Agreed, but it also happens to be why a lot of creationists get confused by evolution... and I say this being a former creationist who once thought this image was an accurate depiction.
ingaman Not only should it not be taken literally, it doesn't try to depict evolution. It was an attempt to capture the human lineage 'from ape to man' in a comprehensive graphic. And, with the knowledge available at the time, it was fairly accurate and clearly spoke to people's imaginations. I think Hank is nit-picking a little on this one; the lack of females makes sense if you're back-tracking along a patrilineal line (as modern geneticists like to do), or if you just realise that women were still second class citizens in those days. While evolution is a branching tree, the lineage leading up to modern man is a line, or, if you want to be complete; a tree growing back in time, with more ancestors the further you go back. The dead ends, while interesting from a paleoanthropologic point of view don't belong in the picture. Theoretically it would be possible to create a line from your father to his father, to his father's father, and so on until you reach the most recent ancestor whose descendants also include chimps and if you take a sample every ten to hundred millennia, you would get a line-up similar to this picture. Sure, some of the species named are now known not to be on that list, but such is the nature of scientific progeress; much of what we now 'know' to be true will draw bemused smiles when the next century rolls by. Sorry for the rant =) TLDR: it's not as inaccurate as Hank makes it out to be.
ingaman This is exactly one of the major hurdles that I have faced when trying to explain evolution to people. It really makes things that much harder.
I own an 'evolution of the Silly Walk' shirt based on the Monty Python skit. A coworker of mine saw it, approached me and proclaimed, "Not everyone believes in that you know." I just nodded in mute amazement.
I would of ran around screaming blaspheme and calling 'said' person a heathen that or say I can't believe you're that stupid but none the less its a fact just like the theory of evolution.
***** Perhaps about evolution, but topping that regarding astronomy, in 1991 I setup some filtered telescopes at work to observe the solar eclipse. A co-worker asked me if the dark spots on the sun were lakes or oceans.
It has nothing to do with looking down on others or riding a high horse. The fact is that the people who make that statement do so from a place of ignorance. Meaning that they have not even attempted to try and understand evolution, and yet attempt to argue against it. Which is, in fact, really quite sad and pathetic. As are many of you for bashing his stance against those kinds of people who are holding us back intellectually.
"Evolution isn't a linear process, it does not turn one species into another into another. It's really about genetics" Thanks for that, and this is really logical and makes sense. People tend to think that we evolved from another species, which I really had doubts about and had similar thoughts to yours. Thanks
What. But... we did evolve from another species. But there was also interbreeding involved in some cases, but only with species that evolved from common ancestors on divergent evolutionary paths, which allowed us to both be "cousins" of some extinct species, and descended from them.
@Miss Plumtree Miss Plumtree evolution says that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. We didn't evolve from chimps, chimps didn't evolve from us we just evolved from two different populations of an ape-like species. Two populations of that species evolved into different directions, one eventually became humans other eventually became Pan. Pan lineage also diverged into two groups recently: bonono and common chimpanzee. Human lineage also split into various archaic hominins like neanderthals, denisovans etc. Sapiens is the only surviving species in our lineage.
@Miss Plumtree Miss Plumtree the picture you draw indeed seems absurd to me. i would reject evolution if it actually said that, but it doesn't. legs didn't evolve until cambrian era long long after the first multicellular organisms evolve. first multicellular organisms didn't have legs or organs, they were like advanced colonies which some cells are specialized into different types. no microorganism ever gave birth into an animal with legs. we are talking about hundreds of millions of year progression with each step is more complex than before.
@Miss Plumtree Miss Plumtree but it was no longer a bacteria when the creature got its legs. it was an early bilaterally symetrical worm-like primitive animal who first got its legs. mutations slightly alter the body plan in different ways, the mutations that help the mobility selected in each generation until some small appandages evolve into legs. first animals also evolve from very advanced single celled eukaryots called proto-zoons. (not fromthose bacteria we see in current world)
People assume that evolution is a strict progression of species to species, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... evolution-y wevolution-y... stuff.
masansr "Teaching the history of our development with just one sex is trying to eat sushi with just one chopstick." It's paraphrased from about 1:40 and on-wards, from this very video. :)
***** Haha. That's one way to do it. Kind of defeats the purpose of chopsticks though, don't it? Removes all the leverage. You'll basically be eating with your hands but with pieces of wood in the way. Risk of choking? Possible.
***** Blindly believing in something so strongly with little evidence to it happening is considered stupid among many people in the scientific community. It does sound pretty silly when it's explained like that, doesn't it? At the same time, blindly believing it's not possible simply because it hasn't been proven is equally stupid. Many people just don't realize that. In the end, it's your choice. I do, however, get annoyed when people say they don't believe in evolution because of their religion.
***** I said little evidence, not zero evidence. There is about as much evidence supporting the bible as there is supporting that The Odyssey, The Iliad, and many other Greek legends actually happened. Evidence that some of the people are real, some of the locations are real, and even some of the objects are real does not prove that the stories are real. Evolution on the other hand has essentially been proven.
***** The word "evolutionism" does not exist, it was made up by religious apologists (mostly fundamentalist Christians) in a failed attempt to put both ways of thinking in the same level.
It's called the THEORY of evolution for a reason it still needs to be proved , and for all the evolutionists in the comments calling people who express different opinions "dumbasses" this doesn't make you sound smart, it's rather the opposite.
No. Scientific theories isn't claims, they are explanation modells that describe an observed phenomena. They are not guesses or estimations like the common word theory. Scientific theories is the highest for of explanation there is in science. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
I know most of us have the common sense to comprehend everything we just watched, but considering there are so many misconceptions about evolution... I'm glad for the nit-picking
Yeah I think the evolution never happen..they just found defect human being fossil from doing an incest for a long-long generations till they becomes apes.
This image isn't appreciated for its accuracy... It is appreciated for its look and the symbolic behind it. Only those who don't really care would be shocked to learn that this depiction of human evolution isn't accurate...
I think the real problem with the image is that for many people, especially those who look for any excuse to discount evolution, it appears to depict evolution as that "march toward progress" which would of course imply design.
The problem is that people actually take it as 100% authentic and what evolution looks like. Especially those who don't know any better, which leads to problems in understanding.
I continue to be amazed by how great/well done these episodes are! On point, intellectually stimulating, and objectively unbiased, this show makes the best sales pitch for the scientific mindset!
There's actually a video about how pokemon demonstrates evolution. Their point is that all pokemon are derived from mew and have adapted to the different areas they live in which is why they only live in certain regions or routes.
Jodie653 Yeah, I know; I was just trying to be clever but, you clearly outshone me. Also, GameTheory has a great video which demonstrates your exact point. You should check it out, if you haven't already.
I mildly disagree with Hank, sure they are not the correct animals in our ancestry, but our history *would* look like a primate police line up, just not those primates. It *wouldn't* look like a complex tree, since we did not go down the other branches, we just went down one branch.
It wouldn't be the complete picture. It would be useful for direct lineage, but it would omit some creatures that we aren't directly related to. These indirect ancestors of ours dynamically shaped the evolutionary landscape that we now occupy and wouldn't be aptly represented in an "ape line up".
I believe what he meant was that we could be one path, but it's important to note we are not the *only* path. Like going from the trunk of the evolutionary tree to a specific branch, if you will. edit: it also wouldn't look like a lineup because of gender (and race if you're that kind of specially concerned person) edit number 2: maybe a police couples lineup?
I would also like to add that the "line up" omits those creatures who have contributed directly yo our genes, but aren't directly related to us, like the neanderthal.
So basically you're telling me that people assume that evolution is a strict progression of cause to effect. But actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey... stuff.
So you're telling me evolution isn't a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly, wobbly, timey, wimey stuff?
precisely. .. its a load of bullshit sold to people who are told to never question or challenge it. and if they do the darwin gestapo of dawkins and the royal society will destroy your academic career and blurt out your credibility there is a God and nothing will ever change that
Amazing how we "evolved" so far, but don't have anything better to do than insulting each other... If you don't want to see videos on evolution, then DON'T WATCH THEM! If you believe that evolution is true, who cares what others believe. You are not going to convince them. In the end: everything should just educate themselves. There is plenty of information on evolution and creation. Let's please have intelligent / informed debates if you want to debate on RUclips.
When you throw mud your hands get dirty, I never insulted him. You are implying I do not want to see videos on evolution because I disagree with them. Do you not understand the concept of searching for truth? You are supposed to know both sides, who can ever be biased and only learn one side of any topic and make an informed decision? Is there a benefit for each person to only learn about things they agree with? This is not good.
You can't have a intelligent, informed debates with these religious freaks. They don't understand the way science works, or the history behind theories . They base their whole world view on fairy tales and are proud of it! Bottom line the religious idiots who post their crap on videos like this are trolls. Therefore they deserve every rude comments they get.
killerbee256 Hi, only one of us is unable to have an "intelligent, informed debate", and incase you can't tell, saying I am a freak, idiot and troll really is saying alot about you and how you deal with an opposing belief system. If you read my first comment please tell me that I am wrong and give me some evidence. I know how "science works", my issue is pretending science is perfect and the creation story is a "fairy tale". Science still has not offered an answer as to what created the Big Bang. If a species will mate, a species will evolve over time. But to say all animals came from the same life form billions of years ago has not been proven. We know Biblically speaking that the garden of eden was near where what science calls "the cradle of life" was. All of a sudden there were cities, art, government, military, municipal powers, agriculture and you name it starting from a few thousands of years ago. So anyways, I would like you to pick apart what I just said and for you to prove me illogical and a troll, thanks, have a nice day.
Sean Godos "Science still has not offered an answer as to what created the Big Bang" A bit behind on string theory aren't you? I wont fault for for not understanding the math fully but recently they have made huge break throughs in discovering what may have started the big bang. Secondary, your basing your world view around myth, there never was a garden of Eden, it's a fairy tale meant to be take as allegory at best. The earth is four billion years old, we know this because we can date volcanic rocks, also modern human fossils date back much far further then the neolithic when agriculture started in the near east, not to mention other hominids which are far older. The bible is mythology the same way the Greek & Roman myth are. It's not literally truth, it's only use in history is understanding the world view of a bronze age semetic people nothing more. The fact you are stuck in that primitive mind set just shows the crime of your parent for indoctrinating you and handicapping your ability to think critically.
SinCeraaaa come on why can't we all just co-exist? Believe what you believe in let them believe what they believe in. Not all creationists are bad as well as not all non-creationist are. So let us try not to belittle each other....and that would make for a slightly better world.
Jehohanan John We can't just co-exist because Creationism teaches a false reality. It is demonstrably wrong, plain and simple. If someone insists on believing the world is flat, even in the face of being proven wrong, I'll belittle them and pity them as I please. Likewise for Creationism.
Jehohanan John I'm with JJ on this one. Belittling does not advance the cause of waking more people out of their misguided fantasies. What we should be doing is talking like scientists--using reason, not insulting terms or sarcasm. And to those who would say, "They won't listen to reason", I say this: Some will. If some are a lost cause, so be it. But don't push away those who still have a chance of seeing the light by being unpleasant.
Part of the problem is perspective. A lot of them think that the earth is only a few thousand years old. If I believed that, then yeah, evolution would seem like so much crazy talk. Millions of years are kinda hard to wrap your head around.
CaZaBa Actually it's been accepted as historical fact that he existed, was baptized, and that he was indeed crucified by Pontius Pilate, through non Christian historical records. Whether he performed miracles, or rose from his grave is up for debate, but there is definitely historical proof that Jesus once existed in history.
I just don't understand how you can question evolution. Even when I was a kid, I understood that evolution was a thing. I also never thought that believing in evolution had to take away from your faith in God, like, I always figured that they somehow coexisted and that you didn't have to choose one over the other, you know?
I was just scrolling down the comments section and thinking "hey... where are all the crazy religious vs. obnoxious atheist 20-comment-long threads of pointless insults?" and then I remembered the "top comments first" default. Starting to like the new RUclips. =)
I've often wondered why creationists don't simply study evolution and learn the facts before they try to present alternatives and/or objections to various scientific conclusions. I suspect the reason is that the moment they do so they will realize that the process of evolution is an observable and verifiable fact of nature.
***** The atomic theory is not used to contradict Creationism. Yet, Evolution is, which makes not sense since Evolution does not address the origins of life either. This is why i find it so strange that people use Evolution as an argument against Creationism. Now the Creationists who says Evolution can't be true, are also mistaken, because the bible never says that evolution doesn't happen. Both sides of the argument are silly. And never call me an idiot again. ;)
***** "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." First off...I don't even like the bible. I don't endorse it, but because I'm old and inquisitive I know some things about it. Secondly,...the bible is clearly a book filled with stories, fables, mythology, metaphors, parables, etc. It might as well be a book of riddles. You've got to look beyond the surface to learn anything from it. Most people haven't got that kind of time or patience. Thirdly.....God is not subject to time. Time is subject to God. Lastly, who's to say at what stage of evolution those animals were at when God created them? For all we know God's Garden Of Eden was just a bunch of one celled creatures that would later become the birds and fishes we know of today. Again, both side, atheists and creationists are arguing from a point of ignorance. Yawl ain't got a clue what yawl r really arguing about.
***** Oh Pedro, you haven't done your homework. The truth is that, for many years quantum physicists have been leaning towards a "Fine Tuner". Do your homework. here watch this at least. It's just the tip of the iceberg. There's so much evidence, but you have to open your eyes and look. God isn't going to hit you over the head with evidence. You gotta want it. ruclips.net/video/z4E_bT4ecgk/видео.html
I used to also believe in evolution. I didn't have anything else to believe in and the people who taught it seemed really smart. Thankfully my mind has since been changed by the much more compelling and believable evidence of a loving God.
allen b I don't necessarily have a problem if someone professes faith (I think they're stupid, but I'm not going to call them out on it). I DO have a problem when someone makes an idiotic statement like "my mind has been changed by the much more compelling and believable evidence of a loving God", because no such evidence exists.
allen b why are you being hostile. he was just asking for proof of GOD which christians assume that if there is a GOD he sits around all day waiting for them to pray to him so he can help them with something. truth is there may be a GOD but ITS not what you think IT is. yes IT may be a all seeing entity but dose IT care about a meaningless spec in a vast cosmos unlikely. on the other hand science is a proven thing. science cures illness creates technolegy and in a lot of cases allows people to cheat death.
It is all about divergent points. At what point does something become a new species? We consider so many different varieties of people to be homo-sapiens. If you are 7 feet tall and white or 4 ft tall and black you are still considered one species. The same is true of many of man's recent ancestors. They varied from each other greatly in their appearance but they still are considered the same species. Our understanding of how we evolved and what we evolved from is still changing with new science.
***** While that it s generally good definition, it fails in some specific situations that actually exist, for instance there are two types of Gulls in Europe, they can not interbreed. However, one can breed with the gulls to the west, who can breed to their west (etc.), and the other can breed with the gulls to the east, who can breed to their east (etc.). This continues all the way around the world till you come back to Europe. It's called a ring species. In contrast, dogs and wolves can interbreed, but we generally consider them separate species. TLDR: While that is a good rough definition, life is way more complex than that.
GildedBear "In contrast, dogs and wolves can interbreed, but we generally consider them separate species" No we don't dogs are considered a sub species of wolves hence the name Canis lupus familiaris. Now wolves and coyotes fit what you said.
A Great Dane and a Chihuahua are the same species but that does not mean that if you put them together they would mate. The breeding definition only works so well.
It's all so interesting. I'm glad research is always being put into this stuff, it's so important to keep learning! my philosophy class is going to the natural history museum to learn about Darwin and his ideas next term - vvvvvvv excited! (she also called it a school trip so we uni students got very excited to miss a day of lectures! hahaha)
If you're interested in the more genetic biology side of this video (as opposed to the anthropology side), I would reccomend reading Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene. It really is a fascinating read.
To all who say creationists don't understand evolution: There are more than one type of creationist. There are those who believe God created humans in their current form (which is what I believe) and those who say there was evolution, but God guided it. I do understand evolution and know what it is and how it works, though I believe in my religion.
Giancarlo Erazo I think that's just a problem with the english-language. When people talk about "creationists", they're usually specifically talking about young earth creationists. Most christians, I imagine, believe in some sort of creationism - but the ones that are vocally against evolution are the Young Earthers. Whenever I talk about creationists, I'm always talking about that category, anyways.
Two suggestions: first an episode about cats. There's not enough cat videos on the Internet yet, we need more. And then an episode about Intersex-people.
Why did you fail to mention the evidence that Homo Sapiens Neaderthalis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens mated and produced fertile offspring? There is reason to believe that everyone of European descent carries from Neanderthal genes. Australian Aborigines, Melanesians, and some Asians also carry genes from Denisovans, which were closer to Neanderthals than to Cro-Magnon/Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
LeLucky90 Depends on what you mean by false. Everyone knows there's differences between the races (I mean, skin color is obvious). The question is whether the differences are significant. I doubt the Neanderthal in some people makes any significant difference.
tigga3x By false I mean that there are some people claiming that races do not exist and that morphological differences mean nothing. Are the differences significant? Probably not, but it doesn't mean that there are no such things as races. The biological definition of races is sub-categories of individuals within a specie that are different from each other based solely on physiological traits due to geographical isolation from each other. Races in the human kind are exactly that... And they are not a social construct, they DO exist. The problem is that the term "race" have been associated with hierarchy and racial dominance a lot in the past so just the act of mentioning it can get someone alienated and called intolerant just for the sake of political correctness. This is why I believe the video didn't mention any sort of genetic difference between ethnic groups and races. Because of the fear of alienation.
LeLucky90 I think beyond political correctness, there's a difficulty in actually drawing the lines of what constitutes a race. There are some people who are more genetically similar to someone outside of their perceived "race" than some inside their race. On top of that, there's a lot of mixing in today's society, so that blurs the line even more. Still, I agree that people shouldn't let "political correctness" get in the way of a legitimate debate on race. I'd be hesitant to say that that's why he left it out of the video though. That's not a fair assumption.
I should actually be watching my country play in the world cup or making homework right now.... instead I'm binging on science videos and actually learning something in the middle of the night
Creationists have no issues with what Hank is talking about here, in fact we have known this for years. We often argue against such illustrations (the "evolution of the horse" picture is another example) and point out, rightly enough, that basically there are only apes and humans in this lineup and that even evolutionists admit it.
thegangvault2 You make it sound like "creationists" had one voice, but truth is that e.g. thre are some creationists who dismiss evolutionary totally and others that put up arbitrary walls e.g. between "species".
o_O TheCOREFury thegangvault2 well as someone who believes in a world creation so i would be a "creationists" I enjoyed this video because I believe that evolution is a tool that is used within creation. I argue with how it all started but fully support evolution... dont group in people and become closed minded just because of one experience... also I enjoyed the way he put this, cause when I talk to a majority of evolutionists here (where I live), they fully believe that this is true! so in these events it is actually the evolutionists who are wrong...
deanwells1234 > dont group in people and become closed minded It's not about grouping, it's about definitions, your apparently differs, He put it the way of "evolutionists" vs. "creationists" (us vs. them), one implies evolution, the other doesn't.
Hank, can you do an episode on how MANY and which changes we've seen in species since we first started to observe the world scientifically? It'd be cool to see some of that laid out.
+Sabrinaaa Where? Where are all these pro-religious comments you dumb fuck?! It all atheist. Lol. Nobody talks about religion more than atheist. You're such a fucking robot
What if the Neanderthals didn't die out? Assuming they were sentient, how would living with another sentient specie affect us today as humans in terms of what we look like and our culture, such as prejudice or our understanding of science? Would we benefit because we would be alright with more diversity, and be less prejudice? Or would we form into different groups, with the pure humans prejudice against the pure Neanderthals and vice-versa with both prejudice against the mixtures?
What's really incredible is if you were to go back, say, 50,000 years there were Homo Floresiensis, Homo Erectus, Homo neandertalensis, and Homo sapiens all living at the same time. Wow.
Most species we live with now are sentient. If you meant Sapient there are a few possible animals that are candidates for having low level sapience. These being Dolphins, Crows, and Elephants.
we would have killed them all by the crusades if they managed to last that long. BUt we most likely wouldn't be hating on the humans with the different color skin
I remember that book and that chart very well from my childhood. I still have it, as a matter of fact. My parents bought both of the Time/Life Nature and Science series. Looking back, they were an extraordinary asset in my early education. Terribly dated now, alas
Time Life Corporation is anti GOD, and is brainwashing NWO garbage. I read that garbage too, but now I'm awake to the lies and BS of the satanist that control the world. If you and everyone else want to beat them at their own game learn how to be a man. This is what they fear. Google Karl Lentz.
i love how the vid shows, that evolution is NOT an active process - like any species would decide to evolve - but really a result of adapation!! well done :D
Really Creationists should not say it is fake. Evolution does not disprove Religon. Evolutionary science started as a way to explain God, and really hasn't ever disproved Religion. The problem is when Atheists start using Evolution as evidence for Atheism.
Ben Harp I would say that science can't disprove God/gods but can disprove claims made by religions about the natural world (for instance that humans did not all descend from 2 people) . A question: are you defining Atheism as the claim "there is no God" ? because lacking belief in gods doesn't require evidence, it's simply not being convinced by the claim that there is such a being.
rodlurks66 There is a difference between "absence of belief in god(s)" and "belief in the absence of god(s)." I agree the former does not require evidence, but I think the latter-outright claiming that there is no such thing as a deity in any form or shape-is objectively not fair to claim without evidence. Not to say people are not entitled to belief what they want. The "belief in the absence of god(s)" type atheists have just as much right to have their beliefs as theists do. But I grow tired of such people that claim they are somehow objectively and logically better than theists, when they are much the same in essence. Agnosticism-or staying neutral in the existance versus non-existance of deities debate and not ruling out any of either side-is in my opinion the most objective perspective, and the one that should be used in most science and philosophy in order to not alienate theists and atheists alike. Regardless of the personal beliefs of the reseachers. Woops, that was a bit more of a rant than I intended...
Raizin I agree that gnostic Atheists do give themselves a burden of proof, it is one of the reason I am an agnostic atheist (along with many others), aside from the simple fact that my knowledge is limited. I asked Ben Harp how he was defining Atheism as the majority of Atheists do not hold a hard gnostic position.
One of the biggest misconceptions I ever had, growing up as a young earth creationist, is the idea that evolution means organisms turn into different organisms over long periods of time. That's rubbish. The reason why there are no "transitional forms" is because there's *no such thing* as a transitional form. Organisms adapt to changes in climate, and in hindsight, this *appears* to be transitioning from one form to another. Indohyus did not "turn into" whale. Indohyus is extinct, and was never anything other than indohyus. But the creatures we call whales are the *biological descendants* of indohyus.
Your comment is such a relief to read. The species argument is a red herring. The fundamental question of evolution is answerable in real time. Can a population's characteristics be changed through natural selection? Yes? Do these mechanisms work in all populations? Yes? Then we are definitely products of evolution, regardless of how life began.
Conclusions to be drawn? Modification has occurred within populations over generations and time. Populations converge as we trace ancestry through genetics and comparative biology. The conclusion is where creationists like to start because that's what offends them the most.
It was the 60's, and if kids were going to see it, they could not show anything like a breast in plain view. Notice how carefully the penises where obscured in every drawing. Easier to hide a penis than a breast. So it was a different version of political correctness than the one you are advocating.
+Chris Gonzales if you do remember, adam and eve actually wore no clothes till they ate the apple and went against gods orders, so true believers should be nudists
no its true, they stopped being innocent when they ate the apple, which was strictly against god, and until they ate the apple they thought it was fine to be nude so, yeah. im just saying.
It seems like a simple enough idea. If we can lay out a series of photos of our human ancestors (parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.), then why couldn't we extend the process back a million years, showing, perhaps, just the highlights? Sure, the Time Life illustration had incorrect examples, but why not just fix it?
The problem is that if you had, say, a brother, then both of your chains of photos would be identical and would be better represented by a photo tree. Similarly if you extend the photos back a million years, you'll find that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens originated from the same ancestor and also would be better represented by a tree.
Richard Alexander I totally agree and was going to say the same thing.. The video makes people think that a linear representation is somehow impossible or wrong.. You CAN represent any species' evolution linearly and only include the highlights. Why in the world couldn't you? The picture that people associate with human evolution is in fact wrong if it shows a neanderthal evolving into us, yes. But you could absolutely take the earliest known primate that preceded us, jump way forward to Lucy, then show us, if you wanted to be super simplistic and only show a couple of examples. It doesn't give the complete picture and may confuse some people, but that doesn't mean that a correct linear representation is somehow inaccurate or doesn't have a purpose.
I have a question for discussion. Why do humans have to brush their teeth to avoid decay, whilst animals don't? I understand we eat a lot more sugary foods, but animals that live off carbohydrates and fruit don't have to wash their mouthes with fluoridated artificial chemicals?
Most animals do have tooth decay. We evolved with an expected lifespan of 30 years so our teeth last that long, if you don't take care of them. We have since extended our life span and so need more teeth permanence. Animals are still operating under their natural lifespan so they don't need to worry much.
hank, as you see the evolution is quite the controversial issue, dont suppose you could do a more in depth vid of this. how carbon dating works, how dna analysis works, as in how we can tell the origins and the path humans spread around the earth
Evolution is not actually controversial at all. It is one of the best supported theories of all time. It is also hated by some religious people, because it directly contradicts the primitive and incorrect origin stories told in their holy books. So some of those religious people lie (or "exaggerate") about what evolution is, and how it is supported. Then the followers of those people take these lies to heart, and pass them on. Many of them truly believe these lies, and think they are doing the public a service when they bring these untruths up. All that said, I would love to see a series on how we accumulate and verify the various lines of evidence that support evolution :)
@@DataJack - You have swallowed tons of lies. There is not even one scientific fact in the world that would favor a belief in evolution. Leading scientists do not believe it but is promoted mainly by atheistic professors and the stupid media. I'd be willing to offer anybody in the world ll$1,000 if they could find and present to me ONE HONEST SCIENTIFIC fact that would show how evolution could be possible or evidence that shows that evolution has occurred. I've read hundreds of books on this and challenged hundreds of evolutionists to show me some science that favors the story of evolution, but none could do so because evolution is a big lie.s The only answer I usually get is that evolution has to be true because they do not want to believe in God and then follow up with wicked name-calling.
@@danminer5343 remember: your wilful (and hilarious) misunderstanding of evolution does not mean that evolution is not true. And supported by *all* of the evidence we have ever encountered, and refuted by no evidence. Perhaps when you grow up a bit, and learn to understand how science works, you will see how mistaken you are.
@@DataJack - notice that you did not give any example of science supporting the story of evolution. That is because none exists. I've read hundreds of comments, watched hundreds of videos over the last two decades, but NEVER NEVER have i found an honest scientific statement that explained how evolution could be possible or any evidence showing it has occurred. The only way possible to believe in the story of evolution is to be DELUDED!
@@danminer5343 notice that you have no understanding of science at all and that sound scientific evidence for evolution can be found at every natural history museum on earth, as well as every credible university. When you are old enough to go to university, you will be able to see first hand.
The bible is like Wikipedia. Anyone can alternate it at any given moment and people still use it as a source for their school papers for valid argument.
teabing Allow me to correct myself I hope the english die out the scotts and the irish are alright and as for my reasons ive honestly never come across an english person I liked arrogant racist and a collective superiority complex and then I suppose I just don't like they're culture.Its relatively straight forward.
If you had to express it visually, it would look like a tree or fractal..until you eliminate all the parts that didn't lead straight to man. If you have the tree diagram and you start at the bottom then ignore any branches that dead end or lead to life forms that aren't man, finally ending with modern man...that's a line. The image being male is just a place holder....You don't mention we have one individual representing entire species..but flip because females aren't included? The picture is just a graphic representation of "human"...that graphic represents all humans who have ever existed, male and female.
You don't seem to understand. Similar species can breed together. They believe several of them existed at the same time. Just because a species dies off, doesn't mean we don't still have some of their genes. AKA neanderthals, Europeans still have 1-4%, but we didn't come directly from them. This isn't a "family tree" they are not trying to find YOUR specific ancestry, yes that can be made into a straight line. They are trying to find EVERYONE'S ancestry, which as I've said can't be done in a straight line. Many people in the world do not have any genes from neanderthals and may never have had them in their entire ancestry, but a large portion of us do. Hence, tree branches instead of straight lines.
***** No similar species cannot breed together - sexual species are classified according to the biological species concept which is defined based upon whether or not two species can interbreed. For example in the case of neanderthals, based on the evidence of interbreeding they are normally classified as Homo sapiens neandertalensis, making them a sub-species of Homo sapiens.
***** Europeans and also Asians and Native Americans all have Neanderthal genes. It isn't merely a European thing. I believe even Aboriginees in Australia have them. The only known group that lacks them are Africans.(Mostly subsaharan)
***** Hello, I don't think your point has much merit, at least as far as representing human evolution is concerned. When you display evolution as a tree, Neanderthals are shown as a dead end, with Homo Sapiens continuing on. The tree method Hank was suggesting also doesn't account for our Neanderthal DNA. That cross breeding is more along the lines of a footnote, or the domain of a much more complex diagram. If you want to simply demonstrate the evolution of man, you ignore dead ends and none human species and just follow the human chain..this makes a line.
Ravinian you can totally represent evolution that way. The problem is that the picture used in the video includes the dead ends and implies that they are part of the line, rather than off shoots of it.
He told us that the way generally people think evolution happens (because of pictures like that) is for the most part wrong. This is why creationists have such free reign with their strawman arguments. Its easy to deceive people when they don't really know whats going on in the first place.
I guess I don't understand your statement.. Care to elaborate? Not trying to be rude, I was in your position at one time "religious family, my Grandmother is an Episcopal priest." But, I decided to find out the truth of the universe we live in.
Don't worry, that god of the gaps thinking pattern of yours will eventually be replaced by both science and the important notion of "I don't know yet".
I'm not going on this by proof of God, but lack of evidence for evolution. The chances of a cell forming out of a chemical soup is astronomical. Just to get a few of the right proteins would be hard, but a lot of them couldn't even survive by themselves. So you would need to have all the right proteins in the right place at the right time. The odds are one in 10 with another 40,000 0's following it. And that's not the only hole in the theory.
will Philip The odds are actually not that unlikely. One of the current theories is that Comets brought life TO Earth, rather than life forming ON Earth. Researchers have done tests in controlled conditions with the essential and most common substances and compounds found in comets. They then impacted this artificial comet with a powerful hydraulic hammer to simulate it falling to Earth. They then analysed the remains. They found amino acids, the essential building blocks of life. And they found this for several repeats also. The odds are really in the theory's favour, but I doubt such strong evidence will ever convince a 'bible-basher' or other such individual.
Most people here should have paid a little more attention in school. Specially those who question evolution knows close to nothing about it at all or how it works. I guess it's easy to reject what you do not understand or comprehend.
HighLighterlines Which god? Ra? Zeus? Odin? Krishna? Jupiter? Yahweh? Horus? Queztalcoati? Biame? Breged? And how do you reject something that do not exist?
GutentagCharlie Haha let me give you the answer I gave to someone else. Now about who is the true God. Let's first star with Gods nature. God is the greatest thing imaginable; mind and consciousness is greater than everything non conscious. So, God is a conscious being. Some things are greater than other things. Example in moral philosophy, there are way that are better than others. So, God is the most perfect way of everything, the one you must follow and imitate for success and the true life. That's is why it need to be holy, almighty, perfect in goodness and love and justice and wisdom. There are being whose existence is not necessary but only possible like we find here on earth. Those are call contingent beings. The whole universe is contingent by the way. But everything cannot be contingent for if it is, in the eternity pass it would have cease to exist for all contingent being cease to exist because is not in its nature to exist. So, there must be a necessary being whom is not contingent, it is necessary in itself. Why? To understand that you need to learn the difference between essence and existence. Essence is what makes an object what it is, existence it just its being. In the case of contingent being their essence and existence is different. As I say before is not in their essence to exist. Example, you can think of a robot and make the computer model and everything but that robot don't exist until you or someone construct it into being. Now the robot exist. So in the case of this necessary being its essence is the same as its existence. It exist, he didn't need anyone to make him up, he exist because its in his nature to exist, he is pure being and the source where are the other contingent being in heavens and earth came from. This is God. What other gods fit this description? Well most of them don't. Most of them had a beginning like all the Greek and roman pantheon, the Egyptian and a whole lots of others. This gods also are not the greatest thing, they behave human like and have human qualities. The only god that fit all description is the god of the bible, the true GOD. Now, we have the bible his inspire word that also proof that he is the one true God. In Jesus Christ for example were fulfil over 400 prophecies. All the prophecies of the bible fulfil with time and that is evidence that he is the true God. All the writers and person in the Bible are true historical figures. Moses is a historical figure. He was truly the one selected to liberate Israelites from Egypt the first world power. How a tribe of slave was able to beat a world power in its prime? Well, they didn't, it was Jehovah God that did. Everybody forget this but this is a historical awesome even and a testimony of Gods power. The bible explain human existence since the beginning. Explain the whys. Why do we exist? Why do we die? Why are we in the current condition? What is our purpose? It even explain the true origin of religion and its wide spread lies. The only book that claim comes from the only true God is the Bible. Read the bible and you will understand humanity pass, present and future. You will know that this is the truth . In top of all of that, Jesus Christ, the son of God himself came to earth to save humanity from death, to destroy Satan the head of the rebellion and to restore earth to its rightful place. He came to fulfil all the prophecies and hopes. He proof everything correct. He teach us about God like nobody have done. He perform miracles. His death and resurrection is the final testimony and the strongest one. With no doubt the God and father of Jesus Christ himself is the one and true God.
HighLighterlines MAN that was a lot of bullcrap. Did not need to read more than the first paragraf to know that though. Nothing made sense. Give me emperical evidence or respectfully gtfo.
GutentagCharlie why dont ask your *Inner Wisdom* not ur current *Knowledge* obviously *Inner Wisdom* is ur Greater-Self you hear ur *Inner Wisdom* sometimes
What most religious people get wrong is that humans didn't evolved from apes, like chimpanzees. We are genetically related, but homo sapiens (that's us) didn't evolve from them. We have a common ancestor and split up a few million years ago. Even chimpanzees diverged at some point into common chimpanzees and bonobos and both are still evolving. As are we, although some seem to have stopped at some point. So when some Christian asks "If evolution is true, then why are there still chimpanzees?", it simply proves their limited (if any) knowledge of biology. But this is what you get when schools can teach evolution as "just another theory" alongside creationism.
+Hunter Russel let me sum this up for ya. 1) dogs aren't colorblind in the literal sense, they can'r see red distinguished from green, they just see a vague color in its place, and can distinguish blue from it. 2) there are many other species with more color receptors than humans - in fact, many bird species have 4 (as opposed to our 3 for red, green and blue) and the mantis shrimp may have as many as 16.
Real modern society we live in. There are still people that believe in spirits and magic. In 1000 years, people will look back and wonder how people could believe in something so ridiculous. They will look at us and put us in the same category as we do sun worshipers.
Actually, judging by the fact that we have Flat-Earthers and religious people of all kinds still around today, means that we are still going to have lots of nutjobs 1000 years from now.
didyouknowthatiloveyousomuchthatimadeareallylongname Nothing a part from mathematical ideas can be entirely proven. Evolution has, on the other hand, not been disproved. And if it ever does, it will not be called a theory anymore. Just like the theories of special and general relativity, they're not entirely "proven" so to say, but they have failed to be DISPROVED countless of times, therefore we trust them to be correct. They also, of course, make predictions and are falsifiable.
didyouknowthatiloveyousomuchthatimadeareallylongname tl;dr: Theories are, by definition, backed up by evidence and are considered fact unless disproven, and evolution hasn't been disproven.
10 лет назад+13
didyouknowthatiloveyousomuchthatimadeareallylongname Then don't even bother commenting in the first place if you can't read a couple of sentences. But.. I actually think you did read what i said, but you just want to pretend that you didn't because you feel uncomfortable.
the sad part is i keep looking at these videos but none actually fully answers my question they just try to make it more difficult to seem like they are proving a point
GO SCIENCE. Its like all the Jesus freaks troll around on the science channel. kinda sad. I for one adored this video and the channel. This is the kind of stuff that will save the planet. not some homophobic pretend spaghetti monster in the sky telling us not to judge people while at the very same time doing just that. They read the first chapters of their version of harry potter and don't even notice that it claims to create light before the light source all the while ignoring that they still literally count them as Days. Days before the sun is made or created??? why would an all perfect being have the creator of the bible label them as such from the begging. I have even heard some people saying that it was thousands of years to us but "days" to god. Then why not have the writer actually put thousands of years since that is what we would understand in the first place? If it is a translation error then why are you taking the book that couldn't even get the first chapters right as all knowing again?
Nick Woodruff Science is only proving out what we already know that God is our creator. I love learning what science can figure out but it all keeps pointing to God. The univerise is so fine-tuned leaving no possible doubt who did it.
i used to be like you Clyde but there is just way to much that I can see in the real world that proves the bible wrong there a trees in France that are 9,000 years old!! disproving it in one blow I'd have to say!!
***** if atheists ruled the world, everyone would be at home writing internet comments wining about things other people believe in and nothing would get done in this world.
***** I'm an atheist and I don't comment anything about religious shit, but most of the time on the internet I see people with religions trying to shove their beliefs down other people's throats. We atheists won't really give a shit about *your*** beliefs unless *you*** start writing stuff on the bible here on the internet. **And by "you" I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about those people who type ass shit here about how God is our father or whatever. BTW I understand if anyone believes in a God and if you're offended by dis comment plz no h8 :(
I want a longer name from what I see, Atheist usually start the debate with a little comment irrelevant to the article....like the one above. If you see a religious post....move on, its not your post. A science post is a science post, just like ive seen those childish inaccurate atheist memes. Like I've said In the past, I dont troll mermaid or unicorn posts and bash them. I cant go 20 minutes on G+ without coming accross some childish sarcastic remark. Yoy guys need to grow up and if you dont believe in God, well....stop thinking about him. There's people on here that spend all day talking and bashing what they dont even believe in. Thats really sad if you break it down. Moms basement is VERY full of hate.
***** You're right I should just ignore these retarded internet debates. I don't believe in God and I don't really think much about him. I won't bother coming up with some "scientific explanation" as to why God doesn't exist but yeah a lot of atheists do that I guess.
I like how Hank is clear that "evolution" is an ever-changing process rather than a direct line from A to B to C, etc. I find it amazing how the media can pounce on one or two half-truths and go with it to the point it becomes "fact." Thanks for clarifying things, Hank. Keep up the good work.
I got a question. When people talk about evolution they talk about Neanderthals and humans parting ways long ago. But when scientists talk about DNA they say that some of our ancestors mated with Neanderthals after we separated for thousands of years. Which makes some people part Neanderthal. Why is the Neanderthal evolution treated as not part of some of our evolution? www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-neanderthal-genes-modern-human-dna-01734.html
***** I've seen you use the phrase "out of Africa" propaganda twice now. It seems a little strange to me. Please explain what you mean by "out of Africa" propaganda, who's disseminating it and why.
***** Now your Out of Africa propaganda line seems VERY strange to me!! I wasn't aware that scientist involved in this study (human evolution) where generally on the political left, or carry out their work with the intention of supporting the views and aims of the politically correct "left", which is what you seem to be suggesting. Scientist (generally) study science in pursuit of truth, not political propaganda. As someone else as stated to you earlier - OoA theory has not become the most widely accepted theory amongst scientist involved in the study of human evolution, for no good reason other than socio-political expedience of some sort.
I suggest that you watch the videos that I've posted above about Orrorin tugenensis, and Ardipithecus. Type 'Milford Wolpoff' into the search engine and you find my video about multiregionalism where Wolpoff explains the model. Don't fool yourself. People in this field such as Dr.Alice Roberts, are politically motivated and they put political values above science.
***** I will watch the vids you have suggested and get back to you later on - (its getting a little late now). I have read a bit about the Multi-regional theory regarding human evolution / origins awhile back. I remember thinking, OoA theory kicks M.R. theory clean out of the park, and so say the vast majority of scientist in this field of study - and not for any political propaganda reason either!! As for your accusation against the delectable Dr Roberts - o dear!! You can't say things like that (and expect to be taken seriously) without backing it up with some hard evidence.
Why is it that only discussions on evolution require constant clarification on what "facts," "theories," "truth," "laws," and "the scientific method" mean when no other discussion I've seen on other scientific subjects require such?
killerbee256 If I press random keys I can produce a more rational argumentbhfl aszgtdvigb drfgcxglh gh llhfdzh fdzby ybzfj h fdvi as, fvs,j hcxv h, mdfvbkf ds hb sfgh k asfrgkwf fsdv hfdvg hk fgsd than creationists.
Evolutionary talks abound in the internet, and though many times hours and countless slides by biologists, famous ones including, won't give you the entire picture, your less than 4 minutes presentation is superbly comprehensive. Bravo.
It's Homo Sapiens Sapiens, twice, not once. What is it with people and this mistake? Everywhere i hear something about this topic everyone either doesn't know or forgets to add the second denomination.
It's not about being picky, it's about something that we learned in school yet no one seems to bother perpetuating. What's the point in learning if we don't use it properly?
It's so crazy that people don't believe in evolution even as they muse over whether their kid has their daddy's eyes or mommy's nose. We see genetics at work as we pass them down through generations. We know plenty of characteristics are inherited. How is it so difficult to understand that this same process over millions of years can result in something that looks entirely different from an ancient ancestor?
I get really annoyed when people say evolution is just a story/theory because the bible is just a book and the bible could have LITERALLY BEEN WRITTEN BY ABSOULTELY ANYBODY.
I think the photo is meant to be poetic, more than scientific.
Agreed, but it also happens to be why a lot of creationists get confused by evolution... and I say this being a former creationist who once thought this image was an accurate depiction.
ingaman That and some "scientists" get confused thinking that its an accurate depiction.
ingaman Welcome to the world of the real.
ingaman Not only should it not be taken literally, it doesn't try to depict evolution. It was an attempt to capture the human lineage 'from ape to man' in a comprehensive graphic. And, with the knowledge available at the time, it was fairly accurate and clearly spoke to people's imaginations.
I think Hank is nit-picking a little on this one; the lack of females makes sense if you're back-tracking along a patrilineal line (as modern geneticists like to do), or if you just realise that women were still second class citizens in those days.
While evolution is a branching tree, the lineage leading up to modern man is a line, or, if you want to be complete; a tree growing back in time, with more ancestors the further you go back. The dead ends, while interesting from a paleoanthropologic point of view don't belong in the picture.
Theoretically it would be possible to create a line from your father to his father, to his father's father, and so on until you reach the most recent ancestor whose descendants also include chimps and if you take a sample every ten to hundred millennia, you would get a line-up similar to this picture. Sure, some of the species named are now known not to be on that list, but such is the nature of scientific progeress; much of what we now 'know' to be true will draw bemused smiles when the next century rolls by.
Sorry for the rant =)
TLDR: it's not as inaccurate as Hank makes it out to be.
ingaman
This is exactly one of the major hurdles that I have faced when trying to explain evolution to people. It really makes things that much harder.
I own an 'evolution of the Silly Walk' shirt based on the Monty Python skit. A coworker of mine saw it, approached me and proclaimed, "Not everyone believes in that you know." I just nodded in mute amazement.
*****
RIP
Last words "Not everyone believes in..."
Reason of death: Stone to the head
***** aaaaaahhhhhhhkkkkkkkkhhhhhhhh
I would of ran around screaming blaspheme and calling 'said' person a heathen that or say I can't believe you're that stupid but none the less its a fact just like the theory of evolution.
***** Perhaps about evolution, but topping that regarding astronomy, in 1991 I setup some filtered telescopes at work to observe the solar eclipse. A co-worker asked me if the dark spots on the sun were lakes or oceans.
Heyu Deuphus
I would have said yes. :)
the amount of people who are stating " IF WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS THEN WHY ARE THEIR STILL MONKEYS?!" is really quite sad and pathetic.
+Chi Like looking down on retards.
Get off your high horse pal, and stop being a douche.
Natural selection and our environment affects our phenotype
It has nothing to do with looking down on others or riding a high horse. The fact is that the people who make that statement do so from a place of ignorance. Meaning that they have not even attempted to try and understand evolution, and yet attempt to argue against it. Which is, in fact, really quite sad and pathetic. As are many of you for bashing his stance against those kinds of people who are holding us back intellectually.
***** Nobody here called all Christians retards so what the fuck is your point?
I speculated on this in my 5th science class and I somehow offended my science teacher by calling The March of Progress image oversimplified bullshit.
You should show them the video instead then.
Savage
you cant teach a teacher its against the rules of honor, a %&!·$ child cant know better than a elder! and so on
teabing No, what the 99.9% means is that there is less than a 1/1000 chance that an individual pathogen will not be killed.
I wouldn’t be offended i would be sad
1:40 You could try breaking the chopstick in half. That would be Asexual reproduction.
Well played
Are you saying I gotta slice my willy?
Poppy Popper fuck i hope not, i wouldn't have something big enough to cut it. plus, i like having a dick
Lol
animals do not produce asexual
Thanks for covering this, Hank! :)
This is my, like, 30th episode in a row. SciShow, I have other shit to do - please let me go.
Same. I have an event to attend in like, 30 minutes...
+s3dchr I literally LOL'ed at this comment because I've been at it for the past 4 hours.
I for about 6 hours
Sohail Ahmed
Oh my god, why'd you comment and remind me of this show? Now I have to watch more, YOU'VE DOOMED ME
@@AlexandraMoraru92 LOLED
"Evolution isn't a linear process, it does not turn one species into another into another. It's really about genetics" Thanks for that, and this is really logical and makes sense. People tend to think that we evolved from another species, which I really had doubts about and had similar thoughts to yours. Thanks
What. But... we did evolve from another species. But there was also interbreeding involved in some cases, but only with species that evolved from common ancestors on divergent evolutionary paths, which allowed us to both be "cousins" of some extinct species, and descended from them.
@Miss Plumtree Miss Plumtree evolution says that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. We didn't evolve from chimps, chimps didn't evolve from us we just evolved from two different populations of an ape-like species. Two populations of that species evolved into different directions, one eventually became humans other eventually became Pan. Pan lineage also diverged into two groups recently: bonono and common chimpanzee. Human lineage also split into various archaic hominins like neanderthals, denisovans etc. Sapiens is the only surviving species in our lineage.
@Miss Plumtree Miss Plumtree hmm. Why do you think it's ridiculous pls explain your feelings.
@Miss Plumtree Miss Plumtree the picture you draw indeed seems absurd to me. i would reject evolution if it actually said that, but it doesn't. legs didn't evolve until cambrian era long long after the first multicellular organisms evolve. first multicellular organisms didn't have legs or organs, they were like advanced colonies which some cells are specialized into different types. no microorganism ever gave birth into an animal with legs. we are talking about hundreds of millions of year progression with each step is more complex than before.
@Miss Plumtree Miss Plumtree but it was no longer a bacteria when the creature got its legs. it was an early bilaterally symetrical worm-like primitive animal who first got its legs. mutations slightly alter the body plan in different ways, the mutations that help the mobility selected in each generation until some small appandages evolve into legs. first animals also evolve from very advanced single celled eukaryots called proto-zoons. (not fromthose bacteria we see in current world)
People assume that evolution is a strict progression of species to species, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... evolution-y wevolution-y... stuff.
Best comment on the internet
Fawksthephoenix1
Well said old comment.
Is that Doctor Who reference?
@@yusufpatel6774 absolutely
thats all i could think when he said that!!!!!
watching this with my super christian grandparents in the same room... livin life on the edge
Lol
Just keep in mind that evolution is only one interpretation of the evidence :)
Michael what’s the other one?
PUSH IT TO THE LIMIT
hayk3000 WALKING ON A RAZOR’S EDGE
How to eat sushi with just one chopstick:
- Put down the chopstick.
- Eat the sushi with your hands.
- Yum!
How is that even related?
masansr "Teaching the history of our development with just one sex is trying to eat sushi with just one chopstick." It's paraphrased from about 1:40 and on-wards, from this very video. :)
***** Dude. Harsh. Think of the chef who lovingly prepared this fine meal for you... and you just run it through? Prepare for culinary retribution.
Milewide Just break the chopstick into two two pieces and use those as two, even though you're only using one. u mad, bro?
***** Haha. That's one way to do it. Kind of defeats the purpose of chopsticks though, don't it? Removes all the leverage. You'll basically be eating with your hands but with pieces of wood in the way. Risk of choking? Possible.
See a very intelligent video. Scroll down and see some fuckin' stupid comments...
amen.
***** Blindly believing in something so strongly with little evidence to it happening is considered stupid among many people in the scientific community. It does sound pretty silly when it's explained like that, doesn't it? At the same time, blindly believing it's not possible simply because it hasn't been proven is equally stupid. Many people just don't realize that. In the end, it's your choice. I do, however, get annoyed when people say they don't believe in evolution because of their religion.
***** I said little evidence, not zero evidence. There is about as much evidence supporting the bible as there is supporting that The Odyssey, The Iliad, and many other Greek legends actually happened. Evidence that some of the people are real, some of the locations are real, and even some of the objects are real does not prove that the stories are real.
Evolution on the other hand has essentially been proven.
***** Well evidence is everywhere for both, but you could say there is more "missing links" in creationism. I guess it doesn't matter though...
***** The word "evolutionism" does not exist, it was made up by religious apologists (mostly fundamentalist Christians) in a failed attempt to put both ways of thinking in the same level.
Does that mean Neanderthals were the first species that went extinct because of humans?
Depends on if you consider neanderthals "human"
killerbee256 Read that comment again...
Neanderthals ARE humans.
randoemgmr i think he means that if you do consider them humans then they aren't extinct.
***** Did you even watch the video
It's called the THEORY of evolution for a reason it still needs to be proved , and for all the evolutionists in the comments calling people who express different opinions "dumbasses" this doesn't make you sound smart, it's rather the opposite.
No. Scientific theories isn't claims, they are explanation modells that describe an observed phenomena. They are not guesses or estimations like the common word theory. Scientific theories is the highest for of explanation there is in science.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
wooe . there is no evidence for the evolution fairy tale
I know most of us have the common sense to comprehend everything we just watched, but considering there are so many misconceptions about evolution... I'm glad for the nit-picking
Thanks for talking about evolution.
Ulan efe buralara da mı görecektin seni aslanparçası, sen evinin tadiltını bitir sonra izlersin şekerim :)
Fasist efe zorla propaganda yaptiriyor
@@superturka Aynen gerçekten çok şaşırdım :D Bunları izleyen Türklerin olması güzel.
Yeah I think the evolution never happen..they just found defect human being fossil from doing an incest for a long-long generations till they becomes apes.
This image isn't appreciated for its accuracy... It is appreciated for its look and the symbolic behind it. Only those who don't really care would be shocked to learn that this depiction of human evolution isn't accurate...
My thoughts exactly. What I'm surprised with, is to see people surprised by this...
I think the real problem with the image is that for many people, especially those who look for any excuse to discount evolution, it appears to depict evolution as that "march toward progress" which would of course imply design.
The problem is that people actually take it as 100% authentic and what evolution looks like. Especially those who don't know any better, which leads to problems in understanding.
I continue to be amazed by how great/well done these episodes are! On point, intellectually stimulating, and objectively unbiased, this show makes the best sales pitch for the scientific mindset!
But...but my pastor said that God made the monkeys and humans so this video is wrong.
lolz
Everything I know about Pokemon is wrong.
There's actually a video about how pokemon demonstrates evolution. Their point is that all pokemon are derived from mew and have adapted to the different areas they live in which is why they only live in certain regions or routes.
Jodie653 Yeah, I know; I was just trying to be clever but, you clearly outshone me. Also, GameTheory has a great video which demonstrates your exact point. You should check it out, if you haven't already.
That was the video I was talking about haha
Jodie653 Great minds think alike.
I mildly disagree with Hank, sure they are not the correct animals in our ancestry, but our history *would* look like a primate police line up, just not those primates. It *wouldn't* look like a complex tree, since we did not go down the other branches, we just went down one branch.
It wouldn't be the complete picture. It would be useful for direct lineage, but it would omit some creatures that we aren't directly related to. These indirect ancestors of ours dynamically shaped the evolutionary landscape that we now occupy and wouldn't be aptly represented in an "ape line up".
I believe what he meant was that we could be one path, but it's important to note we are not the *only* path. Like going from the trunk of the evolutionary tree to a specific branch, if you will.
edit: it also wouldn't look like a lineup because of gender (and race if you're that kind of specially concerned person)
edit number 2: maybe a police couples lineup?
I would also like to add that the "line up" omits those creatures who have contributed directly yo our genes, but aren't directly related to us, like the neanderthal.
MrPestus ooh nice, catch!
MrPestus
True..of course so does the Tree diagram....
So basically you're telling me that people assume that evolution is a strict progression of cause to effect. But actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey... stuff.
I am offensive and I found it American
Hello offensive.
I'm Dad.
"?" and -
lol i see what you did there....
So you're telling me evolution isn't a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly, wobbly, timey, wimey stuff?
Kek.
+Em A Viking dr.who ...cool
+Em A Viking Doctor who quote which is my favorite show.
precisely. .. its a load of bullshit sold to people who are told to never question or challenge it. and if they do the darwin gestapo of dawkins and the royal society will destroy your academic career and blurt out your credibility
there is a God and nothing will ever change that
Ese Omoru Who said theism and evolutionism aren't compatible, m8?
I used to get teased In grade school for believing in evolution. That's Utah for you.
Pixel_AgeUSA Wow.
In Kentucky in my town there are 4 churches and you get punched in the face for being atheist
James Combs Sounds like a horrible place to live.
Dude I live in the middle of nowhere
James Combs Makes sense.
so pokemon lied to me...
my childhood is ruined :'('''
Watch this on RUclips:
Game Theory: How Pidgey "Proves" Darwinian Evolution"
Isnt it so fun to sit back and read religion vs anti religion comments on every video pertaining to the tiniest reference to science of any nature
Yes very much
Dan JP
Yup.
Yupph and I have religion and that's why I will going to heaven
Amazing how we "evolved" so far, but don't have anything better to do than insulting each other...
If you don't want to see videos on evolution, then DON'T WATCH THEM! If you believe that evolution is true, who cares what others believe. You are not going to convince them.
In the end: everything should just educate themselves. There is plenty of information on evolution and creation.
Let's please have intelligent / informed debates if you want to debate on RUclips.
Please and thank you. :)
When you throw mud your hands get dirty, I never insulted him. You are implying I do not want to see videos on evolution because I disagree with them. Do you not understand the concept of searching for truth? You are supposed to know both sides, who can ever be biased and only learn one side of any topic and make an informed decision? Is there a benefit for each person to only learn about things they agree with? This is not good.
You can't have a intelligent, informed debates with these religious freaks. They don't understand the way science works, or the history behind theories . They base their whole world view on fairy tales and are proud of it! Bottom line the religious idiots who post their crap on videos like this are trolls. Therefore they deserve every rude comments they get.
killerbee256 Hi, only one of us is unable to have an "intelligent, informed debate", and incase you can't tell, saying I am a freak, idiot and troll really is saying alot about you and how you deal with an opposing belief system. If you read my first comment please tell me that I am wrong and give me some evidence.
I know how "science works", my issue is pretending science is perfect and the creation story is a "fairy tale". Science still has not offered an answer as to what created the Big Bang. If a species will mate, a species will evolve over time. But to say all animals came from the same life form billions of years ago has not been proven. We know Biblically speaking that the garden of eden was near where what science calls "the cradle of life" was. All of a sudden there were cities, art, government, military, municipal powers, agriculture and you name it starting from a few thousands of years ago.
So anyways, I would like you to pick apart what I just said and for you to prove me illogical and a troll, thanks, have a nice day.
Sean Godos "Science still has not offered an answer as to what created the Big Bang" A bit behind on string theory aren't you? I wont fault for for not understanding the math fully but recently they have made huge break throughs in discovering what may have started the big bang. Secondary, your basing your world view around myth, there never was a garden of Eden, it's a fairy tale meant to be take as allegory at best. The earth is four billion years old, we know this because we can date volcanic rocks, also modern human fossils date back much far further then the neolithic when agriculture started in the near east, not to mention other hominids which are far older. The bible is mythology the same way the Greek & Roman myth are. It's not literally truth, it's only use in history is understanding the world view of a bronze age semetic people nothing more. The fact you are stuck in that primitive mind set just shows the crime of your parent for indoctrinating you and handicapping your ability to think critically.
Another great episode, but I bet it won't do well in Kansas.
damn creationist! XD
SinCeraaaa come on why can't we all just co-exist? Believe what you believe in let them believe what they believe in. Not all creationists are bad as well as not all non-creationist are. So let us try not to belittle each other....and that would make for a slightly better world.
Jehohanan John We can't just co-exist because Creationism teaches a false reality. It is demonstrably wrong, plain and simple.
If someone insists on believing the world is flat, even in the face of being proven wrong, I'll belittle them and pity them as I please. Likewise for Creationism.
Jehohanan John I'm with JJ on this one. Belittling does not advance the cause of waking more people out of their misguided fantasies. What we should be doing is talking like scientists--using reason, not insulting terms or sarcasm.
And to those who would say, "They won't listen to reason", I say this: Some will. If some are a lost cause, so be it. But don't push away those who still have a chance of seeing the light by being unpleasant.
Part of the problem is perspective. A lot of them think that the earth is only a few thousand years old. If I believed that, then yeah, evolution would seem like so much crazy talk. Millions of years are kinda hard to wrap your head around.
1:42 - "... there's going to be alot of stabbing."
You're wrong because Jesus. /s
Everyone, just ignore trunkcompany, I think he was an abortion survivor.
No Black Jesus that's why
/s means sarcasm for you internet illiterates.
You have no proof Jesus existed. Just a book. Scientists have physical evidence. Just because it's in your 'book' doesn't make it true.
CaZaBa Actually it's been accepted as historical fact that he existed, was baptized, and that he was indeed crucified by Pontius Pilate, through non Christian historical records. Whether he performed miracles, or rose from his grave is up for debate, but there is definitely historical proof that Jesus once existed in history.
I just don't understand how you can question evolution. Even when I was a kid, I understood that evolution was a thing. I also never thought that believing in evolution had to take away from your faith in God, like, I always figured that they somehow coexisted and that you didn't have to choose one over the other, you know?
+Cambria Weeden Truuuuuust me daddy
+TopiocaLaChaine The goal of religion is to control masses of lower class citizens with fear.
I think he means that is the role that religion has taken on. However, I agree that personal beliefs are different.
I was just scrolling down the comments section and thinking "hey... where are all the crazy religious vs. obnoxious atheist 20-comment-long threads of pointless insults?" and then I remembered the "top comments first" default. Starting to like the new RUclips. =)
I've often wondered why creationists don't simply study evolution and learn the facts before they try to present alternatives and/or objections to various scientific conclusions. I suspect the reason is that the moment they do so they will realize that the process of evolution is an observable and verifiable fact of nature.
***** The atomic theory is not used to contradict Creationism. Yet, Evolution is, which makes not sense since Evolution does not address the origins of life either. This is why i find it so strange that people use Evolution as an argument against Creationism.
Now the Creationists who says Evolution can't be true, are also mistaken, because the bible never says that evolution doesn't happen.
Both sides of the argument are silly.
And never call me an idiot again. ;)
***** "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
First off...I don't even like the bible. I don't endorse it, but because I'm old and inquisitive I know some things about it.
Secondly,...the bible is clearly a book filled with stories, fables, mythology, metaphors, parables, etc. It might as well be a book of riddles. You've got to look beyond the surface to learn anything from it. Most people haven't got that kind of time or patience.
Thirdly.....God is not subject to time. Time is subject to God.
Lastly, who's to say at what stage of evolution those animals were at when God created them? For all we know God's Garden Of Eden was just a bunch of one celled creatures that would later become the birds and fishes we know of today.
Again, both side, atheists and creationists are arguing from a point of ignorance. Yawl ain't got a clue what yawl r really arguing about.
***** Oh Pedro, you haven't done your homework. The truth is that, for many years quantum physicists have been leaning towards a "Fine Tuner". Do your homework.
here watch this at least. It's just the tip of the iceberg. There's so much evidence, but you have to open your eyes and look. God isn't going to hit you over the head with evidence. You gotta want it.
ruclips.net/video/z4E_bT4ecgk/видео.html
1971SuperLead You don't look for evidence to meet a conclusion. You base the conclusion off the evidence. It doesn't matter what you want.
DoctorInstrument You do look for evidence to support a hypothesis.
I used to also believe in evolution. I didn't have anything else to believe in and the people who taught it seemed really smart. Thankfully my mind has since been changed by the much more compelling and believable evidence of a loving God.
Hahahaha....evidence...
Ossel fuck off, let him believe what he believes....
was not trying to troll... i just really don't like it when one attacks faith or someone who is a religious man or woman attacks scientific thought.
allen b I don't necessarily have a problem if someone professes faith (I think they're stupid, but I'm not going to call them out on it). I DO have a problem when someone makes an idiotic statement like "my mind has been changed by the much more compelling and believable evidence of a loving God", because no such evidence exists.
allen b why are you being hostile. he was just asking for proof of GOD which christians assume that if there is a GOD he sits around all day waiting for them to pray to him so he can help them with something. truth is there may be a GOD but ITS not what you think IT is. yes IT may be a all seeing entity but dose IT care about a meaningless spec in a vast cosmos unlikely. on the other hand science is a proven thing. science cures illness creates technolegy and in a lot of cases allows people to cheat death.
It is all about divergent points. At what point does something become a new species? We consider so many different varieties of people to be homo-sapiens. If you are 7 feet tall and white or 4 ft tall and black you are still considered one species. The same is true of many of man's recent ancestors. They varied from each other greatly in their appearance but they still are considered the same species. Our understanding of how we evolved and what we evolved from is still changing with new science.
***** While that it s generally good definition, it fails in some specific situations that actually exist, for instance there are two types of Gulls in Europe, they can not interbreed. However, one can breed with the gulls to the west, who can breed to their west (etc.), and the other can breed with the gulls to the east, who can breed to their east (etc.). This continues all the way around the world till you come back to Europe. It's called a ring species. In contrast, dogs and wolves can interbreed, but we generally consider them separate species.
TLDR: While that is a good rough definition, life is way more complex than that.
GildedBear
"In contrast, dogs and wolves can interbreed, but we generally consider them separate species" No we don't dogs are considered a sub species of wolves hence the name Canis lupus familiaris. Now wolves and coyotes fit what you said.
A Great Dane and a Chihuahua are the same species but that does not mean that if you put them together they would mate. The breeding definition only works so well.
Meshal Alhussaini
I sure hope you're trolling, other wise you are one ignorant, indoctrinated son of bitch.
its about genes. all humans have the same base genetic code, just your genes from your parents add to that base.
Make an episode about the psychological reasons behind people liking simplistic stuff so much.
It's because there are many simplistic people.
Contradiction. You are simple, yet I hate you.
It's all so interesting. I'm glad research is always being put into this stuff, it's so important to keep learning! my philosophy class is going to the natural history museum to learn about Darwin and his ideas next term - vvvvvvv excited! (she also called it a school trip so we uni students got very excited to miss a day of lectures! hahaha)
If you're interested in the more genetic biology side of this video (as opposed to the anthropology side), I would reccomend reading Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene. It really is a fascinating read.
Nah its a class called Society Thought and Art in Europe. Lots of philosophy :)
Robert Allen we do a lot of science vs religion so it's a bit of fun. Natural history museum London :)
To all who say creationists don't understand evolution:
There are more than one type of creationist. There are those who believe God created humans in their current form (which is what I believe) and those who say there was evolution, but God guided it. I do understand evolution and know what it is and how it works, though I believe in my religion.
Giancarlo Erazo I think that's just a problem with the english-language. When people talk about "creationists", they're usually specifically talking about young earth creationists. Most christians, I imagine, believe in some sort of creationism - but the ones that are vocally against evolution are the Young Earthers. Whenever I talk about creationists, I'm always talking about that category, anyways.
Two suggestions: first an episode about cats. There's not enough cat videos on the Internet yet, we need more. And then an episode about Intersex-people.
Why did you fail to mention the evidence that Homo Sapiens Neaderthalis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens mated and produced fertile offspring?
There is reason to believe that everyone of European descent carries from Neanderthal genes.
Australian Aborigines, Melanesians, and some Asians also carry genes from Denisovans, which were closer to Neanderthals than to Cro-Magnon/Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Because it would prove that the theory of human races is not completely false... And that would not be politically correct.
LeLucky90
Depends on what you mean by false. Everyone knows there's differences between the races (I mean, skin color is obvious). The question is whether the differences are significant. I doubt the Neanderthal in some people makes any significant difference.
LeLucky90 I think he did mention that. I, for one, am proud of my neanderthal ancestry :)
tigga3x By false I mean that there are some people claiming that races do not exist and that morphological differences mean nothing. Are the differences significant? Probably not, but it doesn't mean that there are no such things as races. The biological definition of races is sub-categories of individuals within a specie that are different from each other based solely on physiological traits due to geographical isolation from each other. Races in the human kind are exactly that... And they are not a social construct, they DO exist. The problem is that the term "race" have been associated with hierarchy and racial dominance a lot in the past so just the act of mentioning it can get someone alienated and called intolerant just for the sake of political correctness. This is why I believe the video didn't mention any sort of genetic difference between ethnic groups and races. Because of the fear of alienation.
LeLucky90 I think beyond political correctness, there's a difficulty in actually drawing the lines of what constitutes a race. There are some people who are more genetically similar to someone outside of their perceived "race" than some inside their race. On top of that, there's a lot of mixing in today's society, so that blurs the line even more.
Still, I agree that people shouldn't let "political correctness" get in the way of a legitimate debate on race. I'd be hesitant to say that that's why he left it out of the video though. That's not a fair assumption.
Haters gonna hate.
Creationists gonna create.
Evolutionists gonna make logical sense and evolve.
I should actually be watching my country play in the world cup or making homework right now.... instead I'm binging on science videos and actually learning something in the middle of the night
Im with you on that one!
Isabel Kleijberg Good for you!!
This RUclips channel is informal an interesting. I saw
lots of comments from those who probably should've been attentive in school.
Well put!
Seriously. Did the "first, second, etc" thing just suddenly get popular again? Dafuq is wrong with people.
You'd be surprised...
Everything is wrong with people.
Back to the old youtube comment section, I never quite missed it.
I'm only glad that I won't need to see Bob any time soon.
Do you honestly think it ever stopped? There will always be that -one guy-.
***** Who knows. Maybe I didn't notice it since they could have been hidden due to negative votes/spam -- which we no longer have any control over. >-
You know what would be awesome?? Crash Course Anthropology!!
the humor expressed in this video, as well as ACTUAL SCIENCE being explained scientifically, has earned you another subscriber
Really, Sir ? The guy who robbed you looked like #2 or #6. You can't decide because they're so much alike ??
3 creationists disliked this video.
Creationists have no issues with what Hank is talking about here, in fact we have known this for years. We often argue against such illustrations (the "evolution of the horse" picture is another example) and point out, rightly enough, that basically there are only apes and humans in this lineup and that even evolutionists admit it.
thegangvault2 You make it sound like "creationists" had one voice, but truth is that e.g. thre are some creationists who dismiss evolutionary totally and others that put up arbitrary walls e.g. between "species".
o_O TheCOREFury thegangvault2 well as someone who believes in a world creation so i would be a "creationists" I enjoyed this video because I believe that evolution is a tool that is used within creation. I argue with how it all started but fully support evolution... dont group in people and become closed minded just because of one experience... also I enjoyed the way he put this, cause when I talk to a majority of evolutionists here (where I live), they fully believe that this is true! so in these events it is actually the evolutionists who are wrong...
deanwells1234
> dont group in people and become closed minded
It's not about grouping, it's about definitions, your apparently differs, He put it the way of "evolutionists" vs. "creationists" (us vs. them), one implies evolution, the other doesn't.
o_O Or ones like me, who believe that DNA has a natural propensity for progress, rather than just random occurrences.
Hank, can you do an episode on how MANY and which changes we've seen in species since we first started to observe the world scientifically? It'd be cool to see some of that laid out.
I have a feeling you'd find this list of observed speciation events interesting:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
*Cue the religious comments*
Nick Woodruff lets make a anti religion army ;-;
+Sabrinaaa Where? Where are all these pro-religious comments you dumb fuck?! It all atheist. Lol. Nobody talks about religion more than atheist. You're such a fucking robot
Bernie Sanders for president 2016!!! why are you being so rude wtf LMAO
***** dafuq does this video have to do with atheism??? Good, you hate swear words and i hate deceptive liar hypocrites.
***** oh my
"...spreading their jeans all over the place..." Mothers call this "being a teenager".
What if the Neanderthals didn't die out? Assuming they were sentient, how would living with another sentient specie affect us today as humans in terms of what we look like and our culture, such as prejudice or our understanding of science? Would we benefit because we would be alright with more diversity, and be less prejudice? Or would we form into different groups, with the pure humans prejudice against the pure Neanderthals and vice-versa with both prejudice against the mixtures?
What's really incredible is if you were to go back, say, 50,000 years there were Homo Floresiensis, Homo Erectus, Homo neandertalensis, and Homo sapiens all living at the same time. Wow.
Most species we live with now are sentient. If you meant Sapient there are a few possible animals that are candidates for having low level sapience. These being Dolphins, Crows, and Elephants.
we would have killed them all by the crusades if they managed to last that long. BUt we most likely wouldn't be hating on the humans with the different color skin
Terron Hefley The Crusades were not an extermination campaign.
Terron Hefley We probably still would because of a phenomenon called "in group morality"
I remember that book and that chart very well from my childhood. I still have it, as a matter of fact. My parents bought both of the Time/Life Nature and Science series. Looking back, they were an extraordinary asset in my early education. Terribly dated now, alas
Time Life Corporation is anti GOD, and is brainwashing NWO garbage. I read that garbage too, but now I'm awake to the lies and BS of the satanist that control the world. If you and everyone else want to beat them at their own game learn how to be a man. This is what they fear. Google Karl Lentz.
Google Louis Leakey
i love how the vid shows, that evolution is NOT an active process - like any species would decide to evolve - but really a result of adapation!! well done :D
I love how the creationists are saying that evolution is fake, yet they can't give any evidence themselves that creationism is real
Really Creationists should not say it is fake. Evolution does not disprove Religon. Evolutionary science started as a way to explain God, and really hasn't ever disproved Religion. The problem is when Atheists start using Evolution as evidence for Atheism.
they give all their questions the same answer: God did it. Its pretty efficient in a way. A single answer for all questions?
Ben Harp I would say that science can't disprove God/gods but can disprove claims made by religions about the natural world (for instance that humans did not all descend from 2 people) . A question: are you defining Atheism as the claim "there is no God" ? because lacking belief in gods doesn't require evidence, it's simply not being convinced by the claim that there is such a being.
rodlurks66 There is a difference between "absence of belief in god(s)" and "belief in the absence of god(s)." I agree the former does not require evidence, but I think the latter-outright claiming that there is no such thing as a deity in any form or shape-is objectively not fair to claim without evidence.
Not to say people are not entitled to belief what they want. The "belief in the absence of god(s)" type atheists have just as much right to have their beliefs as theists do. But I grow tired of such people that claim they are somehow objectively and logically better than theists, when they are much the same in essence.
Agnosticism-or staying neutral in the existance versus non-existance of deities debate and not ruling out any of either side-is in my opinion the most objective perspective, and the one that should be used in most science and philosophy in order to not alienate theists and atheists alike. Regardless of the personal beliefs of the reseachers.
Woops, that was a bit more of a rant than I intended...
Raizin I agree that gnostic Atheists do give themselves a burden of proof, it is one of the reason I am an agnostic atheist (along with many others), aside from the simple fact that my knowledge is limited. I asked Ben Harp how he was defining Atheism as the majority of Atheists do not hold a hard gnostic position.
I was really hoping Hank would get a Dr Who reference in there. :P
It's pronounced Cro- Manyon. It's French.
I think it's only significant because it's one of the oldest humans discovered in Europe.
One of the biggest misconceptions I ever had, growing up as a young earth creationist, is the idea that evolution means organisms turn into different organisms over long periods of time. That's rubbish. The reason why there are no "transitional forms" is because there's *no such thing* as a transitional form. Organisms adapt to changes in climate, and in hindsight, this *appears* to be transitioning from one form to another. Indohyus did not "turn into" whale. Indohyus is extinct, and was never anything other than indohyus. But the creatures we call whales are the *biological descendants* of indohyus.
Your comment is such a relief to read. The species argument is a red herring. The fundamental question of evolution is answerable in real time. Can a population's characteristics be changed through natural selection? Yes? Do these mechanisms work in all populations? Yes? Then we are definitely products of evolution, regardless of how life began.
Conclusions to be drawn? Modification has occurred within populations over generations and time. Populations converge as we trace ancestry through genetics and comparative biology.
The conclusion is where creationists like to start because that's what offends them the most.
Came to learn about science and stuff
Ended up disappointed with the comments section
I ought to know better by now
I know, right?
I actually really appreciate the fact that you guy's put that brief mention of the lack of women in the illustration. Well done.
I thought it was a stupid point, showing 2 people at a time is less practical, just one or the other
It was the 60's, and if kids were going to see it, they could not show anything like a breast in plain view. Notice how carefully the penises where obscured in every drawing. Easier to hide a penis than a breast. So it was a different version of political correctness than the one you are advocating.
+Chris Gonzales but nudity was ok back then especially in movies. boobs were just boobs back then. it's now that seeing boobs is so taboo
+Chris Gonzales if you do remember, adam and eve actually wore no clothes till they ate the apple and went against gods orders, so true believers should be nudists
no its true, they stopped being innocent when they ate the apple, which was strictly against god, and until they ate the apple they thought it was fine to be nude so, yeah. im just saying.
It seems like a simple enough idea. If we can lay out a series of photos of our human ancestors (parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.), then why couldn't we extend the process back a million years, showing, perhaps, just the highlights? Sure, the Time Life illustration had incorrect examples, but why not just fix it?
The problem is that if you had, say, a brother, then both of your chains of photos would be identical and would be better represented by a photo tree. Similarly if you extend the photos back a million years, you'll find that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens originated from the same ancestor and also would be better represented by a tree.
The Dragon of 2100
Or leave my brother out of it entirely, as I didn't descend from him.
Richard Alexander I totally agree and was going to say the same thing.. The video makes people think that a linear representation is somehow impossible or wrong.. You CAN represent any species' evolution linearly and only include the highlights. Why in the world couldn't you? The picture that people associate with human evolution is in fact wrong if it shows a neanderthal evolving into us, yes. But you could absolutely take the earliest known primate that preceded us, jump way forward to Lucy, then show us, if you wanted to be super simplistic and only show a couple of examples. It doesn't give the complete picture and may confuse some people, but that doesn't mean that a correct linear representation is somehow inaccurate or doesn't have a purpose.
I have a question for discussion. Why do humans have to brush their teeth to avoid decay, whilst animals don't? I understand we eat a lot more sugary foods, but animals that live off carbohydrates and fruit don't have to wash their mouthes with fluoridated artificial chemicals?
Most animals do have tooth decay. We evolved with an expected lifespan of 30 years so our teeth last that long, if you don't take care of them. We have since extended our life span and so need more teeth permanence. Animals are still operating under their natural lifespan so they don't need to worry much.
And 30 years is more than the time we need to reproduce.
ruclips.net/video/5HsTrg4OJPs/видео.html
hank, as you see the evolution is quite the controversial issue, dont suppose you could do a more in depth vid of this. how carbon dating works, how dna analysis works, as in how we can tell the origins and the path humans spread around the earth
Evolution is not actually controversial at all. It is one of the best supported theories of all time. It is also hated by some religious people, because it directly contradicts the primitive and incorrect origin stories told in their holy books. So some of those religious people lie (or "exaggerate") about what evolution is, and how it is supported. Then the followers of those people take these lies to heart, and pass them on. Many of them truly believe these lies, and think they are doing the public a service when they bring these untruths up.
All that said, I would love to see a series on how we accumulate and verify the various lines of evidence that support evolution :)
@@DataJack - You have swallowed tons of lies. There is not even one scientific fact in the world that would favor a belief in evolution. Leading scientists do not believe it but is promoted mainly by atheistic professors and the stupid media. I'd be willing to offer anybody in the world ll$1,000 if they could find and present to me ONE HONEST SCIENTIFIC fact that would show how evolution could be possible or evidence that shows that evolution has occurred. I've read hundreds of books on this and challenged hundreds of evolutionists to show me some science that favors the story of evolution, but none could do so because evolution is a big lie.s The only answer I usually get is that evolution has to be true because they do not want to believe in God and then follow up with wicked name-calling.
@@danminer5343 remember: your wilful (and hilarious) misunderstanding of evolution does not mean that evolution is not true. And supported by *all* of the evidence we have ever encountered, and refuted by no evidence. Perhaps when you grow up a bit, and learn to understand how science works, you will see how mistaken you are.
@@DataJack - notice that you did not give any example of science supporting the story of evolution. That is because none exists. I've read hundreds of comments, watched hundreds of videos over the last two decades, but NEVER NEVER have i found an honest scientific statement that explained how evolution could be possible or any evidence showing it has occurred. The only way possible to believe in the story of evolution is to be DELUDED!
@@danminer5343 notice that you have no understanding of science at all and that sound scientific evidence for evolution can be found at every natural history museum on earth, as well as every credible university. When you are old enough to go to university, you will be able to see first hand.
The bible is like Wikipedia. Anyone can alternate it at any given moment and people still use it as a source for their school papers for valid argument.
Kim Nguyen there is a difference, Wikipedia cites it sources and some pages are protected from unauthorized editing
Joseph Stalin i would be on your side of the argument, only if u didnt murder 50 million people
Hunter Livers wut ?
so right you are!
Mr.Troll Trolla Trollanski he was a commie
WHAT? and where are Adam and Eve ?!?!?! ( Just kidding LOL)
It's just like saying "If the British colonised us, why are there still British people?"
well tbh theres not a whole lot of actual British left
teabing Allow me to correct myself I hope the english die out the scotts and the irish are alright and as for my reasons ive honestly never come across an english person I liked arrogant racist and a collective superiority complex and then I suppose I just don't like they're culture.Its relatively straight forward.
Because they are very stubborn.
Warning, Religious comments inbound. Take cover immediately.
Huh! I've never heard about this. Thanks, SciShow! :)
If you had to express it visually, it would look like a tree or fractal..until you eliminate all the parts that didn't lead straight to man. If you have the tree diagram and you start at the bottom then ignore any branches that dead end or lead to life forms that aren't man, finally ending with modern man...that's a line. The image being male is just a place holder....You don't mention we have one individual representing entire species..but flip because females aren't included? The picture is just a graphic representation of "human"...that graphic represents all humans who have ever existed, male and female.
You don't seem to understand. Similar species can breed together. They believe several of them existed at the same time. Just because a species dies off, doesn't mean we don't still have some of their genes. AKA neanderthals, Europeans still have 1-4%, but we didn't come directly from them. This isn't a "family tree" they are not trying to find YOUR specific ancestry, yes that can be made into a straight line.
They are trying to find EVERYONE'S ancestry, which as I've said can't be done in a straight line. Many people in the world do not have any genes from neanderthals and may never have had them in their entire ancestry, but a large portion of us do. Hence, tree branches instead of straight lines.
***** No similar species cannot breed together - sexual species are classified according to the biological species concept which is defined based upon whether or not two species can interbreed. For example in the case of neanderthals, based on the evidence of interbreeding they are normally classified as Homo sapiens neandertalensis, making them a sub-species of Homo sapiens.
***** Europeans and also Asians and Native Americans all have Neanderthal genes. It isn't merely a European thing. I believe even Aboriginees in Australia have them. The only known group that lacks them are Africans.(Mostly subsaharan)
***** Hello, I don't think your point has much merit, at least as far as representing human evolution is concerned. When you display evolution as a tree, Neanderthals are shown as a dead end, with Homo Sapiens continuing on. The tree method Hank was suggesting also doesn't account for our Neanderthal DNA. That cross breeding is more along the lines of a footnote, or the domain of a much more complex diagram. If you want to simply demonstrate the evolution of man, you ignore dead ends and none human species and just follow the human chain..this makes a line.
Ravinian
you can totally represent evolution that way. The problem is that the picture used in the video includes the dead ends and implies that they are part of the line, rather than off shoots of it.
Well this guy just denounced all of darwinian evolution
He told us that the way generally people think evolution happens (because of pictures like that) is for the most part wrong. This is why creationists have such free reign with their strawman arguments. Its easy to deceive people when they don't really know whats going on in the first place.
How on earth did you walk away with the idea that this "denounced all of Darwinism evolution"?
Suma, what video were you watching? Because it definitely wasn't this one.
Sumas quite right, Hank took a biased on this i feel.
NiveusCornix
How so? He is just telling us that the picture is misleading.
I believe in creation, but I also believe in evolution to a certain extent.
I guess I don't understand your statement.. Care to elaborate? Not trying to be rude, I was in your position at one time "religious family, my Grandmother is an Episcopal priest." But, I decided to find out the truth of the universe we live in.
Don't worry, that god of the gaps thinking pattern of yours will eventually be replaced by both science and the important notion of "I don't know yet".
I'm not going on this by proof of God, but lack of evidence for evolution. The chances of a cell forming out of a chemical soup is astronomical. Just to get a few of the right proteins would be hard, but a lot of them couldn't even survive by themselves. So you would need to have all the right proteins in the right place at the right time. The odds are one in 10 with another 40,000 0's following it. And that's not the only hole in the theory.
Whatever helps you with your cognitive dissonance.
will Philip The odds are actually not that unlikely. One of the current theories is that Comets brought life TO Earth, rather than life forming ON Earth. Researchers have done tests in controlled conditions with the essential and most common substances and compounds found in comets. They then impacted this artificial comet with a powerful hydraulic hammer to simulate it falling to Earth. They then analysed the remains. They found amino acids, the essential building blocks of life. And they found this for several repeats also. The odds are really in the theory's favour, but I doubt such strong evidence will ever convince a 'bible-basher' or other such individual.
Most people here should have paid a little more attention in school. Specially those who question evolution knows close to nothing about it at all or how it works. I guess it's easy to reject what you do not understand or comprehend.
Is that why you reject God?
HighLighterlines
Which god? Ra? Zeus? Odin? Krishna? Jupiter? Yahweh? Horus? Queztalcoati? Biame? Breged? And how do you reject something that do not exist?
GutentagCharlie Haha let me give you the answer I gave to someone else.
Now about who is the true God. Let's first star with Gods nature. God is the greatest thing imaginable; mind and consciousness is greater than everything non conscious. So, God is a conscious being. Some things are greater than other things. Example in moral philosophy, there are way that are better than others. So, God is the most perfect way of everything, the one you must follow and imitate for success and the true life. That's is why it need to be holy, almighty, perfect in goodness and love and justice and wisdom.
There are being whose existence is not necessary but only possible like we find here on earth. Those are call contingent beings. The whole universe is contingent by the way. But everything cannot be contingent for if it is, in the eternity pass it would have cease to exist for all contingent being cease to exist because is not in its nature to exist. So, there must be a necessary being whom is not contingent, it is necessary in itself. Why?
To understand that you need to learn the difference between essence and existence. Essence is what makes an object what it is, existence it just its being. In the case of contingent being their essence and existence is different. As I say before is not in their essence to exist. Example, you can think of a robot and make the computer model and everything but that robot don't exist until you or someone construct it into being. Now the robot exist. So in the case of this necessary being its essence is the same as its existence. It exist, he didn't need anyone to make him up, he exist because its in his nature to exist, he is pure being and the source where are the other contingent being in heavens and earth came from. This is God.
What other gods fit this description? Well most of them don't. Most of them had a beginning like all the Greek and roman pantheon, the Egyptian and a whole lots of others. This gods also are not the greatest thing, they behave human like and have human qualities. The only god that fit all description is the god of the bible, the true GOD.
Now, we have the bible his inspire word that also proof that he is the one true God. In Jesus Christ for example were fulfil over 400 prophecies. All the prophecies of the bible fulfil with time and that is evidence that he is the true God. All the writers and person in the Bible are true historical figures. Moses is a historical figure. He was truly the one selected to liberate Israelites from Egypt the first world power. How a tribe of slave was able to beat a world power in its prime? Well, they didn't, it was Jehovah God that did. Everybody forget this but this is a historical awesome even and a testimony of Gods power. The bible explain human existence since the beginning. Explain the whys. Why do we exist? Why do we die? Why are we in the current condition? What is our purpose? It even explain the true origin of religion and its wide spread lies. The only book that claim comes from the only true God is the Bible. Read the bible and you will understand humanity pass, present and future. You will know that this is the truth
.
In top of all of that, Jesus Christ, the son of God himself came to earth to save humanity from death, to destroy Satan the head of the rebellion and to restore earth to its rightful place. He came to fulfil all the prophecies and hopes. He proof everything correct. He teach us about God like nobody have done. He perform miracles. His death and resurrection is the final testimony and the strongest one. With no doubt the God and father of Jesus Christ himself is the one and true God.
HighLighterlines
MAN that was a lot of bullcrap. Did not need to read more than the first paragraf to know that though. Nothing made sense. Give me emperical evidence or respectfully gtfo.
GutentagCharlie why dont ask your
*Inner Wisdom* not ur current *Knowledge*
obviously *Inner Wisdom* is ur Greater-Self
you hear ur *Inner Wisdom* sometimes
What most religious people get wrong is that humans didn't evolved from apes, like chimpanzees. We are genetically related, but homo sapiens (that's us) didn't evolve from them. We have a common ancestor and split up a few million years ago. Even chimpanzees diverged at some point into common chimpanzees and bonobos and both are still evolving. As are we, although some seem to have stopped at some point. So when some Christian asks "If evolution is true, then why are there still chimpanzees?", it simply proves their limited (if any) knowledge of biology.
But this is what you get when schools can teach evolution as "just another theory" alongside creationism.
+Corristo89 Humans didn't evolve at all.
+Hunter Russel let me sum this up for ya. 1) dogs aren't colorblind in the literal sense, they can'r see red distinguished from green, they just see a vague color in its place, and can distinguish blue from it. 2) there are many other species with more color receptors than humans - in fact, many bird species have 4 (as opposed to our 3 for red, green and blue) and the mantis shrimp may have as many as 16.
As an Asian I'll have to tell you that you CAN eat sushi with one chopstick - you stab it.
As a non-Asian I have to ask can you eat all of it with one chopstick?
Real modern society we live in. There are still people that believe in spirits and magic. In 1000 years, people will look back and wonder how people could believe in something so ridiculous. They will look at us and put us in the same category as we do sun worshipers.
Actually, judging by the fact that we have Flat-Earthers and religious people of all kinds still around today, means that we are still going to have lots of nutjobs 1000 years from now.
We live in a world were 40-50% of man don't even accept Evolution. I wish I would have been born in 2030 or 2040 instead of the 1990's.
it still hasnt been proven
didyouknowthatiloveyousomuchthatimadeareallylongname Nothing a part from mathematical ideas can be entirely proven. Evolution has, on the other hand, not been disproved. And if it ever does, it will not be called a theory anymore.
Just like the theories of special and general relativity, they're not entirely "proven" so to say, but they have failed to be DISPROVED countless of times, therefore we trust them to be correct. They also, of course, make predictions and are falsifiable.
Fredrik Ödling i would read but i dont feel like it
didyouknowthatiloveyousomuchthatimadeareallylongname
tl;dr: Theories are, by definition, backed up by evidence and are considered fact unless disproven, and evolution hasn't been disproven.
didyouknowthatiloveyousomuchthatimadeareallylongname
Then don't even bother commenting in the first place if you can't read a couple of sentences.
But.. I actually think you did read what i said, but you just want to pretend that you didn't because you feel uncomfortable.
“Oreopithecus which sounds delicious...” lmfao
I just saw an ad of a bear taking a shower.
i literally lol'd at this.
+Shauday Smith When I came back to this video to reply to you I saw the same ad.
Lorenzo Martinez
Mind=Blown
They also use Charmin toilet paper
Lorenzo Martinez same😂😂
But how did Jesus ride on dinosaurs?
this guy, i really like him (no homo)
Mihai-Ciprian Ghilinta Lmao xD
Byoung Woo Yoon Homo neanderthalis?
No homo before it was a trend lol
the sad part is i keep looking at these videos but none actually fully answers my question they just try to make it more difficult to seem like they are proving a point
so evolution is just a bunch of "wibley wobley timey wimey, stuff"
GO SCIENCE. Its like all the Jesus freaks troll around on the science channel. kinda sad. I for one adored this video and the channel. This is the kind of stuff that will save the planet. not some homophobic pretend spaghetti monster in the sky telling us not to judge people while at the very same time doing just that. They read the first chapters of their version of harry potter and don't even notice that it claims to create light before the light source all the while ignoring that they still literally count them as Days. Days before the sun is made or created??? why would an all perfect being have the creator of the bible label them as such from the begging. I have even heard some people saying that it was thousands of years to us but "days" to god. Then why not have the writer actually put thousands of years since that is what we would understand in the first place? If it is a translation error then why are you taking the book that couldn't even get the first chapters right as all knowing again?
Well said, my friend. Well said.
Atheists are arrogant hypocrites :)Cortney Stepp
Nick Woodruff Science is only proving out what we already know that God is our creator. I love learning what science can figure out but it all keeps pointing to God. The univerise is so fine-tuned leaving no possible doubt who did it.
i used to be like you Clyde but there is just way to much that I can see in the real world that proves the bible wrong there a trees in France that are 9,000 years old!! disproving it in one blow I'd have to say!!
I'm just saying why would you take a book's word over what you can see with your own 2 eyes?
You should have disabled the cooooments
***** if atheists ruled the world, everyone would be at home writing internet comments wining about things other people believe in and nothing would get done in this world.
Omer Luxy thats got to be one if the dumbest comments ive ever read. Proves a lot though.
***** I'm an atheist and I don't comment anything about religious shit, but most of the time on the internet I see people with religions trying to shove their beliefs down other people's throats. We atheists won't really give a shit about *your*** beliefs unless *you*** start writing stuff on the bible here on the internet.
**And by "you" I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about those people who type ass shit here about how God is our father or whatever. BTW I understand if anyone believes in a God and if you're offended by dis comment plz no h8 :(
I want a longer name from what I see, Atheist usually start the debate with a little comment irrelevant to the article....like the one above. If you see a religious post....move on, its not your post. A science post is a science post, just like ive seen those childish inaccurate atheist memes. Like I've said In the past, I dont troll mermaid or unicorn posts and bash them. I cant go 20 minutes on G+ without coming accross some childish sarcastic remark. Yoy guys need to grow up and if you dont believe in God, well....stop thinking about him. There's people on here that spend all day talking and bashing what they dont even believe in. Thats really sad if you break it down. Moms basement is VERY full of hate.
***** You're right I should just ignore these retarded internet debates. I don't believe in God and I don't really think much about him. I won't bother coming up with some "scientific explanation" as to why God doesn't exist but yeah a lot of atheists do that I guess.
I like how Hank is clear that "evolution" is an ever-changing process rather than a direct line from A to B to C, etc. I find it amazing how the media can pounce on one or two half-truths and go with it to the point it becomes "fact." Thanks for clarifying things, Hank. Keep up the good work.
Can you please do a video on self-harming? I feel like the subject isn't well understood.
I got a question. When people talk about evolution they talk about Neanderthals and humans parting ways long ago. But when scientists talk about DNA they say that some of our ancestors mated with Neanderthals after we separated for thousands of years. Which makes some people part Neanderthal. Why is the Neanderthal evolution treated as not part of some of our evolution?
www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-neanderthal-genes-modern-human-dna-01734.html
'Out of Africa' propaganda, T. Dirac.
***** I've seen you use the phrase "out of Africa" propaganda twice now. It seems a little strange to me. Please explain what you mean by "out of Africa" propaganda, who's disseminating it and why.
***** Now your Out of Africa propaganda line seems VERY strange to me!!
I wasn't aware that scientist involved in this study (human evolution) where generally on the political left, or carry out their work with the intention of supporting the views and aims of the politically correct "left", which is what you seem to be suggesting. Scientist (generally) study science in pursuit of truth, not political propaganda.
As someone else as stated to you earlier - OoA theory has not become the most widely accepted theory amongst scientist involved in the study of human evolution, for no good reason other than socio-political expedience of some sort.
I suggest that you watch the videos that I've posted above about Orrorin tugenensis, and Ardipithecus. Type 'Milford Wolpoff' into the search engine and you find my video about multiregionalism where Wolpoff explains the model.
Don't fool yourself. People in this field such as Dr.Alice Roberts, are politically motivated and they put political values above science.
***** I will watch the vids you have suggested and get back to you later on - (its getting a little late now).
I have read a bit about the Multi-regional theory regarding human evolution / origins awhile back. I remember thinking, OoA theory kicks M.R. theory clean out of the park, and so say the vast majority of scientist in this field of study - and not for any political propaganda reason either!!
As for your accusation against the delectable Dr Roberts - o dear!! You can't say things like that (and expect to be taken seriously) without backing it up with some hard evidence.
It still boggles my mind why anyone would be a Neo-Darwinist. Intelligent Design is more evidence based.
Any argument for intelligent design falls apart without a pre established, independently verified designer.
So, where's this designer?
Give me ONE evidence for intelligent design.
@@Molluskenkoenig The universe was created by something outside itself-an intelligent designer.
@@robinsonworld That is a claim. Now you have to back up your claim with evidence. So I ask again: Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
@@robinsonworld Nothing, that is what I thought.
Why is it that only discussions on evolution require constant clarification on what "facts," "theories," "truth," "laws," and "the scientific method" mean when no other discussion I've seen on other scientific subjects require such?
Shit, now I have to learn everything again about evolution.. But thank you any way lol.
Type in "Natural Selection" here on RUclips. Pick a video that describes natural selection and It'll make it click for you all over again!
I'm waiting for evolution deniers :)
They're coming, by tomorrow it will be impossible hold rational conversations in these comments.
killerbee256 I look forward to it
killerbee256
If I press random keys I can produce a more rational argumentbhfl aszgtdvigb drfgcxglh gh llhfdzh fdzby ybzfj h fdvi as, fvs,j hcxv h, mdfvbkf ds hb sfgh k asfrgkwf fsdv hfdvg hk fgsd than creationists.
Based SciShow makes me smarter than school ever did.
Evolutionary talks abound in the internet, and though many times hours and countless slides by biologists, famous ones including, won't give you the entire picture, your less than 4 minutes presentation is superbly comprehensive. Bravo.
Full metal alchemist fan spotted
when he says homunculus, all i can think of is Full Metal Alchemist
It's Homo Sapiens Sapiens, twice, not once. What is it with people and this mistake? Everywhere i hear something about this topic everyone either doesn't know or forgets to add the second denomination.
It's not about being picky, it's about something that we learned in school yet no one seems to bother perpetuating. What's the point in learning if we don't use it properly?
aserta That's only necessary when you need to differentiate from the other sub-species, Homo sapiens idaltu.
It's so crazy that people don't believe in evolution even as they muse over whether their kid has their daddy's eyes or mommy's nose. We see genetics at work as we pass them down through generations. We know plenty of characteristics are inherited. How is it so difficult to understand that this same process over millions of years can result in something that looks entirely different from an ancient ancestor?
But eberlution es just a thery an du bibl es troo!!!
ha... ha... haaaaaa.....
Evan Cabral Silva but a person who doesn't believe is the bible could say a dude thousands of years ago wrote a book
CrazySlime Gaming but da bibl saiys da gowd writ it.
I get really annoyed when people say evolution is just a story/theory because the bible is just a book and the bible could have LITERALLY BEEN WRITTEN BY ABSOULTELY ANYBODY.
Finely And Friends I cant believe you two idiots took this shit seriously