Would you do a video commenting on the museum in animal crossing new horizons? The fossil section has a cladogram on the floor which I found to be a real neat touch.
Thank you Forrest for relevant promos. This one was exactly what I was looking for. Also, your videos have been so incredibly helpful for me as someone who grew up in young earth creationist extreme pentecostal circles. I was even a pastor for 12 years. So much happier thinking for myself and learning about this amazing world! Thank you for making science fun!!
Creationists: "Science always changes" Also Creationists: "Evolutionists [sic] still use the same ideas without questioning them that were invented hundreds of years ago"
This never made sense to me. "Isn't it stupid how this system changes beliefs based on new evidence? Instead, trust these scrolls written thousands of years ago that we will vehemently defend the word of with no room for questioning."
Honestly, "Some random guy said some random thing and we've all been nodding ever since" is a pretty good description of Christianity as I've experienced it. Where the Appeal to Authority is baked into every aspect of the faith. Just another example of people assuming that other people think and behave the same way as they themselves do. We don't. We REALLY, really don't.
@@ucanliv4ever not really. Scientists entire jobs are to effectively pick apart each other's fields and reasoning to find faults or things that challenge it in order to change. To say that science is just 'we nod along' when at the core the entire field is predicated on people analyzing the corpus of knowledge for faults via observational data is much different that Christianity's "we started following this guy because he started espousing things about the bible that could be interpreted to be correct but also other people would disagree and would be as equally valid as the other guy.'
@@ucanliv4ever It's true that some people do try to act like "just trust the scientists, they're experts" is good enough. It's exactly as fallacious there as when others do it. But the thing Science has that others don't is the ability to show their work. "This is how we came to this conclusion. This is why it's the most likely, and this is what we've done to try to prove it wrong, and the reason all those attempts failed." Basically, they brought the receipts. You don't have to take them blindly at their word, and fact-checking them doesn't prove them wrong. If, that is, they're doing the science right. And when someone comes up asking for these deeper answers, with the appearance of being genuinely interested in learning, most people are happy to share what they know and how they know it. But of course, when the questions are asked with a tone of "my question itself proves you wrong", that would turn anyone off of bothering to bring their A-game material, since it's clear they've already decided you're wrong before you even started talking. Which is how many science-deniers come to experience asking questions and getting half-assed, incomplete answers, or even no answers at all, when they ask. Because it's being asked in bad faith, or at least very much seems to be.
You make some valid points, however both sides are mostly people just going along to get along. Most Christians have never read the Bible or attend church. On the other side of the aisle most scientists are merely rubber stamping the official narrative. If you buck the trend you will never become a phd. If you blow the whistle you are out on your ear. I was looking for a particular article exposing corruption in the peer review system but the internet has so many pages of articles like these, take your pick. I think you are young and idealistic which is a very nice feeling but the reality is going to shock you to your core. At which point you will either cave into the cognitive dissonance or man (woman) up.
@@riluna3695 A lot of laymen do tend to make these arguments by authority yes, but "science" doesn't. And that's a big difference. Because christians tend to say that "science" does this, as the poster before you very well shows. And maybe a bad egg here or there tries to do that but science itself doesn't, and those bad actors are usually ousted pretty quickly.
It's really... frustrating that creationists who would or have heard other creationists mock biology by claiming we believe dogs give birth to whales would then turn around and say pandas will pop out a polar bear when convenient... but that's entirely different because we call both bears so they are basically the same thing
Except that Pandas and Polar Bears can't interbreed, so does that make them different kinds? What about black bears? Do they hybridize with other bears? Wouldn't that make them a different kind?
Genetical distance of a panda to a polar bear is larger. A panda is eating plants and is living in another region. I think it is smaller than a polar bear which eats meat. So they cannot interbread.
On the one hand, I appreciate that they’re (charitable description to follow) *trying* to question evolution on its own terms by reviewing descriptions of evolution in actual science textbooks. On the other hand… everything else.
But they aren't. They are cherry picking phrases from those text books that kinda maybe make it look like they say what they want them to say if you squint so hard you risk rupturing your eyeballs. They more often than not have textbook passages in frame that directly contradict or clarify the cherry picked part, so they must have read it if they went into it with any kind of sincerity, and yet they miraculously forgot it existed and cut the highlighted part off right before or after this part began/was over. Kinda makes you think, doesn't it?
That word was meant to do a lot of heavy lifting lol. I’m honestly contrasting them with apologists who don’t even reference scientific material. You’ll notice Forrest typically gives them at least a 1 or 2 out of 10.
I really dislike people using the simplistic high school introductory class definitions as proof that people discussing complex scientific ideas are wrong. Like they are basically reading "science for dummies" and thinking they are a biologist. I'm like the definitions are simplistic for a reason. So your brain can begin to digest and understand the material. Until you actually do the learning and understand the more complex points, you cannot disprove them. You can't disprove something you don't even understand. It just doesn't make sense.
It's like they learn about fire and then proceed to talk about nuclear fusion with the same language, and they have the nerve to claim they understand it enough to debunk it.
I like how they complain that cladograms don't show fossils for their converging points, as if we need them to show common ancestry. Because genetics and taxonomy doesn't already prove it.
Was it Carl Sagan who said "to bake an apple pie, one must first have the universe." Love that line, and _love_ the mental hoops creationists jump through to prove something infinitely more complicated than it has to be.
I have this word-for-word because it was the opening line to a Carl Sagan song from my childhood. (Also I just listened to it to make sure) "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." Fun and silly song, by the way. It's called A Glorious Dawn.
@@riluna3695 If you hadn't said that I was going to. I ripped an MP3 of that and keep it on my phone, the chorus is to me what people excited in church feel, only real, and while this current arrangement of atoms will never see all of the universe, I'm as old as any of it is and will be here through the end, almost certainly as iron by then. It's a billion or two years until we're all likely plasma floating through the Red Giant Solarus.
@@simplylethulI'm aware of none. I'm aware of an essay he wrote in a book by Dr Grinspoon published by Harvard Press in 1971. He was very much ahead of his time in that anonymous work.
23:00 We have a fun little saying in French, that translates basically to "With 'if's we could put Paris in a bottle" (Avec des 'si' on mettrais Paris en bouteille) , which is used to reply to unfounded and useless speculations. I love this saying and it is so fitting for those types of creationist "arguments".
The term "Kind" not only has no value in biology, it also shows that linguistics disprove creationist arguments. In french, the Bible uses the word "espèce" (litt. species) where the Bible in english uses the word "kind". The basis of the creationist argument relies on playing with words, and that only works in one language.
Huh, I wonder if this is common for Bibles that were written in languages of latin origin since portuguese also uses "espécies" (species) rather than "tipos" (kinds). Can't really say since I don't understand the rest all that much and, taking what I seen from spanish, It can lead misconceptions when two words are pretty similar, but have completely different meanings. This goes to show that folks here down south don't all speak spanish, muricans (the ignorant version of americans that believes everyone south of their border speaks spanish), I can barely make out what in the blue hell the rest of the continent is speaking at any given moment. Spanish, portuguese, italian, french (as seen in this handy comment) can look almost the same thing for anyone that doesn't speak these languages, but when you understand any of them you'll quickly see how they're vastly different a lot of the time.
The original Hebrew word was "min". Afaik it was pretty much exactly equivalent of the English word "kind," as in it simply referred to a group of things that shared some trait in common. Just like the English word, it's meaning was variable based on the context, so (big shock, I know) creationists are misusing the word when they pretend it had some specific meaning in a cladistic sense... it literally just meant "type," "variety," "variation," etc.
@@Gildedmuse The word used in Genesis (1:11-12) was לְמִֽינֵהֶ֗ם which technically doesn't translate to "kind" but more like "of it's type". The word appears in other places (several times in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14) and each time it's referring to animals at a genus level: it's separately referring to vulture, kite, raven, hawk, heron, grasshopper, tortoise. The kite and hawk are especially interesting because I can guarantee you creationists would put them in a single "kind" (and possibly put vulture and maybe even heron in there as well, I can't say because creationists REFUSE TO DEFINE KIND).
Aaron Ra already smashed Hovind, when asking him trying to define what a "kind" is. He admitted he didn't know where the line is between "kinds". Yet he still using the word "kind" 😅.
Creationists believe that evolution can exist within a "kind", but a "kind" can't evolve into another "kind"!? Yet they, as you said above, they can't tell you what a "kind" is.
@@robertdeland3390 And obviously a cat is a different “kind” of animal than a “dog.” But is a hyena just a “kind” of dog? Or perhaps a “kind” of cat? Well, hyenas look like dogs, but they are genetically related to other cat species. So which one is it? Are elephants and wooly mammooths the same kind? And platypuses are obviously a “kind” of… Oh wait never mind about platypuses! ;-).
At this point, I think they're just doing this for you. Secretly, they aren't creationists at all, they just play pretend being stupid creationists so that you, Forrest, can come along and explain the actual science to us. Ingenious.
Definitely some of me favorite content on TH-cam! He's fantastic on the Atheist call-in shows (Atheist Experience, The Line , etc) too! Thoughtful and well researched points, always.
I like him more than other people like Professor Dave because he puts more effort into emotion and entertainment while avoiding attacks on the people in question
Jane being so amazed that John thought to organize the makeup based on what it's used for, is the most cringe🤣 also hilarious Forrest had the exact same suggestion, without relying on creationist thinking! Amazing! Seriously, this episode could have at least out Jane as the one providing the lesson, using her new make up kit as a way to illustrate the point to John, who as a man that presumably doesn't use makeup and could've been presented as overwhelmed by how she was organizing say make different but similar things. He could have even still been the one to present the creationist lesson, hearing her explanation of how she was organizing her makeup according to 'kind' and drawing the analogy to cladpgrams, etc. Just annoying that they made Jane so inept that she needs John to organize her makeup, and shocking that they presented a man as being able to identify different kinds of makeup🤣
This is always something that bothered me about their whole series. Jane is always playing the role as the idiot in these videos where she is somehow inept to see any of the truths until super smart John explains them to her. It's such flagrant sexism and while I often view Forrest talking to them as somewhat funny (as if he was a disappointed and agitated biology professor trying to help his two students pass), it's hard to not notice that John is always playing the role as some smart teacher while Jane is a ditzy student every single episode.
You are personally responsible for my kindled interest in biology and a renewed hope that people unfortunate enough to have been force fed creationism can find ways and thought processes to break out.
holy hecc the speech about how every claim needs its own evidence is something I think loads of people have tried explaining but I've never heard anyone explain it as nicely and concisely as you have. I think it's totally the foundation that a lot of people are misssing and I hope lots of people listen to that part
I come from a Catholic family, born and raised and I gotta say, damn do I love seeing Forrest take these videos apart. He has certainly sparked more of an interest to do further research in biology with this series. at the very least to try and close some of those gaps in what I know. I can safely say I never saw any videos like these and my parents never pushed the idea of creationist dogma, and man do I appreciate that now more than ever. Like damn those videos are insulting to see. Cool yeah lets take High School level biology and insist that, that is all scientists know. Do more research? Well why on earth would you want to do that? Pushing an agenda? Naaaahhh
Yeah. This and quote-mining are two of the most annoying things. You will often see those people saying something like "Well look this scientist once said that" and then you look it up and it either was said in a completely different context or out-of-context, or someone who simply had no idea what he was talking about because he simply didn't have the knowledge, like "This Doctor said that aliens have visited us! Do you really want to believe in science now?" and then that guy had a doctor in internal medcine or something, like yeah a doctor for sure but not exactly an astrophysician
Would love to see Forrest valkai review and fact check the fossil section of the museum in animal crossing new horizons, especially since it does have a cladogram on the floor, which I found to be a super neat feature, especially since it shows birds are dinosaurs, have a "not dinosaurs" section and properly placed Dimetrodon in the line leading to modern mammals
With the dog breed example, interesting that they picked animals that were *artificially* bred by humans particularly for a wide variety of special traits. and that would most likely never have come about through natural selection. Just saying, that was weird.
yeah if we left dogs to their own devices, we'd end up with a bunch of mutts mixed from large and medium-large breeds; small and some medium-small breeds would be hosed without direct human intervention.
Probably to get those creationists on board who accept forms of evolution such as adaptation. What's funny about their example is that that artificial selection has produced animals that can't breed with each other.
@The_Serpent_of_Eden Human beings have evolved to be the best at actually creating stuff. Other animals do it a bit more crudely but humans have really excelled in a lot of way. In the Noah fable, remember god couldn't just provide a boat for Noah but had to get Noah to build it. Also god had lots of trouble which chariots that humans made of iron. LOL Seems god wasn't much good at creating or defending against certain common metal things.
As someone who learned about making clades from many different angles in my education, I am unsure if I’ll be very happy or very angry in this video. There’s so much that goes into them and they’re all changing frequently because we find new data and try again to figure out what makes sense of everything we can know for certain. Edit: I was angry five minutes in and very happy when you explained clades and lumping/splitting! Thank you Forrest!
Forrest luckily makes this stuff manageable to watch. He presents the arguments so well and has a lot of humor in his frustration, making all of this a little reminder of a topic whenever I visit his channel. I knew especially this video would be hard because of the very way cladograms evolved historically and how much disagreement can be even today depending on where and how you look at it - that disagreement is exactly WHY science work, but Creationists use the very safeguard of science as proof we are incompetent.
I'm having an extremely annoying day rn and, for what it's worth, seeing someone else getting increasingly annoyed with people who just refuse to learn is... cathartic, I guess? idk. Either way, my day's slightly better. Thanks!
Makes me think like a 6th beer. Damn Forrest, you had me laughing so hard I was choking. Also it's hilarious when they act out like they're just figuring out their stupid apologetic on the spot. Like "maaaaaaaaayyyyyybeeeeee it's like this" is what they think the full extent of science is.
The sexism is so strong they really couldn’t have Jane be smarter than John at all for just one episode about makeup of all things (typically seen as such a bad thing for men to be interested in and therefore know anything about). All their stupid bits and arguments are infuriating in a lighter way, but the consistent characterization of Jane not knowing anything until a man explains it to her even though she is more competent than John even when having to dumb herself down in a way is actually infuriating because there is no good reason they can’t split the episodes of who is the one teaching the other pretty much
@@emmetthowell899 stop creating a scenario where you and your whole kind are a victim. Even though I would argue that men are smarter, that is not the case in this video and your whole view. Now grow up.
I remember when giant pandas were classified along with red pandas and raccoons. I've been seeing lately that they are now classified with bears. That, I think, is one of the beauties of science.
10:20 This is actually really cool. I don't think I've ever had this explained to me, when you group together all of the animals with a vertebral column you are actually kind of looking back in time with this graph and seeing what had to have come first, that is insanely clever. And even more so because now we know approximately where to look in the geological layers for where the first vertebral animals were evolving.
Thanks Forrest!!! For being part of my world! My world is reality! John and Jane's, not as much. Well, at least not that they realize it's all they got too.
Hey Forrest! I just wanted to say that I think you’re truly a gift to humanity. I wish I had 10% of your positivity. I also wish there were more people like you on this earth. Your open-mindedness and passion for education are incomparable, on this platform and any other that I know of. So I thank you, and wish you a very happy life. You have made mine and many many others exponentially better. Never stop being you.
In college Bio I remember 2 big moments of the puzzle taking shape. Those big aha moments where it feels like the gears are clicking together in your brain. 1 was just how much TIME has passed since life evolved. Just the unimaginable numbers of years that have flowed past. The other was understanding what "common ancestor" actually meant. I have never doubted evolution, but finally understanding those 2 pieces together gave me a window into understanding how the system could actually work. Super cool stuff.
Great video, as always! Not defending Jane, but I’ve had a near existential crisis trying to organize a kaboodle. Organizing makeup gear and manicure kit/polish into one multi-compartment container is no easy task.
What was with the creepy end-off? LOL What infuriates me about John & Jane is how utterly _sexist_ their videos are. I was gritting my teeth at how patronizing John was about organizing Jane's make-up, & then nearly snapped a tooth when Jane was flabbergasted by John's "solution". Ugh. I wanted to bitch-slap the script writers for portraying a woman as so stupid. Loved your description of John, "Looks like he'd be more likely to _drink_ foundation than to know what it was for."
RST Forrest - super personable, fun loving science guy who wants nothing more than to spread the light of his knowledge with the world. AXP/ Heathen Forrest - exasperated science teacher who is just sick of his kids not caring enough to learn from him but just enough to ask stupid questions. [But is still so damn personable and bubbly! ] Reacteria Forrest is such a lovely combination of the two. I feel like I'm watching him rip his hair out while he grit- smiles through the lesson they should have read last week
Just wanted to say, I didn't pursue much science in high school because I equated it with math...which I had major issues with. That said, sciences have always interested me anyhow, and your videos have brought back that interest and made learning science stuff enjoyable. Thank you for that. I love your vids!
The thing about creationists that’s always frustrating to me is their arguments basically boil down to “science is too complicated and hasn’t found all the answers, but the bible says it has all the answers and it gives a simple comfortable answer. So obviously, the simple and comfortable answer is the right one :)” Sometimes the easiest answer isn’t the best or the most true answer. And with evolution, that is 100% the case. Yes, it’s quite complicated and involves a lot of steps and genetics and trees and many years to happen. Yes, we’re still putting things together. But your ignorance to how things actually work (aka, not understanding the mountains of real evidence we have for evolution), does not mean god did it.
Ah, John & Jane! Thank you, Forrest, for yet another highly enlightening video! It's better than when I took biology in either high school or college. And thank you, John & Jane, for giving Forrest such ample opportunity to teach scientific concepts from the ground up so as to correct misconceptions. :)
I kinda like the idea that all the animals on the ark were entirely full of all genetic information that exists in their "kind", so you have an uncountable amount of genetic Cronenberg abominations straining under the immeasurable weight of their genetic diversity
It is nice that me and my loved ones, and the whole family can enjoy this awesome add, that bring us all together. Me, me and me, the whole glory family. Sunshine. ☀️
I got into an argument with my friend of 12 years, who happens to be a creationist, the other day. It seems like I knew more about both of our positions than he even knew about his own. He constantly misunderstood and misrepresented evolution and when I pointed to evidence he just wrote it off with no rebuttal at all. He claimed that there was more evidence of creationism than there was for evolution. And when I gave him examples of evidence for evolution and asked him to give me evidence for creationism he couldn’t come up with one example. When I presented skin color and Darwin’s finches as an example of observable evolution he then claimed that those changes did not change the animal enough for them to be a different species so evolution as a whole is false. He even claimed that humans have been on the North American continent since the inception of the planet. When I presented more evidence he claimed that the philosophy of science is always changing so therefore nothing can be proven and everything is fake 🤦♂️. This whole argument started with him calling evolution a conspiracy btw. He plans on going to a Christian university as well. How the hell do I get him out of his delusion before he’s further brainwashed at school?
Crazy how these hypothesis are just wild guesses, but we seem to be able to guess where in the fossil record we might find a transitional fossil, what its physical characteristics likely are, and even what its genetic makeup might be, and then we end up finding the transitional fossil and it's more or less what we expected.
A hypothesis is not a wild guess. It is based on what is already known. And as more knowledge accrues, the previous inaccuracies can be discarded. Not all science will stand the test of time.This video states that large thick-skinned mammals were once classified together, but no longer are. Any paleontologists working under the old ideas would have been unsuccessful in finding fossils of the presumed common ancestor. I think a lot of progress also has to do with the additional new methods and tools we now have. I don't think DNA sequencing existed when I was in high school. A hand held calculator was extremely expensive. Libraries were limited to physical media and communication was slow compared to today. I was taught that there were two Kingdoms, plants and animals, with protists being animals. I don't recall discussion of prokaryotes at all.
They really have an "evolution debunking" series which dismisses evolution in some parts because they don't like it, while in other parts of that same series pretty much openly admitting evolution happens (we're just not calling it that because of reasons), just from a different starting point than the evidence would suggest.
That creationists have to start including evolution under a different name just highlights the backsliding they have to keep doing in order to stay just above irrelevant within Christianity.
Giving a like simply for the fact that this video taught me that pachyderm (sp?) referred to a group of animals rather than just elephants and that it is no longer used (scientifically anyways). I honestly thought that pachyderm was just another way of saying elephant. The fact that this channel can still teach me at 35 something new just by debunking creationists shows how good Forrest is at teaching. Good on you, Forrest!
Thank you for giving me the education in evolution that I never got growing up homeschooled in a Creationist household. Thank you for doing what you do, from a 38 yr old who is learning truth far later in life than I should have.
As a paleo enthusiast (not an actual paleontologist) I just about DIED when Jane said that scientists class animals as different species based on the smallest differences. Noooo... they get into heated debates about it, suggest that there's a subspecies, argue that no there isn't it's just natural diversity like skin and eye color in humans, and keep at it because we will never know for sure. It happened to Tyrannosaurus Rex relatively recently. Also we have three separate subspecies for Smilodon so I'm confident scientists could eventually sus out that dog breeds aren't separate species with enough time and resources
theres three species of smilodon, not subspecies. Extinct animals are usually not known well enough to be able to distinguish subspecies. stygimoloch, dracorex and pachycephalosaurus also are genera, not species, although there it matters less because each genus only has one species in it (unless you lump stygi as a species of pachy instead of a juvenile or a new genus)
It feels fitting that this is the first thing I’ve watched since getting my degree in biomedical sciences. Thanks for making these videos Forrest, you explain things in ways that laypeople can understand and yet is still interesting to those more knowledgeable in the field.
I as an atheist absolutely love to watch your content. You've taught me so much about biology along the way (you actually helped me on an exam). I struggle with the ability to confront people about their religious beliefs. Any advice you could give me to get to the point I can challenge people like you can. Loved the video!
@@yoshisaidit7250I’m an atheist, and the one thing I think needs to be said sometimes is that the concept of someone being religious isn’t a bad thing. People like John and Jane that are actively spreading misinformation, or people using religion to justify harm are one thing that should be addressed, but someone just having faith is fine and honestly can be good. I’m in college now and back in high school I definitely went through a more “intellectual atheist” phase of thinking that just all of religion was a sham and I was a lot smarter than others, but I’ve come to appreciate the cultural side of it over time. Learning about the more secular side of religion, the way it evolved with the people and culture that practiced it, if really fascinating and I would recommend it
@@BrianSpurrier So you think having faith (thinking something is truth with zero evidence) is a good thing? You really think religion progresses in a good way, when all religion does is try to keep us in the dark ages? They progress by reinterpreting their book of fables to fit reality, even tho nothing about it fits reality. To recommend religion is to recommend your own demise. it's nothing but lies, falsehoods and fallacies. If you think believing in lies is a good idea, then you have a lot to learn yet. Dont feel so bad, I was once young a dumb, just like you.
Respect comes first and foremost whenever you want to educate someone, otherwise it will just devolve into a debate/argument that both people want to win. Instead, know your facts, know where you don't know enough, and be honest and open with that knowledge (and, maybe, direct them to people who'd know, such as Forrest). People are moved by conversations first and foremost, so also show some interest in their viewpoints - for example have them explain how they got to their conclusions, cause that's where they have a chance to pick up their own inconsistencies.
Believe it or not Forrest, even if you’re forced to repeat something you’ve already said, I find everything you fascinating and quite illuminating. Also, I think John and Jane should be more careful than they are, we wouldn’t want them to pull a mental muscle.
there's a book called the "Wizard's First Rule" in which there is a list of 'rules' for how magic works. The first rule is something like "People will believe a lie if they want it to be true, or are scared it could be true" I'm not sure how true that is, but any time i watch a viedeo like this one, I'm reminded of that book. I think the mental gymnastics they're doing to believe that lie is motivated by the want for the lie to be true, or the fear that it might not be.
“People are stupid. They will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true.” - Terry Goodkind, one of my all time favourite quotes, my first favourite is Fear is the Mindkiller from Frank Herbert's Dune.
Of course John has to teach Jane about *every* thing, including her own make up. Everyone knows woman am dumb. (Obviously this is sarcasm, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's their reasoning)
Sadly, I think it is... its to reinforce the patriarchy and subliminally (or not so much...) show women their "place" as good obedient wives... yuck I need to go take a shower after typing that.
Here in Spain (or more generally in the EU), Creationists are the tiny minority you would expect wingnuts to be, thankfully. Still, your videos make me understand things so much better, and this whole wingnut-debunking thing that's so necessary in America adds a comedy element that practically has me rolling on the floor on my good days, shivering with fear on the bad ones (like, when I'm thinking of the US as _the_ superpower in decline versus the alternatives). Thanks, Forrest.
@@zombine555 Heck if I know; that was 4 months ago. If I had to guess stuff (but not for a living) my guess would be that John or Jane said something dumb like "You can't reproduce evolution in a lab so all you can do is guess what happened millions of years ago. You guess stuff for a living." And then I made a joke about it. I probably should have put in a timestamp but didn't think of it, so now I have no idea if anything like that was said, but since I know Forrest does not guess stuff for a living, I was probably reacting to a dumb caller.
Thank you for all that you do Forrest, you are truly a gift to mankind! We love you. ❤ Keep doing an amazing job. One of the voices of reason within a growing chaotic world.
If I had to guess why your subscriber statistics are the way they are (as mentioned near the end of the video), it'd be that us subscribers share your content so actively. The people we share it with often watch and reject it (because they're creationists). It's a roughly 1:1 ratio. Each of us shares your content, maybe one of those people is genuine enough to give it a watch, and that makes the count make sense. At least, it makes sense to me.
I don't subscribe because I still cling to the indefensible idea that my trashed up Subbox full of things I didn't watch in months is for things I want to watch as they come out. For videos like this here, it doesn't matter much if YT recommends an older one or the hot new stuff.
I am no expert in paleontology nor biology but I really like the "Systematic Classification of Life" by Aron Ra. This is a series of 50 videos about 10 minutes long that covers the 'tree of life' from the first cells up to modern humans. Easy to find on YT
Tony Reed contrasts what creationists say and then debunks it . Just word of advice, watch the entire video . He lays out the creationist arguments first the goes over the actual science debunking it. He’s on TH-cam and has about 100 short videos on creationist PRATTs
@@dancingnature The "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science" series of videos by Tony Reed is indeed very nice but I am not sure that it qualifies to "delve deeper into the science of paleontology" even at beginner level unless you come from a creationist environment. However, this is good debunking of creationism claim with scientific facts. Just one warning about Tony Reeds videos. He is a former creationist and his video usually start by presenting a creationist argument before debunking it with proper science. That can be confusing at first.
Get a 7-day free trial and 25% off Blinkist Annual Premium by clicking here: bit.ly/ForrestValkaiDecember2023
The moment you realise that the Earth is Flat you will stop being an atheist.
Please wake up people!
Would you do a video commenting on the museum in animal crossing new horizons? The fossil section has a cladogram on the floor which I found to be a real neat touch.
John= closet gay
Jane= idiot
Thank you Forrest for relevant promos. This one was exactly what I was looking for. Also, your videos have been so incredibly helpful for me as someone who grew up in young earth creationist extreme pentecostal circles. I was even a pastor for 12 years. So much happier thinking for myself and learning about this amazing world! Thank you for making science fun!!
The good old man Charles Darwin👴🐦🐢🐌🐚📚
Jane always starts these videos with “Is it just me or….”
It’s always just you, Jane. Always
After all this time?
There is always a comment like this for every Reacteria featuring John and Jane
@@pointyorbyep, I’m guilty of doing it myself before 😂
@@jpstardom3375 Always
Unfortunately it's not just Jane): good amount of the population is stuck
“But you don’t get to lecture me about classification when YOU CANT EVEN ORGANIZE YOUR MAKEUP, JANE!!” 😂😂😂😂 The way I belly laughed so hard just then.
Big same lol 😂
Very witty man.
His comedic phrasing and timing ➕️ biology knowledge equals= BRILLIANCE👏👏
😂😂
Or help her sister organize her animals.
Makeup is a great way to segue into John & Jane explaining their ideas, because 100% of what they say is made up
Well. it needs foundation to cover the cracks and wrinkles, but no matter how much lipstick is applied, it's still a pig
I feel sorry for those 'kids'. They are being abused here, and they don't realize it ( hopefully) yet.
Ha
@@stephenlitten1789 sadly there is no foundation to any of their claims
@@stephenlitten1789 Should have gone with 100% of what they say, they make up. You missed a great opportunity there and I feel bad for missing it
Creationists: "Science always changes"
Also Creationists: "Evolutionists [sic] still use the same ideas without questioning them that were invented hundreds of years ago"
Creationists: "Science always changes"
Also Creationists: "Why can't those dumb Evolutionists make up their minds?"
This never made sense to me. "Isn't it stupid how this system changes beliefs based on new evidence? Instead, trust these scrolls written thousands of years ago that we will vehemently defend the word of with no room for questioning."
@@l3dcobra120this is amazing. i love you. this is the best criticism of religion i have ever heard.
Science is always wrong. Everything else isn't *_even_* wrong..
@@Dr_Wrong What do you mean?
Honestly, "Some random guy said some random thing and we've all been nodding ever since" is a pretty good description of Christianity as I've experienced it. Where the Appeal to Authority is baked into every aspect of the faith. Just another example of people assuming that other people think and behave the same way as they themselves do. We don't. We REALLY, really don't.
We can say the same for science
@@ucanliv4ever not really. Scientists entire jobs are to effectively pick apart each other's fields and reasoning to find faults or things that challenge it in order to change. To say that science is just 'we nod along' when at the core the entire field is predicated on people analyzing the corpus of knowledge for faults via observational data is much different that Christianity's "we started following this guy because he started espousing things about the bible that could be interpreted to be correct but also other people would disagree and would be as equally valid as the other guy.'
@@ucanliv4ever It's true that some people do try to act like "just trust the scientists, they're experts" is good enough. It's exactly as fallacious there as when others do it. But the thing Science has that others don't is the ability to show their work. "This is how we came to this conclusion. This is why it's the most likely, and this is what we've done to try to prove it wrong, and the reason all those attempts failed." Basically, they brought the receipts. You don't have to take them blindly at their word, and fact-checking them doesn't prove them wrong. If, that is, they're doing the science right.
And when someone comes up asking for these deeper answers, with the appearance of being genuinely interested in learning, most people are happy to share what they know and how they know it. But of course, when the questions are asked with a tone of "my question itself proves you wrong", that would turn anyone off of bothering to bring their A-game material, since it's clear they've already decided you're wrong before you even started talking. Which is how many science-deniers come to experience asking questions and getting half-assed, incomplete answers, or even no answers at all, when they ask. Because it's being asked in bad faith, or at least very much seems to be.
You make some valid points, however both sides are mostly people just going along to get along. Most Christians have never read the Bible or attend church.
On the other side of the aisle most scientists are merely rubber stamping the official narrative. If you buck the trend you will never become a phd. If you blow the whistle you are out on your ear.
I was looking for a particular article exposing corruption in the peer review system but the internet has so many pages of articles like these, take your pick. I think you are young and idealistic which is a very nice feeling but the reality is going to shock you to your core. At which point you will either cave into the cognitive dissonance or man (woman) up.
@@riluna3695 A lot of laymen do tend to make these arguments by authority yes, but "science" doesn't. And that's a big difference. Because christians tend to say that "science" does this, as the poster before you very well shows. And maybe a bad egg here or there tries to do that but science itself doesn't, and those bad actors are usually ousted pretty quickly.
Jane: "Is it just me-"
Us: "Yes! Yes, it is."
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought that lol
It's really... frustrating that creationists who would or have heard other creationists mock biology by claiming we believe dogs give birth to whales would then turn around and say pandas will pop out a polar bear when convenient... but that's entirely different because we call both bears so they are basically the same thing
Except that Pandas and Polar Bears can't interbreed, so does that make them different kinds? What about black bears? Do they hybridize with other bears? Wouldn't that make them a different kind?
@@chameleonx9253 whats with your use of the word "kind" my confusing homo sapien sapien brother?
@@DryCactusComedy I was pointing out the inconsistency of the word as used by creationists.
Genetical distance of a panda to a polar bear is larger. A panda is eating plants and is living in another region. I think it is smaller than a polar bear which eats meat. So they cannot interbread.
But you have no problem believing that all bears are endangered species.
On the one hand, I appreciate that they’re (charitable description to follow) *trying* to question evolution on its own terms by reviewing descriptions of evolution in actual science textbooks. On the other hand… everything else.
But they aren't. They are cherry picking phrases from those text books that kinda maybe make it look like they say what they want them to say if you squint so hard you risk rupturing your eyeballs.
They more often than not have textbook passages in frame that directly contradict or clarify the cherry picked part, so they must have read it if they went into it with any kind of sincerity, and yet they miraculously forgot it existed and cut the highlighted part off right before or after this part began/was over.
Kinda makes you think, doesn't it?
Well...Jakerz88 did say "charitable". :) @@carstekoch
they just read 2 lines of the books, ignores all the rest and completely butchers the lines they just read, that is how every single creationist works
That word was meant to do a lot of heavy lifting lol. I’m honestly contrasting them with apologists who don’t even reference scientific material. You’ll notice Forrest typically gives them at least a 1 or 2 out of 10.
It's not questioning if the person isn't listening to the answers.
The irony of that tagline, "Kinda makes you think, doesn't it?" More irony than the earth's corey.
Thinking is not encouraged in these circles
I really dislike people using the simplistic high school introductory class definitions as proof that people discussing complex scientific ideas are wrong. Like they are basically reading "science for dummies" and thinking they are a biologist. I'm like the definitions are simplistic for a reason. So your brain can begin to digest and understand the material. Until you actually do the learning and understand the more complex points, you cannot disprove them. You can't disprove something you don't even understand. It just doesn't make sense.
It's like they learn about fire and then proceed to talk about nuclear fusion with the same language, and they have the nerve to claim they understand it enough to debunk it.
But the sun is a giant ball of fire /s
"This textbook can't stop me because I can't read!"
High only teaches at an introductory level but some people don't realise that.
That's not how it works at all, but it's a lie you can understand.
"You'd know that if you'd listen to your biologist teacher instead of your creationist preacher..." = Bars
I like how they complain that cladograms don't show fossils for their converging points, as if we need them to show common ancestry. Because genetics and taxonomy doesn't already prove it.
silly atheist, you can't prove god didn't put magic in between the lines...
And they dismiss the fossils that can be relatively fit into such spots.
@@darkstarr984”but where’s the fossils BETWEEN these 2 fossils?? Chemkate athorist”
Was it Carl Sagan who said "to bake an apple pie, one must first have the universe." Love that line, and _love_ the mental hoops creationists jump through to prove something infinitely more complicated than it has to be.
the line was " if you want to bake an apple pie from scratch, you must first make a universe" or something like that
I have this word-for-word because it was the opening line to a Carl Sagan song from my childhood. (Also I just listened to it to make sure)
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."
Fun and silly song, by the way. It's called A Glorious Dawn.
@@riluna3695 If you hadn't said that I was going to. I ripped an MP3 of that and keep it on my phone, the chorus is to me what people excited in church feel, only real, and while this current arrangement of atoms will never see all of the universe, I'm as old as any of it is and will be here through the end, almost certainly as iron by then. It's a billion or two years until we're all likely plasma floating through the Red Giant Solarus.
Carl Sagan had some trashy beliefs.
@@simplylethulI'm aware of none. I'm aware of an essay he wrote in a book by Dr Grinspoon published by Harvard Press in 1971. He was very much ahead of his time in that anonymous work.
23:00 We have a fun little saying in French, that translates basically to "With 'if's we could put Paris in a bottle" (Avec des 'si' on mettrais Paris en bouteille) , which is used to reply to unfounded and useless speculations. I love this saying and it is so fitting for those types of creationist "arguments".
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
@@stephenolan5539 I believe the phrase you meant was "if wishes were horses, we'd all eat steak."
@NukaLemonade
No, I mean the centuries old saying.
Not bad not bad, but I prefer the saying "if 'ifs' and 'buts' were candies and nuts, we'd all have a merry fucking xmas"
@@NukaLemonade Wait, you can make steak from Horse meat?
The term "Kind" not only has no value in biology, it also shows that linguistics disprove creationist arguments.
In french, the Bible uses the word "espèce" (litt. species) where the Bible in english uses the word "kind".
The basis of the creationist argument relies on playing with words, and that only works in one language.
I wonder what the original word was used (or more accurately, the word that got recorded).
not me being so used to seeing people spell bible wrong on signs that I initially read bibble 💀
Huh, I wonder if this is common for Bibles that were written in languages of latin origin since portuguese also uses "espécies" (species) rather than "tipos" (kinds). Can't really say since I don't understand the rest all that much and, taking what I seen from spanish, It can lead misconceptions when two words are pretty similar, but have completely different meanings.
This goes to show that folks here down south don't all speak spanish, muricans (the ignorant version of americans that believes everyone south of their border speaks spanish), I can barely make out what in the blue hell the rest of the continent is speaking at any given moment. Spanish, portuguese, italian, french (as seen in this handy comment) can look almost the same thing for anyone that doesn't speak these languages, but when you understand any of them you'll quickly see how they're vastly different a lot of the time.
The original Hebrew word was "min". Afaik it was pretty much exactly equivalent of the English word "kind," as in it simply referred to a group of things that shared some trait in common.
Just like the English word, it's meaning was variable based on the context, so (big shock, I know) creationists are misusing the word when they pretend it had some specific meaning in a cladistic sense... it literally just meant "type," "variety," "variation," etc.
@@Gildedmuse The word used in Genesis (1:11-12) was לְמִֽינֵהֶ֗ם which technically doesn't translate to "kind" but more like "of it's type". The word appears in other places (several times in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14) and each time it's referring to animals at a genus level: it's separately referring to vulture, kite, raven, hawk, heron, grasshopper, tortoise. The kite and hawk are especially interesting because I can guarantee you creationists would put them in a single "kind" (and possibly put vulture and maybe even heron in there as well, I can't say because creationists REFUSE TO DEFINE KIND).
Asking creationists to define "kind" is always entertaining
Aaron Ra already smashed Hovind, when asking him trying to define what a "kind" is. He admitted he didn't know where the line is between "kinds". Yet he still using the word "kind" 😅.
Creationists believe that evolution can exist within a "kind", but a "kind" can't evolve into another "kind"!? Yet they, as you said above, they can't tell you what a "kind" is.
@@robertdeland3390 And obviously a cat is a different “kind” of animal than a “dog.” But is a hyena just a “kind” of dog? Or perhaps a “kind” of cat? Well, hyenas look like dogs, but they are genetically related to other cat species. So which one is it? Are elephants and wooly mammooths the same kind?
And platypuses are obviously a “kind” of… Oh wait never mind about platypuses! ;-).
@tobias4411 haha. You have illuminated the creationist silly concept of "kind".
At this point, I think they're just doing this for you. Secretly, they aren't creationists at all, they just play pretend being stupid creationists so that you, Forrest, can come along and explain the actual science to us. Ingenious.
A plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel.
@@rembrandt972ifyI'm gonna save this quote in my notes to use later
They do come across as a parody at times!
@@rembrandt972ify Hail Lord of Adders Black.
@@nealjroberts4050
Poe thought so.
A new Forrest Valkai video? A new chance for learning.
Definitely some of me favorite content on TH-cam! He's fantastic on the Atheist call-in shows (Atheist Experience, The Line , etc) too! Thoughtful and well researched points, always.
I like him more than other people like Professor Dave because he puts more effort into emotion and entertainment while avoiding attacks on the people in question
@@Alpharelicyeah, ad Homs are fun but annoying if it’s the whole thing.
@@AlpharelicI understand Prof Daves anger honestly.
I want that emoji😭
Another Reacteria? Another quality Forrest Valkai upload? Count me in!
Jane being so amazed that John thought to organize the makeup based on what it's used for, is the most cringe🤣 also hilarious Forrest had the exact same suggestion, without relying on creationist thinking! Amazing!
Seriously, this episode could have at least out Jane as the one providing the lesson, using her new make up kit as a way to illustrate the point to John, who as a man that presumably doesn't use makeup and could've been presented as overwhelmed by how she was organizing say make different but similar things. He could have even still been the one to present the creationist lesson, hearing her explanation of how she was organizing her makeup according to 'kind' and drawing the analogy to cladpgrams, etc. Just annoying that they made Jane so inept that she needs John to organize her makeup, and shocking that they presented a man as being able to identify different kinds of makeup🤣
yep it's blatant sexism
This is always something that bothered me about their whole series. Jane is always playing the role as the idiot in these videos where she is somehow inept to see any of the truths until super smart John explains them to her. It's such flagrant sexism and while I often view Forrest talking to them as somewhat funny (as if he was a disappointed and agitated biology professor trying to help his two students pass), it's hard to not notice that John is always playing the role as some smart teacher while Jane is a ditzy student every single episode.
Hidden plot point: John is a theater nerd and has better makeup than Jane.
@@richyrich6099 ironic, given that john is a lot more stupid than jane
You are personally responsible for my kindled interest in biology and a renewed hope that people unfortunate enough to have been force fed creationism can find ways and thought processes to break out.
It's funny how they like to end with "makes you think", when thinking is the *last* thing they'd want their audience to do…
holy hecc the speech about how every claim needs its own evidence is something I think loads of people have tried explaining but I've never heard anyone explain it as nicely and concisely as you have. I think it's totally the foundation that a lot of people are misssing and I hope lots of people listen to that part
Thank you for doing so much to tackle ignorance and spread the love of science and learning!
i see another run of the mill creationist debunk… then reads asterisk note…
Well, i’ll be darned if I miss a makeup tutorial from a scientist
I had to read the sentence multiple times becuase I thought the clause was 'mill creationist debunk'
I feel very silly right now
That is my fault. It should have read run-of-the-mill, but I got lazy.
I come from a Catholic family, born and raised and I gotta say, damn do I love seeing Forrest take these videos apart. He has certainly sparked more of an interest to do further research in biology with this series. at the very least to try and close some of those gaps in what I know. I can safely say I never saw any videos like these and my parents never pushed the idea of creationist dogma, and man do I appreciate that now more than ever. Like damn those videos are insulting to see. Cool yeah lets take High School level biology and insist that, that is all scientists know. Do more research? Well why on earth would you want to do that? Pushing an agenda? Naaaahhh
Yeah. This and quote-mining are two of the most annoying things. You will often see those people saying something like "Well look this scientist once said that" and then you look it up and it either was said in a completely different context or out-of-context, or someone who simply had no idea what he was talking about because he simply didn't have the knowledge, like "This Doctor said that aliens have visited us! Do you really want to believe in science now?" and then that guy had a doctor in internal medcine or something, like yeah a doctor for sure but not exactly an astrophysician
The catholic church and the vatican believe evolution to be true, it has been stated by them directly. Catholics generally are not creationists.
Can't wait until we get the collab with these two
Would love to see Forrest valkai review and fact check the fossil section of the museum in animal crossing new horizons, especially since it does have a cladogram on the floor, which I found to be a super neat feature, especially since it shows birds are dinosaurs, have a "not dinosaurs" section and properly placed Dimetrodon in the line leading to modern mammals
With the dog breed example, interesting that they picked animals that were *artificially* bred by humans particularly for a wide variety of special traits. and that would most likely never have come about through natural selection. Just saying, that was weird.
yeah if we left dogs to their own devices, we'd end up with a bunch of mutts mixed from large and medium-large breeds; small and some medium-small breeds would be hosed without direct human intervention.
@@andrejg4136 Without human intervention, there would be no such thing as a dog.
Probably to get those creationists on board who accept forms of evolution such as adaptation.
What's funny about their example is that that artificial selection has produced animals that can't breed with each other.
@The_Serpent_of_Eden Human beings have evolved to be the best at actually creating stuff. Other animals do it a bit more crudely but humans have really excelled in a lot of way. In the Noah fable, remember god couldn't just provide a boat for Noah but had to get Noah to build it. Also god had lots of trouble which chariots that humans made of iron. LOL Seems god wasn't much good at creating or defending against certain common metal things.
@@rhondah1587Well there would be dogs but they would look more like other wolves.
As someone who learned about making clades from many different angles in my education, I am unsure if I’ll be very happy or very angry in this video. There’s so much that goes into them and they’re all changing frequently because we find new data and try again to figure out what makes sense of everything we can know for certain.
Edit: I was angry five minutes in and very happy when you explained clades and lumping/splitting! Thank you Forrest!
Forrest luckily makes this stuff manageable to watch. He presents the arguments so well and has a lot of humor in his frustration, making all of this a little reminder of a topic whenever I visit his channel. I knew especially this video would be hard because of the very way cladograms evolved historically and how much disagreement can be even today depending on where and how you look at it - that disagreement is exactly WHY science work, but Creationists use the very safeguard of science as proof we are incompetent.
Reacteria: Come for the biology, stay for the in depth discussion on make-up organization. 😁
I dub Forrest _The Rogue of Rouge_
_The Bilberry Biologist_
_The Chartreuse Creationist-Crusher_
_Dave_
I'm having an extremely annoying day rn and, for what it's worth, seeing someone else getting increasingly annoyed with people who just refuse to learn is... cathartic, I guess? idk.
Either way, my day's slightly better. Thanks!
The day always get instantly better when there's a new reacteria to watch!
Makes me think like a 6th beer.
Damn Forrest, you had me laughing so hard I was choking.
Also it's hilarious when they act out like they're just figuring out their stupid apologetic on the spot. Like "maaaaaaaaayyyyyybeeeeee it's like this" is what they think the full extent of science is.
The sexism is so strong they really couldn’t have Jane be smarter than John at all for just one episode about makeup of all things (typically seen as such a bad thing for men to be interested in and therefore know anything about). All their stupid bits and arguments are infuriating in a lighter way, but the consistent characterization of Jane not knowing anything until a man explains it to her even though she is more competent than John even when having to dumb herself down in a way is actually infuriating because there is no good reason they can’t split the episodes of who is the one teaching the other pretty much
Oh leave it out. Its 50/50 hardly sexist that one is the learner and one is the explainer.
@@reaperj550 k
@@emmetthowell899 stop creating a scenario where you and your whole kind are a victim. Even though I would argue that men are smarter, that is not the case in this video and your whole view. Now grow up.
@@reaperj550 k
@@emmetthowell899 that's the extent of a woman's intelligence. OK Jane
I remember when giant pandas were classified along with red pandas and raccoons. I've been seeing lately that they are now classified with bears. That, I think, is one of the beauties of science.
> believes in the evolutionary tree
> is named Forrest
Checkmate, creationists
This is just like when people named Dennis become dentists.
@@MossMothMyBelovedOr Dr Ben Dover, protologist
10:20 This is actually really cool. I don't think I've ever had this explained to me, when you group together all of the animals with a vertebral column you are actually kind of looking back in time with this graph and seeing what had to have come first, that is insanely clever. And even more so because now we know approximately where to look in the geological layers for where the first vertebral animals were evolving.
you re the best dude , can't wait
They're breaking him. He doesn't have long before he explodes from over exposure to creationist ignorance XD
Thank u! Currently have an IV in my arm and this makes my day
Get well!
@@theseri0usguy768 Thx.
Get well soon :)
Been there and, yeah, TH-cam can be a real treasure in those times.
Your edits get more memetastic as we go and I love it.
The more I learn about Biology, the more I'm shocked at the insane amount of bs I was fed growing up... Brilliant work as always Forrest!
Thanks Forrest!!! For being part of my world!
My world is reality! John and Jane's, not as much. Well, at least not that they realize it's all they got too.
Hey Forrest! I just wanted to say that I think you’re truly a gift to humanity. I wish I had 10% of your positivity. I also wish there were more people like you on this earth. Your open-mindedness and passion for education are incomparable, on this platform and any other that I know of. So I thank you, and wish you a very happy life. You have made mine and many many others exponentially better. Never stop being you.
I love how genetic information can't be created from thin air but at the same time it can be created from thin air
In college Bio I remember 2 big moments of the puzzle taking shape. Those big aha moments where it feels like the gears are clicking together in your brain.
1 was just how much TIME has passed since life evolved. Just the unimaginable numbers of years that have flowed past.
The other was understanding what "common ancestor" actually meant.
I have never doubted evolution, but finally understanding those 2 pieces together gave me a window into understanding how the system could actually work.
Super cool stuff.
I feel like the entertainment editing is a little stronger in this video. Good work!
The editing in general is better
I noticed there's a lot of animation, Forrest! Don't think i didn't
I get tingles every time i get a notification that Forrest uploads a video. It's meant to be set to sound only but i shouldn't complain.
Great video, as always! Not defending Jane, but I’ve had a near existential crisis trying to organize a kaboodle. Organizing makeup gear and manicure kit/polish into one multi-compartment container is no easy task.
I'm really surprised to discover that I was not subscribed, I watched some of your videos for at least the last 2 years
Thank goodness for people like Forrest Valkai.
What was with the creepy end-off? LOL What infuriates me about John & Jane is how utterly _sexist_ their videos are. I was gritting my teeth at how patronizing John was about organizing Jane's make-up, & then nearly snapped a tooth when Jane was flabbergasted by John's "solution". Ugh. I wanted to bitch-slap the script writers for portraying a woman as so stupid. Loved your description of John, "Looks like he'd be more likely to _drink_ foundation than to know what it was for."
Was completely prepared for the jump scare at the end, didn’t disappoint
RST Forrest - super personable, fun loving science guy who wants nothing more than to spread the light of his knowledge with the world.
AXP/ Heathen Forrest - exasperated science teacher who is just sick of his kids not caring enough to learn from him but just enough to ask stupid questions. [But is still so damn personable and bubbly! ]
Reacteria Forrest is such a lovely combination of the two. I feel like I'm watching him rip his hair out while he grit- smiles through the lesson they should have read last week
Forrest has the best analogies.❤ They are silly and help me understand.
Just wanted to say, I didn't pursue much science in high school because I equated it with math...which I had major issues with. That said, sciences have always interested me anyhow, and your videos have brought back that interest and made learning science stuff enjoyable. Thank you for that. I love your vids!
The thing about creationists that’s always frustrating to me is their arguments basically boil down to “science is too complicated and hasn’t found all the answers, but the bible says it has all the answers and it gives a simple comfortable answer. So obviously, the simple and comfortable answer is the right one :)”
Sometimes the easiest answer isn’t the best or the most true answer. And with evolution, that is 100% the case. Yes, it’s quite complicated and involves a lot of steps and genetics and trees and many years to happen. Yes, we’re still putting things together. But your ignorance to how things actually work (aka, not understanding the mountains of real evidence we have for evolution), does not mean god did it.
Ah, John & Jane! Thank you, Forrest, for yet another highly enlightening video! It's better than when I took biology in either high school or college. And thank you, John & Jane, for giving Forrest such ample opportunity to teach scientific concepts from the ground up so as to correct misconceptions. :)
I kinda like the idea that all the animals on the ark were entirely full of all genetic information that exists in their "kind", so you have an uncountable amount of genetic Cronenberg abominations straining under the immeasurable weight of their genetic diversity
It's "ark" that is the boat. An arc is a curved line, or story element.
@@DrachenGothik666 that's true, fixed it!
Great video as always Forrest. 🙂❤️🇨🇦
For the algorithm! Love your content, Forrest!
It is nice that me and my loved ones, and the whole family can enjoy this awesome add, that bring us all together. Me, me and me, the whole glory family. Sunshine. ☀️
I got into an argument with my friend of 12 years, who happens to be a creationist, the other day. It seems like I knew more about both of our positions than he even knew about his own. He constantly misunderstood and misrepresented evolution and when I pointed to evidence he just wrote it off with no rebuttal at all. He claimed that there was more evidence of creationism than there was for evolution. And when I gave him examples of evidence for evolution and asked him to give me evidence for creationism he couldn’t come up with one example. When I presented skin color and Darwin’s finches as an example of observable evolution he then claimed that those changes did not change the animal enough for them to be a different species so evolution as a whole is false. He even claimed that humans have been on the North American continent since the inception of the planet. When I presented more evidence he claimed that the philosophy of science is always changing so therefore nothing can be proven and everything is fake 🤦♂️. This whole argument started with him calling evolution a conspiracy btw. He plans on going to a Christian university as well. How the hell do I get him out of his delusion before he’s further brainwashed at school?
This is definitely my favourite series on TH-cam
Crazy how these hypothesis are just wild guesses, but we seem to be able to guess where in the fossil record we might find a transitional fossil, what its physical characteristics likely are, and even what its genetic makeup might be, and then we end up finding the transitional fossil and it's more or less what we expected.
A hypothesis is not a wild guess. It is based on what is already known. And as more knowledge accrues, the previous inaccuracies can be discarded.
Not all science will stand the test of time.This video states that large thick-skinned mammals were once classified together, but no longer are. Any paleontologists working under the old ideas would have been unsuccessful in finding fossils of the presumed common ancestor.
I think a lot of progress also has to do with the additional new methods and tools we now have. I don't think DNA sequencing existed when I was in high school. A hand held calculator was extremely expensive. Libraries were limited to physical media and communication was slow compared to today.
I was taught that there were two Kingdoms, plants and animals, with protists being animals. I don't recall discussion of prokaryotes at all.
17:06 this part is so epic. Thank you Forrest. Your capacity to explain things in a way that is easy to understand is truly a gift. Again, thank you.
They really have an "evolution debunking" series which dismisses evolution in some parts because they don't like it, while in other parts of that same series pretty much openly admitting evolution happens (we're just not calling it that because of reasons), just from a different starting point than the evidence would suggest.
That creationists have to start including evolution under a different name just highlights the backsliding they have to keep doing in order to stay just above irrelevant within Christianity.
Giving a like simply for the fact that this video taught me that pachyderm (sp?) referred to a group of animals rather than just elephants and that it is no longer used (scientifically anyways). I honestly thought that pachyderm was just another way of saying elephant.
The fact that this channel can still teach me at 35 something new just by debunking creationists shows how good Forrest is at teaching. Good on you, Forrest!
Love your videos and I crack up every time you get mad and start yelling at John and Jane!!
Thank you for giving me the education in evolution that I never got growing up homeschooled in a Creationist household. Thank you for doing what you do, from a 38 yr old who is learning truth far later in life than I should have.
As a paleo enthusiast (not an actual paleontologist) I just about DIED when Jane said that scientists class animals as different species based on the smallest differences. Noooo... they get into heated debates about it, suggest that there's a subspecies, argue that no there isn't it's just natural diversity like skin and eye color in humans, and keep at it because we will never know for sure. It happened to Tyrannosaurus Rex relatively recently. Also we have three separate subspecies for Smilodon so I'm confident scientists could eventually sus out that dog breeds aren't separate species with enough time and resources
ALSO SOME SPECIES GET RECLASSIFIED AS JUVENILES OR ADULTS OF OTHER SPECIES A LOT. SEE STYGYMOLACH, DRACOREX, AND PACHYSEPHALOSAURUS
theres three species of smilodon, not subspecies. Extinct animals are usually not known well enough to be able to distinguish subspecies. stygimoloch, dracorex and pachycephalosaurus also are genera, not species, although there it matters less because each genus only has one species in it (unless you lump stygi as a species of pachy instead of a juvenile or a new genus)
It feels fitting that this is the first thing I’ve watched since getting my degree in biomedical sciences. Thanks for making these videos Forrest, you explain things in ways that laypeople can understand and yet is still interesting to those more knowledgeable in the field.
I love that the more frustrated Forrest becomes, the more sophisticated wording he uses at 20:00
Always look forward to reacteria! I’m a computer science major, but biology gets more interesting every day.
Haha, I’m in the same boat. Hated Bio in high school but Bio does bring about some interesting topics.
What textbook is being quoted from? Since textbooks get edited to appease different states, it’d be interesting if the choice of book is deliberate.
Yay another video to watch every time it’s in my recommended!
Can we please get a Milo Rossi (miniminuteman), Gutsick Gibbon, and Forrest to do a collab please? Pretty please? Pretty pretty please?
This dude makes me regret the major I went with in college so much.>
I as an atheist absolutely love to watch your content. You've taught me so much about biology along the way (you actually helped me on an exam). I struggle with the ability to confront people about their religious beliefs. Any advice you could give me to get to the point I can challenge people like you can. Loved the video!
Watch some AronRa and Matt Dilihunty, they'll help you with confronting those charlatans.
@@yoshisaidit7250I’m an atheist, and the one thing I think needs to be said sometimes is that the concept of someone being religious isn’t a bad thing. People like John and Jane that are actively spreading misinformation, or people using religion to justify harm are one thing that should be addressed, but someone just having faith is fine and honestly can be good.
I’m in college now and back in high school I definitely went through a more “intellectual atheist” phase of thinking that just all of religion was a sham and I was a lot smarter than others, but I’ve come to appreciate the cultural side of it over time. Learning about the more secular side of religion, the way it evolved with the people and culture that practiced it, if really fascinating and I would recommend it
As a Christian, I also love his content.
@@BrianSpurrier So you think having faith (thinking something is truth with zero evidence) is a good thing?
You really think religion progresses in a good way, when all religion does is try to keep us in the dark ages? They progress by reinterpreting their book of fables to fit reality, even tho nothing about it fits reality.
To recommend religion is to recommend your own demise. it's nothing but lies, falsehoods and fallacies. If you think believing in lies is a good idea, then you have a lot to learn yet.
Dont feel so bad, I was once young a dumb, just like you.
Respect comes first and foremost whenever you want to educate someone, otherwise it will just devolve into a debate/argument that both people want to win. Instead, know your facts, know where you don't know enough, and be honest and open with that knowledge (and, maybe, direct them to people who'd know, such as Forrest). People are moved by conversations first and foremost, so also show some interest in their viewpoints - for example have them explain how they got to their conclusions, cause that's where they have a chance to pick up their own inconsistencies.
Believe it or not Forrest, even if you’re forced to repeat something you’ve already said, I find everything you fascinating and quite illuminating.
Also, I think John and Jane should be more careful than they are, we wouldn’t want them to pull a mental muscle.
there's a book called the "Wizard's First Rule" in which there is a list of 'rules' for how magic works. The first rule is something like "People will believe a lie if they want it to be true, or are scared it could be true"
I'm not sure how true that is, but any time i watch a viedeo like this one, I'm reminded of that book.
I think the mental gymnastics they're doing to believe that lie is motivated by the want for the lie to be true, or the fear that it might not be.
Absolutely amazing book, fuck Temple of the Winds tho
“People are stupid. They will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true.” - Terry Goodkind, one of my all time favourite quotes, my first favourite is Fear is the Mindkiller from Frank Herbert's Dune.
I always appreciate how positive you are forrest.
Of course John has to teach Jane about *every* thing, including her own make up. Everyone knows woman am dumb.
(Obviously this is sarcasm, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's their reasoning)
Sadly, I think it is... its to reinforce the patriarchy and subliminally (or not so much...) show women their "place" as good obedient wives... yuck I need to go take a shower after typing that.
Here in Spain (or more generally in the EU), Creationists are the tiny minority you would expect wingnuts to be, thankfully.
Still, your videos make me understand things so much better, and this whole wingnut-debunking thing that's so necessary in America adds a comedy element that practically has me rolling on the floor on my good days, shivering with fear on the bad ones (like, when I'm thinking of the US as _the_ superpower in decline versus the alternatives).
Thanks, Forrest.
Forrest:
You need a T-shirt that says "I guess stuff for a living."
Why?
@@zombine555 Heck if I know; that was 4 months ago.
If I had to guess stuff (but not for a living) my guess would be that John or Jane said something dumb like "You can't reproduce evolution in a lab so all you can do is guess what happened millions of years ago. You guess stuff for a living."
And then I made a joke about it.
I probably should have put in a timestamp but didn't think of it, so now I have no idea if anything like that was said, but since I know Forrest does not guess stuff for a living, I was probably reacting to a dumb caller.
YES! I needed a reacteria today!!
But...but...but...wasn't make-up given to women by the fallen angels? So why does Jane have make-up?
Thank you for all that you do Forrest, you are truly a gift to mankind! We love you. ❤ Keep doing an amazing job. One of the voices of reason within a growing chaotic world.
If I had to guess why your subscriber statistics are the way they are (as mentioned near the end of the video), it'd be that us subscribers share your content so actively. The people we share it with often watch and reject it (because they're creationists).
It's a roughly 1:1 ratio. Each of us shares your content, maybe one of those people is genuine enough to give it a watch, and that makes the count make sense. At least, it makes sense to me.
I don't subscribe because I still cling to the indefensible idea that my trashed up Subbox full of things I didn't watch in months is for things I want to watch as they come out.
For videos like this here, it doesn't matter much if YT recommends an older one or the hot new stuff.
I thought at the end there would be Jane in the Lost place asking: "is it just me...?" and then a creepy vioce chanting: "NOOOO" Scream, cut
I’d really like to know if Jane and John have watched these reaction videos.
Super anxious for your big projects!
They take their jobs seriously by ignoring everything outside the Bible.
"Just put them in piles!" I felt that more than I should have... just dont look at my college desk.
Right after the ad it almost seemed like Forrest was explaining carcinization.
Thanks for the horror clip at he end lol
It’s where Forrest puts other creationists in
Hi Forrest. Job well done! My appreciation, as a scientist myself (PhD in technical sciences), how you explain the scientific process so clearly!
Nice job! I’m curious what (if any) resources would you suggest for someone who wants to delve deeper into the science of paleontology
I am no expert in paleontology nor biology but I really like the "Systematic Classification of Life" by Aron Ra. This is a series of 50 videos about 10 minutes long that covers the 'tree of life' from the first cells up to modern humans. Easy to find on YT
Tony Reed contrasts what creationists say and then debunks it . Just word of advice, watch the entire video . He lays out the creationist arguments first the goes over the actual science debunking it. He’s on TH-cam and has about 100 short videos on creationist PRATTs
@@dancingnature The "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science" series of videos by Tony Reed is indeed very nice but I am not sure that it qualifies to "delve deeper into the science of paleontology" even at beginner level unless you come from a creationist environment. However, this is good debunking of creationism claim with scientific facts. Just one warning about Tony Reeds videos. He is a former creationist and his video usually start by presenting a creationist argument before debunking it with proper science. That can be confusing at first.