You can really tell the dishonesty (even without a biology degree) in John and Jane's video when John starts talking about God and the "happy guitar" starts playing alongside him to emotionally punctuate his point. YUCK.
But the unfortunate answer is that it isn't just her 😔 in fact, she used to be me lol. Forrest is actually teaching me SO much with his videos, to the point where I'm learning I really didn't learn basic biology, ever. 😔
Wizard: "I need a human skull, though please don't ask" Forrest: "OK, but no questions from you either" Wizard: ".. Erh, yeah OK" Forrest produces a large collection of human skulls Forrest: "..." Wizard: "... That one"
A good portion of religiously motivated "crtiticisms" are just "well, you do it too!" justifications. They can't actually abandon their positions, so instead they try to level they playing field by pretending all paths to truth are just as flawed. When I was a creationist, the whole world seemed impossible to understand because even our best attempts to study reality through science seemed totally arbitrary and pointless. Everything in science had to boil down to equally invalid opinions and guesses-truth was simply impossible to discern with any certainty-otherwise our explanation was obviously inferior. It's the root of mistrust in science as a whole. When your belief doesn't comport with reality, the only way forward is to mistrust everything.
It's dogmatic thinking, it's really scary. A permanent appeal to authority instead of evidence. "It is written in my holy book, so it is true", but the funny thing is that a lot of these people think atheists do this as well. They seem to believe we also have our "scriptures", and we accept blindly everything Darwin or Einstein ever wrote without evidence.
Also they can't fathom that an eye could evolve separately in different animals, but overlook the fact that gods somehow managed to appear independently in various parts of the world.
Even though evolution is sometimes presented in a way that makes it seem circular, mostly due to people just mixing up examples with evidence, the Bible is entirely circular in every single way.
It's just so perfectly ironic and stupid after hearing her constantly say that everything in that book is impossible so only their "master creator" is right
I am going to guess their entire argument. Are you ready? Here goes: Common features imply a common designer rather than common descent. Bonus points if they confuse analogous and homologous traits. Edit: I’m psychic
And no mention will be made of the equivalent logical argument: the fact that creatures have differences in design implies they had different designers.
The Miss naming is very intentional tactic. It makes it much harder for members of their audience that don't already know what homologous structures are to look up any of the real information about them if they don't have the actual name of what they're trying to look up. This tactic is used more generally in apologetics quite frequently.
More specifically, they give names that are exclusively used within creationist websites instead of scientific papers, so people see a bunch of deceptive sources agreeing with the b.s. as all the top results. This is clearly not accidental.
everything is more interesting when a devil is involved maybe? i know i was bored to tears in highschool biology but hearing forrest and aron ra dunk on creationism makes me a whole lot more interested
@@Andrew_Sword I think of it as like learning to spite someone, like suddenly learning stuff to tell someone they're wrong is much more enticing than just learning normally to me depending on some topics
My favorite detail is “it seems impossible for an eye to evolve twice” suddenly becomes “it is definitely impossible”. No proof, it just seems that way therefore it is.
Yeah like when they read that something is rare or unlikely and say "So it can't happen!" They even do something similar in a previous episode where they read a line that says, "Most traits are neutral or even deleterious," and use that as proof that they all are when Most inherently means there are some that differ
the most cringe part of these videos for me (as a musician) is when the hopeful happy comfy music kicks in once they say "Well you see, god is the perfect explanation because:" it's super emotionally manipulative Lmao. People associate music with particular feelings, and is such an easy shortcut to brute force that feeling with no good rationale behind it. thank you for another awesome reacteria! much love, Forrest!!
That's the exact reasoning behind doing 'worship music' before sermons because the musicians put specific sounding songs in specific order to best prime people's brains into believing that there's a 'presence' in the church and that their god is speaking directly thru the pastor.
Modern Christianity operates in large part by using music to emotionally manipulate people. Every service in evangelical churches use music it to make people think they're feeling the presence of God.
It's pretty crazy how a lot of this can be learned in an intro to Biology class and most teachers do a very good job of explaining how it works and are more than happy to answer your questions about it.
@@jackweaver1846 Sadly, in "the staites"! Many kids do NOT get taught any of this at all because they go to "Krischin" schools who outright deny SO MUCH Science!
@@jackweaver1846definitely but even worse, some children (both in private and public school but I bet this is a huge homeschool problem) are prevented from learning this due to their parents’ ignorance who will either keep them out of the class or will tell them to ignore it.
Can you give a 2 sentence description of homological algebra? I know various math subjects to various degrees, my living being in engineering, not math, but I like to hear about all the new ways people are identifying the math that is all around us.
@@pansepot1490 Google is going to give me some annoying technical definition, or some overly vague popsci description. This guy seems like someone that could actually articulate it in a reasonable way, and I'd be able to ask a follow-up question if I was still confused.
This exact topic is what opened the door to me leaving the church. I was a child drawing animals and had the realization that they were all the same structures. And then I thought about all the times I've made up an animal and how they rarely resembled each other and became immediately disappointed in god's lack of creativity. Why would he make three designs and just tweak them over and over again? Wouldn't he get bored? He had the opportunity to make each and every creature totally unique, but instead he copy pasted his way through the world. I have since looked into this subject more and have a far better understanding than I did as a child having a religious chrisis (pun not initially intended) in art class but it remains one of my favorite biology topics to this day.
Not to mention there's a lot of cases where the similar structures in one animal are basically a detriment. Like some of the herbivore carnivora. Why would a designer use a suboptimal digestive system for a task if they had a better one designed for it?
@@jeffmaehre7150 At the risk of stating the obvious -- I don't think that creationists (or people in general), on average, are so easily convinced by facts and logic.
It surprises me how educational the series gets with these two. Science has never been easy for me to understand, and every time "John & Jane" are on the screen I learn so much. It's incredible how easy it is to see something when you have two INCREDIBLY biased actors trying to tell you it's something different. Forrest just brings it all together so nicely! Thank you for helping me understand science by debunking this tragedy of a video series.
I love your puzzle analogy, but to be honest sometimes it feels like they threw out all of the pieces and drew what they think the puzzle should look like on a piece of paper
Several pieces of paper, actually. And even though some pieces contradict others, they bound all those pieces into a book. Now they insist the pieces of paper are accurate because it says so on the pieces of paper.
I'm glad they mentioned eyeballs. Human eyes have a blindspot, octopuses don't. So one might say that the octopus's eye has the better structure. But if Yahweh created man in his own image, and god is perfect, then the eye of the octopus is more perfect than that of Yahweh's. Also, man is supposed to be the besterest of all the animals. Yet cephalopods outdo us in the eyeball department. And what's so weird about convergent evolution. I think it's bloody brilliant. John and Jayne's incredulity is not a valid argument against it.
Cephalopods have better designed eyes than we do. Birds of prey have much better vision than we do. Bears and dogs have a much keener sense of smell than we have. Owls have much better haring ability than us. When you look round the animal kingdom there are creatures that outdo us in just about every way. if creation is true then maybe God created the universe specifically for the Peregrine Falcon or maybe the Black Bear? Cockroaches can survive in environments that would kill all humans, maybe they are the pinnacle of God's work?
If octopi survived to create at least a second generation they would probably take over the ocean. The main reason they die is because they are small and have no parents when they're born. Imagine if one the smartest craftiest creatures taught their children to survive and let them grow in safety.
I must conclude that the chosen race was actually octopi. They multiply prolifically per the edict of their God but due to their sin, they are not allowed to save themselves but rather must wait to be saved by a messiah. We as self-centered humans just assumed that the Bible was about humans not some other species.
homological: when you’re Spock but you’re also into Bussy. Plants are actually really great for Homology arguments because you can basically show the complete evolutionary process from algae to angiosperms, with extant plant species. You can start at mosses and show exactly how we got from there through liverworts, clubmosses, ferns, basal gymnosperms, conifers, magnolias, to daisies, and show the development of all the different structures on a plant and how they changed as evolution progressed.
@@daveblock cartoons? Where? You needs to get your eyes checked my dude. And even if it was cartoons, still doesn’t mean you are right.(because you definitely aren’t)
@@daveblock Prove it then. Prove that it is in fact impossible. There are a lot of smarter people out there then you or me who have proven otherwise so I'd like to see you come up with evidence that, if what you say is true and is impossible, would revolutionize our understanding of how life did or didn't come to be. I'm gonna go ahead and bet you can't so maybe you should be the one to get educated and "sit down".
And then when people DO use their brains, they get told by christians that they’re “thinking too much” or “don’t have enough faith”. You just can’t win
@@angelamaryquitecontrary4609 yea... it almost feels petty to brig up, especially considering how dangerous the anti-science rhetoric throughout is, but like... it's a really bad hat. Also, a british flag shirt is a weird choice for an American
Hello Forrest, I’m Oscar Swinburn, I love your videos and your video style, it’s helped encourage me to study hard and do what I love. I now study biology, chemistry and physics and I’m working on my DofE and EPQ and I’m also teaching lessons on one of my favourite subjects in science in some primary schools in my area. My favourite field of science, the science that I predominantly study, evolutionary biology! Specifically palaeontology (they’re both technically sub fields of each other, it’s weird). I’m also working on my own videos on most if not all topics of science. (Yes it’s a lot at once, I am insane) and your videos have been a huge inspiration for all of it! Thank you for that!
If you take anything from Forrest, I hope that it's the enthusiasm and energy he brings to these videos. It's infectious, in the best ways, and brings the subject to life, so to speak. If you can do even half of that, I think you'll do well
@CollinGerberding thank you very much! And this isn’t my main channel (I’ve yet to set it up, I’m still writing scripts, brief overview of palaeontology, geological clock, dating methods blah blah blah). This channel will be miscellaneous content, some Ark, some fossil hunting, some science, you name it. And thank you for also taking an interest in science! It may sound weird but it is greatly appreciated by myself and all others in the scientific community! Thank you!
Even though I've left religion and become an atheist, I feel fortunate that my parents raised me with critical thinking skills. My mother was a librarian and taught me to research. My father was an electrical engineer and taught me that science was fun and how it could be verified. I even remember my parents telling me in my youth (80s and 90s) that the scientific evidence of evolution was strong enough that they couldn't deny it. My mother liked to say that eventually we would understand all of God's processes, but for now, the connection between how he did it and what science says remains a mystery, so it was important to separate them and understand verifiable science. I like to think that their critical thinking skills that they taught me are what led to me questioning faith in general, though they'd probably be horrified by that *lol*
Anytime I see someone say that creatures are perfectly designed, I think of my need of glasses to see anything clearly, my food allergies, and my ADHD. If I’m designed exactly how some sky wizard wanted me to be, then he’s a mean kid with a magnifying glass over an anthill wanting to see something suffer.
Out of curiosity, how do creationist idiots actually address "glasses, food allergies, etc" if they legitimately believe all humans are designed *perfectly*? Surely, our bad eyesight and allergies imply that humans are not perfect in any way whatsoever. Especially since humans also develop diseases, which most animals are immune to, thereby implying we're far from perfect.
This is why I love the (sadly extinct) Tasmanian Tiger. It's a marsupial with stripes like a tiger, incredibly canine-like features, and had basically zero ancestral link to wolves or dogs. It's where I first learned about convergent evolution: similar environmental pressures naturally selecting similar traits.
Same. I also find it interesting that the English language settled on likening the animal to a tiger because of its coat pattern, while German went with the overall body shape and named it the 'Tasmanian wolf'.
It’s more like parallel evolution since dogs and thylacines are both mammals which came from roughly the same ancestral shape at a fairly recent point in the past. A better example of convergent evolution might be sun spiders having claws the same shape as the skulls of shrews or cats, or the sea slug Phylliroe being shaped like a fish despite being a mollusk.
Fun fact about blue tongue skinks: the blue tongue flashing at predators - especially birds that see in UV light - essentially blinds them because blue reflects UV light like flashing a mirror at someone
Forest, you’re the biology teacher I never had (I went to a small Christian school). After high school I went on to become an electrical engineer and didn’t spend much time in college on biology so these videos have become a great launchpad to learning more about biology after work. Keep up the great work!
I love how Forrest's reacteria videos always teach me more about evolutionary biology that I didn't know. Definitely one of my favorite divisions of biology to learn about.
Once, someone asked me how we know the distance to the sun, and I said, "That's an interesting question. I should do some research on that." And I looked it up, and I learned some neat stuff about how scientists solve puzzles like that (I mean, the answer is always "math", really, but figuring out what math to do gets really interesting). I've noticed that Creationists favor a different approach: someone asks them a question and they say, "I don't know... and therefore there is no possible answer." They said it directly in this video, and implied it a few more times. How bleak their lives must be, without the possibility of ever learning anything new.
Totally off topic here, but I watched your video on the small towns teaching creationism in class with biology and actually learned about the relationship between melanin and riboflavin. I told my kids about it and they were really impressed and thought it was so cool that other people had different "super powers". Thank you for that 🙏
I very seriously considered becoming an ocular veterinarian specializing in big cats. I love eyes, eye structure, and all the variants so many animals have evolved into having over so very many generations. Thank you so much for these videos, they're always a treat to watch and make me laugh and give me hope there are still people following their dreams!
Ah yes, it's just like I learned in biology class. The second cranial nerve links the brain to the common sense gland, located behind the eye socket or somesuch. 🙄
@@imveryangryitsnotbutterBro his meaning of a connection was as metaphorical as his meaning of the common sense. He simply wanted to say that they are not able to use commons sense in a funny way and you not getting it just makes it funnier lol😂
@@imveryangryitsnotbutterMan, you must be fun at parties. Poor OP had no comments on his post till you decided to (as you said) heckle him like a dick. Be nice.
Your passion for education is infectious. Those of us that have discovered your channel are fortunate that you chose to utilize TH-cam to share your knowledge. Thanks.
My favorite part of every video is when Forrest raises his voice, musses his hair or brings out the bullhorn. And this episode features all three of those! You know it’s a good one when Forrest is half-crazed throughout the middle part of the video.
Forrest, I just wish to thank you for this type of content. I'm going to start studying biology next year and your videos feel like a great introduction to what I love (not to mention how engaging, fun, and comprehensible yet not superficial this is)
The fact that you can point to aspects of your own discipline and say, "This is stupid/We got this wrong/This was a terrible thing," is a big part of the difference between you and the people you react to. The willingness to not just be criticized but actively criticize yourself is a sign of maturity and understanding that a lot of apologists and 'debate bros' lack.
Intelligence doesn't remove curiosity, but refines it in a manner that is so well reflected in Forrest Valkai's video presentations. He helps us digest reality with knowledge and communication skills.
I’m always amazed by the whole creationist argument. I’m in my 70s and even our preacher (back when I was a teen and attended church) wasn’t a die hard creationist. He did do some inventive rationalization to satisfy himself with accepting creationism and evolution, but at least we were never forced into abandoning science by him.
Another thing that kinda irks me is that they keep saying that *evolution* is random, no evolution is quite predictable actually, we’ve been able to force evolution tons of times, what’s actually random is *mutation* the mutations are random but evolution is not.
Yeah saying evolution is random because mutations are random is like saying evolution is not random because selection is not random. Portions of it are random and portions of it are not random. But obviously they are trying to say that the portion of it that is random is so influential that it makes it improbable or impossible. Obviously them just saying so is not an argument 😅
@@SpicyCurreyI was on a TH-cam short about creationism from a channel similar to this one a couple days ago, and when I sorted the comments by new, there was a creationist copy pasting the same argument over and over again for 7 months. It was about the human genome and "there are so many potential combinations of base pairs that could exist" and how "unlikely" it was to end up in the specific human genome. Multiple people throughout those 7 months continually corrected him that it isn't a random process at all but he kept posting non stop. They simply refuse to listen. They pick a strawman and if you tell them how it actually works they just ignore you and keep running with their own made up version of how evolution works. It's such an easy argument to refute, like an ai has an insanely huge possibility space that only depends on the level of decimal precision you're allocating, but when you specifically train it to do a task it isn't "unlikely" that it ends up at a configuration that accomplishes that task. It's so frustrating how they just ignore everything contradictory to their own strawman lol Edit: just realised that commenter I was talking about, was actually on this channel. He's not on this specific video. But he's still actively posting in others. Most recent comment was a couple hours ago. Same exact already debunked argument.
I've had to pause this video several times because I keep having intrusive questions that make me want to Google. Thank you for giving me a reason to ask questions, even if they are relatively random.
That puzzle analogy was friggin amazing! I love how well it was crafted! Jane is more like the third person: the one who finds two pieces that fit right away, and lays them down, but accidentally puts the pieces picture-side down, but assumes that, because the pieces fit together, it must be a solid picture of grey-brown card-paper across the whole puzzle, and just keeps getting more frustrated trying to search for pieces without any kind of reference.
Love the 3rd scenario you added. Reminded me of a TV show back in the ninety's where a kid did that....but he was so good at puzzles *he* has absolutely no problem putting it together, then flipped it over to show the picture. (I'm pretty sure it was ice cream) Jane wouldn't be able to do that though!
@shannadaul6438 I was kind of inspired by that! I always wondered if he figured out that talent by accident, but later realized he was just so good at puzzles, he started doing it to challenge himself. I later met an old lady who did the same thing, but she was blind, and could feel the shape of the pieces better on the cardboard side. I thought that was really cool!
@@Ian_sothejokeworks It's been so long since I've seen that show, but I think he did tons of puzzles with his grandmother.... Idk?... I only remember 2 things from that show That puzzle scene, and the mean-girl complaining "why do bad things happen to good people?" when things didn't go the way she wanted. I remember at ten thinking... it's because you're MEAN! 😆
Thank you for this video Forrest. This is actually the first time I've laughed or smiled in months. You are really coming into your own, and finding your style, and I am all for it. 💪🤘
An interesting thing I found out a little while back, is that, even with homo sapiens, convergient evolution has occured. Blond hair has popped up in four different world regions as a result of four independently occurring and different gene expressions! Amazing!
I've never been so excited for someone to be able to stretch their arms out. Congrats on the bigger, badder, and better recording space, Forrest! Absolutely looking forward to the "all kinds of activities" you're conjuring up in that amazing brain of yours. Your content is remarkably enjoyable. Keep up the incredible work, my good friend!
omg Me and my husband have missed your Reacteria videos so badly! They're our favorite videos on TH-cam. They're both funny and very educational. We learn so much!
Cephalopod eyes are honestly just so neat all on their own that comparing them to mammal eyes and saying their the same is kind of offensive to both kinds of eyes. Like. Cuttlefish don't have color cones but can detect the wavelengths of different colors of light by changing the shape and focus of their w pupils. That's friggin fascinating. My eye can't do that.
Fantastic as always, Forrest! I love this series. Its also great on repeat watches just to really take the time to understand every bit that you put out. Keep doing what you do!
I've been studying red pandas a lot this year - and I don't just mean watching lots of videos of them being cute. And the more I learn about any animal the more it only makes sense when seen in the light of evolution. This video made me think of them again. They show convergent evolution with the giant panda, both having independently evolved a "false thumb" to help them hold bamboo to eat, which initially fooled people into assuming they are closely related, because of that apparent homologous structure that turned out to be an analogous one. Genetics confirms the two pandas are only very distant relatives, with no false-thumbed ancestors.
I was watching this in my physics class right before it started, and my TA noticed and got excited asking if this was forest’s new video. He talked about how dumb the people in it are. It was so funny. He’s a great TA
"precisely tailored" human fucking knees. And hips. And spines. And feet. And that one nerve that goes through the heart. Tell me again how all these features are "precisely tailored" when they break down so easily and dont actually work well for the shit we use them for.
You know what i find the most upsetting part is...... Having to wait a month between episodes! Always makes my day better for watching these. Love the content and love the delivery
I love how they always wanna make evolution seem random, when really it's not. Like at all, the mutations are more or less random but of course only beneficial mutations will stay, because most dead things don't make kids anymore
@@daveblockyes. Responsible for genetic diversity. Evolution is far more that isn’t random. You sound like someone who saw a 5 min video, and now thinks you know everything.
Homologous and analogous structures both existing seems like something nearly impossible for a creationist to reconcile Why would an intelligent designer make the internal structures of bat wings more similar to human arms than to bird wings? Or a whale's tail have building blocks more similar to a dog's than a fish's?
And to explain it they often evoke arguments using how God behaves, instead of establishing God is real they say "Well God must Think/Act in an XYZ way"
I grew up in a Christian household and consider myself to still be one. What I have always thought is that if science can be articulated, proven, and applied consistently, then my faith (and subsequent beliefs) should be based around science. My goal is to understand my spiritual beliefs through scientific evidence and never the opposite
The perspective of, “Science is learning about the world, so that means I’ll be able to learn about what God made! 😊” is way too rare of a mindset. I’m glad there’s people like you who can actually look at the world and appreciate it along with your religion in harmony. ❤
Trust in the Lord and lean not on your own understanding. There nothing proven or real about evolutionism. It's based on imagination with zero observations and countless frauds and FAILED predictions.
Their religion is definitely worse. Bad acting can at least be funny every now and then, fundamentalist Christianity is pretty much always just infuriating and depressing.
@CaptJP2 agreed on that too. I can understand and forgive stupidity or ignorance by themselves, but being ignorant on purpose is just disgusting. Being proud of it on top is just..... 🤮
thanks for that last part. it's nice to be reminded that you don;t accept things you just fail to reject them. as a stem major i need to remember that lol
Bayesian mimicry is awesome. I found a milk snake in my backyard that not only looked like a copperhead but was in some dried leaves and started shaking the tip of its tail to sound like a rattlesnake.
Now, that's really interesting. We have milk snakes where I live, but they're (sadly) very rare. However, I've tried to move a fox snake in the past (just to get it off a path so it wouldn't get stepped on) and it started doing the same thing; even though I knew very well that it was only a fox snake, I instinctively jumped back about three feet. The mimicry is incredibly effective.
Hey so there’s this channel called Long Story Short trying to prove creationism with science (lol). Some of their arguments seem to be complex to me for people without a scientific background. Would be great to see you react to it!
@@daveblock I actually understand them. But they use complex vocabulary and “sources” to prove their point. Upon reading their sources, you realize none of them support their claim, only providing facts for their “arguments”. If you don’t know better, you’ll trust him and his claim that can be explained.
@@TacticalAnt420 Evolution we see is loss of information….mutations that degrade genes, that’s how small beaks were created on Darwin’s finches, polar bears are white, ostriches got large. Real evolution from a common ancestor requires the creation of systems of new proteins by random mutations….impossible. Actual science debunks evolution from a first cell. Look at the definition of evolution, you will see nothing about the creation of new systems…only change in existing. Why? Because even evolutionist cannot find a mechanism to build. They lie to you and say ‘just add time” to micro evolution. Degradation of genes over time will never add up to build a new system. You need more education before making your incorrect assumptions. Science 100% of the time shows creation.
@@TacticalAnt420 Just a heads up, Dave here is a troll who has admitted in the comments of some of Forrest's other videos to using sockpuppets and actively gaslighting people. Best not to engage.
What I want to know from these two is why a mantis shrimp can see waaaaaaaaay more colors than me, yet I’m yelled at by my then-fiancée for not “seeing” the difference between periwinkle and lavender….
@@diarmuidkuhle8181 Really, it was an inside joke just for me so I’m not surprised someone would be confused by it. My first wife’s wedding colors were periwinkle and rose so I would tease her that it was purple and pink. She’d get flustered and I’d have to apologize for being an ass even though I truly have a hard time seeing/knowing the subtle nuances in colors. So when I see videos from fundamentalists crapping on evolutionary biology, I think of the mantis shrimp’s eyes, and of other animals, who have “better” evolutionary traits than us humans. And when I’m at a home improvement store looking at color swatches, I can see the subtle differences, but I could not for the life of me point to a flower and say “that’s periwinkle because of the bluish hue to it” so you’ll have to forgive me. I hope this clarifies things maybe just a bit. Cheers!
@@idle_speculation And I wonder which one of us tastes better dipped in cocktail sauce?? I kid. 😝 But in all seriousness, I do think of animals with better eyesight (and other evolutionary traits) than us humans when I see videos like this. Take the hawk for example; the distance they can see is phenomenal! Yet I need a corrective lease just to drive a car safely. Plus, some species have two different focal points, and we have one? If we were designed, then we got the short end of the stick!
Less than five minutes in and I already learned something new, namely that Forrest speaks Spanish. How fluently I don't know, since I don't speak Spanish.
The thing about protestants is that by failing to appreciate God , obsessing on a fundamentalist and very flawed interpretation of a modified bible, cannot comprehend that when we say God created all things on earth, it doesn't mean he actively intervened in the material plane of existence. That would be assigning material qualities to God. He has created all things on earth metaphysically, and outside of time, neither proactively nor retroactively, nor constantly. God "Is", we cannot assign qualities like "intelligence" to something that is completely beyond definable qualities (which would logically make God imperfect). Religion and science can coexist and thrive, but fundamentalism without theology or philosophy is just absolutely ... deleterious
Its amazing to me how these people are sooooo close to getting it, but refuse to continue learning because at THAT point, their beliefs go against it... My god.
I love how realistic that editing was at 24:39 for John & Jane talking about their own circular reasoning. Every time I watch, I have to pause, go back, and remember that the edited segment was them talking about Evolution before. XD
I love science, I love learning all these things about science just by watching these videos. They’re are also genuinely funny to watch you disprove creationists
🌏 Get exclusive NordVPN deal here ➵ nordvpn.com/valkailabs It’s risk free with Nord’s 30 day money-back guarantee!✌
only CROOKS need a ''v'' pn.
Jesus pow❤er proof. Warning it will last 72 hours
You can really tell the dishonesty (even without a biology degree) in John and Jane's video when John starts talking about God and the "happy guitar" starts playing alongside him to emotionally punctuate his point.
YUCK.
Can't wait till " John" comes out as gay and denounces " yesss gawd" because.. this kid a qween!
Even most of Reddit's r/Christianity think they're crazy.
Every time Jane says "Is it just me?" I feel the urge to tell her, "YES!"
Yes it is just her. She is just trying to manipulate others into thinking it isn't just her ideal
Same
I definitely do yell YES.
Unfortunately, there are millions like her!
But the unfortunate answer is that it isn't just her 😔 in fact, she used to be me lol. Forrest is actually teaching me SO much with his videos, to the point where I'm learning I really didn't learn basic biology, ever. 😔
Wizard: "I need a human skull, though please don't ask"
Forrest: "OK, but no questions from you either"
Wizard: ".. Erh, yeah OK"
Forrest produces a large collection of human skulls
Forrest: "..."
Wizard: "... That one"
"witch!" -Forrest
*Later*
Wizard: *brewing a potion* Hmmm, where did he get those?
Later later:
Wizard leaving a Yelp review: 'Good product. High customer discretion. 5 stars. Would buy again.'
I remember this tumblr(?) post.
Brilliant.
I love how John and Jane call evolution circular reasoning when they're the ones who think the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible's true.
A good portion of religiously motivated "crtiticisms" are just "well, you do it too!" justifications. They can't actually abandon their positions, so instead they try to level they playing field by pretending all paths to truth are just as flawed. When I was a creationist, the whole world seemed impossible to understand because even our best attempts to study reality through science seemed totally arbitrary and pointless. Everything in science had to boil down to equally invalid opinions and guesses-truth was simply impossible to discern with any certainty-otherwise our explanation was obviously inferior.
It's the root of mistrust in science as a whole. When your belief doesn't comport with reality, the only way forward is to mistrust everything.
It's dogmatic thinking, it's really scary. A permanent appeal to authority instead of evidence. "It is written in my holy book, so it is true", but the funny thing is that a lot of these people think atheists do this as well. They seem to believe we also have our "scriptures", and we accept blindly everything Darwin or Einstein ever wrote without evidence.
LITERALLY THO 😭😭 im so glad i was able to escape that mindset-
Also they can't fathom that an eye could evolve separately in different animals, but overlook the fact that gods somehow managed to appear independently in various parts of the world.
Even though evolution is sometimes presented in a way that makes it seem circular, mostly due to people just mixing up examples with evidence, the Bible is entirely circular in every single way.
Hearing Jane say "That's circular reasoning" had me cracking up... the irony 😂
It's just so perfectly ironic and stupid after hearing her constantly say that everything in that book is impossible so only their "master creator" is right
Hahahha...I don't she knows what that means. She probably just heard it a lot from atheists using it against theists and just wanted to say it.
I lost it at the bullhorn. "GENETICS AND FOSSIL RECORDS!" 🤣
i know lol.
I am going to guess their entire argument. Are you ready? Here goes:
Common features imply a common designer rather than common descent. Bonus points if they confuse analogous and homologous traits.
Edit: I’m psychic
And no mention will be made of the equivalent logical argument: the fact that creatures have differences in design implies they had different designers.
You’re not psychic creationists have just been saying the same shit for the last forty years
@@zachattack1279 It’s called a joke.
@@chameleonx9253 lmao yes
@@chameleonx9253exactly, that's means creationnists are actually polytheists
The Miss naming is very intentional tactic. It makes it much harder for members of their audience that don't already know what homologous structures are to look up any of the real information about them if they don't have the actual name of what they're trying to look up. This tactic is used more generally in apologetics quite frequently.
Someone really needs to make a website explaining this and directly connecting each term to its correct term.
More specifically, they give names that are exclusively used within creationist websites instead of scientific papers, so people see a bunch of deceptive sources agreeing with the b.s. as all the top results. This is clearly not accidental.
I had Ms. Naming in 4th grade. Always had a huge crush on her.
@@idontwantahandlethough I used talk to text and don't always do the best proofreading
@@kevinhaddad9420Miss Naming did do the thoroughmost proofreading.
Using creationists'videos to teach evolution better than you could on your own is such a MASSIVE dunk and we need to talk about it
everything is more interesting when a devil is involved maybe? i know i was bored to tears in highschool biology but hearing forrest and aron ra dunk on creationism makes me a whole lot more interested
@@Andrew_Sword I think of it as like learning to spite someone, like suddenly learning stuff to tell someone they're wrong is much more enticing than just learning normally to me depending on some topics
@@4rtiphi5hal19
That's a pretty shallow incentive for learning.
@@skateboardingjesus4006 i will spend hours reading academic papers just to prove a minor misconception someone has
wdym? The Light of Evolution is really useful
My favorite detail is “it seems impossible for an eye to evolve twice” suddenly becomes “it is definitely impossible”. No proof, it just seems that way therefore it is.
Yeah like when they read that something is rare or unlikely and say "So it can't happen!" They even do something similar in a previous episode where they read a line that says, "Most traits are neutral or even deleterious," and use that as proof that they all are when Most inherently means there are some that differ
Yup most anti science arguments are just: “I have a gut feeling this isn’t true, I must be right”
the most cringe part of these videos for me (as a musician) is when the hopeful happy comfy music kicks in once they say "Well you see, god is the perfect explanation because:"
it's super emotionally manipulative Lmao. People associate music with particular feelings, and is such an easy shortcut to brute force that feeling with no good rationale behind it.
thank you for another awesome reacteria! much love, Forrest!!
As a very amateur musician, I thoroughly approve of this comment.
That's the exact reasoning behind doing 'worship music' before sermons because the musicians put specific sounding songs in specific order to best prime people's brains into believing that there's a 'presence' in the church and that their god is speaking directly thru the pastor.
And so what we have learned applies to our lives today
God has a lot to say in His book
As a Brit I'm not too thrilled to see a creationist wearing my flag 🇬🇧
Modern Christianity operates in large part by using music to emotionally manipulate people. Every service in evangelical churches use music it to make people think they're feeling the presence of God.
It's pretty crazy how a lot of this can be learned in an intro to Biology class and most teachers do a very good job of explaining how it works and are more than happy to answer your questions about it.
Sadly those classes have a prerequisite of “wanting to learn”
@@jackweaver1846 Sadly, in "the staites"! Many kids do NOT get taught any of this at all because they go to "Krischin" schools who outright deny SO MUCH Science!
Bold of you to assume that they actually wanna learn anything.
@@jackweaver1846definitely but even worse, some children (both in private and public school but I bet this is a huge homeschool problem) are prevented from learning this due to their parents’ ignorance who will either keep them out of the class or will tell them to ignore it.
As a former Intro to Biology teacher, I appreciate this comment!
As a gay man, everything i do is homological
I mean, if you slept with a woman, that would be homoillogical, wouldn't it?
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.
As a lesbian, same
Love it!!❤❤
Lol 😂😂 😂
As a mathematician who has studied homological algebra, but knows very little about biology, I was intrigued by the beginning of this video. 😂
Glad you are here to learn!
Can you give a 2 sentence description of homological algebra?
I know various math subjects to various degrees, my living being in engineering, not math, but I like to hear about all the new ways people are identifying the math that is all around us.
@@kindlin that’s what google is for.
I need to understand homological algebra for my dissertation project (statistician here). Can you teach me?? 🥺🥺 (Or recommend an intro book)
@@pansepot1490 Google is going to give me some annoying technical definition, or some overly vague popsci description. This guy seems like someone that could actually articulate it in a reasonable way, and I'd be able to ask a follow-up question if I was still confused.
This exact topic is what opened the door to me leaving the church. I was a child drawing animals and had the realization that they were all the same structures. And then I thought about all the times I've made up an animal and how they rarely resembled each other and became immediately disappointed in god's lack of creativity. Why would he make three designs and just tweak them over and over again? Wouldn't he get bored? He had the opportunity to make each and every creature totally unique, but instead he copy pasted his way through the world.
I have since looked into this subject more and have a far better understanding than I did as a child having a religious chrisis (pun not initially intended) in art class but it remains one of my favorite biology topics to this day.
Lol chrisis (pun intended?)
@@antonliakhovitch8306 lol. Nope, just dyslexic, but honestly that's a surprisingly funny pun. Good catch
Not to mention there's a lot of cases where the similar structures in one animal are basically a detriment. Like some of the herbivore carnivora. Why would a designer use a suboptimal digestive system for a task if they had a better one designed for it?
@@jeffmaehre7150 At the risk of stating the obvious -- I don't think that creationists (or people in general), on average, are so easily convinced by facts and logic.
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying they make excuses, like God can't do X, etc. It's a contradiction.@@antonliakhovitch8306
It surprises me how educational the series gets with these two. Science has never been easy for me to understand, and every time "John & Jane" are on the screen I learn so much. It's incredible how easy it is to see something when you have two INCREDIBLY biased actors trying to tell you it's something different. Forrest just brings it all together so nicely! Thank you for helping me understand science by debunking this tragedy of a video series.
I love your puzzle analogy, but to be honest sometimes it feels like they threw out all of the pieces and drew what they think the puzzle should look like on a piece of paper
Several pieces of paper, actually. And even though some pieces contradict others, they bound all those pieces into a book. Now they insist the pieces of paper are accurate because it says so on the pieces of paper.
@@mjjoe76 Oh hey, I have the perfect clip for that: 24:53
They did it on the back of a bar napkin, that's how cruddy their "arguments" are.
They found a bronze-age sketch and decided it is the sum total of human knowledge forever and all time.
I'm glad they mentioned eyeballs.
Human eyes have a blindspot, octopuses don't.
So one might say that the octopus's eye has the better structure.
But if Yahweh created man in his own image, and god is perfect, then the eye of the octopus is more perfect than that of Yahweh's.
Also, man is supposed to be the besterest of all the animals. Yet cephalopods outdo us in the eyeball department.
And what's so weird about convergent evolution. I think it's bloody brilliant.
John and Jayne's incredulity is not a valid argument against it.
Cephalopods have better designed eyes than we do. Birds of prey have much better vision than we do. Bears and dogs have a much keener sense of smell than we have. Owls have much better haring ability than us. When you look round the animal kingdom there are creatures that outdo us in just about every way. if creation is true then maybe God created the universe specifically for the Peregrine Falcon or maybe the Black Bear? Cockroaches can survive in environments that would kill all humans, maybe they are the pinnacle of God's work?
If octopi survived to create at least a second generation they would probably take over the ocean. The main reason they die is because they are small and have no parents when they're born. Imagine if one the smartest craftiest creatures taught their children to survive and let them grow in safety.
Doesn’t this just prove the greatness of Cthulhu, our true cephalopod overlord
I must conclude that the chosen race was actually octopi. They multiply prolifically per the edict of their God but due to their sin, they are not allowed to save themselves but rather must wait to be saved by a messiah. We as self-centered humans just assumed that the Bible was about humans not some other species.
Thus proving that C'Thulhu is the one true god.
homological: when you’re Spock but you’re also into Bussy.
Plants are actually really great for Homology arguments because you can basically show the complete evolutionary process from algae to angiosperms, with extant plant species. You can start at mosses and show exactly how we got from there through liverworts, clubmosses, ferns, basal gymnosperms, conifers, magnolias, to daisies, and show the development of all the different structures on a plant and how they changed as evolution progressed.
that took me a second
That’s just normal Spock honestly
Plants don't exist for creationsts.
@@juanausensi499 damn, that’s a good point, actually.
@@juanausensi499 thats right. They exist for ME
I'm the plant man
Boy… when she said that’s circular reasoning… I wanted to scream, “YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE IS CIRCULAR REASONING!!!”
YOU KNOW WHO ELSE USES CIRCULAR REASONING? MY M-
MY MOM
I like how they use the term "impossible" a lot in their videos. Just because they can't understand or explain something doesn't make it impossible.
Statistics make things impossible. Evolution creating new proteins by random mutations is impossible. Get an education before posting nonsense
@@daveblockyou don’t understand physics, chemistry, biology, evolution, or statistics.
@@dino_drawings So Kid with cartoons on his channel is claiming someone doesn’t understand science. Sit down.
@@daveblock cartoons?
Where?
You needs to get your eyes checked my dude.
And even if it was cartoons, still doesn’t mean you are right.(because you definitely aren’t)
@@daveblock Prove it then. Prove that it is in fact impossible. There are a lot of smarter people out there then you or me who have proven otherwise so I'd like to see you come up with evidence that, if what you say is true and is impossible, would revolutionize our understanding of how life did or didn't come to be. I'm gonna go ahead and bet you can't so maybe you should be the one to get educated and "sit down".
Please explain how a perfect designer could produce people who have brains which could work, but are incapable of using them?
Especially when their own book tells them to love their designer with their whole mind
And then when people DO use their brains, they get told by christians that they’re “thinking too much” or “don’t have enough faith”. You just can’t win
Free will, one of God's biggest mistakes. Oh wait 😅
I think it might have something to do with Jane's appalling fashion sense. Especially the hat.
@@angelamaryquitecontrary4609 yea... it almost feels petty to brig up, especially considering how dangerous the anti-science rhetoric throughout is, but like... it's a really bad hat.
Also, a british flag shirt is a weird choice for an American
Hello Forrest, I’m Oscar Swinburn, I love your videos and your video style, it’s helped encourage me to study hard and do what I love. I now study biology, chemistry and physics and I’m working on my DofE and EPQ and I’m also teaching lessons on one of my favourite subjects in science in some primary schools in my area. My favourite field of science, the science that I predominantly study, evolutionary biology! Specifically palaeontology (they’re both technically sub fields of each other, it’s weird). I’m also working on my own videos on most if not all topics of science. (Yes it’s a lot at once, I am insane) and your videos have been a huge inspiration for all of it! Thank you for that!
If you take anything from Forrest, I hope that it's the enthusiasm and energy he brings to these videos. It's infectious, in the best ways, and brings the subject to life, so to speak.
If you can do even half of that, I think you'll do well
@@chojin6136 absolutely! I literally modelled my study after his! (I promise I have some sanity) and you can feel the enthusiasm coming off of him!
@@ConontheBinarian my real name is the name of my channel. And I don’t care whether my name is on the internet or not.
@CollinGerberding thank you very much! And this isn’t my main channel (I’ve yet to set it up, I’m still writing scripts, brief overview of palaeontology, geological clock, dating methods blah blah blah). This channel will be miscellaneous content, some Ark, some fossil hunting, some science, you name it.
And thank you for also taking an interest in science! It may sound weird but it is greatly appreciated by myself and all others in the scientific community! Thank you!
Forrest speaking Spanish is my new favorite thing in the world 🤣. I love this man 🤣🤣🤣🤣
It threw me for such a loop lmao
7:40 - "Impossible... Times two!" If John knew probability theory better, he would have said, "Impossible... SQUARED!"
The Creationist Paradox: if the creationist understood logic and reasoning, s/he wouldn't BE a creationist.
What's impossible plus two?
Even though I've left religion and become an atheist, I feel fortunate that my parents raised me with critical thinking skills. My mother was a librarian and taught me to research. My father was an electrical engineer and taught me that science was fun and how it could be verified. I even remember my parents telling me in my youth (80s and 90s) that the scientific evidence of evolution was strong enough that they couldn't deny it. My mother liked to say that eventually we would understand all of God's processes, but for now, the connection between how he did it and what science says remains a mystery, so it was important to separate them and understand verifiable science. I like to think that their critical thinking skills that they taught me are what led to me questioning faith in general, though they'd probably be horrified by that *lol*
Anytime I see someone say that creatures are perfectly designed, I think of my need of glasses to see anything clearly, my food allergies, and my ADHD. If I’m designed exactly how some sky wizard wanted me to be, then he’s a mean kid with a magnifying glass over an anthill wanting to see something suffer.
Great post!
Pretty much, yeah. Actually god being a nasty kid would explain a lot of the bible. I mean, if you were a believer which I am not.
Out of curiosity, how do creationist idiots actually address "glasses, food allergies, etc" if they legitimately believe all humans are designed *perfectly*? Surely, our bad eyesight and allergies imply that humans are not perfect in any way whatsoever. Especially since humans also develop diseases, which most animals are immune to, thereby implying we're far from perfect.
This is why I love the (sadly extinct) Tasmanian Tiger. It's a marsupial with stripes like a tiger, incredibly canine-like features, and had basically zero ancestral link to wolves or dogs. It's where I first learned about convergent evolution: similar environmental pressures naturally selecting similar traits.
Same. I also find it interesting that the English language settled on likening the animal to a tiger because of its coat pattern, while German went with the overall body shape and named it the 'Tasmanian wolf'.
It’s more like parallel evolution since dogs and thylacines are both mammals which came from roughly the same ancestral shape at a fairly recent point in the past. A better example of convergent evolution might be sun spiders having claws the same shape as the skulls of shrews or cats, or the sea slug Phylliroe being shaped like a fish despite being a mollusk.
@@diarmuidkuhle8181 They should have been named Zebracat and Zebrawolf. 😆
marsupials are really interesting
I love how bright and goofie he gets when he nerds out about science it's bloody adorable and makes me smile
Fun fact about blue tongue skinks: the blue tongue flashing at predators - especially birds that see in UV light - essentially blinds them because blue reflects UV light like flashing a mirror at someone
I used to own one. That is very cool!
I'm very close to going down a rabbit hole of what color spectrums certain animals can see
Forest, you’re the biology teacher I never had (I went to a small Christian school).
After high school I went on to become an electrical engineer and didn’t spend much time in college on biology so these videos have become a great launchpad to learning more about biology after work.
Keep up the great work!
The puzzle analogy was the most beautifully put thing I've heard in a long time. Wonderful.
I love how Forrest's reacteria videos always teach me more about evolutionary biology that I didn't know. Definitely one of my favorite divisions of biology to learn about.
Once, someone asked me how we know the distance to the sun, and I said, "That's an interesting question. I should do some research on that." And I looked it up, and I learned some neat stuff about how scientists solve puzzles like that (I mean, the answer is always "math", really, but figuring out what math to do gets really interesting). I've noticed that Creationists favor a different approach: someone asks them a question and they say, "I don't know... and therefore there is no possible answer." They said it directly in this video, and implied it a few more times. How bleak their lives must be, without the possibility of ever learning anything new.
Totally off topic here, but I watched your video on the small towns teaching creationism in class with biology and actually learned about the relationship between melanin and riboflavin. I told my kids about it and they were really impressed and thought it was so cool that other people had different "super powers". Thank you for that 🙏
Check out the role of skin color with regards to folate and pregnancy! Isn’t Forrest the best 👨🏫👨🔬🥼
@@sarahchristine2345 Thank you! It's been a few weeks so I got a little confused, but yeah. It was awesome!
what video is that?
I feckin LIVE for Forest's Reacteria series. I get so excited every time a new one drops.
MAAAA! WAKE UP MA! FORREST POSTED ANOTHER REACTERIA!!!
(This is legit my favorite series)
I very seriously considered becoming an ocular veterinarian specializing in big cats. I love eyes, eye structure, and all the variants so many animals have evolved into having over so very many generations. Thank you so much for these videos, they're always a treat to watch and make me laugh and give me hope there are still people following their dreams!
Creationists appear to have a missing link - between their brain and common sense! Forrest, never stop teaching!
Ah yes, it's just like I learned in biology class. The second cranial nerve links the brain to the common sense gland, located behind the eye socket or somesuch. 🙄
@@imveryangryitsnotbutterBro his meaning of a connection was as metaphorical as his meaning of the common sense. He simply wanted to say that they are not able to use commons sense in a funny way and you not getting it just makes it funnier lol😂
@@derrentner4515 No shit, Sherlock. I'm heckling the OP because it was a really lame joke. Read the room.
@@imveryangryitsnotbutter Then ur understanding of sarcasm is not the same as mine but i respect ur opinion and excuse my previous answer
@@imveryangryitsnotbutterMan, you must be fun at parties. Poor OP had no comments on his post till you decided to (as you said) heckle him like a dick. Be nice.
Your passion for education is infectious. Those of us that have discovered your channel are fortunate that you chose to utilize TH-cam to share your knowledge. Thanks.
Too bad Forrest is clueless about evolution
@@daveblockSince when?
@@optillian4182 Since his first video.
@@daveblock No.
@@optillian4182 Yes
My favorite part of every video is when Forrest raises his voice, musses his hair or brings out the bullhorn. And this episode features all three of those! You know it’s a good one when Forrest is half-crazed throughout the middle part of the video.
Forrest, I just wish to thank you for this type of content. I'm going to start studying biology next year and your videos feel like a great introduction to what I love (not to mention how engaging, fun, and comprehensible yet not superficial this is)
Forrest Valkai is such a good dude. This channel is great at not just shutting down bogus arguments but showing why those arguments are flawed.
POV: Someone has an answer for everything you don’t understand about evolution. Love you Forrest. Orgalorg bless
dont let the lich lead you astray
All hail Orgalorg, the cosmic pants eating alien god who died on the space cross for our space sins.
My college professor had a dedicated time in her lecture to rant about people that deny evolution, it was amazing.
The fact that you can point to aspects of your own discipline and say, "This is stupid/We got this wrong/This was a terrible thing," is a big part of the difference between you and the people you react to. The willingness to not just be criticized but actively criticize yourself is a sign of maturity and understanding that a lot of apologists and 'debate bros' lack.
Intelligence doesn't remove curiosity, but refines it in a manner that is so well reflected in Forrest Valkai's video presentations. He helps us digest reality with knowledge and communication skills.
I’m always amazed by the whole creationist argument. I’m in my 70s and even our preacher (back when I was a teen and attended church) wasn’t a die hard creationist. He did do some inventive rationalization to satisfy himself with accepting creationism and evolution, but at least we were never forced into abandoning science by him.
Another thing that kinda irks me is that they keep saying that *evolution* is random, no evolution is quite predictable actually, we’ve been able to force evolution tons of times, what’s actually random is *mutation* the mutations are random but evolution is not.
Yeah saying evolution is random because mutations are random is like saying evolution is not random because selection is not random.
Portions of it are random and portions of it are not random. But obviously they are trying to say that the portion of it that is random is so influential that it makes it improbable or impossible. Obviously them just saying so is not an argument 😅
@@SpicyCurreyI was on a TH-cam short about creationism from a channel similar to this one a couple days ago, and when I sorted the comments by new, there was a creationist copy pasting the same argument over and over again for 7 months. It was about the human genome and "there are so many potential combinations of base pairs that could exist" and how "unlikely" it was to end up in the specific human genome. Multiple people throughout those 7 months continually corrected him that it isn't a random process at all but he kept posting non stop. They simply refuse to listen. They pick a strawman and if you tell them how it actually works they just ignore you and keep running with their own made up version of how evolution works. It's such an easy argument to refute, like an ai has an insanely huge possibility space that only depends on the level of decimal precision you're allocating, but when you specifically train it to do a task it isn't "unlikely" that it ends up at a configuration that accomplishes that task. It's so frustrating how they just ignore everything contradictory to their own strawman lol
Edit: just realised that commenter I was talking about, was actually on this channel. He's not on this specific video. But he's still actively posting in others. Most recent comment was a couple hours ago. Same exact already debunked argument.
I've had to pause this video several times because I keep having intrusive questions that make me want to Google. Thank you for giving me a reason to ask questions, even if they are relatively random.
That puzzle analogy was friggin amazing! I love how well it was crafted!
Jane is more like the third person: the one who finds two pieces that fit right away, and lays them down, but accidentally puts the pieces picture-side down, but assumes that, because the pieces fit together, it must be a solid picture of grey-brown card-paper across the whole puzzle, and just keeps getting more frustrated trying to search for pieces without any kind of reference.
Love the 3rd scenario you added.
Reminded me of a TV show back in the ninety's where a kid did that....but he was so good at puzzles *he* has absolutely no problem putting it together, then flipped it over to show the picture. (I'm pretty sure it was ice cream)
Jane wouldn't be able to do that though!
@shannadaul6438 I was kind of inspired by that! I always wondered if he figured out that talent by accident, but later realized he was just so good at puzzles, he started doing it to challenge himself. I later met an old lady who did the same thing, but she was blind, and could feel the shape of the pieces better on the cardboard side. I thought that was really cool!
@@Ian_sothejokeworks It's been so long since I've seen that show, but I think he did tons of puzzles with his grandmother.... Idk?... I only remember 2 things from that show
That puzzle scene, and the mean-girl complaining "why do bad things happen to good people?" when things didn't go the way she wanted. I remember at ten thinking... it's because you're MEAN! 😆
@@Ian_sothejokeworks and that's awesome about that blind lady you met! That's really so cool.
Thank you for this video Forrest. This is actually the first time I've laughed or smiled in months. You are really coming into your own, and finding your style, and I am all for it. 💪🤘
They think they're questioning scientists but just sound confused by freshman biology.
lol yeah
An interesting thing I found out a little while back, is that, even with homo sapiens, convergient evolution has occured. Blond hair has popped up in four different world regions as a result of four independently occurring and different gene expressions! Amazing!
Really? That’s fascinating
Europeans and native Australians developed different genes for it independently, right?
And these convergent evolutions are one of the ways ancestry tests work!! Evolution is so cool
I've never been so excited for someone to be able to stretch their arms out. Congrats on the bigger, badder, and better recording space, Forrest! Absolutely looking forward to the "all kinds of activities" you're conjuring up in that amazing brain of yours. Your content is remarkably enjoyable. Keep up the incredible work, my good friend!
omg Me and my husband have missed your Reacteria videos so badly! They're our favorite videos on TH-cam. They're both funny and very educational. We learn so much!
Thanks for the great work (from a biologist and comrade from Germany).
Cephalopod eyes are honestly just so neat all on their own that comparing them to mammal eyes and saying their the same is kind of offensive to both kinds of eyes. Like. Cuttlefish don't have color cones but can detect the wavelengths of different colors of light by changing the shape and focus of their w pupils. That's friggin fascinating. My eye can't do that.
Fantastic as always, Forrest! I love this series. Its also great on repeat watches just to really take the time to understand every bit that you put out. Keep doing what you do!
The puzzle example is amazing and I really love how clearly that describes the two different thought processes. Amazing as always Forrest!!
I've been studying red pandas a lot this year - and I don't just mean watching lots of videos of them being cute. And the more I learn about any animal the more it only makes sense when seen in the light of evolution. This video made me think of them again. They show convergent evolution with the giant panda, both having independently evolved a "false thumb" to help them hold bamboo to eat, which initially fooled people into assuming they are closely related, because of that apparent homologous structure that turned out to be an analogous one. Genetics confirms the two pandas are only very distant relatives, with no false-thumbed ancestors.
That bit in the beginning with the skulls had me laughing my ass off 😂
the puzzle analogy is perfect
More debunkings, please!
These times needs that!
All of you, science people, do it!
I was watching this in my physics class right before it started, and my TA noticed and got excited asking if this was forest’s new video. He talked about how dumb the people in it are. It was so funny. He’s a great TA
This is really unfair Forrest. You either have to make these way less enjoyable...or make them much quicker! Loved this one. Keep up the good work :)
"precisely tailored" human fucking knees. And hips. And spines. And feet. And that one nerve that goes through the heart. Tell me again how all these features are "precisely tailored" when they break down so easily and dont actually work well for the shit we use them for.
The Appendix. Engineered to randomly burst and kill about 8 % of the population. Precise tailoring indeed.
I love when creationists talk about circular reasoning
Excellent Point Forrest !
"They cannot conceptualize non-dogmatic thinking"
So succinct, so well put.
You know what i find the most upsetting part is...... Having to wait a month between episodes! Always makes my day better for watching these. Love the content and love the delivery
I love how they always wanna make evolution seem random, when really it's not. Like at all, the mutations are more or less random but of course only beneficial mutations will stay, because most dead things don't make kids anymore
Mutations are random. Random mutations cannot produce new useful proteins to build new body parts. Fact.
@@daveblockmutations are random, evolution is not.
@@dino_drawings Random mutations are responsible for Darwinian evolution. You sound like a fool.
@@daveblockyes. Responsible for genetic diversity. Evolution is far more that isn’t random.
You sound like someone who saw a 5 min video, and now thinks you know everything.
Homologous and analogous structures both existing seems like something nearly impossible for a creationist to reconcile
Why would an intelligent designer make the internal structures of bat wings more similar to human arms than to bird wings? Or a whale's tail have building blocks more similar to a dog's than a fish's?
And to explain it they often evoke arguments using how God behaves, instead of establishing God is real they say "Well God must Think/Act in an XYZ way"
I grew up in a Christian household and consider myself to still be one. What I have always thought is that if science can be articulated, proven, and applied consistently, then my faith (and subsequent beliefs) should be based around science. My goal is to understand my spiritual beliefs through scientific evidence and never the opposite
The perspective of, “Science is learning about the world, so that means I’ll be able to learn about what God made! 😊” is way too rare of a mindset. I’m glad there’s people like you who can actually look at the world and appreciate it along with your religion in harmony. ❤
Trust in the Lord and lean not on your own understanding. There nothing proven or real about evolutionism. It's based on imagination with zero observations and countless frauds and FAILED predictions.
I recently discovered your channel, and as a Hs bio teacher am loving this content. Please keep it up!
That puzzle analogy was amazing. I'm gonna use this in the future.
It’s impossible for an eye to form through evolution but it’s absolutely possible for an eye to form by magic. WTF? 😅
Technically speaking, anything can be explained by magic! Nothing can be predicted by it, though, which is why magic is not scientific lol
As a Christian myself, an old earth creationist, their videos frustrate me nearly as much as they do for you. I love your content, keep it up.
You're the first old earth creationist that I've knowingly come across. I was beginning to think that you guys were cryptids, lol
- it's impossible!
- well no, look, it happened 4 times
- then its 4 tiimes impossible!!
7:50 Okay as an editor I've got to give my appreciation for the extra effort you went to to keyframe that pointy hand ^ ^
I'll say it: I'm on the same track with you on the subject, so I'm watching these just because of my appreciation of comedy. And you're nailing it.
Always learn new terminology watching these, and a few good laughs. Thanks Forrest. ✌
Ah nice new Forrest video! The most important event this year.
Oh god, not those two kids again? Don't know what's worse, their acting or their religion?
Their religion is definitely worse. Bad acting can at least be funny every now and then, fundamentalist Christianity is pretty much always just infuriating and depressing.
@CaptJP2 agreed on that too. I can understand and forgive stupidity or ignorance by themselves, but being ignorant on purpose is just disgusting. Being proud of it on top is just..... 🤮
[zoidberg meme] why not both?
@THarSul both is good
I wonder if they give a hoot about religion, they are just actors and particulairy not method actors.
Man that puzzle analogy was by far the best analogy I’ve ever heard for science vs creationism I’ve ever heard!
Just when I thought today couldn't get any better... always happy to see a new Reacteria!
I feel like this needs to be repeated for every one of these: just because you ask a question, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an answer
I would love to know what John and Janes grades where in their science classes 😂😂😂
Their Mom did not teach science in Homeschool, but they learned lots of Bible verses.
Bold of you to assume they went to science classes
They're probably homeschooled using answers in Genesis material
F like in faith.
They weren't in science class at all, obviously.
I've dealt with homology in mathematics more than I have dealt with biology as a subject, so that intro was quite interesting to me
thanks for that last part. it's nice to be reminded that you don;t accept things you just fail to reject them. as a stem major i need to remember that lol
Bayesian mimicry is awesome. I found a milk snake in my backyard that not only looked like a copperhead but was in some dried leaves and started shaking the tip of its tail to sound like a rattlesnake.
Now, that's really interesting. We have milk snakes where I live, but they're (sadly) very rare. However, I've tried to move a fox snake in the past (just to get it off a path so it wouldn't get stepped on) and it started doing the same thing; even though I knew very well that it was only a fox snake, I instinctively jumped back about three feet. The mimicry is incredibly effective.
my favorite part is how he has the entire biology book but continues to read THE SAME SENTENCE over and over
Hey so there’s this channel called Long Story Short trying to prove creationism with science (lol). Some of their arguments seem to be complex to me for people without a scientific background. Would be great to see you react to it!
Then how do you know they aren’t correct about creation if you don’t understand?
@@daveblock I actually understand them. But they use complex vocabulary and “sources” to prove their point. Upon reading their sources, you realize none of them support their claim, only providing facts for their “arguments”. If you don’t know better, you’ll trust him and his claim that can be explained.
@@TacticalAnt420 Evolution we see is loss of information….mutations that degrade genes, that’s how small beaks were created on Darwin’s finches, polar bears are white, ostriches got large. Real evolution from a common ancestor requires the creation of systems of new proteins by random mutations….impossible. Actual science debunks evolution from a first cell. Look at the definition of evolution, you will see nothing about the creation of new systems…only change in existing. Why? Because even evolutionist cannot find a mechanism to build. They lie to you and say ‘just add time” to micro evolution. Degradation of genes over time will never add up to build a new system. You need more education before making your incorrect assumptions. Science 100% of the time shows creation.
@@TacticalAnt420 Just a heads up, Dave here is a troll who has admitted in the comments of some of Forrest's other videos to using sockpuppets and actively gaslighting people. Best not to engage.
What I want to know from these two is why a mantis shrimp can see waaaaaaaaay more colors than me, yet I’m yelled at by my then-fiancée for not “seeing” the difference between periwinkle and lavender….
This confuses me. Periwinkles are very clearly blue while lavender flowers are a light shade of purple.
They have more types of cone cells, but they’re not very good at distinguishing between colors, so you’re both probably in the same boat.
think about all the colors we can’t see 🤯
@@diarmuidkuhle8181 Really, it was an inside joke just for me so I’m not surprised someone would be confused by it. My first wife’s wedding colors were periwinkle and rose so I would tease her that it was purple and pink. She’d get flustered and I’d have to apologize for being an ass even though I truly have a hard time seeing/knowing the subtle nuances in colors. So when I see videos from fundamentalists crapping on evolutionary biology, I think of the mantis shrimp’s eyes, and of other animals, who have “better” evolutionary traits than us humans. And when I’m at a home improvement store looking at color swatches, I can see the subtle differences, but I could not for the life of me point to a flower and say “that’s periwinkle because of the bluish hue to it” so you’ll have to forgive me.
I hope this clarifies things maybe just a bit. Cheers!
@@idle_speculation And I wonder which one of us tastes better dipped in cocktail sauce?? I kid. 😝
But in all seriousness, I do think of animals with better eyesight (and other evolutionary traits) than us humans when I see videos like this. Take the hawk for example; the distance they can see is phenomenal! Yet I need a corrective lease just to drive a car safely. Plus, some species have two different focal points, and we have one? If we were designed, then we got the short end of the stick!
4:55 your pronunciation is getting better! Sos genial Forrest!
Less than five minutes in and I already learned something new, namely that Forrest speaks Spanish. How fluently I don't know, since I don't speak Spanish.
The thing about protestants is that by failing to appreciate God , obsessing on a fundamentalist and very flawed interpretation of a modified bible, cannot comprehend that when we say God created all things on earth, it doesn't mean he actively intervened in the material plane of existence. That would be assigning material qualities to God. He has created all things on earth metaphysically, and outside of time, neither proactively nor retroactively, nor constantly. God "Is", we cannot assign qualities like "intelligence" to something that is completely beyond definable qualities (which would logically make God imperfect).
Religion and science can coexist and thrive, but fundamentalism without theology or philosophy is just absolutely ... deleterious
Its amazing to me how these people are sooooo close to getting it, but refuse to continue learning because at THAT point, their beliefs go against it... My god.
AronRa did a whole series tearing these two apart.
It was glorious.
I love how realistic that editing was at 24:39 for John & Jane talking about their own circular reasoning.
Every time I watch, I have to pause, go back, and remember that the edited segment was them talking about Evolution before. XD
I love science, I love learning all these things about science just by watching these videos. They’re are also genuinely funny to watch you disprove creationists