The way I see it, if evolution is the reason humans are standing here today, then God used a natural process to create everything. If evolution is false, then God created humans as they are today. Either way, God created everything, either by natural process or not
High school level evolutionists: Because of the evidence of specimens of human skulls and bones which alter over time of origin. I think it’s evidence to that humanity was made by natural processes.
@@StealthySpace7 God tell us how he did it. We didn't come from bacterial soup and we aren't talking monkeys. That claim is more mythical than what they say, creation is.
@@StealthySpace7 God didn't use natural processes. To say that He did means that death was always here, instead of being the penalty for Adam and Eve's sin of disobedience. Death was not mentioned in Genesis until God told Adam to leave the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil alone.
@@OnlyTheWordSentDownthere are many stories and chapters of the Bible that are parabolic. I don't care how literal (or not) Genesis 1 is. Jesus is my savior.
First year as science,(biology )student every step every book every subject I study I see the work of God I just don’t understand how they don’t see what I see
That's great. Science and faith can both be important in our lives, as long as we understand the difference. As long as people don't base science on faith, everyone should be happy.
9:47 I'm halfway through the video but I'm wondering why you haven't addressed gene mutations. Gene mutations you have deletions(which might not be considered new) but then the nucleotide sequence might change due to additions, translations, substitutions etc. These over time will result in significant changes. If you are running a computer programme using the "genetic algorithm" which is an algorithm inspired by the mutations and natural selection of the fittest offspring you can make any one sequence of a number match another sequence of a number exactly over time. In theory you can make one sequence of an organism match that of another but there are nuances involved though. Was just wondering why you haven't addressed that let me continue and read.
Speculation is just that. The fact is that DNA limits the opportunities for variation within a species. Dawkins when asked to give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be seen to add information in the genome...could not give even provide one example and has not to this day.
@@LoghanMunderstan-lc2bv The point is, is that mutations don't actually do what evolutionists claim they do. They don't build new stuff. And they are not the key to anything, especially not new biological structures or creatures, no matter how much time you give them.
The thing about science is that its continually changing with new discoveries helping to explain our world. Religion claims to have the answers with no proof and comdemns you for having questions that cant be answered.
I pressed Claude the AI about the giraffe, starting with some proto version, perhaps a horse, but eventually the AI had to admit that the complex, necessary organs which differentiate the giraffe from all other animals could not have come about by macro evolution. Even an AI, coded to promote evolution could not defend the glaring inconsistencies which are irreconcilable.
Giraffes didn't evolve from horses. Giraffes and okapis both evolved from even-toed ungulate animals which lived in the Miocene around 25 MYA. Their ancestors include the short necked _Honanotherium, Bramatherium, Giraffokeryx, Canthomeryx,_ and _Prodremotherium._ You can research and read about those species and lineages if you are curious.
@@sciencerules2825 Evolution literature should be classified as fiction, folk like you have way too much faith in mindless molecules, imagine being so fixated with a worldview that you would believe matter is aware of things that are not made of matter, abstract concepts, etc. Demonstrate unguided inanimate matter bringing information into existence, you only have to do it once.
I suppose it’s not technically incorrect to say you studied something “in-depth” even if that depth doesn’t extend beyond what a high schooler is taught. Evolution is a two-step process: 1) the origination of variation and 2) its spread through the population. The phrase “evolution by natural selection” only pertains to (2), not to (1), and yet you spend most of the video crying that (2) doesn’t explain (1). Of course it doesn’t! If you want to know about how new forms appear, focus on the mechanisms of (1), not (2). If you’d studied evolution in-depth, you’d know that the debate about whether natural selection is creative or not is an old one with many detractors. Most of the early evolutionary biologists (Hugo de Vries, Thomas Hunt Morgan, etc.) believed selection was just a sieve, not creative. But you don’t even present the “natural selection is creative” argument correctly. The idea was that if natural selection favors a particular phenotype, pushing a population in that direction, then it biases the kinds of mutations that can appear. For example, if selection favors four-limbs, then the kinds of mutations that appear can only developmentally elaborate on that basic structure. In this way, selection is creative because it directs what kind of future variation can emerge. Whether you buy that or not is a different story, but geez man at least present the ideas correctly. Ditto with Blyth. Darwin and Blyth were buddies, they corresponded constantly - there’s over 50 back-and-forth letters between them just in the online Darwin archive. He cites Blyth in the very first chapter of Origins! But Blyth wasn’t even the first to come up with natural selection - the idea goes back to the Greeks. However, no one before Darwin and Wallace thought selection could change populations. Blyth’s idea was that selection weeded out the unfit and preserved the original archetype, not that it would produce fundamentally new forms. That’s why Darwin and Wallace’s idea was unique and went beyond what Blyth and others thought. Blyth himself changed his mind on this through time, and even wrote to Darwin later in life that he thought humans shared ancestry with apes! We have tons of studies about how new forms emerge, but you guys are so stuck on high school examples like peppered moths, antibiotic resistance, etc. that you actually do “in-depth” looks into the literature to learn about mutational processes. There’s an extremely rich literature here, maybe do a little more “in-depth” studying.
Why do those who defend the belief that all life evolved from a microbe refuse to discuss specifics and never the details of what "variation" would require at the genetic level? Just saying "mutations" (or worse, "good mutations") doesn't cut it. To defend your faith, you MUST explain how a new type of protein could evolve in less than a trillion years. How could DNA polymerase possibly have evolved, specifically?
@@KenJackson_US No one refused to discuss anything - you first have to ask to discuss it. I’m not going to just start my comment by launching into a detailed biochemical description for the evolution of some pathway. But now that you asked, I will. The evolution of DNA polymerase: first, we need to note that there is no singular “DNA polymerase” - there are, in fact, many different families of polymerase, and the domains of life use them all slightly differently. Second, since DNA polymerase is required for DNA replication, it is hypothesized to have emerged prior to the transition from RNA to DNA. This means we should find antecedents to DNA polymerase (DNAP) in RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP). Lastly, it’d be nice if we could pinpoint the origin of RdRPs themselves, otherwise it feels like we’re just kicking the can down the road. So let’s start with a simple beta sheet (beta-alpha-beta) that, when duplicated, forms the core component of all extant RNA polymerases (RNAP) - the double psi beta barrel (DPBB). This is the catalytic region of the polymerase, and thus must’ve originated early. Now, all extant RNAPs have two of these DPBBs, so a duplication would’ve been required. But this is all - every known RNAP will spontaneously perform RdRP behavior independent of DNA, and thus any of them could’ve catalyzed RNA replication. (These beta-alpha-beta sheets are the basis for basic RNA translation and are quite abundant.) With an RdRP now formed, we need only account for how it was elaborated (in at least one lineage, it has been elaborated independently many times) to form a DNAP. The RdRP protein needs to bind to three additional subunits: DP1, CTD, and PIP. Prior to binding to RdRP, these must have had independent functions, so what are they? DP1 is an exonuclease, and is used to cleave RNA and DNA, which can function independently of replication. CTD and PIP are terminal amino acid chains used in signaling and are tacked-on to many other proteins. Thus, the three additional required components to transition an RdRP to a DNAP are functional by themselves and are simply co-opted by the RdRP. But how? Large macromolecules composed of many subunits are typically constructed in the following ways: 1) physical attraction (i.e., promiscuous binding due to excess capacity); 2) promotion of molecular stability and increased fidelity, followed by 3) the cementing of the relationship by a ratchet-like process of mutational degradation of each component independently. This process (called “constructive neutral evolution”) underlies a very large number of macromolecules (e.g., evolution of ribosomes, spliceosomes, etc.) and has been readily shown in the lab to turn homodimers into heterodimers. Again, this is but one DNAP (specifically, the structure of PolD, which is used primarily by Archaea for replication), but it is the simplest. People have written entire books on this and I’ve attempted to summarize it here. At the very least, I hope it prompts you to look into this further. While the evolution of DNAPs is still an active area of research, we have strong hypotheses for how they emerged supported by decades of laboratory and phylogenetic studies.
@@stuartmacleod7466 Good question. God does not have a gender like we have a gender and last I checked God has not identified with one. But we still use the pronoun HIM because he is not only a father-figure but our Father who is in Heaven by definition. But then again, you can call God hundreds of things or using hundreds of names, which we do because we have hundreds if not thousands of languages as of 2024. If you want to talk more about this feel free to comment.
@stuartmacleod7466 Romans 8 :15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” 🙂
@@nataniyaldemerachew3025But they do. It says: Father, son and holy ghost. It doesn't say: It, neither and holy ghost. Nor does it say: Mother, daughter and holy ghost.
If I understand the idea of “evolution is not a thing” then all of the modern species must have been existing from the creation of life. So, we should be able to found fossils of modern animals near for example dinosaurs fossils, in the same layers. And still we have not found any human skeleton of that epoch, but we do find creatures that resemble something that could be before Homo Sapiens and we can create the chain of such links to the modern human. How does this controversy work in the world of the author? P.S. Sorry for my bad English...
no need to find hujan with dinosaurs, just like there was no need to find birds and dinos together, it was already a rediculous argument. the large majority of all fossils are just small sea creatures. The large majority of ALL animals and fossils are not found together, it doesnt discount the rest just because you cant find it. case in point, evolutionisits have never found one single transitory link for evolution, yet it doesnt deter them from believing the stories anyway.
My mind is blown, I went to Catholic school and was taught evolution the way you explained natural selection and never knew the two were that different. It makes total sense to me because I've never understood human exceptionalism and why other animals never picked up traits they witnessed from us such as sophisticated tool use, fire invention or language aquisition.
Totally get where you're coming from! Evolution and natural selection often get lumped together, but they're not the same-natural selection is just one mechanism of evolution. As for human exceptionalism, it's not that other animals don't pick up traits like tool use or communication; they just do it differently. Chimpanzees use tools (even sharpened sticks for hunting. They even use sticks for retrieving grubs and insects. Watch Chimps & Tools from the National Geographic), crows solve puzzles, and dolphins have complex vocalisations. But humans took it further because of our larger brains, social structures, and ability to pass knowledge across generations through language and culture. Fire and advanced tools? Those took millions of years of trial and error. It's not like we figured it out overnight! Other species evolve based on what helps them survive in their environments-our path just happened to lead to technology and language. Incidentally, Dr. Jane Goodall & the Jane Goodall Institute USA has some slightly better videos on Chimpanzee tool use.
Thank you for clarifying all this, as a Christian it’s important these days to understand the actual definition of topics and terms. A lot of terms and definitions are being changed to trip us up and make us look like fools. It is also very important to understand the history. I appreciate that it was well displayed here.
@ why would I do that? Oh I see. You think that because I don’t believe in a young earth that I’m automatically woke? Couldn’t be further from the truth! I hate woke culture and think it no different from a witch hunt.
The thing is, there are ONLY two options, Calvin. If you understand evolution, then you understand why the standard definition of "any change in the allele frequencies of a population of organisms over successive generations" is the CORRECT definition. Trying to add any additional caveats or prerequisites onto that basic definition shows you either DON'T in fact understand what evolution is, or you DO understand what it is, and you're just lying about it. So if you insist that you do understand what evolution is, then the only alternative is that you're lying to sell your agenda. So, fair enough, Calvin. We'll stop saying you don't understand evolution. We'll just call you a liar instead.
You Don’t actually know if thats the correct definition… You could be a liar too and Everyone agrees. Evolutions do the same thing, Either side could be true or wrong… Like I said Everything I said could be true or false, But at the same time Yours could be true or false, The only one who believes he’s a liar is you, You not only made a mistake by commenting further supporting him wether your comment is trying to disprove or correct, You yourself is in this agenda as you watched HIS video, If you really don’t want his “lies to live on” stop watching there videos, stop trying to disprove and ignore these people and let yourself think that anyone who believes this is being brainwashed, Its kind of silly complaining when He does not care about you nor will He want to argue as it would be pointless as he could easily disapprove something you say but so could you, You try everything you can to disprove anyone who wants to disagree or has something different but go ahead and begin to tell Religious people that their take and beliefs are false and don’t have proof on evolution but a Christian could do the same. I honestly don’t understand why some (notice how i said some not meaning most or all) aetheist become hypocrites when they see videos of “proof of this” , I also see that on videos similar to this a common thing aetheist comments (sometimes) is that they believe that every Christian is the same and believes the same thing, As a aetheist not here to disapprove rather to get different view points and info on what people think its absolutely crazy to think you can call someone a liar while not being a liar yourself. Why are so many scientific theories with proof still theories? Why not call it Just plain Evolution.? If theres really good proof of a person killing someone, and they have proof like voice calls with other people, text, videos, journals/writings, and etc of that person, so you make a theory that they were planning to kill that person, the Person planning to kill get questioned by police after the victims house gets attacked (throwing shooting whatever) during the same time you had that theory would it even be wrong to scratch that its a theory and that it’s straight proof of that person had the intention of killing the victim? Like I said Why cant you call the theory evolution Just evolution.?
@SplixtTrixt The difference is that it's not MY definition, it's the definition that all real scientists use. If you're trying to debunk the foundation of all modern biology, you should understand the meaning of the words you're using. "Evolution," as in, the observable scientific fact that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be true and real in every conceivable way through millions of experiments by tens of thousands of scientists over the past two hundred years is literally defined as "any change in allele frequencies in a population of organisms over successive generations." Or, if you want to put it more succinctly, "descent with inherent modification." If Calvin understood evolution, he would understand why every real scientist (many of whom are CHRISTIAN by the way) uses that definition. He claims in this video to have researched evolution, but then tacks on a bunch of unrelated nonsense and constantly debunked talking points that he should know (if he actually studied evolution) are utterly irrelevant to the question of whether speciation is a real thing that happens. So he's either a liar in that he claims to have studied evolution, but didn't, or he's a liar in that he DID study evolution, and is trying to mislead his audience by bringing up topics he should know are invalid. Also, it bears repeating that this is in no way a "debate" between Christians and "secularists" about a topic that is an open question, and both sides have something to add. The overwhelming majority of Christians accept the fact of evolution, while creationism is a miniscule fringe position that is very quickly dwindling out. Because this is a SETTLED issue in science. Evolution is a fact. As much as gravity, the shape of the earth, the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun, the age of the earth, and so forth. The only way the young earth creationist brain rot can persist is by word games, shifting goalposts, cherry-picking, lying about the data, and preventing people from ever actually picking up a textbook and learning about science themselves. Because the second somebody actually does the hard work to do actual research, the blinders fall off, and they have to either become an "evolutionist," or start lying.
@SplixtTrixt Except I do know that's the correct definition, because I have actually studied biology. If you don't believe me, Google "biological evolution definition," and see what pops up. And no, "either side" could not be right or wrong. This is not an open question. Evolution is a fact. You can either accept it, or you can deny reality. There is no "two sides" about it, just like there's no two sides about the shape of the earth, whether the Earth orbits the sun, whether gravity is real, or whether diseases are caused by microbes. There are people who accept the truth, and people who are wrong. "Atheism" has nothing to do with it. The overwhelming majority of people who accept evolution believe in God, and the overwhelming majority of people who believe in God accept the fact that evolution is real. There are also, by the way, atheists who don't believe in evolution! The only people who claim this is an Atheist vs. Christian debate are the people pushing anti-science narratives for political gain. Also, FYI, I didn't watch Calvin's video. I watched Viced Rhino's video exposing this video and correcting all of its misinformation. I only came here to break a hole in the echo chamber in case anyone is actually interested in learning the truth. If you are, I suggest you go watch Viced Rhino. It's one of his most recent. Shouldn't be hard to find.
@@chameleonx9253 My whole thing was about why is it a theory? Its not a fact as its a theory since people have so much evidence why do they still call it a theory.? How long have you studied biology for.? A few things I was put into a catholic and Christian school and both taught against evolution In a public school most of my friends who were Christians would scoff and tell me how evolution is fake and bs Also why Wikipedia is good its also very very untrustworthy as I my self have the ability to edit it, I have a friend who is absolutely very educated and good at coding and has showed me how easy it is to edit wikipedia, I have seen many different definitions for evolution
@@chameleonx9253 My whole thing was about why is it a theory? Its not a fact as its a theory since people have so much evidence why do they still call it a theory.? How long have you studied biology for.? A few things I was put into a catholic and Christian school and both taught against evolution In a public school most of my friends who were Christians would scoff and tell me how evolution is fake and bs Public schools too Wikipedia I absolutely do not ever use as it’s very easy to edit and change, Ive seen many different definitions which means there can’t be just one definition.. In fact for most things there has to be multiple definitions wether its as little as 2 definitions or more which means theres different takes.
If you had anything significant or substantial to say about/against biology, you would be publishing it in peer-reviewed journals and presenting it at the relevant conferences, not lying to your fellow believers.
It's ironic. When you say that "you just don't understand evolution" is just an ad hominem fallacy... You just don't understand the ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem is saying "You are dumb, therefore you are wrong." Saying that you don't understand the topic is very much a legitimate criticism, even when it's not backed up.
What do we do with a theory that has a 0% success rate (darwinism)? Replace it with an explanation that has a 100% success rate: the first chapter of Genesis, which prescribes that living organisms will always and only reproduce after their own kind.
@@poliincredible770 except evolution is the most robustly supported theory in the history of science and has made hundreds of successful predictions and Genesis isn't even considered literal by most Christians.
@@Gek711 you said darwinism has made hundreds of successful predictions, but didn't name one. Instead of making that assertion, why didn't you just tell us who in your lineage has been observed to be a non-human?
I remember the peppered moth closing the deal for me on evolution. The way it was presented seemed to leave no room for a counter argument, not that i would have listened to it anyway. It was only after becoming a Christian that I was able to hear evidence from both sides.
Well, (not all) but evolutionists believe they are right, and believe we (christians) are wrong. They refuse to listen to the other side. Even when they get stumped or other evolutionists say they don’t have answers and have to just guess. We can see the so obvious truth, but unfortunately, some people only want to see ”their” truth. Changing, twisting, and corrupting the truth inturn.
@@BarlingTanner When it comes to the evolutionary sciences there IS no scientific "other side". There is the confirmed, evidence-supported science and there is creationist religious mythology.
@ Ok then, To put it simply: The very start of evolution is impossible. Why? There was an explosion, no? Ok so if there was one, then 1. Where did it happen? I mean, it created space itself. 2. When did it happen, it created time, no?. And 3. How did it happen? It created matter, yeah? … so basically: The explosion happened in a place that didn’t exist, it happened in a time that was not there, and was made by matter that wasn’t a thing. And before you say: Oh yeah? Well who created God then? Where and when was He before He created everything? That’s the thing, God created everything, including Time, Space, and Matter. He created them, He is not limited by them. And if you say that an explosion created everything out of nothing, why is saying God created everything using His Power any “crazier”? Science is the study of God’s creation.
I watched a video recently where they said a species can never leave its clade. So how did the clade that bacteria are in, evolve into all the other clades? They keep moving the goalposts, which tells me that they are just making it up as they go along.
Clades aren't physical barriers-it's just a way to group organisms with a shared ancestor. When they say a species can't leave its clade, they mean descendants will always trace back to the original group. For example, humans are still in the "mammal" clade even though we've evolved into something quite different. As for bacteria, they don't evolve into completely different organisms because they're incredibly successful as they are. But they do evolve-look at antibiotic resistance, which is bacteria adapting to survive. They also gave rise to more complex life billions of years ago through endosymbiosis, where some bacteria became the mitochondria in our cells. No goalposts are moving-it's just a deeper understanding as evidence piles up.
The term "Bacteria" refers to a clade that encompasses all bacteria, sharing a common ancestor and including all its descendants. Bacteria belong to a clade called "Bacteria," which is distinct from other clades such as Archaea and Eukarya. changes occurring within the clade of bacteria, rather than outside of it. For example, the human species forms a clade. It is a single branch within the larger clade of the hominin lineage, which is a single branch within the larger clade of the primate lineage, which is a single branch within the larger clade of the mammalian lineage
@@robertmcmillan3638The evolution is right there, plain as day. Bacteria evolve all the time-we see it happening in real-time with antibiotic resistance. That's natural selection in action, where the bacteria that survive adapt to the new conditions. On a bigger scale, bacteria billions of years ago also played a massive role in evolution. Through endosymbiosis, some merged to become mitochondria, which power the cells in all complex life, including you and me. So evolution isn't just theory-it's observable, testable, and absolutely everywhere. Incidentally, endosymbiosis is when one organism lives inside another, and over time, they work together so closely that they become a single, unified organism, like how ancient bacteria became mitochondria in our cells.
Please address mutations in your next video, it's a key component of evolution, along with natural selection, and you don't mention it at all in your video. Makes me think you are trying to hide something or else don't know the subject.
@garrybarrie9697 «Your slanderous opinion» no, its a fact. calvin lies about mutations. « isn't relevant and isn't science.« just like calvin when he says mutations doesnt produce new information. that isn't true.
I’m so glad you mentioned this. I was practically pulling my hair out when he made the claim that “by definition” natural selection should always decrease the amount of genes in a population when that statement completely disregards the random mutations that drive evolution.
How is it possible that of the two components of evolution - mutation and natural selection - you leave out one? Only with natural selection it cannot work. There have to be mutations as well.
Mutations rarely produce positive benefits and you expect us to accept that all the perfectly functional species in the world were produced through mutations? Even the way that mutations form makes it impossible for mutations to support evolution. They literally form through errors in cell division or external factors such as radiation.
You don't understand evolution isn't an Ad Hominem statement, you say. Then you commit Ad Hominems against those with different views. Logic might not be your strong point. Evolution is an incomplete theory, but keep cherry picking to be right. You're really not proving anything here.
Around the 8:10 mark you just majorly contradicted the Creationist viewpoint....If as you say isolated families of animals would naturally reduce the number genetic possibilities....then the idea of a single pair of any creature surviving the flood would obviously result in very very limited genetic choices consequently the vast varieties of animal life you see today (only 4000 years later according to Answers in Genesis) would be absolutely IMPOSSIBLE...you just destroyed any credibility Creationism has and especially the Answers in Genesis version of biological diversity.
Dogmatism is blinding and keeping you from basic comprehension. The majority of this video explains natural selection. Natural selection and adaptation precisely provides how isolated families containing specific genetics led to the vast varieties of animals we see today. Pray that god open your eyes
He’s saying nothing new and more complex comes something less complex . People aren’t descendants of pond scum, as evolutionists seem to accept. The animals in the ark were more complex, humans were too, living longer and with less mutation and degradation
@George.Madden I'm not inserting anything. The entire presupposition of AIG is that a single cat like species spawned all felines, and there's no evidence or reason to think that creature was more genetically complex other than you need it to be so your theory doesn't fall apart
Part 1 1. Misunderstanding of Evolution’s Mechanisms Misconception: "Evolution just reshuffles varieties or damages existing traits." Response: Evolution operates through mechanisms like mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, and gene flow, which can lead to novel features and increased complexity over time. For example: Mutation: Mutations introduce new genetic material. Some result in beneficial traits, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria, which represents novel functionality. Gene Duplication: A duplicated gene can evolve a new function, as seen in the evolution of antifreeze proteins in Antarctic fish. Emergent Features: Complex traits (e.g., the eye) have been traced through intermediate stages in the fossil record, showing gradual adaptations. 2. The "Nothing New" Assertion Claim: "Evolution doesn't create anything new." Response: Observed Speciation Events: New species have been observed forming through mechanisms like hybridization, polyploidy, and divergent selection. For instance: London Underground Mosquito: A new species emerged from adaptation to underground environments. New Functionalities: Nylonase, an enzyme in bacteria, evolved to digest synthetic nylon, a material not present before the 20th century, showcasing genuinely new capabilities. 3. Misrepresentation of Evolutionary Definitions Claim: "Textbooks define evolution as just changes in gene frequencies." Response: This simplified definition is accurate but does not exclude larger-scale evolutionary processes like speciation and macroevolution. Changes in gene frequencies are foundational and provide the raw material for complex evolutionary changes. 4. Evidence Supporting Evolution Fossil Record: Transitional fossils, like Tiktaalik (linking fish and tetrapods) and Archaeopteryx (linking dinosaurs and birds), illustrate gradual change and the emergence of new forms. Genetic Evidence: Comparative genomics reveals shared DNA sequences and common ancestry, such as endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) shared between humans and chimpanzees. Developmental Biology: Homologous structures and conserved embryonic development patterns point to shared evolutionary pathways. 5. Addressing "Evolution Has Never Been Observed" Misunderstanding: "Evolution has never been observed." Response: Microevolutionary changes (e.g., peppered moth coloration) and macroevolutionary events (e.g., speciation in cichlid fish) have been documented in real-time and in the fossil record. 6. Natural Selection and Creationism Claim: "Natural selection is compatible with creationism." Response: While creationists accept natural selection as a mechanism for variation within "kinds," this view fails to account for the cumulative power of selection and mutation to drive large-scale evolutionary changes. Evolutionists acknowledge pre-Darwinian ideas of selection but emphasize Darwin’s contribution in explaining how these mechanisms produce new species and higher taxa over time. 7. Fallacy of "You Just Don't Understand Evolution" Criticism: Claiming creationists misunderstand evolution is ad hominem. Response: The issue is not personal but conceptual. Misrepresentations of evolutionary theory (e.g., "why are there still apes?") reflect a lack of understanding. Correcting these misconceptions is not an attack but a necessary clarification. 8. Historical Contributions and Misrepresentation Claim: "Darwin borrowed ideas like natural selection from others." Response: While Darwin built on earlier ideas, his synthesis in Origin of Species provided the first comprehensive theory explaining biodiversity through descent with modification. This integration of evidence from geology, paleontology, and biology was groundbreaking. Conclusion The claim that evolution lacks evidence or fails to create novelty misrepresents the mechanisms, evidence, and scope of evolutionary theory. Observable phenomena, genetic studies, and transitional fossils robustly support evolution as a scientific explanation for biodiversity. Understanding the nuances and mechanisms strengthens the case for evolution, refuting assertions of insufficiency or misunderstanding.
Just a small rebuttal mutations are degregative the majority of them and some neutral mutations the beneficial mutations themselves also break the dna and this lead to devoultion and mutations selection mechanism is Very ineffective at producing complexity according to peer reviewed papers just to fix two mutations in humans we have to wait 100 milion years
@@friedaOFspeech8031 Actually, the idea that things can't go from less complex to more complex over time because of the Laws of Thermodynamics is a common misunderstanding. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that in a closed system (one with no energy input), disorder-or entropy-tends to increase. But Earth isn’t a closed system! The sun is constantly pumping energy into Earth, providing the fuel for complex processes like photosynthesis and evolution. This energy allows living organisms to create order and complexity over time, like building proteins, cells, and entire ecosystems. In short, the laws of thermodynamics don’t stop complexity from increasing-they just set the rules for how energy is used in the process. Life works within those rules and uses energy to grow and evolve. It's not magic; it's science.
"Mutations introduce new genetic material." I didn't need to read anything else you said to know for a fact you don't understand evolution as a concept. NO mutation in the history of the world has EVER introduced new genetic material. That is one of the fundamental reasons FOR the criticism of macro evolution as a concept. Mutations destroying/reshuffling genetic material isn't' a misrepresentation, it's an observed fact, acknowledged by geneticists all around the world.
I am still trying to figure out from the theory of evolution which came first, the chicken or the egg? Why is reproduction a beneficial trait to begin with? It seems a lot easier to just be, like a rock.
You don't have to anymore. The egg came before the chicken. Birds (including chickens) evolved from theropod dinosaurs. The fossil record shows that theropods developed bird-like features such as feathers and wings over millions of years, leading to the evolution of modern birds.
Fertilized egg is the reslt of sexual reproduction. But you only see them in flowering plants and animals. Not in non-flowering plants. Had to be very early in evolution. More interesting is the question: why had nature selected sexual reproduction. Bacteria don''t have it. For the answer watch Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate
@@tobias4411 That is an assertion that you have not observed to happen but lets take for granted that that is true. Which came first, the theropod dinosaur or the egg?
@@johnsmit5999 Theropods first evolved around 230 MYA. The first hard shell egg laying evolved around 195 MYA. Before hard shells evolved dinosaur eggs were more like today's leathery turtle eggs. The oldest of such leathery eggs known date to a little over 200 MYA.
The entire talk of Darwin doesn’t matter in the slightest. Hitler could have discovered natural selection and it would still be a valid theory of a mechanism.
Wanted to watch to challenge my own worldview but started on two false premises: 1. You insinuate that observational science is a way more limited term than it is, and 2. Evolution has been and is currently being observed, most commonly in insects since they have shorter birth-to-reproduction rates. It’s a common exercise for students of evolutionary biology to do experiments on enclosed environments with fruit flies to see how their biology changes over time. You could also fumigate any tree in the Amazon to see how speciation has occurred in that unique environment.
@ how can he acknowledge microevolution only? Especially as he acknowledges natural selection? To admit that evolution is real but only within his desired timeframe comes across as willful ignorance.
To be fair, the reason people claim you don't understand evolution is because they are charitably attributing your gross misrepresentation of it as non-malicious. Most of us know better.
The huge problem with this video is that it does misrepresent the mechanism of evolution theory. The claim is not that natural selection is the only drive of evolution. If that was the case, this video would totally be right. But there are at least two other drives: Mutation and recombination. Both of these can produce new features that are not just reshuffled or broken versions of existing features. I am not opposed to the idea of creationism and am a Christian myself. I am however agnostic about the origin of the earth and it frankly does not matter much whether it is exactly as it says in the bible or if the creation story is an allegory for evolution through creative design. In the end I think Christians should hold themselves to the highest standard and not use cheap shots to win arguments. Because this was either a cheap shot by misrepresenting the argument for evolution theory or it was irresponsibly ignorant.
There is also genetic neutral drift. These clowns don't care about getting the science right. Only in defending their creationist Fortress of Invincible Ignorance.
I think Calvin knows that he is making cheap shots, even if he thinks it is justified to "defend the faith". But I agree completeley that biological evolution (and other science) does not threaten Christianity. It only contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, which has always been a naive stance anyway.
There is also a lack of plate tectonics but it’s widely accepted because the amount of supporting evidence is so incredible it’s almost completely irrefutable. You are confusing your world view with scientific theories they aren’t the same
I think if you seeded an empty planet with single-celled microorganisms, you would never see flying mammals with echolocation, no matter how many billions of years you waited. You would see a huge variety of microorganisms. Evolution through random mutation can occur but it is scientifically counterintuitive to think that it can account for the astonishing biodiversity of Earth. I think if you modeled beneficial random mutation as a Poisson process, the corresponding rate parameter is way too low for mutation to explain the emergence of multicellular organisms, interdependent ecosystem components, and intelligence, within the amount of time that Earth could have accommodated life of any variety. Evolutionists should try to invent a system that detects and classifies mutations within a controlled environment, even one enhanced with mutagenic agents, such as ionizing radiation. Alternatively, you could use any model of the geologic column and estimate of the Earth's age, and try to back-calculate what you think the beneficial mutation rate parameter must be, given that naturalist evolution is true. Then evolutionists could argue that the chance of Earth's biodiversity emerging through evolution is high enough to be a reasonable explanation.
After thinking about this a little more, we could probably put a lower bound the problem by searching for and estimating a particular mutation of interest, such as losing the ability to reproduce asexually. Perhaps the evolutionist can contrive an environment where such a mutation would be naturally selected. There might be some clues in the hypothetical common ancestor of plants and animals, because plants have both male and female organs but can reproduce with only a single macroscopic entity, while animals and humans obviously cannot. Snails are a also an interesting case.
As an evolutionist I found this video very interesting but I have a couple of pieces of evidence for evolution that you didn’t mention that I’d be curious to hear your response about. Firstly, evolution is a process that takes hundreds of thousands of years so it’s no wonder that in the last 300 years that people have been searching for observational evidence of evolution nobody has found any. ( just to counter you attack about not having seen evolution directly Secondly, what do you think about vestigial structures or structures in different species that are now completely useless yet they still exist because they were passed down by the species’ ancestors. examples of this are: human tailbones, the hind legs of whales and the non-functional eyes of fish that live in absolute darkness. Vestigial structures serve as evidence because why would a supposedly perfect organism created by god have such useless body parts Lastly, how would you counter homologous structures or structures in different species that are very similar because they evolved from a common ancestor. For example, the forelimbs of humans, cats, bats, and whales all share the same patterns with the humerus bone closest to the body and then the radius and ulna side by side then the carpals, metacarpals and phalanges at the end. The reason for which these forelimbs are all similar is because these animals all evolved from a common mammal ancestor. What I find curious however is that you admit that it’s fully possible for something like the color of moth wings to change in 50 years but not that the moths can become different species’ and grow larger wings or an additional two legs over hundreds of thousands of years ( Any thoughtful responses by creationists is appreciated and pls don’t yell at me for disagreeing with you :) )
he probably hasn't answered because none of these are difficult arguments to dispute. To answer for him: firstly, if there is no proof you cannot say it definitively happens as a fact = a belief, not a proven truth secondly, a quick internet search can fill you in on the non-major but still purposeful uses of the tail bone: "it acts as a site of attachment for muscles, ligaments, and tendons of the pelvic floor, which support the position of the anus and provide weight-bearing support when a person is seated. Additionally, the coccyx is involved in the stability of the lower back and pelvis. Although it is not essential for survival, its attachments to various soft tissues contribute to the overall structure and function of the pelvic region." Some body parts are only "not useful" because their utility has not been found or fully defined yet - it would be a miracle for scientists to perfectly find every purpose of every part of our body in a set amount of time. The whole point of science in the first place is to advance our understanding or correct our understanding on everything by collecting solid proof, facts, and evidence every day (but biases can play a factor in how body parts are studied). thirdly, you don't have to reinvent the wheel to make something new. If God made an attribute for one animal, why would he not also use them in other animals with similar needs? The only real fact about evolution is that it is "the theory of evolution" based on observations by secular scientists that lead them to believe in it. Creationists see complex, perfectly-designed, interdependent systems and believe a higher being created everything. The whole point of this guy's video is that secular evolutionists act like smug jerks all the time to people who don't believe in their theory of meaningless existence, making it a point of argument instead of just letting creationists believe what they want and keeping an open-minded view of the world.
@@nickyflippersthegoatFirst appreciate the discourse, always good. I'm not a biologist so I can't speak from that side so I'll go from a different angle. To your first point, yes we can never 100.0% prove evolution is real but as long as it's on the 99.5-99.99% range that is what we call "good enough". Secondly, let's go back to what is the point of a theory. A theory has its main use in that it 1. Reflects a real world phenomenona and 2. Most importantly it provides explanational value. Evolution explains a lot of things such as species, natural selection and more (I'd have to search up to find more but I know more exist, just can't remember off the top of my head). Even if not perfect or even potentially if not true it both works and explains a lot of things. What does creationism explain? It does not explain how anything was created, it does not explain who/what created it just what it created, it does NOT explain why it was created, it explains nothing. It only raised millions of questions. Who is God? (First prove one exists, the burden of proof lies on you) What is God's purpose? Why did God create the world so that everything suggests that He doesn't exist? Etc. In summary, evolution explains a lot of stuff while creationism doesn't, and don't forget about the burden of proof.
@@Wildunexplorednature I didn't think you were replying to me at first until I read "@nickyflippers" because none of this even begins to debate what I said. To whatever your first thing was, what kind of an argument is that? How can there be "99% evidence" for something? "99% proof" and calling it "good enough" is not science last I checked - science is our understanding of reality based on actual fact. This is a third of your argument - yikes. Secondly, the "1. and 2." thing was a sad attempt at looking smarter than me. All you did was take my description of evolution and explain what was already implied - "[The evolutionary theory] is based on observations [in reality] by secular scientists that lead them to believe in it [as an explanation for things]". then, for your final "argument", you start attacking belief in a higher being as "no proof either" - which is funny, since I never strongly argued for the existence of a god, but yet here we are with your "checkmate" or whatever you think you're pulling. If a higher being exists, are you really going to tell me that I would know why it exists, how it operates, and what proof I have for it? The burden of proof for a belief that's "so overwhelmingly true you'd have to be stupid not to believe it" falls on you. Also, saying "in summary" at the end like you destroyed my valid points to the other guy after giving a few piddly arguments that don't even try to contend with what I've already said and going off the rails sputtering about God like Christians are evil for believing in Him or something is childish stuff. Also, don't forget that something you want to force other people to believe like a baby is your burden to prove, not mine.
I remember being in the 8th grade and reading the science book that talked about how scientists believed life started in a warm pond by assemblages of amino acids (the "building blocks of life") and thinking they seemed to be completely clueless and just making stories up.
So sorry that you do not understand what a "simple cell" is. I do not know when you went to school but they learned a lot the last forty years. Go check out how a bacterium finds and moves towards its food. It is all biochemistry. We do not know how much works but the honest answer is that we do not know and we do not fill the gaps with "God did it". And to be honest, I doubt that the narrator studied evolution in depth. I simply hear all the creationist talking points that are all debunked a long time ago.
I would just suggest listening to someone that disagrees. Try to approach it without a belief and follow the evidence. Don’t just listen to someone that is searching for evidence to support their conclusions. Often debate - is a good way to start sorting this stuff out vs just finding a guy with a bunch of books behind him.
Mutations result in the loss of information ..not the creation of new information within a genome. When Dawkins was asked to if he could give and example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information in a genome..he could not provide even one example. Mutations ultimately result in mutation load on an genome result in organisms actually devolving.
@@alantasman8273 Where did people get the idea that mutations are a loss of information? And what does 'information' mean like....do you mean the # of genes, or just new phenotypes? Gene deletion is a type of mutation but it's just one of multiple types of mutations: substitution, duplication, and translocation are some other examples.
@@billbillson6779 Where did evolutionists ever get the idea that the DNA of a genome can re-write itself to be a totally different kind that can pro-create and survive. It has never been see to happen in nature...it certainly cannot be seen happening today. Yet you think the nature can reprogram itself with new information that will work.,Your anthropomorphism of nature is actually laughable., Stop conflating variation with macro-evolution...transition to a new kind. The fossil record is devoid of transitional fossils.
@@billbillson6779Read about mutation load and find out the difference between variation and macro-evolution. Macro Evolution has never been observed and the fossil record is devoid of transitional fossils.
@@alantasman8273 No. Like all creationists when trying to speak about evolution you are wrong. Mutations can and do add genetic information, through gene duplication, insertions, and horizontal gene transfer. Through mutation organisms can have loss, gain or modified information, not just loss.
@@DaveWillmore well, you'd be objectively wrong if you told them that. So you shouldn't. But if you're trying to express that you think there's a limit to evolutionary changes that prevent evolution as understood by the scientific theory you could just say that you think there is a limit on how much an organism can change and then when they ask you where that limit is you can just say that you don't know.
"creation science" teaches that every land animal in existence today is descended from the animals that lived for a year on a wooden boat 4,000 years ago.
Precisely! So long as anyone believes the Noah story that proves evolution. And if necessary, we will hit them with sky daddy,which always cinches evolution. We know evolution is a fact because the only other possibility is God. And we hate God, even though we know He doesn't exist.
Ask yourself “why is evolutionary theory useful and to whom” then look at who pays to promote it. You will learn far more about what the theory actually is. As for the young student studying evolutionary theory here are some questions for you: 1.) are the changes you are certain occurred explainable by the existence of pre-existing mechanisms, or was novel data required to produce it? 2.) do you have reasonable hope that evolutionary processes can reclaim the data that you observed being lost? 3.) mathematically speaking, is the collapse of biodiversity more likely than its expansion even if humans were removed from the equation?
I can easily flip that first question back to you "Why is the god hypothesis useful and to whom? Who pays to promote it?" I might answer, the church. The people who gain a great deal of money and power in doing so. The same folks who tell you faith ( belief without evidence) is good. Questioning god is bad. I might suggest as to do so limites said power and wealth of the church.
When someone says you just don't understand evolution, they imply that they do. The embedded implication is that they are smarter more educated and more enlightened than you are. I confess freely, that I was one of them. It is easy to believe absurdities when thousands of nodding heads are behind you. It is much more difficult, intellectually and emotionally to swim against the current. Engaging with and refuting evolution in our current culture takes an amazing amount of intellectual fortitude. Thank you for everything that you are doing.
I understand evolution because I have studied it for 40 years, not because I am smarter. I constantly encourage people to look at the evidence and think for themselves. But creationists refuse to do that, because they mistakenly think the Bible does not allow it. Nobody with "intellectual fortitude" (or without it) has ever been able to refute evolution. "I bet it's not" is not a valid scientific argument.
Please tell me about one research paper you have read in which research about some aspect of evolution is presented. Tell me where to find it, wrote it, and what the conclusions were.
One of the most satisfying things for me is seeing such Christian geniuses exposing the vanity a d trash behind the works of many of the so called world's wisest men. God will take all His Glory because it all belongs to Him and I add that it looks good on Him alone, and He is the Beginning and then End of all things. God Bless you sir. And may He reward you bountifully for your contribution to enlightening his children and those of the earth who have been mislead.
Genesis 6:20 uses the words "kind" and "sort" in the same verse. I keep hearing creationists trying to describe what a kind is. Can someone describe to me what the "sort" is? Is it similar to the biological ...family, genus, species? "Kind" and "sort" sound like alternative creationist taxonomy.
Among the first thousand prokaryote genomes that were sequenced, not a single protein coding gene was preserved across all genomes. LUCA bites the dust!
Great video! I do have a question about natural selection around 9:19. You say it’s not able to create due to its selection from a set gene pool, but doesn’t that fail to account for mutations? For example, there are genetic mutations in species (including humans) which lead to webbed fingers, even though that’s not “in the gene pool.” Would love to get some thoughts on thus
Mutations rarely produce positive results. Most of the time they are either neutral or harmful. For evolution to work, you have to bank on a process that rarely produces positive results to produce positive results millions of times over. It’s like acknowledging you have a 0.0000000001% chance of winning the lottery 4 times in a lifetime and then presenting the lottery as the mechanism a family worth 20 trillion dollars used to build its wealth over the course of 200 years.
@@msgarion That Discovery Institute talking point from Michael Behe is embarrassing, man 😭bringing up a point that's only presented in non-peer reviewed journals and has been debunked countless times isn't the way to go
So a population can evolve different traits when separated form the main population then? For example, a lobe-finned fish spends more time in shallow water, using it's limbs to make small trips on land thus that population becomes separated from their deep sea relatives, more pressure is put on them to be more efficient for land walking, thus the first tetrapods evolved. Thanks you for accepting evolution as a fact.
Yes evolution is fact we observabe them but darwinism evolution macro evolution it's not fact its faith because there is no empirical evidence of Darwinsm macro evolution one species to another
Love these vids, please keep em coming. Once I was a doubter, no longer. Thankyou for providing clear concise answers and non-stop examples. Evolutionists are far more focused on fighting God, than actually focusing on science
@@jacob.tudragens No, YEC's like you who believe this AIG nonsense and have to like your own posts are the slow ones. You can't even explain what a scientific theory is.
@@theKingsAmbassadors well i have informed them several time that people with hearing problems or are just older cannot hear voices under the music to no avail so in relation to my request and lack of results my statement is correct. 👍🙏
Seeing as God knows way more than we do, how can humanity ever think to surpass Him? They attempt to understand the world apart from God and look to kick God out of our thinking. What is God's response? Is God intimidated by mankind? Why do the nations rage, And the people plot a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, 3 "Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us." 4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision. 5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, And distress them in His deep displeasure: 6 "Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion." ~Psalm 2 ........I think not ❤
@earthisasphere suppressing the truth of God won't work in the end. It won't work for you and it's not going to work for this world. One day Christ will return and this entire world system will be gone.
@@avafury4584 There is no truth of God to suppress. I was raised a YEC. The Bible isn't even accurate in it's history. Grow up. If there is a god, it certainly isn't the god of the very flawed Bibled.
I have a problem with what you are doing here.If evolution is false, as you suggest, then why are you no arguing with the evidence for creationism? I mean, we have the bible but surely if we examine the evidence claimed by evolution we will find evidence for creationism, won't we? I hope you tackle this topic as it would be much more convincing for Christians to have something positive to use.
I think they said that in the video. They believe in natural selection. Don't believe in creating new structures. While theoretically possible that dropping raw materials down a stairs creates a MacBook at the bottom, the odds are incredible. If a bacteria develops a new antibiotic resistance, rather than having created a new efflux pump, it is far more likely some defect was created which prevents the antibiotic from entering the cell, or perhaps it took up a plasmid of another bacteria which already had the pump...then you're still left with the improbably odds of where the first pump came from
@@EvilXtianity You'll have to tell him that after you're death. What will your eulogy be? because I assume you are going to die right? Or is that something you can solve on your own with "evolution"
@@NathanAmiel-f6b "You'll have to tell him that after you're death." If all you can offer is an argumentum ad baculum logical fallacy, you contributed nothing of value.
@@earthisasphere Well, in that case I would like him to give us his functional definition of "primate", since he seems to think humans aren't primates, and so I would like him to show us even one diagnostic characteristic of primates that we don't have.
We were created a little lesser than the angels I would like to share an observation of what I believe are the seraphim in my video 'Begining of understanding ' , consistent with Scripture and electrical processies ( I mention in my video 'Sound reason ' My channel is dedicated to giving examples of Seraphim I hope you'll consider watching Godspeed
I've found that the reason why a lot of people have different definitions on things re: evolution is because they keep changing the definitions on a lot of things. What they thought about evolution in the 1980s isn't the same as what they think today. I think we can thank creationists for a lot of that because of the obvious flaws that you pointed out. Thank God you are still here today, continuing to point out those flaws.
What flaws would those be? Do you really not understand words like "evolution" can have different meanings depending on the context in which they are used?
@mostlyharmless0642 I understand and the flaws are exposed on a daily basis. Do you realize that everything that they call a whale fossil that is supposed to be part of the whale evolutionary tree was fabricated to make it appear that whales had evolved?
@@samuelrodriguez9199 You need to back up that scurrilous accusation cetacean researchers fabricated evidence of whale evolution. That's a rather disgusting as well as slanderous lie.
@@mostlyharmless0642 many flaws. Such as the fact that the genetic similarities we see today would not be possible if mankind came from many different regions and existed for 200,000 years. Not to mention genetic entropy.
It is sad how so many professing Christians I've met who believe in evolution and try and mix it in with the word of God. I've met many who believe the Genesis Account is not literal. They have no idea of the implications this has on the rest of scripture including the New Testament!
So true! These people that believe this are missing so much of the interpretation of the rest of the Bible, also a lot of Revelation cannot be understood, eg the identity of ‘the serpent’ of Genesis Ch 3. At Revelation 12.9 it identifies this ‘old’ or original serpent ( from Genesis) as Satan the Devil who is misleading the entire inhabited earth with the aid of ‘his angels’. This proves that it really was Satan in the Garden of Eden masquerading as a serpent so as not to identify himself to Eve. It couldn’t have been a literal snake as this same serpent is still alive thousands of years later when the book of Revelation was written The verse also discloses that Satan and his angels have been ‘thrown down to the earth’ so this helps to explain why conditions on the earth have progressively become worse and worse with time due to demonic activity heavily influencing humans as we see today. Truly we’re living in the ‘last days’ and will soon see intervention by God by means of His Kingdom
@nurse580 while the demons certainly contribute some, the main reason the earth and all of creation groans and falls apart is because of the curse from God after Adam and Eve sinned. This world has been cursed by God
The problem with this argument is that nothing we ever observe is supported by creationism. Poof and all the different species are there in their full form is not consistent with anything we have ever observed. Spontaneous creation is magical thinking.
That's not what we believe in. We believe in speciation of biological families, which is exactly what we observe in nature, we simply don't believe in the relatedness of separate families (or kinds if you want to be biblical with the terminology). So, for example, all bears share a common ancestor and all canines share a common ancestor, but a bear-canine ancestor that evolutionists propose never existed.
@rafexrafexowski4754 sure. Fine. What you described is fundamentally the same thing: poof and all the different animal families are there in their full form. Nothing about your statement changes the nature of my critique whatsoever. It's as though one day there were no canines and suddenly poof there were a male and a female canine. Let me ask you, did they just appear like a magic trick? Were they puppies when they poofed into existence? Will you admit that the spontaneous creation is inconsistent with anything we have ever witnessed in nature? Maybe it is true but it is still magical thinking. It is literally 'magic did it'.
@@rafexrafexowski4754 you still believe in 'poof and the different families of animals are there in their full form', which is inconsistent with everything we have ever observed. It is literally the 'it was magic' theory.
@raymondblake5765 It is, in fact, not inconsistent with what we have observed. If science points to the fact that the common ancestors of these animals were not related, they must have appeared spontaneously or each were developed in a separate process. The former is more likely than the latter, so at least in some cases "magic" as you call it may be the most probable explanation.
@@rafexrafexowski4754 what I mean by ' inconsistent with anything we have ever observed' is that it was magic... I'm not saying that there are no artifacts or evidence of magic happening in the past... the literal 'poof into existence' magic trick is not a phenomenon that we observe.
3 billion base pairs cry out for explanation! And it not just explaining their origin but the programming that tells them when and where to be expressed.
@@goody8839 Gene functions are defined by an intelligence. Complex specified information of genomes does not arise by chance and natural laws. This is what SETI depends upon in their search for extraterrestrial life. The evolutionary explanation is analogous to an Apple 2 turning into an iMac with a random number generator and lots of time apart from software and hardware engineers.
@@johnsmit5999"3 billion base pairs cry out for explanation!". Humans have approximately 3.2 billion base pairs which corresponds to roughly 6.4 billion bits of information or roughly 750 megabytes when considering the haploid genome. The vast genetic information in humans, comprising approximately 3.2 billion base pairs, is explained by evolutionary processes over billions of years. Gene expression is regulated by complex mechanisms that determine when and where specific genes are activated. Key factors in this regulation include transcription factors, epigenetic modifications, and signaling pathway. These regulatory systems enable precise control over gene expression without necessitating a divine influence.
@@johnsmit5999Gene functions are defined by an intelligence". No, not at all. Scientific research shows that genes arise and evolve through mechanisms such as gene duplication, mutations, and natural selection, which drive genetic diversity and adaptation in populations. New genes can originate from various molecular events, including duplications and retrotranspositions, contributing to evolutionary innovation without invoking intelligent design.
@@johnsmit5999"The evolutionary explanation is analogous to an Apple 2 turning into an iMac with an random number generator and lots of time apart from software and hardware engineers". This analogy is about as accurate as saying that a toddler with finger paints can create the Mona Lisa. You see, evolution isn’t just a game of cosmic bingo where random mutations pop up like surprise party guests. It’s more like a high-stakes reality show where only the fittest contestants get to stick around. Natural selection is the ruthless producer, deciding who gets to stay and who gets voted off the island based on their ability to survive and reproduce. Meanwhile, our beloved Apple II didn’t just sit there waiting for time to work its magic. No, it had software and hardware engineers - actual humans with plans and blueprints - guiding its transformation into the sleek iMac. So unless you believe that evolution is just a long, drawn-out game of chance played by some cosmic dice-roller, this analogy falls flat. In short, while both processes involve change over time, one is a carefully crafted journey of innovation, and the other is nature’s version of “Survivor.” So let’s leave the tech comparisons to the engineers and give evolution its due credit!
Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. Colossians 3:16 - Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. Luke 11:28 - But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” Isaiah 40:8 - The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
Anyone else come to these comment sections to simply say to themselves , “phew, at least I’m not THAT dumb…”? The algorithm knows we need a little boost of confidence every so often.
I love the idea that God created all the mechanisms of evolution as well as physics and the laws of nature in general and much like with us humans, he gives it free will to do whatever and see what it creates. Intelligent design theory is a nice theory many scientists subscribe to because we have proof that we exist and how evolution brought us here, but the probability is insanely low that not just that we evolved, not just that life recovered from all the extinction events, not just that live evolved, not just that our planet could even support life, but that our universe is able to support life, if gravitational constant was off even by a little bit no stars could ever form if the universe didn’t expand at its current speed no galaxies or solar systems and the list of just rights just keeps going. As a Christian I also have a problem with Solo Scriptura because we as Christians have always known about how the Bible was written and formed but most people never take the time to understand it and forget the context. For example Genesis is a collection of Jewish oral stories passed down and finally written down after centuries, some people think Jesus wrote the Bible. There several examples of this that can be seen again and again throughout the Bible where certain writers has different interpretations and intentions as well as writing style that greatly affect how it is transliterated, some writers love to exaggerate events and themes it while others basically wrote a historical textbook of the Jewish people and how the faith waned due to the time. The Bible is great book for faith and later Jewish historical writings with some real bases to everything, especially Jesus and the new testament since when it was compiled many false works had come out and early church fathers and historians studied each text intently and tried only using primary sources much like how our current historians due today. They also called out blatant forgeries such as the Gospel of Judas which was proven to be a 2 century forgery as well as having some insane stories and themes like Jesus teaching only Judas something despite his ministry being incredibly public and open to everyone including Gentiles.
Thank Ra, I am not the only one. The delusions of this cult are mesmerizing. I come here for the mental gymnastics they pull to justify their adult fiction.
@@cadenz7719 Name an accredited scientist that buys into intelligent design. Do you really not see the flaw in the " if the universe was different it would be different" fallacy? It seems as you are under the assumption the universe adapted to suit us. Also, the Judeo-Christian bible is plagiarized, edited, mistranslated ancient folklore.
It is but the point of the video was too explain the difference between natural selection and evolution . And that such thing as a sucessful evolution of something was never observed.
Loose the music! I watch all your videos but the music is a it much. It is a distraction. I know I can mute but then I have to pay attention to the captions and not the images. I do enjoy the information I can use when discussing evolution. God Bless and Keep up the Good Work.
In Christianity, the Bible is considered the "Word of God," and there is much to find about this topic in scripture. The Bible is called the Word of God, meaning it can be considered a direct line of communication from the Lord, divinely inspired by the authors of the respective books. If the Bible is truly God’s Word, then we should cherish it, study it, obey it, and fully trust it. If the Bible is truly the Word of God, then it is the final authority for all matters of faith, practice, and morality. If the Bible is the Word of God, then to dismiss it is to dismiss God Himself.
The Bible is a mix of historical events, mythologies, legends and lies. It's scientifically and historically inaccurate. Infallible word of God? Not a chance!
"IF". And if it isn't? And actually it's very easy to demonstrate the bible is NOT infallible because it's littered with mistakes and self-contradictions.
@@georg7120I would say that Jesus is a legend. I am not doubting his existence, as historians like Josephus and Tacitus support it. By "legend," I mean that his story was likely exaggerated, attributing wonders to him and elevating him to a godlike status. Legends forms through a combination of storytelling, historical events, and cultural beliefs. Initially, legends are shared orally, often featuring human actions perceived to have occurred in history. Over time, these stories may be embellished, adding elements like miracles or supernatural aspects to make them more compelling. The process involves adapting the narrative to remain relevant to contemporary audiences, often by linking it to current culture or events. Legends typically have some historical or topographical connection, distinguishing them from myths, which lack historical grounding. Other legends are Hercules from Greek mythology and Samson in Hewbrew mythology (in the Bible), they reflects similar archetypes within different cultures and shares traits of strength and heroic feats. Both figures are renowned for their superhuman strength and heroic deeds, and they both also experience betrayal by women they love and face moral complexities in their stories.
I love how you completely ignore the idea about mutations when describing how genetic selection doesn't give "new" information, just a rescrambling of information. Mutations change and give new information all the time.
I hate to say it, but this is one of the biggest lies of the proponents of the evolutionary theory. I'm guessing you got this from another evolutionist, who in turn got it from another evolutionist, who in turn got it from an evolutionary professor in say the 1960's who simply made it up out of thin air...... Mutations do not give new information all the time. In fact, mutations give new information "none" of the time, because that is not what a mutation is (inherently). Mutations are simply copying errors in genetic replication. They throw a wrench into the system. They don't give new information at all, in fact it's usually the complete opposite. Sometimes they are just inert/benign (at best), but often destructively fatal to the organism (at worst). I would march over to your local evolutionary teacher of choice and demand that they show you concrete proof of a mutation "giving new information" in any scenario whatsoever.
Mutations result in the loss of information ..not the creation of new information within a genome. When Dawkins was asked to if he could give and example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information in a genome..he could not provide even one example. Mutations ultimately result in mutation load on an genome resulting in organisms less likely to adapt to their environment.
@@alantasman8273Why would it only result in lost Information? If you take an binary code and randomly switch a 0 to a 1 like a mutation you get a new information. If its „useful“ or not is a different question. Beside that many scientist hat aspects in their theory they couldnt prove but got proven after them. But to give an example: the different Kinds of mutations that made many adults able to consum milk way past their baby age. There are even different kinds of mutations in different populations of humans that lead to the same result.
@@alantasman8273 What don't you grasp about the idea -> -> I would be curious to see what you're referring to about Dawkins, first of all on a biochemical level, mutation's are harder to explain, but we know that they occur and we know that they're the result of an error during transcription which alters the protein formed during translation, or the new cell formed after mitosis. Usually these are either neutral (the base change forms the same amino acid) or deleterious (the new protein/the proteins the new cell produces reduces substrate-enzyme affinity) but they can also be beneficial. Nature is not perfect, so the new proteins formed may lead to greater substrate-enzyme affinity in a certain chemical pathway, or it might for example form different enzymes that have an affinity for a different substrate (Ex. An increase in Lactate dehydrogenase would improve the efficiency of the reaction converting Lactate to Pyruvate and vice versa) - Let's say once upon a time, our ancestors did not have the ability to form Lactate dehydrogenase - we would likely die following intense anaerobic exercise, and we would lack many biochemical pathways that are vital to our lives nowadays. If this were true, a mutation would have caused us to produce an enzyme which catalyses the Lactate-Pyruvate reaction, and over time members of the population with the ability to form this enzyme would be able to sprint and outrun prey. Eventually the sub population which did not form this new enzyme would die out and be replaced by those that did. You would be right in saying that we have never observed that, but it is the only reasonable explanation for the origin of new genetic material, and it is totally feasible as far as biochemistry is concerned
Of course it can. There are many natural processes which encode information. The spectral lines in starlight carry encoded information about the chemical composition of the star. Your ignorance of basic scientific knowledge doesn't make the knowledge not exist.
there are at least 5 different levels of information ranging from statistic, semantic, pragmatic, instructional etc spectral lines are fingeprints, not blueprints
when my dog was given the shot to pass away; to spare her from an incurable illness that would prolong her suffering .. dogs howled from houses nearest to our house, and further and further away. My dog has a Soul. And we will see each other again, I believe.
@@audreyheart2180 How do you know they were wailing for your dog and not reacting to something else like a distant fire engine siren you couldn't hear? Or one dog did start wailing for reasons?? and the others pick up off of him? Not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out some other possibilities.
@@mostlyharmless0642 if it were a siren, I couldn't hear, the dogs would have wailed all at the same time .. this was the the one time, my dog died in my arms, behind tall thick walls; and my dog not sounding a peep .. and as her body grew limp and tears blinded my eyes, - dogs wailed and howled from house to house, from nearest our house to furthest. and people will not always believe everything they see on YT, and it's okay.
@sciencerules2825 your claim that it's true doesn't automatically make it true. Nor does the ad populum defense that you have more scientists than we do.
If mutations are in fact random... then the odds are worse then the number of seconds that have gone by since life first appeared that a new functioning protein would be created
@@nicolesousa1836mutations are improbable but there’s hundreds of millions of genes in every living organism and hundreds of millions organisms reproduce every day. So it’s improbable but reproduction occurs so frequently that the low odds still present themselves.
@@AMH793 Well put, and it's the same with the universe. The odds of the first self-replicating molecules that preceded life are infinitesimally small. But no matter how tiny those odds, when you have an infinite universe with infinite chances, the odds of it happening somewhere are highly likely.
The Fact that you don't mention mutations creating the variations which natural selection then select from, shows you're being dishonest. You even provided a quote to harp on the fact that natural selection only selects from available variations and leads to less variation. This is true, but you fail to mention the variation itself comes from mutations which give rise to genetic differences etc. It's just dishonest.
He lies - we have observed evolution. For example, house sparrows were brought to North America from Europe in the nineteenth century. Since then, genetic variation within the species, and the different selective pressures present in different habitats have allowed them to adapt to different parts of the continent. Thus, modern house sparrows in the north are larger and darker colored than those in the south. Darker colors absorb sunlight better than light colors and larger size allows less surface area per unit volume, thus reducing heat loss - both advantages in a cold climate. This is an example of natural selection acting upon different populations, producing micro-evolution on a continental scale. And it is one that humans have been around to observe firsthand.Christians always lie about evolution
@ Hahaha. It baffles me that they don’t research any of this. They think they know and then they say “it makes no sense.” Of course not… but, after they are told, they never update their understanding. Ken ham is notorious for this and Ray comfort is entirely impervious to education. Hovind is just a grifter.
@@MikeMcG58 That is a very common answer when someone believes something but can't explain why. This is why we should know what we believe and why we believe it.
In my experience they try and explain it quite a bit actually, sadly though even when presenting people with the Biblical reasons why it is true many do not accept it. It is up to the Lord to open people's eyes.
@johnelliott5859 in His permissive will He has allowed people to do what they want and they choose to rebel against God. In fact we all choose to do that. He has simply chosen to save some of us something none of us deserve. He has chosen to be merciful to some not because He sees anything good in them but, simply because of His mercy and love. Do not judge God. He allows many to continue on the path of destruction to show His mercy more to His elect see Romans 9. I was in the same boat as you judging God but, as long as you judge God you will not be saved. You have no right to judge Him. Repent and trust alone in what Christ did on the cross do not trust In yourself to save you it will not work do not trust in yourself to keep your salvation it will not work you will perish you have God's promise of that. God bless.
@@Mygoalweight I was a born again believer for decades. After I allowed myself to honestly question my beliefs, they did not withstand scrutiny. The god of the bible is often an evil actor and can reasonably be concluded as a made in man's image, since he displays many of the characteristics of the people of that time. Condones slavery, promotes misogyny, even accepts child sacrifice. God creates the disease and provides the cure. That's a con game. No thanks. I will perish and be no more. I do not require salvation. I am human, not a condemned sinner.
***you only can see the "testable", "repeatable" and "observable" if you you dig for it, be skeptic, agnostic and pragmatic and latter you will find all the answers if you dig for it , otherwise please shut up and stay out.***
@JanMiddeke-uu4or testable repeatable observable should have proven evolution, do we observe it? Testible repeatable observable is science, evolution is not observable! Conclusion?
I listen to both sides of the argument and I’m somewhere in the middle, nonetheless I highly respect the fact that you leave the comment section open. Dialogue from both sides of the isle is a great tool to seek the truth
Why would the necessity of god's existence matter? I've never heard a Christian scholar or apologist convincingly bridge the gap from "god exists" over to "you should care".
@gregbooker3535 It matters more than anything if God exists and how He has revealed himself bc it determines the direction and purpose of our lives and ultimately the true nature and chief end of man. You are currently living a life based off of atheistic assumptions (even if you purport to be agnostic but are not living out the conclusions of a certain religion) therefore you are practically assuming that the atheistic worldview is true bc you’re assuming it’s worthy to base other decisions in your life on primarily, not caring what God, your creator and purpose giver, has to say. However, your assumption may very well be false, and I think we can show through ample evidence that it is, and that Christianity is by far the best supported worldview. But first you have to realize that you’re living out a certain worldview with certain assumptions in the first place. Everyone is.
@@wardwilson3352 But I live in the 21st century, and the NT was written to 1st century people. I'm pretty sure you think whatever Jesus and Paul said to 1st century unbelievers applies equally well to 21st century unbelievers, but I seriously doubt you could make a case for it.
Always best to trust God and his word Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Matthew 4:4 - But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Psalm 119:105 - Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. John 17:17 - Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth
Do remember that God (Jesus) never told his Disciples about the Western Hemisphere (nor did God, whether Yaweh or Allah, to their chosen people either). If He had, it wouldn't be called the Age of Discovery, it'd simply be the Age of Confirmation. That burned up a lot of my trust. Too easy to speculate what other supremely important details He mysteriously forgot to mention, as is His way.
@@mooreoftammie obviously you're too dense to detect the sarcasm. The point is that creationism has the exact same amount of credibility as flat earth-ism. A little more intelligence and you might actually be capable of the feeling the embarrassment and shame that you should.
I don't think he exposed anything in this video. IDK who this guy is, but I get the impression he's not a researcher or a scientist? Is he a writer? Like me he seems to care more about the history of Darwin's ideas than what he actually presents conceptually and scientifically, and he cares more about a scientist manipulating results for clout than papers that aren't sexy, which are famous for being well-structured rather than being famous for being an embarrassment to the field. This is the same level of work as non-Christian fault-finders who cite Christians who left the faith and forged, gnostic texts as evidence against Christianity. This is the exact same level of rebuttal. I don't get the impression this guy is the one who did the thousand of hours of research that would be needed to thoroughly rebut the theory anyway because he referenced that evolution was primarily a Christian theory but neglected to state that even Darwin cringed at the theory being a testament against deity. I'm only 14 minutes in, so maybe he gets a good point soon, but the only two examples he's given so far are sexy rather than useful. "Christians thought it first," doesn't mean it's not true. Darwin copying other scientific papers of the time doesn't make it not true. "This paper was an embarrassment to the field," doesn't make the entire discipline untrue. This is NOT good thinking, good writing, and it's NOT a scientific rebuttal to scientific thought. The Dark Horse podcast with Bret Weinstein explains how scientific papers are written, read, manipulated, esteemed, and how to process the data they express. If my comment didn't waste your time and you're ignorant of how to read scientific papers I recommend that podcast thoroughly. Type the podcast name and then scientific paper behind it and results where they read and explain scientific papers should come up. He and his wife were both professors, and they're excellent at explaining things to laymen. As you listen care more about how they explain scientific papers than the paper itself. The topic doesn't matter. Them explaining scientific papers, how to understand them, and how to understand if it's well-done or an embarrassment is the important part for our purpose. My problem with this video is that it over-confidences the ignorant making them believe they now have knowledge in their toolkit when they know nothing more than a couple points of sexy trivia. Anyone who knows about evolution would embarrass someone with unearned confidence won by this video because this video teaches nothing about evolution and its theories' flaws. So if someone who knows about evolution presents a scientific claim, the only thing these commenters will be able to say is, "Darwin copied parts of his work!" To which to more studied would say, "Okay, but you can see the species split here following the chemical changes in plant structures, right? If you're making a scientific claim then arm people with actual data instead of trivia. This is bad.
I’ve thought for a while now that both God and “evolution” can both be true, so to speak. Because evolution or natural selection is a process God created. It’s nice to hear others have come to the same conclusion.
The large majority of Christians in the world think that way too. Of course the small minority creationist cult claims they are not *TROO CHRISTIANS.* 🙃
@@HS-zk5nn LUCA is inferred. I don't "believe" in it. I just acknowledge it seems likely from the evidence. I also understand that we will never know exactly what it was, whether it existed or not. What I don't understand is why you thinking bringing it up thousands of times does anything to refute biological evolution. Obviously it does not. i don't know why i bother. You won't ever dare thinking for yourself.
@@jockyoung4491" I don't "believe" in it. I just acknowledge it seems likely from the e" oh so you beleive in created kinds. good to know! "What I don't understand is why you thinking bringing it up thousands of times does anything to refute biological evolution." simple. if there was no LUCA, created kinds adapted and the theory is like alchemy
All this bluster from apologists, but we never hear scientists telling us evolution doesn't happen. Creationists don't usually disagree with evolution, just what they think evolution is. They don't have any experts. Can any creationist find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix?
There are many scientists participating in YEC movements, but most people don't think they're real experts because they disagree with the current consensus. As for the question at the end, mutations are not capable of causing the appearance of novel traits at the level that evolution would require. Creationism does not need such radical transformations over time.
@@rafexrafexowski4754 There are very few supporting YEC, but you'll notice my point was that we don't get scientists saying evolution doesn't happen. "mutations are not capable of causing the appearance of novel traits at the level that evolution would require." Can you demonstrate this claim? And how would creationism account for it anyway?
Host says accusing a theist of not understanding evolution is ad hominem then says some creationists make statements that indicate they don't understand evolution.
WELP! Back to the drawing board! I have been a creationist most of my life but I really started getting convinced that evolution was the truth. And my journey went even stronger to Jesus. I have many in my community that fight me on this. I think I need to do some major praying.
Except we have direct word from the Creator himself that creationism is how it happened. Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago and told us all what's up. No historian disputes his existence and there's plenty of evidence he was here. You can't deny the existence of Jesus. You can try and deny his divinity, but that won't work out very well for you when you meet him.
@@themonsterunderyourbed9408 We have direct word from Harry Potter that magic happens too. 🙂 Genesis is a series of allegories. It isn't literal. That's been demonstrated by evidence from dozens of independent scientific fields like geology, paleontology, genetics, physics, astronomy, etc.
@sciencerules2825 This is false actually. First - Harry Potter is a fictional character. Jesus is a real person. Second - There's zero scientific evidence that disproves anything in the Bible. It's quite the contrary actual. There's plenty of evidence of a great flood in the region described in Noah's ark. Remnants of the Ark have even been found approximately where it was said the ark landed. Genesis is a literal description of the origin of the universe and life within it. Sorry your religion, science, can't disprove it.
@@themonsterunderyourbed9408No fruit fly would ever be able to observe an acorn give birth to an oak tree. Thus, using this standard of logic, they would never be able to understand most things about the world. But furthermore, even the Garden of Eden story requires evolution in order to be true.
Ah yes, mutations that's benefit the host and not to have an upper leg in a darwinian environment, well simultaneously expecting a mathematical impossibility of another host having similar enough genetic mutation for them to breed together and not only for the pain the mutations and their offspring, but have that one mathematically improbable family somehow to survived long enough to pass on the mutations
@baloo1522 tf you mean mathematically impossible? A person with blue eyes and brown eyes can have sex, and the last thing you said is EXACTLY how that works, the guy in the video said he believes in natural selection, you don't know how mutations work though, it's not like one mistake in genetic copies result in a new species, it's over the course of many millions of years
@@RobertA-oi6hw Many. Church of Christ, Baptists Church, Church of God. Then I even spent time in Methodists churches (which aren't YEC) I spent 25 plus years attending service Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night, and multiple vacation bible schools during the summer. But I never relied a speaker or what the church leaders told me. They couldn't agree on simple things anyway. The Bible is vastly flawed. It gets basic history and science wrong (there was no Exodus, the Jews were never even enslaved - A bat isn't a bird, the value of Pi isn't 3) . It contradicts (What exactly did Mary M see and do after the resurrection?). It has false prophecies (Ezekiel 29, Jeremiah 46 and 49).
@@timothyvenable3336 Both technically. Bacteria use horizontal gene transfer to increase genetic diversity in a colony, because otherwise they would all be clones and have to rely on random mutations only. Just watch or read some stuff I'm not a biologist.
@@timothyvenable3336 The idea is the organisms that live and die in a short amount of time provide an opportunity to observe natural selection at work over a great many generations. Microbes and viruses allow for observing both natural selection and evolution in progress.
@@misterlyle. I would just argue natural selection is evolution. We have never observed any sort of mutation or genetic change that causes increase of information in genetic code. We observe change, positive and negative, but nothing that could cause long term-large scale evolution
@@timothyvenable3336 Thank you for the reply! It's a straw-man position to assert natural selection is the same as evolution (although this often happens). That is like saying building a basement is the same as building a skyscraper. Without occasional (but helpful) mutations environmental pressures like "natural selection" could only lead to species extinction.
I worked as an IT Manager for a University Anthropology department, none of them could ever answer “why don’t we find humans who live in water, or have more than 2 arms and 2 legs, why don’t some have scales? Etc..” If you see any other animal lineage, there are branches, even during the “short length” of humans. Shouldn’t there have been a divergence of some form, other than skin color?
Humans didn't live in water and didn't evolve extra limbs or scales because there was no environmental selection pressure or benefit for them to do so. There are over a dozen other hominid lineages known to science but _H sapiens_ outcompeted them all and drove them all into extinction.
Perhaps they should have replied with questions on why computers don’t work underwater or grow arms and legs? I think you might then understand the stupidity of your question.
There have been many documented divergences. But evolution can only build on what has come before, which is why all primates have 4 limbs and don't live underwater.
Humans didn’t develop more than two arms or legs, and because there was no divergence, humans aren’t a result of evolution? There’s probably a reason you worked as an IT manager. Managing the student call centre is probably all you were qualified for. Especially when you think specific departments have their own IT teams.
@@Bomtombadi1 wow, you’re bright. Contact Dr. Barbara Mills, Dr. John Olsen, Dr. Ellen Basso, Dr. Timothy Finan, or any of the faculty from 1997-2014 and ask them if they had their own IT Department. They’ll say Yes, they’ll also tell you I was awarded the Department Exceptional Employee award, and The University of Arizona Staff Excellence award. Ut go on with your bad self. 😂 See, I don’t hide myself and bully others. I use facts.
Dude spends an entire video flattering himself about how much he understands evolution, then proceeds to not even address genetic mutation. Not to mention the fact that there’s absolutely zero evidence for creationism.
In the first century, when the Greeks promoted evolution as a concept, the early church rebuked them. The sad part is how deceived the world has come about this.
The church also rejected the idea that the earth revolves around the sun when the idea was proposed by Galileo. Which we now know to be true. What "the church" thinks is right doesn't matter.
@@zac8033False. That idea was come up with by Copernicus, who was also in the church (he was a canon, minor church official). Galileo was done in by a multitude of factors including personally being an asshole, the Pope getting paranoid and needing to attack someone, and Galileo’s attack on the church’s view of matter (Galileo believed in atoms).
Proverbs 3:5-7 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths. 7 Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the Lord and depart from evil.
You cannot win then, either you fear the Lord and depart evil, or you fear evil and depart the Lord. Not much of a choice really, although I would at least be amongst friends with the latter option.
@philiprobinson2011 that's not what the scripture verse is saying at all. Let me help you. Solomon continues his counsel regarding trusting the Lord instead of one's own understanding. He tells us not to rely on our own wisdom. This does not mean we're to act recklessly or without thought. The point is that our intellect is nothing compared to that of God, who created us. Human wisdom falls far below God's wisdom and leads to false assumptions. Romans 1:22-23 reports that the heathen claimed to be wise but became fools by worshiping nature instead of the Creator. It is infinitely better to reverence the Lord, trust Him, and turn one's back on evil than to follow our own inclinations. Job did not understand why he was suffering so greatly, but he was convinced that the Lord knew what he was doing. He acknowledged that his responsibility was to reverence the Lord and reject evil. In Job 28:28, he quoted the Lord as saying, "Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding.' Therefore, Job did not let his sufferings persuade him to sin. Instead, he wisely reverenced the Lord and eventually received abundant reward (Job 42:10-17).
The way I see it, if evolution is the reason humans are standing here today, then God used a natural process to create everything.
If evolution is false, then God created humans as they are today.
Either way, God created everything, either by natural process or not
High school level evolutionists: Because of the evidence of specimens of human skulls and bones which alter over time of origin. I think it’s evidence to that humanity was made by natural processes.
Talk about have you're cake and eat it.
@@StealthySpace7 God tell us how he did it. We didn't come from bacterial soup and we aren't talking monkeys. That claim is more mythical than what they say, creation is.
@@StealthySpace7 God didn't use natural processes. To say that He did means that death was always here, instead of being the penalty for Adam and Eve's sin of disobedience. Death was not mentioned in Genesis until God told Adam to leave the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil alone.
@@OnlyTheWordSentDownthere are many stories and chapters of the Bible that are parabolic. I don't care how literal (or not) Genesis 1 is. Jesus is my savior.
First year as science,(biology )student every step every book every subject I study I see the work of God I just don’t understand how they don’t see what I see
That's great. Science and faith can both be important in our lives, as long as we understand the difference. As long as people don't base science on faith, everyone should be happy.
I was shocked that the first thing created was Light… according to the Big Bang Theory.
Some people just choose to have a heart of stone. Our job is to help the Holy Spirit give them a heart of flesh.
@ if you mean by being the best you you can be, then yes.
Cause you’re crazy. You should get some meds for those visions you’re seeing
9:47 I'm halfway through the video but I'm wondering why you haven't addressed gene mutations. Gene mutations you have deletions(which might not be considered new) but then the nucleotide sequence might change due to additions, translations, substitutions etc. These over time will result in significant changes. If you are running a computer programme using the "genetic algorithm" which is an algorithm inspired by the mutations and natural selection of the fittest offspring you can make any one sequence of a number match another sequence of a number exactly over time. In theory you can make one sequence of an organism match that of another but there are nuances involved though. Was just wondering why you haven't addressed that let me continue and read.
Call them. I'd explain, but I just don't have the time. Back to my homework...
Maybe the answer’s somewhere in that mountainous pile of books behind him. Certainly he’s read all of them and is therefore clearly well-informed
Speculation is just that. The fact is that DNA limits the opportunities for variation within a species. Dawkins when asked to give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be seen to add information in the genome...could not give even provide one example and has not to this day.
Exactly, he claims to "understand evolution" but forgets the key to it.
@@LoghanMunderstan-lc2bv The point is, is that mutations don't actually do what evolutionists claim they do. They don't build new stuff. And they are not the key to anything, especially not new biological structures or creatures, no matter how much time you give them.
The thing about science is that its continually changing with new discoveries helping to explain our world. Religion claims to have the answers with no proof and comdemns you for having questions that cant be answered.
No, religion isn't science so therefore religion can't contradict science
Oh but i can 😂
@callumcourtnadge8823 oh ok
@Someguywholikesducks 👍
@@mvpd98 i meant i do have the answers. I just proved i guy wrong using his own sience against him
I pressed Claude the AI about the giraffe, starting with some proto version, perhaps a horse, but eventually the AI had to admit that the complex, necessary organs which differentiate the giraffe from all other animals could not have come about by macro evolution. Even an AI, coded to promote evolution could not defend the glaring inconsistencies which are irreconcilable.
Giraffes didn't evolve from horses. Giraffes and okapis both evolved from even-toed ungulate animals which lived in the Miocene around 25 MYA. Their ancestors include the short necked _Honanotherium, Bramatherium, Giraffokeryx, Canthomeryx,_ and _Prodremotherium._ You can research and read about those species and lineages if you are curious.
Thats the Movie Equivalent of having a robot Blow up when asking it a Impossible question in the old robot horror movies
We’ll hang it up guys! Michael York pressed AI with a bunch of stupid questions about evolution and broke it!
@@sciencerules2825 Evolution literature should be classified as fiction, folk like you have way too much faith in mindless molecules, imagine being so fixated with a worldview that you would believe matter is aware of things that are not made of matter, abstract concepts, etc.
Demonstrate unguided inanimate matter bringing information into existence, you only have to do it once.
There is no "macro" nor "micro" evolution, as evolution doesn't exist.
I suppose it’s not technically incorrect to say you studied something “in-depth” even if that depth doesn’t extend beyond what a high schooler is taught.
Evolution is a two-step process: 1) the origination of variation and 2) its spread through the population. The phrase “evolution by natural selection” only pertains to (2), not to (1), and yet you spend most of the video crying that (2) doesn’t explain (1). Of course it doesn’t! If you want to know about how new forms appear, focus on the mechanisms of (1), not (2).
If you’d studied evolution in-depth, you’d know that the debate about whether natural selection is creative or not is an old one with many detractors. Most of the early evolutionary biologists (Hugo de Vries, Thomas Hunt Morgan, etc.) believed selection was just a sieve, not creative. But you don’t even present the “natural selection is creative” argument correctly. The idea was that if natural selection favors a particular phenotype, pushing a population in that direction, then it biases the kinds of mutations that can appear. For example, if selection favors four-limbs, then the kinds of mutations that appear can only developmentally elaborate on that basic structure. In this way, selection is creative because it directs what kind of future variation can emerge. Whether you buy that or not is a different story, but geez man at least present the ideas correctly.
Ditto with Blyth. Darwin and Blyth were buddies, they corresponded constantly - there’s over 50 back-and-forth letters between them just in the online Darwin archive. He cites Blyth in the very first chapter of Origins! But Blyth wasn’t even the first to come up with natural selection - the idea goes back to the Greeks. However, no one before Darwin and Wallace thought selection could change populations. Blyth’s idea was that selection weeded out the unfit and preserved the original archetype, not that it would produce fundamentally new forms. That’s why Darwin and Wallace’s idea was unique and went beyond what Blyth and others thought. Blyth himself changed his mind on this through time, and even wrote to Darwin later in life that he thought humans shared ancestry with apes!
We have tons of studies about how new forms emerge, but you guys are so stuck on high school examples like peppered moths, antibiotic resistance, etc. that you actually do “in-depth” looks into the literature to learn about mutational processes. There’s an extremely rich literature here, maybe do a little more “in-depth” studying.
You can't teach a creationist when they refuse to learn
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair
Why do those who defend the belief that all life evolved from a microbe refuse to discuss specifics and never the details of what "variation" would require at the genetic level? Just saying "mutations" (or worse, "good mutations") doesn't cut it. To defend your faith, you MUST explain how a new type of protein could evolve in less than a trillion years. How could DNA polymerase possibly have evolved, specifically?
Elephant hurling for the win.
@@KenJackson_US No one refused to discuss anything - you first have to ask to discuss it. I’m not going to just start my comment by launching into a detailed biochemical description for the evolution of some pathway. But now that you asked, I will.
The evolution of DNA polymerase: first, we need to note that there is no singular “DNA polymerase” - there are, in fact, many different families of polymerase, and the domains of life use them all slightly differently. Second, since DNA polymerase is required for DNA replication, it is hypothesized to have emerged prior to the transition from RNA to DNA. This means we should find antecedents to DNA polymerase (DNAP) in RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP). Lastly, it’d be nice if we could pinpoint the origin of RdRPs themselves, otherwise it feels like we’re just kicking the can down the road.
So let’s start with a simple beta sheet (beta-alpha-beta) that, when duplicated, forms the core component of all extant RNA polymerases (RNAP) - the double psi beta barrel (DPBB). This is the catalytic region of the polymerase, and thus must’ve originated early. Now, all extant RNAPs have two of these DPBBs, so a duplication would’ve been required. But this is all - every known RNAP will spontaneously perform RdRP behavior independent of DNA, and thus any of them could’ve catalyzed RNA replication. (These beta-alpha-beta sheets are the basis for basic RNA translation and are quite abundant.)
With an RdRP now formed, we need only account for how it was elaborated (in at least one lineage, it has been elaborated independently many times) to form a DNAP. The RdRP protein needs to bind to three additional subunits: DP1, CTD, and PIP. Prior to binding to RdRP, these must have had independent functions, so what are they? DP1 is an exonuclease, and is used to cleave RNA and DNA, which can function independently of replication. CTD and PIP are terminal amino acid chains used in signaling and are tacked-on to many other proteins. Thus, the three additional required components to transition an RdRP to a DNAP are functional by themselves and are simply co-opted by the RdRP. But how?
Large macromolecules composed of many subunits are typically constructed in the following ways: 1) physical attraction (i.e., promiscuous binding due to excess capacity); 2) promotion of molecular stability and increased fidelity, followed by 3) the cementing of the relationship by a ratchet-like process of mutational degradation of each component independently. This process (called “constructive neutral evolution”) underlies a very large number of macromolecules (e.g., evolution of ribosomes, spliceosomes, etc.) and has been readily shown in the lab to turn homodimers into heterodimers.
Again, this is but one DNAP (specifically, the structure of PolD, which is used primarily by Archaea for replication), but it is the simplest. People have written entire books on this and I’ve attempted to summarize it here. At the very least, I hope it prompts you to look into this further. While the evolution of DNAPs is still an active area of research, we have strong hypotheses for how they emerged supported by decades of laboratory and phylogenetic studies.
Of course we have a Creator 🥰 and I love Him!
How do you know if it is a him it meet be a her or a tham
@@stuartmacleod7466 Good question. God does not have a gender like we have a gender and last I checked God has not identified with one. But we still use the pronoun HIM because he is not only a father-figure but our Father who is in Heaven by definition. But then again, you can call God hundreds of things or using hundreds of names, which we do because we have hundreds if not thousands of languages as of 2024. If you want to talk more about this feel free to comment.
@stuartmacleod7466
Romans 8 :15
For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”
🙂
@@nataniyaldemerachew3025 Didn't god rape the virgin maria? I'd say that makes him male.
@@nataniyaldemerachew3025But they do. It says: Father, son and holy ghost.
It doesn't say: It, neither and holy ghost. Nor does it say: Mother, daughter and holy ghost.
If I understand the idea of “evolution is not a thing” then all of the modern species must have been existing from the creation of life. So, we should be able to found fossils of modern animals near for example dinosaurs fossils, in the same layers. And still we have not found any human skeleton of that epoch, but we do find creatures that resemble something that could be before Homo Sapiens and we can create the chain of such links to the modern human. How does this controversy work in the world of the author?
P.S. Sorry for my bad English...
no need to find hujan with dinosaurs, just like there was no need to find birds and dinos together, it was already a rediculous argument.
the large majority of all fossils are just small sea creatures. The large majority of ALL animals and fossils are not found together, it doesnt discount the rest just because you cant find it.
case in point, evolutionisits have never found one single transitory link for evolution, yet it doesnt deter them from believing the stories anyway.
My mind is blown, I went to Catholic school and was taught evolution the way you explained natural selection and never knew the two were that different. It makes total sense to me because I've never understood human exceptionalism and why other animals never picked up traits they witnessed from us such as sophisticated tool use, fire invention or language aquisition.
Totally get where you're coming from! Evolution and natural selection often get lumped together, but they're not the same-natural selection is just one mechanism of evolution. As for human exceptionalism, it's not that other animals don't pick up traits like tool use or communication; they just do it differently. Chimpanzees use tools (even sharpened sticks for hunting. They even use sticks for retrieving grubs and insects. Watch Chimps & Tools from the National Geographic), crows solve puzzles, and dolphins have complex vocalisations. But humans took it further because of our larger brains, social structures, and ability to pass knowledge across generations through language and culture. Fire and advanced tools? Those took millions of years of trial and error. It's not like we figured it out overnight! Other species evolve based on what helps them survive in their environments-our path just happened to lead to technology and language.
Incidentally, Dr. Jane Goodall & the Jane Goodall Institute USA has some slightly better videos on Chimpanzee tool use.
Thank you for clarifying all this, as a Christian it’s important these days to understand the actual definition of topics and terms. A lot of terms and definitions are being changed to trip us up and make us look like fools. It is also very important to understand the history. I appreciate that it was well displayed here.
This clown has never studied evolution other than from creationist propaganda.
And who better to get actual definitions and terms from than another creationist?
@@Bomtombadi1 Take your kids to a drag show lately?
@ why would I do that?
Oh I see. You think that because I don’t believe in a young earth that I’m automatically woke? Couldn’t be further from the truth! I hate woke culture and think it no different from a witch hunt.
@@TearDownThisWallstraight into the ad hominem attacks, I see. 😄
The thing is, there are ONLY two options, Calvin.
If you understand evolution, then you understand why the standard definition of "any change in the allele frequencies of a population of organisms over successive generations" is the CORRECT definition.
Trying to add any additional caveats or prerequisites onto that basic definition shows you either DON'T in fact understand what evolution is, or you DO understand what it is, and you're just lying about it.
So if you insist that you do understand what evolution is, then the only alternative is that you're lying to sell your agenda.
So, fair enough, Calvin. We'll stop saying you don't understand evolution. We'll just call you a liar instead.
You Don’t actually know if thats the correct definition…
You could be a liar too and Everyone agrees. Evolutions do the same thing, Either side could be true or wrong… Like I said Everything I said could be true or false, But at the same time Yours could be true or false, The only one who believes he’s a liar is you, You not only made a mistake by commenting further supporting him wether your comment is trying to disprove or correct, You yourself is in this agenda as you watched HIS video, If you really don’t want his “lies to live on” stop watching there videos, stop trying to disprove and ignore these people and let yourself think that anyone who believes this is being brainwashed, Its kind of silly complaining when He does not care about you nor will He want to argue as it would be pointless as he could easily disapprove something you say but so could you, You try everything you can to disprove anyone who wants to disagree or has something different but go ahead and begin to tell Religious people that their take and beliefs are false and don’t have proof on evolution but a Christian could do the same.
I honestly don’t understand why some (notice how i said some not meaning most or all) aetheist become hypocrites when they see videos of “proof of this” , I also see that on videos similar to this a common thing aetheist comments (sometimes) is that they believe that every Christian is the same and believes the same thing, As a aetheist not here to disapprove rather to get different view points and info on what people think its absolutely crazy to think you can call someone a liar while not being a liar yourself.
Why are so many scientific theories with proof still theories? Why not call it Just plain Evolution.?
If theres really good proof of a person killing someone, and they have proof like voice calls with other people, text, videos, journals/writings, and etc of that person, so you make a theory that they were planning to kill that person, the Person planning to kill get questioned by police after the victims house gets attacked (throwing shooting whatever) during the same time you had that theory would it even be wrong to scratch that its a theory and that it’s straight proof of that person had the intention of killing the victim?
Like I said Why cant you call the theory evolution Just evolution.?
@SplixtTrixt The difference is that it's not MY definition, it's the definition that all real scientists use. If you're trying to debunk the foundation of all modern biology, you should understand the meaning of the words you're using.
"Evolution," as in, the observable scientific fact that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be true and real in every conceivable way through millions of experiments by tens of thousands of scientists over the past two hundred years is literally defined as "any change in allele frequencies in a population of organisms over successive generations."
Or, if you want to put it more succinctly, "descent with inherent modification."
If Calvin understood evolution, he would understand why every real scientist (many of whom are CHRISTIAN by the way) uses that definition.
He claims in this video to have researched evolution, but then tacks on a bunch of unrelated nonsense and constantly debunked talking points that he should know (if he actually studied evolution) are utterly irrelevant to the question of whether speciation is a real thing that happens.
So he's either a liar in that he claims to have studied evolution, but didn't, or he's a liar in that he DID study evolution, and is trying to mislead his audience by bringing up topics he should know are invalid.
Also, it bears repeating that this is in no way a "debate" between Christians and "secularists" about a topic that is an open question, and both sides have something to add. The overwhelming majority of Christians accept the fact of evolution, while creationism is a miniscule fringe position that is very quickly dwindling out.
Because this is a SETTLED issue in science. Evolution is a fact. As much as gravity, the shape of the earth, the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun, the age of the earth, and so forth.
The only way the young earth creationist brain rot can persist is by word games, shifting goalposts, cherry-picking, lying about the data, and preventing people from ever actually picking up a textbook and learning about science themselves.
Because the second somebody actually does the hard work to do actual research, the blinders fall off, and they have to either become an "evolutionist," or start lying.
@SplixtTrixt Except I do know that's the correct definition, because I have actually studied biology. If you don't believe me, Google "biological evolution definition," and see what pops up.
And no, "either side" could not be right or wrong. This is not an open question. Evolution is a fact. You can either accept it, or you can deny reality. There is no "two sides" about it, just like there's no two sides about the shape of the earth, whether the Earth orbits the sun, whether gravity is real, or whether diseases are caused by microbes.
There are people who accept the truth, and people who are wrong.
"Atheism" has nothing to do with it. The overwhelming majority of people who accept evolution believe in God, and the overwhelming majority of people who believe in God accept the fact that evolution is real. There are also, by the way, atheists who don't believe in evolution!
The only people who claim this is an Atheist vs. Christian debate are the people pushing anti-science narratives for political gain.
Also, FYI, I didn't watch Calvin's video. I watched Viced Rhino's video exposing this video and correcting all of its misinformation. I only came here to break a hole in the echo chamber in case anyone is actually interested in learning the truth.
If you are, I suggest you go watch Viced Rhino. It's one of his most recent. Shouldn't be hard to find.
@@chameleonx9253 My whole thing was about why is it a theory? Its not a fact as its a theory since people have so much evidence why do they still call it a theory.?
How long have you studied biology for.?
A few things
I was put into a catholic and Christian school and both taught against evolution
In a public school most of my friends who were Christians would scoff and tell me how evolution is fake and bs
Also why Wikipedia is good its also very very untrustworthy as I my self have the ability to edit it, I have a friend who is absolutely very educated and good at coding and has showed me how easy it is to edit wikipedia, I have seen many different definitions for evolution
@@chameleonx9253 My whole thing was about why is it a theory? Its not a fact as its a theory since people have so much evidence why do they still call it a theory.?
How long have you studied biology for.?
A few things
I was put into a catholic and Christian school and both taught against evolution
In a public school most of my friends who were Christians would scoff and tell me how evolution is fake and bs
Public schools too
Wikipedia I absolutely do not ever use as it’s very easy to edit and change, Ive seen many different definitions which means there can’t be just one definition.. In fact for most things there has to be multiple definitions wether its as little as 2 definitions or more which means theres different takes.
If you had anything significant or substantial to say about/against biology, you would be publishing it in peer-reviewed journals and presenting it at the relevant conferences, not lying to your fellow believers.
It's ironic. When you say that "you just don't understand evolution" is just an ad hominem fallacy... You just don't understand the ad hominem fallacy.
Ad hominem is saying "You are dumb, therefore you are wrong." Saying that you don't understand the topic is very much a legitimate criticism, even when it's not backed up.
What do we do with a theory that has a 0% success rate (darwinism)? Replace it with an explanation that has a 100% success rate: the first chapter of Genesis, which prescribes that living organisms will always and only reproduce after their own kind.
💯
@@poliincredible770 except evolution is the most robustly supported theory in the history of science and has made hundreds of successful predictions and Genesis isn't even considered literal by most Christians.
Even if evolution did "succeed" with something, it really wouldnt, as evolution doesnt have direction or magnitude.
@@i7Qp4rQ that's utter nonsense from a person who clearly has no academic experience.
@@Gek711 you said darwinism has made hundreds of successful predictions, but didn't name one. Instead of making that assertion, why didn't you just tell us who in your lineage has been observed to be a non-human?
I remember the peppered moth closing the deal for me on evolution. The way it was presented seemed to leave no room for a counter argument, not that i would have listened to it anyway. It was only after becoming a Christian that I was able to hear evidence from both sides.
By "closing the deal" you mean the evidence caused you to accept evolution.
I only learnt about the peppered moth experiments from creationist videos.
Well, (not all) but evolutionists believe they are right, and believe we (christians) are wrong. They refuse to listen to the other side. Even when they get stumped or other evolutionists say they don’t have answers and have to just guess. We can see the so obvious truth, but unfortunately, some people only want to see ”their” truth. Changing, twisting, and corrupting the truth inturn.
@@BarlingTanner When it comes to the evolutionary sciences there IS no scientific "other side". There is the confirmed, evidence-supported science and there is creationist religious mythology.
@ Ok then, To put it simply: The very start of evolution is impossible. Why? There was an explosion, no? Ok so if there was one, then 1. Where did it happen? I mean, it created space itself. 2. When did it happen, it created time, no?. And 3. How did it happen? It created matter, yeah? … so basically: The explosion happened in a place that didn’t exist, it happened in a time that was not there, and was made by matter that wasn’t a thing. And before you say: Oh yeah? Well who created God then? Where and when was He before He created everything? That’s the thing, God created everything, including Time, Space, and Matter. He created them, He is not limited by them. And if you say that an explosion created everything out of nothing, why is saying God created everything using His Power any “crazier”? Science is the study of God’s creation.
I watched a video recently where they said a species can never leave its clade.
So how did the clade that bacteria are in, evolve into all the other clades?
They keep moving the goalposts,
which tells me that they are just making it up as they go along.
Bacteria has never been observed to evolve to become anything else.
Clades aren't physical barriers-it's just a way to group organisms with a shared ancestor. When they say a species can't leave its clade, they mean descendants will always trace back to the original group. For example, humans are still in the "mammal" clade even though we've evolved into something quite different.
As for bacteria, they don't evolve into completely different organisms because they're incredibly successful as they are. But they do evolve-look at antibiotic resistance, which is bacteria adapting to survive. They also gave rise to more complex life billions of years ago through endosymbiosis, where some bacteria became the mitochondria in our cells. No goalposts are moving-it's just a deeper understanding as evidence piles up.
The term "Bacteria" refers to a clade that encompasses all bacteria, sharing a common ancestor and including all its descendants.
Bacteria belong to a clade called "Bacteria," which is distinct from other clades such as Archaea and Eukarya.
changes occurring within the clade of bacteria, rather than outside of it.
For example, the human species forms a clade. It is a single branch within the larger clade of the hominin lineage, which is a single branch within the larger clade of the primate lineage, which is a single branch within the larger clade of the mammalian lineage
@@gnx71 So where's the 'evolution'?
@@robertmcmillan3638The evolution is right there, plain as day. Bacteria evolve all the time-we see it happening in real-time with antibiotic resistance. That's natural selection in action, where the bacteria that survive adapt to the new conditions. On a bigger scale, bacteria billions of years ago also played a massive role in evolution. Through endosymbiosis, some merged to become mitochondria, which power the cells in all complex life, including you and me. So evolution isn't just theory-it's observable, testable, and absolutely everywhere.
Incidentally, endosymbiosis is when one organism lives inside another, and over time, they work together so closely that they become a single, unified organism, like how ancient bacteria became mitochondria in our cells.
Please address mutations in your next video, it's a key component of evolution, along with natural selection, and you don't mention it at all in your video. Makes me think you are trying to hide something or else don't know the subject.
he lies about mutations. videos of Calvin talking about mutations are just lies about mutations
@@luish1498Your slanderous opinion isn't relevant and isn't science.
@garrybarrie9697 «Your slanderous opinion»
no, its a fact. calvin lies about mutations.
« isn't relevant and isn't science.«
just like calvin when he says mutations doesnt produce new information. that isn't true.
I’m so glad you mentioned this. I was practically pulling my hair out when he made the claim that “by definition” natural selection should always decrease the amount of genes in a population when that statement completely disregards the random mutations that drive evolution.
@@williamtucker7484Same here, mutation explains the new genetic code that natural selection can then select for and change the frequency of.
How is it possible that of the two components of evolution - mutation and natural selection - you leave out one? Only with natural selection it cannot work. There have to be mutations as well.
AIG is infamous for its lies by omission.
@@joefriday2275 You can always count on Troll Joe to barf up his usual lies and ignorance. 🙂
AIG is not a source for science
Mutations rarely produce positive benefits and you expect us to accept that all the perfectly functional species in the world were produced through mutations?
Even the way that mutations form makes it impossible for mutations to support evolution. They literally form through errors in cell division or external factors such as radiation.
@@msgarion I'm only asking for a fair representation of the basic concept of evolution. You can keep your beliefs. I do not mind.
You don't understand evolution isn't an Ad Hominem statement, you say. Then you commit Ad Hominems against those with different views. Logic might not be your strong point. Evolution is an incomplete theory, but keep cherry picking to be right. You're really not proving anything here.
If you have two cells, produced at the exact same time and one dies what have you lost
Around the 8:10 mark you just majorly contradicted the Creationist viewpoint....If as you say isolated families of animals would naturally reduce the number genetic possibilities....then the idea of a single pair of any creature surviving the flood would obviously result in very very limited genetic choices consequently the vast varieties of animal life you see today (only 4000 years later according to Answers in Genesis) would be absolutely IMPOSSIBLE...you just destroyed any credibility Creationism has and especially the Answers in Genesis version of biological diversity.
Dogmatism is blinding and keeping you from basic comprehension. The majority of this video explains natural selection. Natural selection and adaptation precisely provides how isolated families containing specific genetics led to the vast varieties of animals we see today. Pray that god open your eyes
He’s saying nothing new and more complex comes something less complex . People aren’t descendants of pond scum, as evolutionists seem to accept. The animals in the ark were more complex, humans were too, living longer and with less mutation and degradation
@gj5990 that's literally the opposite of what AIG says though, they teach that all the speciation came from basic prototypes of the various kinds
@@jonathanw1106 you’re inserting the connotation basic while a more genetically complex base species is what is being explained in this video
@George.Madden I'm not inserting anything. The entire presupposition of AIG is that a single cat like species spawned all felines, and there's no evidence or reason to think that creature was more genetically complex other than you need it to be so your theory doesn't fall apart
Part 1
1. Misunderstanding of Evolution’s Mechanisms
Misconception: "Evolution just reshuffles varieties or damages existing traits."
Response: Evolution operates through mechanisms like mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, and gene flow, which can lead to novel features and increased complexity over time. For example:
Mutation: Mutations introduce new genetic material. Some result in beneficial traits, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria, which represents novel functionality.
Gene Duplication: A duplicated gene can evolve a new function, as seen in the evolution of antifreeze proteins in Antarctic fish.
Emergent Features: Complex traits (e.g., the eye) have been traced through intermediate stages in the fossil record, showing gradual adaptations.
2. The "Nothing New" Assertion
Claim: "Evolution doesn't create anything new."
Response:
Observed Speciation Events: New species have been observed forming through mechanisms like hybridization, polyploidy, and divergent selection. For instance:
London Underground Mosquito: A new species emerged from adaptation to underground environments.
New Functionalities: Nylonase, an enzyme in bacteria, evolved to digest synthetic nylon, a material not present before the 20th century, showcasing genuinely new capabilities.
3. Misrepresentation of Evolutionary Definitions
Claim: "Textbooks define evolution as just changes in gene frequencies."
Response:
This simplified definition is accurate but does not exclude larger-scale evolutionary processes like speciation and macroevolution. Changes in gene frequencies are foundational and provide the raw material for complex evolutionary changes.
4. Evidence Supporting Evolution
Fossil Record: Transitional fossils, like Tiktaalik (linking fish and tetrapods) and Archaeopteryx (linking dinosaurs and birds), illustrate gradual change and the emergence of new forms.
Genetic Evidence:
Comparative genomics reveals shared DNA sequences and common ancestry, such as endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) shared between humans and chimpanzees.
Developmental Biology:
Homologous structures and conserved embryonic development patterns point to shared evolutionary pathways.
5. Addressing "Evolution Has Never Been Observed"
Misunderstanding: "Evolution has never been observed."
Response:
Microevolutionary changes (e.g., peppered moth coloration) and macroevolutionary events (e.g., speciation in cichlid fish) have been documented in real-time and in the fossil record.
6. Natural Selection and Creationism
Claim: "Natural selection is compatible with creationism."
Response:
While creationists accept natural selection as a mechanism for variation within "kinds," this view fails to account for the cumulative power of selection and mutation to drive large-scale evolutionary changes.
Evolutionists acknowledge pre-Darwinian ideas of selection but emphasize Darwin’s contribution in explaining how these mechanisms produce new species and higher taxa over time.
7. Fallacy of "You Just Don't Understand Evolution"
Criticism: Claiming creationists misunderstand evolution is ad hominem.
Response:
The issue is not personal but conceptual. Misrepresentations of evolutionary theory (e.g., "why are there still apes?") reflect a lack of understanding. Correcting these misconceptions is not an attack but a necessary clarification.
8. Historical Contributions and Misrepresentation
Claim: "Darwin borrowed ideas like natural selection from others."
Response:
While Darwin built on earlier ideas, his synthesis in Origin of Species provided the first comprehensive theory explaining biodiversity through descent with modification. This integration of evidence from geology, paleontology, and biology was groundbreaking.
Conclusion
The claim that evolution lacks evidence or fails to create novelty misrepresents the mechanisms, evidence, and scope of evolutionary theory. Observable phenomena, genetic studies, and transitional fossils robustly support evolution as a scientific explanation for biodiversity. Understanding the nuances and mechanisms strengthens the case for evolution, refuting assertions of insufficiency or misunderstanding.
Just a small rebuttal mutations are degregative the majority of them and some neutral mutations the beneficial mutations themselves also break the dna and this lead to devoultion and mutations selection mechanism is Very ineffective at producing complexity according to peer reviewed papers just to fix two mutations in humans we have to wait 100 milion years
Things do not go from less complex to more complex over time, per the Laws of Thermodynamics.
@@friedaOFspeech8031
Actually, the idea that things can't go from less complex to more complex over time because of the Laws of Thermodynamics is a common misunderstanding. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that in a closed system (one with no energy input), disorder-or entropy-tends to increase. But Earth isn’t a closed system!
The sun is constantly pumping energy into Earth, providing the fuel for complex processes like photosynthesis and evolution. This energy allows living organisms to create order and complexity over time, like building proteins, cells, and entire ecosystems.
In short, the laws of thermodynamics don’t stop complexity from increasing-they just set the rules for how energy is used in the process. Life works within those rules and uses energy to grow and evolve. It's not magic; it's science.
Very informative. Thank you
"Mutations introduce new genetic material." I didn't need to read anything else you said to know for a fact you don't understand evolution as a concept. NO mutation in the history of the world has EVER introduced new genetic material. That is one of the fundamental reasons FOR the criticism of macro evolution as a concept. Mutations destroying/reshuffling genetic material isn't' a misrepresentation, it's an observed fact, acknowledged by geneticists all around the world.
I am still trying to figure out from the theory of evolution which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Why is reproduction a beneficial trait to begin with? It seems a lot easier to just be, like a rock.
You don't have to anymore.
The egg came before the chicken. Birds (including chickens) evolved from theropod dinosaurs. The fossil record shows that theropods developed bird-like features such as feathers and wings over millions of years, leading to the evolution of modern birds.
Fertilized egg is the reslt of sexual reproduction. But you only see them in flowering plants and animals. Not in non-flowering plants. Had to be very early in evolution. More interesting is the question: why had nature selected sexual reproduction. Bacteria don''t have it. For the answer watch Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate
@@tobias4411 That is an assertion that you have not observed to happen but lets take for granted that that is true. Which came first, the theropod dinosaur or the egg?
@@johnsmit5999 Theropods first evolved around 230 MYA. The first hard shell egg laying evolved around 195 MYA. Before hard shells evolved dinosaur eggs were more like today's leathery turtle eggs. The oldest of such leathery eggs known date to a little over 200 MYA.
@@sciencerules2825 Thanks for your reply! Which came first, the turtle or those leathery turtle eggs?
The entire talk of Darwin doesn’t matter in the slightest. Hitler could have discovered natural selection and it would still be a valid theory of a mechanism.
Wanted to watch to challenge my own worldview but started on two false premises: 1. You insinuate that observational science is a way more limited term than it is, and 2. Evolution has been and is currently being observed, most commonly in insects since they have shorter birth-to-reproduction rates. It’s a common exercise for students of evolutionary biology to do experiments on enclosed environments with fruit flies to see how their biology changes over time. You could also fumigate any tree in the Amazon to see how speciation has occurred in that unique environment.
Hey it's the beta Minecraft guy.
Never thought I'd see you here.
@ lol I try to avoid leaving argumentative comments. Not hard enough though
@Mongster83 that’s microevolution and natural selection like he talked ab. Different concept than changes in kind at the family level.
@ how can he acknowledge microevolution only? Especially as he acknowledges natural selection? To admit that evolution is real but only within his desired timeframe comes across as willful ignorance.
No its not, they are all the same animals/insets etc. only change within variation within the species, not new species etc.
To be fair, the reason people claim you don't understand evolution is because they are charitably attributing your gross misrepresentation of it as non-malicious.
Most of us know better.
The huge problem with this video is that it does misrepresent the mechanism of evolution theory. The claim is not that natural selection is the only drive of evolution. If that was the case, this video would totally be right. But there are at least two other drives: Mutation and recombination. Both of these can produce new features that are not just reshuffled or broken versions of existing features.
I am not opposed to the idea of creationism and am a Christian myself. I am however agnostic about the origin of the earth and it frankly does not matter much whether it is exactly as it says in the bible or if the creation story is an allegory for evolution through creative design.
In the end I think Christians should hold themselves to the highest standard and not use cheap shots to win arguments. Because this was either a cheap shot by misrepresenting the argument for evolution theory or it was irresponsibly ignorant.
There is also genetic neutral drift. These clowns don't care about getting the science right. Only in defending their creationist Fortress of Invincible Ignorance.
I think Calvin knows that he is making cheap shots, even if he thinks it is justified to "defend the faith". But I agree completeley that biological evolution (and other science) does not threaten Christianity. It only contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, which has always been a naive stance anyway.
You obviously misunderstood the video.
@@joebeezy9471 You clearly don't understand evolution or you would know Calvin is a liar who doesn't tell the truth about evolution...
@@joebeezy9471 What did we misunderstand? The whole video is nothing but demonstrable lies from beginning to end.
There is also a lack of plate tectonics but it’s widely accepted because the amount of supporting evidence is so incredible it’s almost completely irrefutable. You are confusing your world view with scientific theories they aren’t the same
Why do you avoid addressing mutation? That’s a really big part of evolution and it answers a lot of the rhetorical questions you keep asking.
I think if you seeded an empty planet with single-celled microorganisms, you would never see flying mammals with echolocation, no matter how many billions of years you waited. You would see a huge variety of microorganisms. Evolution through random mutation can occur but it is scientifically counterintuitive to think that it can account for the astonishing biodiversity of Earth.
I think if you modeled beneficial random mutation as a Poisson process, the corresponding rate parameter is way too low for mutation to explain the emergence of multicellular organisms, interdependent ecosystem components, and intelligence, within the amount of time that Earth could have accommodated life of any variety.
Evolutionists should try to invent a system that detects and classifies mutations within a controlled environment, even one enhanced with mutagenic agents, such as ionizing radiation. Alternatively, you could use any model of the geologic column and estimate of the Earth's age, and try to back-calculate what you think the beneficial mutation rate parameter must be, given that naturalist evolution is true. Then evolutionists could argue that the chance of Earth's biodiversity emerging through evolution is high enough to be a reasonable explanation.
After thinking about this a little more, we could probably put a lower bound the problem by searching for and estimating a particular mutation of interest, such as losing the ability to reproduce asexually. Perhaps the evolutionist can contrive an environment where such a mutation would be naturally selected.
There might be some clues in the hypothetical common ancestor of plants and animals, because plants have both male and female organs but can reproduce with only a single macroscopic entity, while animals and humans obviously cannot. Snails are a also an interesting case.
Because mutation is only losing information from the gene pool, not gaining information. Therefore, it cannot produce new creatures.
@@williamtucker7484 Mutations are nearly 100% degenerative !
Mutations don’t explain how you can get trans speciation.
As an evolutionist I found this video very interesting but I have a couple of pieces of evidence for evolution that you didn’t mention that I’d be curious to hear your response about.
Firstly, evolution is a process that takes hundreds of thousands of years so it’s no wonder that in the last 300 years that people have been searching for observational evidence of evolution nobody has found any. ( just to counter you attack about not having seen evolution directly
Secondly, what do you think about vestigial structures or structures in different species that are now completely useless yet they still exist because they were passed down by the species’ ancestors. examples of this are: human tailbones, the hind legs of whales and the non-functional eyes of fish that live in absolute darkness. Vestigial structures serve as evidence because why would a supposedly perfect organism created by god have such useless body parts
Lastly, how would you counter homologous structures or structures in different species that are very similar because they evolved from a common ancestor. For example, the forelimbs of humans, cats, bats, and whales all share the same patterns with the humerus bone closest to the body and then the radius and ulna side by side then the carpals, metacarpals and phalanges at the end. The reason for which these forelimbs are all similar is because these animals all evolved from a common mammal ancestor.
What I find curious however is that you admit that it’s fully possible for something like the color of moth wings to change in 50 years but not that the moths can become different species’ and grow larger wings or an additional two legs over hundreds of thousands of years
( Any thoughtful responses by creationists is appreciated and pls don’t yell at me for disagreeing with you :) )
I don't think they actually want to logically converse and analyze proof for evolution other than "debunking" it. I'd be happily proven wrong though!
Agreed
he probably hasn't answered because none of these are difficult arguments to dispute. To answer for him:
firstly, if there is no proof you cannot say it definitively happens as a fact = a belief, not a proven truth
secondly, a quick internet search can fill you in on the non-major but still purposeful uses of the tail bone:
"it acts as a site of attachment for muscles, ligaments, and tendons of the pelvic floor, which support the position of the anus and provide weight-bearing support when a person is seated. Additionally, the coccyx is involved in the stability of the lower back and pelvis. Although it is not essential for survival, its attachments to various soft tissues contribute to the overall structure and function of the pelvic region."
Some body parts are only "not useful" because their utility has not been found or fully defined yet - it would be a miracle for scientists to perfectly find every purpose of every part of our body in a set amount of time. The whole point of science in the first place is to advance our understanding or correct our understanding on everything by collecting solid proof, facts, and evidence every day (but biases can play a factor in how body parts are studied).
thirdly, you don't have to reinvent the wheel to make something new. If God made an attribute for one animal, why would he not also use them in other animals with similar needs?
The only real fact about evolution is that it is "the theory of evolution" based on observations by secular scientists that lead them to believe in it. Creationists see complex, perfectly-designed, interdependent systems and believe a higher being created everything. The whole point of this guy's video is that secular evolutionists act like smug jerks all the time to people who don't believe in their theory of meaningless existence, making it a point of argument instead of just letting creationists believe what they want and keeping an open-minded view of the world.
@@nickyflippersthegoatFirst appreciate the discourse, always good.
I'm not a biologist so I can't speak from that side so I'll go from a different angle.
To your first point, yes we can never 100.0% prove evolution is real but as long as it's on the 99.5-99.99% range that is what we call "good enough". Secondly, let's go back to what is the point of a theory. A theory has its main use in that it 1. Reflects a real world phenomenona and 2. Most importantly it provides explanational value. Evolution explains a lot of things such as species, natural selection and more (I'd have to search up to find more but I know more exist, just can't remember off the top of my head). Even if not perfect or even potentially if not true it both works and explains a lot of things. What does creationism explain? It does not explain how anything was created, it does not explain who/what created it just what it created, it does NOT explain why it was created, it explains nothing. It only raised millions of questions. Who is God? (First prove one exists, the burden of proof lies on you) What is God's purpose? Why did God create the world so that everything suggests that He doesn't exist? Etc.
In summary, evolution explains a lot of stuff while creationism doesn't, and don't forget about the burden of proof.
@@Wildunexplorednature
I didn't think you were replying to me at first until I read "@nickyflippers" because none of this even begins to debate what I said.
To whatever your first thing was, what kind of an argument is that? How can there be "99% evidence" for something? "99% proof" and calling it "good enough" is not science last I checked - science is our understanding of reality based on actual fact. This is a third of your argument - yikes.
Secondly, the "1. and 2." thing was a sad attempt at looking smarter than me. All you did was take my description of evolution and explain what was already implied - "[The evolutionary theory] is based on observations [in reality] by secular scientists that lead them to believe in it [as an explanation for things]".
then, for your final "argument", you start attacking belief in a higher being as "no proof either" - which is funny, since I never strongly argued for the existence of a god, but yet here we are with your "checkmate" or whatever you think you're pulling. If a higher being exists, are you really going to tell me that I would know why it exists, how it operates, and what proof I have for it? The burden of proof for a belief that's "so overwhelmingly true you'd have to be stupid not to believe it" falls on you. Also, saying "in summary" at the end like you destroyed my valid points to the other guy after giving a few piddly arguments that don't even try to contend with what I've already said and going off the rails sputtering about God like Christians are evil for believing in Him or something is childish stuff. Also, don't forget that something you want to force other people to believe like a baby is your burden to prove, not mine.
Who here remembers being taught "the simple cell" in school? Although that idea didn’t age well, they moved onto others, which wont as well.
I remember being in the 8th grade and reading the science book that talked about how scientists believed life started in a warm pond by assemblages of amino acids (the "building blocks of life") and thinking they seemed to be completely clueless and just making stories up.
@@mmaimmortalsSo, where did you test 'speaking into existence'? Where have you observed it and which methods did you use for that?
Yup. 😂😂
So sorry that you do not understand what a "simple cell" is. I do not know when you went to school but they learned a lot the last forty years. Go check out how a bacterium finds and moves towards its food. It is all biochemistry. We do not know how much works but the honest answer is that we do not know and we do not fill the gaps with "God did it".
And to be honest, I doubt that the narrator studied evolution in depth. I simply hear all the creationist talking points that are all debunked a long time ago.
@Peter_Scheen if you don't know then you can't say God didn't do it.
I would just suggest listening to someone that disagrees. Try to approach it without a belief and follow the evidence. Don’t just listen to someone that is searching for evidence to support their conclusions. Often debate - is a good way to start sorting this stuff out vs just finding a guy with a bunch of books behind him.
Mutations are where the new data comes from?
Mutations result in the loss of information ..not the creation of new information within a genome. When Dawkins was asked to if he could give and example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information in a genome..he could not provide even one example. Mutations ultimately result in mutation load on an genome result in organisms actually devolving.
@@alantasman8273 Where did people get the idea that mutations are a loss of information? And what does 'information' mean like....do you mean the # of genes, or just new phenotypes? Gene deletion is a type of mutation but it's just one of multiple types of mutations: substitution, duplication, and translocation are some other examples.
@@billbillson6779 Where did evolutionists ever get the idea that the DNA of a genome can re-write itself to be a totally different kind that can pro-create and survive. It has never been see to happen in nature...it certainly cannot be seen happening today. Yet you think the nature can reprogram itself with new information that will work.,Your anthropomorphism of nature is actually laughable., Stop conflating variation with macro-evolution...transition to a new kind. The fossil record is devoid of transitional fossils.
@@billbillson6779Read about mutation load and find out the difference between variation and macro-evolution. Macro Evolution has never been observed and the fossil record is devoid of transitional fossils.
@@alantasman8273 No. Like all creationists when trying to speak about evolution you are wrong. Mutations can and do add genetic information, through gene duplication, insertions, and horizontal gene transfer. Through mutation organisms can have loss, gain or modified information, not just loss.
How do we inform evolutionists of the real definition of evolution? In my experience, they always balk at the term "kind."
That’s because “kind” is a bible word. It’s not a term used in species determination.
What you should do is realize that you aren't using the correct definition.
@@Columbo-r4z I understand that, but what word should be used? Family? How do you tell them that a moth becoming a different color is not evolution?
@@DaveWillmore well, you'd be objectively wrong if you told them that. So you shouldn't.
But if you're trying to express that you think there's a limit to evolutionary changes that prevent evolution as understood by the scientific theory you could just say that you think there is a limit on how much an organism can change and then when they ask you where that limit is you can just say that you don't know.
@@Columbo-r4z "cisgender" is a woke academic word, not a term used by normal people.
"creation science" teaches that every land animal in existence today is descended from the animals that lived for a year on a wooden boat 4,000 years ago.
"evolution science" is taught by the same people that tell us there are numerous genders.
Precisely! So long as anyone believes the Noah story that proves evolution. And if necessary, we will hit them with sky daddy,which always cinches evolution. We know evolution is a fact because the only other possibility is God. And we hate God, even though we know He doesn't exist.
@@satkinson5505 We accept evolution as a fact due to the overwhelming quantity and quality of consilient positive evidence for it.
@@satkinson5505 Amen. Cuz the primordial soup explanation (pond daddy) for the origin of life is so credible and believable.😂😂
No offense, but that’s more logical than your super great grandfather being pond scum who was born from an explosion 🤷♂️
It’s a process that’s never been observed and is biologically impossible. Thanks for this video, may GOD bless you
Except that it’s observed in genetics, homology, fossils and agriculture.
Evolution is how you get 5,000 different species of frogs.
Ask yourself “why is evolutionary theory useful and to whom” then look at who pays to promote it. You will learn far more about what the theory actually is. As for the young student studying evolutionary theory here are some questions for you: 1.) are the changes you are certain occurred explainable by the existence of pre-existing mechanisms, or was novel data required to produce it? 2.) do you have reasonable hope that evolutionary processes can reclaim the data that you observed being lost? 3.) mathematically speaking, is the collapse of biodiversity more likely than its expansion even if humans were removed from the equation?
I can easily flip that first question back to you
"Why is the god hypothesis useful and to whom? Who pays to promote it?"
I might answer, the church. The people who gain a great deal of money and power in doing so. The same folks who tell you faith ( belief without evidence) is good.
Questioning god is bad. I might suggest as to do so limites said power and wealth of the church.
@ believe it or not you are on the right track. Ask yourself also why so many versions of Christianity exist?
@@robmangeri777 its almost like christianity and its god was made up by people wanting power and money ...
When someone says you just don't understand evolution, they imply that they do. The embedded implication is that they are smarter more educated and more enlightened than you are. I confess freely, that I was one of them. It is easy to believe absurdities when thousands of nodding heads are behind you. It is much more difficult, intellectually and emotionally to swim against the current. Engaging with and refuting evolution in our current culture takes an amazing amount of intellectual fortitude. Thank you for everything that you are doing.
No, it takes an amazing amount of hubris and scientific illiteracy, or just lying. Get over yourselves....
I understand evolution because I have studied it for 40 years, not because I am smarter. I constantly encourage people to look at the evidence and think for themselves. But creationists refuse to do that, because they mistakenly think the Bible does not allow it. Nobody with "intellectual fortitude" (or without it) has ever been able to refute evolution. "I bet it's not" is not a valid scientific argument.
Or it just means you don’t know what you’re talking about
@KENTEKELLER you just don't understand evolution. Happy to show you the ropes!
Please tell me about one research paper you have read in which research about some aspect of evolution is presented. Tell me where to find it, wrote it, and what the conclusions were.
One of the most satisfying things for me is seeing such Christian geniuses exposing the vanity a d trash behind the works of many of the so called world's wisest men.
God will take all His Glory because it all belongs to Him and I add that it looks good on Him alone, and He is the Beginning and then End of all things.
God Bless you sir. And may He reward you bountifully for your contribution to enlightening his children and those of the earth who have been mislead.
Calvin is a genius now?
Vanity doesn’t drive their research. Curiosity does.
Perhaps you should exhibit some at some point …
@Bomtombadi1 and what new study or research have you found or heard of that isn't driven by curiosity?
@@musawoRAY that was my point. Curiosity drives research, not vanity.
"Christian geniuses" - you mean like Galileo proving the church had been lying for centuries?
The presentation seems very vain to me and what did God say about vanity?
Genesis 6:20 uses the words "kind" and "sort" in the same verse. I keep hearing creationists trying to describe what a kind is. Can someone describe to me what the "sort" is? Is it similar to the biological ...family, genus, species? "Kind" and "sort" sound like alternative creationist taxonomy.
its nov 15, 2024 and LUCA aka the athiests pond daddy is still hypothetical
Pond daddy lol
Among the first thousand prokaryote genomes that were sequenced, not a single protein coding gene was preserved across all genomes. LUCA bites the dust!
Nov 15, 2024 and creationist like H S and Calvin are still lying about science they don't understand.
Luca is crazy 😜
@@Vernon-Chitlen yup and spectral lines are fingerprints not code. Sciencerules knows no science
Great video! I do have a question about natural selection around 9:19. You say it’s not able to create due to its selection from a set gene pool, but doesn’t that fail to account for mutations? For example, there are genetic mutations in species (including humans) which lead to webbed fingers, even though that’s not “in the gene pool.” Would love to get some thoughts on thus
Mutations rarely produce positive results. Most of the time they are either neutral or harmful. For evolution to work, you have to bank on a process that rarely produces positive results to produce positive results millions of times over.
It’s like acknowledging you have a 0.0000000001% chance of winning the lottery 4 times in a lifetime and then presenting the lottery as the mechanism a family worth 20 trillion dollars used to build its wealth over the course of 200 years.
@@msgarion That Discovery Institute talking point from Michael Behe is embarrassing, man 😭bringing up a point that's only presented in non-peer reviewed journals and has been debunked countless times isn't the way to go
@@christmaskitty5891so, mutations produce positive results more often than not?
@@msgarion nope, I never said that
Goes to show that he didn't study evolution as deeply as he thinks he did. Mutations are literally a basic and essential concept lol
So a population can evolve different traits when separated form the main population then? For example, a lobe-finned fish spends more time in shallow water, using it's limbs to make small trips on land thus that population becomes separated from their deep sea relatives, more pressure is put on them to be more efficient for land walking, thus the first tetrapods evolved. Thanks you for accepting evolution as a fact.
Yes evolution is fact we observabe them but darwinism evolution macro evolution it's not fact its faith because there is no empirical evidence of Darwinsm macro evolution one species to another
Think that's called adapting its not turned into a dinosaur as it
10:47 ok but please explain the Archaeopteryx, legless lizards, Snakes and Whales.
Love these vids, please keep em coming. Once I was a doubter, no longer. Thankyou for providing clear concise answers and non-stop examples. Evolutionists are far more focused on fighting God, than actually focusing on science
No, I am not fighting God. Evolution is the real God. Am I still an atheist?
@@globalcoupledances
Thank you for proving that you worship scientists!😂
@@jacob.tudragens It was a turn of phrase and he was messing with you. Thank you for showing you don't have inferencing skills.
@@earthisasphere
I was messing back!
You're still kinda slow!🤣
@@jacob.tudragens No, YEC's like you who believe this AIG nonsense and have to like your own posts are the slow ones. You can't even explain what a scientific theory is.
Great video!
-
Just a note, the flashing you used in certain parts of the video is straining on the eyes. But that said, keep up the good work😊
They don't listen to constructive feedback sadly. 🙏
I sometimes set it aside and just listen.
have you tried reducing your screen's brightness?
@@JesusIsKING7140 Is that true?
@@theKingsAmbassadors well i have informed them several time that people with hearing problems or are just older cannot hear voices under the music to no avail so in relation to my request and lack of results my statement is correct. 👍🙏
Seeing as God knows way more than we do, how can humanity ever think to surpass Him? They attempt to understand the world apart from God and look to kick God out of our thinking. What is God's response? Is God intimidated by mankind?
Why do the nations rage, And the people plot a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, 3 "Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us." 4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision. 5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, And distress them in His deep displeasure: 6 "Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion."
~Psalm 2
........I think not ❤
Believe in whatever god you wish, but the evidence we have shows very clearly that evolution happens. Denying that is just denying reality.
@earthisasphere suppressing the truth of God won't work in the end. It won't work for you and it's not going to work for this world. One day Christ will return and this entire world system will be gone.
Moronic reasoning starting with a false assumption.
@@snowflakemelter1172 serving Jesus is the wisest and best thing a person can ever decide to do in life.
@@avafury4584 There is no truth of God to suppress. I was raised a YEC. The Bible isn't even accurate in it's history. Grow up. If there is a god, it certainly isn't the god of the very flawed Bibled.
I have a problem with what you are doing here.If evolution is false, as you suggest, then why are you no arguing with the evidence for creationism? I mean, we have the bible but surely if we examine the evidence claimed by evolution we will find evidence for creationism, won't we?
I hope you tackle this topic as it would be much more convincing for Christians to have something positive to use.
The odd thing is some people who dont even understand the theory are trying to argue against it.
PS natural selection is part , not all of the theiry
I think they said that in the video. They believe in natural selection. Don't believe in creating new structures. While theoretically possible that dropping raw materials down a stairs creates a MacBook at the bottom, the odds are incredible. If a bacteria develops a new antibiotic resistance, rather than having created a new efflux pump, it is far more likely some defect was created which prevents the antibiotic from entering the cell, or perhaps it took up a plasmid of another bacteria which already had the pump...then you're still left with the improbably odds of where the first pump came from
Thank you looking forward to watching this. I saved it. ➕ Christ is King
Jesus is a fictional character.
I do the same thing. I save the best videos for a time that works best for me.
💛 in Christ
@@EvilXtianity You'll have to tell him that after you're death. What will your eulogy be? because I assume you are going to die right? Or is that something you can solve on your own with "evolution"
@@NathanAmiel-f6b "You'll have to tell him that after you're death." If all you can offer is an argumentum ad baculum logical fallacy, you contributed nothing of value.
@@NathanAmiel-f6b
If you have evidence that Jesus existed, provide it.
You know none of the Gospel authors witnessed him, right?
Calvin, please tell me the definition of evolution and scientific theory.
You know you cannot expect an honest answer there.
@@I_am_Mister_Y I'll give him a chance....
@@earthisasphere Well, in that case I would like him to give us his functional definition of "primate", since he seems to think humans aren't primates, and so I would like him to show us even one diagnostic characteristic of primates that we don't have.
@@I_am_Mister_Y I would also like to see that. Here's hoping, but your are correct, it is unlikely.
Hey, the music is distracting. I understand the purpose and effect that was intended, but it’s a bit to loud.
Amen AIGC 🙏🙏🙏✝️🕊️ God bless you!
We were created a little lesser than the angels
I would like to share an observation of what I believe are the seraphim in my video 'Begining of understanding ' , consistent with Scripture and electrical processies ( I mention in my video 'Sound reason '
My channel is dedicated to giving examples of Seraphim
I hope you'll consider watching
Godspeed
I've found that the reason why a lot of people have different definitions on things re: evolution is because they keep changing the definitions on a lot of things. What they thought about evolution in the 1980s isn't the same as what they think today. I think we can thank creationists for a lot of that because of the obvious flaws that you pointed out. Thank God you are still here today, continuing to point out those flaws.
What flaws would those be? Do you really not understand words like "evolution" can have different meanings depending on the context in which they are used?
@mostlyharmless0642 I understand and the flaws are exposed on a daily basis. Do you realize that everything that they call a whale fossil that is supposed to be part of the whale evolutionary tree was fabricated to make it appear that whales had evolved?
@@samuelrodriguez9199 You need to back up that scurrilous accusation cetacean researchers fabricated evidence of whale evolution. That's a rather disgusting as well as slanderous lie.
@@samuelrodriguez9199you know definition ms change right? And evolution is a scientific theory like gravity and plate tectonics…..
@@mostlyharmless0642 many flaws. Such as the fact that the genetic similarities we see today would not be possible if mankind came from many different regions and existed for 200,000 years. Not to mention genetic entropy.
Can any creationist find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix?
It is sad how so many professing Christians I've met who believe in evolution and try and mix it in with the word of God. I've met many who believe the Genesis Account is not literal. They have no idea of the implications this has on the rest of scripture including the New Testament!
Actually most Christians don't deny reality and consider creationist doctrines to be misinterpretations of the Bible.
You realise the vast majority of Christians accept evolution and only claim it was guided by god.
So true! These people that believe this are missing so much of the interpretation of the rest of the Bible, also a lot of Revelation cannot be understood, eg the identity of ‘the serpent’ of Genesis Ch 3.
At Revelation 12.9 it identifies this ‘old’ or original serpent ( from Genesis) as Satan the Devil who is misleading the entire inhabited earth with the aid of ‘his angels’. This proves that it really was Satan in the Garden of Eden masquerading as a serpent so as not to identify himself to Eve.
It couldn’t have been a literal snake as this same serpent is still alive thousands of years later when the book of Revelation was written
The verse also discloses that Satan and his angels have been ‘thrown down to the earth’ so this helps to explain why conditions on the earth have progressively become worse and worse with time due to demonic activity heavily influencing humans as we see today.
Truly we’re living in the ‘last days’ and will soon see intervention by God by means of His Kingdom
Which account? There are at least two conflicting accounts.
@nurse580 while the demons certainly contribute some, the main reason the earth and all of creation groans and falls apart is because of the curse from God after Adam and Eve sinned. This world has been cursed by God
The problem with this argument is that nothing we ever observe is supported by creationism.
Poof and all the different species are there in their full form is not consistent with anything we have ever observed. Spontaneous creation is magical thinking.
That's not what we believe in. We believe in speciation of biological families, which is exactly what we observe in nature, we simply don't believe in the relatedness of separate families (or kinds if you want to be biblical with the terminology). So, for example, all bears share a common ancestor and all canines share a common ancestor, but a bear-canine ancestor that evolutionists propose never existed.
@rafexrafexowski4754 sure. Fine. What you described is fundamentally the same thing: poof and all the different animal families are there in their full form. Nothing about your statement changes the nature of my critique whatsoever.
It's as though one day there were no canines and suddenly poof there were a male and a female canine.
Let me ask you, did they just appear like a magic trick? Were they puppies when they poofed into existence? Will you admit that the spontaneous creation is inconsistent with anything we have ever witnessed in nature?
Maybe it is true but it is still magical thinking. It is literally 'magic did it'.
@@rafexrafexowski4754 you still believe in 'poof and the different families of animals are there in their full form', which is inconsistent with everything we have ever observed. It is literally the 'it was magic' theory.
@raymondblake5765 It is, in fact, not inconsistent with what we have observed. If science points to the fact that the common ancestors of these animals were not related, they must have appeared spontaneously or each were developed in a separate process. The former is more likely than the latter, so at least in some cases "magic" as you call it may be the most probable explanation.
@@rafexrafexowski4754 what I mean by ' inconsistent with anything we have ever observed' is that it was magic... I'm not saying that there are no artifacts or evidence of magic happening in the past... the literal 'poof into existence' magic trick is not a phenomenon that we observe.
3 billion base pairs cry out for explanation! And it not just explaining their origin but the programming that tells them when and where to be expressed.
The explanation is current genomes evolved from much simpler precursors over the last 4 billion years or so.
@@goody8839 Gene functions are defined by an intelligence. Complex specified information of genomes does not arise by chance and natural laws. This is what SETI depends upon in their search for extraterrestrial life.
The evolutionary explanation is analogous to an Apple 2 turning into an iMac with a random number generator and lots of time apart from software and hardware engineers.
@@johnsmit5999"3 billion base pairs cry out for explanation!".
Humans have approximately 3.2 billion base pairs which corresponds to roughly 6.4 billion bits of information or roughly 750 megabytes when considering the haploid genome. The vast genetic information in humans, comprising approximately 3.2 billion base pairs, is explained by evolutionary processes over billions of years. Gene expression is regulated by complex mechanisms that determine when and where specific genes are activated. Key factors in this regulation include transcription factors, epigenetic modifications, and signaling pathway. These regulatory systems enable precise control over gene expression without necessitating a divine influence.
@@johnsmit5999Gene functions are defined by an intelligence". No, not at all. Scientific research shows that genes arise and evolve through mechanisms such as gene duplication, mutations, and natural selection, which drive genetic diversity and adaptation in populations. New genes can originate from various molecular events, including duplications and retrotranspositions, contributing to evolutionary innovation without invoking intelligent design.
@@johnsmit5999"The evolutionary explanation is analogous to an Apple 2 turning into an iMac with an random number generator and lots of time apart from software and hardware engineers".
This analogy is about as accurate as saying that a toddler with finger paints can create the Mona Lisa. You see, evolution isn’t just a game of cosmic bingo where random mutations pop up like surprise party guests. It’s more like a high-stakes reality show where only the fittest contestants get to stick around. Natural selection is the ruthless producer, deciding who gets to stay and who gets voted off the island based on their ability to survive and reproduce. Meanwhile, our beloved Apple II didn’t just sit there waiting for time to work its magic. No, it had software and hardware engineers - actual humans with plans and blueprints - guiding its transformation into the sleek iMac. So unless you believe that evolution is just a long, drawn-out game of chance played by some cosmic dice-roller, this analogy falls flat. In short, while both processes involve change over time, one is a carefully crafted journey of innovation, and the other is nature’s version of “Survivor.” So let’s leave the tech comparisons to the engineers and give evolution its due credit!
Ty. It would be nice if your editor didn’t think background music was required for every minute. Gets hard to listen.
Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Colossians 3:16 - Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
Luke 11:28 - But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
Isaiah 40:8 - The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
Which unknown likely goat farming countryside schizophrenics wrote those passages?
AND I DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR "HOLY" BOOK SAYS!
@jon-paulmattack1152 you are welcome to your opinion. God bless you anyway 🙏
@@IAMhassentyou-e7l Wow. Thanks.
FOR NOTHING!
@@jon-paulmattack1152 we ofren find what we want to see
Anyone else come to these comment sections to simply say to themselves , “phew, at least I’m not THAT dumb…”?
The algorithm knows we need a little boost of confidence every so often.
People all over the world believe in different fairy tails. I find it odd and very intriguing.
I love the idea that God created all the mechanisms of evolution as well as physics and the laws of nature in general and much like with us humans, he gives it free will to do whatever and see what it creates. Intelligent design theory is a nice theory many scientists subscribe to because we have proof that we exist and how evolution brought us here, but the probability is insanely low that not just that we evolved, not just that life recovered from all the extinction events, not just that live evolved, not just that our planet could even support life, but that our universe is able to support life, if gravitational constant was off even by a little bit no stars could ever form if the universe didn’t expand at its current speed no galaxies or solar systems and the list of just rights just keeps going. As a Christian I also have a problem with Solo Scriptura because we as Christians have always known about how the Bible was written and formed but most people never take the time to understand it and forget the context. For example Genesis is a collection of Jewish oral stories passed down and finally written down after centuries, some people think Jesus wrote the Bible. There several examples of this that can be seen again and again throughout the Bible where certain writers has different interpretations and intentions as well as writing style that greatly affect how it is transliterated, some writers love to exaggerate events and themes it while others basically wrote a historical textbook of the Jewish people and how the faith waned due to the time. The Bible is great book for faith and later Jewish historical writings with some real bases to everything, especially Jesus and the new testament since when it was compiled many false works had come out and early church fathers and historians studied each text intently and tried only using primary sources much like how our current historians due today. They also called out blatant forgeries such as the Gospel of Judas which was proven to be a 2 century forgery as well as having some insane stories and themes like Jesus teaching only Judas something despite his ministry being incredibly public and open to everyone including Gentiles.
Thank Ra, I am not the only one. The delusions of this cult are mesmerizing. I come here for the mental gymnastics they pull to justify their adult fiction.
@@cadenz7719 Name an accredited scientist that buys into intelligent design. Do you really not see the flaw in the " if the universe was different it would be different" fallacy? It seems as you are under the assumption the universe adapted to suit us. Also, the Judeo-Christian bible is plagiarized, edited, mistranslated ancient folklore.
Ad hominem
Isn’t genetic mutation what allows for new varieties?
It is indeed.
It is but the point of the video was too explain the difference between natural selection and evolution . And that such thing as a sucessful evolution of something was never observed.
Loose the music! I watch all your videos but the music is a it much. It is a distraction. I know I can mute but then I have to pay attention to the captions and not the images.
I do enjoy the information I can use when discussing evolution.
God Bless and Keep up the Good Work.
They wont listen they don't care sadly 🙏
@@JesusIsKING7140 Correct, they don't care about their followers. If they did they wouldn't lie to them so often.
In Christianity, the Bible is considered the "Word of God," and there is much to find about this topic in scripture. The Bible is called the Word of God, meaning it can be considered a direct line of communication from the Lord, divinely inspired by the authors of the respective books.
If the Bible is truly God’s Word, then we should cherish it, study it, obey it, and fully trust it. If the Bible is truly the Word of God, then it is the final authority for all matters of faith, practice, and morality. If the Bible is the Word of God, then to dismiss it is to dismiss God Himself.
That's a pretty big *"IF"*
The Bible is a mix of historical events, mythologies, legends and lies. It's scientifically and historically inaccurate. Infallible word of God? Not a chance!
@@tobias4411When you take the bible literally, Jesus is a hoax.
"IF". And if it isn't? And actually it's very easy to demonstrate the bible is NOT infallible because it's littered with mistakes and self-contradictions.
@@georg7120I would say that Jesus is a legend. I am not doubting his existence, as historians like Josephus and Tacitus support it. By "legend," I mean that his story was likely exaggerated, attributing wonders to him and elevating him to a godlike status.
Legends forms through a combination of storytelling, historical events, and cultural beliefs. Initially, legends are shared orally, often featuring human actions perceived to have occurred in history. Over time, these stories may be embellished, adding elements like miracles or supernatural aspects to make them more compelling. The process involves adapting the narrative to remain relevant to contemporary audiences, often by linking it to current culture or events. Legends typically have some historical or topographical connection, distinguishing them from myths, which lack historical grounding. Other legends are
Hercules from Greek mythology and Samson in Hewbrew mythology (in the Bible), they reflects similar archetypes within different cultures and shares traits of strength and heroic feats. Both figures are renowned for their superhuman strength and heroic deeds, and they both also experience betrayal by women they love and face moral complexities in their stories.
I love how you completely ignore the idea about mutations when describing how genetic selection doesn't give "new" information, just a rescrambling of information. Mutations change and give new information all the time.
I hate to say it, but this is one of the biggest lies of the proponents of the evolutionary theory. I'm guessing you got this from another evolutionist, who in turn got it from another evolutionist, who in turn got it from an evolutionary professor in say the 1960's who simply made it up out of thin air...... Mutations do not give new information all the time. In fact, mutations give new information "none" of the time, because that is not what a mutation is (inherently). Mutations are simply copying errors in genetic replication. They throw a wrench into the system.
They don't give new information at all, in fact it's usually the complete opposite. Sometimes they are just inert/benign (at best), but often destructively fatal to the organism (at worst). I would march over to your local evolutionary teacher of choice and demand that they show you concrete proof of a mutation "giving new information" in any scenario whatsoever.
Mutations result in the loss of information ..not the creation of new information within a genome. When Dawkins was asked to if he could give and example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information in a genome..he could not provide even one example. Mutations ultimately result in mutation load on an genome resulting in organisms less likely to adapt to their environment.
Genetic mutations are errors in our genetic program, to believe in errors never conducted to more knowledge.
@@alantasman8273Why would it only result in lost Information? If you take an binary code and randomly switch a 0 to a 1 like a mutation you get a new information. If its „useful“ or not is a different question. Beside that many scientist hat aspects in their theory they couldnt prove but got proven after them. But to give an example: the different Kinds of mutations that made many adults able to consum milk way past their baby age. There are even different kinds of mutations in different populations of humans that lead to the same result.
@@alantasman8273 What don't you grasp about the idea -> ->
I would be curious to see what you're referring to about Dawkins, first of all on a biochemical level, mutation's are harder to explain, but we know that they occur and we know that they're the result of an error during transcription which alters the protein formed during translation, or the new cell formed after mitosis. Usually these are either neutral (the base change forms the same amino acid) or deleterious (the new protein/the proteins the new cell produces reduces substrate-enzyme affinity) but they can also be beneficial. Nature is not perfect, so the new proteins formed may lead to greater substrate-enzyme affinity in a certain chemical pathway, or it might for example form different enzymes that have an affinity for a different substrate (Ex. An increase in Lactate dehydrogenase would improve the efficiency of the reaction converting Lactate to Pyruvate and vice versa) - Let's say once upon a time, our ancestors did not have the ability to form Lactate dehydrogenase - we would likely die following intense anaerobic exercise, and we would lack many biochemical pathways that are vital to our lives nowadays. If this were true, a mutation would have caused us to produce an enzyme which catalyses the Lactate-Pyruvate reaction, and over time members of the population with the ability to form this enzyme would be able to sprint and outrun prey. Eventually the sub population which did not form this new enzyme would die out and be replaced by those that did. You would be right in saying that we have never observed that, but it is the only reasonable explanation for the origin of new genetic material, and it is totally feasible as far as biochemistry is concerned
coded information cannot come from nonlife ab inito - sorry athiests
Of course it can. There are many natural processes which encode information. The spectral lines in starlight carry encoded information about the chemical composition of the star. Your ignorance of basic scientific knowledge doesn't make the knowledge not exist.
@@sciencerules2825 spectral lines are fingerprints not code.
Your ignorance of basic scientific knowledge is astounding broccoli boy.
there are at least 5 different levels of information ranging from statistic, semantic, pragmatic, instructional etc
spectral lines are fingeprints, not blueprints
@@jensswales Please, it's too early to be repeating Werner Gitt's unscientific creationist horsepoo. Try reading an actual science book for a change.
@@sciencerules2825 🤣🤣🤣
Lol, this guy in a video claims that Evolution is biblical, and here he says that its a hoax🤡
when my dog was given the shot to pass away; to spare her from an incurable illness that would prolong her suffering .. dogs howled from houses nearest to our house, and further and further away. My dog has a Soul. And we will see each other again, I believe.
Sorry to hear about your beloved pet. ☹ However animals passing on distress cries is not a mystery, it's an evolved common animal behavior.
@@mostlyharmless0642 My dog didn't make a sound, not a peep. How could any other dog know? We got tall walls.
@@audreyheart2180 How do you know they were wailing for your dog and not reacting to something else like a distant fire engine siren you couldn't hear? Or one dog did start wailing for reasons?? and the others pick up off of him? Not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out some other possibilities.
@@mostlyharmless0642 if it were a siren, I couldn't hear, the dogs would have wailed all at the same time .. this was the the one time, my dog died in my arms, behind tall thick walls; and my dog not sounding a peep .. and as her body grew limp and tears blinded my eyes, - dogs wailed and howled from house to house, from nearest our house to furthest. and people will not always believe everything they see on YT, and it's okay.
@@audreyheart2180 I do feel for you losing your dog. I had to have my best boy put down over 20 years ago and it still feels like yesterday. 😢
It's not that we don't believe in evolution because we don't understand it, we don't believe in evolution because we DO understand it.
Please give us your understanding of evolution and I'll explain where your understanding is wrong. 🙂
That's right. It's complete foolishness
I we accept evolution because we understand it
@@samuelrodriguez9199 Your ignorance of the science doesn't make the science foolish.
@sciencerules2825 your claim that it's true doesn't automatically make it true. Nor does the ad populum defense that you have more scientists than we do.
Natural selection doesn't increase available information in DNA but mutation and retroviruses do.
If mutations are in fact random... then the odds are worse then the number of seconds that have gone by since life first appeared that a new functioning protein would be created
@@nicolesousa1836mutations are improbable but there’s hundreds of millions of genes in every living organism and hundreds of millions organisms reproduce every day. So it’s improbable but reproduction occurs so frequently that the low odds still present themselves.
@@AMH793 Well put, and it's the same with the universe. The odds of the first self-replicating molecules that preceded life are infinitesimally small. But no matter how tiny those odds, when you have an infinite universe with infinite chances, the odds of it happening somewhere are highly likely.
@@AMH793 and yet still not even close to the probability of rolling snake eyes 97 times in a row for each new function
The Fact that you don't mention mutations creating the variations which natural selection then select from, shows you're being dishonest. You even provided a quote to harp on the fact that natural selection only selects from available variations and leads to less variation. This is true, but you fail to mention the variation itself comes from mutations which give rise to genetic differences etc. It's just dishonest.
He lies - we have observed evolution. For example, house sparrows were brought to North America from Europe in the nineteenth century. Since then, genetic variation within the species, and the different selective pressures present in different habitats have allowed them to adapt to different parts of the continent. Thus, modern house sparrows in the north are larger and darker colored than those in the south. Darker colors absorb sunlight better than light colors and larger size allows less surface area per unit volume, thus reducing heat loss - both advantages in a cold climate. This is an example of natural selection acting upon different populations, producing micro-evolution on a continental scale. And it is one that humans have been around to observe firsthand.Christians always lie about evolution
They don’t understand because they think speciation means grasshoppers turn into birds.
@@cshaw9683 They don’t understand because they think evolution is like pokemon evolution.
@ Hahaha. It baffles me that they don’t research any of this. They think they know and then they say “it makes no sense.” Of course not… but, after they are told, they never update their understanding. Ken ham is notorious for this and Ray comfort is entirely impervious to education. Hovind is just a grifter.
But guess what? They’re still house sparrows
@@sesackey2 « They’re still house sparrows»
just like ToE predits. go read about basic biology.
evolution is not pokemon evolution.
Opponents say the same thing when you question Calvinism. "You just don't understand it."
@@MikeMcG58 That is a very common answer when someone believes something but can't explain why. This is why we should know what we believe and why we believe it.
In my experience they try and explain it quite a bit actually, sadly though even when presenting people with the Biblical reasons why it is true many do not accept it. It is up to the Lord to open people's eyes.
Calvinism - god chooses billions to suffer eternal torment. He is sooo loving.???
@johnelliott5859 in His permissive will He has allowed people to do what they want and they choose to rebel against God. In fact we all choose to do that. He has simply chosen to save some of us something none of us deserve. He has chosen to be merciful to some not because He sees anything good in them but, simply because of His mercy and love. Do not judge God. He allows many to continue on the path of destruction to show His mercy more to His elect see Romans 9. I was in the same boat as you judging God but, as long as you judge God you will not be saved. You have no right to judge Him. Repent and trust alone in what Christ did on the cross do not trust In yourself to save you it will not work do not trust in yourself to keep your salvation it will not work you will perish you have God's promise of that. God bless.
@@Mygoalweight I was a born again believer for decades. After I allowed myself to honestly question my beliefs, they did not withstand scrutiny. The god of the bible is often an evil actor and can reasonably be concluded as a made in man's image, since he displays many of the characteristics of the people of that time. Condones slavery, promotes misogyny, even accepts child sacrifice.
God creates the disease and provides the cure. That's a con game. No thanks.
I will perish and be no more. I do not require salvation. I am human, not a condemned sinner.
Testable, repeatable, observable?
Evolution is is observable, testable/measurable, repeatble and falsifiable. Let me know if you want me to explain it to you.
***you only can see the "testable", "repeatable" and "observable" if you you dig for it, be skeptic, agnostic and pragmatic and latter you will find all the answers if you dig for it , otherwise please shut up and stay out.***
@@joefriday2275 Every post joe makes is a lie, including this one. Proving joe a compulsive liar.
Name me one example of it ever happening in our time.
@JanMiddeke-uu4or testable repeatable observable should have proven evolution, do we observe it? Testible repeatable observable is science, evolution is not observable! Conclusion?
I listen to both sides of the argument and I’m somewhere in the middle, nonetheless I highly respect the fact that you leave the comment section open. Dialogue from both sides of the isle is a great tool to seek the truth
Why would the necessity of god's existence matter? I've never heard a Christian scholar or apologist convincingly bridge the gap from "god exists" over to "you should care".
My storybook god is better than your storybook god!
@gregbooker3535 It matters more than anything if God exists and how He has revealed himself bc it determines the direction and purpose of our lives and ultimately the true nature and chief end of man. You are currently living a life based off of atheistic assumptions (even if you purport to be agnostic but are not living out the conclusions of a certain religion) therefore you are practically assuming that the atheistic worldview is true bc you’re assuming it’s worthy to base other decisions in your life on primarily, not caring what God, your creator and purpose giver, has to say. However, your assumption may very well be false, and I think we can show through ample evidence that it is, and that Christianity is by far the best supported worldview. But first you have to realize that you’re living out a certain worldview with certain assumptions in the first place. Everyone is.
@@wardwilson3352 But I live in the 21st century, and the NT was written to 1st century people. I'm pretty sure you think whatever Jesus and Paul said to 1st century unbelievers applies equally well to 21st century unbelievers, but I seriously doubt you could make a case for it.
Always best to trust God and his word
Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Matthew 4:4 - But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Psalm 119:105 - Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
John 17:17 - Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth
Do remember that God (Jesus) never told his Disciples about the Western Hemisphere (nor did God, whether Yaweh or Allah, to their chosen people either). If He had, it wouldn't be called the Age of Discovery, it'd simply be the Age of Confirmation. That burned up a lot of my trust. Too easy to speculate what other supremely important details He mysteriously forgot to mention, as is His way.
@TraceBandit17 God didn't need to tell them about the Western hemisphere. To what point and end? Eventually the gospel would spread everywhere.
@@IAMhassentyou-e7l And it did. Like a plague.
Excellent work, Answers in Genesis Canada! 🎉
Yes. And also the earth is flat.
@ who believes that?? YOU??? Lol!
@@mooreoftammie obviously you're too dense to detect the sarcasm. The point is that creationism has the exact same amount of credibility as flat earth-ism. A little more intelligence and you might actually be capable of the feeling the embarrassment and shame that you should.
I don't think he exposed anything in this video. IDK who this guy is, but I get the impression he's not a researcher or a scientist? Is he a writer?
Like me he seems to care more about the history of Darwin's ideas than what he actually presents conceptually and scientifically, and he cares more about a scientist manipulating results for clout than papers that aren't sexy, which are famous for being well-structured rather than being famous for being an embarrassment to the field.
This is the same level of work as non-Christian fault-finders who cite Christians who left the faith and forged, gnostic texts as evidence against Christianity. This is the exact same level of rebuttal.
I don't get the impression this guy is the one who did the thousand of hours of research that would be needed to thoroughly rebut the theory anyway because he referenced that evolution was primarily a Christian theory but neglected to state that even Darwin cringed at the theory being a testament against deity.
I'm only 14 minutes in, so maybe he gets a good point soon, but the only two examples he's given so far are sexy rather than useful. "Christians thought it first," doesn't mean it's not true. Darwin copying other scientific papers of the time doesn't make it not true.
"This paper was an embarrassment to the field," doesn't make the entire discipline untrue.
This is NOT good thinking, good writing, and it's NOT a scientific rebuttal to scientific thought.
The Dark Horse podcast with Bret Weinstein explains how scientific papers are written, read, manipulated, esteemed, and how to process the data they express. If my comment didn't waste your time and you're ignorant of how to read scientific papers I recommend that podcast thoroughly. Type the podcast name and then scientific paper behind it and results where they read and explain scientific papers should come up. He and his wife were both professors, and they're excellent at explaining things to laymen. As you listen care more about how they explain scientific papers than the paper itself. The topic doesn't matter. Them explaining scientific papers, how to understand them, and how to understand if it's well-done or an embarrassment is the important part for our purpose.
My problem with this video is that it over-confidences the ignorant making them believe they now have knowledge in their toolkit when they know nothing more than a couple points of sexy trivia. Anyone who knows about evolution would embarrass someone with unearned confidence won by this video because this video teaches nothing about evolution and its theories' flaws. So if someone who knows about evolution presents a scientific claim, the only thing these commenters will be able to say is, "Darwin copied parts of his work!" To which to more studied would say, "Okay, but you can see the species split here following the chemical changes in plant structures, right?
If you're making a scientific claim then arm people with actual data instead of trivia. This is bad.
I’ve thought for a while now that both God and “evolution” can both be true, so to speak. Because evolution or natural selection is a process God created. It’s nice to hear others have come to the same conclusion.
The large majority of Christians in the world think that way too. Of course the small minority creationist cult claims they are not *TROO CHRISTIANS.* 🙃
That's being honest... What sciencerules said...
Well, you can look into a list of critiques to this stance in regards to reconciliation. Up to you.
Natural selection isn’t evolution. NS can be observed. Evolution cannot.
I'm 61. I've never believed we evolved from apes. Drove my teachers crazy😂🤣
It depends on what class you are in. In science class, statements of faith are not very useful.
@@jockyoung4491 then why do you beleive in LUCA
Good? So you caused a disturbance in your class because you have the intellectual maturity of an ape?
That’s something you must be proud of!
@@HS-zk5nn LUCA is inferred. I don't "believe" in it. I just acknowledge it seems likely from the evidence. I also understand that we will never know exactly what it was, whether it existed or not. What I don't understand is why you thinking bringing it up thousands of times does anything to refute biological evolution. Obviously it does not. i don't know why i bother. You won't ever dare thinking for yourself.
@@jockyoung4491" I don't "believe" in it. I just acknowledge it seems likely from the e"
oh so you beleive in created kinds. good to know!
"What I don't understand is why you thinking bringing it up thousands of times does anything to refute biological evolution."
simple. if there was no LUCA, created kinds adapted and the theory is like alchemy
All this bluster from apologists, but we never hear scientists telling us evolution doesn't happen. Creationists don't usually disagree with evolution, just what they think evolution is. They don't have any experts. Can any creationist find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix?
There are many scientists participating in YEC movements, but most people don't think they're real experts because they disagree with the current consensus. As for the question at the end, mutations are not capable of causing the appearance of novel traits at the level that evolution would require. Creationism does not need such radical transformations over time.
@@rafexrafexowski4754 There are very few supporting YEC, but you'll notice my point was that we don't get scientists saying evolution doesn't happen.
"mutations are not capable of causing the appearance of novel traits at the level that evolution would require." Can you demonstrate this claim? And how would creationism account for it anyway?
I guess not.
Host says accusing a theist of not understanding evolution is ad hominem then says some creationists make statements that indicate they don't understand evolution.
WELP! Back to the drawing board! I have been a creationist most of my life but I really started getting convinced that evolution was the truth. And my journey went even stronger to Jesus. I have many in my community that fight me on this. I think I need to do some major praying.
03:20 Dr. Carl Werner has a lot to say about those whale fossils. He's a good look up.
Werner is a medical doctor and YEC with zero knowledge or training in paleontology. He's just one more sad Liar For Jesus.
'evolution has never been observed'.
Great argument man. The exact same argument can be applied to creationism.
Except we have direct word from the Creator himself that creationism is how it happened.
Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago and told us all what's up. No historian disputes his existence and there's plenty of evidence he was here.
You can't deny the existence of Jesus. You can try and deny his divinity, but that won't work out very well for you when you meet him.
@@themonsterunderyourbed9408 We have direct word from Harry Potter that magic happens too. 🙂 Genesis is a series of allegories. It isn't literal. That's been demonstrated by evidence from dozens of independent scientific fields like geology, paleontology, genetics, physics, astronomy, etc.
@sciencerules2825 This is false actually.
First - Harry Potter is a fictional character. Jesus is a real person.
Second - There's zero scientific evidence that disproves anything in the Bible.
It's quite the contrary actual. There's plenty of evidence of a great flood in the region described in Noah's ark. Remnants of the Ark have even been found approximately where it was said the ark landed.
Genesis is a literal description of the origin of the universe and life within it.
Sorry your religion, science, can't disprove it.
@@themonsterunderyourbed9408 «Second - There's zero scientific evidence that disproves anything in the Bible. »
is earth flat?
@@themonsterunderyourbed9408No fruit fly would ever be able to observe an acorn give birth to an oak tree.
Thus, using this standard of logic, they would never be able to understand most things about the world.
But furthermore, even the Garden of Eden story requires evolution in order to be true.
Why the background music? I would like to hear your arguments, but this just trivializes, and distracts from, your words.
8:51 "i studied natural selection in depth, just excluding anything that would prove it right" bro has never heard of mutations.
Ah yes, mutations that's benefit the host and not to have an upper leg in a darwinian environment, well simultaneously expecting a mathematical impossibility of another host having similar enough genetic mutation for them to breed together and not only for the pain the mutations and their offspring, but have that one mathematically improbable family somehow to survived long enough to pass on the mutations
@baloo1522 tf you mean mathematically impossible? A person with blue eyes and brown eyes can have sex, and the last thing you said is EXACTLY how that works, the guy in the video said he believes in natural selection, you don't know how mutations work though, it's not like one mistake in genetic copies result in a new species, it's over the course of many millions of years
Nice presentation; Thanks!
I understand who God is, who the devil is and what the devil is allowed to have influence over. That's the main reason why I don't believe it.
It is wise not to believe Calvin.
@earthisasphere wise to trust God and I'll trust God over you
@@RobertA-oi6hw That is your choice. I was raised a YEC. There may be a god, but it isn't the one describe in the bible.
@earthisasphere what kind of church did you used to go to?
@@RobertA-oi6hw Many. Church of Christ, Baptists Church, Church of God. Then I even spent time in Methodists churches (which aren't YEC) I spent 25 plus years attending service Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night, and multiple vacation bible schools during the summer. But I never relied a speaker or what the church leaders told me. They couldn't agree on simple things anyway. The Bible is vastly flawed. It gets basic history and science wrong (there was no Exodus, the Jews were never even enslaved - A bat isn't a bird, the value of Pi isn't 3) . It contradicts (What exactly did Mary M see and do after the resurrection?). It has false prophecies (Ezekiel 29, Jeremiah 46 and 49).
“No one has observed evolution”?!
No one has seen god or creation either, according to your own sources of evidence.
Jesus (Yashua) was God in human form, and He was seen.
you can literally observe evolution in bacterial colonies and in viruses.
As in natural selection? Or as in mutations creating new, beneficial genetic code?
@@timothyvenable3336 Both technically. Bacteria use horizontal gene transfer to increase genetic diversity in a colony, because otherwise they would all be clones and have to rely on random mutations only. Just watch or read some stuff I'm not a biologist.
@@timothyvenable3336 The idea is the organisms that live and die in a short amount of time provide an opportunity to observe natural selection at work over a great many generations. Microbes and viruses allow for observing both natural selection and evolution in progress.
@@misterlyle. I would just argue natural selection is evolution. We have never observed any sort of mutation or genetic change that causes increase of information in genetic code. We observe change, positive and negative, but nothing that could cause long term-large scale evolution
@@timothyvenable3336 Thank you for the reply! It's a straw-man position to assert natural selection is the same as evolution (although this often happens). That is like saying building a basement is the same as building a skyscraper. Without occasional (but helpful) mutations environmental pressures like "natural selection" could only lead to species extinction.
I worked as an IT Manager for a University Anthropology department, none of them could ever answer “why don’t we find humans who live in water, or have more than 2 arms and 2 legs, why don’t some have scales? Etc..”
If you see any other animal lineage, there are branches, even during the “short length” of humans.
Shouldn’t there have been a divergence of some form, other than skin color?
Humans didn't live in water and didn't evolve extra limbs or scales because there was no environmental selection pressure or benefit for them to do so. There are over a dozen other hominid lineages known to science but _H sapiens_ outcompeted them all and drove them all into extinction.
Perhaps they should have replied with questions on why computers don’t work underwater or grow arms and legs?
I think you might then understand the stupidity of your question.
There have been many documented divergences. But evolution can only build on what has come before, which is why all primates have 4 limbs and don't live underwater.
Humans didn’t develop more than two arms or legs, and because there was no divergence, humans aren’t a result of evolution?
There’s probably a reason you worked as an IT manager. Managing the student call centre is probably all you were qualified for. Especially when you think specific departments have their own IT teams.
@@Bomtombadi1 wow, you’re bright.
Contact Dr. Barbara Mills, Dr. John Olsen, Dr. Ellen Basso, Dr. Timothy Finan, or any of the faculty from 1997-2014 and ask them if they had their own IT Department.
They’ll say Yes, they’ll also tell you I was awarded the Department Exceptional Employee award, and The University of Arizona Staff Excellence award.
Ut go on with your bad self. 😂
See, I don’t hide myself and bully others. I use facts.
Thank you A.I.G
"Giggle stick goes in brat comes out, it's not rock science"
Dude spends an entire video flattering himself about how much he understands evolution, then proceeds to not even address genetic mutation. Not to mention the fact that there’s absolutely zero evidence for creationism.
Calvin is as dumb as they come, he just wants money from the sheep that believe him
In the first century, when the Greeks promoted evolution as a concept, the early church rebuked them. The sad part is how deceived the world has come about this.
The church also rejected the idea that the earth revolves around the sun when the idea was proposed by Galileo. Which we now know to be true. What "the church" thinks is right doesn't matter.
Your ideology is an evil lie.
The sad part is how you believe that the early church was right.
@@zac8033False. That idea was come up with by Copernicus, who was also in the church (he was a canon, minor church official).
Galileo was done in by a multitude of factors including personally being an asshole, the Pope getting paranoid and needing to attack someone, and Galileo’s attack on the church’s view of matter (Galileo believed in atoms).
Proverbs 3:5-7 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths.
7 Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the Lord and depart from evil.
You cannot win then, either you fear the Lord and depart evil, or you fear evil and depart the Lord. Not much of a choice really, although I would at least be amongst friends with the latter option.
@philiprobinson2011 that's not what the scripture verse is saying at all. Let me help you. Solomon continues his counsel regarding trusting the Lord instead of one's own understanding. He tells us not to rely on our own wisdom. This does not mean we're to act recklessly or without thought. The point is that our intellect is nothing compared to that of God, who created us. Human wisdom falls far below God's wisdom and leads to false assumptions. Romans 1:22-23 reports that the heathen claimed to be wise but became fools by worshiping nature instead of the Creator.
It is infinitely better to reverence the Lord, trust Him, and turn one's back on evil than to follow our own inclinations. Job did not understand why he was suffering so greatly, but he was convinced that the Lord knew what he was doing. He acknowledged that his responsibility was to reverence the Lord and reject evil. In Job 28:28, he quoted the Lord as saying, "Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding.' Therefore, Job did not let his sufferings persuade him to sin. Instead, he wisely reverenced the Lord and eventually received abundant reward (Job 42:10-17).
And that exactly what to do with evolution.
How do you know any of that is true?
What evil is it referring to?
Why should anyone believe a book that contains many lies and contradictions?
@niblick616 because that book doesn't contain lies or contradictions. You've been deceived.
Wow! Look at all those books! Are all the ones whose spines are facing away from the camera about evolution, too?