Casey Luskin Defines Evolution and Explains How the Fossil Record Challenges Darwin
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- One of the largest difficulties with evolution is the word itself. Supporters of Darwinian theory love to switch the word around so the average person can never be sure what they are talking about. Sometimes evolution means change over time. Other times it can refer to small-scale changes in populations, or common ancestry, or the idea that an unguided mechanism of natural selection acting on random variations is the driver of the history of life. In this bonus interview released as part of the Science Uprising series, geologist Casey Luskin goes over the multiple definitions for evolution and explains how the fossil record relates to the Darwinian theory of evolution.
Catch up with other episodes of Science Uprising, plus bonus video interviews with experts from each episode at scienceuprising.com/.
Dr. Luskin holds a PhD in Geology from the University of Johannesburg where he specialized in paleomagnetism and the early plate tectonic history of South Africa. His B.S. and M.S. degrees in Earth Sciences are from the University of California, San Diego, where he studied evolution extensively at the graduate and undergraduate levels, and conducted geological research at Scripps Institution for Oceanography. Luskin is Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute.
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official TH-cam channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit www.discovery.org/id/
www.evolutionnews.org/
www.intelligentdesign.org/
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Visit other TH-cam channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: / drstephenmeyer
The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution: / cslewisweb
Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallace: / alfredrwallaceid - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Whether they admit it or not, everyone knows:
1. No building without a builder.
2. No design without a designer.
3. No program without a programmer.
4. No purpose without a purpose giver.
5. No life without a first, eternal life.
6. No morality without a moral law giver.
Everyone does know this. To suggest otherwise is a form of self inflicted idiocy.
That does not have to be complex law giver. It can be a discrete machine that eventually construct more and more combinations of matter - like constructions in game of life
@@matterasmachine Oh, I forgot this one -- no personhood without an eternal, self-sufficient person.
What does you _"discrete machine"_ receive as input, @@matterasmachine? Random chance? Do we observe any random increases in functional complexity anywhere in nature?
@@KenJackson_US Discrete machine is the input. God is the input. Yes we do. Our devices are more and more complex. We started with giant computers that do nothing and now have powerful devices in every pocket. Any scientific breakthrough is a result of random event - intuition / eureka
I wish he spoke more about the candidates for transitional fossils, they get really absurd the more you assess them. For 23 mins this is very informative though.
Casey is great!
Every shred of evidence used to support Darwinism requires the presumption of evolution.
Where does Stephen Jay Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" fit into this?
As I understand it: It is the theory that we shouldn't expect to find evidence for our theory.
Depends on how you define "transition." Even with punctuated equilibrium, all species are on their way to becoming something newer or going extinct. These are transitions which argue against gradual, random mutation and side with something more intentional.
12:00 to 12:10. Thanks. Corpse examined, zipped up, on ice.
The key here is the terms ,natural selection explain natural first of all. then when Darwin said these were playing against random variations in the beginning there was no variations there was only one cell whatever .so in both cases these things are logically inconsistent other term that never gets explained is the naturalist will say there is no goal orientation if that’s the case and it’s all random there cannot be progression, progression implies forward motion from lower to higher, but there is no lower to higher within random and with no mind there is no determining this to select from .just the term selection means you have to have more than one thing to select and who is selecting. Nature the nature is a mind from the foundations of this teaching it does not make sense logically how do you get gold directed function when there is no goal . Obviously you can’t You are getting something from what you say is nothing ,you were achieving goals even if they were random when you can’t do that when there is only random flailing in every direction all at the same time. when the universe started at the big bang it went from a very small to very large that is a goal directed outcome .so obviously the premise you are building this on is wrong ,this is why many of these scientists hated the big bang concept because it points directly to a mind ,be it God or something else you can’t describe ,it’s still a mind .I’ve listened to you Casey for a long time I love your podcast and this video but you don’t look like you sound ?that’s not bad that’s not good it’s just what it is .keep up the good work. Intelligent design forever Darwins 160 year old idea never.
Great job. Most of the critical questions in one video. A written version with academic style of citing and if possible quoting would be very useful.
The coarse fossil record is unambiguous in at least one respect: no sign of any kind of life prior to ~3.7bya, only prokaryotic fossils between ~3.7bya and 2.8bya, with eukaryotes showing up only after that. So the science says that God has a learning curve. He had to start with simple stuff -- for a billion years -- before he learned enough to build even the simplest more complex stuff?
No, that doesn't look created to me.
If all this is designed, then why did it take God so long to do it? And why did he start with simple life, and move to more complex life later?
Mystery, therefore magic
What's wrong with magic? We have a God who, when He speaks, it happens. How hard is that?
I know, evolution does require magical thinking to believe it. It's pretty silly when you think about jt.
Actually there is neither mystery and magic. Genetics explains all of biology. All we see and observe happening today. Natural selection disproves the soup to sapien theory of evolution.
The start of all kinds is due to creation. Again, no mystery or magic. God bless
Casey - excellent summation as it boiled down Meyer's "Darwin's Doubt" to an understandable and quick video. Well done, brutha. I wish I had had this video before reading his book in seminary for apologetics as you well-defined the terminology. It would be great to see another video on disputing micro-evolution as being the root of macro- as that is what atheists claim;however, they seem to not understand phenotypic plasticity and other innate features of the genome that don't require mutation - they are simply recessive (to my admittedly limited knowledge). WELL DONE! GOD Bless
The original life plasm of an evolutionary world must contain the full potential for all future developmental variations and for all subsequent evolutionary changes and modifications. The provision for such far-reaching projects of life metamorphosis may require the appearance of many apparently useless forms of animal and vegetable life. Such by-products of planetary evolution, foreseen or unforeseen, appear upon the stage of action only to disappear, but in and through all this long process there runs the thread of the wise and intelligent formulations of the original designers of the planetary life plan and species scheme. The manifold by-products of biologic evolution are all essential to the final and full function of the higher intelligent forms of life, notwithstanding that great outward disharmony may prevail from time to time in the long upward struggle of the higher creatures to effect the mastery of the lower forms of life, many of which are sometimes so antagonistic to the peace and comfort of the evolving will creatures.....From The Urantia Paper 36
*_The Secret Life of Plants_* tells a similar story of life reaching out and *_feeling_* its way toward a solution, as if it had "eyes" and "intelligence." *_Yes,... plants!_* Part of the *_intelligence_* of creation is built into the properties of creation. *_Inherent Intelligent Design._*
Thanks to this video, all of the evolutionary scientists just quit and went home.
LOL
Sadly, they just won't quit.
Great talk - I think some visual aids in the background running as charts and diagrams would help a lot
Fantastic. I wish he had also emphasized how sparse the whale “transition” is. Theyre best case. Four fossils of one body part each.
Hi, can you please elaborate on your last sentence, or point me to a link? I need details on this. Thanks.
In other words it's a load of crap like all this idea of evolution. We font see it fossils don't support it DNA doesn't and there are no transitional forms. They exaggerate the transitions and claim they are when there is no proof of it. Soft tissue in Dino bones is a huge thorn in its side that prove the time-line and dating methods are wrong
@@ramezaziz2336 He's just wrong.
Well articulated.
Mr Darwin was just a guy with an idea , a theory, based upon bird beaks. What about fertilized bird eggs ? Where do you start?
Great video
So good to see Casey back at DI. Fantastic work.
The world wide flood is why we have fossils at all . To have these well preserved specimens they would had to be buried quickly and deep .
Impressive
Its quite obvious that transitional fossils may not exist due poor fossilization conditions of that time. Not only that , ask yourself this, why would god create creatures devoid of intelligence or sapience
This is a very organized, fair, and factual presentation, discussing the mechanics of the evolution theory in only 23 minutes.
thanks for the efforts put in this work. I am sure the public love to listen to similar presentations, discussing specific topics, in this theory, meaning looking into the nitty-gritty details of scientific papers discussing certain topics like bird evolution.
thanks again.
Sir, you have a PhD in Geology. So you have expertise in Geology. You have no expertise in Biology. Sorry !
All the "gaps" appear in the last 14% after the emergence of life (3.8B vs. 540 million). I do wonder, what was Yaldaboth the Demiurge, the God of ID doing before then?
Why don't you ask Him?
There are "gaps" all over. Don't forget that all life bigger than a rat died off 60 mya (allegedly). Time to start all over
He is outside of time so no amount of time is of any consequence to Him
The best argument for evolution is: the creator is not very good at creating therefore evolution must be true even if there is no evidence.
Never heard of Yaldaboth, had to look that one up. I am sorry to tell you but Yalda is a man made God. The one true God, the God that created the universe, is the God as described in the Bible. He sent his son Jesus to save us. Please accept his free gift of salvation and repent your sins and have everlasting life with him. God bless
It's not pronounced "Caimbrian" but is pronounced "Cambrian" with a hard "a" .Cambria is the Latinised word for Wales taken from Cymru the Welsh word for Wales.
Cymru is pronounced "Cumri" in Welsh.
Is that all you got out of this? :)
What's your point?
No, this is wrong. Darwin describes the potentials for microevolution. What is missing is the fact that chemistry is not static. The universe is expanding from all mass to all light, and as atoms change, chemistry changes. The leaps in macroevolution, which require male+female to change the same way simultaneously, is due to the changes in the atomic bonding energies involved in DNA replication.
The idea of simultaneous whole world equilibrium breaks, without whole world catastrophe, i. e., repeated spontaneous universal punctuations, is a tad incredible.
The spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, of even one complete, functional cell, complete with the 4 dimensional DNA matching the spontaneous 1,000's of proteins and lipids, is, objectively, statistically impossible.
Just as a thought problem, imagine CGI morphing of one one image into another, say, the comparatively simple Brad Pitt into Whoopi Goldberg.
Don't forget that mutants are usually rejected as mates. And if a beneficial new trait is recessive, then two unlikely and "repulsive" mutants would have to somehow find each other during their unlikely to be simultaneous fertility.
Is Dr. Luskin aware that the Modern Synthesis is not representative of evolutionary theory in the 21st century (or the 1980s, for that matter)?
Ok your point
Yes, more buzzwords were added to the theory and none of them verified empirically.
So, what is representative?
Punctuated equilibrium sounds convenient as an argument from silence. - The reason why we don't find the transitional fossils is because the animal evolved too quickly. ... Lack of evidence is now evidence. Nice. Smooooth move.
X- "Nice new car Tim!"
T - "It's my old car, I turned it into this"
X- "What? ... I saw you in your old car yesterday. Where'd you buy this new car?"
T - " I didn't. I made it from all the parts of my old car, right here in my driveway!"
X - "dude, your old car had carburetors, and this is fuel injected"
T - "so what?"
X - "So Where'd you get the new car?"
T - "I built it yesterday guy! I melted down the metal and reformed the parts of the carburetors into the parts for fuel injectors"
X -"and the modifications to the engine block? This has two extra cylinders."
T - "same thing, I melted it down."
X - "what, on your stovetop? Where are all your tools? When did you learn complex mechanics? You don't know how to reprogram a cars CPU!"
T - " I did it really quickly and had lots of time to clean up, that's why you don't see any evidence. Actually , the fact that I did it so quickly is proof that I did it myself"
Whale evolution.
People who have faith in evolution tend to disregard and ignore any such analogies.
Not to mention that in the same timeframe Horses went from being Horses the size of a dog with four hooves to Horses the size of cattle with a single hoof... Yeah totally gonna buy that a hooved relative of Hippos like Pakicetus is the ancestor of massive fully marine Mammals like Whales. Literally how and when did they acquire the genes to adapt to this lifestyle? No gene algorithm on the planet can solve this utterly mindshattering flaw in the entire hypothesis for Whale evolution.
Lol. But didnt you just take those 2 cylinders away last week? Why did you add the cylinders again?
I'll believe anybody who tells me I'm not really that closely related to apes.
I don’t find this video convincing. Fossilization is extremely rare and dependent on the local environment and the geologic activity within in an area. It is not surprising that in certain areas where certain species would have lived there would be no examples to find.
Fossils are found all over Earth ... just _everywhere._
Why is an extremely rare process only preserving abrupt changes then? The transitions should be innumerable by comparison and should be present at every rare fossilization event.
Have someone read the questions out loud, please.
So if there was Times New Roman writing in mud on an evolutionists car, should they assume an intelligence did it or just random chance of the dirt settling on the car?
'Evolution apologists'. There is no such thing.
Ahh, yes there are. Coyne, Dawkins, Nye etc., the evangelists of Macrotardism.
So the other issue is that just because an organism obtains a beneficial trait that doesn’t mean that trait results in speciation and certainly not new higher classifications. Also, modern taxonomy appears to presume a Darwinian framework, making it circular in reasoning.
True. Just because you evolve wings (escape from ground predators) doesn't mean you'll face other problems (high energy consumption, air predators)
And I'm afraid I don't understand the second part.
This is a great and concise summary of all the problems with Evolution. Thanks for putting this together. You earned a new subscriber. 👍🏾
I approve of this message. I have never believed in evolution, to me it was obviously a theory of meaninglessness even when I was ten years old. Self-refuting in fact, but it would be several years before I acquired that term for it.
Where is the giraffe monkey
I used to believe in it, before I knew anything about molecular biology. Without knowledge it seemed somewhat plausible.
Punctuated equilibrium has a problem in information-where did the information for these new body plans come from?
The change to Darwin theory you search for is that instincts drive the evolution. When animal gets new instinct - for example predator instinct - body has to adapt to this behaviour and that affects specie much more than the nature conditions. It's like breakthrough in science. After animal adapts to new instinct - evolution stops and we see that stable form only.
What determines such instincts?
Environmental factors? And what laws determine such environmental factors, natural laws, and where do these laws come from?
But how does that work out in reality? How are new kinds of proteins formed? Do you know what a protein is?
@@jimp5133 New instincts appear as a result of mutation. Wether it's random or not - who knows. Laws come from most primitive being of universe - discrete machine, god, quantum of energy. Those primitive discrete machines combine together to create more and more complex algorithms. That what evolution is - evolution of algorithms. The infinite world creation. One of such algorithms is self copying - started biological live.
@@KenJackson_US look. I give you real candidate for scientific god. To know what happens in proteins we should first understand what happens in quantum mechanics, then to understand what happens in atoms, then what is electron, then what happens in molecules etc. In short these algorithms are so complex that we might never know. But if you fill happiness from swimming and have it encoded in DNA - then your grand grand.. children will most likely be perfect swimmers as those who are not will die of hunger.
An example of that would be, what?
So you are saying, for instance, a land animal develops an "instinct" which leads it to water and then it develops lungs and great swimming ability which allow it become the whale?
The more we learn the more we see how mistaken Darwin was.
You mean unlearn.
I could never accept that we all started out by some primordial poop.
#EverythingIsFrequencyAndVibration
#GodSaidLetThereBeLight
First I stumbled upon "Stephen Meyer Discusses the Big Bang, Einstein, Hawking, & More.." from this channel, which I really liked, so I wanted to check out other videos. This one is a HUGE letdown.
Casey's explanation of punctuated equilibria is not quite right. Gould and Eldredge proposed that new species evolved in small isolated populations, and that this was the reason transitional forms were rarely preserved. Nevertheless, the model remains a sub-theory designed to explain away the lack of evidence for the main theory.
Do you think fossils support the theory of evolution?
@@aymaniq7236 Yes they do.
God was the common ancestor of all matter and energy. Simpliest being. base building block of universe. And evolution is the process of infinite world creation
More like, you prefer bowing the knee to 'Almighty Lord Evolution', whereas others simply do not have that much faith. Can we not just be honest?
I see some misrepresentation of facts here. And if you do science and I am not sure if I would like to throw the theory of ID out of window but misrepresentation of facts to make your point is not how science works. Makes me hugely skeptical.
An example ...?
Do you support Darwinian theory?
@@aymaniq7236Do you think darwin had any idea of genes, atoms, molecules, matter nor anything about DNA or RNA? No. He didnt know about them.
So, is this disproving of evolution THEORY / GUESSING, leave us accepting the miracleS of Creative design ?
You've got it, Joe!
Oh you know you can still use the theory that the universe eternally collapses to expand your time problems, and then you can claim some advanced aliens lived through a collapse to seed Earth with life (like a noah's ark). Of course after the collapse, they waited in hibernation just outside the orbit of Earth until it was formed into a liveable, breathable planet. lol, but why look like a fool and say these things out loud?
Is there a third possibility?
@@KenJackson_US U have one ? I'd be (hopefully) glad / fortunate if you could share it. There is no greater topic for me to continue learning of.
@@deniss2623 but it didn’t disprove the theory of evolution.
Darwin have just been crucified here bro 🤯
It’s very telling that they need to focus so much on Darwin. They are ignoring that science is constantly advancing and improving. Trying to criticize Darwin for getting things wrong or missing things would be like trying to criticize Newton for not dealing with black holes in his works.
@@therick363 what does it tell ? He was wrong and they are wrong today ? Just my opinion of course 😉
This guy is a geologist
Evolutionists are hilarious. I study Zoology and serious analysis always sees their arguments fall apart. Darwinist evolution posits that natural selection and random mutation in the genome is sufficient in explaining the current diversity and complexity of life today since species will emerge over time if those mutations give the animal some sort of survival advantage. This can be experimentally verified; however, this is merely microevolution like with what you see in domesticated animals and plants. Macroevolution assumes this exact same process over a longer time will give you the species and genera complexity you see in nature, but this is obviously BS and not even supported by current gene algorithms. Just like with attempting to verify abiogenesis, Biologists once again use mental gymnastics to cover up the holes in their "theories". It's all wild conjecture.
For example, Minor intra-species transformations (AKA microevolution) are observable and therefore undeniable (eg. many different breeds of dog, different beaks on the same species of bird, fruit fly mutations, etc.), but the changes are always minor and ultimately bounded. Canines remain canines, fruit flies remain fruit flies, and an immune system remains an immune system. No one has ever observed one species changing into another, or an animal's body plan evolving into a different body plan.
Moreover, Darwinian evolution is founded on the idea that mutations that improve an animal's chances of survival are passed on to future generations, but most mutations we observe in nature are negative and harmful; ie. they hurt an animal's chances of survival.
Richard Lenski has been running a long-term experiment with E. Coli bacteria since 1988. He has been following populations of the bacteria over time to see what new functions evolve. By 2016, Lenski and his researchers had grown 66,000 generations of bacteria - equivalent to over 1.3 million years in the lifespan of large animals like humans or chimpanzees. Trillions upon trillions of bacteria have been born and died in this experiment, yet all the observable changes have been minor changes on the margin - deletions, insertions, or rearrangements of gene information that’s already present. He hasn’t seen anything remotely like the evolution of a new complex system. He hasn’t observed a gene with one function evolving into a gene with a new function. Instead, what we see from the Lenski experiment is that Darwinian process actually degrades information rather than building upon it.
I could go further into combinatorial inflation, irreducable complexity, and inconsistencies in both modern understanding of population genetics vs what we see in the fossil record, but this comment is long enough.
Science isn't on the side of evolutionists. They are a materialist cult and nothing more, and when I get my Zoology degree I will try and discredit them every chance I get.
Some brilliant points there☝️👌 Another 'enigma' that evolutionary theory can't account for is 'convergence' (the existence of similar or identical physical traits and behaviors across a wide region of unrelated species and therefore not able to be accounted for as inherited by 'common descent'.) Such convergent behaviours and traits etc point to a common designer as evolution has no logical answer for their existence
Good plan ,don't forget you're chasing shape changers ,they will just hide in a different place .
You can convince a tree that the universe has a creator, but u will never convince an atheist.
Atheism is based on absurdity and leads to absurdity.
Your personal opinion and feelings on atheism is all that is. You don’t like nor understand atheism. We get that. Doesn’t then mean you should talk about it like you actually know it, because you don’t. I’ve yet to see any theist be able to understand atheism and most do what you did, rudeness and insults.
But hey maybe I’m way wrong.
How is atheism based on absurdity…..
How does it led to absurdity….
@@therick363 atheism is not complex. There is no God is the basic latin here. Add in numerous newer definitions and it still means you don't believe in a God. Atheist don't want a God, which is why they buy into and build elaborate stories (Darwinian evolution). Atheists "believe" in secular science. Still a belief. Atheism doesn't mean a lack of belief in latin
But your belief in a supernatural being that no one has ever seen is more rational? If you can get someone to believe in a supernatural diety then you can get them to believe in anything.
I think this is compelling evidence. The video uses statistics and had not once referenced religion. Apparently even Darwin himself had doubts about his own theory.
Tell me again how the cow 🐄 became a whale 🐳
🤔🧐🙃
because caw wanted to swim very much. It had 2 options - either start swimming or get extinct
Oh no, not learn the breast stroke or go extinct... why not instead just learn to be a flying cow, or become a pig or a deer? Other mammals ostensibly managed, without radical 'putting to sea', no? Telling such 'just so' stories makes macroevolutionism a fairy tale for adults.
@@matterasmachine And because it would have to swim there are reasons for that apart because it would do it knowing that the cow is herbivorous knowing that the grass that the cow consumes is on the ground would be illogical for the cow and for us it is like saying that a car will become a boat just to enter the water apart also because the cows do not continue doing what you say you do not think they should continue doing it apart if it were still as you say the cow would not become anything anyway and a separate cow would remain in the first deal of Make you try to put a cow in the water the cow will look for the land back also it would not have any chance since as soon as a shark enters it would come and devour it and for these reasons your fairy tale from the cow to the whale is not or would be real practically the cow has always been a cow and the whale has always been a whale that simple companion, look, I'm not even going very deep, I'm just using logic and that's it. that if I delve into the subject it would be uffff impossible for a cow to become a whale practically that event is a fairy tale totally that simple
Yah, just keep telling yourself that. Evolution is a fact. Get over it.
Hardly a fact. It cannot be demonstrated, observed, measured, or repeated in experiment. Macro is BS.
@@danielcristancho3738 We have transitional fossils which shows traits common in just as much in today's animals. That's evolution right there. You're either just unable to understand it or just flat-out in denial so you can hold on to your beliefs.
Besides the Trans con, Macro evolution has to be the biggest con ever perpetuated on society.
.. Darwin was a drunk
If you think about it, why doesn’t a gorilla that has been raised by a human ever develop into a human? I mean, if that’s one of our “ancestors,” shouldn’t we be able to help spur it on in its evolution?
Wait seriously?
Abiogenesis fails
challenging Darwin does not prove biblical god
Demonstrate abiogenesis then. Just 4 main (96%) chemical elements. You have any choice of organism a "warm little pond" supposedly provides you to copy. Warm little ponds have more creative power than scientists in sophisticated laboratories packed with technology? Even having a working model in hand to copy?
@@VernonChitlen how that can prove bible god? I can tell you how life started. It started when this universe appeared. There was no abiogenesis. All matter and energy in universe is “alive”.
@@VernonChitlen and first quantum of energy was god
Whether they admit it or not, everyone knows:
1. No building without a builder.
2. No design without a designer.
3. No program without a programmer.
4. No purpose without a purpose giver.
5. No life without a first, eternal life.
6. No morality without a moral law giver.
Most of the atheist have no problem Buying in chemicals to perform there high tech experiments problem is what there doing is this actually found in nature
:things that are in concentration and in purity’s and in specific arrangements is any of this actually found in a random chance or error based world.
The truth is there is there is also No evidence of any beneficial mutation occurring.
It is believed that Edison had a mutation that is seen today, in which the body functions on 4 hours of sleep.
Blond hair and blue eyes are mutations.
This man is on the way but he still hasn't arrived fully at the Logical Conclusion.....and that is that the Genesis Account is true. The fossil record we now have is simply how the fossils were laid down and stratified during the Biblical Flood.
Then why are most fossils from sea creatures?
I can’t see how Darwin’s theory sinks into anyone’s mind.
Nature doesn't select anything. What we observe is an intelligent system built in living organisms that adapt to the environment
wow no mention at all of selective Pressures, and speaks as if Victorian Darwinian mechanics is the accepted view in modern evolutionary science.
Totaly dismisses Hominid fossils, with sleigh of hand, no mention of comparative biometric analysis.
No defining of a single word or term.
I was expecting him to tell me the scientific definition of the word" theory" is a hunch.
Creepy for a Phd.
What is the currently accepted view?
You make some good points if they make sense to a biologist - I wonder if anyone can refute you in comments section?
Do you think the fossil record upholds Darwins theory?
If only you were as smart as you think you are...and better at spelling and grammar and syntax etc. You totally miss the point but of course you're determined to misunderstand.🤗
If im not mistaken selective pressure is some kind of natural selection, about hominid fossils there is his another film wich came out before: th-cam.com/video/Bhnb2Y66gXc/w-d-xo.html
Was that Santa's sleigh?