Four billion years of evolution in six minutes | Prosanta Chakrabarty
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июл 2018
- Did humans evolve from monkeys or from fish? In this enlightening talk, ichthyologist and TED Fellow Prosanta Chakrabarty dispels some hardwired myths about evolution, encouraging us to remember that we're a small part of a complex, four-billion-year process -- and not the end of the line. "We're not the goal of evolution," Chakrabarty says. "Think of us all as young leaves on this ancient and gigantic tree of life -- connected by invisible branches not just to each other, but to our extinct relatives and our evolutionary ancestors."
Check out more TED Talks: www.ted.com
The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more.
Follow TED on Twitter: / tedtalks
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / ted 
Наука
"We're also not the goal of evolution."
mark camposo. . 4 months ago. . "We're also not the goal of evolution.". . 8 likes.
There is no goal of evolution there never was
its true do you not realize how evolution works it's not a progression until we become gods its about the diversification of all life on earth every creature is equally evolved cus every creature evolved to do the thing it did perfectly and it's still going -Andrew
I believe Mark was just repeating the point that we are not the goal as so many think we are , it's a very valid detail to focus on as if people only just took that detail away only maybe it could help as we destroy our planet for current and future species.
@@rw10yearsago42 I'm seriously curious, What's the purpose of diversification? And why the focus on Earth? Why aren't there forms of life on all the planets around us who are evolving for a perfect function in those environments? Your comment implies that there is some sort of thought process behind evolution. Even if it's a different goal of diversity, rather than personal sovereignty, there's the idea of an intended direction... Which would lead logical persons to conclude that there must be a supremely intelligent being behind all Creation when we look deeper. When you find a cabin in the woods, you know an intelligent human put it there. When archeologists find rocks stacked on top of each other that are formed in a purposeful way, they don't look for evidence weather humans made the structures. They know for a fact just by observation and intellectual reasoning that there are structures that require a builder and would never just gradually appear no matter how much time passes. Like remains of old human civilizations. Even the identity of the people who built them can be identified by unique personality of culture.
@James Henry Smith We are millions of years older than any god we ever created. Gods are very young compared to us humans. We just started creating gods a few thousand years ago, and they are already going extent as we speak.
Never underestimate a Bengali's love for fish.
Buhahaha
best comment ever!!!!
Lmao 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Lmao
This brings a whole other light to "there's plenty of fish in the sea"
I never go the the badminton court unless have someone to play with..that can hit it back to me from the other side of the court !!
I would never think of going unless there was someone to play with..would you ?
I wouldnt think..well..this is the 58 000th time..possibly someone will be there to play with....
Thats foolish
Well.....
Cause and effect is ..basic.
Logical.
Just that a Creator/ Superior intellect must have done this
Alabama
@@compositioncompilation Then who created the creator
That "talk" feels like an introduction to a talk that is missing.
This would be a good video to show somebody 200 years ago who had never heard of the concept. It was pretty basic.
Yup
I would like to see 3 hours of this talk
Why? Funny fairy tales?
@@marcob9124 lets play spot the creationist
@@Tanrer Sorry, english is not my mother tongue. No idea what your words may mean.
@@marcob9124 you think evolution is a fairy tale, therefore you think magic sky daddy made everything
@@Tanrer Hi Leon, good to meet you.
I dont know how old you are and if you did educate yourself, since logic is only taught in a few schools, but your post is scary!
Would you mind to explain how you came to your conclusion? I mean what steps of thinking did you take before you pressed the "send" button?
I would not be surprised if you believe in evolution, since the faith in this tale is based upon not thinking correctly.
I am not sure what you mean by magic sky daddy (btw, it looks as if you took the entire line right from the indoctrination you have suffered...) but lets say you you mean a kind of god/God - why do you believe it is magic?
Do you mean all that you dont understand or that is above your own capacity is magic?
Honestly - please tell me what you mean with the irrational post above. Thx a lot for you time and effort. (I would love to see you understanding what you say. )
(An evolutionist is a human who pretends to believe that randomizing code will increase the quality of it! Dont you think such a person has lost contact to reality?)
Sorry my ancestors, I still can't swim 🐟🐟🐟
neveen azzam you're a disgrace to our ancestors
Same 😭😭😭
neveen azzam. . 1 year ago. . Sorry my ancestors, I still can't swim 🐟🐟🐟. 2 replies. 46 likes.
They still can't walk...
@@raysalmon6566 we perverted of their wise ancient ways just to gain access to land,what did it cost?our honor.
But u r swimming very well in the comments section 🏊🐟🐟🐟
You have too comforting eyes , I literally slept watching this.
Wow... awesome.... as a bengali i can relate to his love of fish..
If we all came from grandparents then why do we still have cousins?
Derp.
lohphat If Americans were colonized by Europeans why do Europeans still exist?
lol
Do you not have cousins? I'm pretty sure you had/have grandparents.
JustOneAsbesto In The South, they’re called “spouses”.
You have not answered my question.
JustOneAsbesto If you hear banjos, paddle faster.
imagine how life would look a couple billion years from now...
@James Henry Smith shut up
@James Henry Smith what happened on the 4th day?
Hello, can someone help me find out if there’s a video showing about time loop or about time machine,please.? Thank you.
Pokemon is proof of evolution
It wouldn't surprise me if that's how Worf thought it actually worked.
DEATH TO THE OPPOSITION!
Worf Unfortunately there are some people that will never evolve, pokemon is damn accurate
Pokemon is metamorphosis.
Worf One of many cartoons that's evidence for real evolution, contrary to the changes that happened in real life. Well, except for when life is conceived after some sort that grows to some state of maturity.
Great Speaker. I can even forgive him for the way he says Fungi.... short and sweet. Thanks.
Sweet baby Elvis. These comments.
Religious people be angry.
Could there be a more absurd religion than the one this idiot con man is selling?
@@OnSafari247 hi genius, why don't you look up actual information about real things like evolution and stop believe in your fairytale. You really believe that a guy lived to 900 and that a person can walk on water?
@@pedroguerrero3862 By far the most absurd fairy tale on the planet is this ridiculous monkey religion. NO fairy tale is more insane and stupid than the evolution fairy tale. I don't care if it's the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, spaghetti monster etc.....; doesn't matter, any of them are more logical and plausible than this evolution monkey religion. Evolution is the dumbest fairy tale in history; it's a joke 😂
@Kitalia the kitsune if the evolution is correct by its natural selection or selecting. Why are there still autism, down syndrome people if they couldn't survive? I'm curious about evolution and want to learn.
@@SHIN-rx1jw because things go wrong when reproducing, these changes can be beneficial or not. Also I think certain disorders disprove a good God
It's good to see a fellow Bengalee holding a TED talk. Kudos.
#Principlesofcommnication
The speaker non-verbal communication tells that the speaker is used to speaking in large crowds. This can be seen because he always maintains eye contact with his audience and he uses hands gestures as he speaks. His verbal communication is also very good he speaks in a steady way and he also goes straight to the point after his introduction without wasting the time of the listener.
I’m related to all of you, and everything.
My great great whatever grandfather was a trilobite.
Well, a cousin of you was a trilobite but no direct ancestor of you or me was a trilobite. They are on an entirely different lineage from us.
i am an attack toaster. i am not connected to you
People take this idea as an affront to their identity, and so they don't give it a fair chance. Without religious bias, people could see the true wonder of life and evolution
Giraffe, with substantiating evidence we who are critical thinkers could actually accept this, but the evidence does not fit the claims. It's mostly story after story after story -- all invented to "fit" the paradigm of evolution.
@@KrisMayeaux It's story with good evidence. Observable evidence at that regard. Compare this to the common delusion that we are all handcrafted by a God. Where is there evidence? Nothing is their evidence that's why they call it faith. It's absence without evidence. And the idea we are God's gift to the world or handcrafted by a God is arrogance as it's finest. We think ourselves separate from the world because of it.
Now, let's say you believe in evolution, what is it for you? Well, first congratulations because you can now tell what a truth is from a sign of delusion. Second is that you'll be more humble. Knowing the each life are related or came from a common origin makes us value life all the more. Is it not?
Now you surely will disagree like most religious people do, then give us personal email as proof and quoting an old book made by people who made up stuff so they can claim they understand the world better, control people and try to solve their fear of death. I have a bad news for you. That doesn't count.
@@marvelousmeh2077 very well said. Thanks for this thought of yours. I had just had an argument with a self-righteous condescending religious man, and I kinda regret not having said enough because he is my dad's friend and my dad stopped me, claiming that I have no respect for other people. Like why, is it because the truth hurts. I have no issue about Christians. I just dislike how most of them are bunch of hypocrites.
Tops! I wish I had you as my lecturer. But this is the next best thing.
I kinda get it but at the very beginning part how did the reproduction part start,I get the from a single cell part but how did it reproduce it’s self,when and how did the male female part of evolution start,please refer me to reading material that explains that part of evolution,thank you for any help,love this series
And no one has an answer to your question... it's a very good question though!
See, there is this complex macromolecule within our cells called ribonucleic acid or RNA. Now the most interesting thing about RNA is that, RNA can use RNA to create proteins with the help of amino acids.
And RNA itself came into existence from chemical reactions between various elements. The primitive cell could therefore make proteins, which could then be used to replicate its RNA and DNA. That's when reproduction began. Primitive cells probably divided by simple methods such as binary fission, where two cells just get separated from a single cell.
As multicellularity evolved, various reproductive organs also evolved. As for the male female concept, remember there is no concrete definition of male or female in biology. We just tend to categorize things to make them easier to study, but there are a lot of exceptions. It all comes down to reproductive cells called gametes. If the organism produces a lot of small, movable gametes that's probably a male, and if it produces large, non-moving gametes, it's probably a female. Except this, everything else related to male female categorisation is highly variable. And even there are exceptions to gametes size as well..there are species where both gamete sizes are equal, there are species where more than 2 types of gametes are produced...there are also species where different types of gametes are produced in the same body.
I ain't no fish. Jordan Peterson told me I'm a lobster.
CLACK CLACK. Where my lobsters at?
How spineless...
Danny McNulty Don't CLACK me bro.
@Toothpaste Boiii
Comment of this video. Touché
Your room is clean... I know it
Great opening line - count me in.
I wish this was an hour long.
A good explanation for why people get green around the gills when they feel nauseous. This is a short talk, unlike physics lectures about the nature of infinity. They go on forever. (I'm on a roll today. 😀)
I love the joke and I will use it again and again...
If you are turning green maybe you are made of copper! Makes about as muck sense as fish ancestry.
The real deal for The tail bone.
The “tail bone” is the small triangular bone at the lower end of your back bone or vertebral column. Early anatomists thought it was shaped “like a cuckoo’s beak” they gave it the name coccyx (from the Latin for Cuckoo). They didn’t call it a tail because it doesn’t look like one.
Pelvic BonesIt’s nickname of “tail bone” came from Darwin and his followers who believed it was the useless or vestigial remains of a tail, left over from monkey-like evolutionary ancestors. However, this bone is no more useless than any other bone in the body. So what does it do?
One person found the answer the hard way when he tore the ligaments attached to his’ tail bone’ whilst doing sports training. He writes about the experience: “ I knew something was badly wrong when I could only walk by shuffling each leg forward using my upper body strength. If I was standing up, that’s where I preferred to stay. It was too painful to try and sit down. If I was sitting down, I didn’t want to get up - shifting position was exquisite agony.”
Medical research has shown that the muscles which help us sit or stand, all gain their ability to move us only because they are attached to our fully functional and necessary so called ‘tail bone’ which of course means that human beings do not actually have a useless or even vestigial “tail bone”! The coccyx is fully functional part of the system of bones, ligaments and muscles of the pelvis, that protects and supports the pelvic organs, and contributes to our upright stance and walking. It provides stable anchorage points for ligaments and muscles which is an essential function of all bones. Without this - we don’t move. Bones must never be considered in isolation, since they are part of an integrated musculoskeletal system that supports and protects body organs, and enables us to move.
The claim that the tail bone or coccyx is useless, and therefore must be evidence for evolution, as well as evidence against creation, (because no intelligent Creator would make useless organs) is claim made out of ignorance. The human musculo-skeletal system shows all the evidence of brilliant creation. Consider how much clever engineering has already gone into attempts to make a robot that can walk like a human. When robot scientists do manage this it will be because of intelligent, creative design and engineering, not because of chance random processes.I
www.needgod.com
When questions are answered by supernatural explanations cited by a holy text, the Atheist will mock it. The scientist will demand better evidence. The Christian will roll eyes at it in contempt unless it is an explanation from the Bible, and then it's a truth that needs no evidence. In fact, it will only make sense once you accept it on faith, and then you will know. This is how it works, and this is how all believers from all religions get victimized by their faith. Jesus knew just how frustrating Christians were when he said, "For they look, but they don't really see. They hear, but they don't really listen or understand." When I explain the evidence for evolution to a typical theist, I often smile privately. I think of the frustration Jesus must have endured to say what he said about his people. I also share that frustration by people too blinded by faith that they ignorantly deny the evidence of conclusive truths.
@@paulmillbank3617 You mustn't forgot the equally supernatural manifestation of the specific sequences of events required to create life from inanimate materials that has "Nothing" in any field of science
showing any possibility of this ever happening. Of course this is how many believers of this failed
theory comprehend whats nothing more then completely speculative nonsense to support their
beliefs. Unfortunately many are smug in their misconstrued beliefs such as this Laurette in the
presentation with overwhelming evidence that fish have vertebrates and because of that their
not only ancestors of all mankind , but all vertebrates. How do we know that, Well we don't.
Why don't we? Well because it defies all known science.But when has scientific evidence ever been a problem for evolutionery explanations. As Eric M commented about another pathetically
poor argument made by Darwinists about the tailbone or coccyx as being an evolutionery leftover
when if fact it's absolutely necessary for our human physiology unless your professor fish slithering
your way onto humanity. And yet thats been known for 60 to 70 years , but thru nothing more then
pseudoscience required to support the main tenets of this theory , we still hear this type of stuff
today. But when you can't support your claims with science and have an impiety to the intelligence
required to create life it lowers the bar to except chimpanzees smacking their lips as developing
language and men retaining facial hair to limit blows during fights in survival of the fittest. There's
libraries of equally foolish thesis made to support this theory such as Professor Fish.
Repurposing a part to fill a different roll is a form of vestigial traits. The vestigial hip bones in whales are now muscle attachment points, the vestigial plineal eye of the turatara it can still balance circadian rhythm without “seeing”, the vestigial wing claws seem in some bird species (hoatzin) which are often lost by adulthood since they are able to fly by then, the vestigial limb nubs on some constrictor species which are now used during courtship, the vestigial wings of an ostrich are used in mating displays and for running.
Notice how none of these parts serve their original biological function: the whale’s pelvis does not serve as an attachment point for legs, the plineal eye of the turatara cannot actively see, the baby hoatzin cannot grasp or fight off predators with their claws, and instead only use them to secure themselves to trees, and shed them by adulthood, the snake cannot possibly use its hindlimbs to walk, and the ostrich clearly cannot fly.
It’s the same with the tailbone. It is clearly made up of the same caudal vertebrae as those in other mammal species, but functions as a muscle attachment point instead of as an external tail.
Some other vestigial traits are less obvious and may be truly “useless” like the fingernails on manatee flippers, the wings of flightless birds that don’t use them as display like kiwis, the eyes of blind animals like moles and cave fish which are sometimes covered in skin, the sparse hairs that dolphins grow in utero, etc. but even these parts may serve some sort of new evolutionary function differently than their ancestors.
Our whole universe was in a hot dense state, nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started...
Wait
@@seanrrr I've been waiting for nine months and still nothing.
Prove or you want me to take it by blind faith.
The earth began to cool, the autotrophs began to drool
Neanderthals developed tools
We built a wall (we built the pyramids)
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries
That all started with the big bang! Hey!
@@jaysonbro7269 go type big bang proof or read any science paper at all like the bible doesn't prove its claims yet science does yet you believe in the bible but not science hypocrite
Love you sir ,from India
Very intresting video! Good job.a
Great talk. Thanks.
you have good videos
Why?
This is a very accessible talk, that should be spread all around our Educational System. This is the only way to preserve, in a way, our existence, or at least to drive us to treat ourselves in the right way.
Why only human species wanted to survive ?who send so,..
It’s actually 5min and 29seconds is you cut out the intro and get straight into the evolution so it’s not 6min.
uh, where did the first cell come from? Watch this: ruclips.net/video/B6xDqy7HCu0/видео.html
Link doesn't work. What's the video about?
359 creationist disliked this very informative video.
Was the clarification by Prosanta of the previous evolutionery myths
being incorrect hard wired myths and that this is a new myths presented
Noble Laureates like Prosanta as a new myth to answer human origins.
Yes , this groundbreaking evolutionery science. I'm sure this an
accumulation of 1000's of hours of evolutionists brightest to
tie our earliest ancestors to fish because we both have bones.
Unbelievable that this is the type of mythology that defies everything
we know about science , which is used as their arguments
to support a theory and not the science.
At least they didnot believed in a talking snake. 🤣
There are atheists who don't believe in evolution. People know it's a stupid philosophical idea based on naturalism but some turn a blind eye from all things stupid about it.
@@moshemyym4627 yes that's because an atheist isn't someone who does a specific set of things an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god thats it its not a religion
If we evolved into humans, why haven't we evolved into anything else
The most concise and precise talks I've heard on Evolution lately!! Crisp and Corrcet!
Kankana Banerjee are you dumb
Mr. Chakrabarty says: ‘Evolution is a fact just as easy to prove true as the theory of gravity.’ But the only proof he presents is “natural selection”. However, per definition natural selection does not build or create anything, it just sorts out unfit life forms. It neither explains evolution nor the origin of life. A nice story that presents the theory, but totally without facts.
@Kevin Mathew What you say is that one should believe what most believe. That is an argumentation fallacy and unscientific reasoning.
@Kevin Mathew Mutations are mainly a source of harmful genetic changes, like cancer and genetic diseases.
If this is true, where are all of the mid transitions? We would continue to mate with those before us and there would be a smooth and constant living transition on planet earth at all times. Even if we didn't mate with those before us there would be mid transitional creatures in the evolutionary chain; Half human, half monkey, and so on.
This happens so gradually over millions of years so there is never a point with half human half monkey. Each offspring is the same species as it’s parents but if you jump back a few thousand generations (not that long) genetically mating would be impossible. It would also be undesirable because of physical differences. The difference in species we define when mating becomes impossible. There was no singular human child of a different species, an old missing link talking point disproven by modern genetics. Tiny changes with each generation over millions of years is difficult to grasp when we see things from our comparatively short lifespan. Fossil records show this with inevitable geological gaps but genetics show an unbroken family tree with the vast majority of variations going extinct. I think that religious indoctrination has encouraged humans to feel somehow separate and superior. Personally, as an agnostic or atheist being connected and having evidence brings a sense of unity, connectedness and love of nature. Science is awe inspiring and beautiful.
‘Why do we need to understand evolution the “right” way?’ Beautiful.
Reminds me of that futurama scene where Professor Farnsworth argues with that orangutan.
Wow, im evolution.
Let's be honest, you're only a product of evolution.
Congrats bro!
Haha samezies
We are together.
Dede Ari Saputra
boo
is it possible to share his presentation with us? those slides are great, I will definetly present them to my young students
Brilliant. Many thanks.
At 3:20 he says that 3 billion years ago multi cellular organisms appear. Is this correct by what we know today?
From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellular_organism#Evolutionary_history:
"The first evidence of multicellularity is from cyanobacteria-like organisms that lived 3-3.5 billion years ago."
Well presented, compact & efficient.
So many people are in denial. It's plainly true but only if you look at the evidence and understand what scientists are saying without any political misinterpretation. That said, this TED talk actually wasn't remotely long enough or detailed enough to present the evidence.
Doodelay Explains - evidence and reason vs. religion??
You can’t talk sense into one that relies solely on the Bible (or any religious book) for their facts and information.
Logan B yea but most people don't rely on JUST religion even if they are religious
Hello fello CNN & MSNBC contributor. #FuckTrump
I don't rely on the Bible for scientific evidence but then where is the evidence for all the higher complexity when in all of recorded history, we have not observed one instance of it on the entire planet. Yet you "just believe" that after abiogenesis created the simple first cell, DNA life took off sailing over time rising higher and higher in information content and complexity until it culminated in the most complex thing in the known universe -- the human brain. Then all the higher complexity and the macroevolution (major morphological transition) just stopped? Sorry, that's not science -- that's speculation based on assumptions.
Bible or not, there has to be substantiating evidence for the grand claims that a microbe flew over time just bursting into higher and higher complexity, and evolving all kinds of new features, traits, body parts, body plan changes, spines, brains, vision, wings etc and all in the Cambrian era? Then later there was the bird Big Bang and the Mammal Big Bang and yet we have never seen even one instance of higher complexity anywhere on our planet. There is no evidence for major morphological transition coupled with higher complexity.
Where did the first cell come from?
Organic molecules reacting for an estimated half billion years
Life figuring out how to perfect itself like an engineer makes more sense. LOL.
Wow, he just explained evolutionary biology in a clear, calm, concise way in three minutes! I wonder why Dawkins can’t seem to figure out how to do that after all these years.
@Ryan Roshan Richard Dawkins, probably the most famous contemporary evolutionary biologist . But his fame at this point derives more from militant atheist crusading than from outstanding work in his field. I just could not help but notice how much more effective and compelling Chakrabarty's pedagogical approach is.
Thank you. Hare Krishna
At some point i think we looked quite similar to a mud skipper, as we went from the mud to the bushes ? 😮
The great void, timeless infinite universe, who knows what we are. I'm glad I'm alive now and not 4 million years ago.
70 dislikes, at the time of writing this, would be the 70 creationists that watched it so far.
I love this presentation.. well done..
The only thing I could think of was that scene in Half Baked when Kenny, played by Harland Williams, was staring at himself in the mirror trying to convince himself that he in fact wasn't a fish, he was a man... until he started convulsively making a fish face, which horrified him.
This makes me think of "The Incredible Mr. Limpet."
The simplicity and complexity of life and evolution are interestingly intriguing
Evolution does not exist. You can check this scientifically by examining your own bod. You will not find any began evolution. So the case is very clear unless a human has given himself in into mass indoctrination. Its all very easy to understand and does not need a phd - but it needs some simple honest thinking.
You know you can demonstrate evolution in your home? Yes go in to your kitchen cabinets and with your eyes closed grab anything you can. Then with your eyes still closed just start throwing it around wherever. Then apply some heat and cold and and anything else you can not think of and see what comes of it. Now you will need to give it some time but in the end you will have created something wonderful....
A Wonderfully Large Mess that an intelligent mind (yours) guided by the purpose of undoing something so ridiculous and with the help of other great minds (designers and makers of brooms and dust pans) will now have to clean up.
No it isn't. It's all 🐃💩
Find Jesus!
@@MrGreen-fi5sg Amen 🙏!
Simple and elegant talk!
No
Interesting.......so where did that first single-celled organism come from in the first place?
I think i saw somewhere that from our chin to our ear used to be gills. As we still circulate salt in our bodie s
B-b-but what about Noah's arc?!
It's a huge waste of tax money...
Noah didn't take any fish on the ark.
Just a myth? We have a historical record of it. And look at all the fossils, continent-scale sandstone layers and coal. It would be easier to believe Julius Caesar is just a myth.
explain the "historical record" which indicates that noahs arc happened
Explain what a historical record is? A written account. Have you heard of the Bible? There are partial copies that are over 2000 years old. And the monks that copied older manuscripts were literally religious about copying exactly and counting the letters to check their work. Also, there are flood accounts in tribal histories around the world, as we would expect since everyone on earth descended from the people on the ark.
Triggered Christians incoming
Cue the Creationists, flat-earthers and general intellectual conversation water muddiers...
Hwangho evolution is real religion is bs
Not all Christians are against accepting evolution as the mechanism of how God created life. I for one am a Christian, but I also accept evolution as fact and that God created through it with the eventuality of humans. I will not limit how God created to a literal reading of Genisis 1-2 simply bc at the time those writings and stories were written and shared, we did not have the understanding of the mechanics behind nature, behind creation, yet. The important part from it, We are a part of the creation that God put in motion, he wants a relationship with us, and individually we fall to our own strong wills and selfishness that then kept us from that relationship, to which we needed a messiah to become what we couldn't so we could have that relationship.
Triggered Muslims already here...
Hwangho
People don't realize that creationism is a very small, and very new set of beliefs that are only shared by a small number of Protestant Americans.
Theologians have known for thousands of years that the scriptures were not meant to be taken literally.
some idiot fish decided to step out of the ocean and onto land and now i have to deal with depression and anxiety, thanks a lot
what are we going to be next?
and how much time it will take???
It will take 10,000 years. I am not at liberty to say what we will be next.
Helllllllo
Great!! And the simplest explanation! Wow😍❤️
Brilliant...Everything has been explained so clearly.
What are you referring to please?
Really why then some fishes continue to be fish and some fishes continued to another kind of fish and some fishes become human?
Of fairytales?
@@henoktadesse4276 Really make you think?
@Kitalia the kitsune .....what? What does that have to do with evolution?
Oh no, I completely disagree. Finding Jesus has made me far more happier and in peace. Then your made up conspiracy theories have ever had.
Great. Thanks sir.
This is a windfall of wisdom. I read a similar book that was an evolutionary step. "The Art of Meaningful Relationships in the 21st Century" by Leo Flint
so i'm a fish that consumes a fish #Strange
Uh.. no that’s not how this works but go off.
Nah, the brain naming itself is strange. Fish eating fish is just nature.
Yep I'm a shark
We're atoms trying to understand atoms. 😊
Moses Jonson - I'm a fish who protects other fish. Vegan for the win!
I never thought that my ancestors would be so tasty
Greetings from Bangladesh
So many people in the world who need to not only see this, but actually try and understand what he's saying. I find the biggest problem isn't ignorance of evolution, but _willful_ ignorance of it.
evolution is an academic myth passed down from zealots for centuries. I asked a question: where did the common ancestor come from? did the human consciousness evolved from such random event as well??
@@charlesgodswill6161 Learn how evolution works...
1:24 O.K., so by your own admission, calling it a theory is correct. The problem is knowing what a theory is; not that we use the word at all.
That's right. The people saying "Evolution is ONLY a theory" clearly do not know the definition of a scientific theory.
I don't know what idiot long ago decided that they should use "theory" in that way. I mean, what more could you do to dissuade skeptics from believing the evidence? Terrible choice of words!
@@chadjohnson-authormusician8072 Evolution of all is an indisputable fact, but there exist various models and principles of evolution and many theories. E.g. evolution of your personality can consist not only in natural selection of random mutations, but also in adaptation, consciousness etc. Lamarckism looks to be overcome with pure darwinism but there are also some relevant theories or indications that some lamarckist principles can be also real. Btw., Darwin himself was not strict "darwinist" but admited some "lamarckist" effects in heredity (as they obviously exist in ontogenesis). The core question is whether our personal genom can be influenced by our personal live and experience and work as an "genetic memory". Some studies seem to disrupt "Weissman barrier" in favour of lamarckism.
I'm a talking fish!!
The bottom line is the topic of the origin of all biological diversity is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table.
Here's what *is* science: A.k.a., well documented and published even in evolutionists' own papers (when they happen to include something that's actually observable, repeatable, verifiable biological, scientific fact when they're telling their common descent stories and why they believe in it) that demonstrates common descent from a first life form is anti-science. Science shows that it's observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that, no matter how many generations go by,
no matter how much "change in genetic composition during successive generations",
no matter how much "change in allele frequencies",
no matter how much "development of new species",
no matter how much "natural selection acting on genetic variation among individuals",
no matter how much "adaptation",
no matter how much "mutation",
no matter how much "speciation",
no matter how much "migration",
no matter how much "genetic drift",
no matter how much "insert other claims here"
no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of:
fish remain fish
amphibians remain amphibians,
canines remain canines,
felines remain felines,
reptiles remain reptiles,
birds remain birds,
viruses remain viruses,
animals that never had lungs to breath air do not evolve lungs
animals that never had hearts to pump blood do not evolve hearts
animals that never had eyes to see do not evolve eyes
animals that never had brains do not evolve brains
animals that never had mouths do not evolve mouths
living things that never had a reproductive system do not evolve a reproductive system
animals that never had (insert organ here) remain living things without that organ, and so on.
There are many more such groups.
Science shows that the "common descent from a first life form" evolution (some call Darwinian evolution, some call theory of common descent) is anti-science.
Evolutionist can never address these facts - many then just fall back on ad hominem, showing how they're really about deception that's contrary to actual science.
Evolutionists typically deceive and pretend making up reasons to believe in their common descent from a first life form belief system is the same as "observing" it, which just goes to show how they're just about deception.
Evolutionists also typically deceive and try to pretend that since you cannot "observe" a certain crime, but can look at "evidence" for a crime, that shows we can know things happened without observing it. But what they hope no one notices: the thing called a "crime" is observable, repeatable, verifiable reality, so now we can look for forensic 'evidence' of some *more* crimes that no one is around to have observed. What they do is the same as giving 'evidence' for something that's never been observed even once by the human race, and yet claim that's also an observation of this belief that newer happens, which is just more deception.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of people are witness to the fact Jesus Christ rose from the dead, along with others being raised from the dead, and they wrote about it. Direct observation. But it's still not science because it's not *repeatable* and not *verifiable.* There's also evidence He rose from the dead, but it's STILL not science that people can be raised from the dead, in spite of evidence, and in spite of it also being directly observed - because it's not *repeatable* and not *verifiable.* And so it goes with the belief of common descent from a first life form - not only is it not *repeatable,* not *verifiable,* it's not even *observable* either - which makes the resurrection far more likely to be called science before the belief of common descent from a first life form ever could.
That aside, I implore people to re-read the gospels and forget what any church or any religion or anyone has claimed they say and sincerely consider yet again for ourselves. Judgment is coming for us all for our lifetime of sinning AND refusing God's offer to forgive and forget in the person of Jesus Christ. But religions also twist God's truth to make people think it's their religion and system of rules that makes them right with God when it's about a person: Jesus Christ, and choosing to have a relationship with Him, having a change of mind about living for the world and turning back towards God/ Jesus Christ.
John 3 : 14-21 *_"[Jesus said] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up [i.e., on the cross]: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved [exposed]. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."_*
I love videos like this
Good summation
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages ... has been a persistent and nagging problem for ... evolution". Stephen J. Gould, Marxist Professor at Harvard,
Nice quote mine. Too bad you didn't mention the reconstructed evolutionary lineages of fish to early tetrapods, land-dwelling animals to whales, small horses with multiple toes to bug horses with only one toe, etc.
Next you're probably going to say evolution has never been observed.
among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know…evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening… Richard Dawkins
@@jjrockershaft Yes it has. An example is of unicellular algae becoming multicellular in response to predation: www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39558-8
Also, if your terrible logic is "All parts of evolution hasn't been observed," then you clearly don't know about the predictions of evolution that have turned out to be true. Examples being the prediction of Tiktaalik and predictions in chromosome 2 of human and chimp genome that demonstrates common ancestry. Similar predictions are made in fields like Big-Bang Cosmology. Any other quote mines you have?
For true multicellularity there has to be genetic sameness among all participating cells. Intercellular co-ordination serves as another level of organisation in life that can’t be reduced to the sum of its parts. There is a 4-level hierarchy in the regulatory architecture that must all be there for a viable developmental plan to proceed. Repair and maintenance requires one or more pools of undifferentiated, generally multipotent, stem cells. Cellular selection and organismal integrity remain diametrically opposed, and provide a very tough problem for evolution to overcome. Colonial unicellular organisms don’t fit the bill as multicellular creatures because of the difference between of their lack of this 4-level hierarchy, and the lack of maintenance and repair mechanisms for the organism.
The universe is governed by a set of laws, can you quote one known law of evolution ?
Lol, we've evolved to realize simulation theory fits better... 😂
In case no other Commenter has mentioned it...
Your Inner Fish, by Neil Shubin.
(Edit: I just noticed Der Schlendrian's comment mentioning Shubin. Good book.)
If slight modifications by mutation are passed down to future generations how did the REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM evolve? Please listen carefully: If there were no generations to pass down beneficial mutations (because the mutations producing the reproductive system hadn’t yet produced a workable system of reproduction) which is where mutations - the very *engine of evolution* happen, how did _anything_ evolve by beneficial mutation?
i'm like a fish , i'nt only swim away , I don't know where my soul is (Soul is)
I don't know where my home is
And baby all I need for you to know is..
2:46 "Misunderstanding it has led to many convoluted and corrupted views of how we should treat other life on earth, and how we should treat each other in terms of race and gender."
No one calling SJW politicaly correctness propaganda like the last video uploaded? no one?
Edit: Great video BTW
The weird thing is when people assume this biological principle--amazing as it is--should determine what we use our brains for. Mere survival and procreation are fairly easy. Being decent, finding entertainment, learning about the universe, making others happy; these are challenges worthy of the human endeavor, now that we have made it so easy for ourselves to otherwise survive.
Poor triggered Alice
*video says anything in favor of human dignity and equality*
SJW PROPAGANDA FAKE NEWS FUCKING LEFTY SNOWFLAKES
What? "Misunderstanding it has led to many convoluted and corrupted views of how we should treat other life on earth, and how we should treat each other in terms of race and gender." It literaly say that... It is just posed in a more generical manner
Yeah, the caste system gives so much equality, making some eat dung with no chance at anything while the others are as gods.
Showing this video to my 5 year old, and he says very matter of factly, "Mom, this video we're watching. We're fish watching tv."
Uh, just because nature reproduces in similar manners, does mean we're the same species
I am not a gay fish!
not enough people will get this reference
David S. 😂😂😂😂
gay fish yo
Uhm, I'm pretty sure that's Aquaman...
I believe in evolution- go watch tik Tok
After hearing this talk, Hans Christian Anderson is crying. He says "How can the evolution fairy tale be better than the one I wrote"?
Another troll PRETENDING to be a creationist in a bid to get angry reactions. 😁 Do not engage.
Thanks for Turkish captions
The art of saying known things
some need this
I wouldn't say edge, I'd say it's for all people, ideas worth spreading.
Well un-spread ideas is worth spreading. My point is that in forums like this you can say absolutely nothing and get applause and get payed. The necessity of food. Clean air for everybody. Go on tour and speak in big forums. No-one will question you. "The earth belongs to our grandchildren", "Women make good leaders because they are not men". "Technology is important in our lives", "Avoid technology to find yourself". "Internet is spreading ideas". "Local thinking is being studied and what did we find?" _ .. Just talk and cash in. If it is not known then it's insecure so stick to what is known.
it depends on the level of knowledge of the auditorium. on a high-level to low-level (top-down) approach, I'd argue that this is a good start on the topic. I wouldn't say this talk is on truisms.
Yes but everyone does the start, that's my point. Every nice person on youtube makes videos showing the basics or the start. Let's take music, starting with notes. Now for you who don't know what notes are... 20 minutes later nothing is said and they want you to register on their webpage. To keep it going we need millions who doesn't know anything but are willing to sign up.
For a payed expert talk you gotta deliver. Not show your ability to speak but substance. Else anyone can make a speech because there is always someone who doesn't know.
" fishes...."
That's correct plural for many different types of fish.
Sumsum Bezuidenhoudt Yup, you’re an idiot.
I think the proper term for a school of fish is a scho.. wait..
It is also correct to say "peoples" for different types of people.
Bryan Urizar It doesn't mean she is an idiot, it just means she hadn't learned that yet. Apparently you haven't learned about manners.
If you ever feel useless, remember you're a result of 4billion years of evolution.
This was fantastic.
Fantasy*
nothing new he said... I learned this in school 25 years ago...
good for you old man, now let others learn as well
As you should have. Too bad people take one book with no actual historical evidence over years of study by professionals.
But, but, species is a social construct.
The fact of there being different species is a biological reality. Species are different lineages of organisms that cannot breed with other species, that’s what makes species separate. The word species is a human construct that we created - a word to use so we could talk about this biological fact. It is a semantic construct, not a social one. Are you maybe thinking of the social construct of races?
Enlightening talk!
in what manner? Did you see the foolishness of evolutionary nonsense?
Wow time actually files.
Fungi not fun-jeye.
Robbo His English could do with a bit of evolution.
Both are acceptable pronunciations.
David Loewen bullshite 😂
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Alright then, if the Bible is so good, why isn't there a Bible 2
As rational people, we could not care less what is written in your book of fairy tales.
Amen. But evolutionists hate God / Jesus Christ, which shows it's their religion, not science. Science is about the repeatable portion of reality, not things like common descent evolution that contradict repeatable reality, can only be believed in, and they call reasons to believe in it 'evidence'.
The bottom line is the topic of the origin of all biological diversity is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table.
Here's what *is* science: A.k.a., well documented and published even in evolutionists' own papers (when they happen to include something that's actually observable, repeatable, verifiable biological, scientific fact when they're telling their common descent stories and why they believe in it) that demonstrates common descent from a first life form is anti-science. Science shows that it's observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that, no matter how many generations go by,
no matter how much "change in genetic composition during successive generations",
no matter how much "change in allele frequencies",
no matter how much "development of new species",
no matter how much "natural selection acting on genetic variation among individuals",
no matter how much "adaptation",
no matter how much "mutation",
no matter how much "speciation",
no matter how much "migration",
no matter how much "genetic drift",
no matter how much "insert other claims here"
no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of:
fish remain fish
amphibians remain amphibians,
canines remain canines,
felines remain felines,
reptiles remain reptiles,
birds remain birds,
viruses remain viruses,
animals that never had lungs to breath air do not evolve lungs
animals that never had hearts to pump blood do not evolve hearts
animals that never had eyes to see do not evolve eyes
animals that never had brains do not evolve brains
animals that never had mouths do not evolve mouths
living things that never had a reproductive system do not evolve a reproductive system
animals that never had (insert organ here) remain living things without that organ, and so on.
There are many more such groups.
Science shows that the "common descent from a first life form" evolution (some call Darwinian evolution, some call theory of common descent) is anti-science.
Evolutionist can never address these facts - many unfortunately just fall back on ad hominem, showing how they're seem to be really about deception that's contrary to actual science.
Here are a few objections/claims they may bring up when they cannot address the above observable, repeatable and verifiable facts:
*Evolutionists sometimes try to claim you're against science.*
Science is fine and requires no belief.
In the entire existence of the human race: Objects drop to the ground. Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required.
In the entire existence of the human race: Diseases spread. Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required.
In the entire existence of the human race: All populations of: canines remain canines, fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, animals that never had hearts do not evolve hearts, animals that never had digestive systems do not evolve digestive systems (or brains, or eyes, or reproductive systems and many, many more cases like these). Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required.
*Evolutionists sometimes try to say they don't claim that populations of 'animals turn into other animals' over generations*
Quite the opposite. Evolutionists claim the first life form was a single cell. They claim that it is the ancestor of all living things today. That's "animals turning into other animal" over generations of mythological proportions. They claim humans, apes, rats, banana plants (50% DNA similarity to human beings) are all related - that's again "species turning into other species" of mythological proportions, claiming all life is related.
At some point reptiles did not exist in their worldview. That means they claim over generations some populations animals that were never reptiles 'evolved' over generations eventually into reptiles - That's "animals turning into other animals" over generations to mythological degrees.
At some point no animals had brains. This means they claim over generations some populations of animals that never had brains 'evolved' brains over generations.
Yet when called out on this some evolutionists even try to say "evolution doesn't say species turn into other species", which again is just not honest. It shows they not only know they're wrong, but they show their intent to push this falsehood anyway.
*If you point out evolutionists "populations over generations" claims, and some will dishonestly pretend you're claiming evolutionists are saying that one kind of animal 'gives birth' to another kind".* Which again is clearly deception. Science shows *populations over generations* do not do what they claim.
*Evolutionists typically imply making up reasons to believe in their common descent from a first life form belief system is the same as "observing" it,* which of course is false and is just circular reasoning. Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils or ABOUT DNA *that never happens* does not then make fossils or DNA 'evidence' or an 'observation of' of the belief you just made up about them.
*Evolutionists also typically resort to the crime analogy.* For example, since you cannot "observe" a certain crime, but can look at "evidence" for a crime, that shows we can know things happened without observing it. But what they ignore: the thing called a "crime" is already observable, repeatable, verifiable reality, so now we can look for forensic 'evidence' of some *MORE* possible crimes that no one is left alive to have observed it. By sharp contrast, what evolutionists do would be the same as giving 'evidence' for some strange new crime that's never been observed even once by the human race, and yet claim that's also an observation of this crime that never happens actually happening (for example: a "crime" of turning someone into a tree).
*Even some people factually observing something that's never happened is not science if it's not repeatable and also verifiable*. So for example, hundreds of people are witness to the fact Jesus Christ rose from the dead (or that He raised others from death), and they wrote about it. Direct observation. But it's still not science because it's *not repeatable* and not *verifiable.* There's also evidence He rose from the dead, and some have observed Him alive after the fact, but it's STILL not science that people can be raised from the dead, in spite of evidence, and in spite of it also being directly observed - because it's not *repeatable* and not *verifiable.* And so it goes with the belief of common descent from a first life form - not only is it not *repeatable,* not *verifiable,* it's not even *observable* either - which makes the resurrection far more likely to be called science before the belief of common descent from a first life form ever could. But neither of them can be called science of course.
*Evolutionists almost always are against Christ but are teaching their religion* that goes along with their belief of common descent from a first life form - the belief of 'nothing did it - it all just happened on it's own, including life - you're just another animal related to all animals - so live how you want and you'll rest in peace when you die". But they also pass this religion off 'you are god' off as science as well.
That in mind, I implore people to re-read the gospels and forget what any church or any religion or anyone has claimed they say and sincerely consider yet again for ourselves. Judgment is coming for us all for our lifetime of sinning AND refusing God's offer to forgive and forget in the person of Jesus Christ. But religions also twist God's truth to make people think it's their religion and system of rules that makes them right with God when it's about a person: Jesus Christ, and choosing to have a relationship with Him, having a change of mind about living for ourselves and turning back towards God/ Jesus Christ to live for Him instead.
John 3 : 14-21 *_"[Jesus said] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up [i.e., on the cross]: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved [exposed]. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."_*
Live forever, friend!
the best!
Interesting theory!
Not impressed. Bare Naked Ladies can cover the history of the entire cosmos in a minute and a half.
Do you refer to Barenaked Ladies who sing with Chris Hadfield while he was on ISS? ruclips.net/video/AvAnfi8WpVE/видео.html
Do they have anything else as great as that clip?
@@Max_Jacoby yep.
There’s a creator ❤
yes, it's just not what you think it is.
That has nothing to do with evolution or biology
it's funny; i was actually preparing to get upset listening to this because I thought you were going to change the way I see the world. Actually I already understood all of this. Yay. no triggering moment.
Can you explain observable evidence for evolution for change of kinds?
"Kinds" isn't a scientific term. "Change of kind" is a creationist phrase that has no meaning.
Diego Ram
Go to a mirror and look at yourself
That’s your evidence
@@christopherparks2987 Kind is in fact a scientific term. There are different categories of living organisms. Like a dog is a KIND of animal. A rose is a KIND of flower which is a KIND of plant. Please show me the evidence that demonstrates that one kind of organism can evolve into a completely different kind. At one point no plants existed so how did something which wasn't a plant evolve into one? The only thing we ever see producing plants is already existing plants.
@@LumieX "dog" is a family, not a "kind." Similarly, "rose" is a genus which is notably also not "kind."
Are you ignorant or are you lying?
@@christopherparks2987 The term is understandable as it relates to the taxonomy of living organisms. You clearly know what the term means in regards to the topic. Are you feigning ignorance or are you really just that dumb?