Discovering Tiktaalik - Finding Our Feet
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 сер 2024
- Subscribe - goo.gl/wpc2Q1
We’re all familiar with idea we descended from apes, but if we travel further back in time, our ancestors according to the fossil evidence, were far stranger.
I miss those days we used to swim in the ocean 😭😭
My inner fish is calling
And my inner sponge is allowing me to breath.
That is NOT a joke! It's a real theory and makes sense (if you study hard enough, that is).
Its youre ancestors
@@Justwantahoverbecause our lungs act like sponges
If we were fish millions of years ago then explain why I can't swim
@@someperson4865 cus your black
Tiktaalik > Adam and Eve
Tiktaalik is the GOAT
Creationists will say otherwise but, we have an almost complete skeleton.
The Department of Geosciences at conservative Baptist Baylor University has issued this statement:
*"The fossil record clearly indicates a progression in complexity of organisms from very simple fossil forms in the oldest rocks (>3.5 billion years old) to a broad spectrum from simple to complex forms in younger rocks, that some organisms that were once common are now extinct, and that the living organisms inhabiting our world today are similar (but generally not the same) as organisms represented as fossils in young sedimentary deposits, which in turn have evolutionary ancestors represented as fossils in yet older rocks.*
*Mammals, for example, are prevalent today and can be traced back in the fossil record for approximately 200 million years, but are not present as mammals in the fossil record before that; however, fossil forms that have reasonably been interpreted to be associated with the evolutionary precursors to mammals are found in older rocks. Whether biological evolution occurs has not been a matter of scientific debate for more than a century. It is considered a proven fact. The specific mechanisms of biological change over time continue to be a topic of active research, and include mechanisms proposed by Charles Darwin as well as more recently developed ideas based on our growing knowledge of genetics and molecular biology. Using the methods of modern science, our knowledge of the fundamental mechanisms of life has grown enormously since the initial characterization of the role of DNA in reproduction, inheritance and evolution in the mid-1950s.*
*The American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society, partnering with the most respected geoscience societies in America including the Geological Society of America, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (among others), have produced a booklet on evolution and the fossil record that can be downloaded as a PDF file. This booklet was written for the general public by people who have worked with the fossil record throughout their careers, and was thoroughly reviewed by other professional geologists and paleontologists."*
www.baylor.edu/geology/index.php?id=62340
That site also has a link to download above referenced "Evolution and the Fossil Record" by Pojeta and Springer. (1 MB PDF file). It also provides links to the position statements from other scientific organizations.
You just wrote some high school essay
*LIES CREATIONISTS TELL - About "Missing Links"* - There are gaps in the fossil record, simply because the conditions required for fossilization are rare and the vagaries of erosion and deposition. However, what is missing is not "links" as in a chain where each piece must be connected to another, but individual pieces of a jigsaw puzzle whose major components are apparent, but incomplete. Current evidence can be used to predict with some certainty, what the complete puzzle will look like. We also have a good idea of what the missing components should look like. As new fossils are discovered, those pieces fall into place, pretty much as what the Theory of Evolution would predict. The term "missing link" is fallacy. Whenever a new fossil comes to light, creationists claim "two more missing links".
Despite 'gaps' there are rather complete fossil records for a wide range of species; Horses, Whales, Manatees and Birds to name a few...
Non-Missing Links
blogs.discovermagazine.com/deadthings/files/2019/05/54878_web.jpg
.
slideplayer.com/slide/10972464/39/images/15/Dental+Arcade+Shape+of+jaw+U-shaped+Parabolic+Figure+11.10a.jpg
www.nature.com/scitable/content/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/89011226/figure2_v004-7-16_1_2.jpg
i.pinimg.com/originals/ae/85/5c/ae855c68ad298bc1860a2c3f661ae20c.jpg
i.pinimg.com/originals/ae/85/5c/ae855c68ad298bc1860a2c3f661ae20c.jpg
www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Klein5/publication/227751748/figure/fig3/AS:667915267354626@1536254817413/A-working-phylogeny-of-the-hominins-after-45-Ma-Ar-14-Ardipithecus-Au-14.png
1
.....
This explains why my goldfish looks at me so fondly ... Who knew we were related ??
Hahaha aha, 😂
Harold Voss Not that closely really. Our ancestors, like Tiktaalik, were Sarcopterygian (lobe finned) fishes. They dominated Devonian seas but the only extant sarcopterigian fishes are two species of Coelacanth and 6 species of Lungfish. Your Goldfish, like most of today's fishes, are Actinopterygian (ray finned) fishes.
Harold Voss
You know it’s thinking, "can I f... him, or will he f... me - or can I eat him, or will he eat me"
@@RandallWilks I'm just going to toss this out there and ASSUME you don't get sarcastic humor.. But thanks for your theory on evolution and humans coming from fish now that Darwin has been blown out of the water with his theory.. I don't buy it myself, just like I don't buy that we evolved from monkeys..
So I highly doubt you get my view which is Christian and my belief in God,
Anyway, have a great day
@@gorillaguerillaDK That's to funny.. but defiantly possible and made me look at that fish suspiciously just now
*EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - Diversification and Geographic Distribution of Species.* As one travels from one isolated landmass, to another, one sees patterns that fit with evolutionary theory. The mammals populating the Australasian continental landmass that included New Guinea and Tasmania as the ancient continent called Sahul were quite different from those elsewhere in the world. Prior to ancient man's arrival, the mammals populating that landmass were virtually all Marsupials; kangaroos, wombats, koalas, quolls, thylacenes, et al; found nowhere else in the world. So too, were the egg laying Monotremes (Platypus and Echidnas) also found nowhere else in the world. Indeed, prior to the coming of humans that brought the dingo, the only placental mammals were those that could swim there (seal) and those that could fly there (bats). It is very obvious that mammalian evolution took a quite different turn in that isolated landmass since placental mammals diverged from their non-placental forebears in the Early Cretaceous or Late Jurassic. It remained isolated from all other eutherian (placental) mammal migrations.
.
The almost universal absence of both native land mammals and amphibians on isolated islands argues against a creation event and those islands tell of a different evolutionary history. Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently arrived at the same conclusion as Charles Darwin regarding natural selection being the engine of evolution, spent many years collecting biological specimens in the Amazon and later on the Indonesian archipelago and New Guinea. What he discovered was sometimes tremendous differences in the fauna of neighboring islands and he discovered a pattern to the distribution of species; those on the western side of a hypothetical dividing line were identical or similar to, mainland Asian species. Those on the eastern side of the divide were more similar to those of Australasia, Australia and New Guinea. This line, now known as the Wallace Line denotes an area of deep water channels that would have prevented migration when sea levels were lower as during Ice Ages, while other areas would have had dry land connections. The islands Bali and Lompok, separated by a mere 20 miles, have quite different fauna. Wallace's studies of species distribution and barriers to their migration has earned him the title "father of biogeography".
Birds can fly from island to island, reptiles can swim or float on driftwood, plant seeds can be carried to different islands by wind, water or birds, but amphibians cannot survive in saltwater and most land mammals are limited by the distances they can swim. Those deep water channels restricted them to one side of that dividing line.
New Zealand is another prime example. With no native mammals, except again for those able to fly (bats) or swim (seals) there, birds assumed the ecological roles filled by mammals elsewhere. In the absence of ground dwelling predators, many birds abandoned energy consuming flight, the Kakapo, Kiwi and Moa among them. The wing of the kiwi is a mere vestige, no bigger than your little finger, with an equally useless claw at its end. (There's that "half a wing" creationists talk about.) ;-) i.imgur.com/OU30E2N.jpg?1
Other isolated islands also had their own unique flora and fauna, as did geologically recent islands such as the Galapagos and the Hawaiian Archipelago. The 13 or so species of Galapagos Finches, sometimes called "Darwin's Finches", are all relatively drab in color, varying in beak morphology and physical size. Despite their physical and genetic differences, creationists typically respond with "They are all still finches"; perpetuating their straw man version of evolution as "one animal turning into another." What they ignore is that the Theory of Evolution says no such thing. Evolution is the non-random selection of random mutations; it can only produce changes in existing body parts. Genetic changes (Genotype) take place constantly, Physiological changes (Phenotype) take place incrementally over thousands of generations, and not due to single mutations but accumulations of diverse mutations.
On the Hawaiian Islands, the indigenous population came up with imaginative names for the colorful bird population. On the Galapagos however, there were no indigenous peoples to name these birds and they were given very prosaic names by the scientists studying them. Giving them names like Small Ground Finch, Medium Ground Finch and Large Ground Finch were descriptive but glossed over their genetic differences and gave credence to the creationist claim "They are still finches".
biogilde.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/tentilhoes2.jpg
www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Geospiza_beaks.jpg
c8.alamy.com/comp/EX6N0C/adaptive-radiation-in-galapagos-finches-EX6N0C.jpg
On the Hawaiian Islands, the science of comparative genomics shows that another species of finch, the Laysan Finch, underwent adaptive radiation into what was, at one time, 55 species of Honey creepers of which only 18 survive. Unlike the Galapagos Finches that were similarly drab in coloration, the various Honeycreepers exhibit wide differences in plumage coloration and had widely varying bill shapes. Some of the nectar feeders have co-evolved with a specific plant species, their uniquely shaped bills providing polination. Extinction of one of those bird species usually results in the extinction of its co-evolutionary plant counterpart.
slideplayer.com/slide/6644481/23/images/44/Adaptive+Radiation+in+honeycreepers.jpg
images.slideplayer.com/24/7380275/slides/slide_15.jpg
www.hokulea.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/slide_47.jpg
The same is true of many plants whose ancestral seeds found their way to these islands. The many species of the beautiful Hawaiian Silver Sword and their relatives, collectively known as the Hawaiian Silver Sword Alliance, are an example of adaptive radiation in plants over millions of years from an ancestral pacific coast tarweed. Nor is that an isolated example, fully 95% of Hawaii's endemic plant species are found nowhere else in the world.
www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&channel=cus&q=Hawaiian+Silver+Sword+Alliance
bio1151.nicerweb.com/Locked/media/ch25/25_18-SilverswordRadia-L.jpg
Mauritania had the Elephant Bird and the Dodo, neither one of which flew there, and they sure as hell didn't swim. Perhaps Noah dropped them off there while trying to find his way back to the Middle East, you think?
Madagascar, the world's fourth largest island, was separated from other landmasses for 88 million years. During that time plants and animals on the island evolved in isolation; 80% of which exist nowhere else in the world. In each of these areas, evolution took separate paths that refute the creationist concept of a creation event.
Since birds can fly and establish new and distant populations, they can establish diverse populations where genetic drift alone could result in new species and be further shaped by environmental and ecological factors. The fossil record shows that once birds were able to take to the air and migrate, there was rapid diversification. Again, when the asteroid impact that wiped out all the non-avian dinosaurs, it also resulted in the extinction of most avian dinosaur (bird) species. The plethora of new environmental niches again allowed birds to diversify rapidly. That expansion and diversification had been duplicated whenever the opportunity has presented itself.
Yet birds are not the only examples of rapid diversification. Cichlid fishes in Africa's Rift valley have exhibited the same diversification whenever new lakes were formed and founder populations made their way into them. The same has occurred with Anole lizards on Caribbean Islands.
Charles Darwin made remarkable observations 150 years ago and since then biologists, geneticists, geologists, biochemists and other related fields have continued to do so and in every case further evidence is accumulated in support of what is now called the Modern Synthesis of Evolution.
Explaining General Patterns in Species Abundance and Distributions www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/explaining-general-patterns-in-species-abundance-and-23162842
*Anole lizard evolution*
New Lizard Shows Evolution’s Predictability www.quantamagazine.org/anole-lizard-discovery-confirms-that-evolution-is-predictable-20160629/
The Rapid-Fire Evolution of Green Anoles scitechdaily.com/rapid-fire-evolution-green-anoles/
*Cichlid fishes evolution*
Cichlid fish genome helps tell story of adaptive evolution, Stanford scientists say news.stanford.edu/news/2014/september/fish-genome-fernald-092214.html
The Extraordinary Evolution of Cichlid Fishes www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-extraordinary-evolution-of-cichlid-fishes/
Video: Evolution, Speciation, and Adaptation of Cichlid Fish ua-cam.com/video/O4Gm62x6NWg/v-deo.html
The whole premise of this is wrong. We don't need to find every "missing link". We've found transitional fossils for every major group. The whole theory doesn't rest on having a complete record of everything that lived on earth. lol
I think god is very clever to put in place so much evidence for evolution and simultaneously confound a few people into thinking the evidence does not exist.
The closest similarity I can think of is telling a new mother her baby is ugly.
Most Christians have no problem accepting the evidence for evolution. The Episcopalian, Catholic, Presbyterian and United Methodist churches, among others, have all issued statements endorsing evolution as fact and consistent with Christian doctrine. Thousands of Christian ministers have signed the Christian Clergy Letter www.theclergyletterproject.org/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
While acceptance of evolution is lowest among Evangelicals, many of them find the evidence for it compelling. Dr. Francis Collins (PhD and MD) formerly director of the Human Genome Project and currently director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a devout Evangelist, has this to say: *"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."* AND.... *"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."*
There is an Evangelical website, BioLogos.org, by scientists of faith that are dedicated to reconciling science and religion. Their videos are excellent sources of factual information. Check it out.
It is the fundamentalist fringe that tries to characterize the conflict they alone have created, as one between Christianity and Atheism when one's religious or philosophical views have nothing to do with science. In their narrow view, anyone not following their rigid thinking is an atheist and an enemy to be attacked. In so doing, they have created divisions within the religion they claim to be the exclusive arbiters thereof. They serve neither their religion nor science.
It is important to differentiate between Christianity and creationism, the two are not synonymous. Although those who assert creation myths to be factual, can label themselves as either Christian or Muslim, they tend to label anyone not sharing those views as Atheists. One need only scroll up to see that there is a 6 to 1 approval rating for this video. While one can safely assume they vast majority of disapproval comes from creationists, most of the approval must come from those regarding themselves as Christian, since according to polls, atheists make up only about 10% of the population.
Which God?
@@MeeJunksEavy
The unintelligent designer, of course. Everyone knows the Flying Spaghetti Monster takes no responsibility for its mistakes.
R'Amen+Women. Peas and meatballs be upon him.
*A COMMON MISCONCEPTION is that evolution should lead to some particular trait,* such as a large brain. There is no "goal' to evolution; not speed, not strength, not intelligence and certainly not 'humanity'. Evolution is about one thing: survival. Evolution occurs at the molecular level. Mutations occur with every cell division and replication in every living species. Those mutations are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. It is the then current environment which wields the pruning shears, favoring those mutations that best suit the organism for that environment and apes were very well suited for their forest environment.
Millions of years ago, when forests covered much of Africa, those forests harbored 30 or more species of apes, but as the climate of east Africa changed becoming dryer, the forests diminished and grasslands expanded. Competition among apes species increased and many went extinct.
One population of apes that opted for life on the open savanna stood on two feet and faced different evolutionary pressures that set their descendants on an evolutionary trajectory that culminated in us. The populations of apes that stayed in the forests became today's chimps, bonobos, orangs and gorillas.
The modern human brain is about 2% of total body mass, yet is requires fully 20% of total caloric consumption. I think you can understand that for most animals it is a daily challenge to consume enough calories just to survive, and the energy demands of a larger brain would be more of a burden than an asset. It is also the case that the larger human brain requires that babies be born at a less advanced stage of neural development placing an additional burden primarily on the mother. Japanese researchers have compared brain scans of baby macaques, chimps and human children and found that brain volume for both chimp and human babies increase at three times the rate of infant macaques, however, during early childhood, human brain expansion was twice that of chimpanzees due to rapid growth of connections between brain cells. In the human infant, fully 60% of caloric intake go into neuronal development. For just about any other species, the necessity for such a long childhood would place them at a survival disadvantage.
We are just now beginning to understand the environmental pressures that lead to a larger brain; increasingly complex social networks, the development of language that enabled a culture built around tool manufacture and use and cooperative hunting no doubt played a role. The challenges of a rapidly changing climate may also have been a contributing factor. But if it had not been for the development of language, humanity would have had to continuously re-invent the Acheulian Hand Axe. Two factors allowing human speech are the hyoid bone, also present in Neanderthals, to which the muscles of the tongue are attached, and a particular variant of the FOXP2 gene found in other mammals that allows for complex speech. Humans share this variant with both Neanderthal and Denisovans, indicating that it was inherited from a common ancestor. Neither chimps, bonobos or other apes have that variation, indicating that it arose sometime after the species diverged.
So, yes, the human evolutionary history is indeed complex, but as Richard Feynman said, "Science is the joy of finding things out.". We are getting a lot of clues as to the expansion of the human brain from embryology and comparative genomics, but we see a progression in brain size from early mammals to primates, to monkeys, to apes and to humans. In addition, while most mammal brains are smooth, primate brains have convolutions which increase the surface area of the cortex. Those convolutions increase from monkeys to apes and more in humans.
See: "Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language". Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano, Anthony P. Monaco, Svante Pääbo Nature 418, 869 - 872 (22 Aug 2002) www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6900/full/nature01025.html
------------------
"The increase in total cerebral volume during early infancy and the juvenile stage in chimpanzees and humans was approximately three times greater than that in macaques," the researchers wrote in the journal article.
But human brains expanded much more dramatically than chimpanzee brains during the first few years of life; most of that human-brain expansion was driven by explosive growth in the connections between brain cells, which manifests itself in an expansion in white matter. Chimpanzee brain volumes ballooned about half that of humans' expansion during that time period.
Human Intelligence Secrets Revealed by Chimp Brains
By Tia Ghose, Senior Writer | December 18, 2012 07:01pm
www.livescience.com/25655-chimp-brains-reveal-human-intelligence.html
*The American Association for the Advancement of Science statement on evolution:*
*"Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education. The AAAS Board of Directors is deeply concerned, therefore, about legislation and policies recently introduced in a number of states and localities that would undermine the teaching of evolution and deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens in an increasingly technological, global community. Although their language and strategy differ, all of these proposals, if passed, would weaken science education. The AAAS Board of Directors strongly opposes these attacks on the integrity of science and science education. They threaten not just the teaching of evolution, but students’ understanding of the biological, physical, and geological sciences."*
Creationists, who are often scientifically illiterate, often make the claim that evolution is not really science. The AAAS, in essence, is saying they lie.
The concept of a ''creator entity'' has been a popular one, quite possibly originating with early language. If Homo erectus had the ability for language, some supernatural entity would have served as an explanation for thunder. To the primitive mind, some variation of "Goddidit" would have seemed quite plausible and even reasonable since it could be used to explain almost anything. It was such a useful explanation that there are about 3000 or so different versions. Unfortunately, there is not a shred of evidence for any of them.
A recent version involves an entity titled "Intelligent Designer" that serves the same purpose but attempts to dissociate itself from religion. Court cases have not seen that as a valid argument nor has it earned the respect most of those men and women who have dedicated their lives to science.
You can have both God and evolution.
@@MrFossil367ab45gfyth Certainly, everyone has a right to their opinion. The human mind has conjured up more than 3000 gods and goddesses; surely one or more of them does exist. Right?
The earth even our universe is small fry in comparison to the concept of god(s) which in itself is an unfathomable concept.. god could have not interfered with earth or the formation of life and biodiversity yet still exist.
@@MrFossil367ab45gfyth lol
@@MrFossil367ab45gfyth not at all
*Lies Creationists Tell - about Transitional Fossils - "Missing Links"*
*Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that tangibly and demonstrably encode an evolutionary transition. Thus, transitional fossils are characterized by their retention of primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in contrast with their more recently evolved characteristics (the phenotype and genotype).
The term "missing link" is a popular slang term for such transitional forms, but is misleading. The term is particularly used in popular media, but is inaccurate and confusing, partly because it implies that there exists a single undiscovered fossil that is needed to confirm the transition. In contrast, the continual discovery of more and more transitional fossils is further refining and validating evolutionary transitions. Transitional fossils are numerous and varied throughout the tree of life, including those between primates and early humans, contrary to the claims of creationists who deny evolution.
Evolutionary theory considers all populations of organisms to be in transition, whether changes be slow, as in genetic drift, or fast, as when a changing environment imposes significant adaptive pressures. A transitional form of life is one that demonstrably illustrates a particular intermediate evolutionary stage of change or adaptation.
Transitional fossils usually coexist with gaps in a sequence in the fossil record. The probabilities of fossilization pretty much precludes the discovery of detailed sequences of fossils spanning millions of years. However, fine gradations of fossils between species and genera are abundant in the fossil record, as are coarser sequences between higher taxa.*
One need only do a search on 'Transitional Fossils' to see numerous examples. There are thousands of transitional fossils and more coming to light all the time. Lying about them won't make them go away. In the past, most fossils were discovered by accident, and while many are still discovered that way, paleontologists today plan their digs well in advance, using geologic survey data. Fifty years ago, we had no transitional whale fossils. Since then, using advanced geologic maps and the predictive ability of the Theory of evolution, there have been many remarkable finds in the appropriate geologic strata in places like India, Pakistan and Egypt. So, what has been the creationist reaction? To claim that each new discovery creates 2 more "missing links".
References:
Yay my iguana is my distant cousin 💕
Edit: also first
Be kind to it.
Im having the best time watching science videos and christian apologetics videos on the same topics. Its better than stand up comedy.
*FACTS ABOUT THE BIBLE* People reading the bible should realize that every single supposed incident took place within an extremely small radius of the middle east. According to Barnes' Notes on the Bible, the direct distance of Babylon from Jerusalem is about 520 miles (as the crow flies); the more circuitous route used by caravans or armies went via Carchemish and the Orontes valley, is about 900 miles.
Virtually every other event in the bible took place in a much smaller radius of Jerusalem, the capitol of the Kingdom of Judea. The Judahites (the original Jews), were genetically identical to Canaanites, their alphabet and language both derived from Canaanite precursors, as was their religion. Genetically, The 'Israelites' were Canaanites, as were the Phoenecians and other peoples of the Levant.
According to Bible Odyssey, Egypt is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible almost seven hundred times, and it is referred to another 25 times in the New Testament, making it the most frequently mentioned place outside Canaan in the Bible. In biblical times, Egypt was already an ancient civilization and the pyramids were thousands of years old.
For all the times Egypt is mentioned in the bible, never once was there any reference either the pyramids or the Great Sphinx, most likely because authors of the bible were never there. There is no mention in any Egyptian writing of any of the biblical patriarches; not Abraham and Sarah; not of Joseph who supposedly attained high rank in Pharaoh's court; nor any mention of his suppoed progeny that supposedly spent 400 years in slavery there. Not once is there any mention of a man named Moses who was supposedly saved as an infant by his mother floating him down the Nile in a reed boat. That story is virtually identical to the legend of Sargon the Great (a real person), whose mother saved him by floating him in a reed boat down the Euphrates River in Mesopotamia. According to the bible, Moses also supposedly had high rank in a later pharaoh's court. There is in Egypt no mention of him, of deaths of all first born children in Egypt, nor of sticks turning into snakes. No mention or even evidence of a significant loss of population and the economic impact it would have had, and no mention of the loss of a pharaoh, let alone loss of an army with 500 chariots that would have weakened Egypt militarily for decades to come.
TRUTH is determined by EVIDENCE, not by wat anyone says and not by words in an old book. The rules of evidence are this: *If you don't have any...YOU LOSE!*
There are however, unscrupulous people, motivated by religious fervor, that would go so far as to manufacture bogus evidence they hope would support a story they really wish to be true. Such a person was Ron Wyatt, a con man whose only legitimate occupation was as nurse-anesthetist in a hospital in Madison, Tennessee. When he found he could make money bullshitting religious fanatics his financial situation improved immensely. This 'Indiana Jones wannabe' has no archeological qualifications whatsoever, yet has claimed almost 100 Bible-related discoveries. He has been criticized by scientists, historians, biblical scholars, as well as some creationists. He ranks among the great con artists who find fertile ground among people who have a compulsive need to believe.
Now there are many people who have been taught since childhood that the bible is the absolute word of god, that everything in it is the literal truth and if they don't believe it, you will burn in Hell forever and ever, because god loves you. You were told that by the people who raised you, fed you, cared for you and probably loved you. They told you that, because that is what THEIR parents told THEM.
A belief is an idea that neither seeks nor requires verifiable evidence. Beliefs exist in the human mind. Those who seek answers based on opinions or beliefs are most likely to fall prey to self deception and seek confirmation of their bias. Truth is determined by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says and not by words in some old book.
U don't need to find a transitional animal to prove evolution. The script almost made me skip the video
And this from the National Academy of Sciences: *“The concept of biological evolution is one of the most important ideas ever generated by the application of scientific methods to the natural world. The evolution of all the organisms that live on earth today from ancestors that lived in the past is at the core of genetics, biochemistry, neurobiology, physiology, ecology, and other biological disciplines. It helps to explain the emergence of new infectious diseases, the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the agricultural relationships among wild and domestic plants and animals, the composition of the earth's atmosphere, the molecular machinery of the cell, the similarities between human beings and other primates, and countless other features of the biological and physical world. As the great geneticist and evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in 1973, ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution’.”*
Every new found fossil is a missing link!
Evolution: life's way of constantly proclaiming "it's not a bug, it's a feature!" and hoping to survive long enough to brag about it.
not everything leaves a fossil, I think it's less than 1%
A FISH THAT IVENTED WALKING?
@Akane Nothing was 'invented'. Sarcopterygian (lobe finned) fishes dominated Devonian seas, lakes and rivers. Those 'lobed fins' contained muscles and bones homologous to those of today's land vertebrates (tetrapods). In freshwater swamps where early tetrapod fossils are found, those fins became useful appendages for pushing through underwater vegetation and fallen tree limbs.
The transitional fossil Tiktaalik, discovered in 2004 in the Canadian Arctic, was one such Sarcopterygian 'fishapod', having lungs as well a gills, a flat head with eyes on top and a 'neck' allowing independent head movement. Those are traits that suit a shallow water predator.
The limbs of Acanthostega, an early tetrapod, would not have supported it on land, but the rib cage and shoulder girdle of ichthyostega were more robust and could have been used as 'front wheel drive' for ventures onto land where insects and other arthropods were plentiful.
THAT is how evolution works, by incremental modification of existing structures
*EVIDENCE VS 'PROOF'* Everyone should understand that "proof" is a concept of mathematics where absolute certainty is possible. Logically, truth is established by evidence, not by what anyone says. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion that is always PROVISIONAL. As further evidence accumulates in support of that conclusion, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports a conclusion and none refutes it, it can become a Scientific Theory, which, in science is the highest degree of certainty possible.
Scientific Theories are regarded as true and valued for their predictive abilities, but never considered 'proven'. There can be so much evidence supporting a Scientific Theory that it would be perverse to deny it, but since science is a search for truth and that search never ends, such theories are still technically provisional. A commitment to that search for truth requires allowing for the possibility, no matter how remote, that some future piece of evidence may not be consistent with the theory, in which case the theory must be amended or discarded.
That is what sets science apart from religion. "I cannot stress often enough that what science is all about is not proving things to be true, but proving them to be false." - Physicist Lawrence Krauss. Much the same idea was expressed by Albert Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".
Yeah evolution !!
Yeah creation !!
@@LizatDevv i like dinosaurs too , Alan
Yeah INTELLIGENT DESIGN DIVINE
Wohy
@@lycaonpictus4433 dont call me alan
Oh and they touted a missing link between these twos, they called it "Titalac"
yeah take that creationists!
😐
You do understand that the cofounder of evolution sir Alfred Wallace stated that evolution and god coincided
*Evolutionist Christians have entered the room*
Buy Gold & Silver Bullion
It's definitely hot 💰👈😉
Those tiktaalik bones are my great
F
Great great great great great mega grandfather’s
Life would been excellent if there was no pain and deaths and war and cancer and starvation.
Eyy it’s my great^1000 grandfather
Like him David too
Charlie Griffith's sent me.
bala bala bala, nothing has been proven by this.
Very interesting 🤔
People can find that fish becuz its still alive and we can make him pet
tiktaalik is extinct for millions of years.
but there are other fish in the sea
NOOOO 😭
Just when l was riveted to this, it ended without finishing or warning. It just stopped short. Lame!!!
*Tiktaalik to Tiktok*
Lmao this comment section is amusing to look at
Al-Hajj 22:5
يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّاسُ إِن كُنتُمْ فِى رَيْبٍ مِّنَ ٱلْبَعْثِ فَإِنَّا خَلَقْنَٰكُم مِّن تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ مِن نُّطْفَةٍ ثُمَّ مِنْ عَلَقَةٍ ثُمَّ مِن مُّضْغَةٍ مُّخَلَّقَةٍ وَغَيْرِ مُخَلَّقَةٍ لِّنُبَيِّنَ لَكُمْۚ وَنُقِرُّ فِى ٱلْأَرْحَامِ مَا نَشَآءُ إِلَىٰٓ أَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى ثُمَّ نُخْرِجُكُمْ طِفْلًا ثُمَّ لِتَبْلُغُوٓا۟ أَشُدَّكُمْۖ وَمِنكُم مَّن يُتَوَفَّىٰ وَمِنكُم مَّن يُرَدُّ إِلَىٰٓ أَرْذَلِ ٱلْعُمُرِ لِكَيْلَا يَعْلَمَ مِنۢ بَعْدِ عِلْمٍ شَيْـًٔاۚ وَتَرَى ٱلْأَرْضَ هَامِدَةً فَإِذَآ أَنزَلْنَا عَلَيْهَا ٱلْمَآءَ ٱهْتَزَّتْ وَرَبَتْ وَأَنۢبَتَتْ مِن كُلِّ زَوْجٍۭ بَهِيجٍ
O People, if you should be in doubt about the Resurrection, then [consider that] indeed, We created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a clinging clot, and then from a lump of flesh, formed and unformed - that We may show you. And We settle in the wombs whom We will for a specified term, then We bring you out as a child, and then [We develop you] that you may reach your [time of] maturity. And among you is he who is taken in [early] death, and among you is he who is returned to the most decrepit [old] age so that he knows, after [once having] knowledge, nothing. And you see the earth barren, but when We send down upon it rain, it quivers and swells and grows [something] of every beautiful kind.
.....
Fatir 35:11
وَٱللَّهُ خَلَقَكُم مِّن تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ مِن نُّطْفَةٍ ثُمَّ جَعَلَكُمْ أَزْوَٰجًاۚ وَمَا تَحْمِلُ مِنْ أُنثَىٰ وَلَا تَضَعُ إِلَّا بِعِلْمِهِۦۚ وَمَا يُعَمَّرُ مِن مُّعَمَّرٍ وَلَا يُنقَصُ مِنْ عُمُرِهِۦٓ إِلَّا فِى كِتَٰبٍۚ إِنَّ ذَٰلِكَ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ يَسِيرٌ
And Allah created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop; then He made you mates. And no female conceives nor does she give birth except with His knowledge. And no aged person is granted [additional] life nor is his lifespan lessened but that it is in a register. Indeed, that for Allah is easy.
.....
Ghafir 40:67
هُوَ ٱلَّذِى خَلَقَكُم مِّن تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ مِن نُّطْفَةٍ ثُمَّ مِنْ عَلَقَةٍ ثُمَّ يُخْرِجُكُمْ طِفْلًا ثُمَّ لِتَبْلُغُوٓا۟ أَشُدَّكُمْ ثُمَّ لِتَكُونُوا۟ شُيُوخًاۚ وَمِنكُم مَّن يُتَوَفَّىٰ مِن قَبْلُۖ وَلِتَبْلُغُوٓا۟ أَجَلًا مُّسَمًّى وَلَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ
It is He who created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a clinging clot; then He brings you out as a child; then [He develops you] that you reach your [time of] maturity, then [further] that you become elders. And among you is he who is taken in death before [that], so that you reach a specified term; and perhaps you will use reason.
get Quran App:bit.ly/AlQuranApp
#GreentechApps
Was geht ab loooo
Sksisjsj paid yes
Cool amber Hansen say ray told me say rat dumb yes
God is having a big belly laugh right now.
God was a tremendous invention and a great benefit to mankind. Before man created God, they felt really stupid. Confronted with any question, all they could say was "Gee, I don't know" and no matter how hard they thought, they couldn't think of a better answer.
Then someone came up with the brilliant idea of God. It was wonderful, it obviated the need to think about anything. The answer could always be "Gee, I don't know, it must be God." Problem solved. The "God concept" alleviated the need to think about mundane things and they could concentrate on serious questions, like "How many bibles can we sell?" There was no incentive for human intellect to advance beyond that of ancient goat herders. Religions need to perpetuate ignorance in order to preserve their influence.
It is quite likely that the "god concept" originated with Homo erectus as an explanation for thunder.
@@RandallWilks Ok
@@RandallWilks OK atheist
@@sharpballer7751 If there was any evidence for an invisible supernatural entity, it would be reasonable to believe in one.
In the complete absence of such evidence, such a belief is not reasonable. TRUTH is determined by *EVIDENCE,* not by what anyone says and not by words in an old book.
@@sharpballer7751 I believe this only works if the term you are using is, in fact, an insult. Saying “OK Theist” would be better suited to the “ OK Boomer” format because both hold beliefs that are fundamentally harmful to the advancement of humanity
This stuff is so ridiculous. If you want to discredit God, that's your own ignorance. But to make up stuff and say we evolved from this and that and in your own video said there is no proof and missing links is just ignorant.
what proof is there that god exists?
an old book
look at your own beliefs before debunking others.
@@redditus I love how scientist can study the DNA of modern creatures and connect them to animals from millions of years ago...But they can't even connect and find the evolutionary sequence in humans & apes and both species are still on Earth 🤣😂. Yet people still believe this evolution non sense.
@@thegamingchef3304 first of all, they can find the evolutionary sequence between humans and apes. And second of all, who are you to be saying this stuff, you’re not a scientist.
@@redditus Who are scientists? And they have stated they have not found the evolutionary link or rather missing link between man and ape. Stop lying to make yourself feel better.
You don’t understand fossils and evolution and that’s ok we can help you
Hahaha most stupid findings ever seen..😅😅😅😅😅😅 it doesn't prove anything ..
*EVIDENCE VS 'PROOF'* Everyone should understand that "proof" is a concept of mathematics where absolute certainty is possible. Logically, truth is established by evidence, not by what anyone says. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion that is always PROVISIONAL. As further evidence accumulates in support of that conclusion, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports a conclusion and none refutes it, it can become a Scientific Theory, which, in science is the highest degree of certainty possible.
Scientific Theories are regarded as true and valued for their predictive abilities, but never considered 'proven'. There can be so much evidence supporting a Scientific Theory that it would be perverse to deny it, but since science is a search for truth and that search never ends, such theories are still technically provisional. A commitment to that search for truth requires allowing for the possibility, no matter how remote, that some future piece of evidence may not be consistent with the theory, in which case the theory must be amended or discarded.
That is what sets science apart from religion. "I cannot stress often enough that what science is all about is not proving things to be true, but proving them to be false." - Physicist Lawrence Krauss. Much the same idea was expressed by Albert Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".
The theory sometimes makes human brain hallucinate
Nope. It is religion that requires self deception.
Creationist here...
even if evolution is true (I don’t believe macro evolution is factual) There could still be a God.
As a matter of fact neither evolution or any other branch of science makes any claim as to the existence or non existence of supernatural entities. Science is a search for truth and it does so by following evidence to a conclusion. All evidence supports evolution and none refutes it.
Most Christians have no problem accepting the evidence for evolution. The Episcopalian, Catholic, Presbyterian and United Methodist churches, among others, have all issued statements endorsing evolution as fact and consistent with Christian doctrine. Thousands of Christian ministers have signed the Christian Clergy Letter www.theclergyletterproject.org/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
While acceptance of evolution is lowest among Evangelicals, many of them find the evidence for it compelling. Dr. Francis Collins (PhD and MD) formerly director of the Human Genome Project and currently director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a devout Evangelist, has this to say: *"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."* AND.... *"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."*
There is an Evangelical website, BioLogos.org, by scientists of faith that are dedicated to reconciling science and religion. Their videos are excellent sources of factual information. Check it out.
It is the fundamentalist fringe that tries to characterize the conflict they alone have created, as one between Christianity and Atheism when one's religious or philosophical views have nothing to do with science. In their narrow view, anyone not following their rigid thinking is an atheist and an enemy to be attacked. In so doing, they have created divisions within the religion they claim to be the exclusive arbiters thereof. They serve neither their religion nor science.
It is important to differentiate between Christianity and creationism, the two are not synonymous. Although those who assert creation myths to be factual, can label themselves as either Christian or Muslim, they tend to label anyone not sharing those views as Atheists. One need only scroll up to see that there is an 8 to 1 approval ratio for this video. While one can safely assume they vast majority of disapproval comes from creationists, most of the approval must come from those regarding themselves as Christian, since according to polls, atheists make up only about 10% of the population.
Javier, Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testable and falsifiable hypotheses and theories all of which must be backed by evidence. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion that is always PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). There are degrees of certainty in science and as further evidence accumulates in support of that conclusion, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports a conclusion and none refutes it, it may be regarded as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which, in science, is the HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE. That is true for Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, Heliocentric Theory, Theories of Relativity, et al. They are all explanations for observed phenomena and they are all backed by massive evidence.
Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate personal bias and follow evidence wherever it leads. THAT is the path to truth, and that is science.
Evolution is a fact. the adjectives Macro and Micro are merely adjectives denoting quantity. Evolution is a PROCESS, not an event. It would be no more possible to determine as what point speciation had occurred than to point to where on a color spectrum orange became red.
Randall Wilks
Had a feeling you would respond. I don’t believe the scientific impossibility that “that which rocks dream about” (Nothing) created everything. And to say we simply don’t know how the Big Bang happened but we will is a faith claim in its self. I appreciate your response Randal I would love to speak to you in person... thanks.
@@javiermendoza6288 Where do you get this nonsense about rocks? Can you cite any science text book or journal article that makes such a claim? Of course you can't. It is the usual bogus creationist mind fart. It is 'straw man' argument, a logical fallacy. You engage in fallacies as you have no real evidence by which to counter evolution. The "Big Bang" Theory is cosmology and has nothing to do with evolution.
Randall Wilks I respectfully disagree. I’m not trying to debate you What would you consider evidence tho? I believe in a creator. That’s why I said in the first comment “I am a creationist” Through the comment section I was reading comments against God So I simply said even if evolution is true God can still exist.
If the group of scientists that we have now were around when Darwin was living. They would have destroyed him made sure that he never worked again. That's what science is about nowadays. Clinging on to their beliefs. It's a new religion!
Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testable and falsifiable hypotheses and theories all of which must be backed by evidence. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion that is always PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). There are degrees of certainty in science and as further evidence accumulates in support of that conclusion, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports a conclusion and none refutes it, it may be regarded as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which, in science, is the HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE. That is true for Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, Heliocentric Theory, Theories of Relativity, et al. They are all explanations for observed phenomena and they are all backed by massive evidence.
Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate personal bias and follow evidence wherever it leads. THAT is the path to truth, and that is science.
*LIES CREATIONISTS TELL - about Charles Darwin* Frustrated by their inability to refute the Theory of Evolution with factual evidence, creationists in their desperation turn to lies, personal attacks and slander of Charles Darwin, a man who died 130 years ago and was by all accounts a kindly gentleman. Creationists seem to think that by attacking and denigrating Charles Darwin or anyone else who accepts the evidence of evolution, that by doing so they discredit the idea of evolution and bolster creation mythology. What they fail to realize is that authority in science comes not from a person, but from the evidence. .
Whereas science is restricted to demonstrable fact, creationists have no such limitations. Since he is dead and few people have actually read his works, they feel entitled to misquote, quote out of context, quote mine and outright lie sacrificing their personal integrity by doing so. Had they been at all honest, they would have said that Darwin is one of the most highly respected scientists of his day and his ideas, along with those of Gregor Mendel form the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Every new discovery has supported evolutionary theory and none has detracted from it. In the words of Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
Darwin was from a wealthy family; his father and grandfather were well to do physicians, and he married into the wealthy Wedgewood family. This was rather the case for most scientists of his day who were thus able to devote themselves full time to the pursuit of knowledge. Charles Darwin, at age 22 was a recent graduate of Cambridge University with a degree in theology. Because of his social status and education, was deemed a suitable traveling companion for Captain Robert FitzRoy aboard the HMS Beagle. Had it not been for that fateful occasion, Charles Darwin would have become an Anglican country parson and faded into obscurity.
In order to maintain discipline, ship captains were forbidden to fraternize with the crew. That made their stressful and demanding job a very lonely one and they were allowed to invite qualified civilians on voyages to alleviate that burden. The mission assigned to Captain FitzRoy and the Beagle was the mapping and charting the southern coast of South America. It was the fact that Darwin was also a budding naturalist that lead one of his professors to commend him to Captain FitzRoy.
All during the voyage, Darwin had been sending reports, fossils and specimens back to his scientific acquaintances in England all of which were eagerly received. It was his inquisitive mind and attention to detail that brought him to the attention of Britain's prestigious Royal Society, the equivalent of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit institution that was established under a congressional charter signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863. It recognizes achievement in science by election to membership.) Like the Academy of Sciences, membership in the Royal Society is an honor rewarding one's scientific achievements. Darwin returned to England in 1836 and three years later was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. Darwin was fully accepted as a naturalist of note. It was in 1839 that he first published his account of the five year expedition, later titled "Voyage of the Beagle".
Darwin's contributions to science were enormous, he published 29 books and at least 15,000 letters, filling at least 25 fat volumes published by the University of Cambridge (the Darwin Correspondence Project). His writings, including the personal letters that truly reveal his character, are available free, online from several sources:
Darwin Online darwin-online.org.uk
Library of Congress www.loc.gov/item/lcwa00095649
Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Charles_Darwin_Online
Darwin Correspondence Project www.loc.gov/item/lcwa00095510/
It was while in Chile and investigating the destruction wrought by an earthquake that Darwin was bitten by an insect and is thought to have contracted Chagas Disease which left him with chronic fatigue and poor health in later life.
During his lifetime, Darwin was honored many times by his peers; by the Royal Society with the Royal Medal (aka Queen's Medal) in 1853. In 1859 he was awarded the Wollaston Medal, a scientific award for geology, the highest award granted by the Geological Society of London. And in 1864 he was again honored by the Royal Society with the Copley Medal, a scientific award given by the Royal Society, London, for "outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science." That Darwin was recognized by his peers as a brilliant scientist is obvious to all but the most bigoted creationists.
Darwin died on 19 April 1882. He had expected to be buried in the local churchyard but the public, his peers and parliament clamored for a more fitting monument to a great scientist. As a result, he was buried with full honors in Westminster Abbey next to the tomb of John Herschel and that of Isaac Newton nearby. The funeral drew thousands and included many of the scientists and dignitaries of his day. Recently, the ashes of Stephan Hawking were interred in this place of honor, called the 'Scientists Corner.
As for bogus assertions that Darwin recanted his theory on his deathbed, that brought outright indignation from his family who were at his bedside. Even creationist websites report that was a lie;
creation.com/did-charles-darwin-recant.
answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/darwins-deathbed-conversion-a-legend/?
Despite the fact that this claim has been thoroughly refuted many times, even by creationist websites, there are unscrupulous creationists that will resurrect it, even knowing it is a lie.
It does however reveal the desperation of creationists who will sacrifice whatever is left of their integrity to slander a dead man.
Truth is established by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says. People lie. evidence doesn't
@@RandallWilks Who said I was a creationist? FYI your long rant didn't even merit reading when started with a lie! Just like I said it's all aboit the money for your new religion! Has nothing to do with facts!
@@RichValrek What??? Are you going to deny you are a creationist? You can pretend to be whatever you wish, but when you walk like a duck and talk like a duck, well, you're a duck. The fact that you didn't read what I wrote confirms that fact. Those who assert something to be a lie without corroborating evidence reveal themselves to be the liar.
Science doesn’t care about feelings and personal beliefs, science only cares about facts
Billion years hey lol....
This is so rediculous
Hey dingbat... it's spelled
R I D I C U L O U S, duh!
There's a book called Everything I Learned About Life I Learned in Kindergarten.
There's also another book called a Dictionary?
Then... there's old Mr. Google or Wikipedia?
You had four (4) chances to get it correct... ??!!??
Guess spelling that word comes in 3rd grade, right?
These people are actually allowed to Vote... those who cannot complete a properly structured sentence beyond the 3rd-grade level?
FATHER, GOD, HAVE MERCY ON OUR COLLECTIVE SOULS...
Come back to the Global platform of the well-educated Comment table later, ok?
Preferably after the age of eight (8), 3rd-grade.
Ugh!!!!
Do you mean your spelling or that people have different views? Your comment is fishy.
FACT: Truth is established by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says.
FACT: All evidence supports evolution. No evidence refutes it.
FACT: A THEORY in science is an explanation for observed phenomena.
FACT: The THEORY OF EVOLUTION is the only explanation for the vast diversity of life on this planet for which evidence exists.
FACT: There is NO EVIDENCE for any alternative explanation.
FACT: Evolution is accepted as fact by every science organization in the world.
FACT: Evolution is part of the biology curriculum of every accredited university in the world, because nothing in biology makes sense without it.
FACT: Acceptance of the evidence for evolution should not depend on one's religious or philosophical views.
FACT: Evolution is accepted as fact by the Episcopalian, Catholic, Presbyterian and United Methodist churches, among others.
FACT: Creationists make assertions with no corroborating evidence.
*SCIENCE PROVIDES THE ONLY RELIABLE WAY TO DETERMINE WHAT IS TRUE OR NOT TRUE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE.* It has not yet answered all the questions, but is the only methodology that has the capacity to do so. There are gaps in scientific knowledge and questions remain; What is Dark Matter? Dark Energy?, How did life begin? Why do socks disappear? Science proceeds from evidence to conclusion and does not make a determination where there is insufficient evidence to do so. Science has no problem saying "We don't know...YET." However, that doesn't mean that science is clueless, we know more today than we did yesterday and every tomorrow takes us another step closer. As Richard Feynman said "Science is the joy of finding things out.".
Science is a search for truth and truth is established by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion which is PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). As additional evidence comes to light in support of that hypothesis, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports a conclusion and none refutes it, it can become a Scientific Theory, which in science is the highest degree of certainty possible.
*Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Any scientist will tell you that there is no such thing as "only a theory" because A THEORY IN SCIENCE IS THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE.*
@@majoroldladyakamom6948 so you arw a spelling police? Funny kid you are. I bet you are lonely man. Weirdo