The years since the enlightenment have been a great leap forward for mankind toward understanding the natural world without the need for invoking myth, superstition and the super natural which is the basis for all religions.
While discussing science and observation, the host has cleverly critiqued the concept of a creator and his role, suggesting that Darwin was searching for evidence of a creator. Darwin, however, wrote about the origin of life and the process of natural selection, ultimately finding no necessity for a divine creator in his explanations.
A lot of museums just have you wash your hands before now. The problem with gloves is that they make it harder to feel what you are touching, and so increase the chances of accidental damage.
Books wear and tear happens from elements, just need proper environment where humidity is at its lowest. and well.. mold and moss. I think that's what Darwin wanted to convey here, complex organism needed a medium to thrive, water still the main base of all life! a common chemical and a very important one!!!
As of now we just know the world works not due to the creator but because of fundamental laws! But science doesn't dare to conclude that these laws were NOT made by The Creator. Go to the depth of science before drawing conclusions about The Creator.
@@Leon-sg8ql No one knows the complete nature of The Creator. So sacrificing innocent animals in His name, killing fellow human beings for receiving His Grace is far from the actual path of realising The Creator and whichever religion does that it's a complete Sham!!
A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP. The book concludes that LUCA is an erroneous construct that represents a convergence in the evolution of the genetic code to employ 4 main deoxyribonucleotides, A, G,C ,T for DNA and A,G,C,U for RNA. This means that at the time of the common cellular coding ancestors there was already a vast variety of biochemistry in innumerable cells around the world which made subsequent intracellular evolution and multicellularity varied and inevitable.
Cells are not descended from other cells. They are - sometimes mutated, part of the last common "ancestor" (which is actually not an ancestor). Between any cell that is alive today and that common origine, there is no "ancestOr" to be found, that has actually died, at least one part of it still lives.
Because paper artefacts aren’t usually handled with gloves. They deaden the sense of touch and so actually cause more damage through mishandling. The standard practice is to simply use clean hands.
This is the second clip I've watched today with a person who is holding, opening and dragging their finger along the page of a priceless book WITHOUT GLOVES. The other clip was over 50yrs old and I figured that it was just a modern thing having respect for important relics and wearing gloves to avoid damage from skin oils. This is a clip from a modern programme. The lack of care beggars belief, especially when the guy says he's been studying Darwin for years - he's the last person I'd expect to have a complete disregard for the books and letter he touched with bare hands. That guy shouldn't have been allowed near those books+letter without wearing a pair of cotton gloves 😡🤬
Well, in some cases rubber gloves would actually do more damage, because of the inability to feel the paper, (and I think because of it rubbing the paper?), so it’s standard issue in some cases to not wear gloves! (I recall hearing that it can be good for leather to have the oils from hands as well, but I might be misremembering.)
@@stupendemysgeographicus5009 I'm sorry for not making it clear - white cotton gloves are worn to protect important objects. Every conservator I've seen in museums, alongside people invited to hold valuable objects, have worn white cotton gloves. I've never seen any other type of glove (nor colour for that matter) being used to protect the item from damage. I agree with you that rubber gloves could be inappropriate to handle the book.
@@jedimasterbazzit's pointed out that it's the first copy of the FIRST EDITION. It was sent to Darwin and is unique and priceless. That's why I'm aghast about the presenter not wearing white cotton gloves to protect the item. I appreciate that you may have missed that statement about being the first copy of a first edition - it was at the start of the clip. The second book that was handled, containing Darwin's letter, was not given a value (though it's probably worth quite a lot of money). However, I think that touching Darwin's letter without white cotton gloves was disrespectful and could have caused damage to the document.
@@meagain3876Gloves used to be the done thing up until about twenty years ago, but in most archives it is now the gold standard to *remove* your gloves and wash your hands specifically when handling books or paper. Gloves are still worn for more stable items that don't require so much deftness and tactility. Many books in archives have been damaged because gloves make you clumsier, and so the standards have evolved to reduce the chances of that.
I am still waiting for someone who will claim that he would have created living cell from amonia, phosphorus salts, light & electricity. These claims becomes more problematic when we can see how these cells are creating more complex organs & systems which plays a very delicate tasks. It shows how perfectly living organism has been designed. I feel so shocked when someone claims all these designs came into existence by random arrangement of cells as a building blocks. It is same as less comple home has been build by itself by arranging itself by concrete, blocks, wood, & steel bars.
@@spatrk6634 so you mean amonia, phosphorus salts, light & electricity adapted natural selection. How could non living things have intellect to choose or even single cell have brain to know how to reproduce or regenerate? A person with least IQ could come to this conclusion. Who creates DNA coding? Who knows that we need eyes to see, nose to smell, ears to hear, private parts to reproduce, breast to feed new born, every organ is intelligently design, it is not coincidence that life came to existence from non living things. It is designed to sustain from generation to generation.
Suggestions and propositions are one thing, figments of our imagination. Thank God for the scientific method that requires an unbiased application. It respects the need to separate fact from fantasy.
0.55mins For Darwin to say that everything from a Hyacinth to a human has evolved from one single common ancestor flew in the face of creationism is absolute nonsense. That statement by Darwin is just a theory and furthermore, is also stuck in a 'creationist' mindset alongside the religion based creationist so called 'big bang theory'. A theory is only a theory " for A that."
Your comment actually mixes up a few things. 1. Darwin and evolution: Evolution isn't "just a theory" in the casual sense. A scientific theory is a well-supported explanation backed by evidence and observation. In everyday language, "theory" often means a guess. Darwin's work is actually supported by mountains of evidence from fossils, genetics, and observable processes like natural selection. It's not a shot in the dark-it's the backbone of modern biology. 2. Hyacinths to humans: Yes, all life shares a common ancestor. DNA shows we're all related if you trace it back far enough. For example, humans share about 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees and even some with plants. This isn't wild speculation-it's confirmed through countless studies. 3. Creationism: Evolution isn't based on faith; it's grounded in evidence. Creationism, by contrast, relies solely on belief without testable proof. Evolution explains life through natural processes without needing supernatural intervention. 4. Big Bang: That's physics, not biology. And calling it "religion-based" is inaccurate. The Big Bang theory explains the universe's origins through measurable evidence like cosmic background radiation and the universe's expansion. It's not a belief system but a framework scientists refine as new evidence emerges. Scientific theories are our best explanations based on evidence. They're constantly tested and updated as we learn more. They're not fixed or faith-based, unlike creationist claims. Dismissing Darwin as "creationist" misunderstands both evolution and science.
There isn't an incompatibility between evolution and God. I consider that that assumption is made by those who are dying for removing God from our lives. God is the beginning, the thrust that chemistry needed to work. The mere existence of a beautiful and perfect order in the universe suggests the hand of a creator. Only mess results from chaos.
The full title : The Origin of Species or The Reason for Preferred Races in the Struggle for Survival. Eugenics? He wasn't even a trained scientist. Just a son of a wealthy industrialist.
If evolution is true then supposed ancestors should contain a rudimentary form of the DNA of all descendants. The fresher the species the more complex it's genetic makeup. The genome should add up as time passes. Is that the case?
@@triumph.over.shipwreck Because complex organisms produce more proteins. Say an ancestor produced protein A . A fresher or evolved organism should produce protein B including the ancestor's, thus A and B in total. And it should have a spatial formula on the DNA.
What if we are not, or are descended from one common ancestor? Don't be fooled. And trust me, they ARE trying to fool you. This is all about religion. I contest that how we evolved or IF we evolved has next to nothing to do with the eternal question: "Is there a God?" God could easily have created evolution, right?
"Inability to disprove does not prove". I can not prove God or ghosts do not exist. That does not then mean that God or ghost are proven to exist. Man created God.
He could, but a universe where God set evolution in motion and does not interfere from that point on is deism, that is not the God as revealed to us in scriptures. Evolution as in change over time is quite observable, universal common ancestry is nigh to impossible to ever prove and thus falls in the realm of stories.
@@shoot-n-scoot3539 Well aren't you now contradicting yourself? Either God the Creator exists, or man created god. Those two statements cannot be simultaneously be true.
Funny thing is that it is so completely untenable that all life originated from one lifeform, this is why creationists are so confident in their statement that darwinistic evolution is thoroughly debunked. Leading chemist James Tour shows that chemistry and time work against the emergence of life, and the warm pond hypothesis is nothing but a fanciful tale.
You mean James Tour, the born again Christian chemist who disputes evolution? Thoroughly debunking evolution requires a lot more evidence which is why Intelligent Design is referred to as a pseudo science.
@@fabianmckenna8197 I beg to differ. With what we know today, I don't believe evolution would be called science was it thought up in current day. A downplayed evolution theory and intelligent design are very close in ideas. The main difference is in what caused mass extinctions and speciation before those events.
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 plenty of issues have been found, but the working theory of evolution has been... evolving. In the end it is a story; a narrative on how things came to be. But so is the Bible, and no one has been able to invalidate that either. You know why? Because stories are not hypotheses. If evolution was a hypothesis we would be able to make testable predictions, but we can't, simply because of the timespan involved. Don't confuse the alignment of evidence with corroborating evidence. In effect, all of our archeological findings are back written into evolution, not evolution as predictive model for what we will find. Be careful not to strawman creation as fixism. There is much leeway for change in the creation model, evolution if you would call it so. What is rejected though is the emergence of life from non-life and the universal common ancestry, as we read that animals were made after their kind. The real disagreement then focuses on what happened before great extinction events, or the great flood and creation week.
The problem is that even today, science has produced no evidence for that theory. I don't call it the theory of evolution, I prefer to call it the theory of speculation !!!
Only stupidity can draw anyone to the conclusion of a creator, and it begs the question where did the creator come from, you can’t solve a mystery with a bigger more implausible mystery, the retreaded idiocy of religion
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
It was a figure of speech when he said "the organism life was first breathed into". I don't think he was referring to any creator even then.
Btw, one single form is not the same as one single cell.
How do I get to see the full series that this is from? I’m a licence payer in the UK.
Dailymotion! It’s from 2009.
@@therealcaldini Found it...thanks much.
Evolution is a fact! Excellent content!
awesome video
The years since the enlightenment have been a great leap forward for mankind toward understanding the natural world without the need for invoking myth, superstition and the super natural which is the basis for all religions.
Ingenious Darwin 😮
Please put this full programme on BBC 4.
While discussing science and observation, the host has cleverly critiqued the concept of a creator and his role, suggesting that Darwin was searching for evidence of a creator. Darwin, however, wrote about the origin of life and the process of natural selection, ultimately finding no necessity for a divine creator in his explanations.
I couldn't pay attention to a word he said after I saw the way he handled that book. Why is this man not wearing gloves?
Why does he need glouse ...his skin is better than rubber....
A lot of museums just have you wash your hands before now. The problem with gloves is that they make it harder to feel what you are touching, and so increase the chances of accidental damage.
Books wear and tear happens from elements, just need proper environment where humidity is at its lowest. and well.. mold and moss. I think that's what Darwin wanted to convey here, complex organism needed a medium to thrive, water still the main base of all life! a common chemical and a very important one!!!
2:28
BOOM!!!!!
The most pertinent point made in this video.
The more Darwin study how the world works the more he found out there's no Creator!
Prove it or disprove it. Otherwise, it sounds foolish to declare certainty while lacking complete data.
So what your saying is that it's fake?
As of now we just know the world works not due to the creator but because of fundamental laws!
But science doesn't dare to conclude that these laws were NOT made by The Creator.
Go to the depth of science before drawing conclusions about The Creator.
@NotAvy so what your saying is islam a fairytale
@@Leon-sg8ql No one knows the complete nature of The Creator.
So sacrificing innocent animals in His name, killing fellow human beings for receiving His Grace is far from the actual path of realising The Creator and whichever religion does that it's a complete Sham!!
Where can I watch the full documentary?
Where I can find the whole episode?
A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP.
The book concludes that LUCA is an erroneous construct that represents a convergence in the evolution of the genetic code to employ 4 main deoxyribonucleotides, A, G,C ,T for DNA and A,G,C,U for RNA. This means that at the time of the common cellular coding ancestors there was already a vast variety of biochemistry in innumerable cells around the world which made subsequent intracellular evolution and multicellularity varied and inevitable.
Cells are not descended from other cells. They are - sometimes mutated, part of the last common "ancestor" (which is actually not an ancestor). Between any cell that is alive today and that common origine, there is no "ancestOr" to be found, that has actually died, at least one part of it still lives.
My sincere thanks for sharing.
If it's "priceless" why aren't you wearing gloves?!!
Because paper artefacts aren’t usually handled with gloves. They deaden the sense of touch and so actually cause more damage through mishandling. The standard practice is to simply use clean hands.
This is the second clip I've watched today with a person who is holding, opening and dragging their finger along the page of a priceless book WITHOUT GLOVES.
The other clip was over 50yrs old and I figured that it was just a modern thing having respect for important relics and wearing gloves to avoid damage from skin oils.
This is a clip from a modern programme. The lack of care beggars belief, especially when the guy says he's been studying Darwin for years - he's the last person I'd expect to have a complete disregard for the books and letter he touched with bare hands. That guy shouldn't have been allowed near those books+letter without wearing a pair of cotton gloves 😡🤬
Well, in some cases rubber gloves would actually do more damage, because of the inability to feel the paper, (and I think because of it rubbing the paper?), so it’s standard issue in some cases to not wear gloves! (I recall hearing that it can be good for leather to have the oils from hands as well, but I might be misremembering.)
It may not be a first edition. My dad has a copy, they're not necessarily priceless.
@@stupendemysgeographicus5009 I'm sorry for not making it clear - white cotton gloves are worn to protect important objects. Every conservator I've seen in museums, alongside people invited to hold valuable objects, have worn white cotton gloves. I've never seen any other type of glove (nor colour for that matter) being used to protect the item from damage.
I agree with you that rubber gloves could be inappropriate to handle the book.
@@jedimasterbazzit's pointed out that it's the first copy of the FIRST EDITION. It was sent to Darwin and is unique and priceless.
That's why I'm aghast about the presenter not wearing white cotton gloves to protect the item.
I appreciate that you may have missed that statement about being the first copy of a first edition - it was at the start of the clip.
The second book that was handled, containing Darwin's letter, was not given a value (though it's probably worth quite a lot of money).
However, I think that touching Darwin's letter without white cotton gloves was disrespectful and could have caused damage to the document.
@@meagain3876Gloves used to be the done thing up until about twenty years ago, but in most archives it is now the gold standard to *remove* your gloves and wash your hands specifically when handling books or paper. Gloves are still worn for more stable items that don't require so much deftness and tactility. Many books in archives have been damaged because gloves make you clumsier, and so the standards have evolved to reduce the chances of that.
Excellent
This video series helped me understand the origins and relevance of Natural Selection in a broader sense. ruclips.net/video/i-lQKES8pJQ/видео.html
Who was Charles Darwin's grandfather? ruclips.net/user/shortsKbhbYdKU1uI
3:44
I am still waiting for someone who will claim that he would have created living cell from amonia, phosphorus salts, light & electricity. These claims becomes more problematic when we can see how these cells are creating more complex organs & systems which plays a very delicate tasks. It shows how perfectly living organism has been designed.
I feel so shocked when someone claims all these designs came into existence by random arrangement of cells as a building blocks. It is same as less comple home has been build by itself by arranging itself by concrete, blocks, wood, & steel bars.
you forget natural selection.
evolution is not random
@@spatrk6634 so you mean amonia, phosphorus salts, light & electricity adapted natural selection. How could non living things have intellect to choose or even single cell have brain to know how to reproduce or regenerate? A person with least IQ could come to this conclusion. Who creates DNA coding? Who knows that we need eyes to see, nose to smell, ears to hear, private parts to reproduce, breast to feed new born, every organ is intelligently design, it is not coincidence that life came to existence from non living things. It is designed to sustain from generation to generation.
@@Sniptool Again: natural selection answers these problems.
Uhm...make a complete series. This kinda stuff causes the stir 🤳👥, Thanks people.
Here before the comment section starts arguing
❤❤
Suggestions and propositions are one thing, figments of our imagination. Thank God for the scientific method that requires an unbiased application. It respects the need to separate fact from fantasy.
You talk!
It's not reasonable to debunk a visionary of his time, by being a visionary there allowed to change their minds....
Hasn't this already fallen apart?
Born to medicine sickness ill deaseases
0.55mins For Darwin to say that everything from a Hyacinth to a human has evolved from one single common ancestor flew in the face of creationism is absolute nonsense. That statement by Darwin is just a theory and furthermore, is also stuck in a 'creationist' mindset alongside the religion based creationist so called 'big bang theory'. A theory is only a theory " for A that."
Your comment actually mixes up a few things.
1. Darwin and evolution: Evolution isn't "just a theory" in the casual sense. A scientific theory is a well-supported explanation backed by evidence and observation. In everyday language, "theory" often means a guess. Darwin's work is actually supported by mountains of evidence from fossils, genetics, and observable processes like natural selection. It's not a shot in the dark-it's the backbone of modern biology.
2. Hyacinths to humans: Yes, all life shares a common ancestor. DNA shows we're all related if you trace it back far enough. For example, humans share about 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees and even some with plants. This isn't wild speculation-it's confirmed through countless studies.
3. Creationism: Evolution isn't based on faith; it's grounded in evidence. Creationism, by contrast, relies solely on belief without testable proof. Evolution explains life through natural processes without needing supernatural intervention.
4. Big Bang: That's physics, not biology. And calling it "religion-based" is inaccurate. The Big Bang theory explains the universe's origins through measurable evidence like cosmic background radiation and the universe's expansion. It's not a belief system but a framework scientists refine as new evidence emerges.
Scientific theories are our best explanations based on evidence. They're constantly tested and updated as we learn more. They're not fixed or faith-based, unlike creationist claims. Dismissing Darwin as "creationist" misunderstands both evolution and science.
There isn't an incompatibility between evolution and God. I consider that that assumption is made by those who are dying for removing God from our lives. God is the beginning, the thrust that chemistry needed to work. The mere existence of a beautiful and perfect order in the universe suggests the hand of a creator. Only mess results from chaos.
The full title : The Origin of Species or The Reason for Preferred Races in the Struggle for Survival. Eugenics? He wasn't even a trained scientist. Just a son of a wealthy industrialist.
but somehow he got degrees in biology and geology. gee, i wonder how that happened? perhaps he went to university and got those degrees.
"Races" as in "species", not ethnicities.
If evolution is true then supposed ancestors should contain a rudimentary form of the DNA of all descendants. The fresher the species the more complex it's genetic makeup. The genome should add up as time passes. Is that the case?
Why does 'freshness' necessitate gaining complexity in genetic makeup ?
@@triumph.over.shipwreck Because complex organisms produce more proteins. Say an ancestor produced protein A . A fresher or evolved organism should produce protein B including the ancestor's, thus A and B in total. And it should have a spatial formula on the DNA.
Yeah Ruach Elohim
Electron microscope to view cells.
What if we are not, or are descended from one common ancestor? Don't be fooled. And trust me, they ARE trying to fool you. This is all about religion. I contest that how we evolved or IF we evolved has next to nothing to do with the eternal question: "Is there a God?" God could easily have created evolution, right?
"Inability to disprove does not prove".
I can not prove God or ghosts do not exist. That does not then mean that God or ghost are proven to exist.
Man created God.
@@shoot-n-scoot3539 totally agree
He could, but a universe where God set evolution in motion and does not interfere from that point on is deism, that is not the God as revealed to us in scriptures. Evolution as in change over time is quite observable, universal common ancestry is nigh to impossible to ever prove and thus falls in the realm of stories.
@@shoot-n-scoot3539 Well aren't you now contradicting yourself? Either God the Creator exists, or man created god. Those two statements cannot be simultaneously be true.
So you're basically inventing a new god, now that we know evolution happens, there must be a god who created.
⚛
These shorts are getting annoying. Its no more than advertising. Im unsubscribing.
Natural Order with only option your getting. Talk about help you know they are there. Odds multiplier never fit in book.
Funny thing is that it is so completely untenable that all life originated from one lifeform, this is why creationists are so confident in their statement that darwinistic evolution is thoroughly debunked. Leading chemist James Tour shows that chemistry and time work against the emergence of life, and the warm pond hypothesis is nothing but a fanciful tale.
You mean James Tour, the born again Christian chemist who disputes evolution?
Thoroughly debunking evolution requires a lot more evidence which is why Intelligent Design is referred to as a pseudo science.
@@fabianmckenna8197 I beg to differ. With what we know today, I don't believe evolution would be called science was it thought up in current day.
A downplayed evolution theory and intelligent design are very close in ideas. The main difference is in what caused mass extinctions and speciation before those events.
@@SojournerDidimus Evolution is still brought in the modern day and still no one has found issues in it.
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 plenty of issues have been found, but the working theory of evolution has been... evolving.
In the end it is a story; a narrative on how things came to be. But so is the Bible, and no one has been able to invalidate that either. You know why? Because stories are not hypotheses.
If evolution was a hypothesis we would be able to make testable predictions, but we can't, simply because of the timespan involved.
Don't confuse the alignment of evidence with corroborating evidence. In effect, all of our archeological findings are back written into evolution, not evolution as predictive model for what we will find.
Be careful not to strawman creation as fixism. There is much leeway for change in the creation model, evolution if you would call it so. What is rejected though is the emergence of life from non-life and the universal common ancestry, as we read that animals were made after their kind. The real disagreement then focuses on what happened before great extinction events, or the great flood and creation week.
Darwin was adopted.
Colossians 2:8
Goat Herders 8:6
The problem is that even today, science has produced no evidence for that theory. I don't call it the theory of evolution, I prefer to call it the theory of speculation !!!
Sounds like you don't really understand the word 'theory'
It's still a theory, but it will never become a law, like gravity.
Try to explain the chromosomal evolution in plants that has made entire new (chromosomes genétic information,) even new species of plants has evolved.
Only stupidity can draw anyone to the conclusion of a creator, and it begs the question where did the creator come from, you can’t solve a mystery with a bigger more implausible mystery, the retreaded idiocy of religion