The Evolutionary Epic: Crash Course Big History #5

[@melneedsherspace]

Growing up, the terms "Big Bang", "Darwin", and "evolution" were LITERALLY as bad as swear words in my house. I always loved school and learning, but when we got to those subjects, I always only paid attention enough to do well on the tests, then did my best to forget it so as to not make a big deal out of it at home. I can't thank you guys at Crash Course enough for giving me the opportunity to really learn and discover things I should have known years ago. Much love!

[@michaelj7677]

Until like 5-10 years ago, as everyone started to use the Internet, as a german I've never imagined that there are really people in the world who believe in things like creationism. I'm still not 100% sure, if this is not a kind of hoax or joke, where internet trolls like to raid comment sections with absurd ideas just for the lulz, since I've never met a creationist yet. Don't want to be judging here, but for me it's like someone tells you, that the earth is the center of the universe or that gravity doesn't exist

[@jrhermosura4600]

If the lord doesn't want me to believe evo then that's worth the lulz.

[@JohnDoe-dj3lw]

Your house was a place of pure ignorance, then.

[@69eddieD]

@@michaelj7677 Many Americans are young earth creationists. It's a growing trend. And according to polls about 40% of Americans believe that humans were created in their present form less than10,000 years ago. Many Americans believe in a geocentric universe too, and a growing number are gravity deniers. It's hard to take. I was young 50 years ago and very few people indulged in such ignorance. But now we have religious lobbyists influencing the federal government (Mike Pence is a young earth creationist!) and also calling the shots on school boards. And there's huge lobby money behind it; we have lobby institutions like the "Discovery" Institute ("Think tanks" is what they're euphemistically called) that control members of Congress. It is sad.

[@Asha2820]

7:35 "I can bench-press much more than a Eukaryote" John, you ARE a Eukaryote!

[@bosniakedisniksic]

+Asha2820 I was looking for a comment about this lol. I hope he meant Procaryote lol.

[@KnotApps]

+Asha2820 Or he could be referring to single celled eukaryotes. _shrug_ I know that didn't really make sense.

[@Dyldayas24]

*made up of eukaryotes

[@Asha2820]

***** A Eukaryote is any individual within the phylogenetic clade Eukaryota, and it includes... pretty much all life that you can see with the naked eye (Animals, Fungi, Plants, Galapagos tortoises) John is, indeed, made up of ~40 billion Eukaryotic cells, but Eukaryote species don't stop being Eukayotes once they become multicellular colonies. So John is still a Eukaryote.

[@Asha2820]

***** Oh... long form billion (You Americans!) Sorry for the confusion.

[@crashcourse]

Oh man, here we go with the lively comment section. -stan

[@Mark54321]

We must know both sides of course we coment

[@geoblu1]

The thumbnail to the video has 6 on it :P

[@ilajoie3]

geo blu I think we posted at the same time, though after looking at the comments I only saw one other person mention it

[@ErikWarhammer]

Wait, How the hell did the planet freeze completely over?! Did the sun fall asleep or something?

[@comrad9372]

***** That was one of the most idiotic comments I have ever heard.

[@TheEmmaporium]

As Hank previously said in Crash Course Biology, "There are two kinds of people: those who believe in evolution and those who don't understand it."

[@imienazwisko6527]

Evoultion is just a theory, and so is gravity. Some people even question gravity! GRAVITY!!!

[@bottleofwater1675]

Imię Nazwisko or the fact Earth is a globe

[@dearleader7647]

I'm not surprised. Some people think the earth is flat

[@Anemoiaspaceghoul]

Omg. Wtf. Humans are so dumb.

[@TheTexas1994]

I can't believe how differently John and Hank pronounce Niches. Usually mispronouncing things is John's thing

[@mephostopheles3752]

Which is ironic, considering John's profession as an author, a profession that pretty much requires a more-than-decent grasp of whatever language you speak.

[@steveletterman7121]

'niche' is a french word. It's pronounced 'neech' in french , that's the only logical way to pronounce it.

[@MrMusical3]

Let us remember linguistic evolution. How many letters does the English language have? The correct answer lies within what time you live. This is all setting aside dialects, which is a whole beast within itself. All this to say, both are acceptable pronunciations of the word. Lastly, how do you spell things? Colour or color? Favorite or favourite? Which is correct? Why? This is all JUST in English, what about Italian, Spanish, German, or Arabic? Where you are from largely impacts how you might pronounce different words, or what words mean.

[@JamesThomas-qd7hp]

0:0 - 0:12 HANK RUN!!!!!!!! was all i could think of.

[@iluvDNA100]

+James Thomas A game where Hank Green has to run away from Dino Run? I must have this game.

[@JamesThomas-qd7hp]

+Joe Seph (iluvDNA) we must have this game.

[@KimmoKM]

It's worth noting that Darwin's Theory of Evolution through natural selection isn't the same as modern Theory of Evolution, which integrates other theories like genetics and statistical models of population genetics, as well as including other mechanisms like horizontal gene transfer and genetic drift.

[@rhys_chalmers_music]

What I love most about this stuff is that it makes me feel the wonderment of discovery that I felt more when I was a kid, and new motivation to learn more about our world.

[@yadisfhaddad722]

I really love that you guys can really touch a nerve, when trying to explain and effectively show that we, as individuals, social or cultural groups, and generally as a especies, are nothing more than a missing bullet in the astonishing warfare of cosmos.

[@SapphireCrook]

When mankind extincts and a new intelligent species rises, there is only one question: How pissed are they about all those fossils we displaced? I mean, seriously, it's going to ruin a lot of theories that they're all above ground now.

[@KemaTheAtheist]

Depends on whether they'll be able to decipher the archives in places like the Chicago Field Museum. If they can, they'll be fine.

[@SapphireCrook]

***** What a lovely discussion/debate!

[@HeavyMetalMouse]

That makes the assumption that intelligence is a necessary direction for evolution. While if it does arise, it seems fairly reasonable to expect it to flourish, it's entirely possible it might arise on a species less fit in other areas, or that its cost to that species would be too high, and they would be out-competed by more physically oriented creatures. It's difficult to predict what creatures will survive an extinction event to proliferate, let alone which ones will explode into the emptied niches most quickly and effectively. We might be looking at another two or three epochs before intelligence wins the lottery again... in which case, the presence of tool use and manufactured goods that fossilize or otherwise persist in our layer should give a clue for Neo-Modern Smarties that this species (us) was doing then (now) the same thing they're doing now (then). :) ... Time is confusing. o.o;

[@SapphireCrook]

HeavyMetalMouse Geezes Christ, the point *WAS NOT* about *IF* they could exist. My question assumed that some sentient/sapient enough life showed up that they could 'pass knowledge' and 'learn by scientific methods'.

[@kieran10202]

excellent point, when they excavate the Smithsonian they'll be really messed up.

[@Regnberg]

"Oh neat, a video about evolution. Wait, then that means... oh no! Don't read the comments, don't read the comments, don't read the comments..." * scrolls down * "DAMMIT!"

[@Regnberg]

Also, now we're going to need an "EXTINCTION" shirt!

[@ahouyearno]

What a brilliantly elegant video. Any creationist commenting clearly hasn't watched it, or didn't comprehend it.

[@andyray959]

They dont understand it and sometimes refuse to understand it

[@Theprofessorator]

This is one of the best videos I've seen explaining evolution. It covers the macro concepts of evolution as well as the micro concepts and not being too wordy or technical as to be too confusing to someone not in a biology field. Well done CrashCourse. :D

[@sonjaya37]

I love hearing from John, Hank, and Emily! A great collaborative video! All three of these youtubers are wonderful :)

[@NickSheridanVids]

I like how Robin Ince puts it. Evolution isn't about the best of the best, it's about the least necessary to survive.

[@nolanthiessen1073]

Comments in videos such as this end up having very interesting comments sections: 50% people saying religious arguments are coming 25% atheists calling theists stupid 10% people pretending to be young-Earth creationists to make fights 10% Old-Earth creationists arguing for both sides 5% Young-Earth creationists making fights

[@ibn_klingschor]

I feel sorry for the "Old-Earth creationists arguing for both sides" crowd. The mental stress that goes into playing that role...

[@culwin]

Your numbers are all wrong. 99% people saying stuff to provoke people into replying I bet there are zero real young-Earth creationists posting here.

[@bliss2632]

Any real Young Earth Creationist would have left the channel long ago.

[@kalinsimovski5081]

5% pleasure 50% pain

[@reasonnottheneed]

I have a feeling that it's 95% trolls trolling because trolling is fun, and the remaining 5% is roughly by how you said it

[@nolanthiessen1073]

A little modern context for people. The PETM (11:50) involved a climate change of ~8C in 20,000 years. This resulted in ~80% of all life on Earth dying off. Some current climate models say we could hit that kind of temperature increase in several hundred years. Our current world is so different from that historic world that we can't say for sure what will happen, but the current rate of change is astounding compared to natural change.

[@mikeor-]

Sir Richard Owen was the one who actually said: "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!" He agreed that evolution was a thing, but he believed it was more complex than what Darwin said happened. Thomas Henry Huxley explained Darwin's idea in such a complex way that matched Owen's idea, which prompted him to say this quote.

[@alex5044]

But hey, "evolution is just a theory" A game theory!.. Wait.. wrong channel..

[@serene9532]

Alex haha :)

[@Prairielander]

I never heard niche pronounced like Nitch before. It is a French borrowed word so it should be Neesh.

[@AndreiZisu]

+Prairielander Hurts my ears!!!!

[@francescadibologna4143]

@Frances Snowflake re ''That's the standard American pronunciation of niche.'' correction; That's the standard American mis-pronunciation of the French word 'niche'; the French had (still have) a word with a pronunciation. an American pronounced it incorrectly. other Americans repeated that incorrect pronunciation. calling a mistake 'standard' rather than make attempts to correct it seems questionable behaviour from someone making an otherwise wonderful case for scientific method ;)

[@francescadibologna4143]

@Frances Snowflake ah, but 'correct by consensus' is such a terribly slippery slope. as an empricist and an anarchist it's not one i indulge very often. but my comment was more tongue in cheek teasing than a genuine dig. i think we all secretly know that Hank is only really doing it to annoy John. 'come for the science & eco vids, stay for the sibling rivalry...'

[@BokoWT]

_It_ _saddens_ _me_ _that_ _whenever_ _the_ _subject_ _of_ evolution _is_ _brought_ _up_, _there_ _has_ _too_ _be_ _controversy_.

[@IvanSN]

[@kalinsimovski5081]

I find this comment controversial.

[@squidiot3729]

to*

[@nerevarindoril3773]

not here in Europe lol

[@kelrogers8480]

And there will always be. We don't have to believe your theory, and you don't have to believe ours. Free will, mate. We're thinking beings. Also...why does it matter? You have no higher purpose, unless you give your life meaning. We're all going to die anyway, and then with no heaven, there is nothing. You can contribute to the world, or not, and it doesn't really matter. Even survival of the species doesn't matter, because the world will end one day. So let there be controversy. Let people talk. Unless...you want to be right?

[@Jackoman6234]

Emily's intelligence has to be the most attractive thing on the internet

[@undergroundskeptic2916]

Perhaps, but I gotta point out to you that there's a team of writers behind it. I'm not contracting you, though.

[@MrSvenovitch]

you wouldn't say that if she'd look like Beulah Balbricker you hypocrite

[@youtubeaddict2129]

"Oh, my goodness! This is nuts! How did we get trees?!" -John Green

[@ianalvord3903]

Ok, lets get down to the REAL controversy here. How do you pronounce "NICHE?"

[@ammettheyellingfrog1]

Why are people so attached to Bronze Age religious dogmas rather than modern science? It makes me sad 😥

[@KemaTheAtheist]

Indoctrination.

[@mshara1]

Viewed from outside the USA, its kinda cool. Like visiting a interactive history theme park.

[@jimmyarmes]

Culture..*hint's in the video*

[@mshara1]

What TheMonitor is implying is that religion is a useful meme.

[@jimmyarmes]

mshara1 Not at all

[@ChristianAkacro]

You three are my favourite SciShow/BrainScoop people Hank, John, and Emily! I watch all your shows. Thanks for teaching me so much about Everything!

[@balazsnagy1319]

This was amazing! Last semester I took a course on Earth's history at university where I learnt most of the things from the video but this just gave me a view of the whole picture in a very epic way and now I am very excited about it. This whole Big History series is very good, and I am looking forward to see the next episode! DFTBA!

[@HGShurtugal]

The pope believes in evolution.

[@HGShurtugal]

www.nytimes.com/video/multimedia/100000003201587/pope-big-bang-not-in-contrast-with-creative-intervention-of-god.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C{%222%22%3A%22RI%3A13%22}

[@nolanthiessen1073]

This is what liberal theists have believed for years. Old-Earth creationism ftw.

[@MultiAwesomerthanu]

No one believes in evolution. You see evolution is not some book that we're suppose to "believe" you can't believe in evolution it's not a religion it's scientific fact.

[@bigryeguy9851]

The pope says science and religion can co-exist. This is big for non-fundamentalists like me and a blow for fundamentalists. so happy he said this

[@JokoCi]

I still think you shouldnt use "believe" in that context. The pope agrees that evolution is a fact. Or, the pope accepts the theory of evolution.

[@lucasleturia6886]

"I can bench much more than a eukaryote" YOU ARE A EUKARYOTE

[@rawhamburgerjoe]

Oh snap forgot to use his mem-brain!

[@zackyfirmansyah2448]

@@rawhamburgerjoe Biology jokes are funny

[@Hn-zu1qu]

Fantastic presentation of evidence for evolution by Mrs. Graslie

[@alexchen6875]

The world be like: Meh Im bored with these things. Let's get some new ones in here. EXTINCTION!!!!

[@persnicketyguy]

Alex Chen hah

[@aids5430]

Alex Chen è il

[@MicroBlogganism]

A great overview of a complex and often misunderstood subject! Thanks! :D

[@FiniteAtticus]

Isn't it great! I wasn't expecting it. But this is really good!

[@MicroBlogganism]

It gets some of the basic and most important points about evolution and evolutionary history across, clear up a few misconceptions, and does it in a easy to understand manner! It really good indeed! :D

[@Shangori]

Finite Atticus Lol, atticus, normally the green brothers do just fine explaining things. They might not always have it 100% correct, but who is? Keep being awesome

[@noaho4515]

Don't look in the comments, don't look in the comments... Fuck.

[@SuperBoudoir]

I did too, I knew it was a bad idea, but it's like when you see a box where is written "DO NOT OPEN", what's the 1st thing you do?

[@noaho4515]

SuperBoudoir open that shit up!

[@LeonNFG]

SuperBoudoir What's in the Box???

[@nightsage217]

***** u know only shit is inside...

[@kaotik4266]

I read the comments on that New York street harassment video earlier as well. Today I am not a smart man.

[@Nemoticon]

Best episode yet... from John to Hank to Emily, it was like a surprise christmas, that came early! I love it.

[@MattisProbably]

I don't get the whole "creation vs. evolution" thing at all. Creation claims to explain where life *came from*, evolution explains how it *changed*! If anything, it should be "abiogenesis vs. creationism"... But hey, that just shows how little those who protest against it actually know about it^^ I studied biology on university level, it always amuses me when a biblethumper with no education in biology *at all* tries to tell me that I am wrong^^

[@KemaTheAtheist]

Creation also just outright denies that evolution happens, and Creationists lump abiogenesis in with evolution. Like you said, it's a problem of ignorance on behalf of the Creationists.

[@DeHerg]

"it always amuses me when a biblethumper with no education in biology at all tries to tell me that I am wrong" it´s even more "interesting" when they demand evidence for it and when asked to be more specific, they wan examples of a tree turning into an ant(apparently unaware that symbiogenesis happened on the single cellular level) *facepalm*

[@RHawkeyed]

Depends on whether it is young or old earth creationists. But yeah many creationists whether young or old earth don't know what they are talking about.

[@rockCity777]

Here's how it works. Most Creationists belive, that the Bible is a 100% accurate historical document, a prophercy and a code of ethics. Therefore, everything in the bible is true. Not believing the bible is completely true, is therefore, *morally* wrong, or at least *feels* like it is. Therefore, to some, believing in evolution would feel like betraying their own moral code. It's a tricky situation.

[@amandadube156]

hey--get back to watching wheezy waiter vids, matthias. what are you doing over here? :P

[@bloomins8088]

I just love watching you guys. Crash Course, SciShow, SciShow Space, any of it. You guys make these topics super fun and interesting. :3 Thanks.

[@LeonNFG]

Darwin brought many different animals with him, eating them all along the journey. Gotta Taste 'em All.

[@angelcollina]

That was actually very fun to watch! I really enjoyed all of the detail for each step of the evolution process. In school I was always given this really short, really glossed over summary. It went: Single cell organism -> plants create Oxygen -> creatures crawl out of water -> dinosaurs -> humans. So I never really got a grasp of how much more there was. And I never knew that dinosaurs started out as merely a part of a larger group of early reptiles. Thank you CrashCourse! Fascinating!

[@meldinway]

8:51 And then came..Wait for it..The Mongols

[@RedLionGenetics]

Evolution is real, i dont care what creationists believe.

[@3nanalove]

nobody is trying to convince you otherwise. if you like believing that this vast and beautiful universe, which is perfectly situated and has the perfect amount of every single thing for us to live (oxygen, water, temperature, the distance of the sun, the distance of the planets, carbon, etc.) was all out of chance, then go ahead. you are not judged, actually, most of society will accept your beliefs. not wanting to know what others believe and why only limits your knowledge, although you are free of wanting that, of course. I have tried to accept evolution by studying the arguments, but the more I study, the more unbelievable it seems to me that something like the way the human body is and it's biochemical reactions, its parts, the amazing patters and ways it works, was out of chance. I decided to believe in God and creationism (I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution, which is the one the video talks about, This comment is long enough thou) because everything we observe is much too vast and amazing and points to an intelligent design. but u can believe whatever u want.

[@trop1064]

Ivana Alicea It's not what you believe it's FACT

[@3nanalove]

Yeah Tro p but the thing is, there are no FACTS to prove evolution or creationism. At the end, it's a matter of what u choose to believe. Maybe do some research and think for yourself and you will find that it is true that both things require faith.

[@trop1064]

Ivana Alicea? No it is fact, anyway are you a roman catholic by any chance?

[@3nanalove]

Tro p no. I am not. And what is a fact, evolution? Who determined that? You?

[@ahmedabdalla8849]

Did John say he could bench more than a EUkaryote? Cuz I'm pretty sure his is one.

[@cellotag]

I'm just going to add here that I love how Emily's Thought Bubble character waves at the T-Rex at 13:41 instead of being actually scared like John and Hank. V accurate.

[@TheGahta]

Im looking forward to the next one, unless....EXTINCTION!

[@alejotassile6441]

GRAVITY ITS JUST A TEORY! YEEEEEEEeeeee...AAAAA **Crash** DX

[@RichConnerGMN]

a gaaaaaaaaaaaaaame theory

[@Zyscheriah]

Its already a law.

[@ayushsharma9270]

AnonyGuy the law is F =m1m2/r^2 A law is always a formula, this called the law of Newtonian gravity, it is not accurate law of general relativity is better but Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's general relativity are theories, So .... Yeah gravity is a theory, just like the atomic and germ theory

[@Zyscheriah]

Ayush Sharma i thought its already a law....😅😅😅

[@ayushsharma9270]

AnonyGuy yes, scientists are really bad at naming things....

[@zarinawillows2347]

Just noticed that Hank n John say niches in different ways :)

[@derkaiser420]

As a biology student I am grateful for what you guys are doing. People in these United States need to know more about science.

[@impguardwarhamer]

COMMENT CHAIN FOR ALL NON RELIGIOUS COMMENTS AND PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT STUFF IN THE VIDEO

[@impguardwarhamer]

Huh, I didn't realise the rate of evolution increased when there where 'unfilled niches' as hank put it. I would have though it would have been the other way around, since competition in filled niches would be fierce. Also, that pronunciation though! Neeeeeeeeeeeeches!

[@Garrytherocketboi]

I've found it interesting how the process of simple Symbiosis can lead to full on organisms with their own individual genetic material, I know it takes a awful long time to do so, but it is still quite amazing how it worked so eloquently.

[@josechapa10]

So... I was hoping to hear where birds branched off in the video, but they didn't get a mention past the finches

[@kaotik4266]

Jose Chapa According to Wikipedia, consensus is that "birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era". The Mesozoic stretches from about 250-66 Mya, so that's not especially precise. Looking at the actual research it cites, it seems to have happened over 50 million years or so with the first flightless birds appearing about 163 Mya. The paper is by Yee et al., "Sustained miniaturization and anatomical innovation in the dinosaurian ancestors of birds", published in Science this year (DOI: 10.1126/science.1252243) if you're interested in reading more. (I should be writing my thesis. I'm procrastinating. Does it show?)

[@adambierstedt920]

kaotik4266 Specifically, the common theory last time I looked (which may have been proven inaccurate) is archeopteryx. It is a gliding bird from the mid to late Cretaceous, and has feathers and stuff. It seems to have evolved from small raptors, which also appear to have feathers. From there, teeth rapidly disappeared because the prey is so small that biting it doesn't do any good, while the mouth turned into a beak because it is easier to break open hard objects via pecking then via biting.

[@field4133]

"Underwater scorpions that were 2.5 m long." What Aw man

[@twilitetra9245]

Before I say what clearly needs to be said, I would like to get something straight. Personally, I'm not religious. I don't pray, I don't go to mass, and when I was forced to go, I was generally appalled by the priest's implications and not surprised in the slightest with the amount of contradictions in his reasonings. Evolution and the big bang make the most sense to me and I am definitely biased when it comes to discussions like this. That being said, it is impossible to completely disprove the existence of a greater power all because of one question. Where did that super dense, extremely hot ball of matter that caused the big bang come from? If you cannot provide a theory with reasonable evidence to back it up and you STILL deny the slightest possibility that there could be a 'god' then you are a hypocrite. However, if you base the entire existance of your god off of a book written by people (and edited to fit their political needs) thousands of years ago, then you need to think long and hard about what really doesn't make sense.

[@jonnyboy07]

I agree, you can't base your beliefs off the Bible. But, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's not the case most times. People believe in God, and that's why they go to the Bible. Evolution, though, and its alternative, has to be fought with science. So if evolution can provide scientific evidence (which, pardon me if I don't believe that) then obviously a belief in God has to as well. And, need I say(?), there's no use going into appeals to ignorance like "prove God exists or he doesn't exist."

[@themplar]

First.. what does this have to do with evolution and science? nothing... You can have your god concept and accept science. Sure many god concepts are disproven by science based on their "holy"books. A god concept does not need to be disproven, it needs to be "proven" or the very least there needs to be evidence for the existance of such a thing. If that does not exist (as for gods is the case) you should dismiss the concept and not believe in it. Its like saying well we should keep in mind the possibility of pixies, leprechauns and the pink flying elephant wearing a tutu who farted the universe into existance... You cannot prove they dont exist.. thus you must be a hypocrite if you denie them from existance.. The burden of proof is on the theist to provide good evidence for the existance of a god. Sofar they have failed on that. That doesnt mean there absolutely cannot be such a concept. But considering we know where the Original concept of a god comes from and how these concepts evolved over time with the needs of mankind... its ridiculous to even consider a god concept.

[@bmlovescoffee]

If you think that a deity exists, it is up to you to support that claim. Otherwise, your claim can be refuted. That is how science works.

[@parthdatar]

As astrological researchers say it, the higgs boson was the universe compressed into a dense ball. Before the explosion there was no time, time itself was created by the big bang. Time started with the creation of the universe. So since the big bang is the start of time, we cannot assume of what was before it. By the way I am a religious Hindu, but I acknowledge scientific facts and believe this world is an open experiment in which god will only intervene when he must.

[@twilitetra9245]

Jonny Locker, I agree, it is pointless. At the point we are now, we don't have the means of answering the question of whether or not there is a god, so there's no point in arguing about it. And just to clarify my statement before, just because the bible is contradictory, does not mean there isn't a god. That just means that the bible is not a reliable source for saying why some things happen and why other things don't. For example, I hear many religious people preaching love and acceptance, and yet they are homophobic because the bible said so.

[@Redactedredacted5837]

I hope no one starts arguing about science and religion. Oh wait. They already are! What the hell guys?! Who cares? Think what you want, but don't suppress other people's thoughts. If you just start up a debate, you're just wasting time. There WILL always be someone that will say otherwise. So be tolerant and don't start things that will end up with you being pissed off at words on a screen. If you want to argue, just do it somewhere else. This video is for learning, not for people to argue. No matter how much you work to change the status quo, someone will ALWAYS be there to say "No, you're wrong and I'm right." SO DONT WASTE YOUR TIME ARGUING ABOUT THIS!

[@itayeldad3317]

So it means it would make more sense to have a zoo with both t-rex and humans than jurassic park

[@DarDarBinks1986]

+Itay ELDAD Real tyrannosaurs would also look more like big, toothy birds than the scaly monsters made by those Hollywood know-nothings. They had FEATHERS. We can find this among its East Eurasian cousins, Dilong and Yutyrannus, both found in China. They were found with feather impressions. If you have kids and they take up an interest in paleontology, don't show them Jurassic Park unless you want to show them how NOT to make movies about prehistoric animals. Ditto The Good Dinosaur, The Land Before Time, or the Ice Age movies. Hollywood can't get anything right. Fuck them for getting evolutionary biology wrong. Fuck them right in the ear.

[@salmonsaladsandwich8161]

+AirCooledMan2006 Cool it, dude. When those movies were made recent discoveries like that weren't well known or universally accepted among scientists, let alone film producers. Besides, tyrannosaurs most likely had feathers only as juveniles.

[@salmonsaladsandwich8161]

I'm all for scientific accuracy, but the audiences these movies are intended for really don't give a shit. If Jurassic world gave the velociraptors feathers and made them tiny, the very small amount of biology nerds it would please would be far outweighed by the number of people who would say "WTF happened to the dinosaurs?" and care more about consistency and theatrical drama than the latest science. It's entertainment, not a documentary. I'm always internally disappointed whenever a film portrays insects inaccurately, because I have a great love of them and they are misrepresented and misunderstood perhaps more than any other animal group but I'm always the only one who knows or cares. However, I will say that predators chasing after prey while already eating isn't a scientific fallacy. If it ignores other prey while it's eating it misses out on a chance to secure twice as much food, that's why many predators will kill more than they can eat in one sitting.

[@DarDarBinks1986]

Salmon Saladsandwich Fuck the audience and fuck the majority! Like I said, science trumps art! We need REALISM in our movies. "It's not a documentary" is no excuse. Whether a majority wants it or not is of no consequence because science is not democracy. You and I can both vote on my cat's sex but it won't change the genitals we find when we lift the tail to check. It's not just movies about prehistoric animals that piss me off in this regard. Star Wars, as much as I love it, has its fuck-ups, too. Remember the scene in A New Hope where Han Solo claims that he can go "point five past the speed of light" and crossed the galaxy both ways? Assuming the Star Wars galaxy is the same size as our Milky Way (~110,000 light years across), it'd take Han and Chewie 65,000 years to cross the galaxy, and that's only going one way. As for the Death Star-like planet in The Force Awakens, absorbing the host star's energy should have destroyed that planet right then and there. There was also a fairly recent Halloween episode of The Simpsons where they did a parody of A Clockwork Orange. Marge's character mentions that Homer became a Beefeater. THAT IS NOT HOW YOU FUCKING BECOME A YEOMAN WARDER AT THE TOWER OF LONDON! You don't just apply, pass the interview, and get the job! You have to have served at least 22 years in the Armed Forces of the Commonwealth Realms, be a petty officer or other former senior NCO, and have earned the Long Service & Good Conduct Medal. Another, more recent episode had Homer fired from the nuclear plant (again) and returns to a dishwasher job at a Greek restaurant. The restaurant pays him in drachmas. GREECE DOES NOT USE DRACHMAS ANYMORE! Hasn't since 2001, when they switched to the euro!

[@salmonsaladsandwich8161]

I'm sad to say this, but in entertainment science doesn't trump art. Science doesn't really trump anything these days, Americans are quite anti- science. The masses don't like it when anyone makes them feel dumb, which is why they don't like science and intellectualism in their entertainment. Also, they just don't care. Neither do most producers. There's just not much that can be done about it, and while it may promote further ignorance it's not really that big a problem. In fact I, and based on your comments you as well, even if it's subconscious, get a little extra entertainment just in looking for and pointing out inaccuracies. I would love to make a 100% accurate science fiction movie that would stand out from the rest, but the fact that I would want it to stand out by being "smarter" is enough to tell me that I wouldn't be a very successful screenwriter. Although, after reading your comments about the Simpsons I'm actually wondering if you're trolling...?

[@Shane8]

*Takes quick glance at comments "nope"

[@cleodello]

So I'm closer in time to a T-Rex than a Stegosaurus is? That is pretty awesome, to be honest.

[@chrisgriffin4012]

As usual, very informative and well presented. Sci Show never disappoints.

[@JanjayTrollface]

Oh my,I finally found where John beats Hank for me in: niches vs nitches.....smh

[@criskity]

Warning to creationists: this video contains facts.

[@overlord165]

Why do "Christians" in America believe that God created earth in 6 days? I'm familiar with the American stereotype but my god.

[@culwin]

If Huxley thinks it's stupid to not have thought of that, imagine how stupid you have to be to not believe it even after it's explained to you.

[@StephenRayner]

Thank you for all the hard work that goes into these videos. I started out watching Hank on SciShow. I found that your brother John is equally as funny and am loving this channel too. Especially as there is coverage of so many topics! I also love the graphics / media and the editing is solid. This channel is epic! THANK YOU!

[@kurojima]

warning: this comment section can give you severe headaches ... the ignorance of the creationists and their fanbase is astounding

[@MoonlitHistory]

Hey, it's okay if some folks don't believe in evolution--a fact doesn't need their consent.

[@Muslim604c]

Read Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth," and read "Darwin's Doubt" by Stephen Meyer (in any order). Both theists and atheists: Try to become educated on the theory and the evidence for/against it before making ignorant comments on videos! Thanks.

[@farzanatasneem]

"Science" of evolution is devoted to proving Darwin was right. It is not in any way an objective science looking for answers. Information and testing is bent to prove the theory. The theory cannot be modified, even though supporters say it can be and is. There is simply no where to go from random mutations and natural selection.

[@farzanatasneem]

Evolution needs to show that the foundation of evolution isn't a fantasy: that mutations can, do, did, and will form healthy, histologically correct, necessary, utilitarian tissue. And that it can, do, did, and will place that tissue in just the right location, in just the correct shape, in just the correct amount, and that tissue will be "selected for"by being advantageous to the individual so it can continue on to become more utilitarian and more complex.

[@farzanatasneem]

Most of that which is said in this video is CONJECTURE, We can call it 'Fairy Tale'

[@kuchmatt807]

Farzana Tasneem My favorite part of your comments was where you demonstrated that you don't understand what a Scientific Theory is or that you have no understanding of the history of how the Scientific Theory of Evolution came about. I also like the part where you straw-manned evolution. Just because YOU don't understand something doesn't mean it's false.

[@farzanatasneem]

This website is good to discuss the other side of evolution darwinismrefuted.com/ And this one tells that Darwin should not be credited for Natural selection photo.goodreads.com/documents/1263851187books/7606840.pdf

[@VandrefalkTV]

I love this channel so much! Thank you, all of you. :)

[@liamjackson8458]

Great thing about science, even if you don't believe in it, it's still true.

[@JosephClayson]

That's what I believe and what makes sense to me. Being a Christian, I do believe there is a God, but I believe that God might've created the laws of science and the rules of physics and guided them along to create life and the earth to his design. But again, no one can no for sure, though.

[@jonnyboy07]

So what is it that you believe? Are you just trying to toe the line?

[@picaresqueseeker]

Yeah, maybe. We could be a petri dish under God's microscope.

[@JosephClayson]

***** I guess I'm trying to bridge the gap between religion and science.

[@JosephClayson]

BotRazmic you could say it like that.

[@jonnyboy07]

Joseph Clayson That's not bridging the gap. There's no gap to bridge. Belief in God doesn't nullify science. The two actually work hand in hand-- there are many brilliant Christian scientists.

[@ArborealOreo]

The coolest thing about life is its adaptability. Don't you all agree? For example, when that first extinction happened, all the plants on dry earth could've died and this could've set back our evolution by millions of years. BUT, there were many bacteria, eukaryotes, fungi and plants that had adapted to live in the poles, so they colonized the whole earth when there was an ice age (when everything else on dry earth died), and thus didn't let the years of evolution go to waste. And BTW, I am a religious guy, and though I believe in God, I also believe in evolution wholeheartedly. Like they say, God works in mysterious ways, and scientists are all about that mystery.

[@grindsession24]

Awesome. Maybe the best thing they have done so far, and they have been delivering great stuff on a weekly basis for many years. I really appreciate all of the hard work.

[@mercenarieboy]

Queue the arguments between the ignorant creationists and the arrogant evolutionists.

[@RedLionGenetics]

arrogant evolutionists?

[@captainban7137]

ka caw ?

[@mableyatts2832]

@fantastic It is a more honest answer than "There is a guy above watching every move I do" thing. Data and evidence speaks for it self. Blind Faith hinders your intelligence and reality. There are 2 kinds of people in this world; dumb ass, smart ass, and intelligent. That makes you a dumb ass.

[@mableyatts2832]

3 kinds, typo

[@Vanalovan]

I think you meant cue ;)

[@Zeldaschampion]

Its still a theory, though. Just because something appears as what you think doesn't necessarily mean its hundred percent accurate. As Einstein himself said, everything is relative.

[@michaelo.1320]

No. 98% of scientists agree. The other 2% feel too guilty to abandon thief faith in that area or are under pressure. They wen't over this in the video, and then you literally just repeated the thing they said has no validity, as if suddenly it now has validity.

[@Zeldaschampion]

***** Yes. Regardless of 98% of what scientists "agree" on. Its still relative regardless of their believe and the "proof". As Einstein said, if you appear to be not moving to yourself doesn't necessarily mean you are still but could in fact be moving. It only appears to you to be not moving based of off the current evidence which most people would claim to be empirical evidence of being still.

[@AnnaBucci]

creationist arguments go go go!

[@themplar]

but they dont have arguments...

[@AB3385ab]

Lol, love the Dino Rider's graphic! That was my favorite show when I was a kid back in late 80's, just about forgotten about that!

[@MrBobor1]

I just don't get how do creationists still exist... I am guessing that from the developed world only Americans still cling to their primitive beliefs of: ,,God don-diddly done it!"

[@Cloud_Seeker]

Creationism is pretty much only a American phenomena, the rest of the world have grown up and left the US in the dark ages where it seems they want to stay.

[@Cloud_Seeker]

Nonamearisto Well we also doesn't really consider them to have any power and influence. Islamic states in the middle east got more but they and not really that imporant. We also was only talking about the west. African got more than just creationism to deal with, I say creationism is the least of its problem.

[@mshara1]

Nonamearisto Creationism existing in India, can someone confirm? Despite widespread ignorance, they take science education fairly serious.

[@kavyamj]

mshara1 Creationism is widespread in India. But it does not interfere much with science education. They both go along hand in hand. An example of this is when ISRO launched the Mars Orbiter Mission. Obviously a leap forward in the science frontier, however before the countdown, a coconut was broken to appease the Gods, a religious ceremony. Hinduism, at it's core, is more scientific, more spiritual, accepting than other religions, and it's very rare for a religious vs science debate to come up here, so people do both. They pray, as well as study science. Unlike western religions, we do not have any one holy book which forces people act in certain ways with threats of hell and the dangling carrot of heaven. Hinduism is pro science, because it allows skepticism, free questioning, investigation and interpretation of what is claimed or considered to be 'Truth'. In fact there is a saying that those who search for truth are more closer to God, than those who mechanically pray. I'm an atheist, but atheism is also a part of Hinduism's school of thought. I have had debates with extremists but they are actually religious chauvinists not true Hindus. I see the flame wars - Atheists vs Christians in the comments section, but it's not something that happens here because Atheism and Hinduism are not polar opposites.

[@kiramoth2766]

Cloud Seeker Nope, don't worry, i live in France, and even though i'm an atheist, and the majority is as well, some peaple are creationnists here, or whatever is called "blindly believing religion's statements to understand the universe, without any rationnal thoughts". I just had an argue w/ a girl that was telling me exactly that, "evolution is just a theory". Plus, i had a christian education, and i know that the Bible's "Genesis" and old testament are metaphors, written as a mythology, not as history.

[@99baking]

Comments: 90% atheists saying that religious people are complaining 9% atheists saying religious people are dumb 1% rational people 0% religious people actually complaining

[@Muslim604c]

3:50 - "Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory." Yes but which theory of gravity? There's one theory of gravity which postulates an inverse-square force between massive objects, another theory of gravity that describes it as the curvature of spacetime, and yet another theory of gravity which claims there are tiny particles called gravitons which impart gravitational force. Y'all need to get your "theories" straightened out! (By the way, all of the above-mentioned gravitational theories have *mountains* of evidence backing up each one - except maybe Newton's which is more of an approximation. So don't even go there.)

[@benvanpelt9060]

Aren't those all the same? Sorry if I'm wrong but they all seem like they fit. The first part is the mathematics, then what happens in the physical world, then the proposed carrier particle. Pretty sure that's just one theory of gravity, you're just unnecessarily splitting it into 3 "theories".

[@4dragonblade]

Ben Van Pelt Actually they are separate ones that involve each other. The first one was Newton's theory and the math formula he came up with to explain the attraction of forces. The second one is part of Einstein's theory of relativity, which is explaining different things, like movement and such (it's complicated and I'm sleepy so I don't want to explain it all) and the last one is just a theory, we haven't found it yet but we suspect it exists. All scientific theories are just meant to explain facets of how the universe works and make predictions about the future, so a lot of different theories will have overlapping parts to them.

[@Arkalius80]

Well Newtonian "gravity as a force" is superseded by general relativity (gravity as curvature of space time) and quantum gravity. The equations of Newton are accurate enough for most ordinary work and are easier to understand and use so they haven't gone away. However, the fact that theories of general relativity and quantum gravity seem to conflict yet both have useful predictive value in different contexts lends credence to the oft-repeated statement that we actually understand evolution better than we understand gravity.

[@4dragonblade]

Arkalius80 that works much better than my explanation, and I never thought of it that way. Thank you for the quick education.

[@DeHerg]

Arkalius80 "Well Newtonian "gravity as a force" is superseded by general relativity" it´s not superseded it´s more that newtonian gavitational law is a specific case for the theory of relativity with the boundary conditions of low speed and low mass (insignificant lorenz contractions)

[@vhh6080]

Maaaaan, I love science.

[@zhiracs]

This is the kind of video you'd wan to disable the comments on.

[@twilitetra9245]

Where's the fun in that?

[@kalinsimovski5081]

Twili Tetra TRUTH

[@jerden3285]

Only disable the comments if you know that it will just provoke abuse. Even then, the video maker could just pretend the comments don't exist, because people will just go elsewhere to hate on the video anyway. Don't turn off the comments just to silence (admittedly, moronic and pointless) debate.

[@Shangori]

There is never a good reason to disable comments. Google made it possible to block people you don't like, you can monitor your own comment 'section', where you can easily delete and even mute someone from participating in that particular string of comments and best of all, you can just not read if you do not want to read. If we silence opposition, or even just everyone, we will stop progress. If someone is wrong, they can find out while talking to others, if you're right you can spread that knowledge to others. Ideas are there to be spread. It's how we got where we are now and it should never be stopped. dftba; even if you don't like what you're reading, at least you should be free to read it or not and to express your opinion about it

[@gto462]

0:22 is that Game of Thrones?

[@jamesheuer6719]

ihaveherpes and like it

[@Mockturtlesoup1]

Nuh uh hank! Nuh uh! Because Jebus!!! Duh!

[@jack_the_sparrow]

The EXTINCTION! thing is even more hilarious than the Mongol Exception thing

[@ratatouille1682]

Imagine if this is a creationist video, God did it, end of story.

[@3uujh656]

lol

[@zachsmith2261]

Imagine if you actually knew abut Christian Science. Go look up the works of Johann Kelper, Leonardo Da Vinci, Fancias Bacon, Samuel F.B. Morse, William Petty, William Derham, James Joule, Henri Fabre, Joseph Henry, Arthur A. Compton, Sir Isaac Newton, Joseph Lister, Blaise Pascal, Sir John Frederick Herschel, his father Sir William Herschel, Albert Einstein, James Simpson, Ray Comfort, Richard M. Fales PHD, William F. Albright, Jeffery L. Sheler, Dr Joseph P. Free, Dr. Nelson Glueck, Dr. Ed Young, John McRay, Josephus, Derek Prince of Cambridge University, Professor Louis Bounoure, C.S. Lewis, Abe Lincoln, and countless others. Then you will scratch the surface of who God's is an how wonderful an perfect he is! There are two kinds of people in the world. All I is have sin in us but some of us keep it on us as a burden weight that crushes and destroys us while others put our on the Cross and do not need to be burdened. You don't either and I pray you will one to realize that truth.

[@ratatouille1682]

Zach Smith

[@zachsmith2261]

+Rata Touille YEC? I am not sure what that means to be completely honest.

[@overlord165]

Well god created us through evolution. That is god's work and it's still in process.

[@jmorrow22]

Niches get stitches.

[@offbeat4772]

Out of curiosity, what is with the arguments between Christians and those that are calling them stupid for not believing evolution? I'm Catholic and understand that evolution is pretty much as close to fact as you can get to, as science says nothing can be proven only disproven. The Pope himself has always believed in evolution, so have I, and so has the rest of any other type of most sane people in religions. The Catholic faith views the Bible loosely. No sane Catholic (I would speak of other religions, but as I am Catholic, I'm not going to speak on their behalf out of fear of giving false information on their beliefs) would ever think anyone lived 912 years, or that the Earth was literally formed in 6 days, even before a day existed, as the sun didn't exist until the fourth day (I think). So its seen more as symbolistic than exact. So why all this arguing considering there are very few cultures and religions on the planet that don't believe in evolution...

[@kokofan50]

It's sad to say that there are a lot of people that take the bible and other religious texts as literal.

[@SynchronizorVideos]

Because there are a lot of religious *and* atheist people with too much time on their hands who enjoy starting arguments on KZbin.

[@pikminwarz]

You deserve a medal!

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

People take religion seriously. U are simply cherry picking parts, and instead of looking at it like a reasonable person (saying it is wrong when it makes demonstrably false claims) u simply say "oh it's a metaphor". When thousands of denominations disagree and ur bible states otherwise. U are worse than those who ACTUALLY follow it. either take ur bible seriously or don't. Cherry picking and calling whatever it gets wrong a "metaphor" isn't helping.

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

Roy Mustang umm THAT is the damn problem. If ur going to cherry pick the good little parts and ignore the entirety of genesis. Then NO, u aren't " better". Ur just a hypocrite. u accept the same book, same religion, and same irrationality. The ONLY difference is which parts u cherry pick. if someone is going to point that horrible book as "truth" and "moral", then you BETTER follow it as it says. The people who actually follow it think they are doing good. if they are worse, that means the religion is worse. And cherry picking doesn't make ANYONE better. if u can't follow it, then no reason to cherry pick and ignore parts. That makes u worse

[@jabbatheslutt135]

Reptiles when they see land: *It’s free real estate*

[@foxyjones1796]

"evolution is just a theory" true... so true.

[@sirevilmustache9567]

Foxy Jones en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[@michaelkennedy19]

You're an imbecile!!! That's a fact!

[@theHippiecat15]

"I'm a boss ass nich" ~Nicki Minaj

[@12301231234]

So, back when oxygen was above 30%, were forest fires, like, super-intense? (This is, of course, on the intensity scale from modern forest fires, which are intense, to fireplace fires, which are romantic, and nuclear bomb fires which AAARGH MY FACE IS MELTING AND HAS CANCER!)

[@Rodman200818]

Vegetation and atmospheric oxygen concentration can probably be modelled with a simple enough differential equation. An equilibruim would exist (taking only these two variables into account) over time as such: More vegetation->more oxygen->more fires->less vegetation->less oxygen->less fires->repeat. My guess at a super simplistic system ;)

[@merrymachiavelli2041]

Maybe not, scale forests, like those that existed in the carboniferous, were very swampy. By my understanding, forest fires require the land to be dry. You never really get them in the UK due to it being too wet. Having said that, maybe if it *did* happen the fires were more intense.

[@jerden3285]

I think the answer to the question is YES! I suspect that fires would be much easier to start, and would burn faster and for longer, and so forest fires would logically be both more common and more devestating.

[@merrymachiavelli2041]

Jordan Warner Did you read my comment out of interest?

[@TheCrankyCow]

There was a (minor)mass extinction in the mid Jurassic casued by a large amount of coal burring. I don't know if that counts although because it was more so because nothing could digest the celluose before it turned into coal than anything.

[@symbolxchannel]

Please, Hank, don't consciously mispronounce "niche"… It is disrespectful to its French origin. Thank you John, for respecting my native language. :D

[@AlleyBetwixt]

Language evolves. Pronouncing niche the way that Hank does is not wrong for his region of the world. It is correct for him... and also for me (in California). If I was in another part of the world where niche was widely used with a different pronunciation, I would adapt to that for the sake of clarity. Communication is what matters. If you understand what is being said there isn't a problem.

[@reasonnottheneed]

Then should I be offended anytime anyone mispronounces the sign on a Chinese restaurant? Holding people to other languages' pronunciations is just ridiculous--the only logical conclusion one can draw from it is that everyone should be required to learn how to pronounce every language

[@whatshisnamegain1]

I'm part French too and yes, it does sound weird because I'm used to the French way of saying "niche", but for example, I pronounce the word "route" as /rowt/ and not /root/ because I already associate the latter pronunciation to the "roots of a tree", even though this pronunciation is closer to the French one.

[@NeoDemocedes]

Do you say money or monnaie? Bottle or bouteille? Chair or chaise? If you used the french pronunciation for all the words in the English language that were borrowed from French you would sound like an idiot in any country. Merriam-Webster lists the pronunciation as \ˈnich also ˈnēsh or ˈnish\ Dictionary.com... (nĭch, nēsh) All dictionaries I could find list the 'nĭch' pronunciation first. Those with an audio clip also use 'nĭch' pronunciation. This boat has sailed. 'nĭch' is the most common usage. Unless you speak with a french accent, saying 'nēsh' makes you sound like a pretentious douche.

[@symbolxchannel]

NeoDemocedes There is no *t* in niche… All the pronunciations enumerated in your Merriam-Webster list are correct since they use actual pronunciations… But adding letters to a pronunciation simply looks "stoopid"! Hank says "Nitsh"… Which sounds stupid.

[@Alyenbird]

I want to see this topic made into a whole series: History of Life. John, when you said "I can bench press more then a Eukaryote". I think you forgot that you ARE a Eukaryote. A multicellular one, but still one none-the-less. All life forms with nucleated cells are Eukaryotes.

[@MultiWhatever007]

Nitch

[@amirite01]

Plz no flamewars for gods sake.....

[@thehumancrayon3264]

I found this video somewhat hard to watch, purely because of the pronunciation of 'niche'. Where the hell is the 't' coming from? (Also, calling dinosaurs 'giant reptiles')

[@salmonsaladsandwich8161]

Dinosaurs are giant reptiles. Birds are just small, flying reptiles.

[@NicRootNac]

birds (class aves) reptiles (class reptilia) and mammals (class mammalia) are all under the phylum "chordata". keeping this in mind does that mean that rodents are small furry reptiles that have live birth? No. birds evolved from a specialized subgroup of theropod dinosaurs, and more specifically, they are members of maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids

[@salmonsaladsandwich8161]

You took that way too seriously

[@NicRootNac]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ hey man this is a channel that promotes intellectualism

[@vochkar3109]

They are giant reptiles

[@israelaburto1969]

I have to watch these videos twice because they are sooo mindblowing!!!

[@jacks.6243]

Wow. Funny how I'm seeing reasonably respective comments from creationists, yet the overwhelming majority of Atheists (who sould just - you know - agree) post a variaty of insulting and belitteling comments about religious people. "All religious people are creationists" - You are so wrong. In fact in countrys otside of the US, Creationists aren't even a group that is big enough to be taken into serious consideration - the catholic church agknowleges evolution and I'm pretty sure so does the Queen of England (head of the Anglikan church) and I don't think anyone needs to have serious doubts regarding protestants. And then, from this stams the even more infuriating: "All religious people are stupid." Like believing in a God/Gods makes you an idiot. You know a religious person who's smart and down to earth, admit it. And if you don't, I must assume you don't know a lot of smart people. In wich case ... my condolances. But just for you, Albert Einstein, arguably the greatest mind of the past century, but definetly a brilliant scientist - pretty convinced God existed. So, dear Atheists. One of your famous argument is that arguing over religions has caused so mcuh trouble and death and that reigion should be abandoned because all this arguing is so harmfull. SO STOP ARGUING ABOUT RELIGION. ESPECIALLY UNPROVOKED AND ILL-INFORMED. (Also note that I am not telling you my religious views. I'm just making an alarming observation.)

[@bliss2632]

Well, actually, Einstein was a pantheist, but otherwise I must agree. Saying that all Christians are like Creationists is like saying all Muslims are like Al Qaeda. Just in terms of the stupidity of the comment, I mean. Not that Creationists are militant.

[@whatshisnamegain1]

So basically you are complaining about the fact that atheists do generalize 'religious people' and how do you do that? By generalizing 'atheists'. Come on, seriously?

[@only20frickinletters]

Creationists are only a loud minority, and they only continue to exist because atheists want a straw man against God. Unfortunately, you'll never save the world, or even the youtube comments. Surround yourself with people who have brains, and you'll feel much better. Christian Lundsgaard Einstein was Jewish, you damn crazy. iamihop Fighting over religion is no worse than fighting over political ideology and is markedly better than fighting over the price of oil. No belief system held by a large group of people, other than one that by its very nature glorifies or condemns violence, meaningfully affects how violent the group or any of its individuals is.

[@kalinsimovski5081]

Being an atheist doesn't make you some sort of perfect being of understanding. Nor does it mean that you understand evolution well or at all. Unfortunately people are people and you will find intolerant asshats of every variety, especially on the net. In fact i usually double as an asshat iz fun tho XD

[@RustyShackleford1066]

Way to generalize people.

[@lukassnakeman]

the dinosaurs wer around for a long ass time and couldnt even get to the stone age

[@Idiosyncfilms]

but they could open doors

[@cmccallwx]

Lies!!!! There were rocks millions of years ago!!!

[@Justintime_1]

So if God *doesn't exist* then what do you atheists think is going to happen when you die? Are you just going to be in blackness for eternity? I don't think so, I would rather believe in a God then just think there will be nothing but blackness when I die.

[@MikeSportsAndGames]

I think the best answer to your question is saying, honestly, I don't know what happens when I die. I would prefer for there to be some kind of life after death, but my preferences shouldn't take precedent over what is.

[@fr0z3nskull]

Wishful thinking.

[@bromordra]

Bit of a misunderstanding actually. It's not 'blackness for eternity', being able to percieve blackness implies a consious mind to note the lack of light. So far as I'm concerned life just ends when you die. I'll be no more suffering from black eternity than a rock does.

[@Justintime_1]

Andrew Northcutt So basically you would rather be a rock for *eternity* then live with all of your friends and live in paradise for *eternity*?

[@cobaltxsnake]

It's alright if you comfort yourself with that idea. I won't object. But if you start telling me the Theory of Evolution is an outright lie, campaign to ban it from schools, and debase the scientific process, just because you like to think there isn't nothingness after death, then we might have a problem. Or if you say I'll burn in eternal flames for liking men, etc. This is fundamental life science, and has paved the way for much of biology, corroborated time and again. It's disheartening to see what lengths humanity goes to avoid mortal fear.

[@sleeve-tv]

I was really hoping that at 13:47 Hank would say, "...ends, you guessed it, THE MONGOLS! (montage)." just for laughs. Great episode!!!

[@akmalsy159]

Why can't Evolution & Creationism get along? Isn't it possible that God created life THROUGH evolution? Of course it's also possible one or both to be false, but that's the view I'm sticking with.

[@azukar8]

The problem with the 'middle of the road' approach is that neither end can accept it. Scientists would reject the religious side because it adds extraneous and unproven aspects to the theory, while creationists would reject the evolution side because it contradicts biblical literalism.

[@Cloud_Seeker]

I know this is long but bare with it ok. Why can't Astrology and Astronomy get along? They can't get along for the same reason Evolution and Creationism can't get along, 1 is false and the other is correct. Creationism isn't just the question of how life started, its how humans and everything was started. Creationism is where humans and everything was created in the 6 days described in the Bible, it assumes everything told about how the world was form is the way the literal interpretation of the bible say. Evolution and religion doesn't have a conflict if you want to talk about how life started as evolution doesn't give a shit about how life started, having life is a precondition of biological evolution so life can have started in many ways including from a god without making any difference at all for evolution. The problem a God started life and then used evolution explenation have is that it have to account for all other evidence that isn't connected to evolution as well with the evidence from evolution. Creationism is nothing but pure arrogance. I recently saw the documentary "Questioning Darwin" which is pretty much only a creationists propaganda documentary ment to propagate creationism. In that documentary they made all maners of bad journalism, using fallacies, using factually incorrect statements, personal attacks and soo on to make creationism seems better. They start with a caricature of Darwin turning into a chimp, they constantly emphasis his personal tragedies to have been the cause of his disbelief in the Christian god (I know the creationists way of reasoning to know where this is going: "Something bad must have happened to you to be so angry at God"), they claim they fight science with science by using creation science (which isn't science in anyway, they just claim its science. It goes somewhat like this: Well you got science, than I got science too. No you don't. Well If my is religion, yours is religion too. No it isn't. In the documentary they also show their height of arrogance when they say "God created humans just above angels" and "Its inconceivable that Darwin want to lower humans to a lower lifefrom by calling humans a animal.". Creationist doesn't think they are part of nature, they think they are above nature. That nature was created for them to rule, for them to say and do what they want with without any consideration on any other living thing. The claim that humans are animals isn't degrading to humans, we have always been animals so the only thing it does is to remove undeserved importance created from our own arrogance and self importance. It really remind me of the end to anime Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood but with a refusal to accept your humanity instead of accepting it. If you haven't seen it I will explain. Edward lost his leg and Alphonse lost his whole body trying to resurrect their dead mother in a attempt to do something impossible, Ed wants to bring his brother back (Alphonse isn't technical dead you see) so he sacrifice his ability to do Alchemy to bring his brother back from the void. When he is asked if that is really what he want to do by "God", God say: "Are you sure you want to do that? If you do it you will be unable to use alchemy and lower yourself to just a normal human." Ed answer with: "What do you mean lower? I have always been just a normal human, a normal human that was unable to save a little girl.". This scene reminds me of what they said in the documentary because when they are asked such a question creationists bang on their chest and say "You are right? I am higher than a normal human, I am a alchemist and a higher lifefrom.". Creationism just can't accept that humans are a normal animal without something that makes them the most important animal by default because they are told they are in a book written by goat headers +2000 years ago.

[@azukar8]

Cloud Seeker Well said (though really the first paragraph said it all pretty succinctly!)

[@Cloud_Seeker]

Azukar I am really bugged by the arrogance of creationists. I struggled with the notion that I was a animal like all other animal when I was around 6-8 yeas old. However it wasn't very hard to deal with since I wasn't told I was standing above every other living thing and therefore I didn't build up a extreme notion of self importance. What exactly makes you better than a animal? What makes humans better than a lion? What makes humans better than a fish? What makes humans better than a bacteria? We are literally crying in fear from the wrath of the bacteria, we are alive because they want us alive. Bacteria keeps us alive, they help us fight other bacteria as the first line of defence in our immune system. Humans are a host for bacteria yet we are somehow more imporant than they are because God told us so. Humans think humans are more worth than other humans because we are humans, we are biased to think like that. However if you want to define on a list from God to whatever thats the least you can't allow such biases.

[@azukar8]

Cloud Seeker I feel like you're arguing with me? If so, maybe re-read what I wrote.

[@AelwynMr]

As a botanist, everytime I hear "animals" in this video I feek sick

[@TimboSlice69420]

I always thought it was funny how you breathe, drink, talk and eat through the same hole a point Neil de Grasse Tyson points out hilariously when he did his bit on "stupid design"

[@TimboSlice69420]

Neil Degrasse Tyson - Stupid Design

[@sofiablack4968]

0:04 Hi little Hank!