Natural Selection Part 1: A Darwinian Deception | Creation.Live Podcast: Episode 1
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2024
- In his book On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin outlined the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. But what was Darwin’s purpose behind such an idea? And how did this concept permeate the scientific community so thoroughly?
On this episode of Creation.Live, Drs. Thomas, Hebert, Guliuzza, and Tomkins answer these questions and more as they discuss the scholarly literature on the subject.
This episode is part of a three part series on the topic of natural selection.
Natural Selection Part 2: A Poor Personification | Creation.Live: Episode 2 - • Natural Selection Part...
Natural Selection Part 3: A Seductive Swindle | Creation.Live: Episode 3 - • Natural Selection Part...
#CreationDotLive #Podcast #Creationism #Science #NaturalSelection #CharlesDarwin #CL
---
Do you have questions about science or Scripture? Post them in the comments and we might answer them in future episodes.
Tune in every fourth Friday to catch the next episode on TH-cam. You can also find the audio version on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and Google Podcasts. Or visit our website to find us on other platforms: www.icr.org/po...
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel to get notified about all of our upcoming episodes!
Thank you for watching the Creation.Live Podcast!
---
Learn more about the Institute for Creation Research: www.icr.org/
Shop our store: www.icr.org/
Support our ministry: www.icr.org/do...
Plan your visit to our Dallas creation museum and planetarium: discoverycente...
Thank you for exposing this fraud of "natural selection".
It never sat well with me when I would hear creationists use this term and embrace it as if it was a Christian concept. It clearly comes out of the mind of an unbelieving worldview.
Thanks for your support in this endeavor! Some people will say 'just leave it alone,' but this is important and MUST be addressed.
Do you really need an "unbelieving worldview" to understand that thick white fur would be beneficial in an arctic environment while short brown fur would be more beneficial in a warmer environment?
@@lizd2943 Great comment. They don't need to deny that better animals for an environment survive to point out it doesn't create new body parts.
@@icrscience What are other examples of this fairly rapid adaptation in a species besides the two kinds of fish that are mentioned? Thank you
@@lizd29435:58 White hair blends in with the environment polar live in. Now can you work out why grizzly bears are not white. .
I love what was said about going back to go forward in the right direction. That is a great response to those who say rejecting evolution makes you scientifically primitive.
That in no way shows advance of scientific thought by those who refute evolution. Your statement just shows how scientifically illiterate you are.
Right. When you make a wrong turn you need to go back to that place and then go in the right direction from there.
First mistake is thinking that evolution somehow implies "to go forward in the right direction." Evolution is a values-neutral process of organisms adapting to be able to survive in their habitat they find themselves in. We are not getting better or worse, merely continuing to be able to survive.
@@stevepierce6467 Thank you, I believe you are correct on how evolution is generally conceived as happening. However, my statement was not in reference to how evolution may occur, but whether one should follow the standard paradigm to begin with. It was really about whether to push forward with a concept that you know to be impossible on several demonstrable levels, only because you’ve put so much effort into it, or backtrack to the place where the wrong turn of thought took hold and instead forge ahead in the correct direction.
@@jcservantslave Are you saying that evolution is a concept that is "impossible on several demonstrable levels," or creationism?
Great subject..! I wonder how Evolutionists explain how every cell in the brain ‘evolved’ while waiting for every cell in the heart, lungs, liver, eyes, ears, muscles, nervous system and every other unique thing in every creature to ‘evolve’ so all the systems work perfectly together for life to be sustained???
We know that not all mutations happen at the same time. This just shows how little you actually know about the topic.
Nathan. Your reply doesn't answer anything. The point is no mutation has a positive effect on any creature. They all result in a lot of information. You need new information to change from one kind of animal to another. You cannot evolve one part of your anatomy over millions of years. Everything appears together so the animal or human can successfully operate in its environment. The fossil record shows all animals perfectly formed. Not one is a part monkey part man etc. Everything evolution offers up as proof has been proved fraudulent deliberately or wishful thinking but not correct. This is why the Cambrian explosion was invented. It is you who appear to know little about the topic.
@@nathancook2852 Not all mutations happen at the same time...but many biological systems need to be in place at the same time for an organism to be able to function. Irreducible complexity has never been successfully refuted.
@@nathancook2852 "We know that not all mutations happen at the same time." - That's exactly the reason why mutations can't generate evolution 😂
Plenty of beneficial mutations have been documented over the years. Jellyfish have muscles and a nervous system but no brain, lungs, or heart. What does "perfectly formed" even mean? How would you determine if any organism is "perfect"?@@johnmonk9297
Very revealing, and it strengthens our faith because this term confuses people, but with your analisis that makes you feel stronger. Thank you ICR.
I am so thankful for the research ICR is doing on this subject. It seems even our friends in other creation ministries use the same NS term in explaining changes and now I'm noticing it and also aware of how, to the untrained eye of either a non-believer or, say, a luke-warm creationist, the perception when these other creation organization use the NS term they probably don't discern how disrespectful it really is to our ingenious Creator and those persons could be confused in explaining how creation differs from evolution because of the fact both camps use the same words. Your CET model makes complete sense. As Dr. Randy has pointed out, if and engineer were setting out to design functional creatures which could react to and adapt to all the variable climatic and environmental challenges in order to survive and thrive, assuming they actually knew "everything", they would utilize these same "sensor" type mechanisms and redundant systems we actually find in them, designed by God. The random, pure luck of the draw concepts of Darwinian evolution are, in my opinion, really baseless and foolish and are only worth discussing for those who want to deny God so as to allow themselves to be their own god so as to justify their relative morality.
You do realize, that many, many Christians know evolution is a fact, right? Also, NS is only a very small part of the evidence for evolution. We have hundreds of transition fossils, there is evidence among embryos, homologous and vestigial structures, and on and on... we could no nothing about the process of NS and still have mountains of evidence to support evolution.
"research" - ha ha ha.
This is something every theistic evolutionist and old earth creationist should definitely watch. Fantastic job brothers, keep up the good work in contending for the truth.
And yet the Earth is provably old and Evolution provably happened.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu I guess you are convinced by speculation, extrapolation and assumptions based on preconceived ideas. Science is about observation and experimentation and we can do neither when investigating the origins of the universe.
@@lespearl50 Well that's not true at all. There are countless experiments and observations we can and do make that shed light on the origins of the universe. What do you think the JW telescope is doing, or the CERN accelerator?
However conflating Evolution, which is the nature of this discussion, and Universal origins is a false comparison. Natural selection is an observable process of nature.
I know evolutionist like to separate out the origin of the universe, the origin of life and the process of what you call evolution, so I’ll grant you the point, even though I see them as inextricably related. You still have no evidence that the process we observe is anything other than adaptation. What we see is genetically preloaded organisms tracking and adapting to their environment. We have never observed biological changes from one “kind” to another. Fish may adapt but they are still fish, birds may adapt but they are still birds, reptiles may adapt but they are still reptiles. This is what we observe. Everything else is pure speculation and story telling. And I haven’t even started on the origin of life.
@@lespearl50 It's not about 'like' - evolution and the origin of the universe are two completely different things. They are simply not related. You conflate them because either one contradicts the myths of Genesis - which is a myth, not true, not accurate, in no way possible, not science.
It never made sense to me that an organism could exist in an environment where it "needed" a certain trait that it didn't have and yet somehow survive for enough generations for natural selection to give it that trait so that it could thrive. Either it NEEDS it and without it the organism simply dies, or it CAN survive without it, in which case why would it evolve it in the first place? And if it was merely beneficial and not necessary for an organism to have a thumb, for example, how would a partial thumb make the organism so much better adapted to the environment that it would just reproduce like crazy to pass that trait along? I would think that any partially formed trait would be more likely to cripple the animal rather than aid it. It also prompts the question of why we don't see any living animals with partially developed traits.
You make very good points, well stated, thanks!
Oldest fossil with a thumb had been found. Earliest primate. Handy for climbing in trees. Indeed all primates have a thumb. Humans have inherited that thumb
The environment is the framework where the amazing variety of organisms live.
It needs to have been created at the same time
Hi
BRILLIANT REASONING SKILLS!
Did you voice these scathingly obvious flaws of Evolution when it was taught as truth in school?
Shalom to us only in Christ Yeshua returning soon to reign over His Creation from Jerusalem forever.
Indeed. Let's consider the claimed bat evolution from a mouse-like wingless creature. First it would've grown minuscule wings, then bigger and bigger wings during millions of years. While not yet getting big enough to make flying possible, wings would've become more and more harmful in food searching. So why should the wings have evolved in the first place? Creation of a ready-made bat makes more sense.
If you follow their writtings and speeches, evolutionists very often find a need to give their theory a personality with directives. Just note how many times you can find them resorting to making evolution have a seeming mind. It's quite telling.
One of the main directives often is reproduction. They put the directive to replicate as a conscious directive of all "living" entities. Like the creatures are themselves designing how to continue through propagation, not just carrying out directives already implanted in them by The Creator.
I do not think that evolutionists use the word "design"; it is just misleading.
@@cynic150 You would be surprised. "Nature has designed this or that so, that..."
@@northstar2621 Evolution is a godless religion unless you take the nature as its god. Indeed everything in nature tells of planning. Even the evolution's high-priest Richard Dawkins has admitted that he must force himself to believe in no planning while everything in nature witnesses for planning. You know, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..." But atheists have their own logic of course.
Creations like to play this game where they misquote scientists or simply make things up they think helps their position. Your statement is a prime example of this.
@@nathancook2852 Whenever you read an evolutionist weave an individual entity, with cognitive prerogatives into their narrations, remove it. Then you will see that they really have very little to communicate.
So glad to hear your comments about adaptation. I have always been uncomfortable with this term as it is generally applied in the secular scientific community as well as in the public school curriculums to refer to every feature that an organism has in a way that supports macro evolution.
I think it is better to use 'Evolution' as it is used in the Neo-darwinian synthesis. So called 'micro-evolution' should be avoided as this is merely variation within a kind, in fact, 'natural variation. When we use their terms, we buy into their concepts. Best to avoid.
@@dagwould In biological evolution there are only small changes. Many small changes add up to make large changes, like inches make miles. If you want to avboid understandng our concepts, you need t avoid using our terms. Use twisted terms like secular science and histrical science instead of science. This undermines science. This is why creatinismis considered a pseudoscience.
@@dagwould There is no "macro evolution" or "micro evolution". There is no evolution whatsoever, only intraspecies adaptation. The slow unlimited "step by step by step" -evolution was based on Darwin's lively imagination. It has no known genetic mechanism behind and Darwin of course had never even heard of genes.
In the sexual process, species produce gene recombination but that happens in the existing genome. No new genes appear to bring about evolution. That means only variations of that particular species can appear. That is not evolution, because (Darwinian) evolution would mean totally new species gradually appearing by changes in the body plan. Mutations creating new genes is a fairy tale that's never been empirically proved.
A species can produce only variations of itself. Its body plan is constructed in the ovum, not in the genes that do the recombination. So the species’ body plan is always the same as its parents’. Only limited superficial changes are possible like stumped wings, different coloring, a little shorter or longer legs, different peaks, longer or shorter fur etc. due to the gene recombination. If the body plan could change in the gene recombination, we could never know what kind of a body a descendant has in birth!
”A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
How many times has evolution been successfully tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method? Answer: zero times. Evolution theory has been tested innumerable times, but every empirical evidence has proved that evolution does not happen. Tens of thousands of generations have been used, using fruit flies and bacteria. No evolution ever. Fossils neither give evidence for evolution, except in evolutionists' imagination. There is not a single scientifically proven chain of transitional fossilized forms. The gaps are huge.
@@dagwould No need to "buy into" our concepts. They stand up to scrutiny quite nicely entirely on their own.
Then you didn't pay attention very well in school... That seems to be a common theme on these threads.
Thank you, ICR for putting this excellent content together! It is absolutely fascinating and so exciting to get to "sit in" on a discussion by such dignified, personable, and distinguished Doctors in their respective fields contributing their ideas and thinking based on the Truth of the Word of God concerning a scientific topic so wrong, yet so pervasive and that is so impactful to our faith. I don't know where else this is even possible! Thank you for helping me begin to get grounded in the Truth regarding this complicated issue. I'm glad there are two more sessions! Thank you, too for standing up for your faith in a field that is so antagonistic to believers. I have a question, too :) Do you know how Charles Darwin might have accounted for an attribute like altruism?
May God continue to bless all of you in your efforts and lives.
To even make a selection, initiated by external or internal factors, it has to be conscious. This simple but profound reality of consciousness itself has yet to be explained.
Incorrect, unthinking (nonconcious, aconcious?) selections are made all the time. I don't like the word "unconscious" because you make MANY unconscious decisions with your unconscious mind. From the frequency of your breathing at you medulla oblongata to a Floridian slip or an active directed dream, unconscious does NOT mean lack of thought.
As to the fact that aside from God there's no explanation for consciousness or unconscious thought; yes, that's true.
@@JRRodriguez-nu7po I like your comment but...........the word is "Freudian" slip. I personally think conscious thought is a direct result of us humans becoming self-aware. Many other animals make seemingly conscious decisions, but are not aware of doing so.
@@stevepierce6467 Then would you prefer the terminology my wife of 44 years uses? She says her Floridian slips have become more frequent since her mental pause. I kid you not, she's an adorable firecracker.
@@JRRodriguez-nu7po I like your wife already! Reminds me of my dad, a college dropout, speaking to my mom, a Ph.D and English professor, when looking up at Sandhill cranes flying north and casually saying, "Hmm, I wonder if they ever get migrating headaches." She practically tore her hair out. She could never do puns, and they flowed out of my dad like water from a faucet!
After listening to you men the final conclusion I have come to is Darwin was a MANIAC !
Darwin was no maniac. He was also not stupid. Just another man who hates God like the majority.
I just discovered ICR and I am so thankful for that! I was desperate to listen a intelligent discussion about the truth of creation to show to my kids and discuss the matter with them. Since all schools in the country even religious one seems to just talk about evolution like this does not change all perspectives in life.
Glad you found us!
For this 3-part episode (and the other shows/episodes), could you guys post your citations in the show notes?
This would make it easier for us "nerds" to better understand the rationale.
Agreed. It might also be helpful to make playlists of series.
No substitute for an all wise creator!
There is not a single scientific evidence for evolution.
Who used natural selection and evolution, without a doubt.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu yes, prove it without unprovable mathematical equations or your worldview FAIRYTALES! Changing the meaning of the word theory does make it anything less than a FAIRYTALE!!
No substitute for actually knowing stuff instead of just wishing it were so.
Great discussion! I have listened to this twice and will likely come back to it again. Clearly defined points! Keep up the great work.
Thanks to you guys for this discussion . Its very helpful to me
This seems to mirror the deception that's effecting everything in it's simplest form. Right is wrong, good is bad, up is down, etc,etc, all run through the blender of deception.
Amazing show
I have believed that God may play an active part in adaptation. It has seemed to me impossible to come about as it does without His guidance. The fish changing so rapidly speaks to this as a distinct possibility. It certainly looks, in the least, that adaptation is already somehow programmed to deploy when needed. I am so glad to learn about the blind fish!
"The fish changing so rapidly speaks to this ..." Fish have variations bringing about different fish, but they have always been fish and will always stay fish.
This was a great discussion! I learned so much!
Wouldn't it be prudent to challenge the evolutionists with demonstrating how nature is able to manipulate matter of any sort in any meaningful way?
Because if it's powerless to do that in anything existential to a living biological system then why assume it is empowered to influence a living system internally?
And I have to say, I'm thrilled to finally hear someone challenging natural selection this way.
I've been saying for years that it's really an extremely complex mechanism of adaptation that required it's creator's immense knowledge, foresight, intellect, skill, and resources or it wouldn't exist.
And until today, I have heard these specific sorts of arguments.
So thanks so much for posting this video.
I don’t understand how this channel has only 62,000 subscribers 😮
Good channel but I never subscribe any channel.
Adaptation,yes. Never a new type of animal.
Evolution requires that everything still be a part of its parent clades.
@@lizd2943 Evolution would need endless amount of new and different genes, but such genes are always in some other species genome ... No evolution.
***WHY NOT, IF GOD WANTS ???***
@@adelinomorte7421And who are you, or I, or anyone, to decide what God want?! I can't decide what you want and you can't decide what I want. Who are we to decide what God want?!
If you add up enough adaptations over a long period of time, the current animal will no longer resemble the original animal.
It has become a new species.
After weighing it all my natrural selection is
GOD IS CREATOR
I was once chatting with a college student online whose idea of proving the theory of evolution was to point out that bushes eventually evolve into trees. I had to embarrass this poor person by pointing out that an oak tree, in fact, starts from an acorn which was produced by another oak tree. It does not evolve from something like a berry bush or a patch of sage. Such unthinking people would not be able to grasp this conversation. So sad.
So neither of you understood the topic.
@@lizd2943 What part do you imagine I don't understand?
Well first of all that science doesn't prove theories. @@angietorok8389
I don't understand why ! If it is more than confirmed that there is An Intelligent Mind that brings the entire universe , the earth and everything that exists in it , why continue to study evolution ? Why's continue in error , this becomes madness .
***Luis, I can not understand why this people pick on a person who lived and died in 1800´s made a study of nature and put all in a book that was the start point for science to look more seriously to natural science, I can not understand why. I read the marvellous book the Bible and read other scientific books re: natural science and no see anything like those fanatic ignorants,. God creates everything including science to explain HOW it was .***
Amen to all you ! God bless you
1:13 'You as a breeder have the ability to choose.' Which of course is denied by behaviouralists who say it's an Just an Illusion (to name the brilliant 1982 song of that name by the British trio 'Imagination').
*_"More than 99% of all species that ever lived on Earth, amounting to over five billion species, are estimated to have died out (i.e. are extinct)."_* (Source: Wikipedia)
The word species is not used as defined, but as a political tool to advance someone:s career or give an excuse for imminent domain. Example, all bears in the wild can and do reproduce with one another despite being called not only different species but at times different orders. Thus with an absurdly large denominator, a claim of 99 % is stated.
Aren't you nitpicking period of course that's true same is true for all dogs. Some of those dogs won't be the fittest just like the polar bear has to be white your explanation is informative but it proves that you're not being objective
@@JRRodriguez-nu7po Indeed - bears are not evidence of evolution. They are evidence of speciation i.e. devolution. Speciation happens through gene loss not through qualitatively new genes that evolution would need to work.
Thank you ICR, for making my trust in evolution even stronger.
Disproving evolution is so easy, ICR doesn’t have to, at least in their own minds.
You didn't understand anything?
I am so happy that all of this Bible confirming science has been scrutinized and confirmed! Even when I was a non-believing child Darwinism seemed so ridiculous to me. I remember asking questions in school such as, "if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes around today? Did some of the apes say, "you guys go ahead, we're not doing that""! And I remember some of these teachers laying on their imaginary assumptions for excuses so thick for my questions and others like it, that they had me convinced that 'their' ancestors were apes, lol!?! Today, as a Christian, I am aware of how cunning and relentless Lucifer is in confusing the world to lead them blindly into submitting to him. We, as Christians, have a lot of work to do into preparing a path for those willing to walk along to reach Salvation through Jesus in order to arrive at their relationship with God destination. Closing childhood indoctrination detours, such as evolution, is an amazingly feat in the task of Christianity!!! Great work!!!
Darwin actually defended design ideas when he wrote Chapter 1 of his Origin of Species. He acknowledged that "artificers" in agriculture and animal husbandry created new variants all of the time, based on intelligent selection. He went on to write the rest of his book to argue for an alternative explanation, a "natural" or unintelligent selection. It's a theoretical concept, can living things improve or add features based on minor changes and selection pressures. Can complexity and function happen out of randomness. It's completely contrary to all knowledge we've discovered in human civilizations. We have always had to use intelligence to create sophisticated machines. Darwin claims it's possible to create new things WITHOUT that intelligence.
***Darwin DID NOT said such thing***
@@adelinomorte7421Better not. He'd make himself even bigger fool.
***GOD CREATES EVERYTHING, AND NOBODY IS ABLE TO KNOW HOW INTELLIGENTLY HE DOES IT, SCIENCE IS THE ONLY VEHICLE THAT STARTS TO EXPLAIN. ***
@@adelinomorte7421 Science offers possible explanations...it doesn't offer conclusions.
48:00 Hence the craving for employing the term 'Mother Nature'.
A few thoughts on the matter of external drive for internal change/mutation.
In 1986, Richard Dawkins presented the world with an absurd premise in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" which is the embodiment of such a process. Almost everyone in evolutionary circles started parroting Dawkins, praising the "scientific" clarity he brought to the argument to counter William Paley's "sighted" Watchmaker who designed the watch found on the beach. I wonder if any "scientific" evolutionists ever bothered to look around for an actual, skilled and efficient "blind" watchmaker who had set up a prosperous business honestly competing with all of those who were sighted? I've never heard of such a thing in my 72 years...
Then there's the "can't see the forest for the trees" phenomenon where evolutionists will naturally select one case of supposed beneficial mutation (an extreme mathematical happenstance, if it ever really happens at all) to the exclusion of the synchronized supporting mutations which would also have to take place and befit in some way to keep the organism from unraveling without them. So there's a multiplier there of impossible mathematical improbabilities involved for just one point of naturally selected evolution in one organism. That's their tree. The forest is ALL of the other species undergoing the exact same mathematical impossibilities CONCURRENTLY.
Enter in the fact that the same environment guiding on species in a particular direction is driving all other species in a different direction through the same external specifications.
Lastly, I've never heard an evolutionist posit anything which resembles an argument as to exactly what life is or how it generated from non-life in the beginning. Ever.
The further actual forensic investigation of life goes, the Watchmaker still reigns supreme as an explanation, especially when He has stuck around and proclaimed Himself throughout human history. As to Darwin, not only was he a liar, he is known to be a thief, having stolen the idea of natural selection from Alfred Wallace's adaptation of Malthusian economic theory.
How did you determine it was mathematically impossible? Show your work.
Exquisite destruction of darwinistic dogma!
These systems of adaptation are like genetic zip files waiting to be extracted from their compressed, inert state when they are activated by a biochemical signal that calls on them in a similar way that a function in a class is called upon in a computer program.
This one of the best discussions I watch. You guys discuss the very things I think about. It always irritates me when natural selection is toted as some sore of volitional force with foresight. You have to be taught to be that stupid. Thank you. I respect you men and your diligence. Fight the good fight!
It is not presented that way at all. I suspect that you are simply projecting your own biases.
Are there any other examples of this fairly rapid adaptation in a species besides the two kinds of fish that are mentioned?
Yes! We have articles on our website at icr.org.
***there are not such thing like rapid adaptation***
Hey Dopey, Darwin developed his theories 2 centuries ago. His theories were bounded by the state of observational knowledge of his time.
Pointing fingers at Darwin merely exposes your lack of knowledge, and the insecurity of your faith. Worse yet your unwillingness to honestly confront both science and God’s word.
Couldn't that argument be used against anyone with x:xx amount of time outside of the present? Doesn't name calling merely exposes your lack of knowledge, and the insecurity of your faith?
A good christian questions atleast 2 things and GOD dont mind he made us to wonder and question
We wonder why babies suffer and wonder why GOD has any mercy on us gives us so many chances
Evo and big bangs aint even a remote second place and its the only second place
…the biblical record is true….
34:36 "..way back, in their view, billions of years ago.."
Read: Once upon a time...😅
Which came first the chicken eggshell, or the egg yolk?
The rooster, think about it
@@JRRodriguez-nu7po Great! I never came to think of that. Roosters do not come from an egg. 🙃
@@jounisuninen I'm making a bit of a joke. Adam was created first, then the woman. BTW God never gave the first woman a proper name, and Adam did not name her until after the fall for an important reason. What God actually called mankind in gen 1:27, zakhar, means "the best" and is so translated in almost the entire rest of the Hebrew Bible. God called female: "the one violently penetrated", translated stabbed elsewhere.
Excellent!
How much do I need to give to see "members only" videos and how do I do that if I can afford it?
Brian, are you just wearing that tie to hang a mic on? That is not a great example of Natural Selection! Great presentation, by the way!
I was having a discussion with my father about this evolution lie, and my father said "what does it matter? What difference does it really make? " I said well the fact that this is the only thing they are teaching in public schools and they don't teach it as a theory but as fact. Plus my taxes pay for this. I do thank God my grandchildren are homeschooled
What difference?? A soul lost or saved.
@@smgibv4393 you are absolutely right
The truth matters. It matters if God created living organisms, or if God didn't create living organisms. Evolution is ok to study if you approach it understanding that is a purely naturalistic explanation, in that sense it's a possible alternative to design. It's never been demonstrated to occur, however, and it has numerous assumptions that must be accepted. So it's a hypothetical explanation...and as such, it should be open to critique. Evolution should be scrutinized and criticized since you cannot demonstrate it's great claims...primarily the claim of common descent. Evolution could be a good teaching point about a theoretical explanation as opposed to a Theory.
@sbgtrading - evolution doesn't need assumptions. It has evidence, of common descent from LUCA
@@globalcoupledances Yes, there are common coding regions in DNA. That does support common descent. But, that is equivocal evidence, it is also predicted by the design axiom. And, DNA also has orphan genes, coding that is not common between organisms. So that is not predicted by common descent. However, orphan genes are predicted by the design axiom. The only advantage Evolution has over design, is that Evolution is thoroughly naturalistic in its requirements. And, if you're a dogmatic naturalist, then you will certainly popularize Evolution.
Natural selection? Who selected naturally?
Natural selection is blind, so why does it look like design? Natural selection is quite a genius😂
I rejected natural selection for some time. I believed that God was directly involved in causing creatures to change in various ways that helped them thrive.
I believe it is both that they have inbuilt genetic and epigenetic abilities and that it is well possible that God is in some way directly involved.
It's kind of like how life is made to go from conception to birth and at the same time God is actively involved in knitting us together in the womb.
What other scientists were influential at the time of Darwin in the mid 1850's? Why was Darwin so prominent? What did other scientists say at the time? What book can I find that would have this kind of information?
*_God Bless_*
This question was "what were Darwin's qualifications "?? What was he educated in? Was he a playwright? Plumbing school? What? I heard he was a psychologist or theologian. But the panel won't say.
Charles Darwin was an undergraduate with no degree in natural sciences.
Darwin "sat" on his theory until he saw Alfred Russel Wallace's book which attributed evolution TO an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER!! Darwin went ballistic! He then produced his book which DELIBERATELY EXCLUDES God as being the source of the design! The term "Natural Selection" was equivalent to Darwin saying "I REJECT ANY CONCEPT OF GOD!!
***Steven, Darwin was a good believer in God, what the bible says is absolutely correct, science works only to explains how God creates.***
@@adelinomorte7421 Newton on the Solar System:
"Though these bodies may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
- General Scholium to the Principia
I don't know about blind cave fish BUT I do know about hemaglobinopathies. Sickle cell anemia, and many similar, are point mutations that CANNOT be "deployed adaptations". The mutations are NOT found in a normal human genotype. They are random mutations selected for under malaria conditions.
So, at least in some frequent cases, natural selection DOES act exactly as ICR used to teach.
I think you guys are giving a simplistic message here and thus opening yourselves up for legitimate criticism.
I am a young earth creationist, lifetime ICR member since the late 70s, a biochemist and MD. Please understand this post as constructive criticism from someone that acing his genetic engineering classes over 40 years ago. I suppose it would be arrogant to point out that while I got a final grade of 08%, all the other biochemistry grad students git an F. So I will make no claims to being a genius, because, obviously, I am also very humble 😁
Laugh brothers, we all deserve hell and getting Heaven. Is this not reason enough to party?
Another error near the end is thinking that today's creatures were designed in the same way that they were Redesigned after the flood and will be re-re-designed in the future when the lion will eat grass like the ox. Thorns, just like the pre-programmed death clock of most animals (not all such as the common red sea urgent), the clock which was reset to a maximum of 120 years after the flood.
We're NOT studying organisms as designed originally, but Redesigned (tweaked, whatever word you choose).
Again, constructive criticism from a fellow YEC.
BTW, I ceased believing in macroevolution while an agnostic and remained an agnostic with NO idea of how things got here for a year and a half before becoming a Christian.
I can legitimately say it was the science that drove me to reject macroevolution. I was a creationist over a year before believing in any sort of deity. Edited only for spelling
Seeing the interdependence of many organisms, how can you explain them “evolving” when one organism can’t exist without the others?? You can’t! How can people who consider themselves to be scientists not see this obvious problem?
What are you talking about? This is very simple! Species evolve together, one adaptation gives an advantage to one species for a time until a new adaptation by a competitor balances it. Why do you think Australia for example has some of the most poisonous animals in the world? Poisonous to us who have moved there and are not adapted to live there!!
***DID YOU SOLVE THIS OBVIOUS PROBLEM?***
@@adelinomorte7421 Creation is the logical solution but atheists can' accept creation because it would be against their own religion of Almighty Happenstance.
See you at the top
Thanks!
You're quite welcome. And thank you!
One other term that I am working on (it started from Sabine H. youtube on Entropy) is anti-entropic or localized concentration of order (LCO?) but I don't think the people who say 'Design' would be comfortable with that either. They really have a problem they have to address as scientists, I am sorry for them. One thing you also should add to their motivation list is "Imposter Syndrome" which it is claimed is experienced by most people who work in the realms of the mind.
Great
Hello, i wish someone will give me a reasonable answers to this question on evolution that has been bothering me sometime now. The first is, using a bear as an example, if a polar bear migrates to a temperate region and over time adapts to that environment probably by producing a gene that reduces the length of hairs on it's body, and this gene then is passed down to its offsprings. Decades later, these evolved specie of bears due to some event finds themselves back again in the polar region. For them to adapt to their new environment, how will their body respond for survival, will the gene of shorter hairs that was acquired on their previous evolution process be eliminated, or becomes dormant and the original gene their ancestors had before migrating to hotter region reactivates (assuming genes produced in every stage of evolution is preserved, stored and usable when needed) or will an entirely new gene be produce? And will their be some form of a macro evolution if the back and forth goes on for generations ?
Also, why is evolution in the case of plants not talked about much? And noticeable evolution in plants mostly involves human input for instance budding ? Its there any example of a macro evolved plants, or is evolution through natural selection not applicable to plants? Thanks
No new genes will be made. It started with the nr 1 couple that had the total package. Adaption actually is Devolution. They loose genes.
E.g. teckel dogs wont evolve to wolves (or whatever the 1st dog was) but wolves could devolve into those useless dogs. From what I understood.
Nice questions. God bless from the Netherlands.
@@smgibv4393 thanks for your response, it's really helpful. And thats even opens up another problem which is, if devolution is possible then at some point in time, or due to an environmental or natural factor living organisms might be forced to devolved
@@markchiedozie840 Genes are made all the time by duplication, which can then be subject to further mutation. There's not set path evolution has to take.
The Polar bear is exactly the same as the Alaskan Brown Bear except a mutation (genetic error) occurred that dropped the genes for pigment in the hair. there is no mechanism whereby any new information may be coded into an organism anymore than an inert object can be made living.
I just gave one example of how it can. @@marktapley7571
He is doing pretty well, hasn't told a lie in 141 years.
Wrong, people in Hell lie very often.
Oh, so you have been there to witness that, interesting!@@JRRodriguez-nu7po
@@kenwebster5053 Neither have you to say he has not. I at least know Someone who has been to Hell, and back.
"Neither have you" & yet I do not accuse without proof. "I at least know Someone who has been to Hell, and back." So do I. Your making assumptions in your high and mighty arrogance. In fact, you write of things you don't know. You don't know that he is in hell & you don't know if he or anyone there are lying. In fact you don't even know what he lied about in life, for it is not a lie to state what you think, but a truthful expression of your thoughts. He proposed a theory. It's called a theory because it is not proven. A theory is a model that appears to fit the known physical evidence at the time. But it is unproved & therefore not considered a fact, but a practical working model. It is part of the scientific method which is an iterative process attempting to get closer & closer to truth. We have for example Newtonian physics which works extremely accurately for things like engineering, but is limited to the macro scale, velocities & gravitation which pervade human physical experience on Earth. However, it does not work well at quantum scales nor at velocities approaching light speed. It is a practical tool, but it isn't an absolute truth everywhere. However, it is so accurate within the above stated limitations, it is referred to as Newtons laws of motion, rather than "theory" . Generally laws are considered fact but educated people understand the definitions & limitations of these scientific terms & tools, they understand what a theory is & know it is not universally proven fact. Why you do not understand this is a mystery. @@JRRodriguez-nu7po
@@JRRodriguez-nu7po You know this how??????????????
Okay guys this conversation is amazing but to understand the blanket that is blinding evolutionists you have to go to the scriptures and read: 2 Corinthians 4:4, 2 Corinthians 11:14, and later to top it off read please 1 Corinthians 1:19-21
28:51 did they just say that evolution was actually observed?
And it was fast ..?
No they did not. Adaptive variation is not evolution. Evolution is Darwin's invention produced by his lively imagination.
There is blatantly obvious design in creation, both individually and collectively, and therefore, there's a creator!
4:19, brilliant, the guy in black just admitted what evolution is!
Sorry, but adaptation has nothing to do with evolution.
The very idea of evolution is so crazy that modern evolutionists try to cover it by presenting intraspecies' adaptations as "evolution". People should understand that evolution in the Darwinian sense would need mind blowing changes in the basic anatomical structure (body plan) of any given organism. However, in the empirical tests even slightest changes in the body plan have been impossible to produce, although scientists have had tens of thousands of generations of test organisms in use during the last 100 years. The Hox genes controlling the embryo development in gastrulation are unbribable. They have invalidated all scientific experiments to produce new body plan to the test organisms.
Fossils neither show any evidence of gradual transformation of basic anatomical structures between species. The slow "step by step by step" -evolution is an unproven hypothesis without any genetic mechanism to implement it.
An eager evolutionist once claimed that "you CAN see and observe evolution in microorganisms and other fast growing, rapidly replicating organisms." But the fact is we can't - and that's the whole point! All those test bacteria, other micro-organisms and fruit flies have never ever shown any sign of evolution. They get different intraspecies variations, but during the century of evolutionary studies they have NEVER produced a new species with a new body plan that would've started a path to new taxonomic genus, family, order or class.
Microevolution but not macro.
Bring on Dawkins and if you disprove evolution to him, you’ll get a Nobel prize. It’s easy to call someone a liar when they are not there to defend themselves and it’s also cowardly. “Religion was invented when the first fool met the first conman” (M.Twain)🐨
John Lennox and many other creationists have often disproved evolution to Dawkins. While evolution is Dawkins' religion, in which he has blind faith, it isn't surprising that no evidence can convince him.
Atheism came to science with some few atheistic researchers, notably Charles Darwin. Before that, science was made by God-believing scientists who in fact created the modern science. Natural sciences started declining with Darwin and his followers. It was the monk Gregor Mendel who became the "Father of modern Genetics", not Darwin. Perhaps that's the reason why neo-Darwinists still do not really understand the limits of genetic variation.
There is no amount of evidence that will prove God real. God could do all the miracles and magic tricks we require, and... "Slide of hand is all that was." "Mere special effects!" "I just was hallucinating." "Wow what a crazy dream!" The stars could one day spell out "I am God and I am real" and it'd get blamed on light bending, atmospheric manipulation, cloud seeding, freakin' laser beams, conspiracy....
@@f.k.b.16 which is probably what you would say if the stars spelled out Allahu Akbar. 🐨
@@CR-yd4qe Great point! Its a double edge sword no doubt. For me personally I started off diving head first in to evolution and saying "If there was a god I'd say, I hate you god." But now I am here and being a sceptic at heart, I've done my homework about the others... and if the stars said "God is most great!" (aka Allahu Akbar) I would be just as excited.
@@f.k.b.16 I to hated “him” but realised after years that it was stupid to despise something that wasn’t there, 🐨
I know something about these four men. Every one of them has mammary glands and nipples. Could someone explain that from within the framework of "intelligent design"?
It is a bit lame to still stick with a book that was the first sketch of evolutionary theory 160 years ago. Science has made a lot of progress since then, and many areas that Darwin offered us a first glimpse on are now much better understood.
I realize the habit of sticking with old texts is much more engrained in the Christian mind. That's why you think the plants on earth were created before the sun and the stars!
What happens to the blind cave fish's offspring when they are bred in lighted conditions? Are they also blind, or do the get their eyesight back?
They are still fish.
You can debunk evolution in under 2 minutes easily. ✝️
Can anyone explain to me why every human fetus has a tail in utero? Or why each generation of humans have a lower percentage of the population with wisdom teeth?
That 'tail' is genetic error, not an evolution vestige. Each generation of humans have bigger amount of harmful mutations than the preceding generations. That's why we proceed towards extinction just like over 90% of earth's species have already done. That's called universal entropy.
No, it's called creationists not understanding genetics. Selection acts to eliminate harmful mutations. Extinction occurs when environments change too quickly for populations to adjust. @@jounisuninen
What i dont like is when i hear earth is millions of years old. Where do they get there dateing from i dont get it how do they come up with the dates and why do they believe .what i understand about carbon dateing is that you can only date thousands not millions?
Think of it as if there we many ways to measure things, and each thing that needs a measurement, may need one technique or another.
If for instance you had a dead body that needed an estimation of the time of death, you would use observations of the temperature and other conditions for the presence of Flys that lay eggs on dead bodies.
Rates of decomposition can be observed and studied and understood, to make more accurate estimates.
Uranium series dating works on a the principle of decay rates of radioactive isotopes, and it helps with the estimated ages of certain things on earth.
Now within our lifetimes, we can estimate the age of certain trees in temperate zones that have growing seasons, and growth rings.
We can verify when granddad planted a Walnut tree, because we know he planted it when he wanted shade on a certain window in 1910 or something like that, and we can count the growth rings to determine that was correct.
Problems occur when the person performing a test, doesn't know which technology will work for the proper conditions.
There are quite a lot of different methods to help narrow down estimates of age, from short periods of time, which can tell periods of hours or days, all the way to periods of millions of years.
Evolutionists always conveniently forget to very inconvenient facts to Darwin and all other Evolutionists - Occam's Razor and the First Law of Thermodynamics "Can't create or invent life (or anything for that matter) in a complete state of vacuum.
In think it is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. To be exact, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that in an ISOLATED SYSTEM the entropy will always increase. All dedicated evolutionists take this formulation as an evidence for the dead matter being capable of self-organizing here on Earth. Why? Because the Earth is not an isolated system but a closed system, or even an open system (energy and matter move in and out). This again would mean that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't function on Earth. Not true, however ...
To prove thermodynamics works on Earth, you can make a simple test by putting a cup of hot coffee on a table and observe whether it starts getting hotter or cooler. I bet for the latter choice. The hot coffee immediately starts ceding warmth to the room, thus striving towards the maximal entropy as fast as it can. Entropy is unavoidable in the universe, because the universe itself is an isolated system and Earth is part of it.
You can make everyone a scientist in two minutes. ✝️
***PLEASE DO NOT CALL OTHERS WHAT YOU ARE.***
Genesis 1:1❤❤❤
More important than Newton and Maxwell…both of whom were believers! Darwin’s got em beat apparently!
I'm confused, can someone show me where in the Bible the lord Jusus Christ is the creator???
Trinity, search it up
Gospel of John, 1:1-18. Everything was created through and with the Word of God: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." And this Word, born before time, is the same as Jesus Christ, born after the fullness of time arrived: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ ”
@@astrawboiii1853 still looking for a scripture that shows the trinity
@@vsevolodtokarev Ton theon. Try again
@@jeffdelgren2170 I answered your original question exactly. Looks like you pulled a wrong number on your agenda (JW, right?,) and were not looking to clear your confusion.
Vapid arguments in an intellectual vacuum of an echo chamber. Would love to see you debate Dawkins😅
I like this show but invoking God and the Bible straight out of the box doesn’t help. Let’s talk about the science only, which is flawed! Natural selection has zero creative power. It cannot create anything new.
Random mutations are invoked to create new things, and mutations simply cannot explain wonderful new adaptations. It just doesn’t work, the rate doesn’t work out, and the randomness of it doesn’t work out. How lucky that the immune system, for example, just happened to create a level of adaptability that allows us to make new antibodies! If you believe that level of complexity “just happened”, you’ll believe anything. (The immune system is way more complex than making antibodies, the whole thing is a complexity that is beyond any one person’s ability to describe).
Nature of course does not inherently have a "purpose" but when you combine "variation" with "selection" what you get is the same behavior of an agent moving with purpose.
In fact that is exactly how traditional AI software for instance plays chess.
You create alternative moves.
Evaluate each one
Chose the best one and eliminate the others
It looks like intelligence.
Maybe it is intelligence.
"You create alternative moves.
Evaluate each one "
Evolution theory does not know planning and evolution does not use planning. God instead knows and uses planning.
It doesn't need to. @@jounisuninen
Thanks God we are not born as blind cave-fish.
But it can be interesting to hear their opinion on this.
Charles Darwin did believe in God.....
"I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; & that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence." “By nature, I mean the laws ordained by God to govern the Universe.” - Charles Darwin. So he himself was not only a priest, but he also backed up his claims that this was all God's plan. He even has an excerpt in his book stating this.
Institute for Creation Research HOLY BIBLE TRUTH personified. Nevertheless, CREATOR GOD!
I'm creationists, indeed YEC. Still I'm a little confused in this topic. I've never rejected the abstract of 'natural selection' although I'd prefer calling it 'natural pruning' or 'natural elimination'. Of course nature can't select anything because nature as an entity has no brains.
If being true, macro evolution would mean that e.g. fish and humans could have a common ancestor. However, there is no genetic mechanism for that kind of evolution. Fish have fish genes, amphibians have amphibian genes, reptiles have reptilian genes, mammals have mammalian genes. They can't change genes = No evolution. Mutations as gene factories is just a hypothesis, not even a proper theory, never empirically proven.
When all this had become obvious, Neo-Darwinists have tried to add new ingredients to the evolution theory. They however have never been able to pass by the genetic realities in the living organisms.
'Natural selection' (natural elimination) can't generate evolution. In fact it generates devolution. Natural elimination ('natural selection') COULD produce evolution if it COULD deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the population. Natural elimination however delivers nothing, it just destroys individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. In the long run they can copulate only with other winners (the less fit are dead or become too rare) which means that on population level the gene pool gets specialized i.e. impoverished.
This is adaptation, not evolution. It is good for a while, but the specialized genomes make a more one-sided gene pool than the gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the highly specialized population suffers and goes extinct. This fact makes impossible for any subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution. No wonder over 90% of all species have already gone extinct.
Mutations change genes and create new genes through duplication all the time. Nature doesn't need to have a brain. Environmental pressures favor certain traits over others.
I thought natural selection worked on the genetic level
Sounds like it is all based on beaks in the Galapagos
That's where all started ...
Where did the mushrooms come from? The bible doesn't mention them, so they were not created.
Don't shift the goal posts. Its not that your questions are bad, its that they are irrelevant to the questions about Darwinian evolution. Deal with that, here, because that is what this video was about.
@@blusheep2Since mushrooms were not created, they must have evolved.
@@georg7120 Stop playing silly games. I have no time for that. Defend natural selection.
@@blusheep2 It's very logical. There is a lot of evidence for natural selection.
@@georg7120 "There is a lot of evidence for natural selection." Why not ... Problem is, natural selection can't make evolution. Natural selection decimates unfit individuals from a population but natural selection does not own extra genes to distribute them to the survivors. The survivors must continue with the genes they already have. Evolution would need new qualitatively different genes but they are nowhere to be found.
In fact, natural selection works against evolution. When it weeds out unfit individuals with their genes, it impoverish the overall genetic pool of the population. But evolution would need new and different genes, not impoverished genomes. There is no evolution, just devolution. This fact explains why over 90% of the worlds species have gone extinct. Extinctions also continue incessantly.
If you add up enough adaptations over a long period of time, the current animal will no longer resemble the original animal.
It has become a NEW species!
Not true however ... There is natural selection (rather natural elimination) which generates speciation. Speciation however can't generate evolution. In fact it generates devolution.
Natural selection COULD produce evolution if it COULD deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the population. Natural selection however delivers nothing, it just eliminates individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. In the long run they can copulate only with other winners (the less fit are dead or become too rare) which means that on population level everybody's genome gets specialized i.e. impoverished.
This is far reaching adaptation, not evolution. It is good for a while, but the specialized genomes make a more one-sided gene pool than the gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the highly specialized population suffers and goes extinct.
We can observe that natural selection (elimination) creates adaptation through gene loss, through devolution not evolution. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly. All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for any subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution.
Adaptation occurs within a species' own genome only. Since no new genes appear, adaptation has its limits. This means no new species can emerge, only subspecies with impoverished genomes.
@jounisuninen Wrong! New genes are generated by four main mechanisms, which have been examined: DNA-based duplication, retroposition, de novo origination, and exon/domain shuffling.
Natural oblivion
Monkeys begets monkeys, humans begets humans… either male or female! Even animals reproduce!
Here's a thought: if I were the evolution I would make animals more like plants/trees in that they would just not grow old. Seems horribly inefficient to assign a life span to an animal.
I think what you’re trying to say is, in simple terms, reproductive DNA, which Darwin knew nothing about, is not controlled and altered by external sources.
That comes from people who Tell the lie that Adam was the first human.
1:07 two guys relaxing barefoot, spot a cheetah coming their way. One puts on his sneakers, the other says, 'You won't be able to outrun the cheetah.'
You know the rest, no doubt. Darwin's 'natural selection' (so called).
JESUS is not God. He was a son of MAN. Born of the same spirit all sons of God are. Romans 8:11, Romans 1:3-4.
YHWH is the ONLY GOD, CREATOR, and savior and redeemer. Isaiah 43:11, Isaiah 45:5.
Jesus spoke FOR the Father not of himself as he clearly stated. Just like ALL prophets and servants did.
Spamming verses is all heretics can do... Jesus is God, let's debate
Jesus said: "I and Father are One". (John 10:30)
The dating tool is the greatest deception ever.