Scientist Reacts to "Adaptation ≠ Evolution" | Reacteria
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лис 2021
- Cyber Month Deal! Go to nordvpn.com/valkailabs to get a 2-year plan with a huge discount plus 1 additional month free. It’s risk free with Nord’s 30 day money-back guarantee!
Forrest Valkai, an evolutionary biologist who teaches science on the internet, embarks on a quest to endure videos from people who claim everything he studied in college is wrong. Will he be convinced by creationist claims? Or will he remain steadfast in his study of science? Let's find out!
Subscribe at / renegadescienceteacher
Need more science in your life?
Follow Forrest!
RenegadeScienceTeacher.com
TikTok - TikTok.com/@RenegadeScienceTeacher
Instagram - RenegadeScienceTeacher
Twitter - ProfForrest
Visit the Valkai Labs Giftshop!
www.bonfire.com/store/renegad...
Don't miss Forrest's terrible weekly podcast "I'm Not Comfortable with This" on UA-cam, Spotify, Breaker, Google Podcasts, Radio Public, and Pocketcasts!
/ imnotcomfortablewiththis
Want to send Forrest something?
Send your letters, artwork, science kits, or other surprises to
P.O. Box 1810
Broken Arrow, OK
74013
Want to help fund more shows like this?
Become a patron at Patreon.com/RenegadeScienceTeacher
or Donate with
Venmo - @ProfForrest
CashApp - $ProfForrest
PayPal.me/YourScienceTeacher
Have an awesome day and never stop learning!
I found it hilarious that they used the diversity in dogs as an example of God’s creation when us humans created the diversity in dog breeds. Most dog breeds only date back to the 1800’s.
Via artificial selection mind you which uses some of the same biological mechanisms as natural selection mind you!
We all know that they will just say that that was 'pre planned by god'
Not to mention we can *see* the difference between breeds today and breeds 100 years ago. We have photos to compare with. My favorite example is the bull terrier, nearly unrecognizable in comparison photos. We can also see the angulation increase in German shepherds’ hips as well as them becoming heavier bodied overall.
@@System_Spark I still feel sorry for pugs. The way that they are should make continuing to breed purebred pugs a freaking charge of animal cruelty. They have been bred into a state where their entire existence is pretty much pure suffering.
@@risky_busine55 it uses all of the biological systems. The selection is changed
"So the mutation benefits them?" "Yes, but only if they're in the environment in which the mutation benefits them." ... Feckin' hell I can't stand creationists
I've heard them describe evolution just like that before and then say "tHaT's NoT wHaT eVoLuTiOn Is".
So stupid.
It is the primary problem with Creationists. Their first understanding is that NOTHING CAN CHANGE because of a poem at the beginning of the Bible.
Also, notice how the mosquito change was BAD because it made them more problematic for humans to deal with. But, as Forrest said, IT WAS BENEFICIAL FOR THE MOSQUITO!
@@stevenseagal5950
"I've heard them describe evolution just like that before and then say "tHaT's NoT wHaT eVoLuTiOn Is".
So stupid."
Same, it happens a lot. And then they want to argue a strawman version of it like "a dog giving birth to a cat is evolution," rather than even remotely attempting to address what it actually says.
@@shanewilson7994 because they intentionally try to misrepresent it for their gullible audience. If they admitted what it was, they wouldn't get as much money from the mass of morons.
It is not a valuable mutation to be able to able to breathe oxygen because the Moon has no oxygen.
But... it has other mutations that let it live on the Moon!
Those are worthless.
Jane: *exactly defines evolution and admits it's real*
Also Jane: But that's not "evolution" evolution. That's just a d a p t a t i o n
This is a ridiculously common argument among YEC, Ken Ham uses it all the time
I'm not surprised.@@maxdanielj
@@maxdanielj The problem is, there is no evolution.
1. "Evolutionary processes produce diversity on every level of the biological hierarchy, including the level of species, the level of organisms and the level of molecular evolution." (Wikipedia)
2. "All life on Earth stem from a Universal Common Ancestor which lived about 3,5 - 3,8 billion years ago." (Wikipedia)
Point 1 is true only if it does not try to claim that new body plans and new life forms appear. Science has observed diversity only in intraspecific adaptive variation, never structurally new species that could lead to a new taxonomic genus, family, order, class etc. This kind of "evolution" is also called "micro evolution", while the correct term should be "adaptive variation".
Point 2 is just a hypothesis which has never been scientifically proven. This is however called "evolution" or "macro evolution" while both are fictions.
Evolution has never been empirically proven. Evolutionists tend to confuse intraspecific adaptive variation, which happens within the existing genome, with "evolution" which would need qualitatively new genes to the genome. But there aren't such new genes anywhere to be found. Each species has only its own genes, not genes from some other species.
Evolution ("macro evolution") would need changes in the basic anatomical structure (body plan) of any given organism. All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. lead to evolution. The very idea of evolution is so crazy that modern evolutionists try to cover it by presenting adaptive variation and subspecies as "evolution".
This is the cornerstone of the Evolution Theory: "All life on Earth stems from a Universal Common Ancestor." (Wikipedia) This UCA is also called the “Original Cell” or “First Cell”.
Science has no observation of UCA. Assuming there was a UCA, it would've had the strange task to produce evolution while working against the evolution theory 😎
Namely … According to the evolution theory, evolution needs natural selection. Natural selection needs variations in the organisms, so that the fittest survive and the less fit go extinct. The asexual UCA however could've produced mere clones of itself. No sexual reproduction, no variation, nothing for nature to select - no evolution.
But with Neo-Darwinist magic miracles happen against the laws of nature ...?
Evolution is only possible if new basic anatomical structures appear within any given species. That has never been scientifically observed. There is no genetic mechanism for evolution. I understand that this is a bitter pill for evolutionists to swallow.
“Life comes from life, a creative DNA -code comes from intelligent mind and nothing comes out of nothing.” Louis Pasteur proved the first, computer programmers prove the second, the laws of physique prove the third.
“Because no scientist can show how Darwin’s mechanism can produce the complexity of life, every scientist should be skeptical,” said biologist Douglas Axe, director of Biologic Institute.“
evolutionnews.org/2019/02/skepticism-about-darwinian-evolution-grows-as-1000-scientists-share-their-doubts/
also, how are these adaptations even necessary, creatures finding themselves in poorly suited environments, if the creator made them so perfectly to fit, and saw that it was good?
But... but small adaptations can't possibly lead to big adaptations (changes) after a long time... how would that work? What, genes can change trough Mutation? Hm... that must mean they can only have some select changes and completely new genes can't form... right? Right?
I still don't know what a kind is and how animals can only stay in their ,,kind" trough adaptation (evolution). Where do you draw the line between kinds?
I genuinely laughed at the "WITCH!" part and then reeeally appreciated the wooden cross 😂. Nicely timed joke, dude.
The wooden cross he clearly fashioned out of twigs from his backyard lmao. I also loved how he tossed it when he saw it was safe.
I was waiting for the Monty python “she’s a witch!” But loved his reaction!
@@PyroSparton117 Which movie? I've only watched Holy Grail and it's been a minute lol
@@alandgomez5905 it’s in Holy Grail! It’s near the beginning of the movie I believe.
@@PyroSparton117 Damn it! Had to look it up and you were right lol. Guess it's time to rewatch it 😂
I love how they claim natural selection disproves evolution.
Natural selection does not disprove evolution, but if DOES form a staggering obstacle for evolution to overcome. Mutation and natural selection are constantly destroying genetic information. Coupled with 14 mass extinctions, two of which destroyed 95% of all genetic data and this leaves us a puzzle that Darwinism cannot answer. How to replace the incessant drain on genetic material.
Random mutation? Hardly. Billions of irradiated fruit flies have given their lives to prove one immutable fact. Random mutation destroys far, far more genetic info than it could ever hope to "create".
It turns out that random mutation, the hero that saved Darwinism and turned it on into the Neo Darwinian synthesis, is in fact, another destructive embarrassment to evolution.
Truth be told, Once geneticists told us of the digital nature of genetic information, that it could only be changed in discrete packets, that should have been the death of Darwin who's original concept was of analog development of new organs in indistinguishably small increments.
But of course the heavy investment of so many " scientists" in evolution for metaphysical reasons, made this impossible.
@@johnwilkes4671 How does natural selection destroy genetic information? The genes which work are passed on.
@@johnwilkes4671 forrest explained IN THIS VIDEO how genetic information works and how there isn’t a concrete, finite amount of it in a population. you’re just parroting talking points FROM THE VIDEO HE DEBUNKED
@@johnwilkes4671 Mutations do not all destroy genetic material. That's nonsense from people who never learned how DNA works in high school biology.
Mutations can be base substitutions (ex. ATGC->AAGC), deletions (ex. ATGC->AGC), or insertions (ex. ATGC->AATGC). Only base deletions reduce the total amount of information in a sequence of DNA. But they are counteracted by insertions that add extra information. To borrow computer terminology, substitutions don't change the number of information bits, they just change the state of a given bit.
@@johnwilkes4671 Ophioglossum: instructions unclear, adding 700 chromossomes pairs to the genome
Forrest- "Don't be a Ray Comfort"
John- *Proceeds to be a chicken nugget*
'look at this wonderful design, a banana.'
everyone wants to be banana man
Well, is it worse than being a banana?
@@nicolasandre9886 Well , Matt Powell has a banana in his backyard named Dr. Peel.
@@bskec2177 Wasn't it an inflatable banana? I can't remember...
@@bskec2177
I don’t know why I thought it should be called Dr. Peelgood. I don’t know what goes on in my head sometimes.
I freaking LOST it at "WITCH" and "CHICKEN NUGGET OF A PERSON".
By the way THANK YOU for making that chart on the fly. I learn SO MUCH from your react videos because you put SO MUCH EFFORT into explaining what they are misunderstanding or flat out lying about.
But all of evolution's teachings are hypothetical -- nothing is empirically documented. In other words, you have an exhaustive story that is missing most of the puzzle pieces.
@@KrisMayeaux Tell me you know nothing about the fossil record or anything else behind the scientific theory of evolution (note that a "scientific theory" is not hypothetical, it's back by mountains of evidence to such a point that science can currently provide no other possible explanation) without telling me you know nothing about the scientific theory of evolution.
Creationism is the hypothetical with no empirical evidence to support it. Just a book written 2500 years ago.
It felt like being a freshman in high school again. I liked bio
@@KrisMayeaux There is plenty of evidence 💀
"Chicken Nugget of a Person" and "by Darwin's Beard" were both incredible 😂
One thing I’ve learned from this series is that creationists do mental gymnastics to a platinum medal level
“If 1+2=3, then mathematics is a lie!”
that’s what their argument feels like
I gotchu, maybe its more like:
"If 1+2=3 that doest show u can remove 2 from 1, so math is wrong"
It is all of those examples merged into one piece of denialist trash.
@@Angelmou i dont deny anything
@@oldscooljoe6194 YES YOU DO! YOU HATE JESUS! YOU'RE PROBABLY ONE OF THE DEVIL'S MINIONS!
Edit (for clarity): ;)
They generally use a logical fallacy called 'Argument by personal incredulity', but they do it intentionally.
Learn types logical fallacies, it's helps alot
"So mutations are always bad?"
"yeah"
...
"Still other mutations may IMPROVE an individual's ability to survive and reproduce"
Like he literally didn't even know when to STOP reading to make his point. He just continued one sentence too far and debunked himself.
apparently they missed that in the editing room.
I found that hilarious
@@adamboyen4727 Professor Dave and Sci Man Dan
debunked Evolution-Denial, among other Denial's. It's always amazing.
@@loturzelrestaurant === You do know Professor Dave is a fake? Can you prove that it was debunked? You have read by posts and comments. How did your brain come from dirt? Your organic computer brain that you believe came from dirt. ==== Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible ===
It's really exposing how people don't understand the first thing about science when they ask if this is proof or will give you truth or if it is bad. Science never asks if something is good or bad, it asks "how does this work?" And investigates. The bible tells you if something is good or bad/a sin. You can't apply that thinking to science.
Honestly, even outside of all the objective points proving that evolution is true, I also just find evolution to tell a more inspiring story than creationism. The tale of a beautiful, diverse tapestry being woven over hundreds of millions of years, driven by the sheer will of life to prevail no matter the changes it takes, I believe, inspires more awe, reverence, even, than the creationist story. The idea that life has found, at least in part through sheer chance, millions of different ways to keep itself going through the best of times and the sun-is-blocked-out-by-sulfur times. That's just a subjective matter though.
For real I just think of the world and I’m in awe it’s so beautiful The thought that we are just on a rock that is at the perfect distant from a burning rock and life rose up and it’s created what there is today it’s beautiful the thought that some guy just plopped it all into existence is kinda boring and depressing I feel like if you think that way you can’t really appreciate and enjoy nature as much
This is exactly why, as a Christian myself, I hate creationists. The natural world is so beautiful, and it's almost incomprehensible how much diversity there is due to a purely natural process. The idea that God created the universe in such a way that a planet would form life in the first place, and then that life would evolve into myriad forms and even become intelligent enough to understand how that happened?! To me that shows God's majesty and power so much more than him just going "oh look, I guess I'll make a dog here".
What also really annoys me is that these kind of Christians probably read the Bible studiously, and yet they fail to understand so much of it. One of the main themes throughout the Bible is that God is incomprehensible - he does things we can't understand, he acts in ways that seem completely illogical to a human mind. I struggle to understand how these Christians can sit here and say "evolution is improbable, how could a fish become a human? God wouldn't make something that silly" when **that's the whole point of God** - he does things in incomprehensible ways. The fact that he made a world in which fish evolved onto land shows far more of his power than just "oh I guess I'll make some sea creatures here and some land creatures there". Ugh it annoys me so much
@@J75Pootle your one step closer to agnostic atheism
@@KC.801 how? I believe in God, I believe that he created the entire universe from nothing, I believe that he sent a part of himself (his son) down to earth to die for us, and I try my best to live in the way that he would want me to live, and to behave in a way that's according to how he wants us to behave, does that sound like atheism or agnosticism to you?
@@J75Pootle so you believe there was Adam and eve and god put a fruit in a tree that if they ate it they’d die and everyone would feel pain and be born in sin in the future so then everyone in earth was evil so god flooded the earth and told a 600 year old man to put every species of animal in a small boat and then it was all for nothing because Noah’s incest children he had sex with and made kids with were evil too so what was the point then later god sent his son to save us from god and he sacrificed his son but how is it a sacrifice if Jesus is just going back with god to heaven if god is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient couldn’t he just do magic and get rid of all sin why does he have to flood earth or kill his son. oh also If you don’t believe he exists your going to eternally burn🤣 this is what you believe
This is by far my favorite episode ... The humor - I'm about to wake up my wife and watch this again. This is just way too funny, especially the Star Wars reference lol Perfect.
I really hope John and Jane watch your responses to their videos.
And if she calls you out for waking her up to watch an educational video on evolution, make sure you let her know she's being a "chicken nugget of a person!"
Within the first sentence there's already a double standard. "Is it just me or has the transition from one kind to another never been seen". By that logic, is it just me, or has god creating people and god himself never been seen? Therefore he doesn't exist I guess. There we go god and evolution disproven at the same time!
It's a "special"kind of logic.
But they have a special book that quotes god directly making the universe, so they win ofc
@@fisharepeopletoo9653 my bad how could I forget you right you right
Plus things like gravity,magnetism and wind have never been observed but they never say those things don't exist because they don't show their book is wrong.
@@lurch666 more great examples. They only don’t accept the science that conflicts with their sky daddy fairytale.
The most annoying part is they have an entire biology textbook right in front of them that would correct every one of their obviously intentional misrepresentations of Evolution.
Yeah. Isn't there anywhere the deepest definition of evolution? I can't remember if our schoolbook had it but who knows which book they use.
Honestly, even though I'm not that interested in evolution because it may be too uncertain and change, just because of creationism I want to learn more about it.
Lucas === Evolution never happened. It is a lie. Pseudoscience evolution does not explain how ABIOGENESIS HAPPENED. The proof that you can follow this mathematical equations is based on the design and construction of your brain. Consciousness is a wonderful thing. To exist is a wonderful thing. To die is to go back to nonexistence and nothingness. Scientists still do not fully understand how our brain works, and that stands to reason, since a highly complex designed brain, had to be by an intelligent master designer. The most complex thing know to mankind is the human brain or an organic computer with complex formulaic chemical equations with metabolic pathways that causes thinking patterns ergo thinking abilities and consciousness. Not by accident. And here you are postulating that self assembling atoms did it, and is so-called being responsible for your MIND, and your brain, and consciousness, and all of everything else in existence.===== Impossible. ==========There is not a chance that pseudo evolution could have done it. Dirt could never allow a brain to come into existence. Chemistry would never allow an organic computer to come into existence from dirt. Do you know what all of the combinatorial numbers would be needed, for your existence? It is more then all the atoms in the universe times infinity. ( universe x ∞ ) This is an impossible number. Scientists say anything that is more then 10^50 power is impossible. There are only 10^78---82 atoms in the universe. Just for one hemoglobin atom which gives you the ability to breath and to have come into existence by chance is 20^147 = 1.78 x 10^191. This has 191 zeros in front of it. This is more then all the atoms in the universe. That is 20 amino acids with 147 positions each with 20 slots for each position. This is just one of the { small } FOLDING protein molecules needed in the human body for your existence. There are 100's of thousands of them needed for you to be able to live and to exist. Not an accident. You have the folding protein problem. The fine tuning of the universe problem. How did our atmosphere have a beginning with the right pressures and ratios of gases and elements? How does the earth keep away the harmful radiation from the sun? Magnetic field and earths ozone layer. And your explanation of the chain of events that would be needed would never get off the ground and would grind to a stop, because of the complexities you would come up against, stopping the whole process it in its tracks. It would never even be able to get started . Chemicals alone can not make complex structures by accident or by chance. Again, that is impossible. Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible
@@kennethbransford820 I'm biologist, and everything you said is wrong. It was amusing to read though.
@@YourArmsGone I will wager that you are LYING since most smart biologists wouldn't have the time to waste their time here on this you tube thread talking to laymen idiots, as they see it. Pride and ego and vanity are always at work with scientists since they too have their frailties and illusions to deal with. Tell me Mr. BIOLOGIST. How did the most complicated thing in the universe , the HUMAN BRAIN, happened and come into existence via abiogenesis using atoms from DIRT that then somehow turned into amino acids, that then combined by a binding mechanism or catalysts that didn't exist yet, and becoming folding protein molecules without decaying all by accident? It does get worse and more IMPOSSIBLE for your brains to have come into existence with other requirements for your EXISTENCE. DO YOU CARE TO KNOW AND FIND OUT WHY? === Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible ====
@@kennethbransford820 I don't know how much you know about abiogenesis but following the RNA world hypothesis those were the catalysators.
Also I doubt that anyone would explain how the human brain came into this world by abiogenesis because that's simply not possible. What is possible, however, is it's evolution through e.g. cephalization when bilateria came around. And for human, it got more volume over the last million of years, In Order forbtat to happen we needed to go upright because our pelvis needed to be wider for birth and thus humans became Nestlings, so more time post birth for the brain to develop than in utero.
I can’t begin to recount the many times I’ve looked random stuff up on the internet for sheer curiosity and my parents thought it would get me in trouble with the government, from abiotically creating viruses to the similarity between human and chimp sex patterns. You and I are on a similar vibe Forrest
That's nothing. I have an interest (at a distance, mind) in cutting edge explosive compounds, military tech/history, and nuclear power. The things I Google (or more often, search on Wikipedia) are probably way more suspicious to the authorities.
Not gonna lie, I can see how discovering their child searching for the similarity between human and chimp sex patterns may be worrisome for some parents. In fact, in some cases, they'd probably be right to be worried about that. I suppose it merely depends on what said child actually plans to do with such information.
@Strype13 and if said child has access _to_ said chimps
I had to pause the video at 5:25 during the "Witch! Witch!" walk-off gag, and forgot about it. Was waiting for you to return, and it kept getting longer and longer and longer. I thought it was a massive gag and was laughing, and then realized it was paused still. XD
I really don't understand how a person could deny evolution. The most basic concept of selection of traits that increase success is present in every complex system we can see.
Indoctrination and/or greed. They have to attack everything that contradicts their worldview even if it is reality itself.
They have to deny it or else they’re certain, due to brainwashing since birth, that they will literally burn in a pit of fire for eternity.
We’re up against a lot.
Evolution from monkeys makes me feel small and temporary, therefore sad. And if something makes me sad, it must be false, right? Right??
@@uncleanunicorn4571 Correct. It's much more dignified to believe you were made from dust or an old bone, and you're so horrible and filthy that the creator of the universe had to murder his own son just to forgive you. Have a blessed day!
They are kindergarten kids who can't grow up and accept that their existence will end with death, and they won't meet mommy again in heaven. Existential anxiety is crippling their thinking capabilities
13:11 I love that way that he flips a bunch of pages to find the supposed "answer" when the real answer is literally the next paragraph of what he just read. Brilliant 👌
The words John says don't agree with the text in the book he is showing us. Very poor deception on behalf of the creationists. They should have blurred the rest of the text or just cherrypicked the fraction of the quote they thought agreed with their message and put it up on screen. At least that way we'd have to look up the reference to expose their deception.
The most important thing I learned about evolution in my honors bio class was that evolution is not linear nor does it trend towards perfection. It has no end goal. That really helped me to be able to understand its process better and be able to comprehend the idea because I will admit while the basic principle makes sense it was hard for me to rationalize it completely and understand, for example why is there still so much diversity if evolution is working towards perfection.
Forrest, I appreciate you making these videos, and taking the time to explain this stuff.
I never got a an education that mattered. My parents home schooled, and didn't teach me evolution. They were very into the founding fathers, and dooms day crap. I'm happy to say I left their religion, and am now an atheist. But these videos really help me grasp the science behind why we exist. As a kid, I discovered Bill Nye, and science text books, and I absorbed all of it! Science helps me have a sense of calm in the storm of life. What you're doing is so important to me, and the world man.
I appreciate you, and thank you for the work your doing
Great job! Everyone here is proud of you for getting through that and thinking for yourself. That’s a very difficult thing to go through, I myself have a similar story. I wish you luck I your journey to learn science and understand this world better, and don’t feel bad about yourself no matter how bad theists may be to you. There’s no hate like Christian love.
i just can't look away from the christian boy's sun-glasses tan...
deadass didn’t notice, but now that you mention it… how did he let that happen?
@@clamchowder6789 God's will? :P
I didn't notice that until pointed that out.
But what about his ... Is it a shirt collar tan? A necklace tan? The patch of pale above his shirt collar line on his neck and upper chest. That was so noticeable to me, I didn't even notice the sun glasses tan!
@@sadfaery maybe he's into long-session outdoor erotic asphyxiation - don't kink-shame
You definitely don't have to defend making two of these back to back, I'd watch one every single day if that's how often you came out with them.
Forrest makes me actually want to go back to school so I can be in his class so I can have a bonus Forrest episode every day
Any teacher with his attitude will make their subject interesting to students. While we celebrate him, we hope for more who are like him.
I discovered this channel last week, and lemme tell you, I’m watching them every single day already… I love his enthusiasm… and his “what?!? No, what is happening is…. *faces camera* SO!…” oh boy, we are about to get an explainer rant… and I love it! Lol
I love how Forrest is always like "look, let me explain..." and then proceeds to show you the most technically complex mind blowing equations you've ever seen ...
Yes but also they’re amazingly easy to understand, considering how complex the topic is.
@@irenafarm Evolution is amazingly easy to understand like all fairy tales. That's why gullible people get fooled by it so easily. It is easier to just believe in a slow "step by step by step" anatomical transformation during millions of years, than to start examining how it could be genetically possible. Modern science has revealed it's not genetically possible.
@@jounisuninenHow has modern science done that?
"Have you ever been passionately curious about biology? It makes your google history weird!"
Forrest, reminding me to once again delete my google history before I let my girlfriend use my laptop.
Thanks, Forrest!
"I SWEAR I CAN EXPLAIN WHY I HAVE SEARCHED FOR OSTRICH PENISES"
what kind of "biology" are you googling? ;-)
You should try being more open and sincere with your girlfriend. Honesty is the key to a long-lasting and fulfilling relationship. If she's truly a keeper, there's nothing in your search history that you should have to worry about. Unless, of course, you're some kind of blossoming serial killer and you've been looking up tactical strategies related to your extremely disconcerting passion. Definitely keep that under wraps.
Why would your gf be alarmed by what you're googljng...?
@@Strype13thanj you
It's amazing to see creationists circle back to inventing the theory of evolution.
Yeah, whatever happened to the old-line creationists that just pretended there was no evidence of evolution? I guess too much evidence has piled up now for them to pull that.
@@angelikaopland7880 it's like when they say "the bible is metaphoric" when you debunk it. They're trying to stay relevant.
Them: “Mutations are bad, because they delete information”
Tricolor Vision: “am I a joke to you? I was created by a duplication mutation”
Ooooo that sounds interesting, got any video reccomendations talking about this or something similar? Like mutations that are starkly benificial and understood like the tricolor mutation?
@@cdogthehedgehog6923 Adult lactose tolerance.
@@znail4675 ah yes that one i have actually heard before. I got the tolerance in fact lol quite convienient cuz milk is da shiiiiit
@@cdogthehedgehog6923 It's extra interesting as example here as it's so recent that we can se where it originated and spread from and where it have not reached.
@@znail4675 I wonder if its just a common mutation or if its due to inheriting the mutated trait from their parents.
Probably both
Man these videos have rekindled my interest in biology. Mutations and genetic variations are just all so interesting! It's so wild to think about
18:06
* Proceeds to show a dozen of dog races humans personally bred *
I need to find a way to incorporate “do not be a chicken nugget of a person” and “by Darwin’s beard” in my day to day conversations.
How about a combination of the two? :D
I can think of one way of fitting in “by Darwin’s beard”
After someone does something stupid.
@@mx_nana_banana especially on evolution topic
@@EricOgletree1973 by Darwin's chicken nugget
@@clubpenguin13531 Haha! Okay, I wasn't expecting that one. I like it! :D
@12:09
There’s literally a line in the SAME PARAGRAPH that the guy is reading from which states not all mutations are bad. Forest pointed out the next paragraph, but I want to point out the bit in the same paragraph he’s reading from:
“Still other mutations may improve an individual’s ability to survive and reproduce”
He read it OUT LOUD
They tail back to that with the incredibly dumb mosquito example where they say nu-uh, they may be good in a certain habitat, but they would be bad anywhere else! Like the mutation for being immune to pesticide, they say it's actually a bad mutation after all because while they are immune to pesticides, their natural lifespan decreased, so it's bad mutation whenever no pesticides are involved!
Of course they fail to see that that's natural selection and that adaptation by natural selection is always restricted to what the species adapts to. Given that's the entire point of natural selection.
I'll be honest, I keep coming back to this video just to hear you talk about how slimy that DNA was. Makes my day very time.
I was taught Adaptation and Evolution are separate in public high school over in Utah. It was on the test. I didn't learn the actual truth until nearly a decade later.
I've heard a few people try to make that distinction when talking to them about evolution, but they can never actually make a real distinction between the two when looking at evolution on how scientists use the term.
The only way that they’re separate things is if you’re talking about time scales or population scales, like an individual creature develops adaptations that help the population evolve, and that it takes time for those adaptations to spread through the population.
"I was taught Adaptation and Evolution are separate in public high school over in Utah." Congratulations! You were taught correctly.
In their "slow step by step by step " - evolution, evolutionists forget that they should be able to explain the genetic mechanism which could produce such slow gradual development. Time itself does not create anything. What is genetically impossible now has been impossible in the past as well. Uniformitarianism means: "Earth has always changed in uniform ways and the present is the key to the past". Uniformitarianism happens to be one of the basic assumptions in evolution theory, but it also gets easily forgotten in the evolutionists' comments.
Adaptive variation ("micro evolution") occurs within a species' own existing genome during the gene recombination. No new information needed, no new information appears. It can never produce anything outside the species' own genetic limits.
Evolution ("macro evolution") in the Darwinian sense would need a continuous flow of qualitatively new genes to generate new life forms. Nobody knows whence could those genes come from outside to the species! That makes (macro)evolution a fiction. Mutations do not help:
”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.]
Science has never proved that adaptive variation could lead to evolution. It is simply impossible, because "macro" would need new genetic information to the existing DNA. The mechanisms in the "micro evolution" and the "macro evolution" are different and not connected. That's why "micro" can not lead to "macro" (which is illusory anyway).
@@jounisuninen You can say that mutations cannot have a positive effect on the ability of species to reproduce all you want but that doesn't make it actually true. What mechanism would prevent random mutations from occasionally creating beneficial genes?
“So if an animals evolves as a result of mutations that led to recurrent traits through survival of an environment, is that evolution? I don’t get it.”
“No. It’s what they call evolution but it can’t be because my dissonance won’t allow it.”
“Right! Now I feel much safer being a mud girl from a folk myth!”
“Oops! I meant a rib girl from a mud man!”
"You chicken nugget of a person" and "Don't be a Ray Comfort" are my two new favorites
I was raised by conservative Christians, and I'm still a Christian, though progressive. I remember my creationist family being so distraught that I went to college to study Marine biology in the ecology and evolution department. It was literally the understanding on mochi evolution, how we can observe species adaptation, plus just a little bit of thought, that helped me realize that it wasn't so hard to believe that a species could adapt enough over time to be so different, that it weeks be considered a different species. And possibly even a different "kind" of animal. If Good could create animals with enough generic variation to adapt/evolve within their own kind, why not to different kinds? I had a progressive pastor that one pointed out that 1) Genesis in Hebrew is written as a poem. Meant to be an easy and beautiful story to be passed down orally. Not necessarily an instruction manual on how God made everything. Others have also pointed out that at the time these stories were told/written, we didn't have the language or basic understandings to even begin to comprehend how the natural world works. So when if you believe that the Bible is 100% the word of God given to humans, isn't is possibly that God gave a simplified version of things, focusing on morality and divinity, rather than trying to teach early humans biology, physics, etc? Creationists act like if evolution is true, than God can't exist, and they don't want to believe that, so they can't accept evolution, and treat anyone who does as an enemy attacking their faith. Can't you just believe, "Wow, God created an amazing system. He created rules and laws of nature and look what can come from it all." There is a quote from a show that i absolutely love, to paraphrase: science is just another language to describe the same miracles we talk about in faith. And as a Christian, it makes perfect sense that there is so much variety and so many different species, and that there isn't a goal in evolution. Verity is what makes the world so amazing. Why would God want all creatures, or all apes, to become human? Each creature is amazing and serves a purpose and how dare any creationist think that evolution means that God lacks creativity. If He wanted to make it so fish could adapt into birds, who are you to judge God? Based on one verse in a book written when human language and understanding couldn't even begin to grasp or explain how that could be possible. Anyways...I know I'm probably in the minority as a person who can believe in/understand evolution and still have faith in God, but oh well😊 love Reacteria videos!
I heard a funny quote that "humans are just one experimental branch of fish evolution"
I'm guessing that as a marine biologist you would have some fun with that idea. Discuss
@@hareecionelson5875 🤣 I've never heard that one, but yeah... All vertebrates can be traced back to fish. Some fish branched into amphibians, some of those branched into reptiles, some of those adapted into therapsids (warm blooded reptiles, eg many dinosaurs, but i believe therapsids are all extinct), not hard to see how they continued to adapt into mammals, and branches after branches until we get what we consider humans. I think that's the basic breakdown, lol. So yeah, we're just one experimental branch of fish evolution🤣
@@mckaylapaddock9319 I'll have to remember that next time I have fish and chips, will feel bad for eating my cousin.
I don't think you're in the minority at all, you're in the vast majority.
I had never heard of doubting evolution at all growing up in Finland and I went to a Christian club and a class on religion.
If I had to guess, the amount of people that don't believe in evolution has to be less than 10%
Personally I started doubting God when I was 3 years old and my dad explained that heaven is in the clouds, and that made no sense to me at all. I responded "but I'd fall through"
I thought I was an atheist, but I'm actually just agnostic and learned the word recently
I'm of the same thought, who are we to assume we understand "God" or its existence
It could be completely foreign, so no point in worrying about it. Just gotta study what we see
So this actually a decent point... a lot better than what the Christians in the video were coming up with. This perspective works as a defensive argument for the book of genesis. It won't be useful for converting Atheists cause it can't be tested. But it is a much better explanation than Creationism.
I'm gonna call in sick to work claiming I have too many enzymes
"You were my brother Jane" 😂😂 The prequel references are killing me.
That whole monologue had me crying 😂
I love a good Star Wars quotation whenever possible.
Or as Master Yoda might have put it: 'Fear is the path to creationisme. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering'.
Huh, didn't even need to be tweaked that much, unless someone would call their video pleasurable, which Valkai's was of course - per usual.
Another quote that could be applied is:
"The ability to speak does not make you smart"
Fear leads to fury. Fury leads to frenzy. Frenzy leads to fanaticism. Fanaticism leads to downfall. Fall leads to more fear, and we have ourselves a vicious cycle.
Short leads to green leads to pointy ears leads to commercialized infanticized Buddhist monk.
11:26
That was so cool 😮
I can see why people who aren’t exposed to the actual biology will start to think it’s a “code” like on a computer 😅
18:35 studying beaks in finches won’t show where beaks came from, but looking at ANY Troodontid will
I have asked creationists, "Did your parents turn into you, and are you an identical copy of either of your parents?" I haven't had an answer yet.
Well done turning their stupid, ridiculous methods of questioning onto them.
So we are all transitionals? OK evolution proved. LOL
@@KrisMayeaux I am transitional between my parents and my children. But this is over 30 years. Significant evolutionary change generally requires isolation and millions of years.
No one says that. We are all still humans
@@Dragonblaster1 on a cellular scale though because of miosis and mitosis it happens all the time.
This just makes me think of the micro evolution people who somehow don't realize that tiny mutations add up overtime into macro evolution
But that's the trick, it only works with time and they believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, so there wouldn't be enough time for the micro to add up to macro in their world view
Lol its such a mind twist bc that still means they are undermining their own system of beliefs by basically being like ,"yes! I mean no... I mean sometimes, eventually, but we would never know!"
@@fisharepeopletoo9653 But the people that believe in the 6000 years tend to believe in Noah's flood, so they also have to believe in hyperevolution. What I mean is they realized they had to only have "kinds" on board that would then diversify into all the species because of space. But if there is just 1 cat kind, that means those 2 cats on the ark would need to divide and speciate at a rate of 1 new species every 106 years just to get the 41 extant species, though I'm not sure if the extinct species that lived during the Ice Age they say was caused by the flood would have been separately on the ark or if the speciation would have to be even faster.
@@fisharepeopletoo9653 Which is self defeating since if there's not enough time for macro-evolution as they call it, then there's not enough time for the diversity of life on the planet since the big bad wetness unless they accept that animals can spontaneously pop out babies that are a different "kind" from the parents.
Yup, the analogy I like is, the difference between micro and macro evolution is like the difference between walking 10 feet and walking a mile, or the the rest of the world, walking 3 meters and walking 2 kilometers.
I love this series, Forrest's presentation of it, and the amount of detailed research that goes into the points it makes. I just wanted to throw out that I'm pretty sure the word both of them are looking for is "uncanny."
"The resemblance is uncanny."
Edit: "You chicken nugget of a person" is brilliant.
I just realized your last Reacteria was a year ago and I got very sad. These are so much fun, I wish you still did newer ones.
I have fantastic news for you, the last Reacteria was actually 2 months ago and there are several between that one and this one. Here's the whole playlist:
ua-cam.com/play/PLoGrBZC-lKFAg31nW8db5SmYJLldrUIfm.html
Was about to let you know that there are plenty of new ones since then, but it appears Forrest beat me to it.
I think its 18 total now.
@@RenegadeScienceTeacher it's great to know you still help out your viewers in a video uploaded a year ago
The frustration in which Forrest says "You chicken nugget of a person!" is the best thing in my day.
Evolution isn't faith, it's observable science. Faith is believing in something when the evidence doesn't support it. Who are these goofs?
People with no evidence
ive always been bad in biology and last term i got an F but this is very easy to understand and learn. thank you
I find their thinking so so interesting, because it's nearly identical to how I thought things worked when I was a Jehovah's Witness... and 7 years old. Learned more about how evolution actually worked at 11, and attended my last meeting at 14.
Preventing good education and isolation are so important to keeping JW beliefs alive.
@@shanewilson7994 Yeah. There's a lot of "head in the sand" practices that are taught unfortunately.
When he yelled "witch" I lost my shit 😂😂😂😂
Same, I rarely end up laughing at videos, but that made me lose it.
Monty Python reference
This video perfectly conveys why I genuinely enjoy Forrest's videos.
Not only was it very entertaining with clever dialogue. But in the middle of it all there was a simplistic lesson on *gene sequencing*!
This was something my wife and I were struggling to understand In her college entomology courses that *literally* just clicked into place after hearing Forrest's explanation describing different types of mutations. Awesome job 👍
yeah, stuff like that is why i watch these debunking vids, from the really good debunkers you often learn interesting stuff like that. and he is really good at explaining this stuff as well.
@@dyamonde9555 same. Plus it's always nice to laugh at the complete nonsense people say with such confidence, like confidence = truth
Yeah. That’s the difference between knowing science and being a science educator!
Well, gene translation but the point stands. That's a neat way of explaining the topic, including codon redundancy.
And the chicken nugget line.
“You CHICKEN NUGGET of a PERSON” is my new favorite insult.
11:49 - “you chicken nugget of a person” is the perfect way to describe someone who talks about genes and mutations like that - imagine if they used CAT, which works as a codon for Histine, rearranging it may turn it into TCA; Serine - and substituting a letter to make CAG wouldn’t change the amino acid it codes for. Especially annoying that they quote a textbook and stop before the paragraph that disproves their point - and even SHOWING the contradicting paragraph fully knowing that no one is going to check it because faith is fine to go out on a limb off so long as it's accepted under christian dogma
First, I don't hate on slimy DNA. I like my DNA a little slimy, makes the evolution easier.
Second, "You chicken nugget of a person"...LMAO :D I am stealing that! Please make a shirt with that phrase.
actually sticky DNA helps too
to be honest the problem wasn't the sliminess as much as the colour scheme that made it look rotten
@@Henrik_Holst yeah it looked like something from a low budget zombie movie
😆😆
You gotta grease the strands
"You chicken nugget of a person!" That's the best insult ever said and my new favourite phrase. I love it!
Also I subbed :)
Make other sub to his channel or the only mammal in my name will destroy your Google server... (I'M OBVIOUSLY JOKING)
I came here to say exactly that.
Including the sub-bit 😉
I know I’m late to the game because I just came across this channel a few weeks back, but 8:41 is the funniest thing I’ve seen (or technically heard) in a very, very long time. It made me laugh so hard I started to cry and couldn’t catch my breath! My wife had to come in and see what I was laugh so hard at. Thanks for that!
But can you tell me where that sound byte came from?
Homestar runner
I know this video is old but, godddd, this is the same thing my dad believes. I explained to him how evolution works using elephants and mammoths, and he straight up looked me in the eye and told me elephants would just "change back into mammoths" if you put them in a cold place because he thinks they're the same animal separated by temperatures. Like elephants would just grow all the fur back like a pig that escaped into the forest. Because "they already have the genes for hair, they would just turn them back on again."
I know EXACTLY what they're trying to get across here- that all animals in one of their "kinds" have the genetic variation of ALL animals in that "kind." All finches have the genetic variability of all other kinds of finches, different populations just "turn on" different genes when they're useful.
Now I would like them to explain why Thylacoleo has saber-incisors instead of fangs because it should "have all the genes" from before they lost their canine teeth.
12:27 If they read their bibles with the same lack of rigor, I'm not sure they should be trusted to explain even their own religion.
Nice video, keep 'em coming.
I wouldn’t be surprised, I bet they think Christmas is Jesus’ actual birthday and that they couldn’t recite all of the Ten Commandments without looking them up.
Oh they don't. That is why they are shocked when you give quotes of the bible of suppossed created kinds a bit later like at the end of the book of Genesis with the dove kind to fly away from the ark and back with the twig in the beak, while doves are still pigeon birds and evolved from birds and not a created unique animals... or in leviticus with the bald locust kind and the locust kind and the grasshopper kinds they all talk about locusts and evolved insects. You've never see a creationist to run so fast away from the bible when you point out that their created kind belief does not adress insects.
@@Krikenemp18 OTOH, I can recite them, and in order, yet I gave up belief in all of the magical bits of Christianity long ago.
Honestly, the fastest way to make people abandon Christianity is to have them actually read the bible for themselves and derive their own opinions. At least it worked out that way for me.
@@propyro85 : I suppose that depends on how indoctrinated one is. For someone who has a genuine fear of hell for instance, reading the bible may simply generate cognitive dissonance he/she would resolve by making excuses to rationalize the bible's shortcomings rather than starting to actually think critically about it.
But as far as I'm concerned, starting reading the damn book only gave me more arguments to justify my atheism.
Her “programmed to adapt that way” may explain the handful of species that we have today, but it utterly fails to explain the truck loads of species that went extinct because they failed to adapt.
I guess god forgot to patch them?
@@EskChan19 bro these devs suck, they keep doing these crap balance patches like the one that broke my dinosaur meta
Most programmers are idiots. Systems Analyst speaking. (runs away)
God didn’t love those creatures
@@coneinggaming6285 either my dinosaur BUILD, or THE dinosaur meta… a meta isn’t for the individual… the friggin creationist talk coming from you is stupefying! Lol
Forrest is evolving to be even funnier.
Forrest! Good work again! I REALLLYYY loved the break down of mutation and event types...I've heard you use those terms before, but seeing that graphic really made it simple to understand!
Can creationists give me an example of a species that died out because they "lost too much information"? I'm just curious since they keep talking about crap like genetic entropy and "loss of information". Which species lost too much information and couldn't carry on reproducing and how do they know?
Creationists are book believers where bats are birds (leviticus) and where leprosy is caused by curses you can clean with 7 sprinkles of bird blood. You can drive them crazy by giving kind examples of their suppossed holy book like in Genesis with the dove kind on noah's ark to fly away and back with a twig in a beak after a suppossed flood to point out that doves are still pigeon birds and evolved birds anyway and not created kinds. Or when in Leviticus the grasshopper kind, the bald locust kind or the locust kind is mentioned and it is repeated in deuteronomy, too you can ask why is the bald locust a created kind when it is still a locust and why are they all still insects as they would evolved from them? You never have seen them run so fast. ;-)
@@Angelmou
I was thinking about this earlier. I think the easiest way to break the concept of kinds is to point out that, were "kinds" a thing, we wouldn't see both sterile and fertile hybridization simultaneously. The lion and tiger hybrids, liger and tigon, for the best kind-breaking examples: males of those hybrids are seemingly always sterile, but females of those hybrids are often capable of interbreeding with species members from either parent (compare and contrast to Mule/Hinny, which is an infertile hybrid, and the Pizzly Bear, which is a fertile hybrid). Now, if 'kinds' were indeed "the thing", then the fact that a hybrid could be made would make the parent species 'of the same kind' -- a horse cannot be bred with an elephant, so is 'a different kind' -- and so the offspring should always be fertile, as it would merely be... What's the word the boy used, again? Recombination?
Yet, because consistency in infertility (across all possible hybrid species that can exist) is not what is observed in reality, it means that their 'kinds' hypothesis can *kind* of be easily disproven.
I'd say that if they did, it would be one that basically died due to inbreeding and lack of genetic diversity, it wouldn't really support their position.
I could possibly just be misunderstanding something, but I do debate and discuss this stuff (at least in general) with Creationists & Other Theists quite a bit...
I think they were *Trying* to say "Loss of information *Doesn't Happen* , because Evolution *Doesn't Happen* ."
And nevermind the fact that the argument itself (theirs) is Simply Straight-up Bullshit...
Or how they're Basically just either Falsely Learning the Science, Falsely Presenting it, and/or Slandering it... Or any combination of those things.
They're saying "IF Evolution were true, THEN everything would die out (somehow)".
So... while your questions are in & of themselves Good Questions, I think they're still things The Creationists could Easily Evade IF personally asked.
@@TechySeven You underestimate the inconsistencies of what creationists claim they would believe.
For example they claim life can't come from nonlife (at least without God helping out), while the bible in Exodus gives examples of snakes turned from lifeless sticks not only by a miracle of God himself with Aarons/moses staff, but also servants of the king of Egypt as they turned 2 sticks to snakes.
They claim the flood happened and bursted with giant physic denying powers (which would melt the continents and set the atmosphere on fire) the grand canyon (and not a slow river carving the canyon for mio. of years) but simultaneously the giant flood impact powers did not touch fragile cave painting depicting long extinct animals.
They claim they think the bible is literally, but when it comes to Jesus to be a door or gate they don't usually argue that Jesus had hinges and a doorknob for a nose and squeeked by opening the suppossed gate.
Same goes to the passages in the bible of the Earth resting on pillars or the sky to be blue by the waters above a dome with windows for flood waters.
Or when they must explain how cain begot his wife after slaying his brother abel. IT must have been incest with not mentioned sisters before a whole lot of incest took place with magic genetics the Noah family again had incest and also all the animals of the ark.
They claim they believe in created kinds (like spoken out of thin air summoning spells/incarnation magic or being manufactured by puzzle pieces glued together to a specific animal), but when you point out that in the bible the dove and the raven is in the Ark story in Genesis named as "Kind" they run away by pointing out that the dove is an evolved pigeon bird and a bird variation anyway and so on and so on...
Ahh I love when people pick and chose information from a source to represent there point rather then using the source in its entirety.
8:04 slimy DNA
9:21 explaining mutations
18:56 Star Wars
_"Remember, class. Mutations are always harmful, and represent a loss of information. For example, the 6 year old kid with the body of an Olympic athlete lost the ability to be fat due to the harmful mutation that gave him massive amounts of lean muscle mass without effort. The entire population of HIV-immune humans have, sadly, lost their ability to develop AIDS and must now suffer the harm of lacking the binding sites for the virus. The all lost information 😢"_
If god was such an intelligent designer than animals wouldn’t have to adapt.
Having the ability to dynamically adapt to an ever-changing environment would actually be a really great feature to have, how would the need to adapt be removed by a more competent designer? Only thing I can think is if God had created the planet with a universal and static environment that was never too hot or too cold or too wet or too dry...basically a planet-wide Garden of Eden.
My main argument against this bullshit is that if there was an intelligent creator of all life on earth, why is everything so poorly designed? The human eye is such garbage our brains have to fill in information so we can actually use our vision in any meaningful way.
@@mikean7074 AKA a good creator would have designed a perfect stable biosphere just like we try to do with our homes to be comfortable and live more.
@@thewickedjester7495 They say it is to make us doubt... so we are tricked by god into burning in hell for eternity.. makes sense right ?
Humans wouldn't need pinky toes either
I've learned more about science from watching this guy then the entirety of my highschool career
What I simply meant, was that his way of laying out the material was far more interesting, and I retained the information far better then I did in highschool. I was simply complimenting his way of teaching, not attempting to insult the United States School System
I agree that he is great in explaining his field, but if your statement is true you should probably sue your highschool out of existence for the sake of the next generation.
@@ChJuHu93 Or maybe he should have paid more attention in high school.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Hmm. Interesting alternative hypothesis. I assumed that my lowest field of interest would suffice as comparisson towards a minimum estimation of stuff memorized : stuff taught, but you are correct he may have actually slept in classes for all we know...
@@ChJuHu93 I take offense to that sentiment. I literally slept through high-school English, Zoology, Physics, and Calculus...and was still valedictorian!
But on a serious note, when people like Eco Blitz say they learn more from these videos than they did from high-school, it's...like, I can tell you in 99% of cases the school did teach this stuff. If the person even glanced at their textbook once in a while they would have been able to learn everything Mr. Valkai mentioned many many years before this video even existed.
@@onijester56 I would usually agree with your analysis of school subjects.
But I have, some years ago, come into contact with a concept called USA christian school. And given that someone like Kent Hovind was allowed to teach science it is actually possible to receive more truth from one Valkai video than a whole year of school.
I love how he PERFECTLY quoted obi-wan from episode 3
I really want to see Forrest have an actual conversation with any of these creationists and absolutely tear them down.
When you show a ship disappearing in the horizon to a flatearther. 5:20
Yeah lol.
I’m in love with this series. I am a Biology teacher, and many times I hear and make the exact arguments here. I will often tell my religious students that I’m not here to debunk their beliefs, but rather give them a better understanding of science so that they can either incorporate that into their beliefs, or they can make better arguments as to why they persist with traditional creationism. Most of my kids end up concluding that God put materials on the earth knowing that it would evolve into man and other animals. That is a creationist belief I can sort of live with. After all, it’s not my job to destroy their beliefs and what makes them feel like life has a purpose, instead I think it’s my job to help them think critically enough to understand their ideas about those beliefs and how they might evolve as intelligent people.
One step at a tme. I taught evolution to students at Calif State U Bakersfield. The brightest kid in the class came up to me at the end and told me I had convinced him that evolution just makes sense. Many othre students protested that having evolution as a required course for their biol degree insulted their religion. My guess and hope is tht the bright student mght change minds of his peers, since often students are more likely to listen to peers than to professors. As a Canadian, it was an eye-opening experience teaching in the US, either in the south or in Central Calif., which really is a part of middle America.
Good for you. I bet many of your students are the first generation of their family tree to get a good educ. in biology. But they will be a context for their children.
Now this is what education is about
Why should anyone be told they must believe in evolution when the majority of it is not based on empirical evidence, but most of it is hypothetical. The entire tree of life is an illustration of what is taught, but it is not a literal fact - it's a hypothesis. Separate the facts from the hypotheses, and let students choose whether they think the evidence is sufficient. The complexity is beyond belief and we never see evolution today rise in complexity. There are many problems with evolution.
@@KrisMayeaux
No ones being forced to listen or believe in evolution, it's in your volition if you want to.
And also it's already a theory, it's been one for a long time now. I also dont get why people say its complex, it's really not.
I dont know, watch Forrest's other reacteria episodes, he's already covered most of the points that you mentioned.
He's far more qualified than me
I thought my hardest laugh would be at "WITCH," but then you threw in the Peasant's Quest bit.
It's not evolution, it's just the process by which creatures adapt to their environment over time via natural selection. /s
If we said this instead, you’d actually change so many minds since evolution is a 4 letter word to them
These two people really embody the "just speak with confidence and people won't know you don't actually know what you're talkin about" grift.
This is my favorite series going on right now. Really great content.
I'm not even a biologist, and I get so amazed by how much those guys try so hard to show their idiocy.
its amazing how many people still claim to believe in the Fairytale of evolution isnt it?
@@jaydelgado1994 To don't "believe" in evolution, doesn't make it false. Your lack of understanding science isn't an argument against it. 🤷🏻♂️
I love this whole "But you can't make something out of nothing" argument by creationists.
Like they ever explained where god came from, what realm he was in before creating the universe and so on.
And how he could create mutations, as he can create stuff out of nothing. I think they are so obsessed with their beliefs that they can't incorporate other beliefs
"you can't make something out of nothing" ... unless you are Lord Jesus i.e. God.
There is the abstract called “eternity” or ”eternal”. Eternity is sometimes misleadingly interpreted as “infinitely long time”. However “eternity” equals with “no time at all”. In eternity there is no time. You can not measure eternity. Eternity has no start no end.
According to Bible the eternal God created both time and space. It would be against formal logic to ask “when” or ”how” God came into being. Words like before, now, after, when, how, always etc. are bound to time, but there is no time in eternity. Nothing eternal can be created.
Because of the 2nd Law on Thermodynamics, all matter and energy in the Universe is proceeding towards maximum entropy (disorder) as fast as the laws of physics allow. This means they are not eternal. Since time and space will have an end, they must have had the beginning as well. Only eternal God not depending on time and space could have generated the universe.
@@purp4168 Bible does not say God created mutations. God created a perfect world. Mutations appeared only after the Fall.
@@jounisuninen Your answer doesn't explain anything here. The logic is cyclical. God made everything because I've been told God made everything and therefore God made everything. I know this because God made everything and I know that because I've been told it. No proof more solid than "I was told it". God didn't create jack shit. Or maybe God made everything. We don't have a definite answer, we simply have a human urge to understand what the answer could be and to try and figure it out. That's why religion exists, and why science exists. Religion is based in belief, faith and philosophy, Science is based on hypothesis, evidence and tests. Both deserve to exist, but you can't use religion to disprove science. That's not how evidence and research work. You can use science to disprove science, and if you can prove how the universe started more solidly than what is the currently held belief, you will change the minds of the scientists and anyone who sees the world through a scientific view, one of trying to understand and know. You won't convince people who's beliefs are etched into their very soul (if souls exist), they will ignore and make baseless claims to "disprove" your argument or turn to science and then either change your mind with evidence or fail to and agree with you.
@@jounisuninen TLDR, religion is important, but can not disprove science, as science needs proof and evidence, and religion needs faith and belief.
I just love the way he explained proteins and at the end called John (if that’s his name I have too little respect for him to check) a chicken-nugget of a person
I was so relieved you pointed out how slimy that DNA was because in all honesty I also did not like how slimy that DNA was.
Thank you so much for these, I appreciate the patience and hard work that goes into all of your videos!
you want to be called a donkey by Gordon Ramsey
I want to be called a chicken nugget of a human being by Forrest Valkai.
we are not the same.
Haha I freaking love the "WITCH" and economics references! This channel is awesome!
WITCH!!!
Your hair deserves its own line in the credits.
"This video has been made possible by Valkai's Glorious Manes, all rights reserved."
“To make good graphics” part is so perfect
When theists say simple code can not make advanced code, I feel they might understand if it was explained as music, a trumpet only has a few separate notes yet those notes can join together or change sequence to create all kinds of new notes.
The “She’s a witch!” line had me rollin. Keep up the good work brother.
"You chicken nugget of a person!"
Thank you, I can now die with no regrets.
I'm right there with you, Forrest. In fact, I am utterly bamboozled at how slimy that DNA was.
9:17 Thanks for this. This is a *really* helpful summary of how base pairs combine that I've somehow managed to never come across before.
Forrest: You should use a VPN so the people providing your internet don't think you're weird
Me: Too late
I had the same thought as soon as he said that
PUPPY - mutation - one letter change - GUPPY ... A dog became a fish : evolution !
Ok but "Loss of information" makes for a cool concept for a post-apocaliptic movie.
-Humanity is running out of DNA (informartion), we have to find some more before is too late, Starring Nicolas Cage
18:00 god didn't create dogs, we did.... oopsie
‘Chicken nugget of a human’ is my new favourite insult! Also loved the Star Wars reference 😂
after he said “you chicken nugget of a person “ I got an add for Morningstar farms chicken nuggets.
I remember as a kid we'd go to the mountains and watch the packs of wild poodles roaming the woods
So..... when the guy mentioned the mosquitos, why did he just completely and totally omit the following sentence in the text book, that started with "Beneficial mutations occur in humans as well"?
"You Chicken Nugget of a person!"
I will steal this this amazing insult for later use.
8:12 I did not like how slimy that DNA was. Very unsettling.
9:01 John gives the worst explanation of mutations, followed by Forrest with the BEST EVER explanation of mutation outcomes. 11:46 CHICKEN NUGGET OF A PERSON
john really said duplicate (noun) instead of duplicate (verb) there, and they LEFT IT IN