When Life Nearly Died 

I believe he’s a time traveler who simply publishes photographs he’s taken whenever a new animal is announced

him and nobu tamura are always on point with their paleoart and have done so many extinct animals!

Let's not forget Julio Lacerda!

​@@lofty7316 Nobu Tamuras art is only great when hand drawn. Most of his stuff is 3d and a little crude imo.

Joschua knüppe and Gabriel ugueto are the best paleoartists on the internet in my view

by breeding..

They quite literally, colonized the entirety of earth, literally consisting of like 90% of terrestial animals.

​@@bliss6417 damn brits were at it even before humanity

What were you doing up watching tv at 3am when you were 5 years old?

There’s more lockdowns to come?

Me too my friend

Me too😊

Exactly

We never locked down here, that sucka

Or just like Hawaii now

@@drts6955 no, Hawaii hotspot is magnitudes smaller than Siberian Traps

@@Ptaku93 I mean in the sense that eruptions weren't necessarily all at same time. A huge area but not necessarily all active at one time

@@drts6955 nope multiple eruptions were happening at the same time bak then

The Triassic is severely over Shadowed by The two periods following it, for obvious Dino related reasons,

It is just a click bait title.

@@nedludd7622 no shit

true!

True... although, we can say this was perhaps the most devastating when it comes to the reduction in biodiversity. I am sure near extinctions occurred during the single cell era, but we have little records of these besides trace data, and the biodiversity diversity was probably less (once you eliminate multi-cellular life).

@@nedludd7622 It's not though.

He or she is cute.

According to Evolutionist life's almost not existed several times lol farfetch right

@@sltslt5153 How is it far-fetched?

@@brahimdiop5506 not only did life spontaneously generate from a pool of chemicals into single-celled life that then evolved into everything that is and is to come But a repeated cycle of life nearly going extinct and bouncing back not to mention chemical and cosmic evolution it's all ridiculously impossible and extremely imaginative to think we would be here right now after all that and not just us but the extreme diversity of living organisms we have and like I said thats not mentioning chemical and cosmic evolution

@@sltslt5153 Why am I not identical to my dad then? If we are as we always were, why is my skin paler than my dad, but lighter than my mom? Shouldn't it have just picked one or the other to prevent deviation from the original?

@@brahimdiop5506 well you're not a duplicate of your mom or dad your their offspring There's plenty of facts that support that earth is Young like slowing in the rotation of the Earth the moon gradually getting further and why do dinosaur bones and diamonds have detectable carbon-14? Evolution is instilled in our brain at a young age starting with kid TV shows and from elementary to college it's taught and governmentally funded

istg these videos keep me sane, i find it really hard to fall asleep without watching at least one of these in bed

Ah, yes, that time life on Earth almost died. Great bedtime watching. Then again I'm watching this after 7:30, so maybe I shouldn't be talking.

His voice and videos in general are so soothing! Hope you're doing better, anxiety is such a bitch

@@thatoneweirdbish6364 one time I was watching one when I was very tired and it put me straight to sleep 😭💀

@@willowdigger617 It's the best, this way you can start the video all over again until you made it through! Lmao

@@thatoneweirdbish6364 it’s not that it was boring. It was as interesting as his voice and the music is soothing, and I just relaxed and drifted off…

@@willowdigger617 don't worry i meant it in exactly that way. They're never boring but i also just start drifting off bc it's just so relaxing to listen to.

i call bs on that

@@shakti666 got any REAL evidence?

Yeah basically to get the numbers of CO2 needed to cause the estimated warming, a researcher in the 90s the Siberian traps intruded on coal beds and basically started burning them. Similar to what we do today but on a much longer timescale (thousands to tens of thousanda of years)

While current CO2 levels are concerning, we’re still not nearly as close to levels at the end of the Permian as you believe. That of course doesn’t negate the fact that we should still reduce our carbon footprint

@@bigpuma444 We're not now, obviously. My point was that, given we've emitted more in the last 30 years than in our existence prior to 30 years ago, it won't take that much time to reach that level, or a seriously devastating level at least, at our current emission rate. That is what's important.

@@bombidil3 Once again, while current emissions are heavy, we’re still not going to see those same levels at the end of the Permian in 30 years. Even with heavy volcanism producing much heavier CO2 emissions than we, ourselves, produce it still took thousands of years (possibly more) until global temperatures and lack of breathable oxygen finally killed off most life on this planet. We have more than enough time to come up with solutions, contrary to corporate-funded fear-mongering

There's also plenty of evidence we are currently in a mass extinction event but who care about that 🤷‍♂

The Permian extinction is the most devastating that we know of. Biodiversity stagnates in times of stability and then jumps after extinction events.

There are always extinctions going on. Mass extinctions are an increase in the background extinction rate, not the exclusive manifestation of an otherwise unknown phenomenon.

Ok. You're correct.

I used to be a photographer. I still am, but I used to too.

Both ways of saying it are correct and understandable so I have no idea why you're trying to make an issue of it.

Yes, for comparison. Good job. Don't expect a medal for pointing out the obvious.

No. Just HAPPENED to be lucky. Right combo of traits at the right time.

@@rickkwitkoski1976 no fun allowed on the internet huh

@@PunishedFelix It wasn't clear you understood it's not true. And it might not be clear for thousands dumber than you to understand it either. So the ones that never expanded this thread would 'learn' that only the badass survived. Here's how myths are born - out of ambiguous jokes.

@@erynn9968 I'm pretty sure nobody is going to believe biology works on a badass scale

@@erynn9968 No one is going to believe that but a few people, and the second they say it to anyone they will be corrected and laughed at. Let people make figures of speech or jokes, it's not the end of the world

Humans are extremely hard to wipe out. It’s the ecosystem, and civilization that is much more delicate. There’s always gonna be one couple of humans in their super bunker even with nuclear war lol. But it’s more a question of how bad are things going to get before it starts to bounce back into stability

@@kx7500 you are wrong. Humans very nearly went extinct multiple times, some relatively recently on the evolutionary timescale. This is why genetically we are all much more related than other species of animals. It is estimated that there have been as little as 10,000 humans on earth multiple times in the last 2 million years. If anything, we are a very fragile species.

​@bodeeangus9957 But surely the fact that we faced near extinction so many times and yet still find ourselves here speaks to resilience, rather than fragility? I dunno, like most things I guess it is a matter of perspective.

@@louisj2256 When it comes to an evolutionary timescale, a species being reduced to such low numbers multiple times is a very bad thing. There are animals out there who have survived multiple extinction events much worse than any of the events that humans have survived, without a dramatic decrease in genetic diversity. Take alligators for instance, these animals have been around for much longer than humans and have survived because they are generalists. They can eat anything and survive in many different environments while also remaining apex predators. Humans on the other hand, especially in the last ten thousand years, are becoming very, very specialized for a way of living that is not sustainable. Modern medicine and high quality food remove evolutionary selectors that would otherwise improve our survivability in nature. This trend will continue until we are entirely reliant on technology for survival, effectively autodomesticating our own species. This could be avoided if we are ever able to alter our genetic code artificially, but until that point we can expect the human genome to become less fit for survival in the wild over time.

@@bodeeangus9957 Except we don't have that shallow of a gene pool. You're confusing our gene pool - which is unusually shallow for mammals our size - for one that's inbred. We're not. We don't even start showing deleterious consequences for inbreeding significantly faster than other animals. We can expect our gene pool to continue to diversify through the usual mechanisms, and our evolution to continue to adapt us to living in our present circumstances. That we are less fit for survival in the wild is irrelevant, as we no longer live in the wild - and there are _billions_ of people still fully suited for living in the wild, far more than ever actually lived in the wild at any given time. Contrast that with some of the other mammals who also show those genetic bottlenecks from the near-extinction events we faced, most of whom are now on the verge of extinction. Cockroaches _wish_ they were as resilient as we are.

Out of the water

There were, but they're not as famous due to geology - especially deep-time geology - not being as famous or sexy as paleontology.

“The sudden injection of toxic oxygen into an anaerobic biosphere may have caused the extinction of many existing anaerobic species on Earth. Although the event is inferred to have constituted a mass extinction,[7] due in part to the great difficulty in surveying microscopic species' abundances, and in part to the extreme age of fossil remains from that time, the Great Oxidation Event is typically not counted among conventional lists of "great extinctions", which are implicitly limited to the Phanerozoic eon. In any case, isotope geochemical data from sulfate minerals have been interpreted to indicate a decrease in the size of the biosphere of >80% associated with changes in nutrient supplies at the end of the GOE[8].” Wikipedia

We are directly responsible for the heating that is being caused.

Congratulations! Your bachelor's, I assume. Are you planning on going back for a master's?

@@Gildedmuse Maybe going for post-grad but I wanna go straight into conservation work. I'm pretty controversial (as evidenced by my channel) so I don't think I fit in well in academia lol, but thanks! I'm actually lined up for my ceremony as we speak :)

Congratulations and good luck in your conservation career!

@@dinohall2595 Thanks fam, I'll try my best to make a difference :)

At the current rates of pollution we will achieve similar levels much faster than 60,000 years.

Yes, thank you, came to comments to check on this.

Without the great dying the definition of mammal and dinosaur would be completely different so it's hard to say