I gotta thank you. You saved me in physics, microbiology/physiology and now evolution. Bless your soul. Also on a side note, did you evolve from Hank Green?
Okay. This is an educational video. Not a video for argument. I watched this video to LEARN for a HOMEWORK assignment. Does the professor care if you believe in god or evolution or whatever. No. So if you'll excuse me, I have some homework to do.
Yes you tell a big lie and people will believe more than a small lie :) ... Watch Kent Hovind creation Seminar for real science evidence and proof of common designer
@@ilovefunfilms😂 live your sad life. when thousands of scientists are telling lies, but you, a nobody, someone who doesn't understand sh*t about anything, with zero knowledge of anything, is telling the truth.
Also on a side note, were those different finches Darwin found on the islands different species as a result of the natural selection? Like would it be possible to bring different island finches together and have them breed? They could only be considered a different species if the finches were unable to breed with those on the other island.
An inability to breed could also be caused by geological barriers and thus could be technically another species. But generally, we tend to go by the ability to successfully breed under natural conditions.
Why can't evolution and science go hand in hand? Everyone here is either totally against science. or totally atheist. What if... we just took a look at the evidence, and said that evolution exists... however... who started the evolution going?
★ “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in a Letter to Asa Gray June 18, 1857) ★
Nothing's changed in that regard: Anthropologist S. L. Washburn put it this way: “Everything in evolution is very, very speculative.” As scientist Chandra Wickramasinghe said: “There’s no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution, it was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since.” “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”-In Search of Deep Time-Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117 W. R. Thompson in his foreword to the centennial edition of Darwin’s The Origin of Species stated: “A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.” Dr. Karl Popper comments: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” “The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life. No fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution.” -- Order: In Life, by Edmund Samuel, p. 120 Invertebrate zoologist Harold Coffin states: “Obviously much adaptation has occurred, but has this adaptive change actually caused evolutionary progression from one major category to another? The evidence from science does not support this kind of change.” Professor of natural science John Moore says: “There is absolutely no experimental evidence for any change of one animal form into another animal form; or for that matter, any change of one plant form into another plant form. The only evidence of change that can be classed properly as the result of sound scientific method is the evidence of genetic variation WITHIN limits of kinds or forms of animals, or WITHIN limits of kinds or forms of plants.” After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone-the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone
@@blackatheist7369 yup it's ok. You have a right to do what you want by the life that you are living. But deep down try and be honest and know you just don't like to be told what to do
hi just a question. if all come from one common ancestor which was a single celled organism, so dna of all living organism has similarities with that ancient organism that lived 3 billion years ago. as ive read the oldest dna found is 416million years ago, so how scientist were able to conclude that we all evolve from that ancient organism that lived 3 billion year ago if scientist did not have that dna?
For starters I thought it was a great video. Explains evolution in understandable terms. I'm surprised at how many trolls commented on this video. I hope you're trolls anyway... otherwise you're deluded and clearly incorrect in face of the mass amount of evidence.
That's wonderfull for you. You might enjoy Chuck Missler on the Sciences of the Bible. One thing I notice is that people who deny God don't want to have personal accountability.
Alaina Reilly I'm not a Biologist. This isn't something I'm qualified to teach people. If you want to learn about the evidence I suggest you do some reading to understand what evolution is about. I suggest "talkorigins" it's an awesome website. Also I'm not sure what makes you think I deny God? there are plenty of people out there who believe in a god (whatever religion it may be) and still believe in Evolution.
@@Fwhiskey so which one of your ancestors do you believe was an ape? Or do you find that question disrespectful? I know for a fact not one of my ancestors is an ape. You should know that as well.
@@SmokeRiderSessions Found the forceful creationist! Humans and chimpanzees are related because they are in the same genus of primates. Chimpanzees are apes.
Hunter Egans there is evidence. evolution does happen. just not on a macro scale. God created a plethora of species and they diversified (like the finches) but He created man complex and unique as a separate masterpeice
Its just not possible. With the amount of time evolutionist believe some creatures are, land masses were not even close to where they are now, extinction events, extreme weather changes, yet the animal is unchanged for 10's of millions of years.
Hmm, so if I’m getting this correctly if my mother has one genotype for a really long neck and my father has the other. There’s a chance I can become a giraffe? Or do I have to marry another long necked individual and have my children fight over just out of reach apples until only the strongest and longest neck survives?! But what if they marry a normie? How long does that set me back; if hypothetically I wanted to see the efforts of my human-giraffe hybrid nation?
my dude this is not how it works.. bro what sso hard to understand your poouplation evovles thed escedantss and the descadnets and the enxt andthe enxt slowly fill the entire gene pool and chang ethe entire population sometimes this change cna be affected by naturals election which is absed on if you can get your geens tos urvive to the enxt generation the ones who had their genes succesfully enter the enxt one and survive is probably affected by lots of factors like anturals elections gene drift and others tuff but anturals election can work kinda lieka rtififical slection or intelligent sleection ig euss but isntead the creature survives to pass on its genes
as a reminder: Machines are always designed (and made). A design always requires a designer. And you can't design if you're not intelligent. This is the normal usage of the english language, but there are those out there who are trying to change the normal use of language in order to spread confusion and teach false logic. You must attempt to resist and hold on to the normal simple usage of language. My playlist "Can your educational system always be trusted?" may be of assistance there.
Read Icon of Evolution by Jonathan Wells a molecular biologist. All I see is evidence for micro evolution but no evidence of macro evolution. This pigeon experiment makes my point. Plus the chart that shows the so-called evolution of the horse has been debunked along with Haekel's embryo. If Homology is defined in terms of common ancestry then Homology can't be used for evidence for common ancestry because it would be circular reasoning. Read Icon of Evolution by Jonathan Wells a molecular biologist.
This is just wrong. We can see tons of evidence for evolution, whether you make up micro and macro labels or not. This is not an open question in science. That bus left in the 19th century, the evidence is overwhelming and it is not worth arguing about them.
It would not be circular reasoning, as our ancestral past does not rely on our current homology. Our DNA has changed from our ancestors to our current species. We will probably stop evolving now due to medicine and the lack of real-world predators. That in itself is enough evidence.
Are you suggesting a small change within a short time period of time, isn't going to escalate into a bigger change within a much much longer period of time?
"All those pigeons are all birds." You fail to understand the simple concept of tiny changes accumulating into large changes to the point where the original version and the new one are too detached to be grouped again. Look at society. It's evolved to become completely different from its original form. We don't line up with Muskets anymore, do we? Our idea of "Glorious Battle" is 100% different from our idea 200 years ago.
For one there is more evidence against Darwin's theory than for it, another thing is almost every biology textbook uses outdated and discredited experiments and sources. I agree that there are Creationists that may not always divest fully into the evidence for Darwinism, but on the same note there are many Darwinian-Evolutionists that reject the evidence set against his theory.
***** The same as your evidence for evolution, only perceived differently. Also, just a hint of LOGIC. that word may scare you, but logic is considered evidence.
Axel Jensen That's not evidence. That's a statement declaring that there is evidence. What exactly do you mean? What evidence are you referring to? How exactly do you think logic discredits evolution?
God damn I hate that one. It's a watch. Somebody dropped it. A watch is not a living creature. It doesn't have DNA to pass on. It's not a part of evolution. You don't think evolution is true? Fine then. What's your theory? How did all this come about?
In the 1970s, a group of Italian Wall Lizards were migrated to a foreign island. In the next approximately thirty years, they've exhibited observable change; for instance, although they were initially carnivorous, their stomachs adapted to digest grass and various other plants, the leading food source of said island. Not to mention, their heads have became much longer and thinner.
Ye, that is pretty neat. Altering body parts/digestive system to adapt is not unheard of at all and seems to happen over short periods of time. Observable changes like this is evidence that mutations have to happen for the lizard to survive, but the mutations themself where already in the lizards DNA, it only had to be turned "on". But it`s still a Lizard. My problem is the change of kinds, according to darvins beliefs. A change of kind had to happen pretty often to get so many distinct creature kinds. But there is no to little evidence for it. Im having a hard with this issue, researched alot but dont find anything that convince. No matter how you breed a dog its never going to turn into a cat..and even if you get it to look like a rat, its still a dog. Anyting that can shine a light on this, is appreciated.
I'll answer your question when you can give me a scientific descriptor of exactly what a "kind" is. That means specifications on exactly how something is classified into the category of "kind." Until that happens, there's no point in talking about it because you can just alter what you mean by "kind" until any evidence I provide doesn't meet your criteria.
Ok, to get a new kind, not just a new species, there has to be significant changes in an animal so distinct that it can not be in that FAMILY any more..look at the example below: The lion belongs to the following groups: Kingdom Animalia: (includes all animals) Phylum Chordata: (includes all vertebrate animals, as well as some other more primitive ones) Class Mammalia: (includes all mammals) Order Carnivora: (includes carnivorous mammals, from bears to raccoons to harbor seals) Family Felidae: (includes all cats) Genus: Panthera (includes the great roaring cats: lions, tigers, jaguars, and leopards) Species: leo (lions!) So the evidence may be the "micro" evolution of one particular kind until the "macro" evolution took place where it is no longer in that family anymore. If that makes sense.
chilli0n The best example I can think of is the evolution of whales from a land-dwelling, pig-like ancestor. We have the complete sequence of fossils of every major stage of this transition, showing how the family went from terrestrial, to semiaquatic, to fully aquatic, then becoming more and more adapted to their aquatic lifestyle. We don't have any examples that we've observed because we frankly haven't been watching long enough. We've seen speciation events in the past few centuries, but anything more profound than that takes too much time.
Well it is obvious from what you've just posted that you don't understand. So I think you need to engage the material. I wasn't trying to be funny or rude, it just looks like you haven't fully understood the theory of evolution through natural selection
Evolution is true based on these facts: 1. A small Horse eventually became a bigger horse. 2. Some birds in the Galapagos islands have different kinds of beaks. 3. The bones in your arms are laid out like the bones in a whale arm. 4. There are 3 kinds of turtles on the Galapagos islands. 5. Pigeons can breed into slightly weirder pigeons.
Axel Jensen no. Those are examples of evolution's work, and the first observations that lead to the theory. The fossil record, DNA tracing, observed processes, and correct predictions based on the principles are the proof.
The proof is in the correct predictions based on the principles and observed processes part. We have literally watched organisms evolve. Mostly in bacteria under lab conditions, but there are a couple of examples of complex, multicellular organisms showing all the signs of evolving exactly as we would expect. Add that to the massive piles of evidence found in the fossil records, DNA tracing, related physical and behavioral characteristics in family lines, and the reality quickly becomes apparent. Not to mention the mountains of evidence that point directly away from the idea of an Earth that was created all at once less than a few billion of years ago. And the most damning thing of all, the fact that each and every branch of science independently came up with the very same answers to those questions. Everyone involved in any field of science will tell you the same thing. The Universe is billions of years old, the Earth is a very few billion years younger than that, life began about a billion years after that, and the processes of evolution through natural selection lead to the present state of life as we know it. The fact that the only people arguing against it are the devoutly religious should tell you something. Perhaps the devoutly religious are less than impartial? And as I tell everyone in these discussions... None of that means that God doesn't exist. But if he does, it's obvious the his works are accomplished using the laws of physics, and the processes of evolution. I personally don't see why you guys don't see it. I see the evidence of God far clearer in the majesty of the Big Bang and the eloquence of Evolution through Deep Time than in the idea that he just wished everything into existence six odd thousand years age. Why would God be a hurry? Those desert nomads thousands of years ago tried their damndest to explain it, but they were not in possession of the facts. They got it wrong.
Axel Jensen go google Californian salamanders and educate yourself a little. There is living, OBSERVABLE proof for evolution RIGHT NOW, TODAY... its all there for you if you have the mental capacity to comprehend simple science. Hit me back when you've learned what the hell it is your talking shit about
Mo Knows Oh my God there is so much evidence for the diversity of life. You aren't showing me a salamander that has evolved from an amoeba. Species have never and will never change class or order. Hit me back with a real argument instead of baseless assertions you draw conclusions from.
The problem with the evidences presented in this video is that these are not evidences at all. He(the person in the video) talked about pigeons and variations in pigeons and after saying that he jumped into the conclusion that if given millions of years evolution took place. All scientists who believe in evolution do the same thing they talk about micro evolution and asks us to believe we came from rocks and dirt. In the pigeons example the different pigeons with different variation is still a bird not a dog. The DNA is similar yes it is God used same DNA code to make life on earth but the DNA code has its boundaries, a rock can never turn into a rat. Evolution is an idea for the people who don't want God to be God because they don't want to be under some one. Evolution teaches the fittest one wins the race.That is the idea made Hitler to think all other races are inferior and his aryan race should triumph and he killed many. Joseph stalin,pol pot and many tyrants religion is Evolution.Origin of species is their Bible, Darwin is their prophet. My God, the God of the heaven and earth is righteous. He never did anything wrong and never will. Jesus Christ the king of all the earth is going to come to the city near you, every shall see the glory of the coming king riding on the clouds. Repent and believe and be baptized in Christ and his Holy Spirit.
According to Bible God did not used the theory of evolution. Man was created in the image of God. We lost that image. We still trying to blur the image of man by saying we came from a rock or a soup. Our lives are valuable. Jesus Christ died for our sins. If we repent and believe and turn to God be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit and we follow Christ to be transformed into the image of Christ.
The things that you don't understand is that only living things evolve, therefore like you said rocks do not evolve, however things that reproduce can pass on their dna to their off-spring, this gives a chance for mutations to occur causing adaptations within a population.
brandon booker I understand evolution fairly well and can say without a doubt I believe every word he said so please stop be a dogmatic, closed-minded, ignorant hater of anyone who has a different opinion or belief than yours.
Speciation events have been observed- google "observed speciation". No longer missing links: Apidium Aegyptopithecus Proconsul Pierolapithecus Sahelanthropus tchadensis Ardipithecus Sahelanthropus Ardipithecus ramidus Ardipithecus kadabba Kenyanthropus platyops Australopithecus Arafensis Australopithecus garhi Australopithecus africanus Australopithecus deyiremeda Australopithecus sediba Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus bahrelghazali Paranthropus aethiopicus Paranthropus boisei Paranthropus robustus Orrorin tugenensis Homo gautengensis Homo rudolfensis Homo ergaster Homo naledi Homo tsaichangensis Homo sp. Altai Homo floresiensis Homo habilis Homo heidelbergensis Homo erectus Denisova hominin Homo neanderthalensis Homo rhodesiensis
There are problems with the horse evolution model. there have been fossils of both found in the same layer and the size of them doesn't mean it grew to modern size. there is big size differences in modern horses today. DNA is actually an amazingly complex system; how can it have arrived by natural processes? and then how did the system evolve that was able to interpret it in time to replicate it to pass it on before it died?
"DNA is actually an amazingly complex system; how can it have arrived by natural processes?" It's called Chemical Evolution, aka Abiogenesis. The chemistry is explainable.
Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.”
This video was really helpful. My class didn't have enough time to go into Evolution much, so this was great for me to get to know more about the topic.
Yeah, I especially liked the part where he showed how those pigeons turned into pigeons. And since pigeons turn into pigeons, it makes since they could turn into penguins, or goats, or pine trees too. (Let's see if you get the sarcasm.)
OkenAndMosh I don’t know… At 2:45: “so that’s a great piece of evidence. That if we could [create different pigeons from one kind of pigeon] in just hundreds of years using artificial selection, surely we could do this in nature using millions of years.” If you’re saying that he never meant to imply that pigeons change into other kinds of animals “using millions of years”, then he sure picked a funny title for his video. I thought another great piece of evidence was when he said that the fact whales, and birds, and humans all have bones proves we have common origins (6:30). I don’t know… My Ford, and Toyota, and lawn mower, and refrigerator, and the closet doors etc. all have nuts and bolts; but, I’m pretty sure they didn’t have to come from the same piece of steel. I don’t remember science being this stupid. But, what are you going to do? When you have to explain a stupid theory, you’re going to have to say some stupid things.
david mike There is really no need for facetiousness, personally I thought the pigeon part was a great piece of evidence, what's not to get? And your Ford, Toyota, and lawn mower are man-made machines and do not evolve.
OkenAndMosh Why not "facetiousness"? The whole video is supposed to be a joke isn't it? Isn't it? I hope it is, but maybe you're right; maybe he is serious. One word: "Yikes." If you had ever seen an early version of a Japanese pick-up--the ones with three wheels--you'd know that mine certainly has "evolved". Just like wolves have evolved into poodles. Heck, even Mitsubishi has evolved from Japanese fighter planes to family sedans...but that took intelligent design. Get it?
Adaptation is the most accurate explanation for this video. I know you guys know about climate change every single place on earth and the adaptation of animal to that climate. And I see in this video is just a same animals no changing of kind.
+seth lachem You are very ignorant. No insult intended, just blunt honesty. "Kind" has literally no meaning among scientists. The nomenclature of zoology is pretty complicated. Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Subfamily Genus Species In that order, life as we know it is categorized, with species being the most specific and kingdom being the least specific. Notice that "kind" is not among the list. If I told you the animal behind cage one was in the kingdom "Animalia", you would have a huge array of life forms to choose from. Maybe it's a dolphin, or maybe its an octopus. Perhaps it's a cheetah, or maybe even a T-rex! Now Imagine I told you that behind the cage is in the family "felidae". You could narrow the results down quite considerably. Maybe a housecat, or a lion. Perhaps a tiger or a leopard. Maybe a serval or a bobcat. Now imagine I narrow it even further to the genus "panthera" You have the choices of Lion, Tiger, Leopard, Jaguar and leopard. I can narrow it down even further to species level. Let's say the species is tiger. Could be bengal tiger, or maybe siberian tiger. Maybe it's the Javan tiger. So you see there is no clear line drawn among animals, and "kind" is less than meaningless in the classification system. The "kind" you speak of, from the bible, could be interpreted to mean species, family, genus, order, phylum, or even kingdom. You and many other creationists most likely mean it to represent "family". The cat family. The dog family. The whale family. The ant family. The list goes on. The only reason you prefer this interpretation is that you realize there is no physically possible way for 14 of every species of the millions of species on this planet of animal to fit on an ark that is only 500 feet long. Here is the kicker. Evolution is nothing more than adaptation. The words are truly synonyms. Evolution between species can take place in a couple of thousand years among macroscopic animals. Evolution between "order" or "class" will take longer. In short, the only thing that stops us from observing "changes in kind" as you so lovingly refer to it, is time. Luckily there is such a thing as the fossil record. In the fossil record we see the changes over the hundreds of millions of years.
+thetruepure2 Honestly I honestly like your explanation. but I only believe that evolution happen to animal only when human still not exist yet and that's my opinion (it's just my opinion no need to comment that). I love when people share their knowledge and believe. Freedom of speech.
where is the evidence for change in kinds? all of that evidence is called adaptation, people assumed and believe in evolution calling the people who believe in God blind faith, you are using blind faith here as well. i am not here to argue about god vs evolution, i am here to debate or listen to someone who can clarify this question, change in kinds from fish to reptiles or something of that sort.
There is no such scientific term as "kinds". That's just a term creationists use. What there really is are approximately 8 classifications of taxonomy in the living hierarchy that life evolves through over hundreds of thousands of years through the process of natural selection.
myoldvan119 you're a joke, you expect people to listen to this nonsense with no evidence....no fossils that show animals half fish/half land creature..nothing of the sort...and random mutation suggests we should be seeing people with 5 arms or random limbs but loe and behold, we see nothing of the sort...so again please bring some evidence or be quiet
in your wisdom Jesus you have created DNA. who is like you Jesus who has ever done what you have done. has any human ever created such a complex system like DNA . you alone God created life you can not hide your beauty from us your fingerprints are all over the place. your light shines though the darkness of evil . you are to good to me Jesus.
When I said "biology states," I meant the scientific consensus in the field of biology. "Consensus" means general agreement. Everybody knows that there are scientists that do not agree with what is taught, but they represent a minority in the scientific community, otherwise it wouldn't be called "consensus." Science in general tries to understand and describe the processes found in nature. If the existence of god was a fact, scientists would still try to understand nature. Nothing would change
Prove God ISNT a fact Prove spontaneous generation, which you believe is how the first cell originated Prove Christians are rarely scientists Don’t just write a response, site sources so that you’re arguments are valid (provided the source is credible and the study hasn’t been redacted)
Its very easy to prove god isn't a fact. No one has ever captured definitive evidence that he is real, and belief in god itself is different across all cultures. Not only is there no one single definition for god, but there is also no proof of any supernatural being existing in the first place. The entire religion itself is based off of an ancient roman cult. No one can prove that any history surrounding the religion is true or false, and there is no way of knowing if its basis is true or false either.
Sam Standard we can look at the ancient documents referencing God and determine their authenticity. The Bible is known to have accurate descriptions of Egypt, Assyria, and numerous other empires. There are also details in the Bible that would never have been there if it were made up, such as women being the first to discover Christ had risen (in ancient cultures this would have received severe backlash).
just because it has accurate accounts of different locations doesn’t mean that it’s not a work of fiction. Probably, the accuracy of the documents settings are purely to make it seem authentic
Sam Standard the level of deception that would be required to pull off a stunt like that would be immense. The Bible wasn’t written all at one time but is instead an accumulation of letters (specifically Paul), poems (specifically David’s Psalms), laws (Numbers, Deuteronomy), and historical narratives (the gospels, genesis, exodus, the prophets), and so on.
So the model that best fits this evidence is the biblical model where life was created 'according to its kind' (family). Therefore what we have is an orchard of trees, not just one single tree of life. Cattle breed cattle (bovine), cats breed cats (feline) dogs breed dogs (canine) birds breed birds (avian) etc etc. There is no evidence (apart from extrapolated imagination of evolutionists) that one kind of animal has evolved into another. There is tremendous variety within each kind as they adapt to their respective environments, but they remain locked into their genome of origin.. The horse example is a poor one. We have all the various sizes of horses living contemporansously today, just like we have different sizes of dogs or humans. You can stretch them into an imaginary line of size variation over imaginary time, but this is not science. If you take out all the imagination, and extrapolation, you are left with the biblical model of origins with adaptation.
Ever hear of DNA? Ever hear of all the times we directly observed evolution? Ever hear of all the transitional species we have identified? Ever hear of science?
@Ricahrd P'Brien DNA homology is PHILOSOPHICAL evidence. It rests on the assumption that a designing intelligence would not implement homologous DNA sequences in homologous species.
Don't let secular dogma prevent you from looking at all angles to determine the truth! I came here to investigate differing opinions and evaluate their evidence, true science. The evolutionary establishment doesn't want you to investigate they want you to blindly accept.
As scientist Chandra Wickramasinghe said: “There’s no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution, it was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since.” Anthropologist S. L. Washburn put it this way: “Everything in evolution is very, very speculative.” “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”-In Search of Deep Time-Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117 W. R. Thompson in his foreword to the centennial edition of Darwin’s The Origin of Species stated: “A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.” Dr. Karl Popper comments: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” Invertebrate zoologist Harold Coffin states: “Obviously much adaptation has occurred, but has this adaptive change actually caused evolutionary progression from one major category to another? The evidence from science does not support this kind of change.” Professor of natural science John Moore says: “There is absolutely no experimental evidence for any change of one animal form into another animal form; or for that matter, any change of one plant form into another plant form. The only evidence of change that can be classed properly as the result of sound scientific method is the evidence of genetic variation WITHIN limits of kinds or forms of animals, or WITHIN limits of kinds or forms of plants.”
Kizah Stehl This is analogous to, but even worse than, the "microevolution not macroevolution" argument I see plaguing internet forums. Also, Fly, Mo's just being obnoxious while contributing absolutely nothing, so don't even worry. Dumb people are capable of being mean too.
Most scientists really don't bother with the distinction, since the definition of Species in the first place has become somewhat subjective. "A group of organisms having many characteristics in common" - Yourscience Dictionary At what point does a population "microevolve" to the point where they stop "having many characteristics in common?" I could ask two different scientists, and they'd probably give me different answers, because "many characteristics in common" is hyper subjective.
You can select all the random stuff you want, their are still random. Mutations (accidents of dna replication) are kind of random, at least no evolutionist therory that i know claims otherwise. please correct me if I'm wrong
you're dumb its nto a random mutation it evovled froma simple very simple nervous system and they slowly got selected by anturals elections the traits that survived to the enxt generation lived and got ana dvantag e and the yslowly diversified into many types of roganisms who have brains and ones that do not obviously split way before enrvous systems evene xistsed
Chainezo Deathhunter As friendly advice to you, it only makes you appear very uneducated if you make statements like that. there is no question among historians that Jesus actually lived. the argument is whether or not he was who he said he was.
Chainezo Deathhunter I mean the biblical Jesus also. I don't mean they found some random guy named Jesus. there are very few, if any, historians that would suggest that the Jesus that is talked about in the bible never walked the earth. only that the miracles and certain events do not have the proof needed but the fact that he was a real human being is not up for debate
That's why we date our calendar from the time of Jesus. If evolution happened, there would be evidence all around us. The THEORY of evolution is put forth by those who WANT it to be true, because they don't WANT to believe God. So, they invent something that will hopefully mask their lack of faith. Show me, from the evidence, how the anal fin cartilage of a fish became the full-blown pelvis of a lizard.
Well it's pretty much common sense if you think about it. Evolution still happens today (such as bacteria with immunity to antibiotics becoming selected for these traits and reproducing, which causes antibiotic-resistant bacteria), so why would we think that the evidence for evolution is a lie? Natural selection is so obviously rational and mutations DO occur, so why would evolution not be possible?
Science is never absolute. Unlike creationists, we don't cherry pick what to "believe" in (science isn't based on faith, but facts). Science grows by building on itself and being objective. All you're doing is taking what one scientist said and using it to tear down tons of evidence without providing evidence of your own. Evolution isn't like in Pokemon, you don't go from organism to the next like that. Evolution is defined as the changes in allele frequencies over time. This leads to speciation when you include a mechanism by which these alleles change: natural selection. Let me go through how vertebrates have evolved: Skipping forward to chordates, such as amphioxus and lancelots, we see that all chordates share five characters: five pharyngeal slits, an endostyle, a post-anal muscularized tail, a notochord, and a single hollow dorsal nerve cord. As these lineages all split due to populations splitting and having different selective pressures, we get more derived vertebrates. How? Look up what a whole genome duplication is. There is a gene called a HOX gene, which is highly conserved and plays a pivotal role in embryological development and as it has been duplicated various times throughout vertebrate history, it has led to the sudden explosion in diversity such as limbs. Since HOX genes are there to provide their original functions, you now have an extra one that is free to take on a new function. Now as the notochord becomes obsolete in vertebrates, we see it in early stages of embryological development (proving it was once coded for by our DNA, but new DNA codes for it to be replaced by a bony spinal column) before it is encased by the neural plate ectoderm and ossified into the spinal column in bony fish. Going back a little before bony fish, early jawless fishes evolved, they had a dermal armor exoskeleton, that as they use the muscles around their first gill arch (gill arches are derived from the ancestral pharyngeal slits, now encompassed by cartilage bars) to move their mouth as they suction feed. Natural selection favored the fishes that were better able to control their buccal volume and also the ones with the dermal projections out the mouth until eventually, a separate lineage of fish with jaws and proto-teeth evolved. Both of these types of fish lived for millions of years before an extinction event killed off the jawless fishes (placoderms). This is just the tip of the iceberg for vertebrates. Evolution only works on what is already there. It isn't magical Digimon or Pokemon evolution.
@@Armando7654 No one is arguing about science. The point is there is a lot of over reaching in science to keep a certain narrative. Every decade, evolutionist keep pushing back the time it took animals to evolve, couple 100 million years at a time. Eventually evolution is going to take longer than how old the earth is. No one is saying the work these people do are not important, but also confirming that their hypothesis was not correct is also important. But how many scientist disprove their hypothesis but never release the information because it would go against the narrative.
Are you intentionally disregarding the experiments done on bacteria, for example the Lenski experiments on e. coli? In those experiments we can clearly see that the different populations of bacteria evolve independently and in some cases reach the same result, for example several populations evolved into using a different food source than the "normal" e. coli populations. So they are indeed evolving.
"Useless" mutations might hitch a ride in individuals with advantageous mutations so to speak, but having useless body parts as you put it would very likely be a disadvantage, using more energy to build and maintain them etc. So individuals with these body parts will probably have a harder time surviving and reproducing than individuals that are more "streamlined".
Yes, species are evolving continually, but a human lifespan wouldn't be enough to see any significant change. You're talking like everything has just "stopped" evolving, simply based on the fact that you are unable to see it with your own eyes.
You still have not shown 1 example from 1 kind of animal changing to another kind. The pigeon went from a pigeon to a pigeon. The tortoise went from being a tortoise to a tortoise. The horse example first you must realize that you cannot prove those bones had any children. secondly it is still the same kind of animal. Oh and cars cannot eat bats.
As The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.”
I got a question some christian said something about this subject... He said that mutations are speciation and or adaptation. Those are separate from evolution. Like evolution is a total change in kind of animal. Like chicken to T-Rex. Yet we cannot observe this. Or test this. And according to the scientific theory things must be testible and observable. And he said evolution isn't but, but adaptation and speciation is. SO help me out guys. Whats the truth?
Sure. Speciation is real. And so is adaptation. But, a total change in a mind of animal. We don't have evidence for that. We just say it's because of millions of years. But thats not observable. We can't watch them change into another kind of animal.
Considering that there exists no single rational reason why we should believe in a Creator, no, similar bone structure does not hint towards a common creator.
Hm Grraarrpffrzz Even Darwin admitted that the human eye had to be made by a creator. You seem to only know what the textbooks conveniently decided to tell you. You might want to read the Origin of Species yourself. You will find that by now Darwin himself disproved his tired old theory. It's been over 150 years and zero transitional Species have been found. Therefore in his own words his theory is false!!!
Well, I know in chapter 6 he says: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But I know you can't be referring to that, because you've implied that you have read the book, so presumably you'd know that he then goes on to explain in some detail exactly how the eye could develop completely naturally and without the need of a creator. So I was wondering if there was somewhere else he claimed that it 'had to be made by a creator'? Perhaps in something written long before Origin of Species, and before he realised that indeed it didn't need a creator?
Well, logically, one cannot go from one genus to another instantaneously. I can, however, link you to interesting info of the evolution through the accumulated slight changes within an order/family. For example, the transition from Homo habilis to Homo erectus to Homo heidelbergensis. It's not possible to go from a cat to a dog, but can slowly make a transition from a common ancestor into a different class/order/family/genus/species.
In the case of living organisms, evolution means the "change" (whether for better, worse or neither) of particular traits in worldly species to enable them to adjust to our changing environment in order to survive. Therefore, why would a species that has been fossilized over 100,000,000 years ago (such as a coelacanth) have to "transition" or "evolve" when they're still alive today and no different?
First of all, no, evolution IS change for the better in terms of fitness. You're thinking of mutations. Mutation is random, could be better, worse, or neutral, Once you apply natural selection, you get evolution. A coelacanth is NOT in the exact same form as it was 100,000,000 years ago, that's impossible. It could be highly conserved, meaning that it's method of survival and reproduction was so effective that the vast majority of mutations would only be detrimental. Or perhaps it existed in a very static environment. You also have to remember that 99.9% of all species are extinct today. Just because you can point out very large exception, it doesn't change that the overwhelming majority of all life has been superseded by better-adapted species.
metaitachi The reason I said evolution is to change either for the better, worse or neither is because there appears to be conflicting "assumptions" among evolutionists as to which idea is right. You just so happen to fall into the group that believes it's solely for the "better." Anyhow, based upon definitive and observable comparisons of coelacanth fossils from over 100 mya with living coelacanths of today, there's virtually NO difference. Keep in mind that this "fact" is based off of definitive, observable and detailed scrutiny, which is absolutely required to qualify something as "truly" scientific." Also, if you'll notice the second sentence of your last paragraph after claiming that a coelacanths stasis is impossible, you began to justify it by saying "It could be," which means you've made nothing more than an "assumption." You then continued on "guessing" by saying, "Or 'perhaps' it existed in a very static environment." This has 2 problems: 1) It is nothing more than an "assumption" as evidenced by you using the word "perhaps." 2) You're claiming that the coelacanths environment (along with the prehistoric environments of all of the other living fossils of today -www.creationwise.com/code/living_fossils.asp ) managed to dodge 3 catastrophic, worldwide, environmental events (such as the global, asteroid and volcanic occurrences which caused enormous extinction), along with more than several, worldwide ice ages. In addition to that, since you're willing to use "uncertain" probabilities to make a case (which is far from science), wouldn't it be highly improbable that all of the living fossils we have today lived in environments which managed to dodge 3 massive, worldwide, catastrophic events and more than several ice ages (according to the speculation of evolution obviously)? Therefore, since it's highly improbable (which is a long way off from proving true and definitive science), according to the theory of evolutions "imagined" and uncertain environmental scenario, doesn't that make your assumption highly unworthy of consideration?
GSD55 No there are misconceptions over terminology. Evolution is the result of mutations and natural selection. A population will not evolve into a less 'fit' population because natural selection is acting against them. Honestly, I used uncertainty because I am neither a coelacanth expert of interested in systematically proving some guys on youtube wrong. I don't see what your point is by the living fossils surviving. To my knowledge, there are very few living fossils out there due to how the vast majority of species WERE wiped out by those events. Here is what I found on wikipedia regarding coelacanths: "It should be noted that several recent studies pointed out that the morphological conservatism of coelacanths is a myth that is not supported by actual paleontological data." And here regarding living fossils "Note that just because a living fossil is a surviving representative of an archaic lineage does not necessarily require that it retains all of the "primitive" features (plesiomorphies) of the lineage it is descended from". It sounds like living fossils is a relatively ambiguous term (it is referred to as a non-scientific term), there are not many of them (which makes sense given that catastrophic events have wiped out the majority, but not all). Going through the wikipedia page, it addresses that the idea that coelacanths have stopped evolving has been debunked and is not a valid view anymore. Again, I don't know much about coelacanths, but wikipedia tends to be a good place to start. Also, if you believe in massive extinction events, doesn't evolution have to be true? Otherwise, how can the planet recover from such a loss in biodiversity?
metaitachi Although I personally agree that the true definition of evolution is to evolve for the better, you said the following in regards to the definition of evolution, "No there are misconceptions over terminology." Doesn't a person who has a misconception about an idea that differs from another's view put them into a different group or category? Secondly, I do what I do on youtube and anywhere else that may present itself as an opportunity to lead people towards the knowledge of there being a God because ultimately, that's all that's important after we die. Believe me, we're going to be dead for much longer than we are alive. Whether you believe it right now or not, evolution is a lie from the devil which causes people to either lose their faith in God, or to not put their faith in him at all. This is Satan's ultimate purpose for the lies we have been and are being fed through our schools text books. To answer your question, I do "not" believe in massive extinction events. I believe the earth is somewhere around 6,000 years old. Also, I prefer to explain myself in relation to what evolutionists already believe to bring them closer to the Truth, which I belive will cause as little friction as possible. Lastly, despite there being definitive, observable evidence for the stasis of species through fossil comparisons with today's living organisms, everything you have provided about fossils "not necessarily" having maintained their total anatomy is still nothing more than a grand speculation because there is NO reason to "assume" such a thing after having made definitive comparisons, no matter where you've gathered your information and it still does not answer how living fossils, prehistoric environments managed to dodge 3 of the worlds major environmental disasters and ice age events (If they indeed did occur, which there is no definitive evidence to prove it). Therefore, since you're willing to use "uncertain" probabilities to make a case (which is far from science), wouldn't it be highly improbable that all of the living fossils we have today lived in environments which managed to dodge 3 massive, worldwide, catastrophic events and more than several ice ages (according to the speculation of evolution obviously)? Additionally, since it's highly improbable (which is a long way off from proving true and definitive science), according to the theory of evolutions "imagined" and uncertain environmental scenario, doesn't that make the assumption evolution is pushing highly unworthy of consideration?
metaitachi Before you get on your way, I'd just like you to know that if you ever decide to acknowledge that you're wrong and that you'd like to get right with God, the Bible says the following: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, that whoever believes in Jesus will not perish but have eternal life." - John 3: 16 "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, you will be saved." - Romans 10: 9 "All who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus will be saved." - Romans 10: 13 After you've done that, the Gods Word promises that He "will never leave you nor forsake you." - Hebrews 13: 5 You'll have a friend for life and all throughout eternity, "definitively" who knows you better than you know yourself. So don't be afraid to be honest with him about everything. After you've accepted Jesus into your heart, be sure to tell as many people as you possibly can (including all of your loved ones) about how to get saved and be sure to join a Christian Church to grow in your relationship and understanding of God. God Bless
That makes perfectly reasonable sense and I thank you for your response. i still wonder why though that the previous evolutions of man aren't still in existence, for example, the theory of evolution suggests that all life came from single celled eukaryotic organisms which evolved to new cells which became animals, but yet even though the original cells evolved, they still exist today along with all of it's other progressive evolutionary states. So if this is the case, why aren't the original
You mean to say that you creationists (not sure why you put quotation marks around yourself there) always try to cram science into some type of explanation that can be made to conform to some part of The Bible myths. Evolution is proven again and again and again and has withstood any challenges to its veracity and it is one of the most solidly proven scientific theories. The only reason many christians don't like it is because they would rather have been created in God's image than evolved.
You don't see that there have to be more instinctions than extinctions in order to increase the diversity of the animal kingdom. The diversity is so huge that species should be evolving continually and significantly. It's not just invisible DNA mutations. There should be new limb development and modes of transportation. Why wouldn't 1500 generations of microscopically observed fruit flies develop one constructive mutation in the last 150 years? Random mutations are destructive.
Charles Darwin on his deathbed said that he was wrong and God is real. Along with most athiests on their deathbed. How many stories are there about athiests on there deathbed saying they were wrong? Millions. Why is this? Because its easier to go through life to believe there's no God, but deep down, no matter how hard anyone tries to deny it, everyone knows God is real. And most everyone confesses on their deathbed because they have nothing else to lose. Life is already over so now they realize
you're just a big liar and watch kent hovind oviously sicne you use kind and you don't even know what a mkind is stop babbling in a cryptic language and grow up little kiddo
When I hear somebody say there is no proof for God when they believe life began in an explosion with no cause, and then using adaptation as an example of evolution
1) There is no proof for God. If there is proof, show it please. 2) The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. Please educate yourself. 3) Nobody but Creationists said that the Big Bang had no cause. Please educate yourself. 4) Please explain to me what you think is the difference between adaption and evolution, and explain the diversity of species without evolution. Thanks.
@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 There is proof of your free will to deny him - There is proof of the Holy Bible -. There are 12 testified accounts most that had horrible deaths and wouldn't deny him as God in the flesh - Tons of evidence of a young earth - microscopic evidence that life is way more complex then a single cell was thought - Common Designer Is what it looks like - life is made perfect for humans . Money is the root of all evil - if you loved God and loved your neighbor this world would be amazing. - alot of science and prophecy in the book that has been recently made by scientific research ... Ugh and that's just answering 1)
@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 The Big Bang Wasn't Anything... & But life is so perfect and harmony if you see it for what it is .. your on a ball of water next to a ball of fire spinning through space and able to have emotion and love and feelings ... Everything but adaptation goes against scientific laws
@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 3) ughhh not that many people even still believe in a big bang... No one was there and it never happened and it changes more then anything when they try and date it ... Lol
@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 4) watch Kent Hovind a creations seminars or college courses... Because I can't type books here.. but hope you do and question what these teachers are teaching... Because I looked at both sides and any intellectual intelligent human would!
he looks like if someone turned a sims character into a man named DANIEL and then turned him into a sad bird that wants a cookie hyped it up on melatonin and then gave it glasses
1. Nobody is denying the existence of god. Biology only states that you don't need god. 2. I think you agree with me that science and religion both try to know things. To say "you know" means that you can support your knowledge. You have to give reasons. Everything is credulity. I don't think you wanna be called credulous. This is why we have science. Science is a system that leads to knowledge-inevitably. Man is wrong, but the system of science does still work cause mistakes eventually show up
I'm somewhat agnostic on the theory of evolution. The observation of finches and tortoises show good evidence for small scale evolution within a population. The fossil record of the horses is interesting but couldn't it be that some of those "pre-modern" horses are just other species that went extinct? The DNA evidence I guess seems to be the most compelling, but just because organisms have genetic similarities does this necessarily mean they evolved from a common ancestor? The other thing I find puzzling is that all the biodiversity apparently resulted from mutations. Especially if we believe the bacteria, mammal, plant, etc all ultimately arose from that common ancestor. Also would the 4 billion old timespan of the earth provide sufficient time for all these changes to occur (assuming they were via random mutations)? While it is true that we obtain more and more fossils over the years and discover similarities in genetics, does this necessarily allow us to conclude that we all simply descended from one common ancestor? Some additional light on these matters would be helpful
You can't be agnostic about a scientific theory. Agnostic means we have no knowledge, and that's false. We have TONS of knowledge. talkorigins.com/comdesc
Agnostic doesn't mean we have no knowledge it means that we are not positively affirming or disaffirming a truth claim. But the term agnostic is usually used in regards to God, so I guess the word I should have used is undecided. Evolution is a scientific theory but is not one that can be tested as nicely in real time. Most of the evidence we have for evolution are discoveries of structural/genetic/functional similarities between organisms which suggest Common Descent. The only aspect of evolution we can observe in real time is microevolutionary change; the large scale macroevolutionary changes that are hypothesized aren't however as clear. And the idea that all the biodiversity and speciation arose from a single progenitor organism via billions of years of random mutations is very hard to conceive.
I have a question that I've been wondering about for a while, I am a occultist, I also know that evolution is real to, I will not deny that, but based on observation i wonder about two things... 1) if humans evolved from monkeys and had different stages of development, such as Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien, Homo Habilis. Then why is it that only Humans and apes exist, why don't the latter three not exist anymore? aren't they a seperate species? Why did they just go extinct, or stop evolving and
Stalactites do not take millions of years! Lead-zinc mine at Mt Isa Late 1987 at level 5 workings in the lead-zinc mine at Mt Isa, in north-western Queensland, Australia. At that time, the mine itself was only about 55 years old, which therefore is the absolute maximum age for all these stalactites. See more on Creation.com
The examples in your presentation of the turtles, horses, etc are of "microevolution" / speciation / adaptation. You failed to show any examples of "macroevolution".
How do Mutations and mistakes happen. How does similarity prove mutation. Cars that are engineered are similar too. Seems like the same assumptions and no proof at all. The animals observed all stayed the same kind. Turtles are turtles. Finches are still finches.
People whose bio teachers sent them here
⬇️
*Cough* Me
whose*
me
No i wanst
Facts
Intro: 0:00
Biogeography: 2:55
Fossils: 5:11
Homologies: 6:04
DNA: 7:04
you saved my life
I love you
tysm 🥲
thank youu
ya boy such a g always says "and i hope that's helpful" at the end of every video, yes it is mr. andersen we love you
I gotta thank you. You saved me in physics, microbiology/physiology and now evolution. Bless your soul.
Also on a side note, did you evolve from Hank Green?
Kirill Kondrachov lol I know, he looks like him!
Noooo they don’t look same but maybe cousins
Don't you mean: "Did you share a common ancestor with Hank Green?"
u meAn you came from RoCks? and don't use 'Bless' as it contradicts ur beliEfs. Get it right troll.
When he doesn't believe in the existence of a soul, how can you bless him??? He is the soul, not his body. And he does not know it
Okay. This is an educational video. Not a video for argument. I watched this video to LEARN for a HOMEWORK assignment. Does the professor care if you believe in god or evolution or whatever. No. So if you'll excuse me, I have some homework to do.
@@acandoattitude3140 don't disrespect our king. at least he doesn't fill his video unnecessary jokes like crashcourse guy.
same here doing homework gotta big test coming up this guy is helpful
Gen Evieve did you just get mad at a RUclips channel for having comedy?
The fact you replied to this just adds to the list of arguments. If you are here to learn and do homework, why are you in the comment section?
Why is the purpose of education if you only care about doing school assignments instead of understanding and knowing your lessons.
You just taught me more in 13 minutes than my biology teacher could ever teach me in a lifetime. Thank you and keep up the good work!
Yes you tell a big lie and people will believe more than a small lie :) ... Watch Kent Hovind creation Seminar for real science evidence and proof of common designer
@@ilovefunfilms😂
live your sad life.
when thousands of scientists are telling lies, but you, a nobody, someone who doesn't understand sh*t about anything, with zero knowledge of anything, is telling the truth.
@@ilovefunfilms Evolution is a bunch of worthless crap in my opinion. God Rules!
No argumentative stuff here... I just really like the way this man says pigeon.
So you like that he says pigeon in the most normal way anyone could say it
See "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution" Fascinating. The alleged mechanism for common ancestry is ludicrous.
The "co-discovery" between Darwin and Wallace reminds me of Leibniz and Newton in regards to calculus.
pippin n jordan
Jimmy and Jackson
Also on a side note, were those different finches Darwin found on the islands different species as a result of the natural selection? Like would it be possible to bring different island finches together and have them breed? They could only be considered a different species if the finches were unable to breed with those on the other island.
An inability to breed could also be caused by geological barriers and thus could be technically another species. But generally, we tend to go by the ability to successfully breed under natural conditions.
The layperson science denier comments on here are funny. They are why the other developed countries in the world laugh at us.
Why can't evolution and science go hand in hand? Everyone here is either totally against science. or totally atheist. What if... we just took a look at the evidence, and said that evolution exists... however... who started the evolution going?
★ “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in a Letter to Asa Gray June 18, 1857) ★
Nothing's changed in that regard:
Anthropologist S. L. Washburn put it this way: “Everything in evolution is very, very speculative.”
As scientist Chandra Wickramasinghe said: “There’s no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution, it was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since.”
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”-In Search of Deep Time-Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117
W. R. Thompson in his foreword to the centennial edition of Darwin’s The Origin of Species stated: “A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.”
Dr. Karl Popper comments: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”
“The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life. No fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution.” -- Order: In Life, by Edmund Samuel, p. 120
Invertebrate zoologist Harold Coffin states: “Obviously much adaptation has occurred, but has this adaptive change actually caused evolutionary progression from one major category to another? The evidence from science does not support this kind of change.”
Professor of natural science John Moore says: “There is absolutely no experimental evidence for any change of one animal form into another animal form; or for that matter, any change of one plant form into another plant form. The only evidence of change that can be classed properly as the result of sound scientific method is the evidence of genetic variation WITHIN limits of kinds or forms of animals, or WITHIN limits of kinds or forms of plants.”
After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone-the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone
Makes learning actually interesting and really helps in class
Why I cannot share web page?
Thanks,
This was out together very well.Good job
Jesus life love ministries .. really? There was no death before sin. Learn real science
@@blackatheist7369 yup it's ok. You have a right to do what you want by the life that you are living. But deep down try and be honest and know you just don't like to be told what to do
@@blackatheist7369 what you idolize in life and what moves you is what you serve.
@@ilovefunfilms there absolutely was death before humans evolved.
1) geo biography
2) fossils
3) homology
4) dna
hi just a question. if all come from one common ancestor which was a single celled organism, so dna of all living organism has similarities with that ancient organism that lived 3 billion years ago. as ive read the oldest dna found is 416million years ago, so how scientist were able to conclude that we all evolve from that ancient organism that lived 3 billion year ago if scientist did not have that dna?
+homer guerrero Do you know human share 50% of their DNA with a banana .
there are 3 proofs, geological, chemical and molecular
@@ankitmehrotraTheHitchhiker "share" is metaphysical misapplication not science
What the heck is that weird pigeon top middle at 2:35?
Bob Bobby still just a pigeon
For starters I thought it was a great video. Explains evolution in understandable terms. I'm surprised at how many trolls commented on this video. I hope you're trolls anyway... otherwise you're deluded and clearly incorrect in face of the mass amount of evidence.
WHAT evidence?
That's wonderfull for you. You might enjoy Chuck Missler on the Sciences of the Bible. One thing I notice is that people who deny God don't want to have personal accountability.
Alaina Reilly I'm not a Biologist. This isn't something I'm qualified to teach people. If you want to learn about the evidence I suggest you do some reading to understand what evolution is about. I suggest "talkorigins" it's an awesome website. Also I'm not sure what makes you think I deny God? there are plenty of people out there who believe in a god (whatever religion it may be) and still believe in Evolution.
@@Fwhiskey so which one of your ancestors do you believe was an ape? Or do you find that question disrespectful? I know for a fact not one of my ancestors is an ape. You should know that as well.
@@SmokeRiderSessions Found the forceful creationist! Humans and chimpanzees are related because they are in the same genus of primates. Chimpanzees are apes.
Reminder: this channel is "Bozeman Science," not "Bozeman Theology." If someone doesn't know what Science is, follow this link: The Scientific Method
I like how a lot of people say "There is no Evidence for evolution" while believing in god
I like how a lot of people say "There is no Evidence for God" while believing in Evolution.
But there's evidence of Evolution, meanwhile there's no evidence of God? Reversing the words doesn't create a counterargument.
Hunter Egans there is evidence. evolution does happen. just not on a macro scale. God created a plethora of species and they diversified (like the finches) but He created man complex and unique as a separate masterpeice
Hunter Egans look around. there is aa lot of evidence for God. Can science explain miracles?
Alejandro Espejo Uhhhh, please don't pass on your genes for the sake of the human race
Just clarifying. A change of environment is needed to produce radical changes. Many species stay static for millions of years.
Its just not possible. With the amount of time evolutionist believe some creatures are, land masses were not even close to where they are now, extinction events, extreme weather changes, yet the animal is unchanged for 10's of millions of years.
So, you beLIEve god did it all? So say the creatards and godlodytes.
So you believe the universe came from nothing says evolutionatard.
Kidd Zaff
so you believe god came from where exactly?
Dean Isaacs Your dumb x'D
Kidd Zaff lol you're so fucking stupid, no one claims the universe came from nothing XD
aaronq so tell me where did the universe come from?
hey that new sound whenever you like something in youtube is weird huh?
Hmm, so if I’m getting this correctly if my mother has one genotype for a really long neck and my father has the other. There’s a chance I can become a giraffe? Or do I have to marry another long necked individual and have my children fight over just out of reach apples until only the strongest and longest neck survives?! But what if they marry a normie? How long does that set me back; if hypothetically I wanted to see the efforts of my human-giraffe hybrid nation?
that's pokemon evolution.
Yes, you have it wrong, clearly.
my dude this is not how it works.. bro what sso hard to understand your poouplation evovles thed escedantss and the descadnets and the enxt andthe enxt slowly fill the entire gene pool and chang ethe entire population sometimes this change cna be affected by naturals election which is absed on if you can get your geens tos urvive to the enxt generation the ones who had their genes succesfully enter the enxt one and survive is probably affected by lots of factors like anturals elections gene drift and others tuff but anturals election can work kinda lieka rtififical slection or intelligent sleection ig euss but isntead the creature survives to pass on its genes
as a reminder:
Machines are always designed (and made). A design always requires a designer. And you can't design if you're not intelligent. This is the normal usage of the english language, but there are those out there who are trying to change the normal use of language in order to spread confusion and teach false logic. You must attempt to resist and hold on to the normal simple usage of language. My playlist "Can your educational system always be trusted?" may be of assistance there.
Couldn't have said it better than me
Read Icon of Evolution by Jonathan Wells a molecular biologist. All I see is evidence for micro evolution but no evidence of macro evolution. This pigeon experiment makes my point. Plus the chart that shows the so-called evolution of the horse has been debunked along with Haekel's embryo. If Homology is defined in terms of common ancestry then Homology can't be used for evidence for common ancestry because it would be circular reasoning. Read Icon of Evolution by Jonathan Wells a molecular biologist.
This is just wrong. We can see tons of evidence for evolution, whether you make up micro and macro labels or not. This is not an open question in science. That bus left in the 19th century, the evidence is overwhelming and it is not worth arguing about them.
Couldn't agree more mate, but no Evolutionist wants to hear it, so they don't. Sad ignorance really..
It would not be circular reasoning, as our ancestral past does not rely on our current homology. Our DNA has changed from our ancestors to our current species. We will probably stop evolving now due to medicine and the lack of real-world predators. That in itself is enough evidence.
Are you suggesting a small change within a short time period of time, isn't going to escalate into a bigger change within a much much longer period of time?
Yes there is. Have you yet to open a biology text?
"All those pigeons are all birds."
You fail to understand the simple concept of tiny changes accumulating into large changes to the point where the original version and the new one are too detached to be grouped again.
Look at society. It's evolved to become completely different from its original form. We don't line up with Muskets anymore, do we? Our idea of "Glorious Battle" is 100% different from our idea 200 years ago.
These things are not comparable.
ii cou'nt understand what have u said in the end
i count smart ass
I do not Understand why creationists won't admit why evolution is true plz answer
Creationists
For one there is more evidence against Darwin's theory than for it, another thing is almost every biology textbook uses outdated and discredited experiments and sources. I agree that there are Creationists that may not always divest fully into the evidence for Darwinism, but on the same note there are many Darwinian-Evolutionists that reject the evidence set against his theory.
*****
The same as your evidence for evolution, only perceived differently. Also, just a hint of LOGIC. that word may scare you, but logic is considered evidence.
Axel Jensen That's not evidence. That's a statement declaring that there is evidence. What exactly do you mean? What evidence are you referring to?
How exactly do you think logic discredits evolution?
zachary939 If you find a watch on the ground, how did it get there?
God damn I hate that one.
It's a watch.
Somebody dropped it.
A watch is not a living creature. It doesn't have DNA to pass on. It's not a part of evolution.
You don't think evolution is true? Fine then. What's your theory? How did all this come about?
Any changes of kinds going on? Anyone?
In the 1970s, a group of Italian Wall Lizards were migrated to a foreign island. In the next approximately thirty years, they've exhibited observable change; for instance, although they were initially carnivorous, their stomachs adapted to digest grass and various other plants, the leading food source of said island. Not to mention, their heads have became much longer and thinner.
Ye, that is pretty neat. Altering body parts/digestive system to adapt is not unheard of at all and seems to happen
over short periods of time. Observable changes like this is evidence that mutations have to happen for the lizard to survive, but the mutations themself where already in the lizards DNA, it only had to be turned "on". But it`s still a Lizard. My problem is the change of kinds, according to darvins beliefs. A change of kind had to happen pretty often to get so many distinct creature kinds. But there is no to little evidence for it. Im having a hard with this issue, researched alot but dont find anything that convince.
No matter how you breed a dog its never going to turn into a cat..and even if you get it to look like a rat, its still a dog. Anyting that can shine a light on this, is appreciated.
I'll answer your question when you can give me a scientific descriptor of exactly what a "kind" is. That means specifications on exactly how something is classified into the category of "kind." Until that happens, there's no point in talking about it because you can just alter what you mean by "kind" until any evidence I provide doesn't meet your criteria.
Ok, to get a new kind, not just a new species, there has to be significant changes in an animal so distinct that it can not be in that FAMILY any more..look at the example below:
The lion belongs to the following groups:
Kingdom Animalia: (includes all animals)
Phylum Chordata: (includes all vertebrate animals, as well as some other more primitive ones)
Class Mammalia: (includes all mammals)
Order Carnivora: (includes carnivorous mammals, from bears to raccoons to harbor seals)
Family Felidae: (includes all cats)
Genus: Panthera (includes the great roaring cats: lions, tigers, jaguars, and leopards)
Species: leo (lions!)
So the evidence may be the "micro" evolution of one particular kind until the "macro" evolution took place where it is no longer in that family anymore. If that makes sense.
chilli0n The best example I can think of is the evolution of whales from a land-dwelling, pig-like ancestor. We have the complete sequence of fossils of every major stage of this transition, showing how the family went from terrestrial, to semiaquatic, to fully aquatic, then becoming more and more adapted to their aquatic lifestyle. We don't have any examples that we've observed because we frankly haven't been watching long enough. We've seen speciation events in the past few centuries, but anything more profound than that takes too much time.
Anyone else having to watch this because school is canceled due to corona virus?
4WeirdW Yeah texas schools are shut down
@@Four_doors Same goes for Maryland
Well it is obvious from what you've just posted that you don't understand.
So I think you need to engage the material.
I wasn't trying to be funny or rude, it just looks like you haven't fully understood the theory of evolution through natural selection
Evolution is true based on these facts:
1. A small Horse eventually became a bigger horse.
2. Some birds in the Galapagos islands have different kinds of beaks.
3. The bones in your arms are laid out like the bones in a whale arm.
4. There are 3 kinds of turtles on the Galapagos islands.
5. Pigeons can breed into slightly weirder pigeons.
Axel Jensen no. Those are examples of evolution's work, and the first observations that lead to the theory.
The fossil record, DNA tracing, observed processes, and correct predictions based on the principles are the proof.
zachary939 there is no proof, just evidence, don't use words you don't understand
The proof is in the correct predictions based on the principles and observed processes part.
We have literally watched organisms evolve. Mostly in bacteria under lab conditions, but there are a couple of examples of complex, multicellular organisms showing all the signs of evolving exactly as we would expect.
Add that to the massive piles of evidence found in the fossil records, DNA tracing, related physical and behavioral characteristics in family lines, and the reality quickly becomes apparent.
Not to mention the mountains of evidence that point directly away from the idea of an Earth that was created all at once less than a few billion of years ago.
And the most damning thing of all, the fact that each and every branch of science independently came up with the very same answers to those questions.
Everyone involved in any field of science will tell you the same thing. The Universe is billions of years old, the Earth is a very few billion years younger than that, life began about a billion years after that, and the processes of evolution through natural selection lead to the present state of life as we know it.
The fact that the only people arguing against it are the devoutly religious should tell you something. Perhaps the devoutly religious are less than impartial?
And as I tell everyone in these discussions... None of that means that God doesn't exist. But if he does, it's obvious the his works are accomplished using the laws of physics, and the processes of evolution.
I personally don't see why you guys don't see it.
I see the evidence of God far clearer in the majesty of the Big Bang and the eloquence of Evolution through Deep Time than in the idea that he just wished everything into existence six odd thousand years age. Why would God be a hurry?
Those desert nomads thousands of years ago tried their damndest to explain it, but they were not in possession of the facts. They got it wrong.
Axel Jensen go google Californian salamanders and educate yourself a little. There is living, OBSERVABLE
proof for evolution RIGHT NOW, TODAY... its all there for you if you have the mental capacity to
comprehend simple science. Hit me back when you've learned what the hell it is your talking shit about
Mo Knows Oh my God there is so much evidence for the diversity of life. You aren't showing me a salamander that has evolved from an amoeba. Species have never and will never change class or order. Hit me back with a real argument instead of baseless assertions you draw conclusions from.
No discussion just condescension. Engage the material or don't start a conversation.
The problem with the evidences presented in this video is that these are not evidences at all. He(the person in the video) talked about pigeons and variations in pigeons and after saying that he jumped into the conclusion that if given millions of years evolution took place. All scientists who believe in evolution do the same thing they talk about micro evolution and asks us to believe we came from rocks and dirt. In the pigeons example the different pigeons with different variation is still a bird not a dog. The DNA is similar yes it is God used same DNA code to make life on earth but the DNA code has its boundaries, a rock can never turn into a rat. Evolution is an idea for the people who don't want God to be God because they don't want to be under some one. Evolution teaches the fittest one wins the race.That is the idea made Hitler to think all other races are inferior and his aryan race should triumph and he killed many. Joseph stalin,pol pot and many tyrants religion is Evolution.Origin of species is their Bible, Darwin is their prophet. My God, the God of the heaven and earth is righteous. He never did anything wrong and never will. Jesus Christ the king of all the earth is going to come to the city near you, every shall see the glory of the coming king riding on the clouds. Repent and believe and be baptized in Christ and his Holy Spirit.
According to Bible God did not used the theory of evolution. Man was created in the image of God. We lost that image. We still trying to blur the image of man by saying we came from a rock or a soup. Our lives are valuable. Jesus Christ died for our sins.
If we repent and believe and turn to God be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit and we follow Christ to be transformed into the image of Christ.
+Prasanna krishna wtf
+Prasanna krishna I wish people like you would take the time to understand evolution before making idiotic comments like this.
The things that you don't understand is that only living things evolve, therefore like you said rocks do not evolve, however things that reproduce can pass on their dna to their off-spring, this gives a chance for mutations to occur causing adaptations within a population.
brandon booker I understand evolution fairly well and can say without a doubt I believe every word he said so please stop be a dogmatic, closed-minded, ignorant hater of anyone who has a different opinion or belief than yours.
Speciation events have been observed- google "observed speciation".
No longer missing links:
Apidium
Aegyptopithecus
Proconsul
Pierolapithecus
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus
Sahelanthropus
Ardipithecus ramidus
Ardipithecus kadabba
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus Arafensis
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus deyiremeda
Australopithecus sediba
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus bahrelghazali
Paranthropus aethiopicus
Paranthropus boisei
Paranthropus robustus
Orrorin tugenensis
Homo gautengensis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo naledi
Homo tsaichangensis
Homo sp. Altai
Homo floresiensis
Homo habilis
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo erectus
Denisova hominin
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo rhodesiensis
Ate the bat? We all know what happened...
There are problems with the horse evolution model. there have been fossils of both found in the same layer and the size of them doesn't mean it grew to modern size. there is big size differences in modern horses today. DNA is actually an amazingly complex system; how can it have arrived by natural processes? and then how did the system evolve that was able to interpret it in time to replicate it to pass it on before it died?
"DNA is actually an amazingly complex system; how can it have arrived by natural processes?"
It's called Chemical Evolution, aka Abiogenesis. The chemistry is explainable.
I can't believe people still doubt evolution.
What is evolution-biology and how does it differ from just plain old everyday biology?
No, no, it's just a specific branch of biology.
Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.”
What if a snail or a slug is a greatwail on land before it medimorphicly transforms for the ocean
Thank you for the video :)
This video was really helpful. My class didn't have enough time to go into Evolution much, so this was great for me to get to know more about the topic.
I agree with this video for it is based on evidence.
Yeah, I especially liked the part where he showed how those pigeons turned into pigeons. And since pigeons turn into pigeons, it makes since they could turn into penguins, or goats, or pine trees too. (Let's see if you get the sarcasm.)
david mike I think there has been a misunderstanding, that is not what the video is trying to explain.
OkenAndMosh
I don’t know… At 2:45: “so that’s a great piece of evidence. That if we could [create different pigeons from one kind of pigeon] in just hundreds of years using artificial selection, surely we could do this in nature using millions of years.” If you’re saying that he never meant to imply that pigeons change into other kinds of animals “using millions of years”, then he sure picked a funny title for his video.
I thought another great piece of evidence was when he said that the fact whales, and birds, and humans all have bones proves we have common origins (6:30). I don’t know… My Ford, and Toyota, and lawn mower, and refrigerator, and the closet doors etc. all have nuts and bolts; but, I’m pretty sure they didn’t have to come from the same piece of steel. I don’t remember science being this stupid. But, what are you going to do? When you have to explain a stupid theory, you’re going to have to say some stupid things.
david mike There is really no need for facetiousness, personally I thought the pigeon part was a great piece of evidence, what's not to get?
And your Ford, Toyota, and lawn mower are man-made machines and do not evolve.
OkenAndMosh Why not "facetiousness"? The whole video is supposed to be a joke isn't it? Isn't it? I hope it is, but maybe you're right; maybe he is serious. One word: "Yikes."
If you had ever seen an early version of a Japanese pick-up--the ones with three wheels--you'd know that mine certainly has "evolved". Just like wolves have evolved into poodles. Heck, even Mitsubishi has evolved from Japanese fighter planes to family sedans...but that took intelligent design. Get it?
What do you mean kind to kind?
Just curious: how many of y'all came here just to argue and not even watch the video? I'm one of them.
Haha I honestly came here to find someone new to debate, no ones is answering my questions lol..
lol i came here to study for bio 2 exam next week
justin harris lol same
i have to do notes on this vid
Raymond S. The most honest statement on the internet.
Adaptation is the most accurate explanation for this video. I know you guys know about climate change every single place on earth and the adaptation of animal to that climate. And I see in this video is just a same animals no changing of kind.
+seth lachem You are very ignorant. No insult intended, just blunt honesty.
"Kind" has literally no meaning among scientists.
The nomenclature of zoology is pretty complicated.
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Subfamily
Genus
Species
In that order, life as we know it is categorized, with species being the most specific and kingdom being the least specific. Notice that "kind" is not among the list.
If I told you the animal behind cage one was in the kingdom "Animalia", you would have a huge array of life forms to choose from. Maybe it's a dolphin, or maybe its an octopus. Perhaps it's a cheetah, or maybe even a T-rex!
Now Imagine I told you that behind the cage is in the family "felidae". You could narrow the results down quite considerably. Maybe a housecat, or a lion. Perhaps a tiger or a leopard. Maybe a serval or a bobcat.
Now imagine I narrow it even further to the genus "panthera"
You have the choices of Lion, Tiger, Leopard, Jaguar and leopard.
I can narrow it down even further to species level. Let's say the species is tiger.
Could be bengal tiger, or maybe siberian tiger. Maybe it's the Javan tiger.
So you see there is no clear line drawn among animals, and "kind" is less than meaningless in the classification system. The "kind" you speak of, from the bible, could be interpreted to mean species, family, genus, order, phylum, or even kingdom. You and many other creationists most likely mean it to represent "family". The cat family. The dog family. The whale family. The ant family. The list goes on.
The only reason you prefer this interpretation is that you realize there is no physically possible way for 14 of every species of the millions of species on this planet of animal to fit on an ark that is only 500 feet long.
Here is the kicker. Evolution is nothing more than adaptation. The words are truly synonyms. Evolution between species can take place in a couple of thousand years among macroscopic animals. Evolution between "order" or "class" will take longer.
In short, the only thing that stops us from observing "changes in kind" as you so lovingly refer to it, is time.
Luckily there is such a thing as the fossil record. In the fossil record we see the changes over the hundreds of millions of years.
+thetruepure2 Honestly I honestly like your explanation. but I only believe that evolution happen to animal only when human still not exist yet and that's my opinion (it's just my opinion no need to comment that). I love when people share their knowledge and believe. Freedom of speech.
Give me a single example in the fossil record where we can observe changes of class.
Genesis 2:18-19 teaches that man was created before animals.
Tommy G, do realize that if "Class" is the definition of "Kind" then Humans and chimps are already the same kind?
where is the evidence for change in kinds? all of that evidence is called adaptation, people assumed and believe in evolution calling the people who believe in God blind faith, you are using blind faith here as well. i am not here to argue about god vs evolution, i am here to debate or listen to someone who can clarify this question, change in kinds from fish to reptiles or something of that sort.
There is no such scientific term as "kinds". That's just a term creationists use. What there really is are approximately 8 classifications of taxonomy in the living hierarchy that life evolves through over hundreds of thousands of years through the process of natural selection.
myoldvan119 you're a joke, you expect people to listen to this nonsense with no evidence....no fossils that show animals half fish/half land creature..nothing of the sort...and random mutation suggests we should be seeing people with 5 arms or random limbs but loe and behold, we see nothing of the sort...so again please bring some evidence or be quiet
you didnt understand a word I said did you? lol
If by "kind" you mean "species" then there is much evidence of change in kind. From fish to reptiles, there is tiktaalik:
tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
N Marbletoe like.....??? really loking forward to a reply
How do you know that what you are saying is true?
in your wisdom Jesus you have created DNA. who is like you Jesus who has ever done what you have done. has any human ever created such a complex system like DNA . you alone God created life you can not hide your beauty from us your fingerprints are all over the place. your light shines though the darkness of evil . you are to good to me Jesus.
Is that the same Jesus that promised to return before the last apostle died?
Oh, FYI humans have created life in the lab. You should look it up.
+scottevanmacfar Was the life created from scratch?
Yes, it was.
+scottevanmacfar I am sorry I forgot to define what I meant. By "scratch" I meant "nothing".Was the life made from nothing?
When I said "biology states," I meant the scientific consensus in the field of biology.
"Consensus" means general agreement. Everybody knows that there are scientists that do not agree with what is taught, but they represent a minority in the scientific community, otherwise it wouldn't be called "consensus."
Science in general tries to understand and describe the processes found in nature. If the existence of god was a fact, scientists would still try to understand nature. Nothing would change
Prove God ISNT a fact
Prove spontaneous generation, which you believe is how the first cell originated
Prove Christians are rarely scientists
Don’t just write a response, site sources so that you’re arguments are valid (provided the source is credible and the study hasn’t been redacted)
Its very easy to prove god isn't a fact. No one has ever captured definitive evidence that he is real, and belief in god itself is different across all cultures. Not only is there no one single definition for god, but there is also no proof of any supernatural being existing in the first place. The entire religion itself is based off of an ancient roman cult. No one can prove that any history surrounding the religion is true or false, and there is no way of knowing if its basis is true or false either.
Sam Standard we can look at the ancient documents referencing God and determine their authenticity. The Bible is known to have accurate descriptions of Egypt, Assyria, and numerous other empires. There are also details in the Bible that would never have been there if it were made up, such as women being the first to discover Christ had risen (in ancient cultures this would have received severe backlash).
just because it has accurate accounts of different locations doesn’t mean that it’s not a work of fiction. Probably, the accuracy of the documents settings are purely to make it seem authentic
Sam Standard the level of deception that would be required to pull off a stunt like that would be immense. The Bible wasn’t written all at one time but is instead an accumulation of letters (specifically Paul), poems (specifically David’s Psalms), laws (Numbers, Deuteronomy), and historical narratives (the gospels, genesis, exodus, the prophets), and so on.
So the model that best fits this evidence is the biblical model where life was created 'according to its kind' (family). Therefore what we have is an orchard of trees, not just one single tree of life. Cattle breed cattle (bovine), cats breed cats (feline) dogs breed dogs (canine) birds breed birds (avian) etc etc. There is no evidence (apart from extrapolated imagination of evolutionists) that one kind of animal has evolved into another. There is tremendous variety within each kind as they adapt to their respective environments, but they remain locked into their genome of origin..
The horse example is a poor one. We have all the various sizes of horses living contemporansously today, just like we have different sizes of dogs or humans. You can stretch them into an imaginary line of size variation over imaginary time, but this is not science.
If you take out all the imagination, and extrapolation, you are left with the biblical model of origins with adaptation.
Isaiah Nields
That's a good biblical name you have.
+Stuart Main Ever hear of fossils?
Ann Gee
Yes, maybe you would like to tell me about them?
Ever hear of DNA? Ever hear of all the times we directly observed evolution? Ever hear of all the transitional species we have identified? Ever hear of science?
@@scottevanmacfar you didn't observe anything. You're mistaking thinking for observation. awareness for sight
A long exposition on microevolution and homology... no scientific evidence whatsoever presented to suggest that all life shares common descent.
Ricahrd P'Brien so you’re telling me that because a bird can have more or less spots a cow became a whale 30 million years ago
@Ricahrd P'Brien DNA homology is PHILOSOPHICAL evidence. It rests on the assumption that a designing intelligence would not implement homologous DNA sequences in homologous species.
I only came her cause my teacher made me😣🔫
Kellen McNeill omg, same
Me too, except my mother made me.
Listen to your teacher... Don't let religious dogma prevent you from having a decent education
Don't let secular dogma prevent you from looking at all angles to determine the truth! I came here to investigate differing opinions and evaluate their evidence, true science. The evolutionary establishment doesn't want you to investigate they want you to blindly accept.
what exactly is Secular dogma??? lmao
Great work! What software do you use to illustrate this material?
you call this evidence??? you call this facts????
Hussein Qabil Yes
As scientist Chandra Wickramasinghe said: “There’s no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution, it was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since.”
Anthropologist S. L. Washburn put it this way: “Everything in evolution is very, very speculative.”
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”-In Search of Deep Time-Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117
W. R. Thompson in his foreword to the centennial edition of Darwin’s The Origin of Species stated: “A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.”
Dr. Karl Popper comments: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”
Invertebrate zoologist Harold Coffin states: “Obviously much adaptation has occurred, but has this adaptive change actually caused evolutionary progression from one major category to another? The evidence from science does not support this kind of change.”
Professor of natural science John Moore says: “There is absolutely no experimental evidence for any change of one animal form into another animal form; or for that matter, any change of one plant form into another plant form. The only evidence of change that can be classed properly as the result of sound scientific method is the evidence of genetic variation WITHIN limits of kinds or forms of animals, or WITHIN limits of kinds or forms of plants.”
Variations of a pigeon being produced from a pigeon do not prove any "origin of species". How
eventually the variations in the genes of the pidgeons will make it so they're no longer able to interbreed
It's still a pigeon ,, no proof
"Hey atheists! If god isn't real, how is it still a pigeon! Lol. Checkmate atheists!"
Mo Knows I'm proof?
The Human Fly meow
Mo Knows lol
Kizah Stehl This is analogous to, but even worse than, the "microevolution not macroevolution" argument I see plaguing internet forums. Also, Fly, Mo's just being obnoxious while contributing absolutely nothing, so don't even worry. Dumb people are capable of being mean too.
Most scientists really don't bother with the distinction, since the definition of Species in the first place has become somewhat subjective.
"A group of organisms having many characteristics in common" - Yourscience Dictionary
At what point does a population "microevolve" to the point where they stop "having many characteristics in common?"
I could ask two different scientists, and they'd probably give me different answers, because "many characteristics in common" is hyper subjective.
The human brain is a great random mutation
I gess shlt just happens xD
+JoaoPauloYUTB not random selected (naturally)
You can select all the random stuff you want, their are still random. Mutations (accidents of dna replication) are kind of random, at least no evolutionist therory that i know claims otherwise. please correct me if I'm wrong
hope your username doesn't accurately describe you
you're dumb its nto a random mutation it evovled froma simple very simple nervous system and they slowly got selected by anturals elections the traits that survived to the enxt generation lived and got ana dvantag e and the yslowly diversified into many types of roganisms who have brains and ones that do not obviously split way before enrvous systems evene xistsed
@@JoaoPauloYUTB so wat? its the non random selection of random mutation
i do not find your playlists a reliable source of information as you have some false information.
Such as?
This narrator makes so many assumptions that this video is laughable. Not one bit of evidence for evolution was given.
says someone with jesus in his name
no evidence for jesus was ever found outside of the bible
Chainezo Deathhunter As friendly advice to you, it only makes you appear very uneducated if you make statements like that. there is no question among historians that Jesus actually lived. the argument is whether or not he was who he said he was.
squintgoob i mean the biblical jesus
i could just name my child jesus and then shout all around the world jesus lives
Chainezo Deathhunter I mean the biblical Jesus also. I don't mean they found some random guy named Jesus. there are very few, if any, historians that would suggest that the Jesus that is talked about in the bible never walked the earth. only that the miracles and certain events do not have the proof needed but the fact that he was a real human being is not up for debate
That's why we date our calendar from the time of Jesus. If evolution happened, there would be evidence all around us. The THEORY of evolution is put forth by those who WANT it to be true, because they don't WANT to believe God. So, they invent something that will hopefully mask their lack of faith. Show me, from the evidence, how the anal fin cartilage of a fish became the full-blown pelvis of a lizard.
Not as far as we know, right? Or is that certain (besides goosebumps)?
Above me ^ is the video below me👇is WW3 Haha.
Well it's pretty much common sense if you think about it. Evolution still happens today (such as bacteria with immunity to antibiotics becoming selected for these traits and reproducing, which causes antibiotic-resistant bacteria), so why would we think that the evidence for evolution is a lie? Natural selection is so obviously rational and mutations DO occur, so why would evolution not be possible?
not saying every video is false but some are
Science is never absolute. Unlike creationists, we don't cherry pick what to "believe" in (science isn't based on faith, but facts). Science grows by building on itself and being objective. All you're doing is taking what one scientist said and using it to tear down tons of evidence without providing evidence of your own.
Evolution isn't like in Pokemon, you don't go from organism to the next like that. Evolution is defined as the changes in allele frequencies over time. This leads to speciation when you include a mechanism by which these alleles change: natural selection.
Let me go through how vertebrates have evolved:
Skipping forward to chordates, such as amphioxus and lancelots, we see that all chordates share five characters: five pharyngeal slits, an endostyle, a post-anal muscularized tail, a notochord, and a single hollow dorsal nerve cord.
As these lineages all split due to populations splitting and having different selective pressures, we get more derived vertebrates. How? Look up what a whole genome duplication is. There is a gene called a HOX gene, which is highly conserved and plays a pivotal role in embryological development and as it has been duplicated various times throughout vertebrate history, it has led to the sudden explosion in diversity such as limbs. Since HOX genes are there to provide their original functions, you now have an extra one that is free to take on a new function. Now as the notochord becomes obsolete in vertebrates, we see it in early stages of embryological development (proving it was once coded for by our DNA, but new DNA codes for it to be replaced by a bony spinal column) before it is encased by the neural plate ectoderm and ossified into the spinal column in bony fish.
Going back a little before bony fish, early jawless fishes evolved, they had a dermal armor exoskeleton, that as they use the muscles around their first gill arch (gill arches are derived from the ancestral pharyngeal slits, now encompassed by cartilage bars) to move their mouth as they suction feed. Natural selection favored the fishes that were better able to control their buccal volume and also the ones with the dermal projections out the mouth until eventually, a separate lineage of fish with jaws and proto-teeth evolved. Both of these types of fish lived for millions of years before an extinction event killed off the jawless fishes (placoderms).
This is just the tip of the iceberg for vertebrates. Evolution only works on what is already there. It isn't magical Digimon or Pokemon evolution.
If evolution only works on what is already there, answer this. Where did matter originate from?
Science IS absolute. You've been brainwashed by anti-realists such as Khun
@@Armando7654 No one is arguing about science. The point is there is a lot of over reaching in science to keep a certain narrative. Every decade, evolutionist keep pushing back the time it took animals to evolve, couple 100 million years at a time. Eventually evolution is going to take longer than how old the earth is. No one is saying the work these people do are not important, but also confirming that their hypothesis was not correct is also important. But how many scientist disprove their hypothesis but never release the information because it would go against the narrative.
Are you intentionally disregarding the experiments done on bacteria, for example the Lenski experiments on e. coli?
In those experiments we can clearly see that the different populations of bacteria evolve independently and in some cases reach the same result, for example several populations evolved into using a different food source than the "normal" e. coli populations.
So they are indeed evolving.
"Useless" mutations might hitch a ride in individuals with advantageous mutations so to speak, but having useless body parts as you put it would very likely be a disadvantage, using more energy to build and maintain them etc.
So individuals with these body parts will probably have a harder time surviving and reproducing than individuals that are more "streamlined".
Yes, species are evolving continually, but a human lifespan wouldn't be enough to see any significant change.
You're talking like everything has just "stopped" evolving, simply based on the fact that you are unable to see it with your own eyes.
You make biology easy for me thanks alot
Wow, that pointed portion on our ears is really cool and worth example to notice
You still have not shown 1 example from 1 kind of animal changing to another kind. The pigeon went from a pigeon to a pigeon. The tortoise went from being a tortoise to a tortoise. The horse example first you must realize that you cannot prove those bones had any children. secondly it is still the same kind of animal. Oh and cars cannot eat bats.
As The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.”
I got a question some christian said something about this subject...
He said that mutations are speciation and or adaptation.
Those are separate from evolution.
Like evolution is a total change in kind of animal. Like chicken to T-Rex.
Yet we cannot observe this. Or test this. And according to the scientific theory things must be testible and observable. And he said evolution isn't but, but adaptation and speciation is.
SO help me out guys. Whats the truth?
Sure. Speciation is real. And so is adaptation. But, a total change in a mind of animal. We don't have evidence for that. We just say it's because of millions of years. But thats not observable. We can't watch them change into another kind of animal.
Anyone disappointed with with the 2013 exam opposite of what I prepared for
Could the similar bone structure maybe be a common creator? All Dali paintings look like Dali paintings.
Considering that there exists no single rational reason why we should believe in a Creator, no, similar bone structure does not hint towards a common creator.
Hm Grraarrpffrzz
Even Darwin admitted that the human eye had to be made by a creator. You seem to only know what the textbooks conveniently decided to tell you. You might want to read the Origin of Species yourself. You will find that by now Darwin himself disproved his tired old theory. It's been over 150 years and zero transitional Species have been found. Therefore in his own words his theory is false!!!
Sorry Flat Truth.. at what point did Darwin admit this?
woss
Where would one go to seek the words of Darwin?🤔 Have you read the origin of species?
Well, I know in chapter 6 he says:
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
But I know you can't be referring to that, because you've implied that you have read the book, so presumably you'd know that he then goes on to explain in some detail exactly how the eye could develop completely naturally and without the need of a creator. So I was wondering if there was somewhere else he claimed that it 'had to be made by a creator'? Perhaps in something written long before Origin of Species, and before he realised that indeed it didn't need a creator?
Well, logically, one cannot go from one genus to another instantaneously. I can, however, link you to interesting info of the evolution through the accumulated slight changes within an order/family. For example, the transition from Homo habilis to Homo erectus to Homo heidelbergensis. It's not possible to go from a cat to a dog, but can slowly make a transition from a common ancestor into a different class/order/family/genus/species.
In the case of living organisms, evolution means the "change" (whether for better, worse or neither) of particular traits in worldly species to enable them to adjust to our changing environment in order to survive.
Therefore, why would a species that has been fossilized over 100,000,000 years ago (such as a coelacanth) have to "transition" or "evolve" when they're still alive today and no different?
First of all, no, evolution IS change for the better in terms of fitness. You're thinking of mutations. Mutation is random, could be better, worse, or neutral, Once you apply natural selection, you get evolution.
A coelacanth is NOT in the exact same form as it was 100,000,000 years ago, that's impossible. It could be highly conserved, meaning that it's method of survival and reproduction was so effective that the vast majority of mutations would only be detrimental. Or perhaps it existed in a very static environment. You also have to remember that 99.9% of all species are extinct today. Just because you can point out very large exception, it doesn't change that the overwhelming majority of all life has been superseded by better-adapted species.
metaitachi The reason I said evolution is to change either for the better, worse or neither is because there appears to be conflicting "assumptions" among evolutionists as to which idea is right.
You just so happen to fall into the group that believes it's solely for the "better."
Anyhow, based upon definitive and observable comparisons of coelacanth fossils from over 100 mya with living coelacanths of today, there's virtually NO difference.
Keep in mind that this "fact" is based off of definitive, observable and detailed scrutiny, which is absolutely required to qualify something as "truly" scientific."
Also, if you'll notice the second sentence of your last paragraph after claiming that a coelacanths stasis is impossible, you began to justify it by saying "It could be," which means you've made nothing more than an "assumption."
You then continued on "guessing" by saying, "Or 'perhaps' it existed in a very static environment."
This has 2 problems:
1) It is nothing more than an "assumption" as evidenced by you using the word "perhaps."
2) You're claiming that the coelacanths environment (along with the prehistoric environments of all of the other living fossils of today -www.creationwise.com/code/living_fossils.asp ) managed to dodge 3 catastrophic, worldwide, environmental events (such as the global, asteroid and volcanic occurrences which caused enormous extinction), along with more than several, worldwide ice ages.
In addition to that, since you're willing to use "uncertain" probabilities to make a case (which is far from science), wouldn't it be highly improbable that all of the living fossils we have today lived in environments which managed to dodge 3 massive, worldwide, catastrophic events and more than several ice ages (according to the speculation of evolution obviously)?
Therefore, since it's highly improbable (which is a long way off from proving true and definitive science), according to the theory of evolutions "imagined" and uncertain environmental scenario, doesn't that make your assumption highly unworthy of consideration?
GSD55 No there are misconceptions over terminology. Evolution is the result of mutations and natural selection. A population will not evolve into a less 'fit' population because natural selection is acting against them.
Honestly, I used uncertainty because I am neither a coelacanth expert of interested in systematically proving some guys on youtube wrong.
I don't see what your point is by the living fossils surviving. To my knowledge, there are very few living fossils out there due to how the vast majority of species WERE wiped out by those events. Here is what I found on wikipedia regarding coelacanths: "It should be noted that several recent studies pointed out that the morphological conservatism of coelacanths is a myth that is not supported by actual paleontological data." And here regarding living fossils "Note that just because a living fossil is a surviving representative of an archaic lineage does not necessarily require that it retains all of the "primitive" features (plesiomorphies) of the lineage it is descended from".
It sounds like living fossils is a relatively ambiguous term (it is referred to as a non-scientific term), there are not many of them (which makes sense given that catastrophic events have wiped out the majority, but not all). Going through the wikipedia page, it addresses that the idea that coelacanths have stopped evolving has been debunked and is not a valid view anymore. Again, I don't know much about coelacanths, but wikipedia tends to be a good place to start.
Also, if you believe in massive extinction events, doesn't evolution have to be true? Otherwise, how can the planet recover from such a loss in biodiversity?
metaitachi Although I personally agree that the true definition of evolution is to evolve for the better, you said the following in regards to the definition of evolution, "No there are misconceptions over terminology."
Doesn't a person who has a misconception about an idea that differs from another's view put them into a different group or category?
Secondly, I do what I do on youtube and anywhere else that may present itself as an opportunity to lead people towards the knowledge of there being a God because ultimately, that's all that's important after we die.
Believe me, we're going to be dead for much longer than we are alive.
Whether you believe it right now or not, evolution is a lie from the devil which causes people to either lose their faith in God, or to not put their faith in him at all.
This is Satan's ultimate purpose for the lies we have been and are being fed through our schools text books.
To answer your question, I do "not" believe in massive extinction events. I believe the earth is somewhere around 6,000 years old.
Also, I prefer to explain myself in relation to what evolutionists already believe to bring them closer to the Truth, which I belive will cause as little friction as possible.
Lastly, despite there being definitive, observable evidence for the stasis of species through fossil comparisons with today's living organisms, everything you have provided about fossils "not necessarily" having maintained their total anatomy is still nothing more than a grand speculation because there is NO reason to "assume" such a thing after having made definitive comparisons, no matter where you've gathered your information and it still does not answer how living fossils, prehistoric environments managed to dodge 3 of the worlds major environmental disasters and ice age events (If they indeed did occur, which there is no definitive evidence to prove it).
Therefore, since you're willing to use "uncertain" probabilities to make a case (which is far from science), wouldn't it be highly improbable that all of the living fossils we have today lived in environments which managed to dodge 3 massive, worldwide, catastrophic events and more than several ice ages (according to the speculation of evolution obviously)?
Additionally, since it's highly improbable (which is a long way off from proving true and definitive science), according to the theory of evolutions "imagined" and uncertain environmental scenario, doesn't that make the assumption evolution is pushing highly unworthy of consideration?
metaitachi Before you get on your way, I'd just like you to know that if you ever decide to acknowledge that you're wrong and that you'd like to get right with God, the Bible says the following:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, that whoever believes in Jesus will not perish but have eternal life." - John 3: 16
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, you will be saved." - Romans 10: 9
"All who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus will be saved." - Romans 10: 13
After you've done that, the Gods Word promises that He "will never leave you nor forsake you." - Hebrews 13: 5
You'll have a friend for life and all throughout eternity, "definitively" who knows you better than you know yourself.
So don't be afraid to be honest with him about everything.
After you've accepted Jesus into your heart, be sure to tell as many people as you possibly can (including all of your loved ones) about how to get saved and be sure to join a Christian Church to grow in your relationship and understanding of God.
God Bless
That makes perfectly reasonable sense and I thank you for your response. i still wonder why though that the previous evolutions of man aren't still in existence, for example, the theory of evolution suggests that all life came from single celled eukaryotic organisms which evolved to new cells which became animals, but yet even though the original cells evolved, they still exist today along with all of it's other progressive evolutionary states. So if this is the case, why aren't the original
Evolution from one kind of species to another is nonsense. I know not one of my ancestors is an ape. I hope you do know that as well.
From my high school to my university biology
You mean to say that you creationists (not sure why you put quotation marks around yourself there) always try to cram science into some type of explanation that can be made to conform to some part of The Bible myths.
Evolution is proven again and again and again and has withstood any challenges to its veracity and it is one of the most solidly proven scientific theories. The only reason many christians don't like it is because they would rather have been created in God's image than evolved.
You don't see that there have to be more instinctions than extinctions in order to increase the diversity of the animal kingdom. The diversity is so huge that species should be evolving continually and significantly. It's not just invisible DNA mutations. There should be new limb development and modes of transportation. Why wouldn't 1500 generations of microscopically observed fruit flies develop one constructive mutation in the last 150 years? Random mutations are destructive.
Charles Darwin on his deathbed said that he was wrong and God is real. Along with most athiests on their deathbed. How many stories are there about athiests on there deathbed saying they were wrong? Millions. Why is this? Because its easier to go through life to believe there's no God, but deep down, no matter how hard anyone tries to deny it, everyone knows God is real. And most everyone confesses on their deathbed because they have nothing else to lose. Life is already over so now they realize
Prove it. Using reliable sources.
So where do kinds change into different kinds?
What do you mean by "kind"? That is not a term used in science.
If "kind" means species, then we have multiple examples of directly observed changes of "kind".
you're just a big liar and watch kent hovind oviously sicne you use kind and you don't even know what a mkind is stop babbling in a cryptic language and grow up little kiddo
are you a scientist?
When I hear somebody say there is no proof for God when they believe life began in an explosion with no cause, and then using adaptation as an example of evolution
1) There is no proof for God. If there is proof, show it please.
2) The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. Please educate yourself.
3) Nobody but Creationists said that the Big Bang had no cause. Please educate yourself.
4) Please explain to me what you think is the difference between adaption and evolution, and explain the diversity of species without evolution. Thanks.
@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 There is proof of your free will to deny him - There is proof of the Holy Bible -. There are 12 testified accounts most that had horrible deaths and wouldn't deny him as God in the flesh - Tons of evidence of a young earth - microscopic evidence that life is way more complex then a single cell was thought - Common Designer Is what it looks like - life is made perfect for humans . Money is the root of all evil - if you loved God and loved your neighbor this world would be amazing. - alot of science and prophecy in the book that has been recently made by scientific research ... Ugh and that's just answering 1)
@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 The Big Bang Wasn't Anything... & But life is so perfect and harmony if you see it for what it is .. your on a ball of water next to a ball of fire spinning through space and able to have emotion and love and feelings ... Everything but adaptation goes against scientific laws
@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 3) ughhh not that many people even still believe in a big bang... No one was there and it never happened and it changes more then anything when they try and date it ... Lol
@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 4) watch Kent Hovind a creations seminars or college courses... Because I can't type books here.. but hope you do and question what these teachers are teaching... Because I looked at both sides and any intellectual intelligent human would!
he looks like if someone turned a sims character into a man named DANIEL and then turned him into a sad bird that wants a cookie hyped it up on melatonin and then gave it glasses
1. Nobody is denying the existence of god. Biology only states that you don't need god.
2. I think you agree with me that science and religion both try to know things. To say "you know" means that you can support your knowledge. You have to give reasons. Everything is credulity. I don't think you wanna be called credulous. This is why we have science. Science is a system that leads to knowledge-inevitably. Man is wrong, but the system of science does still work cause mistakes eventually show up
I'm somewhat agnostic on the theory of evolution. The observation of finches and tortoises show good evidence for small scale evolution within a population. The fossil record of the horses is interesting but couldn't it be that some of those "pre-modern" horses are just other species that went extinct? The DNA evidence I guess seems to be the most compelling, but just because organisms have genetic similarities does this necessarily mean they evolved from a common ancestor? The other thing I find puzzling is that all the biodiversity apparently resulted from mutations. Especially if we believe the bacteria, mammal, plant, etc all ultimately arose from that common ancestor. Also would the 4 billion old timespan of the earth provide sufficient time for all these changes to occur (assuming they were via random mutations)? While it is true that we obtain more and more fossils over the years and discover similarities in genetics, does this necessarily allow us to conclude that we all simply descended from one common ancestor? Some additional light on these matters would be helpful
You can't be agnostic about a scientific theory. Agnostic means we have no knowledge, and that's false. We have TONS of knowledge.
talkorigins.com/comdesc
Agnostic doesn't mean we have no knowledge it means that we are not positively affirming or disaffirming a truth claim. But the term agnostic is usually used in regards to God, so I guess the word I should have used is undecided. Evolution is a scientific theory but is not one that can be tested as nicely in real time. Most of the evidence we have for evolution are discoveries of structural/genetic/functional similarities between organisms which suggest Common Descent. The only aspect of evolution we can observe in real time is microevolutionary change; the large scale macroevolutionary changes that are hypothesized aren't however as clear. And the idea that all the biodiversity and speciation arose from a single progenitor organism via billions of years of random mutations is very hard to conceive.
I have a question that I've been wondering about for a while, I am a occultist, I also know that evolution is real to, I will not deny that, but based on observation i wonder about two things... 1) if humans evolved from monkeys and had different stages of development, such as Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien, Homo Habilis. Then why is it that only Humans and apes exist, why don't the latter three not exist anymore? aren't they a seperate species? Why did they just go extinct, or stop evolving and
Stalactites do not take millions of years!
Lead-zinc mine at Mt Isa
Late 1987 at level 5 workings in the lead-zinc mine at Mt Isa, in north-western Queensland, Australia.
At that time, the mine itself was only about 55 years old, which therefore is the absolute maximum age for all these stalactites.
See more on Creation.com
The examples in your presentation of the turtles, horses, etc are of "microevolution" / speciation / adaptation. You failed to show any examples of "macroevolution".
Macroevolution (speciation) is a directly observed fact.
@@torotanaka3788 Observed by whom and what did they observe?
RIP Lonesome George
I remember having to watch this is biology and was so bored I almost died
im watching this rn in biology lmaooo
bro how will you get a job if you're bore dof everything .
How do Mutations and mistakes happen. How does similarity prove mutation. Cars that are engineered are similar too. Seems like the same assumptions and no proof at all. The animals observed all stayed the same kind. Turtles are turtles. Finches are still finches.