How much can animal species change? - Dr. Robert Carter
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июл 2024
- Taken from "Beyond Is Genesis History? Vol 2 : Life & Design." Available in full here:
bit.ly/2QlPtQV
Explore the fascinating fields of biology, genetics, and intelligent design with 16 in-depth interviews featuring Del Tackett and six scientists from the film.
While visiting the shark, sea urchins and starfish at Coral World, Del Tackett and marine biologist Dr. Robert Carter compare creation and evolution. They then look at how both genetics and design lead to the formation of unique types of species.
☞ Purchase all three in the series here: bit.ly/2MWY7Tx
Dr. Carter obtained a BS in Applied Biology from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1992.
He then spent four years teaching high school biology, chemistry, physics, and electronics before going to the University of Miami to obtain his PhD in Marine Biology. He successfully completed this program in 2003 with a dissertation on “Cnidarian Fluorescent Proteins.” While in Miami, he studied the genetics of pigmentation in corals and other invertebrates, designed and built an aquaculture facility for Caribbean corals, performed well over 500 SCUBA dives, many of them at night, and licensed a spin-off product of his research (a patented fluorescent protein) to a biotech company. He is currently a senior scientist and speaker for CMI-USA in Atlanta, Georgia.
For more information on Dr. Carter, please go to bit.ly/342HUnF.
----------------------------------------------------
✨ Looking to learn more about Genesis and Creation?
★ Visit our blog for helpful articles: bit.ly/3d306R1
★ Free Videos: bit.ly/3e1HRgc
★ Questions & Answers: bit.ly/3d0EG6T
![Finesse2Tymes - Pretty Ricky [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xIoP_mhYRT0/mqdefault.jpg)
Evolution as in a fish crawling out of the ocean and sprouting legs is as believable as Pokemon.
How do you explain Tiktaalik
@@stevefreer3424 Tiktaalik lived, then died in the flood of Noah.
@@stevefreer3424 you weren't there and neither was I. If this fish grew legs it's not proof we're related necessarily. It's all conjecture.
Pokemon exists.
@@stevefreer3424 there is no need to explain tiktaalik. Many different creatures exist and have existed with many different body forms. This does not mean that one is evolving into another, that part is imagination or wishful thinking. Some horse breeds have quite long necks but that doesn't mean they are evolving into giraffes.
Tetrapods with fully formed limbs and digits have been found and dated to 20 million years before tiktaalik so it is not a transitional form, see below...
The fish-tetrapod transition was thus seemingly quite well documented. There was a consensus that the divergence between some elpistostegalians (such as Tiktaalik or Panderichthys) and tetrapods might have occurred during the Givetian, 391-385 Myr ago. Coeval with the earliest fossil tetrapods, trackways dating to the Late Devonian were evidence for their ability to walk or crawl on shores.
Now, however, Niedźwiedzki et al. lob a grenade into that picture. They report the stunning discovery of tetrapod trackways with distinct digit imprints from Zachemie, Poland, that are unambiguously dated to the lowermost Eifelian (397 Myr ago). This site (an old quarry) has yielded a dozen trackways made by several individuals that ranged from about 0.5 to 2.5 metres in total length, and numerous isolated footprints found on fragments of scree. The tracks predate the oldest tetrapod skeletal remains by 18 Myr and, more surprisingly, the earliest elpistostegalian fishes by about 10 Myr.
(Philippe Janvier & Gaël Clément, “Muddy tetrapod origins,” Nature Vol. 463:40-41 (January 7, 2010).)
Imagine playing the sims and hearing the sims say "there is no programmer! The codes randomly spawned!"
That's how atheists sound
But if you can't seenthe code because you are code, can you be faulted for not beleiving in it?
I think we'd have better things to discuss if the sims were sentient enough to ponder their existence. Like would it be ethical to wipe the server because a few in the simulation weren't doing what you wanted? Just imagine intentionally isolating a population of them with no awareness of coding, and getting mad that they don't beleive in code.
nunya bisnass except there is a world of evidence left behind for us to know, the same method of evidence that we use to know and learn anything, books witnesses, history, science, artifacts etc....
You can know Jesus spiritually without yourself seeing Him physically.
@@nunyabisnass1141, Evolution cannot explain coding of any kind. Coding is information input that requires intelligence. If you're walking along and see a paper airplane on the ground, do you wonder if that was produced by random processes over eons of time, or is it more reasonable to not reject the idea that it is the product of a mind that had designed it with intent and purpose? Now, how much more complex is even one component of a single cell than a paper airplane?
Everyone in every population, isolated or not, is aware that God exists, even if they reject Him: "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools." -Romans 1:21, 22.
And what kind of an objection are you making if not a moral objection? Even if it were true that God punishes people for not knowing, you're saying that it's immoral for God to do so. That's a nice bit of biography. It tells us something about you, but your subjective moral opinion tells us nothing about God's existence. It only tells us your opinion about how you think He operates. On what objective basis do you determine if an act committed by another is moral or immoral? Whether you realize it or not, you operating on the presupposition that objective morality exists. (see the first paragraph again). Evolution cannot explain your moral expectations. Programming can.
@@5thBeatle did you know there are multiple definitions of information, and that its generally those that cherry pick a single narrow definition of information that literally excludes all other definitions, including those that predate this one? You're citing information theory which was developed to refine logic functions, not biology. Its very much an appkes to oranges comparrison.
Now you make a good point in your second argument on subjective morality, but ultimately fail to understand that its incoherent to invoke the need for an objective pov to judge a subjective one. Now i presume you claim to have an objective sense of morality based on a standard source. Well if that source has been reworked dozens of times, and reinterpreted thousands of times, then whose interpretation of it is the correct objective one? Why did god have to use a loophole to change their own rules on how to acheive salvation if they themselves have an objective position?
Dr. Robert Carter, one of my two favorite experts along with Dr. Danny Faulkner.
Ever since the fall things have been "falling ".
You've got to love the truth.
the truth? because people say there's an end to small changes adding up over time doesn't make it true I'm sorry.
Since for example camels & llamas can interbreed so what did that Kind look like before camels & llamas diverged?
@@slingslang2934 something which had characteristics of both which does not exist any more. It is very true and very easy to see these the fact that life is slowly get worse, not more advanced. This is a fact and it is nice to know the truth.
I recommend CS Lewis, "Funeral of a great Myth", which perfectly explains how evolutionary theory is a product of literary imagination and is the sole reason why it persists today.
Also deeply connected to masonry.
Thank you all for putting out these great videos
Thanks guys. Keep up the good work.
Man I love listening to Dr. Rob Carter break it down. I especially loved the other video of him explaining 4 dimensions of DNA!
Also there's an Origins episode from a FEW years back on the Cornerstone network. Of him breaking down the genealogies in Genesis 👌👌!
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water
@@logicalatheist1065 - *Atheists are like a 3rd nipple... and "Logical Atheist" is an oxymoron.*
Scripture doesn't erase facts, sorry.
@@kbyrnenc scripture is factual...
monkeys don't erase facts, sorry.
Fascinating. Thanks so much!
It's ironic, how people use the term "missing link", while totally marginalising the word "missing".
Kinda empty in it's fullness like a frozen pantomime; ain't it?
The law of entropy said "go ahead, keep ignoring me."
So could you tell me the definition of the 'law of entropy'.
@@FilipCordas 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything breaks down
Loving the scientific , logical explanations that back up the historical legitimacy of the Bible 😊 we really are living in the time of enlightenment- kinda scary but exciting to know we're living in the last days of this system of things
....These videos are great.....Darwinists can stick it in their eye....
@@logicalatheist1065 Your name is an oxymoron.
That's a nice way of putting it.
What does a creation scientist mean when he says this creature is a cousin of another?
He explained it in the video!
Weren't you listening? 🙄
I'm always so amazed at how any human being can actually think we evolved. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
Some refer to the fruit fly experiments to show that there are no beneficial mutations, but I was also considering that no human born today is the same as any other human, not just alive today, but different than any human that has ever lived. Yet all were and are human. Its the same with all other creatures, and plants. The paradox is unlimited variation, but limited to a master design.
So according to Answers in genesis. Noah took 1400 kinds to the boat and from them we get 30000 sub kinds we see today. That is a rate of sub kind creation of around 5 sub kinds per year. Ok now let's do the math for this till the original creation, using that rate the 1400 animals had one common ancestor 280 years before the flood. If that isn't macro evolution I don't know why is.
By the way for us jews this isn't a problem really: we believe that noach "did" take all species into the ark, "and" that there were far too many of them, and they would "not" naturally fit in. It was all a "miracle god made" that they all fit in comfortably.
imagine he took 6 to 8 thousand kinds and an older earth creation further back in time than 6,000 years ago and however long it took we have all the different species we have today. I mean the cat family or Felidae came from an original ancestor the same ancestor. With young earth it might be impossible but not every Christian believes in young earth. With young earth you would have had to take most of the dinosaurs like t rex but with an older earth t rex would already be extinct.
Thank you brothers for the interview and explainign in more detail the differences we see in species that ultimately come from a certain kind just as God said in His word. Trust the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understand, acknowledge him in all your ways and he will direct thine paths.
A process called "len icks"
I didn't try to create that, but that's why the starfish exists, looks the way that it does, and that's where the movie/book "holes" came from
That was created when I thought about holes opening up all over somebody's body and pump-kin seeds moving around inside and then coming out
If a future paleontologist found a fossil of a beagle and a fossil of a Great Dane, would they conclude that both were dogs living at the same time?
Some graduate student would say so and would say they existed as result of selective breeding. He would be tossed out of the program and become an Lyft driver.
Would a paleontologist see different fossils and think they are different ages and maturity levels or different species? This is a trick question, they have made that mistake.
I saw a tornado go through a junk yard & out came a Boeing 747.
Life on earth is not on the rise, but rather, in decline. Like a airplane exploding in mid air and the pieces breaking up while falling to earth. Sounds more legit than raw chemistry randomly inventing itself and developing conscience and reason for no purpose whatsoever, except nihlism.
God has giving us the ability to adapt to our environment for better survival
Can you explain why mule can’t breed with horse
The starfish in the thumbnail is my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great Grandpa!!!! I look just like him. I also have 5 fingers. Seee....evolution!!
What is the phylogenetic nomenclature for "Kind"? Is it Family? And how many Families would have had to be on the Ark?
More than exist today. (Some have gone extinct since then.) But they were probably all babies.
You say, "@@logicalatheist1065". But there's too much evidence to dismiss the flood. Instead of honestly seeking out and explaining the truth, geologists since James Hutton have been spinning the evidence to hide the flood. Now that it's accepted, many of today's geologists may not even know they're doing it.
Search Dr Kurt Wise. He has a video on the nomenclature and what exactly is a “kind”. Is it a Family?
it may be a broader term than species.?? and an older earth can accommodate them because t rex and his buddies would have already been extinct.
If you want to study mutations read a medical genetics textbook. From some medical genetics studies- we all carry 100-800 loss of function mutations and 20 genes are fully knocked out from them but due to redundancy we dont all have a genetic disease. Genetic disease are 1 in 17 so more common than thought. Everyone has the same knockout mutation in the vitamin c gene so it looks like at the fall of man is when adam and eve had those genes knocked out which is why everyone in history has them. Maybe there was other now essential nutrients that were non essential before the fall of man. only 2% of the genome codes for proteins and of that only 50% or so of the function of those genes/proteins is known. Basically mutations are not good which is why you shouldn't breed with your sibling or parent or child although a lot of people still do.
How many DNA mutations occur from generation to generation in the shark; compared to the amount of DNA mutations that occurs in the human with each new generation?
In a previous video it was stated; "that due to the number of genetic mutations that the human species exhibits in each new generation... that inevitably a human is destined for extinction." - Rob Carter
Is the shark species also destined for extinction because of such alarge amount of DNA mutation?
E-mail him for an explanation! 🙄
Evolution means to bring self-forth
Why can man not see the truth, that evolving into some other kind of being,will not happen dog will always be dog cat cat and so on we devolve no new genies
It's hard to escape the phylogeny especially if there's no reason so yes they will appear similar for quite a while.
For instance camels & llamas obviously have a few differences but they can still interbreed.
There's what I told other people too. Not all amphibians are born as tadpoles. Not all crabs are born as nauplius, & not all sharks are born in eggs, or the same eggs.
So the point is that Kinds change right? Such as by ditching their larval stages.
So can flatfish or mudskippers abandon their larval stages too someday? And instead of being born as regular looking fish, they'll be looking like a stingray or land thing instead of a fish
@@slingslang2934 - These DNA upgrades.. and I mean changes profound enough that the organism can no longer breed with members of the group it "evolved" from.. WHY would they happen?
Mankind sees what they choose to see
@@freemind.. Some can be random like you said but organs are put to the test & improve where needed.
Like how mudskippers use their fins to walk. Or how lungfish, bichirs, and others use the swim bladder to breath air more often then through their gills. And lungfish have blood vessels in there + abandon their gills.
Then I only assume the cause for animals giving live birth like types of sharks, snakes & lizards is because they extend the gestation period. cutt.ly/tyPiAb1 Found later. With tree frogs though having a hard egg shell unlike other frogs at least keeps them from drying out on tree leaves.
sorry I just wanna add that our skin builds up like on our hands & feet too & is made of mostly keratin, similar to Paw pads, hooves, claws, nails, beaks & horns. High contact places it appears.
@@slingslang2934 - _"freemind Some can be random like you said but organs are put to the test & improve where needed. Like how mudskippers use their fins to walk. Or how lungfish, bichirs, and others use the swim bladder to breath air more often then through their gills. Though I only assume the cause for animals giving live birth like sharks is because they extend the gestation period. It makes some sense for the toads that don't live near pooling water. With tree frogs though having hard shells unlike other frogs keeps them from drying out on land."_
*You have to think this through...*
*I understand that different features and abilities are advantageous and desirable.. but these things didn't KNOW that!! You are implying that every living organism to ever exist has had the ability to PERCEIVE that a certain ability or characteristic that they do not possess now, would be beneficial in some way... the ability to DETERMINE what type of mutation would give them the new capabilities... and best of all... the ability to WILLFULLY FORCE that mutation to happen in future generations. You have endowed them with powers that no creatures on Earth, including humans, have ever possessed.*
*Though added abilities may be beneficial or advantageous, these were not intelligent!! They didn't WANT ANYTHING... They didn't KNOW ANYTHING!! And even if they did... they had NO POWER to will those changes to happen!*
By the way... *Who or what is putting these things "to the test" and making the decision as to whether or not something "needs improving"???*
''Latitude & Longitude has a dramatic effect on species. But when you get right down to it...
All came from the dirt & All with the breath of life within lungs or gills of ^it,
were sculpted by the desires of His living waters.'' -Willam Gilpin 61820
...tTt...
///^it\\\
I agree with some of what he's saying but Mutations are not beneficial. Please show me a beneficial Mutation.... Any change in animals have to already be available in the DNA of that animal. We have never seen an animal change to a different kind of animal....
IMO.....
Fun side note: the "kind" mentioned in the bible is referring to the family
Carolus Linnaeus was a creationist who believed in God. PTL!
Yep, I learned that in science class
I've heard the branches referred to as Creations Orchards
Robert Carter is the lead speaker for Creation Ministries International. I wonder if he has an agenda?
And evolutionists don't have an agenda?
@@KenJackson_US I don't know. I'm just saying this "expert" does.
Scientists who understand that the evidence supports creation better than evolution may feel obligated to advance the truth, @@josephscala6707. Some would call that an _"agenda",_ but calling it that may itself be considered having an agenda too.
@@KenJackson_US Most experts agree that creation never happened. A select few do. All views should be presented to be fair, and experts should be qualified.
Experts are afraid to step away from the pack and state that the king has no clothes, @@josephscala6707. Do you know anything about proteins? The evolution of new proteins can't be defended. There are an *effectively infinite* permutations of even a small protein and natural selection can't help because a protein-in-progress wouldn't work until it's nearly complete.
Micro evolution vs Macro evolution. Macro evolution only occurs in text books not in nature.
𝐌𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐞𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 One too many microevolutions
@@slingslang2934 - Again.. PROVE it! Give us actual PROOF that many adaptations will lead to a completely different lifeform! Without observational and experimental evidence that is falsifiable.. *it is science fiction.. it isn't SCIENCE.*
@@slingslang2934 - Do you realize that we actually have an on-going experiment to see how much we can change a living organism; an experiment spanning thousands of years and involving millions of people. Every conceivable mechanism for change has been tried.. and massive adaptive variations have been achieved.. but you know what we have found regardless of all the changes? Dogs are still just dogs. Not a single one has ever morphed into a new lifeform.
The notion that lots of little mutations add up to new families, orders and classes over time doesn't stand up to scrutiny, @@slingslang2934. Machinery, including the molecular machinery in our own bodies, doesn't work until it's complete. And natural selection is _unguided,_ so it can't know which micro changes to conserve or preserve.
but a shark is a fish
I think he means a fish with scales, like a sea bass or something.
How did moral consciousness come into existence?
Blow something up and wait a looooooong time?
Why is it so hard for Creationist to deal with evolution; what? for a lack of 'missing links?' Common, we're dealing with time over millions and hundreds of millions of years, from one species to the next. We as humans cannot fathom this rationally from our time perspective. And to say we didn't evolve over time for a lack of 'missing link' species is not a good argument. It is also not a good argument to say G_d was so impatience is an insult to G_d's real patience in the creation through evolution of man. This is to say, G_d is not impatient to wait over time for man to evolve into a being able and capable to becoming aware enough to bring the light of G_d into mind. The days of G_d, from the Big Bang to the advent of Earth's earliest of formation is within those early days of G_d's creation. G_d does not have to do parlor tricks to skip evolution; G_d can wait a billion or 4 billion years, let alone the 13.5 or so billion years from the beginning of Time for man to begin to be inspired by the Light of G_d's work. We don't need to destroy natural processes of billions of years of Earth formation, including Catastrophic (catastrophism) to account for mass die-offs over time; the wiping out of past evolutionary plant and animals. G_d is not impatient of time to skip natural laws of physics or geological processes, period. Man's place in time came about (roughly) 400,000 years ago. But it is likely that man did not come to know G_d until much later in time; say, 11,000 years ago; at least, not in the way we know of G_d today through the Bible, through the Torah, or through the Koran, etc. We cannot let ignorance of science and natural biological processes be tossed aside because of Religious ignorance trying to tie all past events into a shortened unnatural, or supernatural time event. When G_d first spoke to Adam, it was likely that Adam was the first human to be enlightened enough (by inspiration of thought) to receive G_d's message for the new age of man. All men before Adam were still wild in their ways; primitive, aggressive, socially apathetic to rules, and barbaric in nature. It was only the inspiration of G_d's message that for the first time, man could be enlightened to accept that there was a creator over the earth; a patient G_d that set the wheels in motion billions of years ago and waited patiently for just the right man to come into being; and this man was Adam.
I have a problem with saying that God looked upon an earth full of life created through hundreds of millions of years of death and called it "good" when death is the last enemy to be destroyed. I have a problem with invalidating the necessity of sacrificial death to atone for sin after the fall, as it then invalidates Christ on the cross as the final sacrifice.
Those are obviously religious convictions, not "scientific" ones, but I find it hard to take people seriously when they claim with no support that the only way to view the world "scientifically" is with a materialist and uniformitarian worldview. That all that exists is physical matter and that matter has always interacted and behaved as it does today. That's as much a "religious" statement as mine, as it is pure assumption and assertion and will force the data to fit its conclusions.
@@timh.6872 No. The claim of methodological naturalism (aka science) is evidence based. Your "no support" is wrong. The observed and inferred evidence accumulated and tested by the scientific process since the Enlightenment all points towards naturalism. There is no evidence that supports any supernatural alternative. The current worldview is a naturalistic one BECAUSE OF that. You have put the cart before the horse, hopefully not deliberately. The vast majority of devout believers accept this worldview. (BTW You do too, for example, every time you use electricity.) The problem you have is called literalism. That's belief in a book, come what may.
@@alanthompson8515 The accumulated evidence since the Enlightenment swung roughly for naturalism right up until we cracked the genetic code and found out that every one of the billions of cells in our body is an information processing system orders of magnitude more complex than the best software humankind has ever created. What's the _one_ thing natural entropy-increasing processes don't produce? Funcrional information. Every single natural process we've ever observed destroys what information is present in an object. If you want to take your uniformitarian principle and apply it to a lifeless earth at its origin, then you end up with a lifeless earth now, _because physics doesn't make information_. As the conclusion does not agree with reality, one of the premises is wrong. The earth was at one point lifeless, so physics must be able to create information. But that flies in the face of the principle being used to make the argument in the first place, because the proposed effect cannot be attributed to the proposed cause. Therefore a purely "natural" explanation of the origin of life is self-defeating. Either the origin of life was supernatural (contradicting the uniformitarian assumption) or physics did things that we do not currently see it doing (again contradicting the uniformitarian assumption).
Naturalism is untenable when faced with the reality of what life is and how it works.
@@timh.6872 Oh dear. This tired old PRATT again. Physics fails therefore God. Oh look, there's a gap in current knowledge! We can cram GOD into it. So God must exist! Yippee! Nuff said.
@@alanthompson8515 Thanks for confirming your level of reading comprehension. Please return to your regularly scheduled programming.
Evolution IS a creation
No
I would prefer if he not use dogs as an example because the dog people say they have been domesticated for 20,000 years and there is not enough time for that since Adam and Eve ate the apple 5000 years ago
mutations are NOT what parents want to see in their children
.
Imagine walking alone in the woods after a rainstorm. Along the path, you come across three old, 300-page books lying side by side binding-side down in a muddy puddle. You think to yourself the following: surely one or more intelligent sources wrote these books, one or more others published them, and still one or more others purchased them and dropped them along the path long before your arrival. Behind you comes a wise man from a violently intimidating cult group that acts as though it has all knowledge on earth. He tells you, "That one or more intelligent sources is or are the originator(s) of these books is not an acceptable option; our cult will brook no such opinion. Stop believing in sky-daddy authors. This is the truth: those books slowly evolved -- letter by letter, page by page -- out of this muddy puddle 400 million years ago, the book in the middle is the common ancestor of the two on either side, and we will viciously disparage and attack any and all who say otherwise."
So it is with the hard sciences wing of the academy and its unscientific adherence to evolution, whose modern incarnation was by formulated by inveterate uniformitarian atheists. Its adherence to the belief that prescriptive information (i.e., incredibly complex, self-replicating, time-releasing, adaptable codes) can create itself from inanimate sources; that irreducibly complex systems, including organs and organ ecosystems, can arise piecemeal; that life's numerous catch-22s (e.g., Which came first, DNA or RNA? The cell nucleus or the cell wall? Muscles or tendons -- or bones? The cardiac system or the respiratory system?) were somehow overcome; and that beauty and order all came about, ultimately, as the chance product of absolutely nothing exploding 13.7 billion years ago is as ludicrous as the wise man's statement about the three books in the muddy pool.
Good point, but bad analogy.
Me: Are similarities alone, good enough to prove two different animals are related?
Atheist: Yes.
Me: So a car with 4 wheels, 3 mirrors, a steering wheel, and an engine is related to a truck with 4 wheels, 3 mirrors, a steering wheel, and an engine?
Atheist: No, because it’s not alive.
Me: So it’s not by similarities, but by something simply being alive, means it’s related?
How can you prove that two different animals are related without going into further investigation?
Atheist: 🤷🏻♂️
The River of Faith lol, not quite. If you watched the video, the marine biologist said an urchin and a starfish were related based on similarities, even though at a glance they don't look similar. So does that mean you would call him an atheist?
Taxonomy isn't even an atheistic position or concept. It is literally just classifying organisms based on their shared similarities. By your logic you being similar to your parents isn't evidence that you are related, so I'm interested in asking what in your opinion would make something related.
nunya bisnass
This one issue alone, is one of the biggest problems in all of the history of science.
What determines if two creatures are related?
I grew up strongly believing in evolution. When I started reading Genesis, it made zero sense to me and I was trying to explain it based on my current knowledge at the time. But somethings I could not explain. For example, how did Noah know the flood was coming, in order to begin building the Ark? Was he a mad scientist or something? Because since only his family was saved from the destruction, that means he had to see some sort of change in the earth no one else saw. But I thought, but that’s only if it’s true. Later I realized God does exist and always has and has seen Noah as the only one seeking to do good compared with everyone else, and God has also created and made all the creatures which have ever existed.
Here are the terms I use and these are their definitions which are specifically important to knowing the truth:
Parents: Means pair that creature came from.
Relative/kinsfolk/kind: Means blood relation by reproduction.
Creature: Means created thing with DNA.
Variation: One of many different creatures within the same kind/relation/kinsfolk.
If you look closely, you’ll notice that the Biblical term “kind” is shown in the Bible to only be animals of blood relation after their original created pair (parents).
And also, the definition of the term “relation” literally means “a person who is connected by blood or marriage; a kinsman or kinswoman.” and “sexual intercourse.”
Therefore, those different creatures which are known to reproduce with each other, (or could in the past), are the same kind. They are related.
Those different creatures which cannot reproduce, nor never have reproduced, are not the same kind. They are not related.
To make the unclear clear, we must continue this path and dig deeper.
So, how about when you know two different creatures cannot reproduce in present day, but aren’t sure if they have reproduced in the past?
To be certain, we must remember, the more different angles something can be verified, the more factual it is.
The Bible says to have two or three witnesses, so that someone doesn’t receive a false judgement.
Therefore, I usually prefer not one method of verification, but as many as possible. Sometimes, I’ll only find like two or three though, but that tends to be plenty.
To answer this question, we must dive deeper into what actually happens in nature. What happens with mutations, etc.
So, what I’ve observed, tested, and verified to occur in nature is this:
When animals change, there are two things anyone can see for themselves. There are features which change with variation (skin color, size, hair etc.), but also there happen to be features which do not change with any variation throughout history.
Therefore, if verification by reproduction is unavailable, verification by matching the unique features of that specific creature which never have changed throughout it’s generations, to another similar creature, we can determine if those creatures are in fact related, or if they are not.
You bring up the guy mentioning starfish, sea cucumbers, and sea urchins, all being different variations of the same kind and asking, is he telling the truth?
So, first I took the two most likely to be the same kind. The starfish and sea urchin.
Then, since I wasn’t sure if starfish and sea urchins can reproduce, I looked to the past and yes, we have sea urchin, and starfish fossils. Therefore, it’s likely they have never reproduced and are unrelated.
But, I needed more verification.
Next, I looked up photos of weird starfish and weird sea urchins to see which features have changed and which features have not changed.
The feet, mouth, shape, and other major things have never changed and match from the starfish, to the sea urchin. The features which do change, are the limbs, dome, size, number of limbs, and spines. However, sea urchins don’t have limbs like starfish. That is, until I found the helmet urchin. It has limbs in the exact same place as the starfish, but it’s limbs always seem to be small and don’t seem to look at all like the limbs of a starfish.
So, I began going the other route by looking up different starfish which might have spines or resemble sea urchins. That’s when the Lord showed me the crown of thorns starfish. I could not conclude it is a sea urchin but not a starfish, nor could I conclude it is a starfish but not a sea urchin.
They are verified by their features which do not change to be related.
The starfish and sea urchin are two different variations of the same kind.
So, then I tried to do the same with the sea cucumber. But the sea cucumber seems to have unique features which the sea urchin/starfish kind never had. And the sea urchin/starfish kind seems to have unique features which the sea cucumber never had. And without any evidence I’ve found of unique matching features, for now I can claim that the sea cucumber and the starfish/sea urchin kind, are not related. But to conclude this, it would require more verification.
With these things said, I hope you consider them and know that it’s not by similarities in which things are related, (because you cannot prove they are only by similarities), but by reproduction and by matching unique features which have not changed with variation (only if reproduction is unknown).
I know it can be hard to understand. Do these things make sense?
You were saying similarities don't prove evolution and also said the more angles something can be verified, the more factual it is.
So yeah kinds can quite often be classified using anatomical traits like teeth, skull, joints, hooves, horns etc. since those can be unique to species. I assume that's how creationists classify animals too.
There's several other traits though such as the shared Vestigial organs, Dna, Breeding pairs, Mtda, diseases, larval stages & compatibale biofluids & organs.
And plants have their own similarities with sharing seeds, embryonic leaves, cpdna, ect.
2 of the most definitive of the bunch would be breeding pairs & vestigial organs though right? Vestigial organs are remnants of what another species had & Kinds shouldn't be similar enough to interbreed like lemons & oranges or llamas & camels but they can.
Logical Atheist
But you cannot make that claim without accepting all animals are proven to be related by similarities alone.
SlingSlang
I agree that there are all sorts of unique features. But in order for two different creatures to be related, their unchanging features must match. For example, the elephant and the camel are not related, because you never find a camel with a nose like an elephant, nor do you find an elephant with humps of a camel. Nor do these features exist in the fossil record. Therefore, they are proven by evidence and verification, that they are not related.
And so if you claim they are related, you would be proven wrong. They never have reproduced. Nor do they have matching features which do not change.
"Linnaeus didn't believe in evolution" LOLOLOLOL He had no concept of evolution, b/c Darwin realized evolution 100 years after Linnaeus was dead!!!
So... Linnaeus *didn't* believe in evolution. Your point...?
This is proof positive why you shouldn't take modern "medicines"
The world will one day soon at last believe that there is a Living GOD Creator of heaven and earth Who's Unique Son is Jesus Christ. They don't understand HE is long suffering giving men and women time to repent (2,000 yrs.) but even that will come to an end. It's best to give HIM glory now than to wait until it's to late. EVERYONE will confess that day that Jesus Christ is LORD, EVERYONE ! It will be so. AMEN !
Maybe believe a god but not believe in creationism that's for sure
Carter,, you are so excellent & informing. Kick the evangelical shamans off IGH. GBU.
Can it be chinese? i am a christian from china,but my english is poor,but i want to know truth.Thank you all!
Every Chinese person on earth descended from Noah and his wife.
Send them an email. I'm sure they would love to have Chinese versions.
Can you find people to make Chinese captions?
Are you allowed to be Christian in today's China? I've heard the current government gets Christian's to renounce their faith.
These guys sure love to stretch those gaps to make room for their deity, not other deities but theirs.
Answer: A lot
The marinenbiologist is being completely disingenuous. He believes in change over time, but not enough change over time to accumulate to a point where the latest model is unrecognisable from its predecessors.
The fact that there are still sharks doesn't mean that all sharks are simultaneously trying to become somethimg else, only that the branch of the shark family is successful enough to continue to improve on being sharks rather than to go extinct.
We have a whole spectrum of colors, just because we still have red doesn't disprove the existence of green or violet. Hes saying that because sharks still exist and didn't turn into something else, that disproves evolution. Its a total nonsequiter. The existence of one thing doesn't exclude the existence of another as if your bulbasaur evolving into a venusaur means you can't habe a bulbasaur.
I just don't understand the why they insist that evolution operates on pokemon rules when they clearly understand that it doesn't.
Or put it this way.
Typos don't write books!
He is a Marine Biologist but he doesn't know that Echinoderms are bilaterally symmetrical (10:20).
No such thing as 10 or 5 fold symmetry, animals only have bilaterally or radial symmetry.
If he doesn't understand such simple concepts in biology I'm not surprised he doesn't understand evolution.
“Radial symmetry?” Watch 9:55, sheep boy :)
Not worried Entropy. God's power of His Word sustains the Universe see Hebrews 1. The universe is not a closed system. Individual lives of creatures are the closed system. Entropy works on individual systems not God's declared whole system of Creation. Cursed world dogma has holes that is created by poor assumptions in eschatology.
@@YouToobeism
A cogent reply on eschatology and its impacts to someone identified as Youtoobism is on its face impossible.
LOL
Stop over using the word "paradigm". Please.
Praise God!! I'm not related to a fish! Lol, also we are all created as one humankind, Darwin was racist and Hitler idolized his ideas to pursue great evil
I think you're referring to Huxley, not Darwin. Huxley extrapolated the Theory of Evolution to apply to human races. Although this has been shown to lack any proper basis or scientific rigour, there are some people around today who wish it to be true.
@@albanan1 actually i was talking about Darwin, his book title says it all, the full title "of favorable races" check it out and thanks for the reply. :)
@@stephenfloyd3522 I hadn't realised that the title of The Origin of Species had changed through its editions. But, the book does not deal with human evolution, much less does it address human "race", so your original post remains puzzling.