I feel like trying to disprove evolution by pointing out Darwins mistakes is like trying to prove coffee is bad by saying that the first coffee ever sold wasn't very good.
more like that the first house ever built wouldn't stand up to modern-day building codes. The first coffee ever made was a mild hallucinogen, and I'd take that over my modern coffee :)
“It’s a freshman mistake. Your analogy’s bad, and you should feel bad.” I’m still laughing at Forrest’s delivery of this sentiment, especially the “and you should feel bad” part! 😂
I loved the gloves😅 However I’m missing one thing from this reaction video. You kept hammering down the point that his logic doesn’t hold up, but this is not going to convince Creationists, because the argument used is so ingrained. I think it comes from a time when the only examples of evolutionary mechanics documented were in fact “deleterious” for the gene, but beneficial for the organism in that particular environment. That doesn’t explain new genes, as in a net increase in amount of DNA/genes. What I’m missing is an example of eg gene duplication and consequently mutation of this newly “made” DNA that codes for a beneficial protein. Examples of this of course now exist, but is not well known. Lots of wilful ignorance exists around this. As a last point. I guess it could still be argued that this is “micro” evolution since a new protein doesn’t make a new “Kind”, but that’s an argument that then becomes harder and harder to postulate.
"I feel like I've just spent the last 60 minutes of my life watching someone beat their head into a wall to prove to me that walls don't exist" is possibly the best statement I've ever heard
@James Henry Smith no one wants to hear it here. I could easily go on a video about creationism and tell people that God hasnt been proven to exist but I don't do that because I respect their views. I don't respect yours because you don't respect other people's. I believe in what I've been given evidence for, and that is evolution. Have a nice life, dear, I wish you all the best, but please keep your nose out of my belief system
Why? Darwinism= Natural Selection, or the process of natural selection. So, since Natural selection is THE main process of evolutionary theory I personally don't see an issue calling it Darwinism. I consider myself a UltraMegaRadical-Darwinist 🤣
Absolutely. And to some people who watch this video, that might be the first time they've ever really understood what a peer review is, and why it's the life blood of published science.
Puts, you forgot the 99.99999% of every other species on the planet. Talk about “population bottlenecks. With today’s genetic analysis, these bottlenecks are easy to spot in CURRENT animals’ genomes. For example, from cheetah’s genetic analysis, they know that they experienced 2 bottlenecks (one in the last 100 years, likely due to hunting) and one about 10,000 years ago, likely due to climate or ecosystem change. Curiously, NO SPECIES shows the extreme, unrecoverable reduction to 1 reproducing pair of animals anywhere close to when creationists claim Noah’s flood occurred. 100% proof that the flood did NOT happen!
That is exactly what I yelled. Almost threw something at my tv. Why? Sometimes I wish they got everything they wanted but I'd have to live here too. They have no idea how bad people had it under the church. Is it they are so afraid of death they will do anything to live forever?
LMAO oh my god yes this to this day still pisses off people I talk to when discussing god. now yes I do believe in god but common damn since shows the stupidity of the teachings the bible shows us. if your family idea of love is inbreeding you are gonna destroy the gene pool so if noahs flood was fact (and not the story it is) we'd be extinct on the stupidity our species would incur and the diseases all this inbreeding would of brought. and thats just starting at noah lets not start with adam and eve it wont get better.
@@bigbrobonobo the problem is young earth creationists are as extreme as you people from The religion of atheism are . There is a middle ground . What’s silly is to believe is that all mutations are completely random mutations . If you look at how the organism that causes malaria adapts to chloroquin biologists know that the odds of this adaptation happening through random mutations alone is greater then all the atoms in the universe . But things like this won’t be talked about in universities where the religion of Darwinism . You can believe in evolution without being. Darwinist . I’m a Believer in both evolution and intelligent design
@James Henry Smith first of all, it's a theory not a hypothesis, a theory is the highest praise an idea in science can have, second of all where's your Nobel prize? because if the entire foundation of modern biology were overturned, some rando in the comments section of a science teacher's youtube channel would not be the one breaking that news.
Creationists: "Without a long long time, then the entire theory of evolution falls apart." Also Creationists: *Believe in a theory based on the idea that a 400 year old edition of a 1900 year old collection of folk stories is fact above all else*
@@ImperatortotiusHispaniae you'll need to specify so I can let the 4 year Bible College I got a minor in biblical studies from that their curriculum was wrong.
For those who want to know the basics, unlike Appy (my pet name for AlbertL), who only wants to know what suits him and neglects or lies about everything else: 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.
Every single mutation changes genetic order to genetic disorder. Cystic fibrosis (CF) is the most common, fatal genetic disease in the United States. About 30,000 people in the United States have the disease. Mutations in a single gene - the Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Regulator (CFTR) gene - causes CF.
It's really interesting to hear these people talk about Darwin as some sort of deity that all atheist worship. They literally cannot get out of their religious mindframe. They simply can't wrap their heads around the fact that science evolves and changes over time in the face of new information and that that's a good thing.
Their entire system of logic is based on finding an irrefutable authority and investing entirely in the irrefutability kf that authority. The idea to them that people can accept the ideas of a source that work, improve upon those ideas, and be able to refute the source itself is unconscionable to them, because their logical foundation requires tha tthe source and the ideas are inseparable, that the logic gains its value from the strength of its source rather than being self-supporting. Otherwise they wouldn't build their lives around the self-proclaimed book of truth that was penned over 1500 years ago, some of which was penned far before that, and none of which is allowed to change. Their identity requires that they have the absolute truth from the beginning.
Yes this explains a lot actually. Creationists have been raised to only understand everything in the contexts of prophets and prophetic texts. Tons of their behavior stems from projecting this expectation (that there has to be a man to revere and a dogmatic scripture) on everything else, since they don't know another way of understanding things in life.
@@tardigrade8019 Yeah, heard Doctor Fauci explain why he changed his advice on wearing masks. He said when the Data changes, he changes his mind. And the dimwits think that means he is a fraud, instead of a very good Scientist.
Pretty on the nose. I think it's why when they fail to understand what evolution is even claiming, they describe it in ways that sound like, staged creationism. Whole organs or such must evolve at once, in their view. Their starting assumptions about how reality works, hinders of prevents understanding of these alien ideas such as, not having a concrete belief, accepting other ideas, or not worshipping something.
Can’t believe I was a creationist for 18 years up until I received an actual education, was allowed to ask questions and discuss without being shushed or shamed….I no longer believe in it. I may not have extensive knowledge on evolution but there is so much material about it. Whether it’s videos on the internet, peer-reviewed scholarly sources, science newspapers and publications, books, textbooks, lectures, and so on, it’s possible to learn. And I’m glad I changed my views because the more I learn about evolution, the more I laugh at my old self. How could I have believed in such bogus? Probably because I was terrified of going to hell, because some ancient Semitic god demands worship and sacrifice of your happiness for an afterlife that seems boring
@@marknieuweboer8099 Yeah. And the thing is I am fine with people believing in creationism, but their idea of apologetics isn’t to prove creationism is real, but that evolution is wrong. I grew up in a Baptist church, watched Answers in Genesis and Wretched, all that evangelical stuff. Whenever I had a question I was shot down. Debates were always as hominem attacks towards evolutionists and I was taught that all atheists are cold-hearted people who hate god. Turns out they’re just normal people and that when I would ask questions in my biodiversity and evolution class the teacher was more than happy to explain it.
Ay, we have another OEC, these YECs are really going up my nerves, I disprove em in long comments and they say that they disproved it without giving evidence ooor, they say they are not going to@@kuarahyyva
A lot of people are sadly in this situation, the idea of going to hell has traumatised a lot of kids growing up, When you grow up you get to understand that the bible is a fairytale book for adults.
I really like what you had to say at the end: "Degrees don't make scientists, vocations don't make scientists, the degrees that I've achieved and the research that I have done has nothing to do with me being a scientist. What makes a scientist is curiosity, integrity, and the ability to change your mind when presented with new evidence. If you could question everything, assume nothing, and follow the evidence wherever it leads, the universe is yours."
@AdamMcinnes... Questioning everything and assuming nothing leads to the conclusion that God is real. The universe isn't yours. You're Earth bound. You're restricted to this little blue dot until the next life. If you do well in this life---and exemplify the virtues and generosity of Christ---a universe will be yours and more.
The fact that you basically got this guys work peer reviewed by actual experts in the evolutionary field makes your response to him so much more compelling. You've gone above and beyond the the usual youtuber and earned another subscriber
This is why I subscribed too. I love the detailed breakdowns of exactly why these arguments are wrong. Many other 'debunking' youtubers will just say 'well, that's wrong!' and make a joke and then move on. But Forrest goes into much more detail.
The difference between creation and evolution is a matter of not seeing the trees for the forest. People can provide a very convincing argument on any subject even if it is wrong it could sound believable. Most people are not educated as an evolutionary biologist to know for sure what they are being told is true. Most people are not motivated enough to get a higher education in the sciences and would rather have their ears tickled by people who think they knew better. (2 Timothy 4:3) "For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled" People have had evolution shoved down their throats by educators from their first day of school and the idea has been part of the media and educational text books for many years so by the time these kids are ready to start college they have a healthy bias evolution. People say that those who believe in God are brain washed, really?
@@ronhansen8471 I don't know about your school, but in my High School Freshman Biology textbook, we had about 3 pages on Evolution, in the back of the book. That isn't indoctrination, it is pandering to Creationists who don't want kids to learn about one of the greatest achievements of Mankind, The Theory of Evolution.
@@Foolish188 I don't know about your school, but in my High School Freshman Biology textbook, we had about 3 pages on Evolution, in the back of the book. Ron's response: You are telling me that the subject of evolution never come up in your class studies except in your last year of high school. I don't believe that for a minute. The subject of evolution came up in every class not to mention the media and science programs. @doug randall That isn't indoctrination, it is pandering to Creationists who don't want kids to learn about one of the greatest achievements of Mankind, The Theory of Evolution. Ron's response: First of all I am not a creationist. Their views do not align with the bible. I wouldn't call biological evolution the greatest achievement of mankind. What the theory is doing is turning man away from God which is what the wicked spirit creatures want and is setting them up for Armageddon. Just like these wicked spirit creature are using false religion as a platform to spread lies and deceptions. You can believe what you want it is your life. If I did not tell the truth and expose the lie I would be blood guilty. Knowledge brings a certain amount of responsibility to the one that has it.
I love it when creationists mock the scientific for believing evolution 'thinks'. Guys, that isn't how it works and second, you just described god and said it was silly.
Whenever someone asks me, “if we are descended from apes, why are there still apes?” I ask them, “If dogs are descended from wolves, why are there still wolves?” Sometimes it makes them think (Sometimes!). And if these descendants can create so much variety in just a few thousand years through artificial selection, imagine what natural selection can accomplish in billions of years!
"You're making this God an ever-shrinking pocket of ignorance. Until, finally, you have nowhere left to hide so it just explodes and now it's everything again." In the context of Creationism, this is the best summary of the Argument from Ignorance I've heard. Thank you!
yo, that is the simulation argument - I subscribe to that. something programmed this whole mess and just pressed enter 14b y ago! now we have to figure out how everything precisly works so we programm the next simulation press enter and - so on...
@@Blahaj_Gaming847 The problem that creationists have isn't necessarily that they think the Abrahamic god _can't_ make evolution happen, it's that the book they believe in claims that god created earth in 7 days, and made Adam from dirt and Eve from his rib. They believe that that's the literal story, and the theory of evolution contradicts that. Hence, they get into apologetics and trying to prove evolution wrong. Not because they believe its impossible, but because its not what their doctrine says.
@@Blahaj_Gaming847 You're definitely right - many Christians/Muslims/Jewish people believe just what you suggested. The people who don't, however, typically don't for the reasons I suggested. It's a common belief that the bible (in the case of these particular creationists) is the _absolute_ and _final_ truth. This includes all the events described, unless they're explicitly stated to be parables. It is entirely possible that the Abrahamic god, according to the Abrahamic mythology's descriptions of him being omnipotent and all-powerful, could cause evolution to take place. But, the doctrine says that god made humans first and completed the creation of earth in 7 days, and to creationists doctrine is not to be questioned or negotiated. The bible doesn't say god made evolution happen, therefore evolution didn't happen (in their minds). For them, they'd have to forfeit their religion altogether in order to accept evolution, which would be logical, but also extremely difficult and not likely to happen.
Its really nice to see this "scientist's" paper reviewed by people who actually grasp the subject. If only creationists would actually submit their papers to peer review, if there was any basis to their claims they may be able to work through the flaws to bring the real "evidence" out. But alas, they can't handle criticism.
I love how they're talking about how it's IMPOSSIBLE for fish to walk onto land, and they use amphibians as a background video. It looks straight out of a parody video.
They think it's some kinda proof that these things were designed. "You'll never see a fish grow legs! So these fish-like animals with legs must hve been made that way because you'll never be able to show it happening otherwise!" They can't think beyond their one argument ebcause their entire way of life is based on investing as fully as possible into a single argument, and their life philosophy is filled with instruction on how to stand defiant in the face of good counterargument.
@@ArtThingies I'd argue that while you're mostly correct, I think instead their argument is about taking what we see, right now, and insisting that must be how those things were designed. Mudskippers were designed that way, because their argument cannot be allowed to look beyond this exact moment. This way anything we show them, to detail how things plausibly happened, it can be dismissed, because we can't know for 100% certain, because "we weren't there." Of course, then they have to twist and bend every single other piece of evidence to fit into this narrative. "All fossils are of creatures that died during the flood of Noah! He took two to seven of every 'kind' with him on the ark, and what we see today micro evolved from those." They'll state that, and refuse to answer any detailed questions beyond that, because they cannot look beyond right now, because as you stated, it's about denying understanding in favor of standing defiant against good arguments.
@@Thoron_of_Neto The irony is that to get all the different species from the base Kinds on the Ark would take an acceleration of micro-evolution of amazing propensity and yet in this video they suggest that evolution needs immense periods of time. Cat to Lion, Tiger, Leopard, Panther, Caracal, Ocelot, Lynx, Puma and Cat (why are there still cats?) all in 4000 years? Not sure how far back they think the great flood occurred but if the world is only 6000 years old and we have evidence all these animals existed at least 2000 years ago then it must have happened in 4000.
"What makes a scientist is curiosity, integrity, and the ability to change your mind when presented with new evidence. If you can question everything, assume nothing, and follow the evidence wherever it leads the universe is yours" *I am shookith*
"Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." _-Thomas Henry Huxley_
"If you can question everything, assume nothing and follow the evidence wherever it leads, the universe is yours." What a great saying! I'm gonna start quoting you on that.
@@brookejon3695 Basically a philosophical query. Like we have to assume we exist in a reality. That this reality is true and not some deception or mirage or something akin to that. At some base level when you break it down you have to pick a point and say: this is real. Not pragmatic at all I guess.
My favorite thing is how they said "if you wrote The Origin Of Species today, it'd be unaccepted." And yet they didn't think about the other side. "If you wrote a Bible today, which talks about a dead guy becoming reanimated with magic, it'd be unaccepted because nowadays, we know reanimation doesn't exist."
You dont need to go that far... there are today, and have been for a long time, a lot of claimants that they are the "second coming of jesus crist", but for people that have been waiting for Jesus for 2000 years, christians are very relunctant to accept their "miracles"...
@@michaelgoldstein8516 Scientologists believe in "god" and teach under one's special words, like priests talking "from the bible" when they've never read it (my father was starved, abused and neglected in a christian school as a child. We'd know). Brainwashing is easy when beliefs are already present. If christianity never existed people likely wouldn't've believed scientology.
@@rat_dragon I brought up scientology because it became a religion based on a science fiction book from the 20th century. People will believe anything. And your story about your father doesn't negate that in any way. I'm sorry that happened to him, and that is absolutely not Christian or from the Bible. That is shitty people doing shitty things while hiding behind religion. But humans will believe lots of things.
Here's the key question though: Accepted or "unaccepted" by who? Back in the mid-19th century when Darwin was actually writing and seeking to publish the book in question, there were some peer-reviewed scientific journals, but nowhere near as many as exist today. So there were fewer publishers around to actually accept and publish his book. Despite this, the work was so revolutionary that there were several publishing houses willing to accept his work. Murrays were just the first one to make a firm bid for actually doing it. The point being that although some parts of the process are similar, there is a massive difference between scientific publications and publishers of fictional works. Scientific publishing though is subject to the peer review process, which seeks to weed out works of fiction and only publishes that which can be demonstrated to be correct, or at least as close to correct as possible. While the big journal publishers do make profits today, this is mainly from selling bulk subscriptions to universities and other institutions. They don't make a whole lot by selling single articles to individual people - because this is usually priced at extortionate levels, such as $40 to $60 per article downloaded. Hardly anyone buys articles that way - most people go through friends or colleagues who have proxy server access through one university or another. Or you just use SciHub, which is the same thing, more or less. However, publishers of fictional works only really care about whether they can profitably sell whatever the book might be. Any other considerations are either non-existent or at best secondary. So for the world of non-scientific publishing, there is little or nothing to stop anyone writing a work of complete bullshit and getting it published somewhere. A case in point: Andrew Wakefield managed to get his book of vaccine misinformation published, and today uses this to deflect arguments, telling any critics to "go read my book" whenever he is challenged or questioned. So a book being filled with falsities is not a barrier to publication. This is why who originally wrote any given book is less important that other criteria, such as: Why did they write it? What is the expected readership? What message is it intended to convey, if any? But most importantly of all, who published it? Because that last criterion alone can tell you a lot about the book before you even open it.
"They forget that learning is supposed to be a lifelong endeavor." Well said, Forrest! Even Neil Degrasse Tyson says we should always try to learn one mind-blowing fact everyday that we didn't know yesterday.
It is so good to see people being pro science instead of anti-religion. You aren't helping people by just debunking everything they know. He proves countless times that science is real, but it is more rare for him to debunk religion specifically. It helps people have a new foundation and lets them learn better for themselves. Removing what they believe without teaching them anything new is not going to help them. We need to educate people and then they can grow out of outdated worldviews. He also is so accepting of people and loving when other people rarely are. He goes above and beyond to support disadvantaged minorities and it makes me so happy to see. It makes me happy watching his videos because he seems like such a kind person that I would want to meet. I love Forrest, he is my favorite TH-camr.
BTW, some bacteria have evolved antibiotic resistance by change the amino acid sequence of their enzymes to break down antibiotics, while still maintaining the original enzymatic function. So that was strictly an added feature, with no loss of features. It is true someone gave Darwin a copy of Mendel's book translated into English. It's not clear if Darwin did or did not read it. But Darwin had his own pet hypothesis for how inheritance worked, which turned out to be wrong (gemules). Other people rejected Mendel b/c they thought his results were may not be significant, or they might not have general applicability beyond pea plants.
His complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Rube Goldberg machines upsets me. They are the opposite of cobbled together. It's an amazing series of mismatched parts that come together to make something incredible. The parts might not be the best for a given job, but they still are required. It's a great analogy.
I concur. The only reason Rube Goldberg machines aren't heralded as "enormously sophisticated" is because they're usually seen applied to tasks that could be accomplished far more simply. That may be less true for cellular systems, but it doesn't make the comparison of their complexity any less apt.
Exactly! He takes Rube Goldberg machine to mean “complicated thing that has no purpose” focused on the idea that it is useless. It’s actually a very good analogy because every part does something, there’s a process that is a lot of steps and we look at it and say “why?” (answer: usually “because we can” which is not that different from evolution’s “it didn’t *not* work”)
Yeah; the comparison works because they are more complex than is absolutely necessary to accomplish a given task. Sophistication (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.
As someone who has ditched Christianity and creationism 3 years ago, I really appreciate your videos. I am learning a lot and and hope to continue to learn as much as possible.
I cringe at the idea that I used to follow and think AIG, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind & Ray Comfort were experts. Glad I opened my eyes to their deception. Also: these videos are show to the average highschool and middle schooler (so he's excepting his audience to not know evolution).
I used to as well and I cringe too. Especially now that Kent isn't a doctor, is a proven felon, and has gone to jail for beating one of his many wives.
Why do you believe they are deceptive vs honesty believing? I'm honesty curious because I often wonder if the older generation of young earth creationism is simply ignorant or know better and ate just continuing a profitable lie.
@@gctcauto Ray Comfort I can see more as honestly believing to an extent. Ken and Kent I can't imagine there's no deception going on. Kent claims that he used to teach science classes in that past as his form of credibility-- but the degree he does have comes from a degree mill and he won't take correction in any form around the false info he spews out. Also as someone who went to prison for 10 years for tax evasion and structuring-- he's not one for being honest. Ken Ham is known for warping facts about evolution on purpose to make a case for a young earth. His display of Lucy in his Ark replica changes Lucy's bone anatomy to cancel out her bipedal features. He also is notorious for quote mining to make his points and misrepresenting the thoughts of whom he takes those quotes from.
@@gctcauto besides actively denying just about the entire knowledge base of history and science of the past? Some deliberately lie about the contents and methods of scientific papers. For an example off the top of my head, they might cite a paper saying dates for a freshly formed lava rock vary from 10 mil to 2.5 billion years. They however intentionally omit that it was the zirconium crystal inclusions within the rock that were actually dated, not the rocks themselves. Or they will, sometimes knowingly, use dating methods incorrectly, such as using potassium argon dating, which I think has a minimum range of 5 mil years, on fresh lava rocks. They then use this incorrect dating to say these are "evolutionist lies" so they can solicit more donations from their flock to "fight the lies". For Kent especially, he's had multiple people close to him come out and say he's a snake, a wolf in sheep's clothing, a lying con man. This includes a couple of Kent's past wives. His "whack an atheist" videos are really telling. He really is the epitome of a money and power hungry cult leader. Ray Comfort also deliberately deceptively and dishonestly edits his videos that involve people debating or confronting his beliefs. He will straight up remove good responses to his questions in many of his "on the street" videos. He also spends days on site interviewing dozens of people, only to upload cherry picked footage of the worst answers from maybe 2-5 of those people. He's also been caught splicing footage from different debates together to make his opponents look worse, in addition to his already deceptive editing. He also at one point charged $25 to "respond" to emails. It's definitely about the money, fame, and power brought in by their "ministry", not about sharing honest or genuine belief.
As someone who is studying engineering, I will tell you that somehing being more complex doesn't mean that it was “intelligently” designed, but rather it indicates that the designer is either incopetent or doesn't know any better solutions. Any good designer would try to make their creations as simple and efficient as possible to minimize the chances of something breaking. The fact that God, the supposed all knowing creator entity made such decisions imply that he isn't really an intelligent, all-knowing designer that they claim he is. Sorry if this comment was a mess.
Don’t worry, it made sense But this is clearly proof of god since, for example, if we had two different tubes for breathing and eating, there’d be twice the chance for either breaking! It makes much more sense to have a single one to do both! I know how math works, and I see no issue with that whole setup of the human body. Thanks god for making thanks god for making our breathing and eating tube the same as each other!!! 🙏🙏
@@tapatorta I can't tell if this is sarcasm-- sorry if it is-- but if it's not... let's say I grant one tube for eating and drinking being the best solution ( which I don't). I don't understand why God would design us in a way where babies temporarily have a very low chance of choking on food because the larynx is higher as newborns-- but then design the larynx to drop after about 3 months-- then also design toddlers and infants to constantly put weird things in their mouths as a vital part of child development-- but all of these factors make choking one of the leading causes of death among children under the age of five? I'm not sure how we can even ponder this as good design. Chimps don't even have this problem at any stage of development
@@frozenraspberries1552 it’s sarcasm My example of why attributing us to an intelligent creator would be dumb as we are anything but intelligently designed, I thought it was funny, but yours might’ve topped it... Or... I guess... I guess funny isn’t the best word to use to describe the leading cause of child death... Let’s just say I like your example more and leave it at that :p
@@tapatorta thanks for clarifying and your comment is beautiful! 😊 I've heard weird ass things from theists so sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between a bad argument and sarcasm lol.
No no you're right! This is what I was thinking as well; of course many beneficial mutations would involve taking things out, the original thing was probably pretty bloated in the first place
Serves him right, honestly. He’s spent twenty years trying to legitimize his bullshit beliefs with science jargon, and feeding that to people who don’t know better. He legitimately, genuinely, for real has an agenda he’s trying to push. And that’s scummy.
Thank you so much for that note at the end, that needs to be repeated over and over and over with no end. "Degrees don't make scientists, publications don't make scientists, its the ability to follow evidence, and change your mind when presented with new evidence that makes someone a scientist."
Half Life 2 suggests we’re also the *best* at it, doing in 5 years what a multiverse-spanning ubermassive superpower capable of easily enslaving clouds (Dr Breen mentions “advanced meteorological intelligences”) failed to do within an indefinite period of time (localized teleportation).
@@iamlordstarbuilder5595 never played the game but shit I just might after your description. A thought experiment I find engaging is to imagine how advanced science could become with unlimited funding.
@@Luigi2262_ : Forrest defends mutations as a means to create functional genes. BAD ‼️ Reasonable people do NOT believe that damaging existing computer programs will generate new apps. However, that is exactly what the theory of evolution is proposing concerning the generation of functional genes by means of mutation.
It’s so nice to have you and the scientific community. Living in the south, I was directly introduced to creationism. They visited my church, told me how they got evolutionary science degrees from a university that they did not name. They told me how the world was 1 day old and how dinosaurs lived among men. How their dating system is correct and how carbon dating is incorrect. I was young and confused. It made an impression for sure, but I got out thanks to science.
That’s what I hate about certain religions (or cults in some cases), they try to push it on to you and say ‘everything you know is wrong and your being brainwashed by the scientism’ or something
@@albertleibold1415 Either you mean Lucy, which isn't fictional in the slightest, or Mitochondrial Eve, which also isn't fictional, but is impossible to show which *specific* matrilinial ancestor it was.
What is your point? I am sure I would have hated some of the religious views of the people you talk about but I was brought up to be an atheist and studied evolution as an atheist and saw thatthe idea had more holes than swiss cheese while still an atheist. I now realise what a deception it is and that many of it's adherents are every bit as "fundamentalist" as the people you describe. If there is a God there is obviously nothing illogical about believing that God created the world. What is illogical, absurd and a lie of monumental proportions is teaching that hydrogen eventually turned into Mozart and having the temerity to call this idea science.
As a builder, I can tell you that opening a wall will tell you how it was made, how old it is, and will often pose further questions. Additionally, if it's a load bearing wall you can reinforce it with a beam. The house and the organism are better suited to their existence due to change.
Why do these people who speak against evolution always say: "the scientists say this and that" and the these and those are always something no scientist has ever said or said by some pre 20th century scientist? Almost as if they don't know what scientists nowaday know about evolution.
@@thomasdendtler4077 I would rather call this the Dunning-Kruger effect. When you don't know much, you think you know everything because you don't know how much there is to know. They just don't know how much our knowledge of evolution has expanded because they don't want to know more about this "nonsense". Which is quite dum considering they are trying to prove themselves right "scientifically".
@@lare1856 I guess it comes down to whether they're sincere or not. I gotta be honest, i'm skeptical about most of the creationist content creators. I think they know they're wrong, but they're propagating this crap anyway
@@thomasdendtler4077 a good point. I want to beleive that they are sincere about this because then they are just dum. If they do it for the views they are evil.
@@lare1856 Don't forget that the places people like this work at (creation research and suchlike) have clauses in their contracts that state that if their research is different from scripture then the scripture is correct and their research is wrong.
As someone who was raised in a Christian, Creationist community these videos mean so much to me. It was a huge deal to my family when I left the church but videos like these show me that I have people and, most importantly, science on my side. ♥️♥️♥️
"Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad" I did not expect that, but it was a nice laugh. Also GFL trying to tell them this when you can't interject, it's just pure "shut up, let me talk, you don't know what you're talking about", there's so many tactics that are almost always used and you can't make any ground. It's either manipulation or willful ignorance.
Okay, holding them to the same standards, if they can't tell me exactly who wrote each part of the bible originally and who made every single translation until today, then the bible isn't valid.
Unfortunately that doesn't work for them. Remember, when they're caught red-handed they automatically insert the god of blanks or that God works in mysterious ways and that his works are above our understanding. 😑😑😑 It's never worth arguing or debating against them.
It's funny how they think the bible was written by eye-wittness accounts. As if eye-wittnesses could be trusted. Even funnier, they won't believe it when somebody from another religion says the same thing about their religion. I'd like to see a paternity test that shows that Jesus is God's son and God should show his ID that he is really the one and only creator of everything.
My oldest kid was born w his own version of a normally inherited thyroid disease. DNA analysis shows it’s a mutation unique to him. I’ve always wondered how that happened, but the fact that it happened has expanded my whole view of genetics and how they are passed down. Love your videos! #teamScience
That’s exactly the right way to respond to something you don’t know much about. You read up on it, you do research, and you figure it out. Where some folks would probably figure out some way to blame a unique thyroid mutation on god and his plan, you actually listened to the experts, accepted what they had to say, and continued looking into the subject. And that’s the way to live your life. Always be curious, always be learning, and always be asking what’s happening and why.
Hey, I was born with my own version of polycystic kidney dieaese! Usually, its inherented, and in fact for a long time doctors didn't want to diagnose me wiith it because I didn't have family that had the diease. I also had to get a genetic test just to prove I was actually sick. It sucks, its like all their knowledge they have aboutthe diease suddenly disappears because I dont have one of the three normal mutations. I had a nephrologist tell me to my face there is no reason polycystic kidney diease would cause pain. AFTER the cysts destroyed part of my liver and gallbladder. It was a relief to hear why this was happening to me when so many doctors said, "it isnt". A simple mutation seperates me from my family, such mutations happen a BUNCH in every pregnancy, I was just unlucky enough to get this one. No one said, "turn off this gene an change the expression of that one, that will really mess eith her." It just happened, and that fits with literally everything I've heard about evolution.
"God is an ever-shrinking pocket of ignorance". That's the best summary of "God of the Gaps", "Missing Link" and such other arguments that I can think of.
Until you find out what we thought we knew was wrong.Every once in awhile a new discovery is made that makes us have to re think what we thought we knew.
And what the creationists are ignoring is that life exists on a continuum because ecosystems exist on a continuum. There are not only lungfish but "flying" (gliding) fish. There are fish and amphibians that essentially shut down all their processes to survive drought conditions. I'm sure Forest could come up with many more of these examples of living organisms that have evolved novel ways of surviving. You know, they evolved! Love learning from you Forest!!❤
"To illustrate how this [metamorphosis of water dwelling to land dwelling] is impossible, they've chosen stock footage of animals that undergo this exact metamorphosis in a single lifetime." Lmao
No tetrapod paleontologist says fish jumped on land and grew legs also... Sarcopterygians developed their lobes which eventually formed a proto autopod in stegocephalians that was beneficial in the benthic zone of shallow waters, probably in paludal, fluvial, lacustrine and deltaic areas. This benthic aspect is why all Stegocephalians like Tiktaalik, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega have flat heads like a catfish, catfish are bottom feeders. I imagine a pinniped autopod is a suffecient analogy to the stem tetrapoda autopod.
@@whatabouttheearth THIS is what people don't understand about evolution. There's no goal, and often times it just so happens that structures that are you used for one purpose ultimately are used for another purpose. Same with dinosaurs and feathers. With humans and brain sizes.
@@neildegrassetysonwithaknife Or there is what Gould called 'Spandrels', essentially developmental byproducts to facilitate an adaptation. Maybe people are just unconsciously obsessed with going to heaven because we've been too conditioned towards that mindset, in fact that's the content of a large part of the first chapter in Gould's book 'Ever Since Darwin', clarifying the conflation of the psychology of the whole "march of progress" with evolution. Ain't noone buying a stairway to heaven, no matter how much your hedgerow bustles.
@@gabbro2290 it at least doesnt look like a optical microscope image, its more 3d so my guess would be electron microscope. But they dont have it on the table. So thats odd indeed
I think the word you're looking for as "contrived". Most professional apologists are deliberately lying. They know the arguments they make are nonsense and they know they are deliberately decieving people. They're just doing it for religious, financial and/or political reasons. There is no such thing as an honest creationist.
Well, considering he works at a creation research center, my money is on him having to sign a statement of faith. If he ever does realize he's wrong he can't state it or he loses his job
@@tardigrade8019 He would have realized he was wrong while he was getting his degree (and he does have a legitimate degree). It is NOT POSSIBLE for someone to have a PhD in the field of biology and yet not know that every single thing said in this video is bogus. He must have gone to university, studied this subject, gained an understanding of it, and then discarded that the moment his degree was earned because his religion and his income depended on lying about it. His degree was likely only pursued so that he could hold it up as a badge of credibility while he deliberately lied to his gullible followers.
I love watching your video's because you never let "what you know" guide the story you let all the facts do it it's not about showing you know what you are talking about its "here are the facts here is what they say make your own decision" . so glad I subscribed you offer a lot of info and do a great job of providing facts that can be researched and verified. thanks for being an awesome teacher
"degrees don't make scientists" - thanks for that, you put something very eloquently into words that I found myself to believe for quite a while now. I will shamelessly copy that. Keep up the good work mate!
While accurate, as proven by the fellow in the video... the only issue I have with that is that... in theory getting a degree is, supposed to at least suggest a logical disposition. There are plenty of self proclaimed and normally internet born "experts" these days with no degree, or education, or basic concept of logic, who would find this idea, very compelling for all the wrong reasons
Use it carefully though because even though I agree with the main point, this statement used very frequently by anti-science crowd who thinks just because not every scientist is up to the level we expect from them, no scientist (or people with degrees in this case) can be trusted.
I tend to agree with that statement as well. I dropped out of college 34 credits shy of a BS in Human Physiology... but I did 10+ years of studying on my own, looking at all arguments from all sides, as well as my life experience and ALL available research, paying careful attention to study methods and procedures. I was researching nutrition. I was/am a fitness guy, nationally certified personal trainer and nutritionist... been in the gym since I was 9. There are SOOO many different "camps" as well call them, in the fitness world, each with its own theory about what a healthy diet is, each one passionately insisting that they have the answer and following any other pathways is an express trip to the mortuary. I wanted to know the real truth, who was really correct... the traditional, mainstream, Dr recommended, low fat whole grainers (the camp my certification program exists in... unfortunately), the vegan/vegetarian camp, the carnivore diet, Atkins/keto, maybe the middle of the road Mediterranean diet is the one... or could it be the "caveman" Paleo diet?? All so different, each with outspoken passionate supporters and here we were, a nation in an obesity epidemic... it was time to put an end to the madness. Long story short - the answer is, undoubtedly, unequivocally THE PALEO DIET. period. I do not have a degree, yet I had a paper published titled "Age related muscle loss and the role of Cortisol in the development of metabolic syndrome," I trained over a dozen board certified Dr's in a variety of specialties... they all argued tooth and nail with me about everything in my program (despite witnessing the dramatic, life changing results that my clients were getting... one after another, after another... we are talking people losing 150lbs, seniors getting ripped and strong and becoming naturally healthy and medication free for the first time in decades, even curing type II diabetes in multiple clients - in less than 90 days). Several of them said they had to throw away half of what they learned in medical school and change their entire approach to practicing medicine after working with me.... and my high school diploma. No degrees here... still out there changing lives on a daily.
Yet another reason why we say the vast majority of biologists recognize the truth of evolution, instead of all of them; some of them just weren’t willing to swallow their pride and their preconceived conclusions during all their college classes
I wish my Rube Goldberg eyes worked better, dropped my glasses and been hunting for them for the last twenty minutes. Grr don't remember where I left my old glasses. Listening to this while hunting, and typing with the phone 6 inches from my face. Why didn't the Giant Spaghetti Monster design me some better eyes? Don't worry I will find them, just hope I don't have to call my Sister again to find them.
I recently read an article about how elephants are currently evolving due to the evolutionary pressure caused by poaching. They are losing their tusks, as those without survive longer & are able to reproduce more than those with tusks, who are often killed for the ivory trade. The % of females without tusks has jumped from 20 to 50% (I forget the precise numbers but it was about that.) It's incredible to see things like this, especially as they aren't bacteria or fruit flies, they reproduce much more slowly yet scientists believe they are undergoing rapid evolution. It's really sad to think of all that poaching, and it's super cool that nature is defending itself! It blows my mind that young earth creationists & evolution deniers will brush off this, and all the evidence we have of evolution in the past. The mental gymnastics are Olympian!
They will continue to doubt evolution until science can show one species evolve into a completely different species with completely different characteristics in a lab setting. And then I’m sure some will still doubt it…
What those Poachers are doing with the Elephants is basically inverse breeding. They selectively breed Elephants for having no tusks, by removing those that do. So we're not really seeing anything new happening here, it's just the scale and the circumstances of the Breeding Program that are strange. So this is actually not an example of Natural Selection (since it's Artificial Selection). Still a cool Story.
@@mauricedicke9527 Who says "loss of information" is not evolution? If this "loss of information" causes a change in allele frequency in a population then it surely is evolution. Evolution doesn't only add traits to an organism. It can also remove things. Here is an example: Some underground species, like moles, will evolve to remove unnecessary eyes since they aren't necessary for an organism that spends it's whole life underground. This would still be evolution. Now, of course, elephants losing their tusks would be artificial selection since humans are causing this change, but still evolution nonetheless.
@@Akira-jd2zr you’re totally wrong, this is adaptation or micro evolution. Like all the dogs are descendants of wolves and are all less healthy with a lot of mutation and diseases, this also proves that the dogs are devolving instead of evolving. Mutations are almost all deleterious and cause diseases that makes species less fit every generation. In the human genome there will be 100 extra mutations every generation. These mutations are for 99.99% deleterious.
Conflating the concept of "Complicated" with the word "Sophisticated" I'm sure the ven diagram of the 2 has a bit of overlap, but the thing Dr. Gloves is saying isn't in the overlapped area.
I know collabs are hard to set up but I really appreciated hearing everyone’s thoughts on the paper, would be interested in seeing this again for other studies
My second favourite part of your channel is your ability to thoroughly, entertainingly, and concisely explain concepts that I personally have very little knowledge on. My favourite part is your name. Forrest Valkai? Sounds like a supervillain name to me! Which is fitting considering you're probably the antagonist in the stories of the people you react to lmao
"What makes a scientist is curiosuty, integrity and the ability to change your mind when presented with new evedience. If you can question everything, assume nothing and follow the evidence wherever it leads, the universe is yours." -Forrest Valkai I like that quote
„If you can question everything, assume nothing, and follow the evidence wherever it leads, the universe is yours.“ I can‘t help but being pedantic here, but I disagree in one point: You CAN assume anything you want, and in fact that’s a very powerful way to grow understanding. Only it’s imperative that you stay aware and clearly communicate when and what you‘re assuming, and that every conclusion that - however distant - builds upon it remains a hypothetical until it’s sufficiently shown to actually be the case. [Edit: Does the name „Riemann“ ring a bell? 😉]
Hey Forrest, I don't usually comment on your videos, but I feel that this video stood out a lot - I really appreciate the effort you went to source all of these other scientists (and thank you to them too!) for taking the time out of your days to educate us and go through the process of peer review. I found that part of the video the most interesting for sure. Thank you for making these videos, they are so important.
He’s not educating he’s lying. And videos that are based on lies are not important. And what’s funny is that he claims to be a “science teacher” and yet he claims there’s 16 genders.🙄
I LOOOOVED this episode. Someone recently tried to tell me that evolution has been disproved, but I think they may have been listening to guys like this “professor”. Thank you for all the links
Low-Key-Hot-Take: Science-Channel and Atheist-TH-camr are Siblings, but many dont realize it, which is the one-and-only Reason to keep the Overlap low. Ya'all, please be more involved... A-Channel literally fight against LGBT-Hate and Science-Denial and yet thats just 2/100 Things they do. Qanon and Cults would be 2 more.
I have for some time been aware of the importance of the Gut Biome in the functions of life, but the idea that it has a huge effect on the expression of physical characteristics is very interesting.
"Happy wife is a happy home" isn't how I heard the expression but as "happy wife, happy life", that if your wife is happy, you're happy. So yeah, creationists have the worst worldviews. Torture is love, murdering your children is holy, women and children are property... ugh!
It's not like "evolutionists" came first, and came up with a ludicrous hypothesis that needed crazy amounts of time, and therefore came up with explanations for geological formations etc. that required a lot of time. That would be putting the cart before the horse in the history of science. It was the other way around; other disciplines of science (as it was back then) figured out that what they observed in nature must have happened over eons of time. Then later, the idea, hypothesis and finally theory of evolution was formulated (and has been refined with more evidence since).
Pfft, everyone knows that Darwin was an illuminati reptiloid mason whose peers were guiding the scientific research for centuries so that they could sneak the evolution theory in.
I guess they don't like to talk about Linnaeus, the "father of taxonomy", was a creationist who came to understand that all life was connected, or that it was creationists looking for evidence of the flood that discovered that the earth was really fucking old. This nonsensical accusing science supporters of making things up because they don't like god is so ridiculous. Evolution doesn't equal atheism. Those two things aren't related, and most people who support real science are religious. But I do love learning new things because of these debunking and reaction videos.
@@Britishhick I am a scientist and I know literally nobody among my colleagues who'd be religious. Well, openly religious enough fo me to notice. And certainly none of my friends are. Not saying there are no religious scientists out there, but "most people who support real science are religious" is an unfounded claim. P.S. it's not a personal attack, just a factual correction.
Ever since chuckles Darwin the idiot woman hating racist ,popularized the evolution religion in 1859 by writing his stupid book that shows he was a racist by the title of his book ,over 161 years ago, there has been no evidence for evolution found.
Forrest, thank you for your channel, I'm at my first year on collage, studying biology, and every time I watch your videos I get happier that I choose this path. The way you talk and explain science makes me motivated, and even inspires me, thank you for making those videos, keep being a great scientist and making amazing content. ^^
I love your videos! As a science teacher myself, I'm in the need for this kind of argumentative content and yours are just perfect. Keep the good work, love from Mexico (:
Some people like to thank veterans for their service, I respectfully disagree and thank the teachers for their invaluable service to humankind as whole, perhaps even more than scientist since teachers are the ones that end up forming the scientists of todays day and age. So, thank you for your service.
@@marktalbott3835 Of course not, as any good teacher (at least I hope he is), he is educating students on natural sciences, which involves physics, biology, all that great stuff, which of course, depending on the age of the class, involves a lot of evolution, biology literally doesn't makes sense without that.
@@alexalbuquerquerodriguesal108 it read to me like he was interested in teaching the fake controversy. Introducing intelligent design or some other supernatural cause as a debate topic in science class. That would be a massive deception
@@marktalbott3835 Ohhh now It all makes sense, sorry to bother you, true, something like should make a teacher have his license revoked or at least some sort of recycling course.
I think one of my favorite evolutionary experiments is where they've kept 12 lines of e.coli growing since 1988 and in that time, with no genetic modification, outside gene transfer, and in isolation, after 14 years, and 30,000 generations, one of the lineages developed a brand new ability to metabolize the citrate in their growth media.
@@pH7oslo it’s a novel environment to the bacteria, with novel resources that the bacterial population has adapted to exploit. Evolutionary theory doesn’t care about the environment, it cares about populations undergoing changes over time to best survive- in this case the way to survive best is metabolized everything and multiply quickly. I’ll give you that “test tube has it’s nutrients used up and we send a random sample to the to the next test tube” is not exactly a typical set of evolutionary pressures- but evolution occurs regardless of the particular pressures. The bacteria are becoming better adapted to their particular environment due to the selection pressures in place.
It also leaves out horizontal gene transfer. Probably one of the most important factors that aren’t well understood, yet. Edit: it gets talked about around 26:00 mark. To add it’s also very important in plant and animal evolution besides Archaea and Bacteria. And it doesn’t have to be a close relative. Bacteria to plant, algae to animal etc etc
My brother just introduced me to your channel (with the wonderful video "Sex and Sensibility"), but I just wanted to say that I absolutely loved hearing/seeing the other scientists/educators review the paper! This is something I've been craving as a layperson; to see peer review processes/discussions and the reasons why a paper may or may not have valid presentation or data. Super interesting and entertaining! Thank you so much, I'm really loving your content!
@@albertleibold1415 I understand this isn't what traditional scientific peer review processes look like, I was more or less using that as short-hand. But I appreciate you making the distinction!
Forest: your mixing up acclimatization , adaptation, and evolution it’s a freshman mistake. Me a freshman bio major: taking notes so I don’t mix those up next semester when we start really going into evolution
My background: I am a medical doctor and as such we had to study microbiology and genetics. (In fact I had to study it twice since I moved to the US from a foreign country and hold a medical degree now in two different countries). Anyway, I completely understand your frustration. He describes one thing after another which couldn't better demonstrate evolution and then just throws it off without any good reason. This is like sitting in front of a house and calling the house a forrest... Fun fact: There is a process of bacteria which could be interpreted as having sex (since you mentioned bacteria don't have sex). This is called conjugation. What happens is that one bacteria forms a pilus (and it is even called sex-pilus) then contacts another bacteria cell with it and transfers genetic information, hence DNA to the other cell. That is a common mechanism, how plasmides coding for antibiotic resistance are transferred from one bacterium to another. Means this information is not only transferred to the off springs of a bacterium, but also from one bacterium to another. Unfortunately for us in medicine, this process can even happen between different species of bacteria, so antibiotic resistance can also be transferred between species. Making our job of treating infections with antibiotics even more difficult. That being sad: It always drives me nuts if people go to Mexico, buy antibiotics and take it for a common cold. That is very irresponsible since colds are almost always virus infections. Antibiotics don't work against viruses and taking antibiotics in this scenario not only doesn't help, it does harm with side effects, destroying your natural flora and increases the forming of resistance!!!
It would be like a 1/10 science teacher challenge, but I think it would be hilarious to watch you react to the Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron evolution debate. Also the video where Bill Nye tours the Creation Museum! Side note; I grew up in a church that encouraged us to argue about evolution at school. So most of my science classes were spent actively not listening to and missing out on this information. Thank you for being so informative and helping me catch up.
I worry sometimes about applying to grad school (for evolution biology and microbiology) and then I see videos with people like the scientist in this video and I feel much better about it
Nothing boosts my self-confidence like seeing someone that ignorant and close-minded spout their nonsense as if it's the most brilliant thing since wave-particle duality 😂
28:33 Exactly! I'm a builder, and this is the first thing that came to mind for me as well. Yeah, taking out a wall absolutely does tell you about how the wall was originally built 🙄 🤦♂️ often times you'll even find a name and date written on the inside of the wall, left by the person who built it, as a fun little thing for whoever opens it up to come across. So often times taking down an interior wall will even tell you when the wall was built and how long it's been there. What materials were used, what method of framing, what issues they may have had to work around or overcome as it was being built... for someone who knows what they're looking at, you can tell an awful lot about the history of a wall and the process undertaken to build it in the first place. Hell, if you find a company name on the materials you could even use it to find out where the raw material to make those things came from and when. eg, these drywall sheets were made by this company and we know the date it was built thanks to indications left by a previous builder,, at that time, that company was using gypsum mined in this location, which then went to a factory at this other location, was manufactured on this date (building materials often have a manufacture date on them), and was probably transported here around this date. I love it when people who have no knowledge of the construction industry use the construction industry as an analogy..
I genuinely could never react to these sort of videos like this, I'd just be yelling and cussing them out. Props for actually saying "hey, here's why they're wrong"
Highschooler looking into going to college for computer science here. From all i know on biology and cs not only is this comment a mood, but if creationism was true i can say god isnt good with logical principals
I rather not imagine how awful and inconvenient technology would be if it was designed by God lol. Instead of cell phones we would just get a longer wires like that one nerve that travels all the way down our neck to near our heart just to come back up again lol.
I think it was AronRa who asked the question "why is it god can't do things the way humanity does?" Or something like that. Basically, he asked why god is allegedly the designer of all life on earth, yet it couldn't even write its own holy book. The Christian god had to inspire mankind to write a book, because that god couldn't write a book. That god has to inspire mankind to create life saving surgical procedures, because god can't heal anyone from anything that you don't already have a chance of recovering from anyway. It seems god can't design things better than mankind, which sure does kind of put a fine point on the question of gods absolute power.
There's a video on youtube called "I programmed some creatures. They evolved" that does a great job at illustrating (in extremely simplified terms) why Mutation is so important to Evolution and natural selection.
I just went on a rant to my dog how a Rube Goldberg devise is not bits and parts thrown into a box and shaken until something works, it is designed for a specific task. It’s just evidence that he is talking nonsense about things that he know nothing about. And my only understanding of Rube Goldberg devises are from playing MouseTrap as a kid.
Was going to comment on this. Nothing about a RG device is "cobbled together." They are often (but not always) made from household items, but they are rigorously and systematically balanced and put together. The opposite of "cobbled together.:
yep, many of those things are carefully thought out and precise with tons of testing before full assembly, it is a complex machine in the end (usually to end up doing (a) task(s), etc) but it has a rhythm of sorts and is systematic in function
I first saw you on a tiktok. I went to your TH-cam and I love your view and explanation on evolution! I grew up around a lot of Christianity, mainly Baptist, (I am catholic myself). And had a big fallout with most if not all my friends because they, Baptist, couldn’t accept my “opinions” on evolution and made fun of the fact that I didn’t think Creationism is real. 🤦♂️ But watching this helps me feel better because it allows me to see how they saw things and why they are wrong. 😊
@@SufficingPit Man, if you're not an apostate, you wouldn't believe the struggle of having to put everything through a faith filter. For an easy example, if you see that evolution seems true, you have to merge it with Christianity, and today, that's what most people do. They say God put evolution in motion. Now, it's so freeing to be able to hypothesise about reality wherever the evidence leads.
In the start of the video, Gloves makes this huge deal about "oh, they hide behind TIME, and if we take time away that just destroys everything". Back in like 2010 I was still in the process of moving from a Fundamentalist Christian creationist upbringing to knowing about evolution and being an atheist. One of the great books that countered this very argument was "The Man who Found Time" about James Hutton. He didn't "discover" geologic time, but maybe formalized the early ideas about what rock strata mean or whatever...but the mind-staggering implications is that YEAH there has been time! We know that evolution happened the way we understand it to have happened (at least in the broad sense) via MULTIPLE lines of evidence that all point to the same conclusion.
I follow a few Religion v Atheism Debate pages on FB, and recently one person went on and on about Dr. Glove's entire argument! I was so confused why he kept talking about "common descent theory" and "evolution can only happen via gene deletion or horizontal gene transfer"--which is what got me back into more in-depth videos about the specifics of how evolution works and has, finally, mercifully, led me to this particular video! YES!
His house analogy makes me laugh a bit because I lived in a house as a kid that started out as this tiny, shitty little modular home (I think it was a modular, I'm not really sure, all I know is it was tiny) with a backyard that was just gravel and stuff. After maybe 10-20 years or so of people moving in and adding on a room or two, styling things up a bit, and then my parents coming in and totally reforming everything, by the time we moved out, the house looked absolutely nothing like it did when first built. Including the work done by past owners, there was maybe 6 new rooms/living spaces or more, including a crawlspace and extra bathroom, 3 decks, multiple beautiful gardens, strong and sturdy fences across the whole property, new paint job, completely different colouring inside and out, new tile floors, carpeted living room and a bunch of other changes to the flooring over the years. We tore up a cheep plastic "tile" floor pattern that was covered over by the people before us with floorboards, new windows, completely new roofing, and I think we fixed up the walls a few times. The house went from a small, unpainted rectangle with some walls dividing it into a few small rooms, fit for a single person maybe (back in the day when it was originally built at least, I bet owning a house at all nowadays is a luxury) to a home fit for a whole ass family. That house went from Tiktaalik to a fucking Tyrannosaurus Rex, if that ain't evolution idk what is.
my uncle did a similar thing. He's a carpenter, and bought a house with his wife that had three bedrooms. Then as he got children, three of them, he just build out to make the living room bigger with a connected dining room, and added another bedroom plus a study room. The house is like twice the size now, another color, the indoor walls have all been painted, there's new flooring and tiling, the whole shebang. my parents also live in a suburb where a lot of houses were predrawn, but my mom decided to edit the upper floor to better fit our family as we are also three children and the original plan only had three bedrooms. one of our neighbors with the same original plan a few years later renovated to copy our floor plan because they saw the benefits to it. People add, remove, and edit their houses all the time.
“This is evolution” *correct* “We don’t know how this works” *Yes, we do* “Darwin’s wrong because cells stop and we evolve anyways” *visable anger and confusion*
I feel like trying to disprove evolution by pointing out Darwins mistakes is like trying to prove coffee is bad by saying that the first coffee ever sold wasn't very good.
more like that the first house ever built wouldn't stand up to modern-day building codes. The first coffee ever made was a mild hallucinogen, and I'd take that over my modern coffee :)
@@jeremyhulbert3343 mild hallucinogens sound nice rn
Rick n morty is on Hulu
@@Erik_patchin I have HBO max, it's there, too
Wait until this man learns what the first pizzas were like. Dudes never gonna want a slice again.
"I'm gonna send this to a few friends"
*The Entire population of a small town appears*
*the entire scientific community has appeared!*
@@pineapplerr valkai labs question mark
@@dooda9566 …what
I loled at how they kept coming. It reminded me of the Adult Swim short "Too Many Cooks"
@@Fusterclucked00 Yea it was like a clown car. They just kept coming… wait. Not meaning they are clowns. I-I’m not saying their clow-
Leave Darwin alone. His work was a stroke of genius at the time, but you don't go to Galileo for the latest in gravitational theory.
Still a theory
@@captainsalty5688 🤦♂️
@@captainsalty5688 Yes!
@@captainsalty5688 So's gravity. A theory, in Science, is a higher order thing than a fact. A theory explains a set of facts.
@@captainsalty5688 tell me you don’t know what a theory is without telling me you don’t know what a theory is
“It’s a freshman mistake. Your analogy’s bad, and you should feel bad.”
I’m still laughing at Forrest’s delivery of this sentiment, especially the “and you should feel bad” part! 😂
Forrest is obviously a Futurama fan.
I loved the gloves😅
However I’m missing one thing from this reaction video. You kept hammering down the point that his logic doesn’t hold up, but this is not going to convince Creationists, because the argument used is so ingrained.
I think it comes from a time when the only examples of evolutionary mechanics documented were in fact “deleterious” for the gene, but beneficial for the organism in that particular environment. That doesn’t explain new genes, as in a net increase in amount of DNA/genes.
What I’m missing is an example of eg gene duplication and consequently mutation of this newly “made” DNA that codes for a beneficial protein.
Examples of this of course now exist, but is not well known. Lots of wilful ignorance exists around this.
As a last point. I guess it could still be argued that this is “micro” evolution since a new protein doesn’t make a new “Kind”, but that’s an argument that then becomes harder and harder to postulate.
@@hopelessnerd6677 i said the same.. isnt everyone?
@@troynorris388My favorite people are anyway.
"I feel like I've just spent the last 60 minutes of my life watching someone beat their head into a wall to prove to me that walls don't exist" is possibly the best statement I've ever heard
If you beat your head against the wall enough times you can eventually prove that your brain cells don't exist.
@James Henry Smith babes you're on the wrong video to be trying to convince people evolution isn't real.... Did you watch it?
@James Henry Smith you can... Believe that.... If you want..... Gtfo of my comment replies with it though
@James Henry Smith no one wants to hear it here. I could easily go on a video about creationism and tell people that God hasnt been proven to exist but I don't do that because I respect their views. I don't respect yours because you don't respect other people's. I believe in what I've been given evidence for, and that is evolution. Have a nice life, dear, I wish you all the best, but please keep your nose out of my belief system
Anyone that refers to evolution as Darwinism is dishonest.
Yep! And you know what’s coming next
Neo-Darwinism, nevertheless
Why? Darwinism= Natural Selection, or the process of natural selection. So, since Natural selection is THE main process of evolutionary theory I personally don't see an issue calling it Darwinism. I consider myself a UltraMegaRadical-Darwinist 🤣
@@Raydensheraj
Do,you consider your Model T Ford a reflection of the modern automobile?
Or refers to people as "evolutionists"
Forrest straight up included a peer review panel to dissect this guy’s “work” in the middle of the video. Boss.
It made me smile so much seeing them do that.
19:20
Absolutely. And to some people who watch this video, that might be the first time they've ever really understood what a peer review is, and why it's the life blood of published science.
@James Henry Smith In what way does it not work?
Do you happen to be religious?
@James Henry Smith Citation required.
Because pretty much any reputable biologist, you know people who actually work in that field, tends to disagree.
I love how the video started with "Let's ignore time" as if that is something that is possible.
Every time I've tried to ignore it, the aches and pains I've developed in all of my joints remind me of the amount of time that's passed.
@@goldenknight578I just attached some gadgets to an old car and drove into the past 🤷♀️
Creationist: If we lost 99.99999% of the population, that's an extinction level event.
Also Creationist: Only 8 people survived on Noah's Ark.
Puts, you forgot the 99.99999% of every other species on the planet. Talk about “population bottlenecks. With today’s genetic analysis, these bottlenecks are easy to spot in CURRENT animals’ genomes. For example, from cheetah’s genetic analysis, they know that they experienced 2 bottlenecks (one in the last 100 years, likely due to hunting) and one about 10,000 years ago, likely due to climate or ecosystem change. Curiously, NO SPECIES shows the extreme, unrecoverable reduction to 1 reproducing pair of animals anywhere close to when creationists claim Noah’s flood occurred.
100% proof that the flood did NOT happen!
That is exactly what I yelled. Almost threw something at my tv. Why? Sometimes I wish they got everything they wanted but I'd have to live here too. They have no idea how bad people had it under the church. Is it they are so afraid of death they will do anything to live forever?
LMAO oh my god yes this to this day still pisses off people I talk to when discussing god. now yes I do believe in god but common damn since shows the stupidity of the teachings the bible shows us. if your family idea of love is inbreeding you are gonna destroy the gene pool so if noahs flood was fact (and not the story it is) we'd be extinct on the stupidity our species would incur and the diseases all this inbreeding would of brought. and thats just starting at noah lets not start with adam and eve it wont get better.
@@bigbrobonobo the problem is young earth creationists are as extreme as you people from
The religion of atheism are .
There is a middle ground .
What’s silly is to believe is that all mutations are completely random mutations . If you look at how the organism that causes malaria adapts to chloroquin biologists know that the odds of this adaptation happening through random mutations alone is greater then all the atoms in the universe .
But things like this won’t be talked about in universities where the religion of Darwinism .
You can believe in evolution without being. Darwinist .
I’m a
Believer in both evolution and intelligent design
@@bigbrobonobo haha, yup, I literally screamed this at my laptop when I heard him say it... these people man.
You just casually summoned the Biology Avengers to disprove this random dude and I love it XD
@@davesisonn BIOLOGY AVENGERS NEEDS TO BE A THING!!! IT IS AN AWESOME IDEA THING!!!
damn now we need the avengers theme on the background when they are all introducing themselves
Thank you for giving me the excuse to type the words biology Avengers
@James Henry Smith first of all, it's a theory not a hypothesis, a theory is the highest praise an idea in science can have, second of all where's your Nobel prize? because if the entire foundation of modern biology were overturned, some rando in the comments section of a science teacher's youtube channel would not be the one breaking that news.
Biology avengers ASSEMBLE!
Creationists: "Without a long long time, then the entire theory of evolution falls apart."
Also Creationists: *Believe in a theory based on the idea that a 400 year old edition of a 1900 year old collection of folk stories is fact above all else*
That's not true
@@ImperatortotiusHispaniae which part
@@ImperatortotiusHispaniae you'll need to specify so I can let the 4 year Bible College I got a minor in biblical studies from that their curriculum was wrong.
@@dasfowler Probably means about it being folk stories.
That it's based on 400 year old edition and there not folk stories but eye witness testimony
Forrest dragging his friends into his conspiracy theory debunking is just the best
For those who want to know the basics: Mutations and chromosome rearrangements are usually associated with pathological disorder.
For those who want to know the basics, unlike Appy (my pet name for AlbertL), who only wants to know what suits him and neglects or lies about everything else:
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.
Every single mutation changes genetic order to genetic disorder.
Appy nicely confirms that he doesn't want to know about observable, scientifically verifiable macro-evolution from unicellulars to multicellulars.
Every single mutation changes genetic order to genetic disorder.
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is the most common, fatal genetic disease in the United States. About 30,000 people in the United States have the disease.
Mutations in a single gene - the Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Regulator (CFTR) gene - causes CF.
It's really interesting to hear these people talk about Darwin as some sort of deity that all atheist worship. They literally cannot get out of their religious mindframe. They simply can't wrap their heads around the fact that science evolves and changes over time in the face of new information and that that's a good thing.
Their entire system of logic is based on finding an irrefutable authority and investing entirely in the irrefutability kf that authority. The idea to them that people can accept the ideas of a source that work, improve upon those ideas, and be able to refute the source itself is unconscionable to them, because their logical foundation requires tha tthe source and the ideas are inseparable, that the logic gains its value from the strength of its source rather than being self-supporting. Otherwise they wouldn't build their lives around the self-proclaimed book of truth that was penned over 1500 years ago, some of which was penned far before that, and none of which is allowed to change. Their identity requires that they have the absolute truth from the beginning.
Yes this explains a lot actually. Creationists have been raised to only understand everything in the contexts of prophets and prophetic texts. Tons of their behavior stems from projecting this expectation (that there has to be a man to revere and a dogmatic scripture) on everything else, since they don't know another way of understanding things in life.
They genuinely view it as a weakness. They often complain about how science keeps changing its mind as if that is proof of science being unreliable.
@@tardigrade8019 Yeah, heard Doctor Fauci explain why he changed his advice on wearing masks. He said when the Data changes, he changes his mind. And the dimwits think that means he is a fraud, instead of a very good Scientist.
Pretty on the nose. I think it's why when they fail to understand what evolution is even claiming, they describe it in ways that sound like, staged creationism. Whole organs or such must evolve at once, in their view. Their starting assumptions about how reality works, hinders of prevents understanding of these alien ideas such as, not having a concrete belief, accepting other ideas, or not worshipping something.
It is ironic that creationists preaching their opinions only makes me understand the science of evolution better. Love you Valkai
That's the kind of irony I love!
So have you seen Tony Reed's series "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science"? th-cam.com/play/PL2vrmieg9tO3fSAhvbAsirT2VbeRQbLk7.html
That's exactly the outcome I was hoping for. Thanks for watching!
Ideas that are objectively true, hold up to scrutiny and criticism. This is one of the glories of the scientific method.
@@RenegadeScienceTeacher *HOW* does the pseudoscience of abiogenesis *get past THIS FACT, BELOW ?:*
Can’t believe I was a creationist for 18 years up until I received an actual education, was allowed to ask questions and discuss without being shushed or shamed….I no longer believe in it.
I may not have extensive knowledge on evolution but there is so much material about it. Whether it’s videos on the internet, peer-reviewed scholarly sources, science newspapers and publications, books, textbooks, lectures, and so on, it’s possible to learn. And I’m glad I changed my views because the more I learn about evolution, the more I laugh at my old self. How could I have believed in such bogus? Probably because I was terrified of going to hell, because some ancient Semitic god demands worship and sacrifice of your happiness for an afterlife that seems boring
You should be proud of yourself. Many creacrappers stick to their theology of lies no matter what.
@@marknieuweboer8099 Yeah. And the thing is I am fine with people believing in creationism, but their idea of apologetics isn’t to prove creationism is real, but that evolution is wrong. I grew up in a Baptist church, watched Answers in Genesis and Wretched, all that evangelical stuff. Whenever I had a question I was shot down. Debates were always as hominem attacks towards evolutionists and I was taught that all atheists are cold-hearted people who hate god. Turns out they’re just normal people and that when I would ask questions in my biodiversity and evolution class the teacher was more than happy to explain it.
Ay, we have another OEC, these YECs are really going up my nerves, I disprove em in long comments and they say that they disproved it without giving evidence ooor, they say they are not going to@@kuarahyyva
Proud for you men
A lot of people are sadly in this situation, the idea of going to hell has traumatised a lot of kids growing up, When you grow up you get to understand that the bible is a fairytale book for adults.
I really like what you had to say at the end:
"Degrees don't make scientists, vocations don't make scientists, the degrees that I've achieved and the research that I have done has nothing to do with me being a scientist. What makes a scientist is curiosity, integrity, and the ability to change your mind when presented with new evidence. If you could question everything, assume nothing, and follow the evidence wherever it leads, the universe is yours."
very well said.
Ima steal this. FOR GOOOOOOD!!!
And perseverance!
@AdamMcinnes... Questioning everything and assuming nothing leads to the conclusion that God is real. The universe isn't yours. You're Earth bound. You're restricted to this little blue dot until the next life. If you do well in this life---and exemplify the virtues and generosity of Christ---a universe will be yours and more.
@@bobgarrett7134 "the universe is yours" is just a figure of speech man, calm down.
The fact that you basically got this guys work peer reviewed by actual experts in the evolutionary field makes your response to him so much more compelling. You've gone above and beyond the the usual youtuber and earned another subscriber
This is why I subscribed too. I love the detailed breakdowns of exactly why these arguments are wrong. Many other 'debunking' youtubers will just say 'well, that's wrong!' and make a joke and then move on. But Forrest goes into much more detail.
The difference between creation and evolution is a matter of not seeing the trees for the forest. People can provide a very convincing argument on any subject even if it is wrong it could sound believable. Most people are not educated as an evolutionary biologist to know for sure what they are being told is true. Most people are not motivated enough to get a higher education in the sciences and would rather have their ears tickled by people who think they knew better. (2 Timothy 4:3) "For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled" People have had evolution shoved down their throats by educators from their first day of school and the idea has been part of the media and educational text books for many years so by the time these kids are ready to start college they have a healthy bias evolution. People say that those who believe in God are brain washed, really?
@@ronhansen8471 so... I'm not sure which way you're trying to go on this one. Are you arguing for or against evolution versus scripture?
@@ronhansen8471 I don't know about your school, but in my High School Freshman Biology textbook, we had about 3 pages on Evolution, in the back of the book. That isn't indoctrination, it is pandering to Creationists who don't want kids to learn about one of the greatest achievements of Mankind, The Theory of Evolution.
@@Foolish188 I don't know about your school, but in my High School Freshman Biology textbook, we had about 3 pages on Evolution, in the back of the book.
Ron's response: You are telling me that the subject of evolution never come up in your class studies except in your last year of high school. I don't believe that for a minute. The subject of evolution came up in every class not to mention the media and science programs.
@doug randall That isn't indoctrination, it is pandering to Creationists who don't want kids to learn about one of the greatest achievements of Mankind, The Theory of Evolution.
Ron's response: First of all I am not a creationist. Their views do not align with the bible. I wouldn't call biological evolution the greatest achievement of mankind. What the theory is doing is turning man away from God which is what the wicked spirit creatures want and is setting them up for Armageddon. Just like these wicked spirit creature are using false religion as a platform to spread lies and deceptions. You can believe what you want it is your life. If I did not tell the truth and expose the lie I would be blood guilty. Knowledge brings a certain amount of responsibility to the one that has it.
I love it when creationists say evolution relies on a magic wand.
everyone knows that spells are superior to magic wands.
That is why genesis is true: god didn't need tools, he spoke all into existence.
@@DanieleNiero I don't understand what you meant by "That's why genesis is true, he spoke it all into existence." Could you elaborate?
@@СарМемовеЛукасЧадимер Magic
I love it when creationists mock the scientific for believing evolution 'thinks'.
Guys, that isn't how it works and second, you just described god and said it was silly.
@@DanieleNiero Wow, that's a case of Poe's Law.
Whenever someone asks me, “if we are descended from apes, why are there still apes?” I ask them, “If dogs are descended from wolves, why are there still wolves?” Sometimes it makes them think (Sometimes!). And if these descendants can create so much variety in just a few thousand years through artificial selection, imagine what natural selection can accomplish in billions of years!
Bringing a toothpick to an atom bomb fight is probably my new favorite saying
6:41
Will that be the plot of John Wick 4?
I'm filing that one right next to Anon Ra's description of creationists trying to disparage evolution as "the pot calling the silverware black."
"You're making this God an ever-shrinking pocket of ignorance. Until, finally, you have nowhere left to hide so it just explodes and now it's everything again." In the context of Creationism, this is the best summary of the Argument from Ignorance I've heard. Thank you!
On that note. Couldnt a god of any higher power make evolution sequence in to, yknow, people? A literal GOD.
yo, that is the simulation argument - I subscribe to that. something programmed this whole mess and just pressed enter 14b y ago! now we have to figure out how everything precisly works so we programm the next simulation press enter and - so on...
@@Blahaj_Gaming847
The problem that creationists have isn't necessarily that they think the Abrahamic god _can't_ make evolution happen, it's that the book they believe in claims that god created earth in 7 days, and made Adam from dirt and Eve from his rib. They believe that that's the literal story, and the theory of evolution contradicts that. Hence, they get into apologetics and trying to prove evolution wrong. Not because they believe its impossible, but because its not what their doctrine says.
@@Parrot5884 i think that could be up to interperetation, hence what i said. But thats just me
@@Blahaj_Gaming847
You're definitely right - many Christians/Muslims/Jewish people believe just what you suggested.
The people who don't, however, typically don't for the reasons I suggested. It's a common belief that the bible (in the case of these particular creationists) is the _absolute_ and _final_ truth. This includes all the events described, unless they're explicitly stated to be parables.
It is entirely possible that the Abrahamic god, according to the Abrahamic mythology's descriptions of him being omnipotent and all-powerful, could cause evolution to take place.
But, the doctrine says that god made humans first and completed the creation of earth in 7 days, and to creationists doctrine is not to be questioned or negotiated. The bible doesn't say god made evolution happen, therefore evolution didn't happen (in their minds).
For them, they'd have to forfeit their religion altogether in order to accept evolution, which would be logical, but also extremely difficult and not likely to happen.
“I feel like I just spent 16 minutes watching a person beat their head against a wall to prove walls don’t exist” - best summary ever
@James Henry Smith false
Its really nice to see this "scientist's" paper reviewed by people who actually grasp the subject. If only creationists would actually submit their papers to peer review, if there was any basis to their claims they may be able to work through the flaws to bring the real "evidence" out. But alas, they can't handle criticism.
I love how they're talking about how it's IMPOSSIBLE for fish to walk onto land, and they use amphibians as a background video. It looks straight out of a parody video.
and they forget about mudpuppies
They think it's some kinda proof that these things were designed. "You'll never see a fish grow legs! So these fish-like animals with legs must hve been made that way because you'll never be able to show it happening otherwise!" They can't think beyond their one argument ebcause their entire way of life is based on investing as fully as possible into a single argument, and their life philosophy is filled with instruction on how to stand defiant in the face of good counterargument.
@@ArtThingies I'd argue that while you're mostly correct, I think instead their argument is about taking what we see, right now, and insisting that must be how those things were designed.
Mudskippers were designed that way, because their argument cannot be allowed to look beyond this exact moment. This way anything we show them, to detail how things plausibly happened, it can be dismissed, because we can't know for 100% certain, because "we weren't there."
Of course, then they have to twist and bend every single other piece of evidence to fit into this narrative. "All fossils are of creatures that died during the flood of Noah! He took two to seven of every 'kind' with him on the ark, and what we see today micro evolved from those." They'll state that, and refuse to answer any detailed questions beyond that, because they cannot look beyond right now, because as you stated, it's about denying understanding in favor of standing defiant against good arguments.
@@Thoron_of_Neto The irony is that to get all the different species from the base Kinds on the Ark would take an acceleration of micro-evolution of amazing propensity and yet in this video they suggest that evolution needs immense periods of time. Cat to Lion, Tiger, Leopard, Panther, Caracal, Ocelot, Lynx, Puma and Cat (why are there still cats?) all in 4000 years? Not sure how far back they think the great flood occurred but if the world is only 6000 years old and we have evidence all these animals existed at least 2000 years ago then it must have happened in 4000.
and when, eels, catfish and mud skippers just like, exist
"What makes a scientist is curiosity, integrity, and the ability to change your mind when presented with new evidence. If you can question everything, assume nothing, and follow the evidence wherever it leads the universe is yours"
*I am shookith*
"Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."
_-Thomas Henry Huxley_
A great quotation.
The hypocrisy is absolutely incredible.
@@alexz31cujo31 ?????????
@@fairisblue8051 assume nothing, except the naturalistic world view...
"If you can question everything, assume nothing and follow the evidence wherever it leads, the universe is yours."
What a great saying! I'm gonna start quoting you on that.
Inthperation (insperational quote)
Don’t mind me just saving this for later
Only works if you don’t start questioning your evidence as actually benign real or true or whatever. Sometimes you gotta assume
@@christianschwartz7660 That sentence truly befuddles me. It seems entirely contradictory.
@@brookejon3695 Basically a philosophical query. Like we have to assume we exist in a reality. That this reality is true and not some deception or mirage or something akin to that. At some base level when you break it down you have to pick a point and say: this is real. Not pragmatic at all I guess.
21:04 Oh man, you know it's gon' get good when the middle school science teacher shows up to peer review.
My favorite thing is how they said "if you wrote The Origin Of Species today, it'd be unaccepted." And yet they didn't think about the other side. "If you wrote a Bible today, which talks about a dead guy becoming reanimated with magic, it'd be unaccepted because nowadays, we know reanimation doesn't exist."
You dont need to go that far... there are today, and have been for a long time, a lot of claimants that they are the "second coming of jesus crist", but for people that have been waiting for Jesus for 2000 years, christians are very relunctant to accept their "miracles"...
I think you underestimate people. Scientology is a thing.
@@michaelgoldstein8516 Scientologists believe in "god" and teach under one's special words, like priests talking "from the bible" when they've never read it (my father was starved, abused and neglected in a christian school as a child. We'd know). Brainwashing is easy when beliefs are already present. If christianity never existed people likely wouldn't've believed scientology.
@@rat_dragon I brought up scientology because it became a religion based on a science fiction book from the 20th century. People will believe anything.
And your story about your father doesn't negate that in any way. I'm sorry that happened to him, and that is absolutely not Christian or from the Bible. That is shitty people doing shitty things while hiding behind religion.
But humans will believe lots of things.
Here's the key question though: Accepted or "unaccepted" by who? Back in the mid-19th century when Darwin was actually writing and seeking to publish the book in question, there were some peer-reviewed scientific journals, but nowhere near as many as exist today. So there were fewer publishers around to actually accept and publish his book. Despite this, the work was so revolutionary that there were several publishing houses willing to accept his work. Murrays were just the first one to make a firm bid for actually doing it.
The point being that although some parts of the process are similar, there is a massive difference between scientific publications and publishers of fictional works. Scientific publishing though is subject to the peer review process, which seeks to weed out works of fiction and only publishes that which can be demonstrated to be correct, or at least as close to correct as possible. While the big journal publishers do make profits today, this is mainly from selling bulk subscriptions to universities and other institutions. They don't make a whole lot by selling single articles to individual people - because this is usually priced at extortionate levels, such as $40 to $60 per article downloaded. Hardly anyone buys articles that way - most people go through friends or colleagues who have proxy server access through one university or another. Or you just use SciHub, which is the same thing, more or less.
However, publishers of fictional works only really care about whether they can profitably sell whatever the book might be. Any other considerations are either non-existent or at best secondary. So for the world of non-scientific publishing, there is little or nothing to stop anyone writing a work of complete bullshit and getting it published somewhere. A case in point: Andrew Wakefield managed to get his book of vaccine misinformation published, and today uses this to deflect arguments, telling any critics to "go read my book" whenever he is challenged or questioned. So a book being filled with falsities is not a barrier to publication.
This is why who originally wrote any given book is less important that other criteria, such as: Why did they write it? What is the expected readership? What message is it intended to convey, if any? But most importantly of all, who published it? Because that last criterion alone can tell you a lot about the book before you even open it.
"They forget that learning is supposed to be a lifelong endeavor." Well said, Forrest! Even Neil Degrasse Tyson says we should always try to learn one mind-blowing fact everyday that we didn't know yesterday.
That’s why I keep watching some of this stuff, even in my 80s. And I get really cross when I waste my time because they have nothing to offer.
Dude is pro science and basic human rights, that's enough for me, subbed
Same. The bar's so low, I feel sad for feeling pleasantly surprised everytime someone meets it.
@@bruhmoment1835 Einstein said there are only 2 things that are infinite, space and human ignorance, and he's not too sure about space.
It is so good to see people being pro science instead of anti-religion. You aren't helping people by just debunking everything they know. He proves countless times that science is real, but it is more rare for him to debunk religion specifically. It helps people have a new foundation and lets them learn better for themselves. Removing what they believe without teaching them anything new is not going to help them. We need to educate people and then they can grow out of outdated worldviews.
He also is so accepting of people and loving when other people rarely are. He goes above and beyond to support disadvantaged minorities and it makes me so happy to see. It makes me happy watching his videos because he seems like such a kind person that I would want to meet. I love Forrest, he is my favorite TH-camr.
the only thing lacking is basic animal rights
@@Stichting_NoFa-p Is it?
BTW, some bacteria have evolved antibiotic resistance by change the amino acid sequence of their enzymes to break down antibiotics, while still maintaining the original enzymatic function. So that was strictly an added feature, with no loss of features. It is true someone gave Darwin a copy of Mendel's book translated into English. It's not clear if Darwin did or did not read it. But Darwin had his own pet hypothesis for how inheritance worked, which turned out to be wrong (gemules). Other people rejected Mendel b/c they thought his results were may not be significant, or they might not have general applicability beyond pea plants.
The fact that the middle school teacher marked up the paper like a graded paper is so funny to me- the dude didn’t even pass as an 8th grade paper 😂
29:14
And I especially loved how Valkai mocked Kevin’s unnecessary glove-wearing at the end to advertise a VPN, that creationist got pwned so hard!! 😂😂😂
His complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Rube Goldberg machines upsets me. They are the opposite of cobbled together. It's an amazing series of mismatched parts that come together to make something incredible. The parts might not be the best for a given job, but they still are required. It's a great analogy.
I was looking for this comment before I made it. 👍🏻
I concur. The only reason Rube Goldberg machines aren't heralded as "enormously sophisticated" is because they're usually seen applied to tasks that could be accomplished far more simply. That may be less true for cellular systems, but it doesn't make the comparison of their complexity any less apt.
This got me too. Rube Goldberg machines may come from mismatched parts, but are incredibly well engineered
Exactly! He takes Rube Goldberg machine to mean “complicated thing that has no purpose” focused on the idea that it is useless. It’s actually a very good analogy because every part does something, there’s a process that is a lot of steps and we look at it and say “why?”
(answer: usually “because we can” which is not that different from evolution’s “it didn’t *not* work”)
Yeah; the comparison works because they are more complex than is absolutely necessary to accomplish a given task. Sophistication (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.
As someone who has ditched Christianity and creationism 3 years ago, I really appreciate your videos. I am learning a lot and and hope to continue to learn as much as possible.
I'm thrilled to hear that you're free! Happy learning!
@@RenegadeScienceTeacher Woot! Much thanks!
@@NefariousDreary I ditched christianity about 4 or 5 years ago myself. Welcome, we're glad to have you!
@@Thoron_of_Neto 👍🏾
@@Thoron_of_Neto I'll learn from the experience and keep trying to be a better person.
I cringe at the idea that I used to follow and think AIG, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind & Ray Comfort were experts. Glad I opened my eyes to their deception.
Also: these videos are show to the average highschool and middle schooler (so he's excepting his audience to not know evolution).
I used to as well and I cringe too. Especially now that Kent isn't a doctor, is a proven felon, and has gone to jail for beating one of his many wives.
Why do you believe they are deceptive vs honesty believing?
I'm honesty curious because I often wonder if the older generation of young earth creationism is simply ignorant or know better and ate just continuing a profitable lie.
@@gctcauto Ray Comfort I can see more as honestly believing to an extent. Ken and Kent I can't imagine there's no deception going on. Kent claims that he used to teach science classes in that past as his form of credibility-- but the degree he does have comes from a degree mill and he won't take correction in any form around the false info he spews out. Also as someone who went to prison for 10 years for tax evasion and structuring-- he's not one for being honest.
Ken Ham is known for warping facts about evolution on purpose to make a case for a young earth. His display of Lucy in his Ark replica changes Lucy's bone anatomy to cancel out her bipedal features. He also is notorious for quote mining to make his points and misrepresenting the thoughts of whom he takes those quotes from.
@@gctcauto besides actively denying just about the entire knowledge base of history and science of the past? Some deliberately lie about the contents and methods of scientific papers. For an example off the top of my head, they might cite a paper saying dates for a freshly formed lava rock vary from 10 mil to 2.5 billion years. They however intentionally omit that it was the zirconium crystal inclusions within the rock that were actually dated, not the rocks themselves. Or they will, sometimes knowingly, use dating methods incorrectly, such as using potassium argon dating, which I think has a minimum range of 5 mil years, on fresh lava rocks. They then use this incorrect dating to say these are "evolutionist lies" so they can solicit more donations from their flock to "fight the lies".
For Kent especially, he's had multiple people close to him come out and say he's a snake, a wolf in sheep's clothing, a lying con man. This includes a couple of Kent's past wives. His "whack an atheist" videos are really telling. He really is the epitome of a money and power hungry cult leader.
Ray Comfort also deliberately deceptively and dishonestly edits his videos that involve people debating or confronting his beliefs. He will straight up remove good responses to his questions in many of his "on the street" videos. He also spends days on site interviewing dozens of people, only to upload cherry picked footage of the worst answers from maybe 2-5 of those people. He's also been caught splicing footage from different debates together to make his opponents look worse, in addition to his already deceptive editing. He also at one point charged $25 to "respond" to emails.
It's definitely about the money, fame, and power brought in by their "ministry", not about sharing honest or genuine belief.
Good job! It's not your fault you were being lied to, so don't take it too hard.
As someone who is studying engineering, I will tell you that somehing being more complex doesn't mean that it was “intelligently” designed, but rather it indicates that the designer is either incopetent or doesn't know any better solutions. Any good designer would try to make their creations as simple and efficient as possible to minimize the chances of something breaking.
The fact that God, the supposed all knowing creator entity made such decisions imply that he isn't really an intelligent, all-knowing designer that they claim he is.
Sorry if this comment was a mess.
Don’t worry, it made sense
But this is clearly proof of god since, for example, if we had two different tubes for breathing and eating, there’d be twice the chance for either breaking! It makes much more sense to have a single one to do both! I know how math works, and I see no issue with that whole setup of the human body. Thanks god for making thanks god for making our breathing and eating tube the same as each other!!! 🙏🙏
@@tapatorta I can't tell if this is sarcasm-- sorry if it is-- but if it's not... let's say I grant one tube for eating and drinking being the best solution ( which I don't). I don't understand why God would design us in a way where babies temporarily have a very low chance of choking on food because the larynx is higher as newborns-- but then design the larynx to drop after about 3 months-- then also design toddlers and infants to constantly put weird things in their mouths as a vital part of child development-- but all of these factors make choking one of the leading causes of death among children under the age of five? I'm not sure how we can even ponder this as good design.
Chimps don't even have this problem at any stage of development
@@frozenraspberries1552 it’s sarcasm
My example of why attributing us to an intelligent creator would be dumb as we are anything but intelligently designed, I thought it was funny, but yours might’ve topped it...
Or... I guess... I guess funny isn’t the best word to use to describe the leading cause of child death...
Let’s just say I like your example more and leave it at that :p
@@tapatorta thanks for clarifying and your comment is beautiful! 😊 I've heard weird ass things from theists so sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between a bad argument and sarcasm lol.
No no you're right! This is what I was thinking as well; of course many beneficial mutations would involve taking things out, the original thing was probably pretty bloated in the first place
I love how this guy says he's been doing this for 20 years and Forrest takes a good 15 minutes tearing apart his whole career.
Kinda sad really, not sure if I fell sorry for him, or did he have it coming?
@@kerianhalcon3557 He has made a career out of lying to people.
Let's go with "had it coming."
Serves him right, honestly. He’s spent twenty years trying to legitimize his bullshit beliefs with science jargon, and feeding that to people who don’t know better. He legitimately, genuinely, for real has an agenda he’s trying to push. And that’s scummy.
Thank you so much for that note at the end, that needs to be repeated over and over and over with no end. "Degrees don't make scientists, publications don't make scientists, its the ability to follow evidence, and change your mind when presented with new evidence that makes someone a scientist."
This is why I love science so much. It's a collective effort and we as humans have gotten really good at it. :)
Half Life 2 suggests we’re also the *best* at it, doing in 5 years what a multiverse-spanning ubermassive superpower capable of easily enslaving clouds (Dr Breen mentions “advanced meteorological intelligences”) failed to do within an indefinite period of time (localized teleportation).
@@iamlordstarbuilder5595 never played the game but shit I just might after your description. A thought experiment I find engaging is to imagine how advanced science could become with unlimited funding.
@@timothybailey6501 A Humanity Driven By Passion Not Power
@@KingGumbly so true, power and greed corrupts.
... some of us have gotten good at... some have gotten good at denying it... 🤣😂
“Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad” caught me so off guard that I nearly choked on my coffee. 😂
Forrest must be talking to his picture in the mirror.
@@albertleibold1415 What makes you say that?
@@Luigi2262_ : Forrest defends mutations as a means to create functional genes. BAD ‼️
Reasonable people do NOT believe that damaging existing computer programs will generate new apps.
However, that is exactly what the theory of evolution is proposing concerning the generation of functional genes by means of mutation.
@@albertleibold1415 Sick burn, Branch.
So what the creationists are proving is that they don't understand words, specifically scientific words.
It’s so nice to have you and the scientific community. Living in the south, I was directly introduced to creationism. They visited my church, told me how they got evolutionary science degrees from a university that they did not name. They told me how the world was 1 day old and how dinosaurs lived among men. How their dating system is correct and how carbon dating is incorrect. I was young and confused. It made an impression for sure, but I got out thanks to science.
Now you believe that you are a descendant of a fictional unicellular organism called LUCA. Is that science?
That’s what I hate about certain religions (or cults in some cases), they try to push it on to you and say ‘everything you know is wrong and your being brainwashed by the scientism’ or something
@@albertleibold1415 Either you mean Lucy, which isn't fictional in the slightest, or Mitochondrial Eve, which also isn't fictional, but is impossible to show which *specific* matrilinial ancestor it was.
Those comedians watched flintstones as if it were a documentary.
What is your point? I am sure I would have hated some of the religious views of the people you talk about but I was brought up to be an atheist and studied evolution as an atheist and saw thatthe idea had more holes than swiss cheese while still an atheist. I now realise what a deception it is and that many of it's adherents are every bit as "fundamentalist" as the people you describe. If there is a God there is obviously nothing illogical about believing that God created the world. What is illogical, absurd and a lie of monumental proportions is teaching that hydrogen eventually turned into Mozart and having the temerity to call this idea science.
As a builder, I can tell you that opening a wall will tell you how it was made, how old it is, and will often pose further questions. Additionally, if it's a load bearing wall you can reinforce it with a beam. The house and the organism are better suited to their existence due to change.
Why do these people who speak against evolution always say: "the scientists say this and that" and the these and those are always something no scientist has ever said or said by some pre 20th century scientist? Almost as if they don't know what scientists nowaday know about evolution.
Because the only way to even kind of win an argument against a proven fact is to lie about what that fact is.
@@thomasdendtler4077 I would rather call this the Dunning-Kruger effect. When you don't know much, you think you know everything because you don't know how much there is to know. They just don't know how much our knowledge of evolution has expanded because they don't want to know more about this "nonsense". Which is quite dum considering they are trying to prove themselves right "scientifically".
@@lare1856 I guess it comes down to whether they're sincere or not. I gotta be honest, i'm skeptical about most of the creationist content creators. I think they know they're wrong, but they're propagating this crap anyway
@@thomasdendtler4077 a good point. I want to beleive that they are sincere about this because then they are just dum. If they do it for the views they are evil.
@@lare1856 Don't forget that the places people like this work at (creation research and suchlike) have clauses in their contracts that state that if their research is different from scripture then the scripture is correct and their research is wrong.
As someone who was raised in a Christian, Creationist community these videos mean so much to me.
It was a huge deal to my family when I left the church but videos like these show me that I have people and, most importantly, science on my side.
♥️♥️♥️
Same for me. I respect my family and friends’ religions but for me love having a community like this
His inclusion of the human genome project is hilarious because it was led by a Christian who believes young earth creationism is stupid 😆
REACT INFERIOR , BY FOREST DUMP ? 😨 MAL EYE BLABS EVOLUTION REVOLUTION 😲👎👎🙉🙈🙊😉😃😆
@@lwmaynard5180 what is this guy trying to say?
@James Henry Smith I'm open to new ideas, can you explain?
"Bacteria don't have sex" Joke's on you Valkai, neither do some of us.
Pain😭😭😭😭
Bruh why you callin me out like this :(
yooo ace gang where you at ✌️⚫️🟣⚪️⚫️
Yeah, I don't, and I am happy this way
@@jadude378 👍
"Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad"
I did not expect that, but it was a nice laugh.
Also GFL trying to tell them this when you can't interject, it's just pure "shut up, let me talk, you don't know what you're talking about", there's so many tactics that are almost always used and you can't make any ground. It's either manipulation or willful ignorance.
I literally spat out my coffee
"Biologist thinks into battle" has no business going so hard, that should be the name of your album if you were a musician
Okay, holding them to the same standards, if they can't tell me exactly who wrote each part of the bible originally and who made every single translation until today, then the bible isn't valid.
Unfortunately that doesn't work for them. Remember, when they're caught red-handed they automatically insert the god of blanks or that God works in mysterious ways and that his works are above our understanding. 😑😑😑 It's never worth arguing or debating against them.
I love it.
It's funny how they think the bible was written by eye-wittness accounts. As if eye-wittnesses could be trusted. Even funnier, they won't believe it when somebody from another religion says the same thing about their religion.
I'd like to see a paternity test that shows that Jesus is God's son and God should show his ID that he is really the one and only creator of everything.
@@maythesciencebewithyou ..and his license to create habitable universes in the first place, I kinda have doubt he has one.
My oldest kid was born w his own version of a normally inherited thyroid disease. DNA analysis shows it’s a mutation unique to him. I’ve always wondered how that happened, but the fact that it happened has expanded my whole view of genetics and how they are passed down.
Love your videos! #teamScience
That’s exactly the right way to respond to something you don’t know much about. You read up on it, you do research, and you figure it out. Where some folks would probably figure out some way to blame a unique thyroid mutation on god and his plan, you actually listened to the experts, accepted what they had to say, and continued looking into the subject.
And that’s the way to live your life. Always be curious, always be learning, and always be asking what’s happening and why.
Sorry about your kiddo. Sending happy thoughts
*that they're aware of.
Hey, I was born with my own version of polycystic kidney dieaese!
Usually, its inherented, and in fact for a long time doctors didn't want to diagnose me wiith it because I didn't have family that had the diease. I also had to get a genetic test just to prove I was actually sick.
It sucks, its like all their knowledge they have aboutthe diease suddenly disappears because I dont have one of the three normal mutations. I had a nephrologist tell me to my face there is no reason polycystic kidney diease would cause pain. AFTER the cysts destroyed part of my liver and gallbladder. It was a relief to hear why this was happening to me when so many doctors said, "it isnt". A simple mutation seperates me from my family, such mutations happen a BUNCH in every pregnancy, I was just unlucky enough to get this one. No one said, "turn off this gene an change the expression of that one, that will really mess eith her." It just happened, and that fits with literally everything I've heard about evolution.
Yes, blind and mindless processes are really good at producing genetic diseases and deformities. But that is about it.
"God is an ever-shrinking pocket of ignorance". That's the best summary of "God of the Gaps", "Missing Link" and such other arguments that I can think of.
Until you find out what we thought we knew was wrong.Every once in awhile a new discovery is made that makes us have to re think what we thought we knew.
And what the creationists are ignoring is that life exists on a continuum because ecosystems exist on a continuum. There are not only lungfish but "flying" (gliding) fish. There are fish and amphibians that essentially shut down all their processes to survive drought conditions. I'm sure Forest could come up with many more of these examples of living organisms that have evolved novel ways of surviving. You know, they evolved!
Love learning from you Forest!!❤
"To illustrate how this [metamorphosis of water dwelling to land dwelling] is impossible, they've chosen stock footage of animals that undergo this exact metamorphosis in a single lifetime." Lmao
No tetrapod paleontologist says fish jumped on land and grew legs also... Sarcopterygians developed their lobes which eventually formed a proto autopod in stegocephalians that was beneficial in the benthic zone of shallow waters, probably in paludal, fluvial, lacustrine and deltaic areas. This benthic aspect is why all Stegocephalians like Tiktaalik, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega have flat heads like a catfish, catfish are bottom feeders. I imagine a pinniped autopod is a suffecient analogy to the stem tetrapoda autopod.
Timestamp plssssss. That would be hilarious
@@whatabouttheearth THIS is what people don't understand about evolution. There's no goal, and often times it just so happens that structures that are you used for one purpose ultimately are used for another purpose. Same with dinosaurs and feathers. With humans and brain sizes.
@@neildegrassetysonwithaknife
Or there is what Gould called 'Spandrels', essentially developmental byproducts to facilitate an adaptation.
Maybe people are just unconsciously obsessed with going to heaven because we've been too conditioned towards that mindset, in fact that's the content of a large part of the first chapter in Gould's book 'Ever Since Darwin', clarifying the conflation of the psychology of the whole "march of progress" with evolution. Ain't noone buying a stairway to heaven, no matter how much your hedgerow bustles.
@@justaway6901 8:26
Love the gloves and microscopes to verify the legitimacy of their amazing scientific explanation. 😂
Pretty sure the image on the monitor is a stock image too
Yep, that's creationism in a nutshell: superficial authority on the subject, while they sit around and talk about it.
@@gabbro2290 it at least doesnt look like a optical microscope image, its more 3d so my guess would be electron microscope. But they dont have it on the table. So thats odd indeed
Yeah, there's no reason they couldn't have had that same conversation in an empty conference room, but it wouldn't have looked science-y enough.
The way he touched his head with gloves hands was making alarm bells go off in my head, then I remembered it’s literally just for show.
The fact that Anderson seems somewhat intelligent makes his ignorance that much more infuriating.
That's how I always felt about my grandfather. He was the smartest person I've ever met, but he was YEC his entire life.
What makes you think it’s ignorance?
- Why not deliberate dishonesty?
I think the word you're looking for as "contrived".
Most professional apologists are deliberately lying. They know the arguments they make are nonsense and they know they are deliberately decieving people. They're just doing it for religious, financial and/or political reasons.
There is no such thing as an honest creationist.
Well, considering he works at a creation research center, my money is on him having to sign a statement of faith. If he ever does realize he's wrong he can't state it or he loses his job
@@tardigrade8019 He would have realized he was wrong while he was getting his degree (and he does have a legitimate degree).
It is NOT POSSIBLE for someone to have a PhD in the field of biology and yet not know that every single thing said in this video is bogus. He must have gone to university, studied this subject, gained an understanding of it, and then discarded that the moment his degree was earned because his religion and his income depended on lying about it.
His degree was likely only pursued so that he could hold it up as a badge of credibility while he deliberately lied to his gullible followers.
I love watching your video's because you never let "what you know" guide the story you let all the facts do it it's not about showing you know what you are talking about its "here are the facts here is what they say make your own decision" . so glad I subscribed you offer a lot of info and do a great job of providing facts that can be researched and verified. thanks for being an awesome teacher
"degrees don't make scientists" - thanks for that, you put something very eloquently into words that I found myself to believe for quite a while now.
I will shamelessly copy that. Keep up the good work mate!
While accurate, as proven by the fellow in the video... the only issue I have with that is that... in theory getting a degree is, supposed to at least suggest a logical disposition. There are plenty of self proclaimed and normally internet born "experts" these days with no degree, or education, or basic concept of logic, who would find this idea, very compelling for all the wrong reasons
Use it carefully though because even though I agree with the main point, this statement used very frequently by anti-science crowd who thinks just because not every scientist is up to the level we expect from them, no scientist (or people with degrees in this case) can be trusted.
I tend to agree with that statement as well. I dropped out of college 34 credits shy of a BS in Human Physiology... but I did 10+ years of studying on my own, looking at all arguments from all sides, as well as my life experience and ALL available research, paying careful attention to study methods and procedures. I was researching nutrition. I was/am a fitness guy, nationally certified personal trainer and nutritionist... been in the gym since I was 9. There are SOOO many different "camps" as well call them, in the fitness world, each with its own theory about what a healthy diet is, each one passionately insisting that they have the answer and following any other pathways is an express trip to the mortuary. I wanted to know the real truth, who was really correct... the traditional, mainstream, Dr recommended, low fat whole grainers (the camp my certification program exists in... unfortunately), the vegan/vegetarian camp, the carnivore diet, Atkins/keto, maybe the middle of the road Mediterranean diet is the one... or could it be the "caveman" Paleo diet?? All so different, each with outspoken passionate supporters and here we were, a nation in an obesity epidemic... it was time to put an end to the madness. Long story short - the answer is, undoubtedly, unequivocally THE PALEO DIET. period. I do not have a degree, yet I had a paper published titled "Age related muscle loss and the role of Cortisol in the development of metabolic syndrome," I trained over a dozen board certified Dr's in a variety of specialties... they all argued tooth and nail with me about everything in my program (despite witnessing the dramatic, life changing results that my clients were getting... one after another, after another... we are talking people losing 150lbs, seniors getting ripped and strong and becoming naturally healthy and medication free for the first time in decades, even curing type II diabetes in multiple clients - in less than 90 days). Several of them said they had to throw away half of what they learned in medical school and change their entire approach to practicing medicine after working with me.... and my high school diploma. No degrees here... still out there changing lives on a daily.
So it's pick and choose for convenience. Got it
@@captainsalty5688 what
The sheer disappointment in "You're a microbiologist" was beautiful. Just sad at this point that someone would reject logic that heavily.
Exactly how I felt working with anti-vax nurses.
Yet another reason why we say the vast majority of biologists recognize the truth of evolution, instead of all of them; some of them just weren’t willing to swallow their pride and their preconceived conclusions during all their college classes
I don’t understand why the guy doesn’t think Rube Goldberg Machines are sophisticated. They are, by definition, quite elaborate
Quite unnecessarily. :)
Indeed. And our cells are more complex than they would be if they were designed.
I wish my Rube Goldberg eyes worked better, dropped my glasses and been hunting for them for the last twenty minutes. Grr don't remember where I left my old glasses. Listening to this while hunting, and typing with the phone 6 inches from my face. Why didn't the Giant Spaghetti Monster design me some better eyes? Don't worry I will find them, just hope I don't have to call my Sister again to find them.
@@Foolish188 Haha, I have the same quality eyesight. 144p.
@@etherealstars5766 I want to know why god gave all those awesome extra-vision features to a damn shrimp and not us!
I love watching your videos. You explain things so well and when you encounter a problem, you express that so interestingly!
Invoking Darwin to argue against evolution is like invoking Wilbur and Orville Wright to argue against the possibility of space flight.
No it isn't. False analogy. The Wright brothers designed and built a woking aircraft. Darwin designed and built nothing.
I’m sorry that this wasn’t enjoyable for you, but this was incredibly entertaining. I could watch this all fucking day, dude.
I recently read an article about how elephants are currently evolving due to the evolutionary pressure caused by poaching.
They are losing their tusks, as those without survive longer & are able to reproduce more than those with tusks, who are often killed for the ivory trade.
The % of females without tusks has jumped from 20 to 50% (I forget the precise numbers but it was about that.)
It's incredible to see things like this, especially as they aren't bacteria or fruit flies, they reproduce much more slowly yet scientists believe they are undergoing rapid evolution. It's really sad to think of all that poaching, and it's super cool that nature is defending itself!
It blows my mind that young earth creationists & evolution deniers will brush off this, and all the evidence we have of evolution in the past. The mental gymnastics are Olympian!
They will continue to doubt evolution until science can show one species evolve into a completely different species with completely different characteristics in a lab setting. And then I’m sure some will still doubt it…
What those Poachers are doing with the Elephants is basically inverse breeding. They selectively breed Elephants for having no tusks, by removing those that do. So we're not really seeing anything new happening here, it's just the scale and the circumstances of the Breeding Program that are strange. So this is actually not an example of Natural Selection (since it's Artificial Selection). Still a cool Story.
The example you gave is loss of information and definitely not evolution
@@mauricedicke9527 Who says "loss of information" is not evolution? If this "loss of information" causes a change in allele frequency in a population then it surely is evolution. Evolution doesn't only add traits to an organism. It can also remove things. Here is an example: Some underground species, like moles, will evolve to remove unnecessary eyes since they aren't necessary for an organism that spends it's whole life underground. This would still be evolution.
Now, of course, elephants losing their tusks would be artificial selection since humans are causing this change, but still evolution nonetheless.
@@Akira-jd2zr you’re totally wrong, this is adaptation or micro evolution. Like all the dogs are descendants of wolves and are all less healthy with a lot of mutation and diseases, this also proves that the dogs are devolving instead of evolving.
Mutations are almost all deleterious and cause diseases that makes species less fit every generation.
In the human genome there will be 100 extra mutations every generation. These mutations are for 99.99% deleterious.
Conflating the concept of "Complicated" with the word "Sophisticated"
I'm sure the ven diagram of the 2 has a bit of overlap, but the thing Dr. Gloves is saying isn't in the overlapped area.
I know collabs are hard to set up but I really appreciated hearing everyone’s thoughts on the paper, would be interested in seeing this again for other studies
My second favourite part of your channel is your ability to thoroughly, entertainingly, and concisely explain concepts that I personally have very little knowledge on.
My favourite part is your name. Forrest Valkai? Sounds like a supervillain name to me! Which is fitting considering you're probably the antagonist in the stories of the people you react to lmao
Since you have no knowledge you can't tell if he is right.
@@curtjohansen5742 “…concepts that I personally have very little knowledge on.” -Werm, TH-cam, 8 months ago
"What makes a scientist is curiosuty, integrity and the ability to change your mind when presented with new evedience. If you can question everything, assume nothing and follow the evidence wherever it leads, the universe is yours."
-Forrest Valkai
I like that quote
„If you can question everything, assume nothing, and follow the evidence wherever it leads, the universe is yours.“
I can‘t help but being pedantic here, but I disagree in one point: You CAN assume anything you want, and in fact that’s a very powerful way to grow understanding. Only it’s imperative that you stay aware and clearly communicate when and what you‘re assuming, and that every conclusion that - however distant - builds upon it remains a hypothetical until it’s sufficiently shown to actually be the case.
[Edit: Does the name „Riemann“ ring a bell? 😉]
Hey Forrest, I don't usually comment on your videos, but I feel that this video stood out a lot - I really appreciate the effort you went to source all of these other scientists (and thank you to them too!) for taking the time out of your days to educate us and go through the process of peer review. I found that part of the video the most interesting for sure. Thank you for making these videos, they are so important.
He’s not educating he’s lying. And videos that are based on lies are not important. And what’s funny is that he claims to be a “science teacher” and yet he claims there’s 16 genders.🙄
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol236 what lies?
I LOOOOVED this episode. Someone recently tried to tell me that evolution has been disproved, but I think they may have been listening to guys like this “professor”. Thank you for all the links
Low-Key-Hot-Take:
Science-Channel and Atheist-TH-camr are Siblings,
but many dont realize it, which is the one-and-only Reason to keep the Overlap low.
Ya'all, please be more involved... A-Channel literally fight against LGBT-Hate
and Science-Denial and yet thats just 2/100 Things they do. Qanon and Cults
would be 2 more.
Bringing in that peer review was pretty dope. You're killing it dude.
I have for some time been aware of the importance of the Gut Biome in the functions of life, but the idea that it has a huge effect on the expression of physical characteristics is very interesting.
"Happy wife is a happy home" isn't how I heard the expression but as "happy wife, happy life", that if your wife is happy, you're happy.
So yeah, creationists have the worst worldviews. Torture is love, murdering your children is holy, women and children are property... ugh!
@James Henry Smith Wow, you're ignorant. We have watched life evolve.
Evolution is a fact.
My bucket list starts and ends with Forrest excitedly saying hi to me
It's not like "evolutionists" came first, and came up with a ludicrous hypothesis that needed crazy amounts of time, and therefore came up with explanations for geological formations etc. that required a lot of time.
That would be putting the cart before the horse in the history of science. It was the other way around; other disciplines of science (as it was back then) figured out that what they observed in nature must have happened over eons of time. Then later, the idea, hypothesis and finally theory of evolution was formulated (and has been refined with more evidence since).
Pfft, everyone knows that Darwin was an illuminati reptiloid mason whose peers were guiding the scientific research for centuries so that they could sneak the evolution theory in.
I guess they don't like to talk about Linnaeus, the "father of taxonomy", was a creationist who came to understand that all life was connected, or that it was creationists looking for evidence of the flood that discovered that the earth was really fucking old.
This nonsensical accusing science supporters of making things up because they don't like god is so ridiculous. Evolution doesn't equal atheism. Those two things aren't related, and most people who support real science are religious.
But I do love learning new things because of these debunking and reaction videos.
@@Britishhick I am a scientist and I know literally nobody among my colleagues who'd be religious. Well, openly religious enough fo me to notice. And certainly none of my friends are. Not saying there are no religious scientists out there, but "most people who support real science are religious" is an unfounded claim.
P.S. it's not a personal attack, just a factual correction.
@James Henry Smith ..as claimed by a bunch of smooth-brains with a single cross-shaped crinkle. Sure, go on.
Ever since chuckles Darwin the idiot woman hating racist ,popularized the evolution religion in 1859 by writing his stupid book that shows he was a racist by the title of his book ,over 161 years ago, there has been no evidence for evolution found.
Kevin: if 99.999% of humans were wiped out, it would take centuries to recover.
Also Kevin: Noah was real.
Just throw in a little God magik, and the thing you just said that was impossible, becomes possible.
Forrest, thank you for your channel, I'm at my first year on collage, studying biology, and every time I watch your videos I get happier that I choose this path. The way you talk and explain science makes me motivated, and even inspires me, thank you for making those videos, keep being a great scientist and making amazing content. ^^
I love your videos! As a science teacher myself, I'm in the need for this kind of argumentative content and yours are just perfect. Keep the good work, love from Mexico (:
Some people like to thank veterans for their service, I respectfully disagree and thank the teachers for their invaluable service to humankind as whole, perhaps even more than scientist since teachers are the ones that end up forming the scientists of todays day and age. So, thank you for your service.
So you want to teach a phony made-up theory in your science classroom? You should be stripped of your teaching certificate. Absolutely embarrassing
@@marktalbott3835 Of course not, as any good teacher (at least I hope he is), he is educating students on natural sciences, which involves physics, biology, all that great stuff, which of course, depending on the age of the class, involves a lot of evolution, biology literally doesn't makes sense without that.
@@alexalbuquerquerodriguesal108 it read to me like he was interested in teaching the fake controversy. Introducing intelligent design or some other supernatural cause as a debate topic in science class. That would be a massive deception
@@marktalbott3835 Ohhh now It all makes sense, sorry to bother you, true, something like should make a teacher have his license revoked or at least some sort of recycling course.
I think one of my favorite evolutionary experiments is where they've kept 12 lines of e.coli growing since 1988 and in that time, with no genetic modification, outside gene transfer, and in isolation, after 14 years, and 30,000 generations, one of the lineages developed a brand new ability to metabolize the citrate in their growth media.
Yup, and all of the lines show increased fitness for their environments. So its evolution in action.
"In isolation", no "predators", an "endless" supply of food and space etc - that's about the least likely scenario for evolution. And still..
@@pH7oslo it’s a novel environment to the bacteria, with novel resources that the bacterial population has adapted to exploit. Evolutionary theory doesn’t care about the environment, it cares about populations undergoing changes over time to best survive- in this case the way to survive best is metabolized everything and multiply quickly. I’ll give you that “test tube has it’s nutrients used up and we send a random sample to the to the next test tube” is not exactly a typical set of evolutionary pressures- but evolution occurs regardless of the particular pressures. The bacteria are becoming better adapted to their particular environment due to the selection pressures in place.
@@pH7oslo and still, we see evolution in action. We see new traits emerging.
@@ReiperX
Yes. It's pretty amazing.
It also leaves out horizontal gene transfer. Probably one of the most important factors that aren’t well understood, yet.
Edit: it gets talked about around 26:00 mark. To add it’s also very important in plant and animal evolution besides Archaea and Bacteria. And it doesn’t have to be a close relative. Bacteria to plant, algae to animal etc etc
My brother just introduced me to your channel (with the wonderful video "Sex and Sensibility"), but I just wanted to say that I absolutely loved hearing/seeing the other scientists/educators review the paper! This is something I've been craving as a layperson; to see peer review processes/discussions and the reasons why a paper may or may not have valid presentation or data. Super interesting and entertaining! Thank you so much, I'm really loving your content!
Peer review looks different.
Peer review is something creationists avoid like the plague.
Any professional scientist will confirm that the fact of something having undergone peer review is a long way from an ironclad guarantee of quality.
Welcome to the channel, and yeah the Sex and Sensibility video is amazing.
Be warned, Forrest is addictive to listen to.
@@albertleibold1415 I understand this isn't what traditional scientific peer review processes look like, I was more or less using that as short-hand. But I appreciate you making the distinction!
Forest: your mixing up acclimatization , adaptation, and evolution it’s a freshman mistake.
Me a freshman bio major: taking notes so I don’t mix those up next semester when we start really going into evolution
The maintenance of genome integrity is essential for organism survival and for the inheritance of traits to offspring.
My background: I am a medical doctor and as such we had to study microbiology and genetics. (In fact I had to study it twice since I moved to the US from a foreign country and hold a medical degree now in two different countries). Anyway, I completely understand your frustration. He describes one thing after another which couldn't better demonstrate evolution and then just throws it off without any good reason. This is like sitting in front of a house and calling the house a forrest...
Fun fact: There is a process of bacteria which could be interpreted as having sex (since you mentioned bacteria don't have sex). This is called conjugation. What happens is that one bacteria forms a pilus (and it is even called sex-pilus) then contacts another bacteria cell with it and transfers genetic information, hence DNA to the other cell. That is a common mechanism, how plasmides coding for antibiotic resistance are transferred from one bacterium to another. Means this information is not only transferred to the off springs of a bacterium, but also from one bacterium to another. Unfortunately for us in medicine, this process can even happen between different species of bacteria, so antibiotic resistance can also be transferred between species. Making our job of treating infections with antibiotics even more difficult.
That being sad: It always drives me nuts if people go to Mexico, buy antibiotics and take it for a common cold. That is very irresponsible since colds are almost always virus infections. Antibiotics don't work against viruses and taking antibiotics in this scenario not only doesn't help, it does harm with side effects, destroying your natural flora and increases the forming of resistance!!!
I love rewatching these videos and understanding more of what is being said every time
These videos are also so cathartic. I have watched each video like 3-5 times, sometimes more.
It would be like a 1/10 science teacher challenge, but I think it would be hilarious to watch you react to the Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron evolution debate. Also the video where Bill Nye tours the Creation Museum!
Side note; I grew up in a church that encouraged us to argue about evolution at school. So most of my science classes were spent actively not listening to and missing out on this information. Thank you for being so informative and helping me catch up.
I worry sometimes about applying to grad school (for evolution biology and microbiology) and then I see videos with people like the scientist in this video and I feel much better about it
Nothing boosts my self-confidence like seeing someone that ignorant and close-minded spout their nonsense as if it's the most brilliant thing since wave-particle duality 😂
28:33 Exactly! I'm a builder, and this is the first thing that came to mind for me as well. Yeah, taking out a wall absolutely does tell you about how the wall was originally built 🙄 🤦♂️ often times you'll even find a name and date written on the inside of the wall, left by the person who built it, as a fun little thing for whoever opens it up to come across. So often times taking down an interior wall will even tell you when the wall was built and how long it's been there. What materials were used, what method of framing, what issues they may have had to work around or overcome as it was being built... for someone who knows what they're looking at, you can tell an awful lot about the history of a wall and the process undertaken to build it in the first place. Hell, if you find a company name on the materials you could even use it to find out where the raw material to make those things came from and when. eg, these drywall sheets were made by this company and we know the date it was built thanks to indications left by a previous builder,, at that time, that company was using gypsum mined in this location, which then went to a factory at this other location, was manufactured on this date (building materials often have a manufacture date on them), and was probably transported here around this date.
I love it when people who have no knowledge of the construction industry use the construction industry as an analogy..
I genuinely could never react to these sort of videos like this, I'd just be yelling and cussing them out. Props for actually saying "hey, here's why they're wrong"
Complexity isn't the hallmark of good design, so if there was a designer then they wouldn't be a very good one.
Highschooler looking into going to college for computer science here. From all i know on biology and cs not only is this comment a mood, but if creationism was true i can say god isnt good with logical principals
I've often said I'm not sure I can argue against intelligent design, but I can make a good case against SOBER design.
I rather not imagine how awful and inconvenient technology would be if it was designed by God lol. Instead of cell phones we would just get a longer wires like that one nerve that travels all the way down our neck to near our heart just to come back up again lol.
@@GameLeaderR it is the laryngeal nerve
I think it was AronRa who asked the question "why is it god can't do things the way humanity does?" Or something like that.
Basically, he asked why god is allegedly the designer of all life on earth, yet it couldn't even write its own holy book. The Christian god had to inspire mankind to write a book, because that god couldn't write a book. That god has to inspire mankind to create life saving surgical procedures, because god can't heal anyone from anything that you don't already have a chance of recovering from anyway. It seems god can't design things better than mankind, which sure does kind of put a fine point on the question of gods absolute power.
There's a video on youtube called "I programmed some creatures. They evolved" that does a great job at illustrating (in extremely simplified terms) why Mutation is so important to Evolution and natural selection.
Oh yeah, I saw that video on my youtube recommended list.
The cut away to introduce all of the peers felt like the scene from Avengers EndGame, where everyone comes through the portals. "On your left"
I just went on a rant to my dog how a Rube Goldberg devise is not bits and parts thrown into a box and shaken until something works, it is designed for a specific task. It’s just evidence that he is talking nonsense about things that he know nothing about. And my only understanding of Rube Goldberg devises are from playing MouseTrap as a kid.
Was going to comment on this. Nothing about a RG device is "cobbled together." They are often (but not always) made from household items, but they are rigorously and systematically balanced and put together. The opposite of "cobbled together.:
Well at least you got back a more intelligent answer from your dog than what you would ever get from the creationist in the video :-)
yep, many of those things are carefully thought out and precise with tons of testing before full assembly, it is a complex machine in the end (usually to end up doing (a) task(s), etc) but it has a rhythm of sorts and is systematic in function
You KNOW this is going to be good when he opens with "The most frustrated I've ever gotten on camera."
I first saw you on a tiktok.
I went to your TH-cam and I love your view and explanation on evolution! I grew up around a lot of Christianity, mainly Baptist, (I am catholic myself). And had a big fallout with most if not all my friends because they, Baptist, couldn’t accept my “opinions” on evolution and made fun of the fact that I didn’t think Creationism is real. 🤦♂️
But watching this helps me feel better because it allows me to see how they saw things and why they are wrong. 😊
@@SufficingPit Your Christian friend perfectly describes my best friend.
@@SufficingPit Man, if you're not an apostate, you wouldn't believe the struggle of having to put everything through a faith filter. For an easy example, if you see that evolution seems true, you have to merge it with Christianity, and today, that's what most people do. They say God put evolution in motion. Now, it's so freeing to be able to hypothesise about reality wherever the evidence leads.
In the start of the video, Gloves makes this huge deal about "oh, they hide behind TIME, and if we take time away that just destroys everything". Back in like 2010 I was still in the process of moving from a Fundamentalist Christian creationist upbringing to knowing about evolution and being an atheist. One of the great books that countered this very argument was "The Man who Found Time" about James Hutton. He didn't "discover" geologic time, but maybe formalized the early ideas about what rock strata mean or whatever...but the mind-staggering implications is that YEAH there has been time! We know that evolution happened the way we understand it to have happened (at least in the broad sense) via MULTIPLE lines of evidence that all point to the same conclusion.
I follow a few Religion v Atheism Debate pages on FB, and recently one person went on and on about Dr. Glove's entire argument! I was so confused why he kept talking about "common descent theory" and "evolution can only happen via gene deletion or horizontal gene transfer"--which is what got me back into more in-depth videos about the specifics of how evolution works and has, finally, mercifully, led me to this particular video! YES!
His house analogy makes me laugh a bit because I lived in a house as a kid that started out as this tiny, shitty little modular home (I think it was a modular, I'm not really sure, all I know is it was tiny) with a backyard that was just gravel and stuff. After maybe 10-20 years or so of people moving in and adding on a room or two, styling things up a bit, and then my parents coming in and totally reforming everything, by the time we moved out, the house looked absolutely nothing like it did when first built.
Including the work done by past owners, there was maybe 6 new rooms/living spaces or more, including a crawlspace and extra bathroom, 3 decks, multiple beautiful gardens, strong and sturdy fences across the whole property, new paint job, completely different colouring inside and out, new tile floors, carpeted living room and a bunch of other changes to the flooring over the years. We tore up a cheep plastic "tile" floor pattern that was covered over by the people before us with floorboards, new windows, completely new roofing, and I think we fixed up the walls a few times.
The house went from a small, unpainted rectangle with some walls dividing it into a few small rooms, fit for a single person maybe (back in the day when it was originally built at least, I bet owning a house at all nowadays is a luxury) to a home fit for a whole ass family.
That house went from Tiktaalik to a fucking Tyrannosaurus Rex, if that ain't evolution idk what is.
my uncle did a similar thing. He's a carpenter, and bought a house with his wife that had three bedrooms. Then as he got children, three of them, he just build out to make the living room bigger with a connected dining room, and added another bedroom plus a study room. The house is like twice the size now, another color, the indoor walls have all been painted, there's new flooring and tiling, the whole shebang.
my parents also live in a suburb where a lot of houses were predrawn, but my mom decided to edit the upper floor to better fit our family as we are also three children and the original plan only had three bedrooms. one of our neighbors with the same original plan a few years later renovated to copy our floor plan because they saw the benefits to it. People add, remove, and edit their houses all the time.
I've been binge-watching the Reacteria series and enjoying them. This episode is particularly fine. Thank you.
He wears the gloves so his hands don't get covered in the crap he slings.
I think the critique of his academic paper by peers was a great approach to really kill his argument
I love how they kind of explain evolution to argue against evolution
“This is evolution”
*correct*
“We don’t know how this works”
*Yes, we do*
“Darwin’s wrong because cells stop and we evolve anyways”
*visable anger and confusion*