David Attenborough and Harvey Carey debate evolution and creationism (1980) | RetroFocus
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ส.ค. 2018
- Naturalist David Attenborough debated Professor of Obstetrics Harvey Carey on the theory of #evolution for the ABC on 6 June 1980.
#science
For more from ABC News, click here: www.abc.net.au/news/
Follow us on Twitter: / abcnews
Like us on Facebook: / abcnews.au
Subscribe to us on TH-cam: ab.co/1svxLVE
Follow us on Instagram: / abcnews_au
I like how both took no offense from eachother's arguements and that they were laughing with the moderator at the end. It's a prime example of an objective and civilized debate.
No, it's an example of an honest person, Attenborough, debating someone who is deeply dishonest and operating in bad faith. You are too charitable. It is not an example of honesty simply to turn up and be relatively polite, not when your starting position is so dishonest.
Yes, I agree
That was a time when people used to be raised by humans, no pseudo-scientists indoctrinated to be atheists and materialists.
Their family seems the prefer to educate, teach good manners, and respect everyone.
They used to have motives to understand that they could be only barely evolved apes only if they chose to believe in that.
Civilised, yes, but not objective from Attenborough's interlocutor. His conclusion has come from an already held preconceived bias that runs contrary to the very science he's made a career from. Attenborough was objective.
Abiogenesis fails
People forget that Attenborough isn't just a wildlife presenter, he's also a qualified zoologist & geologist.
Also a VERY highly paid propagandists and TV presenter.
@@sk-un5jq🙄🙄
The fallacy of appeal to authority.
@@dennisnegrido686 "appeal to authority" three words used by crackpots who refuse to admit that there are people who know more than them.
@@joelww2501 maybe you're right and maybe you're not right. But at least some people are not as gullible as you are.
Why are they debating this in a supply closet?
Hahaha riiight!
Evolution will come into play; the next debate will be held in the kitchen then the boardroom. If it’s gone backwards, it’ll be in the toilets.
It's a lab. 🧪⚗🔬
If you are a creationist, I can understand. Creationists don't know what labs are. _They have a book._ That's all the science they need.
@@jtveg I think they meant to say that the quality of the sound is muffled just like what you would hear in a closed space or in the comment's above said a supply closet
@@justinetabrilla5355
Fair enough.
The takeaway from this is don’t trust someone just because they wear a lab coat.
1980 and even without the evidence of DNA, Attenborough is the more convincing.
@Paul Morphy no that dna proves we are all related. Just like DNA can prove who the murderer is or who is the father, The same mechanism can be proven to show that we are related to all living animals
The "evidence of DNA" is that animals were created by a genius.
All living organisms share similarly designed DNA. Could this similarity exist, not because they had the same ancestor, but because they had the same Designer?
@@pacnja1332 Doesn't explain how billions of years ago there were only micro-organisms on the planet, though
@@sudajared The Designer, or Creator, who time does not mean the same to us, gradually introduced living things to our planet starting with the most basic. But the gradual introduction of more and more complex forms of life does not mean there is no designer. Design requires a designer.
This why everyone has heard of Attenborough and not the creationist.
movieklump so true
True. The smart money is on evolution.
because he is the wrong side .
So if we are famous we must be on the right track and telling the truth? I would say the opposite is true. Evolution has many holes in it...and the more we know about DNA and the more fossils we find.... the more evolution is struggling to explain things away...Evolution is mans grasp to a reality without God. One day it will be known for the lie it is.
@its yaboii except that the conversation didn't go that way and you entirely misinterpreted what attenborough was saying.
And that atheists bit at the bottom is nothing but idiotic.
And 40 years later, the arguments against Evolution have not gotten any better. People are so quick to hang on to their beliefs
True. If god does exist, why did he made principles that lead to his non-existence? If god created science, why we can't connect science to him? Creationists just keep saying god doesn't literally created bible, but the people are inspired by god that led to the creation of bible. How can you even say that there is god in that case? Even principles are self-looping, so there's also indeed no creator. Energy loops, matter loops, burnt paper turns into carbon and gas, it just turns into something else to become paper again. Universe exists in the first place because it loops.
It's like questioning a water cycle:
Why water evaporates? - to condensate
Why water condensates? - to precipitate
Why water precipitates? - to run off
Why water runs off? - to evaporate
And the cycle goes on and on and on...
@@ziphos Well, I can make it another way round. What if you also assume that God exists and big bang shouldn't exist without a creator, therefore, God exists? Is that what you are blabbering about? If God does exists, scientist would've immediately told us and valued him since then, but it looks like only priests spread this message. They even come to the point that they contradict scientists with stupid arguments. They should've alerted us and provided strong basis and evidence that God exists as much as the very rare endangered animals needed to be protected. Don't fool yourself. None of your counter-arguments convinces me. Your logical fallacies can't prove your God, but strong basis and evidence are, but... Still, there's none. There are a lot of mysterious ways big bang can exist without God.
The arguments against that hoax were always solid and never required improvement .
@Timothy Slater //// That is only in Christianity. But since God is everywhere present, then we have a contradiction.
@@jamessmith65536 ///// The big bang itself is only a theory based on the "red shift". We assume the red shift is caused by a receding universe. But some scientists think that the red shift is caused by the light being filtered thru plasma fields. Therefore no recession and no big bang.
David do be kinda handsome tho
Abiogenesis fails
@@tonymaurice4157 how do u know? were u there?
@elbownio5820 It doesn't happen in optimal lab environments with manipulated conditions and all kinds of designed equipment, templates... But somehow a harsh unseen early earth did it, That's what you believe.. Wishful thinking 👍
@@tonymaurice4157 I think abiogenesis might be real. I think God created the laws of Physics and the Big Bang, and then chemical evolution, abiogenesis and biological evolution took over.
@@tonymaurice4157 it’s funny because every time a scientist or educator shows us in fossils what’s times extinct animals lived in and through genetics how we can trace back ancestry through the fossil record, all this information goes in one ear and out the other for creationists whom a lot of time do not address most of the points made and simply resort to “well we can’t replicate it in a lab so that we see millions of years of evolution in one lifetime”
Where can we find this whole discussion?
there's an entire limb on my family tree that still identifies as fish.
Bahahaha
Things are much better_ down where it's wetter_ take it from meeee
Abiogenesis fails
Lol this is the O.G version of Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate.
His now 93 god bless him
Died in '89, still stupid.
Talking about Attenborough
Abiogenesis fails
If I wear a white coat I will look more informative than you.
East Ender ...!😂🤣🤣😘
Yeah but check this out. I know long science words.
Yes. A true scientist only wears a lab coat when he is in the lab. That's how we know the guy on the right is a fraud.
The pre-Hystoric pond script in which molecules come together to form a cell which come together to form a slithering creature coming out , it´s a myth, it´s the modern day adult fairytale !
Paolo Geminiani if you think that’s wacky you should check out this book called the “bible”
it’s almost a comedy but the main character “God” is such an asshole the whole time he manages ruin the lives of everyone in the whole world!
Luckily it’s just a mush of a bunch books written by crazy desert people!
Each piece is distinctive and memorable
That was a very fair, good mannered debate.
No it wasn’t
Even noticeable in the words replicate, duplicate, and reproduce is the core of the program. The reason the program /system for reproduction requires and is reliant on compatibility, and design similarities is in order to ensure accuracy of essentially a viable replacement. By duplicating the parents onto one pallet ensures a shared replication is the offspring yielded. Advantageous adaptations (differences between species) are by the limitations of this very process are certain to not ever greatly differ in similarity from the original male and female pair or donors. Each different created kind clearly must have descended from a common pair couple using criteria per program. It takes a male and female chicken to fertilize an egg so there really is no question which (2) must have been here *in order for an egg that could later become a chicken to exist. Secondly, I’ve had chickens, and if I were the creator of any living things that desire to mate I can see no reason to begin with more than the (2) necessary to reproduce more. It wouldn’t take long for populations to sky rocket (in your face- old earth creationists, and you know who).
'The reason the program /system for reproduction requires and is reliant on compatibility, and design similarities is in order to ensure accuracy of essentially a viable replacement.'
What does this even mean? What do you mean by accuracy?
'Advantageous adaptations (differences between species) are by the limitations of this very process are certain to not ever greatly differ in similarity from the original male and female pair or donors.'
Explain how, and where is your evidence? Citations from relevant reputable sources or STFU.
'Secondly, I’ve had chickens, and if I were the creator of any living things that desire to mate I can see no reason to begin with more than the (2) necessary to reproduce more. It wouldn’t take long for populations to sky rocket (in your face- old earth creationists, and you know who).'
This is evidence for young-Earth creationism ... how? This isn't an argument for why the diversity of life on the planet arose in a matter of thousands, as to opposed to millions of years. At most, it's merely an argument for why, hypothetically, it *could* have happened.
Carey just reached his understanding of the natural world and then inserts a God to finish off his understanding. He just can't bring himself to say he doesn't know. I like scientists that can say they don't know and produce testable evidence for why.
"There Must be a designer" translates to me as "There MUST be a manual" hence my question "where are they"?
If I create a sophisticated computer simulation, and within this simulation I create self aware entities, one day they may ask the question "do we have a creator?".
Even though I am their creator you would claim that they have no creator because they cannot see me. This is the logic you are using. Just because they exist within a different dimension and a different type of time (non linear) to their creator that doesn't mean they don't have a creator.
Atheists/"i LuV SciEnCe types are the most narrow minded people I've ever had the displeasure of having deep scientific or philosophical discussions with.
@@dirtyharold7164 Yet we are all Atheists to most religions
@@ToadRoach you seem to be confused. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a divine being or the concept of creationism.
You also seem to have completely ignored the points I made concerning a creator living within a different space/dimension and within a different frame of time (or outside of it) in respect to his creation. I would really appreciate it if you could address those points as I believe they throw your whole argument against creationism into disrepute. Thanks in advance.
Dr attenborough is not a geologist if I am not mistaken. Mixed materials say 8 different sized gravels suspended in water will in flowing water be deposited according to weight/size in multiple layers simultaneously the face of each layer moving fwd obliquely agsaint the direction if flow. So you will have all the gravel being deposited simultanaeously on top of each oth. Thus mr Attenboroughs segregation of sizes. Thus layers cannot be dated vertically unless you know how many were laid down in each particular tidal flow. colin John.
The thing that always gets me with deniers is how maliciously they reject evidence. Ignorance is excusable and can be allevoated, but the sheer, willful and venomous attitude of creationist figures is astounding. That is an active opposition to reality that cannot be overstated.
@Olia Krist did you mean omittance?
@Olia Krist How does one admit to the existence of something that doesn't exist?
I know, you believe it does but that has no bearing on the reality.
Just play it the other way, what would it take for you to admit to the existence of unicorns?
How do morals come into it?
@Olia Krist Why just preach?
A conversation is where you address the others comment not just rant off on a random tangent.
You don't understand the Anthropic Principle either btw.
But to your random point, humans exist... some have defects which shorten their lives but still they exist.
You're falling for the puddle analogy.
yes... look it up. life is no fluke...
What evidence?
we tend to think we are somehow separate from nature wich I think is filled with awful consequences if we really do believe that. that's probably the most important thing he said during that
One of the reasons we do so much damage to nature is that many have forgotten that we are only a part of it.
Abiogenesis fails
Hey creationists:
What is genetics based on? Is it what is in the textbooks or what is only in creation science sites?
Look up Spammer Whammer channel. He is a qualified practicing geneticist and give him your "answer". Iol
Evolution occurs EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THIS LIFE!
Every single gram of matters always turn into something else every fraction of second in this life.
Fossils are the EVIDENCE not the answer for evolution
You never get scientists telling us evolution didn't happen. So many well-funded creationists, and still they can't find a flaw in evolution that can be solved by creationism.
@Timothy Slater ///// That is an unproven "fact". It probably did not happen. And I am a creationist. (who hates the bible). I still accept the theory that a watch requires a watchmaker.
@Timothy Slater him becoming a creationist doesn't negate his work. He was probably pressured by the highly religious society around him to go back to religion near the end of his life (as is quite common, since many fear hell).
@Timothy Slater Whether or not Darwin became a creationist is irrelevant to whether or not the science behind evolutionary theory stands up. Darwin got some things right and also made some mistakes: remember, 'genetics' weren't known at the time. Having said that, Darwin did not become a 'creationist', nor did he recant his theory. That is a conspiracy theory which has been thoroughly debunked by his family who were present at his death.
The pre-Hystoric pond script in which molecules come together to form a cell which come together to form a slithering creature coming out , it´s a myth, it´s the modern day adult fairytale !
@@paologeminiani What's more likely? Evolution or magic?
Variation is evolution lol
No it’s not it’s just adaptation
@@genesis204 evolution from the original design better or worse it evolved like ideas no drama lol
@@genesis204 and how does the adaptation occur?
God damn David was a sexy beast back in the day
Can't believe in 2020 we are still having this argument.
Evolution is a fact.
@@SoldierTrading , everything comes from nothing if you believe in a god.
No where in Science does it say everything comes from nothing.
That was a one-sided argument and doesn't explain much. You can see evolution in fruit flies, bacteria, plants, and the such within weeks. Fossils we only pointers to the facts but not the whole reality.
AngelOne11: Fossils can be looked at by what was to what is.
The comments by both spokespeople are interesting, with one a open minded to change, while the other set in ways reflecting what he believes.
It could be stated your correct based on the life of the fruit fly. Yet does taking into account mutations from pesticides used, or natural growth count?
This then leaves us and opens the whole reality of change is happening without following natural progression.
Peace
And you can see Evolution in many other things besides the natural world, from architecture to pop culture to computer development
Ninja Whippet Productions yet to rebuild the pyramids today with todays technology is a damn near impossible feat?
Boxing Guru Well, that's kind of a bad example - but incidentally, the reason I've always thought something like the pyramids would be impossible nowadays is that no-one has an excess of 100,000 slaves and 40-odd years to wait around while it's built to make something that bears no real function besides being an impressive piece of work. I mean, it's taken Australia years to lay copper wiring all over the country with the aim of giving us better national internet reception than Kenya! Basically, it would be doable, but who would want to and why?
Ninja Whippet Productions so with todays technology you are implying we would need 100 000 slaves still? Our cranes wouldn't quite cut it? Makes perfect sense
He is such a babe 😍😍😍😍
Tá tú áilleacht
Gruaig dhearg
Do ar tine
Éire
St Peters Road irish go raibh maith agat
Abiogenesis fails
As Richard Dawkins pointed out in one of his books, design is not the only alternative to chance.
A variation of something can stem from its region. On one side of globe you may have the same type of animal say a cow or deer, but one may have thicker or less fur, larger or smaller horns. This variation is caused by evolution because the animal adapted to its surrounding based on that regions environment.
Odd, as I see adaptation ability within DNA from the original parent kind, not evolution at all, just lost DNA over time.
These cow's or deer on opposite sides of the Earth are usually able to still interbreed.
@@canadiankewldude inheriting certain genes from a parent kind is not necessarily evolution though. I’m not an evolved form of my mother and father if I’m understanding that comment. If I was born IN the ocean it’s not like I’m going to automatically have gills either though so my apologies if you misinterpreted my comment.
@@uberyoutuber3892 My point is that within the original DNA, there are enough possible variations to account for speciation.
Anything beyond that has not yet been proven or replicated by experiment.
@@uberyoutuber3892 you actually are an upgraded version of your parents. As long as my understanding goes
There is no “did evolution happen” and that’s what all creationists try to convey is “did it happen” when the answer is that it DOES happen, as it did in the past and will in the future.
TF//// Micro evolution is observable. Macro-evolution is not.
@@k0smon But it is. 'Speciation' is fact, not theory. It is the theory which explains the fact (year 11 science 101). Inventing terms (macro-micro) which have no particular scientific meaning doesn't change the evidence. Until you can accurately define the terms you're employing, they're meaningless.
@@k0smon I can see the road from my house, so it exists.
Can't see a city 5000 miles away though, so who knows.
Attenborough would not debate kent hofind, and I can see why now!
+Ioan Iestyn
Why would Atenborough waste his time debating a convicted felon who knows nothing about science?
I love how deniers of evolution say that things are too complex for there not to have been a designer, which clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of how evolution and natural selection work
You're the one who doesn't understand natural selection.
What kind of selection pressure selects for a useless non-functional proto-penis and proto-vagina (developing by some miracle at exactly the same time) over thousands or millions of years? It's supposed to be a slow, incremental process of development via successive mutations, right? So you can't just magically and suddenly have a fully functioning and mutually compatible penis & vagina capable of successful sexual reproduction, right? So explain to me what selection pressure, in a competitive natural environment in which only the fittest survive, would select for useless imitations of functioning sex organs? You do realise this applies to any two or more mutually inter-dependent organs, such as the respiratory and cardiovascular systems? How can you have functioning lungs without a functioning cardiovascular system? How can you have a functioning cardiovascular system without oxygen from... lungs? It is necessary for such systems to have come into existence suddenly and at the same time.
So... What do you call it when something appears to be comprised of components that must have appeared suddenly and at the same time?
Creation.
@@FeedThemCake The presence of multiple sex organs is due to a genetic mutation. There's no selection pressure involved in the mutations themselves; that's simply due to errors in gene copying. And it's not necessary for a cardiovascular system and lungs to have suddenly popped into existence at the same time. Fish consume oxygen without lungs, and we have record of creatures such as the tiktaalik that were inbetween fish and land animals which developed lungs.
If you do some research, you can easily learn about things like this, so please don't tell me that I don't understand it.
@@FeedThemCake Evolutiion is blind, unguided process. Spend a few hours in a busy NeoNatal ICU and you'll see all matter of things that went wrong in the womb. I looks very random, things just didn't work as it usually does. Natural processes not working right or God screw up. Pick one.
@@abdel4455 Yes of course you would claim that it's the result of a random mutation, but the result of that mutation must still be selected for in order for it to propagate among the population. So answer the question: what selection pressure would select for a non-viable non-functioning primitive form of an organ? Or are you (absurdly) suggesting that the mutations for fully functioning and developed male & female sex organs occurred in the same instant in time and within the same population?
@@FeedThemCake Yes, a mutation must be selected for in order for it to propagate among a population. Having a selection pressure for a gene just means that it makes an individual more likely to survive and reproduce, which makes the gene more common in a given population as it's passed down across generations.
As I have said, there is no selection pressure for intersex individuals because it does not make people more likely to survive and reproduce. It isn't even hereditary so even if it were favourable, there would be no way for it to pass from parent to offspring. That's why intersex people are a minority.
For a person to display multiple sex organs, the male and female sex organs don't need to "occur in the same instant in time and within the same population" because they both already exist. Our physical features aren't randomly generated every generation, we inherit them from our parents. That's why we have men and women. Boys are born male because they inherited male sex organs, not because the male sex organs spontaneously occurred, and the same goes for girls. The only difference for people with multiple sex organs is that they inherit both genes instead of one.
You're attacking a strawman and showing that you don't even bother to do any research about a topic before trying to debate about it. You can't possibly make a good argument if you don't know what you're talking about.
David Attenborough for the win!
if you refuse to think.
Love this..
His other career was as a lawyer
David absolutely destroyed him.
Look how time ravages the body. Professor has been dead for 29 years.
There are so many questions that some people must fill in that gap..
Here's a gap. Imagine there was God and nothing else. God decided to Create all that Is. Step 1: Gaps.................................................................................................................................................................................... ! That's Creationism.
"Look the front fell off of the ammonite and that's why evolution is a bunch of bollocks."
You think David Attenborough looks back over 40 years, when he debated the elderly creationist gynecologist that "disproved evolution" with a birth control pill, and laughs?
Ross and Phoebe in serious setting
Go, David! The other guy's arguments have been refuted time and again in court, time and again over the decades
David Attenborough started with saying that rocks have proofe but then said that there is no trace of the development
you started by saying started but then said said. 🙄
Try context......
As we all know, God designed man with a beard and many of us like to shave it off.
He also designed man with a foreskin and many of us like to cut it off.
When he designed woman, he made some improvements.
Why did God gave nipples to man then? :)
There must be a designer .... lol existential dread gets every one differently .
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
Everyone knows that this is a done deal, right? I will never believe there is a creator. The idea (to me) is ridiculous. Evolution isn't a theory O.o It's fact (given our understanding of the word 'fact').
so... you believe without any actual evidence that a dolphin evolved from a wolf? the idea (to me) is ridiculous.
Evolution cannot exist as all things rrquire planning to exist
@its yaboii The reality of evolution by natural selection and the belief in a supernatural creator are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Evolution no more disproves the existence of the supernatural than a belief in the supernatural disproves scientific evidence for biological evolution. The two are entirely unrelated. Science (formally known as 'natural philosophy') can only investigate the natural world. If a god or gods are not part of the 'natural world' then science is not equipped to investigate. If it is DOCTRINE which causes the problem for you, then that's where you need to look. Leave science out of it.
@@anserbauer309 uhm creationsm doesnt exclude natural selection. Only the fact that ine entire species evolved from another. And that a bacteria turned up from dead matter :)
@@drmann9886 natural selection is the primary mechanism by which life evolves. The evidence demonstrates that this is an ongoing natural process which has no regard for the labels humans place on living organisms (like 'species' or 'sub-species' or 'genus'). It just does what it does
As life evolves, populations of living things change over successive generations and eventually, diverge into populations of living things which can no longer freely interbreed with other organisms they share a common ancestor with.
We (humans) label that event 'speciation' as a means of describing the change that has taken place. There are many demonstrated examples of speciation.
Until you can demonstrate evidence of some sort of barrier to natural selection preventing the changing of one organism to a point where it can no longer freely interbreed with others sharing common ancestry (meaning change can only occur within the artificially applied label 'species'), then your assertion is without evidence base and can be dismissed.
The burden of proof rests with you.
David wins
really? actually he didn't convince me that dolphins once were wolves, just saying...
Easy answer,yes,can't believe in this time of period we are worried about hurting people's feelings,especially on the matter of religious beliefs way back to the barberian time ,funny thing is there enjoying the technology and living conditions to this day in western society but still believe in a ridiculous ideology.
Creationists have been getting owned in this debate for decades and yet many still exist. Crazy.
It's kind of depressing actually.
The people telling you God doesn’t exist are the same people who told you that covid is dangerous (lol) and that you needed to get injected to keep your job
@@Deusvult28024 Cool, glad to be on the reality side of the ticket. I guess you were praying not to get it.
@@Deusvult28024 This is objectively false as I am an atheist and couldn't care less if you got the vaccine or not. lol
God is still not real.
Anyone that has studied science is aware of what a theory is.
Unfortunately the word has been hijacked by creationists who are quick to exploit their followers lack of education.
David didn't even try 😂
40+ years and a white coat STILL doesn’t improve arguments…
“Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This ‘Cambrian explosion’ marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years.” - Gould, Stephen J.,Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24. “How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated, and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill.” Francis Downes Ommanney, The Fishes, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1963), p. 60.
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition." - Dr. Steven M. Stanley, evolutionist
“Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.” David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.
“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View,” Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.
“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” - Stephen Jay Gould, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, p. 127.
“There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.” - Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom,” Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.
“The absence of any known series of such intermediates imposes severe restrictions on morphologists interested in the ancestral source of angiosperms [flowering plants] and leads to speculation and interpretation of homologies and relationships on the basis of the most meager circumstantial evidence.” - Charles B. Beck, Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 5.
“The origin of angiosperms, an ‘abominable mystery’ to Charles Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today.” - Colin Patterson et al., “Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 24, 1993, p. 170.
"Paleontologists have been insisting that their record is consistent with slow, steady, gradual evolution where I think that privately they've known for over a hundred years that such is not the case." - Niles Eldridge
"250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin." - Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology"
"With natural selection operating in a changing environment as an agent of adaptation, we expect to see changes at the organismal, ultimately physiological and morphological, level. How, though, can we explain the paradoxical situation in which environments change, even dramatically, but organisms do not?" - Dr David Wake, Evolutionist
"Everybody knows the fossil record doesn’t provide much evidence for gradualism; it is full of gaps and discontinuities… most species don’t change. They may get a little bigger or bumpier, but they remain the same species. This remarkable stasis has generally been ignored. It if doesn’t agree with your ideas, you don’t talk about it… the fossil record doesn’t show gradual change, and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier." - Gould, Stephen Jay, lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980.
"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." - Dr. T.S. Kemp (Curator of Zoological Collections at Oxford University) , Fossils and Evolution, Oxford University, Oxford University Press, p246, 1999
"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism, confirmed by the work of population genetics, and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record." - Mayr, Ernst, Emeritus Professor of Zoology, Harvard University
"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." - Eldredge, Niles, Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History
"No intermediate fossils between jawed and jawless forms have been found - early fossils of jawed fishes had jaws, teeth, scales and spines. The origins of jaws and other structures that characterized the early gnathostomes are lost in the fossil record, belonging to some group about which we known nothing. " - Helfman, G.S., B.B. Collette and D.E. Facey. 1997. The Diversity of Fishes. Blackwell Science, MA. 528pp.; p. 157
“Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors.” - Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22.
“There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.” Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom,” Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.
ETC.
Stephen Jay Gould was merely stating what he saw as problems posed to the gradualist conception of evolution, and arguing for a concept known as punctuated equilibrium (speciation involving significant genetic change and species showing little variation over their history). You see, this is one of the reasons that evolutionary theory is bona fide science, because it's open to self-correction, and thus self-criticism. Creationism, by contrast, purports to be absolute truth, and thus is impervious to self-scrutiny.
@@davidparry5310 Gould, like so many others, admitted there are no clear transitions in the fossils.
@@NephilimFree All I'm seeing from the quotations you list on the subject is observations that the fossil record, and thus the picture that we're able to paint, is woefully incomplete, to which I say 'no shit!'. This isn't the damning indictment on evolution that you think it is.
@@davidparry5310 It kills evolutionism and you refuse to accept it.
So let's see.
If you were to travel from your house across the country........
Your seen leaving, walking out the door, then you drive the back roads to the highway where the first camera sees you.
Then successive cameras pick you up all along the route.
Did you make the trip? Silly question right.
If tomorrow the missing evidence you cling onto is presented, will you concede? be honest.
A collection of often misinterpreted quotes is proof of nothing.
There are soooooo many intermediate species, you're either ignorant of this or the creationist mainstay, lying.
feeling sorry for Harvey Carey. So blind and lack of general knowledge... You are a legend Attenborough, brilliant !!!
Lack of general knowledge? He can run laps around you with his eyes closed..
LOL! Young Attenborough is a total boss and quite handsome! Checkmate, science illiterates! Cheers! 😄
The crazy thing is, he was still 54 when this was made!
Evolution *is* happening and always has been.
@its yaboii Unfortunately, you've completely missed the point; Ray Comfort style. 'Adaptation' over successive generations is, in fact, evolution. Nobody ever said (except creationists) that "because we observe dogs making dogs, therefore all life originates from a single cell". That's a straw-man argument and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. COMPLETE.
In your mind.
@@guru6831 Well, regardless of your opinion then, I'd say.
Attenborogh , like Darwin calls bacteria 'simple', this shows how ignorant Attenborough is.
Cyanobacteria are not simple, yet are dated at 2.5 billion years old.
I like how all of Attenboroughs arguments are predicated on the deep-time assumption.
I like how any study of biology, geology, geography, and cosmology all point to deep time. There are assumptions in every position, just that some are well founded based on other data.
I know for certain that I would never trust a member of my family to so egregiously stupid a medical doctor. David Attenborough at his imperturbably polite best.
I see a lot of people making fun of and criticizing Harvey Carey. What ha says (ofcourse wrong) absolutely makes sense. Did you at all understand what he said? that a tiny change in an organism would render it infertile? incapable of giving rise to any more offspring/species. As a man of science in 1980 and without overwhelming genetic evidence that we have now, it was very logical to think that complex organs like brain and eyes were designed by someone intelligent. Science makes progress because of such worthy critics.
1980 wasn't the second century BC. It wasn't logical to believe that organs were designed then any more than it is now. Tiny changes in organisms absolutely do not render them infertile. Tiny changes/variations/mutations are what drive evolution. If there had never been tiny changes, all living things would be clones.
@@schell0118 Well said.
Attenborough is trying to put words in Dr. Carey's mouth.
God is real. Evolution is fascinating 🧬🧬🧬🧬
Ron Pauls father in the labcoat.
Imagine believing these two positions are equally scientifically or truthfully valid.... I don't like to frame this sort of thing as like a good debate between two equal and respectable parties. The zoologist, the naturalist lives in the real world, the creationist lives in cuckoo, anti-reality fantasyland. Ideas dramatically out of touch with reality don't inherently deserve your respect, this whole "everyone's opinions deserve equal respect" shit is obvious nonsense if you just think about it for a second without taking civility as a dogma.
The sad reality is, the other gentleman probably is no more.
It's OK, he's in heaven now with the dinosaurs.
Attenborough is begging the question, and equivocate natural selection, which we can observe with amonite to Mennonite evolution.
Watch how the creationist puts the accent on NO, as would a small child. And the smile that follows is a giveaway that he didn't actually believe his own words.
I hope the debate didn't last 5 minutes and ended in favor of David as any 2 hour debate would not. What people (believe) in is micro evolution, change in variation, fur thickness and length, color, beak size, these are evident all around us. Though after millions of unearthed fossils, even Darwin himself would agree that there are no links for macro evolution, one simply cannot blame the fossil record for the missing gaps anymore. Darwin hoped we would find the missing links in the future, we did not. Then you have the irreducibly complex idea which is impossible to get around. Any function in the body either works at once or it's fatal and every change in nature, bindings, proteins, will much more likely be bad than good. Therefore like the Cambrian explosion (where the debate should start), 2/3 of all known Phyla (arrived) at the same time, suggests that the animals came fully functioned. People are very offended by this as evolution is a beautiful fairytale, but if you ask any of the greatest mathematicians that ever lived, they would laugh at the thought of evolution. The chance of it happening (every single time) is largest absurd number one has ever seen. I used to believe in evolution too and I don't believe in god, but this is very clearly a zoo for someone more intelligent than us. The oldest human skeketon is what, 50-200k years old? Then it stops, no links, nothing. Why? 50k years is nothing in terms of evolution, our links are not found, we did not come from apes. If only Darwin himself was alive to put his (theory) at rest. For anyone remotely interested in questioning themselves, read a book/watch a video by Stephen Meyer, a great intellect in this bombfield.
This older creationist seems a much better version of the crazy whackos we see in the wild now. How did evolution do this!?
Not believing in evolution appears to result in offspring that are increasingly unable to understand..... much at all really.
So, yes?
Yep, I thought that was
old news.
Yes old news. This clip is about 40 years old .
I really enjoyed and actually heard both sides.
Interesting.
I find myself feeling sad that there are still people who believe in the creationism myth with all that we know.
@@roscius6204cry alone somewhere
@@KOSOVOisSERBIA222
See Christian's are a nasty lot who wish the worst for others.
How did you become that?
A question for you atheists and science deniers.
If i handed you a random chicken bone of which you had no prior knowledge of its history, could you tell me how many offspring it had?
Attenborough is indeed hoisted on his own petard….science
The second law of thermodynamics is a physical law based on universal experience concerning heat and energy interconversions. One simple statement of the law is that heat always moves "downhill", that is, from hotter objects to colder objects, unless energy is supplied to reverse the direction of heat flow. In other words, nothing progresses upwards
In “nature” It always breaks down or regresses
You're talking utter bollocks mate.
@@Renvaar1989 Good one.... I'll translate... hey David Legge sez: Horse Shit !
Your words 'unless energy is supplied to reverse the direction of heat flow'
Life is energy materialized.
There is an unrelenting drive toward survival.
Evolution is the result not the cause.
There are small variations in kinds, but every kind has a limit, if the DNA code isn't there it can't be used, macro evolution is based on circular reasoning, they date the fossils by the rocks, and the rocks by the fossils, evolution just has to hold up for young children to digest
There are many ways to date things take radiometric dating which measures the decay of isotopes within fossils or rocks.
All the different methods used give the same outcomes. How do you explain this??
Easy, it's right. Evidence is boss.
Small variations... if you keep changing something in small increments you will eventually arrive at an unrecognizable thing to what you started with.
Scale is the hardest thing for humans to conceptualize.
There must be a designer. A designer must have designed the designer. Turtles all the way down.
Carey seems a little dim
I disagree. His white lab coat is reflecting quite a bit of light.
The body belong to the women what do men had any thing to say.
My advice to creationists,…..don’t mess with Sir David!
Laryngeal nerve is the one of the best proofs that have debunked intelligent design.
The difference between these two men is that one of them is willing to change his view depending on the evidence he encounters....the other starts off from a point of view already formulated and bends all the evidence to fit that idea.....
Never trust a man who wears.a lab coat to a television interview
DA what a shining light for all humanity.
so harvey was not well known in his belief but i have a question if evolution is true then why are no animals jumping out of swamps now?
stay alive for a couple of million years & report back, thanks.
!
❤
this other dude was a doctor????
Attenborough does not let the guy talk and keeps interrupting quite rudely. The other guy is right in so far as evolution does not explain how whole species of animals came to be quite suddenly. Attenborough says there is good evidence of pre-Cambrian fossils but didn't prove anything. There is no gradual evolution in the fossil records. It jumps massively. New species arise with no prior evolution in the layers below leading up to it. There is no evidence that bacteria evolved into anything..
Science still has no idea how life sprang from non life. They cannot recreate it even with the best facilities and scientists in the world. There is evidence for micro evolution within a species but none whatsoever of macro evolution of one species evolving into a different one.
You mean examples of speciation? Of course there are a bunch out there
...and in fact two chickens came before the 1st chicken fertile egg. As seen on TV (from antiquity to present day- that’s observation science).
Wrong. The very first chicken egg was laid by a bird similar to the very first chicken but not a chicken.
@@davidparry5310 Eggs came before chickens...
It's pretty simple.
@@roscius6204 I said as much.
@@davidparry5310 I guess I'm being pedantic here but there is was no actual 1st chicken.
Eggs existed for eons 340 million years back to the first amniotic egg before a discernible chicken at 58000 rears ago.
I do get what you mean :)
What David should have said to him was ‘if god created the universe,then who created god?’
Well, he wouldn't be god if he needed a creator. First there is a creator then the creation. Right?
I guess so.....
@@sigururolafsson2257 ok great if some things can exist without a creator then I can just claim that the universe also doesnt need one . Boom easy
@@trumpbellend6717 well it’s already proven that the universe had a beginning so.
@@namxhuynh yeah it has, has it been proven that there is a god and that he did not need a beginning??
Go David he’s a lot more knowledgeable than the scientist who is clearly never gone all around the world you can tell he’s very narrowminded when it comes to science and evolution
owned
A scientist started gathering dirt and place it all in one heap, God said to the Scientist, what are you doing? The scientist replied I'm gathering dirt to create life as you did, God said to the scientist, not so fast...get your own dirt!
Scroll down for even more blind experts on the nature of light...
Evolution if that don't work just add a couple more billion years. C'mon man. Lol
Huh
This debate will forever continue. So im just gonna live my life to what I choose to believe n make babies.
Evolution is a religion not a science , so debunkable😂
Hey evolutionists why are there no transitional fossils and if chemical processes made dna then where did the information come from?
What transitional fossils would you like? Archaeopteryx? Australopithecus afarensis? Pakicetids? Ambulocetus? Tiktaalik? Amphistium?
Too bad you can't accurately measure how old rocks are... Whole theory crumbles at the base by this explanation...
What creationist video or website did you learn that from?
@@LeeB442 This is actually common knowledge. You think scientists zap stones with a laser and a number pops up on the device but in reality it's a guess based on historical weather conditions and surrounding clues... Upload a profile image pleb
Even if we couldn't measure the age of rocks (we can), evolution would still be the most plausible explanation for the diversity of life.
@@cnortham7109 more widely accepted than plausabile
@@glutenfreeegaming8747 Its still more plausible than magic.