“The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.” Charles Darwin. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. 1871. p.111. charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-descent-of-man/ebook-page-111.asp oops...
@@AntropogenezRu : Wikipedia doesn't have any page for "Simiadae" but does have a page for "Simia" and it very likely is what you mean. Quote: " _In his Systema Naturae of 1758, Carolus Linnaeus divided the Order Primates into four genera: Homo, Simia, Lemur, and Vespertilio. His Vespertilio included all bats, and has since been moved from Primates to Chiroptera.[1] Homo contained humans, Lemur contained four lemurs and a colugo, and Simia contained all the rest - it was, in modern terms, a wastebasket taxon for the primates. Linnaeus did not think that Homo should form a distinct group from Simia, classifying them separately mainly to avoid conflict with religious authorities. If we take this into account, Simia (including Homo) would be roughly equivalent to the Suborder Haplorrhini of the Primates (while Lemur would be roughly equivalent to the Suborder Strepsirrhini). Homo, Lemur, and Vespertilio have survived as generic names, but Simia has not. All the species have since been moved to other genera, and in 1929, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ruled in its Opinion 114 that Simia be suppressed.[2] The genus Simias is distinct and remains valid, containing a single species, the pig-tailed langur (Simias concolor). The original genus Simia came to include these species: ..._ ", en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simia . There's nothing about Darwin in that page ; but, doing a general Web search for "Simiadae" does return matching results. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Simiadae Quote: " _1. (obsolete) A taxonomic family within the order Primates - .... ..._ ". There're pages from other Web sites for which links are returned about "Simiadae", but do this extra searching yourself, if you wish. The term evidently is obsolete. And, as a side note, whoever claimed that humans are " _the wonder and glory of the Universe_ " clearly knows little about what's going in this world; f.e., geopolitically, militarily, environmentally, ....
Interesting Darwin fact: He campaigned against 1st cousins marrying. His own wife was a 1st cousin, and his and her families had interbred close relations for generations. Darwin suffered from a chronic disease of unknown (to him) origin, and some of his children also suffered bad health. He thought that close interbreeding had caused these problems.
Chopperman V The vid lasts 10 minutes. My post would take less time than that to read. If you always want things in a fast food, quick and easy, way, your chances of finding out who you are not so good. Also, the vid is about Darwin. I countered it with information about....Darwin.
Bender When you escape the fairy tale that you can see into people's histories - that you know virtually nothing about - and read their minds, then you may be on your way to escaping the fairy tale of evolutionism.
I love how you give so much information about everything and don't just cite one point of view. People who examine all the angles are my favorite types of people to learn from. Thank you for making such high quality content and keep up the good work!
+Mahmoud "survival of the fittest" is often taken to mean that the 'best' survive, that evolution is about things becoming ever more complex and 'more perfect' over time. what it actually means is that which ever organism is best suited *to it's particular enviroment* is most likely to breed and pass those traits with make is best suited *to that particular enviroment* to it's children. This does not actually make the organism 'better' than others. A good example is the Peacock, Peacocks and Peahens have evolved to a point where a large, colourful plume is seen as a desirable trait, the bigger the plume, the more likely the peacock is to finda peahen to mate with and have children. But a great big giant plume is actually a huge disadvantage for the animal, massive amounts of the energy it consumes goes into just growning the plume, rather than into more useful expenditures like moving around day to day. It's also a giant physical burden for the animal to carry around through the scrubs and brush of it's natural environment. Or for a simpler example, an animal which is 'fittest' to survive in the artic would not at all be fit to survive in the Sahara and vice versa. TL,DR: Fittest is purely contextual and situational.
Basically it's the genes of the organisms that reproduce the most, and whose offspring reproduce in turn, that get passed on. Not necessarily the "best" or fittest. in other words, whatever gets you laid.
dreans11 Which is probably why humans have done so well. Our brains, hands and even the range of what we can eat allow us to make do in a wide variety of situations.
Dogs did NOT descend from wolves. DNA tests show that they both evolved separately from a common prehistoric ancestor, which is not the same as having a direct lineage.
Chase, that still doesn’t explain why ribs and dirt are still around. In fact, if women came from men, like you said, why are there still men? If somebody asks a question, you might try answering it instead of insulting people. Please try keeping an open mind; there is so much needless hostility online.
Horatio Moonraker , You're confusing the God I believe in with whatever being you think I believe in. If God is an immaterial, transcendental being then He cannot be constrained or affected by things like evolution. I'm pretty sure this is a category mistake on your part. Like I'm honestly baffled that someone would post such nonsense that you just typed.
Darwin is often quoted as being confused about how the eye could have evolved because of a paragraph in the part of his book called, 'Difficulties with the Theory. This is because his question about how the eye could have evolved was rhetorical and pre-emptive of anyone asking such questions. Apologist send to quote this paragraph without quoting the following answer to this question. There must be some amount of dishonesty on the part of the apologists here because I find it very hard to imagine anyone copying the first paragraph without noticing that the question is addressed in the following text.
Y'all left out the myth widely believed up through the 1980's that Darwin was bitten by a spider in the Galapagos and received incredible physical powers and ultimately inspired the original Spider Man comic.
Lamarck views on how evolution worked were quite different than Darwin's views. Lamarck believed that a parents learned self improvements would be passed down to their children. This is quite different than the process of natural selection proposed by Darwin.
Cool! That means someone chose you. Your adoptive parents met you and decided that you were a great kid and wanted to keep you. They chose to love you and take care of you when they didn't have to. That's pretty great.
Twisty Ties RBLX it's every day bro with that Disney channel flow got 5 million subs in 6 months never done before man passed all the competition pewdiepie is next.
i like that francis quote. presupposes the creation of beings that evolve. well said. the study of life on earth should not be hindered by people's religious feelings first and foremost because logically they are fully compatible.
I remember reading in an encyclopedia of philosophy that stated that creation might not be good Christianity pointing out that Saint Augustine, who not only was an important saint but also a philosopher and scholar, wasn't sure that he could accept the Genesis way of creation because he didn't believe that God was restrained by time periods.
To those not insulting others beliefs, thank you. Same for those who are not debating about subjects unrelated to the video. And for those who have done both of these, thank you for your opinion.
And this is what John Paul II had to say in this matter: "Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
Oh Simon - a jillion thanks from Tangled Bank Ranch! That is what my husband, a microbiologist, and I have named our place in the foothills of the Sierra in Northern California. It is notable to me that I have ever met an evolution denier who has ever read a single one of Darwin’s books! All these old myths have been thrown at me by numerous semesters of non-bio major students. Who keeps promulgating this poo-bah? And WHY?
Although he did collect Galapagos finches in his earlier years, it was actually his study of the mockingbird in later life which led him to his theory of evolution
User Sometimes the obvious is more difficult to point out mainly because it's not like an axiom, which you can assume to be truthful without any further proof. But this needed observation, demonstration. And so he did.
Darwin did not create Social Darwinism, although I am sure Darwin probably held some quite racist beliefs as did very nearly everyone at that time, including scientists.
"If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Hey, great question! Oh, and if the US was settled by the British, why are there still British?
If you actually read Darwin's Origin of Species, it actually relates a lot of his ideas to his Christian faith and to the common practice of breeding animals to become pets or beasts of burden. The people who say evolution contradicts faith are people who have never read Darwin. However, I recommend starting with The Voyage of the Beagle before delving into Origin because it is a fascinating tale of Darwin's trip around the world.
Here's a fact about Darwin: He was born on the same day as Abraham Lincoln. I don't mean they simply shared a birthday, but they literally entered this world in the same 24 hour period as each other.
Mike28625 he was in the gluten club in his Cambridge days that liked to eat unusual animals but it wasn't a personal quest, just a group he belonged to in his university days.
Definitely. When we think of all the facts that have been ignored, misconstrued, obfuscated, and down right written down improperly so as to represent the opposite of what really happened…we still just find ourselves whimsically trying to interpret what it means to really get around, without the outcome ever having had to do with anything certain about where we had been at any point in the Past. Going nowhere fast.
I like that he touches on a big myth about religion vs eovlution. People associate Christians as all being anti evolution but in reality many Christians (including the largest denomination in the world) see no conflict between faith and science.
I've never heard of a christian group support evolution until some Europeans told me just a year or two ago that the catholic church supported it. To me it just looks like sheer madness that they would accept something that clearly contradicts scripture just because one guy said so. I haven't heard of any other Christians accepting evolution.
Lorica Lass You can get life from inorganic material. But first that inorganic material has to be turned into organic matter. And that's something we've been able to do easily for a very long time. You should look it up instead of talking out of your ass.
I'm an atheist but I was raised as a catholic and went to catholic schools and as always taught about evolution. I didn't know that some religious groups still didn't believe in evolution until I was an adult. I have now met about 5 people in total here in the UK who don't believe in it but I have friends of a few religions who told me of course they believe in it and thought I was strange for asking the question.
edbadyt Truth is not determined by how many people in this country, or that country, or even in the world, believe something. It is determined by the data. I gave a lot of data in my post above. If you can refute it, please cite your own data from reliable sources. If you cannot, then you might want to consider that your belief in evolution is just that a belief, pseudo science. The real religion here is evolutionism.
Lorica Lass you gave RUclips videos... That is not data. It doesn't prove anything that you think it proves. Peer reveiwed, published research or get the fuck out of here with your bullshit.
Another misconception is that the phrase "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" means that the idea of evolution is A) a theory & B) posited by Darwin. Evolution is no more a theory than gravity is -- they both refer to observed facts. Just as Newton came up with a theory to explain the mechanisms of gravity, Darwin came up with a theory to explain the mechanisms of evolution. Later science has come up with further ideas about how gravity & evolution work, but both Newton & Darwin were revolutionary in their time & greatly helped advance scientific thought in their respective areas. Natural selection is ONE theory of how evolution works, but EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY. Repeat, EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY. Scientific education of the masses must be woefully failing since so many people have trouble understanding this... Anyone who thinks that because there are theories of gravity & evolution that both these things are theoretical themselves is welcome to test this out by stepping off the edge of a high cliff with no special equipment. If the person doesn't fall, I'm willing to concede that the phenomena themselves may be theoretical...
He would jump off the boat swimming before it docked. Then blindly sprint into the woods devouring every creature in a ravenous bloodlust. Only to return and say to his shipmates, "Wheh! Boy am I sleepy."
Very nice presentation, Simon. Just a quick correction: C. Hodge is actually Charles Hodge, not Christopher Hodge. Keep up the go9d work! Our family loves "Fact Boy". 🥰
I absolutely adore this channel. listening to the videos as I get ready has fast become part of my morning routine. Do you have or have you considered a podcast? I'd love to listen to some of your mini lectures at the gym etc.
I am a Secondary Science teacher and also a Christian... ti is shocking how often I get asked how I justify teaching evolution and my beliefs... There is no contrast and i have never had a problem with it...In fact my dad was an Anglican pastor and he was the one that got me enthusiastic in science by taking me fossil hunting. He also write a book on Genesis, and teaches Old Testament theology. The perception of a clash between the two is due to a failure of knowledge either of evolution, or of theology. ...yes, I lay the blame on both sides.
Asking "if humans came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" is akin to asking "if dogs came from wolves, then why are there still wolves?". It's stupid even if we did directly descend from them
Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, it's about (lack of) knowledge. The opposite of an agnostic (no knowledge of god) is a gnostic (claims knowledge of god). The opposite of an atheist (no belief) is a theist (believer).
So then where would you put someone who claims to know what the word 'god' means but claims no knowledge of it beyond that? Sounds like it fits your definition of agnostic. Perhaps you would just like it qualified with 'agnostic with regard to a god or gods'?
Knowing or not knowing what the word 'god' means is a matter of vocabulary. Claimed knowledge of supreme being(s) and their will/desires/actions/etc. is something completely different. Qualification is inappropriate because those two are unrelated.
"an agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether there is a higher power" yes, exactly, and a gnostic would be someone who _does_ know. That has no bearing on whether you are an atheist or a theist. You either have a god or gods that you believe in (theist) or you do not (atheist). Neither requires absolute certainty
The weird thing about humans is that we often take things we hear to be fact even if right before we hear the "fact" we're told it's a lie. This is why I'm glad Simon took the time to explain each one, so I don't get wrong "facts" stuck in my head.
If today’s Americans descended from British people, why are there still Britains? I don’t know why people think that one thing developing from another thing makes the first thing disappear... It seems like an odd thing to assume.
Lucky Vine the red indicates blood and the white bandages. This is from the time when bloodletting was popular and barbers often performed the procedure of bloodletting. The red and white stripes outside barber shops let customers know it was performed there.
The Creation vs. Evolution was for sure going on in the Natural History circles. I've only read the 150th anniversary edition, not the original, but Darwin mentions multiple times how the consequence of his findings is in direct conflict with the idea that each species was created separately. It may be a slightly different debate 150 years later but I don't think we should downplay the contention On the Origin of Species created among Darwin's peers.
Hey, Today I Found Out, I hope it's not too much to ask, but whenever you quote a fact, could you add something on the screen that would show which source you're using? Sometimes, I'd like to reference a video, but when asked for a source, I need to skim through everything in the description.
I don't know how Likes help creators..but I Liked this video because it was very informative. Can you do a video on Likes and how they impact creators? If they impact them at all in any way.
Timely since the 'survival of the fittest' paradigm has been put to the test over the last few decades and 'survival of the luckiest' seems to be winning out. The best adaptations, i.e. the fittest, are not always the ones to survive and as the research shows are not the most common ones to survive. The major error originated in the mistaken a priori assumption that those that survived were the fittest merely by the fact of their own survival. The point of contention is the scenario in which two possibilities exist but only one becomes reality. The one that survived is deemed the fittest by default while, in fact, the one that did not survive was better suited to survive but unlucky.
Darwin had motion sickness during his time on the HMS Beagle. He did not actually publish his notes until ten years later. There was someone named Wallace (I think) who was going to publish his work on evolution. At that time, Darwin got his notes together and published first. So that the other guy (who was probably a better scientist) got the shaft and left out of the history books.
I will never understand why some people believe it's either/or and both are contradictory to each other. I've done a little studying over the years and have one question, What happened a microsecond before the big bang? Oh, I've made no bones about my belief in a higher power or the value of science. If anyone wants to debate me on the subject either way, here's my answer... You're right and I'm happily delusional. Hope you have a nice day!
What a great video. As someone who studies biology, I studied evolution a bit and I strongly believe in it from all the evidence that I have seen. With that said, I am also very religious, and you do a great job emphasizing how the conflict between evolution and religion view is modern and unfounded. Especially because Darwin himself did not reject religion.
Actually, the theory of natural selection struggled for decades and has been described by historians of science as virtually dead by 1900. One significant reason for this, was that the solar system wasn't believed to be old enough for such evolution to take place. This was based on the science of the day, not religion. Another point: Many had problems distinguishing between Darwin's and Lamarck's ideas, so even after The Origin of Species, it seems Lamarck was more popular - perhaps even by some who thought they followed Darwin.
Thank you very, very much for withholding any personal biases and remaining objective on controversial topics like these. All in the name of knowledge. :)
On additional Darwin myths, there's a quote attributed to him that he never actually said or wrote. It's typically written as "In any species, it is not the strongest that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most adaptable to change." It's a paraphrase of his writings, which are long, complicated, and kind of boring if you're not really into biology.
Are there any documentation providing evidence that C. Darwin and Michael Faraday met? If you could make a video about this it would be very interesting to see it. I’m asking about this because they were contemporaries in their respective fields of scientific research.
I never understood why people have to take the bible literally. It's much more beautiful and meaningful when it is symbolic. Also seeing how it predates written language isn't it appropriate to teach genesis as a story? How literal the bible is isn't important, what matters is the lessons learned. For what it is worth though the bible technically mentions the creation of man before naming Adam in particular so it possible humans existed and Adam is just the first prophet. Also a great way to explain why we aren't disfigured from inbreeding.
What I really appreciate about Darwin was his earnest homage to the progress of human society. That is, people think he was the one to create "Social Darwinism" and in fact he wasn't. That was Spencer, again. Darwin himself credited man with developing ethics and caring for his fellow man and saw this as a credit to mankind. The view of letting the sick or elderly die because they are no longer fit belongs with the Trump devotee, not with a reader or fan of Darwin.
Ready to learn more fun facts? Then check out this video and find out about The One Man Invasion of Sark:
ruclips.net/video/Dnyi5mezp-s/видео.html
“The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys;
and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.”
Charles Darwin. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.
1871. p.111.
charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-descent-of-man/ebook-page-111.asp
oops...
@@AntropogenezRu : Wikipedia doesn't have any page for "Simiadae" but does have a page for "Simia" and it very likely is what you mean. Quote: " _In his Systema Naturae of 1758, Carolus Linnaeus divided the Order Primates into four genera: Homo, Simia, Lemur, and Vespertilio. His Vespertilio included all bats, and has since been moved from Primates to Chiroptera.[1] Homo contained humans, Lemur contained four lemurs and a colugo, and Simia contained all the rest - it was, in modern terms, a wastebasket taxon for the primates. Linnaeus did not think that Homo should form a distinct group from Simia, classifying them separately mainly to avoid conflict with religious authorities. If we take this into account, Simia (including Homo) would be roughly equivalent to the Suborder Haplorrhini of the Primates (while Lemur would be roughly equivalent to the Suborder Strepsirrhini). Homo, Lemur, and Vespertilio have survived as generic names, but Simia has not. All the species have since been moved to other genera, and in 1929, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ruled in its Opinion 114 that Simia be suppressed.[2] The genus Simias is distinct and remains valid, containing a single species, the pig-tailed langur (Simias concolor). The original genus Simia came to include these species: ..._ ", en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simia . There's nothing about Darwin in that page ; but, doing a general Web search for "Simiadae" does return matching results. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Simiadae Quote: " _1. (obsolete) A taxonomic family within the order Primates - .... ..._ ". There're pages from other Web sites for which links are returned about "Simiadae", but do this extra searching yourself, if you wish. The term evidently is obsolete. And, as a side note, whoever claimed that humans are " _the wonder and glory of the Universe_ " clearly knows little about what's going in this world; f.e., geopolitically, militarily, environmentally, ....
Interesting Darwin fact: He campaigned against 1st cousins marrying. His own wife was a 1st cousin, and his and her families had interbred close relations for generations. Darwin suffered from a chronic disease of unknown (to him) origin, and some of his children also suffered bad health. He thought that close interbreeding had caused these problems.
Lorica Lass why do you have to start off with a lie? You were never an athiest, you just use that as an in so you can try to peddle your b.s.
Lorica Lass Jesus (no pun intended), who tf has enough time to read that. It's not even related to what the op said.
Chopperman V The vid lasts 10 minutes. My post would take less time than that to read. If you always want things in a fast food, quick and easy, way, your chances of finding out who you are not so good. Also, the vid is about Darwin. I countered it with information about....Darwin.
Bender When you escape the fairy tale that you can see into people's histories - that you know virtually nothing about - and read their minds, then you may be on your way to escaping the fairy tale of evolutionism.
Lorica Lass reading minds has never been part of evolution... You sure are a bit off your rocker, aren't you?
I love how you give so much information about everything and don't just cite one point of view. People who examine all the angles are my favorite types of people to learn from. Thank you for making such high quality content and keep up the good work!
I highly appreciate the effort you took in clearing out myths and misconceptions about evolutionary biology and neodarwinism, so thank you very much!
Plot twist: His beard was actually photoshopped.
Oslo MGTOW stfu
Oslo MGTOW you tried to be funny it didn't work
Oslo MGTOW 😵
rayman mottet you tried to be a jerk. It worked.
I always knew Simon had no beard!
Always seemd a bit off!
"Survival of the fittest" is one the most misunderstood phrases in the English language.
i would argue that "only a theory" tops that list :)
+Mahmoud "survival of the fittest" is often taken to mean that the 'best' survive, that evolution is about things becoming ever more complex and 'more perfect' over time.
what it actually means is that which ever organism is best suited *to it's particular enviroment* is most likely to breed and pass those traits with make is best suited *to that particular enviroment* to it's children.
This does not actually make the organism 'better' than others.
A good example is the Peacock, Peacocks and Peahens have evolved to a point where a large, colourful plume is seen as a desirable trait, the bigger the plume, the more likely the peacock is to finda peahen to mate with and have children.
But a great big giant plume is actually a huge disadvantage for the animal, massive amounts of the energy it consumes goes into just growning the plume, rather than into more useful expenditures like moving around day to day. It's also a giant physical burden for the animal to carry around through the scrubs and brush of it's natural environment.
Or for a simpler example, an animal which is 'fittest' to survive in the artic would not at all be fit to survive in the Sahara and vice versa.
TL,DR: Fittest is purely contextual and situational.
Basically it's the genes of the organisms that reproduce the most, and whose offspring reproduce in turn, that get passed on. Not necessarily the "best" or fittest. in other words, whatever gets you laid.
dreans11
Which is probably why humans have done so well. Our brains, hands and even the range of what we can eat allow us to make do in a wide variety of situations.
Those fickle Peahens with their colourful shiny fetish , look what they have done to their Peacocks!
Dog: If we were descended from wolves then why are there still wolves?
Νοναμε Man: your just a funny looking wolf.
Because dogs came to be do to man going in and changing things not because of nature forcing them to change as it as with other animals
Dogs did NOT descend from wolves. DNA tests show that they both evolved separately from a common prehistoric ancestor, which is not the same as having a direct lineage.
0:43 If man was descended from dirt and a rib then why are there ribs and dirt?
Flintstoned man was created from the dust of the earth and woman was created out of mans rib after YHWH breathed life into him. Moron
Flintstoned enjoy hell
Chase, that still doesn’t explain why ribs and dirt are still around. In fact, if women came from men, like you said, why are there still men? If somebody asks a question, you might try answering it instead of insulting people. Please try keeping an open mind; there is so much needless hostility online.
Flintstoned right
Chase Sepulvado I guest god trying to hide this dirt with snow where I am
Thank you, TIFO for telling the honest relationship between creation and evolution.
Sincerely,
a Christian who also believes in evolution
Horatio Moonraker ,
You're confusing the God I believe in with whatever being you think I believe in. If God is an immaterial, transcendental being then He cannot be constrained or affected by things like evolution. I'm pretty sure this is a category mistake on your part. Like I'm honestly baffled that someone would post such nonsense that you just typed.
Darwin is often quoted as being confused about how the eye could have evolved because of a paragraph in the part of his book called, 'Difficulties with the Theory. This is because his question about how the eye could have evolved was rhetorical and pre-emptive of anyone asking such questions. Apologist send to quote this paragraph without quoting the following answer to this question. There must be some amount of dishonesty on the part of the apologists here because I find it very hard to imagine anyone copying the first paragraph without noticing that the question is addressed in the following text.
I am so pleased to see a very civil conversation here. A lot of good ideas and perspectives. It's really refreshing.
Y'all left out the myth widely believed up through the 1980's that Darwin was bitten by a spider in the Galapagos and received incredible physical powers and ultimately inspired the original Spider Man comic.
Never heard of that
Will Smyser was he a teenager who really wanted a girlfriend?
i think you mispelt fact there sir...
The Last time i was this early Simon was Michael from Vsauce
Skylinx Gaming stfu
Conspiracy theory confirmed?
Fuck Michael and Vsauce for his paid-education platform of YT Red videos.
chemistrycounts Okay👌
That's evolution for ya.
I absolutely adore the fact that you released this on the 4th of July.
Lamarck views on how evolution worked were quite different than Darwin's views. Lamarck believed that a parents learned self improvements would be passed down to their children. This is quite different than the process of natural selection proposed by Darwin.
"If humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" = "If I came from my dad why is my cousin alive"
Ur cousins a human being tho ,
@@warrior4god734 and
Today I found out I was adopted.
Twisty Ties RBLX no?
Cool! That means someone chose you. Your adoptive parents met you and decided that you were a great kid and wanted to keep you. They chose to love you and take care of you when they didn't have to. That's pretty great.
Congratulations!
Twisty Ties RBLX it's every day bro with that Disney channel flow got 5 million subs in 6 months never done before man passed all the competition pewdiepie is next.
Twisty Ties RBLX ha gayyy
i like that francis quote. presupposes the creation of beings that evolve. well said. the study of life on earth should not be hindered by people's religious feelings first and foremost because logically they are fully compatible.
I remember reading in an encyclopedia of philosophy that stated that creation might not be good Christianity pointing out that Saint Augustine, who not only was an important saint but also a philosopher and scholar, wasn't sure that he could accept the Genesis way of creation because he didn't believe that God was restrained by time periods.
That last quote really hit me, and is making me think hard now... I knew of this concept already but never thought about it in the way he expressed.
To those not insulting others beliefs, thank you. Same for those who are not debating about subjects unrelated to the video. And for those who have done both of these, thank you for your opinion.
Coolbacon 22 your medal is on its way
It's cool buddy here's a beer🍺
And this is what John Paul II had to say in this matter:
"Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
I'm glad the background changed. The previous one hurt my eyes after a long time. Thank you.
I learned a lot today. Thanks!
Thanks Simon, GOD always bless you and keep you in safe
Oh Simon - a jillion thanks from Tangled Bank Ranch! That is what my husband, a microbiologist, and I have named our place in the foothills of the Sierra in Northern California.
It is notable to me that I have ever met an evolution denier who has ever read a single one of Darwin’s books! All these old myths have been thrown at me by numerous semesters of non-bio major students. Who keeps promulgating this poo-bah? And WHY?
Although he did collect Galapagos finches in his earlier years, it was actually his study of the mockingbird in later life which led him to his theory of evolution
Fantastic job handling a complex subject.
Charles Darwin was a brilliant biologist, and he made great contributions.
blackmesa232323 pointing out the obvious
User Sometimes the obvious is more difficult to point out mainly because it's not like an axiom, which you can assume to be truthful without any further proof. But this needed observation, demonstration. And so he did.
blackmesa232323 agreed. Like many pioneers, he got stuff wrong, but he set science on the right course.
he was also very racist
Darwin did not create Social Darwinism, although I am sure Darwin probably held some quite racist beliefs as did very nearly everyone at that time, including scientists.
This is sensational. Best video so far!!! big thumbs up!
"If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
Hey, great question! Oh, and if the US was settled by the British, why are there still British?
Thank you for the great video. It would be cool to see more videos on the topic.
If you actually read Darwin's Origin of Species, it actually relates a lot of his ideas to his Christian faith and to the common practice of breeding animals to become pets or beasts of burden. The people who say evolution contradicts faith are people who have never read Darwin. However, I recommend starting with The Voyage of the Beagle before delving into Origin because it is a fascinating tale of Darwin's trip around the world.
Here's a fact about Darwin: He was born on the same day as Abraham Lincoln. I don't mean they simply shared a birthday, but they literally entered this world in the same 24 hour period as each other.
"Charles Darwin will be misquoted frequently in the internet age." ~ Thomas Edison
This made me fix my window on my Dodge Challenger. Thanks!
Is it just me or is Simon's head not as pointy this time?
Legit Communism Yeah. It seems more rounded. I miss the point ;(
Legit communism with trump pic as profile? Sorry but this is not communism
Friendly T-60 armor Trump is literally Hitler
I had heard that Darwin ate at least one of every creature he ever discovered. that he was on a bizarre life quest to taste every animal on earth.
Mike28625 he was in the gluten club in his Cambridge days that liked to eat unusual animals but it wasn't a personal quest, just a group he belonged to in his university days.
I believe he found that most taste like chicken.
Definitely. When we think of all the facts that have been ignored, misconstrued, obfuscated, and down right written down improperly so as to represent the opposite of what really happened…we still just find ourselves whimsically trying to interpret what it means to really get around, without the outcome ever having had to do with anything certain about where we had been at any point in the Past. Going nowhere fast.
I like that he touches on a big myth about religion vs eovlution. People associate Christians as all being anti evolution but in reality many Christians (including the largest denomination in the world) see no conflict between faith and science.
I've never heard of a christian group support evolution until some Europeans told me just a year or two ago that the catholic church supported it. To me it just looks like sheer madness that they would accept something that clearly contradicts scripture just because one guy said so. I haven't heard of any other Christians accepting evolution.
Lorica Lass
You can get life from inorganic material.
But first that inorganic material has to be turned into organic matter. And that's something we've been able to do easily for a very long time.
You should look it up instead of talking out of your ass.
I'm an atheist but I was raised as a catholic and went to catholic schools and as always taught about evolution. I didn't know that some religious groups still didn't believe in evolution until I was an adult. I have now met about 5 people in total here in the UK who don't believe in it but I have friends of a few religions who told me of course they believe in it and thought I was strange for asking the question.
edbadyt Truth is not determined by how many people in this country, or that country, or even in the world, believe something. It is determined by the data. I gave a lot of data in my post above. If you can refute it, please cite your own data from reliable sources. If you cannot, then you might want to consider that your belief in evolution is just that a belief, pseudo science. The real religion here is evolutionism.
Lorica Lass you gave RUclips videos... That is not data. It doesn't prove anything that you think it proves. Peer reveiwed, published research or get the fuck out of here with your bullshit.
Another misconception is that the phrase "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" means that the idea of evolution is A) a theory & B) posited by Darwin. Evolution is no more a theory than gravity is -- they both refer to observed facts. Just as Newton came up with a theory to explain the mechanisms of gravity, Darwin came up with a theory to explain the mechanisms of evolution. Later science has come up with further ideas about how gravity & evolution work, but both Newton & Darwin were revolutionary in their time & greatly helped advance scientific thought in their respective areas. Natural selection is ONE theory of how evolution works, but EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY. Repeat, EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY. Scientific education of the masses must be woefully failing since so many people have trouble understanding this...
Anyone who thinks that because there are theories of gravity & evolution that both these things are theoretical themselves is welcome to test this out by stepping off the edge of a high cliff with no special equipment. If the person doesn't fall, I'm willing to concede that the phenomena themselves may be theoretical...
Thanks so much for the clarification.
He would jump off the boat swimming before it docked. Then blindly sprint into the woods devouring every creature in a ravenous bloodlust. Only to return and say to his shipmates, "Wheh! Boy am I sleepy."
Those quotes at the end really sums up how I feel about religion and science
Man so many of those mistake I make myself! Thanks for the video.
Very nice presentation, Simon. Just a quick correction: C. Hodge is actually Charles Hodge, not Christopher Hodge.
Keep up the go9d work! Our family loves "Fact Boy". 🥰
I absolutely adore this channel. listening to the videos as I get ready has fast become part of my morning routine. Do you have or have you considered a podcast? I'd love to listen to some of your mini lectures at the gym etc.
I am a Secondary Science teacher and also a Christian... ti is shocking how often I get asked how I justify teaching evolution and my beliefs...
There is no contrast and i have never had a problem with it...In fact my dad was an Anglican pastor and he was the one that got me enthusiastic in science by taking me fossil hunting. He also write a book on Genesis, and teaches Old Testament theology.
The perception of a clash between the two is due to a failure of knowledge either of evolution, or of theology.
...yes, I lay the blame on both sides.
Great informative video and subject, cheers
"Fullness of being" is hilarious.
Asking "if humans came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" is akin to asking "if dogs came from wolves, then why are there still wolves?". It's stupid even if we did directly descend from them
Love the thumbnail 😂
Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, it's about (lack of) knowledge.
The opposite of an agnostic (no knowledge of god) is a gnostic (claims knowledge of god).
The opposite of an atheist (no belief) is a theist (believer).
So then where would you put someone who claims to know what the word 'god' means but claims no knowledge of it beyond that? Sounds like it fits your definition of agnostic. Perhaps you would just like it qualified with 'agnostic with regard to a god or gods'?
Knowing or not knowing what the word 'god' means is a matter of vocabulary.
Claimed knowledge of supreme being(s) and their will/desires/actions/etc. is something completely different.
Qualification is inappropriate because those two are unrelated.
it is a form of adjective. you can be an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist.
An agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether there is a higher power. It is not a direct antonym of gnostic, despite the etymology.
"an agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether there is a higher power"
yes, exactly, and a gnostic would be someone who _does_ know. That has no bearing on whether you are an atheist or a theist. You either have a god or gods that you believe in (theist) or you do not (atheist). Neither requires absolute certainty
I saw you on a tv at mcdonalds
The weird thing about humans is that we often take things we hear to be fact even if right before we hear the "fact" we're told it's a lie. This is why I'm glad Simon took the time to explain each one, so I don't get wrong "facts" stuck in my head.
Charles darwin invented the office chair so that he could get to his specimens more quickly
If today’s Americans descended from British people, why are there still Britains? I don’t know why people think that one thing developing from another thing makes the first thing disappear... It seems like an odd thing to assume.
"If evolution is true then how are there still monkeys?" If you're descended from your grandma how do you have cousins?
Simon, you should totally notice me.
Why do barbers have those red and white striped poles?
Lucky Vine the red indicates blood and the white bandages. This is from the time when bloodletting was popular and barbers often performed the procedure of bloodletting. The red and white stripes outside barber shops let customers know it was performed there.
yeah, barbers used to be called "barber-surgeon" because they literally did both
Free toothpaste
The Creation vs. Evolution was for sure going on in the Natural History circles. I've only read the 150th anniversary edition, not the original, but Darwin mentions multiple times how the consequence of his findings is in direct conflict with the idea that each species was created separately. It may be a slightly different debate 150 years later but I don't think we should downplay the contention On the Origin of Species created among Darwin's peers.
this makes me feel better :)
The beard is back!
Merry Christmas .
this was very illuminating
The comments are on fire but the actual video seemed to be fair and accurate. Ohh well. Internet.
Video Suggestion: how common head trauma is to causing amnesia and why sitcoms used it so often
ANOTHER GREAT SCIENTIST FROM U.K.
To distracted by the disapearing glasses to know what this was about.
Both Darwin and Wallace read Vestiges and Thomas Malthus' Essay on the Principles of Population and they both came up with the same theory.
Have heard one about him renouncing his theory and basically saying he got it wrong on his deathbed.
Hey, Today I Found Out, I hope it's not too much to ask, but whenever you quote a fact, could you add something on the screen that would show which source you're using? Sometimes, I'd like to reference a video, but when asked for a source, I need to skim through everything in the description.
Man: "If something came from nothing where did the nothing come from?"
hoodies? did I hear you say hoodies??? count me in as a patron!
Thank you. Fantastic!
Charles Darwin's Grandfather Erasmus already had written the beginning of a theory of evolution.
I don't know how Likes help creators..but I Liked this video because it was very informative.
Can you do a video on Likes and how they impact creators? If they impact them at all in any way.
Have you done a video on why 2x4 boards aren't actually 2" by 4" (and maybe the history of whatever carpenters/sawmill company is behind this?
The thumbnail sums up the AQA Biology Unit 1 exam of 2017 😂
Please do a video on EASTERN AIRLINES FLIGHT 401.
Timely since the 'survival of the fittest' paradigm has been put to the test over the last few decades and 'survival of the luckiest' seems to be winning out. The best adaptations, i.e. the fittest, are not always the ones to survive and as the research shows are not the most common ones to survive. The major error originated in the mistaken a priori assumption that those that survived were the fittest merely by the fact of their own survival. The point of contention is the scenario in which two possibilities exist but only one becomes reality. The one that survived is deemed the fittest by default while, in fact, the one that did not survive was better suited to survive but unlucky.
Darwin had motion sickness during his time on the HMS Beagle. He did not actually publish his notes until ten years later. There was someone named Wallace (I think) who was going to publish his work on evolution. At that time, Darwin got his notes together and published first. So that the other guy (who was probably a better scientist) got the shaft and left out of the history books.
NTV Online
Alfred Russel Wallace... a.k.a. The man who wasn't Darwin. Yep. That was him.
Nicholas Hylton Thank you!
@ 8:32 "Engage priestly voice...!"
Best shortstop & best wrestler.
Won't be inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame, unfortunately, blame Vince McMahon Jr.
Scyn WWE that's that show where drunk guys watch two dudes in tights try to slip it in each other right?
Please do one of these tackling how people claim that Hitler was an atheist/communist/etc.
Hey is there a way to buy the merch life straight up?
I will never understand why some people believe it's either/or and both are contradictory to each other. I've done a little studying over the years and have one question, What happened a microsecond before the big bang?
Oh, I've made no bones about my belief in a higher power or the value of science. If anyone wants to debate me on the subject either way, here's my answer... You're right and I'm happily delusional. Hope you have a nice day!
What a great video. As someone who studies biology, I studied evolution a bit and I strongly believe in it from all the evidence that I have seen. With that said, I am also very religious, and you do a great job emphasizing how the conflict between evolution and religion view is modern and unfounded. Especially because Darwin himself did not reject religion.
Actually, the theory of natural selection struggled for decades and has been described by historians of science as virtually dead by 1900. One significant reason for this, was that the solar system wasn't believed to be old enough for such evolution to take place. This was based on the science of the day, not religion.
Another point: Many had problems distinguishing between Darwin's and Lamarck's ideas, so even after The Origin of Species, it seems Lamarck was more popular - perhaps even by some who thought they followed Darwin.
Thank you very, very much for withholding any personal biases and remaining objective on controversial topics like these. All in the name of knowledge. :)
Darwin actually plays SS for the Toronto Blue Jays, but they are playing the Yankees in New York right now. Close enough?
So this Lamark fellow is the one we have to thank for the whole "kinds" thing?
can you do a video about how you figure out what videos you all are going to happen?
Actually it was a hypothesis at that stage which later was elevated to a theory.
??? I would have figured that Malthus might have coined that expression.
On additional Darwin myths, there's a quote attributed to him that he never actually said or wrote. It's typically written as "In any species, it is not the strongest that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most adaptable to change."
It's a paraphrase of his writings, which are long, complicated, and kind of boring if you're not really into biology.
Are there any documentation providing evidence that C. Darwin and Michael Faraday met? If you could make a video about this it would be very interesting to see it. I’m asking about this because they were contemporaries in their respective fields of scientific research.
I never understood why people have to take the bible literally. It's much more beautiful and meaningful when it is symbolic. Also seeing how it predates written language isn't it appropriate to teach genesis as a story? How literal the bible is isn't important, what matters is the lessons learned. For what it is worth though the bible technically mentions the creation of man before naming Adam in particular so it possible humans existed and Adam is just the first prophet. Also a great way to explain why we aren't disfigured from inbreeding.
Darwin was actually Santa Claus.
What I really appreciate about Darwin was his earnest homage to the progress of human society. That is, people think he was the one to create "Social Darwinism" and in fact he wasn't. That was Spencer, again. Darwin himself credited man with developing ethics and caring for his fellow man and saw this as a credit to mankind. The view of letting the sick or elderly die because they are no longer fit belongs with the Trump devotee, not with a reader or fan of Darwin.