@@mcmanustony Read first Behe's book, please, and then come here again, admitting Behe's greatness. And every follower/believer of Darwin's hypothesis is a Darwinist by definition. Ramen.
Peltdown Man refers to a set of fossils found near Piltdown, England, in 1912, which were initially thought to be the remains of a previously unknown early human. These remains, which included a skull and jawbone, were purported to bridge the gap between apes and humans, causing significant excitement and reevaluation in the scientific community regarding human evolution. However, by 1953, the fossils were exposed as a fraud through chemical analyses and other tests. It was revealed that the bones were a combination of human and orangutan parts, artificially aged and manipulated to appear ancient. The identity of the perpetrator of the Piltdown hoax has never been definitively established, though various individuals associated with the discovery have been suspected. The incident is one of the most infamous scientific frauds in history and serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of rigorous scientific methods and peer review.
When I was a young boy in a Protestant Church, I was told the same and the same example of the orangutank as an argument against Evolution. Now I am 58, and I meet with the same argument again. Well, I also know some crooks who declared that they found Noah's arc on Mount Ararat, made a few commercialy succesful videos about it and were asking money from the churches in the US to make another expedition there. Should I disavow the Bible because of them?
@@AMC2283When the people who believe the ideas are falsifying all the “evidence” to prove their theory, why would you not doubt them? If something is so obviously a scientific fact, they would’ve found real evidence, but instead they’ve just faked all the evidence. They are just as bad as the Christians who believe Genesis can be used to scientifically date the earth, etc.
You'll be waiting a long time. This guy disproved nothing! If fact he cited nothing actually supported by evidence. His claims about Darwin are inaccurate, and debunk nothing. A typical apologists hit job.
Linda your comment disappeared just as I was to provide evidence! Just because the speaker says something doesn't mean he is correct! In fact he is quite incorrect several times. Research the London underground mosquito to see an example of one species changing to another, proving that his comments are inaccurate. Darwin didn't even discuss primordial soup in his research, so that makes this guy's comments on this video seem like lies, or at least deceptive. Most of what the video says is unsupported or disputed by the science - but I'll bet you've never even looked at the science, but instead believed what you've been told? Then read up on evolution before making uneducated comments. EVERY single fossil is actually a transitional fossil if it has a difference from the previous example, but the differences from one generation to the next may even be imperceptible, and difficult to see in a fossil. Depends on lots of factors.
@@ianshand6094 @ianshand6094 let's start at 0:25 when he claims Lyell's principles have been disproved. An absolute untruth - while not all of Lyell's specific claims have withstood scrutiny, his overall approach and many of his principles remain integral to the field of geology. (Uniformitarianism, gradualism and deep time for a start) His work was the basis of a methodology that has enabled geologists to refine our understanding of Earth's geological processes. I can't give you links as TH-cam deletes them, but I've given enough info for you to look them up
great--the theory of evolution is hardly synonymous with darwin after 160 years, it's exhaustively verified, and this guy whining about how dna is magical refutes nothing
@@kevinbrummett5513 No, he's got it pretty spot on with what these people are actually saying. They don't want you reading the books that actually talk about the facts, because then you wouldn't be convinced by all their bullshit.
@@palladin1337 Yet all this BS makes real impact on medicine, vaccin and curing disease in general. Whenever has the "god-hypothesis" given us anything concrete and helpful in developping cures for diseases like cancer?
At least Darwin had the balls to admit his hypothesis could be wrong. Most lay-people today are told abiogenesis is irrefutable fact with no holes or room for improvement. Scientific progress cannot flourish against such fervent dogmatism.
@@uniqueTH-camCreatorHandle "Most lay-people today are told abiogenesis is irrefutable fact with no holes or room for improvement." ....No, no they are not. What is said about Abiogenesis, at least from people who don't have their heads buried in a book of myths written by goat farmers, is that it is currently the most plausible theory we have for how life first started on Earth. It isn't 'complete,' however, so there is definitely room for it to improve since it's a relatively recent theory. "Scientific progress cannot flourish against such fervent dogmatism." Which is why religion as a whole is largely discarded as useless when speaking about things scientifically since it's dogmatic and always behind the curve, be it scientifically or socially.
It's a tactic right out of the communist handbook by Saul Alinsky: pick a target freeze it personalize it accuse target of doing what you are actually doing Evolution deniers don't understand the science, but they do understand personal attacks. Every anti-science argument eventually assaults the character of a great scientist. They must quote from Darwin's writings in 1859 because they have no hope of standing against all we know today.
@@vromorthelilbee1 There is no "modern Darwinism". Darwin is dead. He was dead before most Soldiers of WWI were born. Please answer my question: Why does he mention Darwin? What makes him relevant?
Yes, everyone do your own research, but not from a religious oriented source. Than you will get a current understanding of how evolution is evidenced from all fields of science.
@@RenzunShark If Darwin never existed our understand of evolution would still be the same as it is. You know, all life forms have the same agenda, to survive and multiply by whatever means it can. I'm just sorry science does not have good news for the individual organism, not as far as longevity goes.
i agree, but they should do the same amount of research in both directions, there are historical accounts of Jesus and all that. There is also a ton of evidence supporting evolution. Overly biased religious people dont want to allow the fact that both could be true and that one does not completely discount the other. Biblical documents are full of metaphor, "eye witness" accounts and can be supported by non biblical text, but to say that humans did not evolve from an earlier version of hominid because the bible doesnt mention it is close minded.
0:40 This did not took me one, but two Google searches, because these lines are from _two_ letters, one to Gray (1857-06-18) and one to Huxley (1859?-06-02). Was Google broken the day Fasoli prepared for this interview?
@@l.m.892 Life is also designed…but by a natural process. Chemistry is the creative process that results in molecules self organizing into replicating structures. Nature is remarkable that way.
@@rizdekd3912 "Life is also designed…but by a natural process." Speculation without a shred of empirical evidence. "Chemistry is the creative process that results in molecules self organizing into replicating structures." Nonsense. Chemistry is a set of laws, not principles of purpose. You make chemistry sound like a platform for science fiction. "Nature is remarkable that way." In familiar atheistic style - worshiping the creation rather than the Creator.
@@rizdekd3912 "Life is also designed…but by a natural process." Natural processes don't design anything .. they obey natural laws. Surely you aren't suggesting that there is a natural law leading to biological life. Do you know what 'design' is? "Chemistry is the creative process that results in molecules self organizing into replicating structures." ideological fluff. You making Smores later? Chemistry results from investigating natural laws. It is not "a creative process". "Nature is remarkable that way." Worship the creation, rather than the Creator. What is the problem with that picture?
1. Darwin's Statements About Speculation Dr. Fasoli uses Darwin's own words to suggest that Darwin considered his theory speculative and flawed. However, while Darwin did acknowledge gaps in his theory, it is critical to recognize that he laid the groundwork for evolutionary biology, which has evolved and strengthened significantly since his time. Counterpoint: Darwin’s awareness of the gaps in his theory was not an admission of its failure, but rather a sign of scientific humility and an acknowledgment that more research was needed. Over time, modern evolutionary theory has integrated advances in genetics, molecular biology, and paleontology, addressing many of the issues that Darwin couldn't have foreseen. 2. Lack of Observed Macro-Evolution Dr. Fasoli argues that macro-evolution, or large-scale evolution, has not been observed in the laboratory and points to experiments involving E. coli and fruit flies that failed to produce new species. Counterpoint: Evolutionary processes often operate over long timescales that are difficult to replicate in a laboratory environment. However, speciation has been observed in both natural and experimental settings. For example, research on Darwin's finches in the Galápagos Islands has documented observable evolution in beak size and shape in response to environmental changes. In laboratory settings, experiments with bacteria and fruit flies have shown genetic changes that could lead to speciation given enough time. 3. The Fossil Record and Transitional Forms Fasoli claims that the fossil record doesn’t contain transitional forms, citing Darwin’s own concerns about the lack of intermediate fossils. However, modern paleontologists have found many examples of transitional fossils. Counterpoint: The fossil record is far from complete, but many transitional fossils have been discovered. Tiktaalik (fish to tetrapod), Archaeopteryx (dinosaur to bird), and various early hominids (such as Australopithecus) are just a few examples. These fossils demonstrate evolutionary transitions between major groups of organisms. The fact that not every possible transitional form is preserved does not negate the overwhelming evidence that evolution occurs. 4. Origin of Life and Abiogenesis Dr. Fasoli critiques the inability to recreate life from simple chemicals in the lab, using this to argue against the possibility of evolution. He points to the work of James Tour and other scientists who argue that the formation of life from non-life (abiogenesis) is highly improbable. Counterpoint: Abiogenesis and evolution are distinct processes. Evolution explains how life diversifies once it has begun, but abiogenesis is about how life originated. While we do not yet have a complete understanding of how life began, numerous experiments (such as the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have shown that complex organic molecules, like amino acids, can form under conditions similar to those on early Earth. The origin of life remains a subject of active research, but the inability to replicate it in a lab doesn’t disprove the theory of evolution. 5. The Second Law of Thermodynamics Fasoli argues that the second law of thermodynamics, which suggests that systems tend toward disorder, contradicts the idea that life can evolve to greater complexity. Counterpoint: The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems, and Earth is an open system. Energy from the sun drives processes on Earth, enabling the increase in complexity that we observe in biological systems. Evolution is a process that allows organisms to adapt and increase in complexity through natural selection, and it doesn't violate the second law when the Earth's open system and energy flows are taken into account. 6. Natural Selection and Mutation Dr. Fasoli claims that the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation don’t work, citing laboratory experiments that show no significant evolutionary change in organisms like bacteria and fruit flies. Counterpoint: Mutations and natural selection are key mechanisms driving evolution. While mutations can be neutral, harmful, or beneficial, those that offer a survival advantage tend to become more common in a population over time. The classic example of antibiotic resistance in bacteria is a clear demonstration of evolution in action. In nature, natural selection acts on variations, and over many generations, this leads to the adaptation of populations. 7. Fossil Record and Stability Fasoli argues that the lack of transitional fossils means that evolution is not supported by evidence, suggesting that species remain stable over time. Counterpoint: Fossil evidence does show transitional forms, but it is true that many species do remain relatively stable over time. This is expected in evolution, as not all species undergo drastic changes. Evolution is a gradual process that occurs at different rates depending on environmental pressures. Some species experience long periods of stasis, while others undergo rapid changes (punctuated equilibrium, for example, describes this phenomenon). Conclusion: Dr. Fasoli’s arguments rely on selective interpretations of scientific research and misunderstandings of core scientific principles. Evolution, as a scientific theory, is supported by a vast body of evidence from genetics, paleontology, comparative anatomy, and more. While some aspects of evolutionary theory, such as the origin of life, remain unresolved, the process of evolution itself is well-supported and continuously refined by ongoing research.
"Darwin’s awareness of the gaps in his theory was not an admission of its failure, but rather a sign of scientific humility and an acknowledgment that more research was needed." No kidding more research was needed. You could more accurately say "research was needed", as it was missing from the initial analysis. What a bunch of Darwinist propaganda. Scientific humility? More like scientific ignorance.
" Fossil evidence does show transitional forms, but it is true that many species do remain relatively stable over time." Stop avoiding the issue. Darwin said there should be a plethora of transitional forms ... They don't exist, which means Darwinian evolution doesn't exist.
You struck a cord with the primitive nay sayers. What they don't seem to comprehend or consider is that IF God created the world SO THAT it could bring forth life that could evolve into the diversity we see today, that would be a far greater feat than simply creating different life forms by hand. Their resistance to evolution is ideological, not scientific. Iit would be the difference between a mediocre programmer who is able to write many useful apps vs the truly gifted programmer who writes one AI algorithm that generates apps as needed.
@@rizdekd3912 Nonsense. There is no empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution. Like Smegol, you hold on to evolution as though it is PRECIOUS! Darwin was no scientist. Why do you pretend as though he was? Why not just be honest and admit evolution is a loser?
@ The idea that the diverse life on earth evolved instead of each individual life form being a unique creation is based on the fact that each newborn or each new sprout or clone is a unique individual, and because of genetic variation each is different than its ancestors. That is evolution and it is attested to by measurements and observations. I assume God could have created the world so it could produce life that could evolve just like he could have created the world to do many other things naturally.
@@mcmanustony What evidence exactly? Just saying "evidence" doesn't tell me anything, and evidence can be interpreted many ways through different lenses. Fossils mostly prove spontaneous creation and the great flood. Comparative anatomy proves God loves variety and that we were all created by the same God. Also there is a difference between molecules to man evolution, and simple speciation built into the DNA by God. I see you've spammed a bunch of comments with 0 evidence and all just ad homs.
@@mcmanustony Everyone knows ad hom. I read your other comments. That was the majority of them. Now you're gaslighting. Yawn, once again you present no evidence. I was already a lost evolutionist. There is no going back. Keep seething.
@@ReapingTheHarvest Clever reply. I appreciate the irony. I was a pastor in opposition to evolution. I felt like God did not have a spokesperson against evolution in essence I said, here I am, send me" . I was shocked by what I found. Christian Scientists who I had supported lied in their books. After all is said and done. GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE AND HE IS TO RECIEVE ALL THE GLORY FOR ALL THAT IS GOOD AND MAGNIFICENT IN IT. IT MAKES LITTLE DIFFERENCE IF GOD MADE A WORLD WHICH COULD GENERATE SPONTANEOUIS LIFE OR HE SIMPLY DECIDED TO SPEAK LIFE..THE LANGUAGE FOUND IN OUR DNA MUST COME FROM A MIND.OF NOTE IS THE FACT THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS A COMPLEX, UNMATCHED BY ANYTHING THE MIND OF MAN COULD DESIGN. A SIMPLE FACT BUT OBVIOUSLY FORCEFUL. THE FOSSIL RECORD HAS VERY SIMPLE LIFE FORMS, LATER VEGETATION, LATER STILL, FLOWERING FLOWERS/BUSHES/TRESS WHICH HAPPENS TO COINCIDE WITH THE FIRST BEES. ANCIENT FISH,THEN MODERN AND A MOVE FROM THE SEA TO LAND. ANPHIBIANS THEN REPTILES THEN MAMMALS all of which are NEVER FOUND IN THE MOST ANCIENT ROCKS OR LAKE DEPOSITS. Conclusion they came later since they have all been found dated in younger deposits or rock. If no evolution, did God make simple life forms then add a little something over and over to get us the present diversity of all of life? Dating is confirmed by several types of dating that seem to ALL act in harmony. I have spent thousands of hours trying to better understand the Bible. Bachelors Degree with work done at 2 conservative Bible Colleges, a Masters Degree, then I dropped out of my Doctoral program. It is OK to interpret Genesis 1-11, NOT AS HISTORICAL NARRATIVE! SCHOLARS CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL find Literary, Biblical, Historical, and Scientific arguments which can be proposed to nuance our understanding of the "genre" of historical narrative. . I am honest, I love the Lord, and am an superior student. God gave me a brain which is very inquisitive so I dig deeper then most. I am a 70-year-old retired Christian who has been passionately in Love with God since July 3rd 1976 when he sent an angel to me. I was agnostic and became a fervent Christian. God spoke these words to me. "Man is separated from me because of sin but I have sent my son into the world to bring man back into relationship with myself." Became a Christian that day then my unbelieving family became saved (8 of 9) and 4 of us became pastors! Miracle healings in my family! I was shocked but God uses evolution, it is clearly directed by him because it has a telos or purpose. God Bless and love him well.
Well that’s question begging. With what criteria did they use to study these things. They have to base that off of what Darwin’s studies were and try to build on that. If there’s so many flaws in Darwin’s work, why pursue what he was pursuing?
Our friends dug up a model of evolution that was abandoned by the scientific community over seventy years ago - and attacked it, attacked it, attacked it. Does that approach actually work?
@@JoelRichardson-l2j "What do you mean by this?" Nothing. He obviously planted this gem only to abandon it. It's like a weed, taking up space that useful plants could use..
@@gentianhila5307 But natural selection was not used because instead of bad information being removed, good information was added (Mendelian genetics).
@@hammalammadingdong6244 Single cell life is irreducibly complex. Evolutionists have no rebuttal to this... only unsubstantiated statements like "evolution is a fact".
@@maskofscience "Single cell life is irreducibly complex. " Written up as a robustly supported scientific paper, that would be a Nobel Prize winning revelation. You should get crackin'.
I log into one of these every so often hoping for some interesting critiques of modern evolutionary theory. But in this one again all I get is the same scientifically bogus arguments. One example “ life violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics “ . Wrong a) we are by definition talking about life on earth b) the earth is an open system , energy flows in from the sun and inter alia drives biomass by photosynthesis . Energy is also radiated back into space. 2nd law refers to total entropy, suns increase in entropy has vastly exceeded the earths decrease.
show me the mechanism that creates life from nothing show me throught the scientic method, observation you cant show one dam thing thats right not one, not one, come on sherlock show me with true scientific data you cant smart guy because there arnt any this from someone with 3 earned degrees with a 4.0 in grad school how about you graduated from high school yet
In a vision, God told me that open/closed doesn't matter and that "entropy" doesn't matter either. He said it's all about COMPLEXITY! He explained that the second law of COMPLEXITY shows us that evolution can't happen. Gotta go! They just took my empty dinner plate away and left me ICE CREAM!
Sometimes I think people like you wouldn’t even believe in Christianity even if you had a Time Machine went to the past, watched Jesus die and rise from the dead and then come back to the present and say “yep still don’t believe.” You simply just don’t want it to be true. Let go of your little ego.
@@ryanclour8680 Because resurrection DOES violate the second law of thermodynamics - decomposition is an irreversible process where entropy increases, which means resurrection is a process where entropy would DECREASE, thus making it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!
Darwin’s theory is NOT a myth; it’s a theory. The primary role of science is to either: 1. Prove that the theory is correct; or 2. Prove that the theory is incorrect.
@@martinroncetti4134 People forget the whole of science is conjecture that's accepted so long as it's workable, soon as a new explanation leads to better results it doesn't take long b4 everyone acts like they always knew. Judging by the amount of rule bending going on presently we're due for a lot of hot potato dropping, specifically in the astronomical community who are finding sums wrong all over the shop now the new telescopic datasets are being evaluated. They're so close to unifying everything, apart from that 95% they don't know anything about. They will keep it under their hats until it all clears itself up - no need to 'rock the boat' so's to speak..!
“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science..." "It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts.” -C. Darwin
He didn't believe it included man either and I think he was quite specific about that, whether or not anybody believes it would matter. In the greater scheme of things 'Evolution' itself doesn't matter it is merely a convenient tool to batter the student into godless thinking, just like 'adjuvants' are a convenient toxin to poison the childs brain. "You may use any theory or substance to curtail free thinking but the ones that are acceptable and effective are obviously preferable. The next qualifications are cost and expedience - time and money. If you have a weapon that is then cheap and self administered the war of minds will win itself." - every psychopathic megalomaniac, ever.
Derp...... {{"Darwin really did say this, but it is often quoted out of context to suggest that he had doubts about the validity of his theories (he didn't): ' I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science. ' Darwin is not making a general comment on his evolutionary theories. He said this in the context of a discussion with Asa Gray about a very specific problem - how to account for the existence of species of plants for which there were no, or few, closely related species. Darwin had speculated that these disjoined species would be found to come from genera which had very few species in total. This was not based on a great deal of observation however, hence it appeared to him to be unscientific. This is an example of the sort of selective reading of Darwin that is fairly common."}} Darwin project DOT ac Dot UK Quote mining and lying at their finest.
@@mcmanustony are you saying darwin didn't write that? Please educate yourself. You may be too young to know this but it is fairly common knowledge that name calling is usually the last resort of a person who has no facts or information to back his position. So by calling believers names atheists actually discredit themselves. Not only that but Christ teaches us that we will be greatly rewarded when people speak ill of us for his sake. So at the same time atheists discredit themselves they add to the believer's reward. It's a win-win, THANKS! The fact that darwinism is false should be a source of encouragement for atheists. It means you are not a random monkey mistake. It means your great, great, great... grandkids won't grow scales and swim off into the sea never to be seen again. It means you were created by the most intelligent mind in the cosmos with a loving purpose. Receive the love; declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10:9).
@@occupyreality1830 you are saying darwin didn't have any doubts but he had no way to account for certain plant species. You have not shown that darwin was correct in his hypothesis. It is not quote mining, it is quoting.
@@beesting6135 "cognitive dissonance" You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means. Please define cognitive dissonance for us and explain how it applies to Keith.
At 17:16 he says that fruit flies have failed to show any adaptation through evolution... but they have! what about the experiment that stopped them from breeding for progressively longer and longer periods (so they reproduced later) and doubled their lifespan in a fairly short amount of time!?
That's more goldfinch beak stuff. Where was new genetic information added to where you have a new type of creature. The number of generations required for one evolutionary step is getting higher and higher each year.
@@jcrodri3You're seriously (wilfully?) underestimating this. Lifespan is infamously fixed, think what people have done to try to increase it in humans. Religious people fantasise about a mythical past with sinless humans who lived for hundreds of years. Back in the real world, a greater lifespan in flies could lead to all sorts of new challenges, and therefore opportunities, especially strategies for winter survival (which flies famously fail at), which in itself would probably lead to even greater changes.
@jcrodri3 - creationists define "macro" evolution as change of kind. Like a mother giving birth to a frog. Something what is impossible. Normal people don't mention "macro evolution"
Indeed! We all go to TH-cam to gain in-depth knowledge of scientific models. (Lest someone take me literally and conclude that I'm a creationist, the above was pure sarcasm.)
A creationist calling evolution a fairytale is possibly the ultimate example of kettle calling the pot black. The bible is the biggest and original fairy story ever written.
@@richardjackson6307 It's just like a theory, just like the spherical shape of the Earth. Strangely both are supported by facts, and both contradict the Bible...
"Immaculata means "without stain," "holy," or "pure". It is a feminine name of Latin origin that is often associated with the Virgin Mary and the Immaculate Conception." Enough said about the content of this video - no purpose of education but just of breaking down existing knowledge. The purpose of channels and organisations like this is to break down the validity of every single aspect of the Theory of Evolution. They fixate on "Darwinian" which refers to the work of Darwin as it is basically the only spot where they can get their dirty fingernails into the science. To put this into perspective -it is the exact same as we would only speak about the cosmos in terms of "Galilean Cosmology" - quite ridiculous, so ask yourself why they insist on forcing the conversation to Darwin and not to the science developed since? In both cases these two men (Darwin/Galileo/Keppler) layed the ground framework for an idea about how the world around us works. The aim of the people in these kinds of videos is to stay at that level where biological evolution is concerned and disregard the many layers of new knowledege and insight we gained through 160 years of multiple disciplines of science that all confirms the Theory of Evolution. Ask yourself why do they not attack "Galilean Cosmology" or "Einsteinian Physics" or "Huttonian Geology"? Simply as none of these options directly endanger their grift the same way that Evolution does. So why do these people do this? Religion is big business, very powerful/infuential and worth protecting for them. The Theory of Evolution hammers gigantic holes into the biblical narrative which endangers the business model of religious organisations. Secondly these people glow in the stature they gain in the grift circle of conferences, podcasts, youtube channels etc where they sound "oh so clever" usually in front of uninformed audiences. One of the many patterns of these channels is to missuse qualified people who then talk about subjects outside their subject area - "buy the message just because the messenger has the right hair style". In this case - he is at least in a sort of related field and that of biochemistry. Good for him but still worrying - if he has any integrity as a scientist WHY does he not do research on these 7 scientific reasons - postulate his problems regarding them and give it a new direction based on his staggering insight and proper published research? Or even write informed replies to tens of thousands of research papers on the various aspects of the science of evolution? No sign of that I presume - it is so much easier to look clever on TH-cam while panelbeating results to fit his god-narrative. Bravo.
4:15 No, it doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'm all for disproving Darwin's theory _honestly._ Making up lies like this one only weakens your argument. Cut it out, stay scientific and truthful.
@@globalcoupledances Yes. That's why if one wants to invoke the 2nd law in the context of Darwin, one must include the Sun in the proceedings. And the Sun is the source of very low entropy. So the real mystery is why the Big Bang (assuming it did happen) was such an enormously low-entropy state. Nobody knows. Roger Penrose in his "Emperor's New Mind" book has an estimate of the probability of this happening by chance: it's about 1 in 10^10^123, an amazingly tiny chance. So what physicists are saying is, basically: "We can explain everything following that, just give us this one miracle".
@@williamsaaranen7672 As another person mentioned, one must include the Sun as a part of the system. And the Sun is a reservoir of enormously low entropy (which is utlimately traced back to the Big Bang, assuming _that_ theory is more or less correct, so _that's_ where the miracle in fact resides).
@@williamsaaranen7672 the earth is an open system, influenced for example by solar energy - affecting climate, weather, photosynthesis which all can impact reactions by organisms (like evolution :) )
I'm sure you're qualified enough to challenge his expertise right? Using notes now implies not knowing right?? The internet really protects cowards these days.
@@michaeltamajong2988 Very good. Cowards hiding behind irrelevant notes aren't actually experts. Very astute that you also spotted that. If you spot an actual expert, let me know.
@@redgodofwar7723 I disagree with atheist scientists and academics, but never will you see me go to comments to argue or discredit their intellectual achievements. I will honor the expertise because it is a fact that their level of reasoning and mine are not the same, they have more experience. But it's different with atheists. You see, someone with 0 knowledge in physics or chemistry will be questioning the intelligence of an expert scientist, a professor. It's so ridiculous.
@@redgodofwar7723 my point is, at least, we need to respect intellectual achievement and experience. It is very inappropriate to make that statement you made because you cannot stand before him intellectually. Leave it to the intellectuals in his field to critique.
Okay why did Jesus pray to God when he is God? If God can see the future before it happens then why was Jesus afraid to die was he pretending? Jesus said God why have you forsaken me? Isn't that called begging and fear of dying? If Jesus can stop people from throwing stones at a person and put in ear back on a man's head why couldn't he stop people from killing him? If he let people kill him that means he committed suicide? One of the biggest sins in the Bible is suicide! They say he died for our sins but he committed the biggest sin of all (suicide)! God will kill millions of people around the world for animals on a boat because people go against his rules! Then that means God doesn't like free will right?
Jesus prayed to His Father in heaven. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit is the Trinity. When Jesus said "My God, My God, Why have You forsaken me?" That was a song from Psalms. A direct quote of Psalms 22. It is a reference to a much longer message. Good questions.
Amazing presentation. I'm constantly trying to share this type of information with friends and family but everyone thinks I'm crazy. I wish I could speak eloquently like this man. But I know if I send the video to my friends they won't watch it
you're not crazy but you a superstitious ignoramus. what could you possibly need this guy for or to speak like him--isn't everything in your bible pal? why should they watch it if you send it--you can't talk scientifically to conclude your religion, and again, something wrong with your bible?
@@Finnegas-Eceswell let’s see pal. You and I don’t really know each other but by your own admission your friends and family think you’re crazy. So absolutely no wherewithal to think for one second that the problem really is you?
This conversation was incredibly frustrating. I was hoping for some firm reasoning and only got a terrible non relevant analogy. Where is the hard proof? If you cannot explain something simply you do not understand well enough.
The conclusion must have gone right over your head . God is the only explanation of where we come from why we are here , what we can do what is specting us at the end of times because scientifically our universe is running out of energy and is expanding and is coming to an end . The only person who knows our past present and future is God who revealed himself in his creation and his word what we call bible
What do you mean by God? There are many gods among different people. I can say I am God, I created the universe. Don't be crazy and foolish. Not every person who says I am God is God. And Jesus Christ is not God, he is just a human being. @@santoseliodoropaz9894
God won't give you proof because he's already made it obvious. The evidence is everywhere but most people just dismiss or ignore it. Our existence and the existence of snything is proof. If you really want more proof then offer yourself to Satan and allow him to possess you. It might take a few exorcisms, but at least you'll be doubt free.
@@AMC2283 evolution - the process of natural selection believed by evolutionists. That an animal or plant over time can turn into an unrelated plant or animal kind over the course of millions of years. I have looked into creationism and evolutionism, and believed in evolution to an extent as a child. But then I grew up, and looked at facts and Christ. Instead of paganism, lies and the cult mindset of evolutionists. I don't come out of no where to insult you or you beliefs like mean child. You don't have to agree with me, but at least try to be respectful with your argument. And mature, stay safe and may God bless. Viva Cristo Rey and Ave Maria.
@@josellers1376 nope, doesn’t say organisms change species, changes are hereditary. But why would you bother to learn what you’re against, it’s against your religion, that’s good enough for you.
@@AlexMahone2023 because it doesn't happen "right now", it takes incredible amounts of time and the changes are incremential, also depending on changes in the environment. Also monkeys didn't evolve into humans, it is rather that monkeys, apes and humans have common ancestors. The body of evidence collected for this is overwhelming. Just like the genre of Blues music can evolve and split into the genre of Rock'n'Roll music and into the genre of Heavy Metal music.
@@joefriday2275 There is no such thing as "genetic entropy". The number of deleterious mutations in our genome is increasing for the simple reason out modern medicine can treat them so they don't get removed by natural selection. You've only had that explained to you about a hundred times. 🙄
@@joefriday2275 Genetic load refers to the accumulation of deleterious mutations in a population over time, which can potentially reduce the population's fitness. It's true that discussions about genetic load and its implications for populations can be complex and sometimes contentious. However, it's essential to engage with scientific evidence and arguments in good faith, regardless of one's beliefs or worldview. Scientists, regardless of their personal beliefs, aim to understand the natural world through evidence-based inquiry. While interpretations of evidence may differ, the scientific community generally seeks to uncover truths about our universe through rigorous research and analysis. If you feel that certain viewpoints are being misrepresented or misunderstood, it's important to engage in respectful dialogue and encourage a deeper understanding of the scientific evidence and principles involved. Mischaracterizing scientific concepts doesn't contribute to meaningful discourse or the advancement of knowledge.
0:25 First, this very much reeks of a misquote, so please provide the exact source for this. Second, Darwin died fifty years or so before the first major revision of the Theory of Evolution, which happened a hundred years ago, so his opinion is really not relevant. If Fasoli has a degree in biochemistry he should know this.
@briangemmet3567 yes because of the short period of time, the point I'm making is huge change over a relatively short period of time, so naturally over a longer period of time there will be much more significant changes. I'm not sure why this is confusing?
Chihuahuas are just dogs mutated on purpose from ancient wild dogs. It is still a canine. No new genes are added, just traits bred out of the line. They were caused by intelligent human manipulation. In nature, the wolf would never evolve into a chihuahua wolf. It would die out early as it would be less able to survive in the wild. In billions of years, even with human selective forced breeding, it would never be able to be bred into a cat.
The theory of evolution is disputed mainly by people who are desperate to show a supernatural hand in the diversity of life. Videos like this convince no one save those already in the creationist camp.
As an honest Christian pastor I could not agree more. Science is a wonderful gift of God. By gift I mean the rational capacity we are endowed with. And if science were one day (presently very far from our abilities and understanding) find that life is spontaneous, that would be inline with a God who is life itself. His creation would simply reflect him. People choose or simply accept ignorance. I find this rather evenly distributed in atheists and in Christians. Some close their eyes to God other to science. (I was an atheist at age 14, became an agnostic soon afterwards, then a Christian about 8 years later when God spoke to me.
Waiting to see Dr. Marco Fasoli's Nobel Prize. Also waiting to see his published research on evolution... checked rather recently and found his retinue of published research on the topic to be devoid of titles. BUT, in the 1980s and 1990s he published papers where he demonstrated evolution. Curiouser and curiouser.
My fellow creationists, explain not how overwhelming evidence falsifies the theory of evolution. Explain how overwhelming evidence demonstrates that Yahweh created life's diversity.
And exlplain how Jehovah took 4.5 billion years before sending Jesus to Earth. But sadly, they cannot explain anything, because religion has zero explanatory power.
19:35 The flagellum is certainly the best known example of irreducably complexity, so there is really no excuse for Fasoli to ignore its numerous refutations. The most prominent is probably from Prof. Ken Miller, easy to find here on TH-cam. Incidentally, Jon Perry published a video on the topic just yesterday ("Darwin and Irreducible Complexity"), with some characteristically gorgeous graphics. He uses the honey bee stinger as an example. The argument itself is also false _by law,_ see Kitzmiller v Dover.
"The flagellum is certainly the best known example of irreducably complexity" Except of course as you correctly laid out with Ken Miller and the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, the flagellum is actually the best-known example of NOT being irreducibly complex.
I think it happened though "Mutation" not evolution. Mutations can happen with one single birth & if the mutation is beneficial, it survives easier and breeds easier, then that trait is immediately passed onto it's offspring. Then it might have small changes to that adaptation over time making it more streamlined. That's how something could just show up & not have a transitional structure to it's body changed over time.
@@PhilipK-xk4by Evolution is a series of super small changes over an extended period of time never once having a big change all at once... So no, not just evolution. Maybe don't make snarky comments that make you look foolish.
@@PhilipK-xk4by It's clear you have no understanding of what is being discussed. That small snippet of what I said was referring to after the original Mutation that made the big change, that change was flushed out over time afterwards.
@@PhilipK-xk4by Because it's not the same dude... Holy crap just look it up already instead fo arguing with me pointlessly. If anything Evolution is dependent on MUTATION
@ I'll take your silence as you found out I'm right. Should learn to admit it though.. Only hurting yourself. Too many people can't accept when they're wrong & it really is damaging to the social well being of all of us as a whole.
@@PhilipK-xk4by You're comprehension is the issue. I can't teach you something you can't understand the fundamentals of. I'll end this here, before it comes to the inevitable "I was trolling" claim, when you can't talk your way out of your ignorance, so you try to scape goat with that. As if that's any better 🙄
All this bluster from apologists, but we never hear scientists telling us evolution doesn't happen. Can any creationist find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix? Nothing so far.
@@James-p3m8j Your so called evidence convinced YOU! It hasn't convinced a single head of a single science department of a single one of earth's 2,000 largest universities.
@@Ozzyman200 If creation is true then so is a creator. If there is a creator, evolution, as taught", wouldn't be true. I am not talking about epigenetics, I am talking about puddle to paradise.
6:38 "Notwithstanding decades of these small bacteria reproducing every 20 minutes, they still are bacteria. They haven't become sponges, or cats or frogs and so on. " -- This tells you everything you need to know about this guy. :D
@@jaybfalcon2The bacteria evolve considerably, becoming resistant to all kinds of man-made agents. The populations that didn't adapt are now lost to most developed countries, but they still exist in the untouched wilds of the earth, so we can compare how great the change has been in such a relatively short period of time.
The bacteria lost abilities it had before. That’s how it became “resistant.” So, yes, this man speaking is making sense and this is a good example of demonstrating the opposite of evolutionary theory. They found that: 1. Bacteria that had a damaged control system for the cell membrane were surviving because that control system was producing LPS (lipopolysaccharide) which are negatively charged molecules. The antibiotic had positive charges and therefore since the negative charge on the cell membrane was now gone it wouldn’t bind to the cell anymore. However, this was a result of a broken existing function. And this would affect the bacteria because it cannot bind to other positive charges either now. And therefore cannot survive as well when the antibiotic is gone and the bacteria then has need to bind to positively charged molecules. 2. In bacteria there are “pumps” that transport nutrients into the bacteria cell. Bacteria that had a damaged pump or didn’t have any pumps were the ones surviving the antibiotic. Obviously when the antibiotic is gone though, the bacteria now is not living as long. And it’s another decrease in function. 3. Some bacteria already have the ability to create enzymes that break down antibiotics. Similar to the concept of two humans sharing DNA (a child formed)-one bacteria can share DNA with another bacteria. So they both can produce enzymes that break down antibiotics. The key point here is that for evolutionary theory to be true, we’re not talking about an existing organism sharing with another organism. What we’re talking about is one organism ON ITS OWN generating the ability to do more functions than before. This sharing between existing DNA is not evolution. At least, not what people mean when they use the word evolution. I can tell you that creationists do agree that there is the ability for organisms to be damaged and for organisms to share DNA. What we don’t agree with is that there’s any observation of organisms turning into a completely different system. You have to account for we’re talking about supposedly a scenario where there are NO other organisms. That’s what evolutionary theory is about. No other advanced organisms. Nothing to share with. And basically all we observe is organisms having copying errors-which that is the literal definition of mutations. That’s it. And again you can’t include sharing because we’re talking about NO OTHER organisms. The first organism. How does copying errors equal most advanced computer systems ever? Plus, there does seem to be a limit in the current sharing between organisms. In every observation we have ever had (so far) in science from the molecular level up there does seem to be limits on what is shared. Creationists, we acknowledge both that errors are resulting mainly in losses and also that sharing is within limits. Which these acknowledgments are purely accurately reporting what has been observed. Humans share DNA with other humans. Etc. This is even true at the molecular level. There are rules. There are limits. I work in data analytics for healthcare. I also have a background in Radiology.
Basically to simplify this-something has to organize (and generate) everything in the cell. And for the molecules to man it can’t be sharing, it can’t be already complex, it can’t be through losing function. But, everything we have observed in science is one of those categories. Which none of those are evolution. Not molecules to man which is what people mean when they say evolution. Creationists do not deny ANY scientific observation. We deny what hasn’t ever been observed.
When I was young, I suspected that believers were simply stupid. Now that I have grown up and heard some views and opinions of believers, I have removed all doubts.
Which believers are you talking about? Both camps have believers. The Creationist camp makes 1 assumption - God. The evolution camp has to make billions of assumptions in order for much to create DNA capable of producing a human.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 ugh no, because the assumption of supernatural is an epistemic that explains the existence of natural phenomena. However simply the assuming natural phenomena doesn't explain natural phenomena itself.
7:00 "They still are bacteria" - A doctorate? In biochemistry? From Cambridge? First and most obvious, "bacteria" describes a _domain_ and is literally as far removed from _species_ as you can get. I once read that half the biomass on Earth are bacteria, and if you count individuals not even the number of orders of magnitude is in the same order of magnitude. Second, "20 minutes for decades" sounds like a lot, but it's not. Not surprisingly, his number is also wrong by a factor of 10. The LTEE ran for 32 years (32x365x24x60=16819200 minutes) before taking a Covid-related break in 2020. That should have been 16819200/20=840960 generations, but they only had 73000 (Wikipedia). Even his ficticious number applied to humans (20 years) would only get us into the area of human speciation. Third, there is no strict border between species even for macrobiology. With bacteria, the concept (and its most common definition, "fertile offspring") breaks down completely. Forth, google "LTEE citrate".
Professor, life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. This low law holds for the closed systems. Life is not a closed system, life gets its energy from the Sun. This is high school stuff professor. The rest of the interview is the same. What knocked me down was the story about long living patriarchs. Unbelievable !
Not only is life not a closed system, the earth itself isn't as well. Plus, it would be prudent for this "professor" to read up on nonequilibrium thermodynamics, since it basically shows that given enough chemical varieties (an undisputed guarantee given what we currently know about the past and present earth) combined with the consummation of free energy gradience, equilibrium will be exceeded and as a consequence, chemical complexity and order are mathematically inevitable to arise, and since biology derives from chemistry, it's not irrational nor implausible to posit for the formation of life to be likewise inevitable.
Anyone else notice that he uses and anology of something he knows to be created to something he believes is created. Why not compare it to the complexity of the dynamo effect of the Earth core?
@stevedoetsch is this directed towards my comment? If so, theistic creation has never been observed. Even if a god did the creating we'd have to take their word for it. We'd have to use a different standard of scrutiny and assume they haven't lied. Science doesn't support or exclude c4eation.
Since evolution requires the extrapolation of findings in the fossil record into a world view, with no way of confirming consistency across its assertions, and no way to effectively test or reproduce its conclusions, would it not qualify as a non-falsifiable theory and be better characterized as pseudoscience?
Congratulations on getting every last thing wrong. Evolution is very consistent across all of its findings. Repeated tests on the evidence have been done and have always showed the same conclusion. Evolutionary theory is very falsifiable, it's just never been falsified. You might want to ditch the Chick Tracts and go take a science course at your local CC.
I get all that. But when I compare evolution to the type science that is accepted by everyone, I don’t see the same level of completeness or consistency. We really don’t know how the cell accomplishes the observations we make. We do know all species share at least some common DNA, some much more than others. It is clear that organisms can adopt to their environment in extremely favorable ways. We know there is a clear historical order in complexity and function throughout the fossil record. We know life began about 3.7 billion years ago. We can describe the functions of certain cellular components such as DNA, RNA, ribosomes and mitochondria. We can even modify DNA in prokaryotic organisms. Although evolution clearly plays a role in the changes we observe across all different forms of life, it is still an incomplete theory and needs more investigation at the molecular level before we can say it is a theory of life in general. That’s not an unreasonable position. However, there are aspects of evolutionary theory that obviously meet the definition of science, such as natural selection. But I don’t think all the claims of evolution are consistent with one another, principally because they address different things. For example, how life began is a different question than how life evolves, which a different question than how cellular proteins function to produce phenotypical plasticity. Evolution is not of the same category of science such as conclusions such as Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. I think we must remember that theories can never be proven as scientific fact. We don’t call it the law of evolution because there is still too much to figure out. I think people agree on much more than this silly debate suggests. If the “young earth crowd didn’t exist”, we would be having a totally different discussion. The fear that somehow science will be replaced by religion is absurd. By the way, I had to look up what Chick Tracts are and I can see it’s not but a typical ad hominem dig so I won’t provide any validation for that line of argument. It speaks for itself. As far as the local CC suggestion, another gutter ball. I don’t think that would work very well as I have an undergraduate degree at a United States top 20 university. I also have a doctoral degree and an MBA. The undergraduate and doctoral degrees are in a field of science that deals with human physiology and cellular biology. I have taught doctoral students as well. None of my credentials are relevant to the content of my comments but they do suggest a CC course would not be very informative. Although I don’t know what they teach at that level and apparently you do. But I thank you and appreciate your input.
I llove the simple hood and tunic of our dear Brother. They have not changed in thousands of years but are completely simple and functional. How beautiful!
why dos god care what people wear, they all have a silly hat, they criticise drag queens but wear frocks, you even have to cut your body to make some gods happy, but god doesn't seem to care about shoes. funny guy.
I looked up the first "quotation" by Darwin that this speaker "quoted". He says "in a letter to "Asa gray"....and then lists one quote from that letter, with another quote in a different letter to TH Huxley . The first quote is specifically in regards to the fact that he has not made many observations of plant evolution, which had less observations than the animals he studied for 20+years. The second quote was to "Darwins Bulldog", TH Huxley. Darwin was cautioning Huxley to not be to ferocious in his defense. Darwin was a humble man and thats what this letter shows. He in no way discredits his own theory in either letter. TLDR: Dr. Marco Fasoli is a LIAR. The first statement he makes is a LIE. SHAME on this man for LYING, and SHAME on RADIO IMMACULATA for promoting a LIAR.
As far as the early development of his character, we get an interesting glint of what his personality may have been like from his autobiography, where Darwin tells us: "Whilst at the day school, or before that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure as the spot was near to the house." He did admit though that the act “lay heavily on my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where the crime had been committed.” Charles Darwin, Autobiography, pp.26-27. One can only speculate why, if the puppy was not injured, was Darwin so haunted by the incident for many years afterward, and why he referred to it as a "crime". Was it the prompting of a guilty conscience that betrayed a more serious incident than he was ready to admit?
Much has been said by historians of Darwin's observations of the finches on the Galapagos islands while sailing on the Beagle, but little is mentioned of another incident Darwin had with some less fortunate birds on a different island during his voyage. We have three accounts of an excursion made by Darwin and the Captain from the Beagle to St. Paul's Rocks between the Cape Verde Islands and the coast of Brazil. First we shall read Darwin's version of the episode: " We found on St. Paul's only two kinds of birds-the booby and the noddy. The former is a species of Gannet, and the latter a tern. Both are of a tame and stupid disposition, and are so unaccustomed to visitors, that I could have killed any number of them with my geologic hammer." The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Charles Darwin, pp.10, The American Museum of Natural History, The Natural History Library, Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co., Inc., Garden City New York, 1962. Browne mentioned the appalling incident in her biography of Darwin: " Uninhabited except for dense flocks of seafowl, and previously unvisited by any scientific recorder, they were an alluring target for a restless naval man and an eager friend . . . Darwin and Fitzroy had a marvelous time of it, whooping and killing birds with abandon". Browne, pp.204. See also the original, Narrative of the Surveying Voyage of H.M.S. Adventure and Beagle, Vol. 2-56. Fitzroy recorded the bloody scene in his personal narrative as well. According to him, one of the seamen asked if he could borrow Darwin's hammer to kill some of the birds with, to which Darwin replied, "No, no, you'll break the handle." Then, apparently struck by the novelty of this idea, Darwin himself picked up his hammer and began killing the peaceful birds in this manner, as Fitzroy related "away went the hammer, with all the force of his own right arm." Narrative of the Voyages of the Adventure and Beagle, by Admiral Fitzroy, 1839. See also Amabel Williams Ellis, "The Voyage of the Beagle, Adapted from the Narratives and letters of Charles Darwin and Captain Fitzroy, pp. 26, J.B. Lippencott Co., Philadelphia and London, 1931.
Cancer Tumor progression, Rapid COVID evolution in a few months ,the dog from the wolf, Corn from Teosinte , antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance , how many examples of evolution right in front of your nose do you need?
Those are literally all medical which is well known. Those are controlled conditions. Medicine doesn’t form on its own. Cancer is the DECAY of life, not the advancement of it. Different Covid strains are simply different iterations within the same subclass of species. Same thing with humans exhibiting different color hair and what not. Except for the wolf to dog, but even still they are still within the same species line.
A dog and a wolf the same animal. That is like a spotted dog from a black dog. Evolution requires a significant change. A simple organism evolving into a more complex organism, according to the dictionary. A wolf evolving into a wolf with thumbs, that can talk, or has wings. You know like the single cell organism that evolved into you.
@@mcmanustony we both can search the internet in seconds for a definition. I doubt there can be reasonable discussion unless we agree upon what evolution means. If you think that dogs and wolves are evolution and prove that we all came from simple single cell organisms, I’d have to say that is a huge leap of faith.
What exactly is "Darwinian" evolution and who cares about science almost 2 centuries old. How about modern evolutionary science, which is the cornerstone of all biology? Just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean they aren't a shill.
Darwinian evolution says new species are created by "numerous, successive, slight modifications". Because fossils don't support "innumerable transitional forms" Eldredge and Gould dreamed up Punctuated Equilibrium. Because Goldschmidt thought this slow change is illogical. He came up with the Hopeful Monster. Which is like Punctuated Equilibrium. Then other atheists, like Fred Hoyle, say aliens created and are tending life on earth. All nonsense. Because they couldn't grasp the concept of the supernatural.
@@joefriday2275 You are quite obviously talking through your hat! Your post tells us that you haven't remotely studied the subject. . 1. Scientifically literate individuals no more often refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwin's Theory" than they refer to Atomic Theory as "Bohr's Theory" or General Relativity Theory as "Einstein's Theory." 2. The scientific community identified multiple shortcomings of the Darwinian model of evolution approximately three quarters of a century ago and replaced it with the Modern Synthesis. Buy a copy of the college level textbook, "Evolution," by Douglas J. Futuyma. Read it and sin no more. ("Evolution" is in it's 5th edition but that edition is quite expensive. You can purchase a used second or third edition online for less than $20 - delivered. I personally have two copies, my own and a loaner.) You have a lot to learn and a massive amount of information is out there. I hope you avail yourself of some of it. Be Blessed!
@@korbendallas5318 it's scientifically and mathematically impossible. Proved in 1998. There is no mechanism that can produce change in kind only adaption built into living organisms. Laws of physics.
Not to cast aspersions upon the *no amino acid formation* "theory" they did say they were able to trap amino acid (albeit both left and right handed, amino acids trapped nonetheless) and now they say they (these amino acids) appeared inside meteorite rocks. If anyone could provide info upon these arguments.
The problem is not only the inexplicable information gain by "random, unguided processes" (ie magic). To me, something which neo Darwinians never seem to take into account is that every transitional form (say between a yak and a whale, as I believe the story goes) is non adaptive! So, you start off with a perfectly happy and well-adapted yak, pining for the fjords in Norway. Then, in a moment of inspiration, he thinks that he would really love to swim and so comes up with the idea of becoming a whale. The problem, as David Berlinski points out, is that you need roughly 50 000 changes of one sort or another to do so. So, at stage one (as a yak) you are adapted to pining for the fjords and at stage 50 000 (as a whale) you are, similarly, adapted to pining for the fjords, from the ocean. The difficulty becomes one whereat at steps 2 to 49 999 you become increasingly maladapted to either environment or either body. And at the intermediate stage, step 25 000 would be utterly, catastrophically maladapted. And time would only make this worse. as the maladaptive stages would last increasingly longer. For this to be viable, the changes would have to be instantaneous to the point of being magical, as no other word could describe it. So yeah, evolution is, in fact, rooted in magical thinking.
In your scenario there is a point A, the yak, and a point B, a whale. That isnt how anyone claims evolution works. Instead, you would have a single group. Part of the group lives by the water, the other part lives in the mountains. But what it takes to be successful near water and in the mountains is not the same, so they will each adapt to their environment independently from each other.
@@pinklemon-m5v But that isn't at all what Darwinian macro evolution states. In fact, the theory of whale evolution starts with a wolf-like mammal that loses its land adaptivity and "gradually, over time" becomes adapted to life in the water. This is in the text books, but I think a yak is more fun...given that it is all make believe. In Darwinian evolution. all boundaries are permeable, yet, in reality, we never see that when, in fact, we should see it all the time. We see no transitional fossils as they would be maladaptive and the incipient information gain of positive mutations is impossible to explain under Darwinian terms.
Is there a specific reason why you chose a yak as a starting point for evolving into a whale, rather than something more plausible, such as a hippo (or a capybara, or a beaver, or any other semiaquatic species of mammal)? They spend part of their time on land and a large part in the water, and they are not "catastrophically maladapted" for either. In principle, what keeps them from adapting to an even more aquatic existence? At some point they might become much better swimmers, but more awkward on land (like sea elephants), and eventually very good swimmers who don't go on land at all anymore (like manatees and whales). (Likewise, when someone trots out the "what good is half a wing?", I recommend they look up flying squirrels and sugar gliders.)
@@davidwilliamdanielthomas9305 "We see no transitional fossils" - you have never even bothered to look at the wikipedia page for "evolution of cetaceans", have you?
@@davidwilliamdanielthomas9305 Transitional species would not be "maladaptive" as each successful new trait would benefit the species in its environment. As the environment gradually changes, successful species would appear to change. This is exactly what we find in the fossil record. Have you fallen for the lie that you must choose either evolution or God ... but not both? One more thing . . . . Horse evolution: Hyracotherium Orohippus Mesohippus Miohippus Parahippus Merychippus Pliohippus Equus Whale evolution: Indohyus Pakicetus Ambulocetus Kutchicetus Rodhocetus Durodon Odontocetes Mysticetes Hominid evolution: Sahelanthropus tchadensis Ardipithecus kadabba Ardipithecus ramidus Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus afarensis Australopithecus africanus Australopithecus garhi Australopithecus sediba Homo habilis Homo ergaster Homo erectus Homo heidelbergensis Homo sapiens Want transitional fossils? Start with these.
Fifth point: genetic mutations can only be neutral or degrade. This is not true. Many mutations will do this but simplistically but why does it have to be all? Take a gene for size. Let's say the number of copies of the gene determines size. A mistake in the copying that inserts another copy of the gene for size would mean that that organism and its descendants would be bigger, assuming it is beneficial and they go on to reproduce. Also sometimes even single mutations of genetic letters can be beneficial. There are plenty of diseases that can be traced back to a single letter mutation. Those can be in either direction. It's simplistic to saying that copying and mutations always degrade like a bad photocopy machine. The way life works is more like a laser printer. You get an almost perfect copy each time. You have to look at the mechanisms and how they work to see if that it true.
The problem is the almost nil statistical possibility of advantageous mutations that would lead to trasmutation of species. Most successful mutations result in very minor things like beak shape, coat colour, etc. And there are hints that maybe most of these are regulated epigenetically. Also, virtually all mutations that affect a vital function are almost immediately fixed with 100% accuracy.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems and states that the entropy (or disorder) of an isolated system can only increase over time. However, Earth is not a closed system as it continually receives energy from the Sun. This external energy input can drive processes that result in increased order or complexity, such as the evolution of life. For instance, a mutation that allows one cell to stick to other cells could indeed enable the development of a larger and more complex life form. This process does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the energy required for the mutation and the subsequent growth and development of the organism can come from the Sun or other external sources. So, the claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based on a misunderstanding of the law itself and its applicability to open systems like Earth. The increase in complexity observed in evolution does not contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics when correctly understood in the context of an open system receiving energy from an external source.
@@AMC2283 That’s a succinct and accurate description! Thermodynamics is indeed the branch of physics that deals with the relationships between heat and other forms of energy. It studies how energy is transferred in the form of heat and work, and how it affects the properties of substances. On the other hand, evolution is a process that results in hereditary changes in a population spread over many generations. It’s the key mechanism that drives the diversity of life we see on Earth. Both are fundamental concepts in their respective fields of study.
The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed and open systems. A “closed system” simply implies that there is no mass transfer, therefore it’s a constant mass system. Earth is technically a closed system since the mass flow in and out of Earth’s orbit (i.e. space debris and asteroids landing on earth) is negligible. I believe you meant to say that Earth is not an isolated system since it has heat interactions with the sun, just wanted to clarify.
Well, but what we here on earth always observe is the effects of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the increase of disorder, and that law has to be taken into consideration always in human activity, every engineer knows that. As to mutations, every case of cancer is due to a mutation or several of them, every genetic illness is due to mutation. That does not sound like evolution to something better.
It's quite clear we do not understand the processes of life origin and complexity. Not knowing is also part of science. This fact however does no imply any divine intervention, unless we agree to name anything we can't understand as God, just to simplify our overwhelming lack of knowledge and make us feel a bit more confortable, which is understandable.
It's not that we don't understand how complex digital information systems similar to DNA can arise, we do, you used an example of it to type your comment. What we don't understand is how it could possibly also be created by some naturalistic accident like lightning hitting a puddle. To say 'we don't understand, so it must be a fluke' makes some a lot comfortable than the alternative.
@@SteveLomas-k6k You said, "What we don't understand is how it could possibly also be created by some naturalistic accident like lightning hitting a puddle." Your assertion is irrelevant. The theory of evolution doesn't address the origin of life any more than atomic theory addresses the origin of mass, general relativity the origin of matter, energy, gravity or space-time, germ theory the origin of germs.
@@numbersix9477 It was responding to the comment about origins. Beyond that, I can explain a watch by purely naturalistic processes also, if I ignore how it was created. I understand ToE doesn't, and cannot explain origins of life- that's not a strength for the naturalist argument though.
Have you ever read the Bible?? Not as a religion but read it as a historical book. There is plenty of proofs in this book that have been from by ancient historians. Even the atheist ones
I don't think this guy really understands the 2nd law of thermodinamics. What he's ignoring is that this law is applied for closed systems, but the evolutionary process is not a closed system. "but the bottom line is you cannot get order and complexity from disorder, no matter how many billions of years you're waiting" Yes, that is the statement "entropy never decreases" of the 2nd law of thermodinamics. But, then according to this reasoning, a refrigerator should not work either, as entropy decreases there (making cold to break the thermal equilibrium), which is not permitted by 2nd law of thermodinamics. What he forgets is that a refrigerator or living beings (in case of evolution) are not closed systems: they're getting the necessary energy from somewhere: from a power-grid, from the sun, from food, etc. The entropy of that refrigerator, and the entropy of living beings are decreasing, but the entropy of the whole system, is still increasing more (!), because the same or more energy needs to be consumed to make those changes (cooling down, growing, reproducing)! The total entropy overall does increase, with the fact that the entropy of those parts/components decrease in lesser extent, the 2nd law of thermodinamics is just fine with evolution.
@swiftmatic nope. Life doesn't slow entropy. Think of life as something that cause lumpiness in entropy. Entropy still increases at the same rate, but becomes unevenly distributed
@@EinSofQuester I appreciate the reply. I was just spitballing at breakfast. Side note: "Lumpy Entropy" would be a great name for a punk or grunge band🤣
I’m I wrong in thinking we have fossils of what modern humans have transitioned from? Also aren’t there animals that have evolved in front of our eyes I seen something about a group of rabbits who’s fur has changed colour due to environmental changes so they didn’t stand out to predators
Variation, very important. Look at the variation in the species called 'dog'. Are they all 'evolving' in different directions? No, they are one incredible species.
@@richardleigh4003 Some dogs are extremely different and can't really correctly reproduce with each other. This is similar to how a horse and donkey can come together to produce a mule but it is very uncommon event for mules to have any kind of offspring. Since they can't reproduce correctly I believe donkeys and horses are considered to be separate species. So certain dogs are also probably considered to be separate species. Probably in a similar situation as with mules we might have the possibility of offspring from wolf/dog or coyote/dog parings. Felines range from small housecats (some of which may be too different to correctly reproduce with each other) to larger bobcats and servals to larger cheetahs, leopards, cougars, panthers and the largest lions and tigers. Some can have offspring with each other but it is probably a similar situation as with mules. Is it not a good idea that felines had a common ancestor in the pretty distant past and have been evolving differences? Amazing, despite their apparent similarity, African and Asian elephants can't even really have surviving offspring together - their separation might have occurred in the very far past. With primates we have the strange looking, small, very large-eyed, nocturnal bush babies to large baboons to human weight chimpanzees and orangutans to the heavy gorilla. Despite their differences, the gorilla and bush baby have some so many similarities that it isn't too hard to believe they came from the same distant ancestor.
@@richardleigh4003 *"Look at the variation in the species called 'dog'. Are they all 'evolving' in different directions?"* Look at tigers and lions. They can hybridize semi-successfully. Why? Because god wanted it, or because they have common ancestry and are separate species just on the verge of becoming fully incompatible genetically. There are thousands of species that can hybridize with various levels of success depending on how far they have diverged from common ancestry.
@@mcmanustony "junk DNA" WAS one of the failed predictions of evolution. It was an argument based on ignorance. More function is being found all the time. And not only the 6 billion base pairs....much of the genome is read in multiple directions and in multiple frame shifts. The longer time goes on, the more learned, the less evolvable the human genome seems
@@Ilovelimabeans _Paris japonica_ the Japanese canopy plant has a genome size of 149 billion bas pairs, roughly 50X bigger that the human genome. Over 99% of it is simple repeats of non-coding segments. What is the "design" reason for the huge genome size?
@@OgdenCrimmcramer8162 I don't know. Probably a lot of genome duplications... A sign of faulty degenerate repair mechanisms. Just a guess. It's called genetic entropy.
@@mcmanustony Have you heard of the ENCODE project? 80% of genome considered functional. This is an extreme departure from evolutionary predictions. GULO appears to be a broken gene, genetic entropy, in which some exons are damaged. Speaking of exons, how did the spliceosome evolve?
Wow you are talking about Darwin the man who explained the variety of life, he discovered the mechanism with the help of many, but we learned tons and tons since 1850
Darwin had a hard time with his fantasy theory explaining the complexity of the human eye, he thought a single cell was simple, not the immensely complex nano city it actually is. Darwinism is dead, it cannot explain all the species of life with its non guided mutational mechanism. It is only kept viable by a dogmatic system that abhors the idea of God and will seek to explain him away using any means. Mutations are a destructive process, evolutionists use its silly premise to have you believe it can take a monkey to a man, when in reality it causes species extinction over the long term, the very opposite of slow incremental ever increasing complex organisms. The proof of this is the number of increases in cancers, allergies, defective organs, etc, this is happening to all living organisms in line with mans fall. We are devolving and genetics are being corrupted every generation. Like many, you have been taught a worldview that was built on presuppositions, assumptions, circular reasoning, lies, fraudulent evidence, and a God hating biased belief. Science should follow the evidence but secular science does not, it ignores or dismisses evidence that refutes its position and continues to publish lies and frauds in literature even though much evidence has been disproven. The only way to disprove a truth, in this case God and creation, is to resort to lies, fraud, and fabrication, ask yourself if evolution is true, why is its history littered with fakes and lies.
I'm pretty certain he's shunned by biochemists. And geneticists. And paleontologists. And botanists. And primatologists. And ichthyologists. And entomologists. ...
@numbersix9477 I think you're probably correct. There's a lot of reality that needs denying - if we're asserting that biological evolution isn't a thing.
All this bluster from apologists, but we never hear scientists telling us evolution doesn't happen. Can any creationist find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix?
Sure....evolutionists say that reproduction is an "accelerated evolution"! Reproduction is not an "accelerated evolution" , it is an aware and intelligent answer to death, otherwise all species cease to exist without reproduction and death being around. If death always existed then no one can prove that any specie succeeded to "evolve" during a big span of time while escaping the grips of death. One has to remember that the so claimed "evolution" process supposedly took millions or even billions years during which death was always at work. Also one has to remember that death occurs due to ageing and other causes as well. The existence of death since life began on earth disproves the theory of evolution, that's because no one can prove that death spared someone or something during a very long period of time. Of course one cannot stop the evolutionists from speculating as they use to do, but it will remain a speculation no more. Reproduction of species is an intelligent process which aim is to cater for the work of death, and as such the One who created the process of death is the Same One who created the reproduction process of all living species and organisms. It is the Creator. Evolution theory is the greatest hoax ever invented, based mostly on speculation and wishful thinking crafted as "scientific". Abiogenesis, genetic mutations, billions years, trials and errors etc are all speculative terms invented to describe some imaginative processes no one witnessed, proved or can prove. The only motive was and is to disprove the existence of a creator at all costs. Truly, the evolution theory is a fairytale for grownups.
Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis go against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Evolution contradicts many scientific first principles. Zero transitional fossils when there should be nothing but transitional fossils. Were did evolution get dna from? You need new information to change body plans but evolutionists ignore this very valid point.
You can tell Marco's lying because he doesn't actually show the letters and certainly doesn't put them into proper context. Honest. informed. Creationist. Choose up to 2.
@@SamForbes-w9u You said, "for most people consensus=fact. " You've made up stuff in the past; I don't believe anything you say. What was your source for this claim?
@@numbersix9477 you're asking me what is my source for my claim that for most people consensus=fact? Are you being ironic? You're asking me for a source (consensus) to tell you what to perceive
These two religious apologist should realize that their own catholic Church supports the reality of evolution. Next episode we should ask these two characters to perform heart surgery. @12:20 this apologist quotes James Tour as being an OOL scientist. This is untrue and patently misleading. His work and papers are all in physical chemistry.
James Tour is a remarkable scientist-chemist who has extensive writings and speeches supporting guided creation and giving exquisite refutations to any random processes proposed to support classic evolution
@@chrono2959 No. What happened 3 to 5000 years ago is we became civilised and much more cooperative. Instead of needing to know every skill to survive, we trade expertise. It means we became eusocial. This is not devolution, since we still are intelligent, but we are able to work together much more efficiently than before Incidentally, even though brains are smaller on average by about the mass of a lime compared to before 5000 years ago, we might not necessarily have become less intelligent, since our brains could have improved their efficiency through optimisation. Einstein had a smaller brain (not sure if it was by mass or by volume) than average, and he was a genius. One thing we're not doing is calculating ourselves without the aid of machines, and now we're not spending as much time face to face as we did. Face to face communication gives you access to nonverbal cues during a conversation, and even Facetime is suboptimal. Thus, we're not training our brains as much as we did and not fulfilling our potential, even allowing for the amount they've physically shrunk. We can replace some of that lost activity with games and other ways to challenge ourselves.
One theory ive been exploring is that Darwins major premise is simply an application of Hegel's AUFHEBEN applied to biology. Changing or canceling while preserving and then advancing. It also strongly influenced Marx. Have fun studying the roots of Darwins thought experiment!
Is funny that when you become intelligent enough to find out how complex a cell is, and then tell everyone. The reaction is to call you stupid. Ignorance has no limits.
Who calls you stupid because you say a cell is complex? Or are you talking about the stupid things some people say is the reason for the complexity?? 🤔
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy (a measure of disorder) of an isolated system can never decrease over time. However, it's crucial to understand that: The second law applies to isolated systems: Earth is not an isolated system. It receives a constant input of energy from the Sun. This energy influx allows for local decreases in entropy and the emergence of more complex and ordered structures, like living organisms. Entropy can decrease locally: While the overall entropy of the universe increases, localized pockets can experience a decrease in entropy as long as there is an external energy source driving it. This is what happens in living organisms, where energy from the Sun (through photosynthesis) or from food is used to build and maintain complex structures. Evolution is not a violation of the second law: The emergence of more complex organisms over time does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics. The increase in order within organisms is offset by an increase in disorder elsewhere in the system. For example, organisms release heat and waste products, which increase the entropy of their surroundings. In summary: The second law of thermodynamics holds true for isolated systems. Earth is not an isolated system, it receives energy from the Sun. Local decreases in entropy can occur with an external energy source. Evolution does not violate the second law because the increase in order within organisms is balanced by an increase in disorder in their surroundings. The theory of evolution remains a well-supported scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove the theory of evolution. AI
Everything is ultimately affected by entropy. The sun is a ball of gas that is gradually burning itself out. The earth’s magnetic field is dissipating at a constant rate.
Does he explain why all dinosaur fossils are found below all mammal fossils? EDIT: All mammals we have a name for, lions, tigers, giraffes, humans, monkeys, squirrels, etc.
Large Animals will die out first no matter what. He is not saying Big animals die first he is saying it wasn't 65 million years ago... Also They have found in the lime fields in the US Dino and all other types of bones in the same layer of Lime including sea creatures and humans.
@@rs6730 That doesn't explain why the dinosaurs are found below the layer of iridium in the Earth's crust and why modern mammals are found on top, let alone any of the other hundreds of inconsistencies if you take Noah's version of the flood story literally.
Evidence for evolution comes from various fields of biology and geology, providing a comprehensive and well-supported understanding of how species change over time. Here are some key pieces of evidence: 1. Fossil Record Transitional Fossils: Fossils that show intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants. Examples include the transition from fish to amphibians (Tiktaalik), reptiles to birds (Archaeopteryx), and land mammals to whales (Ambulocetus). Stratigraphy: Fossils found in different geological layers demonstrate a timeline of gradual change, with simpler organisms found in older layers and more complex ones in newer layers. 2. Comparative Anatomy Homologous Structures: Body parts that are similar in structure but may serve different functions in different species, indicating a common ancestor. For example, the forelimbs of humans, cats, whales, and bats. Vestigial Structures: Body parts that have lost their original function through evolution. Examples include the human appendix, the pelvis in whales, and the wings of flightless birds like ostriches. 3. Comparative Embryology Embryonic Development: Similarities in the early stages of development in different species suggest a common ancestry. For instance, vertebrate embryos exhibit pharyngeal pouches (which develop into gills in fish and parts of the ear and throat in mammals). 4. Molecular Biology DNA and Protein Similarities: The genetic code is universal among all living organisms, and closely related species have more similar DNA sequences. Comparisons of specific genes (like the cytochrome c gene) and proteins (like hemoglobin) show degrees of relatedness. Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs): These are viral sequences that have become part of the genome. Shared ERVs in the same genomic locations among different species indicate common ancestry. 5. Biogeography Geographic Distribution: The distribution of species around the world reflects their evolutionary history. For example, the unique species found on islands (like the finches of the Galápagos Islands) demonstrate adaptive radiation from a common ancestor. Plate Tectonics: The movement of continents explains the historical distribution of species. Fossils of the same species found on different continents support the idea that these continents were once connected. 6. Direct Observation Microevolution: Changes within a species can be directly observed. Examples include the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance in insects, and changes in the beak sizes of finches documented by Peter and Rosemary Grant in the Galápagos Islands. Speciation Events: New species have been observed forming in real-time, such as the apple maggot fly, which shifted from hawthorn trees to apple trees, leading to reproductive isolation and the beginnings of speciation. 7. Experimental Evidence Artificial Selection: Selective breeding in plants and animals demonstrates how selection can lead to significant changes over relatively short periods. Dogs, for example, have been bred for various traits resulting in a wide variety of breeds from a common ancestor. These lines of evidence collectively support the theory of evolution, demonstrating how species have adapted and changed over time through natural processes. References: Fossil Record Transitional Fossils: Daeschler, E. B., Shubin, N. H., & Jenkins, F. A. (2006). A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature, 440(7085), 757-763. Chiappe, L. M., & Dyke, G. J. (2002). The early evolutionary history of birds. Journal of the Paleontological Society of Korea, 18(1), 133-160. Stratigraphy: Gradstein, F. M., Ogg, J. G., Schmitz, M., & Ogg, G. (Eds.). (2012). The Geologic Time Scale 2012. Elsevier. Comparative Anatomy Homologous Structures: Shubin, N. (2008). Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body. Pantheon Books. Vestigial Structures: Laubichler, M. D., & Maienschein, J. (Eds.). (2007). From Embryology to Evo-Devo: A History of Developmental Evolution. MIT Press. Comparative Embryology Embryonic Development: Gilbert, S. F. (2010). Developmental Biology (9th ed.). Sinauer Associates. Molecular Biology DNA and Protein Similarities: Brown, T. A. (2002). Genomes (2nd ed.). Wiley-Liss. Li, W.-H. (1997). Molecular Evolution. Sinauer Associates. Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs): Belshaw, R., Pereira, V., Katzourakis, A., Talbot, G., Paces, J., Burt, A., & Tristem, M. (2004). Long-term reinfection of the human genome by endogenous retroviruses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(14), 4894-4899. Biogeography Geographic Distribution: Lomolino, M. V., Riddle, B. R., & Whittaker, R. J. (2016). Biogeography (5th ed.). Sinauer Associates. Plate Tectonics: Hallam, A. (1994). An Outline of Phanerozoic Biogeography. Oxford University Press. Direct Observation Microevolution: Grant, P. R., & Grant, B. R. (2002). Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin's finches. Science, 296(5568), 707-711. Levy, S. B., & Marshall, B. (2004). Antibacterial resistance worldwide: causes, challenges and responses. Nature Medicine, 10, S122-S129. Speciation Events: Bush, G. L. (1994). Sympatric speciation in animals: new wine in old bottles. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 9(8), 285-288. Experimental Evidence Artificial Selection: Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species. John Murray. Trut, L. N. (1999). Early canid domestication: The farm-fox experiment. American Scientist, 87(2), 160-169.
1. Descendancy has not been shown, it has been guessed. Also, there were four-footed land animals before tiktaalik and birds before archeopteryx (according to the mainstream timeline), so these are actually debunked by the academic community as "transitional forms." And again, if your descendancy is a guess, it's a guess. 2, 3, and 4 do not rule out a common designer using common, useful designs as a plausible hypothesis. Therefore, these are not (strong) arguments in favor of evolution. 5, 6, and 7 are arguing that micro-evolution and adaption prove evolution is true. But Intelligent Design believers and even Young Earth Creationists affirm these are true. So this doesn't get you anywhere. Speciation might happen, but new features, new body forms, new information HAS NOT been observed. Dogs are still dogs, flies are still flies, e. coli is still e. coli. If that's your multi-disciplinary proof, you're out of arguments.
@@lukejones5272 You said, "Dogs are still dogs, flies are still flies, e. coli is still e. coli. " That's your rebuttal of a theory that has been almost universally accepted by the scientific community for over century and a half?
-> No experimental proof by design (muh billions of years lol). -> No mathematical model. Thus not a proper theory but mere pagan style philosophical speculations.
@@lukejones5272 Nice set of fallacious arguments, debunked decades ago. Did you know your "dogs are still dogs" argument comes straight from Vol. 1, Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf?
Evolution has never attempted to explain the origin of life-it only describes what happens after we get reproducible cells. The theory of Abiogenesis attempts to explain life’s origins. That’s a work in progress-it’s come up with some intriguing ideas.
That's simply untrue. Evolution is often used to include abiogenis or chemical evolution, as well as cosmic evolution. I can well understand why you would want it that way. The complexity of the cell is such that evolutionists realise its impossible naturalistically. So are you saying God made the first cell? Darwin's theory is falsified also. But it is easy to imagine. As Michael Denton mentioned in his book, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, evolutionists are like the Mad Hatter who can imagine a 1000 impossible things before breakfast.
@@corvusglaive4804 Evolution is not about the origin of life. The origin of life is called abiogenesis. You may disregard all the scientific work that exists about the possibilities of origin of life from non life (every year many scientific papers are published that detail aspects of abiogenesis), and still the overwhelming evidence of evolution through dozens of harmoniously interconnected branches of science remains untouched.
@@psalux18963 😭🤣 "the overwhelming evidence for cats evolving into pandas is all around us!!" You guys are THE greatest comedy act ever I swear 😂 evidence = I'm a an atheist and I say so. This rock is billions of years old and I say so. My ancestor is a howler monkey because I say so. Watching Darwin and his rabid disciples circle the plug hole is a beautiful thing to watch 😂
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." ♦"Religion is founded on the fear & gullibility of many & the cleverness of the few." ♦"Only fools revere the supernatural bs just bc a book says it's the holy truth." ♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure & the intelligent full of doubt." ♦"The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics may believe on their own." ♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." ♦"It's difficult to free the religious fools from the chains they revere." ♦“To have faith is precisely to lose one's mind so as to win God.” ♦"The death of dogma is the birth of morality."
And yet, here you are. Something inside you is telling you the truth. Good luck on your journey. P.S. you should really change "religion" to "relationship with God". Religion in and of itself is no different than dogma, whether expressed by believers or material reductionist. As such you are simply creating a stawman argument to then disprove which leaves you exactly where you started even after all your effort.
What about evolution having to be based on abiogenesis and abiogenesis has the probability of 1 protein occurring int the most favorable conditions in 10^164…. And adaptation doesn’t prove the overall evolutionary theory… outside of literal ‘change over time’ there is no evidence of anything changing from say a reptile to a bird or an ape to a human. And when you say ‘ oh but we have these bones and they showed us what it looked like’. I’ve seen them and when reintroduced into textbooks they are terribly misleading. If anything, all of the missing links are just all a bunch of old monkeys… and you can’t make assumptions based on one tooth, or one toe… well actually a toe would be pretty telling, but they usually try to sell a small tiny bone as an entire entity and say Evolution here! when in reality, they have no clue. Also they can’t answer the gaps in the fossil record… and I just had a discussion with someone and didn’t even bring that up yet… I’m sorry there’s just so much math and evidence against what you think evolution covers, anyone that has gone through the research has already concluded it’s a fallacy .
@@TailicaiCorporation«the most favorable conditions in 10^164« how you calculate that number? «adaptation doesn’t prove the overall evolutionary theory« adaptation leads to evolution. «there is no evidence of anything changing from say a reptile to a bird or an ape to a human» evolution is not a , lets say, dog give birth to a non-dog. evolution is not pokemon. evolution is a gradual process. .«missing links» how do you know they are «old monkeys«? because they look like them? one tooth or one foot can tell us a lot information about the animal. i suggest you to look how the scientists work. «Also they can’t answer the gaps in the fossil record« yes there are gaps . fossilizition is a rare and the conditions required for the preservation of organisms are not always present. As a result, many transitional forms or "missing links" may not have been preserved as fossils. beside the fossil record, scientists also rely on other lines of evidence to study and understand evolution. These include comparative anatomy, embryology, molecular genetics, and biogeography, among others. By examining patterns of similarities and differences in these areas, scientists can reconstruct evolutionary relationships and fill in some of the gaps left by the fossil record. I’m sorry , you dont understand how the scientist works so i suggest you to read the studies that you say doesnt make sense. Scientific theories are not based on personal beliefs or opinions; they are built on rigorous research, empirical evidence, and peer-reviewed studies.
@@TailicaiCorporation I noticed that you completely avoided the poster's comment ... instead made a bunch of suspect and unsupported assertions. Are there any open and honest creationists out there?
That's because he's not God's representative!!!! Go look at history or read the Bible - there's valid reasons why the Reformation happened - pity for the world its all but capitulated.
religion breeds ignorance. i would have thought the answer was obvious, god is imaginary, nothing about religion is FACTUAL, so there will always be confusion and contradiction cos there id no basis other than STORIES made up by people. grow up, god = santa claus.
People try to refute this by claiming, "Darwin died a long time ago, Theory Evolution (Darwinism) has changed alot since then." Now notice, He is a Scientist & He is refuting both modern Darwinism & Early Darwinism.
The very first question is about "evolution" (no qualifier) and he responds with some bit about Darwin. Please explain why. He is not a scientist (he writes software), but he has a degree in life sciences and he knows this. In other words, he is trying to deceive us. Please point out where you think he makes his best argument against the Theory of Evolution.
@korbendallas5318 "Please explain why" what? What shaould I explain? "He is not a scientist" Says who? How can I counteract the theory of evolution? Well in two ways, First of all, It's a theory not a fact & 2nd is the lack of prove for the theory. Btw, I asked a lot of questions you never answered them.
@@vromorthelilbee1 Ok, step by step: The first question was about the Theory of Evolution, his response was about a dude who died two centuries ago. Why does he think that his response is relevant to the question? His own website says that he is a software designer. First, you don't know what "theory" means in this context. Educate yourself. Second, you are seriously not aware of any evidence for the Theory of Evolution? Not even a tinsy tiny little bit of weak evidence? I can't answer your question unless you know what we are talking about. Don't worry, we'll get there eventually. Please point out where you think he makes the best argument against the Theory of Evolution.
@korbendallas5318 First of all, I am saying again & again, He is not only talking about Early Darwinism which is irrelevant, He's also talking about Neo Darwinism. 2nd, You're answer is irrelevant, Yes Evolution is a theory not a fact. 3rd, We have hundreds of proves against Darwinism but right now I don't want to waste my time by quoting all of those get it? So I just gave you 2 simple reasons, now refute those 2. 4th, Bro I'm not talking about the guy in the video, I'm not saying he gives the best arguments either or neither am I saying he doesn't. If you want to find out then watch the video yourself, It's between you & him. You're question is irrelevant. On the other hand, Best arguments against Neo Darwinism are already available, you can make your own research.
@@vromorthelilbee1 You are saying it, but you are not understanding it. OTOH, you avoided anwering my question, maybe you _do_ understand it, but want to keep up the deception. Again, why do they mix up ToE and Darwin IN THE SAME QUESTION? As I said, you don't know what words mean. Educate yourself. Hundreds of "proofs", but you can't name one. Interesting. Nah, I kid, it's boring and very predictable. Why would I look up evidence for _your_ claim? As Hitchens said: You no evidence, you lose.
@@kearyAdamson I did actually, total waste of time. The guy is a PHD repeating the dogs produce dogs argument. These are Kent Hovind level arguments just being parroted by a guy who has “PHD” alongside his name.
More deeply, there is no evidence of evolution in the fossil records. The story is dead simply because complex biological operations are dependent upon other complex operations to spontaneously exist all at once. Sure, the obvious is there has never been any evidence of species of a simple order developing into a more complex order. But he did provide multiple reasons evolution is an unproven theory causing serious issue with the education system.
th-cam.com/video/noj4phMT9OE/w-d-xo.html Many books now from Yale/MIT et al. leading professors on why Darwin's theory is in fact impossible given recent scientific advances. I suppose you think calling them names somehow diminishes the facts and their arguments and strengthens your position. I'll stick with true open minded scientific inquiry and critical thinking, wherever it may lead, if you don't mind.
Werner Heisenberg once said, "the Universe isn't as strange as we can imagine but it is far stranger than we can imagine." Failure to understand the cosmos gives the organized religionist his opportunity to impose his narrative on things. His clergymen don gaudy robes and convince you they represent God. That's power, one of the three things people crave most, power sex and money, they're connected. The more you have of one the more you can access of the others. They tell you you're a sinner so that you're in thrall to them and need them for redemption, job done! And in case you think you can escape their clutches by living a chaste and pure life, think again. There's the concept of original sin, a sin you committed before you were born. We'll I'm not a sinner, mate, l obey the law and harm no man. Organized religionists can't explain the suffering we see around us. Their loving, benevolent omnipotent God creates... pathogens? But God didn't create pathogens. They evolved. Take the example of the Black Death which ravaged Europe in medieval times killing millions. It didn't kill everybody so survivors could pass on their black death resistant genes to future generations so defeating the pathogen. Darwinian evolution and natural selection in progress. We humans are arguably created as much by viruses as anything else in this way. So the cosmos is the creator of life forms, both (or neither) good or bad. It's all created in stars, the element carbon. We know the building blocks of life can be found in the interstellar medium, amino acids. It could be that the answers to fundamental questions cannot be found in the end so the power-addicted organized religionist will always find justification in his eyes, for his creed. I was raised Catholic and was indoctrinated into Catholicism in the Catholic madrassa as a child. At one stage the church held a "ring-kissing cermony" when an Archbishop visited. He was installed on the altar steps while all 800 children of our primary school lined up to kiss his ring while an altar boy wiped it with a cloth, the same cloth ensuring we all got everybody's germs. At a time of measles mumps and flu epidemic. This tells you something about the mindset of the organized religionist. Totally hubristic. His argument that cells are complex doesn't disprove Darwinian evolution, it supports it. Cells were originally, billions of years ago, simple organisms which at some stage found advantage in exchanging DNA with other cells which were slightly different. The process continued becoming more complex over time resulting in today's cells, the result of exchanging DNA by a simple process of trial and error, to end up with the best options. But the process continues today, with cells still able to evolve for better options. It all stems from simple amino acid bases. The presenters fail to see the greatest evolutionary tool, that of sexual reproduction. The example of dogs at the end was interesting. We humans used Darwinian evolution to create the myriad dog breeds we see today. I was exercised by the number of times the presenters used the word "evolution". No getting away from it.
This guy loses all credibility right at the start when he says that we've never witnessed evolution. Hundreds of studies have been done on the molecular level and greatly helped us understand the mechanism of evolution.
@@codyspendlove8986 You aren't looking for links to studies of evolutionary processes any more than a flat earther would look for studies regarding the near spherical shape of the earth.
I agree with Cody. I am interested in those links. Typical narrow minded person to say you aren't interested. Honestly I'm fed up with scientists AND religious people. Cherry pick information to "prove" their point but anything that might make your view objectionable you brush it off with your ridiculous.
@@angella7576 You're in luck, Angella! You won't have to scroll through someone's list of uninteresting links. A search, using "biological evolution," on PubMed (U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health), as of 3 minutes ago yielded cites of exactly 448,625 scientific papers. You can browse to your hearts content. After you've read twenty or thirty of the papers that most interest you, come back here an tell us what you learned. Side note: Science doesn't deal in "proofs." An axiom of science is that information is always limited - "proof" is unattainable. We have to settle for the best models we can build given the information we have. That's why our gold star models of realities are called "theories" and not "proofs."
@@angella7576 TH-cam doesn't let me send links in comments. Just type "Microbial evolution studies" on google and you'll find hundreds of them. These are not secrets. They are on the public space for everyone to see, 2 clicks away from any curious mind. Just shows you how much people just want to confirm their belief instead of doing honest research.
True, that. Dr. Tour has not ever been involved in the origins of life field at all. The only association he has with it is that he does is the same thing this Dr. Marco Fasoli does. Lie about the science behind it for Jesus.
He misspoke. Tour is a critical of the origin of life research, and he does work in the field outside origine id life and has indeed numerous articles. The point is that origin of life has yet to produce what they claim. You will have to debate him and not this interviewer.
James Tour exposed the origin of life researchers....The origin of life is a scam just ask Lee Cronin....The tongue in cheeck nonsense was almost a year later because he was catching a lot of heat from his colleagues
For atheists, some foul mouthed you tuber is more credible than Dr James Tour who's a well respected scientist with over 600 research publications and 200 patents.
Shall we just ignore all of the discoveries, gathered observations, corroboration with geology, DNA, bio science's understanding, antibiotics causing superbugs, astronomy's proof of deep time, and intelligent reasoning of the last 150 year's collection of puzzle pieces from across the globe ? And it doesn't count that religious closed-mindedness and their fears doesn't want to hear what they don't want to hear. People that are not paying attention have absolutely no scientific authority.
I agree . Even if you could disprove evolution you would still have to prove an intelligent creator and one that cares whether people sin or not. Some in religion like to point to evolution and big bang to see where they think science is wrong in order to validate their belief in a god. I can't say if there is or isn't a creator just no one has came up with evidence except to say it must be a creator.
Yes. If scientists are honest, then they must accept rerror and biass and give up their pet theory of evolution no matter how hard this is against their sophisticated overinflated false ego. But then again evolutionary scientists are not supposed to have values, ethics and virtues. So we don't expect them to feel guilty of wrongdoing and lying.
The secular worldview is built on assumption, presupposition, circular reasoning, lies, fraudulent evidence, wishful thinking and imagination. The math describing the fine tunning of the universe allowing and supporting life is unsurmountable for natural processes to explain, hence the need for a rescue device named 'multiverse'. It is also needed to explain how a simple protein folding by chance yields a probability with a value exceeding all the estimated molecules in the entire cosmos. It is science that is closed minded and requires constant cooking of the books to maintain its dogmatic grip on a biased worldview. They need to change the age of the universe now to align with observations from JWT, despite the fact the current age of the universe has been taught as fact for decades. When observations don't line up with a theory the theory should be abandoned but not when a long held paradigm has been implemented into society itself and allows the pursuit of personal pleasures and the love of sin because many have been convinced there is no meaning to life, its all an accident, there is no purpose, and all that matters is materialism and your own desires. The cosmological model is missing 98% of what should be observable, no worries, just invent something that has never been observed and call it dark matter and dark energy, it is not detectable but we know its there, trust us. You talk about things being ignored, how about ignoring even a simple protein folding by chance is absolutely mathematically impossible. How about the source of complexity and information is always a mind and this has never ever been disproven. How about DNA is the most sophisticated information ever discovered, is the most compact data storage system ever found, its 3D folding mechanism to produce new information is so unfathomably complex it cannot be replicated using supercomputers but despite all of this the dogmatic worldview must be upheld at all costs because the reality of a creator is so abominable it must be avoided at all costs. Science knows a lot less than you think, a single human cell has baffled scientists from all over the world for over 70 years, they are further back in understanding its complexity than when scrutiny of it began. It is literally a nano New York City in complexity and rivals anything mankind has devised by orders of magnitude, yet it created itself for no reason or purpose so God can be averted as an explanation for its existence. Run this over in your mind, the human body generates more processes per second than every computer on Earth combined and does so using a meagre 20 watts of electricity and according to Evolution it required no intelligent design. Man lies, cheats, steals, murders, rapes, is driven by lust and greed over all else, why would you take the word of man over the word of God.
Darwin might have a big head but he was kind of stupid I mean how can anyone know energy equals mass times the speed of light square? It could have been cubed just because him and the ancient aliens guy had bad hair don’t make them smart
@@silverfire01you don't have to prove a creator, if he is inviting you to believe in a religion and creator then he has to prove it but if he is just debunking a scientific theory, then he either debunks it or not
@user_James_Foard 4 days ago (edited) Thank you! Many years ago I had a wonderful Catholic video on creation narrated by an old Catholic priest with a long, grey beard and a German or eastern European accent and I lost it long ago and can't find it on the internet. Part of his name was Maria in honor of Mary, and the video dealt with the process of sedimentation and also why the literal story of Adam and Eve was essential to understanding why our Lord was crucified for our sins. If you know what video I am talking about I would love to find it again. Bless you!
Typical nonsensical religious gibberish. Blatant dishonesty, misinformation, speculation, assumptions, willful ignorance and wishful thinking. Zero evidence, zero facts.
Misleading nonsense. Evolution is undeniable scientific fact. Perhaps you have just never understood it properly. Allow me to explain how it works: (1) Each individual inherits half of its genes from its father and half of its genes from its mother. Some genes mutate more or less randomly during the process of recombination, within small limits otherwise the recombination won't work properly. The set of genes of any individual is slightly different from the set of genes of either parent, but also slightly different from the sets of genes of any brothers or sisters (with the exception of identical twins). INHERITANCE and RANDOM GENETIC VARIATION are important elements of evolution, but are not enough by themselves. (2) Because each individual has a slightly different set of genes, any characteristics of the individual that are genetically determined are also slightly different between siblings, cousins, etc. For instance, a baby deer may have slightly longer legs or slightly shorter legs than the average leg length among its brothers, sisters and cousins. Or, they may have less-than-average eyesight, better-than-average hearing, and so on. Some young animals will then cope better with ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES than others. Environmental pressures may be: lions hunting the deer; extreme weather like droughts; periods with lack of food; viral diseases; and so on. From any generation of young deers those that have slightly shorter legs are more likely to get caught by a lion than those that have slightly longer legs. Those that have slightly better eyesight will spot a tiger earlier than those with below-average eyesight, and so on. (3) From a group of young deer, perhaps 25% will reach reproductive age, while the other 75% die before producing offspring. Obviously, young animals that have slightly superior genetic properties than their siblings and cousins (e.g. longer legs, better eyesight, etc.) just have a better chance of reaching reproductive age than individuals with slightly inferior properties. This means that among the 25% survivors, there will be more individuals that were born with above-average leg length than with below-average leg length, because the short-legged young deer were just easier to catch by the lions. This process is called SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. The "filtering" of the genes under environmental pressures is also called NATURAL SELECTION. (4) Because properties that are helpful to survive under environmental pressure will be passed on to a next generation in larger percentage than the properties that are below average, the species as a whole will gradually develop to have longer legs, better eyesight, etc., while unfavourable properties (shorter legs, poor eyesight) will die out after a while. This is called ADAPTATION of the species to its environment. It is of course a very slow process, because it takes many generations while each generation needs some time for natural selection to do its work. (5) If the sets of genes of two individuals are too different the chemical process of genetic recombination (1) does not work properly anymore, and the two individuals cannot reproduce with each other. This is obvious for e.g. a dog and a cat, but perhaps slightly less obvious for mules (horse and donkey) or ligers (cross between a lion and a tiger). If plants or animals remain together as a group, they will reproduce with other individuals from that entire group, and the individual sets of genes will not drift apart too far from each other. However, if a large group of individuals splits up, and one half ends up in a different environment than the other half, then over time the two groups will adapt to their two different environments independently from the other group. After many generations, the two sets of genes have drifted apart to the extent that reproduction between individuals from the two original groups no longer works. This is called SPECIATION: the separation of one species into two new species that can no longer interbreed, even though they had a common ancestor species some time in the past. There you go: the elements of evolution are inheritance, random genetic variation, environmental pressure, natural selection, adaptation to the environment and speciation. It's all explained here above in easy terms, and NONE OF IT CAN BE DENIED. These mechanisms are observed again and again in nature, and have even been exploited by mankind over many centuries, to develop plants or animals with specific properties for specific purposes. If you look at the many different species of animals and plants around us, you can quite easily identify similar species that will have had a relatively recent common ancestor species (e.g. dogs and foxes), and other species with which they were related further back in the past (e.g. dogs and cats), just from analysis of their genes. This research has shown that all life once had a single common ancestor. There are around 1.5 million known species of animals and 400,000 species of plants, so to put them all in a single tree-like figure would be a bit of a challenge. A small section of the genetic tree of life is here upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg/1024px-Tree_of_life_SVG.svg.png. You will find yourself (homo sapiens) just left of the top centre, together with your cousin the chimpansees (pan troglodytes) with whom you share 96% of your genes, thanks to a common ancestor species that lived around 7 million years ago. If you want to deny evolution you are detaching yourself from scientific thinking, from millions of verifiable observations in biology, geology, paleontology, chemistry etc., and from the undeniable logic behind mechanisms such as natural selection under environmental pressure. Good luck with that...
It's one thing to criticize various theoretical elements of evolution, I think everyone can and should appreciate that. But when a person says that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, they're revealing themselves to be a complete crackpot who has no idea what they're talking about. They might as well be saying that birds can't exist because of the law of gravity. It's absolutely a complete misunderstanding of everything involved.
And you select and cherry pick the law of thermodynamics because you can object to that argument and then make it seem like all his points are wrong. In actual fact the strongest point against evolution is absentia ad expectata testimonio when it comes to the modus tollens rule which shows a general absence of evolution. If evolution has been found evolutionists would be able to put their money where their mouth is and SHOW the bat intermediates. SHOW the intermediates for sexual reproduction. SHOW the intermediates for pterodactyls, ichthyosaurs and pinnipeds. SHOW the intermediates for the electric eel and bombardier beatle. The truth is when it comes to evolution there really isn't anything to show which is why evolutionist try and win using words instead, and attacking people personally.
@@zt2max it's not "cherry picking" to point out that someone who claims to be a scientist has an inexcusably poor understanding of an argument that **he chose** to make. If you want to talk about the fossil record, that's another topic entirely.
@@zt2maxThe intermediates thing its such a 1970 argument man. We dont need every "intermediate" bc every generation of a species its a "intermediate". You are an intermediate between your father and the 50000 AC version of a homo sapiens througt your genetic line. The problem that people that deny evolution have its that there is absolute no other model that explain the world that well. Negate evolution its to negate biology, zoology, botanic, geology, medicine... Whats the other explication for the existence of species adapted to the desert Sahara when million of years ago the Sahara was a jungle? Or when the earth was frozen? How today species existed during those conditions?
0:20 Is this one of these videos where virtually every single sentence is a lie or is based on a misconception? No, Fasoli, what Darwin said about the matter is _not_ relevant. The Theory of Evolution is not Scripture, handed down from a prophet. With a degree in biochemistry you should know this.
@@augustinius6586 How much are you willing to bet? Please explain why a dude that died two centuries ago is relevant to today's non-historic discussion of today's Theory of Evolution.
23:13 3000 years ago，one Chinese said, “Word is said, not always Word. Name is named, not always name.” Cells say, we have no problem to understand any word. What exactly are scientists searching for?
The origin of life was a mere accident of specific elements coming together in a specific manner (we have the vastness of space and a few billion years to thank for that). Evolution (adaptation) came after that.
You are correct, the “theory” of evolution does not explain the origin of life, neither does the Big Bang theory, its scientists best guess from the 1800s and we’ve all given up trying and we’re just going with that, which is fine, I get it, don’t think about it anymore, it’s been settled and now you can watch tv and eat food and don’t worry about it anymore
yep, no actual argument just bullshit. The reason Darwin is critique is because evolution is his theory, and he set the grounds and reasoning behind it. So refute evolution one must attack the epistemic principle of evolution which is listed by Darwin himself. Again I don't expect you to understand that because you're an ape
@AlexStock187 Psylogeny is in the hypothesis stage, my friend. There are reasons people speak the way they do. Your arrogance and overconfidence in your understanding is a flaw. If you blindly believe "the science," you look just as bad as the religious people blindly believing the preacher. So any critique should involve Darwin, as this is the established science theory. Not pyhlogeny.
"Not a single fact that backs it up" Then proceeds to lie about pretty much everything. Claiming that there is a growing number of scientists that oppose it and then listing for people from 50+ years ago. Claiming that evolution can't explain irritable complexity when to date there is not a single case of things that has been shown to be irritability complex. Also claiming that evolution can't explain the origins of life is like saying that carpentry can't explain how the earth formed.
@@joefriday2275 Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. Racists will deny evolution in their pathetic attempt to feel superior.
@@katherinehickey6915 Darwin was 1859 -- the science has advanced since then. What about the hundreds of thousands of scientists who don't doubt evolution?
@@katherinehickey6915 Are you talking about that nonsense 'Dissent from Darwinism' that is made up of mostly non-scientists or scientists that do not work in any related fields to evolution? Because there are more scientists who actually work in related fields named Steve, that accept the fact of evolution than is in your sorry excuse of a list. Project Steve has 1497 signatories as of May 22, 2024.
Lmfao, you have to "debunk" a flawed, but correct idea because you can't argue against facts because you know nothing about evolution. Evolution is a fact. Get over itm
I had a very interesting lecture on evolution by a priest, in a Catholic seminar. He had a degree in biology and told us what all biologists say: without evolution nothing in biology makes sense.
That's pretty funny because it makes sense to the world renowned scientist (named top 50 in the world) organic chemist and nano engineer, Dr. James Tour, and many of his contemporaries and anyone who truly believes in God as well. You can't always trust Catholic priests, lol...
@@surrenderdaily333 It is possible to believe in things of the christian religion and also the theory of evolution. The only conflict arises if you insist on a literal reading of Genesis. Many devout christians accept Genesis as more symbolic or metaphoric than literal.
Darwin didn't have access to the current body of scientific knowledge or modern instrumentation.
That was my point. He based his work on what could be observed at the time with no knowledge of genetics. Pretty damned impressive, in my book.
@@mcmanustonyyeah
@@mcmanustony Only in the macrocosmos. In the microcosmos the Darwinists have been debunked by Michael Behe and by reality, of course.
Neither did the Jews
@@mcmanustony Read first Behe's book, please, and then come here again, admitting Behe's greatness.
And every follower/believer of Darwin's hypothesis is a Darwinist by definition. Ramen.
Peltdown Man refers to a set of fossils found near Piltdown, England, in 1912, which were initially thought to be the remains of a previously unknown early human. These remains, which included a skull and jawbone, were purported to bridge the gap between apes and humans, causing significant excitement and reevaluation in the scientific community regarding human evolution.
However, by 1953, the fossils were exposed as a fraud through chemical analyses and other tests. It was revealed that the bones were a combination of human and orangutan parts, artificially aged and manipulated to appear ancient. The identity of the perpetrator of the Piltdown hoax has never been definitively established, though various individuals associated with the discovery have been suspected. The incident is one of the most infamous scientific frauds in history and serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of rigorous scientific methods and peer review.
When I was a young boy in a Protestant Church, I was told the same and the same example of the orangutank as an argument against Evolution. Now I am 58, and I meet with the same argument again. Well, I also know some crooks who declared that they found Noah's arc on Mount Ararat, made a few commercialy succesful videos about it and were asking money from the churches in the US to make another expedition there. Should I disavow the Bible because of them?
when a cop plants evidence do we re-invent the justice system or just throw out that piece of evidence?
@@AMC2283When the people who believe the ideas are falsifying all the “evidence” to prove their theory, why would you not doubt them? If something is so obviously a scientific fact, they would’ve found real evidence, but instead they’ve just faked all the evidence. They are just as bad as the Christians who believe Genesis can be used to scientifically date the earth, etc.
@@AMC2283 No you just throw out all the dirty cops and their false evidence.
@@alantasman8273"No, you just throw out all the dirty cops and their false evidence."
Alan for the win 😂.
Man disproves entire field of science. Can’t wait to see his Nobel prize for saving us from our ignorance
You'll be waiting a long time. This guy disproved nothing! If fact he cited nothing actually supported by evidence. His claims about Darwin are inaccurate, and debunk nothing. A typical apologists hit job.
Linda your comment disappeared just as I was to provide evidence!
Just because the speaker says something doesn't mean he is correct! In fact he is quite incorrect several times.
Research the London underground mosquito to see an example of one species changing to another, proving that his comments are inaccurate.
Darwin didn't even discuss primordial soup in his research, so that makes this guy's comments on this video seem like lies, or at least deceptive. Most of what the video says is unsupported or disputed by the science - but I'll bet you've never even looked at the science, but instead believed what you've been told?
Then read up on evolution before making uneducated comments. EVERY single fossil is actually a transitional fossil if it has a difference from the previous example, but the differences from one generation to the next may even be imperceptible, and difficult to see in a fossil. Depends on lots of factors.
@@tonyclif1 just so you know his comment was sarcasm
@@tonyclif1 "This guy disproved nothing".
Excellent, we have someone who's willing to rebut the statements made in the video.
Please go ahead.
@@ianshand6094 @ianshand6094 let's start at 0:25 when he claims Lyell's principles have been disproved. An absolute untruth - while not all of Lyell's specific claims have withstood scrutiny, his overall approach and many of his principles remain integral to the field of geology. (Uniformitarianism, gradualism and deep time for a start) His work was the basis of a methodology that has enabled geologists to refine our understanding of Earth's geological processes. I can't give you links as TH-cam deletes them, but I've given enough info for you to look them up
Darwin described his own writings as "speculation, full of holes". Honesty is the best policy.
great--the theory of evolution is hardly synonymous with darwin after 160 years, it's exhaustively verified, and this guy whining about how dna is magical refutes nothing
Is lying about what Darwin said really your best "debunk" of the theory?
Lies
@@AMC2283 Standard propaganda delivered in broken AI style.
@@numbersix9477 Did Darwin ever finish his sequel to OOS?
"Have an open mind" and "Do your own research", but "Just don't read the text books".
Perhaps that’s better said, “Don’t just read the textbooks.”
@@kevinbrummett5513 No, he's got it pretty spot on with what these people are actually saying.
They don't want you reading the books that actually talk about the facts, because then you wouldn't be convinced by all their bullshit.
@@palladin1337 Yet all this BS makes real impact on medicine, vaccin and curing disease in general.
Whenever has the "god-hypothesis" given us anything concrete and helpful in developping cures for diseases like cancer?
At least Darwin had the balls to admit his hypothesis could be wrong. Most lay-people today are told abiogenesis is irrefutable fact with no holes or room for improvement. Scientific progress cannot flourish against such fervent dogmatism.
@@uniqueTH-camCreatorHandle "Most lay-people today are told abiogenesis is irrefutable fact with no holes or room for improvement."
....No, no they are not. What is said about Abiogenesis, at least from people who don't have their heads buried in a book of myths written by goat farmers, is that it is currently the most plausible theory we have for how life first started on Earth. It isn't 'complete,' however, so there is definitely room for it to improve since it's a relatively recent theory.
"Scientific progress cannot flourish against such fervent dogmatism."
Which is why religion as a whole is largely discarded as useless when speaking about things scientifically since it's dogmatic and always behind the curve, be it scientifically or socially.
8:40 Darwin is dead. Darwin was already dead when his grandfather was born. Science moved on. Why is he wasting our time?
It's a tactic right out of the communist handbook by Saul Alinsky:
pick a target
freeze it
personalize it
accuse target of doing what you are actually doing
Evolution deniers don't understand the science, but they do understand personal attacks. Every anti-science argument eventually assaults the character of a great scientist. They must quote from Darwin's writings in 1859 because they have no hope of standing against all we know today.
He's not only talking about Darwin is he? He's also talking about modern evolution isn't he? He's a scientist. Why are you wasting our time?
@@vromorthelilbee1 Look at the timestamp: He *IS* talking about Darwin. My question to you is: Why?
@@korbendallas5318 Again, He is not talking about only Darwin, He's talking about Early Darwinism & also modern Darwinism. Which one do you not get?
@@vromorthelilbee1 There is no "modern Darwinism". Darwin is dead. He was dead before most Soldiers of WWI were born.
Please answer my question: Why does he mention Darwin? What makes him relevant?
Yes, everyone do your own research, but not from a religious oriented source. Than you will get a current understanding of how evolution is evidenced from all fields of science.
@@RenzunShark If Darwin never existed our understand of evolution would still be the same as it is. You know, all life forms have the same agenda, to survive and multiply by whatever means it can. I'm just sorry science does not have good news for the individual organism, not as far as longevity goes.
i agree, but they should do the same amount of research in both directions, there are historical accounts of Jesus and all that. There is also a ton of evidence supporting evolution. Overly biased religious people dont want to allow the fact that both could be true and that one does not completely discount the other. Biblical documents are full of metaphor, "eye witness" accounts and can be supported by non biblical text, but to say that humans did not evolve from an earlier version of hominid because the bible doesnt mention it is close minded.
Thanks for standing up for the truth, Dr Fasoli and Fra Leo!
What truth?
Of what truth are you speaking. What convinced you that it actually was true?
0:40 This did not took me one, but two Google searches, because these lines are from _two_ letters, one to Gray (1857-06-18) and one to Huxley (1859?-06-02). Was Google broken the day Fasoli prepared for this interview?
Google regularly malfunctions on purpose.
glad somebody else found it. I was not so kind in my summary as you.
@@surrenderdaily333 Oh really, just because it doesn't give the results that fit your narrative.
@@spidermike3 How about it doesn't give regular, accurate results.
Life does NOT violate the Second Law of thermodynamics. At least no more than a refrigerator does!
A refrigerator is designed and manufactured.
@@l.m.892 Life is also designed…but by a natural process. Chemistry is the creative process that results in molecules self organizing into replicating structures. Nature is remarkable that way.
@@rizdekd3912 "Life is also designed…but by a natural process."
Speculation without a shred of empirical evidence.
"Chemistry is the creative process that results in molecules self organizing into replicating structures."
Nonsense. Chemistry is a set of laws, not principles of purpose. You make chemistry sound like a platform for science fiction.
"Nature is remarkable that way."
In familiar atheistic style - worshiping the creation rather than the Creator.
@@rizdekd3912 "Life is also designed…but by a natural process."
Natural processes don't design anything .. they obey natural laws. Surely you aren't suggesting that there is a natural law leading to biological life. Do you know what 'design' is?
"Chemistry is the creative process that results in molecules self organizing into replicating structures."
ideological fluff. You making Smores later? Chemistry results from investigating natural laws. It is not "a creative process".
"Nature is remarkable that way."
Worship the creation, rather than the Creator. What is the problem with that picture?
If fact it does...
1. Darwin's Statements About Speculation
Dr. Fasoli uses Darwin's own words to suggest that Darwin considered his theory speculative and flawed. However, while Darwin did acknowledge gaps in his theory, it is critical to recognize that he laid the groundwork for evolutionary biology, which has evolved and strengthened significantly since his time.
Counterpoint: Darwin’s awareness of the gaps in his theory was not an admission of its failure, but rather a sign of scientific humility and an acknowledgment that more research was needed. Over time, modern evolutionary theory has integrated advances in genetics, molecular biology, and paleontology, addressing many of the issues that Darwin couldn't have foreseen.
2. Lack of Observed Macro-Evolution
Dr. Fasoli argues that macro-evolution, or large-scale evolution, has not been observed in the laboratory and points to experiments involving E. coli and fruit flies that failed to produce new species.
Counterpoint: Evolutionary processes often operate over long timescales that are difficult to replicate in a laboratory environment. However, speciation has been observed in both natural and experimental settings. For example, research on Darwin's finches in the Galápagos Islands has documented observable evolution in beak size and shape in response to environmental changes. In laboratory settings, experiments with bacteria and fruit flies have shown genetic changes that could lead to speciation given enough time.
3. The Fossil Record and Transitional Forms
Fasoli claims that the fossil record doesn’t contain transitional forms, citing Darwin’s own concerns about the lack of intermediate fossils. However, modern paleontologists have found many examples of transitional fossils.
Counterpoint: The fossil record is far from complete, but many transitional fossils have been discovered. Tiktaalik (fish to tetrapod), Archaeopteryx (dinosaur to bird), and various early hominids (such as Australopithecus) are just a few examples. These fossils demonstrate evolutionary transitions between major groups of organisms. The fact that not every possible transitional form is preserved does not negate the overwhelming evidence that evolution occurs.
4. Origin of Life and Abiogenesis
Dr. Fasoli critiques the inability to recreate life from simple chemicals in the lab, using this to argue against the possibility of evolution. He points to the work of James Tour and other scientists who argue that the formation of life from non-life (abiogenesis) is highly improbable.
Counterpoint: Abiogenesis and evolution are distinct processes. Evolution explains how life diversifies once it has begun, but abiogenesis is about how life originated. While we do not yet have a complete understanding of how life began, numerous experiments (such as the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have shown that complex organic molecules, like amino acids, can form under conditions similar to those on early Earth. The origin of life remains a subject of active research, but the inability to replicate it in a lab doesn’t disprove the theory of evolution.
5. The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Fasoli argues that the second law of thermodynamics, which suggests that systems tend toward disorder, contradicts the idea that life can evolve to greater complexity.
Counterpoint: The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems, and Earth is an open system. Energy from the sun drives processes on Earth, enabling the increase in complexity that we observe in biological systems. Evolution is a process that allows organisms to adapt and increase in complexity through natural selection, and it doesn't violate the second law when the Earth's open system and energy flows are taken into account.
6. Natural Selection and Mutation
Dr. Fasoli claims that the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation don’t work, citing laboratory experiments that show no significant evolutionary change in organisms like bacteria and fruit flies.
Counterpoint: Mutations and natural selection are key mechanisms driving evolution. While mutations can be neutral, harmful, or beneficial, those that offer a survival advantage tend to become more common in a population over time. The classic example of antibiotic resistance in bacteria is a clear demonstration of evolution in action. In nature, natural selection acts on variations, and over many generations, this leads to the adaptation of populations.
7. Fossil Record and Stability
Fasoli argues that the lack of transitional fossils means that evolution is not supported by evidence, suggesting that species remain stable over time.
Counterpoint: Fossil evidence does show transitional forms, but it is true that many species do remain relatively stable over time. This is expected in evolution, as not all species undergo drastic changes. Evolution is a gradual process that occurs at different rates depending on environmental pressures. Some species experience long periods of stasis, while others undergo rapid changes (punctuated equilibrium, for example, describes this phenomenon).
Conclusion:
Dr. Fasoli’s arguments rely on selective interpretations of scientific research and misunderstandings of core scientific principles. Evolution, as a scientific theory, is supported by a vast body of evidence from genetics, paleontology, comparative anatomy, and more. While some aspects of evolutionary theory, such as the origin of life, remain unresolved, the process of evolution itself is well-supported and continuously refined by ongoing research.
"Darwin’s awareness of the gaps in his theory was not an admission of its failure, but rather a sign of scientific humility and an acknowledgment that more research was needed."
No kidding more research was needed. You could more accurately say "research was needed", as it was missing from the initial analysis.
What a bunch of Darwinist propaganda. Scientific humility? More like scientific ignorance.
" Fossil evidence does show transitional forms, but it is true that many species do remain relatively stable over time."
Stop avoiding the issue. Darwin said there should be a plethora of transitional forms ... They don't exist, which means Darwinian evolution doesn't exist.
You struck a cord with the primitive nay sayers. What they don't seem to comprehend or consider is that IF God created the world SO THAT it could bring forth life that could evolve into the diversity we see today, that would be a far greater feat than simply creating different life forms by hand. Their resistance to evolution is ideological, not scientific.
Iit would be the difference between a mediocre programmer who is able to write many useful apps vs the truly gifted programmer who writes one AI algorithm that generates apps as needed.
@@rizdekd3912 Nonsense. There is no empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution. Like Smegol, you hold on to evolution as though it is PRECIOUS! Darwin was no scientist. Why do you pretend as though he was? Why not just be honest and admit evolution is a loser?
@ The idea that the diverse life on earth evolved instead of each individual life form being a unique creation is based on the fact that each newborn or each new sprout or clone is a unique individual, and because of genetic variation each is different than its ancestors. That is evolution and it is attested to by measurements and observations.
I assume God could have created the world so it could produce life that could evolve just like he could have created the world to do many other things naturally.
"NOT A SINGLE FACT THAT BACKS IT UP" - You are RIGHT as long as you bury your head in the sand!
@@mcmanustony what pride you have in your ignorance
Says the one with their head in the sand.
@@mcmanustony What evidence exactly? Just saying "evidence" doesn't tell me anything, and evidence can be interpreted many ways through different lenses. Fossils mostly prove spontaneous creation and the great flood. Comparative anatomy proves God loves variety and that we were all created by the same God.
Also there is a difference between molecules to man evolution, and simple speciation built into the DNA by God.
I see you've spammed a bunch of comments with 0 evidence and all just ad homs.
@@mcmanustony Everyone knows ad hom. I read your other comments. That was the majority of them. Now you're gaslighting.
Yawn, once again you present no evidence. I was already a lost evolutionist. There is no going back. Keep seething.
@@ReapingTheHarvest Clever reply. I appreciate the irony. I was a pastor in opposition to evolution. I felt like God did not have a spokesperson against evolution in essence I said, here I am, send me" . I was shocked by what I found. Christian Scientists who I had supported lied in their books. After all is said and done. GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE AND HE IS TO RECIEVE ALL THE GLORY FOR ALL THAT IS GOOD AND MAGNIFICENT IN IT. IT MAKES LITTLE DIFFERENCE IF GOD MADE A WORLD WHICH COULD GENERATE SPONTANEOUIS LIFE OR HE SIMPLY DECIDED TO SPEAK LIFE..THE LANGUAGE FOUND IN OUR DNA MUST COME FROM A MIND.OF NOTE IS THE FACT THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS A COMPLEX, UNMATCHED BY ANYTHING THE MIND OF MAN COULD DESIGN. A SIMPLE FACT BUT OBVIOUSLY FORCEFUL. THE FOSSIL RECORD HAS VERY SIMPLE LIFE FORMS, LATER VEGETATION, LATER STILL, FLOWERING FLOWERS/BUSHES/TRESS WHICH HAPPENS TO COINCIDE WITH THE FIRST BEES. ANCIENT FISH,THEN MODERN AND A MOVE FROM THE SEA TO LAND. ANPHIBIANS THEN REPTILES THEN MAMMALS all of which are NEVER FOUND IN THE MOST ANCIENT ROCKS OR LAKE DEPOSITS. Conclusion they came later since they have all been found dated in younger deposits or rock. If no evolution, did God make simple life forms then add a little something over and over to get us the present diversity of all of life? Dating is confirmed by several types of dating that seem to ALL act in harmony. I have spent thousands of hours trying to better understand the Bible. Bachelors Degree with work done at 2 conservative Bible Colleges, a Masters Degree, then I dropped out of my Doctoral program. It is OK to interpret Genesis 1-11, NOT AS HISTORICAL NARRATIVE! SCHOLARS CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL find Literary, Biblical, Historical, and Scientific arguments which can be proposed to nuance our understanding of the "genre" of historical narrative. . I am honest, I love the Lord, and am an superior student. God gave me a brain which is very inquisitive so I dig deeper then most. I am a 70-year-old retired Christian who has been passionately in Love with God since July 3rd 1976 when he sent an angel to me. I was agnostic and became a fervent Christian. God spoke these words to me. "Man is separated from me because of sin but I have sent my son into the world to bring man back into relationship with myself." Became a Christian that day then my unbelieving family became saved (8 of 9) and 4 of us became pastors! Miracle healings in my family! I was shocked but God uses evolution, it is clearly directed by him because it has a telos or purpose. God Bless and love him well.
Darwin died 1882 and and was the pioneer of these ideas. How about somebody who studied it this year?
Well that’s question begging. With what criteria did they use to study these things. They have to base that off of what Darwin’s studies were and try to build on that. If there’s so many flaws in Darwin’s work, why pursue what he was pursuing?
@@dereksyota give me one flaw in Darwin's work, apart from him not knowing DNA and genetics.
Our friends dug up a model of evolution that was abandoned by the scientific community over seventy years ago - and attacked it, attacked it, attacked it. Does that approach actually work?
What do you mean by this?
@@JoelRichardson-l2j "What do you mean by this?"
Nothing. He obviously planted this gem only to abandon it. It's like a weed, taking up space that useful plants could use..
He means the model of evolution has evolved as the original one has crumbled under scientific evidence.
@@gentianhila5307 But natural selection was not used because instead of bad information being removed, good information was added (Mendelian genetics).
@@numbersix9477 it does when none of the models work and they constantly change with time.
Thanks!
Very good presentation! Evolution is utterly impossibility.
No, it’s a fact.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 Single cell life is irreducibly complex. Evolutionists have no rebuttal to this... only unsubstantiated statements like "evolution is a fact".
@@maskofscience Irreducible complexity has been obliterated as a criticism of evolution. It's a talking point, not a fact.
@@maskofscience "Single cell life is irreducibly complex. "
Written up as a robustly supported scientific paper, that would be a Nobel Prize winning revelation. You should get crackin'.
so this PHD guy of yours, is he gonna publish a paper soon for peer review ? no ? so he just likes cameras and talking to laymen ha ? figures
If he did, would that make a difference to you?
@@Greenie-43x
If it doesn't make a difference to him, will it make a difference to you?
I log into one of these every so often hoping for some interesting critiques of modern evolutionary theory. But in this one again all I get is the same scientifically bogus arguments. One example “ life violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics “ . Wrong a) we are by definition talking about life on earth b) the earth is an open system , energy flows in from the sun and inter alia drives biomass by photosynthesis . Energy is also radiated back into space. 2nd law refers to total entropy, suns increase in entropy has vastly exceeded the earths decrease.
show me the mechanism that creates life from nothing show me throught the scientic method, observation you cant show one dam thing thats right not one, not one, come on sherlock show me with true scientific data you cant smart guy because there arnt any this from someone with 3 earned degrees with a 4.0 in grad school how about you graduated from high school yet
The full 100%!
In a vision, God told me that open/closed doesn't matter and that "entropy" doesn't matter either. He said it's all about COMPLEXITY! He explained that the second law of COMPLEXITY shows us that evolution can't happen.
Gotta go! They just took my empty dinner plate away and left me ICE CREAM!
Sometimes I think people like you wouldn’t even believe in Christianity even if you had a Time Machine went to the past, watched Jesus die and rise from the dead and then come back to the present and say “yep still don’t believe.” You simply just don’t want it to be true. Let go of your little ego.
@@ryanclour8680 Because resurrection DOES violate the second law of thermodynamics - decomposition is an irreversible process where entropy increases, which means resurrection is a process where entropy would DECREASE, thus making it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!
Darwin’s theory is NOT a myth; it’s a theory. The primary role of science is to either:
1. Prove that the theory is correct; or
2. Prove that the theory is incorrect.
Correct idea, a small correction, science does not prove, but verifies. Proofs are only in Math.
@@florincoter1988 Good point, thank-you for the correction...so much for my theory. ;)
@@martinroncetti4134 Thank you! So rare today to acknowledge (or to reject) kindly a clarification.
@@martinroncetti4134 People forget the whole of science is conjecture that's accepted so long as it's workable, soon as a new explanation leads to better results it doesn't take long b4 everyone acts like they always knew. Judging by the amount of rule bending going on presently we're due for a lot of hot potato dropping, specifically in the astronomical community who are finding sums wrong all over the shop now the new telescopic datasets are being evaluated. They're so close to unifying everything, apart from that 95% they don't know anything about. They will keep it under their hats until it all clears itself up - no need to 'rock the boat' so's to speak..!
Whatever it is, it's bollocks!
“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science..."
"It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts.” -C. Darwin
What does an over 160 year old quote have to do with all the evidence we have today of biological evolution?
He didn't believe it included man either and I think he was quite specific about that, whether or not anybody believes it would matter. In the greater scheme of things 'Evolution' itself doesn't matter it is merely a convenient tool to batter the student into godless thinking, just like 'adjuvants' are a convenient toxin to poison the childs brain.
"You may use any theory or substance to curtail free thinking but the ones that are acceptable and effective are obviously preferable. The next qualifications are cost and expedience - time and money. If you have a weapon that is then cheap and self administered the war of minds will win itself." - every psychopathic megalomaniac, ever.
Derp......
{{"Darwin really did say this, but it is often quoted out of context to suggest that he had doubts about the validity of his theories (he didn't): ' I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science. ' Darwin is not making a general comment on his evolutionary theories. He said this in the context of a discussion with Asa Gray about a very specific problem - how to account for the existence of species of plants for which there were no, or few, closely related species. Darwin had speculated that these disjoined species would be found to come from genera which had very few species in total. This was not based on a great deal of observation however, hence it appeared to him to be unscientific. This is an example of the sort of selective reading of Darwin that is fairly common."}}
Darwin project DOT ac Dot UK
Quote mining and lying at their finest.
@@mcmanustony are you saying darwin didn't write that? Please educate yourself. You may be too young to know this but it is fairly common knowledge that name calling is usually the last resort of a person who has no facts or information to back his position. So by calling believers names atheists actually discredit themselves. Not only that but Christ teaches us that we will be greatly rewarded when people speak ill of us for his sake. So at the same time atheists discredit themselves they add to the believer's reward. It's a win-win, THANKS!
The fact that darwinism is false should be a source of encouragement for atheists. It means you are not a random monkey mistake. It means your great, great, great... grandkids won't grow scales and swim off into the sea never to be seen again. It means you were created by the most intelligent mind in the cosmos with a loving purpose. Receive the love; declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10:9).
@@occupyreality1830 you are saying darwin didn't have any doubts but he had no way to account for certain plant species. You have not shown that darwin was correct in his hypothesis. It is not quote mining, it is quoting.
As a fellow PhD biochemist in Cambridge, I am horrified by this. The puacity of thinking and weakness of logic is staggering.
I'm pretty sure it is not evidence of a paucity of thinking or a weakness of logic. It's a money maker, pure and simple.
@@keithmoore991 horrified by your own cognitive dissonance
Then try to ELABORATE an answer.
@@keithmoore991 you have no response or proof😵💫🤣
@@beesting6135 "cognitive dissonance"
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means. Please define cognitive dissonance for us and explain how it applies to Keith.
At 17:16 he says that fruit flies have failed to show any adaptation through evolution... but they have! what about the experiment that stopped them from breeding for progressively longer and longer periods (so they reproduced later) and doubled their lifespan in a fairly short amount of time!?
That's more goldfinch beak stuff. Where was new genetic information added to where you have a new type of creature. The number of generations required for one evolutionary step is getting higher and higher each year.
Doesn’t explain or prove macro evolution
@@jcrodri3You're seriously (wilfully?) underestimating this. Lifespan is infamously fixed, think what people have done to try to increase it in humans. Religious people fantasise about a mythical past with sinless humans who lived for hundreds of years.
Back in the real world, a greater lifespan in flies could lead to all sorts of new challenges, and therefore opportunities, especially strategies for winter survival (which flies famously fail at), which in itself would probably lead to even greater changes.
@jcrodri3 - creationists define "macro" evolution as change of kind. Like a mother giving birth to a frog. Something what is impossible. Normal people don't mention "macro evolution"
Meaning they had fewer offsprings?
“You can’t reason someone out of a position they weren’t reasoned into!” ~ Johnathan Swift ~
And you cannot change a man's mind when his income depends on being wrong. (Wish I could remember who said that.)
@@rickmartin7596 I guess we're all paying billions for scientists to just sit around, then?
🙄
@@Christobanistan We pay scientists to expand the sphere of human knowledge. Apologists get paid to play make-believe. The difference is evidence.
@@rickmartin7596
Gerry Spence said something like that in his book, "How to argue and win every time."
I highly recommend reading the book, btw.
@@rickmartin7596
... But make-believe makes it easier for me to sleep.
Well explained. Pleasent conversation. Love this video. Thank you ❤
'Do your own research with an open mind!'
his first statement is a lie. first statement.
Very rational and logical refutation of fairytale of evolution I ever saw on TH-cam
Indeed! We all go to TH-cam to gain in-depth knowledge of scientific models.
(Lest someone take me literally and conclude that I'm a creationist, the above was pure sarcasm.)
Please explain how the Tiktaalik was found.
A creationist calling evolution a fairytale is possibly the ultimate example of kettle calling the pot black. The bible is the biggest and original fairy story ever written.
"I will rather believe in faeries than in Darwinian theory!" should have been this vid's title.
Are you saying you believe in the fairytale of evolution?
@@richardjackson6307 It's just like a theory, just like the spherical shape of the Earth.
Strangely both are supported by facts, and both contradict the Bible...
@@VadimRadtchenko
But, but, but heaven! If you don't embrace a literal interpretation of Genesis, you won't be allowed into heaven.
Truth hurts, I understand your foolish exageration due to your frustration and embarrasment, and we forgive you.
@@James-p3m8j You mean that I'm exaggerating Earth's shape and that you think it's just a little bulging but still as flat as a clay seal?
"Immaculata means "without stain," "holy," or "pure". It is a feminine name of Latin origin that is often associated with the Virgin Mary and the Immaculate Conception." Enough said about the content of this video - no purpose of education but just of breaking down existing knowledge. The purpose of channels and organisations like this is to break down the validity of every single aspect of the Theory of Evolution. They fixate on "Darwinian" which refers to the work of Darwin as it is basically the only spot where they can get their dirty fingernails into the science. To put this into perspective -it is the exact same as we would only speak about the cosmos in terms of "Galilean Cosmology" - quite ridiculous, so ask yourself why they insist on forcing the conversation to Darwin and not to the science developed since? In both cases these two men (Darwin/Galileo/Keppler) layed the ground framework for an idea about how the world around us works. The aim of the people in these kinds of videos is to stay at that level where biological evolution is concerned and disregard the many layers of new knowledege and insight we gained through 160 years of multiple disciplines of science that all confirms the Theory of Evolution. Ask yourself why do they not attack "Galilean Cosmology" or "Einsteinian Physics" or "Huttonian Geology"? Simply as none of these options directly endanger their grift the same way that Evolution does.
So why do these people do this? Religion is big business, very powerful/infuential and worth protecting for them. The Theory of Evolution hammers gigantic holes into the biblical narrative which endangers the business model of religious organisations. Secondly these people glow in the stature they gain in the grift circle of conferences, podcasts, youtube channels etc where they sound "oh so clever" usually in front of uninformed audiences. One of the many patterns of these channels is to missuse qualified people who then talk about subjects outside their subject area - "buy the message just because the messenger has the right hair style". In this case - he is at least in a sort of related field and that of biochemistry. Good for him but still worrying - if he has any integrity as a scientist WHY does he not do research on these 7 scientific reasons - postulate his problems regarding them and give it a new direction based on his staggering insight and proper published research? Or even write informed replies to tens of thousands of research papers on the various aspects of the science of evolution? No sign of that I presume - it is so much easier to look clever on TH-cam while panelbeating results to fit his god-narrative. Bravo.
4:15 No, it doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'm all for disproving Darwin's theory _honestly._ Making up lies like this one only weakens your argument. Cut it out, stay scientific and truthful.
Explain why it doesn't.
@williamsaaranen7672 - 2nd law only applies to closed systems.
@@globalcoupledances Yes. That's why if one wants to invoke the 2nd law in the context of Darwin, one must include the Sun in the proceedings. And the Sun is the source of very low entropy. So the real mystery is why the Big Bang (assuming it did happen) was such an enormously low-entropy state. Nobody knows. Roger Penrose in his "Emperor's New Mind" book has an estimate of the probability of this happening by chance: it's about 1 in 10^10^123, an amazingly tiny chance. So what physicists are saying is, basically: "We can explain everything following that, just give us this one miracle".
@@williamsaaranen7672 As another person mentioned, one must include the Sun as a part of the system. And the Sun is a reservoir of enormously low entropy (which is utlimately traced back to the Big Bang, assuming _that_ theory is more or less correct, so _that's_ where the miracle in fact resides).
@@williamsaaranen7672 the earth is an open system, influenced for example by solar energy - affecting climate, weather, photosynthesis which all can impact reactions by organisms (like evolution :) )
Absolutely fascinating that a Cambridge professor has to read nonstop from his notes, rather than his own vast knowledge.in order to speak.
I'm sure you're qualified enough to challenge his expertise right? Using notes now implies not knowing right?? The internet really protects cowards these days.
@@michaeltamajong2988 Very good. Cowards hiding behind irrelevant notes aren't actually experts. Very astute that you also spotted that.
If you spot an actual expert, let me know.
@@redgodofwar7723 I disagree with atheist scientists and academics, but never will you see me go to comments to argue or discredit their intellectual achievements. I will honor the expertise because it is a fact that their level of reasoning and mine are not the same, they have more experience. But it's different with atheists. You see, someone with 0 knowledge in physics or chemistry will be questioning the intelligence of an expert scientist, a professor. It's so ridiculous.
@@redgodofwar7723 my point is, at least, we need to respect intellectual achievement and experience. It is very inappropriate to make that statement you made because you cannot stand before him intellectually. Leave it to the intellectuals in his field to critique.
@@michaeltamajong2988 Why could I not stand before him intellectually?
Okay why did Jesus pray to God when he is God? If God can see the future before it happens then why was Jesus afraid to die was he pretending? Jesus said God why have you forsaken me? Isn't that called begging and fear of dying? If Jesus can stop people from throwing stones at a person and put in ear back on a man's head why couldn't he stop people from killing him? If he let people kill him that means he committed suicide? One of the biggest sins in the Bible is suicide! They say he died for our sins but he committed the biggest sin of all (suicide)! God will kill millions of people around the world for animals on a boat because people go against his rules! Then that means God doesn't like free will right?
Jesus prayed to His Father in heaven. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit is the Trinity.
When Jesus said "My God, My God, Why have You forsaken me?" That was a song from Psalms. A direct quote of Psalms 22. It is a reference to a much longer message.
Good questions.
Amazing presentation. I'm constantly trying to share this type of information with friends and family but everyone thinks I'm crazy. I wish I could speak eloquently like this man. But I know if I send the video to my friends they won't watch it
you're not crazy but you a superstitious ignoramus. what could you possibly need this guy for or to speak like him--isn't everything in your bible pal? why should they watch it if you send it--you can't talk scientifically to conclude your religion, and again, something wrong with your bible?
@@AMC2283 And you're living proof that a human can evolve into an arse.
@@Finnegas-Eceswell let’s see pal. You and I don’t really know each other but by your own admission your friends and family think you’re crazy. So absolutely no wherewithal to think for one second that the problem really is you?
Well, that's because this is a word salad of absolute nonsense.
This conversation was incredibly frustrating. I was hoping for some firm reasoning and only got a terrible non relevant analogy. Where is the hard proof?
If you cannot explain something simply you do not understand well enough.
You didn't explain anything. Does that mean you don't understand anything well enough?
The conclusion must have gone right over your head . God is the only explanation of where we come from why we are here , what we can do what is specting us at the end of times because scientifically our universe is running out of energy and is expanding and is coming to an end . The only person who knows our past present and future is God who revealed himself in his creation and his word what we call bible
@@santoseliodoropaz9894 who are you replying to? And what do you define 'God' as ?
What do you mean by God? There are many gods among different people. I can say I am God, I created the universe. Don't be crazy and foolish. Not every person who says I am God is God. And Jesus Christ is not God, he is just a human being. @@santoseliodoropaz9894
God won't give you proof because he's already made it obvious. The evidence is everywhere but most people just dismiss or ignore it. Our existence and the existence of snything is proof. If you really want more proof then offer yourself to Satan and allow him to possess you. It might take a few exorcisms, but at least you'll be doubt free.
Well said, God bless you and your family sir. Viva Cristo Rey and Ave Maria.
well said? something wrong with your bible?
@@AMC2283 No, just your interpretation of yours. Stay safe, God bless.
@@josellers1376 you have absolutely no rational criticism of evolution do you-how could you, you don’t even know what it is.
@@AMC2283 evolution - the process of natural selection believed by evolutionists. That an animal or plant over time can turn into an unrelated plant or animal kind over the course of millions of years. I have looked into creationism and evolutionism, and believed in evolution to an extent as a child. But then I grew up, and looked at facts and Christ. Instead of paganism, lies and the cult mindset of evolutionists. I don't come out of no where to insult you or you beliefs like mean child. You don't have to agree with me, but at least try to be respectful with your argument. And mature, stay safe and may God bless. Viva Cristo Rey and Ave Maria.
@@josellers1376 nope, doesn’t say organisms change species, changes are hereditary. But why would you bother to learn what you’re against, it’s against your religion, that’s good enough for you.
Why is it that every video criticizing evolution needs to couch their arguments in also being insufferable?
What a lot of word salad for what is basically “I don’t understand or like evolution, so therefore it must be wrong”
Evolution is a lie😂use your brain honey
@ I do. More than you do based on your reply
@@kodaxenic then why no monkeys evolute to humans right now? Answer this 😂then we see who actually has a brain 🧠
@@AlexMahone2023 because it doesn't happen "right now", it takes incredible amounts of time and the changes are incremential, also depending on changes in the environment. Also monkeys didn't evolve into humans, it is rather that monkeys, apes and humans have common ancestors. The body of evidence collected for this is overwhelming. Just like the genre of Blues music can evolve and split into the genre of Rock'n'Roll music and into the genre of Heavy Metal music.
Explain it to us. Show us the proof. Or at least some evidence that molecules to man evolution is true.
THANK YOU FOR FINALLY SAYING SOMETHING I'VE BEEN TELLING PEOPLE FOR YEARS!!! 16:00 People can't stand the thought of that, but it is SO TRUE!!!
you'll need to keep telling them to convince yourself
@@joefriday2275 There is no such thing as "genetic entropy". The number of deleterious mutations in our genome is increasing for the simple reason out modern medicine can treat them so they don't get removed by natural selection. You've only had that explained to you about a hundred times. 🙄
@@joefriday2275 Genetic load refers to the accumulation of deleterious mutations in a population over time, which can potentially reduce the population's fitness.
It's true that discussions about genetic load and its implications for populations can be complex and sometimes contentious. However, it's essential to engage with scientific evidence and arguments in good faith, regardless of one's beliefs or worldview.
Scientists, regardless of their personal beliefs, aim to understand the natural world through evidence-based inquiry. While interpretations of evidence may differ, the scientific community generally seeks to uncover truths about our universe through rigorous research and analysis.
If you feel that certain viewpoints are being misrepresented or misunderstood, it's important to engage in respectful dialogue and encourage a deeper understanding of the scientific evidence and principles involved. Mischaracterizing scientific concepts doesn't contribute to meaningful discourse or the advancement of knowledge.
0:25 First, this very much reeks of a misquote, so please provide the exact source for this. Second, Darwin died fifty years or so before the first major revision of the Theory of Evolution, which happened a hundred years ago, so his opinion is really not relevant. If Fasoli has a degree in biochemistry he should know this.
The issue with the dog argument is that chihuahuas came from wolves in a couple hundred years....
Wolves were domesticated & bred for thousands of years.
@@paulstuart551 not warped breeds like the chihuahua
A chihuahua is a sub species of dog, not a new species
@briangemmet3567 yes because of the short period of time, the point I'm making is huge change over a relatively short period of time, so naturally over a longer period of time there will be much more significant changes. I'm not sure why this is confusing?
Chihuahuas are just dogs mutated on purpose from ancient wild dogs. It is still a canine. No new genes are added, just traits bred out of the line.
They were caused by intelligent human manipulation. In nature, the wolf would never evolve into a chihuahua wolf. It would die out early as it would be less able to survive in the wild. In billions of years, even with human selective forced breeding, it would never be able to be bred into a cat.
Fascinating. I read Dawkin’s ‘Blind Watchmaker’ many years ago - will reread.
The theory of evolution is disputed mainly by people who are desperate to show a supernatural hand in the diversity of life. Videos like this convince no one save those already in the creationist camp.
As an honest Christian pastor I could not agree more. Science is a wonderful gift of God. By gift I mean the rational capacity we are endowed with. And if science were one day (presently very far from our abilities and understanding) find that life is spontaneous, that would be inline with a God who is life itself. His creation would simply reflect him. People choose or simply accept ignorance. I find this rather evenly distributed in atheists and in Christians. Some close their eyes to God other to science. (I was an atheist at age 14, became an agnostic soon afterwards, then a Christian about 8 years later when God spoke to me.
Waiting to see Dr. Marco Fasoli's Nobel Prize.
Also waiting to see his published research on evolution... checked rather recently and found his retinue of published research on the topic to be devoid of titles.
BUT, in the 1980s and 1990s he published papers where he demonstrated evolution. Curiouser and curiouser.
Let's not hold our breath....ok! 😂
Obviously, he was "saved." LOL
@@Christobanistan I hope he was. What about you?
My fellow creationists, explain not how overwhelming evidence falsifies the theory of evolution. Explain how overwhelming evidence demonstrates that Yahweh created life's diversity.
There's no evidence that Yahweh created life. Yahweh is a myth, he's like Zeus and all those mythical Greek gods.
@@Pmrace1960 Yes, and I see videos on TH-cam where Christians are singing, "Yawhehhhhhhhhh, Yawhehhhhhhhhh" so goofy.
And exlplain how Jehovah took 4.5 billion years before sending Jesus to Earth. But sadly, they cannot explain anything, because religion has zero explanatory power.
@@ClimateScepticSceptic-ub2rg Yeah, when you think about all that Jesus shit in the Bible is fake
@@ClimateScepticSceptic-ub2rg he was either having a long dump or suffering from amnesia
19:35 The flagellum is certainly the best known example of irreducably complexity, so there is really no excuse for Fasoli to ignore its numerous refutations. The most prominent is probably from Prof. Ken Miller, easy to find here on TH-cam. Incidentally, Jon Perry published a video on the topic just yesterday ("Darwin and Irreducible Complexity"), with some characteristically gorgeous graphics. He uses the honey bee stinger as an example.
The argument itself is also false _by law,_ see Kitzmiller v Dover.
Fasoil is just a selfish liar who don't care about the truth. Thank you for mentioning Jon's video.
"The flagellum is certainly the best known example of irreducably complexity"
Except of course as you correctly laid out with Ken Miller and the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, the flagellum is actually the best-known example of NOT being irreducibly complex.
Oh please. Evolution is Miller's money cow, and it's been rumored that the judge at the Dover trial plays a good game of golf.
@@TheStarflight41 Personal attacks instead of arguments or evidence. Is that what your god commands you to do?
There is actually no example of irreducible complexity, just bald assertions. Prove otherwise.
I think it happened though "Mutation" not evolution. Mutations can happen with one single birth & if the mutation is beneficial, it survives easier and breeds easier, then that trait is immediately passed onto it's offspring. Then it might have small changes to that adaptation over time making it more streamlined. That's how something could just show up & not have a transitional structure to it's body changed over time.
@@PhilipK-xk4by Evolution is a series of super small changes over an extended period of time never once having a big change all at once... So no, not just evolution. Maybe don't make snarky comments that make you look foolish.
@@PhilipK-xk4by It's clear you have no understanding of what is being discussed. That small snippet of what I said was referring to after the original Mutation that made the big change, that change was flushed out over time afterwards.
@@PhilipK-xk4by Because it's not the same dude... Holy crap just look it up already instead fo arguing with me pointlessly. If anything Evolution is dependent on MUTATION
@ I'll take your silence as you found out I'm right. Should learn to admit it though.. Only hurting yourself. Too many people can't accept when they're wrong & it really is damaging to the social well being of all of us as a whole.
@@PhilipK-xk4by You're comprehension is the issue. I can't teach you something you can't understand the fundamentals of. I'll end this here, before it comes to the inevitable "I was trolling" claim, when you can't talk your way out of your ignorance, so you try to scape goat with that. As if that's any better 🙄
All this bluster from apologists, but we never hear scientists telling us evolution doesn't happen. Can any creationist find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix? Nothing so far.
That's stupid, creation fixes evolution completely by disproving it entirely.
@@James-p3m8j
Your so called evidence convinced YOU! It hasn't convinced a single head of a single science department of a single one of earth's 2,000 largest universities.
@@James-p3m8j Can you expand on that at all? What is this flaw and can you demonstrate it?
@numbersix9477 If you understood the problem you would laugh at your naivete.
@@Ozzyman200 If creation is true then so is a creator. If there is a creator, evolution, as taught", wouldn't be true. I am not talking about epigenetics, I am talking about puddle to paradise.
6:38 "Notwithstanding decades of these small bacteria reproducing every 20 minutes, they still are bacteria. They haven't become sponges, or cats or frogs and so on. " -- This tells you everything you need to know about this guy. :D
He is only making victims among Creationists. Normal people laugh about it
Still waiting on your evidence though, sport
@@jaybfalcon2The bacteria evolve considerably, becoming resistant to all kinds of man-made agents.
The populations that didn't adapt are now lost to most developed countries, but they still exist in the untouched wilds of the earth, so we can compare how great the change has been in such a relatively short period of time.
The bacteria lost abilities it had before. That’s how it became “resistant.” So, yes, this man speaking is making sense and this is a good example of demonstrating the opposite of evolutionary theory.
They found that:
1. Bacteria that had a damaged control system for the cell membrane were surviving because that control system was producing LPS (lipopolysaccharide) which are negatively charged molecules. The antibiotic had positive charges and therefore since the negative charge on the cell membrane was now gone it wouldn’t bind to the cell anymore.
However, this was a result of a broken existing function. And this would affect the bacteria because it cannot bind to other positive charges either now. And therefore cannot survive as well when the antibiotic is gone and the bacteria then has need to bind to positively charged molecules.
2. In bacteria there are “pumps” that transport nutrients into the bacteria cell. Bacteria that had a damaged pump or didn’t have any pumps were the ones surviving the antibiotic. Obviously when the antibiotic is gone though, the bacteria now is not living as long. And it’s another decrease in function.
3. Some bacteria already have the ability to create enzymes that break down antibiotics. Similar to the concept of two humans sharing DNA (a child formed)-one bacteria can share DNA with another bacteria. So they both can produce enzymes that break down antibiotics.
The key point here is that for evolutionary theory to be true, we’re not talking about an existing organism sharing with another organism. What we’re talking about is one organism ON ITS OWN generating the ability to do more functions than before.
This sharing between existing DNA is not evolution. At least, not what people mean when they use the word evolution.
I can tell you that creationists do agree that there is the ability for organisms to be damaged and for organisms to share DNA.
What we don’t agree with is that there’s any observation of organisms turning into a completely different system.
You have to account for we’re talking about supposedly a scenario where there are NO other organisms. That’s what evolutionary theory is about.
No other advanced organisms. Nothing to share with.
And basically all we observe is organisms having copying errors-which that is the literal definition of mutations.
That’s it. And again you can’t include sharing because we’re talking about NO OTHER organisms. The first organism.
How does copying errors equal most advanced computer systems ever?
Plus, there does seem to be a limit in the current sharing between organisms. In every observation we have ever had (so far) in science from the molecular level up there does seem to be limits on what is shared.
Creationists, we acknowledge both that errors are resulting mainly in losses and also that sharing is within limits. Which these acknowledgments are purely accurately reporting what has been observed.
Humans share DNA with other humans. Etc. This is even true at the molecular level. There are rules. There are limits.
I work in data analytics for healthcare. I also have a background in Radiology.
Basically to simplify this-something has to organize (and generate) everything in the cell.
And for the molecules to man it can’t be sharing, it can’t be already complex, it can’t be through losing function.
But, everything we have observed in science is one of those categories.
Which none of those are evolution. Not molecules to man which is what people mean when they say evolution.
Creationists do not deny ANY scientific observation.
We deny what hasn’t ever been observed.
When I was young, I suspected that believers were simply stupid. Now that I have grown up and heard some views and opinions of believers, I have removed all doubts.
So they've dragged you down to their level, huh?
Which believers are you talking about? Both camps have believers. The Creationist camp makes 1 assumption - God. The evolution camp has to make billions of assumptions in order for much to create DNA capable of producing a human.
@@randolphlucas26
One of those assumes the existence of the supernatural.
The other only assumes natural phenomena.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 ugh no, because the assumption of supernatural is an epistemic that explains the existence of natural phenomena. However simply the assuming natural phenomena doesn't explain natural phenomena itself.
@@williamdai8796 assuming a god did it is an assumption.
Reporting the existence of a natural phenomenon is an observation.
7:00 "They still are bacteria" - A doctorate? In biochemistry? From Cambridge?
First and most obvious, "bacteria" describes a _domain_ and is literally as far removed from _species_ as you can get. I once read that half the biomass on Earth are bacteria, and if you count individuals not even the number of orders of magnitude is in the same order of magnitude.
Second, "20 minutes for decades" sounds like a lot, but it's not. Not surprisingly, his number is also wrong by a factor of 10. The LTEE ran for 32 years (32x365x24x60=16819200 minutes) before taking a Covid-related break in 2020. That should have been 16819200/20=840960 generations, but they only had 73000 (Wikipedia). Even his ficticious number applied to humans (20 years) would only get us into the area of human speciation.
Third, there is no strict border between species even for macrobiology. With bacteria, the concept (and its most common definition, "fertile offspring") breaks down completely.
Forth, google "LTEE citrate".
Professor, life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. This low law holds for the closed systems. Life is not a closed system, life gets its energy from the Sun. This is high school stuff professor. The rest of the interview is the same. What knocked me down was the story about long living patriarchs. Unbelievable !
Lying for God.
Hey, Radio Immaculata, how does your God feel about lying? How do you feel about lying to your gullible audience?
Not only is life not a closed system, the earth itself isn't as well. Plus, it would be prudent for this "professor" to read up on nonequilibrium thermodynamics, since it basically shows that given enough chemical varieties (an undisputed guarantee given what we currently know about the past and present earth) combined with the consummation of free energy gradience, equilibrium will be exceeded and as a consequence, chemical complexity and order are mathematically inevitable to arise, and since biology derives from chemistry, it's not irrational nor implausible to posit for the formation of life to be likewise inevitable.
Anyone else notice that he uses and anology of something he knows to be created to something he believes is created. Why not compare it to the complexity of the dynamo effect of the Earth core?
Because that how rationality works, my guy. But I'm glad you admit that creation is in fact observed, aka, it's a scientific explanation for causes.
@stevedoetsch is this directed towards my comment? If so, theistic creation has never been observed. Even if a god did the creating we'd have to take their word for it. We'd have to use a different standard of scrutiny and assume they haven't lied. Science doesn't support or exclude c4eation.
@@stevedoetschthat’s literally nothing like what he just said, and you know it.
Since evolution requires the extrapolation of findings in the fossil record into a world view, with no way of confirming consistency across its assertions, and no way to effectively test or reproduce its conclusions, would it not qualify as a non-falsifiable theory and be better characterized as pseudoscience?
Don’t pretend you care about the scientific like your worthless religious superstitions about gods and their magic powers are rooted in science
Congratulations on getting every last thing wrong. Evolution is very consistent across all of its findings. Repeated tests on the evidence have been done and have always showed the same conclusion. Evolutionary theory is very falsifiable, it's just never been falsified. You might want to ditch the Chick Tracts and go take a science course at your local CC.
@@joefriday2275you don’t even believe in the god you pretend to
I get all that. But when I compare evolution to the type science that is accepted by everyone, I don’t see the same level of completeness or consistency. We really don’t know how the cell accomplishes the observations we make. We do know all species share at least some common DNA, some much more than others. It is clear that organisms can adopt to their environment in extremely favorable ways. We know there is a clear historical order in complexity and function throughout the fossil record. We know life began about 3.7 billion years ago. We can describe the functions of certain cellular components such as DNA, RNA, ribosomes and mitochondria. We can even modify DNA in prokaryotic organisms. Although evolution clearly plays a role in the changes we observe across all different forms of life, it is still an incomplete theory and needs more investigation at the molecular level before we can say it is a theory of life in general. That’s not an unreasonable position. However, there are aspects of evolutionary theory that obviously meet the definition of science, such as natural selection. But I don’t think all the claims of evolution are consistent with one another, principally because they address different things. For example, how life began is a different question than how life evolves, which a different question than how cellular proteins function to produce phenotypical plasticity. Evolution is not of the same category of science such as conclusions such as Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. I think we must remember that theories can never be proven as scientific fact. We don’t call it the law of evolution because there is still too much to figure out. I think people agree on much more than this silly debate suggests. If the “young earth crowd didn’t exist”, we would be having a totally different discussion. The fear that somehow science will be replaced by religion is absurd. By the way, I had to look up what Chick Tracts are and I can see it’s not but a typical ad hominem dig so I won’t provide any validation for that line of argument. It speaks for itself. As far as the local CC suggestion, another gutter ball. I don’t think that would work very well as I have an undergraduate degree at a United States top 20 university. I also have a doctoral degree and an MBA. The undergraduate and doctoral degrees are in a field of science that deals with human physiology and cellular biology. I have taught doctoral students as well. None of my credentials are relevant to the content of my comments but they do suggest a CC course would not be very informative. Although I don’t know what they teach at that level and apparently you do. But I thank you and appreciate your input.
No.
I llove the simple hood and tunic of our dear Brother. They have not changed in thousands of years but are completely simple and functional. How beautiful!
why dos god care what people wear, they all have a silly hat, they criticise drag queens but wear frocks, you even have to cut your body to make some gods happy, but god doesn't seem to care about shoes. funny guy.
I looked up the first "quotation" by Darwin that this speaker "quoted". He says "in a letter to "Asa gray"....and then lists one quote from that letter, with another quote in a different letter to TH Huxley . The first quote is specifically in regards to the fact that he has not made many observations of plant evolution, which had less observations than the animals he studied for 20+years.
The second quote was to "Darwins Bulldog", TH Huxley. Darwin was cautioning Huxley to not be to ferocious in his defense. Darwin was a humble man and thats what this letter shows. He in no way discredits his own theory in either letter.
TLDR: Dr. Marco Fasoli is a LIAR. The first statement he makes is a LIE.
SHAME on this man for LYING, and SHAME on RADIO IMMACULATA for promoting a LIAR.
As far as the early development of his character, we get an interesting glint of what his personality may have been like from his autobiography, where Darwin tells us: "Whilst at the day school, or before that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure as the spot was near to the house." He did admit though that the act “lay heavily on my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where the crime had been committed.” Charles Darwin, Autobiography, pp.26-27.
One can only speculate why, if the puppy was not injured, was Darwin so haunted by the incident for many years afterward, and why he referred to it as a "crime". Was it the prompting of a guilty conscience that betrayed a more serious incident than he was ready to admit?
Much has been said by historians of Darwin's observations of the finches on the Galapagos islands while sailing on the Beagle, but little is mentioned of another incident Darwin had with some less fortunate birds on a different island during his voyage. We have three accounts of an excursion made by Darwin and the Captain from the Beagle to St. Paul's Rocks between the Cape Verde Islands and the coast of Brazil.
First we shall read Darwin's version of the episode: " We found on St. Paul's only two kinds of birds-the booby and the noddy. The former is a species of Gannet, and the latter a tern. Both are of a tame and stupid disposition, and are so unaccustomed to visitors, that I could have killed any number of them with my geologic hammer." The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Charles Darwin, pp.10, The American Museum of Natural History, The Natural History Library, Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co., Inc., Garden City New York, 1962.
Browne mentioned the appalling incident in her biography of Darwin: " Uninhabited except for dense flocks of seafowl, and previously unvisited by any scientific recorder, they were an alluring target for a restless naval man and an eager friend . . . Darwin and Fitzroy had a marvelous time of it, whooping and killing birds with abandon". Browne, pp.204. See also the original, Narrative of the Surveying Voyage of H.M.S. Adventure and Beagle, Vol. 2-56.
Fitzroy recorded the bloody scene in his personal narrative as well. According to him, one of the seamen asked if he could borrow Darwin's hammer to kill some of the birds with, to which Darwin replied, "No, no, you'll break the handle." Then, apparently struck by the novelty of this idea, Darwin himself picked up his hammer and began killing the peaceful birds in this manner, as Fitzroy related "away went the hammer, with all the force of his own right arm." Narrative of the Voyages of the Adventure and Beagle, by Admiral Fitzroy, 1839. See also Amabel Williams Ellis, "The Voyage of the Beagle, Adapted from the Narratives and letters of Charles Darwin and Captain Fitzroy, pp. 26, J.B. Lippencott Co., Philadelphia and London, 1931.
Cancer Tumor progression, Rapid COVID evolution in a few months ,the dog from the wolf, Corn from Teosinte , antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance , how many examples of evolution right in front of your nose do you need?
Those are literally all medical which is well known. Those are controlled conditions. Medicine doesn’t form on its own. Cancer is the DECAY of life, not the advancement of it. Different Covid strains are simply different iterations within the same subclass of species. Same thing with humans exhibiting different color hair and what not. Except for the wolf to dog, but even still they are still within the same species line.
@@mcmanustony I have removed my comment
A dog and a wolf the same animal. That is like a spotted dog from a black dog. Evolution requires a significant change. A simple organism evolving into a more complex organism, according to the dictionary. A wolf evolving into a wolf with thumbs, that can talk, or has wings. You know like the single cell organism that evolved into you.
@@mcmanustony we both can search the internet in seconds for a definition. I doubt there can be reasonable discussion unless we agree upon what evolution means. If you think that dogs and wolves are evolution and prove that we all came from simple single cell organisms, I’d have to say that is a huge leap of faith.
Even the development of an overbite in modern Human beings can be dated from the adoption of the Knife and Fork as common items of cutlery.
What exactly is "Darwinian" evolution and who cares about science almost 2 centuries old. How about modern evolutionary science, which is the cornerstone of all biology? Just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean they aren't a shill.
Darwinian evolution says new species are created by "numerous, successive, slight modifications".
Because fossils don't support "innumerable transitional forms" Eldredge and Gould dreamed up Punctuated Equilibrium.
Because Goldschmidt thought this slow change is illogical. He came up with the Hopeful Monster. Which is like Punctuated Equilibrium.
Then other atheists, like Fred Hoyle, say aliens created and are tending life on earth.
All nonsense. Because they couldn't grasp the concept of the supernatural.
@@joefriday2275 Please learn how evolution works.
@@joefriday2275
You are quite obviously talking through your hat! Your post tells us that you haven't remotely studied the subject. .
1. Scientifically literate individuals no more often refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwin's Theory" than they refer to Atomic Theory as "Bohr's Theory" or General Relativity Theory as "Einstein's Theory."
2. The scientific community identified multiple shortcomings of the Darwinian model of evolution approximately three quarters of a century ago and replaced it with the Modern Synthesis.
Buy a copy of the college level textbook, "Evolution," by Douglas J. Futuyma. Read it and sin no more.
("Evolution" is in it's 5th edition but that edition is quite expensive. You can purchase a used second or third edition online for less than $20 - delivered. I personally have two copies, my own and a loaner.)
You have a lot to learn and a massive amount of information is out there. I hope you avail yourself of some of it.
Be Blessed!
The word "evolutionary" often just replaces what used to be "biological".
@@korbendallas5318 it's scientifically and mathematically impossible. Proved in 1998. There is no mechanism that can produce change in kind only adaption built into living organisms. Laws of physics.
Not to cast aspersions upon the *no amino acid formation* "theory" they did say they were able to trap amino acid (albeit both left and right handed, amino acids trapped nonetheless) and now they say they (these amino acids) appeared inside meteorite rocks. If anyone could provide info upon these arguments.
I noticed that you "liked" all three of your own posts.
The problem is not only the inexplicable information gain by "random, unguided processes" (ie magic). To me, something which neo Darwinians never seem to take into account is that every transitional form (say between a yak and a whale, as I believe the story goes) is non adaptive! So, you start off with a perfectly happy and well-adapted yak, pining for the fjords in Norway. Then, in a moment of inspiration, he thinks that he would really love to swim and so comes up with the idea of becoming a whale. The problem, as David Berlinski points out, is that you need roughly 50 000 changes of one sort or another to do so. So, at stage one (as a yak) you are adapted to pining for the fjords and at stage 50 000 (as a whale) you are, similarly, adapted to pining for the fjords, from the ocean. The difficulty becomes one whereat at steps 2 to 49 999 you become increasingly maladapted to either environment or either body. And at the intermediate stage, step 25 000 would be utterly, catastrophically maladapted. And time would only make this worse. as the maladaptive stages would last increasingly longer. For this to be viable, the changes would have to be instantaneous to the point of being magical, as no other word could describe it. So yeah, evolution is, in fact, rooted in magical thinking.
In your scenario there is a point A, the yak, and a point B, a whale. That isnt how anyone claims evolution works.
Instead, you would have a single group. Part of the group lives by the water, the other part lives in the mountains. But what it takes to be successful near water and in the mountains is not the same, so they will each adapt to their environment independently from each other.
@@pinklemon-m5v But that isn't at all what Darwinian macro evolution states. In fact, the theory of whale evolution starts with a wolf-like mammal that loses its land adaptivity and "gradually, over time" becomes adapted to life in the water. This is in the text books, but I think a yak is more fun...given that it is all make believe. In Darwinian evolution. all boundaries are permeable, yet, in reality, we never see that when, in fact, we should see it all the time. We see no transitional fossils as they would be maladaptive and the incipient information gain of positive mutations is impossible to explain under Darwinian terms.
Is there a specific reason why you chose a yak as a starting point for evolving into a whale, rather than something more plausible, such as a hippo (or a capybara, or a beaver, or any other semiaquatic species of mammal)? They spend part of their time on land and a large part in the water, and they are not "catastrophically maladapted" for either. In principle, what keeps them from adapting to an even more aquatic existence? At some point they might become much better swimmers, but more awkward on land (like sea elephants), and eventually very good swimmers who don't go on land at all anymore (like manatees and whales).
(Likewise, when someone trots out the "what good is half a wing?", I recommend they look up flying squirrels and sugar gliders.)
@@davidwilliamdanielthomas9305 "We see no transitional fossils" - you have never even bothered to look at the wikipedia page for "evolution of cetaceans", have you?
@@davidwilliamdanielthomas9305 Transitional species would not be "maladaptive" as each successful new trait would benefit the species in its environment. As the environment gradually changes, successful species would appear to change. This is exactly what we find in the fossil record.
Have you fallen for the lie that you must choose either evolution or God ... but not both?
One more thing . . . .
Horse evolution:
Hyracotherium
Orohippus
Mesohippus
Miohippus
Parahippus
Merychippus
Pliohippus
Equus
Whale evolution:
Indohyus
Pakicetus
Ambulocetus
Kutchicetus
Rodhocetus
Durodon
Odontocetes
Mysticetes
Hominid evolution:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus kadabba
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus sediba
Homo habilis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo sapiens
Want transitional fossils? Start with these.
Fifth point: genetic mutations can only be neutral or degrade.
This is not true. Many mutations will do this but simplistically but why does it have to be all?
Take a gene for size. Let's say the number of copies of the gene determines size. A mistake in the copying that inserts another copy of the gene for size would mean that that organism and its descendants would be bigger, assuming it is beneficial and they go on to reproduce.
Also sometimes even single mutations of genetic letters can be beneficial. There are plenty of diseases that can be traced back to a single letter mutation. Those can be in either direction.
It's simplistic to saying that copying and mutations always degrade like a bad photocopy machine. The way life works is more like a laser printer. You get an almost perfect copy each time. You have to look at the mechanisms and how they work to see if that it true.
The problem is the almost nil statistical possibility of advantageous mutations that would lead to trasmutation of species.
Most successful mutations result in very minor things like beak shape, coat colour, etc. And there are hints that maybe most of these are regulated epigenetically.
Also, virtually all mutations that affect a vital function are almost immediately fixed with 100% accuracy.
so wait what's an example of a positive mutation?
@@lukebrog3702HIV resistance. Lactose tolerance.
@@lukebrog3702 HIV immunity. Lactose tolerance.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems and states that the entropy (or disorder) of an isolated system can only increase over time. However, Earth is not a closed system as it continually receives energy from the Sun. This external energy input can drive processes that result in increased order or complexity, such as the evolution of life.
For instance, a mutation that allows one cell to stick to other cells could indeed enable the development of a larger and more complex life form. This process does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the energy required for the mutation and the subsequent growth and development of the organism can come from the Sun or other external sources.
So, the claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based on a misunderstanding of the law itself and its applicability to open systems like Earth. The increase in complexity observed in evolution does not contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics when correctly understood in the context of an open system receiving energy from an external source.
Oh it’s simpler than that, thermodynamics is the science of work done by heat and evolution is the process of hereditary change.
@@AMC2283 That’s a succinct and accurate description! Thermodynamics is indeed the branch of physics that deals with the relationships between heat and other forms of energy. It studies how energy is transferred in the form of heat and work, and how it affects the properties of substances.
On the other hand, evolution is a process that results in hereditary changes in a population spread over many generations. It’s the key mechanism that drives the diversity of life we see on Earth.
Both are fundamental concepts in their respective fields of study.
So what the labs have been missing in trying to produce large evolutionary changes is....sunlight?
The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed and open systems. A “closed system” simply implies that there is no mass transfer, therefore it’s a constant mass system. Earth is technically a closed system since the mass flow in and out of Earth’s orbit (i.e. space debris and asteroids landing on earth) is negligible. I believe you meant to say that Earth is not an isolated system since it has heat interactions with the sun, just wanted to clarify.
Well, but what we here on earth always observe is the effects of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the increase of disorder, and that law has to be taken into consideration always in human activity, every engineer knows that. As to mutations, every case of cancer is due to a mutation or several of them, every genetic illness is due to mutation. That does not sound like evolution to something better.
It's quite clear we do not understand the processes of life origin and complexity. Not knowing is also part of science. This fact however does no imply any divine intervention, unless we agree to name anything we can't understand as God, just to simplify our overwhelming lack of knowledge and make us feel a bit more confortable, which is understandable.
It's not that we don't understand how complex digital information systems similar to DNA can arise, we do, you used an example of it to type your comment.
What we don't understand is how it could possibly also be created by some naturalistic accident like lightning hitting a puddle.
To say 'we don't understand, so it must be a fluke' makes some a lot comfortable than the alternative.
@@SteveLomas-k6k
You said, "What we don't understand is how it could possibly also be created by some naturalistic accident like lightning hitting a puddle."
Your assertion is irrelevant. The theory of evolution doesn't address the origin of life any more than atomic theory addresses the origin of mass, general relativity the origin of matter, energy, gravity or space-time, germ theory the origin of germs.
@@numbersix9477 It was responding to the comment about origins. Beyond that, I can explain a watch by purely naturalistic processes also, if I ignore how it was created. I understand ToE doesn't, and cannot explain origins of life- that's not a strength for the naturalist argument though.
Have you ever read the Bible?? Not as a religion but read it as a historical book. There is plenty of proofs in this book that have been from by ancient historians. Even the atheist ones
I don't think this guy really understands the 2nd law of thermodinamics.
What he's ignoring is that this law is applied for closed systems, but the evolutionary process is not a closed system.
"but the bottom line is you cannot get order and complexity from disorder, no matter how many billions of years you're waiting"
Yes, that is the statement "entropy never decreases" of the 2nd law of thermodinamics.
But, then according to this reasoning, a refrigerator should not work either, as entropy decreases there (making cold to break the thermal equilibrium), which is not permitted by 2nd law of thermodinamics.
What he forgets is that a refrigerator or living beings (in case of evolution) are not closed systems: they're getting the necessary energy from somewhere: from a power-grid, from the sun, from food, etc.
The entropy of that refrigerator, and the entropy of living beings are decreasing, but the entropy of the whole system, is still increasing more (!), because the same or more energy needs to be consumed to make those changes (cooling down, growing, reproducing)!
The total entropy overall does increase, with the fact that the entropy of those parts/components decrease in lesser extent, the 2nd law of thermodinamics is just fine with evolution.
Could it he argued that life exists in order to slow the rate of entropic decay in the universe?
This guy is an idiot. What about the formation of a snowflake. Is that a violation of the 2nd law? Lol. Such ignorance.
@swiftmatic nope. Life doesn't slow entropy. Think of life as something that cause lumpiness in entropy. Entropy still increases at the same rate, but becomes unevenly distributed
@@EinSofQuester I appreciate the reply. I was just spitballing at breakfast.
Side note: "Lumpy Entropy" would be a great name for a punk or grunge band🤣
The third law shows that entropy is taken out of systems by cooling. They can’t even lie properly on this channel.
I’m I wrong in thinking we have fossils of what modern humans have transitioned from?
Also aren’t there animals that have evolved in front of our eyes I seen something about a group of rabbits who’s fur has changed colour due to environmental changes so they didn’t stand out to predators
Variation, very important. Look at the variation in the species called 'dog'. Are they all 'evolving' in different directions? No, they are one incredible species.
Rabbits changing hair is called adaptation. There is no change from one species to another. Therefore it’s not evolution
@@richardleigh4003 Some dogs are extremely different and can't really correctly reproduce with each other. This is similar to how a horse and donkey can come together to produce a mule but it is very uncommon event for mules to have any kind of offspring. Since they can't reproduce correctly I believe donkeys and horses are considered to be separate species. So certain dogs are also probably considered to be separate species. Probably in a similar situation as with mules we might have the possibility of offspring from wolf/dog or coyote/dog parings. Felines range from small housecats (some of which may be too different to correctly reproduce with each other) to larger bobcats and servals to larger cheetahs, leopards, cougars, panthers and the largest lions and tigers. Some can have offspring with each other but it is probably a similar situation as with mules. Is it not a good idea that felines had a common ancestor in the pretty distant past and have been evolving differences? Amazing, despite their apparent similarity, African and Asian elephants can't even really have surviving offspring together - their separation might have occurred in the very far past. With primates we have the strange looking, small, very large-eyed, nocturnal bush babies to large baboons to human weight chimpanzees and orangutans to the heavy gorilla. Despite their differences, the gorilla and bush baby have some so many similarities that it isn't too hard to believe they came from the same distant ancestor.
@@willfilmon182 Yes, but if dogs are left alone they will combine into a single phenotype.
@@richardleigh4003 *"Look at the variation in the species called 'dog'. Are they all 'evolving' in different directions?"*
Look at tigers and lions. They can hybridize semi-successfully. Why? Because god wanted it, or because they have common ancestry and are separate species just on the verge of becoming fully incompatible genetically.
There are thousands of species that can hybridize with various levels of success depending on how far they have diverged from common ancestry.
6,000,000,000 base pairs in the 46 human chromosomes. Times trillions of cells in each human, The book didn't write itself!!
Correct. It evolved over 3.8 billion years.
@@mcmanustony "junk DNA" WAS one of the failed predictions of evolution. It was an argument based on ignorance. More function is being found all the time. And not only the 6 billion base pairs....much of the genome is read in multiple directions and in multiple frame shifts. The longer time goes on, the more learned, the less evolvable the human genome seems
@@Ilovelimabeans _Paris japonica_ the Japanese canopy plant has a genome size of 149 billion bas pairs, roughly 50X bigger that the human genome. Over 99% of it is simple repeats of non-coding segments. What is the "design" reason for the huge genome size?
@@OgdenCrimmcramer8162 I don't know. Probably a lot of genome duplications... A sign of faulty degenerate repair mechanisms. Just a guess. It's called genetic entropy.
@@mcmanustony Have you heard of the ENCODE project? 80% of genome considered functional. This is an extreme departure from evolutionary predictions.
GULO appears to be a broken gene, genetic entropy, in which some exons are damaged.
Speaking of exons, how did the spliceosome evolve?
Wow you are talking about Darwin the man who explained the variety of life, he discovered the mechanism with the help of many, but we learned tons and tons since 1850
He didn't explain anything nor did he discover anything. He was a scientific racist and a loser.
Why are u strawmaning?
Darwin had a hard time with his fantasy theory explaining the complexity of the human eye, he thought a single cell was simple, not the immensely complex nano city it actually is. Darwinism is dead, it cannot explain all the species of life with its non guided mutational mechanism. It is only kept viable by a dogmatic system that abhors the idea of God and will seek to explain him away using any means. Mutations are a destructive process, evolutionists use its silly premise to have you believe it can take a monkey to a man, when in reality it causes species extinction over the long term, the very opposite of slow incremental ever increasing complex organisms. The proof of this is the number of increases in cancers, allergies, defective organs, etc, this is happening to all living organisms in line with mans fall. We are devolving and genetics are being corrupted every generation. Like many, you have been taught a worldview that was built on presuppositions, assumptions, circular reasoning, lies, fraudulent evidence, and a God hating biased belief. Science should follow the evidence but secular science does not, it ignores or dismisses evidence that refutes its position and continues to publish lies and frauds in literature even though much evidence has been disproven. The only way to disprove a truth, in this case God and creation, is to resort to lies, fraud, and fabrication, ask yourself if evolution is true, why is its history littered with fakes and lies.
24:50 Dude will be so surprised when he first hears about quantum physics.
Have you told genetics and biochemistry that evolution is totally bogus? If not, you probably should.
I'm pretty certain he's shunned by biochemists. And geneticists. And paleontologists. And botanists. And primatologists. And ichthyologists. And entomologists. ...
@numbersix9477 I think you're probably correct. There's a lot of reality that needs denying - if we're asserting that biological evolution isn't a thing.
All this bluster from apologists, but we never hear scientists telling us evolution doesn't happen. Can any creationist find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix?
Sure....evolutionists say that reproduction is an "accelerated evolution"!
Reproduction is not an "accelerated evolution" , it is an aware and intelligent answer to death, otherwise all species cease to exist without reproduction and death being around.
If death always existed then no one can prove that any specie succeeded to "evolve" during a big span of time while escaping the grips of death. One has to remember that the so claimed "evolution" process supposedly took millions or even billions years during which death was always at work. Also one has to remember that death occurs due to ageing and other causes as well.
The existence of death since life began on earth disproves the theory of evolution, that's because no one can prove that death spared someone or something during a very long period of time. Of course one cannot stop the evolutionists from speculating as they use to do, but it will remain a speculation no more.
Reproduction of species is an intelligent process which aim is to cater for the work of death, and as such the One who created the process of death is the Same One who created the reproduction process of all living species and organisms. It is the Creator.
Evolution theory is the greatest hoax ever invented, based mostly on speculation and wishful thinking crafted as "scientific". Abiogenesis, genetic mutations, billions years, trials and errors etc are all speculative terms invented to describe some imaginative processes no one witnessed, proved or can prove. The only motive was and is to disprove the existence of a creator at all costs. Truly, the evolution theory is a fairytale for grownups.
Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis go against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Evolution contradicts many scientific first principles. Zero transitional fossils when there should be nothing but transitional fossils. Were did evolution get dna from? You need new information to change body plans but evolutionists ignore this very valid point.
@@rl7012
We are men of action. Lies do not become us.
@@numbersix9477 YT deleted my comments so I don't know what that is in reply to.
@@rl7012
I believe effectively none of your assertions - including your claim that "they" deleted five of your comments.
You can tell Marco's lying because he doesn't actually show the letters and certainly doesn't put them into proper context.
Honest. informed. Creationist. Choose up to 2.
Human hive mind is a marvelous thing, if you explain to an idiot something that is counter culture you become an enemy
What?????
@@numbersix9477 for most people consensus=fact, the truth is hardly anything true is consensus
@@SamForbes-w9u
You said, "for most people consensus=fact. "
You've made up stuff in the past; I don't believe anything you say. What was your source for this claim?
@@numbersix9477 what are you saying lol?
@@numbersix9477 you're asking me what is my source for my claim that for most people consensus=fact? Are you being ironic? You're asking me for a source (consensus) to tell you what to perceive
remind me how old Darwin's theory is .... we have moved forward a great deal since then ...
Remind me how old the theory of Relativity is again (relatively, of course ;)...?
How old Copernican theory is
Sequencing the genome was kind of a big deal, yeah.
And evolution remains an objective fact.
Every comment in this thread is philosophical, not scientific.
These two religious apologist should realize that their own catholic Church supports the reality of evolution. Next episode we should ask these two characters to perform heart surgery. @12:20 this apologist quotes James Tour as being an OOL scientist. This is untrue and patently misleading. His work and papers are all in physical chemistry.
Gee, almost like they are lying. 🤥
The same with the Anglican Church in England. The last few Arch Bishops of Canterbury have stated Evolution is true.
James Tour is a remarkable scientist-chemist who has extensive writings and speeches supporting guided creation and giving exquisite refutations to any random processes proposed to support classic evolution
@@SRMarquisAdventure and he has published a grand total of ZERO papers on OoL.
Not exactly an expert in the field.
I like the part where he says we are getting dumber
Oh it's true it's damn true
He's well ahead of the rest of us
It's relative though.
Pretty sure we're devolving
@@chrono2959 No. What happened 3 to 5000 years ago is we became civilised and much more cooperative. Instead of needing to know every skill to survive, we trade expertise.
It means we became eusocial.
This is not devolution, since we still are intelligent, but we are able to work together much more efficiently than before
Incidentally, even though brains are smaller on average by about the mass of a lime compared to before 5000 years ago, we might not necessarily have become less intelligent, since our brains could have improved their efficiency through optimisation.
Einstein had a smaller brain (not sure if it was by mass or by volume) than average, and he was a genius.
One thing we're not doing is calculating ourselves without the aid of machines, and now we're not spending as much time face to face as we did.
Face to face communication gives you access to nonverbal cues during a conversation, and even Facetime is suboptimal.
Thus, we're not training our brains as much as we did and not fulfilling our potential, even allowing for the amount they've physically shrunk.
We can replace some of that lost activity with games and other ways to challenge ourselves.
One theory ive been exploring is that Darwins major premise is simply an application of Hegel's AUFHEBEN applied to biology. Changing or canceling while preserving and then advancing. It also strongly influenced Marx. Have fun studying the roots of Darwins thought experiment!
Is funny that when you become intelligent enough to find out how complex a cell is, and then tell everyone. The reaction is to call you stupid. Ignorance has no limits.
Who calls you stupid because you say a cell is complex? Or are you talking about the stupid things some people say is the reason for the complexity?? 🤔
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy (a measure of disorder) of an isolated system can never decrease over time. However, it's crucial to understand that:
The second law applies to isolated systems: Earth is not an isolated system. It receives a constant input of energy from the Sun. This energy influx allows for local decreases in entropy and the emergence of more complex and ordered structures, like living organisms.
Entropy can decrease locally: While the overall entropy of the universe increases, localized pockets can experience a decrease in entropy as long as there is an external energy source driving it. This is what happens in living organisms, where energy from the Sun (through photosynthesis) or from food is used to build and maintain complex structures.
Evolution is not a violation of the second law: The emergence of more complex organisms over time does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics. The increase in order within organisms is offset by an increase in disorder elsewhere in the system. For example, organisms release heat and waste products, which increase the entropy of their surroundings.
In summary:
The second law of thermodynamics holds true for isolated systems.
Earth is not an isolated system, it receives energy from the Sun.
Local decreases in entropy can occur with an external energy source.
Evolution does not violate the second law because the increase in order within organisms is balanced by an increase in disorder in their surroundings.
The theory of evolution remains a well-supported scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove the theory of evolution.
AI
also hot things getting cold doesn't disprove evolution
Newtonian physics has got old. Quantum mechanics has made it so.
Everything is ultimately affected by entropy. The sun is a ball of gas that is gradually burning itself out. The earth’s magnetic field is dissipating at a constant rate.
Does he explain why all dinosaur fossils are found below all mammal fossils?
EDIT: All mammals we have a name for, lions, tigers, giraffes, humans, monkeys, squirrels, etc.
Checkmate.
Large Animals will die out first no matter what. He is not saying Big animals die first he is saying it wasn't 65 million years ago... Also They have found in the lime fields in the US Dino and all other types of bones in the same layer of Lime including sea creatures and humans.
@@rs6730 Where?
@@rs6730 That doesn't explain why the dinosaurs are found below the layer of iridium in the Earth's crust and why modern mammals are found on top, let alone any of the other hundreds of inconsistencies if you take Noah's version of the flood story literally.
They usually define the layer as being such and such time period by what fossil is found rather than how deep it is.
Stephen Meyers is an excellent resource as well.
Something wrong with your Bible? Isn’t that the top 3 reasons evolution is impossible, hammerhead?
He’s an excellent source for nonsense and creationist propaganda.
What is your favorite Stephen Meyers evolution debunk?
Yes, he is excellent.
@@numbersix9477 His book "Signature in the Cell" is a good starting point. "Darwin's Doubt" is also a good one.
Evidence for evolution comes from various fields of biology and geology, providing a comprehensive and well-supported understanding of how species change over time. Here are some key pieces of evidence:
1. Fossil Record
Transitional Fossils: Fossils that show intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants. Examples include the transition from fish to amphibians (Tiktaalik), reptiles to birds (Archaeopteryx), and land mammals to whales (Ambulocetus).
Stratigraphy: Fossils found in different geological layers demonstrate a timeline of gradual change, with simpler organisms found in older layers and more complex ones in newer layers.
2. Comparative Anatomy
Homologous Structures: Body parts that are similar in structure but may serve different functions in different species, indicating a common ancestor. For example, the forelimbs of humans, cats, whales, and bats.
Vestigial Structures: Body parts that have lost their original function through evolution. Examples include the human appendix, the pelvis in whales, and the wings of flightless birds like ostriches.
3. Comparative Embryology
Embryonic Development: Similarities in the early stages of development in different species suggest a common ancestry. For instance, vertebrate embryos exhibit pharyngeal pouches (which develop into gills in fish and parts of the ear and throat in mammals).
4. Molecular Biology
DNA and Protein Similarities: The genetic code is universal among all living organisms, and closely related species have more similar DNA sequences. Comparisons of specific genes (like the cytochrome c gene) and proteins (like hemoglobin) show degrees of relatedness.
Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs): These are viral sequences that have become part of the genome. Shared ERVs in the same genomic locations among different species indicate common ancestry.
5. Biogeography
Geographic Distribution: The distribution of species around the world reflects their evolutionary history. For example, the unique species found on islands (like the finches of the Galápagos Islands) demonstrate adaptive radiation from a common ancestor.
Plate Tectonics: The movement of continents explains the historical distribution of species. Fossils of the same species found on different continents support the idea that these continents were once connected.
6. Direct Observation
Microevolution: Changes within a species can be directly observed. Examples include the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance in insects, and changes in the beak sizes of finches documented by Peter and Rosemary Grant in the Galápagos Islands.
Speciation Events: New species have been observed forming in real-time, such as the apple maggot fly, which shifted from hawthorn trees to apple trees, leading to reproductive isolation and the beginnings of speciation.
7. Experimental Evidence
Artificial Selection: Selective breeding in plants and animals demonstrates how selection can lead to significant changes over relatively short periods. Dogs, for example, have been bred for various traits resulting in a wide variety of breeds from a common ancestor.
These lines of evidence collectively support the theory of evolution, demonstrating how species have adapted and changed over time through natural processes.
References:
Fossil Record
Transitional Fossils:
Daeschler, E. B., Shubin, N. H., & Jenkins, F. A. (2006). A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature, 440(7085), 757-763.
Chiappe, L. M., & Dyke, G. J. (2002). The early evolutionary history of birds. Journal of the Paleontological Society of Korea, 18(1), 133-160.
Stratigraphy:
Gradstein, F. M., Ogg, J. G., Schmitz, M., & Ogg, G. (Eds.). (2012). The Geologic Time Scale 2012. Elsevier.
Comparative Anatomy
Homologous Structures:
Shubin, N. (2008). Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body. Pantheon Books.
Vestigial Structures:
Laubichler, M. D., & Maienschein, J. (Eds.). (2007). From Embryology to Evo-Devo: A History of Developmental Evolution. MIT Press.
Comparative Embryology
Embryonic Development:
Gilbert, S. F. (2010). Developmental Biology (9th ed.). Sinauer Associates.
Molecular Biology
DNA and Protein Similarities:
Brown, T. A. (2002). Genomes (2nd ed.). Wiley-Liss.
Li, W.-H. (1997). Molecular Evolution. Sinauer Associates.
Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs):
Belshaw, R., Pereira, V., Katzourakis, A., Talbot, G., Paces, J., Burt, A., & Tristem, M. (2004). Long-term reinfection of the human genome by endogenous retroviruses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(14), 4894-4899.
Biogeography
Geographic Distribution:
Lomolino, M. V., Riddle, B. R., & Whittaker, R. J. (2016). Biogeography (5th ed.). Sinauer Associates.
Plate Tectonics:
Hallam, A. (1994). An Outline of Phanerozoic Biogeography. Oxford University Press.
Direct Observation
Microevolution:
Grant, P. R., & Grant, B. R. (2002). Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin's finches. Science, 296(5568), 707-711.
Levy, S. B., & Marshall, B. (2004). Antibacterial resistance worldwide: causes, challenges and responses. Nature Medicine, 10, S122-S129.
Speciation Events:
Bush, G. L. (1994). Sympatric speciation in animals: new wine in old bottles. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 9(8), 285-288.
Experimental Evidence
Artificial Selection:
Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species. John Murray.
Trut, L. N. (1999). Early canid domestication: The farm-fox experiment. American Scientist, 87(2), 160-169.
1. Descendancy has not been shown, it has been guessed. Also, there were four-footed land animals before tiktaalik and birds before archeopteryx (according to the mainstream timeline), so these are actually debunked by the academic community as "transitional forms." And again, if your descendancy is a guess, it's a guess.
2, 3, and 4 do not rule out a common designer using common, useful designs as a plausible hypothesis. Therefore, these are not (strong) arguments in favor of evolution.
5, 6, and 7 are arguing that micro-evolution and adaption prove evolution is true. But Intelligent Design believers and even Young Earth Creationists affirm these are true. So this doesn't get you anywhere. Speciation might happen, but new features, new body forms, new information HAS NOT been observed. Dogs are still dogs, flies are still flies, e. coli is still e. coli.
If that's your multi-disciplinary proof, you're out of arguments.
@@lukejones5272 - citations needed
@@lukejones5272 You said, "Dogs are still dogs, flies are still flies, e. coli is still e. coli. "
That's your rebuttal of a theory that has been almost universally accepted by the scientific community for over century and a half?
-> No experimental proof by design (muh billions of years lol).
-> No mathematical model.
Thus not a proper theory but mere pagan style philosophical speculations.
@@lukejones5272 Nice set of fallacious arguments, debunked decades ago. Did you know your "dogs are still dogs" argument comes straight from Vol. 1, Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf?
Evolution has never attempted to explain the origin of life-it only describes what happens after we get reproducible cells. The theory of Abiogenesis attempts to explain life’s origins. That’s a work in progress-it’s come up with some intriguing ideas.
What about origin of speices?
That's a lie and you know it - it has attempted to do that, and it has STILL failed at explaining the differences in life on earth. It's bollocks.
That's simply untrue. Evolution is often used to include abiogenis or chemical evolution, as well as cosmic evolution. I can well understand why you would want it that way. The complexity of the cell is such that evolutionists realise its impossible naturalistically. So are you saying God made the first cell? Darwin's theory is falsified also. But it is easy to imagine. As Michael Denton mentioned in his book, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, evolutionists are like the Mad Hatter who can imagine a 1000 impossible things before breakfast.
@@corvusglaive4804 Evolution is not about the origin of life.
The origin of life is called abiogenesis.
You may disregard all the scientific work that exists about the possibilities of origin of life from non life (every year many scientific papers are published that detail aspects of abiogenesis), and still the overwhelming evidence of evolution through dozens of harmoniously interconnected branches of science remains untouched.
@@psalux18963 😭🤣 "the overwhelming evidence for cats evolving into pandas is all around us!!" You guys are THE greatest comedy act ever I swear 😂 evidence = I'm a an atheist and I say so. This rock is billions of years old and I say so. My ancestor is a howler monkey because I say so. Watching Darwin and his rabid disciples circle the plug hole is a beautiful thing to watch 😂
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
♦"Religion is founded on the fear & gullibility of many & the cleverness of the few."
♦"Only fools revere the supernatural bs just bc a book says it's the holy truth."
♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure & the intelligent full of doubt."
♦"The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics may believe on their own."
♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
♦"It's difficult to free the religious fools from the chains they revere."
♦“To have faith is precisely to lose one's mind so as to win God.”
♦"The death of dogma is the birth of morality."
The evolution theory has become a dogma, a must belief.
@@s.unosson
Unless you've been living under a rock in the backyard of a church, you would know that evidence shows evolution is a fact.
@@s.unosson
Unless you've been living under a rock in the backyard of a church, you would know that evidence shows evolution is a fact.
@@s.unosson
Evidence shows evolution is a fact.
And yet, here you are. Something inside you is telling you the truth. Good luck on your journey. P.S. you should really change "religion" to "relationship with God". Religion in and of itself is no different than dogma, whether expressed by believers or material reductionist. As such you are simply creating a stawman argument to then disprove which leaves you exactly where you started even after all your effort.
when someone put «2nd LoT makes evolution impossible» in the same sentence that person know sh1t about the evolution
What about evolution having to be based on abiogenesis and abiogenesis has the probability of 1 protein occurring int the most favorable conditions in 10^164….
And adaptation doesn’t prove the overall evolutionary theory… outside of literal ‘change over time’ there is no evidence of anything changing from say a reptile to a bird or an ape to a human. And when you say ‘ oh but we have these bones and they showed us what it looked like’. I’ve seen them and when reintroduced into textbooks they are terribly misleading.
If anything, all of the missing links are just all a bunch of old monkeys… and you can’t make assumptions based on one tooth, or one toe… well actually a toe would be pretty telling, but they usually try to sell a small tiny bone as an entire entity and say Evolution here! when in reality, they have no clue.
Also they can’t answer the gaps in the fossil record… and I just had a discussion with someone and didn’t even bring that up yet… I’m sorry there’s just so much math and evidence against what you think evolution covers, anyone that has gone through the research has already concluded it’s a fallacy .
@@TailicaiCorporation«the most favorable conditions in 10^164«
how you calculate that number?
«adaptation doesn’t prove the overall evolutionary theory«
adaptation leads to evolution.
«there is no evidence of anything changing from say a reptile to a bird or an ape to a human»
evolution is not a , lets say, dog give birth to a non-dog.
evolution is not pokemon. evolution is a gradual process.
.«missing links»
how do you know they are «old monkeys«?
because they look like them?
one tooth or one foot can tell us a lot information about the animal. i suggest you to look how the scientists work.
«Also they can’t answer the gaps in the fossil record«
yes there are gaps . fossilizition is a rare and the conditions required for the preservation of organisms are not always present. As a result, many transitional forms or "missing links" may not have been preserved as fossils.
beside the fossil record, scientists also rely on other lines of evidence to study and understand evolution. These include comparative anatomy, embryology, molecular genetics, and biogeography, among others. By examining patterns of similarities and differences in these areas, scientists can reconstruct evolutionary relationships and fill in some of the gaps left by the fossil record.
I’m sorry , you dont understand how the scientist works so i suggest you to read the studies that you say doesnt make sense.
Scientific theories are not based on personal beliefs or opinions; they are built on rigorous research, empirical evidence, and peer-reviewed studies.
@@TailicaiCorporation Please show us this math which disproves 160+ years of positive scientific evidence for evolution.
Even worse, they know both shit about evolution and shit about thermodynamics
@@TailicaiCorporation
I noticed that you completely avoided the poster's comment ... instead made a bunch of suspect and unsupported assertions. Are there any open and honest creationists out there?
I'm confused, Pope Francis, God's representative on Earth has told us from his own mouth that Evolution is Real and so is the Big Bang.
That's because he's not God's representative!!!! Go look at history or read the Bible - there's valid reasons why the Reformation happened - pity for the world its all but capitulated.
Pope only God's representative to Catholics not to any one else as the bible doe's not mention a pope. So what that clown says who cares.
religion breeds ignorance. i would have thought the answer was obvious, god is imaginary, nothing about religion is FACTUAL, so there will always be confusion and contradiction cos there id no basis other than STORIES made up by people. grow up, god = santa claus.
He serves the other fake master.
@@dangerouzdave1172 That master isn't fake.
People try to refute this by claiming, "Darwin died a long time ago, Theory Evolution (Darwinism) has changed alot since then."
Now notice, He is a Scientist & He is refuting both modern Darwinism & Early Darwinism.
The very first question is about "evolution" (no qualifier) and he responds with some bit about Darwin. Please explain why.
He is not a scientist (he writes software), but he has a degree in life sciences and he knows this. In other words, he is trying to deceive us.
Please point out where you think he makes his best argument against the Theory of Evolution.
@korbendallas5318 "Please explain why" what? What shaould I explain?
"He is not a scientist" Says who?
How can I counteract the theory of evolution? Well in two ways, First of all, It's a theory not a fact & 2nd is the lack of prove for the theory. Btw, I asked a lot of questions you never answered them.
@@vromorthelilbee1 Ok, step by step:
The first question was about the Theory of Evolution, his response was about a dude who died two centuries ago. Why does he think that his response is relevant to the question?
His own website says that he is a software designer.
First, you don't know what "theory" means in this context. Educate yourself. Second, you are seriously not aware of any evidence for the Theory of Evolution? Not even a tinsy tiny little bit of weak evidence?
I can't answer your question unless you know what we are talking about. Don't worry, we'll get there eventually.
Please point out where you think he makes the best argument against the Theory of Evolution.
@korbendallas5318 First of all,
I am saying again & again, He is not only talking about Early Darwinism which is irrelevant, He's also talking about Neo Darwinism.
2nd, You're answer is irrelevant, Yes Evolution is a theory not a fact.
3rd, We have hundreds of proves against Darwinism but right now I don't want to waste my time by quoting all of those get it? So I just gave you 2 simple reasons, now refute those 2.
4th, Bro I'm not talking about the guy in the video, I'm not saying he gives the best arguments either or neither am I saying he doesn't. If you want to find out then watch the video yourself, It's between you & him. You're question is irrelevant. On the other hand, Best arguments against Neo Darwinism are already available, you can make your own research.
@@vromorthelilbee1 You are saying it, but you are not understanding it. OTOH, you avoided anwering my question, maybe you _do_ understand it, but want to keep up the deception. Again, why do they mix up ToE and Darwin IN THE SAME QUESTION?
As I said, you don't know what words mean. Educate yourself.
Hundreds of "proofs", but you can't name one. Interesting. Nah, I kid, it's boring and very predictable.
Why would I look up evidence for _your_ claim? As Hitchens said: You no evidence, you lose.
Any time I see a video that says “evolution debunked!” And “PHD” you know everything they’re about to say is going to be very lobotomized.
Tell me you didn’t listen without telling me you didn’t listen.
@@kearyAdamson I did actually, total waste of time.
The guy is a PHD repeating the dogs produce dogs argument.
These are Kent Hovind level arguments just being parroted by a guy who has “PHD” alongside his name.
More deeply, there is no evidence of evolution in the fossil records. The story is dead simply because complex biological operations are dependent upon other complex operations to spontaneously exist all at once. Sure, the obvious is there has never been any evidence of species of a simple order developing into a more complex order. But he did provide multiple reasons evolution is an unproven theory causing serious issue with the education system.
@@kearyAdamson Give one example of an animal fossil found out of order.
th-cam.com/video/noj4phMT9OE/w-d-xo.html Many books now from Yale/MIT et al. leading professors on why Darwin's theory is in fact impossible given recent scientific advances. I suppose you think calling them names somehow diminishes the facts and their arguments and strengthens your position. I'll stick with true open minded scientific inquiry and critical thinking, wherever it may lead, if you don't mind.
Werner Heisenberg once said, "the Universe isn't as strange as we can imagine but it is far stranger than we can imagine." Failure to understand the cosmos gives the organized religionist his opportunity to impose his narrative on things. His clergymen don gaudy robes and convince you they represent God. That's power, one of the three things people crave most, power sex and money, they're connected. The more you have of one the more you can access of the others. They tell you you're a sinner so that you're in thrall to them and need them for redemption, job done! And in case you think you can escape their clutches by living a chaste and pure life, think again. There's the concept of original sin, a sin you committed before you were born. We'll I'm not a sinner, mate, l obey the law and harm no man. Organized religionists can't explain the suffering we see around us. Their loving, benevolent omnipotent God creates... pathogens? But God didn't create pathogens. They evolved. Take the example of the Black Death which ravaged Europe in medieval times killing millions. It didn't kill everybody so survivors could pass on their black death resistant genes to future generations so defeating the pathogen. Darwinian evolution and natural selection in progress. We humans are arguably created as much by viruses as anything else in this way. So the cosmos is the creator of life forms, both (or neither) good or bad. It's all created in stars, the element carbon. We know the building blocks of life can be found in the interstellar medium, amino acids. It could be that the answers to fundamental questions cannot be found in the end so the power-addicted organized religionist will always find justification in his eyes, for his creed. I was raised Catholic and was indoctrinated into Catholicism in the Catholic madrassa as a child. At one stage the church held a "ring-kissing cermony" when an Archbishop visited. He was installed on the altar steps while all 800 children of our primary school lined up to kiss his ring while an altar boy wiped it with a cloth, the same cloth ensuring we all got everybody's germs. At a time of measles mumps and flu epidemic. This tells you something about the mindset of the organized religionist. Totally hubristic. His argument that cells are complex doesn't disprove Darwinian evolution, it supports it. Cells were originally, billions of years ago, simple organisms which at some stage found advantage in exchanging DNA with other cells which were slightly different. The process continued becoming more complex over time resulting in today's cells, the result of exchanging DNA by a simple process of trial and error, to end up with the best options. But the process continues today, with cells still able to evolve for better options. It all stems from simple amino acid bases. The presenters fail to see the greatest evolutionary tool, that of sexual reproduction. The example of dogs at the end was interesting. We humans used Darwinian evolution to create the myriad dog breeds we see today. I was exercised by the number of times the presenters used the word "evolution". No getting away from it.
This guy loses all credibility right at the start when he says that we've never witnessed evolution.
Hundreds of studies have been done on the molecular level and greatly helped us understand the mechanism of evolution.
Can you add a link to some of these?
@@codyspendlove8986
You aren't looking for links to studies of evolutionary processes any more than a flat earther would look for studies regarding the near spherical shape of the earth.
I agree with Cody. I am interested in those links. Typical narrow minded person to say you aren't interested. Honestly I'm fed up with scientists AND religious people. Cherry pick information to "prove" their point but anything that might make your view objectionable you brush it off with your ridiculous.
@@angella7576
You're in luck, Angella! You won't have to scroll through someone's list of uninteresting links. A search, using "biological evolution," on PubMed (U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health), as of 3 minutes ago yielded cites of exactly 448,625 scientific papers. You can browse to your hearts content.
After you've read twenty or thirty of the papers that most interest you, come back here an tell us what you learned.
Side note: Science doesn't deal in "proofs." An axiom of science is that information is always limited - "proof" is unattainable. We have to settle for the best models we can build given the information we have. That's why our gold star models of realities are called "theories" and not "proofs."
@@angella7576 TH-cam doesn't let me send links in comments. Just type "Microbial evolution studies" on google and you'll find hundreds of them. These are not secrets. They are on the public space for everyone to see, 2 clicks away from any curious mind. Just shows you how much people just want to confirm their belief instead of doing honest research.
He mentioned james tour as an "origins of life" researcher. I think that says all we need to know about this guy.
True, that. Dr. Tour has not ever been involved in the origins of life field at all. The only association he has with it is that he does is the same thing this Dr. Marco Fasoli does. Lie about the science behind it for Jesus.
Tour did research on the origin of life and he excluded abiogenesis. th-cam.com/video/FP7ojkrZ1sc/w-d-xo.html
He misspoke. Tour is a critical of the origin of life research, and he does work in the field outside origine id life and has indeed numerous articles. The point is that origin of life has yet to produce what they claim. You will have to debate him and not this interviewer.
James Tour exposed the origin of life researchers....The origin of life is a scam just ask Lee Cronin....The tongue in cheeck nonsense was almost a year later because he was catching a lot of heat from his colleagues
For atheists, some foul mouthed you tuber is more credible than Dr James Tour who's a well respected scientist with over 600 research publications and 200 patents.
Shall we just ignore all of the discoveries, gathered observations, corroboration with geology, DNA, bio science's understanding, antibiotics causing superbugs, astronomy's proof of deep time, and intelligent reasoning of the last 150 year's collection of puzzle pieces from across the globe ? And it doesn't count that religious closed-mindedness and their fears doesn't want to hear what they don't want to hear. People that are not paying attention have absolutely no scientific authority.
I agree . Even if you could disprove evolution you would still have to prove an intelligent creator and one that cares whether people sin or not. Some in religion like to point to evolution and big bang to see where they think science is wrong in order to validate their belief in a god. I can't say if there is or isn't a creator just no one has came up with evidence except to say it must be a creator.
Yes. If scientists are honest, then they must accept rerror and biass and give up their pet theory of evolution no matter how hard this is against their sophisticated overinflated false ego. But then again evolutionary scientists are not supposed to have values, ethics and virtues. So we don't expect them to feel guilty of wrongdoing and lying.
The secular worldview is built on assumption, presupposition, circular reasoning, lies, fraudulent evidence, wishful thinking and imagination. The math describing the fine tunning of the universe allowing and supporting life is unsurmountable for natural processes to explain, hence the need for a rescue device named 'multiverse'. It is also needed to explain how a simple protein folding by chance yields a probability with a value exceeding all the estimated molecules in the entire cosmos. It is science that is closed minded and requires constant cooking of the books to maintain its dogmatic grip on a biased worldview. They need to change the age of the universe now to align with observations from JWT, despite the fact the current age of the universe has been taught as fact for decades. When observations don't line up with a theory the theory should be abandoned but not when a long held paradigm has been implemented into society itself and allows the pursuit of personal pleasures and the love of sin because many have been convinced there is no meaning to life, its all an accident, there is no purpose, and all that matters is materialism and your own desires. The cosmological model is missing 98% of what should be observable, no worries, just invent something that has never been observed and call it dark matter and dark energy, it is not detectable but we know its there, trust us. You talk about things being ignored, how about ignoring even a simple protein folding by chance is absolutely mathematically impossible. How about the source of complexity and information is always a mind and this has never ever been disproven. How about DNA is the most sophisticated information ever discovered, is the most compact data storage system ever found, its 3D folding mechanism to produce new information is so unfathomably complex it cannot be replicated using supercomputers but despite all of this the dogmatic worldview must be upheld at all costs because the reality of a creator is so abominable it must be avoided at all costs. Science knows a lot less than you think, a single human cell has baffled scientists from all over the world for over 70 years, they are further back in understanding its complexity than when scrutiny of it began. It is literally a nano New York City in complexity and rivals anything mankind has devised by orders of magnitude, yet it created itself for no reason or purpose so God can be averted as an explanation for its existence. Run this over in your mind, the human body generates more processes per second than every computer on Earth combined and does so using a meagre 20 watts of electricity and according to Evolution it required no intelligent design. Man lies, cheats, steals, murders, rapes, is driven by lust and greed over all else, why would you take the word of man over the word of God.
Darwin might have a big head but he was kind of stupid I mean how can anyone know energy equals mass times the speed of light square? It could have been cubed just because him and the ancient aliens guy had bad hair don’t make them smart
@@silverfire01you don't have to prove a creator, if he is inviting you to believe in a religion and creator then he has to prove it but if he is just debunking a scientific theory, then he either debunks it or not
@user_James_Foard
4 days ago (edited)
Thank you! Many years ago I had a wonderful Catholic video on creation narrated by an old Catholic priest with a long, grey beard and a German or eastern European accent and I lost it long ago and can't find it on the internet. Part of his name was Maria in honor of Mary, and the video dealt with the process of sedimentation and also why the literal story of Adam and Eve was essential to understanding why our Lord was crucified for our sins. If you know what video I am talking about I would love to find it again. Bless you!
4:12 another uneducated person who is not aware that evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. that field of study is abiogenesis.
@@joefriday2275cause god you guys!
@@joefriday2275 there isn't really a strong theory for abiogenesis due to limited data. but that is ok in science world.
Typical nonsensical religious gibberish. Blatant dishonesty, misinformation, speculation, assumptions, willful ignorance and wishful thinking. Zero evidence, zero facts.
That’s a superb synopsis of Evolution. 👏
@@timid3000 the actual testable, repeatable verifiable, observable evidence for evolution. Zero evidence for your imaginary friend.
@@karlwhite2733 I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings Karl.
@@timid3000 you couldn't hurt my feelings. I know you're dumber than a box of rocks.
@@timid3000 you can't hurt my feelings. You're dumber than a box of rocks.
Misleading nonsense. Evolution is undeniable scientific fact. Perhaps you have just never understood it properly. Allow me to explain how it works:
(1) Each individual inherits half of its genes from its father and half of its genes from its mother. Some genes mutate more or less randomly during the process of recombination, within small limits otherwise the recombination won't work properly. The set of genes of any individual is slightly different from the set of genes of either parent, but also slightly different from the sets of genes of any brothers or sisters (with the exception of identical twins). INHERITANCE and RANDOM GENETIC VARIATION are important elements of evolution, but are not enough by themselves.
(2) Because each individual has a slightly different set of genes, any characteristics of the individual that are genetically determined are also slightly different between siblings, cousins, etc. For instance, a baby deer may have slightly longer legs or slightly shorter legs than the average leg length among its brothers, sisters and cousins. Or, they may have less-than-average eyesight, better-than-average hearing, and so on. Some young animals will then cope better with ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES than others. Environmental pressures may be: lions hunting the deer; extreme weather like droughts; periods with lack of food; viral diseases; and so on. From any generation of young deers those that have slightly shorter legs are more likely to get caught by a lion than those that have slightly longer legs. Those that have slightly better eyesight will spot a tiger earlier than those with below-average eyesight, and so on.
(3) From a group of young deer, perhaps 25% will reach reproductive age, while the other 75% die before producing offspring. Obviously, young animals that have slightly superior genetic properties than their siblings and cousins (e.g. longer legs, better eyesight, etc.) just have a better chance of reaching reproductive age than individuals with slightly inferior properties. This means that among the 25% survivors, there will be more individuals that were born with above-average leg length than with below-average leg length, because the short-legged young deer were just easier to catch by the lions. This process is called SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. The "filtering" of the genes under environmental pressures is also called NATURAL SELECTION.
(4) Because properties that are helpful to survive under environmental pressure will be passed on to a next generation in larger percentage than the properties that are below average, the species as a whole will gradually develop to have longer legs, better eyesight, etc., while unfavourable properties (shorter legs, poor eyesight) will die out after a while. This is called ADAPTATION of the species to its environment. It is of course a very slow process, because it takes many generations while each generation needs some time for natural selection to do its work.
(5) If the sets of genes of two individuals are too different the chemical process of genetic recombination (1) does not work properly anymore, and the two individuals cannot reproduce with each other. This is obvious for e.g. a dog and a cat, but perhaps slightly less obvious for mules (horse and donkey) or ligers (cross between a lion and a tiger). If plants or animals remain together as a group, they will reproduce with other individuals from that entire group, and the individual sets of genes will not drift apart too far from each other. However, if a large group of individuals splits up, and one half ends up in a different environment than the other half, then over time the two groups will adapt to their two different environments independently from the other group. After many generations, the two sets of genes have drifted apart to the extent that reproduction between individuals from the two original groups no longer works. This is called SPECIATION: the separation of one species into two new species that can no longer interbreed, even though they had a common ancestor species some time in the past.
There you go: the elements of evolution are inheritance, random genetic variation, environmental pressure, natural selection, adaptation to the environment and speciation. It's all explained here above in easy terms, and NONE OF IT CAN BE DENIED. These mechanisms are observed again and again in nature, and have even been exploited by mankind over many centuries, to develop plants or animals with specific properties for specific purposes.
If you look at the many different species of animals and plants around us, you can quite easily identify similar species that will have had a relatively recent common ancestor species (e.g. dogs and foxes), and other species with which they were related further back in the past (e.g. dogs and cats), just from analysis of their genes. This research has shown that all life once had a single common ancestor. There are around 1.5 million known species of animals and 400,000 species of plants, so to put them all in a single tree-like figure would be a bit of a challenge. A small section of the genetic tree of life is here upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg/1024px-Tree_of_life_SVG.svg.png. You will find yourself (homo sapiens) just left of the top centre, together with your cousin the chimpansees (pan troglodytes) with whom you share 96% of your genes, thanks to a common ancestor species that lived around 7 million years ago.
If you want to deny evolution you are detaching yourself from scientific thinking, from millions of verifiable observations in biology, geology, paleontology, chemistry etc., and from the undeniable logic behind mechanisms such as natural selection under environmental pressure. Good luck with that...
Your evolution is utterly false.
@@UUu-xl3gk try to refute at least one of the points.
there's too much evidence for evolution to be false. too much
It's one thing to criticize various theoretical elements of evolution, I think everyone can and should appreciate that. But when a person says that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, they're revealing themselves to be a complete crackpot who has no idea what they're talking about. They might as well be saying that birds can't exist because of the law of gravity. It's absolutely a complete misunderstanding of everything involved.
And you select and cherry pick the law of thermodynamics because you can object to that argument and then make it seem like all his points are wrong. In actual fact the strongest point against evolution is absentia ad expectata testimonio when it comes to the modus tollens rule which shows a general absence of evolution. If evolution has been found evolutionists would be able to put their money where their mouth is and SHOW the bat intermediates. SHOW the intermediates for sexual reproduction. SHOW the intermediates for pterodactyls, ichthyosaurs and pinnipeds. SHOW the intermediates for the electric eel and bombardier beatle. The truth is when it comes to evolution there really isn't anything to show which is why evolutionist try and win using words instead, and attacking people personally.
@@zt2max it's not "cherry picking" to point out that someone who claims to be a scientist has an inexcusably poor understanding of an argument that **he chose** to make. If you want to talk about the fossil record, that's another topic entirely.
@@zt2maxThe intermediates thing its such a 1970 argument man. We dont need every "intermediate" bc every generation of a species its a "intermediate". You are an intermediate between your father and the 50000 AC version of a homo sapiens througt your genetic line. The problem that people that deny evolution have its that there is absolute no other model that explain the world that well. Negate evolution its to negate biology, zoology, botanic, geology, medicine... Whats the other explication for the existence of species adapted to the desert Sahara when million of years ago the Sahara was a jungle? Or when the earth was frozen? How today species existed during those conditions?
0:20 Is this one of these videos where virtually every single sentence is a lie or is based on a misconception? No, Fasoli, what Darwin said about the matter is _not_ relevant. The Theory of Evolution is not Scripture, handed down from a prophet. With a degree in biochemistry you should know this.
you know what an introduction is? I bet you stopped listening after this
@@augustinius6586 How much are you willing to bet?
Please explain why a dude that died two centuries ago is relevant to today's non-historic discussion of today's Theory of Evolution.
23:13 3000 years ago，one Chinese said, “Word is said, not always Word. Name is named, not always name.”
Cells say, we have no problem to understand any word. What exactly are scientists searching for?
Evolution is not supposed explain the origin of life.
The origin of life was a mere accident of specific elements coming together in a specific manner (we have the vastness of space and a few billion years to thank for that).
Evolution (adaptation) came after that.
@@OnigoroshiZero I think accident implies intention with a mistake being made.
You are right but if you can not prove that life came to existence without intelligent agent then your evolution theory lacks credentials
You are correct, the “theory” of evolution does not explain the origin of life, neither does the Big Bang theory, its scientists best guess from the 1800s and we’ve all given up trying and we’re just going with that, which is fine, I get it, don’t think about it anymore, it’s been settled and now you can watch tv and eat food and don’t worry about it anymore
@@OnigoroshiZeroprove it how do you know it was a accident or a merely by chance
Any critique of evolution that focuses more on Charles Darwin than phylogeny has already largely discredited itself.
Thus the creationists’ insistence on calling it “Darwinism.”
Darwin was a Freemason Satanist he worshipped Satan😂 you ppl are so gullible
No it discredits the fool who made it up paid by Zionists 😂
yep, no actual argument just bullshit. The reason Darwin is critique is because evolution is his theory, and he set the grounds and reasoning behind it. So refute evolution one must attack the epistemic principle of evolution which is listed by Darwin himself. Again I don't expect you to understand that because you're an ape
@AlexStock187 Psylogeny is in the hypothesis stage, my friend. There are reasons people speak the way they do. Your arrogance and overconfidence in your understanding is a flaw. If you blindly believe "the science," you look just as bad as the religious people blindly believing the preacher. So any critique should involve Darwin, as this is the established science theory. Not pyhlogeny.
"Not a single fact that backs it up" Then proceeds to lie about pretty much everything. Claiming that there is a growing number of scientists that oppose it and then listing for people from 50+ years ago. Claiming that evolution can't explain irritable complexity when to date there is not a single case of things that has been shown to be irritability complex. Also claiming that evolution can't explain the origins of life is like saying that carpentry can't explain how the earth formed.
@@joefriday2275 Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. Racists will deny evolution in their pathetic attempt to feel superior.
@joefriday2275 Evolution is a fact l, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.
Over 1300 scientists doubt Darwinism (may 2023)
@@katherinehickey6915 Darwin was 1859 -- the science has advanced since then. What about the hundreds of thousands of scientists who don't doubt evolution?
@@katherinehickey6915 Are you talking about that nonsense 'Dissent from Darwinism' that is made up of mostly non-scientists or scientists that do not work in any related fields to evolution? Because there are more scientists who actually work in related fields named Steve, that accept the fact of evolution than is in your sorry excuse of a list. Project Steve has 1497 signatories as of May 22, 2024.
Lmfao, you have to "debunk" a flawed, but correct idea because you can't argue against facts because you know nothing about evolution. Evolution is a fact. Get over itm
I had a very interesting lecture on evolution by a priest, in a Catholic seminar. He had a degree in biology and told us what all biologists say: without evolution nothing in biology makes sense.
that's the statement by 'Theodosius Dobzhansky'.....
That's pretty funny because it makes sense to the world renowned scientist (named top 50 in the world) organic chemist and nano engineer, Dr. James Tour, and many of his contemporaries and anyone who truly believes in God as well. You can't always trust Catholic priests, lol...
@@surrenderdaily333 It is possible to believe in things of the christian religion and also the theory of evolution. The only conflict arises if you insist on a literal reading of Genesis. Many devout christians accept Genesis as more symbolic or metaphoric than literal.
I think biology in general has become cuckoo
@@123duelist Biology has not changed one iota. Ultra-fundamentalists' way of looking at biology has changed a lot, and in the direction of cuckoo!