7 Scientific Reasons why Darwinian Evolution is a Myth
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 เม.ย. 2024
- Ave Maria! In this video we are joined by Dr. Marco Fasoli who holds a doctorate in biochemistry from the University of Cambridge. Using science, he exposes many of the flaws in Darwin's theory of evolution.
Check out this video which addresses whether or not Catholics can believe in Darwinian evolution: • Debunking Evolution: T...
Marco's conversion testimony: • Why This Scientist Bec...
SUBSCRIBE NOW: th-cam.com/users/RadioImmacu...
Our website: www.themarianfranciscans.org/
Donate Now: donate.giveasyoulive.com/dona...
Order
Order our quarterly magazine: www.themarianfranciscans.org/... - บันเทิง
![[TH] VCT Pacific - Playoffs Grand Final // PRX vs GEN](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/G345ud5yRGA/mqdefault.jpg)
"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.”
I’m a dentist and majored in biochemistry during my undergraduate studies. I remember taking anthropology and I asked myself “what a load of junky hypotheses! What are they trying to teach here?” I NEVER bought the idea of us human beings, born in the image and likeness of God, to originate from a monkey and somehow evolved over time to be who we are today. What a ridiculous theory! So then why are the rest of the monkeys and chimpanzees still monkeys and chimpanzees to these days? God gives us the intellect to explore, to give rise to science so we could come to learn and appreciate the beauty of his gift of creation, NOT to discredit his divine presence, power and glory. Many people and especially prideful scientists, unfortunately, don’t understand or refuse to recognize this truth and when humanity chooses to ignore God’s presence, we shouldn’t blame God for our own actions and their consequences. Let’s remember who we really are. We’re family, all God’s children striving to be saints. Amen!
The briefest possible response would be to emphasize that evolution deals with common ancestors. It is not that humans descended from apes and that apes descended from monkeys; rather, humans and apes share a common ancestor, and it is more recent than the common ancestor they both share with monkeys
Dentist eh? Please explain why humans have a jaw too small to hold their wisdom teeth. Before the advent of modern medicine having impacted wisdom teeth often led to infections and death for those unlucky enough to get them.
@@samburns3329The answer was in this video. Start the video over and listen with an open mind. This Theory is the opposite of the one you already believe. Give it a chance before you just throw it out. It makes sense. Evolution doesn't, unless you start with it is a fact so any problems with it can be ignored. If you remember it is and always was just a theory you can see the proof is missing.
@@satkinson5505 Where was the answer for the poor "design" of human wisdom teeth? Time stamp please.
You should not be treating people given your ignorance
I went to a very small school. The history teacher also taught RI.
In the morning the earth was 6000 years old.
By the afternoon it had aged considerably.
That is so hilarious.
When I was doing scientific research to see if I could discover if the God species existed, I was invited to a prayer meeting at someone's house. A man and his friend showed up and I was with one of my brothers, a brother-in-law and my father. There were about nine men total, some were Catholic, and some were Protestant. The man's friend was missing his right-hand middle finger from the first knuckle out. I suppose he could wear a ring, but it would slide off as the knuckle was gone and there was just a stub. I noticed because we shook hands and I felt something poke my palm. When I looked down, I noticed the finger stub.
They decided before reading scripture they would play for anyone who had a request.
They all gathered around his friend and started praying. I was sitting in a chair off to the side as I was just observing and doing research. At that point I had discovered there was some kind of God species but had not narrowed it down to any specific religion. They prayed and some commanded and some asked politely but nothing was happening. His friend stopped them and said, "Something is wrong, it just does not feel right." He then looked around and noticed me sitting there watching. He said to me, "You should be up here with us. Please come join us."
I started walking towards them and started thinking, "I will close my eyes to show some respect.", even though his friend told everyone to keep their eyes open so they could see a miracle. Mind you they are believers, and I am doing research to try to discover what kind of God species there is and if related to a religion, which one is the God species closets to. They sort of part to allow me to join the circle and as I raise my hand to point at his finger, I closed my eyes and just think, "Let's see what God would do." I hear them all make some kind of gasping sounds. I open my eyes and he has a finger where there was a stub.
I asked what happened and some of them described that a finger grew out like an inflating balloon, then a fingernail formed, and the finger aged to match the hand.
As I went back to my seat, I pondered what is Faith and I eventually came to the conclusion Faith is Fuel. They lacked Fuel (lacked Faith), but even though I was not a believer as they, my faith in honestly doing research to discover what this God species is, it fueled the healing event. Just like the Roman Commander who told Jesus he could heal from there and did not need to come with him. Also, the same as the woman who went to ask Jesus on the road to grant healing to her daughter (who was not with her). You can have a perfect car that is brand new but without Fuel it will not function. I also say there thinking about how the God species clearly could have created everything in a second but did so over a specific amount of time to either prove something or to set down a timeline for humans to use to map out future events.
As a side not I would like to say that I also pondered the scientific powers it would take to grow that a man's finger and have it age to instantly create a history that never happened. The new finger looked older and match the hand of a railroad yard worker's hand. Yes, his finger was cut off in a railyard accident ten years prior, yet the new finger looked like the finger was never cut off. The God species created a history that never happened. This is interesting as it means a God can create everything in 6 days and give some things 80 billion years of history that never happened. What a way to hide yourself from your enemies and confuse your detractors so they follow a fantasy away from you. If you are in fact True Living Knowledge and some prefer False Knowledge, you would know this and thus build in just enough history that never happened to lead the False Knowledge Followers away from the Truth you offer to make some humans to become a part of the God species. What the child born (2,000+ years ago), that is the Word (True Knowledge) of the God species came to grow up around humans and show them how to live and the powers they can have if they remain in the Teaching and the Truth remains in them. Then he (Gods Word) be the sacrifice to seal the contract.
I was an atheist, but I was not won over to the Lord by humans.
It was the God species that was working within the rules of my experiments.
Later I discovered I was working within the rules of their experiment on me.
I was sixteen then and I am 57 now, I have done many miracles over the decades.
I do not attend any religion or church as the Holy Spirit discipled me to be apart and only work with him.
@@MeaganEater Is this an example of A.I. creative writing? A written piece made by a computer program would have certain attributes and misconceptions that are sometimes easily detected.
@@tedgrant2 Why ask me? If you have faith (Fuel) you can alter your dog's feet as you choose... if it is in alignment with the Spirit of True Knowledge and you have the Fuel to power your desires, you will receive.
True knowledge is Omni-Present, there to correct anything False Knowledge is affecting. I am sure you understand True Knowledge is what every wise being seeks... even Atheists and even other smart species like the Honeybees. Everything comes from Knowledge and also contains Knowledge. There is nothing you can point at and say, "This thing here I am looking at has No knowledge Inside It.", as even the Atoms are True Knowledge. If your DNA was not True Knowledge, you would not be here. The same for the structure of Atoms needing to be True knowledge and True Energy.
If the Protons, Neutrons and Electrons were not True, nothing would exist. Thus, everything that exists owes its existence to True Knowledge. Only those who love False Knowledge, hate True knowledge. Science = True Knowledge and before anything existed physically, True Knowledge existed. How do we know? Everything comes from Knowledge and Contains Knowledge.
In order for Atoms to form, there must be a valid true path to the formation of Atoms and that path must be True (based on True Knowledge and True Energy). Atoms are made from Electrons, Protons and Neutron and they are made of Quarks, and Quarks are made of Micro-Quarks. If the Micro-Quarks were not True, and they do not have Sufficient True (accurate) Energy, they will not hold cohesion, thus the foundations of creation are not sufficient to create. True Knowledge + True Energy = Creation. False knowledge + True Energy = Destruction. True Knowledge + False Energy = Nothing (No Results). The experiment must be True and the Theory must be treated as True. This does not make the Theory True, it makes the Assumptions or Ideas to be as True as needed for the sake of the Experiment, to give valid results. We seek True Knowledge to Wash Out or to Cast Out, False Knowledge, that misleads us or Society.
Put all of the Knowledge of everything that would exist, into one place, before anything existed and put all the energy that would create everything, in the same place (Singularity = Single Minded), and you have the oldest Sentient Being that has always existed. It is the totality of all True Knowledge with Infinite Energy in one place. That much structured True Knowledge with that much True Energy = Greatest Sentients. In all True Knowledge, there is nothing False as it has no False Knowledge, or it would not be True Knowledge. We know there is True Knowledge because it is Science. If Science did not exist, noting would exist. If True Knowledge did not exist, noting would exist. All True Knowledge existed before anything and it was with Infinite Energy (Singularity = Single Mindedness), thus it is True Living Knowledge. It thinks of creating and therefore its thoughts become Physical Reality (Physics Realm). The creation of the universe in the beginning and all things that would become into existence was and still is coming from True Knowledge. It creates Life because it is Living True Knowledge.
Knowing this, be like a child, asking the Spirit of True Knowledge (the father of all living things) to do what is needed to correct what False Knowledge affects. If you have the Fuel (Faith = Positive Energy) then you will receive, but if you lack Fuel (Faithless = No Positive Energy) you will not receive because you lack the Energy to Create with True Knowledge. You must stay out of its way, but you must treat the Theory as a Fact for the sake of the Experiment. Just like how Science (True Knowledge) Works. Science = True knowledge... the word Science literally is the English word, Knowledge. Science == GOD == True Living knowledge that existed before anything in the physics Realm (Physical Reality). This is what Darwin did not understand, nor do Atheists and this is why they do not see GOD. GOD = TRUE KNOWEDGE. G O D is Giver Of Dominion, aka Giver Of Existence.
If your dog has 4 toes on its back feet, (and not five like some dogs have on their back feet) it is likely the Cells (not Undirected Evolution via mutation over time) decided to eliminate a toe on each back foot so their habitat (the dog's body) cold run faster than other dogs, thus get to food faster and cover greater distances to find food that not in their area or to catch faster prey in their area. It is a reasoned decision based on a perceived necessity from challenges the Cell's habitat deals with. Cells are a Sentient Species. They read, write, follow directions, communicate with each other, build habitats, understand threats and circumvent those threats within a maintained eco system (they built from True Knowledge) while using their True Knowledge inside their brains. They follow True Knowledge and observe incoming data in the brain they built with the eyes they built. We build windows and cameras and monitors, and we use them. We build computers that store, and sort data and we use them. The Cells built all these things into some of their habitats long before we existed, and they use them. Living True Knowledge Created Life. This Is The Way. Nothing does not create, True Knowledge with True Energy Creates. Sentients comes from Sentients. Sentients does not come from Nothing. We only observer something coming from something, and the common link is True Living Knowledge aka what some people call GOD is the GOD SPECIES = Truth (aka True Knowledge).
If your dog's ancestors' Cells decided to drop one toe from each back foot to gain speed and distance, it is based on Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding, so it is likely True Living Knowledge would reject the request to give your Dog 5 digits on its hind feet. Wisdom is a Wise Dome of Protection. Knowledge is knowing where the Ledge of Calamity is and staying back. Understanding is standing under the Wise Dome of Protection, away from the Ledge of Calamity. What is the Ledge of calamity? It is where True Knowledge ends and you plumet off into False Knowledge. False knowledge leads to Desolation (aka Destructing). Perhaps giving your dog new digits would lead to it losing an advantage.
How about I ask True Living Knowledge to prove to you your dog is better with four rear toes instead of five? Be patients in an experiment and pay attention for the messages coming through to you in visual examples from your dog and other dogs. How they EnterAct in situations and then ponder if their ancestors' Cells made a good decision based on Wisdom, knowledge and understanding. How can they make modification? Alter a male's reproductive systems wiring of DNA CODE during the creation of Sperm and Encode Directives within the Double Helix DNA Matrix Codex. This drops the 5th toes on the back feet and also gives a natural desire to run faster in its base programming in its brain after it is built. What is the Cells' Brain? Double Helix DNA Matrix Codex is the brain of the Cell. This is how the cell thinks and reasons and knows how to read and write and translate to manufacture proteins and how to make defenses against perceived threats. Where does this knowledge come from? The sperm face challenges, and they work to learn how to deal with them as a team and as individuals. This prepares them for the challenges they face during the search for the grand prize. Only the grand prize is death but from your death is your new life as a Huan being. Yes, you were a sperm, but after your death, about 9 months later, on average, there is rebirth as a new life with exponential potential as a human being. This is why we as a species are addicted to Get the ball across the line, Get the ball into the hole, Get the puck into the net, Get the ball into or over the net, Get to the finish first. it was driven into us as sperm.
You addressed one thing that Dr. Fasoli said?
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.
Piltdown Man is an irrelevant footnote in the history of science.
There is NO GAP between apes and humans. HUMANS ARE APES. You might as well be arguing about the "gap" between carrots and vegetables.
Good god, this is hopeless.
I think its pretty sad we have a dichotomy of science vs religion where if a scientific theory or discovery is disproven, the illogical leap to "then that proves religion" is the automatic response.
Nobody is willing to say they dont know or go forward with wonder and an unbiased view.
Religion and scientific inquiry are not mutually exclusive. The fact this that many of the modern fields of scientific inquiry were founded by men and women of faith looking to know the creator better.
@@alantasman8273 Sure but I'm merely talking about the black and white thinking behind the battle between science and theology that the general public engages in. Atheists generally adhere to science while theists adhere to religion and look to science for confirmation of their beliefs, so while they may not be mutually exclusive, they seem to be in people's minds in this case. In the event that science steers the arrow away from God, theists ignore, but in the event that it steers the arrow in a different direction, not even necessarily toward God, theists cheer.
I think it's pretty sad that this dichotomy exists in people's minds, because it shows that they aren't really thinking that intently about the world and reality at all.
Not necessary religion but an intelligent mind that created everything. Science and Religion are not in opposition.
@@DJdeepsoulelectric Does there really need to be an intelligent mind to create anything? I think that's a greater question to be answered. Two people don't necessarily need to be intelligent to procreate so why does there need to be a consciousness similar to human consciousness to create? It's just the same humans projecting themselves onto their idea of God because they can't conceive of anything else apart from themselves.
@@88Padilla The process of the sperm being attracted the to the egg and creating a human life. That alone will never happen by change. How does the act of being able to procreate even exist? You have intelligence and you can create things and you believe that came by random chance? The universe and life has extremely set conditions to exist. If one is not exact, life would not exist. That is impossible by random change. That takes a mind.
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
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.
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.
He seems to think that people 'degrading' becoming 'dumber' shows they are not evolving, and throws in shortening lifespan loss of function too. Not too sure about that one...
Pretty sure we're devolving
In regard to Ernst Chain, Marco Fasoli is literally using creationist quote-mining to garble up an out-of-context quote of Chain from a young earth creationist source - and mixing Chain's words in with the words of the young earth creationist. The young earth creationist's name is Laurence D. Smart, a creationist in Australia.
Now, first of all, anyone who takes science seriously at all - I do mean, at all - knows that young earth creationists are completely off their rocker when it comes to science. And, second, young earth creationists are notorious for engaging in misrepresentative quote-mining. And, third, I looked at Smart's out-of-context quotes referring to Ernst Chain - and here in this video I see Fasoli mixing Chain's words together with Smart's words and pretending they're all the words of Chain. We literally can't tell from Smart's quote-mining what Chain was specifically referring to, because the young earth creationist Smart left that out - because all Smart was interested was finding some brief snippet that he could use to misrepresent Chain, and misrepresent science.
The very fact that Fasoli would regurgitate Smart's quote-mining is another point discrediting Fasoli's rhetoric here.
Specific example:
In the video, Fasoli states, "In another statement he [Ernst Chain] made, he said, quote, 'I would rather believe in faeries than in such wild speculation as Darwinian evolution,' close quote."
But that's not what Ernst Chain said! Indeed, in the quote-mining document that the young earth creationist Laurence D. Smart put together, he actually screwed up, because he quotes Chain two different times using the same quote here - except in one of the quotes he actually shows more of what Chain said, and the longer quote disproves the shorter quote.
Here is the shorter quote of Chain given by Laurence Smart: ""I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation [as Darwinian evolution]."
Notice those words in square brackets? Those are the words that the young earth creationist Laurence Smart ADDED IN to misrepresent what Chain was talking about. But Smart screwed up, because he already had given a longer version of the quote that contradicts what he ADDED in order to misrepresent Chain.
Here's the longer version of the quote of Chain: "I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable."
So Chain didn't say "as Darwinian evolution" and was not in fact referring to biological evolution in the first place, but was referring to speculations about the origin of life back in the 1970s.
And yet here is Marco Fasoli directly using a misrepresentative out-of-context quote provided by a young earth creationist science denialist (Laurence Smart), in which some of the words were added in by Smart himself, and pretending that he's "quoting" Ernst Chain.
This is just another example of the self-discrediting kind of behavior that creationists such as Marco Fasoli (and Laurence Smart) engage in.
If Earth was created then it would be created with apparent age, and that is your dilemma.
@@richardleigh4003 Yep, God created the fake fossils in the fake geologic strata, because the god you believe in is a deceitful Prankster God.
I totally understand where you're coming from.
And if you don't know what I mean there, let me make it even more explicit...
You young earth creationists love to make up whatever you feel like you need to make up, as purely vacuous rhetorical games, designed to (1) totally ignore the very idea of factual falsification, and (2) to fabricate a fictional worldview where the very idea of acknowledging the fact that some idea you believe in is contradicted by the facts is a philosophical point that doesn't even exist for you.
Indeed, what you're displaying here is the fundamentally subjective nature of young earth creationist belief. For you, the facts about the real world don't matter at all, because you're going to believe what you want to believe regardless of any real world facts that contradict your belief.
And that's why I have to thank you, for openly articulating the fundamentally irrational nature of religious belief in young earth creationism.
By the way, in the year 1987, here on Earth we WITNESSED the explosion of a star in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy that occurred about 168,000 year ago. That one fact alone proves that young earth creationism beliefs are completely bogus.
But, of course, according to you, you can just fabricate the notion that your Prankster God just made everything up, such that the explosion of that star never actually happened. Your Prankster God just created a fake illusion of a fake star explosion that never actually happened in light in space that happened to reach earth in 1987.
Which is exactly why I bring up this particular example. Because it exposes how obviously ludicrous the argument you used really is.
@@richardleigh4003 You wrote, "and that is your dilemma."
No, it's YOUR dilemma. Because it puts you in the position of pretending that everything we observe of the empirical results of the distant past is FAKE. YOU are the one who, based on your position, generates a Prankster God who creates fake fossils, fake geological strata, fake illusions of light in space of fake events that never happened.
Meanwhile, in the real word, I'm the guy taking the empirical facts for what they are. While you're the guy posing a delusional argument based on pretending that all of the relevant empirical facts about the past are fake, having been faked by a Prankster God who faked everything.
@@richardleigh4003 So the ancient remains of ancient geological features in the geological strata are fake. All of those ancient eroded dead volcanoes are fake volcanoes that were never formed from magma pushing up through the crust. All of those ancient eroded mountain ranges, buried deep in the crust, were never actually mountains, and were never actually weathered and eroded. The fossils in the geological strata are fake, being remnants of organisms that never actually existed. And that explosion of a star in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy that occurred approximately 168,000 years ago, that we witnessed in 1987, never actually happened but was just the illusion of a fake explosion that never actually happened. All created by a deceitful Prankster God.
Yes, I happen to be very familiar with the Prankster God concept of the Omphalos argument. Which argument ALONE proves the unscientific nature of young earth creationism belief.
@@richardleigh4003 So you don't have an answer to why Fasoli would lie with such abandon?
"NOT A SINGLE FACT THAT BACKS IT UP" - You are RIGHT as long as you bury your head in the sand!
No, he's RIGHT if you know anything about evolutionary biology.
@@mcmanustony what pride you have in your ignorance
Says the one with their head in the sand.
@@ReapingTheHarvest The evidence from genetics, from comparative anatomy, from embryology and from the fossil record is totally overwhelming.
where's your head exactly?
@@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.
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.
The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. Individual living things are certainly not closed systems. And the biosphere as a whole receives a steady flux of low-entropy radiation from the sun.
Exactly, and even in closed systems we have reactions which stay out of the equilibrium even exibiting complex behaviour for a long time before reaching an equilibrium.
We have an entire field of thermodynamics, founded by Ilya Prigogine, which deals with open and out of the equilibrium systems and we know that order arises spontaneusly in this kind of systems.
The formation of Banard Cells is such an example
Yes!
@@APRENDERDESENHANDO Yes yes because Order is inherent. In fact Order is another word for God it is that fundamental.
Some have insisted that the Universe is the only closed system. That would seem to imply that Earth is an open system. Yet, the 2nd law was formulated on Earth. Please provide a specific example of an observed violation of the 2nd law on Earth. Thankyou. Bill Crofut
@@user-wb2tv2yf9x The second law is never violated, because the second law states that "in a closed system with constant volume, entropy can only stay constant or increase"
If the Earth is not a closed system, than the second law does't apply to the whole earth.
It still applies to closed systems here on earth though.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
All you need to know about the nature of this video is the background decorations. This is a religiously motivated content, without getting into the content itself.
Ad hominem what did I expect from atheist?
“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
You know that every time you lie by quote mining Jesus kills a puppy.
What "speculations" was he addressing? Do you even know?
Do you begin to understand why the sheer breathtaking dishonesty of creationists like you makes decent people vomit.
Oh no, it's still here, liar.
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.
Control by the educational system worldwide.
ADD: Control by religious system worldwide!... this was more dissastrous to us milanin-rich people (africans etc)
Sure it's all just a massive conspiracy. That's ludicrous
Even by the Taliban?
@@mattbrook-lee7732 Look at the attitude of Russians currently believing that Ukrainians are Nazis. It is not ludicrous to think that groups of people can be delusional. It happens all the time. And look at the prevalence of monopolies in the free market. There is a habit for one player to dominate and bury opposition.
Which is controlled by adherents to satan
Also read Seraphim Rose's writings on the theory of evolution - he was a Russian Orthodox monk
Better title: PhD becomes a Catholic.
...abandons science and becomes a liar for Jesus.
Hahahaha so difficult to teach science to you fools who believe on a weak theory a priori. You've probably not given any thought as to why the founders of science were theist and many were Christian. You've not read about the history of how evolution became the dominant paradigm. You just assume that whenever someone mentions evolution, it means science. I would like to admonish you to think about why such great scientists even today switch to theism (not saying there are no great atheist scientists). It should convince you that the issue is not bad or good science, but bad or good philosophy. And atheists have very weak philosophical ground for science.
@@mcmanustony oh so you came here…. Do you think Jesus existed or no? I’m curious
@@TailicaiCorporation
Perhaps he did.
Claims of divinity are nonsense
At least catholics are open to evolution... Baptist is probably a better description.
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.
So, river rock formation contradicts the law of termodynamics?
No reply. The monk just gives "likes' to comments that kiss his monk orifice. He can't engage in a conversation about it because, by his own admission, he's scientifically illiterate. This video should be called "Scientifically Illiterate Monk Rejects Science When Fed Anti-Science Propaganda by Grifter."
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.
4.54 billion years ago the elements could arrange, organize themselves into a self sustaining, self replicating cell for the same reason tapestries and baskets weave themselves today?
EGG-zack-lee!
Great comment!
Yeah, but if you look at the roots and branches of many intermingling bushes and trees, you can see great attempts
@@anttisalminen1110 I'm referring to the perfectly dead elements arranging, "weaving" themselves into a living cell, silly.
@@Vernon-Chitlen I got that, and realize what you mean, but also grasped your basket weaving point, no offence, molecules, where ever they came, attract one another
your problem is you are trying to reason and logic. abandon those and baskets will be weaving themselves in some "natural process" that nobody yet knows but have faith that it does exists and that its not the divine creator
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.
This sounded promising, but I had to stop watching this after 4min 56 sec as the speaker literally was wrong about everything single counter argument. I can’t take him seriously.
why did the omnipotent great intelligent designer create cetaceans the way they are ? ... also please explain dingoes, thank you ...
So cetaceans don't function well? Dingoes pose no problem at all for Creationists. The problem you should seek an answer to is why, even given the Biblical teaching of the fall and decay from initial creation, why life is so perfect. Michael Denton in his book. Evolution. A Theory in Crisis has a chapter title, The puzzle of perfection. In an evolutionary world it is not supppsed problems in design but the amazing perfection of creation that is a mystery.
Why do artists create all sorts of weird things?
@@russellholmes8742 So two platypus waddled all the way, some 12,000 km, to the middle east, because it was raining?
Denton's book came out in 1985 and was trashed by the scientific community. Reviews by parties within the scientific community were vehemently negative, with several attacking flaws in Denton's arguments. Biologist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin described A Theory in Crisis as "a book by an author who is obviously incompetent, dishonest, or both - and it may be very hard to decide which is the case" and that his "arguments turn out to be flagrant instances of the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.
Other scientists voiced similar opinions.
Biologist Walter P. Coombs writing in Library Journal said much of the book reads like creationist prattle.
Mark I. Vuletic, in an essay posted to the talk.origins Archive, presented a detailed argument that Denton's attempts to make an adequate challenge to evolutionary biology fail, contending that Denton neither managed to undermine the evidence for evolution, nor demonstrated that macroevolutionary mechanisms are inherently implausible.
Philip Spieth, Professor of Genetics at University of California, Berkeley, reviewed the book saying his conclusions are "erroneous" and wrote the book "could not pass the most sympathetic peer review" because "evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as bald assertions accompanied, more often than not, with scorn."
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge in a review wrote that the book is "fraught with distortions" and utilized arguments similar to creationists.
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?
Ironic how all the quotes in the beginning apply to Christianity more than evolution.
Science can be like an attempt at joining the dots, revealing the overall picture. This guy doesn't like the overall picture as is conflicts with his prescribed religious ideas. He's just adding random dots all over the place, creating obscurity, in an attempt protect his beliefs. Remember that while you watch, for me it becomes much less frustrating, almost makes sense 👍
Science means knowledge. We come to know by study. We define a scientific fact as something that can be demonstrated and repeated by other scientists. Evolution can't be demonstrated or repeated...therefore it's merely a belief system. No fact backs this theory up. It is called the theory of evolution for a reason. It's still a Theory! A thought a belief system.
@mariahumphrey9897 - I don't agree. Evolution can be demonstrated. Not be repeated is true
@@mariahumphrey9897 evolution is proven by mountains of evidence. It's called the theory of evolution because "theory" is the highest standard for an explanation in science. It will always be a theory, since it will keep being THE explanation for the diversity of life.
I wouldn't say he disproved it but, he laid out the reasons why it isn't a sound theory. I think the proof, for most of us, is simply in our personal, first hand life experience. A reasonable degree of clarity, focus and love for the truth would lead us to the same conclusions as they would apply to us.
It's actually evident on every level. It doesn't require an academic degree or clinical testing. In fact, I believe it was revealed to me that the extent to which we feel we need to delve into the depths of a "science" to search for the truth is only evidence of the degree to which the truth has been obscured and hidden from our minds or how our God-given ability to understand has been handicapped. For that reason I became somewhat embarrassed by the large library of books I had accumulated over many years. As helpful as they might have been, they only really illuminated how much I needed to walk with and listen to the Holy Spirit, who, as the Lord said, will lead us into all truth.
No disrespect to academicians but understand that is not going to be the standard for knowledge in the Kingdom. Academic intellect, as it is commonly understood, is a man-made standard for competition in a fallen world
You wrote, "I think the proof, for most of us, is simply in our personal, first hand life experience."
Well, you're correct that FOR CREATIONISTS, ignoring the actual scientific research and pretending it doesn't exist, and promoting what you believe because it fits with your personal religious belief is what you consider to be "proof."
Of course, that right there is what actually exposes the inherently fallacious nature of creationism pseudoscience and creationist science-denialism.
But that's just you, and not "most of us."
Also, you wrote, "I wouldn't say he disproved it, but he laid out the reasons why it isn't a sound theory."
Except, he didn't...
[I stole these from a post above by someone else who kindly typed out the bullet points.]
"1. Evolution is not observable (not today not in the past)."
Factually wrong. The professional science literature of biology, genetics, and paleontology is filled with mountains of research articles containing all kinds of observations of biological evolution.
"2. It presupposes but does not account for the origin of life."
Irrelevant. Not knowing how the original living organisms developed, say, over four billion years, does not in the least change the observational facts we have about the evolution of life on the planet since that time.
This is also a good place for me to point out how, by the way, Fasoli used that typical clownish terminology of referring to a current gap in knowledge as a "flaw" in the theory of evolution. Now, I have no doubt that there are some actual flaws in the scientific theory of evolution, which is a very broad theory, built on a huge body of facts (which are being added to constantly by professional biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, and the like every years), such that when particular errors or theoretical flaws are sussed out, then revisions are made. I mean, seriously, this is how ALL science works. But what I'm pointing out here is how Fasoli describes an actual GAP in knowledge as being a flaw - no, it's not a flaw, it's a gap. And what do we do when there's a gap in the knowledge of some particular aspect? Exactly! We're talking about science. Science is a continuous process. So we DO MORE RESEARCH. Duh.
Fasoli's rhetoric here is actually totally inane. It's like he's saying, "Oh, look's here's some particular aspect of this that we don't know about yet - THEREFORE WE CAN THROW OUT ALL OF THE OTHER ASPECTS THAT WE DO KNOW ABOUT." Which is an obviously fallacious argument it's just ridiculous. It's like saying, "Well, scientists don't actually know what produces the force of gravity, THEREFORE EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT GRAVITY IS WRONG."
"3. It violates the Second Law of thermodynamics."
Wrong. Fasoli is literally regurgitating this argument from young earth creationism pseudoscience, by the way. (Indeed, the previous two arguments he's also regurgitating from young earth creationism pseudoscience. I just mention this now, because this is the most obvious one.)
The earth isn't a closed system. Duh. The earth receives a huge amount of energy from the sun all of the time. Biological evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics any more than the grass and trees growing in the yard (or weather cycles, or ocean currents, or bees making honey, or etc., etc.) violates the second law. This is a particularly boneheaded argument, based on not even understanding what the second law of thermodynamics even is in the first place.
"4. Its proposed mechanisms of natural selection and mutations have been shown conclusively not to work."
Well, here he's just lying. There are all kinds of examples of research articles in the professional biology literature (especially in population genetics, but also in field studies in biology of populations in the wild, as well as with populations in experimental settings).
I mean, seriously, I'm not just being harsh here. These studies are so readily available, being published in the professional science literature and publicly available, not just in university libraries but widely available on the internet (and discussed all standard college textbooks on evolutionary biology), that Fasoli has literally zero excuse for stating such an obvious falsehood. He's straight up just lying here.
"5. It fails to account for the irreducible complexity that we observe in biological systems."
Fasoli took this from Michael Behe. Behe tried using this argument in court in the Kitzmiller case in Pennsylvania in 2004 - and was immediately dismantled under cross-examination by the well-prepared lawyer. (The lawyer, who himself was no slouch, also had assistance in prepping his lines of questioning by some of the expert witnesses - science experts - for the prosecution.)
What Fasoli is demonstrating here is the penchant that creationism pseudoscience promoters have of making bogus claims about science, then having their claims debunked (usually debunked numerous times by a number of different critics), and then totally ignoring their errors and totally ignoring the scientific research pointed out to them that falsifies their claims and continuing to promote their false claims until long after the cows came home and until so long after the horses have been beaten to death that the blood has evaporated and even the leather left from the skin has fragmented into dust. (Yes, it's another example of the pervasively corrupt nature of the behavior of creationism pseudoscience promoters.)
"6. It fails to account for the origin of specified information in the biological systems, primarily the genetic code."
Meanwhile, in the real world of the research results published in the professional science literature of, in this case, genetics (including population genetics), geneticists have been literally studying the origin of "specified information" in the genome. Again, these research articles are published. Again, much of this research is readily and freely available on the internet. Again, Fasoli has zero excuse for stating this blatant falsehood. He's lying about the science again, based on totally ignoring the very existence of the scientific research on this exact topic that has been done and that is published. This corrupt behavior is so very typical of creationism pseudoscience promoters.
"7. Violates many first principals in philosophy which renders the concept of evolution (metaphysically impossible and irrational)."
Meanwhile, in the real world, professional philosophers of science who specialize in studying the science of biology have been routinely publishing research in the professional philosophy literature that totally contradicts what Fasoli claims here. Again, Fasoli is literally just making up empty crap on this - based on ignoring the very existence of the actual philosophical research on the topic published in the professional philosophy literature (and based on pretending that the incompetent garbage published by creationism pseudoscience promoters, that's been debunked over and over and over again for decades magically represents professional philosophy, despite the fact that it's all published by religious organizations and doesn't even exist in the professional philosophy literature).
Which, again, and of course, is just another example of the routinely disingenuous nature of creationist rhetoric.
Of course, you yourself make a remark that pretty much exposed your own science denialism explicitly. You wrote, "I believe it was revealed to me that the extent to which we feel we need to delve into the depths of a 'science' to search for the truth is only evidence of the degree to which the truth has been obscured and hidden from our minds or how our God-given ability to understand has been handicapped."
Ah, yes, so your personal religious belief "revealed" to you that ignorance of and deliberately ignoring even learning anything about any of the actual science is a religious virtue, and to put forth any effort at all to even learn about any of the actual scientific facts "obscures" and "hides" the truth.
Which
VERY well thought out and spoken.
I want to accept this by all means. But I think science has given us a lot but though also has made a lot confused
Consider how our use of language displays distortion which, if not attended to, will hinder the pursuit of understanding. "Science"" doesn't "give" anything. Giving is an action made by a conscious/thinking/sentient being. ""Science" is a methodology used to gather information. There first has to be a conscious being with a desire for information to apply the methodology. The conscious being precedes and is greater than the methodology. The only reason the methodology is possible is because we (as consciousness) exist with an endowment to be aware of and appreciate the pursuit of truth. All of that necessarily exists even before the consideration of a "modern methodology". The modern methodology is subservient to the human being, which is capable of deceit, envy, spite, resentment and all manner of evil.
Referring to "science" as something that "gives" is (and I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but there are transgressive principles in work that it will still resonate with if not checked) a deification, which will lead to a subconscious form of worship.
Bottom line is that science hasn't given us anything. All that we have is from God. Science as a modern methodology can be as much of a hinderance as a blessing because it's not about the thing but the hearts of those who utilize it.
You may be familiar with the scripture "What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul?"" You could also word that as "What does it profit a man to unlock understanding of many of the mechanisms of the material universe and lose his own soul?" That's what we have to consider. Peace.
Great truth common sense!thinking themselves wise they became fools.
Thanks for this…..I am 90, and have always had some doubts in Darwin’s theory.
If you've not already, read the Bible. And pray to God He strengthens you to the truth.
God bless you for continuing your journey on TH-cam and listening to new information. ❤️
Darwins Theory has only gotten stronger, while theists (of course) lie and claim it's weaker.
Unless you deny everything we know about DNA, DNA proves common descent is real which is the singular hallmark of "Darwin" evolution. There can be no doubt about it as everything on Earth has relatives and common ancestors in it's genetic code. There's no other explanation.
If this method is false, then paternity testing must be false too. Because it does the same thing: counts base-pairs. I don't even know a single Christian who thinks paternity testing is false though. It's just that they don't understand how it works, and why it's the same method used to determine evolutionary ancestry.
You've never known Darwin's theory.
***thanks for this... I am 91, and never had any doubts in Darwin´s theory and what followed after that.***
@@TaxEvasi0nwhich version of the bible are you referring to?
24:50 Dude will be so surprised when he first hears about quantum physics.
Let me sum up this video; willful ignorance and purposeful misunderstanding I choose you!
How is it willful ignorance? Have you ever observed one kind of animal or organism evolve into a completely different kind of animal or organism?
Ignorance of theory such that someone would ask a question of it that strawman's the idea.
The moment i see religion involved in these subjects, all credibility goes out the window, what a load of rubbish
Fascinating. I read Dawkin’s ‘Blind Watchmaker’ many years ago - will reread.
1) It has been observed today in labs with bacteria. It takes a very long time for evolution to make changes, it is not like how many creationists view it where a fully formed new feature comes out and just now all members have it. Say someone develops lactose tolerance, that allows them to have access to a new form of food that others cannot make use of an thus lets them survive food scarcity. Since they are more likely to survive they can spread their genes and the lactose tolerance spreads through a community. It takes many generations for that to happen and spread. Evolution is like a movie and saying "we do not observe it now" at least with larger organisms that take a while to reproduce (it can be forced on insects and bacteria where we can see many generations in a single human lifetime) is like taking a single still frame from video of a flow blooming and saying "see I do not see any change, all flowers look basically like this and can never change, only minor variations". To produce a new species takes a long time, the organisms need to become so different that they can no longer reproduce with eachother, expecting scientists to go as far as to force speciation. In the Lenski experiment, E. Coli grew the ability to process Citrate in an oxygen rich environment, that is an adaption that allows for better survival. We have seen evolution in labs, just not to the ridiculous degree that many creationists expect to see. If we saw a new species in a lab in a few generations that would actually disprove evolution. Scientists can only do so much to try to simulate millions of years to try to experiment and even when we see small changes (like the citrate) it shows evolution happens. Nobody who knows about evolution would expect E. Coli to become a sponge in a lab. What type of "ad hAoAc" changes is he talking about? A lab is a small area meant to try to prove it can happen. Earth has forests, deserts, rivers, streams, lakes, oceans, grottos, swamps, deep sea with thermal vents, it is not feasible to simulate all of these at once so making tweaks in a controlled environment is a way to compensate for the limited scope. Theoretically when you run an experiment enough times you may be able to use all your data to set up an experiment that does not need tweaks.
2) I would have to find where his quote on transitional fossils comes from but this is probably quote mining. I have seen Darwin's writing and his style is to voice an issue then respond to it. By the way we do have plenty of transitional fossils, a big thing is that they just show a slow gradient of transition where features of two relates species can bee seen transitioning instead of the "crock-a-duck" that many people expect. Interesting that he uses a half century old quote, is it possible we found some things since then? Fossils are hard to make, you need the right conditions so the only fossils we have of are of species who lived in the right place (that have the conditions to make fossils) at the right time and who died and were completely encased in sediment. His quote about the gaps is just that we see fossils of creatures for a while, have a big gap in the fossil records, we often cannot find any fossils of the intermediate species but then find a species that shows characteristics of both EX maybe a skull shape of one but the jaw and nasal cavity of another showing there was a transition but we did not get a fossil of every tiny change in the change of the jaw of the skull.
3) Yes, scientists have made amino acids, just because we have not created life but just because humans have not done something like that in a lab does not discredit it. When scientists say "we don't know" it is not a bad thing and mean that it cannot happen, saying "we don't know" is often (usually) better than guessing.
Part 2
4) Second law of thermodynamics, he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and everything he says is wrong. "all natural and physical processes for example solar radiation, rain, wind etcetera are processes of decay that eventually disintegrate all complex systems...things will fall apart over time", just everything about that is wrong, solar radiation (that our atmosphere protects us from most the bad stuff) warms our planet, allows plants to grow, heats the sea to make currents which and helps make wind, rain can break down rock that adds nutrients and the water cycle rejuvenates the environment and prevents stagnation and helps was away a lot of bad things like fish waste, algae (makes most of the planets oxygen), wind spread seeds, pollen and evens some bugs that we need, it helps air to be less stagnant and is crucial for the water cycle that allows plants to grow all over the world and without it the planet would be a dry wasteland outside of the oceans. Even forest fires return nutrients to the soil and remove overgrowth. The earths crust is active, new islands are rising, subduction and and new crust coming out of the crack in plates can renew land. Sure one part breaks down but others are built up, a volcano destroys everything in its path but it also makes some of the most nutrient rich soil on earth with what it leave behind.
Yes you can turn things into thing that are more complex and ordered, the second law of thermodynamics only truly applies to heat but can apply to other things. Things like gravity, electromagnetism and such can overcome it in the right condition. If you take a bunch of iron balls and drop them down on a table they will spread out (system break down) but if they are magnetic they will be pulled together to make shapes and order themselves. Enzymes, bonds and other things chemicals can do can overcome this. Would you say that you are more complex than a plant? You can eat a plant, turn part of it into you and break down other parts for chemical energy. You can then go to the bathroom, remove the waste which is a bunch of non-living chemicals, mix that in soil and then the plants will turn it into more plants then either you can eat that or an animal can then you can eat the animal. Chemical bonds, gravity, electromagnetism and other things can take the chaos and shape it into new things. The law of entropy (what he actually refers to) only works in a closed system, earth is not a closed system. Once one cell that can divide and reproduce exists (however it came to be) it can start to shape its environment into something not simply governed by entropy. For his house, if you go out and expect something to grow up to your expectations then you are not going to get that, while the pile of materials is breaking down thought the wood becomes a house for termites, maybe a bird can roost. Evolution is not this straight linear thing so many people want it to be. "you can't give what you don't have" see my earlier mentions of Citrate and E.Coli, beneficial mutations exist, he is just plain wrong and it has been proven. He cannot say "beneficial mutations are so rare they are not even considered essentially", he cannot just show the mechanism for evolution exists and say "I don't think you happen often enough". I have seen videos disproving he degrading mutations examples he mentions, I would need to find them.
5) No we do not have irreducible complexity. Yes, you cannot remove things from cells and have them act in the same way, that does not mean you cannot have a cell, remove something and have it work in a different say. Evolution say that it was more simple, developed something new and became more complex and it is very likely that something new was developed on that new thing again and again and parts become interdependent. Our ability to see older more simple cells is how we know that that cell is not irreducibly complex. We have seen the eye evolve multiple ways and we have animals with partial eyes (some lizards have a third "eye" that can just detect light or no light on their forehead). This shows that it is not irreducibly complex, it can build slowly, a basic patch of cells that can detect light or no light in a general direction is a great advantage to finding warmer areas for a basic organism, it would be able to get energy for itself and there would likely be more food there, if it starts to grow more concave in the back (a deformity) then it could detect light direction better and so on and so on. Cephalopods actually have a different and arguably better eye than us (no blind spot), birds can see a larger spectrum of color than humans so our eye is actually reduced in complicity from them. He is saying that "if I remove your liver and you die, then that means that it is impossible for an organism similar to humans to exist without a liver), sure if you remove that vital part we will die but there is still a way that something less complex can exist and possible it has existed. Oh he uses the mouse trap analogy, no you can remove some parts and it can be functional (th-cam.com/video/stg6wnfyvWg/w-d-xo.html). You also only see the finished product, not all the failed designs that lead up to this, there are also simpler designs that could work. For the Flagellum you need to prove each and every part of that had no other possible benefit in any possible way at all without the others, otherwise it could be multiple other parts just coming together to form something new.
DNA is in no way like human or programming language. In English or programming you can toss out thing that are gibberish or do not meet the code standard. In DNA those limitations are not there otherwise we would not have cancer or anything. In DNA you can have gibberish or things that break the code standard that can do amazing or terrible things, you could be able to digest a new good, synthesize a new vitamin or lots of stuff without some English major saying "you cannot have "the the" in a sentence. They are not comparable.
6) The logic/reason part is just ridiculous, just because it does not seem intuitively true to you it does not mean it does not exist, by that logic since most people back in the early 1800s could not fathom of germs that means germ theory does not exist. "You cannot give what you don't have" is only true to an extent, that does not mean between generations a beneficial mutation cannot appear in the womb/egg/during cell division. If you want to do a poor "clock maker" style analogy, humans cannot fly so therefore we should not be able to make flying machines.
His whole "like begets like" is his fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, it is slight changes, like begets a .01% different like, like begets a a .01% different like again and again until the thing you are is different than your 1,000X ancestor. Imagine you are given a 1 foot long ruler and told to go on a 1,000,000 mile journey (assume you are immortal, need no food, water or rest) and this journey is on an infinite pain of land like earth, it has trees, mountains, deserts, mountains and everything. Now imagine you are told that you were told to make as straight as line as you can and you can only look at your current 1 foot line to line up the ruler for the next foot, no looking back to do it or trying anything funny to keep it straight. Do you think your 1,000,000 mile line would be perfectly straight? Now imagine everyone on earth was in the same situation, the are put on identical planes of land to do it. How many different lines do you think there would be? That is an example of how evolution will change. Now imagine each time you deviate more than 2 degrees from strait you become a new but slightly different copy of you and are put on a new identical plain with all the same work done as you had before, that is how lineages branch, very likely the small changes would make you a very different person than you were at the start. Many of the end products of you would be wildly different from you also theoretically a lot of you would be very similar and could be grouped together. Now imagine if you deviate more than 5 degrees from you are just removed form the task and your path ends there, there is were we see a lot of dead ends in evolution (the were not fit). You would not expect to get a cat from a dog, now what is expected if dogs and cats are related, they are in a different group at the end but maybe 10,000 miles back they both were branches from the same person who made a 3 degree skewed line. If we saw a dog give birth to a cat, that would disprove evolution.
It’s not either or. Evolution or creationism. The third category is I don’t know yet. Research Gould’s punctuated equilibrium.
The evolution vs. God approach is a deliberate tactic started by Christian dominionists. Their short-term goal is to equate evolution with atheism. Their long-term goal is to replace the U.S. Constitution with Levitical law. Research Phillip Johnson and the Wedge Strategy.
Do not mistake the axle for the wheel the driver for the engine the engineer for the design the tools for the builder the parts for the end product The drivers direction for the engineers design
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.
@@all_bets_on_Ganesh 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.
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.
@@user-fx5gt2fy1e 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.
@@user-fx5gt2fy1e 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.
Wow. I have repeatedly posted a link here in the comments to a long article documenting evidence for evolution, but it continues to be deleted.
Surely y'all aren't afraid, right?
If you pasted it like 10 times or something then that would be annoying spam and its deletion could be justified, but if it got deleted after the first post then that's lame - censorship for the sake of disliking an opposing view is embarrassing.
This is standard behaviour for people unwilling to look at evidence as all they want to do is believe.
A link can be pointing to malware, or porn. So deleting is sensible
I think YT does not like links (especially to sites off YT) to be in the comments and the algorithm deletes them. Try putting spaces in the link to make it harder to identify for the algorithm.
the entire TH-cam site does not allow links in the comments. common knowledge, or so I thought.
Your critique appears to overlook the counterarguments put forth by contemporary evolutionary biologists and the significant impact that modern technologies, such as DNA analysis, have had on the discourse surrounding Darwinian evolution.
Relying mainly on the perspectives of academics born in the 1800s, especially those who were not evolutionary biologists themselves, may not resonate strongly with a discerning audience. It's essential to consider the advancements and insights contributed by today's experts in evolutionary biology, leveraging cutting-edge tools and methodologies, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of evolutionary processes
I asked ChatGPT, for balance really: this is the response:
1. Evolution is observed both in the fossil record and in modern populations through processes like adaptation, speciation, and genetic drift. Examples include the peppered moth's color change during the Industrial Revolution and the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
2. The theory of evolution addresses how life changes over time, not its origin. Abiogenesis theories attempt to explain life's origin, and while they are still being researched, they are separate from the theory of evolution.
3. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems where entropy tends to increase. Living organisms are not closed systems; they exchange energy with their environment, allowing for the organization and complexity observed in biological evolution.
4. Natural selection and mutation are well-supported mechanisms of evolution. Numerous experiments and observations in fields like genetics and microbiology confirm their role in driving evolutionary change.
5. Irreducible complexity arguments have been critiqued by the scientific community. Many purportedly irreducibly complex systems have plausible evolutionary explanations, and ongoing research continues to address these claims.
6. The origins of genetic information are studied in fields like molecular biology and genetics. While there are still questions about the precise origins of specific genetic codes, research continues to shed light on how genetic information evolves over time.
7. Evolutionary theory is compatible with many philosophical frameworks and has been accepted by numerous religious denominations. While there may be philosophical debates about the implications of evolution, it is supported by vast empirical evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community.
Overall, while some criticisms of evolution have been raised, the theory remains the most robust explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, supported by a vast array of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines.
So where does ChapGPT get its information? Randomly out of the air?
No. It's programmed to perform a function by the intelligence of man.
Aside from the fact that ChapGPT is itself an example of intelligent design, it's still forming its answer all based on theory that it scrounges from other sources.
@@catmom781
Great observation that ChatGPT doesn't just magically conjure information out of thin air.😂
Instead it gets it's informations from the academic consensus of the experts.
@@ramigilneas9274 "experts" 🙄 The only expert I'll defer to is God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit... in other words, the Holy Trinity.
@@catmom781
The Trinity is probably the stupidest thing about Christianity.😄
@catmom781 evolution does not have to dent your faith. This is a false dichotomy
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?
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.
Such scoundrels are destroying Science.Creationists cant explain either.Maybe Darwinism is not perfect but modern subjects such as epigenetics is revolutionising our understanding of evolution.
Lol what a load of cobblers. We don't use Darwin as a source of ultimate knowledge. About 160 years later, evolution is the best supported theory we have.
Attacking it doesn't make an iron age fairy tale true by default either, so undermining it does you no good.
No it’s not. It just happens to be the only theory that can fool people without using a divine or religious argument.
A theory is a scientists fairy tale.
@@kdub3288 Oh look. The Illiterati came out in force to defend their idiocy.
"scientific theory" and "in theory" are not the same
Keep drinking the Kool aid Rusty. Did you even watch the video?
It's so nice that science is catching up, I came to this same conclusion, using the same type of reasoning when I was 16.
Where's your Nobel prize?😂
@@MikeTMike they thought he was wrong when he was 16 so he never got one.
Same here, at age 17.
@@enigmavariations3809
No Nobel prize? Sit down.
Basically:
"My uninformed opinion trumps science, facts and evidence"
And you were wrong then, too.
23:45 That's an easy question: Evolution
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?
“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.)
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.
Yeah Darwin didn’t even know about dna. He was an introductory ideology of how evolution worked. He’s a stepping stone not the end all. Very disingenuous post.
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!
The evolutionary process doesn't depend on abiogenesis. It's at least conceivable that an intelligent designer could create the first life, and that it could subsequently evolve. (That's more or less what many creationists believe, actually, although they wouldn't call it evolution.)
Yes, I used to believe that too.
Micro evolution, yes. We see it happening all around us.
Darwinian Evolution? No. The science is against it.
It could evolve or devolve, dont forget that.
I don't believe that at all. I believe what the Bible teaches: that the things seen are created by the unseen. That God spoke and it came into mature being at that moment. I believe that life procreates within the boundaries of the species.
The entire evolution theory is garbage. Darwin spoke of the 'simple cell'. There's no such thing! We now know, that each cell is an elaborate plant of several factories, where factory A makes things for factory B and vice versa, they are interdependent! There is too much science available today, which totally disproves the theory.
@@thetabletopskirmisher what science is against it?
No that is called theistic evolution which is even more ridiculous. Why would God go against his own nature?
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.
This is a great vid and thank you.
Could have been so much better if the speaker focused much less on his laptop.
could have been so much better if the speaker wasn't a lying fraud being interviewed by a bone idle cleric.
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?
Another thought on the pace of theoretical evolutionary change. If Darwin proposed that these changes would take millions of years, this does not fit global cycles of ice ages in the thousands of years. For example, an organism during a warm period begins its million year march to adapting to warm weather only to be completely ill adapted to the ice age that arrives 5,000 years later.
extinction is part of evolution
"Extinction is a part of evolution".
You're not addressing the point raised.
Hence 99% of all living things that have existed on our planet are extinct. Your post only solidifies that "only the strong survive", also known as evolution. Evolve or you will be dissolved.
@ianshand6094 - for me the OP is not clear what OP wants to say
@@globalcoupledances either evolution, as proposed by Darwin, was to ensure the survival of a species, adapting to fit the environment, or it isn't. And what would the mechanism be that says "this one adapts to survive, this one doesn't and dies"? That would seem capricious at best. Survival of the fittest makes more sense.
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 😂
If you surmise irreducible complexity to be all the parts be there in order for it to work or survive, that would equally apply of organs as well.
Irreducible complexity is not a scientific theory and holds no sway.
@@jsmall10671 exactly.
Quote mining Darwin. Outright lies about subsequent research and proofs of evolution and natural selection. Quote mining various scientists from 100 plus years ago.
Pathetic.
Dr. Marco Fasoli. No academic affiliation or research since his study days found. Does not appear to be a scientist.
These conmen should be seen for what and who they are.
So your saying he's a climate scientist?
@@Ivan_BSGO huh?
Tell me where he errs please. I don't care if he is smarter than you or I, he is using the words/conclusions of researcher's and scientist's own findings and conclusions, beginning with the original source, Darwin.
@@Manfromron "he is using the words/conclusions of researcher's" no he isn't. He describers fellow liar for Jesus, James Tour, as one of the worlds leading OoL researchers and goes on and on about his patents and his 600 papers....NOT ONE OF WHICH HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.
What brought this whole conversation to a full stop, was when it was realized that - the Code (DNA) dictates the Form and Function; Form and Function, do not dictate the Code.
Epigenesis is the organism responding to its environment by "turning on" certain preexisting Genetic Codes and "turning off" certain others, it is not the Creation of "new" Code.
I am not saying that God is the only answer, but the Code didn't create/write itself.
DNA literally creates/writes itself NOW.
Of course, flaws occur. That's mutations.
When mutations occur in the reproductive cells, they can be inherited by offspring.
And then those offspring, with the mutations, are subject to the same natural selection pressures as all of the other members of the population of interbreeding organisms (i.e., the species).
Now, ignoring the presence of mutations for a moment... well, first, here are two definitions of biological evolution (they're saying the same thing, but in different ways):
"Biological evolution is the change in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms. Adaptation is a key evolutionary process in which variation in the fitness of traits and species are adjusted by natural selection to become better suited for survival in specific ecological habitats."
"Microevolution is a change in the frequency of gene variants, alleles, in a population, typically occurring over a relatively short time period."
Now, when we throw genetic mutations in the gene pool of a species (i.e., the population of interbreeding organisms), what this does is simply add to the number of gene variants. But regardless of any mutations, the frequency of gene variants still varies due to natural selection pressures and other factors, such as genetic drift. All I'm pointing out is that evolution occurs with existing gene variants, and mutations only add additional gene variants that are subject to these factors in the same way.
Mutations can be neutral, detrimental, or beneficial. There is also the concept of "mutational load," in regard to which even detrimental mutations can remain present in the population (organisms that survive and reproduce) because their detrimental effect is not significant enough to significantly reduce the ability of the organisms that possess them to survive and reproduce. (This obviously doesn't apply to all detrimental mutations, just mutations of relatively small effect - obviously, mutations with a relatively large detrimental effect can cause everything from early death, before reproduction, or even prevent the organism from developing much after fertilization, or even prevent fertilization altogether.)
Finally, when we're at the level of molecular biology, which is what you're referring to, the manner in which molecular biology operates today (and for the last few billion years) is not the same as during the initial stages of life from when just some of the molecules associated with molecular biology were developing in simpler ways. One of the predominant hypotheses regarding the initial stages of the origin of life is the "RNA hypothesis" - in which DNA is considered to not even exist yet, because DNA is considered to have not been present in the simpler organisms at that time (DNA coming into usage in the molecular biology of organisms is considered to have occurred as part of the evolution of the earliest organisms).
However, in concluding my discussion, I'm going to change the subject... The purpose of scientific research, among other things, is to explore subjects and issues that we don't know about yet. Origin of life research is no different in any way, in regard to this. A good deal of productive research has been conducted regarding the origin of life over the last twenty years, precisely because so many more scientists have become involved in doing such research - and this is continuing to expand, as current research results are published and additional scientists (and "budding" scientists) become more interested in this field of research. And there's also the simple fact that the god-of-the-gaps fallacy is... well... a fallacy.
Another interesting point about the coding in DNA is that it contains information, and a lot of very specific information. Any time we make an observation, if we see information we KNOW it was put in place by an intelligent mind. If a bottle of ink were to spill onto a piece of paper, it will never spell out a meaningful sentence that is grammatically correct and punctuated. And if we see a note written on paper that is addressed to us by name, in a specific language, with correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation we know it was written by an intelligent mind. The chances of that happening by random chance are so slim that even if ink had been spilling on paper every second for 14 billion years it is still enormously improbable that it would ever spell out an intelligible sentence. Information always originates from a mind. So in whose mind does the genetic information originate? It could only be God.
@dp1381 Not you but I am amazed when anyone says the code of life on the DNA was random. Grace
@dp1381 utter nonsense. We see natural signaling systems all around us. Flowers are a signal to pollinating insects. Light sensing cells signal a sunflower to track the sun. Ants, bees and termites build complex structures by following a few simple rules.
Information without intelligent design is everywhere. You're just spouting the same anti science talking points.
@@dp1381 I'm OK with calling the genetic code a language. But it is a language that contains 20 words and a full stop. The whole dictionary can be summed up in one simple table.
Comparing it with human language is ridiculous
In the early 1800s Jean Baptiste Lamarck theorized what has become known as epigenetics. Darwin later also discovered epigenetics which he termed (genetic) evolution. Epigenetics simply didn't have a name yet.
But Darwin didn’t know genes existed, right?
@@fbcpraise
But that's what he uncovered.
He didn't know what he was looking at.
what does god need DNA for? or the higgs field, whose laws of physics and biology does he have to follow that he needs DNA ? and why would a god need to fine tune, to make sure all the numbers were "just right" - or no life? you're saying god was more likely to fail, that unless he tinkered with the numbers nothing would come about? that's silly. the odds of life under a god ought to be 1:1 not bzillions to one AGAINST.
@@HarryNicNicholas Well. Silliness. If there is a supreme being YOU'RE going to suggest to him how he should create? You're a Darwinist, yes? Then, like Darwin, you should realize that your best thoughts are little better than the ramblings of a monkey. Darwin said "why should anyone pay attention to that?"
@@HarryNicNicholas why wouldn't god need DNA? That's like asking why any designer needs any of the materials they use to bring their designs to life. Asking a car designer why he needs an engine, or wheels.
29:00 I'm looking forward to part two of this video where he applies the "Principle of Evidence" to the "theory" that the Earth and all life was created by a god.
Using Darwin’s works to disprove evolution is like using Hypocrisy’s writings to disprove heart surgery.
Darwin was just working out the theory, a lot of scientific discovery has happened since.
Like what? Other than drawings?
These so called scientists are embarrassing. They never understood the phrase "I dont know" . We are in big trouble if these are the people teaching our children
Yes. Plants and animals evolve. We know this. We can observe this. We can demonstrate this. Unlike the theory of creation via magic. (e.g. abracadabra let there be animals !!! )
Yes plants and animals adapt to their environments, they don’t jump to new species, a different kind of oak tree is still an oak tree, a new sub species or “variety” is not a new species, when you say evolve you mean adapt to environmental changes which is observable, speciation has never been observed but scientists don’t care that you’re confused, just accept it and watch tv
@@briangemmet3567 100% false. Every single sentence you wrote has a factual error. I strongly recommend you research observed speciation for a start.
7 Scientific reasons to research:
1. Evolution is not observable (not today not in the past)
2. It presupposes but not account for the origin og life
3. it violates the 3. Law of thermodynamics
4. it proposes mechanisms of natural selection and mutation has been shown conclusively not to work
5. It fails to account for the irreducible complexity that we observe in biological systems
6. It fails to account for the origin of specified information in the biological systems, primary genetic code
7. Violates many first principals in philosophy which renders the concept of evolution (metaphysically impossible and irrational)
*Evolution is not observable (not today not in the past)*
Oh it definitely is, but not the sorts of changes most creationists would demand. It's usually the sorts of things they'd say are "still a fish/finch/flower/frog/fly/etc," even if it's an example of macroevolution.
*It presupposes but not account for the origin og life*
_Any_ position on biodiversity presupposes the origin of life. Everyone here accepts that life came from nonlife at some point in the past, but this is _irrelevant_ to how it diversifies.
*it violates the 3. Law of thermodynamics*
It doesn't. Maybe learn what they are from a secular source before you make this argument again.
*it proposes mechanisms of natural selection and mutation has been shown conclusively not to work*
Tell that to the peppered moths.
*It fails to account for the irreducible complexity that we observe in biological systems*
Irreducible complexity as an argument was demolished during the _Kitzmiller v. Dover_ trial almost 2 decades ago.
*It fails to account for the origin of specified information in the biological systems, primary genetic code*
The origin of this "information" is literally just "how did DNA happen," which is a topic for abiogenesis, not evolution.
*Violates many first principals in philosophy which renders the concept of evolution (metaphysically impossible and irrational)*
Sometimes you really do have to put down the blunt and look to reality if you want to know accurate things.
There is an excellent discussion on the Hoover Institution featuring Dr. Michael Behe, John Lennox and another guest and they demolish Darwin. Behe specializes in biochemistry and speaks to the issue of irreducible complexity, the guys who's name I can't remember speaks to the fossil record and Dr. Lennox covers a little of everything but I think specifically the mathematical impossibility of evolution as proposed by Darwin as well as the degenerative nature of mutations in the DNA
Edit: guy who's name I couldn't think of is Dr Stephen Meyer
Link: th-cam.com/video/rXexaVsvhCM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=L-YgufiagHChJrOl
So then the only valid alternative must be theistic Evolution, right?
And I am pretty sure that you won’t find many biologists or scientists who agree with any of those points.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 youve never stepped into a room with more than one or two of either scholar. let alone been involved in a meaningful and honest debate w/ them regarding such a topic.
And no, not through your psuedo intellectual debates online.
@@ramigilneas9274 ignorant are pretty sure about anything 🤮🤣
Does he explain why all dinosaur fossils are found below all mammal fossils?
Checkmate.
17:40 I'm calling BS on that. Google finds two (!) sources for this quote, one from an hungarian forum I can't read and one from a creationist website.
It does not really matter weather we evolved into conscious state or not as the very nature of our existence is a feat of miraculous engineering that it is impossible to say their is no creator. God is...and even the stones cry out the glory of God.
It DOES MATTER, because when you speak of evoIution as being the mode of creation, you call YHVH incarnate in Christ a L l A R, AND you DENY HIM HIS RIGHTFUL GLORY as the Creator of all things that exist. I’ve heard so-called “Christians” say that their believing in evolution doesn’t affect their faith, and scripture says they have no faith whatsoever, because they deny the LORD Jesus Christ, YHVH incarnate, as the Creator, which means they are damned according to scripture. Read Romans 1 and find out where denying God His rightful glory as the Creator who SPOKE ALL THINGS into existence, and created man from the dust of the ground, will land you for eternity. It’s the same place you will end up if you deny Jesus is God incarnate, and if you deny the virgin birth of Christ. These fake Christians are trying to please the world by agreeing with the L l E S of evolution, and they are denying God alone as Creator who made all things in 6 days, and they don’t care how much they are offending Him. They don’t want to be persecuted like the rest of us who are not afraid to speak the truth of the scriptures, and declare Jesus Christ is Creator and Savior.
It DOES MATTER. You don’t deny YHVH incarnate in Christ as the Creator and Savior, who created all things in 6 days. You don’t deny God His rightful glory as the Creator.
the god who killed everyone in a flood for the unspecified crime of sin, usually associated with masturbation? that god who loves you and weeps while watching you burn for eternity while doing nothing to strop it, that god? the god who is watching two unlawful wars going on RIGHT NOW who is doing nothing, even though one of those wars is all about him? that god, the god who can't even keel an apple safe?
you're a joke, but a sour icky kind of joke you want to gob out.
@@Redeemed.of.YHVH.thru.Christ god is an idiot.
Evolution made it look like miraculous
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?
First there was a beginning
Now there is an image
It is one thing to think that a tornado could build an airplane it is quite another to think a tornado built the airplane when you also found the design plans… the actual mathematical blueprint!
We now know as scientists that random mutations are only responsible for a very small amount of evolution.
The theory of irreducible complexity also has not held up well over time as scientists study more and more. The eye and flagella did evolve.
You may be missing the point. How did the flagella come be in the first place? That is what we cannot demonstrate. More importantly, how did nucleic acid evolve to code for the flagella? Which would also require other complex molecules. It is very much a chicken and egg question.
I had the pleasure of working for Dr. Fasoli 20 years ago in London. He is one of the finest individuals I have ever met. Incredibly humble and kind. Jeff C.
They why does he feel the need to lie so compulsively about evolutionary science?
Why does he peddle bullshit about science?
what is he hoping to find, a trade mark symbol? "made by god in the taiwan section of heaven"? god doesn't leave any evidence does he.
I am embarrassed for you.
The arrogance and lack of charity of many clever ‘scientists’ here on this comment section confirms my position. I believe in God Almighty creator of heaven and Earth….and his word in the Bible. I believe in a God of love and I refuse to accept the word and finding of vitriolic humans like the ones who display only contempt for their fellow men and in particular of God. Humans are dumb and humans who think they are more intelligent than others are even dumber.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. When quoting Darwin, please do not cherry pick,read the intire paragraph
"Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life...". That is laughable. Evolutionist can't even determine how life came about from per-animate matter yet they purport to know how evolution occurs. Hint...mutations do not add information to a genome...they take information away. Even Dawkins when asked to name a genetic mutation that or evolution process that can add information to a genome...could not come up with even one example.
@@alantasman8273mutations do add new information
You can't be serious. Chemical evolution is an attempt to explain the origins of life from nonliving materials into the building blocks, proteins, amino acids etc. You cannot have a grand theory of evolution without chemical evolution, cosmological evolution and the uniformitarian model of everything.
@@1969cmpwe can have an explanation of evolution without understanding how life started. We don’t know why the Big Bang happened but we can still understand how planets and stars form.
@@therick363No you can’t its all fake and a lie.The age of lies is coming to an end rejoice fellow believers the Lord is coming back ❤
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.
@@kdub3288ecoli evolving citrate metabolism
Humans evolving lactase persistence
Italian wall lizards speciating
@@kdub3288wolf: Canis lupus
Domestic dog: Canis familiaris
DIFFERENT species
@@globalcoupledancescorrect…..it was late. I’ll edit
@@mcmanustony I have removed my comment
24:25 Here are some other things humans find _intuitively_ appealing: Sugar, Fat, Opioids
Darwin didn't have access to the current body of scientific knowledge or modern instrumentation.
He's been shown largely correct however.
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.
@@swiftmatic agreed.
I get so sick of creationists blabbering that Darwin thought the cell was "a blob of jelly"....as irrelevant as it is false.
And yet the trot it out ever fkg day...
@@mcmanustonyyeah
@@mcmanustony Only in the macrocosmos. In the microcosmos the Darwinists have been debunked by Michael Behe and by reality, of course.
For those who think evolution is not observable now (or in the past), you only need to read The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time. It lays out an observable evolutionary process that could not have been explained by any other mechanism.
That's micro evolution, which is not in dispute. We all know husbandry is a thing
Finch beak structure ping-ponged between variations already present in the genome. Different environmental stressors simply favor one variation over another for however long the stressor is present. There is no new information in the genome, no "progression" toward something new, just cycling from one variation to the other and back again.
Adaptation
@@davidanderson6055you’re wrong.
It involves speciation. Hence is macro evolution- which is also not in dispute
@@carmengreen1969yes, and speciation.
Macro evolution in action
So now we're listening to scientists, Drs., PhDs, etc?
we just want unpopular opinions
It’s the appeal to authority that social media has popularized & monetized. Sad.
@@christopherhamilton3621 well, generally speaking "our" (our = my kind of skeptical people) distrust for scientists occur when and only when those scientists spit out mainstream views that every other scientist is already saying. we do not distrust a scientist for being a scientist, but we distrust a scientist for perpetuating the mainstream. it makes us worry that they are trying to brainwash the masses into a sheep herd. now, we do not necessarily worry as much about (non-famous) commoners who push the mainstream as we would worry about scientists who do, because said commoners being commoners would make it seem less likely that they are trying to brainwash us at all, because everybody knows that they have hardly a noticeable voice at all.
“You can’t give what you don’t have.” This is also found in Christ’s Matthew Effect (Matt 25:29) Whoever has, will be given more and whoever has NOT what they have will be taken away. Christ’s teaching can be applied to the science of Creation.
Leviticus Chapter 25 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life...
Your god's teachings are immoral garbage. So what?
@@jsmall10671 I agree, this situation was terrible. Even Christ was pressed about Mosiac Law, specific to those in 1400 BC when divorce was thrown in his face. "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was NOT this way from the beginning" (Christ). I apologize if the Jewish faith offends you. I have no excuse. What do you suggest I do?
I did research on Dr. Marco Fasoli. Are you sure he is a PhD in biochemistry and is at University of Cambridge? Or is he a PhD in something at another university?
I've googled his name and so far I've only found a Marco Fasoli philosopher at La Sapienza University in Rome.
I smell BS 😁
@@APRENDERDESENHANDO
The arguments he enumerates here have all been made by other, equally qualified, scientists.
Fasoli takes care to give credit where due.
No BS necessary.
@@gedofgont1006 If someone outright lies about his credentials, why should I consider him intellectually honest for the rest of what he's saying?
Also, who are this other equally qualified scientists who agree with him?
He's just repeating common laypeople misunderstandings of evolution and old, already debunked creationist talking points
@@gedofgont1006 Where "equally qualified" means they are unqualified creationists just like this Fasoli tool.
@@APRENDERDESENHANDO I know something a fishy about the title and description of the video.
I was home schooled by my Catholic mother 60 years ago. This probably accounts for my never accepting evolution as a fact and today being comfortable with a supernatural view of creation.😮
Have you tried books?
Your mother did you a grave disservice denying you an education
@mcmanustony Nah, I can't read or write... 🤓
PS I can count. I was a Chartered Accountant for 40 years, a CEO, a CFO, owned 4 business I started, and sold 6 patents for 6 figures that I registered over PAYU and Subscription software systems that I developed, am 45 years married to the same woman and all my kids are home owners with money they earned, married with their own kids and homes. And you?
@@leomullins whether you can or can't, your ignorance of evolutionary science is jaw dropping. She should have done better for you.
@@leomullins don’t be such an impertinent prick. If you want to know about me click your mouse.
I’m not interested in your details.
I commented that your mother denied you an education in one of the greatest achievements of the human intellect- hence your denial of reality today.
Are you not old enough yet to make your own mind up yet then? Lol
Well explained. Pleasent conversation. Love this video. Thank you ❤
'Do your own research with an open mind!'
Have you tried science? You didn't like it?
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?
“We don’t see evolution happening today” makes no sense. First of all, we do, because we see viruses that create different strains and bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics. However, expecting to see one species completely transform to the point that it would be classified as a different species within the length of a single lifetime, or even several lifetimes, shows a severe misunderstanding of the processes involved.
we can't see new species in a lifetime (70 years), yet the entire process supposedly happened in a mere billions years...
It is a classic mistake to confuse change with evolution. We can observe change occurring in nature because organisms effectively adapt to changing conditions. However, why isn't change evolution?
The adaptation of organisms is ALWAYS based on epigenetic mechanisms and factors. Epigenetic modifications are dynamic and reversible because cells use specific mechanisms, such as epigenetic readers, writers, and erasers for epigenetic information. You can learn more about these by searching for 'epigenetic readers, writers and erasers.
Epigenetic regulation inevitably leads to genetic decay because methylated cytosine is 20,000 times more likely to change to thymine than unmethylated cytosine. This inevitably leads to the gradual conversion of the GC content of all organisms' cells into AT content. The cell must maintain at least 38% GC content, so it rearranges DNA during reproduction, in so-called meiotic recombination. This usually reduces the total amount of information.
We can therefore observe rapid epigenetic adaptation of organisms, based on the epigenetic regulation of existing information OR the loss of information and subsequent reorganization of information. However, evolution that crosses species boundaries (kinds) has never occurred.
We have run experiments with ecoli and fruit flies, where massive numbers of generations have taken place, without macro evolution being observed.
@@tomiaalto1156 If you believe that genes code for physical and behavioral traits, and that some traits make an organism more or less likely to survive and pass on those genes, then you believe in evolution via natural selection.
@@Bastikovski99 Genes don't code for physical and behavioral traits. DNA doesn't determine traits or characteristics. In your every cell, there's the same DNA. Why is your skin cell different from your muscle cell? Now think.
A SCIENTIFIC DISCUTION IN a decor full of religious items and icons does not leave much room to imparsiality........
Around 6 minutes in he says they've always failed to produce new species.
. . .but if I were a paleontologist 10,000 years from now, and Iooked back at the fossils of a chihuahua or Yorkish Terrier versus a wolf or Great Dane. . .I wonder if I'd dare say they were "the same species".
Kitzmiller vs. Dover.
Look it up.
Just 7??
The ignorance and the disjointed observations and assumptions of these two is astounding.
Liar.
@@louismuller8724
Agree, these two are liars.
And yet you do not even know what life is...
@@paneofrealitychannel8204 maybe you don’t …
It all falls down for me in the fossil record. You don't ever find a transition fossil ever. A T rex is never on it's way to something else. All fossils are distinct. Out of millions of fossils. Just distinct species.
ummmm yeah because evolution is the process of hereditary change, not organisms changing species. you should really learn what a transitional fossil is before you try to refute it.
The fossil record is chronologically unambiguous in at least respect: there are no ... zero, nada ... examples whatsoever of eukaryotes appearing before prokaryotes. So are you saying that God had a learning curve -- that he had to start out with the simplest single-cell life before progressing to multi-celled life hundreds of millions of years later? Is the jump from prokaryotic organisms to eukaryotic organisms a huge jump for you?
If "it all falls down for you in the fossil record", it's time for you to update your knowledge in that area:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
th-cam.com/video/VLCq_vwz4oY/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/SAvwK2LMFwg/w-d-xo.html
@@AMC2283 troll - prove what you just said. Give three scientific papers or shut up
which fossils exactly do you think are missing? All species and fossils are transitional. A T Rex is indeed at the end of a chain of species. However, it went extinct which limits any future changes.
Then you don't understand either evolution or the fossils record. Individuals don't evolve. Species do. In the science of evolution, no individual is ever on its way to becoming something else. That's absurd. It doesn't happen, and evolution absolutely does not predict that it would. If an ape ever gave birth to anything other than an ape, it would such massive evidence contradicting our understanding of evolution that scientists would have to rethink the entire theory. It all falls down for you because you lack any understanding of evolution. First, educate yourself on what evolution is, then if you can find anywhere that it falls down for you, you will win a noble prize.
so instead of taking the time to learn how evolution actually works, they whine and complain that evolution does not work the way they assumed it did. so sad.
Not a bad way of putting it.
But, more to the point, they say that if it isn't their strawman definition, it doesn't EXIST.
Contradiction with some philosophical concept does not render anything as not rational. Philosophy deals in the logic of concepts, not in their being of scientific nature. One needs Physical approach to establish rationality or lack of it, i.e.: data accumulation, experimental validity, theoretical modeling and model verification. Namely, scientific knowledge. Then, logic and scientific knowledge can render the quality of rationality, or disprove it.
I suppose that the fact that evolution deniers have to lie in their attempts to discredit the theory pretty much establishes its validity.
What a laughable hodgepodge of rhetorical buncombe, posing as serious thought.
18:50 It is NOT wise to refer to knowledge about living cells based on electron microscopy. Electron microscopy can NOT tell us anything about cells that are alive and functioning. Electron microscopy can only 'view' dead cells after they have been treated with a multiplicity of procedures to make them 'visible' and there are absolutely NO control experiments to inform us that these procedures themselves have not produced the images. In other words no one can say for sure, based on repeatable and refutable empirical evidence, that electron micrographs are anything but artifacts of the treatment procedures that the dead cells are exposed to in order to make them 'visible'.
You give them too much truth, well done!
3:40 Before we look into Fasoli's pet problems I have a question for creationists: How was the Tiktaalik found?
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 vell is complex? Or are you talking about the stupid things some people say is the reason for the complexity?? 🤔
This guy should write a physics paper expressing these assertions, I wonder just how many experts would agree with his personal opinions? I think we all know the answer to that. NONE!.
12:15 "James Tour [...] one of the most credentialed origin of life scientists in the world" - That was actually funny.
James Tour is a material scientist, not an ool scientist. I won't get into more details, but if you want to learn more about the guy, the video "James Tour Gets EXPOSED by His Own Colleagues" here on TH-cam is a good start.
*** in our life on this world there are no life without a MYTH, mythology governs all aspects of our life in this planet, some in religions but mostly out of the religious life.***