@@mmc5261 It means Joe Rogan has people from all demographics and walks of life on his show. Like comedians, naturalists, mma fighters, navy seals, woke people, world leaders, conservatives, liberals, a wide variety of all types of peoples, religions, ways of life. Does that make more sense? Stephen Meyer is awesome bless you from Canada Darren
The part where genetic mutation doesnt contribute to the formation of a new species all together.. From evolutionary terms, a tiger that goes in the ocean to find food can eventually evolve into a whale after millions of years. This guy is saying no, that is too drastic of a mutation for the species to undergo and survive the requirements to transform from tiger to whale. So at a micro level, a bird evolving to have a different size beak via environmental isolation or whatever, like darwin observed, is feasible. But tiger to whale? No. That is mind blowing to me. This is the best argument I've ever heard against evolution. Do you get it now?
He is an intelligent design advocate not a creation scientists. The difference is that creation scientists believe that the earth is 6000 years old but ID advocates have no issues with the current estimate of earth's age. They just believe that even given the billions of years, Evolution is not capable of doing what is claimed without an intelligent designer.
@markoszoli2185 yes and both still underpin everything they say with a belief in a creator. Without evidence ( testable evidence) they ask people to everything on faith.
Even when given facts, those who have predetermined there is no design or a designer hold staunchly to a theory that’s predates anything known about genetics. The guys is just giving information as it relates to existing theories in science.
The last example he used was referring to the epigenome. All cells with nuclei have every gene that every cell type will use but not every cell type doesn't use all of those genes. So those genes are packed away. Very few focus on the epigenome for their arguments because it adds another layer of complexity. It's not enough to inherit a newly functioning protein, or non protein coding RNA with alternative function, but the epigenome needs to be adjusted to regulate it also.
Mate don’t be daft…. This guy is on the biggest podcast in the world telling everyone this info… if “they” were shutting these people up “they” are not very good at it…
Michael Faraday, which many acclaim as one of the greatest scientists to ever live, was a Bible-believing Christian. Lord Kelvin, Joseph Lister, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Kepler, Sir William Ramsey, Lord Frances Bacon, Samuel Morse, these were all creationists.
@@arnaldobellucci9033 The correct answer is we do not know anything with certainty, especially here. So to be able to use scientific inquiry and not just regurgitate findings as absolute fact (without understanding the whole, which is an ongoing pursuit), ironically means that those who are creationists but still practice science versus people who say they're wrong because of science, are actually more likely to be more scientifically minded. Which probably explains why they were the scientists, and not you
Newton wasted half his time on trying to find meaning in the dimensions of Noah's ark. Imagine where humanity would be if he had dedicated that time to actual scientific research...
Anil Kanda, here’s something you should know: if you, or anyone else, post a video on YT and you title the video, and the video is not worthy of that title…..many people will simply tap the ‘Don’t Recommend Channel’ option, and these clickbait titles will be seen no more in their daily video feed. I hope this helps.
@@jacktheaviator4938 he doesn't stun Joe Rogan in any way. He just repeats some common nonsensical religious talking points with hilariously shakey logical foundations at best.
@@ge2719- I recommend listening to the video again. His logic was very sound. Perhaps you prejudged it and therefore didn't actually try to follow it?
@dagman85 he doesn't present a single valid argument for anything he says. Lile he says he doesn't believe in chemical evolution, if you want to quote what part of the video he even provided so much as a logical reason for why chemical evolution isnt possible, Id love to read it/hear it, So quote that part of the video or give me a time stamp. Because I watched the video, he didnt give a reason. He just states he doesn't believe its real. Thats not a valid argument, thats not "sound logic".
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality, because it interfered with our sexual freedom. We objected to the political and economic system, because it was unjust." -Aldous Huxley
@@jerrylong6238 Of course you do. You and others like you abandon the guidance of religion because it interferes in "your freedom" to do as you please...
@@mcmanustony Funny story: Evolutionists literally completely altered the account at one point claiming Evolution happened too fast to be seen. They did this because they had no reasonable argument for the lack of transitional forms.
Do you have any proof for your BS, ER I mean claims? Anyway that's not what evolution says. Scientists say that it would take a huge amount of time for evolution to be noticed.@@Intellectualfreethinker
@mcmanustony adhominims or senseless reply don't help ur rebuttals, but they might help u sleep at night. Check out Dr. James Tour. He has great videos that will tell u what I just stated. There is technical evidence of a prebiological earth and spontaneous protein folding calculations. Time is probably ur worst enemy in random protein formation. Maybe U should read a book. 😉.
The math doesn't add up. You need more species to start with than you have now. Everything ever observed shows that nature reaches equilibrium, halting evolution until a major change happens. Then we see that with major changes the trend is heavily toward extinction over adaptation. Animals become more specialized and inbred, leading to more extinction. The numbers don't add up
It took 3 billion years to go from a single cell organism to a multicellular organism, and 1.5 billion years from a multicellular organism to us, most people can’t comprehend how much time that is, and the variations of life that has come and gone before we evolved, science is not perfect it doesn’t have all the answers yet but we are getting there slowly
Do you know why science is not perfect and doesn't have all the answers? Because it's a human invention. A Christian human invention at that. It only works based on the assumptions that the universe is governed by laws, which requires an inherent law giver. Without this assumption, science is utterly baseless and useless. And science will NEVER avail us of our questions. Why? Because the universe is designed such that the more we learn, the more we realize there is still left to discover. Einstein paraphrased the Bible when he made the analogy of a candle burning in the dark. The bigger the wick, the higher the flame, and the more darkness is illuminated. But as we watch the circumference of illumination grow as the flame grows in brightness, so too do we realize that the circumference of the darkness has also grown. Now the darkness remains infinite: it's only our awareness of it that actually changes. Understand this. You will NEVER glean the answers via science. You can't see the map while you are standing on the dirt.
Time is the enemy of life. Chemicals needed for life have short life spans. No matter how many billions of years or multiverses you throw at the problem, you will not end with life. Every experiment shows that you need to intervene and select the right chemicals, and remove the unwanted chemicals. All experiments point to intelligence needed to create life.
Not a single person on this planet can accurately and unequivocally date the age of our planet. Though 4.5 billion years does captivate the imagination and make almost anything plausible....
@@justrude66 Joe Rogan invites many muppets who spew pseudoscience to the masses. Occasionally he will bring on a legit scientist like Brian Cox on. Anyone controversial he invites. That's why he gets the views. If you want science on this topic go to a evolutionary biologist.
And it get worse, because to produce the protein from RNA you need T-RNA attached to each amino acid so it will be placed correctly in sequence to produce your protein. Plus, you need a ribosome, which consists two subunits, each of which is comprised of several proteins and RNA strands.
Evidence for abiogenesis is advancing, they may crack the secret of how it happened. You might say, "if it happened." And, while the statistical odds of matter turning a corner and being able to self-replicate border on "impossible;" it remains more probable than the supernatural. The "central dogma" of science is that there's a rational explanation, rather than supernatural, for everything. FYI, Abiogenesis research isn't really focused on DNA-RNA etc. Those things could have been a later development.
Sir Isaac Newton was the greatest scientist of all time. He wrote this, "This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being".
Do you know why he said that? Because in trying to solve the mathematics of all the planetary orbits, he couldn't get the math to work. According to his equations, the solar system should fly apart. So he just said it could only proceed from God. Essentially, God is fudging the math on an ongoing and continuous basis. It wasn't until 100 years later a French mathematician named Laplace finished newton's equations and made the math work. No God required. So does that mean God doesn't exist?
In reality time is the enemy of abiogenesis (non-living chemicals turning into life). Even in optimal conditions, proteins start breaking down in a few weeks . Forget billions of years. Time kills life.
It's amazing to me that the more we learn, the more complicated it gets. But there are still people who believe all these things happen with no guiding hand.
When trees fall in the forest are they "guided by hands" every time to land in a particular spot? When it rains does every drop have a specific predetermined destiny?
And yet they still adhere to Christian morality. Don't kill, steal, etc. But then they say killing and stealing is necessary for evolutionary progress lol
@@The_DC_Kid "When trees fall in the forest are they "guided by hands" every time to land in a particular spot?" No, because they fall according to the laws of physics, etc. What laws of physics explain the origin of (genetic) information? Dawkins was unable to point to a mechanism when asked about this. Paul Davies said "... there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.” In other words, your analogy was not valid.
The changes in the DNA are not random, they're influenced by the environment. Moreover life evolves not separately from its environment. Environments and ecosystems are constantly changing. Life is always interdependent and codependent within an ecosystem. Furthermore, nobody said evolution started off in one place right? Life can emerge in different forms and in different environments, and evolve (or die out) from there. Anyway, I don't see any proof here from this specialist against evolution.
One question if we "evolved" from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys, and why didn't they "evolve" answer it's because nothing evolves but merely adapts to it's environment
He brought up some circular arguments by saying you'll always degrade first before making new structures which is a pretty weak argument. People biased against evolution will take that as proof against evolution.
He is not the one saying changes in DNA are random -- he is claiming the Darwinian evolutionists have always claimed random mutation, and as you say, this is false -- so you agree with him. As for your other statements, you are making claims for the man he did not make himself. He did not dispute that "life is interdependent and codependent within an ecosystem" nor did he claim that people claim "evolution started off in one place" -- your words, not his. He is only responding to the "common ancestor" hypothesis of the Darwinian evolutionists and his response is quite reasonable. He did not claim anywhere in this interview there was "proof" as you claim, only that there is evidence, and that the evidence is quite compelling.
I'm 42 now but went to a private Christian school (1 -12) and graduated in Y2K. we learnt to read the Bible and studied Christian scripture. I had many many questions about things that didn't align or seemed like a misinterpretation of language that made the stories disjointed or seen to be out of logical sequence for the timeline? What I noticed the most is references to side quest stories that have place markers but the story is absent in some accounts but makes references in others (a bit like wooops we forgot to remove it this - please disregard). I am inquisitive and excelled in science and technology subjects at school. I went to university and studied engineering for 1 year before switching into Environmental Science. My upbringing played a part in inspiring my this direction that I chose. I completed my degree and got a Bachelor of Environmental Science and then went on to specialise in Spatial Science, Geographic information systems, mapping & cartography. I build a careers in Spatial Sciences having worked on some nationally acclaimed projects; a lul in GIS mapping in general saw me applying for positions on the other side of the country and even over seas having made it into final selections for many positions each of them requiring full focused plan on what I need to do if I am selected for a position etc. I was planning on navigating chaos for each job scenario and this was starting to stress me out in combination of narrowly missing so many times. I am unqualified but have much experience in IT so I fl fell back on this for a few years and then narrowed my scope by specialising in industrial IT where computers connect to machines, robots etc which then progressed into what I am currently doing; I run a big robot machine known as a CNC. Anyway throughout this transition in my life and always having a fascination with culture, geography and engineering. I become drawn to ancient megalithic sites and there came many discrepancies and things that don't make any sense? Things that I was taught at school that we were made to believe were true almost seem delusional factually wrong or impossible? Then around 2010 when the internet hit it's peak for sharing with impunity and it turned into a play ground and wealth of classified information to be exposed? Similarly I noticed patterns in the ideologies of cultures stories and beliefs throughout history and this sparked am urge into theological exploration, religions and belief systems and how they had changed throughout history? It was around this time that all those red flags from growing up as a Christian resurfaced again but this time with a much much more analytical mind with purpose? How can it be that seperate cultures have the same or similar stories of human history and that can't be coincidence? I can still remember the moment that it just clicked all of a sudden? It was literally science that made me believe in God undeniably! No scripture, no interpretation or account of anything in human history can convince me the truth that God the creator is 100% fact! The moon The moon is how I know in my heart that God the creator is real and nothing any person can say to me now that can change my mind! Just since the time that I've been alive we have had so many scientifically proven studies that support some of the events within the Bible; too many now for me to consider as coincidence? Then the last thing that just exploded things for me is the dead sea scrolls and the reasoning behind why it was over 30 years before they were revealed to the public. It was this very moment that made me realise that the Bible I was being taught in school was literally a load of rubbish. When people realise that the Bible was tweaked and changed to give an entirely different narrative (King James and Constantine era) was make idea of war not to be a sin. So that they could promote and recruite for war without it being considered a sin. To justify and to free the elites of guilt (note that this was the new era where battle conflicts actually became what we now know as war - previously the king or leader challenging the position of power lead his own men into battle. This all made way to a more segregated battles where the king or powerful leader was kept safe away from direct conflict. The deadsea scrolls revelation sparked my a very critical look into Christianity and the apocrypha. It was around this time that I could literally only rely on the 10 commandments as being unmodified (each iteration of historical changes brining it's own narrative to the Bible stories. It is any wonder why after 3 or 4 language interpretations and then 5 or 6 cultural eras of narrative change, that the story is so broken that it's at the limitations of making any kind of logical sense. And all the previous iterations of untracked changes and reasoning for them to align with the common narrative at the time seeing most of branches on the tree of the Bible that most were either burnt in book burning crusades that served the purpose of destroying all alternative narratives and provoking a singular point of truth for the followers of Christianity. It was this consolidation in the absence of revisions and harsh condemnation and a promise of the people that the apocrypha and all of its inclusions were strictly forbidden? So out of seemingly nowhere we all of a sudden have this human derived concept of the apocrypha (we are told that the exclusion from Cannon is because it didn't align with the narrative of the Bible and I actually think that is the truth) the context being that you can't notice the disparity in alignment of apocrypha texts unless you read them - oh no you aren't allowed to do that! That's strictly forbidden. Well what is it that can be so bad and so damaging to the Christian faith that it cannot be allowed to be read by the people? Who gave a mortal man the superior power to override God? What right dose any person have to tell me what I can and cannot read? There is no right. They are powerless to stop us but use psychological tactics to provoke feelings of wrong doing or guilt? Language and words give a away a lot of context! It was forbidden by some human declaration. But it is not a sin to read but apocrypha? Therefore we have allowed a non-god or religious diety dictate and control us without question and yet within the 10 commandments it instructs us to never do this! Thou shall not worship false idols or deities...... And that's a commandment from God himself. It's not a guide or recommendation but a commandment. The existence of the apocrypha itself is the most blasphemous thing in all of human history. The dead sea scrolls revealed that many of the scriptures and texts banished from the Bible to the apocrypha are included in the deadsea scrolls and therefore destroy any and all rationale for the existence of the apocrypha! The book of Enoch excluded from canon but found in the dead sea scrolls? Something tells me this may be the reason for delaying the announcement for 30+ years whilst human technological progress saw the onset of the printing press and allowed for mass duplication of texts without influence of interpretation of misunderstanding due personal bias and belief going into to influence teachings of Christianity. In retrospect this is a good thing to maintaining a consistent message.........but the thing is the Bible isn't at all a consistent message? It's far from it. It's intentionally confusing and misleading with an unquantifiable amount of bias to manipulate the public. The idea of churchas a physical building is modern concept that has no place or reference to the teachings of Jesus Christ but it's concept is literally woven into the fabric of human belief. The Dunning Krueger effect has a more defined explanation of human logic than anything written in any Bible. There is more weight to the truth of this concept than there is to the wishy washy Biblical events? Please tell me that gives any mortal man the right to tell me what parts of the Bible are true and what parts are false? The Ethiopian Bible from a mostly unchanged language since the dawn of history until modern day with only the addition of new words to describe modern concepts and not allowing any modification of the language. The Ethiopian language can be directly translated to modern English skipping 3 or 4 language mistranslations and personal bias and then 5 or 6 cultural evolutions and an entire canon that includes EVERY book and excludes none. That the Ethiopian Bible has additional parts to the language to prevent misinterpretation and to stop ambiguous interpretation are referenced throughout with cliff notes explaining the interpretation or why there needed to be clarification or emphasis within the story. So now I have renewed interest in religion and especially around identifying where they have lied to us and potential reasoning for why (this may provide crucial context as highlight and flag false scripture that may reveal the motive of the agenda for modifying the Bible. Power, control and influence. But wait isn't God meant to have ALL of this? You see how we let the ones that defy God be in control of saying what is claimed to be the words of God. Do you think they might lie to promote their own ideologies?
Christ is king my friend . The church and the canons are not important, Christianity is a human congregation, not important! Jesus Christ is our king and saviour that’s all that matters . God does not confuses us only the devil does. But we can never have the brain power to fully understand the work of God . He knows what’s in our hearts and what we need much better than us
Inconsistencies in the Bible. Differing "divine" edicts in various religions. Outright lies taught as fact to support one religion over another. Who gave mortals the right to make moral claims against God? Who gets to claim their religion is right over another? At the end of the day a c*lt is a c*lt is a c*ult.
Micro evolution can happen in a species, but it is still a single species - That is why all humans came from one female (scientific validated truth) but have evolved into different races - they are still all humans. The macro evolution of everything coming from a common ancestor is an unproven theory!
Great video. This episode of Rogan is one of my favorites. But if I could get a bit of feedback to whoever listed this video, it would be to stop using words like “destroyed“ when talking about good-faith debates like this. It’s so condescendingly and unnecessarily counterproductive.
@@leroilapue15no scientist has ever claimed to know everything. That is completely the opposite of how science works. Science is never contempt with current knowledge but seeks more and refines previously set theories (that doesn't meen they are canceled but improved). Claiming to know everything and all of it being contained in a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy of a translation of a copy of a book written by unknown authors and describing events that happened decades before the writing is more of a religious thing. 😉
I mean, maybe a hurricane could do that if it were given enough time and maybe something caused heating or something to help fuse stuff together… It would likely be easier in biology for creatures to develop though, given that parts are produced from other parts via reproduction, so you don’t have to worry about random parts being put in the right configuration by chance… Well sometimes you do as mutations have caused some things to grow in the wrong place… Cancer is essentially cells malfunctioning, in a way, over numerous generations, to the point errors in their code are more common as reproduction happens more and more… Different breeds/species of plants and animals can show differences through breeding etc… Given enough time and the right circumstances, all sorts of things could happen… It would be fascinating to see how it all started and developed.
Murdering babies doesn't make secular people look good. Shall we continue? I'd love to expose how stupid unbelief actually is, and I can't think of a better scapegoat to this end than some pontificating doctor.
A short comment: If you cannot prove radiometric dating false you are left with a 4 billion year linear (single celled to man complexity) fossil record that is beyond dispute and can only be explained by evolution. You cannot prove the fossil record false as it uses two of the most accurate instruments on earth and which, in modern times, play a large part in our survival and we are largely dependent on them. The fact is that ionization chambers prove the earth is over 4.468 billion year old as fact (based on the actually measured half like of uranium 238) and, when mass spectrometers are added to the mix, the 4 billion year indisputable fossil record proving evolution fact (as there has been absolutely no other viable theory presented to replace it). We know evolution took place. The theistic world can have never ending talk fests about why evolution is false but the bottom line is always going to be: We have a 4 billion year fossil record that proves you're wrong and, from that point everything you hear in this type of rhetoric simply has no meaning i.e. it is possible to make up dozens of stories why our sun can't exist but, in the morning, we will observe it rise over the horizon. Similarly, Stephen Meyer can offer stories about evolution being false until his head falls off but, in the morning, we will still have the fossil record to prove him wrong. And that's it. Unless you can prove ionization chambers and mass spectrometers provide false results (which is never going to happen) or you can provide a process of life going linearly and without interruption from a single cell to current complexity over a period of 4 billion years without evolution (which is also never going to happen), then it is pointless debating. There's no point debating something can't happen and why it can't happen when you've already got observed proof it has happened, it's futile. It is also pointless trying to invoke "evolution of the gaps" as proving anything, since we know it's already happened. And trying to explain why it couldn't happen using a plethora of made up reasons, in the face of the proof it has happened, only serves to prove ignorance of how it happened and how much still needs to be discovered, not that it can't happen. Noting that Stephen Meyer is forced to use information and research to try to prove his case that emanates from REAL scientists who don't now and never will believe him or accept his unproven and unprovable claims.
I remember a convo several years back where a Creationist explained to me that the Devil had placed fossils all over the world in an attempt to trick and mislead humanity about the creationist time-line. they have a magic answer for everything, magic is always an easy answer
Right on point! Great post! I might add the distances to various stars that are thousands of light years away. The light we are seeing is not current but billions of years traveling in order for you to see the light.
Just take a look at Barry Setterfields and Grahem Normans research on the speed of light not being constant, but actually slowing down, If this theory is plausible ( I believe it is) then, It shatters our understanding of Time. And suddenly 4 billion years with a decrease of light speed suddenly fits very well into a creation viewpoint.
Very solid discussion. Most people who believe in evolution (macroevolution) fail to understand the physics and chemistry involved in the biology that make it impossible. Its like saying pure water can change to gold if you apply the correct amount of heat and pressure. Changes in heat and pressure will either give you solid water, gaseous water, or destroy the chemical bonds, water either changes to other water or breaks down into its individual parts because it does not have the necessary piece to change into another molecule such as unstable bonding, free electrons, and other chemicals that also in and in need of those conditions for a change to occur. Water across millions of years would continue to be water. The human chemistry is similar. To change body parts from one kind to another would be such a complex chemical task that it sits on the same side of impossible as well. For instance trying to change fins into arms. Where do the thicker bones, the new joints, the change in muscle shape, thickness, and structure, the blood vessels necessary to power these new structures, the nerves necessary to move these new structures, and brain matter to control it all come from? From the genetic perspective the proteins for all these are shaped and organized differently, the rna that creates and communicates with the dna for them doesnt exist and the dna isnt there. It isnt a simple change for them to exist, its water to gold, you need a completely new set of proteins, dna, and rna to be able to have these come into existence. -peace
Do you have any idea ? Alone your first comparison is completely bullshit. Water can not turn to gold. The probability is 0. Also you believe in a omnipotent being. The probability for it's existence must be magnitudes lower than the lowest probably you can come up for evolution.
"Most people who believe in evolution (macroevolution) fail to understand the physics and chemistry involved in the biology that make it impossible." Most people who say that are pizza delivery drivers and supermarket checkers.
@ less probable than an infinite collection of energy and mass somehow destabilizing and randomly creating consciousness, an immaterial substance with no scientific mechanism for its creation, in a single place in the universe and that consciousness, for no reason, splitting itself into all the different species of life known? I am aware that water cant turn to gold. The same way water doesnt have the necessary electrons, protons, energy state, mass, mechanisms, etc to turn to gold is the same way that doest have the necessary dna, rna, proteins, ribosomes, mechanisms, etc to randomly change into other forms of life. That is the point is was trying to make with the example. -peace
Nothing in physics of chemistry makes evolution impossible. Every day we get the same dumb creationist claims and every day they get corrected only to be repeated again the next day. 🙄
I kinda understand where he's coming from: if you create an AI, that has tools and a task to perfect itself and adapt to an enviroment, in time, it will become much more different and complex. It will evolve into something new. But at first, you have to create an AI. You can't just drop some ore in a bucket, put a couple of electrodes in it and expect to have an AI in a billion years after.
1. how does genetic engineering work? 2. genes aren’t software and the closest thing to software, methylation of cpg islands and acetylation of histones, cannot be deduced to 0s and 1s or anything computational since communication in biological systems is non algorithmic. 3. the guy in the video doesn’t know anything about genetics or computer science, he probably doesn’t know math well enough to tell the difference between physically referent mathematical frameworks and the more abstract alternatives.
@@VonJay so DNA doesn't contain the info that gets copied into RNA and then folded into proteins by other proteins based on which sequence of info the RNA holds ? (and ad hominem? really? have you read any of his work?)
@@mentilly_all is code software or is code part of software? from google: “Software comprises the entire set of programs, procedures, and routines associated with the operation of a computer system.” Methylation of cpg islands and acetylation of histones determines what genes are expressed, when they’re expressed, how they’re expressed. This is called “epigenetics.” The guy in the video conflated genes with software, which isn’t a 1 to 1 analogy for a myriad of reasons. The main being that code cannot be software if there is no blueprint telling the system how to express itself. biological systems also are non computational so he tried to equate 0s and 1s to the actual genetic code and not the software while not knowing that even if he got the software right 0s and 1s cannot emulate a biological system. So everything he said was a very impressionistic take on the how genes express themselves, completely missing methylation and not understanding how “imprinted” genes and their epigenetics behave in germ (sperm, egg) line cells. It was really really cringe worthy to listen to and people in the comments give him praises without being to challenge what he’s saying.
@@mentilly_all is code software or is code part of software? from google: “Software comprises the entire set of programs, procedures, and routines associated with the operation of a computer system.” Methylation of cpg islands and acetylation of histones determines what genes are expressed, when they’re expressed, how they’re expressed. This is called “epigenetics.” The guy in the video conflated genes with software, which isn’t a 1 to 1 analogy for a myriad of reasons. The main being that biological systems are non computational. So everything he said was a very impressionistic take on the how genes express themselves, completely missing methylation and not understanding how “imprinted” genes and their epigenetics behave in germ (sperm, egg) line cells. It was really cringe worthy to listen to.
From pond scum, to vegetation, then bugs, then fish, then mammals, then monkies,.. I WANT A DNA TEST, to find out if I'm more tree, or more of the fishy species. 😂 😂
I'm thinkin I'm more tree..... All them dang woody's. Or woodies. As I've gotten old I kinda miss the pee woodies. Used to worry bout peein on the tank but now have to worry bout my feet. Excellent visual for all none of em that read this......
I can answer that, we know It's fishy You have a nerve that goes from one point to the neck to another, and it goes down all the way through your heart. That nerve comes from fish who have no neck and so the nerve doesn't go around for them, it just goes from one side of the heart to the other. In the same way as heliocentrism, the fact that it goes agains religious teachings doesn't mean it's incorrect. Quite the oppositr if we look at history
That's a really silly claim since whatever one mutation does another later mutation can undo. If the mutation AAC-->AAG is a LOSS of information then the reverse mutation AAG --> AAC must be a GAIN of information. Do you understand?
@@BmoreGrrrrl - bears out in real life though, a mule ends up sterile, fruit fly can be made to grow more wings but then can’t fly, etc. The idea that humans came from monkeys is laughable and hugely convenient being that somehow ALL the intermediates failed to survive, lol except for in the fossil record, but then again those guys will generate a complete “fossil’ from the chip of some toe bone as a guide, haha. Do what it takes to get the grant money, right!? Order from randomness if antithetical to the second LAW of thermodynamics… you can’t have it both ways.
A code doesn't write itself randomly. It needs intelligence to be written. What it can do by itself, is to change according to how it is coded initially
A mile is a mile because we made it so. It is an unchanging measure. A code for a programme is written by a person and will alter, change and compile depending on the function of the programme to how we want it to use it. DNA code is what we use to recognize specific patterns and shapes from the molecules that combine and make a strand. It is a measure. It is not written. It is interpreted by us so we can make it easier to study instead of saying "cell 1 is slightly oblong with a tinge of beige", "cell 2 is spherical, smells like garlic and has a teal sheen"..instead it's A,G,E etc
@musiconanotherlevel bits also do what bits do. They're the elements of the code. Here's a fun fact: everything we experience and observe is just INFORMATION actually. We are like a conscious 3d game characters, and the reality we percieve is like a perfectly simulated 3d world. There is a lot of scientific evidence of this actually being the case. The best ones being the quantum entanglement and the observer effect. Now the mistake we make with this is that we assume "computer" simulation. Because that's what our brains correlate the information term with. It's not a simulation. It's not happening inside some computer. It's the very reality itself..as if everything exists within some kind of a mind..higher level information; a Source Code. Creative idea. After all, the Bible itself starts with "In the beginning, there was a Word"
@@creativeearthian1702 What is is just what is. All you are doing is putting God at the end of scientific comprehension. We have done this with everything we didn't understand throughout history and it has never 1 time been the right answer. If we figure out what caused the Big Bang you would just say God created that.
Evolution is becoming more solidified. Innovation, yes, cos of preadaptation. I like this guy, and probably one of most sensible creationists I've heard. Nothing is likely to disprove evolution amd more tham gravity. But just as we can't explain the speed of galaxies spinning under Einstein's theories, gravity is VERY well explained by these theories. A difficulty for creationists is simply that they start woth an a priori assumption which we no is wrong.. that all species were created within 6 days. All the mammal species we have todsy did NOT exist at the time of the dinosaurs. I'm a biologist, and understand what he's talking about, but doubt most creationists do.
3:37 These are not direct analogues. DNA sequences contain data (better: parameters), not a program ("code"). The program ("code") is the actual protein creation process, amongst other processes. A better analogy would be to liken the DNA code (data) to the parameters of a neural net. A program is what makes the neural net perform its function while the parameters is what makes its function useful (to us) - otherwise the neural net function would return gibberish. If one could randomly change some of the parameters of a neural net and observe its function afterwards, that would be a better analogy to DNA genes' random mutation. Of course, this is still a very crude, poor analogy as a neural net usually does only one very specific thing but one could argue that a certain DNA section serves only one particular purpose too.
DNA is not code. In spite of the analogy of DNA to code, it has the limitation of not actually being code. DNA is a nucleic molecule. Chemistry, friend, pure chemistry.
Instead of saying he disproved evolution with questions and some evidence as you’re suggesting in your title, try and understand we have the source of the answer in ancient microbiology. We have the end result of the answer in modern biology. We also have bits and pieces of how the formula works with extinct animal fossils. But we do not know majority of the math to link the two ends perfectly yet. That is science, just because something is more complex than currently explainable doesn’t mean you fill in the answer with magic. Just like you don’t add a random factor into the equation that does all the functions to get to the end result as desired.
Please go on. Tell me more before insulting me when I said nothing controversial. Also I went into very little specific detail. Show me your in depth knowledge of micro and macro evolution.
Unless you are a geneticist, molecular biologist, etc., please understand that your lack of understanding of this topic renders your opinions meaningless.
So unless you finish culinary school you can't understand cooking? Give humans some more credit you don't have to be an expert in something to understand it.
And not a single thing he said was indicative that he’s a creationist. He’s simply critiquing classic Darwinian theory, not denying evolution in favor of ‘god said let there be light’
You mean _Stephen_ and _Nobel?_ When the Nobel Prize Committee loses its bias. Raymond Damadian invented MRI, but two others who also worked on it got a Nobel Prize, and Damadian didn't. Damadian was a creationist.
Considering the fact that many animals are now proven extinct and humans have ties with many subtype humans...aswell as the general ridiculousness of religion itself...I.e almost everything being summed up as metaphors these days as the majority of said religions don't make any sense...religion is far more farfetched than evolution. We might be wrong about the actual transitions but the general idea is far more plausible believable than religions in amd of themselves.
No human-chimpanzee link has been found. Chimpanzees have white skin but they claim humans came from Africa. So white-skinned chimps turned into Africans and then back into white skinned people? No you guys are buying the lie.
@@robertsparling Yup, he followed the science and was ridiculed for it. Perhaps you don't wish to follow the science and just want to talk about your religious beliefs, but you are deceiving yourself. Try reading his books and use your intellect to come to a conclusion based on the empirical science. If you don't want to then how can you say he is being deceitful. You haven't even looked at what he says
@@anthonybro1 Great. To show how eye evolution is impossible you link to a paper showing how natural eye evolution occurred. 😄 Try reading more than the sensationalist title.
Whats an "Evolutionist"??? Evolution is not a belief, you either understand it or you don't. You can see its a fact or you dont. A creationist in fact any ' ist' is called an 'ist' because they are founded by a belief. For example a Creationist has to have faith in a creator as they dont have any evidence that proves what they "know" and yes you are right the Evolutionary science has proved through molecular biology, paleontology, molecular chemistry, physics, etc that all birds, fish, insects, animals and humans all came from the same biological and chemical start.
@@heythere6983 the problem is that the idiot in the video doesn’t understand how the crap he’s talking about. This is why he as a morons understanding of evolution.
And how do you know the Bible is true? For the Bible tells you so? Can any of our more astute participants see the logical fallacy in this line of thinking?
Funny, I find it amazing how people who believe in Darwinian evolution ignore facts or don't look at the details of what they are discussing. Too many people just wave their hands and say, "it must have happened" without going into the details. That is how too many people wind up overlooking the reasons why people like myself believe in creation. It is not because of blind belief, but rather the facts. To support materialistic view of the universe, there is an overwhelming need for a vast number of highly improbable coincidences to have occurred. The improbability of these things indicates some intellect planned and made them, not complete blind luck against astronomical odds. And this is not just in the field of physics, but also biochemistry, cell biology and genetics. How do you explain ATP-ase or the flagellar motor, two incredible examples of nano-engineering? How do you get cell membranes that are almost impervious to protons, yet allow molecules like sugars to pass into the cell?
@ creationism starts with a conclusion and then searches for support of that conclusion. Evolution is observing facts and labeling the mechanism discovered while observing said facts. There is an astronomically low likelihood that life could exist in the universe at any given time. However, when you consider there are trillions upon trillions of stars in our universe, one in a billion odds are more than likely going to happen umptenth times, not just once. That’s why “astronomical” odds isn’t a good counter. This has happened over BILLIONS of years. That number is unfathomable to most people. I also see the irreducible complexity argument you have laid out. The flagellum is not irreducibly complex though. We have evidence of proto-flagellum that can operate independently.
"Variations in weather patterns result in changes in the shape and structure of the finch beaks" This guy cannot be serious. No one (other than he) ever said this. The beaks changed as the birds adapted to different food sources, not whether it was raining or not. If this guy has any papers, they should be revoked and he should be kept away from impressionable young people.
I think the point is the different weather/climate on the islands is what led to the variety of food sources from one island to another that lead to the beak variability
youre a fool if you dont think weather patterns can affect the shape and structure of any given body part of any given organism. and even if you dont think so, its very strange youve had such an intense reaction that you think his papers should be "revoked".
@@Bronek.Konarski Weather patterns and food sources are intrinsically tied together. You should be kept away from impressionable young people; although I'm persuaded by your comments that you are a prime member.
6000 years ago God stepped out of nowhere,stood on nothing and created all things with the power of his Word. I have no problem believing that especially after reading his book.But the devil has blinded the eyes of them that refuse to believe.
How do you know the devil didn't deceive the authors of the bible into writing lies? And how do you account for the written records that are more than 6000 years old? Do you think god just made up entire civilizations that never existed just to fool people into being consigned to hell?
@@adamrocket8656what about all the books men at the council of Nicea and later the council Carthage decided didn't fit their narrative so they were banned? Thankfully they were hidden and discovered try reading the dead sea scrolls the gnostic gospels, the book of James, the book of Mary, the book of Eli. The bible speaks of an immaculate conception yet Jesus had older siblings birthed by his mother Marry? Riddle me that riddler lol
Believe? Believe? Evolution is not something one believes in. It's a fact. No belief is required. It's a fact. A proven fact. First theorised by ancient Greeks, perfected the theory by Darwin, now proved by genetics. Saying something is a belief does not change that it is a fact.
@richardnorton9394 like gravitational theory? "Theory" doesn't mean it's a guess. It means hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis, like evolution was proposed as an answer to what was seen in the natural world. To prove a hypothesis you need evidence. And thankfully today we now have evidence for evolution. So even though we can say theory and the hypothesis still exists. We have the fact of evolution being proved by molecular biology among other areas of science. So belief that is "faith" is not required to blindly accept evolution as a fact it is a fact. Creationism has and will always require belief in a God. You may have a theory there is a creator. But that does not make it a fact unless you have evidence. Provable, testable evidence. Hope that clears it up for you.
Seriously do you really believe that all the people opposing your position are not able to understand how it works like not even one? That is mathematically impossible. If you think that is how the world works then you can never enter into a discussion. And I don't just mean a discussion where one side tries to win the argument but if the other side is not just considered not smart enough but instead contradictory evidence provided is examined we can progress science further. This approach is the same as the catholic church opposing the astronomy proofs not even willing to look in the telescope. Now the evolution side became the holy scientific church and you know you are right because only dumb people can oppose their position. Can we actually learn from past mistakes the fallowing: which ever organization is currently in charge of scientific authority should stop hampering progress by forbidding to think and find proof of other ideas.
@@roaringsheep977 "Seriously do you really believe that all the people opposing your position are not able to understand how it works like not even one?" -Yes. "That is mathematically impossible." -Unwarranted assertion. "If you think that is how the world works then you can never enter into a discussion." -There is nothing about my position, that prohibits discussion. You are just making excuses. " if the other side is not just considered not smart enough" -I said nothing about intelligence in general, but rather knowledge of how Evolution actually works. Nice strawman though. "contradictory evidence provided is examined we can progress science further." -The thing is, all the "contradictory evidence" provided, is always contrary to the _actual_ science. "This approach is the same as the catholic church opposing the astronomy proofs not even willing to look in the telescope." -No, it's not the same at all. The 'anti-Evolution sky' has been examined ad nauseum, and has been shown to be faulty _every_ time.
His first argument already sounded pretty spotty. Just because mutations mostly lead to degradation doesn’t mean that guarantees, inevitably and unconditionally, a single outcome to the practical natural process, because it’s not the only influential factor involved in evolution. Survival of the fittest generally is the mechanism that weens out those mutations that don’t provide a benefit. Correctly saying a degradation is statistically likely as an exclusive argument to disproving evolution is a clumsy, whimsical omission of all other variables. The mathematics of mutation are not the sole proprietor responsible for the actuality of the evolutionary process. Also, changing to a non-chalant, passive tone when considering the influence of time on the evolutionary process doesn’t negate its importance. Ridiculously vast swaths of time could be seen as “the special sauce” in evolution.
Well if you actually understood the science of his argument, you would understand that it absolutely, unequivocally guarantees it, as evolution is a process of LOSS of information, never gain of information (which is why we can only observe in nature evolutionary variation among species, never evolutionary speciation itself). In other words, all evolutionary adaptations that are proliferated via natural selection are LOSS of information adaptations (for example, dog breeds have their specific breed traits due to having a less coded information in their genes compared to their common ancestors: the genes that made them wolf-like are now less prevalent, thus the breeds are less wolf-life).
If most mutations lead to degradation, or more specifically "loss of information", then micro evolution has a bias towards death of cells, and NOT toward innovation or new life forms. Then long term, time is the enemy of life, and monkeys on a typewriter will always produce nonsense, no matter how many billions of years or multi universes you throw at the problem.
Exactly; I've made this point earlier...have you read the book DEEP TIME ? Unfortunately can't remember authors name, but he makes you look at time ,vast swathes as you say, in a very amazing light. We have great trouble with ''feeling'' these concepts...just dinosaurs say 350 million years...and we gasp at how old Stonehenge is : hahahahaha! It was a different world too, over and over and over again.
Even if you somehow managed to dismantle the body of evidence pointing toward evolution, that still doesn't really point us toward your flavor of divinity.
@@gavinheron1 Darwin wasn't even too sure of his own ideas at the end of his life according to his writings and rightly so. He assumed by now that we would have discovered endless communities of our ancestors being excavated all over the earth since we've been around so long. That hasn't happened. Lucy, the best evidence evolutionists have, doesn't have a single bone in her body that can be shown to be human. They filled in what was missing with what they wanted to believe. If you look at her objectively, she's just an ancient ape like or chimp like ancestor based on what was found.
Mutation and selection we know are not the only mechanisms. He is lying about how DNA works and we can have different organisms without changing the DNA...
What about a creation archeologist? You are aware that many “scientists” and others use Bible for historical context, criteria and geological identifiers for their research. Hard to say something is made up when you find the things it said existed… kind of like a map.
@calebcares8813 Any written document that is old enough is used for historical context. Bible is just one of them... It doesn't mean the Creation myth has something to do with science
@@procerusgigas, look up Hittite Empire. They thought it was a myth until they uncovered the Hittite royal library in 1906. Another example is the 5 cities of the plain. Also assumed to be myths until discovered by Biblical Archeologists.
If we live in a simulation, everything, and i mean EVERYTHING can be explained for. I'm not saying that we are, but if we are, then EVERYTHING makes sense
@@JLynnDsMyoosik Sigh.... no. *Everything you said is wrong.* Here: "a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works." Laws are typically statements making predictions usually in a formula. Gravity has a theory AND a law, while germ theory does not. Theories never reach a state of proven. Theories are never promoted to anything else. You don't understand science. But what's worse is that you haven't even tried to learn about this before posting.
Belief in microevlution but not common decent from a common ancestor, is like belief a car can travel down a road, but not a highway. The logic of the conclusion of the vast amounts of evidence gathered more than century and a half ago, by Mr Darwin and enumerate collaborators has only gotten more persuasive with ever greater evidence.
Disprove for me the law of Biogenisis. Life is only observed to come from living things. Your beliefs are based on spontaneous generation and Lamarckism- and you call this science.
@@charrin9086 There is no scientific law of biogenesis. That term was coined by Pasteur after his 19th century work on spontaneous generation of entire animals (flies, maggots) from decaying meat. It has nothing to do with modern abiogenesis research.
You're using a poor analogy. To fix it to reflect what this guy is saying is that we can see how a car can travel down a road or a highway, but we can't see how it got across the ocean. If common ancestry is real, then we need a mechanism such as a boat that we have no evidence for to make it work. We better know how biology works and it disproves our current theory of evolution and we don't have any new theories that are good.
None of those were good arguments lol. Basically he just said "cuz biology complex" and "mutations are unlikely to be beneficial" which are both very easily answered by "time plus natural selection" lol
Yeah I agree it’s easily refutable. Computer code and genetic code are a false equivalence. Genetic mutations that aren’t viable for life won’t pass on and those that are insufficient will eventually die out.
The gentleman in this video is a renowned scientist; whether we agree or disagree with his conclusions, that is a fact. To dismiss him as someone who "doesn't even understand evolution" is a bit strange and, honestly, intellectually weak. Such a response reveals that modern science has very much become a domain in which people dismiss things that they disagree with and hold to their preconceived notions without examination of the evidence...almost like they are doing exactly what they accuse religious people of doing 🤔
@@concerneddisciple8273 Meyer isn't a scientist, he's a philosopher. He's also a verified ID-creationist who either doesn't understand evolution even a little or a charlatan who deliberately lies about the science to push his religious agenda. The data indicates the second case.
@concerneddisciple8273 They keep dumbing the theory down as it gets disproven. They don't want to talk about abiogenesis anymore. They cut off limb after limb of the theory just to keep it "alive". People like this now have retreated so far as to say evolution just means adaptations within a species. Which people already knew well, before Darwins great grandpappy was even born 👍
@@concerneddisciple8273 exactly. He understands evolution just fine.. he's just being dishonest. on second thought may scientists fail to understand very simple things when they think they already know the answer. This guy has wasted a lot of time having an answer in his hand (god) and doing whatever he can to figure out what questions he can answer with it
If it isn't random what is directing it. Or are you saying that the original spark of live had all the information for a preconceived path? If that's the case the time factor has just exploded beyond the realm of the time frame science is aware of
@@tomsawyer4321 Survival of the fittest, also known as natural selection. Life arises from molecular replicators that also evolved through natural selection.
@@tomsawyer4321 "If it isn't random what is directing it. " -A multitude of factors. Rolling dice doesn't produce random results. The dice land where they land, due to many factors, like: the beginning orientation of the dice when thrown, the speed at which they are thrown, the distance they are thrown, the contour of the surface they land on, the density of the air they are thrown through, the amount and direction of spin imparted on them when they are thrown, ect., ect..
I'm more amazed by sheer amount of cope you need to believe in creationism. Evolution is a fact and it's proven by massive amounts studies and data. We don't know there's or there isn't a God. And maybe we would never know. Maybe it's the whole point. And everyone is free to believe in whatever they like. But when we have a perfectly rational explanation for a given process, it's not a subject for religion anymore. Well, for the rational people at least.
@ It's not a believe, it's rational conclusion. You don't need to be a scientist to open the Google and trace humans back to bacteria. And no one BELIEVES in evolution, we know it as a fact, bc there's shit ton of evidence backing it.
you will absolutely know when you die and meet what ever fate awaits your soul, its a proven fact 1000's of times over that people who have died and returned and seen and heard conversations in the hallway of hospitals outside closed doors and noise , they described impossible details such as what loved ones and doctors were wearing for cloths and what they were doing and saying specifically, undeniable evidence by these people, I met one of these people and its 100% real deal that we are a soul who is animating this flesh meat suite until this body fails and dies and your soul / consciousness leaves the body and is either met with the forces of good or the forces of evil
I think it's important to note, Stephens and others' theories are not against evolution per se, but against a particular type of evolution, where blind chance and time are the key driving factors. This does not go against a purposeful, aim driven type of evolution, which naturally introduces teleology into the concept. Listen to Denis Noble, he is still an atheist but he admits that purpose must be included in biology.
Stupid! Did this guy reach a point in the conversation that a talk show host failed to keep up with? Maybe. Does that justify the theory? Absolutely not. If you want to impress me, let him have this conversation with someone who deeply understands the material rather than a talk show host who is famous for falling for nonsense. Biology is unequivocally NOT the same as a computer program or even close enough to hinge a theory upon. They are not the same, but he also inferred the falsehood that organisms don’t fail. Genetic mutations fail all the time. Regarding “micro evolution,” ALL evolution is micro evolution. Every single solitary instance is on the micro scale. What is confused for “macro evolution” is nothing more than micro evolution repeated an enormous number of times.
While you are correct that mutations may fail, you are totally incorrect that all evolution is micro. Biology is clear on this and you should search it before you write that.
@ I’m using the term in the same way creationists do. Micro meaning shrinking the Pomeranian dog vs. macro, meaning dinosaurs evolving into birds. The process is basically the same. The difference is the number of “micro” iterations/ generations between them.
@johnbeal839 No, the difference isn't the number of mutations. Mutation can't create new species because there's no proof currently. Maybe you'll prove it someday.
@@pelasgeuspelasgeus4634 *Mutation can't create new species because there's no proof currently.* Science doesn't do "proof" for anything. Science provides positive supporting evidence. There is a huge amount of both fossil and genetic evidence for both macroevolution and speciation. Maybe someday you'll take a Biology 101 class and learn how clueless you actually are.
@@BmoreGrrrrl😂😂😂 Do you mean that science is stating something without caring if it's supported by facts? If yes I feel really sorry for your educators...
Stephen C. Meyer received his PH.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. Please also reference Behe and Lennox, who have a lot of excellent youtube content. ruclips.net/video/rXexaVsvhCM/видео.html BTW: The theory of evolution was initiated by atheistic 18th century philosophers, with a medical school dropout becoming the most prominent.
@williamgreenfield9991 but everything came from nothing? 😂 and a rock was struck by lightning for millennia until an amoeba just came into existence 😂
@@Bebly [" but everything came from nothing? 😂 and a rock was struck by lightning for millennia until an amoeba just came into existence 😂"] Wow is that what the creationist folks are telling you?
@@Bebly If were to trouble yourself to actually read the Bible you would see that the creation story in Genesis claims that this "God" fellow created everything from nothing. Read your own book before you put your foot in your mouth again.
😂 I love how these titles ignore the actual conversation in an attempt to mislead anyone who doesn't want to watch the entire talk! Priceless. The guest says right from the off that he believes in an evolutionary process he then goes on to qualify. Believe me the God Squad will be disappointed in this. I also love the titles that start with the word 'destroy' or 'dismantle' 😂 when in truth nothing of the sort happens. Frightening when you think that these are the early days yet of social media
I’ve watched the whole podcast multiple times. It’s exactly what happened and what was said. He accepts micro evolution or adaptation but not common descent
Click bate title. Joe didn’t look “stunned” at any point. He’s just respectful and lets his guests express their ideas. Which is why it’s a great show. 👊
What’s with all the insert graphics? I went to a conference - picture of people at a conference. As I say in my book - picture of his book title. Clips for the hard of thinking. Also how do you get to lift this content direct from Rogan?
This scientist is Stephen Mayer from the Discovery Institute agrees that evolution occurs traits are passed down, common ancestors exist, the earth is billions of years old but the origin of life is debated and they speculate a designer or designers which would go against the bible myth. You can read his books and watch his lectures and you will see that he does agrees with evolution just not the primary cause.
@ I was trying to give him a little bit of leeway on that one as well. A designer doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a God or a Christian bible god. It could be aliens? For all we know. We may never know.
@ yes. I’m not saying he is correct . He works directly for the Discovery Institute and spreads science misinformation to push a Christian agenda. I’m just pointing out that the OP is incorrect in the title. Christians point to this version of I.D theory as a proof of Christianity even though it totally contradicts the bible. It’s hilarious 😂
Before the big bang, there was no time, no space, no matter, and no universe. Then, something not of time, space, and matter created the universe. Some of us call it The Creator.
Stephen Meyer is a philosopher of science, intelligent design advocate and director of the Discovery Institute. He's not a young earth biblical creation scientist.
You have got to love how Joe Rogan has guests of all type on his show.
Whats that supposed to mean?
Maybe that he isn't afraid of having guests on that he doesn't always agree with.
@@mmc5261 It means Joe Rogan has people from all demographics and walks of life on his show. Like comedians, naturalists, mma fighters, navy seals, woke people, world leaders, conservatives, liberals, a wide variety of all types of peoples, religions, ways of life.
Does that make more sense?
Stephen Meyer is awesome
bless you
from Canada
Darren
@@kalopezinohio This is also true.
Yep, no echo chamber on JRE, but when delusion shows up Joe calls it out.
I missed the part where he shocked Joe Rogan with mind blowing evidence against evolution.
Click bait
You don't need mind blowing evidence though, the evidence for it is very scarce.
@@petermorris1898There is Zero evidence for evolution. It isn't scarce, at all. It simply does not exist.
@@petermorris1898 shut up dude
The part where genetic mutation doesnt contribute to the formation of a new species all together..
From evolutionary terms, a tiger that goes in the ocean to find food can eventually evolve into a whale after millions of years. This guy is saying no, that is too drastic of a mutation for the species to undergo and survive the requirements to transform from tiger to whale.
So at a micro level, a bird evolving to have a different size beak via environmental isolation or whatever, like darwin observed, is feasible. But tiger to whale? No.
That is mind blowing to me. This is the best argument I've ever heard against evolution.
Do you get it now?
He is an intelligent design advocate not a creation scientists. The difference is that creation scientists believe that the earth is 6000 years old but ID advocates have no issues with the current estimate of earth's age. They just believe that even given the billions of years, Evolution is not capable of doing what is claimed without an intelligent designer.
"Cdesignproponentists" 😄 Game. Set. Match.
Advocate=Propagandists
Journalist Rogan should only deal with facts
@markoszoli2185 yes and both still underpin everything they say with a belief in a creator. Without evidence ( testable evidence) they ask people to everything on faith.
Even when given facts, those who have predetermined there is no design or a designer hold staunchly to a theory that’s predates anything known about genetics. The guys is just giving information as it relates to existing theories in science.
No they are the same thing and have literally cut and paste documents from creationism to intelligent design
Who else immediately gets suspicious every time you hear when a scientist dies that was on working on breakthrough discoveries? 🙋♀️
New, he just picks dead people so they cannot refute his lies about their positions.
Yes indeed, when I heard that I thought “tragic accident”
My thought exactly
Just you three conspiracy theorists.
@@steveptasznik6147 LMAO 😆. And apparently 25 other people who liked my post. Sorry, but you’re outnumbered.
Did anyone else take note when He mentioned the Guys that recently died before their research was completed?
So, people often die of OLD AGE!
@@nicholasconder4703he said a tragic accident. Doesn’t sound like old age.
Yeah, how strange, because no one ever dies
Yes! 1st thing that caught my attention!
Not sure. But we could guess
The last example he used was referring to the epigenome. All cells with nuclei have every gene that every cell type will use but not every cell type doesn't use all of those genes. So those genes are packed away. Very few focus on the epigenome for their arguments because it adds another layer of complexity. It's not enough to inherit a newly functioning protein, or non protein coding RNA with alternative function, but the epigenome needs to be adjusted to regulate it also.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist....but when I conspire theoretically, I ask why all these scientists be dying all the time?
age, they be dying of old age.
Because they push non popular theories and thus the establishment removes them.
I was thinking same thing as I watched..who would be threatened by their research..don't know
Mate don’t be daft…. This guy is on the biggest podcast in the world telling everyone this info… if “they” were shutting these people up “they” are not very good at it…
He died?
Thanks!
Thank you!!!!
Michael Faraday, which many acclaim as one of the greatest scientists to ever live, was a Bible-believing Christian. Lord Kelvin, Joseph Lister, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Kepler, Sir William Ramsey, Lord Frances Bacon, Samuel Morse, these were all creationists.
And all wrong.
@@arnaldobellucci9033 There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true...
@@jsj31313jj and who decides what is true?
@@arnaldobellucci9033 The correct answer is we do not know anything with certainty, especially here. So to be able to use scientific inquiry and not just regurgitate findings as absolute fact (without understanding the whole, which is an ongoing pursuit), ironically means that those who are creationists but still practice science versus people who say they're wrong because of science, are actually more likely to be more scientifically minded. Which probably explains why they were the scientists, and not you
Newton wasted half his time on trying to find meaning in the dimensions of Noah's ark. Imagine where humanity would be if he had dedicated that time to actual scientific research...
Anyone notice the referenced scientists he refers to, are dead by "accident".
@@TheSapientSon I noticed. Funny how that often seems to happen across multiple industries.
Are you suggesting, those scientist were killed because they knew too much, and were against the approved narrative? You conspiracy theorists!
Does that matter? Like the research would just vanish because they died? And they had other colleagues.
@@fledgling5616It’s the 👃👃👃
He only said that for one of the two. So what's your point?
Anil Kanda, here’s something you should know: if you, or anyone else, post a video on YT and you title the video, and the video is not worthy of that title…..many people will simply tap the ‘Don’t Recommend Channel’ option, and these clickbait titles will be seen no more in their daily video feed.
I hope this helps.
What was clickbait about the title? It wasn't deceptive in any way.
@@jacktheaviator4938 he doesn't stun Joe Rogan in any way. He just repeats some common nonsensical religious talking points with hilariously shakey logical foundations at best.
I recommend....
@@ge2719- I recommend listening to the video again. His logic was very sound. Perhaps you prejudged it and therefore didn't actually try to follow it?
@dagman85 he doesn't present a single valid argument for anything he says.
Lile he says he doesn't believe in chemical evolution, if you want to quote what part of the video he even provided so much as a logical reason for why chemical evolution isnt possible, Id love to read it/hear it, So quote that part of the video or give me a time stamp. Because I watched the video, he didnt give a reason. He just states he doesn't believe its real. Thats not a valid argument, thats not "sound logic".
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality, because it interfered with our sexual freedom. We objected to the political and economic system, because it was unjust."
-Aldous Huxley
I give my life all the meaning it needs for me to be happy.
@@jerrylong6238this is the matra of our narcissistic and self centered society.
@@jerrylong6238 Of course you do. You and others like you abandon the guidance of religion because it interferes in "your freedom" to do as you please...
I didn't watch a single second and went straight to the comments 😂
try listening
You missed some good information. IF you can understand it and its implications.
And why not, you can see what it's about...I've been here ages!
I did the same thing
Me too - why? Its same circular logic.
The aliens are going to be so confused when they get here.
No, they'll just put up a detour sign to warn others away.
Illegal aliens are already here. But don't worry. Trump and his border Tsar will deport them all...
There are no aliens
Aliens/higher entities are demons or demonic in nature. Space aliens don't exist
They are gonna be really upset when you show them a tooth and a toe bone and try to explain to them they came from nothing
As it turns out. Time is no longer an ally of evolution but one of its compelling arguments against evolution.
@@Ya_akov1980 🤔🤔🥱
@@mcmanustony Funny story: Evolutionists literally completely altered the account at one point claiming Evolution happened too fast to be seen. They did this because they had no reasonable argument for the lack of transitional forms.
Do you have any proof for your BS, ER I mean claims? Anyway that's not what evolution says. Scientists say that it would take a huge amount of time for evolution to be noticed.@@Intellectualfreethinker
@mcmanustony adhominims or senseless reply don't help ur rebuttals, but they might help u sleep at night. Check out Dr. James Tour. He has great videos that will tell u what I just stated. There is technical evidence of a prebiological earth and spontaneous protein folding calculations. Time is probably ur worst enemy in random protein formation. Maybe U should read a book. 😉.
The math doesn't add up. You need more species to start with than you have now. Everything ever observed shows that nature reaches equilibrium, halting evolution until a major change happens. Then we see that with major changes the trend is heavily toward extinction over adaptation. Animals become more specialized and inbred, leading to more extinction.
The numbers don't add up
Which episode is this?
It took 3 billion years to go from a single cell organism to a multicellular organism, and 1.5 billion years from a multicellular organism to us, most people can’t comprehend how much time that is, and the variations of life that has come and gone before we evolved, science is not perfect it doesn’t have all the answers yet but we are getting there slowly
Do you know why science is not perfect and doesn't have all the answers? Because it's a human invention. A Christian human invention at that. It only works based on the assumptions that the universe is governed by laws, which requires an inherent law giver. Without this assumption, science is utterly baseless and useless. And science will NEVER avail us of our questions. Why? Because the universe is designed such that the more we learn, the more we realize there is still left to discover. Einstein paraphrased the Bible when he made the analogy of a candle burning in the dark. The bigger the wick, the higher the flame, and the more darkness is illuminated. But as we watch the circumference of illumination grow as the flame grows in brightness, so too do we realize that the circumference of the darkness has also grown. Now the darkness remains infinite: it's only our awareness of it that actually changes. Understand this. You will NEVER glean the answers via science. You can't see the map while you are standing on the dirt.
Time is the enemy of life. Chemicals needed for life have short life spans. No matter how many billions of years or multiverses you throw at the problem, you will not end with life. Every experiment shows that you need to intervene and select the right chemicals, and remove the unwanted chemicals. All experiments point to intelligence needed to create life.
Not a single person on this planet can accurately and unequivocally date the age of our planet. Though 4.5 billion years does captivate the imagination and make almost anything plausible....
Wow, you sure aged well lol
You were not there to observe those billions of years. Evolution is not a fact. It's an idea about history
After listening to this gentleman speak for just a few minutes I now know the next book I'm buying.
'How to waste time' by Dr Bollocks?
@@creativesource3514 You poor soul.
@@justrude66 Joe Rogan invites many muppets who spew pseudoscience to the masses. Occasionally he will bring on a legit scientist like Brian Cox on. Anyone controversial he invites. That's why he gets the views.
If you want science on this topic go to a evolutionary biologist.
The central dogma of Bio is DNA - RNA - Protein. However, you need all 3, and can't really tell which comes first.
And it get worse, because to produce the protein from RNA you need T-RNA attached to each amino acid so it will be placed correctly in sequence to produce your protein. Plus, you need a ribosome, which consists two subunits, each of which is comprised of several proteins and RNA strands.
@@nicholasconder4703 AMEN
Non living material did not suddenly assemble into a cell... A replicating molecule may be a better candidate for how life came to be.
You don't need all three to get evolution by natural selection. You need all three to get a modern multicellular life form.
Evidence for abiogenesis is advancing, they may crack the secret of how it happened. You might say, "if it happened." And, while the statistical odds of matter turning a corner and being able to self-replicate border on "impossible;" it remains more probable than the supernatural. The "central dogma" of science is that there's a rational explanation, rather than supernatural, for everything. FYI, Abiogenesis research isn't really focused on DNA-RNA etc. Those things could have been a later development.
What number episode?
Sir Isaac Newton was the greatest scientist of all time. He wrote this, "This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being".
Do you know why he said that? Because in trying to solve the mathematics of all the planetary orbits, he couldn't get the math to work. According to his equations, the solar system should fly apart. So he just said it could only proceed from God. Essentially, God is fudging the math on an ongoing and continuous basis.
It wasn't until 100 years later a French mathematician named Laplace finished newton's equations and made the math work. No God required.
So does that mean God doesn't exist?
And?
I knew I left that solar system somewhere. My bad.
He also was completely wrong about gravity. Gravity does not exist.
It is the effect of living in curved space-time.
@zx9mel Gravity is a complex topic.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"
-Einstein
"Time is always the hero of the plot."🐿 Yeah😊
In reality time is the enemy of abiogenesis (non-living chemicals turning into life). Even in optimal conditions, proteins start breaking down in a few weeks . Forget billions of years. Time kills life.
It's amazing to me that the more we learn, the more complicated it gets. But there are still people who believe all these things happen with no guiding hand.
When trees fall in the forest are they "guided by hands" every time to land in a particular spot? When it rains does every drop have a specific predetermined destiny?
@@The_DC_Kid Better question: Are the trees falling randomly for no reason? Does science have a basic understanding of what causes rain to form?
And yet they still adhere to Christian morality. Don't kill, steal, etc. But then they say killing and stealing is necessary for evolutionary progress lol
@@The_DC_Kid
"When trees fall in the forest are they "guided by hands" every time to land in a particular spot?"
No, because they fall according to the laws of physics, etc.
What laws of physics explain the origin of (genetic) information? Dawkins was unable to point to a mechanism when asked about this. Paul Davies said "... there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.”
In other words, your analogy was not valid.
If I find a fossil that fills the gap in the evolutionary record, have I closed the gap or have I opened 2 new gaps . . . ?
Since there are a finite (albeit very large) number of transitional forms, you have place a piece of evidence in one of the empty slots.
The changes in the DNA are not random, they're influenced by the environment. Moreover life evolves not separately from its environment. Environments and ecosystems are constantly changing. Life is always interdependent and codependent within an ecosystem. Furthermore, nobody said evolution started off in one place right? Life can emerge in different forms and in different environments, and evolve (or die out) from there. Anyway, I don't see any proof here from this specialist against evolution.
There is no evidence of any species evolving into another species
One question if we "evolved" from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys, and why didn't they "evolve" answer it's because nothing evolves but merely adapts to it's environment
He brought up some circular arguments by saying you'll always degrade first before making new structures which is a pretty weak argument. People biased against evolution will take that as proof against evolution.
Yes, they are random.
He is not the one saying changes in DNA are random -- he is claiming the Darwinian evolutionists have always claimed random mutation, and as you say, this is false -- so you agree with him. As for your other statements, you are making claims for the man he did not make himself. He did not dispute that "life is interdependent and codependent within an ecosystem" nor did he claim that people claim "evolution started off in one place" -- your words, not his. He is only responding to the "common ancestor" hypothesis of the Darwinian evolutionists and his response is quite reasonable. He did not claim anywhere in this interview there was "proof" as you claim, only that there is evidence, and that the evidence is quite compelling.
I'm 42 now but went to a private Christian school (1 -12) and graduated in Y2K. we learnt to read the Bible and studied Christian scripture. I had many many questions about things that didn't align or seemed like a misinterpretation of language that made the stories disjointed or seen to be out of logical sequence for the timeline? What I noticed the most is references to side quest stories that have place markers but the story is absent in some accounts but makes references in others (a bit like wooops we forgot to remove it this - please disregard).
I am inquisitive and excelled in science and technology subjects at school. I went to university and studied engineering for 1 year before switching into Environmental Science. My upbringing played a part in inspiring my this direction that I chose.
I completed my degree and got a Bachelor of Environmental Science and then went on to specialise in Spatial Science, Geographic information systems, mapping & cartography.
I build a careers in Spatial Sciences having worked on some nationally acclaimed projects; a lul in GIS mapping in general saw me applying for positions on the other side of the country and even over seas having made it into final selections for many positions each of them requiring full focused plan on what I need to do if I am selected for a position etc. I was planning on navigating chaos for each job scenario and this was starting to stress me out in combination of narrowly missing so many times. I am unqualified but have much experience in IT so I fl fell back on this for a few years and then narrowed my scope by specialising in industrial IT where computers connect to machines, robots etc which then progressed into what I am currently doing; I run a big robot machine known as a CNC.
Anyway throughout this transition in my life and always having a fascination with culture, geography and engineering. I become drawn to ancient megalithic sites and there came many discrepancies and things that don't make any sense? Things that I was taught at school that we were made to believe were true almost seem delusional factually wrong or impossible? Then around 2010 when the internet hit it's peak for sharing with impunity and it turned into a play ground and wealth of classified information to be exposed?
Similarly I noticed patterns in the ideologies of cultures stories and beliefs throughout history and this sparked am urge into theological exploration, religions and belief systems and how they had changed throughout history?
It was around this time that all those red flags from growing up as a Christian resurfaced again but this time with a much much more analytical mind with purpose? How can it be that seperate cultures have the same or similar stories of human history and that can't be coincidence?
I can still remember the moment that it just clicked all of a sudden?
It was literally science that made me believe in God undeniably!
No scripture, no interpretation or account of anything in human history can convince me the truth that God the creator is 100% fact!
The moon
The moon is how I know in my heart that God the creator is real and nothing any person can say to me now that can change my mind!
Just since the time that I've been alive we have had so many scientifically proven studies that support some of the events within the Bible; too many now for me to consider as coincidence?
Then the last thing that just exploded things for me is the dead sea scrolls and the reasoning behind why it was over 30 years before they were revealed to the public. It was this very moment that made me realise that the Bible I was being taught in school was literally a load of rubbish. When people realise that the Bible was tweaked and changed to give an entirely different narrative (King James and Constantine era) was make idea of war not to be a sin. So that they could promote and recruite for war without it being considered a sin. To justify and to free the elites of guilt (note that this was the new era where battle conflicts actually became what we now know as war - previously the king or leader challenging the position of power lead his own men into battle. This all made way to a more segregated battles where the king or powerful leader was kept safe away from direct conflict.
The deadsea scrolls revelation sparked my a very critical look into Christianity and the apocrypha.
It was around this time that I could literally only rely on the 10 commandments as being unmodified (each iteration of historical changes brining it's own narrative to the Bible stories. It is any wonder why after 3 or 4 language interpretations and then 5 or 6 cultural eras of narrative change, that the story is so broken that it's at the limitations of making any kind of logical sense. And all the previous iterations of untracked changes and reasoning for them to align with the common narrative at the time seeing most of branches on the tree of the Bible that most were either burnt in book burning crusades that served the purpose of destroying all alternative narratives and provoking a singular point of truth for the followers of Christianity. It was this consolidation in the absence of revisions and harsh condemnation and a promise of the people that the apocrypha and all of its inclusions were strictly forbidden?
So out of seemingly nowhere we all of a sudden have this human derived concept of the apocrypha (we are told that the exclusion from Cannon is because it didn't align with the narrative of the Bible and I actually think that is the truth) the context being that you can't notice the disparity in alignment of apocrypha texts unless you read them - oh no you aren't allowed to do that! That's strictly forbidden.
Well what is it that can be so bad and so damaging to the Christian faith that it cannot be allowed to be read by the people?
Who gave a mortal man the superior power to override God? What right dose any person have to tell me what I can and cannot read? There is no right. They are powerless to stop us but use psychological tactics to provoke feelings of wrong doing or guilt?
Language and words give a away a lot of context! It was forbidden by some human declaration. But it is not a sin to read but apocrypha? Therefore we have allowed a non-god or religious diety dictate and control us without question and yet within the 10 commandments it instructs us to never do this!
Thou shall not worship false idols or deities...... And that's a commandment from God himself. It's not a guide or recommendation but a commandment.
The existence of the apocrypha itself is the most blasphemous thing in all of human history.
The dead sea scrolls revealed that many of the scriptures and texts banished from the Bible to the apocrypha are included in the deadsea scrolls and therefore destroy any and all rationale for the existence of the apocrypha! The book of Enoch excluded from canon but found in the dead sea scrolls? Something tells me this may be the reason for delaying the announcement for 30+ years whilst human technological progress saw the onset of the printing press and allowed for mass duplication of texts without influence of interpretation of misunderstanding due personal bias and belief going into to influence teachings of Christianity. In retrospect this is a good thing to maintaining a consistent message.........but the thing is the Bible isn't at all a consistent message? It's far from it. It's intentionally confusing and misleading with an unquantifiable amount of bias to manipulate the public. The idea of churchas a physical building is modern concept that has no place or reference to the teachings of Jesus Christ but it's concept is literally woven into the fabric of human belief.
The Dunning Krueger effect has a more defined explanation of human logic than anything written in any Bible. There is more weight to the truth of this concept than there is to the wishy washy Biblical events?
Please tell me that gives any mortal man the right to tell me what parts of the Bible are true and what parts are false?
The Ethiopian Bible from a mostly unchanged language since the dawn of history until modern day with only the addition of new words to describe modern concepts and not allowing any modification of the language. The Ethiopian language can be directly translated to modern English skipping 3 or 4 language mistranslations and personal bias and then 5 or 6 cultural evolutions and an entire canon that includes EVERY book and excludes none. That the Ethiopian Bible has additional parts to the language to prevent misinterpretation and to stop ambiguous interpretation are referenced throughout with cliff notes explaining the interpretation or why there needed to be clarification or emphasis within the story.
So now I have renewed interest in religion and especially around identifying where they have lied to us and potential reasoning for why (this may provide crucial context as highlight and flag false scripture that may reveal the motive of the agenda for modifying the Bible.
Power, control and influence.
But wait isn't God meant to have ALL of this? You see how we let the ones that defy God be in control of saying what is claimed to be the words of God. Do you think they might lie to promote their own ideologies?
Christ is king my friend . The church and the canons are not important, Christianity is a human congregation, not important! Jesus Christ is our king and saviour that’s all that matters . God does not confuses us only the devil does. But we can never have the brain power to fully understand the work of God . He knows what’s in our hearts and what we need much better than us
It's comments,not novella.
Well said,
K
Inconsistencies in the Bible. Differing "divine" edicts in various religions. Outright lies taught as fact to support one religion over another.
Who gave mortals the right to make moral claims against God? Who gets to claim their religion is right over another?
At the end of the day a c*lt is a c*lt is a c*ult.
There is no "micro" or "macro" evolution. There's just evolution.
False
@cjthompson346 it's evolution, period.
@@cjthompson346 shut up dude
Micro evolution can happen in a species, but it is still a single species - That is why all humans came from one female (scientific validated truth) but have evolved into different races - they are still all humans.
The macro evolution of everything coming from a common ancestor is an unproven theory!
@@TerryUniGeezerPeterson Nope. There is only micro evolution, period...
Great video. This episode of Rogan is one of my favorites.
But if I could get a bit of feedback to whoever listed this video, it would be to stop using words like “destroyed“ when talking about good-faith debates like this. It’s so condescendingly and unnecessarily counterproductive.
This is an excellent example of how deeply held and probably unexamined convictions can distort the thinking of even very sophisticated minds.
As proved by nothing but your ass?
Like believing scientists know everything?
@@leroilapue15no scientist has ever claimed to know everything. That is completely the opposite of how science works. Science is never contempt with current knowledge but seeks more and refines previously set theories (that doesn't meen they are canceled but improved).
Claiming to know everything and all of it being contained in a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy of a translation of a copy of a book written by unknown authors and describing events that happened decades before the writing is more of a religious thing. 😉
I love the video, but that background music is annoying.
Can barely hear it
If they didn't add the background music, youtube would demonitize it because he doesn't have permission.
Easily annoyed huh? Can't even hear it.
The theory of 'random advances evolving through time' is much like a hurricane striking a junk yard and producing a Boeing 747.
I mean, maybe a hurricane could do that if it were given enough time and maybe something caused heating or something to help fuse stuff together…
It would likely be easier in biology for creatures to develop though, given that parts are produced from other parts via reproduction, so you don’t have to worry about random parts being put in the right configuration by chance… Well sometimes you do as mutations have caused some things to grow in the wrong place… Cancer is essentially cells malfunctioning, in a way, over numerous generations, to the point errors in their code are more common as reproduction happens more and more… Different breeds/species of plants and animals can show differences through breeding etc… Given enough time and the right circumstances, all sorts of things could happen… It would be fascinating to see how it all started and developed.
Honestly, this guy is very interesting to listen to. Kudos to Joe for not just having an interest in such fields, but a very good question ultimately.
Don't be ridiculous. This guy has been a hack his entire career.
Lying in video titles and thumbnails doesn't make religious people look good.
I thought thats what satan did in the garden?
@jackjackal1768 Leave it to a woman to choose the video, and she'll choose the clickbait every time.
How is it a lie? specifically?
Murdering babies doesn't make secular people look good. Shall we continue? I'd love to expose how stupid unbelief actually is, and I can't think of a better scapegoat to this end than some pontificating doctor.
So give a rebuttal...we want facts. The man was giving us facts. Evolution is not adding up.
A short comment: If you cannot prove radiometric dating false you are left with a 4 billion year linear (single celled to man complexity) fossil record that is beyond dispute and can only be explained by evolution. You cannot prove the fossil record false as it uses two of the most accurate instruments on earth and which, in modern times, play a large part in our survival and we are largely dependent on them.
The fact is that ionization chambers prove the earth is over 4.468 billion year old as fact (based on the actually measured half like of uranium 238) and, when mass spectrometers are added to the mix, the 4 billion year indisputable fossil record proving evolution fact (as there has been absolutely no other viable theory presented to replace it). We know evolution took place. The theistic world can have never ending talk fests about why evolution is false but the bottom line is always going to be: We have a 4 billion year fossil record that proves you're wrong and, from that point everything you hear in this type of rhetoric simply has no meaning i.e. it is possible to make up dozens of stories why our sun can't exist but, in the morning, we will observe it rise over the horizon. Similarly, Stephen Meyer can offer stories about evolution being false until his head falls off but, in the morning, we will still have the fossil record to prove him wrong. And that's it.
Unless you can prove ionization chambers and mass spectrometers provide false results (which is never going to happen) or you can provide a process of life going linearly and without interruption from a single cell to current complexity over a period of 4 billion years without evolution (which is also never going to happen), then it is pointless debating. There's no point debating something can't happen and why it can't happen when you've already got observed proof it has happened, it's futile. It is also pointless trying to invoke "evolution of the gaps" as proving anything, since we know it's already happened. And trying to explain why it couldn't happen using a plethora of made up reasons, in the face of the proof it has happened, only serves to prove ignorance of how it happened and how much still needs to be discovered, not that it can't happen. Noting that Stephen Meyer is forced to use information and research to try to prove his case that emanates from REAL scientists who don't now and never will believe him or accept his unproven and unprovable claims.
I remember a convo several years back where a Creationist explained to me that the Devil had placed fossils all over the world in an attempt to trick and mislead humanity about the creationist time-line.
they have a magic answer for everything, magic is always an easy answer
Right on point! Great post! I might add the distances to various stars that are thousands of light years away. The light we are seeing is not current but billions of years traveling in order for you to see the light.
I'm glad u made it short comment 😅
Just take a look at Barry Setterfields and Grahem Normans research on the speed of light not being constant, but actually slowing down, If this theory is plausible ( I believe it is) then, It shatters our understanding of Time. And suddenly 4 billion years with a decrease of light speed suddenly fits very well into a creation viewpoint.
Fossil record of part plant turning into a animal? Or to a fish? I haven't seen any
Very solid discussion. Most people who believe in evolution (macroevolution) fail to understand the physics and chemistry involved in the biology that make it impossible.
Its like saying pure water can change to gold if you apply the correct amount of heat and pressure. Changes in heat and pressure will either give you solid water, gaseous water, or destroy the chemical bonds, water either changes to other water or breaks down into its individual parts because it does not have the necessary piece to change into another molecule such as unstable bonding, free electrons, and other chemicals that also in and in need of those conditions for a change to occur. Water across millions of years would continue to be water.
The human chemistry is similar. To change body parts from one kind to another would be such a complex chemical task that it sits on the same side of impossible as well. For instance trying to change fins into arms. Where do the thicker bones, the new joints, the change in muscle shape, thickness, and structure, the blood vessels necessary to power these new structures, the nerves necessary to move these new structures, and brain matter to control it all come from? From the genetic perspective the proteins for all these are shaped and organized differently, the rna that creates and communicates with the dna for them doesnt exist and the dna isnt there. It isnt a simple change for them to exist, its water to gold, you need a completely new set of proteins, dna, and rna to be able to have these come into existence.
-peace
Do you have any idea ? Alone your first comparison is completely bullshit. Water can not turn to gold. The probability is 0.
Also you believe in a omnipotent being. The probability for it's existence must be magnitudes lower than the lowest probably you can come up for evolution.
"Most people who believe in evolution (macroevolution) fail to understand the physics and chemistry involved in the biology that make it impossible."
Most people who say that are pizza delivery drivers and supermarket checkers.
@ less probable than an infinite collection of energy and mass somehow destabilizing and randomly creating consciousness, an immaterial substance with no scientific mechanism for its creation, in a single place in the universe and that consciousness, for no reason, splitting itself into all the different species of life known?
I am aware that water cant turn to gold. The same way water doesnt have the necessary electrons, protons, energy state, mass, mechanisms, etc to turn to gold is the same way that doest have the necessary dna, rna, proteins, ribosomes, mechanisms, etc to randomly change into other forms of life. That is the point is was trying to make with the example.
-peace
@ I wouldn’t know lol. I’m neither and havent discussed it with any. Would you like a discussion about it?
-peace
Nothing in physics of chemistry makes evolution impossible. Every day we get the same dumb creationist claims and every day they get corrected only to be repeated again the next day. 🙄
Meyer's book, "Darwin's Doubt". Quite enlightening.
One of the worst pieces of pseudoscience garbage ever produced.
@@BmoreGrrrrl yeah I agree. So many are fooled by Darwin's theory evolution because they can make a pretty chart from it
I kinda understand where he's coming from: if you create an AI, that has tools and a task to perfect itself and adapt to an enviroment, in time, it will become much more different and complex. It will evolve into something new. But at first, you have to create an AI. You can't just drop some ore in a bucket, put a couple of electrodes in it and expect to have an AI in a billion years after.
That's because computer parts aren't organic, do not grow, and don't reproduce.
1. how does genetic engineering work?
2. genes aren’t software and the closest thing to software, methylation of cpg islands and acetylation of histones, cannot be deduced to 0s and 1s or anything computational since communication in biological systems is non algorithmic.
3. the guy in the video doesn’t know anything about genetics or computer science, he probably doesn’t know math well enough to tell the difference between physically referent mathematical frameworks and the more abstract alternatives.
@@VonJay
so DNA doesn't contain the info that gets copied into RNA and then folded into proteins by other proteins based on which sequence of info the RNA holds ?
(and ad hominem? really? have you read any of his work?)
@@mentilly_all is code software or is code part of software?
from google: “Software comprises the entire set of programs, procedures, and routines associated with the operation of a computer system.”
Methylation of cpg islands and acetylation of histones determines what genes are expressed, when they’re expressed, how they’re expressed. This is called “epigenetics.” The guy in the video conflated genes with software, which isn’t a 1 to 1 analogy for a myriad of reasons. The main being that code cannot be software if there is no blueprint telling the system how to express itself. biological systems also are non computational so he tried to equate 0s and 1s to the actual genetic code and not the software while not knowing that even if he got the software right 0s and 1s cannot emulate a biological system. So everything he said was a very impressionistic take on the how genes express themselves, completely missing methylation and not understanding how “imprinted” genes and their epigenetics behave in germ (sperm, egg) line cells. It was really really cringe worthy to listen to and people in the comments give him praises without being to challenge what he’s saying.
@@mentilly_all is code software or is code part of software?
from google: “Software comprises the entire set of programs, procedures, and routines associated with the operation of a computer system.”
Methylation of cpg islands and acetylation of histones determines what genes are expressed, when they’re expressed, how they’re expressed. This is called “epigenetics.” The guy in the video conflated genes with software, which isn’t a 1 to 1 analogy for a myriad of reasons. The main being that biological systems are non computational. So everything he said was a very impressionistic take on the how genes express themselves, completely missing methylation and not understanding how “imprinted” genes and their epigenetics behave in germ (sperm, egg) line cells. It was really cringe worthy to listen to.
From pond scum, to vegetation, then bugs, then fish, then mammals, then monkies,.. I WANT A DNA TEST, to find out if I'm more tree, or more of the fishy species. 😂 😂
if you wanna go further, you end up with flat worms
Don't forget crap ass Neanderthals.
I'm thinkin I'm more tree.....
All them dang woody's. Or woodies. As I've gotten old I kinda miss the pee woodies. Used to worry bout peein on the tank but now have to worry bout my feet.
Excellent visual for all none of em that read this......
Well, no, you have no idea of evolution. The first test you should get is an IQ test.
I can answer that, we know
It's fishy
You have a nerve that goes from one point to the neck to another, and it goes down all the way through your heart. That nerve comes from fish who have no neck and so the nerve doesn't go around for them, it just goes from one side of the heart to the other.
In the same way as heliocentrism, the fact that it goes agains religious teachings doesn't mean it's incorrect. Quite the oppositr if we look at history
This man stay true to science than the theory of evolution.
He could have just said “a mutation is always a LOSS of information”
That's a really silly claim since whatever one mutation does another later mutation can undo.
If the mutation AAC-->AAG is a LOSS of information then the reverse mutation AAG --> AAC must be a GAIN of information. Do you understand?
@@BmoreGrrrrl - bears out in real life though, a mule ends up sterile, fruit fly can be made to grow more wings but then can’t fly, etc. The idea that humans came from monkeys is laughable and hugely convenient being that somehow ALL the intermediates failed to survive, lol except for in the fossil record, but then again those guys will generate a complete “fossil’ from the chip of some toe bone as a guide, haha. Do what it takes to get the grant money, right!? Order from randomness if antithetical to the second LAW of thermodynamics… you can’t have it both ways.
A code doesn't write itself randomly. It needs intelligence to be written.
What it can do by itself, is to change according to how it is coded initially
Atoms and particles aren't code. They are Atoms and particles. Code needs some one to write it but the electrons are just doing what electrons do.
A mile is a mile because we made it so. It is an unchanging measure.
A code for a programme is written by a person and will alter, change and compile depending on the function of the programme to how we want it to use it.
DNA code is what we use to recognize specific patterns and shapes from the molecules that combine and make a strand. It is a measure. It is not written. It is interpreted by us so we can make it easier to study instead of saying "cell 1 is slightly oblong with a tinge of beige", "cell 2 is spherical, smells like garlic and has a teal sheen"..instead it's A,G,E etc
@musiconanotherlevel bits also do what bits do. They're the elements of the code.
Here's a fun fact: everything we experience and observe is just INFORMATION actually. We are like a conscious 3d game characters, and the reality we percieve is like a perfectly simulated 3d world.
There is a lot of scientific evidence of this actually being the case. The best ones being the quantum entanglement and the observer effect.
Now the mistake we make with this is that we assume "computer" simulation. Because that's what our brains correlate the information term with.
It's not a simulation. It's not happening inside some computer. It's the very reality itself..as if everything exists within some kind of a mind..higher level information; a Source Code. Creative idea.
After all, the Bible itself starts with "In the beginning, there was a Word"
@@creativeearthian1702 What is is just what is. All you are doing is putting God at the end of scientific comprehension. We have done this with everything we didn't understand throughout history and it has never 1 time been the right answer. If we figure out what caused the Big Bang you would just say God created that.
@@musiconanotherlevel you didn't understand my comment
DOESNT MATTER IF YOU ARE SKEPTICAL, these are mechanics that have been recreated and observed, I am actually dumber for having watched this
Exactly. We not only observed speciation, we learned how to cause it in fruit flies and other short-lived beings.
Why do white Americans get triggered when we don’t buy evolution lol
Evolution is becoming more solidified. Innovation, yes, cos of preadaptation. I like this guy, and probably one of most sensible creationists I've heard. Nothing is likely to disprove evolution amd more tham gravity. But just as we can't explain the speed of galaxies spinning under Einstein's theories, gravity is VERY well explained by these theories. A difficulty for creationists is simply that they start woth an a priori assumption which we no is wrong.. that all species were created within 6 days. All the mammal species we have todsy did NOT exist at the time of the dinosaurs. I'm a biologist, and understand what he's talking about, but doubt most creationists do.
3:37 These are not direct analogues. DNA sequences contain data (better: parameters), not a program ("code"). The program ("code") is the actual protein creation process, amongst other processes. A better analogy would be to liken the DNA code (data) to the parameters of a neural net. A program is what makes the neural net perform its function while the parameters is what makes its function useful (to us) - otherwise the neural net function would return gibberish. If one could randomly change some of the parameters of a neural net and observe its function afterwards, that would be a better analogy to DNA genes' random mutation. Of course, this is still a very crude, poor analogy as a neural net usually does only one very specific thing but one could argue that a certain DNA section serves only one particular purpose too.
Genetics is fake. Lysenko was right.
Data science maitains that there can be no intelligent code without an intelligent author. So explain DNA the most complex code known to man
Human DNA is 98.8% similar to chimps, 98% similar to pigs and 90% similar to cats. How do you explain that?
DNA is not code. In spite of the analogy of DNA to code, it has the limitation of not actually being code. DNA is a nucleic molecule. Chemistry, friend, pure chemistry.
@@robertsparling irrelevant...
@@pelasgeuspelasgeus4634 Not directed to you, friend. I imagine a lot of relevance escapes your notice.
The problem is when scientists try to simplify things for the layperson to be able to understand, they understand it simply
Instead of saying he disproved evolution with questions and some evidence as you’re suggesting in your title, try and understand we have the source of the answer in ancient microbiology. We have the end result of the answer in modern biology. We also have bits and pieces of how the formula works with extinct animal fossils. But we do not know majority of the math to link the two ends perfectly yet. That is science, just because something is more complex than currently explainable doesn’t mean you fill in the answer with magic. Just like you don’t add a random factor into the equation that does all the functions to get to the end result as desired.
Are you a biologist?
@ sure am, at UC Berkeley.
@RMgolf so you are a biologist and you are ignorant of micro & macro evolution?
Please go on. Tell me more before insulting me when I said nothing controversial. Also I went into very little specific detail. Show me your in depth knowledge of micro and macro evolution.
@RMgolf I didn't insult you. I simply pointed that you use solely the term evolution while it's well established that it's divided into micro & macro.
Unless you are a geneticist, molecular biologist, etc., please understand that your lack of understanding of this topic renders your opinions meaningless.
So unless you finish culinary school you can't understand cooking? Give humans some more credit you don't have to be an expert in something to understand it.
Behe is a useful read to see the problems with darwinian evolution
Creationism is not science it’s dogma . Science is observation without bias
You’ve been hoodwinked by academia pal
Yet all the theories in evolution are just DOGMA...
And not a single thing he said was indicative that he’s a creationist. He’s simply critiquing classic Darwinian theory, not denying evolution in favor of ‘god said let there be light’
You have not kept up to date with the science is all.
Evolution is theory.
When is Steven going to Sweden to collect his Noble prize for proving Evolution wrong ?
after he can name 10 books
@@charlieboy2587 He isn’t the first, get a brain.
when mainstream stops lying
Yea he’s just not correct so he’s just full of shit
You mean _Stephen_ and _Nobel?_
When the Nobel Prize Committee loses its bias. Raymond Damadian invented MRI, but two others who also worked on it got a Nobel Prize, and Damadian didn't. Damadian was a creationist.
Evolution takes more faith then every religion combined.
@@mcmanustonyinstead of insulting the person. Explain your point!!
Considering the fact that many animals are now proven extinct and humans have ties with many subtype humans...aswell as the general ridiculousness of religion itself...I.e almost everything being summed up as metaphors these days as the majority of said religions don't make any sense...religion is far more farfetched than evolution.
We might be wrong about the actual transitions but the general idea is far more plausible believable than religions in amd of themselves.
No human-chimpanzee link has been found. Chimpanzees have white skin but they claim humans came from Africa. So white-skinned chimps turned into Africans and then back into white skinned people? No you guys are buying the lie.
Fun fact: Nobody here in the comment section has or will debunk the telomere fusion of Human Chromosome 2
There are no fossil records showing a chimpanzee-human link.
Stephen C. Meyer just keeps getting better and better
At deceit.
@@robertsparling Yup, he followed the science and was ridiculed for it. Perhaps you don't wish to follow the science and just want to talk about your religious beliefs, but you are deceiving yourself. Try reading his books and use your intellect to come to a conclusion based on the empirical science. If you don't want to then how can you say he is being deceitful. You haven't even looked at what he says
So why hasn't he been able to get his theories published in peer reviewed journals?
The anatomy of the human eye proves that Darwins theory of evolution is not true
How so? Sounds like an argument from personal incredulity.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041030215105.htm
@@anthonybro1 Great. To show how eye evolution is impossible you link to a paper showing how natural eye evolution occurred. 😄 Try reading more than the sensationalist title.
@@anthonybro1 Did you even bother to read the article you posted?
And how who ever created it did a shitty job!
Evolutionists would suggest that all birds, fish, insects, animals and humans all came from the same biological start.
Yes.
That is becasue they did.
Whats an "Evolutionist"??? Evolution is not a belief, you either understand it or you don't. You can see its a fact or you dont. A creationist in fact any ' ist' is called an 'ist' because they are founded by a belief. For example a Creationist has to have faith in a creator as they dont have any evidence that proves what they "know"
and yes you are right the Evolutionary science has proved through molecular biology, paleontology, molecular chemistry, physics, etc that all birds, fish, insects, animals and humans all came from the same biological and chemical start.
This guy realises that people are roughly half banana, genetically speaking?
youre free to not understand anything he said if you want
@@heythere6983 the problem is that the idiot in the video doesn’t understand how the crap he’s talking about. This is why he as a morons understanding of evolution.
Got to respect Joe Rogan. I love the spread of guests from all sorts of experience and expertise. Awesome!
Just read Genesis in the Bible and God clearly explains he created EVERYTHING. All honor and glory to our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth 🙏🙏
Yes it does.
*Don't forget to like and subscribe for more! Thanks friend for the support.
And how do you know the Bible is true? For the Bible tells you so? Can any of our more astute participants see the logical fallacy in this line of thinking?
Prove the bible wasn't influenced by the devil to make us worship the wrong thing.
God doesn’t explain in the bible. The bible was written by people. How did they know what God did??
So God wrote that?
You can’t make the blind see. That’s why I stopped arguing with creationists…
I just enjoy ridiculing them.
Funny, I find it amazing how people who believe in Darwinian evolution ignore facts or don't look at the details of what they are discussing. Too many people just wave their hands and say, "it must have happened" without going into the details. That is how too many people wind up overlooking the reasons why people like myself believe in creation. It is not because of blind belief, but rather the facts. To support materialistic view of the universe, there is an overwhelming need for a vast number of highly improbable coincidences to have occurred. The improbability of these things indicates some intellect planned and made them, not complete blind luck against astronomical odds. And this is not just in the field of physics, but also biochemistry, cell biology and genetics. How do you explain ATP-ase or the flagellar motor, two incredible examples of nano-engineering? How do you get cell membranes that are almost impervious to protons, yet allow molecules like sugars to pass into the cell?
@ creationism starts with a conclusion and then searches for support of that conclusion. Evolution is observing facts and labeling the mechanism discovered while observing said facts. There is an astronomically low likelihood that life could exist in the universe at any given time. However, when you consider there are trillions upon trillions of stars in our universe, one in a billion odds are more than likely going to happen umptenth times, not just once. That’s why “astronomical” odds isn’t a good counter. This has happened over BILLIONS of years. That number is unfathomable to most people. I also see the irreducible complexity argument you have laid out. The flagellum is not irreducibly complex though. We have evidence of proto-flagellum that can operate independently.
Agree. They still want to label subjects like oncology and genetics as witchcraft, as they ban more books.
"Variations in weather patterns result in changes in the shape and structure of the finch beaks"
This guy cannot be serious. No one (other than he) ever said this. The beaks changed as the birds adapted to different food sources, not whether it was raining or not. If this guy has any papers, they should be revoked and he should be kept away from impressionable young people.
@@Bronek.Konarski Oh get off it, he’s on a podcast, and his point still stands anyway.
I think the point is the different weather/climate on the islands is what led to the variety of food sources from one island to another that lead to the beak variability
youre a fool if you dont think weather patterns can affect the shape and structure of any given body part of any given organism. and even if you dont think so, its very strange youve had such an intense reaction that you think his papers should be "revoked".
Bronek - You're right. And, changing beaks does not change them into non- finches.
@@Bronek.Konarski Weather patterns and food sources are intrinsically tied together. You should be kept away from impressionable young people; although I'm persuaded by your comments that you are a prime member.
If you are at all interested in this subject, you have to read Dr. Meyer’s books. They are very readable and full of jaw dropping information.
Your jaw falls open from laughing so hard.
4:40 hmm died in an "accident"? Or wacked for making discoveries that contradicted the status quo?
Exactly my thinking. You are not allowed to go against the narrative.
6000 years ago God stepped out of nowhere,stood on nothing and created all things with the power of his Word. I have no problem believing that especially after reading his book.But the devil has blinded the eyes of them that refuse to believe.
Yes! Very true.
*Don't forget to like and subscribe for more! Thanks friend for the support.
How do you know the devil didn't deceive the authors of the bible into writing lies? And how do you account for the written records that are more than 6000 years old? Do you think god just made up entire civilizations that never existed just to fool people into being consigned to hell?
Then you clearly have not actually read all the book(s). Isn't it a sin to bear false witness?
@@adamrocket8656what about all the books men at the council of Nicea and later the council Carthage decided didn't fit their narrative so they were banned? Thankfully they were hidden and discovered try reading the dead sea scrolls the gnostic gospels, the book of James, the book of Mary, the book of Eli.
The bible speaks of an immaculate conception yet Jesus had older siblings birthed by his mother Marry? Riddle me that riddler lol
Believe? Believe? Evolution is not something one believes in. It's a fact. No belief is required. It's a fact. A proven fact. First theorised by ancient Greeks, perfected the theory by Darwin, now proved by genetics.
Saying something is a belief does not change that it is a fact.
It's called evolutionary theory for a reason.
@richardnorton9394 like gravitational theory? "Theory" doesn't mean it's a guess. It means hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis, like evolution was proposed as an answer to what was seen in the natural world. To prove a hypothesis you need evidence. And thankfully today we now have evidence for evolution. So even though we can say theory and the hypothesis still exists. We have the fact of evolution being proved by molecular biology among other areas of science. So belief that is "faith" is not required to blindly accept evolution as a fact it is a fact. Creationism has and will always require belief in a God. You may have a theory there is a creator. But that does not make it a fact unless you have evidence. Provable, testable evidence. Hope that clears it up for you.
finally found a person with common sense
All people that don't believe in Evolution, have one thing in common. That thing is that none of them understand how Evolution actually works. Smh.
Nobody understands how it works...because it doesn't actually work.
@@old_newbie9498
You just proved my point. Thanks.
Seriously do you really believe that all the people opposing your position are not able to understand how it works like not even one? That is mathematically impossible. If you think that is how the world works then you can never enter into a discussion. And I don't just mean a discussion where one side tries to win the argument but if the other side is not just considered not smart enough but instead contradictory evidence provided is examined we can progress science further. This approach is the same as the catholic church opposing the astronomy proofs not even willing to look in the telescope. Now the evolution side became the holy scientific church and you know you are right because only dumb people can oppose their position. Can we actually learn from past mistakes the fallowing: which ever organization is currently in charge of scientific authority should stop hampering progress by forbidding to think and find proof of other ideas.
@@roaringsheep977
"Seriously do you really believe that all the people opposing your position are not able to understand how it works like not even one?"
-Yes.
"That is mathematically impossible."
-Unwarranted assertion.
"If you think that is how the world works then you can never enter into a discussion."
-There is nothing about my position, that prohibits discussion. You are just making excuses.
" if the other side is not just considered not smart enough"
-I said nothing about intelligence in general, but rather knowledge of how Evolution actually works. Nice strawman though.
"contradictory evidence provided is examined we can progress science further."
-The thing is, all the "contradictory evidence" provided, is always contrary to the _actual_ science.
"This approach is the same as the catholic church opposing the astronomy proofs not even willing to look in the telescope."
-No, it's not the same at all. The 'anti-Evolution sky' has been examined ad nauseum, and has been shown to be faulty _every_ time.
Cancer is literal proof of evolution. It's mutation.
His first argument already sounded pretty spotty. Just because mutations mostly lead to degradation doesn’t mean that guarantees, inevitably and unconditionally, a single outcome to the practical natural process, because it’s not the only influential factor involved in evolution. Survival of the fittest generally is the mechanism that weens out those mutations that don’t provide a benefit. Correctly saying a degradation is statistically likely as an exclusive argument to disproving evolution is a clumsy, whimsical omission of all other variables. The mathematics of mutation are not the sole proprietor responsible for the actuality of the evolutionary process. Also, changing to a non-chalant, passive tone when considering the influence of time on the evolutionary process doesn’t negate its importance. Ridiculously vast swaths of time could be seen as “the special sauce” in evolution.
😂😂😂😂
Well if you actually understood the science of his argument, you would understand that it absolutely, unequivocally guarantees it, as evolution is a process of LOSS of information, never gain of information (which is why we can only observe in nature evolutionary variation among species, never evolutionary speciation itself). In other words, all evolutionary adaptations that are proliferated via natural selection are LOSS of information adaptations (for example, dog breeds have their specific breed traits due to having a less coded information in their genes compared to their common ancestors: the genes that made them wolf-like are now less prevalent, thus the breeds are less wolf-life).
If most mutations lead to degradation, or more specifically "loss of information", then micro evolution has a bias towards death of cells, and NOT toward innovation or new life forms. Then long term, time is the enemy of life, and monkeys on a typewriter will always produce nonsense, no matter how many billions of years or multi universes you throw at the problem.
All this time the sun would of burned up already and the moon would be on earth .
Exactly; I've made this point earlier...have you read the book DEEP TIME ? Unfortunately can't remember authors name, but he makes you look at time ,vast swathes as you say, in a very amazing light. We have great trouble with ''feeling'' these concepts...just dinosaurs say 350 million years...and we gasp at how old Stonehenge is : hahahahaha! It was a different world too, over and over and over again.
Even if you somehow managed to dismantle the body of evidence pointing toward evolution, that still doesn't really point us toward your flavor of divinity.
We simply cannot comprehend the time scales involved can change. The test bed for 10 limbs, six limbs, four limbs etc. happened a billion years ago!
I doubt Darwin would be too worried about this guy’s ideas.
@@gavinheron1 Maybe you should read what Darwin said about his own ideas at the end of his life.
@@gavinheron1 Darwin wasn't even too sure of his own ideas at the end of his life according to his writings and rightly so. He assumed by now that we would have discovered endless communities of our ancestors being excavated all over the earth since we've been around so long. That hasn't happened. Lucy, the best evidence evolutionists have, doesn't have a single bone in her body that can be shown to be human. They filled in what was missing with what they wanted to believe. If you look at her objectively, she's just an ancient ape like or chimp like ancestor based on what was found.
Mutation and selection we know are not the only mechanisms. He is lying about how DNA works and we can have different organisms without changing the DNA...
An Oak Tree has some of the same Genes as a Human; they simply serve a different purpose for the tree.
"Creation scientist" lmao
What about a creation archeologist? You are aware that many “scientists” and others use Bible for historical context, criteria and geological identifiers for their research. Hard to say something is made up when you find the things it said existed… kind of like a map.
@calebcares8813 Any written document that is old enough is used for historical context. Bible is just one of them... It doesn't mean the Creation myth has something to do with science
@@calebcares8813 Can you give me a few examples of what you are saying?
@@arthurq7843this guy will say "myth" and proclaim men can be women...
@@procerusgigas, look up Hittite Empire. They thought it was a myth until they uncovered the Hittite royal library in 1906. Another example is the 5 cities of the plain. Also assumed to be myths until discovered by Biblical Archeologists.
If we live in a simulation, everything, and i mean EVERYTHING can be explained for. I'm not saying that we are, but if we are, then EVERYTHING makes sense
Evolution is an observable fact.
Then why is it merely just a scientific THEORY?
Words have meanings.
Theories
@@JLynnDsMyoosik Sigh.... no. *Everything you said is wrong.*
Here: "a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works."
Laws are typically statements making predictions usually in a formula. Gravity has a theory AND a law, while germ theory does not.
Theories never reach a state of proven. Theories are never promoted to anything else.
You don't understand science. But what's worse is that you haven't even tried to learn about this before posting.
Creation theory has no proof. Fact. Deal with it.
Belief in microevlution but not common decent from a common ancestor, is like belief a car can travel down a road, but not a highway.
The logic of the conclusion of the vast amounts of evidence gathered more than century and a half ago, by Mr Darwin and enumerate collaborators has only gotten more persuasive with ever greater evidence.
Disprove for me the law of Biogenisis. Life is only observed to come from living things.
Your beliefs are based on spontaneous generation and Lamarckism- and you call this science.
@@charrin9086 There is no scientific law of biogenesis. That term was coined by Pasteur after his 19th century work on spontaneous generation of entire animals (flies, maggots) from decaying meat. It has nothing to do with modern abiogenesis research.
No such evidence exists.
The evidence does not support evolution.
You're using a poor analogy. To fix it to reflect what this guy is saying is that we can see how a car can travel down a road or a highway, but we can't see how it got across the ocean. If common ancestry is real, then we need a mechanism such as a boat that we have no evidence for to make it work. We better know how biology works and it disproves our current theory of evolution and we don't have any new theories that are good.
None of those were good arguments lol. Basically he just said "cuz biology complex" and "mutations are unlikely to be beneficial" which are both very easily answered by "time plus natural selection" lol
Yeah I agree it’s easily refutable. Computer code and genetic code are a false equivalence. Genetic mutations that aren’t viable for life won’t pass on and those that are insufficient will eventually die out.
I didagree, he doesnt even understand evolution to begin with. It was a poor attempt that wont change anyones mind.
The gentleman in this video is a renowned scientist; whether we agree or disagree with his conclusions, that is a fact. To dismiss him as someone who "doesn't even understand evolution" is a bit strange and, honestly, intellectually weak. Such a response reveals that modern science has very much become a domain in which people dismiss things that they disagree with and hold to their preconceived notions without examination of the evidence...almost like they are doing exactly what they accuse religious people of doing 🤔
@@concerneddisciple8273 Meyer isn't a scientist, he's a philosopher. He's also a verified ID-creationist who either doesn't understand evolution even a little or a charlatan who deliberately lies about the science to push his religious agenda. The data indicates the second case.
@concerneddisciple8273 They keep dumbing the theory down as it gets disproven. They don't want to talk about abiogenesis anymore. They cut off limb after limb of the theory just to keep it "alive". People like this now have retreated so far as to say evolution just means adaptations within a species. Which people already knew well, before Darwins great grandpappy was even born 👍
@@concerneddisciple8273 exactly.
He understands evolution just fine.. he's just being dishonest.
on second thought
may scientists fail to understand very simple things when they think they already know the answer.
This guy has wasted a lot of time having an answer in his hand (god) and doing whatever he can to figure out what questions he can answer with it
Evolution isn't random. Evolution ISN'T RANDOM. Evolution *ISN'T RANDOM*
Will you creationists EVER get it??
If it isn't random what is directing it. Or are you saying that the original spark of live had all the information for a preconceived path? If that's the case the time factor has just exploded beyond the realm of the time frame science is aware of
@@tomsawyer4321 _If it isn't random what is directing it._ Natural selection
@@tomsawyer4321 Survival of the fittest, also known as natural selection.
Life arises from molecular replicators that also evolved through natural selection.
@@settledown444which selects from preexisting material.. hence selection. It can remove but never create out of nothing.
@@tomsawyer4321
"If it isn't random what is directing it. "
-A multitude of factors. Rolling dice doesn't produce random results. The dice land where they land, due to many factors, like: the beginning orientation of the dice when thrown, the speed at which they are thrown, the distance they are thrown, the contour of the surface they land on, the density of the air they are thrown through, the amount and direction of spin imparted on them when they are thrown, ect., ect..
"Creation Scientist..." - That, my friends is a perfect example of an oxymoron.
Sheesh....there are tons better
Christians are delusional. They rarely mark any sense. In fact, I can not think of a single thing they say that makes any sense.
explain DNA coding
@@mentilly_all Arguments from ignorance don't interest me.
💯
IF IT TAKES A THOUSAND Years for evolution to give rise to the first animal , how long would it take for evolution to produce a MATE ?..??????????????
Sexual reproduction didn't evolve until at least 2 billion years after life first evolved.
The rooster and the chicken came first.
Evolution is not something that happens to individuals. It happens to biological populations.
@@elguapo2831 Dinosaurs were laying eggs long before they evolved into birds.
I'm more amazed by sheer amount of cope you need to believe in creationism. Evolution is a fact and it's proven by massive amounts studies and data.
We don't know there's or there isn't a God. And maybe we would never know. Maybe it's the whole point. And everyone is free to believe in whatever they like.
But when we have a perfectly rational explanation for a given process, it's not a subject for religion anymore.
Well, for the rational people at least.
Are you a scientist?
Have you read some of those studies? Some data?
Or are you a believer in evolution without evidence?
@ It's not a believe, it's rational conclusion. You don't need to be a scientist to open the Google and trace humans back to bacteria.
And no one BELIEVES in evolution, we know it as a fact, bc there's shit ton of evidence backing it.
@@shadow_spark8788 have you done that? Used Google to trace yourself back to bacteria?
@jsbrads1 the studies are available for anyone to read. Real science is published, so help yourself to some actual data.
you will absolutely know when you die and meet what ever fate awaits your soul, its a proven fact 1000's of times over that people who have died and returned and seen and heard conversations in the hallway of hospitals outside closed doors and noise , they described impossible details such as what loved ones and doctors were wearing for cloths and what they were doing and saying specifically, undeniable evidence by these people, I met one of these people and its 100% real deal that we are a soul who is animating this flesh meat suite until this body fails and dies and your soul / consciousness leaves the body and is either met with the forces of good or the forces of evil
now put a real scientist against him and let’s see
So you mean a scientist you agree with? LOL people are so funny.
2:55 no one tell this dude that a chimpanzee and a human have 98.8% same dna. So how much "new" dna is needed to show a difference?
We are more akin to chimps than dogs are to wolves.
@jonnymario771 yeah, that adds to the point i believe. And see how little new dna is needed for an entire different look
oh my bleep 🤦🏼♂️ what you're saying is believed by many, but not actually true when double checked by your own team.. try double checking
@mentilly_all wait so monkeys don't share that much dna with humans? Is that what you're saying?
@@mentilly_all Or...you know...just to help him out since you already know...help him find it?
I think it's important to note, Stephens and others' theories are not against evolution per se, but against a particular type of evolution, where blind chance and time are the key driving factors. This does not go against a purposeful, aim driven type of evolution, which naturally introduces teleology into the concept. Listen to Denis Noble, he is still an atheist but he admits that purpose must be included in biology.
Anyone else clicked on the video just to be amused by this man's bullshit 😅
Spoken like a true religious atheist lol
You should do a paper for the Royal Society and perhaps get an invitation to speak .
Stupid! Did this guy reach a point in the conversation that a talk show host failed to keep up with? Maybe. Does that justify the theory? Absolutely not. If you want to impress me, let him have this conversation with someone who deeply understands the material rather than a talk show host who is famous for falling for nonsense. Biology is unequivocally NOT the same as a computer program or even close enough to hinge a theory upon. They are not the same, but he also inferred the falsehood that organisms don’t fail. Genetic mutations fail all the time.
Regarding “micro evolution,” ALL evolution is micro evolution. Every single solitary instance is on the micro scale. What is confused for “macro evolution” is nothing more than micro evolution repeated an enormous number of times.
While you are correct that mutations may fail, you are totally incorrect that all evolution is micro. Biology is clear on this and you should search it before you write that.
@ I’m using the term in the same way creationists do. Micro meaning shrinking the Pomeranian dog vs. macro, meaning dinosaurs evolving into birds. The process is basically the same. The difference is the number of “micro” iterations/ generations between them.
@johnbeal839 No, the difference isn't the number of mutations. Mutation can't create new species because there's no proof currently. Maybe you'll prove it someday.
@@pelasgeuspelasgeus4634 *Mutation can't create new species because there's no proof currently.* Science doesn't do "proof" for anything. Science provides positive supporting evidence. There is a huge amount of both fossil and genetic evidence for both macroevolution and speciation. Maybe someday you'll take a Biology 101 class and learn how clueless you actually are.
@@BmoreGrrrrl😂😂😂 Do you mean that science is stating something without caring if it's supported by facts? If yes I feel really sorry for your educators...
Leave this sort of stuff to the scientists not the creationists they just don’t understand it 🤣🤣
Stephen C. Meyer received his PH.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. Please also reference Behe and Lennox, who have a lot of excellent youtube content.
ruclips.net/video/rXexaVsvhCM/видео.html
BTW: The theory of evolution was initiated by atheistic 18th century philosophers, with a medical school dropout becoming the most prominent.
He's not a "creationist." He promotes intelligent design, which is quite different.
Everbody is wrong except god
An imaginary being cannot be wrong or right.
@williamgreenfield9991 but everything came from nothing? 😂 and a rock was struck by lightning for millennia until an amoeba just came into existence 😂
Quite ! As long as the word “God” is used to mean something like “that which we cannot otherwise describe or conceive of”
@@Bebly [" but everything came from nothing? 😂 and a rock was struck by lightning for millennia until an amoeba just came into existence 😂"]
Wow is that what the creationist folks are telling you?
@@Bebly If were to trouble yourself to actually read the Bible you would see that the creation story in Genesis claims that this "God" fellow created everything from nothing. Read your own book before you put your foot in your mouth again.
😂 I love how these titles ignore the actual conversation in an attempt to mislead anyone who doesn't want to watch the entire talk! Priceless. The guest says right from the off that he believes in an evolutionary process he then goes on to qualify.
Believe me the God Squad will be disappointed in this. I also love the titles that start with the word 'destroy' or 'dismantle' 😂 when in truth nothing of the sort happens. Frightening when you think that these are the early days yet of social media
I’ve watched the whole podcast multiple times. It’s exactly what happened and what was said.
He accepts micro evolution or adaptation but not common descent
"Creationist scientist" is on the same level of irony "carnivorous vegan"
lol exactly
Two idiots denying reality to themselves
I was left speechless too...because I couldn't fully comprehend what was being explained 😂
Awesome! ❤️✝️
Click bate title. Joe didn’t look “stunned” at any point. He’s just respectful and lets his guests express their ideas. Which is why it’s a great show. 👊
Very interesting.
What’s with all the insert graphics? I went to a conference - picture of people at a conference. As I say in my book - picture of his book title. Clips for the hard of thinking.
Also how do you get to lift this content direct from Rogan?
This man took his claims to court and his side lost their claims That ID was not Creation.
The Kitzmiller trial said that ID was creation repackaged, and was not scientific.
This scientist is Stephen Mayer from the Discovery Institute agrees that evolution occurs traits are passed down, common ancestors exist, the earth is billions of years old but the origin of life is debated and they speculate a designer or designers which would go against the bible myth. You can read his books and watch his lectures and you will see that he does agrees with evolution just not the primary cause.
Except he really isn't a scientist.
@ I was trying to give him a little bit of leeway on that one as well. A designer doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a God or a Christian bible god. It could be aliens? For all we know. We may never know.
@luxtrichoma8458 the problem is that he is specifically advocating for the christian god and no other.
@ yes. I’m not saying he is correct .
He works directly for the Discovery Institute and spreads science misinformation to push a Christian agenda.
I’m just pointing out that the OP is incorrect in the title.
Christians point to this version of I.D theory as a proof of Christianity even though it totally contradicts the bible.
It’s hilarious 😂
Before the big bang, there was no time, no space, no matter, and no universe. Then, something not of time, space, and matter created the universe. Some of us call it The Creator.
E=mc² shows how much raw Energy comes from converting matter. Reverse the equation, and it shows how much energy went into creating that matter. 🤷♂️
Thank you, but the music was distracting.
Stephen Meyer is a philosopher of science, intelligent design advocate and director of the Discovery Institute. He's not a young earth biblical creation scientist.
Where is the rest of the video tho?
It’s Stephen Meyer on JRE from a few years ago.
It was a really good episode, one of my favorites. Although I’m waiting for the wess huff episode to drop. Hopefully today or tomorrow!
Last comment didn’t post for some reason, but it’s Stephen Meyer on JRE from
@David-dw2iq well thank you my friend for sharing that information