Well, once again we've had to republish our video "Does the Theory of Evolution Really Matter?". This time we realized we had some info wrong about our sponsors. It seems that Stated Clearly is suffering from an embarrassing case of "premature publication". Next time we get ready to publish a video, we'll make sure not to launch until all participating parties are fully satisfied :) th-cam.com/video/hqepQGOYKZ0/w-d-xo.html
Mohmd Blue Wow! I actually just wanted to say the same thing. I think we should cooperate in doing so!
9 ปีที่แล้ว +2
Mohmd Blue go ahead man, I'm sure they would feel great to know that their video is being translated into diferent languages, just put them in the credits and you as well, here in Brazil there are a few videos of them in portuguese too.
Yeah. Like humanity being around for millions of years. Why can't we eat grass? Why can't we eat bark? Life-forms adapt to their evironments, right? Why can't we breathe water? Why can't we eat dirt? This evolution stuff is so stupid. Think for yourself instead of letting others tell you what to believe. You're smarter than that!
+Clint R Evolution isn't intelligent. It has no way of knowing any of those things would be better capabilities for us if we had them. It's only 2 mechanisms are variations from the parent stock and culling of those variations that can't reproduce. As environments change over time, so too does what gets culled. This manifests as change to species over time.
***** It's just terrible that so many see that evidence and simply say "I don't understand it, but God must have had a very good reason for doing it that way.". In this fashion, it's a game of "Heads I win, Tails you lose" in which no amount of evidence for evolution would dislodge their conviction that evolution could never happen. Truth be told they simply don't want evolution to be valid. They think it makes them "not special", unimportant, no better than any animal. As if that were not enough, they think it would also mean there's no reason to live a moral life, that morality could not exist. It's all so whacked when you try to take it all in, but sometimes you have to to see how fruitless it would be to try to convince them.
+ExtantFrodo2 if they want to believe that a god got the ball rolling, let them think it. as long as they also understand and accept the scientific process and what it repeatedly tells us, its all good tbh. hell, a god snapping his heels together like dorthy and saying "make it so" like picard isnt any more unprovable a hypothesis about how the universe got started than the big bang is. just be glad those that believe in a god but also believe in real science arent completely stupid like those that believe the earth is 6,000 years old.
The appearance of people becoming fat has nothing to do with evolution, since it occurred in only 1 or 2 generations. If we look back a few hundred generations, and compare with early humans, modern humans are actually taller and slimmer.
The Creationists in this comment section and their delusional misrepresentation of evolution and flawed arguments against it just prove that religion is incompatible with a modern society.
The type of person like you, who blindly supports evolution seems to be unaware that in Sir Fred Hoyle's 1989 book "Mathematics of Evolution" he explains why Darwinian theory is wrong, and that his motive in rejecting Darwinism is not religious (he was as atheist); rather he concludes that Darwinism is an impediment to discovering a better theory of our origins. He rejects the core Darwinian theory of (goo to you by way of the zoo), being driven by favourable mutations from simple organic molecules to complex life.
@@jimmys6566 i dont "blindly" support evolution, i did the necessary research to convince myself that this is a valid (and the only valid) explanation for the diversity we see in life on earth. Just like i will research what your argument of authority has to say on this. But hey at least you got to spam a book name into the comment section to feel smart, instead of actually just listing "Sir Fred Hoyle's" arguments so i could adress them. No different from just linking a YT vid and then pretending you made your case, because you know usually nobody would watch an hour long YT vid or read an entire book just to adress you. From his wikipeadia article he seems like he loved to publish theories just to oppose correct ones. For example he also didnt believe in the Big Bang theory, claiming the Steady-State-Theory of the universe would be correct, yet it would be expanding through the *constant creation of matter* , of course violating the laws of thermodynamics, which he appearently didnt want to acknowledge. Until 1993 he held that believe, despite everyone else already accepting the Big Bang. He was more of an edgy teenager than anything else, opposing just for the sake of opposition. However, as far as i can see from his wiki article, he doesnt seem to reject "the core Darwinian theory". He rejects if anything our current understanding of Abiogenisis, how life started. He beliefs that life formed in space and then came on earth from comets. I didnt found anything suggesting he had an alternative belief on how life evolves after that aka. how diversity in life formed, which is what the core of evolution is. Most of his criticism seems to be on how unlikely it is that life came from matter randomly, which is NOT evolution, thats abiogenisis. Only in his books summary i could find "arguments against evolution", no different than modern day silly creationist arguments. First he says that that "advantageous" mutations are swamped by deterious mutations, however he then quickly admits that through natural selection thats still enough to hold the deterious ones in check. Essentially claiming that kinds magically dont change through deterious ones, but also dont change through advantageous ones, holding them just exactly in a magic equlibrium. The terms deterious and advantageous already being unscientific since non of them are really either, they are both mutations changing the organism, which is what evolution requires. However, as far as he is a mathematician he is certainly no biologist, his entire chapter on how he reached that conclusion includes equations but the necessary data to fit or conclude these he just "deduces" with no scientific source whatsoever. Most of his results are pure speculation, not based on any biological facts or observations as far as i can see in his book. He claims life couldnt adept outside of very narrow limits, which of course is paradoxical since evolution in minor can change almost anything about an animal, morphology, anatomy, genes, which if the "base animal" always changes further and further automatically guarantees large changes unless you specifiy what even minor evolution couldnt affect. Which of course he doesnt, he just cites someone else who appearently "proofed that for him". Sure. Science. Then he says the fossil record should show "transitions", which is obviously stupid to say since any species is in constant change so this is flawed to begin with. Any transition would also be a new species itself, and we have found many who serve as a link between 2 species. Also, just practically we can already show that over multiple generations significant changes happen, not leading to detereation of these animals. Because deteriation of genes doesnt mean deteriation of entire kinds, since the negative get sorted out in the species but the positive ones actually change the species since they get preserved since they are not sorted out. And if you think i just cant grasp his book, how about YOU actually make your argument how he deduced mathematically that evolution is wrong? Surely you read the book? However, since he doesnt have any education on biology or paleontology, he is no different than any other uneducated layman on these topics, so i dont get how you think he is an authority on these topics to begin with. His equations are completly meaningless since they are based on pure speculation and not fit with any data from observation to begin with. And his alternative of evolution, if appearently nothing ever goes beyond a state of its own kind? Nonexistent, since hes not even religious it appears he, again, just wanted to say something controversial.
@@jimmys6566 Fred Hoyle started with weak probable postulates when he evaluate evolution concept such that he reached plainly wrong innacurate conclusions about it.
@@grasianofau8771 Not at all my friend: Hoyle was mainstream and the mainstream was completely wrong until about 1960; when the views of Martin Ryle [ (1918 - 1984) who was an English radio astronomer and engineer who developed revolutionary radio telescope systems (see e.g. aperture synthesis) and used them for accurate location and imaging of weak radio sources] confirmed that Cosmic Egg model of Georges Édouard Lemaître was correct. (Lemaître was the Belgian Catholic priest, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain).
J. Buxter-Fleener evolution is just the fact that life forms slowly change from generation to generation... that’s all... it is a fundamental property of life.. you are the one talking about god... that’s your problem...
@J. Buxter-Fleener hey so umm. I'm recently studying evolution and just got myself into this evolution debate (many of the arguments and evidence i've read about are pro-evolution and they are reasonable) so could you tell me exactly which scientific laws does The theory of Evolution contradict? I'm just asking since i believe everyone should have evidence for their opinions in a serious debate
I have always been stuck with the notion that Evolution would only be an argumentative point, rather than a practical theory. I only wonder why I didn’t realize it before, being that it is a theory of change? Perhaps because Evolution seems synonymous to “slow” change, that we wouldn’t have suspect it for even immediate changes within years or even months. This makes me happier knowing that something like this can be useful for helping populations. Thank you for this video!
Evolution is not a theory, it's an observation. We see change in the fossil records of species and try to explain it. Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory to explain the mechanism that drives the changing of species. There are non-Darwinian methods for evolution, as well. Like selective breeding in domesticated animals.
It's also the most obvious. It only takes observation and logic. No measurement needed. If it weren't for organizations with their own agendas it would have been common knowledge centuries earlier.
jholotan best have you ever researched evolution for yourself? Or do just you trust the masonic school system that indoctrinated you into the theory of evolution and globe theory and heliocentrism
I studied evolution for a long time for myself, but evolution (from one kind to a new kind (which requires new genes) is never scientifically proven. In fact, most scientific findings are pointing to something very different. For me this was kind of shocking to discover, but it is the truth. The theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory, which mostly are presented together, are theories which are based on scientific ASSUMPTIONS which, by the same science, are proven and general know to be IMPOSSIBLE. Please don't ignore the facts, open up your mind and at least don't insult people because they don't want to believe a theory which assumptions are in-scientific and against all (moral) senses. - Information (DNA) can never come from not-information. - Chaos (Big Bang) never brings order (The first cell, which is more complex and organised than a factory) ( & Our solar system) - Life requires organisation, organisation in turn requires intelligence - A mechanism (an evolved species, like a bat) can only function and survive when ALL the required components are present and work together. For example, think about it, what was first, the chicken of the egg? If the chicken evolved first, it then lay an egg. Was the egg fertilized? If the egg was first, was the egg fertilized? And when the chicken 'thing' evolved, what did evolve first? 1. The blood 2. The blood vessels 3. The heart 1. Why did it evolve blood, when it had no blood vessels and no heart? 2. Why did it evolve blood vessels, when it had no blood and no heart? 3. Why did it evolve the heart, when it had no blood and no blood vessels? It doesn't make sense, do you see? All thins had to be set in motion right on the same moment, otherwise the mechanism/organism could not survive. And at last, it is not said that the Theory of Evolution matters because some (small) parts of it can be used by some experiments which can give a fine solution for some problems. For example, how does the hypothesis that grass is dependent on (other) organisms is a argument for the fact that the Theory of Evolution matter. Let me explain, how could it not be that God created all the organisms in such a way, that we're all dependent to each other. You can see this in all sorts of life, even in marriage. For example, if we could reproduce ourselves without intimacy with an other (Woman-Man / Man-Woman), we wouldn't need an other human being to receive children. So when this is the fact (God created (all) organisms this way), we could give rise to exact the same hypothesis and exact the same results. So the Evolution Theory, although it can be partly used for this experiments and can bring good results, doesn't matter (any more than for example the Creationist' viewpoint). Therefore, I think the conclusion and the arguments are kind of misleading. I'm interested if you can see what point I'm trying to make. Hope you will be touched by the things I wrote and you (all) will take a critical look at the evolution theory. I found out for myself there is more than just what some people think there is. Based on what I found out, it's far bigger and more beautiful than we sometime can think of. Therefore, I would love you to discover this too. Good luck!
Haha, I don't speak English very fluently, my bad. But you don't answer any of my point and give to me the impression that it's getting emotional for you ;-) . But if, what I'm saying is so easy, why you don't explain it to me? I'm open to serious pro-evolution answers man, but can't find it unfortunately. Watching the video again, for me, would not make sense. So maybe you can explain me a scientific answer on my ''stupid'' questions?
Jonathan "studied evolution", says 'kinds', brings up Big Bang theory for no reason (presented together? What kind of biology classes are you taking...), creationist copy pasta. Using standard religious buzzwords in conclusion. I think we all know how much you've actually studied evolution.
+guaflar Don't mean a academic study, just for myself. And when I do, I don't have to do this all in English, so when I make a translating mistake, this say not that much. And funny see nobody can give me easy answer on my questions. Unfortunate because I'm open to it, but on the other hand probably makes things just a little more clear.
George Foreman you know that that's not how theories come into being right? Scientists make guess without evidence of what they think would happen and try to find out if it's true
@@alexthompson8977 let's repeat the scientific method! 1. Observing a phenomenon 2. Making an hypothesis 3. Doing experiments to BROKE the hypothesis (not to prove it!) 4a. If the hypotesis doesn't broke, formule a theory (which is a model that explain reality obtained thru observations and evidences) 4b. If the hypothesis is broken by experiments, re-make an hypothesis. Hypotesis are different from theories.
Been reading some of the comments. Why is it that the people that know the least about a subject have the most to say about it. It's like stupid and loud are directly proportional to each-other . This video and all the videos on this channel are brilliant and simple at the same time. If you watch this video and all of the others and you STILL don't understand, then there is just no hope for you. And to all that people making comments like, "yeah but if evolution is true then why are there still monkeys? durp durp" or any of those, "how come this?" or "why that?" type comments. Here's some advice.. GOOGLE IT!!!!! Read a fucking book! EDUCATE yourself! Don't just sit there asking what you will come to realize are very stupid questions.
Reggie Lawrence yeah, there was a study done on that topic in which two groups of people: 1 who didn't know much about a certain subject, and 2 who were experts in the field (i don't remember what the subject was was as it's been a long time since i read the study) were asked how much they thought they knew about said subject. The result was that the ignorant people were the most confident in their knowledge on the subject- crazy, no?
There might be lazy people out there, but there are NO STUPID QUESTIONs. How arrogant can someone be to say that ! And those that ready the most think often they are the brightest/most intelligent ones. No, those who think for themself are , because if all people would never question anything the earth would be still the center of the universe. There is one thing that did not change since the very beginning of human kind - arrogance. Congrats to that.
Evolution is fact. We don't know everything about it but we know it occurred. We should continue to study biology and evolution more while we can laugh at creationists and let them believe whatever delusional nonsense they want to believe.
Great examples! Although as a picky evolutionary scientist I would regret the use of the phrase "genetic code", in place of genetic sequence, and the use of "missing link". Also I would have been interested in examples about the speciation process for example, because many people don't have problems with small intra-population changes, but macro-evolutionary changes are more difficult to grasp concretely, or we might wonder why that matters... You quickly said "despite being interesting", but I'd like to extend the topic beyond really concrete applications; I think that the simple knowledge of the theory of evolution does not only bring purely intellectual satisfaction, but helps putting our (human) existence into perspective: knowing by what enormous chance we came to be, how extraordinarily diversified biodiversity is, how we can't be considered the "final goal" of evolution but only a ridiculous tip in the enormous bush of life, etc, if most people realized that, it might really have practical consequences on how our society behaves (let's talk about resource plundering, pollution, etc...).
Can anybody tell me what a "kind" is supposed to be? Are dogs and wolves of the same kind? Are lions and tigers of the same kind? Are cattle and bison of the same kind? Are dolphins and killer whales of the same kind? What makes two animal populations of the same kind as opposed to a different kind? And why have I never found the term "kind" used to classify any living creature in any biology text book in my entire life?
+Edwin Luciano Are mud skippers and salamanders the same kind? ... Or maybe mud skippers and gobies are... But if salamanders are the same kind as mud skippers, then that would make gobies & salamanders the same kind, right? Are gobies the same kind as cod? And are cod the same kind as sharks? Are salamanders the same kind as caecilians? Are caecilians the same kind as worms? If the answer to all these is yes, then sharks must be the same kind as worms, I suppose.
+balzonurchin And in a sense, every living thing is of the same "kind" because every living creature we know of reproduces using molecules of nucleic acids. According to which translation your using, the Bible says says that bats are in the same "kind" as birds or fowls. If the definition of "kind" is that broad, why can't a human be a "kind" of ape or a "kind" of primate ? Surely humans are more closely related to chimps than bats are to either birds or fowls!
+Edwin Luciano I hadn't noticed that before, about birds and bats, so I had to look it up. To quote Answers in Genesis, "The Hebrew word for bird is actually owph which means "fowl/winged creature." The word owph simply means "to fly" or "has a wing." So, the word includes birds, bats, and even flying insects. The alleged problem appears due to the translation of owph as bird. Birds are included in the word owph, but owph is not limited to birds. This shows that translators aren't always perfect when handling the inerrant Word of God."
Also evolution programming is a really cool thing. It has nothing to do with biology, but it still uses the basic principles of evolution. It works by generating a set of random solutions to a very complex problem. Then doing what evolution does (breeding, mutating ,killing off the bad ones) and you get some very good results.
@@AleaRandomAm - The Bible, as translated in English in the A.V./KJ version has been proven to be the most (and only) accurate history of the world by centuries of research. Never has any honest scientific statement been found that would show how evolution could occur and never has one iota of evidence been found to show that it could have occurred.i The story of evolution is only for people who want to be fools.
Dan Miner No it has not, you’re just inventing things. Here’s a list of things that have already been disproved: Adam and Eve, the flood and the arch Exodus. The rest wasn’t proved lol. Evolution has been proved many even by THIS BLOODY VIDEO ON WHICH YOU’RE COMMENTING! Or did God put fossils and vestigial organs to trick us? Did he shape whales’ bone structures as a joke? You’re delusional
@@edit8826 - M y friend, that is not the definition of "Evolution", that is the creation model operating as designed, using already information. God created each kind with up to millions of heterozygous places in the genomes to determine how much each part and system will grow to enable diversity and the ability to adapt while retaining the same exact anatomy. The human DNA has 10 millions places where heterozygocity could exist. Over time heterozygous alleles and modules tend to become more homozygous which results in LOSING information. Every dog has the same anatomy as each other, thus no evolutionary difference. Every cat has the same anatomy, thus no evolutio0nary difference. Every person on earth has the same anatomy. For this to be possible would require that every ancestor of each kind also had the same anatomy, thus, zero evidence for evolution. The evolution model requires that the only change that would be evolutionary would increase information, which has never occurred. The creation model is that God created each kind with the ability to live and reproduce which would require all parts and systems including a complete DNA being present in the beginning. The evolution model requires that every part, system, macro-molecule, proteins, enzymes, etc. appeared simply by naturalism only and every part and system could live and reproduce before being complete. No evolutionists has ever explained how anything in a cell or body system could originate by chance. Darwinists HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE A SINGLE EXPLANATION OF HOW JUST ONE PROTEIN CAME INTO BEING. A single protein has TOTALLY DEMOLISHED DARWINISM. DNA is essential for a single protein to form. DNA cannot form without protein. Protein cannot form without DNA. Protein cannot form in the absence of protein. Sixty separate proteins are needed for a single protein to form. Protein cannot form in the absence of any one of these. Protein cannot form with no ribosome. Protein cannot form with no RNA. Protein cannot form with ATP. Protein cannot form without the mitochondria to manufacture ATP. Protein cannot form without the cell nucleus. Protein cannot form without the cytoplasm Protein cannot form in the absence of a single organelle in the cell. And proteins are necessary for all the organelles in the cell to exist and function. There can be no protein without these organelles. YOU CANNOT HAVE ONE PART WITHOUT THE OTHER..
TheUltimateN Well, perhaps. Pick a particular ongoing result of evolution and it's Poof! to perfection. Homo sapiens, to name just one (obvious ) example, is cobbled together using the biological equivalent of duct tape, with a list of poorly designed features than easily runs into double figures. Still, we function and reproduce, so OK. Pull back and take the broad view, and I agree with you and Darwin (pace the Creator reference): "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”
@Dr Karl Pagan Thanks. I thought as much. Now would you please re-read my post to TheUltimateN and explain how anything therein could make me a protector of " ignorant Middle-Eastern fairy tales". BTW I'm not!
@@logicalatheist1065 Most false religions in the past had idols ... either of wooden image, of a stone image, or of a metal image.. Evolutionists use a mental image and all of their evidence is only imaginations, not of reality.
@@danminer5343 no religion has ever been proven true so technically they're all false. Gods are gods a lot of religions had him Gods have only been debunked never proven to be true
I've been working on ways to share Evolution with my Creationist family and your videos are a wonderful resource. Please keep creating! You've got my support on Patron.
Nahh. Everything came into existence in one week because an 8000 year old Jewish Zombie said so. Makes perfect sense. I can't write this in one go. I'm laughing too hard...
Jorge Lizaso == Where are you? Is it not all Christian organizations who don't like this video or is it just your Christian organization? === Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible ====
Something inside me was always drawn to the idea of evolution from my basic exposure to it in school. The videos you've made explain it WAY better and I'm not surprised that the people who taught me are still Creationists.
It’s a fascinating concept, I’m glad some people like you actually have curiosity and are drawn towards it. Don’t ever let creationists distract you with their pseudoscience, it’s all crap.
I feel very fortunate that my parents were very open minded, these topics were always open for discussion, and I remember watching National Geographic shows about the Leakeys and their discoveries.
@@logicalatheist1065 Guess who CREATED science??? That's right.....the Creator. Ask these Darwinists to explain the Bombardier Beatle? The Giraffe, electric eel, gecko, camel, etc., etc. It seems that most things on this earth would have died before, or during their so-called evolving. Really stupid when you THINK about it. The whales would've drowned trying to breath into the first pair of lungs because they didn't know they were supposed to rise up from the great depths of the ocean for oxygen. Evolution?? C'mon, man!!!
I LOVE your channel. Thanks so much for making these videos. Would you mind considering doing a video about comparing DNA, please? I have tried to research how scientists go about comparing different species' DNA, but I can't understand most of it. So, when they say humans and DNA share 98% of DNA I find that fascinating, but can't figure out how they actually compare the two. Thank you so much!
The simplified version of how they observe DNA is that because the proteins in them are made from different things in different parts, they are able to separate them (I think using shocks) similar to how if you were to shake up a mix of water and oil. Because of their density, they would separate through gravity.
I studied biology and still I'm really interested in religion, thanks to my former high schools pastor. She was brilliant. She was so supportive of science yet always managed to never let her own believes down. She was the perfect example of being able to coexit and never to force anyone in to any believe, never telling anyone that they should not be into science, never doubt evolution. In fact she was referring to Genesis as a metaphor for evolution, which I found a stunning and such interesting, fascinating thought. It Never made me believe in what the bible said, but I took her course until I graduated and I think I still took so so much out of it. So with that being said, may her genes be passed on and the human population become more like her AND God bless her ☺️
You studied biology? Then lets take the small fish for example. Why would you blindly believe evolution is causing fish to get smaller. Instead of looking at the obvious facts. The first thing a biologist should know is where the genes come from. A fish gets it's gense from both it's parents.
@@fullercrane1795 I don't see how your statement contradicts evolution? It actually is exactly what evolution is lol The fish get the genes from its parents, which are also small, because being small, in the enviroment they live in, serves a purpose to them. If it didn't, they'd be less likely to successfully live to the age of procreation, less likely to find a mate, whatever. Over time, the smaller, more successfull fish get to procreate the most, so over hundreds of generation of fish, they become smaller and smaller until they reach the "perfect" size for their unique nische
@@blockblock376 It has nothing to do with evolution. That is an assumption. Nor the environment. When someone is removing fish they are not changing the environment. I can't tell if you're being serious or not because I gave you the answer. The fish get their genes from their parents. So you remove all the big fish. Only the smaller ones will be breeding and their off spring is more likely to be small as their parents were. I've also studied biology. When comes to people health and how the body works. Evolution is not a part of it. So if you were studying anything you must of went to a Darwinian class.
@@blockblock376 No am serious. IDK what course you did. But I did AS level biology. Genes being past down to their off spring is not evolution. Any adaption or change is dependent on the parents biology. The fishes biology did not change to make them smaller. There was no new adaption or change happing. The main fishes that were left and able to produce off spring was the smaller ones. As they past down their genes making it likely there off spring will be small as well. That is not a change in biology.
Every evolution denier in this comment section shares one common quality: misrepresentation and ignorance of evolution. If you only understood the basics of evolution, then perhaps it wouldn't seem as implausible. Hearing the same primitive mistakes over and over again starts to become almost comical.
I think the majority of those evolution deniers are merely trolls PRETENDING to be evolution deniers. If I were a creationist who didn't believe in evolution, I wouldn't waste time watching videos about it. Then waste more time writing a comment about it.
The type of person like you, who blindly supports evolution seems to be unaware that in Sir Fred Hoyle's 1989 book "Mathematics of Evolution" he explains why Darwinian theory is wrong, and that his motive in rejecting Darwinism is not religious (he was as atheist); rather he concludes that Darwinism is an impediment to discovering a better theory of our origins. He rejects the core Darwinian theory of (goo to you by way of the zoo), being driven by favourable mutations from simple organic molecules to complex life.
@@jimmys6566 Whether you think I'm right or wrong, as a student of evolutionary biology, you'd have a hard time finding someone more literate than I am.
robertelee2k9 truth seeker lol you barley know what evolution is... what age are you? 60 or 10? I cant tell. So evolution is unlikely for you but a magical being coming from nothing and making everything from nothing that's backed up by nothing is more reliable to base all your beliefs by?
+robertelee2k9 truth seeker aaaaa I understand now. Nobody ever observed with his own eyes long term effect of evolution, so it's not true. Same as nobody ever observed with his own eyes continental drifting, or sun make at least 1 orbit around the Milky Way, change of earth's magnetic poles, or about anything that takes more time than few decades. Therefore none of this exists :D
Great presentation! Besides the content, you guys are also teaching how to make presentations, and ultimately how to organize compelling arguments and how to teach.
I'm seeing a bit of a trend here ,Stated Clearly. You make this beautiful video, and the comment section gets utterly raped by creationnists... Such a shame.
MrHornfox im agnostic so u think everything in this universe and universe itself didn't created ? Do u have any ans ? who started life and how the universe came into existence ? main question is what is the root of root u agnostic arrogant close mind fools arr overconfident and also superstitious bcz u also blindly believe in stupid theories
saurabh attri I am an agnostic too but unlike you it seems I believe in the scientific method.And when you call such a stable and well tested theory such as evolution “stupid” I really think you should consider starting to think logically. When you look at higher level physics you can see its connections to chemistry.If you do the same for chemistry you see some of its connections with biology.You can see how it fits all together without the need of a god controlling it.Sure, a “god” could have created the universe and the rules on which it operates but we still can’t prove his nonexistence or his existence and it may take a very very long time before we find the answer and we might not even be able to do it.As such I think you should revisit the theories you call “stupid” to see that they really aren’t that because I don’t think that you pondering about whether there is a god or not will make you find the answer to that question.
I have no more words to describe how amazed I am at this moment by beautiful simplicity and the quality of the information contained in this video :'D Great job, Stated Clearly :'D #Evolution #HIV
Did you not hear the caveat though? It only applies to semi-arid grasslands. Most desertification is happening due to climate change, drought, and deforestation.
it's actually much more simple. We are simply one (of five) species of great apes. In a same sense that we are mammals, vertebrates, animals and eukaryotes. We were originally one species and we splitted up.
Stated Clearly who put us in the primate family tree. Because I'm pretty sure it was someone who didn't have enough evidence to do so, but in doing so it forces people to already be suceptable to believing in evolution cause someone already put them on a list of other species and said look were related! we're in the same category of species. but for some reason there is not a single primate that can breed with a different another variation of a so called primate called. also if we did evolve from primates why did we lose our tails? and don't tell me it's because we didn't need them. I would use the shit out of a tail, I could be reading the morning paper, drinking my coffee, and wiping my ass while in on the toilet with my tail
+Stated Clearly Is this ever scientifically proven? Can you send me a link to some of this scientific proves(so which didn't need interpretation)? I would like to check them! Thanks in advance.
Jonathan The most compelling evidence isn't fossil evidence. We have documented the human genome as well as nearly every extant primate as well as some extinct human species. Homo Sapiens has haplogroups which contain genes from homo neanderthalensus... which requires that we were close enough genetically that we could have fertile offspring... not quite full speciation. There examples of partial speciation in many species of animals who evolved from the same parental clade which can be Sometimes able to have fertile offspring. Ring species, for example. Because we have maps of all of these primate genomes we can compare them. Nested in among the primate genes are strands of retroviral DNA. When a retrovirus hijacks a cell it inserts a strand of DNA into the host cell's DNA. When a gamate cell is infected that marker can be passed along to the offspring. There are over 1000 examples of endogenous retroviral strands in the same locations in the same chromosomes. These provide markers that can be used to track our genetic relationships to other primates with definitive certainty. There is no possibility that we have these markers by coincidence. We have them because our ancestral clades passed them down to us.
A short explantion is that some mammals evolved into primates, and some primates evolved into monkeys (simians), and some monkeys evolved into apes, and some apes evolved into humans, jsut to mention the larger groupings and ignoring more specific groups. But while some primates evolved into monkeys, others evolved into other things, but they are all still primates, just different kinds of primates. Things never stop being what they are they only evolve to become new versions of that thing. Apes are a specific version of monkeys, it doesn't mean they're more or less "evolved" than other monkeys. Humans are [great] apes, monkeys, primates, mammals, vertebrates, and so on. Each "level" represents a larger and more diverse group. At the top level, we are "life", just like every other living thing on Earth. More precisely, humans evolved from the australopithecines, about 2.5 million years ago, which were also great apes.
Thank you for speaking slowly. Too many informative, educational videos are narrated by cracked out hosts who feel the need to race through text. Let the information breathe and percolate in your mind. Well done.
These videos are really well done! I just wish you would switch to a different voice-over actor. The current VO doesn't feel as commanding as it could be. The info you're giving is so well crafted and the animation/illustrations are spot on. I just feel like it needs a stronger voice (male or female) and maybe a subtle background track wouldn't hurt either. :)
Science cannot give us facts or truth. Science by nature is very limited, Justin 🙂 Please educate yourself on this topic. There were many famous & classical theories, but now no-one even remembers them. If science led us to the truth, then those famous & classical theories wouldn't have been false. Science cannot give us truth, but then you might think what it can give us? Well, it gives us workable theories. But even if a theory works, it's still not considered a fact or truth, because there can be a whole paradigm shift in the future. In fact, most of the things you use in your everyday life was created on a false theory. So, even though those theories worked, but they were wrong. There are many other ways to find truth, Justin 👍 Science is an excellent way to find Truth, but it's not the only one.
@@rafayshakeel4812 dear stranger on the internet, things do evolve. The part of the *theory* begins when you are trying to explain how do they happen. As time moves on we have better ways to observe the universe. For example in the past some people used to think that the world was flat. Now when we have better methods to observe we can know for a fact that the world is certainly NOT flat. I said maybe we should start call it a fact since there are an overwhelming amount of evidence.
@@Jo__o I agree with you on this, Justin 🙂 You seem to be a very honest & nice person. I don't have any problem with evolution, but I have a problem with Human evolution. We still don't have clear-cut evidence for Human evolution, yet some Atheists are trying to convince their audience about this theory, as if it's something undeniable. I love Science, but science does not give us truth. It gives us workable theories and through those workable theories, we have technological advancements. Anyway, I am curious about your World view? Are you an Atheist, Agnostic, Irreligious, Religious, etc...? You don't have to answer me if you're not comfortable with it.
The term _"scientific theory"_ should be discarded and replaced with "scientific paradigm" or even better: A *HYPERTHESIS* (above hypothesis) to insinuate it's a practical and pragmatic body of knowledge constructed from multiple confirmed hypotheses across separate independently verifiable lines of evidence that constantly churns out accurate predictions despite our ongoing attempts to falsify it. Far too many people conflate scientific theory with nothing more than a mere hunch or hypothesis. Renaming it to a hyperthesis would gradually eliminate the misnomer.
Students who may be disinterested or uncomfortable with the science of evolution often wonder why it is worth their time and effort to watch it 3 FUCKING TIMES ..
I dislike how it is so often said that all living things have literally one single ancestor. There's no reason to believe that the chemical ingredients and environmental factors for the formation of life only existed in a single place, and at one point in time. And even if they did, it's quite the assumption to think that that place produced only exactly one organism that still has an unbroken chain of successors.
There may have been another instance of abiogenesis, but it's line did not survive. If it had we'd see many instances of it (at least in the microbial world). It would necessarily be distinct from extant life due to the huge number of variables that go into any first life form. Along with that it would not be able to reproduce with any other life. You think species incompatibility is bad? Try mixing left and right handed genetics in one offspring.
Niki Herl Indeed... considering the multitude of mechanisms that can cause biopolymers to assemble and the vast volume of the oceans, it would be unlikely that only one of them would produce minimally simple forms. Conditions for some biopolymers would be optimal in one type of environment while impossible in others so different molecular species likely had domains where one or two candidates competed. We have only a glimpse of how this gigantic global arena of protolife finally played out with the victors writing the historybooks. Prokaryotes probably went around gathering up whatever they could break down and some of it turned out to be indigestible. Mitochondria and chloroplasts were clearly entities in their own right at one time... and basically still are, maintaining their own separate reproductive lives as mutually symbiotic infections of their host cells.
It is "often said that all living things have literally one single ancestor"? By whom? Non-scientists? Evolutionary theories describe population dynamics and is the exact opposite of single individuals. Also with horizontal gene transfer being common in unicellular life, a layman's version of most common ancestor doesn't represent the common scientific consensus. Single place? Your obviously describing a non-scientific claim. Sorry, if I am wrong assuming that when you say "often said" that you are referring to scientists. If you are referring to something different, I would agree, yes it would be nice if the general public and media were better educated when it comes to the basics of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. All said, most scientific theories are "dumbed down" (i.e. simplistic, idealized versions) so it is easier for people to learn and understand the basics.
Life cannot form if there is already life in the area, eating all the organic compounds. Best case scenario is if life started in two palces at the same time, but the chance is very igh that one would eat the other, still. It is not strange if all life on Earth is related. However, I fully agree that we cannot honestly claim that "all life on earth is related" when we know we haven't even found all life on Earrth, yet. But so far, all the life we've found have been related. If there were some unrealted grou pof lifeforms, we shoudl've found an example of it, by now, so it's quite safe to say they're all related, even if we can't claim to "know" that.
antiHUMANDesigns ...and abiogenesis is more likely in a reducing atmosphere. It's still possible in a neutral atmosphere though it would take longer, but in an oxidizing atmosphere the presence of oxygen would tend to degrade the process.
Always annoyed by how people call it Theory of Evolution, as if it is one theory out of many that might be true. It's just evolution, a well understood process. We don't normally say theory of gravity or theory of electricity or theory of bacteria, do we?
A scientific "theory" is different from a normal theory. Its a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and proven in tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of different ways.
Yeah, I can list a few other scientific theories in order to illustrate the point made in the other comment. -theory of gravity -heliocentrism (earth revolving around the sun) -the round earth theory A theory is basically the highest status that a scientific concept can have. Evolution is a fact and anyone who tries to dissuade you hasn't looked at the facts.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming - and here, in this video, we see that to deny it is irresponsible, at the very least. Time for evolution denial to be made illegal? Just asking.
Unfortunately, these examples do not attest to the idea that “the theory of evolution really matters.” 1. The shrinking fish. This phenomenon is actually due to a process known as selecting from the gene code. No evolution is involved. If only fish with genetic information for small size are left to reproduce, then only fish with said genetic information will be produced. This process merely selects small (or large) fish from the pre-existing gene pool. This results in degradation of the overall gene code and is an example of de-evolution. No genetic information is being added, altered or generated. Also, selective animal breeding like this has been around for thousands of years, long before Charles Darwin’s publication. 2. HIV origins. Apparently “Darwinian evolutionary family trees” were developed in order to discover the source of the HIV virus. However, there would be no need to form specialized “Darwinian evolutionary family trees”, merely examining the differences between the viruses’ genetic information and using standard family tree charts would reveal multiple strains of the disease. The existence of these other, older strains would support the fact that the virus had a much earlier genesis than was first suspected. 3. Grasslands to deserts. The idea that plants and animals evolved to form a symbiotic relationship is irrelevant to remedying the diminishing grasslands issue. The fact that plants and animals do share a symbiotic relationship, however, was essential to finding a working solution to the problem. As stated in this video, it was the “tilling of the soil, fertilization with dung and urine, and removing of excess vegetation” by the animals that ultimately resolved the crisis. Evolutionary theory suggests that evolution itself will fix these problems by natural section, as well as the mutation and improvement of plant and animal genetic makeup over a long period of time. However, this is the exact opposite of what Allen Savory describes in his experiences with African desertification. He also states, in a TED talk presentation on this very issue: “All of that grass is now covering the soil as dung, urine and litter or mulch, as every one of the gardeners amongst you would understand, and that soil is ready to absorb and hold the rain, to store carbon, and to break down methane.” He attributes the solution to a process that all gardeners would understand, and as we all know, gardeners and farmers have had the ability to revive dry patches of land for many years, long before Charles Darwin and his publication. The claim was also made by Stated Clearly that Mr. Savory used evolution to solve the grassland epidemic. However, Mr. Savory does not once attribute evolution to his discoveries in the sources provided for this video. If evolution was all that was needed, then the grasslands would have been revived on their own (due to natural selection and gene mutation over an extended period of time). Instead, we see that this long period of time has led to the desertification of the grasslands. Human intelligence and interference was necessary in order to fix the problem, contrasting the theory of evolution.
+Alex Moore, let me clarify a bit for you: 1. The shrinking fish "This phenomenon is actually due to a process known as selecting from the gene code." The very concept that wild populations can change over time due to selection is exactly what the theory of evolution is all about. Before Darwin, this was not a concept people comprehended. "No genetic information is being added, altered or generated." Since the 70s, we've known exactly how new genetic information is generated. Watch our 2 animations on how new genetic information evolves: statedclearly.com/videos/how-does-new-genetic-information-evolve-part-1-point-mutations/ statedclearly.com/videos/gene-duplications/ 2. "merely examining the differences between the viruses’ genetic information and using standard family tree charts would reveal multiple strains of the disease." An evolutionary tree is a standard family tree. "The existence of these other, older strains would support the fact that the virus had a much earlier genesis than was first suspected." Under a creation model, there would be no need to search for missing links because viruses are curses created by either Gods or Demons from nothing. It was knowledge of evolution that persuaded Beatrice Hahn to search for missing links, and to know to try and look for HIV-like viruses in animals that are closely related to humans. 3. "Mr. Savory does not once attribute evolution to his discoveries" Allan Savory personally wrote this video with us. He wanted an animation done showing how his study of evolution inspired him how to solve desertification. He wanted to show how we can draw upon good theory to make new discoveries.
+Stated Clearly, Thank you for taking the time to respond. I do take issue with these points. 1. Specifically, the example of the shrinking fish population does not involve the adding, altering, or generation of any existing or new genetic information. We can agree on this I’m sure. The example presented in this video is describing someone selecting from the preexisting genetic information of the total fish population. Just as dogs were bred to make Chihuahuas, or larger cats were bred to make house cats, this phenomenon existed long before Charles Darwin’s publication. And the example of the shrinking fish is no different. Therefore, no evolution of the population is taking place, simply a selection from and narrowing down of the wider, original gene pool. Definition of evolution: (1) the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. (2) the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. “The very concept that wild populations can change over time due to selection is exactly what the theory of evolution is all about. Before Darwin, this was not a concept people comprehended.” On this point I reiterate, selective animal breeding like this has been around for thousands of years, long before Charles Darwin’s publication. If there is any doubt, here are a number of sources confirming the matter. www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetics-of-dog-breeding-434 serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/2323 www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38279/title/Origin-of-Domestic-Dogs/ As we can see from these sources (by any one of the time frame estimations proposed) “the very concept that wild populations can change over time due to selection” existed long before Charles Darwin’s publication. I would be happy to provide even more sources of this fact if desired. “Since the 70s, we've known exactly how new genetic information is generated. Watch our 2 animations on how new genetic information evolves.” You’re going off on a bit of a tangent here. I was not calling into question the concept that genetic information can or cannot be added, altered or generated. However, the fact remains that none of this occurs in the example concerning the shrinking fish population and no evolution of the fish takes place. 2. You agree that the existence and use of the family tree model existed long before Charles Darwin and his publication, do you not? Again, I would be happy to provide sources affirming the existence and use of family tree models prior to Charles Darwin’s publication if desired. “An evolutionary tree is a standard family tree.” If they are the same thing, then why use the term “Darwinian evolutionary family trees”? Either way I don’t see how this pertains to the idea that “the theory of evolution really matters.” Perhaps a more apt title for this section would be: Charles Darwin inspired Beatrice Hahn to continue searching for the source of the HIV virus. This section certainly does not prove that “the theory of evolution really matters,” as discovering the source of the HIV virus was already possible and the tools used to find the origins of the virus already existed apart from the theory of evolution; and any one person can be inspired by any given object or other person in order to make a scientific, or otherwise, breakthrough. It does not attest to the idea that the theory of evolution itself really matters. “Under a creation model, there would be no need to search for missing links because viruses are curses created by either Gods or Demons from nothing.” What does this sentence refer to and mean? 3. My actual full sentence concerning Allan Savory’s solution to the grassland epidemic was: “However, Mr. Savory does not once attribute evolution to his discoveries in the sources provided for this video.” This is a true statement. You are now informing me that he has communicated to you that he does in fact attribute evolution to his discoveries. This is very helpful, however, the fact remains that Mr. Savory does not once attribute evolution to his discoveries in the sources provided for this video. Mr. Savory also states, in the sources provided for this video, “We cannot reduce animal numbers to rest it more without causing desertification and climate change. We cannot burn it without causing desertification and climate change. What are we going to do? There is only one option, I'll repeat to you, only one option left to climatologists and scientists, and that is to do the unthinkable, and to use livestock, bunched and moving, as a proxy for former herds and predators, and mimic nature. There is no other alternative left to mankind.” He explains that he chose the *only* option that was left to mankind. In the sources provided he doesn’t take the opportunity to attribute the solution or the idea of the solution to the theory of evolution, but rather he says that he chose the solution he chose because it was the “only one option left to climatologists and scientists” and that there was “no other alternative left to mankind.” Also, in the specific sources provided for this video, Mr. Savory attributes the solution to the tilling of the soil, fertilization with dung and urine, and removing of excess vegetation via the livestock. I understand now that you are saying that this was not the full picture of the situation, but you see, the contents of this video and its sources are all that is provided to any one viewer if he or she wishes to call into question and/or further research the information stated in this video. Also, if evolution was left to cure the desertification of the grasslands then the grasslands would have been revived on their own (due to natural selection and gene mutation over an extended period of time) as the theory of evolution teaches. Instead, we see that this long period of time has led to the desertification of the grasslands. Human intelligence and interference was necessary in order to fix the problem, contrasting the theory of evolution. Thank you again for taking the time to respond!
+Alex Moore It seems that you take issue with various ideas and processes being around before Darwin published anything about them under the system/label of Natural Selection. It's true that many of the ideas had been floating around for a long time. It's also true that the relevant natural processes had been occurring for eons before people were capable of studying them. However Darwin found a way to tie them together with a theory that was supported by multiple lines of evidence. He moved them from speculation into concrete scientific knowledge. Someone else would have eventually pieced the theory together if Darwin had not. Yet Darwin *was* the first person to do it, so we give him credit. I'm glad that you're thinking about these topics and how all the components interact with each other. I've benefited greatly from finally recognizing and understanding Evolution over the last few years. I hope you get the same enjoyment when it clicks!
+Alex Moore "Also, if evolution was left to cure the desertification of the grasslands then the grasslands would have been revived on their own (due to natural selection and gene mutation over an extended period of time) as the theory of evolution teaches. " You're mostly right here! The one thing I don't fully agree with is that the grasslands would be restored. It's possible that they would return to their previous state, but Evolution really only guarantees that *something* will *eventually* fill the gap left in the ecosystem. There's no guarantee which species, and it might take hundreds of thousands of years, but eventually it would happen. The main reason humans are concerned is that we might not survive the amount of time it would take for natural selection to produce new grasslands.
+Bill Frasure Although it’s true that many of these processes were discovered and used before Charles Darwin’s publication, this is only one small issue compared to the overarching inaccuracies presented in this video (which I have spoken about in length in my previous comments). “He moved them from speculation into concrete scientific knowledge.” Much of what Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution espouse is in fact sheer speculation, but again, not the topic of this video or my comments per se. “I'm glad that you're thinking about these topics and how all the components interact with each other. I've benefited greatly from finally recognizing and understanding Evolution over the last few years. I hope you get the same enjoyment when it clicks!” Yes, I’ve had a full understanding of what the theory of evolution professes for several years. The more I studied the theory the less I found that it consisted of sound foundations on which to stand, and the less it cohered to what we can see, observe and test (i.e. the scientific method). “You're mostly right here! The one thing I don't fully agree with is that the grasslands would be restored. It's possible that they would return to their previous state, but Evolution really only guarantees that something will eventually fill the gap left in the ecosystem.” Exactly, the example presented in this video is an even greater refutation of the theory of evolution. In reality, if the theory of evolution really mattered and we fully believed that it could accomplish what it claims, then the desertification of the grasslands, as well as the extinction of other plants, animals or humans, would be a welcomed byproduct of the evolutionary process. An attempt to restore the grasslands would utterly go against the principles of the theory. But of course, this is not what we see presented in the video. Instead, we see an absolute necessity for human intelligence and intervention in order to preserve the life force of the planet. The examples given in this video surely do not prove that “the theory of evolution really matters.” And in this particular example concerning the African grasslands, we see that it actually asserts (perhaps inadvertently) the opposite: fight against the theory of evolution to perverse life and well-being on earth. It gives reason to defy the theory and it does not in any way help to prove that “the theory of evolution really matters.” I’m sure we can also agree that the example of the shrinking fish is quite clearly an instance of de-evolution or a narrowing down of the total genetic information, as evolution is defined as “the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth” and “the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.” All of this begs the question, “does the theory of evolution really matter?” Since the theory of evolution is defined as seen above, and since the examples presented in this video do not exhibit results of evolution (but rather the process de-evolution, the narrowing down of genetic information, the necessity of human intelligence and intervention in order to perverse nature, etc.), we can see that this video does not adequately demonstrate the idea that “the theory of evolution really matters.”
you presented two parts of evolution, one, microevolution/natural selection(fact) and the other, the actual theory of how all things evolved from a single organism(theory) You only gave examples of the facts of evolution and none on the theory. The Theory of evolution is a big subject, with many facts and many theories. But, only the facts matter and this video proved it besides you saying that theories matter.
+Info Planet theories are used to generate hypotheses, hypotheses are then tested to discover new facts. Each set of facts discovered and shown in this video were discovered because the researchers used evo theory to tell them what to look for.
In the video, you mentioned 2 ideas, the 2nd idea was that "All things are related" and you then showed an evolution tree that starts with a single organism. This idea from the theory of evolution did not help the discoveries shown in your video. What helped was the 1st idea you mentioned in the video, Microevolution/natural selection which is observable and proven through experiments, thus, not a theory. Only facts helped those researchers. The theory you mention did not.
I'd say with regard to any knowledge of the truth that it does not matter whether we know of any useful application of that knowledge because just knowing makes a difference. That said, there are many evidences that lead to the conclusion that we evolved. The Theory of Evolution permits us to make accurate prediction with respect to many of those lines of evidence (like the fossil record and the nested hierarchy of all life).
actually, no. theories are the byproduct of confirmed hypothesis. when you got enough evidence to suport a model that explains something, it becomes a scientific theory. and the evidence comes from hypothesis (a cool name for a simple hunch, a guess) that had been tested and confirmed.
*"theories are the byproduct of confirmed hypothesis."* Not necessarily confirmed, but when testing of the hypothesis has consistent results you have an opportunity to formulate an explanation(theory). A hypothesis is a testable idea. So it's more than a hunch or a conjecture.
Zidneya Stop lying, you haven't read the bible. You can't even be true to yourself right now and admit you haven't read the bible. And that's because you believe you came from a monkey. And since monkeys have no sense of morality why should you have one, right? lol
Legel-X But I teach religion AND science, an have read the Bible. There are 4 million pieces of evidence for evolution, but, lets remove fossils, then we have around 3 million pieces of evidence. AND we use evolution PRACTICALLY. How could we use evolution PRACTICALLY if it did not work?
thatwonguy Speciation is a result of evolution, but it's still not the same thing as evolution. Evolution is a process and processes have different outcomes.
I LOVE the and simplicity of your videos! It's inspirational to say the least! I want to make some on religion and basically everything else we all must educate ourselves on and seeing your success with these really gives me the drive. BRAVO!
***** Uh, no, you DON'T think for yourself. You let religious hucksters do your thinking for you. The only valid reason for someone to reject a scientific consensus is if they have come across evidence that overturns it. You have not done any such thing at your shitty minimum wage job, you dolt.
I have discovered such evidence. But why are you angry? Is it beause you can't define the rules of life yourself if God exists? Anyway you're sounding very emotional. Why is that? Don't take it personal we're just discussing the facts.
I'm not sure if the points you make here actually os true, but evolution causes diversity so that we in some ways are different from other primates and other forms of life is nothing more strange than the fact that they are different to us.
XgaboonX 00 well remember, apes and us started out from a different species, much less developed, from where we each branched out. The major differences between us and primates would have developed over this time, with humans growing in one direction, losing things that are unnecessary to them, and primates gaining and losing things as well until we come to be quite different. You brought up that is losing two chromosomes would've been ridiculous, but we didn't actually lose those chromosomes. Our base species would've had less than 46 chromosomes and from their, humans grew to have more (46) and primates happened to develop more than humans (48) but no chromosomes were lost
I can point by point explain all the evolutionary differences, and why they occurred. It is of course evolution, there is evidence, there are valid explanations. Want to start with bones ? Humans walk upright, and can run, run for a very long time and very far. Now if you had heavy bones and heavy muscle, it would be much harder to do this wouldn't it ? Our evolutionary path favoured long distance runners over strong muscle and dense bone structure. Note. The Neanderthals all died out.
I've been watching some of these and really enjoy them - very concise and fun! I am a bit concerned about seeing in this, and other videos here, the phrasing of humans as separate from other animals i.e."spillover from animals to people". It is stated throughout that we are interrelated, yet when referring to our own species, it speaks as if we are not. Its all very contradicting.
p.s. I'm a biologist, I don't disagree with the theory of evolution. It's the best theory we have so far. In my opinion the manner in which animals and plants evolve is much more elegant than what we have pieced together now. But these examples in this video are frankly lacking and juvenile.
Well, once again we've had to republish our video "Does the Theory of Evolution Really Matter?". This time we realized we had some info wrong about our sponsors. It seems that Stated Clearly is suffering from an embarrassing case of "premature publication".
Next time we get ready to publish a video, we'll make sure not to launch until all participating parties are fully satisfied :)
th-cam.com/video/hqepQGOYKZ0/w-d-xo.html
Can I translate the video to arabic and post it on my page ?
Mohmd Blue Wow! I actually just wanted to say the same thing. I think we should cooperate in doing so!
Mohmd Blue go ahead man, I'm sure they would feel great to know that their video is being translated into diferent languages, just put them in the credits and you as well, here in Brazil there are a few videos of them in portuguese too.
Oh you must be completely mortified! I hope you aren't averse to the idea of making mostakes, though. Making mistakes means your learning! :D
bugzpudding like my mistake of misspelling mistake...
Evolution isn't something you "Believe" in.
Either you understand it, or you don't.
hypothesis
Yeah. Like humanity being around for millions of years. Why can't we eat grass? Why can't we eat bark? Life-forms adapt to their evironments, right? Why can't we breathe water? Why can't we eat dirt? This evolution stuff is so stupid. Think for yourself instead of letting others tell you what to believe. You're smarter than that!
+Clint R Evolution isn't intelligent. It has no way of knowing any of those things would be better capabilities for us if we had them. It's only 2 mechanisms are variations from the parent stock and culling of those variations that can't reproduce. As environments change over time, so too does what gets culled. This manifests as change to species over time.
*****
It's just terrible that so many see that evidence and simply say "I don't understand it, but God must have had a very good reason for doing it that way.". In this fashion, it's a game of "Heads I win, Tails you lose" in which no amount of evidence for evolution would dislodge their conviction that evolution could never happen. Truth be told they simply don't want evolution to be valid. They think it makes them "not special", unimportant, no better than any animal. As if that were not enough, they think it would also mean there's no reason to live a moral life, that morality could not exist. It's all so whacked when you try to take it all in, but sometimes you have to to see how fruitless it would be to try to convince them.
+ExtantFrodo2
if they want to believe that a god got the ball rolling, let them think it. as long as they also understand and accept the scientific process and what it repeatedly tells us, its all good tbh.
hell, a god snapping his heels together like dorthy and saying "make it so" like picard isnt any more unprovable a hypothesis about how the universe got started than the big bang is.
just be glad those that believe in a god but also believe in real science arent completely stupid like those that believe the earth is 6,000 years old.
Love how the human gets fatter as the fish get smaller.
I noticed that too haha
Lol.I was wondering when he was going to mention why.
The appearance of people becoming fat has nothing to do with evolution, since it occurred in only 1 or 2 generations. If we look back a few hundred generations, and compare with early humans, modern humans are actually taller and slimmer.
but I hate how brains get smaller but fish jokes are getting better(which is why Donald Trump laughed at that old joke)
It's the same guy growing older.
The Creationists in this comment section and their delusional misrepresentation of evolution and flawed arguments against it just prove that religion is incompatible with a modern society.
The type of person like you, who blindly supports evolution seems to be unaware that in Sir Fred Hoyle's 1989 book "Mathematics of Evolution" he explains why Darwinian theory is wrong, and that his motive in rejecting Darwinism is not religious (he was as atheist); rather he concludes that Darwinism is an impediment to discovering a better theory of our origins. He rejects the core Darwinian theory of (goo to you by way of the zoo), being driven by favourable mutations from simple organic molecules to complex life.
@@jimmys6566 i dont "blindly" support evolution, i did the necessary research to convince myself that this is a valid (and the only valid) explanation for the diversity we see in life on earth.
Just like i will research what your argument of authority has to say on this.
But hey at least you got to spam a book name into the comment section to feel smart, instead of actually just listing "Sir Fred Hoyle's" arguments so i could adress them. No different from just linking a YT vid and then pretending you made your case, because you know usually nobody would watch an hour long YT vid or read an entire book just to adress you.
From his wikipeadia article he seems like he loved to publish theories just to oppose correct ones. For example he also didnt believe in the Big Bang theory, claiming the Steady-State-Theory of the universe would be correct, yet it would be expanding through the *constant creation of matter* , of course violating the laws of thermodynamics, which he appearently didnt want to acknowledge. Until 1993 he held that believe, despite everyone else already accepting the Big Bang. He was more of an edgy teenager than anything else, opposing just for the sake of opposition.
However, as far as i can see from his wiki article, he doesnt seem to reject "the core Darwinian theory". He rejects if anything our current understanding of Abiogenisis, how life started. He beliefs that life formed in space and then came on earth from comets. I didnt found anything suggesting he had an alternative belief on how life evolves after that aka. how diversity in life formed, which is what the core of evolution is. Most of his criticism seems to be on how unlikely it is that life came from matter randomly, which is NOT evolution, thats abiogenisis.
Only in his books summary i could find "arguments against evolution", no different than modern day silly creationist arguments. First he says that that "advantageous" mutations are swamped by deterious mutations, however he then quickly admits that through natural selection thats still enough to hold the deterious ones in check. Essentially claiming that kinds magically dont change through deterious ones, but also dont change through advantageous ones, holding them just exactly in a magic equlibrium. The terms deterious and advantageous already being unscientific since non of them are really either, they are both mutations changing the organism, which is what evolution requires. However, as far as he is a mathematician he is certainly no biologist, his entire chapter on how he reached that conclusion includes equations but the necessary data to fit or conclude these he just "deduces" with no scientific source whatsoever. Most of his results are pure speculation, not based on any biological facts or observations as far as i can see in his book.
He claims life couldnt adept outside of very narrow limits, which of course is paradoxical since evolution in minor can change almost anything about an animal, morphology, anatomy, genes, which if the "base animal" always changes further and further automatically guarantees large changes unless you specifiy what even minor evolution couldnt affect. Which of course he doesnt, he just cites someone else who appearently "proofed that for him". Sure. Science.
Then he says the fossil record should show "transitions", which is obviously stupid to say since any species is in constant change so this is flawed to begin with. Any transition would also be a new species itself, and we have found many who serve as a link between 2 species.
Also, just practically we can already show that over multiple generations significant changes happen, not leading to detereation of these animals. Because deteriation of genes doesnt mean deteriation of entire kinds, since the negative get sorted out in the species but the positive ones actually change the species since they get preserved since they are not sorted out.
And if you think i just cant grasp his book, how about YOU actually make your argument how he deduced mathematically that evolution is wrong? Surely you read the book?
However, since he doesnt have any education on biology or paleontology, he is no different than any other uneducated layman on these topics, so i dont get how you think he is an authority on these topics to begin with. His equations are completly meaningless since they are based on pure speculation and not fit with any data from observation to begin with.
And his alternative of evolution, if appearently nothing ever goes beyond a state of its own kind? Nonexistent, since hes not even religious it appears he, again, just wanted to say something controversial.
@@jimmys6566 Fred Hoyle started with weak probable postulates when he evaluate evolution concept such that he reached plainly wrong innacurate conclusions about it.
@@grasianofau8771 Not at all my friend: Hoyle was mainstream and the mainstream was completely wrong until about 1960; when the views of Martin Ryle [ (1918 - 1984) who was an English radio astronomer and engineer who developed revolutionary radio telescope systems (see e.g. aperture synthesis) and used them for accurate location and imaging of weak radio sources] confirmed that Cosmic Egg model of Georges Édouard Lemaître was correct. (Lemaître was the Belgian Catholic priest, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain).
Give hydrogen enough time and it'll begin to question its existence.
Scroll back up and watch the video; no intelligent discussion can be found in this comment section
+S Winegar I'm trying to avoid commenting, because I don't want to bother with the headaches.
+S Winegar Should have listened to you...
Watch out for the top comment thread....
Thanks
🦄🦄🦄🦄intelligent design could be anything from the mathematician worlds to the Shining
I love how people say this not evolution... A desperate attempt to preserve their straw-men..
fndalves A lot of it comes from the strawman version of evolution that is built by them by ICR.
J. Buxter-Fleener evolution is just the fact that life forms slowly change from generation to generation... that’s all... it is a fundamental property of life.. you are the one talking about god... that’s your problem...
@J. Buxter-Fleener hey so umm. I'm recently studying evolution and just got myself into this evolution debate (many of the arguments and evidence i've read about are pro-evolution and they are reasonable) so could you tell me exactly which scientific laws does The theory of Evolution contradict? I'm just asking since i believe everyone should have evidence for their opinions in a serious debate
I have always been stuck with the notion that Evolution would only be an argumentative point, rather than a practical theory. I only wonder why I didn’t realize it before, being that it is a theory of change? Perhaps because Evolution seems synonymous to “slow” change, that we wouldn’t have suspect it for even immediate changes within years or even months.
This makes me happier knowing that something like this can be useful for helping populations.
Thank you for this video!
The Theory of Evolution is one of the greatest discoveries in the history of humankind
Nope. That was Porn.
I agree with you Dylan, but I just gotta give it to Indiana
Evolution is not a theory, it's an observation. We see change in the fossil records of species and try to explain it. Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory to explain the mechanism that drives the changing of species.
There are non-Darwinian methods for evolution, as well. Like selective breeding in domesticated animals.
Dylan Whisnant and one of the simplest
It's also the most obvious. It only takes observation and logic. No measurement needed. If it weren't for organizations with their own agendas it would have been common knowledge centuries earlier.
6:09 "Why are grasslands turning into deserts?" It's because Mufasa died and Scar took over!
nah it's cuz Harambe died
COME ON MAAAN, YOU JUST TOOK A PISS THERE, DONT EAT THAT!
Celticsfan969 Made my day!
Celticsfan969 I was expecting him to eat his shit lol
And many stupid people don't believe evolution at all
jholotan best have you ever researched evolution for yourself? Or do just you trust the masonic school system that indoctrinated you into the theory of evolution and globe theory and heliocentrism
I studied evolution for a long time for myself, but evolution (from one kind to a new kind (which requires new genes) is never scientifically proven. In fact, most scientific findings are pointing to something very different. For me this was kind of shocking to discover, but it is the truth. The theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory, which mostly are presented together, are theories which are based on scientific ASSUMPTIONS which, by the same science, are proven and general know to be IMPOSSIBLE. Please don't ignore the facts, open up your mind and at least don't insult people because they don't want to believe a theory which assumptions are in-scientific and against all (moral) senses.
- Information (DNA) can never come from not-information.
- Chaos (Big Bang) never brings order (The first cell, which is more complex and organised than a factory) ( & Our solar system)
- Life requires organisation, organisation in turn requires intelligence
- A mechanism (an evolved species, like a bat) can only function and survive when ALL the required components are present and work together.
For example, think about it, what was first, the chicken of the egg?
If the chicken evolved first, it then lay an egg. Was the egg fertilized? If the egg was first, was the egg fertilized?
And when the chicken 'thing' evolved, what did evolve first?
1. The blood
2. The blood vessels
3. The heart
1. Why did it evolve blood, when it had no blood vessels and no heart?
2. Why did it evolve blood vessels, when it had no blood and no heart?
3. Why did it evolve the heart, when it had no blood and no blood vessels?
It doesn't make sense, do you see? All thins had to be set in motion right on the same moment, otherwise the mechanism/organism could not survive.
And at last, it is not said that the Theory of Evolution matters because some (small) parts of it can be used by some experiments which can give a fine solution for some problems. For example, how does the hypothesis that grass is dependent on (other) organisms is a argument for the fact that the Theory of Evolution matter. Let me explain, how could it not be that God created all the organisms in such a way, that we're all dependent to each other. You can see this in all sorts of life, even in marriage. For example, if we could reproduce ourselves without intimacy with an other (Woman-Man / Man-Woman), we wouldn't need an other human being to receive children.
So when this is the fact (God created (all) organisms this way), we could give rise to exact the same hypothesis and exact the same results. So the Evolution Theory, although it can be partly used for this experiments and can bring good results, doesn't matter (any more than for example the Creationist' viewpoint). Therefore, I think the conclusion and the arguments are kind of misleading. I'm interested if you can see what point I'm trying to make.
Hope you will be touched by the things I wrote and you (all) will take a critical look at the evolution theory. I found out for myself there is more than just what some people think there is. Based on what I found out, it's far bigger and more beautiful than we sometime can think of. Therefore, I would love you to discover this too. Good luck!
Haha, I don't speak English very fluently, my bad. But you don't answer any of my point and give to me the impression that it's getting emotional for you ;-) . But if, what I'm saying is so easy, why you don't explain it to me? I'm open to serious pro-evolution answers man, but can't find it unfortunately. Watching the video again, for me, would not make sense. So maybe you can explain me a scientific answer on my ''stupid'' questions?
Jonathan "studied evolution", says 'kinds', brings up Big Bang theory for no reason (presented together? What kind of biology classes are you taking...), creationist copy pasta. Using standard religious buzzwords in conclusion.
I think we all know how much you've actually studied evolution.
+guaflar Don't mean a academic study, just for myself. And when I do, I don't have to do this all in English, so when I make a translating mistake, this say not that much. And funny see nobody can give me easy answer on my questions. Unfortunate because I'm open to it, but on the other hand probably makes things just a little more clear.
Science: Here are the facts, what conclusion can we draw from them.
Religon: Here is the conclusion, what fact can we find to support it.
George Foreman you know that that's not how theories come into being right? Scientists make guess without evidence of what they think would happen and try to find out if it's true
yes and if the result disagrees with their hypothesis they will change it
J. Buxter-Fleener
Give me one pice of data that proves creation.
@@alexthompson8977 let's repeat the scientific method!
1. Observing a phenomenon
2. Making an hypothesis
3. Doing experiments to BROKE the hypothesis (not to prove it!)
4a. If the hypotesis doesn't broke, formule a theory (which is a model that explain reality obtained thru observations and evidences)
4b. If the hypothesis is broken by experiments, re-make an hypothesis.
Hypotesis are different from theories.
There are zero scientific facts supporting the fiction story of evolution. People only believe it because they want to live in the dark.
Been reading some of the comments. Why is it that the people that know the least about a subject have the most to say about it. It's like stupid and loud are directly proportional to each-other .
This video and all the videos on this channel are brilliant and simple at the same time. If you watch this video and all of the others and you STILL don't understand, then there is just no hope for you.
And to all that people making comments like, "yeah but if evolution is true then why are there still monkeys? durp durp" or any of those, "how come this?" or "why that?" type comments. Here's some advice.. GOOGLE IT!!!!! Read a fucking book! EDUCATE yourself! Don't just sit there asking what you will come to realize are very stupid questions.
Reggie Lawrence yeah, there was a study done on that topic in which two groups of people: 1 who didn't know much about a certain subject, and 2 who were experts in the field (i don't remember what the subject was was as it's been a long time since i read the study) were asked how much they thought they knew about said subject. The result was that the ignorant people were the most confident in their knowledge on the subject- crazy, no?
So, out of interest, how confident are you both in your knowledge of evolution? :)
It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect
@@FrogFace64 :)) ((::: :) :) :) :) ((: (: (: (:
There might be lazy people out there, but there are NO STUPID QUESTIONs. How arrogant can someone be to say that !
And those that ready the most think often they are the brightest/most intelligent ones. No, those who think for themself are , because if all people would never question anything the earth would be still the center of the universe. There is one thing that did not change since the very beginning of human kind - arrogance. Congrats to that.
And this is why I love science. Excellent watch, thank you!
You don't love science you just like staring at it as it walks by. :D
TheAtheistChef
'Are you staring at my ass?'
'Don't mind me, just peer reviewing' ;)
@@XYZ-xl5fs
This topic sure makes me wanna dive deep into this studying material!
Monke mattah
@@XYZ-xl5fs lmaooo
Evolution is fact. We don't know everything about it but we know it occurred. We should continue to study biology and evolution more while we can laugh at creationists and let them believe whatever delusional nonsense they want to believe.
Finally, someone that can actually 'state clearly' the principles of evolution.
8:34 he ate the pee, eww
TheFloatingSheep I was expecting him to eat his shit lol
Guess it was a big laugh animating that scene :D
@@rodrigov7114 lol same here
Great examples! Although as a picky evolutionary scientist I would regret the use of the phrase "genetic code", in place of genetic sequence, and the use of "missing link". Also I would have been interested in examples about the speciation process for example, because many people don't have problems with small intra-population changes, but macro-evolutionary changes are more difficult to grasp concretely, or we might wonder why that matters...
You quickly said "despite being interesting", but I'd like to extend the topic beyond really concrete applications; I think that the simple knowledge of the theory of evolution does not only bring purely intellectual satisfaction, but helps putting our (human) existence into perspective: knowing by what enormous chance we came to be, how extraordinarily diversified biodiversity is, how we can't be considered the "final goal" of evolution but only a ridiculous tip in the enormous bush of life, etc, if most people realized that, it might really have practical consequences on how our society behaves (let's talk about resource plundering, pollution, etc...).
Can anybody tell me what a "kind" is supposed to be? Are dogs and wolves of the same kind? Are lions and tigers of the same kind? Are cattle and bison of the same kind? Are dolphins and killer whales of the same kind? What makes two animal populations of the same kind as opposed to a different kind? And why have I never found the term "kind" used to classify any living creature in any biology text book in my entire life?
+Edwin Luciano
Are mud skippers and salamanders the same kind?
... Or maybe mud skippers and gobies are... But if salamanders are the same kind as mud skippers, then that would make gobies & salamanders the same kind, right?
Are gobies the same kind as cod? And are cod the same kind as sharks? Are salamanders the same kind as caecilians? Are caecilians the same kind as worms?
If the answer to all these is yes, then sharks must be the same kind as worms, I suppose.
+balzonurchin And in a sense, every living thing is of the same "kind" because every living creature we know of reproduces using molecules of nucleic acids. According to which translation your using, the Bible says says that bats are in the same "kind" as birds or fowls. If the definition of "kind" is that broad, why can't a human be a "kind" of ape or a "kind" of primate ? Surely humans are more closely related to chimps than bats are to either birds or fowls!
+Edwin Luciano I hadn't noticed that before, about birds and bats, so I had to look it up. To quote Answers in Genesis, "The Hebrew word for bird is actually owph which means "fowl/winged creature." The word owph simply means "to fly" or "has a wing." So, the word includes birds, bats, and even flying insects. The alleged problem appears due to the translation of owph as bird. Birds are included in the word owph, but owph is not limited to birds. This shows that translators aren't always perfect when handling the inerrant Word of God."
***** Don't care. Bible's not for me. Goodbye.
+Edwin Luciano Don't ask questions if you aren't interested in the answer
Also evolution programming is a really cool thing. It has nothing to do with biology, but it still uses the basic principles of evolution. It works by generating a set of random solutions to a very complex problem. Then doing what evolution does (breeding, mutating ,killing off the bad ones) and you get some very good results.
Excellent. Informative, concise, and we'll structured.
Yup one could say it was... Stated Clearly
@@Geelar
"Ba dum tss"
Evolution explains the diversity of life on earth, so, yes it matters
The story of evolution has never explained anything. It is only a silly fiction story.
Dan Miner I think you typed “Bible” wrong, mister
@@AleaRandomAm - The Bible, as translated in English in the A.V./KJ version has been proven to be the most (and only) accurate history of the world by centuries of research. Never has any honest scientific statement been found that would show how evolution could occur and never has one iota of evidence been found to show that it could have occurred.i The story of evolution is only for people who want to be fools.
Dan Miner No it has not, you’re just inventing things. Here’s a list of things that have already been disproved: Adam and Eve, the flood and the arch Exodus. The rest wasn’t proved lol.
Evolution has been proved many even by THIS BLOODY VIDEO ON WHICH YOU’RE COMMENTING! Or did God put fossils and vestigial organs to trick us? Did he shape whales’ bone structures as a joke? You’re delusional
@@edit8826 - M y friend, that is not the definition of "Evolution", that is the creation model operating as designed, using already information. God created each kind with up to millions of heterozygous places in the genomes to determine how much each part and system will grow to enable diversity and the ability to adapt while retaining the same exact anatomy. The human DNA has 10 millions places where heterozygocity could exist. Over time heterozygous alleles and modules tend to become more homozygous which results in LOSING information.
Every dog has the same anatomy as each other, thus no evolutionary difference. Every cat has the same anatomy, thus no evolutio0nary difference. Every person on earth has the same anatomy. For this to be possible would require that every ancestor of each kind also had the same anatomy, thus, zero evidence for evolution. The evolution model requires that the only change that would be evolutionary would increase information, which has never occurred.
The creation model is that God created each kind with the ability to live and reproduce which would require all parts and systems including a complete DNA being present in the beginning.
The evolution model requires that every part, system, macro-molecule, proteins, enzymes, etc. appeared simply by naturalism only and every part and system could live and reproduce before being complete. No evolutionists has ever explained how anything in a cell or body system could originate by chance.
Darwinists HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE A SINGLE EXPLANATION OF HOW JUST ONE PROTEIN CAME INTO BEING.
A single protein has TOTALLY DEMOLISHED DARWINISM. DNA is essential for a single protein to form.
DNA cannot form without protein.
Protein cannot form without DNA.
Protein cannot form in the absence of protein.
Sixty separate proteins are needed for a single protein to form.
Protein cannot form in the absence of any one of these.
Protein cannot form with no ribosome.
Protein cannot form with no RNA.
Protein cannot form with ATP.
Protein cannot form without the mitochondria to manufacture ATP.
Protein cannot form without the cell nucleus.
Protein cannot form without the cytoplasm Protein cannot form in the absence of a single organelle in the cell.
And proteins are necessary for all the organelles in the cell to exist and function.
There can be no protein without these organelles.
YOU CANNOT HAVE ONE PART WITHOUT THE OTHER..
Evolution is so orderly. It fits together so perfectly for the most part.
TheUltimateN Well, perhaps. Pick a particular ongoing result of evolution and it's Poof! to perfection. Homo sapiens, to name just one (obvious ) example, is cobbled together using the biological equivalent of duct tape, with a list of poorly designed features than easily runs into double figures. Still, we function and reproduce, so OK.
Pull back and take the broad view, and I agree with you and Darwin (pace the Creator reference): "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”
@Dr Karl Pagan Dear ""Dr", please explain (i) "idiotic" and (ii) "fairy tales" . Thanks.
@Dr Karl Pagan Thanks. I thought as much. Now would you please re-read my post to TheUltimateN and explain how anything therein could make me a protector of " ignorant Middle-Eastern fairy tales". BTW I'm not!
Uh yeah it's kind of one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time
Evolutionism has been the basis for most false religions for 3,000 years for fools to swallow.
@@danminer5343 what??
@@logicalatheist1065 Most false religions in the past had idols ... either of wooden image, of a stone image, or of a metal image.. Evolutionists use a mental image and all of their evidence is only imaginations, not of reality.
@@danminer5343 define evolutionist
That's literally every scientist.
You should care more about your education
@@danminer5343 no religion has ever been proven true so technically they're all false.
Gods are gods a lot of religions had him
Gods have only been debunked never proven to be true
I've been working on ways to share Evolution with my Creationist family and your videos are a wonderful resource. Please keep creating! You've got my support on Patron.
Nahh. Everything came into existence in one week because an 8000 year old Jewish Zombie said so. Makes perfect sense.
I can't write this in one go. I'm laughing too hard...
And yet he calls him a zombie
Really happy I found your channel. Top quality content!
5:52 - prevent further leakages of virusus from animals.
2020- oh really?
131 Jehovah's Witnesses didn't like this video ...
Jorge Lizaso == Where are you? Is it not all Christian organizations who don't like this video or is it just your Christian organization? === Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible ====
Something inside me was always drawn to the idea of evolution from my basic exposure to it in school. The videos you've made explain it WAY better and I'm not surprised that the people who taught me are still Creationists.
One should never learn science from a creationist
It’s a fascinating concept, I’m glad some people like you actually have curiosity and are drawn towards it.
Don’t ever let creationists distract you with their pseudoscience, it’s all crap.
I feel very fortunate that my parents were very open minded, these topics were always open for discussion, and I remember watching National Geographic shows about the Leakeys and their discoveries.
@@logicalatheist1065 Guess who CREATED science??? That's right.....the Creator. Ask these Darwinists to explain the Bombardier Beatle? The Giraffe, electric eel, gecko, camel, etc., etc. It seems that most things on this earth would have died before, or during their so-called evolving. Really stupid when you THINK about it. The whales would've drowned trying to breath into the first pair of lungs because they didn't know they were supposed to rise up from the great depths of the ocean for oxygen. Evolution?? C'mon, man!!!
@@trallfraz baseless assertion, no evidence?
Creation / intelligent design = primitive and delusional
Absolutely evolution matters, nothing else explains the diversity of life
I couldn't even grok the title.
I was like,
"is the fact that the earth is a sphere unworthwhile ?"
"is apparent retrograde motion unappealing ? "
I love how the animation showed the fish shrinking in suze, but the human growing in size.
Yo, I haven't seen this one before. Nice comment!
evolution explains how life changes, but there's still a big dilemma as to how it started in the first place.
by 'blind chance', is not much of an explanation..
So much said. So concise. Brilliant. Thank you!
I love how you accurately made HIV's genome a single strand.
Power to accuracy!
Now I want a playlist explaining all pf the cards at 8:56 .....
Please !!!!
It takes a lot of studying to make a video that seems so simple like this! Awsome
I LOVE your channel. Thanks so much for making these videos. Would you mind considering doing a video about comparing DNA, please? I have tried to research how scientists go about comparing different species' DNA, but I can't understand most of it. So, when they say humans and DNA share 98% of DNA I find that fascinating, but can't figure out how they actually compare the two. Thank you so much!
The simplified version of how they observe DNA is that because the proteins in them are made from different things in different parts, they are able to separate them (I think using shocks) similar to how if you were to shake up a mix of water and oil. Because of their density, they would separate through gravity.
Evolution only matters if you think science is important. Personally, I think science is important and worthy of credibility.
I studied biology and still I'm really interested in religion, thanks to my former high schools pastor. She was brilliant. She was so supportive of science yet always managed to never let her own believes down. She was the perfect example of being able to coexit and never to force anyone in to any believe, never telling anyone that they should not be into science, never doubt evolution. In fact she was referring to Genesis as a metaphor for evolution, which I found a stunning and such interesting, fascinating thought.
It Never made me believe in what the bible said, but I took her course until I graduated and I think I still took so so much out of it.
So with that being said, may her genes be passed on and the human population become more like her AND God bless her ☺️
You studied biology? Then lets take the small fish for example. Why would you blindly believe evolution is causing fish to get smaller. Instead of looking at the obvious facts. The first thing a biologist should know is where the genes come from. A fish gets it's gense from both it's parents.
@@fullercrane1795 I don't see how your statement contradicts evolution? It actually is exactly what evolution is lol The fish get the genes from its parents, which are also small, because being small, in the enviroment they live in, serves a purpose to them. If it didn't, they'd be less likely to successfully live to the age of procreation, less likely to find a mate, whatever. Over time, the smaller, more successfull fish get to procreate the most, so over hundreds of generation of fish, they become smaller and smaller until they reach the "perfect" size for their unique nische
@@blockblock376
It has nothing to do with evolution. That is an assumption. Nor the environment. When someone is removing fish they are not changing the environment. I can't tell if you're being serious or not because I gave you the answer. The fish get their genes from their parents. So you remove all the big fish. Only the smaller ones will be breeding and their off spring is more likely to be small as their parents were.
I've also studied biology. When comes to people health and how the body works. Evolution is not a part of it. So if you were studying anything you must of went to a Darwinian class.
@@fullercrane1795 lol ok youre a troll
@@blockblock376
No am serious. IDK what course you did. But I did AS level biology. Genes being past down to their off spring is not evolution. Any adaption or change is dependent on the parents biology. The fishes biology did not change to make them smaller. There was no new adaption or change happing.
The main fishes that were left and able to produce off spring was the smaller ones.
As they past down their genes making it likely there off spring will be small as well.
That is not a change in biology.
This is like the third time this has been reuploaded.
Every evolution denier in this comment section shares one common quality: misrepresentation and ignorance of evolution. If you only understood the basics of evolution, then perhaps it wouldn't seem as implausible. Hearing the same primitive mistakes over and over again starts to become almost comical.
I think the majority of those evolution deniers are merely trolls PRETENDING to be evolution deniers. If I were a creationist who didn't believe in evolution, I wouldn't waste time watching videos about it. Then waste more time writing a comment about it.
@@picturepainter I assure you they aren't pretending. They're just that stupid.
@@picturepainter NO, they are merely frustrated to the fact that their religion is being falsified. so they are trying to prove a point
The type of person like you, who blindly supports evolution seems to be unaware that in Sir Fred Hoyle's 1989 book "Mathematics of Evolution" he explains why Darwinian theory is wrong, and that his motive in rejecting Darwinism is not religious (he was as atheist); rather he concludes that Darwinism is an impediment to discovering a better theory of our origins. He rejects the core Darwinian theory of (goo to you by way of the zoo), being driven by favourable mutations from simple organic molecules to complex life.
@@jimmys6566 Whether you think I'm right or wrong, as a student of evolutionary biology, you'd have a hard time finding someone more literate than I am.
The fish size experiment is fascinating
Who ever doesn't believe in evolution probably thinks the theory of gravity is wrong too and Donald Trump is the best.
+Geometry Dash AJ213 well, it's only a theory... I mean gravity :)
same as evolution
+robertelee2k9 truth seeker listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/
robertelee2k9 truth seeker lol you barley know what evolution is... what age are you? 60 or 10? I cant tell. So evolution is unlikely for you but a magical being coming from nothing and making everything from nothing that's backed up by nothing is more reliable to base all your beliefs by?
+robertelee2k9 truth seeker aaaaa I understand now. Nobody ever observed with his own eyes long term effect of evolution, so it's not true. Same as nobody ever observed with his own eyes continental drifting, or sun make at least 1 orbit around the Milky Way, change of earth's magnetic poles, or about anything that takes more time than few decades. Therefore none of this exists :D
1:10 yeah something strange is happening! its the fact that the guy gets fatter each year.
he turned into a chungus
Really great videos, I like the animation/art style and the videos seem very well researched/informed. +1 sub
Great presentation! Besides the content, you guys are also teaching how to make presentations, and ultimately how to organize compelling arguments and how to teach.
I'm seeing a bit of a trend here ,Stated Clearly.
You make this beautiful video, and the comment section gets utterly raped by creationnists... Such a shame.
MrHornfox im agnostic
so u think everything in this universe and universe itself didn't created ? Do u have any ans ? who started life and how the universe came into existence ?
main question is what is the root of root u agnostic arrogant close mind fools arr overconfident and also superstitious bcz u also blindly believe in stupid theories
saurabh attri I am an agnostic too but unlike you it seems I believe in the scientific method.And when you call such a stable and well tested theory such as evolution “stupid” I really think you should consider starting to think logically.
When you look at higher level physics you can see its connections to chemistry.If you do the same for chemistry you see some of its connections with biology.You can see how it fits all together without the need of a god controlling it.Sure, a “god” could have created the universe and the rules on which it operates but we still can’t prove his nonexistence or his existence and it may take a very very long time before we find the answer and we might not even be able to do it.As such I think you should revisit the theories you call “stupid” to see that they really aren’t that because I don’t think that you pondering about whether there is a god or not will make you find the answer to that question.
It would be awesome to see videos about all the cases in which evolution can help us!
These videos are amazing! You should do other subjects like computer science!
That "dung and urine" part was funny as hell and definitely unexpected
Lmao
I have no more words to describe how amazed I am at this moment by beautiful simplicity and the quality of the information contained in this video :'D
Great job, Stated Clearly :'D
#Evolution #HIV
Only those who are extremely anti-science and ignorant of the issue can believe the fairy tale fiction story of evolution.
This is a very good video. It shows how the scientific world view matters.
Well if the world starts turning into a desert at a rapid rate, we got ourselves a solution to fix the problem. Yay for science! :)
Did you not hear the caveat though? It only applies to semi-arid grasslands. Most desertification is happening due to climate change, drought, and deforestation.
A nice video about evolution, forgot I seen the unlisted version already.
Oh, yeah! It's great! Biologists use it every day and it helps people understand biology. It is the unifying theory of biology.
Do you speak other language?
@@ryallisson
I speak English and Spanish fluently and I speak a little bit of Japanese, French, and Portuguese (just a little bit).
@@Aurora666_yt I speak Portuguese,Spanish and Italian fluently.And also i understand rather English.
@@ryallisson
Awesome!
Is it a misconception that humans evolved from apes? It is safe to say that humans do have a common ancestor so are apes the best evidence thus far?
it's actually much more simple. We are simply one (of five) species of great apes. In a same sense that we are mammals, vertebrates, animals and eukaryotes. We were originally one species and we splitted up.
Stated Clearly who put us in the primate family tree. Because I'm pretty sure it was someone who didn't have enough evidence to do so, but in doing so it forces people to already be suceptable to believing in evolution cause someone already put them on a list of other species and said look were related! we're in the same category of species. but for some reason there is not a single primate that can breed with a different another variation of a so called primate called. also if we did evolve from primates why did we lose our tails? and don't tell me it's because we didn't need them. I would use the shit out of a tail, I could be reading the morning paper, drinking my coffee, and wiping my ass while in on the toilet with my tail
+Stated Clearly Is this ever scientifically proven? Can you send me a link to some of this scientific proves(so which didn't need interpretation)? I would like to check them! Thanks in advance.
Jonathan
The most compelling evidence isn't fossil evidence. We have documented the human genome as well as nearly every extant primate as well as some extinct human species.
Homo Sapiens has haplogroups which contain genes from homo neanderthalensus... which requires that we were close enough genetically that we could have fertile offspring... not quite full speciation. There examples of partial speciation in many species of animals who evolved from the same parental clade which can be Sometimes able to have fertile offspring. Ring species, for example.
Because we have maps of all of these primate genomes we can compare them.
Nested in among the primate genes are strands of retroviral DNA. When a retrovirus hijacks a cell it inserts a strand of DNA into the host cell's DNA. When a gamate cell is infected that marker can be passed along to the offspring.
There are over 1000 examples of endogenous retroviral strands in the same locations in the same chromosomes.
These provide markers that can be used to track our genetic relationships to other primates with definitive certainty. There is no possibility that we have these markers by coincidence. We have them because our ancestral clades passed them down to us.
A short explantion is that some mammals evolved into primates, and some primates evolved into monkeys (simians), and some monkeys evolved into apes, and some apes evolved into humans, jsut to mention the larger groupings and ignoring more specific groups.
But while some primates evolved into monkeys, others evolved into other things, but they are all still primates, just different kinds of primates. Things never stop being what they are they only evolve to become new versions of that thing. Apes are a specific version of monkeys, it doesn't mean they're more or less "evolved" than other monkeys.
Humans are [great] apes, monkeys, primates, mammals, vertebrates, and so on. Each "level" represents a larger and more diverse group. At the top level, we are "life", just like every other living thing on Earth.
More precisely, humans evolved from the australopithecines, about 2.5 million years ago, which were also great apes.
Thank you for speaking slowly. Too many informative, educational videos are narrated by cracked out hosts who feel the need to race through text. Let the information breathe and percolate in your mind. Well done.
Most creationists are so f**ked up they don't understand unless you speak slowly, even then they seldom get it.
These videos are really well done!
I just wish you would switch to a different voice-over actor. The current VO doesn't feel as commanding as it could be. The info you're giving is so well crafted and the animation/illustrations are spot on. I just feel like it needs a stronger voice (male or female)
and maybe a subtle background track wouldn't hurt either. :)
Excelent video. You should do a part 2. Genetic algorithms is another example why it matters, applied to engineering.
I fucking love it. Holy hell. The theory (maybe we should start call it a fact) of evolution is one of the most fascinating things out there.
Science cannot give us facts or truth. Science by nature is very limited, Justin 🙂 Please educate yourself on this topic. There were many famous & classical theories, but now no-one even remembers them. If science led us to the truth, then those famous & classical theories wouldn't have been false. Science cannot give us truth, but then you might think what it can give us? Well, it gives us workable theories. But even if a theory works, it's still not considered a fact or truth, because there can be a whole paradigm shift in the future. In fact, most of the things you use in your everyday life was created on a false theory. So, even though those theories worked, but they were wrong. There are many other ways to find truth, Justin 👍 Science is an excellent way to find Truth, but it's not the only one.
@@rafayshakeel4812 dear stranger on the internet, things do evolve. The part of the *theory* begins when you are trying to explain how do they happen.
As time moves on we have better ways to observe the universe. For example in the past some people used to think that the world was flat. Now when we have better methods to observe we can know for a fact that the world is certainly NOT flat.
I said maybe we should start call it a fact since there are an overwhelming amount of evidence.
@@Jo__o I agree with you on this, Justin 🙂 You seem to be a very honest & nice person. I don't have any problem with evolution, but I have a problem with Human evolution. We still don't have clear-cut evidence for Human evolution, yet some Atheists are trying to convince their audience about this theory, as if it's something undeniable. I love Science, but science does not give us truth. It gives us workable theories and through those workable theories, we have technological advancements. Anyway, I am curious about your World view? Are you an Atheist, Agnostic, Irreligious, Religious, etc...? You don't have to answer me if you're not comfortable with it.
@Not smart and Christian You can leave this comment section if you want to. Don't try to play innocent in here.
@Not smart and Christian Are you an Atheist or a Christian?
It drank its own pee!
tasty
Many people have something intelligent to comment about. I just came here to say that part with the clownfish being eaten up was hilarious!
thank you Jon , great video , and it has outstanding ideas to show how Evolution works
EXCELENTE!! Congratulations. Brasil.
The term _"scientific theory"_ should be discarded and replaced with "scientific paradigm" or even better: A *HYPERTHESIS* (above hypothesis) to insinuate it's a practical and pragmatic body of knowledge constructed from multiple confirmed hypotheses across separate independently verifiable lines of evidence that constantly churns out accurate predictions despite our ongoing attempts to falsify it.
Far too many people conflate scientific theory with nothing more than a mere hunch or hypothesis. Renaming it to a hyperthesis would gradually eliminate the misnomer.
Yeah it's kinda annoying when someone said "evolution is just a theory and still not a fact!"
people dont think for a second.
and try to remember that they learned gravitational theory in physics classes
and even maybe music theory.
Scientific paradigm describes the sociology of science while "scientific theories" are explanations for observed facts.
It’s pretty fucking interesting, that’s for sure.
Students who may be disinterested or uncomfortable with the science of evolution often wonder why it is worth their time and effort to watch it 3 FUCKING TIMES ..
This channel is great
I dislike how it is so often said that all living things have literally one single ancestor. There's no reason to believe that the chemical ingredients and environmental factors for the formation of life only existed in a single place, and at one point in time. And even if they did, it's quite the assumption to think that that place produced only exactly one organism that still has an unbroken chain of successors.
There may have been another instance of abiogenesis, but it's line did
not survive. If it had we'd see many instances of it (at least in the
microbial world). It would necessarily be distinct from extant life due
to the huge number of variables that go into any first life form. Along
with that it would not be able to reproduce with any other life. You
think species incompatibility is bad? Try mixing left and right handed
genetics in one offspring.
Niki Herl
Indeed... considering the multitude of mechanisms that can cause biopolymers to assemble and the vast volume of the oceans, it would be unlikely that only one of them would produce minimally simple forms.
Conditions for some biopolymers would be optimal in one type of environment while impossible in others so different molecular species likely had domains where one or two candidates competed.
We have only a glimpse of how this gigantic global arena of protolife finally played out with the victors writing the historybooks.
Prokaryotes probably went around gathering up whatever they could break down and some of it turned out to be indigestible. Mitochondria and chloroplasts were clearly entities in their own right at one time... and basically still are, maintaining their own separate reproductive lives as mutually symbiotic infections of their host cells.
It is "often said that all living things have literally one single ancestor"? By whom? Non-scientists? Evolutionary theories describe population dynamics and is the exact opposite of single individuals. Also with horizontal gene transfer being common in unicellular life, a layman's version of most common ancestor doesn't represent the common scientific consensus.
Single place? Your obviously describing a non-scientific claim.
Sorry, if I am wrong assuming that when you say "often said" that you are referring to scientists. If you are referring to something different, I would agree, yes it would be nice if the general public and media were better educated when it comes to the basics of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution.
All said, most scientific theories are "dumbed down" (i.e. simplistic, idealized versions) so it is easier for people to learn and understand the basics.
Life cannot form if there is already life in the area, eating all the organic compounds. Best case scenario is if life started in two palces at the same time, but the chance is very igh that one would eat the other, still. It is not strange if all life on Earth is related.
However, I fully agree that we cannot honestly claim that "all life on earth is related" when we know we haven't even found all life on Earrth, yet. But so far, all the life we've found have been related. If there were some unrealted grou pof lifeforms, we shoudl've found an example of it, by now, so it's quite safe to say they're all related, even if we can't claim to "know" that.
antiHUMANDesigns
...and abiogenesis is more likely in a reducing atmosphere.
It's still possible in a neutral atmosphere though it would take longer, but in an oxidizing atmosphere the presence of oxygen would tend to degrade the process.
This video was really polished and understandable. Keep up the good work.
Ohhh so that's why there are many covid type now
yep. different strains in different enviroments.
@@spatrk6634 True. Natural selection is the key mechanism of evolution.
Adam conover's dad at 1:23
If scientists wanted you to know about evolution, they wouldn't hide it in a book. The best hiding spot from a creationist.
It's been observed to happen.
Great video... Keep it up bro
You should do a collab with kurtzgesagt. :P
The problem is clergy. Clergy didn't understand evolution.
Actually they do. They just do not want us to understand it.
I love your channel! Can you do a video about 'convergent evolution'? There is barely any material about this on TH-cam.
Always annoyed by how people call it Theory of Evolution, as if it is one theory out of many that might be true. It's just evolution, a well understood process. We don't normally say theory of gravity or theory of electricity or theory of bacteria, do we?
A scientific "theory" is different from a normal theory. Its a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and proven in tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of different ways.
Yeah, I can list a few other scientific theories in order to illustrate the point made in the other comment.
-theory of gravity
-heliocentrism (earth revolving around the sun)
-the round earth theory
A theory is basically the highest status that a scientific concept can have. Evolution is a fact and anyone who tries to dissuade you hasn't looked at the facts.
How about:
History, does it really matter?
Or maybe:
Physics, do they really matter?
Is _physics_ plural... or _are_ physics plural?
It sure pisses off fundies who want to believe in the Adam and Eve fairytale, that’s for sure. 🤣🤣
Ikr 😂
Your videos are awesome! I really enjoy watching them, keep it up!
Shrinking Fish ? Not evolution , it's adaption
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming - and here, in this video, we see that to deny it is irresponsible, at the very least.
Time for evolution denial to be made illegal? Just asking.
Jack Sainthill no, i'd say not. You can't go around charging people with thoughtcrime. hahaha
Tom Riddle
To be fair, I agree with you in principle. Trouble is, you can: holocaust denial is illegal in some countries.
Jack Sainthill you CAN, in the literal sense, sure. But it's a moral issue for me- agree to disagree?
Tom Riddle
No. I think we agree. I repeat: I was _just asking_. I made a point of saying so.
Oh, so it was a poll, then? So you aren't personally invested in passing this legislation?
Unfortunately, these examples do not attest to the idea that “the theory of evolution really matters.”
1. The shrinking fish. This phenomenon is actually due to a process known as selecting from the gene code. No evolution is involved. If only fish with genetic information for small size are left to reproduce, then only fish with said genetic information will be produced. This process merely selects small (or large) fish from the pre-existing gene pool. This results in degradation of the overall gene code and is an example of de-evolution. No genetic information is being added, altered or generated. Also, selective animal breeding like this has been around for thousands of years, long before Charles Darwin’s publication.
2. HIV origins. Apparently “Darwinian evolutionary family trees” were developed in order to discover the source of the HIV virus. However, there would be no need to form specialized “Darwinian evolutionary family trees”, merely examining the differences between the viruses’ genetic information and using standard family tree charts would reveal multiple strains of the disease. The existence of these other, older strains would support the fact that the virus had a much earlier genesis than was first suspected.
3. Grasslands to deserts. The idea that plants and animals evolved to form a symbiotic relationship is irrelevant to remedying the diminishing grasslands issue. The fact that plants and animals do share a symbiotic relationship, however, was essential to finding a working solution to the problem. As stated in this video, it was the “tilling of the soil, fertilization with dung and urine, and removing of excess vegetation” by the animals that ultimately resolved the crisis.
Evolutionary theory suggests that evolution itself will fix these problems by natural section, as well as the mutation and improvement of plant and animal genetic makeup over a long period of time. However, this is the exact opposite of what Allen Savory describes in his experiences with African desertification. He also states, in a TED talk presentation on this very issue: “All of that grass is now covering the soil as dung, urine and litter or mulch, as every one of the gardeners amongst you would understand, and that soil is ready to absorb and hold the rain, to store carbon, and to break down methane.” He attributes the solution to a process that all gardeners would understand, and as we all know, gardeners and farmers have had the ability to revive dry patches of land for many years, long before Charles Darwin and his publication.
The claim was also made by Stated Clearly that Mr. Savory used evolution to solve the grassland epidemic. However, Mr. Savory does not once attribute evolution to his discoveries in the sources provided for this video. If evolution was all that was needed, then the grasslands would have been revived on their own (due to natural selection and gene mutation over an extended period of time). Instead, we see that this long period of time has led to the desertification of the grasslands. Human intelligence and interference was necessary in order to fix the problem, contrasting the theory of evolution.
+Alex Moore, let me clarify a bit for you:
1. The shrinking fish
"This phenomenon is actually due to a process known as selecting from the gene code."
The very concept that wild populations can change over time due to selection is exactly what the theory of evolution is all about. Before Darwin, this was not a concept people comprehended.
"No genetic information is being added, altered or generated."
Since the 70s, we've known exactly how new genetic information is generated. Watch our 2 animations on how new genetic information evolves:
statedclearly.com/videos/how-does-new-genetic-information-evolve-part-1-point-mutations/
statedclearly.com/videos/gene-duplications/
2. "merely examining the differences between the viruses’ genetic information and using standard family tree charts would reveal multiple strains of the disease."
An evolutionary tree is a standard family tree.
"The existence of these other, older strains would support the fact that the virus had a much earlier genesis than was first suspected."
Under a creation model, there would be no need to search for missing links because viruses are curses created by either Gods or Demons from nothing. It was knowledge of evolution that persuaded Beatrice Hahn to search for missing links, and to know to try and look for HIV-like viruses in animals that are closely related to humans.
3. "Mr. Savory does not once attribute evolution to his discoveries"
Allan Savory personally wrote this video with us. He wanted an animation done showing how his study of evolution inspired him how to solve desertification. He wanted to show how we can draw upon good theory to make new discoveries.
+Stated Clearly, Thank you for taking the time to respond. I do take issue with these points.
1. Specifically, the example of the shrinking fish population does not involve the adding, altering, or generation of any existing or new genetic information. We can agree on this I’m sure. The example presented in this video is describing someone selecting from the preexisting genetic information of the total fish population. Just as dogs were bred to make Chihuahuas, or larger cats were bred to make house cats, this phenomenon existed long before Charles Darwin’s publication. And the example of the shrinking fish is no different. Therefore, no evolution of the population is taking place, simply a selection from and narrowing down of the wider, original gene pool.
Definition of evolution:
(1) the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
(2) the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
“The very concept that wild populations can change over time due to selection is exactly what the theory of evolution is all about. Before Darwin, this was not a concept people comprehended.” On this point I reiterate, selective animal breeding like this has been around for thousands of years, long before Charles Darwin’s publication. If there is any doubt, here are a number of sources confirming the matter.
www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetics-of-dog-breeding-434
serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/2323
www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38279/title/Origin-of-Domestic-Dogs/
As we can see from these sources (by any one of the time frame estimations proposed) “the very concept that wild populations can change over time due to selection” existed long before Charles Darwin’s publication. I would be happy to provide even more sources of this fact if desired.
“Since the 70s, we've known exactly how new genetic information is generated. Watch our 2 animations on how new genetic information evolves.” You’re going off on a bit of a tangent here. I was not calling into question the concept that genetic information can or cannot be added, altered or generated. However, the fact remains that none of this occurs in the example concerning the shrinking fish population and no evolution of the fish takes place.
2. You agree that the existence and use of the family tree model existed long before Charles Darwin and his publication, do you not? Again, I would be happy to provide sources affirming the existence and use of family tree models prior to Charles Darwin’s publication if desired. “An evolutionary tree is a standard family tree.” If they are the same thing, then why use the term “Darwinian evolutionary family trees”? Either way I don’t see how this pertains to the idea that “the theory of evolution really matters.” Perhaps a more apt title for this section would be: Charles Darwin inspired Beatrice Hahn to continue searching for the source of the HIV virus. This section certainly does not prove that “the theory of evolution really matters,” as discovering the source of the HIV virus was already possible and the tools used to find the origins of the virus already existed apart from the theory of evolution; and any one person can be inspired by any given object or other person in order to make a scientific, or otherwise, breakthrough. It does not attest to the idea that the theory of evolution itself really matters. “Under a creation model, there would be no need to search for missing links because viruses are curses created by either Gods or Demons from nothing.” What does this sentence refer to and mean?
3. My actual full sentence concerning Allan Savory’s solution to the grassland epidemic was: “However, Mr. Savory does not once attribute evolution to his discoveries in the sources provided for this video.” This is a true statement. You are now informing me that he has communicated to you that he does in fact attribute evolution to his discoveries. This is very helpful, however, the fact remains that Mr. Savory does not once attribute evolution to his discoveries in the sources provided for this video. Mr. Savory also states, in the sources provided for this video, “We cannot reduce animal numbers to rest it more without causing desertification and climate change. We cannot burn it without causing desertification and climate change. What are we going to do? There is only one option, I'll repeat to you, only one option left to climatologists and scientists, and that is to do the unthinkable, and to use livestock, bunched and moving, as a proxy for former herds and predators, and mimic nature. There is no other alternative left to mankind.” He explains that he chose the *only* option that was left to mankind. In the sources provided he doesn’t take the opportunity to attribute the solution or the idea of the solution to the theory of evolution, but rather he says that he chose the solution he chose because it was the “only one option left to climatologists and scientists” and that there was “no other alternative left to mankind.”
Also, in the specific sources provided for this video, Mr. Savory attributes the solution to the tilling of the soil, fertilization with dung and urine, and removing of excess vegetation via the livestock. I understand now that you are saying that this was not the full picture of the situation, but you see, the contents of this video and its sources are all that is provided to any one viewer if he or she wishes to call into question and/or further research the information stated in this video.
Also, if evolution was left to cure the desertification of the grasslands then the grasslands would have been revived on their own (due to natural selection and gene mutation over an extended period of time) as the theory of evolution teaches. Instead, we see that this long period of time has led to the desertification of the grasslands. Human intelligence and interference was necessary in order to fix the problem, contrasting the theory of evolution.
Thank you again for taking the time to respond!
+Alex Moore It seems that you take issue with various ideas and processes being around before Darwin published anything about them under the system/label of Natural Selection.
It's true that many of the ideas had been floating around for a long time. It's also true that the relevant natural processes had been occurring for eons before people were capable of studying them. However Darwin found a way to tie them together with a theory that was supported by multiple lines of evidence. He moved them from speculation into concrete scientific knowledge.
Someone else would have eventually pieced the theory together if Darwin had not. Yet Darwin *was* the first person to do it, so we give him credit.
I'm glad that you're thinking about these topics and how all the components interact with each other. I've benefited greatly from finally recognizing and understanding Evolution over the last few years. I hope you get the same enjoyment when it clicks!
+Alex Moore
"Also, if evolution was left to cure the desertification of the grasslands then the grasslands would have been revived on their own (due to natural selection and gene mutation over an extended period of time) as the theory of evolution teaches. "
You're mostly right here! The one thing I don't fully agree with is that the grasslands would be restored. It's possible that they would return to their previous state, but Evolution really only guarantees that *something* will *eventually* fill the gap left in the ecosystem.
There's no guarantee which species, and it might take hundreds of thousands of years, but eventually it would happen. The main reason humans are concerned is that we might not survive the amount of time it would take for natural selection to produce new grasslands.
+Bill Frasure Although it’s true that many of these processes were discovered and used before Charles Darwin’s publication, this is only one small issue compared to the overarching inaccuracies presented in this video (which I have spoken about in length in my previous comments).
“He moved them from speculation into concrete scientific knowledge.” Much of what Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution espouse is in fact sheer speculation, but again, not the topic of this video or my comments per se.
“I'm glad that you're thinking about these topics and how all the components interact with each other. I've benefited greatly from finally recognizing and understanding Evolution over the last few years. I hope you get the same enjoyment when it clicks!” Yes, I’ve had a full understanding of what the theory of evolution professes for several years. The more I studied the theory the less I found that it consisted of sound foundations on which to stand, and the less it cohered to what we can see, observe and test (i.e. the scientific method).
“You're mostly right here! The one thing I don't fully agree with is that the grasslands would be restored. It's possible that they would return to their previous state, but Evolution really only guarantees that something will eventually fill the gap left in the ecosystem.” Exactly, the example presented in this video is an even greater refutation of the theory of evolution. In reality, if the theory of evolution really mattered and we fully believed that it could accomplish what it claims, then the desertification of the grasslands, as well as the extinction of other plants, animals or humans, would be a welcomed byproduct of the evolutionary process. An attempt to restore the grasslands would utterly go against the principles of the theory. But of course, this is not what we see presented in the video. Instead, we see an absolute necessity for human intelligence and intervention in order to preserve the life force of the planet.
The examples given in this video surely do not prove that “the theory of evolution really matters.” And in this particular example concerning the African grasslands, we see that it actually asserts (perhaps inadvertently) the opposite: fight against the theory of evolution to perverse life and well-being on earth. It gives reason to defy the theory and it does not in any way help to prove that “the theory of evolution really matters.”
I’m sure we can also agree that the example of the shrinking fish is quite clearly an instance of de-evolution or a narrowing down of the total genetic information, as evolution is defined as “the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth” and “the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.”
All of this begs the question, “does the theory of evolution really matter?” Since the theory of evolution is defined as seen above, and since the examples presented in this video do not exhibit results of evolution (but rather the process de-evolution, the narrowing down of genetic information, the necessity of human intelligence and intervention in order to perverse nature, etc.), we can see that this video does not adequately demonstrate the idea that “the theory of evolution really matters.”
Good video, your animation is superb, easy to understand. Keep em coming.
you presented two parts of evolution, one, microevolution/natural selection(fact) and the other, the actual theory of how all things evolved from a single organism(theory)
You only gave examples of the facts of evolution and none on the theory. The Theory of evolution is a big subject, with many facts and many theories. But, only the facts matter and this video proved it besides you saying that theories matter.
+Info Planet theories are used to generate hypotheses, hypotheses are then tested to discover new facts. Each set of facts discovered and shown in this video were discovered because the researchers used evo theory to tell them what to look for.
In the video, you mentioned 2 ideas, the 2nd idea was that "All things are related" and you then showed an evolution tree that starts with a single organism. This idea from the theory of evolution did not help the discoveries shown in your video. What helped was the 1st idea you mentioned in the video, Microevolution/natural selection which is observable and proven through experiments, thus, not a theory. Only facts helped those researchers. The theory you mention did not.
I'd say with regard to any knowledge of the truth that it does not matter whether we know of any useful application of that knowledge because just knowing makes a difference. That said, there are many evidences that lead to the conclusion that we evolved. The Theory of Evolution permits us to make accurate prediction with respect to many of those lines of evidence (like the fossil record and the nested hierarchy of all life).
actually, no. theories are the byproduct of confirmed hypothesis. when you got enough evidence to suport a model that explains something, it becomes a scientific theory. and the evidence comes from hypothesis (a cool name for a simple hunch, a guess) that had been tested and confirmed.
*"theories are the byproduct of confirmed hypothesis."*
Not necessarily confirmed, but when testing of the hypothesis has consistent results you have an opportunity to formulate an explanation(theory).
A hypothesis is a testable idea. So it's more than a hunch or a conjecture.
lol, who still believes this crap..
Basically all scientist and educated people.
should i waste more time on you than i already have by posting this.. mmmnahh.
All scientist huh. hahaha.
Funny I said the same when I read the Bible.
Zidneya Stop lying, you haven't read the bible. You can't even be true to yourself right now and admit you haven't read the bible. And that's because you believe you came from a monkey. And since monkeys have no sense of morality why should you have one, right? lol
Legel-X But I teach religion AND science, an have read the Bible.
There are 4 million pieces of evidence for evolution, but, lets remove fossils, then we have around 3 million pieces of evidence. AND we use evolution PRACTICALLY.
How could we use evolution PRACTICALLY if it did not work?
Your entire video had nothing to do with "evolution".
Explain how us having a understanding on how evolutionary trees and natural selection has nothing to do with this video.
+thatwonguy Evolution is not mutual to speciation.
Just like bdsm isn't mutual to whips and gag-balls and chains?
thatwonguy Speciation is a result of evolution, but it's still not the same thing as evolution. Evolution is a process and processes have different outcomes.
MinutemanSam Interesting theory.
I LOVE the and simplicity of your videos! It's inspirational to say the least! I want to make some on religion and basically everything else we all must educate ourselves on and seeing your success with these really gives me the drive. BRAVO!
Propaganda for macro evolution should be distinguished from environmental and biological research.
***** How about you just go back to flipping burgers or cleaning toilets or whatever it is you do best and let the scientists do their jobs?
AgeOfSuperboredom I think for myself. How about you just go back to flipping burgers?
***** Uh, no, you DON'T think for yourself. You let religious hucksters do your thinking for you. The only valid reason for someone to reject a scientific consensus is if they have come across evidence that overturns it. You have not done any such thing at your shitty minimum wage job, you dolt.
I have discovered such evidence. But why are you angry? Is it beause you can't define the rules of life yourself if God exists? Anyway you're sounding very emotional. Why is that? Don't take it personal we're just discussing the facts.
***** Yeah? Where'd you find your evidence? Between the deep fryer and the meat grill?
There is a difference between adaptation and theory of evolution. Show me fossils of intermediatery links between humans and apes and ill believe you!
+XgaboonX 00, this link will show you what you're looking for: humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils
I'm not sure if the points you make here actually os true, but evolution causes diversity so that we in some ways are different from other primates and other forms of life is nothing more strange than the fact that they are different to us.
+wooe these are facts. Fully true.
XgaboonX 00 well remember, apes and us started out from a different species, much less developed, from where we each branched out. The major differences between us and primates would have developed over this time, with humans growing in one direction, losing things that are unnecessary to them, and primates gaining and losing things as well until we come to be quite different.
You brought up that is losing two chromosomes would've been ridiculous, but we didn't actually lose those chromosomes. Our base species would've had less than 46 chromosomes and from their, humans grew to have more (46) and primates happened to develop more than humans (48) but no chromosomes were lost
I can point by point explain all the evolutionary differences, and why they occurred.
It is of course evolution, there is evidence, there are valid explanations.
Want to start with bones ?
Humans walk upright, and can run, run for a very long time and very far.
Now if you had heavy bones and heavy muscle,
it would be much harder to do this wouldn't it ?
Our evolutionary path favoured long distance runners over strong muscle and dense bone structure.
Note. The Neanderthals all died out.
8:16 Impressive!
1:10 What could be the cause? The fish didn't want to be eaten, so they shrunk to fool us that they are juveniles and get tossed back (and survive).
Beautiful! Thank you!
I've been watching some of these and really enjoy them - very concise and fun! I am a bit concerned about seeing in this, and other videos here, the phrasing of humans as separate from other animals i.e."spillover from animals to people". It is stated throughout that we are interrelated, yet when referring to our own species, it speaks as if we are not. Its all very contradicting.
Yes it matters because is a powerful tool, the biological evolution makes possible synthetic biology and the development of pharmacogenomics.
Fish evolved in 3 generations? Amazing! They weren't able to breed with the other fish in the other tanks anymore? Wow.
Yes, that's sarcasm.
And apparently Epidemiology is now evolution....
And apparently leaving a patch of ground alone/not developing it then fertilizing it is evolution...
p.s. I'm a biologist, I don't disagree with the theory of evolution. It's the best theory we have so far. In my opinion the manner in which animals and plants evolve is much more elegant than what we have pieced together now.
But these examples in this video are frankly lacking and juvenile.