Hey, Dave! Let me tell you briefly why videos such as this one matter. I'm a teacher in Poland. 3 months ago I wanted to find a book on evolution to add to our school library. The largest bookstore in town had only a few of these... and each and every one was junk 'science' straight from the DI playbook. I checked the publishing house, and... surprise surprise... it's a DI-affiliate. Their reach is really broad! Naturally, I devoted an entire lesson to explaining ID, creationism and 'Kitzmiller v Dover' to my students. Please, keep exposing those frauds!
@@pagedprawn3760 it depends on where u live, I also went to a catholic highschool also taught evolution because in my country I dont think u are allowed to teach otherwise in a school.
The fact that Prof Dave directly contacts the maligned scientists was so powerful the first time I saw this video. I've since realized that this is the normal way that research is done. Since my view of science was programmed by pseudoscience propagandists, it was eye opening to realize that the big hats in science put contact information right on their publications to facilitate discussion.
Creationists: "The Cambrian explosion, lasting over 25 million years, was too quick for all the phyla to develop." Also creationists: "4000 years was enough for barely a thousand species on the ark to diversify to over 8 million" (Edit: upon prompting from Wes Walker I found that Meyer doesn't believe in a global flood. Sadly, this makes my meme incorrect for this context)
@@Vadjong cognitive dissonance requires two thoughts... I suspect DI's main audience don't have that capacity, each idea pushes the last one out the other end.
@@andybeans5790 I see! It's like how you tie your left shoe and then your right shoe. Can't do it simultaneously. (When I tried, I fell over soon as I started walking.)
As a paleontologist and university professor, I truly appreciate your video. Very thorough job! By the way, the Cambrian Explosion is being referred as the Great Cambrian Biodiversification Event to stop Creationists from misrepresenting the word “explosion” for their nefarious messaging. The DI propaganda makes me cringe. I’m glad you spent the time to debunk their insane messaging. It concerns me with interest dropping in the natural sciences at the university level that the DI propaganda will take advantage of it.
"But ... but ... it's impossible that the GCBE happened that fast!" Your message won't get through creacrappy skulls. Creacrappers (and several other believers) refuse to accept that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion nor means that "everything came from nothing". They only accept metaphors when it suits them.
@@marknieuweboer8099Perhaps we can stop them recruiting more gullible people into their ranks. I can see in the comments of the first video of the series thanking Dave for steering them away from intelligent design. It only matters that we keep telling the truth.
I saw the Evolution news article on Kimberella and the Cambrian explosion and it's pretty ridiculous. They try to split hairs, stating that Kimberella isn't a true mollusc (which I believe is widely accepted) and so is not an explanation for the appearance of Cambrian molluscs. This doesn't matter much as they still admit themselves that Kimberella is a Lophotrochozoan, and thus relatively close to molluscs, showing that there were potential ancestors of the molluscs around before the Cambrian. Not to mention the Cnidarian relatives like Haootia. They also claim that there is no reason why we shouldn't have found ancestors of most Cambrian groups in the Ediacaran, which is ridiculous because Cambrian aged fossil beds have been studied for far longer than Ediacaran ones, and so it's very likely the specimens have just yet to be found. Sorry, you probably were already aware of all of this, I just wanted to talk about my gripes with the article.
Also. The Precambrian can be described as a sampling bias, as most of the animals before this period were soft bodied, things like sponges, which aren’t great for leaving fossils. With the evolution of hard shells and spines, which are much easier to fossilize - there’s an increase in the number of fossils, not necessarily and explosion in the raw number of species.
Sometimes we will see tracks or other evidence of life as well, like layers of rust caused by rising Oxygen levels from the first photosynthetic bacteria. But basically, if it was free-swimming and didn't have a shell we likely don't know about it because it probably didn't fossilize. Its crazy how little we have in regards to marine fossils for things without bones or shells even as recently as the last ice age. Even something like the whale eating shark Megalodon is _only_ known from teeth and damage done to whale skeletons since cartilage doesn't fossilize well.
You’re taking on a beast, one that was made a huge part of my Christian education growing up. Thankfully I’ve pulled myself out of those dark ages and I seriously enjoy your content
did u use to believe the earth is 6000 years old? i did watch the professors video earlier but cant remember if thats what it was about. i cme back to reply a comment but ill probably watch it again later i watched the flat earth ones a couple times
@@melissachagaris3152Nope, no PhD. Not that you need a PhD to be a good science communicator. You just need to understand what you're talking about, cite your sources, and make sure your words are in line with those sources. All things which Dave does, and the people he exposes/debunks don't.
As a programmer, I face-palmed and winced so many times when he went on about random changes degrading code. On their own, yes, random changes can degrade code if you have enough of them, but we also have learning algorithms that can select for helpful changes, so by combining the two, we can accumulate these changes after selection so that we get improvements over time. And not all errors are bad from every point of view. There are even TH-cam channels dedicated to these algorithms, things like having a computer learn to play Super Mario Bros and other games. We even use such things to help better understand biological evolution. And on top of that, information in a computer is not at all the same thing as information in genes in terms of how they originate. The only things in common are that you have patterned sequences and something capable of turning those patterned sequences into something “useful” based on the specific patterns present. That’s all that information is. And since patterns occur naturally all the time, and chemistry is a thing, the idea that some information of some kind can’t occur naturally is completely unfounded.
@@lizzard13666 Neither, though the former is more accurate than the latter. Really, learning algorithms aren’t a great analogy for evolution, so they shouldn’t be used to conclude what evolution cannot do or requires, nor how it actually occurred in real-life. They are a good demonstration of the general principles, though: both utilize something capable of replication with small, random differences and a set of rules to establish “fitness” (where those rules come from is irrelevant) to get large changes over time. They can act as a proof of concept, so to speak. However, like all analogies, this is not a perfect equality, so one should always be careful before drawing conclusions based on this analogy. But that wasn’t my point. Even disregarding the flaws in the analogy, the claims being made about computer programs and information are flat-out wrong, so even if computer algorithms are a good enough analogy to draw conclusions, the specific arguments this guy uses to claim evolution by natural causes is impossible are completely absurd. Specifically, I used learning algorithms as an example of random changes in a computer program accumulating over time that don’t lead to the program not working properly in order to refute the assertion that random changes or accumulations of random changes are necessarily bad in computer software. This doesn’t necessarily prove evolution correct (since they are not evolution per se), but they do show that this argument against evolution falls flat. After that, I pointed out that “information” in computer science is not the same as “information” in information science or other contexts, and both are distinct from how the term is used colloquially. As such, even if the guy was right about information in software, that wouldn’t say anything about information in chemistry or biology since they are very different concepts. Thus, the argument is invalid. Not that it really matters much since the premise is so obviously false to begin with, but I still wanted to point that out.
@@lizzard13666 no, no it's not. Simply matter arranged in a way that achieves some function is information. It doesn't need to cone from humans. Let's get our human centrism aside. The universe will operate just as well if we never existed.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Would you be willing to debate a guy named Witsit Gets It? He claims he messaged you and you backed out of the debate. I would love to see you crush this guy. He makes a lot of claims but never brings any evidence for them.
That's a really cool feature. I didn't know you could do that. I love the idea of tipping a TH-cam creator. When I'm back in the black I'll have to check it out. Just out of curiosity, are you actually from New Zealand or is it just a clever name?
This is a titanic but extremely important tasks. I imagine this stuff can get tiring and feel futile, but your work does not go unappreciated. I absolutely love these breakdowns, and frankly, more high quality, highly educated science attuned individuals, be it teachers, professors, or researchers & lab workers, should be cooperating together to bring down these extremely dangerous and corrupt organizations
Yes, its more important than you might think. For the millionaires and billionaires that fund all this pseudoscience it's about generating votes for conservative political parties. Since leftist parties almost universally embrace both science and the scientific community, AND the poor and marginalized making science the enemy and generating outrage against it is a great way to protect the financial interests of the economic elite by duping poor people into voting against their economic interests.
Hey, Dave, I Just wanted to say thanks for this information. As an evangelical Christian, I was taught about the literal creation of the earth in six days by God in both school and church. Just wanted to let you know that some of us do listen. I now see Genesis as a religious rebuttal of the pagan worldview of its day, starting briefly with the Babylonians and then the Egyptians. Keep up the good work!
Hey I know you posted this a year ago but hopefully you can still see this. I’m a Christian too who was also taught a literal six days and now my view is shifting. You mention Genesis being a rebuttal, could u point me in the direction of whatever sources brought u to that conclusion? I’m very interested especially because I have a lot of very literal six day creation friends. Thx if you see this
@@jmextrom Hi, I did get a notification on this. Look into John Walton’s theory of it being a picture of a cosmic temple. Also, compare it with the creation accounts of the Egyptians and the “self-created Ra” the benben rising from the sea, then you will see the similarities and you can then draw your own conclusions. There are also bblical references to a pre-Genesis creation myth concerning Leviathan and it relates to the Babylonian accounts. I hope that helps.
My high school biology teacher used a lot of this guy's work when teaching us about evolution, and how it was divided into two types, the short-term one, which is true and correct (because obviously) and the long-term one, which was fake and crafted by evolutionists, even though the only difference was timespan. This guy used tricks and fake science to lie to us about evolution so we'd believe that God did it. I'm glad he's being brought to task here.
My high school biology teacher, when she got to the single chapter on evolution, got all pissed off and said "I don't want to teach this but they're making me so let's get through this as fast as possible"
Came for the expose video, stayed for the science. This format is really good for getting scientific information to people who might not watch a video on the topic otherwise.
I just broke my wrist whipping up crack cocaine in my kitchen Unrelated i know, but i thought I’d tell you anyway since i know i must be doing a good job👍🏽
As someone who studied computer science, his computer code analogy physically hurt me. Anyone who has written code knows that even one random change to code will break the whole program, assuming it'll even compile; a huge chunk of any programming project is dedicated to bugfixing for a reason. Yet our DNA has about 400 mutations on average, and most of them do nothing to us, we function just fine. All this shows is that beyond the abstract level, computer code is a terrible analogy for DNA, and anyone who uses it in this literal of a way is showing that they don't know the first thing about either.
DAMN YOU AND YOUR LOGIC! How dare you debunk stupidity and false equivalencies. Don't you know that causes Cognitive Dissonance in these moro...err...I mean people!?!?!?
Turns out we are finding most of our DNA that was previously thought to do nothing, actually does alot. Most of it is sitting waiting for environmental factors... Also almost all mutations to active Genes result in death... This is very analogues to computer code crashing... This coming from someone with over 20 years in CS...
I love your debunks, especially when it comes to debunking things that are more difficult for lay people to spot as lies, like some of the electric universe stuff you covered, the quantum mysticism (as a physics student I especially loved that one) and now these creationism fairytales. Keep it up!
Yeah, same here. Also studied physics, work in electrical engineering. That video was satisfying, also since I had come across that pseudoscience quite a few years beforehand on Twitter, having had my own turn debunking it directly to the grifters and cranks.
Wow. Physics. Ambitious. I'm nothing but a science nerd but my gf is a scientist. She studies ecology and it's INSANE the amount of studying she does. She studies before she studies so she can follow that up with some studying. I can't imagine what you physics types have to go through. Good luck to you. Whenever I drop off my son for school I always say the same thing to him. "Study hard." I guess it's one of those cheesy dad things. Lol. So, study hard.
One thing that makes this all the more frustrating is that evolutionary biology is a fairly accessible science. I've been studying evolution for a few years (as a lay person), and am consistently surprised at how intuitive it is, once you understand the basics. Discovery Institute's audience is capable of understanding this all for themselves, but I.D. lies encourage them to not bother.
That's kind of the key to their strategy. Present their sources as authorities to be trusted, which then present a biased or dishonest case on what the science is. So that external sources that dispute their claims are never even seriously considered. And since they are representing revolutionary science, they can be portrayed as ungodly, and something to be avoided. It's astonishingly effective in reaffirming bellies for people that actively want to distrust evolution.
No matter how intuitive, it can’t compete with how intuitive it is for religious people to think “God did it” when their basic understanding starts with “God did it”.
@@NJ-ju8fr Certainly. I’m splitting these up into categorizes based on (imo) accessibility. BOOKS TO START WITH: Origin of Species* - Darwin The Greatest Show on Earth - Dawkins Why Evolution is True - Coyne Your Inner Fish - Shubin BOOKS TO READ IF YOU KNOW THE BASICS: The Equations of Life - Cockell The Making of the Fittest - Carroll Endless Forms Most Beautiful - Carroll The Blind Watchmaker - Dawkins The Tangled Tree - Quammen Some Assembly Required - Shubin Genesis: The Deep Origin of Societies - Wilson The Origins of Creativity - Wilson (The last two books by Wilson are still wildly enjoyable without knowing much evolution, but knowing the evolutionary basics adds a deeper level of understanding in what Wilson is talking about.) BOOKS FOR PROFICIENT LAYPEOPLE The Selfish Gene** - Dawkins Origins of Sex - Margulis & Sagan Evolution: What the Fossils Say - Prothero HELPFUL TH-camRS Aron Ra Dapper Dinosaur Gutsick Gibbon * I put Origin of Species on this list, because I found it readable and helpful. That being said, this book is 160 years old; there’s a lot we’ve learned since Darwin’s time. If you only plan on reading one book, choose something else; Origin is better used as a supplement. **A lot of people avoid this book because they think it’s about genes for selfish behavior. It is not. Dawkins demonstrates how we might better understand gene function if we think of them AS IF they were hypothetically acting selfishly.
The effort you put into combatting ignorance and indoctrination is commendable. Even if you only open the eyes of one person, it greatly assists in the millennium-old battle between rationality and superstition.
I am an almost uneducated man. I do, however know what concerns me just not how to deal with it. Thank you Dave for taking up this fight. I will support the cause even though I don't know how. I will be watching your videos to see if there is anything I can add to protect against conspiracy theorists.
@@itsjustme6632 Quite right because Meyer is undoubtedly highly educated but also profoundly stupid. Despite making this point I do think that ad hominems are rarely helpful and Professor Dave rightly focusses on what frauds like Meyer are saying and discrediting that.
Stephen Meyer sounds like a slightly more well-spoken version of Matt Powell. "Mutations degrade information" is absolutely a Matt Powell-ism. Absolutely crushing take-down, Professor Dave! Really enjoyed this debunk.
55:13 I am a programmer and I've written genetic algorithms which do indeed work similar to the way evolution works. I had "ants" which reproduced or died based on how well they could follow crumbs on a path. Reproduction involved randomly copying sections of one or the other's code and adding occasional random mutations. This system produced highly efficient programs very rapidly compared with reproduction which just picked random code again in each generation.
@@languageteachingtruth.6952 Obviously not, but it's not the point. Because processing power of computers is limited we have to limit the capacity of the system to change, otherwise we would have extremly complicated and heavy data structures. No one is claming that we can simulate the whole evolutionnary on a computer. (yet, there are some intresting simulations of 2 dimensionnal biological evolution) Often when we program genetic algorithms it boils down to : defining arrays of numbers, introducing a way to estimate the efficiency of this array to accomplish some task, then run generations of the form : estimate a bunch of array, select the bests (with a bit of randomness added), tweek the numbers a bit (using random generation) to produce a new population of arrays. Of course it won't produce anything drastrically diffrent in such cases, because it's not what we're trying to do. Genetics algorithms are not tools to demonstrate evolution (in most cases). We take the fact that biology prooved how efficient evolution is to optimize things and we use it to solve optimization problems, that's all there is to it.
You might want to try spelling his name correctly if you're going to thank him. I don't mean to be rude, but to be frank, if I were him, I would be slightly annoyed that you spelled 'Dave' as 'dev.' Just a thought. He deserves to have his name spelled correctly. This might be some sort of inside joke or something. If that is the case, completely ignore me. Edit: Thank you for correcting the name.
@@sirprize8572 What? How am I displaying any such behavior? Dave deserves to have his name properly spelled. I'm pretty sure that's not such an outlandish notion. Furthermore, you don't need to be so rude. All it does is display your inability to say something meaningful, which you so graciously demonstrated with that comment.
Well, Dev means god in Sanskrit. So perhaps he’s assuming the professor’s knowledge of protoindoeuropean languages will inform him of this and he’ll take the compliment.
I disagree. Foolish ideas, and the people who espouse them should be free to do so. It helps create dialogue. I think it is different if you receive government funding or something like that, but everyone should be able to outright lies and say they are truth if they wish. It's an unpopular idea, but I don't like ideas being pushed underground to fester and grow. Let them be open, and free for all to see, and they can be used to teach others the reality of the situation.
This is what I love about scientific education. Due to its pure methodology to understand rather than coerce, it needs no justification-merely to present its proofs. By teaching, all that challenges it falls to pieces.
As a former Evangelical Christian Pastor who taught confidently “the creation” myth! OMG! So embarrassing to think back to the things I believed, said, and taught as a Bible thumping Christian! I’m thankful to be freed from that mythical BS and now looking to know what we know through evidential scientific practices!
Thanks Dave, the long history of religious meddling in our education system would be another series. Texas and Florida text book nonsense are symptoms. Hope there's a cure for it.
It can be directly linked to the Discovery Institute! Christopher Rufo, who at the time worked for the DI, was the one who started all the current BS about CRT being part of the curriculum in public schools! It isn’t, but it’s the DI using the same old tactics they came up with when they started out with the Wedge Strategy! It’s all about undermining public education!
@@gorillaguerillaDK It can be linked back to stupid god ideas, childish beleifs and overbearing "leaders" with no soles, or smelly soles and dirty socks. We know, and that is fact.
Florida native. Twelve years Catholic school in the 60s and 70s. Never believed in or was taught any of this ID/Creationist crap. Never had any public school friends who were taught ID or creatardism either. Why? Florida was a Blue state back then. Elections matter. Vote!
@@petem.3719 the Vatican recognized science works a long time ago, it was subtle and never bragged on but their schools tend to have better STEM classes overall. Then there are the other sects that do not respect human knowledge, to be polite.
I say this sincerely, and without animosity toward Professor Dave, but I believe that some of these people spouting these Creationist ideologies are simply living in such a huge echo chamber that they don't even realize that they are willfully blind to literally all of science. I say this because Professor Dave has shared before that he was not raised religious. It is impossible to know the depth and breadth of the social, educational, ideological, professional echo chamber that many people raised fundamentalists find themselves in. Some people genuinely go their entire lives without encountering differing opinions and ideas to what The Church tells them to believe. And those that do often excuse it away as temptation, falsities, and or "of the world". I don't rule out malice on these fools' part. That is highly likely. However, the sheer size of the blinders that many fundamentalist and creationist people put on, even people who have attained higher degrees, it astonishing. With that, the undeniable ability of our minds to simply ignore, then discount, then entirely forget information that we do not agree with or like effectively keeps people in their bubble of "knowledge". It's uncomfortable to question your fundamental ideals, so why do it? I say this all because I was raised fundamentalist and know the extent of the brainwashing that happens. From the very first things we learn. The media we consume. The friends we are allowed to have, to the very ideas we are allowed to even question or entertain. Imagine being so indoctrinated in a belief that you consider suicide to be the only sure way to go to heaven, because as you get older you'll be more inclined to sin and have more opportunity to do so, thus risking eternal damnation to hell, so just off yourself now while you're nice and young and innocent. That is how so many people are raised. Anyways, that's my 2 cents. I think what Professor Dave is doing here is amazing. I hear something new from every one of his videos (Fossilized embryos?!? Simply awesome!), and I enjoy basking in the warmth of learning new things.
People don't understand that the existence of God and the historicity of the Bible is taught just like any ordinary scientific factoid or history class. How many of us can reliably reproduce a test to prove speciation from natural selection, for instance? How many of us have measured the cosmic background radiation using our own handmade devices before accepting the Big Bang theory? If you aren't skeptical about whether George Washington really existed, then you would never have been skeptical that Moses spoke to God if you were raised in those communities.
I think what you refer to is very relevant to apply to the average man on the street that might believe creationist claims. I have heard more than a few folks talk about how they have extensively studied evolution. Only to discover that the study consists solely of Christian propaganda. That said, the accusations of dishonesty should be leveled at the sources of the propaganda. People that actually have been exposed to the relevant science, and then set themselves up as an authority on subjects that they can reasonably be expected to understand well. One thing I will add, is that accusing someone of dishonesty in a subject they shouldn't be considered an expert in, should be rather pointless. Dishonesty when the person should have some credibility and expertise, is when it becomes relevant. Accusations of dishonesty are controversial and challenging to demonstrate. Sadly, folks in the business of YEC pseudo science, are engaged in enough dishonesty, that it's not so hard to call them out. I do agree about the sense that bias can color what people learn quite a bit, but things sometimes go further than that can justify. I'm glad you found your way out of that religion.
You are absolutely correct. You literally must physically remove yourself from that bubble to survive…and then be able to survive the distancing. It is extremely difficult to do.
@@stevewebber707 I think for me it's just assuming malice instead of a combination of fundamentalist brainwashing literally their entire life, as well as willful ignorance and isolation. Ultimately I'm inclined to believe there is intentional and purposeful dishonesty on the part of the DI. But for the sake of swaying skeptics and people on the fence, I think being so antagonistic is not helpful. Again, just my opinion, knowing full well that I am in a completely different place in life than Professor Dave here, and that I likely have a very different way of handling conflict and confrontation.
@@lucyferos205 Yes, exactly. As I said, I was raised fundamentalist. I was also home schooled. All of my science "classes" were from YEC "textbooks" that did their best to completely skew the reader's mind towards YEC. Anything other than those sources was considered foolish, unscientific, and at worst, Satanic. Is it any wonder so many people are so ignorant of or fully against science?
i will never understand why these people make out being descended from very simple organisms to be shameful or somehow worse than our spontaneous appearance. it fills me with awe. it makes me feel connected to everything on earth. There's nothing shameful about being part of nature. it doesn't need to be divine to be beautiful.
Amen , brother! Just kidding. But i 100% feel the same way as you. I don't get why there must be a god, for us to love each other and the planet and all the other live we share this planet with...
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsI know it sounds bothersome, but Joe’s audience is big and I think it would be good to hear you break down and debunk the specific things he was saying in the Rogan’s podcast.
You should try some faith believers that do NOT disagree with science at all. I won’t make the case for theology at all because I believe it to be personal AND not something that can be proven. However, many of us do not subscribe to this human-like deity that many other believers do. Much love. Spread truth.
@@JCMthebrand All faith believers I have interacted with except one denies science or realty. So I know there are believers that don't let their unjustified belief in a deity decide what science they accept.
THANK YOU for bringing up the software thing. The DI love to use that analogy, and clearly don't have anyone studied in software development reading their stuff. I remember Michael Egnor saying something in his debate with Matt Dillahunty like "emergence is just something we don't expect" to dismiss it. Never mind that we use algorithms designed to leverage emergence to optimize the solution to a problem. Fun fact. There is a type of self modifying code literally called a "genetic algorithm" that tries a set random values for parameters in accomplishing a task, evaluates the results in a fitness function, takes the best ones, combines them together to create new parameter sets with a mix of the traits biased towards the most successful ones from the last round, and repeats. This technique was developed, but it often found local, rather than global maxima, so people literally put in a mutator function that randomly makes more drastic changes, the vast majority of which are harmful and are discarded quickly, but occasionally find another a point that slopes towards an even greater local maximum. Computer Scientists discovered that a system modelled after evolution is actually GREAT at optimizing for solving a problem given a set of conditions.
As a programmer, I can tell you that the mind can "degrade information" just as much as randomly shoving in uncompilable code. We have linters and other automatic processes that check our code to make sure it's valid, and the compiler will do the same and chuck it out when it's not compatible. Furthermore, we introduce bugs into our code all the time, which degrades its performance and overall function. Sometimes albeit rarely, bugs--unintended behavior of the code--result in behavior that users like and so we keep them. An environment that weeds out unsustainable / unworkable members and sometimes promotes random unintended occurrences within it, all without and sometimes even in direct opposition to the "intelligence" that created those members? Sounds a bit like selection to me. /bigThink PS: I say this mostly in jest and not as a tenable metaphor since computer code is something that humans invented and so will always trace back to "intelligence" being its creator which is demonstrably true.
reminds me of a specific thing in video games one game called ultrakill allowed a ricochet shot from parrying your own shotgun bullet, it wasnt intended but when the developer heard of it, he kept it! it was very fun overall and a bonus for everyone on the other hand, in cod black ops 3 was the release of Der Eisendrache which was the first dlc in the game, there was an unintended bug that would soft lock you in the easter egg boss area and you wouldn't be able to finish the easter egg at all guess how quickly it was fixed xD
Yeah, if bugs degraded the code that easily, they'd be a lot easier to find. Back in the day there was a testing technique called bebugging, where a team put errors into code (like changing the limit of a for loop) and gave it to the testing team. The percentage of the inserted bug found was an indicator of the percent of real bugs found. Clearly the inserted bugs didn't cause immediate core dumps.
I always appreciate how Dave points out how certain concepts can be refuted with high school biology (etc, or physics in the flat earth videos). I have no formal science education past 11th grade but even that is enough to see the holes in many creationist arguments. So no you definitely don't need an academic pedigree to understand and disprove these flimsy arguments.
That's true but on the other hand, having that level of comprehension is where these people bank on as well. Which means its audience is just as easily swayed back with a convincing story. And theirs has the added bonus of: "If you believe this, you will go to heaven". That makes it very hard to combat, no matter how correct you are. It's more about the willingness to accept a story that sounds good than anything else. It has already been proven numerous times that conspiracy theorists can believe in two completely contradictory theories, as long as they are both things they would like to be true. You could argue that critical thinking plays no part in that whatsoever.
@@patrickderp1044 So the theory of evolution is a huge world wide conspiracy perpetuated by scientists throughout the entire world and of all the different types of science?
This must have taken a ridiculous amount of work to put together and as always you deliver all the right information in a way that makes it possible to digest even for those without the background in the material. Thanks for putting so much effort into shining a light on these charlatans.
I find myself watching so many of your videos.I stumbled apon you debunking flat earther's a few year ago now, I thought the idea of the earth being flat was hilarious and was really interesting in learning about why it wasn't possible through your videos. This lead me to more of your videos where I found you debating Kent hovind, I was still Christian at the time and I had never seen someone like Mr hovind before. I was raised Baptist and couldn't even remember if I had ever learned about evolution. After watching your videos it sparked something me. It made want to learn. I Looked up more videos that that involved Kent and found Mr aron ra, between his channel and yours I became comfortable with leaving my faith behind. I realize how much nonsense I was believing and how little I actually knew. I couldn't be more thankful for channels like this and aron's
Hi, Dave.. I wanted to express my gratitude for these videos that you're making here. I am a videographer and animator my self and I work in a science museum and I know it takes a lot of work to make 1 of these thing s. Specially to do it in the way you've done it, With proper editing and well constructed presentation. Thank you! I also very much appreciate the fact that you don't fall for that both-side-ism nonsense and just present what it is you're trying to do. And you don't give any slack to the other side. That's good to see. These people are corrupting and deliberately misusing science, one of the best tools that humanity ever invented, for no good reason at all. And they should be held accountable for that. Well done, sir.
This is such a good combination of interesting, detailed, well presented information and idiotic statements. Genius entertainment. Keep it up, Dave! We need more people on YT with your skills in communicating scientific papers to a broad audience.
@@loturzelrestaurant Indeed, I agree there is a lack of action against fundamentalists and movements favouring a theocracy. But information ultimately is the start of everything. Offering a reliable source of information is becoming more and more valuable, expecially with todays biased news and echo chambers. Acting on it is a different story and in the end we need a whole reeducation of politics.
Love that Dave replies to comments. Notice that all these religious frauds will avoid anything like that - they know they might get deconstructed by a passer-by with even a minimum of knowledge and understanding of science..
Thank you, Professor Dave. As a lay person I can't really refute someone like Meyer unless I can quote a similarly learned person like yourself refuting him point by point.
From one David to another (who also happens to be a chemist): the work you're doing is absolutely insane exposing these freuds while educating the masses about real science, done by real scientist. I seriously and sincerely applaud you!!!
@@bman5257 It very much is religion, or at least a claim that is part of religion. Being criticized by other religious people does not mean it can't be a religious idea itself, as is shown by literally every religion having critics whom are themselves religious. ID only exists because religion exists.
@@gwit4051 The not equals was meant to show that they’re not identical. Not that you couldn’t predicate one of the other. Yes I would agree with you that Intelligent Design proponents are often religious but that doesn’t mean all religious people support ID.
It's called the "Wedge Document" for the strategy outlining that creating just a little doubt in established science, ie a 'Wedge' in the 'Trunk', can bring down the whole of the 'Tree' of established science; upon release it achieved some notoriety for that blatantly underhanded attack on science, and this really deserves a mention in any videos discussing it.
As an ex muslim my schollar tried to convince me to come back to islam by giving me a copy of signature in the cell by Meyers. i was too smart to fall for the bs of that book. Cause during my mulltiple debate with set schollar beforehand I had learned how disingenuous these preacher are and how far they are willing to go in order to lie for their religon. Why dont he write Twilight for men instead of pseudo science for theists?
It gets really silly when you take these creationist arguments to their ultimate goal. It basically amounts to "I found a tiny gap in the fossil record, therefore Jesus Christ is your lord and savior".
There's no need to apologize for going too in-depth. It's not hard to de-bunk creationists, but you teaching the details (particularly the Cambrian era stuff) is what made this video so interesting!
I wonder if the DI or it's friends will make a blogpost about this video too? lol Haven't finished watching yet but I can tell this is going to be a brillant video Prof Dave! Kudos to you for fighting against the tidal wave of pseudoscience sweeping humanity from the internet!!!
@@sumo1203 "addressing" is a liberal description. It's really them just trying to cast doubt on Dave's credentials to desperately avoid actually addressing the fact that Luskin is an outright proven liar.
To anyone who cares, the image showing self-modifying actually is code that modifies itself. It's x86 machine code that changes a 43 byte section of memory. The image shows the start of that memory, which is 0x00201039. I don't have the time to spend right now trying to figure what the new code would be, but I'm impressed that Professor found an image showing self-modifying code. He could have grabbed a random snippet of x86 code and I would have understood. Self modifying code is very rare.
In case anyone doesn't know some of the history of Signature in the Cell here it is in a nutshell: After Meyer wrote the book it was almost universally panned by people who actually specialized in the field. Their criticism was that he was out of his depth, and misrepresented some fundamental aspects of how DNA works. I'm not a scientist, but it was clear that those who knew realized that he was full of shit. After this he claimed that the scientific community did not "allow" people to question Evolution. This was essentially welcomed with more laughter. As I've said, I'm not a scientist. But I have read enough to know of the deep disagreements there are in the scientific world. Even Darwin himself was reluctant to publish his finding about Evolution since he knew what people generally thought. The thing most striking here is that science actually works because people disagree. It means that data tells us who is right. People laughed at him because he made stupid claims. Not because he was being persecuted.
Darwin was supported by Wallace, who had arrived at (broadly speaking) the same conclusions at the same time. Had Darwin not published first, Wallace would've published his ideas anyway. Yes, there was resistance to Darwin's ideas, specially from outside of scientific circles, but Darwin was not alone, and not everyone thought he was wrong. In fact, "social-Darwinism" (Social evolutionism, as was called back then) was the dominant paradigm in sociology and anthropology at the time, so it wasn't even that surprising.
@@San_Vito TY. I've read only a little bit about it. I think the effect some of these ideas had socially can be as big of a deal as the actual science behind them.
@@SamIAm-kz4hg I agree, and I also think that your idea "upside down" also applies: certain social contexts (or some ideas that that society holds at the time) can have an effect on which scientific ideas/explanations come up. Not in a rigid, deterministic way, but in a soft social-conditioning one.
The 'who put the information there?' question is so bad that it qualifies as 'not even wrong'. _We_ do, because 'information' is _our description_ of what's there, it isn't a 'thing' that's out there existing independently of us.
I've found out that some scientists have applied information theory to evolution since the 1950's. I'd wish Prof Dave and Forrest Valkai would make a video about it. Because I'm tired of creacrap lies about this topic.
Thanks for your work on your content. It has a mental and emotional impact on my life. As I’m doing the tasks of my day I’ll let your videos play. Or if I need to unwind. So the work you do is more than educational, it really helps people. Thank you!
These lectures are beyond interesting. I think they are an important contribution to the historical record. Future generations need to see just how appalling the Discovery Institute was, in the eyes of real scientists.
When I was small, I counted all the joints in my dog's foreleg while he slept, and compared it to my arm. The bones were different lengths, but the joints all matched. The mystery of this similarity was answered by evolution perfectly, and better than creation ever did.
@@frankiehouse2364 if he's so great at designing, why are more than 99% of species extinct? Or how badly designed humans are. How many thousands die every year because we eat and breathe with the same hole? But that kind of bad but functional arrangement makes sense with evolution
@@alexmcd378 Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. Noah's flood killed everything not on Noah's Ark. Humans are designed perfectly. It wasn't until man's sin that death came into the world. God pays us in death for our sin - it's our wages. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
@@frankiehouse2364 so your argument is, "don't old book says a thing"? Not very convincing. And again, the human body is perfectly designed? Hardly. Besides the choking example, there's wisdom teeth, human eyes are built backwards, the whole blood type / pregnancy problem, the inability to produce vitamin C, the vagus nerve positioning, and more.
@@frankiehouse2364 I can quote too Surah 4:157 That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God”;-but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.
Well presented, Dave! One of your best yet, IMO. I was coming to the comment section to ask for the reading list for the papers you showed, but you already posted them in the description. So yeah, well done :)
As a computer scientist I very much liked his example of an organism being coded. What he fails to realize is that this disproves "intelligent design". If our DNA sequences were intelligently designed, they would all have a purpose. But we know that much of our DNA does nothing useful. An intelligent designer would never waste precious space with code that did nothing at all. That wouldn't be the intelligent thing to do! Hence there is no designer -- or if there is one, she's very inept. 🙂And surely he's not arguing that God is stupid!
Please show me the Christian biblical law you are shuddering about... Meaning in the new testament, which is specifically about not having laws because Christianity is not about nation states. Jesus states he fulfilled the old laws of the torrah, so there are not nation state laws of Christianity...
@@chrismcaulay7805 Pretty much anything Old Testament. Leviticus. Numbers. Corinthians…take your pick. The “Christians” in government are OT preachers. Good luck convincing them that three quarters of the people in this country do NOT want the proposals in Project 2025
To add my bit here: my chair was in economics so I have no relevant training but what do you expect from Cambridge? Keep up the outstanding work. Exposing what are clearly deliberate lies is important. If someone has to lie to make his case, he has no case.
I've practically developed an addiction for people systematically debunking creationist liars. When will the next video be up, Dave? I know you said this month, but alas, I'm a bit impatient.
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsI have no doubt about that. Could you, if possible, reveal what the other debunk pertains to? I may have given the impression that I only enjoy debunks of Creationists, but that's not true; I enjoy a debunk of any conman.
52:47 As a programmer, I cringe everytime they use that analogy of random code... My creationists "friends", Machine Learning is a big topic right now. One of the many different ways a machine can learn is through "Genetic Algorithms" that, hear hear, they introduce random changes that are selected or discarded by another part of the algorithm. You know, like mutations and natural selection to which they took inspiration. The result are mind boggling amazing tools. And before you said, my creationist "friend", _"but the algorithm that selects the random changes created by a mind..."_ look into reinforced learning or competitive learning... To be honest, my field is not really into Machine Learning, but it doesn't take much to see that incredible results can emerge spontaneously, without guidance. This is done each day and it is a field evolving scaringly fast.
'..." look into reinforced learning or competitive learning...' is also created by a mind. I'm not enjoying to break it to you, but you will not come out of this dilemma. Please don't be angry.
@@swenmeinert3967 Reinforced learning is an algorithm that feed another algorithm that then generates a result that start the process again. What generative ai is doing today, is not guided nor defined by the coders, is emergent properties of a network we don't even fully understand. So...
My favorite thing about this video is that the overwhelming bombardment of facts leave no room for denial. The only answer a creationist can have is to simply ignore the onslaught while their eyes glaze over and a biblical fairy tale repeats in their head like Steamboat Willy. It's impossible to answer any of the things addressed in this video because the only way to deny it is to deny reality itself.
I checked out the paper referenced at 1:08:34 and they added a disclaimer: "The Journal of Theoretical Biology and its co-Chief Editors do not endorse in any way the ideology of nor reasoning behind the concept of intelligent design. Since the publication of the paper it has now become evident that the authors are connected to a creationist group (although their addresses are given on the paper as departments in bona fide universities). We were unaware of this fact while the paper was being reviewed. Moreover, the keywords “intelligent design” were added by the authors after the review process during the proofing stage and we were unaware of this action by the authors. We have removed these from the online version of this paper. We believe that intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the Journal of Theoretical Biology."
Part of me wants to say "if only I knew these things earlier in life," but no, that would just have added to the pile of information I had to deny as a YEC. Despite its excellence, I don't know if this video (and the larger series) will convince any true believers, because the actual evidence is downstream from the reason why they want to remain convinced. However, I'm finding it all very educational, and it allows me to clean the last creationist cobwebs that I didn't even know about from my (hopefully increasingly less addled) brain. Thank you for your exhaustive research and great presentation.
Another wonderful dip into "The Guy Without a PhDs'" fantastic explanatory powers! I was completely oblivious of the D.I. until this series popped up in my suggested list (TH-cam spooks known me so well!) and btw - I hardly recognised Prof Dave with his new haircut. An immense amount of research to put just this one video together let alone a series - full credit to you. However; I must say that I, along with most Brits my age - grew up in religion of some sort - it was an expected thing, If you weren't one or the other, the rest of society were instantly suspicious. Every boy and girl eventually got it together in a church or a living hell followed you forever! Readers might find it difficult to believe that my mum - only my mum mark you, not my dad too - was "churched" after she had me - to purge her from the terrible sin of sexual hanky panky that she might have actually enjoyed for a few minutes before getting back to being chained to the kitchen sink and the cook stove. I had to attend Sunday school from an early age - just over four - just kids stuff to start, sitting listening to bible stories and then drawing pictures about them. I was pretty good at art even then so drew my idea of heaven full of animals - after all our milk was delivered by a guy driving a horse - and the baker had another. I'd had measles that year (very dangerous back then) and while in bed little birds leaned over the guttering so I drew them all. One of the Teachers was a dark greasey looking bloke who probably lived under a rock, he didn't so much as have dandruff - as snowdrifts - and he smelt aweful. He siddled up to me and said "that's a very good drawing, my boy - but there are no animals in Heaven - only people - animals don't have souls." I can recall my exact feelings 70 odd years later - the dizziness, the thumping in my ears - I pushed him out of the way, shot out the door and never went back! Top marks to my parents for backing me up and keeping me at home. Of course, I had to toe the line in senior school and attend morning assemblies where there were prayers and hymns sung - we also had to troop along to church on occasions. I became fascinated with the whole idea of bishops & vicars, holy water and such stuff - so much so that I made it my business to find out what went on up at the altar - through the secret rood screen - Absolutely sod all! I was so disappointed - I thought after all that fuss I'd at least see a few shining angels. Thus I became not only an atheist but an antitheist - these religious nutters annoy me so much.
Hi dave, I watch your videos to go to sleep as your voice is so familiar now and calms me, im really anxious and you help me sleep. But I also love what you talk about and teach. I'm a uk year 1 chemistry university student and you make me feel like humanity still has somewhat normal beings. Thanks for this video I appreciate your frequent posting x
That’s hilarious! Sometimes I’ll listen to Neil Degrasse Tyson on some nova documentary to help sleep. I close my eyes and picture what he’s talking about. And I won’t know i fell alseep till I wake up and it’s time to go to work
@@stevencorey7623 this is exactly the same for me I wake up and I'm 8 hours into playlists. And I'll partially wake listening to something and semi dream of it
@@ohitsbaby I don’t let my phone play that long. Just roughly a hour long. I don’t want to use up all my data and my shit is slow till the new cycle comes in lmao! I don’t have internet installed in my own house yet! Lol five years owning it and still didn’t get it. I just work to much why waste internet monthly money, you know.
As a lifelong computer programmer (nearly 40 years as of this comment), his references to coding is so painfully idiotic that I want to beat him with a programming manual.
I love your debunking content. You do a very good job using all of the experience you have creating educational content to make videos that thoroughly debunk popular pseudoscience. My only complaint is that there isn't more of this content.
This video has been lurking in one corner of my screen and every single time I see Meyer's face, for a brief second I think it's Dwight from The Office.
Hey Dave, with ongoing increase of gas prices and the fossil fuel v renewable resource argument continuing on, do you think you could do a “debunking renewable resource myths” series, similar to your videos on water? I appreciate the way you explain concepts and debunk misinformation so I feel your expertise would help against the whole “it takes more energy to make an electric car than a diesel truck” and the “renewable resources are more damaging to the environment than fossil fuels” shtick. Thanks for educating people that have fallen for pseudoscience over the years, you truly do so much for the scientific community
Shout out to the Lenski experiment. When I first read about it, it blew me away with its scope and importance. Now that you’re done with the Discovery “Institute”, do you mind taking down that annoying Gaia channel? Their ads are very annoying on TH-cam!
Apologist - Noun "a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial" It doesn't necessarily have to be Christianity or any religion, it can literally be any relevant topic of the modern day that other folks tend to get sensitive about. When I say "sensitive" I really mean, squeamish. To be fair, a large percentage of study in this field is fixated on Christianity.
I remember being a senior in college earning my position as an instructional manager in my Evolutionary Archaeology course, and working with the professor of that course to better it for future semesters. I will never forget the TAs contacting me regarding three young earth creationist students who submitted the same essay for a basic assignment at the beginning of the course. The TAs got the notification for plagiarism via Turnitin, and the professor and I looked further into these essays. They were exact copies of one another and were all 200 words total (essay requirement was 1,000 words) basically saying “ur all materialists, science isnt real and ur all idiots. My god is best, cuz he just is. This class is stupid, ur stupid, harm urself.” With text slang and everything. My professor and I were flabbergasted by this. We had to meet with these students individually and then she and I would meet with the TAs and convene on the next steps. In short, these students were removed from the class, and there was an internal investigation with their major program leaders, who kept them from being expelled, but didn’t protect them from the humiliation of writing to the Dean and other such punishments. I was told they dropped out of college.
I love how creationists will try to undermine the theory of evolution by claiming that the Cambrian Explosion only lasted ten million years and that's far too short for life to diversify, yet they also say the Earth was created in six thousand years flat.
Those are two different type of creationists: Old Earth Creationist will talk about like in the Cambrian, but Young Earth Creationists believe the Earth is 6000 years old or so, and the Cambrian never happened.
Denying evolution is even more ridiculous in the times, when we are literally following the evolution of a certain virus in real time. We see a wild variation of proteins that have more or less the same function, we see mutations that improve function (not lose "information"), mutations that change the behaviour, we have parallel evolution of different mutated versions that occur randomly, we see recombination of variants,... and we know the genetic sequences of every important variant out there. Even more, our own behaviour exerts selection pressure and drives the evolution forward.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey, Dave! Let me tell you briefly why videos such as this one matter. I'm a teacher in Poland. 3 months ago I wanted to find a book on evolution to add to our school library. The largest bookstore in town had only a few of these... and each and every one was junk 'science' straight from the DI playbook. I checked the publishing house, and... surprise surprise... it's a DI-affiliate. Their reach is really broad!
Naturally, I devoted an entire lesson to explaining ID, creationism and 'Kitzmiller v Dover' to my students.
Please, keep exposing those frauds!
In our public library the actual science books are jumbled together with intelligent design books.
I went to a catholic high school was taught evolution rather than that ID pseudoscience.
For more teachers like you!
@@pagedprawn3760 it depends on where u live, I also went to a catholic highschool also taught evolution because in my country I dont think u are allowed to teach otherwise in a school.
@@beertje6394 good must be same where I am from
The fact that Prof Dave directly contacts the maligned scientists was so powerful the first time I saw this video. I've since realized that this is the normal way that research is done. Since my view of science was programmed by pseudoscience propagandists, it was eye opening to realize that the big hats in science put contact information right on their publications to facilitate discussion.
Creationists: "The Cambrian explosion, lasting over 25 million years, was too quick for all the phyla to develop."
Also creationists: "4000 years was enough for barely a thousand species on the ark to diversify to over 8 million"
(Edit: upon prompting from Wes Walker I found that Meyer doesn't believe in a global flood. Sadly, this makes my meme incorrect for this context)
Ofcourse it's possible just add a little magic, oh sorry not magic... god did it :)
How can their audience just swallow such cognitive dissonance and still believe they are on the "good side"?? 🙉🙉🙉
@@Vadjong cognitive dissonance requires two thoughts... I suspect DI's main audience don't have that capacity, each idea pushes the last one out the other end.
@@andybeans5790 So a queue of length one?
@@andybeans5790 I see! It's like how you tie your left shoe and then your right shoe. Can't do it simultaneously. (When I tried, I fell over soon as I started walking.)
Calling science "Materialist Science" is like calling maths "Calculational Mathematics"
lol
You Textual Commenter!
Maths - It's just neo-numberism
non-calculational mathematics reminds me of Euclid's Elements
@@killaken2000 he didnt have any special elements bro. he was carbon hydrogen oxygen phosphorous nitrogen and sulfur just like u and me.
As a paleontologist and university professor, I truly appreciate your video. Very thorough job! By the way, the Cambrian Explosion is being referred as the Great Cambrian Biodiversification Event to stop Creationists from misrepresenting the word “explosion” for their nefarious messaging.
The DI propaganda makes me cringe. I’m glad you spent the time to debunk their insane messaging. It concerns me with interest dropping in the natural sciences at the university level that the DI propaganda will take advantage of it.
"But ... but ... it's impossible that the GCBE happened that fast!"
Your message won't get through creacrappy skulls. Creacrappers (and several other believers) refuse to accept that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion nor means that "everything came from nothing".
They only accept metaphors when it suits them.
@@marknieuweboer8099Perhaps we can stop them recruiting more gullible people into their ranks. I can see in the comments of the first video of the series thanking Dave for steering them away from intelligent design. It only matters that we keep telling the truth.
@ Bernie: that's definitely worth trying.
Very interesting that the Cambrian Explosion has been renamed. Thank you for the information.
I saw the Evolution news article on Kimberella and the Cambrian explosion and it's pretty ridiculous. They try to split hairs, stating that Kimberella isn't a true mollusc (which I believe is widely accepted) and so is not an explanation for the appearance of Cambrian molluscs. This doesn't matter much as they still admit themselves that Kimberella is a Lophotrochozoan, and thus relatively close to molluscs, showing that there were potential ancestors of the molluscs around before the Cambrian. Not to mention the Cnidarian relatives like Haootia. They also claim that there is no reason why we shouldn't have found ancestors of most Cambrian groups in the Ediacaran, which is ridiculous because Cambrian aged fossil beds have been studied for far longer than Ediacaran ones, and so it's very likely the specimens have just yet to be found.
Sorry, you probably were already aware of all of this, I just wanted to talk about my gripes with the article.
Also. The Precambrian can be described as a sampling bias, as most of the animals before this period were soft bodied, things like sponges, which aren’t great for leaving fossils. With the evolution of hard shells and spines, which are much easier to fossilize - there’s an increase in the number of fossils, not necessarily and explosion in the raw number of species.
Ćeš š
If there is not evidence, how do we know those softbodied creatures existed at that time? Do we just see imprints of them or something?
@@Gandhi_Physique they still fossilize, just not as well. Which is why there’s a sampling bias. And yes, imprinting is one type of fossilization.
@@sumo1203 Ah okay, makes sense. I do somewhat recall that from school
Sometimes we will see tracks or other evidence of life as well, like layers of rust caused by rising Oxygen levels from the first photosynthetic bacteria.
But basically, if it was free-swimming and didn't have a shell we likely don't know about it because it probably didn't fossilize. Its crazy how little we have in regards to marine fossils for things without bones or shells even as recently as the last ice age. Even something like the whale eating shark Megalodon is _only_ known from teeth and damage done to whale skeletons since cartilage doesn't fossilize well.
You’re taking on a beast, one that was made a huge part of my Christian education growing up. Thankfully I’ve pulled myself out of those dark ages and I seriously enjoy your content
👍I’m glad for your sake!
Congratulations and my sympathies.
Nobody should have to suffer the stupidity of ID and it's clueless proponents.
did u use to believe the earth is 6000 years old? i did watch the professors video earlier but cant remember if thats what it was about. i cme back to reply a comment but ill probably watch it again later i watched the flat earth ones a couple times
A "beast"? More like a wet firecracker. Outside the US, this is a laughing stock.
@@jochenholle6812 lol we need y’all help at ridding our country of imbeciles
Dave doesn't have a PhD but I do and I would say that he's spot on in every criticism here.
He doesn’t have a PhD?
@@melissachagaris3152Nope, no PhD. Not that you need a PhD to be a good science communicator.
You just need to understand what you're talking about, cite your sources, and make sure your words are in line with those sources. All things which Dave does, and the people he exposes/debunks don't.
You know who else didn’t have a PhD? Michael Faraday.
@@melissachagaris3152Dave hires writers who are experts in their fields of study.
So pretty much the same as Kent Honvid.
Professor Dave knows that people watch his take down videos the most, so he snuck a bunch of Biology lessons into the video.
Bravo Proffesor 👏
Talk about making the lesson fun am I right?
For sure, thank you Professor Dave
you know he is not really a professor. he is a hack that regurgitates pop science
I DON'T WANNA KNOW THE TRUTH! LALALALA
As a programmer, I face-palmed and winced so many times when he went on about random changes degrading code. On their own, yes, random changes can degrade code if you have enough of them, but we also have learning algorithms that can select for helpful changes, so by combining the two, we can accumulate these changes after selection so that we get improvements over time. And not all errors are bad from every point of view.
There are even TH-cam channels dedicated to these algorithms, things like having a computer learn to play Super Mario Bros and other games. We even use such things to help better understand biological evolution.
And on top of that, information in a computer is not at all the same thing as information in genes in terms of how they originate. The only things in common are that you have patterned sequences and something capable of turning those patterned sequences into something “useful” based on the specific patterns present. That’s all that information is. And since patterns occur naturally all the time, and chemistry is a thing, the idea that some information of some kind can’t occur naturally is completely unfounded.
It's also funny to me that he ends up alluding to evolutionary algorithms, which work of course.
Also the entire existence of NEAT algorithms for Ai. Mind touching more on this?
@@lizzard13666
Neither, though the former is more accurate than the latter. Really, learning algorithms aren’t a great analogy for evolution, so they shouldn’t be used to conclude what evolution cannot do or requires, nor how it actually occurred in real-life. They are a good demonstration of the general principles, though: both utilize something capable of replication with small, random differences and a set of rules to establish “fitness” (where those rules come from is irrelevant) to get large changes over time. They can act as a proof of concept, so to speak. However, like all analogies, this is not a perfect equality, so one should always be careful before drawing conclusions based on this analogy.
But that wasn’t my point. Even disregarding the flaws in the analogy, the claims being made about computer programs and information are flat-out wrong, so even if computer algorithms are a good enough analogy to draw conclusions, the specific arguments this guy uses to claim evolution by natural causes is impossible are completely absurd.
Specifically, I used learning algorithms as an example of random changes in a computer program accumulating over time that don’t lead to the program not working properly in order to refute the assertion that random changes or accumulations of random changes are necessarily bad in computer software. This doesn’t necessarily prove evolution correct (since they are not evolution per se), but they do show that this argument against evolution falls flat.
After that, I pointed out that “information” in computer science is not the same as “information” in information science or other contexts, and both are distinct from how the term is used colloquially. As such, even if the guy was right about information in software, that wouldn’t say anything about information in chemistry or biology since they are very different concepts. Thus, the argument is invalid. Not that it really matters much since the premise is so obviously false to begin with, but I still wanted to point that out.
@@lizzard13666 well, learning algorithms are designed to work towards a particular goal, but they spontaneously develop themselves.
@@lizzard13666 no, no it's not. Simply matter arranged in a way that achieves some function is information. It doesn't need to cone from humans. Let's get our human centrism aside. The universe will operate just as well if we never existed.
Been looking forward to part 2, the fact that this guy, who I've been seeing so much lately on youtube, is in the spotlight makes it even better
I never see him on TH-cam ........ hah, hah. I have trained my algorithm !
Interesting - I don’t think I’ve come across him before. Is there some reason he’s been showing up a lot lately? Some new hypothesis or something?
Thank you for you hard work shedding light on all these frauds. Just a small token of my appreciation.
Thanks for the generous support!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Would you be willing to debate a guy named Witsit Gets It? He claims he messaged you and you backed out of the debate. I would love to see you crush this guy. He makes a lot of claims but never brings any evidence for them.
That's a really cool feature. I didn't know you could do that. I love the idea of tipping a TH-cam creator. When I'm back in the black I'll have to check it out.
Just out of curiosity, are you actually from New Zealand or is it just a clever name?
@@Earthislife1031 I watched a video of him with a loudspeaker at Mt. Rushmore national park, decrying academia and the USA. Hehe.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Please do one on Johnathan Wells.
Dave, you're a legend. Your name alone strikes fear in the heart of flat earthers.
Let's not forget the fear in the hearts of charlatans, pseudoscientists, quacks, wing-nuts and so on
@NateFromNZ Such a classic.
@@alexalbuquerquerodriguesal108 where are flat earthers in the fossil record?
@NateFromNZ YES!
@@joebyrne5378 Quite possibly in the jurassic period.
Just a small token of appreciation for insisting that we all keep our critical thinking caps pulled down tight on our heads. Luv and hugs from KC
This is a titanic but extremely important tasks. I imagine this stuff can get tiring and feel futile, but your work does not go unappreciated. I absolutely love these breakdowns, and frankly, more high quality, highly educated science attuned individuals, be it teachers, professors, or researchers & lab workers, should be cooperating together to bring down these extremely dangerous and corrupt organizations
.
Yes, its more important than you might think. For the millionaires and billionaires that fund all this pseudoscience it's about generating votes for conservative political parties. Since leftist parties almost universally embrace both science and the scientific community, AND the poor and marginalized making science the enemy and generating outrage against it is a great way to protect the financial interests of the economic elite by duping poor people into voting against their economic interests.
Hey, Dave, I Just wanted to say thanks for this information. As an evangelical Christian, I was taught about the literal creation of the earth in six days by God in both school and church. Just wanted to let you know that some of us do listen. I now see Genesis as a religious rebuttal of the pagan worldview of its day, starting briefly with the Babylonians and then the Egyptians. Keep up the good work!
Hey I know you posted this a year ago but hopefully you can still see this. I’m a Christian too who was also taught a literal six days and now my view is shifting. You mention Genesis being a rebuttal, could u point me in the direction of whatever sources brought u to that conclusion? I’m very interested especially because I have a lot of very literal six day creation friends. Thx if you see this
@@jmextrom Hi, I did get a notification on this. Look into John Walton’s theory of it being a picture of a cosmic temple. Also, compare it with the creation accounts of the Egyptians and the “self-created Ra” the benben rising from the sea, then you will see the similarities and you can then draw your own conclusions. There are also bblical references to a pre-Genesis creation myth concerning Leviathan and it relates to the Babylonian accounts. I hope that helps.
My high school biology teacher used a lot of this guy's work when teaching us about evolution, and how it was divided into two types, the short-term one, which is true and correct (because obviously) and the long-term one, which was fake and crafted by evolutionists, even though the only difference was timespan. This guy used tricks and fake science to lie to us about evolution so we'd believe that God did it. I'm glad he's being brought to task here.
Was this a public school?
My high school biology teacher, when she got to the single chapter on evolution, got all pissed off and said "I don't want to teach this but they're making me so let's get through this as fast as possible"
@@eek6764 No, it was a private Christian school. They could get away with that kind of stuff easily.
@@Andrewbert109 This reminds me of a certain south park episode lol
thats absolutely insane.. glad you're not brainwashed
Came for the expose video, stayed for the science. This format is really good for getting scientific information to people who might not watch a video on the topic otherwise.
Yes! It only someone could package mathematics lessons in with some entertaining drama.
@@isidoreaerys8745 i would pay money for that-
@@isidoreaerys8745 there's the numberphile channel, for one, that you might find interesting.
WweE jack
That sums up my view exactly. Dave is simply an excellent communicator.
I am really impressed by this series.
Devastatingly thorough.
I agree - I have to watch some of the sections more than once to catch it all.
haha agreed
Forreal
I just broke my wrist whipping up crack cocaine in my kitchen
Unrelated i know, but i thought I’d tell you anyway since i know i must be doing a good job👍🏽
@@SupremeST25 U cant be fr
As someone who studied computer science, his computer code analogy physically hurt me. Anyone who has written code knows that even one random change to code will break the whole program, assuming it'll even compile; a huge chunk of any programming project is dedicated to bugfixing for a reason. Yet our DNA has about 400 mutations on average, and most of them do nothing to us, we function just fine. All this shows is that beyond the abstract level, computer code is a terrible analogy for DNA, and anyone who uses it in this literal of a way is showing that they don't know the first thing about either.
Yeah, the only way the analogy would make even the tiniest bit of sense is if the "mutations" in computer code were mostly harmless whitespace.
DAMN YOU AND YOUR LOGIC! How dare you debunk stupidity and false equivalencies. Don't you know that causes Cognitive Dissonance in these moro...err...I mean people!?!?!?
Turns out we are finding most of our DNA that was previously thought to do nothing, actually does alot. Most of it is sitting waiting for environmental factors... Also almost all mutations to active Genes result in death... This is very analogues to computer code crashing... This coming from someone with over 20 years in CS...
Never stop Dave. The world needs you . ❤
I love your debunks, especially when it comes to debunking things that are more difficult for lay people to spot as lies, like some of the electric universe stuff you covered, the quantum mysticism (as a physics student I especially loved that one) and now these creationism fairytales.
Keep it up!
Yeah, same here. Also studied physics, work in electrical engineering. That video was satisfying, also since I had come across that pseudoscience quite a few years beforehand on Twitter, having had my own turn debunking it directly to the grifters and cranks.
Wow. Physics. Ambitious. I'm nothing but a science nerd but my gf is a scientist. She studies ecology and it's INSANE the amount of studying she does. She studies before she studies so she can follow that up with some studying. I can't imagine what you physics types have to go through. Good luck to you. Whenever I drop off my son for school I always say the same thing to him. "Study hard." I guess it's one of those cheesy dad things. Lol. So, study hard.
as a (soon to be) physics student, I couldn't agree more
One thing that makes this all the more frustrating is that evolutionary biology is a fairly accessible science. I've been studying evolution for a few years (as a lay person), and am consistently surprised at how intuitive it is, once you understand the basics.
Discovery Institute's audience is capable of understanding this all for themselves, but I.D. lies encourage them to not bother.
We can see evolution in action via ring species and antibiotics but these people claim there's no evidence for it at all.
That's kind of the key to their strategy. Present their sources as authorities to be trusted, which then present a biased or dishonest case on what the science is. So that external sources that dispute their claims are never even seriously considered. And since they are representing revolutionary science, they can be portrayed as ungodly, and something to be avoided.
It's astonishingly effective in reaffirming bellies for people that actively want to distrust evolution.
No matter how intuitive, it can’t compete with how intuitive it is for religious people to think “God did it” when their basic understanding starts with “God did it”.
Can you tell a few books you read in those few years?
@@NJ-ju8fr Certainly.
I’m splitting these up into categorizes based on (imo) accessibility.
BOOKS TO START WITH:
Origin of Species* - Darwin
The Greatest Show on Earth - Dawkins
Why Evolution is True - Coyne
Your Inner Fish - Shubin
BOOKS TO READ IF YOU KNOW THE BASICS:
The Equations of Life - Cockell
The Making of the Fittest - Carroll
Endless Forms Most Beautiful - Carroll
The Blind Watchmaker - Dawkins
The Tangled Tree - Quammen
Some Assembly Required - Shubin
Genesis: The Deep Origin of Societies - Wilson
The Origins of Creativity - Wilson
(The last two books by Wilson are still wildly enjoyable without knowing much evolution, but knowing the evolutionary basics adds a deeper level of understanding in what Wilson is talking about.)
BOOKS FOR PROFICIENT LAYPEOPLE
The Selfish Gene** - Dawkins
Origins of Sex - Margulis & Sagan
Evolution: What the Fossils Say - Prothero
HELPFUL TH-camRS
Aron Ra
Dapper Dinosaur
Gutsick Gibbon
* I put Origin of Species on this list, because I found it readable and helpful. That being said, this book is 160 years old; there’s a lot we’ve learned since Darwin’s time. If you only plan on reading one book, choose something else; Origin is better used as a supplement.
**A lot of people avoid this book because they think it’s about genes for selfish behavior. It is not. Dawkins demonstrates how we might better understand gene function if we think of them AS IF they were hypothetically acting selfishly.
My standards for these fraudsters are so low that when he said 'millions' of years ago my immediate thought was 'well at least he didn't say 6000...'.
6,000 is a few orders of magnitude off from 4,500,000,000.
The effort you put into combatting ignorance and indoctrination is commendable. Even if you only open the eyes of one person, it greatly assists in the millennium-old battle between rationality and superstition.
I am an almost uneducated man. I do, however know what concerns me just not how to deal with it. Thank you Dave for taking up this fight. I will support the cause even though I don't know how. I will be watching your videos to see if there is anything I can add to protect against conspiracy theorists.
I'd say you are smart enough to know bullshit when you see it. Welcome to the fight.
Sorry, I did not mean to imply uneducated meant stupid.
@@itsjustme6632 Quite right because Meyer is undoubtedly highly educated but also profoundly stupid.
Despite making this point I do think that ad hominems are rarely helpful and Professor Dave rightly focusses on what frauds like Meyer are saying and discrediting that.
the best you can do is check in on loved ones and make sure your local community knows whats up
Stephen Meyer sounds like a slightly more well-spoken version of Matt Powell. "Mutations degrade information" is absolutely a Matt Powell-ism.
Absolutely crushing take-down, Professor Dave! Really enjoyed this debunk.
Don't mention his name. It makes my skin crawl
He even kind of looks like Matt Powell.
Who's Matt Powell?
55:13 I am a programmer and I've written genetic algorithms which do indeed work similar to the way evolution works. I had "ants" which reproduced or died based on how well they could follow crumbs on a path. Reproduction involved randomly copying sections of one or the other's code and adding occasional random mutations. This system produced highly efficient programs very rapidly compared with reproduction which just picked random code again in each generation.
Supremely awesome.
@@DarkMatterVisible Hi! Did you get anything other than an ant in the end?
... grey goo by-passing green goo
@@languageteachingtruth.6952 Obviously not, but it's not the point.
Because processing power of computers is limited we have to limit the capacity of the system to change, otherwise we would have extremly complicated and heavy data structures. No one is claming that we can simulate the whole evolutionnary on a computer. (yet, there are some intresting simulations of 2 dimensionnal biological evolution)
Often when we program genetic algorithms it boils down to : defining arrays of numbers, introducing a way to estimate the efficiency of this array to accomplish some task, then run generations of the form : estimate a bunch of array, select the bests (with a bit of randomness added), tweek the numbers a bit (using random generation) to produce a new population of arrays.
Of course it won't produce anything drastrically diffrent in such cases, because it's not what we're trying to do. Genetics algorithms are not tools to demonstrate evolution (in most cases). We take the fact that biology prooved how efficient evolution is to optimize things and we use it to solve optimization problems, that's all there is to it.
@@ecarlate59700 In other words, it is like a circular argument, at least to me: something is efficient because it is efficient?
Dave's Kent Hoving impression absolutely slaughtered me, well done, haven't laughed like that all week
"Is dis PROTISTA???!?!?!"
i almost thought it was actually kent 😭
When
@@doddermodd 51:20
@@logandabrute thanks... it's so real!
Channels like discovery science should be terminated for spreading lies for their propaganda.
Love you professor Dave ❤️
You might want to try spelling his name correctly if you're going to thank him. I don't mean to be rude, but to be frank, if I were him, I would be slightly annoyed that you spelled 'Dave' as 'dev.' Just a thought. He deserves to have his name spelled correctly. This might be some sort of inside joke or something. If that is the case, completely ignore me.
Edit: Thank you for correcting the name.
@@PubicGore Holy fuck my dude, who hurt you?
@@sirprize8572 What? How am I displaying any such behavior? Dave deserves to have his name properly spelled. I'm pretty sure that's not such an outlandish notion. Furthermore, you don't need to be so rude. All it does is display your inability to say something meaningful, which you so graciously demonstrated with that comment.
Well, Dev means god in Sanskrit.
So perhaps he’s assuming the professor’s knowledge of protoindoeuropean languages will inform him of this and he’ll take the compliment.
I disagree. Foolish ideas, and the people who espouse them should be free to do so.
It helps create dialogue.
I think it is different if you receive government funding or something like that, but everyone should be able to outright lies and say they are truth if they wish.
It's an unpopular idea, but I don't like ideas being pushed underground to fester and grow. Let them be open, and free for all to see, and they can be used to teach others the reality of the situation.
This is what I love about scientific education. Due to its pure methodology to understand rather than coerce, it needs no justification-merely to present its proofs. By teaching, all that challenges it falls to pieces.
As a former Evangelical Christian Pastor who taught confidently “the creation” myth! OMG! So embarrassing to think back to the things I believed, said, and taught as a Bible thumping Christian! I’m thankful to be freed from that mythical BS and now looking to know what we know through evidential scientific practices!
Thanks Dave, the long history of religious meddling in our education system would be another series. Texas and Florida text book nonsense are symptoms. Hope there's a cure for it.
It can be directly linked to the Discovery Institute!
Christopher Rufo, who at the time worked for the DI, was the one who started all the current BS about CRT being part of the curriculum in public schools!
It isn’t, but it’s the DI using the same old tactics they came up with when they started out with the Wedge Strategy!
It’s all about undermining public education!
@@gorillaguerillaDK It can be linked back to stupid god ideas, childish beleifs and overbearing "leaders" with no soles, or smelly soles and dirty socks.
We know, and that is fact.
Tell me about it! Texas product
Florida native. Twelve years Catholic school in the 60s and 70s. Never believed in or was taught any of this ID/Creationist crap. Never had any public school friends who were taught ID or creatardism either.
Why? Florida was a Blue state back then.
Elections matter. Vote!
@@petem.3719 the Vatican recognized science works a long time ago, it was subtle and never bragged on but their schools tend to have better STEM classes overall. Then there are the other sects that do not respect human knowledge, to be polite.
I say this sincerely, and without animosity toward Professor Dave, but I believe that some of these people spouting these Creationist ideologies are simply living in such a huge echo chamber that they don't even realize that they are willfully blind to literally all of science.
I say this because Professor Dave has shared before that he was not raised religious. It is impossible to know the depth and breadth of the social, educational, ideological, professional echo chamber that many people raised fundamentalists find themselves in. Some people genuinely go their entire lives without encountering differing opinions and ideas to what The Church tells them to believe. And those that do often excuse it away as temptation, falsities, and or "of the world".
I don't rule out malice on these fools' part. That is highly likely. However, the sheer size of the blinders that many fundamentalist and creationist people put on, even people who have attained higher degrees, it astonishing. With that, the undeniable ability of our minds to simply ignore, then discount, then entirely forget information that we do not agree with or like effectively keeps people in their bubble of "knowledge". It's uncomfortable to question your fundamental ideals, so why do it?
I say this all because I was raised fundamentalist and know the extent of the brainwashing that happens. From the very first things we learn. The media we consume. The friends we are allowed to have, to the very ideas we are allowed to even question or entertain. Imagine being so indoctrinated in a belief that you consider suicide to be the only sure way to go to heaven, because as you get older you'll be more inclined to sin and have more opportunity to do so, thus risking eternal damnation to hell, so just off yourself now while you're nice and young and innocent. That is how so many people are raised.
Anyways, that's my 2 cents. I think what Professor Dave is doing here is amazing. I hear something new from every one of his videos (Fossilized embryos?!? Simply awesome!), and I enjoy basking in the warmth of learning new things.
People don't understand that the existence of God and the historicity of the Bible is taught just like any ordinary scientific factoid or history class. How many of us can reliably reproduce a test to prove speciation from natural selection, for instance? How many of us have measured the cosmic background radiation using our own handmade devices before accepting the Big Bang theory?
If you aren't skeptical about whether George Washington really existed, then you would never have been skeptical that Moses spoke to God if you were raised in those communities.
I think what you refer to is very relevant to apply to the average man on the street that might believe creationist claims.
I have heard more than a few folks talk about how they have extensively studied evolution. Only to discover that the study consists solely of Christian propaganda.
That said, the accusations of dishonesty should be leveled at the sources of the propaganda. People that actually have been exposed to the relevant science, and then set themselves up as an authority on subjects that they can reasonably be expected to understand well.
One thing I will add, is that accusing someone of dishonesty in a subject they shouldn't be considered an expert in, should be rather pointless.
Dishonesty when the person should have some credibility and expertise, is when it becomes relevant.
Accusations of dishonesty are controversial and challenging to demonstrate. Sadly, folks in the business of YEC pseudo science, are engaged in enough dishonesty, that it's not so hard to call them out.
I do agree about the sense that bias can color what people learn quite a bit, but things sometimes go further than that can justify.
I'm glad you found your way out of that religion.
You are absolutely correct. You literally must physically remove yourself from that bubble to survive…and then be able to survive the distancing. It is extremely difficult to do.
@@stevewebber707 I think for me it's just assuming malice instead of a combination of fundamentalist brainwashing literally their entire life, as well as willful ignorance and isolation.
Ultimately I'm inclined to believe there is intentional and purposeful dishonesty on the part of the DI. But for the sake of swaying skeptics and people on the fence, I think being so antagonistic is not helpful.
Again, just my opinion, knowing full well that I am in a completely different place in life than Professor Dave here, and that I likely have a very different way of handling conflict and confrontation.
@@lucyferos205 Yes, exactly. As I said, I was raised fundamentalist. I was also home schooled. All of my science "classes" were from YEC "textbooks" that did their best to completely skew the reader's mind towards YEC.
Anything other than those sources was considered foolish, unscientific, and at worst, Satanic.
Is it any wonder so many people are so ignorant of or fully against science?
i will never understand why these people make out being descended from very simple organisms to be shameful or somehow worse than our spontaneous appearance. it fills me with awe. it makes me feel connected to everything on earth. There's nothing shameful about being part of nature. it doesn't need to be divine to be beautiful.
Well said, or, beautifully put.
There is grandeur in this view of life.
Although a nice picture, the problem is that it's not what their holy book says.
Yet they rejoice at the idea of being descendants of incest and being made of dirt and stolen organs
Amen , brother! Just kidding. But i 100% feel the same way as you. I don't get why there must be a god, for us to love each other and the planet and all the other live we share this planet with...
Well unfortunately Steven Meyer was just on Joe Rogan. Any chance you would be willing to do another quick debunk?
Are you fucking serious?
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsI know it sounds bothersome, but Joe’s audience is big and I think it would be good to hear you break down and debunk the specific things he was saying in the Rogan’s podcast.
I posted the link of Dave's debunking video on JR Meyer's interview, just to remind people that this charlatan was demystified long ago.
@@S-L-Ji doubt that would work since youtube deletes most comments with links
@@luchalegend2185 thanks for that reminder, but I've checked it minutes ago and the link is still there (I've posted it 5days ago)
Finally, a mention of The Wedge Document.
You can find it online. Definitely worth a read.
I will! Thanks for the recommendation :)
I would, but I need my braincells for other things.
Great work Professor Dave, TY. These creationists are not only stupid, they are dishonest as well. The activity they do is called lyingforjesus.
That's called a Hovind's Wager.
Is it at all like rapping for Jesus?
@@Daito8 Oh, you used "p" twice?
I thought you might have been referring to Christian expectations of female subservience.
You should try some faith believers that do NOT disagree with science at all. I won’t make the case for theology at all because I believe it to be personal AND not something that can be proven. However, many of us do not subscribe to this human-like deity that many other believers do. Much love. Spread truth.
@@JCMthebrand All faith believers I have interacted with except one denies science or realty. So I know there are believers that don't let their unjustified belief in a deity decide what science they accept.
Thanks for this thorough and exhaustive video. I will show my kids this when they are older to learn to spot this kind of ID rubbish.
THANK YOU for bringing up the software thing. The DI love to use that analogy, and clearly don't have anyone studied in software development reading their stuff. I remember Michael Egnor saying something in his debate with Matt Dillahunty like "emergence is just something we don't expect" to dismiss it. Never mind that we use algorithms designed to leverage emergence to optimize the solution to a problem.
Fun fact. There is a type of self modifying code literally called a "genetic algorithm" that tries a set random values for parameters in accomplishing a task, evaluates the results in a fitness function, takes the best ones, combines them together to create new parameter sets with a mix of the traits biased towards the most successful ones from the last round, and repeats.
This technique was developed, but it often found local, rather than global maxima, so people literally put in a mutator function that randomly makes more drastic changes, the vast majority of which are harmful and are discarded quickly, but occasionally find another a point that slopes towards an even greater local maximum.
Computer Scientists discovered that a system modelled after evolution is actually GREAT at optimizing for solving a problem given a set of conditions.
Yeah, NEAT! I've seen plenty of YT vids on people using it for thier projects.
As a programmer, I can tell you that the mind can "degrade information" just as much as randomly shoving in uncompilable code. We have linters and other automatic processes that check our code to make sure it's valid, and the compiler will do the same and chuck it out when it's not compatible. Furthermore, we introduce bugs into our code all the time, which degrades its performance and overall function. Sometimes albeit rarely, bugs--unintended behavior of the code--result in behavior that users like and so we keep them. An environment that weeds out unsustainable / unworkable members and sometimes promotes random unintended occurrences within it, all without and sometimes even in direct opposition to the "intelligence" that created those members? Sounds a bit like selection to me. /bigThink
PS: I say this mostly in jest and not as a tenable metaphor since computer code is something that humans invented and so will always trace back to "intelligence" being its creator which is demonstrably true.
The kludge method.
reminds me of a specific thing in video games
one game called ultrakill allowed a ricochet shot from parrying your own shotgun bullet, it wasnt intended but when the developer heard of it, he kept it! it was very fun overall and a bonus for everyone
on the other hand, in cod black ops 3 was the release of Der Eisendrache which was the first dlc in the game, there was an unintended bug that would soft lock you in the easter egg boss area and you wouldn't be able to finish the easter egg at all
guess how quickly it was fixed xD
Yeah, if bugs degraded the code that easily, they'd be a lot easier to find. Back in the day there was a testing technique called bebugging, where a team put errors into code (like changing the limit of a for loop) and gave it to the testing team. The percentage of the inserted bug found was an indicator of the percent of real bugs found. Clearly the inserted bugs didn't cause immediate core dumps.
I always appreciate how Dave points out how certain concepts can be refuted with high school biology (etc, or physics in the flat earth videos). I have no formal science education past 11th grade but even that is enough to see the holes in many creationist arguments. So no you definitely don't need an academic pedigree to understand and disprove these flimsy arguments.
That's true but on the other hand, having that level of comprehension is where these people bank on as well. Which means its audience is just as easily swayed back with a convincing story. And theirs has the added bonus of: "If you believe this, you will go to heaven". That makes it very hard to combat, no matter how correct you are.
It's more about the willingness to accept a story that sounds good than anything else. It has already been proven numerous times that conspiracy theorists can believe in two completely contradictory theories, as long as they are both things they would like to be true. You could argue that critical thinking plays no part in that whatsoever.
My high school science education was self-directed out of ACE Curriculum workbooks, so i started with a severe handicap
@@P1nkR which came first? Blood, blood vessels, or the heart? or which of these came first; male or female?
@@jasonhed Someone already answered this question for you. What are you doing?
@@patrickderp1044 So the theory of evolution is a huge world wide conspiracy perpetuated by scientists throughout the entire world and of all the different types of science?
This must have taken a ridiculous amount of work to put together and as always you deliver all the right information in a way that makes it possible to digest even for those without the background in the material. Thanks for putting so much effort into shining a light on these charlatans.
I find myself watching so many of your videos.I stumbled apon you debunking flat earther's a few year ago now, I thought the idea of the earth being flat was hilarious and was really interesting in learning about why it wasn't possible through your videos. This lead me to more of your videos where I found you debating Kent hovind, I was still Christian at the time and I had never seen someone like Mr hovind before. I was raised Baptist and couldn't even remember if I had ever learned about evolution. After watching your videos it sparked something me. It made want to learn. I Looked up more videos that that involved Kent and found Mr aron ra, between his channel and yours I became comfortable with leaving my faith behind. I realize how much nonsense I was believing and how little I actually knew. I couldn't be more thankful for channels like this and aron's
Nearly 50 years old and Im still realising how much being raised in a fundamental Christian education system has ruined my life…
I turned 18 earlier this week and I've been digging myself out of this too.
Hi, Dave.. I wanted to express my gratitude for these videos that you're making here. I am a videographer and animator my self and I work in a science museum and I know it takes a lot of work to make 1 of these thing s. Specially to do it in the way you've done it, With proper editing and well constructed presentation. Thank you! I also very much appreciate the fact that you don't fall for that both-side-ism nonsense and just present what it is you're trying to do. And you don't give any slack to the other side. That's good to see. These people are corrupting and deliberately misusing science, one of the best tools that humanity ever invented, for no good reason at all. And they should be held accountable for that. Well done, sir.
This is such a good combination of interesting, detailed, well presented information and idiotic statements. Genius entertainment. Keep it up, Dave! We need more people on YT with your skills in communicating scientific papers to a broad audience.
@@loturzelrestaurant Indeed, I agree there is a lack of action against fundamentalists and movements favouring a theocracy. But information ultimately is the start of everything. Offering a reliable source of information is becoming more and more valuable, expecially with todays biased news and echo chambers. Acting on it is a different story and in the end we need a whole reeducation of politics.
Love that Dave replies to comments. Notice that all these religious frauds will avoid anything like that - they know they might get deconstructed by a passer-by with even a minimum of knowledge and understanding of science..
Thank you, Professor Dave. As a lay person I can't really refute someone like Meyer unless I can quote a similarly learned person like yourself refuting him point by point.
From one David to another (who also happens to be a chemist): the work you're doing is absolutely insane exposing these freuds while educating the masses about real science, done by real scientist. I seriously and sincerely applaud you!!!
Freud had nothing to do with FRAUDS!
@@catofthecastle1681 hehe funy foren guy cant speak inglis gud
Pretty unique freudian slip ;)
@@JHWH213 you could def say that
Without lies, religion dies.
Intelligent Design =\= religion. ID has many religious critics. Dr. Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller being two notable ones among many.
@@bman5257 ID is religiously motivated. You're blind, deaf, an idiot, or all three if you can't recognize it
@@bman5257 It very much is religion, or at least a claim that is part of religion. Being criticized by other religious people does not mean it can't be a religious idea itself, as is shown by literally every religion having critics whom are themselves religious.
ID only exists because religion exists.
@@gwit4051 The not equals was meant to show that they’re not identical. Not that you couldn’t predicate one of the other. Yes I would agree with you that Intelligent Design proponents are often religious but that doesn’t mean all religious people support ID.
@@bman5257 I guess, but I also don't think that is what the original comment meant.
It's called the "Wedge Document" for the strategy outlining that creating just a little doubt in established science, ie a 'Wedge' in the 'Trunk', can bring down the whole of the 'Tree' of established science; upon release it achieved some notoriety for that blatantly underhanded attack on science, and this really deserves a mention in any videos discussing it.
As an ex muslim my schollar tried to convince me to come back to islam by giving me a copy of signature in the cell by Meyers.
i was too smart to fall for the bs of that book. Cause during my mulltiple debate with set schollar beforehand I had learned how disingenuous these preacher are and how far they are willing to go in order to lie for
their religon.
Why dont he write Twilight for men instead of pseudo science for theists?
Lmao! Glad you weren’t duped - loved the joke 😂
Your channel is like an oasis in a desert of misinformation and ignorance. Thank you, Dave.
@@MrCallidus Ok champ 👍
It gets really silly when you take these creationist arguments to their ultimate goal. It basically amounts to "I found a tiny gap in the fossil record, therefore Jesus Christ is your lord and savior".
@Skydaddy Myth-Busters 👍
That's the 7th day gap when God rested.... cmon erryone kno daht
There's no need to apologize for going too in-depth. It's not hard to de-bunk creationists, but you teaching the details (particularly the Cambrian era stuff) is what made this video so interesting!
I wonder if the DI or it's friends will make a blogpost about this video too? lol
Haven't finished watching yet but I can tell this is going to be a brillant video Prof Dave! Kudos to you for fighting against the tidal wave of pseudoscience sweeping humanity from the internet!!!
Oh they definitely will. Damage control.
Lol is there a blog post addressing the first video?? I tried searching. Please share if anyone has it
Yes, it's on "Uncommon Descent", a blog run by some underlings.
@@sumo1203 check the community tab on Professor Dave's channel I think he posted it there some time ago
@@sumo1203 "addressing" is a liberal description.
It's really them just trying to cast doubt on Dave's credentials to desperately avoid actually addressing the fact that Luskin is an outright proven liar.
To anyone who cares, the image showing self-modifying actually is code that modifies itself. It's x86 machine code that changes a 43 byte section of memory. The image shows the start of that memory, which is 0x00201039. I don't have the time to spend right now trying to figure what the new code would be, but I'm impressed that Professor found an image showing self-modifying code. He could have grabbed a random snippet of x86 code and I would have understood. Self modifying code is very rare.
I remember feeling overwhelmed with all those organisms during my evolutionary bio course. I don't envy the amount of homework that went into this :)
In case anyone doesn't know some of the history of Signature in the Cell here it is in a nutshell:
After Meyer wrote the book it was almost universally panned by people who actually specialized in the field. Their criticism was that he was out of his depth, and misrepresented some fundamental aspects of how DNA works. I'm not a scientist, but it was clear that those who knew realized that he was full of shit.
After this he claimed that the scientific community did not "allow" people to question Evolution. This was essentially welcomed with more laughter.
As I've said, I'm not a scientist. But I have read enough to know of the deep disagreements there are in the scientific world. Even Darwin himself was reluctant to publish his finding about Evolution since he knew what people generally thought.
The thing most striking here is that science actually works because people disagree. It means that data tells us who is right. People laughed at him because he made stupid claims. Not because he was being persecuted.
Darwin was supported by Wallace, who had arrived at (broadly speaking) the same conclusions at the same time. Had Darwin not published first, Wallace would've published his ideas anyway. Yes, there was resistance to Darwin's ideas, specially from outside of scientific circles, but Darwin was not alone, and not everyone thought he was wrong. In fact, "social-Darwinism" (Social evolutionism, as was called back then) was the dominant paradigm in sociology and anthropology at the time, so it wasn't even that surprising.
@@San_Vito
TY.
I've read only a little bit about it. I think the effect some of these ideas had socially can be as big of a deal as the actual science behind them.
@@SamIAm-kz4hg I agree, and I also think that your idea "upside down" also applies: certain social contexts (or some ideas that that society holds at the time) can have an effect on which scientific ideas/explanations come up. Not in a rigid, deterministic way, but in a soft social-conditioning one.
@@San_Vito darwin was dubious about his own theory..He said so himself
Nice! Just saw part 1 yesterday and here we are, thanks Dave!
“Churchy McMoneyBags” - slayed me
The 'who put the information there?' question is so bad that it qualifies as 'not even wrong'. _We_ do, because 'information' is _our description_ of what's there, it isn't a 'thing' that's out there existing independently of us.
I've found out that some scientists have applied information theory to evolution since the 1950's. I'd wish Prof Dave and Forrest Valkai would make a video about it. Because I'm tired of creacrap lies about this topic.
I noticed that a lot of Creationism videos have started disabling the comments section. I wonder why?
Because they're getting dunked on and they can't respond to the criticisms. They also want to insulate their viewers from those criticisms.
In other words they can dish out their views, and criticisms, but can't handle the reciprocation.
@@PortmanRd yep, that's the idea.
Quite possibly the best pseudoscience debunk I've ever seen. You've won a subscriber here.
Thanks for your work on your content. It has a mental and emotional impact on my life.
As I’m doing the tasks of my day I’ll let your videos play. Or if I need to unwind.
So the work you do is more than educational, it really helps people.
Thank you!
I do and feel the same way!
These lectures are beyond interesting. I think they are an important contribution to the historical record. Future generations need to see just how appalling the Discovery Institute was, in the eyes of real scientists.
You mean butcherings. That's exactly what Dave is doing to these folk at DI
When I was small, I counted all the joints in my dog's foreleg while he slept, and compared it to my arm. The bones were different lengths, but the joints all matched. The mystery of this similarity was answered by evolution perfectly, and better than creation ever did.
Same designer! God is great!
@@frankiehouse2364 if he's so great at designing, why are more than 99% of species extinct? Or how badly designed humans are. How many thousands die every year because we eat and breathe with the same hole? But that kind of bad but functional arrangement makes sense with evolution
@@alexmcd378 Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Noah's flood killed everything not on Noah's Ark.
Humans are designed perfectly. It wasn't until man's sin that death came into the world. God pays us in death for our sin - it's our wages.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
@@frankiehouse2364 so your argument is, "don't old book says a thing"? Not very convincing. And again, the human body is perfectly designed? Hardly. Besides the choking example, there's wisdom teeth, human eyes are built backwards, the whole blood type / pregnancy problem, the inability to produce vitamin C, the vagus nerve positioning, and more.
@@frankiehouse2364 I can quote too
Surah 4:157 That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God”;-but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.
Me attempting to digest really complex material: "So... did scientists just give up naming the Cambrian stages after Atdabanian? Just Stage 4 huh?"
Haha I had that thought as well
What a shame that religious lies are not only allowed, we're supposed to 'respect' them too.
And "the big push" towards christian nationalism.
Yes, that's dreadful.@@AllDogsAreGoodDogs
Well presented, Dave! One of your best yet, IMO. I was coming to the comment section to ask for the reading list for the papers you showed, but you already posted them in the description. So yeah, well done :)
As a computer scientist I very much liked his example of an organism being coded. What he fails to realize is that this disproves "intelligent design".
If our DNA sequences were intelligently designed, they would all have a purpose. But we know that much of our DNA does nothing useful. An intelligent designer would never waste precious space with code that did nothing at all. That wouldn't be the intelligent thing to do! Hence there is no designer -- or if there is one, she's very inept. 🙂And surely he's not arguing that God is stupid!
“The total integration of Biblical law into our lives...”
Please show me the Christian biblical law you are shuddering about... Meaning in the new testament, which is specifically about not having laws because Christianity is not about nation states. Jesus states he fulfilled the old laws of the torrah, so there are not nation state laws of Christianity...
@@chrismcaulay7805 Pretty much anything Old Testament. Leviticus. Numbers. Corinthians…take your pick. The “Christians” in government are OT preachers. Good luck convincing them that three quarters of the people in this country do NOT want the proposals in Project 2025
I never thought that the author of the Twilight series would be this depraved and lacking in integrity. Thank you for your service.
😂
To add my bit here: my chair was in economics so I have no relevant training but what do you expect from Cambridge? Keep up the outstanding work. Exposing what are clearly deliberate lies is important. If someone has to lie to make his case, he has no case.
Wow, I never knew she/he was a transsexual. 🤣
I love that I not only get to watch you destroy these fools, I get to learn things along the way. It's magnificent!
I've practically developed an addiction for people systematically debunking creationist liars. When will the next video be up, Dave? I know you said this month, but alas, I'm a bit impatient.
I'm wrapping up another debunk and then I will work on the next DI one! Sorry, probably about a month. But it'll be a good one!
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsI have no doubt about that. Could you, if possible, reveal what the other debunk pertains to? I may have given the impression that I only enjoy debunks of Creationists, but that's not true; I enjoy a debunk of any conman.
Wal Thornhill and Thunderbolts Project.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Awesome. Looking forward to it.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains so they didn't learn their lesson after your several thorough debunks? not surprising
52:47 As a programmer, I cringe everytime they use that analogy of random code... My creationists "friends", Machine Learning is a big topic right now. One of the many different ways a machine can learn is through "Genetic Algorithms" that, hear hear, they introduce random changes that are selected or discarded by another part of the algorithm. You know, like mutations and natural selection to which they took inspiration. The result are mind boggling amazing tools.
And before you said, my creationist "friend", _"but the algorithm that selects the random changes created by a mind..."_ look into reinforced learning or competitive learning...
To be honest, my field is not really into Machine Learning, but it doesn't take much to see that incredible results can emerge spontaneously, without guidance. This is done each day and it is a field evolving scaringly fast.
'..." look into reinforced learning or competitive learning...' is also created by a mind. I'm not enjoying to break it to you, but you will not come out of this dilemma. Please don't be angry.
Except this is not 'functional code'. Pay close attention to the words they use
@@swenmeinert3967 Reinforced learning is an algorithm that feed another algorithm that then generates a result that start the process again.
What generative ai is doing today, is not guided nor defined by the coders, is emergent properties of a network we don't even fully understand. So...
@@biigsmokee I didn't use this term, functional code. Do you know what functional code even is?
@@DanieleNiero So I just have to buy a computer, switch it on and it’s just a matter of time that this will emerge?
My favorite thing about this video is that the overwhelming bombardment of facts leave no room for denial. The only answer a creationist can have is to simply ignore the onslaught while their eyes glaze over and a biblical fairy tale repeats in their head like Steamboat Willy. It's impossible to answer any of the things addressed in this video because the only way to deny it is to deny reality itself.
I checked out the paper referenced at 1:08:34 and they added a disclaimer:
"The Journal of Theoretical Biology and its co-Chief Editors do not endorse in any way the ideology of nor reasoning behind the concept of intelligent design. Since the publication of the paper it has now become evident that the authors are connected to a creationist group (although their addresses are given on the paper as departments in bona fide universities). We were unaware of this fact while the paper was being reviewed. Moreover, the keywords “intelligent design” were added by the authors after the review process during the proofing stage and we were unaware of this action by the authors. We have removed these from the online version of this paper. We believe that intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the Journal of Theoretical Biology."
I love that you added this to the conversation. Very sophisticated way to call out the fraud.
Part of me wants to say "if only I knew these things earlier in life," but no, that would just have added to the pile of information I had to deny as a YEC. Despite its excellence, I don't know if this video (and the larger series) will convince any true believers, because the actual evidence is downstream from the reason why they want to remain convinced. However, I'm finding it all very educational, and it allows me to clean the last creationist cobwebs that I didn't even know about from my (hopefully increasingly less addled) brain. Thank you for your exhaustive research and great presentation.
These videos are no made for hardcore creacrappers but for people with dobts, like you.
Another wonderful dip into "The Guy Without a PhDs'" fantastic explanatory powers! I was completely oblivious of the D.I. until this series popped up in my suggested list (TH-cam spooks known me so well!) and btw - I hardly recognised Prof Dave with his new haircut. An immense amount of research to put just this one video together let alone a series - full credit to you.
However; I must say that I, along with most Brits my age - grew up in religion of some sort - it was an expected thing, If you weren't one or the other, the rest of society were instantly suspicious. Every boy and girl eventually got it together in a church or a living hell followed you forever! Readers might find it difficult to believe that my mum - only my mum mark you, not my dad too - was "churched" after she had me - to purge her from the terrible sin of sexual hanky panky that she might have actually enjoyed for a few minutes before getting back to being chained to the kitchen sink and the cook stove.
I had to attend Sunday school from an early age - just over four - just kids stuff to start, sitting listening to bible stories and then drawing pictures about them. I was pretty good at art even then so drew my idea of heaven full of animals - after all our milk was delivered by a guy driving a horse - and the baker had another. I'd had measles that year (very dangerous back then) and while in bed little birds leaned over the guttering so I drew them all. One of the Teachers was a dark greasey looking bloke who probably lived under a rock, he didn't so much as have dandruff - as snowdrifts - and he smelt aweful. He siddled up to me and said "that's a very good drawing, my boy - but there are no animals in Heaven - only people - animals don't have souls." I can recall my exact feelings 70 odd years later - the dizziness, the thumping in my ears - I pushed him out of the way, shot out the door and never went back! Top marks to my parents for backing me up and keeping me at home.
Of course, I had to toe the line in senior school and attend morning assemblies where there were prayers and hymns sung - we also had to troop along to church on occasions. I became fascinated with the whole idea of bishops & vicars, holy water and such stuff - so much so that I made it my business to find out what went on up at the altar - through the secret rood screen - Absolutely sod all! I was so disappointed - I thought after all that fuss I'd at least see a few shining angels.
Thus I became not only an atheist but an antitheist - these religious nutters annoy me so much.
"We caught you lying on the internet. It's not that shocking." HILARIOUS!!!!!!
Hi dave,
I watch your videos to go to sleep as your voice is so familiar now and calms me, im really anxious and you help me sleep. But I also love what you talk about and teach. I'm a uk year 1 chemistry university student and you make me feel like humanity still has somewhat normal beings. Thanks for this video I appreciate your frequent posting x
That’s hilarious! Sometimes I’ll listen to Neil Degrasse Tyson on some nova documentary to help sleep. I close my eyes and picture what he’s talking about. And I won’t know i fell alseep till I wake up and it’s time to go to work
@@stevencorey7623 this is exactly the same for me I wake up and I'm 8 hours into playlists. And I'll partially wake listening to something and semi dream of it
@@ohitsbaby I don’t let my phone play that long. Just roughly a hour long. I don’t want to use up all my data and my shit is slow till the new cycle comes in lmao! I don’t have internet installed in my own house yet! Lol five years owning it and still didn’t get it. I just work to much why waste internet monthly money, you know.
Every time I see Stephen Meyer I think of that big kid Stuart from Mad TV lmao
Hahahahahaha that’s perfect
Holy fucking shit, I just looked that up. I'm fucking dying. Someone needs to make a meme off that and send it to Meyer.
@@leobriccocola8141 Lmao..I know. Someone needs to do something with both of them the resemblance is uncanny.
LOL
As a lifelong computer programmer (nearly 40 years as of this comment), his references to coding is so painfully idiotic that I want to beat him with a programming manual.
I love your debunking content. You do a very good job using all of the experience you have creating educational content to make videos that thoroughly debunk popular pseudoscience. My only complaint is that there isn't more of this content.
I pity the trees that have to be cut down to make paper for these worthless books.
The argument that we'd all be murderers etc. if not for a vengeful god has always struck me as a tacit confession.
yep, most humans murder non-humans without any remorse, and some even murder humans
This series of videos is an important endeavor. It's a very good thing that you're doing here, Dave!
This video has been lurking in one corner of my screen and every single time I see Meyer's face, for a brief second I think it's Dwight from The Office.
I really enjoyed this video. Thank you for taking the time to create this. Well organized and researched with a great touch of dry humor
Hey Dave, with ongoing increase of gas prices and the fossil fuel v renewable resource argument continuing on, do you think you could do a “debunking renewable resource myths” series, similar to your videos on water? I appreciate the way you explain concepts and debunk misinformation so I feel your expertise would help against the whole “it takes more energy to make an electric car than a diesel truck” and the “renewable resources are more damaging to the environment than fossil fuels” shtick. Thanks for educating people that have fallen for pseudoscience over the years, you truly do so much for the scientific community
Going from learning geometry from professor dave to watch another Charloton be destroyed, math tests can wait
Shout out to the Lenski experiment. When I first read about it, it blew me away with its scope and importance.
Now that you’re done with the Discovery “Institute”, do you mind taking down that annoying Gaia channel? Their ads are very annoying on TH-cam!
Oh I'm not done with these clowns. I'm doing several more. Gaia is low hanging fruit, but maybe.
I am starting to use the word “apologist” as a synonym for “liar”.
The English words apologist and apology both have a Greek origin that can mean cheap excuse.
Not accurate. Just because these YEC apologists are frauds doesn’t mean all are. That’s lazy and biased thinking.
@@gigahorse1475 That depends on your definition of fraud.
Apologist - Noun
"a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial"
It doesn't necessarily have to be Christianity or any religion, it can literally be any relevant topic of the modern day that other folks tend to get sensitive about. When I say "sensitive" I really mean, squeamish. To be fair, a large percentage of study in this field is fixated on Christianity.
@@1aundulxaldin I use another definition.
I remember being a senior in college earning my position as an instructional manager in my Evolutionary Archaeology course, and working with the professor of that course to better it for future semesters. I will never forget the TAs contacting me regarding three young earth creationist students who submitted the same essay for a basic assignment at the beginning of the course. The TAs got the notification for plagiarism via Turnitin, and the professor and I looked further into these essays. They were exact copies of one another and were all 200 words total (essay requirement was 1,000 words) basically saying “ur all materialists, science isnt real and ur all idiots. My god is best, cuz he just is. This class is stupid, ur stupid, harm urself.” With text slang and everything. My professor and I were flabbergasted by this. We had to meet with these students individually and then she and I would meet with the TAs and convene on the next steps. In short, these students were removed from the class, and there was an internal investigation with their major program leaders, who kept them from being expelled, but didn’t protect them from the humiliation of writing to the Dean and other such punishments. I was told they dropped out of college.
I love how creationists will try to undermine the theory of evolution by claiming that the Cambrian Explosion only lasted ten million years and that's far too short for life to diversify, yet they also say the Earth was created in six thousand years flat.
The IDiots from Seattle don't claim 6000 years.
Those are two different type of creationists: Old Earth Creationist will talk about like in the Cambrian, but Young Earth Creationists believe the Earth is 6000 years old or so, and the Cambrian never happened.
Denying evolution is even more ridiculous in the times, when we are literally following the evolution of a certain virus in real time. We see a wild variation of proteins that have more or less the same function, we see mutations that improve function (not lose "information"), mutations that change the behaviour, we have parallel evolution of different mutated versions that occur randomly, we see recombination of variants,... and we know the genetic sequences of every important variant out there. Even more, our own behaviour exerts selection pressure and drives the evolution forward.
"We see a wild variation ...."
Exactly! Variation within a kind! That virus still is virus! Show me virus turning into a horse! So goes creacrap.
Well datz juz miecro evulusyun hab u seen bactaeria evulvee into Mozart? Chaeckmaet athesits
Oooooo, what's the virus?
@@vkyal5810 pfffffffft.
my dad sent me a link to "joe confronted with a logical case for god". Dave please stop Stephen
Holy moly that Kent Hovind impression was absolutely flawless I am in SHOCK
Everyone: I can't decide if I like salty debunk Professor Dave or science explainy Professor Dave better.
Professor Dave:¿Por qué no los dos?