Darwin's Theory of Evolution: Natural Selection
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ส.ค. 2024
- Most people in the western world used to have a solid idea about our origins: all living organisms were deliberately formed by a single creator. Then, in 1831, a 22-year-old student decided to go on an expedition that would change everything. Upon returning home Darwin came up with his theory of natural selection - a process through which living organisms adapt, reproduce and change. The evolution of peppered moths in the United Kingdom during the industrial revolution is a great example of this process.
SUPPORT us to learn more about this world!
/ sprouts 🐦:
DOWNLOAD video without ads and background music 🤫:
sproutsschools.com/video-less...
SIGN UP to our mailing list and never miss a new video from us 🔔:
eepurl.com/dNU4BQ
SOURCES and teaching resources 🎓:
Link to blog post on Sprouts website is coming soon!
VISIT our website 🌐:
www.sproutsschools.com
CONTRIBUTE by upvoting your favorite topic or suggesting new ones☑️ :
sprouts.featureupvote.com/
THANKS to our patrons
This video was made with the support of our Patrons: Alex Rodriguez, Andrea Basillio Rava, Angela, ArkiTechy, Artur, azad bel, Badrah, Cedric.Wang, Daniele Diniz, David Markham, Delandric Webb, Digital INnov8ors, Dr. Matthias Müller-Mellin, Duane Bemister, Eva Marie Koblin, Fatenah G Issa, Floris Devreese, Frari63, Gerry Labelle, Ginger, Harmoniac Design, ICH KANN DEUTSCH UND ES WAR EINFACH!, Jana Heinze, Jannes Kroon, Jeffrey Cassianna, Jim Pilgrim, Joanne Doyle, John Burghardt, Jonathan Schwarz, Jorge Luis Mejia Velazquez, jun omar ebdane, Khadijah Sellers, Leonel, Linus Linderoth, Liskaya, Marcel, María, martin, Mathis Nu, Mezes.Macko, Michael Paradis, Mindozone, Natalie O’Brien, Nick Valerio, Nicki, Okan Elibol, Oweeda Newton, Peter Bishop, Raymond Fujioka, Roel Vermeulen, Scott Gregory, scripz, Sebastian Huaytan Meder, Si, Stefan Gros, Stephen Clark, Stuart Bishop, Susan Schuster, Takashi HIROSE, Thomas Aschan, Tristan Scifo, Victor Paweletz, Yvonne Clapham, Zlatko Minev and all the others.Thank you! To join them visit www.patreon.com/sprouts
COLLABORATORS
Script: Jonas Koblin
Artist: Pascal Gaggelli
Voice: Matt Abbott
Coloring: Nalin
Editing: Peera Lertsukittipongsa
Production: Selina Bador
Sound Design: Miguel Ojeda
Fact Checking: Ludovico Saint Amour di Chanaz
SOUNDTRACKS
Cheeky Plum Fairy - Shaun Frearson
Toy Days Out - Shaun Frearson
Midnight Mischief - Jonathan Boyle
DIG DEEPER with these top videos, games and resources:
Learn more about natural selection and the different selection types on the Encyclopedia Britannica
www.britannica.com/science/na...
Learn how evolution impacts biology and psychology in this famous Stanford University lectures on Human Behavioral Biology by Robert Sapolsky
• 1. Introduction to Hum...
Read On Origin of the Species, Darwin’s original book in form of a PFD
www.vliz.be/docs/Zeecijfers/O...
Check out the TierZoo TH-cam channel which is all about nature, the game of life, and survival
/ tierzoo
Read this Nature paper: Evaluating the role of natural selection in the evolution of gene regulation
www.nature.com/articles/6801000
SOURCES
Sexual selection - Wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_...
Natural selection - Wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...
History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...
On the origin of species - Wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_...
Charles Darwin - Wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles...
Tree of life (biology) - Wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of...)
CLASSROOM ACTIVITY
Visit our website to learn more about suggested classroom activity for this topic
CHAPTER
00:00 Introduction
01:00 Natural selection theory
02:33 Survival of the fittest
03:27 Real life example
04:48 What do you think?
05:08 Ending
06:12 Patrons credits
#sproutslearning #naturalselectiontheories #survivalofthefittest #darwin
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Sprouts/ . The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.
Meh 😑
@@pyeitme508 artists got to eat.
There's an apparent contradiction in your statements. Concerning the "real life" example of the moths, at 3:58 you said that the darker ones were "less prevalent", which you then at 4:38 attributed to "random genetic mutations" as per the Darwinian evolutionary presumption. How can that possibly be, if the dark moth was already in existence as attested by your previous statement?
The "problem" of the chicken and the egg only becomes a "problem" within evolutionary biology. It's not a problem for us creationists, who believe that God created the chicken, a variation within the "bird" kind, with the "seed" within itself (in wisely designed complex reproduction systems) so it could "be fruitful and multiply".. yet the chicken still needs the rooster to fertilize her eggs in order to produce chicks...
Hard for me to simply believe that this was a "process" of "random" chance and mutations..
God bless.
@@samuelguzman5348 You're missing the fact that just because one moth is more successful and become more prevalent, it doesn't mean the other kind will necessarily vanish completely. In many cases a new evolutionary line will completely replace the old one by simply out performing it, but in others it will become a new sub-species where the original version still exists but may not be quite as common as the new, more successful one. This is the case with the moths where the white ones were more common until the environment changed extremely quickly and the black ones were suddenly more successful. This reversed again in an even shorter period when human's reversed the environmental damage.
I won't spend one moment arguing your faith with you, but I will say that you can believe in God and still believe in evolution.
Life only comes from life.
Darwin's ideas weren't actually formed in a vacuum. Breeding of certain traits has always been part of farming, and in Darwin's time pigeon breeding in particular was a fad among the rich - they'd breed pigeons with extra-long necks, or extra-fluffy feathers or whatnot. The leap Darwin made was that the same process could happen naturally, without a human breeder's intervention.
All humans could see this process in nature too, and the unmistakable resemblance between humans and other primates. Darwin went farther with the speciation and common ancestry ideas.
Darwin also theorized that Africans were less evolved than their white counterparts.
I personally reject the whole premise of evolution opposed to natural design.
Also about this time other branches of science noticed the world could not be only 6000 years old.
The ideas of evolution had been presented before, but 6000 years would not have been enough time.
When people understood how old the world really was, evolution became accepted.
(Except in some parts of the US)
Quite right! and Darwin's 1st chapter was "Variation under domestication".
Common descent of all living things is not supported by anything presented here.
You managed to condense the history of the theory the concept and an interesting example including human interference that sticks into 5 minutes!
The visualization was just wonderful and i paused several times to enjoy the drawings that made me smirk.
Thank you Sprouts!
Thank you ❤️
You need a sensitive content warning. I had to cover my rabbit's eyes during one of those scenes. 🐰 🙈🙉🙊 😎
Oh no!
🤣🤣
Genetics is definitely complex, but I feel the concepts of genetics such as natural selection can be easily understood by someone like me. Biochemistry, physics, and other highly abstract sciences just go right over my head.
th-cam.com/video/jyATE9StbK8/w-d-xo.html
Love the artwork for these videos
Glad you like them! :)
The answer to the chicken/egg problem is egg. Ancient reptiles (such as, ya know, dinosaurs) evolved far earlier than chickens.
Nice questions to get that sweet viewer interaction!
It should be dinosaur/egg problem
This video and the Dark triad video just explains realism in humans.
We are still animals.
True 🙃
Super cute characters! Love them very much.♥
Thanks! 🐰
These drawings are super hilarious😂😂😂welldone.
Wasn’t the whole species fixation thing, a Greek idea and not a biblical one? Like I’ve noticed a lot of the beliefs held by the early Roman Catholic Church, were Greek in origin.
The Catholic Church ⭕⛪ has its own de facto scripture, so...
This episode should have a follow up on how natural selection and survival of the fittest were perverted into the ideology of Social Darwinism.
After the man returned home after 5 years his wife had found other natural selection
Welp Charles Darwin did think of the Survival of the Fittest theory stuff🤣😂
What have you done expect be a troll😂
@@IBTU it's except 🙄
@@pyeitme508🎉 here is a congratulations on figuring something out
He is nearly correct, look at Larmark
"Survival of The Fittest" is often attributed to Charles Darwin, bus it was Herbert Spencer who first used the phase.
Also Charles Darwin dinn't "invent" evolution, That was Lamark and others. Darwin's and Wallace's theory defined the process, (still brilliant).
I like this topic explanation and illustration.
Good job explaining Darwin's theory in such a concise matter!
Well presented and an excellent video that explains natural selection.
-
I liked that it also included mutations that just made changes to appearance with no actual benefit +/- to the survival in the environment. Attracting mates is also vital.
In humans these days the whole theory becomes very complicated.
-
My opinion on the chicken and egg. There has to be the production of the zygote first. Or there will be no egg. So, for me the initial dinosaur line started millions of years ago...and the creation of dinosaurs goes back even further...so this is first, and the eggs followed.
zygote
cell
Written and fact-checked by
Last Updated: Article History
Ascaris lumbricoides
Ascaris lumbricoides
See all media
Related Topics:
prenatal development human reproductive system zygospore auxospore
zygote, fertilized egg cell that results from the union of a female gamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete (sperm). In the embryonic development of humans and other animals, the zygote stage is brief and is followed by cleavage, when the single cell becomes subdivided into smaller cells.
That's not the chicken and the egg problem because those weren't chickens. Actually, it's not a problem, but a misunderstanding of the meaning of species because no ancestor would have been considered a different species from its immediate offspring.
An interesting article I read as a kid claimed that perhaps humans originally had only dark hair and dark eyes, new colours (like in your rabbit example) emerged when there was deficit of reproductive partners in population. Article theorized that so many men died hunting, blondes had a greater chance of having kids due to being more distinct in a crowd of brunettes.
Great work Thank you
th-cam.com/video/jyATE9StbK8/w-d-xo.html
Note that this does not mean "survival of the strongest." For example, it is perfectly possible for an animal to exist which is larger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and more heavily armed than a bear. However, it would most likely also need more food, reproduce more slowly, have more existential crises, and injure itself in accidents more often than a bear. Evidently, the trade off doesn't always favor bigger number = more fit.
The Movie "Idiocrocy" shows how in modern sense this can be a big problem with humans. The super smart people go on to invent, stay busy and have little to no kids, but the dumb, good looking chads have a bunch of kids soon outpacing the smart ones. We still have our monkey brains and in blind test men and women still like looks over ability/smart.
I think it makes sense to say the chicken came first because I've learnt that the protein that forms egg shells (chorion ) can only be produced by hens(chicken)
This is what I wish I had in my 7th grade textbook instead of A VIDEO FOR 2ND GRADERS
I actually want to see the videos because of the attractive illustrations. Great contents, though 🎉
Awesome videos
Thanks!
I saw what you draw in the rabbit comic panel
this is the Fantasy Island version - Charles D came from a long line of atheist speculators about evolution. His grandfather Erasmus wrote a famous early evolution book, 'Zoonomia'. Charles had read this book, and worked hard alongside the atheist-evolutionist biologist named Grant at Edinburgh University (when he should have been studying medicine, as his father wished). He flunked medicine but carried on his atheistic studies his whole life. 'Survival of the fittest' is a pseudo-explanation. Neither Darwin or any other evolutionish has ever successfully defined 'fitness' in anything other than terms of 'survival', so 'Survival of the fittest' really means 'Survival of the survivors', which does not sound like an explanation of anything to me.
The real quote is "Survival of the one most adaptable to change," which does admittedly flow back into circular reasoning. But fittest is an intentionally biased word coined and used by social darwinists, I agree.
Egg is the 1st coz the early life on earth are aquatic animals and they lay eggs later they evolve as a land animals ang become chicken overtime
It is more luck than fittest
There is a difference between natural selection and the idea of macroevolution: it's the difference between refining an initial design through trimming off edges and believing that the process of trimming bits off can yield tons of new information to the point that something becomes an entirely different thing. You didn't need to add in a pointless and rude jab against creationists at the beginning.
0:10 The drawing or representation here is wrong.. This is a symbol of the Eye of Horus or the one-eyed Antichrist or the Beast, and he will claim divinity and many will follow him thinking that he is the true God, and he is the greatest sedition of the three monotheistic religions, and is not a symbol of the true God.. But according to what I see the general orientation of the media, I think This error is intentional.
👀
So... where is the mutation? All I heard was moths with particular coloring survived and passed their genetic traits. They existed before and didn't spontaneously manifest.
I agree. Natural selection occurs of course. However, random mutations that are believed to provide genetic material for evolution, are a huge problem for the theory, since they are either harmful or just neutral (don't do anything). Genetic illnesses and cancer are prominent examples of harmful mutations.
Fyi.
Charles Darwin believes in a creator. He proposed a theory on how it was created.
Humans are in a unique situation. Where resources aren't as scare.
We have defied the Laws of Nature with intelligence, societal organization, and use of tools.
So, the priority shifts from Survival of the Individual. To survival of civilization.
Something nature can't do. But human society can.
-And throughout human history: Some civilizations have endured. While others didn't.
The difference is what they actually did against real-world issues.
No, evolution has always been changes in populations, not individuals. Civilisations ending and reforming have nothing to do with evolutionary processes. Certainly, our technologies and geographical distribution have slowed down the evolution of the human population, but we're still evolving under Nature's laws.
While that is true in some ways, humans still evolve via natural selection and survival of the fittest - humans with genetic traits that makes them more resistant to disease/sickness will likely live longer and reproduce more than others. Modern medicine definitely "leveled the playing field" somewhat though, so it probably slowed the natural selection of the human species.
But I didn't understand how evolution challenges the idea that we at the initial stage were created by creator....
Because the bible says that god created man, not god created apes that evolved into men - or more percisely, god created the single cell organisms that evolved into every living creature we see today.
I never liked the term "Survival of the fittest"
I think "Survival of the adequate" is more appropriate
Pretty sure the phrase “survival of the fittest” was coined in business schools to justify monopolistic economic practices. In other words a simplistic buzz phrase used by half wit MBA’s who can’t find their ass with both hands and a map. I don’t think Darwin ever used the phrase in any of his works.
A single creator. Cthulhu?
3:00 ??????? and the sound in the background ???? 😂😂😂
this is an excellent example of Negative Gentile Social Engineering... Facts...
Survival of the most adaptive actually
what is the chicken-egg problem? Eggs developed before birds; eggs existed long before a bird commonly known as a chicken. Fish, sharks, amphibians, crustaceans, reptiles, are all examples of taxonomic categories of creatures that existed before birds and used eggs to reproduce. Eggs developed as an evolutionary function for reproduction long before birds evolved. Also, whatever ancestry exists by which the bird commonly known as chicken came about, the eggs of birds were already developed as a reproduction function long before the birds and long before the chicken. There's no problem.
Maybe that applies to some other planets
So I’m not pulling baddies cuz I’m not “the fittest”?
Yeah, it seems I'm not the fittest as well but I go to gym and can bench 110😢
The chicken and egg problem is a problem of definition. Of course eggs are older than chickens, when you do not mean a chicken egg. But if you mean a chicken egg you need to specify, is a chicken egg an egg laid by a chicken or an egg that has the genetics of a chicken?
The first chicken came from an egg that was laid by an animal that was not a true chicken, just like the first homo sapiens was born of a creature that was not quite a homo sapiens.
@@smgdfcmfah But was it a chicken egg?
@@UrsusPolaris01 It WAS a chicken egg, but it was NOT a chicken's egg.
@@smgdfcmfah Thank you, for sharing your wisdom in capitals.
@@UrsusPolaris01 You're WELCOME!
Nature provides Positive pressure to blackmoths❤
i wonder how the differences between the birds-of-paradise of new guinea can be explained by natural selection, i think that the mutations arent random
Essentially there really weren't many natural predators to the birds of paradise, so they never evolved traits necessary to use against predators, and developed bizarre plumage and weird mating habits. They did an experiment with Arctic Foxes. They took offspring and bred the aggressive foxes with aggressive foxes, and docile foxes with docile foxes. After many generations they found, the aggressive foxes became more aggressive, and the physical characteristics became more aggressive. The docile foxes on the other hand became more docile, and they developed less aggressive features, such as curly tails and floppy ears, there was no need for aggression so aggressive traits went away. Same with Birds of Paradise, except one happened naturally.
@@chrisclark784 with or without natural predators this diversity in morphology and behavior shouldn't exist, bright colors and energetic dances indicate the health of an individual and so they might develop crazy colors and dances but I don't see why one population would develop long head feathers while another chooses a blue smiley face on a cape, natural selection and sexual selection doesn't explain it
Por poco! Pero sigo....
Chicken and egg? It's organic evolution that's all good drawing best wishes😊
How do people who do not believe in evolution explain what happened with the peppered moths?
Observe how Darwin’s theory was framed into a human trait such as competitiveness (which reminds me about your last video on free market, monopoly, etc.) If concerned with the truth, we can observe an obvious bias due to conditioning. If our upbringing teaches about separation of species rather than interdependence, then the obvious “knowledge” of “random” mutation becomes the answer. Anything we don’t know is “random.” There is a proper balance in the Universe which maintains an equilibrium among species except when the human mind interferes. That is because humans have an “agenda,” most of the time- Perhaps the “free market” agenda or the monopoly agenda, etc. which obviously brings the idea of “survival of the fittest.”
In your question of who is first, the chicken or the egg? The answers depends largely in your belief system. If you believe that linear time is the truth, you will look for who is the “first” (chicken or egg) and come up with many other beliefs to “prove” who is right and who is wrong. If you believe in circular, cyclical time, as in many Eastern religions and Mayans, then “first” does not come into the picture, as in a closed circle of time, there is no “first” but things just “appear” in a repetitive eternal fashion and “first” is merely a point of reference. ( Nietzche “Eternal return.”) Enjoyed the video. Thank you!
0:13 anyone know WHY he took that ”expedition”??
why dont we all talk about the REASON??
Well, what was his reason?
@@stephenmason5682 Taking God out of the picture, because proud free thinkers like himself couldn't cope with the fact there is a God that establishes rules for humankind's own good. He, and many other "thinkers" of their day, like Marx and Nietzsche, despized the influence of religion and God in society ( as if corrupt religions could ever be true spokesmen for God... ). Evolution was their answer to that. But as what they observed ( animals don't change into something other than what they are ) would not fit their narrative, the answer to that became time. "Well, you know, we don't see them mutating and evolving because this happened through billions of years." Obviously, this could never be proven or disproven, and so voila', they conceived the perfect and most convenient alibi to get rid of religion and God. This "billion of years" narrative goes on today. "The grand canyon was formed through billions of years", and yet the eruption of mount st Helens last century caused the same type of canyons, with it's defined layers, in just one afternoon. "The dinosaurs have million of years" and yet soft tissue was found in several specimens ( found by meanwhile cast out and discredited archaeologysts ) Because the desire to remove God from society increased exponentially in the "science" world, and "scientists" now became prostitutes to whatever agenda is paying them. Every ludicrous and insane theory is considered, but to consider an intelligent being created this perfectly designed world, now that's just unscientific...
@@armandolima823 A simple question asking what was the reason, and you spew out all this nonsense?
Fact of god?
@@armandolima823 I mean yes, the fact that a invisible man in the sky who also made cancer and some of the saddest species every known to exist is unscientific
What about of making a Carl Jung's video? :)
great
*watching*
What do you mean by egg and hen riddle?.
🐰
He's takin' abt who was first created, an egg or a hen.
A riddle that's not a riddle because the question makes no sense in the light of evolution.
@@tschorsch Sure it does. Did the first chicken hatch from an egg that was laid by and animal that was not a chicken, or was the first chicken born of a species that game live birth but in turned had an evolutionary mutation within itself the egg laying ability? The correct answer (imho) is logically the first option (as we believe all birds evolved from egg laying dinosaurs), but we have no real proof as of yet.
Natural selection occurs of course. However, random mutations that are believed to provide genetic material for evolution, are a huge problem for the theory, since they are either harmful or just neutral (don't do anything). Genetic illnesses and cancer are prominent examples of harmful mutations.
Expliquez s'il vous plait, ce que vous voulez dire.
We have seen beneficial mutations occur, including de-novo material.
@@thehowlingjoker I'd like to know a couple of examples of those mutations.
So basically improvise adapt
👏👏👏
Nice...but it doesn’t explain my crazy sister.
...actually it does...
This video series helped me understand the origins and relevance of Natural Selection in a broader sense. I think there is more to the discussion than I saw in this video. th-cam.com/video/i-lQKES8pJQ/w-d-xo.html
Interesting
Ikr!
I don’t think it works up to date…
The egg came first because animals before chickens had eggs
But who had the egg?😂
we now have unatural selection as we can see in a few type of dog, especially pub, with no physical abilities to survive on its own, ithink ?
What about types of eugenics programs or influences ..,. . Not so natural
We just need to add that, for humans, the culture and ideas spread is even more important than the genes.
Except it's not. The fact that genes are spread regardless of how inferior they are is a product of our society and will likely be our eventual demise. Our species is getting weaker and weaker in many ways. In the human world, the less successful a human is the more likely they are to procreate (or procreate more often).
@@smgdfcmfah 3000 years ago we were much worse in overall terms. In this time period the gene revolution was very small but the civilizational revolution was huge.
@@PedroPortelareis Exactly. Now the earth is overpopulated and we're struggling to find a balance with nature without destroying it. The sharing of information, food and wealth is ultimately a negative thing as there is never a balance. People starve in part of the world because the local ecology can't support them, so we feed them from another part of the world where there is an abundance. Worse is the fact that technology is shared at such a rate that few people know how anything works - and NO one knows how everything works. 3,000 years ago a person could leave his city, move out into the countryside and live pretty much the same way he did before because he knew how to build a shelter, a fire, hunt, farm etc. Even if he wasn't an expert at all of it, he'd learn as he went. Today most city people wouldn't last a week in the wilderness, but more importantly, if part of the machine breaks down, they have no clue how ANYTHING works. This is unsustainable, to say the least.
Genes are everything
Those are also affected by natural selection...
Did anyone feels good when you know what is the true meaning of this?
All this time and money and still creationists can't find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix. Anyone? Anyone at all?
what's changed since the theory of evolution has been the theory of evolution?
when's it gonna change? you know, evolve itself?
i'm witnessing...
It’s changed quite a bit over its 150 year run time. More mechanisms have been found and genetics have been discovered.
Why did they have to discriminate against the black moths like that?
I personally have never seen a conflict between religion and evolution. I think that evolution and other natural processes were the method by which God created the world, and the description of the creation in Genesis actually matches up pretty well.
Interesting
God looks on the heart, man looks at appearance.
You're not being biblically accurate
@StatiCRjm how so? The translation of "Days" for the creation we already know would be better written as "Periods," meaning times of indeterminate length. The order of creation described matches what scientists agree on, meaning the formation of the world, then the land being divided from the sea, then the appearance of the heavenly bodies (easily matches when the Earth's atmosphere would finally be clear enough to see the Sun/Moon/Stars), followed by the creation of plant life then Animal life and finally culminating in Man who was "created from the dust." Now if I were Moses who was watching all this and saw the process of single cell organisms being made into man, I too would probably say it was dust.
Don't presume to know my faith. What I have said above is merely my own conjecture and ultimately whether I'm right or wrong has zero bearing on my belief in Christ as the Savior of the World.
Never?
You're lucky
@@RoxRock4ever and you're just another ignorant
Guess it was patched
CHARLES DARWIN!!!!!
...And we all know which humans breed the most...
YUP!!!! ACTUALLY,, I'M THINKING THAT THAT'S DEFINITELY, COULD'VE EXPLAINED,,OL TRUMPER!!!
Here is what I see has happened to many who have been seduced by Darwinism. You were taught certain fundamental truths as a youth. You were instructed in the sciences, in mathematics, physics, geography, history and biology by teachers whom you respected as a youth, whom you admired and looked up to. And because as an impressionable youth you admired, respected and looked up to these people, and much of what they taught you was true, when they introduced the Darwinian theory of evolution to you, sort of slipping it in with algebra, chemistry, biology and astronomy - the classical sciences, then you accepted it also without reservation, you didn't question it, you swallowed it whole since these people were your mentors and you trusted them, almost revered them. Usually it was introduced to you in science class with some Disney like animation showing lightening striking an ancient pond, then cells emerging, then fish swimming in a sea before they crawled out onto land and lost their scales and became amphibians that became reptiles that became birds and mammals that became monkeys that became humans. It was all very skillfully done, and there was usually very little actual science involved; you were told a story, much like a Sunday school Noah's Ark story, only this story left out God of course, and because it was in science class it must have been true. It never occured to you that your teachers who told you that evolution was a fact as real as the Laws of Gravity might have themselves been deceived in their youth when they were in science class, and then they introduced that very same deception into your life, all with the very best of intentions. So you accepted evolution as being as legitimate as all of the other sciences, your teachers certainly wouldn't lie to you, and then over the course of time it became your Weltanschauung. As time progressed and you grew older, a sort of intellectual pride clouded your worldview, and also affected, or more precisely infected your understanding of earth's history, of man's origin; and you became too sophisticated to believe in the straight, literal truth of Genesis. In your youthful hubris you substituted Darwin for Moses. Over the course of time Darwinism became more entrenched in your mind. It became a dogma; it was your world view through which you interpreted reality. Part of this springs from Hellenism, the Greek philosophy that is the cornerstone of much of modern thought.
Evolution makes perfect
No. if so you wouldn't have extinctions. Good example is the Irish Deer.
No not really, evolution isn't a conscious choice
@@meatchips4936 Mostly! There are 1000s of dumb evolution examples,The human spine, Nerve for the larynx going down the neck, into the chest, then back up the neck, especially silly for the giraffe.
You could argue sexual selection is a conscious choice?
@@MarkUKInsects evolution doesn’t state that extinction won’t occur.
0:56 what is this guy on🤣
There is a scene not appropriate for children. See minute 2:59
300
That's why i can't find a white girl
This life is sucks and very fucking bad
Wow, racist moths lol
4:35 R A C I S M
chicken
I wish everybody could live.
That’s not how life works
great vid
today's episode of Sprouts features a special guest... Donald Thump
Chicken is same as egg just like a baby is same as man. It just grows up and change its body.
It was egg came first
🐔💭
It depends on the question. The question is too vague.
Redundant title
Thanks for your question,
How can we solve the chicken and the egg problem?!!!!!.....
There is no way to solve this problem through experimentation because physical life is of a variable nature, meaning that what is constant in it is change. Therefore, all experimental results are tentative and not conclusive, and it is a purely relative practical matter. There is no way to solve the problem except through the intervention of the abstract mind or what is called (necessary science). So, he is the source of judgment on physics, not the other way around
Based on the above, we decide the following:
We say that the logical, demonstrative mind has three sections
The first is that a thing is judged by the rule of certainty and definiteness. Its name is its definition > Wajib: which is something that is established in itself or cannot be excluded.
The second > He judges a matter with certainty and certainty as well
Its name and definition > Impossible: which is something that is absent or cannot be proven
Third > He judges a thing or a matter as being or not being confirmed
Whether before confirmation or absence, its name and definition
Permissible: It is something that is possible to exist or not
The proof is as follows: Start with a declarative question
The chicken and the egg fall under which section of rational judgment?!!!! I'll give you the answer right now, for short
They fall under the third category, which is permissible or possible
We said that what is the definition of the possible is the acceptance of both confirmation and non-existence. Note: the predominance of confirmation and non-existence in the case of the possible, regardless of the ratio, because we are in this position.
It suffices for us to define it and to summarize it as well
Continuing where we have reached in the research?.....
That is, we said that they are both rationally possible
_Explanation of the proof
This leads to the race of nothingness and the rights of nothingness over it, according to their definition
Ok, the question here
What made their existence more likely than their non-existence?!!!!
If we say about themselves, this role is necessary
What is the role: something stops on itself at one or more levels
This necessity leads to two questions
_How can someone who accepts nothingness when he is non-existent be able to create himself?!!! The one who has no ability to pray has no ability
_How can one who accepts existence have his existence depend on himself?!!!
Both questions are from the second category of rational judgment, which is impossible
Therefore, we say that both the chicken and the egg must have been created by something, and it does not matter who was found before the important other
Who created one of them first or created
Observation sorts it out. There were eggs before there were birds. Bird evolution is clear in fossil record and in genomes and indeed in taxonomy. So, the issue is resolved. The egg was first. Birds came later. Chickens came even later again.
@@ozowen
The question here:
Who found the egg?!!!!!....
There are two possibilities. The first is that she created herself by herself
Or something else create it
First: If it had created itself by itself, this would follow from it
The meeting of the two opposites is impossible, because in the state of nothingness it had power....How can it be correct in the mind to describe the non-existent with power?!!!...
This is mentally impossible
If I find something else...
Who is he?!!... Let's look for him
Thank you
@@muhemmdmostafa4029
No, sorry.
There is nothing in that lot that is difficult. There was no created creature. The creatures that came before the ones who could lay eggs were simpler creatures.
I'm not sure you quite understand how this works.
We have creatures on Earth- in fact the majority of creatures on Earth are simple ones. They don't lay eggs. they don't have sex. They self clone. However, some of that lot can also merge with others to do something like sexual reproduction. Indeed, there are many creatures on Earth right now that can reproduce asexually, but have the choice also to reproduce sexually.
None of this is impossible- it happens right now.
@@ozowen
_Your Saying(No sorry.
Thank you, sir. I would like to draw your attention to a matter which is,
In this context, I am not interested in knowing how creatures came to be. What matters most to me is who created them?!!!.....
_ Your statement (We have creatures on Earth - in fact the majority of creatures on Earth are simple creatures. They do not lay eggs. They do not have sex. There are many creatures on Earth today that can reproduce asexually, but they also have the option to reproduce sexually)
Notice that you re-explain how creatures are found, and I do not care about knowing their reality at this stage of theoretical thinking, even if the method is cloning or something else.
It is nothing more than the fact that our knowledge of how to unite is nothing more than,
What is the method of reproduction?
You would like to notice that there are four existential ratios in existence, which are:
1_ The proportion of the event, i.e. the occurrence outside the mind
2_ The ratio of mind, that is, mental thinking about the fact that creatures exist
3_ Pronunciation ratio, that is, its expression using the language in which it is spoken
4_ The ratio of the number, that is, writing about it in books....
The focus of my talk is about the existence of creatures, where did they come from?!!!...
In the first place the mind always asks this question
Who created these materials that are the elements of created things?!!!.
Then we move to the second place, which is the search for knowledge of its facts through experimental science.
The question here
Is the meaning I want to convey to you clear?!!!...
Sir, do you understand what I want to ask you in terms of knowledge?!!!!....
Thank you
@@muhemmdmostafa4029
"What matters most to me is who created them"
OK, so you are wanting to talk about a deity. I am talking about the science and only the science
If you want to twist the subject to a different one to that which you proposed of which came fist, the hen or the egg? Not interested.
Have fun.
(^^; natural selection is the character flaw in evil that is integrity is more important than life otherwise evolution is tragic circumstances with nothing intelligent happening. Almost everyone survive until they reproduce. Nothing is getting selected except for the character flaw in evil. I found a replacement for the character flaw in evil that I liked but God makes me forget things that will cause me trouble.
The example of the speckled moth really illustrates changes in population since the genes for dark or light colorations in the moths were already there in the species. The population swings back. How, because the genetic traits allowed for that fluency in the population.
Yes, it demonstrates natural Selection. Do you have a point?
The first commenter
Liar
Unfortunately criminals will evolve even more
hes right when he said all animals come from one creator :) how was the earth formed with no creator.
How was the earth formed with ANY creator?
how do you think the world was created@@DenisK21
if u think big bang, so i had a stone and a window i was bored so i threw the stone at the window and it formed an iphone 6 than many years later it evolved to a iphone 14. so does that sound right?
@@raufkhadra907 No, it sounds deliberately wrong in every possible way. Now put that tangential straw man back where you found it and actually answer my question.
@@DenisK21 listen son, your just angry because thats how you sound when you explain big bang and evolution 🤣 your supposed to tell me how my example and your theories are different and why you dont believe how my phone appeared
Duh & literally first 🥇🙄
Troll
The answer lays in the Bible, the 1st chapter of Genesis as well to the answer; " which came 1st, the chicken or the egg? ", it's the chicken 🐔!