"Debunking Evolution: Christian Apologist Logically Dismantles Evolution In Every Way Possible.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 чер 2024
- Watch as Dr. Pandit logically destroys evolution in this compelling video.
With sharp insights and irrefutable evidence, Dr. Pandit dismantles common evolutionary arguments, offering a fresh perspective that challenges conventional science. Prepare to be amazed and enlightened as we journey through the intricacies of life’s origins and discover the truth together.
🔥 Watch Now and Uncover the Truth with Dr. Pandit!
🔔 Don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe for more impactful content!
🙏 Support our mission by donating with a "Super thanks" comment. Your generosity helps us continue to spread the truth and make a difference.
If you found this video enlightening, please leave a comment with your thoughts and questions.
********Don’t forget to hit the subscribe button and turn on notifications so you never miss an update. And if you feel moved by our message, consider making a donation to help us continue our mission of uncovering and sharing the truth. Thank you for your support! - Розваги
Interesting that Pandit in his opening introduction talks about meeting "atheistic scientists" who said they would be willing to consider an alternative theory. The scientists are willing to consider alternatives to their own beliefs. But would Pandit be willing to consider alternative theories to his belief in God's creation?
I am sure he would. Then he would reduce those theories to absurdity.
If a caring parent wants to get through to a naughty child, he may well let that child get into trouble,so that the loving parent can demonstrate parental love to that Wanderer!
What?
Even though all the evidence points to an intelligent mind , some people do not want to accept the idea of a Creator . This is a distraction game .
There is no scientific evidence indicating an intelligent mind was responsible for biological life. None.
I wonder why the natural man has such a strong aversion to the notion of a Creator God? ... John 3:19-20?
and would you accept the God vishnu as the creator god? or just the middle eastern one? the platypus genome confirms evolution, is true despite what we are led to imagine of magic..
@@mickhealy572 Confirms? How does that prove your m magical ideas?
@@skippy675 False. We easily deduce that the Creator must necessarily exist for the simple reason that if God does not exist, neither would we... Given all that we do know, experience, and observe. Both reason and your own moral conscience demand it... Unless of course, you're claiming that your own moral conscience is just wrong and you're being duped by your god 'Nature'... But you're not claiming that, are you?
Good stuff.
Glad you enjoyed it
@@anilkanda611 Come on. This man doesnt make any sense. Playing a silly wordgame. Selection means less. No. No. No. It means the best adapted survive and procreate. They are "selected." Keep in mind the vast mayority of religious people accept evolution is scientific fact. Cant be debated. Its real.
@anilkanda611 Come on. This man doesnt make any sense. Playing a silly wordgame. Selection means less. No. No. No. It means the best adapted survive and procreate. They are "selected." Keep in mind the vast mayority of religious people accept evolution is scientific fact. Cant be debated. Its real.
How did information arise ?
When you need “Whole and intact systematic need “ how does evolution get there?
If evolution is an unguided process when guiding processes and new information is needed how does evolution account for this ?
When you have bounded processes how do you get to evolution ?
Also think about this if evolution was true shouldn’t we have an increase in life.
@@sciencerules8525you are stuck
@@matthewstokes1608 How is he stuck because the creationist can't define the term he is using?
@@annieoaktree6774 ANY definition of information whatsoever will suffice... It’s check mate, old boy.
There can be no “evolution” whatsoever because there can be no THING to evolve - as any THING that actually exists cannot have plausibly come magically out of nothingness (by “chance”) without powerful determinate information stemming from a CREATOR… (or “God” as we humans like to say, as taught) considering that proof of the Christian God is evidenced by so many of us every single day through our communications, blessings and discussions with Him.
It’s a sad but true fact that some are born to endless night and some are born for sweet delight…
Some will only see darkness - while some of us see the eternal light of heaven…
Doesn’t seem fair until one considers that this is a matter of character and free will…
It’s a massive enigma.
If you are genuinely an atheist (as opposed to one like C S Lewis who awakens in an epiphany to the Truth) - there is sadly nothing we will ever agree about.
We have like the two halves of that yin and yang symbol absolutely NOTHING but opposite fates… opposite “truths”…
I am chosen for the Light…
I pray you will be too, one day, but until I obviously have God as my confidant and you cannot reason against the Rock…
So be it.
God Bless
@@matthewstokes1608 I see you can't define "information" in biology either.
@@annieoaktree6774 nor can you sweetheart…
Only God can - for no man can know anything as profound.
“The wisdom of men is foolishness to God”.
Einstein knew that there was something mysterious - an intelligence we could not explain - behind all energy.
If he couldn’t, you cannot.
All Christians know precisely who God is…
This is why we are so elated by the beautiful mystery of His miraculous glory and the knowledge that it, like we, are immortal.
Natural selection reduces the availabke diversity. You need the other mechanism of mutation to get anywhere. This one increases variation.
We experienced it during the Covid-19 crisis. I do not suppose God sat down every week to design new viruses to defeat our immune systems. And yet, the virus increased functionality such as infectiousness.
8:51
This man has done his homework. He presents wisdom from God!!
Thank you for sharing!!!
Sorry but this man has no clue what he's blithering about when it comes to evolutionary biology.
Thanks for watching!
If Pandit got his "wisdom" from God, God is in a world of trouble.
Dr. Pandit thinks that all of our understanding of evolutionary biology is based on one book which was published 165 years ago? In one minute into his argument Pandit makes a fool of himself.
You are admitting that you are making a fool of yourself because a) assuming what is in issue, which is a fallacy, b) appeal to absent authority, which is a fallacy.
So you're saying you're too dumb to understand the discussion; and that the problem is not one of science but failure to understand the requirements of logical thought itself.
That's what you're saying.
You're saying you concede his argument because you're too dumb to understand how not to argue in a circle, which, let's face it, is very dumb indeed and you admit that.
Creationists only understand argument from authority. They think since they hold the Bible to be the ultimate authority on everything then science must hold _Origin Of Species_ to be the ultimate authority. Never mind the 160+ years of scientific evidence we've accumulated since OOS was published. It's much easier for creationists to stay ignorant of science than actually learn about the fields they are attacking.
How did he make a fool out of himself? If you don't say how, you are making a fool out of yourself, because you are making an empty claim. Not very scientific of you. Evolution was never about science; it was about politics from the start. The politicians didn't really have too many options, and most likely didn't care too much about the imperfections of Darwin's work, or clear errors in logic. They recognized it as an opportunity, because they knew that majority don't really care about the truth, and highjacked science to do their bidding. You are just a bio product of it, because it is convenient to live in a lala land. In fact, historically a lot of people who joined the movement of evolution, did so not because they studied it diligently, but because evolution gave an appealing explanation of their origin that absolved them of responsibility before God. There is biology that fits scientific method, which I would call natural science, or an observation of nature, and there is hypothetical evolutionary science that uses unproven theories and imaginary hypothesis. For example, Red Queen hypothesis states "species must constantly adapt, evolve, and proliferate in order to survive while pitted against ever-evolving opposing species." This is nothing but a belief statement. The word "must" imply intent, and a specific and explicit intent to survive is an ability of a self-aware being, and not an evolutionary process. This makes evolution itself self-aware and intelligent living entity. If evolution as a process and not as an intelligent entity did exist, then you would look at the results as "what happened", and not as what must happen with intent to survive, because nonliving, and non-aware processes cannot be given characteristics of a conscious and intelligent being like desire, a goal or intent, otherwise gravity might also be a living entity that has a desire to keep us down. lol... Unconscious living animal only follows the programing that was originally given. Any change in behavior will need additional programing (additional code into genome) that cannot happen in the selection process. Animals have survival mechanisms, that they use based on their senses, which often fails them, and they die needlessly in nature. Some animals come to humans for help, and in those instances, it is not evolution that led them to humans for assistance. This might make someone wander, what encouraged an animal to risk their own life to go to humans, and ask for help? This is not a typical behavior, but it means that they recognized that they cannot help one of their own, when they got into trouble. An awareness that they need outside help is impressive, but it doesn't mean that animals are able to consciously contribute to their own evolutionary process. This is why only a breeder able to control the process of selection, by intelligent planning, keeping a desired goal in mind, while understanding the limitations of the process, that as long as you keep breeding sheep, you will only get more sheep at the end. Book of Giants (the dead sea scrolls) - describe the process how fallen angels manipulated DNA to make monsters, and giants. It is through inside knowledge of what we know now as genetic engineering that made possible for them to do what they did. So, if there is an outside force that keeps a balance in nature and prevents species from going extinct. It only points to God and his angels that intelligently continue to control our environment so that it remains habitable for us. It never gets too cold, or too hot, and the sun and the moon are very reliable, that we can measure it to a clock, and all species in nature continue to stay in balance so we as humans don't die from hunger and able to grow and produce food for ourselves.
@@daniilkhimochka9899 _How did he make a fool out of himself?_ Pandit made a big fool of himself with his brutal misunderstanding of actual evolutionary theory and his idea modern science still relies on a book published in 1859. That's how.
@@samburns3329 You cannot build a home on sand. The book from 1859 is your foundation, so don't make fool out of yourself.
Few people know that Darwin abandoned natural selection as a means of evolution 14 years after writing his book.
Few people know it because it's not true.
That's a pretty ridiculous statement. Even as a creationist, I accept natural selection. Obviously, organisms unfit for their environment die.
The biggest problem I have with Darwinian evolution is "common ancestry." I also have a serious problem with the outrageously long time scales involved.
Prove it?
@@rubiks6 If you accept genetics confirms the common ancestry of all felines why do you reject the same genetics which shows common ancestry between felines and canines (and bears and seals and weasels)? Why do you have a problem with long time scales when physics, geology, and genetics all show exactly that?
@@itsamystery5279 - I disagree with the interpretation you describe of ancestral relationships among the mammals you mentioned. I see a common Designer reusing designs that work - like any good computer programmer. (I'm a coder. DNA is code.)
As for long time scales, again I see evidence being misinterpreted. Coming up with millions and billions of years makes any real analysis impossible. How convenient. We all have the same evidence. However, depending on our worldview we come to dramatically different conclusions. Remember - evidence does not speak. _Interpreters_ of evidence speak. Sometimes they speak wrong.
It’s always atheistic evolutionists as though a person has to an atheist to accept scientific theories. I know several scientists who accept scientific theories and still believe in the almighty. I see them a most Friday evening services.
Mixing a Creator God with evolution (of the universe, of life) is the epitome of irrationality.
@@rubiks6 the two are not mutually exclusive.
@@ruthiesea -Considering that we have God's Word, they are.
i have a problem not only how the speaker misrepresents darwin but he has not mentioned all the research and evidence we have from 1859
1. The speaker has NOT misrepresented Darwin. He was being kind of anything. Darwin himself said something like: if the single cell is more than just an amorphous blob of protoplasm then the theory breaks down.
2. Guess what? 185+ years later we have the scientific ability to take a close look at the single cell organism and find the inside is a complex machine.
3. Did you hear what the guy said? In 1980 the evolution scientists themselves could not find a mechanism where micro evolution (NO ONE disputes this happens!) turns into MACRO evolution!
So Darwin refuted his own theory.
Evolution scientists can figure out how it happened either.
That's what 185+ years of scientific discoveries does to Darwin's quaint little theory.
@@thetabletopskirmisher He's definitely misrepresenting modern evolutionary theory by stating everything we know was discovered by 1859.
@@thetabletopskirmisher _Did you hear what the guy said?_ Yes. Either he is severely ignorant of Genetics or he's flat out lying. Neither makes him look too good.
Such as?
@@thetabletopskirmisher ["3. Did you hear what the guy said? In 1980 the evolution scientists themselves could not find a mechanism where micro evolution (NO ONE disputes this happens!) turns into MACRO evolution! "] I heard what the guy said. Please find a reliable source on this 1980 meeting proving there was a "landmark decision" that ""there is no mechanism of adding [new genetic information] at all".
I called BS on this claim as an utter falsehood. Since you are vouching for him, and since he gave no source for his assertion, perhaps you can find a reliable source for this assertion. But I doubt it.
Why not just set up a debate?! I hate one-sided discussions.
Scientific debates are held in the primary scientific literature. Creationists will never publish anything there because they know their codswallop won't stand up to even the slightest scientific scrutiny.
@@annieoaktree6774 Evolution is a philosophy, not science.
Philosopher Karl Popper says evolution is not a fact.
It cannot be demonstrated to be true or false by the scientific method.
It is nothing more than a metaphysical research program.
Julius Huxley once remarked that evolution is favored over God because, well, God interferes with our sexual customs.
Sir Arthur Keith, an ardent believer of evolution, openly admitted that evolution is unproved and unprovable.
He said it is believed because the only alternative is creation.
Furthermore, Richard Lewontin stated that we have to believe in evolution because we simply cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Therefore, evolution is more of a belief system, a religion, if you will, and not science.
@@electriccowboy4747 Silly quote-mining won't change the fact evolution is one of the most well supported scientific theories of all time.
Even the title of this video is hopelessly incorrect. He did no such thing as dismantle anything. The facts of evolution remain intact with incredible evidence established over the last 150 years!. I am one of the .05 % (he reckons) that has read the book and I arrive at the conclusions Darwin did and further evidences from many Scientific disciplines that back it up in principle and added to since his time. The superglue of religion is far too sticky for even present day knowledge to overcome. Another "know-all" who knows very little!
Facts of evolution? Name some. Not microevolution. We all agree on that. Demonstrate how time, space, matter, and energy come into existence. Demonstrate how a random chaotic explosion results in order, purpose, and design. Demonstrate how information evolves out of matter. Demonstrate how nonliving matter creates life.
@@electriccowboy4747 It's a fact the Earth is approx. 4.55 BYO
It's a fact life has been here on the Earth evolving for at least 3.8 BY and quite possibly longer
It's a fact there were five major mass extinctions of life followed by subsequent re-radiation of new species in the last 455 MY.
Its a fact human and chimps shared a common hominid ancestor 5-7 MYA.
How many facts do you require?
Pandit starts out saying Darwin's book is all you base your (evolution) theory on. This is a common creationist straw man fallacy. Evolution is not based solely on Darwin's book, there is 150 years of evidence that has bee found as well as numerous refinements to the basic theory. To start of saying "all" of the theory of evolution is based on Darwin's book demonstrates the guest is either being intentionally deceptive, or is ignorant of the theory of evolution. Neither of which bodes well for someone purporting to speak on the subject.
This. Darwin had no understanding of genetics which is now a huge foundational part of evolution since it explains the mechanisms for variation and inheritance. Creationists just can't get themselves out of the 19th century.
@@annieoaktree6774 I think it is projection. Their entire worldview is based on a book written by a bunch of superstitious zealots two thousand years ago, but in their world view, that book is inerrant and cannot be changed, reconsidered, or even criticized. That worldview is so embedded in them they believe that "evolutionists" must have the same mindset, and that the "evolutionists" view Darwin as their "god." The repeatedly demonstrate they don't understand the difference between science and religion.
@@iriemon1796 I always get a chuckle when I read some creationist trying to discredit evolution by claiming "evolution is wrong because it is a religion!" They just can't make the logical connection as to what that says about their own religion. 🙂
The third (and final) argument Pandit makes on evolution is that natural selection cannot "add" new "genetic material" and therefore evolution must be false.
For this claim Pandit relies upon an utterly baseless analogy of a basket of apples. From this silly analogy he concludes that "selection must result in actually less that what there is" and "selection is an absolute block to evolution".
I'm sure our more astute readers can instantly see the problem with this analogy. A basket of apple presents a finite population (unless you plant the apples and grow apple trees, in which case you increased the number of apples by many factors, but Pandit doesn't want to go there). Natural selections, however, selects from a population of individuals, which population is at least replenishing -- adding more applies to the basket. There is no finite number of individuals from which to select. New individuals with varying traits are constantly being added, unlike Pandits basket of apples. The analogy is rotten to the core.
Pandit seems to imply that natural selection selects the gene to fit the environment. His knowledge of evolution is flawed. The gene for a trait is not "selected" by the organism. Rather, through mutations, individuals in the population have different traits, and the environment "selects" those individuals those with traits allowing better adaptation, and through greater reprodution, the trait becomes embedded in the population.
Pandit makes a point about "genetic material" we have. The smallest genetic material, he says, is in viruses, which has "500,000" units. Whatever that means. If he's talking about DNA pairs, he's wrong, the smallest observed in an organism so far is a few hundred. But then he says "in the human, now this has been going up up up until we come to humans ..." WHAT? It's been going up up up? How could the "genetic material" in viruses have been going up up up?" That sounds like exactly what evolution says. But I think he didn't realize he was saying that.
So according to Pandit, genetic material has been going up up up until we get to humans, which he implies his the highest species with the most "genetic material" at 3 billion. But again, Pandit shows his ignorance of biology. The organism with the most "genetic material" is actually the lungfish. The "lungfish's genome is 43 billion base pairs long, which is around 14 times larger than the human genome." Which I guess makes lungfish more advanced than humans in Pandit's view.
A couple final points. Pandit tries to bolster this claim by reference to a "landmark decision" in a 1980 meeting on evolution in Chicago. He claims "the fundamental question was can the small changes actually accumulate into a big change" And says "there is no mechanism of adding at all" as if this was the "landmark decision". This is utter falsehood. This was a discussion, but there was no "landmark decision". And the discussion was was whether evolution occurred in a constant basis or whether there were periods of stabilization in species punctuated by periods of relatively rapid change ("punctuated equilibrium"); and if so, by what evolutionary mechanisms. I appreciate that creationists have bastardized this meeting and no doubt that is where Pandit gets his information, but to say there was a "landmark decision" that "there is no mechanism of adding at all" is an utter falsehood. And even it that was so, there have been 50 years of advances in genetics and microbiology and fossil discoveries, and no evolution scientist says that "genetic material" cannot be added. To the contrary, it has been observed over and over that new "genetic material" is being added to the genomes of species all the time by various methods, the principle one being mutation in the duplication of genetic sequences. Have you ever heard of mutation, Dr. Pandit?
Finally, Pandit goes back to his erroneous first argument, and cites the musings of Darwin about his hypothesis. Pandit emphasizes that he quoted Darwin verbatim, but he does not. What Darwin actually wrote was:
"In fact the belief in natural selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. (1) on its being a vera causa, from the struggle for existence; & the certain geological fact that species do somehow change (2) from the analogy of change under domestication by man’s selection. (3) & chiefly from this view connecting under an intelligible point of view a host of facts.- When we descend to details, *we can prove that no one species has changed*: nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed & others have not …"
Pandit falsely claims Darwing wrote "we *cannot* prove that no one species has changed ..." But aside from these errors, this argument has the same fallacy as his first. He acts as if Darwin is deemed inerrant, and completely ignores 150 years of additional evidence and study that has revised and improved but largely verified Darwin's hypothesis, which has been so verified that it is now deemed theory.
@@sciencerules8525 I am a creationist. I read it. I understand it. Starting with 10 apples and selecting, you can grow a billion apples, but will never get oranges. Prove me wrong.
Boy are you full of it!
@@sciencerules8525 You believe the mindless driven he just wrote-that assumes so many baskets while being unable to account for the first basket-least of all the information necessary for that basket to exist? Okay bud...
@@sciencerules8525 Texas didn't understand? Then set him straight! ... Unless of course you cannot.
@@sciencerules8525 The "fact"? Really? Can you prove that? ... I'll wait... Look, neutral and deleterious changes don't "add up" to what you imagine they do. Losing ≠ gaining. Now, give me your very best "science" demonstrating your claim, Mr. Blind Faith 101...
Funny how creationists have been claiming they've "smashed evolution" for 160 years now yet no one in the scientific community has noticed. 😊
There are thousands of scientists who KNOW evolution is b.s.
@@davidjackson2690 According to a 2019 Pew poll 98% of all scientists and 99.9% of those in the Life Sciences (biology, genetics, medicine, etc.) accept evolution as the best, most well supported explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth. You were saying? 🙂
@@davidjackson2690 "Creationists" aren't scientists.
@@iriemon1796 bull crap man.
The SCIENCE points to a young Earth and Sun.
The SCIENCE points in the opposite direction from Evolution.
Why comment on thngs you know nothing about?
Makes you look stupid.
@@iriemon1796 Science confirms Genesis.
Like it or not buddy.
Shouldn't this guy be debunking the updated modern synthetic theory? On the other hand I have read the Genesis story a dozen times but still can't figure out how the sun was created on the 4th day and light on the 1st day. What was God doing before day 1. Preparing the material? The guy who wrote this stuff left out a lot of details. And people like these fill it up with guesswork. They feel pointing out some flaws in other's arguments make theirs to be correct.
Genesi chapter 1 is an overall description of the supernatural creation of God. It is being described in ways we can understand. Either God Himself was the light, or there was another source. Since this was supernatural, we will never understand it in full detail as if it was a blueprint on how to build a model car. Context is key in interpreting Scripture.
@@electriccowboy4747 Genesis is pure mythology. A literal interpretation of Genesis has been disproven by science 1000X over. Religious fanatics cling to a literal Genesis out of fear, not rational thought or scientific evidence.
@electriccowboy4747 Genesis was not intended to be taken literally.
Jeez these guys don't have waffle on. (probably trying to pull the wool over our eyes). I'm no scholar but this guys story has so many holes in it. I wonder how much he got paid to spout that crap.
Name some of these holes please.
@@randywise5241 Feel free to read my posts in the comments section of this video. I detail some of the many, many "holes."
It is ultimately the question about how anything came about. How the procedure of creation was itself is not described in the Bible. When God says, let there be light and let there be plants and animals. We have no scientific explanation whatsoever of what really took place.
It is man’s own duty to find out these things with his intellect and the scientific method. It had been of no use for the creator to give any scientific documentation about how things went.
So, we are researching what was going on and have come to many results except of how and why it all started from nothing.
The variation which often is called micro evolution is effect, but there is more and that’s ultimately pointing to a creator.
You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution.
@@markb3786The reason why abiogenesis is so important is that, except religion, noone has a solid answer for this, only speculation.
So the starting point is to accept a Creator because we don't have another proven explanation.
We can discuss who is this Creator or the way He chose to do things how He did.
But atheists at least, have no base to deny a Creator. Only if someone finds solid evidence, we can address this issue again on equal terms. Till then, religion has the only explanation.
@@Sid3-yx7xq We don't have a proven Creator either. Let's assume for the sake of argument some supernatural entity POOFED the first simple self-replication molecule into existence some 4 billion years ago. Do you agree once that happened the natural processes of evolution then took over and produced the history and biologic diversity seen across the planet?
Who claims it all started from nothing. Standard creationist straw man.
@@Sid3-yx7xq Another standard creationis logical fallacy. A "creator" is not a de facto explanation for something we don't understand completely, like abiogensis, any more than it was for things we didn't use to understand but do now, like lightning, earthquakes, volcanoes, eclipses, and rainbows, all of which have been used as proof of God or gods.
If you are going to argue that it was a creator, you must first have a "proven explanation" for the existence of the supernatural, and within that supernatural an entity of some kind, and an entity with enough power to create the universe, and that it did so.
All of for which there is zero "proven explanation". And if you do not even have a proven explanation for a supernatural, then the starting point is to accept that there is a naturalist explanation. Because we know the natural world exists, and there is a proven explanation for that.
That evolution has occurred - the changes and diversification of life over the last 3.8 billion years - is a well established scientific *fact.* The *theory* of evolution is the scientific explanation for the mechanisms which produced the observed *fact* of evolution.
Not a fact. Sorry. Just a story.
No witnesses. No reproducible experiments. Just imagination.
What do we observe? Millions of different life forms. I therefore conclude that YHWH is very creative. Anything regarding evolution comes from extrapolations from untestable assumptions.
Not correct.
The actual evidence in the fossil record shows the species in the fossil record changed over time, and that they appear to be related to each other by degrees of similarity and difference, in groups under groups.
That is not evidence of an alleged fact of evolution, because if the theory is correct, then it explains the *gaps* in the fossil record by interpolating alleged *factual* changes in the gaps that are unevidenced, namely, that the changes in the species composition of the fossil record was caused by the theorised descent with modification.
Therefore you can't use the factually imperfect geological record to prove the theory, and you can't use the theory to supply absent facts unevidenced.
Furthermore, the theory invokes random mutations to genes as the agent of selection, but if we remove from consideration the fossils lacking evidence of nucleotides, we are left with virtually no evidence to speak of.
Therefore it is not correct to assert that evolution is a well-established scientific fact, because the science has to rest on evidence, and it is common ground that the relevant evidence is lacking.
Confirm, or deny with evidence and reason?
@@stylembonkers1094 You guys can yell *NUH-UH!* until you're blue in the face and it still won't change the *fact* of evolution over deep time. The current theory of evolution could be overturned and replaced tomorrow and that still wouldn't change the *fact* that evolution over deep time has occurred.
@@itsamystery5279
We'll just have leave the discussion on the basis that you admit you haven't got the relevant evidence and therefore what you have is ideology, and indoctrination, and dogma, not science.
🙂
You're doing exactly what atheists are accusing the theists of doing, you potato.
OMG. Pandit's second argument claims that Darwin's views on evolution came from looking at breeding domesticated animals and then "put the whole amount and put it in nature, ... said this is how it happened, and that's the theory of evolution." And this is from a guy who claims he read "Origin of Species" 5x "cover to cover". Did he just forget all the parts discussing Darwin's research in nature including the galapagos with its famous finches? Darwin considered his own observations and collections in nature, the fossil record, other sources on the subject as well as animal breeders.
Then Pandit uses this gigantic strawman to criticize the theory of evolution and clam Darwin "destroyed it".
To suggest that Darwin simply looked at domesticated breeding and just "put it in nature" and that's the theory of evolution is highly ignorant, highly dishonest, or both. I'm not sure which.
Both for sure.
This exactly how Darwin got his ideas on evolution. Selective Breeding of animals, especially pets, was very popular in Victorian England so he would have been very familiar with this. This is taught in Intro Biology in most High Schools so I'm not sure where your objection comes from. Have you read the Origin of the Species?
@@Shundi You apparently haven't read OOS since a large part of the book is Darwin describing natural selection he observed in places like the Galapagos.
@@Shundi Have you? I didn't say Darwin didn't consider the phenomenon of breeding; but that was just one of many other evidences he considered to develop his hypothesis. To say that evolution came from Darwin looking at breeding domesticated animals and then Darwin "put the whole amount and put it in nature, ... said this is how it happened, and that's the theory of evolution" is an utter falsehood.
In my high school we were taught that Darwin also relied upon his vast collection of information gathered from many years of study and observation in nature, including most famously his trip to the Galapagos aboard the "Beagle" where he observed variations in his famous finches, as well as evidence from the fossil record, as well as the work of others in the field and related fields. They didn't teach you about these things in your high school? What a shocker. Did you go to St. Apologist HS?
The source of information is always a mind, the information inside all living organisms is immensely complex, organisms are preloaded with information to allow them to adapt to environmental pressures, the universe with highly tuned laws to allow life on this planet required a law maker. The human brain is capable of abstracts, metaphors, math, etc, the only known source for these, is a mind. Evolution requires a belief in something that has never been observed, that information comes into existence without the need for a mind. How can matter without a mind design a brain that can comprehend abstracts that the molecules constructing the brain cannot understand? It is one of the many paradoxes that imaginary evolution will never explain. Evolution is a theory that many have decided is a fact, despite overwhelming evidence pointing to intelligent design. Demonstrate in a lab information popping into existence without the need for a mind. A.I. for example can create new information but what is the source of the A.I.? How does the very first DNA come into existence when DNA is made from proteins and DNA is required to make the proteins, another paradox. Even the fact you need to use intelligence to argue your mind did not require intelligence to design should wake you up. Stop whacking square pegs into round holes and use your god given common sense, complex mechanisms require a designer, this is all we have ever observed, even the so called 'simple' cells are more complex than anything mankind has achieved, yet they came into existence for no reason without the need for a creator, according to evolution.
I don't believe 5 atheistic professors came and sat on the front row of his presentation. And no, the science of evolution doesn't depend on Darwin's book....especially not ALL statements on evolution. Yes, Darwin based the idea on animal husbandry and horticulture. That proves the fact of descent with modification...which IS evolution. So of course he starts with something that can be repeatable and observed and then applies it more broadly. The man fails to distinguish between the fact of evolution and the hypothesis that that process was how the diversity of life on earth came about. So far, no one has disproved the hypothesis so it remains viable.
No, he's wrong. Darwin identified the breeder...he called it natural selection and explained how it worked.
He fails to add in that Darwin proposed that nature always produces more progeny than can survive. That is how 'selection' can still be supported...because of abundant reproduction.
There are known ways genetic material increases. Perhaps God designed it so it could increase and that was his mechanism for creation.
Hi
NO THERE HAS TO BE AGENCY EVEN IN NATURAL SELECTION
which is ONLY the ADAPTATION CAPACITY INTRINSIC IN THE DNA OF EACH SPECIES PROGRAMMED IN BY THE PROGRAMMER!
YOU HAVE A MENTAL BLOCK DISALLOWING FOR A PROGRAMMER!
@@toosiyabrandt8676 "NO THERE HAS TO BE AGENCY EVEN IN NATURAL SELECTION"
Chemistry is the active agent in natural evolution. There are many agents in the natural world and that is part and parcel to life. Chemistry is life.
"YOU HAVE A MENTAL BLOCK DISALLOWING FOR A PROGRAMMER!"
Do you have a mental block disallowing for a programmer of the programmer.
@@toosiyabrandt8676 _YOU HAVE A MENTAL BLOCK DISALLOWING FOR A PROGRAMMER!_ No, there is simply no evidence for a "programmer" and lots of evidence one wasn't necessary.
Darwin's theory is built on mistaken ideas about genetics and n concept of cellular biology.
He believed that cells were amorphous blind with untapped energy and that these changes were possible due to the fact that unlimited potential exists at a cellular level.
This is not possible because of what we know about biology and how mutation works:
1. Mutation has to happen pre-maturation and in gametes to have any impact on future generations. Any mutation in somatic cells would not be passed on to future generations. Any mutations after the body has already developed would not produce the morphological changes to be selected against.
2. Ignores the lethality of mutation: Most mutations kill organisms during their development.
3. Most mutations are destructive, not constructive. Since most mutations are deleterious, you wouldn't gain the necessary genetic information responsible for addition features, organs, etc.
4. Darwin expected missing links to be discovered to support his theory but we're still waiting. The number of missing links necessary to support this theory is staggering and we still have not found even 1% of the forms necessary to suffort his decent with modification theory. We don't even have the necessary evidence from a microscopic standpoint. We have no information of bicellular or tricellular life currently and this is almost 200 years after the fact.
4. No working theory for abiogenesis. Obvious problem for a non-Intelligent Design Standpoint
@@sciencerules8525 Really? Do tell? Provide evidence that can be dissected
Natural selection is not a theory. It is an observable phenomenon. All Darwin did was postulate that it is the driver behind the demonstrably valid process of evolution.
Evolution, as in a change in kind, doesn't work and has zero evidence behind it. The evidence we do have, actually proves that the theory doesn't work. Fruit flies were used in the experiment because they have a generational cycle of a few hours, meaning you get to observe millions of years worth of human generations in a matter of weeks. After a year, there was no change at all observed in the population. That means that even if you give any species millions of years, they will not change into something else.
What has been observed is adaptations to the surrounding environment, as with darwins finches.
@@brileri There is no such thing in science as a "kind". Please take a beginning science class and stop arguing from ignorance.
@@apoliticalobserver2741 it is at the level of family. The horse kind, or dog kind, or cat kind. So yes there is.
@@brileri If you go with that then you just admitted humans and chimps are the same "kind". You sure you want to ride that train? 🙂
@@apoliticalobserver2741 no, because humans are on their own, and all primates are seperate. There is zero evidence for a common ancestor, and DNA itself makes that impossible as even a theory.
This bloke may have read the book 5 times but he has a minimal understanding of evolution still.Has to come back to the breeder...in his view creator,to prop up the argument.He ignores all the progress in genetics and the human genome in the last 70 years.
If I had a dollar for evert time some dirt ignorant creationist claimed to have "smashed evolution" I'd pay off the national debt. 🙄
You obviously don't know about progress in genetics and the human genome which puts Darwinin's theory in a worse not a better position. You need to check your ignorance. You need to understand that ASSUMING WHAT IS IN ISSUE, is a logical fallacy, which means you admit that your argument is irrational.
To inform you of what you don't yet know, long story short, it's because the rate at which the adaptive reactions take place, from the mutations themselves, to their being useful in actual adaptive proteins that form part of an actual organelle, is such that the time so far in the history of the entire universe is *nowhere near enough* to account for the evolution of even a single protein, let alone new *phyla*, let alone in the time taken up in the Cambrian explosion.
So you lose the argument bro :-)
What you've got is indoctrination, not science.
But if I'm wrong, post the *EVIDENCE*.
His ignorance shows in not knowing that the breeder is the limiting factor
@@stylembonkers1094 Please explain to us how genetics disproves evolutionary theory. This should be good. 🍿🍿🍿
@@samburns3329 You've got it back-the-front. The onus of proof is on the one asserting the positive proposition. I can't be called on to prove a negative, just as you can't be called on to prove that there is not an invisible flying teapot orbiting the dark side of the moon. You have the onus of proving your own theory.
It's common ground that you can't explain the origin of a single species by the EVIDENCE of genetics. If you can, post proof.
Appeal to absent authority, or puffing yourself up in indignation, constitutes your admission of fallacy.
Show how all the relevant nucleotides code for all the relevant proteins.
This should be good.
A simple admission that you can't, because the evidence doesn't exist, will suffice.
What you've got is ideology and dogma bro, not science.
🙂
Does he realise that evolutionary theory has moved on a bit since Darwin wrote his book 😂
creationists love to call it darwinism as if it were some religion= darwinism v creationism. they are not interested in finding the evidence but intent on misrepresenting something. e.g. soft tissue in dinosaurs, lyposid fossils, pitdown man. it is dishonest.
For Vishnu’s sake try learning the basic fundamentals of evolution before attempting to debunk it 😂. I’ll never understand why creationists recycle the same “we don’t know everything therefore I know everything” 1,000,000,000 times. Truly pathetic stuff.
The more we learn, the more absurd evolution theory becomes. I'm talking about the molecules to man theory of evolution.
@@johnglad5 “molecules to man” 😂 that’s what I’m talking about. No one has ever said that phrase. Did you graduate high school?
@healthfadsfade That is a common phrase amongst those talking about the definition. My favorite is soup to sapien.
I seem to have stepped on a few nerves because you've jumped right in to insulting me by saying I lack education. Truth trumps education every time.
The best educated of us believed in junk DNA for decades till us uneducated proved it false.
In my prayers
@@johnglad5 Problem is your lack of education makes it virtually impossible for you to determine truth.
@samburns3329 Do you believe you are just molecules or are you going to steal from.the Christian worldview?
More truth from an uneducated man slapping you I the face. Oh, that must hurt. Still in my prayers
Salam CORAN 68 : 52
CORAN 18:86 - sun sets in a muddy pool. Do you also believe in the 7 sleepers?
@@TexasHoosier3118 CORAN 18 : 106
This is a typical example of a believer trying to demolish scientific therories and ”facts”. There are no facts of course, just a path leading to greater and greater enlightenment. So, he had to read Darwin 5 times before he could build a pseudoscientific case against it? This programme format is not balanced. If you create a debate format, the viewer might learn something. As it is, this is just ”false witnessing” to support religious beliefs. IMHO. Where do they find these interviewees?
The fact that Pandit claims to have read "Origins" "cover to cover" five times suggest to me he is dishonest. With all the evidence and sources and arguments Darwin makes in his book, including his extensive natural observations, the fossil record, geological observations, and the writings and reports of others, to claim that the entirety of Darwin's theory came just from animal breeding is just a flat out intentional falsehood. I might think he simply made an error, but not when he read the entire book five times. His numerous dubious/erroneous assertions on other matters of which he should know better also create the impression of dishonesty.
@@iriemon1796 Repeated use of the number "5" is a pretty good tell he is making it up. He claims to have read OOS 5 times, claims to have discredited 5 atheistic sciences. I don't believe either claim for one second.
Ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaa
What a ridiculous nonsense🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
the thing us he has no idea about the platypus genome, or probably the platypus at all.imagination and endless words are not proof.of anything...
The proof of evolution lays is in te egg laying mammal, the platypus A draft version of the platypus genome sequence was published in Nature on 8 May 2008, revealing both reptilian and mammalian elements, as well as two genes found previously only in birds, amphibians, and fish. roughly 82% of the platypus's genes are shared between monotremes, marsupials, eutherians, birds, and reptiles.