Sadly still cannot explain anything about: 1) The missing link of Hominization. 2) Large dark eyes on apes become large white eyes on human. 3) Small brain on apes become big brain on human. Many more. The funny thing, this evolution theory should explain about the "evoution", instead just showing the "revolution theory".
@@nobodyjustme7481 stop being wilfully blind and study the subject, cause you're just making a fool out of yourself. This is not a contest but a search for actual truth so if you are going to throw around theories that have long been proven to be wrong just go to a little brain dead section of the internet and spread around your propaganda there
@@MrFlexNC You didn't answer my comment and just blabering, talking nonsense like a kid. 1) Where is the missing link between Lucy and Human? 2) How large dark eyes on apes suddenly become large white eyes on Lucy? 3) How small brain on apes suddenly changed become big brain on human? If you can found Lucy's fossil, you should found thousands fossil of the next missing link between Lucy and homo sapiens. Not only thousands, even millions fossil of missing link should be found, because the number of human colonies should growing and keep growing, from hundreds to thousands in decades, from thousands to millions in centuries, and from millions to billions in millenniums. But yet until now, no one could show any single one of missing link. The funny thing, there are only 40 tiny fragment of bones (less than 15% of bone structure) from Lucy's fossil that had been found. This means, more than 85% of Lucy's bone structures are only "imagination" patches. So, there is no any evidence, the evolution theory is absolute flaw, and Lucy just an apes.
Bagi aku teori darwin ni mungkin btl. Tp bukan pd permulaannya kita monyet. Cube fikir blk kite ni sbg manusia. Sifat ingin tahu dn xpernah bersyukur. Diciptakn adam dn hawa dgn cukup sempurna. Tp disebbkn sifat ingin tahu dn xbersyukur ape yg diberikan. Kemungkinan besar slh satu keturunan kite tlh mengcantumkn benih manusia dgn monyet(phm2 jela maksudnye) Utk tujuan mencapai tahap spt monyet. Sbb ini la dahulu terlahirnye manusia baru.dn mungkin sbb ini la jgk adenye manusia berupe monyet spt sejarah2 kuno ceritekn. Malah manusia baru ni suke memburu manusia lain. Dn terhapuslah manusia2 yg sebenar. Kisah manusia baru nipun ade dlm sains yg ditemui.mungkin msh ade sisa2 manusia yg tulen mase 2.tp lupe ke kite. Pernah terjadinye banjir besar yg menenggelamkn bumi? Jd, ape yg tertinggal cume keturunan nabi nuh..bagi aku manusia 2 sempurna dh Allah ciptakn.cume kite ni xpernah bersyukur.kenape xdiceritekn dlm al-quran.?sbg manusie. Dpt ke kau trime kenyataan ni.?senang cite kau sanggup ke ngaku monyet 2 sedare kau?sedangkn Allah dh ciptekn manusia 2 sebaik2nye dn kite suke hati nk mengubahnye.sbb 2 jgk la peradaban manusia dulu kite lihat mempunyai teknologi canggih.ini sekadar teori aku dr melihat2 sejarah2 dr sains. Tp Allah lebih mengetahui.
Prophecy is unfolding, men's hearts are becoming colder because of unbelief, the Mark of he Beast is ahead, Satan is the father of lies and the god(small "g") of the world. We are in the end times, many people have been receiving the Holy Ghost with the supernatural evidence of speakin in tongues, they that truly believe can receive it.
@@Amen.ahmed1 1 Corinthians 13:11 KJV "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
Scientist have made a new discovery! Smartphones evolved from toasters, which evolved from screws, which were created by Iron molecules 1 billion years ago.
@@outofthebox9699 News flash. Scientists discover that manufactured products from assembled parts in no way resembles biological reproduction and evolution.
Mr. Singh, I am sure you are aware, that God created man in his own image, that we were created to worship God, that it is because of sin, we are condemn to die, that we continue to sin daily and ultimately we must give an account for our sins. The criminal code defines conducts and degrees of punishments, likewise the bible shows us the need for a saviour and redemption from sin.
The BBC is obliged to explore and promote new and young talent. This may be an example of that. You may be surprised to know that the BBC invented videotape and NICAM stereo (amongst mush else) back when it was mandated to keep abreast of new technologies. The thing I like most about the BBC is that both (politically) left and right wing people/entities accuse the news service of bias. Ergo... Edit: "Amongst much else"
@@arthurjarrett1604 they're monitored by Offcom - an institution created to impose legislation and protect consumers - that they must remain non bias. While some stories are politically biased towards right wing, and others are left wing, they remain non bias because they are presenting both sides; that is similar to The I.
I quite like how this video was composed: the sequencing of the animation and how well it went with the music - even the narrator fit so well. It gave the information very friendlily.
ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQ/видео.html MY EVELUTION VIDEO IS BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes ancient evolution theory was influenced by the teaching of Reincarnation, advancing to higher life forms over long periods of time. ? ? Source ancient Babylon. ?
Just watched this video for a class assignment and was blown away by the editing on the video. The description says it was made by Kako Abraham. They definitely gained a new fan today!
@Randall Wilks I agree with most of what you hv said sir becoz even my kids are not given free will at school. They hv to "believe" in "a theory" of evolution (that has unrelated evidence) & hv "faith" that the carbon dating machine is accurate. They hv to hv "faith" that the science rabbi/preacher/sensei is not in error. And the state institutions mk sure that the programming (no free will) begins when they are toddlers. If they present a different point of view, the examination system penalises them for heresy and society ridicules them into submission. Logic & rational thought (which is subjective) can only be respected & accepted within the parameters of the general education system. Otherwise opinion about an intelligent designer or architect of the universe are irrational & aren't to be given an opportunity for investigation.
Devalued faith in humanity! These are the beliefs that motivated Josef Mengele when he worked with Hitler… quote: "the reduced adaptation, as Darwin expressed it, does not lead to eradication, but rather the effect of natural selection has been transformed through civilization into its opposite and thus to contraselection." End of quote. Then he went ahead and performed open heart surgery with no anaesthetic and while the victim was awake!
@@charlesmtang.7708 You are a moron, there are literal videos of evolution like this one. ruclips.net/video/plVk4NVIUh8/видео.html .Denying evolution is akin to denying gravity.
@Dominik Zelenák *The truth about man is that he was created from clay* : water and dirt I don't know why this real scientific theory is not considered or published until people know the truth. God created Adam from (mud) and Eve from Adam’s rib and breathed into them from his spirit, and made our real and supposed goal in this life to be worship, but you deny that and the truth is that God created us from clay. And we are made into this world for worship only. As He said in the Noble Qur’an, God Almighty said in the Noble Qur’an: (I created the jinn and humans to worship Me) meaning we were created for this universe for worship, and this is the truth. for those who want the truth..
*The truth about man is that he was created from clay* : water and dirt I don't know why this real scientific theory is not considered or published until people know the truth. God created Adam from (mud) and Eve from Adam’s rib and breathed into them from his spirit, and made our real and supposed goal in this life to be worship, but you deny that and the truth is that God created us from clay. And we are made into this world for worship only. As He said in the Noble Qur’an, God Almighty said in the Noble Qur’an: (I created the jinn and humans to worship Me) meaning we were created for this universe for worship, and this is the truth. for those who want the truth..
It took Darwin( one of the greatest scientists ever) 20 years to develop the evolution theory but it took bill nye one minute to say all people used to be black.
Yet he still married his first cousin and fathers 5 children with her in full knowledge of the very high risk of health afflictions that can and did affect some of his children leading to early death . A flawed genius for sure .
@@erikkopsala3564 He was a man of his time. people still marry their close relatives. In Alabama, Mississippi, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, somalia, Arkansas, and many other places.
"Change is inevitable" any species that doesn't change with it's surroundings will eventually go extinct. Great animation and the video was amazing. Thanks for making this
@Po Animals do change. But that change is extremely limited. We are told over and over and over that a new species shows evolution. Nope. Speciation does not support evolution as it is an example of stasis and stasis is the exact opposite of evolution. For ex. over 200,000 species of beetles are all still beetles. There are thousands upon thousands of species of birds, bees, lizards, trees, bacteria, trees, yeast, flowers, whatever. If a new species develops within any groups at all, you can bet your bottom science dollar that it will still be just a beetle, bee, bacteria, tree, fish, or whatever. We are supposed to fill in the blanks here with...faith...and think, "Well! If a new species develops then things just keep evolving and evolving from there on." But the next taxonomic step above a species, in the animal or plant kingdom, is a family. (A genus is just a grouping of similar species together). We aren't seeing any new families, much less any new orders, classes, phyla or kingdoms forming. Anywhere. Ever. According to Darwin's so called Tree of Life and peer reviewed evolutionary literature, new families, classes, orders, etc. have evolved. Over and over and over. However, nature operates today as it did in the past. In the real world, with trillions of life forms around us, we never see anything developing to the level of a new taxonomic family. (Think domestic cats, lions and tigers, all in the same cat family). Those life forms out there have purportedly had eons and eons of ancestors preceding them which should be revealing at least one example of a part this family "transitioning" to be a part that of another family. Again, we see stasis. We only see "transitions" to those higher taxonomic levels in the purely theoretical, unverifiable, ancient past, in the realm of evolutionary literature, and never in any life around us, or in any fossils. Of course they frequently point to a fossil and say things like "Well! Look at that leg-like thing on the whale! See, it used to be in a different family, when it walked!" Except real science shows that bone is used for supporting the whale's penis in mating and theory-only pseudoscience gets spread around forever with that myth and innumerable other evo myths. If there is no evidence for transitions from one family to another - and please for your own sake try to find data if you know of any such evidence in the observable and not theoretical realm - then there is no evidence for evolution. And that's just for starters on how evolutionism defies real science. Anyone: Kindly don't think some fossil provides the evidence. It is easy to point to a pile of petrified bones and make up stories about how its invisible and evidence free descendants turned into some other life form. But if you insist, use a fossil. Name it. Then check to see how you know it even had a descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less one that crossed the family barrier. Name the family it is transitioning out of and the one it is transitioning into. While you are at it, since we are told evolution is driven by mutations and natural selection, great. Name a life form. Find data to show it is "evolving" as the result of a named act of natural selection or mutation. Remember, the poster kids for evolution are things like antibiotic resistant bacteria, some geckos, spotted salamanders, walking stick bugs, snowflake yeast, peppered moths, sickle cell anemia victims and lactose intolerant people. As always the "proof" for evolution proves the exact opposite. All the bacteria, geckos, etc. etc., and all their descendants, continue to be nothing but bacteria, geckos, salamanders, homo sapiens etc. etc. Or if that is not the case, tell what they are "evolving" into that is not in those categories. But no one ever names the life form or the act of natural selection, or mutation, that is causing it to "evolve." They usually try to change the subject or make excuses for why they can't answer. They may claim the answers to my questions are out there. On the net. Somewhere. Then they ask me to do my research and find it - while showing no evidence that they have done any research, themselves, at all. Not uncommonly they put down a smoke screen word salad, but none of their words ever name the life form, or the act of natural selection, or mutation, I asked them to name. Anyone: You are not a goo through the zoo update. Human beings have a Heavenly Father Who made us in HIS image and likeness. He loves us and wants you to know Him, and to love Him, too. He wants us to be His children. Forever. I know I found that out myself when I was an atheist and evolutionism believer who had never looked outside the box.
And P.S. The reasons they have such great animations to "prove" evolution is because they don't have any real DATA, just theories that actually conflict with the data if you do your homework.
I've always thought that the "theory" of evolution was a "stupid test". If someone is stupid enough to believe that complex machines create themselves then they're stupid enough to be slaves to a dictator. Consider the flagellum which is an electrical outboard motor. It has a rotor, a field, armature, shaft and bushings, and a propeller that spins up to 10,000 rpm and can change directions almost instantly. Since we all know that machines can't think, My question for evolutionists would be, "How does the flagellum know it's job and what is it's incentive for doing it". I know what my incentive is...starvation...lol
@@brainguy3263 Oh, we have a smart one over here, congratulations! You beat 99% of biologists in the world with your overworldy wisdom and intelligence given from your creator! Quick, go to the scientific community and tell them how wrong they are! Oh wait, scientists already have a working hypothesis for how the flagellum evolved from a system of protein transport in prokaryotic organisms: doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002983 If you are SO smart, I’m sure you’ll understand this scientific paper with ease and you’ll be able to refute it.
This video is really good! In my school here in Brazil we just used your video! And the animation is really good to! (Sorry for the bad English, I'm still learning)
Charles Darwin is one of the most distinguished and respected scientists in history. He has a city named after him and is buried in Westminster Abbey, London, near Sir Isaac Newton. His Christian state funeral (usually reserved for monarchs only) was attended by thousands including royalty, aristocracy, professors, scientists, philosophers and scores of foreign dignitaries and international ambassadors.
I don't think the question is how did he come up with it?, The question should be how did he recognize it?. Biological evolution was a fact before Darwin was able to see what was happening and wrote his book. I also don't like the fact people often ask " do you believe in evolution?" That's a poor question. Biological evolution is not a belief system and labeling it as such reduces it to the level of religious superstition. The question should be, do you accept the massive amount of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that proves biological evolution is a fact?
We all believe in something, if we don't acknowledge our beliefs as such, we cannot question them. The problems always begin when one group declares their beliefs 'unquestionable'- This sort of dogma can be dangerous, not so long ago phlebotomy, craniology, eugenics, were considered unquestionable in some circles.
I would say this...it was impressive watching this video even the graphic. You figure BBC would work this hard on this video and not use it on making a video on corruption, warmonger, colonies, imperialism in politics with the UK and US. And try to help Wikileaks with the truth and many more. Not just win the Oscars but maybe win a Nobel prize.
Others had similar thoughts on animals changing over time prior to Charles Darwin including his own Grandfather Ersamus Darwin. But it remains hypothetical till you can come up with an explanation of how that can happen plus provide evidence for it. The explanation of how and the evidence for it is what Charles Darwin provided.
@@ramu992 www.researchgate.net/publication/278042089_Exploring_macroevolution_using_modern_and_fossil_data www.nap.edu/catalog/11876/science-evolution-and-creationism scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=Biological+evolution+of+species&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DFtRA0lmr8FUJ www.nature.com/articles/hdy200814 Let me know when you can actually use the scientific method to refute the published evidence above. Don't give me your opinions, use the scientific method to explain how these are false. If you want to claim there is no evidence you must actually refute the published evidence that the scientific community has posted to validate the theory. They did their job. When can you either refute their actual work or admit you haven't even looked?
"Brilliant theories in biology" you mean the satanist that is directly responsible for millions or perhaps even over a billion people going to hell? Here's evidence against evolution: docs.google.com/document/d/1UTuACFnZvvQm9TvfraWTFQ8ZpxNUSLlImRtqxIWsVrQ/edit
@@x-popone6817 if he's a satanist , then i will gladly accept satanism cause it seems more logical than blindly believing in some invisible being, if that invisible being wanted me to worship him, then he shouldn't have created me with freewill.
Yeal, evolutionism absolutely depends on computer animation and other phony art work to make up for their lack of real scientific in their pseudoscience narratives.
@@swun3367 No, sorry but it is not real science. It is pseudoscience. If you have an animation that purportedly represents a fossil, but does not match the fossil, then you have pseudo science. For just one example fossil animations of Lucy show her with human looking hands and feet. Her fragmented fossil didn't even have hands and feet! Others of her species have been found and they had curled toes and fingers as you would find on arboreal monkeys. But those are never shown. Let's deal with Darwin for now. Then the ball will be in your court. You can feel free to give any refuting observable data on any point of the observable scientific data that I am about to present. Let's look at the "Bible" of evolutionism, The Origin of Species. Maybe because it is so mind numbingly boring, people rarely notice something, namely that it never shows the origin of anything! Darwin's finch beaks are supposed to support goo through the zoo to you, but what do they really show? Zero. Living finches, and their fossils, are all over the planet showing various size beaks, varying sizes of body parts, and many other physical differences. They are all nothing but finches. The fossils and living evidence that Galapagos Island Turtles et al have ever been or ever will be anything but turtles et al? Zero again. In evolutionism you always ignore the real data, or spin the actual evidence, and then make up data-free stories from the conveniently unverifiable, invisible, ancient past. Oh, and btw, as usual in evolutionary theory you are being told one thing while the opposite is true, as about natural selection. It does not lead to evolution as Darwin claimed. It only shuffles, or sometimes eliminates, pre existing information that has always been in the genes. It never creates original strands of DNA as would be necessary, for ex., to turn a fin into a foot or a leg into a wing. Nothing ever observed creates original strands of DNA. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy which can be altered by things like mutations - to a very limited extent. Beneficial mutations? They are said to be the second force for evolution. However, Charles Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on them, said "The good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad." Darwin was nothing but an armchair theorist who, unlike his contemporary Mendel, never supported his theory through the scientific method and cast doubts on it himself. Yet he is an icon of evolution, like another contemporary, a lawyer named George Lyell, who came up with the totally fictional Geologic Column. The GC exists only in art work. The real evidence? Fossils are jumbled, in no neatly organized pattern whatsoever. There really are no such things as Cambrian, Jurassic, and so on "periods." Like the GC those are just fictions presented as facts. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chile. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils, such as sea shells and mollusks, are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops - like the world's highest, the Himalayans. Fossils of ocean floor trilobites are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places world wide, high and far inland. Take a look. Notice the brown, somewhat egg shaped, fossil on a greyish background in the middle, 2nd row. That is an ocean floor dwelling, extinct, trilobite. www.bing.com/images/search?q=Marine+Fossils+On+Mountains&FORM=RESTAB ) Notice the exquisitely preserved details on it. Now some claim "plate tectonics" moved those vast stretches of ocean dwelling, bottom floor, marine life fossils to travel for millions of years and then wrap around the tops of mountains, completely intact and with perfect detail as you see in the link. It's like they never even heard of erosion. If you wnnt to convince me there is a Geologic Column, please link close up photos. They should show lowest level "Cambrian" fossils at the bottom and higher level "era" fossils ascending upwards from there to match the GC. Now, I don't mean far off, distant photos of piles of rocks and mountain ranges which they CLAIM have a GC in it, but, again, close up photos. The Bible says that flood waters completely covered the whole earth after, for one thing, "the fountains of the deep broke forth." (Did you know there is an ocean below our commonly known oceans, or have you seen the mid Atlantic ridge which looks like it used to be a great crack on the ocean floor? Probably not.). The fossil record shows that marine life fossils are at every level on the planet, everywhere around the globe, and that, in fact, over 99% of the fossils on land are marine. And they say the Bible is not historical and not backed by science. And btw there are almost 300 Great Flood legends around the world. For example, the one by the Aborigines of Australia is virtually identical to what the Bible reports. Have you been told that there are huge cities found on ocean floors around the world? At least one such city has a pyramid bigger than those in Egypt. So you've been told a book showed the origin of species, but it didn't. You've been told G.I. animals show evolution but they only show they are having, at most, minimal changes that leave them basically what they were before, still turtles, finches, etc. You were told there is a Geological Column, but there is not one on the planet. You're told over and over that natural selection shows evolution when it actually just somewhat modifies the organism through shifting already present information, or sometimes through loss of information in the genomes, leaving it essentially what it was before. It may eventually become a new species of fish, or bee, or tree, etc., but it will always stay a fish, a bee or a tree etc. We see no evidence whatsoever of any species moving up to the next step on the Animal or Plant Kingdom, to become a previously unknown family, order class, phylum or kingdom.
We have trillions of life forms out there. So why don't we see mutations causing any Lifeform A to turn into a Lifeform B? After all, their ancestors have supposedly had hundreds of millions of Darwin years to make the switch and be moving around as part A and part B. But fish are staying fish, birds and are staying birds, flowers are staying flowers, mold is staying mold, trees are staying trees, monkeys are staying monkeys, bacteria are staying bacteria, etc., no matter how much they change. Again in the real world we see new species but we never, ever see a species turning into the next step up on the animal kingdom (plants ditto), a different family. Yet that would have had to have happened for evolution to occur, and it is claimed, with no evidence whatsoever, that it did happen over and over and over. What else does evolutionism offer besides unsubstantiated theories, in fact theories that defy the real evidence, presented as facts? Logical fallacies. Logical fallacies always, always, undergird evolutionism defense. The favorites are Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience, though it uses many. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation goes like this: Fossil A is seen to have some similarity to Fossil B. There is no evidence whatsoever that Fossil A or B, or C etc. ever had a single descendant that was significntly different from themselves, but still we are told that they all led to one another. Parrots are bipedal, sing and dance, and sometimes speak appropriately, like humans. Sharks and dolphins have "similar homology". Spiders and octopuses have 8 legs radiating out of their round bodies, etc. etc. So it goes in nature. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. That leads right into the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. Another example of a use of that fallacy is when an evolutionary paleontologist will pick up a fossil from the ground and tell you with absolute authority that they know all about what happened to it's invisible "descendants" in the untestable past - for over 100 million Darwin years! "Missing links" is a Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy phrase. How do you tell missing links from never existed links? Have...faith...brothers and sisters! And be so grateful that YOU ain't religious! Learn how to spot logical fallacies and you will see them in every defense in evolutionary literature. Ignoring the actual data is also part of evolutionism. For just one of innumerable examples, they say life can come from inorganic matter (and don't say they do not - who came up with the antiscientific primal pond, creationists?) The data, what real science uses, shows life, always and only, comes from life and life of the same kind. Pile theories presented as facts on top of logical fallacies, ignore the real data or try to spin it away, and stir well with sophistry. Then you have evolutionary theory. Anyone with eyes to see and a heart that loves truth and true science: You're not a fish update. You have a Creator Who made you and loves you and wants you to know Him, and to love Him too. Don't trade that in for pseudo science mumbo jumbo.
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 400 fragments have been found of her species. Again, curled toes were found. There was zero evidence that she or any of the others was transitioning to be anything but more A.A. This is true for all of evolutionism's so called transitions. All those fossilized in the same species are observed to stay the same species. (Now sometimes new species are created, but they never, ever move outside their taxonomic families. Bacteria stay bacteria in their bacterial domain, 100s of thousands of species of beetles stay beetles, plants stay plants, molds stays mold, insects stay insects, fish and birds stay fish and birds, etc. etc. etc. Therefore we can know for sure no evolution happens ever.) As usual, actual observable scientific data like that is considered irrelevant. What is consider relevant by evolutionists are fantasies about how because some fossil showed this or that similarity to this or that other life form, then they were turning into this or that other life form.. Thus we see the inevitable and consistent use of the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience logical fallacies which undergirds evolution theories. Real science is resal logical. Pseudo science is based on unsupported theories presented as gawd's truth facts. With fake computer animation and art work and not uncommonly, flat out lies.
Evidence of theory of evolution: Fossil Record: The fossil record provides a chronological record of past life forms, showing a pattern of gradual change over time. Fossils of simpler organisms are found in deeper rock layers, while more complex organisms appear in more recent layers. Transitional fossils, such as Archaeopteryx (a bird-like dinosaur) and Tiktaalik (a fish-like amphibian), exhibit characteristics of both ancestral and descendant species, supporting the idea of common ancestry. Homologous Structures: Similarities in anatomical structures among different species indicate common ancestry. For example, the pentadactyl limb structure (having five digits) is found in various vertebrates, including humans, cats, bats, and whales, suggesting a common ancestor with this trait. Vestigial Organs: Vestigial organs are structures that have lost most or all of their original function through evolution. Examples include the appendix in humans, the pelvis in whales, and the wings of flightless birds. These vestigial organs make sense in the context of evolutionary history, as they were likely functional in ancestral species. Genetic Evidence: DNA sequencing has provided compelling evidence for evolution. Comparative analysis of DNA and protein sequences across different species reveals similarities and patterns of relatedness. The degree of similarity in DNA sequences between species corresponds to their evolutionary relationship, with more closely related species having more similar DNA. Biogeography: The distribution of species across different geographical regions can be explained by evolution. Similar environments tend to have similar species, even in geographically separated areas. This can be seen in the distribution of marsupials, which are found predominantly in Australia and nearby regions. Observational Evidence: Direct observations of natural selection and speciation have been documented. Examples include the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and the adaptive changes observed in Galapagos finches studied by Charles Darwin. Comparative Embryology: Embryological development provides evidence for common ancestry. The early stages of development in different organisms often show striking similarities, indicating shared ancestry. For instance, the embryos of humans, fish, and birds exhibit gill-like structures early on, reflecting their evolutionary history.
@@trs1562 that can be explained by lifelong indoctrination and a lack of critical thinking skills/ scientific education. not everyone gets it, i suppose.
@@duckagon9359 ☺ That's because they didn't read their Bibles. The Catholic church forbid them to read it in their own language or face the death penalty. The book of Isaiah says God sits above the circle of the earth. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+40%3A22&version=NKJV
Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck (August 1, 1744, Bazentin, Somme - December 18, 1829, Paris) was a French naturalist and botanist. He is also the first to propose a naturalistic - or physicalist and not metaphysical - so-called materialistic and mechanistic theory of the origin of living beings from which he elaborates a theory of their appearance by natural evolution. His transformist theory is based on two principles: the increasing complexity of the organization of living beings under the effect of internal dynamics specific to their metabolism; their diversification, or specialization, in cash, following an adaptation to their environment of their behavior or their organs. Lamarck is thus one of the first naturalists to have understood the theoretical necessity of the evolution of living beings.
@Notger, Prince-évêque de Liège nope streching tob e taller and expecting your kids tob e the same is very diffrent from epigenetics epigenetics mostly isn't transmissable in populations usually only lasts for a bit then goes away but normal genetics is permanent
I can tell you a evolution life on earth in Islam Religion, You can learn that From Quran Book of Islam and you can find a Muslim Who knows Don't worry Islam is perfect religion from God,God created Islam only one religion in world and The rest is a misguided man -made religion
@@techgame9871That's like saying English evolved from German. We didn't evolve from chimps. We have a common ancestor with them. Try reading some literature from actual scientists,you may learn something.
He didn't. He came up with the theory of "Natural Selection", which explains HOW evolution works. You don't even understand the concepts well enough to get your own title correct.
@wolf pup Show me where Quantum Physicists are studying ""universe's infinite consciousness". I think you have mistaken hippies for physicists... Evolutionary sciences are still at the forefront of science today, and Darwin got way more right than he got wrong. You need to attend some actual science conferences to see what is happening in the real world.
@@bladerunner6282 I am criticizing the TITLE. I referenced it specifically. Does the BBC not have one science consultant to check TITLES of videos that will be viewed millions of times by the public?
They also banned the article on Clitoris! It's not enough that the women have to sit all day at home, the man are also scared of the little man in the boat.
If, as an educator of evolutionary biology and natural history, one would ever want to use audio-visual means as a medium of teaching, I believe THIS is the kind of video all should aspire to make. This sits in the Goldilocks Zone of animated videos.
Jesus Christ those are some of the best visuals I've ever seen. I couldn't look away for even a second cause I was scared I'd miss something cool, I could hardly even focus on the narration lol.
@@zee446 I know it’s possible yes but I don’t believe it’s biblical nor is God unable to get it right in 6 days. Not death for millions of years. It’s pretty clear in the bible, morning and evening THE first day, etc, etc...
Yet people don’t believe a creator of life exists... wow! Trees, animals, humans, eyes all extremely complex but somehow this came by chance! Lol wow now that’s faith!! People believe with enough time this animation could have made itself... Did Darwin Murder God? ruclips.net/p/PLrCQerz2L0IfFeDqgU_nu5_j1ruVSZKQ7
@@drezilla1310 It is not a miracle. Imagine that the first cell formed doesn't got any changes still it remains same now, then it would have been a miracle. But it did change to other forms which means no miracle has happened. It is easy for you to draw an abstract figure rather than a perfect circle. Same analogy works here.
@@Black-Circle do you really think evolutionary theory has *anything* to do with the origin of the universe? If you do, then you're definitely an idiot.
I don’t I believe everything that is talked about in the Bible all you need is context do you believe in evolution but still deny the Bible have a civil conversation with me and we can talk about it
@@dr.mastermind2264 I cant believe that people still believe books that were written 2000 years ago 🙄✋ If you wish to tell me I'm wrong. Prove god. Prove the afterlife. Prove the bible. (Or you can't do that)
@@rocketthedog1409 I gladly will accept your challenge but first I want to know a little bit about you so do you believe in all 6 types of evolution or just the one type that has been proven? Also are you an atheist or agnostic? Lastly, if you were wrong and the God of the Bible were true would that have an impact in your life?
If we're going to call this "Theory of Evolution" then why don't we call it "Theory of Christianity" or "Theory of Islam" considering there is certainly less evidence supporting religion?
A scientific theory is a hypothesis that is verified experimentally in controlled mathematical models or observed in real world. The word 'theory' is used scientifically and not colloquially like The Theory of Gravitation etc
Things don't just pop into existence. We evolved from bacterium. If the deniers want to be taken seriously, then they should demonstrate their magic in a lab.
Lamarck, father of the idea of evolution When the nineteenth century begins, many naturalists are convinced that living things change over time. Buffon has already led, in 1766, the idea that animals are transformed. However, for him, these transformations remain very localized: a dog and an earthworm are not related. Yet these ideas are making their way and evolving. A radical turning point took place in 1809, when a book entitled Philosophie zoologique appeared. The author is Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck. For the first time, we imagine that all living beings evolve and transform, that evolution is generalized. But, moreover, all these forms are linked. All the animals on the one hand, all the vegetables on the other, are transformed successively into each other, as on a gigantic "evolutive treadmill". After millions of generations, a fish would become a reptile; a reptile would evolve into a bird or a mammal.
Remember, darwins revolution wasn't recognizing evolution(evolution was generally understood and other evolutionary theories preceded it), not even necessarily natural selection(others had recognized selection as a negative force for eliminating the weak before Darwin), but recognizing what others had not before him, that natural selection is a CREATIVE force for change.
"that natural selection is a CREATIVE force for change." Natural selection creates nothing. It only destroys poorly adapted individuals. It has no new genes to deal for the survivors. They must continue with the genes they have. Natural selection makes a more one-sided gene pool, because only the "best genes" survive. If the natural surroundings change again, there is not enough variety in the gene pool and the subspecies goes extinct. No evolution.
@@paulgilhuis1 Yea of course, would you agree that both cannot evolve since they cannot procreate and are not alive and that this is a ridiculous straw man argument that has nothing to do with the subject at hand ?
@a basketboy OK, fine. Let's do this again. >Why are they so different & bear no relationship to the shelled fossils on the other side of the Proterozoic - Cambrian divide? Because they aren't. >What caused the Cambrian explosion? What caused Cambrian fauna to suddenly develop shelled carapaces? The debut of the first predators. >How did the wide varieties of different types of trilobites, bivalves, gastropods & brachiopods develop within the individual orders & also separating one order from another? Let me answer with another question: why would that be odd? >How did the Silurian trilobite, Phacops rana, develop such complex eyes? After all, as a primative, early, supposedly relatively unevolved form of life, such eyes should not be possible. There's no reason to think it shouldn't be possible. >How did this evolution take place & where did Ichthyostega get its ribs from? Fish have ribs too and we know that sarcopterigi fish were able to crawl on land and breathe air. >Why have fossil footprints been found in Poland that are supposedly 12 million years older than Ichthyostega fossils, the supposedly most primative tetrapod? Because no one said ichthyostega was the first tetrapod. No let me ask you a question: why this stuff should make more sense in a creationist framework?
Like all fairy tales, evolution is simple to understand. That's why children and uneducated adults get fooled by it so easily. It is easier to just believe in a slow "step by step by step" transformation, than to start examining if it could be genetically possible. The hard core of Darwinist evolution theory is this: "All life on Earth stems from a Universal Common Ancestor (UCA)". UCA is also called "First Cell". Nobody has seen it because it is a purely hypothetical assumption with no scientific basis. But if we assume there was a UCA billions of years ago, it would've had the strange task to produce evolution while working against the evolution theory 😃 Evolution theory tells that evolution needs natural selection. Natural selection needs variations in the organisms, so that the fittest survive and the less fit go croak. The UCA however could've produced mere clones of itself. No sexual reproduction, no variation, nothing for nature to select = No evolution. It doesn't look realistic that UCA could have existed. Evolutionists are also misled with the concepts of "micro evolution" and "macro evolution". In reality "micro evolution" means only speciation. Speciation occur within a species' own genome by genetic recombination, when the parents' genes form new combinations in the meiosis. That's all. "Macro evolution" instead means nothing, because there is no kind of evolution. Evolution is impossible, because the Hox genes do not allow it, no matter how much time and effort is used. During the last 100 years’ empirical tests even slightest changes in the anatomical structures have been impossible to produce. There is no evidence for evolution i.e. a species changing to a genus with a different anatomical structure (body plan). Not in fossils, not in laboratories where millions of generations have been used as test organisms. Evolution would need qualitatively new genes but they are nowhere to be found and mutations mean destruction. Science has never proved that speciation could lead to evolution. Scientists’ observations: ”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.] Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.] Gerrish and Lenski estimate that the proportion of useful mutations vs. harmful mutations is 1:1000 000. [Gerrish P.J., & Lenski, R., The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Gentetica 102(103):127-144, 1998.] Ohta, Kimura, Elena and others have estimated, that the proportion of useful mutations is so low that it can’t be statistically measured! [Ohta, T., Molecular evolution and polymorphism. Natl Inst Genet Mishima Japan 76:148-167, 1977.] [Kimura, M., Model of effective neutral mutaitons in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444, 1979.] [Elena, S.F. et al, Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E. Coli. Gentetica 102/103:349-358, 1998.] Because evolution has never been scientifically proven, evolutionists have started to call speciation as ”evolution”. But there is no evolution. Species can produce only adaptive variations and subspecies, that’s all.
@@reeseexplains8935 Both are theories. You do not know if God exists. But the evidence does point to a creator. Darwin never denied the possibility of God. And Einstein certainly believed that a creator is the only logical explanation for existence. So you are making a huge claim when you say that, care to back it up?
Evolution doesn’t have not even one example of a sure change in species. It has so many holes in it and it is based on assumptions of ”wise” beard men with round glasses. This world has forgotten the fear of the Lord :|
Evolution is a theory, that's why Drawins book is literally called "The Theory of Evolution." Of something is a theory, why are you so shocked that your buddy doesn't believe in it?
@@aaronclarke7732 I honestly don’t even feel the need to ”expose” the theory of evolution. People who believe God has created, believe, and those who choose to believe in ”scientific research” and scientific research only, can. There are laws, that if we try to break, they would break us. For example, lets take potential energy as an examp. If a person was suicidal, with no hope, and on a balcony fifty feet above the ground, their potential energy would be enough to crush their own bones and did on impact, IF they jumped. You can feel free to believe that our ancestors evolved from apes and with no teaching or a certain order, in which they would evolve. For example, there are laws in physics that haven’t been discovered quite yet. Newton’s law was FOUND in 1687. There is no man who created the law. Mathematics can be interesting if you are not bound to homework lol. 1+1 Creator = creation
i know its easy to say this with the luxury of hindsight but...did it really have to take us THIS LONG to put two and two together. i mean, it feels like this should have been apparent to humans way back in the days. we domesticated wolves and wild cats, turned them into docile companions 1/3 of their original size. we literally used the evolutionary process as a tool for the last 1000s and 1000s of years. also, you can just observe it in nature..."hey, heres a lizard....hey, heres a lizard that looks almost the same but this one lives deeper in the forest,is slightly bigger and a slightly different shade of green." wouldnt that make somebody go "hey, i bet that one came from that other one"
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 Last time I checked even Dawkins had to admit Jesus existed based on scientific historical evidences. So you can't say that there are no evidence regarding the bible and certain events that was written in the bible. With growing evidence within DNA research and organic chemistry, the case against evolution is becoming quite convincing.
@@realthings5821 It's not just the denial of science by SJWs, it's the impulsive, degenerate behaviour that they often demonstrate, though; degeneracy isn't exclusive to SJWs, but I haven't seen a normal looking SJW yet - these are the type of people that will be caste from the herd, eventually when society collapses. Poor idiots, they have put all their faith into the welfare state. If only they could cost it. 😂
@James M - inferring that you have to worship abrahamism to be be anti-science, LOL. You have such a limited intellectual capacity. As for science denial, why don't we start with leftist denial of biological concepts, such that of race and gender?
Because they claim the big bang would be part of evolution somehow, so by debunking the theory of evolution they automatically debunk thatz as well by default. Yea I don´t get it either how they can possibly thinki that makes sense.
@@Gameplayzr And yet countless science deniers like young earth creationists and flat earthers base their denial on their believe. Since when is faith based on logic ? Also while Lemaitre had as huge influence on the big bang I would argue the work of Hubble was way more important for it. Without him showing that almost all galaxies are movign away friom us, and thus if you reverse it they come closer and closer toget6ehr and actually end up in the same spot at the same time, the BBT would not have had a leg to stand on.
@@Gameplayzrdoesn’t matter there a lot of religous scholar from buddhist to christians who laid some foundation in understanding in science. Those who chose to accept their theories and ideas may choose not follow their cultural beliefs. Science is just concept of naturalism understanding.
@@bogyo66 No, Darwins Theory it's not supported by science and the evidence goes against it! Entropy, DNA(complex ordered information in finer systems than single-celled organism undetected by darwin that cannot be explained and accounted for by the vague, abstract and inconclusive means of natural selection and random variation which are environmental aspects that merely affect adaptation), Genetic lines (traced back do not deviate from root cause), mutation (leads to a defect not an effect and have not been proved or shown to have produced a developmental process), Adaptation (micro-evolution) variation within a species is observed, not and no evidence for one species moving to another (macro-evolution). What's the driving force? The origins of the DNA code and living information? in essence, what even is information in its purest and how would you quantify it in materialistic terms? and what is the mechanism that has assembled the DNA structure? what are the specific aspects that facilitate the subsequent molecular structures that form species with specifically male and female structures that can procreate and replecate their species? Regardless of the quantity of time, what are the empirical qualitative scientific components to the model that simulates the mechanics of the theory? (not just a cartoon of a cell turning into a fish through various other forms of creature out of the water onto land into a monkey eventually into a human with a few fossils chucked in that are unsubstantiated); How species were assembled for different types of creatures to function in the ecosystem of which it exists? and what were the intermediary processes and the evidential changes that occurred for a species to go through such severe design constraints? from water to land and land to water like the ambulocetus. Appreciate different points of view just good to clarify data when talking science!
Most animals do not see in 3 colors. The gene that allows humans to see yellows, blues and reds is only found in one group of animals, primates of which we are a member species. Some 40 million years ago a gene duplication mutation occured doubling the OPN1MW gene sensitive to the yellow/green section of the light spectrum and a later mutation of this resulted in the OPN1LW gene that enables primates having this to see the color red. This mutation is unique to primates and as a primate, we too have this form of color vision.
@@Ryallison-XP Now everyone says non specific names that don't have to do with anything at all? Sigh...we live in a society with horrible people like you. You are the reason why humanity has fallen.
@@hrpickinstuff I think you should go and do your research not me !! Cause evolution by natural selection considered the greatest scientific theory of all the times by scientists!!!
No. The new age doctrine is deception. Sincerely a former new ager/ reiki master. Now saved. But question, how do you explain all of the evil in the world? Does that come from nature/earth? It can't. Get to know Jesus ;)
this animator deserves an oscar
Rick Sanchez I agree with you man
Sadly still cannot explain anything about:
1) The missing link of Hominization.
2) Large dark eyes on apes become large white eyes on human.
3) Small brain on apes become big brain on human.
Many more.
The funny thing, this evolution theory should explain about the "evoution", instead just showing the "revolution theory".
@@nobodyjustme7481 stop being wilfully blind and study the subject, cause you're just making a fool out of yourself. This is not a contest but a search for actual truth so if you are going to throw around theories that have long been proven to be wrong just go to a little brain dead section of the internet and spread around your propaganda there
@@MrFlexNC You didn't answer my comment and just blabering, talking nonsense like a kid.
1) Where is the missing link between Lucy and Human?
2) How large dark eyes on apes suddenly become large white eyes on Lucy?
3) How small brain on apes suddenly changed become big brain on human?
If you can found Lucy's fossil, you should found thousands fossil of the next missing link between Lucy and homo sapiens.
Not only thousands, even millions fossil of missing link should be found, because the number of human colonies should growing and keep growing, from hundreds to thousands in decades, from thousands to millions in centuries, and from millions to billions in millenniums. But yet until now, no one could show any single one of missing link.
The funny thing, there are only 40 tiny fragment of bones (less than 15% of bone structure) from Lucy's fossil that had been found. This means, more than 85% of Lucy's bone structures are only "imagination" patches. So, there is no any evidence, the evolution theory is absolute flaw, and Lucy just an apes.
periodtt
the power of animation this video holds is unbeatable
Betul2
You should also read Quran to know the truth
@@md.fahimfaysalasif4493 Can the Quran teach me how to edit videos like this?
@@md.fahimfaysalasif4493 We speak facts here, not fairytales
Bagi aku teori darwin ni mungkin btl. Tp bukan pd permulaannya kita monyet. Cube fikir blk kite ni sbg manusia. Sifat ingin tahu dn xpernah bersyukur. Diciptakn adam dn hawa dgn cukup sempurna. Tp disebbkn sifat ingin tahu dn xbersyukur ape yg diberikan. Kemungkinan besar slh satu keturunan kite tlh mengcantumkn benih manusia dgn monyet(phm2 jela maksudnye) Utk tujuan mencapai tahap spt monyet. Sbb ini la dahulu terlahirnye manusia baru.dn mungkin sbb ini la jgk adenye manusia berupe monyet spt sejarah2 kuno ceritekn. Malah manusia baru ni suke memburu manusia lain. Dn terhapuslah manusia2 yg sebenar. Kisah manusia baru nipun ade dlm sains yg ditemui.mungkin msh ade sisa2 manusia yg tulen mase 2.tp lupe ke kite. Pernah terjadinye banjir besar yg menenggelamkn bumi? Jd, ape yg tertinggal cume keturunan nabi nuh..bagi aku manusia 2 sempurna dh Allah ciptakn.cume kite ni xpernah bersyukur.kenape xdiceritekn dlm al-quran.?sbg manusie. Dpt ke kau trime kenyataan ni.?senang cite kau sanggup ke ngaku monyet 2 sedare kau?sedangkn Allah dh ciptekn manusia 2 sebaik2nye dn kite suke hati nk mengubahnye.sbb 2 jgk la peradaban manusia dulu kite lihat mempunyai teknologi canggih.ini sekadar teori aku dr melihat2 sejarah2 dr sains. Tp Allah lebih mengetahui.
A separate tutorial video should be made on how to animate like the bbc animator
Prophecy is unfolding, men's hearts are becoming colder because of unbelief, the Mark of he Beast is ahead, Satan is the father of lies and the god(small "g") of the world. We are in the end times, many people have been receiving the Holy Ghost with the supernatural evidence of speakin in tongues, they that truly believe can receive it.
@@JoyDaz00 ahhahah bullshit
@@JoyDaz00 blah, blah, blah, blah
@@JoyDaz00 grow up
@@Amen.ahmed1
1 Corinthians 13:11 KJV
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
Kako Abraham is the animator, just to emphasize for the fact everyone (including me) loves this animation so much
I thought the subject of the video was darwin ism and a buch of people commenting about the animation🤦♂️. Give an opinion about the subject
@@Aroncare well most people dont need an opinion on something thats seems pretty much factual like evolution 😂
Big applause for the motion graphics & VFX!
Thank you BBC, for the production.
Scientist have made a new discovery!
Smartphones evolved from toasters, which evolved from screws, which were created by Iron molecules 1 billion years ago.
@@outofthebox9699
News flash.
Scientists discover that manufactured products from assembled parts in no way resembles biological reproduction and evolution.
They showed you adaptability and mutation and like a clever magician they made you believe in evolution
@@Krishnas_flute
Ah, you mean the basic elements of evolution- for which there is no obstacle.
@@outofthebox9699you are obviously a Muslim😂
Me comes to comments to know about something new and interesting
I sees: everyone talking about the animator.
Yeeee
Mr. Singh, I am sure you are aware, that God created man in his own image, that we were created to worship God, that it is because of sin, we are condemn to die, that we continue to sin daily and ultimately we must give an account for our sins. The criminal code defines conducts and degrees of punishments, likewise the bible shows us the need for a saviour and redemption from sin.
why did you write "i sees" instead of "i see'' ? thank you.
@@DarioDew Thank you, Mr.Grammarly.
@@MrSingh-fu6dz I didn't mean to offend you. I just asked.
Was looking for the fight between the religious and the others in comments, but it's all about the animation 😅
Damn I was looking for exactly the same thing
Dam😂😂😂
@Al Mudarabah Nah Jesus is God
@Al Mudarabah Give me a break
I just want to know what app is she using.I want to use it for my class presentation.
Amazingly portrayed… and the animator deserves a big round of applause… it was soo good… 👌👍
Give the animation guy a pay rise
Sexist to assume this was a "guy"!
@@dereksimmons1252 guy is gender neutral
@@dereksimmons1252 god, I don't even know who you are yet I already don't like you. smh
@@dereksimmons1252 spoilded brat alert , go in the description then reply
team*
Those animations though 😯
BBC money. Can attract the most talented people around the world.
The BBC is obliged to explore and promote new and young talent. This may be an example of that. You may be surprised to know that the BBC invented videotape and NICAM stereo (amongst mush else) back when it was mandated to keep abreast of new technologies.
The thing I like most about the BBC is that both (politically) left and right wing people/entities accuse the news service of bias. Ergo...
Edit: "Amongst much else"
@@arthurjarrett1604 they're monitored by Offcom - an institution created to impose legislation and protect consumers - that they must remain non bias. While some stories are politically biased towards right wing, and others are left wing, they remain non bias because they are presenting both sides; that is similar to The I.
@@ollybirkbeck8888 I don't know what "The I" is, but I think you're reinforcing my point?
@@arthurjarrett1604 a British newspaper and online news service, recently taken over from The Daily Mail.
admit it guys this music made this interesting and the voice is too soothing
How can I not agree? This is the best evolution video after all.
no the _animator_
it is not a scientific theory it is a belief of Atheist
Editor deserves a raise
lol its funny u said that!! cause i got a big one!!
Thanks for explaining my genius.
Your nothing but a fake
you mean i am a genius.
😆😊
Retro Astronaut he used evidence and proog
Retro Astronaut evidence?
I quite like how this video was composed: the sequencing of the animation and how well it went with the music - even the narrator fit so well. It gave the information very friendlily.
ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQh/видео.htmlttps://ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQ/видео.html MY EVELUTION VIDEO IS BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@garlicgobyebye you know the rules, and so do I
To be fair, the idea of evolution was known before Darwin. It is the explanation he gave, natural selection, what gave acceptance to it.
Even the ancient Greeks had some idea that life changed over time.
Yes ancient evolution theory was influenced by the teaching of Reincarnation, advancing to higher life forms over long periods of time. ? ? Source ancient Babylon. ?
READ ABOUT THE "TEN INCARNATIONS OF VISHNU" IN HINDUISM. THESE PEOPLE STEAL EVERY WORK FROM OTHER CULTURES.
they said it on the video
Yeah, who would have thought Darwin would cause WWII?
Just watched this video for a class assignment and was blown away by the editing on the video. The description says it was made by Kako Abraham. They definitely gained a new fan today!
The comment section has devalued my faith in humanity. Darwin was right. Get over it
Thank you
@Randall Wilks I agree with most of what you hv said sir becoz even my kids are not given free will at school. They hv to "believe" in "a theory" of evolution (that has unrelated evidence) & hv "faith" that the carbon dating machine is accurate. They hv to hv "faith" that the science rabbi/preacher/sensei is not in error. And the state institutions mk sure that the programming (no free will) begins when they are toddlers. If they present a different point of view, the examination system penalises them for heresy and society ridicules them into submission. Logic & rational thought (which is subjective) can only be respected & accepted within the parameters of the general education system. Otherwise opinion about an intelligent designer or architect of the universe are irrational & aren't to be given an opportunity for investigation.
@@charlesmtang.7708 That's like saying your kids have to 'believe' in the 'theory' that the Earth isn't flat
Devalued faith in humanity! These are the beliefs that motivated Josef Mengele when he worked with Hitler… quote: "the reduced adaptation, as Darwin expressed it, does not lead to eradication, but rather the effect of natural selection has been transformed through civilization into its opposite and thus to contraselection." End of quote. Then he went ahead and performed open heart surgery with no anaesthetic and while the victim was awake!
@@charlesmtang.7708 You are a moron, there are literal videos of evolution like this one. ruclips.net/video/plVk4NVIUh8/видео.html .Denying evolution is akin to denying gravity.
people dislike this video even though the animator spend probably days on this. also, the content and the way of delivering it is not bad at all.
@Dominik Zelenák
*The truth about man is that he was created from clay* : water and dirt
I don't know why this real scientific theory is not considered or published until people know the truth.
God created Adam from (mud) and Eve from Adam’s rib and breathed into them from his spirit, and made our real and supposed goal in this life to be worship, but you deny that and the truth is that God created us from clay. And we are made into this world for worship only.
As He said in the Noble Qur’an, God Almighty said in the Noble Qur’an: (I created the jinn and humans to worship Me) meaning we were created for this universe for worship, and this is the truth.
for those who want the truth..
*The truth about man is that he was created from clay* : water and dirt
I don't know why this real scientific theory is not considered or published until people know the truth.
God created Adam from (mud) and Eve from Adam’s rib and breathed into them from his spirit, and made our real and supposed goal in this life to be worship, but you deny that and the truth is that God created us from clay. And we are made into this world for worship only.
As He said in the Noble Qur’an, God Almighty said in the Noble Qur’an: (I created the jinn and humans to worship Me) meaning we were created for this universe for worship, and this is the truth.
for those who want the truth..
@Dominik Zelenák اللذين عاشوا في القرون كلها صحيحه ام هذا العصر الوحيد الي تتكلم عنه يا احمق ؟؟
@Dominik Zelenák
العربية لغة الجنه باذن الله
😂😂
The animation/editing in this video is one of the best works i have ever seen in a youtube video, made watching it a lot more enjoyable.
Mabuz Louis Vs. Evolution
ruclips.net/video/m83OdXHM01s/видео.html
No religion is hurt in this video.
Darwin was agnostic.
It took Darwin( one of the greatest scientists ever) 20 years to develop the evolution theory but it took bill nye one minute to say all people used to be black.
He just copied his homework from others.
He didn't have this eureka moment.
he just said we all used to be in africa , so fuck off idiot trumplican
Lmao
Indeed we all come from Africa.
I'm having a hard time imagining asians living in africa in ancient times 😂😂
Charles Darwin is a pure genius
There is no question about that.
You bet
Yet he still married his first cousin and fathers 5 children with her in full knowledge of the very high risk of health afflictions that can and did affect some of his children leading to early death . A flawed genius for sure .
@@erikkopsala3564 He was a man of his time. people still marry their close relatives. In Alabama, Mississippi, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, somalia, Arkansas, and many other places.
@@Amen.ahmed1 those people are the one's who believe in evolution. sick cult.
Mabuz Louis Vs. Evolution
ruclips.net/video/m83OdXHM01s/видео.html
As Designer, I know the work have been done. Kudos to the editor.
Extraordinary
You're a designer and you believe in evolution? LOL that's an oxymoron.
@@mostlysunny582 take your meds grandpa
"Change is inevitable" any species that doesn't change with it's surroundings will eventually go extinct. Great animation and the video was amazing. Thanks for making this
@Po Animals do change. But that change is extremely limited.
We are told over and over and over that a new species shows evolution. Nope. Speciation does not support evolution as it is an example of stasis and stasis is the exact opposite of evolution. For ex. over 200,000 species of beetles are all still beetles. There are thousands upon thousands of species of birds, bees, lizards, trees, bacteria, trees, yeast, flowers, whatever. If a new species develops within any groups at all, you can bet your bottom science dollar that it will still be just a beetle, bee, bacteria, tree, fish, or whatever.
We are supposed to fill in the blanks here with...faith...and think, "Well! If a new species develops then things just keep evolving and evolving from there on." But the next taxonomic step above a species, in the animal or plant kingdom, is a family. (A genus is just a grouping of similar species together). We aren't seeing any new families, much less any new orders, classes, phyla or kingdoms forming. Anywhere. Ever. According to Darwin's so called Tree of Life and peer reviewed evolutionary literature, new families, classes, orders, etc. have evolved. Over and over and over.
However, nature operates today as it did in the past. In the real world, with trillions of life forms around us, we never see anything developing to the level of a new taxonomic family. (Think domestic cats, lions and tigers, all in the same cat family). Those life forms out there have purportedly had eons and eons of ancestors preceding them which should be revealing at least one example of a part this family "transitioning" to be a part that of another family. Again, we see stasis.
We only see "transitions" to those higher taxonomic levels in the purely theoretical, unverifiable, ancient past, in the realm of evolutionary literature, and never in any life around us, or in any fossils. Of course they frequently point to a fossil and say things like "Well! Look at that leg-like thing on the whale! See, it used to be in a different family, when it walked!" Except real science shows that bone is used for supporting the whale's penis in mating and theory-only pseudoscience gets spread around forever with that myth and innumerable other evo myths.
If there is no evidence for transitions from one family to another - and please for your own sake try to find data if you know of any such evidence in the observable and not theoretical realm - then there is no evidence for evolution. And that's just for starters on how evolutionism defies real science.
Anyone: Kindly don't think some fossil provides the evidence. It is easy to point to a pile of petrified bones and make up stories about how its invisible and evidence free descendants turned into some other life form. But if you insist, use a fossil. Name it. Then check to see how you know it even had a descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less one that crossed the family barrier. Name the family it is transitioning out of and the one it is transitioning into.
While you are at it, since we are told evolution is driven by mutations and natural selection, great. Name a life form. Find data to show it is "evolving" as the result of a named act of natural selection or mutation. Remember, the poster kids for evolution are things like antibiotic resistant bacteria, some geckos, spotted salamanders, walking stick bugs, snowflake yeast, peppered moths, sickle cell anemia victims and lactose intolerant people. As always the "proof" for evolution proves the exact opposite.
All the bacteria, geckos, etc. etc., and all their descendants, continue to be nothing but bacteria, geckos, salamanders, homo sapiens etc. etc. Or if that is not the case, tell what they are "evolving" into that is not in those categories.
But no one ever names the life form or the act of natural selection, or mutation, that is causing it to "evolve." They usually try to change the subject or make excuses for why they can't answer. They may claim the answers to my questions are out there. On the net. Somewhere. Then they ask me to do my research and find it - while showing no evidence that they have done any research, themselves, at all. Not uncommonly they put down a smoke screen word salad, but none of their words ever name the life form, or the act of natural selection, or mutation, I asked them to name.
Anyone: You are not a goo through the zoo update. Human beings have a Heavenly Father Who made us in HIS image and likeness. He loves us and wants you to know Him, and to love Him, too. He wants us to be His children. Forever. I know I found that out myself when I was an atheist and evolutionism believer who had never looked outside the box.
And P.S. The reasons they have such great animations to "prove" evolution is because they don't have any real DATA, just theories that actually conflict with the data if you do your homework.
Mabuz Louis Vs. Evolution
ruclips.net/video/m83OdXHM01s/видео.html
Crocodilians be like: "hi"
@@thewordisahammer6634 eh i mean we share 90% of our DNA with orangutans, so it's highly possible
When i searched “darwin” This showed up when I was actually searching for The Orange Goldfish from Gumball
I've always thought that the "theory" of evolution was a "stupid test". If someone is stupid enough to believe that complex machines create themselves then they're stupid enough to be slaves to a dictator. Consider the flagellum which is an electrical outboard motor. It has a rotor, a field, armature, shaft and bushings, and a propeller that spins up to 10,000 rpm and can change directions almost instantly. Since we all know that machines can't think, My question for evolutionists would be, "How does the flagellum know it's job and what is it's incentive for doing it". I know what my incentive is...starvation...lol
@@brainguy3263 i think a germ can’t be a human bc come on it’s a
G E R M
@@russianpooch4711 it's basic medical fact that we have trillions of germs inside our bodies keeping us alive
you should of wrote ‘Gumball’
@@brainguy3263
Oh, we have a smart one over here, congratulations! You beat 99% of biologists in the world with your overworldy wisdom and intelligence given from your creator! Quick, go to the scientific community and tell them how wrong they are!
Oh wait, scientists already have a working hypothesis for how the flagellum evolved from a system of protein transport in prokaryotic organisms:
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002983
If you are SO smart, I’m sure you’ll understand this scientific paper with ease and you’ll be able to refute it.
This video is really good! In my school here in Brazil we just used your video! And the animation is really good to! (Sorry for the bad English, I'm still learning)
Please keep doing videos of this quality.
Charles Darwin is one of the most distinguished and respected scientists in history. He has a city named after him and is buried in Westminster Abbey, London, near Sir Isaac Newton. His Christian state funeral (usually reserved for monarchs only) was attended by thousands including royalty, aristocracy, professors, scientists, philosophers and scores of foreign dignitaries and international ambassadors.
Amazing work. I really admire great minds like Charles Darwin.
Darwin's grandfather stole the idea from Plato, Hinduism, Rosicrucianism, and Freemasonry. Darwin's grandfather was a famous Freemason.
@@jeremyjames1659Really? Is there a valid research on this claim?
@@SoftwaresCares Nope
@@jeremyjames1659 lol
@@jeremyjames1659 exactly. The theory was around long before this racist
I don't think the question is how did he come up with it?, The question should be how did he recognize it?. Biological evolution was a fact before Darwin was able to see what was happening and wrote his book. I also don't like the fact people often ask " do you believe in evolution?" That's a poor question. Biological evolution is not a belief system and labeling it as such reduces it to the level of religious superstition. The question should be, do you accept the massive amount of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that proves biological evolution is a fact?
@JYopp-t3o peer review does not mean " paid for" it means it's evaluated by other experts to see if it holds up to scrutiny and is a valid conclusion.
We all believe in something, if we don't acknowledge our beliefs as such, we cannot question them. The problems always begin when one group declares their beliefs 'unquestionable'-
This sort of dogma can be dangerous, not so long ago phlebotomy, craniology, eugenics, were considered unquestionable in some circles.
But it dose take a lot of faith to believe in evolution, there for by definition it is a religion!!!
@@rickcrume739 I think that comparison is a little unfair to religion- I'd say Darwinism is more like a superstition!
@@SteveLomas-k6k It's not a superstition if it's based on evidence.
"Information is like a cup, you can use it to drink water and benefit from it, or misuse it and drink poison".
- Me
الله يابوصبحان
Wisdom is in your blood
طب يا سيدس شكرا
This is soooo pleasant to watch, hats off to the whole production and animation team
I would say this...it was impressive watching this video even the graphic. You figure BBC would work this hard on this video and not use it on making a video on corruption, warmonger, colonies, imperialism in politics with the UK and US. And try to help Wikileaks with the truth and many more. Not just win the Oscars but maybe win a Nobel prize.
Others had similar thoughts on animals changing over time prior to Charles Darwin including his own Grandfather Ersamus Darwin. But it remains hypothetical till you can come up with an explanation of how that can happen plus provide evidence for it. The explanation of how and the evidence for it is what Charles Darwin provided.
Wrong.
@@jasonjennings8465 prove it then.
@@ramu992 www.researchgate.net/publication/278042089_Exploring_macroevolution_using_modern_and_fossil_data
www.nap.edu/catalog/11876/science-evolution-and-creationism
scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=Biological+evolution+of+species&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DFtRA0lmr8FUJ
www.nature.com/articles/hdy200814
Let me know when you can actually use the scientific method to refute the published evidence above. Don't give me your opinions, use the scientific method to explain how these are false. If you want to claim there is no evidence you must actually refute the published evidence that the scientific community has posted to validate the theory. They did their job. When can you either refute their actual work or admit you haven't even looked?
@@jasonjennings8465 Any one promoting creationism is delusional with mental health issues.
he literally proved evolution in his lfie time and we proved it even more when we discovered genes bruh you're actually a stone age person
The man behind one of the most brilliant theories in biology. What a man!
European Patriot Not
"Brilliant theories in biology" you mean the satanist that is directly responsible for millions or perhaps even over a billion people going to hell? Here's evidence against evolution: docs.google.com/document/d/1UTuACFnZvvQm9TvfraWTFQ8ZpxNUSLlImRtqxIWsVrQ/edit
@@x-popone6817 if he's a satanist , then i will gladly accept satanism cause it seems more logical than blindly believing in some invisible being, if that invisible being wanted me to worship him, then he shouldn't have created me with freewill.
@@ramu992 you're on ur way to hell, loser.
@@ramu992 i dont blindly believe
The animator shocked me more than Darwin.
I know many people have already said it, but the animation is exceptional!
Yeal, evolutionism absolutely depends on computer animation and other phony art work to make up for their lack of real scientific in their pseudoscience narratives.
@@thewordisahammer6634 It's science though, right? Can you prove otherwise?
@@swun3367 No, sorry but it is not real science. It is pseudoscience. If you have an animation that purportedly represents a fossil, but does not match the fossil, then you have pseudo science. For just one example fossil animations of Lucy show her with human looking hands and feet. Her fragmented fossil didn't even have hands and feet! Others of her species have been found and they had curled toes and fingers as you would find on arboreal monkeys. But those are never shown.
Let's deal with Darwin for now. Then the ball will be in your court. You can feel free to give any refuting observable data on any point of the observable scientific data that I am about to present. Let's look at the "Bible" of evolutionism, The Origin of Species. Maybe because it is so mind numbingly boring, people rarely notice something, namely that it never shows the origin of anything! Darwin's finch beaks are supposed to support goo through the zoo to you, but what do they really show? Zero.
Living finches, and their fossils, are all over the planet showing various size beaks, varying sizes of body parts, and many other physical differences. They are all nothing but finches. The fossils and living evidence that Galapagos Island Turtles et al have ever been or ever will be anything but turtles et al? Zero again. In evolutionism you always ignore the real data, or spin the actual evidence, and then make up data-free stories from the conveniently unverifiable, invisible, ancient past.
Oh, and btw, as usual in evolutionary theory you are being told one thing while the opposite is true, as about natural selection. It does not lead to evolution as Darwin claimed. It only shuffles, or sometimes eliminates, pre existing information that has always been in the genes. It never creates original strands of DNA as would be necessary, for ex., to turn a fin into a foot or a leg into a wing. Nothing ever observed creates original strands of DNA. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy which can be altered by things like mutations - to a very limited extent.
Beneficial mutations? They are said to be the second force for evolution. However, Charles Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on them, said "The good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."
Darwin was nothing but an armchair theorist who, unlike his contemporary Mendel, never supported his theory through the scientific method and cast doubts on it himself. Yet he is an icon of evolution, like another contemporary, a lawyer named George Lyell, who came up with the totally fictional Geologic Column.
The GC exists only in art work. The real evidence? Fossils are jumbled, in no neatly organized pattern whatsoever. There really are no such things as Cambrian, Jurassic, and so on "periods." Like the GC those are just fictions presented as facts. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chile. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils, such as sea shells and mollusks, are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops - like the world's highest, the Himalayans. Fossils of ocean floor trilobites are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places world wide, high and far inland.
Take a look. Notice the brown, somewhat egg shaped, fossil on a greyish background in the middle, 2nd row. That is an ocean floor dwelling, extinct, trilobite. www.bing.com/images/search?q=Marine+Fossils+On+Mountains&FORM=RESTAB ) Notice the exquisitely preserved details on it. Now some claim "plate tectonics" moved those vast stretches of ocean dwelling, bottom floor, marine life fossils to travel for millions of years and then wrap around the tops of mountains, completely intact and with perfect detail as you see in the link. It's like they never even heard of erosion.
If you wnnt to convince me there is a Geologic Column, please link close up photos. They should show lowest level "Cambrian" fossils at the bottom and higher level "era" fossils ascending upwards from there to match the GC. Now, I don't mean far off, distant photos of piles of rocks and mountain ranges which they CLAIM have a GC in it, but, again, close up photos.
The Bible says that flood waters completely covered the whole earth after, for one thing, "the fountains of the deep broke forth." (Did you know there is an ocean below our commonly known oceans, or have you seen the mid Atlantic ridge which looks like it used to be a great crack on the ocean floor? Probably not.). The fossil record shows that marine life fossils are at every level on the planet, everywhere around the globe, and that, in fact, over 99% of the fossils on land are marine. And they say the Bible is not historical and not backed by science. And btw there are almost 300 Great Flood legends around the world. For example, the one by the Aborigines of Australia is virtually identical to what the Bible reports.
Have you been told that there are huge cities found on ocean floors around the world? At least one such city has a pyramid bigger than those in Egypt.
So you've been told a book showed the origin of species, but it didn't. You've been told G.I. animals show evolution but they only show they are having, at most, minimal changes that leave them basically what they were before, still turtles, finches, etc.
You were told there is a Geological Column, but there is not one on the planet. You're told over and over that natural selection shows evolution when it actually just somewhat modifies the organism through shifting already present information, or sometimes through loss of information in the genomes, leaving it essentially what it was before. It may eventually become a new species of fish, or bee, or tree, etc., but it will always stay a fish, a bee or a tree etc. We see no evidence whatsoever of any species moving up to the next step on the Animal or Plant Kingdom, to become a previously unknown family, order class, phylum or kingdom.
We have trillions of life forms out there. So why don't we see mutations causing any Lifeform A to turn into a Lifeform B? After all, their ancestors have supposedly had hundreds of millions of Darwin years to make the switch and be moving around as part A and part B. But fish are staying fish, birds and are staying birds, flowers are staying flowers, mold is staying mold, trees are staying trees, monkeys are staying monkeys, bacteria are staying bacteria, etc., no matter how much they change. Again in the real world we see new species but we never, ever see a species turning into the next step up on the animal kingdom (plants ditto), a different family. Yet that would have had to have happened for evolution to occur, and it is claimed, with no evidence whatsoever, that it did happen over and over and over.
What else does evolutionism offer besides unsubstantiated theories, in fact theories that defy the real evidence, presented as facts? Logical fallacies. Logical fallacies always, always, undergird evolutionism defense.
The favorites are Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience, though it uses many.
Correlation Does Not Imply Causation goes like this: Fossil A is seen to have some similarity to Fossil B. There is no evidence whatsoever that Fossil A or B, or C etc. ever had a single descendant that was significntly different from themselves, but still we are told that they all led to one another. Parrots are bipedal, sing and dance, and sometimes speak appropriately, like humans. Sharks and dolphins have "similar homology". Spiders and octopuses have 8 legs radiating out of their round bodies, etc. etc. So it goes in nature. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation.
That leads right into the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. Another example of a use of that fallacy is when an evolutionary paleontologist will pick up a fossil from the ground and tell you with absolute authority that they know all about what happened to it's invisible "descendants" in the untestable past - for over 100 million Darwin years!
"Missing links" is a Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy phrase. How do you tell missing links from never existed links? Have...faith...brothers and sisters! And be so grateful that YOU ain't religious!
Learn how to spot logical fallacies and you will see them in every defense in evolutionary literature.
Ignoring the actual data is also part of evolutionism. For just one of innumerable examples, they say life can come from inorganic matter (and don't say they do not - who came up with the antiscientific primal pond, creationists?) The data, what real science uses, shows life, always and only, comes from life and life of the same kind.
Pile theories presented as facts on top of logical fallacies, ignore the real data or try to spin it away, and stir well with sophistry. Then you have evolutionary theory.
Anyone with eyes to see and a heart that loves truth and true science: You're not a fish update. You have a Creator Who made you and loves you and wants you to know Him, and to love Him too. Don't trade that in for pseudo science mumbo jumbo.
@@thewordisahammer6634 You do know that Lucy isn't the only australopitechus ever found, right?
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 400 fragments have been found of her species. Again, curled toes were found. There was zero evidence that she or any of the others was transitioning to be anything but more A.A. This is true for all of evolutionism's so called transitions. All those fossilized in the same species are observed to stay the same species. (Now sometimes new species are created, but they never, ever move outside their taxonomic families. Bacteria stay bacteria in their bacterial domain, 100s of thousands of species of beetles stay beetles, plants stay plants, molds stays mold, insects stay insects, fish and birds stay fish and birds, etc. etc. etc. Therefore we can know for sure no evolution happens ever.)
As usual, actual observable scientific data like that is considered irrelevant. What is consider relevant by evolutionists are fantasies about how because some fossil showed this or that similarity to this or that other life form, then they were turning into this or that other life form.. Thus we see the inevitable and consistent use of the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience logical fallacies which undergirds evolution theories. Real science is resal logical. Pseudo science is based on unsupported theories presented as gawd's truth facts. With fake computer animation and art work and not uncommonly, flat out lies.
when she said "THE FACT" she snapped so hard man
I got shivers through my spine
@@thezarcfiles2857 5:06
its right tho and yeah lol the narrator was so angry
This is the reality not a fake theory
ruclips.net/video/x1U04W68t5k/видео.html
@@mas4818 is the fake teory
Blimey, this comment section is going to be WAR!!!
A lot of crazy people and trollers
Is that a comment on evolution?
@@SusanPDavis Fuck off thats my evolution.
@@gearwar5114 Yes. I'm having a great time trolling a Hitler fan at the moment.
Greenpoloboy3 commies gotta commie engels x marx x darwin ❤️
Evidence of theory of evolution:
Fossil Record: The fossil record provides a chronological record of past life forms, showing a pattern of gradual change over time. Fossils of simpler organisms are found in deeper rock layers, while more complex organisms appear in more recent layers. Transitional fossils, such as Archaeopteryx (a bird-like dinosaur) and Tiktaalik (a fish-like amphibian), exhibit characteristics of both ancestral and descendant species, supporting the idea of common ancestry.
Homologous Structures: Similarities in anatomical structures among different species indicate common ancestry. For example, the pentadactyl limb structure (having five digits) is found in various vertebrates, including humans, cats, bats, and whales, suggesting a common ancestor with this trait.
Vestigial Organs: Vestigial organs are structures that have lost most or all of their original function through evolution. Examples include the appendix in humans, the pelvis in whales, and the wings of flightless birds. These vestigial organs make sense in the context of evolutionary history, as they were likely functional in ancestral species.
Genetic Evidence: DNA sequencing has provided compelling evidence for evolution. Comparative analysis of DNA and protein sequences across different species reveals similarities and patterns of relatedness. The degree of similarity in DNA sequences between species corresponds to their evolutionary relationship, with more closely related species having more similar DNA.
Biogeography: The distribution of species across different geographical regions can be explained by evolution. Similar environments tend to have similar species, even in geographically separated areas. This can be seen in the distribution of marsupials, which are found predominantly in Australia and nearby regions.
Observational Evidence: Direct observations of natural selection and speciation have been documented. Examples include the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and the adaptive changes observed in Galapagos finches studied by Charles Darwin.
Comparative Embryology: Embryological development provides evidence for common ancestry. The early stages of development in different organisms often show striking similarities, indicating shared ancestry. For instance, the embryos of humans, fish, and birds exhibit gill-like structures early on, reflecting their evolutionary history.
incredibly interesting stuff
u should read more
Please explain this: Www.evolutionvsgod.com
@@trs1562 that can be explained by lifelong indoctrination and a lack of critical thinking skills/ scientific education. not everyone gets it, i suppose.
@@trs1562 religion thought the earth was flat and that humans were made up of 4 liquids
@@duckagon9359 ☺ That's because they didn't read their Bibles. The Catholic church forbid them to read it in their own language or face the death penalty. The book of Isaiah says God sits above the circle of the earth. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+40%3A22&version=NKJV
Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck (August 1, 1744, Bazentin, Somme - December 18, 1829, Paris) was a French naturalist and botanist. He is also the first to propose a naturalistic - or physicalist and not metaphysical - so-called materialistic and mechanistic theory of the origin of living beings from which he elaborates a theory of their appearance by natural evolution. His transformist theory is based on two principles:
the increasing complexity of the organization of living beings under the effect of internal dynamics specific to their metabolism;
their diversification, or specialization, in cash, following an adaptation to their environment of their behavior or their organs.
Lamarck is thus one of the first naturalists to have understood the theoretical necessity of the evolution of living beings.
LaMarck's theory, while a precursor to Darwin's, was fundamentally incorrect, as he believed acquired traits could be inherited between generations.
it was incorrect tho it was a precurso sure but it was not really right it had some errors which were fundamental
@Notger, Prince-évêque de Liège nope streching tob e taller and expecting your kids tob e the same is very diffrent from epigenetics epigenetics mostly isn't transmissable in populations usually only lasts for a bit then goes away but normal genetics is permanent
I'm wondering what kind of style are in this motion graphics, someone can tell?
It's called the "how to get an epileptic seizure graphic animation".
@@victorymorningstar now i know why im in heaven
If someone has a better explanation than evolution for the diversity of life on earth I would love to hear it
I can tell you a evolution life on earth in Islam Religion, You can learn that From Quran Book of Islam and you can find a Muslim Who knows Don't worry Islam is perfect religion from God,God created Islam only one religion in world and The rest is a misguided man -made religion
Or you can find in internet about what I say it
No one has a better explanation. There are just religious biases against it,using the same old tired and refuted arguments.
@@johngavin1175 So how exactly humans evolved from chimps? Care to explain?
@@techgame9871That's like saying English evolved from German. We didn't evolve from chimps. We have a common ancestor with them. Try reading some literature from actual scientists,you may learn something.
He didn't. He came up with the theory of "Natural Selection", which explains HOW evolution works. You don't even understand the concepts well enough to get your own title correct.
Even Idea of Natural Selection predates Darwin. By Al Jahiz et al
32 seconds into the video (did you even WATCH it?) and your criticism becomes moot...
@wolf pup Show me where Quantum Physicists are studying ""universe's infinite consciousness". I think you have mistaken hippies for physicists...
Evolutionary sciences are still at the forefront of science today, and Darwin got way more right than he got wrong. You need to attend some actual science conferences to see what is happening in the real world.
@@bladerunner6282 I am criticizing the TITLE. I referenced it specifically. Does the BBC not have one science consultant to check TITLES of videos that will be viewed millions of times by the public?
@@swapanzameen6302 Show me where someone laid out the details of Natural Selection BEFORE Darwin and Wallace...
The Wikipedia article about "evolution" is blocked in Saudi Arabia
How do you know?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedia_articles_censored_in_Saudi_Arabia
@@Aamie Thx bro!
They also banned the article on Clitoris! It's not enough that the women have to sit all day at home,
the man are also scared of the little man in the boat.
Maybe its because of this: www.evolutionvsgod.com
If, as an educator of evolutionary biology and natural history, one would ever want to use audio-visual means as a medium of teaching, I believe THIS is the kind of video all should aspire to make. This sits in the Goldilocks Zone of animated videos.
Jesus Christ those are some of the best visuals I've ever seen. I couldn't look away for even a second cause I was scared I'd miss something cool, I could hardly even focus on the narration lol.
Why are you using the Lord’s name in vain. Exodus 20:7 tells us the Lord will not hold us guiltless for taking his name in vain.
Did Darwin Murder God?
ruclips.net/p/PLrCQerz2L0IfFeDqgU_nu5_j1ruVSZKQ7
@@drezilla1310 well not really, You can Still believe in God and Evolution at the Same Time
@@zee446 I know it’s possible yes but I don’t believe it’s biblical nor is God unable to get it right in 6 days. Not death for millions of years. It’s pretty clear in the bible, morning and evening THE first day, etc, etc...
@@drezilla1310 well of course it also Depends on what Kind Of God You Believe in
What an animation
Its creator is just 🔥🧠
Yet people don’t believe a creator of life exists... wow! Trees, animals, humans, eyes all extremely complex but somehow this came by chance! Lol wow now that’s faith!! People believe with enough time this animation could have made itself...
Did Darwin Murder God?
ruclips.net/p/PLrCQerz2L0IfFeDqgU_nu5_j1ruVSZKQ7
@@drezilla1310 complexity is not a miracle.
@@nandhakishor103 what a unintelligent statement.
@@drezilla1310 It is not a miracle. Imagine that the first cell formed doesn't got any changes still it remains same now, then it would have been a miracle. But it did change to other forms which means no miracle has happened. It is easy for you to draw an abstract figure rather than a perfect circle. Same analogy works here.
@@nandhakishor103 how exactly do you define a miracle then?
This animation was amazing! Also the explanation was loud and clear! Congrats!!
@@Black-Circle yea its science duhh did you really think god shaped the earth in 7 days
@Black Circle Everyone their own beliefs
@@Black-Circle bullshit, everyone their own belief but i dont belief in god.
@@Black-Circle do you really think evolutionary theory has *anything* to do with the origin of the universe? If you do, then you're definitely an idiot.
The sounds in the background makes it look like we are in a journey with him , just love it !!
Anyone know the title of the orchestral composition on the soundtrack of this video?
I can't belive people still deny evolution
I don’t I believe everything that is talked about in the Bible all you need is context do you believe in evolution but still deny the Bible have a civil conversation with me and we can talk about it
And I can't belive pepole still deny that God was the creator of the human race.
I believe in people who cant admit there wrong.
I can believe that people dont believe in evolution.
(They should)
@@dr.mastermind2264 I cant believe that people still believe books that were written 2000 years ago 🙄✋
If you wish to tell me I'm wrong.
Prove god.
Prove the afterlife.
Prove the bible.
(Or you can't do that)
@@rocketthedog1409 I gladly will accept your challenge but first I want to know a little bit about you so do you believe in all 6 types of evolution or just the one type that has been proven? Also are you an atheist or agnostic? Lastly, if you were wrong and the God of the Bible were true would that have an impact in your life?
If we're going to call this "Theory of Evolution" then why don't we call it "Theory of Christianity" or "Theory of Islam" considering there is certainly less evidence supporting religion?
A scientific theory is a hypothesis that is verified experimentally in controlled mathematical models or observed in real world. The word 'theory' is used scientifically and not colloquially like The Theory of Gravitation etc
Because of evolution, obviously.
There is lots of evidence for God www.evolutionvsgod.com
What a silly comment.
@@trs1562 not ONE bit of credible evidence for a god in there lol
What a beautiful video… with what an amazing graphics work
Things don't just pop into existence. We evolved from bacterium. If the deniers want to be taken seriously, then they should demonstrate their magic in a lab.
Religion has held us back for too long.
Creationists shook!
Or concerned for people's eternal salvation
Please explain this www.evolutionvsgod.com
@@trs1562 it's a website written by people who have never studied biology.
Look at scientific journals, not random websites.
By who? Lol
@Compagnon d'Iblis tho shall be tragically deceived into primitive thinking by pseudoscience!
The animation and voice over is so good it's helpful for my studies
Btw on p326 in the book of the decend of man
Darwin explains why women are lesser huam and dogs are better.
The most brilliant video I have ever watched in my life.
it is not a scientific theory it is a belief of Atheist
excellent presentation, clear and precise . amazing animation
Lamarck, father of the idea of evolution
When the nineteenth century begins, many naturalists are convinced that living things change over time. Buffon has already led, in 1766, the idea that animals are transformed. However, for him, these transformations remain very localized: a dog and an earthworm are not related. Yet these ideas are making their way and evolving.
A radical turning point took place in 1809, when a book entitled Philosophie zoologique appeared. The author is Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.
For the first time, we imagine that all living beings evolve and transform, that evolution is generalized. But, moreover, all these forms are linked. All the animals on the one hand, all the vegetables on the other, are transformed successively into each other, as on a gigantic "evolutive treadmill". After millions of generations, a fish would become a reptile; a reptile would evolve into a bird or a mammal.
... and his ideas of use and disuse did NOT explain 99% of what we see in the natural world. That is why Darwin is famous and Lamarck is a footnote.
Yes, yes. You majored in biology. Quit rubbing it in.
..... and what after mammals???
@@bogyo66 No one is "rubbing things in". I am correcting misconceptions. In some cases, I am correcting purposeful lies.
@@nicholasflamel1134 I wasn't talking to you, Potter!
Remember, darwins revolution wasn't recognizing evolution(evolution was generally understood and other evolutionary theories preceded it), not even necessarily natural selection(others had recognized selection as a negative force for eliminating the weak before Darwin), but recognizing what others had not before him, that natural selection is a CREATIVE force for change.
"that natural selection is a CREATIVE force for change."
Natural selection creates nothing. It only destroys poorly adapted individuals. It has no new genes to deal for the survivors. They must continue with the genes they have. Natural selection makes a more one-sided gene pool, because only the "best genes" survive. If the natural surroundings change again, there is not enough variety in the gene pool and the subspecies goes extinct. No evolution.
Mind Blowing Animation And storytelling Amazing work of Motion Graphic Artist
God didn't create life.
Life created god.
(Edit) I've been in this comment section for like an hour. Creationists, need to wise up.
@@paulgilhuis1 Yea of course, would you agree that both cannot evolve since they cannot procreate and are not alive and that this is a ridiculous straw man argument that has nothing to do with the subject at hand ?
@@paulgilhuis1 And more stupid straw man arguments. Do you even know what evolution says and how it works ? I have more and more doubts.
@@paulgilhuis1 And of curse no answer once you realized your usual straw men do not work
By far the most innovative and visually appealing visuals in a youtube video.
If Darwin is true why man can not change into another shape 🤔🤔🤔🤔😇😇
Great piece! Right up to the last five seconds...
Ah yes! The good old 👁 !!
everybody already noticed, but praise for the animation team/guy/girl will never be enough
If the BBC said Monday follows Sunday, I would check my calendar!
that is called delusion.
It's not just the great animation though, the music backround is wow too
The animation gave me goosebumps, very well made 💖💖
Where is our daily reminder that guy Jeffrey didn't kill himself.. 🙏
Evolution is a fact. It has been observed that organisms change and adapt to their environment.
@a basketboy All of this stuff was addressed a century ago.
@a basketboy The one chasing away from the data is you. You even just linked the evidence against your claim.
@a basketboy No, I answered and you just ignored me.
@a basketboy Again, the same questions you make every time and I always have to answer.
Can't you just look online? It's not that hard.
@a basketboy OK, fine. Let's do this again.
>Why are they so different & bear no relationship to the shelled fossils on the other side of the Proterozoic - Cambrian divide?
Because they aren't.
>What caused the Cambrian explosion? What caused Cambrian fauna to suddenly develop shelled carapaces?
The debut of the first predators.
>How did the wide varieties of different types of trilobites, bivalves, gastropods & brachiopods develop within the individual orders & also separating one order from another?
Let me answer with another question: why would that be odd?
>How did the Silurian trilobite, Phacops rana, develop such complex eyes? After all, as a primative, early, supposedly relatively unevolved form of life, such eyes should not be possible.
There's no reason to think it shouldn't be possible.
>How did this evolution take place & where did Ichthyostega get its ribs from?
Fish have ribs too and we know that sarcopterigi fish were able to crawl on land and breathe air.
>Why have fossil footprints been found in Poland that are supposedly 12 million years older than Ichthyostega fossils, the supposedly most primative tetrapod?
Because no one said ichthyostega was the first tetrapod.
No let me ask you a question: why this stuff should make more sense in a creationist framework?
This was actually interesting i don’t usually like stuff like this but this was actually good
It is wise to accept evolution rather than creation
Darwin was agnostic.
@@Ryallison-XP so what is the matter whether he is agnostic or not but his theory change the view of looking different living organisms
@@FrankoChakma He change the our vision from world.
@@ryallisson "Changed our vision"? What was "our vision" before; what is "our vision" now?
@@numbersix9477 Before creationist;now evolucionist.
Darwin should be a role model for kids interested in evolution and genetics
Like all fairy tales, evolution is simple to understand. That's why children and uneducated adults get fooled by it so easily. It is easier to just believe in a slow "step by step by step" transformation, than to start examining if it could be genetically possible.
The hard core of Darwinist evolution theory is this: "All life on Earth stems from a Universal Common Ancestor (UCA)". UCA is also called "First Cell". Nobody has seen it because it is a purely hypothetical assumption with no scientific basis.
But if we assume there was a UCA billions of years ago, it would've had the strange task to produce evolution while working against the evolution theory 😃
Evolution theory tells that evolution needs natural selection. Natural selection needs variations in the organisms, so that the fittest survive and the less fit go croak. The UCA however could've produced mere clones of itself. No sexual reproduction, no variation, nothing for nature to select = No evolution. It doesn't look realistic that UCA could have existed.
Evolutionists are also misled with the concepts of "micro evolution" and "macro evolution". In reality "micro evolution" means only speciation. Speciation occur within a species' own genome by genetic recombination, when the parents' genes form new combinations in the meiosis. That's all.
"Macro evolution" instead means nothing, because there is no kind of evolution. Evolution is impossible, because the Hox genes do not allow it, no matter how much time and effort is used. During the last 100 years’ empirical tests even slightest changes in the anatomical structures have been impossible to produce. There is no evidence for evolution i.e. a species changing to a genus with a different anatomical structure (body plan). Not in fossils, not in laboratories where millions of generations have been used as test organisms.
Evolution would need qualitatively new genes but they are nowhere to be found and mutations mean destruction. Science has never proved that speciation could lead to evolution. Scientists’ observations:
”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.]
Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.]
Gerrish and Lenski estimate that the proportion of useful mutations vs. harmful mutations is 1:1000 000. [Gerrish P.J., & Lenski, R., The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Gentetica 102(103):127-144, 1998.]
Ohta, Kimura, Elena and others have estimated, that the proportion of useful mutations is so low that it can’t be statistically measured! [Ohta, T., Molecular evolution and polymorphism. Natl Inst Genet Mishima Japan 76:148-167, 1977.] [Kimura, M., Model of effective neutral mutaitons in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444, 1979.] [Elena, S.F. et al, Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E. Coli. Gentetica 102/103:349-358, 1998.]
Because evolution has never been scientifically proven, evolutionists have started to call speciation as ”evolution”. But there is no evolution. Species can produce only adaptive variations and subspecies, that’s all.
The animations gave me goosebumps!
Conclusion: God created life
No he didn’t. He doesn’t exist.
@@reeseexplains8935 Both are theories. You do not know if God exists. But the evidence does point to a creator. Darwin never denied the possibility of God. And Einstein certainly believed that a creator is the only logical explanation for existence. So you are making a huge claim when you say that, care to back it up?
@@RussFaraci ruclips.net/video/RQ7VUZHwbEk/видео.html
@@reeseexplains8935 That is not evidence of no creator. Was that supposed to be a joke?
@@RussFaraci Evolution is a fact but it doesn't disprove God.
This video made me cry with laughter cuz my buddy doesn't believe in evolution and he's not even religious 😂😂😂
maybe he still has some brain cells left....lol
Evolution doesn’t have not even one example of a sure change in species. It has so many holes in it and it is based on assumptions of ”wise” beard men with round glasses.
This world has forgotten the fear of the Lord :|
The fairy theory of the evolution revolution, is a orchestrated comedy of errors. ? It's a source for Comedians to advance their careers. ? ?
Evolution is a theory, that's why Drawins book is literally called "The Theory of Evolution." Of something is a theory, why are you so shocked that your buddy doesn't believe in it?
@@aaronclarke7732 I honestly don’t even feel the need to ”expose” the theory of evolution. People who believe God has created, believe, and those who choose to believe in ”scientific research” and scientific research only, can.
There are laws, that if we try to break, they would break us. For example, lets take potential energy as an examp.
If a person was suicidal, with no hope, and on a balcony fifty feet above the ground, their potential energy would be enough to crush their own bones and did on impact, IF they jumped.
You can feel free to believe that our ancestors evolved from apes and with no teaching or a certain order, in which they would evolve.
For example, there are laws in physics that haven’t been discovered quite yet. Newton’s law was FOUND in 1687. There is no man who created the law.
Mathematics can be interesting if you are not bound to homework lol.
1+1
Creator = creation
Thank you so much! This helped me a lot with my biology project!
The Animation Team deserves An Oscar 😊😊😊
The background sounds are amazing and satisfying
the animator is a wizard!🧙♂️
i know its easy to say this with the luxury of hindsight but...did it really have to take us THIS LONG to put two and two together. i mean, it feels like this should have been apparent to humans way back in the days. we domesticated wolves and wild cats, turned them into docile companions 1/3 of their original size. we literally used the evolutionary process as a tool for the last 1000s and 1000s of years. also, you can just observe it in nature..."hey, heres a lizard....hey, heres a lizard that looks almost the same but this one lives deeper in the forest,is slightly bigger and a slightly different shade of green." wouldnt that make somebody go "hey, i bet that one came from that other one"
It's a wonderful video, I wonder who CREATED it
easy, the author is citated.... not the same for the universe...
@@1984magu thats false, the creator of the universe is also cited as well.
@@mostlysunny582 XD yeah, in a book chanthed by a warlord pedophile, of course XD ! ! !
@@mostlysunny582 On a book that we have no reason to believe is accurate to anything.
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 Last time I checked even Dawkins had to admit Jesus existed based on scientific historical evidences. So you can't say that there are no evidence regarding the bible and certain events that was written in the bible. With growing evidence within DNA research and organic chemistry, the case against evolution is becoming quite convincing.
Cue intellectually unarmed rebellion in the comment section.
Social justice warriors, offended by Darwins theory, because they know that their wimpy genes won't make it to the next stage of existence.
@@gladifly Considering that the thing wrong with SJWs is their anti-science religious fervour, I can almost agree with you.
@@realthings5821 It's not just the denial of science by SJWs, it's the impulsive, degenerate behaviour that they often demonstrate, though; degeneracy isn't exclusive to SJWs, but I haven't seen a normal looking SJW yet - these are the type of people that will be caste from the herd, eventually when society collapses. Poor idiots, they have put all their faith into the welfare state. If only they could cost it. 😂
This is getting weirder and weirder.
@James M - inferring that you have to worship abrahamism to be be anti-science, LOL. You have such a limited intellectual capacity. As for science denial, why don't we start with leftist denial of biological concepts, such that of race and gender?
Kako abrham and the whole team did great job 👏
Great motion graphics. Appalling over-use of music...made it almost unlistenable
Excellent Video.. Best explanation one can find on this topic ❤️
Why do religious people focus so much more on evolution than big bang theory
Because they claim the big bang would be part of evolution somehow, so by debunking the theory of evolution they automatically debunk thatz as well by default. Yea I don´t get it either how they can possibly thinki that makes sense.
@@daftwulli6145 This is not logical.The big bang theory was discovery by a priest.
@@Gameplayzr And yet countless science deniers like young earth creationists and flat earthers base their denial on their believe. Since when is faith based on logic ?
Also while Lemaitre had as huge influence on the big bang I would argue the work of Hubble was way more important for it. Without him showing that almost all galaxies are movign away friom us, and thus if you reverse it they come closer and closer toget6ehr and actually end up in the same spot at the same time, the BBT would not have had a leg to stand on.
@@Gameplayzrdoesn’t matter there a lot of religous scholar from buddhist to christians who laid some foundation in understanding in science. Those who chose to accept their theories and ideas may choose not follow their cultural beliefs.
Science is just concept of naturalism understanding.
@@daftwulli6145The being human is stupid by nature
Superd editing...i want to learn that..,
Amazing explanation....thank you
The animation is stunning! Thank you for the video
Man it's like the stupid Olympics in the comment section tonight.
And the Opening Ceremony's barely over...
I know all these people believing this pseudoscience
Please explain this www.evolutionvsgod.com
@@jink1-k3c You mean religion? I mean the it's the dictionary definition.
@@bogyo66 No, Darwins Theory it's not supported by science and the evidence goes against it! Entropy, DNA(complex ordered information in finer systems than single-celled organism undetected by darwin that cannot be explained and accounted for by the vague, abstract and inconclusive means of natural selection and random variation which are environmental aspects that merely affect adaptation), Genetic lines (traced back do not deviate from root cause), mutation (leads to a defect not an effect and have not been proved or shown to have produced a developmental process), Adaptation (micro-evolution) variation within a species is observed, not and no evidence for one species moving to another (macro-evolution).
What's the driving force?
The origins of the DNA code and living information?
in essence, what even is information in its purest and how would you quantify it in materialistic terms?
and what is the mechanism that has assembled the DNA structure?
what are the specific aspects that facilitate the subsequent molecular structures that form species with specifically male and female structures that can procreate and replecate their species?
Regardless of the quantity of time, what are the empirical qualitative scientific components to the model that simulates the mechanics of the theory?
(not just a cartoon of a cell turning into a fish through various other forms of creature out of the water onto land into a monkey eventually into a human with a few fossils chucked in that are unsubstantiated);
How species were assembled for different types of creatures to function in the ecosystem of which it exists?
and what were the intermediary processes and the evidential changes that occurred for a species to go through such severe design constraints?
from water to land and land to water like the ambulocetus.
Appreciate different points of view just good to clarify data when talking science!
Thank you for the info BBC NEWS!
holy cow, this editing skills
Most animals do not see in 3 colors. The gene that allows humans to see yellows, blues and reds is only found in one group of animals, primates of which we are a member species. Some 40 million years ago a gene duplication mutation occured doubling the OPN1MW gene sensitive to the yellow/green section of the light spectrum and a later mutation of this resulted in the OPN1LW gene that enables primates having this to see the color red. This mutation is unique to primates and as a primate, we too have this form of color vision.
Darwin was a good person, I hope nobody uses the name to make a mocking award!
Darwin was agnostic.
@@Ryallison-XP liar
@@NsodnoajdjkslThis is fact.The own James Moore talk on your book.
@@Ryallison-XP Now everyone says non specific names that don't have to do with anything at all?
Sigh...we live in a society with horrible people like you.
You are the reason why humanity has fallen.
@@Ryallison-XP
Darwin was agnostic and user-uk6qy4jx5s is a troll. What does either fact have to do with the discussions on this thread?
The greatest mind in history without any doubt
One of them sure. There are other trailblazers you should research first.
Not even close.
@@hrpickinstuff I think you should go and do your research not me !! Cause evolution by natural selection considered the greatest scientific theory of all the times by scientists!!!
@@liberalbias4462 ok do you want Jesus instead!!?
Nature and Earth is God
God is the Alpha and Omega
Evolution does not disprove God at all
It do however invalidate most creation myths.
No. The new age doctrine is deception. Sincerely a former new ager/ reiki master. Now saved. But question, how do you explain all of the evil in the world? Does that come from nature/earth? It can't. Get to know Jesus ;)
@@laylascott6096 because God granted us freedom
This is the reality not a fake theory
ruclips.net/video/x1U04W68t5k/видео.html
Yep, but it says god created the tiniest bit of life possible. And made it evolve into humans. Talking much longer than 7 days
The animation is on fire w gigachad editor 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥