Thanks!! Great video 👄👄👄👄

DNA is massively over sold. It only encodes proteins, it doesn't code for traits. It's like a brick manifest for a building project, but it's NOT the Blue Print on the building itself

Dude this is just a false hypothetical model this is not the reality

Examples indicate eating other gene pools, can transfer genetic material... Makes lots of macabre theories plausible.

What evidence do we have of this so-called common ancestor of the chimpanzee and human?

Hey. I accept there is some fossil evidence to support the theory of 'one common ancestor for all species'. However, I just dont believe it.

Why Universal Common Ancestry & Tree of Life are False: There are five types of evidences against Tree of Life (TOL) and Universal Common Ancestry (UCA) hypotheses: 1. Homoplasy 2. Lateral gene transfer 3. Forest of Life (Pattern pluralism) 4. Orphan genes 5. Pig evolution HOMPLASY Two important but contradictory terms, homology and homoplasy, help explain why the UCA/TOL hypothesis is false. Homology is defined as "similarities caused by shared ancestry between two structures or genes from distinct species." When two organisms have similarities, they are assumed to have common ancestor. However, homoplasy contradicts this assumption. Homoplasy occurs when two very different groups of animals (who do not share a common ancestor) have similar genes, physical characteristic, or biochemistry. This is unexpected if common ancestry is true. Homoplasy exists throughout the animal kingdom! Here are just a few out of numerous examples: 1) Bats and dolphins both have the same echolocation genes even though the two do not share common ancestor. This homoplasy is actually clear evidence against common ancestry. 2) Pac6 genes (for eye development) exist in both fruit flies and humans, even though the two do not share common ancestor. This homoplasy is clear evidence against common ancestry. 3) Butterflies, pterosaurs, and birds are not closely related, but can all fly. 4) The placental saber-toothed cat (which is actually phylogenetically closer to a kangaroo) and the marsupial saber-toothed cat look almost the same (anatomically). Yet, the two don't have common ancestor. This homoplasy is clear evidence against common ancestry. 5) Pigmentation modifications in vertebrates and mimicry in butterflies for mutualistic interactions are yet two more examples. In addition to the above, there are countless other examples of evidence against common ancestry, yet the evolutionists ignore them or downplay them. These are all exceptions that contradict common ancestry. Why do evolutionists ignore or dismiss numerous examples of homoplasy which go against common ancestry? Existence of homoplasy is evidence against common ancestry, which the evolutionists try to twist and turn to explain it away. One common excuse they give is that they are exceptions. But if we have too many exceptions to a rule, do we really have a rule? And at what point does the exception become the rule? Why do they focus so much on similarities, but downplay the dissimilarities? Homoplasy (which is similarities without common descent) exists at the genetic, physical, and biochemical levels. This clearly challenges common ancestry or common descent. Both homology and homoplasy exist naturally. Therefore, one cannot be used to establish common ancestry while ignoring the other. Moreover, homology assumes common ancestry or descent is true, which leads to circular reasoning! LATER GENE TRANSFER (The Tangled Tree) "The tree of life is a hypothesis, which lateral gene transfer in prokaryotes now shows to be false." (Doolittle 2009). "There really can be no universal phylogenetic tree of organisms based on such a reduction to genes”. (Doolittle 2016). ".. the prevalence of HGT (Horizontal Gene Transfer) is challenging the meaningfulness of the classical Tree of Life concept." (Avni et al. 2020) "Horizontal gene transfer is pervasive among prokaryotes: very few gene trees are fully consistent, making the original tree of life concept obsolete." (Koonin et al 2009). Forest of Life (Pattern Pluralism) Many top scientists (like Ford Doolittle, Pere Puigbo, Yuri Wolf, Eugene Koonin, etc.) talk about the "Forest of Life" where hundreds of Nearly Universal Trees (NUTs) exist in parallel, one for each family or genus. (Doolittle 2016). "Pattern pluralism (the recognition that different evolutionary models and representations of relationships will be appropriate, and true, for different taxa or at different scales or for different purposes) is an attractive alternative to the quixotic pursuit of a single true TOL." (Doolittle & Bapteste 2007). Scientists have identified over 100 trees that make up the Forest of Life; each tree exists in parallel, one for each family or genus. (Doolittle 2016).   ORPHAN GENES Orphan genes, also called De Novo genes, are evidence against common ancestry. They should not exist if common ancestry is true. Orphan Genes are protein-coding regions that have no recognizable homolog in distantly related species. That's a huge problem for evolutionists! Orphan genes are evidence against common ancestry. Evolutionists downplay them or explain them away with ridiculous explanations. A 2015 study by seven scientists identified 634 orphan genes in humans and 780 orphan genes in chimpanzees! (Ruiz-Orera et al. 2015). "Orphan genes are “the hard problem” for evolutionary genomics. Because we can’t find other genes similar to them in other species, we can’t build family trees for them. We cannot hypothesize their gradual evolution; instead, they seem to appear out of nowhere. Various attempts have been made at explaining their origins but the problem remains unsolved”. - Richard Buggs, Queen Mary University, 2016. PIG EVOLUTION Pig evolution is evidence against common ancestry. Humans are not supposed to be close (phylogenetically) to pigs. Yet, scientists used a pig heart, and not an ape heart which is claimed to be much closer to humans. See "First pig-to-human heart transplant: what can scientists learn?". Scientists believe that if something works in a pig, it has a higher possibility of working in a human. Humans also share 98% of their DNA with pig. Yet, in spite of these two facts, the pig is simply not be found anywhere near humans in the so-called tree of life. If the tree of life is true, surely the pigs should be near humans, shouldn't they? Apes are 99% genetically similar to humans, and they're always draw super close to each other in the so-called tree of life. We're told that we're all just advanced African apes! Why don't they tell us we we're advanced pigs? Something is clearly not right. The pig evolution is evidence against the tree of life (TOL) and universal common ancestor (UCA) hypothesis.

What animals are evolving right now?

Just face the fact God is real this is so bullshit

how to get views, make an educational video and wait for teachers to discover it

HOGWASH..

NOT AROUND TODAY, BUT WE CAN MAYBE3..SHOW US THIS PRIMATE..

Interesting. Could this be how Mitochondria became part every human cell?

Thank you.....educating my 19 year old with autism...clearest description of all the videos I searched!

If humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees what should we call the chimpanzee-like animal that humans supposedly evolved from? Nice fairy tale by the way.

thank you this was very helpful

good video

this guy getting 100,878 views but not much likes this guy deserve more likes

who are watching this because of online education???

Astounding. Great vid bro.

Hi

The topic is science, not "well since there's not 0% similarity in dna, this means all life has one common ancestor". Even in their "no God" religion, they assume there was only one original life form instead of several, in which case there'd still be dna similarity. More than 0% dna similarity does not in any way prove all life is related. Science is about the repeatable portion of reality, not things like common descent evolution that contradict repeatable reality, can only be believed in, and they call reasons to believe in it 'evidence'. The bottom line is the topic of the origin of all biological diversity is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table. Here's what *is* science: A.k.a., well documented and published even in evolutionists' own papers (when they happen to include something that's actually observable, repeatable, verifiable biological, scientific fact when they're telling their common descent stories and why they believe in it) that demonstrates common descent from a first life form is anti-science. Science shows that it's observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that, no matter how many generations go by, no matter how much "change in genetic composition during successive generations", no matter how much "change in allele frequencies", no matter how much "development of new species", no matter how much "natural selection acting on genetic variation among individuals", no matter how much "adaptation", no matter how much "mutation", no matter how much "speciation", no matter how much "migration", no matter how much "genetic drift", no matter how much "insert other claims here" no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish amphibians remain amphibians, canines remain canines, felines remain felines, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, animals that never had lungs to breath air do not evolve lungs animals that never had hearts to pump blood do not evolve hearts animals that never had eyes to see do not evolve eyes animals that never had brains do not evolve brains animals that never had mouths do not evolve mouths living things that never had a reproductive system do not evolve a reproductive system animals that never had (insert organ here) remain living things without that organ, and so on. There are many more such groups. Science shows that the "common descent from a first life form" evolution (some call Darwinian evolution, some call theory of common descent) is anti-science. Evolutionist can never address these facts - many unfortunately just fall back on ad hominem, showing how they're seem to be really about deception that's contrary to actual science. ===== Part TWO ===== Here are a few objections/claims they may bring up when they cannot address the above observable, repeatable and verifiable facts: *Evolutionists sometimes try to claim you're against science.* Science is fine and requires no belief. In the entire existence of the human race: Objects drop to the ground. Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required. In the entire existence of the human race: Diseases spread. Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required. In the entire existence of the human race: All populations of: canines remain canines, fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, animals that never had hearts do not evolve hearts, animals that never had digestive systems do not evolve digestive systems (or brains, or eyes, or reproductive systems and many, many more cases like these). Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required. *Evolutionists sometimes try to say they don't claim that populations of 'animals turn into other animals' over generations* Quite the opposite. Evolutionists claim the first life form was a single cell. They claim that it is the ancestor of all living things today. That's "animals turning into other animal" over generations of mythological proportions. They claim humans, apes, rats, banana plants (50% DNA similarity to human beings) are all related - that's again "species turning into other species" of mythological proportions, claiming all life is related. At some point reptiles did not exist in their worldview. That means they claim over generations some populations animals that were never reptiles 'evolved' over generations eventually into reptiles - That's "animals turning into other animals" over generations to mythological degrees. At some point no animals had brains. This means they claim over generations some populations of animals that never had brains 'evolved' brains over generations. Yet when called out on this some evolutionists even try to say "evolution doesn't say species turn into other species", which again is just not honest. It shows they not only know they're wrong, but they show their intent to push this falsehood anyway. *If you point out evolutionists "populations over generations" claims, and some will dishonestly pretend you're claiming evolutionists are saying that one kind of animal 'gives birth' to another kind".* Which again is clearly deception. Science shows *populations over generations* do not do what they claim. *Evolutionists typically imply making up reasons to believe in their common descent from a first life form belief system is the same as "observing" it,* which of course is false and is just circular reasoning. Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils or ABOUT DNA *that never happens* does not then make fossils or DNA 'evidence' or an 'observation of' of the belief you just made up about them. *Evolutionists also typically resort to the crime analogy.* For example, since you cannot "observe" a certain crime, but can look at "evidence" for a crime, that shows we can know things happened without observing it. But what they ignore: the thing called a "crime" is already observable, repeatable, verifiable reality, so now we can look for forensic 'evidence' of some *MORE* possible crimes that no one is left alive to have observed it. By sharp contrast, what evolutionists do would be the same as giving 'evidence' for some strange new crime that's never been observed even once by the human race, and yet claim that's also an observation of this crime that never happens actually happening (for example: a "crime" of turning someone into a tree). *Even some people factually observing something that's never happened is not science if it's not repeatable and also verifiable*. So for example, hundreds of people are witness to the fact Jesus Christ rose from the dead (or that He raised others from death), and they wrote about it. Direct observation. But it's still not science because it's *not repeatable* and not *verifiable.* There's also evidence He rose from the dead, and some have observed Him alive after the fact, but it's STILL not science that people can be raised from the dead, in spite of evidence, and in spite of it also being directly observed - because it's not *repeatable* and not *verifiable.* And so it goes with the belief of common descent from a first life form - not only is it not *repeatable,* not *verifiable,* it's not even *observable* either - which makes the resurrection far more likely to be called science before the belief of common descent from a first life form ever could. But neither of them can be called science of course. ===== Part Three ===== *Evolutionists almost always are against Christ but are teaching their religion* that goes along with their belief of common descent from a first life form - the belief of 'nothing did it - it all just happened on it's own, including life - you're just another animal related to all animals - so live how you want and you'll rest in peace when you die". But they also pass this religion off 'you are god' off as science as well. That in mind, I implore people to re-read the gospels and forget what any church or any religion or anyone has claimed they say and sincerely consider yet again for ourselves. Judgment is coming for us all for our lifetime of sinning AND refusing God's offer to forgive and forget in the person of Jesus Christ. But religions also twist God's truth to make people think it's their religion and system of rules that makes them right with God when it's about a person: Jesus Christ, and choosing to have a relationship with Him, having a change of mind about living for ourselves and turning back towards God/ Jesus Christ to live for Him instead. John 3 : 14-21 *_"[Jesus said] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up [i.e., on the cross]: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved [exposed]. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."_* Live forever, friends!

We can also contribute to biodiversity by not voting for political parties which ignore human-caused climate change and political parties which put the profits of billionaires ahead of the survival of those who can't compete with billionaires. Boycott Amazon...

These facts better be true copied this word for word for my assignment 🙄

Shalim is gay

school be like:

Me who dislikes school videos: >:D

Imagine: This video is in your left ear. You told it to get out but it won't.

Whos here in 2021 watching this cause ur science teacher made you 😑

nice visual and description of this topic. :D

what not enteder

lol if anybody from my class see this hi😚

why is this interesting to me now, back then in middle school I cried my ass off in every science class

Really archaea is first than bactiria

My left ear enjoyed this video

who else doings this for school

wack

logging companies in America are actually required to plant 2 trees for each one they chop down

UPLOADING VIRUS.EXE ████████████████99%

whos here from mr fatolitis?

I'm doing it on a book me to I don't get it I have to do it for school work my name is summer

thx, I needed this for my science lockdown work

This helped a lot thanks

Really good

I am doing a book on this and I don’t get this

Hi nadim

Ya

Now this is epic

my left ear enjoyed this