To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.. Psalm 14:1
What makes me laugh out loud is the fact that even Darwin put it in his book that if certain criteria were not met, this theory would be wrong. And those criteria have never been met.
So true.The natural man has come up with such stupidity throughout history to try and get rid of the God they hate.In other words,a natural man can be made to believe anything but the truth.It takes the power of God to change a man from a God hater,to A GOD LOVER!
13:37 "Its like saying that scrambling information in a computer programme could result in better software being written by random process". I am going to assume here you have never heard of "Evolved Circuits". This is process by which random 'mutations' of information and artificial selection produces an electronic circuit design to perform a particular job. There is a whole field of study delving into Evolutionary Electronics. This is doing EXACTLY what you deride as clearly ridiculous. 🤷♂ Just going to add the point that this evolution of a circuit starts with zero information, and by random mutation and selection, CREATES information. A process which according to you and fellow creationists is clearly impossible.
There's a lot of (wilful) misunderstanding here. On the difference between artificial and natural selection. 5:43 Artificial selection is constrained by time, more so than by genes. Humans haven't been around long enough to affect other species in the way that nature itself has. Natural selection, on the other hand, is less constrained by time. You have to remember that over billions of years new genetic information is brought to the table. This gives natural selection more access to raw material than artificial selection. It's an equivocation fallacy to apply the same constraints to two vastly different modes of evolution. ....... Macroevolution is just microevolution over a longer time period. Disbelieving macroevolution whilst accepting microevolution is equivalent to believing that thousands of dollars can exist but completely denying that billions of dollars can exist. Find better arguments.
I am an evolutionist and this does not make me crazy. In fact I love the questions raised. This is science, a problem is raised to your ideas and you explore further.
That is a good point. However, I believe what is most important is how one explores their ideas. I further believe that many people put more into the word. Science ! Than what is really there. According to Websters, science merely means knowledge .But that is mans knowledge which cannot hold a candle to the knowledge of an Almighty God . For example: Take two scientists that are studying the universe. One believes in an Almighty God and the other does not. The one that does Believes in God will put his findings under the lens of the Bible. Where as the non believing scientists will develope a theory that he just cannot explain. He then may do 1 of 2 things. He will either become so frustrated that he cannot explain or prove his theories and spend the rest of his life time trying. 2 he will surrender and say. An Almighty Creator is the only thing that I can prove . So it is very important what mindset is applied before one test their ideas. Now I don't know about you. But I would rather consider myself a hand made creation of an Almighty God versus being the product of an Ape! How about you?
@@kenlucero3651 thanks for the reply. To me science is a method where ideas are put forward that can and should be both questioned and tested. This is why I like evolution because it is an amazing set of ideas that thousands of people have added their ideas to. Questions force scientists to rethink and revisit their ideas.
@@michaelatkinson4815 I also am grateful for your reply ! If I may say, I am really enjoying this conversation and again you have made a very good point. As I said. The mindset that one applies to their study is crucial. For example: Darwin did not conduct his studies as a means to learn the origins of man. I believe that He conducted his studies as a means to refute the Bible. This became a dangerous a concept in which the most evilist one uses to deceive people and tear them away from God which is his chief goal. I further believe that an evolutionist begins his study from the bottom up meaning with his finite knowledge of ideas he has at that time. Where as a creationist begins his study from the top down meaning with the knowledge he has of an Almighty God at the time he began his study . I realize this may be a difficult concept to grasp . Now as a Christian I have studied God in my church Bible study and I have found that our human ways are totally opposite of Gods. For example: Some people believe that Archeology proves the Bible, where as I believe the Bible proves Archeology ! So you see it is all about the mindset. And as humans I believe our minds are finite where as Gods is infinite. We have impossibilities where as God does not. I also believe that Jesus IS God in the flesh and He is inviting you to spend eternity with Him. For the alternative to that is condemnation in the pit of hell for all eternity. And as Catholics are taught to believe in a Purgatory that doesn't exist. So I I ask you. Where you like to spend eternity?
The purpose of science and the scientific method is never to find the truth rather to find error. Science is ever questioning, ever testing and always challenging the orthodoxy. Those who say “the science is settled” usually political zealots and not true to the fundamental purpose of science.
@@g.alistar7798 Well I must give credit where credit is due. That was very eloquently and professionally put. If I were a covetousness person I would wish that I made that I made that comment ! Good job.
Alright, Calvin, where do I even start? You've taken Hans Christian Andersen's "Emperor's New Clothes" and tried to dress it up as a critique of evolution. Spoiler alert: you've completely missed the point. 1. "Natural selection isn't evolution." This is a classic creationist mix-up. Natural selection *is* a major mechanism of evolution-it explains how traits that enhance survival are passed on. Microevolution (small changes within species) and macroevolution (larger changes leading to new species) aren't two separate processes. They're the same process over different timescales. Think of it like walking: one step won't get you far, but thousands of steps over time will. 2. "There are limits to variation." Wrong. Variation happens through mutations, which *add* genetic information, not just subtract it. For instance, gene duplications can create extra copies of genes, which can mutate into new functions. That's not science fiction-it's observed in real life. The evolution of antifreeze proteins in Arctic fish and nylon-eating bacteria are prime examples of entirely *new* functions arising through mutations. 3. "Mutations break things." Yes, some mutations cause harm-no one's denying that. But mutations can also be neutral or beneficial, depending on the environment. Ever heard of sickle cell anaemia? It's harmful in one context but provides resistance to malaria in another. Evolution works with what's available and adapts to circumstances. It's not "random chaos"; it's natural selection acting on variation. 4. "Dogs never have wings." Well, no one's claiming they will. Evolution isn't magic. A Chihuahua doesn't sprout wings overnight. But dogs, birds, and even humans share common ancestors-just go back far enough. Fossil evidence shows transitional forms, like Archaeopteryx, which had both feathers and dinosaur-like features. These aren't fairy tales-they are fossils. 5. "You can't add new cards.” Except, you can. DNA isn't a static deck of cards-it's a dynamic system. New genetic material can arise through duplications, horizontal gene transfer, and other processes. That's been shown repeatedly in experiments and in nature. 6. Macroevolution hasn't been observed." Really? Speciation *has* been observed both in the lab and the wild. Fruit flies, cichlid fish, and even plants have shown clear examples of populations diverging into distinct species. Evolution is a slow process, but we've still seen the beginnings of it happening right in front of us. 7. "Darwin didn’t know genetics." True, but modern science does. Darwin's ideas were groundbreaking for his time, but genetics and DNA have since confirmed and expanded on his work. You can't dismiss evolution because Darwin lacked our current understanding-that's like rejecting physics because Newton didn't know about quantum mechanics. 8. "The Bible explains it better." Sure, if you prefer myths over evidence. The Bible says animals reproduce "according to their kinds," but science shows all life shares a common ancestry. Genetic similarities across species, fossil records, and observed evolution provide more coherent explanations than "because God said so." So, no-natural selection isn't a fancy cloak hiding flaws in evolution. The evidence is overwhelming, and clinging to outdated arguments doesn't make the emperor any less naked.
Dr George Wald, in his Nobel acceptance speech said that there are only two possibilities for the origins of life, spontaneous generation or divinecreation. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago. But that leaves us with only one alternative, and as we cannot accept that on philosophical grounds, we continue to choose to believe the impossible that life arose by chance from nothing.
@@Jewonastick Spontaneous generation is outdated. it's the old hypothesis that life randomly generates on decaying organic material. They used to think that's what maggots were. It was disproved by Pasteur. Sadly, this guy still completely missed the boat because abiogenesis is the slow formation of life over time from its basic components, not the refuted hypothesis from hundreds of years ago.
Indeed, you can't prove a bigfoot does not exist by pointing to the absence of evidence. Spontaneous generation might be possible under very specific circumstances.
@@Jewonastick Rather, it has never been demonstrated, even in a lab setting. I think scientists have been able to create 1 amino acid in a lab setting... which is a fundamental building block... but the remaining 19 are still a work in progress.
Around the 12:20 mark he sort of nails what apologists try to hide about evolution, which is "mutations" occur, but the mutations occur on something that already exists leading to a growing branch of the evolutionary tree. This is why big cats are related to small cats or wolves related to dogs, or humans related to other primates. There is no wild production of something completely unrelated to the original gene pool. You don't go from a fish to a human on the next mutation and what determines a new species is when the mutations soon make it impossible to have offspring with the original species who had the mutation. While this mutation often requires thousands of years to directly observe it, there are things that do create new species that are observable in our lifetime. Apologists like to call this micro evolution and of course agree that this exists but claim that because we cannot observe macro evolution, it does not exist. Sort of ironic isn't it considering we cannot physically observe God yet that exists. There is no micro and macro evolution, there is just evolution. While evolution does dispel the Adam and Eve story, it doesn't rule out the existence of Deities, only that evolution could have been their solution to the formation of life in our universe. There are Christians who accept the true science of evolution while still accepting the Christian religion.
In Europe and in other parts of the world, the major Christian churches, Protestants as well as the conservative Catholic Church, have no problem with the theory of evolution since decades. Seems to be mainly a problem in the US-America.
Their craziness is the result of cognitive dissonance resulting from science exposing their dogma for the myth that it is. They are having difficulty grasping that their house of cards crafted over 150 years is infested with error.
As a Catholic school child, when school was out, I would walk across the street to the public library and wait there for my mom to pick me up. In that public library, there was one of those classic "ape to man" evolutionary images. I recall thinking, 'hmm, that makes sense.' Which is sad considering I was in a Catholic school! Even sadder is the fact that I wasn't learning a biblical world view at the Catholic school. Fast forward to my teen years. My mom becomes born again, and takes me out of the Catholic school. I also become born again and have grown in my faith, mainly because of being plugged in to solid, bible based churches. "In the beginning, God CREATED..."
While I agree with the explanation given in this video, the Achilles’ heel to this theory is the fact that people promoting it say the Earth is only 6 to 10,000 years old.… if you push that as fact, nobody will listen to anything else you have to say. * also that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time… and T-Rex was a vegetarian.
You need to read Contested Bones. Then you won't be as ignorant. All those bones you call "dinosaur" have pathology. Did you know that? Nope. You didn't. So digging up Andre the Giant, and claiming all humans were 8 feet tall and 600 pounds, is shameful logic.
@@ludwigkirchner08 Your fear to answer the question speaks enough to settle if for me... you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old so nothing more to say. Do you believe the Earth is flat? In short, why would I investigate "your evidence" if my mind is already made up. That's like a flat Earther asking me to "review all his evidence"... as if it would somehow change my mind. why would I do it? Or someone that has a bunch of evidence on UFO abduction. Why waste the time?
From a "logical" standpoint - if we believe that God can create the universe and everything in it... it isn't that big of a mental leap to believe he could create some things to be older than others. If we, as humans, can produce art, clothing, or media that appears to be older than they actually are - surely God could produce rocks that seem, by all modern testing methods, older than they are.
I hope you find Jesus! Jesus loves you! Jesus saved my life! From suicidal to SAVED! Read the Bible! Pray! Have Faith! God bless! Repent and follow Christ! Jeremiah 29:11 Psalms 62:1-2✝️🤍💪🙏 Jesus knows your name. Seek Him!
The things science cant explain, pattern recognition always can. Science cant explain why you can youtube millions of people who have miracle healing overnight that science cant explain like diseases removed, or dead kidneys completely healed in 24 hours, or metal plates in someones leg dissolving overnight, with the medical records to prove them. These people 99% of the time attribute their miraculous healing to Jesus. Betting your eternal soul on something that cant explain miracles, when our universe's existence is a miracle within itself, is not smart. Romans 1:22 - Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Repent and believe in Jesus Christ, the true miracle maker. Not "theories" when the definition of a theory is something that cannot be proven but is just believed. When Jesus Christ proves himself time and time again to those who love him.
The moment a person allows doubt and distrust for God to take root in their thinking, is the moment that a chain reaction of all the seeds of evil begin germinating in the mind. The ability to believe what God has made abundantly easy to see and understand leaves a person and the scales of spiritual blindness grow rapidly. Envy and ego, greed and jealousy, shame and pride take over a persons' reasoning and motivations in life. The need to prove ones thoughts and ideas and motives become insatiable. Thanks for sharing this well presented explanation we should all be well grounded in as believers.
I am an atheist, I don't feel anything taking over - If you personally have an issue with these things, then that is because of your brain chemistry.. You might have a faulty brain.. Like many other people..
I once was a doubter. Back around 1993. I told God just what I was but at the same time prayed every day for months using Jeremiah 33.3 KJV as part of my prayer. Also told him I would go where ever he required regardless of friends or family including my wife. Well that never turned out good but my answer from God changed my life forever. He led me to the right church to be able to understand the bible including the prophecy of Daniel and Revelation. Life has never been the same as I know where this is all going. One more thing to happen worldwide and then the end of time will come rushing. Like it will only be a few years more or so after this ww event takes place. No I do not know the day or hour. Who does say they do are a liar. However this ww event will separate the wheat from the Tares. A big shaking coming in all churches. I have about 20 million more who will agree with me.
@@razark9 Thank you for proving my point. All people are evil. Christians are no exception, but they are forgiven of their evil nature and their sins are Passed over by the grace of God through the sacrifice of the Savior. The only difference is we believe what God says and we do not doubt him. Christians are not cut off from God. Unbelievers are cut off from God by their own choice. Unless they humble themselves and utterly yield to God and seek His mercy and His forgiveness, there is no way they can overcome the separation from God. And cut off from God an unbeliever will never comprehend the anything pertaining to God or how He works.
@@glennbrooks3449 everyone doubts or does not trust God before they are redeemed by God. God calls people to Him, not the other way around. We respond or refuse God's calling. You weren't hardened in your heart to God's calling, otherwise you wouldn't have been digging for truth. If you were, you would not have been seeking God's help, you wouldn't have been talking to God. The kind of doubt I'm referring to above is when a person is being called by God, when God is opening their eyes to His truth. If a person refuses to believe and trust God once they recognize He is calling them, their heart will harden against Him. God is long suffering beyond anything we can imagine, but if one refuses God, if a person hardens his heart and refuses to trust God, then the things of God become vague and unintelligible to him. The truths of God become nonsense to the person who refuses God. That doesn't mean that God can't knock you to your senses, but those are called trials and you don't want that to be the way He calls you. But hardship is one avenue that does bring some people to their knees before God Almighty begging for redemption. The fact that this world is in for a cataclysmic reckoning has little to do with an individual's salvation. Maintaining your faith in God if you live to see this cataclysmic time is another story. There are thousand upon thousands of Christians living through unimaginable tribulation this very day and they have been living in terror for centuries. Today Christians are hunted and slaughtered for their faith in God in many parts of the world. This has been going on since the beginning of the church. Will it get worse in the end? Yes that is absolutely clear. But millions of Christians have lived in tribulation and died because of their belief in salvation through Jesus Christ's sacrifice. What you are focused on has always been happening to believers.
Sin is always the issue ie greed, pride, self, jealousy, turning away from, or denying Christ, taking God out of the picture for their own deceitful acheivement and ...PRIDE!
I like the pacing of this video. I've seen lecture videos from the Ark encounter, and the lecturers speak so incredibly fast that it is difficult to take in and absorb what's being said. This one was well paced. Good job.
Although the pace is better then the usual race to cram in as much crap as possible in the allotted time, they still do not have arguments that make ANY sense and which as usual fail to include any credible science. .
Researchers from the University of Montana and the Georgia Institute of Technology have let a unicellular alga evolve into a multicellular organism. This is operational, repeatable science. Macro-evolution from one kind into another is an observable, scientifically verifiable fact.
Researchers from the University of Montana and the Georgia Institute of Technology have let a unicellular alga evolve into a multicellular organism." Nah, you have been Lied To.. Those cells simply form COLONIES to fight off predators.. When the reproductive process starts again.. A single cell creature is always the result...
What do you think these things have to do with causing new information that changes one kind of organism into another? They work within the boundaries of organisms, and can cause harm or be fairly neutral.
@@valeriegoldstein3483 "Mutations involve loss of information" - not necessarily, sometimes the original phenotype is retained whilst an additional one is added
A great Maxim is this “DO NOT learn all you know about evolution from Creationists!” However, as the video demonstrates, you CAN learn something about evolution from Creationists but there’s a catch! If you only listen to Creationists, how can you separate: The correct from the incorrect, The wheat from the chaff, and The truth from the lies and fill in the missing perceptions? It's not easy unless you can see some light. This might help. 1) Note that no mention is made of the possibility that "Beneficial Mutations" can sometimes if rarely, occur and be Naturally Selected. That adds NEW information to the gene pool. 2) Note that no mention is made of "Gene Duplication". This is a significant mechanism via which beneficial mutations can be retained without loss of the original function. That's ADDITION not SUBTRACTION. 3) Remember that the scientific model of reality includes plenty of evidence that the Earth is some 5,000,000,000 years old and not 6,000. No surprise therefore that some very slow evolutionary mechanisms have not been observed in the last 1000 years. 4) Note that whales have vestigial hind legs indicating evolution from land animals. 5) Remember that vaccination works via the natural selection of random mutations to DNA. Consequently, a vaccinated Creationist who denies the possibility of beneficial mutations is a walking contradiction. 6) Remember that the analysis of tell-tale genetic markers in DNA has led to the conclusion that Chimps are our closest relatives and our common ancestor species lived some 6,000,000 years ago. 7) Creationist commentators know all this. Ask yourself why they never mention it.
@Aron Gladden Check out the evolutionary history of the Covid 19 pandemic. A number of new strains have evolved since 2019 (That's less than a million years :-)). The mutations involved were not beneficial for us but they sure gave the virus many new leases of life. So you are quite wrong. We have seen many "Beneficial" Covid 19 mutations since 2019. Vaccination has saved billions of lives and our modern world would not be possible without them. They work via the natural selection of beneficial mutations to DNA. Perhaps you don't know about "Endogenous retroviral markers". :-) Those markers and the genetic molecular clock are how we know that chimps are our closest relatives and that our common ancestor species lived some 6,000,000 years ago. As for "all scientific evidence" you don't seem to know about the evidence in Geological strata, tree rings, ice cores, radiocarbon dating, Uranium decay dating, the fossil record, and the correlations of all that with the Milancovitch Cycles. Have you been skipping your homework assignments? Evolutionists know all this and so do many Creationists but they don't let on.
@Aron Gladden The DNA of all of the many covid strains has been fully sequenced. Is it really your view that the DNA of later variants can be found in the DNA of earlier ones? If you are right about that then we could prove it by downloading the DNA files and get ourselves Nobel Prizes! You up for that? I note that you don't deride the significance of the cross-correlation seen between the various dating methods and their correlation with the Milankovitch cycles. Does that mean you don't know about these things. Same goes for the history of smallpox, Polio, and many other nasty diseases that are held in check by vaccination.
Perhaps the next time you create a video trying to talk about what evolutionary biologists believe, you should bring on a well-respected evolutionary biologist and add their unedited, fully contextual arguments in with your video. Then, you can explain why you believe they’re wrong. This video format doesn’t perform any meaningful debate because it’s just “I will present to you the information I want you to know, then explain why the information I presented is wrong; oh, and I won’t respond when I’m told I didn’t explain things well/give the whole story.” Im all for discourse, just proper discourse.
@@sonus89you can observe *microevolution* of bacteria and the evolution of traits that scientists consider “analogous to macro evolutionary processes.” But your bacteria remained bacteria at the end of the study didn’t they? So he’s right speciation of entirely new taxonomic groups has never been observed which is clearly his argument in the video.
@@fitforlife3168what happens though if let’s say a dog mates with another animal species, wouldn’t that increase the available gene pool? I’m just speculating, but, for example, can a bird egg be fertilized by dog or fish sperm into some kind of new animal species? I think the answer must be no or scientists would have already done it. Anyway, just curious.
As someone with a degree in Anthropology, who studied evolutionary biology, this is like listening to someone explain how the Earth can't possibly be round or we'd all roll off of it. This guy does a great job of explaining away something he either doesn't have the slightest understanding of or is purposely being dishonest about. Ok, first off. Darwin didn't understand anything about the biology, the genetics, or the concept of inheritance that made natural selection (part of, but not all of) a viable explanation for evolution. Trying to take the words of someone that didn't understand evolution and use those misunderstandings to disprove a completely different concept of mutation, is incredibly disingenuous. Can a dog grow wings when they don't have feathers? Over the span of tens of thousands of years, yes. How do we know that? Because we have fossil records of feathers developing over the course of thousands of years from scales, then to quills, then to feathers. Over the span of ten thousand life spans, could a dog, through natural selection, select for thicker skin, then scaly skin, then scales, then quills, then feathers, yes. And again, we have fossil records of this exact thing happening. The card analogy, btw, the line, "You might lose cards, but you can't ever select for new ones that don't exist." This is true in cards, but it isn't true in genetics. In genetics, each time a cell splits, there are mutations where the new cell DNA doesn't copy correctly. Why yes, this means new, never seen before "cards" are put in the deck. You don't get a new mole on your back at age 40 because it was in your DNA all along. That's new information. That's a new card. You're only driving evolutionists crazy because you're grossly ignorant of science.
He’s explaining things in a way that people like you, without a scientific PhD and decades of research experience, can understand. There are many highly respected mathematicians, physicists, biologists, chemists and engineers just like him. Learn something new.
(5:36) You say evolutionists are trying to convince people of something no one has ever seen, referring to macroevolution. Well, Religionists are trying to convince people of god, something no one has ever seen. Furthermore, Creationists are always referring back to Darwin, while we have learned SO MUCH MORE, stuff that Darwin had no idea about.
you're confusing having a religious faith with accepting something as scientific fact when it does have gaps and real science is always changing, so a decade from now we could have an entirely new theory.
@@Seashellsbytheseashore21 Not confused, just making a comparison. Religion claims to have the answer, while Science seeks to question. Science doesn't like faith. Religion doesn't like doubt.
@@Bomtombadi1 ♦️I believe in Creation, only when it is based on the Word of God. ♦️NB: Jehovah created all things and He made them perfectly. Whatever God made does not need any improvement from man. ♦️Whenever Man tries to improve what God made, he destroys the authenticity of that thing.
@@phoebemulube4451 very sad how so many were sucked into believing an injection could "improve" the human genome with UNKNOWN ingredients. THEY always knew what they were doing.
Yes it's such a head scratcher all matter is made of atoms and all life is made from atoms!? And " kind" for exampleis the canine pool. If y9u take a particular canine swimin̈g everyday ( and all it's offspring) til the stars burn out the last one will still be a canine.
Scientists (at least good ones) don't say "You're so foolhardy for your beliefs." Science is *not* about ridiculing those who believe in religion. It is about inviting *discourse*. Religion invites dogma, which prevents discourse. If this were not the case, it's even possible that science and religion would not be at odds as they are currently.
Wait a minute, even if evolution was wrong how does that make Genesis true? Genesis is a re-working of older Mesopotamian creation and flood stories. Why would it take a revelation to tell people animals come in "kinds"? Genesis also says there is a cosmic ocean that is above and below heaven. Special doors open in the flood story to allow the water to flood the Earth. It's a bunch of ancient guesses at how the world works.
I find it curious that he mentioned mutations and forgot to mention positive or even neutral gene mutations. Not every mutation results in something bad happening, if that were the case, then there would theoretically be a "perfect" genome somewhere out there, zero flaws, but that would have been at the beginning of gene based life. Take for instance, the ability for humans to drink milk from non humans, its not a normal trait, it was a random mutation that came along. Doesn't seem very negative to me, it seemed to actually help as it expanded the sources of calcium and other minerals humanity can gain access to. Gotta love people claiming to have questions that drive 'X Community' crazy, then proceeding to ignore the information that doesn't prove their point. It's not the deck of cards that dictates the traits of an organism, its the combinations in which they are played in the game we call life. Take a look at a chart that has the combinations of amino acids in DNA, some of them give different results, some have multiple trios that give the same result. This results in some mutations being positive, some neutral with no effect and some negative. Thanks for coming to my TEDTalk
I was thinking the same thing. Not as detailed as you, but, he ignores Downs Syndrome. Which is the result of an extra added chromosome to someones DNA. While not good, it shows that "Cards" can be added to a deck. And he doesn't deal with the fact that, in a given population, an animal or plant from 1 species can successfully mate with an animal or plant from another species. Thus adding cards to a given deck. And mutations happen. So, while on it's face [pun intended] the card analogy is compelling, I don't think it works in the natural world. Clearly, it doesn't because I think dog DNA from Wolves alone, doesn't have all the variations we see today. Unless wolves are like DNA master class with every possible combination built within. There's no way a wolf pack would ever naturally have a Pug, Lab, or Great Dane looking dog in the mix. Those must have been natural mutations, changes to what was to create what is. Now, was God part of that? Or did God create the system that allowed for that. I think that's a better question.
"Nebulous-Draco" - You wrote, "Thanks for coming to my TEDTalk." LOL! In your next TEDTalk you should also discuss the occurrence of gene duplication mutations, which even adds sections of genetic material that were not even there before, which then down the line further mutations do their thing and the new genetic material can end up being used by the organisms. And, of course, there are things like transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous retroviruses, all of which give very strong evidence for common ancestry, and which contradicts the "baraminology" concept of some kind of "mutations limit" between "kinds" ("baramin" - which literally has no scientific definition at all; indeed, creationists can't even agree among themselves what these supposed "baramin" are - except of course they all agree that humans constitute a "baramin" because of Adam and Eve in the creation myth in Genesis).
@@jamesvaughn7389 The very bizarre aspect of the young earth creationist "baraminology" concept is that young earth creationists (well, the young earth creationist who use the argument; because not all young earth creationists agree with it) end with the evolution of millions and millions of species populating the planet WITHIN THE LAST 4,350 YEARS. So "baraminology" entails superfast hyperdrive rate of evolution a million times faster than anything ever proposed by evolutionary biologists or paleontologists. Young earth creationists choke on a gnat, and swallow a camel. What a joke.
@@steveg1961 Right. Well, as an aexample of how little this person knows about DNA. Do a little research into Barbara McClintock and transposable DNA. It's a concept that DNA can transpose itself to create new mutations within the DNA chain. Simply put, DNA can mutate itself to create something that wasn't there prior. Now, I ask, is that God? Or is that God acting through natural methods and devices?
The fact of the matter is, every mutation creates a LOSS of viable genetic information. The overall DNA of plants, animals, and humans has been gradually degrading since scientists have been able to accurately measure, quantify, and identify the DNA of all living entities. Oh, and make sure you have some cookies with your milk.
Microevolution equals macroevolution, accepting one will inevitably lead to the other, evolution doesn't stop at some time it goes on forever as long as the creature's lineage exists, it is a process that lasts millions of years because each major mutation is small and almost non visible, we only see those changes when the species already separated completely, it is similar as to how we don't see the changes in our body from when we are a baby to when we are an adult, you can take photos but there will not be a "transitional" photo that is gonna make it clear when you stopped being a baby or a kid, that's what happens to the transitional fossils that we have, they are so similar to us genetically and physically that when you make a line with all of them chronologically located it all leads to a clear pattern of evolution over the millions of years that they existed to the bones of us living today, I would be happy to see you guys trying to debate with someone with at least basic knowledge of evolutionary biology because I'm certain that those arguments wouldn't last a minute.
@@josephthinn3900 There are a lot of wrong things to unpack here. You mention organ evolution. I ask you to read the article "The Evolution of Complex Organs" (Gregory, 2008). It is a pretty long read, and it includes a case study regarding the evolution of eyes.
@@josephthinn3900 1. The skin 2. The stomach 3. The brain 4. The liver 5. The heart 6. The kidneys 7. The pancreas 8. The upper intestine 9. The lungs 10. The lower intestine
@@kimsoares3271 Have you ever looked at a painting or a building and was able to recognize who the maker was? Would you think they made themselves too? Of course not. Remember a fairytale about a 🐸 turning into a 🤴 from a kiss? Another one is where a 🐸 turnes into a 🤴 from "Time"
@@CaptainFantastic222 you won't find God unless you search for Him. Sitting in a pew doesn't guarantee a relationship with Christ. It is between you and God alone. You didn't try. You went through the worldly motions and the world can never bring you to God.
What are you going to use to support this claim. Do, you have evidence to support the mythical common ancestor? What examples of organisms of today can you use to support dinosaur to to bird or land animal to whale, or even ape like to ape and ape man? Your lean, extra lean,, on evidence.
@@rtmcdge Yes there is plenty evidence both in the fossil record and the human genome that supports the existence of a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. This would be the Sahelanthropus tchadensis which lived about 7 million years ago. As far as land animal to whale, Cetaceans have a common ancestor with modern-day artiodactyls such as the cow, the pig, the camel, the giraffe and the hippopotamus. There is again ample evidence in the extant genome and the fossil record.
@@wadenovin2479 No, there isn't. If there was there'd be a whole lot less people who reject evolution. There has probably never been a speculation that has been so accepted but is so still rejected by other scientists. All of what you are claiming is only unsubstantiated speculation. Hundreds of millions of years, STILL NOT SUPPORTED WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. But, there is other evidence disputing this. "Newly Published Analysis Refutes Claims that Sahelant" hropus tchadensis Was Human Ancestor...These claims have led to much disagreement in the paleoanthropology community. Brigitte Senut, of the Natural History Museum in Paris, called Toumai “the skull of a female gorilla,” and co-wrote in Nature, along with Milford H. Wolpoff, Martin Pickford, and John Hawks, that “Sahelanthropus was an ape,” not bipedal, and that many features “link the specimen with chimpanzees, gorillas or both, to the exclusion of hominids.” This debate has continued.More Discovered than Reported It turns out that there was more of Sahelanthropus discovered than was initially reported. At the end of 2020, nearly two decades after the fossil was first reported, the debate was seemingly settled when the femur of Sahelanthropus was finally described. The technical paper, “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” published in the Journal of Human Evolution, confirmed that Sahelanthropus was a quadruped with a chimp-like body plan. New Scientist explained the implications of the new study: The leg bone suggests that Sahelanthropus tchadensis, the earliest species generally regarded as an early human, or hominin, didnʼt walk on two legs, and therefore may not have been a hominin at all, but rather was more closely related to other apes like chimps. As the technical paper put it: A partial left femur (TM 266-01-063) was recovered in July 2001 at Toros-Menalla, Chad, at the same fossiliferous location as the late Miocene holotype of Sahelanthropus tchadensis (the cranium TM 266-01-060-1). … The results of our preliminary functional analysis suggest the TM 266 femoral shaft belongs to an individual that was not habitually bipedal, something that should be taken into account when considering the relationships of S. tchadensis. … In terms of size and shape, the external morphology of the shaft is closer to that of the common chimpanzee than to modern humans, gorillas, or orangutans. … Likewise, the cross-sectional morphology of the TM 266 distal shaft is most similar to that of Pan [chimpanzees]. … Given the results of the comparative analyses in the previous section, the overall morphology of TM 266 appears to be closer to that of common chimpanzees than to that of habitually bipedal modern humans. … Given the broader comparative context of the morphology of the TM 266 femur, there is no compelling evidence that it belongs to a habitual biped, something that would strengthen the case for S. tchadensis being a hominin." Source: evolutionnews.org/2021/02/newly-published-analysis-refutes-claims-that-sahelanthropus-tchadensis-was-human-ancestor/ Come on, if you are going to make claims, at least do some research. I'll point out this. "The technical paper, “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” published in the Journal of Human Evolution, confirmed that Sahelanthropus was a quadruped with a chimp-like body plan. New Scientist explained the implications of the new study: So, now, you see, there is much more to the story that you seem not to be aware of. And your claims of "much more", for this, "Cetaceans have a common ancestor with modern-day artiodactyls such as the cow, the pig, the camel, the giraffe and the hippopotamus. There is again ample evidence in the extant genome and the fossil record." is grossly overstated. The evolutionists have not come into an consensus as to what mythical land animal that was the ancestor of the whale. And all the while, this is contradicted each time it is seen that only whales give birth to baby whales. So, all you have is misinformation and unsubstantiated speculation to rest your beliefs on. NOT SCIENCE.
@@wadenovin2479 "Articles by Brunet and colleagues in the journal Nature called it “the earliest known hominid ancestor,” or more cautiously proposed it as “close to the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.” Although Brunet’s technical paper at the time admitted that “There is not yet sufficient information to infer reliably whether Sahelanthropus was a habitual biped,” he and his team proposed that “such an inference would not be unreasonable given the skull’s other basicranial and facial similarities to later fossil hominids that were clearly bipedal.” To this day, the Smithsonian Institution calls it “one of the oldest known species in the human family tree.” These claims have led to much disagreement in the paleoanthropology community. Brigitte Senut, of the Natural History Museum in Paris, called Toumai “the skull of a female gorilla,” and co-wrote in Nature, along with Milford H. Wolpoff, Martin Pickford, and John Hawks, that “Sahelanthropus was an ape,” not bipedal, and that many features “link the specimen with chimpanzees, gorillas or both, to the exclusion of hominids.” This debate has continued. More Discovered than Reported It turns out that there was more of Sahelanthropus discovered than was initially reported. At the end of 2020, nearly two decades after the fossil was first reported, the debate was seemingly settled when the femur of Sahelanthropus was finally described. The technical paper, “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” published in the Journal of Human Evolution, confirmed that Sahelanthropus was a quadruped with a chimp-like body plan. New Scientist explained the implications of the new study: The leg bone suggests that Sahelanthropus tchadensis, the earliest species generally regarded as an early human, or hominin, didnʼt walk on two legs, and therefore may not have been a hominin at all, but rather was more closely related to other apes like chimps. As the technical paper put it: A partial left femur (TM 266-01-063) was recovered in July 2001 at Toros-Menalla, Chad, at the same fossiliferous location as the late Miocene holotype of Sahelanthropus tchadensis (the cranium TM 266-01-060-1). … The results of our preliminary functional analysis suggest the TM 266 femoral shaft belongs to an individual that was not habitually bipedal, something that should be taken into account when considering the relationships of S. tchadensis. … In terms of size and shape, the external morphology of the shaft is closer to that of the common chimpanzee than to modern humans, gorillas, or orangutans. … Likewise, the cross-sectional morphology of the TM 266 distal shaft is most similar to that of Pan [chimpanzees]. … Given the results of the comparative analyses in the previous section, the overall morphology of TM 266 appears to be closer to that of common chimpanzees than to that of habitually bipedal modern humans. … Given the broader comparative context of the morphology of the TM 266 femur, there is no compelling evidence that it belongs to a habitual biped, something that would strengthen the case for S. tchadensis being a hominin. Since “the bone is curved, not straight, typical of apes like chimps,” New Scientist quoted the lead author Roberto Macchiarelli as saying, “There are a lot of indicators which deeply discourage bipedal gait.” Madelaine Böhme at the University of Tübingen in Germany said: “I saw the pictures 10 or 12 years ago, and it was clear to me that itʼs more similar to a chimp than to any other hominin.” Phys.org put the implications bluntly: Sahelanthropus “was not a hominin, and thus was not the earliest known human ancestor.” This evidence forced the researchers to suggest that if Sahelanthropus were a human ancestor then that would mean bipedality is no longer a necessary qualification for status as a hominid - an unorthodox view that would cause great complications for the primate tree. As the recent article in the Journal of Human Evolution concluded: Based on our analyses, the TM 266 partial femur lacks any feature consistent with regular bouts of terrestrial bipedal travel; instead, its gross morphology suggests a derived Pan-like bauplan. Thus, if there is compelling evidence that S. tchadensis is a stem hominin, then bipedalism can no longer be seen as a requirement for inclusion in the hominin clade. Did Rivals Stonewall Publication? New Scientist told one last part of this story that is potentially disturbing, most especially for those who think that the scientific community is always objective. First, New Scientist commented on the circumstances under which it took nearly 20 years for the femur - which apparently contradicts Brunet’s initial view that Sahalenthropus was a bipedal human ancestor - to be described: The researchers found a femur, or thigh bone, along with two ulnas, or forearm bones, that would help clarify the matter, but they published nothing about them for almost two decades, prompting criticism from colleagues. Brunet didnʼt respond to a request for comment from New Scientist. Why did it take so long for the femur to be described? As New Scientist explained, after the femur was discovered in 2004 it was brought to the University of Poitiers. Collaborators wanted to study the femur, but the two lead authors of the present study, Macchiarelli and Aude Bergeret-Medina, opted not to do this “until this could be checked with Brunet and his team.” What happened next was quite strange: Later, Bergeret-Medina was unable to find the femur. Neither she nor Macchiarelli ever saw it again. However, when Brunetʼs team didnʼt describe the femur, she and Macchiarelli prepared a study using her photos and measurements. Source: evolutionnews.org/2021/02/newly-published-analysis-refutes-claims-that-sahelanthropus-tchadensis-was-human-ancestor/ And the rest of your post is just as unsubstantiated.
@@rtmcdge "If there was [evidence] there'd be a whole lot less people who reject evolution. " But there already AREN'T many people who reject evolution. Putting aside your fallacious reasoning there (that the number of people who reject evolution is a metric for its soundness), your premise is wrong, as it implies there are a large number of people who reject it. The only people who reject it are fundamental christians and muslims. The majority of the world (including virtually 100% of biologists and other natural scientists) already doesn't reject it. And even still, as the first reply pointed out, we have tons of fossil evidence of human evolution ALONE, not to mention the countless other species of plants, animals, fungi, etc. And fossil evidence isn't even the be-all-and-end-all of evidence, as fossilization is hit and miss, so we're actually quite fortunate to have found what we have. More than that, we have incredibly detailed molecular genetic evidence of phylogenetic relationships, in the exact same way as we have DNA evidence of certain people being present at certain crime scenes (unless you'd just like to dismiss all of that as well). So when you ask 'what examples of organisms of today can you use to support your...ape like to ape and ape man' evolution, and the commenter gives a RECENT example -- i.e. a discovery from a few years ago, which, like all scientific papers of import, will be hotly debated for years -- and you simply use the controversy around that SINGLE example to dismiss the entirety of the evidence....is absurd. What about Homo habilis, the earliest known hominin? Or Homo erectus? Or all of the Australopithecus spp.? Sure, it's possible Sahelanthropus tchadensis specifically has been incorrectly classified (the analyses of the coming years will determine that; although, importantly, you have not shown that it IS, you have simply shown that there is not unanimous agreement about it), but those other examples like H. habilis are solidly established for decades. What is your rationale for insisting these AREN'T hominins and hominids?
But there is literal evidence for evolution. We share large percentages of our DNA with other species like chimps and shrews. We have uncovered skulls and skeletons of our previous ancestors where changes are very clearly seen. I am open to friendly debates in the reply section.
Supposedly - according to the theory of evolution - mutations provide new genes for changing one species to another. The problem is that no single gene can create a complicated new feature. Small changes from micro-evolution may occur, but they don't add up together to create sophisticated new features like turning legs into wings or developing eyes or things of that nature. Complicated new traits require many new genes. So not only would you need to get a random beneficial mutation, but many such mutations spread many generations apart that are of no value or even harmful separately, but somehow magically persist for hundreds of thousands or millions of years until they all happen to combine in one organism and suddenly a creature has a new feature. Frankly it's more plausible that aliens came to earth and made it all happen. I don't believe that by the way. That's just passing the buck of course as one has to ask, "Okay, so how did the aliens come into existence?" Of course you can nitpick with how you define a species and pick nearly identical creatures like mountain lions and leopards or grizzly bears and brown bears and call them different species and cry, "See, evolution is real!", but that's being specious (hehe - made a little pun there.)
You're oversimplifying greatly by disregarding the functional intermediates in the evolution of complex structures. Wings evolved by modification of pre-existing structures and always involved a gliding intermediate. Bird wings, for example, are derived from the gliding "wings" seen in Microraptor, which are themselves exapted from feathers that covered the bodies of their ancestors for thermoregulation. (Some early dinosaurs had such high metabolisms that they would not have been able to survive without insulating feathers.) Even today there are organisms with functionally intermediate eyes, like the Euglena with simple photosensitive "eyespot" or mollusks with eyes of various structures. Your final point about cats and bears brings the problem with Noah's Ark, which many creationists believe is literally true, to light. If one pair of cats can diversify into 41 extant species in only a few thousand years, and one pair of bears can diversify into eight extant species just as quickly, how can you claim it is impossible, even given just _one_ million years, for major diversification to happen?
Yeah - Ahh No, just mental gymnastic fodder. Everything is evolving all the time. You learn - you evolve, the environment changes - life evolves. Roaches now can eat petroleum products , microbes have been developed to degrade plastic which, buy the way, was introduced to the environment by a highly evolve tool using creature. Some guy sitting behind a desk tying together related ideas into a subject is evolution, clearly not a mutation that will survive as it creates a vacuum of obfuscation of the facts ….and….nature abores a vacuum …just like the video was. A whole lot of nothing sucking into an empty space.
Humans domesticated dogs around 23,000 years ago (only about 1900 generations). Evolution has had *billions* of years! The analogy of the pack of cards is somewhat misleading too:- there are only four base (elements) A, G, C, T and about 3 billion base pairs per genome. And the bases could be arranged in any sequence. Maybe that explains why there are so many species of animals - the number of "combinations" of the bases might as well be infinite (not the case with combinations you could get with just 52 cards!). I think it is also feasible that genetic material might be added/subtracted to existing genomes by accident (mutation). So, I think it's reasonable to suggest that when one human lives a few billion years they would observe "mutation" from one kind of animal into another. But of course there is the fossil record. On the other hand, the Bible is a book written by man under the guidance of a supernatural power. I know which "story" sounds more plausible to me.
Why do creationists crave the acceptance of the scientific world? Videos like this present the creation story as if it were scientific. "Believe this because it is scientific and I speak very smoothly." They want the recognition and acceptance without having done the hard work that merits it. If you want to claim the benefits of having something accepted as a legitimate scientific explanation, then you have to do the hard work. - You first have to do formulate a hypothesis (well done so far, AIG!) and then do research that will prove it or disprove it. Scientists do research like this and often find out that they were wrong. Be prepared to face the fact that you could be wrong. - Then you have to write a paper documenting what you were trying to prove with that research, and the results. - Then you have to submit that paper to the world scientific community in a peer-reviewed journal and be prepared to answer the criticism that will come with it. Don't misunderstand: no one is singling you out for shoddy science when you are criticized. EVERY paper in a peer-reviewed journal is subject to the same merciless scrutiny. Only then, after going through the wringer and getting general acceptance, can you produce honest videos in which you can legitimately claim that your claims should be considered a legitimate scientific explanation for thus-and-such phenomenon. That is the price to pay for that stamp of approval. You don't get to claim, "My idea is just as valid as the Theory of Evolution. It deserves as much recognition as this other theory over here" without having done this. That is how you play in the big league. Rather than trying to convince people that your untested theory belongs in the same league as theories that HAVE been tested, it is far better to just be upfront and honest and tell people that your explanation is not there yet, that "It's just my own explanation. It's a story that just has to be taken on faith." A slick video with a honey-voiced narrator does not equal scientific validity.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 I understand that creationism is not a religion, but when preachers "demand" that we who profess Him also believe it, it is difficult to bring the two together.
Jesus believed in Adam and Eve. Matthew 19. And Jesus was called the Son of Man (Ben-Adam). Sin entered mankind thru Adam, literally. Romans 5:12-21. Jesus is the new Adam, literally redeeming the human race, being the perfect sacrifice and the firstfruits of the resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:16-23 So Jesus believed in the account of Genesis literally, Jesus literally believed that He would die for the sins of many. And Jesus atoning for the sins of mankind is only possible in there was a literal Eden and literal Fall. No Fall, then why is Jesus necessary? No forbidden fruit, then why is creation corrupted? And if creation is corrupted by means other than man’s sin, then why does God hold us accountable for our evolutionary nature (horniness, violence, racism- we’re just animals after all)? So I believe in the Bible and do not believe that mankind evolved from any other creatures. I believe that Adam literally sinned and thus brought death, and Jesus literally defeated death and thus brings life. That is what the gospel is all about. If its not true, then Jesus Himself was a liar, and why would you follow a man who either lied, or was delusionally false about human history and God’s existence/plan. Jesus also literally believed in Noah (Matthew 24) and Jonah (Luke 11). So Jesus believes that the entirety of the Bible is true, given how He references the vast majority of the Torah and Prophets. Praying for you, that your ur faith would grow, that the Lord would clarify certain things to you, confirm things for you, and that the Lord would guide you into the fullness of understanding He wants to bestow on you! Be strong, my sibling in Christ, continue to ask, seek, and knock!! You are loved!
@@lequsejones5384 that's what I belive. The super preachy fundamentalist types only exist in the USA and most Christians around the world belive God made things through evolution. Understanding both would strengthen a person's faith and not the other way around. I recommend checking out channels like InspiringPhilosophy and Biologos.
Genesis 1 is truth because Moses said so. It feels good not to worry about anything, God did all the thinking for me. what a great God. Now i just die to get to paradise. Good thing someone told me about him otherwise id be damned.
Really? Moses told you this himself? How do you know he wasn't just telling you a porky pie to hide his ignorance? The truth is; you ARE damned. You are going to waste your whole life hoping for an extremely unlikely reward you have no way of determining is real.
Selection takes intelligence...if we consider man part of nature...yes man breeds and natural selects...creatures in nature also select among size, color, coat, strength, intelligence..yet no new species is formed...just as he said ...the deck is shuffled.
This video is based upon a deeply flawed misunderstanding of evolution and genetics. Genes do not code for wings or feathers or anything like that. They code for proteins. That's it. Not whole body parts, not whole organs, not whole systems. That is not how genes work. Instead, different proteins are activated or disabled based upon other surrounding genes as determined by localized chemical signaling during cell replication. So, of course you'll never see a new organ pop into existence via genetics because that would violate not only genetics but evolutionary theory itself. Neither evolution nor genetics suggests such a thing. TLDR version: The video targets what the author incorrectly thinks evolution is. But it isn't that thing. Therefore, it's attacking a strawman and the video is not of any value.
Yes, it is more than a simple gene mutation. Entire gene sequences need to be reprogrammed to create new proteins. Plus the developmental gene regulatory network (dGRN) needs to change too. So this means there is much more coordinated change needed to create a new organ and this makes creating new species even more difficult!! PS. Glad you are willing to watch this video and discuss.
@@globalcoupledances i mean are there instances of a population developing a new organ (including sufficiently changed existing organ to take on new function) that have been directly observed in the wild? like we examine a specimen today to find different anatomy to what had been recorded say a century ago.
8:40 I believe that the biggest problem with your analogy is that it doesn't take into account genetic mutations. What about when offspring have extra genetic code from a duplicate of a gene, or set of genes? (when you suddenly get an extra card in your deck) Also if we're comparing suit color and rank with genetic sequences and traits...what happens when we get a blue 3 of diamonds instead of a red one? Yes maybe being blue makes the card unplayable in a deck, but in an animal it might be something as simple as increased muscle mass in the thighs or something. Very minor but probably pretty useful for some situations. Which of course increases their survival rate and makes it more likely for them to reproduce and pass down that genetic mutation
Interesting comment but you'd have to first give examples of genetic mutations making a species better and then carrying on that trait down it's offspring chain in order to use it for a Macro evolution argument. Also, this is still just a example of adaptation or mutation within it’s already existing DNA that doesn’t make it anything but a dog still.
Actually it did consider mutations as the decks were rid of all of one type of card and or cards were destroyed and discarded...a good anology for mutations.
@@barendse1 Well to be clear genetic mutations most of the time don't make a species "better" (by that I'm assuming you mean, more fit for survival). But a good one would be bacteria being resistant to drugs, or maybe humans that have natural immunities to certain illnesses. The human that's resistant to malaria in a town that is riddled with malaria is certainly more likely to pass down those genetic traits than the person that dies from malaria at age 6. And yes this is absolutely an example of a mutation. But what happens when the dog that is resistant to malaria also becomes shorter to more adequately hunt a new food source since it's old one died out. And then it gets a longer snout to hunt better. Maybe thinker fur to survive the changing climate. Maybe more webbing in their toes for just that .1% better efficiency in swimming. Maybe bones get lighter and more hollow to survive falls better. Etc. After a while the dog's ancestors start looking less and less like the "original" dog. And it's not just one direct line. There can be, and usually are several branches that will evolve in different ways if you will (Some will definitely go extinct though). Are you saying there's some limit to how different the "original" dog's ancestors can be to him? And if so how do you know that?
5.30 "Like all fiction, it's completely unobservable..." To assert this of the theory of evolution, and then offer The Bible as an alternative explanation is rich. The criticism of evolution offered here is persuasive, but evolution is still a sincere attempt to explain and understand the nature of living things, whereas The Bible offers implausible stories and magic as an explanation, which I don't find a satisfying alternative.
Forrest Valkai completely destroys this video and it wasn't even difficult for him to do so.. Religion will eventually die off after it continuously moves the goal posts after every scientific discovery.
@Aron Gladden LOL What??? Ok aron, what was Forrest wrong about in his video? Just give me one thing he is wrong about. Look, just because you don't understand what evolution is, doesn't make it wrong.
@Aron Gladden Give me an example then of something that would not qualify as evidence when it comes to Forrest's video? You then make a blind observation that you understand evolution better than me, when you don't have any gauge to my knowledge on the subject at all. Why do you do that? It seems like you don't have an argument at all and you are full of straw man points that are completely useless. "He is wrong because I say he is wrong" is a terrible debate strategy. Get back to me when you actually have something of substance to say.
13:26 it's funny how he tries to make an argument against mutations using computers, not being aware that genetic algorithms (which use the concept of mutation) have been used and studied in computer science for decades.
@@Marra7777 I do not know the scientific background on which your statement is based. You are already aware that you are in contradiction to the absolute worldwide majority of all established scientists in this field.
Thanks for all of the great content you make. One minor critique: You said "very unique" in this video. Unique means "totally unlike anything else", so something can be unique (or not), but it cannot be very "totally unlike anything else".
14.58 mins of sicense misrepresented followed by only 33 second to explain why the Bible's explanation makes perfect senses. I'm sorry I'm not convinced. Where is the observed evidence or demostrable experiment to prove god exists and that she made the world in only 7 days?
Many things can be simultaneously true and not mutually exclusive. (Natural selection can be true, aNd God's Creation is true too) There can be many truths in Lies... ...There are no lies in Truth.
Even the fossil record indicates that God created an abundant variety of life at the same time in without transitions...the supposed Cambrian explosion ....while not millions of years old is evidence for this.
There is no reasoning with a group that asks for evidence but feels they don't require any for their claims. This guy shows up every day with a new recycled claim that will wreck evolution. The lie that he perpetrates is amazing given his claims to morality based upon the bible. Ignoring the truth does not remove the burden of the misleading.
He only uses the same tool diabolical evolutionists have used that goes against all reason ,typically people only want to believe in evolution because they want to believe they are god themselves I am ruler of my destiny I believed in this lie as a child with no perspective it seems believable
1. 'Evolutionist' is a word you made up 2. Mutations are real and observable 3. Evolution is the non-random selection of random mutations 4. Which ones get selected is entirely determined by the environment and sexual selection processes 5. 'Kind' is a meaningless word. Similarly, 'species' doesn't have a clear definition either. It's merely how we describe different phenotypes, but they are completely man-made constructs to help us classify living things. This video completely ignores the concept of mutation. And although artificial selection can help to understand how genotype manipulation can lead to very different phenotypes, human beings don't have the knowledge to select for genetic material to make a dog grow wings, and such a thing would most likely never evolve through natural selection anyway. Humans don't really know what we're doing when we mess with the genetic code of dogs - look at the poor bulldog. That thing is an abomination with a whole host of problems caused by the humans that created them.
@@thedubwhisperer2157 It is a word used by apologists to make it seem that evolution is on the same footing as creationism. Evolution is science, creationism is not. Instead of using that term, insert "rational thinking person who respects scientific consensus and the scientific method." Because "believing" in evolution is like believing in gravity or germs or that the earth is round.
@@matthewstenger6150 evolutionist /ˌiːvəˈl(j)uːʃənɪst/ noun a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection. adjective relating to the theories of evolution and natural selection. "an evolutionist model"
This is what I was thinking when I, as a teenager, was sitting in a 700 years old church, listening to the pastor talking about this God who nobody has ever seen or heard of in reality, staring at the altarpiece depicting god as an old bearded man hovering on a cloud looking down on earth. I wanted to shout out loud like the child in the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes" : "there is no god" An early age I figured out that if god really existed believe would not be required.
Exactly genetic entropy is what we are witnessing. Not the addition of new genetic information that creates novel functionality and structures. Every time I bring this up people try to fall back knto ad populum and "multiple fields" which correspond supposedly to corroborate the theory when in reality geomagnetism, astronomy, genetics and virology completely disagree with this notion. It's just that only a few people are actually looking past the indoctrination and asking the questions to get to the heart of the matter. And of course those individuals are treated as outcasts and liars. Such is the world we live in today.
It's happening again with gender theory which evolution is the foundation of. You can't have a hundred genders when you believe that God made only two. Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them." Because these things; creation, genders, marriage and sin are all connected and they all go back to Genesis. Undermine Genesis and you undermine everything, so of course evolution had to strongly pushed to usher in all the other things that we have going on today. Without the foundation of creation you can have and be whatever you feel like because man is setting the rules not God. They have a big shock coming to them.
I need to know this: Do you actually believe in evolution or not? Your video makes it clear that you understand basic concepts within it, but then you just... randomly deny other aspects? I can't tell if you're lying about it for publicity, or if you're just in denial.
Creationists need to give up on what Darwin said. Who cares that Darwin didn’t know what genetics were, or that the body was made of cells? The discovery of those things confirmed the Theory of Evolution by explaining why and how the processes of it happened. It’s like referencing Galileo when trying to debunk our observations about astronomy or physics. He had no idea how gravity or relativity worked, but his ideas totally made sense in the field astronomy as we discovered the processes by which it happens.
What about DNA mutations due to things such as radiation? Effectively adding more cards to the deck? Some mutations are less advantageous, others more.
@@billy9144 That's not even slightly true. Most genetic mutations are deleterious; those that are beneficial and have been observed experimentally, e.g. E-coli mutating to reproduce faster involve losing a portion of DNA.
@@xn85d2Again, that lie has been long refuted. The majority of mutations are actually neutral to survival, deleterious are rare and are often eliminated from the gene pool because it doesn't survive.
What about paleontology? all fossils, that are so different in different ages? And what about geological time? 3,6 billion years, does someone has an idea of this time? What about genetics, that proofs the taxonomy, the families, orders, classes of animals and how they relate to each other?
@@factory_enslavement Go look up LTEE and then tell me why 75,000 stored generations of e coli bacteria are insufficient for demonstrating the clear fact that genes change over time.
I suspect that your use of the flawed premise that there is no mechanism to add information to DNA was intentional, but if there's anyone actually interested... Mutations happen all the time. Our cells are always reproducing and sometimes an error occurs when DNA gets recopied (kind of like making a typo when trying to copy someone's notes). There will also be times when the original might have gotten messed up a bit, so the copy is technically the same as its predecessor, but not the original version. Or any of dozens of other mechanisms for a mutation to occur. Then, once that mutated copy is made, there are several possibilities. One, the damage might be repaired by some means (spell check if you will). Or that change might not make any sense and just kinda get ignored. Or the change happens, but it doesn't really affect anything. Or the change is so catastrophic that the cell can't function and immediately dies. Or the change could be bad, but not immediately deadly (cancer for example). Or the change could be actively good in some way. Regardless, unless the cell dies before reproducing, that is now "new" information. Most of the time, that new information is not going to be particularly relevant at that instant, but it's a new card in the deck so to speak. And if, at some point in the future the rules of the game change, that card may suddenly become very important. For example if instead of leaving the jokers out, suddenly they are powerful wild cards.
Thank you for your words. I fear they fall on many deaf ears, tightly pressed shut with both their hands. But that is precisely why it matters for you to say them.
Respectively; as he mentions mutations are a reduction of genes. The joker cards are not part of the deck therefore will never exist. Mutation doesn't create new information rather corruption of the original information. I see where you're coming from, this corrupt information is "new" information but by that logic the chances of the corrupted information to suddenly become relevant and beneficial are astronomical.
This is an extremely poor argument against evolution. The time frames and concepts he's covering are extremely simplified and easily explained by evolutionists. Check out guys like ProfessorDaveExplains if you're interested in hearing what the other side has to say. The science is quite convincing, in my view, and I'm still a Christian.
@@mikemakowski9020 Then you are an exception on these portals, because here it is predominantly said: It's in the bible, it's in the bible. And all those who consider evolution to be plausible are generally labeled as atheists.
Biologists don't "often refer" to micro and macro evolution. I've never heard the terms used outside of conversations about or with Creationists. No biology textbook suggests that one animal spontaneously gives birth to a different kind of animal, and this is the biggest strawman Creationists use in their fallacious arguments against evolution. Macro evolution doesn't exist, and evolution doesn't suggest that it does, and it doesn't need to-that's a goalpost Creationists made up. Natural selection is the mechanism by which organisms evolve, and over a short period of time, you see what you call "micro evolution", and over a longer period of time, you see what you call "macro evolution". The idea that evolution only occurs within "kinds" is also meaningless. No one, religious or otherwise, can define what a "kind" is, and suggesting that all of the extant and extinct species on Earth evolved from pairs of "kinds" from the Ark creates so many fatal problems. For example, did Noah have both African and Indian elephants on the Ark? Because they can't interbreed, which conflicts with Genesis 1:24, "Bring forth unto their kind". Ken Hamm, your founder, states that the Ark had 1,400 "kinds", but that would mean that in order to get the millions of species we know of today in only 4,000 years, every pair of animals would have to give birth to a new species every single generation. Well, that would be macro evolution, wouldn't it? You say that doesn't exist. That's to say nothing of the heat problem. A child could debunk this video, and it's scary to see so many adults in here agreeing with it out of ignorance simply to further cherry-pick their way into a very narrow worldview of confirmation bias.
@@josephthinn3900 There's a number of creationist propaganda pseudoscience types yes. Evolution is the corner stone of modern biology and underpins our whole understanding of modern. So I'll listen to biologist in mainstream science backed by all fields of science. I won't listen to a creationist payroll geologist on a subject out of his field and payed to lie. Evolution has been observed in nature and lab's and never stops as all life is transitional.
Hey, AiG. Let me give you some free advice, so that the general population will take you more seriously. Stop using these terms: 1. “Evolutionist” 2. “Darwin/Darwinian/Darwinism 3. “Secular Science” People who aren’t creationists, don’t refer to themselves as “evolutionists”. That’s like calling myself a “round-earther”. You keep referring to Darwin, as if he holds a god-like status. Darwin is 200 years ago. He got some things right, he got some things wrong. Let’s try to catch up on what has been discovered since then, okay? Science holds no belief system, so referring it as “secular”, sounds as ridiculous as it is. “Science” helps you make this show possible: the electricity, the lights, the cameras, the internet, TH-cam, etc. All done by science, not secular science, or “Christian/biblical Science” (whatever that is?) Hope this helps.
Great points, and it does help. Trouble is... the ones who need this help probably won't read it or if they do, won't accept it. But there's only so much one can try to do.
The issue boils down to if you believe in God or not. I personally trust Jesus. I can observe evidence of organisms adaptation to local environment. I don't believe in all life evolving from a single cell.
@@gregorylatta8159 Why? What has that ever done for anyone? Trusting science is why MOST people are alive today. Jesus had his chance and that resulted in zero more lives. The bible is clearly a series of falsehoods. What is the benefit in trusting in it? If it is the infallible word of an all-knowing God, where's the recipe for antibiotics? I thought Jesus was trying to save us from our sins, which were the source of those pesky diseases. That's what you told us!!! Liars. The problem with claiming infallibility is that one mistake like that disproves, EVERYTHING you've claimed. You don't get to turn that back on science because they never made that obvious lie to begin with.
Evolution consist of many elements: mutation (and here there are numerous complexities...not just point mutations), natural selection, adaptive radiation, jumping genes, sexual selection, genetic drift and isolation, extinction, along with epigenetics now. Of course there are other relevant factors assoc w/ all of these. I ask the proponents of ID, if design is so intelligent then why are there so many unintelligent features displayed in flora and fauna? Why does the intelligent designer love extinction? That makes no sense at all. And why has the IDer produced us to destroy this world? For surely we have created an economic system that will consume all resources and pollute the planet to such an extent that reproduction will end or be very rare. In just 20 more years at the current rate of exponential growth the economy will double. Does anyone in their right mind expect that the world will be a better place? Look around and wake up!
@@h.gonyaulax2190 That's a great point! The creationists are so invested both emotionally and financially in their nonsense they've lost all objectivity and thus have almost no credibility. Will they ever stop this charade and their grifting?
@@filamcouple_teamalleiah8479 Probably not, and they obviously earn very well in the process. That's why it makes little sense to oppose them on these channels. Trapped in their evangelical environment (bible belt?), they do not realize that the majority of Protestants and Catholics worldwide have made their peace with the theory of evolution since decades. In Europe creationism plays no role. They are in the minority and do not notice it. They feel as an elite.
"Why does the intelligent designer love extinction?" Because as an Eternal Being, He doesnt CARE about temporary carnal beings... Quite simple actually..
I ask the proponents of ID, if design is so intelligent then why are there so many unintelligent features displayed in flora and fauna" Sounds like an arrogant ASSERTION coming from someone who cannot even make DIRT!!! "unintelligent features" UNLESS you are talking about your own BRAIN, I have no idea what you are talking about and MORE IMPORTANTLY what criterial you used to come to your conclusions other than "I hate the God of the Bible" "In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory." (Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University) "The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity." (Dr. W.R. Thompson, world renowned Entomologist) "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extant that it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." (Malcolm Muggeridge)
@@jaydelgado1994 What is intelligent about saddeling your greatest creation with hemorrhoids? What is so intelligent about giving our species over 3000 genetic and chromosomal abnormalities? What is so intelligent about the design of tenrecs? What is so intelligent about producing a peacock with such a flamboyant tail that not only attracts tigers but reduces ability of the peacock to avoid capture? What is so intelligent about shistosomiasis? What is so intelligent about leprosy, TB, Nepah, Marburg, Ebola, HIV, syphilis, and the thousands of other communicable diseases? What was so intelligent about sticking us on a planet with vast stretches of uninhabitable terrain (deserts and ice sheets) and over 70% ocean? We air breathing primates not fish. It seems that the Creator, if there is one, preferred fish species!. And why on earth did he place quite different herbivores with the same ecological requirements on different continents? Why? Why do we find virtually all marsupials in Australia? What was He thinking? And what is intelligent about extinction? Why when you travel from Bali to Lombok does the fauna change so radically...what's intelligent about that. And why did he stick the largest of the varanid lizards on a a few small islands just east of Sumbawa? What's intelligent about creating a huge diversity of cichlids in Lake Victoria only to have them exterminated by English sports fishermen who introduced a voracious perch. That makes no sense? Why would God knowing that man would introduce that perch for his sporting pleasure produce cichlid diversity in the first place?
@@CaptainFantastic222 ... So are you actually learning other peoples points of view or are you just going through the motions and discarding what was said as it passes through your ears? What is the point of listening to what others have to say if you are going to dismiss it the moment they are done speaking?
@@rispatha it appears you were describing yourself here, rather than others. And the comports with every conversation I have had with an evolutionist. Most of them are unaware of even the basic precepts of evolution, I know nothing of its current state, and cannot talk intelligibly about the subject. Evolution is their mythology, and their conception of “science, and “is nothing but a sword, it is simply a comfort system. Your attitude of condescension put you in a very precarious position in any earnest dialogue.
@@alantasman8273 ... The more truth I find while seeking it out points to life being CREATED and not "evolved". Even in grade school I never really accepted "evolution" when they first brought in up in biology class.
The problem I see with this, is while very reasonable, the arguments fail to factor in 2 Things: that new genes can emerge (super rare, but random mutation can add new gene information) and the unbelievible amount of time Evolution takes. (Sorry for my bad english)
If the mutation is large enough to create a new organ (as opposed to a small change), the animal will die in development just as pregnancies end in miscarriages. When evolutionary scientists do mutation experiments they can easily generate mutations in fruit flies, but the babies die.
Your worldview essentially says the following. If I had a software that made random bits of code with 1s and 0s, over millions of years, I would eventually make a software that would make the genetic code of humans.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT Your argument lacks two crucial things: 1 I have thousends of the same Code 2 The few of the Code that have some 1s and 0s different, most probably die. This means even if some of Codes get defective, they just die or those random 1s and 0s make the Code a bit better witch then proliferates and makes the alterations more commen in the huge Code community
It's hilarious that by voicing your misunderstanding of how evolutionary science operates constitutes the proof that it never happened. It's also funny to see just how the narrator tries to project an attitude of self assurance as he voices his flimsy arguments. the only people who are committed to see something that isn't there are those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, which has been disproven countless times, and not just by evolution alone.
Most scholars confirm that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, who was crucified, and was seen by many witnesses as being alive after being killed. Since this is true, then the Jews gave you real historical data in their scriptures. Which means yes, yours and mine common ancestor is Adam and Eve.
@@Bea_InChrist729 Actually it was Paul who said he encountered someone in Corinth who claimed to attested to seeing multiple witnesses, which would have been unlikely, and it is, after all, a second hand account. If that's what call "evidence" , then there's no talking you out of it. ----------------------------- Just to be sure, how does evidence of something in the New Testament confirm the inerrancy of the Old?
@@Bea_InChrist729 The idea of multiple witnesses of Christ's resurrection came from a conversation Paul had with someone from Corinth, which, while being a second hand account, would have also been unlikely. Why would something proven in the New Testament prove the inerrancy of the Old?
The scientific method is a very simple processes, get a theory, test your theory, repeat testing your theory over and over, take results com to conclusions based on them, that when a theory becomes a fact, "facts" change when new results present themselves, this is in general how scientist and evolutionist answer about the world we live in. Yet show me a single creationist who has factual evidence of the the events in the bible. Just look at this vid, he doesn't show you one piece of evidence that evolution doesn't exist, the only thing he does is prove how natural selection works on a spoon fed lvl. Idk if God is real or not but why is his only evidence a bunch of stories, poems, and vauge life lessons strug together into one book that out of all the "Christian" organizations out there none of the groups completely agree on who's right? But they all can agree everyone else is wrong, even if our science show stories of gods wayyyy older then anything from the bible. Believe what you want to believe
maybe not as in a direct answer but depending on the doctrine you deem creationism there is observable proof. for instance the existence of Yahuah can be debated but not the actual existence of His said “chosen people” who existed and have a prominent role in world history.
@@Ozzyman200 darwin believed he saw proof of “evolution” through the form of natural selection , because of the variation he saw in different animals. Natural selection is a process in which the strongest equipped organisms within their species survive due to a more advantageous set of traits and pass those over to their offspring, becoming more adept promoting survival. As well as mutations being random genetic disturbances in an organisms genetic code. But thanks to modern genetics we know there is a limit to the level of variation that can occur within an animal. Darwin thought if people can make dogs and pigeons reproduce and inherit desired genetic traits, then nature could do this on a much larger scale promoting survival to an organism as a whole. But the problem with that is natural selection can’t select for traits that aren’t within a species capability. see where i’m going?
I'm an atheist, I think evolution makes sense. Questions don't drive me crazy. I love questions. How I wished the fossil record was mentioned in this video.
Evolution is both an observed fact and one of the most well substantiated scientific theories there is..... It's been able to create one of the most accurate scientific models that successfully has made many predictions that have been fulfilled
@@Janice_Lippincott time is always the hero of the story and micro evolution has yet to have a certainty of link between macro evolution even with time. It’s a simplistic theory that works of paper but doesn’t provide a full explanation for complex development when considering the nature of some changes. Like wings for example, is more complicated than simply evolving wings because you also need to evolve the supporting structures for wings, hollow bones, diets that are practical for eating smaller lighter meals and the enzymes to support it. The struggle is whether or not even with the time line we have it’s not obvious that much complex change can come from the hypothesis simplistic origins.
@@tristanmiltenburg1084 Time is important in evolution, but not the main focus. Natural selection, genetic variation, and environmental factors drive evolution. Microevolution and macroevolution are connected, with small changes leading to larger outcomes over time. Evolution is supported by evidence and explains the diversity of life on Earth through mechanisms like natural selection and genetic drift. Complex structures like wings evolve gradually through intermediate stages, with supporting structures and adaptations evolving alongside them. Evolution is a slow process, with small changes accumulating over generations. The fossil record and genetic evidence show the gradual development of complex traits.
@@Janice_Lippincott not entirely true. It shows similarities as possible paths of gradual changes. He have record and likely connections to form the theory of micro evolution convincingly. But the significant changes on a macro scale involves huge gaps in the record with a possible connection theorized from the similarities we have available. It’s the difference between having the necessary stages to be certain of a connection and the best guess we have available with what we have. Take the connection between wolves and whales for example. We see some connections between skeletal structures to form the hypothesis, but not enough for an actual confirmation and the hypothesis is derived from large spaces of unknown information rather than a cohesive chain. This is like the difference between seeing a ford model T and tracing the evolution to a ford focus, vs finding the origin of a chassis and making the hypothesis it is what lead to the first airplane.
"If a woman kiss a frog and it turn into a prince we call it a fairy tale... but if a frog turn into a man over million of years we call it science..."
I wish you would've addressed mutations in more depth: yes dog breeders only select existing traits, but ultimately we've only been properly breeding dogs for like a few thousand years. That is not enough time for mutations to create non-compatible changes. Evolution works on the span of millions of years. In your card example, I get what you are trying to show, but remember that DNA makes replicas of itself: a better analogy would be to have a very good photocopier create a new deck of cards each time. Initially everything would be fine, but I guarantee you after millions of copies (i.e. one new generation per few years in wild animals) I guarantee you'll end up with a lot more variation, so much so that the cards will become unreadable - if you then select for cards that actually show patterns then you can create pretty much any deck of cards. The argument of "mutations are mostly bad" is completely irrelevant: as you say, they are _mostly_ bad, but what happens when say a fraction of mutations are good?
Actually that's not true either. Mutations are mostly neutral, and have no effect whatever on the viability of the organism. Every single human being was born with hundreds of mutations, which is why they are not clones of their parents, and why brothers and sisters look similar but not identical. Even identical twins are not genetically identical.
@@richmountain1128 Boowomp, I guess? It's a good thing that we have tools for getting information that we can't directly observe right now this second. Do you honestly believe that the only "good science" happens when people directly witness an event happening from start to finish in totality?
I always find the creationists' concept of "kinds" to be fascinating, especially when compared to modern taxonomy. Where can I find a description of what creationists consider to be kinds? Like a creationist taxonomy.
@@ianmonk6211 I understand that, but I'm wondering of any creationist scientists have compiled a scientific list of what is and isn't a "kind". They must've used on for the ark I'm thinking
@@ianmonk6211 my problem with this answer is that in Leviticus 11:13-19, God says the bat is in the same category as a bird; but they can't reproduce because bats are mammals. I still believe in God btw, don't think I'm some heathen
Natural selection isn't the same as evolution. It's only a mechanism that explains the evolution that was already seen before natural selection was offered as a mechanism. If you're using a deck of cards as an explanation for natural selection, you should also include the 200 random mutations, mostly benign, that are found in each individual but not in their parents. So some cards may spontaneously have rounder corners and curved edges. Over time, if such characteristics might have an advantage in shuffling, more cards might develop rounder edges and wider corners until all the decks in that lineage have round cards. Since these cards couldn't be shuffled with rectangular cards, these decks couldn't reproduce with rectangular decks and would be a new species. If you really want to be impressive, try explaining why almost all primates have a damaged gene that prevents them from producing their own vitamin C, why it's an identical error in all primates, and why it's a different error as compared to guinea pigs or bats. Then really crush the evolutionists by explaining why we share so many retroviral insertions in the chromosomes, in the same locations, with other animals. Why do we share more retro-viral debris in the chromosomes the more closely we seem to be related to other animals? The most with chimpanzees, then less so with gorillas, then less in turn with other primates, other mammals and other vertebrates. And why the apparent family tree from that so closely matches the family tree generated from immunology, from the total genetic pattern and from the fossil record.
@@JLTrj00913 No, I was being serious. If you want to disprove evolution you have to disprove the evidence of evolution. Arguments against evolution fall into two categories. Denying the existence of evidence without producing independently verifiable evidence that disproves it or simply declaring that the speaker's interpretation of scripture trumps scientific research without offering independently verifiable evidence for the literal interpretation of scripture. Personally, I believe in God, but if my reading of scripture disagrees with objective reality, then my understanding of scripture is more likely to be wrong than what scientists of all religious convictions agree on.
The cards are not going to turn into a pair of dice... you missed his point obviously and your attempt at sarcasm is weak. They are all still their kind and have never deviated from their kind. They have continuously reproduced as they should with minimal changes - which evolved first the sperm or the egg?
On the ISS astronaut's bodies start to transform measurably even when only having been upthere for moths. Experience of a changing environment recorded in cell mamory transmitted to the offspring using dna and repetition of this process through endless cycles of generations is what is happening to our physical bodies. Weightlessness and atmosphereless environment has many effects on living tissue. It isn't god that writes our dnas. It's the environment, changing behaviour and habits which is shaping our dnas every moment. We hypothesize if humans had lived in weightless environment for generations they would have transformed to a very serious extent.This is the reason ISS astronauts would not be sent on a mission for much longer than one year. Most of them spends a few months there.
Philosophers, priests, sociologists, psychologists use analogies without understanding the general rule. Evolutionary theory is the general rule. Even Gods are subjugated to my rules. They evolve according to their utility to human society.
Your fundamental misunderstanding of genetic variability is the weakness of your argument. It is not just what is in the gene pool at any given time, but also what genetic mutations can occur at any given time.
@@lauracaskey2753 Not convincing. One might as well start with Sura 1. How about "Choose to trust the scripture endorsed by someone who proved himself to be divine by living an impeccable live and predicting and performing his own comeback from the dead, proving himself to be the Son of God"? Now that would make a difference between claimed divine revelations, if you can be bothered to investigate the historical evidence.
@@siquod Bible is the true word of God and I'll stick with that. Praise Jesus! Praise the father! FYI Jesus proved himself to be the Son of God. Ciao !
@@lauracaskey2753 That's good, but unless Drew proves himself to be just another fedora-tipping atheist troll, he deserves an actual answer. I doubt your personal preference will be enough to make him sure about which scripture to believe. But then again I also doubt he really wants to know that, rather than to challenge or maybe ridicule the idea that there even could be divine revelation (like atheist trolls often do). I was just trying to give you advice, sister.
Great presentation; thank you Answers in Gensis. Evolution is the first issue the Holy Spirit convicted me on after I was saved. "Do I believe the Word of God or the public school system?" I then started to actually research evolution. What I learned angered me. I had been lied to for years. I had allowed myself to unthinkingly be brainwashed. That was over 30 years ago. The massive increase in the knowledge of micro-biology since that time only provides further proof of the lie of evolution and verifies what the Living God has told us. Answers in Gensis is a great source for confronting the disbelief in the Word of God.
You should consider studying the Shroud of Turin. Photo negative (Oldest ever by far), human male blood, no inks pigments or dyes, anatomically correct, finally the main cloth was carbon dated to 1st cent AD (previously a repair was dated to 1400s which is ludicrous because the linen Z-twill was never used during middle ages) contains nanoparticles consistent with polytrauma. This was such a compelling argument that the periodical was forced to retract even though it is true, they just made up some stupid excuse to retract. But yeah, their instruments detect nanoparticles. Also they detect 3d information in it that they don't understand how that it possible
@Soldier "I will pray for your salvation, brother." “More often than not, I’ve seen this phrase used by people who have ZERO intent to go home and use their hotline to God to save my soul. If you want to sound condescending and self-righteous, however, it’s perfect.” - David G. McAfee Meanwhile, your god ignores all the prayers about suffering and misery in the world that he actually imposes. If you expect for your god to listen to your prayer about him, then your faith, by any imaginable definition, is obscene. Your failure to see that is willful, intellectual dishonesty.
Colleges all over the world teach Darwinan theory of evolution as a fact - to attempt to deny that is duplicitous. It's no accident that they regard it as fact, no amount of complaining about it because it contradicts what you would like to believe changes that. Go to any major college and argue your case against it, if you have one. Instead of which you peddle your disinformation on youtube; that says a lot about the quality of your arguments and your motives.
This video is full of misinformation. I don't understand why people who present themselves are Christians are comfortable lying to millions of people on social platforms. Or maybe he really believes what he is saying and is simply (and profoundly) uninformed, or maybe he believes lying by omission isn't really lying. In any case, everyone involved with this video should be ashamed of themselves for presenting so much misinformation to the public.
On the contrary, this video has so much information that I would have laughed all the way through it had it not been so sad and pathetic. @@adrianminjares7310
I'm afraid I don't understand how duplicating and recombining in different locations can create new functions and therefore prove that we all had a common ancestor. Just because a cow has five legs instead of four that does not mean that the cow is evolving into something else, it just means that the cow has developed a bad mutation. Duplication and recombination of genes in different areas does not make something new. It only replicates and recombines what is already there regardless of where in the body that takes place. I will be saying a prayer for you tonight in hope that I can call you my family in Christ Jesus. :) May God bless you and keep you always in His love.
@@Grace-iq7mp It does make something new. If we take the word "bell" and slightly change it, it becones "belt". If we slightly change it again, it becomes "bent". If change it again, it becomes "dent". This is similar to how evolution works. Small mutations can build up to make whole different things. Except it doesn't happen in single things, it happens in species, and some things, like if it became "belk" aren't succesful because they don't work
@@Quartz512_ The main point is that this never happens in nature, only in the imagination of evolutionists. I'm always amazed that there are seemingly intelligent people who actually believe the Darwin fairy tales. It's almost laughable, but very sad so many can be misled.
@@Quartz512_we dont have a problem with micro-evolution, as thats basically reshuffling of genes. Like the Galapagos finches, their beaks might vary because their genes got selected, but if you bring those birds back or add bird into the population they can still create generation that have different beaks. Its not as simple as words becoming entirely different, because the more accurate analogy to macro-evolution is "dog" word becoming "ape" which is way improbable, and considering you have to start from non-life its even more impossible. Ask any organic chem or bio students and they will tell you even a medium protein is insanely hard to make without help of organic (aka life) materials like enzyme etc. This is like the universe scrabble suddenly making a short journal paper, and the journal paper suddenly get reshuffled into a novel book (because remember, intermediate steps generation will die or be infertile) and the novel suddenly turn into encyclopedia, and encyclopedia suddenly turn into a bookshelf full of books.
I am a non-christian but open minded. I watched the entire video with an open mind. Here's my biggest problem with this argument. The argument assumes natural selection taken place in a decade, century, 10,000 years, or a million years all output the same result. However, as you stretch out the timeline, think of all the variables that are being added to the equation. Natural selection isn't just mixing the same set of data over and over again. It is selecting for elements within the set that will survive in a changing environment. Dog breeding, card shuffling, code writing, are all examples that completely ignore the basic premise of evolution driven by natural selection: millions and millions of years of change. For this argument to stand, Christians cannot argue on the basis of biology, but geology.
"However, as you stretch out the timeline, think of all the variables that are being added to the equation." You dont have the "Timeline" to "Stretch Out"!! Only in the IMAGINATION... Time makes everything WORSE!!!
I do not believe it is possible to lie so carefully and so intricately that the presenter is unaware of those lies or what specifically is being lied about. Therefore, I have to ask; if you know you are lying, and you clearly do, why then are you doing it? I assume you have a reason, but I find it perplexing, that you are not concerned what this will do for your reputation in the longer term. Here there are lies of both commission and omission, and whilst you might have some hopes of explaining away those of omission, at least in the short term, you must know that there can be no believable defense for the rest. If you believe God created this reality, and that God is real, then you are going to have to answer for denying that reality...If, of course, you actually believe!
Random somatic hypermutation followed by selection is the underlying mechanism through which affinity maturation of antibodies occurs. It happens extremely frequently (e.g. every time our immune system gets activated by a viral infection, such as when we catch a common cold). Therefore, creation of novel functional genes (e.g. novel B cell receptors) by a combination of mutations and selection are a very common natural phenomenon. Is the reason why our immune system protects us better upon secondary pathogen encounters. A process that can be artificially triggered by immunisations (vaccinations), by the way.
The immune system is a complex, highly functioning system- likely the most complex of all body systems. It would probably be best to call the processes you described as “systematic” as opposed to random.
@@nathanelder5285 When evidence overwhelmingly shows that a certain process is random (e.g. hypermutation of B cell receptors), then why should we describe it as anything else but random?
But remember, for mutations to produce NEW information, it can't just be new information for a single trait, but rather NEW information for an entire working system. A creature doesn't need simply wings, but the entire system for wings, including muscle, nerves, blood vessels, brain changes, feathers, and so much more. Unless new information for an entire system appears through a single mutation, wings are unusable and become drastic threats to survival.
@@christianstudiesprogram731 And? I am only saying that gaining of function through accumulation of random mutations followed by selection is a frequent phenomenon in nature that has been extensively demonstrated. I am only mentioning an individual example that doesn’t require geological times to occur.
This narrator discusses the evolutionary term “natural selection” a lot but this term is incorrect because to select a particular genetic sequence would involve a discriminating decision requiring intellect. The alleged evolutionary process would have no way to make selections but would be entirely subject to random chance which would result in random chaos and entropy.
Not sure if you're serious, but natural selection does not require intellect or intent, just opportunity and raw materials in the form of mutated genetic material. Generally, if deleterious mutations make survival of an individual less likely, then the individuals with those mutations will (be more likely to) die and not reproduce. If some mutations offer benefits, then those individuals will survive better and reproduce and their genes will be passed on...mutations and all. That is how natural selection would work. The biggest problem is are there or have there been enough beneficial mutations to support the diversity of life we see around us.
@@rizdekd3912 Mutations are genetic errors and never add any new genetic material but only drop existing genes out. No new organisms can be created this way. It would require massive amounts of new genetic material all perfectly arranged for this to happen. There is no mechanism whereby this can occur.
Considering evolution is not true is like saying biological sciences is false. The problem is, Creationism has an a priori assumption about how humans were created, and search for evidence to support that. Science takes a theory and then tried to disprove it, to see how robust it is. Evolution is far more robust than creationism. I think scientists don't even bother discussing with creationists know as they know evidence can't change a creationists mind.
Congrats. The current religion of teaching nonscience has gone on long enough. Let the people who think they are ancestors of monkeylike beings go on with incoherent, unsubstantiated belief and you can teach actual useful science to your girls.
An excellent commentary was very concise. One minor criticism of why you need to add the annoying music in the background only adds a distraction. I notice nothing like that in the ads
As an atheist, it's interesting to me to watch these videos, because while they do have some truth in them, they always leave out a bit of information that's crucial to understanding why they're wrong. In this video, the missing bit is genetic mutations. This is gonna be a long comment, so the TLDR is that genetic mutation is extremely common and if it happens in exactly the right way (which is very likely given the timespans evolution deals with) you can get a 'new gene,' something that this video stressed as being impossible. Genetic mutation is actually extremely common in the form of point mutations, where one DNA pair (DNA is composed of four nucleotides - cytosine, adenine, guanine, and thymine. Adenine will bond with thymine, and cytosine will bond with guanine, and when you stack enough pairs on top of each other, you get the double helix of DNA, where one strand will be made up of all of the respective nucleotides of the other strand - for example, one strand could be ATCG, and the other strand opposite would be TAGC) is somehow messed up in the copying process. It might have been removed, replaced with another pair, or there might even be an extra imposter pair. This is important because of how DNA functions. DNA is a set of instructions to make proteins, and the proteins are made up of amino acids. There are 21 amino acids, but only 4 nucleotides, so when the instructions are being read in the ribosome, it reads 3 nucleotides at a time, and each combination of 3 nucleotides is going to correspond to an amino acid. There are 4 possible nucleotides though, and if you put them in a combination of 3, that's 4^3 possibilities, which is 64 - more than the 21 nucleotides. This means that there are repetitions - AAA and AAG both make lysine, for example. This is a sort of padding, so that some point mutations, such as replacing an A with a G, or vice versa, have no effect on protein production. However, AAC is asparagine, and this would mean that that one section of DNA is gonna make a different protein. What about addition or deletion of pairs, however? Well, that's gonna be even worse - that would shift the ENTIRE DNA strand over one, so if you had a strand that before was AACAAA, which would make asparagine + lysine, and you added a G at the start, you'd be making glutamate + glutamine, and whatever pairs came afterwards would also be shifted by that extra adenine at the end. Sorry if this was all way too complicated, but the idea is that if you have these genetic mutations happening, and you give enough time for them to keep happening, you could in fact get a reptile with wings. This is also pretty obvious just by looking at the fact that some animals that are parts of the same group have genes that the other animals don't, but at the same time they share a ton of other genes which make it obvious that they're part of the same group - flying fish and sharks, for example, couldn't be more different, but they're both fish.
If it's more intuitive, to use the guy's card dealing analogy, imagine you accidentally rub the paint off of one of the cards - that would mean that whatever decks you make that come from that card might now be blank, and that fold might be bred into, making a whole new deck with all blank cards. It's a weird analogy that obviously doesn't work with dealing cards in real life, but the idea is that you're breeding the cards? Again, its a weird analogy.
He is right about not technically introducing anything new - its just more combinations of adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine. Sorry for replying to my own reply, but im the kind of person that always wants to add more onto their point that was already made 😅
"Professing to be wise, they became fools," Romans 1:22
Always learning never coming to the knowledge of the TRUTH.
Amen
To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.. Psalm 14:1
How telling that scientific textbooks don't contain lists of insults to throw at creationists.
@@joshuakohlmann9731 well, they arent scientific textbooks. they are fantasies.
What makes me laugh out loud is the fact that even Darwin put it in his book that if certain criteria were not met, this theory would be wrong. And those criteria have never been met.
So true.The natural man has come up with such stupidity throughout history to try and get rid of the God they hate.In other words,a natural man can be made to believe anything but the truth.It takes the power of God to change a man from a God hater,to A GOD LOVER!
True...The cell is immensely complex and transitional animals (links missing because they are mythical) have not been found....
@@alantasman8273 are you claiming “transitional” fossil have not been discovered?
@@CaptainFantastic222 are you claiming there are transitional fossils?
@@chloemartel9927 Yes, in fact you can go to certain natural science muesems and see them yourself
13:37 "Its like saying that scrambling information in a computer programme could result in better software being written by random process".
I am going to assume here you have never heard of "Evolved Circuits". This is process by which random 'mutations' of information and artificial selection produces an electronic circuit design to perform a particular job. There is a whole field of study delving into Evolutionary Electronics.
This is doing EXACTLY what you deride as clearly ridiculous. 🤷♂
Just going to add the point that this evolution of a circuit starts with zero information, and by random mutation and selection, CREATES information. A process which according to you and fellow creationists is clearly impossible.
There's a lot of (wilful) misunderstanding here.
On the difference between artificial and natural selection. 5:43
Artificial selection is constrained by time, more so than by genes. Humans haven't been around long enough to affect other species in the way that nature itself has.
Natural selection, on the other hand, is less constrained by time. You have to remember that over billions of years new genetic information is brought to the table. This gives natural selection more access to raw material than artificial selection.
It's an equivocation fallacy to apply the same constraints to two vastly different modes of evolution.
.......
Macroevolution is just microevolution over a longer time period. Disbelieving macroevolution whilst accepting microevolution is equivalent to believing that thousands of dollars can exist but completely denying that billions of dollars can exist.
Find better arguments.
I am an evolutionist and this does not make me crazy. In fact I love the questions raised. This is science, a problem is raised to your ideas and you explore further.
That is a good point. However, I believe what is most important is how one explores their ideas. I further believe that many people put more into the word. Science ! Than what is really there. According to Websters, science merely means knowledge .But that is mans knowledge which cannot hold a candle to the knowledge of an Almighty God . For example: Take two scientists that are studying the universe. One believes in an Almighty God and the other does not. The one that does Believes in God will put his findings under the lens of the Bible. Where as the non believing scientists will develope a theory that he just cannot explain. He then may do 1 of 2 things. He will either become so frustrated that he cannot explain or prove his theories and spend the rest of his life time trying. 2 he will surrender and say. An Almighty Creator is the only thing that I can prove . So it is very important what mindset is applied before one test their ideas. Now I don't know about you. But I would rather consider myself a hand made creation of an Almighty God versus being the product of an Ape! How about you?
@@kenlucero3651 thanks for the reply. To me science is a method where ideas are put forward that can and should be both questioned and tested. This is why I like evolution because it is an amazing set of ideas that thousands of people have added their ideas to. Questions force scientists to rethink and revisit their ideas.
@@michaelatkinson4815 I also am grateful for your reply ! If I may say, I am really enjoying this conversation and again you have made a very good point. As I said. The mindset that one applies to their study is crucial. For example: Darwin did not conduct his studies as a means to learn the origins of man. I believe that He conducted his studies as a means to refute the Bible. This became a dangerous a concept in which the most evilist one uses to deceive people and tear them away from God which is his chief goal. I further believe that an evolutionist begins his study from the bottom up meaning with his finite knowledge of ideas he has at that time. Where as a creationist begins his study from the top down meaning with the knowledge he has of an Almighty God at the time he began his study . I realize this may be a difficult concept to grasp . Now as a Christian I have studied God in my church Bible study and I have found that our human ways are totally opposite of Gods. For example:
Some people believe that Archeology proves the Bible, where as I believe the Bible proves Archeology ! So you see it is all about the mindset. And as humans I believe our minds are finite where as Gods is infinite. We have impossibilities where as God does not. I also believe that Jesus IS God in the flesh and He is inviting you to spend eternity with Him. For the alternative to that is condemnation in the pit of hell for all eternity. And as Catholics are taught to believe in a Purgatory that doesn't exist. So I I ask you. Where you like to spend eternity?
The purpose of science and the scientific method is never to find the truth rather to find error. Science is ever questioning, ever testing and always challenging the orthodoxy. Those who say “the science is settled” usually political zealots and not true to the fundamental purpose of science.
@@g.alistar7798 Well I must give credit where credit is due. That was very eloquently and professionally put. If I were a covetousness person I would wish that I made that I made that comment ! Good job.
Alright, Calvin, where do I even start? You've taken Hans Christian Andersen's "Emperor's New Clothes" and tried to dress it up as a critique of evolution. Spoiler alert: you've completely missed the point.
1. "Natural selection isn't evolution."
This is a classic creationist mix-up. Natural selection *is* a major mechanism of evolution-it explains how traits that enhance survival are passed on. Microevolution (small changes within species) and macroevolution (larger changes leading to new species) aren't two separate processes. They're the same process over different timescales. Think of it like walking: one step won't get you far, but thousands of steps over time will.
2. "There are limits to variation."
Wrong. Variation happens through mutations, which *add* genetic information, not just subtract it. For instance, gene duplications can create extra copies of genes, which can mutate into new functions. That's not science fiction-it's observed in real life. The evolution of antifreeze proteins in Arctic fish and nylon-eating bacteria are prime examples of entirely *new* functions arising through mutations.
3. "Mutations break things."
Yes, some mutations cause harm-no one's denying that. But mutations can also be neutral or beneficial, depending on the environment. Ever heard of sickle cell anaemia? It's harmful in one context but provides resistance to malaria in another. Evolution works with what's available and adapts to circumstances. It's not "random chaos"; it's natural selection acting on variation.
4. "Dogs never have wings."
Well, no one's claiming they will. Evolution isn't magic. A Chihuahua doesn't sprout wings overnight. But dogs, birds, and even humans share common ancestors-just go back far enough. Fossil evidence shows transitional forms, like Archaeopteryx, which had both feathers and dinosaur-like features. These aren't fairy tales-they are fossils.
5. "You can't add new cards.”
Except, you can. DNA isn't a static deck of cards-it's a dynamic system. New genetic material can arise through duplications, horizontal gene transfer, and other processes. That's been shown repeatedly in experiments and in nature.
6. Macroevolution hasn't been observed."
Really? Speciation *has* been observed both in the lab and the wild. Fruit flies, cichlid fish, and even plants have shown clear examples of populations diverging into distinct species. Evolution is a slow process, but we've still seen the beginnings of it happening right in front of us.
7. "Darwin didn’t know genetics."
True, but modern science does. Darwin's ideas were groundbreaking for his time, but genetics and DNA have since confirmed and expanded on his work. You can't dismiss evolution because Darwin lacked our current understanding-that's like rejecting physics because Newton didn't know about quantum mechanics.
8. "The Bible explains it better."
Sure, if you prefer myths over evidence. The Bible says animals reproduce "according to their kinds," but science shows all life shares a common ancestry. Genetic similarities across species, fossil records, and observed evolution provide more coherent explanations than "because God said so."
So, no-natural selection isn't a fancy cloak hiding flaws in evolution. The evidence is overwhelming, and clinging to outdated arguments doesn't make the emperor any less naked.
Dr George Wald, in his Nobel acceptance speech said that there are only two possibilities for the origins of life, spontaneous generation or divinecreation. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago. But that leaves us with only one alternative, and as we cannot accept that on philosophical grounds, we continue to choose to believe the impossible that life arose by chance from nothing.
How was spontaneous generation disproved?
@@Jewonastick Spontaneous generation is outdated. it's the old hypothesis that life randomly generates on decaying organic material. They used to think that's what maggots were. It was disproved by Pasteur. Sadly, this guy still completely missed the boat because abiogenesis is the slow formation of life over time from its basic components, not the refuted hypothesis from hundreds of years ago.
He was simply wrong, this is a false dichotomy.
That's not what Abiogenesis is lol.
Indeed, you can't prove a bigfoot does not exist by pointing to the absence of evidence. Spontaneous generation might be possible under very specific circumstances.
@@Jewonastick Rather, it has never been demonstrated, even in a lab setting. I think scientists have been able to create 1 amino acid in a lab setting... which is a fundamental building block... but the remaining 19 are still a work in progress.
Around the 12:20 mark he sort of nails what apologists try to hide about evolution, which is "mutations" occur, but the mutations occur on something that already exists leading to a growing branch of the evolutionary tree. This is why big cats are related to small cats or wolves related to dogs, or humans related to other primates. There is no wild production of something completely unrelated to the original gene pool. You don't go from a fish to a human on the next mutation and what determines a new species is when the mutations soon make it impossible to have offspring with the original species who had the mutation. While this mutation often requires thousands of years to directly observe it, there are things that do create new species that are observable in our lifetime. Apologists like to call this micro evolution and of course agree that this exists but claim that because we cannot observe macro evolution, it does not exist. Sort of ironic isn't it considering we cannot physically observe God yet that exists. There is no micro and macro evolution, there is just evolution. While evolution does dispel the Adam and Eve story, it doesn't rule out the existence of Deities, only that evolution could have been their solution to the formation of life in our universe. There are Christians who accept the true science of evolution while still accepting the Christian religion.
In Europe and in other parts of the world, the major Christian churches, Protestants as well as the conservative Catholic Church, have no problem with the theory of evolution since decades. Seems to be mainly a problem in the US-America.
Most of what drives evolutionists crazy is the truth.
Their craziness is the result of cognitive dissonance resulting from science exposing their dogma for the myth that it is. They are having difficulty grasping that their house of cards crafted over 150 years is infested with error.
The more information that comes out, the more we find out that we have been lied to for years. Evolution is nothing but a big lie.
What makes creationists crazy are the facts.
That's why Jesus said he is the truth because all other "truths" simply fade away.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am lthe way, and mthe truth, and nthe life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
As a Catholic school child, when school was out, I would walk across the street to the public library and wait there for my mom to pick me up. In that public library, there was one of those classic "ape to man" evolutionary images. I recall thinking, 'hmm, that makes sense.' Which is sad considering I was in a Catholic school! Even sadder is the fact that I wasn't learning a biblical world view at the Catholic school.
Fast forward to my teen years. My mom becomes born again, and takes me out of the Catholic school. I also become born again and have grown in my faith, mainly because of being plugged in to solid, bible based churches.
"In the beginning, God CREATED..."
Are you saying Catholics are not born again?
@@ngabacletus9677 No, I'm just saying my mom and I were not.
Asking respectfully: Why aren't Catholic churches bible-based?
@@Makai77 ah ok, I get that 🤝
@@tropicalcocktails4104 I think it it depends on the individual church. There are "protestant" churches that are Bible based too.
While I agree with the explanation given in this video, the Achilles’ heel to this theory is the fact that people promoting it say the Earth is only 6 to 10,000 years old.… if you push that as fact, nobody will listen to anything else you have to say.
* also that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time… and T-Rex was a vegetarian.
You need to read Contested Bones. Then you won't be as ignorant. All those bones you call "dinosaur" have pathology. Did you know that? Nope. You didn't. So digging up Andre the Giant, and claiming all humans were 8 feet tall and 600 pounds, is shameful logic.
@@ludwigkirchner08 so you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old? If you say yes to that, then nothing else you say on this topic deserves respect.
@@amark350
You didn't address what I wrote, genius.
@@ludwigkirchner08 Your fear to answer the question speaks enough to settle if for me... you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old so nothing more to say. Do you believe the Earth is flat?
In short, why would I investigate "your evidence" if my mind is already made up.
That's like a flat Earther asking me to "review all his evidence"... as if it would somehow change my mind. why would I do it? Or someone that has a bunch of evidence on UFO abduction. Why waste the time?
From a "logical" standpoint - if we believe that God can create the universe and everything in it... it isn't that big of a mental leap to believe he could create some things to be older than others. If we, as humans, can produce art, clothing, or media that appears to be older than they actually are - surely God could produce rocks that seem, by all modern testing methods, older than they are.
I still believe in a book that features talking snakes donkeys eagles and bushes and lots of other absurdities tho . Go Jesus !
I hope you find Jesus! Jesus loves you! Jesus saved my life! From suicidal to SAVED! Read the Bible! Pray! Have Faith! God bless! Repent and follow Christ! Jeremiah 29:11 Psalms 62:1-2✝️🤍💪🙏 Jesus knows your name. Seek Him!
@@Kyle22oifer does Jesus love everyone unconditionally ? 🤔
@@Kyle22oifer I hope you find science and reason.
The things science cant explain, pattern recognition always can. Science cant explain why you can youtube millions of people who have miracle healing overnight that science cant explain like diseases removed, or dead kidneys completely healed in 24 hours, or metal plates in someones leg dissolving overnight, with the medical records to prove them. These people 99% of the time attribute their miraculous healing to Jesus. Betting your eternal soul on something that cant explain miracles, when our universe's existence is a miracle within itself, is not smart. Romans 1:22 - Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Repent and believe in Jesus Christ, the true miracle maker. Not "theories" when the definition of a theory is something that cannot be proven but is just believed. When Jesus Christ proves himself time and time again to those who love him.
The moment a person allows doubt and distrust for God to take root in their thinking, is the moment that a chain reaction of all the seeds of evil begin germinating in the mind. The ability to believe what God has made abundantly easy to see and understand leaves a person and the scales of spiritual blindness grow rapidly. Envy and ego, greed and jealousy, shame and pride take over a persons' reasoning and motivations in life. The need to prove ones thoughts and ideas and motives become insatiable. Thanks for sharing this well presented explanation we should all be well grounded in as believers.
I am an atheist, I don't feel anything taking over - If you personally have an issue with these things, then that is because of your brain chemistry.. You might have a faulty brain.. Like many other people..
I once was a doubter. Back around 1993. I told God just what I was but at the same time prayed every day for months using Jeremiah 33.3 KJV as part of my prayer. Also told him I would go where ever he required regardless of friends or family including my wife. Well that never turned out good but my answer from God changed my life forever. He led me to the right church to be able to understand the bible including the prophecy of Daniel and Revelation. Life has never been the same as I know where this is all going. One more thing to happen worldwide and then the end of time will come rushing. Like it will only be a few years more or so after this ww event takes place. No I do not know the day or hour. Who does say they do are a liar. However this ww event will separate the wheat from the Tares. A big shaking coming in all churches. I have about 20 million more who will agree with me.
@@razark9 Thank you for proving my point. All people are evil. Christians are no exception, but they are forgiven of their evil nature and their sins are Passed over by the grace of God through the sacrifice of the Savior. The only difference is we believe what God says and we do not doubt him. Christians are not cut off from God. Unbelievers are cut off from God by their own choice. Unless they humble themselves and utterly yield to God and seek His mercy and His forgiveness, there is no way they can overcome the separation from God. And cut off from God an unbeliever will never comprehend the anything pertaining to God or how He works.
@@glennbrooks3449 everyone doubts or does not trust God before they are redeemed by God. God calls people to Him, not the other way around. We respond or refuse God's calling. You weren't hardened in your heart to God's calling, otherwise you wouldn't have been digging for truth. If you were, you would not have been seeking God's help, you wouldn't have been talking to God. The kind of doubt I'm referring to above is when a person is being called by God, when God is opening their eyes to His truth. If a person refuses to believe and trust God once they recognize He is calling them, their heart will harden against Him. God is long suffering beyond anything we can imagine, but if one refuses God, if a person hardens his heart and refuses to trust God, then the things of God become vague and unintelligible to him. The truths of God become nonsense to the person who refuses God. That doesn't mean that God can't knock you to your senses, but those are called trials and you don't want that to be the way He calls you. But hardship is one avenue that does bring some people to their knees before God Almighty begging for redemption. The fact that this world is in for a cataclysmic reckoning has little to do with an individual's salvation. Maintaining your faith in God if you live to see this cataclysmic time is another story. There are thousand upon thousands of Christians living through unimaginable tribulation this very day and they have been living in terror for centuries. Today Christians are hunted and slaughtered for their faith in God in many parts of the world. This has been going on since the beginning of the church. Will it get worse in the end? Yes that is absolutely clear. But millions of Christians have lived in tribulation and died because of their belief in salvation through Jesus Christ's sacrifice. What you are focused on has always been happening to believers.
Sin is always the issue ie greed, pride, self, jealousy, turning away from, or denying Christ, taking God out of the picture for their
own deceitful acheivement and ...PRIDE!
I like the pacing of this video. I've seen lecture videos from the Ark encounter, and the lecturers speak so incredibly fast that it is difficult to take in and absorb what's being said. This one was well paced. Good job.
Do you want to ask an atheist any questions?
@@nosirrahonline They will happily ask you a million questions.
What they won't do is answer any.
Although the pace is better then the usual race to cram in as much crap as possible in the allotted time, they still do not have arguments that make ANY sense and which as usual fail to include any credible science. .
@@nosirrahonline what questions do you want to be asked
@@Moist._Robot if you do it's because Satan deceives you. revelation 12:9
Researchers from the University of Montana and the Georgia Institute of Technology have let a unicellular alga evolve into a multicellular organism. This is operational, repeatable science. Macro-evolution from one kind into another is an observable, scientifically verifiable fact.
Researchers from the University of Montana and the Georgia Institute of Technology have let a unicellular alga evolve into a multicellular organism."
Nah, you have been Lied To.. Those cells simply form COLONIES to fight off predators..
When the reproductive process starts again.. A single cell creature is always the result...
@@globalcoupledances "That is evolution!" DESPERATE MUCH?
In regards to potential sources of variation to choose from what about transposons, viral mutagenesis, and genetic drift?
Hey, don't bring in facts here! You know AIG hates them
Drift isn't a source of variation. Reply to discuss.
What do you think these things have to do with causing new information that changes one kind of organism into another? They work within the boundaries of organisms, and can cause harm or be fairly neutral.
Mutations involve loss of information
@@valeriegoldstein3483 "Mutations involve loss of information"
- not necessarily, sometimes the original phenotype is retained whilst an additional one is added
A great Maxim is this “DO NOT learn all you know about evolution from Creationists!”
However, as the video demonstrates, you CAN learn something about evolution from Creationists but there’s a catch!
If you only listen to Creationists, how can you separate: The correct from the incorrect, The wheat from the chaff, and The truth from the lies and fill in the missing perceptions? It's not easy unless you can see some light.
This might help.
1) Note that no mention is made of the possibility that "Beneficial Mutations" can sometimes if rarely, occur and be Naturally Selected. That adds NEW information to the gene pool.
2) Note that no mention is made of "Gene Duplication". This is a significant mechanism via which beneficial mutations can be retained without loss of the original function. That's ADDITION not SUBTRACTION.
3) Remember that the scientific model of reality includes plenty of evidence that the Earth is some 5,000,000,000 years old and not 6,000. No surprise therefore that some very slow evolutionary mechanisms have not been observed in the last 1000 years.
4) Note that whales have vestigial hind legs indicating evolution from land animals.
5) Remember that vaccination works via the natural selection of random mutations to DNA. Consequently, a vaccinated Creationist who denies the possibility of beneficial mutations is a walking contradiction.
6) Remember that the analysis of tell-tale genetic markers in DNA has led to the conclusion that Chimps are our closest relatives and our common ancestor species lived some 6,000,000 years ago.
7) Creationist commentators know all this. Ask yourself why they never mention it.
@Aron Gladden Check out the evolutionary history of the Covid 19 pandemic. A number of new strains have evolved since 2019 (That's less than a million years :-)). The mutations involved were not beneficial for us but they sure gave the virus many new leases of life. So you are quite wrong. We have seen many "Beneficial" Covid 19 mutations since 2019.
Vaccination has saved billions of lives and our modern world would not be possible without them. They work via the natural selection of beneficial mutations to DNA.
Perhaps you don't know about "Endogenous retroviral markers". :-) Those markers and the genetic molecular clock are how we know that chimps are our closest relatives and that our common ancestor species lived some 6,000,000 years ago.
As for "all scientific evidence" you don't seem to know about the evidence in Geological strata, tree rings, ice cores, radiocarbon dating, Uranium decay dating, the fossil record, and the correlations of all that with the Milancovitch Cycles. Have you been skipping your homework assignments?
Evolutionists know all this and so do many Creationists but they don't let on.
@Aron Gladden The DNA of all of the many covid strains has been fully sequenced. Is it really your view that the DNA of later variants can be found in the DNA of earlier ones? If you are right about that then we could prove it by downloading the DNA files and get ourselves Nobel Prizes! You up for that?
I note that you don't deride the significance of the cross-correlation seen between the various dating methods and their correlation with the Milankovitch cycles. Does that mean you don't know about these things.
Same goes for the history of smallpox, Polio, and many other nasty diseases that are held in check by vaccination.
Perhaps the next time you create a video trying to talk about what evolutionary biologists believe, you should bring on a well-respected evolutionary biologist and add their unedited, fully contextual arguments in with your video. Then, you can explain why you believe they’re wrong. This video format doesn’t perform any meaningful debate because it’s just “I will present to you the information I want you to know, then explain why the information I presented is wrong; oh, and I won’t respond when I’m told I didn’t explain things well/give the whole story.”
Im all for discourse, just proper discourse.
A debate between Calvin and someone like Forrest Valkai would be absolutely hilarious
There's plenty out there
@@sonus89you can observe *microevolution* of bacteria and the evolution of traits that scientists consider “analogous to macro evolutionary processes.” But your bacteria remained bacteria at the end of the study didn’t they? So he’s right speciation of entirely new taxonomic groups has never been observed which is clearly his argument in the video.
@@fitforlife3168what happens though if let’s say a dog mates with another animal species, wouldn’t that increase the available gene pool? I’m just speculating, but, for example, can a bird egg be fertilized by dog or fish sperm into some kind of new animal species? I think the answer must be no or scientists would have already done it. Anyway, just curious.
As someone with a degree in Anthropology, who studied evolutionary biology, this is like listening to someone explain how the Earth can't possibly be round or we'd all roll off of it. This guy does a great job of explaining away something he either doesn't have the slightest understanding of or is purposely being dishonest about.
Ok, first off. Darwin didn't understand anything about the biology, the genetics, or the concept of inheritance that made natural selection (part of, but not all of) a viable explanation for evolution. Trying to take the words of someone that didn't understand evolution and use those misunderstandings to disprove a completely different concept of mutation, is incredibly disingenuous.
Can a dog grow wings when they don't have feathers? Over the span of tens of thousands of years, yes. How do we know that? Because we have fossil records of feathers developing over the course of thousands of years from scales, then to quills, then to feathers. Over the span of ten thousand life spans, could a dog, through natural selection, select for thicker skin, then scaly skin, then scales, then quills, then feathers, yes. And again, we have fossil records of this exact thing happening.
The card analogy, btw, the line, "You might lose cards, but you can't ever select for new ones that don't exist." This is true in cards, but it isn't true in genetics. In genetics, each time a cell splits, there are mutations where the new cell DNA doesn't copy correctly. Why yes, this means new, never seen before "cards" are put in the deck. You don't get a new mole on your back at age 40 because it was in your DNA all along. That's new information. That's a new card.
You're only driving evolutionists crazy because you're grossly ignorant of science.
It's funny how everybody else here "knows more" than the ones who actually study it.
He’s explaining things in a way that people like you, without a scientific PhD and decades of research experience, can understand. There are many highly respected mathematicians, physicists, biologists, chemists and engineers just like him. Learn something new.
(5:36) You say evolutionists are trying to convince people of something no one has ever seen, referring to macroevolution. Well, Religionists are trying to convince people of god, something no one has ever seen. Furthermore, Creationists are always referring back to Darwin, while we have learned SO MUCH MORE, stuff that Darwin had no idea about.
Thank you for being the voice of reason, I missed normal people so much
you're confusing having a religious faith with accepting something as scientific fact when it does have gaps and real science is always changing, so a decade from now we could have an entirely new theory.
@@Seashellsbytheseashore21 Not confused, just making a comparison. Religion claims to have the answer, while Science seeks to question. Science doesn't like faith. Religion doesn't like doubt.
People seen and documented seeing Jesus Christ, who was God incarnate. So yes we have.
@@irishwarlord100 I have had hallucinations, but it doesn't prove anything.
Outstanding analysis, concise, informative, easy to understand. Well done
@@Bomtombadi1 How droll, what you have just posted leaves anyone that reads it dumber as a result.
♦️Only dummies or idiots will believe in evolution! Because they reason or think like apes.
@@Bomtombadi1 when was the last time you saw a liberal comedian? They all became bitter monologuist with daddy issuess. 😖
@@Bomtombadi1 ♦️I believe in Creation, only when it is based on the Word of God.
♦️NB: Jehovah created all things and He made them perfectly. Whatever God made does not need any improvement from man.
♦️Whenever Man tries to improve what God made, he destroys the authenticity of that thing.
@@phoebemulube4451 very sad how so many were sucked into believing an injection could "improve" the human genome with UNKNOWN ingredients.
THEY always knew what they were doing.
So how do you explain ERVs confirming the relationships between vastly different species? And can someone explain what a "kind" is?
The same intelligence is behind all creatures. A kind is a category like "family" or "order" that we use to group similar animals today.
What's an ERV? What are you considering "vastly different"?
Different KINDS refers to differences in a specific species, ie, Bears. There are several different bears, yet all are of the same "kind".
Yes it's such a head scratcher all matter is made of atoms and all life is made from atoms!? And " kind" for exampleis the canine pool. If y9u take a particular canine swimin̈g everyday ( and all it's offspring) til the stars burn out the last one will still be a canine.
Thank you for this clear cut easy to digest take on micro/macro evolution fib that’s being forced on us. God bless you and all you do.
Funny thing is he says natural selection is not evolution. And - he's right. It's not. And I don't think any evolutionists ever said that.
@@maninhat77 Evolutionist always give natural selection as evidence for evolution...that was the entire premise of Darwin.
there is no direct observational of macro-evolution.
@@HS-zk5nn There can't be, by definition. Macroevolution is simply microevolution over a larger time scale.
@@joshuakohlmann9731 that has no direct observational evidence. thus cant be proven by science by definition
Scientists (at least good ones) don't say "You're so foolhardy for your beliefs."
Science is *not* about ridiculing those who believe in religion.
It is about inviting *discourse*.
Religion invites dogma, which prevents discourse. If this were not the case, it's even possible that science and religion would not be at odds as they are currently.
Wait a minute, even if evolution was wrong how does that make Genesis true? Genesis is a re-working of older Mesopotamian creation and flood stories. Why would it take a revelation to tell people animals come in "kinds"? Genesis also says there is a cosmic ocean that is above and below heaven. Special doors open in the flood story to allow the water to flood the Earth. It's a bunch of ancient guesses at how the world works.
Nah you’re wrong
@@caininabel1529 Which thing?
@@caininabel1529n
Lalalalala my god is stronger than your thinky thing! Gotchya! 🤡
I find it curious that he mentioned mutations and forgot to mention positive or even neutral gene mutations. Not every mutation results in something bad happening, if that were the case, then there would theoretically be a "perfect" genome somewhere out there, zero flaws, but that would have been at the beginning of gene based life. Take for instance, the ability for humans to drink milk from non humans, its not a normal trait, it was a random mutation that came along. Doesn't seem very negative to me, it seemed to actually help as it expanded the sources of calcium and other minerals humanity can gain access to.
Gotta love people claiming to have questions that drive 'X Community' crazy, then proceeding to ignore the information that doesn't prove their point. It's not the deck of cards that dictates the traits of an organism, its the combinations in which they are played in the game we call life. Take a look at a chart that has the combinations of amino acids in DNA, some of them give different results, some have multiple trios that give the same result. This results in some mutations being positive, some neutral with no effect and some negative.
Thanks for coming to my TEDTalk
I was thinking the same thing. Not as detailed as you, but, he ignores Downs Syndrome. Which is the result of an extra added chromosome to someones DNA. While not good, it shows that "Cards" can be added to a deck. And he doesn't deal with the fact that, in a given population, an animal or plant from 1 species can successfully mate with an animal or plant from another species. Thus adding cards to a given deck. And mutations happen. So, while on it's face [pun intended] the card analogy is compelling, I don't think it works in the natural world. Clearly, it doesn't because I think dog DNA from Wolves alone, doesn't have all the variations we see today. Unless wolves are like DNA master class with every possible combination built within. There's no way a wolf pack would ever naturally have a Pug, Lab, or Great Dane looking dog in the mix. Those must have been natural mutations, changes to what was to create what is. Now, was God part of that? Or did God create the system that allowed for that. I think that's a better question.
"Nebulous-Draco" - You wrote, "Thanks for coming to my TEDTalk."
LOL! In your next TEDTalk you should also discuss the occurrence of gene duplication mutations, which even adds sections of genetic material that were not even there before, which then down the line further mutations do their thing and the new genetic material can end up being used by the organisms. And, of course, there are things like transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous retroviruses, all of which give very strong evidence for common ancestry, and which contradicts the "baraminology" concept of some kind of "mutations limit" between "kinds" ("baramin" - which literally has no scientific definition at all; indeed, creationists can't even agree among themselves what these supposed "baramin" are - except of course they all agree that humans constitute a "baramin" because of Adam and Eve in the creation myth in Genesis).
@@jamesvaughn7389 The very bizarre aspect of the young earth creationist "baraminology" concept is that young earth creationists (well, the young earth creationist who use the argument; because not all young earth creationists agree with it) end with the evolution of millions and millions of species populating the planet WITHIN THE LAST 4,350 YEARS. So "baraminology" entails superfast hyperdrive rate of evolution a million times faster than anything ever proposed by evolutionary biologists or paleontologists. Young earth creationists choke on a gnat, and swallow a camel. What a joke.
@@steveg1961 Right. Well, as an aexample of how little this person knows about DNA. Do a little research into Barbara McClintock and transposable DNA. It's a concept that DNA can transpose itself to create new mutations within the DNA chain. Simply put, DNA can mutate itself to create something that wasn't there prior. Now, I ask, is that God? Or is that God acting through natural methods and devices?
The fact of the matter is, every mutation creates a LOSS of viable genetic information. The overall DNA of plants, animals, and humans has been gradually degrading since scientists have been able to accurately measure, quantify, and identify the DNA of all living entities. Oh, and make sure you have some cookies with your milk.
The deck of cards analogy is totally wrong. New genes can arise by well understood mechanisms
They don’t care about that.
Microevolution equals macroevolution, accepting one will inevitably lead to the other, evolution doesn't stop at some time it goes on forever as long as the creature's lineage exists, it is a process that lasts millions of years because each major mutation is small and almost non visible, we only see those changes when the species already separated completely, it is similar as to how we don't see the changes in our body from when we are a baby to when we are an adult, you can take photos but there will not be a "transitional" photo that is gonna make it clear when you stopped being a baby or a kid, that's what happens to the transitional fossils that we have, they are so similar to us genetically and physically that when you make a line with all of them chronologically located it all leads to a clear pattern of evolution over the millions of years that they existed to the bones of us living today, I would be happy to see you guys trying to debate with someone with at least basic knowledge of evolutionary biology because I'm certain that those arguments wouldn't last a minute.
@@josephthinn3900 There are a lot of wrong things to unpack here.
You mention organ evolution. I ask you to read the article "The Evolution of Complex Organs" (Gregory, 2008). It is a pretty long read, and it includes a case study regarding the evolution of eyes.
@@josephthinn3900
1. The skin
2. The stomach
3. The brain
4. The liver
5. The heart
6. The kidneys
7. The pancreas
8. The upper intestine
9. The lungs
10. The lower intestine
Ok but, what about a Whales hip bone…or a snakes shoulder bone….or other organs/structures in the body of creatures that are now seemingly useless
They don’t mention those as they want to believe in fairy tales.
@@kimsoares3271 Have you ever looked at a painting or a building and was able to recognize who the maker was? Would you think they made themselves too?
Of course not.
Remember a fairytale about a 🐸 turning into a 🤴 from a kiss?
Another one is where a 🐸 turnes into a 🤴 from "Time"
@@elguapo2831 they are not living beings darling
@@Bashbekersjiw Who.
@@elguapo2831 bro has no understanding of evolution XDD
God made me and He loves me
I have to admit I am jealous. To have a personal relationship with a god and the creator of the universe has to feel amazing.
@@CaptainFantastic222 you apparently don't want it because you don't have it.
@@CaptainFantastic222 you won't find God unless you search for Him. Sitting in a pew doesn't guarantee a relationship with Christ. It is between you and God alone. You didn't try. You went through the worldly motions and the world can never bring you to God.
Not through faith or works but grace alone.... you can't say he didn't try how dare you.
@@mattjones7101 I dare because it is obvious he has not seeked Jesus. He trolls for the devil and supposedly wonders why God is elusive.
The framework of Evolution is the best explanation for the development of complex life on Earth.
What are you going to use to support this claim. Do, you have evidence to support the mythical common ancestor? What examples of organisms of today can you use to support dinosaur to to bird or land animal to whale, or even ape like to ape and ape man?
Your lean, extra lean,, on evidence.
@@rtmcdge Yes there is plenty evidence both in the fossil record and the human genome that supports the existence of a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. This would be the Sahelanthropus tchadensis which lived about 7 million years ago. As far as land animal to whale, Cetaceans have a common ancestor with modern-day artiodactyls such as the cow, the pig, the camel, the giraffe and the hippopotamus. There is again ample evidence in the extant genome and the fossil record.
@@wadenovin2479 No, there isn't. If there was there'd be a whole lot less people who reject evolution. There has probably never been a speculation that has been so accepted but is so still rejected by other scientists.
All of what you are claiming is only unsubstantiated speculation.
Hundreds of millions of years, STILL NOT SUPPORTED WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
But, there is other evidence disputing this. "Newly Published Analysis Refutes Claims that Sahelant"
hropus tchadensis Was Human Ancestor...These claims have led to much disagreement in the paleoanthropology community. Brigitte Senut, of the Natural History Museum in Paris, called Toumai “the skull of a female gorilla,” and co-wrote in Nature, along with Milford H. Wolpoff, Martin Pickford, and John Hawks, that “Sahelanthropus was an ape,” not bipedal, and that many features “link the specimen with chimpanzees, gorillas or both, to the exclusion of hominids.” This debate has continued.More Discovered than Reported
It turns out that there was more of Sahelanthropus discovered than was initially reported. At the end of 2020, nearly two decades after the fossil was first reported, the debate was seemingly settled when the femur of Sahelanthropus was finally described. The technical paper, “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” published in the Journal of Human Evolution, confirmed that Sahelanthropus was a quadruped with a chimp-like body plan. New Scientist explained the implications of the new study:
The leg bone suggests that Sahelanthropus tchadensis, the earliest species generally regarded as an early human, or hominin, didnʼt walk on two legs, and therefore may not have been a hominin at all, but rather was more closely related to other apes like chimps.
As the technical paper put it:
A partial left femur (TM 266-01-063) was recovered in July 2001 at Toros-Menalla, Chad, at the same fossiliferous location as the late Miocene holotype of Sahelanthropus tchadensis (the cranium TM 266-01-060-1). … The results of our preliminary functional analysis suggest the TM 266 femoral shaft belongs to an individual that was not habitually bipedal, something that should be taken into account when considering the relationships of S. tchadensis. … In terms of size and shape, the external morphology of the shaft is closer to that of the common chimpanzee than to modern humans, gorillas, or orangutans. … Likewise, the cross-sectional morphology of the TM 266 distal shaft is most similar to that of Pan [chimpanzees]. … Given the results of the comparative analyses in the previous section, the overall morphology of TM 266 appears to be closer to that of common chimpanzees than to that of habitually bipedal modern humans. … Given the broader comparative context of the morphology of the TM 266 femur, there is no compelling evidence that it belongs to a habitual biped, something that would strengthen the case for S. tchadensis being a hominin."
Source: evolutionnews.org/2021/02/newly-published-analysis-refutes-claims-that-sahelanthropus-tchadensis-was-human-ancestor/
Come on, if you are going to make claims, at least do some research. I'll point out this. "The technical paper, “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” published in the Journal of Human Evolution, confirmed that Sahelanthropus was a quadruped with a chimp-like body plan. New Scientist explained the implications of the new study:
So, now, you see, there is much more to the story that you seem not to be aware of.
And your claims of "much more", for this, "Cetaceans have a common ancestor with modern-day artiodactyls such as the cow, the pig, the camel, the giraffe and the hippopotamus. There is again ample evidence in the extant genome and the fossil record." is grossly overstated.
The evolutionists have not come into an consensus as to what mythical land animal that was the ancestor of the whale.
And all the while, this is contradicted each time it is seen that only whales give birth to baby whales.
So, all you have is misinformation and unsubstantiated speculation to rest your beliefs on.
NOT SCIENCE.
@@wadenovin2479 "Articles by Brunet and colleagues in the journal Nature called it “the earliest known hominid ancestor,” or more cautiously proposed it as “close to the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.” Although Brunet’s technical paper at the time admitted that “There is not yet sufficient information to infer reliably whether Sahelanthropus was a habitual biped,” he and his team proposed that “such an inference would not be unreasonable given the skull’s other basicranial and facial similarities to later fossil hominids that were clearly bipedal.” To this day, the Smithsonian Institution calls it “one of the oldest known species in the human family tree.”
These claims have led to much disagreement in the paleoanthropology community. Brigitte Senut, of the Natural History Museum in Paris, called Toumai “the skull of a female gorilla,” and co-wrote in Nature, along with Milford H. Wolpoff, Martin Pickford, and John Hawks, that “Sahelanthropus was an ape,” not bipedal, and that many features “link the specimen with chimpanzees, gorillas or both, to the exclusion of hominids.” This debate has continued.
More Discovered than Reported
It turns out that there was more of Sahelanthropus discovered than was initially reported. At the end of 2020, nearly two decades after the fossil was first reported, the debate was seemingly settled when the femur of Sahelanthropus was finally described. The technical paper, “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” published in the Journal of Human Evolution, confirmed that Sahelanthropus was a quadruped with a chimp-like body plan. New Scientist explained the implications of the new study:
The leg bone suggests that Sahelanthropus tchadensis, the earliest species generally regarded as an early human, or hominin, didnʼt walk on two legs, and therefore may not have been a hominin at all, but rather was more closely related to other apes like chimps.
As the technical paper put it:
A partial left femur (TM 266-01-063) was recovered in July 2001 at Toros-Menalla, Chad, at the same fossiliferous location as the late Miocene holotype of Sahelanthropus tchadensis (the cranium TM 266-01-060-1). … The results of our preliminary functional analysis suggest the TM 266 femoral shaft belongs to an individual that was not habitually bipedal, something that should be taken into account when considering the relationships of S. tchadensis. … In terms of size and shape, the external morphology of the shaft is closer to that of the common chimpanzee than to modern humans, gorillas, or orangutans. … Likewise, the cross-sectional morphology of the TM 266 distal shaft is most similar to that of Pan [chimpanzees]. … Given the results of the comparative analyses in the previous section, the overall morphology of TM 266 appears to be closer to that of common chimpanzees than to that of habitually bipedal modern humans. … Given the broader comparative context of the morphology of the TM 266 femur, there is no compelling evidence that it belongs to a habitual biped, something that would strengthen the case for S. tchadensis being a hominin.
Since “the bone is curved, not straight, typical of apes like chimps,” New Scientist quoted the lead author Roberto Macchiarelli as saying, “There are a lot of indicators which deeply discourage bipedal gait.” Madelaine Böhme at the University of Tübingen in Germany said: “I saw the pictures 10 or 12 years ago, and it was clear to me that itʼs more similar to a chimp than to any other hominin.” Phys.org put the implications bluntly: Sahelanthropus “was not a hominin, and thus was not the earliest known human ancestor.”
This evidence forced the researchers to suggest that if Sahelanthropus were a human ancestor then that would mean bipedality is no longer a necessary qualification for status as a hominid - an unorthodox view that would cause great complications for the primate tree. As the recent article in the Journal of Human Evolution concluded:
Based on our analyses, the TM 266 partial femur lacks any feature consistent with regular bouts of terrestrial bipedal travel; instead, its gross morphology suggests a derived Pan-like bauplan. Thus, if there is compelling evidence that S. tchadensis is a stem hominin, then bipedalism can no longer be seen as a requirement for inclusion in the hominin clade.
Did Rivals Stonewall Publication?
New Scientist told one last part of this story that is potentially disturbing, most especially for those who think that the scientific community is always objective. First, New Scientist commented on the circumstances under which it took nearly 20 years for the femur - which apparently contradicts Brunet’s initial view that Sahalenthropus was a bipedal human ancestor - to be described:
The researchers found a femur, or thigh bone, along with two ulnas, or forearm bones, that would help clarify the matter, but they published nothing about them for almost two decades, prompting criticism from colleagues. Brunet didnʼt respond to a request for comment from New Scientist.
Why did it take so long for the femur to be described? As New Scientist explained, after the femur was discovered in 2004 it was brought to the University of Poitiers. Collaborators wanted to study the femur, but the two lead authors of the present study, Macchiarelli and Aude Bergeret-Medina, opted not to do this “until this could be checked with Brunet and his team.” What happened next was quite strange:
Later, Bergeret-Medina was unable to find the femur. Neither she nor Macchiarelli ever saw it again. However, when Brunetʼs team didnʼt describe the femur, she and Macchiarelli prepared a study using her photos and measurements.
Source: evolutionnews.org/2021/02/newly-published-analysis-refutes-claims-that-sahelanthropus-tchadensis-was-human-ancestor/
And the rest of your post is just as unsubstantiated.
@@rtmcdge "If there was [evidence] there'd be a whole lot less people who reject evolution. "
But there already AREN'T many people who reject evolution. Putting aside your fallacious reasoning there (that the number of people who reject evolution is a metric for its soundness), your premise is wrong, as it implies there are a large number of people who reject it. The only people who reject it are fundamental christians and muslims. The majority of the world (including virtually 100% of biologists and other natural scientists) already doesn't reject it.
And even still, as the first reply pointed out, we have tons of fossil evidence of human evolution ALONE, not to mention the countless other species of plants, animals, fungi, etc. And fossil evidence isn't even the be-all-and-end-all of evidence, as fossilization is hit and miss, so we're actually quite fortunate to have found what we have. More than that, we have incredibly detailed molecular genetic evidence of phylogenetic relationships, in the exact same way as we have DNA evidence of certain people being present at certain crime scenes (unless you'd just like to dismiss all of that as well). So when you ask 'what examples of organisms of today can you use to support your...ape like to ape and ape man' evolution, and the commenter gives a RECENT example -- i.e. a discovery from a few years ago, which, like all scientific papers of import, will be hotly debated for years -- and you simply use the controversy around that SINGLE example to dismiss the entirety of the evidence....is absurd. What about Homo habilis, the earliest known hominin? Or Homo erectus? Or all of the Australopithecus spp.? Sure, it's possible Sahelanthropus tchadensis specifically has been incorrectly classified (the analyses of the coming years will determine that; although, importantly, you have not shown that it IS, you have simply shown that there is not unanimous agreement about it), but those other examples like H. habilis are solidly established for decades.
What is your rationale for insisting these AREN'T hominins and hominids?
But there is literal evidence for evolution. We share large percentages of our DNA with other species like chimps and shrews. We have uncovered skulls and skeletons of our previous ancestors where changes are very clearly seen.
I am open to friendly debates in the reply section.
Supposedly - according to the theory of evolution - mutations provide new genes for changing one species to another. The problem is that no single gene can create a complicated new feature.
Small changes from micro-evolution may occur, but they don't add up together to create sophisticated new features like turning legs into wings or developing eyes or things of that nature. Complicated new traits require many new genes. So not only would you need to get a random beneficial mutation, but many such mutations spread many generations apart that are of no value or even harmful separately, but somehow magically persist for hundreds of thousands or millions of years until they all happen to combine in one organism and suddenly a creature has a new feature.
Frankly it's more plausible that aliens came to earth and made it all happen. I don't believe that by the way. That's just passing the buck of course as one has to ask, "Okay, so how did the aliens come into existence?"
Of course you can nitpick with how you define a species and pick nearly identical creatures like mountain lions and leopards or grizzly bears and brown bears and call them different species and cry, "See, evolution is real!", but that's being specious (hehe - made a little pun there.)
You're oversimplifying greatly by disregarding the functional intermediates in the evolution of complex structures. Wings evolved by modification of pre-existing structures and always involved a gliding intermediate. Bird wings, for example, are derived from the gliding "wings" seen in Microraptor, which are themselves exapted from feathers that covered the bodies of their ancestors for thermoregulation. (Some early dinosaurs had such high metabolisms that they would not have been able to survive without insulating feathers.) Even today there are organisms with functionally intermediate eyes, like the Euglena with simple photosensitive "eyespot" or mollusks with eyes of various structures.
Your final point about cats and bears brings the problem with Noah's Ark, which many creationists believe is literally true, to light. If one pair of cats can diversify into 41 extant species in only a few thousand years, and one pair of bears can diversify into eight extant species just as quickly, how can you claim it is impossible, even given just _one_ million years, for major diversification to happen?
@@inspirobotinspiration4360 Is there not a problem with diversification coming from death vs coming from life?
@@4eveRFab Who said diversification comes from death? Only organisms which _survive_ long enough to reproduce will pass on their genes.
Yeah - Ahh No, just mental gymnastic fodder. Everything is evolving all the time. You learn - you evolve, the environment changes - life evolves. Roaches now can eat petroleum products , microbes have been developed to degrade plastic which, buy the way, was introduced to the environment by a highly evolve tool using creature. Some guy sitting behind a desk tying together related ideas into a subject is evolution, clearly not a mutation that will survive as it creates a vacuum of obfuscation of the facts ….and….nature abores a vacuum …just like the video was. A whole lot of nothing sucking into an empty space.
Nice presentation, thank you!
Humans domesticated dogs around 23,000 years ago (only about 1900 generations). Evolution has had *billions* of years!
The analogy of the pack of cards is somewhat misleading too:- there are only four base (elements) A, G, C, T and about 3 billion base pairs per genome. And the bases could be arranged in any sequence. Maybe that explains why there are so many species of animals - the number of "combinations" of the bases might as well be infinite (not the case with combinations you could get with just 52 cards!). I think it is also feasible that genetic material might be added/subtracted to existing genomes by accident (mutation).
So, I think it's reasonable to suggest that when one human lives a few billion years they would observe "mutation" from one kind of animal into another.
But of course there is the fossil record.
On the other hand, the Bible is a book written by man under the guidance of a supernatural power.
I know which "story" sounds more plausible to me.
Why do creationists crave the acceptance of the scientific world? Videos like this present the creation story as if it were scientific. "Believe this because it is scientific and I speak very smoothly." They want the recognition and acceptance without having done the hard work that merits it.
If you want to claim the benefits of having something accepted as a legitimate scientific explanation, then you have to do the hard work.
- You first have to do formulate a hypothesis (well done so far, AIG!) and then do research that will prove it or disprove it. Scientists do research like this and often find out that they were wrong. Be prepared to face the fact that you could be wrong.
- Then you have to write a paper documenting what you were trying to prove with that research, and the results.
- Then you have to submit that paper to the world scientific community in a peer-reviewed journal and be prepared to answer the criticism that will come with it. Don't misunderstand: no one is singling you out for shoddy science when you are criticized. EVERY paper in a peer-reviewed journal is subject to the same merciless scrutiny.
Only then, after going through the wringer and getting general acceptance, can you produce honest videos in which you can legitimately claim that your claims should be considered a legitimate scientific explanation for thus-and-such phenomenon. That is the price to pay for that stamp of approval. You don't get to claim, "My idea is just as valid as the Theory of Evolution. It deserves as much recognition as this other theory over here" without having done this.
That is how you play in the big league. Rather than trying to convince people that your untested theory belongs in the same league as theories that HAVE been tested, it is far better to just be upfront and honest and tell people that your explanation is not there yet, that "It's just my own explanation. It's a story that just has to be taken on faith."
A slick video with a honey-voiced narrator does not equal scientific validity.
I think AIG knows how the process of peer review works but that there's another reason why they don't hand over their research papers
Sadly a video like this is enough to persuade the common person that has been indoctrinated from birth.
@@an9l1c1sm6 Yep.... 'There are some issues with what 99% of the scientific community has come to a consensus on, therefore MY GOD'.
@@Jewonastick I think so, too. The reason no one has turned over any research papers is because they don't have any research papers.
I really struggle with this. I'm a Christian but I find myself not believing the creation account in Genesis. To me, it is allegorical.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 I understand that creationism is not a religion, but when preachers "demand" that we who profess Him also believe it, it is difficult to bring the two together.
Jesus believed in Adam and Eve. Matthew 19. And Jesus was called the Son of Man (Ben-Adam). Sin entered mankind thru Adam, literally. Romans 5:12-21. Jesus is the new Adam, literally redeeming the human race, being the perfect sacrifice and the firstfruits of the resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:16-23
So Jesus believed in the account of Genesis literally, Jesus literally believed that He would die for the sins of many. And Jesus atoning for the sins of mankind is only possible in there was a literal Eden and literal Fall. No Fall, then why is Jesus necessary? No forbidden fruit, then why is creation corrupted? And if creation is corrupted by means other than man’s sin, then why does God hold us accountable for our evolutionary nature (horniness, violence, racism- we’re just animals after all)? So I believe in the Bible and do not believe that mankind evolved from any other creatures. I believe that Adam literally sinned and thus brought death, and Jesus literally defeated death and thus brings life. That is what the gospel is all about.
If its not true, then Jesus Himself was a liar, and why would you follow a man who either lied, or was delusionally false about human history and God’s existence/plan.
Jesus also literally believed in Noah (Matthew 24) and Jonah (Luke 11). So Jesus believes that the entirety of the Bible is true, given how He references the vast majority of the Torah and Prophets.
Praying for you, that your ur faith would grow, that the Lord would clarify certain things to you, confirm things for you, and that the Lord would guide you into the fullness of understanding He wants to bestow on you! Be strong, my sibling in Christ, continue to ask, seek, and knock!! You are loved!
@@lequsejones5384almost like you are in a cult
@@tuckerchisholm1005jesus was a first century, middle eastern cult leader. Nothing more. 😅
@@lequsejones5384 that's what I belive. The super preachy fundamentalist types only exist in the USA and most Christians around the world belive God made things through evolution. Understanding both would strengthen a person's faith and not the other way around. I recommend checking out channels like InspiringPhilosophy and Biologos.
I encourage everyone to watch the AIG playlist named "The new history of the human race."
Yes, an excellent series regarding the genetics of man and his dispersion after the flood.
@@razark9 What is AIG saying that is not scientifically accurate. Be specific.
Genesis 1 is truth because Moses said so. It feels good not to worry about anything, God did all the thinking for me. what a great God. Now i just die to get to paradise. Good thing someone told me about him otherwise id be damned.
Really? Moses told you this himself? How do you know he wasn't just telling you a porky pie to hide his ignorance?
The truth is; you ARE damned. You are going to waste your whole life hoping for an extremely unlikely reward you have no way of determining is real.
"Nature might select..." Who is Nature? Tell me about this being who has a mind and a will and makes selections.
I love this!
💯
Dude that is beautiful! God bless y'all in Jesus name Amen ❤️
Ye and who is evolution that decides
Selection takes intelligence...if we consider man part of nature...yes man breeds and natural selects...creatures in nature also select among size, color, coat, strength, intelligence..yet no new species is formed...just as he said ...the deck is shuffled.
This video is based upon a deeply flawed misunderstanding of evolution and genetics. Genes do not code for wings or feathers or anything like that. They code for proteins. That's it. Not whole body parts, not whole organs, not whole systems. That is not how genes work. Instead, different proteins are activated or disabled based upon other surrounding genes as determined by localized chemical signaling during cell replication. So, of course you'll never see a new organ pop into existence via genetics because that would violate not only genetics but evolutionary theory itself. Neither evolution nor genetics suggests such a thing.
TLDR version: The video targets what the author incorrectly thinks evolution is. But it isn't that thing. Therefore, it's attacking a strawman and the video is not of any value.
Yes, it is more than a simple gene mutation. Entire gene sequences need to be reprogrammed to create new proteins. Plus the developmental gene regulatory network (dGRN) needs to change too. So this means there is much more coordinated change needed to create a new organ and this makes creating new species even more difficult!! PS. Glad you are willing to watch this video and discuss.
Are there any observed instances of new organs evolving?
@@MusicalRaichu Yes. Many. Dawkins Book, "The Blind Watchmaker" is largely about this very topic.
@@globalcoupledances i mean are there instances of a population developing a new organ (including sufficiently changed existing organ to take on new function) that have been directly observed in the wild?
like we examine a specimen today to find different anatomy to what had been recorded say a century ago.
@@globalcoupledances i wouldn't mind seeing both actually.
8:40 I believe that the biggest problem with your analogy is that it doesn't take into account genetic mutations. What about when offspring have extra genetic code from a duplicate of a gene, or set of genes? (when you suddenly get an extra card in your deck)
Also if we're comparing suit color and rank with genetic sequences and traits...what happens when we get a blue 3 of diamonds instead of a red one? Yes maybe being blue makes the card unplayable in a deck, but in an animal it might be something as simple as increased muscle mass in the thighs or something. Very minor but probably pretty useful for some situations. Which of course increases their survival rate and makes it more likely for them to reproduce and pass down that genetic mutation
Doesn't take into account because it doesn't fit his fabricated story.
Interesting comment but you'd have to first give examples of genetic mutations making a species better and then carrying on that trait down it's offspring chain in order to use it for a Macro evolution argument.
Also, this is still just a example of adaptation or mutation within it’s already existing DNA that doesn’t make it anything but a dog still.
Actually it did consider mutations as the decks were rid of all of one type of card and or cards were destroyed and discarded...a good anology for mutations.
I believe your point of contention may have been addressed around 13:15 to 14:00
@@barendse1 Well to be clear genetic mutations most of the time don't make a species "better" (by that I'm assuming you mean, more fit for survival). But a good one would be bacteria being resistant to drugs, or maybe humans that have natural immunities to certain illnesses. The human that's resistant to malaria in a town that is riddled with malaria is certainly more likely to pass down those genetic traits than the person that dies from malaria at age 6.
And yes this is absolutely an example of a mutation. But what happens when the dog that is resistant to malaria also becomes shorter to more adequately hunt a new food source since it's old one died out. And then it gets a longer snout to hunt better. Maybe thinker fur to survive the changing climate. Maybe more webbing in their toes for just that .1% better efficiency in swimming. Maybe bones get lighter and more hollow to survive falls better. Etc. After a while the dog's ancestors start looking less and less like the "original" dog. And it's not just one direct line. There can be, and usually are several branches that will evolve in different ways if you will (Some will definitely go extinct though). Are you saying there's some limit to how different the "original" dog's ancestors can be to him? And if so how do you know that?
5.30 "Like all fiction, it's completely unobservable..." To assert this of the theory of evolution, and then offer The Bible as an alternative explanation is rich. The criticism of evolution offered here is persuasive, but evolution is still a sincere attempt to explain and understand the nature of living things, whereas The Bible offers implausible stories and magic as an explanation, which I don't find a satisfying alternative.
Forrest Valkai completely destroys this video and it wasn't even difficult for him to do so.. Religion will eventually die off after it continuously moves the goal posts after every scientific discovery.
@@arongladden8282 There are none so blind as he who will not see.
How ironic.
@@arongladden8282 I am absolutely talking about you.
@@arongladden8282 Sure thing.
@Aron Gladden LOL What??? Ok aron, what was Forrest wrong about in his video?
Just give me one thing he is wrong about.
Look, just because you don't understand what evolution is, doesn't make it wrong.
@Aron Gladden Give me an example then of something that would not qualify as evidence when it comes to Forrest's video?
You then make a blind observation that you understand evolution better than me, when you don't have any gauge to my knowledge on the subject at all. Why do you do that?
It seems like you don't have an argument at all and you are full of straw man points that are completely useless. "He is wrong because I say he is wrong" is a terrible debate strategy. Get back to me when you actually have something of substance to say.
13:26 it's funny how he tries to make an argument against mutations using computers, not being aware that genetic algorithms (which use the concept of mutation) have been used and studied in computer science for decades.
Engineers even use evolution-based simulations to optimize technical products.
@@h.gonyaulax2190 the point is...actual biological macro evolution doesn't , and didn't , happen.
@@Marra7777 I do not know the scientific background on which your statement is based. You are already aware that you are in contradiction to the absolute worldwide majority of all established scientists in this field.
Love from India. I like ray comfort tooo...
Thanks for all of the great content you make. One minor critique: You said "very unique" in this video. Unique means "totally unlike anything else", so something can be unique (or not), but it cannot be very "totally unlike anything else".
14.58 mins of sicense misrepresented followed by only 33 second to explain why the Bible's explanation makes perfect senses. I'm sorry I'm not convinced. Where is the observed evidence or demostrable experiment to prove god exists and that she made the world in only 7 days?
@Charlie Lewis Where is the observed evidence or demonstrable experiment that evolution made you from amoeba?
@@ДобрыйВестник Where is the evidence for the bigfoot in the bible?
This was well produced, liked it very much ! I’ll use it .
Many things can be simultaneously true and not mutually exclusive.
(Natural selection can be true, aNd God's Creation is true too)
There can be many truths in Lies...
...There are no lies in Truth.
Even the fossil record indicates that God created an abundant variety of life at the same time in without transitions...the supposed Cambrian explosion ....while not millions of years old is evidence for this.
There is no reasoning with a group that asks for evidence but feels they don't require any for their claims. This guy shows up every day with a new recycled claim that will wreck evolution. The lie that he perpetrates is amazing given his claims to morality based upon the bible. Ignoring the truth does not remove the burden of the misleading.
He only uses the same tool diabolical evolutionists have used that goes against all reason ,typically people only want to believe in evolution because they want to believe they are god themselves I am ruler of my destiny I believed in this lie as a child with no perspective it seems believable
1. 'Evolutionist' is a word you made up
2. Mutations are real and observable
3. Evolution is the non-random selection of random mutations
4. Which ones get selected is entirely determined by the environment and sexual selection processes
5. 'Kind' is a meaningless word. Similarly, 'species' doesn't have a clear definition either. It's merely how we describe different phenotypes, but they are completely man-made constructs to help us classify living things.
This video completely ignores the concept of mutation. And although artificial selection can help to understand how genotype manipulation can lead to very different phenotypes, human beings don't have the knowledge to select for genetic material to make a dog grow wings, and such a thing would most likely never evolve through natural selection anyway. Humans don't really know what we're doing when we mess with the genetic code of dogs - look at the poor bulldog. That thing is an abomination with a whole host of problems caused by the humans that created them.
1. You are incorrect on this point.
@@thedubwhisperer2157 As are you. Wasn't that constructive?
@@matthewstenger6150 No, really, 'evolutionist' is a real word. No offence intended.
@@thedubwhisperer2157 It is a word used by apologists to make it seem that evolution is on the same footing as creationism. Evolution is science, creationism is not. Instead of using that term, insert "rational thinking person who respects scientific consensus and the scientific method." Because "believing" in evolution is like believing in gravity or germs or that the earth is round.
@@matthewstenger6150 evolutionist
/ˌiːvəˈl(j)uːʃənɪst/
noun
a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.
adjective
relating to the theories of evolution and natural selection.
"an evolutionist model"
This is what I was thinking when I, as a teenager, was sitting in a 700 years old church, listening to the pastor talking about this God who nobody has ever seen or heard of in reality, staring at the altarpiece depicting god as an old bearded man hovering on a cloud looking down on earth. I wanted to shout out loud like the child in the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes" : "there is no god" An early age I figured out that if god really existed believe would not be required.
Exactly genetic entropy is what we are witnessing. Not the addition of new genetic information that creates novel functionality and structures. Every time I bring this up people try to fall back knto ad populum and "multiple fields" which correspond supposedly to corroborate the theory when in reality geomagnetism, astronomy, genetics and virology completely disagree with this notion. It's just that only a few people are actually looking past the indoctrination and asking the questions to get to the heart of the matter. And of course those individuals are treated as outcasts and liars. Such is the world we live in today.
Yes. Most religious people are too indoctrinated to acknowledge facts.
It's happening again with gender theory which evolution is the foundation of. You can't have a hundred genders when you believe that God made only two. Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."
Because these things; creation, genders, marriage and sin are all connected and they all go back to Genesis. Undermine Genesis and you undermine everything, so of course evolution had to strongly pushed to usher in all the other things that we have going on today. Without the foundation of creation you can have and be whatever you feel like because man is setting the rules not God. They have a big shock coming to them.
I need to know this:
Do you actually believe in evolution or not? Your video makes it clear that you understand basic concepts within it, but then you just... randomly deny other aspects? I can't tell if you're lying about it for publicity, or if you're just in denial.
They are promoting microevolution (evolution within a kind, but not between kinds - which would be macroevolution).
@@jamiebanks4939 but macro evolution is just a series of micro evolutionary stages strung together. You can't have one without the other
Creationists need to give up on what Darwin said. Who cares that Darwin didn’t know what genetics were, or that the body was made of cells? The discovery of those things confirmed the Theory of Evolution by explaining why and how the processes of it happened.
It’s like referencing Galileo when trying to debunk our observations about astronomy or physics. He had no idea how gravity or relativity worked, but his ideas totally made sense in the field astronomy as we discovered the processes by which it happens.
PMSL
What about DNA mutations due to things such as radiation? Effectively adding more cards to the deck? Some mutations are less advantageous, others more.
Shhhh, no facts allowed!
The Hulk is not real 😁 - apart from that what genetic mutation is beneficial? 🤔
@@Hoojammyflip Most genetic mutations are neutral. It's a common creationist lie to assume genetic mutations are never beneficial.
@@billy9144 That's not even slightly true. Most genetic mutations are deleterious; those that are beneficial and have been observed experimentally, e.g. E-coli mutating to reproduce faster involve losing a portion of DNA.
@@xn85d2Again, that lie has been long refuted. The majority of mutations are actually neutral to survival, deleterious are rare and are often eliminated from the gene pool because it doesn't survive.
What about paleontology? all fossils, that are so different in different ages? And what about geological time? 3,6 billion years, does someone has an idea of this time? What about genetics, that proofs the taxonomy, the families, orders, classes of animals and how they relate to each other?
How do theists determine which science they want to believe, like medicine/microelectronics/flight/electricity, and those they don't, like evolution?
The things you've mentioned don't require a 'belief' because they are provable theories
You can't prove me anything on evolution
@@factory_enslavement Go look up LTEE and then tell me why 75,000 stored generations of e coli bacteria are insufficient for demonstrating the clear fact that genes change over time.
I suspect that your use of the flawed premise that there is no mechanism to add information to DNA was intentional, but if there's anyone actually interested...
Mutations happen all the time. Our cells are always reproducing and sometimes an error occurs when DNA gets recopied (kind of like making a typo when trying to copy someone's notes). There will also be times when the original might have gotten messed up a bit, so the copy is technically the same as its predecessor, but not the original version. Or any of dozens of other mechanisms for a mutation to occur.
Then, once that mutated copy is made, there are several possibilities. One, the damage might be repaired by some means (spell check if you will). Or that change might not make any sense and just kinda get ignored. Or the change happens, but it doesn't really affect anything. Or the change is so catastrophic that the cell can't function and immediately dies. Or the change could be bad, but not immediately deadly (cancer for example). Or the change could be actively good in some way.
Regardless, unless the cell dies before reproducing, that is now "new" information. Most of the time, that new information is not going to be particularly relevant at that instant, but it's a new card in the deck so to speak. And if, at some point in the future the rules of the game change, that card may suddenly become very important. For example if instead of leaving the jokers out, suddenly they are powerful wild cards.
Thank you for your words. I fear they fall on many deaf ears, tightly pressed shut with both their hands. But that is precisely why it matters for you to say them.
Respectively; as he mentions mutations are a reduction of genes. The joker cards are not part of the deck therefore will never exist. Mutation doesn't create new information rather corruption of the original information.
I see where you're coming from, this corrupt information is "new" information but by that logic the chances of the corrupted information to suddenly become relevant and beneficial are astronomical.
@@rakaviti If I grew a "corrupted" third arm, it would still be a new arm as compared to the two I had before.
Your point is completely moot.
And you would still be human
@@rakaviti That doesn't disprove what he said.
This is an extremely poor argument against evolution. The time frames and concepts he's covering are extremely simplified and easily explained by evolutionists. Check out guys like ProfessorDaveExplains if you're interested in hearing what the other side has to say. The science is quite convincing, in my view, and I'm still a Christian.
I can imagine they all call you a pseudo-Christian.
@@h.gonyaulax2190we do not. You can be a Believer in God and evolution - at least in the science community. Idk about yours
@@mikemakowski9020 Then you are an exception on these portals, because here it is predominantly said: It's in the bible, it's in the bible. And all those who consider evolution to be plausible are generally labeled as atheists.
Biologists don't "often refer" to micro and macro evolution. I've never heard the terms used outside of conversations about or with Creationists. No biology textbook suggests that one animal spontaneously gives birth to a different kind of animal, and this is the biggest strawman Creationists use in their fallacious arguments against evolution. Macro evolution doesn't exist, and evolution doesn't suggest that it does, and it doesn't need to-that's a goalpost Creationists made up. Natural selection is the mechanism by which organisms evolve, and over a short period of time, you see what you call "micro evolution", and over a longer period of time, you see what you call "macro evolution".
The idea that evolution only occurs within "kinds" is also meaningless. No one, religious or otherwise, can define what a "kind" is, and suggesting that all of the extant and extinct species on Earth evolved from pairs of "kinds" from the Ark creates so many fatal problems. For example, did Noah have both African and Indian elephants on the Ark? Because they can't interbreed, which conflicts with Genesis 1:24, "Bring forth unto their kind".
Ken Hamm, your founder, states that the Ark had 1,400 "kinds", but that would mean that in order to get the millions of species we know of today in only 4,000 years, every pair of animals would have to give birth to a new species every single generation. Well, that would be macro evolution, wouldn't it? You say that doesn't exist. That's to say nothing of the heat problem.
A child could debunk this video, and it's scary to see so many adults in here agreeing with it out of ignorance simply to further cherry-pick their way into a very narrow worldview of confirmation bias.
I agree with most you say but macro evolution is a thing within evolution, micro builds up until macro.
@@josephthinn3900
There's a number of creationist propaganda pseudoscience types yes.
Evolution is the corner stone of modern biology and underpins our whole understanding of modern.
So I'll listen to biologist in mainstream science backed by all fields of science.
I won't listen to a creationist payroll geologist on a subject out of his field and payed to lie.
Evolution has been observed in nature and lab's and never stops as all life is transitional.
So how do you explain people born with 6 fingers or 2 heads then? It's genetic mutation.
Hey, AiG. Let me give you some free advice, so that the general population will take you more seriously.
Stop using these terms:
1. “Evolutionist”
2. “Darwin/Darwinian/Darwinism
3. “Secular Science”
People who aren’t creationists, don’t refer to themselves as “evolutionists”. That’s like calling myself a “round-earther”.
You keep referring to Darwin, as if he holds a god-like status. Darwin is 200 years ago. He got some things right, he got some things wrong. Let’s try to catch up on what has been discovered since then, okay?
Science holds no belief system, so referring it as “secular”, sounds as ridiculous as it is. “Science” helps you make this show possible: the electricity, the lights, the cameras, the internet, TH-cam, etc. All done by science, not secular science, or “Christian/biblical Science” (whatever that is?)
Hope this helps.
Great points, and it does help. Trouble is... the ones who need this help probably won't read it or if they do, won't accept it. But there's only so much one can try to do.
Well done. I am not creationist or a evolutionist. I am a commonsense-ist.
The issue boils down to if you believe in God or not. I personally trust Jesus. I can observe evidence of organisms adaptation to local environment. I don't believe in all life evolving from a single cell.
@@gregorylatta8159 Why? What has that ever done for anyone? Trusting science is why MOST people are alive today. Jesus had his chance and that resulted in zero more lives. The bible is clearly a series of falsehoods. What is the benefit in trusting in it? If it is the infallible word of an all-knowing God, where's the recipe for antibiotics? I thought Jesus was trying to save us from our sins, which were the source of those pesky diseases. That's what you told us!!! Liars. The problem with claiming infallibility is that one mistake like that disproves, EVERYTHING you've claimed. You don't get to turn that back on science because they never made that obvious lie to begin with.
Evolution consist of many elements: mutation (and here there are numerous complexities...not just point mutations), natural selection, adaptive radiation, jumping genes, sexual selection, genetic drift and isolation, extinction, along with epigenetics now. Of course there are other relevant factors assoc w/ all of these. I ask the proponents of ID, if design is so intelligent then why are there so many unintelligent features displayed in flora and fauna? Why does the intelligent designer love extinction? That makes no sense at all. And why has the IDer produced us to destroy this world? For surely we have created an economic system that will consume all resources and pollute the planet to such an extent that reproduction will end or be very rare. In just 20 more years at the current rate of exponential growth the economy will double. Does anyone in their right mind expect that the world will be a better place? Look around and wake up!
@@h.gonyaulax2190 That's a great point! The creationists are so invested both emotionally and financially in their nonsense they've lost all objectivity and thus have almost no credibility. Will they ever stop this charade and their grifting?
@@filamcouple_teamalleiah8479 Probably not, and they obviously earn very well in the process. That's why it makes little sense to oppose them on these channels. Trapped in their evangelical environment (bible belt?), they do not realize that the majority of Protestants and Catholics worldwide have made their peace with the theory of evolution since decades. In Europe creationism plays no role. They are in the minority and do not notice it. They feel as an elite.
"Why does the intelligent designer love extinction?"
Because as an Eternal Being, He doesnt CARE about temporary carnal beings...
Quite simple actually..
I ask the proponents of ID, if design is so intelligent then why are there so many unintelligent features displayed in flora and fauna"
Sounds like an arrogant ASSERTION coming from someone who cannot even make DIRT!!!
"unintelligent features" UNLESS you are talking about your own BRAIN, I have no idea what you are talking about and MORE IMPORTANTLY what criterial you used to come to your conclusions other than "I hate the God of the Bible"
"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."
(Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)
"The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."
(Dr. W.R. Thompson, world renowned Entomologist)
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extant that it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."
(Malcolm Muggeridge)
@@jaydelgado1994 What is intelligent about saddeling your greatest creation with hemorrhoids? What is so intelligent about giving our species over 3000 genetic and chromosomal abnormalities? What is so intelligent about the design of tenrecs? What is so intelligent about producing a peacock with such a flamboyant tail that not only attracts tigers but reduces ability of the peacock to avoid capture? What is so intelligent about shistosomiasis? What is so intelligent about leprosy, TB, Nepah, Marburg, Ebola, HIV, syphilis, and the thousands of other communicable diseases? What was so intelligent about sticking us on a planet with vast stretches of uninhabitable terrain (deserts and ice sheets) and over 70% ocean? We air breathing primates not fish. It seems that the Creator, if there is one, preferred fish species!. And why on earth did he place quite different herbivores with the same ecological requirements on different continents? Why? Why do we find virtually all marsupials in Australia? What was He thinking? And what is intelligent about extinction? Why when you travel from Bali to Lombok does the fauna change so radically...what's intelligent about that. And why did he stick the largest of the varanid lizards on a a few small islands just east of Sumbawa? What's intelligent about creating a huge diversity of cichlids in Lake Victoria only to have them exterminated by English sports fishermen who introduced a voracious perch. That makes no sense? Why would God knowing that man would introduce that perch for his sporting pleasure produce cichlid diversity in the first place?
Thank you AIG for posting this and keeping the comments turned on. Information and debate is a good thing as long as we can have a civil discourse.
Agreed! I disagree with I’d say 100% of what AIG puts out but I do enjoy learning other peoples point of view
@@CaptainFantastic222 ... So are you actually learning other peoples points of view or are you just going through the motions and discarding what was said as it passes through your ears? What is the point of listening to what others have to say if you are going to dismiss it the moment they are done speaking?
@@rispatha it appears you were describing yourself here, rather than others. And the comports with every conversation I have had with an evolutionist. Most of them are unaware of even the basic precepts of evolution, I know nothing of its current state, and cannot talk intelligibly about the subject. Evolution is their mythology, and their conception of “science, and “is nothing but a sword, it is simply a comfort system. Your attitude of condescension put you in a very precarious position in any earnest dialogue.
@@rispatha You seek the truth. You go where the evidence leads unencumbered by evolutionist dogma.
@@alantasman8273 ... The more truth I find while seeking it out points to life being CREATED and not "evolved". Even in grade school I never really accepted "evolution" when they first brought in up in biology class.
The problem I see with this, is while very reasonable, the arguments fail to factor in 2 Things: that new genes can emerge (super rare, but random mutation can add new gene information) and the unbelievible amount of time Evolution takes. (Sorry for my bad english)
If the mutation is large enough to create a new organ (as opposed to a small change), the animal will die in development just as pregnancies end in miscarriages. When evolutionary scientists do mutation experiments they can easily generate mutations in fruit flies, but the babies die.
Do you know of any proof that you can cite, that new gene information emerges?
Exactly and genetic mutations add up over time.
Your worldview essentially says the following. If I had a software that made random bits of code with 1s and 0s, over millions of years, I would eventually make a software that would make the genetic code of humans.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT Your argument lacks two crucial things: 1 I have thousends of the same Code 2 The few of the Code that have some 1s and 0s different, most probably die. This means even if some of Codes get defective, they just die or those random 1s and 0s make the Code a bit better witch then proliferates and makes the alterations more commen in the huge Code community
It's hilarious that by voicing your misunderstanding of how evolutionary science operates constitutes the proof that it never happened. It's also funny to see just how the narrator tries to project an attitude of self assurance as he voices his flimsy arguments. the only people who are committed to see something that isn't there are those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, which has been disproven countless times, and not just by evolution alone.
Most scholars confirm that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, who was crucified, and was seen by many witnesses as being alive after being killed.
Since this is true, then the Jews gave you real historical data in their scriptures. Which means yes, yours and mine common ancestor is Adam and Eve.
@@Bea_InChrist729 Actually it was Paul who said he encountered someone in Corinth who claimed to attested to seeing multiple witnesses, which would have been unlikely, and it is, after all, a second hand account. If that's what call "evidence" , then there's no talking you out of it.
-----------------------------
Just to be sure, how does evidence of something in the New Testament confirm the inerrancy of the Old?
@@Bea_InChrist729 The idea of multiple witnesses of Christ's resurrection came from a conversation Paul had with someone from Corinth, which, while being a second hand account, would have also been unlikely. Why would something proven in the New Testament prove the inerrancy of the Old?
The scientific method is a very simple processes, get a theory, test your theory, repeat testing your theory over and over, take results com to conclusions based on them, that when a theory becomes a fact, "facts" change when new results present themselves, this is in general how scientist and evolutionist answer about the world we live in.
Yet show me a single creationist who has factual evidence of the the events in the bible.
Just look at this vid, he doesn't show you one piece of evidence that evolution doesn't exist, the only thing he does is prove how natural selection works on a spoon fed lvl. Idk if God is real or not but why is his only evidence a bunch of stories, poems, and vauge life lessons strug together into one book that out of all the "Christian" organizations out there none of the groups completely agree on who's right?
But they all can agree everyone else is wrong, even if our science show stories of gods wayyyy older then anything from the bible.
Believe what you want to believe
The 'Emperor's New Clothes' taught me that adults were fake and purposefully ignorant....
Living in ignore-ance
🙊🙉🙈
It taught me beware of grifters selling you something.
It teaches beware of group think which can delude the consensus of people to believe blatant lies.
Well the challenge stands. Can anyone find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix?
maybe not as in a direct answer but depending on the doctrine you deem creationism there is observable proof. for instance the existence of Yahuah can be debated but not the actual existence of His said “chosen people” who existed and have a prominent role in world history.
@@boogup Well, creation by god, by magic, that sort of thing. Still no one can find a flaw in evolution though. They put so much money into it too.
@@Ozzyman200 he presented the flaws of evolution in the video
@@boogup Great. What's one example then? And how does creationism fix it?
@@Ozzyman200 darwin believed he saw proof of “evolution” through the form of natural selection , because of the variation he saw in different animals. Natural selection is a process in which the strongest equipped organisms within their species survive due to a more advantageous set of traits and pass those over to their offspring, becoming more adept promoting survival. As well as mutations being random genetic disturbances in an organisms genetic code. But thanks to modern genetics we know there is a limit to the level of variation that can occur within an animal. Darwin thought if people can make dogs and pigeons reproduce and inherit desired genetic traits, then nature could do this on a much larger scale promoting survival to an organism as a whole. But the problem with that is natural selection can’t select for traits that aren’t within a species capability. see where i’m going?
I'm an atheist, I think evolution makes sense. Questions don't drive me crazy. I love questions. How I wished the fossil record was mentioned in this video.
It only makes sense from a very simplistic viewpoint.
It's like a toddler thinking that he can build a fire engine from his blocks.
Fossils and carbon dating is soo underrated😂 useless
@@kathleennorton7913 Can you not be toxic in the comments section?
@@TheSpacePlaceYT It's an analogy
There are many videos from answers in genesis. They talk a lot about fossil records.
Very well explained. Evolution is a belief system as they were not present to observe.
Evolution is both an observed fact and one of the most well substantiated scientific theories there is..... It's been able to create one of the most accurate scientific models that successfully has made many predictions that have been fulfilled
So according to your logic the biblical writers are all wrong because they were not there to observe creation etc
😂😂😂
Godlogic
😂😂😂
We can observe evolution in labs as we speak.
Do you know what we can’t observe? Your fairy tale.
Believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like believe 1+1=2 but 1+1+….+1 would turn to 100
Not exactly, because sometimes the 1 can be eaten or otherwise destroyed by one eating monsters thus ending the additive process.
@@tristanmiltenburg1084Give that 1 millions and millions of years, and he might just pull through.
@@Janice_Lippincott time is always the hero of the story and micro evolution has yet to have a certainty of link between macro evolution even with time. It’s a simplistic theory that works of paper but doesn’t provide a full explanation for complex development when considering the nature of some changes.
Like wings for example, is more complicated than simply evolving wings because you also need to evolve the supporting structures for wings, hollow bones, diets that are practical for eating smaller lighter meals and the enzymes to support it. The struggle is whether or not even with the time line we have it’s not obvious that much complex change can come from the hypothesis simplistic origins.
@@tristanmiltenburg1084 Time is important in evolution, but not the main focus. Natural selection, genetic variation, and environmental factors drive evolution. Microevolution and macroevolution are connected, with small changes leading to larger outcomes over time. Evolution is supported by evidence and explains the diversity of life on Earth through mechanisms like natural selection and genetic drift. Complex structures like wings evolve gradually through intermediate stages, with supporting structures and adaptations evolving alongside them. Evolution is a slow process, with small changes accumulating over generations. The fossil record and genetic evidence show the gradual development of complex traits.
@@Janice_Lippincott not entirely true. It shows similarities as possible paths of gradual changes. He have record and likely connections to form the theory of micro evolution convincingly. But the significant changes on a macro scale involves huge gaps in the record with a possible connection theorized from the similarities we have available. It’s the difference between having the necessary stages to be certain of a connection and the best guess we have available with what we have. Take the connection between wolves and whales for example. We see some connections between skeletal structures to form the hypothesis, but not enough for an actual confirmation and the hypothesis is derived from large spaces of unknown information rather than a cohesive chain.
This is like the difference between seeing a ford model T and tracing the evolution to a ford focus, vs finding the origin of a chassis and making the hypothesis it is what lead to the first airplane.
"If a woman kiss a frog and it turn into a prince we call it a fairy tale... but if a frog turn into a man over million of years we call it science..."
Lol
Good thing no one says the second thing
Common ancestors. Why do you think a frog has a very similar body to humans.
Likewise if man was once clay it’s seen as a fairytale and oh wait it still is a fairytale
@@gertrudebaggins6996 make me wiser... explain me?
Perfectly, yet simply said.
It is simple and wrong.
@@maninhat77 no you are completely wrong. He explains it perfectly. It isn't even debatable. It'd basic science.
@@bigctexas4817 of course it's debatable. He makes a wrong assumption and spreads it over 20 minutes.
♦️Believing in Satan’s lies so cheaply!
@@phoebemulube4451 There's no believing necessary that's the fun bit.
I wish you would've addressed mutations in more depth: yes dog breeders only select existing traits, but ultimately we've only been properly breeding dogs for like a few thousand years. That is not enough time for mutations to create non-compatible changes. Evolution works on the span of millions of years.
In your card example, I get what you are trying to show, but remember that DNA makes replicas of itself: a better analogy would be to have a very good photocopier create a new deck of cards each time. Initially everything would be fine, but I guarantee you after millions of copies (i.e. one new generation per few years in wild animals) I guarantee you'll end up with a lot more variation, so much so that the cards will become unreadable - if you then select for cards that actually show patterns then you can create pretty much any deck of cards.
The argument of "mutations are mostly bad" is completely irrelevant: as you say, they are _mostly_ bad, but what happens when say a fraction of mutations are good?
Actually that's not true either. Mutations are mostly neutral, and have no effect whatever on the viability of the organism. Every single human being was born with hundreds of mutations, which is why they are not clones of their parents, and why brothers and sisters look similar but not identical. Even identical twins are not genetically identical.
One problem: No one can observe millions of years so even if it is true, it can't be observed.
@@richmountain1128 Boowomp, I guess? It's a good thing that we have tools for getting information that we can't directly observe right now this second.
Do you honestly believe that the only "good science" happens when people directly witness an event happening from start to finish in totality?
I always find the creationists' concept of "kinds" to be fascinating, especially when compared to modern taxonomy. Where can I find a description of what creationists consider to be kinds? Like a creationist taxonomy.
kinds reproduce together to recreate their own kind. like canines create canines equines equines felines felines etc.
@@ianmonk6211 I understand that, but I'm wondering of any creationist scientists have compiled a scientific list of what is and isn't a "kind". They must've used on for the ark I'm thinking
@@ianmonk6211 and there was one canine to start with and multiple types now. Just like primates which man is part of.
Don’t get caught up in the word. Kind is synonymous with species. A species cannot produce another species. So a dog cannot produce a cat.
@@ianmonk6211 my problem with this answer is that in Leviticus 11:13-19, God says the bat is in the same category as a bird; but they can't reproduce because bats are mammals.
I still believe in God btw, don't think I'm some heathen
Natural selection isn't the same as evolution. It's only a mechanism that explains the evolution that was already seen before natural selection was offered as a mechanism.
If you're using a deck of cards as an explanation for natural selection, you should also include the 200 random mutations, mostly benign, that are found in each individual but not in their parents.
So some cards may spontaneously have rounder corners and curved edges. Over time, if such characteristics might have an advantage in shuffling, more cards might develop rounder edges and wider corners until all the decks in that lineage have round cards.
Since these cards couldn't be shuffled with rectangular cards, these decks couldn't reproduce with rectangular decks and would be a new species.
If you really want to be impressive, try explaining why almost all primates have a damaged gene that prevents them from producing their own vitamin C, why it's an identical error in all primates, and why it's a different error as compared to guinea pigs or bats.
Then really crush the evolutionists by explaining why we share so many retroviral insertions in the chromosomes, in the same locations, with other animals. Why do we share more retro-viral debris in the chromosomes the more closely we seem to be related to other animals? The most with chimpanzees, then less so with gorillas, then less in turn with other primates, other mammals and other vertebrates.
And why the apparent family tree from that so closely matches the family tree generated from immunology, from the total genetic pattern and from the fossil record.
That’s evolution
Hey Derek, I think he was being sarcastic
@@JLTrj00913
No, I was being serious. If you want to disprove evolution you have to disprove the evidence of evolution.
Arguments against evolution fall into two categories. Denying the existence of evidence without producing independently verifiable evidence that disproves it or simply declaring that the speaker's interpretation of scripture trumps scientific research without offering independently verifiable evidence for the literal interpretation of scripture.
Personally, I believe in God, but if my reading of scripture disagrees with objective reality, then my understanding of scripture is more likely to be wrong than what scientists of all religious convictions agree on.
The cards are not going to turn into a pair of dice... you missed his point obviously and your attempt at sarcasm is weak. They are all still their kind and have never deviated from their kind. They have continuously reproduced as they should with minimal changes - which evolved first the sperm or the egg?
On the ISS astronaut's bodies start to transform measurably even when only having been upthere for moths. Experience of a changing environment recorded in cell mamory transmitted to the offspring using dna and repetition of this process through endless cycles of generations is what is happening to our physical bodies. Weightlessness and atmosphereless environment has many effects on living tissue. It isn't god that writes our dnas. It's the environment, changing behaviour and habits which is shaping our dnas every moment. We hypothesize if humans had lived in weightless environment for generations they would have transformed to a very serious extent.This is the reason ISS astronauts would not be sent on a mission for much longer than one year. Most of them spends a few months there.
I remember reading this story when I was a kid. And always keeping the moral of that story throughout my life when encountering similar situations
Philosophers, priests, sociologists, psychologists use analogies without understanding the general rule.
Evolutionary theory is the general rule. Even Gods are subjugated to my rules. They evolve according to their utility to human society.
Your fundamental misunderstanding of genetic variability is the weakness of your argument. It is not just what is in the gene pool at any given time, but also what genetic mutations can occur at any given time.
If you would have finished the video he speaks on that
@Keith Ellis
You clearly didn't even watch the whole video. Un believable
I love this ministry! Keep spreading the true word of our God! How magnificent is His name!
How do you tell if something is the true word of a god?
What exactly would step 1 be?
@@drewdrake9130 step one, Open your Bible and start with Genesis
@@lauracaskey2753 Not convincing. One might as well start with Sura 1. How about "Choose to trust the scripture endorsed by someone who proved himself to be divine by living an impeccable live and predicting and performing his own comeback from the dead, proving himself to be the Son of God"? Now that would make a difference between claimed divine revelations, if you can be bothered to investigate the historical evidence.
@@siquod Bible is the true word of God and I'll stick with that. Praise Jesus! Praise the father! FYI Jesus proved himself to be the Son of God. Ciao !
@@lauracaskey2753 That's good, but unless Drew proves himself to be just another fedora-tipping atheist troll, he deserves an actual answer. I doubt your personal preference will be enough to make him sure about which scripture to believe. But then again I also doubt he really wants to know that, rather than to challenge or maybe ridicule the idea that there even could be divine revelation (like atheist trolls often do). I was just trying to give you advice, sister.
Great presentation; thank you Answers in Gensis. Evolution is the first issue the Holy Spirit convicted me on after I was saved. "Do I believe the Word of God or the public school system?" I then started to actually research evolution. What I learned angered me. I had been lied to for years. I had allowed myself to unthinkingly be brainwashed. That was over 30 years ago. The massive increase in the knowledge of micro-biology since that time only provides further proof of the lie of evolution and verifies what the Living God has told us. Answers in Gensis is a great source for confronting the disbelief in the Word of God.
@@Jewonastick I see you too have been brainwashed. I challenge you as the Living God challenged me to seek the truth.
@@lloydk851 challenge me to do what?
You should consider studying the Shroud of Turin. Photo negative (Oldest ever by far), human male blood, no inks pigments or dyes, anatomically correct, finally the main cloth was carbon dated to 1st cent AD (previously a repair was dated to 1400s which is ludicrous because the linen Z-twill was never used during middle ages) contains nanoparticles consistent with polytrauma. This was such a compelling argument that the periodical was forced to retract even though it is true, they just made up some stupid excuse to retract. But yeah, their instruments detect nanoparticles. Also they detect 3d information in it that they don't understand how that it possible
@@micheleh5269 let's say I accept that it's a shroud... How does it rove that it belonged to Jesus or prove that he resurrected?
@Soldier "I will pray for your salvation, brother."
“More often than not, I’ve seen this phrase used by people who have ZERO intent to go home and use their hotline to God to save my soul. If you want to sound condescending and self-righteous, however, it’s perfect.” - David G. McAfee
Meanwhile, your god ignores all the prayers about suffering and misery in the world that he actually imposes. If you expect for your god to listen to your prayer about him, then your faith, by any imaginable definition, is obscene. Your failure to see that is willful, intellectual dishonesty.
Colleges all over the world teach Darwinan theory of evolution as a fact - to attempt to deny that is duplicitous.
It's no accident that they regard it as fact, no amount of complaining about it because it contradicts what you would like to believe changes that.
Go to any major college and argue your case against it, if you have one.
Instead of which you peddle your disinformation on youtube; that says a lot about the quality of your arguments and your motives.
Thank you. God is Good.
This video is full of misinformation. I don't understand why people who present themselves are Christians are comfortable lying to millions of people on social platforms. Or maybe he really believes what he is saying and is simply (and profoundly) uninformed, or maybe he believes lying by omission isn't really lying. In any case, everyone involved with this video should be ashamed of themselves for presenting so much misinformation to the public.
On the contrary, this is a great video and everyone should see it. They should be proud that they can think rationally.
On the contrary, this video has so much information that I would have laughed all the way through it had it not been so sad and pathetic. @@adrianminjares7310
Genes can duplicate and recombine to different locations and thereby create new functionality.
@@quantitativediseasing9988except what s/he's saying is true, not made up
I'm afraid I don't understand how duplicating and recombining in different locations can create new functions and therefore prove that we all had a common ancestor. Just because a cow has five legs instead of four that does not mean that the cow is evolving into something else, it just means that the cow has developed a bad mutation. Duplication and recombination of genes in different areas does not make something new. It only replicates and recombines what is already there regardless of where in the body that takes place.
I will be saying a prayer for you tonight in hope that I can call you my family in Christ Jesus. :)
May God bless you and keep you always in His love.
@@Grace-iq7mp It does make something new. If we take the word "bell" and slightly change it, it becones "belt". If we slightly change it again, it becomes "bent". If change it again, it becomes "dent". This is similar to how evolution works. Small mutations can build up to make whole different things. Except it doesn't happen in single things, it happens in species, and some things, like if it became "belk" aren't succesful because they don't work
@@Quartz512_ The main point is that this never happens in nature, only in the imagination of evolutionists. I'm always amazed that there are seemingly intelligent people who actually believe the Darwin fairy tales. It's almost laughable, but very sad so many can be misled.
@@Quartz512_we dont have a problem with micro-evolution, as thats basically reshuffling of genes. Like the Galapagos finches, their beaks might vary because their genes got selected, but if you bring those birds back or add bird into the population they can still create generation that have different beaks. Its not as simple as words becoming entirely different, because the more accurate analogy to macro-evolution is "dog" word becoming "ape" which is way improbable, and considering you have to start from non-life its even more impossible. Ask any organic chem or bio students and they will tell you even a medium protein is insanely hard to make without help of organic (aka life) materials like enzyme etc. This is like the universe scrabble suddenly making a short journal paper, and the journal paper suddenly get reshuffled into a novel book (because remember, intermediate steps generation will die or be infertile) and the novel suddenly turn into encyclopedia, and encyclopedia suddenly turn into a bookshelf full of books.
I am a non-christian but open minded. I watched the entire video with an open mind. Here's my biggest problem with this argument. The argument assumes natural selection taken place in a decade, century, 10,000 years, or a million years all output the same result. However, as you stretch out the timeline, think of all the variables that are being added to the equation. Natural selection isn't just mixing the same set of data over and over again. It is selecting for elements within the set that will survive in a changing environment. Dog breeding, card shuffling, code writing, are all examples that completely ignore the basic premise of evolution driven by natural selection: millions and millions of years of change. For this argument to stand, Christians cannot argue on the basis of biology, but geology.
"However, as you stretch out the timeline, think of all the variables that are being added to the equation."
You dont have the "Timeline" to "Stretch Out"!! Only in the IMAGINATION... Time makes everything WORSE!!!
@@jaydelgado1994 How old do you believe the Earth is?
@@andrewofaiur The Earth is NO WHERE NEAR the 4.6 Billion year old Fairytale..
Evolutionism is a Fraud
Wow. Simple and hard hitting delivery.
I do not believe it is possible to lie so carefully and so intricately that the presenter is unaware of those lies or what specifically is being lied about. Therefore, I have to ask; if you know you are lying, and you clearly do, why then are you doing it? I assume you have a reason, but I find it perplexing, that you are not concerned what this will do for your reputation in the longer term.
Here there are lies of both commission and omission, and whilst you might have some hopes of explaining away those of omission, at least in the short term, you must know that there can be no believable defense for the rest.
If you believe God created this reality, and that God is real, then you are going to have to answer for denying that reality...If, of course, you actually believe!
Random somatic hypermutation followed by selection is the underlying mechanism through which affinity maturation of antibodies occurs. It happens extremely frequently (e.g. every time our immune system gets activated by a viral infection, such as when we catch a common cold). Therefore, creation of novel functional genes (e.g. novel B cell receptors) by a combination of mutations and selection are a very common natural phenomenon. Is the reason why our immune system protects us better upon secondary pathogen encounters. A process that can be artificially triggered by immunisations (vaccinations), by the way.
The immune system is a complex, highly functioning system- likely the most complex of all body systems. It would probably be best to call the processes you described as “systematic” as opposed to random.
@@nathanelder5285 When evidence overwhelmingly shows that a certain process is random (e.g. hypermutation of B cell receptors), then why should we describe it as anything else but random?
@@ruedassueltas Wouldn't that mean that the immune system itself has no real designation or real function? The random label is a little confusing.
But remember, for mutations to produce NEW information, it can't just be new information for a single trait, but rather NEW information for an entire working system. A creature doesn't need simply wings, but the entire system for wings, including muscle, nerves, blood vessels, brain changes, feathers, and so much more. Unless new information for an entire system appears through a single mutation, wings are unusable and become drastic threats to survival.
@@christianstudiesprogram731 And? I am only saying that gaining of function through accumulation of random mutations followed by selection is a frequent phenomenon in nature that has been extensively demonstrated. I am only mentioning an individual example that doesn’t require geological times to occur.
This narrator discusses the evolutionary term “natural selection” a lot but this term is incorrect because to select a particular genetic sequence would involve a discriminating decision requiring intellect. The alleged evolutionary process would have no way to make selections but would be entirely subject to random chance which would result in random chaos and entropy.
Not sure if you're serious, but natural selection does not require intellect or intent, just opportunity and raw materials in the form of mutated genetic material. Generally, if deleterious mutations make survival of an individual less likely, then the individuals with those mutations will (be more likely to) die and not reproduce. If some mutations offer benefits, then those individuals will survive better and reproduce and their genes will be passed on...mutations and all. That is how natural selection would work. The biggest problem is are there or have there been enough beneficial mutations to support the diversity of life we see around us.
@@rizdekd3912 Mutations are genetic errors and never add any new genetic material but only drop existing genes out. No new organisms can be created this way. It would require massive amounts of new genetic material all perfectly arranged for this to happen. There is no mechanism whereby this can occur.
Considering evolution is not true is like saying biological sciences is false. The problem is, Creationism has an a priori assumption about how humans were created, and search for evidence to support that. Science takes a theory and then tried to disprove it, to see how robust it is. Evolution is far more robust than creationism. I think scientists don't even bother discussing with creationists know as they know evidence can't change a creationists mind.
Follow the Science
Excellent. Can’t wait to share this with my young daughters.
Congrats. The current religion of teaching nonscience has gone on long enough. Let the people who think they are ancestors of monkeylike beings go on with incoherent, unsubstantiated belief and you can teach actual useful science to your girls.
I feel sorry for your daughters, having to sit through apologetic delusions by force.
Well explained. Thank you and God bless.
Let's guess here.. a small joke on a gumbal wrapper is as deep as you are comfortable going. You have ZERO background in any biology.
An excellent commentary was very concise. One minor criticism of why you need to add the annoying music in the background only adds a distraction. I notice nothing like that in the ads
Concise? Straight up lie you mean!
As an atheist, it's interesting to me to watch these videos, because while they do have some truth in them, they always leave out a bit of information that's crucial to understanding why they're wrong. In this video, the missing bit is genetic mutations. This is gonna be a long comment, so the TLDR is that genetic mutation is extremely common and if it happens in exactly the right way (which is very likely given the timespans evolution deals with) you can get a 'new gene,' something that this video stressed as being impossible. Genetic mutation is actually extremely common in the form of point mutations, where one DNA pair (DNA is composed of four nucleotides - cytosine, adenine, guanine, and thymine. Adenine will bond with thymine, and cytosine will bond with guanine, and when you stack enough pairs on top of each other, you get the double helix of DNA, where one strand will be made up of all of the respective nucleotides of the other strand - for example, one strand could be ATCG, and the other strand opposite would be TAGC) is somehow messed up in the copying process. It might have been removed, replaced with another pair, or there might even be an extra imposter pair. This is important because of how DNA functions. DNA is a set of instructions to make proteins, and the proteins are made up of amino acids. There are 21 amino acids, but only 4 nucleotides, so when the instructions are being read in the ribosome, it reads 3 nucleotides at a time, and each combination of 3 nucleotides is going to correspond to an amino acid. There are 4 possible nucleotides though, and if you put them in a combination of 3, that's 4^3 possibilities, which is 64 - more than the 21 nucleotides. This means that there are repetitions - AAA and AAG both make lysine, for example. This is a sort of padding, so that some point mutations, such as replacing an A with a G, or vice versa, have no effect on protein production. However, AAC is asparagine, and this would mean that that one section of DNA is gonna make a different protein. What about addition or deletion of pairs, however? Well, that's gonna be even worse - that would shift the ENTIRE DNA strand over one, so if you had a strand that before was AACAAA, which would make asparagine + lysine, and you added a G at the start, you'd be making glutamate + glutamine, and whatever pairs came afterwards would also be shifted by that extra adenine at the end. Sorry if this was all way too complicated, but the idea is that if you have these genetic mutations happening, and you give enough time for them to keep happening, you could in fact get a reptile with wings. This is also pretty obvious just by looking at the fact that some animals that are parts of the same group have genes that the other animals don't, but at the same time they share a ton of other genes which make it obvious that they're part of the same group - flying fish and sharks, for example, couldn't be more different, but they're both fish.
If it's more intuitive, to use the guy's card dealing analogy, imagine you accidentally rub the paint off of one of the cards - that would mean that whatever decks you make that come from that card might now be blank, and that fold might be bred into, making a whole new deck with all blank cards. It's a weird analogy that obviously doesn't work with dealing cards in real life, but the idea is that you're breeding the cards? Again, its a weird analogy.
He is right about not technically introducing anything new - its just more combinations of adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine. Sorry for replying to my own reply, but im the kind of person that always wants to add more onto their point that was already made 😅
Mutations do not become natural selection of a species. Order doesn't come from chaos.