Christians, this is an educational video. Please leave. We don't need an evolution vs creation debate everywhere. This is video for students learning science.
It's impactful how disparate the theory is in terms of evidence as it is with the rhetoric. The rhetoric is that it is an established fact. The evidence level is really at the level of massive inference. Imagine attaching the label of science (which should mean that your brain is adding everything up correctly) and evidence, and then making a video like this. This is truly beyond the pale.
For that virus are great! It had been witnessed evolution acting on virus since they reproduce so fast they evolve fast (a big problem for finding the efficient cure, they can become immune to meds quickly or becoming dangerous to other animals, like humans). But I see what you meant, I would like to see animals and humans changing too.
the only direct evidence is that it macro evolution was applied on viruses, or single celled organisms, to assume it works on multi cell organisms is anti science, as most mutations in humans are cancer, also with fruitflies they failed, so its cut and apste science and missapplication deception to say one animal turns into another as the 1st 2 sections of this video are speculation. in theory if ti was a million times faster nothing would change ot it would just be like the x-men which is science fiction.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Alan There are two sciences: quantum physics and classical physics. Classical physics is based on quantum physics. Without quarks constantly bursting forth and spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light called protons and neutrons, then "solidity" or classical physics would not exist. These words come from the book "The Quantum World" written by the physicist Kenneth Ford. Also an excellent quantum physics book is "Hands of Light" written by the physicist Barbara Brennan. There is nothing anywhere that is not real or natural, yet the paradox is that everything is an image because nothing is solid. Even plastic is constantly bursting forth as quarks. God's mind is imagery. We are images, which are fact supported reliable accounts and well substantiated explanations in these books.
Theres a difference between description and cause. What evolutionary theory does is find descriptions (evidence for speciation) and then extrapolates it to say that this means all species are the result of evolution
@@siddharthnandi3995 there’s different kinds of animals, by kinds o mean dogs cats birds whales insects, the kind doesn’t change in dog breeding the type of dog just does
You never get scientists telling us evolution didn't happen. So many well-funded creationists, and still they can't find a flaw in evolution that can be solved by creationism.
@@Ozzyman200 you tellin me you can just take an item and wait for something to happen?? No cuz everything is created by something (someone) in this world
I get that you used the term "microbiology" since your referring to micro parts of biology like genetics but it is misleading since microbiology is a whole lot different branch of biology than those of genetics. As a recommendation, please try to be more precise and accurate when your using scientific terms.
I know this is four years ago and no one will probably ever see this but for on the Khan Academy website, it has these videos and little pop-ups will show up in the corner saying "he meant molecular biology not microbiology" and all the other times he makes a mistake, so I'd reccomend watching the videos there if you can.
silversurfer there aren’t any skulls found that seem to have grown ‘gradually’, also upon further thinking you would naturally question the technique of dating
Microbilology is the study of the biology of microscopic organisms. The microscopic level includes aroms and molecules. Molecular biology is the study of Molecular organisms. So, molecular biology is microbiology, but microbiology is not molecular biology.
I had to work on this for My Science class for burkes now Who else is working on this for there bio class because i am wondering because i like Bio I had Mrs.Burke 1st semester two and this will help me alot when im a junior Next year i will be Taking the science i want and it is my last year taking science well that is if i go to Jm Senior year,
@@treydevercelly7518 also i found out i will be taking Chemistry next year because im taking it for a elective i don't need a 4th science but i do also we are talking about this in physical science right now so ignore my comment from 6 months ago this is from April/May back in the spring i was i think 16 when i said this well i am 17 now so prove my point tell me it doesn't deal with Darwinian Evolution.
Yes that is a form of natural selection however it is not sufficient in proving the total evolution of a kind or species these lizards your describing did not evolve into a bird or a cat, as evolutionists dictate, your response will likely be "well because it takes millions of years" if that is the case then it is not observable, rather it is faith. And no theory should be made a premise or foundation for other claims as if the foundation is not steady nothing above is.
I find it hilarious that people are questioning the scientific process on here, when they are probably writing their comments on a small piece of glass that shoots data into space at the speed of light, on a video that’s stored on a data cloud, which are all made possible because of the scientific process 🤦🏾♂️
@@treydevercelly7518 you obviously didn’t read my comment, because I didn’t say anything about an example of scientific process. I said it was made POSSIBLE because of the scientific method. And thank you have good day too
I find it difficult to believe that there is people like you walking among us. The human brain far exceeds anything any human can make. Good luck in believing Laurence Krause's theory of something out of nothing. Just like that piece of glass that's fed data onto the cloud, has an architect.... So do you! It astonishing how blind people go through life trying to explain away the core of our existence. Good luck buddy. Hope you make it.
Homologous structures could indicate equally indicate a designer who was happy with his basic idea so ran with it; like how lots of artists -- painters, writers-- basically did the same thing, with variation, over and over again. But of course materialists have hermetically closed minds. Bravo.
No, it couldn't, because it is a known fact that homologous structures indicate common ancestry since the more closely related two species are, the more anatomical similarities there are, and the more recent of a common ancestor they have. It is not like works of art or literature because they are not biological organisms that can pass down traits to descendant populations.
Interesting theory JC. Appreciate the thought. As you can see from the other replies, it is very simple. All you need to do is accept that evolution is true and you will see that everything points to evolution being true. It's very simple relig... I mean science. As it was stated in a reply, "it is a known fact that homologous structures indicate common ancestry...". We know this is true because evolution is true, therefore proving that evolution is true. It's very simple if you just stop and don't think about it.
It’s not that we don’t believe evolution I do for example but don’t believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution. We evolve overtime and adapt to our environments. But it’s not the same as evolution mutations (Darwin’s theory) which is ridiculous odds that it could even happen.
@@lefronzzedong4871 it doesn't have ridiculous odds, give it enough time and the mutations can and have created more diverse life. Evidence for the theory of Evolution through natural selection is given in the video
Jarrett Ludolph The problem is did you have a growing number of mathematicians and biologist actually leaving Darwins theory of evolution, it doesn’t add up to them. Math has a big factor in assisting the truth and I’m sorry to say but the math does not correlate with evolution it just doesn’t the odds are too astronomically against evolution happening. Even with time it just doesn’t add up at all The chances of earth aligning perfectly with the sun so we don’t burn to death or freeze to death by space is 1x10(98)
Haeckel's drawings were embellished to the point of falsity, that is undeniable. But the principle that he was attempting to illustrate is genuine.
4 ปีที่แล้ว
@@InformationIsTheEdge it is not. They start out very different, look somewhat similar at one point and then different again. His whole theory was a fraud.
@ A great deal of observations and tests have taken place since Haeckel and all of them agree with Darwin's idea. In fact there is not one test, experiment or observation that contradicts evolution. All the facts are on the side of evolution.
4 ปีที่แล้ว
@@InformationIsTheEdge can you give me one example of experimental data that demonstrates a macro evolutionary change?
Homologous structures, as evidence for evolution, are compelling if one presupposes only purely naturalistic explanations. And changes in organisms such as bacteria and viruses do not involve an increase of complexity (i.e. single cell to human being).
A single celled organism doesn't have to evolve to a multicellular one for it to be considered more complex. Just a simple change would make it comparably more complex.
@@gavin_hill There is a gene in a population of monkeys called TRIM5-CypA. This is a combination of TRIM5 and CypA. The new hybrid genome has a purpose completely irrelevent to the other genomes. New gene, new purpose, new information.
@@terra_727 Well, based on your comment alone, it's not new information, it's just information rearranged. Not sure that that makes any difference to your argument, but just saying.
@mpersand The DNA code is proven to be dynamic - through mutation, it can increase, decrease, and be rearranged. All of this creates new genetic information.
...are people still arguing about evolution v creation ? I came here to look to find the "evidence" for the evolution theory. I'm convinced, nothing new here, same old, same old. I've been looking through these videos for some years, and thought the evolutionists had given up. Their evidence of fossils are circumstantial at best, and if a fossil would prove anything there should be at least some evidence of a mixture of two living species. EvenDarwin said we should expect an " infinite" variety of species. So whilst no one doubts that a species evolves to suit its environment, the change to adifferent species is highly dubious if not impossible. That DNA supports evolution ? Quite the reverse. The highly complex code it contains has been shown to be a code for all life, similar to a computer language but many times more sophisticated, anyone with programming knowledge that has studied DNA code has admitted its ingenuity, how would anyone expect DNA to come from nowhere by itself ? By the way, the words foremost genetics expert, head and founder of an American company that can inspect and analyse thousands of DNA samples daily, stated years ago that common descent was false, the " tree of life" didn't exist. Microbiology ? Just look at the bacterial flagellum. Designed to perfection, anyone who thinks this can form by the chance of random proteins must be seriously deluded, or bare faced liars. Unless of course they are the genius that can come up with a plausible explanation. Please don't cite Ken Miller or the Dover trial, it just doesn't wash. Homologous? Wouldn't a designer use similar structures for different forms ? Sorry but the evidence here just doesn't cut it. You don't have to believe in a designer or God, but don't pretend that one form or species changes to another without something like solid evidence.
Did I watch the whole video, you mean ALL his "evidence" in 13 minutes ? Well yes of course, hence my comment. Do people still believe in God ? I suppose so, as well as intelligent design, but most of all, anyone who can think for himself can see that Darwins theory is a crock, therefore there must be another way. For life to have come about by itself, as Darwin postulated, the chances are so close to zero it doesn't bear thinking about, so yes, creation is much more likely.
I believe in the Bible literally, and I will give you just a few, scientific, reasons why. The evidences for the Bible are too numerous to mention and include areas such as archaeology, history, fulfilled prophecies and, yes, science. Let's start with DNA. All DNA is always just a copy of a copy of a copy and so on. Yes, it can be altered to some extent, but no new strands of DNA are ever created and, further, no one has any data to show how any DNA got here. This matches the Bible which says creation has halted. And btw, fish don't have DNA instructions for legs, and lizards don't have DNA instructions for feathers, wings etc. Since no new DNA is ever created, where would they get it from? Cite your data, if any. Another example of how creation has been halted is seen when you look at the taxonomic groupings of animals and plants, ascending from species to class, to order, to phylum, to kingdom. No plants or animals ever go higher than the creation of a new species, no matter what Darwin, or evolutionary peer reviews, claim happened in the invisible and unverifiable past. That stasis matches what the Bible says, also, about creation having been halted. Plants and animals stay in their "kinds" i.e. families. But if you can give an example to the contrary, by all means do so. The Bible talks about a Great Flood. There are countless billions of fossils all over the planet. Now, fossils are created when life forms are suddenly buried with water, then rapidly covered with sediment. To give you an idea of their vast numbers, consider that there are billions of fossils of just one kind of ocean dwelling nautiloid, alone, in the Grand Canyon alone. And, speaking of ocean dwelling creatures, 95% of all fossils on land are marine. Now how did all that ocean water get everywhere? Hmmmm.... There never was any Geologic Column, or any Cambrian, Jurassic, Triassic etc. periods. Those are all fictional. Real science uses real data. The real data shows the fossils are jumbled or, you could say, awash. For just one of countless examples, you can find giant sharks next to dino bones in America. So called lowest level Cambrian, deep sea, fossils are found at every level on the planet from Canada to New Zealand. When I say every level, that includes the hills of mid America, for instance, and most mountain tops in the world. . If you think there was a Geologic Column, link close up photos of one showing the lowest level Cambrian fossils at the bottom, and asecending layers of fossils matching the GC charts. Close ups now, not some distant photos of mountains ranges or rock piles they CLAIM have GCs in them. . If we demonstrate there is no GC, we are then are told "plate tectonics" moved the fossils around. Plate tectonics are just theories piled on hypotheses that are heaped on speculation to fit the evolutionary narrative. But we have some real data! Common sense and universal experience, and scientific research, let us know what erosion does. Now some of those deep sea life creatures' fossils, like trilobites, are supposed to have gone extinct two hundred MILLION years ago. Yet, around the planet, we see that their fossils are not uncommonly found in mint condition. Google "Trilobites on mountains." . And we're also supposed to buy it that dino bones lasted 75 million or so years? That narrative is still promoted even though they keep finding more and more soft tissues in dinosaur bones all the time, along with things like blood cells. There always is some unverifiable "reason" given for why such things lasted, of course. Forensic science - which makes it clear those materials could not survive more than a few thousand years - and common sense are ignored. . Art works, and historical accounts, around the world, which show dinos, sometimes with people, are also ignored or else the false claim is made, with no justification at all, that they must be fake. Yes, Noah would have taken dinos on the Ark. Juveniles, no doubt. They all started out in eggs about the size of a football. . The Bible says people lived for hundreds of years in Old Testament times. We cannot prove that. But we can prove that in the ancient past dinos did! Again, they started out small, but got to be gigantic. Now lizards keep growing as long as they live. Obviously there was a different eco system back then that allowed the dinos, unlike modern day lizards, to keep on growing for hundreds of years. (And giant-ism, btw, was no way confined to just dinos. There used to be rhinos as big as houses, for example.) Would not that more favorable, pre Flood, eco system have allowed for longer lives in humans, too? . Irreducible complexity is also evidence of the truth of the Bible which claims instant creation of all life forms. I will give you my favorite example, though all life is irreducibly complex. . Google a picture of the bacterial flagellum and its motor and whip. Now if the b.f doesn't move, it doesn't do its job and is useless. It isn't going to move anywhere until both the motor, and whip on the motor, are completely formed and attached together. So, while those 2 parts are just "evolving" nubs and stubs, what good are they? What "co option" purposes could they serve? If you can't even imagine the answers, how is mindless "evolution" going to make it happen? . Why and how would evolution keep those two, partial and incomplete, parts in limbo for eons until they are complete and connected and ready to work together? Well, it's not going to happen. There is zero evidence it ever happened, too, of course. In fact, there is zero evidence the b.f. has ever been anything but exactly what it is right now. Some claim a simpler life form evolved into the b.f., but once again there is zero data to support any such claim. . Again, irreducible complexity, which indicates incredible intelligence, not to mention unimaginable power, is seen at every level in life forms. The Bible presents a picture of life forms created instantly, fully complete and fully functional. That's what irreducible complexity in living examples, and the fossil record, reveal.
In one common mode of speciation ("allopatric" speciation), two populations of the same species are split apart geographically. Small changes accumulate in both populations, causing them to be more and more different from each other. Eventually, the differences are great enough that the two populations cannot interbreed when they do get together
Great evidence for microevolution but just because different animals share bone structures with humans doesn't prove a common ancestor but rather a the same creator using the same design throughout the creation process
And just because you share similar traits with your parents, doesn't mean you came from them. It just means the pixies who popped you into existence wanted you to be similar to the people who they chose to raise you.
"that is a very stupid comparison, unless if you can bring a dog who can produce humans babies, or a whale who can produce puppies." If I could produce such a thing, that would be evidence AGAINST evolution.
there is no such thing as micro and macro evolution ...... because its small changes over time , its the number of changes that matter not how big they are
I'm always believed in evolution, but I'm trying to accurately assess the evidence. Quite honestly I didn't find much evidence for macro evolution. The only good evidence for that was the embryology with the gills. Almost all the evidence could be given to prove a common creator and micro evolution.
We can't know for sure, but of all the creatures we have found, both in the fossil record and living today, less than 99.9% of all organisms have survived to this day. The overwhelmingly vast majority of all species that ever lived have died in the past.
Tue jtn an overwhelming percentage of life was ocean based. What killed them were super volcanoes that dumped too much carbon dioxide and other gases into the water, making life less capable of surviving.
Just like we have different type of birds frogs ect..There were different types of humans in the past also...Human beings today are more concerned with preserving endangered animal species than preserving endangered human species
@ Sexual Tyrannosaurs Can you clarify? Do you mean other humanoids that are alive today? Because there are none. Do you mean learning the history of prehistoric humanoids?
I concur. There were numerous amounts of College professors that looked down on me for my Kahn Academy videos. I think learning is a continuous journey though.
Your argument its because it's a theory that so much has been stacked on, we have gone too far to consider it as an incorrect over esteemed theory, this is a cognitive bias, irrationality and neglect of the scientific method. A theory cannot be the foundation for all work. Especially if the following results coming from it are declared absolute conclusions.
I want to see an actual process of this happening, one organism mutating to something else. (For example, ape to human). Give me one observable evidence of Darwin’s evolution, not adaptation and speciation.
Have you ever looked at evidence for creation? Both have arguments and “evidence”. Just looking at one sides evidence doesn’t give you much to go off of. If you look at a Christian world view, the reason for why we all have similar bone structures is because we have a reliable structure, one that works perfectly for our purpose. The fossil record is there from Noah’s flood. There’s a lot more to look at for their evidence, I just can’t remember the other half of it right now. Both sides of the argument have biologist and people who can give reasons for their argument.
@@pavaomarusic6051 just because your a scientist doesn’t mean you know everything there is to know about everything. Even a genius can be wrong. We’re human and we have our flaws. Him being a scientist proves nothing, it would be a faulty appeal to authority fallacy to say such a thing. Knowing both sides of the argument is the only way to truly know what’s right. You can’t just look at one side and say the other makes no sense without knowing where they come from. Christians have evidence to prove their claims just as much as evolutionist do. There is evidence in science for both claims. The only thing I’m saying is you should know your opponent before believing you’ve won the argument.
@@gryffin8063 I agree. The point I was making is that Jeff thinks science dosen't allow for discussion. I also find mocking people to be more motivating instead of rational calm talk.
Appreciated the evolution of horselike animals through the fossil record. Was just wondering if there are any other step by step pathways in the fossil records which are between very different species/organisms? eg- reptile and bird, etc. For example the bone structures between human, dog, bird and whale are definetely quite interesting. But what would ground this idea alot more for me would be a fossil record connecting this to a common point, or a DNA comparison between them showed to be statistically significant compared to DNA comparisons to a general population, etc. I don't know too much on this topic which is why I'm asking. But from a naive background, with so many different species wouldn't you to expect at least out of chance some to appear quite similar? I'd also think that there are some fundamental structures common to most organisms out of natural selection (or other means) such as arms, legs or much more specialised: heart, digestive system, etc. And that these are so fundamental that similarities can occur between organisms far apart from another in ancestry (Type I Error?). If I had more resources/knowledge perhaps one way to test this idea could be if no statistical difference was shown in DNA comparison between human, dog, bird and whale, indicating similarities in the fossil record can occur for organisms with different ancestry. Please feel free to critique these questions and point me towards resources that could help :)
yeah that is not a great example by itself. And bone structures do not need to point to a creator. If we look in more closely at related animals our bones are the same they're just shaped slightly different. But Our bones change too otherwise there would be few facial differences. And it would take time.. but I'm sure we can grow more bones, look at deer. A few species will keep their antlers year-round but others grow a set every year simply to butt heads for a month. Same with goats, beetles, sheep, seals, giraffe, cattle, chameleons etc. Crocodiles & alligators species can also be characterized by the varying number of scutes & the various shapes of the scutes. Also some pigs have no tusks while others have tusks/teeth even turning to face upward . In babirusa pigs the tusks don't even come out of their mouth anymore they pop out on the snout
@@soulheal539 You give it another listen lol he was simply trying to break it down in an elementary sense for a wider ranged audience to comprehend what is being proposed.
@@soulheal539 You should read more, if you think the undeniable evidence for Evolution lies ONLY in fossils... Genetics has removed any question today. Only the details are being hashed out now.
@@soulheal539 Yeah, good luck with that. Try SPEAKING to some ACTUAL GENETICISTS. LOL, IDIOTS. FUN FACT: there are more scientists named simply "STEVE" that accept evolutionary theory, than ALL THE DENIERS PUT TOGETHER. LOL, IDIOTS.
homologous structures could also be explained by a higher creator "reusing" a common bone combo for all his creations. just btw... same at 8:23 and 9:33
@@tezuttley It is not just the similarity in DNA but it is the DIFFERENCES that are the real overwhelming proof of common ancestry. Of course, it appears that you have no idea what I am talking about.
Can someone please explain this to me: homologous features are evidence of common ancestry - but in order to know if features are homologous or not, we must first know if they came from a common ancestor. Am I missing something here or is this almost circular logic?
When determining if something is an ancestor there is an entire list scientists must go through full of predicts that must be true. You are simplifying this way too much.
Dna dictates your ancestry and you can never grow out of it. China took 250000 dna samples from people all over China to prove there was a Chinese sample that Chinese did not have African dna markers. And they failed in this attempt. everyone has African DNA markers.
@@MrCountrycuz this point if your doesn't prove anything as it shows growth of man from a single person . Why you just negate the other option. Thinking that what you assume is the only option
Yes that is a form of natural selection however it is not sufficient in proving the total evolution of a kind or species these lizards your describing did not evolve into a bird or a cat, as evolutionists dictate, your response will likely be "well because it takes millions of years" if that is the case then it is not observable, rather it is faith. And no theory should be made a premise or foundation for other claims as if the foundation is not steady nothing above is.
Sorry you have no right to talk if you want to spread false facts. Most of our assumptions are based on traits of an animal, its specialised diet and its DNA content.
4 ปีที่แล้ว
@@kayp329 key word: EvIdEnCe
4 ปีที่แล้ว
Kay those assumptions lead to facts. Evolution is a known scientific fact. Deal with it.
in the direct evidence section macro evolution was only applied to single celled organisms, it faile to prove it happens to multi cells or that one animal turns to another as the rest was just assumptions. i appreciate his honesty though.
false sets etc. Ah, it seems you are an anti Semite. Well, the Carpenter from Nazareth is called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah in the Bible. Let's see Whom you are coming up against, below. But first.... Let's see how pseudo science is being used to convince you that you are nothing but a fish update who sprang from some antiscientific primal pond type scenario, and who certainly doesn't have a Heavenly Father Who...loves...you. Then let's look at some real science, a bit outside the box. . We have been told that life came from inorganic matter. Now, science must have observable data to be valid and must not ignore the actual data. The actual data, per the LAW of Biogenesis? Life always comes only from life and life of the same kind. Theories are fine if they don't defy the actual evidence. Even in labs, with intelligent design and high tech equipment, life has never been created. The best they can do is take a living cell and alter it with genetic engineering, or get some of the components of the cell, not all of them at all. . The needed proteins and other components of a cell are not only not all there, they are not arranged as they need to be arranged - in statistically impossible ways if random chance had put them together. No one has even gotten close to creating life. It should be easy. Just take a simple cell or any life form that has died. There you have all the components of life. So why can't anyone do a Dr. Frankenstein on any of them? (And kindly don't say that evolution doesn't "do" abiogenesis. Look. It's in evolution writings and documentaries, and all over the net and YT.) . We have also been told as gawd's truth scientific fact that a 3 foot high ape type creature, an Australopithecus, Lucy, was your great, great etc. granny. Based on? Some minor similarities, namely "similar homology" namely the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. The fact that she was pretty much like any other ol' Australopithecus was irrelevant to them. Incomplete Comparison logical fallacy. . Since evolutionists are always disagreeing with one another on everything, now some of them say, No, it wasn't Lucy but some other such creature. Some creature with no evidence it existed. Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. . Now how do they know Lucy et al even had a single descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less one that could cross the impossible genus barrier and turn into you? Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. . Guess for how long any "transitions" are missing between you and Lucy or some other transition du jour? Oh, for just 2 to 5 million Darwin years! The rocks say no transitions exist. The evo spin, their Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy, tells you, again as gawd's truth scientific fact, that they are just "missing." . We've also been told that we came via a fish, Tiktaalik. The story goes that this...fish...was found in just the right place for a "transition". Problem is, it's 100% nothing but a...fish. See Wiki describing it as "an extinct species of lobe finned fish." Google the fossil of Tiktaalik, which is mostly missing. Do those tiny fin fragments look like they could be said to be turning into legs - without the presuming omniscience logical fallacy? Yet we see all sorts of fanciful art work of Tik with long, muscular "evolving" legs, bending as the fish transits, supposedly, to land. The real evidence? . In countless billions of fossils and in living examples, all we ever see are 100% fish and 100% tetrapods/four legged animals. (No, mud skippers and "walking" catfish are not transitions. They are using their 100% fins in an unusual way, similar to a flying fish which is no way turning into a bird.) . Evolutionists are constantly picking up fossils like Tiktaalik from the ground and telling you, for up to over a 100 million Darwin years, what happened to their invisible and evidenceless countless billions of "descendants." Never ask them how to tell a missing link from a non existent link. And then they accuse Christians of being into "magical thinking." . You are not a fish update. You are infinitely more than that. Here is some actual, observable and documented evidence, to help you see that: Now in the Bible we are told of a Man Who believed in Adam and Eve and Noah as being actual, historical figures. The Bible says He did miracles and told others to do things like raise the dead and heal the sick. It also describes His death and burial. Is there any actual scientific data to support those stories? . See secular news reports about Val Thomas, dead for 17 hours but now alive and normal after prayers from her family and her Church. th-cam.com/video/sPHycsIdB1Y/w-d-xo.html . . See Medical Marvel Beyond Chance, from a secular source, with a pediatrician giving his report. this one attesting to a dying child's healing which cannot be explained by modern medicine, and came after a relative laid hands on her and prayed for her. th-cam.com/video/Xyko-56NCSw/w-d-xo.html The DNA in every cell in her body was changed. . See CBN's short vid with Dean Braxton. You'll hear his critical care doctor, rated the best patient care doctor in Washington state, saying "It is a miracle...a miracle..." that Braxton is alive, has no brain damage and is normal in every way. Why? He had no heart beat and no respiration for 1 3/4 hours! His family believed in divine healing and they and others were praying for him. th-cam.com/video/c3Zjt8r-hNA/w-d-xo.html . Also see CBN Dr. Chauncey Crandall Raises A Man From The Dead. th-cam.com/video/s-7ZkleLu1w/w-d-xo.html Part 1. This video is a bit faded but has the most complete information on this story. . Get Dr. Richard Casdorph's book The Miracles. There he gives medical documentation for miracles, mostly, but not all, from Kathryn Kuhlman's healing services. Casdorph came to Kuhlman's meetings to debunk her but turned into a supporter, as did other doctors. You can see him and other doctors in some of her healing services on YT. (She is now deceased.) Delores Winder is one of the cases documented in his book. You can watch her amazing story on YT with Sid Roth. th-cam.com/video/CfdG5czaUX0/w-d-xo.html. . The book The Audacity of Prayer by Don Nordin lists medically documented miracles. . On Andrew Wommack's vids you can see doctors talking about "miracles" too. Check out the YT vid with the ophthalmologist who says Yes, Ronald Coyne could see out of an empty eye socket after a faith healer prayed for him. You can see him doing demos. At the end of the book Don't Limit God you see a medical statement by a doctor saying that his patient used to have M.S. and diabetes but is now cured. . Bruce Van Natta was in a horrific accident where he lost about 80% of his small intestine. Someone he didn't even know was told to get on a plane and lay hands on him and pray for him. His small intestines grew back competely and you can see his doctors testifying to that. th-cam.com/video/fYwFqeHBA28/w-d-xo.html . Here we see many witnesses reporting donated food being miraculously multiplied for people who lived in a dump in Juarez. th-cam.com/video/gwsuYYIJ3Rg/w-d-xo.html . Do you think that Someone Who can raise the dead and heal people of deadly "incurable" diseases, Someone Who can create body parts and food out of nothing, needed "evolution" to make life forms? No, He created them fully formed and fully functional in 6 days just as Genesis, a Book He always supported, tells you. Then there is the Shroud of Turin. If you don't know, the Shroud is a linen burial shroud with the faint image of a crucified man on it. If you have heard that the Shroud was proven to be a Medieval fake based on carbon 14 testing, in the documentary Jesus And The Shroud of Turin you can see the very inventor of carbon 14 testing saying that the sample was invalid due to contamination. . th-cam.com/video/XTtDhvk_aw4/w-d-xo.html . The vid demonstrates many miraculous features such as pollen from Jerusalem and faint images of flowers that are found only in the Jerusalem area during the spring, as at Passover when Messiah was crucified. With modern technology we also see that the Shroud has an x ray quality which even reveals the bones and dentition of the Man on the Shroud. . In the 70s a NASA scientist noticed the Shroud's photographs had inexplicable, unique in the world, qualities. He got up a team of scientists, called STURP, to examine it in person in Italy. (No, the Shroud is not "just a Catholic thing" as the Vatican only came into possession of it fairly recently in history.) They used NASA, and other, high tech equipment with 100s of thousands of hours of research. Their findings are seen all over the net and were published in respected science journals. . The team was composed of 3 Jews, at least one agnostic and one atheist, and people of various faiths. They all agreed on these things: The Shroud image was not painted on, and they have no clue how it got there. It exactly matches, down to blood stains where a crown of thorns would be, the description of Messiah's death and burial as given in the Bible. The image could not be duplicated with modern technology. . About the Shroud I say "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, maybe it's a duck." . Maybe that Man on the Shroud is your very Best Friend and Savior. I pray you will find that out. You're going to need a miracle some day friend. They are out there in abundance for those who humbly seek them from their Creator, the One Who made all that DNA out there, and Who said, "Whoever comes to Me I will no way cast out."
Ah.. I see. I'm from Canada.. lol! It's a fake London here. Though, it was modelled after the real London, even with street names and the 'Thames rive..' lol
Hm Grraarrpffrzz Common structure suggests a common creator. I would imagine quite a few parts fit a Honda Civic and a Honda Accord. Why? Same Maker. Microbiology? The same creator used the same stuff.
_"Common structure suggests a common creator"_ So according to your logic, if I find two trees that look roughly similar, that proves that magic and miracles and deities exist?
Well, you said something entirely different. First you said that common structures support the supposed existence of a deity. Then you say that common structures do not support the theory of evolution. Those are entirely different arguments. As an analogy: _"That it's cold proves that you are at the South Pole."_ _"That it's cold does not prove that you are at the North Pole."_ See? Those are entirely different claims. So: you do not believe that common structures support the supposed existence of a deity. You do believe that common structures do not support the theory of evolution. Is that correct?
Our common ancestors are referred to by geneticists as Y-chromosome Adam, and Mitochondrial Eve. Using the pedigree method, geneticists have determined that both lived around the same time, around 6000 years ago.
@ I cited a genetic study done, which has estimated that our descent from our first ancestors started only 6000 years ago. The way they calculate the evolution timeline is based on the presupposition that it’s true (it’s like me proving the bible, by using the bible)
4 ปีที่แล้ว
Trey Devercelly what genetic study says that? Link it please. 6000 years is very recent. The Mesopotamian civilization is 10,000 years old. There are caveman huts that are tens of thousands of years old.
Well between the Transitional Form 1 and the Transitional Form 2 there should be multiple forms between the transitional form one and two, that changes gradually and slowly over time. It's just a interpretations to assume that all those are transitional forms. It's just a speculation. Seems like just variations of the same species to me.
Even if those forms existed, you because you are so stuborn would be like "okay, their has to be forms between form 1.5 and 2, and 1 and 1.5." I could debunk you but it would be exhausting.
@@gavin_hill Why is it unreasonable to assume that they reproduced? You don't need to have actual proof that prehistoric animals reproduced. It's a reasonable conclusion based on evidence provided, such as the closest living things to said prehistoric organisms also reproducing. Secondly, we know animals such as the Great White Shark reproduce, but do fossil specimens of that species also have reproduced? According to you, that's unreasonable. Thirdly, we actually have found irrefutable evidence of some species reproducing. There is a specimen of a species of Ichthyosaur that actually died while giving birth. Yeah. Now, that's direct evidence that particular (at the very least) individual reproduced, but as I stated before, we have indirect evidence that animals reproduced. Oh, also, there is evidence to suggest to suggest that offspring survived into adulthood. Juvenile organisms are usually smaller in relation, so if we find a much bigger individual, it's reasonable to assume that individual survived into adulthood. Also, there is a particular set of bones that fuse when an animal is in adulthood, suggesting that animal also survived into adulthood. You don't need direct evidence for everything, indirect evidence is just as valid as direct evidence if the conclusion is reasonable. There actually is evidence for evolution based on fossils. Have you heard of transitional forms? If you don't believe in them, disprove every single one of them. Naww, man. You don't have any evidence that "God" existed either. Yes, emotional appeals will definitely make me believe in God more...not.
@@gavin_hill When people talk about "God's grace" to convince them into their religion, it's an emotional appeal. It tugs at your emotions. I am most effectively tugged by logical appeals. Yes, you are right, there is no direct evidence that most individuals that fossilize (most, not all) did not reproduce, but why is it unreasonable to conclude that they didn't. You're basing your claims off of the fact that indirect evidence doesn't exist. Due to this, concluding that that individual reproduced is more reasonable than concluding that they didn't. Speculative evidence and indirect evidence are not the same thing. Indirect evidence makes a conclusion just as valid as direct evidence as long as the logic and reasoning behind the conclusion is valid itself. Speculation is based upon ideas, but aren't fully accepted, but could be a possibility. Most (disregarding ones we do have direct evidence of reproduction) species reproducing is based upon indirect evidence. All organisms reproduce today, whether it be sexually or asexually, so why is it unreasonable to assume extinct species reproduced. Heck, even recently extinct species, like the dodo and the tasmanian tiger, have evidence, even empirical evidence that they reproduced. Now, why is it unreasonable to conclude the species of a fossilized individual reproduced. Again, you don't need direct evidence to prove everything. I know this is a bit off topic, but fossils prove more than just the fact that an animal lived and died. We can tell the lifestyle and appearance of an animal based on fossils, if the remains uncovered are complete enough to do so and/or there are more complete specimens of relatives of that individual's species to compare it to. For example, we were able to conclude a reasonable hunting style for Allosaurus, a genera of theropod dinosaur. The animal's jaw muscles were weak, weaker than a lion (that's saying something as Allosaurus was 7 times more massive than a lion). But, the skull itself could withstand a force 15x as great as its bite. This suggests that Allosaurus used its head like an axe. Driving the top jaw into its prey. Or Carcharodontosaurus, another theropod dinosaur, we were able to tell its hunting style too. The skull of Carcharodontosaurus was weak, unable to hold onto struggling prey and its teeth was thin, to weak to bite easily through bone. But its teeth were sharp with deadly serrations. Leading scientists to conclude that the animal probably used its skull and teeth to slash deep into the prey, and let it die of blood loss. There is actually a lot more things I could mention, but that would be too much. Extinction of an animal is not linked to lack of reproduction. Extinction is more likely due to environmental, or outside, causes. Again, it is not unreasonable to assume that a species of extinct animal reproduced. I'm giving you evidence to support my claim but you keep ignoring them just to fulfill your agenda. If an animal was dead, it must have been alive to begin with, which means another individual, or pair of individuals, gave birth to that individual. Fossilization is a rare process, and finding just a single individual's fossilized remains is already enough to conclude that species survived, reproduced, and thrived. Okay, look, let's take the animal Archaeopteryx. It has features of both dinosaurs and birds. Why is it unreasonable to assume that it is a transitional form? Its not speculation and blind faith, its conclusions based on evidence given. You know what is blind faith though? Believing in God. Prove God exists. Actually prove he exists. Not any of that "design points to a designer" crap. God isn't real. He never created anything. Oh, and to answer the question. Why do I need to depend on someone to give me answers when I can conclude a statement based on evidence given?
@@gavin_hill I determine what is true by what is proven true. I don't need some supernatural being that nobody can prove to tell me what is true or not. We aren't really agreeing on the fossil idea, are we? Your main point was that we cannot tell anything more about an animal's fossilized remains than that it lived and died. Which is not true at all. You don't do the same rigorous testing that scientists do when examining a specimen. The only way for your stance to be valid is if you actually examined the specimen yourself and actually coming up with a valid conclusion that conforms with the scientific method. There are no beliefs when examining a fossilized specimen. Oh, it has sharp teeth better suited for cutting flesh, that must be a carnivore. Is that a belief? Is believing a certain species a carnivore a belief, even though we find BITE MARKS on the prey item made by the predator? Or is it all about cherry picking information that doesn't fit with your agenda. Which is the real blind faith here? I use the phrase "God's grace" as a general term used to describe something "great" God does that pulls on your emotions. Like how you say "God gave us the breath of life." That conforms with the term. You are using emotions instead of reason to tug me into your religion. I don't fall for that. I don't think you know how this works. It isn't true until disproven, it is false until proven. If the former was a major part in human reasoning, there would be a major problem with our thinking. Imagine if I stated that mermaids exist. And you had a job of disproving it. According to your logic, saying prove it isn't valid. You would have to find something that proves that mermaids don't exist. Which is virtually impossible. According to your logic once again, mermaids are real, because you failed to disprove their existence. Now do you see how flawed your logic is? The same logic that dictates that unicorns, mermaids, etc. are not real is just as valid when you apply that logic to God. It is false until proven, with absolute certainly, which has never happened on the topic of the existence of God.
8:34 Genomic similarities between humans can be used to indicate relatedness between people because of the fact that genetic information is passed down from parents to offspring. However, genetic information is not being passed between species. Therefore genomic similarities between species doesn't indicate relatedness and DNA can't be used to determine that species are related to each other. Claiming that DNA indicates relatedness between species is like claiming that the dust under my bed indicates relatedness between species.
Dude you got issues if you believe you are related to yeast and flies. But it's more logical that the only connections is 1. Formed out of the earth 2. By a common designer This would predict that the elements within all life would be similar to elements found in the earth. This is true.... It would also predict that similarities in structure for similar functions
i appreciate his honesty the direct evidence of macro evolution is only on single celled organisms, the rest is speculation just like to suspect speciation (in the multicell)
"eerily similar" you know when an artist paints a picture or creates a piece of music, they are going to be similar bc they are done by the same person. Well maybe you should think about how they are similar bc they were created by the same person
@@franzliszt8957 And means nothing when that same book says that bats are birds,, whales are fish,, and donkeys can talk. And its ok to own other human beings. You need to make a choice on whether you choose reason or superstition.
You took evolution way out of context. Evolution isn't a straight line, it has many branches. Yes, you can use this to demonstrate evolution. If you take the clay (common ancestor), change them (adaptations), and make them a totally new clay figure (speciation), that's evolution.
I think you started by saying evolution explains how it started, but it really explains how biology works. I'm pretty sure to know how it starts you would either need a time machine or true enlightenment in the nature of reverse genetic engineering.
People tend to miss the evidence for evolution, when they're looking for evidence of an evolutionary process that doesn't exist. Example: evolution doesn't say a cat should give birth to a dog, or a monkey to a man, so you won't find evidence for it.
@@netelsg i believe they had the same dna and due to micro-evolution the dna sequences changed and hence we have variations in humans as for animals they were created differently
Guys don't worry i'm not stupid. I believe in evolution and all, but i'm wondering if its true that homologous structures are not from homologous genes.
Still using Haeckel? Even after admitting it is fraudulent..why? Study Nick Hopwood's analysis of these drawings; tears them down(and theory behind it).
He didn't admit is was fraudulent and nobody ever proved such. They were drawn before we had ultrasound, so obviously they weren't as accurate as today.
There are cars with more and cars with fewer wheels. Just saying. And what does that have to do with evolution? Do you believe that cares are alive? Do they procreate and have offspring with small changes?
David : If Eve was created from Adam's rib which contained y chromosome, then Eve must have y chromosome too. Whether Eve was a female or not, this Genesis 2 account is false and fake.
Why should I, if he can be proven wrong with future knowledge or technology? Funny how you so easily dismiss facts you don't like, yet say the ones you do like can stay. Just because.
This man is a superhuman. He can write a straight line with a mouse. Oh, he can also teach evolution.. But that isn't what he is a superhuman because of.
What I don’t understand is how you can use the horses as evidence for evolution. They all look exactly the same, there’s no changes other then the older they get the more decayed they are.
@@Jalip07 all the horses. They literally all look very similar, on top of that there’s different breeds of horses should would cause the structures of the horses to be slightly different.
@@gryffin8063 Different breeds is also a tiny form of Evolution. If you are wondering about Horses thousands of years old, then looking at the superficial is not enough (and for knowledgeable people, they can actually very different. A Leopard and a Jaguar looks identical to most people but not always to someone who studies the field).
@@Jalip07 They’re the same animal. Looking at the skeletons you can see that they’re the same. The differences is the decay over the course of a few thousand years.
@@gryffin8063 Alright, and what exactly makes you say they are the same animal? Tons of people would be unable to tell a Donkey, Zebra and Horse skeleton apart, and Horses and Donkeys are so genetically far apart that their offspring are sterile. What field do you work actively within where you can see that there is no difference or change between these animals? Remember, respect what one doesn't know, and never ever make absolute claims that are outside ones field of knowledge. If the objective is to seek truth, then that would not be it.
@@masterjoseph4681 if you watch the whole video there is clear evidence of macro evolution in the shared traits in structures between vastly different species
@@masterjoseph4681 merrychippus literally had paws which evolved into hooves and their genome would not be compatible. that's is the definition of speciation!
Duke - SWT Mate You look like your parents because you're related to your parents. Animals share skeletal arrangements because they are related to one another.
Duke - SWT Mate you could argue all you want, but is there any evidence supporting we descended from robots? Theres some pretty good dna evidence that is only explained by common ancestry such as Endogenous retroviruses and human chromosome 2. Humans have 46 chromosomes, whereas chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan have 48. This major karyotypic difference was caused by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes to form human chromosome 2 and subsequent inactivation of one of the two original centromeres (Yunis and Prakash 1982). www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC187548/
We look to natural explanations, not voodoo god magic, so this proves common ancestory. Also, embryology implies common descent based on the fact that we have structures as embryos that we don't have when born that other creatures did have. This video doesn't go in depth into homology
There are? They are called vestigial structures or homologous structures, and transition between species skeletons are one of their evolutionary evidences
@@innerdescent8210 exactly and plus too if he wanted to or if anyone else wanted to look these things up they should watch or read about blue whales, they have some of the most damning evidence and plenty of transitional skeletons/species such as basilosours
yeah all the similarities matching up and supposing the same thing doesn't exactly prove we're all related by itself. But if we include more information such as the fossil record, overwritten genes, vestigial organs, or even biogeography then we're not relying on just similarities.
@@slingslang2934 fossil records have gaps. Some species interpreted by fossils never even existed. Stasis is a huge issue for the phd biologist, vestigial organs were debunked, retroviruses debunked, junk dna, debunked, etc. garbage.
@@motorheadbanger90 it’s simple. Evolutionist look at similarities between species and conclude we are related. You are similar to fish, so they conclude you are a fish. I’m suggesting just because you are similar to fish does not indicate you are related. Life is simply modular by design - similar to software. Similar but not related.
@@Programm4r The fossil record has very small gaps. You don't just see things like dinosaurs, trees or tetrapods appearing out of nowhere. And there's about a dozen vestigial organs I myself am aware of how about try looking some up.
8:35 The person giving the lecture doesn't seem to know what microbiology is. Microbiology is not the study of the micro-scale components of life, but of microscopic ORGANISMS, such as bacteria. Studying human DNA is not microbiology, and neither is comparisons of the human genome with that of chimps or mice.. The only microbiology dealing with human bodies is the study of bacteria and other microorganisms in our gut, on our skin, etc.
Serious guys none of that proves anything accept all the species seem similar in way we would expect if we were created. The dog one was convincing though that animals can change for sure
1) It explains the diversity of species accurately. 2) Everything we can measure or perceive or verify in experiments verifies the theory of evolution. 3) There is no other even remotely rational alternative known.
fossils prove that things changes over time , that is already enough . because if you dont accept that you must accept multiple creations from god just randomly appearing over time . also tell me why whale need fingers in her fins ?
4 ปีที่แล้ว
The dog one is convincing because evolution is real. It’s an undeniable fact. Humans are animals too. We have just evolved for a smarter brain because it was needed to survive in this world. The smartest people in the population survived and were able to pass on their genes. Over time people became smart. It’s not hard to understand.
Perish Microevolution and Microevolution are one in the same for the same reason inches and feet are. They measure differently but measure the same type of things.
the beginning of the video is macrobiology and the end is microbiology. did u even watch the video? macrobiology is the phenotype or how genes are expressed physically with the human eye like skull structure changing, microbiology is the study of how and why skull shapes changed and how they better fit their environment
Theory can be wrong but it can be a fact it depends on the evidence for it or if there a possibility for another explanation. Even we can see evolution in bacteria. Byit8ayar sene le mesh b millions of years. Humans still evolving now 10 000 years ago ma Ken fi blue eyes
Cool story Bro, but we can't even prove that Protein can be observed changed by a mutation scientifically which is the base to start life or evolution, so the basis is kind of hypotheses
I'm not seeing anything here significant enough to change my mind. Why is this explanation any better than another? I get that it's sound enough for a base explanation, but not compelling enough to change.
@@Zanta100 hey I just released a theory called "the one" based on observations launched through my eyes upon hitting the specimen the conclusion came that it is proved based on the one theory that the specimens are all from the one and only God.
I'm wondering: (1) homologous structures could also point to a common designer. In the same way we might engineer bridges or buildings that _look_ similar but have different purposes. They are all built using the same principles, structural features, and science, etc. It's a question of presupposition and interpretation. (2) Likewise, similar DNA could also point to a common designer - using the same processes, patterns and methods. The examples of the percentage gaps cited in the video are misleading in that sense. 92% similarity between humans and mice seems close biologically but, in real terms, is VASTLY different. Mice are nothing like humans in real terms (unless your called Pinky(and the Brain)). Even a 2 percent difference between apes and humans, in real terms, leads to a vastly different animal. So, similar biological processes and patterns don't necessarily point to evolution. (3) The direct evidence example is the possibly the weakest to me as it doesn't actually show evolution, only a form of natural selection which is not the same thing. This simply shows a process of loss rather than gain.
1 sure they could but if they show a clear line then thats pretty unreasonable to assume or if the same objective is fullfilled by multible different means as we see it with wings a designer wouldnt need 3 different versions of the same thing... "only a form of natural selection which is not the same thing." you dont seem to understand what evolution is....
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your reply. What do you mean by "clear line" and what's "unreasonable to assume"? I'm also not clear what you mean by different meabs and versions. Sorry, just asking for clarity so that I dont misunderstand. Would you also be kind enough to explain why i dont understand evolution. My understanding is that NS is the means or "mechanism" for evolution but a means is not the end.
Oh, that's an interesting one. I'll have to look into that. Thanks for pointing it out (despite the condescending tone). However, why do you think he didnt point that out as an example in the video though? And, what about the vastly different real term differences between, say, mice and humans within a mere 8% difference?
1. Yes, they could. but A) you have to prove that this designer can exist and how he or she or it designs life. and B) having perfct lines of homologous structures as they develop over time is not very consistent with a designer. And what about building mistakes? All great apes including us have a mutated gen that prevent us from synthesising vitamin C. How can that be explaned by a designer? 2. Again: You have to prove that something like a desiger can in fact exist. 3. Can you please give me your definition of evolution?
@@olegunnar1559 Is that because there isn't any empirically verifiable evidence for evolution? .. I've always assumed it's a pretty sound scientific theory.
@@bonnie43uk It is. Atavisms, endogene retro viruses, analogy and homology, "bad design", ringspecies fossils, phylogenetic findings, atrificial breading, and so on and so on... You wil find papers on all of these topics on websites like talkorigin. org or anywhere else in the internet.
Common ancestry argument is no different than common design plan. Change the plan, change the biology. One says it is completely random, other says it follows a laid out plan.
One has evidence, the other has nothing. We've never seen a god create something, but we've observed evolution in action. The more rational thing to accept as the explanation is evolution. It's fine to believe a god invented it and used it, though! :)
@@jordie00bogart weve never seen evolution in action and never did also viruses are always the same so if a single strand of rna doesnt mutate in a new species over time let alone all the creatures of the earth
Homologous structures indicate relationship. To determine this relationship, you need more evidence. Luckily, we have a fossil record, genome mapping, and embryonic evidence to name a few that points us in a direction that completely contradicts a young-earth model of religion.
you don't have to beleive in young earth to reject evolution, the ambiguous deception. in this video int he direct evidence section, macro evolution was shown in single celled viruses, to now apply that to multi cell organisms is a deception
@@michaelreichwein3970 _"For I have yet to see any evidence that supports evolution!"_ And you can take some people out on a summer day and they will still keep their eyes closed and scream that the sun is a lie and they can't see it. The fact that you don't know of evidence doesn't mean there is none. What steps have you undertaken regarding you finding out whether there is evidence?
To all the atheists out there please consider this argument. How is the world made by chance if it is so intricate. As someone who has programmed, it is very hard. There’s usually bugs and specifics that you’ve over looked. Now this beautiful world, it was made by chance. Please just think and consider before you leave this comments. If you don’t believe in God the consequences are dire. May the Lord forgive you if you chose to belief in and worship him!
With regard to living organisms, evolution mechanisms made the livestock complicated. Scientists don't care about religion and gods. Scientists try to interpret with evidence and proofs how this world works, and how all livings we see today have emerged. Two of the most evolution mechanisms are mutations and natural selection. Mutations are random,and taking place regardless of they are useful or not for an organism. Natural selection is not random but it doesn't have specific purposes. In conclusion, the nature, has no purposes. The only aim for a specie is to avoid being extinct or death nothing else. Based on this, natural selection works. The world is beautiful of course. Ok so what? Beautiful because of the huge geological procedures over 4.5 billions of years. In previous geological periods the world was beautiful too, but with extremely differencies in continents distribution, the climate, the livestock etc.... Beautiful but sometimes hostile, for example massive extinctions, asteroid impacts, earthquakes, super- volcano eruptions, long term glacial periods.. Millions of species suffered. So, the question is why someone has designed something like that?
Bill Gg To answer your question, punishment for sin, part of God’s plan (you should capitalize his name) and more. I’m not referring just to geography which took place SEVEN thousand years ago I’m talking about organisms. It’s foolish to say that the only thing they care about is kill or be killed. Their is reproduction, the very detailed food chain, packs, the list goes on. I ask you one question, what do you think was truly in the very behind of the universe. If your answer was matter or something else than how did it come to get there? You may say the same about God. Truth is, I don’t know. But you have faith in more things in your belief then I have in mind. First the beginning matter was to somehow form. After that it would somehow follow various other steps that have low probability that eventually lead to organisms. Once again steps that don’t quite make sense are shown such as the extent of evolving in organisms. Somehow that eventually makes us. I skipped many steps in that process. You believe in a lot of chances. Man might have come out with this answer from “scientific” testing and analysis but man changes and is wrong all the time. For example, the shape of your brain determining how strong you are in certain areas or Stephen Hawking going back on his own theories.
We don't capitalize the word god. Specific gods' names, we do capitalize.. Seeing as all the gods are the same to us, there is no reason to believe in a single god. As for the god that you likely believe in, we would capitalize it by it's actual name, which is not 'god.' it's Yahweh, several other potential names.
jordie00bogart I understand that but what your not getting is he is real. There has been fossils of giants and what you call to be scientifically impossible people that has been found, there have been ruins found of places that were talked about in the Bible, and there have been times when God talked to people despite there being able to. There was a scientist once who got severely injured. Then he had a vivid dream of God and going through hell and heaven. The thing is the part of his brain that would allow him to do this was the part that was severely injured. What about the girl who decided she didn’t want to live and shot herself. She had a similar dream. The bullet JUST missed her heart by the tiniest bit.
Hi Chris, thank you for your reply. *"I understand that but what your not getting is he is real."* Be that as it may, we don't have any evidence to suggest he is. *"...fossils of giants..."* I'm an archaeologist, and I can tell you, we have found nothing that is out of the ordinary regarding 'giants.' I've personally dug up strongly tall individuals, but nothing considered giant. Though, i suppose on individual I dug up being 7'1" was quite tall. however, he was a product of selective breeding due to the slave trade. They literally would breed individuals that were naturally tall and strong. *"there have been ruins found of places that were talked about in the Bible,"* By that logic, spider man is true because New York is a real place.. Same with other holy books that use real people and real places.. We cannot assume that because the bible mentions real places (which it obviously would if it's meant to sound real) it's somehow about a real god. Personally I've never seen or talked to this god, I have no way to know it's real or not. When I was a devout Christian, like all Christians, I would pray regularly. Overtime my prayers came true, I took that as a win and disregarded all the other times they didn't. Turns out, prayer has the same success rate as change. I tested that when I started to question my religion.. Turns out science has tested it as well and we see the same results I came to when I was still a christian. *"and there have been times when God talked to people despite there being able to"* Well, he or she hasn't talked to me.. And people saying they've talked to god isn't evidence of anything. Anecdotal evidence is, in fact, the lowest form of evidence. Everything else you mentioned isn't evidence of your god being real. This has happened in countless other religions as well. Once again, anecdotal and not of any substance. The only way I could possibly believe in a god is if it were to show itself to be real. You god and all the other gods I've learned about from history are all the same to me. I see no reason to believe in any of them. I would love to believe, but I have no reason to. I cannot simply believe in something I don't believe in.
Yah Because we talked about this in My bio class can't Believe after this school year i will be a Junior already and i am watching this for Mrs.Burkes bio and to practice for the science i am taking next year.
I don't understand how anyone could write so well with a mouse. I can barely draw a straight line with one
they probably uses pen draw tablets,i guess,cos you literally can't write anything with a mouse
Edward I love that this is totally besides the point! Lol
His mouse writing evolved
it's called insane-practicing
First thing i thought when he started writing. I have trouble making straight lines myself
:')
also, your voice is fantastically clear
Easy to listen ! Glad i found this channel
Yes, it's a pleasure to listen to him.
3:03
"Ha ho ha ho h h..ha"
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.
This is so funny
Yes it was too funny 😂😆
Lmao!!!! Hahahaha haha mologous
Yeah evolution is laughable
Your religion is more of a joke.
Christians, this is an educational video. Please leave. We don't need an evolution vs creation debate everywhere. This is video for students learning science.
@@alphabeta1337 Judging that your profile picture is a picture of flat earth. It's obvious you're not very smart
Where's the science?
@sonder: The video is for any person. And anybody can make comments about it.
I didn't see any actual evidence he just explained the theory
It's impactful how disparate the theory is in terms of evidence as it is with the rhetoric. The rhetoric is that it is an established fact. The evidence level is really at the level of massive inference.
Imagine attaching the label of science (which should mean that your brain is adding everything up correctly) and evidence, and then making a video like this. This is truly beyond the pale.
Am i the only crazy guy who wish that evolution would be 1.000.000 times faster? Just to see with my own eyes the process ^^.
For that virus are great! It had been witnessed evolution acting on virus since they reproduce so fast they evolve fast (a big problem for finding the efficient cure, they can become immune to meds quickly or becoming dangerous to other animals, like humans). But I see what you meant, I would like to see animals and humans changing too.
well bacteria in general evolve fairly quickly, largely because of our own doing...
you should see time lapses on youtube
also naked science made a masterpiece of 40 min on human origins
the only direct evidence is that it macro evolution was applied on viruses, or single celled organisms, to assume it works on multi cell organisms is anti science, as most mutations in humans are cancer, also with fruitflies they failed, so its cut and apste science and missapplication deception to say one animal turns into another as the 1st 2 sections of this video are speculation.
in theory if ti was a million times faster nothing would change ot it would just be like the x-men which is science fiction.
Yes they evolve quickly reproduce quickly but hey they are still bacteria lol
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Alan Kelch, but they are still not PROVEN, and still have many holes in their story.
Alan
There are two sciences: quantum physics and classical physics. Classical physics is based on quantum physics. Without quarks constantly bursting forth and spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light called protons and neutrons, then "solidity" or classical physics would not exist. These words come from the book "The Quantum World" written by the physicist Kenneth Ford. Also an excellent quantum physics book is "Hands of Light" written by the physicist Barbara Brennan. There is nothing anywhere that is not real or natural, yet the paradox is that everything is an image because nothing is solid.
Even plastic is constantly bursting forth as quarks. God's mind is imagery. We are images, which are fact supported reliable accounts and well substantiated explanations in these books.
Theres a difference between description and cause. What evolutionary theory does is find descriptions (evidence for speciation) and then extrapolates it to say that this means all species are the result of evolution
Correct. And the beauty is, if one theory comes along and debunks a pre-existing theory, we discard the old theory with impunity!
@@motorheadbanger90 As we should. Science is not a religion.
wait until creationists discover that dog breeding is a thing...
What ever dog you breed you’ll get another dog.. not a cat or a insect or anything else
@@WascallyWabbits Yes, but you may get a different breed of dog.
@@siddharthnandi3995 exactly, it’s still a dog, the breed may have changed but the Kind didnt
@@WascallyWabbits Define kind.
@@siddharthnandi3995 there’s different kinds of animals, by kinds o mean dogs cats birds whales insects, the kind doesn’t change in dog breeding the type of dog just does
Wow.. the name khan producing a video about evolution. This is progress
I think Genghis is coming back
Best proof ever. Lol.
@@derpedlerp1237 u just dont get it do u?
@@kinesonc what?
You never get scientists telling us evolution didn't happen. So many well-funded creationists, and still they can't find a flaw in evolution that can be solved by creationism.
@@alphabeta1337
"If Evolution were true, then life would not exist in the first place."
That's a very odd claim. How can you prove it?
@@Ozzyman200 you tellin me you can just take an item and wait for something to happen?? No cuz everything is created by something (someone) in this world
@@twinesniper8247 I don't think I said that. What's that got to do with evolution? You're making a huge claim there- how could you check if it's true?
@@Ozzyman200 thing is, there is no real evidence in exact science for evolution besides theories and stories.
@@samimed23 That's a huge claim. Can you back it up?
I get that you used the term "microbiology" since your referring to micro parts of biology like genetics but it is misleading since microbiology is a whole lot different branch of biology than those of genetics. As a recommendation, please try to be more precise and accurate when your using scientific terms.
I know this is four years ago and no one will probably ever see this but for on the Khan Academy website, it has these videos and little pop-ups will show up in the corner saying "he meant molecular biology not microbiology" and all the other times he makes a mistake, so I'd reccomend watching the videos there if you can.
human facial bone scructures are literaly different in everyone, does no one understand that a fossil can look like humans without being human?
but when you find many different fossils from different times with gradually bigger skulls .... doesnt make you think?
silversurfer there aren’t any skulls found that seem to have grown ‘gradually’, also upon further thinking you would naturally question the technique of dating
Christiaan Bell the human skull is much different that it was centuries ago
I dont think you understand how fossils work
Shouldn't that be "molecular biology" instead of "microbiology"? I always thought microbiology is all about bacteria and the like.
Tikimatuka you literally just said the same thing two times
@@jahinashkar7971 no
Microbilology is the study of the biology of microscopic organisms.
The microscopic level includes aroms and molecules.
Molecular biology is the study of Molecular organisms.
So, molecular biology is microbiology, but microbiology is not molecular biology.
I had to work on this for My Science class for burkes now Who else is working on this for there bio class because i am wondering because i like Bio I had Mrs.Burke 1st semester two and this will help me alot when im a junior Next year i will be Taking the science i want and it is my last year taking science well that is if i go to Jm Senior year,
Well I'm watching this out of curiousity
Brother, nothing in this video proved darwinian evolution.
@@treydevercelly7518 also i found out i will be taking Chemistry next year because im taking it for a elective i don't need a 4th science but i do also we are talking about this in physical science right now so ignore my comment from 6 months ago this is from April/May back in the spring i was i think 16 when i said this well i am 17 now so prove my point tell me it doesn't deal with Darwinian Evolution.
I always love authentic videos like this.
Yes that is a form of natural selection however it is not sufficient in proving the total evolution of a kind or species these lizards your describing did not evolve into a bird or a cat, as evolutionists dictate, your response will likely be "well because it takes millions of years" if that is the case then it is not observable, rather it is faith. And no theory should be made a premise or foundation for other claims as if the foundation is not steady nothing above is.
I find it hilarious that people are questioning the scientific process on here, when they are probably writing their comments on a small piece of glass that shoots data into space at the speed of light, on a video that’s stored on a data cloud, which are all made possible because of the scientific process 🤦🏾♂️
Nobody questions the scientific process, and your example is also not.. the scientific process. God bless you
@@treydevercelly7518 you obviously didn’t read my comment, because I didn’t say anything about an example of scientific process. I said it was made POSSIBLE because of the scientific method. And thank you have good day too
@@tumsfestival8027 Oops my fault, “which are all made possible..” 😂 no harm meant, I just missed a couple words. Thank you for correcting me
This comment is so indirectly toxic and irrelevant, I don't see your point at all.
I find it difficult to believe that there is people like you walking among us. The human brain far exceeds anything any human can make. Good luck in believing Laurence Krause's theory of something out of nothing. Just like that piece of glass that's fed data onto the cloud, has an architect.... So do you! It astonishing how blind people go through life trying to explain away the core of our existence. Good luck buddy. Hope you make it.
Homologous structures could indicate equally indicate a designer who was happy with his basic idea so ran with it; like how lots of artists -- painters, writers-- basically did the same thing, with variation, over and over again. But of course materialists have hermetically closed minds. Bravo.
No, it couldn't, because it is a known fact that homologous structures indicate common ancestry since the more closely related two species are, the more anatomical similarities there are, and the more recent of a common ancestor they have. It is not like works of art or literature because they are not biological organisms that can pass down traits to descendant populations.
your comment right here shows how little you know about this, yet still try to credit a fiction creator
So a creator intentionally made it to look like evolution happened?
Interesting theory JC. Appreciate the thought. As you can see from the other replies, it is very simple. All you need to do is accept that evolution is true and you will see that everything points to evolution being true. It's very simple relig... I mean science. As it was stated in a reply, "it is a known fact that homologous structures indicate common ancestry...". We know this is true because evolution is true, therefore proving that evolution is true. It's very simple if you just stop and don't think about it.
Why your creator crated leukemia, infectious diseases, and birth defects?
With sources like this, I cannot believe people still don't accept Evolution.
It’s not that we don’t believe evolution I do for example but don’t believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution. We evolve overtime and adapt to our environments. But it’s not the same as evolution mutations (Darwin’s theory) which is ridiculous odds that it could even happen.
@@lefronzzedong4871 it doesn't have ridiculous odds, give it enough time and the mutations can and have created more diverse life. Evidence for the theory of Evolution through natural selection is given in the video
And, by the way, the theory of Evolution and Evolution are the same thing, and are use interchangably in biology.
Jarrett Ludolph The problem is did you have a growing number of mathematicians and biologist actually leaving Darwins theory of evolution, it doesn’t add up to them. Math has a big factor in assisting the truth and I’m sorry to say but the math does not correlate with evolution it just doesn’t the odds are too astronomically against evolution happening. Even with time it just doesn’t add up at all The chances of earth aligning perfectly with the sun so we don’t burn to death or freeze to death by space is 1x10(98)
@@lefronzzedong4871 explain to me, in detail, how the math doesn't add up
Haeckel's drawing have been proven to be wrong for over a hundred years now though
Haeckel's drawings were embellished to the point of falsity, that is undeniable. But the principle that he was attempting to illustrate is genuine.
@@InformationIsTheEdge it is not. They start out very different, look somewhat similar at one point and then different again. His whole theory was a fraud.
@ A great deal of observations and tests have taken place since Haeckel and all of them agree with Darwin's idea. In fact there is not one test, experiment or observation that contradicts evolution. All the facts are on the side of evolution.
@@InformationIsTheEdge can you give me one example of experimental data that demonstrates a macro evolutionary change?
@ Cetaceans and their fossil record aren't really an experiment. More observations and measurements.
Biogeography provides such crushing, brutal evidence that Creationists carefully avoid it.
Homologous structures, as evidence for evolution, are compelling if one presupposes only purely naturalistic explanations. And changes in organisms such as bacteria and viruses do not involve an increase of complexity (i.e. single cell to human being).
“Orgasmisms” ?
A single celled organism doesn't have to evolve to a multicellular one for it to be considered more complex. Just a simple change would make it comparably more complex.
@@gavin_hill There is a gene in a population of monkeys called TRIM5-CypA. This is a combination of TRIM5 and CypA. The new hybrid genome has a purpose completely irrelevent to the other genomes. New gene, new purpose, new information.
@@terra_727 Well, based on your comment alone, it's not new information, it's just information rearranged. Not sure that that makes any difference to your argument, but just saying.
@mpersand
The DNA code is proven to be dynamic - through mutation, it can increase, decrease, and be rearranged. All of this creates new genetic information.
put at 1.25 speed
3:51
to to to
😂
...are people still arguing about evolution v creation ? I came here to look to find the "evidence" for the evolution theory. I'm convinced, nothing new here, same old, same old. I've been looking through these videos for some years, and thought the evolutionists had given up. Their evidence of fossils are circumstantial at best, and if a fossil would prove anything there should be at least some evidence of a mixture of two living species. EvenDarwin said we should expect an " infinite" variety of species. So whilst no one doubts that a species evolves to suit its environment, the change to adifferent species is highly dubious if not impossible.
That DNA supports evolution ? Quite the reverse. The highly complex code it contains has been shown to be a code for all life, similar to a computer language but many times more sophisticated, anyone with programming knowledge that has studied DNA code has admitted its ingenuity, how would anyone expect DNA to come from nowhere by itself ? By the way, the words foremost genetics expert, head and founder of an American company that can inspect and analyse thousands of DNA samples daily, stated years ago that common descent was false, the " tree of life" didn't exist.
Microbiology ? Just look at the bacterial flagellum. Designed to perfection, anyone who thinks this can form by the chance of random proteins must be seriously deluded, or bare faced liars. Unless of course they are the genius that can come up with a plausible explanation. Please don't cite Ken Miller or the Dover trial, it just doesn't wash.
Homologous? Wouldn't a designer use similar structures for different forms ? Sorry but the evidence here just doesn't cut it. You don't have to believe in a designer or God, but don't pretend that one form or species changes to another without something like solid evidence.
Tony Mak I take it you didnt actually watch the video?
Tony Mak do people still believe there is a god in the 21st century?
Did I watch the whole video, you mean ALL his "evidence" in 13 minutes ? Well yes of course, hence my comment. Do people still believe in God ? I suppose so, as well as intelligent design, but most of all, anyone who can think for himself can see that Darwins theory is a crock, therefore there must be another way. For life to have come about by itself, as Darwin postulated, the chances are so close to zero it doesn't bear thinking about, so yes, creation is much more likely.
Almost everything you said was wrong.
Terrific.
I believe in the Bible literally, and I will give you just a few, scientific, reasons why. The evidences for the Bible are too numerous to mention and include areas such as archaeology, history, fulfilled prophecies and, yes, science.
Let's start with DNA. All DNA is always just a copy of a copy of a copy and so on. Yes, it can be altered to some extent, but no new strands of DNA are ever created and, further, no one has any data to show how any DNA got here. This matches the Bible which says creation has halted. And btw, fish don't have DNA instructions for legs, and lizards don't have DNA instructions for feathers, wings etc. Since no new DNA is ever created, where would they get it from? Cite your data, if any.
Another example of how creation has been halted is seen when you look at the taxonomic groupings of animals and plants, ascending from species to class, to order, to phylum, to kingdom. No plants or animals ever go higher than the creation of a new species, no matter what Darwin, or evolutionary peer reviews, claim happened in the invisible and unverifiable past. That stasis matches what the Bible says, also, about creation having been halted. Plants and animals stay in their "kinds" i.e. families. But if you can give an example to the contrary, by all means do so.
The Bible talks about a Great Flood. There are countless billions of fossils all over the planet. Now, fossils are created when life forms are suddenly buried with water, then rapidly covered with sediment. To give you an idea of their vast numbers, consider that there are billions of fossils of just one kind of ocean dwelling nautiloid, alone, in the Grand Canyon alone. And, speaking of ocean dwelling creatures, 95% of all fossils on land are marine. Now how did all that ocean water get everywhere? Hmmmm....
There never was any Geologic Column, or any Cambrian, Jurassic, Triassic etc. periods. Those are all fictional. Real science uses real data. The real data shows the fossils are jumbled or, you could say, awash. For just one of countless examples, you can find giant sharks next to dino bones in America. So called lowest level Cambrian, deep sea, fossils are found at every level on the planet from Canada to New Zealand. When I say every level, that includes the hills of mid America, for instance, and most mountain tops in the world.
.
If you think there was a Geologic Column, link close up photos of one showing the lowest level Cambrian fossils at the bottom, and asecending layers of fossils matching the GC charts. Close ups now, not some distant photos of mountains ranges or rock piles they CLAIM have GCs in them.
.
If we demonstrate there is no GC, we are then are told "plate tectonics" moved the fossils around. Plate tectonics are just theories piled on hypotheses that are heaped on speculation to fit the evolutionary narrative. But we have some real data! Common sense and universal experience, and scientific research, let us know what erosion does. Now some of those deep sea life creatures' fossils, like trilobites, are supposed to have gone extinct two hundred MILLION years ago. Yet, around the planet, we see that their fossils are not uncommonly found in mint condition. Google "Trilobites on mountains."
.
And we're also supposed to buy it that dino bones lasted 75 million or so years? That narrative is still promoted even though they keep finding more and more soft tissues in dinosaur bones all the time, along with things like blood cells. There always is some unverifiable "reason" given for why such things lasted, of course. Forensic science - which makes it clear those materials could not survive more than a few thousand years - and common sense are ignored.
.
Art works, and historical accounts, around the world, which show dinos, sometimes with people, are also ignored or else the false claim is made, with no justification at all, that they must be fake. Yes, Noah would have taken dinos on the Ark. Juveniles, no doubt. They all started out in eggs about the size of a football.
.
The Bible says people lived for hundreds of years in Old Testament times. We cannot prove that. But we can prove that in the ancient past dinos did! Again, they started out small, but got to be gigantic. Now lizards keep growing as long as they live. Obviously there was a different eco system back then that allowed the dinos, unlike modern day lizards, to keep on growing for hundreds of years. (And giant-ism, btw, was no way confined to just dinos. There used to be rhinos as big as houses, for example.) Would not that more favorable, pre Flood, eco system have allowed for longer lives in humans, too?
.
Irreducible complexity is also evidence of the truth of the Bible which claims instant creation of all life forms. I will give you my favorite example, though all life is irreducibly complex.
.
Google a picture of the bacterial flagellum and its motor and whip. Now if the b.f doesn't move, it doesn't do its job and is useless. It isn't going to move anywhere until both the motor, and whip on the motor, are completely formed and attached together. So, while those 2 parts are just "evolving" nubs and stubs, what good are they? What "co option" purposes could they serve? If you can't even imagine the answers, how is mindless "evolution" going to make it happen?
.
Why and how would evolution keep those two, partial and incomplete, parts in limbo for eons until they are complete and connected and ready to work together? Well, it's not going to happen. There is zero evidence it ever happened, too, of course. In fact, there is zero evidence the b.f. has ever been anything but exactly what it is right now. Some claim a simpler life form evolved into the b.f., but once again there is zero data to support any such claim.
.
Again, irreducible complexity, which indicates incredible intelligence, not to mention unimaginable power, is seen at every level in life forms. The Bible presents a picture of life forms created instantly, fully complete and fully functional. That's what irreducible complexity in living examples, and the fossil record, reveal.
All examples given in this video explain adaptation not evolution from one species to another
Agree but the other elements that make mutation are not proven scientifically as far as I know
In one common mode of speciation ("allopatric" speciation), two populations of the same species are split apart geographically. Small changes accumulate in both populations, causing them to be more and more different from each other. Eventually, the differences are great enough that the two populations cannot interbreed when they do get together
Engmazzouz Also mutations have been proven. Im not completely sure what your question about mutations is but feel free to ask and i think i can help
AHappyPumpkin thanks for the reply
The horses example show different genuses of Equiidae, that is already evolution from one species to another.
Great evidence for microevolution but just because different animals share bone structures with humans doesn't prove a common ancestor but rather a the same creator using the same design throughout the creation process
And just because you share similar traits with your parents, doesn't mean you came from them. It just means the pixies who popped you into existence wanted you to be similar to the people who they chose to raise you.
eddy eldridge what the
@@eddyeldridge7427 that is a very stupid comparison, unless if you can bring a dog who can produce humans babies, or a whale who can produce puppies.
"that is a very stupid comparison, unless if you can bring a dog who can produce humans babies, or a whale who can produce puppies."
If I could produce such a thing, that would be evidence AGAINST evolution.
there is no such thing as micro and macro evolution ...... because its small changes over time , its the number of changes that matter not how big they are
I'm always believed in evolution, but I'm trying to accurately assess the evidence. Quite honestly I didn't find much evidence for macro evolution. The only good evidence for that was the embryology with the gills. Almost all the evidence could be given to prove a common creator and micro evolution.
Whitney Washington I no longer agree with my comment.
Whitney Washington Hey, I can admit where I'm wrong!
@@sageseraph5035 what made you disagree with yourself?
@@sageseraph5035 Thanks. You noticed your mistakes. Because the biological evolution is a fact, not a belief stuff.
There is not a creator though. Maybe there is but nothing to do with biology.
Evolution is a great fact on Earth.
How do we know that it wasnt a greater diversity of creatures in the past
We can't know for sure, but of all the creatures we have found, both in the fossil record and living today, less than 99.9% of all organisms have survived to this day. The overwhelmingly vast majority of all species that ever lived have died in the past.
@@tuejtn9734
Or other types of exctinction events.
Tue jtn an overwhelming percentage of life was ocean based. What killed them were super volcanoes that dumped too much carbon dioxide and other gases into the water, making life less capable of surviving.
Just like we have different type of birds frogs ect..There were different types of humans in the past also...Human beings today are more concerned with preserving endangered animal species than preserving endangered human species
@ Sexual Tyrannosaurs Can you clarify? Do you mean other humanoids that are alive today? Because there are none. Do you mean learning the history of prehistoric humanoids?
I concur. There were numerous amounts of College professors that looked down on me for my Kahn Academy videos. I think learning is a continuous journey though.
Your argument its because it's a theory that so much has been stacked on, we have gone too far to consider it as an incorrect over esteemed theory, this is a cognitive bias, irrationality and neglect of the scientific method. A theory cannot be the foundation for all work. Especially if the following results coming from it are declared absolute conclusions.
Doing this for homework
Same bro same
Lol hi Trina I just checked my inbox found your comment
Hello fellow biology students
With all this evidence, not a theory anymore.
Also how can anyone believe in creationism?
Now many believe evolution, BUT they also believe it was started by god
@@velvethamster9809 Fair point
I want to see an actual process of this happening, one organism mutating to something else. (For example, ape to human). Give me one observable evidence of Darwin’s evolution, not adaptation and speciation.
@@Erickdelgado3645 All viruses mutate to adapt to their environment
@@craigfowler7098 I know but they still are viruses not something else.
This shouldn’t even be a discussion... but Christians and so on...
Yeah, no discussion. Very scientific! 🤣
Have you ever looked at evidence for creation? Both have arguments and “evidence”. Just looking at one sides evidence doesn’t give you much to go off of.
If you look at a Christian world view, the reason for why we all have similar bone structures is because we have a reliable structure, one that works perfectly for our purpose. The fossil record is there from Noah’s flood. There’s a lot more to look at for their evidence, I just can’t remember the other half of it right now.
Both sides of the argument have biologist and people who can give reasons for their argument.
@@gryffin8063 don't try. Jeff is a scientist and thus no discussion.
@@pavaomarusic6051 just because your a scientist doesn’t mean you know everything there is to know about everything. Even a genius can be wrong. We’re human and we have our flaws. Him being a scientist proves nothing, it would be a faulty appeal to authority fallacy to say such a thing. Knowing both sides of the argument is the only way to truly know what’s right. You can’t just look at one side and say the other makes no sense without knowing where they come from.
Christians have evidence to prove their claims just as much as evolutionist do. There is evidence in science for both claims. The only thing I’m saying is you should know your opponent before believing you’ve won the argument.
@@gryffin8063 I agree. The point I was making is that Jeff thinks science dosen't allow for discussion. I also find mocking people to be more motivating instead of rational calm talk.
Appreciated the evolution of horselike animals through the fossil record. Was just wondering if there are any other step by step pathways in the fossil records which are between very different species/organisms? eg- reptile and bird, etc.
For example the bone structures between human, dog, bird and whale are definetely quite interesting. But what would ground this idea alot more for me would be a fossil record connecting this to a common point, or a DNA comparison between them showed to be statistically significant compared to DNA comparisons to a general population, etc.
I don't know too much on this topic which is why I'm asking. But from a naive background, with so many different species wouldn't you to expect at least out of chance some to appear quite similar?
I'd also think that there are some fundamental structures common to most organisms out of natural selection (or other means) such as arms, legs or much more specialised: heart, digestive system, etc. And that these are so fundamental that similarities can occur between organisms far apart from another in ancestry (Type I Error?). If I had more resources/knowledge perhaps one way to test this idea could be if no statistical difference was shown in DNA comparison between human, dog, bird and whale, indicating similarities in the fossil record can occur for organisms with different ancestry.
Please feel free to critique these questions and point me towards resources that could help :)
Yep, there are lots of them. There is a list of transitional fossils on Wikipedia.
@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 surely you could link them then
@@imsavor Link what? Are you referring to a link to the article I mentioned or a link scientists find between the fossils they found?
@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 yeah, like site some sources so he/we can see
@@imsavor But I've already told you: type in "list of transitional fossils Wikipedia".
This is funny because basic bone structures point to a creator. It points to a design 😆
it doesnt
bones are complex and show a lot of flaws
design shows by being simple and effective
@@Zanta100 exactly?...🤔😂
yeah that is not a great example by itself.
And bone structures do not need to point to a creator. If we look in more closely at related animals our bones are the same they're just shaped slightly different. But Our bones change too otherwise there would be few facial differences. And it would take time.. but I'm sure we can grow more bones, look at deer. A few species will keep their antlers year-round but others grow a set every year simply to butt heads for a month. Same with goats, beetles, sheep, seals, giraffe, cattle, chameleons etc.
Crocodiles & alligators species can also be characterized by the varying number of scutes & the various shapes of the scutes. Also some pigs have no tusks while others have tusks/teeth even turning to face upward . In babirusa pigs the tusks don't even come out of their mouth anymore they pop out on the snout
No, it doesn't. The point is that the differences have precisely the appearance only selection could have produced.
@@altonware1993 thats a stupid opinion
Things looking ''eerily similar'' doesn't disprove or prove anything about evolution.
@@maybeme1058 Give it another listen. The entire thing is based on things looking like things.
@@soulheal539 You give it another listen lol he was simply trying to break it down in an elementary sense for a wider ranged audience to comprehend what is being proposed.
@@soulheal539 You should read more, if you think the undeniable evidence for Evolution lies ONLY in fossils... Genetics has removed any question today. Only the details are being hashed out now.
@@brianmi40 Actually, genetics and dna research proved evolution is a total load of bull ^^. But good luck to you friend.
@@soulheal539 Yeah, good luck with that. Try SPEAKING to some ACTUAL GENETICISTS.
LOL, IDIOTS.
FUN FACT: there are more scientists named simply "STEVE" that accept evolutionary theory, than ALL THE DENIERS PUT TOGETHER.
LOL, IDIOTS.
homologous structures could also be explained by a higher creator "reusing" a common bone combo for all his creations. just btw...
same at 8:23 and 9:33
No idiot. Just molecular biology and DNA analysis prove common ancestry beyond ANY doubt.
@@torotanaka3788''similarity" proves "common ancestry" beyond any doubt? Interesting.
@@tezuttley It is not just the similarity in DNA but it is the DIFFERENCES that are the real overwhelming proof of common ancestry. Of course, it appears that you have no idea what I am talking about.
@@torotanaka3788 too bad a good airsoft company shares the name "tanaka" with a little idiot
@@nig_card why are their mutations if God created humans?
Can someone please explain this to me: homologous features are evidence of common ancestry - but in order to know if features are homologous or not, we must first know if they came from a common ancestor. Am I missing something here or is this almost circular logic?
When determining if something is an ancestor there is an entire list scientists must go through full of predicts that must be true. You are simplifying this way too much.
Nothing about that is circular. In fact, it is a diligent and complicated process.
That literally makes no sense.
Dna dictates your ancestry and you can never grow out of it. China took 250000 dna samples from people all over China to prove there was a Chinese sample that Chinese did not have African dna markers. And they failed in this attempt. everyone has African DNA markers.
@@MrCountrycuz this point if your doesn't prove anything as it shows growth of man from a single person . Why you just negate the other option. Thinking that what you assume is the only option
Excellent video. Thank you!
🧢
Yes that is a form of natural selection however it is not sufficient in proving the total evolution of a kind or species these lizards your describing did not evolve into a bird or a cat, as evolutionists dictate, your response will likely be "well because it takes millions of years" if that is the case then it is not observable, rather it is faith. And no theory should be made a premise or foundation for other claims as if the foundation is not steady nothing above is.
9:49 - 10:15 It is too that we humans have similar DNA to Pigs, which is weird but interesting.
It's not wired
All organisms on earth are linked by each other .....dues to decent from a common ancestor
Just because they look similar doesn’t mean something had to evolve. Just flesh and bone what else would it be made out of?
Sorry you have no right to talk if you want to spread false facts. Most of our assumptions are based on traits of an animal, its specialised diet and its DNA content.
@@kayp329 key word: EvIdEnCe
Kay those assumptions lead to facts. Evolution is a known scientific fact. Deal with it.
@@kayp329 as opposed to fiction, which the creationist view is based on.
Why so many dislikes?
Creationists
Excellent vid
in the direct evidence section macro evolution was only applied to single celled organisms, it faile to prove it happens to multi cells or that one animal turns to another as the rest was just assumptions. i appreciate his honesty though.
false sets etc. Ah, it seems you are an anti Semite. Well, the Carpenter from Nazareth is called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah in the Bible. Let's see Whom you are coming up against, below. But first.... Let's see how pseudo science is being used to convince you that you are nothing but a fish update who sprang from some antiscientific primal pond type scenario, and who certainly doesn't have a Heavenly Father Who...loves...you. Then let's look at some real science, a bit outside the box.
.
We have been told that life came from inorganic matter. Now, science must have observable data to be valid and must not ignore the actual data. The actual data, per the LAW of Biogenesis? Life always comes only from life and life of the same kind. Theories are fine if they don't defy the actual evidence. Even in labs, with intelligent design and high tech equipment, life has never been created. The best they can do is take a living cell and alter it with genetic engineering, or get some of the components of the cell, not all of them at all.
.
The needed proteins and other components of a cell are not only not all there, they are not arranged as they need to be arranged - in statistically impossible ways if random chance had put them together. No one has even gotten close to creating life. It should be easy. Just take a simple cell or any life form that has died. There you have all the components of life. So why can't anyone do a Dr. Frankenstein on any of them? (And kindly don't say that evolution doesn't "do" abiogenesis. Look. It's in evolution writings and documentaries, and all over the net and YT.)
.
We have also been told as gawd's truth scientific fact that a 3 foot high ape type creature, an Australopithecus, Lucy, was your great, great etc. granny. Based on? Some minor similarities, namely "similar homology" namely the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. The fact that she was pretty much like any other ol' Australopithecus was irrelevant to them. Incomplete Comparison logical fallacy.
.
Since evolutionists are always disagreeing with one another on everything, now some of them say, No, it wasn't Lucy but some other such creature. Some creature with no evidence it existed. Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy.
.
Now how do they know Lucy et al even had a single descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less one that could cross the impossible genus barrier and turn into you? Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy.
.
Guess for how long any "transitions" are missing between you and Lucy or some other transition du jour? Oh, for just 2 to 5 million Darwin years! The rocks say no transitions exist. The evo spin, their Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy, tells you, again as gawd's truth scientific fact, that they are just "missing."
.
We've also been told that we came via a fish, Tiktaalik. The story goes that this...fish...was found in just the right place for a "transition". Problem is, it's 100% nothing but a...fish. See Wiki describing it as "an extinct species of lobe finned fish." Google the fossil of Tiktaalik, which is mostly missing. Do those tiny fin fragments look like they could be said to be turning into legs - without the presuming omniscience logical fallacy? Yet we see all sorts of fanciful art work of Tik with long, muscular "evolving" legs, bending as the fish transits, supposedly, to land. The real evidence?
.
In countless billions of fossils and in living examples, all we ever see are 100% fish and 100% tetrapods/four legged animals. (No, mud skippers and "walking" catfish are not transitions. They are using their 100% fins in an unusual way, similar to a flying fish which is no way turning into a bird.)
.
Evolutionists are constantly picking up fossils like Tiktaalik from the ground and telling you, for up to over a 100 million Darwin years, what happened to their invisible and evidenceless countless billions of "descendants." Never ask them how to tell a missing link from a non existent link. And then they accuse Christians of being into "magical thinking."
.
You are not a fish update. You are infinitely more than that. Here is some actual, observable and documented evidence, to help you see that: Now in the Bible we are told of a Man Who believed in Adam and Eve and Noah as being actual, historical figures. The Bible says He did miracles and told others to do things like raise the dead and heal the sick. It also describes His death and burial. Is there any actual scientific data to support those stories?
.
See secular news reports about Val Thomas, dead for 17 hours but now alive and normal after prayers from her family and her Church. th-cam.com/video/sPHycsIdB1Y/w-d-xo.html .
.
See Medical Marvel Beyond Chance, from a secular source, with a pediatrician giving his report. this one attesting to a dying child's healing which cannot be explained by modern medicine, and came after a relative laid hands on her and prayed for her. th-cam.com/video/Xyko-56NCSw/w-d-xo.html The DNA in every cell in her body was changed.
.
See CBN's short vid with Dean Braxton. You'll hear his critical care doctor, rated the best patient care doctor in Washington state, saying "It is a miracle...a miracle..." that Braxton is alive, has no brain damage and is normal in every way. Why? He had no heart beat and no respiration for 1 3/4 hours! His family believed in divine healing and they and others were praying for him. th-cam.com/video/c3Zjt8r-hNA/w-d-xo.html . Also see CBN Dr. Chauncey Crandall Raises A Man From The Dead. th-cam.com/video/s-7ZkleLu1w/w-d-xo.html Part 1. This video is a bit faded but has the most complete information on this story.
.
Get Dr. Richard Casdorph's book The Miracles. There he gives medical documentation for miracles, mostly, but not all, from Kathryn Kuhlman's healing services. Casdorph came to Kuhlman's meetings to debunk her but turned into a supporter, as did other doctors. You can see him and other doctors in some of her healing services on YT. (She is now deceased.) Delores Winder is one of the cases documented in his book. You can watch her amazing story on YT with Sid Roth. th-cam.com/video/CfdG5czaUX0/w-d-xo.html.
.
The book The Audacity of Prayer by Don Nordin lists medically documented miracles.
.
On Andrew Wommack's vids you can see doctors talking about "miracles" too. Check out the YT vid with the ophthalmologist who says Yes, Ronald Coyne could see out of an empty eye socket after a faith healer prayed for him. You can see him doing demos. At the end of the book Don't Limit God you see a medical statement by a doctor saying that his patient used to have M.S. and diabetes but is now cured.
.
Bruce Van Natta was in a horrific accident where he lost about 80% of his small intestine. Someone he didn't even know was told to get on a plane and lay hands on him and pray for him. His small intestines grew back competely and you can see his doctors testifying to that. th-cam.com/video/fYwFqeHBA28/w-d-xo.html
.
Here we see many witnesses reporting donated food being miraculously multiplied for people who lived in a dump in Juarez. th-cam.com/video/gwsuYYIJ3Rg/w-d-xo.html
.
Do you think that Someone Who can raise the dead and heal people of deadly "incurable" diseases, Someone Who can create body parts and food out of nothing, needed "evolution" to make life forms? No, He created them fully formed and fully functional in 6 days just as Genesis, a Book He always supported, tells you.
Then there is the Shroud of Turin. If you don't know, the Shroud is a linen burial shroud with the faint image of a crucified man on it. If you have heard that the Shroud was proven to be a Medieval fake based on carbon 14 testing, in the documentary Jesus And The Shroud of Turin you can see the very inventor of carbon 14 testing saying that the sample was invalid due to contamination. . th-cam.com/video/XTtDhvk_aw4/w-d-xo.html . The vid demonstrates many miraculous features such as pollen from Jerusalem and faint images of flowers that are found only in the Jerusalem area during the spring, as at Passover when Messiah was crucified. With modern technology we also see that the Shroud has an x ray quality which even reveals the bones and dentition of the Man on the Shroud.
.
In the 70s a NASA scientist noticed the Shroud's photographs had inexplicable, unique in the world, qualities. He got up a team of scientists, called STURP, to examine it in person in Italy. (No, the Shroud is not "just a Catholic thing" as the Vatican only came into possession of it fairly recently in history.) They used NASA, and other, high tech equipment with 100s of thousands of hours of research. Their findings are seen all over the net and were published in respected science journals.
.
The team was composed of 3 Jews, at least one agnostic and one atheist, and people of various faiths. They all agreed on these things: The Shroud image was not painted on, and they have no clue how it got there. It exactly matches, down to blood stains where a crown of thorns would be, the description of Messiah's death and burial as given in the Bible. The image could not be duplicated with modern technology.
.
About the Shroud I say "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, maybe it's a duck."
.
Maybe that Man on the Shroud is your very Best Friend and Savior. I pray you will find that out. You're going to need a miracle some day friend. They are out there in abundance for those who humbly seek them from their Creator, the One Who made all that DNA out there, and Who said, "Whoever comes to Me I will no way cast out."
Is it just me or does the Mesohippus look like a common day dog's skeleton?
It's just you. Us scientists can actually tell the difference between faunal remains. We have various ways in which to do this.
jordie00bogart can you let me in on the secret?
If you live in or around London Ontario, I'd gladly show you the basics. I have a huge collection of faunal and fossils with which to teach.
jordie00bogart if you stopped at London maybe I could have taken a look, im from the U.K.
Ah.. I see. I'm from Canada.. lol! It's a fake London here. Though, it was modelled after the real London, even with street names and the 'Thames rive..' lol
Two sets of words stupid people get confused; evolution with adaption, and racism with stereotyping.
Adaptation IS evolution.
Your 2 first proofs are easily explained by a common creator. The last one is true and doesn’t support evolution. But, speciation.
But what evidence is there for a creator?
Hm Grraarrpffrzz Common structure suggests a common creator. I would imagine quite a few parts fit a Honda Civic and a Honda Accord. Why? Same Maker. Microbiology? The same creator used the same stuff.
_"Common structure suggests a common creator"_
So according to your logic, if I find two trees that look roughly similar, that proves that magic and miracles and deities exist?
Hm Grraarrpffrzz Believing in the God of the Bible is not my point(althoughI do). My point is that commonality doesn’t prove evolution.
Well, you said something entirely different.
First you said that common structures support the supposed existence of a deity.
Then you say that common structures do not support the theory of evolution.
Those are entirely different arguments. As an analogy:
_"That it's cold proves that you are at the South Pole."_
_"That it's cold does not prove that you are at the North Pole."_
See? Those are entirely different claims. So: you do not believe that common structures support the supposed existence of a deity. You do believe that common structures do not support the theory of evolution. Is that correct?
It is unbelievable how this video has so many dislikes. Some people just can't accept the truth.
viraj gupta maybe because it has too many assumptions and too little real evidence...
@@olegunnar1559 ❤️
@@olegunnar1559 no
@@olegunnar1559 if only you were smart enough to find evidence on the very same website you are commenting on but oh well
@@rw10yearsago42 well, the problem is... it’s only assumptions...
Of course we have a common ancestry what’s the alternative? We are all animals of earth
Our common ancestors are referred to by geneticists as Y-chromosome Adam, and Mitochondrial Eve. Using the pedigree method, geneticists have determined that both lived around the same time, around 6000 years ago.
@ I cited a genetic study done, which has estimated that our descent from our first ancestors started only 6000 years ago. The way they calculate the evolution timeline is based on the presupposition that it’s true (it’s like me proving the bible, by using the bible)
Trey Devercelly what genetic study says that? Link it please. 6000 years is very recent. The Mesopotamian civilization is 10,000 years old. There are caveman huts that are tens of thousands of years old.
@ linked it already
@@treydevercelly7518 Where is your citation of this study lol it better have some peer reviews as well.
Well between the Transitional Form 1 and the Transitional Form 2 there should be multiple forms between the transitional form one and two, that changes gradually and slowly over time.
It's just a interpretations to assume that all those are transitional forms. It's just a speculation. Seems like just variations of the same species to me.
Even if those forms existed, you because you are so stuborn would be like "okay, their has to be forms between form 1.5 and 2, and 1 and 1.5." I could debunk you but it would be exhausting.
So, you are telling me, that we have to find fossil remains of every generation of animals on this earth if evolution is real....
@@gavin_hill Why is it unreasonable to assume that they reproduced? You don't need to have actual proof that prehistoric animals reproduced. It's a reasonable conclusion based on evidence provided, such as the closest living things to said prehistoric organisms also reproducing. Secondly, we know animals such as the Great White Shark reproduce, but do fossil specimens of that species also have reproduced? According to you, that's unreasonable. Thirdly, we actually have found irrefutable evidence of some species reproducing. There is a specimen of a species of Ichthyosaur that actually died while giving birth. Yeah. Now, that's direct evidence that particular (at the very least) individual reproduced, but as I stated before, we have indirect evidence that animals reproduced. Oh, also, there is evidence to suggest to suggest that offspring survived into adulthood. Juvenile organisms are usually smaller in relation, so if we find a much bigger individual, it's reasonable to assume that individual survived into adulthood. Also, there is a particular set of bones that fuse when an animal is in adulthood, suggesting that animal also survived into adulthood. You don't need direct evidence for everything, indirect evidence is just as valid as direct evidence if the conclusion is reasonable.
There actually is evidence for evolution based on fossils. Have you heard of transitional forms? If you don't believe in them, disprove every single one of them.
Naww, man. You don't have any evidence that "God" existed either.
Yes, emotional appeals will definitely make me believe in God more...not.
@@gavin_hill When people talk about "God's grace" to convince them into their religion, it's an emotional appeal. It tugs at your emotions. I am most effectively tugged by logical appeals.
Yes, you are right, there is no direct evidence that most individuals that fossilize (most, not all) did not reproduce, but why is it unreasonable to conclude that they didn't. You're basing your claims off of the fact that indirect evidence doesn't exist. Due to this, concluding that that individual reproduced is more reasonable than concluding that they didn't. Speculative evidence and indirect evidence are not the same thing. Indirect evidence makes a conclusion just as valid as direct evidence as long as the logic and reasoning behind the conclusion is valid itself. Speculation is based upon ideas, but aren't fully accepted, but could be a possibility. Most (disregarding ones we do have direct evidence of reproduction) species reproducing is based upon indirect evidence. All organisms reproduce today, whether it be sexually or asexually, so why is it unreasonable to assume extinct species reproduced. Heck, even recently extinct species, like the dodo and the tasmanian tiger, have evidence, even empirical evidence that they reproduced. Now, why is it unreasonable to conclude the species of a fossilized individual reproduced. Again, you don't need direct evidence to prove everything.
I know this is a bit off topic, but fossils prove more than just the fact that an animal lived and died. We can tell the lifestyle and appearance of an animal based on fossils, if the remains uncovered are complete enough to do so and/or there are more complete specimens of relatives of that individual's species to compare it to. For example, we were able to conclude a reasonable hunting style for Allosaurus, a genera of theropod dinosaur. The animal's jaw muscles were weak, weaker than a lion (that's saying something as Allosaurus was 7 times more massive than a lion). But, the skull itself could withstand a force 15x as great as its bite. This suggests that Allosaurus used its head like an axe. Driving the top jaw into its prey. Or Carcharodontosaurus, another theropod dinosaur, we were able to tell its hunting style too. The skull of Carcharodontosaurus was weak, unable to hold onto struggling prey and its teeth was thin, to weak to bite easily through bone. But its teeth were sharp with deadly serrations. Leading scientists to conclude that the animal probably used its skull and teeth to slash deep into the prey, and let it die of blood loss. There is actually a lot more things I could mention, but that would be too much.
Extinction of an animal is not linked to lack of reproduction. Extinction is more likely due to environmental, or outside, causes.
Again, it is not unreasonable to assume that a species of extinct animal reproduced. I'm giving you evidence to support my claim but you keep ignoring them just to fulfill your agenda. If an animal was dead, it must have been alive to begin with, which means another individual, or pair of individuals, gave birth to that individual. Fossilization is a rare process, and finding just a single individual's fossilized remains is already enough to conclude that species survived, reproduced, and thrived. Okay, look, let's take the animal Archaeopteryx. It has features of both dinosaurs and birds. Why is it unreasonable to assume that it is a transitional form? Its not speculation and blind faith, its conclusions based on evidence given. You know what is blind faith though? Believing in God. Prove God exists. Actually prove he exists. Not any of that "design points to a designer" crap.
God isn't real. He never created anything. Oh, and to answer the question. Why do I need to depend on someone to give me answers when I can conclude a statement based on evidence given?
@@gavin_hill I determine what is true by what is proven true. I don't need some supernatural being that nobody can prove to tell me what is true or not.
We aren't really agreeing on the fossil idea, are we? Your main point was that we cannot tell anything more about an animal's fossilized remains than that it lived and died. Which is not true at all. You don't do the same rigorous testing that scientists do when examining a specimen. The only way for your stance to be valid is if you actually examined the specimen yourself and actually coming up with a valid conclusion that conforms with the scientific method. There are no beliefs when examining a fossilized specimen. Oh, it has sharp teeth better suited for cutting flesh, that must be a carnivore. Is that a belief? Is believing a certain species a carnivore a belief, even though we find BITE MARKS on the prey item made by the predator? Or is it all about cherry picking information that doesn't fit with your agenda. Which is the real blind faith here?
I use the phrase "God's grace" as a general term used to describe something "great" God does that pulls on your emotions. Like how you say "God gave us the breath of life." That conforms with the term. You are using emotions instead of reason to tug me into your religion. I don't fall for that.
I don't think you know how this works. It isn't true until disproven, it is false until proven. If the former was a major part in human reasoning, there would be a major problem with our thinking. Imagine if I stated that mermaids exist. And you had a job of disproving it. According to your logic, saying prove it isn't valid. You would have to find something that proves that mermaids don't exist. Which is virtually impossible. According to your logic once again, mermaids are real, because you failed to disprove their existence. Now do you see how flawed your logic is? The same logic that dictates that unicorns, mermaids, etc. are not real is just as valid when you apply that logic to God. It is false until proven, with absolute certainly, which has never happened on the topic of the existence of God.
8:34
Genomic similarities between humans can be used to indicate relatedness between people because of the fact that genetic information is passed down from parents to offspring. However, genetic information is not being passed between species. Therefore genomic similarities between species doesn't indicate relatedness and DNA can't be used to determine that species are related to each other. Claiming that DNA indicates relatedness between species is like claiming that the dust under my bed indicates relatedness between species.
thanks for the circular reasoning lesson ^^ learned a lot!
??
Dude you got issues if you believe you are related to yeast and flies.
But it's more logical that the only connections is
1. Formed out of the earth
2. By a common designer
This would predict that the elements within all life would be similar to elements found in the earth. This is true....
It would also predict that similarities in structure for similar functions
This deserves more views and likes.
i appreciate his honesty the direct evidence of macro evolution is only on single celled organisms, the rest is speculation just like to suspect speciation (in the multicell)
"eerily similar" you know when an artist paints a picture or creates a piece of music, they are going to be similar bc they are done by the same person. Well maybe you should think about how they are similar bc they were created by the same person
yet all evidence shows otherwise
Well, that's what the Bible says so...
@@Zanta100 no, furry
@@franzliszt8957 And means nothing when that same book says that bats are birds,, whales are fish,, and donkeys can talk. And its ok to own other human beings. You need to make a choice on whether you choose reason or superstition.
Guys he could use a digital pen for writing and drawing
Or maybe analogous parts point to a common creator
Then explain why there are tiny hand bones in whales.
If I make two objects out if clay, does that mean one object turned into the other?
No, but both of those clay objects came out of clay, which is more of what evolution is saying
You took evolution way out of context. Evolution isn't a straight line, it has many branches. Yes, you can use this to demonstrate evolution. If you take the clay (common ancestor), change them (adaptations), and make them a totally new clay figure (speciation), that's evolution.
I think you started by saying evolution explains how it started, but it really explains how biology works. I'm pretty sure to know how it starts you would either need a time machine or true enlightenment in the nature of reverse genetic engineering.
Evolution is the very foundation that the entire field of biology stands on. Without evolution, the entire field of biology crumbles.
Where is the evidence?am i the only one missing?
People tend to miss the evidence for evolution, when they're looking for evidence of an evolutionary process that doesn't exist.
Example: evolution doesn't say a cat should give birth to a dog, or a monkey to a man, so you won't find evidence for it.
If Eve was created by GOD from Adam's rib, was Eve's DNA the same as Adam's DNA...?
@@netelsg yeah then
Misan : What's your opinion.
@@netelsg i believe they had the same dna
and due to micro-evolution the dna sequences changed and hence we have variations in humans
as for animals they were created differently
Guys don't worry i'm not stupid. I believe in evolution and all, but i'm wondering if its true that homologous structures are not from homologous genes.
How evidence is used to support evolution?
did u even watch the video
@@karinaharvey658 that was a year ago..
I have a summary due for this video... :/
I learned this reality so hard and this made my life, opened my mind.
BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION IS A FACT, not a belief stuff.
Still using Haeckel? Even after admitting it is fraudulent..why? Study Nick Hopwood's analysis of these drawings; tears them down(and theory behind it).
He didn't admit is was fraudulent and nobody ever proved such. They were drawn before we had ultrasound, so obviously they weren't as accurate as today.
Most cars still have 4 wheels. Just saying.
There are cars with more and cars with fewer wheels. Just saying. And what does that have to do with evolution? Do you believe that cares are alive? Do they procreate and have offspring with small changes?
If Eve was created by GOD from Adam's rib, was Eve's DNA the same as Adam's DNA...?
@@netelsg no otherwise Eve would be Adam 2.0
David : If Eve was created from Adam's rib which contained y chromosome, then Eve must have y chromosome too. Whether Eve was a female or not, this Genesis 2 account is false and fake.
@@netelsg the genesis acount is not a scientific acount, why do you bring a religious argument?
My dad always says "evolution is wrong, there's holes in the theory" boy I wonder if that's why it's still a theory and not a law
Scientific theories is used for different things. Theories never become laws.
Theories are built on laws. That's like criticizing a building for never graduating into a brick.
Laws explain WHAT happens, theories explain HOW it happens.
Why should I, if he can be proven wrong with future knowledge or technology?
Funny how you so easily dismiss facts you don't like, yet say the ones you do like can stay. Just because.
So, you're under the impression evolution isn't falsifiable?
This man is a superhuman. He can write a straight line with a mouse. Oh, he can also teach evolution.. But that isn't what he is a superhuman because of.
He's probably using a drawing tablet.
I'm going to make you "superhuman" also. Just hold SHIFT in MS Windows Paint when drawing a line.
Don't abuse your superhuman powers...
What I don’t understand is how you can use the horses as evidence for evolution. They all look exactly the same, there’s no changes other then the older they get the more decayed they are.
You are not refering to an individual Horse right?
@@Jalip07 all the horses. They literally all look very similar, on top of that there’s different breeds of horses should would cause the structures of the horses to be slightly different.
@@gryffin8063 Different breeds is also a tiny form of Evolution.
If you are wondering about Horses thousands of years old, then looking at the superficial is not enough (and for knowledgeable people, they can actually very different. A Leopard and a Jaguar looks identical to most people but not always to someone who studies the field).
@@Jalip07 They’re the same animal. Looking at the skeletons you can see that they’re the same. The differences is the decay over the course of a few thousand years.
@@gryffin8063 Alright, and what exactly makes you say they are the same animal? Tons of people would be unable to tell a Donkey, Zebra and Horse skeleton apart, and Horses and Donkeys are so genetically far apart that their offspring are sterile. What field do you work actively within where you can see that there is no difference or change between these animals?
Remember, respect what one doesn't know, and never ever make absolute claims that are outside ones field of knowledge. If the objective is to seek truth, then that would not be it.
5:48 , isn't this just an assumption he's making ?
Yeah but at 5:48 all the animals are horse-like, this doesn’t prove macro evolution
@@masterjoseph4681 if you watch the whole video there is clear evidence of macro evolution in the shared traits in structures between vastly different species
@@masterjoseph4681 is it also not obvious to you that what you call micro evolution would cause speciation over the span of thousands of years??
@@faizyabalam4623 how is that dishonest the evidence is clear
@@masterjoseph4681 merrychippus literally had paws which evolved into hooves and their genome would not be compatible. that's is the definition of speciation!
Homologous structures point to the concept of a designer, not to common descent.
Duke - SWT Mate You look like your parents because you're related to your parents. Animals share skeletal arrangements because they are related to one another.
I could argue that we are descendants from robots because we both are made of atoms...
Duke - SWT Mate you could argue all you want, but is there any evidence supporting we descended from robots? Theres some pretty good dna evidence that is only explained by common ancestry such as Endogenous retroviruses and human chromosome 2.
Humans have 46 chromosomes, whereas chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan have 48. This major karyotypic difference was caused by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes to form human chromosome 2 and subsequent inactivation of one of the two original centromeres (Yunis and Prakash 1982). www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC187548/
combine homologous structures with the fossil rcord and you get evolution
We look to natural explanations, not voodoo god magic, so this proves common ancestory. Also, embryology implies common descent based on the fact that we have structures as embryos that we don't have when born that other creatures did have. This video doesn't go in depth into homology
Holy crap! 5:48 he said it's very believable. That's all we want you to say. If you want to believe in evolution .... Fine. No one is stopping you.
how come there are no in between bones like between species
There are? They are called vestigial structures or homologous structures, and transition between species skeletons are one of their evolutionary evidences
@@gmaccc2420 If he would only google things he would know that we humans have many of such structures.
@@innerdescent8210 exactly and plus too if he wanted to or if anyone else wanted to look these things up they should watch or read about blue whales, they have some of the most damning evidence and plenty of transitional skeletons/species such as basilosours
@@gmaccc2420 Science seeks the evidence so the truth may be revealed. Religion denies the facts so that the truth remains concealed.
you already posted this one
They reposted it, because they deleted it.
4:05 "these bones structures are eerily similar"
All my programming work is similar too. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
yeah all the similarities matching up and supposing the same thing doesn't exactly prove we're all related by itself.
But if we include more information such as the fossil record, overwritten genes, vestigial organs, or even biogeography then we're not relying on just similarities.
I'd like you to explain your comment, it confuses me greatly.
@@slingslang2934 fossil records have gaps. Some species interpreted by fossils never even existed. Stasis is a huge issue for the phd biologist, vestigial organs were debunked, retroviruses debunked, junk dna, debunked, etc. garbage.
@@motorheadbanger90 it’s simple. Evolutionist look at similarities between species and conclude we are related. You are similar to fish, so they conclude you are a fish. I’m suggesting just because you are similar to fish does not indicate you are related. Life is simply modular by design - similar to software. Similar but not related.
@@Programm4r The fossil record has very small gaps. You don't just see things like dinosaurs, trees or tetrapods appearing out of nowhere.
And there's about a dozen vestigial organs I myself am aware of how about try looking some up.
8:35 The person giving the lecture doesn't seem to know what microbiology is. Microbiology is not the study of the micro-scale components of life, but of microscopic ORGANISMS, such as bacteria. Studying human DNA is not microbiology, and neither is comparisons of the human genome with that of chimps or mice.. The only microbiology dealing with human bodies is the study of bacteria and other microorganisms in our gut, on our skin, etc.
Serious guys none of that proves anything accept all the species seem similar in way we would expect if we were created. The dog one was convincing though that animals can change for sure
1) It explains the diversity of species accurately.
2) Everything we can measure or perceive or verify in experiments verifies the theory of evolution.
3) There is no other even remotely rational alternative known.
fossils prove that things changes over time , that is already enough . because if you dont accept that you must accept multiple creations from god just randomly appearing over time . also tell me why whale need fingers in her fins ?
The dog one is convincing because evolution is real. It’s an undeniable fact. Humans are animals too. We have just evolved for a smarter brain because it was needed to survive in this world. The smartest people in the population survived and were able to pass on their genes. Over time people became smart. It’s not hard to understand.
@ Humans are animals with immaterial minds and spirits
you didn’t describe “microbiology” as it truly is (micro evolution) you described marcobiology as microbiology they are not the same!
Perish Microevolution and Microevolution are one in the same for the same reason inches and feet are. They measure differently but measure the same type of things.
@@darthnox72 no
Lmao micro macro evolution is the same thing it's like saying water can exist but seas can't exist, also microbiology is evidence for macroevolution
the beginning of the video is macrobiology and the end is microbiology. did u even watch the video? macrobiology is the phenotype or how genes are expressed physically with the human eye like skull structure changing, microbiology is the study of how and why skull shapes changed and how they better fit their environment
to people who believe in the evolution theory:how did the first creature comes to being?
From organic chemicals 4 billion years ago.
That's abiogenesis, not evolution.
how do you know this? scientists said this?how scientists know this?
ok,so how the first creature comes according to abiogenesis?
Dunno, I didn't study this part of biology. However if you want evidence that we do share a common ancestor with other living species, I have those.
Thank you. This video is pretty useful to show other people how the Evolution Theory is just a set of suppositions.
Its real tho...
@Lucky Ask yourself who is the idiot who proudly believes her grandpa is a chimpanzee.
@@livingasecondchance Yeah that's not how evolution works . Please don't make joke out of yourself by saying that lol , and attend a school please
livingasecondchance omg lol, you really didn’t understand anything at all after watching this did you?
@@two2truths I don't think these creationists even bother to watch . They just come here to spread their propaganda .
Theory can be wrong but it can be a fact it depends on the evidence for it or if there a possibility for another explanation. Even we can see evolution in bacteria. Byit8ayar sene le mesh b millions of years. Humans still evolving now 10 000 years ago ma Ken fi blue eyes
Cool story Bro, but we can't even prove that Protein can be observed changed by a mutation scientifically which is the base to start life or evolution, so the basis is kind of hypotheses
I'm not seeing anything here significant enough to change my mind. Why is this explanation any better than another?
I get that it's sound enough for a base explanation, but not compelling enough to change.
Better than any other? What are those "other explanations"?
Well you can think like that but it's still fact
But you just showed that over millions of years the "horse" did not evolve. Just one type came more dominant.
that is evolution ... because every stage is a different specie.
Only way all the Beings are similar because they have one Creator.
prove it
@@Zanta100 prove evolution.oh you can’t,it will always be a theory.
@@Alkursi_feesamaa a scientific theory is the explanation of a well tested and observed phenomenon
but nice try
@@Zanta100 hey I just released a theory called "the one" based on observations launched through my eyes upon hitting the specimen the conclusion came that it is proved based on the one theory that the specimens are all from the one and only God.
@@Zanta100 and please believing in intelligence sprouting from mud without any divine power is the most stupid claim let alone a theory.
The horses are just smaller look
awesome
Why not say they r the same species but different race? 🤔
race isn't used much outside of plants but it depends on the species concept.
Race is different from species, if race was a species then black people and white people cant make babies
@Where Is Adam interspecies?
I'm wondering:
(1) homologous structures could also point to a common designer. In the same way we might engineer bridges or buildings that _look_ similar but have different purposes. They are all built using the same principles, structural features, and science, etc. It's a question of presupposition and interpretation.
(2) Likewise, similar DNA could also point to a common designer - using the same processes, patterns and methods. The examples of the percentage gaps cited in the video are misleading in that sense. 92% similarity between humans and mice seems close biologically but, in real terms, is VASTLY different. Mice are nothing like humans in real terms (unless your called Pinky(and the Brain)). Even a 2 percent difference between apes and humans, in real terms, leads to a vastly different animal. So, similar biological processes and patterns don't necessarily point to evolution.
(3) The direct evidence example is the possibly the weakest to me as it doesn't actually show evolution, only a form of natural selection which is not the same thing. This simply shows a process of loss rather than gain.
1 sure they could
but if they show a clear line then thats pretty unreasonable to assume
or if the same objective is fullfilled by multible different means as we see it with wings
a designer wouldnt need 3 different versions of the same thing...
"only a form of natural selection which is not the same thing."
you dont seem to understand what evolution is....
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your reply. What do you mean by "clear line" and what's "unreasonable to assume"? I'm also not clear what you mean by different meabs and versions. Sorry, just asking for clarity so that I dont misunderstand.
Would you also be kind enough to explain why i dont understand evolution. My understanding is that NS is the means or "mechanism" for evolution but a means is not the end.
Oh, that's an interesting one. I'll have to look into that. Thanks for pointing it out (despite the condescending tone).
However, why do you think he didnt point that out as an example in the video though? And, what about the vastly different real term differences between, say, mice and humans within a mere 8% difference?
@Ricahrd P'Brien Would you consider yourself an expert in this Richard? Are you a geneticist by any chance?
1. Yes, they could. but A) you have to prove that this designer can exist and how he or she or it designs life. and B) having perfct lines of homologous structures as they develop over time is not very consistent with a designer.
And what about building mistakes? All great apes including us have a mutated gen that prevent us from synthesising vitamin C. How can that be explaned by a designer?
2. Again: You have to prove that something like a desiger can in fact exist.
3. Can you please give me your definition of evolution?
Morphology is not evolution.
They use tablets. The mouse evolved to touchscreen
Thanks a lot
can some help me, I'm being asked by a creationist to give him "empirical verifiable evidence' of evolution.. what can I point him to?
Sounds like “mission impossible “. Good luck... :-)
@@olegunnar1559 Is that because there isn't any empirically verifiable evidence for evolution? .. I've always assumed it's a pretty sound scientific theory.
@@bonnie43uk It is.
Atavisms,
endogene retro viruses,
analogy and homology,
"bad design",
ringspecies
fossils,
phylogenetic findings,
atrificial breading,
and so on and so on...
You wil find papers on all of these topics on websites like talkorigin. org or anywhere else in the internet.
@@Molluskenkoenig this guy will not accept anything. Thanks though, i will look into that list.
@@bonnie43uk No worries mate.
A lot of this has actually been disproven. The evidence fits creation much better
That's a lie. Why are so many Christians cool with lying?
Can you give a single piece of evidence for creation please.
I feel bad for you
And it better be not Genesis from the Bible.
New characteristics not influenced by simply genetic mutation over millions of years
What do you mean?
Common ancestry argument is no different than common design plan. Change the plan, change the biology. One says it is completely random, other says it follows a laid out plan.
One has evidence, the other has nothing. We've never seen a god create something, but we've observed evolution in action. The more rational thing to accept as the explanation is evolution. It's fine to believe a god invented it and used it, though! :)
@@jordie00bogart I dont think it is right if you're shoving down your faith through other people's throats. Atleast keep your fairytales to yourself
@@uwuman101 You replied to the wrong person. I'm not the one proposing magic and a book of fairytales such as the Bible.
Kind regards
@@jordie00bogart and that's the difference you are absolutely right
@@jordie00bogart weve never seen evolution in action and never did also viruses are always the same so if a single strand of rna doesnt mutate in a new species over time let alone all the creatures of the earth
Sounds like evidence of a similar creator
Sounds like. Well said. Is it? No! Life's not a fairy tale, sir.
@@franzliszt8957 you escaped! time to send you back to da backrooms
@@nig_card no please don't remind me of that place
Yes. Earth the Creator.
@@JamaaLKellbass who created earth?
homologous structures point to a similar CREATOR.
Homologous structures indicate relationship. To determine this relationship, you need more evidence.
Luckily, we have a fossil record, genome mapping, and embryonic evidence to name a few that points us in a direction that completely contradicts a young-earth model of religion.
you don't have to beleive in young earth to reject evolution, the ambiguous deception. in this video int he direct evidence section, macro evolution was shown in single celled viruses, to now apply that to multi cell organisms is a deception
Read the quantum physics book called "Hands of Light" written by the physicist Barbara Brennan.
I would say I don't understand how most religious people would refuse to understand but no, I understand, I used to be one of them.
Marco Alvarez so u believe this crap?
@@bigblockbumpside2296 Oh, most educated people and nearly all scientists consider the theory of evolution to be accurate.
@@michaelreichwein3970 _"For I have yet to see any evidence that supports evolution!"_
And you can take some people out on a summer day and they will still keep their eyes closed and scream that the sun is a lie and they can't see it.
The fact that you don't know of evidence doesn't mean there is none. What steps have you undertaken regarding you finding out whether there is evidence?
@@michaelreichwein3970 Can you give me some sources for the information you checked? Just so that I can have a look at them as well. Thanks.
@@michaelreichwein3970 wow... this is why google searches don't compare to getting an education.
To all the atheists out there please consider this argument. How is the world made by chance if it is so intricate. As someone who has programmed, it is very hard. There’s usually bugs and specifics that you’ve over looked. Now this beautiful world, it was made by chance. Please just think and consider before you leave this comments. If you don’t believe in God the consequences are dire. May the Lord forgive you if you chose to belief in and worship him!
With regard to living organisms, evolution mechanisms made the livestock complicated. Scientists don't care about religion and gods. Scientists try to interpret with evidence and proofs how this world works, and how all livings we see today have emerged. Two of the most evolution mechanisms are mutations and natural selection. Mutations are random,and taking place regardless of they are useful or not for an organism. Natural selection is not random but it doesn't have specific purposes. In conclusion, the nature, has no purposes. The only aim for a specie is to avoid being extinct or death nothing else. Based on this, natural selection works.
The world is beautiful of course. Ok so what? Beautiful because of the huge geological procedures over 4.5 billions of years. In previous geological periods the world was beautiful too, but with extremely differencies in continents distribution, the climate, the livestock etc.... Beautiful but sometimes hostile, for example massive extinctions, asteroid impacts, earthquakes, super- volcano eruptions, long term glacial periods.. Millions of species suffered.
So, the question is why someone has designed something like that?
Bill Gg To answer your question, punishment for sin, part of God’s plan (you should capitalize his name) and more. I’m not referring just to geography which took place SEVEN thousand years ago I’m talking about organisms. It’s foolish to say that the only thing they care about is kill or be killed. Their is reproduction, the very detailed food chain, packs, the list goes on. I ask you one question, what do you think was truly in the very behind of the universe. If your answer was matter or something else than how did it come to get there? You may say the same about God. Truth is, I don’t know. But you have faith in more things in your belief then I have in mind. First the beginning matter was to somehow form. After that it would somehow follow various other steps that have low probability that eventually lead to organisms. Once again steps that don’t quite make sense are shown such as the extent of evolving in organisms. Somehow that eventually makes us. I skipped many steps in that process. You believe in a lot of chances. Man might have come out with this answer from “scientific” testing and analysis but man changes and is wrong all the time. For example, the shape of your brain determining how strong you are in certain areas or Stephen Hawking going back on his own theories.
We don't capitalize the word god. Specific gods' names, we do capitalize.. Seeing as all the gods are the same to us, there is no reason to believe in a single god. As for the god that you likely believe in, we would capitalize it by it's actual name, which is not 'god.' it's Yahweh, several other potential names.
jordie00bogart I understand that but what your not getting is he is real. There has been fossils of giants and what you call to be scientifically impossible people that has been found, there have been ruins found of places that were talked about in the Bible, and there have been times when God talked to people despite there being able to. There was a scientist once who got severely injured. Then he had a vivid dream of God and going through hell and heaven. The thing is the part of his brain that would allow him to do this was the part that was severely injured. What about the girl who decided she didn’t want to live and shot herself. She had a similar dream. The bullet JUST missed her heart by the tiniest bit.
Hi Chris, thank you for your reply.
*"I understand that but what your not getting is he is real."*
Be that as it may, we don't have any evidence to suggest he is.
*"...fossils of giants..."*
I'm an archaeologist, and I can tell you, we have found nothing that is out of the ordinary regarding 'giants.' I've personally dug up strongly tall individuals, but nothing considered giant. Though, i suppose on individual I dug up being 7'1" was quite tall. however, he was a product of selective breeding due to the slave trade. They literally would breed individuals that were naturally tall and strong.
*"there have been ruins found of places that were talked about in the Bible,"*
By that logic, spider man is true because New York is a real place.. Same with other holy books that use real people and real places.. We cannot assume that because the bible mentions real places (which it obviously would if it's meant to sound real) it's somehow about a real god. Personally I've never seen or talked to this god, I have no way to know it's real or not.
When I was a devout Christian, like all Christians, I would pray regularly. Overtime my prayers came true, I took that as a win and disregarded all the other times they didn't. Turns out, prayer has the same success rate as change. I tested that when I started to question my religion.. Turns out science has tested it as well and we see the same results I came to when I was still a christian.
*"and there have been times when God talked to people despite there being able to"*
Well, he or she hasn't talked to me.. And people saying they've talked to god isn't evidence of anything. Anecdotal evidence is, in fact, the lowest form of evidence.
Everything else you mentioned isn't evidence of your god being real. This has happened in countless other religions as well. Once again, anecdotal and not of any substance. The only way I could possibly believe in a god is if it were to show itself to be real.
You god and all the other gods I've learned about from history are all the same to me. I see no reason to believe in any of them. I would love to believe, but I have no reason to. I cannot simply believe in something I don't believe in.
Can't like it twice?!!
After all of this progress people still believe Adam and Eve
Yah Because we talked about this in My bio class can't Believe after this school year i will be a Junior already and i am watching this for Mrs.Burkes bio and to practice for the science i am taking next year.
That is if i get the science i want on my schedule,
Because they're still Neolithic-minded, they couldn't have evolved yet.
That's honestly just sad