Links to Dr. Jordan Peterson's books on Amazon: Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: amzn.to/2Zut6gf 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: amzn.to/3qNV6XW Maps of Meaning: amzn.to/3k4lF8K These are Amazon Affiliate links, and purchasing through them will earn me a small commission.
Generalists to Specialists is a continuum and each species evolves at different points along this continuum. Humans are more at the generalists end whereas say the koala bear or a monarch butterfly would be more specialized. Specialization helps a species reduce competition with other species as it evolves it's own niche. It also makes the species more susceptible to failure to adapt to environmental change.
Well inheriting acquired traits is a topic of epigenetics so lets start from DNA so your DNA is nothing more then just a recepi for making structures like proteins, enzymes, etc and a trait is some thing which is shown by your specific gene for example if you have black eyes it means that your DNA contain that black color eyes gene well from long time after the discovery of DNA most people and scientists started to know more about it its features, properties, behaviour and how it forms a life and for the most of the time they ignored the fact that how Epigenetics can affect our genes and how it can change or help us survive so epigenetics is basically is studying that how over environment affect a genome or DNA ..... For example when someone go into depression for a long time some of your genes/DNA gona change bcz of that change in environment and after that you acquire that change in your inheritance and now what happens that you'll gona transfer that inheritance to your next generation but most of the time the changes that are due to Epigenetics are not permanent .....same you can see in case of diabetes which is influenced by some environmental factor and you insulin producing gene stop working that'll be inheriting acquired traits....
@@WHY-mi8ng ok i have a quesion 😅 i remember in our school book there was this passage about a scientist that would cut the tail of mice for many generations but realized that it wont affect their genes, can you tell me what types of change will affect and what types wont? and another question 😅 the DNA is present in the nuclues of all of our cells right? does this mean that epigenetics causes all of them to change? how does that happen exactly?
The fact that mutations are random has little to do with an environment that is "random" (is it?) Natural selection acts on mutations - favourable mutations allow greater amts of reproduction of a usefl mutation compared to individuals lacking the mutation. Depending on the environment
@@mkaykaykayy science cant fully explain it yet but it is completely observable. and PLEASE explain how dog breeders are a thing, they are using the undeniable fact of evolution except they choose who reproduces instead of nature. aside from lab modification, same with many of our modern day fruits and vegetables over thousands of years by people replanting seeds of the favorable plants.
Peterson's assertion around the dominance hierarchy being 300 million years old is mute. For example primate sociality can exist in one of three phases: solitary, pair bonded and group hierarchy.
TheGeorgianCitizen you didn’t even say that you just had some generic response. And even if you did say that then it’s not even relevant since he’s not talking about that anyway
Something seems incongruent between this and some of his other lectures. The fact that his 'oversimplification' of sexual selection is with regards to the male dominance hierarchy, suggests that this is the main method of sexual selection. If this were true, then why is it that when he talks about intelligence and various other traits, using a bell curve, that males have a wider distribution. He uses this to justify by saying something like 'well yes more men are at the top, but more men are also at the bottom, because of the greater distribution'. Surely if females' sexual selection was more prominent than males' sexual selection, the distribution of traits would be smaller amongst males?
Men are more expendable, which increases variability comparitively. If evolution had to choose a sex to experiment on, it's better with men than with women. In a tribe of 20 men and 20 women, if all but one of the 20 women die, the tribe is doomed. Cant repopulate because it takes 9 months before she can become pregnant again. But if all but one of the men die, he can impregnate all 20 women, and the tribe survives. So evolution experiments with men more than women because if the experiment goes poorly, no big deal. This is why women occupy a more average range, and men occupy a more varied range. Not just with intelligence by the way, it's with everything. It's the same with height. Even though men are on average taller than women, they also vary in their height more than women. Shaquille o'neal on one end, Danny Devito on the other. So it's not about sexual selection. It's about tribe survivability that generates the variability among males.
Im 2 years late, BUT EXACTLY. THIS IS EXACTLY TRUE. Except its only valid in environments where women are free to choose in the first place, which... in the last 8000 to 12000 years has been pretty much non existant (patriarchies, this correlates with agriculture and social systems based on it), where most women since then reproduced almost 3 times as much as men, because the men controlled the hierarchies, but they fought each other, and the most obedient and careful ones who kept an order of domination stable (society, entreprises, military etc) reproduced. But modern human haplogroups (like us with complex speech and and abstraction) existed for at least 50 000 years all around the planet in considerable numbers.. in that time reproduction was much more uniform as nature did the job in selection, and both sexes had same selection power.
He's wrong. Most mutations are harmless. A few are deadly. A few can be useful depending on the environment. Mutations also arise from copying errors during mitosis and meiosis.
@@swu11 smh you don’t understand what mutations means - most mutations are neutral (skin color, eye color, height etc.) - there are multiple beneficial mutations for humans (lactose tolerance, increased bone density, malaria and smallpox resistance etc.) in order to properly understand genetic mutations it is needed to first understand heredity and dna sequencing so it can be properly observed just how common and essential they are for humans
@@famousnoname8556 it’s basically the same thing,but those evolutionist or darwinist believe that we evolved or can somehow slowly change our physical and organs to become more advance,let say from apes to human…and thats just some bullshit
A Question for Dr. Peterson What if Everyone was gay? Not only gay, but 100% true, abstaining from heterosexual contact? How much longer would the human race last? If murder is wrong, if detonating all the nuclear bombs in inventory, at once, would be wrong, how is homosexuality right?
Because your body wasn't built with them in mind. Changes in protein production can result in chemical inbalances and disrupting the finely tuned chemistry of your body is almost never a good thing.
Why you gave me this video what you want to say ? On this you clearly spoken about it i told you that what's a use by having knowledge and wisdom you don't practice and no love profits me nothing what you speak you don't practice in your life that's what I speak straight not go round and round like snake phyton divination spirit bewitching to break bones peace
Horizontal Gene Transfer, Endosymbiosis, Transposons and random genetic drift couldn't over a long time of course lead to macro evolution? Interesting...so because you guys haven't personally seen it it's impossible? Strange how molecular biology and the fossil record evidence point hardcore towards Macro evolution....so you disagree with the methods of our best scientists?
The last common ancestor of lobsters and humans was over 700 million years ago. All of the millions of animals since that time, and also bananas! have serotonin. Serotonin is one of many neurotransmitters that animals have. Diffrent animals use serotonin in various nervous system paths, including spawning and so on. See this video from a well-respected biology, who happens to work on lobsters in his research, and who other has been posting posts on evolution for years. ua-cam.com/video/Sqx57l781WM/v-deo.html
Lobster boy had too many benzos. It's hard to believe that this guy is a psychologist. He always somehow validates religious theories with his word salad even though he never agrees with them.
Guy is lobster boy only when Jesus Christ is not being attacked passive aggressively or in some other way. Scientists are scientists when they naturally and sinfully stumble over the Lord.
It’s not random but to my understanding it undergoes certain changes and “malfunctions” on genes that provide new traits (mostly physical) that are passed onto that new organism during conception.
@@streameant you can't predict everything, there's element of randomness on quantum and on astronomical level, when scientists make simulations, they can be very different over time.
Jordan Peterson does not understand evolution and he would be best not to speak on this subject without better study. Most mutations are benign. He also doesn't understand epigenetics and takes a huge erroneous leap.
I have an incredible respect for Dr. Peterson but The Bible is very provable and clear on how and when everything was created. Watch Chuck Missler's creation videos. The numerology in the book of Genesis alone is undeniable.
@@brenrclark Your opinion is yours to have. that's why so many of our service men and women have died. It's why our country was founded. Just do your research and don't be closed minded or hateful.
We all will meet God the Holy Creator one day, get right with Him before that day ( Hebrews 9;27). Jesus is waiting for you to come to Him, He won't cast you away from Himself if you come to Him. He calls us all to Repentance, He shows mercy towards us because wants to save us and have a relationship with us. believe and have faith in God then the Holy Spirit will come in and lead you to repent of your sins and God will forgive you of your sins and cleanse you by the blood of Jesus and you'll get born again by His Holy Spirit and have His salvation, you will become a new creation (John 3:3-19). God bless
@@ogreman-lll-957 The prophecies of the Old Testament known in Jewish faith as the Torah, predicting the coming of Jesus Christ the Messiah is pretty much all you need to look into.
@@ogreman-lll-957 If there was truly evidence for God, then everyone would believe him out of fear and out of knowing he is true, in that situation there is no love for God, only knowledge, when you need faith to believe in God, that's when there's true love, whether you're shunned out in society, made fun of, etc.. There is love when you stand by the word during that. Matthew 10:32-39 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Q. Why has the theory of evolution not been proven? Scientifically speaking, this theory does not qualify for classification as fact. It deals with history, which is not subject to investigation by experimentation. The process of general evolution could theoretically be reproduced through experimentation, but it never has been.
The environment is not shifting around "randomly." Perhaps to a gimp it seems this way. To a physicist, it's behaving deterministically. At least at some very critical levels, otherwise we'd be unable to predict various interactions (which we are.) There are unpredictable elements, but attributing our inability to predict behaviour to randomness, (or a god/gods - as religions do) instead of paucity of knowledge, is purpose-sapping, ineffectual, and incongruent with what we've learned from historical behaviours. Epigenetics would be a worthless study as well, if inherited traits determining suitability for the current environmental state were constantly undermined by newly printed "random" universal states. The attributes studied by epigeneticists only work within a determined, or, at least, an overwhelmingly determined, universe. Ditto "sexual selection" - something he has absolute faith in, despite his paradoxical previous claim that randomness governs selection. He is so lazy with his thinking. His logical incoherences point to someone very confused about science and its methodology. This is why Peterson's field is part of the "soft sciences." It lacks the empirical and rational rigour of actual science. You can get away with murder.
There's the kicker. If nothing is random, and something cannot come from nothing, then where did god come from? No matter where you look, the question of existence is one that can't be answered or solved. The difference between evolution and creationism is there is actually solid, reliable evidence that points towards evolution.
Links to Dr. Jordan Peterson's books on Amazon:
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: amzn.to/2Zut6gf
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: amzn.to/3qNV6XW
Maps of Meaning: amzn.to/3k4lF8K
These are Amazon Affiliate links, and purchasing through them will earn me a small commission.
KENT HOVIND SEMINARS 1-7
CREATION OVER THE RELIGION OF EVOLUTION
No thanks, I tried
And learning neurons are the solution to surviving in a changing environment
Generalists to Specialists is a continuum and each species evolves at different points along this continuum. Humans are more at the generalists end whereas say the koala bear or a monarch butterfly would be more specialized. Specialization helps a species reduce competition with other species as it evolves it's own niche. It also makes the species more susceptible to failure to adapt to environmental change.
what is your particular prototype, i.e. context in which you are applying/utilizing the term complexity?
What do you mean "particular prototype?" I know what both these words mean, but there is no sense in the way you use them
i hope anyone in this comment section can elaborate or help me more on "inheriting acquired traits"; some literature to read perhaps
Well inheriting acquired traits is a topic of epigenetics so lets start from DNA so your DNA is nothing more then just a recepi for making structures like proteins, enzymes, etc and a trait is some thing which is shown by your specific gene for example if you have black eyes it means that your DNA contain that black color eyes gene well from long time after the discovery of DNA most people and scientists started to know more about it its features, properties, behaviour and how it forms a life and for the most of the time they ignored the fact that how Epigenetics can affect our genes and how it can change or help us survive so epigenetics is basically is studying that how over environment affect a genome or DNA ..... For example when someone go into depression for a long time some of your genes/DNA gona change bcz of that change in environment and after that you acquire that change in your inheritance and now what happens that you'll gona transfer that inheritance to your next generation but most of the time the changes that are due to Epigenetics are not permanent .....same you can see in case of diabetes which is influenced by some environmental factor and you insulin producing gene stop working that'll be inheriting acquired traits....
@@WHY-mi8ng ok i have a quesion 😅 i remember in our school book there was this passage about a scientist that would cut the tail of mice for many generations but realized that it wont affect their genes, can you tell me what types of change will affect and what types wont? and another question 😅 the DNA is present in the nuclues of all of our cells right? does this mean that epigenetics causes all of them to change? how does that happen exactly?
The fact that mutations are random has little to do with an environment that is "random" (is it?) Natural selection acts on mutations - favourable mutations allow greater amts of reproduction of a usefl mutation compared to individuals lacking the mutation. Depending on the environment
no evidence to prove it. it’s a religious belief.
we have observed it u stupid@@mkaykaykayy
@@mkaykaykayy science cant fully explain it yet but it is completely observable. and PLEASE explain how dog breeders are a thing, they are using the undeniable fact of evolution except they choose who reproduces instead of nature. aside from lab modification, same with many of our modern day fruits and vegetables over thousands of years by people replanting seeds of the favorable plants.
@@mkaykaykayy evolutionary theory isn't a belief dude... It's literally science, changes and refines itself with time...
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing - Alexander Pope, 17thC
Dominance is an appearance, it’s not an mechanism. Dominance is failing mode of understanding ourselves and other animals.
I want to hear what Jordan Peterson thinks about the theory of evolution and whether it should be a law. Same goes for the Theory of Climate Change
Peterson's assertion around the dominance hierarchy being 300 million years old is mute. For example primate sociality can exist in one of three phases: solitary, pair bonded and group hierarchy.
peterson is wrong on everything beyond the obvious or mundane.
@@Flux_40How do you mean?
Males on the top?.... Not always! 4:25
What about hyenas, spiders, ants, termites, Naked mole-rat,Clown fish etc.
since when do all those animals mate with female humans
@@artic0203 I never said that!
I said, in some species the Female is at top of the hierarchy in their respective species.
TheGeorgianCitizen you didn’t even say that you just had some generic response. And even if you did say that then it’s not even relevant since he’s not talking about that anyway
@@artic0203 Are you a troll?
TheGeorgianCitizen no you’re just not making sense and I’m trying to defend Dr.Peterson
Something seems incongruent between this and some of his other lectures. The fact that his 'oversimplification' of sexual selection is with regards to the male dominance hierarchy, suggests that this is the main method of sexual selection. If this were true, then why is it that when he talks about intelligence and various other traits, using a bell curve, that males have a wider distribution. He uses this to justify by saying something like 'well yes more men are at the top, but more men are also at the bottom, because of the greater distribution'. Surely if females' sexual selection was more prominent than males' sexual selection, the distribution of traits would be smaller amongst males?
Men are more expendable, which increases variability comparitively. If evolution had to choose a sex to experiment on, it's better with men than with women. In a tribe of 20 men and 20 women, if all but one of the 20 women die, the tribe is doomed. Cant repopulate because it takes 9 months before she can become pregnant again. But if all but one of the men die, he can impregnate all 20 women, and the tribe survives. So evolution experiments with men more than women because if the experiment goes poorly, no big deal. This is why women occupy a more average range, and men occupy a more varied range.
Not just with intelligence by the way, it's with everything. It's the same with height. Even though men are on average taller than women, they also vary in their height more than women. Shaquille o'neal on one end, Danny Devito on the other.
So it's not about sexual selection. It's about tribe survivability that generates the variability among males.
Im 2 years late, BUT EXACTLY. THIS IS EXACTLY TRUE. Except its only valid in environments where women are free to choose in the first place, which... in the last 8000 to 12000 years has been pretty much non existant (patriarchies, this correlates with agriculture and social systems based on it), where most women since then reproduced almost 3 times as much as men, because the men controlled the hierarchies, but they fought each other, and the most obedient and careful ones who kept an order of domination stable (society, entreprises, military etc) reproduced. But modern human haplogroups (like us with complex speech and and abstraction) existed for at least 50 000 years all around the planet in considerable numbers.. in that time reproduction was much more uniform as nature did the job in selection, and both sexes had same selection power.
He's wrong. Most mutations are harmless. A few are deadly. A few can be useful depending on the environment. Mutations also arise from copying errors during mitosis and meiosis.
What do you expect, he's no biologist
Cancer's cause is mutation - what are most mutations you can find that benefit human so he/her is not a human but a superior non-humann?
@@swu11 smh you don’t understand what mutations means
- most mutations are neutral (skin color, eye color, height etc.)
- there are multiple beneficial mutations for humans (lactose tolerance, increased bone density, malaria and smallpox resistance etc.)
in order to properly understand genetic mutations it is needed to first understand heredity and dna sequencing so it can be properly observed just how common and essential they are for humans
Yeah sometimes(/s) he steps out of his lane of clinical psychology and is so obviously wrong about things to a trained ear.
@@robertolopez-lena8986isnt skin color change beneficial? otherwise there wouldnt be different colors in different places... or am i wrong?
He has mastered a wide range of fields
ua-cam.com/video/shyI-aQaXD0/v-deo.html
Evolutionary psychology forces you to at least understand the basics of Evolution Theory.
@@Raydensheraj that doesnt make u an evolutionary biologist nor qualified to opine on it.
Or thinks he has
Thank you for your said my intention was not to hurt you i wanted you to use your brain thanks dear for having patience with stay blessed
There is no evolution there is adaptation
Whats the difference?
@@famousnoname8556 survival of the fittest evolutionarily speaking versus adapting to the environment as a conscious choice
@@Terracraft321 bruh, that was a dumbass reply 💀
@@famousnoname8556 it’s basically the same thing,but those evolutionist or darwinist believe that we evolved or can somehow slowly change our physical and organs to become more advance,let say from apes to human…and thats just some bullshit
Evolution IS adaption. How the hell else do you think adapting happens if not by small genetic changes leading to large changes.
Evolution. It’s real.
A Question for Dr. Peterson
What if Everyone was gay?
Not only gay, but 100% true, abstaining from heterosexual contact?
How much longer would the human race last?
If murder is wrong, if detonating all the nuclear bombs in inventory, at once, would be wrong, how is homosexuality right?
How can you compare Homosexuality to murder?
so childish
Now ask the same question with people who are infertile and really take your time in thinking about it.
You really got to have a different level of belief we came from a single cell
We all did it in 9 months!
You really got to have a different level of belief that u have a quran and sex&music on one playlist of ur channel
@@MeshaaL2000 not really music ain’t a belief. And not condone it at all. However I will work on to totally eradicate that filth
Wait till you learn how you were born! Moron ! Lmao !
Attractiveness or "physical beauty" doesn't equal that person is healthy nor intelligent
It does. All studies shows that
@@ThatisnotHair you can disproof your statement within 30s by googling
You don't get what he said
@@ggghgf885 Do you?
why most mutations are deadly ?
go crack open a biology book
Most mutations don't do shit either way, this guy don't know his basics.
You can have frameshift, deletion, insertion, nonsense, or missense mutation. Change in polypeptide sequences.
No,most mutations dosent do anything like really our cells mutate all the time but it dose not matter.
Because your body wasn't built with them in mind. Changes in protein production can result in chemical inbalances and disrupting the finely tuned chemistry of your body is almost never a good thing.
Why you gave me this video what you want to say ? On this you clearly spoken about it i told you that what's a use by having knowledge and wisdom you don't practice and no love profits me nothing what you speak you don't practice in your life that's what I speak straight not go round and round like snake phyton divination spirit bewitching to break bones peace
Philosophy properly describes mico evolution, but I'm interestingly confused why peterson believes in maco evolution.
nobody believes in macro evolution because that's not a scientific concept, that's a f ing strawman.
Horizontal Gene Transfer, Endosymbiosis, Transposons and random genetic drift couldn't over a long time of course lead to macro evolution? Interesting...so because you guys haven't personally seen it it's impossible?
Strange how molecular biology and the fossil record evidence point hardcore towards Macro evolution....so you disagree with the methods of our best scientists?
Macro evolution is ridiculous
@Ralph Exactly. Religuis people be looking to satisfy their cognitive bias
@@placeadrien5566 OK lmao
The last common ancestor of lobsters and humans was over 700 million years ago. All of the millions of animals since that time, and also bananas! have serotonin. Serotonin is one of many neurotransmitters that animals have. Diffrent animals use serotonin in various nervous system paths, including spawning and so on. See this video from a well-respected biology, who happens to work on lobsters in his research, and who other has been posting posts on evolution for years. ua-cam.com/video/Sqx57l781WM/v-deo.html
Lobster boy had too many benzos. It's hard to believe that this guy is a psychologist. He always somehow validates religious theories with his word salad even though he never agrees with them.
Guy is lobster boy only when Jesus Christ is not being attacked passive aggressively or in some other way. Scientists are scientists when they naturally and sinfully stumble over the Lord.
I highly recommend you to actually watch his Biblical lecture series here on UA-cam to understand his viewpoints before throwing your shit at him.
@@kimbanton4398 i did they suck, my conclusions are backed by a theologist too. ua-cam.com/video/OWNF0adc7Vg/v-deo.html
Mutation isnt random
It’s not random but to my understanding it undergoes certain changes and “malfunctions” on genes that provide new traits (mostly physical) that are passed onto that new organism during conception.
Mutation occurs at random. But natural selection is not random
@@granthurlburt4062 mutation obeys the laws of physics
@@streameant you can't predict everything, there's element of randomness on quantum and on astronomical level, when scientists make simulations, they can be very different over time.
@@Feefa99 doesnt mean its random
Darwin will support democratic.
Jordan Peterson does not understand evolution and he would be best not to speak on this subject without better study. Most mutations are benign. He also doesn't understand epigenetics and takes a huge erroneous leap.
I have an incredible respect for Dr. Peterson but The Bible is very provable and clear on how and when everything was created. Watch Chuck Missler's creation videos. The numerology in the book of Genesis alone is undeniable.
I couldn't agree more. I hope he will listen to Chuck Missler.
You are both delusional.
@@brenrclark Your opinion is yours to have. that's why so many of our service men and women have died. It's why our country was founded. Just do your research and don't be closed minded or hateful.
No its not
@@granthurlburt4062 yes it is.
We all will meet God the Holy Creator one day, get right with Him before that day ( Hebrews 9;27). Jesus is waiting for you to come to Him, He won't cast you away from Himself if you come to Him. He calls us all to Repentance, He shows mercy towards us because wants to save us and have a relationship with us. believe and have faith in God then the Holy Spirit will come in and lead you to repent of your sins and God will forgive you of your sins and cleanse you by the blood of Jesus and you'll get born again by His Holy Spirit and have His salvation, you will become a new creation (John 3:3-19). God bless
Evidence?
Evidence? Nope, you believe in magic.
Let's say your are right, then what to do next. What would be the expected outcome
@@ogreman-lll-957 The prophecies of the Old Testament known in Jewish faith as the Torah, predicting the coming of Jesus Christ the Messiah is pretty much all you need to look into.
@@ogreman-lll-957 If there was truly evidence for God, then everyone would believe him out of fear and out of knowing he is true, in that situation there is no love for God, only knowledge, when you need faith to believe in God, that's when there's true love, whether you're shunned out in society, made fun of, etc.. There is love when you stand by the word during that.
Matthew 10:32-39
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Q. Why has the theory of evolution not been proven?
Scientifically speaking, this theory does not qualify for classification as fact. It deals with history, which is not subject to investigation by experimentation. The process of general evolution could theoretically be reproduced through experimentation, but it never has been.
The environment is not shifting around "randomly." Perhaps to a gimp it seems this way.
To a physicist, it's behaving deterministically. At least at some very critical levels, otherwise we'd be unable to predict various interactions (which we are.) There are unpredictable elements, but attributing our inability to predict behaviour to randomness, (or a god/gods - as religions do) instead of paucity of knowledge, is purpose-sapping, ineffectual, and incongruent with what we've learned from historical behaviours.
Epigenetics would be a worthless study as well, if inherited traits determining suitability for the current environmental state were constantly undermined by newly printed "random" universal states. The attributes studied by epigeneticists only work within a determined, or, at least, an overwhelmingly determined, universe. Ditto "sexual selection" - something he has absolute faith in, despite his paradoxical previous claim that randomness governs selection.
He is so lazy with his thinking. His logical incoherences point to someone very confused about science and its methodology.
This is why Peterson's field is part of the "soft sciences." It lacks the empirical and rational rigour of actual science. You can get away with murder.
he's not lazy, he just isn't very smart.
How can you explain that this complex human came without creator?
Is evolution God for your faith?
You have to use your brain to know the truth.
If you really wanted to know you could easily find videos and textbooks that explain this
Nope. evolution is not a religion. This is the tu quoque fallacy or The pot calling the kettle black commonly used by religious extremists.
I am sure you are using everything but not your brain
@@ibrahimshaheen1 haha spot on
Nothing is random. It's all created by God. Evolution is a ridiculous belief. Something cannot come from nothing.
There's the kicker. If nothing is random, and something cannot come from nothing, then where did god come from?
No matter where you look, the question of existence is one that can't be answered or solved. The difference between evolution and creationism is there is actually solid, reliable evidence that points towards evolution.
@@cryo8055 Solid, reliable evidence?...lol! Come on now. I suggest you look into Genesis is History on UA-cam and see the real evidence.
@@wsells watch any of Chuck misslers videos here on UA-cam. He is definitely one of the greatest biblical and scientific minds to ever exist.
william ur throwing around terms that u dont even understand. leave the science to the adults.
Evolution is not a belief, there’s plenty of scientific proof, and if you refuse to accept it you are a delusional individual.