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

  • Chemical made us so ur saying I’m just a drop if chemicals ok I’m committing suicide

  • Just over 3 thousand christians finding it hard to except facts

  • Do you ever thought about why intelligent beings transited on land and not stay in water?

  • Life on Earth: **spends 3.5 billion years fighting to the death to pass on the genes of the strongest and smartest creatures** Result: *Your lazy ass*

  • what made a chemical goo to multiply itself.. or copy itself on its own? and sustain itself?

    • Biochemistry and emergence.

  • Evolution will rise again.Global warming is increasing, glaciers r melting,Co2 is spreading fastly,Climate is changing.After some hundreds or thousands years the temperature of the Earth will rise up to 100°c and everything on this planet will burn including plants,animals,humans. That will finish everything. So if Homo sapien wants to survive,he must have to try, to lower the increasing temperature of the Earth.He has to plant more trees,low the carbon emission.

  • This can prove that somewhere in other galaxies or in other universe theres some kind of life form, because we cant be one with these climates right?

  • So the water mixed with the rocks and DNA came out? That pretty much what you’re saying right? Did you know the most primitive DNA found in a parasitic bacteria ( it’s so basic it can’t live on its own) is so fucking insainly complex, it would be more probable that you throw sand in the air and a Rolex falls to the ground. That’s a mathematical fact using science.

    • If you think that is what actually happened with abiogenesis, you definitely did your mathematical facts using science wrong.

  • Wait so the bible is a lie omg i gotta show my pastor this hes been teaching the wrong shit LMAO!!

  • Comments about religion: 99% complaining about religion 1% religious people complaining about evolution

  • Watching this on ketamine would be so intense

  • Im tripping eventhough Im not high

  • the fish part should be replaced by tiktaalik

  • Where’s Adam and Eve?

  • this is more like dinosaur world genetics and shit etc.

  • Amazing

  • All come from star dust.

  • This fuckery

  • Likes = dumbs

  • LMAO everyone knows that Jesus made man NOT GOD!

  • This is cool and all but when do I gain a father

  • For people who love the theory of evolution, just consider this for a moment: What exactly do you denote as a religion? A religion posits a creation story, and this very documentary - the idea of evolution as a means to explain a seemingly chaotic and random universe - is exactly that. Evolution is a religion, just it's spiritual elements are connected to what we can observe or prove. The Bible's goal was not to give away God's secrets - it was a means to convey his Word. Just as Dawkins and all the other simian friends of ours who slam evolution down on the table. It's all just stories at the end of the day. You praise evolution as the correct theory, just as a priest praises God. Not so different, are we? We're all doing the same thing lol

    • You forgot one thing: Evidence. This whole analogy is comparing a diviner that predicts that it will snow next week by using chicken bones with a meteorologist that could accurately predict the weather next week, and saying that they are the same. Christianity has no such evidence of their creation story except the Bible, an ancient book full of ideas that were clearly just made by man, not inspire by God. Evolution actually has evidence to support its claims that everything evolved. Transitional fossils. Endogenous Retroviruses. Vestigial Structures. All are hard evidence for the theory of evolution. Religion claims to know the Truth without looking further into it. Science is actively trying to find the ACTUAL truth, and will only be satisfied with enough evidence. Not so similar, are we? And hilarious how you think evolution is a religion in the first place. Proper education isn't indoctrination.

  • Learning about our evolution from a robot narrator that pretends hes one of us; This is the first step to their master plan, we had a good run boys.

  • *Anybody- “We Come From Worms Fish Lizards And Apes” *Worms, Fish, Lizards And Apes Still Exist Today. *Humans- WOWWWWWWW!😮🥴🤤 Lol Fucking people Believe Anything, Put some guys voice behind a well edited video made by someone born within the last 50 years Depicting Exactly What The Planet Looked like MILLIONS Of Years Ago, And You’ve Got ALL The Evidence You Need.....🤦🏽‍♂️

  • This can't be true cuz muh holy book says humans were made in the image of baby Jeebus hisself! Don't go against muh holy book! Dam you scientists and your methodological naturalism!

  • I remember watching documentaries like this on Nat Geo and the discovery channel and being so confused in Sunday school lol

  • I look at these animals like wtf, then I remember that 99% of all animals that have ever existed have gone extinct

  • That intro gave me the spooks!

  • all this is rubbish

  • ....❌4M years ago? 😒

  • So we came from a lighting bolt from a nasty cloud that shot into water making the 1st ever atoms and there were nonstop making copy’s of itself...so happens that they were different atoms in the water prior. so there is proof that there could be life on other planets indeed

  • wheres our relative the banana

  • Ye..Because Science always dont care what goddish fools says...

  • Natural selection kicks in. My foot. Why natural selection doesn't kick in nowadays to turn our arms into wings we tried to fly

    • +Tariq Qadri and if you think evolution only limits us to savages who fuck, eat, and enjoy, then that is not evolution's problem, that is a personal problem you might need to get a therapist for lol. You sound like one of the nutjobs who think we should just marry and fuck apes.

    • +Tariq Qadri Funny since the taboo of incest can be explained with evolution. The reason why we see incest as wrong is because we evolved to see it as wrong and fear it. Reproducing with a cloae relative increases the chance of recessive genetic diseases and bottlenecks the local gene pool. And correct, if evolution is true, there is no sin. But that doesn't mean laws won't suddenly disappear. Every law we have is based on natural instincts that we have evolved to become the sapient and social creatures that we are. Murder, theft, rape, and anything that isn't consented is considered wrong because realising that helped us thrive and survive in the past. Now let's go to whatever Holy Book you believe. There are multiple instances that slavery, rape, and even murder of others is mentioned and even encouraged by your phony God.

    • +Tariq Qadri Well it's better than wanting to kill children for idiotic reasons like your religion says too.

    • +Glen Carbon Good that is evolution No difference between humans and Animals. Eat Fuck and Enjoy.

    • +Tariq Qadri Also, if my son or daughter wanted to film porn then why would I stop them? Assuming they are of age I see no problems with it whatsoever.

  • Only idiots and fools believe in this documentary.

    • Glen Carbon Can life come from none life?

    • Glen Carbon you are a easy target for the devil. He is very real, he hate us so much because we are created in the image of God. Go to you tube ( monte sorte Venezuela) your see the devil and his demons in action. There’s no other planets with life, you need water and air to survive. I seen Ufo before when I was little, from where I come from is normal. They live under water that why they have those big eyes and little noses and they look grey ( blue). The Bible speak about the monsters creatures under water in Genesis Génesis. Thank God we don’t live under water, because we human like to destroy things that we don’t understand. Evolution is not proven, even in the hospital doctor need the blood to do there work. Every design need a designer, if you have morals where that moral come from if is not from God. Every living life, need blood and evolution can’t provide this only a divine designer and that God.

    • +Homar Carrion "you are existing evidence that God exists." Funny thing about that argument, I can use it for just about anything. For example, I can say that you are existing evidence that evolution exists. "From one egg that we don’t see with the naked eye, you have a body with two legs two eyes two feet and organs that work perfectly. Don’t you think there’s something divine behind that?" No, I don't. I believe we are the product of millions of years of natural selection. "The spiritual world is more real than the natural. Everything start in the spirit ground we live and when we died the soul go back to the spirit ground. " But can you prove any of that? "Do you believe in the devil?" No. "Do you believe in aliens? " I believe it's possible for life to exist on other planets (intelligent or not) but since I don't know if it does I cannot just answer the question with a yes or no.

    • Glen Carbon you are existing evidence that God exists. From one egg that we don’t see with the naked eye, you have a body with two legs two eyes two feet and organs that work perfectly. Don’t you think there’s something divine behind that? The spiritual world is more real than the natural. Everything start in the spirit ground we live and when we died the soul go back to the spirit ground. In the spirit ground, blood mean life and life means blood. Is like the water to the earth, without water everything died. Nobody can create blood. Only God. That why Jesus died in the cross for us trough his blood we are save. Do you believe in the devil? Do you believe in aliens?

    • +Homar Carrion "is better than believing that my mind was created by accident or by the Big Bang theory." Who said anything about it being an accident? "Who created blood the blood that you need to live?" What makes you think it was a 'who'? "God is the answer. Intelligence design, need a intelligence designer." That's an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. "Your heart and brain too. God, not a rock or Big Bang theory like Stephen Hawkins told everyone, because he was mad at God because he was in a wheelchair." Once again, you're going to have to provide evidence for your god. And If the only reason Stephen Hawking accepted science as true was because he was in a wheelchair then how do you explain all the other able-bodied scientists who also accept facts.

  • On what basis these imbeciles give exact figure about years like 347 million years ago ? What meters tell them all this accurately?

    • Radiometric dating methods. This is the same accurate method that CORRECTLY predicted the age of the items in Pompeii because it matched the time that the records said it happened.

  • Why they evolved eyes later? Why not all things blind? It looks like something was planned for all species to do and see. Avolutinary theories are presented as a new religion nowadays. What was there before big Bang?

    • Because eyes are benefical to us. Take a blind animal and take an animal that can see. Put them in the wild. Which one do you fucking expect to survive?

  • Science: we used to be apes now: we used to be fish a lizard a dinasaur' rats i wished we evolved from birds haha

  • in may genies thinking i think its true because all creature and all living on our earth all thing is growth and developing micro organisms i think thats all we eating food and developing our selves and our body is make electricity ground and our muscles bones organs is changes that called everything is changing all in this earth

  • Are you crazy?

    • The difference between faith and insanity is that insanity is the ability to hold firmly to a conclusion that is incompatible with the evidence, whereas faith is the ability to hold firmly to a conclusion that is incompatible with the evidence.

  • don't feel bad our oldest ancestors were accidents too

  • Why do many black people still look like apes. Seriously its been a long question on my mind. Were we all black once? And are these black people going to evolve into white people but science is scared to say so because of racism?

    • Randall Wilks thanks for that information 💙

    • Lets take a look at chimpanzee characteristics: Flat butt, light skin under straight hair and thin lips. Which of those characteristics do you see in black people? Consider that your perception of them is 'colored' by unconscious racism of your own. Every human in the world today has African ancestry confirmed by genetics. The earliest hominin fossils are found in Africa. They would have been dark skinned to protect from the sun's rays. There is a range of skin coloration even in Africa, with Nilotic peoples in the north being darkest and the Khoi-San peoples of the south being much lighter. Everyone's skin contains some melanin except for Albinos. Ethnic groups in tropical areas have dark skin (high melanin content) as protection against ultraviolet solar radiation. That is true of the people of southern India, New guinea, Solomon Islanders and Australian Aborigines, all of whose ancestors emerged from Africa at the same time as the ancestors of Europeans and Asians. Lighter skin allows the production of more vitamin D and it was assumed that ancestral Europeans developed light skin as an adaptation to lower levels of sunlight. However recently genetic analysis of the remains of ancient hunter gatherers from around 30,000 years ago shows they had blue eyes and dark skin. It turns out that their meat based diet gave them sufficient vitamin D to remain healthy. It was farmers migrating from the middle east that brought genes for light skin. Their grain based high carbohydrate diet did not provide sufficient vitamin D and their lighter skin was an adaptation compensating for that lack. There is probably more evolutionary pressure for light skinned peoples such as those Australians of European ancestry to develop darker skin. Those people suffer high rates of skin cancer.

  • Where is this PS2 game sold?

  • I like this video

  • *“I never guess. It is a shocking habit - destructive to the logical faculty” - Sherlock Holmes.* Same with science. 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 so called "intelligent design" can do that. Contrast that to statements made by creationists that do not bother with any evidence at all. Making empty assertions and fabricating nonsense is so much easier than actually checking facts.

    • +Randall Wilks Thank you, I am familiar with the Baylor position on evolution. However, it was not always so. I did give a guest lecture in Waco about 12 years ago (on mathematics) and at that time, it was a hotbed of fundamentalism.

    • +Sandor Heitler There is an interesting statement posted by the biology department of religiously conservative Southern Baptist Baylor University: *"Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."* www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=77368 Their Department of Geosciences posts a similar affirmation of evolution. www.baylor.edu/geology/index.php?id=62340 Surely these science departments must have withstood a great deal of pressure from much of the Baptist laity and religious staff in order to defend science from its attackers. That is integrity missing from other religiously oriented institutions.

    • I would like to add the following to the previous comment. The consequences of religious fundamentalism are far from trivial. In recent years, we have seen how important avenues of medical research-for example, research involving stem cells, cloning, and embryonic human tissue-have been subjected to political restrictions as part of a strategy to pander to religious extremists. The result of such pandering is that crucial areas of biomedical research are now not being conducted in the United States. The attempts over the last three decades to restrict the teaching of evolution or to require that evidentially ungrounded theological alternatives be taught alongside it are not just peculiarities of educational policy; they are manifestations of a much deeper underlying problem generated by the resurgence of fundamentalist ideology.

    • Perhaps the best summary on Intelligent Design can be found in writing of Dr. Niall Shanks "God, The Devil and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory" epdf.tips/god-the-devil-and-darwin-a-critique-of-intelligent-design-theory.html The Foreword (added by R.Dawkins) bears repeating: "Who owns the argument from improbability? Statistical improbability is the old standby, the creaking warhorse of all creationists from naive Bible-jocks who don’t know better, to comparatively well educated Intelligent Design ‘‘theorists,’’ who should. There is no other creationist argument (if you discount falsehoods like ‘‘There aren’t any intermediate fossils’’ and ignorant absurdities like ‘‘Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics’’). However superficially different they may appear, under the surface the deep structure of creationist advocacy is always the same. Something in nature-an eye, a biochemical pathway, or a cosmic constant-is too improbable to have come about by chance. Therefore it must have been designed. A watch demands a watchmaker. As a gratuitous bonus, the watchmaker conveniently turns out to be the Christian God (or Yahweh, or Allah, or whichever deity pervaded our particular childhood). That this is a lousy argument has been clear ever since Hume’s time, but we had to wait for Darwin to give us a satisfying replacement. Less often realized is that the argument from improbability, properly understood, backfires fatally against its main devotees. Conscientiously pursued, the statistical improbability argument leads us to a conclusion diametrically opposite to the fond hopes of the creationists. There may be good reasons for believing in a supernatural being (admittedly, I can’t think of any) but the argument from design is emphatically not one of them. ". The foreword continues at length...........

  • How much of this is just guessing what happened based on a bone here and a bone there? It takes as much faith to believe this actually happened as it would take to believe intelligent design.

    • *“I never guess. It is a shocking habit - destructive to the logical faculty” - Sherlock Holmes.* Same with science. 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 so called "intelligent design" can do that. Contrast that to statements made by creationists that do not bother with any evidence at all. Making empty assertions and fabricating nonsense is so much easier than actually checking facts.

  • *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.

  • Soooo... What came first, the chicken or the egg?

    • Randall Wilks this is amazing dude!

    • +AlphaConn Not sure what you mean by a "natural diet". Perhaps you refer to the so called "Paleo Diet" which would not include grains, legumes, dairy products or refined sugars. Actually it turns out that our ancestors were consuming grains long before the agricultural revolution that lead to a carbohydrate based diet. The emphasis on meat would have meant relatively high cholesterol. Cholesterol levels would not have been a consideration when lives were typically nasty, brutal and short. Rather than looking to a diet that was adequate for human needs more than 20,000 years ago, I think we should be looking to alternative sources of protein and avoiding processed foods that may be high in sugars or sodium. I limit myself to one nice thick steak about once a month but try to eat one vegetarian meal per day and avoid red meats otherwise. I don't follow rigid 'diets' but a 'Mediterranean' diet seems pretty natural to me. The human body has undergone changes over time. Lactose (milk sugar) Tolerance, aka Lactase (enzyme) Persistence, is a genetic mutation that allows some people to digest milk in adulthood, providing a supplemental source of protein. That ability has evolved independently in different human pastoral societies that depended on goats, cattle, camels or horses for milk. Other mutations such as duplications of the AMY gene that produces the amylase enzyme in human saliva which aids in the digestion of starchy foods. Chimps and bonobos have one or two of those genes, but humans have multiple duplications whose copy number varies among different human populations. Beginning with the agricultural revolution 12,000 years ago, Natural Selection favored those individuals with more of those duplicated genes. Populations with high starch diets such as most Asians and Europeans may have as many as 6 copies whereas hunter-gatherer populations may have only two or three copies. As a side note, Chimps and humans have many of the same genes, but differ in copy number variation (CNV). As one would assume, rodents have multiple copies of the amylase gene, but what is interesting is that dogs, due to their long association with humans, have more copies of a gene called AMY2B, crucial for amylase production, than do wolves. The ability to digest starch no doubt aided their survival. Unlike humans, dogs do not have amylase in their saliva, but it is secreted in their pancreas to aid digestion in the intestine. Dogs secrete 28 times more of this enzyme than do wolves. This is evolution in action.

    • +Randall Wilks Maaan, i'm going to sit and read your whole comment when I get home, started reading and sounds really interesting but realised how long it was. Currently commuting, quick side question, What do you believe is a humans "natural diet"?

    • *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.

    • The genetic changes that differentiated the chicken from its predecessor proto-chicken would have taken place in the sperm and egg that produced it. Not a difficult concept if one understands basic genetics.

  • LMAO

  • *EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BRAIN - Part 2* The expansion of hominin cranial capacity made a large leap with the advent of our genus Homo, with that of Homo erectus being twice that of the earlier australopithecines.The larger adult brain and restricted birth canal meant that infants be born effectively prematurely in a lesser state of phyical and cerbral developmnet. To allow the infant's skull to pass more easily through the birth canal, the bones of it's skull are separated by soft membranes called fontanelles. This allows those bones to be compressed while in transit through the birth canal. www.innerbody.com/image/skel01.html Why do other animals not evolve larger brains? Because in terms of calorie consumption the brain is a very expensive organ. The adult human brain weighs about 3 pounds and constitutes about 2% of average human body mass, yet it uses 20% of total caloric intake. In human infants undergoing rapid brain expansion the figure is even more dramatic; 60% of caloric intake go to neural development. For most animals, life is a daily struggle to secure sufficient calories for survival. Having to nourish a larger brain would not enhance their survival. This is in essence the Expensive-Tissue Hypothesis: To allow encephalisation to occur, another organ must decrease in size to keep energy expenditure output the same. The gut is the only organ that can do this since gut size is linked with diet. In hominin evolution, increases in brain size are shown to be linked with increases of higher quality food. Humans, with hands capable of manipulating objects, and perhaps a more cooperative nature, could have put extra brain power to use and improve their odds of survival, IF they were able to provide the necessary calories. The diet of today's chimpanzees is largely leaves, which their forest environment supplies in great quantity, supplemented by fruit in season and the meat of small animals when the opportunity presented itself. Leaves are low in nutrient value and chimps must consume them in large quantities. It has been observed that chimps spend about a third of their waking hours just chewing. Ape physiology is well adapted to that diet; large teeth, powerful jaw muscles that wrap around the skull and a long gut to enable maximum nutrient extraction from a nutrient poor diet. Unlike the human appendix which is minuscule, the ape appendix is quite large and serves as a repository for bacteria that aid the digestion of their leafy diet. The ape rib cage flares outward to accommodate the large gut, unlike the tucked-in rib cage of Homo erectus and more modern humans. Since the discovery of the fossil hominid nicknamed "Lucy" in 1974, there have been discoveries of at least 300 additional fossils of her species, Australopithecus afarensis, and 6 or more other species of australopithecenes. Among them are several with rather complete skeletons. From them, it has been determined that they were fully bipedal, but retained rather long arms for climbing. The skull was ape-like in that it projected forward (prognathic) and cranial capacity was marginally greater than that of chimps. Chimpanzee skulls have a 400ml capacity, whereas A. afarensis skulls measured 400 to 550ml. One major difference between apes and australopithecines was that the teeth were much smaller and the huge fighting canines found on chimpanzees were much reduced in size. That suggests that Australopithecus had adopted a more cooperative life style and perhaps a diet of softer foods. One of the genetic changes that took place following the separation of the chimp and Hominoid lines was the mutation silencing of the MYH16 gene that gave apes such powerful jaw muscles. Humans still have that gene, but along the way it incurred a mutation resulting in a frame shift making it a non functioning pseudo gene. It is quite possible that those powerful jaw muscles in apes had a binding effect on the ape skull, preventing expansion (encephalisation) during developmental years. encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRTbpoS1-AHJKza2O_5S8xwDvySui2RoB0zIko6uOnFeMJ6nabTSA While much of the sub cranial skeleton was more human-like than ape-like, the rib cage flared outward, indicating they had much the same low quality diet as did chimps. Analysis of phytoliths and isotopes extracted from tartar on fossil teeth indicates they too had a plant based diet, but the chemical signatures were those of grasses and sedges, perhaps roots and bulbs, rather than the leaf diet of forest dwelling apes. Savanna baboons subsist on such a diet today. Those savanna dwelling hominids were surrounded by high quality protein in the huge herds of ungulates; unfortunately they had not the means to harvest it. At some point, however, they must have found a way. We know they began to use flake tools, the primitive Oldowan technology, to cut meat from bone. It is unlikely they had become hunters at that point, but they could have become adept at scavenging lion kills. Lions will make a kill, gorging themselves on the flesh, then find a shady area to sleep it off during the heat of the day. Cagey hominids, whose proliferation of sweat glands allowed mid day activity, could have exploited that opportunity to make off with some leftovers. Lions don't have the same bone crushing capability as hyenas so, even if they had pretty much stripped the carcass of meat, leg bones rich in marrow and the brains inside skulls would have been a calorie and protein bonanza for intrepid, cooperative hominids. That scenario is speculative, but we do know they were using flake tools to scrape bones and butcher meat before they were capable of hunting it. Whatever mutations favored larger brains would have been useless without the calories to fuel it. references: phys.org/news/2013-01-cerebral-chimpanzees-human-intelligence-secrets.html www.researchgate.net/publication/241685434_The_expensive-tissue_hyp www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27860511 MYH16 myosin heavy chain 16 pseudogene [ (human)] - NCBI www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/84176 Mining the Molecules That Made Our Mind Science 29 Sep 2006 science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5795/1908

    • Understanding Evolution through mathematics as it relates to the Human Brain Ever since we have understood the concepts of evolution, mathematicians wanted to expand our understanding of the evolution through the rigors of numbers and mathematics. We collectively recognize that brains (both human and nonhuman) have evolved to deal with numerosity, with different regions supporting different mechanisms of numerical representation. Most living creatures are able to recognize the difference between a tree with 20 pieces of fruit from another with only six pieces, or between two predators and six bearing down on them, Those who make such recognition have a better chance of surviving and reproducing. At the same time, telling the difference between 14 and 16 pieces of fruit (or 6 predators versus 7) does not offer much advantage. Humans have learned to map symbols into representations, and then learn to shuffle and manipulate these symbols in ways that eventually support our advanced mathematical calculations. I am not dismissing the impact of cultural differences, including learning strategies. The way in which reading is performed, can have impacts on how the brain processes some types of numerical information indicating a relation between early experience and numerical processing. I doubt that anyone expects that a rat or a gorilla would learn geometry or advanced calculus. It remains to be seen what greater capacities might one day be exhibited by animals. But hypothetically, if we provided animals (as we do with human children) with an environment in which numerical information is everywhere, and number words and number symbols are used frequently, there is no telling at what rate their brains would advance (from generation to generation) to deal with and comprehend numerical problems. We are only at the starting line of understanding evolution (especially brain development) in numerical terms, but we do know that numbers and numerical reasoning is not the exclusive domain of humans. Numerical reasoning also exists in animals and this capaility is yet another piece (yet largely unexplored) evidence of common origins. References: Kinnaman AJ (1902) Mental life of two Macacus rhesus monkeys in captivity. Am J Psychol 13: 173-218. Keohler O (1951) The ability of birds to count. Bull Anim Behav 9: 41-45. Pfungst O (1965) Clever Hans, the horse of Mr, Von Osten. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Gelman R, Gallistel CR (1978) The child's understanding of number. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.

  • *EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BRAIN - Part 1* - The science of comparative genomics allows the comparison the human genome with those of other species. Those researchers are finding many genes potentially related to brain evolution. At this point it is uncertain which helped shape the uniquely human brainand they are seeking the genetic mutations that made our brain differ from those of other primates. What they see is evidence of positive selection for genes that are affect the size and complexity of the cortex, as well as surprising changes in gene copy number and expression. Like everything else in evolution, development of the modern human brain took place incrementally, building on previously evolved structures. While the human brain is the largest in relation to body size of any animal, it came about in response to a series of environmental pressures. As with other evolutionary features, it came about by incremental additions to what was already there. When we look at endocasts of early mammal skulls, we see rapid brain expansion, particularly in the area of the Olfactory Lobe. A highly developed sense of smell was obviously a tremendous survival advantage to early mammals as it enabled the avoidance of predatory dinosaurs as well as finding food and mates. When we look at modern mammalian genomes, we find a large number of different odor receptor genes, (as many as 1,000) approximately 3% of the total number of genes in the genome. Each olfactory gene codes for a protein that is sensitive to a specific range of chemical signatures (odorants). Each olfactory receptor (OR) triggers a nerve response sending a message to the brain. Olfactory genes are found in clusters in mammalian genomes and are remarkably similar to each other, often differing by just one or two amino acids. What this suggests is a series of events wherein segments of DNA were duplicated multiple times. The duplicated coding sequences (genes) over time would be subject to random mutations (insertions, deletions or substitutions) that slightly alter the protein produced and the chemical signature to which it responded. Natural selection would favor those that provided some advantage. As olfactory receptors proliferated, a larger brain was required to process them. The transition from quadrupeds to bipeds necessitated considerable change to the pelvis, leg and foot bones. The changes to the pelvis in particular had ramifications to future brain development in that it significantly reduced the birth canal. The other apes have few problems giving birth and they hardly need to pause whatever activities they were engaged in to do so. Not so for human females who invariably require assistance. Comparative anatomy of the chimp, australopithecine and human pelvis illustrate the problem. encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRTbpoS1-AHJKza2O_5S8xwDvySui2RoB0zIko6uOnFeMJ6nabTSA Predators, including those that prey on insects, have forward facing eyes, allowing them to focus on their quarry. Prey species, largely herbivores, have eyes on the sides of their heads, giving them a wider field of vision with which to detect potential danger. Primates evolved from insectivore ancestors. Life in the trees freed them from fear of ground based predators and those forward facing eyes provided depth perception when leaping from branch to branch. Scent detection became less important for survival whereas depth perception and greater hand-eye coordination assumed greater importance. The evolutionary pressure gave rise to a larger visual cortex. When ancestral primates took to the trees, hand-eye coordination became of paramount importance, again necessitating a larger brain to process that information. Fossil primate skulls show expansion in the visual cortex. Any individual deficient in that area, or lacking depth perception stood a greater likelihood of falling to its death, thus eliminating its genes from the gene pool. Primate brains are, on an average, about double the size of other , similar sized mammals. Monkeys have larger cranial capacity than prosimians (lemurs and lorises), and apes larger still. It has long been known that human brains go through a rapid expansion in connectivity during childhood. What was not known was whether humans were unique in that respect, or if it was also found in other apes. In Japan, researchers did MRI brain scans of three baby chimps over their first 6 years. That data was compared with previously existing brain scans for six macaque monkeys and 28 Japanese children. They found that brain development in early life for both chimpanzees and humans greatly exceeded that of macaques. "The increase in total cerebral volume during early infancy and the juvenile stage in chimpanzees and humans was approximately three times greater than that in macaques," the researchers wrote in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B article. It showed however that, during early childhood, human brain expansion was twice that of Chimpanzees, due to rapid growth of connections between brain cells (white matter). The human brain keeps expanding throughout a very long childhood, whereas those of apes max out at an early age. This may be due to duplications in the human lineage of the SRGAP2 gene. This gene Is also present in the other apes, but has never been duplicated in those lineages. It has however been duplicated three times in the human genome in the past 3.4 million years: one duplication 3.4 million years ago (mya) called SRGAP2B, a second duplication 2.4 mya (called SRGAP2C), and one final duplication ~1 mya (SRGAP2D). (see my essay *Genetic Differences Between Humans and Apes* )

  • Natural selection: here ya go m8 there is some evolutionary ability People(not including Christians): thanks Christians: *GOD CREATED US NOT U*

  • Only God can create a human brain and heart.

    • Randall Wilks Can life come from none life?

    • Jarrett Hall I’m glad you went that way. There’s is only one God and he is everybody’s God, even when people don’t accepted or not. All religions are invented by the devil to confuses human kind, if you confuses, you are loose, if you are loose he can destroy you, if he can destroy you he can kill you. There’s 21 branches to the dark side and the first religion invented by the devil is (palo mayombe) ( tree of mountain) invented in Congo Africa and they just to speak Bantu one of the oldest language in the world. The branches are the other religions Santeria, espiritualismo, Catholicism, Islam, indu, buda, new age, (Mormon, jehova witness) mason, iluminati, ect. See that everything in the Bible is based on 3 and 7. 7 churches in revelation 7 days, 3third heaven God the father the son and the Holy Spirit 3. Jesus died when he was 33-12 tribes 21. This is the reason Jesus said in Matthew 7:13-14, because there 21 way to the dark side. Read Malachi 4:1 if you are found in this tree this is what going to happen to those people. People think that the Bible is religion but is not the Bible is the word of God, the Old Testament is human kind history and the New Testament is the covenant between God and human kind, salvation, for you soul after dead, when, how, where and who came to bring salvation and that is Jesus. The devil and his demons are real.

    • Randall Wilks at this point they are uncertain about the human brain. This is what they said and the conclusion. Well it sounds like you believe that we came from the monkey. My question is who created the monkey or whatever living thing that you said we came from. I believe in God the Alfa and the Omega. Our bodies are to perfect made to perfection to believe in evolution. Do you believe in aliens? Do you believe in the devil?

    • ​+Homar Carrion I see many problems with your questions. I will ask you to correct them before I answer. I will however answer the ones which I think are fine as they are. 1. Why just one God? What convinced you that the universe was created by single god and not a pantheon? 2. Why your specific God? There are other monotheistic religions which posit the same. What led you to your chosen deity? 3. Why couldn't God have been created? Other religions have gods being born and dying/being killed. Why must god have always existed? 4. Why must the heart and brain be created by a who? You assume that a being created these organs in your question. Would it not be better to ask how they got here instead of who created them? This would be more honest and allow for a proper investigation. 5. How is scientists being unable to create a colorful flower relevant? Now I would like you to answer/correct the questions that I have listed above as well as another one. If you must choose however, please answer this one: Why do you believe? Without further ado, I'll answer the questions you had that aren't fallacious or irrelevant as listed above. If you answer or correct those questions, I will be happy to answer. _" If we came out of the fish, my question is did we had gears when we came out of the water or not because if we did wouldn’t survive out of the water for 10 minutes._ As for your question about fish, I'm assuming that you meant gills not gears. Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia page on tiktaalik as well as the original source. "Also notable are the spiracles on the top of the head, which suggest the creature had primitive lungs as well as gills. This attribute would have been useful in shallow water, where higher water temperature would lower oxygen content. This development may have led to the evolution of a more robust ribcage, a key evolutionary trait of land-living creatures." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik#Description Jennifer A. Clack, Scientific American, Getting a Leg Up on Land Nov. 21, 2005. _"Who created our brain and heart? Did you mind was created by accident?"_ As for the mind being created by accident, no not really. Evolution doesn't cause traits to arise by accident persay, rather natural selection acts on random mutation to proliferate beneficial traits throughout a population. What I'm saying here is while the mutations themselves are random, the outcome of natural selection isn't. If a trait, such as the development of primitive lungs, benefits an organism in its current environment, then it will multiply in successive generations. In short, environments determine whether or not a mutation acquired randomly, will be beneficial or not. Furthermore, as I understand it, the mind is an emergent property of all functions of the brain, and the brain is a product of natural selection, which as I already discussed isn't an accident. Randall Wilks already described the evolution of the brain above so if you are interested read his comment. I won't describe it here, but here is an article on the evolution of the heart. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16093481 Have a nice day.

    • TheLegendOfRandy you are the one without logic. The universe exits because God is God . If I tell you god was created you are going to ask me so who created the one that created god, you see, my logic tell me everything has a beginning and that beginning is God. If we came out of the fish, my question is did we had gears when we came out of the water or not because if we did wouldn’t survive out of the water for 10 minutes. My question to you is can scientists create a flower with colors? Who created our brain and heart? Did you mind was created by accident? No God did all of this, and because you too stubborn to not believe in God that don’t make him not real.

  • From a philosophical point of view this is nonsense everything comes from something the atoms had to have a first mover to put them into motion nothing can come from nothingless I feel people will make up any nonsense to attempt to denounce the existence of God. When natural disaster takes place everyone calls on God

    • +kie9372 For the zillionth of time. I wish, just one creationists would understand what a scientific theory is. ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work

    • same with science note most things are theories which are assertions taken as fact+Randall Wilks

    • The concept of something from nothing stems from your religion, not science. Truth is established by EVIDENCE not by what anyone says. Religions are BELIEF SYSTEMS, not TRUTH SYSTEMS. Belief is an idea that neither seeks nor requires verifiable evidence. FAITH; belief in the absence of evidence is the glue that holds religions together. Without it religions would crumble to dust. Religious proponents are taught that faith is a virtue, that without it they could not be a good person. Having faith that something is true does not make it true. Having faith does not make it probably true. Having faith has no bearing on truth whatsoever. It is by no means a method for determining what is true. Faith means not wanting to know what is true and believing whether it is true or not. . us-tv.org/tv/video-Ysecinv367w.html How odd that people turn to God in the wake of natural disasters. Since he is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient, he knew they were coming, plotted their course and did nothing to avert them. In the aftermath, people go to church to thank God for sparing their lives. Thats like thanking a serial killer for choosing the family next door. What is deception is being told you must accept the assertions made by religions as a matter of FAITH, belief in the absence of evidence. FAITH is what sells The Emperors New Clothes and every religion in the world. Without faith and the mindset it engenders, all religions would crumble to dust within a generation. Religious proponents have been indoctrinated since childhood to believe that without faith they could not be a good person. That lie has served to perpetuate religions for thousands of years. It is time to end that lie.

    • That is an unproven assertion and not a fact.

  • Michael cremo....!!.

  • If this docu is correct then its not gonna be long before the next change or disaster or whatever that keeps this story going is coming. right?

    • +Randall Wilks nah i dont think so - if any of this video is true its not gonna happen with this global warming left wing obama loving bullshit...its gonna be quick fast and large...thats how nature works. Who knows the KacaRoach could be just waiting for their turn...for us to be wiped out

    • We are presently experiencing the sixth great extinction.

  • Immune system: Let’s see our steps 1.defend from germs 2.stay healthy and grow stronger 3.perform autopsy on dead germs so that next time they come,well they won’t Immune system: Ok let’s see a overall on our white blood cells status Ok let’s see your results white blood cells 1.you have the strength of 89 year old men 2.you absolutely suck at finding germs 3.your combat skills are terrible Immune system: wh- wth something not right we’re gene at Immune system: GENE!! gene: what Immune system: WHAT THE HELL MY WHITE BLOOD CELLS LOOK LIKE COMPLETE ASS Gene: did you not read number four? Immune system: number 4? *reads number 4* 4.you have aids Immune system: brain I quit

  • Look at this 45 minute documentary. It took at least 2 months to make. Yet still people like to watch people playing Fortnite in a video that took at most two hours to make 128340918398432084310940832094180 times more.

  • Cassineria and Varanops should be replaced by Hylonomus and Diictodon.

  • just watched this again you have to be brain dead to believe this ....

    • *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.

    • If your religion has convinced you that 'faith', belief in the absence of evidence, is in any way superior to evidence based science, then you have subordinated your intellect to that of ancient goat herders.

    • I did not realize that the entire global scientific community was "brain dead." Yet, oddly, they are very impressively productive despite that severe mental handicap. (Here you have in rob catalunya Exhibit A of a true moron and loser.)

    • So you don't believe in natural selection humans just fell out of the fucking sky ehhh?

  • Dinosaur wants to eat rat? Hahahahhaha that is the nice logic from the wise atheist /scientist wannabe who became lunatic. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

  • This is the way they brainwashed you .Canadian believe that they are the greatest thing in the universe. That's why I don't want to be like you. Ignoring loosers you won't give a man a chance to defend himself you don't even care for the truth and spirituality and you think you are great no sorry 60%of Canadian are ugly fat or obese and that is why you crying to believe that someone else is worse off than you are fat ugly ass shit low life I never did wrong to anyone but you can't do the truth

    • +Glen Carbon never mind it just a bit of blown out bull

    • +David S.lefort What are you talking about?

    • +Glen Carbon it's just what the video is about humanity future that's why I made this comment

    • +Glen Carbon you all the same ignorant people that think way too much of yourself and live in denial you think you are the greatest thing in the universe when you only come together to hurt a human being that never did anything wrong to anyone but you think you have every right to choose for others what their rights are when you have no courage what so ever and you are comfortable being fucking cawords

    • +David S.lefort What does this video have to do with canada?

  • I cannnot see anything in my room that is made by themselves.. fan light cupboard dressing dining table bed clothes which i wear.. none of thess can made itself except man made it and shape it.. how can human made by evolution.. We are the creators of almost any thing in the modern technological world.. its proved that someone is there who is creator of us

    • There is zero evidence for any such "creator". Such things exist solely in the human imagination.

    • Ya natural selection dumbass!

  • Absolutely zero evidence for evolution till date. For evolution to be true following simple things to be proven. 1. Evidence for evolution of Life from No Life. Zero evidence till date. 2. Evidence for evolution of one species to a different species or a different life form. Zero evidence till date. 3. Evidence for evolution in history- Zero evidence till date. 4. Bone evidence- Not more than 40% of the the bone got at any point of time. These 40% broken and eroded bones give no evidence for evolution. 5. Polystrate fossil, like tree trunk extends through more than one geological stratum. 6. Evolution is a hoax played on innocent people, especially western society, for more than 150 years. These evolution advocates, won't show you the broken eroded bones. Because it is 100% unimpressive, and common man will look at those eroded broken bones with utter contempt. And they know it quite well. So what they do, fool the public by showing beautiful animations of living beings, moving around in scenic backgrounds....when sir?...ohh... millions of years ago!!! What a great cheating!!! 7. This theory ruined millions of people and destroyed their life for ever. They lost relationship with Holy God and lost their eternal life. Evolution gave licence to commit sins against Holy God, Yahweh

  • 30:41 The most fascinating part in the whole documentary :D :D :D

  • I do not believe this i am christian! It not trueee!

    • What anyone feels, thinks or 'believes' is totally irrelevant to science. Truth is established by evidence, it is not up for a vote. Opinions; one's strong feelings about something, are emotion and that creates a bias, a desire to confirm an idea, ignoring evidence to the contrary. One does not vote on whether 2+2=4, and it would be ludicrous to think otherwise. Religion, however, has the ability, at least in certain minds, to warp reality and disregard rational thought. Its effects on the human mind are demonstrated here; us-tv.org/tv/video-Ysecinv367w.html Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate personal bias and follow evidence wherever it leads. THAT is the path to truth, and that is science.

    • If your religion has convinced you that 'faith', belief in the absence of evidence, is in any way superior to evidence based science, then you have subordinated your intellect to that of ancient goat herders.

  • *SHOW THIS TO THE SCHOOLS. MAKE EVERY KID LOVE SCIENCE.* I’ve recently started to follow my own beliefs. And I chose science. Ive realized that the Christianity I was taught since I could understand English is not the one and only truth. It’s videos like these that let people decide for themselves what they want to believe.

  • Dude put this in vr

  • Nobody: Bill Wurtz: We could make a religion outta this

    • Oh, please don't. There have been more than 3000 of them and not one of them has benefited mankind. In just the last 400 years science has immeasurably improved lives, conquered diseases like smallpox and polio, and in just the last 100 years it has doubled the average human lifespan. Religions make empty promises, science delivers.

  • I'm Christian and this matches with the bible pretty good and that's all I want

  • Well there you have it folks ... SEX is our God. Thank you sex Amen 🙏

  • So your meaning to tell me we just come to live Have a family love life, get used to living only to just fucken die and there’s nothing after ? BULL SHIT

    • I am sorry you are so psychologically fragile and immature that you can't deal with biology. Perhaps you should try to grow up and act like an actual adult like the most of the rest of us somehow manage to do.. (Just a suggestion.)

    • Nobody said that quit putting words in people's mouth it's a documentary about science! Take your propaganda bullshit somewhere else!

  • yeah i was no rat

  • Thanks to sex lizards exist, nice storytelling. I love this myth!👌

    • +ImHere2Guys Good thing on their myth is, there is always pairing of every species. Unlike this stupid video, always alone 🤔👍

    • +ImHere2Guys Oh i forgot, thanks to that too. Both have different myths. I think i like them both.

    • Joey Feliciano and thanks to some all powerful being thats existence cannot be proved the entirety of the universe one day popped up and now we exist. Love this myth👌

  • Idelogical crap .

    • Unlike religion, it is supported by EVIDENCE. Truth is supported by evidence, in case you didn't know. Invisible supernatural entities exist in the human mind.

    • I believe it is called "science."

  • I disagree enormously with the statement that the act of abiogenesis "defied the laws of probability". That sentence sounds like Creationist schlock to me. Features of the reverse Krebs cycle and Iron-Sulphur World hypothesis are already one of several propositions of how life could have originated that should be taken seriously.

  • as a godless heartless man jesuss! it was most heartwarming video i have ever seen in this week! damm.. but It surprises me when I understand that we have been everything.. "fish, reptile, mouse, monkey" and still we're Quite Different from our one year ago!! (All our cells are replaced over time with new cells ) It can be said that in fact we are the oldest and, at the same time, the newest living being on this planet

  • Yo this is like spore

  • what a bunch of crap!!!!!😂😂

    • +Alexander Schmidt l'm not english that's why. l'm trying to do my best. but what do yo mean " then let's talk" l wasn't talking to you in the first place but ok. And yes...the people who believe that this is the way we came to exsistens are idiots

    • +Abid Aoulad Ali Ok let me ask you something if you believe in a creator/Goddest worshipper then what created said worshipper? Just saying!!!

    • +Abid Aoulad Ali Again it's "Really" tries to act like you got such a higher hierarchy then everyone else yet can't even spell properly!

    • +Abid Aoulad Ali Bro you're Grammar is so fucking terrible! Learn proper English-speaking and contractions then we'll talk.

    • +Abid Aoulad Ali ummm You mean Didn't not Did'nt #Retard Alert!

  • very good documentary, i hope someday someone make good realistic animation for this kind of documentary

    • Yeah, but my biggest complaint is how they depicted the transition from fish to tetrapods. It was poorly done. 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 or enter a term in the search bar. The amount of information on that site is staggering.

  • I value my life more after watching this...anyone else like me?

  • That it God exist no question about to many coincidence

    • +The Blackcelt Beliefs exist in the human mind. Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testable and falsifiable hypothesis and theories all of which must be backed by evidence. Truth is determined by EVIDENCE. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion which is always PROVISIONAL. As further evidence accumulates 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 is the highest degree of certainty possible in science. Religion starts with a preconceived notion for which there is NO evidence and threaten eternal punishment for those who do not buy the story. Rational thought (doubt) is to be punished. Now you are certainly entitled to believe in things for which there is no evidence, but they are in no way the equivalent of science.

    • +Randall Wilks I never sceince is wrong I believe in science but I also believe in a third party. Also I do believe in Nessie and in aliens my favorite is Teal'c from stargate

    • +The Blackcelt You have a right believe whatever you choose. I have no objection to you believing in whatever god you choose. I also have no objection to you believing in Big Foot/Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, Alien Abductions or any of the other beliefs that spring from the human imagination. I understand that people have an emotional need to believe in such things. What I do object to, is those who insist their personal beliefs are facts. Truth is established by evidence, not by what anyone says, thinks or believes. Evolution is officially accepted by the Episcopal, Catholic, Presbyterian and United Methodist churches, among others. All 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 "When people believe that being religious means that some scientific concepts can’t be discussed or accepted, damage is done to both religion and science. Under such circumstances, the teaching of science can be inappropriately influenced by misguided religious belief. At the same time, many thoughtful individuals will stay away from congregations that pit science against religion." - Excerpt from 'Evolution and the Presbyterian Church (USA) "If your personal beliefs deny what is objectively true about the world, then they are more accurately called personal delusions." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

    • +The Blackcelt “This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.” - Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

    • +Randall Wilks it is also rude to say that I am only allow to believe in want you believe.

  • *HERE IS A LIST OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES THAT WERE LATER PROVEN WRONG, USING A SUPERNATURAL EXPLANATION*. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. etc. *NEVER, in all the history of science has ANY explanation based on empirical evidence EVER been replaced by a supernatural one. One has to question the rationality and credibility of those who maintain otherwise.* To claim the existence of something for which NO evidence exists is a sales job on the order of the Emperor's New Clothes.

    • Randall Wilks your comebacks to all these creationists make my day

  • *LIES CREATIONISTS TELL - About evolution.* Creationists often characterize evolution as "one animal turning into another" which is nonsense. Not only does the Theory of Evolution not predict any such thing, it would actually DISPROVE evolution is that were to happen. Nonetheless, that persists as the creationist's favorite straw man argument (a logical fallacy). Failing that, they often assert, with no supporting evidence, that evolution has somehow been refuted using one or more of the following: "Evolution has been proven false" "Scientists no longer believe in evolution" "Evolution is a fairy tale" The common thread of all such claims is that they never offer any corroborating evidence. Assertions unsupported by evidence are indistinguishable from lies and are dismissed as such. That they resort to such claims indicates that are down to zero in credibility. The facts are that the Theory of Evolution is the almost universally accepted explanation for the vast diversity of life on this planet. It is the ONLY explanation supported by the evidence. It is accepted as such by every scientific organization in the world, taught in every accredited university in the world who also specifically reject creationism and pseudoscience "intelligent design" as unsupported by any evidence. Evolution is officially accepted as fact by the Episcopalian, Catholic, Presbyterian and United Methodist churches, among others. It is opposed by fundamentalist Christian and Muslim sects that insist on a literal interpretation of scripture. Science has an obligation to go where the evidence leads. When a religious faction threatens punishment for those not adhering to dogma, it poisons the well of knowledge. The Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory, just as are 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. 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. Any scientist will tell you that there is no such thing as "only a theory" because A THEORY IN SCIENCE IS THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE.

  • We’re all accidents!!!!

    • Godzilla John Righty o you might be in that but I’m not

    • Your not an accident. Everything is created and sustained by God(Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit) according to the bible.

  • Sex was an accident

  • I want to add that from the beginning there was already evil 👿! Killing to eat and survive? Why didn’t we evolve to eat only fruits 🍉 vegetables 🌽 plants 🌱 and legumes? This is such a great 👍 video that I have to watch it again!!!!! 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

  • *A COMMON MISCONCEPTION is that evolution should lead to some particular trait,* such as a large brain. There is no "goal' to evolution; not speed, not strength, not intelligence and certainly not 'humanity'. Evolution is about one thing: survival. Evolution occurs at the molecular level. Mutations occur with every cell division and replication in every living species. Those mutations are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. It is the then current environment which wields the pruning shears, favoring those mutations that best suit the organism for that environment. The populations of apes that stayed in the forest became today's chimps, bonobos, orangs and gorillas. They are very well suited for their environments. One population that opted for life on the open savanna stood on two feet and faced different evolutionary pressures that set their descendants on a different evolutionary trajectory. The modern human brain is about 2% of total body mass, yet is requires fully 20% of total caloric consumption. I think you can understand that for most animals it is a daily challenge to consume enough calories just to survive, and a larger brain would be more of a burden than an asset. It is also the case that the larger human brain requires that babies be born at a less advanced stage of neural development placing an additional burden primarily on the mother. Japanese researchers have compared brain scans of baby macaques, chimps and human children and found that brain volume for both chimp and human babies increase at three times the rate of infant macaques, however, during early childhood, human brain expansion was twice that of chimpanzees due to rapid growth of connections between brain cells. In the human infant, fully 60% of caloric intake go into neuronal development. For just about any other species, the necessity for such a long childhood would place them at a survival disadvantage. We are just now beginning to understand the environmental pressures that lead to a larger brain; increasingly complex social networks, the development of language that enabled a culture built around tool manufacture and use and cooperative hunting no doubt played a role. The challenges of a rapidly changing climate may also have been a contributing factor. But if it had not been for the development of language, humanity would have had to continuously re-invent the Acheulian Hand Axe. Two factors allowing human speech are the hyoid bone, also present in Neanderthals, to which the muscles of the tongue are attached, and a particular variant of the FOXP2 gene found in other mammals that allows for complex speech. Humans share this variant with both Neanderthal and Denisovans, indicating that it was inherited from a common ancestor. Neither chimps, bonobos or other apes have that variation, indicating that it arose sometime after the species diverged. So, yes, the human evolutionary history is indeed complex, but as Richard Feinman said, "Science is the joy of finding things out.". We are getting a lot of clues as to the expansion of the human brain from embryology and comparative genomics, but we see a progression in brain size from early mammals to primates, to monkeys, to apes and to humans. It may be of interest to you to know that while most mammal brains are smooth, primate brains have convolutions which increase the surface area of the cortex. we see increased convolutions from monkeys to apes and more in humans. See: "Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language". Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano, Anthony P. Monaco, Svante Pääbo Nature 418, 869 - 872 (22 Aug 2002) www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6900/full/nature01025.html

  • *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.

  • i wonder who discovered fire

    • Homo erectus observed natural fires and learned how to keep coals alive and smoldering. If they lost those coals they were in trouble. It was much later they learned how to make fire, it's not certain when. You might want to check out the old movie "Quest fro Fire", probably on Netflix or other service. It may be in the Public Domain; do a search.

  • seeing the first steps on two legs really made me smile for some reason

  • I disagree with the concept. Chicken doesn't fly even after getting killed by humans. Someone who can't speak doesn't start speaking because he/she was slapped by a fish. This concept makes science more of an agenda. Every creature has its own history. All those changes u mentioned don't happen that way because every species has its own food. Dogs and wolves are related, but not the same. U don't start flying because your mama beat you. 1+1=2, as long as it is 1+1, the answer =2, doesn't evolve into 3 because temperature changed. I just want to say that, one creature cannot evolve into other animal. Trees were never grasses then evolved into giant trees. A grass is different from a tree. Humans were a type of animals, like lions are. Lions were never monkeys. If life started from one species, then where do snails come from? That is the question. Are they going to become humans soon? Use logic and stop being homoclueless. Humans only evolved from melanin changes, and that is it. That is why we have monkeys, why didn't they change as well? Were they or are they too lazy? Place fish under the sun for ten days and tell me how it works out.

    • It seems Salissu has a psychological need to flaunt his ignorance for the world to see.

  • Could have been a special type of oil blend (Evening primrose oil borage oil safflower oil Sesame seeds oil flax seed oil) that grow out from related organic hormones from near by sources (Goji berry Schisandra Fenugreek). Seeing why we tend to crave sweets that also act as repelling agents in mixed items (Aniseed Liquorice Fenugreek Peppermint). Noticing on why a smaller percent of others enjoy pain stimulates when concentrating on those tissues for further stimulation (Black cohosh Castor stinging nettle Dong Quai chamomile ). Even to the point of what one tends to engage in while consuming mixed drinks seeing the oily hormones on what one tends to repell on for further concentrating among stimulates (Hibiscus Yarrow Ginseng maca).

    • +Randall Wilks barbat skullcap ~ invigorates ~~ clears heat Ashwagandha ~~ rejuvenate nervous system Echinacea ~~ stimulate the regeneration of the cellular connective tissue

    • This is spam. To be reported.

    • prospect value proposition holistic marketing community downtown commercial downtown-streetscapes Commercial%20Redevelopment Lobby Render Micro Set up Alco Trusts Wholesaler Manufacturer Branch value offerings tolerance

  • so basically millions of species of animals today could evolve and form as “new humans”?

    • No. To suggest such displays a misunderstanding of evolution and how it works. Evolution is ongoing and continuous for every living species and it acts to make each species best suited for their environment. There is however, no "goal" for evolution, not speed, not strength, not intelligence and certainly not humanity. Evolution is sometimes characterized as "Survival of the Fittest" (not Darwin's words btw) but is more realistically "Survival of the most reproductively successful" (yeah, I know, it doesn't have quite the same ring to it). Mice, for instance, have been remarkably successful by being small, weak and insignificant but producing large litters. Evolution is a molecular process; the DNA that forms the genome specific to each species is not fixed, and copy errors (mutations) occur every time a cell divides and replicates (mitosis and meiosis). Those mutations are the raw material fro the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. Every offspring will most resemble its parents, but will be slightly different genetically. Some of those genetic variations will be more successful than others, allowing them to live long enough to reproduce and add their genetic variations to the population gene pool. That is Natural Selection. Successful mutations will tend to accumulate in those gene pools such that future generations will be variants of the preceding generations. Evolution is a PROCESS, not an event. At some point, after thousands or hundreds of thousands of generations, the resulting population may acquire sufficient differences as to be regarded as a different species, but they will never be anything other than a variation of their ancestors. Creationists often characterize evolution as "one animal turning into another" which is nonsense. Not only does the Theory of Evolution not predict any such thing, it would actually DISPROVE evolution is that were to happen. Nonetheless, that persists as the creationist's favorite straw man argument (a logical fallacy). When populations expand and migrate, portions of the original population will become genetically isolated from that parent population and each other. The gene pools of those isolated groups would initially be a subset of the parent gene pool, but subsequent mutations/variations would no longer be shared with others and over time differentiate them and make interbreeding more difficult and eventually impossible. New species can be formed this way, but speciation is again a PROCESS, not an event. It would be no more possible to determine the point at which speciation occurred that to point to where on a color spectrum orange becomes red.

  • New subscriber. I always loved this type of stories! Thank you for sharing this wonderful information! ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️👍👍👍👍👍💋💋💋💋💋

  • *OUR FISH ANCESTRY* It is well known from the fossil record that there were no terrestrial vertebrates prior to about 370 million years ago (mya). Vertebrates were represented by fish and nothing else. All land vertebrates; Amphibians, Reptiles, Dinosausrs, Birds and Mammals, evolved from fish, but not just any fish. Today, most fish species are Ray Finned Fishes (Actinopterygians), however, during the Devonian, known as the Age of Fishes (roughly 420 mya to 360 mya), the seas were dominated by Lobe Finned Fishes (Sarcopterygians) that had fleshy appendages with external bones homologous to today's land vertebrates (Tetrapods). The only living representatives of Sarcopterygian fishes are 2 species of Coelacanths and 6 species of Lungfish. There is a transitional fossil named Tiktaalik, discovered in 2005, that has features of fish (scales, gills and a swimming tail) as well as features of later land vertebrates (lungs, a neck, eyes on the top of its head, and sturdy appendages that would have allowed it it push off the bottom). The later tetrapods such as acanthostega and ichthyostega were still aquatic and still retained many fish characteristics. They had limbs useful for pushing through water vegetation but still swam with fish-like tails. They were not yet land animals and not yet even amphibians as they were still tied to their aquatic environment. Despite the fact that most sarcopterygian fishes are extinct, all land vertebrates (including whales and us) are still classed as Sarcopterygians. You never lose your ancestry. See: The Fish-Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-009-0119-2 *Today, geneticists are working together with embryologists to reveal the genetic process by which limbs are formed. What it has revealed is that, just as elsewhere in evolution, Incremental molecular changes were made to what was already there. It is evident that Sarcopterygian fishes had the requisite bones and genes. Here is some of the work that is being done:* Molecular evolution of limb length January 14, 2008 phys.org/news/2008-01-molecular-evolution-limb-length.html Before animals first walked on land, fish carried gene program for limbs. phys.org/news/2011-07-animals-fish-gene-limbs.html New techniques boost understanding of how fish fins became fingers phys.org/news/2016-08-techniques-boost-fish-fins-fingers.html#nRlv Development and Evolution of the Muscles of the Pelvic Fin journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001168 There is an excellent series of videos titled "Your Inner Fish" originally on PBS, they are now available on the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) BioInteractive website; www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/your-inner-fish-series. For an in depth look at all the stages of evolution leading to us I recommend the series "Systematic Classification of Life" by Aron Nelson, aka AronRa, he is unlike any biology teacher you ever met, but he knows his stuff. Here is a link to the series playlist. us-tv.org/plid-PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW

  • *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. There are gaps in scientific knowledge and questions remain; What is Dark Matter? Dark Energy?, How did life begin? Why do socks disappear? Science proceeds from evidence to conclusion and does not make a determination where there is insufficient evidence to do so. Science has no problem saying "We don't know...YET." However, that doesn't mean that science is clueless, we know more today than we did yesterday and every tomorrow takes us another step closer. As Richard Feynman said "Science is the joy of finding things out."

  • *GALILEO vs RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM* Religious fundamentalists have always stood in the way of science. Heliocentrism, the astronomical model published by Nicolaus Copernicus 1543 in particular drew the ire of those who regarded the bible's word to be incontrovertible. To suggest that the earth move was heretical in their view and directly in contradiction of biblical statements. The matter was investigated by the Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." Specifically: Psalm 93:1 93 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved. Psalm 96:10 10 Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously. 1 Chronicles 16:30 30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. Psalm 104:5 the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. Ecclesiastes 1:5 And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place. Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Inquisition and in 1616 Galileo was ordered to "... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing" While Galileo was a religious man, he bridled at the dictatorial attitudes of those who were committed to ignorance, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." He also said, ''By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.'' Galileo, tried to comply and did avoid conflict for many years, but ultimately he felt the truth must be spoken and in 1633 he again found himself called before the religious fundamentalists of that day, the Inquisition. Among other things, Galileo wrote a letter to a student to explain how Copernican theory did not contradict Biblical passages, stating that scripture was written from an earthly perspective and implied that science provided a different, more accurate perspective. The letter was made public and used against him. "It vexes me," he said "when they would constrain scienceby the authority of the scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment." They found Galileo "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced him to recant and disavow his findings under threat of being burned at the stake, just as they had done to Giordano Bruno some 30 years before. Religious zealots of today must deeply resent the fact that they cannot use such tactics. Despite his recanting of his theory, it is reported that upon leaving the Inquisition he was heard to mutter "E pur si muove (and yet it moves)" They banned his books and sentenced him to house arrest for life. Despite the ban on publishing his works he completed his greatest works while under house arrest and had them smuggled to Holland for publication. When he died, in 1642 the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinando II, wished to bury him in the main body of the Basilica of Santa Croce, and erect a marble mausoleum in his honor. The Pope and cardinals, however, denied Galileo even the memorial which he so richly deserved and was buried in a back room of the Basilica. His remains were ultimately disinterred in 1737 and reburied with a more fitting monument. In that process, for whatever reason, three fingers and a tooth were removed. Today, the middle finger of his right hand is on display in the Museo Galileo in Florence, Italy. I find it highly fitting that his "Digitus Impudicus" is aimed at those religious dolts who interfere with science. In 1758, the Catholic Church lifted the ban on most works supporting Copernican theory, and by 1835 dropped its opposition to heliocentrism altogether. Today, heliocentrism is accepted as established fact by all but a few extreme fundamentalists. Other fundamentalists have turned their attacks to evolution, also claiming that if science conflicts with scripture, then science must be wrong.

  • *Happy Birthday Galileo.* "February 15, 1564. On this date, Italian astronomer, mathematician, and physicist Galileo Galilei was born. He is one of the first people on Earth to have aimed a telescope at the heavens, where he found - among many other things - phases for the planet Venus and four starry points of light orbiting the planet Jupiter. In Galileo’s time, educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian view that Earth lay fixed in the center of a more or less unchanging universe. Thus the discovery of moons orbiting Jupiter (now called the Galilean satellites) and revelation that Venus must orbit the sun, not the Earth, were considered heresy by the Roman Inquisition. In 1633, the Inquisition forced Galileo to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Afterwards, famously, he’s said to have said: "E pur si muove" (and yet it moves). The phrase is still used today as a retort, implying it doesn’t matter what you believe; these are the facts." - Daniela Breitman, (excerpt) earthsky.org

  • That cameraman must be 3 billion years old

    • Scrub potato imagine what kind of pension he’s gonna get.