Thank you Gunter, for your courage to follow the evidence, publicly state your views ( - even at threat of losing your career). I have the highest respect for you sir.
@@PatrickClemmond - I third that. As a former Geologist who qualified in 1981 and worked in the Oil business, I long held this view after examining the geological record. It's good to see other scientists coming forward and talking about the facts. Thank you Dr Gunter.
Don’t worry, he won’t lose his career. He said absolutely nothing harmful and only stated facts. I believe that some worry because theists will look at this, misunderstand it, and use it as a gotcha moment. Though I do wish that he also brought up the fact that facts can change when new evidence is found in certain cases.
Fortunately ,Gunter is one of the few scientists that actually did what so many endlessly claim but few rarely do which is to follow the scientific evidence regardless of where it leads you. Refreshing to see especially in a field where biased speculation is the norm and not an exception for addressing these enormous unexplained voids in the fossil record as well the rapid appearance of fully developed organisms . Well done and informative .
He's not a proper scientist if he's concluding Intelligent Design.. Attacking Darwin the way he does is cynical, wrong and nasty.. Total straw man.. Every vaguely with it science type knows Darwin got the ball rolling, and that Natural Selection plays the major role in evolution most of the time.. We now know evolution can happen faster under pressure and in a more modular form with large sections of DNA merging from an external source (virus, bacteria).. Can infect a sperm for instance. -- We have fossil virus DNA due to this. Genetic Engineering, forward and reverse is a young and dangerous science, but it's showing enough new evolution mechanism to further fill gaps and rule out ID... ID also has the burden of proof on them, and this guy didn't get close to proving his shallow, easy straw man case... All these cynical failed scientists that swap sides for easy money are just preaching to the converted. Sad. Money and Fame-Lust cause people to sell their souls and often lose their mind.
@@PrivateSi you sound like a 16th century pope who decrees that science is a work of the devil. You speak with the same condescension and conviction. You and your ilk are an anomaly in the past and future of understanding this world. One that history will barely mention in its footnote. You speak of selling souls… disgusting in its ironic delusion.
@@PrivateSi so you say all these scientists change their minds for an easy buck? Prove it. And no, what you say about him being cynical, wrong, and nasty is not accurate. Natural selection selects what is there. Alas, you require Hox genes to mutate, cause malformation, and pass on the somatic expression to the viable fetus. That doesn’t happen now, but it “must’ve happened?” Lol
I agree, and some scientists also follow this model of studying. We can learn more as we find more. However, scientific facts are subject to change with new evidence.
@@PrivateSi The clash of two Belief Systems. "Darwinian Evolution" vs. "Intelligent Design". Albeit I find the Darwinists are more rigidly wedded to THEIR DOGMA. It's interesting to note, that a significant number of molecular and microbiologists also have very serious issues with Darwinian evolution, albeit theirs is from a totally different perspective, and is in no way related to paleontology and fossils. And there is the "population genetics" - which is a MATHEMATICAL problem of Darwinism.
Gunter you are spot on.I am a geologist and was never convinced of Darwinian evolution when at College.But i kept my trap shut because i wanted to pass my exams.Your explanations are excellent.And Oh where did DNA come from.?The most brilliant piece of engineering in exixtance.
DNA is the MOST SOPHISTICATED and COMPLEX and VOLUMINOUS code ever assembled. DNA CODE is 8 TIMES the complexity of MANMADE Code. Manmade code exists in a SIMPLE 1x2=2 binary 2D linear format. DNA CODE is in a 4x4=16 DOUBLE HELIX structure that is READ IN BOTH... OPPOSITE ...DIRECTIONS!!! Imagine our programmers at Microsoft writing a program that the machine reads forward and backwards. That means every single bit combination means one thing when read... and then something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT when reversed....but both are needed for functionality!!! It's like reading the massive book War and Peace BACKWARDS to get another FULLY RELEVANT STORY! That:is a level of genius we CAN'T COMPREHEND!!! We just discovered that DNA CODE can be read BOTH WAYS which presents an unfathomable amount of complexity to DNA CODE that no manmade code can get close to. The structure of this Hypercomplex CODE is arranged in a far more SOPHISTICATED 3 dimensional format. Microsoft Windows code doesn't run on "ACCIDENTALLY" made MACHINERY that the instructions for building the machinery are IN THE CODE ITSELF! DNA CODE does!!!! DNA CODE is not only the MAIN software BUT ALSO THE BLUEPRINT for building itself...but not just itself...ENTIRE multicellular organisms...plural!!! DNA CODE is longer than ALL manmade code COMBINED! It is the most SOPHISTICATED code ever seen. Bill gates says: “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” THAT quote is from the GREATEST MOST SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMMER IN HISTORY. He gets it...but the silly atheists and naturalists who are too BIASED to see the OBVIOUS connection simply IGNORE the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE. NONTHINKERS that BELIEVE in ABIOGENESIS just PRETEND like children that the EVIDENCE is on their side while IGNORING the very same EVIDENCE!!! Hilarious!!! No...the tooth fairy isn't real! No ABIOGENESIS isn't real!!! Yale Computer Scientist and mathematician Dr. David Galernter FINALLY got it after realizing that the FAITH required to BELIEVE in ABIOGENESIS is FAR TOO GREAT A LEAP!!! World renown Dr. James Tour is an American nonotechnologist and Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering and Computer Science at Rice University has figured out that ABIOGENESIS never happened...notice....yet another COMPUTER SCIENTIST is able to UNDERSTAND THE FACTS. Meanwhile...NONTHINKERS insist it is possible because of an emotional neediness for a Godless universe...no by observational evidence!
DNA came from rna. Rna came from proteins and acids competing... The fact you claim evolution is the same as origin of life studies or abiogenesis shows your lack of intelligence on the topic. I hope you're not actually a geologist because you're probably doing it wrong. All geological strata can be shown across the earth. Psst.. your bias is showing.
@@GreatBehoover AWESOME - Also a single human cell has a higher level of complexity than any assembly factory that man has ever constructed, yet evo nuts think it created itself because time is the ultimate genetic engineer.
I think I recognize this man from another video. He is a German that became acquainted with the concept of design in the mechanics of the cell. He was a Darwinian evolutionist.However,after thinking deeply about the data,he changed his crowd. This mini lecture is excellent and I really enjoyed listening to it. Thanks a lot!
A former evolutionary biologist, who says things like "there is no evidence [in the fossil record] for gradations form one form (species) into another". Hmm.
He was an scientific nobody that cynically switched to the easy-sell Creationist MASS MARKET for money and a bit of fame.. Telling True Believers what they want to hear using flimsy evidence and further blinding people by poor science for easy money is insulting to more intelligent people.. His ID speculation is a leap of faith (real or portrayed) if he actually believes it to definitely be true.. There is too much we don't know to jump some intelligent designers. Life on Earth is one giant LEARNING and INFO STORAGE SYSTEM.. Genetics is more modular than first thought. Viruses can infect sperm and leave fossil DNA.. Viruses and cancers can merge parts of their DNA code with the host's.. It's not just inheritance, small errors and natural (etc.) selection.
Charles Darwin: *_"(Since) innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Origin of Species", p. 162. "Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."_* Origin of Species, p. 293.
Stephen J. Gould (Professor of paleontology from Harvard University): _"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable,_ *_not the evidence of fossils."_* Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.
I'm always fascinated by scientists who have grown up believing in evolution and then change their mind. Atheists are quick to dismiss objecters to the theory as biased religionists - but these guys obviously aren't dismissing evolution "because I was told so at church and never bothered to think about it." The evidence is convincing them.
Maybe dr. Bechly was convinced that biological evolution is false by the facts of nature. This doesn't mean that his interpretation of the facts was not influenced by his biases. He clearly misrepresented scientific research in this interview. Either he doesn't understand the research as well as he should or he is deliberately misrepresenting scientific research to fit his creationist narrative.
Not what this scientist is saying. He is saying that the absence of evidence is convincing him that a divine (Creator) being is intervening in evolution.
I too grew up in the Christian church. Our church didn't spend enough time on these "apologetics" topics. But my father filled in the spaces for me enough to suffice till later in life. It was while working in the oil and gas industry that I became interested in geology and ultimately earth age thoughts. I knew I was to believe the biblical timeline, but had not been properly prepared. It was my older brother who got me to read the King James Version, and everything started falling into place for me. I certainly don't have all the answers, but I at least now have a real belief in God's word, especially Genesis. The flood explains so much that scientists ignore. It's funny sometimes listening to people talk about how it took so many millions of years for one critter to become another critter. Our domestic dogs are evidence that in a few hundred years with man's un-natural selection, we can arrive at great Danes or chihuahuas.
Thank you for the courage to be a person who wishes to take reasoning into account. Your arguments are compelling and quite substantial. I think the Science community is on the threshold of being in the same boat as Scientologists. The heavy-handed approach to conform or suffer consequences is a key indicator of a cultish mindset. Please remain courageous.
Gunther Bechly is a renowned scientist who has had the courage to defend his convictions against established belief putting his career at risk. I wish there were many more scientists with the courage to debunk the fundamental errors that have been derived from Darwinism.
Having read "Origins" at a very young age I was totally convinced by its import. While never an atheist, due to attending parochial schools, I questioned the legitimacy of Christianity as a result. It wasn't until college and taking an anthropology class as an elective, that it dawned on me that Darwinism made absolutely no sense, a literal sudden revelation. I am now convinced the darwinian mechanism is nothing more than materialistic desperation. The more we learn about the cell, it's near inhuman complexity, only increases the impossibility of any naturalistic mechanism to have produced it. Which then places Darwinism in the psuedo-science fiction category. There is so much about nature which contradicts darwinism. From metamorphosis, to Dragonfly aerodynamics, to bats, to conscious agents able to contemplate their own existence and relationship with God. The objective of inquiry into "being" and "existence" is to establish "truth" wherever that may lead. God, in His Wisdom, actualized an intelligible world, and placed His signature on the canvas. Thank you for this excellent confirmation and affirmation. God Bless.
Gunter Bechly vs Joshua Swamidass & The Fossil Record, Evolution, and Intelligent Design Erica & Gunter Bechly Thanks for reminding me. I need to finish his chat with Erica Gibbons 🍎
You'd not see anything. You can't reason with a flat earther, you can't reason with an evolutionist. Either these people deliver themselves out of their delusion, or they die firmly affixed to it. Evolution explains everything, which some intelligent people have pointed out, means that it explains nothing. (I know; that's anti-intuitive.) I'll try to explain with an example. Let's say you have a suspect, Mrs X, who you believe murdered her husband. However, your explanation shows not only that she murdered her husband, but also that she _did not._ Obviously, your explanation is worthless, because it explains absolutely all circumstances, including the highly unlikely, even the impossible. Evolution is like that. If a creature has teeth - evolution! If a creature does not have teeth - evolution! Thus, the model is unpredictive and even worse, unfalsifiable. Popper showed that an unfalsifiable theory is a poor candidate for being good science.
*_“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863)
*_"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress."_* (Stephen J. Gould, Professor of paleontology from Harvard University, During the question and answer session following his Hobart and William Smith College lecture, Dr. Gould was asked if there was not Stratigraphic evidence indicating gradualism)
I am very thankful that Dr. Bechly is contributing his scholarship, experience, and eloquence to the ID movement. As a paleontologist, he not only has the knowledge that most people in this field have, but he also has the courage to point out what does not agree with the evolution theory in the fossil record..
Thank you for doing what's right, words cannot describe how far you're pushing things in the way they that should be. I just hope people start gaining awareness sooner.
No. Anyone can question evolution provided they have the evidence and relevant data. Also, evolutionary science has advanced so much from Darwin that religious people thinking Darwin is some kind of infallible prophet and evolution some kind of complete theory without any holes and mysteries to discover as if it was some kind of religious revelation is just projection from religious people. Darwin is to biology as Newton to physics. No one is talking about Newtonian physics, it's respected but just like Darwin, science has advanced so much more now. Gunther Bechley has been shown to be a pseudoscience proponent. All the claims made on this video have been addressed and show to either be misinterpreted to fit a narrative or just made up. Intelligent design is not scientific and until it can provide real evidence and data that can be analyzed, and not just criticisms to naturalism faults which even naturalists are aware of, then ID will continue to just be pseudoscience proposed by bible thumping people that want very desperately for science to confirm their faith.
Very well put, and corresponds excellently with what I have learnt over the last 10 years about Neo-Darwinian evolution, especially from M. Behe (Darwin's Black Box), M. Denton (Evolution: A Theory Still in Crisis), S. Myer (Signature in the Cell, and Darwin's Doubt), and Frank Turik (I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheists). Jonathan Wells also (Icons of Evolution).
Thank you mister Bechly ! We are in desperate need of more scientists who value truth and real science more than their funding, positions and how they are viewed by others and this has been made even more clear and painful during the current corona crisis. Hopefully your brilliant example will inspire other colleagues to "come out" .
This is without doubt the clearest and most compelling articulation of the strength (ie. weakness) of the scientific foundation for Darwinism. I will keep a link to this excellent video handy when I encounter unscientific arguments in support of Darwinism.
As Conan Doyle has Sherlock Holmes say, "When we've discarded the impossible, the only option remaining, however improbable, must be the correct one". It's sad to see that to propose that new encoded information can only be generated by a Designing Intelligence would ruin a scientist's career: it's unscientific to be hostile to what science (Reason) itself is clearly pointing to. I hope Dr. Bechly has found other avenues to continue his ground-breaking work.
NO, it is not... It is based on scientific RULE!!! Science is not pointing at any direction... SCIENTISTS DID IT... Science is BLIND, we are the scientist that interpret the data....
When we state that H vs C have 95% similarity and 5% difference we cannot assume from this which of the differences in the other were the same as the Common Ancestor had. Thus, it is logical to state that the Common Ancestor was much more closely related to H than C is now to H. Just like my grandfather is a closer relative to me than my cousin. That is, completely contrary to the theory of evolution. Sorry for my bad English!
It's OK to challenge scientific theories but we have empirical evidence that encoded information, not only _can,_ but _does_ encode information through the processes of biological evolution. What Dr. Bechly is doing is misrepresenting scientific research to support his creationist narrative. If anything is unscientific, it's this.
This is astounding work, please pay it forward & give the video a thumbs up, it costs us nothing, but helps more people see this important information.
My experience as an outsider to these observations. My elder sister worked at the University at Berkley in California.She worked doing DNA research. Her 'boss' held some sort of doctorate in DNA related science.They discovered something that completely trashed Darwins' theory's. (Look up the meaning of theory.) He applied and was given a Nobel award for fact proven conclusions. Did university sciences grab this up? No. My sister retired in frustration. Apparently, massive amounts of donated money across the planet was based on Darwin theoretical claims. And the last thing you want to do is prove to your financial base that you got it all wrong. So they completely ignored this huge discovery. My sister retired because she had not realized her university colleagues were actually not scientists. She became quite bitter over the whole life destroying realization. She died totally frustrated by her life choices, alone and angry gardening in her California back yard. Family was apparently a reminder she was not what she thought she was about, and alone was her only option in her mind. So, as an outsider non-science observer, Darwin and his numb skull followers were idiots! Welcome to the real world!
If Günter would be interested in truth and knowledge he would present current knowledge and not 100+ year old stuff that is outdated by far. Don't know why he is doing it but I'm pretty sure he knows about the development of the last 100+ years.
@@justsomeone953 I don't think you watched the full video. For instance, He brings up Stephen Jay Gould and punctuated equilibrium which is just about 30 years ago.
@@justsomeone953For instance, he brings up extended evolutionary synthesis which is very recent development. So you are wrong here. He is presenting current knowledge.
This Is Among The Most Well Presented And Informative Discussions Of The Formative Evolutionary Dilemmas That I Have Heard. Thank You For Taking The Time To Briefly Summarize The Subject With Such Clarity. I Appreciate Your Logical And Orderly Representation Of This Scientific Perspective, And I Am Sorry For Your Previous Employer's Loss.
What did he present? He just said there are gaps between the gaps. Standard evolution theory denialist stuff. Not one example of a human bone in the cambrian explosion. Or a bird with an early dinosaur. There have been cataclysm that have left wide open lanes for one group of animals to die out and others to take their place.
And yet public education continues to perpetuate the myth among young minds that Darwinian evolution is fully supported by the scientific data and, therefore, should be regarded as indisputable fact. Academia is long overdue for a reevaluation of what the data really shows and how the truth should be taught going forward.
Thank you Dr. Bechly, your insights are much appreciated. Do I understand this correctly? Darwinists are now becoming a religious movement, and creationist are following science just because they can!
Given the absurdity of the "Theory".... Evolutionist have always been "religious"😂.... And "knowledgeable" Christians have always loved "science".... In spite of the oft-repeated propaganda! 🙏😍
You honestly need to do more with this man. Of the people you put videos up for, the two I look forward to listening to most are David Berlinski and Gunter Bechly.
Brilliant. Scientists hate design because it cannot b proven. Yet, major theories remain theories because they also cannot be proven. Instead of basing a theory on the best available explanation (ID), their course of action is always, "We just need more time!" And, it always seems to be that in every instance, time is proven to be against them.
Theories are not 100% irrefutable, but there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence supporting ID. Mainstream science accepts other theories with less evidence (e.g., Darwinian evolution, I would argue), provided they don’t have the same implications about God that ID does. The bias against ID is not due to its lack of compelling evidence, which is substantial. It all comes down to its religious implications. The fact that so many materialist scientists rely on the ad hominem argument that ID is religion masquerading as science reveals what they really see (and fear) in ID-namely, a scientifically supported basis for a belief in God. That is a nonstarter for many, regardless of the weight of the evidence in support of ID.
@Daniel Paulson theism and the what the Bible teaches are two different things. Most theists do not read the Bible, or read it with false preconceived notions that are good for getting donations in the basket. The Bible encourages healthy skepticism. Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen. Do you have confidence that the sun will be visible tomorrow? That's faith, based on the experiential evidence that it has happened before. So it's not faith if there actually is no evidence. 1 John 4:4 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. True believers from ancient times have the habit of testing statements. This is not incredulity nor is it gullibility. Now whether modern Christendom follows that tradition is quite another story. So actually students of the Bible have an enquiring and questioning bearing, more so than most Darwinists, who only follow the tax money, or the patron's funds, not the evidence. After all...they have a student debt to pay. 😏
Well said.... Although I don't think design has to be "proven"(which may not have been the intention of your comment).... Regardless of what so-called phds come up with in their BS chats.... Design is obvious to us who appreciate observable science!!🙏👍😍... Have a great day brother!
All the museums with fossils show intermediate links but no evidence has been found to support this. You can go in and question curators why the displays don't support the evidence
The man, Gunter Bechly, is a human computer/archive. A true cognizant genius! What an extraordinary ability he has, to cite relevant knowledge and infos at lightning speed.
He is only arguing about Darwin and Darwin is long gone. If Günter is an archive he is pretty outdated. Why doesn't he come up with current knowledge? What is his motivation?
Thank you, Gunter. Appreciate your excellent presentation, I am an engineer and like structure, and your courage. Too bad others are still shackled in terms of being imprisoned in a career path they don't believe in. don"t
The thing is in the mid 19th century when materialism really got going, a good argument could have been made for Darwin and other materialists, based on what was Known. Alas as we learned more about the universe, the argument have gotten weaker and weaker.
But Darwin & his colleagues knew the Fossil records contracted his theory. The Science did not support Darwin back then & now ... but somehow it is now a fact of Science with no evidence. Darwin would have been called a complete fool, ... if Sir Issac Newton had NOT used the Watchmaker Analogy to prove Creation ... but ... simply defined the Function Category and especially the Machine Category. A Machine is a physical function that requires specific matter, energy, time & space to exist & to function. All machines are UNNATURALLY made by an intelligence to impart a function or purpose. The Universe & Life are all machines ... completely composed of machines & functions. There is not, and never will be any scientific evidence proving Nature created the Universe & Life. Because Nature can NEVER make & make function ... the simplest of machines. Evolution would have been a joke had Newton fully classified all Functions ... 150 or so years before Darwn. Medicine & the Biological sciences would have taken a monumental leap forward ... once we under stood the all Life ... knowing they are biological machines composed of machines ... and all having a purpose.
Or so you've been led to believe by creationists. If you listen to people who devote their entire careers to studying the living world, they have a diametrically different opinion - the more we understand, the stronger the theory of biological evolution has gotten.
You are right. Darwinism was quite plausible back then, especially if you were inclined to abandon religious adherence. Darwinism doesn't seem to be as robust today. But unfortunately most laymen and even scientists who have not directly investigated the problem are completely oblivious to this.
I very much appreciate the format of this presentation. The jumps between dealing with one issue and the next eliminate so much time from a natural conversational interview or live address.
Obviously, we are living on a farm, where aliens drop of live stock. They come back to rotate the 'crops'. That is why we see jumps in the fossil records. Great video!
The last time this was claimed, the resulting civilization brought about the geological feature called the Great Unconformity. And the survivors spread out from Uruk complaining that they had to invent writing because their language was suddenly splintered by gods... And each carried with them the story of the Ark and Flood. So... Ask why Aleister Crowley drew a grey alien after claiming he summoned a demon through dark arts. Ask why Jack Parsons claimed to have opened a portal for spirits to be made flesh, and pointed to the sudden rash of UFOs as proof (where before such sightings were rare). The Watchers would love nothing more than for miseducated people to accept them as their creators. And all the evidence for an old universe comes in the form of “unfalsifiable” rescue mechanisms (such as Oort clouds to explain why comets are still around), or founded on radiometric dating that can’t accurately date new rocks from Hawaii and Mount St. Helens.
Physicist Richard Feynman noticed some scientists lovingly held on to theories even after evidence showed it was wrong: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." ~Richard P. Feynman
There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA. Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA. Genes within the DNA of a particular organism code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function but has not been shown to determine that particular organism's primary biological architectural body plan. Therefore, no amount of random mutation of DNA will produce a new organism with a different body plan from the original.
*_”I will lay it on the line-there is not one such [transitional] fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”_* (Colin Patterson FRS, British palaeontologist, Natural History Museum)
Actually it is the body plans and DNA that prove all life is related, one form evolving from earlier forms. This is why all vertebrates have such a similar body plan such as the same bone structure of appendages. We now have early fossil fish that show the addition of limbs that then became the limbs of all higher animals - change over time is the exact definition of evolution. The proof is there for all to see!
Gaps in Darwins knowledge have and continue to be filled by diligent, patient enquiry. Two places naysayers should look: endogenous retroviruses (proves Homo sapiens shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees) and Cetacean evolution (from pakycetis to modern whales).
I applaud your fearless disposition to confront darkness Gunther. Truth always finds a way to rise above ignorance or denial, that form the foundation of the constitution of religion, the refusal to grow beyond the discoveries of our forefathers.
But it is not true. The calculation he is talking about takes point mutation into account and nothing more. It is the time needed to have one point mutation and the next in the child and than another in the grand child. This takes a huge amount of time. But that is not how it works. You have Migration (gene flow), Genetic drift, Genomic duplication, Sexual reproduction, Horizontal gene transfer. Which all speeds up evolution significantly. I wonder why he is using a calculation clearly provided to show "biological evolution does not work with one concept" to argue against biological evolution. As if he wants to mislead people. Look up all the stuff he claims.
Thank you sir for sharing the truth, even in the face of critic's who won't admit the facts due to the popular narrative being promoted today. I wish this information would be shared with every school and university around the world.
Just because there seem to be gaps in the fossil record doesn't mean that there was no gradual evolution of species, it just means that there are gaps in the fossil record.
Yes, yes, and yes. It is absolutely, the most important question to ask at thsi time. This aspect about modern life, that baffles me the most, is how can the theory of evolution hold such incredible favour and weight in society, given our modern scientific knowledge? In the beginning "God created...." These are by far, close to the most stunning and insightful thoughts in the Bible.
I don't understand how creationists after all these years still do not understand that "theory" means something very different in the scientific community. Do you not want to understand and stay in the comfortable creationist bubble and echo chamber forever?
Please please, a discussion between yourself and Aronra would be unbelievably interesting and help us all to understand the issues better. I cannot help but agree with what you're saying and would love to hear an educated opposing view. I expect it would be a totally polite and respectful debate
In this time we live in where there is pressure on dissenting viewpoints it is food for the soul that truth can still prevail. thank you for this very well done video
Wonderful information. Is there any way to get links to the source documents for all the quotes and studies? That would be most helpful in speaking with Evolutionists.
Yeah it is a nice start but you have to catch up with time and current knowledge. Darwin died in 1882. There is a lot to discover after him up until now.
The fundamental issue with calculations regarding genetic mutation is that there is not nearly enough of a baseline regarding how EXPRESSION of genetic material plays in. It isn't entirely necessary for the genetic code to be different in order for the genes themselves to be expressed differently. The misconception is that genetic change comes first. EXPRESSION comes first. The fossil record is NOT a genetic record. It is a record of genetic EXPRESSION. "Transitional fossils" are expected to occur at the rates of genetic variances, but even organisms within a single species can vary significantly in terms of form - so MUCH so that an independent and objective observer might misidentify their fossils as being from completely different species. Variance within species can (and do) produce radically different body forms of the same body plan that do not require hundreds of millions of years to manifest. The idea that changes in genetics are exclusively what determines differentiation is a hindrance to understanding to true nature of speciation and evolution. Resistance to Phenotypic Plasticity assumes that early genetic protection and verification mechanisms existed or were able to regulate expression as tightly as they do now, and that simplicity was a limiting factor when it was, in fact, the opposite. A simple genetic code is more likely to be affected in its expression by changes, and those changes are more likely to be immediately catastrophic which eliminates unviable lines. Many of the "explosions" are attributable to the fact that we simply do NOT know definitively how long it takes for differentiation of EXPRESSION to proliferate through a genetic population. We don't have perspective on the full breadth of mechanisms responsible, so to say "blah blah blah is impossible because of math" is myopic and embraces ignorance. Simply observing the variants of canines and what we've been able to do to them with selective breeding over a few hundred years is extremely telling in regards to the thick, blurry line between form and speciation in the fossil record. The people that will say "WE were the intelligent designers of those canine variances and WE exerted specific genetic pressure to obtain them" are ignoring the fact that the potential for the variance has to exist in order for it to be accessed by genetic or reproductive pressure. Genetic code doesn't simply limit what gets formed, it also contains all of the POTENTIAL physical forms that an organism and its progeny could take under a myriad of circumstances. Our penchant for categorization of things introduces separation where there really isn't any, which is why searching for "transitional" fossils is functionally irrelevant, and also why rapid "speciation" shouldn't be overly surprising. Also, any intelligent design hypotheses fail when the designs themselves are flawed in ways that no good designer would implement. For all the brilliant "design" we see in nature, we see equivalent amounts of perplexing "design" choices, not the least of which is... Testicles. That is all.
Very good explanation of Darwin's enigma regarding his theory on gradual change. However I still don't think their is any evidence of a common ancestor, though. Can anyone even start to track gradual changes going all the way "back" to an ameba?
No. That’s the point-the transitional organisms that Darwinian evolution predicts are not there in the fossil record. On the contrary, what the fossil record shows is new species appearing suddenly and with no predecessors. There have been many so-called “explosions” of new species, both in the sea and on the ground. The fossil record reveals life forms emerging not as a tree with a single common trunk but more like a side view of a field of grass. There is no “common ancestor.”
To disprove evolution ask any evolutionist “What came first the mouth or the anus” and where are the anusless fossils with mouths or moutless fossils with anuses in the fossil record? There should be millions of transitional fossils like this but there are NONE!
@@michaelsiddle837 I have no expertise in these matters, but nature seems to love symmetry, and if the initial primitive lifeform was a simple, symmetrical, open ended tube, then you would have a proto, anus and mouth ready for millennia of incremental change to produced specialised functions: Input, peristaltic action and output. Possible?
Just a question about two of this gentleman's statements. .How can there be a common ancestor if the fossil records do not show a gradation from one species to another?
There is no Darwinian Universal Common Ancestor to be found. In the fossil records we may see adaptive changes or subspecies within given species. That's all. We don't see evolution i.e. changes in the basic anatomical structures of any species. The common system of biological classification (taxonomy) consists of species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain. Obviously there are thousands and thousands of different common ancestors to current species, but they can only be found on the taxonomic levels of species and perhaps genus. Hardly any higher. Evolution theory according to Wikipedia means: 1. Evolutionary processes produce diversity on every level of the biological hierarchy, including the level of species, the level of organisms and the level of molecular evolution. 2. All life on Earth stem from a Universal Common Ancestor which lived about 3,5 - 3,8 billion years ago. The point 1. is correct. Point 2. is an assumption not verified by any known scientific method. That's why the fossil records do not show a gradation from one species to another. Each species has its typical genes and they can usually not successfully mix with genes of another species, let alone with a species belonging to different genus.
Ben Shapiro once made the profound observation that "Facts don't care about your feelings." In the same way, I think Gunter makes the point very powerfully that facts also don't care about how much anyone might what the theory of evolution to be valid, they tell an exceedingly different, much more truthful and vastly more compelling story anyway.
How ironic that it takes more "faith" to believe in the Darwinian evolutionary theory than in ... God.
Unfortunately, the religionists have lied about God so much no one can believe them.
Thank you Gunter, for your courage to follow the evidence, publicly state your views ( - even at threat of losing your career). I have the highest respect for you sir.
I second that John Castino.
@@PatrickClemmond - I third that. As a former Geologist who qualified in 1981 and worked in the Oil business, I long held this view after examining the geological record. It's good to see other scientists coming forward and talking about the facts. Thank you Dr Gunter.
@@Gandalf606 Well said.
Don’t worry, he won’t lose his career. He said absolutely nothing harmful and only stated facts. I believe that some worry because theists will look at this, misunderstand it, and use it as a gotcha moment. Though I do wish that he also brought up the fact that facts can change when new evidence is found in certain cases.
@@Theonetrueerenyeager but... it is a gotcha.
Amazing!
Islam isn’t the truth
Subhan’allah!
He does such a phenomenal job at explaining it in a manner that the average person can grasp.
Fortunately ,Gunter is one of the few scientists that actually did what so many endlessly claim but few rarely do which is to follow the scientific evidence regardless of where it leads you. Refreshing to see especially in a field where biased speculation is the norm and not an exception for addressing these enormous unexplained voids in the fossil record as well the rapid appearance of fully developed organisms . Well done and informative .
He's not a proper scientist if he's concluding Intelligent Design.. Attacking Darwin the way he does is cynical, wrong and nasty.. Total straw man.. Every vaguely with it science type knows Darwin got the ball rolling, and that Natural Selection plays the major role in evolution most of the time.. We now know evolution can happen faster under pressure and in a more modular form with large sections of DNA merging from an external source (virus, bacteria).. Can infect a sperm for instance.
--
We have fossil virus DNA due to this. Genetic Engineering, forward and reverse is a young and dangerous science, but it's showing enough new evolution mechanism to further fill gaps and rule out ID... ID also has the burden of proof on them, and this guy didn't get close to proving his shallow, easy straw man case... All these cynical failed scientists that swap sides for easy money are just preaching to the converted. Sad. Money and Fame-Lust cause people to sell their souls and often lose their mind.
@@PrivateSi you sound like a 16th century pope who decrees that science is a work of the devil. You speak with the same condescension and conviction.
You and your ilk are an anomaly in the past and future of understanding this world. One that history will barely mention in its footnote.
You speak of selling souls… disgusting in its ironic delusion.
@@PrivateSi so you say all these scientists change their minds for an easy buck?
Prove it.
And no, what you say about him being cynical, wrong, and nasty is not accurate.
Natural selection selects what is there. Alas, you require Hox genes to mutate, cause malformation, and pass on the somatic expression to the viable fetus.
That doesn’t happen now, but it “must’ve happened?”
Lol
I agree, and some scientists also follow this model of studying. We can learn more as we find more. However, scientific facts are subject to change with new evidence.
@@PrivateSi The clash of two Belief Systems. "Darwinian Evolution" vs. "Intelligent Design". Albeit I find the Darwinists are more rigidly wedded to THEIR DOGMA.
It's interesting to note, that a significant number of molecular and microbiologists also have very serious issues with Darwinian evolution, albeit theirs is from a totally different perspective, and is in no way related to paleontology and fossils.
And there is the "population genetics" - which is a MATHEMATICAL problem of Darwinism.
Gunter you are spot on.I am a geologist and was never convinced of Darwinian evolution when at College.But i kept my trap shut because i wanted to pass my exams.Your explanations are excellent.And Oh where did DNA come from.?The most brilliant piece of engineering in exixtance.
Thank you to the True Scientists who follow the evidence no matter where it leads them. Erich from New Zealand
Brilliant, I taught my 3 kids to do the same, all have degrees now and 2 are still Christian.
DNA is the MOST SOPHISTICATED and COMPLEX and VOLUMINOUS code ever assembled.
DNA CODE is 8 TIMES the complexity of MANMADE Code.
Manmade code exists in a SIMPLE 1x2=2 binary 2D linear format.
DNA CODE is in a 4x4=16 DOUBLE HELIX structure that is READ IN BOTH... OPPOSITE ...DIRECTIONS!!!
Imagine our programmers at Microsoft writing a program that the machine reads forward and backwards. That means every single bit combination means one thing when read... and then something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT when reversed....but both are needed for functionality!!! It's like reading the massive book War and Peace BACKWARDS to get another FULLY RELEVANT STORY! That:is a level of genius we CAN'T COMPREHEND!!!
We just discovered that DNA CODE can be read BOTH WAYS which presents an unfathomable amount of complexity to DNA CODE that no manmade code can get close to.
The structure of this Hypercomplex CODE is arranged in a far more SOPHISTICATED 3 dimensional format.
Microsoft Windows code doesn't run on "ACCIDENTALLY" made MACHINERY that the instructions for building the machinery are IN THE CODE ITSELF! DNA CODE does!!!!
DNA CODE is not only the MAIN software BUT ALSO THE BLUEPRINT for building itself...but not just itself...ENTIRE multicellular organisms...plural!!!
DNA CODE is longer than ALL manmade code COMBINED! It is the most SOPHISTICATED code ever seen. Bill gates says:
“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
THAT quote is from the GREATEST MOST SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMMER IN HISTORY. He gets it...but the silly atheists and naturalists who are too BIASED to see the OBVIOUS connection simply IGNORE the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE. NONTHINKERS that BELIEVE in ABIOGENESIS just PRETEND like children that the EVIDENCE is on their side while IGNORING the very same EVIDENCE!!! Hilarious!!! No...the tooth fairy isn't real! No ABIOGENESIS isn't real!!!
Yale Computer Scientist and mathematician Dr. David Galernter FINALLY got it after realizing that the FAITH required to BELIEVE in ABIOGENESIS is FAR TOO GREAT A LEAP!!!
World renown Dr. James Tour is an American nonotechnologist and Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering and Computer Science at Rice University has figured out that ABIOGENESIS never happened...notice....yet another COMPUTER SCIENTIST is able to UNDERSTAND THE FACTS. Meanwhile...NONTHINKERS insist it is possible because of an emotional neediness for a Godless universe...no by observational evidence!
DNA came from rna. Rna came from proteins and acids competing... The fact you claim evolution is the same as origin of life studies or abiogenesis shows your lack of intelligence on the topic. I hope you're not actually a geologist because you're probably doing it wrong. All geological strata can be shown across the earth.
Psst.. your bias is showing.
@@GreatBehoover AWESOME - Also a single human cell has a higher level of complexity than any assembly factory that man has ever constructed, yet evo nuts think it created itself because time is the ultimate genetic engineer.
I think I recognize this man from another video. He is a German that became acquainted with the concept of design in the mechanics of the cell. He was a Darwinian evolutionist.However,after thinking deeply about the data,he changed his crowd. This mini lecture is excellent and I really enjoyed listening to it. Thanks a lot!
Yes he did a debate.
A former evolutionary biologist, who says things like "there is no evidence [in the fossil record] for gradations form one form (species) into another". Hmm.
He “changed his crowd”. What the hell does that mean?
Nah, that guy looked way different and sounded way different too...jk;)
He was an scientific nobody that cynically switched to the easy-sell Creationist MASS MARKET for money and a bit of fame.. Telling True Believers what they want to hear using flimsy evidence and further blinding people by poor science for easy money is insulting to more intelligent people.. His ID speculation is a leap of faith (real or portrayed) if he actually believes it to definitely be true.. There is too much we don't know to jump some intelligent designers. Life on Earth is one giant LEARNING and INFO STORAGE SYSTEM.. Genetics is more modular than first thought. Viruses can infect sperm and leave fossil DNA.. Viruses and cancers can merge parts of their DNA code with the host's.. It's not just inheritance, small errors and natural (etc.) selection.
Charles Darwin: *_"(Since) innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Origin of Species", p. 162. "Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."_* Origin of Species, p. 293.
Stephen J. Gould (Professor of paleontology from Harvard University): _"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable,_ *_not the evidence of fossils."_* Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.
I'm always fascinated by scientists who have grown up believing in evolution and then change their mind.
Atheists are quick to dismiss objecters to the theory as biased religionists - but these guys obviously aren't dismissing evolution "because I was told so at church and never bothered to think about it." The evidence is convincing them.
Exactly correct Drew.
Maybe dr. Bechly was convinced that biological evolution is false by the facts of nature. This doesn't mean that his interpretation of the facts was not influenced by his biases. He clearly misrepresented scientific research in this interview. Either he doesn't understand the research as well as he should or he is deliberately misrepresenting scientific research to fit his creationist narrative.
Not what this scientist is saying. He is saying that the absence of evidence is convincing him that a divine (Creator) being is intervening in evolution.
Atheism is a religion
I too grew up in the Christian church. Our church didn't spend enough time on these "apologetics" topics. But my father filled in the spaces for me enough to suffice till later in life. It was while working in the oil and gas industry that I became interested in geology and ultimately earth age thoughts. I knew I was to believe the biblical timeline, but had not been properly prepared. It was my older brother who got me to read the King James Version, and everything started falling into place for me. I certainly don't have all the answers, but I at least now have a real belief in God's word, especially Genesis. The flood explains so much that scientists ignore. It's funny sometimes listening to people talk about how it took so many millions of years for one critter to become another critter. Our domestic dogs are evidence that in a few hundred years with man's un-natural selection, we can arrive at great Danes or chihuahuas.
35 minutes??? LET'S GO!!
Thank you for the courage to be a person who wishes to take reasoning into account. Your arguments are compelling and quite substantial. I think the Science community is on the threshold of being in the same boat as Scientologists. The heavy-handed approach to conform or suffer consequences is a key indicator of a cultish mindset. Please remain courageous.
Gunther Bechly is a renowned scientist who has had the courage to defend his convictions against established belief putting his career at risk. I wish there were many more scientists with the courage to debunk the fundamental errors that have been derived from Darwinism.
Having read "Origins" at a very young age I was totally convinced by its import. While never an atheist, due to attending parochial schools, I questioned the legitimacy of Christianity as a result.
It wasn't until college and taking an anthropology class as an elective, that it dawned on me that Darwinism made absolutely no sense, a literal sudden revelation.
I am now convinced the darwinian mechanism is nothing more than materialistic desperation.
The more we learn about the cell, it's near inhuman complexity, only increases the impossibility of any naturalistic mechanism to have produced it.
Which then places Darwinism in the psuedo-science fiction category.
There is so much about nature which contradicts darwinism. From metamorphosis, to Dragonfly aerodynamics, to bats, to conscious agents able to contemplate their own existence and relationship with God.
The objective of inquiry into "being" and "existence" is to establish "truth" wherever that may lead.
God, in His Wisdom, actualized an intelligible world, and placed His signature on the canvas.
Thank you for this excellent confirmation and affirmation.
God Bless.
I would like to see a face to face debate between Bechly and a Darwinist.
He did at least one on YT which he won easily
Who would be brave or competent enough to go up against him? 🤪
Gunter Bechly vs Joshua Swamidass
&
The Fossil Record, Evolution, and Intelligent Design Erica & Gunter Bechly
Thanks for reminding me. I need to finish his chat with Erica Gibbons
🍎
ruclips.net/video/oN0NkYgB4rk/видео.html
You'd not see anything.
You can't reason with a flat earther, you can't reason with an evolutionist. Either these people deliver themselves out of their delusion, or they die firmly affixed to it.
Evolution explains everything, which some intelligent people have pointed out, means that it explains nothing. (I know; that's anti-intuitive.)
I'll try to explain with an example.
Let's say you have a suspect, Mrs X, who you believe murdered her husband. However, your explanation shows not only that she murdered her husband, but also that she _did not._
Obviously, your explanation is worthless, because it explains absolutely all circumstances, including the highly unlikely, even the impossible.
Evolution is like that.
If a creature has teeth - evolution!
If a creature does not have teeth - evolution!
Thus, the model is unpredictive and even worse, unfalsifiable. Popper showed that an unfalsifiable theory is a poor candidate for being good science.
What an articulate, thoughtful, and well-informed scientific presentation! -- also revealing the idiocy of the so-called "scientific" community.
Understandable. Rational. Logical. Honest. Credible.
*_“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863)
*_"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress."_*
(Stephen J. Gould, Professor of paleontology from Harvard University, During the question and answer session following his Hobart and William Smith College lecture, Dr. Gould was asked if there was not Stratigraphic evidence indicating gradualism)
I am very thankful that Dr. Bechly is contributing his scholarship, experience, and eloquence to the ID movement. As a paleontologist, he not only has the knowledge that most people in this field have, but he also has the courage to point out what does not agree with the evolution theory in the fossil record..
Thank you for doing what's right, words cannot describe how far you're pushing things in the way they that should be. I just hope people start gaining awareness sooner.
The fact that scientists are not allowed to question Darwinian evolution proves, that Darwinian evolution is a religion.
No. Anyone can question evolution provided they have the evidence and relevant data. Also, evolutionary science has advanced so much from Darwin that religious people thinking Darwin is some kind of infallible prophet and evolution some kind of complete theory without any holes and mysteries to discover as if it was some kind of religious revelation is just projection from religious people. Darwin is to biology as Newton to physics. No one is talking about Newtonian physics, it's respected but just like Darwin, science has advanced so much more now. Gunther Bechley has been shown to be a pseudoscience proponent. All the claims made on this video have been addressed and show to either be misinterpreted to fit a narrative or just made up. Intelligent design is not scientific and until it can provide real evidence and data that can be analyzed, and not just criticisms to naturalism faults which even naturalists are aware of, then ID will continue to just be pseudoscience proposed by bible thumping people that want very desperately for science to confirm their faith.
Very well put, and corresponds excellently with what I have learnt over the last 10 years about Neo-Darwinian evolution, especially from M. Behe (Darwin's Black Box), M. Denton (Evolution: A Theory Still in Crisis), S. Myer (Signature in the Cell, and Darwin's Doubt), and Frank Turik (I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheists). Jonathan Wells also (Icons of Evolution).
Thank you mister Bechly ! We are in desperate need of more scientists who value truth and real science more than their funding, positions and how they are viewed by others and this has been made even more clear and painful during the current corona crisis. Hopefully your brilliant example will inspire other colleagues to "come out" .
Superbly articulated - great man !!! Keep loving the truth 🙏⚡️🇺🇸⚡️
This is without doubt the clearest and most compelling articulation of the strength (ie. weakness) of the scientific foundation for Darwinism. I will keep a link to this excellent video handy when I encounter unscientific arguments in support of Darwinism.
Truthful, brave, and articulate. Thank you, sir.
As Conan Doyle has Sherlock Holmes say, "When we've discarded the impossible, the only option remaining, however improbable, must be the correct one". It's sad to see that to propose that new encoded information can only be generated by a Designing Intelligence would ruin a scientist's career: it's unscientific to be hostile to what science (Reason) itself is clearly pointing to. I hope Dr. Bechly has found other avenues to continue his ground-breaking work.
NO, it is not... It is based on scientific RULE!!! Science is not pointing at any direction... SCIENTISTS DID IT... Science is BLIND, we are the scientist that interpret the data....
When we state that H vs C have 95% similarity and 5% difference we cannot assume from this which of the differences in the other were the same as the Common Ancestor had.
Thus, it is logical to state that the Common Ancestor was much more closely related to H than C is now to H.
Just like my grandfather is a closer relative to me than my cousin.
That is, completely contrary to the theory of evolution. Sorry for my bad English!
It's OK to challenge scientific theories but we have empirical evidence that encoded information, not only _can,_ but _does_ encode information through the processes of biological evolution. What Dr. Bechly is doing is misrepresenting scientific research to support his creationist narrative. If anything is unscientific, it's this.
So what seems reasonable to us is now called science, rather than evaluating the scientific evidence?
The God deniers believe dna and the code of life assembled in some natural way. Face palm
This is astounding work, please pay it forward & give the video a thumbs up, it costs us nothing, but helps more people see this important information.
My experience as an outsider to these observations.
My elder sister worked at the University at Berkley in California.She worked doing DNA research. Her 'boss' held some sort of doctorate in DNA related science.They discovered something that completely trashed Darwins' theory's. (Look up the meaning of theory.) He applied and was given a Nobel award for fact proven conclusions. Did university sciences grab this up? No. My sister retired in frustration. Apparently, massive amounts of donated money across the planet was based on Darwin theoretical claims. And the last thing you want to do is prove to your financial base that you got it all wrong. So they completely ignored this huge discovery. My sister retired because she had not realized her university colleagues were actually not scientists. She became quite bitter over the whole life destroying realization. She died totally frustrated by her life choices, alone and angry gardening in her California back yard. Family was apparently a reminder she was not what she thought she was about, and alone was her only option in her mind.
So, as an outsider non-science observer, Darwin and his numb skull followers were idiots! Welcome to the real world!
Can you share a link on what he discovered? Sounds like it is public. Let us know what it was?
You made me interested, what did they discover?
it's very sad that adherence to a single theory, and the debunking of it would have to ruin a person's attitude and life like that. her choice.
Sounds like a bunch of horse crap, typical “I know this guy story”
Utter gibberish.
Semi-literate, uninformed - and frankly a pile of lies
Excellent, superb. Thank you for the courage of explaining the truth.
This guy is a beast of common sense.
Amazing presentation. Thank you for explaining these matters so clearly and for your brave stance for the Truth!
Nice to see a scientist actually interested in looking for the truth and knowledge, rather than something that fits a preconceived agenda.
If Günter would be interested in truth and knowledge he would present current knowledge and not 100+ year old stuff that is outdated by far.
Don't know why he is doing it but I'm pretty sure he knows about the development of the last 100+ years.
@@justsomeone953 I don't think you watched the full video. For instance, He brings up Stephen Jay Gould and punctuated equilibrium which is just about 30 years ago.
@@justsomeone953For instance, he brings up extended evolutionary synthesis which is very recent development. So you are wrong here. He is presenting current knowledge.
Another Discovery Science star is born! Thank you for the entire interview with Gunter! These are great.
This Is Among The Most Well Presented And Informative Discussions Of The Formative Evolutionary Dilemmas That I Have Heard. Thank You For Taking The Time To Briefly Summarize The Subject With Such Clarity. I Appreciate Your Logical And Orderly Representation Of This Scientific Perspective, And I Am Sorry For Your Previous Employer's Loss.
What did he present? He just said there are gaps between the gaps. Standard evolution theory denialist stuff. Not one example of a human bone in the cambrian explosion. Or a bird with an early dinosaur. There have been cataclysm that have left wide open lanes for one group of animals to die out and others to take their place.
@@markharmon4963 pretty sure Bechly knows a heck of a lot more about it than you do.
And yet public education continues to perpetuate the myth among young minds that Darwinian evolution is fully supported by the scientific data and, therefore, should be regarded as indisputable fact. Academia is long overdue for a reevaluation of what the data really shows and how the truth should be taught going forward.
Thank you Dr. Bechly, your insights are much appreciated. Do I understand this correctly? Darwinists are now becoming a religious movement, and creationist are following science just because they can!
Given the absurdity of the
"Theory".... Evolutionist have always been "religious"😂.... And "knowledgeable" Christians have always loved "science".... In spite of the oft-repeated propaganda! 🙏😍
You honestly need to do more with this man. Of the people you put videos up for, the two I look forward to listening to most are David Berlinski and Gunter Bechly.
Totally agree but Berlinski's presentations have become scarce.
@@maync1 he's older now, and with covid-19 I would suspect that with him living in France that he's not interested in travel.
Thank you sir. Your answers are crystal clear and loudly ring true. Liked, saved, subscribed!
Your two videos by professor Dave are before any others in search results lol
Brilliant. Scientists hate design because it cannot b proven. Yet, major theories remain theories because they also cannot be proven. Instead of basing a theory on the best available explanation (ID), their course of action is always, "We just need more time!" And, it always seems to be that in every instance, time is proven to be against them.
Theories are not 100% irrefutable, but there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence supporting ID. Mainstream science accepts other theories with less evidence (e.g., Darwinian evolution, I would argue), provided they don’t have the same implications about God that ID does. The bias against ID is not due to its lack of compelling evidence, which is substantial. It all comes down to its religious implications. The fact that so many materialist scientists rely on the ad hominem argument that ID is religion masquerading as science reveals what they really see (and fear) in ID-namely, a scientifically supported basis for a belief in God. That is a nonstarter for many, regardless of the weight of the evidence in support of ID.
@Daniel Paulson You’re confusing religion with intelligent design-the latter is completely based on scientific evidence and logical inference.
If you accept ID you have to accept a designer. This raises questions that they really don't want the answers to
@Daniel Paulson theism and the what the Bible teaches are two different things. Most theists do not read the Bible, or read it with false preconceived notions that are good for getting donations in the basket. The Bible encourages healthy skepticism.
Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.
Do you have confidence that the sun will be visible tomorrow? That's faith, based on the experiential evidence that it has happened before. So it's not faith if there actually is no evidence.
1 John 4:4 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
True believers from ancient times have the habit of testing statements. This is not incredulity nor is it gullibility. Now whether modern Christendom follows that tradition is quite another story.
So actually students of the Bible have an enquiring and questioning bearing, more so than most Darwinists, who only follow the tax money, or the patron's funds, not the evidence. After all...they have a student debt to pay. 😏
Well said.... Although I don't think design has to be "proven"(which may not have been the intention of your comment).... Regardless of what so-called phds come up with in their BS chats.... Design is obvious to us who appreciate observable science!!🙏👍😍... Have a great day brother!
This man made a huge sacrifice to tell the truth.
Love this. I was never satisfied with Darwinism
All the museums with fossils show intermediate links but no evidence has been found to support this. You can go in and question curators why the displays don't support the evidence
Evolutionist make there life purpose telling other people there life have no purpose 😂
Discovery Science just gets better and better
The man, Gunter Bechly, is a human computer/archive. A true cognizant genius! What an extraordinary ability he has, to cite relevant knowledge and infos at lightning speed.
He is only arguing about Darwin and Darwin is long gone.
If Günter is an archive he is pretty outdated. Why doesn't he come up with current knowledge? What is his motivation?
Thank you, Gunter. Appreciate your excellent presentation, I am an engineer and like structure, and your courage. Too bad others are still shackled in terms of being imprisoned in a career path they don't believe in. don"t
Excellent presentation. Thank you.
I really enjoyed Gunters lecture and his intelligent arguments. I plan on listening to it a few more times.
The thing is in the mid 19th century when materialism really got going, a good argument could have been made for Darwin and other materialists, based on what was Known. Alas as we learned more about the universe, the argument have gotten weaker and weaker.
And will continue to get worse, year by year.
But Darwin & his colleagues knew the Fossil records contracted his theory. The Science did not support Darwin back then & now ... but somehow it is now a fact of Science with no evidence.
Darwin would have been called a complete fool, ... if Sir Issac Newton had NOT used the Watchmaker Analogy to prove Creation ... but ... simply defined the Function Category and especially the Machine Category.
A Machine is a physical function that requires specific matter, energy, time & space to exist & to function. All machines are UNNATURALLY made by an intelligence to impart a function or purpose.
The Universe & Life are all machines ... completely composed of machines & functions.
There is not, and never will be any scientific evidence proving Nature created the Universe & Life. Because Nature can NEVER make & make function ... the simplest of machines.
Evolution would have been a joke had Newton fully classified all Functions ... 150 or so years before Darwn. Medicine & the Biological sciences would have taken a monumental leap forward ... once we under stood the all Life ... knowing they are biological machines composed of machines ... and all having a purpose.
Or so you've been led to believe by creationists. If you listen to people who devote their entire careers to studying the living world, they have a diametrically different opinion - the more we understand, the stronger the theory of biological evolution has gotten.
y menos defendible
You are right. Darwinism was quite plausible back then, especially if you were inclined to abandon religious adherence. Darwinism doesn't seem to be as robust today. But unfortunately most laymen and even scientists who have not directly investigated the problem are completely oblivious to this.
I very much appreciate the format of this presentation. The jumps between dealing with one issue and the next eliminate so much time from a natural conversational interview or live address.
It's nice to see someone out there fighting the mind control.
Thank you
Excellent clear presentation. How exciting!
Wait till you hear all the stuff discovered since Darwin.
Darwin died in 1882 and there was so much stuff after him.
Gunter lays out the logic, and scientific evidence in a clear and concise factual way. Thank you sir.
Why should we all take his word for it? Where is the proof?
@@cynic150 I never take the word of anybody when it comes to science. I investigate what is said or implied.
Gunter is one of my favorites... and I also like the way he pronounces words like "categories", "germ", and "articulated".
We have been living a lie and believing it.
Thank you for speaking the truth.
Obviously, we are living on a farm, where aliens drop of live stock. They come back to rotate the 'crops'.
That is why we see jumps in the fossil records.
Great video!
The last time this was claimed, the resulting civilization brought about the geological feature called the Great Unconformity. And the survivors spread out from Uruk complaining that they had to invent writing because their language was suddenly splintered by gods... And each carried with them the story of the Ark and Flood.
So... Ask why Aleister Crowley drew a grey alien after claiming he summoned a demon through dark arts. Ask why Jack Parsons claimed to have opened a portal for spirits to be made flesh, and pointed to the sudden rash of UFOs as proof (where before such sightings were rare).
The Watchers would love nothing more than for miseducated people to accept them as their creators. And all the evidence for an old universe comes in the form of “unfalsifiable” rescue mechanisms (such as Oort clouds to explain why comets are still around), or founded on radiometric dating that can’t accurately date new rocks from Hawaii and Mount St. Helens.
Brilliant mind and well articulated.
This information needs to get out to a wider audience.
Physicist Richard Feynman noticed some scientists lovingly held on to theories even after evidence showed it was wrong:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
~Richard P. Feynman
You don't know what a sceintific theory is :D
@@Proleshaaverage evolutionist argument:
Great interview. Loved it. 👌🏻
Good for you standing up for truth Gunter!
There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA. Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA. Genes within the DNA of a particular organism code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function but has not been shown to determine that particular organism's primary biological architectural body plan. Therefore, no amount of random mutation of DNA will produce a new organism with a different body plan from the original.
*_”I will lay it on the line-there is not one such [transitional] fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”_* (Colin Patterson FRS, British palaeontologist, Natural History Museum)
Actually it is the body plans and DNA that prove all life is related, one form evolving from earlier forms. This is why all vertebrates have such a similar body plan such as the same bone structure of appendages. We now have early fossil fish that show the addition of limbs that then became the limbs of all higher animals - change over time is the exact definition of evolution. The proof is there for all to see!
Gaps in Darwins knowledge have and continue to be filled by diligent, patient enquiry. Two places naysayers should look: endogenous retroviruses (proves Homo sapiens shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees) and Cetacean evolution (from pakycetis to modern whales).
Good work doc. Its utterly amazing that there are still scientists, wich have enough courage to go against paradigm.
Thank you Gunter for your powerful and very detailed rebuttal of Darwinism ! God will bless you !!
Thank you, Herr Bechly.
Why does thus man lie? Money?
Being a modern "scientist" carries about as much weight as getting a college degree. They both used to mean something, yet have fallen to absurdity.
I applaud your fearless disposition to confront darkness Gunther. Truth always finds a way to rise above ignorance or denial, that form the foundation of the constitution of religion, the refusal to grow beyond the discoveries of our forefathers.
This, I think is the most interesting part of understanding wether evolution occurred or not
Reasonable: God created creation.
Irrational: Creation created itself, especially with no physical evidence.
So why is it any harder to believe that creation created itself than that a god was needed?
Big big fan of Gunter. My favourite segment here is 23:57 to about 25:00. Buckle up.
But it is not true.
The calculation he is talking about takes point mutation into account and nothing more.
It is the time needed to have one point mutation and the next in the child and than another in the grand child.
This takes a huge amount of time. But that is not how it works. You have
Migration (gene flow), Genetic drift, Genomic duplication, Sexual reproduction, Horizontal gene transfer.
Which all speeds up evolution significantly.
I wonder why he is using a calculation clearly provided to show "biological evolution does not work with one concept" to argue against biological evolution.
As if he wants to mislead people. Look up all the stuff he claims.
Excellent! Very well synthetized and very clear. Congrats! Thanks.
Thank you sir for sharing the truth, even in the face of critic's who won't admit the facts due to the popular narrative being promoted today. I wish this information would be shared with every school and university around the world.
Superb synthesis, abording all the complexity in a clear and honest way.
Keep up the great work Gunter. You got my support!
At last. So very well argued. Fantastic. Hold fast to the truth.
What is the truth?
@@steveg908 //// We are still looking.
Thank you for this very well explained interview.
Just because there seem to be gaps in the fossil record doesn't mean that there was no gradual evolution of species, it just means that there are gaps in the fossil record.
Creationists just can’t stand not having an explanation for everything ever so much that they are a-ok with lying about it
How the theory persists as settled science is a profound mystery
Yes, yes, and yes. It is absolutely, the most important question to ask at thsi time. This aspect about modern life, that baffles me the most, is how can the theory of evolution hold such incredible favour and weight in society, given our modern scientific knowledge? In the beginning "God created...." These are by far, close to the most stunning and insightful thoughts in the Bible.
I don't understand how creationists after all these years still do not understand that "theory" means something very different in the scientific community. Do you not want to understand and stay in the comfortable creationist bubble and echo chamber forever?
Not if you understand the Bible.
Is no mystery at all. Humans are simply evil murderers.
Not such a mystery. Were the theory admitted to be false, careers and reputations in a hierarchy of academic power would collapse overnight.
Please please, a discussion between yourself and Aronra would be unbelievably interesting and help us all to understand the issues better. I cannot help but agree with what you're saying and would love to hear an educated opposing view. I expect it would be a totally polite and respectful debate
🎯Gunter Bechly is the Best❗🐅 and I'm not lion. 🐅
In this time we live in where there is pressure on dissenting viewpoints it is food for the soul that truth can still prevail. thank you for this very well done video
Darwin told people what they wanted to hear
People hate God, curses upon them.
Love this video. Excellent 👌🏻
Gunter your my hero bro
Fantastic information wow make sure you have your pen and paper and take notes. Absolutely LOVE IT.
Wonderful information. Is there any way to get links to the source documents for all the quotes and studies? That would be most helpful in speaking with Evolutionists.
@user-ew4kr1ps6i They are usually easy to find. Creationism is swiftly gaining ground.
Yeah it is a nice start but you have to catch up with time and current knowledge.
Darwin died in 1882. There is a lot to discover after him up until now.
The fundamental issue with calculations regarding genetic mutation is that there is not nearly enough of a baseline regarding how EXPRESSION of genetic material plays in. It isn't entirely necessary for the genetic code to be different in order for the genes themselves to be expressed differently. The misconception is that genetic change comes first. EXPRESSION comes first. The fossil record is NOT a genetic record. It is a record of genetic EXPRESSION. "Transitional fossils" are expected to occur at the rates of genetic variances, but even organisms within a single species can vary significantly in terms of form - so MUCH so that an independent and objective observer might misidentify their fossils as being from completely different species. Variance within species can (and do) produce radically different body forms of the same body plan that do not require hundreds of millions of years to manifest. The idea that changes in genetics are exclusively what determines differentiation is a hindrance to understanding to true nature of speciation and evolution.
Resistance to Phenotypic Plasticity assumes that early genetic protection and verification mechanisms existed or were able to regulate expression as tightly as they do now, and that simplicity was a limiting factor when it was, in fact, the opposite. A simple genetic code is more likely to be affected in its expression by changes, and those changes are more likely to be immediately catastrophic which eliminates unviable lines. Many of the "explosions" are attributable to the fact that we simply do NOT know definitively how long it takes for differentiation of EXPRESSION to proliferate through a genetic population. We don't have perspective on the full breadth of mechanisms responsible, so to say "blah blah blah is impossible because of math" is myopic and embraces ignorance. Simply observing the variants of canines and what we've been able to do to them with selective breeding over a few hundred years is extremely telling in regards to the thick, blurry line between form and speciation in the fossil record. The people that will say "WE were the intelligent designers of those canine variances and WE exerted specific genetic pressure to obtain them" are ignoring the fact that the potential for the variance has to exist in order for it to be accessed by genetic or reproductive pressure. Genetic code doesn't simply limit what gets formed, it also contains all of the POTENTIAL physical forms that an organism and its progeny could take under a myriad of circumstances. Our penchant for categorization of things introduces separation where there really isn't any, which is why searching for "transitional" fossils is functionally irrelevant, and also why rapid "speciation" shouldn't be overly surprising.
Also, any intelligent design hypotheses fail when the designs themselves are flawed in ways that no good designer would implement. For all the brilliant "design" we see in nature, we see equivalent amounts of perplexing "design" choices, not the least of which is...
Testicles.
That is all.
Very good explanation of Darwin's enigma regarding his theory on gradual change. However I still don't think their is any evidence of a common ancestor, though. Can anyone even start to track gradual changes going all the way "back" to an ameba?
Well... the ultimate truth is that the eternal present moment is all there is. So everything is a story that happens right Now.
No. That’s the point-the transitional organisms that Darwinian evolution predicts are not there in the fossil record. On the contrary, what the fossil record shows is new species appearing suddenly and with no predecessors. There have been many so-called “explosions” of new species, both in the sea and on the ground. The fossil record reveals life forms emerging not as a tree with a single common trunk but more like a side view of a field of grass. There is no “common ancestor.”
To disprove evolution ask any evolutionist “What came first the mouth or the anus” and where are the anusless fossils with mouths or moutless fossils with anuses in the fossil record? There should be millions of transitional fossils like this but there are NONE!
@@michaelsiddle837 I have no expertise in these matters, but nature seems to love symmetry, and if the initial primitive lifeform was a simple, symmetrical, open ended tube, then you would have a proto, anus and mouth ready for millennia of incremental change to produced specialised functions: Input, peristaltic action and output. Possible?
He is a convert and a great teacher. Concise objective refutations to Neo-Darwinism to get the mind going on more details investigations.
Just a question about two of this gentleman's statements. .How can there be a common ancestor if the fossil records do not show a gradation from one species to another?
There is no Darwinian Universal Common Ancestor to be found.
In the fossil records we may see adaptive changes or subspecies within given species. That's all. We don't see evolution i.e. changes in the basic anatomical structures of any species.
The common system of biological classification (taxonomy) consists of species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain. Obviously there are thousands and thousands of different common ancestors to current species, but they can only be found on the taxonomic levels of species and perhaps genus. Hardly any higher.
Evolution theory according to Wikipedia means:
1. Evolutionary processes produce diversity on every level of the biological hierarchy, including the level of species, the level of organisms and the level of molecular evolution.
2. All life on Earth stem from a Universal Common Ancestor which lived about 3,5 - 3,8 billion years ago.
The point 1. is correct. Point 2. is an assumption not verified by any known scientific method. That's why the fossil records do not show a gradation from one species to another. Each species has its typical genes and they can usually not successfully mix with genes of another species, let alone with a species belonging to different genus.
Look forward to Gunter's Nobel Prize acceptance speech
>. John 3.16.
@22:24 "we all know a meteorite impact does not a new gene make"
😄
Bechly: world's foremost formidable one-man Darwin wrecking machine 😁😄🤪
Wonderful presentation. Thank you. I pray the world will wake up before it's too late.
Ben Shapiro once made the profound observation that "Facts don't care about your feelings." In the same way, I think Gunter makes the point very powerfully that facts also don't care about how much anyone might what the theory of evolution to be valid, they tell an exceedingly different, much more truthful and vastly more compelling story anyway.
The establishment has always feared challenge even if it contains the truth.
Especially when it contains truth.
GREAT VIDEO. THANK YOU, DR GUNTER.
What is the time increment of the fossil record?
Year to year, or are there gaps?
And what happened in those gaps?