Every time somebody uses 'Dies Irae' as the 'escalating chaos music,' I get wistful about _almost_ getting to sing it in high-school choir. It was so fun, for the week or so we got to rehearse it.
The hilarious part to me is that because the human brain struggles to conceive of thousands of years, let alone millions, tens of millions, and hundreds of millions, they just can't wrap their heads around the incremental changes that accumulate.
On the "wishbone" of dinosaurs: I'm old. And I've been reading about dinosaurs and watching hundreds of television shows/videos about dinosaurs for decades. Many decades. Back when I was a kid, and your parents probably weren't even born yet, the idea that "Birds ARE dinosaurs! Dinosaurs ARE birds!" (I know, I'm just being silly) was considered to be TOTALLY "crank". Birds were birds. Dinosaurs died out. Period. I saw ONE, and only one, NOVA on Public Television in 1976 , with Robert Bakker, called "The Hot Blooded Dinosaurs", after his popular book of the same name that mentioned it as a "crazy idea" at the end of the hour long show, as an afterthought, saying "If this Idea is correct, then dinosaurs didn't die out, but took their adaptability to the air!" (Pan on large water bird flapping its wings and flying away). But nobody, nobody, took that seriously. And during that NOVA episode, it was Robert Bakker vs the Entire World. Paleontologists got red in the face. Got angry, and I mean ANGRY, at Bakker, for touting such "nonsense". Then, all of a sudden, in the 80s, the idea started to catch on about endothermy in dinosaurs, and ta da! Birds COULD be dinosaurs! BUT!!!!! There was The Furcula Problem"!! Everyone, everyone, EVERYONE said "DINOSAURS HAD NO FURCULA!!" No argument. This was FACT. It was an OBSERVABLE TRUTH! And my God! The fights! You have no idea. How do I know? Because I stepped right into it. It was the early 00s. Robert Bakker was giving a talk at a Midwestern university in the US. I was there. It was a great talk. I went to the reception afterwards and actually got to talk to him, telling him how much I admired him, because I liked the fact he pushed for dino endothermy even in the face of tremendous opposition. Then, I asked him what his thoughts were on Archaeopteryx, it's lack of a furcula, and the lack of them in dinosaurs He GLARED at me. Then he gave his answer. At that time, he thought there was a ligament that had a bit of bone in it that evolution could "turn the volume knob on" making it come and go And then, suddenly, we found the furcula. Paleontologists started seeing furcula in dinosaurs, where they didn't see them before, and suddenly Archaeopteryx, which (I swear to you, I heard over and over again, from MAJOR paleontologists) had an "ambiguous" furcula/no furcula, to DEFINITELY having one. I say this, because there's something to be learned, in my opinion, from this HUGE fight. And it was an intellectual boxing match, believe me. What exactly are we "seeing", anyway? The planet Vulcan was OBSERVED, literally literally observed, by DOZENS, if not more, of highly trained observers, over and over and over again, until it "wasn't there". And now nobody sees it . Dino furcula weren't there. HUNDREDS of paleontologists said so, over DECADES of time, until they were, and now it's so trivial, that you mentioned it without even a comment! How much of our perceptions are fashioned by our preconceptions, even in highly trained, disciplined, and highly educated people? How much of our perceptions are influenced by ideology? And is there really any sure fire way to "filter out" all that so we can "see objectively"? And what does that even mean? These are huge, possibly unanswerable, questions, I think. And my direct experiences with paleontologists and paleontology seem to point to a great deal of subjectivity in our search for objective truth, if it's even there.
I do find it funny that they'll talk about how Darwin was unsure about certain aspects of evolution some 160 years ago as proof that evolution is debunked. As if we haven't been learning and advancing our knowledge in the last century and a half since then.
It's funny how the existence of primitive animals is acceptable but to explain how they came to be through evolution is somehow "unacceptable". So they're saying a stem bird species is the same as a modern finch despite the former obviously having dinosaurian traits?
I commend your call for civility in the comment section, there are channels dedicated to this argument on both sides. I don't think it's silly however, as a parent living in Texas, the denial of evolution concerns me greatly.
@dino-gen I wouldn't say interesting reading. I paused each of the comments in the beginning of this video to read them and felt kind of triggered by the tone. I have cptsd, so I'm not a fan of altercations. Thank you for sharing these amazing videos! You really rock! I love looking at birds and thinking how they used to be dinosaurs. So cool!
Did these lads in the intro where serious, or trolls ? Trad cath here, have been into prehistoric animals and history since my childhood, and though i don't fully agree with evolution (i think it is possible for a specie to evolve, wich is obvious by the way, but not to the point it can change in substance/nature), it angers me really much to see people "defending" their faith (wether it is Catholic creationism, or protestant one) with the most shallow "arguments" possible. For the wee story, in the end of the IVth, and beginning of the Vth century, Saint Augustine considered impossible that all animals could fit into Noah's Ark, therefore, he come up with the (bright and true) idea, that, since there is a greater diversity of animal species than what could have fitted, the animals saved in the Ark must had been different than of nowadays, and capable of giving birth to modern species. This is not evolution strictly said, but to think that a (saint and inspired, but still) bishop of the late roman period come up with such idea, and to think that XV century later, some christians are upset at the idea, that, you know, birds could have looked another way before... Sad. By the way, i've today found your channel, and it's great, you've gained a sub.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Every time somebody uses 'Dies Irae' as the 'escalating chaos music,' I get wistful about _almost_ getting to sing it in high-school choir. It was so fun, for the week or so we got to rehearse it.
The hilarious part to me is that because the human brain struggles to conceive of thousands of years, let alone millions, tens of millions, and hundreds of millions, they just can't wrap their heads around the incremental changes that accumulate.
On the "wishbone" of dinosaurs:
I'm old. And I've been reading about dinosaurs and watching hundreds of television shows/videos about dinosaurs for decades. Many decades.
Back when I was a kid, and your parents probably weren't even born yet, the idea that "Birds ARE dinosaurs! Dinosaurs ARE birds!" (I know, I'm just being silly) was considered to be TOTALLY "crank". Birds were birds. Dinosaurs died out. Period. I saw ONE, and only one, NOVA on Public Television in 1976 , with Robert Bakker, called "The Hot Blooded Dinosaurs", after his popular book of the same name that mentioned it as a "crazy idea" at the end of the hour long show, as an afterthought, saying "If this Idea is correct, then dinosaurs didn't die out, but took their adaptability to the air!" (Pan on large water bird flapping its wings and flying away). But nobody, nobody, took that seriously.
And during that NOVA episode, it was Robert Bakker vs the Entire World. Paleontologists got red in the face. Got angry, and I mean ANGRY, at Bakker, for touting such "nonsense".
Then, all of a sudden, in the 80s, the idea started to catch on about endothermy in dinosaurs, and ta da! Birds COULD be dinosaurs! BUT!!!!!
There was The Furcula Problem"!! Everyone, everyone, EVERYONE said "DINOSAURS HAD NO FURCULA!!" No argument. This was FACT. It was an OBSERVABLE TRUTH! And my God! The fights! You have no idea. How do I know? Because I stepped right into it.
It was the early 00s. Robert Bakker was giving a talk at a Midwestern university in the US. I was there. It was a great talk. I went to the reception afterwards and actually got to talk to him, telling him how much I admired him, because I liked the fact he pushed for dino endothermy even in the face of tremendous opposition. Then, I asked him what his thoughts were on Archaeopteryx, it's lack of a furcula, and the lack of them in dinosaurs
He GLARED at me.
Then he gave his answer. At that time, he thought there was a ligament that had a bit of bone in it that evolution could "turn the volume knob on" making it come and go
And then, suddenly, we found the furcula.
Paleontologists started seeing furcula in dinosaurs, where they didn't see them before, and suddenly Archaeopteryx, which (I swear to you, I heard over and over again, from MAJOR paleontologists) had an "ambiguous" furcula/no furcula, to DEFINITELY having one.
I say this, because there's something to be learned, in my opinion, from this HUGE fight. And it was an intellectual boxing match, believe me.
What exactly are we "seeing", anyway? The planet Vulcan was OBSERVED, literally literally observed, by DOZENS, if not more, of highly trained observers, over and over and over again, until it "wasn't there". And now nobody sees it .
Dino furcula weren't there. HUNDREDS of paleontologists said so, over DECADES of time, until they were, and now it's so trivial, that you mentioned it without even a comment!
How much of our perceptions are fashioned by our preconceptions, even in highly trained, disciplined, and highly educated people? How much of our perceptions are influenced by ideology? And is there really any sure fire way to "filter out" all that so we can "see objectively"? And what does that even mean?
These are huge, possibly unanswerable, questions, I think. And my direct experiences with paleontologists and paleontology seem to point to a great deal of subjectivity in our search for objective truth, if it's even there.
♥
Man those comments at the start of the video look like the work of a troll.
Well, maybe the Billy Goats Gruff should learn to carry spare change for the toll!
I do find it funny that they'll talk about how Darwin was unsure about certain aspects of evolution some 160 years ago as proof that evolution is debunked. As if we haven't been learning and advancing our knowledge in the last century and a half since then.
It's funny how the existence of primitive animals is acceptable but to explain how they came to be through evolution is somehow "unacceptable". So they're saying a stem bird species is the same as a modern finch despite the former obviously having dinosaurian traits?
I’m sure he had an explanation for that too somehow lol
I commend your call for civility in the comment section, there are channels dedicated to this argument on both sides. I don't think it's silly however, as a parent living in Texas, the denial of evolution concerns me greatly.
So, the fact that Rh markers exist confirms the creation? Can he explain how descendants of two people can have FOUR blood groups (A, B, AB, 0)?
I’m saying nothing 😂
An interesting book on evolution is:
The Beak of the Finch.
It's set on a small island in the Galapagos islands.
Another one to add to the list, thanks! 🤓
@@dino-gen Not forgetting The classic Neil Shubin book on evolution "Your Inner Fish"
Evolution is already proven.
Adaptation yes evolution no
@slavicunited1268 did you not watch the video???
Adaptation is a result of evolutionary influences. @@slavicunited1268
@@slavicunited1268Adaptations over time add up to evolution and the introduction of new species. Small things add up and become big things.
@@slavicunited1268take normal adaptation over millions of years, pow you got evolution
Underrated channel. Hope it blows up. Subbing
Thank you so much! Appreciate it and me too 😅
Funny thing is in the bible God doesn't go into detail about how he created the earth. Just that he did.
Always enjoy your explanation and your opinion on these topics. 💪🏻🙏🏻✨
The intro was hilarious!!! 😀
I appreciate your channel and will be sharing it with others.
Thank you so much, glad you enjoyed it!
Where did these comments happen😂
From a brain that experienced too much church and not enough school.
Its on the Dimetrodon video lol it does make for some interesting reading
@@dino-gen 😆
@dino-gen I wouldn't say interesting reading. I paused each of the comments in the beginning of this video to read them and felt kind of triggered by the tone. I have cptsd, so I'm not a fan of altercations. Thank you for sharing these amazing videos! You really rock! I love looking at birds and thinking how they used to be dinosaurs. So cool!
The beginning... MEGA-LOL!!!
🗿👍🏿
Did these lads in the intro where serious, or trolls ?
Trad cath here, have been into prehistoric animals and history since my childhood, and though i don't fully agree with evolution (i think it is possible for a specie to evolve, wich is obvious by the way, but not to the point it can change in substance/nature), it angers me really much to see people "defending" their faith (wether it is Catholic creationism, or protestant one) with the most shallow "arguments" possible.
For the wee story, in the end of the IVth, and beginning of the Vth century, Saint Augustine considered impossible that all animals could fit into Noah's Ark, therefore, he come up with the (bright and true) idea, that, since there is a greater diversity of animal species than what could have fitted, the animals saved in the Ark must had been different than of nowadays, and capable of giving birth to modern species.
This is not evolution strictly said, but to think that a (saint and inspired, but still) bishop of the late roman period come up with such idea, and to think that XV century later, some christians are upset at the idea, that, you know, birds could have looked another way before... Sad.
By the way, i've today found your channel, and it's great, you've gained a sub.