The scientific study of the L + Ratio Socials: Socials: gutsickgibbon@gmail.com @Gutsick_Gibbon Support the channel! / gutsickgibbon www.redbubble.com/shop/gutsic...
I get the impression their complaint that, "If we descended from monkeys, why are there monkeys?" is somewhat akin to an argument "If I descended from my grandparents, why do I have cousins?"
@@crappyanimations9992 I'd say that was a completely valid response. Then a Kent Hovind comes along and says, "Hey, they're still dogs." Not that Kent has anything constructive or valid to say. I'm still an ape. But would Kent Hovind breed with an ape? I can't help think that, yes, yes he would. He's kind of creepy that way.
@@RichardRoy2 Eh, it doesn't really get the point across IMO. If they ask "why are there still apes" they'd just turn around and say "well if dogs came from wolves why are there still dogs". What they're failing to understand is, like you said, we're still apes... forget trying to get them to understand that there are and were many species of ape (which again, we are one type of), and that the evolution of homo sapien from one line of ape doesn't mean that every species of ape would evolve into homo sapien. It's grifters saying things they know are stupid or people that have such a large misunderstanding of evolution that you'd have to literally educate them on so many facets of evolutionary biology before you could even begin to touch on the "why are there still apes" portion.
@@paulthompson9668the most religious countries have the most violent crime More people have been murdered in the name of Christianity than anything else in the past 2000 years and the ONLY reason it stopped is the rise of secular govts that finally started to ban that practice of Christians "lovingly helping people find Jesus" by torturing them until they do or murdering them if they refuse
With such hard-hitting points like "how does a small animal become a big animal?" and "how does a part of the body change shape without billions of mutations?" you start to wonder if these guys know that living things grow.
My fave thing about this is that sponges aren't just animals, they demonstrably predate trees - even though creationists assert that trees were created before animals according to Genesis
@@ReallyBadJuJu Magic, that's how. Magic is a wonderful way to explain magic. You just need to point out the other magic. And then more magic. Scientific explanations, even the 'I don't know' are more satisfying.
I really gotta thank all my public school librarians for teaching me the info literacy to be able to track down the sources for a lot of things. Things like reverse image search, the wizardry of keyword search queries, distinguishing sources, the groundwork for my outstanding googleability was laid by librarians, so thank you! It's been really helpful in my schoolwork, work work, hobbies, and life.
@DeeDeeBaldwin - As a kid, I spent SO MUCH time in libraries, sitting on the floor between the stacks and reading. I LOVE libraries and librarians. Thank you.
Everytime I watch one of your videos, I find that I get pretty angry. I want to send the link to so many of my family members who have dumped money into the Ark Encounter and the like, but I know I would only stoke the fire. Either way, your knowledge feels like ammunition, and I appreciate all your work on these!!
Also, the different "kinds" in the old chart sprung up at different times, generally millions of years apart, not within a 6-day creation cycle. Funny how they forget that part.
They keep saying that punctuated equilibrium proves the Bible. But the Bible said one creation event. Not many. They're so weak they got beaten by a strawman.
@@Leto617 If I think it's right, it 100% proves the Bible. If I think it's wrong, it's just a metaphor why are you taking it seriously? - Creationists.
Creationists like Carl are frustrating because they've got a pretty slick delivery. To anyone who is looking to them as a primary source of information or affirmation it looks like a slam dunk. So as usual, well done to Erika for taking the time most of us are too lazy to do and dunk on these smooth brains.
@@direktive4 I would describe their approach to legibility as: they avoid it like the plague. If they made the text readable, and left it on screen long enough, even their followers might ask why everything they are referring to is 20-40 years old. Unless they are talking about how they misrepresent anything and everything in Darwin's work. Then they *really* use old material.
Re: the Jerry Coyne quote. It is in my hardback copy, but they quotemined it (of course they did). After what they quoted, "...we do not know whether the actual line of descent included the first three species, ...", it follows, "...but the origin of modern birds almost certainly involved a sequence very much like this one". The paragraph goes on to name each drawing, the era in which it was found, and the where the fossil was located.
The blue whale heart thing that he bungled is a common "fun fact" type thing where you will often find the two comparisons grouped together. 1: The aorta is large enough for a fully grown adult to crawl through it, and 2: The heart weighs as much as a Volkswagon Beatle. He just jumbled them together and presented that as the fact because why bother making sure you say correct things when you're trying to make an educational video?
i think even those fun facts arent very accurate, the idea of the aorta being large enough a grown adult could fit in it was more of a theory before we (relatively recently) obtained and preserved an actual blue whale heart, which is still huge and crazy to look at but definitely smaller than we assumed and not big enough for an adult to fit their shoulders into lol
I haven't gotten to this part of the video yet so I can only imagine the presented fact is some shit like "the heart of a blue whale is large enough for an adult to crawl into a Volkswagen"
@@nathanielgrey4091 - Although I am a very happy Former Mormon, I still have traces of Mormonism left - I cannot make myself swear or drink. Otherwise, I grew up and ditched the magic LDS teachings and embraced the exciting, enthralling world of science!
I think the "athlete's foot" thing is a very confused misunderstanding of a real thing, to whit: anti-fungal drugs tend to be harder to make (and/or have worse side effects) compared to, say, antibacterials, because fungi are comparatively close relatives of animals and therefore don't have so many distinctly different biochemical pathways to use as drug targets.
Huh, that's interesting! I never knew that's the reason we don't have antifungal medications that is as effective and widely used as antibiotics. I'm gonna have to check out some videos about that to get more info!
@@orchdork775 right? I mean it makes sense when you think about it. I should be not lazy and check it out myself but I don’t know how to google that kind of cross-disciplinary idea…
When Forrest Valkai debunked Reasons for Hope (same video), they made a 4 or 5 video response, doubling down on the quote mining and misinformation they spread. So I'm sure he'll flip his lid against another person with an actual education wrecking his argument.
@@Ruthy101 lol I don't know how to code except for basic stuff and I don't think I did my reply correct so it's ok dude Edit :also I belive it is correct
I’m sure someone has probably pointed this out by now but the “horse” at 29:49 isn’t even a horse it’s a litoptern notoungulate, which were only distantly related to horses and other Perissodactyls 💀 (I think in that chart specifically though the original authors did mistakenly use a archaic horse illustration for the litoptern icon)
Honestly, I feel like a lot of people's problem with evolution is that they're taking pop science (like the walk of progress) or extremely simplified diagrams and pictures (like the bird evolution on the book) and they think that, that's what we "evolutionists" believe. They don't get how we need to simply complex biological concepts to try and teach them to kids and the populous at large.
I think you're assuming a level of good faith from these guys that is simply not plausible. Their intent is to put out content that affirms creationism and they simply do not care about being intellectually honest, about learning about the topics they're pontificating on, or about straight-up lying and misleading their audience. They're starting from an unshakable premise that is based entirely on the fact that they were raised since children to believe that premise no matter what. If they don't know anything about evolution, its solely because they don't actually care.
You are awesome. Love all your videos. On the summer of 1980 when I was a kid my brother, Alan, and I went into the Virunga Mountains while we spent part of the summer in Rwanda. I was 20 feet from Mountain gorillas. I love when you talk about the facts behind us and our relations to them. They show Mountain Gorillas always live in family units with a Silverback as the leader. No gorilla child will ever be orphaned if their mother should die, lose her silverback leader, or somehow get separated. The vast majority of gorilla groups will usually take in a loan mother and baby gorilla. If a baby gorilla loses their mother. Other lactating females in the group will take over and “adopt” the infant. If there’s. No lactating females they find another group that does. The same is true of small groups of gorillas that loose their leader. That entire group will join anothe
Not many creators can produce a video over an hour long and keep my attention but your videos are always interesting and fun to watch whether they're on the topic of science or, as in this case, ignorance.
Been binging your video while coding my game the last week and I gotta say I'm always happy to hear that bit from The Mind Electric when it pops up in some intros. God I love that song
I'm so glad that I found this channel. Erika, I had a quick little look at your background, and the facts of your upbringing vs where you are now make you my new greatest hero. Keep tilting at that creationist windmill, for it truly is a giant.
Punctuated Equilibrium isn't just a 'fix' to account for fossil inconsistency, Darwin was in error when he assumed all change would be slow and gradual, simple logic shows that the struggle between organisms should produce rapid change right after conditions have changed or a novel mutation occours and followed by stabilization. We have seen this in practice when species have changed contemporaneously with and we even see it in human sports competitions in which records platue for long periods untill new techniques or equipment cause paradigm shifts, case in point pole vaulting. Anything competition will give this pattern.
"Darwin was in error when he assumed all change would be slow and gradual," He wasn't in error. Even at its fastest, evolution is still slow and gradual. Sometimes it's just more slow and gradual than other times.
Priceless, "These are like two cartoon Disney villains, who are supposed to be the numbskull sidekicks, bopping each other on the head with a big rock and trying to figure out how to feed the evil evolutionist." Don't say you lack a sense of comic genius...and then the spliff whilst pondering the origins of toast... Give this woman an award, best retort to banal ass bucket brains, ever!
I like how you seem to slouch more the more idiotic content you have to debunk. Like, its so painful, it de-evolves you. When they compared sponges to fungi I laughed so hard. I think the most fun thing about evolutionary biology is realizing every bug, sponge, fungus, virus, bacteria, squirrel, and jellyfish have been evolving on this planet as long as your ancestors. So here's to my gentle and very modern apes.
I gotta say, I love your filler content. Love the explanations of the linguistics of your fellow youths, the ease of your dunking on creationists, etc.
@@mjjoe76 To be honest I am annoyed at twitter in a similar way I am annoyed at the God concepts. I use neither personally. But watching some bizarre things said on the subjects, can be entertaining.
Well that was painful, watching these 2 clowns "debunk" a subject they appear to not understand at all. But somehow you made the pain bearable...maybe even fun! Thanks Erika 😃
Not true. Homeopathy starts with something that causes the symptom you want to cure. So it would be more like "Someone picks up a hammer halfway across the world and it cures your headache."
@@stephenandrusyszyn3444 They also do "it looks like a thing so it effects a thing" that's why belladonna is thought to help with infant tooth issues. Luckily they are smart enough to dilute it into oblivion
In the old YEC books and pamphlets they pointed out there were no intermediates between land animals and whales (which was true at the time). Then in the 90s, loads of discoveries of intermediates were found, and many more since then. So Bud and Carl are probably still influenced by old YEC talking points and don't realize those talking points were (as you say) taken behind the barn and shot.
Two men went into an empty room, and locked the door. Later, one man comes out, with blood on his hands, shirt and face. In the room, the other one is dead on the floor, with an ice pick in his head. There's just one possible explanation: A demon possessed the dead man, and made him spit blood from his eyes all over the other man. The other one showed a crucifix and weakened the demon, so the victim of demonic possession, in a moment of self control, took an ice pick and killed himself to stop the demon from causing harm. I saw it all in a dream (or maybe a movie, can't remember), you can't argue with that.
@@thegameranch5935 It's an example of how people can distort the facts to fit their presuppositions. As such it's a commentary on how YE creationists adjust results to fit a YE presupposition.
35:18 I'm reminded of being in grade school and my YEC parents telling me to learn the answers to evolution questions but to believe the answers are all lies.
If you can find a chart from 30 years ago, you can find a chart of last year. They intentionally choose to show the older charts, because that fits their narrative.
One thing that's a little frustrating for me is that we can pull up a new species of dinosaur per week but we can't find anything to show us the transition from Miocene apes to modern chimps. I would so like to see their side of the family tree filled out at least with a few on their side of the split. Of course I know the environment they were in was very challenging for fossil preservation but I am holding out hope.
We've got some tantalizing fragments but yeah there's a preservational bias against forest apes. We need to find deforested Pliocene rock. We have a proto-gorilla, so that's helpful. Sahelanthropus might even be steam hominin
On the bright side, YECs continuing to spout nonsense that was refuted *over sixty years ago* has really made me appreciate the Amish. I may fundamentally disagree with everything about a Luddite lifestyle, but can respect the Amish for being open and honest about their rejection of modern science. And also, conveniently, they don't spread anti-intellectual garbage across every internet platform (for obvious reasons).
"NOVA" has a very good episode called "When Whales Could Walk" that goes over all the whale evolution and presents some spectacular fossils from the Egyptian dessert. It may still be available here on the "NOVA" channel, April 2024.
I love the beginning of this video where you explain an online culture phenomenon like you would as a primatologist studying a particular group of apes. Keep doing that! That's how we should talk about human behavior tbh
It just really goes to show. The majority of our population took that one Alice cooper song from 1972 “schools out” a little to seriously. They got out of high school and never picked another book up.
I started watching YEC vs Evolution content about a year ago and the scientific terms mostly lost me. By now I understand a lot of them simply because the YEC camp never changes their arguments so I've had the benefit of LOTS of repetition.
You have no idea how grateful I am for the first 15 seconds of this video. I know I can look this sort of thing up whenever I want to but damnit, I did not want to.
At one point you said you thought they didn't know enough to be purposely misleading, they were just ignorant (or something to that effect). However, I think their cetacean figure being one from a non-open-source paper from the mid eighties when much better things are much easier to find to me screams purposeful deceit. They had to intentionally dig, a lot, to find a source that doesn't even support their claim, but rather makes the scientific consensus look like it has somewhat of a hole.
Seems like some wanky metric invented by social media posers. What percentage of people actively use the like buttons anyway? I never do and if you look many YTers don't get a high like to comment ratio either.
To creationists, the truth is “earth is 6 thousand years old, evolution doesn’t exist, God exist, jesus is lord” even though many of these beliefs are wrong Truth is really subjective even when the evidence shows that the truth is objective
@@yickel I'm on a mission to rehabilitate the image of my generation. I can use my cellphone without help and you can walk across my lawn anytime you like. Except I'm poor and live in an apartment. 🙃
It's a bit of a bummer seeing Erica perpetuate the misrepresentation of Atheists. I totally get that plenty of people don't know any better than to join the Theists in the whole, "You're an Agnostic, not an Atheist!" manipulation. And for the most part in life, I prefer to let people self-identify using the terms they prefer. However, Atheists have been trying to fight the way our label is misused for a reason. Saying that you're withholding judgement, and therefore aren't an Atheist, has necessary implications for the rest of us. That we are not witholding judgement. It redefines us as Gnostics who are making a claim of certainty, which is unfair. Someone can be either a Theist or a Not-Theist (Atheist). A Gnostic or a Not-Gnostic (Agnostic). The Gnostic vs Agnostic distinction is a position on knowledge, not supernatural claims. It can be equally applied to either a Theist or an Atheist. The recategorization is actively harmful, in my opinion. It would be similarly unfair to say that a Theist _also_ must be considered a Gnostic, and therefore start calling Theists who are not 100% certain 'Agnostics' as well (which would honestly be slightly more fair, considering they are at least the ones with a claim). But we never see that happen, because what the Theists are doing with this choice of language is rhetorical- delegitimizing Atheists by smuggling in the implication that they are Gnostics. Someone can be a Gnostic Theist, an Agnostic Theist, a Gnostic Atheist, or an Agnostic Atheist. The Agnostic Atheists make up the vast majority of Atheists. So differentiating yourself as an "Agnostic" when you are, in fact, not-a-Theist (an Atheist), kind of throws the rest of us under the bus. People understand that Agnosticism is more intellectually honest, so Atheism gets intentionally conflated with Gnosticism. It's fine (and probably a good idea) to clarify that you are an Agnostic Atheist, but unless you're a Theist, Atheist is the most appropriate term and the most fair to other Atheists. If there are people out there who are truly convinced they can simultaneously accept and not accept the claims of Theism (I don't see how that makes much sense, but okay) then I would like to see them make a new term that doesn't have harmful and misleading implications for the Atheist demographic. We get misunderstood and demonized enough without that, lol
The Newtonian theory of gravity does successfully model the orbital trajectory of the various moons about their parent planet. And, with one exception, the Newtonian theory of gravity models the orbital trajectory of the planets about the Sun. The exception to this was Mercury. Thus, when Einstein developed general relativity, (GR), one of the first challenges (tests) was to use it to predict Mercury's orbital trajectory about the Sun. So in addition to the outer seven planets, GR also gives a very accurate prediction of Mercury's orbital trajectory about the Sun. Lastly, (I'm sorry to be this way but gravity is really my area) instead of saying that general relativity is applied "on top" of Newtonian physics, it's more accurate to say that GR is a broader and more fundamental theory of gravity. It's interesting to note that in non-relativistic limits (ie in settings whereby velocities are significantly less than c, and where gravitational fields are weak and time independent) one can derive the field equation of the Newtonian theory of gravity from GR.
i thought the math breaks down in this way for everything in physics? Newer theories continue to validate earlier ones, not just conceptually but literally in the math itself? Im not totally educated on this.
![ОРБАН приехал к ПУТИНУ и "отчитался" о поездке в Киев 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_0ukDovOWq8/mqdefault.jpg)
“A lizard went in and a bird came out” is quite possibly the weirdest way to say you don’t understand evolution OR reproduction
Well that is a really basic summation of the Mezosoic
@@jeffreywilliams3421 actually no, lizard is a whole different group of reptile
Yeah, not sure speciation works according to Thunderdome rules
But that's the way creationists see evolution, a reptile one day laid an egg and a bird came out.
@@tubian323 how cute
If your target audience gets mad because you aren't racist enough, you might want to re-examine your life choices.
They'd rather count their money and turn a blind eye
Exactly, but they they won't
I get the impression their complaint that, "If we descended from monkeys, why are there monkeys?" is somewhat akin to an argument "If I descended from my grandparents, why do I have cousins?"
This is the best comparison I've seen.
Or If Adam was made from Clay, why is there still Clay😅.
I usually respond by pointing out dogs came from wolves, and wolves still exist.
@@crappyanimations9992 I'd say that was a completely valid response. Then a Kent Hovind comes along and says, "Hey, they're still dogs." Not that Kent has anything constructive or valid to say. I'm still an ape. But would Kent Hovind breed with an ape? I can't help think that, yes, yes he would. He's kind of creepy that way.
@@RichardRoy2 Eh, it doesn't really get the point across IMO. If they ask "why are there still apes" they'd just turn around and say "well if dogs came from wolves why are there still dogs". What they're failing to understand is, like you said, we're still apes... forget trying to get them to understand that there are and were many species of ape (which again, we are one type of), and that the evolution of homo sapien from one line of ape doesn't mean that every species of ape would evolve into homo sapien. It's grifters saying things they know are stupid or people that have such a large misunderstanding of evolution that you'd have to literally educate them on so many facets of evolutionary biology before you could even begin to touch on the "why are there still apes" portion.
"Bread goes in... Toast comes out... You can't explain that." This broke me. Superb!
39:35
The highlight of the video: "I don't think they are informed enough to be dishonest."
≈ "too stupid to be a con artist"
But this is a so obvious it’s sickening
@@carrieokieOG I hope you find Jesus
Arguing against these people just starts to feel ableist after a while
@@paulthompson9668the most religious countries have the most violent crime
More people have been murdered in the name of Christianity than anything else in the past 2000 years and the ONLY reason it stopped is the rise of secular govts that finally started to ban that practice of Christians "lovingly helping people find Jesus" by torturing them until they do or murdering them if they refuse
With such hard-hitting points like "how does a small animal become a big animal?" and "how does a part of the body change shape without billions of mutations?" you start to wonder if these guys know that living things grow.
Of course, none of us know people with kids who grow up way bigger and taller than their parents 🙄
the kiddy diddler republican joke is too cheap there isnt it
wanna see a body part change shape?
*flips the bird*
They probably only know about those kid toys that grow when placed in water.
@@swedneck😂
My fave thing about this is that sponges aren't just animals, they demonstrably predate trees - even though creationists assert that trees were created before animals according to Genesis
they also claim plants were created before sun.
so....
@@ReallyBadJuJu Magic, that's how. Magic is a wonderful way to explain magic. You just need to point out the other magic. And then more magic.
Scientific explanations, even the 'I don't know' are more satisfying.
My fave thing about this is how squishy they are.
@@j.c.5528 The sponges or the creationist arguments?
@@ryandoyle3413 Let's say both!
I love that I didn't know what L + Ratio meant and a scientist explained it to me.
As a university librarian, I really appreciate how you always track down original sources like an info lit Sherlock Holmes. :D
I really gotta thank all my public school librarians for teaching me the info literacy to be able to track down the sources for a lot of things.
Things like reverse image search, the wizardry of keyword search queries, distinguishing sources, the groundwork for my outstanding googleability was laid by librarians, so thank you! It's been really helpful in my schoolwork, work work, hobbies, and life.
@@phillyphakename1255 Love to hear/read that! ❤
@DeeDeeBaldwin - As a kid, I spent SO MUCH time in libraries, sitting on the floor between the stacks and reading. I LOVE libraries and librarians. Thank you.
[Cetacean needed]
That was my favorite part 59:54
B'dum T'tshh
I just checked with my Christian dad, I asked him if mushrooms and sponges were the same and he said "no".
There is hope guys.
"bread goes in.. toast comes out" - thank you for this one. the level of snark + facts is so perfect.
"it's from 1980 you fucking loser" hits so hard and I love it
Everytime I watch one of your videos, I find that I get pretty angry. I want to send the link to so many of my family members who have dumped money into the Ark Encounter and the like, but I know I would only stoke the fire. Either way, your knowledge feels like ammunition, and I appreciate all your work on these!!
Also, the different "kinds" in the old chart sprung up at different times, generally millions of years apart, not within a 6-day creation cycle. Funny how they forget that part.
They keep saying that punctuated equilibrium proves the Bible. But the Bible said one creation event. Not many. They're so weak they got beaten by a strawman.
@@Empedocles449 yeah, but they will just come back that 7 days is a metaphor, and shoehorn it in
@@Leto617 If I think it's right, it 100% proves the Bible. If I think it's wrong, it's just a metaphor why are you taking it seriously?
- Creationists.
@@Leto617 So Adam spent like 100 million years naming animals? That's rough. He should've talked to his union.
@@HarryS77I mean there's alot of animals, if including microorganisms
Creationists like Carl are frustrating because they've got a pretty slick delivery. To anyone who is looking to them as a primary source of information or affirmation it looks like a slam dunk.
So as usual, well done to Erika for taking the time most of us are too lazy to do and dunk on these smooth brains.
it's trying way too hard to be slick and not paying any attention to timing and legibility
@@direktive4 I would describe their approach to legibility as: they avoid it like the plague.
If they made the text readable, and left it on screen long enough, even their followers might ask why everything they are referring to is 20-40 years old. Unless they are talking about how they misrepresent anything and everything in Darwin's work. Then they *really* use old material.
@@John.0z Yeah im not sure the age of the papers would worry people that take instructions from a 100AD book
@@benduhova1643 Sad but true. This is only an informed society if you will read and take the time to comprehend.
There delivery is in that ridiculously fast mode like Ben Shapiro. Is that a technique for sounding smart?
Re: the Jerry Coyne quote. It is in my hardback copy, but they quotemined it (of course they did). After what they quoted, "...we do not know whether the actual line of descent included the first three species, ...", it follows, "...but the origin of modern birds almost certainly involved a sequence very much like this one". The paragraph goes on to name each drawing, the era in which it was found, and the where the fossil was located.
This combination of Science + absurd brainmelting memery is the niche content I needed today
The blue whale heart thing that he bungled is a common "fun fact" type thing where you will often find the two comparisons grouped together. 1: The aorta is large enough for a fully grown adult to crawl through it, and 2: The heart weighs as much as a Volkswagon Beatle. He just jumbled them together and presented that as the fact because why bother making sure you say correct things when you're trying to make an educational video?
i think even those fun facts arent very accurate, the idea of the aorta being large enough a grown adult could fit in it was more of a theory before we (relatively recently) obtained and preserved an actual blue whale heart, which is still huge and crazy to look at but definitely smaller than we assumed and not big enough for an adult to fit their shoulders into lol
@@BlisaBLisayou can’t stop me from crawling inside a blue whale heart!
@@evanbecraft8201 The blue whale definitely can though
I haven't gotten to this part of the video yet so I can only imagine the presented fact is some shit like "the heart of a blue whale is large enough for an adult to crawl into a Volkswagen"
51:15 it's even better than I could've possibly imagined, although I should've seen this coming
"wow, sick source dude." im definately using that if you dont mind😂😂
"to save ourselves some time... and liver cells." How did you know I was drinking?!
Because watching YEC stuff without alcohol is like self flagellation. And if you do either, stop it. You deserve better, bud
@@nathanielgrey4091 - Although I am a very happy Former Mormon, I still have traces of Mormonism left - I cannot make myself swear or drink. Otherwise, I grew up and ditched the magic LDS teachings and embraced the exciting, enthralling world of science!
If young earth creation is true, surely fossils of current mammals would have been found.
Our hominid ancestors had picnics all of the time. It's just that now a days we call it foraging.
I think the "athlete's foot" thing is a very confused misunderstanding of a real thing, to whit: anti-fungal drugs tend to be harder to make (and/or have worse side effects) compared to, say, antibacterials, because fungi are comparatively close relatives of animals and therefore don't have so many distinctly different biochemical pathways to use as drug targets.
Huh, that's interesting! I never knew that's the reason we don't have antifungal medications that is as effective and widely used as antibiotics. I'm gonna have to check out some videos about that to get more info!
@@orchdork775 right? I mean it makes sense when you think about it.
I should be not lazy and check it out myself but I don’t know how to google that kind of cross-disciplinary idea…
Science tends to get political when the response to it is "nah-ah"
Critical thinking, is walking on water, talking donkey, and rising from the dead... ahh yes, I see where I went wrong.
When Forrest Valkai debunked Reasons for Hope (same video), they made a 4 or 5 video response, doubling down on the quote mining and misinformation they spread.
So I'm sure he'll flip his lid against another person with an actual education wrecking his argument.
That Reacteria is one of his funniest!
"Am I Ant-Science" 🐜🐜🐜
🤖 initiate: Preemptive Like 👍
Repeat command ^ *713 #430
int N=1
If(n>0);
Then(print=“like”)
Edit: disclaimer, it’s been almost 15 years since I wrote code in JR high
@@Ruthy101 lol I don't know how to code except for basic stuff and I don't think I did my reply correct so it's ok dude
Edit :also I belive it is correct
I’m sure someone has probably pointed this out by now but the “horse” at 29:49 isn’t even a horse it’s a litoptern notoungulate, which were only distantly related to horses and other Perissodactyls 💀
(I think in that chart specifically though the original authors did mistakenly use a archaic horse illustration for the litoptern icon)
Honestly, I feel like a lot of people's problem with evolution is that they're taking pop science (like the walk of progress) or extremely simplified diagrams and pictures (like the bird evolution on the book) and they think that, that's what we "evolutionists" believe. They don't get how we need to simply complex biological concepts to try and teach them to kids and the populous at large.
I think you're assuming a level of good faith from these guys that is simply not plausible. Their intent is to put out content that affirms creationism and they simply do not care about being intellectually honest, about learning about the topics they're pontificating on, or about straight-up lying and misleading their audience. They're starting from an unshakable premise that is based entirely on the fact that they were raised since children to believe that premise no matter what. If they don't know anything about evolution, its solely because they don't actually care.
You don't believe in the march of progress?
@@bouncycastle955 It is oversimplified to the point of error. Orthogenisis isn't a thing that occurs. Evolution has no ditectionality
@@nathanielgrey4091 orthogenesis doesn't require directionality. How is it oversimplified to look at a single example at a time?
@@bouncycastle955 it’s an extremely simplified view of human evolution.
You are awesome. Love all your videos. On the summer of 1980 when I was a kid my brother, Alan, and I went into the Virunga Mountains while we spent part of the summer in Rwanda. I was 20 feet from Mountain gorillas. I love when you talk about the facts behind us and our relations to them.
They show Mountain Gorillas always live in family units with a Silverback as the leader. No gorilla child will ever be orphaned if their mother should die, lose her silverback leader, or somehow get separated. The vast majority of gorilla groups will usually take in a loan mother and baby gorilla. If a baby gorilla loses their mother. Other lactating females in the group will take over and “adopt” the infant. If there’s. No lactating females they find another group that does.
The same is true of small groups of gorillas that loose their leader. That entire group will join anothe
And this year's YEC-Dunning-Kruger-Award goes to....
It is a really big group of nominees.
That should come with a darwin award.
Hooray everyone's a winner
I love, love, LOVE cheeky Gutsick Gibbon. The snark is off the charts.
More of this, please!
It's always a good day when Erika comes out with a new video debunking the favorite fairy tales of Young and Dumb Earth Creationists monkeys/apes.
Not many creators can produce a video over an hour long and keep my attention but your videos are always interesting and fun to watch whether they're on the topic of science or, as in this case, ignorance.
Same here. Not sure why, but maybe no repetition or posturing?
"It's like the world's most depressing drinking game."
Eeyup... makes me wish I still drank.
Never give up on your dreams.
Been binging your video while coding my game the last week and I gotta say I'm always happy to hear that bit from The Mind Electric when it pops up in some intros. God I love that song
I'm so glad that I found this channel. Erika, I had a quick little look at your background, and the facts of your upbringing vs where you are now make you my new greatest hero. Keep tilting at that creationist windmill, for it truly is a giant.
Punctuated Equilibrium isn't just a 'fix' to account for fossil inconsistency, Darwin was in error when he assumed all change would be slow and gradual, simple logic shows that the struggle between organisms should produce rapid change right after conditions have changed or a novel mutation occours and followed by stabilization. We have seen this in practice when species have changed contemporaneously with and we even see it in human sports competitions in which records platue for long periods untill new techniques or equipment cause paradigm shifts, case in point pole vaulting. Anything competition will give this pattern.
"Darwin was in error when he assumed all change would be slow and gradual,"
He wasn't in error. Even at its fastest, evolution is still slow and gradual. Sometimes it's just more slow and gradual than other times.
@@EBDavis111 Bingo. Evolution is a REACTIVE process.
Priceless, "These are like two cartoon Disney villains, who are supposed to be the numbskull sidekicks, bopping each other on the head with a big rock and trying to figure out how to feed the evil evolutionist." Don't say you lack a sense of comic genius...and then the spliff whilst pondering the origins of toast... Give this woman an award, best retort to banal ass bucket brains, ever!
Ya, she’s got some accurate zingers. Like I really do imagine this is what Bulk and Skull from power rangers are doing now
I like how you seem to slouch more the more idiotic content you have to debunk. Like, its so painful, it de-evolves you. When they compared sponges to fungi I laughed so hard. I think the most fun thing about evolutionary biology is realizing every bug, sponge, fungus, virus, bacteria, squirrel, and jellyfish have been evolving on this planet as long as your ancestors. So here's to my gentle and very modern apes.
I gotta say, I love your filler content. Love the explanations of the linguistics of your fellow youths, the ease of your dunking on creationists, etc.
Stayed tuned for part two where they reveal the recipe for Reese cups and how they even got that wrong.
I think these two would have problems adding milk to Rice Krispies…
I was all set to be annoyed at the world of twitter.
And then we downgraded to debunked...
Go ahead and be annoyed at Twitter anyway. It's a horrible place and it is probably going to get worse.
@@mjjoe76 To be honest I am annoyed at twitter in a similar way I am annoyed at the God concepts.
I use neither personally. But watching some bizarre things said on the subjects, can be entertaining.
Well that was painful, watching these 2 clowns "debunk" a subject they appear to not understand at all. But somehow you made the pain bearable...maybe even fun! Thanks Erika 😃
I love the anthropological descriptions "low ranking male" omg I love you (platonically) you are so awesome! 😂😂👍🏻👍🏻💕💕
Litopterns are not horses 🤣 We have known this since 1889!
Homeopathy, someone opens a bottle of asprin halfway across the world and it cures your headache.
Not true. Homeopathy starts with something that causes the symptom you want to cure. So it would be more like "Someone picks up a hammer halfway across the world and it cures your headache."
@@stephenandrusyszyn3444 They also do "it looks like a thing so it effects a thing" that's why belladonna is thought to help with infant tooth issues. Luckily they are smart enough to dilute it into oblivion
Homeopathy, if you forget to take your medicine you overdose
In the old YEC books and pamphlets they pointed out there were no intermediates between land animals and whales (which was true at the time). Then in the 90s, loads of discoveries of intermediates were found, and many more since then. So Bud and Carl are probably still influenced by old YEC talking points and don't realize those talking points were (as you say) taken behind the barn and shot.
Two men went into an empty room, and locked the door.
Later, one man comes out, with blood on his hands, shirt and face.
In the room, the other one is dead on the floor, with an ice pick in his head.
There's just one possible explanation:
A demon possessed the dead man, and made him spit blood from his eyes all over the other man. The other one showed a crucifix and weakened the demon, so the victim of demonic possession, in a moment of self control, took an ice pick and killed himself to stop the demon from causing harm.
I saw it all in a dream (or maybe a movie, can't remember), you can't argue with that.
I wasn't there to see it, so there's no way to tell what happened.
Sorry but what?
Sorry but what?
@Nicholas Time Trotsky can't be possessed, he's immune to property spells.
@@thegameranch5935 It's an example of how people can distort the facts to fit their presuppositions.
As such it's a commentary on how YE creationists adjust results to fit a YE presupposition.
35:18 I'm reminded of being in grade school and my YEC parents telling me to learn the answers to evolution questions but to believe the answers are all lies.
Love you being overly meticulous. Really appreciate your hard work and content!
If you can find a chart from 30 years ago, you can find a chart of last year. They intentionally choose to show the older charts, because that fits their narrative.
One thing that's a little frustrating for me is that we can pull up a new species of dinosaur per week but we can't find anything to show us the transition from Miocene apes to modern chimps. I would so like to see their side of the family tree filled out at least with a few on their side of the split. Of course I know the environment they were in was very challenging for fossil preservation but I am holding out hope.
Hoping one day we can get some of those fossils.
@@shanewilson7994 Yeah for real it would shed a whole lot of light on whether or not they had a more upright ancestor.
We've got some tantalizing fragments but yeah there's a preservational bias against forest apes. We need to find deforested Pliocene rock. We have a proto-gorilla, so that's helpful. Sahelanthropus might even be steam hominin
On the bright side, YECs continuing to spout nonsense that was refuted *over sixty years ago* has really made me appreciate the Amish. I may fundamentally disagree with everything about a Luddite lifestyle, but can respect the Amish for being open and honest about their rejection of modern science. And also, conveniently, they don't spread anti-intellectual garbage across every internet platform (for obvious reasons).
Creationists: "Coelacanths haven't evolved in millions of years."
Me: Waiting to see a Mawsonia on River Monsters... :^)
Thank you for explaining how often scientists discover new fossils!
Wow that intro is really cool! Probably the best one I've ever seen on UA-cam
That opening animation is amazing! I wish it was in your later vids
"NOVA" has a very good episode called "When Whales Could Walk" that goes over all the whale evolution and presents some spectacular fossils from the Egyptian dessert. It may still be available here on the "NOVA" channel, April 2024.
Erika did you notice how when they say 'a horse is a horse - of course of course' (29:49) what they're showing is actually a Litoptern?
I find this quote applies more each day: "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." -Niel Degrasse Tyson
I love the beginning of this video where you explain an online culture phenomenon like you would as a primatologist studying a particular group of apes.
Keep doing that!
That's how we should talk about human behavior tbh
The slide show video is clearly trying to copy PragerU. What a lame source to use as your style guide.
I do like that intro. It makes me smile every time I see it.
How did he think the drawing of australopithecus made it look like they were going to a picnic?
Thanks so much for the explanation of L + Ratio. I hear it all the time, but never actually knew what it meant.
It just really goes to show. The majority of our population took that one Alice cooper song from 1972 “schools out” a little to seriously. They got out of high school and never picked another book up.
I started watching YEC vs Evolution content about a year ago and the scientific terms mostly lost me. By now I understand a lot of them simply because the YEC camp never changes their arguments so I've had the benefit of LOTS of repetition.
You have no idea how grateful I am for the first 15 seconds of this video. I know I can look this sort of thing up whenever I want to but damnit, I did not want to.
The dunk about them not beating their wives really really got me together. You really didn’t pull punches
At one point you said you thought they didn't know enough to be purposely misleading, they were just ignorant (or something to that effect). However, I think their cetacean figure being one from a non-open-source paper from the mid eighties when much better things are much easier to find to me screams purposeful deceit. They had to intentionally dig, a lot, to find a source that doesn't even support their claim, but rather makes the scientific consensus look like it has somewhat of a hole.
I understood the L+ Ratio concept but not the Twitter stuff. Can we just go back to screaming at each other on the African savannah, please?
Seems like some wanky metric invented by social media posers.
What percentage of people actively use the like buttons anyway? I never do and if you look many YTers don't get a high like to comment ratio either.
I stay off Twitter myself, mostly because it seems to me that screaming at each other is what it's about.
Bub and Carl, looking at a 3 pound chihuahua and a 230 pound English mastiff: how small thing become big thing?
This might be your best video yet. It at least the funniest. I like sassy gibbon
Superb as always GG! Informative and hilarious in equal measure. Look forward to seeing part two 😁
This is the "lying for Jesus" kind.
This feels like a website from gta. We live in the worst timeline.
Your snark is cranked up to 11 on this one. Had me cracking tf up. Love it.
I have a VERY important question...
Why does that one guy sound EXACTLY like John Goodman???
What is truth. That which comports to reality. Objectively. Not subjective
Or like Aron ra puts it. Truth is what the facts are
To creationists, the truth is “earth is 6 thousand years old, evolution doesn’t exist, God exist, jesus is lord” even though many of these beliefs are wrong
Truth is really subjective even when the evidence shows that the truth is objective
@@thegameranch5935 delusional. To summarize
@@CityBoiATX yes
More of these guys please
No Midnight Club for you... Time to rebuke 50-year-old apologist arguments from adult Sunday school curriculums!
Pot calling the kettle black when it comes to calling evolution a fable. Genesis and it's "talking snake" is clearly not a fable tho
Ya no other culture every had “talking snakes” like they do. 😆 it’s got to be true
These guys give the rest of us Boomers a bad name. I am a second wave Boomer, but I AM NOT LIKE HIM.
I love your username
@@yickel I'm on a mission to rehabilitate the image of my generation. I can use my cellphone without help and you can walk across my lawn anytime you like. Except I'm poor and live in an apartment. 🙃
New to your channel. I love it very much. your use of supporting audio is *muah* magnifique
Every new transitional fossil just causes creationists to re-enact that one scene from Futurama.
It's a bit of a bummer seeing Erica perpetuate the misrepresentation of Atheists. I totally get that plenty of people don't know any better than to join the Theists in the whole, "You're an Agnostic, not an Atheist!" manipulation. And for the most part in life, I prefer to let people self-identify using the terms they prefer.
However, Atheists have been trying to fight the way our label is misused for a reason. Saying that you're withholding judgement, and therefore aren't an Atheist, has necessary implications for the rest of us. That we are not witholding judgement. It redefines us as Gnostics who are making a claim of certainty, which is unfair. Someone can be either a Theist or a Not-Theist (Atheist). A Gnostic or a Not-Gnostic (Agnostic). The Gnostic vs Agnostic distinction is a position on knowledge, not supernatural claims. It can be equally applied to either a Theist or an Atheist. The recategorization is actively harmful, in my opinion. It would be similarly unfair to say that a Theist _also_ must be considered a Gnostic, and therefore start calling Theists who are not 100% certain 'Agnostics' as well (which would honestly be slightly more fair, considering they are at least the ones with a claim). But we never see that happen, because what the Theists are doing with this choice of language is rhetorical- delegitimizing Atheists by smuggling in the implication that they are Gnostics. Someone can be a Gnostic Theist, an Agnostic Theist, a Gnostic Atheist, or an Agnostic Atheist. The Agnostic Atheists make up the vast majority of Atheists. So differentiating yourself as an "Agnostic" when you are, in fact, not-a-Theist (an Atheist), kind of throws the rest of us under the bus.
People understand that Agnosticism is more intellectually honest, so Atheism gets intentionally conflated with Gnosticism. It's fine (and probably a good idea) to clarify that you are an Agnostic Atheist, but unless you're a Theist, Atheist is the most appropriate term and the most fair to other Atheists.
If there are people out there who are truly convinced they can simultaneously accept and not accept the claims of Theism (I don't see how that makes much sense, but okay) then I would like to see them make a new term that doesn't have harmful and misleading implications for the Atheist demographic. We get misunderstood and demonized enough without that, lol
All things considered: that was some impressive alliteration 30:34
I love this channel's style. Never saw anything from them before but God damn this scratched a real itch for me. :)
Why is that my first time seeing that intro!! That was awesome!!!!
The Newtonian theory of gravity does successfully model the orbital trajectory of the various moons about their parent planet. And, with one exception, the Newtonian theory of gravity models the orbital trajectory of the planets about the Sun. The exception to this was Mercury. Thus, when Einstein developed general relativity, (GR), one of the first challenges (tests) was to use it to predict Mercury's orbital trajectory about the Sun. So in addition to the outer seven planets, GR also gives a very accurate prediction of Mercury's orbital trajectory about the Sun.
Lastly, (I'm sorry to be this way but gravity is really my area) instead of saying that general relativity is applied "on top" of Newtonian physics, it's more accurate to say that GR is a broader and more fundamental theory of gravity. It's interesting to note that in non-relativistic limits (ie in settings whereby velocities are significantly less than c, and where gravitational fields are weak and time independent) one can derive the field equation of the Newtonian theory of gravity from GR.
i thought the math breaks down in this way for everything in physics? Newer theories continue to validate earlier ones, not just conceptually but literally in the math itself? Im not totally educated on this.
Am creationist?
Nope. Chuck Testavolutionist.
It's an older meme sir, but it checks out.
@@mjjoe76 I think memes are better after some aging...and most importantly being well-placed.
"Bad faith idiots talk about things they know nothing about and won't ever try to learn about it" would be another title
"No one has ever suggested that."
Well i guess my time to take one for the team has come.
If they called Darwin "Chucky D." more often, I think people would be at least a little more likely to worship him like they pretend we do
What do you mean? You don't regularly make offerings of transitional species fossils to our lord and savior Chucky D?
These guys are a good example of stasis, showing that derpodons are still extant.
Great video, Erika! Entertaining and informative!
You're just hysterical! With total command of your field, but hysterical just the same. Love what you do- keep up the good work!