Phylogeny and the Tree of Life
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 ноя 2017
- Alright, we've learned about how unicellular organisms came to be, how they became multicellular, and then from those how evolution by natural selection produced all the species in the world today. But there are so many! Millions and millions in fact. Which is most closely related to which? When did each evolve? What about all the ones that are gone? How do we keep track of this?! Ok calm down, friend. There is a whole discipline called taxonomy that we use to keep track of the phylogeny of every species. To see how it works, we look at the tree of life!
Watch the whole Biology/Genetics playlist: bit.ly/ProfDaveBio
General Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveGenChem
Organic Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveOrgChem
Biochemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBiochem
Anatomy & Physiology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveAnatPhys
Biopsychology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBiopsych
Microbiology/Infectious Diseases Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveMicrobio
Pharmacology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDavePharma
History of Drugs Videos: bit.ly/ProfDaveHistoryDrugs
EMAIL► ProfessorDaveExplains@gmail.com
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT
Here I am, spending a crap ton of tuition and still coming to RUclips, with free videos, that TEACH better than 90% of professors.
Shoutout to that single cell organism that started everything.
I would like to add a comment that chordates aren’t just classified as having a spinal cord, though that is one of the characteristics needed and is the major one, they most also have “Gill slits” or a sort of Gill like structure that appeared early on in evolution that all cordates have at one point in their development, and (for example humans) loose them later on in their developmental period.
If we're going to be technical, having a "spinal chord" implies the presence of a spine, and only vertebrates have spines. Chordates instead are said to have a "dorsal nerve chord" at some point in their development. Some animals are chordates but not vertebrates, like tunicates or lancelets.
In humans, we do not have gill slits. They're called pharyngeal slits
@@p.n3561 Here I was thinking I was being the pedant. When I was learning about this in biology, the term I was taught was "pharyngeal gill slits," and it was understood that they didn't always develop into gills, particularly for tetrapods.
@@ExplosiveBrohoof in biology, or just any branch of science, you can have multiple terms referring to the same thing. It's best to be pendant as to not avoid confusing people with lesser knowledge on the subject.
@@ExplosiveBrohoofI believe you want to say "Notochord". It is a major signalling center for Neurulation and other organ genesis.
All chordates have a Notochord at some point in their life.
Great video, minor issue: Cetacea is an infraorder, the order is Artiodactyla, or Even Toed Ungulate (Camels, Giraffes, Buffalo)
That was great vid , I was struggling with this chapter for a while , but now I’ve understood it .
Hopefully I will remember this all for my CBE tests.
very informative and interesting lecture. Thank you so much
Thanks lot professor. your overall lectures are well aspiring and fun. congratulations for this brilliant job well done.
Very informative and interestig subject.Thank you so much.
You are very awesome! I learn a lot from you. So thanks!
Thank for your explanation😊
Thank you very much for creating this video
You are the best professor ever :)
Excellently done
Amazing simple introduction
This explained everything I needed to know. I’m autistic and I struggle to understand certain things. I understand how it WORKS but I don’t understand how to read it, if that makes sense. So the diagrams of the tree of life has always been difficult to understand for me. Despite me understanding how evolution works in detail.
Thanks.when I was in 11th std I hv to struggle alot to understand these stuffs.Now m in 12th I need these information at some points nd ur video helped me alot.
Amazing video, watched again
Very nice job! Excellent!
as always Dave manages to simplify what university professor can not explain correctly xD
That's cuz he knows a lot about the science stuff
There's a reason we tend to find YT videos more helpful than in class. One, by the time we aatithe videos we already have a basic understanding of what it is because of the classes we took, which at that time we had less understanding. Second you're not getting quizzed or examed on this so he doesn't get into the details. If every class was 11 minutes long we'd have bad scientists
Are they not explaining correctly or do you just not understand what they explained? This is a RUclips video with very basic high-school level explanations (not that there is anything wrong with that). You are not going to hold a PhD with this knowledge. The purpose is to give lay people a basic understanding which is great for me and you.
@@joeye7518, Schools and colleges just love employing people that cannot teach.
@@jahimuddin2306 You go to college to learn how to learn, not to be taught. Be better.
great job, understand!!!!
Amazing work!
If all life shares a common ancestor, all life is inbred and everything that eats is a cambial.
If all life does not share a common ancestor, the "evolution tree of life" is a lie.
Take your pick.
Thanks, Im really struggling on this topic of biology :P
Thank you so much professor dave!!
If all life shares a common ancestor, all life is inbred and everything that eats is a cambial.
If all life does not share a common ancestor, the "evolution tree of life" is a lie.
Take your pick.
@@alrichs8146
Why wouldn't anyone pick
"If all life shares a common ancestor, all life is inbred and everything that eats is a cambial"?
@@alrichs8146 you'd be surprised how common inbreeding and cannibalism are in the animal world.
can't wait for the anatomy and physiology course
If all life shares a common ancestor, all life is inbred and everything that eats is a cambial.
If all life does not share a common ancestor, the "evolution tree of life" is a lie.
Take your pick.
@@alrichs8146
Why wouldn't anyone pick
"If all life shares a common ancestor, all life is inbred and everything that eats is a cambial"?
@@toserveman9317 Because it would depend on whether they believe in evolutionism or not.
Are you a flat earther?, or just so evangelical that you think the Bible is actual historical fact?
Because if your the latter you believe in a litteral myth coming from people who have little to no scientific backgrounds and at best a semi advanced understanding of math mostly of geometry, so really, is it “evolutionism” that’s the problem or your creationism bullshit that wishes to bring us back to the dark ages?
I used mnemonic as an assistance: Dominant King Patrols Country OF Great Savanna.
I luv prof. Dave
sus
brilliant!
If all life shares a common ancestor, all life is inbred and everything that eats is a cambial.
If all life does not share a common ancestor, the "evolution tree of life" is a lie.
Take your pick.
Is there an updated version?
No, but there is a new zoology series which goes way more in depth with phylogeny.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains I saw your one from 9 days ago. Have you been talking about Sauropsida yet?
No that will be a very long time, there are a few more introductory concepts then we start with basal phyla like porifera and cnidaria, it'll take most of next year even just to get to chordates. It's going to be a monster 100+ tutorial series.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Great. I wish you the dexterity and energy to get it through.
suuuuuuuuuper cool video, i learned a lot!
If all life shares a common ancestor, all life is inbred and everything that eats is a cambial.
If all life does not share a common ancestor, the "evolution tree of life" is a lie.
Take your pick.
@@alrichs8146 Since evolution is a demonstrable fact, there's no choice to be made. So saying 'pick one' in this instance is like saying "Either bats are birds or the bible is lying, take your pick".
Interesting breakdown.
Is there a database that documents all the domains
, kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, and species?
@@spatrk6634 are you a geneticist? I’m going to look through all the comments for more of yours because they’re very informative and helpful
1:40
Life-Listen
Domain-Daniel
Kingdom-Keep
Phylum-Ponds
Class-Clean
Order-Or
Family-Frogs
Genus-Get
Species-Sick
Well Done, Thank you
Love from Trailer Park USA
Thankyouu❤God bless you prof.
No mythology in science, thanks.
It's rather misleading (and arrogant) to portray human beings as the top of the tree, as though we were somehow the goal of evolution or should consider ourselves superior to everything else. We're just one branch on the very large and diverse tree of life, and we're not objectively better or worse than other species. We may be the most intelligent, but eagles have better vision, dogs have a better sense of smell, frogs can breathe in the air or underwater, plants can make their own food, salamanders can regrow lost limbs, and _Deinococcus radiodurans_ can survive under conditions that would kill us in minutes.
Y’know… you have a point
Why can't they? It's still factually correct and we are the dominant and smarter species. It's not arrogant to put ourselves at the top, that's just how you feel. Also, you say we aren't objectively better or worse but then you list things other exceptional things animals can do besides humans.
@@yytyyy5329 He’s kinda got a point tho
@@somerandomguythatlikesmeme7396 Yes, they do, but it's an unreasonable one
@@yytyyy5329 pointy
Really you are intelligent sir
Question: How do you specify the boundaries of species that reproduce asexually, since the definition of species seems to ignore them?
Based on their phenotypes and genotypes/ancestry
@@spatrk6634 excellent answer
There are also some other problems with the concept of species. For example, 'being capable of making viable offspring' is not a transitive relation. For example you can find this in nature: individual A can have offspring with B, B can have offspring with C, C can have offspring with D, but D can't have offspring with A. So, are A and D the same species?
"If evolution exist why snail not breath fire and swim through space"
Swim through space?
*laugh in Tardigrade*
My biology teacher taught us: King Phillip Came Over For Good Sex.
The Thomas Cole painting whilst describing humans at the top of the tree, Lol...
Amazing video, fantastic visualizations
Your profile picture is. Uhh
@@ipotatosenpai7002, Amazing I know.
i love u professor dave
10:18:
Says: "Sophisticated techniques"
Shows: Ancient sequencing technique with radioactive markers on x-ray films running on PAGE gels from what looks like the early 80s...so about 40(!) years ago. That's like comparing Pac-Man to Battlefield 2042 and saying "See? Both computer games. Both equally sophisticated...."
Bro what an explanation!
If all life shares a common ancestor, all life is inbred and everything that eats is a cambial.
If all life does not share a common ancestor, the "evolution tree of life" is a lie.
Take your pick.
@@spatrk6634 We were created as written in the Bible
@@spatrk6634 Did you see how life came from non-life or do you also have a religious believe?
7:04 "arethrapada" 😂
Thank uuuuuu
If all life shares a common ancestor, all life is inbred and everything that eats is a cambial.
If all life does not share a common ancestor, the "evolution tree of life" is a lie.
Take your pick.
@@alrichs8146 😂
@@alrichs8146
Why wouldn't anyone pick
"If all life shares a common ancestor, all life is inbred and everything that eats is a cambial"?
NAMES OF GENUS & SPECIES MUST BE ALWAYS IN ITALICS!
PLEASE CHANGE THAT!
The binomial name consists of a genus name and specific epithet. The scientific names of species are italicized. The genus name is always capitalized and is written first; the specific epithet follows the genus name and is not capitalized. There is no exception to this.
I can think of an exception... My phone doesn't allow for italicization so I am obligated to display binomial names without italics. Eshericia coli.. See?
@Dhwani Gola wrong again... Solanum tuberosum... nope... no option to underline... quit being a pedant.
@Dhwani Gola @Dhwani Gola it's a function of the RUclips app not the phone which is a Samsung Note that cost more than your crapp-o guitar you big "beautiful" womon
@Dhwani Gola how did I change the subject?
@Dhwani Gola i didn't say sheet about your music
Hi, im a biologist
Professor Dave where do hybrids fit? Such as wolves and coyotes, which are fertile and some big cat species which can also be fertile?
wolves and coyotes are not hybrids, they are born of parent wolves and coyotes. true hybrids like ligers and mules are usually infertile
Good
Thumbs up for this and other videos. And I think it is very good that you say that this Evolution ist speculative but still scientific because many people forget or rather think there is an already proved relation between the chemical and the biological evolution.
Greetings from Germany 🤓
evolution is not speculation anymore, only some very specific aspects of it are
thank you very muchhh!
If all life shares a common ancestor, all life is inbred and everything that eats is a cambial.
If all life does not share a common ancestor, the "evolution tree of life" is a lie.
Take your pick.
@@alrichs8146 What's a cambial😂
@@abhaysreekanth Oops a spelling error.
Sure you can figure out what I mean.
@@alrichs8146 yeah you probably meant cannibal
Could you do one on bacteria?
i did that already! look through the biology playlist.
Thanks, sorry I just realised that
King Philip Cuts Open Frog’s Guts Successfully
Dumb Kids Playing Catch On Freeways Go Splat
thank you for this :)
How Do We keep of all tacknof all species?
did you watch the video
King Philip Come Out For Goodness Sake
Hey Dave. I really love your videos debunking flat earther idiocy and have started watching your other videos. Sorry to nit pick here but the branching relationships shown in your tree are very misleading, e.g. the branching pattern at 7:36 gives the impression that Reptilia shares a common ancestor with Agnatha and Amphibia independent of Mammalia and Aves. Moreover, Aves is a clade within Reptilia (or Sauropsida). Lizards, snakes, and tuatara would be better represented as Lepidosauria. Similarly, the branching pattern at 7:01 suggests that Porifera and Cnidaria share a common ancestor independent of Arthropoda. I appreciate that some things need to be simplified but I refuse to accept that simplification requires inaccuracy. Sure there is a better way to explain this part of your video.
fascinating
If all life shares a common ancestor, all life is inbred and everything that eats is a cambial.
If all life does not share a common ancestor, the "evolution tree of life" is a lie.
Take your pick.
@@alrichs8146 obviously the first one, life is quite shitty if you ask me, unfair, violent, disgusting in more than several ways, sure there's love and beautiful scenery and whatnot (which I don't think it's worth it's opposite side) but what I found fascinating was the information, the delivery and the concept, like finding fascinating the structure and power of a nuclear bomb (which actually is quite fascinating)
@@eugenio1203 I agree there is a lot of bad stuff in this world, but how can there be bad without good?
The world must have begun as good.
@@alrichs8146 who knows my friend, who knows
@@eugenio1203 I'll tell you why there is bad here: it is because humans have a inherited sinful nature that disobeys God who made this world good.
6:13 circular reasoning
elaborate
Just to confirm, the phanerozoic era starts just a little before animals show up on land, right?
ye
I dislike 6:20 because it's misleading. It implies that Bacteria and Archaea are more closely related to each other than to eukaryotes, as well as giving the impression that they are similar to each other pheontypically. These are *_not_* the case.
How is it not the case? They are both prokaryotic.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains The recent discovery and classification of the Asgard Archaea in 2015 all but confirms that Eukarya is a subclade of Archaea, but even before then, it's been known that Archaea and Eukarya are more genetically similar to each other since Archaea was recognized as its own domain. Prokaryote is good as a description of certain broad features, but it is not a good phylogenetic descriptor.
Nothing pisses me off more than when Sheila keeps putting cheese on festive Gnomes!
8:53 Sorry mate, but you seem to have made a mistake here, Australopithecus is not a species under the genus Homo, but a genus of its own that just happens to be very closely related to Homo.
Besides that minor thing, this was a great video, so thanks.
That is incorrect - it IS
Homo australopithecus
@@DocBree13 What are you talking about ? The most famous species of Australopithecus is Australopithecus afarensis. There is no such thing as Homo Australopithecus!
Why you didn't make videos during the weekend???
MILTIADIS POLITIS, Why wouldn't you just watch whenever you want? Your question is rude. Sorry Dave, I appreciate all your content and effort to share knowledge.
Lions, tigers and bears oh my!
humans "at the top" implying they are more evolved or somehow above other species?
I learnt it as King Phillip Came Over From Germany Stoned.
Why not just remember "Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species"?
@@wizardsuth Because it's not mnemonic.
I always demand from creationists to show me one creature that doesn't fit in. Should be easy for them since (according to the creationists) we are separatly created creatures from god.
bUt eVolUtIon dOesNt eXisT. dId a ProtIstA eVolVe inTo a DoG?
Lmao. Kent is annoying. Great videos, really helps for learning about biology and stuff.
🗽
Where do viruses fit in to the tree of life?
We don't consider them living organisms.
How is it that the earth is almost a billion years and we still don't have a time traveller?
time travel as depicted in back to the future or terminator is impossible
The Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old, and we all travel through time -- forward at a rate of 1 second per second.
movie-grade time travel is impossible, sorry :(
Im here because im going to present about phylogeny and I'm actually nervous 😑
i do not think agnatha is a class
شكراً جزيلاً
Aaaaaaaahhhhhhh! Dave! You used the word "kind"! Manna for dopey "macro" evolution deniers!
homo habilis counts as human
Where do viruses fit in?
We don't consider viruses to be living organisms.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains IIRC it's still a disputed subject among scientists, with no real consensus. And species like Pithovirus sibericum or Mimivirus doesn't help...
viruses aren't even 100% accepted as lifeforms, they are truly unique objects
Anyone else here who's part tree?
How do they know that only one single cell organism developed that all life is related to? Couldn't it have happened at different places on Earth at different times? How do they know it only happened one time in one place? Maybe it happened in several places, and there could be more than one family tree.
There are genetic sequences common to all known life, so it's assumed those sequences originated from a single ancestor. That doesn't mean there wasn't some other form of life before it, but no relatives of that survive to this day.
@@davehugstrees Oh yeah. I forgot about DNA.
All species on Earth use the same genetic code, i.e. every DNA strand has the same four bases, and each codon (base triplet) codes for the same amino acid. They also all use very similar mechanisms for DNA transcription and replication, for example reading bases in the same direction. Had life originated independently multiple times, this would be extremely improbable.
1:31 ...Probably the worst animation sequence to use for education. It's what creationists think evolution looks like.
Explain why.
@@Dr.Ian-Plect
Because the sequence shows a string of animals changing from one to another, unrelated to the next; like a camel changing into an ape. It's stupid and inaccurate.
A much better sequence to use would be the one from Carl Sagan's Cosmos series.
@@JanetStarChild Indeed.
Gago galing salamat mapapadali na lng vid ko nagun aylab u bro
I feel uncomfy with you saying that humans are at the "top" of the tree. Other species are dope too, in many other ways.
yep, nonsense
We are at the top stop crying about it
@@Eludinium I don't see any other species being able to do what we did. Civilizations, internet, cities, space travel, energy production. I think you're just a sensitive animal rights activist
Kind of weird that you spend a lot of time focusing on evolution, but you explain the relations between animals through the outdated linnaean system, which was designed prior to the theory of evolution, and is entirely incompatible with our modern understanding of the relations between organisms.
It is not. We use this terminology all the time.
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsthe problem is, the terminology is incompatible with our modern understanding. For example at 7:40 you draw a diagram of chordata, with reptilia and aves being two seperate classes. This works under the linnaean system which had no regard for evolutionary relationships, but in the context of evolutionary relationships, aves is very much apart of reptilia, but then if you fix that, you run into issues of terminology in how can a class be nested in another class as both aves and reptilia are classes under the linnaean system.
It is simply subject to revision, which is happening all the time. Check my zoology series, it is much more in depth, this tutorial is for 9th grade biology students.
Wow! I came here after following his zoology videos and my god he has improved! Or to say it more bluntly; This video had many errors. Not so much in what he said but in the images and depictions he used and the over-emphasis on the Carl Linneus style of break down of phylogeny rather than monophyletic cladistics which is what modern up to date phylogeny uses. That is what Dave uses in his zoology course so he has learned from former mistakes. There were also just so many other inaccurate or poorly made depictions of phylogeny here as well, like how clades are all besides each other rather than each in there own nested clades to some point of shared ancestry. But the worst one was how birds were separeted from reptiles on multiple instances instead of represented as part of reptilia, since birds ARE dinosaurs. I did not like this video.
Amazing video, except that you made it seem like humans are at the top and the end goal of evolution. Which ofcourse isn't true.
Keeping precious creatures organized for grumpy scientists
What
Kind is apart of Family?
“Kind” is not biological terminology.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Why I do heard it as a sort of Biological terminology? They use it instead of species.
No, lying apologists use it to obfuscate biological terminology. Just ignore them.
"Every living thing is related in some way." Yeah every element of the periodic table is also related in some way.. I get that this is a rudimentary brush of phylo but the statement lacks conclusion thus falls in the anecdotal category. Those who laid the foundation for these concepts at least had to overcome savage pushback of their conclusions and here we are slapping anecdote around in an educational environment.
Um, elements are not "related" in the way biological organisms are literally related by heredity. It is not "anecdotal". I don't think you know what that word means.
Αχ ρε Γιακουμή τι κάνω στις 2 το βραδυ
Following your dedinition Tigers and Lions are the same species.
Female ligers are fertile.
I don't think beeing able to produce fertile offspring is enough to consider 2 animals the same species.
Same goes for homo neanderthalensis and homo-sapiens too.
what
@@albertleinstein5378sorry, Don't know what you ask for with your "what?" So instead of a short answer here is everything in different words, hope that helps to clear things up :)
the given definition was: same species is when 2 individuals can produce fertile offspring together. Well, amongst others Tigers and Lions can do that.
Either Tigers and Lions are the same species or this definition is off.
@@dannyfar7989 the female liger is fertile but male ligers are sterilte
learnt something new today
@@albertleinstein5378 I love learning something new everyday, great thing to do, glad I could help :)
But the Bible says.... jk lol
This video is the joke. But people who hate God love fairytale videos like this, that employ animations and graphs and sound "scientific". When you reject God, you're forced to embrace far fetched narratives like this one, that try to show that we're accidental byproducts of an undirected process in which bacteria then appears, and given billions of years will result in humans being formed all by itself. This is magic! Your ancestor was a fish, and before that bacteria! Lol.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27
It’s so funny that people say that people who are not indoctrinated in believe in a magic fairy man hate him. You can’t hate something that doesn’t exist. Religious people get mad when they see the obvious truth because they hate themselves and know down deep inside that it’s not true. That’s why they always say I am a believer. You don’t have to say that it is obvious. Go believing your silly religion it’s fine but let the rest of the world be adults about it. It sounds so last far-fetched send your magic invisible man created everything and then reality huh. LOL dummy
great video, however, man is not at the ‘top’ of the tree, or special in any way
What's the timestamp ?
Found it, yes, that's nonsense.
We are tho
The illustrative top of the tree is just to represent that humans have a long ancestry behind them and all life are related in some way. Obviously some early branches of the tree are missing due to mass extinction events.
A more accurate representation would be "fractal zoom" like they have on onezoom. But that's even complex to understand.
I don’t have like how you put humans at the top of the Evolutionary tree as we are not pinnacle or evolution no superior to other animals we are just another species.
its bc we are the most advanced
but i dunno mybe its bc we make the tree so they just mke us on the top
I think it was the tree of human evolution, and we are the last node on that tree. But trees tend to grow upwards and so we would be at the top. If that tree was of the entirety of life, we would be at the same height as all the other species.
@@makara2711 on top with the other species living today, phylogenic tree put at the top the species with the same time of evolution, it doesn't makes sense to talk about superior species, nor talking about complexity as some species became simpler through evolution (most parasitic species for exemple)
we are absolutely the most the superior, if we wanted to we could extinct every single species on earth or enslave all of them, we are unmatched in power and intelligence
@@keegan6388 yeah but that would also result in us dying and also we can’t do that because we could never organize to do so. If every ant had the same idea to overthrow humanity they could probably do it. (There is 1000 pounds of ants for every human on earth and I don’t think I could kill 1000 pounds of ants)
Citing Miller Yuri for anything else but an example of how child-like our knowledge of life; well that's pretty child-like.. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Um, well you can't even spell Urey, so what exactly are you whining about, kiddo?
miller and yuri, the first chemists in space
Do animals likes horses or donkeys feel pain when whipped?
My question is stupid.
Mind your langauge.
I was told they don't.
I just joking
No question is stupid. You’ve got a curious mind, that’s something important.
Of course they do.
Why else would they obey the whipper? duh.
fuckin obviously
So much preprogrammed misanthropy going on. I never understood the hate your own species thing.
What?
@@ProfessorDaveExplains i’m referring to comments that appear to show a disdain for their fellow humans.
Cows produce cows, dogs produce dogs.
Guess who?
So? Cows also produce bovines and mammals. And dogs produce canines and mammals. Oh wait...do you get why mammal was a term for the origin mammal brood stock before mammals had diversified mammal variations like bovines, canines, felines etc? Like birds had originally not the 12,000 species from hummingbirds over eagles and penguins to ostriches.
@@Angelmou (Picard facepalm)
@@cryptocoinkiwi8272 Poe's Law
So, with your logic, how did dogs come about or bananas or corn. what's funny is that broccoli, cauliflower and cabbage and more all came from one plant called Brassica oleracea but were bread by farmers to have specific traits.
No one has ever seen a dog produce a non dog... Read the bible Man!
Is this an impression of a Kent Hovind disciple?
@@ProfessorDaveExplains jajaja yes, but its a joke. I saw your debate with Mr hovind, and i started following you. You have such good material man, really helpfull and entertaining. Greetings from México!!!
Lol you had me for a second