, that dominated Devonian seas. What characterized those lobe finned fishes was that those fins were supported by external bones and muscles. Those bones, a single bone, connected to two bones connected to smaller bones, are analogous to the limb bones of all tetrapods, including humans. Most Sarcopterygian Fishes have long been extinct, but they are survived today by two species of coelacanth and six species of lungfish. Still, what was missing was a fossil showing characteristics of fish AND tetrapods. When Neil Shubin and his team decided to search for a fossil that filled the gap between the Lobe Finned Fishes that dominated Devonian Seas and the earliest tetrapod fossils represented by Ichthyostega and Acanthostega dated about 370 mya. Since those fossils were found in geologic deposits indicating a freshwater environment and if the Theory of Evolution is correct in its hypothesis that tetrapods evolved from fish, then transitional fossils should be found in similar deposits somewhat older in age. The problem was that geologic deposits of that age are exposed at few places on the earth's surface. Fortunately, a great deal of geologic exploration has been done throughout the world, financed often times by oil and mining interests. They selected an area in the Canadian Arctic, Ellesmere Island, as having the greatest likelihood of success. It took 4 years of searching during the short summers of that hostile environment but succeeded, returning in 2004 with 9 specimens of the fish they named Tiktaalik. It was exactly what one would expect a transitional fish-tetrapod to look like and was found in deposits dated 375 mya. If this was not the direct ancestor of tetrapods, it was something very much like it.This is a great example of using evolutionary theory as a predictive tool, The genetic variation within a population is referred to as a gene pool. Organisms can move freely within that population breeding with each other perpetuating any new mutations that work and eliminating those that are less than optimal.Each offspring will most resemble its parents, yet will vary slightly genetically because of unique mutations acquired during meiosis. Thus the genetic makeup of a population will change ever so slightly with each successive generation. Populations are not stable, they expand and contract with changing conditions. So long as there is sufficient genetic variation within a population there will be some members capable of surviving those conditions and perpetuating the species. The alternative is extinction. When populations expand and migrate to new territories, some portions of it will become genetically isolated from each other and no longer share a common gene pool. In such cases, each such sub population will carry a subset of the parent population, but subsequent mutations will be unique to each new population (the genotype) that will come to differentiate that population from others (Genetic Drift). To the extent that such populations encounter differing environmental conditions, that environment will exert different evolutionary pressures on that population. New mutations will have a much greater chance of coming to dominance within a smaller population than they would in the larger parent population where they would be one among the many. Over thousands of generations genetic differences accumulate in the different gene pools making interbreeding ever more difficult until at some point speciation can be said to have occurred. Because speciation is a process, rather than an event, it would be no more possible to pinpoint where speciation occurred than to identify where on the color spectrum orange becomes red.

  • 36:27 why he gotta do him like that

  • Cool, but... why did the video skip the lesson on how precisely and perfectly chromosome #2 became fused, such that we truly became ‘human’? 🙉🙈🙊 Discussing probability and coincidence, yes, exactly... what are the chances of this happening again in nature, really? Yes, all of these things are particularly and especially relevant, I should think, while considering the title of this film/video.🤔 Hmm....

    • *EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - Evolution Makes Testable Predictions.* The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. In the 1950's when it was discovered that humans had 23 pairs of chromosomes (one from each parent), whereas the other great apes, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans had 24 pairs, creationists were ecstatic, thinking they finally had evidence to counter common ancestry. [Chromosomes are packages of DNA that form during mitosis and meiosis.There are two sets, one inherited from each parent. Other Great Apes have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs) (1n=24, 2n=48) whereas humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs) (1n=23, 2n=46)] Evolution made a testable prediction; That somewhere in the human genome we should find evidence of cromosomal fusion. In other words, we should be able to find a human chromosome with the remnants of extra telomeres and centomeres. Since the loss of all the genes in a chromosome would have been fatal to any species, scientists reasoned that IF the Theory of Evolution was correct about common ancestry, one of two things must have occurred. Either two chromosomes had fused in human's evolutionary past, OR chromosomes had split in the other apes. Using 'Occam's Razor' or the "law of parsimony" which states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected (Simply put, it means that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one), the most likely event was chromosome fusion in humans. Normal chromosomes have a centromere and ends capped with telomeres. It was reasoned that IF two chromosomes had fused, evidence for such an event would be found in a chromosome with two centromeres and teleomeres where they did not belong. That is exactly what was found in human chromosome 2 (chromosomes are numbered by length). It was subsequently discovered that chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13 (for comparative purposes designated as 2A and 2B or 2p and 2q) contained the same genes as human chromosome 2 and if placed end to end the positions of those genes matched those of the human chromosome. Those chromosomes in the other apes also lined up in a similar fashion. The fusion event has been confirmed. In just the last few years science has gained largely complete genomes of two other human species, those of Neanderthal and Denisovans. We see that same chromosome fusion in their genomes as well, indication that the fusion event took place in a common ancestor. Underlining the fact that chromosome fusion need not result in loss of genetic information, two teams of scientists have recently managed to reduce the normal 16 chromosomes of single celled Brewer's yeast to one or two chromosomes with no loss of function. 'Entire yeast genome squeezed into one lone chromosome' nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05857-9 As previously stated, the defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The greatest test of ANY scientific theory is in its usefulness as a predictive tool. In this case, as with others, the Theory of Evolution has performed beautifully. References: ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/2 www.pnas.org/content/pnas/88/20/9051.full.pdf biologos.org/blogs/...to.../denisovans-humans-and-the-chromosome-2-fusion www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_47.html

    • Our becoming 'human' can not be tied to any one event. The fusing of ape chromosomes 12 and 13 to become human chromosome 2 occurred some time after the chimp-human split, and because that fused chromosome is also in the genomes of Neanderthals and Denisovans we know the fusion event occurred sometime prior to our split from those lineages. Chromosome rearrangements may perhaps reduce fertility but do not constitute an immediate barrier to interbreeding. The differences between many species correlate with accumulated chromosomal rearrangements that eventually result in reproductive isolation. In the case of kangaroos, Robertsonian Translocations can account for much of the variation that exists between the different kangaroo species. The fusion of chromosome 2 millions of years ago may not have caused any big change in hominid biology except, perhaps, by making it difficult for populations of hominids with 23 pairs of chromosomes to mate with populations who still had 24. It is a common assumption that chromosome fusion or fission are major events resulting in speciation but it turns out it is not that big a deal. Understand that chromosomes are packages of genes and fusion (or fission) of chromosomes does not of itself result in the loss of genes. Recently, two independent groups of scientists have succeeded in fusing the chromosomes of yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae using CRISPR-Cas9-mediated genome editing. A team from New York University managed to cram the normally 16 yeast chromosomes into just 2 chromosomes. A team in China put the entire genome into just a single chromosome. Neither experiment produced significant loss of function. nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05857-9 As for the chance of such a fusion happening again, it is 100% in our species as well as others. There is a case of a healthy 44 chromosome man in China and a family in Finland with chromosomal fusions. www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ChromShuffle.pdf blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2005/08/29/the blogs.plos.org/.../can-a-quirky-chromosome-create-a-second-human-species/

  • Why is there evidence of humans and dinosaur interaction

    • There is no evidence of humans and dinosaur interaction. Claims of human footprints alongside those of dinosaurs have been thoroughly debunked long ago. www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paluxy_River Creationists make widely varied claims about dinosaurs; some claim that dinosaurs did not exist at all and that all dinosaur fossils are fakes (quite a cottage industry, that.) Ken Ham claims that dinosaurs were on the Ark and his "Ark Encounter" supposed replica has displays of animatronic dinosaurs. Jehovah's Witnesses claim dinosaurs existed with man but were wiped out in the "flood".

  • Easy god started life on earth 🌍

    • Truth is established by EVIDENCE, There is no evidence for any supernatural entities or events.

  • I don't get it..the worm was us n the 1st living thing...then what were those insect sea creature like ...on the ground.they were a living thing too

    • +Josh Ferb Or, here is my own explanation that goes into more detail. *HOW EVOLUTION WORKS* It is helpful to understand that evolution is a molecular process. The random mutations that naturally occur during cell division and replication (mitosis and meiosis) are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. Mutations are ongoing and continuous for every living species. Those mutations are subjected to a selection process that is performed by whatever environment the organisms find themselves. In this respect, evolution is an ongoing, continuous set of experiments. Those that work get perpetuated, those that don't, perish. It is as if the environment acted as an umpire who says "There are good mutations and there are bad mutations and there are neutral mutations, but they ain't nuthin' until I (the environment) calls 'em." That is Natural Selection. Neutral mutations just go along for the ride without producing immediate benefit (Genetic Drift). The result of those selection processes is organisms best suited for their current environment. Should that environment change, it would put the population under stress. If the population gene pool has sufficient genetic variation it increases the likelihood that at least some offspring should be able to survive and perpetuate the species (albeit one of slightly different genetic makeup). What you should understand is that genetic changes do not occur because of some 'need'. The mutations are RANDOM and get selected if they are USEFUL. That is a process and it is anything BUT random. Let's take the example of the Panda. Bears in general are omnivores, eating plant matter, but with a marked preference for meat when available. The preferred food of the Panda however, is bamboo leaves, which have such low nutritional value that they must eat almost continuously. The Panda would certainly be able to extract more nutrition with a four chambered stomach (as in ungulates and whales) or something akin to a cecal valve, but it has neither in its genetic toolbox. In feeding themselves, pandas are continuously stripping bamboo leaves from their stalks, a process that could be facilitated if they had a thumb. Bears however do not have thumbs, nor do they have genes for them in their genetic toolbox. Nor do new features simply spring into existence. However, if a slightly altered body component provides some benefit, natural selection will perpetuate it. Evolution results in incremental alterations to what is already there. As an analogy, imagine a robot gardener dragging a hose around various obstacles it encounters in a garden until it can go no further. Now an intelligent gardener could simply retrace his steps and take a different path, avoiding those obstacles. The robot gardener (evolution) is not an intelligent force and cannot do that. With a limited tool kit, it can only (figuratively) add more hose to get the job done. While a thumb would be quite useful to a panda for stripping leaves, evolution cannot rewind to produce one. Instead, it has taken "a piece of hose' (a wrist bone) and enlarged it to act as a stand in for a thumb. That is not an elegant solution and not a perfect one, but it gets the job done. Evolution is does not produce perfect solutions, but tweaks here and there to "get the job done". THAT is how evolution operates. Based in part on the fact that no tetrapods, (terrestrial vertebrates) exist in the fossil record prior to about 370 million years ago, the Theory of Evolution would predict that tetrapods evolved from fish. If that were the case, there should have existed at one time a fish with characteristics of both fish and tetrapods. In other words a Transitional Species. Until about 2005, there was little evidence for such a creature. There were however, a class of fish called Sarcopterygians or Lobe Finned Fishes, that dominated Devonian seas. What characterized those lobe finned fishes was that those fins were supported by external bones and muscles. Those bones, a single bone, connected to two bones connected to smaller bones, are analogous to the limb bones of all tetrapods, including humans. Most Sarcopterygian Fishes have long been extinct, but they are survived today by two species of coelacanth and six species of lungfish. Still, what was missing was a fossil showing characteristics of fish AND tetrapods. When Neil Shubin and his team decided to search for a fossil that filled the gap between the Lobe Finned Fishes that dominated Devonian Seas and the earliest tetrapod fossils represented by Ichthyostega and Acanthostega dated about 370 mya. Since those fossils were found in geologic deposits indicating a freshwater environment and if the Theory of Evolution is correct in its hypothesis that tetrapods evolved from fish, then transitional fossils should be found in similar deposits somewhat older in age. The problem was that geologic deposits of that age are exposed at few places on the earth's surface. Fortunately, a great deal of geologic exploration has been done throughout the world, financed often times by oil and mining interests. They selected an area in the Canadian Arctic, Ellesmere Island, as having the greatest likelihood of success. It took 4 years of searching during the short summers of that hostile environment but succeeded, returning in 2004 with 9 specimens of the fish they named Tiktaalik. It was exactly what one would expect a transitional fish-tetrapod to look like and was found in deposits dated 375 mya. If this was not the direct ancestor of tetrapods, it was something very much like it.This is a great example of using evolutionary theory as a predictive tool, The genetic variation within a population is referred to as a gene pool. Organisms can move freely within that population breeding with each other perpetuating any new mutations that work and eliminating those that are less than optimal.Each offspring will most resemble its parents, yet will vary slightly genetically because of unique mutations acquired during meiosis. Thus the genetic makeup of a population will change ever so slightly with each successive generation. Populations are not stable, they expand and contract with changing conditions. So long as there is sufficient genetic variation within a population there will be some members capable of surviving those conditions and perpetuating the species. The alternative is extinction. When populations expand and migrate to new territories, some portions of it will become genetically isolated from each other and no longer share a common gene pool. In such cases, each such sub population will carry a subset of the parent population, but subsequent mutations will be unique to each new population (the genotype) that will come to differentiate that population from others (Genetic Drift). To the extent that such populations encounter differing environmental conditions, that environment will exert different evolutionary pressures on that population. New mutations will have a much greater chance of coming to dominance within a smaller population than they would in the larger parent population where they would be one among the many. Over thousands of generations genetic differences accumulate in the different gene pools making interbreeding ever more difficult until at some point speciation can be said to have occurred. Because speciation is a process, rather than an event, it would be no more possible to pinpoint where speciation occurred than to identify where on the color spectrum orange becomes red.

    • +Josh Ferb I can understand that terms used in the video may not be understood by all. Here is an excerpt from an article by professor Whit Gibbons of the University of Georgia that avoids use of such terms. EVOLUTION IS A SIMPLE PROCESS Evolution in its simplest form explains how the natural world works through natural selection. The consequences of evolution are seen every day. Charles Darwin's ideas of natural selection, survival of the fittest, and evolution are elegant in their simplicity. Anyone interested in understanding the way the world works should consider the basic concepts of the process. The following example shows how evolution (change) in a lizard species could occur in a natural manner. Natural selection operates because some individuals have a trait that makes them more likely to survive than others. In this example, a species of yellow lizards lives on an island. Their yellow body color is genetic, but a few individuals have genes that produce green individuals. Lizards that are dull green in color are rare, but they are the same species as the yellow lizards and interbreed with them. The lizards live peacefully in their tropical paradise until a type of lizard-eating hawk moves onto the island. When flying over the thick, dark green vegetation of the island, hawks easily discern bright yellow lizards. If a green lizard and a yellow one are sitting side by side on a green bush when a hungry hawk flies overhead, the yellow lizard will stand out like a beacon. The green lizard will probably escape detection. Which lizard is more likely to become hawk fodder? Obviously, the yellow one. Consequently the green genes are more likely to be the ones passed on to the next generation. As the natural process in which hawks select and remove the yellow lizards continues, proportionately more green genes are inherited than are yellow ones. Eventually, the hawks virtually eliminate the yellow lizards while green lizards become abundant. Thus, the island lizards have evolved--changed--to become a population of green lizards, with yellow ones being very rare. Basic evolution has prevailed. Another example, which most pet owners are aware of, concerns flea collars. Anyone old enough to remember the advent of flea collars in the 1960s will tell you that they were a godsend for flea-ridden dogs and cats. You put the collar on the pet and the fleas were gone within days, if not hours. No fleas all summer or the rest of the year. But flea collars are no longer as prevalent as when they were introduced, and the explanation is a simple one: the fleas evolved. The original insecticides in the collars that killed the fleas and did not harm the dog or cat were very effective, killing probably 99.9 percent of the fleas. But guess what. That means 0.1 percent of the fleas did not die. They were able to survive the chemical onslaught and produce offspring. Those offspring were genetically different, although only slightly so, from the fleas that were dying in droves. The survivors had genes that allowed them to tolerate the insecticides, and they passed those genes on to their progeny. An adjustment in genetic makeup within a population or a species is the essence of evolutionary change. So, for example, whatever flea protection you are using now will probably be less effective in 10 years for the same reason flea collars are now obsolete: evolution.

    • Randall Wilks I know..I'm from a very small village n English i kinda hard for me. especially the types of words in this video...

    • Josh, it seems that it is your level of comprehension that is at fault. Work on it.

  • in video 10 percent is science rest is just science myth

    • Actually most of what is presented in the video is consistent with the scientific evidence. It is presented in the form of a story where the narrative may be speculative.

  • read vedas

  • A simple cell, how dumb do you think people are. There is no such thing as a SIMPLE cell. You just watched a fairy tale.

    • +Randall Wilks it was Darwin that proposed it, you remember that warm pond dont you. And yes there are Biology textbooks. You Owe Your Life to Rock www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/you-owe-your-life-rock Rocks & minerals -The origin of Life us-tv.org/tv/video-FVW9CBI52nU.html What is Life? us-tv.org/tv/video-Z9zRK-OHgfw.html Life from a ROCK us-tv.org/tv/video-Au9G5kOJkG8.html Origin of Life - How life started on earth us-tv.org/tv/video-xyhZcEY5PCQ.html Aron Ra admits that evolutionists believe and teach they came from a rock, when Aron confessed that includes metal, and gas for him. us-tv.org/tv/video-M6l9PMEEbfs.html There's no way around it, evolutionists believe they evolved from a rock us-tv.org/tv/video-muaC_VWQB0w.html Evolutionists evolved from rocks, metal and gas us-tv.org/tv/video-M6l9PMEEbfs.html Life from Rock - Kent Hovind us-tv.org/tv/video-JAgQO0BgdS4.html Id post the photos of the books but US-tv doesnt have that feature but youll get enough from the links ive provided. Yep its very embarrasing for you.

    • +George Bond Come on, George, are you really trying to prove how stupid you can be? Can you cite anything in the Theory of Evolution that says any such thing? How about anything in a science textbook? Or maybe something in a peer reviewed science journal? No, George, you are demonstrating that those with shit for brains get their straw man fallacies from creationist websites. Stop being stupid and educate yourself. "We are all born stupid, but one must work hard to remain stupid." - Benjamin Franklin

    • +Randall Wilks so you came from a rock?

    • +George Bond What do you think slime is? It could be algae or microbial mats producing biofilm, in any case they constitute biological material. So, what is your problem?

    • +Randall Wilks how did they get started? From slime washed from a rock?

  • The most illogical theory ever

    • Randall Wilks Caught you in the act - I never insulted you. I just said you are one of those rats or lizards. Now you’re the one who supports the video so you shouldn’t feel insulted when I say that you must be one of those rats or lizards shown in the video. The question is ... why are you feeling insulted by the word rat and lizard ? especially when you’re supporting the concept ? the answer is that your default supreme being self is opposing the lies that you were a rat or a lizard and that’s natural for any human ... BUT since your brain is obsessed with the illusion that man made science is the ONLy logic and your delusion that religion is nothing ... simply makes you nothing that but a sick man who is suffering from only depending on what he sees - People like you even if confronted with Aliens and Spirits will say this ‘ my brain is imagining and making up things ‘ .... you want to argue let’s do it ... come on ...convince me give me your advocacy? If there is no GOD ... I will not live for a day

    • +Habiba Akbar Typical creationist response; when at a loss for an intelligent response (like always) they can always resort to insults.

    • Randall Wilks I am not surprised... you are one of those rats I believe hahhahaa

    • Habiba apparently thinks magical creation is a logical answer. Truth is established by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says. Religions rely on magical explanations, not logic.

  • All I see demons in ur videos makes no since only brown people are the true humans

  • What happened to Adam and Eve? Oh my bad. Scientists doesn't believe in them. They evolved from fish, mammals, small mammals, chimpanzee and then to human.

    • Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testable and falsifiable hypothesis and theories. And first and foremost about evidence. Science seeks answers based on evidence. Truth is established by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says. Those who seek answers based on opinions or beliefs are most likely to fall prey to self deception and seek confirmation of their bias. Religion is not based on empirical observation, or questioning, of testing a hypothesis against nature, as is science. Instead it is based on dogma, authority, revelation, scripture and faith. 'Belief systems' are not 'Truth sysytems'. What someone thinks, feels or believes is irrelevant to science. Those making claims that lack evidence are not taken seriously.

  • Who made this crap???

    • Let me guess; you're a creationist, aren't you?

  • Life started in the water with Two Biological Structures, The Male Structure produced sperm cells. The Female Structure produced Reproductive Eggs. From these two Structures all animal life evolved. This hypothesis is recorded in Genesis. The Male Structure was The Tree of Life. The Female Structure was The Tree of Knowledge. This suggests The Forbidden Fruit as The Reproductive Egg. The Eating of The Forbidden Fruit Myth Story is describing "he Absorption of The Reproductive Egg" into the Female Body. us-tv.org/tv/video-Qi40djIsDZg.html This Power Point Presentation details...the Reproductive Egg as The Forbidden Fruit explains how "eating a fruit" causes "pain in childbirth."

  • to bad to say but this is not the story of mankind.

  • *wipes tear* My ancestor

  • This particular video oversimplifies several things and is inaccurate on several more points. But it is all factoid nitpicking. Nice visual effects.

    • You do know this is a 43 minute video, right? Of course it simplifies things. The rest of your post is nothing but empty assertion. Assertions lacking corroborating evidence cannot be distinguished from lies.

  • Omg this theory is so dumb' but my mother-in-law looks like a fish

  • Do evoutionist claim that's the reason why human females sometimes smell like fish? us-tv.org/tv/video-PyABKajSxZk.html

  • Wow! Evolution is smart! writerdreams.freeforums.net/thread/301/evolution-smart

  • I'm not the most complex organisms I'm just one of them

  • Someone sum it up with a 3:48 video (fatboy slim) 😍😋😎

  • All i know is god created man and woman, science is doesn't believed on God

    • Ancient peoples needed gods to explain all the shit they didn't know. Religion requires subordinating ones intellect to that of ancient goat herders.

  • God created everything

    • And MAN created god in his image and saw that it was good. Henceforth, anything humans didn't understand could be explained by "Goddidit". There was no need for human intellect to advance beyond that of ancient goat herders.

  • You forgot the part where we turn white

  • Yes a rock we’re unstoppable

  • Fuck this theory I believed everything up until he claimed that Africans evolved from monkeys 👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽not buying it

    • Ricahrd P'Brien like I said

    • What do "Africans" have to do with anything? It was just a description of the human species (aka "US") that lived in Africa at the time.

  • If you ate like that fish that we are related to would it be canabalism?