Not technically a scientist, but Aaron Ra does a great job at debunking. He's also dealing with John and Jane at the moment too. Another good one is Viced Rhino.
If humans really age, then why have I never seen my little cousin turn into an adult over night??? Hmmm?! No way small changes could ever add up to large changes over time.
It Ken bee observed width de scientific meth thick, evolutionism Kent. Isle so, your bee leaf system teaches each transition came threw child birth, knot bay bee develope mint. That's like isle de stages between a sperm and a adult hue man surviving indie wild and reproducing own it's on. A bay bee hue man Kent survive own it's on, De fetus reel Lee Kent.
False equivalence and dishonest. We live long enough to see ourselves and the people around us grow old. Nobody has ever seen how slime on a rock became Beethoven. So, they have to theorize.
The entire "John and Jane" series can literally be boiled down to "lying for Jesus". The fact that it's made strictly to indoctrinate children into believing nonsense and to stop asking questions is one of the many "harms" that religion causes.
I have same view on materialism. You are an example of this brainwashing ,you convinced its true while its not and Forrest for that matter too. And when Christians do show you valid points you ignore it - indeed poison of materialism as dangerous as any religion.
@@Frickerdoodle you left out the sperm and two sets of dna which carry the plans and orders for the zygote. Now, where do you assume the dna with all the intelligence and decision making came from?
@@rocketsurgeon1746 a fertilized egg is one single cell. Fertilized as in already penetrated by sperm. It is still only one cell, with two different peices of dna within it as it prepares to split and become more cells. That is still a single cell
It is called contrast. There can't be shadows without light. And that is what religion is, the item that cast shadows. We can learn from it and them, but...
if god existed, their public relations couldn't possibly be this bad. They look and sound like a child kept in their basement til 18 suddenly forced to read a script at gunpoint.
I've actually had to use this on a lot of people and discussing things like religion and politics. People tend to use complete ignorance as some sort of trump card like it's actually worth anything. Anyone with half a brain would know that ignorance is a bad thing and does not make you sound smart.
What facts? Like the fact that given starting populations of prokaryotes there isn't a naturalistic mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes? That fact? Endosymbiosis doesn't help as it just gives you a prokaryote living inside another prokaryote. Then there is sexual reproduction. There isn't any evidence that blind and mindless processes produced meiosis and the genes required for the processes of developmental biology.
We could say that about your materialistic story you hold to :) science and probability are on the side of design supporters. The more we discover about complexity, the more impossible materialism is
@@asherikamichaela8425 complexity is tied to materialism. If you only need one random genetic change to get from primates to homo, then the probability is high, it could happen given enough time assuming environment is acceptable. If you need tens of thousands of genetic changes, most having to have happened at the same time, the probability quickly goes to zero.
@@rocketsurgeon1746 Ah, the old "argument from improbability" shtick. Here's the thing. We're not "fine-tuned" the way you lot think we are. Nothing is. There is a wide range of ways in which things can work, and have done for millions, if not billions or trillions of years, all across the universe. We're simply here because our ancestors adapted to the environments in which they lived. Those that didn't went extinct. That's it.
@@asherikamichaela8425 Sorry, but probability is a way of determining what happened when we have no observation. If you don't think we are extremely complex or "fine tuned", i would suggest studying anatomy and the variables required for life on earth :)
I will bear a true witness to you. We all are sinners, every single one of us. No human is without sin except Jesus Christ. The wages of sin is death, which is why we die both physically and spiritually. We can do nothing to reconcile our sin with God and we are eternally damned to spend eternity in the lake of fire. You, me, and everyone else that has ever lived in all of history. This is the spiritual death after the physical one. Thankfully God loves us and he came down from his high place and bore our sins and paid the penalty for our sins. Since he never sinned but died, he couldn't stay dead and resurrected. If you accept this free gift of salvation and turn away from sin and confess that Jesus is Lord, you will be resurrected spiritually and escape eternal damnation. Living with him forever. It is a free gift that cannot be earned through good works. You still must follow his commandments which are these. 1. Love God with all your heart. 2. Love your neighbor as yourself. 3. Do not murder. 4. Do not steal. 5. Do not bear false witness. 6. Do not commit adultery. Do this and you will be saved, don't do this and you will suffer an eternal punishment. This is the Gospel and it is available for all.
@Molefe "There's no demonstrable scientific evidence of the existence of any deity." Even worse than their absolutely baseless belief is the fact is the fact their fairy tales are contradicted by science! History, basic logic! Claiming the 6017 (and also 6123) year old flat earth (from contradicting geologies of mary and gay joe!) has a dome over it and lights attached doesnt move and will last forever as the sun travels around is enuff stupidity to totally discredit any of the BS it claims.
15:56 "That's survival of the luckiest!" Gah... they _literally_ just described *genetic drift,* one of the four main mechanisms of population genetics alongside natural selection (the directional one), mutation (the one that makes new traits), and migration (the one people forget about). This is an established part of evolutionary theory, not some biting criticism! So much ignorance... So much blind, wilful ignorance...
They really agreed with science to disprove science such that they affirmed evolution. They did more to establish evolution is an actual thing because if they, the vehement evolution-deniers use evolution to “deny evolution”, then evolution is actually very robust a theory.
My favorite part of that misunderstanding is that, if a half a population does die out completely at random, the allele frequency is probably going to be preserved. In their analogy, the fish most likely have the same diversity before and after; OR the survivors are chosen by either having a better chance to survive outside the water or else being prettier/more desirable to the people cleaning, both of which are effective examples of natural selection
The fun thing about the whole "we can't make computers as intelligent as humans therefore God!" is that the second we do such a thing they'll just flip it "See?! An intelligent creature had to design an intelligent computer therefore God!"
I was thinking the same thing, and I actually saw the whole 'point' as a non sequitur. That said, if the more complex than a human brain computer thing actually came to pass, it would show that the complexity of a human brain needn't come directly from the mind of God, as well as that something more complex can come from something less complex, designer or no. You could also then make the argument that God, even having designed us, could have had an inferior intelligence to us (a fun one for Christians).
What?? Of course quantum intelligence will outperform the human mind in quantification capabilities! Intelligence creates intelligence and on and on it will go .
I always love how you can tell the level of frustration Forrest is experiencing by the level of sass he comes out with. Prime example: "When was the last time you observed the creation of a human out of dust or a rib, John?!"
@@sombodysdad If you have kids in your house, and one of them looks like your neighbor you might discover how nature works. One of the downsides of shiftwork.
It’s not all bad. My kid is in second grade, and his class had an assignment that explored natural selection in the context of a disturbance. These smug YECs are falling behind the 8-year-olds.
If one specific part of the alleged evolutionary process can't function, nothing in the process can't function. In fact, that's exactly the case in real life. How many times has evolution been successfully tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method? Answer: Zero times. Evolution theory has been tested innumerable times, but every empirical evidence has proved that evolution does not happen. Tens of thousands of generations have been used in tests, simulating millions of years back in time. The tested fruit flies and bacteria can only produce more fruit flies and bacteria. No new body plans, no new species, no evolution. Only variation within species.
A common misconception is that evolution is "survival of the fittest", that is not necessarily the case. It's more like survival of the good enough, you sometimes see organisms survive even though they aren't made in the most efficient manner.
Not just sometimes. I'd argue that most species are far from being the 'most efficient' in their niche. There are so many things in nature that could easily be designed more efficiently; some common examples are e.g. the recurrent laryngeal nerve in Giraffes; or the retina of many mammals being "backwards", with nerves and blood vessels actually blocking much of the light. Does it matter? No, as long as enough of a population survive long enough to produce offspring.
People often also assume that "the fittest" means the strongest, the fastest, or the best at fighting. Sometimes it means the hardest to see, or the best at digesting certain foods, or the smelliest. What constitutes fitness depends entirely on an organism's environment and its niche in that environment.
@@wizardsuth also the fittest can be two things at once. For example the sea elephant, where you can either be a meat head alpha male or a femboy twink and pass down your genes.
@@junacebedo888 Too oversimplify: Hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the sea are constantly producing simple organic compounds. Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the exact method by with these compounds assembled into the first lifeform, but we definitely know that it happened since there are micro-fossils of very basic lifeforms near the vents. You may be thinking, the chance of these compounds arranging themselves by chance into a bacteria is astronomically low. You're right. Many theories posit that there is some sort of mechanism that makes the formation of life more common than just random chance. One theory is that there organic compounds assembled by chance into self-assembling compounds. Considering that the compounds themselves are very small and simple, it is likely that they would assemble. These very basic self-replicating compounds were not life. They did not do any of the life functions we see in life today. They just rearranged the compounds nearby. They compounds then evolved into a very primitive form of bacteria. You couldn't tell when life began because it was very gradual. The bacteria then evolved into the life known today. Evolution can and does happen everywhere. All you need is a chance for things to change, and a mechanism in which superior versions of something are more able to recreate themselves. These basic compounds would have had that. This is just me reading off a wikipedia article. If you want an in-depth explanation, you could ask the youtuber who made the video (Forrest Valkai) or watch a video by Professor Dave about it. The evidence of Abiogenesis is not as well developed as evidence for other fields of biology, but there are many orders of magnitude more evidence than creationism.
@@speltincorrectyl1844 "Many theories posit that there is some sort of mechanism that makes the formation of life more common than just random chance." ---This mechanism is called God. You just won't accept it because you don't want to. "These very basic self-replicating compounds were not life." ---You can be forgiven of your ignorance but this meets the definition of life. Life-"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." ---Inorganic (organic) matter with functional activity "Evolution can and does happen everywhere." ---In a sense it does but there is no observation of speciation which is a critical part of Evolution. Without it then where did the millions of different life forms come from. You can't go from a single-cell organism to what we see today without speciation unless natural selection is just creating entire multi-cellular complex species out of thin air (which God can certainly do). "This is just me reading off a wikipedia article." ---This explains everything, you don't actually know anything. Don't take this as me saying you're not smart, because I don't know anything either. None of us know anything in comparison to the vast knowledge out there. We would never have enough time to learn even .000000000001% of it all in a hundred lifetimes. Maybe you should actually find and listen to people who are in the field and have PhD's instead of a random guy on UA-cam wanting to be cool by putting others down. Thats not how real Scholars behave. If we was a real Scholarly person, he would be spending more time studying and less time having a go at ignorant people.
I love how they immediately go from (correctly) stating that evolution does not have an 'end goal' to (incorrectly) asking how it reaches its end goal (e.g. eyes, flight). Do they not proof-read their scripts?
Nope, the script writers aren't very good, and clearly don't grasp the topics they are writing on. Especially when their own books often debunk their own claims.
I think it comes down to twisting and distorting the meaning to try and debunk it on a technicality. A flawed one to be sure, but to those who don’t know better won’t be able to tell if they don’t know what to look for.
That is kind of their point, stupidly. They can understand how something might not have an end goal. And think that not having one would mean you can never get to anything. It really just shows how little they understand the world.
They know their audience won't think that critically about it. These videos are either for kids who don't have the mental equipment to deal with this, for adults who want to confirm their own feelings or for Christians who want to listen to something besides a sermon without thinking too hard. This is also how you develop a conspiracy theorist mindset. You make sure to indoctrinate people into believing that everything and everyone has an end goal. If they aren't a part of your particular religion, then they're with Satan and trying to send you to hell in any and every way they can. If you don't believe me then tell some Christians that not all triangles in media are signaling to pyramids. Double points for those over 40 years old.
I love how they misuse the term "mutation" Scientist: During the coping process the base "G" in the strand of DNA turned into "A" Creationist: Two headed cow and X-Men
Little Mutations are okay. It's like there is a path and a mutation can bring you a step further or away to the new kind. So after two little Mutation with no harmful effects... ah... think the third mutation would result in instant death cause the creature remember it has already mutated two steps aside from the perfect created kind and three little mutations can called a big one and this would debunk creationism so god installed an invisible border named deadline where every creature turn into a non functioning meatball with twelventine heads. Classic old-invisible-but-does-exist-cause-bible-say-so-trick, thank you god for guarding us from think our ideas through the end.
I am genuinely waiting for the, "if evolution real... then why me no eye lasers" argument. I'm not looking for it. Just hoping I both do and don't stumble on that argument made unironically.
I like how they read the definition from a high school textbook then just stop reading and pontificate on what evolution says. Like, just read the rest of the chapter, guys. The answers to your questions and concerns are literally in your hands!
Question: Have you seen Some More New's newest videos? The 2 about 'Work'? And how c0vid has affected the work-market and all that? Its damn-fascinating, tbh.
When they say "blind" what they really mean is without a central master plan. Creationists are simply people who cannot imagine anything working without a central master plan. The idea that anything can happen without a central master plan overwhelms their imagination.
Have you seen anything in human world built without plan? I have not, even if they dont have physical blue print to built they have AN IDEA of what they are building and HOW. You must be very stupid person saying what you said. No one having no information can DO anything. Without information of what and how to do - no work is done. Simple reality of life and here we are helping you to understand this reality of life... Sad...
"BUT HOW ARE YOU GOING TO FIND IT IF YOU CAN'T SEE JOHN!?" This was easiest the best Forrest Valkai video ever because of him losing his mind throughout lol!
I went a private Christian high school, and this crap was forced down my throat. And before I even realized it, I had been brainwashed. Now I’m re-educating myself on my beliefs pre high school
I’m sorry that you had to go through this mental abuse as a kid! My parents were very low-key believers and did not bother to indoctrinate me or were understanding when I refused to read religious texts. And I did refuse to read them, because bible stories sounded extremely nonsensical and stupid, because prior to that parents were ok with buying for me books with fancy dinosaurs within, but each of those books had a small introduction about the origins of Earth and how our life evolved. So, in some sense these books were my “bible” that “brainwashed” me into evolution early and I can totally see how a young mind can form around a ridiculous idea if it is directed the wrong way from the start. Religious indoctrination is quite scary and sad when you think of how damaging it may be for some kids who have harder time to understand they need to re-educate themselves
Someone should make them read "The Beak of the Finch" by Jonathan Weiner, about the 20 years of research by Peter and Rosemary Grant. They spent months each year on a tiny island in the Galapagos, banding, DNA testing and observing every bird on that island. They knew every pair that bred, how many of their nestlings survived, and tracked exact beak size, wing size, etc of every last bird. The evidence they found for rapid change and possible new species coming to be is based on this massive amount of research. But I guess they'd find some way to ignore those facts, too...I read an article about people who have their pets cloned because they miss them so much. There was a picture of about 5 "cloned" dogs cloned from one dog. They each had totally different coat colors. Every time you copy the genome, changes will happen. It's just the way that works. Plus cloning a pet is stupid; they will not have the same upbringing and will probably have a completely different personality. Don't buy, adopt!
I don't understand the point of cloning pets unless it's literally because you like a certain quality about them. You can clone genes, for the most part, but you cannot clone memories. And even with cloning, genetic changes tend to happen. You actually pointed this out pretty well.
That might be the most romantic story I’ve ever heard! 🤣 As a child, the only way I could possibly imagine marriage, was in a scenario like this. What incredible work!
@Snoozerpoo : That was such a good comment already.. Then you added _"Don't buy, adopt!"_ and it immediately became a great and very wise comment. Keep being you !!❤🌍🌎🌏
@@junacebedo888 It absolutely has answers for where life comes from, in fact it gets brought up in this video, and he brings up abiogenesis in a previous video as well. It has an answer for how the universe began, but to ask what came before the universe doesn't really make sense, you're asking what came before time, space and existence.
They continue to prove my thought that apologists believe that "mutated" means impure or adulterated. If we wanna talk about eyes, blue eyes are a mutation that, as far as we can tell/ I've been able to find, are neither harmful nor beneficial. They simply continue to exist because some people find them attractive. Fair colored skin is a beneficial mutation resulting from generations of living in areas with a lower average UV index. There's no need to produce as much melanin, so the body adapted to the environment. Paler skin is beneficial for the increased intake of UV light to produce more Vitamin D in areas where one would normally receive less due to less average sunlight and less intense UV radiation. The average human being is riddled with mutations all over, just most of them don't really change anything. I have a number of them that *are* expressed, some of which happen to be beneficial. To make the sweeping generalization that mutation = bad is so stupid. Stop thinking that me existing is heretical or impure. You're a mutant, too.
Eye color changes how you perceive the world. Light colored eyes allow more light through that part of the eye. This can be a very strong effect if you have albinism to the point of almost blinding the person.
Studies say that light iris color correlates with seeing better in darker areas (obviously some light is still needed) or seeing more glare in bright areas. As in, dark color eyes absorb or block more light coming into the eye, making it easier to see in bright light (ie, sunny days near the equator where days are longer than the winter days closer to the poles). It also has an effect on bright lights in dark areas for the same reason (ie, car lights when driving at night "blind" lighter colored eyes more). Reversely, light colored eyes do better when in a darker area, like dawn or dusk, or cold winter nights that are longer than the day because more light can get into the eyes. It's actually surprisingly similar to melanin for skin. Where it's very sunny, your skin would need to block some of the sun, but where it's less direct sun, your skin would need to be paler in order to get enough sunlight.
@Aron Gladden The scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, with about 97% of scientists in the United States accepting that humans and other living things have evolved over time through natural processes. While individuals are entitled to their own beliefs and opinions, it is important to acknowledge and respect the scientific consensus on evolution.
@Aron Gladden It is important to clarify that the scientific consensus is not a fraudulent concept, but rather the result of scientific research and data that have been evaluated and corroborated by the scientific community over many years. The scientific consensus on evolution is based on the overwhelming evidence from fields such as genetics, paleontology, biogeography, and comparative anatomy. It is also supported by the fact that the theory of evolution has been repeatedly tested and validated through scientific experimentation and observation. Regarding your assertion that people are fired for not agreeing with evolution, this is simply not true. Scientists are free to disagree with the theory of evolution, and there are many ongoing debates and discussions in the scientific community about the details and mechanisms of evolution. However, it is important to note that scientific disagreements are based on data and evidence, and not on personal beliefs or religious views. Regarding your statement that no one has ever produced a human from a non-human, it is true that humans did not directly evolve from modern-day primates. Rather, humans and modern-day primates share a common ancestor that existed millions of years ago. The evidence for this common ancestry comes from multiple fields of science, including genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy. Finally, it is not accurate to describe the theory of evolution as a religion. While it is true that people may have faith in scientific ideas, this faith is based on empirical evidence and is subject to change as new evidence emerges. The scientific method involves observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation, and critical evaluation of evidence, and is not driven by faith or personal beliefs.
4:20 as someone who has had their pupils dilated for chemical burns (long story), I actually found this part of the video accurate. because your pupils are dilated you can't focus your eyes correctly, so the world is kind of just a blurry mass except for one specific distance- there's a reason they don't advise you driving, I could barely order an uber cause I couldn't see my phone! EDIT: for the record I agree that this is an insensitive segment to blind people, who already get it bad enough as it is.
I'm glad someone mentioned it, having had my eyes dilated plenty of times, half the fun is reading stuff until you're literally unable to as your eyesight gets annihilated. It's not as bad as this joke makes (otherwise it wouldn't be a joke I guess) but yeah, it 100% fucks your vision up.
I came here just to say this. I have this done annually as part of diabetic eye screening, and it severely affects my vision. No chance I could read text messages. We can chalk this up as a mistake.
I remember having my pupil dilated for eye exams, don’t remember blurribess, but I do only have one eye that works, so maybe two eyes being dilated makes things blurry? I do remember things being brighter than normal for a bit, though it has been a while since my last eye exam
Yes!!! A Valkai ‘debunking stupid’ video is exactly what I needed right now. They’re interesting enough to actually distract my brain and take my mind off things but also funny and entertaining enough to cheer me up at the same time! And you have all the logical brilliant arguments in response to stupid that I either don’t know enough to come up with or am not quick enough and think of them when it’s too late and the stupid person has already left! :) I feel like taking notes! Also, my eyesight is terrible and I have had loads of eye problems all my life and so the bullsh*t at the start is doubly annoying to me!! Thank you man!
The constant vacant stare those two have makes it pretty obvious to anyone that can read people that they have a mixture of wanton ignorance and shame at knowing they are ignorant, yet still attempting to instill that ignorance in others. Mostly that comes from the desire to not appear as lesser, by bringing others down to their level. And yet we are all ignorant of many things, that's why honesty is so important to society (compassion breeds honesty).
@@aylbdrmadison1051 nope, there's no shame there. They do not care at all what they're doing. AronRa destroys their stuff on a regular basis, and they never look the least bit ashamed, at all.
After observing John and Jane, I'm pretty sure scientists have been looking in the wrong place for transitional fossils. Turns out, those fossils have a UA-cam channel where they use what little combined brain power they have to continually misunderstand scientific facts. 😂
How does a fetus become a child, then an adult? Definitely not something you’d immediately believe, but we know without a shadow of a doubt that it happens. Evolution doesnt happen overnight
Religion is faith-based. So, religion is not science, obviously Darwin evolution is NOT scientific because it is unfalsifiable. So, Darwin's theory is also a religion or a cult
Also... Them: "They're putting their faith in a process that they haven't observed" Forrest: "I literally personally observed this more times than I'd ever bother trying to count just during the period of time I was in college."
@@junacebedo888 Stop with the "Darwin Evolution is unfalsifiable" line, it is very flawed. *Why do you obsess with calling it Darwin evolution? It was pioneered by Darwin, but that was over a hundred years ago. Countless magnitudes of other scientists have contributed to it. Even though modern computing was invented by Alan Turing (kinda, you could also argue that it was Charles Babbage), we don't call them Alan Computers (or Charles Computers). We just call them Computers. The same way that people call Evolution, Evolution, not Darwin Evolution. *Evolution is falsifiable. Unfalsifiable/falsifiable means whether something can be tested. An example of an unfalsifiable statement is "There is an invisible apple in a box. The apple cannot be detected in any way." There is no way to know if the apple is actually there or not, since there is no test or experiment that can detect it. Therefore the existence of the apple is an unfalsifiable statement. Evolution, however, is falsifiable, since there are many experiments that have been able to test evolution, such as the long-term E-coli experiment.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
“But how will you be able to find it if you can’t see, John?!” Thank you for that, I needed that laugh! That sh** is so insulting, particularly when it shows a deep ignorance on what Visually Impaired people are capable of. Side note: My mom is blind, and my first near fight, was with a girl in 2nd saying she was blind while running in to stuff. Girl was lucky my friend held me back. 🤣 This was fantastic, as always! Thank you for cheering up my evening.
"We've found amino acids on asteroids in space. What did your God start making life up there too but he forgot what he was doing half way through so he just gave up?" This quote is the only one I need to show in order to prove that Forrest is done having to respond to these stupid videos. They're incredibly entertaining and I imagine he enjoys them but I still feel sorry that he has to deal with it
@@OrdinaryEXP Know 'Some More News'? He's really tackling Issues and not just paying lipservice to them. And he's speaking for the working-class, especially in his video literally about that w-class: 'The Past, Present and Future of Work'.
I feel his pain, putting up with stupidity, but if it helps one person critically think I would imagine he would see the value. Also, that is the damn funniest explanation for amino acids on asteroids I have ever heard. Lmao
@@OrdinaryEXP Because that was the best rebuttal they could come up with. Religious leaders want people to believe they have all the answers, but most if them are like John and Jane, they don't have any answers.
When john actually described what natural selection was accurately it made me actually shed a tear, and then when he completely rejected it seconds later, It made me want to punch my monitor.
Natural selection isn’t that hard to understand lol In 6th grade we got a bunch of beans into a bucket with a hole in it. Only the beans that fit through the hole “survived” and moved onto another bucket. Eventually all you had left were the beans that were small enough to fit. Also, is it just me or is it weird they keep trying to make natural selection sound like a physical thing that’s picking and choosing traits and building animals instead of just “survival of the fittest”
Oh yeah, they anthropomorphize the shit out of everything. They are so used to thinking "creator make stuff" that they can't fathom natural processes. They kind of seem to be thinking of natural selection as a lesser god figure
@@JessicaSunlight then perhaps you can explain the sickle cell trait phenomenon and how it provides high resistance to malaria. Remember this is sickle cell trait _NOT_ sickle cell disease. Big difference that seems to go over your guys head. Like seriously ever heard of codominance?
Just got out from work, have a day off tomorrow, and have nothing that needs to get done. It was already a near-perfect day before one of my favorite youtubers uploaded, but now it is much closer to that unreachable "perfect." Thanks for all you do, Mr. Valkai.
Those adults are playing highschoolers. These videos are for homeschooling. I think they do have a college level series, as well as a series for younger children.
@@mallardofmodernia8092 Pretty much nothing in this world is binary. Even computer logic is starting to move away from binary code. Look at the prevalence of fuzzy logic, something can be more 1 than 0 or more 0 than 1. So the algorithm makes an estimate on which will be more likely. I love what my old calculus professor once said. Only three numbers exist in nature. 0, 1 and infinite. You can have 0 of something, you can have 1 unique example, but if you can duplicate that example then there is the potential to keep duplicating forever. There is no such thing as 2.
I think a big thing that hits to me at around the 13:00 mark of this response is how focused on teleology they are. Things have to be FOR something. It has to go TO something. Which is I think one of the biggest hurdles folks who don't understand evolution and natural selection don't seem to geet. Things only matter right then, as you note, and what works now isn't what works later. And this goes all the way down. It's something that philosophers of biology moved many an electron around on and to me is one of the cool parts of biology at least. Also as a visually impaired person (legally blind) their blind jokes can get bent, and I appreciate your tearing into them for that.
These folks only can approach evolution in terms of their narrow minded religious worldview. God created Homo Sapiens on purpose becomes evolution created HS on purpose. Jesus is the messias becomes Darwin is the messias, or at least a prophet of evolution. The Bible is the Holy Book of Christianity becomes Origin of Species is the Holy Book of evolution. Finally evolution is a religion. Compare that unbearable fanatic Lukas with his series Basics of Intelligent Design. He only rants against Darwin like an OT prophet against false gods.
Yes, often these people get too caught up in moral judgements and don't understand that science does not have morals and doesn't care what's good or what's bad, what should or should not be, or what the "goal" of a certain process is. Science is mainly about describing the world as best as possible. And this attitude also bleeds into people who don't deny evolution. Some people who believe in evolution think that it has an end goal, and that this end goal is for organisms to get more and more complex until they reach an ultimate level of complexity, which is being human. Lots of misunderstanding stem from humans wanting to insert meaning or purpose into things that don't need it.
It's annoying how they constantly refer to natural selection and evolution like they're special cosmic forces or something rather than descriptions of processes
@@denverarnold6210 I think they have been taught to be so completely incredulous towards science in general and evolution specifically that they don't even begin to attempt an understanding of the subject. They just go in with the assumption that evolution cannot possibly be true.
@@denverarnold6210 I think it's the second and third. I don't believe they actually understand what they're saying, they're just (bad) actors who read the script the people of their bible group give them. The people who write these scripts are absolutely lying. But those two I do think that they simply don't know any better.
Every time. EVERY, TIME, I hear John or Jane say "Evolutionists haven't seen..." what they end up showing is "I, personally, didn't bother to do even the simplest, base-level research to actually check what I'm about to say. Even so, I'm just going to say it out loud and act like that makes me right by default". Their ignorance, and the confidence they have in it, is _astonishingly_ painful to watch. It's like if a child tells you with complete certainty that the sun is in the ocean, and their evidence is to show you a video of a sunset by the ocean, which is endearing to see from a child, and considerably _less_ so when it's said by young adults who _should know better._ The educational system has utterly failed those two.
"The educational system has utterly failed those two" - The educational system and/or religious indoctrination (and/or human nature). These two might not be the best example, but I've seen people apply rather solid logical arguments and scientific reasoning to rebut what others say, which demonstrates that they're quite intellectually capable and well-educated. Yet there are always these gaps, these specific places where they strawman or misrepresent facts, which is the only way their argument can actually make sense, and they fail to see that those same arguments often completely undermine their own beliefs. It can be really hard to sincerely question your own closely-held beliefs, or even just suppose for a moment that they may not be true. This can be hard to understand for someone who's never had any particularly closely-held beliefs (many people/scientists may fully believe that evolution is a fact, but if sufficient evidence is presented to disprove it and somehow outweigh the mountain of evidence we have that supports it, I'm sure most of them wouldn't hesitate for a second to stop believing that evolution is fact, so that belief is not all that closely-held). But I'm sure any atheist who's been a theist until adulthood would be able to attest to how blind one is to one's own bias when it comes to one's own closely-held beliefs. It can also be hard to understand for someone who still holds particularly closely-held beliefs, because holding a belief tends to imply that one believes they're being perfectly rational and unbiased by holding that belief.
And every time the simple answer is "have YOU seen god create the univers? Have YOU seen Jesus? Have YOU seen the first human being created from dust?"
@@blueredingreen What you're describing is exactly why organizations like "Recovering from Religion" exists. People will tightly wind religious beliefs into their personality, weave it into who they are. It's incredibly jarring and hard to untangle those things when it's been a core part of your life for so long. There are people who've been athiests for decades and still have vivid nightmares and fears about hell, simply because they came from such intense indoctrination.
@@EskChan19 Never mind even seen, but if they even have any good _evidence_ for any of that. Ultimately it just points back to "The Bible" which...I wish more of them could understand how underwhelming and unconvincing it is to say "It's true, because some writers 2,000 years ago said so". Like...yes, and people back then also thought that when lightning struck spirits were mad at you, history has not exactly painted a picture that lends credibility to the mystical stories they wrote.
@@EskChan19 (I use Czech language) Neviděl jsem ani jedno, avšak mohu se podívat na data co máme k dispozici a nepřímo odvozovat. U stvoření vesmíru budeme spíše vycházet z logického předpokladu occamovi břitvi, kdy bůh jakožto samovolně vzniknuvší superinteligentní bytost je dost nereálná a není to koherence k nejjednoduššímu vysvětlení. Co se týče Ježíše jediný kdo o něm pořadně píše jsou biblické texty. V římských ani jakýkoliv jiných o něm není pořádně zmínky, což ale zcela jeho existenci nevylučuje, ale dle mého ji do velké míry spochybňuje. A konečně vznik člověka, pokud by byl stvořený nebyl by důvod, aby zapadal do genetických linií svých předků a byli nacházeny neši předkové. Celá evoluční biologie by nefungovala, ale jak se zdá stale pevně stojí na ověřitelných datech.
Forrest you genuinely improve my mood simply by being the excited and curious person you are, and inspire me toward a much more positive perspective regarding life as a whole (struggle w severe depression). Thanks for what you're doing here bro, you are doing far more than you could know for the world
5:16 "How rude, they keep insulting blind people as a metaphor for ineptitude." 14:39 "So anyway, their approach is myopic" 😆 Love the content as always, but that irony was hilarious
The "it takes faith to believe science" gaff is the most hilarious self-condemnation with which the religious pawn themselves especially since, as Forrest points out, it turns the tables back on them with a vengeance.
Don't worry, creationists don't have any problem with any logical fallacy. Faith is bad when it supports science and/or atheism but good when it supports their particular interpretation of their favourite Holy Book. You can't be a creationist and care about coherence and consistency. That's why FV gets worked up. He expects them to care.
I’m so sick of that argument I’m ready to agree to it and declare a “holy war”. Everyone only gets to use what their side has given the world. They’d last maybe three days without running water and electricity
As an engineer I'm flabbergasted by their complete misconception of how the design process actually works. It's actually an iterative process of refinement that involves a lot of trial an error, so it's easy to see how natural selection can replace an "intelligent" designer.
It's not a misconception, it's lack of interest. They genuinely don't care. Their entire non-argument goes like this: 1. Watches seem to be designed! 2. Watchmakers design watches! 3. Biological cells / eyes / whatever seem to be designed too! 4. The Grand Old Designer designs them too! 5. Hence evolution is false! For convenience they often skip points 1 and 2.
How can "they" know they are commit an error? To do that, something need to aware about whats happening within the bio and the surounding. What the thing on cell that you suggest to have such an awareness? And do they also a subject of randomness? If no, why? If yes, then they contradict what the very purpose of they exist within cell. Why they tryin to refine, when life it self is not a necessary for universe or theu surounding?
@@bonar1211 Are you england? Many words, not much. They think, brain. Neuron, we build, it works the same. A process that thing reaches goal. We call Artificial Intelligence. We can make, easy. Random youtuber can. God not require. They refine? Cuz they like it. You no? Who care? Also, thing on cell, no awareness. Cell, no aware. Cell, random. Big brain, many cells. Probability collapses - not random.
@@nati0598 to be honest, you didnt addressing my concerns at all. It seems you are type of people that full of pre assumptions to speak about this matters just like darwinism as general. First of all, do you even know what error is? One of definition of error is "state or condition of being wrong". And in this case error must be things that related to survival or some stuff like that. So you tell me if you insist in this weird idea about error. How can the cells within the bios know they commit an error? And in what assessment that they using? And dont mention brain. Bcz we all know if my hand not reaching something bcz is not long enough, our mind (that you believe is a procuct of brain) that acknowledge our unsuccessful will not affect cells on our body to make my decendant have a longer hands. At least if you still insist about it, prove to me. And then about refine. Yes who cares, just like what ever non bio things in this universe! Do stone, sand, water, tryin to refine them self? No. And so the question is there, why suddenly things (cell/ things within bio or organism, just like he suggested that dont have any mind or consciousness at all) want to refine? If you dont care about reality, sure you can say who cares. But you just want to dodge a valid question.
@@bonar1211 Well I think I did address your point. Who told you that cells know what error is and how are they doing it? You need to bonk them and stop them from coming close to your kids. "It seems you are type of people that full of pre assumptions to speak about this matters just like darwinism as general." Says a presuppositional apologetic using fake words like "darwinism". "How can the cells within the bios know they commit an error?" They don't. They just commit it. What did you expect, somekind of self-destruct? Like, "Oh no, made an error, guess I'll die"? "And so the question is there, why suddenly things [...] want to refine?" They don't. I thought that was obvious. Nobody wants to refine. But you know why pebbles are round? They don't 'want' to refine. They are refined, by the surroundings. Elementary stuff. And your stupid hand analogy makes no sense. Does your hand not reaching something kill you? Maybe a ledge when climbing is just too far and you fall to your death. Too bad. Someone else with longer arms is going to climb. Your gene is gone. His gene stays. Like, it's elementary stuff, do you seriously not know this? There is not 'one' being that has similar genes with you. Siblings exist, that's enough to prove that. "If you dont care about reality, sure you can say who cares." My 'who cares' was a response to a cell commiting an error. Cell doesn't care. It just happens. And I'm glad you took some language lessons in the meantime, you're coming much clearer.
It's crazy how apologists will tell you, "we need to get our understanding of religion from scholars of theism", but they don't want to get their understanding of stuff like evolution from a wide range of scholars in the field. They constantly misrepresent science, just to be able to hold onto a supernatural belief.
It's also crazy how they will constantly assert "There's no proof for what other people are saying" despite never having presented even an iota of evidence, let alone proof for literally any word they have ever said.
@@sombodysdad What does this idea even truly mean? Of course evolution doesn't have a mind, what's really the point? If you'd prefer to just create your own understanding of evolution, at least don't attribute your understanding or meaning of evolution to the actual facts and data surrounding the topic.
@@terrencelockett4072 There isn't any way to test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved by means of blind and mindless processes. It is not a scientific position.
I was actually rather pleasantly surprised with how they started (at least after the terrible intro) with an accurate representation of evolution, because the bar is so low at the moment for apologists (and similarly with certain political positions ... and y'all know I'm talking about conservatives) that them simply being able to accurately represent their opponent's position is somehow commendable. But then they ruined it all by reverting back to the typical strawmen and misrepresentations of facts for the rest of the video.
@@rainkidwell2467 it's really telling that just by your comment alone I had over a 90% certainty of the general content of the comment you were replying to _before_ a quick glance to the subscription list of his channel confirmed it.
Yeah, the definitions are actually not bad, but when you think about it, that's the only part of the script that they didn't write themselves, so that's why they're the best parts of the video... The beginning gave me hope too. I was half expecting a "b-but Piltdown man was a scam sonfossils are fake" type of nitpicking argument. But at least they had the courage to try and discuss the fundamental ideas behind evolution. They did it extremely badly and in bad faith, but I guess they tried.
I need to correct you here Forrest. Having your eyes dilated actually can cause blurry vision, depending on the drops used. The iris has two sets of muscles for controlling pupil size, the dilators and the constrictors. Similarly, the lens inside the eye which is key in our ability to focus has constrictor muscles to pull it flatter when seeing things up close. Now, the iris can essentially be dilated in two ways, either by exciting the dilator muscles or paralyzing the constrictor muscles. In the latter case, the same drug which paralyzes the iris' constrictor muscles also affects the lens' constrictor muscles. If the muscles that constrict to stretch the lens are paralyzed then a person will experience blurred vision when attempting to look at anything within a roughly 8-12 inch range (like checking text messages). Adding this to the fact that glare from increased light can be both painful and obstructive, it is not at all true or accurate to say that dilating someone's eyes does not affect their vision.
@@isdrakon9802 As a joke, it's fine. Eye dilation messes with vision, character mistakes one thing for another. My comment was specifically about the incorrect assertion in the video that eye dilation doesn't effect visual acuity.
Yeah, I distinctly remember suddenly losing the vision I had in my eyes when I was in fifth grade, being rushed to an eye doctor that said I had incredibly bad vision, I got some of those eye drops, and for a few hours afterwards, I could only see things very far away, like the hanging clock on the wall of the waiting room, and the clock on my arm was all blurry.
@@isdrakon9802 That was a joke. Jokes don't have to resemble reality to the point. Au contraire, most funny jokes I've ever heard are absolutely no grounded in reality or common sense. Arguing with a joke is like boomers arguing with a meme on Facebook.
Yeah, I'm not sure of the physical process, but getting my pupils dilated did pretty much make me text like that. (Also the ophthalmologist got me to fill out a long form while the drops were kicking in, and I had to ask a stranger to tell me what the last few questions were, it was delightfully awkward.)
Thank you for that last point. I hadn't recognized that by redefining evolution as "just another religion" in such a denigrating fashion, they are undermining their own arguments for their belief system. Oops!
I believe in evolution but I never did understand how structures like eyes formed. Your explanation makes perfect sense to me, and I am now better for it, so thanks.
@@clubpenguin13531 It is missing from college textbooks and peer review. But hey, do tell how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes produced any bacterial flagellum.
@Molefe Bullshit. Probability arguments are used exactly because there isn't any actual evidence fir evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.
I'd just like to say that I appreciate you pointing out how pupil dilation works. And as a blind person, I appreciate you calling out their use of blindness as a sort of prop. When they said no offense, I just laughed. The analogy was so low effort it's just funny at this point. Also, in the future, can you give your blind viewers a basic description of what is happening in the videos you're reacting to? Like in the beginning when Jane was using her phone, I picked up that she was typing something, probably texting, but didn't know if she was texting anything specific that was important to the point of the video. So in the future, could you say something if there is a visual component of a video that's important to know if a viewer can't see the video? Thank you so much for your amazing content. I always love to watch one of your videos. Have a nice day.
To be your eyes for you to enhance your experience for the text conversation. Jane asked where John was because they needed to study. John responded with horribly misspelling “walking in right now.” Before he walked into something off screen. I hope that entertained you and enhanced your experience. I would too like some more inclusion for the visually impaired and blind. Forrest does a fantastic job anyways, but some subtle acknowledgement of people who can’t see with a little bit of help now and again would be a fantastic role model.
As the mother of a son with disabilities, may I say I found this unfunny 'skit' to be effing ableist. Oh look, bloke with vision problems talks to a hatstand! Oh, my aching ribs. The only thing I find vaguely amusing is their "Hello, fellow kids!" vibe.
@@samuryebread1065 Right now, I'm using an iPhone. Every iPhone and pretty much any other Apple product with a screen comes with an option in the settings to turn on Voiceover, which from now on I'll call VO. VO is a screen reader, which means it reads what is on the screen and allows the user to nonvisually interact with content with different taps, swipes, and other gestures. For instance, I can drag my finger around the screen, and VO will announce what it is passing over. Alternatively, I can swipe to the left or right to go to the previous or next item, and double tap to select the item (equivalent to you just tapping). Anyway, there's a gesture in VO called the roader, which involves using 2 fingers and turning them to the left or right like a dial. This flips through a list of options preselected by the user in settings. One option that can be added is called Braille Screen Input, which I will now call BSI. When the option is activated, I then turn my phone sideways with the screen away from me, and place my palms at both ends, one at the top near the camera and one around the bottom where the charging port is. After my hands are in position, I do a series of simple taps to calibrate the positioning of my fingers, and begin typing in braille. Each braille cell has 6 dots, so typing in braille requires 6 fingers. Typing in this way is actually not normal; the standard way to type braille is with the hands similar to how you type print with the 6 fingers (3 from each hand for most people), more or less in a horizontal row. There is another mode of BSI called tabletop mode which a tempts to simulate the natural typing position, but I don't like it much, so I use screen away mode. If I don't want to type, like any other person I can choose to dictate my writing with the little microphone button. Or, I can type on the on screen keyboard, but this is a tedious process I don't engage in unless it's necessary. If I was on my computer, well it has a different screen reader, but I would just type like normal with the computer keyboard. After all, you're not supposed to have to look at your hands while you type, so blind people can do it with little to no modifications. Thanks for your question. Honestly, you should have used a search engine to find the answer. Good day.
On the eye dilation thing, I can’t speak for what happens in non-myopic patients, but in patients with severe myopia, the dilation drops actually limit your eye’s abilities to adjust focal length. Before LASIK, I hated getting my eyes dilated because it was the most boring wait ever- my eyes were too bad to see the TV, but the drops made it so I couldn’t even read a book up close either. But it just made everything super blurry- I could still see. So the blind gag is still dumb.
You are right, eye dilation drops relax both iris and focus muscles, and until muscles recover they ability to contract, it is hard to adapt to bright light and clearly see lot of objects that falls out of focus of relaxed eye
Their argument: Gives accurate definition Incredulously restates definition in their own words. Give false information, misunderstood information, or lie Assert the subject is false. Rinse, repeat.
I love how it’s ”I don’t believe in evolution because I can’t find evidence for it” while believing in creation, of which all the supposed ’evidence’ is just the fact they don’t understand science. It’s like saying ”I have a pear in my hand because I don’t see an apple in my hand” (while actively holding an apple lmao)
Yeah, really! I wanna grab these people by the shoulders and yell, "good thing no one is giving you grant money, because even an amateur botanist can find evidence of evolution! They do all the time!" Agh.
I'd really like to see them explain how FOSSILS are not evidence for evolution. That would be really fun. Therr is so much evidence it's almost overwhelming and they're out here saying "there's no evidence for evolution".
They mostly use the Bible as evidence. Which at best can be considered testimony, not evidence. Testimony that can't be cross-examined because none of the people who wrote it are alive today. Testimony that comes from just random people, not experts in any relevant field, and that is itself not backed by any form of evidence, it's literally just "dude trust me" over and over again.
Funny thing is... For people with moreso, "normal", healthy eyes, those drops don't do that much. For me, and quite a lot of other low-vision people, it can actually cause our vision to get pretty blurry and make it hard to do some things XD
Dawkins has a great old video that explains the eyes transitions. And there are so many different eyes today. Like goats and vipers and many incects. I usually send them to Richard when they make this argument.
They think “it depends on death” is an argument opposing evolution, while worshipping a deity that supposedly had to become human and die to save them and is represented by an instrument of torture and execution. Got it.
I'd say you're after some pretty low hanging fruit here with their awkward, clumsy arguments...but that's kind of always how it is. When I was young and in the church, the arguments presented against evolution seemed impenetrable, iron-clad, and fully logical. That's why what you're doing here, making counter arguments accessible to everyone, is so important. They say to 'know why you believe' but they disown you if you examine the evidence with any sort of intellectual honesty.
One the the good reasons to go after the "low hanging fruit" is that content like this is aimed at kids. It would make for some really boring content to sit there and read and debunk creationist "scientific" papers.
As someone that has had their eyes dilated many times it does make your ability to focus on things a certain distance from you. Instead of leaving an object at a distance from you and letting your eyes focus you have to adjust the items distance. Also bright light hurts and you really just wanna close your eyes.
Yeah, for me things were really blurry for the first 30 minutes after they were dilated and I wouldn't have been able to answer texts. After that things were just bright. I still wouldn't have bumped into furniture cuz just because things are blurry doesn't mean you can't see anything, but it was more than just bright in the first 30 minutes for me.
yeah the first time I had my eyes dilated I was sent to school right after and it was pretty difficult to read the things I was given. and yeah ime every time since then reading has been a crapshoot cause I really couldn't choose how my eyes focused, which could also make telling distances difficult, tho yeah mistaking a coat rack for a person is a joke that doesn't make any sense.
This concept of "the animal must know, a-priori, what to evolve into" is easily demonstrably wrong. I use genetic algorithms on a regular basis to optimise problems. Admittedly the problems being solved are not as complicated, but using completely random mating and mutation and a single figure of merit (i.e. ranking individuals according to a simple metric) really does cause the individuals to evolve to the optimal solution. It is really cool to watch it work. There are plenty of UA-cam videos showing this in action. In short: random mating and mutation in the presence of external pressure does lead to evolution by natural selection!
Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of intelligent design, ie telic processes. It isn't natural selection because genetic algorithms are goal oriented. Natural selection is not.
So you use intelligent design to prove natural selection? How does that work exactly? You had to actually design the algorithms with some intelligence didn't you? Natural selection wouldn't have an algorithm. Since you're doing it with algorithms then you can't say God couldn't do it with an algorithm. It truly contaminates the whole experiment.
@@chucktowneGenetic algorithms use an approach to determine an optimal set based on evolution. For feature selection, the first step is to generate a population based on subsets of the possible features. From this population, the subsets are evaluated using a predictive model for the target task. You're making opinions out of something you know nothing about and doesnt even have a degree in.
@@foryou7673 @For You Not an opinion but a fact. By having someone intelligent conduct this experiment, you contaminate it. If you cannot understand that then you have a problem with understanding. Someone intelligent generated a population in this experiment therefore contaminated the experiment since there is not "nothing" doing this experiment. You use a "predictive model"? How do make these predictions? Especially if you follow the true definition of random. How do you predict true randomness? If its predictable then its not random. You inserted your intelligence into the experiment again. I don't need a degree to think critically and with common sense. Also, I am asking questions and isn't that part of the scientific method? Or should I just believe because some guy said so?
“You can freaking see, John!” 15:38 Best line ever. Could film a movie in the way he said it. Amazing. Jokes aside, This is a great channel. Loved every video I’ve watched. Actually was disappointed when I reached the end.
I hope that John and Jane's discussions about what "really" happened instead of what "evolutionists" "believe" don't take away the time they need to learn the most important lesson that school teaches: when it's time for the test, give the answer the teacher wants whether it's right or not.
Oof. I feel like the fact that you're _totally right_ speaks volumes to the state of our education system :/ In an ideal world, school would teach people how to learn. That's definitely not the case though, unfortunately. I know that because I frickin love learning, it's like my favorite thing... and yet I don't think I could tell you one _single_ thing I learned in a school. At home, sure, I could tell you literally thousands. But school? Not one. (then again, I am 30.)
@@idontwantahandlethough This reminds me of something I watched, I wish I could remember the movie I saw this on but the gist was "American education, I don't shit about American history, but I'm pretty prepared for an active-shooter"
I got a bad grade once in poetry class because I analyzed a poem "wrong." I'm sorry, teacher, I didn't realize there was only one interpretation (hers).
When I got my eyes dilated it made everything super blurry and made light hurt, but I wasn't blind at all lmao. I could absolutely tell a person from a coat hanger
My thoughts exactly. I have terrible vision myself. If I take my glasses off I can't identify who an individual is past 20 feet. But I can tell it's a person. And I can certainly avoid knocking over a damn fish tank.
Apparently, the eye drops must affect hearing and sense of direction too... he couldn't tell the sound of the voice wasn't coming directly from the blur in front of him...?
When I got my eyes dilated, I found I drove better than before. I think all the cars parked up when they saw me coming. I think they were cars or cattle.
You know what's pitiable about these "debunking" videos these Christians put out? They are aimed at those that already believe and that audience honestly sees them as intelligent and well-thought out and researched.
Exactly! No person who understands evolution will have his or her mind changed by these pitiful videos. They are, to retread a sadly worn phrase, preaching to the choir.
@@stefanlaskowski6660 But unfortunately, that choir will go on to think they're informed of the subject and not do any further research, which keeps them in the fold.
I don't know. I'm a Christian, and the majority of us know the difference between biblical narrative and biblical history. Genesis is narrative, it's meant to tell something greater about God and human existence, not to be taken literally. The majority of us know that Ken Ham and the like use more thinking errors and logical fallacies than a valley girl uses 'like.'
They always state that we as scientists and science appreciators "believe" in evolution. Yes, we "believe" it exists, but the conclusions we come to about all of its fields aren't based on blind belief as seen in religion. We observe and test, and find out that hey, this is what we've found through our observations and tests. XD
Bless your heart Forrest! I applaud your tolerance! "Did the grasshoppers think through..." and my cringe twitching begins.. Thoroughly impressed how long you kept your cool my man! Awesome work as always!!!
Creationists keep going on about how mutations are only ever bad, but my mom and myself only have 3 out of 4 wisdom teeth, someone in her family had a mutation that prevented one of them from growing in, and me and her are missing it in the same place, meaning the lack of a wisdom tooth growing is heritable. That's a good thing, as it means one less potential abscess.
This is one of the things that was interesting when I graduated from a Christian private school and went to a secular college (same small town btw.) It was surprising just how simple evolution was and how much sense it made. The textbook (that we barely touched) I had in high school still used the watchmaker analogy, and aside from that we didn't really acknowledge evolution at all, or any of the parts of science that contradicted their theology.
Creationism, no matter which version, only consists of three talking points. The Watchmaker Analogy is one of them. The only "research" you can do with it is looking at something and exclaim " Look at this! Looks designed! Must have been designed by a supernatural agency!". The analogy is false btw. Had your school taught you how watches actually are designed (ie tools, materials, parts, procedures etc.) you might have asked inconvenient questions and perhaps even realized why it's false.
Evolution is far from simple. Study the complexity of any type of cell and then the bare basics of life. Then try and extrapolate how that could happen via a random, unintelligent process.
@@rocketsurgeon1746 like the numerous flaws in the human body? Doesn't seem like perfect design to me if walking upright caused so many issues, such as back pain, and strain on our knees, or our brains developing to be so huge, natural birth can be extremely dangerous and tear the vaginal canal and rectum..
@@dx.feelgood5825 it might not seem perfect to you, but study the complexity of each system then break it down to the molecular level. I won't argue opinions. Happy to talk science though
@@rocketsurgeon1746 Because *nothing* is perfect. Nothing is all good, nothing is all bad. Humans have very black and white thinking about things, which while being excellent for recognizing patterns, causes a lot of fighting. Maybe, oh I dunno, watch the videos you're commenting on?
I also like the polar opposite way of presenting their information lol, here forrest has "you dense MF" vibe, and aron Calm "John if you keep talking you're gonna embarrass yourself more, stop"
@@junacebedo888 You're confusing the Theory of Evolution with some silly concept like a gawd. The reason Evolution has been successfully raised to the THEORY tier is because it is falsifiable but has never been successfully falsified. Try actually doing some research before spouting lie filled creapationist talking points.
@@junacebedo888 False. A fossil of an exact anatomically-modern animal IF found in the Completely Wrong Strata-Layer AND IF there could be Absolutely No Possible Explanation Whatsoever for its Appearance There (i.e. No Doubt that it Wasn't A Fake/Forgery or Imagined, No Doubt that it Wasn't A Simple Result of Natural Geological Processes that can Bisect Layers, for instance IF All its Bones & ALL the Surrounding Rock both Dated Properly (Using the Proper Methods) to the Exact Same Time-Periods) THEN Evolution would in-fact Be Falsified. Since that Hypothetical (albeit Extraordinarily Unlikely) Possibility Genuinely Exists... That Makes it Falsifiable.
It’s free high-quality comedy! Because of how extremely low-quality the logic, science, and basic reasoning is. (I mean the creationists, flat earthers, etc. not the actual scientists)
as funny as that is, all false crabs are still very closely related to true crabs and to each other (closer than either is to lobsters, true shrimp, etc.). Horseshoe crabs don't count because they don't look even remotely similar to crabs.
@@jefferyandbob3137 Very true. Speaking of horseshoe crabs isn't it wild that the trilobite body plan was so crazy successful that we still have something around today that is so similar to them? Like they haven't had to change up their game plan in almost 500 million years.
I love how happy Forrest is to be sponsored. He understands the script he basically has to say, and finds it hilarious and I love it. Good work forrest ! Love the content
People truly don’t understand how incomprehensible 1 million years is Look at how much humans have accomplished over 10,000 years and how many adaptations we’ve had in that time
on the dilating pupils thing I do wanna say that one can have "impaired vision" after having it, in the sense that normal amounts of light can feel like looking directly into the sun, so everything looks overexposed, but that only lasts for a couple of minutes after the appointment in my experience. It usually passes quite quickly into "can look at stuff with sunglasses". I've had it done a couple of times and needed my mother to guide me for a few minutes outside in the sun but inside with sunglasses feels like normal.
Depending on strength it can last for 2 weeks actually, and for me it was impossible to read or recognise faces, etc. Both near and far away, for 11 days after my last visit-- everything was just blurry blobs of colour. But the drops they usually use will generally only last up to a few hours or a couple of days, and they tend to last longer on light coloured eyes. It's definitely not the norm though!
Depending on the drops, it can kind of mess with your prescription. I get them every few times I go to the eye doctor because I'm pretty nearsighted and extreme nearsightedness is one of the higher risk factors of retina problems later in life. Paired with silent migraines (symptoms of a migraine but without the pain) giving me flashes of light at the edges of my vision, I'm always afraid of a torn or detached retina. After I have the drops, as well as being basically blinded by normal indoor lighting, if I wear my glasses I actually become a bit farsighted and it's things that are normally clear that would be blurry. Not too horrible, since instead of only being able to see clearly a foot or two in front of my face, I can see clearly *except* for a foot or two in front of my face.
This. I can see fine at a distance when my eyes have been dilated, but trying to read anything is somewhere between challenging and uncomfortable until the drops wear off.
I was at the eye doctor a lot as a kid and had to borrow my schoolmate's notebooks to copy their notes only the day after as my eyes were not focused at all. While, of course, I wouldn't bump into things, stuff like reading was out of the question for the rest of the day. This is why science communication is such a hard job and not every good scientist can be good at it.
I volunteered in a lab studying population genetics in drosophila melanogaster and wyeomyia smithii. The drosophila were a side project, so to speak. Mainly because space was available for them to be there too. The primary focus was on the mosquitoes. The lab was in fact nicknamed the Mosquito Lab. When I was there we were studying the non-biting variety, specifically from a sub-population in a super small region out east. We fed the adults raisins. They were kinda cute actually. I can't remember a lot of the specifics of the experiments now, I think we were "breeding" biting gene(s) back into the females, but it was pretty fascinating stuff. I feel lucky to have been able to work there.
I like how he pulls up an image of the flies on his phone and describes it despite the whole bit about not being able to see. I like how you’ve progressively gotten angrier with them throughout these videos. And yeah this one had me the most exasperated.
The Kermode bear or "Spirit Bear" comes to mind it's an American Black Bear with a white coat due to a rare recessive gene, the black bear adapted to the environment somewhere along the line and occasionally a spirit bear is born with the white coat gene and now there's roughly only 400 spirit bears in the wild today.
YES!! Thank you. Creationists have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the word mutation, mutant. Either through ignorance or lying, they think mutant means something they see at Ridley’s believe it or not or a freak show. The same way they misuse the word theory over, and over, and over and over again, they do the same thing to the word mutation. Frustrating!
I agree with almost everything. I just have to nitpick one thing, I don’t know exactly what is in the dilation solution optometrists use, but as a near sighted person I promise you until that solution wears off, my ability to focus on my phone to read anything is gone. Everything else is fuzzy but not to the point I can’t make out a person compared to a coat rack.
I've decided that smart scientists angry debunking stupid bullshit is my new favorite genre of content. More please
LMAO, same
LITERALLY ME
Any suggestions of other scientists like this ? !
Not technically a scientist, but Aaron Ra does a great job at debunking. He's also dealing with John and Jane at the moment too.
Another good one is Viced Rhino.
I'll add Paulogia to the list as someone who discusses Christian claims and why he rejects them.
If humans really age, then why have I never seen my little cousin turn into an adult over night??? Hmmm?! No way small changes could ever add up to large changes over time.
I’m gonna start using this in debates 😂👍 love it
Perfect
It Ken bee observed width de scientific meth thick, evolutionism Kent. Isle so, your bee leaf system teaches each transition came threw child birth, knot bay bee develope mint.
That's like isle de stages between a sperm and a adult hue man surviving indie wild and reproducing own it's on. A bay bee hue man Kent survive own it's on, De fetus reel Lee Kent.
@@iwkaoy8758 wtf man my eyes hurt looking at this
False equivalence and dishonest. We live long enough to see ourselves and the people around us grow old. Nobody has ever seen how slime on a rock became Beethoven. So, they have to theorize.
The entire "John and Jane" series can literally be boiled down to "lying for Jesus".
The fact that it's made strictly to indoctrinate children into believing nonsense and to stop asking questions is one of the many "harms" that religion causes.
Most religion isn’t like this
I have same view on materialism. You are an example of this brainwashing ,you convinced its true while its not and Forrest for that matter too. And when Christians do show you valid points you ignore it - indeed poison of materialism as dangerous as any religion.
Shilling for Jesus
Shilling for Jesus
*harms
"when was the last time that you observed the creation of a human being from dust or a rib, John?" Literally my new favorite quote
Or a single celled organism from chemicals? Two can play this game :)
@@rocketsurgeon1746 Humans come from a single, fertilized egg, which is one cell. Now you answer the question.
@@Frickerdoodle you left out the sperm and two sets of dna which carry the plans and orders for the zygote. Now, where do you assume the dna with all the intelligence and decision making came from?
@@rocketsurgeon1746 a fertilized egg is one single cell. Fertilized as in already penetrated by sperm. It is still only one cell, with two different peices of dna within it as it prepares to split and become more cells. That is still a single cell
@@rocketsurgeon1746 You're gonna have to clearify the second question for me, because I have no clue what you're asking
These guys are the best demonstration that natural selection is blind, no intelligent design could possibly have had them in mind 😂
Yeah!
my friend made that exact poin 3 seconds ago "Natural selection couldn't possibly weed out the bad mutations because they are right there" 😂😂
It is called contrast. There can't be shadows without light.
And that is what religion is, the item that cast shadows. We can learn from it and them, but...
Hey bud nice joke but he did say eugenics jokes should be treated lightly man
if god existed, their public relations couldn't possibly be this bad. They look and sound like a child kept in their basement til 18 suddenly forced to read a script at gunpoint.
JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN ASK A QUESTION, DOESNT MEAN THERE ISSNT A ANWSER!
that might be my favourite quote lol
This deserves a T-Shirt
BUT HOW WILL YOU BE ABLE TO FIND IT IF YOU CANT SEEE JOHN
What is 1+1? Oh because I can ask that, then that means no answer can exist! Take that, math teachers!
@@Arexion5293 you just single-handedly unraveled mathematics.
I've actually had to use this on a lot of people and discussing things like religion and politics. People tend to use complete ignorance as some sort of trump card like it's actually worth anything. Anyone with half a brain would know that ignorance is a bad thing and does not make you sound smart.
These are same type of people that "just have questions" but will reject any answer they don't agree with, regardless of the facts.
Not unlike the current group of Republicans.
Spot on, there are a lot more of them than what we realise.
What facts? Like the fact that given starting populations of prokaryotes there isn't a naturalistic mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes? That fact? Endosymbiosis doesn't help as it just gives you a prokaryote living inside another prokaryote. Then there is sexual reproduction. There isn't any evidence that blind and mindless processes produced meiosis and the genes required for the processes of developmental biology.
We tend to call that "JAQing off" on the Internet. Just Asking Questions for the purpose of seeding doubt without engaging in a honest debate.
Talking about yourself? Sounds like you are talking about yourself.
It's frustrating to know just how close they are to actual understanding, but they willfully ignore it in favor of literal magic.
We could say that about your materialistic story you hold to :) science and probability are on the side of design supporters. The more we discover about complexity, the more impossible materialism is
@@rocketsurgeon1746 Kindly explain how complexity denotes design in your mind, then.
@@asherikamichaela8425 complexity is tied to materialism. If you only need one random genetic change to get from primates to homo, then the probability is high, it could happen given enough time assuming environment is acceptable. If you need tens of thousands of genetic changes, most having to have happened at the same time, the probability quickly goes to zero.
@@rocketsurgeon1746 Ah, the old "argument from improbability" shtick. Here's the thing. We're not "fine-tuned" the way you lot think we are. Nothing is. There is a wide range of ways in which things can work, and have done for millions, if not billions or trillions of years, all across the universe. We're simply here because our ancestors adapted to the environments in which they lived. Those that didn't went extinct. That's it.
@@asherikamichaela8425 Sorry, but probability is a way of determining what happened when we have no observation. If you don't think we are extremely complex or "fine tuned", i would suggest studying anatomy and the variables required for life on earth :)
"Just because we haven't figured something out doesn't make it magical"
Best phrase
just the fact that there is anything here is magical. Not supernatural but magical in a sense.
@notfiveo Same..
@@j.dragon651 What a load of nonsense.
@@jonathonrobinson6081 whatever gets you through the night.
@@j.dragon651 Speak for yourself.
For people who are ostensibly Christian, they sure do a lot of bearing false witness.
@Hellfire LWD it's on purpose. Organized religion has to be deceptive in order to entrap followers. It's the only untaxed business in America
That! That bothers me so much because I’m a Christian but not a fundie. I just think they’re weird liars and there’s no point to it .
I will bear a true witness to you. We all are sinners, every single one of us.
No human is without sin except Jesus Christ. The wages of sin is death, which is why we die both physically and spiritually.
We can do nothing to reconcile our sin with God and we are eternally damned to spend eternity in the lake of fire. You, me, and everyone else that has ever lived in all of history. This is the spiritual death after the physical one.
Thankfully God loves us and he came down from his high place and bore our sins and paid the penalty for our sins. Since he never sinned but died, he couldn't stay dead and resurrected.
If you accept this free gift of salvation and turn away from sin and confess that Jesus is Lord, you will be resurrected spiritually and escape eternal damnation. Living with him forever. It is a free gift that cannot be earned through good works. You still must follow his commandments which are these. 1. Love God with all your heart. 2. Love your neighbor as yourself. 3. Do not murder. 4. Do not steal. 5. Do not bear false witness. 6. Do not commit adultery.
Do this and you will be saved, don't do this and you will suffer an eternal punishment. This is the Gospel and it is available for all.
@@dancingnature "I’m a Christian"
Why?
"but not a fundie"
Why not?
Do you have any logical basis for being a christian?
@Molefe "There's no demonstrable scientific evidence of the existence of any deity."
Even worse than their absolutely baseless belief is the fact is the fact their fairy tales are contradicted by science! History, basic logic! Claiming the 6017 (and also 6123) year old flat earth (from contradicting geologies of mary and gay joe!) has a dome over it and lights attached doesnt move and will last forever as the sun travels around is enuff stupidity to totally discredit any of the BS it claims.
15:56 "That's survival of the luckiest!"
Gah... they _literally_ just described *genetic drift,* one of the four main mechanisms of population genetics alongside natural selection (the directional one), mutation (the one that makes new traits), and migration (the one people forget about). This is an established part of evolutionary theory, not some biting criticism!
So much ignorance... So much blind, wilful ignorance...
Yeah it's high school level biology, and they're out here thinking they're the first ones who ever thought of that idea
They really agreed with science to disprove science such that they affirmed evolution.
They did more to establish evolution is an actual thing because if they, the vehement evolution-deniers use evolution to “deny evolution”, then evolution is actually very robust a theory.
But biblio say that's not troo!
My favorite part of that misunderstanding is that, if a half a population does die out completely at random, the allele frequency is probably going to be preserved. In their analogy, the fish most likely have the same diversity before and after; OR the survivors are chosen by either having a better chance to survive outside the water or else being prettier/more desirable to the people cleaning, both of which are effective examples of natural selection
The fun thing about the whole "we can't make computers as intelligent as humans therefore God!" is that the second we do such a thing they'll just flip it "See?! An intelligent creature had to design an intelligent computer therefore God!"
Had a person tell me that if we did replicate life in a lab(to creationist stantard), it would only prove intelligent design
I was thinking the same thing, and I actually saw the whole 'point' as a non sequitur.
That said, if the more complex than a human brain computer thing actually came to pass, it would show that the complexity of a human brain needn't come directly from the mind of God, as well as that something more complex can come from something less complex, designer or no. You could also then make the argument that God, even having designed us, could have had an inferior intelligence to us (a fun one for Christians).
What?? Of course quantum intelligence will outperform the human mind in quantification capabilities! Intelligence creates intelligence and on and on it will go .
It’s just ridiculous how they just make more and more excuses and points that never end bruh
I always love how you can tell the level of frustration Forrest is experiencing by the level of sass he comes out with. Prime example:
"When was the last time you observed the creation of a human out of dust or a rib, John?!"
It is only theatrics, and still pretty funny.
Do dead humans became dust or ash after cremation?
When did anyone observe nature producing life? Never.
@@sombodysdad
If you have kids in your house, and one of them looks like your neighbor you might discover how nature works. One of the downsides of shiftwork.
@@VaughanMcCue So now humans are nature?
“Kinda makes you think, doesn’t it?”
Makes me very concerned for the future of the education system actually.
It’s not all bad. My kid is in second grade, and his class had an assignment that explored natural selection in the context of a disturbance. These smug YECs are falling behind the 8-year-olds.
I think I would lose a few IQ points if I had to watch these two without Forrest’s excellent commentary 😂😂😂
"Okay, let's zero in on one specific part of the evolutionary process."
"Hey, this by itself can't explain evolution!"
Great job, guys...
So close, but so far away.
If one specific part of the alleged evolutionary process can't function, nothing in the process can't function. In fact, that's exactly the case in real life.
How many times has evolution been successfully tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method? Answer: Zero times. Evolution theory has been tested innumerable times, but every empirical evidence has proved that evolution does not happen. Tens of thousands of generations have been used in tests, simulating millions of years back in time. The tested fruit flies and bacteria can only produce more fruit flies and bacteria. No new body plans, no new species, no evolution. Only variation within species.
@@Squeekysquid He forgot one part.
*fails to debunk the specific part*
"Hey, this by itself can't explain evolution"
A common misconception is that evolution is "survival of the fittest", that is not necessarily the case. It's more like survival of the good enough, you sometimes see organisms survive even though they aren't made in the most efficient manner.
Not just sometimes. I'd argue that most species are far from being the 'most efficient' in their niche. There are so many things in nature that could easily be designed more efficiently; some common examples are e.g. the recurrent laryngeal nerve in Giraffes; or the retina of many mammals being "backwards", with nerves and blood vessels actually blocking much of the light.
Does it matter? No, as long as enough of a population survive long enough to produce offspring.
Survival of the sufficient.
People often also assume that "the fittest" means the strongest, the fastest, or the best at fighting. Sometimes it means the hardest to see, or the best at digesting certain foods, or the smelliest. What constitutes fitness depends entirely on an organism's environment and its niche in that environment.
@@wizardsuth also the fittest can be two things at once. For example the sea elephant, where you can either be a meat head alpha male or a femboy twink and pass down your genes.
“Fittest” as in better than the rest. If you go to a retirement, some elderly person will be the fittest there, doesn’t mean he’s fit though.
Judge: “Did you murder that man?”
John: “Of course not, death doesn’t exist”
udge: “Did you murder that man?”
John: “Of course not, life doesn’t exist. Life is NOT a creation”
@@junacebedo888 What?
Life not being a creation doesn't mean that it does not exist.
@@speltincorrectyl1844 Life was not a creation? Where did it came from?
@@junacebedo888 Too oversimplify:
Hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the sea are constantly producing simple organic compounds. Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the exact method by with these compounds assembled into the first lifeform, but we definitely know that it happened since there are micro-fossils of very basic lifeforms near the vents.
You may be thinking, the chance of these compounds arranging themselves by chance into a bacteria is astronomically low. You're right. Many theories posit that there is some sort of mechanism that makes the formation of life more common than just random chance.
One theory is that there organic compounds assembled by chance into self-assembling compounds. Considering that the compounds themselves are very small and simple, it is likely that they would assemble.
These very basic self-replicating compounds were not life. They did not do any of the life functions we see in life today. They just rearranged the compounds nearby.
They compounds then evolved into a very primitive form of bacteria.
You couldn't tell when life began because it was very gradual.
The bacteria then evolved into the life known today.
Evolution can and does happen everywhere. All you need is a chance for things to change, and a mechanism in which superior versions of something are more able to recreate themselves. These basic compounds would have had that.
This is just me reading off a wikipedia article. If you want an in-depth explanation, you could ask the youtuber who made the video (Forrest Valkai) or watch a video by Professor Dave about it.
The evidence of Abiogenesis is not as well developed as evidence for other fields of biology, but there are many orders of magnitude more evidence than creationism.
@@speltincorrectyl1844 "Many theories posit that there is some sort of mechanism that makes the formation of life more common than just random chance."
---This mechanism is called God. You just won't accept it because you don't want to.
"These very basic self-replicating compounds were not life."
---You can be forgiven of your ignorance but this meets the definition of life.
Life-"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."
---Inorganic (organic) matter with functional activity
"Evolution can and does happen everywhere."
---In a sense it does but there is no observation of speciation which is a critical part of Evolution. Without it then where did the millions of different life forms come from. You can't go from a single-cell organism to what we see today without speciation unless natural selection is just creating entire multi-cellular complex species out of thin air (which God can certainly do).
"This is just me reading off a wikipedia article."
---This explains everything, you don't actually know anything. Don't take this as me saying you're not smart, because I don't know anything either. None of us know anything in comparison to the vast knowledge out there. We would never have enough time to learn even .000000000001% of it all in a hundred lifetimes. Maybe you should actually find and listen to people who are in the field and have PhD's instead of a random guy on UA-cam wanting to be cool by putting others down. Thats not how real Scholars behave. If we was a real Scholarly person, he would be spending more time studying and less time having a go at ignorant people.
I love how they immediately go from (correctly) stating that evolution does not have an 'end goal' to (incorrectly) asking how it reaches its end goal (e.g. eyes, flight). Do they not proof-read their scripts?
Nope, the script writers aren't very good, and clearly don't grasp the topics they are writing on. Especially when their own books often debunk their own claims.
I think it comes down to twisting and distorting the meaning to try and debunk it on a technicality. A flawed one to be sure, but to those who don’t know better won’t be able to tell if they don’t know what to look for.
That is kind of their point, stupidly. They can understand how something might not have an end goal. And think that not having one would mean you can never get to anything. It really just shows how little they understand the world.
They know their audience won't think that critically about it. These videos are either for kids who don't have the mental equipment to deal with this, for adults who want to confirm their own feelings or for Christians who want to listen to something besides a sermon without thinking too hard.
This is also how you develop a conspiracy theorist mindset. You make sure to indoctrinate people into believing that everything and everyone has an end goal. If they aren't a part of your particular religion, then they're with Satan and trying to send you to hell in any and every way they can.
If you don't believe me then tell some Christians that not all triangles in media are signaling to pyramids. Double points for those over 40 years old.
They are braindead zealots
I love how they misuse the term "mutation"
Scientist: During the coping process the base "G" in the strand of DNA turned into "A"
Creationist: Two headed cow and X-Men
Compared to everyday dude, mutations in X-Men superheroes are certainly beneficial to their fights against supervillains.
Ironically, the two headed cow was probably a developmental problem, not a genetic one.
Little Mutations are okay. It's like there is a path and a mutation can bring you a step further or away to the new kind.
So after two little Mutation with no harmful effects... ah... think the third mutation would result in instant death cause the creature remember it has already mutated two steps aside from the perfect created kind and three little mutations can called a big one and this would debunk creationism so god installed an invisible border named deadline where every creature turn into a non functioning meatball with twelventine heads.
Classic old-invisible-but-does-exist-cause-bible-say-so-trick, thank you god for guarding us from think our ideas through the end.
I was amused by this comment, till they literally put the two headed animal on screen as an example.
Sad thing is people buy this crap.
I am genuinely waiting for the, "if evolution real... then why me no eye lasers" argument.
I'm not looking for it. Just hoping I both do and don't stumble on that argument made unironically.
I like how they read the definition from a high school textbook then just stop reading and pontificate on what evolution says. Like, just read the rest of the chapter, guys. The answers to your questions and concerns are literally in your hands!
Yeah I don't know why they're bothering to study, they're gonna fail that test
Sorry man, that's not the kind of book they read
They actually can’t do that. You see, through evolution Cristians have developed an ability to only read convenient for them parts of any book
I'm sorry to break this to you, Forrest, but you're not dealing with "irreducible complexity," you're dealing with "irreducible stupidity."
Question: Have you seen Some More New's newest videos? The 2 about 'Work'? And how c0vid has affected the work-market and all that?
Its damn-fascinating, tbh.
@@slevinchannel7589 I had not yet.
Nice.
@@DeaconShadow ?
When they say "blind" what they really mean is without a central master plan. Creationists are simply people who cannot imagine anything working without a central master plan. The idea that anything can happen without a central master plan overwhelms their imagination.
The same for "random". So these words are synonyms in creatalk.
I suspect these two are not the brightest the female is growing, yup bigger with every video
They are also in denial over how long life has been multiplying, replicating, mutating and evolving for - billions of years FFS!
Have you seen anything in human world built without plan? I have not, even if they dont have physical blue print to built they have AN IDEA of what they are building and HOW. You must be very stupid person saying what you said. No one having no information can DO anything. Without information of what and how to do - no work is done. Simple reality of life and here we are helping you to understand this reality of life... Sad...
First thing out of her mouth and I saw a mouth breather.
"BUT HOW ARE YOU GOING TO FIND IT IF YOU CAN'T SEE JOHN!?"
This was easiest the best Forrest Valkai video ever because of him losing his mind throughout lol!
From Video to Video you can see his sanity slowly slipping away, bit by bit :E
Oh, you want to see him lose his mind? Watch his "Fossil Record Debunked" video. Strap in right around the 23 minute mark...
@@Japanthewoman I saw that one too. It's very funny.
Replayed that part so much. RIP my ears
He got.triggered
I went a private Christian high school, and this crap was forced down my throat. And before I even realized it, I had been brainwashed. Now I’m re-educating myself on my beliefs pre high school
But how, with every sentence these people say I have 20 things to say back xD
I’m sorry that you had to go through this mental abuse as a kid!
My parents were very low-key believers and did not bother to indoctrinate me or were understanding when I refused to read religious texts. And I did refuse to read them, because bible stories sounded extremely nonsensical and stupid, because prior to that parents were ok with buying for me books with fancy dinosaurs within, but each of those books had a small introduction about the origins of Earth and how our life evolved. So, in some sense these books were my “bible” that “brainwashed” me into evolution early and I can totally see how a young mind can form around a ridiculous idea if it is directed the wrong way from the start. Religious indoctrination is quite scary and sad when you think of how damaging it may be for some kids who have harder time to understand they need to re-educate themselves
The talking snake should have been a been a red flag.
@@vinnieg6161 It's hard to quip back with doctrine being forced down your throat.
Science has caused more harm to humanity than any superstition.
Someone should make them read "The Beak of the Finch" by Jonathan Weiner, about the 20 years of research by Peter and Rosemary Grant. They spent months each year on a tiny island in the Galapagos, banding, DNA testing and observing every bird on that island. They knew every pair that bred, how many of their nestlings survived, and tracked exact beak size, wing size, etc of every last bird. The evidence they found for rapid change and possible new species coming to be is based on this massive amount of research. But I guess they'd find some way to ignore those facts, too...I read an article about people who have their pets cloned because they miss them so much. There was a picture of about 5 "cloned" dogs cloned from one dog. They each had totally different coat colors. Every time you copy the genome, changes will happen. It's just the way that works. Plus cloning a pet is stupid; they will not have the same upbringing and will probably have a completely different personality. Don't buy, adopt!
I had to learn all about the Grants during my undergrad! They're awesome! I'll have to talk about them in a video sometime!
I don't understand the point of cloning pets unless it's literally because you like a certain quality about them. You can clone genes, for the most part, but you cannot clone memories. And even with cloning, genetic changes tend to happen. You actually pointed this out pretty well.
That might be the most romantic story I’ve ever heard! 🤣 As a child, the only way I could possibly imagine marriage, was in a scenario like this. What incredible work!
@Snoozerpoo : That was such a good comment already..
Then you added _"Don't buy, adopt!"_ and it immediately became a great and very wise comment.
Keep being you !!❤🌍🌎🌏
"But the finches are still finches!" Checkmate evolutionists!
John and Jane: Scientists can't answer this question
Forrest: Proceeds to answer it
*puts on noise canceling headphones made with science* WHAT WAS THAT FOREST
@@thegoosling8947 please tell me that doesn't mean the way it actually reads, and you're arguing against science and evolution.
Science has no answer where life and the universe came from
Better yet, he answers it right BEFORE they claim it lacks an answer. He seems to do that a lot, actually...
@@junacebedo888 It absolutely has answers for where life comes from, in fact it gets brought up in this video, and he brings up abiogenesis in a previous video as well. It has an answer for how the universe began, but to ask what came before the universe doesn't really make sense, you're asking what came before time, space and existence.
They continue to prove my thought that apologists believe that "mutated" means impure or adulterated.
If we wanna talk about eyes, blue eyes are a mutation that, as far as we can tell/ I've been able to find, are neither harmful nor beneficial. They simply continue to exist because some people find them attractive.
Fair colored skin is a beneficial mutation resulting from generations of living in areas with a lower average UV index. There's no need to produce as much melanin, so the body adapted to the environment. Paler skin is beneficial for the increased intake of UV light to produce more Vitamin D in areas where one would normally receive less due to less average sunlight and less intense UV radiation.
The average human being is riddled with mutations all over, just most of them don't really change anything. I have a number of them that *are* expressed, some of which happen to be beneficial. To make the sweeping generalization that mutation = bad is so stupid. Stop thinking that me existing is heretical or impure. You're a mutant, too.
Eye color changes how you perceive the world. Light colored eyes allow more light through that part of the eye. This can be a very strong effect if you have albinism to the point of almost blinding the person.
@@MrTheclevercat eye color doesn’t have effect on light, because that not the muscle that perceives it.
Studies say that light iris color correlates with seeing better in darker areas (obviously some light is still needed) or seeing more glare in bright areas.
As in, dark color eyes absorb or block more light coming into the eye, making it easier to see in bright light (ie, sunny days near the equator where days are longer than the winter days closer to the poles). It also has an effect on bright lights in dark areas for the same reason (ie, car lights when driving at night "blind" lighter colored eyes more).
Reversely, light colored eyes do better when in a darker area, like dawn or dusk, or cold winter nights that are longer than the day because more light can get into the eyes.
It's actually surprisingly similar to melanin for skin. Where it's very sunny, your skin would need to block some of the sun, but where it's less direct sun, your skin would need to be paler in order to get enough sunlight.
OMG I’m an x-men! I knew it!!!!
White moths during the industrial revolution in England should be enough to dispel mutation=bad.
Angry Forrest is my favorite. “BUT HOW WILL YOU FIND IT IF YOU CANT SEE JOHN?!” 😂😂
It can be frustrating when a topic is covered in great detail, yet some people still don't seem to grasp it.
@Aron Gladden The scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, with about 97% of scientists in the United States accepting that humans and other living things have evolved over time through natural processes. While individuals are entitled to their own beliefs and opinions, it is important to acknowledge and respect the scientific consensus on evolution.
@Aron Gladden It is important to clarify that the scientific consensus is not a fraudulent concept, but rather the result of scientific research and data that have been evaluated and corroborated by the scientific community over many years. The scientific consensus on evolution is based on the overwhelming evidence from fields such as genetics, paleontology, biogeography, and comparative anatomy. It is also supported by the fact that the theory of evolution has been repeatedly tested and validated through scientific experimentation and observation.
Regarding your assertion that people are fired for not agreeing with evolution, this is simply not true. Scientists are free to disagree with the theory of evolution, and there are many ongoing debates and discussions in the scientific community about the details and mechanisms of evolution. However, it is important to note that scientific disagreements are based on data and evidence, and not on personal beliefs or religious views.
Regarding your statement that no one has ever produced a human from a non-human, it is true that humans did not directly evolve from modern-day primates. Rather, humans and modern-day primates share a common ancestor that existed millions of years ago. The evidence for this common ancestry comes from multiple fields of science, including genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy.
Finally, it is not accurate to describe the theory of evolution as a religion. While it is true that people may have faith in scientific ideas, this faith is based on empirical evidence and is subject to change as new evidence emerges. The scientific method involves observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation, and critical evaluation of evidence, and is not driven by faith or personal beliefs.
@Aron Gladden Okay... I dont see how that fits into our debate.
@Aron Gladden okay...
Oh my gods, I laughed out loud when Jane helped advertise Internet privacy for Forrest
That was a very good segway. 😂
4:20 as someone who has had their pupils dilated for chemical burns (long story), I actually found this part of the video accurate. because your pupils are dilated you can't focus your eyes correctly, so the world is kind of just a blurry mass except for one specific distance- there's a reason they don't advise you driving, I could barely order an uber cause I couldn't see my phone!
EDIT: for the record I agree that this is an insensitive segment to blind people, who already get it bad enough as it is.
I'm glad someone mentioned it, having had my eyes dilated plenty of times, half the fun is reading stuff until you're literally unable to as your eyesight gets annihilated. It's not as bad as this joke makes (otherwise it wouldn't be a joke I guess) but yeah, it 100% fucks your vision up.
I came here just to say this. I have this done annually as part of diabetic eye screening, and it severely affects my vision. No chance I could read text messages. We can chalk this up as a mistake.
@user-wb1xx8cz2e haha yeah I may have accidentally sent the Uber down the block cause I couldn't see where on the map I was clicking 😅
I remember having my pupil dilated for eye exams, don’t remember blurribess, but I do only have one eye that works, so maybe two eyes being dilated makes things blurry? I do remember things being brighter than normal for a bit, though it has been a while since my last eye exam
I've had my eyes dilated, it didn't affect my vision.
Yes!!! A Valkai ‘debunking stupid’ video is exactly what I needed right now. They’re interesting enough to actually distract my brain and take my mind off things but also funny and entertaining enough to cheer me up at the same time! And you have all the logical brilliant arguments in response to stupid that I either don’t know enough to come up with or am not quick enough and think of them when it’s too late and the stupid person has already left! :) I feel like taking notes!
Also, my eyesight is terrible and I have had loads of eye problems all my life and so the bullsh*t at the start is doubly annoying to me!! Thank you man!
Same, I was so excited to see it pop up in my feed.
×3 I wasn't able to watch it as soon as it came out. But I am really enjoying it now, and honestly, makes me feel better.
The constant vacant stare those two have makes it pretty obvious to anyone that can read people that they have a mixture of wanton ignorance and shame at knowing they are ignorant, yet still attempting to instill that ignorance in others. Mostly that comes from the desire to not appear as lesser, by bringing others down to their level. And yet we are all ignorant of many things, that's why honesty is so important to society (compassion breeds honesty).
@@aylbdrmadison1051 nope, there's no shame there. They do not care at all what they're doing. AronRa destroys their stuff on a regular basis, and they never look the least bit ashamed, at all.
@@MaryAnnNytowl I agree. They seem to be genuinely pleased with their supposed ‘gotcha’ moments like they really did a thing.
"How did a fin become a limb, and then a human hand?"
Like everything else. One step at a time.
After observing John and Jane, I'm pretty sure scientists have been looking in the wrong place for transitional fossils. Turns out, those fossils have a UA-cam channel where they use what little combined brain power they have to continually misunderstand scientific facts. 😂
How does a fetus become a child, then an adult? Definitely not something you’d immediately believe, but we know without a shadow of a doubt that it happens. Evolution doesnt happen overnight
"They're putting their faith in a process that they haven't observed" well isn't that ironic lol
Religion is faith-based. So, religion is not science, obviously
Darwin evolution is NOT scientific because it is unfalsifiable. So, Darwin's theory is also a religion or a cult
Also...
Them: "They're putting their faith in a process that they haven't observed"
Forrest: "I literally personally observed this more times than I'd ever bother trying to count just during the period of time I was in college."
@@junacebedo888 bro give up
@@junacebedo888 Stop with the "Darwin Evolution is unfalsifiable" line, it is very flawed.
*Why do you obsess with calling it Darwin evolution? It was pioneered by Darwin, but that was over a hundred years ago. Countless magnitudes of other scientists have contributed to it. Even though modern computing was invented by Alan Turing (kinda, you could also argue that it was Charles Babbage), we don't call them Alan Computers (or Charles Computers). We just call them Computers. The same way that people call Evolution, Evolution, not Darwin Evolution.
*Evolution is falsifiable.
Unfalsifiable/falsifiable means whether something can be tested.
An example of an unfalsifiable statement is "There is an invisible apple in a box. The apple cannot be detected in any way." There is no way to know if the apple is actually there or not, since there is no test or experiment that can detect it. Therefore the existence of the apple is an unfalsifiable statement.
Evolution, however, is falsifiable, since there are many experiments that have been able to test evolution, such as the long-term E-coli experiment.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
@@speltincorrectyl1844 To stop is to be unscientific
“But how will you be able to find it if you can’t see, John?!”
Thank you for that, I needed that laugh! That sh** is so insulting, particularly when it shows a deep ignorance on what Visually Impaired people are capable of.
Side note: My mom is blind, and my first near fight, was with a girl in 2nd saying she was blind while running in to stuff. Girl was lucky my friend held me back. 🤣
This was fantastic, as always! Thank you for cheering up my evening.
"We've found amino acids on asteroids in space. What did your God start making life up there too but he forgot what he was doing half way through so he just gave up?"
This quote is the only one I need to show in order to prove that Forrest is done having to respond to these stupid videos. They're incredibly entertaining and I imagine he enjoys them but I still feel sorry that he has to deal with it
Giordano Bruno, probably the first person who said similar thing to Catholic church, ended up being burned at the stake.
@@OrdinaryEXP Know 'Some More News'? He's really tackling Issues and not just paying lipservice to them.
And he's speaking for the working-class, especially in his video literally about that w-class:
'The Past, Present and Future of Work'.
I feel his pain, putting up with stupidity, but if it helps one person critically think I would imagine he would see the value. Also, that is the damn funniest explanation for amino acids on asteroids I have ever heard. Lmao
@@OrdinaryEXP Because that was the best rebuttal they could come up with. Religious leaders want people to believe they have all the answers, but most if them are like John and Jane, they don't have any answers.
@@jumperpoint They have answers, just not the correct ones.
When john actually described what natural selection was accurately it made me actually shed a tear, and then when he completely rejected it seconds later, It made me want to punch my monitor.
“They’re finally getting it…oh”
“YOU CAN FREAKING SEE JOHN!!!!”
Adding that to my list of quotes from Forrest that confirm I love him.
Natural selection isn’t that hard to understand lol In 6th grade we got a bunch of beans into a bucket with a hole in it. Only the beans that fit through the hole “survived” and moved onto another bucket. Eventually all you had left were the beans that were small enough to fit.
Also, is it just me or is it weird they keep trying to make natural selection sound like a physical thing that’s picking and choosing traits and building animals instead of just “survival of the fittest”
Oh yeah, they anthropomorphize the shit out of everything. They are so used to thinking "creator make stuff" that they can't fathom natural processes. They kind of seem to be thinking of natural selection as a lesser god figure
Hell a classic example that creationists can't seem to explain is sickle cell trait and higher resistance to malaria.
Did any bean evolved? I thought so... So you were saying?
@@JessicaSunlight then perhaps you can explain the sickle cell trait phenomenon and how it provides high resistance to malaria. Remember this is sickle cell trait _NOT_ sickle cell disease. Big difference that seems to go over your guys head. Like seriously ever heard of codominance?
@@JessicaSunlight yo found a dumbass
Just got out from work, have a day off tomorrow, and have nothing that needs to get done. It was already a near-perfect day before one of my favorite youtubers uploaded, but now it is much closer to that unreachable "perfect." Thanks for all you do, Mr. Valkai.
congratulations on making it to your weekend. Enjoy your day off! 😀
I laughed so hard when I realized that these adults are using the same text book I had in freshman year of high school.
Those adults are playing highschoolers. These videos are for homeschooling. I think they do have a college level series, as well as a series for younger children.
OMG SAME 😂😂😂
Ah yes I remember the days where high schoolers came to class with dilated eyes 🙄 oh wait nope that's just sarcasm
High school with kids text books? explains a lot about american education, because we had that in primary school. Literally.
“Gender isn’t binary, but security is”
Truer words have yet to be spoken
Actually, no. Security is _always_ a tradeoff between safety and functionality.
Gender is binary youre either a 1 or a 0.
@@mallardofmodernia8092 nah
@@mallardofmodernia8092 Sorry, but I'm a 10
@@mallardofmodernia8092 Pretty much nothing in this world is binary. Even computer logic is starting to move away from binary code. Look at the prevalence of fuzzy logic, something can be more 1 than 0 or more 0 than 1. So the algorithm makes an estimate on which will be more likely.
I love what my old calculus professor once said. Only three numbers exist in nature. 0, 1 and infinite. You can have 0 of something, you can have 1 unique example, but if you can duplicate that example then there is the potential to keep duplicating forever. There is no such thing as 2.
I can already tell John and Jane are gonna become a running gag on Reacteria.
And I couldn't be happier about it.
I think a big thing that hits to me at around the 13:00 mark of this response is how focused on teleology they are. Things have to be FOR something. It has to go TO something. Which is I think one of the biggest hurdles folks who don't understand evolution and natural selection don't seem to geet. Things only matter right then, as you note, and what works now isn't what works later. And this goes all the way down. It's something that philosophers of biology moved many an electron around on and to me is one of the cool parts of biology at least.
Also as a visually impaired person (legally blind) their blind jokes can get bent, and I appreciate your tearing into them for that.
Without teleology all you have is sheer dumb luck. And that ain't science.
These folks only can approach evolution in terms of their narrow minded religious worldview.
God created Homo Sapiens on purpose becomes evolution created HS on purpose.
Jesus is the messias becomes Darwin is the messias, or at least a prophet of evolution.
The Bible is the Holy Book of Christianity becomes Origin of Species is the Holy Book of evolution.
Finally evolution is a religion.
Compare that unbearable fanatic Lukas with his series Basics of Intelligent Design. He only rants against Darwin like an OT prophet against false gods.
Yes, often these people get too caught up in moral judgements and don't understand that science does not have morals and doesn't care what's good or what's bad, what should or should not be, or what the "goal" of a certain process is. Science is mainly about describing the world as best as possible.
And this attitude also bleeds into people who don't deny evolution. Some people who believe in evolution think that it has an end goal, and that this end goal is for organisms to get more and more complex until they reach an ultimate level of complexity, which is being human. Lots of misunderstanding stem from humans wanting to insert meaning or purpose into things that don't need it.
I love how he's absolutely demolishing these people with the brightest customer service smile on his face
It's annoying how they constantly refer to natural selection and evolution like they're special cosmic forces or something rather than descriptions of processes
In spite of literally calling them processes. You think they're lying, just actors, or actually that damn deluded?
@@denverarnold6210 I think they have been taught to be so completely incredulous towards science in general and evolution specifically that they don't even begin to attempt an understanding of the subject. They just go in with the assumption that evolution cannot possibly be true.
I'm more annoyed by the implications that the processes can't work without intelligence. Complete with anthropomorphising the processes.
@@denverarnold6210 a little bit from each column.
@@denverarnold6210 I think it's the second and third. I don't believe they actually understand what they're saying, they're just (bad) actors who read the script the people of their bible group give them. The people who write these scripts are absolutely lying. But those two I do think that they simply don't know any better.
26:24 - "BUT HOW WILL YOU BE ABLE TO FIND IT, IF YOU CAN'T SEE, *JOHN?*"
Love this man. Subscribing immediately XD
Every time. EVERY, TIME, I hear John or Jane say "Evolutionists haven't seen..." what they end up showing is "I, personally, didn't bother to do even the simplest, base-level research to actually check what I'm about to say. Even so, I'm just going to say it out loud and act like that makes me right by default".
Their ignorance, and the confidence they have in it, is _astonishingly_ painful to watch.
It's like if a child tells you with complete certainty that the sun is in the ocean, and their evidence is to show you a video of a sunset by the ocean, which is endearing to see from a child, and considerably _less_ so when it's said by young adults who _should know better._ The educational system has utterly failed those two.
"The educational system has utterly failed those two" - The educational system and/or religious indoctrination (and/or human nature). These two might not be the best example, but I've seen people apply rather solid logical arguments and scientific reasoning to rebut what others say, which demonstrates that they're quite intellectually capable and well-educated. Yet there are always these gaps, these specific places where they strawman or misrepresent facts, which is the only way their argument can actually make sense, and they fail to see that those same arguments often completely undermine their own beliefs.
It can be really hard to sincerely question your own closely-held beliefs, or even just suppose for a moment that they may not be true. This can be hard to understand for someone who's never had any particularly closely-held beliefs (many people/scientists may fully believe that evolution is a fact, but if sufficient evidence is presented to disprove it and somehow outweigh the mountain of evidence we have that supports it, I'm sure most of them wouldn't hesitate for a second to stop believing that evolution is fact, so that belief is not all that closely-held). But I'm sure any atheist who's been a theist until adulthood would be able to attest to how blind one is to one's own bias when it comes to one's own closely-held beliefs. It can also be hard to understand for someone who still holds particularly closely-held beliefs, because holding a belief tends to imply that one believes they're being perfectly rational and unbiased by holding that belief.
And every time the simple answer is "have YOU seen god create the univers? Have YOU seen Jesus? Have YOU seen the first human being created from dust?"
@@blueredingreen What you're describing is exactly why organizations like "Recovering from Religion" exists. People will tightly wind religious beliefs into their personality, weave it into who they are. It's incredibly jarring and hard to untangle those things when it's been a core part of your life for so long. There are people who've been athiests for decades and still have vivid nightmares and fears about hell, simply because they came from such intense indoctrination.
@@EskChan19 Never mind even seen, but if they even have any good _evidence_ for any of that. Ultimately it just points back to "The Bible" which...I wish more of them could understand how underwhelming and unconvincing it is to say "It's true, because some writers 2,000 years ago said so". Like...yes, and people back then also thought that when lightning struck spirits were mad at you, history has not exactly painted a picture that lends credibility to the mystical stories they wrote.
@@EskChan19 (I use Czech language) Neviděl jsem ani jedno, avšak mohu se podívat na data co máme k dispozici a nepřímo odvozovat. U stvoření vesmíru budeme spíše vycházet z logického předpokladu occamovi břitvi, kdy bůh jakožto samovolně vzniknuvší superinteligentní bytost je dost nereálná a není to koherence k nejjednoduššímu vysvětlení. Co se týče Ježíše jediný kdo o něm pořadně píše jsou biblické texty. V římských ani jakýkoliv jiných o něm není pořádně zmínky, což ale zcela jeho existenci nevylučuje, ale dle mého ji do velké míry spochybňuje. A konečně vznik člověka, pokud by byl stvořený nebyl by důvod, aby zapadal do genetických linií svých předků a byli nacházeny neši předkové. Celá evoluční biologie by nefungovala, ale jak se zdá stale pevně stojí na ověřitelných datech.
Forrest you genuinely improve my mood simply by being the excited and curious person you are, and inspire me toward a much more positive perspective regarding life as a whole (struggle w severe depression). Thanks for what you're doing here bro, you are doing far more than you could know for the world
5:16 "How rude, they keep insulting blind people as a metaphor for ineptitude."
14:39 "So anyway, their approach is myopic" 😆
Love the content as always, but that irony was hilarious
I also enjoyed that choice of words. 😁
To be fair, most people don't know what the literal definition of myopic is, but it is an amusing irony lol
The "it takes faith to believe science" gaff is the most hilarious self-condemnation with which the religious pawn themselves especially since, as Forrest points out, it turns the tables back on them with a vengeance.
Don't worry, creationists don't have any problem with any logical fallacy. Faith is bad when it supports science and/or atheism but good when it supports their particular interpretation of their favourite Holy Book. You can't be a creationist and care about coherence and consistency. That's why FV gets worked up. He expects them to care.
I’m so sick of that argument I’m ready to agree to it and declare a “holy war”. Everyone only gets to use what their side has given the world.
They’d last maybe three days without running water and electricity
As an engineer I'm flabbergasted by their complete misconception of how the design process actually works. It's actually an iterative process of refinement that involves a lot of trial an error, so it's easy to see how natural selection can replace an "intelligent" designer.
It's not a misconception, it's lack of interest. They genuinely don't care. Their entire non-argument goes like this:
1. Watches seem to be designed!
2. Watchmakers design watches!
3. Biological cells / eyes / whatever seem to be designed too!
4. The Grand Old Designer designs them too!
5. Hence evolution is false!
For convenience they often skip points 1 and 2.
How can "they" know they are commit an error? To do that, something need to aware about whats happening within the bio and the surounding. What the thing on cell that you suggest to have such an awareness? And do they also a subject of randomness? If no, why? If yes, then they contradict what the very purpose of they exist within cell.
Why they tryin to refine, when life it self is not a necessary for universe or theu surounding?
@@bonar1211 Are you england? Many words, not much. They think, brain. Neuron, we build, it works the same. A process that thing reaches goal. We call Artificial Intelligence. We can make, easy. Random youtuber can. God not require.
They refine? Cuz they like it. You no? Who care?
Also, thing on cell, no awareness. Cell, no aware. Cell, random. Big brain, many cells. Probability collapses - not random.
@@nati0598 to be honest, you didnt addressing my concerns at all. It seems you are type of people that full of pre assumptions to speak about this matters just like darwinism as general.
First of all, do you even know what error is? One of definition of error is "state or condition of being wrong". And in this case error must be things that related to survival or some stuff like that.
So you tell me if you insist in this weird idea about error. How can the cells within the bios know they commit an error? And in what assessment that they using?
And dont mention brain. Bcz we all know if my hand not reaching something bcz is not long enough, our mind (that you believe is a procuct of brain) that acknowledge our unsuccessful will not affect cells on our body to make my decendant have a longer hands.
At least if you still insist about it, prove to me.
And then about refine. Yes who cares, just like what ever non bio things in this universe! Do stone, sand, water, tryin to refine them self? No.
And so the question is there, why suddenly things (cell/ things within bio or organism, just like he suggested that dont have any mind or consciousness at all) want to refine?
If you dont care about reality, sure you can say who cares. But you just want to dodge a valid question.
@@bonar1211 Well I think I did address your point. Who told you that cells know what error is and how are they doing it? You need to bonk them and stop them from coming close to your kids.
"It seems you are type of people that full of pre assumptions to speak about this matters just like darwinism as general."
Says a presuppositional apologetic using fake words like "darwinism".
"How can the cells within the bios know they commit an error?"
They don't. They just commit it. What did you expect, somekind of self-destruct? Like, "Oh no, made an error, guess I'll die"?
"And so the question is there, why suddenly things [...] want to refine?"
They don't. I thought that was obvious. Nobody wants to refine. But you know why pebbles are round? They don't 'want' to refine. They are refined, by the surroundings. Elementary stuff.
And your stupid hand analogy makes no sense. Does your hand not reaching something kill you? Maybe a ledge when climbing is just too far and you fall to your death. Too bad. Someone else with longer arms is going to climb. Your gene is gone. His gene stays. Like, it's elementary stuff, do you seriously not know this? There is not 'one' being that has similar genes with you. Siblings exist, that's enough to prove that.
"If you dont care about reality, sure you can say who cares."
My 'who cares' was a response to a cell commiting an error. Cell doesn't care. It just happens.
And I'm glad you took some language lessons in the meantime, you're coming much clearer.
Forrest is usually so happy go lucky it's weird to see him so up in arms. I welcome his fervor!
It's crazy how apologists will tell you, "we need to get our understanding of religion from scholars of theism", but they don't want to get their understanding of stuff like evolution from a wide range of scholars in the field. They constantly misrepresent science, just to be able to hold onto a supernatural belief.
It's also crazy how they will constantly assert "There's no proof for what other people are saying" despite never having presented even an iota of evidence, let alone proof for literally any word they have ever said.
Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes relies on ignorance and blind faith.
@@sombodysdad
What does this idea even truly mean? Of course evolution doesn't have a mind, what's really the point? If you'd prefer to just create your own understanding of evolution, at least don't attribute your understanding or meaning of evolution to the actual facts and data surrounding the topic.
Creationists think people like Ken Ham and Casey Luskin scholars of evolution.
@@terrencelockett4072 There isn't any way to test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved by means of blind and mindless processes. It is not a scientific position.
I was actually rather pleasantly surprised with how they started (at least after the terrible intro) with an accurate representation of evolution, because the bar is so low at the moment for apologists (and similarly with certain political positions ... and y'all know I'm talking about conservatives) that them simply being able to accurately represent their opponent's position is somehow commendable.
But then they ruined it all by reverting back to the typical strawmen and misrepresentations of facts for the rest of the video.
They always ruin it.
Darwin evolution is NOT scientific because it is unfalsifiable
@@junacebedo888 you don't know what ANY of those words mean
@@rainkidwell2467 it's really telling that just by your comment alone I had over a 90% certainty of the general content of the comment you were replying to _before_ a quick glance to the subscription list of his channel confirmed it.
Yeah, the definitions are actually not bad, but when you think about it, that's the only part of the script that they didn't write themselves, so that's why they're the best parts of the video... The beginning gave me hope too. I was half expecting a "b-but Piltdown man was a scam sonfossils are fake" type of nitpicking argument. But at least they had the courage to try and discuss the fundamental ideas behind evolution. They did it extremely badly and in bad faith, but I guess they tried.
I need to correct you here Forrest.
Having your eyes dilated actually can cause blurry vision, depending on the drops used.
The iris has two sets of muscles for controlling pupil size, the dilators and the constrictors. Similarly, the lens inside the eye which is key in our ability to focus has constrictor muscles to pull it flatter when seeing things up close. Now, the iris can essentially be dilated in two ways, either by exciting the dilator muscles or paralyzing the constrictor muscles. In the latter case, the same drug which paralyzes the iris' constrictor muscles also affects the lens' constrictor muscles.
If the muscles that constrict to stretch the lens are paralyzed then a person will experience blurred vision when attempting to look at anything within a roughly 8-12 inch range (like checking text messages).
Adding this to the fact that glare from increased light can be both painful and obstructive, it is not at all true or accurate to say that dilating someone's eyes does not affect their vision.
Considering they had John walk up to a coat rack as if it were human, doesn't make their comparison any better
@@isdrakon9802 As a joke, it's fine. Eye dilation messes with vision, character mistakes one thing for another.
My comment was specifically about the incorrect assertion in the video that eye dilation doesn't effect visual acuity.
Yeah, I distinctly remember suddenly losing the vision I had in my eyes when I was in fifth grade, being rushed to an eye doctor that said I had incredibly bad vision, I got some of those eye drops, and for a few hours afterwards, I could only see things very far away, like the hanging clock on the wall of the waiting room, and the clock on my arm was all blurry.
@@isdrakon9802 That was a joke. Jokes don't have to resemble reality to the point. Au contraire, most funny jokes I've ever heard are absolutely no grounded in reality or common sense. Arguing with a joke is like boomers arguing with a meme on Facebook.
Yeah, I'm not sure of the physical process, but getting my pupils dilated did pretty much make me text like that. (Also the ophthalmologist got me to fill out a long form while the drops were kicking in, and I had to ask a stranger to tell me what the last few questions were, it was delightfully awkward.)
Thank you for that last point. I hadn't recognized that by redefining evolution as "just another religion" in such a denigrating fashion, they are undermining their own arguments for their belief system. Oops!
I believe in evolution but I never did understand how structures like eyes formed. Your explanation makes perfect sense to me, and I am now better for it, so thanks.
It's always remarkable when they try to "use science to disprove science!"
I'm going to use this camera to take a photo proving that cameras don't take pictures.
There isn't any science behind the claim that blind and mindless processes produced life and its diversity.
@@sombodysdad yes there is
@@clubpenguin13531 It is missing from college textbooks and peer review. But hey, do tell how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes produced any bacterial flagellum.
@Molefe Bullshit. Probability arguments are used exactly because there isn't any actual evidence fir evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.
I'd just like to say that I appreciate you pointing out how pupil dilation works. And as a blind person, I appreciate you calling out their use of blindness as a sort of prop. When they said no offense, I just laughed. The analogy was so low effort it's just funny at this point.
Also, in the future, can you give your blind viewers a basic description of what is happening in the videos you're reacting to? Like in the beginning when Jane was using her phone, I picked up that she was typing something, probably texting, but didn't know if she was texting anything specific that was important to the point of the video. So in the future, could you say something if there is a visual component of a video that's important to know if a viewer can't see the video?
Thank you so much for your amazing content. I always love to watch one of your videos. Have a nice day.
To be your eyes for you to enhance your experience for the text conversation. Jane asked where John was because they needed to study. John responded with horribly misspelling “walking in right now.” Before he walked into something off screen. I hope that entertained you and enhanced your experience. I would too like some more inclusion for the visually impaired and blind. Forrest does a fantastic job anyways, but some subtle acknowledgement of people who can’t see with a little bit of help now and again would be a fantastic role model.
As the mother of a son with disabilities, may I say I found this unfunny 'skit' to be effing ableist. Oh look, bloke with vision problems talks to a hatstand! Oh, my aching ribs. The only thing I find vaguely amusing is their "Hello, fellow kids!" vibe.
@@angelamaryquitecontrary4609 Definitely ableist. I wanted to hit them.
How do you type?
@@samuryebread1065 Right now, I'm using an iPhone. Every iPhone and pretty much any other Apple product with a screen comes with an option in the settings to turn on Voiceover, which from now on I'll call VO. VO is a screen reader, which means it reads what is on the screen and allows the user to nonvisually interact with content with different taps, swipes, and other gestures. For instance, I can drag my finger around the screen, and VO will announce what it is passing over. Alternatively, I can swipe to the left or right to go to the previous or next item, and double tap to select the item (equivalent to you just tapping). Anyway, there's a gesture in VO called the roader, which involves using 2 fingers and turning them to the left or right like a dial. This flips through a list of options preselected by the user in settings. One option that can be added is called Braille Screen Input, which I will now call BSI. When the option is activated, I then turn my phone sideways with the screen away from me, and place my palms at both ends, one at the top near the camera and one around the bottom where the charging port is. After my hands are in position, I do a series of simple taps to calibrate the positioning of my fingers, and begin typing in braille. Each braille cell has 6 dots, so typing in braille requires 6 fingers. Typing in this way is actually not normal; the standard way to type braille is with the hands similar to how you type print with the 6 fingers (3 from each hand for most people), more or less in a horizontal row. There is another mode of BSI called tabletop mode which a tempts to simulate the natural typing position, but I don't like it much, so I use screen away mode. If I don't want to type, like any other person I can choose to dictate my writing with the little microphone button. Or, I can type on the on screen keyboard, but this is a tedious process I don't engage in unless it's necessary. If I was on my computer, well it has a different screen reader, but I would just type like normal with the computer keyboard. After all, you're not supposed to have to look at your hands while you type, so blind people can do it with little to no modifications. Thanks for your question. Honestly, you should have used a search engine to find the answer. Good day.
On the eye dilation thing, I can’t speak for what happens in non-myopic patients, but in patients with severe myopia, the dilation drops actually limit your eye’s abilities to adjust focal length. Before LASIK, I hated getting my eyes dilated because it was the most boring wait ever- my eyes were too bad to see the TV, but the drops made it so I couldn’t even read a book up close either. But it just made everything super blurry- I could still see. So the blind gag is still dumb.
You are right, eye dilation drops relax both iris and focus muscles, and until muscles recover they ability to contract, it is hard to adapt to bright light and clearly see lot of objects that falls out of focus of relaxed eye
That second plug for Nord VPN got me laughing my ass off! Well done, well done. When life gives you lemons.
Their argument:
Gives accurate definition
Incredulously restates definition in their own words.
Give false information, misunderstood information, or lie
Assert the subject is false.
Rinse, repeat.
I love how it’s ”I don’t believe in evolution because I can’t find evidence for it” while believing in creation, of which all the supposed ’evidence’ is just the fact they don’t understand science. It’s like saying ”I have a pear in my hand because I don’t see an apple in my hand” (while actively holding an apple lmao)
Yeah, really!
I wanna grab these people by the shoulders and yell, "good thing no one is giving you grant money, because even an amateur botanist can find evidence of evolution! They do all the time!" Agh.
I'd really like to see them explain how FOSSILS are not evidence for evolution. That would be really fun. Therr is so much evidence it's almost overwhelming and they're out here saying "there's no evidence for evolution".
They mostly use the Bible as evidence. Which at best can be considered testimony, not evidence. Testimony that can't be cross-examined because none of the people who wrote it are alive today. Testimony that comes from just random people, not experts in any relevant field, and that is itself not backed by any form of evidence, it's literally just "dude trust me" over and over again.
Funny thing is... For people with moreso, "normal", healthy eyes, those drops don't do that much.
For me, and quite a lot of other low-vision people, it can actually cause our vision to get pretty blurry and make it hard to do some things XD
Dawkins has a great old video that explains the eyes transitions. And there are so many different eyes today. Like goats and vipers and many incects. I usually send them to Richard when they make this argument.
They think “it depends on death” is an argument opposing evolution, while worshipping a deity that supposedly had to become human and die to save them and is represented by an instrument of torture and execution. Got it.
I'd say you're after some pretty low hanging fruit here with their awkward, clumsy arguments...but that's kind of always how it is. When I was young and in the church, the arguments presented against evolution seemed impenetrable, iron-clad, and fully logical. That's why what you're doing here, making counter arguments accessible to everyone, is so important. They say to 'know why you believe' but they disown you if you examine the evidence with any sort of intellectual honesty.
Yeah I mean Ive yet to see any young earth creationist or religious apologist content that WASN'T "low hanging fruit". It is always easily debunked
Creationists use the same arguments. Some just disguise it better with some big words. They are all low hanging fruit.
One the the good reasons to go after the "low hanging fruit" is that content like this is aimed at kids. It would make for some really boring content to sit there and read and debunk creationist "scientific" papers.
@@loveableheathen7441 "Low hanging fruit" is the only fruit that they can reach and attack.
@@Bored_Overthinker Can you give an example of something that isn't low hanging fruit?
Assuming that biology textbook she pulled out is a decent one, she just needs to read that whole book.
they usually choose one that's outdated by at least 30 years
@@vinnieg6161 Even an old one has plenty of good information in it.
For me this was the funniest reacteria episode until now.
The pure stupidity and the sound effects at the end broke me
Yeah, Forrest just seems to have flown off the handle on this one.
Yeah, Forrest just seems to have flown off the handle on this one.
I absolutely love the ending.
As someone that has had their eyes dilated many times it does make your ability to focus on things a certain distance from you. Instead of leaving an object at a distance from you and letting your eyes focus you have to adjust the items distance.
Also bright light hurts and you really just wanna close your eyes.
That was my experience too. I describe it as my eyes were ringing.
Yeah, for me things were really blurry for the first 30 minutes after they were dilated and I wouldn't have been able to answer texts. After that things were just bright. I still wouldn't have bumped into furniture cuz just because things are blurry doesn't mean you can't see anything, but it was more than just bright in the first 30 minutes for me.
Agreed, when my eyes were dilated i had trouble seeing for about an hour
Apparently if you have a CRT monitor/TV you can also gain the superpower of seeing the refresh rate, just like cameras!
yeah the first time I had my eyes dilated I was sent to school right after and it was pretty difficult to read the things I was given. and yeah ime every time since then reading has been a crapshoot cause I really couldn't choose how my eyes focused, which could also make telling distances difficult, tho yeah mistaking a coat rack for a person is a joke that doesn't make any sense.
This concept of "the animal must know, a-priori, what to evolve into" is easily demonstrably wrong. I use genetic algorithms on a regular basis to optimise problems. Admittedly the problems being solved are not as complicated, but using completely random mating and mutation and a single figure of merit (i.e. ranking individuals according to a simple metric) really does cause the individuals to evolve to the optimal solution. It is really cool to watch it work. There are plenty of UA-cam videos showing this in action.
In short: random mating and mutation in the presence of external pressure does lead to evolution by natural selection!
Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of intelligent design, ie telic processes. It isn't natural selection because genetic algorithms are goal oriented. Natural selection is not.
So you use intelligent design to prove natural selection? How does that work exactly? You had to actually design the algorithms with some intelligence didn't you? Natural selection wouldn't have an algorithm. Since you're doing it with algorithms then you can't say God couldn't do it with an algorithm. It truly contaminates the whole experiment.
@@chucktowne There's is'nt even any proof of God.
@@chucktowneGenetic algorithms use an approach to determine an optimal set based on evolution. For feature selection, the first step is to generate a population based on subsets of the possible features. From this population, the subsets are evaluated using a predictive model for the target task. You're making opinions out of something you know nothing about and doesnt even have a degree in.
@@foryou7673 @For You Not an opinion but a fact. By having someone intelligent conduct this experiment, you contaminate it. If you cannot understand that then you have a problem with understanding.
Someone intelligent generated a population in this experiment therefore contaminated the experiment since there is not "nothing" doing this experiment. You use a "predictive model"? How do make these predictions? Especially if you follow the true definition of random. How do you predict true randomness? If its predictable then its not random. You inserted your intelligence into the experiment again. I don't need a degree to think critically and with common sense. Also, I am asking questions and isn't that part of the scientific method? Or should I just believe because some guy said so?
“You can freaking see, John!” 15:38
Best line ever. Could film a movie in the way he said it. Amazing.
Jokes aside, This is a great channel. Loved every video I’ve watched. Actually was disappointed when I reached the end.
I hope that John and Jane's discussions about what "really" happened instead of what "evolutionists" "believe" don't take away the time they need to learn the most important lesson that school teaches: when it's time for the test, give the answer the teacher wants whether it's right or not.
Oof. I feel like the fact that you're _totally right_ speaks volumes to the state of our education system :/ In an ideal world, school would teach people how to learn. That's definitely not the case though, unfortunately. I know that because I frickin love learning, it's like my favorite thing... and yet I don't think I could tell you one _single_ thing I learned in a school. At home, sure, I could tell you literally thousands. But school? Not one. (then again, I am 30.)
@@idontwantahandlethough This reminds me of something I watched, I wish I could remember the movie I saw this on but the gist was "American education, I don't shit about American history, but I'm pretty prepared for an active-shooter"
I got a bad grade once in poetry class because I analyzed a poem "wrong." I'm sorry, teacher, I didn't realize there was only one interpretation (hers).
When I got my eyes dilated it made everything super blurry and made light hurt, but I wasn't blind at all lmao. I could absolutely tell a person from a coat hanger
My thoughts exactly. I have terrible vision myself. If I take my glasses off I can't identify who an individual is past 20 feet. But I can tell it's a person. And I can certainly avoid knocking over a damn fish tank.
Apparently, the eye drops must affect hearing and sense of direction too... he couldn't tell the sound of the voice wasn't coming directly from the blur in front of him...?
When I got my eyes dilated, I found I drove better than before. I think all the cars parked up when they saw me coming. I think they were cars or cattle.
You know what's pitiable about these "debunking" videos these Christians put out? They are aimed at those that already believe and that audience honestly sees them as intelligent and well-thought out and researched.
Exactly! No person who understands evolution will have his or her mind changed by these pitiful videos. They are, to retread a sadly worn phrase, preaching to the choir.
@@stefanlaskowski6660 But unfortunately, that choir will go on to think they're informed of the subject and not do any further research, which keeps them in the fold.
I don't know. I'm a Christian, and the majority of us know the difference between biblical narrative and biblical history. Genesis is narrative, it's meant to tell something greater about God and human existence, not to be taken literally.
The majority of us know that Ken Ham and the like use more thinking errors and logical fallacies than a valley girl uses 'like.'
@@lasagnasux4934 what is this "greater thing" this narrative about a fictional deity supposed to be?
The most elegant/unintentional setup for a NordVPN advert is why I'm subscribing.
They always state that we as scientists and science appreciators "believe" in evolution. Yes, we "believe" it exists, but the conclusions we come to about all of its fields aren't based on blind belief as seen in religion. We observe and test, and find out that hey, this is what we've found through our observations and tests. XD
The good ol' "believe vs believe in" argument.
Yes. And if new contradicting evidence is discovered, we are able to *change our beliefs!* Must be an absolutely wild concept to them.
The musical interlude at 26:30 is hilarious. Edumacational and humorous. Gotta love it.
Bless your heart Forrest! I applaud your tolerance!
"Did the grasshoppers think through..." and my cringe twitching begins.. Thoroughly impressed how long you kept your cool my man!
Awesome work as always!!!
Creationists keep going on about how mutations are only ever bad, but my mom and myself only have 3 out of 4 wisdom teeth, someone in her family had a mutation that prevented one of them from growing in, and me and her are missing it in the same place, meaning the lack of a wisdom tooth growing is heritable. That's a good thing, as it means one less potential abscess.
My sister had 5 and my mom had a full extra set of teeth
Funnily enough I was born without any wisdom teeth. My parents and sister have them but not me.
Agree it’s good, had to get my 4 impacted ones removed, and unlike most people, I took awhile to heal, and it was very painful.
@@TheNinthGeneration1her baby skull must have been horrifying.
@@TheNinthGeneration1are you sure your mom isn’t just a shark?
This is one of the things that was interesting when I graduated from a Christian private school and went to a secular college (same small town btw.) It was surprising just how simple evolution was and how much sense it made. The textbook (that we barely touched) I had in high school still used the watchmaker analogy, and aside from that we didn't really acknowledge evolution at all, or any of the parts of science that contradicted their theology.
Creationism, no matter which version, only consists of three talking points. The Watchmaker Analogy is one of them. The only "research" you can do with it is looking at something and exclaim " Look at this! Looks designed! Must have been designed by a supernatural agency!".
The analogy is false btw. Had your school taught you how watches actually are designed (ie tools, materials, parts, procedures etc.) you might have asked inconvenient questions and perhaps even realized why it's false.
Evolution is far from simple. Study the complexity of any type of cell and then the bare basics of life. Then try and extrapolate how that could happen via a random, unintelligent process.
@@rocketsurgeon1746 like the numerous flaws in the human body? Doesn't seem like perfect design to me if walking upright caused so many issues, such as back pain, and strain on our knees, or our brains developing to be so huge, natural birth can be extremely dangerous and tear the vaginal canal and rectum..
@@dx.feelgood5825 it might not seem perfect to you, but study the complexity of each system then break it down to the molecular level. I won't argue opinions. Happy to talk science though
@@rocketsurgeon1746 Because *nothing* is perfect. Nothing is all good, nothing is all bad. Humans have very black and white thinking about things, which while being excellent for recognizing patterns, causes a lot of fighting.
Maybe, oh I dunno, watch the videos you're commenting on?
It's a treat watching both you and Aron Ra react to this kind of indoctrination and misinformation 👌🏻👌🏻
Absofreakinglutely!
I also like the polar opposite way of presenting their information lol, here forrest has "you dense MF" vibe, and aron Calm "John if you keep talking you're gonna embarrass yourself more, stop"
Darwin evolution is unfalsifiable therefore it is NOT science.
@@junacebedo888 You're confusing the Theory of Evolution with some silly concept like a gawd. The reason Evolution has been successfully raised to the THEORY tier is because it is falsifiable but has never been successfully falsified. Try actually doing some research before spouting lie filled creapationist talking points.
@@junacebedo888 False. A fossil of an exact anatomically-modern animal IF found in the Completely Wrong Strata-Layer
AND IF there could be Absolutely No Possible Explanation Whatsoever for its Appearance There
(i.e. No Doubt that it Wasn't A Fake/Forgery or Imagined, No Doubt that it Wasn't A Simple Result of Natural Geological Processes that can Bisect Layers,
for instance IF All its Bones & ALL the Surrounding Rock both Dated Properly (Using the Proper Methods) to the Exact Same Time-Periods)
THEN Evolution would in-fact Be Falsified.
Since that Hypothetical (albeit Extraordinarily Unlikely) Possibility Genuinely Exists... That Makes it Falsifiable.
I'm so excited for this! I'm always looking for videos on science, especially creationism & other pseudoscience.
same
"looking for videos on science, especially creationism" - I don't think that came out the way you intended, but I hear what you're saying. 🤣🤣
@@DruncanUK I like "Creationism and other pseudoscience" though
It’s free high-quality comedy!
Because of how extremely low-quality the logic, science, and basic reasoning is. (I mean the creationists, flat earthers, etc. not the actual scientists)
@@DruncanUK Nice quote mining! 🤦♂️🤣
Reminder: Just because someone may be confused, doesn't mean a concept is bullshit. This is exhausting. That's like... their MAIN DEFENSE.
Clearly natural selection does have a goal in mind. It wants more crabs.
Natural selection created you- a crab?
@@junacebedo888 It created you - a bell end.
as funny as that is, all false crabs are still very closely related to true crabs and to each other (closer than either is to lobsters, true shrimp, etc.). Horseshoe crabs don't count because they don't look even remotely similar to crabs.
@@jefferyandbob3137 Very true. Speaking of horseshoe crabs isn't it wild that the trilobite body plan was so crazy successful that we still have something around today that is so similar to them? Like they haven't had to change up their game plan in almost 500 million years.
@@jefferyandbob3137 Are the words 'false' and 'true' synonyms?
I love how happy Forrest is to be sponsored. He understands the script he basically has to say, and finds it hilarious and I love it.
Good work forrest !
Love the content
Your lighting looks a lot better! I always loved the content, but I am excited to see your content getting more professional! Go Forrest!
People truly don’t understand how incomprehensible 1 million years is
Look at how much humans have accomplished over 10,000 years and how many adaptations we’ve had in that time
on the dilating pupils thing I do wanna say that one can have "impaired vision" after having it, in the sense that normal amounts of light can feel like looking directly into the sun, so everything looks overexposed, but that only lasts for a couple of minutes after the appointment in my experience. It usually passes quite quickly into "can look at stuff with sunglasses". I've had it done a couple of times and needed my mother to guide me for a few minutes outside in the sun but inside with sunglasses feels like normal.
Depending on strength it can last for 2 weeks actually, and for me it was impossible to read or recognise faces, etc. Both near and far away, for 11 days after my last visit-- everything was just blurry blobs of colour. But the drops they usually use will generally only last up to a few hours or a couple of days, and they tend to last longer on light coloured eyes. It's definitely not the norm though!
Yeah, I had my eyes dilated once and things were blurry for a few hours afterward. I do wear glasses, if that makes any difference.
Depending on the drops, it can kind of mess with your prescription.
I get them every few times I go to the eye doctor because I'm pretty nearsighted and extreme nearsightedness is one of the higher risk factors of retina problems later in life. Paired with silent migraines (symptoms of a migraine but without the pain) giving me flashes of light at the edges of my vision, I'm always afraid of a torn or detached retina.
After I have the drops, as well as being basically blinded by normal indoor lighting, if I wear my glasses I actually become a bit farsighted and it's things that are normally clear that would be blurry. Not too horrible, since instead of only being able to see clearly a foot or two in front of my face, I can see clearly *except* for a foot or two in front of my face.
This. I can see fine at a distance when my eyes have been dilated, but trying to read anything is somewhere between challenging and uncomfortable until the drops wear off.
CONGRATS ON 100K MAN!!!
Been subscribed to you since 30K, and look forward to every video! Keep up the great work and thanks for all the knowledge!
I was at the eye doctor a lot as a kid and had to borrow my schoolmate's notebooks to copy their notes only the day after as my eyes were not focused at all. While, of course, I wouldn't bump into things, stuff like reading was out of the question for the rest of the day. This is why science communication is such a hard job and not every good scientist can be good at it.
Individual curiosity and knowledge opens doors to learning, and living a more enriched life and your videos reflect that value.
I volunteered in a lab studying population genetics in drosophila melanogaster and wyeomyia smithii. The drosophila were a side project, so to speak. Mainly because space was available for them to be there too. The primary focus was on the mosquitoes. The lab was in fact nicknamed the Mosquito Lab. When I was there we were studying the non-biting variety, specifically from a sub-population in a super small region out east. We fed the adults raisins. They were kinda cute actually. I can't remember a lot of the specifics of the experiments now, I think we were "breeding" biting gene(s) back into the females, but it was pretty fascinating stuff. I feel lucky to have been able to work there.
I like how he pulls up an image of the flies on his phone and describes it despite the whole bit about not being able to see.
I like how you’ve progressively gotten angrier with them throughout these videos. And yeah this one had me the most exasperated.
Oh, I thought he couldn't pee because of that name Venkman used in Gostbusters: "D*ckl*ss" ...
The Kermode bear or "Spirit Bear" comes to mind it's an American Black Bear with a white coat due to a rare recessive gene, the black bear adapted to the environment somewhere along the line and occasionally a spirit bear is born with the white coat gene and now there's roughly only 400 spirit bears in the wild today.
They made me so angry. Their entire thing boils down to "evolution is real and works, and that's why evolution is false"
YES!! Thank you. Creationists have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the word mutation, mutant. Either through ignorance or lying, they think mutant means something they see at Ridley’s believe it or not or a freak show. The same way they misuse the word theory over, and over, and over and over again, they do the same thing to the word mutation. Frustrating!
Yes, it's weird how for so many people "mutant" means three headed monstrosity. We're all mutants!
"Gender isn't binary, but security is!" "Start a romantic relationship with your TV" Just starting and already I'm dying.
"You can freaking see, John!" should just be the default response to any bad faith argument.
I agree with almost everything. I just have to nitpick one thing, I don’t know exactly what is in the dilation solution optometrists use, but as a near sighted person I promise you until that solution wears off, my ability to focus on my phone to read anything is gone. Everything else is fuzzy but not to the point I can’t make out a person compared to a coat rack.