My favorite part is when he says "Darwin was an evil racist monster!" and then later in the video says "Darwin believed in God so he's on our side!" like ok bro you said it not me
Darwin died 141 years ego. I wouldn't be surprised if Darwin had some racist tendencies, but he was quite progressive himself. Btw, in his book if Darwin speaks of "races" he meant species.
He constantly tries to have it both ways. Like when he says free will exists because your decisions can't be the pure result of natural processes. Immediately followed by saying nothing can be truly random, you just lack all the minute detail to determine the result of rolling a dice.
Some people are saying this is too low hanging fruit, but lucid's video imo is more destructive than the DI/Tour stuff because this is a person who's making content specifically targeted at young people and understands how to reach them. The manner of speech, editing, production, etc are all way more effective at convincing young people than old man Tour yelling at his camera. I hope Dave continues to seek out this type of content to focus on
I agree 100%. I think a lot about this issue of low hanging fruit ie tiny channels with people just incapable of learning basic science, like the dude Scimandan ripped on for trying to measure the temperature of the sun with a hand held infrared thermometer. Clearly no one is watching that dude and thinking huh he's got a point. This guy on the other hand has a massive audience and is a very skilled communicator for the demographic he's targeting. It sort of shocks me, he put so much time in reading the weird anti-science papers, learning some small bits of real (but complex) science, mischaracterize it, and then tries to use that as disproof and evidence for god. If he just read the high school biology text book, he'd know that what he is saying is insane. But he has three motives for not doing that. He feels smarter acting like he understands the basics, while memorizing small bits of complex niche science. Secondly doing it this way defends his faith - something I too don't really care about, but I feel the only rational belief would be in a god that triggered the big bang and nothing more. Thirdly he has a substantial audience. A million subs netting between $300 -$5,000 a month. this isn't even considering the weird merch he is selling, which I imagine is only a part of other money makers. If he suddenly realizes he's wrong, he loses it all. He just becomes a regular, reasonable person. Either his audience realize too, or they are mad that someone isn't reaffirming their beliefs, either way gone. This is absolutely a channel to land some science and logic punches into
Oh we also know he's milking the youtube cow with how pathetically he tip toes around talking about the holocaust because its probably an instant demonetization, I imagine chosen to avoid people making MONEY off talking about one of the most horrendous tragedies of the modern world. This guy is literally shouting "I am committing the sin of greed, and in the process disrespecting the countless victim of said tragedy." when he handles this the way he does. He isn't even trying to hide it. Its so fucking bizarre.
Agreed, it was also interesting that he mentioned that New Darwinism is "political" given current climate where many people believe that "politics" is encroaching on everything in their lives.
@Easy Pete The "school is lying" angle here is particularly effective. Multiple times he tells his audience to use these arguments against teachers in the classroom, which is particularly bad because a LOT of teachers don't fully understand this material and aren't equipped to handle students spouting DI propaganda at them while they're trying to teach what's in a textbook.
For the record, the "1 pig's tooth" he was referring to was Nebraska Man. Long story, short: some guy found a tooth, asserted it was a prehistoric human tooth without evidence, scientists said, "Show some proof.", and even though the guy never did, a magazine picked up the story and commissioned an artist to create a drawing of Nebraska Man for their article. It was eventually discovered that the tooth was from a peccary (by scientists, go figure) and that's about the end of it. The entire hoax existed outside of the scientific community so it's completely irrelevant to the topic of human evolution.
And the fact that it was debunked at all proves science is not "gods word". These dumbfucks can't comprehend the length of getting a single paper published and peer-reviewed.
I remember a S J Gould essay on this. Hesperopithecus was reassessed, found to be a peccary tooth, and science moved on. That’s how science works. Guild’s piece was called something like “Essay on a pig roast”.
To add to your statement, Harold Cook, the discoverer of the tooth, along with the scientific community, derided the London Illustrated Times for publishing the poorly evidenced illustration. And less than five years later, when Cook discovered he made a mistake, he himself made a public retraction to the claim. This was not a hoax. It was a case of mistaken identity that a news organization, without the endorsement of the scientific community, blew out of proportion.
While he name checks Nebraska Man later in the video when he initially brings up extrapolating a hominin from a tooth, he seems to be talking about Lucy, never mind that the reason we know she's female is that they found her pelvis. Also, ever notice that when creeationists bring up Nebraska Man, they always call it a "pig's tooth." No matter how superficially similar they may be, peccaries aren't pigs. They seem to fill the same niche in the Americas that pigs fill in Africa and Eurasia, but they still aren't pigs.
@@malldvddefinitely. It blows my mind they'll refuse to pay someone who works for them but we continue to pay doctors and police when they fail or straight up refuse to do their job. Strange world
I would argue it’s like believing in millimeters and centimeters but not meters because those units of measurement were created as parts of an overall system. But I get your point. 😁
@@antoniopratt1893 Grandparents can exist at the same time as parents just like how homo erectus can exist at the same time as homo sapiens. The point is this creationist has no idea what he's talking about but he's talking about it anyway which makes him a dishonest fraud. Why would the the same God that allegedly inspired the Ninth Commandment need so many lying frauds to defend his word??
@@littlered7820 My guy, the Bible was written by primitive, bronze age ignoramuses who thought daytime was at least four days older than the sun and who also were too stupid to figure out the moon wasn't a light source even though you can clearly see shadows on it. Also, YHWH was a stolen Canaanite God and there's no extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus beyond posthumous hearsay and probable forgeries... buddy.
Why are humans special? There are 100's of species of e.g. weaver birds, should they be extinct and one 1 species remain? What a stupid remark from I'mNotLucid
If only they would realize that the way they're asking it amounts to "If you and your cousins both came from your ancestors, why are your cousins still around?"
@@0okamino "And why do your cousins look more like your grandparents than YOU! Gotcha, guess you are not related to your grandparents!" (lol, "macroevolution" is just lots of microevolutions until breading together is "significantly" difficult enough for us Humans to label them as separate species for our own purposes).
I always find it funny when people that make very ‘controversial’ videos turn off the comments on said video, as its usually a sign that they refuse to admit they are wrong and cannot accept that the truth isnt what they believe
@@Astrojox_theres a difference, in lucids case he was getting alot of factual comments that critiqued his video, but in daves case he got attacked by transphobes who dont make a lick of sense
Very telling. Just say a load of BS that mongoloids will believe without any scepticism and then close off the comments so there’s no chance they’ll see the counter arguments
It is just insane that guys like this read 2 hours in wiki, didn't understand 95% of what they read and now they explain why the people studying the topic their entire life are wrong :)
Thats the thing that always gets me with these kinds of people. Like you really think the countless amount of experts that put time into creating and studying these fields just miraculously missed something a person with literally no experience in the field found?
@ravimukerji6609 I think that often that does happen which is why it's so important to have crossover between feilds but you do still need a basic understanding ...if you have a basic understanding of mathematics you can look at economics and see things which economists might miss. Or if you're a veterinarian you might look at something in human medicine and see something medics have missed. But if you're an astologist you cant look at astronomy and see something they missed. Or like often seems to happen you're a mythologist and you look at history and see things which aren't there. But you might be a radiologist or a geologist and see something historians missed. There is scope for people outside one feild to see something in another feild that isn't easily seen from within a paradigm but you have to at least be able to say the alphabet and just have some very basic understanding of the world as a basis to even attempt to get into any feild. And if you have those basics you can look into any feild you want to ..but without those basics you cant form fundamentals and without fundamentals you cant look at anything with any value. If your base is screwed or malformed everything you look at will become deformed. And unfortunately not everyone is able to develop basic learning because 15percent of us are subnormal intellectually ...and can't even be used as cannon fodder. And because kids are not taught well enough to think or solve problems.
I think it's a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity. "I don't understand how X works, therefore X doesn't work." Which completely ignores the possibility that the reason X doesn't make sense is entirely a *you* problem.
What really frustrates me is the sheer arrogance of the anti-science crowd. They truly think that they can put in zero effort and spend zero time learning very complicated topics, then pretend like the zero time and effort they've invested somehow makes it so they know more about these subjects than people who have dedicated their entire lives to the study of them. I mean, the narcissism of "my 20 minutes of Google searches beats your 30 years of education and experience" is sickening.
Understandable. I can't even watch Hovind because of how painful his work is, so I imagine a guy who repeats DI talking points is at least as painful to someone who's been working hard on discrediting people at the DI.
Imma be real... Watching smart people get disappointed while simultaneously destroying woke or otherwise ideologically driven babbling idiots is easily my TOP guilty pleasure right now.
@@f.u.m.o.5669 I the past I always wanted to debate with a religious person because I thought it would be fun and interesting. Then I watched some public debates from America and learned that not all people have the constraints of logic and reason. Now I would be a bit scared to debate a believer (at least in the US).
You could call this a "live debunk" where you debunk things on the go, live, without interruptions or editing, without previous preparation for the subject and points at hand,. Livestreams would be very welcome and maybe you could get a lot of superchats and answer interesting questions from the audience and interact live with everyone, it could appeal to a lot of people.
May be a cool concept but that would just be like... some kind of test of his knowledge, while science in general is based on many people's research. So him going all naked into subjects he may or may not know very well wouldn't be very different from what the random flat-earthers do, except he has a lot more chance of being close to right lol And if he could search for answers "live" then it would... probably be really long I think
It's not a "test of knowledge" when so many of the original assertions are trivial to pare off as pointless or outright debunk when it's a tired argument. Put differently, the responses in the videos are not "Uhm, ackshually" so much as, "That's silly."
This format is actually pretty nice. I would appreciate you doing this some more. I usually hate reaction videos, because they don't add anything to the original content. THIS, however... is really good.
@@Killbayne I agree. Omg this goes back to copyrights. Acrually there was a seminar that discussed what copyrights are, by this mean it also discussed things that normally wouldnt think is subjected to the laws and acts of privacy or copyrights. An idea if stolen from its original without giving credit to the person is considered a breach of copyrights and that person can be subjected to a lot of "stuff." There was a case study about a student and his professor. The professor stole the students idea and basically the gist was he made a profit off of it, until that got exposed by the president or the dean of the institution and the professor suffered tremendously. He lost his job, licence, etc. to teach. So this was sad too because the instructor knew what he was doing and the student was a freshman. Really sad case
you should hate reaction videos not only when they add nothing, but also when they just steal videos for profit, like livestreamers, even if they add value to the origial video
I was gonna say he seems miss guided and needs better education in this field but once he started talking like an influencer, all my sympathy went out the window.
Yeah, as someone else said, the video editing and literally everything about the video points to it being targeted at zoomers. And personally, seeing how many believe disgusting stuff like Andrew Tate, it scares me since I bet they'd gobble this up too.
Funny how many times these people say things like "______ can't just mAgIcAlLy and SpOnTaNeOuSlY occur" and yet the basis for all of their beliefs is things being created magically and spontaneously.
Their 'logic' is very simple. If it's impossible, only God could have done it. I always thought that was obvious. (It's also obviously false, of course.)
@@DudeTheMighty The disconnect is that what they think of as impossible really isn't. They're making up a point so they can argue with themselves and award themselves the point. It just looks dumb from the outside, which it is because even within their own argument. They're saying magic isn't the answer ( which no one but them was saying anyway) and then providing magic as their answer.
I love that creationists will be like “Bro this shit makes no sense it just popped out of nowhere!” Not even mentioning that it did not in fact pop out of nowhere, but something popping out of nowhere is the basis of their entire belief system.
One of my strengths in refuting statements like "it's so unlikely it could never happen" is.... what would the odds have been, one in a million, one in a billion... how many of those things could have been there? I guess about several million times more. So there was more than a million times chance that these kinds of mutations could have happened.
@erikblaas5826 Actually, it's more. It's not simple multiplication, it's the complement of the event that it NEVER happens. So, in fact, it's much more likely than simply multiplying. If there is a 1 in a million event, and it's rolled a million times, you can't reasonably say it will happen once, though ON AVERAGE it will. The real probability is (a million - 1)^million over (a million)^million, which is an insanely close number to 1.
@@sahildeshmukh8053 Well, that depends on how you look at it. If I had a dice with million sides, and it landed on the number "15," I couldn't then say that it was almost impossible for it to land on 15. In other words, you can't look at a result, then retroactively claim that the probability of it happening was low, when in reality, the probability is actually "1."
@@hashtagunderscore3173 That's precisely the problem. To complete the analog, the dice is being rolled millions of times across different people or different dice are. That almost guarantees that *something* will happen, even if that feels rare in the moment. So, my point still stands.
I genuinely don't understand how Iamlucid doesn't understand how there can be an ancestral relationship between two species alive at the same time. That's like saying "how can I be descended from my parents, we're both alive at the same time"
@@OrdinaryEXP not even mentioning the biggest disproven thing being fought, darwinism. Whenever someone tries to disprove evolution its all darwin darwin darwin
I hate that creationists are always just using the word "Darwinism". As if there was no progress outside of Darwins work since the last 150 years in this topic.
Wait till you hear how old their textbook is 😂 When debating some fundamentalists it’s important to understand certain thought processes. For example “my book is literal truth” explains why they point to those trees and say “see, they think bananas became monkeys and mice gave birth to elephants” they just don’t understand diagrammatic representations
@@alocsx A lot of them seem to have a hard time with the idea that someone can be in the position of Darwin in term of science history, and not bee seen by the "followers" as a sort of evolution prophet.
@@steveford6022 Not that long, DNA and genetics are quite recent, you and me are likely not going to see all of that, but your grand-children or their own grand-children might.
So darwin didnt know about dna then,he was on the right track tho just not monkeys to human,,i dont think well find out the truth in our life time,like you say,but you never know,if god is real maybe we will find out b4 our kids a grand kids haha,i just cant imagine life begining from a molton rock that somehow gets a magnetic feild and ozone layer,gravity,all the things to suport life,defiently wen no other planet as far as we know, hasnt evolved like us,then for comlicated cells to form and all the things needed for life,amino acids,proteins ect,,i didnt do science but i have read books and watched many vidios,documentreis,on genetics and geogrphics and bioligy,ect,,,and know euff to question others,i do find it facinating.what do you think?
I know this is such an old video. I watch everything, and saw this again, and this iamLucis' s video continues to be the most INFURIATING piece of content I've seen. I keep up with Standing for Truth, Answers in Genisis, Raw Matt, Erica, and you, Dave, and it goes on. I have a 15 year old. He and his friend group are all science-minded, very intellectual, invested in knowledge, worldly, ect. I'm not trying to brag AT ALL. My point is, I know he and his peers are inundated with simple content like this and some of them don't have the background to know "this dude is bullshit." They just don't! And we live in Metropolitan DC! What is happening outside of the "intellectual elite strongholds?" And people get plugged into channels like this, and subsequently "suggested" even MORE content like this, and it fucking terrifies me! IamLucid has this swagger that appeals to young people and fits in the platforms, The way he states things as fact - so simplified, taken out of context or just entirely misrepresented in a way that "makes sense" is terrifying. It essentially regurgitates words and concepts that many people SOMEWHAT recall, but never truly understood even during HS science. "Yup, I know those words, and the scientist, intellectual elite is using that to indoctrination me and make me think things and do things that infringe on MY rights." And our educational system ((de-)funded by individuals that want the population to become less educated so they can have greater control) is effectively working. I am so demoralized! I appreciate that you do what you do and I love that you have developed this platform that is reaching millions of people. I still despair that we are reaching such a small percentage of the population. You are doing God's work! (OMG, don't kill me, that was the worst joke ever). I have to believe that there is a quantity of this new generation that will overwhelm the current zeitgeist in about 20 years. My greatest fear is the possibility of the EXACT opposite. What have I brought a human being into? I feel terrified at times, and so guilty. We are in a tailspin. Not just America, honestly. We're the worst currently, but I see it everywhere now. Thank you for your work. Not just de-bunking, but particularly your educational content. You have a beautiful talent for scientific education. You are much appreciated by many of us!
It can be summarized that stupidity is easier to control than people with the will to think an search. People are willing to destroy generations if that will grant them more power and an wealthy life
6:03 love how he misquotes it and says “analogy would be a deceitful guide” and not “analogy may be a deceitful guide.” A very subtle change but one which changes the meaning of the statement
Exactly. Details matter. All of the poor grammar. The misquoting. The conflation of different terms. Saying those extinction events were complete 100% extinction. The misinformation about Lucy. The ding dong Dave is debunking is taking his ignorant confusion and building on it thinking its on a strong foundation when it is built on nonsense. Pronouncing peking as "pecking" is just as embarrassing. Ugh. I can't stand charlatans like this guy. Pretending to be privy to insight that is somehow lost on people who have spent decades, lifetimes, generations studying something they only read about online.
The fact that these people, at this point, have to admit: >Organisms can diversify within a species level >Natural Selection occurs > Human beings have evolved in measurable ways But they STILL insist that Evolution isn't real at any level beyond microevolution is just... Amazing. It also proves how well proven evolution is, because they HAVE to accept so many of these facts
Magical unproofable evolution border cause god made it there to proof our belief fixes everything. I mean these people come up with maybe if Darwin was very very very bad than evolution stops like if kids cannot read the clock they are not going to age. If you think like that arguments against a fish wish to be a dog become totally reasonable.
If you can take one step at a time, eventually you'll walk 1,000 miles. That's why creationists' distinction between 'micro' & 'macro' evolution is dishonest, and doesn't actually exist.
He didn't even attempt to explain why the same process he agrees to couldn't lead to a new species over along period of time. At least Kent Hovind has "kinds" He probably doesn't even realize how big of a problem it is for him. If you asked him to identify the point which evolution stops happening he wouldn't know what you're asking.
@@angusyang5917 God has always been god of the gaps. There was a time when our gaps of knowledge were larger though. :) But they're almost at the point now where they're putting god into gaps that No-one can possibly know. Like "what happened before the universe" Like that makes any sense.
Because my grandfather and I were alive at the same time, lived near each other, and even hunted at the same time, this proves that he couldn’t possibly have been my ancestor.
"guys the baking process doesnt exist, it just is a cake. in agreement with my hypothosis, i put all the materials to "bake" a cake in the oven for 10 seconds and nothing happened. your move "bakers"."
@@jimjambananaslam3596 i dont know where potatoes came in, i was joking bc baking is kinda similar to baking as its a bunch of small changes happening over a period of time due to stimuli, that slowly changes it to something kinda different
I actually face-palmed when he mentioned Nebraska Man. Trait out of the Kent Hovind playbook. For anyone who doesn't know, a tooth was found in Nebraska that looked like it could have been from an ape, a science magazine/publication wrote an article about it, and some artist made some illustrations of ape men to give the article some flair. It turned out it wasn't an ape tooth, it was a tooth from an extinct peccary (not an actual pig, as they are not native to the Americas). The article was retracted a couple years later. It was never a hoax, just a mistake. It's an example of the scientific process actually working.
@I Hate Bud Light Beer "challenging" Spewing out unscientific nonsense is not challenging any consensus, buddy. Also, scientific racism was undoubtedly wrong and plenty of scientists back then thought the same. But even if they didn't, that doesn't mean it didn't make sense at the time. It was still science even if it turned out to be highly immoral and actually false. Ether was once science until it was debunked more than a century ago.
@I Hate Bud Light Beer screaming? Who is screaming? Do you know what screaming sounds like? And challenging the current scientific theories and facts is fine. But if your challenge is proven wrong you don't keep saying the same thing for 40 years. You find something new. And the challenge should be something with a peer reviewed paper. Just throwing something out that doesn't actually address what is being challenged isn't a legitimate challenge.
@DaBurger1411 "only to immediately follow that by ridiculing people and screaming at them for challenging the scientific consensus as if we had contradicted the Pope himself or as if we had contradicted an immutable truth. "-- People who dont have evidence to back up their claims, or better yet, continue to say nonsense that has already been shown to be incorrect, DESERVE ridicule. "According to you, science is always adapting and changing to new information and yet we should accept whatever the latest mainstream theory is like a bunch of blind sheep because apparently now it's different"-- If you were educated or intelligent you would know that 'theory' in science doesnt mean "guess" but is the collection of the facts that most represent reality. Secondly, people accept it because there is EVIDENCE backing it up. Just because you are too ignorant to understand how science works and assume people just blindly follow authorities like you do, is not our problem. This isnt even about religion but about not being so stupid you can only function in an indoctrinated environment. What YOU should do is assume all your current sources of information are dubious and look into science from source outside your echo chamber. If you do happen to open your closed mind, you just might realize you have been talking out of your ass this whole time.
Darwin was strongly-- STRONGLY-- anti-slavery. He almost got thrown off the Beagle because the captain, Fitzroy, gave a defense of slavery and Darwin argued back. Darwin was also devoted to his wife and children. His life history proves that accepting evolution does not automatically make a bad person.
For me it matters none. It doesn't disqualify his science, and we just have to concede to the fact that in those days, the vast majority of humans, no matter where u were from or your racial identity, were racist.
Darwin was racist (he did assume intellegence based on race). There are gradations of racism. Ignorant bigotry is just rude and patronising, which is still bad. Not the same as promoting slavery
@@hareecionelson5875 I wouldnt chalk that up to racism as much as poor malformed ideas of the science of human development. Scientifically, he had very little to go on as far as human development: by the consenting scientific commeunity, civilization was marked by industrial development and scientific pursuit/achievements. At that time, the vast majority of blacks were living quite "uncivilizied" exsitences (hence the ease of which the white man assumed them into the slave trade) in africa. The vast amount of villages didnt even have running wate, as it still is). Its easy to assume that kind of existance was very... savage and unintelligent, but that was not the case as now, modern science takes into account the adoption of new technologies and individual abilities to reason as part of what counts to assume intelliegence. Darwin was not racist in the sense of tryiong to assume superiority over other races, I believe it was more an issue of the scientific -pretext he used as his litmus test was inaccurate. That said, he still might have been racist. EVERYONE was racist in that time.
@@wwlittlejOfficial These things aren't mutually exclusive. As you mentioned, virtually everyone was racist back in the day. Darwin was a product of that time. He almost certainly had some racist beliefs. His racism was the product of scientific ignorance and "malformed ideas," but the source of someone's racism doesn't make it not racism. And as H. Nelson mentioned, there are gradations of racism - from unfortunate, ignorant, patriarchal bigotry to like virulent hatred and support of slavery. For the time, Darwin was a racially progressive guy. Also as has been mentioned - it matters 0%. Newton was apparently a huge *sshole, and we know Edison was, that doesn't make their scientific discoveries any less valid or anything. Darwin could have spent every day of his life after publishing Origin of Species publishing racist screeds and screaming bigoted things in his town square and it would zero difference to the accuracy and reality of evolution.
Lucid trying to use social darwinism against evolution was the funniest shit ever 😭 especially since 90% of the social darwinism movement were just religious nuts who didn’t actually understand evolution
@@kalez963 Doesnt change my statement in any way. You can agree that certain people used religion to discriminate and gain political power without denying god.
Dave is such a legend. Not only has he made an extensive and ever-growing science and maths video-syllabus, he fearlessly goes after science deniers in his spare time.
As a Christian studying pharmacy I find it incredibly frustrating when everything becomes anti-science. A perfect example of evolution in action is cancer! Developing cancer is literally the act of random mutations in our DNA (which actually happens all the time!), accumulating over time to create dysfunctional, uncooperative tissue that then invade other parts of our body. Cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, and hemophilia are diseases that involve the inheritance of mutated genes. There are several more common, benign examples of evolution that comes to mind (like the peppered moth example from the Industrial Revolution everyone learns about in high school). I think many people don’t grasp the fact that evolution involves random mutations (there is no greater scheme that nature is gunning for!). The mutations that yield advantageous changes simply get selected for (i.e. those creatures survive to pass down their DNA), while disadvantageous ones go extinct. Mutations that were advantageous at one time can become disadvantageous at another time, when the environment and the demands needed to survive changes (see the peppered moth example). I also find it odd that many people can’t accept spontaneous change and molecular arrangements. The change in temperature of a substance from hot to cold is spontaneous. Proteins fold spontaneously into a favourable tertiary or quaternary structure. Phospholipids that make up all of our cell membranes spontaneously form micelles when placed into polar substances like water because oil spontaneously separates from water. It’s literally just… thermodynamics and biochemistry. Same goes for vaccines. Vaccines, when you think about it, are really elegant by design. You literally employ your own immune system (which is so wonderfully complex!) against a pathogen (in part or in whole, sometimes attenuated) that you introduce to prime your body and prepare it for the offensive when the real deal comes along. It’s bizarre that people get hung up by this but wear contact lenses or glasses to enhance their vision, or take a bunch of natural health pills and multivitamins to “enhance their health” (which honestly is a very poorly regulated industry and half of the time no one knows what’s in those products… but I can save that rant for another time). Thankfully, the vast majority of Christians I am surrounded by are well-informed, many of them even pursuing PhDs and Master’s in physics, software engineering, and biology. It’s just frustrating when a poorly informed minority make up the vocal majority and make Christians as an entire faith look so foolish. What’s worse is that it drives misinformation, avoidance of proper medical care, and active harm to both oneself and others. I would argue that is the more “un-Christian” thing to do. I also find it odd when people critique science for “not making up its mind”. It’s because scientists, as a whole, are willing to admit that previous knowledge is incorrect when newer, stronger evidence comes out. That’s not a flaw, that’s a perk! No one is right all of the time… so it’s important for a field to grow as evidence also grows. Imagine if we still refused to admit that administering heroin was a good idea for treating your ailments! As a future pharmacist, I will admit that sometimes the best evidence we have for something is not that conclusive. And as a good practitioner, we admit that. We don’t and shouldn’t speak in absolutes. As a final thought: I would think that being Christian and having this faith actually allows us to appreciate science all the more deeply and marvel at the wonders and quirks that make us who we are. I hope there can be ongoing, open-minded conversations that take place going forward and for there to be a better balance between religion vs. science. I truly do not believe those have to be mutually exclusive.
You’re 100% right. Those people plague the world and give us an horrendous reputation. I’m religious, yet, I'm the most pathological pragmatic and skeptic I know. I hate surnatural, because I always think there’s a scientific explanation to everything. I'm weird, but I always remind myself that I have nothing to lose by believing. And when the scientific community will find what caused the Big Bang, well I will take their words for it. If my religion doesn’t make sense anymore (like it’s become impossible to say "well…"), I’ll stop believing.
"Survival of the fittest" does NOT mean "survival of the strongest." This is a common anti-science trope and mis-conception: If there is a hole in the ground that is round and two organisms want to live in it, one square and one round, the round organism will "fit" the hole and the square organism will not. This does not imply that round is stronger than square, simply that a round organism "fits" a round hole better than a square organism. Which may (or may not) confer a survival advantage. But if it does, the round organism stands a better change of surviving and breeding, whereas the square organism is more readily eaten by the triangles. A fish "fits" an aquatic environment better than a bird. A bird "fits" an airborne environment better than a fish. A shark could eat a gull. An eagle can eat a fish. Better "fit" does not mean "stronger."
Another misconception is that evolution is about survival. It isn't. It's about producing fertile offspring. Yet another misconception is that evolution is all about competition. It can be, but as often is about cooperation.
To give some leeway - in general language we do poetically/coloquially misuse 'strong/fit'. 'x team is stronger than x team' - that doesn't mean they're talking about strength, they are also referring to 'better at the game at hand'. They also use 'fit' in Britain as a slang. So in some sense, It does make them stronger ;) objective to their environment I guess. I understand your point and agree with it, just steel-manning the other side.
Yes, precisely so. This is seen in native African individuals with sickle cell. Sickle cell is, rather obviously, bad for the human body. It does a lot of really crappy things and makes our blood function horribly. It also protects against malaria; a disease that's more urgently dangerous. Sickle cell anemia isn't good for us, then, but is less bad than malaria and offers a greater chance of reproduction. Nature doesn't care at all about strong, weak, fit, or unfit. Having an adaptation that suits a creature to its environment also doesn't necessarily mean success. Many critters may have beneficial adaptations but aren't able to pass them along through sheer bad luck. Bad adaptations may get passed along in the same fashion via good luck. They may get weeded out later. Maybe they won't. Natural selection is a general rule, not some stone-clad law.
@@Malicious2013 It's one of the mechanisms for evolution, not the only mechanism. luck, isn't one of the mechanisms for evolution though, not one with any explanatory power unless it is explained what the aspects of this luck were - which would then be named a mechanism.
I like how barely educated people, perhaps not even having a degree, much less a Scientific Degree, not working in a Science field, have so much to say about a field of Science & Scientists.
To be honest i love how this guy is a prime example on how science pulls the human race further no matter how much people dont want to accept it. Christians may be screaming and kicking and crying but today they are forced to admit evolution is a thing, the domain they can suff their god in gets progressively smaller. Give it 80 years (30 for Abiogenesis research to be mainstreamly communicated and accepted and 50 for 2 new generations of theists who deny it) and then they will have accepted Abiogenesis. Science drags theism with it like the delusional child trappend in fairy tales it is and at some time they will grow up. Look at germany. Even klarge parts of religious people dont believe in god or heaven or etc.
The "scientists cannot create life in a lab, so therefore God/an Intelligent Designer must have created life on Earth"-argument is a tricky one. Because IF scientists will create some life-form in the near future, the argument will change into "See? This is how God/an Intelligent Designer created life Thank you for proving my point." Creationist arguments are very slippery, as everyone already knew.
I can't believe I didn't notice this the first time through. Dude spends 30 minutes trying to discredit Darwin, and be like, you shouldn't believe anything he says, but as SOON as he finds a quote that makes it seem like Darwin agrees with his side, he is like SEE. LISTEN TO DARWIN. What a fool.
It's not even a quote where Darwin is agreeing with his side. It's also quote mining at it's finest. Dude even puts up enough of the quote for everyone to see that, but the full quote is as follows: "It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty." He later goes on to say that he's basically not convinced by any of the arguments people make for the existence of a personal God. It seems that he was, at worst, an agnostic atheist, who was open to a deistic god being a possibility.
That's the moment when you confirm for a fact that your time has been wasted. Darwin is wrong until he says something (out of context) that supports my argument.
It’s a bit disconcerting that videos like these are starting to be better produced and edited. Usually the nonsensical stuff looks as bad as it sounds. Keep up the good work professor Dave
It sounds like outsourced by the Discovery Institute to competent producer/channel. The editing and presentation are pretty good, so all they need is a competent science script writer with some expert consultation. We might think why it didn't happen? Perhaps this is exactly what they were supposed to publish.
@@jotarokujo320 yea he should stay in his lane of professionals then, don't make a biology based video and then start talking about random unrelated bs
Yes, like saying what is not his speciality, rather than claiming to speak to everything, shows what scientific integrity is about. Rather than someone trying to claim knowledge in every possible area whilst showing a lack of understanding in pretty much everything
This is what gets me. People need to know how to say "I don't know" and just not in a dismissive way to get people to go away, in an earnest and humble way. Some people always feel the need to "create" an answer to a question or chime into a discussion that they have no business leading in. It's better to just think for a moment before speaking or commenting and then progress from there. Of course, this assumes one has developed the ability to know that they're out of their depth in the first place. The groundbreaking thing is, you can actually still give your surface-level thoughts (a lot of people still find value in seeing others engaged in healthy discussion), just disclose that you are not very familiar with a topic and speak with an air of humility and self-awareness.
@@Asterite100 and if your faith or other belief means that you must be right then having no answer is somehow a threat to that world view. Ironically what is thought to be the earliest written book that made it into Hebrew scripture and then the Bible is basically a discourse/poetic consideration of 'why do bad things happen to good people?'. In the end the man Job confronts God with the question and just gets told he has not right to know as a mere mortal, and so have to live with the 'don't knows' of life.
I’m actually embarrassed that it took me so long to find this channel!! The voice of reason in an ever growing crowd of muppets pretending to be smart because they know how to use big words the wrong way 😂
It would be far quicker and more rewarding to just name every logical fallacy used, then rate the need to continue watching the speaker based on how good their sophistry is.
I've seen so many of these creation debunking videos that I now view them as entertainment. I probably won't watch this all the way through. On my self-validating forays into creation-debunking UA-cam I seek fresh-faces. Same with climate change.
You know what I find wild? My mother wasn’t afforded a good education and was raised baptist in the Appalachia foothills. She’s the first to admit she isn’t very clever and her less than stellar schooling didn’t help. But she does something that none of these people ever have: she admits that just because she doesn’t and likely never will understand evolution doesn’t mean it isn’t true. She can’t wrap her mind around it no matter who frames it or how, she admits it makes no damn sense to her and God seems like a simpler answer, but then she also says that she *knows* just because she doesn’t get it doesn’t mean it isn’t real. These people could learn a lot from her and her humility tbh. I don’t understand advanced trig worth a damn but I’m not about to call someone a liar for trying to teach me about integrals
You're Mom is an angel. God bless her. Smart enough to know satans bs is wrong but in the same breathe humble enough to know she doesn't know what she going on, and still has faith... that's an angel as far as I'm concerned.
Dave, thank you for everything you have done for science and for communicating it so effectively. Is there any chance we could someday see a video series on climate change or perhaps even a series debunking climate change deniers?
Honestly, there's not much to debunk. They're all paid by oil companies which ironically, all produced scientific papers that exactly predicted anthropogenic climate change
@@ProfessorDaveExplains I will say the only thing you are wrong about is saying the “woke”/ leftist are as crazy and dumb as conservatives, u pretty much implied that in an older video so, I will say you are wrong on that. Leftist and communist and of course anyone in the biology field or study it. Know much more than conservatives could ever know, and the woke aren’t wrong on transgender science I would say that’s an arrogant claim u made, and because you said that I’d say you don’t know anything about the science of trans people nor know more than anyone else in the scientific community. Also vaush and even hank from its ok to be smart are way smarter than you since they don’t make claims about an entire group of people without any evidence. Get wrecked boi.
The fact that you reply to comments so much actually shocks me. Even for old videos. I have 300 k followers on TT and there is NO way I could go through and respond to so many. Very impressive my man, you are the only one I know that reply’s so well
Exactly, because it shows they don't actually understand what a theory is or how science works. Theories can never be 100% proven, all we can do is come to a consensus on which theory is most likely to be correct based on all the available evidence. Laymen generally confuse a theory with a hypothesis, which is a totally different thing. A theory is an evidence-based explanation for something we observe, a hypothesis is just an educated guess that is meant to guide further research.
Macro evolution is many micro evolutions set to a whole, it's seeing the tree and missing the forest. This is like saying "No I believe that there's a tree, but there's no way that just one little seedling could have made the Amazon Rainforest"
Nah.. it's like saying "There's a tree, but there was no seed, so where did the tree come from?..." (It was designed and deposited to start tyhe ball rolling)
Dave doing a reaction-style video has a very "Dad learns how Zoom calls work" energy to it, and I'm here for it. Keep up the good work, Dave, and I hope your main educational content gets more traction in future!
@@Hajun554 Well ... yeah? An older person who isn't familiar with the newest stuff, yet is trying to do it anyway? Most people would find that charming, cute.
Not to mention, vestigial structures don't have to be USELESS, the just need to serve a function that makes their original use obsolete. Such as with whale hip bones. Sure they do SOMETHING, but it sure as hell isn't helping them walk on four legs.
@@DocBree13 The icing on the cake being that Mr Lucid, on his website, describes himself as a “researcher”. In his case I think it means “I read something online, so now I’m an expert!”
@@DocBree13 Dunning-Kruger effect is not related to human psychology. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a pattern that arises from correlating a variable with itself.
@digamma F Then why are the first 3 pages of Google results all about a psychological phenomenon? Are you being a pedantic asshole or do you have a point?
There's an old saying, "You can't reason someone out of an idea they weren't reasoned into".... while I'm not 100% positive that that's a true statement, what I do know for a fact is that you can definitely SHAME and/or EMBARRASS the shit out of someone enough to make them drop bad ideas, which you are doing masterfully!!! Please continue to do so!!
its true. my family is conviced that there is racial and geopolitical foul play in science (even today, somehow), and its impossible to convince them otherwise.
I always love those "It's like winning the lottery!" arguments. Somehow, they seem to forget that people win the lottery all the time. The odds of any individual result are not the same as the odds of getting any result at all. Like Dave said... if you play often enough, and there are enough players, it's pretty much guaranteed someone will win. 😆
Not to mention, there's always a winning ticket in a lottery game. So if enough people buy the tickets. There will be a winner. It's just highly unlikely to be one person in particular.
The statistical odds of a creature with my exact individual genetic makeup existing are next to nothing. But it would be stupid for me to assume that I do not exist. Xd
Forrest Valkai does a very good job of showing how Creationists quote mine Darwin to distort what he said, by going to the actual book written by Charles Darwin to see the context of whatever quote is used. Forrest also showed how Darwin often stated the objections he foresaw at the beginning of each section of his book. One example is that in the chapter on the evolution of complex systems or organs, Darwin says he supposes it would seem absurd to imagine something such as the human eye could evolve, and then he states how it could have happened. Creationists omit the later statements in order to make it look like Darwin agrees with them. It's kind of funny that the guy in the video accuses atheists of doing the very thing that creationists do in distorting Darwin's views. Aron Ra has said that Hitler was most emphatically not a Darwinist according to Hitler's writings in "Mein Kampf". Nor was he an atheist. At least, not ostensibly. Also, the guy in the video implies that he has the same misunderstanding of the phrase "survival of the fittest" as many people do. He does not grasp that "fittest" means those best adapted to survive within a given habitat. He assumes it means the strongest, most predatory individuals and uses that distortion to paint Darwinian evolution as justifying social atrocities. Another Creationist tactic. It does seem a little odd to me that those who claim to be on higher moral ground resort to lying and equivocation to make their arguments.
Hitler was indeed a "Darwinist" - someone that believes in the veracity of eugenics Contrary to what Dave says, someone that believes in the veracity of evolution is NOT a "Darwinist". Sometimes, I really wish Dave didn't confuse definitions, but he is human after all
@@danielcrafter9349 no he very much was not. He flat out rejected evolution on creationist grounds and had books on evolution and Darwin burned. That is how he could be into eugenics, by _not_ being a "Darwinist"
The anti-intellectual movement is so exhausting, I rarely engage. You're doing a yeoman's job Dave, using intelligence and evidence to constantly dispel ignorance. Easily one of my favorite channels on YT.
He mentions Piltdown and Nebraska man like they're some sort of dunk. If you're interested in learning more about those, check out Mini Minuteman and his series Awful Archaeology. He has a video on each of them.
So... Gish would be very proud of him. He is not galloping. He is jumping all around the place and doing constant backflips. The verbal diarrhea of this dude is impressive. Wow.
guy went from “eugenics used survival of the fittest as justification” to “Darwin believed in god and atheists want to convert you”, then jumped to “I don’t like naturalism because no free will”, then somehow made the classic argument that “something cannot come from nothing”, and went back to abiogenesis to say “look at how complex life is, how can molecules just form this” It’s honestly quite impressive.
@@memeswithcringe1624 you forgot the most important segment: Where he plugged his income stream. "Buy my V-card and hear me babble about eugenics and how evil evolution, and by extension atheism, is." This is just some guy who is grifting dumb people.
The amount of people in the comments there going "I can tell you've worked hard on this video! You did a lot of research! This is so well put together!" is more concerning than the video itself
Nords? Sorry, bud, we don't live in Skyrim 😄 Sociologically speaking (as that is the only metric you can separate those groups of Homo Sapiens), Celts, Romans, Goths (and Visigoths and Ostrogoths), Vikings (and other Norsemen) and Normans don't exist anymore apart from LARPers. I understand what you're saying but that example is maybe not the killer simile you think it is! No offence intended. Thanks for the laugh.
@@eliaskline5649 If you really want to nitpick, viking is something they did, not who they were - they went viking (i.e. raiding). Its meaning has changed throughout history and by the middle ages generally meant anyone from Scandinavia. You're picking the wrong nits.
"You shouldn't punish people" but us punishing criminals is just a result of chemical reactions in our brains, we have no free will to not punish them! Also having punishments in place guides the chemical reactions in our brains to be less likely to commit crimes.
Creationists logic about speciation be like: "when my mom was born, my grandmother instantly died out, when i was born, my mom instantly died out, we couldn't exist at the same time, if we did, that would disprove ancestry and thus evolution" 😂
I love when they point out all the bad actors in science. Like all the ones that shoehorn their own agenda into their research. They love to parade around and talk about them. But always, ALWAYS, fail to mention that it was science that found out they were lying. That's one of the great things about using science. It's self correcting.
It certainly wasn't science-deniers who found out the Piltdown skull was a hoax, lmao. It certainly isn't science deniers who write children's science books that invariably mention it as a well-known hoax and explain how exactly it was fake. But he thinks bringing it up is some kind of shocking revelation that scientists don't want you to know about, lmao
This is why im uncomfortable with most scientists being religious people Someone needs to keep them in check because i certainly dont trust them to not paint the picture and screw data on the basis of their biasies
He's jumping around randomly between antiscience fallacies because he doesn't really understand any of them and is just regurgitating all of the nonsense he's blindly absorbed.
The great thing about the internet is everyone has a voice. The bad thing about the internet is everyone has a voice. A virtual sea of clutter with a couple of gems here and there
Hey Dave! I’m doing my PhD in chemistry right now and just wanted to say that I really like this type of lower effort video! You’re literally my thoughts out loud whenever I watch this kind of anti evolution crap. Keep it up!! ❤
I cant understand why anyone would be convinced by a guy with a 'meet me at Mcdonalds hair cut who looks like he decided that his gaming channel wasn't getting enough attention so picked up a side hustle.
I recently saw a video of these kids from the 50's or something talking in the classroom and everyone in the comments where so impressed with how 'intelligent' the kids were, they were just talking about regular stuff in a regular way, but with RP English accents. All it takes is a sophisticated sounding accent to convince most people that you're saying something profound. I feel like most people don't actually pay any attention to what's being said, they just side with whoever impresses them the most, be it a cool accent or fancy video skills.
And that one can learn to use tools without understanding what makes those tools work. You can teach a monkey to operate a quantum computer. You just can't teach it to be honest or sincere. And in a dishonest and insincere society doing the opposite is very much discouraged. In all societies it's highly discouraged to criticize dishonesty and insincerity and we're not even consistent in that; many smaller groups will insist on honesty and sincerity because it's required to function as social animals because of reliability and the dangers of stress and the ethics that might doesn't make right and the acknowledgement that instead of might, it's diversity that makes us strong.
@@haroldramislives The irony of course being that "deciding to pick up an education channel side hustle to supplement their not very successful gaming channel" is literally what catapulted Perun into a genuinely respected public figure in online military discourse. I wonder what the difference between iamLucid and Perun is...
It's all a call to emotion. That's all they have. Using eugenics as an example of how evolution has been twisted is literally using emotion to make his point. Thank you for calling it out! I really like this format, by the way! I like your unscripted thinking out loud, verses polished scripted content! More please! 🙂
How is possible for a person to be this wrong about so many things? Like, he doesn’t even understand the most basic stuff. I actually follow this dude. Had no idea he was like this.
@@mongolianclasher5086 We know it. I don't think there is a wealth of scientific studies done on the matter, but every one has come to the same conclusion. Like everything, it's healthy in moderation, for humans and animals.
@@mongolianclasher5086 Think about it logically. Interacting with a body part of yours and getting some happy chemicals is probably not as damaging as nofapists pretend it is.
@@olivercharles2930 Physically, its probably not harmful at all - I dont really see how it could be anything but that - but psychologically you could argue that the fact we live in a world that, in many cases, shames you for getting off (this is especially true in a religious context), then *that* could potentially be harmful, since someone doing it could feel like they are doing something wrong because of external pressure saying it is wrong, That could obviously have a negative effect on ones mental health. I personally dont care what you do in your private time, and I like to think most reasonable people would agree with that, but unfortunately a lot of people really do care and that creates societal pressure.
Every now and then I ponder how I would think if I'd been born on a southern plantation as the child of a wealthy human trafficker. I'd like to think I'd recognize it as evil, but I also acknowledge that if you're born into it and raised being told this is the natural order of things that you may accept it in the same way that people accept other religious claims and have to learn your way out of it.
@@ParanormalEncyclopedia I periodically encounter someone spreading the "Darwin was a racist and the idea that we're all related to each other and interconnected with all known life leads to racism. Not like my holy book that says there is a chosen group of special people and everyone else is trash" bit and I usually respond by talking about cabbages just as Darwin did 😃 They always have no idea whatsoever what I'm talking about, and I expect that to not change i my lifetime Note that as medical advances extend human lifetimes and the speed of technology remains exponential, there is a hypothetical tipping point where regular mortality stops being a thing. I'm saying even in that scenario, when I'm 4 billion and 12 years old, they'll still be talking about Darwin as if the whole thing was one guy's wild idea and whatever humans have evolved to then will look back at Homo sapiens sapiens Charles Darwin and maintain that he was fully human, "just an ape", and also that despite him not having their additional 4 billion years of adaptation they will insist that 1850s humans and the sci-fi energy-beings are "the same kind" 😛
Well, scientists did. The press picked it up as a sensational story, which is where the sketch of what it “might have looked like” came from. Not a model, just an artist sketching an ape man.
Yeah the guy who found it didn't even know what it was, he sent it to scientists who wrongly assumed it was a human. Other scientists doubted it and after more investigations and digging found other remains and came to a conclusions it was a pig's tooth. After which the original conclusion was said to be a mistake because the tooth was pretty deteriorated and the statement was retracted
@@alalalala57 for example, “Even after seeing one of the casts, British paleontologist Arthur Smith Woodward, who had given the world Piltdown Man, was highly skeptical, feeling that "The occurrence of a man-like ape among fossils in North America seems so unlikely that good evidence is needed to make it credible." (Woodward, 1922)” It was dug up by a rancher in 1917, but didn’t get to a scientist until it was given to Henry Fairfield Osborn, and tentatively identified as possibly ape-like, in 1922. But while he initially suggested it *might* be humanoid to some degree, he was quick to denounce the interpretation of British anatomist Grafton Elliot Smith that it belonged to a hominid. Smith was the one who hired an artist to do the drawing for the popular press. Osborn thought it was more like a chimpanzee tooth. “Thus, even during the "reign" of Hesperopithecus as a putative human ancestor, many scientists, including its discoverer (Osborn) and its chief defender (Gregory), did not go as far as Elliot Smith in making overzealous extrapolations based on the Nebraska tooth.” So pretty much the only “scientist” who thought the tooth was definitely humanoid, was not a paleontologist, but an anatomist. Then they actually went to excavate the site in 1925, and quickly found evidence that it was a pig tooth, and issued a full retraction in 1927. It’s basically the same situation you see all the time where a researcher publishes a study that finds X treatment killed cancer cells in the laboratory, but more study is needed, a journalist publishes a crazy article saying “cancer cured”, and further research finds problems with the treatment and they don’t move forward with it.
@@alalalala57 He's saying all the scientists told him it wasn't human, but since the press picked it up without caring about the facts and only wanting the sensation, they are proof that not *everyone* told him it wasn't human.
I know this all seems like basic Basic knowledge but it might surprise you how useful these videos are for people like me - ALL I got as a conservative homeschool kid in the 90s (when I had biology) was young earth creationism. So now as an adult, now that I'm not religious anymore but never studied evolution, it's helpful to be able to get on youtube and watch videos that are like "ok here's this creationism thing and here's what actually happened". Even though I've gone and looked up basics, I haven't had time to basically go relearn biology, so it's especially interesting to hear things like how many specimens we've found, or what we can replicate in a lab, because there are a HUGE amount of gaps in my knowledge still. I will also say this, it may seem basic I know, but the first time (when I started looking into how evolution actually works) I had a video (it may have actually been on this channel) explain that human ancestors CO EXISTED with humans, it really blew my mind. And of course it makes sense, but see, growing up being taught that "darwinists believe that one day a chimpanzee gave birth to a modern human" it like instantly cleared up a lot of things I couldn't quite put together. Same with the first time I learned what natural selection ACTUALLY is and how it works. I know I sound ridiculous. 😅 I was just stuck in those YEC beliefs into early adulthood unfortunately. I did get an engineering degree though and part of what inspired me to learn more about evolution was all the otherwise irreconcilable information I was presented with about the age and expansion of the universe and how we know all that. Literally just physics and math made me go "oh, ok this makes sense actually". Unfortunately even though I understand the evolution of the universe quite well from a cosmological perspective, there are still so many gaps I have understanding evolution from a chemical and biological perspective. But these vids are helpful.
I do have to say around the 1 hour mark....Like I said I'm a former YEC and now I'm an atheist and I absolutely loathe Dawkins. I loathe him because he's pretentious and ineffectual. He's more concerned with sounding intellectual than actually fundamentally convincing people to reconsider belief in God as far as I'm convinced. Maybe that's his goal, I don't know. But he makes it infinitely harder for people like me on the ground using personal connection with the people around me to make them consider a different perspective. Me actually REMEMBERING my own journey and how I got here and the type of communication and discussions and education that ended up changing my viewpoint. He doesn't have a clue how to communicate with people who might otherwise be convinced to change their views. And that is extremely frustrating. At least this was true the last time I watched him speaking.
Absolutely love that you have an actual grasp of the stuff you talk about so much so that you can respond to stuff live without a script and still make a 1000% more sense than the idiot with the talking points
@@easports2618 because I also know about these things? Because I'm not an idiot? Because I know a charlatan and a liar who is clearly projecting and clearly has very little understanding about the things he's trying to talk about? Because I have a grasp of the scientific method and how it works and "iamlucid" doesn't? And because it doesn't long to fact check and if you have an Interest in the topic being discussed you actually want to learn about it I stead of just spouting out the same tired old nonsense that was useless to begin with and even more so with every passing year that our knowledge on these subjects increases? Also, this is literally the only response you'll get, because I see no point in trying to convince people who already believe what they want and definitely won't bother to look at the actual evidence.
@@adrianclark2734 dude, look at my latest comment on Prof. Dave’s video, I believe what he claimed because my dads studied this field too, so i can just ask him but being skeptical always helps, how do you know about these things, i know tone’s lost through these messages so i want to clear the air, im just curious which part of this video do you have a good grasp on, im studying on biology so i kinda have a grasp on everything at a surface level, but yeah you’re probably right a few google searches might be enough but oooo, origins of life, seems pretty advanced and interesting, dave didn’t provide any evidence(because of stuff like google searches, already having made videos on the topic etc) so i mean, not reaaaaally, you gotta get the evidence yourself, it is easily reachable tho
@@noemytamayo9462Darwin only became to believe in silly superstition folktales once he became sick and close to death, he couldn’t accept his mortality
@@Lucciii32No he didn't. Darwin saw that creationism was rubbish. He never converted or entertained anything sky daddy on his deathbed. That was a lie from this religious woman that wasn't there, but just made a lie because she hated the contradiction of Darwin's mutations by natural selection. This is what his daughter said she was a liar and that she (the daughter) was there on his deathbed. It was Lady Hope- the lying bitch.
Lmfao love how he paints Darwin as a racist misogynist to criticize evolutionary theory, and then immediately ignores that when he wants to go “Look! He believed in god!” 🤣 The total lack of basic critical thought always amazes me
Exactly lmao. Darwin is an evil racist misogynist when he's arguing for evolution. But when Darwin is arguing for god, he suddenly becomes an innocent good lil bean just being taken advantage of by malicious atheists lmao.
Isn't it obvious? Evolution didn't happen before 2000 years! But seriously, that's what I always bring up: ok, microevolution occured in the last 2000 years... but what about the previous 2000 years? And the 2000 years before that? And the 2000 years before that? 1 million years is literally 500 different 2000 year events, and 1 billion is 1000 of those, and we're talking about FIVE OF THOSE!!
@@nickfifteen that’s actually such a sick way to put it in a way that I’ve never really thought about in that context, even just teaching people about it that’s a nice metaphor
Only religious people could point out the fact that Darwin was racist and sexist to try to debunk the theory of evolution, which does not set the moral standards we should abide by. Then go on to ignore the atrocities in holy religious books that are supposed to set our moral standard (which thankfully they don’t)
Hi I am a Christian and I’d like to point something out in relation to the Bible, the actions and laws of those in the Old Testament are not considered a moral standard in most denominations, but rather they are descriptions of how things were not guidelines for today. For example avoiding certain foods and not touching blood used to be important to preventing disease, but now it’s less important as there are alternative methods to avoid disease. Another aspect is the horrible actions of people that are described in the Bible, these are not intended to be guidelines, and rather are used in Christian teaching as examples of humans capability of doing evil and that even people who have done evil can continue to do good
@@5ld734 ok I’ll give you the 10 commandments but what about the things in the bible that god explicitly says are ok. That if a Slave dies after 48 hours of his previous beating the owner must not be subject to punishment.
@@5ld734pretending the genocides and pain didnt happen doesnt negate the pain it's caused, progressive religion irritates me to no end, its like youre trying to get me to wear a nazi uniform by saying "its fine now tho we took out the hating jewish people and the whole genocide thing so you should totally join us :)"
@5ld734 To say that the Bible does not contain immoral guidelines for morality is simply untrue. There are guidelines that permit slavery. There are guidelines that permit slave owners to beat their slaves. There are commandments to stone people to death for things like being raped. There are acts of cruelty that absolutely were intended to be instructions on how to behave according to moral standards. Have you read the bible in full? I don't say that facetiously or to be snarky. "The Bible only describes heinous acts" is a perspective that, sensibly, can only arise from not having read the instances where heinous acts are, in fact, explicitly _prescribed_ as commands. If you haven't read the bible in totality, I suggest that you do in order to make better-informed assertions about what it says. Perhaps you can better defend its shortcomings if you acknowledge them in the first place.
@@Parrot5884 iirc the bible also says if a slave tries to overturn/disobey his master he can go to hell for that, so like yeah the bible mostly sucks with a small handful of decent teachings lmao
Wow, that was very exhausting and painful to watch. That guy embarrassed himself over and over again taking about a series of unconnected topics and trying to make an argument. As a biologist trained in evolution and genetics (worked a couples of years on evolutionary biology), I can say that this are deep and complicated disciplines, that even some colleagues didn't fully understand. So, what can you expect from a guy that clearly haven't even open a biology book in his life. I admire your patience and determination on this crusade to defend science. Respect.
I'm surprised no one responded in any way with your statement when it involves something that is obviously true and you have the knowledge to demolish creationists. I love learning about biology and astronomy and I agree with you
28:27 He’s mixed up his fossil record. There was a disproven human ancestor known as Nebraska Man found in Nebraska in 1922. A worn tooth that resembled a hominin tooth was later proven to be a peccary tooth.
@@stefanlaskowski6660 typical liberal, believes evolution but shuts down when you draw the natural conclusions of evolution. Races are different. It comes down to genes.
@@stefanlaskowski6660By all accounts, Darwin was pretty progressive on race for a man of his time and place. If he were to suddenly come back to life, he would probably seem ignorant, but not hateful.
Sorry. That was extremely passive aggressive. I just get irrationally upset when people just speak how they do, and people call it word salad. Especially when it's understandable and makes sense when you break it down.
Wow, it's 2 AM where I live. I am going to go to bed. I'm just tired of this anti-intellectualism "movement" going on. I'm not an intellectual myself, but to ignore years upon years of people's work for the sake of going against the grain is just absurd.
Regarding the speciation and "different species existing at the same time" issue in the video, Forrest Valkai has a great video argument illustrating this where he discusses it using language as an analogue. French and Spanish are both Latin languages, but there is no time in history where a parent who spoke exclusively Latin had a child that spoke exclusively Spanish, it was a number of small changes over time that we now recognize as two distinct languages, but somewhere in the middle there, you would have heard attributes of both languages in daily conversation.
You can find examples of it from our own recorded time. During the early 20th century, colloquial speech in the US, the "General American accent" was the same as it is now, and yet if you look at 1930's recordings you will find nothing but RP English, which was essentially an archaic form from the 19th century. Yet they existed at the same time.
I just want to mention that my school did teach me and my classmates, in graphic detail, of the holocaust and the reason why it happened. This is a good thing. I and many others in my class were quite upset because of the images and videos we saw of prisoners of war, malnourished and diseased, shambling around and being treated after the discovery of Hitlers crimes against humanity. But out of all of us, there was one kid who, come to find out, had parents who were ideologically aligned with the NAZI party and their beliefs, so this child was being taught by his neo-nazi parents to snicker and giggle about such things... He was removed from the classroom after his outburst of laughter and sent to the principals office. It is situations like these why we must not censor ourselves when talking about history, even if it risks demonetizations, because exposing the truths for our future generations and showing them right from wrong is of utmost importance, lest we are doomed to repeat history.
Dave you should definitely do more reaction debunks. Like you said in the mr beat stream, it'd not only save time so you can pump more videos out with less production time but it also helps with watch time and attracting a new audience of people who like reaction videos
Because you completely forget that the entire basis of their argument is about evolution, not all of science. That's where you guys fail to use your brains. Don't get me wrong, the dude in the video was terrible at representing YEC affectively, but still.
Those are this 'ists' and they are flerf. But I'm told Scientism allows for root dismissal of anything scientific at any time or place. A great timesaver if one savors the stupid as flerfs do.
I have never seen a creationist ever even attempt to explain the physical mechanics that would prevent small changes from "micro-evolution" from building up into speciation.
Prof. Dave, I need to tell you; you’re fucking hilarious. You made me laugh more in just this video than I did probably in the last year. I had to rewatch the Idiot God moment, “Well, I made a universe!” The fucking comedic timing you have is awesome, you literally could be a comedian, but I’m so glad for myself and anyone else that watches your content that you instead became a scientist.
Just the nonchalant "...and he has misspelled Atheism..." is the best illustration for why this guy was not at all worth Dave's time but I'm also so glad he made this video 😂. I would definitely be interested in more direct reaction content like this!
I pointed out some of the mistakes, you may miss to clear it up: - The Ecology of Sulawesi or Wallacea is the best example for on ging speciation. - Piltdown Man case. He deliberately mixed up the composite forgery Phitdown Men case with Lucy when he shout it out "pig's tooth". - He doesn't understand the (about) 26 concepts of species. - The term "missing link" is not relevant anymore and never be. (Charles Darwin himself use the therm "transitional fossil") - The Hanohforsand Man case You were right. He's just throwing any bogus. Actually, "Prof." Reiner Portch was forced to retired after his falsehood, manipulation, forgeries and plagiarism.
@@TheNinthGeneration1 Certainly, here's a list of over 20 species concepts recognized within the field of biological sciences: 1. Biological Species Concept (BSC) 2. Morphological Species Concept 3. Phylogenetic Species Concept 4. Ecological Species Concept 5. Recognition Species Concept 6. Cohesion Species Concept 7. Evolutionary Species Concept 8. Genealogical Species Concept 9. Typological Species Concept 10. Paleontological Species Concept 11. Agamospecies Concept 12. Genetic Species Concept 13. Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) Concept 14. General Lineage Concept 15. Composite Species Concept 16. Infra-specific Taxa Concept 17. Evolutionary Operational Taxonomic Unit (eOTU) Concept 18. Continuous Variation Concept 19. Biological Individuality Concept 20. Hennigian Species Concept (Phenetic Species Concept) 21. Biological Essentialism Concept 22. Genetic Cluster Species Concept 23. Biological Diversity Species Concept 24. Integrative Taxonomy Concept Some of them have mechanisms that overlap so that there is a combination of 2 or more species concepts that will give birth to new concepts. Please note that while these concepts represent different ways of thinking about species, some of them might overlap or have variations in their definitions. Additionally, the list may not be exhaustive, as the understanding of species and taxonomy continues to evolve within the scientific community.
The pig's tooth is a reference to Nebraska Man. Piltdown Man actually had a full mandible (with filed down and artificially aged teeth) and a partial skull (fragmented). While Nebraska Man was almost imeadiately rejected by the scientific community, the press wanted to tout the first (non-human) great ape found in North America. Piltdown Man wasn't conclusive rejected as a hoax for almost 40 years, but had doubters from the begining.
I've been an interested observer of the field for over forty years (my background is in cultural anthropology, not physical or paleo), but I had never heard of Reiner Protsch or Hahnhöfersand Man before. Lucid's misspellings didn't help, but I finally found the story. Protsch's crimes and misdemeanors are shocking and scandalous, of course, but the scientific importance of his work, and hence the damage caused by his fraud, is negligible. Nothing in particular changed by either incorporating or deleting his contribution. So yeah, it's not surprising I've never heard of him. It's a tempest in a teacup, and a complete nonstarter in an attack on the entire field. (Insider: Look Before You Date, Archaeology, Volume 58 Number 3, May/June 2005)
Every time I hear “iF wE eVoLvEd FrOm ApEs ThEn WhY aRe ThEy StiLl HeRe???” makes my blood boil. It’s a complete lack of using any critical thinking whatsoever.
In order to evolve there must be an intermediary species in between apes and humans in order to prove the evolution theory. As far as I know, there is not any. So the question is not why is apes still here, rather it’s where is the evidence of evolution at the intermediate level? According to the theory, there must be an intermediary species. I copied the following from the Geoscience Research Institute: An intermediate fossil is one that seems to be an evolutionary transition between two groups of organisms. If all life was the result of evolution, there must have been innumerable intermediates that existed, and many of these should still exist as fossils
You have it wrong. There must be an intermediary species inbetween apes and humans in order to prove the evolution theory (this is according to them). There have not been any concrete evidence as far as I know in animals or humans. If you have any please share. This is from the Geoscience Research Institute: An intermediate fossil is one that seems to be an evolutionary transition between two groups of organisms. If all life was the result of evolution, there must have been innumerable intermediates that existed, and many of these should still exist as fossils
My favorite part is when he says "Darwin was an evil racist monster!" and then later in the video says "Darwin believed in God so he's on our side!" like ok bro you said it not me
Surprised he didn't mention that he married his first cousin
I was so dumbfounded by his ignorance that I totally missed it! Good catch!
They're doing the Almighty dirty. He would be ashamed of His students.
Darwin died 141 years ego. I wouldn't be surprised if Darwin had some racist tendencies, but he was quite progressive himself. Btw, in his book if Darwin speaks of "races" he meant species.
He constantly tries to have it both ways. Like when he says free will exists because your decisions can't be the pure result of natural processes. Immediately followed by saying nothing can be truly random, you just lack all the minute detail to determine the result of rolling a dice.
Some people are saying this is too low hanging fruit, but lucid's video imo is more destructive than the DI/Tour stuff because this is a person who's making content specifically targeted at young people and understands how to reach them.
The manner of speech, editing, production, etc are all way more effective at convincing young people than old man Tour yelling at his camera. I hope Dave continues to seek out this type of content to focus on
I agree 100%. I think a lot about this issue of low hanging fruit ie tiny channels with people just incapable of learning basic science, like the dude Scimandan ripped on for trying to measure the temperature of the sun with a hand held infrared thermometer. Clearly no one is watching that dude and thinking huh he's got a point. This guy on the other hand has a massive audience and is a very skilled communicator for the demographic he's targeting.
It sort of shocks me, he put so much time in reading the weird anti-science papers, learning some small bits of real (but complex) science, mischaracterize it, and then tries to use that as disproof and evidence for god. If he just read the high school biology text book, he'd know that what he is saying is insane. But he has three motives for not doing that. He feels smarter acting like he understands the basics, while memorizing small bits of complex niche science. Secondly doing it this way defends his faith - something I too don't really care about, but I feel the only rational belief would be in a god that triggered the big bang and nothing more. Thirdly he has a substantial audience. A million subs netting between $300 -$5,000 a month. this isn't even considering the weird merch he is selling, which I imagine is only a part of other money makers. If he suddenly realizes he's wrong, he loses it all. He just becomes a regular, reasonable person. Either his audience realize too, or they are mad that someone isn't reaffirming their beliefs, either way gone.
This is absolutely a channel to land some science and logic punches into
Oh we also know he's milking the youtube cow with how pathetically he tip toes around talking about the holocaust because its probably an instant demonetization, I imagine chosen to avoid people making MONEY off talking about one of the most horrendous tragedies of the modern world. This guy is literally shouting "I am committing the sin of greed, and in the process disrespecting the countless victim of said tragedy." when he handles this the way he does. He isn't even trying to hide it. Its so fucking bizarre.
Agreed, it was also interesting that he mentioned that New Darwinism is "political" given current climate where many people believe that "politics" is encroaching on everything in their lives.
@Easy Pete The "school is lying" angle here is particularly effective. Multiple times he tells his audience to use these arguments against teachers in the classroom, which is particularly bad because a LOT of teachers don't fully understand this material and aren't equipped to handle students spouting DI propaganda at them while they're trying to teach what's in a textbook.
What's good fam, his video was fire. (cynically gesticulates cringe affected urban hand gesture.)
For the record, the "1 pig's tooth" he was referring to was Nebraska Man. Long story, short: some guy found a tooth, asserted it was a prehistoric human tooth without evidence, scientists said, "Show some proof.", and even though the guy never did, a magazine picked up the story and commissioned an artist to create a drawing of Nebraska Man for their article. It was eventually discovered that the tooth was from a peccary (by scientists, go figure) and that's about the end of it. The entire hoax existed outside of the scientific community so it's completely irrelevant to the topic of human evolution.
And the fact that it was debunked at all proves science is not "gods word". These dumbfucks can't comprehend the length of getting a single paper published and peer-reviewed.
I remember a S J Gould essay on this.
Hesperopithecus was reassessed, found to be a peccary tooth, and science moved on. That’s how science works.
Guild’s piece was called something like “Essay on a pig roast”.
To add to your statement, Harold Cook, the discoverer of the tooth, along with the scientific community, derided the London Illustrated Times for publishing the poorly evidenced illustration. And less than five years later, when Cook discovered he made a mistake, he himself made a public retraction to the claim. This was not a hoax. It was a case of mistaken identity that a news organization, without the endorsement of the scientific community, blew out of proportion.
While he name checks Nebraska Man later in the video when he initially brings up extrapolating a hominin from a tooth, he seems to be talking about Lucy, never mind that the reason we know she's female is that they found her pelvis.
Also, ever notice that when creeationists bring up Nebraska Man, they always call it a "pig's tooth." No matter how superficially similar they may be, peccaries aren't pigs. They seem to fill the same niche in the Americas that pigs fill in Africa and Eurasia, but they still aren't pigs.
Apparently scientific hoax means newspapers doing shit they always do.
“If you owned slaves today, you’d get canceled” - Professor Dave
Damn liberal snowflakes!
Thats a quote for the ages 😂
Can we cancel unpaid internships too?
@@malldvdno then who do all your work and give experience too ?
@@malldvddefinitely. It blows my mind they'll refuse to pay someone who works for them but we continue to pay doctors and police when they fail or straight up refuse to do their job. Strange world
“Evolution is real but only ever happens on much smaller scales” is like saying I believe in inches and yards but not miles.
I would argue it’s like believing in millimeters and centimeters but not meters because those units of measurement were created as parts of an overall system. But I get your point. 😁
you are right
there is basic and darwin evolution which are both diffrent
They like to use "micro" and "macro" evolution as a way to weasel out of that.
god did it boom roasted science believers!!! hah!
@@penguiin12 Got em
"Homo erectus can’t be the ancestor of homo sapiens because they existed simultaneously" wait until you hear about parents and grandparents, my guy
Wait, your mother didn't immediately die as your head came out of her womb? Preposterous!
His mind will be blown when he finds out that Lauren Boebert is real!
What about em?
@@antoniopratt1893 Grandparents can exist at the same time as parents just like how homo erectus can exist at the same time as homo sapiens. The point is this creationist has no idea what he's talking about but he's talking about it anyway which makes him a dishonest fraud.
Why would the the same God that allegedly inspired the Ninth Commandment need so many lying frauds to defend his word??
@@littlered7820 My guy, the Bible was written by primitive, bronze age ignoramuses who thought daytime was at least four days older than the sun and who also were too stupid to figure out the moon wasn't a light source even though you can clearly see shadows on it.
Also, YHWH was a stolen Canaanite God and there's no extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus beyond posthumous hearsay and probable forgeries... buddy.
Only a creationist can't understand that you and your grandfather can be alive at the same time.
Bars
Why are humans special? There are 100's of species of e.g. weaver birds, should they be extinct and one 1 species remain?
What a stupid remark from I'mNotLucid
If only they would realize that the way they're asking it amounts to "If you and your cousins both came from your ancestors, why are your cousins still around?"
@@0okamino "And why do your cousins look more like your grandparents than YOU! Gotcha, guess you are not related to your grandparents!" (lol, "macroevolution" is just lots of microevolutions until breading together is "significantly" difficult enough for us Humans to label them as separate species for our own purposes).
@@letsomethingshine thanks for explaining the jokes in brackets, you’re very cool and fun👍
iamLucid Legit closed comments because his ass got corrected so hard he got mad asf. 💀
I always find it funny when people that make very ‘controversial’ videos turn off the comments on said video, as its usually a sign that they refuse to admit they are wrong and cannot accept that the truth isnt what they believe
@@canadyne6908Dave did it on his videos about trans people because he was receiving a huge campaign of hate. It really depends on the situation
@@Astrojox_theres a difference, in lucids case he was getting alot of factual comments that critiqued his video, but in daves case he got attacked by transphobes who dont make a lick of sense
Very telling. Just say a load of BS that mongoloids will believe without any scepticism and then close off the comments so there’s no chance they’ll see the counter arguments
Of course, he closed the comments; he's the personification of intellectual cowardice.
It is just insane that guys like this read 2 hours in wiki, didn't understand 95% of what they read and now they explain why the people studying the topic their entire life are wrong :)
Its because they either get brainwashed/don't care. People like Kent Hovind and how they argue in debates also don't help.
Thats the thing that always gets me with these kinds of people. Like you really think the countless amount of experts that put time into creating and studying these fields just miraculously missed something a person with literally no experience in the field found?
😆😂🤣😪😞😒😳🤬 oh look at that🐿
@ravimukerji6609 I think that often that does happen which is why it's so important to have crossover between feilds but you do still need a basic understanding ...if you have a basic understanding of mathematics you can look at economics and see things which economists might miss. Or if you're a veterinarian you might look at something in human medicine and see something medics have missed. But if you're an astologist you cant look at astronomy and see something they missed. Or like often seems to happen you're a mythologist and you look at history and see things which aren't there. But you might be a radiologist or a geologist and see something historians missed. There is scope for people outside one feild to see something in another feild that isn't easily seen from within a paradigm but you have to at least be able to say the alphabet and just have some very basic understanding of the world as a basis to even attempt to get into any feild. And if you have those basics you can look into any feild you want to ..but without those basics you cant form fundamentals and without fundamentals you cant look at anything with any value. If your base is screwed or malformed everything you look at will become deformed. And unfortunately not everyone is able to develop basic learning because 15percent of us are subnormal intellectually ...and can't even be used as cannon fodder. And because kids are not taught well enough to think or solve problems.
I think it's a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity.
"I don't understand how X works, therefore X doesn't work."
Which completely ignores the possibility that the reason X doesn't make sense is entirely a *you* problem.
What really frustrates me is the sheer arrogance of the anti-science crowd. They truly think that they can put in zero effort and spend zero time learning very complicated topics, then pretend like the zero time and effort they've invested somehow makes it so they know more about these subjects than people who have dedicated their entire lives to the study of them. I mean, the narcissism of "my 20 minutes of Google searches beats your 30 years of education and experience" is sickening.
Without religious scholars science didn’t exist
@@s9persaiyan *cough* Galileo being under house arrest for his whole life by the church *cough*
@@s9persaiyan Muslim scholars if anything
Hm most scholars were religous it's almost like most people back then were religous...
The dunning Kruger effect.
Dave at the start: “I might have fun debunking it”.
Dave at the end: exasperated at the stupidity.
Understandable. I can't even watch Hovind because of how painful his work is, so I imagine a guy who repeats DI talking points is at least as painful to someone who's been working hard on discrediting people at the DI.
Imma be real... Watching smart people get disappointed while simultaneously destroying woke or otherwise ideologically driven babbling idiots is easily my TOP guilty pleasure right now.
Talking to Creationists is the opposite of fun.
@@f.u.m.o.5669 I the past I always wanted to debate with a religious person because I thought it would be fun and interesting.
Then I watched some public debates from America and learned that not all people have the constraints of logic and reason.
Now I would be a bit scared to debate a believer (at least in the US).
@@xyleblack2545 dont be afraid of those piss ants
"Homo erectus can’t be the ancestor of homo sapiens because they existed simultaneously"
dogs and wolves: are we a joke to you?
AHAHAHA he is such a clown
You could call this a "live debunk" where you debunk things on the go, live, without interruptions or editing, without previous preparation for the subject and points at hand,.
Livestreams would be very welcome and maybe you could get a lot of superchats and answer interesting questions from the audience and interact live with everyone, it could appeal to a lot of people.
i think it would be doable too since the DI nutcases just parrot the same bullshit repeatedly lol
Could be a really interesting idea!
I second that
May be a cool concept but that would just be like... some kind of test of his knowledge, while science in general is based on many people's research. So him going all naked into subjects he may or may not know very well wouldn't be very different from what the random flat-earthers do, except he has a lot more chance of being close to right lol
And if he could search for answers "live" then it would... probably be really long I think
It's not a "test of knowledge" when so many of the original assertions are trivial to pare off as pointless or outright debunk when it's a tired argument. Put differently, the responses in the videos are not "Uhm, ackshually" so much as, "That's silly."
This format is actually pretty nice. I would appreciate you doing this some more. I usually hate reaction videos, because they don't add anything to the original content. THIS, however... is really good.
educational reaction content is good, "reaction" content where people just steal other people's work while adding nothing to it are bad
@@Killbayne An apt summary.
Ur feedback and opinion was also great.
@@Killbayne I agree. Omg this goes back to copyrights. Acrually there was a seminar that discussed what copyrights are, by this mean it also discussed things that normally wouldnt think is subjected to the laws and acts of privacy or copyrights. An idea if stolen from its original without giving credit to the person is considered a breach of copyrights and that person can be subjected to a lot of "stuff." There was a case study about a student and his professor. The professor stole the students idea and basically the gist was he made a profit off of it, until that got exposed by the president or the dean of the institution and the professor suffered tremendously. He lost his job, licence, etc. to teach. So this was sad too because the instructor knew what he was doing and the student was a freshman. Really sad case
you should hate reaction videos not only when they add nothing, but also when they just steal videos for profit, like livestreamers, even if they add value to the origial video
I have never seen someone destroy a video so much in my entire life.
Mr Beat is a professor Dave fan???!? did not expect this
Guess you haven't been watching Professor Dave for long because he hands out intellectual ass-kickings left and right.
mr breast give me money
he is reacting to a half hour video lmao
Yo Mr. Beast!
I was gonna say he seems miss guided and needs better education in this field but once he started talking like an influencer, all my sympathy went out the window.
Yeah, as someone else said, the video editing and literally everything about the video points to it being targeted at zoomers. And personally, seeing how many believe disgusting stuff like Andrew Tate, it scares me since I bet they'd gobble this up too.
His world revolves around one book so… yeah
Funny how many times these people say things like "______ can't just mAgIcAlLy and SpOnTaNeOuSlY occur" and yet the basis for all of their beliefs is things being created magically and spontaneously.
@@hiken6701 does your brain work?
@@hiken6701 ok cry top your wizzzard invisibile man
Their 'logic' is very simple. If it's impossible, only God could have done it.
I always thought that was obvious.
(It's also obviously false, of course.)
@@DudeTheMighty
The disconnect is that what they think of as impossible really isn't. They're making up a point so they can argue with themselves and award themselves the point. It just looks dumb from the outside, which it is because even within their own argument. They're saying magic isn't the answer ( which no one but them was saying anyway) and then providing magic as their answer.
aint called magic if god does it I guess? that gets a new name called miracles where anything is permissable
When that guy at the beginning said “British accents” I nearly dropped my monocle and spat out my Tea. The sheer impudence of the scoundrel! 🧐
Verily! What skullduggerous charlatanery! One was adroitly piffled at such outlandish stereotypery!
A broken clock is right twice a day
@@5374seth wait you're actually right
@@5374sethbutttttttttttt what about digital clocks
What a preposterous imbecile scallywag this iamLucid person is 🧐🧐🧐
I love that creationists will be like “Bro this shit makes no sense it just popped out of nowhere!” Not even mentioning that it did not in fact pop out of nowhere, but something popping out of nowhere is the basis of their entire belief system.
Fr
It’s like life either took tons upon tons of years in the making or poof magic
Christ is King
@@kalez963 cool. Watch the video
@@KreepyBeepy Why so?
@@kalez963if you didnt watch it, why are you here
YES, it was extremely unlikely for the enzymes to develop to turn RNA into DNA. But it only needed to happen ONE TIME.
One of my strengths in refuting statements like "it's so unlikely it could never happen" is.... what would the odds have been, one in a million, one in a billion... how many of those things could have been there? I guess about several million times more. So there was more than a million times chance that these kinds of mutations could have happened.
@erikblaas5826 Actually, it's more. It's not simple multiplication, it's the complement of the event that it NEVER happens. So, in fact, it's much more likely than simply multiplying.
If there is a 1 in a million event, and it's rolled a million times, you can't reasonably say it will happen once, though ON AVERAGE it will.
The real probability is (a million - 1)^million over (a million)^million, which is an insanely close number to 1.
@@erikblaas5826if it happened, the chance is at least 1.
@@sahildeshmukh8053 Well, that depends on how you look at it. If I had a dice with million sides, and it landed on the number "15," I couldn't then say that it was almost impossible for it to land on 15. In other words, you can't look at a result, then retroactively claim that the probability of it happening was low, when in reality, the probability is actually "1."
@@hashtagunderscore3173 That's precisely the problem. To complete the analog, the dice is being rolled millions of times across different people or different dice are. That almost guarantees that *something* will happen, even if that feels rare in the moment. So, my point still stands.
I genuinely don't understand how Iamlucid doesn't understand how there can be an ancestral relationship between two species alive at the same time. That's like saying "how can I be descended from my parents, we're both alive at the same time"
Creationists were too busy making fun of the long-disproven "March of Progress" illustration.
And if we turn out to be cousins rather than the same branch line of the family tree, it still shows that variations and midpoint exist
Cuz he's a fucking moron. He's clinically retarded and been saying dumb shit for years.
"how can dogs come from wolves if there are still wolves"
@@OrdinaryEXP not even mentioning the biggest disproven thing being fought, darwinism. Whenever someone tries to disprove evolution its all darwin darwin darwin
I hate that creationists are always just using the word "Darwinism".
As if there was no progress outside of Darwins work since the last 150 years in this topic.
Wait till you hear how old their textbook is 😂
When debating some fundamentalists it’s important to understand certain thought processes. For example “my book is literal truth” explains why they point to those trees and say “see, they think bananas became monkeys and mice gave birth to elephants” they just don’t understand diagrammatic representations
Because they can't change the concepts in their book they think that everyone else can't change other concepts from other books
@@alocsx A lot of them seem to have a hard time with the idea that someone can be in the position of Darwin in term of science history, and not bee seen by the "followers" as a sort of evolution prophet.
@@steveford6022 Not that long, DNA and genetics are quite recent, you and me are likely not going to see all of that, but your grand-children or their own grand-children might.
So darwin didnt know about dna then,he was on the right track tho just not monkeys to human,,i dont think well find out the truth in our life time,like you say,but you never know,if god is real maybe we will find out b4 our kids a grand kids haha,i just cant imagine life begining from a molton rock that somehow gets a magnetic feild and ozone layer,gravity,all the things to suport life,defiently wen no other planet as far as we know, hasnt evolved like us,then for comlicated cells to form and all the things needed for life,amino acids,proteins ect,,i didnt do science but i have read books and watched many vidios,documentreis,on genetics and geogrphics and bioligy,ect,,,and know euff to question others,i do find it facinating.what do you think?
I know this is such an old video. I watch everything, and saw this again, and this iamLucis' s video continues to be the most INFURIATING piece of content I've seen. I keep up with Standing for Truth, Answers in Genisis, Raw Matt, Erica, and you, Dave, and it goes on. I have a 15 year old. He and his friend group are all science-minded, very intellectual, invested in knowledge, worldly, ect. I'm not trying to brag AT ALL. My point is, I know he and his peers are inundated with simple content like this and some of them don't have the background to know "this dude is bullshit." They just don't! And we live in Metropolitan DC! What is happening outside of the "intellectual elite strongholds?"
And people get plugged into channels like this, and subsequently "suggested" even MORE content like this, and it fucking terrifies me! IamLucid has this swagger that appeals to young people and fits in the platforms, The way he states things as fact - so simplified, taken out of context or just entirely misrepresented in a way that "makes sense" is terrifying. It essentially regurgitates words and concepts that many people SOMEWHAT recall, but never truly understood even during HS science. "Yup, I know those words, and the scientist, intellectual elite is using that to indoctrination me and make me think things and do things that infringe on MY rights."
And our educational system ((de-)funded by individuals that want the population to become less educated so they can have greater control) is effectively working. I am so demoralized! I appreciate that you do what you do and I love that you have developed this platform that is reaching millions of people. I still despair that we are reaching such a small percentage of the population. You are doing God's work! (OMG, don't kill me, that was the worst joke ever).
I have to believe that there is a quantity of this new generation that will overwhelm the current zeitgeist in about 20 years. My greatest fear is the possibility of the EXACT opposite. What have I brought a human being into? I feel terrified at times, and so guilty. We are in a tailspin. Not just America, honestly. We're the worst currently, but I see it everywhere now.
Thank you for your work. Not just de-bunking, but particularly your educational content. You have a beautiful talent for scientific education. You are much appreciated by many of us!
It can be summarized that stupidity is easier to control than people with the will to think an search. People are willing to destroy generations if that will grant them more power and an wealthy life
based
6:03 love how he misquotes it and says “analogy would be a deceitful guide” and not “analogy may be a deceitful guide.” A very subtle change but one which changes the meaning of the statement
Exactly. Details matter. All of the poor grammar. The misquoting. The conflation of different terms. Saying those extinction events were complete 100% extinction. The misinformation about Lucy.
The ding dong Dave is debunking is taking his ignorant confusion and building on it thinking its on a strong foundation when it is built on nonsense.
Pronouncing peking as "pecking" is just as embarrassing.
Ugh. I can't stand charlatans like this guy. Pretending to be privy to insight that is somehow lost on people who have spent decades, lifetimes, generations studying something they only read about online.
No comments?
@@GodMineptas guess no one had anything to say? Lol
The fact that these people, at this point, have to admit:
>Organisms can diversify within a species level
>Natural Selection occurs
> Human beings have evolved in measurable ways
But they STILL insist that Evolution isn't real at any level beyond microevolution is just... Amazing. It also proves how well proven evolution is, because they HAVE to accept so many of these facts
Magical unproofable evolution border cause god made it there to proof our belief fixes everything.
I mean these people come up with maybe if Darwin was very very very bad than evolution stops like if kids cannot read the clock they are not going to age.
If you think like that arguments against a fish wish to be a dog become totally reasonable.
If you can take one step at a time, eventually you'll walk 1,000 miles.
That's why creationists' distinction between 'micro' & 'macro' evolution is dishonest, and doesn't actually exist.
It shows the power of science, once these people said God created everything, now they claim a god of the gaps.
He didn't even attempt to explain why the same process he agrees to couldn't lead to a new species over along period of time. At least Kent Hovind has "kinds"
He probably doesn't even realize how big of a problem it is for him. If you asked him to identify the point which evolution stops happening he wouldn't know what you're asking.
@@angusyang5917 God has always been god of the gaps. There was a time when our gaps of knowledge were larger though. :)
But they're almost at the point now where they're putting god into gaps that No-one can possibly know. Like "what happened before the universe" Like that makes any sense.
Because my grandfather and I were alive at the same time, lived near each other, and even hunted at the same time, this proves that he couldn’t possibly have been my ancestor.
It's just a fancy way of saying "why are there still apes", though I may be giving him too much credit to understand that.
@Asylumnus if only creationists were capable of critical thinking…
didn’t you know, domesticated dogs became a thing…somehow, idk, but anyways. when that happened wolves actually went extinct. so sad
Call Jerry Springer at once. The father can only be a dead guy
homie played Spore once and thinks he knows everything about evolution
"guys the baking process doesnt exist, it just is a cake. in agreement with my hypothosis, i put all the materials to "bake" a cake in the oven for 10 seconds and nothing happened. your move "bakers"."
Loll
What's the difference between baking a potato in the oven and roasting a potato in the oven?
@@jimjambananaslam3596 i dont know where potatoes came in, i was joking bc baking is kinda similar to baking as its a bunch of small changes happening over a period of time due to stimuli, that slowly changes it to something kinda different
@@jimjambananaslam3596temperature
@@jimjambananaslam3596 Roasting uses the same type of all-over, dry heat as baking, but at higher temperatures between 400 and 450° F.
I actually face-palmed when he mentioned Nebraska Man. Trait out of the Kent Hovind playbook.
For anyone who doesn't know, a tooth was found in Nebraska that looked like it could have been from an ape, a science magazine/publication wrote an article about it, and some artist made some illustrations of ape men to give the article some flair. It turned out it wasn't an ape tooth, it was a tooth from an extinct peccary (not an actual pig, as they are not native to the Americas). The article was retracted a couple years later. It was never a hoax, just a mistake. It's an example of the scientific process actually working.
@I Hate Bud Light Beer "challenging"
Spewing out unscientific nonsense is not challenging any consensus, buddy. Also, scientific racism was undoubtedly wrong and plenty of scientists back then thought the same. But even if they didn't, that doesn't mean it didn't make sense at the time.
It was still science even if it turned out to be highly immoral and actually false. Ether was once science until it was debunked more than a century ago.
@I Hate Bud Light Beer screaming? Who is screaming? Do you know what screaming sounds like?
And challenging the current scientific theories and facts is fine. But if your challenge is proven wrong you don't keep saying the same thing for 40 years. You find something new. And the challenge should be something with a peer reviewed paper. Just throwing something out that doesn't actually address what is being challenged isn't a legitimate challenge.
@DaBurger1411 challenging science on basis of pseudoscience taught by your religion is not really a challenge to science
@DaBurger1411 "only to immediately follow that by ridiculing people and screaming at them for challenging the scientific consensus as if we had contradicted the Pope himself or as if we had contradicted an immutable truth. "--
People who dont have evidence to back up their claims, or better yet, continue to say nonsense that has already been shown to be incorrect, DESERVE ridicule.
"According to you, science is always adapting and changing to new information and yet we should accept whatever the latest mainstream theory is like a bunch of blind sheep because apparently now it's different"--
If you were educated or intelligent you would know that 'theory' in science doesnt mean "guess" but is the collection of the facts that most represent reality. Secondly, people accept it because there is EVIDENCE backing it up.
Just because you are too ignorant to understand how science works and assume people just blindly follow authorities like you do, is not our problem. This isnt even about religion but about not being so stupid you can only function in an indoctrinated environment. What YOU should do is assume all your current sources of information are dubious and look into science from source outside your echo chamber.
If you do happen to open your closed mind, you just might realize you have been talking out of your ass this whole time.
The same scientific method that calls you “anti science” or “dumb” for being skeptical or asking questions
Darwin was strongly-- STRONGLY-- anti-slavery. He almost got thrown off the Beagle because the captain, Fitzroy, gave a defense of slavery and Darwin argued back. Darwin was also devoted to his wife and children. His life history proves that accepting evolution does not automatically make a bad person.
For me it matters none. It doesn't disqualify his science, and we just have to concede to the fact that in those days, the vast majority of humans, no matter where u were from or your racial identity, were racist.
Darwin was racist (he did assume intellegence based on race). There are gradations of racism.
Ignorant bigotry is just rude and patronising, which is still bad. Not the same as promoting slavery
@@hareecionelson5875 I wouldnt chalk that up to racism as much as poor malformed ideas of the science of human development. Scientifically, he had very little to go on as far as human development: by the consenting scientific commeunity, civilization was marked by industrial development and scientific pursuit/achievements. At that time, the vast majority of blacks were living quite "uncivilizied" exsitences (hence the ease of which the white man assumed them into the slave trade) in africa. The vast amount of villages didnt even have running wate, as it still is).
Its easy to assume that kind of existance was very... savage and unintelligent, but that was not the case as now, modern science takes into account the adoption of new technologies and individual abilities to reason as part of what counts to assume intelliegence.
Darwin was not racist in the sense of tryiong to assume superiority over other races, I believe it was more an issue of the scientific -pretext he used as his litmus test was inaccurate. That said, he still might have been racist. EVERYONE was racist in that time.
@@wwlittlejOfficial These things aren't mutually exclusive. As you mentioned, virtually everyone was racist back in the day. Darwin was a product of that time. He almost certainly had some racist beliefs. His racism was the product of scientific ignorance and "malformed ideas," but the source of someone's racism doesn't make it not racism.
And as H. Nelson mentioned, there are gradations of racism - from unfortunate, ignorant, patriarchal bigotry to like virulent hatred and support of slavery. For the time, Darwin was a racially progressive guy.
Also as has been mentioned - it matters 0%. Newton was apparently a huge *sshole, and we know Edison was, that doesn't make their scientific discoveries any less valid or anything. Darwin could have spent every day of his life after publishing Origin of Species publishing racist screeds and screaming bigoted things in his town square and it would zero difference to the accuracy and reality of evolution.
Either way, almost everyone was racist back then. Intentionally or not.
"People used evolution to be racist and gain political power"
meanwhile religion:
Lucid trying to use social darwinism against evolution was the funniest shit ever 😭 especially since 90% of the social darwinism movement were just religious nuts who didn’t actually understand evolution
Jesus is God
@@kalez963 Doesnt change my statement in any way. You can agree that certain people used religion to discriminate and gain political power without denying god.
@@PyroniumZ When did I disagree
@@kalez963 Thats what the point of you replying with Jesus is God
Dave is such a legend. Not only has he made an extensive and ever-growing science and maths video-syllabus, he fearlessly goes after science deniers in his spare time.
He didn't debunk anything lol
@@Sp-do6wu 🤦♂️🤦♂️. There’s really nothing to debunk.. it’s not like creationists even have a model..
He has nothing to fear because all of their arguments are paper tigers and houses of cards.
@@petergriffin8767 Only a small minority recognise those arguments, sadly.
As a Christian studying pharmacy I find it incredibly frustrating when everything becomes anti-science. A perfect example of evolution in action is cancer! Developing cancer is literally the act of random mutations in our DNA (which actually happens all the time!), accumulating over time to create dysfunctional, uncooperative tissue that then invade other parts of our body. Cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, and hemophilia are diseases that involve the inheritance of mutated genes. There are several more common, benign examples of evolution that comes to mind (like the peppered moth example from the Industrial Revolution everyone learns about in high school).
I think many people don’t grasp the fact that evolution involves random mutations (there is no greater scheme that nature is gunning for!). The mutations that yield advantageous changes simply get selected for (i.e. those creatures survive to pass down their DNA), while disadvantageous ones go extinct. Mutations that were advantageous at one time can become disadvantageous at another time, when the environment and the demands needed to survive changes (see the peppered moth example).
I also find it odd that many people can’t accept spontaneous change and molecular arrangements. The change in temperature of a substance from hot to cold is spontaneous. Proteins fold spontaneously into a favourable tertiary or quaternary structure. Phospholipids that make up all of our cell membranes spontaneously form micelles when placed into polar substances like water because oil spontaneously separates from water. It’s literally just… thermodynamics and biochemistry.
Same goes for vaccines. Vaccines, when you think about it, are really elegant by design. You literally employ your own immune system (which is so wonderfully complex!) against a pathogen (in part or in whole, sometimes attenuated) that you introduce to prime your body and prepare it for the offensive when the real deal comes along. It’s bizarre that people get hung up by this but wear contact lenses or glasses to enhance their vision, or take a bunch of natural health pills and multivitamins to “enhance their health” (which honestly is a very poorly regulated industry and half of the time no one knows what’s in those products… but I can save that rant for another time).
Thankfully, the vast majority of Christians I am surrounded by are well-informed, many of them even pursuing PhDs and Master’s in physics, software engineering, and biology. It’s just frustrating when a poorly informed minority make up the vocal majority and make Christians as an entire faith look so foolish. What’s worse is that it drives misinformation, avoidance of proper medical care, and active harm to both oneself and others. I would argue that is the more “un-Christian” thing to do.
I also find it odd when people critique science for “not making up its mind”. It’s because scientists, as a whole, are willing to admit that previous knowledge is incorrect when newer, stronger evidence comes out. That’s not a flaw, that’s a perk! No one is right all of the time… so it’s important for a field to grow as evidence also grows. Imagine if we still refused to admit that administering heroin was a good idea for treating your ailments! As a future pharmacist, I will admit that sometimes the best evidence we have for something is not that conclusive. And as a good practitioner, we admit that. We don’t and shouldn’t speak in absolutes.
As a final thought: I would think that being Christian and having this faith actually allows us to appreciate science all the more deeply and marvel at the wonders and quirks that make us who we are. I hope there can be ongoing, open-minded conversations that take place going forward and for there to be a better balance between religion vs. science. I truly do not believe those have to be mutually exclusive.
You’re 100% right. Those people plague the world and give us an horrendous reputation. I’m religious, yet, I'm the most pathological pragmatic and skeptic I know. I hate surnatural, because I always think there’s a scientific explanation to everything. I'm weird, but I always remind myself that I have nothing to lose by believing. And when the scientific community will find what caused the Big Bang, well I will take their words for it. If my religion doesn’t make sense anymore (like it’s become impossible to say "well…"), I’ll stop believing.
Phospholipids are multi-tailed and so form vesicles in water, no?
then what do u think about this ? ua-cam.com/video/YDdw_762Vj8/v-deo.htmlsi=ql5U8tT5lkWQH1cV as a christian
So you know better but continue to call yourself that, why?
Then how about these scientists?
ua-cam.com/video/YDdw_762Vj8/v-deo.htmlsi=ql5U8tT5lkWQH1cV
"Survival of the fittest" does NOT mean "survival of the strongest." This is a common anti-science trope and mis-conception:
If there is a hole in the ground that is round and two organisms want to live in it, one square and one round, the round organism will "fit" the hole and the square organism will not. This does not imply that round is stronger than square, simply that a round organism "fits" a round hole better than a square organism. Which may (or may not) confer a survival advantage. But if it does, the round organism stands a better change of surviving and breeding, whereas the square organism is more readily eaten by the triangles.
A fish "fits" an aquatic environment better than a bird.
A bird "fits" an airborne environment better than a fish.
A shark could eat a gull.
An eagle can eat a fish.
Better "fit" does not mean "stronger."
Another misconception is that evolution is about survival. It isn't. It's about producing fertile offspring.
Yet another misconception is that evolution is all about competition. It can be, but as often is about cooperation.
I learned this in my middle school science class. It's very surprising to me that some individuals still do not understand this
To give some leeway - in general language we do poetically/coloquially misuse 'strong/fit'. 'x team is stronger than x team' - that doesn't mean they're talking about strength, they are also referring to 'better at the game at hand'. They also use 'fit' in Britain as a slang. So in some sense, It does make them stronger ;) objective to their environment I guess. I understand your point and agree with it, just steel-manning the other side.
Yes, precisely so. This is seen in native African individuals with sickle cell. Sickle cell is, rather obviously, bad for the human body. It does a lot of really crappy things and makes our blood function horribly. It also protects against malaria; a disease that's more urgently dangerous. Sickle cell anemia isn't good for us, then, but is less bad than malaria and offers a greater chance of reproduction. Nature doesn't care at all about strong, weak, fit, or unfit.
Having an adaptation that suits a creature to its environment also doesn't necessarily mean success. Many critters may have beneficial adaptations but aren't able to pass them along through sheer bad luck. Bad adaptations may get passed along in the same fashion via good luck. They may get weeded out later. Maybe they won't. Natural selection is a general rule, not some stone-clad law.
@@Malicious2013 It's one of the mechanisms for evolution, not the only mechanism. luck, isn't one of the mechanisms for evolution though, not one with any explanatory power unless it is explained what the aspects of this luck were - which would then be named a mechanism.
I like how barely educated people, perhaps not even having a degree, much less a Scientific Degree, not working in a Science field, have so much to say about a field of Science & Scientists.
Exactly
To be honest i love how this guy is a prime example on how science pulls the human race further no matter how much people dont want to accept it.
Christians may be screaming and kicking and crying but today they are forced to admit evolution is a thing, the domain they can suff their god in gets progressively smaller.
Give it 80 years (30 for Abiogenesis research to be mainstreamly communicated and accepted and 50 for 2 new generations of theists who deny it) and then they will have accepted Abiogenesis.
Science drags theism with it like the delusional child trappend in fairy tales it is and at some time they will grow up. Look at germany. Even klarge parts of religious people dont believe in god or heaven or etc.
Ah sorry. I guess I'm not allowed to question things. What side is anyone on anymore?
There's a saying "Internet gave a loud voice to way too many idiots!!!"
@@bungiecrimes7247 Then what you do is question experts in the field.
The "scientists cannot create life in a lab, so therefore God/an Intelligent Designer must have created life on Earth"-argument is a tricky one.
Because IF scientists will create some life-form in the near future, the argument will change into "See? This is how God/an Intelligent Designer created life Thank you for proving my point."
Creationist arguments are very slippery, as everyone already knew.
I can't believe I didn't notice this the first time through. Dude spends 30 minutes trying to discredit Darwin, and be like, you shouldn't believe anything he says, but as SOON as he finds a quote that makes it seem like Darwin agrees with his side, he is like SEE. LISTEN TO DARWIN.
What a fool.
It's not even a quote where Darwin is agreeing with his side. It's also quote mining at it's finest. Dude even puts up enough of the quote for everyone to see that, but the full quote is as follows:
"It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty."
He later goes on to say that he's basically not convinced by any of the arguments people make for the existence of a personal God. It seems that he was, at worst, an agnostic atheist, who was open to a deistic god being a possibility.
Lucid can't even write proper script 💀
@@YenNguyen-mg5ty*a
When the cherries are ripe...really good cherries can enhance ANY argument from incredulity!
That's the moment when you confirm for a fact that your time has been wasted.
Darwin is wrong until he says something (out of context) that supports my argument.
It’s a bit disconcerting that videos like these are starting to be better produced and edited. Usually the nonsensical stuff looks as bad as it sounds. Keep up the good work professor Dave
You can polish a turd, but it's still a turd.
Yeah, that's part of their strategy. Make it look good and well produced and people will believe you. Humans are literally made to be like that
It sounds like outsourced by the Discovery Institute to competent producer/channel. The editing and presentation are pretty good, so all they need is a competent science script writer with some expert consultation. We might think why it didn't happen? Perhaps this is exactly what they were supposed to publish.
his other videos are good, it's sad
@@jotarokujo320 yea he should stay in his lane of professionals then, don't make a biology based video and then start talking about random unrelated bs
Dave saying "I dont't know" is more informative than any single sentence the uttered by iamLucid.
Yes, like saying what is not his speciality, rather than claiming to speak to everything, shows what scientific integrity is about. Rather than someone trying to claim knowledge in every possible area whilst showing a lack of understanding in pretty much everything
I am still stuck on the name. I really doubt that the guy is lucid.
Dave knows about alot of things but he doesnt know everything.
This is what gets me. People need to know how to say "I don't know" and just not in a dismissive way to get people to go away, in an earnest and humble way.
Some people always feel the need to "create" an answer to a question or chime into a discussion that they have no business leading in. It's better to just think for a moment before speaking or commenting and then progress from there. Of course, this assumes one has developed the ability to know that they're out of their depth in the first place.
The groundbreaking thing is, you can actually still give your surface-level thoughts (a lot of people still find value in seeing others engaged in healthy discussion), just disclose that you are not very familiar with a topic and speak with an air of humility and self-awareness.
@@Asterite100 and if your faith or other belief means that you must be right then having no answer is somehow a threat to that world view. Ironically what is thought to be the earliest written book that made it into Hebrew scripture and then the Bible is basically a discourse/poetic consideration of 'why do bad things happen to good people?'. In the end the man Job confronts God with the question and just gets told he has not right to know as a mere mortal, and so have to live with the 'don't knows' of life.
I’m actually embarrassed that it took me so long to find this channel!! The voice of reason in an ever growing crowd of muppets pretending to be smart because they know how to use big words the wrong way 😂
Same here. Got introduced via the Terrence Howard video and got instantly hooked
ua-cam.com/video/YDdw_762Vj8/v-deo.htmlsi=ql5U8tT5lkWQH1cV
This guy is the living embodiment of having a thought that evolves and you lose your original train of though but you continue anyway
This dude's train of thought left the station w/o him.
hahahaha @@anthonyspears928
It would be far quicker and more rewarding to just name every logical fallacy used, then rate the need to continue watching the speaker based on how good their sophistry is.
I've seen so many of these creation debunking videos that I now view them as entertainment. I probably won't watch this all the way through. On my self-validating forays into creation-debunking UA-cam I seek fresh-faces. Same with climate change.
@@Skiddoo42 That's been done, a lot. There is a limited amount of material to debunk.
i know this is a low blow but the fact hes wearing a sweatshirt that just says "virgin" is hella funny
Yep
Yes, I want that back from him.
he's a muslim so his probably proud of it :))
he really didn't have to spell it out
I'm waiting for him to reveal the shirt underneath which says "never masturbated"
can’t believe that wolves stopped existing when domesticated dogs became a thing. so sad
Love this format. Can't wait to see you pick apart more charlatans. Thanks for knowing a lot about the science stuff and sharing it with us!
You know what I find wild? My mother wasn’t afforded a good education and was raised baptist in the Appalachia foothills. She’s the first to admit she isn’t very clever and her less than stellar schooling didn’t help. But she does something that none of these people ever have: she admits that just because she doesn’t and likely never will understand evolution doesn’t mean it isn’t true. She can’t wrap her mind around it no matter who frames it or how, she admits it makes no damn sense to her and God seems like a simpler answer, but then she also says that she *knows* just because she doesn’t get it doesn’t mean it isn’t real. These people could learn a lot from her and her humility tbh. I don’t understand advanced trig worth a damn but I’m not about to call someone a liar for trying to teach me about integrals
Based mom
Your mom is intelligent leaps and bounds, even centuries beyond her years
Your mother seems like a sweet woman, I hope she's in your life for years to come
You're Mom is an angel. God bless her. Smart enough to know satans bs is wrong but in the same breathe humble enough to know she doesn't know what she going on, and still has faith... that's an angel as far as I'm concerned.
@@Kaziro_myoshi thank you for your opinion. If you have any facts to back that up, I'm all ears 👍
Dave, thank you for everything you have done for science and for communicating it so effectively. Is there any chance we could someday see a video series on climate change or perhaps even a series debunking climate change deniers?
I have ecology and envisci content coming up so I'll sneak a little of that in there.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains lfgggg!!!!
Honestly, there's not much to debunk. They're all paid by oil companies which ironically, all produced scientific papers that exactly predicted anthropogenic climate change
Wow. The patience Prof shows on that video creator is unreal.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains I will say the only thing you are wrong about is saying the “woke”/ leftist are as crazy and dumb as conservatives, u pretty much implied that in an older video so, I will say you are wrong on that. Leftist and communist and of course anyone in the biology field or study it. Know much more than conservatives could ever know, and the woke aren’t wrong on transgender science I would say that’s an arrogant claim u made, and because you said that I’d say you don’t know anything about the science of trans people nor know more than anyone else in the scientific community. Also vaush and even hank from its ok to be smart are way smarter than you since they don’t make claims about an entire group of people without any evidence. Get wrecked boi.
The fact that you reply to comments so much actually shocks me. Even for old videos. I have 300 k followers on TT and there is NO way I could go through and respond to so many. Very impressive my man, you are the only one I know that reply’s so well
When someone tells it's just a theory, you know there's absolutely no point to argue with that person
Exactly, because it shows they don't actually understand what a theory is or how science works. Theories can never be 100% proven, all we can do is come to a consensus on which theory is most likely to be correct based on all the available evidence. Laymen generally confuse a theory with a hypothesis, which is a totally different thing. A theory is an evidence-based explanation for something we observe, a hypothesis is just an educated guess that is meant to guide further research.
yeah they do not need arguing. they need a lecture
Unless it’s matpat. Because then, it’s just a theory… a game/film/food/style theory!
Simply reply, the Bible is just a book. Same logic.
@@CGFillertext But hey, it’s just a theory… *A REALITY THEORY!*
Him: "I'm not trying to discredit evolution"
Also him: [tries claiming most evolution is fake]
Also also him: "and also the guy who came up with the idea was also racist, sexist, ext ect"
@@Mr_Vosakisen I'm sure he's one of those people who'd try to justify priests being pedophiles or just claim they're not true Christians
Did you even watch the video?
@@Sp-do6wu what do you mean? Of course I did.
Macro evolution is many micro evolutions set to a whole, it's seeing the tree and missing the forest.
This is like saying "No I believe that there's a tree, but there's no way that just one little seedling could have made the Amazon Rainforest"
there is only evolution. Macro and micro were made up by creationists to cast doubt on evolution
🎯👌
Nah.. it's like saying "There's a tree, but there was no seed, so where did the tree come from?..." (It was designed and deposited to start tyhe ball rolling)
which came first the tree or the acorn? 😀
@@dbebermanit depends what do you define as a tree
this is driving me googledebunkers
Dave doing a reaction-style video has a very "Dad learns how Zoom calls work" energy to it, and I'm here for it.
Keep up the good work, Dave, and I hope your main educational content gets more traction in future!
yeah the part at the start where he explained how he planned to do it was super cute
@@DaveGrean what?
@@Hajun554 the part where he explained how he was going to make the reaction video was cute
@@DaveGrean word he was cute ?
@@Hajun554 Well ... yeah? An older person who isn't familiar with the newest stuff, yet is trying to do it anyway? Most people would find that charming, cute.
Not to mention, vestigial structures don't have to be USELESS, the just need to serve a function that makes their original use obsolete. Such as with whale hip bones. Sure they do SOMETHING, but it sure as hell isn't helping them walk on four legs.
Penguin wings as well, they are flightless birds but their wings are useful for swimming.
@@king-of-a-thingpenguin wings aren’t vestigial, actually! They are specialized for underwater swimming, which resulted in their flightlessness.
@@lordfelidae4505did the ancestor of penguins have the ability to fly? That's actually curious idea.
No, because that doesn't exist. @@MrMichealHouse
@@TheGreatProphecy Did Penguins just spawn in then? 😭
47:58 he says "matter of effect", and he says it so confidently 😭 this basically sums him up, smug and proud of his self-inflicted ignorance.
Dunning-Kruger in action (I know term is very overused, but it sure applies to him)
@@DocBree13 The icing on the cake being that Mr Lucid, on his website, describes himself as a “researcher”. In his case I think it means “I read something online, so now I’m an expert!”
the differences are "vest"
@@DocBree13 Dunning-Kruger effect is not related to human psychology. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a pattern that arises from correlating a variable with itself.
@digamma F Then why are the first 3 pages of Google results all about a psychological phenomenon? Are you being a pedantic asshole or do you have a point?
There's an old saying, "You can't reason someone out of an idea they weren't reasoned into".... while I'm not 100% positive that that's a true statement, what I do know for a fact is that you can definitely SHAME and/or EMBARRASS the shit out of someone enough to make them drop bad ideas, which you are doing masterfully!!!
Please continue to do so!!
its true. my family is conviced that there is racial and geopolitical foul play in science (even today, somehow), and its impossible to convince them otherwise.
I always love those "It's like winning the lottery!" arguments. Somehow, they seem to forget that people win the lottery all the time. The odds of any individual result are not the same as the odds of getting any result at all. Like Dave said... if you play often enough, and there are enough players, it's pretty much guaranteed someone will win. 😆
yea people dont give the law of large numbers the credence it deserves in many instances. in this instance especially.
Not to mention, there's always a winning ticket in a lottery game. So if enough people buy the tickets. There will be a winner. It's just highly unlikely to be one person in particular.
In an infinite universe it's gonna happen
Yeah, someone always wins the lottery. 😆
That's the whole point lol.
The statistical odds of a creature with my exact individual genetic makeup existing are next to nothing. But it would be stupid for me to assume that I do not exist. Xd
Forrest Valkai does a very good job of showing how Creationists quote mine Darwin to distort what he said, by going to the actual book written by Charles Darwin to see the context of whatever quote is used. Forrest also showed how Darwin often stated the objections he foresaw at the beginning of each section of his book. One example is that in the chapter on the evolution of complex systems or organs, Darwin says he supposes it would seem absurd to imagine something such as the human eye could evolve, and then he states how it could have happened. Creationists omit the later statements in order to make it look like Darwin agrees with them.
It's kind of funny that the guy in the video accuses atheists of doing the very thing that creationists do in distorting Darwin's views.
Aron Ra has said that Hitler was most emphatically not a Darwinist according to Hitler's writings in "Mein Kampf". Nor was he an atheist. At least, not ostensibly.
Also, the guy in the video implies that he has the same misunderstanding of the phrase "survival of the fittest" as many people do. He does not grasp that "fittest" means those best adapted to survive within a given habitat. He assumes it means the strongest, most predatory individuals and uses that distortion to paint Darwinian evolution as justifying social atrocities. Another Creationist tactic.
It does seem a little odd to me that those who claim to be on higher moral ground resort to lying and equivocation to make their arguments.
ya forrest’s content is pretty cool
Forrest is a national fkng treasure.
Hitler was indeed a "Darwinist" - someone that believes in the veracity of eugenics
Contrary to what Dave says, someone that believes in the veracity of evolution is NOT a "Darwinist". Sometimes, I really wish Dave didn't confuse definitions, but he is human after all
@@danielcrafter9349 no he very much was not. He flat out rejected evolution on creationist grounds and had books on evolution and Darwin burned. That is how he could be into eugenics, by _not_ being a "Darwinist"
Conservatives in a nutshell at the end there 😅
The anti-intellectual movement is so exhausting, I rarely engage. You're doing a yeoman's job Dave, using intelligence and evidence to constantly dispel ignorance. Easily one of my favorite channels on YT.
The ppl who ignorants are evolutionist imagine having a brain and thinking we evolved from bacteria
The ppl who ignorants are evolutionist imagine having a brain and thinking we evolved from bacteria
Debunkers are unsung heroes. Bull$#it is not harmless. It always comes at a high price.
If a voodoo priest wanted to end your life, he/she could if you aren’t protected by a divine being, meaning Yeshua the Christ.
@@ploodohplanit8259 What extra-Biblical evidence is there for the existence of Jesus beyond posthumous hearsay and probable forgeries?
He mentions Piltdown and Nebraska man like they're some sort of dunk.
If you're interested in learning more about those, check out Mini Minuteman and his series Awful Archaeology. He has a video on each of them.
They love to pretend someone was trying to prove evolution with them instead of just fake one ancestor
So... Gish would be very proud of him. He is not galloping. He is jumping all around the place and doing constant backflips. The verbal diarrhea of this dude is impressive. Wow.
With that skill, he could won the world mental gymnastic championship 😄
guy went from “eugenics used survival of the fittest as justification” to “Darwin believed in god and atheists want to convert you”, then jumped to “I don’t like naturalism because no free will”, then somehow made the classic argument that “something cannot come from nothing”, and went back to abiogenesis to say “look at how complex life is, how can molecules just form this”
It’s honestly quite impressive.
@@memeswithcringe1624 you forgot the most important segment: Where he plugged his income stream. "Buy my V-card and hear me babble about eugenics and how evil evolution, and by extension atheism, is."
This is just some guy who is grifting dumb people.
The amount of people in the comments there going "I can tell you've worked hard on this video! You did a lot of research! This is so well put together!" is more concerning than the video itself
And that is why misinformation can be harmful. It leads to a feedback loop which produces wilder stuff.
What are you talking about?
Truly.
@@moatef1886 iamLucid’s video he is talking about
I bet you had you boosters in the name of scenice
He is like an English person who declares that Celts, Italians, Germans, Nords and French don't exist anymore because we descended from them.
Nords? Sorry, bud, we don't live in Skyrim 😄
Sociologically speaking (as that is the only metric you can separate those groups of Homo Sapiens), Celts, Romans, Goths (and Visigoths and Ostrogoths), Vikings (and other Norsemen) and Normans don't exist anymore apart from LARPers.
I understand what you're saying but that example is maybe not the killer simile you think it is! No offence intended. Thanks for the laugh.
@@avaggdu1 Goths still exist. You can see them on Thursday nights.
@@avaggdu1to continue nitpicking Vikings isn't a culture or ethnic group but a caste of one ie the Norseman and whatnot
@@eliaskline5649 If you really want to nitpick, viking is something they did, not who they were - they went viking (i.e. raiding). Its meaning has changed throughout history and by the middle ages generally meant anyone from Scandinavia. You're picking the wrong nits.
@@avaggdu1 I like your nit pick, it is simultaneously true to mine it was both an action and the name of a group ie raiders
"You shouldn't punish people" but us punishing criminals is just a result of chemical reactions in our brains, we have no free will to not punish them! Also having punishments in place guides the chemical reactions in our brains to be less likely to commit crimes.
Creationists logic about speciation be like: "when my mom was born, my grandmother instantly died out, when i was born, my mom instantly died out, we couldn't exist at the same time, if we did, that would disprove ancestry and thus evolution" 😂
Your cousins too, and siblings. Because no common ancestry
@@thatfuzzypotato1877 aaah, yes, that too :D
And your aunts, uncle and cousins
@@s9persaiyanHow so? Provide evidence other than „it’s dumb“.
@@s9persaiyanSo your whole argument on if Evolution is real can be boiled down to “nuh huh”
I love when they point out all the bad actors in science. Like all the ones that shoehorn their own agenda into their research. They love to parade around and talk about them. But always, ALWAYS, fail to mention that it was science that found out they were lying. That's one of the great things about using science. It's self correcting.
It certainly wasn't science-deniers who found out the Piltdown skull was a hoax, lmao. It certainly isn't science deniers who write children's science books that invariably mention it as a well-known hoax and explain how exactly it was fake. But he thinks bringing it up is some kind of shocking revelation that scientists don't want you to know about, lmao
This is why im uncomfortable with most scientists being religious people Someone needs to keep them in check because i certainly dont trust them to not paint the picture and screw data on the basis of their biasies
He's jumping around randomly between antiscience fallacies because he doesn't really understand any of them and is just regurgitating all of the nonsense he's blindly absorbed.
He keeps going on about “evolutionists” and then “debunking” them by talking about papers written by biologists…who does he think wrote those papers??
smart people
@_Just_an-_Idiot-with hypothesis a lot of them and assumptions
@Kamal_grum which got tested and supported by evidence
The great thing about the internet is everyone has a voice. The bad thing about the internet is everyone has a voice. A virtual sea of clutter with a couple of gems here and there
Knowledge among bullshits
same can be said for democracy
Hey Dave! I’m doing my PhD in chemistry right now and just wanted to say that I really like this type of lower effort video! You’re literally my thoughts out loud whenever I watch this kind of anti evolution crap. Keep it up!! ❤
"he is not dead, i saw him at vegas" now im seeing you and dawkins playing blackjack.
i saw someone who looked vaguely like a ferret once, i guess human hybrids are real
dude doesn't understand that dogs and wolves can co-exist without wolves suddenly poofing into thin air
Dave pulling up like an anime villain to casually destroy an entire documentary.
It wasn't a documentary, in the first place then.
@@MiserableMuon 😂😂😂 seriously
@@MiserableMuon this much is true.
“Documentary” is kind
That ain't a villain, that's a hero.
A perfect example of how production value seems to be more important than actual expertise and competence.
I cant understand why anyone would be convinced by a guy with a 'meet me at Mcdonalds hair cut who looks like he decided that his gaming channel wasn't getting enough attention so picked up a side hustle.
@@haroldramislives Teenagers, they can be convinced by anyone.
I recently saw a video of these kids from the 50's or something talking in the classroom and everyone in the comments where so impressed with how 'intelligent' the kids were, they were just talking about regular stuff in a regular way, but with RP English accents. All it takes is a sophisticated sounding accent to convince most people that you're saying something profound. I feel like most people don't actually pay any attention to what's being said, they just side with whoever impresses them the most, be it a cool accent or fancy video skills.
And that one can learn to use tools without understanding what makes those tools work. You can teach a monkey to operate a quantum computer. You just can't teach it to be honest or sincere. And in a dishonest and insincere society doing the opposite is very much discouraged.
In all societies it's highly discouraged to criticize dishonesty and insincerity and we're not even consistent in that; many smaller groups will insist on honesty and sincerity because it's required to function as social animals because of reliability and the dangers of stress and the ethics that might doesn't make right and the acknowledgement that instead of might, it's diversity that makes us strong.
@@haroldramislives The irony of course being that "deciding to pick up an education channel side hustle to supplement their not very successful gaming channel" is literally what catapulted Perun into a genuinely respected public figure in online military discourse.
I wonder what the difference between iamLucid and Perun is...
It's all a call to emotion. That's all they have. Using eugenics as an example of how evolution has been twisted is literally using emotion to make his point. Thank you for calling it out!
I really like this format, by the way! I like your unscripted thinking out loud, verses polished scripted content! More please! 🙂
Pathos is the most effective of the rhetorical argument because emotions are easily manipulated.
Dude seriously quoted Darwin, then claimed Darwin never said that. He isn't just the clown. He's the entire circus.
How is possible for a person to be this wrong about so many things? Like, he doesn’t even understand the most basic stuff. I actually follow this dude. Had no idea he was like this.
I hope you didn't follow him for the nofap stuff, that whole belief system is full of toxic shame, it's fine & even healthy to get off.
@@DeathPetalArt u sure about that or are u just trying to confort yourself
@@mongolianclasher5086 We know it. I don't think there is a wealth of scientific studies done on the matter, but every one has come to the same conclusion. Like everything, it's healthy in moderation, for humans and animals.
@@mongolianclasher5086 Think about it logically. Interacting with a body part of yours and getting some happy chemicals is probably not as damaging as nofapists pretend it is.
@@olivercharles2930 Physically, its probably not harmful at all - I dont really see how it could be anything but that - but psychologically you could argue that the fact we live in a world that, in many cases, shames you for getting off (this is especially true in a religious context), then *that* could potentially be harmful, since someone doing it could feel like they are doing something wrong because of external pressure saying it is wrong, That could obviously have a negative effect on ones mental health.
I personally dont care what you do in your private time, and I like to think most reasonable people would agree with that, but unfortunately a lot of people really do care and that creates societal pressure.
“If you owned slaves today you’d be canceled too” I actually laughed out loud😂
Founding Fathers #cancelled
Every now and then I ponder how I would think if I'd been born on a southern plantation as the child of a wealthy human trafficker.
I'd like to think I'd recognize it as evil, but I also acknowledge that if you're born into it and raised being told this is the natural order of things that you may accept it in the same way that people accept other religious claims and have to learn your way out of it.
@@BaronVonQuiply and in the future they’ll probably see abortion for what it is and wonder how we ever supported it. so who are we to judge.
Darwin gets canceled for racism and suddenly the right would love them.
@@ParanormalEncyclopedia I periodically encounter someone spreading the "Darwin was a racist and the idea that we're all related to each other and interconnected with all known life leads to racism. Not like my holy book that says there is a chosen group of special people and everyone else is trash" bit and I usually respond by talking about cabbages just as Darwin did 😃
They always have no idea whatsoever what I'm talking about, and I expect that to not change i my lifetime
Note that as medical advances extend human lifetimes and the speed of technology remains exponential, there is a hypothetical tipping point where regular mortality stops being a thing. I'm saying even in that scenario, when I'm 4 billion and 12 years old, they'll still be talking about Darwin as if the whole thing was one guy's wild idea and whatever humans have evolved to then will look back at Homo sapiens sapiens Charles Darwin and maintain that he was fully human, "just an ape", and also that despite him not having their additional 4 billion years of adaptation they will insist that 1850s humans and the sci-fi energy-beings are "the same kind" 😛
The pig's tooth refers to the so called Nebraska Man. The person who found it was the ONLY one to claim it was Human. Everyone else told him it wasn't
Well, scientists did. The press picked it up as a sensational story, which is where the sketch of what it “might have looked like” came from. Not a model, just an artist sketching an ape man.
Yeah the guy who found it didn't even know what it was, he sent it to scientists who wrongly assumed it was a human. Other scientists doubted it and after more investigations and digging found other remains and came to a conclusions it was a pig's tooth. After which the original conclusion was said to be a mistake because the tooth was pretty deteriorated and the statement was retracted
@@dansmith7009Which scientists?
@@alalalala57 for example, “Even after seeing one of the casts, British paleontologist Arthur Smith Woodward, who had given the world Piltdown Man, was highly skeptical, feeling that "The occurrence of a man-like ape among fossils in North America seems so unlikely that good evidence is needed to make it credible." (Woodward, 1922)”
It was dug up by a rancher in 1917, but didn’t get to a scientist until it was given to Henry Fairfield Osborn, and tentatively identified as possibly ape-like, in 1922. But while he initially suggested it *might* be humanoid to some degree, he was quick to denounce the interpretation of British anatomist Grafton Elliot Smith that it belonged to a hominid. Smith was the one who hired an artist to do the drawing for the popular press.
Osborn thought it was more like a chimpanzee tooth.
“Thus, even during the "reign" of Hesperopithecus as a putative human ancestor, many scientists, including its discoverer (Osborn) and its chief defender (Gregory), did not go as far as Elliot Smith in making overzealous extrapolations based on the Nebraska tooth.”
So pretty much the only “scientist” who thought the tooth was definitely humanoid, was not a paleontologist, but an anatomist.
Then they actually went to excavate the site in 1925, and quickly found evidence that it was a pig tooth, and issued a full retraction in 1927.
It’s basically the same situation you see all the time where a researcher publishes a study that finds X treatment killed cancer cells in the laboratory, but more study is needed, a journalist publishes a crazy article saying “cancer cured”, and further research finds problems with the treatment and they don’t move forward with it.
@@alalalala57 He's saying all the scientists told him it wasn't human, but since the press picked it up without caring about the facts and only wanting the sensation, they are proof that not *everyone* told him it wasn't human.
I know this all seems like basic Basic knowledge but it might surprise you how useful these videos are for people like me - ALL I got as a conservative homeschool kid in the 90s (when I had biology) was young earth creationism. So now as an adult, now that I'm not religious anymore but never studied evolution, it's helpful to be able to get on youtube and watch videos that are like "ok here's this creationism thing and here's what actually happened". Even though I've gone and looked up basics, I haven't had time to basically go relearn biology, so it's especially interesting to hear things like how many specimens we've found, or what we can replicate in a lab, because there are a HUGE amount of gaps in my knowledge still. I will also say this, it may seem basic I know, but the first time (when I started looking into how evolution actually works) I had a video (it may have actually been on this channel) explain that human ancestors CO EXISTED with humans, it really blew my mind. And of course it makes sense, but see, growing up being taught that "darwinists believe that one day a chimpanzee gave birth to a modern human" it like instantly cleared up a lot of things I couldn't quite put together. Same with the first time I learned what natural selection ACTUALLY is and how it works. I know I sound ridiculous. 😅 I was just stuck in those YEC beliefs into early adulthood unfortunately. I did get an engineering degree though and part of what inspired me to learn more about evolution was all the otherwise irreconcilable information I was presented with about the age and expansion of the universe and how we know all that. Literally just physics and math made me go "oh, ok this makes sense actually". Unfortunately even though I understand the evolution of the universe quite well from a cosmological perspective, there are still so many gaps I have understanding evolution from a chemical and biological perspective. But these vids are helpful.
I do have to say around the 1 hour mark....Like I said I'm a former YEC and now I'm an atheist and I absolutely loathe Dawkins. I loathe him because he's pretentious and ineffectual. He's more concerned with sounding intellectual than actually fundamentally convincing people to reconsider belief in God as far as I'm convinced. Maybe that's his goal, I don't know. But he makes it infinitely harder for people like me on the ground using personal connection with the people around me to make them consider a different perspective. Me actually REMEMBERING my own journey and how I got here and the type of communication and discussions and education that ended up changing my viewpoint. He doesn't have a clue how to communicate with people who might otherwise be convinced to change their views. And that is extremely frustrating. At least this was true the last time I watched him speaking.
Creationists are the ones thinking life came from nothing
@@BadChess56 lol, very funny, but tell me were humans created by dust and magic or was the process a bit more involved?
I mean it kind of did didnt it? The universe started as a weird clusterfuck of hot gasses and now its zhis
Im not a creationist btw
@@BadChess56steriotype? Is literally written in bible
@@AM-bm9rs life came from dead, remember: life is just a bunch of chemicals working together to sustain themselves...
Absolutely love that you have an actual grasp of the stuff you talk about so much so that you can respond to stuff live without a script and still make a 1000% more sense than the idiot with the talking points
how do you know he actually does have actual grasp on what he’s talking about instead of being extremely good at lying
@@easports2618 because I also know about these things? Because I'm not an idiot? Because I know a charlatan and a liar who is clearly projecting and clearly has very little understanding about the things he's trying to talk about? Because I have a grasp of the scientific method and how it works and "iamlucid" doesn't? And because it doesn't long to fact check and if you have an Interest in the topic being discussed you actually want to learn about it I stead of just spouting out the same tired old nonsense that was useless to begin with and even more so with every passing year that our knowledge on these subjects increases? Also, this is literally the only response you'll get, because I see no point in trying to convince people who already believe what they want and definitely won't bother to look at the actual evidence.
@@easports2618 because the stuff he's talking about is true?
@@adrianclark2734 dude, look at my latest comment on Prof. Dave’s video, I believe what he claimed because my dads studied this field too, so i can just ask him but being skeptical always helps, how do you know about these things, i know tone’s lost through these messages so i want to clear the air, im just curious
which part of this video do you have a good grasp on, im studying on biology so i kinda have a grasp on everything at a surface level, but yeah you’re probably right a few google searches might be enough but oooo, origins of life, seems pretty advanced and interesting, dave didn’t provide any evidence(because of stuff like google searches, already having made videos on the topic etc) so i mean, not reaaaaally, you gotta get the evidence yourself, it is easily reachable tho
@@easports2618 🤓
Darwin was bad but actually he was good because he believed in god.
solid logic.
Just like that Young Sheldon episode... "So Darwin is right about God and wrong about evolution?" 😂
@@noemytamayo9462Darwin only became to believe in silly superstition folktales once he became sick and close to death, he couldn’t accept his mortality
@@Lucciii32No he didn't. Darwin saw that creationism was rubbish. He never converted or entertained anything sky daddy on his deathbed. That was a lie from this religious woman that wasn't there, but just made a lie because she hated the contradiction of Darwin's mutations by natural selection. This is what his daughter said she was a liar and that she (the daughter) was there on his deathbed.
It was Lady Hope- the lying bitch.
Not true!
@@Lucciii32humans are eternal ,we live forever
Lmfao love how he paints Darwin as a racist misogynist to criticize evolutionary theory, and then immediately ignores that when he wants to go “Look! He believed in god!” 🤣
The total lack of basic critical thought always amazes me
Exactly lmao. Darwin is an evil racist misogynist when he's arguing for evolution. But when Darwin is arguing for god, he suddenly becomes an innocent good lil bean just being taken advantage of by malicious atheists lmao.
I love that he acknowledges you can have minor evolutionary changes over 2000 years but not MAJOR changes over millions and billions of years
Isn't it obvious? Evolution didn't happen before 2000 years!
But seriously, that's what I always bring up: ok, microevolution occured in the last 2000 years... but what about the previous 2000 years? And the 2000 years before that? And the 2000 years before that? 1 million years is literally 500 different 2000 year events, and 1 billion is 1000 of those, and we're talking about FIVE OF THOSE!!
@@nickfifteen that’s actually such a sick way to put it in a way that I’ve never really thought about in that context, even just teaching people about it that’s a nice metaphor
Only religious people could point out the fact that Darwin was racist and sexist to try to debunk the theory of evolution, which does not set the moral standards we should abide by. Then go on to ignore the atrocities in holy religious books that are supposed to set our moral standard (which thankfully they don’t)
Hi I am a Christian and I’d like to point something out in relation to the Bible, the actions and laws of those in the Old Testament are not considered a moral standard in most denominations, but rather they are descriptions of how things were not guidelines for today. For example avoiding certain foods and not touching blood used to be important to preventing disease, but now it’s less important as there are alternative methods to avoid disease. Another aspect is the horrible actions of people that are described in the Bible, these are not intended to be guidelines, and rather are used in Christian teaching as examples of humans capability of doing evil and that even people who have done evil can continue to do good
@@5ld734 ok I’ll give you the 10 commandments but what about the things in the bible that god explicitly says are ok. That if a Slave dies after 48 hours of his previous beating the owner must not be subject to punishment.
@@5ld734pretending the genocides and pain didnt happen doesnt negate the pain it's caused, progressive religion irritates me to no end, its like youre trying to get me to wear a nazi uniform by saying "its fine now tho we took out the hating jewish people and the whole genocide thing so you should totally join us :)"
@5ld734 To say that the Bible does not contain immoral guidelines for morality is simply untrue. There are guidelines that permit slavery. There are guidelines that permit slave owners to beat their slaves. There are commandments to stone people to death for things like being raped.
There are acts of cruelty that absolutely were intended to be instructions on how to behave according to moral standards.
Have you read the bible in full? I don't say that facetiously or to be snarky. "The Bible only describes heinous acts" is a perspective that, sensibly, can only arise from not having read the instances where heinous acts are, in fact, explicitly _prescribed_ as commands.
If you haven't read the bible in totality, I suggest that you do in order to make better-informed assertions about what it says. Perhaps you can better defend its shortcomings if you acknowledge them in the first place.
@@Parrot5884 iirc the bible also says if a slave tries to overturn/disobey his master he can go to hell for that, so like yeah the bible mostly sucks with a small handful of decent teachings lmao
Wow, that was very exhausting and painful to watch. That guy embarrassed himself over and over again taking about a series of unconnected topics and trying to make an argument.
As a biologist trained in evolution and genetics (worked a couples of years on evolutionary biology), I can say that this are deep and complicated disciplines, that even some colleagues didn't fully understand. So, what can you expect from a guy that clearly haven't even open a biology book in his life.
I admire your patience and determination on this crusade to defend science. Respect.
I'm surprised no one responded in any way with your statement when it involves something that is obviously true and you have the knowledge to demolish creationists. I love learning about biology and astronomy and I agree with you
". . . couple years evolutionary biology"
What . . . Counting wrinkled green peas??
28:27 He’s mixed up his fossil record. There was a disproven human ancestor known as Nebraska Man found in Nebraska in 1922. A worn tooth that resembled a hominin tooth was later proven to be a peccary tooth.
"Darwin was a racist and a eugenicist, but also he believed God made the universe, and he must be right"
very revealing
By our standards Darwin was a racist, but I have never seen any evidence he was a eugenicist.
@@stefanlaskowski6660 He tangentially inspired some American philosopher to create it. But he in no way was a eugenicist.
@@stefanlaskowski6660 typical liberal, believes evolution but shuts down when you draw the natural conclusions of evolution. Races are different. It comes down to genes.
@@stefanlaskowski6660By all accounts, Darwin was pretty progressive on race for a man of his time and place. If he were to suddenly come back to life, he would probably seem ignorant, but not hateful.
For anthropology not being your field and this being off the top of your head, you did fantastically.
its not word salad. you just need to read to know some of these words.
its ok. people learn at different rates. take your time.
Sorry. That was extremely passive aggressive. I just get irrationally upset when people just speak how they do, and people call it word salad. Especially when it's understandable and makes sense when you break it down.
Also, he admits a lack of confidence in his knowledge several times. A politician would never do that.
Wow, it's 2 AM where I live. I am going to go to bed. I'm just tired of this anti-intellectualism "movement" going on. I'm not an intellectual myself, but to ignore years upon years of people's work for the sake of going against the grain is just absurd.
@@littlered7820No, I still believe what I said. I was just a bit too harsh about it.
Regarding the speciation and "different species existing at the same time" issue in the video, Forrest Valkai has a great video argument illustrating this where he discusses it using language as an analogue. French and Spanish are both Latin languages, but there is no time in history where a parent who spoke exclusively Latin had a child that spoke exclusively Spanish, it was a number of small changes over time that we now recognize as two distinct languages, but somewhere in the middle there, you would have heard attributes of both languages in daily conversation.
You can find examples of it from our own recorded time. During the early 20th century, colloquial speech in the US, the "General American accent" was the same as it is now, and yet if you look at 1930's recordings you will find nothing but RP English, which was essentially an archaic form from the 19th century. Yet they existed at the same time.
I just want to mention that my school did teach me and my classmates, in graphic detail, of the holocaust and the reason why it happened. This is a good thing. I and many others in my class were quite upset because of the images and videos we saw of prisoners of war, malnourished and diseased, shambling around and being treated after the discovery of Hitlers crimes against humanity. But out of all of us, there was one kid who, come to find out, had parents who were ideologically aligned with the NAZI party and their beliefs, so this child was being taught by his neo-nazi parents to snicker and giggle about such things... He was removed from the classroom after his outburst of laughter and sent to the principals office. It is situations like these why we must not censor ourselves when talking about history, even if it risks demonetizations, because exposing the truths for our future generations and showing them right from wrong is of utmost importance, lest we are doomed to repeat history.
Could be the case. Thanks for this
Dave you should definitely do more reaction debunks. Like you said in the mr beat stream, it'd not only save time so you can pump more videos out with less production time but it also helps with watch time and attracting a new audience of people who like reaction videos
I always think it's so funny that YECs drop "Darwinism" but never "Newtonism" or "Einsteinism"
Yeah you gotta go to flerfs for that one
They have to make it sound like a political ideology to poison the well
@@Top-Code Yeah, the flatheads need to deny the entirety of science in order to make their faith-based position even remotely work.
Because you completely forget that the entire basis of their argument is about evolution, not all of science. That's where you guys fail to use your brains. Don't get me wrong, the dude in the video was terrible at representing YEC affectively, but still.
Those are this 'ists' and they are flerf. But I'm told Scientism allows for root dismissal of anything scientific at any time or place. A great timesaver if one savors the stupid as flerfs do.
I have never seen a creationist ever even attempt to explain the physical mechanics that would prevent small changes from "micro-evolution" from building up into speciation.
God made kinds
That is their end all be all. Ask em to define kind and watch them flounder.
Yeah, that is completely idiotic. Like saying "you can't get a mile by adding up inches"
Well irriducible complexity would be one
@@SavedbyHim irreducible complexity is BS. There is no such thing.
@@TSteffi how scientific of you
Prof. Dave, I need to tell you; you’re fucking hilarious. You made me laugh more in just this video than I did probably in the last year. I had to rewatch the Idiot God moment, “Well, I made a universe!” The fucking comedic timing you have is awesome, you literally could be a comedian, but I’m so glad for myself and anyone else that watches your content that you instead became a scientist.
Just the nonchalant "...and he has misspelled Atheism..." is the best illustration for why this guy was not at all worth Dave's time but I'm also so glad he made this video 😂. I would definitely be interested in more direct reaction content like this!
The dude has little to no idea about any of the topics in his video, it's so amusing I can't stop watching lol
50:20 …
at that point if you're discouraged from watching the whole thing i (…and I guess Pr Dave) forgive you
Watch all of Dave's debunking videos in a row,and take a shot every time he says "That's not how science works"
Moments before Liver failure
The ultimate challenge
Also "pageantry"
Lmao
I like his discussion eps much more then watching him trying to debate a grifter.
I pointed out some of the mistakes, you may miss to clear it up:
- The Ecology of Sulawesi or Wallacea is the best example for on ging speciation.
- Piltdown Man case.
He deliberately mixed up the composite forgery Phitdown Men case with Lucy when he shout it out "pig's tooth".
- He doesn't understand the (about) 26 concepts of species.
- The term "missing link" is not relevant anymore and never be.
(Charles Darwin himself use the therm "transitional fossil")
- The Hanohforsand Man case
You were right. He's just throwing any bogus. Actually, "Prof." Reiner Portch was forced to retired after his falsehood, manipulation, forgeries and plagiarism.
I thought there were only 5 species concepts, what are the other 21?
@@TheNinthGeneration1
Certainly, here's a list of over 20 species concepts recognized within the field of biological sciences:
1. Biological Species Concept (BSC)
2. Morphological Species Concept
3. Phylogenetic Species Concept
4. Ecological Species Concept
5. Recognition Species Concept
6. Cohesion Species Concept
7. Evolutionary Species Concept
8. Genealogical Species Concept
9. Typological Species Concept
10. Paleontological Species Concept
11. Agamospecies Concept
12. Genetic Species Concept
13. Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) Concept
14. General Lineage Concept
15. Composite Species Concept
16. Infra-specific Taxa Concept
17. Evolutionary Operational Taxonomic Unit (eOTU) Concept
18. Continuous Variation Concept
19. Biological Individuality Concept
20. Hennigian Species Concept (Phenetic Species Concept)
21. Biological Essentialism Concept
22. Genetic Cluster Species Concept
23. Biological Diversity Species Concept
24. Integrative Taxonomy Concept
Some of them have mechanisms that overlap so that there is a combination of 2 or more species concepts that will give birth to new concepts.
Please note that while these concepts represent different ways of thinking about species, some of them might overlap or have variations in their definitions. Additionally, the list may not be exhaustive, as the understanding of species and taxonomy continues to evolve within the scientific community.
The pig's tooth is a reference to Nebraska Man. Piltdown Man actually had a full mandible (with filed down and artificially aged teeth) and a partial skull (fragmented). While Nebraska Man was almost imeadiately rejected by the scientific community, the press wanted to tout the first (non-human) great ape found in North America. Piltdown Man wasn't conclusive rejected as a hoax for almost 40 years, but had doubters from the begining.
@@guritno2012 honestly that just goes to show how messy biology inherently is, there’s no way it was designed intentionally
I've been an interested observer of the field for over forty years (my background is in cultural anthropology, not physical or paleo), but I had never heard of Reiner Protsch or Hahnhöfersand Man before. Lucid's misspellings didn't help, but I finally found the story. Protsch's crimes and misdemeanors are shocking and scandalous, of course, but the scientific importance of his work, and hence the damage caused by his fraud, is negligible. Nothing in particular changed by either incorporating or deleting his contribution.
So yeah, it's not surprising I've never heard of him. It's a tempest in a teacup, and a complete nonstarter in an attack on the entire field.
(Insider: Look Before You Date, Archaeology, Volume 58 Number 3, May/June 2005)
"It is being taught as a fact even though it is just a theory"
I felt physical pain when I heard that
Every time I hear “iF wE eVoLvEd FrOm ApEs ThEn WhY aRe ThEy StiLl HeRe???” makes my blood boil. It’s a complete lack of using any critical thinking whatsoever.
In order to evolve there must be an intermediary species in between apes and humans in order to prove the evolution theory. As far as I know, there is not any.
So the question is not why is apes still here, rather it’s where is the evidence of evolution at the intermediate level? According to the theory, there must be an intermediary species.
I copied the following from the Geoscience Research Institute:
An intermediate fossil is one that seems to be an evolutionary transition between two groups of organisms. If all life was the result of evolution, there must have been innumerable intermediates that existed, and many of these should still exist as fossils
You have it wrong. There must be an intermediary species inbetween apes and humans in order to prove the evolution theory (this is according to them). There have not been any concrete evidence as far as I know in animals or humans. If you have any please share.
This is from the Geoscience Research Institute:
An intermediate fossil is one that seems to be an evolutionary transition between two groups of organisms. If all life was the result of evolution, there must have been innumerable intermediates that existed, and many of these should still exist as fossils
Next time you hear this again, just answer: "If we were created from dust, then why is there still dust?"
Why r dey still here tho
@@Raynar-oq2yz"Apes" Are a classification, like "Canine" or "Feline".