@@mcmanustony Read first Behe's book, please, and then come here again, admitting Behe's greatness. And every follower/believer of Darwin's hypothesis is a Darwinist by definition. Ramen.
Peltdown Man refers to a set of fossils found near Piltdown, England, in 1912, which were initially thought to be the remains of a previously unknown early human. These remains, which included a skull and jawbone, were purported to bridge the gap between apes and humans, causing significant excitement and reevaluation in the scientific community regarding human evolution. However, by 1953, the fossils were exposed as a fraud through chemical analyses and other tests. It was revealed that the bones were a combination of human and orangutan parts, artificially aged and manipulated to appear ancient. The identity of the perpetrator of the Piltdown hoax has never been definitively established, though various individuals associated with the discovery have been suspected. The incident is one of the most infamous scientific frauds in history and serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of rigorous scientific methods and peer review.
When I was a young boy in a Protestant Church, I was told the same and the same example of the orangutank as an argument against Evolution. Now I am 58, and I meet with the same argument again. Well, I also know some crooks who declared that they found Noah's arc on Mount Ararat, made a few commercialy succesful videos about it and were asking money from the churches in the US to make another expedition there. Should I disavow the Bible because of them?
@@AMC2283When the people who believe the ideas are falsifying all the “evidence” to prove their theory, why would you not doubt them? If something is so obviously a scientific fact, they would’ve found real evidence, but instead they’ve just faked all the evidence. They are just as bad as the Christians who believe Genesis can be used to scientifically date the earth, etc.
You'll be waiting a long time. This guy disproved nothing! If fact he cited nothing actually supported by evidence. His claims about Darwin are inaccurate, and debunk nothing. A typical apologists hit job.
Linda your comment disappeared just as I was to provide evidence! Just because the speaker says something doesn't mean he is correct! In fact he is quite incorrect several times. Research the London underground mosquito to see an example of one species changing to another, proving that his comments are inaccurate. Darwin didn't even discuss primordial soup in his research, so that makes this guy's comments on this video seem like lies, or at least deceptive. Most of what the video says is unsupported or disputed by the science - but I'll bet you've never even looked at the science, but instead believed what you've been told? Then read up on evolution before making uneducated comments. EVERY single fossil is actually a transitional fossil if it has a difference from the previous example, but the differences from one generation to the next may even be imperceptible, and difficult to see in a fossil. Depends on lots of factors.
@@ianshand6094 @ianshand6094 let's start at 0:25 when he claims Lyell's principles have been disproved. An absolute untruth - while not all of Lyell's specific claims have withstood scrutiny, his overall approach and many of his principles remain integral to the field of geology. (Uniformitarianism, gradualism and deep time for a start) His work was the basis of a methodology that has enabled geologists to refine our understanding of Earth's geological processes. I can't give you links as RUclips deletes them, but I've given enough info for you to look them up
great--the theory of evolution is hardly synonymous with darwin after 160 years, it's exhaustively verified, and this guy whining about how dna is magical refutes nothing
Yes, everyone do your own research, but not from a religious oriented source. Than you will get a current understanding of how evolution is evidenced from all fields of science.
At 17:16 he says that fruit flies have failed to show any adaptation through evolution... but they have! what about the experiment that stopped them from breeding for progressively longer and longer periods (so they reproduced later) and doubled their lifespan in a fairly short amount of time!?
That's more goldfinch beak stuff. Where was new genetic information added to where you have a new type of creature. The number of generations required for one evolutionary step is getting higher and higher each year.
@@jcrodri3You're seriously (wilfully?) underestimating this. Lifespan is infamously fixed, think what people have done to try to increase it in humans. Religious people fantasise about a mythical past with sinless humans who lived for hundreds of years. Back in the real world, a greater lifespan in flies could lead to all sorts of new challenges, and therefore opportunities, especially strategies for winter survival (which flies famously fail at), which in itself would probably lead to even greater changes.
@jcrodri3 - creationists define "macro" evolution as change of kind. Like a mother giving birth to a frog. Something what is impossible. Normal people don't mention "macro evolution"
All this bluster from apologists, but we never hear scientists telling us evolution doesn't happen. Can any creationist find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix? Nothing so far.
@@James-p3m8j Your so called evidence convinced YOU! It hasn't convinced a single head of a single science department of a single one of earth's 2,000 largest universities.
@@Ozzyman200 If creation is true then so is a creator. If there is a creator, evolution, as taught", wouldn't be true. I am not talking about epigenetics, I am talking about puddle to paradise.
If the molecule ATP is to be so complex and irreducible and is needed for life to work and exist then can there be found anywhere that such life does exist and not contain this molecule? If not, then where/ when/ how did this *appear* and be so necessary that it would be thing there or no life? What would said living organism be if it didn't?
*Irreducible Complexity* Irreducible complexity is a concept advocated by Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box to support Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design proponents argue that while some systems and organs can be explained by evolution, those that are irreducibly complex cannot, and therefore an intelligent designer must be responsible. Irreducible complexity stems from the claim that some biological systems appear to be too complex to have arisen by natural selection. Specifically, it argues that if you take a part away from an organism and it stops functioning (analogous to taking the engine out of a car) then it must be irreducibly complex and cannot have evolved. It is one of the main arguments of the Intelligent Design movement. The concept is considered to be total nonsense when applied to evolution because it fails to take into account numerous other pathways that a particular ability can evolve through - it assumes that evolution must go through "additive" processes to achieve its conclusion and this isn't the case. Most evolutionary biologists do not consider it science by any stretch of the imagination because the idea relies on personal incredulity and unwarranted assumptions. Dr. Kenneth Miller (a practicing Christian) takes Behe’ s nonsense and tears it to shreds. Interesting reading for the curious; poison for creationists. Michael Behe was placed on the witness stand in 2005 (Kitzmiller vs. Dover), where he was totally embarrassed and discredited as he tried to peddle Intelligent Design (and irreducible complexity). He had to admit (his words) that the definition of Intelligent Design would also include astrology (or tarot card reading). Richard Dawkins one of the most accomplished biologists, destroys Behe and slaps him around as the child Behe is.
@@kevinbrummett5513 No, he's got it pretty spot on with what these people are actually saying. They don't want you reading the books that actually talk about the facts, because then you wouldn't be convinced by all their bullshit.
@@palladin1337 Yet all this BS makes real impact on medicine, vaccin and curing disease in general. Whenever has the "god-hypothesis" given us anything concrete and helpful in developping cures for diseases like cancer?
At least Darwin had the balls to admit his hypothesis could be wrong. Most lay-people today are told abiogenesis is irrefutable fact with no holes or room for improvement. Scientific progress cannot flourish against such fervent dogmatism.
@@uniqueRUclipsCreatorHandle "Most lay-people today are told abiogenesis is irrefutable fact with no holes or room for improvement." ....No, no they are not. What is said about Abiogenesis, at least from people who don't have their heads buried in a book of myths written by goat farmers, is that it is currently the most plausible theory we have for how life first started on Earth. It isn't 'complete,' however, so there is definitely room for it to improve since it's a relatively recent theory. "Scientific progress cannot flourish against such fervent dogmatism." Which is why religion as a whole is largely discarded as useless when speaking about things scientifically since it's dogmatic and always behind the curve, be it scientifically or socially.
0:40 This did not took me one, but two Google searches, because these lines are from _two_ letters, one to Gray (1857-06-18) and one to Huxley (1859?-06-02). Was Google broken the day Fasoli prepared for this interview?
This conversation was incredibly frustrating. I was hoping for some firm reasoning and only got a terrible non relevant analogy. Where is the hard proof? If you cannot explain something simply you do not understand well enough.
It's quite clear we do not understand the processes of life origin and complexity. Not knowing is also part of science. This fact however does no imply any divine intervention, unless we agree to name anything we can't understand as God, just to simplify our overwhelming lack of knowledge and make us feel a bit more confortable, which is understandable.
It's not that we don't understand how complex digital information systems similar to DNA can arise, we do, you used an example of it to type your comment. What we don't understand is how it could possibly also be created by some naturalistic accident like lightning hitting a puddle. To say 'we don't understand, so it must be a fluke' makes some a lot comfortable than the alternative.
@@SteveLomas-k6k You said, "What we don't understand is how it could possibly also be created by some naturalistic accident like lightning hitting a puddle." Your assertion is irrelevant. The theory of evolution doesn't address the origin of life any more than atomic theory addresses the origin of mass, general relativity the origin of matter, energy, gravity or space-time, germ theory the origin of germs.
@@numbersix9477 It was responding to the comment about origins. Beyond that, I can explain a watch by purely naturalistic processes also, if I ignore how it was created. I understand ToE doesn't, and cannot explain origins of life- that's not a strength for the naturalist argument though.
Have you ever read the Bible?? Not as a religion but read it as a historical book. There is plenty of proofs in this book that have been from by ancient historians. Even the atheist ones
19:35 The flagellum is certainly the best known example of irreducably complexity, so there is really no excuse for Fasoli to ignore its numerous refutations. The most prominent is probably from Prof. Ken Miller, easy to find here on RUclips. Incidentally, Jon Perry published a video on the topic just yesterday ("Darwin and Irreducible Complexity"), with some characteristically gorgeous graphics. He uses the honey bee stinger as an example. The argument itself is also false _by law,_ see Kitzmiller v Dover.
"The flagellum is certainly the best known example of irreducably complexity" Except of course as you correctly laid out with Ken Miller and the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, the flagellum is actually the best-known example of NOT being irreducibly complex.
4:15 No, it doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'm all for disproving Darwin's theory _honestly._ Making up lies like this one only weakens your argument. Cut it out, stay scientific and truthful.
@@globalcoupledances Yes. That's why if one wants to invoke the 2nd law in the context of Darwin, one must include the Sun in the proceedings. And the Sun is the source of very low entropy. So the real mystery is why the Big Bang (assuming it did happen) was such an enormously low-entropy state. Nobody knows. Roger Penrose in his "Emperor's New Mind" book has an estimate of the probability of this happening by chance: it's about 1 in 10^10^123, an amazingly tiny chance. So what physicists are saying is, basically: "We can explain everything following that, just give us this one miracle".
@@williamsaaranen7672 As another person mentioned, one must include the Sun as a part of the system. And the Sun is a reservoir of enormously low entropy (which is utlimately traced back to the Big Bang, assuming _that_ theory is more or less correct, so _that's_ where the miracle in fact resides).
@@williamsaaranen7672 the earth is an open system, influenced for example by solar energy - affecting climate, weather, photosynthesis which all can impact reactions by organisms (like evolution :) )
Our friends dug up a model of evolution that was abandoned by the scientific community over seventy years ago - and attacked it, attacked it, attacked it. Does that approach actually work?
Well that’s question begging. With what criteria did they use to study these things. They have to base that off of what Darwin’s studies were and try to build on that. If there’s so many flaws in Darwin’s work, why pursue what he was pursuing?
Cancer Tumor progression, Rapid COVID evolution in a few months ,the dog from the wolf, Corn from Teosinte , antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance , how many examples of evolution right in front of your nose do you need?
Those are literally all medical which is well known. Those are controlled conditions. Medicine doesn’t form on its own. Cancer is the DECAY of life, not the advancement of it. Different Covid strains are simply different iterations within the same subclass of species. Same thing with humans exhibiting different color hair and what not. Except for the wolf to dog, but even still they are still within the same species line.
A dog and a wolf the same animal. That is like a spotted dog from a black dog. Evolution requires a significant change. A simple organism evolving into a more complex organism, according to the dictionary. A wolf evolving into a wolf with thumbs, that can talk, or has wings. You know like the single cell organism that evolved into you.
@@mcmanustony we both can search the internet in seconds for a definition. I doubt there can be reasonable discussion unless we agree upon what evolution means. If you think that dogs and wolves are evolution and prove that we all came from simple single cell organisms, I’d have to say that is a huge leap of faith.
Anyone else notice that he uses and anology of something he knows to be created to something he believes is created. Why not compare it to the complexity of the dynamo effect of the Earth core?
@stevedoetsch is this directed towards my comment? If so, theistic creation has never been observed. Even if a god did the creating we'd have to take their word for it. We'd have to use a different standard of scrutiny and assume they haven't lied. Science doesn't support or exclude c4eation.
I llove the simple hood and tunic of our dear Brother. They have not changed in thousands of years but are completely simple and functional. How beautiful!
why dos god care what people wear, they all have a silly hat, they criticise drag queens but wear frocks, you even have to cut your body to make some gods happy, but god doesn't seem to care about shoes. funny guy.
What exactly is "Darwinian" evolution and who cares about science almost 2 centuries old. How about modern evolutionary science, which is the cornerstone of all biology? Just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean they aren't a shill.
Darwinian evolution says new species are created by "numerous, successive, slight modifications". Because fossils don't support "innumerable transitional forms" Eldredge and Gould dreamed up Punctuated Equilibrium. Because Goldschmidt thought this slow change is illogical. He came up with the Hopeful Monster. Which is like Punctuated Equilibrium. Then other atheists, like Fred Hoyle, say aliens created and are tending life on earth. All nonsense. Because they couldn't grasp the concept of the supernatural.
@@joefriday2275 You are quite obviously talking through your hat! Your post tells us that you haven't remotely studied the subject. . 1. Scientifically literate individuals no more often refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwin's Theory" than they refer to Atomic Theory as "Bohr's Theory" or General Relativity Theory as "Einstein's Theory." 2. The scientific community identified multiple shortcomings of the Darwinian model of evolution approximately three quarters of a century ago and replaced it with the Modern Synthesis. Buy a copy of the college level textbook, "Evolution," by Douglas J. Futuyma. Read it and sin no more. ("Evolution" is in it's 5th edition but that edition is quite expensive. You can purchase a used second or third edition online for less than $20 - delivered. I personally have two copies, my own and a loaner.) You have a lot to learn and a massive amount of information is out there. I hope you avail yourself of some of it. Be Blessed!
@@korbendallas5318 it's scientifically and mathematically impossible. Proved in 1998. There is no mechanism that can produce change in kind only adaption built into living organisms. Laws of physics.
Darwin’s theory is NOT a myth; it’s a theory. The primary role of science is to either: 1. Prove that the theory is correct; or 2. Prove that the theory is incorrect.
@@martinroncetti4134 People forget the whole of science is conjecture that's accepted so long as it's workable, soon as a new explanation leads to better results it doesn't take long b4 everyone acts like they always knew. Judging by the amount of rule bending going on presently we're due for a lot of hot potato dropping, specifically in the astronomical community who are finding sums wrong all over the shop now the new telescopic datasets are being evaluated. They're so close to unifying everything, apart from that 95% they don't know anything about. They will keep it under their hats until it all clears itself up - no need to 'rock the boat' so's to speak..!
@@richardjackson6307 It's just like a theory, just like the spherical shape of the Earth. Strangely both are supported by facts, and both contradict the Bible...
Not to cast aspersions upon the *no amino acid formation* "theory" they did say they were able to trap amino acid (albeit both left and right handed, amino acids trapped nonetheless) and now they say they (these amino acids) appeared inside meteorite rocks. If anyone could provide info upon these arguments.
These two religious apologist should realize that their own catholic Church supports the reality of evolution. Next episode we should ask these two characters to perform heart surgery. @12:20 this apologist quotes James Tour as being an OOL scientist. This is untrue and patently misleading. His work and papers are all in physical chemistry.
James Tour is a remarkable scientist-chemist who has extensive writings and speeches supporting guided creation and giving exquisite refutations to any random processes proposed to support classic evolution
The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems and states that the entropy (or disorder) of an isolated system can only increase over time. However, Earth is not a closed system as it continually receives energy from the Sun. This external energy input can drive processes that result in increased order or complexity, such as the evolution of life. For instance, a mutation that allows one cell to stick to other cells could indeed enable the development of a larger and more complex life form. This process does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the energy required for the mutation and the subsequent growth and development of the organism can come from the Sun or other external sources. So, the claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based on a misunderstanding of the law itself and its applicability to open systems like Earth. The increase in complexity observed in evolution does not contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics when correctly understood in the context of an open system receiving energy from an external source.
@@AMC2283 That’s a succinct and accurate description! Thermodynamics is indeed the branch of physics that deals with the relationships between heat and other forms of energy. It studies how energy is transferred in the form of heat and work, and how it affects the properties of substances. On the other hand, evolution is a process that results in hereditary changes in a population spread over many generations. It’s the key mechanism that drives the diversity of life we see on Earth. Both are fundamental concepts in their respective fields of study.
The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed and open systems. A “closed system” simply implies that there is no mass transfer, therefore it’s a constant mass system. Earth is technically a closed system since the mass flow in and out of Earth’s orbit (i.e. space debris and asteroids landing on earth) is negligible. I believe you meant to say that Earth is not an isolated system since it has heat interactions with the sun, just wanted to clarify.
Well, but what we here on earth always observe is the effects of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the increase of disorder, and that law has to be taken into consideration always in human activity, every engineer knows that. As to mutations, every case of cancer is due to a mutation or several of them, every genetic illness is due to mutation. That does not sound like evolution to something better.
They say different bacterium that have flagellum have them *built* differently with different amount of so-called parts. But could they get one to become any other... And if the *34* genes must be as aligned or there is no working *life* could they find others with any of those genes missing or not there. Could they have one become (evolve) into any other? If evolution says the lesser must have worked and for some time in order to become the next then could it be possible to revert back to an earlier form or observe any process going from one to any other? If not, it is merely only a theory nothing more.
0:20 Is this one of these videos where virtually every single sentence is a lie or is based on a misconception? No, Fasoli, what Darwin said about the matter is _not_ relevant. The Theory of Evolution is not Scripture, handed down from a prophet. With a degree in biochemistry you should know this.
Evidence for evolution comes from various fields of biology and geology, providing a comprehensive and well-supported understanding of how species change over time. Here are some key pieces of evidence: 1. Fossil Record Transitional Fossils: Fossils that show intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants. Examples include the transition from fish to amphibians (Tiktaalik), reptiles to birds (Archaeopteryx), and land mammals to whales (Ambulocetus). Stratigraphy: Fossils found in different geological layers demonstrate a timeline of gradual change, with simpler organisms found in older layers and more complex ones in newer layers. 2. Comparative Anatomy Homologous Structures: Body parts that are similar in structure but may serve different functions in different species, indicating a common ancestor. For example, the forelimbs of humans, cats, whales, and bats. Vestigial Structures: Body parts that have lost their original function through evolution. Examples include the human appendix, the pelvis in whales, and the wings of flightless birds like ostriches. 3. Comparative Embryology Embryonic Development: Similarities in the early stages of development in different species suggest a common ancestry. For instance, vertebrate embryos exhibit pharyngeal pouches (which develop into gills in fish and parts of the ear and throat in mammals). 4. Molecular Biology DNA and Protein Similarities: The genetic code is universal among all living organisms, and closely related species have more similar DNA sequences. Comparisons of specific genes (like the cytochrome c gene) and proteins (like hemoglobin) show degrees of relatedness. Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs): These are viral sequences that have become part of the genome. Shared ERVs in the same genomic locations among different species indicate common ancestry. 5. Biogeography Geographic Distribution: The distribution of species around the world reflects their evolutionary history. For example, the unique species found on islands (like the finches of the Galápagos Islands) demonstrate adaptive radiation from a common ancestor. Plate Tectonics: The movement of continents explains the historical distribution of species. Fossils of the same species found on different continents support the idea that these continents were once connected. 6. Direct Observation Microevolution: Changes within a species can be directly observed. Examples include the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance in insects, and changes in the beak sizes of finches documented by Peter and Rosemary Grant in the Galápagos Islands. Speciation Events: New species have been observed forming in real-time, such as the apple maggot fly, which shifted from hawthorn trees to apple trees, leading to reproductive isolation and the beginnings of speciation. 7. Experimental Evidence Artificial Selection: Selective breeding in plants and animals demonstrates how selection can lead to significant changes over relatively short periods. Dogs, for example, have been bred for various traits resulting in a wide variety of breeds from a common ancestor. These lines of evidence collectively support the theory of evolution, demonstrating how species have adapted and changed over time through natural processes. References: Fossil Record Transitional Fossils: Daeschler, E. B., Shubin, N. H., & Jenkins, F. A. (2006). A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature, 440(7085), 757-763. Chiappe, L. M., & Dyke, G. J. (2002). The early evolutionary history of birds. Journal of the Paleontological Society of Korea, 18(1), 133-160. Stratigraphy: Gradstein, F. M., Ogg, J. G., Schmitz, M., & Ogg, G. (Eds.). (2012). The Geologic Time Scale 2012. Elsevier. Comparative Anatomy Homologous Structures: Shubin, N. (2008). Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body. Pantheon Books. Vestigial Structures: Laubichler, M. D., & Maienschein, J. (Eds.). (2007). From Embryology to Evo-Devo: A History of Developmental Evolution. MIT Press. Comparative Embryology Embryonic Development: Gilbert, S. F. (2010). Developmental Biology (9th ed.). Sinauer Associates. Molecular Biology DNA and Protein Similarities: Brown, T. A. (2002). Genomes (2nd ed.). Wiley-Liss. Li, W.-H. (1997). Molecular Evolution. Sinauer Associates. Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs): Belshaw, R., Pereira, V., Katzourakis, A., Talbot, G., Paces, J., Burt, A., & Tristem, M. (2004). Long-term reinfection of the human genome by endogenous retroviruses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(14), 4894-4899. Biogeography Geographic Distribution: Lomolino, M. V., Riddle, B. R., & Whittaker, R. J. (2016). Biogeography (5th ed.). Sinauer Associates. Plate Tectonics: Hallam, A. (1994). An Outline of Phanerozoic Biogeography. Oxford University Press. Direct Observation Microevolution: Grant, P. R., & Grant, B. R. (2002). Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin's finches. Science, 296(5568), 707-711. Levy, S. B., & Marshall, B. (2004). Antibacterial resistance worldwide: causes, challenges and responses. Nature Medicine, 10, S122-S129. Speciation Events: Bush, G. L. (1994). Sympatric speciation in animals: new wine in old bottles. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 9(8), 285-288. Experimental Evidence Artificial Selection: Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species. John Murray. Trut, L. N. (1999). Early canid domestication: The farm-fox experiment. American Scientist, 87(2), 160-169.
1. Descendancy has not been shown, it has been guessed. Also, there were four-footed land animals before tiktaalik and birds before archeopteryx (according to the mainstream timeline), so these are actually debunked by the academic community as "transitional forms." And again, if your descendancy is a guess, it's a guess. 2, 3, and 4 do not rule out a common designer using common, useful designs as a plausible hypothesis. Therefore, these are not (strong) arguments in favor of evolution. 5, 6, and 7 are arguing that micro-evolution and adaption prove evolution is true. But Intelligent Design believers and even Young Earth Creationists affirm these are true. So this doesn't get you anywhere. Speciation might happen, but new features, new body forms, new information HAS NOT been observed. Dogs are still dogs, flies are still flies, e. coli is still e. coli. If that's your multi-disciplinary proof, you're out of arguments.
@@lukejones5272 You said, "Dogs are still dogs, flies are still flies, e. coli is still e. coli. " That's your rebuttal of a theory that has been almost universally accepted by the scientific community for over century and a half?
-> No experimental proof by design (muh billions of years lol). -> No mathematical model. Thus not a proper theory but mere pagan style philosophical speculations.
@@lukejones5272 Nice set of fallacious arguments, debunked decades ago. Did you know your "dogs are still dogs" argument comes straight from Vol. 1, Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf?
It's a tactic right out of the communist handbook by Saul Alinsky: pick a target freeze it personalize it accuse target of doing what you are actually doing Evolution deniers don't understand the science, but they do understand personal attacks. Every anti-science argument eventually assaults the character of a great scientist. They must quote from Darwin's writings in 1859 because they have no hope of standing against all we know today.
Fifth point: genetic mutations can only be neutral or degrade. This is not true. Many mutations will do this but simplistically but why does it have to be all? Take a gene for size. Let's say the number of copies of the gene determines size. A mistake in the copying that inserts another copy of the gene for size would mean that that organism and its descendants would be bigger, assuming it is beneficial and they go on to reproduce. Also sometimes even single mutations of genetic letters can be beneficial. There are plenty of diseases that can be traced back to a single letter mutation. Those can be in either direction. It's simplistic to saying that copying and mutations always degrade like a bad photocopy machine. The way life works is more like a laser printer. You get an almost perfect copy each time. You have to look at the mechanisms and how they work to see if that it true.
The problem is the almost nil statistical possibility of advantageous mutations that would lead to trasmutation of species. Most successful mutations result in very minor things like beak shape, coat colour, etc. And there are hints that maybe most of these are regulated epigenetically. Also, virtually all mutations that affect a vital function are almost immediately fixed with 100% accuracy.
“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science..." "It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts.” -C. Darwin
He didn't believe it included man either and I think he was quite specific about that, whether or not anybody believes it would matter. In the greater scheme of things 'Evolution' itself doesn't matter it is merely a convenient tool to batter the student into godless thinking, just like 'adjuvants' are a convenient toxin to poison the childs brain. "You may use any theory or substance to curtail free thinking but the ones that are acceptable and effective are obviously preferable. The next qualifications are cost and expedience - time and money. If you have a weapon that is then cheap and self administered the war of minds will win itself." - every psychopathic megalomaniac, ever.
Derp...... {{"Darwin really did say this, but it is often quoted out of context to suggest that he had doubts about the validity of his theories (he didn't): ' I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science. ' Darwin is not making a general comment on his evolutionary theories. He said this in the context of a discussion with Asa Gray about a very specific problem - how to account for the existence of species of plants for which there were no, or few, closely related species. Darwin had speculated that these disjoined species would be found to come from genera which had very few species in total. This was not based on a great deal of observation however, hence it appeared to him to be unscientific. This is an example of the sort of selective reading of Darwin that is fairly common."}} Darwin project DOT ac Dot UK Quote mining and lying at their finest.
@@mcmanustony are you saying darwin didn't write that? Please educate yourself. You may be too young to know this but it is fairly common knowledge that name calling is usually the last resort of a person who has no facts or information to back his position. So by calling believers names atheists actually discredit themselves. Not only that but Christ teaches us that we will be greatly rewarded when people speak ill of us for his sake. So at the same time atheists discredit themselves they add to the believer's reward. It's a win-win, THANKS! The fact that darwinism is false should be a source of encouragement for atheists. It means you are not a random monkey mistake. It means your great, great, great... grandkids won't grow scales and swim off into the sea never to be seen again. It means you were created by the most intelligent mind in the cosmos with a loving purpose. Receive the love; declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10:9).
@@occupyreality1830 you are saying darwin didn't have any doubts but he had no way to account for certain plant species. You have not shown that darwin was correct in his hypothesis. It is not quote mining, it is quoting.
@@joefriday2275 There is no such thing as "genetic entropy". The number of deleterious mutations in our genome is increasing for the simple reason out modern medicine can treat them so they don't get removed by natural selection. You've only had that explained to you about a hundred times. 🙄
@@joefriday2275 Genetic load refers to the accumulation of deleterious mutations in a population over time, which can potentially reduce the population's fitness. It's true that discussions about genetic load and its implications for populations can be complex and sometimes contentious. However, it's essential to engage with scientific evidence and arguments in good faith, regardless of one's beliefs or worldview. Scientists, regardless of their personal beliefs, aim to understand the natural world through evidence-based inquiry. While interpretations of evidence may differ, the scientific community generally seeks to uncover truths about our universe through rigorous research and analysis. If you feel that certain viewpoints are being misrepresented or misunderstood, it's important to engage in respectful dialogue and encourage a deeper understanding of the scientific evidence and principles involved. Mischaracterizing scientific concepts doesn't contribute to meaningful discourse or the advancement of knowledge.
Why would you find some guy on the fringes to try and debunk Evolution? The vast scientific community across the planet believes the theory of Evolution, and the theory has only gotten stronger with time. Eg, he cites Otto Schindewolf who died in 1971..most of his ideas are rejected by today's scientists. But also, Otto wasn't saying some "intelligence" did it, he was just saying that it wasn't gradual, that it was leaps here and there (due to extraordinary events like a supernova).
Members of the scientific community "provisionally accept" scientific theories; they do not "believe" or "believe in" them. If the modern synthesis is ever credibly falsified, most within the scientific community will change what they "accept."
Since evolution requires the extrapolation of findings in the fossil record into a world view, with no way of confirming consistency across its assertions, and no way to effectively test or reproduce its conclusions, would it not qualify as a non-falsifiable theory and be better characterized as pseudoscience?
Congratulations on getting every last thing wrong. Evolution is very consistent across all of its findings. Repeated tests on the evidence have been done and have always showed the same conclusion. Evolutionary theory is very falsifiable, it's just never been falsified. You might want to ditch the Chick Tracts and go take a science course at your local CC.
I get all that. But when I compare evolution to the type science that is accepted by everyone, I don’t see the same level of completeness or consistency. We really don’t know how the cell accomplishes the observations we make. We do know all species share at least some common DNA, some much more than others. It is clear that organisms can adopt to their environment in extremely favorable ways. We know there is a clear historical order in complexity and function throughout the fossil record. We know life began about 3.7 billion years ago. We can describe the functions of certain cellular components such as DNA, RNA, ribosomes and mitochondria. We can even modify DNA in prokaryotic organisms. Although evolution clearly plays a role in the changes we observe across all different forms of life, it is still an incomplete theory and needs more investigation at the molecular level before we can say it is a theory of life in general. That’s not an unreasonable position. However, there are aspects of evolutionary theory that obviously meet the definition of science, such as natural selection. But I don’t think all the claims of evolution are consistent with one another, principally because they address different things. For example, how life began is a different question than how life evolves, which a different question than how cellular proteins function to produce phenotypical plasticity. Evolution is not of the same category of science such as conclusions such as Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. I think we must remember that theories can never be proven as scientific fact. We don’t call it the law of evolution because there is still too much to figure out. I think people agree on much more than this silly debate suggests. If the “young earth crowd didn’t exist”, we would be having a totally different discussion. The fear that somehow science will be replaced by religion is absurd. By the way, I had to look up what Chick Tracts are and I can see it’s not but a typical ad hominem dig so I won’t provide any validation for that line of argument. It speaks for itself. As far as the local CC suggestion, another gutter ball. I don’t think that would work very well as I have an undergraduate degree at a United States top 20 university. I also have a doctoral degree and an MBA. The undergraduate and doctoral degrees are in a field of science that deals with human physiology and cellular biology. I have taught doctoral students as well. None of my credentials are relevant to the content of my comments but they do suggest a CC course would not be very informative. Although I don’t know what they teach at that level and apparently you do. But I thank you and appreciate your input.
I don't think this guy really understands the 2nd law of thermodinamics. What he's ignoring is that this law is applied for closed systems, but the evolutionary process is not a closed system. "but the bottom line is you cannot get order and complexity from disorder, no matter how many billions of years you're waiting" Yes, that is the statement "entropy never decreases" of the 2nd law of thermodinamics. But, then according to this reasoning, a refrigerator should not work either, as entropy decreases there (making cold to break the thermal equilibrium), which is not permitted by 2nd law of thermodinamics. What he forgets is that a refrigerator or living beings (in case of evolution) are not closed systems: they're getting the necessary energy from somewhere: from a power-grid, from the sun, from food, etc. The entropy of that refrigerator, and the entropy of living beings are decreasing, but the entropy of the whole system, is still increasing more (!), because the same or more energy needs to be consumed to make those changes (cooling down, growing, reproducing)! The total entropy overall does increase, with the fact that the entropy of those parts/components decrease in lesser extent, the 2nd law of thermodinamics is just fine with evolution.
@swiftmatic nope. Life doesn't slow entropy. Think of life as something that cause lumpiness in entropy. Entropy still increases at the same rate, but becomes unevenly distributed
@@EinSofQuester I appreciate the reply. I was just spitballing at breakfast. Side note: "Lumpy Entropy" would be a great name for a punk or grunge band🤣
One theory ive been exploring is that Darwins major premise is simply an application of Hegel's AUFHEBEN applied to biology. Changing or canceling while preserving and then advancing. It also strongly influenced Marx. Have fun studying the roots of Darwins thought experiment!
I had the pleasure of working for Dr. Fasoli 20 years ago in London. He is one of the finest individuals I have ever met. Incredibly humble and kind. Jeff C.
The arrogance and lack of charity of many clever ‘scientists’ here on this comment section confirms my position. I believe in God Almighty creator of heaven and Earth….and his word in the Bible. I believe in a God of love and I refuse to accept the word and finding of vitriolic humans like the ones who display only contempt for their fellow men and in particular of God. Humans are dumb and humans who think they are more intelligent than others are even dumber.
The arrogance and lack of charity of many clever ‘scientists’ here on this comment section confirms my position. I believe in God Almighty creator of heaven and Earth….and his word in the Bible. I believe in a God of love and I refuse to accept the word and finding of vitriolic humans like the ones who display only contempt for their fellow men and God. Humans are dumb and humans who think they are more intelligent than others are even dumber.
Shall we just ignore all of the discoveries, gathered observations, corroboration with geology, DNA, bio science's understanding, antibiotics causing superbugs, astronomy's proof of deep time, and intelligent reasoning of the last 150 year's collection of puzzle pieces from across the globe ? And it doesn't count that religious closed-mindedness and their fears doesn't want to hear what they don't want to hear. People that are not paying attention have absolutely no scientific authority.
I agree . Even if you could disprove evolution you would still have to prove an intelligent creator and one that cares whether people sin or not. Some in religion like to point to evolution and big bang to see where they think science is wrong in order to validate their belief in a god. I can't say if there is or isn't a creator just no one has came up with evidence except to say it must be a creator.
Yes. If scientists are honest, then they must accept rerror and biass and give up their pet theory of evolution no matter how hard this is against their sophisticated overinflated false ego. But then again evolutionary scientists are not supposed to have values, ethics and virtues. So we don't expect them to feel guilty of wrongdoing and lying.
The secular worldview is built on assumption, presupposition, circular reasoning, lies, fraudulent evidence, wishful thinking and imagination. The math describing the fine tunning of the universe allowing and supporting life is unsurmountable for natural processes to explain, hence the need for a rescue device named 'multiverse'. It is also needed to explain how a simple protein folding by chance yields a probability with a value exceeding all the estimated molecules in the entire cosmos. It is science that is closed minded and requires constant cooking of the books to maintain its dogmatic grip on a biased worldview. They need to change the age of the universe now to align with observations from JWT, despite the fact the current age of the universe has been taught as fact for decades. When observations don't line up with a theory the theory should be abandoned but not when a long held paradigm has been implemented into society itself and allows the pursuit of personal pleasures and the love of sin because many have been convinced there is no meaning to life, its all an accident, there is no purpose, and all that matters is materialism and your own desires. The cosmological model is missing 98% of what should be observable, no worries, just invent something that has never been observed and call it dark matter and dark energy, it is not detectable but we know its there, trust us. You talk about things being ignored, how about ignoring even a simple protein folding by chance is absolutely mathematically impossible. How about the source of complexity and information is always a mind and this has never ever been disproven. How about DNA is the most sophisticated information ever discovered, is the most compact data storage system ever found, its 3D folding mechanism to produce new information is so unfathomably complex it cannot be replicated using supercomputers but despite all of this the dogmatic worldview must be upheld at all costs because the reality of a creator is so abominable it must be avoided at all costs. Science knows a lot less than you think, a single human cell has baffled scientists from all over the world for over 70 years, they are further back in understanding its complexity than when scrutiny of it began. It is literally a nano New York City in complexity and rivals anything mankind has devised by orders of magnitude, yet it created itself for no reason or purpose so God can be averted as an explanation for its existence. Run this over in your mind, the human body generates more processes per second than every computer on Earth combined and does so using a meagre 20 watts of electricity and according to Evolution it required no intelligent design. Man lies, cheats, steals, murders, rapes, is driven by lust and greed over all else, why would you take the word of man over the word of God.
Darwin might have a big head but he was kind of stupid I mean how can anyone know energy equals mass times the speed of light square? It could have been cubed just because him and the ancient aliens guy had bad hair don’t make them smart
@@silverfire01you don't have to prove a creator, if he is inviting you to believe in a religion and creator then he has to prove it but if he is just debunking a scientific theory, then he either debunks it or not
@@joefriday2275 There is no such thing as genetic entropy. That was a ridiculous idea dreamed up by a YEC to try and justify his YEC beliefs. It got him laughed out of the room in actual science circles.
All this bluster from apologists, but we never hear scientists telling us evolution doesn't happen. Can any creationist find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix?
Sure....evolutionists say that reproduction is an "accelerated evolution"! Reproduction is not an "accelerated evolution" , it is an aware and intelligent answer to death, otherwise all species cease to exist without reproduction and death being around. If death always existed then no one can prove that any specie succeeded to "evolve" during a big span of time while escaping the grips of death. One has to remember that the so claimed "evolution" process supposedly took millions or even billions years during which death was always at work. Also one has to remember that death occurs due to ageing and other causes as well. The existence of death since life began on earth disproves the theory of evolution, that's because no one can prove that death spared someone or something during a very long period of time. Of course one cannot stop the evolutionists from speculating as they use to do, but it will remain a speculation no more. Reproduction of species is an intelligent process which aim is to cater for the work of death, and as such the One who created the process of death is the Same One who created the reproduction process of all living species and organisms. It is the Creator. Evolution theory is the greatest hoax ever invented, based mostly on speculation and wishful thinking crafted as "scientific". Abiogenesis, genetic mutations, billions years, trials and errors etc are all speculative terms invented to describe some imaginative processes no one witnessed, proved or can prove. The only motive was and is to disprove the existence of a creator at all costs. Truly, the evolution theory is a fairytale for grownups.
Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis go against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Evolution contradicts many scientific first principles. Zero transitional fossils when there should be nothing but transitional fossils. Were did evolution get dna from? You need new information to change body plans but evolutionists ignore this very valid point.
Evolution has never attempted to explain the origin of life-it only describes what happens after we get reproducible cells. The theory of Abiogenesis attempts to explain life’s origins. That’s a work in progress-it’s come up with some intriguing ideas.
That's simply untrue. Evolution is often used to include abiogenis or chemical evolution, as well as cosmic evolution. I can well understand why you would want it that way. The complexity of the cell is such that evolutionists realise its impossible naturalistically. So are you saying God made the first cell? Darwin's theory is falsified also. But it is easy to imagine. As Michael Denton mentioned in his book, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, evolutionists are like the Mad Hatter who can imagine a 1000 impossible things before breakfast.
@@corvusglaive4804 Evolution is not about the origin of life. The origin of life is called abiogenesis. You may disregard all the scientific work that exists about the possibilities of origin of life from non life (every year many scientific papers are published that detail aspects of abiogenesis), and still the overwhelming evidence of evolution through dozens of harmoniously interconnected branches of science remains untouched.
@@psalux18963 😭🤣 "the overwhelming evidence for cats evolving into pandas is all around us!!" You guys are THE greatest comedy act ever I swear 😂 evidence = I'm a an atheist and I say so. This rock is billions of years old and I say so. My ancestor is a howler monkey because I say so. Watching Darwin and his rabid disciples circle the plug hole is a beautiful thing to watch 😂
I’m I wrong in thinking we have fossils of what modern humans have transitioned from? Also aren’t there animals that have evolved in front of our eyes I seen something about a group of rabbits who’s fur has changed colour due to environmental changes so they didn’t stand out to predators
Variation, very important. Look at the variation in the species called 'dog'. Are they all 'evolving' in different directions? No, they are one incredible species.
@@richardleigh4003 Some dogs are extremely different and can't really correctly reproduce with each other. This is similar to how a horse and donkey can come together to produce a mule but it is very uncommon event for mules to have any kind of offspring. Since they can't reproduce correctly I believe donkeys and horses are considered to be separate species. So certain dogs are also probably considered to be separate species. Probably in a similar situation as with mules we might have the possibility of offspring from wolf/dog or coyote/dog parings. Felines range from small housecats (some of which may be too different to correctly reproduce with each other) to larger bobcats and servals to larger cheetahs, leopards, cougars, panthers and the largest lions and tigers. Some can have offspring with each other but it is probably a similar situation as with mules. Is it not a good idea that felines had a common ancestor in the pretty distant past and have been evolving differences? Amazing, despite their apparent similarity, African and Asian elephants can't even really have surviving offspring together - their separation might have occurred in the very far past. With primates we have the strange looking, small, very large-eyed, nocturnal bush babies to large baboons to human weight chimpanzees and orangutans to the heavy gorilla. Despite their differences, the gorilla and bush baby have some so many similarities that it isn't too hard to believe they came from the same distant ancestor.
@@richardleigh4003 *"Look at the variation in the species called 'dog'. Are they all 'evolving' in different directions?"* Look at tigers and lions. They can hybridize semi-successfully. Why? Because god wanted it, or because they have common ancestry and are separate species just on the verge of becoming fully incompatible genetically. There are thousands of species that can hybridize with various levels of success depending on how far they have diverged from common ancestry.
23:13 3000 years ago，one Chinese said, “Word is said, not always Word. Name is named, not always name.” Cells say, we have no problem to understand any word. What exactly are scientists searching for?
I'm pretty certain he's shunned by biochemists. And geneticists. And paleontologists. And botanists. And primatologists. And ichthyologists. And entomologists. ...
@numbersix9477 I think you're probably correct. There's a lot of reality that needs denying - if we're asserting that biological evolution isn't a thing.
"Not a single fact that backs it up" Then proceeds to lie about pretty much everything. Claiming that there is a growing number of scientists that oppose it and then listing for people from 50+ years ago. Claiming that evolution can't explain irritable complexity when to date there is not a single case of things that has been shown to be irritability complex. Also claiming that evolution can't explain the origins of life is like saying that carpentry can't explain how the earth formed.
@@joefriday2275 Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. Racists will deny evolution in their pathetic attempt to feel superior.
@@katherinehickey6915 Darwin was 1859 -- the science has advanced since then. What about the hundreds of thousands of scientists who don't doubt evolution?
@@katherinehickey6915 Are you talking about that nonsense 'Dissent from Darwinism' that is made up of mostly non-scientists or scientists that do not work in any related fields to evolution? Because there are more scientists who actually work in related fields named Steve, that accept the fact of evolution than is in your sorry excuse of a list. Project Steve has 1497 signatories as of May 22, 2024.
“You can’t give what you don’t have.” This is also found in Christ’s Matthew Effect (Matt 25:29) Whoever has, will be given more and whoever has NOT what they have will be taken away. Christ’s teaching can be applied to the science of Creation.
Leviticus Chapter 25 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life... Your god's teachings are immoral garbage. So what?
@@jsmall10671 I agree, this situation was terrible. Even Christ was pressed about Mosiac Law, specific to those in 1400 BC when divorce was thrown in his face. "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was NOT this way from the beginning" (Christ). I apologize if the Jewish faith offends you. I have no excuse. What do you suggest I do?
@@beesting6135 "cognitive dissonance" You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means. Please define cognitive dissonance for us and explain how it applies to Keith.
@@kearyAdamson I did actually, total waste of time. The guy is a PHD repeating the dogs produce dogs argument. These are Kent Hovind level arguments just being parroted by a guy who has “PHD” alongside his name.
More deeply, there is no evidence of evolution in the fossil records. The story is dead simply because complex biological operations are dependent upon other complex operations to spontaneously exist all at once. Sure, the obvious is there has never been any evidence of species of a simple order developing into a more complex order. But he did provide multiple reasons evolution is an unproven theory causing serious issue with the education system.
ruclips.net/video/noj4phMT9OE/видео.html Many books now from Yale/MIT et al. leading professors on why Darwin's theory is in fact impossible given recent scientific advances. I suppose you think calling them names somehow diminishes the facts and their arguments and strengthens your position. I'll stick with true open minded scientific inquiry and critical thinking, wherever it may lead, if you don't mind.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy (a measure of disorder) of an isolated system can never decrease over time. However, it's crucial to understand that: The second law applies to isolated systems: Earth is not an isolated system. It receives a constant input of energy from the Sun. This energy influx allows for local decreases in entropy and the emergence of more complex and ordered structures, like living organisms. Entropy can decrease locally: While the overall entropy of the universe increases, localized pockets can experience a decrease in entropy as long as there is an external energy source driving it. This is what happens in living organisms, where energy from the Sun (through photosynthesis) or from food is used to build and maintain complex structures. Evolution is not a violation of the second law: The emergence of more complex organisms over time does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics. The increase in order within organisms is offset by an increase in disorder elsewhere in the system. For example, organisms release heat and waste products, which increase the entropy of their surroundings. In summary: The second law of thermodynamics holds true for isolated systems. Earth is not an isolated system, it receives energy from the Sun. Local decreases in entropy can occur with an external energy source. Evolution does not violate the second law because the increase in order within organisms is balanced by an increase in disorder in their surroundings. The theory of evolution remains a well-supported scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove the theory of evolution. AI
Everything is ultimately affected by entropy. The sun is a ball of gas that is gradually burning itself out. The earth’s magnetic field is dissipating at a constant rate.
I am a Christian, but when I recently read that every cell in the body contains billions of instructions for life, i couldnt see how there could not be a Creator. Looking at all creation, it is "order and design". Doesn't that say something?
Live needs a definition. Reproduction is essential. Does that include viruses? If so then life on earth is based on RNA. Two questions: 1. is a computer virus alive? 2. is a meme alive? (edit extra questions) 3. is a prion alive? 4. is evolution essential?
@@sciencerules2825"It says you're arguing from personal incredulity, not any scientific reasons." No, whoever posted this comment is arguing from a point of commonsense, in this case the probability of something occurring by chance. If you were honest, you would calculate the probability of a protein, encoded by your DNA and essential to the function of the human body (or even a prokaryote cell), being formed by chance. You would then multiply this probability by the probabilities of all proteins essential to the function of a human body being formed by chance. At this point, you would come to the very uncomfortable conclusion that the probability of all proteins essential to life, whether prokaryote or a complex eukaryote (e.g., a human), being formed by chance is the mathematical equivalent of zero.
@@VeridicusMaximus"In other words - gee I can't wrap my dumb head around..." Is it necessary to be disrespectful to others simply because they have a different opinion to yours? Since when has that been OK? If you have nothing useful to say, then say nothing. In this instance, the joke is on you.
6:38 "Notwithstanding decades of these small bacteria reproducing every 20 minutes, they still are bacteria. They haven't become sponges, or cats or frogs and so on. " -- This tells you everything you need to know about this guy. :D
@@jaybfalcon2The bacteria evolve considerably, becoming resistant to all kinds of man-made agents. The populations that didn't adapt are now lost to most developed countries, but they still exist in the untouched wilds of the earth, so we can compare how great the change has been in such a relatively short period of time.
The bacteria lost abilities it had before. That’s how it became “resistant.” So, yes, this man speaking is making sense and this is a good example of demonstrating the opposite of evolutionary theory. They found that: 1. Bacteria that had a damaged control system for the cell membrane were surviving because that control system was producing LPS (lipopolysaccharide) which are negatively charged molecules. The antibiotic had positive charges and therefore since the negative charge on the cell membrane was now gone it wouldn’t bind to the cell anymore. However, this was a result of a broken existing function. And this would affect the bacteria because it cannot bind to other positive charges either now. And therefore cannot survive as well when the antibiotic is gone and the bacteria then has need to bind to positively charged molecules. 2. In bacteria there are “pumps” that transport nutrients into the bacteria cell. Bacteria that had a damaged pump or didn’t have any pumps were the ones surviving the antibiotic. Obviously when the antibiotic is gone though, the bacteria now is not living as long. And it’s another decrease in function. 3. Some bacteria already have the ability to create enzymes that break down antibiotics. Similar to the concept of two humans sharing DNA (a child formed)-one bacteria can share DNA with another bacteria. So they both can produce enzymes that break down antibiotics. The key point here is that for evolutionary theory to be true, we’re not talking about an existing organism sharing with another organism. What we’re talking about is one organism ON ITS OWN generating the ability to do more functions than before. This sharing between existing DNA is not evolution. At least, not what people mean when they use the word evolution. I can tell you that creationists do agree that there is the ability for organisms to be damaged and for organisms to share DNA. What we don’t agree with is that there’s any observation of organisms turning into a completely different system. You have to account for we’re talking about supposedly a scenario where there are NO other organisms. That’s what evolutionary theory is about. No other advanced organisms. Nothing to share with. And basically all we observe is organisms having copying errors-which that is the literal definition of mutations. That’s it. And again you can’t include sharing because we’re talking about NO OTHER organisms. The first organism. How does copying errors equal most advanced computer systems ever? Plus, there does seem to be a limit in the current sharing between organisms. In every observation we have ever had (so far) in science from the molecular level up there does seem to be limits on what is shared. Creationists, we acknowledge both that errors are resulting mainly in losses and also that sharing is within limits. Which these acknowledgments are purely accurately reporting what has been observed. Humans share DNA with other humans. Etc. This is even true at the molecular level. There are rules. There are limits. I work in data analytics for healthcare. I also have a background in Radiology.
Basically to simplify this-something has to organize (and generate) everything in the cell. And for the molecules to man it can’t be sharing, it can’t be already complex, it can’t be through losing function. But, everything we have observed in science is one of those categories. Which none of those are evolution. Not molecules to man which is what people mean when they say evolution. Creationists do not deny ANY scientific observation. We deny what hasn’t ever been observed.
That's because he's not God's representative!!!! Go look at history or read the Bible - there's valid reasons why the Reformation happened - pity for the world its all but capitulated.
religion breeds ignorance. i would have thought the answer was obvious, god is imaginary, nothing about religion is FACTUAL, so there will always be confusion and contradiction cos there id no basis other than STORIES made up by people. grow up, god = santa claus.
Does he explain why all dinosaur fossils are found below all mammal fossils? EDIT: All mammals we have a name for, lions, tigers, giraffes, humans, monkeys, squirrels, etc.
Large Animals will die out first no matter what. He is not saying Big animals die first he is saying it wasn't 65 million years ago... Also They have found in the lime fields in the US Dino and all other types of bones in the same layer of Lime including sea creatures and humans.
@@rs6730 That doesn't explain why the dinosaurs are found below the layer of iridium in the Earth's crust and why modern mammals are found on top, let alone any of the other hundreds of inconsistencies if you take Noah's version of the flood story literally.
Wow you are talking about Darwin the man who explained the variety of life, he discovered the mechanism with the help of many, but we learned tons and tons since 1850
Darwin had a hard time with his fantasy theory explaining the complexity of the human eye, he thought a single cell was simple, not the immensely complex nano city it actually is. Darwinism is dead, it cannot explain all the species of life with its non guided mutational mechanism. It is only kept viable by a dogmatic system that abhors the idea of God and will seek to explain him away using any means. Mutations are a destructive process, evolutionists use its silly premise to have you believe it can take a monkey to a man, when in reality it causes species extinction over the long term, the very opposite of slow incremental ever increasing complex organisms. The proof of this is the number of increases in cancers, allergies, defective organs, etc, this is happening to all living organisms in line with mans fall. We are devolving and genetics are being corrupted every generation. Like many, you have been taught a worldview that was built on presuppositions, assumptions, circular reasoning, lies, fraudulent evidence, and a God hating biased belief. Science should follow the evidence but secular science does not, it ignores or dismisses evidence that refutes its position and continues to publish lies and frauds in literature even though much evidence has been disproven. The only way to disprove a truth, in this case God and creation, is to resort to lies, fraud, and fabrication, ask yourself if evolution is true, why is its history littered with fakes and lies.
As has been wisely noted, faith without reason is credulity. The purpose of these discussions is to show that faith is warranted on purely rational grounds. That should be obvious.
@@rickmartin7596 I listened to about half of the program and the discussion of the 2nd Law was an unnecessary distraction. However, everything else I heard was absolutely on point. If an attorney raises one unconvincing argument but offers nine others that are congent, has he failed miserably? I think not.
@@jamesstiepan8222 If the lawyer's only bad point is that fairies and leprechauns must have committed the crime, it is reasonable to doubt his competence. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is grade school stuff. How did he get it so completely wrong?
The origin of life was a mere accident of specific elements coming together in a specific manner (we have the vastness of space and a few billion years to thank for that). Evolution (adaptation) came after that.
You are correct, the “theory” of evolution does not explain the origin of life, neither does the Big Bang theory, its scientists best guess from the 1800s and we’ve all given up trying and we’re just going with that, which is fine, I get it, don’t think about it anymore, it’s been settled and now you can watch tv and eat food and don’t worry about it anymore
“We don’t see evolution happening today” makes no sense. First of all, we do, because we see viruses that create different strains and bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics. However, expecting to see one species completely transform to the point that it would be classified as a different species within the length of a single lifetime, or even several lifetimes, shows a severe misunderstanding of the processes involved.
It is a classic mistake to confuse change with evolution. We can observe change occurring in nature because organisms effectively adapt to changing conditions. However, why isn't change evolution? The adaptation of organisms is ALWAYS based on epigenetic mechanisms and factors. Epigenetic modifications are dynamic and reversible because cells use specific mechanisms, such as epigenetic readers, writers, and erasers for epigenetic information. You can learn more about these by searching for 'epigenetic readers, writers and erasers. Epigenetic regulation inevitably leads to genetic decay because methylated cytosine is 20,000 times more likely to change to thymine than unmethylated cytosine. This inevitably leads to the gradual conversion of the GC content of all organisms' cells into AT content. The cell must maintain at least 38% GC content, so it rearranges DNA during reproduction, in so-called meiotic recombination. This usually reduces the total amount of information. We can therefore observe rapid epigenetic adaptation of organisms, based on the epigenetic regulation of existing information OR the loss of information and subsequent reorganization of information. However, evolution that crosses species boundaries (kinds) has never occurred.
@@tomiaalto1156 If you believe that genes code for physical and behavioral traits, and that some traits make an organism more or less likely to survive and pass on those genes, then you believe in evolution via natural selection.
@@Bastikovski99 Genes don't code for physical and behavioral traits. DNA doesn't determine traits or characteristics. In your every cell, there's the same DNA. Why is your skin cell different from your muscle cell? Now think.
My fellow creationists, explain not how overwhelming evidence falsifies the theory of evolution. Explain how overwhelming evidence demonstrates that Yahweh created life's diversity.
And exlplain how Jehovah took 4.5 billion years before sending Jesus to Earth. But sadly, they cannot explain anything, because religion has zero explanatory power.
Shouldn't "Dr. Marco Fasoli who holds a doctorate in biochemistry from the University of Cambridge" be presenting his "flaws in Darwin's' theory of evolution" to the scientific community in the form of a scientific paper instead of in a RUclips video? Shouldn't "Dr. Marco Fasoli who holds a doctorate in biochemistry from the University of Cambridge" know by now that the Darwinian model of evolution was replaced three quarters of a century ago by the Modern Synthesis?
With the massive history of hoaxes and fraud that evolutionists have perpetuated on the scientific community, like the Piltdown Man hoax, and the "Junk DNA" fraud, why would anyone trust them to review anything when they have yet to take accountability for the harm they have done to science? Evolutionists have demonstrated repeatedly that they have no integrity, and no interest in real evidence. Fallacies, hoaxes, and fraud are their bread and butter.
The response of @numbersix9477 is the typical "ad hominem" from over-educated people. The fallacy attacks the person making the argument rather than dealing with the argument itself. In this case, @numbersix9477 is attempting to discredit the speaker by suggesting that his argument is invalid without credentialed review. The reason people engage in fallacies is not becuase those people are ignorant, but on the contrary, because they are people educated just enough to understand how to employ fallacies as tactics to fool others. @numbersix9477 is precisely that kind of over-educated person who uses fallacies as tactics of sophistry.
He does encourage people to do their own research. Apparently the info is already out there so why would he write a paper about work thats already established?
It does not really matter weather we evolved into conscious state or not as the very nature of our existence is a feat of miraculous engineering that it is impossible to say their is no creator. God is...and even the stones cry out the glory of God.
It DOES MATTER, because when you speak of evoIution as being the mode of creation, you call YHVH incarnate in Christ a L l A R, AND you DENY HIM HIS RIGHTFUL GLORY as the Creator of all things that exist. I’ve heard so-called “Christians” say that their believing in evolution doesn’t affect their faith, and scripture says they have no faith whatsoever, because they deny the LORD Jesus Christ, YHVH incarnate, as the Creator, which means they are damned according to scripture. Read Romans 1 and find out where denying God His rightful glory as the Creator who SPOKE ALL THINGS into existence, and created man from the dust of the ground, will land you for eternity. It’s the same place you will end up if you deny Jesus is God incarnate, and if you deny the virgin birth of Christ. These fake Christians are trying to please the world by agreeing with the L l E S of evolution, and they are denying God alone as Creator who made all things in 6 days, and they don’t care how much they are offending Him. They don’t want to be persecuted like the rest of us who are not afraid to speak the truth of the scriptures, and declare Jesus Christ is Creator and Savior.
It DOES MATTER. You don’t deny YHVH incarnate in Christ as the Creator and Savior, who created all things in 6 days. You don’t deny God His rightful glory as the Creator.
the god who killed everyone in a flood for the unspecified crime of sin, usually associated with masturbation? that god who loves you and weeps while watching you burn for eternity while doing nothing to strop it, that god? the god who is watching two unlawful wars going on RIGHT NOW who is doing nothing, even though one of those wars is all about him? that god, the god who can't even keel an apple safe? you're a joke, but a sour icky kind of joke you want to gob out.
It's one thing to criticize various theoretical elements of evolution, I think everyone can and should appreciate that. But when a person says that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, they're revealing themselves to be a complete crackpot who has no idea what they're talking about. They might as well be saying that birds can't exist because of the law of gravity. It's absolutely a complete misunderstanding of everything involved.
And you select and cherry pick the law of thermodynamics because you can object to that argument and then make it seem like all his points are wrong. In actual fact the strongest point against evolution is absentia ad expectata testimonio when it comes to the modus tollens rule which shows a general absence of evolution. If evolution has been found evolutionists would be able to put their money where their mouth is and SHOW the bat intermediates. SHOW the intermediates for sexual reproduction. SHOW the intermediates for pterodactyls, ichthyosaurs and pinnipeds. SHOW the intermediates for the electric eel and bombardier beatle. The truth is when it comes to evolution there really isn't anything to show which is why evolutionist try and win using words instead, and attacking people personally.
@@zt2max it's not "cherry picking" to point out that someone who claims to be a scientist has an inexcusably poor understanding of an argument that **he chose** to make. If you want to talk about the fossil record, that's another topic entirely.
@@zt2maxThe intermediates thing its such a 1970 argument man. We dont need every "intermediate" bc every generation of a species its a "intermediate". You are an intermediate between your father and the 50000 AC version of a homo sapiens througt your genetic line. The problem that people that deny evolution have its that there is absolute no other model that explain the world that well. Negate evolution its to negate biology, zoology, botanic, geology, medicine... Whats the other explication for the existence of species adapted to the desert Sahara when million of years ago the Sahara was a jungle? Or when the earth was frozen? How today species existed during those conditions?
@@mcmanustony What evidence exactly? Just saying "evidence" doesn't tell me anything, and evidence can be interpreted many ways through different lenses. Fossils mostly prove spontaneous creation and the great flood. Comparative anatomy proves God loves variety and that we were all created by the same God. Also there is a difference between molecules to man evolution, and simple speciation built into the DNA by God. I see you've spammed a bunch of comments with 0 evidence and all just ad homs.
@@mcmanustony Everyone knows ad hom. I read your other comments. That was the majority of them. Now you're gaslighting. Yawn, once again you present no evidence. I was already a lost evolutionist. There is no going back. Keep seething.
@@ReapingTheHarvest Clever reply. I appreciate the irony. I was a pastor in opposition to evolution. I felt like God did not have a spokesperson against evolution in essence I said, here I am, send me" . I was shocked by what I found. Christian Scientists who I had supported lied in their books. After all is said and done. GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE AND HE IS TO RECIEVE ALL THE GLORY FOR ALL THAT IS GOOD AND MAGNIFICENT IN IT. IT MAKES LITTLE DIFFERENCE IF GOD MADE A WORLD WHICH COULD GENERATE SPONTANEOUIS LIFE OR HE SIMPLY DECIDED TO SPEAK LIFE..THE LANGUAGE FOUND IN OUR DNA MUST COME FROM A MIND.OF NOTE IS THE FACT THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS A COMPLEX, UNMATCHED BY ANYTHING THE MIND OF MAN COULD DESIGN. A SIMPLE FACT BUT OBVIOUSLY FORCEFUL. THE FOSSIL RECORD HAS VERY SIMPLE LIFE FORMS, LATER VEGETATION, LATER STILL, FLOWERING FLOWERS/BUSHES/TRESS WHICH HAPPENS TO COINCIDE WITH THE FIRST BEES. ANCIENT FISH,THEN MODERN AND A MOVE FROM THE SEA TO LAND. ANPHIBIANS THEN REPTILES THEN MAMMALS all of which are NEVER FOUND IN THE MOST ANCIENT ROCKS OR LAKE DEPOSITS. Conclusion they came later since they have all been found dated in younger deposits or rock. If no evolution, did God make simple life forms then add a little something over and over to get us the present diversity of all of life? Dating is confirmed by several types of dating that seem to ALL act in harmony. I have spent thousands of hours trying to better understand the Bible. Bachelors Degree with work done at 2 conservative Bible Colleges, a Masters Degree, then I dropped out of my Doctoral program. It is OK to interpret Genesis 1-11, NOT AS HISTORICAL NARRATIVE! SCHOLARS CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL find Literary, Biblical, Historical, and Scientific arguments which can be proposed to nuance our understanding of the "genre" of historical narrative. . I am honest, I love the Lord, and am an superior student. God gave me a brain which is very inquisitive so I dig deeper then most. I am a 70-year-old retired Christian who has been passionately in Love with God since July 3rd 1976 when he sent an angel to me. I was agnostic and became a fervent Christian. God spoke these words to me. "Man is separated from me because of sin but I have sent my son into the world to bring man back into relationship with myself." Became a Christian that day then my unbelieving family became saved (8 of 9) and 4 of us became pastors! Miracle healings in my family! I was shocked but God uses evolution, it is clearly directed by him because it has a telos or purpose. God Bless and love him well.
Why do people completely misunderstand what Darwin said. We know not everything Darwin said was correct. But you can't remove micro from macro evolution.
I never understood people who accept micro-evolution over decades but refuse to acknowledge the extrapolation that if you keep it running for hundreds of thousands of years you’ll get macro evolution.
@@JonCookeBridge yeah I don't get it either being we see massive changes in only hundreds. Expanding to thousands or even millions of years should be reasonable to see how many small changes. Inevitable results in radical speciation.
@@icbmh3079 Darwin didn't know what we know now about DNA and genetics, if he did he would have understood an ape doesn't and can never turn into a human.
No reply. The monk just gives "likes' to comments that kiss his monk orifice. He can't engage in a conversation about it because, by his own admission, he's scientifically illiterate. This video should be called "Scientifically Illiterate Monk Rejects Science When Fed Anti-Science Propaganda by Grifter."
Leave scientists alone. Theists' fight is with other theists on whose god is better, whose prophet is more divine. Science continues to advance while religion remains stagnant. That is not the problem of science. Science is a process, not the answer. Religion is a claim, not the truth. Let your gods fight their own battles and let scientists continue to keep you alive longer and communicate through innovation, which every one of you is enjoying at this very moment.
@@infidelcastro5129 You cannot prove or disprove God by science or any other means. For Christianity, you just have to trust the words of Jesus for a God we cannot see. First, make sure historical source is reliable. Then analyze the historical facts. If it meets your level of expectations, then you can trust it, else reject it.
@@MrQhuin Evolution is change over time of allele frequencies within populations. Adaptation is change over time of allele frequencies within populations.
@@MrQhuin You said, "evolution is changing from one species to another." I'm confident that not a single evolutionary biologist on the planet would agree that yours is an accurate representation. It seems obvious that you did no research on the subject and simply made a claim out of whole cloth. Children make things up and represent them as facts; adults do not Redeem yourself! Tell us what practicing evolutionary biologists say that evolution is.
17:40 I'm calling BS on that. Google finds two (!) sources for this quote, one from an hungarian forum I can't read and one from a creationist website.
@poiujnbvcxdswq Thanks! For future reference, it's p. 232 in my copy, subsection "Modes of Transition". Of course it was a misquote. The point is not that he left out the very next sentence. The point is not even that he misquotes the fragment in a misleading way (he isn't). The point is that this came _verbatim_ from a creationist website. I think it's fair to assume that he never read TOoS.
Nonsense. This channel is lying to you. Evolution is directly observed in real life, new genus and species have evolved under direct observation in your own lifetime, and evolution is quite literally the core theme of all biology.
@UUu-xl3gk You can prove it to yourself in about 2 minutes. Look up "another name for macroevolution," and when you've learned that speciation is macroevolution by definition, look up "has speciation been observed?" It's easy.
I'm sure you're qualified enough to challenge his expertise right? Using notes now implies not knowing right?? The internet really protects cowards these days.
@@michaeltamajong2988 Very good. Cowards hiding behind irrelevant notes aren't actually experts. Very astute that you also spotted that. If you spot an actual expert, let me know.
@@redgodofwar7723 I disagree with atheist scientists and academics, but never will you see me go to comments to argue or discredit their intellectual achievements. I will honor the expertise because it is a fact that their level of reasoning and mine are not the same, they have more experience. But it's different with atheists. You see, someone with 0 knowledge in physics or chemistry will be questioning the intelligence of an expert scientist, a professor. It's so ridiculous.
@@redgodofwar7723 my point is, at least, we need to respect intellectual achievement and experience. It is very inappropriate to make that statement you made because you cannot stand before him intellectually. Leave it to the intellectuals in his field to critique.
Stephen Meyer PhD, Michael Behee PhD, Allistair McGrath PhD, David Berlinski PhD, John Lennox PhD, James Tour PhD, Stephen Barr PhD are just a few scientists that have debunked Atheism. Dr. Frank Turek has a presentation called "Not enough faith to be an Atheist" that is very compelling.
@@FilipCordas According to a 2019 Pew poll 98% of all scientists and 99.9% of those in the Life Sciences (biology, genetics, etc.) accept evolution as the best explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth. The handful of creationist holdouts reject evolution not for any scientific reasons but purely for religious reasons.
Are abiogenesis and evolutionary biology the same thing? Abiogenesis is the theory of how life could develop from non-living materials. Evolution is the theory of how existing life could develop into different life forms. Two completely different fields of study Abiogenesis and evolutionary biology are two different fields of study, each addressing different questions. Abiogenesis is concerned with the origin of life, specifically how life could have developed from non-living materials. It involves studying the conditions on early Earth and the chemical processes that might have led to the formation of the first living cells. On the other hand, evolutionary biology is the study of how existing life has diversified and adapted over time. It starts from the premise that life already exists, and then seeks to understand how species evolve, adapt, and become extinct. While these fields are distinct, they are related in that they both seek to understand the history of life on Earth.
Intermixing lay definition use of "theory" with the science jargon definition use is confusing for non-scientists. If you intend to do so in the future, please call out which definition you are using. With that single exception, your posts were excellent.
Werner Heisenberg once said, "the Universe isn't as strange as we can imagine but it is far stranger than we can imagine." Failure to understand the cosmos gives the organized religionist his opportunity to impose his narrative on things. His clergymen don gaudy robes and convince you they represent God. That's power, one of the three things people crave most, power sex and money, they're connected. The more you have of one the more you can access of the others. They tell you you're a sinner so that you're in thrall to them and need them for redemption, job done! And in case you think you can escape their clutches by living a chaste and pure life, think again. There's the concept of original sin, a sin you committed before you were born. We'll I'm not a sinner, mate, l obey the law and harm no man. Organized religionists can't explain the suffering we see around us. Their loving, benevolent omnipotent God creates... pathogens? But God didn't create pathogens. They evolved. Take the example of the Black Death which ravaged Europe in medieval times killing millions. It didn't kill everybody so survivors could pass on their black death resistant genes to future generations so defeating the pathogen. Darwinian evolution and natural selection in progress. We humans are arguably created as much by viruses as anything else in this way. So the cosmos is the creator of life forms, both (or neither) good or bad. It's all created in stars, the element carbon. We know the building blocks of life can be found in the interstellar medium, amino acids. It could be that the answers to fundamental questions cannot be found in the end so the power-addicted organized religionist will always find justification in his eyes, for his creed. I was raised Catholic and was indoctrinated into Catholicism in the Catholic madrassa as a child. At one stage the church held a "ring-kissing cermony" when an Archbishop visited. He was installed on the altar steps while all 800 children of our primary school lined up to kiss his ring while an altar boy wiped it with a cloth, the same cloth ensuring we all got everybody's germs. At a time of measles mumps and flu epidemic. This tells you something about the mindset of the organized religionist. Totally hubristic. His argument that cells are complex doesn't disprove Darwinian evolution, it supports it. Cells were originally, billions of years ago, simple organisms which at some stage found advantage in exchanging DNA with other cells which were slightly different. The process continued becoming more complex over time resulting in today's cells, the result of exchanging DNA by a simple process of trial and error, to end up with the best options. But the process continues today, with cells still able to evolve for better options. It all stems from simple amino acid bases. The presenters fail to see the greatest evolutionary tool, that of sexual reproduction. The example of dogs at the end was interesting. We humans used Darwinian evolution to create the myriad dog breeds we see today. I was exercised by the number of times the presenters used the word "evolution". No getting away from it.
@briangemmet3567 yes because of the short period of time, the point I'm making is huge change over a relatively short period of time, so naturally over a longer period of time there will be much more significant changes. I'm not sure why this is confusing?
Chihuahuas are just dogs mutated on purpose from ancient wild dogs. It is still a canine. No new genes are added, just traits bred out of the line. They were caused by intelligent human manipulation. In nature, the wolf would never evolve into a chihuahua wolf. It would die out early as it would be less able to survive in the wild. In billions of years, even with human selective forced breeding, it would never be able to be bred into a cat.
@joekiplik9108 You've fallen for some crazy assertions. The theory of evolution says nothing about the creation of the universe, the creation of our galaxy, the creation of our solar system, the creation of the earth or the creation of life.
Evolution is indeed observable in both laboratory settings and natural populations. The changes we see over time in organisms are a testament to this process. The example the annual flu. Viruses, including the flu virus, evolve rapidly, which is why new vaccines are needed each year. This is a clear and present example of evolution in action. Moreover, evolutionary theory goes beyond just explaining these observable changes. It also provides a framework for understanding the complex patterns of life we see in the fossil record, including the emergence of new species, the changes within species over time, and the eventual extinction of species.
Evolution of species is not shown in the lab. Only adaptation was shown in the lab. You can’t just assume that we came from fish just because you saw adaptation through a microscope, and there’s really no observable evidence of macro evolution. Just adaptation. And that’s pretty much Darwin’s view too since he saw that birds have different beak sizes therefore each animal comes from a single cell. Pretty wild conclusion coming from the hypothesis, isn’t it? Now that we studied it more thoroughly and learned to make a distinction between adaptation and evolution.
Serious question - then how did whales grow into fish? They were small land mammals and slowly became huge sea mammals. Is that just adaptation? If “bugs stay bugs”, do some mammals change quite a bit? Horses and cats can’t change quickly, but holy crap dogs can - they were 5 foot tall wolves 10k years ago, now some of them are dachshunds.
The theory of evolution is disputed mainly by people who are desperate to show a supernatural hand in the diversity of life. Videos like this convince no one save those already in the creationist camp.
As an honest Christian pastor I could not agree more. Science is a wonderful gift of God. By gift I mean the rational capacity we are endowed with. And if science were one day (presently very far from our abilities and understanding) find that life is spontaneous, that would be inline with a God who is life itself. His creation would simply reflect him. People choose or simply accept ignorance. I find this rather evenly distributed in atheists and in Christians. Some close their eyes to God other to science. (I was an atheist at age 14, became an agnostic soon afterwards, then a Christian about 8 years later when God spoke to me.
Amazing presentation. I'm constantly trying to share this type of information with friends and family but everyone thinks I'm crazy. I wish I could speak eloquently like this man. But I know if I send the video to my friends they won't watch it
you're not crazy but you a superstitious ignoramus. what could you possibly need this guy for or to speak like him--isn't everything in your bible pal? why should they watch it if you send it--you can't talk scientifically to conclude your religion, and again, something wrong with your bible?
@@Finnegas-Eceswell let’s see pal. You and I don’t really know each other but by your own admission your friends and family think you’re crazy. So absolutely no wherewithal to think for one second that the problem really is you?
@user_James_Foard 4 days ago (edited) Thank you! Many years ago I had a wonderful Catholic video on creation narrated by an old Catholic priest with a long, grey beard and a German or eastern European accent and I lost it long ago and can't find it on the internet. Part of his name was Maria in honor of Mary, and the video dealt with the process of sedimentation and also why the literal story of Adam and Eve was essential to understanding why our Lord was crucified for our sins. If you know what video I am talking about I would love to find it again. Bless you!
10:45 Evolution also presupposes the existence of electrons, but can't explain it. Why does this matter? The Theory of Evolution explains the diversity of life, not its origin. If you could find incontrovertible proof that life was created by a god, the ToE wouldn't change one bit.
You can tell Marco's lying because he doesn't actually show the letters and certainly doesn't put them into proper context. Honest. informed. Creationist. Choose up to 2.
The problem is not only the inexplicable information gain by "random, unguided processes" (ie magic). To me, something which neo Darwinians never seem to take into account is that every transitional form (say between a yak and a whale, as I believe the story goes) is non adaptive! So, you start off with a perfectly happy and well-adapted yak, pining for the fjords in Norway. Then, in a moment of inspiration, he thinks that he would really love to swim and so comes up with the idea of becoming a whale. The problem, as David Berlinski points out, is that you need roughly 50 000 changes of one sort or another to do so. So, at stage one (as a yak) you are adapted to pining for the fjords and at stage 50 000 (as a whale) you are, similarly, adapted to pining for the fjords, from the ocean. The difficulty becomes one whereat at steps 2 to 49 999 you become increasingly maladapted to either environment or either body. And at the intermediate stage, step 25 000 would be utterly, catastrophically maladapted. And time would only make this worse. as the maladaptive stages would last increasingly longer. For this to be viable, the changes would have to be instantaneous to the point of being magical, as no other word could describe it. So yeah, evolution is, in fact, rooted in magical thinking.
In your scenario there is a point A, the yak, and a point B, a whale. That isnt how anyone claims evolution works. Instead, you would have a single group. Part of the group lives by the water, the other part lives in the mountains. But what it takes to be successful near water and in the mountains is not the same, so they will each adapt to their environment independently from each other.
@@pinklemon-m5v But that isn't at all what Darwinian macro evolution states. In fact, the theory of whale evolution starts with a wolf-like mammal that loses its land adaptivity and "gradually, over time" becomes adapted to life in the water. This is in the text books, but I think a yak is more fun...given that it is all make believe. In Darwinian evolution. all boundaries are permeable, yet, in reality, we never see that when, in fact, we should see it all the time. We see no transitional fossils as they would be maladaptive and the incipient information gain of positive mutations is impossible to explain under Darwinian terms.
Is there a specific reason why you chose a yak as a starting point for evolving into a whale, rather than something more plausible, such as a hippo (or a capybara, or a beaver, or any other semiaquatic species of mammal)? They spend part of their time on land and a large part in the water, and they are not "catastrophically maladapted" for either. In principle, what keeps them from adapting to an even more aquatic existence? At some point they might become much better swimmers, but more awkward on land (like sea elephants), and eventually very good swimmers who don't go on land at all anymore (like manatees and whales). (Likewise, when someone trots out the "what good is half a wing?", I recommend they look up flying squirrels and sugar gliders.)
@@davidwilliamdanielthomas9305 "We see no transitional fossils" - you have never even bothered to look at the wikipedia page for "evolution of cetaceans", have you?
@@davidwilliamdanielthomas9305 Transitional species would not be "maladaptive" as each successful new trait would benefit the species in its environment. As the environment gradually changes, successful species would appear to change. This is exactly what we find in the fossil record. Have you fallen for the lie that you must choose either evolution or God ... but not both? One more thing . . . . Horse evolution: Hyracotherium Orohippus Mesohippus Miohippus Parahippus Merychippus Pliohippus Equus Whale evolution: Indohyus Pakicetus Ambulocetus Kutchicetus Rodhocetus Durodon Odontocetes Mysticetes Hominid evolution: Sahelanthropus tchadensis Ardipithecus kadabba Ardipithecus ramidus Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus afarensis Australopithecus africanus Australopithecus garhi Australopithecus sediba Homo habilis Homo ergaster Homo erectus Homo heidelbergensis Homo sapiens Want transitional fossils? Start with these.
Professor, life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. This low law holds for the closed systems. Life is not a closed system, life gets its energy from the Sun. This is high school stuff professor. The rest of the interview is the same. What knocked me down was the story about long living patriarchs. Unbelievable !
Not only is life not a closed system, the earth itself isn't as well. Plus, it would be prudent for this "professor" to read up on nonequilibrium thermodynamics, since it basically shows that given enough chemical varieties (an undisputed guarantee given what we currently know about the past and present earth) combined with the consummation of free energy gradience, equilibrium will be exceeded and as a consequence, chemical complexity and order are mathematically inevitable to arise, and since biology derives from chemistry, it's not irrational nor implausible to posit for the formation of life to be likewise inevitable.
"bugs' are not a species but yes, every species ever is a member of it's ancestral clade. Just like evolution demands. That is why you ARE a primate and a mammal and an animal etc.
*Why a religion (like Christianity) lasted for thousands of years?* One of the major arguments for the “truth” preached by Christianity, is that “If it was not true and factual, it would not be followed by 2+ billion people and would not have lasted for 2000+ years. It is true however, that membership in Christian religions is steadily (as a percent of population) declining. So just let us examine what the underlying causes for Christianity’s longevity. Very briefly, in the early days until the reformation 1517 CE converts were mostly acquired by brute force, wars of religions, forced conversions of native people, torture and extermination of those who resisted. Once civilization became more knowledgeable and the sciences gathered momentum, more and more of the claims of Christianity were discredited. Further erosion of confidence was supplied by the fact that Christianity splintered into more than several thousands of different sects, many of them advocating opposing theories and making different claims. Closer to today, the opposition to Christian beliefs and practices gathered enough strength and substance that the tyranny of theocracies was weakened, and for the most part eliminated by the 20th century. However, even today, there are a significant number of fanatics (not counting those Christians, who may be church going, but only pay lip service to the fables Christianity still preaches and live secular lives). Today, the 2.4 billion Christians are divided into more than 200, 000 different sects, many of which do not agree with each other (sometimes to the degree of waging wars). If they did agree, there would be no reason for this splintering. Also, roughly about one half are “Christians in name only” or do not practice Christianity. A small portion of the remaining 50% are young earth creationists, the fanatical bible thumpers claiming a 6,000-year-old earth. The Young Earth Creationist (YEC) movement started with the beginning of the Seventh Day Adventist cult formed in the 18th century. Spreading to other cults and promoted by Henry Morris in 1954 the Creation Research Society was formed. Today YEC are around 41 million members, or about 2% of all Christians. Yet this group of fanatics still wage a desperate fight to stave off elimination. They will ignore all science, falsify history and will do just about anything to keep their myths surviving. This is the group that trolls the RUclips comment section, and desperately tries to gain new recruits. *Because Fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy and needs feeding*
Waiting to see Dr. Marco Fasoli's Nobel Prize. Also waiting to see his published research on evolution... checked rather recently and found his retinue of published research on the topic to be devoid of titles. BUT, in the 1980s and 1990s he published papers where he demonstrated evolution. Curiouser and curiouser.
So cetaceans don't function well? Dingoes pose no problem at all for Creationists. The problem you should seek an answer to is why, even given the Biblical teaching of the fall and decay from initial creation, why life is so perfect. Michael Denton in his book. Evolution. A Theory in Crisis has a chapter title, The puzzle of perfection. In an evolutionary world it is not supppsed problems in design but the amazing perfection of creation that is a mystery.
@@russellholmes8742 So two platypus waddled all the way, some 12,000 km, to the middle east, because it was raining? Denton's book came out in 1985 and was trashed by the scientific community. Reviews by parties within the scientific community were vehemently negative, with several attacking flaws in Denton's arguments. Biologist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin described A Theory in Crisis as "a book by an author who is obviously incompetent, dishonest, or both - and it may be very hard to decide which is the case" and that his "arguments turn out to be flagrant instances of the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. Other scientists voiced similar opinions. Biologist Walter P. Coombs writing in Library Journal said much of the book reads like creationist prattle. Mark I. Vuletic, in an essay posted to the talk.origins Archive, presented a detailed argument that Denton's attempts to make an adequate challenge to evolutionary biology fail, contending that Denton neither managed to undermine the evidence for evolution, nor demonstrated that macroevolutionary mechanisms are inherently implausible. Philip Spieth, Professor of Genetics at University of California, Berkeley, reviewed the book saying his conclusions are "erroneous" and wrote the book "could not pass the most sympathetic peer review" because "evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as bald assertions accompanied, more often than not, with scorn." Paleontologist Niles Eldredge in a review wrote that the book is "fraught with distortions" and utilized arguments similar to creationists.
29:00 I'm looking forward to part two of this video where he applies the "Principle of Evidence" to the "theory" that the Earth and all life was created by a god.
Another thought on the pace of theoretical evolutionary change. If Darwin proposed that these changes would take millions of years, this does not fit global cycles of ice ages in the thousands of years. For example, an organism during a warm period begins its million year march to adapting to warm weather only to be completely ill adapted to the ice age that arrives 5,000 years later.
Hence 99% of all living things that have existed on our planet are extinct. Your post only solidifies that "only the strong survive", also known as evolution. Evolve or you will be dissolved.
@@globalcoupledances either evolution, as proposed by Darwin, was to ensure the survival of a species, adapting to fit the environment, or it isn't. And what would the mechanism be that says "this one adapts to survive, this one doesn't and dies"? That would seem capricious at best. Survival of the fittest makes more sense.
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." ♦"Religion is founded on the fear & gullibility of many & the cleverness of the few." ♦"Only fools revere the supernatural bs just bc a book says it's the holy truth." ♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure & the intelligent full of doubt." ♦"The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics may believe on their own." ♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." ♦"It's difficult to free the religious fools from the chains they revere." ♦“To have faith is precisely to lose one's mind so as to win God.” ♦"The death of dogma is the birth of morality."
And yet, here you are. Something inside you is telling you the truth. Good luck on your journey. P.S. you should really change "religion" to "relationship with God". Religion in and of itself is no different than dogma, whether expressed by believers or material reductionist. As such you are simply creating a stawman argument to then disprove which leaves you exactly where you started even after all your effort.
Darwin didn't have access to the current body of scientific knowledge or modern instrumentation.
That was my point. He based his work on what could be observed at the time with no knowledge of genetics. Pretty damned impressive, in my book.
@@mcmanustonyyeah
@@mcmanustony Only in the macrocosmos. In the microcosmos the Darwinists have been debunked by Michael Behe and by reality, of course.
Neither did the Jews
@@mcmanustony Read first Behe's book, please, and then come here again, admitting Behe's greatness.
And every follower/believer of Darwin's hypothesis is a Darwinist by definition. Ramen.
Peltdown Man refers to a set of fossils found near Piltdown, England, in 1912, which were initially thought to be the remains of a previously unknown early human. These remains, which included a skull and jawbone, were purported to bridge the gap between apes and humans, causing significant excitement and reevaluation in the scientific community regarding human evolution.
However, by 1953, the fossils were exposed as a fraud through chemical analyses and other tests. It was revealed that the bones were a combination of human and orangutan parts, artificially aged and manipulated to appear ancient. The identity of the perpetrator of the Piltdown hoax has never been definitively established, though various individuals associated with the discovery have been suspected. The incident is one of the most infamous scientific frauds in history and serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of rigorous scientific methods and peer review.
When I was a young boy in a Protestant Church, I was told the same and the same example of the orangutank as an argument against Evolution. Now I am 58, and I meet with the same argument again. Well, I also know some crooks who declared that they found Noah's arc on Mount Ararat, made a few commercialy succesful videos about it and were asking money from the churches in the US to make another expedition there. Should I disavow the Bible because of them?
when a cop plants evidence do we re-invent the justice system or just throw out that piece of evidence?
@@AMC2283When the people who believe the ideas are falsifying all the “evidence” to prove their theory, why would you not doubt them? If something is so obviously a scientific fact, they would’ve found real evidence, but instead they’ve just faked all the evidence. They are just as bad as the Christians who believe Genesis can be used to scientifically date the earth, etc.
@@AMC2283 No you just throw out all the dirty cops and their false evidence.
@@alantasman8273"No, you just throw out all the dirty cops and their false evidence."
Alan for the win 😂.
Man disproves entire field of science. Can’t wait to see his Nobel prize for saving us from our ignorance
You'll be waiting a long time. This guy disproved nothing! If fact he cited nothing actually supported by evidence. His claims about Darwin are inaccurate, and debunk nothing. A typical apologists hit job.
Linda your comment disappeared just as I was to provide evidence!
Just because the speaker says something doesn't mean he is correct! In fact he is quite incorrect several times.
Research the London underground mosquito to see an example of one species changing to another, proving that his comments are inaccurate.
Darwin didn't even discuss primordial soup in his research, so that makes this guy's comments on this video seem like lies, or at least deceptive. Most of what the video says is unsupported or disputed by the science - but I'll bet you've never even looked at the science, but instead believed what you've been told?
Then read up on evolution before making uneducated comments. EVERY single fossil is actually a transitional fossil if it has a difference from the previous example, but the differences from one generation to the next may even be imperceptible, and difficult to see in a fossil. Depends on lots of factors.
@@tonyclif1 just so you know his comment was sarcasm
@@tonyclif1 "This guy disproved nothing".
Excellent, we have someone who's willing to rebut the statements made in the video.
Please go ahead.
@@ianshand6094 @ianshand6094 let's start at 0:25 when he claims Lyell's principles have been disproved. An absolute untruth - while not all of Lyell's specific claims have withstood scrutiny, his overall approach and many of his principles remain integral to the field of geology. (Uniformitarianism, gradualism and deep time for a start) His work was the basis of a methodology that has enabled geologists to refine our understanding of Earth's geological processes. I can't give you links as RUclips deletes them, but I've given enough info for you to look them up
Darwin described his own writings as "speculation, full of holes". Honesty is the best policy.
great--the theory of evolution is hardly synonymous with darwin after 160 years, it's exhaustively verified, and this guy whining about how dna is magical refutes nothing
Is lying about what Darwin said really your best "debunk" of the theory?
Lies
@@AMC2283 Standard propaganda delivered in broken AI style.
@@numbersix9477 Did Darwin ever finish his sequel to OOS?
Yes, everyone do your own research, but not from a religious oriented source. Than you will get a current understanding of how evolution is evidenced from all fields of science.
At 17:16 he says that fruit flies have failed to show any adaptation through evolution... but they have! what about the experiment that stopped them from breeding for progressively longer and longer periods (so they reproduced later) and doubled their lifespan in a fairly short amount of time!?
That's more goldfinch beak stuff. Where was new genetic information added to where you have a new type of creature. The number of generations required for one evolutionary step is getting higher and higher each year.
Doesn’t explain or prove macro evolution
@@jcrodri3You're seriously (wilfully?) underestimating this. Lifespan is infamously fixed, think what people have done to try to increase it in humans. Religious people fantasise about a mythical past with sinless humans who lived for hundreds of years.
Back in the real world, a greater lifespan in flies could lead to all sorts of new challenges, and therefore opportunities, especially strategies for winter survival (which flies famously fail at), which in itself would probably lead to even greater changes.
@jcrodri3 - creationists define "macro" evolution as change of kind. Like a mother giving birth to a frog. Something what is impossible. Normal people don't mention "macro evolution"
Meaning they had fewer offsprings?
All this bluster from apologists, but we never hear scientists telling us evolution doesn't happen. Can any creationist find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix? Nothing so far.
That's stupid, creation fixes evolution completely by disproving it entirely.
@@James-p3m8j
Your so called evidence convinced YOU! It hasn't convinced a single head of a single science department of a single one of earth's 2,000 largest universities.
@@James-p3m8j Can you expand on that at all? What is this flaw and can you demonstrate it?
@numbersix9477 If you understood the problem you would laugh at your naivete.
@@Ozzyman200 If creation is true then so is a creator. If there is a creator, evolution, as taught", wouldn't be true. I am not talking about epigenetics, I am talking about puddle to paradise.
If the molecule ATP is to be so complex and irreducible and is needed for life to work and exist then can there be found anywhere that such life does exist and not contain this molecule? If not, then where/ when/ how did this *appear* and be so necessary that it would be thing there or no life? What would said living organism be if it didn't?
*Irreducible Complexity*
Irreducible complexity is a concept advocated by Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box to support Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design proponents argue that while some systems and organs can be explained by evolution, those that are irreducibly complex cannot, and therefore an intelligent designer must be responsible.
Irreducible complexity stems from the claim that some biological systems appear to be too complex to have arisen by natural selection. Specifically, it argues that if you take a part away from an organism and it stops functioning (analogous to taking the engine out of a car) then it must be irreducibly complex and cannot have evolved. It is one of the main arguments of the Intelligent Design movement.
The concept is considered to be total nonsense when applied to evolution because it fails to take into account numerous other pathways that a particular ability can evolve through - it assumes that evolution must go through "additive" processes to achieve its conclusion and this isn't the case. Most evolutionary biologists do not consider it science by any stretch of the imagination because the idea relies on personal incredulity and unwarranted assumptions.
Dr. Kenneth Miller (a practicing Christian) takes Behe’ s nonsense and tears it to shreds. Interesting reading for the curious; poison for creationists.
Michael Behe was placed on the witness stand in 2005 (Kitzmiller vs. Dover), where he was totally embarrassed and discredited as he tried to peddle Intelligent Design (and irreducible complexity). He had to admit (his words) that the definition of Intelligent Design would also include astrology (or tarot card reading).
Richard Dawkins one of the most accomplished biologists, destroys Behe and slaps him around as the child Behe is.
"Have an open mind" and "Do your own research", but "Just don't read the text books".
Perhaps that’s better said, “Don’t just read the textbooks.”
@@kevinbrummett5513 No, he's got it pretty spot on with what these people are actually saying.
They don't want you reading the books that actually talk about the facts, because then you wouldn't be convinced by all their bullshit.
@@palladin1337 Yet all this BS makes real impact on medicine, vaccin and curing disease in general.
Whenever has the "god-hypothesis" given us anything concrete and helpful in developping cures for diseases like cancer?
At least Darwin had the balls to admit his hypothesis could be wrong. Most lay-people today are told abiogenesis is irrefutable fact with no holes or room for improvement. Scientific progress cannot flourish against such fervent dogmatism.
@@uniqueRUclipsCreatorHandle "Most lay-people today are told abiogenesis is irrefutable fact with no holes or room for improvement."
....No, no they are not. What is said about Abiogenesis, at least from people who don't have their heads buried in a book of myths written by goat farmers, is that it is currently the most plausible theory we have for how life first started on Earth. It isn't 'complete,' however, so there is definitely room for it to improve since it's a relatively recent theory.
"Scientific progress cannot flourish against such fervent dogmatism."
Which is why religion as a whole is largely discarded as useless when speaking about things scientifically since it's dogmatic and always behind the curve, be it scientifically or socially.
0:40 This did not took me one, but two Google searches, because these lines are from _two_ letters, one to Gray (1857-06-18) and one to Huxley (1859?-06-02). Was Google broken the day Fasoli prepared for this interview?
Google regularly malfunctions on purpose.
glad somebody else found it. I was not so kind in my summary as you.
@@surrenderdaily333 Oh really, just because it doesn't give the results that fit your narrative.
This conversation was incredibly frustrating. I was hoping for some firm reasoning and only got a terrible non relevant analogy. Where is the hard proof?
If you cannot explain something simply you do not understand well enough.
It's quite clear we do not understand the processes of life origin and complexity. Not knowing is also part of science. This fact however does no imply any divine intervention, unless we agree to name anything we can't understand as God, just to simplify our overwhelming lack of knowledge and make us feel a bit more confortable, which is understandable.
It's not that we don't understand how complex digital information systems similar to DNA can arise, we do, you used an example of it to type your comment.
What we don't understand is how it could possibly also be created by some naturalistic accident like lightning hitting a puddle.
To say 'we don't understand, so it must be a fluke' makes some a lot comfortable than the alternative.
@@SteveLomas-k6k
You said, "What we don't understand is how it could possibly also be created by some naturalistic accident like lightning hitting a puddle."
Your assertion is irrelevant. The theory of evolution doesn't address the origin of life any more than atomic theory addresses the origin of mass, general relativity the origin of matter, energy, gravity or space-time, germ theory the origin of germs.
@@numbersix9477 It was responding to the comment about origins. Beyond that, I can explain a watch by purely naturalistic processes also, if I ignore how it was created. I understand ToE doesn't, and cannot explain origins of life- that's not a strength for the naturalist argument though.
Have you ever read the Bible?? Not as a religion but read it as a historical book. There is plenty of proofs in this book that have been from by ancient historians. Even the atheist ones
19:35 The flagellum is certainly the best known example of irreducably complexity, so there is really no excuse for Fasoli to ignore its numerous refutations. The most prominent is probably from Prof. Ken Miller, easy to find here on RUclips. Incidentally, Jon Perry published a video on the topic just yesterday ("Darwin and Irreducible Complexity"), with some characteristically gorgeous graphics. He uses the honey bee stinger as an example.
The argument itself is also false _by law,_ see Kitzmiller v Dover.
Fasoil is just a selfish liar who don't care about the truth. Thank you for mentioning Jon's video.
"The flagellum is certainly the best known example of irreducably complexity"
Except of course as you correctly laid out with Ken Miller and the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, the flagellum is actually the best-known example of NOT being irreducibly complex.
Oh please. Evolution is Miller's money cow, and it's been rumored that the judge at the Dover trial plays a good game of golf.
@@TheStarflight41 Personal attacks instead of arguments or evidence. Is that what your god commands you to do?
There is actually no example of irreducible complexity, just bald assertions. Prove otherwise.
4:15 No, it doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'm all for disproving Darwin's theory _honestly._ Making up lies like this one only weakens your argument. Cut it out, stay scientific and truthful.
Explain why it doesn't.
@williamsaaranen7672 - 2nd law only applies to closed systems.
@@globalcoupledances Yes. That's why if one wants to invoke the 2nd law in the context of Darwin, one must include the Sun in the proceedings. And the Sun is the source of very low entropy. So the real mystery is why the Big Bang (assuming it did happen) was such an enormously low-entropy state. Nobody knows. Roger Penrose in his "Emperor's New Mind" book has an estimate of the probability of this happening by chance: it's about 1 in 10^10^123, an amazingly tiny chance. So what physicists are saying is, basically: "We can explain everything following that, just give us this one miracle".
@@williamsaaranen7672 As another person mentioned, one must include the Sun as a part of the system. And the Sun is a reservoir of enormously low entropy (which is utlimately traced back to the Big Bang, assuming _that_ theory is more or less correct, so _that's_ where the miracle in fact resides).
@@williamsaaranen7672 the earth is an open system, influenced for example by solar energy - affecting climate, weather, photosynthesis which all can impact reactions by organisms (like evolution :) )
Our friends dug up a model of evolution that was abandoned by the scientific community over seventy years ago - and attacked it, attacked it, attacked it. Does that approach actually work?
Darwin died 1882 and and was the pioneer of these ideas. How about somebody who studied it this year?
Well that’s question begging. With what criteria did they use to study these things. They have to base that off of what Darwin’s studies were and try to build on that. If there’s so many flaws in Darwin’s work, why pursue what he was pursuing?
Cancer Tumor progression, Rapid COVID evolution in a few months ,the dog from the wolf, Corn from Teosinte , antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance , how many examples of evolution right in front of your nose do you need?
Those are literally all medical which is well known. Those are controlled conditions. Medicine doesn’t form on its own. Cancer is the DECAY of life, not the advancement of it. Different Covid strains are simply different iterations within the same subclass of species. Same thing with humans exhibiting different color hair and what not. Except for the wolf to dog, but even still they are still within the same species line.
@@mcmanustony I have removed my comment
A dog and a wolf the same animal. That is like a spotted dog from a black dog. Evolution requires a significant change. A simple organism evolving into a more complex organism, according to the dictionary. A wolf evolving into a wolf with thumbs, that can talk, or has wings. You know like the single cell organism that evolved into you.
@@mcmanustony we both can search the internet in seconds for a definition. I doubt there can be reasonable discussion unless we agree upon what evolution means. If you think that dogs and wolves are evolution and prove that we all came from simple single cell organisms, I’d have to say that is a huge leap of faith.
Even the development of an overbite in modern Human beings can be dated from the adoption of the Knife and Fork as common items of cutlery.
Anyone else notice that he uses and anology of something he knows to be created to something he believes is created. Why not compare it to the complexity of the dynamo effect of the Earth core?
Because that how rationality works, my guy. But I'm glad you admit that creation is in fact observed, aka, it's a scientific explanation for causes.
@stevedoetsch is this directed towards my comment? If so, theistic creation has never been observed. Even if a god did the creating we'd have to take their word for it. We'd have to use a different standard of scrutiny and assume they haven't lied. Science doesn't support or exclude c4eation.
I llove the simple hood and tunic of our dear Brother. They have not changed in thousands of years but are completely simple and functional. How beautiful!
why dos god care what people wear, they all have a silly hat, they criticise drag queens but wear frocks, you even have to cut your body to make some gods happy, but god doesn't seem to care about shoes. funny guy.
What exactly is "Darwinian" evolution and who cares about science almost 2 centuries old. How about modern evolutionary science, which is the cornerstone of all biology? Just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean they aren't a shill.
Darwinian evolution says new species are created by "numerous, successive, slight modifications".
Because fossils don't support "innumerable transitional forms" Eldredge and Gould dreamed up Punctuated Equilibrium.
Because Goldschmidt thought this slow change is illogical. He came up with the Hopeful Monster. Which is like Punctuated Equilibrium.
Then other atheists, like Fred Hoyle, say aliens created and are tending life on earth.
All nonsense. Because they couldn't grasp the concept of the supernatural.
@@joefriday2275 Please learn how evolution works.
@@joefriday2275
You are quite obviously talking through your hat! Your post tells us that you haven't remotely studied the subject. .
1. Scientifically literate individuals no more often refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwin's Theory" than they refer to Atomic Theory as "Bohr's Theory" or General Relativity Theory as "Einstein's Theory."
2. The scientific community identified multiple shortcomings of the Darwinian model of evolution approximately three quarters of a century ago and replaced it with the Modern Synthesis.
Buy a copy of the college level textbook, "Evolution," by Douglas J. Futuyma. Read it and sin no more.
("Evolution" is in it's 5th edition but that edition is quite expensive. You can purchase a used second or third edition online for less than $20 - delivered. I personally have two copies, my own and a loaner.)
You have a lot to learn and a massive amount of information is out there. I hope you avail yourself of some of it.
Be Blessed!
The word "evolutionary" often just replaces what used to be "biological".
@@korbendallas5318 it's scientifically and mathematically impossible. Proved in 1998. There is no mechanism that can produce change in kind only adaption built into living organisms. Laws of physics.
Darwin’s theory is NOT a myth; it’s a theory. The primary role of science is to either:
1. Prove that the theory is correct; or
2. Prove that the theory is incorrect.
Correct idea, a small correction, science does not prove, but verifies. Proofs are only in Math.
@@florincoter1988 Good point, thank-you for the correction...so much for my theory. ;)
@@martinroncetti4134 Thank you! So rare today to acknowledge (or to reject) kindly a clarification.
@@martinroncetti4134 People forget the whole of science is conjecture that's accepted so long as it's workable, soon as a new explanation leads to better results it doesn't take long b4 everyone acts like they always knew. Judging by the amount of rule bending going on presently we're due for a lot of hot potato dropping, specifically in the astronomical community who are finding sums wrong all over the shop now the new telescopic datasets are being evaluated. They're so close to unifying everything, apart from that 95% they don't know anything about. They will keep it under their hats until it all clears itself up - no need to 'rock the boat' so's to speak..!
Whatever it is, it's bollocks!
"I will rather believe in faeries than in Darwinian theory!" should have been this vid's title.
Are you saying you believe in the fairytale of evolution?
@@richardjackson6307 It's just like a theory, just like the spherical shape of the Earth.
Strangely both are supported by facts, and both contradict the Bible...
@@VadimRadtchenko
But, but, but heaven! If you don't embrace a literal interpretation of Genesis, you won't be allowed into heaven.
Truth hurts, I understand your foolish exageration due to your frustration and embarrasment, and we forgive you.
@@James-p3m8j You mean that I'm exaggerating Earth's shape and that you think it's just a little bulging but still as flat as a clay seal?
Not to cast aspersions upon the *no amino acid formation* "theory" they did say they were able to trap amino acid (albeit both left and right handed, amino acids trapped nonetheless) and now they say they (these amino acids) appeared inside meteorite rocks. If anyone could provide info upon these arguments.
I noticed that you "liked" all three of your own posts.
These two religious apologist should realize that their own catholic Church supports the reality of evolution. Next episode we should ask these two characters to perform heart surgery. @12:20 this apologist quotes James Tour as being an OOL scientist. This is untrue and patently misleading. His work and papers are all in physical chemistry.
Gee, almost like they are lying. 🤥
The same with the Anglican Church in England. The last few Arch Bishops of Canterbury have stated Evolution is true.
James Tour is a remarkable scientist-chemist who has extensive writings and speeches supporting guided creation and giving exquisite refutations to any random processes proposed to support classic evolution
@@SRMarquisAdventure and he has published a grand total of ZERO papers on OoL.
Not exactly an expert in the field.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems and states that the entropy (or disorder) of an isolated system can only increase over time. However, Earth is not a closed system as it continually receives energy from the Sun. This external energy input can drive processes that result in increased order or complexity, such as the evolution of life.
For instance, a mutation that allows one cell to stick to other cells could indeed enable the development of a larger and more complex life form. This process does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the energy required for the mutation and the subsequent growth and development of the organism can come from the Sun or other external sources.
So, the claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based on a misunderstanding of the law itself and its applicability to open systems like Earth. The increase in complexity observed in evolution does not contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics when correctly understood in the context of an open system receiving energy from an external source.
Oh it’s simpler than that, thermodynamics is the science of work done by heat and evolution is the process of hereditary change.
@@AMC2283 That’s a succinct and accurate description! Thermodynamics is indeed the branch of physics that deals with the relationships between heat and other forms of energy. It studies how energy is transferred in the form of heat and work, and how it affects the properties of substances.
On the other hand, evolution is a process that results in hereditary changes in a population spread over many generations. It’s the key mechanism that drives the diversity of life we see on Earth.
Both are fundamental concepts in their respective fields of study.
So what the labs have been missing in trying to produce large evolutionary changes is....sunlight?
The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed and open systems. A “closed system” simply implies that there is no mass transfer, therefore it’s a constant mass system. Earth is technically a closed system since the mass flow in and out of Earth’s orbit (i.e. space debris and asteroids landing on earth) is negligible. I believe you meant to say that Earth is not an isolated system since it has heat interactions with the sun, just wanted to clarify.
Well, but what we here on earth always observe is the effects of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the increase of disorder, and that law has to be taken into consideration always in human activity, every engineer knows that. As to mutations, every case of cancer is due to a mutation or several of them, every genetic illness is due to mutation. That does not sound like evolution to something better.
Well explained. Pleasent conversation. Love this video. Thank you ❤
'Do your own research with an open mind!'
his first statement is a lie. first statement.
They say different bacterium that have flagellum have them *built* differently with different amount of so-called parts. But could they get one to become any other... And if the *34* genes must be as aligned or there is no working *life* could they find others with any of those genes missing or not there. Could they have one become (evolve) into any other? If evolution says the lesser must have worked and for some time in order to become the next then could it be possible to revert back to an earlier form or observe any process going from one to any other? If not, it is merely only a theory nothing more.
@midnightmaus4959 "only a theory"
You have no idea how much those three words tell us about your level of scientific literacy.
0:20 Is this one of these videos where virtually every single sentence is a lie or is based on a misconception? No, Fasoli, what Darwin said about the matter is _not_ relevant. The Theory of Evolution is not Scripture, handed down from a prophet. With a degree in biochemistry you should know this.
Evidence for evolution comes from various fields of biology and geology, providing a comprehensive and well-supported understanding of how species change over time. Here are some key pieces of evidence:
1. Fossil Record
Transitional Fossils: Fossils that show intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants. Examples include the transition from fish to amphibians (Tiktaalik), reptiles to birds (Archaeopteryx), and land mammals to whales (Ambulocetus).
Stratigraphy: Fossils found in different geological layers demonstrate a timeline of gradual change, with simpler organisms found in older layers and more complex ones in newer layers.
2. Comparative Anatomy
Homologous Structures: Body parts that are similar in structure but may serve different functions in different species, indicating a common ancestor. For example, the forelimbs of humans, cats, whales, and bats.
Vestigial Structures: Body parts that have lost their original function through evolution. Examples include the human appendix, the pelvis in whales, and the wings of flightless birds like ostriches.
3. Comparative Embryology
Embryonic Development: Similarities in the early stages of development in different species suggest a common ancestry. For instance, vertebrate embryos exhibit pharyngeal pouches (which develop into gills in fish and parts of the ear and throat in mammals).
4. Molecular Biology
DNA and Protein Similarities: The genetic code is universal among all living organisms, and closely related species have more similar DNA sequences. Comparisons of specific genes (like the cytochrome c gene) and proteins (like hemoglobin) show degrees of relatedness.
Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs): These are viral sequences that have become part of the genome. Shared ERVs in the same genomic locations among different species indicate common ancestry.
5. Biogeography
Geographic Distribution: The distribution of species around the world reflects their evolutionary history. For example, the unique species found on islands (like the finches of the Galápagos Islands) demonstrate adaptive radiation from a common ancestor.
Plate Tectonics: The movement of continents explains the historical distribution of species. Fossils of the same species found on different continents support the idea that these continents were once connected.
6. Direct Observation
Microevolution: Changes within a species can be directly observed. Examples include the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance in insects, and changes in the beak sizes of finches documented by Peter and Rosemary Grant in the Galápagos Islands.
Speciation Events: New species have been observed forming in real-time, such as the apple maggot fly, which shifted from hawthorn trees to apple trees, leading to reproductive isolation and the beginnings of speciation.
7. Experimental Evidence
Artificial Selection: Selective breeding in plants and animals demonstrates how selection can lead to significant changes over relatively short periods. Dogs, for example, have been bred for various traits resulting in a wide variety of breeds from a common ancestor.
These lines of evidence collectively support the theory of evolution, demonstrating how species have adapted and changed over time through natural processes.
References:
Fossil Record
Transitional Fossils:
Daeschler, E. B., Shubin, N. H., & Jenkins, F. A. (2006). A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature, 440(7085), 757-763.
Chiappe, L. M., & Dyke, G. J. (2002). The early evolutionary history of birds. Journal of the Paleontological Society of Korea, 18(1), 133-160.
Stratigraphy:
Gradstein, F. M., Ogg, J. G., Schmitz, M., & Ogg, G. (Eds.). (2012). The Geologic Time Scale 2012. Elsevier.
Comparative Anatomy
Homologous Structures:
Shubin, N. (2008). Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body. Pantheon Books.
Vestigial Structures:
Laubichler, M. D., & Maienschein, J. (Eds.). (2007). From Embryology to Evo-Devo: A History of Developmental Evolution. MIT Press.
Comparative Embryology
Embryonic Development:
Gilbert, S. F. (2010). Developmental Biology (9th ed.). Sinauer Associates.
Molecular Biology
DNA and Protein Similarities:
Brown, T. A. (2002). Genomes (2nd ed.). Wiley-Liss.
Li, W.-H. (1997). Molecular Evolution. Sinauer Associates.
Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs):
Belshaw, R., Pereira, V., Katzourakis, A., Talbot, G., Paces, J., Burt, A., & Tristem, M. (2004). Long-term reinfection of the human genome by endogenous retroviruses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(14), 4894-4899.
Biogeography
Geographic Distribution:
Lomolino, M. V., Riddle, B. R., & Whittaker, R. J. (2016). Biogeography (5th ed.). Sinauer Associates.
Plate Tectonics:
Hallam, A. (1994). An Outline of Phanerozoic Biogeography. Oxford University Press.
Direct Observation
Microevolution:
Grant, P. R., & Grant, B. R. (2002). Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin's finches. Science, 296(5568), 707-711.
Levy, S. B., & Marshall, B. (2004). Antibacterial resistance worldwide: causes, challenges and responses. Nature Medicine, 10, S122-S129.
Speciation Events:
Bush, G. L. (1994). Sympatric speciation in animals: new wine in old bottles. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 9(8), 285-288.
Experimental Evidence
Artificial Selection:
Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species. John Murray.
Trut, L. N. (1999). Early canid domestication: The farm-fox experiment. American Scientist, 87(2), 160-169.
1. Descendancy has not been shown, it has been guessed. Also, there were four-footed land animals before tiktaalik and birds before archeopteryx (according to the mainstream timeline), so these are actually debunked by the academic community as "transitional forms." And again, if your descendancy is a guess, it's a guess.
2, 3, and 4 do not rule out a common designer using common, useful designs as a plausible hypothesis. Therefore, these are not (strong) arguments in favor of evolution.
5, 6, and 7 are arguing that micro-evolution and adaption prove evolution is true. But Intelligent Design believers and even Young Earth Creationists affirm these are true. So this doesn't get you anywhere. Speciation might happen, but new features, new body forms, new information HAS NOT been observed. Dogs are still dogs, flies are still flies, e. coli is still e. coli.
If that's your multi-disciplinary proof, you're out of arguments.
@@lukejones5272 - citations needed
@@lukejones5272 You said, "Dogs are still dogs, flies are still flies, e. coli is still e. coli. "
That's your rebuttal of a theory that has been almost universally accepted by the scientific community for over century and a half?
-> No experimental proof by design (muh billions of years lol).
-> No mathematical model.
Thus not a proper theory but mere pagan style philosophical speculations.
@@lukejones5272 Nice set of fallacious arguments, debunked decades ago. Did you know your "dogs are still dogs" argument comes straight from Vol. 1, Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf?
8:40 Darwin is dead. Darwin was already dead when his grandfather was born. Science moved on. Why is he wasting our time?
It's a tactic right out of the communist handbook by Saul Alinsky:
pick a target
freeze it
personalize it
accuse target of doing what you are actually doing
Evolution deniers don't understand the science, but they do understand personal attacks. Every anti-science argument eventually assaults the character of a great scientist. They must quote from Darwin's writings in 1859 because they have no hope of standing against all we know today.
Fifth point: genetic mutations can only be neutral or degrade.
This is not true. Many mutations will do this but simplistically but why does it have to be all?
Take a gene for size. Let's say the number of copies of the gene determines size. A mistake in the copying that inserts another copy of the gene for size would mean that that organism and its descendants would be bigger, assuming it is beneficial and they go on to reproduce.
Also sometimes even single mutations of genetic letters can be beneficial. There are plenty of diseases that can be traced back to a single letter mutation. Those can be in either direction.
It's simplistic to saying that copying and mutations always degrade like a bad photocopy machine. The way life works is more like a laser printer. You get an almost perfect copy each time. You have to look at the mechanisms and how they work to see if that it true.
The problem is the almost nil statistical possibility of advantageous mutations that would lead to trasmutation of species.
Most successful mutations result in very minor things like beak shape, coat colour, etc. And there are hints that maybe most of these are regulated epigenetically.
Also, virtually all mutations that affect a vital function are almost immediately fixed with 100% accuracy.
so wait what's an example of a positive mutation?
@@lukebrog3702HIV resistance. Lactose tolerance.
@@lukebrog3702 HIV immunity. Lactose tolerance.
“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science..."
"It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts.” -C. Darwin
What does an over 160 year old quote have to do with all the evidence we have today of biological evolution?
He didn't believe it included man either and I think he was quite specific about that, whether or not anybody believes it would matter. In the greater scheme of things 'Evolution' itself doesn't matter it is merely a convenient tool to batter the student into godless thinking, just like 'adjuvants' are a convenient toxin to poison the childs brain.
"You may use any theory or substance to curtail free thinking but the ones that are acceptable and effective are obviously preferable. The next qualifications are cost and expedience - time and money. If you have a weapon that is then cheap and self administered the war of minds will win itself." - every psychopathic megalomaniac, ever.
Derp......
{{"Darwin really did say this, but it is often quoted out of context to suggest that he had doubts about the validity of his theories (he didn't): ' I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science. ' Darwin is not making a general comment on his evolutionary theories. He said this in the context of a discussion with Asa Gray about a very specific problem - how to account for the existence of species of plants for which there were no, or few, closely related species. Darwin had speculated that these disjoined species would be found to come from genera which had very few species in total. This was not based on a great deal of observation however, hence it appeared to him to be unscientific. This is an example of the sort of selective reading of Darwin that is fairly common."}}
Darwin project DOT ac Dot UK
Quote mining and lying at their finest.
@@mcmanustony are you saying darwin didn't write that? Please educate yourself. You may be too young to know this but it is fairly common knowledge that name calling is usually the last resort of a person who has no facts or information to back his position. So by calling believers names atheists actually discredit themselves. Not only that but Christ teaches us that we will be greatly rewarded when people speak ill of us for his sake. So at the same time atheists discredit themselves they add to the believer's reward. It's a win-win, THANKS!
The fact that darwinism is false should be a source of encouragement for atheists. It means you are not a random monkey mistake. It means your great, great, great... grandkids won't grow scales and swim off into the sea never to be seen again. It means you were created by the most intelligent mind in the cosmos with a loving purpose. Receive the love; declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10:9).
@@occupyreality1830 you are saying darwin didn't have any doubts but he had no way to account for certain plant species. You have not shown that darwin was correct in his hypothesis. It is not quote mining, it is quoting.
THANK YOU FOR FINALLY SAYING SOMETHING I'VE BEEN TELLING PEOPLE FOR YEARS!!! 16:00 People can't stand the thought of that, but it is SO TRUE!!!
you'll need to keep telling them to convince yourself
@@joefriday2275 There is no such thing as "genetic entropy". The number of deleterious mutations in our genome is increasing for the simple reason out modern medicine can treat them so they don't get removed by natural selection. You've only had that explained to you about a hundred times. 🙄
@@joefriday2275 Genetic load refers to the accumulation of deleterious mutations in a population over time, which can potentially reduce the population's fitness.
It's true that discussions about genetic load and its implications for populations can be complex and sometimes contentious. However, it's essential to engage with scientific evidence and arguments in good faith, regardless of one's beliefs or worldview.
Scientists, regardless of their personal beliefs, aim to understand the natural world through evidence-based inquiry. While interpretations of evidence may differ, the scientific community generally seeks to uncover truths about our universe through rigorous research and analysis.
If you feel that certain viewpoints are being misrepresented or misunderstood, it's important to engage in respectful dialogue and encourage a deeper understanding of the scientific evidence and principles involved. Mischaracterizing scientific concepts doesn't contribute to meaningful discourse or the advancement of knowledge.
Why would you find some guy on the fringes to try and debunk Evolution? The vast scientific community across the planet believes the theory of Evolution, and the theory has only gotten stronger with time. Eg, he cites Otto Schindewolf who died in 1971..most of his ideas are rejected by today's scientists. But also, Otto wasn't saying some "intelligence" did it, he was just saying that it wasn't gradual, that it was leaps here and there (due to extraordinary events like a supernova).
Members of the scientific community "provisionally accept" scientific theories; they do not "believe" or "believe in" them. If the modern synthesis is ever credibly falsified, most within the scientific community will change what they "accept."
Since evolution requires the extrapolation of findings in the fossil record into a world view, with no way of confirming consistency across its assertions, and no way to effectively test or reproduce its conclusions, would it not qualify as a non-falsifiable theory and be better characterized as pseudoscience?
Don’t pretend you care about the scientific like your worthless religious superstitions about gods and their magic powers are rooted in science
Congratulations on getting every last thing wrong. Evolution is very consistent across all of its findings. Repeated tests on the evidence have been done and have always showed the same conclusion. Evolutionary theory is very falsifiable, it's just never been falsified. You might want to ditch the Chick Tracts and go take a science course at your local CC.
@@joefriday2275you don’t even believe in the god you pretend to
I get all that. But when I compare evolution to the type science that is accepted by everyone, I don’t see the same level of completeness or consistency. We really don’t know how the cell accomplishes the observations we make. We do know all species share at least some common DNA, some much more than others. It is clear that organisms can adopt to their environment in extremely favorable ways. We know there is a clear historical order in complexity and function throughout the fossil record. We know life began about 3.7 billion years ago. We can describe the functions of certain cellular components such as DNA, RNA, ribosomes and mitochondria. We can even modify DNA in prokaryotic organisms. Although evolution clearly plays a role in the changes we observe across all different forms of life, it is still an incomplete theory and needs more investigation at the molecular level before we can say it is a theory of life in general. That’s not an unreasonable position. However, there are aspects of evolutionary theory that obviously meet the definition of science, such as natural selection. But I don’t think all the claims of evolution are consistent with one another, principally because they address different things. For example, how life began is a different question than how life evolves, which a different question than how cellular proteins function to produce phenotypical plasticity. Evolution is not of the same category of science such as conclusions such as Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. I think we must remember that theories can never be proven as scientific fact. We don’t call it the law of evolution because there is still too much to figure out. I think people agree on much more than this silly debate suggests. If the “young earth crowd didn’t exist”, we would be having a totally different discussion. The fear that somehow science will be replaced by religion is absurd. By the way, I had to look up what Chick Tracts are and I can see it’s not but a typical ad hominem dig so I won’t provide any validation for that line of argument. It speaks for itself. As far as the local CC suggestion, another gutter ball. I don’t think that would work very well as I have an undergraduate degree at a United States top 20 university. I also have a doctoral degree and an MBA. The undergraduate and doctoral degrees are in a field of science that deals with human physiology and cellular biology. I have taught doctoral students as well. None of my credentials are relevant to the content of my comments but they do suggest a CC course would not be very informative. Although I don’t know what they teach at that level and apparently you do. But I thank you and appreciate your input.
No.
I don't think this guy really understands the 2nd law of thermodinamics.
What he's ignoring is that this law is applied for closed systems, but the evolutionary process is not a closed system.
"but the bottom line is you cannot get order and complexity from disorder, no matter how many billions of years you're waiting"
Yes, that is the statement "entropy never decreases" of the 2nd law of thermodinamics.
But, then according to this reasoning, a refrigerator should not work either, as entropy decreases there (making cold to break the thermal equilibrium), which is not permitted by 2nd law of thermodinamics.
What he forgets is that a refrigerator or living beings (in case of evolution) are not closed systems: they're getting the necessary energy from somewhere: from a power-grid, from the sun, from food, etc.
The entropy of that refrigerator, and the entropy of living beings are decreasing, but the entropy of the whole system, is still increasing more (!), because the same or more energy needs to be consumed to make those changes (cooling down, growing, reproducing)!
The total entropy overall does increase, with the fact that the entropy of those parts/components decrease in lesser extent, the 2nd law of thermodinamics is just fine with evolution.
Could it he argued that life exists in order to slow the rate of entropic decay in the universe?
This guy is an idiot. What about the formation of a snowflake. Is that a violation of the 2nd law? Lol. Such ignorance.
@swiftmatic nope. Life doesn't slow entropy. Think of life as something that cause lumpiness in entropy. Entropy still increases at the same rate, but becomes unevenly distributed
@@EinSofQuester I appreciate the reply. I was just spitballing at breakfast.
Side note: "Lumpy Entropy" would be a great name for a punk or grunge band🤣
The third law shows that entropy is taken out of systems by cooling. They can’t even lie properly on this channel.
One theory ive been exploring is that Darwins major premise is simply an application of Hegel's AUFHEBEN applied to biology. Changing or canceling while preserving and then advancing. It also strongly influenced Marx. Have fun studying the roots of Darwins thought experiment!
I had the pleasure of working for Dr. Fasoli 20 years ago in London. He is one of the finest individuals I have ever met. Incredibly humble and kind. Jeff C.
They why does he feel the need to lie so compulsively about evolutionary science?
what is he hoping to find, a trade mark symbol? "made by god in the taiwan section of heaven"? god doesn't leave any evidence does he.
I am embarrassed for you.
The arrogance and lack of charity of many clever ‘scientists’ here on this comment section confirms my position. I believe in God Almighty creator of heaven and Earth….and his word in the Bible. I believe in a God of love and I refuse to accept the word and finding of vitriolic humans like the ones who display only contempt for their fellow men and in particular of God. Humans are dumb and humans who think they are more intelligent than others are even dumber.
The arrogance and lack of charity of many clever ‘scientists’ here on this comment section confirms my position. I believe in God Almighty creator of heaven and Earth….and his word in the Bible. I believe in a God of love and I refuse to accept the word and finding of vitriolic humans like the ones who display only contempt for their fellow men and God. Humans are dumb and humans who think they are more intelligent than others are even dumber.
“You can’t reason someone out of a position they weren’t reasoned into!” ~ Johnathan Swift ~
And you cannot change a man's mind when his income depends on being wrong. (Wish I could remember who said that.)
@@rickmartin7596 I guess we're all paying billions for scientists to just sit around, then?
🙄
@@Christobanistan We pay scientists to expand the sphere of human knowledge. Apologists get paid to play make-believe. The difference is evidence.
@@rickmartin7596
Gerry Spence said something like that in his book, "How to argue and win every time."
I highly recommend reading the book, btw.
@@rickmartin7596
... But make-believe makes it easier for me to sleep.
Shall we just ignore all of the discoveries, gathered observations, corroboration with geology, DNA, bio science's understanding, antibiotics causing superbugs, astronomy's proof of deep time, and intelligent reasoning of the last 150 year's collection of puzzle pieces from across the globe ? And it doesn't count that religious closed-mindedness and their fears doesn't want to hear what they don't want to hear. People that are not paying attention have absolutely no scientific authority.
I agree . Even if you could disprove evolution you would still have to prove an intelligent creator and one that cares whether people sin or not. Some in religion like to point to evolution and big bang to see where they think science is wrong in order to validate their belief in a god. I can't say if there is or isn't a creator just no one has came up with evidence except to say it must be a creator.
Yes. If scientists are honest, then they must accept rerror and biass and give up their pet theory of evolution no matter how hard this is against their sophisticated overinflated false ego. But then again evolutionary scientists are not supposed to have values, ethics and virtues. So we don't expect them to feel guilty of wrongdoing and lying.
The secular worldview is built on assumption, presupposition, circular reasoning, lies, fraudulent evidence, wishful thinking and imagination. The math describing the fine tunning of the universe allowing and supporting life is unsurmountable for natural processes to explain, hence the need for a rescue device named 'multiverse'. It is also needed to explain how a simple protein folding by chance yields a probability with a value exceeding all the estimated molecules in the entire cosmos. It is science that is closed minded and requires constant cooking of the books to maintain its dogmatic grip on a biased worldview. They need to change the age of the universe now to align with observations from JWT, despite the fact the current age of the universe has been taught as fact for decades. When observations don't line up with a theory the theory should be abandoned but not when a long held paradigm has been implemented into society itself and allows the pursuit of personal pleasures and the love of sin because many have been convinced there is no meaning to life, its all an accident, there is no purpose, and all that matters is materialism and your own desires. The cosmological model is missing 98% of what should be observable, no worries, just invent something that has never been observed and call it dark matter and dark energy, it is not detectable but we know its there, trust us. You talk about things being ignored, how about ignoring even a simple protein folding by chance is absolutely mathematically impossible. How about the source of complexity and information is always a mind and this has never ever been disproven. How about DNA is the most sophisticated information ever discovered, is the most compact data storage system ever found, its 3D folding mechanism to produce new information is so unfathomably complex it cannot be replicated using supercomputers but despite all of this the dogmatic worldview must be upheld at all costs because the reality of a creator is so abominable it must be avoided at all costs. Science knows a lot less than you think, a single human cell has baffled scientists from all over the world for over 70 years, they are further back in understanding its complexity than when scrutiny of it began. It is literally a nano New York City in complexity and rivals anything mankind has devised by orders of magnitude, yet it created itself for no reason or purpose so God can be averted as an explanation for its existence. Run this over in your mind, the human body generates more processes per second than every computer on Earth combined and does so using a meagre 20 watts of electricity and according to Evolution it required no intelligent design. Man lies, cheats, steals, murders, rapes, is driven by lust and greed over all else, why would you take the word of man over the word of God.
Darwin might have a big head but he was kind of stupid I mean how can anyone know energy equals mass times the speed of light square? It could have been cubed just because him and the ancient aliens guy had bad hair don’t make them smart
@@silverfire01you don't have to prove a creator, if he is inviting you to believe in a religion and creator then he has to prove it but if he is just debunking a scientific theory, then he either debunks it or not
14:55 For a very quick takedown of genetic entropy look for the video titled "5 Minute Myth: Genetic Entropy"
@@joefriday2275 I wouldn't know, I'm not an evolutionist.
I'm not sure why you deny the existence of all these diseases, care to elaborate your point?
@@joefriday2275 There is no such thing as genetic entropy. That was a ridiculous idea dreamed up by a YEC to try and justify his YEC beliefs. It got him laughed out of the room in actual science circles.
@@joefriday2275 Genetic load isn't the same thing as Sanford's ridiculous "genetic entropy". You really are a simpleton.
All this bluster from apologists, but we never hear scientists telling us evolution doesn't happen. Can any creationist find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix?
Sure....evolutionists say that reproduction is an "accelerated evolution"!
Reproduction is not an "accelerated evolution" , it is an aware and intelligent answer to death, otherwise all species cease to exist without reproduction and death being around.
If death always existed then no one can prove that any specie succeeded to "evolve" during a big span of time while escaping the grips of death. One has to remember that the so claimed "evolution" process supposedly took millions or even billions years during which death was always at work. Also one has to remember that death occurs due to ageing and other causes as well.
The existence of death since life began on earth disproves the theory of evolution, that's because no one can prove that death spared someone or something during a very long period of time. Of course one cannot stop the evolutionists from speculating as they use to do, but it will remain a speculation no more.
Reproduction of species is an intelligent process which aim is to cater for the work of death, and as such the One who created the process of death is the Same One who created the reproduction process of all living species and organisms. It is the Creator.
Evolution theory is the greatest hoax ever invented, based mostly on speculation and wishful thinking crafted as "scientific". Abiogenesis, genetic mutations, billions years, trials and errors etc are all speculative terms invented to describe some imaginative processes no one witnessed, proved or can prove. The only motive was and is to disprove the existence of a creator at all costs. Truly, the evolution theory is a fairytale for grownups.
Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis go against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Evolution contradicts many scientific first principles. Zero transitional fossils when there should be nothing but transitional fossils. Were did evolution get dna from? You need new information to change body plans but evolutionists ignore this very valid point.
@@rl7012
We are men of action. Lies do not become us.
@@numbersix9477 YT deleted my comments so I don't know what that is in reply to.
@@rl7012
I believe effectively none of your assertions - including your claim that "they" deleted five of your comments.
Evolution has never attempted to explain the origin of life-it only describes what happens after we get reproducible cells. The theory of Abiogenesis attempts to explain life’s origins. That’s a work in progress-it’s come up with some intriguing ideas.
What about origin of speices?
That's a lie and you know it - it has attempted to do that, and it has STILL failed at explaining the differences in life on earth. It's bollocks.
That's simply untrue. Evolution is often used to include abiogenis or chemical evolution, as well as cosmic evolution. I can well understand why you would want it that way. The complexity of the cell is such that evolutionists realise its impossible naturalistically. So are you saying God made the first cell? Darwin's theory is falsified also. But it is easy to imagine. As Michael Denton mentioned in his book, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, evolutionists are like the Mad Hatter who can imagine a 1000 impossible things before breakfast.
@@corvusglaive4804 Evolution is not about the origin of life.
The origin of life is called abiogenesis.
You may disregard all the scientific work that exists about the possibilities of origin of life from non life (every year many scientific papers are published that detail aspects of abiogenesis), and still the overwhelming evidence of evolution through dozens of harmoniously interconnected branches of science remains untouched.
@@psalux18963 😭🤣 "the overwhelming evidence for cats evolving into pandas is all around us!!" You guys are THE greatest comedy act ever I swear 😂 evidence = I'm a an atheist and I say so. This rock is billions of years old and I say so. My ancestor is a howler monkey because I say so. Watching Darwin and his rabid disciples circle the plug hole is a beautiful thing to watch 😂
I’m I wrong in thinking we have fossils of what modern humans have transitioned from?
Also aren’t there animals that have evolved in front of our eyes I seen something about a group of rabbits who’s fur has changed colour due to environmental changes so they didn’t stand out to predators
Variation, very important. Look at the variation in the species called 'dog'. Are they all 'evolving' in different directions? No, they are one incredible species.
Rabbits changing hair is called adaptation. There is no change from one species to another. Therefore it’s not evolution
@@richardleigh4003 Some dogs are extremely different and can't really correctly reproduce with each other. This is similar to how a horse and donkey can come together to produce a mule but it is very uncommon event for mules to have any kind of offspring. Since they can't reproduce correctly I believe donkeys and horses are considered to be separate species. So certain dogs are also probably considered to be separate species. Probably in a similar situation as with mules we might have the possibility of offspring from wolf/dog or coyote/dog parings. Felines range from small housecats (some of which may be too different to correctly reproduce with each other) to larger bobcats and servals to larger cheetahs, leopards, cougars, panthers and the largest lions and tigers. Some can have offspring with each other but it is probably a similar situation as with mules. Is it not a good idea that felines had a common ancestor in the pretty distant past and have been evolving differences? Amazing, despite their apparent similarity, African and Asian elephants can't even really have surviving offspring together - their separation might have occurred in the very far past. With primates we have the strange looking, small, very large-eyed, nocturnal bush babies to large baboons to human weight chimpanzees and orangutans to the heavy gorilla. Despite their differences, the gorilla and bush baby have some so many similarities that it isn't too hard to believe they came from the same distant ancestor.
@@willfilmon182 Yes, but if dogs are left alone they will combine into a single phenotype.
@@richardleigh4003 *"Look at the variation in the species called 'dog'. Are they all 'evolving' in different directions?"*
Look at tigers and lions. They can hybridize semi-successfully. Why? Because god wanted it, or because they have common ancestry and are separate species just on the verge of becoming fully incompatible genetically.
There are thousands of species that can hybridize with various levels of success depending on how far they have diverged from common ancestry.
23:13 3000 years ago，one Chinese said, “Word is said, not always Word. Name is named, not always name.”
Cells say, we have no problem to understand any word. What exactly are scientists searching for?
Have you told genetics and biochemistry that evolution is totally bogus? If not, you probably should.
I'm pretty certain he's shunned by biochemists. And geneticists. And paleontologists. And botanists. And primatologists. And ichthyologists. And entomologists. ...
@numbersix9477 I think you're probably correct. There's a lot of reality that needs denying - if we're asserting that biological evolution isn't a thing.
Fascinating. I read Dawkin’s ‘Blind Watchmaker’ many years ago - will reread.
"Not a single fact that backs it up" Then proceeds to lie about pretty much everything. Claiming that there is a growing number of scientists that oppose it and then listing for people from 50+ years ago. Claiming that evolution can't explain irritable complexity when to date there is not a single case of things that has been shown to be irritability complex. Also claiming that evolution can't explain the origins of life is like saying that carpentry can't explain how the earth formed.
@@joefriday2275 Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. Racists will deny evolution in their pathetic attempt to feel superior.
@joefriday2275 Evolution is a fact l, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.
Over 1300 scientists doubt Darwinism (may 2023)
@@katherinehickey6915 Darwin was 1859 -- the science has advanced since then. What about the hundreds of thousands of scientists who don't doubt evolution?
@@katherinehickey6915 Are you talking about that nonsense 'Dissent from Darwinism' that is made up of mostly non-scientists or scientists that do not work in any related fields to evolution? Because there are more scientists who actually work in related fields named Steve, that accept the fact of evolution than is in your sorry excuse of a list. Project Steve has 1497 signatories as of May 22, 2024.
“You can’t give what you don’t have.” This is also found in Christ’s Matthew Effect (Matt 25:29) Whoever has, will be given more and whoever has NOT what they have will be taken away. Christ’s teaching can be applied to the science of Creation.
Leviticus Chapter 25 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life...
Your god's teachings are immoral garbage. So what?
@@jsmall10671 I agree, this situation was terrible. Even Christ was pressed about Mosiac Law, specific to those in 1400 BC when divorce was thrown in his face. "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was NOT this way from the beginning" (Christ). I apologize if the Jewish faith offends you. I have no excuse. What do you suggest I do?
As a fellow PhD biochemist in Cambridge, I am horrified by this. The puacity of thinking and weakness of logic is staggering.
I'm pretty sure it is not evidence of a paucity of thinking or a weakness of logic. It's a money maker, pure and simple.
@@keithmoore991 horrified by your own cognitive dissonance
Then try to ELABORATE an answer.
@@keithmoore991 you have no response or proof😵💫🤣
@@beesting6135 "cognitive dissonance"
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means. Please define cognitive dissonance for us and explain how it applies to Keith.
Any time I see a video that says “evolution debunked!” And “PHD” you know everything they’re about to say is going to be very lobotomized.
Tell me you didn’t listen without telling me you didn’t listen.
@@kearyAdamson I did actually, total waste of time.
The guy is a PHD repeating the dogs produce dogs argument.
These are Kent Hovind level arguments just being parroted by a guy who has “PHD” alongside his name.
More deeply, there is no evidence of evolution in the fossil records. The story is dead simply because complex biological operations are dependent upon other complex operations to spontaneously exist all at once. Sure, the obvious is there has never been any evidence of species of a simple order developing into a more complex order. But he did provide multiple reasons evolution is an unproven theory causing serious issue with the education system.
@@kearyAdamson Give one example of an animal fossil found out of order.
ruclips.net/video/noj4phMT9OE/видео.html Many books now from Yale/MIT et al. leading professors on why Darwin's theory is in fact impossible given recent scientific advances. I suppose you think calling them names somehow diminishes the facts and their arguments and strengthens your position. I'll stick with true open minded scientific inquiry and critical thinking, wherever it may lead, if you don't mind.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy (a measure of disorder) of an isolated system can never decrease over time. However, it's crucial to understand that:
The second law applies to isolated systems: Earth is not an isolated system. It receives a constant input of energy from the Sun. This energy influx allows for local decreases in entropy and the emergence of more complex and ordered structures, like living organisms.
Entropy can decrease locally: While the overall entropy of the universe increases, localized pockets can experience a decrease in entropy as long as there is an external energy source driving it. This is what happens in living organisms, where energy from the Sun (through photosynthesis) or from food is used to build and maintain complex structures.
Evolution is not a violation of the second law: The emergence of more complex organisms over time does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics. The increase in order within organisms is offset by an increase in disorder elsewhere in the system. For example, organisms release heat and waste products, which increase the entropy of their surroundings.
In summary:
The second law of thermodynamics holds true for isolated systems.
Earth is not an isolated system, it receives energy from the Sun.
Local decreases in entropy can occur with an external energy source.
Evolution does not violate the second law because the increase in order within organisms is balanced by an increase in disorder in their surroundings.
The theory of evolution remains a well-supported scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove the theory of evolution.
AI
also hot things getting cold doesn't disprove evolution
Newtonian physics has got old. Quantum mechanics has made it so.
Everything is ultimately affected by entropy. The sun is a ball of gas that is gradually burning itself out. The earth’s magnetic field is dissipating at a constant rate.
Could you get AcHS on the phone?
I am a Christian, but when I recently read that every cell in the body contains billions of instructions for life, i couldnt see how there could not be a Creator. Looking at all creation, it is "order and design". Doesn't that say something?
It says you're arguing from personal incredulity, not any scientific reasons.
In other words - gee I can't wrap my dumb head around how something happens or happened therefore disembodied sky wizards exist.
Live needs a definition. Reproduction is essential. Does that include viruses? If so then life on earth is based on RNA. Two questions: 1. is a computer virus alive? 2. is a meme alive? (edit extra questions) 3. is a prion alive? 4. is evolution essential?
@@sciencerules2825"It says you're arguing from personal incredulity, not any scientific reasons."
No, whoever posted this comment is arguing from a point of commonsense, in this case the probability of something occurring by chance.
If you were honest, you would calculate the probability of a protein, encoded by your DNA and essential to the function of the human body (or even a prokaryote cell), being formed by chance.
You would then multiply this probability by the probabilities of all proteins essential to the function of a human body being formed by chance.
At this point, you would come to the very uncomfortable conclusion that the probability of all proteins essential to life, whether prokaryote or a complex eukaryote (e.g., a human), being formed by chance is the mathematical equivalent of zero.
@@VeridicusMaximus"In other words - gee I can't wrap my dumb head around..."
Is it necessary to be disrespectful to others simply because they have a different opinion to yours?
Since when has that been OK?
If you have nothing useful to say, then say nothing.
In this instance, the joke is on you.
6:38 "Notwithstanding decades of these small bacteria reproducing every 20 minutes, they still are bacteria. They haven't become sponges, or cats or frogs and so on. " -- This tells you everything you need to know about this guy. :D
He is only making victims among Creationists. Normal people laugh about it
Still waiting on your evidence though, sport
@@jaybfalcon2The bacteria evolve considerably, becoming resistant to all kinds of man-made agents.
The populations that didn't adapt are now lost to most developed countries, but they still exist in the untouched wilds of the earth, so we can compare how great the change has been in such a relatively short period of time.
The bacteria lost abilities it had before. That’s how it became “resistant.” So, yes, this man speaking is making sense and this is a good example of demonstrating the opposite of evolutionary theory.
They found that:
1. Bacteria that had a damaged control system for the cell membrane were surviving because that control system was producing LPS (lipopolysaccharide) which are negatively charged molecules. The antibiotic had positive charges and therefore since the negative charge on the cell membrane was now gone it wouldn’t bind to the cell anymore.
However, this was a result of a broken existing function. And this would affect the bacteria because it cannot bind to other positive charges either now. And therefore cannot survive as well when the antibiotic is gone and the bacteria then has need to bind to positively charged molecules.
2. In bacteria there are “pumps” that transport nutrients into the bacteria cell. Bacteria that had a damaged pump or didn’t have any pumps were the ones surviving the antibiotic. Obviously when the antibiotic is gone though, the bacteria now is not living as long. And it’s another decrease in function.
3. Some bacteria already have the ability to create enzymes that break down antibiotics. Similar to the concept of two humans sharing DNA (a child formed)-one bacteria can share DNA with another bacteria. So they both can produce enzymes that break down antibiotics.
The key point here is that for evolutionary theory to be true, we’re not talking about an existing organism sharing with another organism. What we’re talking about is one organism ON ITS OWN generating the ability to do more functions than before.
This sharing between existing DNA is not evolution. At least, not what people mean when they use the word evolution.
I can tell you that creationists do agree that there is the ability for organisms to be damaged and for organisms to share DNA.
What we don’t agree with is that there’s any observation of organisms turning into a completely different system.
You have to account for we’re talking about supposedly a scenario where there are NO other organisms. That’s what evolutionary theory is about.
No other advanced organisms. Nothing to share with.
And basically all we observe is organisms having copying errors-which that is the literal definition of mutations.
That’s it. And again you can’t include sharing because we’re talking about NO OTHER organisms. The first organism.
How does copying errors equal most advanced computer systems ever?
Plus, there does seem to be a limit in the current sharing between organisms. In every observation we have ever had (so far) in science from the molecular level up there does seem to be limits on what is shared.
Creationists, we acknowledge both that errors are resulting mainly in losses and also that sharing is within limits. Which these acknowledgments are purely accurately reporting what has been observed.
Humans share DNA with other humans. Etc. This is even true at the molecular level. There are rules. There are limits.
I work in data analytics for healthcare. I also have a background in Radiology.
Basically to simplify this-something has to organize (and generate) everything in the cell.
And for the molecules to man it can’t be sharing, it can’t be already complex, it can’t be through losing function.
But, everything we have observed in science is one of those categories.
Which none of those are evolution. Not molecules to man which is what people mean when they say evolution.
Creationists do not deny ANY scientific observation.
We deny what hasn’t ever been observed.
I'm confused, Pope Francis, God's representative on Earth has told us from his own mouth that Evolution is Real and so is the Big Bang.
That's because he's not God's representative!!!! Go look at history or read the Bible - there's valid reasons why the Reformation happened - pity for the world its all but capitulated.
Pope only God's representative to Catholics not to any one else as the bible doe's not mention a pope. So what that clown says who cares.
religion breeds ignorance. i would have thought the answer was obvious, god is imaginary, nothing about religion is FACTUAL, so there will always be confusion and contradiction cos there id no basis other than STORIES made up by people. grow up, god = santa claus.
He serves the other fake master.
@@dangerouzdave1172 That master isn't fake.
Does he explain why all dinosaur fossils are found below all mammal fossils?
EDIT: All mammals we have a name for, lions, tigers, giraffes, humans, monkeys, squirrels, etc.
Checkmate.
Large Animals will die out first no matter what. He is not saying Big animals die first he is saying it wasn't 65 million years ago... Also They have found in the lime fields in the US Dino and all other types of bones in the same layer of Lime including sea creatures and humans.
@@rs6730 Where?
@@rs6730 That doesn't explain why the dinosaurs are found below the layer of iridium in the Earth's crust and why modern mammals are found on top, let alone any of the other hundreds of inconsistencies if you take Noah's version of the flood story literally.
They usually define the layer as being such and such time period by what fossil is found rather than how deep it is.
Wow you are talking about Darwin the man who explained the variety of life, he discovered the mechanism with the help of many, but we learned tons and tons since 1850
He didn't explain anything nor did he discover anything. He was a scientific racist and a loser.
Why are u strawmaning?
Darwin had a hard time with his fantasy theory explaining the complexity of the human eye, he thought a single cell was simple, not the immensely complex nano city it actually is. Darwinism is dead, it cannot explain all the species of life with its non guided mutational mechanism. It is only kept viable by a dogmatic system that abhors the idea of God and will seek to explain him away using any means. Mutations are a destructive process, evolutionists use its silly premise to have you believe it can take a monkey to a man, when in reality it causes species extinction over the long term, the very opposite of slow incremental ever increasing complex organisms. The proof of this is the number of increases in cancers, allergies, defective organs, etc, this is happening to all living organisms in line with mans fall. We are devolving and genetics are being corrupted every generation. Like many, you have been taught a worldview that was built on presuppositions, assumptions, circular reasoning, lies, fraudulent evidence, and a God hating biased belief. Science should follow the evidence but secular science does not, it ignores or dismisses evidence that refutes its position and continues to publish lies and frauds in literature even though much evidence has been disproven. The only way to disprove a truth, in this case God and creation, is to resort to lies, fraud, and fabrication, ask yourself if evolution is true, why is its history littered with fakes and lies.
Why is it that you feel the need to support the creation story with science? Because you don't have the faith you claim.
This is exactly on point. If he has to support his faith with lies, what does that say about his faith?
As has been wisely noted, faith without reason is credulity. The purpose of these discussions is to show that faith is warranted on purely rational grounds. That should be obvious.
@@jamesstiepan8222 This video fails miserably at its purpose then. Can you explain why he mentioned the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
@@rickmartin7596 I listened to about half of the program and the discussion of the 2nd Law was an unnecessary distraction. However, everything else I heard was absolutely on point. If an attorney raises one unconvincing argument but offers nine others that are congent, has he failed miserably? I think not.
@@jamesstiepan8222 If the lawyer's only bad point is that fairies and leprechauns must have committed the crime, it is reasonable to doubt his competence. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is grade school stuff. How did he get it so completely wrong?
Evolution is not supposed explain the origin of life.
The origin of life was a mere accident of specific elements coming together in a specific manner (we have the vastness of space and a few billion years to thank for that).
Evolution (adaptation) came after that.
@@OnigoroshiZero I think accident implies intention with a mistake being made.
You are right but if you can not prove that life came to existence without intelligent agent then your evolution theory lacks credentials
You are correct, the “theory” of evolution does not explain the origin of life, neither does the Big Bang theory, its scientists best guess from the 1800s and we’ve all given up trying and we’re just going with that, which is fine, I get it, don’t think about it anymore, it’s been settled and now you can watch tv and eat food and don’t worry about it anymore
@@OnigoroshiZeroprove it how do you know it was a accident or a merely by chance
What a lot of word salad for what is basically “I don’t understand or like evolution, so therefore it must be wrong”
“We don’t see evolution happening today” makes no sense. First of all, we do, because we see viruses that create different strains and bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics. However, expecting to see one species completely transform to the point that it would be classified as a different species within the length of a single lifetime, or even several lifetimes, shows a severe misunderstanding of the processes involved.
we can't see new species in a lifetime (70 years), yet the entire process supposedly happened in a mere billions years...
It is a classic mistake to confuse change with evolution. We can observe change occurring in nature because organisms effectively adapt to changing conditions. However, why isn't change evolution?
The adaptation of organisms is ALWAYS based on epigenetic mechanisms and factors. Epigenetic modifications are dynamic and reversible because cells use specific mechanisms, such as epigenetic readers, writers, and erasers for epigenetic information. You can learn more about these by searching for 'epigenetic readers, writers and erasers.
Epigenetic regulation inevitably leads to genetic decay because methylated cytosine is 20,000 times more likely to change to thymine than unmethylated cytosine. This inevitably leads to the gradual conversion of the GC content of all organisms' cells into AT content. The cell must maintain at least 38% GC content, so it rearranges DNA during reproduction, in so-called meiotic recombination. This usually reduces the total amount of information.
We can therefore observe rapid epigenetic adaptation of organisms, based on the epigenetic regulation of existing information OR the loss of information and subsequent reorganization of information. However, evolution that crosses species boundaries (kinds) has never occurred.
We have run experiments with ecoli and fruit flies, where massive numbers of generations have taken place, without macro evolution being observed.
@@tomiaalto1156 If you believe that genes code for physical and behavioral traits, and that some traits make an organism more or less likely to survive and pass on those genes, then you believe in evolution via natural selection.
@@Bastikovski99 Genes don't code for physical and behavioral traits. DNA doesn't determine traits or characteristics. In your every cell, there's the same DNA. Why is your skin cell different from your muscle cell? Now think.
My fellow creationists, explain not how overwhelming evidence falsifies the theory of evolution. Explain how overwhelming evidence demonstrates that Yahweh created life's diversity.
There's no evidence that Yahweh created life. Yahweh is a myth, he's like Zeus and all those mythical Greek gods.
@@Pmrace1960 Yes, and I see videos on RUclips where Christians are singing, "Yawhehhhhhhhhh, Yawhehhhhhhhhh" so goofy.
And exlplain how Jehovah took 4.5 billion years before sending Jesus to Earth. But sadly, they cannot explain anything, because religion has zero explanatory power.
@@ClimateScepticSceptic-ub2rg Yeah, when you think about all that Jesus shit in the Bible is fake
@@ClimateScepticSceptic-ub2rg he was either having a long dump or suffering from amnesia
Shouldn't "Dr. Marco Fasoli who holds a doctorate in biochemistry from the University of Cambridge" be presenting his "flaws in Darwin's' theory of evolution" to the scientific community in the form of a scientific paper instead of in a RUclips video?
Shouldn't "Dr. Marco Fasoli who holds a doctorate in biochemistry from the University of Cambridge" know by now that the Darwinian model of evolution was replaced three quarters of a century ago by the Modern Synthesis?
@@joefriday2275 That's the best response you can think of.
@@korbendallas5318
Yeah.
With the massive history of hoaxes and fraud that evolutionists have perpetuated on the scientific community, like the Piltdown Man hoax, and the "Junk DNA" fraud, why would anyone trust them to review anything when they have yet to take accountability for the harm they have done to science? Evolutionists have demonstrated repeatedly that they have no integrity, and no interest in real evidence. Fallacies, hoaxes, and fraud are their bread and butter.
The response of @numbersix9477 is the typical "ad hominem" from over-educated people. The fallacy attacks the person making the argument rather than dealing with the argument itself. In this case, @numbersix9477 is attempting to discredit the speaker by suggesting that his argument is invalid without credentialed review. The reason people engage in fallacies is not becuase those people are ignorant, but on the contrary, because they are people educated just enough to understand how to employ fallacies as tactics to fool others. @numbersix9477 is precisely that kind of over-educated person who uses fallacies as tactics of sophistry.
He does encourage people to do their own research. Apparently the info is already out there so why would he write a paper about work thats already established?
Somehwere near 16:20 can someone please clarify which term he used. "The ______ lived longer because they were perfect prototype of Adam..."
"Patriachs"
Complete bollocks. But he said "patriarchs".
@@hammalammadingdong6244 yes, correct on both accounts.
It does not really matter weather we evolved into conscious state or not as the very nature of our existence is a feat of miraculous engineering that it is impossible to say their is no creator. God is...and even the stones cry out the glory of God.
It DOES MATTER, because when you speak of evoIution as being the mode of creation, you call YHVH incarnate in Christ a L l A R, AND you DENY HIM HIS RIGHTFUL GLORY as the Creator of all things that exist. I’ve heard so-called “Christians” say that their believing in evolution doesn’t affect their faith, and scripture says they have no faith whatsoever, because they deny the LORD Jesus Christ, YHVH incarnate, as the Creator, which means they are damned according to scripture. Read Romans 1 and find out where denying God His rightful glory as the Creator who SPOKE ALL THINGS into existence, and created man from the dust of the ground, will land you for eternity. It’s the same place you will end up if you deny Jesus is God incarnate, and if you deny the virgin birth of Christ. These fake Christians are trying to please the world by agreeing with the L l E S of evolution, and they are denying God alone as Creator who made all things in 6 days, and they don’t care how much they are offending Him. They don’t want to be persecuted like the rest of us who are not afraid to speak the truth of the scriptures, and declare Jesus Christ is Creator and Savior.
It DOES MATTER. You don’t deny YHVH incarnate in Christ as the Creator and Savior, who created all things in 6 days. You don’t deny God His rightful glory as the Creator.
the god who killed everyone in a flood for the unspecified crime of sin, usually associated with masturbation? that god who loves you and weeps while watching you burn for eternity while doing nothing to strop it, that god? the god who is watching two unlawful wars going on RIGHT NOW who is doing nothing, even though one of those wars is all about him? that god, the god who can't even keel an apple safe?
you're a joke, but a sour icky kind of joke you want to gob out.
@@Redeemed.of.YHVH.thru.Christ god is an idiot.
Evolution made it look like miraculous
It's one thing to criticize various theoretical elements of evolution, I think everyone can and should appreciate that. But when a person says that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, they're revealing themselves to be a complete crackpot who has no idea what they're talking about. They might as well be saying that birds can't exist because of the law of gravity. It's absolutely a complete misunderstanding of everything involved.
And you select and cherry pick the law of thermodynamics because you can object to that argument and then make it seem like all his points are wrong. In actual fact the strongest point against evolution is absentia ad expectata testimonio when it comes to the modus tollens rule which shows a general absence of evolution. If evolution has been found evolutionists would be able to put their money where their mouth is and SHOW the bat intermediates. SHOW the intermediates for sexual reproduction. SHOW the intermediates for pterodactyls, ichthyosaurs and pinnipeds. SHOW the intermediates for the electric eel and bombardier beatle. The truth is when it comes to evolution there really isn't anything to show which is why evolutionist try and win using words instead, and attacking people personally.
@@zt2max it's not "cherry picking" to point out that someone who claims to be a scientist has an inexcusably poor understanding of an argument that **he chose** to make. If you want to talk about the fossil record, that's another topic entirely.
@@zt2maxThe intermediates thing its such a 1970 argument man. We dont need every "intermediate" bc every generation of a species its a "intermediate". You are an intermediate between your father and the 50000 AC version of a homo sapiens througt your genetic line. The problem that people that deny evolution have its that there is absolute no other model that explain the world that well. Negate evolution its to negate biology, zoology, botanic, geology, medicine... Whats the other explication for the existence of species adapted to the desert Sahara when million of years ago the Sahara was a jungle? Or when the earth was frozen? How today species existed during those conditions?
"NOT A SINGLE FACT THAT BACKS IT UP" - You are RIGHT as long as you bury your head in the sand!
@@mcmanustony what pride you have in your ignorance
Says the one with their head in the sand.
@@mcmanustony What evidence exactly? Just saying "evidence" doesn't tell me anything, and evidence can be interpreted many ways through different lenses. Fossils mostly prove spontaneous creation and the great flood. Comparative anatomy proves God loves variety and that we were all created by the same God.
Also there is a difference between molecules to man evolution, and simple speciation built into the DNA by God.
I see you've spammed a bunch of comments with 0 evidence and all just ad homs.
@@mcmanustony Everyone knows ad hom. I read your other comments. That was the majority of them. Now you're gaslighting.
Yawn, once again you present no evidence. I was already a lost evolutionist. There is no going back. Keep seething.
@@ReapingTheHarvest Clever reply. I appreciate the irony. I was a pastor in opposition to evolution. I felt like God did not have a spokesperson against evolution in essence I said, here I am, send me" . I was shocked by what I found. Christian Scientists who I had supported lied in their books. After all is said and done. GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE AND HE IS TO RECIEVE ALL THE GLORY FOR ALL THAT IS GOOD AND MAGNIFICENT IN IT. IT MAKES LITTLE DIFFERENCE IF GOD MADE A WORLD WHICH COULD GENERATE SPONTANEOUIS LIFE OR HE SIMPLY DECIDED TO SPEAK LIFE..THE LANGUAGE FOUND IN OUR DNA MUST COME FROM A MIND.OF NOTE IS THE FACT THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS A COMPLEX, UNMATCHED BY ANYTHING THE MIND OF MAN COULD DESIGN. A SIMPLE FACT BUT OBVIOUSLY FORCEFUL. THE FOSSIL RECORD HAS VERY SIMPLE LIFE FORMS, LATER VEGETATION, LATER STILL, FLOWERING FLOWERS/BUSHES/TRESS WHICH HAPPENS TO COINCIDE WITH THE FIRST BEES. ANCIENT FISH,THEN MODERN AND A MOVE FROM THE SEA TO LAND. ANPHIBIANS THEN REPTILES THEN MAMMALS all of which are NEVER FOUND IN THE MOST ANCIENT ROCKS OR LAKE DEPOSITS. Conclusion they came later since they have all been found dated in younger deposits or rock. If no evolution, did God make simple life forms then add a little something over and over to get us the present diversity of all of life? Dating is confirmed by several types of dating that seem to ALL act in harmony. I have spent thousands of hours trying to better understand the Bible. Bachelors Degree with work done at 2 conservative Bible Colleges, a Masters Degree, then I dropped out of my Doctoral program. It is OK to interpret Genesis 1-11, NOT AS HISTORICAL NARRATIVE! SCHOLARS CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL find Literary, Biblical, Historical, and Scientific arguments which can be proposed to nuance our understanding of the "genre" of historical narrative. . I am honest, I love the Lord, and am an superior student. God gave me a brain which is very inquisitive so I dig deeper then most. I am a 70-year-old retired Christian who has been passionately in Love with God since July 3rd 1976 when he sent an angel to me. I was agnostic and became a fervent Christian. God spoke these words to me. "Man is separated from me because of sin but I have sent my son into the world to bring man back into relationship with myself." Became a Christian that day then my unbelieving family became saved (8 of 9) and 4 of us became pastors! Miracle healings in my family! I was shocked but God uses evolution, it is clearly directed by him because it has a telos or purpose. God Bless and love him well.
Why do people completely misunderstand what Darwin said. We know not everything Darwin said was correct. But you can't remove micro from macro evolution.
Darwin didn't know what we know about DNA and genetics today, he was speaking out of ignorance
@@ImArnold-zq5zo true that's why we don't use what he was wrong about. In fact even in modernity the majority of people seem to speak from ignorance.
I never understood people who accept micro-evolution over decades but refuse to acknowledge the extrapolation that if you keep it running for hundreds of thousands of years you’ll get macro evolution.
@@JonCookeBridge yeah I don't get it either being we see massive changes in only hundreds. Expanding to thousands or even millions of years should be reasonable to see how many small changes. Inevitable results in radical speciation.
@@icbmh3079 Darwin didn't know what we know now about DNA and genetics, if he did he would have understood an ape doesn't and can never turn into a human.
So, river rock formation contradicts the law of termodynamics?
No reply. The monk just gives "likes' to comments that kiss his monk orifice. He can't engage in a conversation about it because, by his own admission, he's scientifically illiterate. This video should be called "Scientifically Illiterate Monk Rejects Science When Fed Anti-Science Propaganda by Grifter."
Leave scientists alone. Theists' fight is with other theists on whose god is better, whose prophet is more divine. Science continues to advance while religion remains stagnant. That is not the problem of science. Science is a process, not the answer. Religion is a claim, not the truth. Let your gods fight their own battles and let scientists continue to keep you alive longer and communicate through innovation, which every one of you is enjoying at this very moment.
Science is good. But I see scientist are using science and challenging themselves.
@@manuaiipondraken8376 That’s how science works, and it’s why science is more reliable than ancient superstition 😊
Nature was created by God. Natural science must therefore obey deeper philosophical and theological principles. If they don’t then they are wrong
@@JF-vf7mm In order for your assumption to have any credence, you first need to prove the first claim. How do you know nature was created by a god?
@@infidelcastro5129
You cannot prove or disprove God by science or any other means.
For Christianity, you just have to trust the words of Jesus for a God we cannot see.
First, make sure historical source is reliable. Then analyze the historical facts. If it meets your level of expectations, then you can trust it, else reject it.
How do you explain how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?
God doesn't want pathogens to die out. So He changes 'em, using miracles.
it's called adaptation
evolution is changing from one species to another.
@@MrQhuin
Evolution is change over time of allele frequencies within populations. Adaptation is change over time of allele frequencies within populations.
@@MrQhuin
You said, "evolution is changing from one species to another." I'm confident that not a single evolutionary biologist on the planet would agree that yours is an accurate representation. It seems obvious that you did no research on the subject and simply made a claim out of whole cloth. Children make things up and represent them as facts; adults do not
Redeem yourself! Tell us what practicing evolutionary biologists say that evolution is.
17:40 I'm calling BS on that. Google finds two (!) sources for this quote, one from an hungarian forum I can't read and one from a creationist website.
@poiujnbvcxdswq Thanks! For future reference, it's p. 232 in my copy, subsection "Modes of Transition".
Of course it was a misquote. The point is not that he left out the very next sentence. The point is not even that he misquotes the fragment in a misleading way (he isn't). The point is that this came _verbatim_ from a creationist website. I think it's fair to assume that he never read TOoS.
He's gonna make a lot of people mad, time to get the popcorn and read the comments.
Lies or willful ignorance tends to cause that 😂
If he had disproved evolution he would be the most famous scientist on Earth and a multiple Nobel Prize holder.
No, he would be silenced
@@dereksyota
WHO would silence him? HOW would they silence him?
@ the entire scientific consensus it’s happened in history
Nonsense. This channel is lying to you.
Evolution is directly observed in real life, new genus and species have evolved under direct observation in your own lifetime, and evolution is quite literally the core theme of all biology.
Utterly false
@UUu-xl3gk You can prove it to yourself in about 2 minutes. Look up "another name for macroevolution," and when you've learned that speciation is macroevolution by definition, look up "has speciation been observed?"
It's easy.
@@UUu-xl3gk
I'm interested in learning how you determined a total absence of evidence of observed speciation. When and how did you do your research?
Absolutely fascinating that a Cambridge professor has to read nonstop from his notes, rather than his own vast knowledge.in order to speak.
I'm sure you're qualified enough to challenge his expertise right? Using notes now implies not knowing right?? The internet really protects cowards these days.
@@michaeltamajong2988 Very good. Cowards hiding behind irrelevant notes aren't actually experts. Very astute that you also spotted that.
If you spot an actual expert, let me know.
@@redgodofwar7723 I disagree with atheist scientists and academics, but never will you see me go to comments to argue or discredit their intellectual achievements. I will honor the expertise because it is a fact that their level of reasoning and mine are not the same, they have more experience. But it's different with atheists. You see, someone with 0 knowledge in physics or chemistry will be questioning the intelligence of an expert scientist, a professor. It's so ridiculous.
@@redgodofwar7723 my point is, at least, we need to respect intellectual achievement and experience. It is very inappropriate to make that statement you made because you cannot stand before him intellectually. Leave it to the intellectuals in his field to critique.
@@michaeltamajong2988 Why could I not stand before him intellectually?
Stephen Meyer PhD, Michael Behee PhD, Allistair McGrath PhD, David Berlinski PhD, John Lennox PhD, James Tour PhD, Stephen Barr PhD are just a few scientists that have debunked Atheism. Dr. Frank Turek has a presentation called "Not enough faith to be an Atheist" that is very compelling.
How can you "debunk" a disbelief in the supernatural?
@@sciencerules2825 That's actually a fair question. In fact, I've come to realize _"debunk"_ is kind of a subjective weasel word in any context.
now do a list of all the PhDs that absolutely accept the observed phenomenon of evolution?
@@FilipCordas According to a 2019 Pew poll 98% of all scientists and 99.9% of those in the Life Sciences (biology, genetics, etc.) accept evolution as the best explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth. The handful of creationist holdouts reject evolution not for any scientific reasons but purely for religious reasons.
@@sciencerules2825When the supernatural is observed by many. Jesus rose from the dead as he predicted in three days . He then ascended into heaven.
Are abiogenesis and evolutionary biology the same thing?
Abiogenesis is the theory of how life could develop from non-living materials. Evolution is the theory of how existing life could develop into different life forms. Two completely different fields of study
Abiogenesis and evolutionary biology are two different fields of study, each addressing different questions.
Abiogenesis is concerned with the origin of life, specifically how life could have developed from non-living materials. It involves studying the conditions on early Earth and the chemical processes that might have led to the formation of the first living cells.
On the other hand, evolutionary biology is the study of how existing life has diversified and adapted over time. It starts from the premise that life already exists, and then seeks to understand how species evolve, adapt, and become extinct.
While these fields are distinct, they are related in that they both seek to understand the history of life on Earth.
Intermixing lay definition use of "theory" with the science jargon definition use is confusing for non-scientists. If you intend to do so in the future, please call out which definition you are using. With that single exception, your posts were excellent.
@@numbersix9477 Thank you.
Werner Heisenberg once said, "the Universe isn't as strange as we can imagine but it is far stranger than we can imagine." Failure to understand the cosmos gives the organized religionist his opportunity to impose his narrative on things. His clergymen don gaudy robes and convince you they represent God. That's power, one of the three things people crave most, power sex and money, they're connected. The more you have of one the more you can access of the others. They tell you you're a sinner so that you're in thrall to them and need them for redemption, job done! And in case you think you can escape their clutches by living a chaste and pure life, think again. There's the concept of original sin, a sin you committed before you were born. We'll I'm not a sinner, mate, l obey the law and harm no man. Organized religionists can't explain the suffering we see around us. Their loving, benevolent omnipotent God creates... pathogens? But God didn't create pathogens. They evolved. Take the example of the Black Death which ravaged Europe in medieval times killing millions. It didn't kill everybody so survivors could pass on their black death resistant genes to future generations so defeating the pathogen. Darwinian evolution and natural selection in progress. We humans are arguably created as much by viruses as anything else in this way. So the cosmos is the creator of life forms, both (or neither) good or bad. It's all created in stars, the element carbon. We know the building blocks of life can be found in the interstellar medium, amino acids. It could be that the answers to fundamental questions cannot be found in the end so the power-addicted organized religionist will always find justification in his eyes, for his creed. I was raised Catholic and was indoctrinated into Catholicism in the Catholic madrassa as a child. At one stage the church held a "ring-kissing cermony" when an Archbishop visited. He was installed on the altar steps while all 800 children of our primary school lined up to kiss his ring while an altar boy wiped it with a cloth, the same cloth ensuring we all got everybody's germs. At a time of measles mumps and flu epidemic. This tells you something about the mindset of the organized religionist. Totally hubristic. His argument that cells are complex doesn't disprove Darwinian evolution, it supports it. Cells were originally, billions of years ago, simple organisms which at some stage found advantage in exchanging DNA with other cells which were slightly different. The process continued becoming more complex over time resulting in today's cells, the result of exchanging DNA by a simple process of trial and error, to end up with the best options. But the process continues today, with cells still able to evolve for better options. It all stems from simple amino acid bases. The presenters fail to see the greatest evolutionary tool, that of sexual reproduction. The example of dogs at the end was interesting. We humans used Darwinian evolution to create the myriad dog breeds we see today. I was exercised by the number of times the presenters used the word "evolution". No getting away from it.
The issue with the dog argument is that chihuahuas came from wolves in a couple hundred years....
Wolves were domesticated & bred for thousands of years.
@@paulstuart551 not warped breeds like the chihuahua
A chihuahua is a sub species of dog, not a new species
@briangemmet3567 yes because of the short period of time, the point I'm making is huge change over a relatively short period of time, so naturally over a longer period of time there will be much more significant changes. I'm not sure why this is confusing?
Chihuahuas are just dogs mutated on purpose from ancient wild dogs. It is still a canine. No new genes are added, just traits bred out of the line.
They were caused by intelligent human manipulation. In nature, the wolf would never evolve into a chihuahua wolf. It would die out early as it would be less able to survive in the wild. In billions of years, even with human selective forced breeding, it would never be able to be bred into a cat.
I suppose that the fact that evolution deniers have to lie in their attempts to discredit the theory pretty much establishes its validity.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution!
What was the lie here? An example, please.
If the theory is rejected , it ll lead to conclusion that there must be Creator behind creation. They dont want to agree with that conclussion.
Your religious superstitions refute nothing
@@AMC2283
Only logic conclusion when scientific evidance is there.
ruclips.net/video/wB0rD4IBVRE/видео.htmlsi=8KUzwCkkQGLnJvO4
@@joekiplik9108there’s zero evidence for your superstitions
@joekiplik9108
You've fallen for some crazy assertions. The theory of evolution says nothing about the creation of the universe, the creation of our galaxy, the creation of our solar system, the creation of the earth or the creation of life.
@@numbersix9477
ruclips.net/video/z_8PPO-cAlA/видео.htmlsi=JYyeS3vjHyJqywjC
This video is nonsense.
A professor of what?
Evolution is indeed observable in both laboratory settings and natural populations. The changes we see over time in organisms are a testament to this process.
The example the annual flu. Viruses, including the flu virus, evolve rapidly, which is why new vaccines are needed each year. This is a clear and present example of evolution in action.
Moreover, evolutionary theory goes beyond just explaining these observable changes. It also provides a framework for understanding the complex patterns of life we see in the fossil record, including the emergence of new species, the changes within species over time, and the eventual extinction of species.
Evolution of species is not shown in the lab. Only adaptation was shown in the lab. You can’t just assume that we came from fish just because you saw adaptation through a microscope, and there’s really no observable evidence of macro evolution. Just adaptation.
And that’s pretty much Darwin’s view too since he saw that birds have different beak sizes therefore each animal comes from a single cell. Pretty wild conclusion coming from the hypothesis, isn’t it? Now that we studied it more thoroughly and learned to make a distinction between adaptation and evolution.
U don't get a brand new species man! U get a variation of the same one only!
@@matracox Well said, evolution happens only on pokemon, zero evidence of transitional species in fossil record.
Serious question - then how did whales grow into fish? They were small land mammals and slowly became huge sea mammals. Is that just adaptation? If “bugs stay bugs”, do some mammals change quite a bit? Horses and cats can’t change quickly, but holy crap dogs can - they were 5 foot tall wolves 10k years ago, now some of them are dachshunds.
Whales did not grow into fish. If you are interested in the origin of 'whales' google: triple origin of whales and read the paper.
The theory of evolution is disputed mainly by people who are desperate to show a supernatural hand in the diversity of life. Videos like this convince no one save those already in the creationist camp.
As an honest Christian pastor I could not agree more. Science is a wonderful gift of God. By gift I mean the rational capacity we are endowed with. And if science were one day (presently very far from our abilities and understanding) find that life is spontaneous, that would be inline with a God who is life itself. His creation would simply reflect him. People choose or simply accept ignorance. I find this rather evenly distributed in atheists and in Christians. Some close their eyes to God other to science. (I was an atheist at age 14, became an agnostic soon afterwards, then a Christian about 8 years later when God spoke to me.
Amazing presentation. I'm constantly trying to share this type of information with friends and family but everyone thinks I'm crazy. I wish I could speak eloquently like this man. But I know if I send the video to my friends they won't watch it
you're not crazy but you a superstitious ignoramus. what could you possibly need this guy for or to speak like him--isn't everything in your bible pal? why should they watch it if you send it--you can't talk scientifically to conclude your religion, and again, something wrong with your bible?
@@AMC2283 And you're living proof that a human can evolve into an arse.
@@Finnegas-Eceswell let’s see pal. You and I don’t really know each other but by your own admission your friends and family think you’re crazy. So absolutely no wherewithal to think for one second that the problem really is you?
Well, that's because this is a word salad of absolute nonsense.
@user_James_Foard
4 days ago (edited)
Thank you! Many years ago I had a wonderful Catholic video on creation narrated by an old Catholic priest with a long, grey beard and a German or eastern European accent and I lost it long ago and can't find it on the internet. Part of his name was Maria in honor of Mary, and the video dealt with the process of sedimentation and also why the literal story of Adam and Eve was essential to understanding why our Lord was crucified for our sins. If you know what video I am talking about I would love to find it again. Bless you!
10:45 Evolution also presupposes the existence of electrons, but can't explain it. Why does this matter? The Theory of Evolution explains the diversity of life, not its origin. If you could find incontrovertible proof that life was created by a god, the ToE wouldn't change one bit.
You can tell Marco's lying because he doesn't actually show the letters and certainly doesn't put them into proper context.
Honest. informed. Creationist. Choose up to 2.
The problem is not only the inexplicable information gain by "random, unguided processes" (ie magic). To me, something which neo Darwinians never seem to take into account is that every transitional form (say between a yak and a whale, as I believe the story goes) is non adaptive! So, you start off with a perfectly happy and well-adapted yak, pining for the fjords in Norway. Then, in a moment of inspiration, he thinks that he would really love to swim and so comes up with the idea of becoming a whale. The problem, as David Berlinski points out, is that you need roughly 50 000 changes of one sort or another to do so. So, at stage one (as a yak) you are adapted to pining for the fjords and at stage 50 000 (as a whale) you are, similarly, adapted to pining for the fjords, from the ocean. The difficulty becomes one whereat at steps 2 to 49 999 you become increasingly maladapted to either environment or either body. And at the intermediate stage, step 25 000 would be utterly, catastrophically maladapted. And time would only make this worse. as the maladaptive stages would last increasingly longer. For this to be viable, the changes would have to be instantaneous to the point of being magical, as no other word could describe it. So yeah, evolution is, in fact, rooted in magical thinking.
In your scenario there is a point A, the yak, and a point B, a whale. That isnt how anyone claims evolution works.
Instead, you would have a single group. Part of the group lives by the water, the other part lives in the mountains. But what it takes to be successful near water and in the mountains is not the same, so they will each adapt to their environment independently from each other.
@@pinklemon-m5v But that isn't at all what Darwinian macro evolution states. In fact, the theory of whale evolution starts with a wolf-like mammal that loses its land adaptivity and "gradually, over time" becomes adapted to life in the water. This is in the text books, but I think a yak is more fun...given that it is all make believe. In Darwinian evolution. all boundaries are permeable, yet, in reality, we never see that when, in fact, we should see it all the time. We see no transitional fossils as they would be maladaptive and the incipient information gain of positive mutations is impossible to explain under Darwinian terms.
Is there a specific reason why you chose a yak as a starting point for evolving into a whale, rather than something more plausible, such as a hippo (or a capybara, or a beaver, or any other semiaquatic species of mammal)? They spend part of their time on land and a large part in the water, and they are not "catastrophically maladapted" for either. In principle, what keeps them from adapting to an even more aquatic existence? At some point they might become much better swimmers, but more awkward on land (like sea elephants), and eventually very good swimmers who don't go on land at all anymore (like manatees and whales).
(Likewise, when someone trots out the "what good is half a wing?", I recommend they look up flying squirrels and sugar gliders.)
@@davidwilliamdanielthomas9305 "We see no transitional fossils" - you have never even bothered to look at the wikipedia page for "evolution of cetaceans", have you?
@@davidwilliamdanielthomas9305 Transitional species would not be "maladaptive" as each successful new trait would benefit the species in its environment. As the environment gradually changes, successful species would appear to change. This is exactly what we find in the fossil record.
Have you fallen for the lie that you must choose either evolution or God ... but not both?
One more thing . . . .
Horse evolution:
Hyracotherium
Orohippus
Mesohippus
Miohippus
Parahippus
Merychippus
Pliohippus
Equus
Whale evolution:
Indohyus
Pakicetus
Ambulocetus
Kutchicetus
Rodhocetus
Durodon
Odontocetes
Mysticetes
Hominid evolution:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus kadabba
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus sediba
Homo habilis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo sapiens
Want transitional fossils? Start with these.
Professor, life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. This low law holds for the closed systems. Life is not a closed system, life gets its energy from the Sun. This is high school stuff professor. The rest of the interview is the same. What knocked me down was the story about long living patriarchs. Unbelievable !
Lying for God.
Hey, Radio Immaculata, how does your God feel about lying? How do you feel about lying to your gullible audience?
Not only is life not a closed system, the earth itself isn't as well. Plus, it would be prudent for this "professor" to read up on nonequilibrium thermodynamics, since it basically shows that given enough chemical varieties (an undisputed guarantee given what we currently know about the past and present earth) combined with the consummation of free energy gradience, equilibrium will be exceeded and as a consequence, chemical complexity and order are mathematically inevitable to arise, and since biology derives from chemistry, it's not irrational nor implausible to posit for the formation of life to be likewise inevitable.
' 'bugs remain bugs' ' -- true or false?
"Religious fundamentalists remain clueless." --- True or false?
@@numbersix9477 <
Once upon a midnight dreary
While I pondered weak and weary
Over thoughts of bygone lore
Quoth the Raven ' 'Nevermore' '
"bugs' are not a species but yes, every species ever is a member of it's ancestral clade. Just like evolution demands. That is why you ARE a primate and a mammal and an animal etc.
*Why a religion (like Christianity) lasted for thousands of years?*
One of the major arguments for the “truth” preached by Christianity, is that “If it was not true and factual, it would not be followed by 2+ billion people and would not have lasted for 2000+ years. It is true however, that membership in Christian religions is steadily (as a percent of population) declining.
So just let us examine what the underlying causes for Christianity’s longevity. Very briefly, in the early days until the reformation 1517 CE converts were mostly acquired by brute force, wars of religions, forced conversions of native people, torture and extermination of those who resisted.
Once civilization became more knowledgeable and the sciences gathered momentum, more and more of the claims of Christianity were discredited. Further erosion of confidence was supplied by the fact that Christianity splintered into more than several thousands of different sects, many of them advocating opposing theories and making different claims.
Closer to today, the opposition to Christian beliefs and practices gathered enough strength and substance that the tyranny of theocracies was weakened, and for the most part eliminated by the 20th century. However, even today, there are a significant number of fanatics (not counting those Christians, who may be church going, but only pay lip service to the fables Christianity still preaches and live secular lives).
Today, the 2.4 billion Christians are divided into more than 200, 000 different sects, many of which do not agree with each other (sometimes to the degree of waging wars). If they did agree, there would be no reason for this splintering. Also, roughly about one half are “Christians in name only” or do not practice Christianity. A small portion of the remaining 50% are young earth creationists, the fanatical bible thumpers claiming a 6,000-year-old earth. The Young Earth Creationist (YEC) movement started with the beginning of the Seventh Day Adventist cult formed in the 18th century. Spreading to other cults and promoted by Henry Morris in 1954 the Creation Research Society was formed. Today YEC are around 41 million members, or about 2% of all Christians.
Yet this group of fanatics still wage a desperate fight to stave off elimination. They will ignore all science, falsify history and will do just about anything to keep their myths surviving. This is the group that trolls the RUclips comment section, and desperately tries to gain new recruits. *Because Fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy and needs feeding*
I LOVE that movie! I'll probably re-watch in 2025.
Waiting to see Dr. Marco Fasoli's Nobel Prize.
Also waiting to see his published research on evolution... checked rather recently and found his retinue of published research on the topic to be devoid of titles.
BUT, in the 1980s and 1990s he published papers where he demonstrated evolution. Curiouser and curiouser.
Let's not hold our breath....ok! 😂
Obviously, he was "saved." LOL
@@Christobanistan I hope he was. What about you?
why did the omnipotent great intelligent designer create cetaceans the way they are ? ... also please explain dingoes, thank you ...
So cetaceans don't function well? Dingoes pose no problem at all for Creationists. The problem you should seek an answer to is why, even given the Biblical teaching of the fall and decay from initial creation, why life is so perfect. Michael Denton in his book. Evolution. A Theory in Crisis has a chapter title, The puzzle of perfection. In an evolutionary world it is not supppsed problems in design but the amazing perfection of creation that is a mystery.
Why do artists create all sorts of weird things?
@@russellholmes8742 So two platypus waddled all the way, some 12,000 km, to the middle east, because it was raining?
Denton's book came out in 1985 and was trashed by the scientific community. Reviews by parties within the scientific community were vehemently negative, with several attacking flaws in Denton's arguments. Biologist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin described A Theory in Crisis as "a book by an author who is obviously incompetent, dishonest, or both - and it may be very hard to decide which is the case" and that his "arguments turn out to be flagrant instances of the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.
Other scientists voiced similar opinions.
Biologist Walter P. Coombs writing in Library Journal said much of the book reads like creationist prattle.
Mark I. Vuletic, in an essay posted to the talk.origins Archive, presented a detailed argument that Denton's attempts to make an adequate challenge to evolutionary biology fail, contending that Denton neither managed to undermine the evidence for evolution, nor demonstrated that macroevolutionary mechanisms are inherently implausible.
Philip Spieth, Professor of Genetics at University of California, Berkeley, reviewed the book saying his conclusions are "erroneous" and wrote the book "could not pass the most sympathetic peer review" because "evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as bald assertions accompanied, more often than not, with scorn."
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge in a review wrote that the book is "fraught with distortions" and utilized arguments similar to creationists.
@@russellholmes8742 amazing perfection? you and Michael Denton live in a fantasy land
@@cheezar5121 not a good argument for a tri-omni being
29:00 I'm looking forward to part two of this video where he applies the "Principle of Evidence" to the "theory" that the Earth and all life was created by a god.
Another thought on the pace of theoretical evolutionary change. If Darwin proposed that these changes would take millions of years, this does not fit global cycles of ice ages in the thousands of years. For example, an organism during a warm period begins its million year march to adapting to warm weather only to be completely ill adapted to the ice age that arrives 5,000 years later.
extinction is part of evolution
"Extinction is a part of evolution".
You're not addressing the point raised.
Hence 99% of all living things that have existed on our planet are extinct. Your post only solidifies that "only the strong survive", also known as evolution. Evolve or you will be dissolved.
@ianshand6094 - for me the OP is not clear what OP wants to say
@@globalcoupledances either evolution, as proposed by Darwin, was to ensure the survival of a species, adapting to fit the environment, or it isn't. And what would the mechanism be that says "this one adapts to survive, this one doesn't and dies"? That would seem capricious at best. Survival of the fittest makes more sense.
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
♦"Religion is founded on the fear & gullibility of many & the cleverness of the few."
♦"Only fools revere the supernatural bs just bc a book says it's the holy truth."
♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure & the intelligent full of doubt."
♦"The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics may believe on their own."
♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
♦"It's difficult to free the religious fools from the chains they revere."
♦“To have faith is precisely to lose one's mind so as to win God.”
♦"The death of dogma is the birth of morality."
The evolution theory has become a dogma, a must belief.
@@s.unosson
Unless you've been living under a rock in the backyard of a church, you would know that evidence shows evolution is a fact.
@@s.unosson
Unless you've been living under a rock in the backyard of a church, you would know that evidence shows evolution is a fact.
@@s.unosson
Evidence shows evolution is a fact.
And yet, here you are. Something inside you is telling you the truth. Good luck on your journey. P.S. you should really change "religion" to "relationship with God". Religion in and of itself is no different than dogma, whether expressed by believers or material reductionist. As such you are simply creating a stawman argument to then disprove which leaves you exactly where you started even after all your effort.