and i honestly think that image is suppost to be a joke

well since people claim that sharing 98 percent of the DNA with apes means we are apes

so might as well

ok?

sharing similar DNA does not mean we evolved from the same ancestor

more likely that whoever created us decided to have similiarities

sure it does. Its how 23 and me works

why can't we apply the same concept to long term evolution?

because there is no proof that we have a common ancestor

especially when the results are consistent with other data

ever heard of ERVs?

so therefore assuming we have a common ancestor is pointless

"so lets talk about endogenous Retroviruses. When a Retrovirus infects an animal, it injects its RNA into a random location in the genome of whatever cell its attacking. Sometimes this genome is integrated into the animal, and will pass down to the next generation. It is believed that ERVs consist of like 5% of the human genome. The interesting thing is we share a lot of the same ERVs with chimpanzees" - me a while ago

and how does that prove that we have a common ancestor

dang that isnt a very good explanation

i should revise it

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7OclPDN_s

i understood what you said

but i dont see how it proves anything

i think like only the first 2 minutes are important

fine ill watch it

well the chances of this happening are impossible

unless we have a common ancestor

so you base it on chance

not evidence

like what are the chances of the same retrovirus inserting the same RNA into the same location on both the human and chimp genome

and doing it in a way which fits the phylogenetic tree

easily whoever created us has the ability to have it any way he wants it to

like if you believe so much in chance

then what about the big bang

and the formation of the first protein

what are the chances there

we can't assign any probability to the first big bang

the whole "le protine" thing is a huge meme

no we can assign probabilities to it

why cant we

it doesnt take into account the shear number of possible proteins, the fact that the first proteins would have been much simpler, and the amount of time and trials taking place simultaneously

trust me, there are a lot of possible proteins

even so, the chances are too slim

bruh

how did you find that out?

did you just do the math?

otherwise we would observe it. ive seen an example of the maths

if its not so slim then plz do a demonstration for us

obviously i can't make a protein. Abiogenesis is still a relatively new theory, and i don't know all that much about it

i do want to know however, why you think your god made it so humans have retrovirus DNA

and why he made us have so much in common with chimps

and if your hypothesis is even provable

or falsifiable

well just like FORD creates a bunch of trucks with almost identical parts and mechanics

he decided to have us be similiar

that doesnt answer the question

why did he give us retrovirus DNA

because he can

and is your hypothesis that god did it demonstrable

or falsifiable

no its not demonstrable, its a belief

ok and what evidence do you base this belief on

it makes a lot of sense to me, therefore only when i witness extra ordinary evidence will i consider changing my belief

well first of all, science of today proves nothing with how we were created. Therefore i think we the creation must have a creator

ok but there is no evidence that we were created

protip: saying we are complex doesnt mean we were created

creation is evidence of creator

bruh

but thats common sense

you can't even prove we are a creation

yuour just asserting

hmmm

i still find it hard to believe we were not created based on our complexity tbh

our complexity can be explained by evolution

im actually about to read Richard Dawkins *the blind watchmaker*, which covers how complex beings could have evolved

like if you take a walk in Antarctica and find an ancient pyramid ( which you dont know and cant trace who built ). A pyramid that is similar to ones in Egypt for example, you can assert it was built by some one

even though you cannot prove there is a builder since you cannot track or identify him

from a logical standpoint, it is highly unlikely the pyramid fell of the sky or gathered over billions of years from the different matter surrounding the area

thats a pretty poor analogy. Pyramids are not alive, and are therefore not subject to evolution

plus we know what pyramids are. All the examples we have of pyramids are those man has constructed

we have evidence that points to them being manmade

and no evidence that points to them occuring naturally

im stating a hypothetical where we dont know who the pyramid builder is

well we have no evidence of proteins forming out of nothing either

and i still find it fascinating how perfectly we are built, i cannot emphasize it enough

it takes a lot of deep thought to realize it

creationism has way more evidence and backing than evolution

@ProgrammerVerbatim ok lets hear some

Why are we talking about evolution when we could be talking about rocks?

https://youtu.be/_zQXgJ-dXM4

Watch that

@Riley i have a question for you , why we as humans we have only one shape i mean if the evolution was true there should be many shapes of human , for example there should be a humans with third hand from their neck ? So my point is why we have the monkeys and suddenly they transformed to humans?

Story from my biology teacher incoming...

So, once there were monkeys, they didn't have their hands free because they used them to walk. Once, there was a weird mistake. One of them could stand tall. That was a bit weird, but he was able to see further. This way, he could see dangers come from afar. It helped him to flee earlier, so he survived, unlike his siblings who couldn't stand. This 'mistake' also got kids, who could do the same. They grew out to humans, those who couldn't, were mostly killed by natural selection (this doesn't mean they're extinct, it only means there are more humans). Mistakes with a hand in the neck were also weird (if they existed), but they were no special survivors.

I mean aren’t their signs of humans with a whole fish tail @Citizen Z

I get what ur saying

@ChinaGirlNL (no offense) but this is a joke lol. Yet it didn't answer my question because we cant see the stages of human evolution . If we can see the monkey then we should see the following stages of the evolution but suddenly all of these stages are disappeared with no trace . Can you explain?

_~~Seems like I'm not the only one who doesn't recognise the tone of a joke? 😂~~_

Nobody would get it, but my biology teacher is a funny storyteller, because he's way too enthusiastic about his subject

Well .... i was shocked of the logic of ur teacher lmfao

@hamed473 "If we can see the monkey then we should see the following stages of the evolution but suddenly all of these stages are disappeared with no trace."
Can you clarify the first part and second part?

If evolution happened by a series of slow changes, we should see a continuum in the fossil record. but we don't.

we see distinct organisms. why would any one form of an organism persist longer than any other if there is constant evolution?

Forget "missing links". it's "missing continuum"

how would you show a continuum
by showing more and more missing links

"why would any one form of an organism persist longer than any other"
can you elaborate?

@Flat Earth PhD

if animals are constantly and slowly evolving, we should see a continuum of these animals in the fossil record. we should see evidence of the gradual changes. why would we not? as soon as one small "mutation" gives an organism a competitive advantage, then we should find examples of that small change because they supposedly outcompeted the previous one. and for every subsequent small change.

but instead we find distinct animals and have to search for "missing links" . why would those distinct animals be in such abundance relative to the small changes that led up to them and took them to the next "advancement"?

doesn't make sense logically

we find missing link
***Look there are 2 gaps***

there should not be links. there should be a continuum

How small does the difrence have to be to show a continioum

What would a continioum look like

if a small difference gave enough advantage to outcompete the previous one then we should see it

we should see the evidence of every single small step. why wouldn't we?

if it was an advantage then those animals would have thrived over the previous ones right?

because we don't have all fossils and not all lifeforms get fossilised

that's what defines it as an advantage as per "natural selection"

why would a small change impact how something gets fossilized??!?!

esp since we have completely different animals on either side that got fossilized

I didn't mention the small change being relevant to how.it gets fossilised

but if it's a gradual change over long periods of time then no one organism should exist in greater numbers than another

so statistically we should see the same in the fossil record

I don't understand what you are arguing

why do we find distinct organisms?

how distinct

turtles look like turtles

And?

why do we only find turtles and not all the modified turtles leading up to and past those turtles

Are you arguing that there should only be one living species at a time?

no but if a gradual change is improving an organism we should find evidence of each change because it obviously gave the organism an advantage

ergo a continuum in the fossil record

we do

we don't

stop lying

how so

I'm not

show me the gradual continuum that lead up to and past the turtle in the fossil record

Ok

LMAO

First, these are drawings

second, you don't understand the term "continuum"

I want to see actual fossils

that show say a lizard turning into a turtle.

but only after you figure out what continuum means

an analogy: photographs everyday of the same person from birth to death

thanks

a single individual dosnt go thru evolution

doesn't matter. if a change was an "advantage" then we should have millions of them

at each step

otherwise it wasn't an advantage

that's how natural selection supposedly works

that assumes lots of individuals are fossilised

You don't understand how rare fossilization is

lol

it assumes changes in a population do not affect fossilization

and you agreed already that is the case

yes

so lets see the fossils

waiting

let's just pick lizard to turtle

all the steps

not 3, not 12

thousands

no drawings

I think your trolling

lol. nice projection

we all know who the troll is here

I agree

nice try

there aren't that many fossils

well there are but not that manycomplete fossils

Is it necessary that there are all these fossils from the premise of evolution?

No

I think you are arguing that there aren't enough fossils

no.

stop trolling

That you need every fossil?

from every generation?

at least equal numbers

never happens

equal numbers of what

I'm done

got to remind myself not to feed them

you do realise that the environment changes
And that difrent species usually live in difrent environments

meaning the likely hood of fossilization changes

and where they live

@Flat Earth PhD

also don't use a passive agressive aditude with me

nice argument

so I'm just supose to sit back and let you be a jerk

cope

Ok but don't get mad if I use the same aditude back in the future.

bring it on snowflake

I won't feed you

yes you will. it's why you are here

the feeling is mutual

@hamed473 well we do have different races of humans, and in the past there were different species (or subspecies) such as neandrathals (probably spelled that wrong)

there are actually transitional fossils which show how our ape-like ancestors evolved into modern humans

@Flat Earth PhD I love it how everyone smarter than you is automatically branded as a troll

pretty easy way to deflect good arguments!

this is a classic tool of the pseudoscientist

everyone who can prove you wrong is a shill or a troll

@Riley my point is why the human (6 billions+) are same shape but the evolved stages of humans most of it didnt survived except the monkey ?
Again iam talking about the stages between monkeys and humans
Literally no logic there is something missing

And why we cant see any further evolution ?

Why the evolution stopped

there is no continuum showing the gradual changes in organisms as is claimed. we find the opposite. case closed. Praise God

@Flat Earth PhD well that goes into things like punctuated equillibrium and just how hard it is for fossils to form. btw, even if evolution turned out to be false, that doesnt mean we can jump to a supernatutural explanation

@hamed473 well modern humans have only been around for a couple hundred thousand years, and for most of that our population has been quite small

and yes, there are stages between our ancestors and modern humans. I already told you this

check out homo erectus

or austrolopithicus

and and btw flat earth """PhD""", you have *yet* to respond to my ERV argument

creationists seem to believe that disproving evolution (which they fail to do every time) somehow proves creation

this is because creationists are __*dumb*__

@Riley yea okay
And why the stages does not exist anymore?
While the monkeys are existing?

And why we cant see any further evolution ?

Why the evolution stopped?

Yet u didnt answer any question 😊

what do you mean?

ohhh

You seem to think that humans evolved from modern monkeys, thata not what happened

humans and monkeys have a common ancestor. That ancestor is extinct

modern species did not evolve from other modern species

Well this is answering alot of questions
But iam not done yet
Iam driving right now
I will be back later on

@anon415454+4646
@ibn la'ahad

@ArmenianLegend

@cmorebutts

This channel

evolution is obviously fake. There is no way we evolved from apes.

^

don't swear

whoever u are

but i respect u

got somme good opinions

Philosophically, why can we not evolve from apes?

What makes us abject from stemming from other smaller specimen, whether alike or not?

we can't evolve from apes because apes weren't created when humans were first seen

humans were created around the same time as dinosaurs

apes much later

do the math!

Well, I believe the argument is that humans and apes both evolved differently from a common ancestor, even pre-neolithic.

Additionally, I don't think anything we've classified as human, like Neanderthals or slightly prior, existed during the dinosaurs' age

you see, different species were created as part of our simulation

Could of, sure. But is it not far more likely that they differed and diverged?

perhaps they could've been altered

but it seems unlikely