People want to believe more than they want to know..

The fact that we Nebraskans were literally born and raised on top of the evidence that disproves creationism and still argue against evolution is just too perfectly ironic.

Whoa, I never knew whales had vestigial leg bones! I grew up in a conservative Christian school and it brainwashed and skewed my education of Evolution and now I'm trying to educate myself with true science and even though it's a lot to take in, I love fact and observation and love that this is something we can see and take in as opposed to religious conjecture. My teacher even once told me that dinosaurs were a myth when she couldn't answer our questions of where they came from and stated that museums "faked the bones". It was then I started to question all their bullshit. This has given my life so much more meaning. Thank you for your work!

@EziooAuditore

6 жыл бұрын

Us humans have a couple muscles in our pelvic region that we don't use anymore. Those muscles are also found in monkeys to use their tails. That's one proof of evolution that's in your own body.

@alexthompson8977

6 жыл бұрын

Those so called vestigial bones are actually used to help the animal manuveur better during sex. But these evolutionist ignored this and continue to call it a useless feature

@alexb2082

5 жыл бұрын

@@alexthompson8977 yes but haven't legs always helped mammals have sex? The ways in which they've helped have changed. They are obviously underdeveloped leg bones that still hold some function.

@alexthompson8977

5 жыл бұрын

@@alexb2082 kind of fallacious to claim that seeing that the whole hip bones(not legs) are claimed to be useless by evolutionists then when found to be wrong you now say the function has changed. You can't just see things that are different and claim without evidence "they just changed".

@alexb2082

5 жыл бұрын

@@alexthompson8977 that's the beauty of science. Ideas change with more evidence. Something which anyone that has held on to an idea too tightly, like creationists, have never been able to do since the discovery that evolution happened.

Do not argue with creationists, they are just looking for attention.

@TheMickeymental

7 жыл бұрын

We do not need your attention Mr. Fallacy.

@spwr1931

7 жыл бұрын

Brad Davies "LaLaLaLaLa, I'm not listening!".

@dorianmodify

6 жыл бұрын

You need something. Attention is not it.

@oldcowbb

5 жыл бұрын

its about the people struggling in between

@mjeffn2

4 жыл бұрын

fatcat2939 Debating with creationists is like wrestling with pigs. You both get covered in mud and shit but the pigs enjoy it.

Love these. Great teaching tools for children..and adults.

@bmlsb

8 жыл бұрын

Great teaching tools to teach children they evolved from a rock that exploded from nothing for no reason

@bmlsb

8 жыл бұрын

***** What did I get wrong?

@harunrazak7764

7 жыл бұрын

+bmlsb69 Where did god come from?

@bmlsb

7 жыл бұрын

harun razak he never told me

@jerieller176

6 жыл бұрын

+bmlsb69 As a rock could not reproduce, contains no genetic material and does not mutate, nothing could possibly 'evolve' from a rock.What you appear to be referencing is abiogenesis, the hypothesis that life originated from non-living matter.These videos here concern biological evolution, which does not involve an exploding rock, as you seem to imply here.If an omnipotent deity with a purpose is the origin of life, therefore disproving abiogenesis, it would have no effect on evolutionary theory, because processes such as genetic mutation( gene duplication,deletion,inversion, insertion, translocation, etc.) and natural selection still occurs.

the intermediate species for humans are creationists 😉

@sweetkartoshka2431

8 жыл бұрын

+Viren S LMFAO!!! good one.

@Noniksleft

8 жыл бұрын

And we all wish they were just fossils

@StephJ0seph

5 жыл бұрын

Lul.

@mark737-c4x

4 жыл бұрын

Hahahahaha you are so not funny you need a education Tell me do you see more monkey on your mother or father's side of the family?

@Mr-DNA_

3 жыл бұрын

I wanna like your comment, but that would destroy the 69 likes.

The problem with intermediate fossils is the following: once you find an intermediate fossil there will be two new gaps, so you have to find two more intermediate fossils to fill the gaps. However, that will result in four new gaps ... you get the idea. Creationists will always ask for more intermediate fossils, no matter how many have been found already. Those people are simply hopeless.

I love this! Prof. Dawkins, please keep posting videos like this! They are so interesting and engaging! You have a wonderful talent for explaining complex subjects in simple terms.

Creationists do not believe in shared traits passed along to future generations; YET, they are just fine with little sally having behaviours like grandpa or Billy having the eyes of his grandmother.

@KrisMayeaux

9 жыл бұрын

Microevolution is observed and no one disputes it, however there is evidence of boundaries. A dog to a whale requires extraordinary evidence - not just Dawkins telling us it is "just so".

@grumpysanta6318

9 жыл бұрын

Kristen Michelle What boundaries are you talking about? There's no demonstrable evidence of boundaries especially when you add in the fact that mutations alter the DNA in various ways.

@MrJamieb147

9 жыл бұрын

Kristen Michelle If one can accept micro-evolution then one is by proxy accepting macro-evolution, macro large scale evolution is just micro evolution over an incomprehensibly long period of time, if there's continuous small changes for millions of years it's only logical to assume through the accumulation of these changes there will be a big change in contrast to the two differing points in time. If someone puts one penny on top of another everyday for they will eventually in a years time build a fantastic structure now imagine this structure growing massively over the course of decades or centuries etc. This analogy also refutes the "where's the intermediate fossils?" argument, evolution like the structure of pennies doesn't go through radical transitions from micro to macro but a long continuous transition from the two. Macro-evolution is just the accumulation of small evolutionary changes over a vast period of time.

@dorianmodify

6 жыл бұрын

And they are comfortable in "fallen nature" due to Adam's sin. LOL

@brownbri1983

6 жыл бұрын

The irony of god's select tribe escapes them (the abramhists)...you know, the 100,000 people in the bible, or what ever number it was, that are god's favored people.

The sad aspect of all this is that those who need to see these videos refuse to do so.

@aminaden5957

Жыл бұрын

i'm sorry sir that we don't have blind faith in a drawing board made from imagination there are more interesting real things to see in this world. and the bones that he called vestiges are crucial for reproduction and are not vestiges. perhaps you'd want to see more into that.

@MrDerby2u Thanks for your kind words. It's always great to talk about science with people who are willing to listen.

thanks for the laughs, dippy. AND THE ALL CAPS!!! dippy IS THE most ENTertaining part of MY day so FAR!!!

We are all future intermediate fossils! But some of us are fossilized already, in the brain at least. ;)

@duke-swtmate4154

7 жыл бұрын

+Gary D Nice try, but what you wrote is blatantly untrue! Neither has one ever observed these intermediate animals nor has the human kind evolved! Jesus Christ is LORD! HE saved you at the cross by shedding his blood for the atonement of sins. Believe in him: HE has died and risen!

@jerieller176

6 жыл бұрын

Duke - SWT Mate Look at the intermediate fossils.Observe them.Please.

@jinuit30

6 жыл бұрын

I have to look at these videos more often, and look at some of the comments. I get all watery eyed... from laughter... BaHahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Yeah but it is not a crocoduck, so it does not count. Don't try to prove the actual theory of evolution, instead prove the creationist straw-man of evolution.

nice analogy and very well put.

The University of Nebraska State Museum, but the exhibit is also at 5 other museums in the US. See the "Explore Evolution" website link in the 'info' section for more information.

HOW ON EARTH DO SKULLS PROVE THAT THEY HAD FEET/LEGS????

@nmdpeaceout

8 жыл бұрын

Terncote which are where exactly???

@nmdpeaceout

8 жыл бұрын

Terncote yes, thanks for that nice saying. But which museum specifically have you seen it?????? I live in London, been to the british museum (natural history) many times, still only ever seen PLASTIC MODELS.... NO REAL FOSSILS.. peace out

@ixlnxs

7 жыл бұрын

He uses the skulls to show how the nostrils shifted. Watch the clip again, it's fascinating.

@jerieller176

6 жыл бұрын

+mikail-jordan Pakicetus 1.Royal Ontario Museum 2.American Museum of Natural History Rodhocetus 1.Field Museum of Natural History 2.University of Michigan Museum of Natural History Dorudon 1.Senckenberg Museum 2.Smithsonian Natural History Museum I hope this helps.

@gatolf2

6 жыл бұрын

mikail-jordan imagination. Thats why they drew them out for us. Lol

And yet the fact that you don't have the smallest clue on how or why did that first magical cell landed on our planet out of trillions, let alone the amazing convenience, that doesn't bother some people.

@OFFICIAL863JLS

8 жыл бұрын

go be a doofus somewhere else.

@Jakeassimilate

8 жыл бұрын

Scientists don't falsely claim to know everything like religions do... They are figuring this stuff out one day at a time by finding evidence. Of course we don't know how the first self-replicating cell developed on our planet, but that's why science is important, so that we can figure it out. Relying on fictitious stories forever won't do us any good.

@bmlsb

8 жыл бұрын

Yes science has no idea how the first replicating cell devoloped from a rock...😳

@jerieller176

6 жыл бұрын

+~ Bright Romeo ~ If the first 'magical cell' were to land in another planet, and through 'magic' turned into advanced life, I suppose they would also be amazed.They would be amazed that they had strong exoskeletons, perfect for their planet's strong gravitational pull.They would be amazed that their planet was positioned at the perfect distance from their Sun to maintain a temperature of -160 degrees Celsius, perfect for their phisyology.They would be struck with wonder at observing the perfect mix of gasses in the atmosphere and the natural processes that allow them to breathe in methane and exhale sulphur dioxide.They would be thankful for having two moons, unlike the other planets in their solar system, for that would shatter the delicate balance of their biosphere.They would gaze upon the beauty of their planet's high mountains, methane lakes and abundance of life, and thank their imaginary Creator for giving them such a home, perfect for life, that could not be found anywhere else.

@jerieller176

6 жыл бұрын

+bmlsb69 The current state of research in abiogenesis involves two general perspectives, 'gene first' which proposes that RNA emerged first as a molecule of heredity, which later became naturally selected into groups of self-replicating( probably via ribozymes)RNA enclosed in a membrane to form a protocell, and 'metabolism first' in which a particular mineral like iron disulphide catalyzes certain key biochemical reactions.I would agree that research into abiogenesis is in its infancy, but I would not go so far as to conclude that they have 'no idea'.

Thanks for making and posting this video, Josh. I love this RDF TV series, and I hope you make many, many more. I'm saddened to see that the UofN state museum is perpetuating the version of the DNA double helix without the major and minor grooves, though :-(

@AThagoras well, i want to say real quick that i appreciate u taking the time to explain things.

LOL! that hilarious! - wolves to whales = magic!

@Denzilb55

9 жыл бұрын

LOL! that hilarious! - invisible sky man = magic!

@Cicero41336

9 жыл бұрын

Denzil Buchner Yes, evolution is how invisible sky man, pure imaginative fantasy! Where mud in sterile and hostile environment transforms into amoebas and then in humans and whales! lots and lots of magic!!

@Denzilb55

9 жыл бұрын

Cícero Where water is turned into wine, where water floods the entire earth and an amateur ship-builder and his family build a ship large enough to carry multiple of each species on the planet out of wood, where the water then settles and the kangeroos swim across the oceans to get to australia, where a man is swallowed alive by a whale and survives for a few days, where a man dies and comes back to life after 3 days, where a talking snake convinces a woman to disobey the invisible sky man. I concede. Religions like Christianity are not magic. The above things are normal, even when you are not high on acid. Explainable, understandable, demonstrable processes are, on the other hand, magic.

@luminography

9 жыл бұрын

Denzil Buchner than you denzil!

@luminography

9 жыл бұрын

luminography thank you i mean to say

The six creeds for the faith of Evolution. 1. I believe that life formed itself out of non-life. 2. I believe that thru sheer chance and time life has been able to diversify and mutate into larger and more complex animals. 3. I believe that I myself am nothing more that a mutated form of life. 4. I believe that life has and will continue to mutate into greater and more complex life forms. 5. I agree that none of my beliefs are scientific or observable but I choose to believe in them anyway. 6. I understand that my beliefs are irrational and will not be accepted by people without irrational faith. 7. I believe that the great evolutionary magic spell of "Millions and Millions of Years" has the power to break all known scientific laws and allow the impossible in nature to occur. 8. If a true scientist challenges my beliefs, I will state that my beliefs are actually based on science and after chanting the great Evolutionary spell I will misdirect their train of logic to establish my religion as a fact and not a voodoo faith.

@waltermendoza2141

10 жыл бұрын

***** Thank you Daniel, that's very kind. Conversely, if you knew everything I knew, or even just a small fragment of a portion, you'd understand that what you thought you previously knew of religion was obviously watered down junk, and if you did have a true, complete understanding, you'd know that if you had to feel sorry for anyone here, it would be you. But I appreciate the kind sentiment.

@waltermendoza2141

10 жыл бұрын

***** I one hundred percent accept your apology, and appreciate your explanation, thank you. I certainly wish you the best in your studies. As you study evolutionary biology, begin at the beginning. Evolution only affords us the very "scientific" explanation that life started "somehow"!?! Not too scientific if you ask me. Study what constitutes life and what a living cell is. (A complete mini-galaxy!) See if you can discern the difference between a fully organized species having the ability to adapt to it's environment for survival, but also having the limitations of not being able to ADD genetic information to it's gene pool so as to adapt beyond it's bounds as a species. I might be wrong, but probably the only difference in opinion that we might have is that through observable science I know that a species can diversify through adaptation, but it could never "evolve" past it's species type to ultimately become another completely distinct different species. The adaptation of species is science, the evolution of species is theory. I'm sure that you have been, and will continue to be, taught that both are science. Of course the proof is in the empirical evidence. I also hope that whatever you are taught makes complete, absolute, sense to you, and that you will have the intellectual integrity not to convince yourself to just go along because seemingly " 99 percent of scientists" appear to believe one thing or another.

@chaz9808

10 жыл бұрын

evolution says nothing about origin of life you moron go and learn about what you are actually talking about before criticizing it.

@waltermendoza2141

10 жыл бұрын

Charles Davis Charles not-Darwin. What? You actually believe evolution can speak? Lol! Evolution doesn't say ANYTHING! Get a clue buddy. If you believe in evolution by default you HAVE to believe in abiogenesis. Of course since life from non-life can't be proven by a long stretch, then you have to conveniently say that the two aren't connected. Here's your clue: They are! Good luck with that.

@juantwotree5710

10 жыл бұрын

The burden of proof is on you and your religion. Evolution is a theory comprised of evidence that formulated the theory. Your religion is starting off with a concept and then search for "evidences" that supports your ideology. You are satisfied with "you cant disprove god therefore it exist". "I dont understand evolution, therefore it must be lies". Science is not about "beliefs". What you believe and dont believe has nothing to do with reality. Just cause you dont believe gravity is pulling you down, and you choose to believe that its cause you dont have wings yet, does not make it so. So have fun being dumber than what our species is capable of. According to your criteria for theory being legit, you must not believe in the theory of gravity. Follow your original 8 points's logic (lack of), How do you think gravity works? Why do you believe what you believe? Im so confused as to how to begin telling how wrong you are. "could never evolve past its species type"? WTF? Species "adapt" enough will cause a significant amount of change and eventually could evolve. There are "different" species? How about we can trace the DNA, RNA. If you dont "believe" in DNA, then you are clueless as to how medicine works, you do "believe" in medicines right? Like how we have doubles our human life expectancy in the last 200yrs? If DNA doesnt work, medicines doesnt work. Evolution doesnt work, DNA doesnt work. Its not about your believe system, irregardless of your believe, science will still work. Even if you dont have "faith" in it.

you can compare skeletons with comparative anatomy. similar structures are also in different forms, and in some examples you can see the gradual changes and in fact reduction in some structures. like the mammalian ear for example. the mammalian ear evolved from jaw structures of earlier proto mammals. The proto mammalian jaw was hinged at the back, and jointed like earlier reptilian ancestors, and gradually this evolved into the inner ear of modern mammals.

Trey Smith's "Theory of Everything" puts quantum mechanics, string theory, archaeology, chemistry, biology and mathematics under the same roof, absolutely brilliant.

I can't wait for his new book.

Thanks for the vid.

It is so elegant not only that but you can look at the fossil evidence. Science for the win.

the whale hippo relation is an interesting new fact for me. Learning new things is always a plus.

great video professor

Lovely. Thank you!

great clip!

@benthemiester "Gingrich placed the nasal aperture to far back which is now known to be incorrect." the correct skull is used in the video. With the nasal aperture at the front. "Subsequent fossils have confirmed that its hearing was not adapted for underwater as once thought." The very first fossil to report on Pakicetus stated clearly "The otic region of the cranium lacks characteristic specializations of whales necessary for efficient directional hearing under water." (Gingerich, 1983)

@ProcInc cont... It was initially thought that the ears of Pakicetus were adapted for underwater hearing, but, as would be expected from the anatomy of the rest of this creature, the ears of Pakicetus are specialized for hearing on land, J. G. M. Thewissen, E. M. Williams, L. J. Roe and S. T. Hussain (2001). "Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls". Nature 413

great idea to do short videos with strong data, cause more people will be able to see them, cause 50 minutes videos are more for people already into these topics than starters, and starters look for simple answers or short explanations great idea ;)

There were 2 theories of how speciation occurs: gradualism(slow changes in little increments) and punctuated equilibrium (sudden noticeable changes). Since fossils were seen to have sudden changes in anatomy (such as the reduction in the number of toes in horses instead of a gradual shrinking of the other toes), I was taught that evolution occurs in sudden bursts.

@petercollins7730

Жыл бұрын

The relative consensus is that evolution works in both ways. There is a slow, gradual movement of change; when there are great or novel survival pressures, then speciation occurs very rapidly for a brief (in evolutionary terms) period. Best idea is that rapid evolution occurs because of a large die-off of a particular species, with the small remnant having the new trait.

"Sure OK." The reason is that in the image Pakicetus is the correct updated form. In fact going through my bookshelf last night I found 8 books that mention Pakicetus, 7 of which accurately describe it. The ones that do are Dawkins 2009, Pallen 2009, McNamara and Long 2007, Anderson and sues 2007 (from Uhen 2007), Switek 2010, Coyne 2009, Petto and Godrey (from Padian) 2007 The one that didn't was kid's book on prehistoric life (Dixon, 1992) and points out the real body isn't known.

Good morning For the protein coding sections the 3 x base4 nucleotides gives you 64 possibilities but only codes for a possible 21 amino acids plus "start copy" and "end copy" codes so there can be nucleotide errors that don't cause problems, say about three quarters are neutral (being generous). In the time that you collect the 20 "correct" mutations in the locations you want you statistically will collect 744/14, say 50 times as many in the rest.

True, which raises one small issue of what was that protein doing before and now cannot do because its making this new protein, we are already assuming that the bat and the whale had a spare copy of the code for the most similar protein we know and we are free to convert it to a new function, so its the extra amino acids and the function that are new. If I said "I made a new design for a light bulb" would you say "no you just changed the design of an existing light bulb"?

Wow, that's a great thing to know.

@emfederin feel free to correct me, the lung fish has gills does it? aswell as lungs?

Guys I have questions, 1) The video does show some intermediate species but still how would one know that they are really ancestors..so whats the criteria for declaring some species of animals are ancestor ? 2) How many human ancestors we have found so far ?

Dippy -Photographs of living whale back legs on whale embryos are incredible evidence of vestigial legs from a land based past .

It gets even more beautiful if you add Ambulocetus

Gapeless fossil records DO exit of several invertabrate marine species (fossilized by the billions) .They can be aranged like movie frames of transition/speciation .

Dippy - The antomy of the skulls , teeth and inner ear (to name just a few) are the key to knowing these species are within the same family .That deals with comparative anatomy by EXPERTS .

I'm happy to reply to your comments but I would be repeating a lot of the discussion I have had on this page with Bable Sucass and TheAurgelmir. It might be a bit more difficult to piece together the conversation due to the way it comes up on KZread but you will find links to the papers that address the protein code and the "DNA tree" that I was talking about. We also worked through some of the probability calculations.

I love to see theists panic and come up with the same damn arguments. *smiles*

Closet relative to the elephant is the hyrax, which looks sort of like a large tailess rat. Now THAT is surprising!

a creature called "microraptor" it has flight capable feathers shaping a double wing setup and also shows more clearly that feathers were on dinos before birds.

hello can anyone tell me where this awesome looking museum is?

@Undeterminable that's what used to blow my mind as well, because i used to have this idea that all mutations are by definition harmful.. but they're not, and that's how it happens, genetic mutations that synthesise more useful proteins which will help to give a life form an advantage over its competitors .. and people have seen it in action, there's a fish i read about some time ago (and i'm sorry but i couldn't find the article where i'd read about it) that's evolved, in living memory, to

No disrespect to mr dawkins, but this video didn't really include intermediate fossils which was what most of us came here to look at. This has a bit more information on intermediates: evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03 If you're looking for intermediate fossils this is probably a better place to start

It's that I assumed, when I first heard this, that some slight adaptation to a watery environment had occured before the division. (Because there aren't all that many mammals that live in water, I didn't expect the same (sort of) adaptation to occur twice in the same line (with no more landish living mammals surviving)) It looks like I assumed wrongly...

@Mayburyj its called convergence evolution when two different species come up with the same attribute while being completely separated

@AThagoras hmm... i'll admit, you've made sense to me about that. It Seems that it doesnt get better with time, exactly. i appreciate the time you took explaining it to me. i really do. But, i'm just not buying into it. On the bright side, i learned from talking to you, and that is something we can both agree on. Thank you for sharing your understanding, compassion, and wisdom. I just wish there were more like you in the world that would sit and explain rather than point and condemn. thanx again

Love that man.

pls can anyone tell me a documentary on whales? like their origin, etc. plssssssss?

@IloveYOUviruses "I wonder where does protocetus fits here" Chronologically and morphologically it belongs between Basilosaurus and Rhodocetus. It is beginning to be adept at hearing exclusively underwater and water probably wholly aquatic, rather than flippers it had stubby webbed intermediate feet-fins and probably a tale fluke, its nostril was migrated slightly further back than the ambulocetids (in fact about the same location as basilosaurus if not further forward)

@Entropy56 Why not? The beauty of evolution is that simplicity evolves to more functional complexity.

Awesome 👍

@SergeantSully Usually a segregation of the herd eg. an ocean or mountain range or migration. As the species adapts to it s environment, small changes are noticed. As those changes continue they become less familiar to the other branch, they eventually lose their ability to interbreed.The original animal goes away just like languages. Italian/Spanish/Portugese all came from Latin. As the languages were changed over time, they became their own language.

This is a great way of showing the intermediate stages between our modern species and the species of the past. It's just sad that someone will always raise their hand and say "Well where's the intermediate stages between THEM, huh?"

@LesPaul2006 my favorite part of Leviticus is where is says i can own slaves, as long as they are from a neighboring land. So im trying choose between a mexican and a canadian, do you have any advice about which would be the better slave?

@jessydaytime - well you do know that Noah, Abraham were much earlier than Jericho probably 3000 years prior. where do you get them throwing stones?

rhodocetus not complete only deduced the rest from partial skeleton findings. Please help me find a valid link that shows At least a full rhodocetus skull.

Yes, you can clearly see how those intermediate dots change just slightly from the dot before. I think the evolution of dots is indisputable.

are there any fossil records between the stages shown on that board or do they just appear in the records abruptly fully formed. If tiny changes happen slowly over time Im guessing there are thousands of intermediate fossils between the stages shown?

@xygnal

10 жыл бұрын

Let's be patient, scientists are working on it. :)

@Arcorn9000

10 жыл бұрын

It's incredibly rare for us to have any fossils. We happen to get the jumps due to the rare chances of things actually being fossilised so we happen to get the larger changes occurring. They may find something else to go into between those species and as such will update it. But they're just going off what they have.

@steveb0503

10 жыл бұрын

Could you even imagine a surviving, reproducing, and in every other way functional animal that is not "fully formed"? Yes, of course the intermediates between the intermediates shown remain as-yet unfound - even if you had EVERY LAST FOSSIL in an evolutionary sequence, you would never be able to tell the difference between parent and offspring. One species does not give birth to a member of another species (that is how GRADUALISM works) - it is only due to the gaps in the fossil record (or among living species) that we can distinguish one from another (although there are a handful of representative, closely-related species that merely DON'T interbreed - although they CAN - that are classified as separate species).

@theMstanglover

10 жыл бұрын

There actually a few more like the ambulocetus, which was actually the first fossil they found that was what paleotologists predicted the pakicetus to look like, but to really see gradualism, you'd have to see alteration in the DNA to find the small mutations that don't show in the fossils. There is also punctuated equilibrium, which is more rapid changes to explain the changes in the fossil record, but that still doesn't involve the Kirk Cameron idea of evolution, which involves one animal producing something different.

Finding fossils in the first place is rare, don't forget that it's sedimentary rock which replaces the bones of deceased animals over millions of years through time/pressure/heat.

Curious question. what causes a species to "split" or branch off into 2 different paths of geneology? And why does the original animal go away?

We seem to be going round in circles a bit now but it has been good, thanks. Have fun. The only person you need to impress is yourself.

@Brophybass I also laughed at your fish post. First, both Myllokunmingia and Haikouichthys were found under Cambrian era layers because they were in early Cambrian rock layers. Second, the reason someone told you they 'destroyed' evolution was because these fish existed earlier than we expected them to. What someone did not tell you, or show you, was their fossils, which are just about as simple as can be, which is what is to be expected in evolution. So, yeah, smooth.

@JungleJargon our ancestral habitat, trees, gave us our grasping hands .. our ancestors' size and the grasslands where they hung out gave us our posture.. our ancestors' size also gave us our habit of eating meat, which in its turn enabled us to develop larger brains.. larger brains and opposable thumbs gave us the ability to make and use tools, an ability that started to become as refined as it is now when it made us more effective hunters .. just a few examples off the top of my head

amen to that.

@AloofPeregrine They have many examples. And there are many examples of gradual transitions of given species.

But as you say some mutations are neutral. You have 64 possible outcomes from the 3 x base4 code but only 21 amino acids plus stop and start codes so roughly 2 out of ever 3 nucleotide changes won't alter the amino acid sequence so are "neutral" . 1 in 3 will alter the sequence possibly changing an amino acid you want (good) or changing one you wanted to keep(bad). The chances of a good over bad is still 1/53. or good 1/159, neutral 105/159, bad 53/159.

my dog has emotions did he get them from a spiritual process 2?

¡¡¡ VIVA LA EVOLUCION !!!

awesome!!!!! 5/5

@Haigon7206: Actually, it's interesting you should talk about sickle cell anemia as an example of how mutation is always bad. Sickle cell anemia CAN be advantageous under certain circumstances - it confers resistance to malaria. Cystic fibrosis confers resistance to cholera. Tay Sachs Disease confers resistance to tuberculosis. All emerged at points where these diseases were likely to kill a person a lot quicker than minor (most common) forms of these mutations.

I did google that. And what it seems to be is that they are still doing the sound creation different, but it is the way the sound is picked up that is highly similar. None of the articles I read through though seemed to think this broke convergent evolution, but seemed to suggest it strengthened the idea. They also seemed to point out that echo bats and teethed whales have a common ancestor after the ones they share whit none echo bats and none teethed whales. I don't see the problem here, sorry

So how do you suggest the environment exerts a pressure on the DNA code to innovate a protein that aids echolocation? remember that for just one different amino acid you need to add 3 DNA base pairs and to quote from the Stanford article on Bat and whales "two recent studies showing that the echolocational abilities of bats and whales are both based on the same 14 amino acid changes to a single gene, Prestin."

@SGTRandyB If you are refering to the "soap bubble" theory that we come from Volcanos. That same conditions exists today, that means that there are coming new humans and animals from the volcanos as we speak.

The idea that I'm testing mathematically is "can you go from a protein of 730 amino acids long to one 744 long, which is what the whale and bat must have done to create the Prestin. To achieve that we must alter a string of 14 x 3 neucleotides of unused DNA in a specific way to create the new protein but not destroy the 730 x 3 we already have. If the original protein is being used any change could stop it working, normally just 1 altered amino acid will do that . . .

@topfifth99 Probably, not. But I would point out there is a pink, quartz handaxe dating 350,000 years ago. The axe alone required abstract thought to seek out cut for this rare color, but the fact that it was found with 27 other pre-human Neanderthal bodies in what appeared to be a ritual burial site, also requiring abstract thought......says we are at least that old to me, but other finds suggest older still.

What specifically wouldn't you agree with, happy to correct anything that is wrong? The bit which flies in the face of convergent evolution is that the process of several specific mutations is hugely improbable with only a random driver but its difficult to know if there is only one possible solution or lots. If there are lots of possible solutions you have a better chance of finding one, but if the bat and whale ended up with exactly the same answer that is multiplying the improbabilities.

Show me the evidence! Show me the evidence! Show me the evidence!

wow, I kinda never thought that land animals evolved to aquatic ones, I always thought is was always the other way around, cool.

@sharprifleman The genome is limited in what it can do and what is possible is also limited. All directed functions, working parts and mechanisms always have a maker equal to or greater than whatever is made to work. The genome is the only thing able to reorganize the genome, nothing else does. Natural selection only selects what is reorganized by the genome.

1. a teacher of the highest academic rank in a college or university, who has been awarded the title Professor in a particular branch of learning; a full professor: a professor of Spanish literature. 2. any teacher who has the rank of professor, associate professor, or assistant professor. 3. a teacher. 4. an instructor in some art or skilled sport: a professor of singing; a professor of boxing. 5. a person who professes his or her sentiments, beliefs, etc. Option 5. He professes. ie Professor.

"You choose not to except that we dont know everything." I do at least know the difference between "except" and "accept". I accept and tout unabashedly that we do not know everything but I also accept the inescapable fact that there is plenty we do know (which you choose to deny and question the credibility, honesty and even sobriety of who doesn't follow suit). I also accept the model that allows us to discover more so that progress can be made in the sciences.

@Dirtboy101 Fossils are rare in general so that period is not really unusual. Exceptions are actually those sites that have plenty of fossils. That may happen for example when the bodies are buried in an oxygen free environment so theyre well preserved for a long time. Anyway, there are quite a lot of fossils from that period.

Okay, now explain to me how the first atom, or molecule appear in the universe. If energy is never lost, then how did it first appear?

there are a lot of undecideds who are genuinely curious about these things yet have no real information to go off of... information pointing one way or the other, in some cases. these videos help, trust me.

@ProcInc "It is worth noting that on page 171 of "The Greatest Show on Earth" an image of Pakicetus is featured. Guess why I bring this up" Sure OK. I'm sure this is going to be a good one.

@flyingscience2 What is your answer to the evidence in this video?

@PissAndFlatulence, Ah yes, "obvious evidence", the "Magic Arrow Of Truth", the indisputable manner in which the segmented lines lead from one photo of an animal to another. Fabulous! Bravo! Viva El Maricone!

@glendaweil Just google "list of transitional fossils" and check out the wiki, I'm sure there are more there then you think. There are nine listed for wales there.

This is very physical and it is material. All these conscientious thoughts people have originate from our brains processes mostly in the anterior prefrontal cortex where the centre that controls your emotions and inhibitions is. So please it is a very material thing; our conscience!

That explains it.

Actually I did know about that one lol. Learned it in grade 12 biology. It was pretty surprising then though. ^^