What drives me insane is not so much that Darwin's theory is full of problems, but that people including scientists believe it so wholeheartedly and call you an idiot for even daring to question it.
uhhh few problems maybe stop drinking the koolaid for starters 1. darwin got evolution wrong by a lot, noone follows his models today he was just the first one to get shit started properly 2. evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains these facts 3. this video is misleading never go into a youtube video thinking you will understand anything I suggest going to a university, taking a class (they are usually free) or calling a professor up when they have free time and ask them questions
@@Xarai , evolution as an organism generates mutations and changes, yes, but as an organism that has enough mutation to change into another species, like a frog to a fish at a DNA level has never been observed, modern theories of evolution just assume a lot, but a lot, to the level of calling these assumptions "facts". but don't worry we are the minority here.
@@TheSebastianML the law of monophyly says that you cant outgrow your ancestry. your strawman of a frog to a fish would disprove evolution. so like I thought you drank the koolaid like you were dying of thirst
If the question of life that you are referring to is, how life started. Then you should probably know that evolution doesn't answer that question, because evolution doesn't even attempt to answer that question. Evolution is just the change of life after it already exists. The beginning of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. They are two different things
@@backbeatben Where did I say anything about atheism? And no it doesn't depend on who you ask. Well OK, the people who group abiogenesis in with evolution, don't know what they are talking about. So yeah, in that sense it depends on whether you ask a person with scientific knowledge or not . Because abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.
@@backbeatben when you make someone's argument for them and tell them what they believe than you are making a Straw Man fallacy. Additionally it is best to ask the most expert scientist what a formal theory states; not just a lot of people. Evolution makes no claims other than "animals change over time". If an athiest uses evolution theory so be it. Many people believe in God and evolution so it is not exclusive. If an athiest also uses abiogenesis as a second argument that doesn't mean that they are the same theory; they are just approaching the discussion from multiple angles. If an athiest also uses mass disease and famine as evidence against the God claim that doesn't mean that suffering is part of evolution now does it? If evolution does in fact preclude God that is not evidence for athiesm but evidence against God. Attempting to disprove evolution does not prove god. The doubt is still on the original claim even if disputes are thrown out.
evolution needed to begin somewhere, and you cant get to evolution without a sensible beginning. Its like having a car and then say well where did that car originate and how did it get there. It needed a beginning and no naturalistic explanation explains it
Darwin was NOT the first to hypothesize evolution. The idea that humans descended fro some other type of creature dates back to Miletus, a Greek philosopher who lived in the 500s B.C. In the early 19th century Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and others proposed his theory of the "transmutation of species", the first fully formed theory of evolution. Charles Darwin's contribution has to do with natural selection which greatly advanced the mechanism of speciation. Darwin's contemporary, Alfred Russel Wallace, also developed the theory of evolution by natural selection. .... but Darwin was the one who wrote the book that became well known.
@@way2jaded1 Miletus was a Greek city in Asia Minor. Atomic theory first appeared in Asia Minor, by the way.. Probably a philosopher from Miletus wrote something about it. I never heard of one , by the way, and I am Greek. So just maybe there were a few lines in another philosopher's book or something...First mentioning of Evolution that I know WITHIN a species was by Saint Basil in his speech about Creation (exaimeron, in Greek). He didn't exactly use the term, but he described a procedure of change WITHIN a species, as a capability that was given to us by God, of course... PS Best known Milesian philosopher was Ekateos.
"They remained unchanged" Anomalocaris went extinct during the Cambrian and it's relatives that remained where quite different, with the main thing connecting them being, guess what, homologous traits. Also, although not necessarily reflecting if the overall accuracy, that anomalocaris is highly inaccurate.
"It's relatives that remained were quite different"! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Yet you assume that the ASSUMED "HOMOLOGOUS TRAITS" were ANCESTRALLY relevant because of your BIAS...not necessarily because they could have evolved as such from one another. You ASSUME BY FAITH they were.
@@jaysmith6863 The MYTHOLOGY of naturalism perpetuates the LIES of BUILDING life from non-life and increased functional information via the ACCIDENT OF THE GAPS FALLACY! They merely pretend like silly children that these things happen "naturally" while the actual UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE proves it CAN'T! Did you read the papers by Dr. Douglas Axe or his book? Regardless, it is EASY to show the statistical analysis of the likelihood of an average protein made with 200 amino acids. Make sure you account for the UNLIKELIHOOD of not just the amino acid, but also the chiraltiy! Only a NONTHINKER pretends it is possible for DNA CODE to self-create and self-assemble into cells ACCIDENTALLY! How ridiculous!🙄🤣🤣🤣
@@trilobite3120 Your right it is possible however astronomically improbable to randomly make a single useful protein. Then you realize how many proteins are in a simple species, and there isn't enough time in the universe even by evolutionary accounts.
have you ever noticed the ratio of fossilized soft creatures vs fossilized hard creatures? and then notice the ratio of older fossils to younger fossils. it makes perfect sense that we have so few pre-cambrian fossils. and "suddenly" means tens of millions of years. which is quick in terms of the timescale of evolution. there was likely a lot of pressure to evolve during that time. new niches were suddenly opening up due to a shifting climate.
Its hard for skeletons to fossilize. There need to be specific requirements for animals and other life to fossilize and last millions years. People point to animals with little transitionary fossils and claim that evolution isn't real, but ignore animals that do have transitionary fossils (like horses, humans, elephants, primates, ect.)
I know? Creationist be like "oh there is X animal that science doesn't completely understand how it evolved" but the fact that there is tons upon tons of animals that can be proved unequivocally to change gradually over time poses a problem orders of magnitude bigger to their "theory" than whatever evolution has to deal with. At least science is honest when it comes to not understanding something.
@marcossidoruk8033 Hmmm, horse, elephant, dogs, etc. may have gradually changed, but NEVER into a different species. Look at dogs, we've taken basically a wolf and now we have Shitzu's. No cats, though, still a dog.
@@steve-wf3rm Demonstrably false. Two animals are considered to be of different species if they cannot reproduce with eachother, the process of two group of animals changing over time to the point they can no longer reproduce with eachother is called speciation and it has been observed to happen by humans. So you are objectively wrong. What many evolution deniers do as a consequence of this is saying that "an animal of one *kind* cannot change into an animal of another *kind*" the definition of "kind" being kept intentionally ambiguous such that it always coincides with whatever change cannot possibly be observed to happen during the span of human civilization. I shouldn't even need to tell you why this kind of argument is completely fallacious, the word "kind" is being kept as a moving goalpost, whatever is observed by scientists the definition will be changed accordingly by deniers so that a change of kind will never be observed. Speaking about the span of human civilization, humans have only existed for about 60.000 years, writing being about 3000 years old while the earth is 4 billion years old and life is believed by scientists to be almost as old as the earth itself. I don't think you comprehend how ridiculously different those timescales are, this is relevant because a critical component of the theory of evolution is that animals change gradually over time. If someone told you that they observed a bacteria change into a house cat in the span of 10.000 years that would not be evidence for the theory of evolution, that would be evidence against it because that is not a gradual change in the geological timeline and thus it couldn't be possibly explained by natural selection.
@marcossidoruk8033 You have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution is scientifically impossible, period. Living organisms can not come from non-living matter. The fossil record disproves evolution. Our own eye is proof that evolution is impossible. It's just your faith, a type of religion, so to speak for individuals who can not conceive intelligent design.
Darwin wrote his book in 1859. He took his voyage on the Beagle many decades earlier. If you can't get basic details like that correct, I cannot trust you on more important facts.
Darwin wrote a lot about this in his Origin Of Species in Chapter 6: Difficulties of the Theory, He was very intellectually honest. It doesn't matter nowadays; Genetics has said the last word. Evolution happened, is happening and will continue to operate for the rest of the biological life.
@@thejabberwocky2819 Which model of evolution did genetics strengthen? Not all models agree with universal common ancestry like Darwin originally pre-supposed.
@@tahabennett7388 you made a valid point. it's true not all models agree with universal common ancestry. but you will be surprised to know that the overwhelming majority of genetic evidence supports the theory of universal common ancestry. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has been expanded and refined, but the core idea of common descent remains strongly supported by genetic evidence.
Darwin didnt come up with alot of this.. it was foisted upon him by what "science community" cousin Galton was far richer and wanted to make black people into monkeys and purge them from polite society (Eugenics) -science believes the big bang (miracle) but have trouble with Father God & his son.. (Miracle)
No, the Discovery Institute is lying through their crooked teeth. Evolution remains a fact that has been unaffected by the slander of creationists. You clearly didn’t study Biology in high school, did you?
Folks analyzing / critiquing evolution seem to be focused only on one part of the evolutionary narrative, seemingly oblivious to the fact that evolution has TWO interactive components, not just one. ... i.e., biology is only part of the evolutionary dance, while environment is just as absolutely necessary as biology is. Biology provides the variations, while environment determines which of those variations survive long enough to pass their genes on to the next generation. So ... what was the environment doing during the Cambrian explosion? Was it static / unchanging? Or was it varying at a fairly rapid rate -- i.e., repeated volcanic events (every few tens or hundreds of years) would affect temperature / circulation over the entire planet over periods of hundreds or thousands of years, a fairly rapid change that would repeatedly change the selection criteria for any biology in that loop ... resulting in relatively rapid biological changes as a consequence. The resolution / granularity (i.e., error margins) in radiometric dating has been no finer than a few million years until fairly recently -- enough time for whole new species to emerge and become extinct -- but not fine enough to establish a chronological sequence of events that would demonstrate transitions. Some recent measurements claim an accuracy of 0.1%. But even 0.1% accuracy -- in 575 million-year-old samples -- is +/-575,000 years, and even 575,000 years is long enough for whole species to come and go. So -- it's not as if that record isn't there, but rather that the instrumentation necessary to analyze the record more precisely just hasn't been available.
Nobody is arguing that speciation doesn't happen. That's why the environmental 'evolution' is left alone. Also, that's not accounting for the fact that we actually don't know what 'prehistoric' environments would have looked like anyway, as we have no way of testing that, it's just more theories (and our modern models are made presupposing evolution, making it a circular argument). The fact is, evolutions entire basis of life coming from non-life is impossible. And it's entire basis of one KIND of animal turning into another KIND of animal is also not scientific. Neither of these things have ever been observed and can't be recreated, therefore they're not science. There doesn't need to be any more explanation than that, the entire basis for it is impossible. Any example anyone can give of 'evolution' is really just speciation. E.g. Darwin and his finches/turtles. Still a finch. Still a turtle. Just adapted to their environment, nobody is arguing that that doesn't happen. Also, radiometric dating presupposes that the atmosphere has always had a steady state of isotopes, where we know for a fact that can't be possible, so it's unreliable. We can only date something using carbon's half-life if we know how much carbon was in the atmosphere when that creature died. The carbon in the atmosphere is still changing TODAY, we have no clue what it would have looked like thousands of years ago. But, we do know there was significantly more oxygen in the atmosphere considering the fossil records shows gigantic fossilized bugs... thus, there were most likely different levels of carbon in the atmosphere at different times too. It's a bad theory.
You did not address the issue demonstrated in the video. Sure lets consider environment did its part perfectly to aid this mechanism, but the numbers pointing out the chances of mutations occuring in a single gene isnt dependent on environmental factor. That mechanism is occurs due to errors in DNA replication and is pure biology. So inorder for natural selection to occur, u need a variety of genes to select from, and the chances of those occuring within a said organism is still trillions of trillions of trillions years. The more complex the physiological change, the order of time required for the change increases magnitudes accordingly. So the argument that environment helped too doesnt stand a chance considering DNA mutation has to occur first inorder for the environment has to even get a chance to influence it, and the chance of that happening for a single gene or a group of genes(which codes for usually a single protein) is still too low.
It's amazing how some people cannot grasp the fact that Darwin is not the end all be all for evolution. Even if he thought every one of his ideas was ludicrous that still wouldn't change the amount of corroborating evidence that proves the theory. Which is a hell of a lot, enough that it is spread out over several fields of study.
Actually no there’s not a shred of evidence for the evolution religion. It was retarded back when chuckles Darwin popularized that stupid joke of a “theory” and it’s even dumber today.
Bullshit. There's not one example of a species giving birth to a new species, especially in quantities capable of continuing the new species. Subspecies are NOT new species, they're adaptations of the same species.
Be great to hear some of that corroborating evidence, which do you think is the best? Something that shows how the first life began? Something that shows how incredibly complex a simple cell actually is. Something that explains how something so complex as a mitochondrion could 'evolve' before being ingested by a less complex simple cell? Something that explains how a cell could replicate before DNA/RNA (the code to allow the replication) was made. Something that shows how a simple cell could 'evolve' to perform an incredibly complex system of chemical reactions such as 'The Krebs Cycle'. Something that shows how protein machines can simply form out of nothing, each of them having incredibly complicated motor like functions. Something that explains metamorphosis, a process that is impossible to have 'evolved' in stages. Or maybe something that explains not only the Cambrian explosion, but also the other '9' similar explosions of life, where millions of fully formed creatures spontaneously appeared out of nowhere in the fossil record. This includes millions fish, reptiles, birds and mammals without any trace of evolution, no common ancestors or predecessors of any type! Dawkins et al, will never answer the above questions, they ignore them, because they totally debunk evolution! At best, evolution only explains how creatures change over time, but those changes mean that a bird is still a bird, in the same way that we are changing and regardless of how much we change we will still be humans. There is no evidence at all of one species turning into another. All the nonsense about vestigial limbs etc is BS, those so called vestigial hip bones etc are bones necessary for the anchor of muscles to perform sexual functions etc. We've been brain washed since we were kids, and 99% of people only know what they were taught at school during dinosaur lessons and most of it is a lie! Type the hominid name Denisovans into google and an image will appear of a cutesy ape looking thing, but the truth is, it's made up, a fantasy creation by lying evolutionists to try and fool everyone into believing evolution, it has to be made up, because they only fossil remains they have found is a single finger bone and a coupe of teeth! The same goes for almost every hominids you see in the totally false evolution line up from common ancestor to human. They have created full sized semi human looking hominids form just a few fragments of bone. The only skeleton they have is Lucy, which has been proven to be some type of monkey. A simple cell is not simple, proteins are not simple, life cannot have started on its own and evolution is not the answer, it will always be just a theory, which in the true sense of the word, is nothing more than a hypothesis.
But...what if all of that evidence is 100% equivocal to that of ID? Then it comes down to mechanism. The only way to determine if Evolution effectively explains the data (unequivocally) is to demonstrate the naturalistic mechanisms. If those mechanisms cannot be demonstrated, then Evolution should be demoted at least...scrapped at most. We certainly should not be as confident in Evolution as we currently are.
The ideas presented in this video or ideas that I've been entertaining for a long time from many different sources. They are responsible for my conversion from materialism to creationism. And I come from a scientific family full of PhDs.
Does someone from those PhDs know the basics of evolutionary biology and genetics? Perhaps they could explain to you why everything stated in this video is dumb.
Hey LSS my brother has been trying to find your channel for a while and I sent him the link recently. He said your stuff was buried under about 300 other videos from random content creators. I think that RUclips is trying to stifle your information and ability to get it out to people. I will do what I can to promote your content. God bless you brother.
This channel is backed by the "Discovery Institute"- which so far has discovered NOTHING. Their mission statement was leaked some time ago. Forget the "we identify design but not the designer" bullshit. The designer is a ......[checks notes].....a Mr Jesus of the Christ family.
Can you write down those names of those mathematicians properly . Because I’m not sure they are real or you made them up. I can’t Google them because writing is so unclear
@@sydn2698 Working on a few vids now. A response to this one is further down the pipeline. First vid on Stephen Meyer will be up tomorrow. Vids will be spaced out every three weeks due to Postdoc time commitments and figuring out how to work vid editing software.
@Dhruva Punde Its because Darwinism goes hand in hadn with todays Secular mindset of the western culture, both Darwinism and Secular as we know it today where born around the French Revolution and its ideologies which Western Civilization uses today.
inspiredme7030 ***whoever study Natural Sciences knows about it, if you really whants to study this branch of science, you will have the answer otherwise just ignore it.***
Evolution is the most well-substantiated scientific theory of all time. Meanwhile, your religious beliefs have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.
@@LongStoryShortVideos When it comes to *Common Ancestry* , it's difficult to know how much of it *Intelligent Design* Proponents accept since there's no consensus among them. Now you argue that using Homology as evidence of Common Ancestry is circular reasoning..... however you employed that same *"circular reasoning"* when comparing different humans. It seems to me that ID Proponents will only dispute that *Homology is evidence of common ancestry* when discussing organisms they don't accept are related (Humans and Bats), but would happily entertain the argument when discussing organisms they accept are related (Tiger ane Lion). I just wanted to when exactly is using Homology as evidence of common ancestry acceptable, and when it becomes fallacious....... Because it'll be pretty entertaining to see how ID Proponents will classify extinct organisms like *Trilobites* without invoking the same argument they're arguing against.
@@Call_Me_Emo1 Similarity between siblings etc. is not circular because we are not using it as evidence, sorry thought that was obvious, we know they're brothers already and then can reason from there. The evidence they're related is that brothers tend to have the same mom or dad. Homology, when defined in terms of common ancestry can never then be used as evidence for common ancestry, that's the definition of circular reasoning. It goes for any topic as well. You can say X because X, that's incoherent. This is what the NCSE says as well, homology isn't really evidence at all, the evidence is supposedly drawn from DNA etc. (but as explained there are problems there as well).
Love that you're doing this. There are so many falsities with Darwinian evolution, I started writing them down and kept coming up with more. You could write novel series on how non-sensical it is. Macro evolution is a big joke, which is why the had to fake findings and shave down Lucy's hip bones to turn them into something resembling a human and then present her standing with over a foot of non existent height.
I hope you realize other often better early hominin fossils exist. They also demonstrate arms shorter than or similar in length to the legs and hips, femur angles, and knee joints consistent with bipedalism. If Lucy is anything like her close relatives then the reconstruction is more or less accurate. The pelvis as found was in an anatomically impossible position. The reworking was necessary to restore the bone to it’s original form.
@@Xarai there's no such thing as evolution it's made up and you believe in it , if evolution is true everything formed from molten rock not Lucy or whatever some guy in a lab coat tells you, your faith is in man and man will not save you
We have actually found fossils in the pre-Cambrian layers. They are not amazingly advanced, mostly because most of them seem to have been invertebrates, and those fossilized only with great difficulty. When I was a kid, it was believed that there were simply no fossils, but now we know they are simply really hard to find. Which makes a huge difference. The beginning of the Cambrian is generally referred to as the period of the “Cambrian explosion”, a period during which life rapidly expanded and rapidly evolved. I am perfectly cool with assuming that there was not a terribly large amount of sophisticated life prior to the Cambrian, but the explosion of life seems to indicate a change in environmental conditions that made it more conducive to life. Virus you get a lot more animals pretty much everywhere and much the same way that you would suddenly get a lot more animals in the Sahara desert if you put out food and water for them every day. Better living conditions equal more life. Worse, living conditions, equal less life, and we have seen periods where that happens as well. And the more life there is the more it will compete in the more it will adapt to take advantage of certain strategies competition that benefit them. Likewise, in periods, where there is less life evolution runs slower because there are fewer animals to experiment. None of which means that God didn’t do this, by the way. There is no reason to assume that God didn’t use evolution in his tool kit when creating the universe. It’s simply means things went a bit slower than is generally talk in the Abrahamic religions.
Repost by Dobermann 89 You do not see changes. You presume the changes you have no way to prove that any of those fish gave birth to another. You are making assumptions.
Darwin was a giant of science who conceived of the correct theory of natural selection as the origin of the species. A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP. Natural selection works for cells and molecules within cells. 43 different biochemical processes that feed back on DNA to control gene expression and hence phenotype means that the phenotype can vary on a much quicker time frame than mutation alone.
Sure, the concept of macroevolution is quite absurd, considering that we still have the primitive species, and they haven't evolved this whole time, what doesn't negate the microevolution, namely the adoption to changing environment and shaping of races within a single specie, because we can naturally reproduce this process by ourselves.
@Mattand There's a huge difference between the macroevolution where a specie supposed to evolve into a completely different specie, and between the microevolution where a single specie is only adopting to the environment, but doesn't change its fundamental nature as a specie.
@Mattand Not sure how lions and tigers are related, but the main problem is that we still have access to the most primitive of species, which may have various races, but haven't developed into anything more advanced until this day, what makes the macroevolution very unlikely. However, if we take your example with the relation between apes and humans, it's very probable that we share a common humanoid-ancestor, who was still capable of development when the apes were formed.
@Mattand I would agree if you mean that the animal-species which we have today are incapable of development, and all those species share some common features, what suggests that they're related by some common ancestor which was still capable of development when those species were formed, so the only question remains, what kind of ancestor are we talking about.
@Mattand I thought you meant that those animal-species which we have today didn't evolve from each other, but from some proto-specie, which was capable of development, but have gone extinct, otherwise you would be suggesting that those animal-species which we have today are indeed capable of development.
@Mattand I've no issue with various animals and humans sharing common features, and thus a common ancestor, but just wonder what common ancestor/proto-specie you're talking about, since we can still find a whole spectrum of more and less complex species which have remained in their primitive form until this day, what means that their lineage in general is not capable of developing into anything else, hopefully you see the problem.
@@恶魔城血的回旋曲是完 Then that makes it even easier to discredit. Life and conciousness are even greater mysteries with evolution as the model, But they are considered incorrectly the same in evolution theory, Evolution says life started from many chemical reactions before bacteria. it is actually.... the same argument to them.
Well this typical ID-ish "Origins or Bust" presentation still doesn't make the therapsids go away, or account for why we have so many Alus in our genome.
"The cambrian fossils remained unchanged throughout the period." Thats not true, we do see a change in the animal within the fossil record, especially with vertebrates. Pikaia was the earliest chordate (505 mya) and after that, we find fish with more compex skeletons like Guiyu Oneiros (425 mya). The Cambrian was also when the first major organisms had hard parts that could fossilize well, that could explain why theres an abundance of organisms in the fossil record (yes, there have been soft-bodied organisms that have fossilized, but they are few in number). We have also found life that could be the precursors to the complex Cambrian life, animals like Ikaria Warootia and Spriggina.
I fear that you are beating your head against the brick wall of your own blind incomprehension. Your comment makes no sense to anyone, who retains a smidgen of common sense. Sometimes it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open it, and leave no doubt whatsoever. I admire your blind faith though!
@@bulkinggod3872 There’s no way random mutation natural selection is adequate to do the job yes we seen mutations do small things curly hair dogs short dogs anti-resistant bacteria to antibiotics but that’s all it does mathematicians do the calculations they said it’s so improbable that it did not happen anywhere else in the universe but go ahead believe it believe they found the mechanism and then I will believe a 90 pound weakling bench press the entire earth
@@MMAGUY13 yes but death and birth are also factors. Im sure you have met (or yourself) people that don't look like their parents, and that is only one generation.
@@danielmartinsson899 if you follow the community many scientists want to replace his theory. Some good articles to read that show the objectionable evidence against it are from the human evolution magazine, 2018 volume 33, Stoeckle &Thaler. The largest DNA study, that shows both animal and human life likely arose at the same time. Which also aligns with the fossil record of Cambrian Explosion. As well as no inter genetic relationship among species. Then a other study that is still on going. The largest evolutionary study on Bacteria. Since Bacteria generations happen 6-7 days what better organism to study the idea of Darwins origin of species. We are up to generation 100k+ in studying the bacteria. What they have found is, yes they adapt to their environment like all life does on this planet. However there are limitations to this adaptation. Because they are still considered e coli bacteria after generations of change, they didn't morph into another type of bacteria or something different. These studies don't are not widely advertised because they go against the status quo. If it doesn't fit the narrative, they are typically swept under the rug.
This early fossil record argument is so funny. You have what is called a Selection Bias because your view of early life history is limited by the amount of fossils that can be found. Hard shelled things are MORE LIKELY to fossilize. This is why science relies on consensus and double checking, so you iron out mistakes. Stick to animating please.
This video discusses some pretty niche stuff, which is impressive, but also completely misrepresents other things at the same time. For example, at 7:18, things like epigenetic inheritance and evo-devo are presented as "competitors" to explain the holes in neo-Darwinism. But I don't really see how most of them even address the question, and they definitely don't conflict with each other. In fact, several of these are part of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. They are all part of understanding evolution and exploring different aspects of it. There are pre-Cambrian fossils, which are the Ediacaran biota. We have putative very early representatives of multiple animal phyla here. They are simple, hard to identify, and fossilize poorly, exactly as we would expect based on evolutionary theory and the diversity and interrelations of living animals. They diversified relatively quickly, as sometimes happens, and the fossil record is splotchy for certain lineages, as also happens. But it is actually far more "complete" than you present here. We have early chordates, arthropods, and molluscs, which are the three biggest living phyla of animals. The second challenge, about proteins, is more compelling. I don't know much about it yet. But there are a few things to note here. The claim being made is that Darwin got ahead of himself and didn't realize how unlikely useful proteins are to evolve. But I think the scientists themselves are getting ahead of themselves. We barely understand proteins at all, and we're going to just do some back-of-the-envelope calculations and convince ourselves it's impossible? I am generally very skeptical of these types of "calculations" to answer very broad questions with limited knowledge. We will surely see that there is some explanation for this; nature being full of surprises doesn't just apply to Darwin, but to this question itself. We know nothing. And, to the same point, this calculation wouldn't be grounds for dismissing all of the rest of what we know about evolution. And certainly not to just say "god did it", which is even less satisfying to me than impossible dice rolls. That's because, the biggest take-home here, WE KNOW EVOLUTION IS TRUE. Even all these people you quoted dismissing neo-Darwinism, every single one of them, still believes evolution is true. The proof of evolution isn't just one part of the fossil record or how it makes proteins. It is in everything, from the fossil record as a whole to every single detail of anatomy and biochemistry and metabolism and neurology to genetics to developmental science to microbiology and beyond. It has long ago become abundantly clear that all life on Earth shares common descent via a branching network of relations. As has been said, nothing in modern biology would make sense without it. I think you fail to realize just what is at stake when you throw all this out because of your protein problem. You have a far, far, far bigger problem filling the void and explaining all the new questions left by tossing out evolution in even its most basic formulation.
that is the creationist method. identify some niche with questionable data, or something not known, and propose that one thing as disproving the entire theory. of course what is known fully supports evolution.
@@billjohnson9472 Exactly, you have to evaluate the total balance of evidence, not just look at one problem point, even if it seems to be a very serious one. Dismissing all of the other, non-problematic evidence is also a serious problem! Another good example of this is the fossil record. It is in spectacular, stunning concordance with the sum of scientific knowledge and expectations, but creationists like to focus on a few supposedly problematic fossils, as if that dismisses all the thousands of unproblematic ones.
@@HuckleberryHim I would be interested in an actual articulation of a creationist theory in detail, and how it explains the various types of observed evidence. To my knowledge none have published such a text.
It was revolutionary back then and Wallace came up with too. It is not present theory but was correct enough for that time. Present theory is better and this video was made to people about it.
Neanderthals and archeopterix were both known to Darwin later in life. He would have shot down creationists if he had studied Gregor Mendal's story on legumes.
People have got to understand that evolution has many models Darwinian evolution might be the most popular but it’s not a scientific fact but a scientific theory which can be refuted using the falsification test presented with the theory
You're right except Darwinian Evolution isn't the most popular. Modern Synthesis is. Darwin believed something like that you had little floating miniature organs and when you lost an arm your children would grow with a smaller arm. He had no clue about genetics or heritance. But we still respect him because he layed the foundation for what we have now
@@andrewenderfrost8161 ??? That is not what darwin said at all, he proposed that traits that improved a species’ chance at survival would be found in their descendants
@Abdullah There's only one theory with one definition, changes in alleles frequencies over generations in populations. You don't know what evolution is.
6:25 That number assumes proteins come about all from scratch. If that calculation was correct, then we couldn't even get dogs from wolves. Fortunately we were able to get dogs from wolves and the new proteins that evolved with them. That's because proteins evolve from preexisting materials.
@@LongStoryShortVideos before we go further, I want you to understand that evolution is *Descent with Modifications* and thus every new gene or protein or trait or whatever is always a modification of what's already there. Anyway.... Here's an example. Quote: "More surprising were genes for digesting starch. Dogs had four to 30 copies of the gene for amylase, a protein that starts the breakdown of starch in the intestine. Wolves have only two copies, one on each chromosome" *Diet shaped Dog domestication* www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/01/diet-shaped-dog-domestication
It's simply obvious. Do you really think that if you start out with a group of wolves you will eventually get a Chihuahua or any other breed of dog? Why would that happen? Where is the new genetic information going to come from that will turn a wolf into a certain breed of dog?
"if it's so difficult for scientists to prove what they want to believe..." he's already wrong. that's not what scientists do. they literally look for ways to disprove their hypothesis.
Baylor Christian University In the Department of Biology, the science we teach and the science we research are all about understanding our world. I think you might even say that we have a Biblical mandate to understand God’s world. We are supposed to be stewards and care takers of the world that we inherited. We don’t own it and so we must understand it in order to preserve it and care for it. This goes for all of humanity as well as for the planet. Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University (Waco, TX) teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science’s statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.
@@mustivahmed1077 Here is the very first one. The video list a sudden appearance of life forms in the Cambrian. The Cambrian consisted of 4 subperiods and lasted 53.4 million years from the end of the preceding Ediacaran Period 538.8 million years ago (mya) to the beginning of the Ordovician Period 485.4 mya. Is that sudden for you? All life forms in the Cambrian had predecessor lifeforms in the Ediacaran period proceeding it. The rest of the video has a ton of misinformation.
@@maylingng4107 You skipped my question to answer another one, I didnt tell you that what is the scientific errors in such a video, I asked respectfully for one evidence backing this hypothesis such as any other scientific hypothesis. My problem have nothing to do with this hypothesis, it maybe true and maybe false. my problem is that this hypothesis looks like it has more psychological reasons rather than scientific ones in a way that makes it looks more like a dogma rather than just a hypothesis
Doing what evolution deniers do best, quote mining. Just by the by, punctuated equilibruim was not a competing theory to Darwinian evolution. It merely said that evolution didn't happen in small slow steps, but in periods of rapid evolution followed by long periods of stasis. Stephen Jay Gould was very much a Darwinian, and anyone who had read more than a couple of quotes would know that. Gould wrote hundreds of essays for Natural HIstory magazine, all of which addressed different aspects of evolution. The video presenter should probably read them. Evolution has had some problems, right from the beginning. First, it ran afoul of Christians who believed that life was created by their god.They would never, and will never, accept evolution because of their religious beliefs. Secondly, evolution denied that humans were the most evolved of creatures. Many people, religous and otherwise, find that hard to accept. As far as the mathematical argument, think of this. A pebble is at the top of a very tall, steep sided, mound of gravel. Something causes the pebble to move. It bounces, rolls, and slides down the slope of the mound, eventually reaching the bottom. On the way, it follows a course dictated by a number of things, including the steepness of the slope, the size of the various other pebbles that it hits, the exact angle at which it hits them, etc. Calculate the odds of the pebble following that exact course down the side of the mound. It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize the odds against that course are just incredible. Yet there it is, at the bottom of the pile.
Your argument presupposes the veracity of evolution. You say we know the pebble was on top of the mountain at some point, and now we know it's down at the bottom. This is begging the question, we actually DON'T know that the pebble was ever at the top of the mountain. Darwinism tries to prove that given the pebble exists at the bottom of the mountain, it must have gotten there by natural means and not by some kind of intelligent force putting it there. Name a single (one) system of coding and decoding that exists on Earth besides DNA that was not designed by an intelligence.
I didn't even read it once I saw how many words you put you really have to put a lot of explanation into your thoughts and that proves that it's b*******
@@throckmortensnivel2850 I as a Christian have no reason to deny evolution. The whole thing still would make sense since it's more likely that the whole 1 day = 1000 years is a metaphore since back then 1000 was Seen as a lot. Theologically speaking, God exists outside of time, thus what for him is one day can even be billions of years and I'm not gonna tell God how he should create humanity. TL:DR : I think we christians should let God cook no matter what way he should/would. It doesn't matter wether or not he did it through evolution. If I was him, I think I WOULD make it organized and make it make sense.
@@dominikdurkovsky8318 Honestly, I think the creation science types lack faith. They want science to back there beliefs because they really don't believe it themselves. As far as the time thing, there is even a bible verse that says to God one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day, which I take to mean that time means nothing to God, which makes sense in that if you are indeed eternal, after a while, time would fail to register. What would God do for all those eternities? Perhaps God created the universe in a fit of boredom.
I'm trying to find the source for Stephen Jay Gould's quote "I have been reluctant to admit it..." Please reply with that reference. Thanks for the cool videos!
It's literally a quote in his publication from 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging" Your dogmatic approach to a mere theory lacking evidence is showing😅@@mcmanustony
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yvIt's literally a quote in his publication from 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging" Your dogmatic approach to a mere theory lacking evidence is showing😅
The question is fallacious. The assumption of evolution is that there is a materialistic explanation for all of history. If it is the case that all we can know and study is what is before us such that it is verifiable and predictive, then it is what it is.
Over 150,000,000 humans were born in 2021 with many mutations, that's far more than any supposedly "neanderthals" that ever existed throughout time. Why haven't humans evolved into another species??
First, the entire video ignores the fact evolution is not defined by or dependant on fossils; second, the 1966 symposium was just that, a gathering that didn't produce peer review work challenging evolution: "It is doubtful whether this symposium has done much to influence the theory of evolution" John L.Harper School of Plant Biology University College of North Wales In other words, the symposium was a non-event. Third, the end of the video misrepresents modern evolution. It alludes to there being different competing theories. There's only one theory with one definition. The debate is about the rate and of change of evo, and which mechanisms are more important, but not that evolution is in doubt.
Under his theory all life forms arose from one single cell bacterium ancestor. Again, that is “all” life forms from mushrooms, grass, bananas to humans. Yes, his theory propositions that all species of life that ever lived arose from this single celled organism that arose from random acts of nature. However, under this naturalistic framework it also necessitates that this first life form arose randomly. Good luck in finding any neo-darwinist who believes otherwise. It’s like a religious person stating the story of Noah placing animals on the arc never mentions a miracle having occurred. That would be true but clearly it necessitates a miracle. Lastly, you seem to be out of loop with the standard thought which goes even further. According to the standard model, all life not only arose from the same bacterium organism which was the product of random acts of nature, it too is result of our entire universe arising from an random act. Now consider that. The Big Bang states that the entire universe came into existence from nothing. For you to object to Darwin not explaining the origin, but instead change shows that you are simply repeating talking points that mis the greater implications of the standard origins models.
@@killerbee6484 The evidence is in fossil collections, in lab experiments, in 250,000 peer reviewed research papers in a dozen and more branches of science over the course of 160 years- of which you've read and understood not a single one. Have you ever opened a book on evolution written by a biologist. If so can you cite it. If not, why the hell are you commenting on a vast subject of which you know precisely nothing?
Darwin wrote his book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" more than 150 years ago, since then the theory of evolution has stepped far, far, far forward. Any biologist now discussing issues of evolution relies on the modern synthetic theory of evolution and not on a book from 150 years ago. Yes, this is the scientific basis from which the development of the theory of evolution began. But seriously criticizing it now is ridiculous! Dear critics, you are 150 years late. Paleontologists have complete expanded chains of sequences of ancient predecessors of modern horses, wolves, bears, whales, elephants and so on. And of course modern primates, including humans. There are chains of predecessors for many extinct species, including various dinosaurs, ancient extinct sharks, theropods of the Permian period, ancient plants, etc. But no, evolution does not work! We do not have a chain of development of representatives of the "Cambrian explosion". As for the described mathematical model, this is a striking example when people incompetent in this matter undertake the study of some issue. It is not enough to be a mathematician or a programmer, you also need to be a geneticist. You need to understand the mechanisms of genetics, they are not random. Nature first created a "programming language", a kind of "Unreal Engine 5", and only after creating it began to quickly and effectively stamp out not only new species, but also new genera, families, orders and classes of animals and plants.
@@sliglusamelius8578 if you have evidence refuting evolution from paleontology bring it on. Science doesn't deal with proof it deals in evidence. You don't have any evidence. We do. We win.
@@mcmanustony You are making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on you. You don't have it. There is no provably phylogenetic linkage of all extant fauna back to a common ancestor, let alone single-celled organisms. Prove it, the burden is yours, not mine..
@@mcmanustony Off the top of my head, some icons of evolution that were proved false: Vestigial organs such as human yolk sacs and appendixes and tail bones (😂) Bad design such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Neanderthals being a different species from H sapiens. Domestic dogs being descended from gray wolves. Peppered moth narrative. Eugenics. (that's a very bad claim from YOUR side, own it). Pakicetus being a transitional fossil. Piltdown and Nebraska Man. Pathetic bunch of lies..
@@mcmanustony That is false. There is no proof of the concept of the phylogenetic linkage of all extant fauna back to a common ancestor. The burden of proof is on you..
@@Xarai your evolution isn't even real, because according to scientists liquid water, right atmosphere, right distance from the sun, life giving cycles etc. Were all responsible for supporting life here on earth, but can you tell me brother, because if wee HUMANS AND EARTHLY ANIMALS AND EARTHLY LIFE needs all these conditions to survive and evolve then in other planets there must be other species and other form of life which find atmosphere of that planet suitable, BUT...... the PROBLEM is that even planets most similar to earth don't have life as we HUMAN BEINGS, if there may be some tiny living creatures, then why aren't they EVOLVING??
The fossil record does agree with evolution. The fossil record is literally an argument for evolution. Just because some scientists in the old days argued if evolution is gradual or quick is irrelevant to the fact that geology confirms evolution.
@BrighterThanGold that doesn't debunk evolution. Evolution does not depend on how well tissue fossilises. The fact that you never find t-rex skeletons with sloth skeletons or stegosaurus skeletons does help verify evolution.
@@Ethan-mv2un macro and micro evolution are the same thing. And all fossils agree with evolution, because all fossils transition. You'll never find a t-rex skeleton with a mammoth skeleton.
@@iseriver3982 dude, you just keep making these statements but have no idea what you're saying. 1. They are not the same. Micro evolution can be explained as variation and adaptation to an environment. Macro is the dramatic change of an organism to another type of organism. 2. Fossils do not transition, please reference an example? There are huge gaps and distinct differences between fossils from different time periods, with no real links to explain a gradual change. 3. I have no idea why you're talking about mammoths and Tyrannosaurus.
@@Ethan-mv2un you have no idea because you aren't as smart as you like to think you are. You will never find t-rex fossils with mammoth fossils because mammoths evolved after the T-Rex went extinct. We have many transitional fossils showing the evolution of t-rex and mammoths. But you ignore those. And macro and micro evolution are the same thing. You can't have one without the other, it's two ends of the same spectrum.
@@peteconrad2077 i mean I could but unfortunately its not in English you should do your own research I’m pretty sure you’ll find a lot of interesting stuff And you should check out a movie called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed it is not evidence i think its a good movie to watch and its related to the subject
Paleontologists have complete expanded chains of sequences of ancient predecessors of modern horses, wolves, bears, whales, elephants and so on. And of course modern primates, including humans. There are chains of predecessors for many extinct species, including various dinosaurs, ancient extinct sharks, theropods of the Permian period, ancient plants, etc. Speaking about dinosaurs, we can remember that the entire history of the archosaur clade is before our eyes, from ancient dinosauromorphs to modern dinosaurs - birds! But no, evolution does not work! We do not have a chain of development of representatives of the "Cambrian explosion". As for the described mathematical model, this is a striking example when people incompetent in this matter undertake the study of some issue. It is not enough to be a mathematician or a programmer, you also need to be a geneticist. You need to understand the mechanisms of genetics, they are not random. Nature first created a "programming language", a kind of "Unreal Engine 5", and only after creating it began to quickly and effectively stamp out not only new species, but also new genera, families, orders and classes of animals and plants.
@@Mr.BVogel The basic formula in biology is DNA > protein > trait. So the formation of new traits occurs not by random replacement of individual amino acids in DNA chains (against this, there are powerful biological defense mechanisms that reduce the probability of such mutations by several orders of magnitude), but by exchanging entire sections of homologous chromosomes during conjugation in the prophase of the first division of meiosis. For more information, you can read "Chromosomal crossover" on the Internet. This is the main, but not the only mechanism of variability. This is exactly why there are TWO sexes in nature, male and female. Even in plants. Sorry, LGBT + (no). The ability to variability is a key property of life on Earth, a key mechanism for survival in the long term. Yes, there are hermaphrodites, for example, some parasites, for which finding an individual of the opposite sex is an extremely difficult task, but this is an exception to the general rule.
Great video! 👍Evolutionists also have a major problem with human demographics as well. If humans appeared 200,000 years ago in West Africa, we'd have waaay more than people than 7 billion. Written languages would have been started much earlier than 5,000 B.C. Many argue that we were hunter gatherers for 190,000 years, but really??? How long does it take to domestic a cow or a chicken? these slow animals were domesticated in Sumer 5,000 year ago according to many archeologists. Not to mention many languages, especially written languages expanded outward from the middle east. Virtually all writting systems outside of China's logographic language are related to phoenician. Even Aztec calendars have bear some resemblance to the Chinese calendar. Something is seriously off about evolution and people need to atleast acknowledge some of the holes within that theory.
I like everything you had to say here, do you have and sources or videos that I can check out to explore this further? This is a different critique of evolution that I have not heard yet
@@jordand1609 No I don't, these are just things I noticed while researching demographics, languages, human development and evolution. Kent Hovind definitely goes into detail on some of these topics.
Why would we have way more people than 7 billion today? The Industrial Age brought in a massive spike in population growth for obvious reasons, but before that population growth was relatively slow. Why must written language have been started long before 5000 years ago? Early humans would likely have had spoken-only languages for a very long time, and likely very primitive written language was indeed started long before 5000 years ago.
So I get the problems people have with the video, but I'm more curious as to what the creator believes this "evidence" implies, or what he believes. Is he saying he thinks life started in the Cambrian? or that life in the Cambrian was more or less similar to life today? which life forms did God/the "Intelligent Designer" create, and which didn't he? is he saying he thinks God/IDer created the most basal members of the phyla we see today, and evolution did the rest to diversify these phyla? did God/the IDer create new life forms constantly throughout the hundreds of millions of years since the Cambrian(and what about before the Cambrian?) Does he accept the dates of these fossils and the diversification of life throughout the fossil/geologic record? does God not only create whole organisms, but also new genes/structures/organs, etc.? and how would we tell? is he a young earth creationist? etc.
I think you’re missing the broader point of the video, which to me is “why is it not okay to question the theories that are taught and defended as if they were laws”? For example. Sauropod dinosaurs. How could something like that exist? On plants? We’re talking caloric needs in the hundreds of thousands a day. The only reason Blue whales can do it is because of their efficiency, they can eat almost 500,000 calories in one mouthful of Krill. Something that walks around carrying dozens of thousands of tons of weight chewing on plants?!? That’s preposterous and absurd even more so when you consider that nothing but bone fragments of these proposed giants have ever been found and that literally every skeleton in the museums millions visit a year are simply artistic representations of what they should look like based on our “best guess”. What about megalodon? They base its size estimates on teeth that have been found by assuming it’s tooth-body size ratio is comparable to a great white. Ever see a hammerheads teeth? That size extrapolation method Ain’t exactly gonna work here with a giant hammerhead shark… Evolutionary biology and Paleontology get away with so much unscientific BS because they adhere to the rules of the founders from over 100 years ago. The dinosaur race of the late 1800’s was basically two frauds trying to outdo each other for what were essentially carnival side shows. Claiming to have found the next giant bone that belonged to some monstrosity of the ancient past. Were they all? Probably not, but it was a Victorian dick measuring contest played out via newspapers and magazines.
@@joshuapatrick682 Sauropods didn’t move very much, they lived in densely forested regions, and there is a long portion of the book of job in which a very similar creature is described and called behemoth.
@@joshuapatrick682 Man I dont think evolution is plausible either but theres more than just fragments to go by in the case of the sauropods. After all one was even mentioned in the Bible. That's neither here nor there though. I think with the megalodon the estimated size may be exaggerated a little but something that could carry a tooth like that similar to the make of a great white's probably existed at the relative given proportion and could easily sustain itself.
There is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning posed in this piece. We have a sample size of one for worlds where life was discovered. It's pretty hard to consistently calculate odds within that sample size.Some mathematicians have done their circle jerks over this but I find it unlikely that they hashed out the probabilities quite as thoroughly as you insist. Scientific theories do not go through processes to prove them as you presupposed throughout this misleading piece. That is actually how creationists do their falsely called science. Instead peer review tries to disprove the premise and conclusions. It is only when going through the rigorous process of peers in the field attacking the premise over and over and failing to disprove it does it get to being called a theory. A theory in science is as close to being determined to be objective reality as science will state. They do not rest on their laurels they are always looking for a better explanation. With the above in mind, your piece either misunderstands the scientific method or is deliberately misleading about it.
@RDE Lutherie I never deleted it. Permaybe haps the owner of this channels is trying to fuck with us with shadow deletion of comments. That would fit the mold of the dishonest piece of shit that runs this channel.
@RDE Lutherie Yeah, that's not what happened. I don't have anything to prove here though. I never deleted it and it is visible in Firefox but not Edge. I never ever logged in to my youtube account in Edge so that is not what happened. I could uoload an screen cap but I just don't care enough to. If you think I'm lying about something as stupid as this then you are even more ridiculous than the shithead who runs this channel.
@RDE Lutherie Well if you use Firefox, then you should know that is clears the cache every time you close it. Cached pages was useful in a time when everyone was on dial up and didn't want to wait 16 years for a page to load. The only point of dispute I had with you was your contention that I deleted my comment. I told you I didn't. FYI, youtube uploaders have the ability to mask comments in such a way that the person who made them can still see them but no one else can. It's is called on some places shadow banning. I have a problem with the person who made this video. But my problem with YOU is that instead of acknowledging that my comments are being fucked with, you made a claim that I don't understand page caching in an era where it is utterly obsolete.
and speaking of odds you know that even the universe that we can observe is İNSANELY BİG and theres the part that we cant observe that is bigger than inf times that what we can observe the odds got pretty small compared to infinite odds
WOW! Stop everything. The last 100 years of molecular genetics has been a total waste of time. This youtuber operating from his mom's basement has revolutionized our understanding of molecular biology and I'm sure the Nobel Institute will be in touch soon.
I must say, I'm not certain that I understand the point you're making here. Like, what's the takeaway? We can observe the continuance of evolution through natural selection, so... I guess the takeaway is that we don't understand the mechanism by which genes come about very well?
Listen again starting at 5:50. Think about it. Natural selection was not at work during the formation of the first self-replicating organism. The simplest self-replicating cell requires a minimum of 531,000 base pairs. Why would random accidental chemical collisions continue stacking more than 2 or 3 base pairs? Remember, this is undirected chaos. It does not maintain partially successful attempts as though it has a pattern or goal in mind. What if on the 10,000th stack, it suddenly includes a hetero-chiral molecule. It has to start completely all over again. Then if it gets that right (which is impossible) it must wait for the bi-layer, semipermeable, gate-keeping membrane to come along and enclose it to protect it. And it can't wait. Time is its enemy. Such a fragile molecule would not last 10 minutes if unprotected. And - o yeah - it must be immediately provided with thousands of ATP synthase machines (equally impossible) to provide energy, and a waste disposal system, tRNA to copy DNA data and transfer it to Ribosomes so they can make proteins. And perhaps the hardest of all, the DNA data must become possessed by an information system comparable to Microsoft Windows, to coordinate the incredibly complex machinery necessary for that first cell to reproduce. Oh, did I say reproduce? Think metaphase, anaphase, and telephase just to get the cell to reproduce. Think about an information system accidentally coming along and possessing the genomic data, and directing to start an explosion of cells that can build deer antlers every year, or a sonar system in dolphins, or radar in bats, kidneys, pituitary glands, feathered wings, sexual reproduction with its attendant incredibly complex hormones, etc. ad infinitum. The point is that even if you give Evolutionists an almost infinitely complex cell to begin with (trashing the Law of Biogenesis) it can not multiply complexity, energy state and organization (trashing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by some kind of anti-entropic magic) to cause intra-species evolution. The takeaway is it is totally unreasonable to believe all of this could happen by chance. And this is where it gets scary. If it did not happen by chance, the only other game in town is Intelligent Design. And that requires an Intelligent Designer (Who, considering the incredible complexity and fine-tuning of His creation is practically omniscient). And what if He created it perfect in every way, only to have it hacked into by one of His very own created beings causing chaos, death, pain, suffering, and all that stuff? What if The Creator was so benevolent that He offered the blood of His own Son as an atonement for those who had fallen under the power and ways of the evil hacker. What if He wrote a Book explaining all of this. What if He said in that Book, "All who come to Me, I will in no wise cast out." What if He said that He "so loved the world that whosoever believes Him would never perish, but have eternal life." I humbly submit to you that these five "what ifs" are indeed true. I humbly submit to you that macro-evolution is a dead-end religion, designed to lead you away from the Creator. I humbly beg you to talk to Him about it and be reconciled to Him. Rob
@@robertecarpenter You could have left this comment sooner. I had to figure out on my own (and it wasn't easy, this channel is pretty disingenuous in its aims) that this whole thing is just bait for people who want to believe in god without losing the privilege of feeling like they're smarter than other people, but aren't dumb enough to do that with the standard narrative. It doesn't actually matter whether there are gaps in scientists' understanding of abiogenesis and/or the mechanisms behind mutation; you're not even creating gaps big enough for god to fit in, you're just creating gaps big enough for you to *pretend* god fits. Even if it were proven completely physically infeasible for life to exist naturally, anyone claiming to know anything particular about the nature of the divine would be lying out their ass, and that's *always* what this is: just another way for people to justify their highly specific dogma by manufacturing holes all over anything that doesn't fit in with their idea of the world. You clearly don't have the maturity to say those dreaded words: "I don't know and I can't know and anything that looks like a source of knowledge on this is actively terrible with a probability that rounds up to 100% and should be completely distrusted." Those only words which can ever be honest about this. But that's not what you're here for, that's not what anybody's here for. They either got here by accident or because RUclips thought it would work as engagement bait for them (they were right in my case) or because they're just like you, ravenously searching the world for whatever shallow excuse you can find to shun the views of the unfaithful as naive and unlearned.
@@robertecarpenter Side note, it's not too hard to think that you're just repeating a pile of stuff you heard in some book or blog or something. Something that breaks the second law of thermodynamics? You'd have to have something constantly putting energy into the system from externally, which doesn't make sense, right? There'd have to just be some kinda big glowing orb in space beaming down energy constantly, how absurd. Ugh, at least the video itself had what it took to make the blatant factual errors obvious only to someone with more education than me. You have no imagination for how things could be, as if the first self-replicating organism must have been extraordinarily complex - no, surely it was much simpler than the simplest known organism; maybe we will find it someday, but probably not. Someday somebody will figure out how to bring the whole thing down from unreasonable odds to astronomical odds and if it happens during your lifetime you'll move on to something else as if this all never happened, or deny it fervently by some technicality you believe to be a slam dunk. But as rough as it is, and trust me I know it is, there is no magic, only that which is yet to be understood and that which is lost to time.
Well, it was only a question of time, before ID/creationism entered the EduTuber-sphere with this style of videos. Pretty good attempt at popularizing Intelligent Design in a fun way, snarky way, but it's essentially nothing new under the sun. Jackson Wheat has already tackled this, so I'm not gonna spend much more time on it myself, busy as I am, but I did notice the lack of sources in your vid description. A quick Google search revealed that many of your quotes aiming to demonstrate the "growing skepticism" are pretty outdated, like Frank Salisbury's, which is from 1969. Funny how that follows you mentioning using computers for calculating the odds, since that was still in its infancy before 1970. It's pretty revealing that creationists haven't really come up with anything new since the sixties.
Phrenotopia , you wrote, "It's pretty revealing that creationists haven't really come up with anything new since the sixties." Yes, things are pretty much the same. There are still no transitional lines of fossils to be found on the planet, and finches are still finches. There are some new discoveries that lean the way of the creationist. For example, we now know that 1) speciation and adaptation are devolutionary, rather than evolutionary, 2) Junk DNA is not junk, 3) a pair of coordinated mutations in humans is virtually impossible, 4) species are confined within their respective genetic families, and 5) for all practical purposes, evolution is impossible. I many have left a few things out, but it is not looking good for the evolutionist. Dan
I am not sure how they crunched the numbers but i feel like an issue with the idea of random traits changing being the sole factor of change may be part of it. Like if suddenly the world had something happen that made it so that all humans over 6 feet had a 90% chance of dying before 20 years of age, we would see humans become shorter. Now humans are a bad example because we have tools that solve most problems for us that would come with being shorter but if that say happened to giraffe than they would begin to struggle to eat from taller trees so it would further restrict height in the population and instead begin to favor those that eat small plants. Pressures also dont have to be the only reason, like if you have a sea based animal that has some of the traits but not the need to temporarily go on land for food and half the population better suited for sea life continues life as normal but the other half chose to use their traits to go on land and spend more time on/near land its effectively divided the population allowing them to each focus on the trains that best suit their style of living. Id say it is more similar to neural networks learning by taking only the best from each generation of training rather than randomly changing and hoping it works out
Correct, mutations are not entirely random. It is an outdated idea that doesn't make a lot of sense. Creationists try to use concepts that have been disproved by scientists to disprove science...lolol
With the human and giraffe examples you cite above, you're not really talking about evolution. At the end of both those sequences, you still have humans and giraffes. You've just depleted the gene pool of "tall" genes, and now you have short humans and short giraffes. They're not a new species. Same idea with the land/sea question - if you have an amphibious creature that starts living more on land, it will likely breed out the aquatic traits. In that case, you've depleted the gene pool, not added new traits.
That was an awesome and humorous recap of the problems with the theoey of evolution. The adaption of species to their environment is so so far from the primordial soup to amoeba to trex trajectory we were all fed in school. Where does all the information in our dna come from? I can't wait for that video.
@@TheStarflight41 but we do. It’s added every time a pierce if code gets over duplicated. The surprising thing, given the rate at which that happens is that it’s so small.
If 'intelligent design' is to be taken seriously, give us some convincing evidence for the existence of 'intelligent designer(s)'. If the response is "it's invisible" or "it doesn't manifest in reality", you shouldn't accept it either. Until a viable alternative is presented, you'll have to forgive unbelievers for accepting a well-established, real-world Theory about how life on earth continues to work.
klhcc, you wrote, "If 'intelligent design' is to be taken seriously, give us some convincing evidence for the existence of 'intelligent designer(s)'. If the response is "it's invisible" or "it doesn't manifest in reality", you shouldn't accept it either. Until a viable alternative is presented, you'll have to forgive unbelievers for accepting a well-established, real-world Theory about how life on earth continues to work." There are only two possibilities for the existence of complex life forms, klhcc: 1) an intelligent creator, or 2) magic. Pick one. Dan
@@BibleResearchTools "an intelligent creator, or 2) magic" - I see what you did there - very good. It might help to know what you mean by 'life'. How do you define it? As far as I know, we don't have a clear definition as there are such a vast range of possibilities which come from observing nature. Can the perspective of 'intelligent design' help clarify this at all?
itsasin1969, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools Fool." Clever. Are you in grade school? ================== itsasin1969, you listed what you believe are lines of evidence for evolution: "Comparative anatomy embryology and development Fossil record DNA comparison, Species distribution Evolution observed today Predictive power of evolution, nested hierarchies of traits.' None of those can be scientifically classified as evidence specific to evolution. You must first rely on faith that evolution actually occurred. Further, the fossil record falsifies evolution with disparity before diversity, and abrupt appearance followed by stasis; and there is not a single unquestionable transitional line to be found anywhere on earth. If that is not enough strikes against evolution, the so-called index fossils are all of marine origin, which indicates they were deposited by one or more global floods.
================= itsasin1969, you wrote, "Here is 11 min of one of the best evidence for evolution I have ever seen. Spend 11 min and take it all in. You are free to believe whatever your want. But remember, just because you don't understand something,, doesn't mean expert scientific consensus can't. Or that your lack of understanding would be evidence against evolution or have any impact on the outcome of scientific consensus." One must have a vivid imagination to believe in whale evolution, especially as imagined by Gingrich and Thewissen. This is an old video of Gingerich on the Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus. His part in the segment begins about the 13:55 mark:
ruclips.net/video/-C4GS-rNGM8/видео.htmlm28s These are short videos of Hans Thewissen on the Ambulocetus:
ruclips.net/video/S4gmeI9TFKA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/uccden3r98A/видео.html If anything, make note of the creative artwork in the museum exhibits that seem to be intentionally designed to deceive. ================= itsasin1969, you wrote, "Also if you are not up to speed on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District? If not you have no business opening your mouth on this subject. ruclips.net/video/7HZzGXnYL5I/видео.html&ab_channel=ChristopherHitchslap" Yes, I am up to speed on the Dover "science" show, in which a federal "judge" determined what is and what is not science (while copy/pasting arguments from the ACLU briefs.) LOL! I must admit, that is funny, but it has nothing to do with science. I was always taught that the scientific method determined what is and what is not science. Perhaps I am "old-school." If I were you, I would drop the "Dover" argument. It makes you look like a fool. BTW, your link didn't work., and you posted this multiple times. Repeating the same nonsense over and over again makes you look desperate. Dan
klhcc, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools "an intelligent creator, or 2) magic" - I see what you did there - very good. It might help to know what you mean by 'life'. How do you define it?" No one can adequately define it, but we know it when we see it. ============= klhcc, you wrote, "As far as I know, we don't have a clear definition as there are such a vast range of possibilities which come from observing nature. Can the perspective of 'intelligent design' help clarify this at all?" I am a creationist, not an ID'er; but I am aware that there is no way that the vast quantities of coordinated, symbiotic information found in even the simplest of organisms could have assembled itself by pure chance. Even Gould and Dawkins were aware of that limitation when they introduced (or, rather, "smuggled") intelligent design into their examples of "cumulative selection" (under the pretense that they were demonstrating evolution.) Dan
@@BibleResearchTools Re defining life, "we know it when we see it". Maybe once you realise the inadequacy of that answer, you'll start to appreciate that the scientific method is our best route to understanding the workings of the cosmos.
A very simplified (VERY) example of the impossible chance a car could be made without creators. All the many parts, all the many elements to make the plastics and metal parts, the fuel to run it, and so on by ALL coming together at the right time and in the right order wouldn't happen no matter how many years passed by. Life is many thousands of times more complex than an automobile.
Do you actually believe that anyone thinks that the brain, the liver, left and right hands just randomly emerged from nothing and combined into a human being one day? You can't be serious. The problem with most creationists is that they come up with such ridiculous ideas and somehow use them to argue with actual theories which say absolutely nothing like that. It's like I'd say that creationists are stupid because God could not have created the world in just 24 hours. Do you see my point?
@@shaunmeyer8822 hard to know where to start as it’s all lies. But let’s start with the Cambrian fossils. The Cambrian change actuality took place over tens of millions of years. It wasn’t sudden. And many of the Cambrian forms were similar to Precambrian structures. It’s just that Precambrian structures were much less prone to fossilisation because they were soft bodied. The development of skeletons increased the likelihood of fossilisation and also made many new complex forms possible. If you look at the Cambrian explosion critically then there’s no mystery. Then let’s look at their probability claims. Utter garbage again. These calculations are well known and were calculated with pure undirected random probability which isn’t relevant because natural selection makes it a non random process. The difference will change the calculation by many orders of magnitude. One of the most compelling arguments against creationism is the degree to which its proponents have to lie to promote it.
@@peteconrad2077 Did you even do research before saying their calculations are garbage(did you even watch the video)? EVOLUTION IS 100% BASED ON RANDOM MUTATIONS. natural selection just filters the good ones from the bad ones.
The only thing in question is the sanity of people who, without understanding of basic evolutionary biology, try to do spectacular "debunks" using made up ideas that have nothing to do with the actual science. For example there's not a single biologist who thinks that an entire subsequence of DNA responsible for any protein found in modern cells had to spontaneously emerge from non-living matter by chance. If you ask mathematicians about the odds of something assumed to be random of course they will give you absurd numbers and they will be correct! The problem is that the part about assumed randomness of the assembly process is taken out of nowhere. No OoL theory even claims that DNA was the first molecule to be able to undergo evolution. Yet its complexity is so often used by the "debunkers".
@@kpb0 You can't have DNA or a cell membrane without proteins. The odds in this video for one basic protein is what was calculated. You would need 100's of them for a minimally functional cell. It's a chicken and egg problem in multiple ways. The math is impossible for even the most simple conceivable protein.
Well natural processes can't explain either, and all the evidence points to an external intelligence. You seem to have something personally against the idea of a creator, which is fine, but that makes you the ignorant one.
It is good to see science in crisis. It is needed for progress. It helps to humble the science community and check arrogance which impairs rational thought.
No scientist is a Darwinian. That's like saying modern scientists are Mendalianists. The entire body of work of evolutionary theory isn't disproven because some mathematicians calculted something with an imperfect model. Perhaps the cambrian organisms developed an extremely robost DNA repair mechanism that disallowed mutation. We don't know. And neither do you.
Great video, the odds of natural selection and random mutation producing even a single protein/gene even after Trillions and Trillions of years would be 10^77? Didn't know it was THAT unlikely. Ofc most cells are way more complex than that too. They're so outdated smh....
I think you got a little bit confuse. He did not specify the number for 'producing a single protein/gene'. Those number are for 'acting in cambrian explosion. And if you google about cambrian explosion and evolution you will know that its not 'disaproving' evolution.
Unfortunately for you, it’s nonsense. The calculation is specious and based on pure randomness which didn’t how evolution works. Natural selection makes it a non random process. As usual, you can only form an argument by lying.
This is utter nonsense. You are regurgitating a ludicrous calculation by creationist Doug Axe that’s been debunked seven ways from Sunday. Given that we have proteins the odds of a protein forming are 1 in …ummm….1. You have mangled the details of what number even tries, and fails, to establish. Would it kill you to open a fucking book.
"... but... it's still... possible right guys..." The people who just write off these odds simply because it's still "possible" are unbelievably ignorant
Not quite, revisit the genetic makeup of the KhoiSan people, and reboot your understanding of the Out Of Africa theory, then you can say “Ooh, Genetic Drift!” 😂
@@SorenPenrose oh don’t you know you can add small changes to each generation and then some how after millions of years it’s exactly the same, makes sense right?
Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t understand how Cambrian fossils disprove evolution Or maybe I’m missing something Someone explain Edit: and if not evolution then what else explains the evidence that we find on the relations and origins of species?
They don’t. This video is a joke….ignorant lying creationists doing what ignorant lying creationists do. Jackson wheat has uploaded well informed rebuttals of the nonsense posted here.
I wouldn't necessarily say it categorically disproves evolution, but it casts a lot of doubt of it. Why is anyone who questions evolution immediately called a lying creationist, especially when there are serious concerns with the idea of Darwinian evolution? There is a conversation that needs to be had.
@@Lauren-se5bu many who “question evolution” are not interested in answers. Like Meyer, Wells, Axe…..they are religiously motivated to deny the reality of evolution. The Cambrian poses no issue to the theory of evolution.
@@purelyrandom1230 in the genome. There are artefacts in your genome that cannot have arisen other than by common ancestry with other species. These are, for example, mutations that were acquired by a long ago ancestor of ours that sit silently in our genomes…and the genomes of all chimpanzees. It’s absolutely conclusive.
very interesting. i have a hard time believing in evolution, this seems to back up my suspicions. if it is true, by all means, that is fine, but i see too many holes...people who believe in evolution whole heartedly have their jobs and money and education money also riding on evolution. it would be too risky for them to come up and say we have doubts on evolution. if it is true, fine...i see to many gaps, and i see too many scientists dogmatically pushing it, also] someone like r dawkins. remember r dawkins also writes books and sells in the millions, he gots money in evolution. if he saw gaps in it or concerns, i m sure he just well, argue them away...or deny them away.]
evolution is vast and huge going through multiple fields of science. its hard for you to understand because you, like millions of others dont work in those fields. but a basic understanding of evolution by natural selection is extremely easy to understand. maybe you just need to actually try learning and take the time to understand it.
@@rorythellama1212 just google or RUclips evidence for evolution in all the area they said there was right here and you'll find it this video is very dishonest
@@Xarai maybe i do...but what evolution may not address is time, space and matter, physical laws, complexity of dna....so things survive, and change, mutate,fine. and how? natural intelligence. yeah, sure.] natural intelligence is nothing. science is not an entity or a person or a mind. science is studying the physical world.... big bang just happened, gravity, physical laws just happened, and dna occurred... to the point of natural selection.]
Perhaps you should rename your channel to Wrong Story Short. Evolution is a measurable, observable fact. It doesn't matter what mistakes Darwin made. Evolution is a scientific theory with more evidence than the theory of gravity and would be just as true even if Darwin had never existed.
@@thevulture5750 I know it occus because it has been observed both in the lab and in the field. I know it has occurred before because of the genetic evidence, fossil evidence and biological evidence all point to evolution. We know more about evolution and how it works than we know about gravity. If you still want to deny evolution, you may as well join the flat earthers and deny that the earth is spherical.
@@thevulture5750 just like heliocentric theory right? No one proved the sun was the center of the solar system they just believe in their own interpretation of the evidence right?
@@williamcole8244 how is it going away? Where are the studies disproving the studies supporting it? No one has debunked the fossil record showing progression of traits, or that shared dna proves relation, or the observations of mutations and natural selection.
There is a big difference between what is observed (variations within a kind of animal) and what the theory of evolution proposes (one kind of animal becomes another)
What drives me insane is not so much that Darwin's theory is full of problems, but that people including scientists believe it so wholeheartedly and call you an idiot for even daring to question it.
because the best argument of darwinian evolution are insults and fear to ridicule.
uhhh few problems maybe stop drinking the koolaid for starters
1. darwin got evolution wrong by a lot, noone follows his models today he was just the first one to get shit started properly
2. evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains these facts
3. this video is misleading never go into a youtube video thinking you will understand anything I suggest going to a university, taking a class (they are usually free) or calling a professor up when they have free time and ask them questions
@@Xarai , evolution as an organism generates mutations and changes, yes, but as an organism that has enough mutation to change into another species, like a frog to a fish at a DNA level has never been observed, modern theories of evolution just assume a lot, but a lot, to the level of calling these assumptions "facts".
but don't worry we are the minority here.
@@TheSebastianML the law of monophyly says that you cant outgrow your ancestry. your strawman of a frog to a fish would disprove evolution.
so like I thought you drank the koolaid like you were dying of thirst
You, and all the people that denies evolution (a scientific fact) are... not idiots... but delusional.
If the question of life that you are referring to is, how life started. Then you should probably know that evolution doesn't answer that question, because evolution doesn't even attempt to answer that question. Evolution is just the change of life after it already exists. The beginning of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. They are two different things
depends on who you talk to. it’s commonly accepted as indirect evidence and implication for atheism and naturalistic origin
@@backbeatben Where did I say anything about atheism? And no it doesn't depend on who you ask. Well OK, the people who group abiogenesis in with evolution, don't know what they are talking about. So yeah, in that sense it depends on whether you ask a person with scientific knowledge or not . Because abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.
@@backbeatben when you make someone's argument for them and tell them what they believe than you are making a Straw Man fallacy. Additionally it is best to ask the most expert scientist what a formal theory states; not just a lot of people.
Evolution makes no claims other than "animals change over time". If an athiest uses evolution theory so be it. Many people believe in God and evolution so it is not exclusive. If an athiest also uses abiogenesis as a second argument that doesn't mean that they are the same theory; they are just approaching the discussion from multiple angles. If an athiest also uses mass disease and famine as evidence against the God claim that doesn't mean that suffering is part of evolution now does it?
If evolution does in fact preclude God that is not evidence for athiesm but evidence against God. Attempting to disprove evolution does not prove god. The doubt is still on the original claim even if disputes are thrown out.
@@righty-o3585 correct, thanks for confirming my statement lol
evolution needed to begin somewhere, and you cant get to evolution without a sensible beginning. Its like having a car and then say well where did that car originate and how did it get there. It needed a beginning and no naturalistic explanation explains it
Darwin was NOT the first to hypothesize evolution. The idea that humans descended fro some other type of creature dates back to Miletus, a Greek philosopher who lived in the 500s B.C. In the early 19th century Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and others proposed his theory of the "transmutation of species", the first fully formed theory of evolution.
Charles Darwin's contribution has to do with natural selection which greatly advanced the mechanism of speciation. Darwin's contemporary, Alfred Russel Wallace, also developed the theory of evolution by natural selection. .... but Darwin was the one who wrote the book that became well known.
I had not heard of the Greek guy.
@@way2jaded1 Neither had I.... I did what the RUclips poster did not and that is a couple of minutes of research.
Testing
@@way2jaded1 Miletus was a Greek city in Asia Minor. Atomic theory first appeared in Asia Minor, by the way.. Probably a philosopher from Miletus wrote something about it. I never heard of one , by the way, and I am Greek. So just maybe there were a few lines in another philosopher's book or something...First mentioning of Evolution that I know WITHIN a species was by Saint Basil in his speech about Creation (exaimeron, in Greek). He didn't exactly use the term, but he described a procedure of change WITHIN a species, as a capability that was given to us by God, of course... PS Best known Milesian philosopher was Ekateos.
Old news.
"They remained unchanged" Anomalocaris went extinct during the Cambrian and it's relatives that remained where quite different, with the main thing connecting them being, guess what, homologous traits. Also, although not necessarily reflecting if the overall accuracy, that anomalocaris is highly inaccurate.
"It's relatives that remained were quite different"! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yet you assume that the ASSUMED "HOMOLOGOUS TRAITS" were ANCESTRALLY relevant because of your BIAS...not necessarily because they could have evolved as such from one another. You ASSUME BY FAITH they were.
Want to take a guess at the odds of creating a single protein spontaneously from non life?
@@jaysmith6863
The MYTHOLOGY of naturalism perpetuates the LIES of BUILDING life from non-life and increased functional information via the ACCIDENT OF THE GAPS FALLACY!
They merely pretend like silly children that these things happen "naturally" while the actual UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE proves it CAN'T!
Did you read the papers by Dr. Douglas Axe or his book?
Regardless, it is EASY to show the statistical analysis of the likelihood of an average protein made with 200 amino acids. Make sure you account for the UNLIKELIHOOD of not just the amino acid, but also the chiraltiy!
Only a NONTHINKER pretends it is possible for DNA CODE to self-create and self-assemble into cells ACCIDENTALLY! How ridiculous!🙄🤣🤣🤣
@@jaysmith6863 I wasn't arguing about abiogenesis. Also, just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it automatically didn't happen.
@@trilobite3120 Your right it is possible however astronomically improbable to randomly make a single useful protein. Then you realize how many proteins are in a simple species, and there isn't enough time in the universe even by evolutionary accounts.
Has this guy ever even read a legitimate science book or does he really believe this garbage?
$$
have you ever noticed the ratio of fossilized soft creatures vs fossilized hard creatures? and then notice the ratio of older fossils to younger fossils. it makes perfect sense that we have so few pre-cambrian fossils. and "suddenly" means tens of millions of years. which is quick in terms of the timescale of evolution. there was likely a lot of pressure to evolve during that time. new niches were suddenly opening up due to a shifting climate.
Urrrrrr, I just found this video. It's great! Will have to check out your channel. I hope there's more like this.
Have you tried actual science?
Its hard for skeletons to fossilize. There need to be specific requirements for animals and other life to fossilize and last millions years. People point to animals with little transitionary fossils and claim that evolution isn't real, but ignore animals that do have transitionary fossils (like horses, humans, elephants, primates, ect.)
I know? Creationist be like "oh there is X animal that science doesn't completely understand how it evolved" but the fact that there is tons upon tons of animals that can be proved unequivocally to change gradually over time poses a problem orders of magnitude bigger to their "theory" than whatever evolution has to deal with. At least science is honest when it comes to not understanding something.
@@heikkiaho6605They are completely conclusive. What are you even taking about?
@marcossidoruk8033
Hmmm, horse, elephant, dogs, etc. may have gradually changed, but NEVER into a different species. Look at dogs, we've taken basically a wolf and now we have Shitzu's. No cats, though, still a dog.
@@steve-wf3rm Demonstrably false. Two animals are considered to be of different species if they cannot reproduce with eachother, the process of two group of animals changing over time to the point they can no longer reproduce with eachother is called speciation and it has been observed to happen by humans. So you are objectively wrong.
What many evolution deniers do as a consequence of this is saying that "an animal of one *kind* cannot change into an animal of another *kind*" the definition of "kind" being kept intentionally ambiguous such that it always coincides with whatever change cannot possibly be observed to happen during the span of human civilization. I shouldn't even need to tell you why this kind of argument is completely fallacious, the word "kind" is being kept as a moving goalpost, whatever is observed by scientists the definition will be changed accordingly by deniers so that a change of kind will never be observed.
Speaking about the span of human civilization, humans have only existed for about 60.000 years, writing being about 3000 years old while the earth is 4 billion years old and life is believed by scientists to be almost as old as the earth itself. I don't think you comprehend how ridiculously different those timescales are, this is relevant because a critical component of the theory of evolution is that animals change gradually over time. If someone told you that they observed a bacteria change into a house cat in the span of 10.000 years that would not be evidence for the theory of evolution, that would be evidence against it because that is not a gradual change in the geological timeline and thus it couldn't be possibly explained by natural selection.
@marcossidoruk8033 You have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution is scientifically impossible, period. Living organisms can not come from non-living matter. The fossil record disproves evolution. Our own eye is proof that evolution is impossible. It's just your faith, a type of religion, so to speak for individuals who can not conceive intelligent design.
Darwin wrote his book in 1859. He took his voyage on the Beagle many decades earlier. If you can't get basic details like that correct, I cannot trust you on more important facts.
If you cannot provide observable evidence of a fish eventually walking on land, I will not trust your faith in Darwin
He didn’t publish it till after the voyage. You think he waited for the voyage to be over before he started writing anything?
Darwin wrote a lot about this in his Origin Of Species in Chapter 6: Difficulties of the Theory, He was very intellectually honest. It doesn't matter nowadays; Genetics has said the last word. Evolution happened, is happening and will continue to operate for the rest of the biological life.
The more we understand about the complexity of genetics, the harder it is to accept that evolution as a theory is possible.
@@jesseyoung9654It's the inverse actually. Genetics has only ever strengthened evolution.
Our human nature doesn't change lol why is so hard for some to understand this 😂@@thejabberwocky2819
@@thejabberwocky2819 Which model of evolution did genetics strengthen? Not all models agree with universal common ancestry like Darwin originally pre-supposed.
@@tahabennett7388 you made a valid point. it's true not all models agree with universal common ancestry. but you will be surprised to know that the overwhelming majority of genetic evidence supports the theory of universal common ancestry. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has been expanded and refined, but the core idea of common descent remains strongly supported by genetic evidence.
I knew it was bad BUT NOT THIS BAD!
Darwin didnt come up with alot of this.. it was foisted upon him by what "science community" cousin Galton was far richer and wanted to make black people into monkeys and purge them from polite society (Eugenics) -science believes the big bang (miracle) but have trouble with Father God & his son.. (Miracle)
No, the Discovery Institute is lying through their crooked teeth. Evolution remains a fact that has been unaffected by the slander of creationists. You clearly didn’t study Biology in high school, did you?
Folks analyzing / critiquing evolution seem to be focused only on one part of the evolutionary narrative, seemingly oblivious to the fact that evolution has TWO interactive components, not just one. ... i.e., biology is only part of the evolutionary dance, while environment is just as absolutely necessary as biology is. Biology provides the variations, while environment determines which of those variations survive long enough to pass their genes on to the next generation.
So ... what was the environment doing during the Cambrian explosion? Was it static / unchanging? Or was it varying at a fairly rapid rate -- i.e., repeated volcanic events (every few tens or hundreds of years) would affect temperature / circulation over the entire planet over periods of hundreds or thousands of years, a fairly rapid change that would repeatedly change the selection criteria for any biology in that loop ... resulting in relatively rapid biological changes as a consequence.
The resolution / granularity (i.e., error margins) in radiometric dating has been no finer than a few million years until fairly recently -- enough time for whole new species to emerge and become extinct -- but not fine enough to establish a chronological sequence of events that would demonstrate transitions.
Some recent measurements claim an accuracy of 0.1%. But even 0.1% accuracy -- in 575 million-year-old samples -- is +/-575,000 years, and even 575,000 years is long enough for whole species to come and go.
So -- it's not as if that record isn't there, but rather that the instrumentation necessary to analyze the record more precisely just hasn't been available.
I was thinking the same. Too many temperature shifts happened. Even oxygen wasn't abundant in the beginning
Evolution is still DEAD
@@lordsiomai Well put! still, if man evolved from APE, why do apes still exist thousands of years later? Should they have not evolved to human by now?
Nobody is arguing that speciation doesn't happen. That's why the environmental 'evolution' is left alone. Also, that's not accounting for the fact that we actually don't know what 'prehistoric' environments would have looked like anyway, as we have no way of testing that, it's just more theories (and our modern models are made presupposing evolution, making it a circular argument). The fact is, evolutions entire basis of life coming from non-life is impossible. And it's entire basis of one KIND of animal turning into another KIND of animal is also not scientific. Neither of these things have ever been observed and can't be recreated, therefore they're not science. There doesn't need to be any more explanation than that, the entire basis for it is impossible. Any example anyone can give of 'evolution' is really just speciation. E.g. Darwin and his finches/turtles. Still a finch. Still a turtle. Just adapted to their environment, nobody is arguing that that doesn't happen.
Also, radiometric dating presupposes that the atmosphere has always had a steady state of isotopes, where we know for a fact that can't be possible, so it's unreliable. We can only date something using carbon's half-life if we know how much carbon was in the atmosphere when that creature died. The carbon in the atmosphere is still changing TODAY, we have no clue what it would have looked like thousands of years ago. But, we do know there was significantly more oxygen in the atmosphere considering the fossil records shows gigantic fossilized bugs... thus, there were most likely different levels of carbon in the atmosphere at different times too. It's a bad theory.
You did not address the issue demonstrated in the video. Sure lets consider environment did its part perfectly to aid this mechanism, but the numbers pointing out the chances of mutations occuring in a single gene isnt dependent on environmental factor. That mechanism is occurs due to errors in DNA replication and is pure biology. So inorder for natural selection to occur, u need a variety of genes to select from, and the chances of those occuring within a said organism is still trillions of trillions of trillions years. The more complex the physiological change, the order of time required for the change increases magnitudes accordingly.
So the argument that environment helped too doesnt stand a chance considering DNA mutation has to occur first inorder for the environment has to even get a chance to influence it, and the chance of that happening for a single gene or a group of genes(which codes for usually a single protein) is still too low.
It's amazing how some people cannot grasp the fact that Darwin is not the end all be all for evolution. Even if he thought every one of his ideas was ludicrous that still wouldn't change the amount of corroborating evidence that proves the theory. Which is a hell of a lot, enough that it is spread out over several fields of study.
Actually no there’s not a shred of evidence for the evolution religion. It was retarded back when chuckles Darwin popularized that stupid joke of a “theory” and it’s even dumber today.
Bullshit. There's not one example of a species giving birth to a new species, especially in quantities capable of continuing the new species. Subspecies are NOT new species, they're adaptations of the same species.
@@OneTruePhreak Yeah I'm not denying that
Be great to hear some of that corroborating evidence, which do you think is the best?
Something that shows how the first life began?
Something that shows how incredibly complex a simple cell actually is.
Something that explains how something so complex as a mitochondrion could 'evolve' before being ingested by a less complex simple cell?
Something that explains how a cell could replicate before DNA/RNA (the code to allow the replication) was made.
Something that shows how a simple cell could 'evolve' to perform an incredibly complex system of chemical reactions such as 'The Krebs Cycle'.
Something that shows how protein machines can simply form out of nothing, each of them having incredibly complicated motor like functions.
Something that explains metamorphosis, a process that is impossible to have 'evolved' in stages.
Or maybe something that explains not only the Cambrian explosion, but also the other '9' similar explosions of life, where millions of fully formed creatures spontaneously appeared out of nowhere in the fossil record. This includes millions fish, reptiles, birds and mammals without any trace of evolution, no common ancestors or predecessors of any type!
Dawkins et al, will never answer the above questions, they ignore them, because they totally debunk evolution!
At best, evolution only explains how creatures change over time, but those changes mean that a bird is still a bird, in the same way that we are changing and regardless of how much we change we will still be humans. There is no evidence at all of one species turning into another. All the nonsense about vestigial limbs etc is BS, those so called vestigial hip bones etc are bones necessary for the anchor of muscles to perform sexual functions etc.
We've been brain washed since we were kids, and 99% of people only know what they were taught at school during dinosaur lessons and most of it is a lie!
Type the hominid name Denisovans into google and an image will appear of a cutesy ape looking thing, but the truth is, it's made up, a fantasy creation by lying evolutionists to try and fool everyone into believing evolution, it has to be made up, because they only fossil remains they have found is a single finger bone and a coupe of teeth!
The same goes for almost every hominids you see in the totally false evolution line up from common ancestor to human. They have created full sized semi human looking hominids form just a few fragments of bone. The only skeleton they have is Lucy, which has been proven to be some type of monkey.
A simple cell is not simple, proteins are not simple, life cannot have started on its own and evolution is not the answer, it will always be just a theory, which in the true sense of the word, is nothing more than a hypothesis.
But...what if all of that evidence is 100% equivocal to that of ID? Then it comes down to mechanism. The only way to determine if Evolution effectively explains the data (unequivocally) is to demonstrate the naturalistic mechanisms. If those mechanisms cannot be demonstrated, then Evolution should be demoted at least...scrapped at most. We certainly should not be as confident in Evolution as we currently are.
The ideas presented in this video or ideas that I've been entertaining for a long time from many different sources. They are responsible for my conversion from materialism to creationism. And I come from a scientific family full of PhDs.
Does someone from those PhDs know the basics of evolutionary biology and genetics? Perhaps they could explain to you why everything stated in this video is dumb.
Hey LSS my brother has been trying to find your channel for a while and I sent him the link recently. He said your stuff was buried under about 300 other videos from random content creators. I think that RUclips is trying to stifle your information and ability to get it out to people. I will do what I can to promote your content. God bless you brother.
RUclips is satanic and satanic beings are literally filled with parasitical wyrms, possible fallen angels, that really hate God.
any of my comments that has a link to any of LSS's videos are simply hidden by RUclips's algorithms(so no one can see them. not even me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Hopefully it is trying to stifle this tripe this hogwash
@@Walleyedwosaik care to deal with the contents of the video with science instead of rhetoric?
Let me guess - the god of Abraham made all this? Right?
With his Magic Jesus Fingers.
This channel is backed by the "Discovery Institute"- which so far has discovered NOTHING. Their mission statement was leaked some time ago. Forget the "we identify design but not the designer" bullshit. The designer is a ......[checks notes].....a Mr Jesus of the Christ family.
Y'all acting smart. You know nothing
@@mcmanustony 100%.
@@Dmaj089 Ignoramus.
Can you write down those names of those mathematicians properly . Because I’m not sure they are real or you made them up. I can’t Google them because writing is so unclear
He did see 4:20-4:28
@@cherryannjoseph3671 how many of those are mathematicians?
This has to be the most well animated, cutest, and completely dishonest strawman I've ever seen constructed.
im SURREEE you can tell us why without resorting to personal attacks. Make a video. I'm sure he'll respond!
@@Pyr0Ben Thats not a bad idea.
@@deaconofbiology6249well it’s been a month now so where is it?
@@sydn2698 Working on a few vids now. A response to this one is further down the pipeline. First vid on Stephen Meyer will be up tomorrow. Vids will be spaced out every three weeks due to Postdoc time commitments and figuring out how to work vid editing software.
You know what's cuter? Thinking you've outresearched that straw man. That's cute indeed.
So why we still have those pictures in our textbooks?
@Dhruva Punde Its because Darwinism goes hand in hadn with todays Secular mindset of the western culture, both Darwinism and Secular as we know it today where born around the French Revolution and its ideologies which Western Civilization uses today.
inspiredme7030 ***whoever study Natural Sciences knows about it, if you really whants to study this branch of science, you will have the answer otherwise just ignore it.***
It's a religion.
@@AngelRamirez-zv6qpthen how you think we existed?
@@AngelRamirez-zv6qp umm "foolish" XD
Theory's do not die just their proponents do.
Oh please, it is 'theories'
@@dougsmith6793 Yes, I know.
True.
Funny how evolution by natural selection does not have that problem. This video is made by paid liars.
Evolution is the most well-substantiated scientific theory of all time. Meanwhile, your religious beliefs have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.
Nice video 👌 please make more.
you got it: ruclips.net/video/lk1gDk1wGhQ/видео.html
@@LongStoryShortVideos bro I already watched your video before you even send me the link I recognized your voice. Im huge fan of your work and style.
@@LongStoryShortVideos bro keep making videos ignore these evolutionist coz they mock others believe but once we moke their video they get really mad.
@@LongStoryShortVideos When it comes to *Common Ancestry* , it's difficult to know how much of it *Intelligent Design* Proponents accept since there's no consensus among them.
Now you argue that using Homology as evidence of Common Ancestry is circular reasoning..... however you employed that same *"circular reasoning"* when comparing different humans. It seems to me that ID Proponents will only dispute that *Homology is evidence of common ancestry* when discussing organisms they don't accept are related (Humans and Bats), but would happily entertain the argument when discussing organisms they accept are related (Tiger ane Lion).
I just wanted to when exactly is using Homology as evidence of common ancestry acceptable, and when it becomes fallacious....... Because it'll be pretty entertaining to see how ID Proponents will classify extinct organisms like *Trilobites* without invoking the same argument they're arguing against.
@@Call_Me_Emo1 Similarity between siblings etc. is not circular because we are not using it as evidence, sorry thought that was obvious, we know they're brothers already and then can reason from there. The evidence they're related is that brothers tend to have the same mom or dad.
Homology, when defined in terms of common ancestry can never then be used as evidence for common ancestry, that's the definition of circular reasoning. It goes for any topic as well. You can say X because X, that's incoherent. This is what the NCSE says as well, homology isn't really evidence at all, the evidence is supposedly drawn from DNA etc. (but as explained there are problems there as well).
Love that you're doing this. There are so many falsities with Darwinian evolution, I started writing them down and kept coming up with more. You could write novel series on how non-sensical it is. Macro evolution is a big joke, which is why the had to fake findings and shave down Lucy's hip bones to turn them into something resembling a human and then present her standing with over a foot of non existent height.
macro evolution happens XD sorry bud (btw no such thing as macro and micro they are both just evolution)
@@Xarai it doesn't really happen though.
I hope you realize other often better early hominin fossils exist. They also demonstrate arms shorter than or similar in length to the legs and hips, femur angles, and knee joints consistent with bipedalism. If Lucy is anything like her close relatives then the reconstruction is more or less accurate. The pelvis as found was in an anatomically impossible position. The reworking was necessary to restore the bone to it’s original form.
@@Xarai there's no such thing as evolution it's made up and you believe in it , if evolution is true everything formed from molten rock not Lucy or whatever some guy in a lab coat tells you, your faith is in man and man will not save you
@@JROCK100ification evolution is a biological science. Rocks arent biological
We have actually found fossils in the pre-Cambrian layers. They are not amazingly advanced, mostly because most of them seem to have been invertebrates, and those fossilized only with great difficulty. When I was a kid, it was believed that there were simply no fossils, but now we know they are simply really hard to find. Which makes a huge difference.
The beginning of the Cambrian is generally referred to as the period of the “Cambrian explosion”, a period during which life rapidly expanded and rapidly evolved. I am perfectly cool with assuming that there was not a terribly large amount of sophisticated life prior to the Cambrian, but the explosion of life seems to indicate a change in environmental conditions that made it more conducive to life. Virus you get a lot more animals pretty much everywhere and much the same way that you would suddenly get a lot more animals in the Sahara desert if you put out food and water for them every day. Better living conditions equal more life. Worse, living conditions, equal less life, and we have seen periods where that happens as well. And the more life there is the more it will compete in the more it will adapt to take advantage of certain strategies competition that benefit them. Likewise, in periods, where there is less life evolution runs slower because there are fewer animals to experiment.
None of which means that God didn’t do this, by the way. There is no reason to assume that God didn’t use evolution in his tool kit when creating the universe. It’s simply means things went a bit slower than is generally talk in the Abrahamic religions.
Repost by Dobermann 89
You do not see changes. You presume the changes you have no way to prove that any of those fish gave birth to another. You are making assumptions.
@@mohamedlaarabi7148 Considering that one fish disappears after a new similar fish appears, it's really not much of an assumption.
@@mohamedlaarabi7148
Evolution says that there is very little change in offspring.
One species doesn't give birth to another.
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 provide evidence, record it, upload it on youtube or it's all fairy tale
To see and observe is to believe
Darwin was a giant of science who conceived of the correct theory of natural selection as the origin of the species. A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP.
Natural selection works for cells and molecules within cells. 43 different biochemical processes that feed back on DNA to control gene expression and hence phenotype means that the phenotype can vary on a much quicker time frame than mutation alone.
Sure, the concept of macroevolution is quite absurd, considering that we still have the primitive species, and they haven't evolved this whole time, what doesn't negate the microevolution, namely the adoption to changing environment and shaping of races within a single specie, because we can naturally reproduce this process by ourselves.
@Mattand There's a huge difference between the macroevolution where a specie supposed to evolve into a completely different specie, and between the microevolution where a single specie is only adopting to the environment, but doesn't change its fundamental nature as a specie.
@Mattand Not sure how lions and tigers are related, but the main problem is that we still have access to the most primitive of species, which may have various races, but haven't developed into anything more advanced until this day, what makes the macroevolution very unlikely. However, if we take your example with the relation between apes and humans, it's very probable that we share a common humanoid-ancestor, who was still capable of development when the apes were formed.
@Mattand I would agree if you mean that the animal-species which we have today are incapable of development, and all those species share some common features, what suggests that they're related by some common ancestor which was still capable of development when those species were formed, so the only question remains, what kind of ancestor are we talking about.
@Mattand I thought you meant that those animal-species which we have today didn't evolve from each other, but from some proto-specie, which was capable of development, but have gone extinct, otherwise you would be suggesting that those animal-species which we have today are indeed capable of development.
@Mattand I've no issue with various animals and humans sharing common features, and thus a common ancestor, but just wonder what common ancestor/proto-specie you're talking about, since we can still find a whole spectrum of more and less complex species which have remained in their primitive form until this day, what means that their lineage in general is not capable of developing into anything else, hopefully you see the problem.
The beginning of life & the evolution are a really different topics
But both are contained in the same theory the origins of life.
@@shadowknightgladstay4856 no the origins of species not the origins of life , no body even knows how life started on earth
@@恶魔城血的回旋曲是完 Then that makes it even easier to discredit. Life and conciousness are even greater mysteries with evolution as the model, But they are considered incorrectly the same in evolution theory, Evolution says life started from many chemical reactions before bacteria. it is actually.... the same argument to them.
@@jsbaldo5556 this is like discrediting all computer peograming because nobody agrees wwere thw first computer was actually prosuced.
@@spinosaurusstriker Eh that's a red haring, doesn't play well with the argument at all.
Well this typical ID-ish "Origins or Bust" presentation still doesn't make the therapsids go away, or account for why we have so many Alus in our genome.
"The cambrian fossils remained unchanged throughout the period." Thats not true, we do see a change in the animal within the fossil record, especially with vertebrates. Pikaia was the earliest chordate (505 mya) and after that, we find fish with more compex skeletons like Guiyu Oneiros (425 mya). The Cambrian was also when the first major organisms had hard parts that could fossilize well, that could explain why theres an abundance of organisms in the fossil record (yes, there have been soft-bodied organisms that have fossilized, but they are few in number). We have also found life that could be the precursors to the complex Cambrian life, animals like Ikaria Warootia and Spriggina.
You do not see changes. You presume the changes you have no way to prove that any of those fish gave birth to another. You are making assumptions.
I fear that you are beating your head against the brick wall of your own blind incomprehension. Your comment makes no sense to anyone, who retains a smidgen of common sense. Sometimes it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open it, and leave no doubt whatsoever.
I admire your blind faith though!
@@Dobermann89-dr2rc bruh
@@flixtocicgaming3576 Got a bridge I would like to sell you
Dobermann 89 You did not disprove anything that lollie7141 wrote, you presumed they were no changes during the Cambrian period.
Random mutation and natural selection is Absurd
yet both can be observed in short lived, high reproductive bacteria and viruses. By yourself too if you are so inclined.
@@bulkinggod3872 There’s no way random mutation natural selection is adequate to do the job yes we seen mutations do small things curly hair dogs short dogs anti-resistant bacteria to antibiotics but that’s all it does mathematicians do the calculations they said it’s so improbable that it did not happen anywhere else in the universe but go ahead believe it believe they found the mechanism and then I will believe a 90 pound weakling bench press the entire earth
@@MMAGUY13 yes but death and birth are also factors. Im sure you have met (or yourself) people that don't look like their parents, and that is only one generation.
@@bulkinggod3872but they are still humans lol
@@purelyrandom1230 yes and little by little it changes the same way you grew up little by little. Unnoticeable unless you take a larger timeframe.
Amazing video
Darwins biggest problem is modern biology. Disproves his theory.
How? Where is the research where this has been established?
@@danielmartinsson899 if you follow the community many scientists want to replace his theory.
Some good articles to read that show the objectionable evidence against it are from the human evolution magazine, 2018 volume 33, Stoeckle &Thaler. The largest DNA study, that shows both animal and human life likely arose at the same time. Which also aligns with the fossil record of Cambrian Explosion. As well as no inter genetic relationship among species.
Then a other study that is still on going. The largest evolutionary study on Bacteria. Since Bacteria generations happen 6-7 days what better organism to study the idea of Darwins origin of species. We are up to generation 100k+ in studying the bacteria. What they have found is, yes they adapt to their environment like all life does on this planet. However there are limitations to this adaptation. Because they are still considered e coli bacteria after generations of change, they didn't morph into another type of bacteria or something different.
These studies don't are not widely advertised because they go against the status quo. If it doesn't fit the narrative, they are typically swept under the rug.
@@jaysmith6863
How many of those scientists are biologists?
@@jaysmith6863 Sorry, you think there were humans during the Cambrian? Fish weren't even a thing yet.
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 The geological column is a myth, only exists on paper.
This early fossil record argument is so funny. You have what is called a Selection Bias because your view of early life history is limited by the amount of fossils that can be found. Hard shelled things are MORE LIKELY to fossilize. This is why science relies on consensus and double checking, so you iron out mistakes.
Stick to animating please.
This video discusses some pretty niche stuff, which is impressive, but also completely misrepresents other things at the same time. For example, at 7:18, things like epigenetic inheritance and evo-devo are presented as "competitors" to explain the holes in neo-Darwinism. But I don't really see how most of them even address the question, and they definitely don't conflict with each other. In fact, several of these are part of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. They are all part of understanding evolution and exploring different aspects of it.
There are pre-Cambrian fossils, which are the Ediacaran biota. We have putative very early representatives of multiple animal phyla here. They are simple, hard to identify, and fossilize poorly, exactly as we would expect based on evolutionary theory and the diversity and interrelations of living animals. They diversified relatively quickly, as sometimes happens, and the fossil record is splotchy for certain lineages, as also happens. But it is actually far more "complete" than you present here. We have early chordates, arthropods, and molluscs, which are the three biggest living phyla of animals.
The second challenge, about proteins, is more compelling. I don't know much about it yet. But there are a few things to note here. The claim being made is that Darwin got ahead of himself and didn't realize how unlikely useful proteins are to evolve. But I think the scientists themselves are getting ahead of themselves. We barely understand proteins at all, and we're going to just do some back-of-the-envelope calculations and convince ourselves it's impossible? I am generally very skeptical of these types of "calculations" to answer very broad questions with limited knowledge. We will surely see that there is some explanation for this; nature being full of surprises doesn't just apply to Darwin, but to this question itself. We know nothing.
And, to the same point, this calculation wouldn't be grounds for dismissing all of the rest of what we know about evolution. And certainly not to just say "god did it", which is even less satisfying to me than impossible dice rolls. That's because, the biggest take-home here, WE KNOW EVOLUTION IS TRUE. Even all these people you quoted dismissing neo-Darwinism, every single one of them, still believes evolution is true. The proof of evolution isn't just one part of the fossil record or how it makes proteins. It is in everything, from the fossil record as a whole to every single detail of anatomy and biochemistry and metabolism and neurology to genetics to developmental science to microbiology and beyond. It has long ago become abundantly clear that all life on Earth shares common descent via a branching network of relations. As has been said, nothing in modern biology would make sense without it. I think you fail to realize just what is at stake when you throw all this out because of your protein problem. You have a far, far, far bigger problem filling the void and explaining all the new questions left by tossing out evolution in even its most basic formulation.
that is the creationist method. identify some niche with questionable data, or something not known, and propose that one thing as disproving the entire theory. of course what is known fully supports evolution.
@@billjohnson9472 Exactly, you have to evaluate the total balance of evidence, not just look at one problem point, even if it seems to be a very serious one. Dismissing all of the other, non-problematic evidence is also a serious problem!
Another good example of this is the fossil record. It is in spectacular, stunning concordance with the sum of scientific knowledge and expectations, but creationists like to focus on a few supposedly problematic fossils, as if that dismisses all the thousands of unproblematic ones.
@@HuckleberryHim I would be interested in an actual articulation of a creationist theory in detail, and how it explains the various types of observed evidence. To my knowledge none have published such a text.
Darwin,s Theory is revolutionary scientific observation of animate kingdom to man kingdom for acknowledgeable to reach out humans of this world .
It was revolutionary back then and Wallace came up with too.
It is not present theory but was correct enough for that time. Present theory is better and this video was made to people about it.
Neanderthals and archeopterix were both known to Darwin later in life. He would have shot down creationists if he had studied Gregor Mendal's story on legumes.
People have got to understand that evolution has many models
Darwinian evolution might be the most popular but it’s not a scientific fact but a scientific theory which can be refuted using the falsification test presented with the theory
There's only one model with one specific definition.
You're right except Darwinian Evolution isn't the most popular. Modern Synthesis is. Darwin believed something like that you had little floating miniature organs and when you lost an arm your children would grow with a smaller arm. He had no clue about genetics or heritance. But we still respect him because he layed the foundation for what we have now
@@andrewenderfrost8161 ??? That is not what darwin said at all, he proposed that traits that improved a species’ chance at survival would be found in their descendants
@@andrewenderfrost8161 Do you even know what evolution is?
@Abdullah There's only one theory with one definition, changes in alleles frequencies over generations in populations. You don't know what evolution is.
6:25
That number assumes proteins come about all from scratch. If that calculation was correct, then we couldn't even get dogs from wolves.
Fortunately we were able to get dogs from wolves and the new proteins that evolved with them. That's because proteins evolve from preexisting materials.
Interesting, exactly which new proteins evolved with dogs?
@@LongStoryShortVideos before we go further, I want you to understand that evolution is *Descent with Modifications* and thus every new gene or protein or trait or whatever is always a modification of what's already there.
Anyway.... Here's an example.
Quote: "More surprising were genes for digesting starch. Dogs had four to 30 copies of the gene for amylase, a protein that starts the breakdown of starch in the intestine. Wolves have only two copies, one on each chromosome"
*Diet shaped Dog domestication*
www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/01/diet-shaped-dog-domestication
Dogs didn't come from wolves. Wolves and the different breeds of dogs were created separately from each other.
@@vesuvandoppelganger citations please.... Thanks 👍
It's simply obvious. Do you really think that if you start out with a group of wolves you will eventually get a Chihuahua or any other breed of dog? Why would that happen? Where is the new genetic information going to come from that will turn a wolf into a certain breed of dog?
Your final speculative question is exactly what I was internally asking. Thanks for the good work and in sharing this information.
Why are all life symmetrical?
"if it's so difficult for scientists to prove what they want to believe..." he's already wrong. that's not what scientists do. they literally look for ways to disprove their hypothesis.
Ediacaran fauna disprove this entire video.
Baylor Christian University In the Department of Biology, the science we teach and the science we research are all about understanding our world. I think you might even say that we have a Biblical mandate to understand God’s world. We are supposed to be stewards and care takers of the world that we inherited. We don’t own it and so we must understand it in order to preserve it and care for it. This goes for all of humanity as well as for the planet. Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University (Waco, TX) teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science’s statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.
Okay, list the errors in the video and provide relevant sources to support your arguments.
Give me one evidence of the evidences you have
So weird how you guys defend this theory more than any preacher defends his religion
@@mustivahmed1077 What the hell is an "Evidence of the evidences"?
Evidently, you are as clueless as all the other creationists.
@@mustivahmed1077 Here is the very first one. The video list a sudden appearance of life forms in the Cambrian. The Cambrian consisted of 4 subperiods and lasted 53.4 million years from the end of the preceding Ediacaran Period 538.8 million years ago (mya) to the beginning of the Ordovician Period 485.4 mya. Is that sudden for you? All life forms in the Cambrian had predecessor lifeforms in the Ediacaran period proceeding it.
The rest of the video has a ton of misinformation.
@@maylingng4107
You skipped my question to answer another one, I didnt tell you that what is the scientific errors in such a video, I asked respectfully for one evidence backing this hypothesis such as any other scientific hypothesis.
My problem have nothing to do with this hypothesis, it maybe true and maybe false. my problem is that this hypothesis looks like it has more psychological reasons rather than scientific ones in a way that makes it looks more like a dogma rather than just a hypothesis
Doing what evolution deniers do best, quote mining. Just by the by, punctuated equilibruim was not a competing theory to Darwinian evolution. It merely said that evolution didn't happen in small slow steps, but in periods of rapid evolution followed by long periods of stasis. Stephen Jay Gould was very much a Darwinian, and anyone who had read more than a couple of quotes would know that. Gould wrote hundreds of essays for Natural HIstory magazine, all of which addressed different aspects of evolution. The video presenter should probably read them. Evolution has had some problems, right from the beginning. First, it ran afoul of Christians who believed that life was created by their god.They would never, and will never, accept evolution because of their religious beliefs. Secondly, evolution denied that humans were the most evolved of creatures. Many people, religous and otherwise, find that hard to accept. As far as the mathematical argument, think of this. A pebble is at the top of a very tall, steep sided, mound of gravel. Something causes the pebble to move. It bounces, rolls, and slides down the slope of the mound, eventually reaching the bottom. On the way, it follows a course dictated by a number of things, including the steepness of the slope, the size of the various other pebbles that it hits, the exact angle at which it hits them, etc. Calculate the odds of the pebble following that exact course down the side of the mound. It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize the odds against that course are just incredible. Yet there it is, at the bottom of the pile.
Your argument presupposes the veracity of evolution. You say we know the pebble was on top of the mountain at some point, and now we know it's down at the bottom. This is begging the question, we actually DON'T know that the pebble was ever at the top of the mountain.
Darwinism tries to prove that given the pebble exists at the bottom of the mountain, it must have gotten there by natural means and not by some kind of intelligent force putting it there. Name a single (one) system of coding and decoding that exists on Earth besides DNA that was not designed by an intelligence.
I didn't even read it once I saw how many words you put you really have to put a lot of explanation into your thoughts and that proves that it's b*******
@@Corey-y5i I admit that my comments are not written for those with short attention spans.
@@throckmortensnivel2850 I as a Christian have no reason to deny evolution. The whole thing still would make sense since it's more likely that the whole 1 day = 1000 years is a metaphore since back then 1000 was Seen as a lot. Theologically speaking, God exists outside of time, thus what for him is one day can even be billions of years and I'm not gonna tell God how he should create humanity. TL:DR : I think we christians should let God cook no matter what way he should/would. It doesn't matter wether or not he did it through evolution. If I was him, I think I WOULD make it organized and make it make sense.
@@dominikdurkovsky8318 Honestly, I think the creation science types lack faith. They want science to back there beliefs because they really don't believe it themselves. As far as the time thing, there is even a bible verse that says to God one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day, which I take to mean that time means nothing to God, which makes sense in that if you are indeed eternal, after a while, time would fail to register. What would God do for all those eternities? Perhaps God created the universe in a fit of boredom.
Awesome video. I wonder why I hadn't stumbled on it before. Maybe the chances were ten to a thousand trillion trillion...
Man
Ediacaran fauna has joined the chat
That last Trillion :,D
I'm trying to find the source for Stephen Jay Gould's quote "I have been reluctant to admit it..." Please reply with that reference. Thanks for the cool videos!
Take it as read that creationists lie by quote mining- it saves time.
The source seems to be: Gould, S. J. 1980. Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6: 119-130.
Lying is endemic in these videos. Why do you think it is cool to lie like they do?
It's literally a quote in his publication from 1980
"Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging"
Your dogmatic approach to a mere theory lacking evidence is showing😅@@mcmanustony
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yvIt's literally a quote in his publication from 1980
"Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging"
Your dogmatic approach to a mere theory lacking evidence is showing😅
If not evolution, then what other theory proposes a more reasonable possibility to how life changed over time?
maybe we can say 'we don't know'? in science thats an option right
The question is fallacious. The assumption of evolution is that there is a materialistic explanation for all of history. If it is the case that all we can know and study is what is before us such that it is verifiable and predictive, then it is what it is.
@@akshat.jaiswal Guess what? Evolution already explains how species gradually change over time. You clearly did not bother studying Biology in school.
@@jannyjt2034 Evolution is a well-known fact. Just because you ignore it, that doesn’t mean that materialism is insufficient.
WHY DOESN'T THIS CHANNEL HAVE MILLIONS OF SUBS???
Because it’s full of shit. Anti science creationist nonsense
Read the comment section and you know why. But I feel you!
What a nonsensical video.., 😂😂😂
Yup.
are we really back to the age of rejecting evolution
Over 150,000,000 humans were born in 2021 with many mutations, that's far more than any supposedly "neanderthals" that ever existed throughout time. Why haven't humans evolved into another species??
@rs72098 That's perfectly in line with evolution, the problem is that you have no idea what evolution is.
I don't think so. I also don't think having questions about the theory indicate a rejection of it.
First, the entire video ignores the fact evolution is not defined by or dependant on fossils; second, the 1966 symposium was just that, a gathering that didn't produce peer review work challenging evolution:
"It is doubtful whether this symposium has done much to influence the theory of evolution"
John L.Harper
School of Plant Biology
University College of North Wales
In other words, the symposium was a non-event.
Third, the end of the video misrepresents modern evolution. It alludes to there being different competing theories. There's only one theory with one definition. The debate is about the rate and of change of evo, and which mechanisms are more important, but not that evolution is in doubt.
@Reformed Hillbillies That's irrelevant to my OP. Why do you deny something you know nothing about?
@Reformed Hillbillies Yes. Your first reply proves you know nothing about evolution.
@Reformed Hillbillies Biodiversity.
@Reformed Hillbillies That's not a refutation.
@Reformed Hillbillies You proclaiming something is definitely not. You at least need an argument.
Thank you
For the algorithm
Who was waiting for the last...trillion 😂?
great video man.!
Bruh, Darwin is about the evolution of species, not the evolution of life.
Under his theory all life forms arose from one single cell bacterium ancestor. Again, that is “all” life forms from mushrooms, grass, bananas to humans. Yes, his theory propositions that all species of life that ever lived arose from this single celled organism that arose from random acts of nature. However, under this naturalistic framework it also necessitates that this first life form arose randomly. Good luck in finding any neo-darwinist who believes otherwise. It’s like a religious person stating the story of Noah placing animals on the arc never mentions a miracle having occurred. That would be true but clearly it necessitates a miracle. Lastly, you seem to be out of loop with the standard thought which goes even further. According to the standard model, all life not only arose from the same bacterium organism which was the product of random acts of nature, it too is result of our entire universe arising from an random act. Now consider that. The Big Bang states that the entire universe came into existence from nothing. For you to object to Darwin not explaining the origin, but instead change shows that you are simply repeating talking points that mis the greater implications of the standard origins models.
Takes a huge amount of blind faith to believe evolution.
There is a mountain of evidence. Faith is not involved: this is just a tired old slogan
It takes tons of ignorance not to believe in the truth of evolution.
@@mcmanustonywhere is this mountain of evidence it's all based on homology and explaining the fossils as evolution being true
@@killerbee6484 The evidence is in fossil collections, in lab experiments, in 250,000 peer reviewed research papers in a dozen and more branches of science over the course of 160 years- of which you've read and understood not a single one.
Have you ever opened a book on evolution written by a biologist. If so can you cite it. If not, why the hell are you commenting on a vast subject of which you know precisely nothing?
It takes a huge amount of blind faith to believe in god
Darwin wrote his book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" more than 150 years ago, since then the theory of evolution has stepped far, far, far forward. Any biologist now discussing issues of evolution relies on the modern synthetic theory of evolution and not on a book from 150 years ago. Yes, this is the scientific basis from which the development of the theory of evolution began. But seriously criticizing it now is ridiculous! Dear critics, you are 150 years late. Paleontologists have complete expanded chains of sequences of ancient predecessors of modern horses, wolves, bears, whales, elephants and so on. And of course modern primates, including humans. There are chains of predecessors for many extinct species, including various dinosaurs, ancient extinct sharks, theropods of the Permian period, ancient plants, etc. But no, evolution does not work! We do not have a chain of development of representatives of the "Cambrian explosion". As for the described mathematical model, this is a striking example when people incompetent in this matter undertake the study of some issue. It is not enough to be a mathematician or a programmer, you also need to be a geneticist. You need to understand the mechanisms of genetics, they are not random. Nature first created a "programming language", a kind of "Unreal Engine 5", and only after creating it began to quickly and effectively stamp out not only new species, but also new genera, families, orders and classes of animals and plants.
That's not even true. No claimed transitional fossil is provably phylogenetically related to any extant organism.
@@sliglusamelius8578 if you have evidence refuting evolution from paleontology bring it on. Science doesn't deal with proof it deals in evidence.
You don't have any evidence.
We do.
We win.
@@mcmanustony
You are making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on you. You don't have it. There is no provably phylogenetic linkage of all extant fauna back to a common ancestor, let alone single-celled organisms. Prove it, the burden is yours, not mine..
@@mcmanustony
Off the top of my head, some icons of evolution that were proved false:
Vestigial organs such as human yolk sacs and appendixes and tail bones (😂)
Bad design such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Neanderthals being a different species from H sapiens. Domestic dogs being descended from gray wolves. Peppered moth narrative. Eugenics. (that's a very bad claim from YOUR side, own it). Pakicetus being a transitional fossil. Piltdown and Nebraska Man. Pathetic bunch of lies..
@@mcmanustony
That is false. There is no proof of the concept of the phylogenetic linkage of all extant fauna back to a common ancestor. The burden of proof is on you..
And yet even if evolution was shown to be wrong, it does.not mean a god or creator did it
Well it does
Why do many evolutionists have such thin skin?
Dan
What’s the punishment for apostasy? You god is pretty thin skinned too.
Charles Bickel, you wrote, "What’s the punishment for apostasy? You god is pretty thin skinned too."
Haven't you read? My God is longsuffering.
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools your god doesnt exist sooo i think you are the one suffering for so long
Xarai wrote, "@Bible Research Tools your god doesnt exist sooo i think you are the one suffering for so long"
Who brainwashed you, kid?
Dan
@@Xarai your evolution isn't even real, because according to scientists liquid water, right atmosphere, right distance from the sun, life giving cycles etc. Were all responsible for supporting life here on earth, but can you tell me brother, because if wee HUMANS AND EARTHLY ANIMALS AND EARTHLY LIFE needs all these conditions to survive and evolve then in other planets there must be other species and other form of life which find atmosphere of that planet suitable, BUT...... the PROBLEM is that even planets most similar to earth don't have life as we HUMAN BEINGS, if there may be some tiny living creatures, then why aren't they EVOLVING??
The fossil record does agree with evolution. The fossil record is literally an argument for evolution.
Just because some scientists in the old days argued if evolution is gradual or quick is irrelevant to the fact that geology confirms evolution.
@BrighterThanGold that doesn't debunk evolution. Evolution does not depend on how well tissue fossilises.
The fact that you never find t-rex skeletons with sloth skeletons or stegosaurus skeletons does help verify evolution.
@Ise River Please explain which fossils agree with evolution. The entire fossil record flies in the face of macro evolution.
@@Ethan-mv2un macro and micro evolution are the same thing.
And all fossils agree with evolution, because all fossils transition.
You'll never find a t-rex skeleton with a mammoth skeleton.
@@iseriver3982 dude, you just keep making these statements but have no idea what you're saying.
1. They are not the same. Micro evolution can be explained as variation and adaptation to an environment. Macro is the dramatic change of an organism to another type of organism.
2. Fossils do not transition, please reference an example? There are huge gaps and distinct differences between fossils from different time periods, with no real links to explain a gradual change.
3. I have no idea why you're talking about mammoths and Tyrannosaurus.
@@Ethan-mv2un you have no idea because you aren't as smart as you like to think you are.
You will never find t-rex fossils with mammoth fossils because mammoths evolved after the T-Rex went extinct.
We have many transitional fossils showing the evolution of t-rex and mammoths. But you ignore those.
And macro and micro evolution are the same thing. You can't have one without the other, it's two ends of the same spectrum.
The problem is that they want it to be right even if it isn’t thats the actual problem
@Mattand or we share common designer.
It is right.
@@peteconrad2077 yeah what ever buddy
@@muaath. can you offer any evidence that it isn’t?
@@peteconrad2077 i mean I could but unfortunately its not in English you should do your own research I’m pretty sure you’ll find a lot of interesting stuff
And you should check out a movie called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed it is not evidence i think its a good movie to watch and its related to the subject
Yeah, problems, but not that bad
Paleontologists have complete expanded chains of sequences of ancient predecessors of modern horses, wolves, bears, whales, elephants and so on. And of course modern primates, including humans. There are chains of predecessors for many extinct species, including various dinosaurs, ancient extinct sharks, theropods of the Permian period, ancient plants, etc. Speaking about dinosaurs, we can remember that the entire history of the archosaur clade is before our eyes, from ancient dinosauromorphs to modern dinosaurs - birds! But no, evolution does not work! We do not have a chain of development of representatives of the "Cambrian explosion". As for the described mathematical model, this is a striking example when people incompetent in this matter undertake the study of some issue. It is not enough to be a mathematician or a programmer, you also need to be a geneticist. You need to understand the mechanisms of genetics, they are not random. Nature first created a "programming language", a kind of "Unreal Engine 5", and only after creating it began to quickly and effectively stamp out not only new species, but also new genera, families, orders and classes of animals and plants.
Nature first created a programming language?
@@Mr.BVogel The basic formula in biology is DNA > protein > trait. So the formation of new traits occurs not by random replacement of individual amino acids in DNA chains (against this, there are powerful biological defense mechanisms that reduce the probability of such mutations by several orders of magnitude), but by exchanging entire sections of homologous chromosomes during conjugation in the prophase of the first division of meiosis. For more information, you can read "Chromosomal crossover" on the Internet. This is the main, but not the only mechanism of variability. This is exactly why there are TWO sexes in nature, male and female. Even in plants. Sorry, LGBT + (no). The ability to variability is a key property of life on Earth, a key mechanism for survival in the long term. Yes, there are hermaphrodites, for example, some parasites, for which finding an individual of the opposite sex is an extremely difficult task, but this is an exception to the general rule.
Great video! 👍Evolutionists also have a major problem with human demographics as well. If humans appeared 200,000 years ago in West Africa, we'd have waaay more than people than 7 billion. Written languages would have been started much earlier than 5,000 B.C. Many argue that we were hunter gatherers for 190,000 years, but really??? How long does it take to domestic a cow or a chicken? these slow animals were domesticated in Sumer 5,000 year ago according to many archeologists. Not to mention many languages, especially written languages expanded outward from the middle east. Virtually all writting systems outside of China's logographic language are related to phoenician. Even Aztec calendars have bear some resemblance to the Chinese calendar. Something is seriously off about evolution and people need to atleast acknowledge some of the holes within that theory.
I like everything you had to say here, do you have and sources or videos that I can check out to explore this further? This is a different critique of evolution that I have not heard yet
@@jordand1609 No I don't, these are just things I noticed while researching demographics, languages, human development and evolution. Kent Hovind definitely goes into detail on some of these topics.
long story short they don't care which is fine except when they lie out of their asses just to spread atheism
Why would we have way more people than 7 billion today? The Industrial Age brought in a massive spike in population growth for obvious reasons, but before that population growth was relatively slow.
Why must written language have been started long before 5000 years ago? Early humans would likely have had spoken-only languages for a very long time, and likely very primitive written language was indeed started long before 5000 years ago.
Well said brother! Do you make videos?
So I get the problems people have with the video, but I'm more curious as to what the creator believes this "evidence" implies, or what he believes.
Is he saying he thinks life started in the Cambrian? or that life in the Cambrian was more or less similar to life today? which life forms did God/the "Intelligent Designer" create, and which didn't he? is he saying he thinks God/IDer created the most basal members of the phyla we see today, and evolution did the rest to diversify these phyla? did God/the IDer create new life forms constantly throughout the hundreds of millions of years since the Cambrian(and what about before the Cambrian?) Does he accept the dates of these fossils and the diversification of life throughout the fossil/geologic record? does God not only create whole organisms, but also new genes/structures/organs, etc.? and how would we tell? is he a young earth creationist? etc.
Seems to point to intelligent design.
If the creator of the video believes it, he did a really good job of hiding his bias.
Seems to be trying not to waist his time trying to force you to believe things but show you the problems in certain beliefs
I think you’re missing the broader point of the video, which to me is “why is it not okay to question the theories that are taught and defended as if they were laws”? For example. Sauropod dinosaurs. How could something like that exist? On plants? We’re talking caloric needs in the hundreds of thousands a day. The only reason Blue whales can do it is because of their efficiency, they can eat almost 500,000 calories in one mouthful of Krill. Something that walks around carrying dozens of thousands of tons of weight chewing on plants?!? That’s preposterous and absurd even more so when you consider that nothing but bone fragments of these proposed giants have ever been found and that literally every skeleton in the museums millions visit a year are simply artistic representations of what they should look like based on our “best guess”.
What about megalodon? They base its size estimates on teeth that have been found by assuming it’s tooth-body size ratio is comparable to a great white. Ever see a hammerheads teeth? That size extrapolation method Ain’t exactly gonna work here with a giant hammerhead shark…
Evolutionary biology and Paleontology get away with so much unscientific BS because they adhere to the rules of the founders from over 100 years ago. The dinosaur race of the late 1800’s was basically two frauds trying to outdo each other for what were essentially carnival side shows. Claiming to have found the next giant bone that belonged to some monstrosity of the ancient past. Were they all? Probably not, but it was a Victorian dick measuring contest played out via newspapers and magazines.
@@joshuapatrick682 Sauropods didn’t move very much, they lived in densely forested regions, and there is a long portion of the book of job in which a very similar creature is described and called behemoth.
@@joshuapatrick682 Man I dont think evolution is plausible either but theres more than just fragments to go by in the case of the sauropods. After all one was even mentioned in the Bible. That's neither here nor there though. I think with the megalodon the estimated size may be exaggerated a little but something that could carry a tooth like that similar to the make of a great white's probably existed at the relative given proportion and could easily sustain itself.
There is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning posed in this piece. We have a sample size of one for worlds where life was discovered. It's pretty hard to consistently calculate odds within that sample size.Some mathematicians have done their circle jerks over this but I find it unlikely that they hashed out the probabilities quite as thoroughly as you insist. Scientific theories do not go through processes to prove them as you presupposed throughout this misleading piece. That is actually how creationists do their falsely called science. Instead peer review tries to disprove the premise and conclusions. It is only when going through the rigorous process of peers in the field attacking the premise over and over and failing to disprove it does it get to being called a theory. A theory in science is as close to being determined to be objective reality as science will state. They do not rest on their laurels they are always looking for a better explanation.
With the above in mind, your piece either misunderstands the scientific method or is deliberately misleading about it.
@RDE Lutherie I was merely being charitable. Apologetics are not about the truth, they are about defending the faith
@RDE Lutherie I never deleted it. Permaybe haps the owner of this channels is trying to fuck with us with shadow deletion of comments.
That would fit the mold of the dishonest piece of shit that runs this channel.
Confirmed. That comment you said I deleted is still visible when I am logged in but not when I am logged out.
@RDE Lutherie Yeah, that's not what happened. I don't have anything to prove here though. I never deleted it and it is visible in Firefox but not Edge. I never ever logged in to my youtube account in Edge so that is not what happened.
I could uoload an screen cap but I just don't care enough to. If you think I'm lying about something as stupid as this then you are even more ridiculous than the shithead who runs this channel.
@RDE Lutherie Well if you use Firefox, then you should know that is clears the cache every time you close it. Cached pages was useful in a time when everyone was on dial up and didn't want to wait 16 years for a page to load.
The only point of dispute I had with you was your contention that I deleted my comment. I told you I didn't.
FYI, youtube uploaders have the ability to mask comments in such a way that the person who made them can still see them but no one else can. It's is called on some places shadow banning.
I have a problem with the person who made this video. But my problem with YOU is that instead of acknowledging that my comments are being fucked with, you made a claim that I don't understand page caching in an era where it is utterly obsolete.
and speaking of odds you know that even the universe that we can observe is İNSANELY BİG and theres the part that we cant observe that is bigger than inf times that what we can observe the odds got pretty small compared to infinite odds
WOW! Stop everything. The last 100 years of molecular genetics has been a total waste of time. This youtuber operating from his mom's basement has revolutionized our understanding of molecular biology and I'm sure the Nobel Institute will be in touch soon.
Sadly he’s operating with support from the far right Christian fundamentalist pressure group- the “Discovery” “Institute”
Excellent video. The claimed mechanism for universal common descent is preposterous.
Where’s your evidence fir that claim?
@@peteconrad2077 Ther hasn't been nearly enough time. See... Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory...
@@TheStarflight41 that’s another claim. Got any evidence? We know you haven’t but worth asking.
I must say, I'm not certain that I understand the point you're making here. Like, what's the takeaway? We can observe the continuance of evolution through natural selection, so... I guess the takeaway is that we don't understand the mechanism by which genes come about very well?
Listen again starting at 5:50.
Think about it. Natural selection was not at work during the formation of the first self-replicating organism.
The simplest self-replicating cell requires a minimum of 531,000 base pairs.
Why would random accidental chemical collisions continue stacking more than 2 or 3 base pairs?
Remember, this is undirected chaos.
It does not maintain partially successful attempts as though it has a pattern or goal in mind.
What if on the 10,000th stack, it suddenly includes a hetero-chiral molecule. It has to start completely all over again.
Then if it gets that right (which is impossible) it must wait for the bi-layer, semipermeable, gate-keeping membrane to come along and enclose it to protect it.
And it can't wait. Time is its enemy. Such a fragile molecule would not last 10 minutes if unprotected.
And - o yeah - it must be immediately provided with thousands of ATP synthase machines (equally impossible) to provide energy,
and a waste disposal system,
tRNA to copy DNA data and transfer it to Ribosomes so they can make proteins.
And perhaps the hardest of all, the DNA data must become possessed by an information system comparable to Microsoft Windows, to coordinate the incredibly complex machinery necessary for that first cell to reproduce.
Oh, did I say reproduce?
Think metaphase, anaphase, and telephase just to get the cell to reproduce.
Think about an information system accidentally coming along and possessing the genomic data, and directing to start an explosion of cells that can build deer antlers every year, or a sonar system in dolphins, or radar in bats, kidneys, pituitary glands, feathered wings, sexual reproduction with its attendant incredibly complex hormones, etc. ad infinitum.
The point is that even if you give Evolutionists an almost infinitely complex cell to begin with (trashing the Law of Biogenesis) it can not multiply complexity, energy state and organization (trashing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by some kind of anti-entropic magic) to cause intra-species evolution.
The takeaway is it is totally unreasonable to believe all of this could happen by chance.
And this is where it gets scary.
If it did not happen by chance, the only other game in town is Intelligent Design.
And that requires an Intelligent Designer (Who, considering the incredible complexity and fine-tuning of His creation is practically omniscient).
And what if He created it perfect in every way, only to have it hacked into by one of His very own created beings causing chaos, death, pain, suffering, and all that stuff?
What if The Creator was so benevolent that He offered the blood of His own Son as an atonement for those who had fallen under the power and ways of the evil hacker.
What if He wrote a Book explaining all of this.
What if He said in that Book, "All who come to Me, I will in no wise cast out."
What if He said that He "so loved the world that whosoever believes Him would never perish, but have eternal life."
I humbly submit to you that these five "what ifs" are indeed true.
I humbly submit to you that macro-evolution is a dead-end religion, designed to lead you away from the Creator.
I humbly beg you to talk to Him about it and be reconciled to Him.
Rob
@@robertecarpenter You could have left this comment sooner. I had to figure out on my own (and it wasn't easy, this channel is pretty disingenuous in its aims) that this whole thing is just bait for people who want to believe in god without losing the privilege of feeling like they're smarter than other people, but aren't dumb enough to do that with the standard narrative. It doesn't actually matter whether there are gaps in scientists' understanding of abiogenesis and/or the mechanisms behind mutation; you're not even creating gaps big enough for god to fit in, you're just creating gaps big enough for you to *pretend* god fits. Even if it were proven completely physically infeasible for life to exist naturally, anyone claiming to know anything particular about the nature of the divine would be lying out their ass, and that's *always* what this is: just another way for people to justify their highly specific dogma by manufacturing holes all over anything that doesn't fit in with their idea of the world. You clearly don't have the maturity to say those dreaded words: "I don't know and I can't know and anything that looks like a source of knowledge on this is actively terrible with a probability that rounds up to 100% and should be completely distrusted." Those only words which can ever be honest about this. But that's not what you're here for, that's not what anybody's here for. They either got here by accident or because RUclips thought it would work as engagement bait for them (they were right in my case) or because they're just like you, ravenously searching the world for whatever shallow excuse you can find to shun the views of the unfaithful as naive and unlearned.
@@robertecarpenter Side note, it's not too hard to think that you're just repeating a pile of stuff you heard in some book or blog or something. Something that breaks the second law of thermodynamics? You'd have to have something constantly putting energy into the system from externally, which doesn't make sense, right? There'd have to just be some kinda big glowing orb in space beaming down energy constantly, how absurd. Ugh, at least the video itself had what it took to make the blatant factual errors obvious only to someone with more education than me. You have no imagination for how things could be, as if the first self-replicating organism must have been extraordinarily complex - no, surely it was much simpler than the simplest known organism; maybe we will find it someday, but probably not. Someday somebody will figure out how to bring the whole thing down from unreasonable odds to astronomical odds and if it happens during your lifetime you'll move on to something else as if this all never happened, or deny it fervently by some technicality you believe to be a slam dunk. But as rough as it is, and trust me I know it is, there is no magic, only that which is yet to be understood and that which is lost to time.
The takeaway is that evolution has problems. And maybe don’t believe everything from authority.
@@tylerwinter512 Well, that's certainly the intended takeaway.
Well, it was only a question of time, before ID/creationism entered the EduTuber-sphere with this style of videos. Pretty good attempt at popularizing Intelligent Design in a fun way, snarky way, but it's essentially nothing new under the sun. Jackson Wheat has already tackled this, so I'm not gonna spend much more time on it myself, busy as I am, but I did notice the lack of sources in your vid description. A quick Google search revealed that many of your quotes aiming to demonstrate the "growing skepticism" are pretty outdated, like Frank Salisbury's, which is from 1969. Funny how that follows you mentioning using computers for calculating the odds, since that was still in its infancy before 1970. It's pretty revealing that creationists haven't really come up with anything new since the sixties.
Phrenotopia
, you wrote, "It's pretty revealing that creationists haven't really come up with anything new since the sixties."
Yes, things are pretty much the same. There are still no transitional lines of fossils to be found on the planet, and finches are still finches.
There are some new discoveries that lean the way of the creationist. For example, we now know that 1) speciation and adaptation are devolutionary, rather than evolutionary, 2) Junk DNA is not junk, 3) a pair of coordinated mutations in humans is virtually impossible, 4) species are confined within their respective genetic families, and 5) for all practical purposes, evolution is impossible. I many have left a few things out, but it is not looking good for the evolutionist.
Dan
I am not sure how they crunched the numbers but i feel like an issue with the idea of random traits changing being the sole factor of change may be part of it. Like if suddenly the world had something happen that made it so that all humans over 6 feet had a 90% chance of dying before 20 years of age, we would see humans become shorter. Now humans are a bad example because we have tools that solve most problems for us that would come with being shorter but if that say happened to giraffe than they would begin to struggle to eat from taller trees so it would further restrict height in the population and instead begin to favor those that eat small plants. Pressures also dont have to be the only reason, like if you have a sea based animal that has some of the traits but not the need to temporarily go on land for food and half the population better suited for sea life continues life as normal but the other half chose to use their traits to go on land and spend more time on/near land its effectively divided the population allowing them to each focus on the trains that best suit their style of living. Id say it is more similar to neural networks learning by taking only the best from each generation of training rather than randomly changing and hoping it works out
Correct, mutations are not entirely random. It is an outdated idea that doesn't make a lot of sense. Creationists try to use concepts that have been disproved by scientists to disprove science...lolol
With the human and giraffe examples you cite above, you're not really talking about evolution. At the end of both those sequences, you still have humans and giraffes. You've just depleted the gene pool of "tall" genes, and now you have short humans and short giraffes. They're not a new species. Same idea with the land/sea question - if you have an amphibious creature that starts living more on land, it will likely breed out the aquatic traits. In that case, you've depleted the gene pool, not added new traits.
"Improvise, Adapt to the environment, Darwin S**t happens iChing Whatever man We Gotta Roll with it!"
That was an awesome and humorous recap of the problems with the theoey of evolution. The adaption of species to their environment is so so far from the primordial soup to amoeba to trex trajectory we were all fed in school. Where does all the information in our dna come from? I can't wait for that video.
They don't have one... and never will.
@@TheStarflight41 but we do. It’s added every time a pierce if code gets over duplicated. The surprising thing, given the rate at which that happens is that it’s so small.
Where does 1+1=2 come from?
The "information" in DNA doesn't have to come from somewhere.
If 'intelligent design' is to be taken seriously, give us some convincing evidence for the existence of 'intelligent designer(s)'.
If the response is "it's invisible" or "it doesn't manifest in reality", you shouldn't accept it either.
Until a viable alternative is presented, you'll have to forgive unbelievers for accepting a well-established, real-world Theory about how life on earth continues to work.
klhcc, you wrote, "If 'intelligent design' is to be taken seriously, give us some convincing evidence for the existence of 'intelligent designer(s)'. If the response is "it's invisible" or "it doesn't manifest in reality", you shouldn't accept it either.
Until a viable alternative is presented, you'll have to forgive unbelievers for accepting a well-established, real-world Theory about how life on earth continues to work."
There are only two possibilities for the existence of complex life forms, klhcc: 1) an intelligent creator, or 2) magic. Pick one.
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools "an intelligent creator, or 2) magic" - I see what you did there - very good. It might help to know what you mean by 'life'. How do you define it? As far as I know, we don't have a clear definition as there are such a vast range of possibilities which come from observing nature. Can the perspective of 'intelligent design' help clarify this at all?
itsasin1969, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools Fool."
Clever. Are you in grade school?
==================
itsasin1969, you listed what you believe are lines of evidence for evolution: "Comparative anatomy embryology and development Fossil record DNA comparison, Species distribution Evolution observed today Predictive power of evolution, nested hierarchies of traits.'
None of those can be scientifically classified as evidence specific to evolution. You must first rely on faith that evolution actually occurred. Further, the fossil record falsifies evolution with disparity before diversity, and abrupt appearance followed by stasis; and there is not a single unquestionable transitional line to be found anywhere on earth. If that is not enough strikes against evolution, the so-called index fossils are all of marine origin, which indicates they were deposited by one or more global floods.
=================
itsasin1969, you wrote, "Here is 11 min of one of the best evidence for evolution I have ever seen. Spend 11 min and take it all in. You are free to believe whatever your want. But remember, just because you don't understand something,, doesn't mean expert scientific consensus can't. Or that your lack of understanding would be evidence against evolution or have any impact on the outcome of scientific consensus."
One must have a vivid imagination to believe in whale evolution, especially as imagined by Gingrich and Thewissen. This is an old video of Gingerich on the Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus. His part in the segment begins about the 13:55 mark:
ruclips.net/video/-C4GS-rNGM8/видео.htmlm28s
These are short videos of Hans Thewissen on the Ambulocetus:
ruclips.net/video/S4gmeI9TFKA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/uccden3r98A/видео.html
If anything, make note of the creative artwork in the museum exhibits that seem to be intentionally designed to deceive.
=================
itsasin1969, you wrote, "Also if you are not up to speed on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District? If not you have no business opening your mouth on this subject. ruclips.net/video/7HZzGXnYL5I/видео.html&ab_channel=ChristopherHitchslap"
Yes, I am up to speed on the Dover "science" show, in which a federal "judge" determined what is and what is not science (while copy/pasting arguments from the ACLU briefs.) LOL!
I must admit, that is funny, but it has nothing to do with science. I was always taught that the scientific method determined what is and what is not science. Perhaps I am "old-school."
If I were you, I would drop the "Dover" argument. It makes you look like a fool.
BTW, your link didn't work., and you posted this multiple times. Repeating the same nonsense over and over again makes you look desperate.
Dan
klhcc, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools "an intelligent creator, or 2) magic" - I see what you did there - very good. It might help to know what you mean by 'life'. How do you define it?"
No one can adequately define it, but we know it when we see it.
=============
klhcc, you wrote, "As far as I know, we don't have a clear definition as there are such a vast range of possibilities which come from observing nature. Can the perspective of 'intelligent design' help clarify this at all?"
I am a creationist, not an ID'er; but I am aware that there is no way that the vast quantities of coordinated, symbiotic information found in even the simplest of organisms could have assembled itself by pure chance. Even Gould and Dawkins were aware of that limitation when they introduced (or, rather, "smuggled") intelligent design into their examples of "cumulative selection" (under the pretense that they were demonstrating evolution.)
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools Re defining life, "we know it when we see it". Maybe once you realise the inadequacy of that answer, you'll start to appreciate that the scientific method is our best route to understanding the workings of the cosmos.
A very simplified (VERY) example of the impossible chance a car could be made without creators. All the many parts, all the many elements to make the plastics and metal parts, the fuel to run it, and so on by ALL coming together at the right time and in the right order wouldn't happen no matter how many years passed by. Life is many thousands of times more complex than an automobile.
Are you a complete idiot? or were just taught by idiots? Do cars reproduce and give birth to baby cars?
Do you actually believe that anyone thinks that the brain, the liver, left and right hands just randomly emerged from nothing and combined into a human being one day? You can't be serious.
The problem with most creationists is that they come up with such ridiculous ideas and somehow use them to argue with actual theories which say absolutely nothing like that.
It's like I'd say that creationists are stupid because God could not have created the world in just 24 hours.
Do you see my point?
Universal common descent is taking on water faster than the Titanic.
Deniers keep saying that, yet they can't present anyone from their camp who has even read the model.
U really really really love the way that you explained 😘😘
Keep on
great video. Excellent 👍👍
But wrong.
@@peteconrad2077 Back up your statement.
@@shaunmeyer8822 hard to know where to start as it’s all lies.
But let’s start with the Cambrian fossils. The Cambrian change actuality took place over tens of millions of years. It wasn’t sudden. And many of the Cambrian forms were similar to Precambrian structures. It’s just that Precambrian structures were much less prone to fossilisation because they were soft bodied. The development of skeletons increased the likelihood of fossilisation and also made many new complex forms possible. If you look at the Cambrian explosion critically then there’s no mystery.
Then let’s look at their probability claims. Utter garbage again. These calculations are well known and were calculated with pure undirected random probability which isn’t relevant because natural selection makes it a non random process. The difference will change the calculation by many orders of magnitude.
One of the most compelling arguments against creationism is the degree to which its proponents have to lie to promote it.
@@peteconrad2077 Did you even do research before saying their calculations are garbage(did you even watch the video)? EVOLUTION IS 100% BASED ON RANDOM MUTATIONS. natural selection just filters the good ones from the bad ones.
@@shaunmeyer8822 would it kill you to open a fucking book?
Insightful
But wrong.
The pompous sarcasm ruins the video, but I think we can all agree that historical science is in question.
The only thing in question is the sanity of people who, without understanding of basic evolutionary biology, try to do spectacular "debunks" using made up ideas that have nothing to do with the actual science.
For example there's not a single biologist who thinks that an entire subsequence of DNA responsible for any protein found in modern cells had to spontaneously emerge from non-living matter by chance.
If you ask mathematicians about the odds of something assumed to be random of course they will give you absurd numbers and they will be correct! The problem is that the part about assumed randomness of the assembly process is taken out of nowhere.
No OoL theory even claims that DNA was the first molecule to be able to undergo evolution. Yet its complexity is so often used by the "debunkers".
@@kpb0 You can't have DNA or a cell membrane without proteins. The odds in this video for one basic protein is what was calculated. You would need 100's of them for a minimally functional cell. It's a chicken and egg problem in multiple ways. The math is impossible for even the most simple conceivable protein.
@@stevencoffland103can you show this mathematics?
So far all you have is pure assertion
@@stevencoffland103
You can indeed have DNA or RNA without proteins. Its been done in labs under the conditions of the ancient past.
@@mcmanustony "can you show this mathematics" Creationists never can. "See Spot Run" is the limit of their intellect.
Become a creationist we cannot explain x So god
Well natural processes can't explain either, and all the evidence points to an external intelligence. You seem to have something personally against the idea of a creator, which is fine, but that makes you the ignorant one.
@@Pyr0Ben Wrong that makes you the ignorant one, you deny the masses of evidence, yet you believe in the supernatural with zero evidence
And you use, "So time..." the lungfish has 43 billion pairs of DNA. Now time becomes a problem.
Are you being paid by Prager U?
Nah, not even they're that evil. Might be the Discovery Institute, PragerU for even bigger morons
"oh they must have to be paid by some christian group. Theirs no way!" 😂 lol you guys are pathetic. 🤣🤣
It is good to see science in crisis. It is needed for progress. It helps to humble the science community and check arrogance which impairs rational thought.
No scientist is a Darwinian. That's like saying modern scientists are Mendalianists. The entire body of work of evolutionary theory isn't disproven because some mathematicians calculted something with an imperfect model.
Perhaps the cambrian organisms developed an extremely robost DNA repair mechanism that disallowed mutation. We don't know. And neither do you.
@@sam5992 Where in my comment did I claim to know?
Great video, the odds of natural selection and random mutation producing even a single protein/gene even after Trillions and Trillions of years would be 10^77? Didn't know it was THAT unlikely.
Ofc most cells are way more complex than that too. They're so outdated smh....
How were those odds calculated and by what metric are you measuring complexity?
I think you got a little bit confuse. He did not specify the number for 'producing a single protein/gene'. Those number are for 'acting in cambrian explosion. And if you google about cambrian explosion and evolution you will know that its not 'disaproving' evolution.
Mutation is in fact random but natural selection isnt
Unfortunately for you, it’s nonsense. The calculation is specious and based on pure randomness which didn’t how evolution works. Natural selection makes it a non random process. As usual, you can only form an argument by lying.
This is utter nonsense. You are regurgitating a ludicrous calculation by creationist Doug Axe that’s been debunked seven ways from Sunday. Given that we have proteins the odds of a protein forming are 1 in …ummm….1.
You have mangled the details of what number even tries, and fails, to establish.
Would it kill you to open a fucking book.
Yep, Darwin's problem - spoiler alert, Darwin is long dead and the problem long solved. You IDs need to get up to speed.
It's been much better if you reference the facts
You are the fact checker, don’t be lazy, go read the works and form your own conclusion.
"... but... it's still... possible right guys..." The people who just write off these odds simply because it's still "possible" are unbelievably ignorant
The odds of a given ticket winning the lottery jackpot are very different than there being a winner.
Hmmm so human came from adam and eve, but why theres so many type of human, black, white, yellow, brown, ooooh evolution
Not quite, revisit the genetic makeup of the KhoiSan people, and reboot your understanding of the Out Of Africa theory, then you can say “Ooh, Genetic Drift!” 😂
@@roberttormey4312
No, it's still evolution. Your woo isn't replacing it.
From a middle brownish starting point you can easily reach all colors. That's how.
I just watched a tedtalk that says evolution is confirmed then I watch this video. Now this is more realistic
we've literally observed evolution...
@@SorenPenrose Small adaptations are not the same thing as evolution. If I paint my car a different color, that doesn't turn it into an SUV.
@@rs72098 and why can't small changes add up? It's odd that you accept how evolution happens but reject that it happened...
@@SorenPenrose oh don’t you know you can add small changes to each generation and then some how after millions of years it’s exactly the same, makes sense right?
@@TmanRock9 That seems to be the creationist argument
Great video !!
Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t understand how Cambrian fossils disprove evolution
Or maybe I’m missing something
Someone explain
Edit: and if not evolution then what else explains the evidence that we find on the relations and origins of species?
They don’t. This video is a joke….ignorant lying creationists doing what ignorant lying creationists do.
Jackson wheat has uploaded well informed rebuttals of the nonsense posted here.
Not evolution, just Darwin's theory of it
@@lordsiomai nope
I wouldn't necessarily say it categorically disproves evolution, but it casts a lot of doubt of it. Why is anyone who questions evolution immediately called a lying creationist, especially when there are serious concerns with the idea of Darwinian evolution? There is a conversation that needs to be had.
@@Lauren-se5bu many who “question evolution” are not interested in answers. Like Meyer, Wells, Axe…..they are religiously motivated to deny the reality of evolution.
The Cambrian poses no issue to the theory of evolution.
Omfg....how about you read the freaking book, he ANSWERS these "problems"
who, which book?
@@deepsilence003 On The Origins of Species. He literally says the answers in the following sentences.
@@ClarenceThompkins What about the problems arised after DNA was discovered?
@@deepsilence003 would you be willing to share because I haven't heard of any
@@deepsilence003what “problems”?
Genetics has overwhelmingly shown that Darwin was essentially correct
Surprisingly good!
Unsurprisingly, full of lies.
@@peteconrad2077says the fish walking to land believer
@@purelyrandom1230 I don’t believe that. It’s a demonstrable fact.
@@peteconrad2077 where can we observe it?
@@purelyrandom1230 in the genome. There are artefacts in your genome that cannot have arisen other than by common ancestry with other species. These are, for example, mutations that were acquired by a long ago ancestor of ours that sit silently in our genomes…and the genomes of all chimpanzees. It’s absolutely conclusive.
the current fossil record does a bang up job explaining this so-called problem. this channel is poop.
Thanks for all you do! I show these to my high school students in biology class. They really grab their attention.
Wow that's great!
Why would you show them a video about a symposium that had no impact on evolution?
Im sorry for your students... why are you teaching something different from scientific consensus? Are you religious? Gotta be
@@Filipe9171 cry more
@@Filipe9171
Well her students will have a more open mind for sure, question everything!
Oh, it's this misrepresentation of science...
very interesting. i have a hard time believing in evolution, this seems to back up my suspicions. if it is true, by all means, that is fine, but i see too many holes...people who believe in evolution whole heartedly have their jobs and money and education money also riding on evolution. it would be too risky for them to come up and say we have doubts on evolution. if it is true, fine...i see to many gaps, and i see too many scientists dogmatically pushing it, also] someone like r dawkins. remember r dawkins also writes books and sells in the millions, he gots money in evolution. if he saw gaps in it or concerns, i m sure he just well, argue them away...or deny them away.]
evolution is vast and huge going through multiple fields of science. its hard for you to understand because you, like millions of others dont work in those fields. but a basic understanding of evolution by natural selection is extremely easy to understand. maybe you just need to actually try learning and take the time to understand it.
@@Xarai and you work in the field of evolution? nice. refute this video's claims luv
This video is dishonest 🤣 very dishonest
@@rorythellama1212 just google or RUclips evidence for evolution in all the area they said there was right here and you'll find it this video is very dishonest
@@Xarai maybe i do...but what evolution may not address is time, space and matter, physical laws, complexity of dna....so things survive, and change, mutate,fine. and how? natural intelligence. yeah, sure.] natural intelligence is nothing. science is not an entity or a person or a mind. science is studying the physical world.... big bang just happened, gravity, physical laws just happened, and dna occurred... to the point of natural selection.]
I literally watching this maybe for 4 or 5 time🔥💥💥
Perhaps you should rename your channel to Wrong Story Short. Evolution is a measurable, observable fact. It doesn't matter what mistakes Darwin made. Evolution is a scientific theory with more evidence than the theory of gravity and would be just as true even if Darwin had never existed.
@@thevulture5750 I know it occus because it has been observed both in the lab and in the field. I know it has occurred before because of the genetic evidence, fossil evidence and biological evidence all point to evolution. We know more about evolution and how it works than we know about gravity. If you still want to deny evolution, you may as well join the flat earthers and deny that the earth is spherical.
@@thevulture5750 just like heliocentric theory right? No one proved the sun was the center of the solar system they just believe in their own interpretation of the evidence right?
This theory is going away. Its the worst theory ever devised. Now its simply dogma.
@@williamcole8244 how is it going away? Where are the studies disproving the studies supporting it? No one has debunked the fossil record showing progression of traits, or that shared dna proves relation, or the observations of mutations and natural selection.
There is a big difference between what is observed (variations within a kind of animal) and what the theory of evolution proposes (one kind of animal becomes another)