Darwin’s Biggest Problem | Long Story Short: Evolution
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 พ.ค. 2024
- Help us make more videos! / @longstoryshortvideos
It’s 1859 and there was this guy named Charles Darwin and he rode on a beagle to these islands, and had a little idea....(Evolution). Just like humans can take the variety that they saw in animals (descent with modification) and breed horses to be faster or dogs to more hot-dog-like; given enough time, Ol’ Charlie D. figured, nature could take even the smallest, slimiest, of creatures and create the biggest and most baddest of T-Rexes (random mutation & natural selection). Nice.
BUT, there was one doubt that he couldn’t shake, a problem that threatened to undo his entire theory. here’s the story... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 63 | คู่เอก "ยอดภูผา vs โซเนอร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RGVmBsegKEI/mqdefault.jpg)
What drives me insane is not so much that Darwin's theory is full of problems, but that people including scientists believe it so wholeheartedly and call you an idiot for even daring to question it.
because the best argument of darwinian evolution are insults and fear to ridicule.
uhhh few problems maybe stop drinking the koolaid for starters
1. darwin got evolution wrong by a lot, noone follows his models today he was just the first one to get shit started properly
2. evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains these facts
3. this video is misleading never go into a youtube video thinking you will understand anything I suggest going to a university, taking a class (they are usually free) or calling a professor up when they have free time and ask them questions
@@Xarai , evolution as an organism generates mutations and changes, yes, but as an organism that has enough mutation to change into another species, like a frog to a fish at a DNA level has never been observed, modern theories of evolution just assume a lot, but a lot, to the level of calling these assumptions "facts".
but don't worry we are the minority here.
@@TheSebastianML the law of monophyly says that you cant outgrow your ancestry. your strawman of a frog to a fish would disprove evolution.
so like I thought you drank the koolaid like you were dying of thirst
You, and all the people that denies evolution (a scientific fact) are... not idiots... but delusional.
So why we still have those pictures in our textbooks?
@Dhruva Punde Its because Darwinism goes hand in hadn with todays Secular mindset of the western culture, both Darwinism and Secular as we know it today where born around the French Revolution and its ideologies which Western Civilization uses today.
inspiredme7030 ***whoever study Natural Sciences knows about it, if you really whants to study this branch of science, you will have the answer otherwise just ignore it.***
It's a religion.
@@googlespynetworkI agree, it’s a religion and therefore only a fool will believe in it. All religions are foolish.
@@AngelRamirez-zv6qpthen how you think we existed?
I knew it was bad BUT NOT THIS BAD!
If the question of life that you are referring to is, how life started. Then you should probably know that evolution doesn't answer that question, because evolution doesn't even attempt to answer that question. Evolution is just the change of life after it already exists. The beginning of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. They are two different things
depends on who you talk to. it’s commonly accepted as indirect evidence and implication for atheism and naturalistic origin
@@backbeatben Where did I say anything about atheism? And no it doesn't depend on who you ask. Well OK, the people who group abiogenesis in with evolution, don't know what they are talking about. So yeah, in that sense it depends on whether you ask a person with scientific knowledge or not . Because abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.
@@backbeatben when you make someone's argument for them and tell them what they believe than you are making a Straw Man fallacy. Additionally it is best to ask the most expert scientist what a formal theory states; not just a lot of people.
Evolution makes no claims other than "animals change over time". If an athiest uses evolution theory so be it. Many people believe in God and evolution so it is not exclusive. If an athiest also uses abiogenesis as a second argument that doesn't mean that they are the same theory; they are just approaching the discussion from multiple angles. If an athiest also uses mass disease and famine as evidence against the God claim that doesn't mean that suffering is part of evolution now does it?
If evolution does in fact preclude God that is not evidence for athiesm but evidence against God. Attempting to disprove evolution does not prove god. The doubt is still on the original claim even if disputes are thrown out.
@@righty-o3585 correct, thanks for confirming my statement lol
evolution needed to begin somewhere, and you cant get to evolution without a sensible beginning. Its like having a car and then say well where did that car originate and how did it get there. It needed a beginning and no naturalistic explanation explains it
Its hard for skeletons to fossilize. There need to be specific requirements for animals and other life to fossilize and last millions years. People point to animals with little transitionary fossils and claim that evolution isn't real, but ignore animals that do have transitionary fossils (like horses, humans, elephants, primates, ect.)
tbh the horse, human, elephant and primate fossils arent exactly conclusive either 🤔 but yes i also understand that it would be pretty much impossible to find fossils for ALL the transitionary species
"They remained unchanged" Anomalocaris went extinct during the Cambrian and it's relatives that remained where quite different, with the main thing connecting them being, guess what, homologous traits. Also, although not necessarily reflecting if the overall accuracy, that anomalocaris is highly inaccurate.
"It's relatives that remained were quite different"! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yet you assume that the ASSUMED "HOMOLOGOUS TRAITS" were ANCESTRALLY relevant because of your BIAS...not necessarily because they could have evolved as such from one another. You ASSUME BY FAITH they were.
Want to take a guess at the odds of creating a single protein spontaneously from non life?
@@jaysmith6863
The MYTHOLOGY of naturalism perpetuates the LIES of BUILDING life from non-life and increased functional information via the ACCIDENT OF THE GAPS FALLACY!
They merely pretend like silly children that these things happen "naturally" while the actual UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE proves it CAN'T!
Did you read the papers by Dr. Douglas Axe or his book?
Regardless, it is EASY to show the statistical analysis of the likelihood of an average protein made with 200 amino acids. Make sure you account for the UNLIKELIHOOD of not just the amino acid, but also the chiraltiy!
Only a NONTHINKER pretends it is possible for DNA CODE to self-create and self-assemble into cells ACCIDENTALLY! How ridiculous!🙄🤣🤣🤣
@@jaysmith6863 I wasn't arguing about abiogenesis. Also, just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it automatically didn't happen.
@@trilobite3120 Your right it is possible however astronomically improbable to randomly make a single useful protein. Then you realize how many proteins are in a simple species, and there isn't enough time in the universe even by evolutionary accounts.
Thank you
I'm trying to find the source for Stephen Jay Gould's quote "I have been reluctant to admit it..." Please reply with that reference. Thanks for the cool videos!
Take it as read that creationists lie by quote mining- it saves time.
The source seems to be: Gould, S. J. 1980. Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6: 119-130.
Lying is endemic in these videos. Why do you think it is cool to lie like they do?
It's literally a quote in his publication from 1980
"Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging"
Your dogmatic approach to a mere theory lacking evidence is showing😅@@mcmanustony
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yvIt's literally a quote in his publication from 1980
"Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging"
Your dogmatic approach to a mere theory lacking evidence is showing😅
Darwin was NOT the first to hypothesize evolution. The idea that humans descended fro some other type of creature dates back to Miletus, a Greek philosopher who lived in the 500s B.C. In the early 19th century Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and others proposed his theory of the "transmutation of species", the first fully formed theory of evolution.
Charles Darwin's contribution has to do with natural selection which greatly advanced the mechanism of speciation. Darwin's contemporary, Alfred Russel Wallace, also developed the theory of evolution by natural selection. .... but Darwin was the one who wrote the book that became well known.
I had not heard of the Greek guy.
@@way2jaded1 Neither had I.... I did what the TH-cam poster did not and that is a couple of minutes of research.
Testing
@@way2jaded1 Miletus was a Greek city in Asia Minor. Atomic theory first appeared in Asia Minor, by the way.. Probably a philosopher from Miletus wrote something about it. I never heard of one , by the way, and I am Greek. So just maybe there were a few lines in another philosopher's book or something...First mentioning of Evolution that I know WITHIN a species was by Saint Basil in his speech about Creation (exaimeron, in Greek). He didn't exactly use the term, but he described a procedure of change WITHIN a species, as a capability that was given to us by God, of course... PS Best known Milesian philosopher was Ekateos.
Old news.
Folks analyzing / critiquing evolution seem to be focused only on one part of the evolutionary narrative, seemingly oblivious to the fact that evolution has TWO interactive components, not just one. ... i.e., biology is only part of the evolutionary dance, while environment is just as absolutely necessary as biology is. Biology provides the variations, while environment determines which of those variations survive long enough to pass their genes on to the next generation.
So ... what was the environment doing during the Cambrian explosion? Was it static / unchanging? Or was it varying at a fairly rapid rate -- i.e., repeated volcanic events (every few tens or hundreds of years) would affect temperature / circulation over the entire planet over periods of hundreds or thousands of years, a fairly rapid change that would repeatedly change the selection criteria for any biology in that loop ... resulting in relatively rapid biological changes as a consequence.
The resolution / granularity (i.e., error margins) in radiometric dating has been no finer than a few million years until fairly recently -- enough time for whole new species to emerge and become extinct -- but not fine enough to establish a chronological sequence of events that would demonstrate transitions.
Some recent measurements claim an accuracy of 0.1%. But even 0.1% accuracy -- in 575 million-year-old samples -- is +/-575,000 years, and even 575,000 years is long enough for whole species to come and go.
So -- it's not as if that record isn't there, but rather that the instrumentation necessary to analyze the record more precisely just hasn't been available.
I was thinking the same. Too many temperature shifts happened. Even oxygen wasn't abundant in the beginning
Evolution is still DEAD
Urrrrrr, I just found this video. It's great! Will have to check out your channel. I hope there's more like this.
Your final speculative question is exactly what I was internally asking. Thanks for the good work and in sharing this information.
Why are all life symmetrical?
"if it's so difficult for scientists to prove what they want to believe..." he's already wrong. that's not what scientists do. they literally look for ways to disprove their hypothesis.
Darwins biggest problem is modern biology. Disproves his theory.
How? Where is the research where this has been established?
@@danielmartinsson899 if you follow the community many scientists want to replace his theory.
Some good articles to read that show the objectionable evidence against it are from the human evolution magazine, 2018 volume 33, Stoeckle &Thaler. The largest DNA study, that shows both animal and human life likely arose at the same time. Which also aligns with the fossil record of Cambrian Explosion. As well as no inter genetic relationship among species.
Then a other study that is still on going. The largest evolutionary study on Bacteria. Since Bacteria generations happen 6-7 days what better organism to study the idea of Darwins origin of species. We are up to generation 100k+ in studying the bacteria. What they have found is, yes they adapt to their environment like all life does on this planet. However there are limitations to this adaptation. Because they are still considered e coli bacteria after generations of change, they didn't morph into another type of bacteria or something different.
These studies don't are not widely advertised because they go against the status quo. If it doesn't fit the narrative, they are typically swept under the rug.
@@jaysmith6863
How many of those scientists are biologists?
@@jaysmith6863 Sorry, you think there were humans during the Cambrian? Fish weren't even a thing yet.
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 The geological column is a myth, only exists on paper.
Theory's do not die just their proponents do.
Oh please, it is 'theories'
@@dougsmith6793 Yes, I know.
True.
Funny how evolution by natural selection does not have that problem. This video is made by paid liars.
Can you write down those names of those mathematicians properly . Because I’m not sure they are real or you made them up. I can’t Google them because writing is so unclear
He did see 4:20-4:28
Man
Ediacaran fauna has joined the chat
have you ever noticed the ratio of fossilized soft creatures vs fossilized hard creatures? and then notice the ratio of older fossils to younger fossils. it makes perfect sense that we have so few pre-cambrian fossils. and "suddenly" means tens of millions of years. which is quick in terms of the timescale of evolution. there was likely a lot of pressure to evolve during that time. new niches were suddenly opening up due to a shifting climate.
Fantastic video
Great video !!
Who was waiting for the last...trillion 😂?
Doing what evolution deniers do best, quote mining. Just by the by, punctuated equilibruim was not a competing theory to Darwinian evolution. It merely said that evolution didn't happen in small slow steps, but in periods of rapid evolution followed by long periods of stasis. Stephen Jay Gould was very much a Darwinian, and anyone who had read more than a couple of quotes would know that. Gould wrote hundreds of essays for Natural HIstory magazine, all of which addressed different aspects of evolution. The video presenter should probably read them. Evolution has had some problems, right from the beginning. First, it ran afoul of Christians who believed that life was created by their god.They would never, and will never, accept evolution because of their religious beliefs. Secondly, evolution denied that humans were the most evolved of creatures. Many people, religous and otherwise, find that hard to accept. As far as the mathematical argument, think of this. A pebble is at the top of a very tall, steep sided, mound of gravel. Something causes the pebble to move. It bounces, rolls, and slides down the slope of the mound, eventually reaching the bottom. On the way, it follows a course dictated by a number of things, including the steepness of the slope, the size of the various other pebbles that it hits, the exact angle at which it hits them, etc. Calculate the odds of the pebble following that exact course down the side of the mound. It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize the odds against that course are just incredible. Yet there it is, at the bottom of the pile.
Your argument presupposes the veracity of evolution. You say we know the pebble was on top of the mountain at some point, and now we know it's down at the bottom. This is begging the question, we actually DON'T know that the pebble was ever at the top of the mountain.
Darwinism tries to prove that given the pebble exists at the bottom of the mountain, it must have gotten there by natural means and not by some kind of intelligent force putting it there. Name a single (one) system of coding and decoding that exists on Earth besides DNA that was not designed by an intelligence.
I didn't even read it once I saw how many words you put you really have to put a lot of explanation into your thoughts and that proves that it's b*******
@@user-ie4xv9bu3o I admit that my comments are not written for those with short attention spans.
@@throckmortensnivel2850 I as a Christian have no reason to deny evolution. The whole thing still would make sense since it's more likely that the whole 1 day = 1000 years is a metaphore since back then 1000 was Seen as a lot. Theologically speaking, God exists outside of time, thus what for him is one day can even be billions of years and I'm not gonna tell God how he should create humanity. TL:DR : I think we christians should let God cook no matter what way he should/would. It doesn't matter wether or not he did it through evolution. If I was him, I think I WOULD make it organized and make it make sense.
@@dominikdurkovsky8318 Honestly, I think the creation science types lack faith. They want science to back there beliefs because they really don't believe it themselves. As far as the time thing, there is even a bible verse that says to God one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day, which I take to mean that time means nothing to God, which makes sense in that if you are indeed eternal, after a while, time would fail to register. What would God do for all those eternities? Perhaps God created the universe in a fit of boredom.
Hey LSS my brother has been trying to find your channel for a while and I sent him the link recently. He said your stuff was buried under about 300 other videos from random content creators. I think that TH-cam is trying to stifle your information and ability to get it out to people. I will do what I can to promote your content. God bless you brother.
TH-cam is satanic and satanic beings are literally filled with parasitical wyrms, possible fallen angels, that really hate God.
any of my comments that has a link to any of LSS's videos are simply hidden by TH-cam's algorithms(so no one can see them. not even me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Hopefully it is trying to stifle this tripe this hogwash
@@Walleyedwosaik care to deal with the contents of the video with science instead of rhetoric?
Nice misrepresentation of evolution theory here!
Care to explain how?
@@Top10alltime184
Well, there is no real discussion IF evolution happens, there is discussion HOW it happened and still happens. The maker of this video seems to ignore that and presents a good ‘how’-discussion as an ‘if’-discussion.
Another thing, why doesn’t the guy explain that the cambrian ‘explosion’ happened in a timespan of about 15 million years? Why do you think he doesn’t do that?
@@Frankboxmeer evolution is just a theory my guy
@@Top10alltime184
You are right, just like the atomic theory or the theory of gravity… Please do your homework first
@@Frankboxmeer yeah but evolution is a theory with many holes, unlike the theory of gravity
I got one of these videos recommended to me on a video about hyperbolic geometry, is this one of those anti evolution things or a good video? Im too tired to watch this much more videos and i cant tell through the comments bc its mixed feelings between people. Could someone just clarify? (If this is a bs video and someone yells at me in the replies, just know you are wrong and being ignored since i only need clarification :P)
Upon further investigation, ie: the long replies to pin comment, it seems fine. Please correct me and ill see it in my notifs if im wrong.
Pickle Rick i got your comment in a notification, it seems to have been removed either by the creator or youtube, either way i saw it, thanks for the clarification.
That last Trillion :,D
Nice video 👌 please make more.
you got it: th-cam.com/video/lk1gDk1wGhQ/w-d-xo.html
@@LongStoryShortVideos bro I already watched your video before you even send me the link I recognized your voice. Im huge fan of your work and style.
@@LongStoryShortVideos bro keep making videos ignore these evolutionist coz they mock others believe but once we moke their video they get really mad.
@@LongStoryShortVideos When it comes to *Common Ancestry* , it's difficult to know how much of it *Intelligent Design* Proponents accept since there's no consensus among them.
Now you argue that using Homology as evidence of Common Ancestry is circular reasoning..... however you employed that same *"circular reasoning"* when comparing different humans. It seems to me that ID Proponents will only dispute that *Homology is evidence of common ancestry* when discussing organisms they don't accept are related (Humans and Bats), but would happily entertain the argument when discussing organisms they accept are related (Tiger ane Lion).
I just wanted to when exactly is using Homology as evidence of common ancestry acceptable, and when it becomes fallacious....... Because it'll be pretty entertaining to see how ID Proponents will classify extinct organisms like *Trilobites* without invoking the same argument they're arguing against.
@@Call_Me_Emo1 Similarity between siblings etc. is not circular because we are not using it as evidence, sorry thought that was obvious, we know they're brothers already and then can reason from there. The evidence they're related is that brothers tend to have the same mom or dad.
Homology, when defined in terms of common ancestry can never then be used as evidence for common ancestry, that's the definition of circular reasoning. It goes for any topic as well. You can say X because X, that's incoherent. This is what the NCSE says as well, homology isn't really evidence at all, the evidence is supposedly drawn from DNA etc. (but as explained there are problems there as well).
Hmmm so human came from adam and eve, but why theres so many type of human, black, white, yellow, brown, ooooh evolution
Not quite, revisit the genetic makeup of the KhoiSan people, and reboot your understanding of the Out Of Africa theory, then you can say “Ooh, Genetic Drift!” 😂
@@roberttormey4312
No, it's still evolution. Your woo isn't replacing it.
and speaking of odds you know that even the universe that we can observe is İNSANELY BİG and theres the part that we cant observe that is bigger than inf times that what we can observe the odds got pretty small compared to infinite odds
It's been much better if you reference the facts
You are the fact checker, don’t be lazy, go read the works and form your own conclusion.
Baylor Christian University In the Department of Biology, the science we teach and the science we research are all about understanding our world. I think you might even say that we have a Biblical mandate to understand God’s world. We are supposed to be stewards and care takers of the world that we inherited. We don’t own it and so we must understand it in order to preserve it and care for it. This goes for all of humanity as well as for the planet. Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University (Waco, TX) teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science’s statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.
Got nothing but respect for you. You're doing a great service to society.
Give me strength. A Christian University? What that when it's at home?
I am not sure how they crunched the numbers but i feel like an issue with the idea of random traits changing being the sole factor of change may be part of it. Like if suddenly the world had something happen that made it so that all humans over 6 feet had a 90% chance of dying before 20 years of age, we would see humans become shorter. Now humans are a bad example because we have tools that solve most problems for us that would come with being shorter but if that say happened to giraffe than they would begin to struggle to eat from taller trees so it would further restrict height in the population and instead begin to favor those that eat small plants. Pressures also dont have to be the only reason, like if you have a sea based animal that has some of the traits but not the need to temporarily go on land for food and half the population better suited for sea life continues life as normal but the other half chose to use their traits to go on land and spend more time on/near land its effectively divided the population allowing them to each focus on the trains that best suit their style of living. Id say it is more similar to neural networks learning by taking only the best from each generation of training rather than randomly changing and hoping it works out
Correct, mutations are not entirely random. It is an outdated idea that doesn't make a lot of sense. Creationists try to use concepts that have been disproved by scientists to disprove science...lolol
4:55 false.
Biology is not math.
Darwin wrote his book in 1859. He took his voyage on the Beagle many decades earlier. If you can't get basic details like that correct, I cannot trust you on more important facts.
If you cannot provide observable evidence of a fish eventually walking on land, I will not trust your faith in Darwin
Bruh, Darwin is about the evolution of species, not the evolution of life.
Under his theory all life forms arose from one single cell bacterium ancestor. Again, that is “all” life forms from mushrooms, grass, bananas to humans. Yes, his theory propositions that all species of life that ever lived arose from this single celled organism that arose from random acts of nature. However, under this naturalistic framework it also necessitates that this first life form arose randomly. Good luck in finding any neo-darwinist who believes otherwise. It’s like a religious person stating the story of Noah placing animals on the arc never mentions a miracle having occurred. That would be true but clearly it necessitates a miracle. Lastly, you seem to be out of loop with the standard thought which goes even further. According to the standard model, all life not only arose from the same bacterium organism which was the product of random acts of nature, it too is result of our entire universe arising from an random act. Now consider that. The Big Bang states that the entire universe came into existence from nothing. For you to object to Darwin not explaining the origin, but instead change shows that you are simply repeating talking points that mis the greater implications of the standard origins models.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t understand how Cambrian fossils disprove evolution
Or maybe I’m missing something
Someone explain
Edit: and if not evolution then what else explains the evidence that we find on the relations and origins of species?
They don’t. This video is a joke….ignorant lying creationists doing what ignorant lying creationists do.
Jackson wheat has uploaded well informed rebuttals of the nonsense posted here.
Not evolution, just Darwin's theory of it
@@lordsiomai nope
I wouldn't necessarily say it categorically disproves evolution, but it casts a lot of doubt of it. Why is anyone who questions evolution immediately called a lying creationist, especially when there are serious concerns with the idea of Darwinian evolution? There is a conversation that needs to be had.
@@Lauren-se5bu many who “question evolution” are not interested in answers. Like Meyer, Wells, Axe…..they are religiously motivated to deny the reality of evolution.
The Cambrian poses no issue to the theory of evolution.
"Improvise, Adapt to the environment, Darwin S**t happens iChing Whatever man We Gotta Roll with it!"
Are you being paid by Prager U?
Nah, not even they're that evil. Might be the Discovery Institute, PragerU for even bigger morons
"oh they must have to be paid by some christian group. Theirs no way!" 😂 lol you guys are pathetic. 🤣🤣
The beginning of life & the evolution are a really different topics
But both are contained in the same theory the origins of life.
@@shadowknightgladstay4856 no the origins of species not the origins of life , no body even knows how life started on earth
@@user-fq1kd7xo1n Then that makes it even easier to discredit. Life and conciousness are even greater mysteries with evolution as the model, But they are considered incorrectly the same in evolution theory, Evolution says life started from many chemical reactions before bacteria. it is actually.... the same argument to them.
@@jsbaldo5556 this is like discrediting all computer peograming because nobody agrees wwere thw first computer was actually prosuced.
@@spinosaurusstriker Eh that's a red haring, doesn't play well with the argument at all.
I mean some animals didnt join the evolution trend does cause their DNA and their species survival to end early on
and this stuff is possible I mean there are a lot f requirements for evolution to happened does fossils that they found might be from a species that didn't evolve resulting all of them being like that for a long time .....and today's animals fitting because their ancestors choose to join the evolution trend helping them to survive till this day
Yeah, problems, but not that bad
great video. Excellent 👍👍
But wrong.
@@peteconrad2077 Back up your statement.
@@shaunmeyer8822 hard to know where to start as it’s all lies.
But let’s start with the Cambrian fossils. The Cambrian change actuality took place over tens of millions of years. It wasn’t sudden. And many of the Cambrian forms were similar to Precambrian structures. It’s just that Precambrian structures were much less prone to fossilisation because they were soft bodied. The development of skeletons increased the likelihood of fossilisation and also made many new complex forms possible. If you look at the Cambrian explosion critically then there’s no mystery.
Then let’s look at their probability claims. Utter garbage again. These calculations are well known and were calculated with pure undirected random probability which isn’t relevant because natural selection makes it a non random process. The difference will change the calculation by many orders of magnitude.
One of the most compelling arguments against creationism is the degree to which its proponents have to lie to promote it.
@@peteconrad2077 Did you even do research before saying their calculations are garbage(did you even watch the video)? EVOLUTION IS 100% BASED ON RANDOM MUTATIONS. natural selection just filters the good ones from the bad ones.
@@shaunmeyer8822 would it kill you to open a fucking book?
Surprisingly good!
Unsurprisingly, full of lies.
@@peteconrad2077says the fish walking to land believer
@@purelyrandom1230 I don’t believe that. It’s a demonstrable fact.
@@peteconrad2077 where can we observe it?
@@purelyrandom1230 in the genome. There are artefacts in your genome that cannot have arisen other than by common ancestry with other species. These are, for example, mutations that were acquired by a long ago ancestor of ours that sit silently in our genomes…and the genomes of all chimpanzees. It’s absolutely conclusive.
So.............God?
*Yes, of course* .
Check "Anwers in Genesis" , "Creation Podcast" , "Young Earth Creation" if you're interested.
Random mutation and natural selection is Absurd
yet both can be observed in short lived, high reproductive bacteria and viruses. By yourself too if you are so inclined.
@@bulkinggod3872 There’s no way random mutation natural selection is adequate to do the job yes we seen mutations do small things curly hair dogs short dogs anti-resistant bacteria to antibiotics but that’s all it does mathematicians do the calculations they said it’s so improbable that it did not happen anywhere else in the universe but go ahead believe it believe they found the mechanism and then I will believe a 90 pound weakling bench press the entire earth
@@MMAGUY13 yes but death and birth are also factors. Im sure you have met (or yourself) people that don't look like their parents, and that is only one generation.
@@bulkinggod3872but they are still humans lol
@@purelyrandom1230 yes and little by little it changes the same way you grew up little by little. Unnoticeable unless you take a larger timeframe.
Awesome video. I wonder why I hadn't stumbled on it before. Maybe the chances were ten to a thousand trillion trillion...
That was an awesome and humorous recap of the problems with the theoey of evolution. The adaption of species to their environment is so so far from the primordial soup to amoeba to trex trajectory we were all fed in school. Where does all the information in our dna come from? I can't wait for that video.
They don't have one... and never will.
@@TheStarflight41 but we do. It’s added every time a pierce if code gets over duplicated. The surprising thing, given the rate at which that happens is that it’s so small.
Where does 1+1=2 come from?
The "information" in DNA doesn't have to come from somewhere.
Where’s Adam and Eve in all this?
The Ancient Fiction Section in the Library.
😂
Sure, the concept of macroevolution is quite absurd, considering that we still have the primitive species, and they haven't evolved this whole time, what doesn't negate the microevolution, namely the adoption to changing environment and shaping of races within a single specie, because we can naturally reproduce this process by ourselves.
@Mattand There's a huge difference between the macroevolution where a specie supposed to evolve into a completely different specie, and between the microevolution where a single specie is only adopting to the environment, but doesn't change its fundamental nature as a specie.
@Mattand Not sure how lions and tigers are related, but the main problem is that we still have access to the most primitive of species, which may have various races, but haven't developed into anything more advanced until this day, what makes the macroevolution very unlikely. However, if we take your example with the relation between apes and humans, it's very probable that we share a common humanoid-ancestor, who was still capable of development when the apes were formed.
@Mattand I would agree if you mean that the animal-species which we have today are incapable of development, and all those species share some common features, what suggests that they're related by some common ancestor which was still capable of development when those species were formed, so the only question remains, what kind of ancestor are we talking about.
@Mattand I thought you meant that those animal-species which we have today didn't evolve from each other, but from some proto-specie, which was capable of development, but have gone extinct, otherwise you would be suggesting that those animal-species which we have today are indeed capable of development.
@Mattand I've no issue with various animals and humans sharing common features, and thus a common ancestor, but just wonder what common ancestor/proto-specie you're talking about, since we can still find a whole spectrum of more and less complex species which have remained in their primitive form until this day, what means that their lineage in general is not capable of developing into anything else, hopefully you see the problem.
I literally watching this maybe for 4 or 5 time🔥💥💥
Nice, well done
Can you offer another theory? Its one thing to knock one down but ya gotta replace it with something and i sure hope its not a big white guy with a long beard in the sky.
You don’t have to replace the theory at all. Sometimes we just don’t know
For the algorithm
Darwin’s “problem” of gradual evolution is easy to overcome. Allow for the existence of “leaps.” After all, any change is, by definition a leap. I change my position by a step, a leap. I move from sitting to standing by “steps”. Tiny tiny tiny, yes, but steps.
This isn't close to an adequate explanation. The fossil record doesn't show a series of infinitesimal gradations of change. It shows gigantic leaps - whole body plans emerging- which Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism) have no explanation for. Your proposed solution is also totally otiose when it comes to explaining the problem of irreducible complexity.
@@tobetrayafriend simply because you don’t like the fact that nature has evolved by leaps and bounds is not a problem with the science that accepts it. Yes, science, and scientists are uncomfortable with publicly proposing that nature has evolved by leaps and bounds but that too is not the fault of nature. You cannot escape the fact that nature, the natural world, changes. And if you want to make white moths turn dark you can make it happen in about 5-8 moth generations if you want to. Put a bunch of white moths in a cage with a bunch of moth eating birds and mostly dark foliage on which the moths can rest and pretty soon you will have dark moths. And that shift is a pretty big leap. It’s not anyone’s fault but yours that you don’t like that it can happen, that it has happened. And even if you want to say it’s not a big leap but just a tiny tiny tiny little change and not permanent (change the foliage and the moths will go back to light colored), well, so what. Change occurs and whether a person looking at the change wants to call it big or small or a leap or a step, it doesn’t really matter. Potaytoe, potatoe. But you can’t call it off. Change will happen.
@@oddjobbob8742 Your breezy sanguinity suggests you haven't really understood my point (or indeed the points made in the TH-cam video). No-one is claiming that "Change doesn't happen." It's self evident that it does happen. The problem you have is that all observations suggest that changes are bounded. Over time there's a regession back to the mean. The implication of this is that change over time is not an adequate mechanism for introducing new lifeforms or body plans. All "change" seems to be capable of is cycling through existing lifeforms in a way that is correlated with seasons and with a reversion back to the mean. By the way, don't take my word for it. The field of Biology is in crisis because there's a growing recognition of the inadequacy of Darwinism and evolution in explaining the complexity of even the most mundane and simple organisms. The Royal Society (the preeminent scientific body representing the field of Biology) recognised this at a major conference in 2016 (or thereabouts).
@@tobetrayafriend thank you for agreeing with me. Have fun.
@@oddjobbob8742 At least you know when you've lost. I'll say that about you.
great video man.!
4:52
@Long Story Short Jackson Wheat has a new video out responding to this.
This has to be the most well animated, cutest, and completely dishonest strawman I've ever seen constructed.
im SURREEE you can tell us why without resorting to personal attacks. Make a video. I'm sure he'll respond!
@@Pyr0Ben Thats not a bad idea.
@@deaconofbiology6249well it’s been a month now so where is it?
@@sydn2698 Working on a few vids now. A response to this one is further down the pipeline. First vid on Stephen Meyer will be up tomorrow. Vids will be spaced out every three weeks due to Postdoc time commitments and figuring out how to work vid editing software.
You know what's cuter? Thinking you've outresearched that straw man. That's cute indeed.
So I get the problems people have with the video, but I'm more curious as to what the creator believes this "evidence" implies, or what he believes.
Is he saying he thinks life started in the Cambrian? or that life in the Cambrian was more or less similar to life today? which life forms did God/the "Intelligent Designer" create, and which didn't he? is he saying he thinks God/IDer created the most basal members of the phyla we see today, and evolution did the rest to diversify these phyla? did God/the IDer create new life forms constantly throughout the hundreds of millions of years since the Cambrian(and what about before the Cambrian?) Does he accept the dates of these fossils and the diversification of life throughout the fossil/geologic record? does God not only create whole organisms, but also new genes/structures/organs, etc.? and how would we tell? is he a young earth creationist? etc.
Seems to point to intelligent design.
If the creator of the video believes it, he did a really good job of hiding his bias.
Seems to be trying not to waist his time trying to force you to believe things but show you the problems in certain beliefs
I think you’re missing the broader point of the video, which to me is “why is it not okay to question the theories that are taught and defended as if they were laws”? For example. Sauropod dinosaurs. How could something like that exist? On plants? We’re talking caloric needs in the hundreds of thousands a day. The only reason Blue whales can do it is because of their efficiency, they can eat almost 500,000 calories in one mouthful of Krill. Something that walks around carrying dozens of thousands of tons of weight chewing on plants?!? That’s preposterous and absurd even more so when you consider that nothing but bone fragments of these proposed giants have ever been found and that literally every skeleton in the museums millions visit a year are simply artistic representations of what they should look like based on our “best guess”.
What about megalodon? They base its size estimates on teeth that have been found by assuming it’s tooth-body size ratio is comparable to a great white. Ever see a hammerheads teeth? That size extrapolation method Ain’t exactly gonna work here with a giant hammerhead shark…
Evolutionary biology and Paleontology get away with so much unscientific BS because they adhere to the rules of the founders from over 100 years ago. The dinosaur race of the late 1800’s was basically two frauds trying to outdo each other for what were essentially carnival side shows. Claiming to have found the next giant bone that belonged to some monstrosity of the ancient past. Were they all? Probably not, but it was a Victorian dick measuring contest played out via newspapers and magazines.
@@joshuapatrick682 Sauropods didn’t move very much, they lived in densely forested regions, and there is a long portion of the book of job in which a very similar creature is described and called behemoth.
@@joshuapatrick682 Man I dont think evolution is plausible either but theres more than just fragments to go by in the case of the sauropods. After all one was even mentioned in the Bible. That's neither here nor there though. I think with the megalodon the estimated size may be exaggerated a little but something that could carry a tooth like that similar to the make of a great white's probably existed at the relative given proportion and could easily sustain itself.
And yet even if evolution was shown to be wrong, it does.not mean a god or creator did it
Well it does
Okay, to the autor has described the process pf science... Coming up with theories, proving or disprooving those theories, then refining those theories.
While yes, he is pointing out a problem here, it's a feature not a bug. From watching a few other videos, I can surmise the Author asserts the conclusion of intelligent design as an answer to those problems...
That answer honestly has problems too. I would love to ask
What level of intelligence?
At what level was the design founded?
What is the mechanism for intervention and by which the design is done and how can we observe the design taking place?
I'd assume the design happens up intil present as life has underwent changes at various points in time. I'd love to argue that we are currently undergoing a window by which the author's thesis could be proven or disproven in our own lifetimes... As various lifeforms have made vast and sweeping biological changes just in the last 100 to even as little as 60 years in response to a man made extinction event.
This is a in countless lifetimes chance to test HOW life is being directed by some intelligence or if Evolution simply is un or self directed.
If I were the author, Id be doing everything in my power to jump on the astronomical odds of living within an unfathomly narrow window in time where I'd have a chance to see my work fully realized.
Now from my own standpoint, I don't agree with the Author for a few reasons. Its just not worth lengthening my comment, explaining them is actually unproductive and even detractive from my point of encouraging the practice of real science.
I can best do that be productivly challenging the creator of these videos to brainstorm methods to prove their own theories about the world since they seem already well learned on the subject and driven to convence others.
6:25
That number assumes proteins come about all from scratch. If that calculation was correct, then we couldn't even get dogs from wolves.
Fortunately we were able to get dogs from wolves and the new proteins that evolved with them. That's because proteins evolve from preexisting materials.
Interesting, exactly which new proteins evolved with dogs?
@@LongStoryShortVideos before we go further, I want you to understand that evolution is *Descent with Modifications* and thus every new gene or protein or trait or whatever is always a modification of what's already there.
Anyway.... Here's an example.
Quote: "More surprising were genes for digesting starch. Dogs had four to 30 copies of the gene for amylase, a protein that starts the breakdown of starch in the intestine. Wolves have only two copies, one on each chromosome"
*Diet shaped Dog domestication*
www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/01/diet-shaped-dog-domestication
Dogs didn't come from wolves. Wolves and the different breeds of dogs were created separately from each other.
@@vesuvandoppelganger citations please.... Thanks 👍
It's simply obvious. Do you really think that if you start out with a group of wolves you will eventually get a Chihuahua or any other breed of dog? Why would that happen? Where is the new genetic information going to come from that will turn a wolf into a certain breed of dog?
Why do many evolutionists have such thin skin?
Dan
What’s the punishment for apostasy? You god is pretty thin skinned too.
Charles Bickel, you wrote, "What’s the punishment for apostasy? You god is pretty thin skinned too."
Haven't you read? My God is longsuffering.
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools your god doesnt exist sooo i think you are the one suffering for so long
Xarai wrote, "@Bible Research Tools your god doesnt exist sooo i think you are the one suffering for so long"
Who brainwashed you, kid?
Dan
@@Xarai your evolution isn't even real, because according to scientists liquid water, right atmosphere, right distance from the sun, life giving cycles etc. Were all responsible for supporting life here on earth, but can you tell me brother, because if wee HUMANS AND EARTHLY ANIMALS AND EARTHLY LIFE needs all these conditions to survive and evolve then in other planets there must be other species and other form of life which find atmosphere of that planet suitable, BUT...... the PROBLEM is that even planets most similar to earth don't have life as we HUMAN BEINGS, if there may be some tiny living creatures, then why aren't they EVOLVING??
"The cambrian fossils remained unchanged throughout the period." Thats not true, we do see a change in the animal within the fossil record, especially with vertebrates. Pikaia was the earliest chordate (505 mya) and after that, we find fish with more compex skeletons like Guiyu Oneiros (425 mya). The Cambrian was also when the first major organisms had hard parts that could fossilize well, that could explain why theres an abundance of organisms in the fossil record (yes, there have been soft-bodied organisms that have fossilized, but they are few in number). We have also found life that could be the precursors to the complex Cambrian life, animals like Ikaria Warootia and Spriggina.
You do not see changes. You presume the changes you have no way to prove that any of those fish gave birth to another. You are making assumptions.
I fear that you are beating your head against the brick wall of your own blind incomprehension. Your comment makes no sense to anyone, who retains a smidgen of common sense. Sometimes it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open it, and leave no doubt whatsoever.
I admire your blind faith though!
@@Dobermann89-dr2rc bruh
@@flixtocicgaming3576 Got a bridge I would like to sell you
Dobermann 89 You did not disprove anything that lollie7141 wrote, you presumed they were no changes during the Cambrian period.
Great video, the odds of natural selection and random mutation producing even a single protein/gene even after Trillions and Trillions of years would be 10^77? Didn't know it was THAT unlikely.
Ofc most cells are way more complex than that too. They're so outdated smh....
How were those odds calculated and by what metric are you measuring complexity?
I think you got a little bit confuse. He did not specify the number for 'producing a single protein/gene'. Those number are for 'acting in cambrian explosion. And if you google about cambrian explosion and evolution you will know that its not 'disaproving' evolution.
Mutation is in fact random but natural selection isnt
Unfortunately for you, it’s nonsense. The calculation is specious and based on pure randomness which didn’t how evolution works. Natural selection makes it a non random process. As usual, you can only form an argument by lying.
This is utter nonsense. You are regurgitating a ludicrous calculation by creationist Doug Axe that’s been debunked seven ways from Sunday. Given that we have proteins the odds of a protein forming are 1 in …ummm….1.
You have mangled the details of what number even tries, and fails, to establish.
Would it kill you to open a fucking book.
are we really back to the age of rejecting evolution
Over 150,000,000 humans were born in 2021 with many mutations, that's far more than any supposedly "neanderthals" that ever existed throughout time. Why haven't humans evolved into another species??
@rs72098 That's perfectly in line with evolution, the problem is that you have no idea what evolution is.
I don't think so. I also don't think having questions about the theory indicate a rejection of it.
People have got to understand that evolution has many models
Darwinian evolution might be the most popular but it’s not a scientific fact but a scientific theory which can be refuted using the falsification test presented with the theory
There's only one model with one specific definition.
You're right except Darwinian Evolution isn't the most popular. Modern Synthesis is. Darwin believed something like that you had little floating miniature organs and when you lost an arm your children would grow with a smaller arm. He had no clue about genetics or heritance. But we still respect him because he layed the foundation for what we have now
@@andrewenderfrost8161 ??? That is not what darwin said at all, he proposed that traits that improved a species’ chance at survival would be found in their descendants
@@andrewenderfrost8161 Do you even know what evolution is?
@Abdullah There's only one theory with one definition, changes in alleles frequencies over generations in populations. You don't know what evolution is.
Really good material, do you have some scientific references? I want to plunge into this topic ;)
He doesn't, because all scientific references directly refute his belief.
Lmao there isn't any because it's dishonest
@@naphtaliliverpool882 Dishonest?? This video has known facts and references everywhere. I suppose it doesn't support your theories so you automatically call it dishonest.
@@rs72098 nope because it misrepresents those facts this is a strawman video 🤣
Lmao no references and no likes
bro EVULATİON DOESNT HAVE TO HAPPEN İN TİME why no one knows this??? if its good enough it stays like that like today no weak humans gets eliminated bcs of medical knowladge and that slows down evulation by alot
I must say, I'm not certain that I understand the point you're making here. Like, what's the takeaway? We can observe the continuance of evolution through natural selection, so... I guess the takeaway is that we don't understand the mechanism by which genes come about very well?
Listen again starting at 5:50.
Think about it. Natural selection was not at work during the formation of the first self-replicating organism.
The simplest self-replicating cell requires a minimum of 531,000 base pairs.
Why would random accidental chemical collisions continue stacking more than 2 or 3 base pairs?
Remember, this is undirected chaos.
It does not maintain partially successful attempts as though it has a pattern or goal in mind.
What if on the 10,000th stack, it suddenly includes a hetero-chiral molecule. It has to start completely all over again.
Then if it gets that right (which is impossible) it must wait for the bi-layer, semipermeable, gate-keeping membrane to come along and enclose it to protect it.
And it can't wait. Time is its enemy. Such a fragile molecule would not last 10 minutes if unprotected.
And - o yeah - it must be immediately provided with thousands of ATP synthase machines (equally impossible) to provide energy,
and a waste disposal system,
tRNA to copy DNA data and transfer it to Ribosomes so they can make proteins.
And perhaps the hardest of all, the DNA data must become possessed by an information system comparable to Microsoft Windows, to coordinate the incredibly complex machinery necessary for that first cell to reproduce.
Oh, did I say reproduce?
Think metaphase, anaphase, and telephase just to get the cell to reproduce.
Think about an information system accidentally coming along and possessing the genomic data, and directing to start an explosion of cells that can build deer antlers every year, or a sonar system in dolphins, or radar in bats, kidneys, pituitary glands, feathered wings, sexual reproduction with its attendant incredibly complex hormones, etc. ad infinitum.
The point is that even if you give Evolutionists an almost infinitely complex cell to begin with (trashing the Law of Biogenesis) it can not multiply complexity, energy state and organization (trashing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by some kind of anti-entropic magic) to cause intra-species evolution.
The takeaway is it is totally unreasonable to believe all of this could happen by chance.
And this is where it gets scary.
If it did not happen by chance, the only other game in town is Intelligent Design.
And that requires an Intelligent Designer (Who, considering the incredible complexity and fine-tuning of His creation is practically omniscient).
And what if He created it perfect in every way, only to have it hacked into by one of His very own created beings causing chaos, death, pain, suffering, and all that stuff?
What if The Creator was so benevolent that He offered the blood of His own Son as an atonement for those who had fallen under the power and ways of the evil hacker.
What if He wrote a Book explaining all of this.
What if He said in that Book, "All who come to Me, I will in no wise cast out."
What if He said that He "so loved the world that whosoever believes Him would never perish, but have eternal life."
I humbly submit to you that these five "what ifs" are indeed true.
I humbly submit to you that macro-evolution is a dead-end religion, designed to lead you away from the Creator.
I humbly beg you to talk to Him about it and be reconciled to Him.
Rob
@@robertecarpenter You could have left this comment sooner. I had to figure out on my own (and it wasn't easy, this channel is pretty disingenuous in its aims) that this whole thing is just bait for people who want to believe in god without losing the privilege of feeling like they're smarter than other people, but aren't dumb enough to do that with the standard narrative. It doesn't actually matter whether there are gaps in scientists' understanding of abiogenesis and/or the mechanisms behind mutation; you're not even creating gaps big enough for god to fit in, you're just creating gaps big enough for you to *pretend* god fits. Even if it were proven completely physically infeasible for life to exist naturally, anyone claiming to know anything particular about the nature of the divine would be lying out their ass, and that's *always* what this is: just another way for people to justify their highly specific dogma by manufacturing holes all over anything that doesn't fit in with their idea of the world. You clearly don't have the maturity to say those dreaded words: "I don't know and I can't know and anything that looks like a source of knowledge on this is actively terrible with a probability that rounds up to 100% and should be completely distrusted." Those only words which can ever be honest about this. But that's not what you're here for, that's not what anybody's here for. They either got here by accident or because TH-cam thought it would work as engagement bait for them (they were right in my case) or because they're just like you, ravenously searching the world for whatever shallow excuse you can find to shun the views of the unfaithful as naive and unlearned.
@@robertecarpenter Side note, it's not too hard to think that you're just repeating a pile of stuff you heard in some book or blog or something. Something that breaks the second law of thermodynamics? You'd have to have something constantly putting energy into the system from externally, which doesn't make sense, right? There'd have to just be some kinda big glowing orb in space beaming down energy constantly, how absurd. Ugh, at least the video itself had what it took to make the blatant factual errors obvious only to someone with more education than me. You have no imagination for how things could be, as if the first self-replicating organism must have been extraordinarily complex - no, surely it was much simpler than the simplest known organism; maybe we will find it someday, but probably not. Someday somebody will figure out how to bring the whole thing down from unreasonable odds to astronomical odds and if it happens during your lifetime you'll move on to something else as if this all never happened, or deny it fervently by some technicality you believe to be a slam dunk. But as rough as it is, and trust me I know it is, there is no magic, only that which is yet to be understood and that which is lost to time.
The takeaway is that evolution has problems. And maybe don’t believe everything from authority.
@@tylerwinter512 Well, that's certainly the intended takeaway.
Excellent video. The claimed mechanism for universal common descent is preposterous.
Where’s your evidence fir that claim?
@@peteconrad2077 Ther hasn't been nearly enough time. See... Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory...
@@TheStarflight41 that’s another claim. Got any evidence? We know you haven’t but worth asking.
@LSS - my dude… I liked some of your previous videos… that was a mistake. You are obviously a science denier and I just have a struggle understanding why. OF COURSE the first guy to think up the newly surmised idea of evolution did not get it all correct. Even our favorite genius Albert Einstein had said that there was no way a black hole should exist… and yet, we now have images of them in locations we predict them to be. You didn’t even mention a single time about punctuated equilibrium, nor sexual selection with cross over.
I do truly appreciate that you bring up the “big questions” within the field of biology, but your omissions are kind of flagrant and obvious.
Unfortunately the evolutionists are not being flagrantly obvious about their inconsistency or lack of good data and holes in the arguments.
@@shadowknightgladstay4856 out of curiosity, how much reading of academic peer reviewed articles do you peruse through? If your statement is in regards to simple TH-cam channels, then I agree. They do not “flagrantly” complain and promote all the holes or gaps within our understanding. They are good for show casing what parts we do have an adequate understanding of, and further testing/gather of data is necessary. I appreciate LSS sharing insights about where our gaps of understanding lie, but I really get a bad cringe sensation when advocates for intelligent design (like LSS here) hand wave away entire well investigated areas of science because “durrr, I dunt think dis can work cuz irreducible complexity, tricycle to motorcycle to car to airplane cuz dey haz wheelz, durr durr durr.” It’s really misrepresenting the decades/centuries of scientific progress humans have made, equally as obnoxious as my rephrasing of his argument. I actually really liked the graphics, the humor, and many of the analogies LSS made. I just disagree with the implication that evolution is somehow not real or somehow false because of our knowledge gaps still being filled with actual empirical knowledge.
Excellent and Thankyou for educating me cheers xx
He didn’t. It was lies start to finish.
Please elaborate.
@@lalaeatinagotdamnburger3416 there isn’t a Cambrian problem. The time period is 30-50my depending on where you draw the line. The main difference is the proliferation of skeletons, which increased fossilisation by orders of magnitude.
His ridiculous calculation also assumes a pure random process. Evolution is non random. That’s the whole point.
If they have to lie to make their point; what point do they have?
@@peteconrad2077 I feel as though he was more focused on the origin and early development of life itself than evolution as a whole. I don't think there was any intentional deception, his points were pretty clear imo.
@@lalaeatinagotdamnburger3416 your position is absurd. He misrepresented facts that are readily available. It’s obvious that he was deliberately deceiving his audience.
We have actually found fossils in the pre-Cambrian layers. They are not amazingly advanced, mostly because most of them seem to have been invertebrates, and those fossilized only with great difficulty. When I was a kid, it was believed that there were simply no fossils, but now we know they are simply really hard to find. Which makes a huge difference.
The beginning of the Cambrian is generally referred to as the period of the “Cambrian explosion”, a period during which life rapidly expanded and rapidly evolved. I am perfectly cool with assuming that there was not a terribly large amount of sophisticated life prior to the Cambrian, but the explosion of life seems to indicate a change in environmental conditions that made it more conducive to life. Virus you get a lot more animals pretty much everywhere and much the same way that you would suddenly get a lot more animals in the Sahara desert if you put out food and water for them every day. Better living conditions equal more life. Worse, living conditions, equal less life, and we have seen periods where that happens as well. And the more life there is the more it will compete in the more it will adapt to take advantage of certain strategies competition that benefit them. Likewise, in periods, where there is less life evolution runs slower because there are fewer animals to experiment.
None of which means that God didn’t do this, by the way. There is no reason to assume that God didn’t use evolution in his tool kit when creating the universe. It’s simply means things went a bit slower than is generally talk in the Abrahamic religions.
Repost by Dobermann 89
You do not see changes. You presume the changes you have no way to prove that any of those fish gave birth to another. You are making assumptions.
@@mohamedlaarabi7148 Considering that one fish disappears after a new similar fish appears, it's really not much of an assumption.
@@mohamedlaarabi7148
Evolution says that there is very little change in offspring.
One species doesn't give birth to another.
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 provide evidence, record it, upload it on youtube or it's all fairy tale
To see and observe is to believe
A very simplified (VERY) example of the impossible chance a car could be made without creators. All the many parts, all the many elements to make the plastics and metal parts, the fuel to run it, and so on by ALL coming together at the right time and in the right order wouldn't happen no matter how many years passed by. Life is many thousands of times more complex than an automobile.
Are you a complete idiot? or were just taught by idiots? Do cars reproduce and give birth to baby cars?
Well this typical ID-ish "Origins or Bust" presentation still doesn't make the therapsids go away, or account for why we have so many Alus in our genome.
Love that you're doing this. There are so many falsities with Darwinian evolution, I started writing them down and kept coming up with more. You could write novel series on how non-sensical it is. Macro evolution is a big joke, which is why the had to fake findings and shave down Lucy's hip bones to turn them into something resembling a human and then present her standing with over a foot of non existent height.
macro evolution happens XD sorry bud (btw no such thing as macro and micro they are both just evolution)
@@Xarai it doesn't really happen though.
I hope you realize other often better early hominin fossils exist. They also demonstrate arms shorter than or similar in length to the legs and hips, femur angles, and knee joints consistent with bipedalism. If Lucy is anything like her close relatives then the reconstruction is more or less accurate. The pelvis as found was in an anatomically impossible position. The reworking was necessary to restore the bone to it’s original form.
@@Xarai there's no such thing as evolution it's made up and you believe in it , if evolution is true everything formed from molten rock not Lucy or whatever some guy in a lab coat tells you, your faith is in man and man will not save you
@@JROCK100ification evolution is a biological science. Rocks arent biological
It's amazing how some people cannot grasp the fact that Darwin is not the end all be all for evolution. Even if he thought every one of his ideas was ludicrous that still wouldn't change the amount of corroborating evidence that proves the theory. Which is a hell of a lot, enough that it is spread out over several fields of study.
Actually no there’s not a shred of evidence for the evolution religion. It was retarded back when chuckles Darwin popularized that stupid joke of a “theory” and it’s even dumber today.
Bullshit. There's not one example of a species giving birth to a new species, especially in quantities capable of continuing the new species. Subspecies are NOT new species, they're adaptations of the same species.
@@OneTruePhreak Yeah I'm not denying that
Be great to hear some of that corroborating evidence, which do you think is the best?
Something that shows how the first life began?
Something that shows how incredibly complex a simple cell actually is.
Something that explains how something so complex as a mitochondrion could 'evolve' before being ingested by a less complex simple cell?
Something that explains how a cell could replicate before DNA/RNA (the code to allow the replication) was made.
Something that shows how a simple cell could 'evolve' to perform an incredibly complex system of chemical reactions such as 'The Krebs Cycle'.
Something that shows how protein machines can simply form out of nothing, each of them having incredibly complicated motor like functions.
Something that explains metamorphosis, a process that is impossible to have 'evolved' in stages.
Or maybe something that explains not only the Cambrian explosion, but also the other '9' similar explosions of life, where millions of fully formed creatures spontaneously appeared out of nowhere in the fossil record. This includes millions fish, reptiles, birds and mammals without any trace of evolution, no common ancestors or predecessors of any type!
Dawkins et al, will never answer the above questions, they ignore them, because they totally debunk evolution!
At best, evolution only explains how creatures change over time, but those changes mean that a bird is still a bird, in the same way that we are changing and regardless of how much we change we will still be humans. There is no evidence at all of one species turning into another. All the nonsense about vestigial limbs etc is BS, those so called vestigial hip bones etc are bones necessary for the anchor of muscles to perform sexual functions etc.
We've been brain washed since we were kids, and 99% of people only know what they were taught at school during dinosaur lessons and most of it is a lie!
Type the hominid name Denisovans into google and an image will appear of a cutesy ape looking thing, but the truth is, it's made up, a fantasy creation by lying evolutionists to try and fool everyone into believing evolution, it has to be made up, because they only fossil remains they have found is a single finger bone and a coupe of teeth!
The same goes for almost every hominids you see in the totally false evolution line up from common ancestor to human. They have created full sized semi human looking hominids form just a few fragments of bone. The only skeleton they have is Lucy, which has been proven to be some type of monkey.
A simple cell is not simple, proteins are not simple, life cannot have started on its own and evolution is not the answer, it will always be just a theory, which in the true sense of the word, is nothing more than a hypothesis.
But...what if all of that evidence is 100% equivocal to that of ID? Then it comes down to mechanism. The only way to determine if Evolution effectively explains the data (unequivocally) is to demonstrate the naturalistic mechanisms. If those mechanisms cannot be demonstrated, then Evolution should be demoted at least...scrapped at most. We certainly should not be as confident in Evolution as we currently are.
Alternative model: magic!
Yep, Darwin's problem - spoiler alert, Darwin is long dead and the problem long solved. You IDs need to get up to speed.
First, the entire video ignores the fact evolution is not defined by or dependant on fossils; second, the 1966 symposium was just that, a gathering that didn't produce peer review work challenging evolution:
"It is doubtful whether this symposium has done much to influence the theory of evolution"
John L.Harper
School of Plant Biology
University College of North Wales
In other words, the symposium was a non-event.
Third, the end of the video misrepresents modern evolution. It alludes to there being different competing theories. There's only one theory with one definition. The debate is about the rate and of change of evo, and which mechanisms are more important, but not that evolution is in doubt.
@Reformed Hillbillies That's irrelevant to my OP. Why do you deny something you know nothing about?
@Reformed Hillbillies Yes. Your first reply proves you know nothing about evolution.
@Reformed Hillbillies Biodiversity.
@Reformed Hillbillies That's not a refutation.
@Reformed Hillbillies You proclaiming something is definitely not. You at least need an argument.
Awesome video! Who are you?
WHY DOESN'T THIS CHANNEL HAVE MILLIONS OF SUBS???
Because it’s full of shit. Anti science creationist nonsense
This early fossil record argument is so funny. You have what is called a Selection Bias because your view of early life history is limited by the amount of fossils that can be found. Hard shelled things are MORE LIKELY to fossilize. This is why science relies on consensus and double checking, so you iron out mistakes.
Stick to animating please.
There is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning posed in this piece. We have a sample size of one for worlds where life was discovered. It's pretty hard to consistently calculate odds within that sample size.Some mathematicians have done their circle jerks over this but I find it unlikely that they hashed out the probabilities quite as thoroughly as you insist. Scientific theories do not go through processes to prove them as you presupposed throughout this misleading piece. That is actually how creationists do their falsely called science. Instead peer review tries to disprove the premise and conclusions. It is only when going through the rigorous process of peers in the field attacking the premise over and over and failing to disprove it does it get to being called a theory. A theory in science is as close to being determined to be objective reality as science will state. They do not rest on their laurels they are always looking for a better explanation.
With the above in mind, your piece either misunderstands the scientific method or is deliberately misleading about it.
@RDE Lutherie I was merely being charitable. Apologetics are not about the truth, they are about defending the faith
@RDE Lutherie I never deleted it. Permaybe haps the owner of this channels is trying to fuck with us with shadow deletion of comments.
That would fit the mold of the dishonest piece of shit that runs this channel.
Confirmed. That comment you said I deleted is still visible when I am logged in but not when I am logged out.
@RDE Lutherie Yeah, that's not what happened. I don't have anything to prove here though. I never deleted it and it is visible in Firefox but not Edge. I never ever logged in to my youtube account in Edge so that is not what happened.
I could uoload an screen cap but I just don't care enough to. If you think I'm lying about something as stupid as this then you are even more ridiculous than the shithead who runs this channel.
@RDE Lutherie Well if you use Firefox, then you should know that is clears the cache every time you close it. Cached pages was useful in a time when everyone was on dial up and didn't want to wait 16 years for a page to load.
The only point of dispute I had with you was your contention that I deleted my comment. I told you I didn't.
FYI, youtube uploaders have the ability to mask comments in such a way that the person who made them can still see them but no one else can. It's is called on some places shadow banning.
I have a problem with the person who made this video. But my problem with YOU is that instead of acknowledging that my comments are being fucked with, you made a claim that I don't understand page caching in an era where it is utterly obsolete.
This video discusses some pretty niche stuff, which is impressive, but also completely misrepresents other things at the same time. For example, at 7:18, things like epigenetic inheritance and evo-devo are presented as "competitors" to explain the holes in neo-Darwinism. But I don't really see how most of them even address the question, and they definitely don't conflict with each other. In fact, several of these are part of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. They are all part of understanding evolution and exploring different aspects of it.
There are pre-Cambrian fossils, which are the Ediacaran biota. We have putative very early representatives of multiple animal phyla here. They are simple, hard to identify, and fossilize poorly, exactly as we would expect based on evolutionary theory and the diversity and interrelations of living animals. They diversified relatively quickly, as sometimes happens, and the fossil record is splotchy for certain lineages, as also happens. But it is actually far more "complete" than you present here. We have early chordates, arthropods, and molluscs, which are the three biggest living phyla of animals.
The second challenge, about proteins, is more compelling. I don't know much about it yet. But there are a few things to note here. The claim being made is that Darwin got ahead of himself and didn't realize how unlikely useful proteins are to evolve. But I think the scientists themselves are getting ahead of themselves. We barely understand proteins at all, and we're going to just do some back-of-the-envelope calculations and convince ourselves it's impossible? I am generally very skeptical of these types of "calculations" to answer very broad questions with limited knowledge. We will surely see that there is some explanation for this; nature being full of surprises doesn't just apply to Darwin, but to this question itself. We know nothing.
And, to the same point, this calculation wouldn't be grounds for dismissing all of the rest of what we know about evolution. And certainly not to just say "god did it", which is even less satisfying to me than impossible dice rolls. That's because, the biggest take-home here, WE KNOW EVOLUTION IS TRUE. Even all these people you quoted dismissing neo-Darwinism, every single one of them, still believes evolution is true. The proof of evolution isn't just one part of the fossil record or how it makes proteins. It is in everything, from the fossil record as a whole to every single detail of anatomy and biochemistry and metabolism and neurology to genetics to developmental science to microbiology and beyond. It has long ago become abundantly clear that all life on Earth shares common descent via a branching network of relations. As has been said, nothing in modern biology would make sense without it. I think you fail to realize just what is at stake when you throw all this out because of your protein problem. You have a far, far, far bigger problem filling the void and explaining all the new questions left by tossing out evolution in even its most basic formulation.
that is the creationist method. identify some niche with questionable data, or something not known, and propose that one thing as disproving the entire theory. of course what is known fully supports evolution.
@@billjohnson9472 Exactly, you have to evaluate the total balance of evidence, not just look at one problem point, even if it seems to be a very serious one. Dismissing all of the other, non-problematic evidence is also a serious problem!
Another good example of this is the fossil record. It is in spectacular, stunning concordance with the sum of scientific knowledge and expectations, but creationists like to focus on a few supposedly problematic fossils, as if that dismisses all the thousands of unproblematic ones.
@@HuckleberryHim I would be interested in an actual articulation of a creationist theory in detail, and how it explains the various types of observed evidence. To my knowledge none have published such a text.
😂 you creationist! Scientists don’t need transitional fossils at all to vindicate evolution, and you even used the junkyard tornado fallacy 😂😂
If 'intelligent design' is to be taken seriously, give us some convincing evidence for the existence of 'intelligent designer(s)'.
If the response is "it's invisible" or "it doesn't manifest in reality", you shouldn't accept it either.
Until a viable alternative is presented, you'll have to forgive unbelievers for accepting a well-established, real-world Theory about how life on earth continues to work.
klhcc, you wrote, "If 'intelligent design' is to be taken seriously, give us some convincing evidence for the existence of 'intelligent designer(s)'. If the response is "it's invisible" or "it doesn't manifest in reality", you shouldn't accept it either.
Until a viable alternative is presented, you'll have to forgive unbelievers for accepting a well-established, real-world Theory about how life on earth continues to work."
There are only two possibilities for the existence of complex life forms, klhcc: 1) an intelligent creator, or 2) magic. Pick one.
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools "an intelligent creator, or 2) magic" - I see what you did there - very good. It might help to know what you mean by 'life'. How do you define it? As far as I know, we don't have a clear definition as there are such a vast range of possibilities which come from observing nature. Can the perspective of 'intelligent design' help clarify this at all?
itsasin1969, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools Fool."
Clever. Are you in grade school?
==================
itsasin1969, you listed what you believe are lines of evidence for evolution: "Comparative anatomy embryology and development Fossil record DNA comparison, Species distribution Evolution observed today Predictive power of evolution, nested hierarchies of traits.'
None of those can be scientifically classified as evidence specific to evolution. You must first rely on faith that evolution actually occurred. Further, the fossil record falsifies evolution with disparity before diversity, and abrupt appearance followed by stasis; and there is not a single unquestionable transitional line to be found anywhere on earth. If that is not enough strikes against evolution, the so-called index fossils are all of marine origin, which indicates they were deposited by one or more global floods.
=================
itsasin1969, you wrote, "Here is 11 min of one of the best evidence for evolution I have ever seen. Spend 11 min and take it all in. You are free to believe whatever your want. But remember, just because you don't understand something,, doesn't mean expert scientific consensus can't. Or that your lack of understanding would be evidence against evolution or have any impact on the outcome of scientific consensus."
One must have a vivid imagination to believe in whale evolution, especially as imagined by Gingrich and Thewissen. This is an old video of Gingerich on the Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus. His part in the segment begins about the 13:55 mark:
th-cam.com/video/-C4GS-rNGM8/w-d-xo.htmlm28s
These are short videos of Hans Thewissen on the Ambulocetus:
th-cam.com/video/S4gmeI9TFKA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/uccden3r98A/w-d-xo.html
If anything, make note of the creative artwork in the museum exhibits that seem to be intentionally designed to deceive.
=================
itsasin1969, you wrote, "Also if you are not up to speed on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District? If not you have no business opening your mouth on this subject. th-cam.com/video/7HZzGXnYL5I/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=ChristopherHitchslap"
Yes, I am up to speed on the Dover "science" show, in which a federal "judge" determined what is and what is not science (while copy/pasting arguments from the ACLU briefs.) LOL!
I must admit, that is funny, but it has nothing to do with science. I was always taught that the scientific method determined what is and what is not science. Perhaps I am "old-school."
If I were you, I would drop the "Dover" argument. It makes you look like a fool.
BTW, your link didn't work., and you posted this multiple times. Repeating the same nonsense over and over again makes you look desperate.
Dan
klhcc, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools "an intelligent creator, or 2) magic" - I see what you did there - very good. It might help to know what you mean by 'life'. How do you define it?"
No one can adequately define it, but we know it when we see it.
=============
klhcc, you wrote, "As far as I know, we don't have a clear definition as there are such a vast range of possibilities which come from observing nature. Can the perspective of 'intelligent design' help clarify this at all?"
I am a creationist, not an ID'er; but I am aware that there is no way that the vast quantities of coordinated, symbiotic information found in even the simplest of organisms could have assembled itself by pure chance. Even Gould and Dawkins were aware of that limitation when they introduced (or, rather, "smuggled") intelligent design into their examples of "cumulative selection" (under the pretense that they were demonstrating evolution.)
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools Re defining life, "we know it when we see it". Maybe once you realise the inadequacy of that answer, you'll start to appreciate that the scientific method is our best route to understanding the workings of the cosmos.
very interesting. i have a hard time believing in evolution, this seems to back up my suspicions. if it is true, by all means, that is fine, but i see too many holes...people who believe in evolution whole heartedly have their jobs and money and education money also riding on evolution. it would be too risky for them to come up and say we have doubts on evolution. if it is true, fine...i see to many gaps, and i see too many scientists dogmatically pushing it, also] someone like r dawkins. remember r dawkins also writes books and sells in the millions, he gots money in evolution. if he saw gaps in it or concerns, i m sure he just well, argue them away...or deny them away.]
evolution is vast and huge going through multiple fields of science. its hard for you to understand because you, like millions of others dont work in those fields. but a basic understanding of evolution by natural selection is extremely easy to understand. maybe you just need to actually try learning and take the time to understand it.
@@Xarai and you work in the field of evolution? nice. refute this video's claims luv
This video is dishonest 🤣 very dishonest
@@rorythellama1212 just google or TH-cam evidence for evolution in all the area they said there was right here and you'll find it this video is very dishonest
@@Xarai maybe i do...but what evolution may not address is time, space and matter, physical laws, complexity of dna....so things survive, and change, mutate,fine. and how? natural intelligence. yeah, sure.] natural intelligence is nothing. science is not an entity or a person or a mind. science is studying the physical world.... big bang just happened, gravity, physical laws just happened, and dna occurred... to the point of natural selection.]
Yes...Not all humans come from monkey and humans who have monkey dna is part of ancient cruel kings imbriding experements....😑
Amazing video
All organisms have genes and proteins. The ancestor of everything alive today had genes and proteins. How the earliest life arose and what form it took are good questions but not relevant to or criticisms of common descent
It's so good to have some sensible dude like you bruh
The evolutionary process must play out as follows if it was a reality. The individual atoms that form the body (that is lifeless matter) of the animal must possess a consciousness to be aware of what the body is, and be aware of the 'life' that is within the form/body. They must be self-aware of not only themselves, but their fellow atoms within the form/body. They must be aware of what life is and perceive the life within the form they compose. They must also be aware of what a healthy life is and what a life under stress is, and care whether it survives or not. They must also be aware of the external environment, what it should be in order to be healthy for the life within the body, and what changes it must have gone through in order to cause the stress of the life within the body, which means the atoms must also be monitoring both the life's condition, and the changing conditions of the external environment (and its effects on the body and life). The atoms must also be aware of what changes they must make to the lifeless atom-made form/body in order to restore health to the life (grow more hair in reaction to a colder environmental change). Now for the body to change form its DNA must change within its reproductive system to bring the corrective change, New information, new atoms for new genes, need to come from somewhere and be put in the right sequence within the reproductive DNA strand to bring the corrective change of growing more hair, needing to know what hair actually is in the first place, or why they are acting in a pro-life direction with the mutations, which requires, as does the rest of this, a consciousness present, which is the point that renders the evolutionary theory extinct, and shows the character of abortion as an abomination. It is obvious that all of these necessary conditions are not just impossible, but far and away from reality. Atoms do not possess their own consciousnesses, they cannot move, they cannot find new atoms for new genes somewhere and plug them into the correct position within the DNA strand, they are not self-aware. But this is exactly what they must be, and be able to do, if the Evolution theory is to play out. Impossible, impossible, impossible. This 'theory' inadvertently proves God's existence. When it is run backwards, and ends up arriving at the first atom in the evolutionary progression, the only two answers explaining where it came from are 1) coming from nothing or, 2) It had to be created out of nothing-by God. Since something cannot come from nothing the answer must be it was created by God. Ending the existence of the evolutionary theory.
You don't even know what the theory says.
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 I completely explained it. If you disagree then tell me why. If you cannot tell me why then your opinion is baseless.
@@harryrussell154 Well, first of all, you describe the process as starting with lifeless matter, which is incorrect. Evolution starts with the first life fully formed.
Then you describe the matfer turning into an animal, which, again, is wrong, there are several steps between the first life and an animal.
Then you also assume every organ must appear all at once, which we know for sure it's wrong, since many organisms don't have all the organs we have.
Also, the processes within our body are mostly automatic chemical reactions, you don't need any consciousness to do that stuff.
So you’ve just shown that you don’t actually understand the theory.
@6:14 oh brother, Douglas Axe! Yipes.
James Downard, you wrote, "@6:14 oh brother, Douglas Axe! Yipes."
Doug Axe is a scientific genius, James. Are you jealous?
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools Not jealous of Axe. "Genius" is a term you may wish to apply to him, but he's not exactly set the research field on fire. And I read his papers, and source fact check them. Do you. But by all means persuade say Sean Carroll or Eugene Koonin that Axe is a "genius" & correct on his ID biological claims ... get back to us on that when you've jumped that hurdle.
James Downard, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools Not jealous of Axe. "Genius" is a term you may wish to apply to him, but he's not exactly set the research field on fire. And I read his papers, and source fact check them. Do you."
Fact checked them? Okay, since you "source fact check them," please tell us what you found that is not science.
=====================
James Downard, you wrote, "But by all means persuade say Sean Carroll or Eugene Koonin that Axe is a "genius" & correct on his ID biological claims ... get back to us on that when you've jumped that hurdle."
Eugene Koonin? Is that the "multiverse" dreamer? This guy?
_"In the most plausible, self-consistent models, inflation is eternal, with an infinite number of island (pocket) universes (or simply universes) emerging through the decay of small regions of the primordial"sea" of false (high-energy) vacuum and comprising the infinite multiverse. The many worlds in one (MWO) model makes the startling prediction that all macroscopic, "coarsegrain" histories of events that are not forbidden by conservation laws of physics have been realized (or will be realized) somewhere in the infinite multiverse-and not just once, but an infinite number of times. For example, there are an infinite number of (macroscopically) exact copies of the Earth, with everything that exists on it, although the probability that a given observable region of the universe contains one of these copies is vanishingly small. This picture appears extremely counterintuitive ("crazy"), but it is a direct consequence of eternal inflation, the dominant model for the evolution of the multiverse in modern cosmology." [Eugene V. Koonin, "The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution." FT Press Science, 2012, pp.383-384]_
As strange as it may seem, I have to agree with Koonin on one point -- that is crazy!
LOL!
Which Sean Carroll? The one who wrote this in "Science" magazine?
_"[In his book, "The Edge of Evolution," Michael] Behe states correctly that in most species two adaptive mutations occurring instantaneously at two specific sites in one gene are very unlikely and that functional changes in proteins often involve two or more sites. But it is a non sequitur to leap to the conclusion, as Behe does, that such multiple-amino acid replacements therefore can't happen." [Sean B. Carroll, "God as Genetic Engineer: Review of Edge of Evolution." Science, Vol.316, Iss.5830; June 8, 2007, p.1427]_
Carroll must have a reading comprehension problem. Behe did not say multiple-amino acid replacements
"can't" happen. Rather, Behe states that it "does" happen.
My recommendation? Don't buy a used car from Sean B. Carroll.
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools And around you go with authority quotes. And time-wasting. 100% of the things we say here will change nothing. Meanwhile, you change any of their minds. Take your arguments to them, persuade them. But of course you won't. You're a secondary McExpert, nothing else.
@@BibleResearchTools Since you bring up Edge of Evolution, I noted screw-ups that Behe did, discussing them at length in "Evolution Slam Dunk". So unless you can do better than that, once again you're merely wheel-spinning.
I just watched a tedtalk that says evolution is confirmed then I watch this video. Now this is more realistic
we've literally observed evolution...
@@christopherparks2987 Small adaptations are not the same thing as evolution. If I paint my car a different color, that doesn't turn it into an SUV.
@@rs72098 and why can't small changes add up? It's odd that you accept how evolution happens but reject that it happened...
@@christopherparks2987 oh don’t you know you can add small changes to each generation and then some how after millions of years it’s exactly the same, makes sense right?
@@TmanRock9 That seems to be the creationist argument
Great video! 👍Evolutionists also have a major problem with human demographics as well. If humans appeared 200,000 years ago in West Africa, we'd have waaay more than people than 7 billion. Written languages would have been started much earlier than 5,000 B.C. Many argue that we were hunter gatherers for 190,000 years, but really??? How long does it take to domestic a cow or a chicken? these slow animals were domesticated in Sumer 5,000 year ago according to many archeologists. Not to mention many languages, especially written languages expanded outward from the middle east. Virtually all writting systems outside of China's logographic language are related to phoenician. Even Aztec calendars have bear some resemblance to the Chinese calendar. Something is seriously off about evolution and people need to atleast acknowledge some of the holes within that theory.
I like everything you had to say here, do you have and sources or videos that I can check out to explore this further? This is a different critique of evolution that I have not heard yet
@@jordand1609 No I don't, these are just things I noticed while researching demographics, languages, human development and evolution. Kent Hovind definitely goes into detail on some of these topics.
long story short they don't care which is fine except when they lie out of their asses just to spread atheism
Why would we have way more people than 7 billion today? The Industrial Age brought in a massive spike in population growth for obvious reasons, but before that population growth was relatively slow.
Why must written language have been started long before 5000 years ago? Early humans would likely have had spoken-only languages for a very long time, and likely very primitive written language was indeed started long before 5000 years ago.
Well said brother! Do you make videos?
Love your channel - I do hope at some point we’ll see your thoughts on the work of folks like Perry Marshall, James Shapiro, Denis Noble, Barbara McClintock and others who seem to say that the cell has quite a bit of intelligence and agency in “ writing” its own genome, I see so many Darwinists who stopped studying this subject when they read “The Selfish Gene” around 1979 and can’t appreciate that the real science has moved on since Dawkins. I also find Michael Levin’s work on the information system in bioelectric proton gradients, cell morphology and such seems to defy Darwin in the sense that such a complex information system, easily as sophisticated as DNA, could have “randomly” arisen. Please keep up the good work - pray for Dr Tour for May 19th.
Evolution is not a random process.
@@CesarClouds😂😂😂😂😂to use their own ridiculous bible, what a bunch of philistines 🤡🤡🤡🤡🐑🐑🐑
Darwin is History.
Science is not authority based.
What he believed and said is irrelevant. What matters is his repeatable observations and reasoning.
And the Theory of Evolution keeps getting stronger. Mainly because it changes.
Oh, it's this misrepresentation of science...
Thanks for all you do! I show these to my high school students in biology class. They really grab their attention.
Wow that's great!
Why would you show them a video about a symposium that had no impact on evolution?
Im sorry for your students... why are you teaching something different from scientific consensus? Are you religious? Gotta be
@@Filipe9171 cry more
@@Filipe9171
Well her students will have a more open mind for sure, question everything!
Takes a huge amount of blind faith to believe evolution.
There is a mountain of evidence. Faith is not involved: this is just a tired old slogan
It takes tons of ignorance not to believe in the truth of evolution.
@@mcmanustonywhere is this mountain of evidence it's all based on homology and explaining the fossils as evolution being true
@@killerbee6484 The evidence is in fossil collections, in lab experiments, in 250,000 peer reviewed research papers in a dozen and more branches of science over the course of 160 years- of which you've read and understood not a single one.
Have you ever opened a book on evolution written by a biologist. If so can you cite it. If not, why the hell are you commenting on a vast subject of which you know precisely nothing?