Video: from Australopithecus to Homo sapiens in 5 minutes

I agree with Derren Brown's comments about this video:

PLEASE – do yourself a favour and turn the sound OFF – NOW. I’m almost willing to throw the towel in admit that creationists are right when I hear it. However the video is just brilliant (if you ignore the silly text as well)... Here’s 500 generations every SECOND backed up by actual fossil evidence – shoved in to a computer and animated together. It’s fantastic to watch.

Video: from Australopithecus to Homo sapiens in 5 minutes (Via Daily Grail)

[#1 posted by Anonymous, July 20, 2009 9:16 AM]

This version seems better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrhYLvNeQd4&annotation_id=annotation_61939&feature=iv

[#2 posted by flunchg, July 20, 2009 9:30 AM]

I saw a similar movie a few years ago that proved that steel spikes evolved from Robert Patrick's hand. I'd like to see the creationists refute that evidence.

[#3 posted by Chrs, July 20, 2009 9:39 AM]

Happily, it does seem to base the transitions on the known pre-human species. Unfortunately, there aren't many between steel spikes and Robert Patrick's hand. This may be indicative that a single-nucleotide polymorphism is sufficient to cause the transition.

[#4 posted by nuorder, July 20, 2009 9:46 AM]

I don't care what anyone says...the earth is only 6,000 years old and woman was created from Adam's rib.

Take dat, Darwinians!!!

[#5 posted by Anonymous, July 20, 2009 9:56 AM]

God created evolution..

[#6 posted by Blaven, July 20, 2009 10:05 AM]

Very cool, though I had more fun grabbing the progress bar at the bottom and sliding it back and forth.

[#7 posted by Bodhipaksa, July 20, 2009 10:16 AM]

@Blaven: you took the words right out of my mouth. I'd suggest turning the sound off, switching tabs for a couple of minutes, and then once the video's fully loaded go back and scroll through it in three seconds. It makes the experience less like watching paint dry.

[#8 posted by Anonymous, July 20, 2009 10:43 AM]

Run the video backwards and you have both a good example of "Christian Rock" and the progress of human development from T.H. Huxley to Pat Robertson.

[#9 posted by Jesse M., July 20, 2009 12:04 PM]

Yeah, the version posted by commenter #1 is way better, no annoying preaching and it also shows you which frames are actual fossil skulls and which are just morphed in-betweens.

[#10 posted by Anonymous, July 20, 2009 2:36 PM]

I pulled this down and put Iggy Pop's "I am the passenger" over the top - much much better.

[#11 posted by Anonymous, July 20, 2009 3:23 PM]

@ #2 I saw a movie a few months ago that proved humans will eventually have indestructable skeletons and metal spikes protruding from their hands. They also seem to develope anger issues and bitchin' facial hair.

[#12 posted by Rindan, July 20, 2009 4:14 PM]

God created evolution..

I am pretty sure that if that was the view of all crazy religious folks, there would not be much controversy. Very few scientists, heathen or otherwise, are going to get their panties in a twist over the declaration that in times further back than we can look some religious folk believe that god kicked off a rube goldberg universe where god flicks his finger, a big bang happens, and everything from that point on he sits back and watches as it unfolds exactly to plan without intervention.

That isn't what creationist and intelligent design folk argue. They argue that god is imperfect. They argue that sure, god kicked off the universe, but that after he kicked it off, he had to constantly intervene with magic to keep it on track. This is where scientist or any sane rational thinker has a problem. Most people get a little pissy when people try and teach to their kids in public schools the answer to natural and observable phenomenon is 'magic'.

If you take the position that God is a master bowler who can toss a bowling ball from the top of a mountain and score a strike every time, you probably will just get shrugs of indifference from most people. If you argue that god has to chase a bowling ball down the lane and keep pulling it out of the gutter to score a strike, there is probably a disagreement. Claiming that in some time where science has yet to been able to probe the answer is magic is unoffensive. Claiming that the only way to explain observable natural events is magic is offensive.

[#13 posted by Anonymous, July 20, 2009 7:28 PM]

That morphing effect between actual fossils is pretty cheesy. Bummer that they didn't have more actual fossils to interpolate, since so many exist.

[#14 posted by Napalm Dog, July 20, 2009 7:34 PM]

I'd like to see inside the brain-case modeled like this!

[#15 posted by Anonymous, July 21, 2009 1:26 AM]

This looks a lot like they took a bunch of photos of the skulls from the same perspective, and then used the silly mac software to interpolate them.

[#16 posted by Anonymous, July 21, 2009 7:46 AM]

Depending on how you view it, both side of the argument sound a little silly. We are here because of magic, or we are all made of star dust.

[#17 posted by Anonymous, July 21, 2009 8:14 AM]

If you really want to see devolution working through morphs go to www.openuniversity.co.uk/darwin