My Pastor suggested this to the congregation about 4 yrs ago when the 1hr 45 min documentary was free on Netflix. I watched and was immediately hooked. Soon after, Netflix pulled it and it was only available for a small fee here and elsewhere. I'm so glad that each section of it has been expanded on and released here for free again. It's great to know that not all scientists are stuck on The "theory" of evolution. Genesis IS truly history and the Bible IS truly fact and God's Will (on Earth as it is in Heaven).
Please remember that this series of short videos falls into the classification of 'Party Political Broadcasts' , They are made and edited with the intention of proving a point, often by omitting evidence that does not fit with 'their' narrative. Please now go off and read some of the dozens of books about Evolution before becoming settled in your view. Read also the hundreds of books on Geology, Geography and Physics to extract a feeling for what scientists other than Dr. Wood espouses and why.
@michael7dee How strange that the textbooks used by my grandchildren bear little relation to those that I used at school some 55 years ago. The current ones deal with the complexities of DNA and RNA, and associated matters. But I live in the UK where the influence of Religion is small, where scientific research is not directed by churches but by where it leads. It seems that the USA has a failing education system that is being stifled by 'political' and 'religious' interference. All I am asking is that people read the latest research on the subject and do not simply accept what they are told, No matter who tells it.
@tsimahei When I am called a troll for suggesting that you read books I know that I am on the right track and I am dealing with someone who wishes to remain ignorant in spite of all evidence to the contrary. How to age a rock , read and find out, How long to make coal, go find out. Where do you get the idea of fossil hunters being paid millions? Again I ask you to read a few dozen books on the subjects under discussion.
@@solentbum - What you think you know about how rocks are made is wrong. What you were taught about how coal forms is also wrong. You probably think you know how fossils form, but you don't. My point is that *a huge amount of what we are taught as scientific FACT.. is NOT scientific, nor factual.* Test it out... Find any geologist (or any other scientist) who has actually produced a lithified fossil. They all think they know how, but they don't. There have actually been MANY that have tried--unsuccessfully. *Do you believe the Earth is HOT inside?* Why?? Sounds like a stupid question, right? But think it through... we all accepted that it was hot because that's what we were told from the time we were little. But it's not correct. How can all the world's scientists be wrong? Great question! And not just a little bit disturbing! Humor me here so that we can test all the many books telling us these scientific facts... Let's see how they hold up to a little critical thought. *What empirical evidence is there that the Earth is HOT inside???*
A good theory on the 'missing link' type fossils: juvenile apes have skulls very similar to humans, look at images to get the idea. Animals were larger pre-flood, so a juvenile ape with a skull mid-way between ape and human-like and a size larger than expected, would lead you to believe it's an extinct mid-point species between ape and man, when in reality it's a large, young ape. Thanks to the Standing For Truth channel for this idea and excellent creation info.
Do you believe God created a super man that 'devolved' into humans ('Devolved' is not a scientific term, it's a Creationist misuse of a word that I think you will understand). Did he create normal humans that 'devolved' into hominids and apes, or did he create them all together?.. Do you think having animals 'degenerate' is a good policy, especially at Young Earth Creationist 'devolution' speeds? How long before all life on Earth 'devolves' into a bacterial soup? Why can some 'kinds' breed and others can't? Why do we inherit features but not perfectly? What is wrong with natural selection as a gene pool selection, protection and promotion mechanism?
except for when he was a developing pre-human, (put simply for poorly educated readers, the whole story is much more complicated and much more interesting than 'God did it'.)
It wouldn’t matter anyway because fossils are subjective and based off inference. Emotion deals with biology and biology kills evolution. Don’t let anyone take you down an already debunked and easily falsified trail of fossils. Oil’s pressure. carbon 14 in diamonds and dinosaur graveyards with human remains is all it takes to disprove the fossil record
I think one thing that is never pointed out is that the taxonomy system (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species) was a helpful tool constructed in the 18th and 19th century. But forcing this square peg of scientific classification into the round hole of Biblical interpretation is a poor fit. Nowhere does the Bible say Adam and Eve were "anatomically modern homo sapiens." We can assume Noah and his descendants were. But the definition of what is "human" or "person" or "man" might be more nebulous and inclusive pre-flood. The possibility of wild variation (Humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Idaltu etc) within the human family makes people a lot of people uncomfortable. What's weird is that, despite superficial differences like skin color, modern humans have an incredibly small amount of genetic variation (less than most other species) and no subspecies almost as if there was a mass extinction event that created a genetic bottleneck sometime in the distant past.
It all makes some sense though. Now be also have dna, mtdna, larval stages, vestigial organs & such that show they're related now. And related plants can share seeds, embryonic leaves, leaves, cpda, pollen & can be grafted to eachother. Larval stages, vestigial organs & breeding pairs are the ones that flip the system on it's back though like how kinds can interbreed such as camels & llamas or goats & sheep. But not all goats and sheep
I am a Christian and a young Earth creationist. Concerning neanderthals, however, how do you explain the fact that they do not fit the human body ratios? They do, in fact, fit the body ratios of apes. This needs explaining.
Massive error in the thesis: Dogs got bred and the ancestor of all dogs is the wolf and dogs got bred for purpose (hunting, hounding, protection, etc.). So you can't compare different varieties of humans with dogs, unless you say that all human types got bred from one common ancestor and they all got bred for a purpose. As for the Neanderthals, there are now theories that say that these species of human lived much longer live-spans than humans of today and that would explain the bulging of around the brows, as bone tissue never stops to grow and to extend. Proof of that is the change of the face the older an individual gets. Doesn't the Bible speak of people having grown much, much older than we do today? What led to the shrinking live-span of humans since the beginning of humans? Has the potency of whatever was in the fruit of the Tree of Life worn off over time? Very interesting video that gives a lot to think about. Thank you.
@@leroybrown9143 But none of those creations received life directly through God's breath except for Man. right after God formed Man from the dust of the earth. Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
@@optimumpcyt the scripture you site means that man received something more than flesh, man received a soul, made in Their image. So if your point is that only mankind has the capacity to contain the indwelling spirit of God then we agree. But everything on the ark with Noah had the breath of life.
@@leroybrown9143 breath of life in Noahs Ark is just saying all surviving life was riding in the Ark aka "the breath of all life ". However Man literally received his life directly through God's breath when God breathed his spirit directly into Man's nose and Man became a living soul. no other creature except for Man received this direct creation in 3 specific ways no other creature received. number 1 first God declared he would make Man in his Image. so by that design we know Man would be superior to the other creations. number 2 God formed Man from the ground Himself and Number 3 God gave life to Man when he breathed into His nostrils and made him a living soul by receiving God's spirit directly. all other creation was commanded to exist and they came forth. it seems only man was made in a 1 on 1 hands on approach by God. These are 2 vastly different breaths in both of these texts. they are both right but they talk about different things. you contradicted Barrie Smith but he was right. only man received God's breath. the bible clearly says so. your text was also correct but it does not trump Barrie's text because they are 2 completely different things.
@Disingenuous White-Boy Actually the bible specifically says God commanded the Animals into existence. He would give commands such as let the earth produce living creatures of each kind. and let the waters swarm with living creatures. Nowhere does it say he breathed on them. He did not command man to come out of nowhere or from a seed. He created man himself from dust and breathed life into him. this is exclusive to man. you could of easily found this doing a simple search. it's in the first few paragraphs in the first book of the bible. how lazy do you have to be to challenge literally the first Biblical account without checking it first? If this is the extent of your knowledge and according to your name "disingenuous" dont bother me anymore ok? im trying to help people i dont have time for foolery.
Makes the name "Man-kind" a lot more clear when you separate things into "kinds". Maybe interchanging "mankind" with "human" is adding to the confusion?
@Jesus Believing Extremest Christian What do the verses mean? The kind barrier is rather arbitrary, there's no description in the bible. We just go off of what looks similar, and if so then the kind barrier can be easy to break. Because Llamas & camels can interbreed. so can narwhales & belugas. As well as lemons limes & oranges. Like some legless lizards are swiching to snakes again too, when should they not be in the lizard kind?
Hans De Mos we are more different then you think. We are not related to apes 🦧 🦍 and there is a lot of evidence of how we are not part of the ape kind.
@tsimahei "There were few mutations so no harm would be done to their offspring"? Mate that's what makes inbreeding bad right, Adam basically fckd his twin😖
How does the brain stem position prove an animal walked upright? If the animal lived in trees it would also tend to be upright in habit but not necessarily an upright walker.
@@ermeyastulu386 You want me to read the whole bible? Please just tell me which verse shows or proves a clear separation between hominids & humans. The bible doesn't mention hominids, and simply following what the bible says is circular reasoning
Hi, have they done one where there are human fossils? Not sure if they have but I'd like to see explanation to that. Like we find all of these other animals, what about human remains? Is there evidence of that?
Love your videos. With all respect for what you guys are doing, I'm not waiting around for scientist to tell me what I know to be true. Let alone waiting for the next article to contradict what I know to be true.
There are people that have a difficult time with understanding human skull differences and monkey, gorilla skulls and thinking they're similar animals. Those people have never been to Walmart. Just look at those skulls....
Are there different kinds of man mentioned in the bible.. such as Neanderthal and Denisovan as an example? Or, are those 2 pre flood man, that had a build that was able to sustain a multi century life style. Any other explanation for these different kinds of human would be appreciated
@@logicalatheist1065 You didn't copy and paste those answers did you?...haha just kidding, great response .Lets run this from a different angle, I'll go along with the evolution paradigm for now and we get to a point when man has evolved enough from the common ancestor of apes and chimps to where he is now inventing a GOD in his mind to answer maybe his "where we come from" question. So at this point, with the invention of this GOD and later the writings of the bible etc etc from these mad men + many other historical text, could this be simply an evolutionary step for human kind? A new survival of the fittest or natural selection on the spiritual level. Which means the next [possible] stage for the evolutionary human race is to use one's inner spiritual abilities that the ancients wrote about in the bible as our guide. Bottom line for you is in your paradigm, GOD is apart of evolution , because that's where evolution went for the human being as his mind was evolving, so maybe your evolution wants you to know about this made up GOD [and what is the real truth about him], so you may continue with the next evolutionary process. In a weird way GOD actually belongs to the evolutionary process. [That's actually really funny] Maybe it's time to blame the Evolutionary process for these mad creationist type people and their invented GOD. Just a thought. OK I'm done I'm heading back to my creation paradigm now. Ahh that better.
@@logicalatheist1065 like you were here to know about it? Nor anyone else unless you are the Top geological expert in the field, tell me again how you know?
@@logicalatheist1065 There a good movie you should watch. It's called the Case for Christ, it shows a Atheists like your self goes out to disprove the Bible, Jesus, flood, true story . You might find it helpful.
Your reply seems to reveal an antagonism towards 'Intellectuals' , does this include Dr. Wood? Is it because some people actually read several of the many books on the subject to draw their own conclusions which may be at variance with the presenters Or perhaps they do not agree with your view of the world and its history.
Me: Are similarities alone, good enough to prove two different animals are related? Atheist: Yes. Me: So a car with 4 wheels, 3 mirrors, a steering wheel, and an engine is related to a truck with 4 wheels, 3 mirrors, a steering wheel, and an engine? Atheist: No, because it’s not alive. Me: So it’s not by similarities, but by something simply being alive, means it’s related? How can you prove that two different animals are related without going into further investigation? Atheist: 🤷🏻♂️
Hans De Mos And no, dna paternity tests are not used to determine if two different animals are related. They look for similarities in the dna of two different animals to assume they are related. Which is bad science. Similarities are not good enough to prove two different creatures are related.
It would seem that you believe that motor vehicles are 'animals' . Allowing that strange belief, I suggest that the car and the truck are related in their outline arrangements, but as you state you need to go into further investigation. A deep investigation into the development of both the motor truck and the car will reveal 'evolution ' of design in action as the disparate ideas of different 'creators' merged into a parallel arrangement involving wheels motor and steering wheel. As for different 'Animals' you of course need to make further investigations to prove/disprove relationships, Much deeper than a simple video, and much deeper than a non scientific 'Bible'.
Hans De Mos The scientists also say, since they can compare dna to determine who the father is, they can also compare dna to determine how one creature is related to another. But this is not correct. Yes you can determine the father by dna, but this is because the dna match. To say you can use dna to determine one creature is related to another, is wrong because they do not match. They only have similarities, unless it is related, only then will it actually match. So, you can also determine relation by simply observing all the unique features which do not change, and comparing them to a similar animal. Then, like the dna test, it is obvious if it is or is not related.
Hans De Mos If you don't think reproduction is a valid way to prove two different animals are related, then how about the definition of relation? "Relation" “sexual intercourse.” www.google.com/search?q=relation+definition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari&safe=active It's not by similarities, because it cannot be verified. Only animals which can reproduce now or in the past, are related.
You stated that people descended from apes, but that is not what evolution says. It says that apes and people have a common ancestor. How can you argue against evolution if you don't even understand it?
Can you get your hands on some of those unusual skulls down in South America, red hair, unusual shape? Also, has anyone analyzed the DNA for some of the unusual traits in the human population, polydactyls, horns, rows of double-teeth, giantism?
"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts" (Ecclesiastes 3) "There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15) "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1)
We are 99% related and share retrovirus dna in same parts of bits of DNA that can only happen if you had the same ancestor that had that virus dna put into its cell
Thank you so much for your discussion, your arguments and clear dilemmas even though having just scratched the surface of this topic, is such an own goal as to require no rebuttal. As usual you're putting your hope in the God of gaps theory. My heart goes out to you and I hope you can open your mind to what's in front of you.
Sorry, you had me until right at the end. Animals also have souls and spirits just as we do. Read Ecclesiastes chapter three written by King Solomon who is said to be the wisest man who ever lived, his wisdom endowed on him by God. I have personally witnessed the existence of souls and spirits in animals. We are made in God's image in that we "look" like him, that is, we have the same body characteristics of Jesus who walked in the garden. God is Body, Soul and Spirit. So are all animals. But only we have the same exact characteristics of God's Body. Our souls (basically, our conscience, but more) have been corrupted. Our spirits (basically the communications channel) no longer are able to communicate with God because He cut the connection. However, after Pentecost, we were again given a close communications channel to God if we are believers. The "router" resides within us! Our souls are restored so that we see the clear cut lines between good and evil. Doesn't mean we no longer do evil things, nope, Christians are still fallen humans. That will change. Animals were also corrupted by our actions but I am not sure how that works. I never said I know everything, only God does. But what I wrote above, I do know, it is truth. Now what about vegetation? Heck if I know! Disagree? Questions? COOL, let's discuss it! However, be civil or I will just walk away,,,
10:32 A bit more satisfying than "oh well, God made it that way" is perhaps this: * there needs to be one irrational animal closer to man than any other irrational animal, because of the principle of plenitude; * it has served as type for being able to imitate human behaviours in an ultimately non-human way (could hold a painting brush but cannot paint - unless you count modern art as painting) and therefore as type for Satan in relation to God, as Antichrist in relation to Christ; * it has served as basis for the Evolution theory, which is arguably a huge part of the great deception.
Neanderthals existed over 450,000 years ago but Adam existed between 90,000 to 160,000 years ago. I’m confused how the Bible is accurate because of this.
I believe 100% God has shown me how nature works, and it is exceedingly fruitful! Only animals which can reproduce or could in the past, are related. All others which have never been known to interbreed, are not related. And every animal has features which never change! So by comparing those features which do not change, we can see if they match or if they do not. If they match, that means those animals are related, and they have reproduced in the past. If they do not, then they are not related in any way, and have never reproduced in the past! It's not by similarities that two different animals are related, but only by their ability to reproduce. Please let me know if you would like a demonstration. God is good!
Please explain how it is that Donkeys and Horses can interbreed but Mules (donkey/ horse cross) cannot. There is a whole series of well recorded experiments in horse breeding which tend to undermine your comment ! The whole procedure is explained initially in Darwin's major work, and followed up in numerous other books.
Barry PURKIS So, by using this method, we can observe, test, and verify that all horses, donkeys, mules, ponies, and zebras are all related. Because all of their unique features which do not change, match. Especially when compared to a similar animal like the rhino. So, if one variation of the horse, can no longer breed, it is simply because that's what happens with genetics over time. Each new creature born, is a brand new variation of its relation and has a chance of having damaged or a decrease in its unique genetic features which do not change. This is sped up by too much inbreeding. And like all genetics, when a group is too close together for too long, they will have inbreeding problems. And when a group is too far apart, they will have inbreeding problems. To have genetics stay intact, requires a continuous fair ratio of reproduction between the different groups of the same relation, while they can still interbreed. From my research, plants are more genetically intact than animals, and thus can suffer more inbreeding and genetic diversity with less defects than animals. Because humans are just now realizing the potential in plant variations. For example, the orange and lemon and lime and grapefruit were all produced from the same ancestral citrus fruit. But now those variations are thinning out and interbreeding, so their potential of citrus, is now very limited, compared to before, and their capability to reproduce with each other, is growing slim. I'm not sure if you noticed, but when genetic variations begin thinning out, certain variations can no longer interbreed with others. This is why on the tag of a red delicious tree, it lists the limited variations of which it can reproduce. And over time, that list will decrease. Do these things make sense?
@@theriveroffaith852 So your final point is how over time different populations will, despite previously having been interfertile, slowly become less and less capable of interbreeding. The problem I have is that, despite this being the basic concept of how species diverge over time via evolution, you say that it's somehow the "variations thinning out."
BurntToast Since there is great evidence of the degrading of genetics over time, then if you go backwards in time, the genetics are more in tact. All variations related to each other, came from that creature's original parents which had the potential of producing all the variations of that animal we see today. For example, the parent couple of the dog relation, had genetics capable of producing all the variations of dogs you see today. As more dogs are produced, the variation of that dog, thins out as it's genetic information degrades and certain features are given to certain variations, while other features are given to other variations. So, when let's say chihuahuas breed, they will produce offspring with less genetic variation than their grandparents. And their offspring will do likewise. So, once there were a few dogs which could produce german shepherds, chihuahuas, great danes, beagles, etc. To where nowdays, often times great danes can only breed with great danes and often times chihuahuas can only breed with chihuahuas. The genetic information which was once in a few creatures, is spread out over many creatures. The genetic information has thinned out over time and will continue thinning out over time. Sorry for making it sound complicated, but does this make sense?
@@theriveroffaith852 I think you might be mistaken about the origins of oranges, lemons, limes and grapefruits. Oranges (sweet oranges) are thought to be derived from mandarin crossed with pomelo (and back crossed one or several times). Lemons and limes are crosses between citrons and one of the others (mandarin or pomelo - I forget which, possibly both). The grapefruit is thought to be a cross between sweet orange (already of hybrid origins) and pomelo, if memory serves. David Mabberley has an article (A classification for edible Citrus (Rutaceae), DOI:10.7751/telopea19971007) summarising this research, which draws on DNA and other genetic work. I think there are also records of various breeds of citrus that are consistent with the genetic observations - perhaps the grapefruit origin, because I think that was rather recent (in the 18th century?), whereas sweet orange (again if memory serves) was known in early Chinese history. Another article that deals with citrus crosses (hybridisation) is this one: Barkley, N.A., et al. 2006 Theor. Appl. Genet. 112: 1519-1531. In short, there appear to have been at least 3 ancestral species involved in the modern citrus varieties, not one. The fruits of these 3 species are rather different from one another. Interestingly, if you follow the citrus genetic research, you can see that the techniques used to assess the parentage of the various varieties (e.g., the grapefruit, for which historical records can confirm the parentage) are the same as those used to determine the more distant origins of each cultivar (e.g, the sweet orange, which may have arisen a few thousand years ago) - SSRs and structure analysis, for example, although other methods exist. Where there are records, they are in agreement with the genetic observations and analyses. Additional genetic observations (i.e., different genetic markers) and slightly different analysis methods, (i.e., phylogenetics) that agree with the parentage studies, can also be used to infer more distant relationships (e.g., between Poncirus, Citrus, Eremocitrus, Microcitrus and other plants), in a way that is the same as has been used to determine all sorts of relationships on the assumption of (micro-)evolutionary theory. Given that these plants all fall within a group that can be interbred and grafted on one another, perhaps this falls within the "created kinds" variation, although it's worth noting that the same assumptions (and analysis methods) that produce a very sensible set of conclusions regarding citrus (i.e., that varieties of plants that can be interbred with one another do in fact appear to be closely related using the methodology mentioned before) are the same ones used to infer close relationships between man, chimpanzee, gorilla and other apes, not to mention relationships among many many other organisms. I'm not sure what you mean by "thinning out" of genetic variations that leads to reduced capacity to interbreed with other varieties. This might simply be "the beginning of the process of speciation" in the biological literature? If you mean a reduction in genetic variation within a species, then this, on its own, may not limit the capacity to interbreed, but more so the capacity to withstand a wide range of environmental conditions (including resisting disease attack).
Thats an interesting dissonance he brings up. Homo sapians and neanderthals are both human because they could interbreed, but won't call either animals. There are more than a few modern examples of different species that can't interbreed with one another, but can interbreed with a species more closely related to both rather than the two on the margins to eachother, as a bridge.
People also have a layer of subcutaneous fat just underneath the skin unlike apes but akin to some aquatic life...the shape that we share is, simply, a very useful design living on Earth and the similarities cease there.
I've been always a Christian believer and I think most of the story in the Bible is with some level of accuracy true. But I have always found it hard to believe that all animals species we see today come from within the Ark, I mean physically that would be impossible.
Hello David Duran I too am a Christian believer. I do not pretend to have all the answers. I have looked at a lot of work from people much smarter than me. I believe it is highly likely that no one has all the answers yet. From what I have seen from their work, it is mathematically and physically possible. It is good to search out the truth. Jesus answered, “I am the way, & the truth & the life....” John 14:6 I believe all the evidence points to this as well. I wish you well on your journey to truth.
Don't need to carry the 256 versions of dogs in the Ark, only need a pair. And as, coyotes, hyenas, wolves, dingoes etc. also came from the same kind, you wont need to carry all the different varieties, but just the one common ancestor that contains the required gene pool.
David Hi. I love your "some level of accuracy". So, truth is relative? I'm with you, but that's going to get you into trouble with certain believers. I mean those who treat all the bible as the same kind of literature. Most people don't expect poetry (Job, Song of Solomon, Psalms) to tell us much about history (Chronicles, Kings) and vice versa. The early chapters of Genesis make sense (and bypass literal questions like yours) when seen as a collection of etiological myths. In the context of their creation and/or redaction (5th C BC seems most likely) they were the best available "answers" to questions about origins. And they remain great literature to this day. But a record of actual events? Talking snakes? 900yr old patriarchs? Nephilim? A sadistic global genocide that leaves no traces? Come on! Fitting the animals into the Ark is as useless a debate as the medieval scholars debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Which reminds me. For a modern take on taking Genesis, etc. too literally, I can recommend the novel “Good Omens” by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. (The recent Amazon Prime video series is also a very acceptable version).
@@alanthompson8515 *Truth is Absolute.* 1) Talking snake? no ... Bible says it was a talking serpent. Actual species not defined. 2) 900 year life span. With a perfect genome, unprocessed food, pristine living environment, and the initial absence of viral and bacterial infections, why not? 3) Nephilim. Every ancient global culture has records of giants from the Pacific to the Arctic. Why should the Bible history in this matter be questioned? 4) Global Flood. Lots of evidence. Oil, gas, coal, fossils, etc. 5) Animals in an Ark? Not all 256 different representatives of dog were required to be carried in the Ark, only the original *ancestor kind* that all dogs, wolves, coyotes, hyenas, jackals etc came from needed to be preserved. 6) angels on a pin. just as interesting as how many rocks it takes to create life. 7) As for a modern take on Genesis. I recommend you check out the "Answers in Genesis" and other Creationist Resources. Ken Ham's videos are acceptable.
evolution says that humans are species of apes. todays apes like chimps and gorillas are cousins of humans. we emerged from common ancestor and diversified into all ape species we have today.
Adam was created with a pure genome directly by God , thousands of years ago in an ape like creature similar to humans but v short and ugly. So this primordial semi intelligent ape had him and other 3 apes, all three females. One female of them was hairless and more human like, so that she was the first Bridge between the humans and these apes. Then god create an egg and with the sperm of Adam created in this first hairless human like female ape the first pure human female, Eve, so later Adam could marry her and start the genetic pure mankind. But something went wrong in the process. Later when he was still a young men , he disobeyed god and He had sex with this first Bridge hairless ugly female, so the first human hybrid was born and All the corrupted tree of the son of men too , sadly. Then also the other 3 little hairy standing apes were pregnant too and with the hairless one they generate the progenitors corrupted ones of all the living mankind. Meanwhile adam and the pure female eve ( born from an egg created by god and Adam s sperm) give birth to the other tree of pure humans son of god . Because of the original sin (the hybridation with that primordial hairless ape) we lost the pure genome of the sons of god and we got mixed with the hybrids of the son of men, generated by these hybrids during time. The last pure blood human was Noah, but his wife was an hybrid so after the flood, now all humanity is an hybridation between hybrids and the pure human tree. These are the first parts I understood of the revelations told by Jesus to an Italian priest Don Guido Bortoluzzi, collected in a free book you can find online at genesibiblica .org .
Man did not evolve. He was made by God: 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: **but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts,** another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. Corinthians 15 KJV
Just because our bodies evolved from apes (and other animals before those) doesn’t affect my belief that the spirits of all people are children of God.
"Book of Jasher" *not included* in the Bible Canon. Modern writings of "The Book of Jasher" are *outright forgeries.* Here are some fakes and their writers. - British writer Alcuin, 8th century - Rabbi Jonah ben Abraham, Gerona, 14th century - Zerahiah Ha-Yevani, 13th century. - Rabbi Jacob ben Mier, 12th century - Science Fiction writer Benjamin Rosenbaum, 20th century
to me I believe that God made primates as A joke to describe humanity they say he has A sense of humor and I believe the existence of primates is A good example
200,000 years ago ENKI (the Anunnaki) genetically engineered the first human by DNA manipulation. The creature used was a hairy upright walking being with hair described as looking like the mane of a Lion. Also the first creation was black and their sole purpose was to be slaves for the Anunnaki. Much later EKNI impregnated two of the females ending up with what the Bible calls Adam and Eve (actually named Adapa and Titi). Later ENKI impregnated Methuselah's wife and made Noah. Next ENKI being the frisky one then impregnated a human female and out came Moses...Last on the list is Jesus. Jesus is a product of ENKI mating with a young girl. The girl was chosen because her bloodline was pure back to Noah. Thus Jesus was produced to bring the ENKI bloodline back to power. Litterly to take the earth out of the devil's hands. It's all written in the Sumerian Tablets. The books that religion fears you reading as it makes a farce out of what you believe. God is real but you have never once worshiped him...The Creator of all Things is God...What religion of today worships is a handful of Anunnaki that hijacked God and took over in his place. Jesus is real and has a purpose and it is to save mankind...To keep the human race pure in the bloodline of ENKI.
The Biggest Difference is Man was Created in The Image of God! And as such possesses an immoral Soul! And can be born of The Spirit for the asking and repentance in The Name Above All Names Jesus Christ The Righteous!
My Pastor suggested this to the congregation about 4 yrs ago when the 1hr 45 min documentary was free on Netflix.
I watched and was immediately hooked.
Soon after, Netflix pulled it and it was only available for a small fee here and elsewhere.
I'm so glad that each section of it has been expanded on and released here for free again.
It's great to know that not all scientists are stuck on The "theory" of evolution.
Genesis IS truly history and the Bible IS truly fact and God's Will (on Earth as it is in Heaven).
Cool. Always be suspicious of every teaching whether secular or Biblical and do your own research to verify and you will always be good to go.
Please remember that this series of short videos falls into the classification of 'Party Political Broadcasts' , They are made and edited with the intention of proving a point, often by omitting evidence that does not fit with 'their' narrative.
Please now go off and read some of the dozens of books about Evolution before becoming settled in your view. Read also the hundreds of books on Geology, Geography and Physics to extract a feeling for what scientists other than Dr. Wood espouses and why.
@michael7dee How strange that the textbooks used by my grandchildren bear little relation to those that I used at school some 55 years ago. The current ones deal with the complexities of DNA and RNA, and associated matters. But I live in the UK where the influence of Religion is small, where scientific research is not directed by churches but by where it leads. It seems that the USA has a failing education system that is being stifled by 'political' and 'religious' interference.
All I am asking is that people read the latest research on the subject and do not simply accept what they are told, No matter who tells it.
@tsimahei When I am called a troll for suggesting that you read books I know that I am on the right track and I am dealing with someone who wishes to remain ignorant in spite of all evidence to the contrary. How to age a rock , read and find out, How long to make coal, go find out. Where do you get the idea of fossil hunters being paid millions? Again I ask you to read a few dozen books on the subjects under discussion.
@@solentbum - What you think you know about how rocks are made is wrong. What you were taught about how coal forms is also wrong. You probably think you know how fossils form, but you don't. My point is that *a huge amount of what we are taught as scientific FACT.. is NOT scientific, nor factual.* Test it out... Find any geologist (or any other scientist) who has actually produced a lithified fossil. They all think they know how, but they don't. There have actually been MANY that have tried--unsuccessfully.
*Do you believe the Earth is HOT inside?* Why?? Sounds like a stupid question, right? But think it through... we all accepted that it was hot because that's what we were told from the time we were little. But it's not correct. How can all the world's scientists be wrong? Great question! And not just a little bit disturbing! Humor me here so that we can test all the many books telling us these scientific facts... Let's see how they hold up to a little critical thought. *What empirical evidence is there that the Earth is HOT inside???*
A good theory on the 'missing link' type fossils: juvenile apes have skulls very similar to humans, look at images to get the idea. Animals were larger pre-flood, so a juvenile ape with a skull mid-way between ape and human-like and a size larger than expected, would lead you to believe it's an extinct mid-point species between ape and man, when in reality it's a large, young ape.
Thanks to the Standing For Truth channel for this idea and excellent creation info.
“Bones of Contention” by Marvin Lubenow. Excellent read on this subject and thoroughly researched. Man has always been man.
Indeed, never bought into the whole evolution bs even as a kid, I always knew God made us the way we are today.
Do you believe God created a super man that 'devolved' into humans ('Devolved' is not a scientific term, it's a Creationist misuse of a word that I think you will understand). Did he create normal humans that 'devolved' into hominids and apes, or did he create them all together?.. Do you think having animals 'degenerate' is a good policy, especially at Young Earth Creationist 'devolution' speeds? How long before all life on Earth 'devolves' into a bacterial soup? Why can some 'kinds' breed and others can't? Why do we inherit features but not perfectly? What is wrong with natural selection as a gene pool selection, protection and promotion mechanism?
PrivateSi no evidence
except for when he was a developing pre-human, (put simply for poorly educated readers, the whole story is much more complicated and much more interesting than 'God did it'.)
Barry PURKIS instead of saying all the complicated things it’s much easier to sum it with God did it.
There is NO problem with understanding with links of fossils there are NO links between ape and human,Neanderthal was just a human .
It wouldn’t matter anyway because fossils are subjective and based off inference. Emotion deals with biology and biology kills evolution. Don’t let anyone take you down an already debunked and easily falsified trail of fossils. Oil’s pressure. carbon 14 in diamonds and dinosaur graveyards with human remains is all it takes to disprove the fossil record
I would really love to see a more in depth version of this video. But thank you for this one.
I think one thing that is never pointed out is that the taxonomy system (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species) was a helpful tool constructed in the 18th and 19th century. But forcing this square peg of scientific classification into the round hole of Biblical interpretation is a poor fit. Nowhere does the Bible say Adam and Eve were "anatomically modern homo sapiens." We can assume Noah and his descendants were. But the definition of what is "human" or "person" or "man" might be more nebulous and inclusive pre-flood. The possibility of wild variation (Humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Idaltu etc) within the human family makes people a lot of people uncomfortable. What's weird is that, despite superficial differences like skin color, modern humans have an incredibly small amount of genetic variation (less than most other species) and no subspecies almost as if there was a mass extinction event that created a genetic bottleneck sometime in the distant past.
It all makes some sense though. Now be also have dna, mtdna, larval stages, vestigial organs & such that show they're related now. And related plants can share seeds, embryonic leaves, leaves, cpda, pollen & can be grafted to eachother.
Larval stages, vestigial organs & breeding pairs are the ones that flip the system on it's back though like how kinds can interbreed such as camels & llamas or goats & sheep. But not all goats and sheep
I am a Christian and a young Earth creationist. Concerning neanderthals, however, how do you explain the fact that they do not fit the human body ratios? They do, in fact, fit the body ratios of apes. This needs explaining.
Massive error in the thesis: Dogs got bred and the ancestor of all dogs is the wolf and dogs got bred for purpose (hunting, hounding, protection, etc.). So you can't compare different varieties of humans with dogs, unless you say that all human types got bred from one common ancestor and they all got bred for a purpose.
As for the Neanderthals, there are now theories that say that these species of human lived much longer live-spans than humans of today and that would explain the bulging of around the brows, as bone tissue never stops to grow and to extend. Proof of that is the change of the face the older an individual gets. Doesn't the Bible speak of people having grown much, much older than we do today? What led to the shrinking live-span of humans since the beginning of humans? Has the potency of whatever was in the fruit of the Tree of Life worn off over time?
Very interesting video that gives a lot to think about. Thank you.
Only humanity had the breath of God, God breathed into man the breath of life.
Not according to the holy text: Gen 7:15 'and they went into the ark to Noah, two by two, of all flesh in which is the breath of life.'
@@leroybrown9143 But none of those creations received life directly through God's breath except for Man. right after God formed Man from the dust of the earth. Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
@@optimumpcyt the scripture you site means that man received something more than flesh, man received a soul, made in Their image. So if your point is that only mankind has the capacity to contain the indwelling spirit of God then we agree. But everything on the ark with Noah had the breath of life.
@@leroybrown9143 breath of life in Noahs Ark is just saying all surviving life was riding in the Ark aka "the breath of all life ". However Man literally received his life directly through God's breath when God breathed his spirit directly into Man's nose and Man became a living soul. no other creature except for Man received this direct creation in 3 specific ways no other creature received.
number 1 first God declared he would make Man in his Image. so by that design we know Man would be superior to the other creations.
number 2 God formed Man from the ground Himself and Number 3 God gave life to Man when he breathed into His nostrils and made him a living soul by receiving God's spirit directly.
all other creation was commanded to exist and they came forth. it seems only man was made in a 1 on 1 hands on approach by God. These are 2 vastly different breaths in both of these texts. they are both right but they talk about different things.
you contradicted Barrie Smith but he was right. only man received God's breath. the bible clearly says so. your text was also correct but it does not trump Barrie's text because they are 2 completely different things.
@Disingenuous White-Boy Actually the bible specifically says God commanded the Animals into existence. He would give commands such as let the earth produce living creatures of each kind. and let the waters swarm with living creatures.
Nowhere does it say he breathed on them. He did not command man to come out of nowhere or from a seed. He created man himself from dust and breathed life into him. this is exclusive to man. you could of easily found this doing a simple search.
it's in the first few paragraphs in the first book of the bible. how lazy do you have to be to challenge literally the first Biblical account without checking it first? If this is the extent of your knowledge and according to your name "disingenuous" dont bother me anymore ok? im trying to help people i dont have time for foolery.
Contested Bones is the best book on this issue.
Makes the name "Man-kind" a lot more clear when you separate things into "kinds". Maybe interchanging "mankind" with "human" is adding to the confusion?
The words describing human and mankind are of course different in different languages, and yet most of the world manages not to be confused.
Maybe but the line between kinds is still arbitrary
@Jesus Believing Extremest Christian
What do the verses mean?
The kind barrier is rather arbitrary, there's no description in the bible. We just go off of what looks similar, and if so then the kind barrier can be easy to break.
Because Llamas & camels can interbreed. so can narwhales & belugas. As well as lemons limes & oranges.
Like some legless lizards are swiching to snakes again too, when should they not be in the lizard kind?
I am not an animal, I am a human being.. Thats a insult to man and God to say we transformed to humans from apes.
Not a monkey.
@Younan Yaqoob
"how adam look like" ?
in God's image
@@hansdemos6510 😂🤣👏
Hans De Mos we are more different then you think. We are not related to apes 🦧 🦍 and there is a lot of evidence of how we are not part of the ape kind.
@tsimahei "There were few mutations so no harm would be done to their offspring"? Mate that's what makes inbreeding bad right, Adam basically fckd his twin😖
Todd should check out the Paracas elongated skulls, maybe contact L.A. Marzulli or Brian Foerster, they have a few samples.
How does the brain stem position prove an animal walked upright? If the animal lived in trees it would also tend to be upright in habit but not necessarily an upright walker.
Fascinating that so many variations to humans existed but there is still a clear separation from non-humans.
That's only 2 fossils but ya
SlingSlang Read the whole Bible my friend.
@@ermeyastulu386 thanks but how does reading the Bible show a clear separation between hominid fossils & humans
SlingSlang It does and I want you to read as you will dismiss my words.
@@ermeyastulu386 You want me to read the whole bible?
Please just tell me which verse shows or proves a clear separation between hominids & humans.
The bible doesn't mention hominids, and simply following what the bible says is circular reasoning
Hi, have they done one where there are human fossils? Not sure if they have but I'd like to see explanation to that. Like we find all of these other animals, what about human remains? Is there evidence of that?
Yeah but they're called hominids not humans
This is very good. Explanations without dogma.
Love your videos. With all respect for what you guys are doing, I'm not waiting around for scientist to tell me what I know to be true. Let alone waiting for the next article to contradict what I know to be true.
There are people that have a difficult time with understanding human skull differences and monkey, gorilla skulls and thinking they're similar animals. Those people have never been to Walmart. Just look at those skulls....
Are there different kinds of man mentioned in the bible.. such as Neanderthal and Denisovan as an example? Or, are those 2 pre flood man, that had a build that was able to sustain a multi century life style. Any other explanation for these different kinds of human would be appreciated
@@logicalatheist1065 You didn't copy and paste those answers did you?...haha just kidding, great response .Lets run this from a different angle, I'll go along with the evolution paradigm for now and we get to a point when man has evolved enough from the common ancestor of apes and chimps to where he is now inventing a GOD in his mind to answer maybe his "where we come from" question. So at this point, with the invention of this GOD and later the writings of the bible etc etc from these mad men + many other historical text, could this be simply an evolutionary step for human kind? A new survival of the fittest or natural selection on the spiritual level. Which means the next [possible] stage for the evolutionary human race is to use one's inner spiritual abilities that the ancients wrote about in the bible as our guide. Bottom line for you is in your paradigm, GOD is apart of evolution , because that's where evolution went for the human being as his mind was evolving, so maybe your evolution wants you to know about this made up GOD [and what is the real truth about him], so you may continue with the next evolutionary process. In a weird way GOD actually belongs to the evolutionary process. [That's actually really funny] Maybe it's time to blame the Evolutionary process for these mad creationist type people and their invented GOD. Just a thought. OK I'm done I'm heading back to my creation paradigm now. Ahh that better.
@@logicalatheist1065 like you were here to know about it? Nor anyone else unless you are the Top geological expert in the field, tell me again how you know?
@@logicalatheist1065 Where your proof? Because you you just say so, doesn't work that way for someone who claims to not believe in God.
@@logicalatheist1065 There a good movie you should watch. It's called the Case for Christ, it shows a Atheists like your self goes out to disprove the Bible, Jesus, flood, true story . You might find it helpful.
Bruh. I literally have a skull like Neanderthals. I don't think I am a transitional species though.
Where would those genes come from though since adam & eve shared the same genes. And those genes weren't part of it since not everyone has them
No u don't
@@samuelbaafi867 if your skull has a brow ridge that's an easy sign. Homo sapien skulls don't have that.
Gorilla pukes at 6:20 😂
Who are the few "intellectuals" who give this the thumbs down and why?
Your reply seems to reveal an antagonism towards 'Intellectuals' , does this include Dr. Wood? Is it because some people actually read several of the many books on the subject to draw their own conclusions which may be at variance with the presenters Or perhaps they do not agree with your view of the world and its history.
the angels did not only defile themselves with humans but also with animals of the filed, birds and fish. which explains alot of these sub species
There is no doubt in my mind what makes us human is our connection to and ability to be aware of God.
Me: Are similarities alone, good enough to prove two different animals are related?
Atheist: Yes.
Me: So a car with 4 wheels, 3 mirrors, a steering wheel, and an engine is related to a truck with 4 wheels, 3 mirrors, a steering wheel, and an engine?
Atheist: No, because it’s not alive.
Me: So it’s not by similarities, but by something simply being alive, means it’s related?
How can you prove that two different animals are related without going into further investigation?
Atheist: 🤷🏻♂️
Hans De Mos
So, if I asked you, is a starfish, sea cucumber, and sea urchin related, or not?
What would be your scientific conclusion?
Hans De Mos
And no, dna paternity tests are not used to determine if two different animals are related. They look for similarities in the dna of two different animals to assume they are related. Which is bad science. Similarities are not good enough to prove two different creatures are related.
It would seem that you believe that motor vehicles are 'animals' . Allowing that strange belief, I suggest that the car and the truck are related in their outline arrangements, but as you state you need to go into further investigation. A deep investigation into the development of both the motor truck and the car will reveal 'evolution ' of design in action as the disparate ideas of different 'creators' merged into a parallel arrangement involving wheels motor and steering wheel.
As for different 'Animals' you of course need to make further investigations to prove/disprove relationships, Much deeper than a simple video, and much deeper than a non scientific 'Bible'.
Hans De Mos
The scientists also say, since they can compare dna to determine who the father is, they can also compare dna to determine how one creature is related to another.
But this is not correct. Yes you can determine the father by dna, but this is because the dna match.
To say you can use dna to determine one creature is related to another, is wrong because they do not match. They only have similarities, unless it is related, only then will it actually match.
So, you can also determine relation by simply observing all the unique features which do not change, and comparing them to a similar animal. Then, like the dna test, it is obvious if it is or is not related.
Hans De Mos
If you don't think reproduction is a valid way to prove two different animals are related, then how about the definition of relation?
"Relation"
“sexual intercourse.”
www.google.com/search?q=relation+definition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari&safe=active
It's not by similarities, because it cannot be verified. Only animals which can reproduce now or in the past, are related.
You stated that people descended from apes, but that is not what evolution says. It says that apes and people have a common ancestor. How can you argue against evolution if you don't even understand it?
Can you get your hands on some of those unusual skulls down in South America, red hair, unusual shape? Also, has anyone analyzed the DNA for some of the unusual traits in the human population, polydactyls, horns, rows of double-teeth, giantism?
Did Neaderthals have souls?
Yes.
Nobody has a soul. We ARE souls: body and a spirit in combination.
Maybe the ape has an instinct not to let the food value of vomit to waste
"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts" (Ecclesiastes 3)
"There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15)
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1)
So right back to square one. I'm not sure what the point of this video was.
the DNA is the big differenze between of the spezies
We are 99% related and share retrovirus dna in same parts of bits of DNA that can only happen if you had the same ancestor that had that virus dna put into its cell
Thank you so much for your discussion, your arguments and clear dilemmas even though having just scratched the surface of this topic, is such an own goal as to require no rebuttal.
As usual you're putting your hope in the God of gaps theory. My heart goes out to you and I hope you can open your mind to what's in front of you.
Apes are not humans, humans are not apes one didn't turn into the other and the other never turned into the one.
Sorry, you had me until right at the end. Animals also have souls and spirits just as we do. Read Ecclesiastes chapter three written by King Solomon who is said to be the wisest man who ever lived, his wisdom endowed on him by God. I have personally witnessed the existence of souls and spirits in animals. We are made in God's image in that we "look" like him, that is, we have the same body characteristics of Jesus who walked in the garden. God is Body, Soul and Spirit. So are all animals. But only we have the same exact characteristics of God's Body. Our souls (basically, our conscience, but more) have been corrupted. Our spirits (basically the communications channel) no longer are able to communicate with God because He cut the connection. However, after Pentecost, we were again given a close communications channel to God if we are believers. The "router" resides within us! Our souls are restored so that we see the clear cut lines between good and evil. Doesn't mean we no longer do evil things, nope, Christians are still fallen humans. That will change. Animals were also corrupted by our actions but I am not sure how that works. I never said I know everything, only God does. But what I wrote above, I do know, it is truth. Now what about vegetation? Heck if I know!
Disagree? Questions? COOL, let's discuss it! However, be civil or I will just walk away,,,
Adam and Eve. Correct. Next question. Either God is God or He is not. Choose.
10:32 A bit more satisfying than "oh well, God made it that way" is perhaps this:
* there needs to be one irrational animal closer to man than any other irrational animal, because of the principle of plenitude;
* it has served as type for being able to imitate human behaviours in an ultimately non-human way (could hold a painting brush but cannot paint - unless you count modern art as painting) and therefore as type for Satan in relation to God, as Antichrist in relation to Christ;
* it has served as basis for the Evolution theory, which is arguably a huge part of the great deception.
I saw a painting elephant once.
Look for paracas museum. Elongated skull.... Many of Them. No apes! Clothing interesting.... Nephylim connections....
Neanderthals existed over 450,000 years ago but Adam existed between 90,000 to 160,000 years ago. I’m confused how the Bible is accurate because of this.
I believe 100% God has shown me how nature works, and it is exceedingly fruitful!
Only animals which can reproduce or could in the past, are related. All others which have never been known to interbreed, are not related.
And every animal has features which never change! So by comparing those features which do not change, we can see if they match or if they do not.
If they match, that means those animals are related, and they have reproduced in the past. If they do not, then they are not related in any way, and have never reproduced in the past!
It's not by similarities that two different animals are related, but only by their ability to reproduce.
Please let me know if you would like a demonstration.
God is good!
Please explain how it is that Donkeys and Horses can interbreed but Mules (donkey/ horse cross) cannot. There is a whole series of well recorded experiments in horse breeding which tend to undermine your comment ! The whole procedure is explained initially in Darwin's major work, and followed up in numerous other books.
Barry PURKIS
So, by using this method, we can observe, test, and verify that all horses, donkeys, mules, ponies, and zebras are all related. Because all of their unique features which do not change, match. Especially when compared to a similar animal like the rhino.
So, if one variation of the horse, can no longer breed, it is simply because that's what happens with genetics over time. Each new creature born, is a brand new variation of its relation and has a chance of having damaged or a decrease in its unique genetic features which do not change.
This is sped up by too much inbreeding.
And like all genetics, when a group is too close together for too long, they will have inbreeding problems. And when a group is too far apart, they will have inbreeding problems. To have genetics stay intact, requires a continuous fair ratio of reproduction between the different groups of the same relation, while they can still interbreed.
From my research, plants are more genetically intact than animals, and thus can suffer more inbreeding and genetic diversity with less defects than animals. Because humans are just now realizing the potential in plant variations. For example, the orange and lemon and lime and grapefruit were all produced from the same ancestral citrus fruit. But now those variations are thinning out and interbreeding, so their potential of citrus, is now very limited, compared to before, and their capability to reproduce with each other, is growing slim. I'm not sure if you noticed, but when genetic variations begin thinning out, certain variations can no longer interbreed with others. This is why on the tag of a red delicious tree, it lists the limited variations of which it can reproduce. And over time, that list will decrease.
Do these things make sense?
@@theriveroffaith852 So your final point is how over time different populations will, despite previously having been interfertile, slowly become less and less capable of interbreeding. The problem I have is that, despite this being the basic concept of how species diverge over time via evolution, you say that it's somehow the "variations thinning out."
BurntToast
Since there is great evidence of the degrading of genetics over time, then if you go backwards in time, the genetics are more in tact.
All variations related to each other, came from that creature's original parents which had the potential of producing all the variations of that animal we see today.
For example, the parent couple of the dog relation, had genetics capable of producing all the variations of dogs you see today.
As more dogs are produced, the variation of that dog, thins out as it's genetic information degrades and certain features are given to certain variations, while other features are given to other variations. So, when let's say chihuahuas breed, they will produce offspring with less genetic variation than their grandparents. And their offspring will do likewise.
So, once there were a few dogs which could produce german shepherds, chihuahuas, great danes, beagles, etc. To where nowdays, often times great danes can only breed with great danes and often times chihuahuas can only breed with chihuahuas.
The genetic information which was once in a few creatures, is spread out over many creatures. The genetic information has thinned out over time and will continue thinning out over time.
Sorry for making it sound complicated, but does this make sense?
@@theriveroffaith852 I think you might be mistaken about the origins of oranges, lemons, limes and grapefruits.
Oranges (sweet oranges) are thought to be derived from mandarin crossed with pomelo (and back crossed one or several times). Lemons and limes are crosses between citrons and one of the others (mandarin or pomelo - I forget which, possibly both). The grapefruit is thought to be a cross between sweet orange (already of hybrid origins) and pomelo, if memory serves. David Mabberley has an article (A classification for edible Citrus (Rutaceae), DOI:10.7751/telopea19971007) summarising this research, which draws on DNA and other genetic work. I think there are also records of various breeds of citrus that are consistent with the genetic observations - perhaps the grapefruit origin, because I think that was rather recent (in the 18th century?), whereas sweet orange (again if memory serves) was known in early Chinese history. Another article that deals with citrus crosses (hybridisation) is this one: Barkley, N.A., et al. 2006 Theor. Appl. Genet. 112: 1519-1531.
In short, there appear to have been at least 3 ancestral species involved in the modern citrus varieties, not one. The fruits of these 3 species are rather different from one another.
Interestingly, if you follow the citrus genetic research, you can see that the techniques used to assess the parentage of the various varieties (e.g., the grapefruit, for which historical records can confirm the parentage) are the same as those used to determine the more distant origins of each cultivar (e.g, the sweet orange, which may have arisen a few thousand years ago) - SSRs and structure analysis, for example, although other methods exist. Where there are records, they are in agreement with the genetic observations and analyses. Additional genetic observations (i.e., different genetic markers) and slightly different analysis methods, (i.e., phylogenetics) that agree with the parentage studies, can also be used to infer more distant relationships (e.g., between Poncirus, Citrus, Eremocitrus, Microcitrus and other plants), in a way that is the same as has been used to determine all sorts of relationships on the assumption of (micro-)evolutionary theory. Given that these plants all fall within a group that can be interbred and grafted on one another, perhaps this falls within the "created kinds" variation, although it's worth noting that the same assumptions (and analysis methods) that produce a very sensible set of conclusions regarding citrus (i.e., that varieties of plants that can be interbred with one another do in fact appear to be closely related using the methodology mentioned before) are the same ones used to infer close relationships between man, chimpanzee, gorilla and other apes, not to mention relationships among many many other organisms.
I'm not sure what you mean by "thinning out" of genetic variations that leads to reduced capacity to interbreed with other varieties. This might simply be "the beginning of the process of speciation" in the biological literature? If you mean a reduction in genetic variation within a species, then this, on its own, may not limit the capacity to interbreed, but more so the capacity to withstand a wide range of environmental conditions (including resisting disease attack).
Thats an interesting dissonance he brings up. Homo sapians and neanderthals are both human because they could interbreed, but won't call either animals. There are more than a few modern examples of different species that can't interbreed with one another, but can interbreed with a species more closely related to both rather than the two on the margins to eachother, as a bridge.
People also have a layer of subcutaneous fat just underneath the skin unlike apes but akin to some aquatic life...the shape that we share is, simply, a very useful design living on Earth and the similarities cease there.
All related organisms share certain traits & stuff though. How do we know when evolution started, we just hope it started at kind?
I've been always a Christian believer and I think most of the story in the Bible is with some level of accuracy true. But I have always found it hard to believe that all animals species we see today come from within the Ark, I mean physically that would be impossible.
Hello David Duran
I too am a Christian believer. I do not pretend to have all the answers. I have looked at a lot of work from people much smarter than me. I believe it is highly likely that no one has all the answers yet. From what I have seen from their work, it is mathematically and physically possible.
It is good to search out the truth.
Jesus answered, “I am the way, & the truth & the life....” John 14:6
I believe all the evidence points to this as well.
I wish you well on your journey to truth.
Hello David,
Noah just had to include representatives of each kind, not every variation within the kinds we see today.
Don't need to carry the 256 versions of dogs in the Ark, only need a pair. And as, coyotes, hyenas, wolves, dingoes etc. also came from the same kind, you wont need to carry all the different varieties, but just the one common ancestor that contains the required gene pool.
David Hi. I love your "some level of accuracy". So, truth is relative? I'm with you, but that's going to get you into trouble with certain believers. I mean those who treat all the bible as the same kind of literature. Most people don't expect poetry (Job, Song of Solomon, Psalms) to tell us much about history (Chronicles, Kings) and vice versa. The early chapters of Genesis make sense (and bypass literal questions like yours) when seen as a collection of etiological myths. In the context of their creation and/or redaction (5th C BC seems most likely) they were the best available "answers" to questions about origins. And they remain great literature to this day. But a record of actual events? Talking snakes? 900yr old patriarchs? Nephilim? A sadistic global genocide that leaves no traces? Come on!
Fitting the animals into the Ark is as useless a debate as the medieval scholars debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Which reminds me. For a modern take on taking Genesis, etc. too literally, I can recommend the novel “Good Omens” by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. (The recent Amazon Prime video series is also a very acceptable version).
@@alanthompson8515 *Truth is Absolute.*
1) Talking snake? no ... Bible says it was a talking serpent. Actual species not defined.
2) 900 year life span. With a perfect genome, unprocessed food, pristine living environment, and the initial absence of viral and bacterial infections, why not?
3) Nephilim. Every ancient global culture has records of giants from the Pacific to the Arctic. Why should the Bible history in this matter be questioned?
4) Global Flood. Lots of evidence. Oil, gas, coal, fossils, etc.
5) Animals in an Ark? Not all 256 different representatives of dog were required to be carried in the Ark, only the original *ancestor kind* that all dogs, wolves, coyotes, hyenas, jackals etc came from needed to be preserved.
6) angels on a pin. just as interesting as how many rocks it takes to create life.
7) As for a modern take on Genesis. I recommend you check out the "Answers in Genesis" and other Creationist Resources. Ken Ham's videos are acceptable.
It's probably a skull from an orang-pendak
5:23 I guess you guys realize you have an audience? 😄
Evolution dosen't say that humans evolved from apes
Right?
evolution says that humans are species of apes.
todays apes like chimps and gorillas are cousins of humans.
we emerged from common ancestor and diversified into all ape species we have today.
@@spatrk6634 yeah
The main difference is through genetic manipulation
Pressure from psyence.
Human DNA is different
Ape's DNA IS Different
Doesn't match with Man
Adam and 2nd(last)Adam jesus christ
A better question is, why did God make us so similar?, there my be useful in our ways then locking them up..
This is unbelievably bad. Neither of these jokers has a clue what they are saying.
Humans were created twice by God in genesis. First Neanderthals than us. I've heard , check it out. James tour g ad an interview with some other guy
@@saphiregem1275 there are more than just neanderthals that can be classsed like that homo habilis or homo erectus
Adam was created with a pure genome directly by God , thousands of years ago in an ape like creature similar to humans but v short and ugly. So this primordial semi intelligent ape had him and other 3 apes, all three females. One female of them was hairless and more human like, so that she was the first Bridge between the humans and these apes. Then god create an egg and with the sperm of Adam created in this first hairless human like female ape the first pure human female, Eve, so later Adam could marry her and start the genetic pure mankind. But something went wrong in the process. Later when he was still a young men , he disobeyed god and He had sex with this first Bridge hairless ugly female, so the first human hybrid was born and All the corrupted tree of the son of men too , sadly. Then also the other 3 little hairy standing apes were pregnant too and with the hairless one they generate the progenitors corrupted ones of all the living mankind. Meanwhile adam and the pure female eve ( born from an egg created by god and Adam s sperm) give birth to the other tree of pure humans son of god . Because of the original sin (the hybridation with that primordial hairless ape) we lost the pure genome of the sons of god and we got mixed with the hybrids of the son of men, generated by these hybrids during time. The last pure blood human was Noah, but his wife was an hybrid so after the flood, now all humanity is an hybridation between hybrids and the pure human tree.
These are the first parts I understood of the revelations told by Jesus to an Italian priest Don Guido Bortoluzzi, collected in a free book you can find online at genesibiblica .org .
Loosing the battle for rationality against cognitive dissonance, ignorance and sometimes plain dishonnesty
Man did not evolve. He was made by God:
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: **but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts,** another of fishes, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. Corinthians 15 KJV
OMG. Todd Wood, really? This guy went to Liberty University of all places, and is an author in "The Creation Club." Where is his credibility?
Just because our bodies evolved from apes (and other animals before those) doesn’t affect my belief that the spirits of all people are children of God.
In the book of Jasper ; those who said , We will ascend to Heaven , and serve our gods, became like apes and elephants.
"Book of Jasher" *not included* in the Bible Canon.
Modern writings of "The Book of Jasher" are *outright forgeries.* Here are some fakes and their writers.
- British writer Alcuin, 8th century
- Rabbi Jonah ben Abraham, Gerona, 14th century
- Zerahiah Ha-Yevani, 13th century.
- Rabbi Jacob ben Mier, 12th century
- Science Fiction writer Benjamin Rosenbaum, 20th century
If you follow science, and dont believe Yahuah dabar , you are anon believer
to me I believe that God made primates as A joke to describe humanity they say he has A sense of humor and I believe the existence of primates is A good example
I disagree completely.
amount of cognitive dissonance todd wood is going through is amazing
both of them accept and deny evolution at the same time.
Creationist just crumbled to the ground. this is silly
200,000 years ago ENKI (the Anunnaki) genetically engineered the first human by DNA manipulation. The creature used was a hairy upright walking being with hair described as looking like the mane of a Lion. Also the first creation was black and their sole purpose was to be slaves for the Anunnaki. Much later EKNI impregnated two of the females ending up with what the Bible calls Adam and Eve (actually named Adapa and Titi). Later ENKI impregnated Methuselah's wife and made Noah. Next ENKI being the frisky one then impregnated a human female and out came Moses...Last on the list is Jesus. Jesus is a product of ENKI mating with a young girl. The girl was chosen because her bloodline was pure back to Noah. Thus Jesus was produced to bring the ENKI bloodline back to power. Litterly to take the earth out of the devil's hands. It's all written in the Sumerian Tablets. The books that religion fears you reading as it makes a farce out of what you believe. God is real but you have never once worshiped him...The Creator of all Things is God...What religion of today worships is a handful of Anunnaki that hijacked God and took over in his place. Jesus is real and has a purpose and it is to save mankind...To keep the human race pure in the bloodline of ENKI.
The Biggest Difference is Man was Created in The Image of God! And as such possesses an immoral Soul! And can be born of The Spirit for the asking and repentance in The Name Above All Names Jesus Christ The Righteous!